This Christian Life

Another perspective to think about:
I regularly do evals for individuals who have cerebral palsey and other medical ailments, most of them since birth. They are cared for in their homes or foster homes throughout the city. They have limited movement and need to be re-positioned every hour because they can't do it on their own. They are fed only through feeding tubes. Time after time, however, the caregivers I interview state that the individual communicates with them through non-verbal cues and even verbal grunting or noises to indicate pleasure, pain, interest, sadness, discomfort, etc. I have observed these individuals respond to me as a stranger, different from their response to their family and caregivers. While they rely solely on others for 24 hour care, each one I've evaluated has a distinct personality with unique needs, communication styles, and preferences. Most of them are 20 years old or older.
Is it okay to court order a parent to stop feeding an individual like this? Do these individual's lives have less value than my own? Can you imagine being ordered to stop feeding your own child, no matter what their physical state?
I do not know all the intimate details of Terry's situation...just some thoughts that may shed a different light.

I think there's a difference between disabled persons and PVS persons. If he or she is in a PVS, I'm 100% with Paul on this. If he or she is severely disabled but still able to feel/emote/communicate, I think everything medically possible should be done to preserve life. From what I understand of Ms. Shiavo, she was in a PVS; she should have been allowed to die 15 years ago.

Working as a hospital chaplain in a Level 1 Trauma hospital taught me a lot about this issue. I was there, in many waiting rooms, when families made decisions to allow doctors to turn off machines which kept their loved ones' bodies breathing. It's never easy; It's always deeply personal; and living wills make matters much much easier. I can only remember a couple times when people fought to keep someone's body alive (I'm choosing my phrasing carefully here with "body"). In the overwhelming majority of cases, families allowed their loved ones to rest peacefully in death.

A video of Ms Shiavo appearing to smile at someone waving in front of her face makes for great ratings on news networks, but until you have seen a doctor wave a flashlight in front of someone's unflinching pupils, you can't really judge the motivations of a conflicted husband.

May God welcome Terri with open arms of grace, finally and beautifully.

did you also know that shiavo's husband has a FIANCEE and two children with her? he moved on a long time ago. obviously. and just wants to be rid of the issue of dealing with terri. and couldn't they have chosen a more decent, humane way of allowing her to die? it makes me sick that they starved her. if her parents wanted to keep on caring for her, i think they should have been allowed to do it. michael shiavo could have gotten a divorce (which he should have done years ago if he was going to find another woman) and let her family care for her.

then again, the courts have sided w/ michael this whole time. so what do i know? i just wish they would have given her a shot of something and made it short and painless if they felt killing her was the most humane thing to do. she wasn't hooked up to ventilators as far as i know. only the feeding tube because she couldn't feed herself.

living wills are not recognized in MI. is there another option?

They did a study a few years ago on feeding tube removal. The people in the study didn't have feelings of starvation or thirst. Instead, they felt almost euphoric. One can't say for sure with an uncommunicable person like Ms Shiavo, but the study suggested it would be pretty universal: little discomfort occurs in feeding tube removal.

In my opinion, administering a lethal dose of some drug would be as offensive as the feeding tube was in the first place. If "nature" (call it God's plan) overwhelmingly ended her life, and the feeding tube insertion interfered with that, keeping her body alive, then a lethal dose of a drug would also be interfering with nature's course.

When I worked in the hospital, I noticed that nurses only administered large amounts of "comforting" drugs when breathing machines were turned off and the person was experiencing tremendous pain. That to me is justifiable because the drug itself didn't end the person's life (failure to breath did) but only made the pain go away. If "nature" is taking one's life anyway, then I think it's okay to dampen the pain. But if there will be litte pain or if a person could survive on their own, then giving these drugs is nothing more than assisted suicide.

I guess this all sounds legalistic? It's not, really, nor is it really "fine line" thinking. For me, this is a matter of allowing nature to occur*. If every part of my self dies except my essential organs, and there is no chance of me recovering, please, allow me go see my Creator.

*I'm talking about severe trauma, PVS, brain death type events, not minor things like heart surgery to help my heart condition :)

It's interesting to note the difference in cases with PVS. Still, Terry didn't need help breathing, did she? I still think I side with the parent's rights to choose and her husband's right to move on. You're right, definitely not a black/white issue.

Speaking of "assisted suicide," have you had the chance to see "Million Dollar Baby?" It raises these issues in a powerful way. Highly recommended.

i thought the movie was great, too.

a thought for what it's worth--
it seems to me that the courts in my state and country are once again siding on the "right to choose" rather than the "right to life". I wasn't surprised that the courts wouldn't hold up the right to pursue life. They don't allow life for the unborn child if that life is at the expense of the "right to pursue happiness" of its mother, or husband--whomever you may choose to fill in the blank. I heard Mr. Shaivo's attorney give an interview and claimed that he wanted the most peaceful, dignified death for his wife. How nice that he is so considerate of other people, such as his in-laws and their desires for their daughter and her remains...

here's a question:

which is the greater bond: husband-wife or parent-child?

Moe-

Michael Shiavo has said fiancee and children with the blessing of Terri's parents who encouraged him to move on with his life. And as far as the divorce goes I read that he could not divorce her under Florida law because both parties have to agree to the divorce, and Terri could not. As far as that being true or not, I'll admit that I have not taken the time to check into Florida divorce law. In any case, it is a hard issue and I think we can all rejoice that Terri is in a better place.

cuz, yours is a great question.

and i guess if any of us stopped eating and drinking for 13 days we'd die. so i see that as killing her, not allowing her to die peacefully and naturally.

may she rest in peace!

We were discussing this at school yesterday and our school psychologist reminded me that Terri had a severe eating disorder that caused her to be in this state in the first place. My question is why aren't we talking about that so that young people can see the what can happen?

I also heard that her husband could not divorce her due to Florida laws. As a parent, I too would want to keep my child alive, however, I also would want the best for them.....was keeping her alive about the parent's needs? I wonder what Terri would have wanted?

It is a very difficult situation and I pray to God that we would never have to make that decision.

I hate how the media can sensationalize everything!!!!

i'm intrigued by this discussion, and i offer this piece (which you may have already seen).

let me know how it impacted you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7357718/site/newsweek/

Cuz: Genesis 2:24