It would appear as though Terri Schiavo is about to be free of the aggressive life support system that we in the medical profession call nourishment. You may know it as breakfast, lunch and dinner. According to her husband, Terri stated she never wanted to be kept alive artificially. One must wonder if she ever meant that she wanted to be starved to death.
As a nurse, I have personally requested that doctors discontinue certain medications (with the families’ approval) once a person has been in a vegetative state for a long period of time and quality of life is non-existent. We have stopped heart medication, blood pressure medication and even pain medication but I have never requested that a diabetic patient have his or her diabetes medication stopped. That was too close to starving someone to death.
There are certain things that are considered minimal care and are given to every human being, regardless of what percentage of their brain is pudding. We clean them, move them to prevent pressure sores, clothe them and yes, we feed them.
Which one of those life support measures would you want us to leave out should your child enter a persistent vegetative state? Should you even have a say in that matter? Or should the decision be left up to someone who has a financial interest in the outcome? If the judge had a financial interest in this matter, he or she would step aside as it would be considered a conflict of interest. But a husband with another family that would receive a windfall is allowed to make this decision. It is stunning.
There are people all over the world that are in persistent vegetative states and we aren’t starving them, why are we going to starve Terri? They have families that visit them, love them and would mourn their passing. I couldn’t even imagine broaching that option with those families for fear of being called a heartless, uncaring nurse.
When people don’t want to be kept alive artificially, they sign a paper. If they enter a state such as Terri’s, the family still has the final say. You could sign a paper everyday stating you don’t want to be kept alive artificially but should your family request that life support be maintained, maintained it is. That is because the family has the potential to hire an attorney and sue. So, we listen to the family.
Usually, the family is more concerned with the patient and their wishes. They would never go out of their way to fight for years to starve their loved one. To remove a respirator, yes. To stop dialysis, yes. But to starve them, never. That is, unless the family has a new family and wants the money that the death would guarantee. There is no other reason that a person would fight so hard to “allow death” to occur. With a family willing to take over the responsibility, why is Mr. Schiavo doing this? He says it is because he is honoring her wishes. Does anyone seriously believe that Terri would have wished this hell on her parents?
Did Terri feel so strongly about this issue that she would have chosen to put her family through this pain? If so, why didn’t she make it legal and sign papers to make her wishes known? If she had, she would have found that you can check certain life support measures that you want and others that you don’t want. That is because different people have differing opinions regarding what is considered extreme life support. Some people consider nourishment to be a basic necessity of life, not an extreme life support measure. So, once you make the decision not to be kept alive artificially, there are STILL decisions to be made, such as what exactly you consider life support.
This is a topic that should be brought up with your loved ones. Every person should make their wishes known. They should discuss it with someone that they trust enough to make that decision for them should the time come. Usually, that person is your spouse. But if your spouse has a new spouse and could use the money your death would make certain, would you still want them making your decisions for you? Or would you prefer to leave that type of decision up to family that most assuredly has no other motive than their love for you? One would think that once a husband has moved on and begun another family, he is no longer a viable candidate for this position. I sure the hell wouldn't want Rick involved to ANY extent. I have a feeling that Terri would not wish to have her husband and his new family profit from her death. But that's just me.
Meg
As a nurse, I have personally requested that doctors discontinue certain medications (with the families’ approval) once a person has been in a vegetative state for a long period of time and quality of life is non-existent. We have stopped heart medication, blood pressure medication and even pain medication but I have never requested that a diabetic patient have his or her diabetes medication stopped. That was too close to starving someone to death.
There are certain things that are considered minimal care and are given to every human being, regardless of what percentage of their brain is pudding. We clean them, move them to prevent pressure sores, clothe them and yes, we feed them.
Which one of those life support measures would you want us to leave out should your child enter a persistent vegetative state? Should you even have a say in that matter? Or should the decision be left up to someone who has a financial interest in the outcome? If the judge had a financial interest in this matter, he or she would step aside as it would be considered a conflict of interest. But a husband with another family that would receive a windfall is allowed to make this decision. It is stunning.
There are people all over the world that are in persistent vegetative states and we aren’t starving them, why are we going to starve Terri? They have families that visit them, love them and would mourn their passing. I couldn’t even imagine broaching that option with those families for fear of being called a heartless, uncaring nurse.
When people don’t want to be kept alive artificially, they sign a paper. If they enter a state such as Terri’s, the family still has the final say. You could sign a paper everyday stating you don’t want to be kept alive artificially but should your family request that life support be maintained, maintained it is. That is because the family has the potential to hire an attorney and sue. So, we listen to the family.
Usually, the family is more concerned with the patient and their wishes. They would never go out of their way to fight for years to starve their loved one. To remove a respirator, yes. To stop dialysis, yes. But to starve them, never. That is, unless the family has a new family and wants the money that the death would guarantee. There is no other reason that a person would fight so hard to “allow death” to occur. With a family willing to take over the responsibility, why is Mr. Schiavo doing this? He says it is because he is honoring her wishes. Does anyone seriously believe that Terri would have wished this hell on her parents?
Did Terri feel so strongly about this issue that she would have chosen to put her family through this pain? If so, why didn’t she make it legal and sign papers to make her wishes known? If she had, she would have found that you can check certain life support measures that you want and others that you don’t want. That is because different people have differing opinions regarding what is considered extreme life support. Some people consider nourishment to be a basic necessity of life, not an extreme life support measure. So, once you make the decision not to be kept alive artificially, there are STILL decisions to be made, such as what exactly you consider life support.
This is a topic that should be brought up with your loved ones. Every person should make their wishes known. They should discuss it with someone that they trust enough to make that decision for them should the time come. Usually, that person is your spouse. But if your spouse has a new spouse and could use the money your death would make certain, would you still want them making your decisions for you? Or would you prefer to leave that type of decision up to family that most assuredly has no other motive than their love for you? One would think that once a husband has moved on and begun another family, he is no longer a viable candidate for this position. I sure the hell wouldn't want Rick involved to ANY extent. I have a feeling that Terri would not wish to have her husband and his new family profit from her death. But that's just me.
Meg
posted by Meg Kelso | 2:39 PM
1 Comments:
Now, I have just woken up and I don't have my wits about me yet but if I look at it from his point of view I still wonder why. Can he truly move on if he doesn't walk away? Can he possibly do either family justice while trying to give it to both? I don't know. I wrote that for someone who asked me to write it from that particular point of view. I just threw it up there for the hell of it. I don't know. The money is from a lawsuit. I DO have a huge problem with that, but it is an entirely different subject.
Post a Comment
<< Home