Artificial feeding-Terri Schiavo

[ktwlpn]

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...........

[LydiaNN]

Congress should not be allowed to decide this matter! The decision has been placed in the hands of the judicial branch of government. The executive branch should not be overriding the courts! If they are allowed to do this, it is tilting what this country was founed on...balance of power. If the President and Congress can override the next of kin's decision, then where does it stop? I do not see why her parents are being allowed to have a say in the matter. Her husband is next of kin and should be making the decisions, whether they agree with him or not.

I believe she died the day she had the heart attack. I know if I was a vegetable and had been for over ten years (I obviously am not going to get any better), I would want all measures to keep alive stopped. I don't believe anybody would want to live like that.

Congress isn't the executive branch, its the legislative branch, and they are charged with making laws. Why shouldn't they be asked to intervene in this matter, when so many people feel the decision of the judge was wrong? The entire point of dividing the branches of government is that there are checks and balances. Our Constitution gives us a right to redress when we feel any branch isn't making the right decisions.

[ktwlpn, LPN]

___________

My grandmother died of cancer in hospice. She would gasp "thirsty" all the time. My mom would wet her lips because she could not swallow. They kept her "pain free" yet she still was thirsty. The whole experiance still haunts my mother.

I have cared for pts like that-sedation is appropriate in such a case to stop the suffering.....as I've (and others ) have said-with good oral hygiene and good symptom control the process appears to be painless.....I would not want my loved one alert and suffering....

[Crumbwannabe]

Ever see the commercial where the guy says "i'm not a doctor, but I play one on television" and then proceeds to tell you why you should take a certain brand of aspirin? A fallacious appeal to authority. The argument does not follow from the premise.

Now in the case of our elected officials and the judicial, seems they do much the same thing. It must be nice to know all they do about medicine, biomedical ethics, theology and so on without having to attend medical school or seminary, perhaps study philosophy...apparently you learn all this at law school, while learning to say it in a way that is completely unintelligable to the layman. Money designated for 'school taxes' goes into pet projects, there is not a thin dime in Social Security which was designed to be untouchable, to give a few examples. If their skill as economists comes anywhere near their medical and ethical acumen, we may as well all stop eating and drinking, and get it over with. The hubris is so ingrained, they can tell you what is the right and ethical thing to do in these situations and even the course of the paient's disease/disorder, and assure you that it won't be uncomfortable for the dying patient to starve and dehydrate.

And I maintain that the day will come when it will be legally decided when an individual meets enough criteria of inconvenience to be euthanized, willing or not. As will the day that the MD or Nurse will be required by court order to participate in the procedures against their own ethic.

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

I'm already reading the attitudes I'm afraid of . .. . calling a human being made in God's image a "vegetable". Like she isn't worth anything. Like she is garbage.

That is the slippery slope, come home to roost. Already.

Some human beings aren't worthy of life . . .so let's kill them.

It is a scary world.

steph

[NurseDreams]

My father and I were discussing this issue not long after my grandfather (his father) passed away. He had had a massive stroke and they stopped feeding him or giving him fluids so he could go in peace. My father and I both agree on this issue (for once we agree on something LOL).

Why is it humane to let a human starve to death but it isnt humane to euthenize a human? However, it's not humane to starve an animal, but it is humane to euthenize. I just dont get it. I dont think that someone who just doest want to live for mental reasons should be allowed to get "put to sleep" but I dont see how this process couldnt be more effective in cases such as my grandfather. I dont care what anyone says, he starved to death, feeling those hunger pains for 4 days. That is cruel in my opinion. I would much rather have had someone give him a shot to allow him to go quickly and painlessly. JMHO and I am sticking to it. :)

Please dont flame me. I am not posting this to start a flame war or anything of the sorts. I am however, interested in hearing what others think of this topic on a civilized level.

[head injury unit RN]

I Beleive The Decision Was Made Long Ago To Keep Her Alive When The Feeding Tube Was Inserted. She Is Still Breathing And Her Heart Is Still Beating. She Would Be Dying From Starvation And The Complications From It. Its Wrong And He's Doing It For The $. Her Parents Should Be The Only Ones Permitted To Make This Decision

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

Because I don't believe in actively taking a life, I could never agree that euthanasia is right.

I'm not talking about a terminal patient on a vent and the family decides to turn the vent off.

But lethal injection is wrong, in my opinion. And I also don't believe in taking Terri's feeding tube away.

steph

[NurseDreams]

I guess that I have worked around animals too much. It also doesn't help that I watched my mother die of cancer as a teen. I remember her trying to eat/drink and vomiting and crying because she couldn't keep any food/liquid down. She was wanting to eat and drink but couldn't. I was relieved when she died. Her battle with the pain was over. I see the same thing in the terminal animals that I treat--except most are helped along the way with a bit of euthanasia solution before it becomes so extreme as it did with my mother. If I ever get to the point that my mother did, I hope that I have a little Fatal Plus or SP6 available (euthanasia solutions). If not just put a pillow over my face----just don't let me die by dehydration or starvation.

Fuzzy

I couldnt agree with you more!!!!!!!! I dont want to die that way. I watched my grandfater die that way and to me it was horrible! Just give me a shot and let me go!

[nurse4theplanet, RN]

My father and I were discussing this issue not long after my grandfather (his father) passed away. He had had a massive stroke and they stopped feeding him or giving him fluids so he could go in peace. My father and I both agree on this issue (for once we agree on something LOL).

Why is it humane to let a human starve to death but it isnt humane to euthenize a human? However, it's not humane to starve an animal, but it is humane to euthenize. I just dont get it. I dont think that someone who just doest want to live for mental reasons should be allowed to get "put to sleep" but I dont see how this process couldnt be more effective in cases such as my grandfather. I dont care what anyone says, he starved to death, feeling those hunger pains for 4 days. That is cruel in my opinion. I would much rather have had someone give him a shot to allow him to go quickly and painlessly. JMHO and I am sticking to it. :)

Please dont flame me. I am not posting this to start a flame war or anything of the sorts. I am however, interested in hearing what others think of this topic on a civilized level.

Starvation and witholding artificial nutrition are not the same. Apparantly most people have these two concepts confused. Starvation is deliberately depriving a person/animal of the right to food and water when that person/animal is otherwise healthy. If Terri could consciously swallow, this would be a whole new issue. They could not withold food then because it would be starvation. But because Terri is classified as terminally ill and in a PVS then removing the tube (witholding artificial nutrition that is prolonging her life) is acceptable because it would cause natural death by dehydration (which is part of the natural dying process and does not cause pain but a state of euphoria to allow a peaceful passing).

But just for irony's sake..... If her parents felt the same way as the husband and she was in the EXACT same condition no one would care! That is an interesting thought to consider....

[head injury unit RN]

ITS NOT. I AGREE WITH THE ORIGINAL POST AND HER DAD(lol). IT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID --IT'S STARVATION AND ITS MORALLY WRONG

[UnewmeB4]

This is how I feel too. Life is a precious gift. We are made in the image of God. It seems silly to think that just because we believe in an afterlife, then we should do something like your example, jump off a bridge, to get to heaven sooner.

It is respect for life.

I don't believe in actively taking an innocent person's life.

steph

When we take them off the vent, even when it is their wish( a person with MD, or ALS, who is conscious), is that murder? If a patient refuses to go to dialysis anymore, is it suicide? If they have COPD and have been on the vent and are not able to be weaned, is discontinuing the vent(even though they are not "brain dead") murder? Does refusing to sign for your mother with severe dementia to have open heart make you a murderer?

It is never black and white.

What one sees as a respect for life, another sees as cruel punishment.

[nurse4theplanet, RN]

Utilitarianism.... we all learned about it in school. Part of ethics...

Which decision would benefit the greatest number of people?

Option A: Terri's tube is re-inserted

Her husband would not have closure.

Her parents would continue to put false hope in her recovery and continue to grieve for her and her circumstance.

Terri remains in total care, strapped down to keep her from pulling the tube out (that came off her parents website)

Millions of taxpayers dollars will be paid for care

Option B: Terri's tube is left out

Her husband can move on with his new family

Her parents can complete the grieving process

Terri passes naturally and enters the Kingdom of God where she will be restored

Millions of taxpayers dollars will be redirected to others who CAN recover from dibilitating accidents

the choice seems clear to me...