CogBlog

Tampa,

i really don't know what to say because it really didn't hear adout the cast until now..

I don't understand the controversy. It seems pretty straight foward to me, but I guess it depends on your definition of life. To me being brain damaged to the extent that you no longer can think, feel, express emotions, or any of the other characteristics that seperate humans from animals and other life forms is not being alive. She has been in this condition for fifteen years, and the neurologists agree that there is no chance that she is able to recover from this condition. Granted that one or so of the neurologists that the parents used to argue for their case said that she is able to feel and think but just not express these things, but this is the critical point. If it is determined that she can not do these things than she is no longer alive or human, and since there is no chance of recovery, the ethical thing seems to let nature take over. If the parents are so "religious," than I don't see what problem they have with placing her in God's hands and letting him guide her home.

I just read a CNN article that said that Michael Shiavo wouldn't even let her parents be with her when she died. At first I was on on the side of the husband, but I think that is absurd. He has moved on with his life ( I think he even has a child with his common law wife) and he should have had the decency to let the parents be with her when she passed.
I also think that the news should have publicized the fact that she had a heart attack while she was purging because it would speak to a lot of women out there who have eating disorders. Larry King is having a three hour live discussion tonight at 8 and I think it will be really interesting to see what America has to say.

To Virginia's morphine question. I know she was only given morphine on two instances and at low doses at that. I think it's probably unclear what effect it has had since we don't know to what extent she could or would experience pain. It's likely that she's not feeling much pain given that she doesn't have the cognitive faculties to interpret that pain.

I would imagine that at this point (13 days in) that even a mentally competent person would be in delerium and not feeling much pain anyway.

After reading about the current specifics of the case, I think it is absurd that the parents are still fighting the courts to re-insert the feeding tube. As of today (Wed), it has been 13 days since it was removed. Jesse Jackson has even joined the parents to promote "mercy." Today, the federal appeals are allowing the parents to have another "emergency petition." If patients had a humane lethal injection, none of this would be a problem, and she would be able to die in peace. Although she is on morphine, her slow death is only causing turmoil and unrest among others.

One interesting thought on Morphine adminstration and congnitive functioning. Whenever patients like Terry demonstrate "discomfort" such as a grimace, increased heart rate or sweating, docotrs give them morphine. Since what we know as pain includes some of these symptoms, doctors assume the paitient is experiencing discomfort, or pain. However, compared to normal cognitive functioning humans the amount of morphine we receive for pain is much more than the amount that Terry, or paitients like her receive when they exhibit signs of discomfort. However, this small amount of morphine immediatly works, and the patient no longer shows signs of discomfort. So my question is: When Terry shows "pain", is the pain less than that of what "normal" patients experience because she requires less morphine? Or, is Terry even experiencing discomfort since such a small amount of Morphine seems to work? I am not really sure what morphine does to the brain, but if such a small amount reduces her discomfort, isn't that proof that her cognitive functioning is much less than that of a normal functioning person?

It is difficult for me to decide exactly how I feel about the ethics of this case because it incorporates so many political, social and religious issues. What's more is that the government as well as society is using this poor woman's state as a basis for personal attacks on our system. Taking a step back from the politics of the situation, I reflect personally on how I would react if this were my life being terminated or being prolonged on life support. What is there to fear? Death? Death is a natural part of life and as far as I am concerned, this woman has no more life left in her.

This past Sunday a priest administered a drop of wine on Terry's tongue for easter communion - a wafer was not given for because she can't chew or swallow and was . Your thoughts?

It just came out this Terry is indeed getting morphine at her hospice -- this is standard practice, and part of hospice's commitment to a dignified, pain free death.

I think that the issue over this woman's life has turned into a debate about the rights of the government. Government involvment into individual's lives would set a dangerous precedent that could cause much debate in the future. However, with her case, i think that removing the feeding tube and starving her to death is terrible and steps should be taken to ensure her comfort, especially if her brain is working, she is breathing on her own and has family who will take care of her.

More data come up recently. Apparently, EEGs of her brain's activity shows only a flat line indicating that the cortex is dead. Scans also show significant atrophy of the brain.

Also, while Gov. of Texas, Bush signed a bill that gives hospitals the right to refuse treatment to terminally ill on life support. That law was applied just recently when a hospital removed the breathing tube of an infant -- against the parents wishes. The infant died soon after. So much for "Erring on the side of Life"--quote by Pres. Bush.

I, for one, find it contradictory that we have a President who has no problem leading the government in 'saving' this woman and yet rallies against the very scientific research that could potentially help her - e.g. stem cell research.

I was watching TV tonight and saw conflicting reports. It seems really hard to get the actual details on her condition. I heard one person say that she was able to swallow while another person refuted that statement. I guess we just have to trust the doctors in the end. I heard that there were 12 independent neurologists and all of them concluded that she was brain dead. Whether or not that means she should have her feeding tube pulled, I don't know. However, I do think that this case is dangerous because of the political implications. Congress passed a law that pertained to only this one woman that I believe was in attempt to prolong her life. Surely a law having to do with one person cannot be constitutional. Also, it's important to notice how active the government is becoming in individuals' lives. The original purpose was to "preserve, protect, and defend" the people of the United States. Now it seems like the government is beginning to decide what's best for people. Even if the government is making the right decision in intervening in someone's life, it's a dangerous precedent to set that could infringe on personal liberties and make the government rulers of the people rather than elected by the people.

It's may very well be likely that she is being given morphine. When someone enters hospice, the idea is to make them as comfortable as possible, and morphine is often administered as needed. This would be interesting to know.

She is able to breath on her own, but no there so way for her to ever "come back." It is questionable if she can even think or feel. I do not agree with the starvation techniquie that is used to allow her to die but I understand that it is easier for people to do nothing and let her die than to administer something. If there was a way to perhaps give her morphine or some type of drug so that everyon is assured that she feels nothing as she dies.

While I agree that totally that no one should be deprived of nourishment, I also think Congress is making a huge mistake by getting involved. It sets a dangerous precedent. Do they plan to remand every decision the courts make that they disagree with?

The other side would argue that only the brainstem is alive, which controls breathing. The cortex, or thinking part of the brain, is dead. So, presumably she is not aware of her external world, who she is, or who others are -- there's no thought. So, the argument is that she's no longer a person -- clearly, this is the crux of the controversy.

I hadn't heard much about this case until now, but it seems like a very important ethical issue that has turned into a heated political debate. After the county court ruled that it was okay for Schiavo to take out his wife's feeding tube, the House and Senate tried to intervene and are still trying to find a way for Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube to be replaced. Although declared by some to be in a vegetative state, it is my understanding that she breathes on her own and only needs a feeding tube for survival. Is this true? If it is the case, then in my opinion there is no reason to remove it, especially since her parents are willing to take care of her. It is ludicrous to think that a person capable of breathing on his or her own should be deprived of nourishment and allowed to die.