Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

For the record I dont want her to die.

I am not supporting her husbands decision. However, I am going by the
assumption, from my extensive experience in this area, that a decision to
withdraw a feeding tube from a person that is in a PVS for this long is not
unreasonable, and is not cruel, and is not unusual.

What I am defending is the process. Not the legal system as much as the
whole process of surrogate decision making. The process is far from
perfect. But what process do you see as being better? Certainly not
federal intervention I would hope. If the feds get their foot in the door,
wow, talk about a conflict of interest, they pay the bills! Maybe they
would decide to withdraw treatment from anyone over 80! Of course I am
exaggerating, but cant you see how bad this would be?

As far as liberals arguing for the death of other people, I am not sure who
exactly you are referring to, the judge maybe? The state lawmakers? I am
not liberal, and am not arguing for her death, I am arguing that to the best
of our knowledge her wishes would be upheld by removing the tube.

But there is an underlying bias here. Maybe that is what you are referring
too, I will try to spell that out some.

This is for George too, it is a theoretical thing. ;)

The underlying bias here is holding autonomy over beneficence. One of the
classic medical ethics textbooks, is Beauchamp and Childress

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Bioe/BioeToml.htm

This book is a discussion of various "principles" that are sometimes in
conflict in medical decision making. The major principles are Respect for
Autonomy, Beneficence, non-Maleficence, and Justice. At its most simplistic
the Schiavo case is a conflict between beneficence and autonomy. That is,
the feeding tube is benefiting her, it is keeping her alive. But, the best
evidence that we have, (that you and others question, but cannot provide any
better evidence to the contrary) is that she would refuse this treatment.
So those providing medical care for her are conflicted. Most medical
ethicists, including Beauchamp and Childress make the assertion that respect
for autonomy is generally to be upheld, unless there is compelling reasons
to override a patients wishes. So this case comes down to either overriding
her wishes to provide a benefit, or to respect her autonomy and stop
treatment.

I am sure you would argue that we dont really know what she would want. And
each state has different levels of evidence required to allow a withdrawal
of treatment in such a case. But the other assumption, is that since
withdrawing treatment in this instance is reasonable, and not cruel or
unusual, then the level of evidence is probably less than would be required
if the condition were such that the withdrawal would be considered
unreasonable. Nevertheless patients are allowed to refuse any treatment,
even if they would die without it, and be completely normal with it, that is
their right to self determination. The fact that someone is not able to
clearly make their wishes known makes it more difficult to do what they
want, but, it is not an absolute barrier to respecting their autonomy.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'jack syme'" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 12:26 PM
Subject: RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jack syme [mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 9:16 AM
>> To: Glenn Morton; 'ASA'
>> Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>>
>>
>> The judge's decision was supportive of the husband. That is
>> the bottom
>> line.
>
> As I said the other day, political liberals always seem to argue for
> death of other people. They want out of wedlock babies, like my
> Daugher-in-Law to be aborted and killed, even if it takes a partial
> birth abortion. They want people like Schiavo to die. They supported
> Kervorkian. They always seem to want people to die.
>
>
> This will be my last word here. You have been arguing strenuously for
> this course of action. Even others who might agree with you don't argue
> for death quite as vociferously as you are. I am curious as to why her
> death is so important to you? Why do you argue the position so strongly
> to take the life of an individual? Why do you want her to die? (Don't
> disclaim the idea and say that you don't want her to die because you
> have argued for her death throughout this debate).
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 19 13:14:19 2005