Artificial feeding-Terri Schiavo

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...........

And possibly that many of them are repeating the same things over, without regard to what has already been said.

Ok, let me start something here where I don't think anyone has said anything about (watch one of you will go do a search and prove me wrong:)).

One thing people mentioned is the emotional aspect of it of pulling the tube when the person is not actively dying.

Now the question is, when the court gave the husband the right to pull the tube, would it be better if the husband give the order to not pull the tube, but instead give the order to not treating any kind of infections that Terri might get in the future (which she has a few before if I rememebered right and I can't find the reference). I mean, if she has an infection, just let the infection spread and then hospice will take over toward the end.

Would that make any difference emotionally for people?

-Dan

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Today, a resident other than Terri Shiavo passed away at this hospice.

According to news reports, as a direct result of the "circus" going on outside the hospice, the granddaughter of the resident who passed away was unable to get past security at the hospice and to the bedside of her grandfather in time.

This is unbelievable.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/22/Southpinellas/Pain_of_publicity_int.s

So so sad. :crying2:

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I know I'll probably get laughed at, but did anyone catch "South Park" tonight? It's a guilty pleasure of mine, and it's a very smart show.

Tonight they covered the Terri Schiavo case very well. It was a subtle moral, but when they finally found the end of Kenny's living will and found out that his wishes were to "never be seen in that state on national TV," I believe that Matt & Trey see the bottom of this case: That no matter what side you're on, or what's right, there's no words to describe what's been done to her dignity.

It will re-air around 11pm central time on Comedy Central. I definitely recommend it.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care/ICU.

The US Supreme Court has refused to go any further with this and they're angry.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...n_damaged_woman

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care/ICU.

Nevermind.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Ok, let me start something here where I don't think anyone has said anything about (watch one of you will go do a search and prove me wrong:)).

One thing people mentioned is the emotional aspect of it of pulling the tube when the person is not actively dying.

Now the question is, when the court gave the husband the right to pull the tube, would it be better if the husband give the order to not pull the tube, but instead give the order to not treating any kind of infections that Terri might get in the future (which she has a few before if I rememebered right and I can't find the reference). I mean, if she has an infection, just let the infection spread and then hospice will take over toward the end.

Would that make any difference emotionally for people?

-Dan

As a paramedic for 15 years, I completely understand how, at some point in a persons life, usually due to a quality of life issue, they or a responsible party may choose to discontinue certain treatments in favor of letting nature take its course, and I approve. This can range from the tragic decision of having to remove a loved one from life support after a traumatic accident, to the cancer patient who decides they've just had enough. My understanding of hospice is to be able to provide what is necessary to relieve pain and discomfort, and to let the patient die peacefully. Sometimes this relief of pain can get creative, as in a case I know of a hospice nurse who managed to get a surgical procedure approved to fix a patients fractured femur, on the basis that the repair would relieve ongoing pain. The antithesis of hospice of course is to cause pain and discomfort. This is my opinion as to what's happening to Terri by denying her nutrition and hydration. As I pointed out in a previous post, food and drink are a basic human psychological motivation. Without adequate nutrition, we are unable to be satisfied and proceed with attempting to fulfill higher needs. Therefore logic dictates that Terri cannot be "at peace" because her basic needs are not being met. And since Terri's basic needs may be all she's aware of, this becomes of vital importance. So yes, I agree with you, your scenario would make a difference emotionally. If its Terri's wish to pass on by not having "heroic measures" performed, so be it. I do not agree however that feeding her is heroic, no matter how its done. It's just humane. The fact that she's still here after 15 years is God's timetable, and nobody can accelerate that no matter how hard you try.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I know I'll probably get laughed at, but did anyone catch "South Park" tonight? It's a guilty pleasure of mine, and it's a very smart show.

Tonight they covered the Terri Schiavo case very well. It was a subtle moral, but when they finally found the end of Kenny's living will and found out that his wishes were to "never be seen in that state on national TV," I believe that Matt & Trey see the bottom of this case: That no matter what side you're on, or what's right, there's no words to describe what's been done to her dignity.

It will re-air around 11pm central time on Comedy Central. I definitely recommend it.

I saw it. That show is a guilty pleasure of mine as well.:uhoh21: I'm not saying the show has great meaning but if you look at alot of episodes (well past th e apparent stupidity) some of them actually have a good point to them. I'm not saying it's a great show for the family or that's it's deep and meaningful. But I thought that episode was actually pretty smart yet entertaining.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.

That show cracks me up. I'll try to stay awake long enough to catch it at 11. Thanks for the heads up.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in MICU, neuro, orthotrauma.

jsut in case you haven't seen it yet. i can't go through this whole thread.

CT%20scan.png

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/Schiavo_links.htm

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Pediatrics, Nursing Education.
Ok, let me start something here where I don't think anyone has said anything about (watch one of you will go do a search and prove me wrong:)).

One thing people mentioned is the emotional aspect of it of pulling the tube when the person is not actively dying.

Now the question is, when the court gave the husband the right to pull the tube, would it be better if the husband give the order to not pull the tube, but instead give the order to not treating any kind of infections that Terri might get in the future (which she has a few before if I rememebered right and I can't find the reference). I mean, if she has an infection, just let the infection spread and then hospice will take over toward the end.

Would that make any difference emotionally for people?

-Dan

Dan -

He already has tried that multiple times and it hasn't worked. next step for him to kill her is to dc the feedings.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

They just announced on the News that Terry Shiavo has died.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.

May she rest in peace.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion