Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

There are a lot of issues that could be discussed. Is withdrawing a feeding
tube ever appropriate? Is PVS a severe enough condition to justify
withdrawing any life sustaining treatment? But no one has yet to bring
these topics up.

PVS is a well defined entity. I dont know what the discrepancy is in this
case, but as far as I know, the 3 physicians that decided in the husbands
favor, (remember one was court appointed), are better qualified to make that
decision than the other two, in my opinion. If I recall correctly, the two
physicians that the family appointed were not neurologists, if that means
any thing to you.

The question of who is to decide could be debated. But, the procedures for
who should decide are well established in Florida, and most other states.
And the husband is the one to make these decisions, in this case. If
someone thinks that he is not acting appropriately, for whatever reason,
there is recourse. The recourse is to go to court. This was done, and the
court sided with him on each occasion. These facts of the case are
indisputable.

Our society, collectively, whether you agree with it or not, has come to the
conclusion that feeding tubes are artificial, and are medical treatments
that can be refused like any other medical treatments. This was part of the
US Supreme Court decision in the Cruzan case. You may not agree with that
decision, but, since that is the judicial view, you have no right to deny
someone that refusal just because you disagree with it.

No one is saying that you have to agree to having a feeding tube removed
from you if you were in that condition. That is altogether another issue.
There are many other issues frankly. If you would want to continue with a
feeding tube in a PVS, then that is what you would get. That doesnt mean
that you can impose your value on someone else.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; "Bill Dozier" <wddozier@mac.com>
Cc: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> To: "Bill Dozier" <wddozier@mac.com>
> Cc: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 5:27 AM
> Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>
>
>> Once again you need to get your facts straight.
>
> .........................................
> It seems to me that a couple of different issues are being conflated in a
> lot of the discussion here. 1st there is the question of whether
> withholding of nutrition &/or hydration for a person in a PVS is ever
> appropriate. (With, of course, the subsidiary issue of defining PVS
> clearly.)
> 2d is the question of who is qualified to make the decision that a person
> is in that state. 3d is the question of who should have the authority to
> withold nutrition &
> hydration for a given person determined to be in that state - if, indeed,
> it's been determined that such withholding is ever OK (#1).
>
> Some would answer #1 that it's never appropriate. In that case the
> details of the Schiavo case are irrelevant. That is a consistent position
> to take but those who do so should say that clearly & not confuse the
> issue by debating the husband's motives, &c.
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Mar 19 10:16:22 2005