Forums | MacLife

If the family is the one paying for it, I don't see a reason she should be let go, if they don't want to.

Basic rules of biomedical ethics:

1.  If possible, the patient should make a decision regarding their own care with adequate information provided by healthcare professionals.  I.e., the principle of informed, competent consent.

2.  If competency is a problem, then actions should be taken based on what the best estimate of what the patient "would want" is.  That best estimate is usually received from living wills or from close blood relatives and/or spouses.

3.  In the event that the recieved best estimate from relatives is obviously spurious (not in the interests of the patient, but in their own or others' interests) it is up to the healtcare professional team to make a decision, often backed by hospital administrators, ethicists and/or the legal system.

4.  No action should be taken on a patient with the intent to harm.  Some actions (lots of morphine, for instance) may harm (kill) the patient, but the intent must be some specific good (pain reduction).

5.  Heroic actions with questionable outcomes in terms of patient welfare must be avoided.

From these basic priciples, which many of you have probably encountered in one form or another in any university ethics course (or in that exact form in a bioethics course), it seems obvious that it is well past time to let the poor lady go.

bratboy wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

If the family is the one paying for it, I don't see a reason she should be let go, if they don't want to.

You really think that...or just in this case?

If she's an adult, it seems like her husband should make that decision, if she cannot....not her parents.

For the family, this IS their daughter/sibling. They will have to let her go eventually (unless they intend to have some experimental surgeries or something) and if it is not a financial burden on tax payers, they should be allowed to come to terms with this on their own, I think. Otherwise, they would be somewhat resentful against the husband forever.

Does the article mention any specific reasons the family wants her alive?

Also, it seems the only thing that says the woman may have wanted to NOT be kept alive is a comment she made when not sick. I don't think this is really valid for her situation now. People all the time say they don't want to be kept alive by machines, until they or someone they know is in that situation. If there is clearly no hope of this woman recovering, then the best thing to do would be to let her die (after 10 years, it seems this would be the case), but this is a hard decision to make.

but...but....but....she can blink!

mo' ron wrote:

If the family is the one paying for it

shades of slavery. 

A spouse's rights are morally stronger than the rights of the parents, imho

Last edited by Tetrachloride (2005-02-22 4:28 pm)

I don't think we, who aren't connected with her in any way, are qualified to judge. This has got to be the most intensely personal decision a family can possibly make.

I'm mighty pissed at the parents for making this a political issue.

bratboy wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

If the family is the one paying for it, I don't see a reason she should be let go, if they don't want to.

You really think that...or just in this case?

If she's an adult, it seems like her husband should make that decision, if she cannot....not her parents.

Is he still her husband? I thought they were estranged. It's a little problematic that the only proof that she "wants" this is because she told her husband so. How convenient. Of course, that barely amounts to hearsay. Further, there is some question that in fact (and I'm not saying that this is true, just that there is a question about it) the husband may in fact have caused the injuries to his wife and thus there is a reason to cover his tracks as it were.

bratboy wrote:

gradient wrote:

Her body seems to be able to survive on its own.

It does?

Well, if it couldn't, then they'd only need to unplug her, not starve her to death.

gradient wrote:

bratboy wrote:

gradient wrote:

Her body seems to be able to survive on its own.

It does?

Well, if it couldn't, then they'd only need to unplug her, not starve her to death.

She needs a feeding tube, if I'm not mistaken.

robco wrote:

The husband does have a new girlfriend and a child.  He would like to get on with his life.  You can't really blame him.

The parents are clinging to a miniscule shred of hope.  She's not coming back, ever.  It's time to let go.

This is why most hospitals now ask about advance directives and living wills when you're admitted.

If he's moved on and started a new life, then isn't it in his interest to say she said she wanted to die to thus allow him to move on with his life without being forced to take care of his wife who he hasn't divorced? THis declaration that this is what she wanted has ZERO basis of evidence to back it up. Where's teh living will and advanced directive. Is third party say so now suddenly good enough?

Now on the other hand, her family HASN"T moved on. Perhaps they should, but perhaps they are holding out hope that may be fruitless. But as there was no declarative proof that in fact she does want to be killed, why on earth doesn't the husband simply move on and let the parents deal with Terri. He's already moved on. They want to assume responsibility. There is no living will. The only expression that she may have wanted to die is hearsay and expressed by someone who wants to get out of his situation, and thus has every reason to say that she wanted to die so that he can get on with his life.

everlong205 wrote:

If he's moved on and started a new life, then isn't it in his interest to say she said she wanted to die to thus allow him to move on with his life without being forced to take care of his wife who he hasn't divorced? THis declaration that this is what she wanted has ZERO basis of evidence to back it up. Where's teh living will and advanced directive. Is third party say so now suddenly good enough?

Now on the other hand, her family HASN"T moved on. Perhaps they should, but perhaps they are holding out hope that may be fruitless. But as there was no declarative proof that in fact she does want to be killed, why on earth doesn't the husband simply move on and let the parents deal with Terri. He's already moved on. They want to assume responsibility. There is no living will. The only expression that she may have wanted to die is hearsay and expressed by someone who wants to get out of his situation, and thus has every reason to say that she wanted to die so that he can get on with his life.

She didn't fill out any living will or advance directives apparently.  It was a sudden illness, she was pretty much hosed when they brought her to the hospital.  She didn't deteriorate over time, she collapsed from heart failure, which cut off oxygen to her brain, causing irreperable brain damage.  That tends not to be the result of foul play, so insinuating that he's trying to cover his tracks from killing her or something equally absurd isn't going to fly.  Unfortunately, most healthy and young people tend not to think ahead regarding these types of situations.

Absent a living will or advance directive, the only other way of determining what she would want would be her surviving relatives.  The question is, who is in the best position to know what she would have wanted, her spouse or her parents?  It's hearsay no matter what, but as she cannot communicate and has no higher brain functions, it's the only other option.  Whether or not her parents are willing to take responsiblity for her is irrelevant, the question is whether or not they are legally able to do so.

She died many years ago, her body just hasn't gotten the message yet.  Can you really blame him for getting on with his life after all that's happened?  Do you really think that if there were a good chance of her recovering that he'd want to pull the tube?  It's not like this happened a month or even a year ago.  She's been in this state, with no improvement, for several years.  It's time to let go.

robco wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

If he's moved on and started a new life, then isn't it in his interest to say she said she wanted to die to thus allow him to move on with his life without being forced to take care of his wife who he hasn't divorced? THis declaration that this is what she wanted has ZERO basis of evidence to back it up. Where's teh living will and advanced directive. Is third party say so now suddenly good enough?

Now on the other hand, her family HASN"T moved on. Perhaps they should, but perhaps they are holding out hope that may be fruitless. But as there was no declarative proof that in fact she does want to be killed, why on earth doesn't the husband simply move on and let the parents deal with Terri. He's already moved on. They want to assume responsibility. There is no living will. The only expression that she may have wanted to die is hearsay and expressed by someone who wants to get out of his situation, and thus has every reason to say that she wanted to die so that he can get on with his life.

She didn't fill out any living will or advance directives apparently.  It was a sudden illness, she was pretty much hosed when they brought her to the hospital.  She didn't deteriorate over time, she collapsed from heart failure, which cut off oxygen to her brain, causing irreperable brain damage.  That tends not to be the result of foul play, so insinuating that he's trying to cover his tracks from killing her or something equally absurd isn't going to fly.  Unfortunately, most healthy and young people tend not to think ahead regarding these types of situations.

Absent a living will or advance directive, the only other way of determining what she would want would be her surviving relatives.  The question is, who is in the best position to know what she would have wanted, her spouse or her parents?  It's hearsay no matter what, but as she cannot communicate and has no higher brain functions, it's the only other option.  Whether or not her parents are willing to take responsiblity for her is irrelevant, the question is whether or not they are legally able to do so.

She died many years ago, her body just hasn't gotten the message yet.  Can you really blame him for getting on with his life after all that's happened?  Do you really think that if there were a good chance of her recovering that he'd want to pull the tube?  It's not like this happened a month or even a year ago.  She's been in this state, with no improvement, for several years.  It's time to let go.

No I don't blame him for wantnig to move on. But he can move on and let the parents assume responsibility for Terri. The fact is though that there is no proof that we in fact have Terri's actual wishes, merely a statement that she supposedly made to a person who has every reason to want to get on with his life. If thre were a living will I could certainly see his point, but there isn't. As such, why can't he simply move on with his life and his new gf and let those who haven't given up on her and still want to take care of her do that?