Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

It isnt cruel because the patients are cared for. They are given what are
called "comfort measures" essentially a euphemism for morphine. But the
point is that they are cared for and kept from suffering.

If you insist on bringing up animals, which is irrelevant. I suspect you
mean taking a normal dog or cat and tying them up and keeping food and water
from them, and letting them suffer. Yes that is cruel. But if a dog was in
a coma, and you didnt give the dog iv fluids, or you didnt intubate the dog,
is that cruel?

It is not a valid comparison.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'jack syme'" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; <rfaussette@aol.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 9:06 PM
Subject: RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

> Besides the fact that it is cruel, there is another issue here. The
> courts have given a husband permission to starve his wife to death.
> That is usually not part of the next of kin business.
>
> Going back to the cruelty issue, if it isn't cruel then why should one
> be charged with doing the same thing to a dog, cat or horse?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jack syme [mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 6:03 PM
>> To: Glenn Morton; rfaussette@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>>
>>
>> It happens every day. It happens all the time.
>>
>> It is not cruelty, it just isnt.
>>
>> Most people that have ever been involved in the experience
>> consider the
>> discontinuation of treatment in such a situation as compassionate.
>>
>> For one thing, patients are made comfortable with medications.
>>
>> For another, the patients that tube feedings are withdrawn from are
>> generally not "sentient" like you and I are. It is the
>> opinion of most
>> medical authorities that patients in these conditions do not suffer.
>>
>> The analogy to cats and dogs is not relevant. We euthenize
>> animals for
>> conditions that in humans are treatable. Do you want us to
>> euthenize humans
>> for having arthritis, or any other of the hundreds of benign
>> conditions that
>> we euthenize dogs for?
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
>> To: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; <rfaussette@aol.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 6:17 PM
>> Subject: RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>>
>>
>> > If you withheld food and water from your cat or dog and let
>> them die
>> > of dehydration, you would be charged with a felony in most
>> states in
>> > the US. Given that humans are animals, it seems to me that removing
>> > the feeding tube, denying her food and water and letting her slowly
>> > dry out over the next 1-3 weeks is a clear case of cruelty to
>> > animals. Such is the compassion of modern society.
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
>> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>> >> On Behalf Of drsyme@cablespeed.com
>> >> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:17 PM
>> >> To: rfaussette@aol.com; drsyme@cablespeed.com; asa@calvin.edu
>> >> Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What justifies a government official intervening over a
>> spouses right
>> >> to make decisions? It is not the spouse's fault that the
>> court cases
>> >> have dragged this on for so long.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:13:59 -0500
>> >> rfaussette@aol.com wrote:
>> >> > The conservative backlash against this, I think, is
>> another example
>> >> >of our society's eroding respect for the institution of marriage.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I could be wrong but I thought her husband already is living with
>> >> >another woman or remarried and insurance monies would be
>> saved for
>> >> >him if Terry died instead of having to pay for her care.
>> Her parents
>> >> >are willing to care for her. If her husband is an adulterer what
>> >> >does this have to do with eroding marriage?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: drsyme@cablespeed.com
>> >> >To: asa@calvin.edu
>> >> >Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:48:00 -0600
>> >> >Subject: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade
>> >> >makes
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >In 1983 at the age of 25, Nancy Cruzan was in a motor vehicle
>> >> >accident from which she suffered severe head injuries. As
>> a result
>> >> >of this she was ultimately diagnosed as being in a persistent
>> >> >vegetative state. Years later, her parents wanted to
>> discontinue her
>> >> >feeding tube, but this was blocked by the State of
>> >> >Missouri. Nancy Cruzan was young and healthy when the
>> >> >accident ocurred, and had not prepared a writted advanced
>> >> >directive of what treatments she may or may not want if
>> >> >she was severely ill. The State of Missouri determined
>> >> >that there needed to be clear and convincing evidence
>> >> >that the patients' wishes would be to withdraw treatment
>> >> >in such a case.
>> >> >
>> >> >This went to the US Supreme Court in 1990 and they upheld
>> the State
>> >> >of Missouri's ruling saying that it was not
>> unconstitutional for a
>> >> >State to require such a standard.
>> >> >
>> >> >As a result of this the lawmakers passed a federal law
>> >> >that requires all hospitals to discuss advanced
>> >> >directives with all patients as they enter the hospital. The
>> >> >prevailing sentiment at the time was that the Missouri
>> decision was
>> >> >essentially a violation of Ms. Cruzan's rights, that her parents
>> >> >should be allowed to make decisions for her, and the thought was
>> >> >that the new law would help to prevent such a situation.
>> >> >
>> >> >But it hasnt helped Terri Schiavo. The cases are very similar. No
>> >> >prior medical history in either case, no advanced
>> directives. Both
>> >> >in a persistent vegetative state. One difference between
>> now and the
>> >> >late 80's early 90's is that most states have legislation in place
>> >> >addressing both advanced directives, and addressing who
>> >> >should make decisions for people without advanced
>> >> >directives.
>> >> >
>> >> >And Florida has a law similar to most states, that give a
>> hierarchy
>> >> >of decision makers when a patient is unable to make decisions on
>> >> >their own, and when there is not an advanced directive. And, in
>> >> >every state that I know of, the spouse has higher priority than
>> >> >parents or children of the patient.
>> >> >But now the political climate is such that not only did a
>> >> >state official intervene to block a procedurally
>> >> >appropriate decision to withdraw treatment in the case of
>> >> >Terri Schiavo, but now there is talk of federal
>> >> >legislation that would either block the removal
>> >> >specifically in this case, or to pass some other
>> >> >legislation that may require stricter evidence of what
>> >> >the patients wishes would be.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think that there is a strong conservative agenda here.
>> But I think
>> >> >that conservative position is making a big error here. My problem
>> >> >with their position is even the conservatives are not accepting
>> >> >marriage as seriously and as absolute as the bible claims that it
>> >> >is. In what I understand as a biblical view of marriage,
>> the spouses
>> >> >are joined as one. Why shouldnt the husband be the one
>> >> >making decisions here? They have gone through the Florida
>> >> >courts three times, both sides presented evidence, and
>> >> >all three times the courts agreed with the husband that
>> >> >the evidence indicates that Terri Schiavo would not have
>> >> >agreed to continue with the feeding tube.
>> >> >The conservative backlash against this, I think, is
>> >> >another example of our society's eroding respect for the
>> >> >institution of marriage.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
Received on Fri Mar 18 21:43:07 2005