Keep Schiavo alive?

[franko]

Terri's Tragedy
Could Terri's case happen in Canada? It already has.
Compiled by Janet Epp Buckingham | Posted 4/5/05

All of North America watched the terrible tragedy of Terri Schiavo. For reasons unknown, Christians were portrayed as evil monsters forcing Terri to live against her will. The issues are much more complex than that.

Most doctors wouldn't say that feeding tubes are "medical treatment" and can therefore be withdrawn.

I have been in the situation of having to make tough medical choices at the end of life for a loved one. It is not always easy when a person is in their last days to make decisions about how much treatment and when to let go. But the Schiavo case seemed different. Terri was not terminally ill.

Terri was injured 15 years ago and suffered severe brain damage. There was a great deal of dispute as to Terri's condition. The courts said that Terri was a "vegetable" but her parents said that they interacted with her. She sat up in a wheelchair. She had a personality. She was not in a coma.

But Terri couldn't swallow. That was the source of the controversy. For 15 years, she had obtained her food and water through a feeding tube. Most doctors wouldn't say that feeding tubes are "medical treatment" and can therefore be withdrawn. But others say that nutrition and hydration are basic necessities of life whether they are delivered on a fork or through a tube.

According to the law in the U.S., and also in Canada, a person must consent to have medical treatment. If a person is not able to consent to his or her own medical treatment, the next of kin consent on his or her behalf. In this case, Terri's husband was her next of kin. Terri's husband had asked that the feeding tube be removed. This meant that Terri had to die of dehydration and she had to starve to death. But Terri's parents desperately wanted Terri to live. They pleaded with courts to grant them custody of Terri so that they could consent to treatment.

And to complicate matters, Terri's husband had moved on with his life. He is living with another woman and has a family with her. This made his decisions regarding Terri just a little suspect.

Could Terri's case happen here?

According to the Ottawa Citizen Terri's case has already happened here. The case was not widely publicized at the time but back in 2002 a 43-year-old man suffered pretty much the same problems as Terri. His wife of 12 years made the decision to remove his feeding tube. But the man's brothers and sisters did not agree with this and threatened court action. Ultimately, they did go to court and the judge sided with the man's wife.

In Canada, however, we have the additional complication of publicly-funded health care. There have been more publicized cases where hospitals wanted to remove treatment against the wishes of the family.

In a very sad case in Manitoba in 1997, a hospital wanted to put a "do-not-resuscitate" order on the chart of an infant who had been shaken so badly that he was in a vegetative state. The parents still had legal guardianship of the child and did not agree with this order. The judge ruled that it was up to the doctor, not the legal guardians, to make this decision when a patient is in an "irreversible vegetative state." This was quite a change because up to that point, doctors could not unilaterally make these decisions.

In 1998, the family of an elderly man who suffered from Parkinson's Disease [http://www.parkinson.ca/home.html] as well as multiple strokes successfully reversed a "do-not-resuscitate" order from the man's chart. The Riverview hospital in Winnipeg argued that Mr. Sawatsky's condition was irreversible. But he was not in a vegetative state. The court ordered that Mr. Sawatsky be moved to a hospital where he would receive the kind of care that his family wanted.

All this to say that the issues are even more complex in Canada than in the U.S. and we have seen enough ink spilled in the Schiavo case to know that there are at least two sides for Terri.

An editorial in the Calgary Herald rightly pointed out that there is a difference between the right to die and the right to life. The right to life is considered a basic human right. The right to die seems a bit off base. There is no "human right" to die.

Despite the fact that there is a significant lobby in Canada for the right to die, there is no such right. Marcel Tremblay recently committed suicide in a bid to put euthanasia on the public policy agenda.

But when we get into discussions about issues like assisted suicide, right to life, right to death and euthanasia, there is a great deal of confusion about what all these terms mean.

For Christians, we start with the premise that all people are created in the image of God. This makes us valuable and precious no matter what our life circumstances. But we also do not fear death because it is not the end but a new beginning.

When we come to make decisions about life and death, we need to keep these two principles in mind. We neither rush death nor artificially prolong life.

Ahh. If only it were so simple. Medical care can keep us alive much longer than it once did. There seem to be endless treatments that can prolong life.

I don't have all the answers for the tough questions.

link

[HardCap]

I personally know Janet, her father died of Parkinson's a couple of years ago. She is a strong person of faith. Thanks, that was well written...

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

HardCap said:

I personally know Janet, her father died of Parkinson's a couple of years ago. She is a strong person of faith. Thanks, that was well written...

As much as I like George Bush and consider myself a Concervative, I have no problem with terminating Schiavo's life or a womans right to choose.
We don't have to dogmatically agree and march in lock step because we are politically concervative and socially liberal.
The less government gets involved in personal lives, the better. The less government, the better.
I see no redeeming value in maintaining a person in a vegetative state.
I have no problems with Judges pronouncing judgements.
I see no reason to keep Karen Schaivo alive.
I'm not making a general statement or medical diagnosis, but after 15 years it seems that the doctors and judges exhausted all avenues and we have to accept and respect their decision.

[HardCap]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

As much as I like George Bush and consider myself a Concervative, I have no problem with terminating Schiavo's life or a womans right to choose.
We don't have to dogmatically agree and march in lock step because we are politically concervative and socially liberal.
The less government gets involved in personal lives, the better. The less government, the better.
I see no redeeming value in maintaining a person in a vegetative state.
I have no problems with Judges pronouncing judgements.
I see no reason to keep Karen Schaivo alive.
I'm not making a general statement or medical diagnosis, but after 15 years it seems that the doctors and judges exhausted all avenues and we have to accept and respect their decision.

and here we go....slippery slope...disgusting:

It's Happening Again:

Georgia Woman Being Starved and Dehydrated

85 year-old Mae Magouirk of LaGrange, Georgia, is currently being deprived of nutrition and hydration at the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy. Mrs. Magouirk suffered an aortic dissection 2 weeks ago and was hospitalized. Though her doctors have said that she is not terminally ill, Ms. Gaddy declared that she held medical power of attorney for Mae, and had her transferred to the LaGrange Hospice. Later investigation revealed that Ms. Gaddy did not in fact have such power of attorney. Furthermore, Mae's Living Will provides that nutrition and hydration are to be withheld only if she is comatose or vegetative. Mae is in neither condition. Neither is her condition terminal.

Furthermore, under Georgia law, if there is no power of attorney specifying a health care decisionmaker, such authority is given to the closest living relatives. Mae's brother, A. B. McLeod, and sister, Lonnie Ruth Mullinax, are both still alive and capable of making such decisions. They opposed Mae's transfer to hospice, and are fighting to save her life. But in spite of the lack of a power of attorney, and the fact that there are closer living relatives who should be given precedence by Georgia law, Ms. Gaddy sought an emergency appointment as guardian from the local probate court. The probate judge, Donald Boyd (who, I am told, is not an attorney and does not have a law degree), granted Gaddy's request, thereby giving her the power to starve and dehydrate Magouirk to death, though such an action is contrary to the provisions of the living will.

I have spoken to Kenneth Mullinax, Mae's nephew, and he has confirmed all the above. He also tells me that he believes that Ms. Gaddy has no bad motives, but is simply misguided and mistaken. Mullinax said that Ms. Gaddy has testified in court that she has "prayed over" Mae, and is convinced that it is "time for her to go". Whether the fact is relevant or not remains to be seen, but apparently Ms. Gaddy is also the sole beneficiary of Mae's will.

Kenneth has told me that they need help in getting the word out, and bringing Mae's case to the media's attention. Given the amount of coverage of the Holy Father's death, that may be difficult. But we have to raise the visibility of this case. They have another hearing coming up, and Kenneth indicated that they also may need expert assistance, both legal and medical.

The similarities of Mae Magouirk's situation and Terri Schiavo's are obvious: Once again we have a family divided over what care should be given to a seriously ill relative. And once again, we have a judge playing God with someone's life. But what is different, and in a sense worse, is that Mae is being deprived of food and water in clear contravention of her own stated wishes, and at the request of someone who should have no standing under Georgia law.

More information is available at Blogs For Terri. If you want to contact Kenneth Mullinax to get more information or to offer help, you may e-mail him at [e-mail].

[HabbaDasher]

Your concern for human life seems a bit selective.