Beyond legalities, what does Terri face?
“A conscious [cognitively disabled] person would feel it just as you or I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucus membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water!
Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death.
“After seven to nine days [from commencing dehydration] they begin to lose all fluids in the body, a lot of fluids in the body. And their blood pressure starts to go down. When their blood pressure goes down, their heart rate goes up. . . . Their respiration may increase and then . . . the blood is shunted to the central part of the body from the periphery of the body. So, that usually two to three days prior to death, sometimes four days, the hands and the feet become extremely cold. They become mottled. That is you look at the hands and they have a bluish appearance. And the mouth dries a great deal, and the eyes dry a great deal and other parts of the body become mottled. And that is because the blood is now so low in the system it’s shunted to the heart and other visceral organs and away from the periphery of the body . .”
Other sources have told me that after a few days without water, the eyeballs and all the organs collapse and blood flows from every orifice, while the person is still alive and feeling it.
Following is testimony from a woman who suffered an incapacitating stroke and was diagnosed as being in a “vegetative” state. Rather than being unconscious with no chance of recovery as her doctors believed, she was actually awake and aware but unable to move any part of her body voluntarily—what is known as a “locked-in” state. Because she developed a bowel obstruction, doctors disconnected her food supply for 8 days but kept her on an IV saline solution. Even this put her in agony, in addition to the doctors’ operating on her with inadequate anesthesia because, of course, they thought she couldn’t feel anything.
In an interview, she described the experience as “sheer torture.” But she lived to tell this story:
“When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I thought I was going insane. I was screaming out in my mind, ‘Don’t you know I need to eat?’ And even up until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going through the feeding tube. At that point, it sounded pretty good. I just wanted something. The fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode every thought I had.
“The agony of going without food was a constant pain that lasted not several hours like my operation did, but several days. You have to endure the physical pain and on top of that you have to endure the emotional pain. Your whole body cries out, ‘Feed me. I am alive and a person, don’t let me die, for God’s Sake! Somebody feed me.’ I craved anything to drink. Anything. I obsessively visualized drinking from a huge bottle of orange Gatorade. And I hate orange Gatorade. I did receive lemon flavored mouth swabs to alleviate dryness but they did nothing to slack my desperate thirst.”
“The time has come to face the gut wrenching possibility that conscious cognitively disabled people whose feeding tubes are removed–as opposed to patients who are actively dying and choose to stop eating–may die agonizing deaths. This, of course, has tremendous relevance in the Terri Schiavo case and many others like it.
Indeed, the last thing anyone wants is for people to die slowly and agonizingly of thirst, desperately craving a refreshing drink of orange Gatorade they know will never come.”
Portions of the above are from “A Painless Death?” in “The Daily Standard,” 11/12/03, written by Wesely J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.
Some will read the post above and then say, “The Courts have decided. The Law has spoken. Terry Schiavo shall be starved and dehydrated to death.” And they will go on with their day, thinking how intellectually superior they are to us ignorant religious folks who “just don’t get it.”
And then these same folks will tell us that hunting and fishing must be outlawed, that raising veal is evil, and that chicken dinner you’re eating is a “holocaust on your plate.”
Someone want to tell me that this isn’t a fallen world where truly evil spirits run wild?
Daniel writes: “Some will read the post above and then say, ‘The Courts have decided. The Law has spoken. Terry Schiavo shall be starved and dehydrated to death.’
The problem with the above is that it uses the experience of a person who is fully conscious but unresponsive to infer the experience of someone who is not conscious. It uses the experience of someone with an intact brain to infer the experience of someone most of whose cerebral cortex is gone and replaced by fluid.
Daniel: “And they will go on with their day, thinking how intellectually superior they are to us ignorant religious folks who ‘just don’t get it.'”
If someone can’t understand the difference and implications of having a cerebral cortex or not having one then that person indeed just doesn’t get it. This is a distinction that does not take very much intellectual superiority to achieve.
Jim, just tell me this: Where does it stop? Today is it Terri Schiavo. Tomorrow who?
And who decides? The Supreme Court? A panel of doctors? You and your ilk have written faithful Christians (people you consider ignorant) out of the equation. And immediate family who want their children to live have no say.
So tell me: Where does it stop?
Note 2. The problem with the Schiavo case is that we don’t know the full extent of her debilitation. From Killing Terri Schiavo:
Jim Holman, you have a talent for intellectual distinctions, and I’ve seen you break down other issues in informative ways. But I believe that in this case, you are missing the forest for the trees. The trees here are “facts” and “seeing both sides” and so forth. But sometimes, all you need to see is the forest. Can’t you see that if there’s cause for thinking that Terri Schiavo is conscious and recognizes her family, that we should err on the side of caution? Ultimately, in this case, what do your distinctions matter? This issue is a moral matter, and I believe your approach misses that point entirely.
I know this will fall on Jim’s deaf ears and blind eyes, but for the rest of you:
From Touchstone’s great blog Mere Comments:
Schiavo agonistes
“This past Christmas Eve day, I went to visit Terri Schiavo with her parents. … I had no idea what to expect. … The media and Mr. Schiavo clearly give the impression that Terri is in a coma or comatose state and engages only in non-purposeful and reflexive movements and responses. …
“Instead, I saw a very pretty woman with a peaches and cream complexion and a lovely smile, which she even politely extended to me as I introduced myself to her. … When her mother was close to her, Terri’s whole face lit up. She smiled. She looked directly at her mother and she made all sorts of happy sounds. When her mother talked to her, Terri was quiet and obviously listening. When she stopped, Terri started vocalizing. …
“When we were preparing to leave, … Terri was visibly upset [her family members] were leaving. She almost appeared to be trying to cling to them. … She was definitely not in a coma, not even close. This visit certainly shed more light for me on why the Schindlers are fighting so hard to protect her; to get her medical care and rehabilitative assistance, and to spend all they have to protect her life.”
?Barbara Weller, writing on “A Visit With Terri Schiavo,” in the Winter 2005 issue of Lifeline
My grandfather was a simple man, but he taught me a good rule when dealing with animals. Also kill quick, if kill you must. Grandpa was a farmer his whole life, and a hunter, and would never have abused any animal. Terri Schiavo deserves at least the same consideration. I am NOT in favor of ending her life, but those advocating that she should die should at least give her the same consideration as would be given a cow. If you are going to pull for euthanasia then at least have the courage to call for it to be done humanely. Starving a person to death is not just murder, it is cruelty of a monumental sort.
Call for her to die if you must, but at least have the decency to decry this monstrous method.
Glen, I agree with you and your grandfather entirely when it comes to animals. But I don’t think your analogy can hold. Terri and others like her are human beings, and the rules change entirely because of that reason. Even with animals, one does not kill unnecessarily. With helpless human beings, the rule is clear: deliberate killing is murder.
Of course it is. I would NEVER advocate killing an innocent human. My point was only that those who want Terri to die should at a bare minimum have the common decency to advocate a quick death. This whole idea of starving a person to death is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard of. Killing innocent people is bad enough, but to starve them to death in a horrific manner and somehow pretend that they are dying on their own is simply unbelievable. If you withhold food and water, you are guilty of murder. I can’t believe that some people think that starvation is a ‘natural’ death and is somehow different than just injecting a person with poison.
Trust me, Bill, I’m on your side with this. This is murder, plain and simple.
Bill writes: “Can’t you see that if there’s cause for thinking that Terri Schiavo is conscious and recognizes her family, that we should err on the side of caution? Ultimately, in this case, what do your distinctions matter? This issue is a moral matter, and I believe your approach misses that point entirely.”
I would like to respond by answering the following questions:
1) Is Terri Schiavo aware (to some extent)?
2) If not, could she be rehabilitated?
3) If she is aware to some extent, does that matter?
First question — is she aware? I’m not a neurologist, so I have to rely on the opinions of the physicians who have examined her, and on the hard science behind their determinations. What we know from the hard science — the CAT scans — is that most of her brain is gone. The cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that makes possible all the higher functions, was destroyed and has deteriorated and been replaced by fluid. There is no doubt about this. (And this is why we can’t compare her to, say, someone with an intact brain who recovered from a coma.) What we don’t know is whether some small amount of cortical tissue remains or whether it’s all gone.
Concerning her awareness, the behaviors and vocalizations that she exhibits are all consistent with a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. The diagnosis of PVS is also supported by the condition of the brain. Part of the tragedy of PVS is that the person can appear to have actual responses and interactions when in fact there is no consciousness or awareness. Were she a few months into this condition there might be some doubt as to whether she is in a PVS. But fourteen years down the line there is no serious doubt about her condition. Do we know with absolute certainty that there is no awareness? No. But in many cases in medicine we don’t know things with absolute certainty. I mean, there have been cases in which people with no detectable pulse or respiration have been revived in the morgue. But these are very rare cases, and we don’t go around assuming that all the bodies in the morgue may be alive. I would say that in Terri Schiavo’s case, we know with certainty that she is in a PVS, inasmuch as we know anything with certainty in medicine.
If she is not currently aware, could she be made aware? Again, not being a neurologist I have to rely on the opinions of the professionals. A variety of physicians have extensively examined Terri Schiavo and presented their findings before the court. The physicians selected by the family believed that there was a chance to rehabilitate her using various therapies that they believed could be effective. When Judge Greer examined the statements of the physicians and their recommended therapies, he found no reason to believe that those therapies would be effective. This is discussed at length in one of the court documents, which I urge you to review:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt
But what if she actually does have some measure of awareness, even a small measure? Is that relevant? I believe it is not, unless the awareness rose to the point at which she could communicate her wishes, in which case we would not have to rely on others to communicate them for her. In the U.S. patients have the right to accept or refuse any and all medical treatment or advice. For example, a cancer patient could refuse chemotherapy even if that therapy would probably save his life and that he would certainly die without it. A diabetic can refuse to control his blood sugar. The patient is in complete control of what treatments and interventions can be administered.
If the patient is not able to communicate his wishes, then we have to rely on an advanced directive. Of course, many patients do not have advanced directives, so the physicians have to look to the family for help in determining what the patient would have wanted.
Terri Schiavo’s closest family member is her husband. That in itself does not mean that he alone can determine what happens to his wife. The point is to determine what SHE would have wanted. Mr. Schiavo states that his wife had indicated to him that she would not have wanted to be maintained in the condition she is in.
One of the things that the court had to decide was what Terri Schiavo would have wanted. The court listened to Mr. Schivo, and his brother and sister-in-law. The court also listened to the Schindler family and their witnesses. Upon considering ALL the evidence and testimony — not just Michael Schiavo — the court held that Terri Schiavo’s wish would not to be maintained in her current condition. The determination of Terri Schiavo’s wishes occupies a number of pages in the following court document:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
The key here is what the PATIENT would have wanted. Whether or not we or anyone else would agree with that desire is irrelevant. The patient at all times has the right to refuse any life-saving or life-extending care.
In response to your question ‘why can’t we err on the side of caution?’ The answer is that such a decision is not consistent with Terri Schiavo’s wishes as determined by a court of law, upon consideration of all relevant evidence and testimony.
I understand your concern for Terri Schiavo, and that the determinination of her wishes by the court is probably not a choice that you would make for yourself. Nonetheless, the court is obligated to determine what Terri Schiavo would have wanted, not what her husband would have wanted, not what her parents would have wanted, not what the Catholic Church would have wanted.
What disturbs me about much of what I have read about this case on the internet, is that many people seem to treat the legal processes and findings as this trivial little side show that has no relevance to the issue at hand. (Bill, just to be clear I’m not referring to you here, but to a lot of other stuff that I’ve read.) In a case involving a dispute over the determination of a patient’s wishes, the court is the venue in which such a dispute is resolved. The court hears all testimony from all sides and makes a determination. I think it’s a terrible precedent for a legislative body to inject itself into the situation with a “Terri’s Law” or some other ill-conceived intervention. It is a gross violation of the concept of patient autonomy, which is the foundation of modern medical ethics.
Dear Sirs..
I think this is the most horrible thing that a country like ours can allow.
This is a human being with body an flesh,This is one of gods own.
There is not a reason at all to allow this to happen.
I allso think that the huspand is hiding something that he wants her to die so bad.
He has a common law wife an two kids.So why is he still doing this.
Let her parents take her home an take care of her till she dies naturally.
How a Judge can turn this down is behond words.
If you did that to a dog in the street they would lock you up for cruelty to an animal.What about Terry,She is a human being.I am disabled myself from a bad accident ..There has to be something to let this lady resume her feeding tube.
Maybe by gods strength he will see there is something done so this poor disabled woman does not die like an animal.
Please give terry her feeding tube back……sincerly. Dominick Patterson