When is it permisable to let a person die--Terri Schiavo?

[_Jersey Girl]

Nice of Mr. Schiavo to divorce his wife on what grounds, abman? Because her parents "wanted her"? I disagree with that.

For me it was because it wasn't clear to me about whether Terri would have wanted to stick around if her parents "wanted her".

On the other hand, I do believe it good to repsect the wishes of individuals who declare what they want to happen to them should they die or become vegetables. I think part of what separates me from most who oppose Terri's death is that most seem to view Terri as a living human being wheras I saw her as more of a living corpse--not really a human anymore. Despite that, I would also be fine keeping her on life support if that's what she would have wanted and nobody else did.

She really was a living corpse and there was no chance whatsoever of survival. The brain doesn't regenerate itself.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I just got finished reading about biological citizenship from Rose, and after biopower with Foucault I think I'm ready to join Blixa some place where this issue isn't discussed.

[_asbestosman]

I just got finished reading about biological citizenship from Rose, and after biopower with Foucault I think I'm ready to join Blixa some place where this issue isn't discussed.

Bond, my non-researching partner in crime, please enlighten me about why it it would be desireable for this issue not to be discussed (if possible without discussing this issue).

[_msnobody]

At a former job, I always pondered whether it was right to withold food/tube feeding from persons. Of course their prognosis wasn't good, but I never determined exactly how I felt about the matter.

[_Jersey Girl]

I just got finished reading about biological citizenship from Rose, and after biopower with Foucault I think I'm ready to join Blixa some place where this issue isn't discussed.

What issue? Death?

[_Bond...James Bond]

I think it's undesirable because most people will have a certain definition of what life is and what life isn't. Some people think that life exists till the breathing and heart stop. Some people (including yours truly) believe that life stops when the brain stops, and after that is just existence. I think of living as a fruitful activity in which people are interacting with the world around them. Laying in a bed having machines carry out the basics to keep a body going isn't living according to my definition.

In the other direction (birth) I tend to support abortion as a privacy issue between a woman and her doctor. I think the opportunity should exist for women to manage their own reproductive habits. In a (meaning: my idea of a) perfect world when a man and woman who have committed to each other in some form (marriage or union) should grant the man the right to be aware of his wive's abortion. But by and large I think we have enough people in this world and if someone doesn't want to go through a birth then that's their choice.

The fundamental problem is that we have more technology than we have new ethical systems to govern them. We've created all this shiny new stuff, but how we use it is still largely up in the air. The old systems of ethics probably never fathomed organ transplants and prenatal vitamins and people living 100+ years on machines. So we're still trying to shake those systems out. What used to be largely "nature taking it's course" can now be interceded in by technology at almost any point to change the outcome of "Life".

But the main issues are that:

1) the many different definitions of what is and what isn't "Life".

2) ethical arguments to govern new bio technology.

[_the road to hana]

I'm just going to make two comments on this thread and that's it, since my posting on the abortion thread was only meant to be in response to Scottie's original question regarding how people had changed their position, if at all, on abortion since leaving Mormonism, and I thought my own change in and evolution of position might be of interest or value in being an exception rather than the rule.

1) Medical decisions, including those regarding ending of treatment, are extraordinarily complicated, vary from patient to patient, and involve a variety of factors that others cannot micromanage from a distance. What is "extraordinary" for one patient is not necessarily for another (being on a ventilator, for example), and a number of medical complications are challenging, but treatable. Each situation needs to be weighed by family members and medical professionals when care and end of life decisions are involved.

2) From a legal standpoint, in the absence of clear written declarations by an incapacitated patient prior to their incapacity, the law recognizes next of kin or other legal representative so designated to make those decisions. When we cannot be sure the intent of the patient, we rely on the best judgment of next of kin or legal representative in concert with medical professionals.