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

Post by **_beastie** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 am

I understand wanting to provide her parents comfort, but her wishes should have been respected. I think society has to also come to grips with this issue, because as technology advances, it will probably be possible to keep more and more bodies "alive" long past the time when whatever made them human in the first place is gone.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:36 am

Jersey Girl wrote:What part of her particular case fits into your OP and what question would you pose regarding her case?

Mostly I'm wondering when it should be permissible to pull the plug on life support. If one person wishes to make a claim on the person on life support, is that sufficient to keep her alive? Must the person be family? Must the peson be the closest kin? Under what circumstances, if any, should someone remain on life support even when nobody makes a claim for her?

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:38 am

beastie wrote:I understand wanting to provide her parents comfort, but her wishes should have been respected. I think society has to also come to grips with this issue, because as technology advances, it will probably be possible to keep more and more bodies "alive" long past the time when whatever made them human in the first place is gone.

Her wishes weren't fully known, beastie. There were memories of statements she'd made years prior but there was no living will involved. The point that came out in the numerous discussions I participated in on the Straight Dope was that Michael Schiavo and only Michael Schiavo had the legal right to decide. In that case, his wishes trumped all else.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:42 am

Jersey Girl wrote:What you think would have been better, abman, wasn't legally possible. Terri was legally married to her husband Michael at the time. On what basis would you have "given" her to her parents?

There is no legal basis for what I think. I am imagining how it might play out on more of a moral basis. The moral question I have in my mind is when is it sufficient to keep someone on life support. I think it would have been nice if Mr. Schiavo voluntarily divorced her and gave the responsibility to her parents since they wanted her.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:43 am

asbestosman wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:What part of her particular case fits into your OP and what question would you pose regarding her case?

Mostly I'm wondering when it should be permissible to pull the plug on life support. If one person wishes to make a claim on the person on life support, is that sufficient to keep her alive? Must the person be family? Must the peson be the closest kin? Under what circumstances, if any, should someone remain on life support even when nobody makes a claim for her?

In the case of Terri Schiavo, the legal next of kin was her husband Michael. He had the right to decide and inspite of numerous stop/starts mainly on account of her parents racheting up the legal drama, he finally did. I'd have to go back into those old discussions I was in to drag up information but if I recall correctly, she essentially had no brain left. Her body (I hope I'm remembering this correctly) was functioning because of life support and a brain stem.

I suppose I should state a position here. I think that removing life support for Terri Schiavo was the right decision.

Post by **_Moniker** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:44 am

Jersey Girl wrote:
Moniker wrote:
Blixa wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:abman,

If you really want to discuss Terri S. I'd be glad to do that with you. I followed closely her case and participated in some heavy discussions regarding her during that time. What part of her particular case fits into your OP and what question would you pose regarding her case?

If there's much more of these kind of threads I'll be begging someone to kill me...

I want to be shot first if this goes off into the Terri S. case.

He mentions Terri Schiavo in the thread title.

And yet not in the OP. I prefer to ignore the thread title and focus on the questions posed in the OP. :)

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:45 am

asbestosman wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:What you think would have been better, abman, wasn't legally possible. Terri was legally married to her husband Michael at the time. On what basis would you have "given" her to her parents?

There is no legal basis for what I think. I am imagining how it might play out on more of a moral basis. The moral question I have in my mind is when is it sufficient to keep someone on life support. I think it would have been nice if Mr. Schiavo voluntarily divorced her and gave the responsibility to her parents since they wanted her.

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

Post by **_asbestosman** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:47 am

beastie wrote:I understand wanting to provide her parents comfort, but her wishes should have been respected.

I suppose that's a good point especially since we respect the wishes of the dead through wills and whatnot. That said, I know that while I myself would like to be unplugged from life support if I'm a vegetable like Terri, I would also like to stay alive if my parents really wanted me alive. I wouldn't want them to want that, but if it brings them comfort then that's what I'd prefer. But I am not Terri. Who knows what she would have wanted. If she didn't want that, would I still have wanted her to be kept alive? I lean towards no, but that's probably because I don't consider a vegetable to be something that should be kept alive. On the other hand, I would consider it murder to shoot a vegetated human after pulling the plug but before the last breath. So perhaps in some sense I still consider them to be human and possibly even to have human rights. Such a sutuation is not clear to me and I am trying to clarify my thinking on the matter.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:54 am

Jersey Girl wrote: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.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:57 am

abman,

I have to tell you that when I became aware of the Terri Schiavo case I was fully against her being removed from life support and after much research and discussion, I changed my mind.

But I am not Terri. Who knows what she would have wanted. If she didn't want that, would I still have wanted her to be kept alive?

You see, abman, at that point what Terri wanted could not be ascertained. In that case, the decision goes to the legal next of kin.