It seems to me that it requires a lot of “ifs” and “probablys” to make the starvation/dehydration death of this woman ok.

This case would not have been monumental in end of life decision protocols. It will be very instruemental in new life terminating protocols for the disabled.

There is no one this does not effect. Instantaneous death is not as likely as gradual demise by old age or disability from an accident or health issue.

Ethics and morality are subjective. Not objective. You have failed to point out what you would consider a viable solution to this so called unethical and inhumane treatment.

If a person is to die, how should it be done?

Are you advocating to allow Doctors to inject a patient with someone for a painless death? Or or you advocating leaving someone on a feeding tube forever?

A hypothetical which I don’t think has been addressed yet.

Let’s say Terry Schiavo had had a Living Will that stated that if she was brain dead that she did not wish to be given any life sustaining treatment, including no food and no water.

Would it have then been proper for to be “allowed” to die in that manner ?

If not, why not ?

I am saying that if we have laws that require ethical and humane treatment of puppies, surely we can apply the same to humans.

As a result of this case – which, by the way did end where you wanted it to – it is now legal for an individual to be starved and dehydrated to death at the behest of the government. Where such a hideous death was once rejected it is now legal. Can you see past the rainbow, now?

In such a case with the puppy, letting it die of starvation in such a case is considered wrong in many circles.

However, in such a case with a puppy, the provide the puppy with an anesthetic, then put the puppy down. This is something that is considered illegal with humans. Kadamson offers no solution here, however, only a sweeping condemnation.

Kadamson,

I have said I am fine with dying by starvation were I in the situation.

I am fine if other people die that way as well.

You seemed to imply that such thoughts made me a sociopath.

I will also say I am fine with a person being injected with something for less pain. But it is illegal most places, and considered immoral by many.

But what do you think should be done in a case such as this?

Should the decision rest with the husband? The parents? The government?

Should a person be left “alive,” and if so, who should pay for it?

If a person is to be let go, how should it be done? Starvation? Starvation with painkillers? Injection?

I am asking because I would like you to clearly define what feel should have happened.

I will tell you from my point of view.

The husband should have made the decision, barring a living will; although I believe every person should set a limit in their living will to avoid ruining their supporters life with medical costs. The parents and the government should stay out of it. I would like it for an injection to be administered to make it quick and painless. However, since doctors would like to keep their hands “clean,” I am perfectly fine with starvation as a means.

That, in my opinion, should have been the end of it. What is yours?

Once again, I repeat….
I am saying that death by starvation and dehydration is hideous and inhumane to any living breathing animal and in particular to humans regardless of how diminished you might perceive them.

I am saying that if we have laws that require ethical and humane treatment of puppies, surely we can apply the same to humans.

It’s perplexing that you hold dear the mantra that in this case it is not your decision. It is as though this somehow absolves you of any responsibility in cases similar and future.

It is not my decision as to how my neighbor treats his dog. But if the dog is consistently beaten and malnourished what course remains? Perhaps, it becomes my responsibility to see that laws make this kind of treatment of dogs illegal. Or perhaps I make it a media event explaining how dogs prefer this treatment. Either way it has become my business.

What makes this one issue sacred to your involvement?

Because that’s a rather flippant way to wave off my entire comment, and I want to know what your justification is.

It’s moot to this discussion or issue. The TS case would not have changed those protocols.

“It’s all a metter of ones perception of pain.”

?????????And for a sociopath there is no perception of the pain of others.

“Either way, I was fine with the decision to let her die”

And this is fine for others, as well?

Please read the second paragraph in my post. I said that were I in her position, I would wish to die, even if it were a most painful way to die.

I am fine with it for myself. Few individuals are more important to me than myself.

Also survivors of massive starvation have often been quoted as saying that it is not painful after a little bit. Doctors say this is due to an anesthetic effect of chemical produced by the brain when it does not receive nourishment.

Of course, there have been some survivors who claimed to have been in great pain as well. It’s all a metter of ones perception of pain.

In either case, death by starvation, were I in the same place, would be fine with me.

Again, you don’t understand me. It’s not my decision!

Listen, we can debate this endlessly. And in the long run, there are going to be times where this process gets screwed up. There are going to be times where some woman’s husband simply wants to be rid of her, and decides to pull the plug. That may have happened here, it might not (although the courts didn’t find basis to pull his guardianship). It may be unacceptable to kill someone who is diagnosed as PVS by starvation/dehydration, it might not.

What I am telling you is very simple. The decision of what to do in that situation is not an easy one, and belongs to the people closest to the person in that state, not Congress.

Years ago, my wife’s uncle was put into the position of making that decision. His brother was in an accident, and was in the hospital. He had to decide whether to pull the plug. He ended up choosing yes (it wasn’t a feeding tube situation, so it wasn’t starvation/dehydration), and his brother died. You know what? He has to live with the consequences of that choice for the rest of his life. I’m sure there are days when he questions himself, and I’m sure there are days when he feels like it was the right thing to do. He loved his brother dearly, and I’m sure that’s the hardest decision he’s ever made in his life. And he did it trying to figure out what was best for his brother. It was his decision, not Congress’. And whether he made the right decision or the wrong one, we’ll never know. But I trust the people who care most about the individual in that situation to make the decision. I don’t trust Congress, nor democracy.

What is that to the price of tea in China?

The governement exists. It is involved in a myriad of decisions, sometimes to your liking and sometimes not.

Where ever a group of people agree to a system of decision making applicable to the group, there is a government.

The authority you fear has been expanded to include enforced death by starvation/dehydration. The right to choice or refusal of treatment remains as it was.

“I would also have preferred a more direct and active method of death than
starvation/dehydration.”
Oh really, but it’s okay for someone else?

“I do not recognize their authority in this case.”
Of course you do. Only in this case it was the judicial authority you recognized.

“I ask that the state not intrude into my life where I don’t accept their authority.” That is funny because what you request is only remotely possible in some kind of democratic or representative governement in which mass participation is inherent. Go make that demand in Cuba, Darfur, China…the list goes on. See how far it will get you.

I don’t trust the bureaucrats who are living on what they think is legitimacy to decide such things for me, just because YOU elected them.

Exactly the philosophical premise of the Constitution. It does NOT establish a democracy, although kadamson seems to think so. Over the past century, give or take, a group of people have usurped the power that was restricted to the states and the people by blatantly ignoring the Constitution.

kadamson, wouldn’t you prefer that the government was not involved in this discussion and decision at all? The only involvement that I could see as reasonable is to determine who has custody if I am incapacitated. Then the issue is within my family only.

I do not recognize their authority in this case. The problem with democracy is that to you, I don’t have to recognize their authority, you and other voters like you have done it for me.

In the history of the eons, rulers serve at the pleasure of the masses. Thousands of examples exist and I will not enumerate here.

I don’t give a damn about the masses. I ask that the state not intrude into my life where I don’t accept their authority. The masses are easily fooled, because we’ve allowed government to educate them. If the masses all decided to follow each other like lemmings off a cliff, I wouldn’t let them drag me with them.

As a result of TS case the state can legally enforce the starvation/dehydration death of a human being.

As a result of the TS case, the state is forced to stay out of these cases to a very large extent. I’m not saying she should have been taken off, or she should have been kept on. Based on the evidence I’ve heard of her condition, I would not want to have been kept alive. I would also have preferred a more direct and active method of death than starvation/dehydration.

What I don’t want is Congress telling me or my family what they must do, and second-guessing their decision about what to do with me if I were to end up on that state. I trust my family. I don’t trust the bureaucrats who are living on what they think is legitimacy to decide such things for me, just because YOU elected them.