Artificial feeding-Terri Schiavo

Nurses General Nursing

Published

I posted this here becaue I think this subject is something that we as nurses deal with on a regular basis.....Many many people state that they have a big problem with the feeding being stopped "allowing her to starve to death" The Vatican says " To starve her to death is pitiless" Most everyone agrees that it is one's right to refuse to initiate artificial feeding but somehow this situation "is different" How? The patient "starves to death " in both cases-so why has this one galvanized the WORLD? My husband read me a quote from the Bible -forgive me because I can't remember it in detail-it was something along the lines that a woman marries and leaves her father's house and her husband becomes her family....My husband is my POA I hope no-one in my family questions his motives -He KNOWS exactly what I want....I can't question her husbands motives-I know that some suspect foul play and state the results of a bone scan support this...That bone scan was obtained 53 months after she went into her coma-after her body suffered the effects of her eating disorders for a number of years.... Her present level of responsiveness does not pertain to this matter IMHO-she CAN'T eat naturally--she did not ever want to "be kept alive like that " and she can't state otherwise at this point...So- #1 can someone PLEASE make me see why this case is" DIFFERENT" and #2 How do YOU support your patients and their loved ones when they are agonizing over this decision? ONe thing I always ask is "Did your loved one ever give you any idea of what they would want if something like this happened" and if they did then I advocate that stance for that pt as much possible.......I believe that death is the last great trip we'll go on and we should PLAN it as much as possible.The greatest GIFT we can give to our loved ones is an itinerary...........

Specializes in Case Management, Home Health, UM.

I believe in the quality of life. I realize that this is an emotional issue and that there are no easy answers for this poor woman or her family. And, to make matters worse, the Bush Administration is making it abundantly clear that she has no constitutional right to die. It's sad. :o

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Well, I am proud to say he IS my president...edit...

Well you can have him and his 'scared deer in the headlights' look every time he's caught in a lie.

I must assume you're saying that the blanket pardons so freely given out to scoundrels by their successors, such as Ford/Nixon, (Why did he accept it if he was innocent?) and the amnesties granted and all are not within the scope of presidential power? And innocent human life falls outside of this power? As I said, this is an execution for the crime of inconvenience. Read your medical ethics and know that you know what you know.

Have you considered what this opens up? A choice to die by one may become an obligation for the next one who may not wish to die. It differs little from Dr. Jack except the power mongers want to be the ones to say who does the deed. I think they like to see the eyes of their victims, as they will go insane if the victim is unborn, or a cell. This is a dangerous family surrounded with dangerous people. As for the other see the chronicles written and approved as accurate by the family. I believe it's called 'The Bushs' or 'The Bush Family'. I open myself up to ad homonem attack by briefly forgetting the name of a source. Let me forstall that by saying that an interested responsible adult can easily look up the name of the book, and if I have to do it for you, let me know.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

There is no role for the President to play here except his statement, siding with life.

He has a role in pardoning CRIMINALS :rolleyes: but Terri is just an inconvenient human being, draining our resources and therefore obligated to die.

Funny how some people jump to defend terrorists against being interrogated or "tortured" but Terri's quality of life is such that she needs to die. Funny how Governers can intervene in death penalty cases with people who murder other people but Terri is left to die for the convenience of her husband. Who could very easily get out of this by divorcing her and letting her parents take care of her.

I've never bought the "quality" defense myself. Spending "quality" time with your kids instead of quantity time. I know many people who take care of disabled family members and consider it a blessing. Try telling someone like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a pastor who decided to resist the Nazis but who paid for that resistance by being killed. that his quality of life was such that he needed to kill himself. He left a huge legacy. I'll bet there wasn't much "quality" of life in that concentration camp. But he managed to encourage a large resistance against the Nazis and I'd say that life was worth it.

I understand the horror of thinking we could end up like Terri . . but that cannot color the sanctity of life in my opinion. And the conscious active role in taking someone's life by starvation/dehydration, someone who has been alive for 15 years with a feeding tube. She isn't brain dead. She isn't terminal (well, now she is). She does respond.

What possible harm could come from letting her parents take care of her? That is what I don't understand. There is harm in starting to judge people by their "quality" of life and then putting pressure on our elderly or disabled to die. There is a scary slippery slope there. But what is the slippery slope in deciding to let Terri's parents care for her?

Terri had no advance directives - we are taking the word of a dishonorable man that she wanted to die.

steph

Up Vote Up Vote ×

if i may...this is exactly why nursing can't get it's act together and be a unified "profession".

granted, we all have different values and beliefs, but i've yet to hear directly (in this forum) from someone who has cared for her (i know there are links to sworn affidavit's).

that being said, let's stop the rumors, assumptions and emotional assertions. we may be experts or have experience in this type of a case, but we're not involved firsthand. stop assuming that you know what terri would want, why the husband is doing the things he is or what the parents are trying to accomplish. you don't.

you only know what these people involved are telling you, what they want you to know.

like it or not, these types of ethical cases will become more common (e.g. cloning, stem cell research, fertility treatments etc.) as technology advances and the legal system lags behind.

i think nurses should decide for themselves where they stand on the issues, then educate themselves, their family, their patients and their leaders. that's what we do best.

also, step back for a moment and consider this particular situation from a public health standpoint. this case should be a wake up call for everyone do complete a living will and health care proxy.

we can't "solve" (or resolve) this particular issue, but we all can learn from it.

and maybe, just maybe, that's what the purpose of terri's life is...

Up Vote Up Vote ×
if i may...this is exactly why nursing can't get it's act together and be a unified "profession".

granted, we all have different values and beliefs, but i've yet to hear directly (in this forum) from someone who has cared for her (i know there are links to sworn affidavit's).

that being said, let's stop the rumors, assumptions and emotional assertions. we may be experts or have experience in this type of a case, but we're not involved firsthand. stop assuming that you know what terri would want, why the husband is doing the things he is or what the parents are trying to accomplish. you don't.

you only know what these people involved are telling you, what they want you to know.

like it or not, these types of ethical cases will become more common (e.g. cloning, stem cell research, fertility treatments etc.) as technology advances and the legal system lags behind.

i think nurses should decide for themselves where they stand on the issues, then educate themselves, their family, their patients and their leaders. that's what we do best.

also, step back for a moment and consider this particular situation from a public health standpoint. this case should be a wake up call for everyone do complete a living will and health care proxy.

we can't "solve" (or resolve) this particular issue, but we all can learn from it.

and maybe, just maybe, that's what the purpose of terri's life is...

i think one of the things this thread has done is start a discussion about what is going to be an increasing occurance and points out the need for us to continue to educate ourselves.

i belong to an ethics organization where we hash this stuff out all the time. i do come at it from the perspective that we are all created in god's image and that all life is sacred.

where we come from colors our perspective.

steph

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Really? When was the last time you went 12 hours or 24 hours without a drink? How did they get input on this topic, ask comatose patients how they are feeling about drying to death? Or did a research project in a hospice where they cut off the feeding/fluids of people and then asked them if it was a painless and peaceful way to go? Now I know that I haven't researched the topic, but doctors are also of the opinion that babies don't feel pain as much as we do.... I work with them all the time (peds nurse), and they sure do.

______________

I agree. We do not know enough about the brain to understand pain. It is impossible to know for sure.

What I do know is that starvation/ lack of water has driven people throughout history to cannabilism.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
i think terri is like stuck in the middle of this, poor lady doesn't even know what's going on she's brain dead.they should make a law in every state,that says if I am put in to a life threatning situation let me die don't keep me alive for sake of loved ones.everyone should sign one when they turn 18.then the hospital will know what to do.cause I know if i was in her situation i'd wanna die right away,you know let me go.let her rest in peace now GOD wants to give her angel wings now in heaven.

_______________

she is NOT brain dead. Even her husband admits to that. She is brain damaged.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
There is no role for the President to play here except his statement, siding with life.

He has a role in pardoning CRIMINALS :rolleyes: but Terri is just an inconvenient human being, draining our resources and therefore obligated to die.

Funny how some people jump to defend terrorists against being interrogated or "tortured" but Terri's quality of life is such that she needs to die. Funny how Governers can intervene in death penalty cases with people who murder other people but Terri is left to die for the convenience of her husband. Who could very easily get out of this by divorcing her and letting her parents take care of her.

I've never bought the "quality" defense myself. Spending "quality" time with your kids instead of quantity time. I know many people who take care of disabled family members and consider it a blessing. Try telling someone like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a pastor who decided to resist the Nazis but who paid for that resistance by being killed. that his quality of life was such that he needed to kill himself. He left a huge legacy. I'll bet there wasn't much "quality" of life in that concentration camp. But he managed to encourage a large resistance against the Nazis and I'd say that life was worth it.

I understand the horror of thinking we could end up like Terri . . but that cannot color the sanctity of life in my opinion. And the conscious active role in taking someone's life by starvation/dehydration, someone who has been alive for 15 years with a feeding tube. She isn't brain dead. She isn't terminal (well, now she is). She does respond.

What possible harm could come from letting her parents take care of her? That is what I don't understand. There is harm in starting to judge people by their "quality" of life and then putting pressure on our elderly or disabled to die. There is a scary slippery slope there. But what is the slippery slope in deciding to let Terri's parents care for her?

Terri had no advance directives - we are taking the word of a dishonorable man that she wanted to die.

steph

_____________

It is intersting that you bring up Nazis. There is an opinion article today on the Terry Shiavo case written by an Orthodox Rabbi. Here is the link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43381

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I think one of the things this thread has done is start a discussion about what is going to be an increasing occurance and points out the need for us to continue to educate ourselves.

I belong to an ethics organization where we hash this stuff out all the time. I do come at it from the perspective that we are all created in God's image and that all life is sacred.

Where we come from colors our perspective.

steph

____________

Steph, can you give me more information about that ethics organization? Thanks.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I think that thing that bothers me most is not the fact that people are fighting over Terri's life but the way that she is expected to die. She is to be deprived of water and food. To me this is slow, possibly painful and barbaric. If I were to euthanize a beloved pet by this method I could be jailed and fined if convicted for animal cruelty and neglect. This will take days of being dehydrated as well as hungry. Someone in an earlier post felt that dehydration was considered painless. Not so IMHO. I have seen dehydrated animals from abuse cases and they are in mental anguish looking, begging, and desiring a drink of water for their dry, agonized bodies. I would also imagine that the pain would be horrible as the end became nearer as the body tissues dried out. I know that when I have worked for hours in the hot, summer sun without much water, I have severe muscle cramping, dizziness, dry painful eys, and other painful aspects of dehydration. I cannot imagine going for days feeling like that. Why not deprive Terri of oxygen? The suffering lasts for only minutes instead of days.

Fuzzy

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I think that thing that bothers me most is not the fact that people are fighting over Terri's life but the way that she is expected to die. She is to be deprived of water and food. To me this is slow, possibly painful and barbaric. If I were to euthanize a beloved pet by this method I could be jailed and fined if convicted for animal cruelty and neglect. This will take days of being dehydrated as well as hungry. Someone in an earlier post felt that dehydration was considered painless. Not so IMHO. I have seen dehydrated animals from abuse cases and they are in mental anguish looking, begging, and desiring a drink of water for their dry, agonized bodies. I would also imagine that the pain would be horrible as the end became nearer as the body tissues dried out. I know that when I have worked for hours in the hot, summer sun without much water, I have severe muscle cramping, dizziness, dry painful eys, and other painful aspects of dehydration. I cannot imagine going for days feeling like that. Why not deprive Terri of oxygen? The suffering lasts for only minutes instead of days.

Fuzzy

Heck, why not just put a pillow over her face? :chair:

steph

Up Vote Up Vote ×
but, her husband refuses for her to have Holy communion and wants her cremated which is against her religion.

hum. why would a loving spouse do such a thing?

Fine i'll tell you why a spouse would do such a thing.........

My DH's parents are deeply religious, and probably still think he is, since he was raised that way and when he grew up he went to church and was a "good boy"

Well things have changed, he's a big boy now, he's moved out of the house and while he and I still respect his parents wishes not to swear while we are at their house and do rude things - such isnt the way around our house

I know that we didnt have a religious marriage ceremony (Las Vegas) and we dont have religion in our life now

However, his parents - if that ever happened to him - may think he wanted a proper burial and so forth

Though I know that really isnt the case, because only I know the man I live with

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment