28 Oct 03
Originally posted by MstofDestructionWell, he already has received 1 million dollars from a malpractice lawsuit, so maybe it isn't as clear a case of greed as you think. But regardless of whether it is greed that motivates Terri Schiavo's husband, it is still an open question whether allowing her to die by removing her feeding tube would be morally justified. Suppose that, hypthetically, her husband really did have Terri Schiavo's interests at heart. Suppose she had told him years ago that she would not want to be kept alive artificially. Under these circumstances would allowing her to die be the right thing to do?
All of you guys are forgeting to mention that when his wife dies he will get the insurence money. ($250,000) Greed that is all this is about.ðŸ˜
28 Oct 03
Originally posted by bbarrDon't forget about doctors fees,law court fees, possible compensation fees, family court, lawyers, possible family damage lawsuit, euthanasia lawsuit...
Well, he already has received 1 million dollars from a malpractice lawsuit, so maybe it isn't as clear a case of greed as you think. But regardless of whether it is greed that motivates Terri Schiavo's husband, it is still an open question whether allowing her to die by removing her feeding tube would be morally justified. Suppose that, hypthetically, her ...[text shortened]... e artificially. Under these circumstances would allowing her to die be the right thing to do?
28 Oct 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrWhat I'm interested in mostly in this case, apart from the human tragedy for all those involved, is how the different parties are reasoning and how that is used in the policy of the Freethinkers to prepare the next step in realising their political agenda in the United States. So bbarr .... I'm watching you .......
Well, he already has received 1 million dollars from a malpractice lawsuit, so maybe it isn't as clear a case of greed as you think. But regardless of whether it is greed that motivates Terri Schiavo's husband, it is still an open question ...[text shortened]... ircumstances would allowing her to die be the right thing to do?
The situation of the patient is not clear. The media report that she is brain dead, however the husband's lawyer has stated on Larry King live (CNN) that she is not brain dead, but that she has no awareness. The problem with determining what the patient would have wanted is that you never know in what situation you might end up. The same problem arises when there is a written living will.
... and that of course raises questions about the situation certain mentally ill or handicapped people are in who also have not written any living will and are in a state that can also be described as "not having awareness". Do they have the same "right" to die, bbarr ?
28 Oct 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrHe has not received anything. The patient has received that money according to the husband !!
Well, he already has received 1 million dollars from a malpractice lawsuit, so maybe it isn't as clear a case of greed as you think. But regardless of whether it is greed that motivates Terri Schiavo's husband, it is still an open question ...[text shortened]... ircumstances would allowing her to die be the right thing to do?
The husband was not very clear to say the least in the Larry King interview. He accused the parents of being after his wife's money. At the same time he stated that he would not have any financial gain at all in the case his wife would die. Now how is that possible. When the parents were to inherit the patients money they would get a considerable amount, but when he inherits the money he gains nothing at all. This calls for an explanation.
Also the fact that he wants her to die and not the parents sheds a peculiar light on these accusations of the husband that the parents are after her money. The money will stay in the patients possession if she does not die ...
28 Oct 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn situations where there is not enough information to justifiably conclude that a person would consent to death rather than exist in their current state, I think we ought to err on the side of caution and prolong life. This is why in my original post I stressed the importance of finding out the relevant facts about Terri Schiavo's current state. Is she aware? If so, what types of mental states does she have? Is she, for instance, self-aware or reflective? Answering these questions is the first step in determining whether Terri would want her life prolonged. Indeed, answering these questions is necessary in order to determine whether Terri Shiavo is still alive. If, for instance, the body of Terri Shiavo is incapable of any mental states at all, then Terii Shiavo is, in fact, dead already. NOTE: Take the discussion above as a hypothetical. I don't know the medical facts about Terri Schiavo, and I've heard that there is quite a bit of conflict between the doctors on the different sides of this debate.
What I'm interested in mostly in this case, apart from the human tragedy for all those involved, is how the different parties are reasoning and how that is used in the policy of the Freethinkers to prepare the next step in realising their political agenda in the United States. So bbarr .... I'm watching you .......
The situation of the patient is not c ...[text shortened]... so be described as "not having awareness". Do they have the same "right" to die, bbarr ?
As should be clear from the paragraph above, in circumstances where it is beyond doubt that someone has lost the capacity to be aware I think that the person has, in fact, died. All that is left in such cases is the shell of a person. A person incapable of having mental states is no person at all...
About the political nonsense you insist on mentioning, I refer you back to my disclaimer and to the beginning of Pyrrho's first post.
28 Oct 03
9 edits
"Answering these questions is the first step in determining whether Terri would want her life prolonged." bbarr
There is no written consent from the patient, only her husband and two friends who said that she mentioned something in that direction. I myself once or maybe more times also said to friends that I didn't want to end up like a vegetable ( Whatever that exactly means). Does this mean that I would ask for euthanasia in the case I would end up in a situation like this patient ? I don't think so. You cannot end someones life on the basis of hearsay.
Under what circumstances did she say that ? What were her exact words. Was she aware that this statement of hers could be used in a way it is used now by her husband ? Nobody knows. Not even her husband or her parents can answer these questions. And what's perhaps more important, are they telling the truth ? In any case it is not possible to establish what she wants or would have wanted under these specific medical conditions. That's why it is needless to discuss this matter by constructing all kinds of procedures to try and establish this.
What she wants or would have wanted is only a weapon in the hands of the parties involved to enforce their (!) will in this legal and media battle.
In the case where it can be established that she is braindead, which she is nót according to her husbands lawyer (!?), there is no discussion needed. The treatment can be ended without any problem. The person is dead, therefore we cannot take her life. End of story.That is not Euthanasia. It isn't even passive euthanasia. The husband's lawyer claimed that this case is not a case of euthanasia but "this is a case of nature taking its course". He said so in the Larry King interview.What is happening here is that the definition of "When is somebody dead?" is being stretched.The criteria to establish the fact that somebody is dead are being altered and widened. [ The person is not braindead but the person is not "aware"]
I hope I can see that interview again. Usually CNN broadcasts such important interviews more times than just one.
28 Oct 03
Originally posted by bbarr
Well, he already has received 1 million dollars from a malpractice lawsuit, so maybe it isn't as clear a case of greed as you think. But regardless of whether it is greed that motivates Terri Schiavo's husband, it is still an open question whether allowing her to die by removing her feeding tube would be morally justified. Suppose that, hypthetically, her ...[text shortened]... e artificially. Under these circumstances would allowing her to die be the right thing to do?
Would your answer be yes, bbarr ?
28 Oct 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf she were my wife, and she had told me she neither wanted her life artificially prolonged nor to live in a state of radically diminished capacity, then I would fight to allow her to die. If I didn't know that was what she wanted, then I would try to find out the relevant medical facts to try and determine what she would have thought about her current situation. If I could not justifiably conclude that she would have preferred to die, then I would err on the side of caution and prolong her life. All this is already in my previous posts, Ivanhoe.
Would your answer be yes, bbarr ?
28 Oct 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr... and what would your decision be in the case your wife hadn't told you a anything, but the doctors would advise you to let her die ?
If she were my wife, and she had told me she neither wanted her life artificially prolonged nor to live in a state of radically diminished capacity, then I would fight to allow her to die. If I didn't know that was what she wanted, then I w ...[text shortened]... ng her life. All this is already in my previous posts, Ivanhoe.
28 Oct 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt depends on the reasons the doctors gave. If they based their decision on strong medical evidence that she was incapable of being aware, that she was without mental states, then I would consider her already dead. Can you be more specific in this hypothetical? What are the doctors' reasons for thinking her life ought not be prolonged?
... and what would your decision be in the case your wife hadn't told you a anything, but the doctors would advise you to let her die ?
29 Oct 03
Originally posted by bbarrShe is not braindead. She is just not "aware" ...
It depends on the reasons the doctors gave. If they based their decision on strong medical evidence that she was incapable of being aware, that she was without mental states, then I would consider her already dead. Can you be more specific in this hypothetical? What are the doctors' reasons for thinking her life ought not be prolonged?
29 Oct 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe issue is of who controls someone who cannot control themselves.
You probably heard of the Terri Schiavo case.
A disabled women who's suffering from brain damage has to be fed artificially by means of a tube.
Her husband asked a judge to remove the tube so she would die.
The tube was removed by court order.
On request of her parents and brother(s) and or sister(s) a state law was passed. A law that ga ...[text shortened]... r it is ok to let her die or to let her live ...
What are your thoughts about this case ?
We have now living wills.It is only a start.It is not perfect.Religion is the big hurdle.This is both challanging in both moral and creed.
Lyn
29 Oct 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm sorry, but in this context the term "aware" is vague. It could mean 1) not respondent to any outside stimuli or, 2) not conscious at all. From what I understand, if there is any brain activity then one is not considered brain-dead. But the mere fact that there is brain activity does not distinguish between the two alternatives above. If it is the case the she merely does not respond to outside stimuli, but that there are patterns of brain activity that indicate the presence of some conscious mental states (dreams perhaps), then I would have to try and determine if my wife would want to live in that condition. If it is the case that although there is brain activity there is no consciousness, and there is little chance of consciousness returning (say, because some brain structure necessary for consciousness had been irremediably damaged), then I would consider my wife already dead.
She is not braindead. She is just not "aware" ...
29 Oct 03
3 edits
So I guess one of the fundamental points in the discussion of this Terry Schiavo case is about this: "when can we say: that human being is dead".
What are the criteria to proclaim a human being dead.
It used to be the criterium of "the existance of brain activity".
The absence of brain activity meant that the person could be proclaimed dead, braindead.
Now new criteria are being introduced. We could ask ourselves why?
In any case the criteria are being stretched, widened. Why ?
Is this an argument to accept the Slippery Slope Argument ? My answer would be yes.
I cannot imagine how anyone can state the opposite, but you never know how people can reason in such a case. You can use logic in a lot of ways, even in the wrong way ...
29 Oct 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeOne of primary reasons why we equate brain-death with death simpliciter is that brain-death indicates a complete lack of mentality.
So I guess one of the fundamental points in the discussion of this Terry Schiavo case is about this: "when can we say: that human being is dead".
What are the criteria to proclaim a human being dead.
It used to be the criterium of "the existance of brain activity".
The absence of brain activity meant that the person could be proclaimed dead, brai ...[text shortened]... ple can reason in such a case. You can use logic in a lot of ways, even in the wrong way ...
Where there is no mentality there is no person. In my statement above, I claimed that if the doctors believed that in my wife's case there was no consciousness, i.e., no mentality, then I would consider her already dead. This is quite consistent with the underlying rationale for equating brain-death with death. If we thought, for instance, that consciousness arose and was a function of the activity of the heart, then brain-death would probably not be a sufficient condition for the attribution of death, especially if there was a way to keep the heart beating after the brain had died. So this really isn't a widening of the criteria for claiming that someone is dead, it is merely a consequence of the reasons why we take brain-death to indicate death.
Besides, Slippery Slope arguments are invalid. They can be used to show that no man is bald or that all men are (seriously, look it up). There is no reason to take your Slippery Slope worries seriously, and carping about the Slippery Slope is merely fear-mongering on your part. Unless you can show that my position entails that people will unjustly be put to death, you haven't given a reason to think that my position is in error. All your hand-waving about the Slippery Slope to the contrary notwithstanding.