 |
| |
|
The_Rebel
In the Now Guru
offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 05:44 AM
Location: Earth
Posts: 1237
|
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #93 :
Doc, I don’t see any difference whatsoever, unless you’re stating that because the Pope is older, he shouldn’t be afforded the same medical treatment as Terri Schiavo? That’s just the way it sounds, sorry if I’m misrepresenting. |
I'm afraid you are misrepresenting. The law makes a clear distinction between 'basic care' and 'extra-ordinary therapeutic measures'. The same distinction also applies ethically and morally. I have covered this under my previous postings but I'll mention it again for clarity. Basic care would encompass provision of care which falls under the 'duty of care' of any medical practitioner, and this includes pain relief, fluids, nutrition, oxygen, antibiotics, diuretics etc. etc. Extra-ordinary therapy is self-explanatory - treatments such as cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, artificial ventilation, dialysis, or any other invasive forms of therapy would be classified under this category. From a purely medical perspective, the provision of basic care is essential - it's the absolute minimum that one can expect from doctors, and needless to say, the consequences of with-holding such treatment and conversely providing it, are indisputable. On the contrary, the benefits of extra-ordinary measures are never clearcut, because the advantages of therapy may not necessarily outweigh the disadvantages, and the benefits are not indisputable. Take for instance CPR. If a sick person is so unwell to an extent that he develops a cardiac arrest, then performing CPR may sometimes be fruitless (and this may be obvious from the outset). Even if the attempt was successful, then the patient is very likely to sustain another arrest.
In any case, I think you are ignoring something of cardinal importance in making your above statement. Like I've said numerous times previously, Terri wasn't suffering from a terminal condition, nor was her demise imminent (until basic care was with-held). If you are unable to accept this distinction (which obviously is your prerogative), then that will explain our fundamental differences of opinions.
The_Rebel
|
"The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant" - Plato |
|
04-02-2005 08:45 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
mystic
Evil Queen
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 11:44 PM
Location: In my castle
Posts: 13357
|
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #92 :
Anyone reading the title to this article does not have to be clairvoyant to know what will succeed it.
Clearly it’s meant to make a point, onesided might I add, than to present an unbiased viewpoint. I for one would never post reference from an artile entitled “The Radical Right Trounces On the Rights Of Terri Schiavo” simply because the article would be absent of any balance.
Just a suggestion. Anyone who’s on the other side of this debate will probably turn closed minded to it based on the title alone. |
I know Ive stressed this over and over again on this entire forum...but Im gonna do it again....
If one wants to know the truth, they are gonna have to dig much further than this: "Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder."
The things we all know about the media...why cant people see that some writers or media outlets (depending on their political views) only print according to their own bias.
The fact that people are naive enough to read only a few stories that acclimate to their views and buy those without question...well, it amazes me.
I can see why people get caught up in that though. Just google a few things on this subject, and all you get are the things that talk about her murder, and her husband as a murderer.
I had to go through many things in order to find anything that wasn't attached to some religious organization or some right to life organization.
If one is willing to google, they should at least dig for some unbiased stories as well....but for those that dont want to do that..then they obviously dont want to be informed...well, informed of anything else but their view.
The majority of the time when I read stuff from articles such as these....they dont even comment on any of the court documents...they only list things from doctors that never even examined her or the doctors on the side of the Schindlers. They rarley mention the court doctors, the most unbiased ones of all...the ones that have no axe to grind.
Its so sad when someone allows a one sided article to help them think. 
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
He who angers you conquers you!! (A. Einstein) |
|
04-02-2005 08:52 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
mystic
Evil Queen
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 11:44 PM
Location: In my castle
Posts: 13357
|
| quote: |
The_Rebel said this in post #85 :
Thanks Mystic for your reply. One of Peace if I can address your questions a little later as I'm pressed for time.
Yes, even Ive heard of Dr. Cranford. Hes quite well-known among the medical ethics community, and some have affectionately nicknamed him Dr. Death. He is a vocal supporter of euthanasia and belongs to a cultish fraternity called the Hemlock Society which is quite a powerful group in terms of its influence on the judiciary in many US states. Dr. Cranford employs the same tactics time and again he advocates the notion that when the brain is damaged, the disabled person is already dead, and that a CT scan alone can prove that the cortex of the brain has liquified. He is a doctor on a mission to oversee the deaths of the brain injured by convincing the family members that there is no hope for the person. But enough about this man. Since his article was brought up, lets discuss its merits and relevance to Terris case.
|
| quote: |
Dr. Ronald Cranford, a Minnesota neurologist who examined her in 2002 as part of a previous court case, said a CT scan of her brain showed very little but scar tissue and spinal fluid. An electroencephalogram measuring electrical activity in the thinking parts of her brain showed no evidence of continued function, he said.
On blogs and talk shows in recent days, Dr. Cranford has been widely attacked as heartless and extreme, and commentators have noted that he recommended that life support be removed from some patients with severe brain damage.
But neurologists and ethics experts interviewed yesterday said Dr. Cranford's views did not affect the accuracy of his diagnosis.
"It is crucial in this case to make a distinction between the recommendations Dr. Cranford makes - which people may or may not agree with - and his role in the examination," said Dr. Michael A. Williams, a neurologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chairman of the ethics committee of the American Academy of Neurology.
Dr. Williams said that he did not always agree with Dr. Cranford's recommendations and that he himself had a patient who has been in a vegetative state for five years, looked after by family members. "But Dr. Cranford is a highly respected neurologist and has to be as objective as possible in making a diagnosis because it is scrutinized by other doctors," Dr. Williams said.
At least six neurologists have examined Ms. Schiavo, and in affidavits or testimony four of them agreed that she was in a persistent vegetative state and highly unlikely to recover. The court has rejected the diagnosis of the dissenters; in 2002, the judge called one of them a "self-promoter" who "offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results" to support a claim that he could cure serious brain damage.
Yet another doctor, Dr. William Cheshire, cited by Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida this week in his decision to intervene in the Schiavo case, also questioned the diagnosis after visiting the patient and reviewing records and videotape, according to an affidavit he filed with the court. But Dr. Cheshire did not conduct an examination, according to his employer, the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. He declined a request for an interview.
Neurologists, ethicists and doctors who specialize in rehabilitating people with brain injuries said it was highly unusual to make a diagnosis without a complete neurological exam. This includes a careful observation to see whether the person can track objects with her eyes; whether she pulls away from a pinch; whether the nerve reflexes in her feet, eyes and elsewhere reflect some conscious control. Doctors may also use brain imaging technology to measure changes in structure or activity. |
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
He who angers you conquers you!! (A. Einstein) |
|
04-02-2005 11:25 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
The_Rebel
In the Now Guru
offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 05:44 AM
Location: Earth
Posts: 1237
|
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #96 :
I understand what you are saying here, however Reb my point is this. This wasn’t just a case about withholding “basic care”, this was about honoring the wishes of the intended. |
I’m not going to argue the point about those ‘wishes’ anymore, if you don’t mind.
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #96 :
So my question to you then is this. If someone has a Living Will stating that they do not want to live in PVS (and since the lower brains is responsible for basic life organ function) then by your explanation, they shouldn’t be allowed to have their wishes honored? |
You know my position on PVS, so I’m not going to keep on repeating myself over and over again. Suffice to say, it is poorly understood, it is often misdiagnosed, a large percentage of patients MAY show improvement or recovery, it is not a terminal condition, and the question of dying as a natural consequence of the disorder is not an issue. Hence, I do not agree with Living Wills in relation to PVS, or any non-terminal or non-life threatening condition for that matter. To do so is tantamount to making life or death judgements based on quality of life, and I do not believe that is right. Honouring such wills is akin to assisting a person commit suicide, and that goes against every ethical, moral, religious and medical tenet that I uphold. If anyone, doctor or otherwise, is found to have assisted a person commit suicide, then that person is legally culpable and will be prosecuted as such. People have been incarcerated for doing just that, in spite of claims of ‘mercy killing’. To assist a PVS patient commit suicide is synonymous with helping someone who doesn’t want to live because of social, financial or whatever reasons commit suicide. If a doctor honoured the wishes of PVS patients in dying, would such a doctor turn away a penniless person with a wretched existence who wants to die in the same way?
All doctors swear an oath prior to accepting their vocation : A doctor should never deliberately kill a patient by commission or omission. This particularly rings true for patients who are in no immediate threat of dying. This ethic has been accepted for 2,400 years and has proved to be the foundation for western medicine; that loopholes exist in the form of advanced directives for the conditions referred to above are a travesty to such traditions. Medicine serves and preserves life – to do otherwise destroys the soul and conscience of the profession.
I am not alone in feeling this way. The British Medical Association, the guardians of the medical profession in the United Kingdom, gave this statement in response to the consultation paper on Advanced Directives in lieu of PVS patients in 1988 : “ . . the deliberate taking of a human life should remain a crime . . . this rejection of a change in the law is not just a subordination of individual well-being to social policy. It is, instead, an affirmation of the supreme value of the individual, no matter how worthless and hopeless that individual may feel.'
The World Medical Association also echoes the same sentiments : `The Hippocratic tradition was reformulated in the Declaration of Geneva 1948'. This declaration states: `I will have the utmost respect for human life . . . The health of my patient will be my first consideration.' Note that the word ‘health’ has been emphasised. Nowhere does it state ‘the quality of life of my patient will be my first consideration’. The eminent Jewish bioethicist Dr. Fred Rosner stated that “….every human being is morally expected to help another human in distress . . . Fluids and nutrition are part and parcel of supportive care. Food and fluids given to a handicapped person or dying patient does not become medical therapy because another person is needed to provide it. There is no time when general supportive measures can be abandoned, thereby hastening the patient's demise.' Other noted ethicists such as Dr. Mark Siegler and Dr. A. J. Weisbard argue that continuing care (i.e. by not withdrawing fluids and nutrition) ensures that patients will be protected against diagnostic error, inadequate treatment and unscrupulous care for financial and other reasons; physicians will not be forced to make ad hoc value-laden quality of life decisions; and the professions will benefit by avoiding any appearance that they are balancing quality of life or cost consciousness against compassionate standards of medical care.
It is very easy for non-medical individuals to criticize and pontificate the rights and wrongs of the issue, when it clearly should be left to doctors to exercise their right for self-determination. That includes lawmakers and politicians who have taken such decisions directly out of the hands of doctors. In the final analysis, doctors are the ones who will have to live with their conscience, if they are forced or coerced into betraying the principles and traditions that they hold so dearly. So please, the next time you feel the urge to criticise or make biased judgements against doctors for upholding such principles, take a moment and remember what has been said here.
The_Rebel
|
"The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant" - Plato |
|
04-03-2005 01:42 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
oneofpeace
INReview Maven
offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 12:44 AM
Location: United States
Posts: 3964
|
I understand the moral convictions of one such as a doctor. I also understand that doctors do have the power (within limits) to heal and make well. I am not here to argue your convictions, only what I believe is at issue here. However, since you’ve brought it up, I feel I am forced to make a few points on your responses.
| quote: |
it is poorly understood, it is often misdiagnosed, a large percentage of patients MAY show improvement or recovery, it is not a terminal condition, and the question of dying as a natural consequence of the disorder is not an issue.
|
Poorly understood is something not just attributed to PVS however I must ask you. How many people you know that has been diagnosed with PVS, remained in this condition for 15yrs then suddenly showed improvement or recovery?
| quote: |
To do so is tantamount to making life or death judgements based on quality of life, and I do not believe that is right.
|
These are personal convictions. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise, just trying to get you to understand that everyone doesn’t feel this way, I for one. I believe if a person suggests that they do not want to live as a vegetable, it is their life and their right to do so.
| quote: |
If a doctor honoured the wishes of PVS patients in dying, would such a doctor turn away a penniless person with a wretched existence who wants to die in the same way?
|
“In my opinion”, this is just a plain ridiculous comparison and the two are as far apart as the earth is from the sun.
| quote: |
All doctors swear an oath prior to accepting their vocation : A doctor should never deliberately kill a patient by commission or omission. This particularly rings true for patients who are in no immediate threat of dying. This ethic has been accepted for 2,400 years and has proved to be the foundation for western medicine;
|
I assume you are speaking of the “Hippocratic Oath”? This is another forum or thread in itself. This oath has been revised so many times I cannot count. The original oath begins like this.
“I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses,”
This has been changed during the Middle Ages to reflect Christian values, not that I disagree with it. It also states originally that it will not seek to take life nor give a drug to end it. It also states that a doctor will not get involved sexually with their patients. Of course the new version has removed both of these statements.
My point is this. The oath was written many years ago and reflected the society and limits of physician understanding. This is precisely why it’s changed over the years numerous times. Surely since then no one is swearing to a herd of Greek Mythological Gods either.
| quote: |
loopholes exist in the form of advanced directives for the conditions referred to above are a travesty to such traditions. Medicine serves and preserves life – to do otherwise destroys the soul and conscience of the profession.
|
And who gets to decide these loophole? Surely if there are loopholes then there must be some exceptions to the rule. I believe I stated earlier that there’s an exception to every rule.
I agree however that medicine is here to preserve life and that is it’s chief purpose.
| quote: |
The British Medical Association, the guardians of the medical profession in the United Kingdom, gave this statement in response to the consultation paper on Advanced Directives in lieu of PVS patients in 1988 : “ . . the deliberate taking of a human life should remain a crime
|
The British Medical Association also in June of 1999 issued guidelines that permitted the refusal of food and water to patients. This is a quote from The Times in the UK.
| quote: |
Article Excerpts
“The guidelines which have allowed the withdrawal of medical treatments when doctors deem treatment futile have now included nutrition and hydration as treatments subject to withdrawal. According to The Times the new guidelines "effectively dispense with the need forcourt orders before nutrition and hydration by tube are withdrawn from patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS)." That power would be allowed in "cases involving stroke victims and the confused elderly, even when the patient is not terminally ill.
Where relatives object to the removal of nutrition or hydration a court would decide on the proposed euthanasia.”
|
As for Dr. Fred Rosner, I must admit, I never heard of him but in doing a little research I’ve learned that he also believed in genetic manipulation if a child genes can be manipulated for them to be born without defects.
As for bioethicists, their opinions widely vary about this subject as well as others, however that’s a point you’ve made supporting diagnosis of PVS by doctors. However, in light of 15yrs passing, I am incline to agree with those doctors whom examined Terri and concluded she was in PVS.
| quote: |
It is very easy for non-medical individuals to criticize and pontificate the rights and wrongs of the issue, when it clearly should be left to doctors to exercise their right for self-determination…..
….So please, the next time you feel the urge to criticise or make biased judgements against doctors for upholding such principles, take a moment and remember what has been said here.
|
Wow I didn’t see this coming to tell you the truth. However, I’m not criticizing doctors for upholding their principles, just those condemning others for holding up theirs. Some feel it is within their obligation to end the suffering of those in need of it. While I don’t condemn you for your beliefs, I believe this to be right.
I had an aunt that suffered from cancer and in her last days in the hospital she was praying to God to simply take her life instead of her suffering every day. Well God delayed his calling of her home for a few days and I must tell you, it was disheartening to watch her suffer. And though I do not blame God, I believed at that moment that if a doctor ended her suffering that day, she would have been eternally grateful.
So you see doc, you’re not the only one with convictions here. It’s just a different point of view. Death is a part of life. Unless we can accept that, countless others will needlessly suffer because we believe it’s God’s will to sustain life beyond the burdens of its limit.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99
” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008.
“ “ |
|
04-03-2005 04:39 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
The_Rebel
In the Now Guru
offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 05:44 AM
Location: Earth
Posts: 1237
|
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #99 :
I am not here to argue your convictions, only what I believe is at issue here. |
Pardon me, that’s exactly what you’re doing – questioning my convictions.
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #99 :
Poorly understood is something not just attributed to PVS however I must ask you. How many people you know that has been diagnosed with PVS, remained in this condition for 15yrs then suddenly showed improvement or recovery? |
PVS is quite a rare disorder. However, questioning whether or not I’ve come across such patients is irrelevant. Are you implying that doctors who have never come across PVS should not have an opinion on it, nor on what to do if he should ever come across it? Doctors have a right to make an informed judgement on such instances, based on ALL available information, research and facts. Once again, you are disregarding what I wrote in previous posts, because if you did you would never have asked the above question. If you are sincerely honest in wanting to understand my views on PVS, please re-read through my earlier posts, for I do not wish to rehash previous arguments repeatedly. It seems to me that you are blindly ignoring my arguments – repeatedly.
Even IF I had come across a few of such patients, are you saying that I would in a better position to make life or death judgements regarding this condition? If I had 2 young patients brought in under my care from a road traffic accident who then sustained a cardiac arrest and then died, should I withhold any further CPR attempts for such patients in the future? Pardon me for saying this, but your statements above are extremely ignorant and ludicrous from a medical point of view that I now understand the futility of my attempts in clarifying my position on this. Perhaps one needs an MD in order to understand the implications of this discussion.
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #99 :
These are personal convictions. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise, just trying to get you to understand that everyone doesn’t feel this way, I for one. I believe if a person suggests that they do not want to live as a vegetable, it is their life and their right to do so. “In my opinion”, this is just a plain ridiculous comparison and the two are as far apart as the earth is from the sun. |
I know that everyone doesn’t feel the same way that I do. However, unless such person is a doctor who may have to deal with such issues at some stage in their career, then perhaps such opinions do not carry as much weight as those who are directly involved – doctors. In regard to a person not wanting to live as a vegetable, I agree it’s their prerogative, just as it is the prerogative of a person who wants to commit suicide because of non-medical issues (non-medical in a sense that their life is not in threat). If they want to commit suicide, then that’s fine by me, because it’s their right to decide for themselves, but don’t exploit doctors by forcing them to participate in their decision. If it is illegal for relatives, lawyers, the police and whomever else to assist directly in such acts of suicide, then why does it make it legally, morally and ethically right for doctors to do likewise? Is it because they have ‘no hope of recovery’ (which in itself is subjective – refer to my previous posts about research which has been conducted), or is it because they should be considered ‘vegetables’? The word “vegetative” itself is a misnomer. It implies a lack of respect for human life and humanity. Someone with PVS is still a person, with the living body of a human being. Such terms invariably have quality of life and social connotations, and like I’ve said repeatedly, such issues should not be the basis of life or death judgements. To do so would set a tragic precedent (as has been done) which opens up a can of worms that can only result in the decay and betrayal of medical principles.
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #99 :
I assume you are speaking of the “Hippocratic Oath”? This is another forum or thread in itself. This oath has been revised so many times I cannot count. The original oath begins like this. “I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses,” This has been changed during the Middle Ages to reflect Christian values, not that I disagree with it. It also states originally that it will not seek to take life nor give a drug to end it. It also states that a doctor will not get involved sexually with their patients. Of course the new version has removed both of these statements. My point is this. The oath was written many years ago and reflected the society and limits of physician understanding. This is precisely why it’s changed over the years numerous times. Surely since then no one is swearing to a herd of Greek Mythological Gods either. |
The examples you’ve given are inconsequential, in medical terms. However, the over-riding principles of respect for human life and its preservation has remained unchanged, until recently with the intervention of the state. In any case, I beg you to treat such oaths with respect and not trivialize them. Perhaps those who do not have any direct dealings with such matters will never be in a position to truly understand the sanctity of such oaths.
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #99 :
The British Medical Association also in June of 1999 issued guidelines that permitted the refusal of food and water to patients. This is a quote from The Times in the UK. |
Note that the BMA’s position changed from prior to the introduction of such law (i.e. when such law was at a consultation stage) to after its inception. Do you know why? If you were a medical practitioner you wouldn’t have asked this question. Like I said, the BMA is the guardians of the medical profession, and seeks to represent the interests of all practising doctors in the UK. Since the law was passed, such decisions were taken out of the hands of doctors, and by law we would have to abide. The BMA obviously had to issue guidelines on the above, to inform doctors of the legal implications and of procedural matters relating to the law. This does not detract from its original stance on the issue.
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #99 :
Wow I didn’t see this coming to tell you the truth. However, I’m not criticizing doctors for upholding their principles, just those condemning others for holding up theirs. Some feel it is within their obligation to end the suffering of those in need of it. While I don’t condemn you for your beliefs, I believe this to be right. |
At what stage did I condemn others for their beliefs? I stated my position and opinions on this issue as it related to me, because such legal rulings do impact on me directly as a medical practitioner. As a consequence of such rulings, I believe I have been forced to betray my convictions and professional oaths that I had sworn. So who’s imposing their beliefs on others now?
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #99 :
I had an aunt that suffered from cancer and in her last days in the hospital she was praying to God to simply take her life instead of her suffering every day. Well God delayed his calling of her home for a few days and I must tell you, it was disheartening to watch her suffer. And though I do not blame God, I believed at that moment that if a doctor ended her suffering that day, she would have been eternally grateful. |
I am sorry you and your aunt had to go through what you went through. But you are confusing the issue again. Withdrawing fluids and food is patently different from with-holding pain relief. Fluids and nutrition are NOT regarded as medical therapy, but the provision of analgesia is. If any patient is in pain or in distress, then unless the doctor provides analgesia to relief such pain, then he would be betraying his own principles of duty of care, not to mention his conscience and ethical, moral and legal responsibilities. Even if such analgesia can end life prematurely (for example, morphine), I believe the doctor should provide such analgesia. This is termed ‘double effect’, and I have no hesitation in accepting this doctrine. In other words, if in the course of relieving suffering from physical pain, the patient dies as a result, then that is acceptable – because the motive in this instance is not to kill, but to relieve pain. However, in the absence of pain or distress, to kill a patient merely for no reason other than ‘to liberate him from his poor quality of life’ (which includes being a ‘vegetable’ , is wrong.
| quote: |
| oneofpeace said this in post #99 :So you see doc, you’re not the only one with convictions here. It’s just a different point of view. Death is a part of life. Unless we can accept that, countless others will needlessly suffer because we believe it’s God’s will to sustain life beyond the burdens of its limit. |
If you felt compelled to write the above sentence, then I believe you are missing the point and have not understood my position at all. If you want to take the moral high ground on suffering, what about the millions around the world who are suffering from famine, disease, war or catastrophes because of wilful neglect or exploitation by the west?
Like I said in the other related thread on this case, I think it is time we put this discussion to rest, or at least I am prepared to do so, for reasons that I have outlined in that thread. If others want to continue to discuss the issue, I would urge them to do so but I think I have said what needs to be said and I have heard the other side of the argument.
I wish you well and be at peace.
The_Rebel
|
"The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant" - Plato |
|
04-03-2005 11:44 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
oneofpeace
INReview Maven
offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 12:44 AM
Location: United States
Posts: 3964
|
| quote: |
Reb wrote
questioning whether or not I’ve come across such patients is irrelevant. Are you implying that doctors who have never come across PVS should not have an opinion on it, nor on what to do if he should ever come across it?
|
You are increasingly becoming belligerent. If it’s because as you say that you are repeating yourself, I find myself doing the same. Certainly you aren’t the only one enduring such.
Secondly, I never made the assertion that a doctor couldn’t give their medical opinions based on his/her expertise. I just simply stated that doctors who have examined Terri Schiavo, not just her husbands doctors but the Schindlers as well as the court appointee, are in a better position to diagnose her condition.
I am not here to argue what defines PVS in the human brain that is not my area of expertise. I simply stated that the courts heard the doctors who examined Terri and rendered their decisions. Given the fact that she’s never recovered in 15yrs, I “myself” would lend more weight to the diagnosis of PVS.
If you are offended by this, then I’m sorry you are, however I never questioned whether or not you should give your opinions. I just don’t agree with your blanketed statement in which is obviously rooted in your beliefs never to end life under any circumstance but the “loopholes” you’ve mentioned earlier.
| quote: |
Even IF I had come across a few of such patients, are you saying that I would in a better position to make life or death judgements regarding this condition? If I had 2 young patients brought in under my care from a road traffic accident who then sustained a cardiac arrest and then died, should I withhold any further CPR attempts for such patients in the future? Pardon me for saying this, but your statements above are extremely ignorant and ludicrous from a medical point of view..
|
Again that’s your opinion doc. However, I would venture to say that any court in your country or mine would give better weight to a doctor who’s examined the patient than one who hasn’t but gives his diagnosis based on his personal convictions.
If that is ignorance and ludicrous, then I’m probably lost to the definition of the words. However again I believe you’re generalizing the situation ridiculously so in comparing it to two accident victims in ER. The parameters are completely different on their own merits.
| quote: |
it’s their prerogative, just as it is the prerogative of a person who wants to commit suicide because of non-medical issues (non-medical in a sense that their life is not in threat). If they want to commit suicide, then that’s fine by me, because it’s their right to decide for themselves, but don’t exploit doctors by forcing them to participate in their decision.
|
Comparing PVS to a person disgruntled about their life is ridiculous It’s like comparing someone who’s murdered a person to someone who’s shoplifted at the local supermarket.
Also, it’s not about assisting everyone who wants to end their life. It’s about making a qualified medical diagnosis and prognosis of the patient’s condition and ability to recover to any reasonable degree, one being that of PVS.
Lastly, if a doctor’s personal convictions don’t allow him to do so, find don’t do it. I don’t recall me demanding that a doctor be forced to do something he deems unethical or against his convictions.
| quote: |
Someone with PVS is still a person, with the living body of a human being….
…To do so would set a tragic precedent (as has been done) which opens up a can of worms that can only result in the decay and betrayal of medical principles.
|
This is one of the times in which I will find myself repeating, something that you’re slamming me for. So what gives any doctor any right to withhold treatment from any “human being” regardless of basic or extended care? What is it that makes a person less human than the other simply because they need a ventilator and the other only need a feeding tube?
Also, the Terri Schiavo situation doesn’t set any precedent as this situation is decided by family members by the thousands each year here in the states without the hoopla. The only thing that set a precedent here was the amount of litigation and Congress’s intervention.
| quote: |
In any case, I beg you to treat such oaths with respect and not trivialize them. Perhaps those who do not have any direct dealings with such matters will never be in a position to truly understand the sanctity of such oaths.
|
I merely pointed to the many different versions and modifications of that oath. In what way did I trivialize any of them? What I stated is truth, there are different version of that oath modified throughout the ages. Don’t blame me for trivializing them. I never modified any of them.
| quote: |
Is it because they have ‘no hope of recovery’ (which in itself is subjective – refer to my previous posts about research which has been conducted), or is it because they should be considered ‘vegetables’? The word “vegetative” itself is a misnomer. It implies a lack of respect for human life and humanity.
|
Whatever the misnomer, Terri understood it just as it is and stated her wishes not only to her husband but obviously to several others as well. Lack of respect for human life or not, she made the call, not her husband.
| quote: |
Like I said, the BMA is the guardians of the medical profession, and seeks to represent the interests of all practising doctors in the UK. Since the law was passed, such decisions were taken out of the hands of doctors, and by law we would have to abide.
|
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that the original decree of any law, oath, or pledge cannot be modified throughout history based on the further knowledge?
I’m sure the oath that you’ve taken was probably modified several times itself to reflect the relevance of its time. Your arguing that the core of the oath remains the same isn’t the point, it’s been modified and pointing out as much doesn’t disrespect it nor trivialize it. It just points out the truth.
I’ve addressed enough so I’m through with it. However, I still believe a patient has the right not to live in PVS and if a doctor has a problem accommodating, simply don’t. However, I’m sure there are other doctors who would have no problem doing so.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99
” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008.
“ “ |
|
04-03-2005 08:32 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
The_Rebel
In the Now Guru
offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 05:44 AM
Location: Earth
Posts: 1237
|
| quote: |
fuscia said this in post #103 :
Rebel, do your religious beliefs factor into your view on the Schiavo situation? If so, then no one can really give you a hard time for that. We all have different beliefs that direct what we would or would not do.  People may disagree, but I think we all should hold tight to our morals.
|
Well Sherry, although I'm a Catholic, I'm also a medical practitioner, which means I do my best to try to reconcile the two as far as possible, but it's not always easy nor possible in every scenario. I guess I'm a doctor first, and a Catholic second. But most of the time there aren't any conflicts of interest between the two spheres. In regard to the Schiavo case, it just so happens that the two share the same conclusions.
And I agree with you that we should uphold our deeply-held principles and convictions in making decisions. Although I believe that we share different views on the Schiavo case, what you've said in regard to the above has touched me deeply, and I respect and admire you for that.
I hope you'll pardon me for not addressing the last part of your post, as I think I've contributed enough to this discussion and I think it's time to let others have their say.
The_Rebel
|
"The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant" - Plato |
|
04-04-2005 12:12 AM
|
| |
|
|
it's getting heated in here 