Woman's case draws Right to Life action

Woman's case draws Right to Life action

There are 88 comments on the La Crosse Tribune story from Aug 19, 2007, titled Woman's case draws Right to Life action. In it, La Crosse Tribune reports that:

The Wisconsin Right to Life organization weighed in Wednesday on a court case that seeks to end life-sustaining treatment for a La Crosse woman who must be kept sedated to keep her on a feeding tube. via La Crosse Tribune

Join the discussion below, or Read more at La Crosse Tribune.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“It's about freedom of choice.”

Since: Jun 07

Mannasas Va.

#1 Aug 25, 2007
Looks like the nuts in the PLM have found the next "Terri Schiavo" to try to "save"....more like exploit for their own selfish agenda.
Bubba

Jupiter, FL

#2 Aug 25, 2007
If your brain isn't functioning well enough to tell you to eat, how do you know you want to live? There IS NO thought process.

It's the PLM that wants them to 'live'. No matter how poor their quality of life is. It is all about control and forcing ones beliefs on others. It's disturbing and not the foundation that our country was built upon.

Hopefully, she will pass in her sleep and not be subjected to the media circus that Terry was paraded past. I thought her parents were incredibly selfish to do that to her. She would have wanted to be remembered as the beautiful whole woman she was-not a pale, withered, shell of her former self. Beyond sad.
james

AOL

#3 Aug 25, 2007
Alot of people with brain injured loved ones, usually want to isolate and hide their loved away from the rest of the world. They also might view them as nonpersons which is an inconvience of a disibility they the person wouldn't want to exist in. Neverthless, there some who treat their brain injured loved ones as living, breathing persons who is entitled to care, honor and respect. They have no problem with making them a member of their family and do everything they can to increase or to insure that person has some quality of life despite their serious medical condition.

Since: Oct 06

Location hidden

#4 Aug 25, 2007
Bubba wrote:
If your brain isn't functioning well enough to tell you to eat, how do you know you want to live? There IS NO thought process.
It's the PLM that wants them to 'live'. No matter how poor their quality of life is. It is all about control and forcing ones beliefs on others. It's disturbing and not the foundation that our country was built upon.
Hopefully, she will pass in her sleep and not be subjected to the media circus that Terry was paraded past. I thought her parents were incredibly selfish to do that to her. She would have wanted to be remembered as the beautiful whole woman she was-not a pale, withered, shell of her former self. Beyond sad.
Agreed. Her quality of life cannot be good at all if she must be chemically restrained (sedated) to keep her from pulling out the feeding tube.

Since: Mar 07

AOL

#6 Aug 25, 2007
james wrote:
Alot of people with brain injured loved ones, usually want to isolate and hide their loved away from the rest of the world. They also might view them as nonpersons which is an inconvience of a disibility they the person wouldn't want to exist in. Neverthless, there some who treat their brain injured loved ones as living, breathing persons who is entitled to care, honor and respect. They have no problem with making them a member of their family and do everything they can to increase or to insure that person has some quality of life despite their serious medical condition.
James, you don't seem to understand that "brain injured" is not an all-inclusive term, like "hang nail."

There are brain injuries such as a mild stroke that might impair one's abilities, and then there are events that result in massive brain damage, leaving someone in the kind of condition Terri was in.

While both could be called "brain injuries," the outcomes are vastly different.

imo, it's ignorant and insulting to lump them together the way you do.

Since: Oct 06

Location hidden

#8 Aug 25, 2007
Walter In FL wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike
PLM found another platform to get media coverage so they pull in more donations.
Mike, Do you have my email address? If you do email me yours.
I remember yours Walter. I will send it to Mike.

“It's about freedom of choice.”

Since: Jun 07

Mannasas Va.

#10 Aug 26, 2007
Walter In FL wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike
PLM found another platform to get media coverage so they pull in more donations.
Mike, Do you have my email address? If you do email me yours.
Yeah,I just added it from the email that Patti sent me earlier today.
Yomomma

AOL

#11 Aug 26, 2007
Mike in Va wrote:
Looks like the nuts in the PLM have found the next "Terri Schiavo" to try to "save"....more like exploit for their own selfish agenda.
Thanks for the article Mike. I almost find this case more reprehensible than Schiavo.
The entire family, the treating physicians and the medical ethics board ALL agree that forcing artificial nutrition on this woman is burdensome and increases her suffering. Her condition is progressive and non reversable, and she has to be fully sedated at all times to force medical treatment on her........ yet outsiders and total strangers petition the court to stick their noses in where they don't belong.
I find it disgusting.. we would't legally be able to treat a dog like this, but a human is entitled to less compassion under the law......
Jan

Victoria, Canada

#12 Aug 27, 2007
Bubba wrote:
If your brain isn't functioning well enough to tell you to eat, how do you know you want to live? There IS NO thought process.
It's the PLM that wants them to 'live'. No matter how poor their quality of life is. It is all about control and forcing ones beliefs on others. It's disturbing and not the foundation that our country was built upon.
Hopefully, she will pass in her sleep and not be subjected to the media circus that Terry was paraded past. I thought her parents were incredibly selfish to do that to her. She would have wanted to be remembered as the beautiful whole woman she was-not a pale, withered, shell of her former self. Beyond sad.
If your brain isn't functioning well enough to tell you to eat, how do you know that you want to die? There is no thought process.

As James has pointed out many times, convicted criminals have more rights than the sick. I don't always agree with James on everything, but he's right on in that matter. There should always be a presumption in favor of life.

“Dancing Lights”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#13 Aug 27, 2007
Jan wrote:
<quoted text>If your brain isn't functioning well enough to tell you to eat, how do you know that you want to die? There is no thought process.
As James has pointed out many times, convicted criminals have more rights than the sick. I don't always agree with James on everything, but he's right on in that matter. There should always be a presumption in favor of life.
Mrs Schiavo spoke to us through the court after years of litigation and said to stop the unwanted medical treatment. James is wrong. He would have FORCED Mrs Schiavo to have medical treatment she did not WANT. People speak for their loved ones constantly when they can't speak for themselves. Let THEM do the presuming, not perfect strangers with their own agenda which may not be in the best interest of the patient.

There's a new medication treatment out called Gardisil which is supposed to stop certain forms of cervical cancer. It is supposed to save lives. Some women do not want it. Would you FORCE them to have this medical treatment if they did not want it even if it would save their lives?
bustertheboa

Hershey, PA

#15 Aug 27, 2007
Svaha wrote:
<quoted text>

There's a new medication treatment out called Gardisil which is supposed to stop certain forms of cervical cancer. It is supposed to save lives. Some women do not want it. Would you FORCE them to have this medical treatment if they did not want it even if it would save their lives?
I understand your point, but this analogy is not a good one. Gardisil -- and vaccines in general -- are public health issues. They do not just benefit the person treated. Refusal of such does not therefore only affect the individual.

I think a better analogy would be a situation I came across as a resident.

More to come. Gotta see patients.
bustertheboa

Hershey, PA

#16 Aug 27, 2007
Here is a case I was actually involved with as resident that I think would be interesting for you and Jan to comment on, SVAHA. I think this is a better analogy than the one you made about Gardisil.

23 year old man in otherwise good health has Stage 4 Hodgkin's lymphoma. With treatment he has about a 70% chance of cure. Even if not cured, treatment could give him years of good quality life. Without treatment, he will certainly (short of a miracle) die a nasty death in weeks to months from bleeding and infection complications. Treatment is generally well tolerated, and side effects are readily managed.

Except for one: hair loss. Treatment will cause this man to go bald. His hair will grow back, though.

This man refused treatment. His parents and friends implored him to receive treatment, but he steadfastly refused. He was seen by psychiatry, and they deemed him to be mentally sound and fit, capable of refusing/consenting to medical treament. No evidence for depression or other mental illness. An ethics consult was obtained, and the patient's refusal was affirmed and upheld.

So the man died with a full head of hair, as expected. Should he have been forced to receive treatment to save his life???

“Dancing Lights”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#20 Aug 27, 2007
bustertheboa wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your point, but this analogy is not a good one. Gardisil -- and vaccines in general -- are public health issues. They do not just benefit the person treated. Refusal of such does not therefore only affect the individual.
I think a better analogy would be a situation I came across as a resident.
More to come. Gotta see patients.
Work does get in the way of good conversation:-) Thanks Buster

“Dancing Lights”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#21 Aug 27, 2007
bustertheboa wrote:
Here is a case I was actually involved with as resident that I think would be interesting for you and Jan to comment on, SVAHA. I think this is a better analogy than the one you made about Gardisil.
23 year old man in otherwise good health has Stage 4 Hodgkin's lymphoma. With treatment he has about a 70% chance of cure. Even if not cured, treatment could give him years of good quality life. Without treatment, he will certainly (short of a miracle) die a nasty death in weeks to months from bleeding and infection complications. Treatment is generally well tolerated, and side effects are readily managed.
Except for one: hair loss. Treatment will cause this man to go bald. His hair will grow back, though.
This man refused treatment. His parents and friends implored him to receive treatment, but he steadfastly refused. He was seen by psychiatry, and they deemed him to be mentally sound and fit, capable of refusing/consenting to medical treament. No evidence for depression or other mental illness. An ethics consult was obtained, and the patient's refusal was affirmed and upheld.
So the man died with a full head of hair, as expected. Should he have been forced to receive treatment to save his life???
Much better analogy Buster and thanks. Now I personally would have opted for the treatment and worn my baldness proudly but this young man apparently had his reasons. We may not understand them, but then again, we don't have to. He made his choice. Jan and James, comments?

“Dancing Lights”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#22 Aug 27, 2007
James wrote:
Absolutely not. The man has the right to refuse medical treatment and he exercised the right to make a decision of informed consent.
This situation would entirely different if the man could not communicate and you were dealing with a living will or some oral statment.
No LW or DNRO? Then his next of kin would have spoken for him.
bustertheboa

Hershey, PA

#23 Aug 27, 2007
James wrote:
Absolutely not. The man has the right to refuse medical treatment and he exercised the right to make a decision of informed consent.
Agreed.
James wrote:
This situation would entirely different if the man could not communicate and you were dealing with a living will or some oral statment.
Why?? The man's refusal was oral -- not in writing. Going by your logic, all one would have to do was wait for the man to lose consciousness or otherwise become incapacitated (no longer able to communicate). Then since nothing was in writing (from the patient) we could just do whatever we felt was needed to keep him alive in spite of what he had previously expressed.

It seems that you're saying once a person is no longer able to communicate, then his previously stated oral wishes would no longer apply?? Of course you are free to feel that way, but your sentiment is contrary to law and bioethics.
Jan

Victoria, Canada

#24 Aug 27, 2007
What sort of mental case would have such distorted priorities? I don't care what this guy's psychiatrists say, put him in restraints and force the treatment on him. When the treatment is over and his precious hair has grown back, he'd be glad you did and he'd wonder whatever possessed him to be so irrational.

Since: Mar 07

AOL

#25 Aug 27, 2007
bustertheboa wrote:
So the man died with a full head of hair, as expected. Should he have been forced to receive treatment to save his life???
You mean, rtl didn't petition for a Rogaine IV drip?

“Dancing Lights”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#26 Aug 27, 2007
James wrote:
Absolutely not. The man has the right to refuse medical treatment and he exercised the right to make a decision of informed consent.
This situation would entirely different if the man could not communicate and you were dealing with a living will or some oral statment.
Okay, what if this person was a 23 year old woman. Young, pretty and innocent but just didn't want to be bald under any circumstances. Would you force her to accept medical treatment against her will?
hornback12

Lexington, KY

#27 Aug 27, 2007
Jan wrote:
What sort of mental case would have such distorted priorities? I don't care what this guy's psychiatrists say, put him in restraints and force the treatment on him. When the treatment is over and his precious hair has grown back, he'd be glad you did and he'd wonder whatever possessed him to be so irrational.
so if we thought you were crazy, it would be ok for us to tie you down and make you do what we wanted you to do? you are such a hypocrite.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sparta Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
hello (Jan '06) Feb 23 Ihadtosayit 2
Bored Feb '17 Andy 2
News Third Person Dies in Unrelated Animal vs. Motor... (Jun '11) Jan '17 Mel Hart 3
News Prison worker from Eau Claire accused of sex wi... Oct '16 abis17 1
Internal Covert Audio implants (Jul '14) Oct '16 Deescl 5
Review: Denton's Transmission (Aug '08) Sep '16 Never again 18
Trump and the National Debt (Apr '16) Apr '16 Vote For Trump 1

Sparta Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Sparta Mortgages