Terri Schiavo: religion and the right to die

[Modem Butterfly]

So by now, everyone is probably familiar with the Terri Schiavo case in Florida. For those who aren't, she is the woman in Florida who is in a Persistant Vegetative State. Her husband has proven in court that she has been kept alive despite her wishes, her parents argue, in part, that as a Catholic she is opposed to the euthenasia.

What part, if any, should religion play in an individual's end of life decision? What part, if any, should religion play in state and federal laws regarding the right to die?

[sui generis]

1. well on a slight tangent. . .

should the religion of the parents govern medical decisions of the non-adult children?

As an example - a medical professional administering a blood product to an unconscious Jehovah's Witness child if you knew for a fact that not administering it would result in the child's death?

Should a child be legally competent to make a decision like this about their life when we don't allow children to make decisions like this about their potential sexual partners?

Discuss.

[Modem Butterfly]

2. Hey! Start your own thread, thread-hijacker!

:P

Just kidding!

I believe the courts have often gotten around the parents' religion, in the case of minor children, by finding another relative that would authorize the treatment. I have an uncle who converted to JW when I was a kid, and I remember my mother telling him that if anything should happen to his kids she would not be bound by his religion. They didn't speak for a year or so after that. He was also angered by my mother's medical treatment of their mother, who died of Alzheimer's when I was a kid (I think I've told you about this before)

We do allow children to make decisions about sexual partners before they're considered old enough to vote. In some states, children as young as 11 or 12 can actually get married as well. I think this should be a factor

[sui generis]

3. I kilt your thread. I humbly abase myself.

it was an accident! I didn't mean to attempted-hijack it. I sware.

:hi:

[Modem Butterfly]

4. Dyslexia moment:

I thought you wrote: "I humbly abuse myself". Seriously!

[arwalden]

6. I Like Your Version Better

"I'm not worthy... ahhh-ahhh-ahhh. I'm so sorry... ooooo-oooo-yeah!"

-- Allen

PS: I originally saw "abuse" too.

[Modem Butterfly]

7. Dirty minds think alike!

:7

[H2O Man]

5. It is a difficult situation

for a family to deal with, even without the state playing any role. In the case of an adult, just for an example, there may be parents, siblings, children, spouse/ex-spouse, and others with an opinion on right-to-die issues. The chances of an extended family sharing a common point of view is relatively small today.

Add in a medical team that may have different feelings about life, death, and the ability of modern medicine to deal with varied human conditions. Doctors, nurses, perhaps a case manager, may all be involved. A team of five may have five slightly different points of view.

It's not a situation where there are generally going to be one answer that meets everyone's needs. Write a "living will," make very clear who you want in charge of making decisions for you if you are not able to, and don't leave things to chance.

My extended family is dealing with a very similar situation now, involving a sibling who has no will, no living will, no preparations at all. Under the best of circumstances (whatever that means) this would be difficult; with everything up in the air, it is unbelieveable.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. I'm sorry for this difficult time in your life, and the lives of your

extended family. As you say, these situations can be very complicated. I'll pray that this crisis is resolved as peacefully as possible for you all.

[H2O Man]

11. Thank you.

It's a strange time. My brother was in a coma, and is now in and out of a non-responsive state. He has a few moments where he seems to be able to recognize people. He has lost the ability to move, with the exception of his eyes, and once in a while one hand. The doctors have ruled out stroke, cancer, infections, drug overdose, and other things. A team of good neurologists are unable to determine what has happened to him. It's difficult to not be able to know what is going on, and obviously it is impossible to "treat" something that you don't recognize.

A decade ago, when my father died of cancer, there were significant differences of opinion on how he should be treated. There were people who were in favor of tubes and machines, and people in favor of nature. The same divisions are at play today.

I'm not sure that there is any right or wrong answer to these questions. But I think that those who have strong feelings or beliefs should take the time to clearly document them. I also know that people can have experiences that change their beliefs: it could be the birth of a child, or the death of a parent, but things can change, and when they do, update your documentation.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. end of life decision should always be a personal one

and one that is respected by others. As I understand, this unfortunate woman didn't put her wishes in writing, and her parents are the ones who want to keep her alive.

Personally, I wish to die before death and be one with the Beloved now. When I finally leave the body, it will be a time of joy. Obviously I don't want to linger (and yes, I've said it in writing).

I do have a question for you atheists-not as a flame war, but simply to understand:

Since atheists believe there is nothing beyond this life, do you think that a life such as this one should be prolonged? Or do you think that a person on life support should be able to have the switch 'shut off' as it were?

[DemBones DemBones]

9. The part that religion should play in an individual's end of life decision

has to be determined by the part religion plays in the individual's life.

Religion shouldn't influence the state except that the state shouldn't force anyone to do something against her religious beliefs.

Catholics aren't obligated to accept treatments to extend life when there is little or no hope of meaningful recovery but euthanasia and suicide, assisted or not, are not permissible for Catholics; they endanger the soul, which is more important than the body when we're considering eternity.

Those who aren't Catholic don't have to play by those rules but it does seem the courts should allow a Catholic to play by them.

Even if the Catholic is alleged to be in a "vegetative" state.


I think that if Terri Schiavo is starved to death, the state will have in essence forced her to "do" something against her religious beliefs because the argument the court is making is that Terri would choose to die. That argument goes against what a Catholic believes.

[Modem Butterfly]

12. I think that's pretty unfair

There are all sorts of Catholics (as there are with any religion) and some are more strict than others. For instance, most Catholics use some sort of birth control even though the church forbids it. We don't know exactly how strict a Catholic Terri Schiavo was (and obviously her parents don't consider that too strongly because they attempted to get her divorced from her husband).

[Solon]

13. Isn't that her responsibility though...

Think about what you said, according to witnesses and the court rulings, she did not want to continue living in this state. So they are legally obliged to carry out her wishes. The state isn't forcing a thing, she endangered her own soul in this case, the state did not such thing.

Also, this is the iffy thing, theologically, but would this be suicide when her wishes are carried out? Right now she has no conscieness at all, and indeed is individually dead. Whether this death caused her soul to leave the body, or stuck in stasis in the body is a moot point. The cause of this "death" is, of course, a heart attack, depriving her brain of oxygen, that was caused by an eating disorder. She is simply incapable, at the moment, of commiting suicide. This isn't physician assisted suicide with her conscieous of the decision at moment of death, its not comparable. Is choosing to withold treatment to prolong your life suicide to begin with?

That's the question, because, as with all words, suicide seems contradictory. Is a smoker knowing all the risks associated with smoking, yet still smokes, committing suicide, albeit slowly? We can talk about diminished capacity or chemical addiction, but at some point it was a choice, and one that could lead to your death, how is that not suicide? Is taking any risk in life that can lead to death a type of suicide when death is a real result? I don't know the answers, but a seemingly simple prohibition does become complicated in this instance, doesn't it?