The Supreme Court turned down Terri's parents today, refusing to intervene to keep her alive.
I have no problem with Terri dying to end her suffering, I do have a problem with the manner in which they intend to end her suffering.
Starvation.
"The basic metabolic response to starvation is conservation of energy and body tissues. However, the body will mobilize its own tissues as a source of energy, which results in the destruction of visceral organs and muscle and in extreme shrinkage of adipose tissue. Total starvation is fatal in 8 to 12 wk."
Eight to twelve weeks? I thought the doctors said a week or two. Do you starve quicker when you are brain-damaged??
"In more prolonged starvation, weight loss may reach 50% in adults and possibly more in children. Loss of organ weight is greatest in the liver and intestine, moderate in the heart and kidneys, and least in the nervous system. Emaciation is most obvious in areas where prominent fat depots normally exist. Muscle mass shrinks and bones protrude. The skin becomes thin, dry, inelastic, pale, and cold. The hair is dry and sparse and falls out easily."
Is it acceptable to starve her to death simply because she is brain-damaged and probably can't comprehend what is happening to her? What happened to "cruel and unusual punishment" or is that only reserved for criminals and prisoners of war??
You can go to jail in this country for starving animals yet we are going to starve her to death. Just doesn't make sense to me when we have people hollering about people starving in Ethiopia, Darfur, and Sudan. Starving is starving no matter where you do it, or is there a different set of rules for her because she is incapacitated?
Maybe it's time we let Dr. Jack Kevorkian out of prison. At least he could be a little more humane and end her life quicker without all the extra, unnecessary suffering she is going to go through.
If she really, really did NOT want to be kept alive by artificial means, as her husband Michael contends, then WHY wasn't she allowed to die back in 1990, when her heart stopped and brought on the brain-damage?????
I'm glad I have a living will with all my desires spelled out. That way there is going to be no he said/she said bullshit for anybody to fight over.
PULL THE PLUG.
SEE YA!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yes we do it for our pets every day. I find it ironic that we can't, or don't, have the same compassion for a human being.
It's not starvation that will kill Terry, it's dehydration. Sadly, dehydration takes up to 2 weeks.
And who's to say she isn't getting morphine? Hospices inject morphine like it was candy, they even gave it to my daddy even though they said the stroke had rendered him unable to feel pain.
And living wills can be contested in court, it happens every day. A living will is only good if everyone agrees with it.
Sadly, it's because of the "right to lifers" that Terry is denied her right to death with dignity.
I have to admit, there is some incomplete legal thought on this thing. We have a pretty clear legal path to follow the wishes of someone who doesn't want to be sustained in a unrecoverable condition. What we don't have, and we really need, is a law that allows for a quick end.
I know why it isn't there. Letting her die is passive. Helping someone die is active (therefore arguably murder). Protecting the doctors from legal harm certainly is cruel on the patient.
Ironic that someone condemed to die has more rights to a swift painless end than someone who cannot live.
Post a Comment