"Withholding" versus "withdrawing"

[KansDem]

Yesterday, I heard a news report about Rep. De Lay and his decision to allow his brain-dead father to die. Apparently, he sees a difference between his situation and Terri. According to De Lay, he, along with his family, made a decision to "withhold" life support measures from his father, and this is not the same as the Terri case, which constitutes the "withdrawal" of life support.

Both cases are very similar:
Both stricken patients were severely brain-damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared from being kept alive by artificial means. And neither of them had a living will.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay27mar27,0,5710023.story?coll=la-home-headlines

So Rep. De Lay maintains that there is a difference between "withholding" and "withdrawing," and for this reason, he should not be considered an opportunistic hypocrite.
:eyes:

And what did the GOP say about the Big Dog and his "definition of 'is' is"?

edited to change GOPer from "Frist" to "De Lay"

[sui generis]

1. technically I agree

once you've gotten to surgically implanted measures, you're kind of committed. It's like the adage - if you're going to feel guilty about doing it, then don't do it. Otherwise, if you're going to do it, don't feel guilty about it.

In my mind it's far far better to withhold initially than to withdraw fifteen years later, although in this case the legal merit of the case argues for withdrawal.

[KansDem]

8. I see your point, however...

Didn't the De Lay family commit themselves when they had the father transported to the hospital? While he was on the ground, why didn't they simply say, "He's a goner, no need to call the ambulance, since he won't survive." Obviously, they were hoping he'd get well. However, once the doctors' assessments were made and it was clear that he would not survive, they allowed him to die.

Couldn't one argue that the TS case is similar in that the family hoped she would get better, and, once the doctors' assessments proved the contrary, she is now permitted the same fate? It just took a little longer to make (or accept) that determination.

In think De Lay is splitting hairs here in order to avoid explaining why what he says and what he does are two different things, and the need to explain the difference between then and now in what appears to be very similar situations. De Lay, like many GOPers involved in this case, are simply opportunistic hypocrites and never thought for a moment their actions would be questioned.

[sui generis]

9. actually let me help with this:

technically a PSV needs to run for three months before the determination of non-improvement or deterioration can be made. That means that often, a feeding tube will need to be installed.

So, even though installing a feeding tube is "committing" one can also have committed to three months of feedings and to taking action at the end of that time frame. However, if an aging parent became completely demented and unable to feed him or herself, I would seriously hesitate to have a feeding tube installed, and if I did, I would remain committed to that decision.

I personally hate the idea of euthing someone by pulling a feeding tube. Instinctively it feels WRONG to me and no amount of intellectual correctness will overcome that, even though I have to follow intellect and not instinct in this case.

I wish we had better options.

[crispini]

10. PSV?

[sui generis]

11. sorry, PVS

persistent vegetative state

have dylsexia I

:hi:

[Tesibria]

2. Two issues

1) Don't you mean Senator DeLay?

2) For some reason, lots of people draw this distinction. My sister's a nurse and thinks there's a big difference. They, "commonly" decline to start, e.g. feeding tubes or diaylsis (sp?), but once started, her hospital has NEVER in 20 years stopped the treatment.

Interesting issue to look into - how, from an ethical standpoint is it different.

[zalinda]

3. But, according to the guy who developed

the feeding tube, it was never designed to be long term. And, in fact, it was developed for infants, and not intended for adults.

zalinda

[Tesibria]

5. and that's relevant..?

ok -- I don't get how that's relevant on any level.

the glue that's on post-its wasn't developed for post-its either.

From both a medical and ethical perspective, the initial purpose of development has little bearing on progressive use of the device/procedures.

Drugs developed for symptom A are often found to alleviate symptom B. Does the initial purpose mean that the use should be expanded to other conditions?

I must be missing something.

ON EDIT: If you read my prior posts, you'll know that I am NOT one of the people who is insisting Terri should be kept alive. But this is a different - issue that goes far beyond Terri.

[KansDem]

4. oops!

Corrected, and thanks!

[jmcon007]

6. He should be all for 'withholding' the feeding tube then..

[displacedtexan]

7. DeLay's Dad was on a ventilator, and they "withdrew" it...

More than 16 years ago, far from the political passions that have defined the Schiavo controversy, the DeLay family endured its own wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by intravenous lines and a ventilator, was DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay.

Seriously questioning the semantics here, Boss.

You either keep them "alive" by artificial means or you don't. Period.

I think the fascist fundies are rationalizing the DeLay family's tough decision to terminate Dad.

Just my opinion.