The Terri Schiavo Case

[Gregory Matthews]

Just to give a little more insight into the issues that ethics committees face, and this one did NOT happen at the hopital where I now work:

Joe Jones comes into our intensive care unit in a coma, after drinking a quantity of anti-freeze. In addition to his coma, he is in kidney failure, on a respiratator, and on dialysis.

Four sons and daughters, and their husbands and wives see him on such mechanical support, and demand that it be stopped. The ethics committee meets with them. All 8 family members are united in telling us that the pt. would not want to be on such mechanical support, and if we refuse to remove it they will file a lawsuit.

Our decision is that we will continue artificial respiration, and dialysis, as well as all other required intervention for a period of time. Our reasons: a) We have no personal knowledge of the patient, and his wishes. We do not know the circumstances under which he drank the anti-freeze--mental illness, depression, desire to die, or what. c) We are not convinced that he can not be restored to a fully functional life.

The interventions, and aggressive medical care continues.

At a later period of time, the patient walks out of our hospital, fully functional both physically and mentally. He had been fully restored to a fully functional life.

The family returns to the hospital to thank us for refusing to follow their demands.

[bevin]

As EMT's we are trained to

"show me the legally valid document"

otherwise we will treat. Opinions, even of immediate family members, must not stop us from assuming the patient wants to be treated.

There is a large difference between being in a coma and being in an untreatable coma. We don't have the time, tools, or training to make this determination on scene - we just pass our problems on to you - both patient and family...

/Bevin

[Gregory Matthews]

Bevin, I understand.

Your point as to a legally valid document is an important one. In the state where I live, under the State law, there if only one legally valid document. Nothing else is valid. Therefore, EMTs shown a document other than the legally valid one have to treat as if none existed. As my hospital is a Federal one, the State law does not apply to us. We make our own decisions. But, if a patient takes one of our documents off of our property, and if it is not the valid one, EMT, and other, locals will not recognize it.

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Not one of us knows the truth in this case. Only God. He alone knows of Terri's feelings and thoughts.

We should leave this decision up to God.

---

[:"blue"]How do we do that, Christine? If you put a tube in, it seems to me you are meddling with that decision. If we truly want God to make the decision, then we should let nature take its course. [/]

Gerry

[Gerr]

Thus far the financial angle enters little or none into the decision-making processess, but there is no question in my mind that if resources became scarce, the financial issue will rise to or near the top.

Gerry

[bevin]

Quote:

---

If we truly want God to make the decision, then we should let nature take its course.

---

My father cardiac-arrested. God put me "on scene" - I happened to be in their home on vacation in NZ.

I did natural things - dialed 911 and started CPR. The EMT's who came did natural things - pushed drugs, defib'ed. The doctors and nurses did natural things - pushed more drugs and fluids and foods.

Ten years later my father is still alive, relatively healthy, and has had a really enjoyable retirement.

Medicine is no less natural than growing vegetables, boiling, and eating them. God wants us to eat. He also apparently wants us to make sensibility decisions with all the resources he has given us.

/Bevin

ps: This incident - from before I did my EMT training but after doing CPR and First Aid training as a teenager - puts me in a very small group. People who have successfully saved a life with CPR. As my father's doctor told him - "You are very lucky. People who die at home usually don't survive the experience".

[_david]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

[:"blue"]How do we do that, Christine? If you put a tube in, it seems to me you are meddling with that decision. If we truly want God to make the decision, then we should let nature take its course. [/]

Gerry

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Would you then say when your have a cold you should not use any medicine. If you child has heart problems and needs surgery, will you say no because it requires IVs blood transfusion and other drugs.

That type of thinking is completly illogical.

God has called us to act in helping others. He uses humans to "meddle" in many times.

The nature course that is for here is only to dye of starvation. how can you let that. she is nto on articial breather or such, She needs food. Especially when she was anorexic, will you allow someone not to eat if you saw them like that. the matter of the fact is that we do not know if she wants to die.

And in my view as Christians we should never come to the point where we say if i was in such a condition i want someone to take me off whatever. I understand the feeling wise you might want to die. But it is not our option to do that, other than that it is wanting suicide.

[Planey]

Quote:

---

And in my view as Christians we should never come to the point where we say if i was in such a condition i want someone to take me off whatever. I understand the feeling wise you might want to die. But it is not our option to do that, other than that it is wanting suicide.

---

It is very easy to say this, but you cannot truly know what you would want until you are placed in such a situation. This applies whether it is you, yourself, who is in the dire situation or if it is a dearly loved person who you are watching suffer.

Such idealistic pontifications bear little relevance to real life situations IMHO.

Graeme

[Bravus]

This is why I introduced the idea of 'getting better'. Bevin's Dad recovered. Terri is not going to recover. That's what makes the difference.

[cricket]

To give Terri food is to love her.

To give Terri food without prayerful consideration is to love her not.

To withhold Terri's food is to love her.

To withhold Terri's food without prayerful consideration is to love her not.

God wants us to love her. He says that we are to love our neighbor as we do ourselves.

To me, it is a logical choice to maintain her regular feeding (the act of which one can "undo") until it becomes unquestionably clear that her feeding should be stopped.

The unquestionable answer can only come to one who is diligently seeking an answer from the Lord.

That's not me. I don't think that's anyone here.

This issue is not for me to decide.

Heavenly Father,

You alone know the will You have in store for Terri and her family. You alone know what is best for Terri; You alone know what is best for her parents and her husband. Father, I trust that You will guide this family in their decision. Please, hear this plea. Let Your will be done!

Amen

[_david]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

It is very easy to say this, but you cannot truly know what you would want until you are placed in such a situation. This applies whether it is you, yourself, who is in the dire situation or if it is a dearly loved person who you are watching suffer.

Such idealistic pontifications bear little relevance to real life situations IMHO.

Graeme

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

i agree that it is easier said that done. but that does not change the reality. Tell that to the myrtars that had to die. You think they wanted to die, be burned and other forms of torture? But because of thier faith they went through it, knowing that the present sufferings are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us.

Again i agree that they are idealistic what i have said. But Reality never changes what is right and what is wrong, no matter what the emotions are.

I never knew we humans were given the right to decide another person's life (in terms of death) or our own. God's given us free choice, just that does not mean that any choice we make is the right one.

[Neil D]

Christine, I love your prayer...

My concern, from observing all the posts here, is a natural aversion to trusting the people we place in positions of trust, ie the court.

Did you know in this case, that the appellate court records that courts are to err on the side of life, if there is reasonable doubt or uncertainty? In reviewing the case, [and not just one time, but several] none of the courts found evidence of a wrong proceedure, a question unasked, testimony unspoken...If there were, they would have declared a mistrial and started over again. Those people of trust do not take these questions litely....they weight them carefully and record what they have done.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

I know that this is an emotional issue, but it seems to me that we are allowing others to manipulate our emotions and we are following our emotions to make laws...This is illogical nor is it right to do....

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: " . . .the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures."

The trial court considered evidence independent of Terri's husband. That is to say that people other than her husband testified as to her wishes.