Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:21:46 -0500 "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
writes:
> Withdrawing her feeding tube, in accordance with her wishes and
> making her
> comfortable, IS caring for her.
>
I've been reading the posts and the claims of cruelty and murder vs
courts and wishes, plus the variations. I think I have some understanding
of the situation because, to a lesser degree, I've been there. My Dad
died of Parkinsonism. The last weeks he was totally unresponsive except
that, when a small amount of liquid was placed in his mouth, he
swallowed. Fortunately, he never aspirated any of the liquid. Had he, I
don't know what Mom would have done. She continued to give him liquids
for she could not bear to think of him thirsty, though there was no
indication that he was aware of anything, external or internal. His
doctor, a most caring person, determined that he was aware of nothing and
so should be allowed to go. But he lingered for a couple weeks because
Mom gave him liquids.

From a theological viewpoint, if I agreed with Nancey Murphy, Dad's soul
during the last weeks and Terri's for I don't know how long, have been
nonexistent or totally nonfunctional. This means that there is no reason
to continue food and drink. If, on the other hand, a soul exists beyond
the function of brain, I see two possibilities. First, the soul may have
already departed, in which case there is no reason to keep the body
nourished. Second, the soul may have to remain with or near the body so
long as it breathes. In this case, the body should be allowed to expire
so that the soul can go to a more suitable place or state. Specifically
in this last case, it is not compassionate to prolong coma/vegetative
state.

Finally, on to the ridiculous. If a bunch of us grabbed Glenn, tied him
to a gurney and then sat around until he succumbed to thirst, that would
be cruel. He would be aware of thirst and hunger until coma finally set
in. We would be more compassionate if we kept him anesthetized until he
died. However, since Glenn is a functional human being, procuring his
death is murder. This does not apply to those in a terminal
coma/vegetative state and no longer able to function as human beings.
Since they feel nothing, it cannot be cruel. Refusing medication, food or
drink has been declared morally acceptable. Withholding, given conditions
like Dad and Terri, seems reasonably similar.

Sorry, Glenn, but I had to pick on somebody to make my point.
Dave
Received on Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:38:41 -0700