Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Right to Die (PP2)
Please read the case of an Italian woman who has spent 17 years in a vegetative state. As you read and respond to the case, please consider the following: Did the Italian courts make the right decision in ordering the feeding tube removed? Who should be able to make such life and death decisions? Are advance directives ethical and appropriate? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
The Italian courts made the right decisions in ordering the feeding tubes be removed from the patient. The decision should have been made 17 years ago when it was said that the patient was in a vegetative state. If there’s no life functioning going on, why should a person be kept alive by machines. I think, in this case, religious beliefs was taken more into consideration than that of the father’s wishes. The courts should have taken her father wishes, as well as her wishes (according to dad), to let her die. Parent’s or a spouse if married, should be able to make such decisions when no advanced directives are set aside. After all, they should know that person best. Individuals should have advanced directives in writing. That way if a situation, such as this one happens, there will be no arguments or court rulings that would have a say otherwise in the persons wishes.
Suffering doesn’t seem to be the reason.
Fathers wish for his daughters suffering to end, seems to be the inevitable way of thinking on the side of those caring parents or friends. In fact, if for example a cure for somebody’s disease is predicted to take a while (years), then the so called caring person, depending on the burden, financial issue and emotion would decide or at least think of death as a solution or make a patient feel like a burden to them and eradicate their decision. Of course this doesn’t include every situation but come on who doesn‘t think of a benefit in the choices they make. On the other hand stating that the patient in one point in their life had suggested that he/she would prefer to be killed (this seems the only word that describes the situation) is usually brought up to include the patient in their decision. And most of us at some point might have stated and chose death than suffering but might think otherwise when faced with the inevitable death. Think of this, when faced with death, whether its going to take a while or could be done quick by courts decision, what is the first thing that comes to a person lying on the bed? Life after death and God. I am certainly sure, unless they are in a coma, if anything like that comes across them, they wouldn’t neglect God’s word about suicide. That’s probably why many who won the right to kill themselves after a long kill me! Kill me! Kill me! Situation, bounce back and all of a sudden decides to live with that same suffering. So if your support of the right to kill is based on suffering, why would people chose to live with these suffering?. My point is there is a chance that a person might decides otherwise on how he or she wants to end his or her life. Can we make that decision for them because their incapable of speaking or they are in coma, I don’t think so. To strengthen my point, I want to mention how the decision of a court for extreme situation like this has nothing to do with suffering. So lets think of a scenario where a person might have a chance to recover but its medically suggested that it might take years and the parents decide that they don’t want to see their daughter suffer like that. I don’t know but for some reason we seem to think that suffering when death is inevitable and suffering even with slight chance of recovery is different. With this perception of ours, a judge is most probably going to rule against her parents because it seems we are trying to kill somebody who has a chance of survival. So the court is not basing its decision on a persons suffering, they are just keeping the public out of their back. So lets take into the account, the concern of the parents about their suffering daughter and give them the court approval too. Seems to me that our society will be shocked at this but since we are already approving death by courts decision, why not make it official. And lets not forget how the moderately sick and the depressed can also choose to die while they could recover. I am thinking in a long run and about society in general but that always makes me inconsiderate.
In this case I have to disagree with the courts decisions to block the family’s wishes to let her go. She is physically dead and has been for years. I just do not understand what the point of keeping her alive is. She clearly expressed her wishes to her family. I don’t believe they would push so hard to allow the disconnection of her feeding tubes if they didn’t believe it was truly what she wanted. Understandably, there are laws in every country but are they always right? The Catholic Church has a very strong presence in this case but they are not considering the quality of her life. My feelings are the family and the individual should be able to make decisions to keep someone alive or not; if they are in this type of situation. It is clear that no matter what this woman wanted her wishes would not be granted in this country. However, this is so very wrong on so many levels. Advanced directives are very appropriate and should be considered when an individual is in this state. I, for one, would never want to be kept alive this long if this happened to me. Seriously, what is the point? All one would be doing is putting stress and anguish on their friends and loved ones day after day. I would be so angry if my wishes were not honored which is why advanced directives are very appropriate and should be communicated to as many people as necessary to be follow through with. Honestly, if we asked the people in the courts and in the Catholic Church what they wanted if they were in this situation how many would say yes? Not very many I would assume. Seeing what this poor woman is going through along with her family suffering everyday because she can’t be let go is terrible. I hope that the country and the church open their eyes and respect this woman’s wishes and let her be. I can only imagine that now her life will be prolonged for many more years causing more pain and grief to her family since they overturned the decision to disconnect her feeding tubes. This is just so awful to hear about and think about. I hope the family gets the help they need to fight this ruling and let their daughter be at peace.
I think the Italian courts made the right decision to have the feeding tube removed. For 17 years this family hasn’t been able to have closure and heal because people don’t think its right to let this poor girl die. It’s horrible to say but she isn’t coming back from this. According to her father it was her wishes to die if something like this ever happened to her. I think her wishes should be carried out. This poor family has had to deal with courts and the Catholic Church has become involved, because they don’t feel its right. But it’s not happening to them, this family should have the right to choose what happens to a member of their family. And why should this family have to continue to suffer? I think it’s terrible what these people have to go through, and then on top of it to be harassed by people that couldn’t possibly begin to understand what they are going through. I think advanced directives are a great idea. But since this girl didn’t have one, the family should have the right to choose, in this case, the parents. It’s been almost 20 years, the chances are very slim that this girl is going to come back and regain a normal life. The reality of the situation is this girl has been dead for years, and this family has not been able to have closure. They need it. This is just so awful to even think about. I hope the family gets the right to let their daughter rest in peace.
I think that the court was right to order that the feeding tubes be removed. In my opinion the people that should have the right to decide whether someone lives or not when the patient is in a coma is the family of the patient. Since the father wants her daughter to stop suffering and stated that his daughter’s wishes would had been to be taken off artificial life support than that’s why the court was right to order the tubes to be removed. Not only does it cost a lot of money to keep someone on artificial life support but it also affects the family members because they have that hope for something that might never be. In this young lady’s case the chances of her recovering after 17 years are very slim and maybe even impossible. In this case it’s safe to say that only a miracle would be able to safe her. I think that if someone is in a coma they should be kept on life support for a certain amount of time depending on what the doctors say on the brain activity. If someone is brain dead then there is no reason to keep someone alive. Advanced directives are appropriate because they help the family decide on what should be done. Also they would be very helpful in a legal dispute such as this case. It's already bad as it is to have the family suffering because they have lost their loved one and on top of that to see this person laying on a bed for years without seeing any improvement.
I think the Italian courts made the right decision because it was something they do not normally allow. She was in a vegetative state for 17 years and was in an eversible coma it was hurtful for her parents to keep her alive when they knew she would never wake up. Since the Italian government did not allow advance directives I think they are making this harder for people who could someday end up like this and do not want to live like this. It may not make sense to anti-euthanasia people but it makes sense to the parents and the parents have the right to let her die. I think they have the right to make that decision for their daughter. They did say that she did not want to live like that in the first place so why not let them make those decisions. I think that advance directive are ethical and should be made, because someday some thing similar could happen and if you do not wan to live in a vegetative state an advance directive should be made. Its like setting up a health insurance type of thing just incase situations. So i think that the Italian courts did the right thing and advance directives should be made as an Insurance measure. And if one is not made the parents or partner should be allowed to make that decisions.
I think the Italian court made the right decision in this case.They should remove the feeding tube long time ago because this woman had been suffering a lot for 17 years.To me, removing the feeding tube is nothing wrong.It is simply allowing nature to take its course.Family wishes should take in to consideration. They were willing to let her go in peace and diginity.If her body was not able to sustain by it self, what was the meaning to keep her alive artificially?It was just suffering and pain to her and family members.If modern medicine involved and did every thing to bring her back to a state of where she could sustain her self and she never breath by herself and eat for her self, what was the meaning to keep her by artificial means?The court should order to disconnect the feeding tube when they were aware of her brain's unability to send all the signals to keep her body system functioning.In this case advance directive was the best way to avoid this kind of situation.I strongly support advance directive because it it is ethical and appropriate in case of catastrophic accidents and medical events.Having advance directive provides every one of us some assurances about our personal wishes concerning medical conditions.It is a good idea to at a time when we are not able to express ourselves.It also prevents the need for a guardian ship imposd thruogh court and to avoid court battle.
I most definatley think the italian courts made the right decision.The feeding tube should have been removed as soon as the doctors realized there was no chance for recovery , witch in this case thet were aware soon after .A perfect example of the importance of an advace directive.With medicine being as advanced as it is, by rights we could sustain vitals as long as someone is willing to pay for it. But to be forced into having to watch your own flesh and blood literaly dicinagrate in front of your eyes ,to me would be a death sentance .It makes you wonder how many other cases there are that we don't here about hidden away just existing at everybodys expence.It was incredably brave of this womans father to stand by and fight for his daughters rights.If a person is responsible to take the burden and very unconfortab,painfull but nessacary stand when they are cohearant and able .I don't think it is a matter of ethics.It is our right to make decisions as long as our decisions are in agreeance with whom we are making responsible to take action when we are no longer able to ourselves.Besides issues like this would no longer be issues.
I think that the Italian courts made the right decision in ordering the feeding tube be removed. I agree with this because Eluana has been in a vegetative state for 17 years. Though I do not agree with the fact of negligence and letting someone die, the fact is that Eluana was already dead. Being in a vegetative state is that there is no brain activity in which the patient is unconscious and unaware of their surroundings. My beliefs are that God is the only person who can give and take away one’s life, so if after the feeding tubes are removed she dies, then it was her time to go. If the question is who should be able to make such a life and death decision between the courts, Vatican ministry, and the family, then I believe the family is the one that should be left up to decide. Though having a religious background, I do not think a church should decide because what if someone is an atheist or of a different religious background. Then that wouldn’t be right that because they live within a country like Italy, where the churches beliefs play a big role in the people’s daily life, they have to abide by something they do not agree. I think the court should only play a role in situations like this only if the family felt there was a malpractice. I do think advance directives are ethical and appropriate because it respects the patient’s wishes.
In the case of Eluana Englaro, the Italian high court’s decision to support her parent’s wishes to remove her feeding tube was correct. Eluana was only twenty years old when her accident occurred. Being that young, chances are good that she was still either living at home, or hadn’t been on her own for very long; therefore, at this point in her life, her parents were the people who knew her best. They would know what she would want.
Watching the news and seeing what is going on in the world triggers conversations about what an individual would want or not want in a given situation. When the Terri Schivo case was in the news my family had several conversations about how we wouldn’t want to live in a vegetative state like Ms Shivo was in. If Ms Englaro’s parents knew that she wouldn’t want to live like a vegetable, she had expressed her sentiments about a similar situation at some point.
This brings me to the question about who should make life or death decisions in situations like this. When a person is not married, I believe the parents would be the best person to make these decisions. In situations where a person is estranged from their family, it would be a tough call to say who would be the best person to make those decisions. If a person is married, however, I believe the spouse would be the best person to make those decisions. They are the person who is the closest, and at that point, would know the person the best.
Advanced medical directives are the best way to know what a person would or wouldn’t want to happen to them if they were incapacitated. It would solve any disputes between spouses and parents of the person involved, or if an incapacitated person was estranged from their family. Advanced medical directives let everyone know exactly what the person would want, since they wouldn’t be able to speak for themselves. Especially if there are treatments that a patient wouldn’t want to be performed on them, but a spouse or parent would have no problem with. It seems ironic that Italy will allow a person to refuse medical treatment, but they won’t allow their citizens to make decisions about refusing treatment ahead of time, if something horrible happens. A person gets to have a voice with an advanced directive, and they get to control their destiny. There is no question about what a person would want in a situation like what Ms Englaro is in. Advanced directives take away the guesswork.
Our text book brought out on pages 39-41 that there have been studies done on those in PVS. It is very rare, seven out of 434 adults in one case, to come out of a persistent vegetative state. In a recent study done with 19 patients in comas due to severe head injury, the majority of those who recovered (11 patients), did so within the first year. After that, a person’s recovery decreased significantly. Instances of those coming out of a coma after an extended period of time are extremely rare. The odds of Ms Englaro recovering from her coma are against her. I haven’t talked to anyone who would want to be alive, yet not be able to live.
I feel in this case the courts made the right descion to let her die. She has expressed a wish to die if ever put into that postion and the doctors did say it was none recoverable so this the removal of the feeding tube was the right choice. As for who should make the choice I feel family such as husbands fathers and the like they are the ones most effected by these choices are this the most proper defualt choice. Advance directive is a sound ethical choice. It doesn't just cover comas but other like choices such as revival and treatments. How far and how deep it goes in its self an indivdual choice and this a personal descion. Ultimely its the patient who makes out how far they are willingly to go and where they draw the line morally. So I say let you make the choice but the consequences of those choices are on your head.
The Italian courts did not make the right decision by giving an exception to the anti-euthanasia law they have always stood firm on. This would set a very dangerous and controversial precedent in which it would imply the idea that the government can intervene to make life and death situations. I think advanced directives are helpful only if the person has it with him or her. We need a new comprehensive reform of how advance directives should be handled and interpreted. This calls for a secure online government site where the public can register and fill out an online advanced directive. This way, the advanced directive can be access worldwide in case the patient is incapable of making such decisions. As for someone who does not have an advanced directive or doesn’t have it with them, I think the parents should be given that power to make the life and death situations.
The main philosophies about comas and forgoing or withdrawing care, are free will (one’s own personal decision) vs. God’s will, for and against respectively. The other philosophies about suicide and euthanasia are Kant and Mills. Kant’s philosophy is that one has the obligation to continue living in order to fulfill our duties and we have no right to abandon or negate our duties earlier. If this is applied to people who are in comas, especially those in PVS, the patients are already unable to fulfill their duties, have very little possibilities to recover to fulfill those duties, and have become a burden to their next of kin, which might hinder them from fulfilling their own duties in society. And doesn’t one have the duty to ensure that their family member’s wishes are followed, i.e. removing or forgoing treatment? Mill’s philosophy for suicide and euthanasia is that one can do whatever one wants provided it doesn’t hurt anyone else. For the patient in a coma, they themselves are not able to make decisions but if they have an advanced directive then their wishes must be followed. The patient’s then death might hurt next of kin emotionally but since coma patients especially in PVS have no ability to fulfill their obligations i.e. sole provider of family, and so little chance of recovery, it might hurt the family more to keep the patient alive artificially. Removing or forgoing treatment gives them the opportunity to grieve, move on, honor the wishes of their family member and save time and money (either their own or the taxpayer’s).
As for God’s will, again, this is not a sufficient argument for me to accept in order to be against the removal or forgoing of treatment. Even if it is proven that the removal and forgoing of treatment is against God’s will, we have no right to force other’s to follow our religious beliefs. We have accepted that people have freedom of religion and free will. We cannot breach those values we hold so dear and have guaranteed each of our citizens. We do preserve the value of life but the quality of life and how one lives and dies is of their own accord. Of course physicians can refuse to follow the patient’s wishes if it goes against their own ethics and morals. However, that simply means that another doctor is located to ensure the patient is being treated as they wish. It is the patient’s life and death; they are responsible for making the decision’s pertaining to it. That is why I do believe that advance directives are ethical and appropriate. The patient’s in question know best what they prefer to do and this document assures that their wishes are carried out. Of course people are not static, but dynamic so decisions such as these do change, especially when faced with the actual dilemma. However, it is our duty to follow what they would have wanted since they do have free will. There is no possible way to know what a person who is in a coma currently wants, we can only know how they lived their life up to that point and what they believed. They are some people that stick to their decisions, so even if faced with this dilemma they would still want to forgo or remove care. Therefore, we must follow what the patient stated in their advanced directive and what their wishes were. Others have no right to force their beliefs and opinions upon someone else in regards to their life and death. Since it is the patient’s wishes, they do have the right to refuse treatment and it shouldn’t be illegal for the removal or forgoing care for coma patients, especially those like the case of Eluana.
Now, if the patient doesn’t have an advance directive, the decision then rests upon the next of kin to make the decision that is in the best interest of the patient and what the patient would have wanted. Since the patient’s themselves have the free will and the right but currently no ability to use it, then the decision and right to forgo or remove treatment falls to the next of kin. They receive that right because they know the patient the best, therefore having the best ability to determine what the patient would have wanted and the patient also becomes their personal responsibility. The next of kin order is set by law first staring with the spouse (if applicable), then parents (if applicable), etc. If there is a dispute between the spouse and parents, as in the Terri Schiavo, then the courts are there to determine if there are any extenuating circumstances that would negate that right of the spouse. That however, is on a case by case basis and the courts have no right to strike down the right of the spouse simply because they do not agree with the decision made by the spouse, either for or against removing treatment.
I do agree with the Italian court’s decision to allow the removal of care for Eluana per the direction of her father. I do not believe it is unethical to remove or forgo treatment. I do also believe that advanced directives should be allowed and followed. It is a person’s own life and decision, which we do preserve and cherish life, but we have no right to impede another competent person’s free will. Advanced directives help ensure that when someone is incompetent in a coma there wishes are still followed. If there is no advanced directive, then the right falls to the next of kin. I’d much prefer my family make the decision for me then some court, legislature or some church of some religion which I do not even believe in. I’m appalled by how involved others became in these cases to promote and follow their own agenda not the families or the patients. As far as the difference of withdrawing or forgoing treatment, I see no difference. Either way, the outcome is the same. The patient died of their disease or injury not of negligence of a physician. If I have the right to refuse and forgo treatment, I then have the right to remove treatment.
I think that the courts made the right decision to remove the tubes because they were just hurting the patient even though she couldn’t feel anything. It was time to let the patient rest in peace. And i think that it also helped the relatives that she got disconnected because they wouldn’t have to keep on going to the hospital and see her just laying there in the bed not being able to do anything. So in my opinion i think that the court did the right decision.
I feel the Italian courts made the right decision to pull the feeding tube. I feel we as humans try too hard to play God, let nature take its course.. 17 years is a very long time to be in a vegetative state. If she had signs of coming back to life then no but the signs were there and she is brain dead. Sometimes religious groups need to back off and if it was meant for her to live she would be alive.
Post a Comment