|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Terry Schiavo - WHY?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: harddisk
Why is Terry being starved to death? Why are they so intend in killing her? This certainly is , IMO, judicial homicide. This is downright inhumane..... whatever the reason for removing her feed tube. Nothing can ever justify what's being done to her.
Posted by: Shalome
She killed herself 15 years ago by having an eating disorder so severe that it caused a chemical imbalance that gave her a heart attack. This heart attack stopped oxygen flow to her brain. Her brain tissue died. She cannot swallow. She cannot move. She cannot think, control her actions, speak, or have any sort of higher brain function. Parts of her brain have died and been replaced by fluid.
She cannot recover. She cannot live without medical assistance. Every doctor who has actually examined her has said that there is no hope of recovery, that she is a vegetable, that she is missing important brain tissue, that she cannot function, that she does not think or feel.
She remarked to several people that she would never want to be kept alive that way. Over the past 10 years, courts from local to the Supreme Court have ruled (or abstained from hearing the case because it has no legal merit) have ruled that the people who say she wouldn't want to be kept alive like this are credible, responsible, and telling the truth.
Her parents have no say in this. They are not her legal guardian.
No one is killing her. What's happening is that she is being allowed to finally die.
Posted by: IceBreaker
hmm...she cannot even express her wish to die - or live (hell, we don't even know if she can feel pain or not) - that's what makes this case somewhat more complex than one of simple "passive euthanasia".
It's a dilemma.
Is she at least on sedatives? http://forum.presence-pc.com/images...20le%20loup.gif
Posted by: 9:35
if blinking became the highlight of my day i'd be alright with leaving the world by starvation
edit: i'll add some constructive thought here
what shalome said is correct. terri died fifteen years ago, and her body is slowly dehumanizing itself. through my old job i met someone who works in a care unit with people who share terri's condition, give or take a few lower bodily functions. in this state, the body reverts to animalistic drives - eat, shit, ****, and sleep - and unless the coma is reversed in the first couple months, these drives will forever remain as the four functions people like terri carry out for the rest of their "natural" lives. THATS IT. these are not people anymore, they are bodies that have been forever hijacked by the primitave drives/needs part of the brain.
Posted by: SKYHN
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by harddisk
Why is Terry being starved to death? Why are they so intend in killing her? This certainly is , IMO, judicial homicide. This is downright inhumane..... whatever the reason for removing her feed tube. Nothing can ever justify what's being done to her.
|
Your not a Bush Voter, are you?
Posted by: Shalome
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
hmm...she cannot even express her wish to die - or live (hell, we don't even know if she can feel pain or not)
|
She can't express anything. She can't wish anything. She does not have a functional cerebral cortex. This is something that her doctors know -- every doctor who has ever actually examined or cared for her in the past 15 years. Her parents don't want to accept this and therefore are deluding themselves and misleading the undereducated public with emotional appeals.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shalome
She can't express anything. She can't wish anything.
|
Well in that case this doesn't make it any easier does it? For she cannot wish either life or death. I remember reading about the case on cnn.com, years ago - t'was in 2003, I think. Some judge had just ordered that the feeding tube be re-inserted. I felt (very) angry at the bloke for that decision. And I still would, were events to repeat themselves. But on the other hand, I can't say I feel fully at ease with the present decision. Not...quite. I certainly don't feel any anger like I did 2 years ago when the opposite course of action was taken, but...I don't know...something's amiss; like I said, to me it's a dilemma.
In the light of this - supposing that although she may deprived of her own will, she may still be able to feel - and in the worst of scenarios, feel pain - perhaps the best thing to do would be to do nothing - which ipso facto would also involve discontinuing the feeding process.
But even if so, I don't see what would be wrong with granting her a swift death. Such as a lethal dose of thiopental or some other barbiturate.
That's what irks me right now: 'passive' doesn't necessarily imply 'painless'. If I were to be in her place, I would more likely favour the exit door. But this way? A process that's been lingering for over a week? How humane is that? This doesn't even fall within the definition of euthanasia, I say...
Posted by: Shalome
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
But even if so, I don't see what would be wrong with granting her a quick death. Such as a lethal dose of thiopental or some other barbiturate.
That's what irks me right now: 'passive' doesn't necessarily imply 'painless'. If I were to be in her place, I would more likely favour the exit door. But this way? A process that's been lingering for over a week? How humane is that? This doesn't even fall within the definition of euthanasia!
|
Agreed, completely. Unfortunately, we've got barbaric laws in this country that dictate that you can't quickly and painlessly end someone's existence -- unless they're on death row.
Posted by: IceBreaker
So in other words, active euthanasia is forbidden?
If so, that is the case in most european countries as well.
But even so, this still doesn't exclude a painless (if not quick) demise - they could still put her to sleep - literally speaking, I mean.
This is all the more important than the fact that she may be experiencing pain right now is one of the reasons that have prompted her parents as well as many so-called "pro-life" activists to voice their "support" for the victim, in fact they've made it their clinching argument so much so that they keep harping on it, even speaking of 'torture' (and quite frankly, I would almost concur with them on this point)
This is why I asked the question 2 posts ago, I'm asking it again:
Is she on sedatives?
None of the articles I read (be it on cnn, bcc etc.) brought up the matter, as though they deemed it a mere detail when in fact like I said it is quite the opposite, as each day that goes by raises the prospect of what is beginning to look an awful lot like, not euthanasia, but martyrdom - and only serves to consolidate her parents & their pro-life supporters in their stance...
Posted by: redwench
unfortunately, it would actually make too much sense to put a dying person into a coma so they arent in any discomfort while they die. pain control is an anathema in this country, probably our puritan roots again. seriously and terminally ill cancer patients are in constant pain because doctors either dont want them to get addicted (dont laugh) or are afraid the feds will come after them for overprescribing.
anyway, she apparently expressed her desire not to live as a turnip when she was able to. thats good enough for me to say medical care should be ended. mommy and daddy are delusional, and need psychiatric help themselves.
Posted by: SKYHN
John Edwards the 'psychic'(not the failed Vice presidential candidate) was on Fox News the other day. Its amazing how f'n stupid fox news is and how far up the ass of bush they are.
They asked this idiot, along with every other person thats been on in the past few days, of what they think about Terri Schivo. This guy goes on for a few mins about how even when severely brain damaged people still make mental connections with him, and they have spirit bonds and all this other stuff. He didnt say it directly, but he implied that she talked to him and said she wants to live.
And the dumbass guy on FSN just gobbled it up. Whats funny about the whole thing, Pat Robertson said he let his brother or somebody die when they were on lifesupport because thats what they wanted. He is the same guy that god told bush's first term would be full of prosperity.
Posted by: AltronHGX
It makes sense to me.
The way most christian fundamentalists see it is, uh, anyone who is independant from another person (say a mother) or a machine is allowed to be killed. They obviously cannot be rehabilitated and must be removed from our perfect society immediately.
But if they're solely dependant on another lifeform (a mother for example) or machine for nutrition or breathing, holy shit, roll out the life wagon because they're all shining little angels that embody the strength of Jesus Christ.
Only the weak survive.
Posted by: IceBreaker
The weak survive... and the prosper thrive. Notice how exploitative capitalism & religious fundamentalism oft seem to go hand in hand - regardless of the country or the religion......
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AltronHGX
The way most christian fundamentalists see it is, uh, anyone who is independant from another person (say a mother) or a machine is allowed to be killed. They obviously cannot be rehabilitated and must be removed from our perfect society immediately.
But if they're solely dependant on another lifeform (a mother for example) or machine for nutrition or breathing, holy shit, roll out the life wagon because they're all shining little angels
|
Aye, but not just the christian ones ; )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
unfortunately, it would actually make too much sense to put a dying person into a coma so they arent in any discomfort while they die. pain control is an anathema in this country, probably our puritan roots again. seriously and terminally ill cancer patients are in constant pain because doctors either dont want them to get addicted (dont laugh) or are afraid the feds will come after them for overprescribing.
|
http://forum.presence-pc.com/icones/smilies/heink.gif Leaving the addiction part aside (is it even possible to get "accustomed" to painkillers?)...you mean the latter has already happened? Doctors getting into trouble for alledgedly "overprescribing"? And if so what about the patients in all this? Shouldn't they be the only ones to judge whether they're getting enough sedatives or not? I can make out the "logic" behind the fact that pain control would be, as you said, an "anathema" (something along the lines of "patient suffers because that is Supreme God's will & blah blah..."), but isn't torture also considered the same? for that's what it amounts to (legally? morally at least) if those in charge fail to provide adequate sedation even when they know the patient needs it. And don't tell me the patients (or their families) would pass up the opportunity to sue the hospital - or even the authorities in case of inordinate interference on their part :|
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
.you mean the latter has already happened? Doctors getting into trouble for alledgedly "overprescribing"?
|
yup. if a drug of the particular group is used to control pain for long term, there is a very good chance the feds will descend upon the prescriber, and cause him/her huge inconvenience at the least. criminal charges have been known to occur for what most of us consider reasonable cases. in particular, pain control specialists have been targeted.
Quote:
|
And if so what about the patients in all this? Shouldn't they be the only ones to judge whether they're getting enough sedatives or not?
|
i assume you mean narcotics and not sedatives, which dont control pain. and the answer is apparently "no". doctors, for a variety of reasons, would rather have patients in pain than prescribe opiates or similar narcotics in proper amounts.
Quote:
|
And don't tell me the patients (or their families) would pass up the opportunity to sue the hospital - or even the authorities in case of inordinate interference on their part
|
sue on what basis? medical malpractice requires 2 things in general: 1. that an actual error was made on the part of the medical provider that could reasonably be avoided; 2. the error had documentable negative consequences.
leaving aside the first issue, what documentable consequences do you have here? you have a symptom that is purely subjective on the part of the patient that has little to do with any medical condition. your cancer doesnt get better if youre drugged to the gills, and doesnt get worse if youre in agony.
as an example, i know of someone that is scheduled to have hernia surgery in may, including repairing of 2 other botched operations. the botching included a supportive mesh that has shifted to somewhere it shouldnt be, adding to the pain. the new doctor has prescribed several pain controlling medications, although only 1 is a scheduled narcotic. he prescribed a whopping 20 [yes, count em 20] pills of darvocet to last this woman over 2 months. she saves them for when shes in agony, since hes already said she wont get more. but her medical condition wont change because of it, so its really not litigatable.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
yup. if a drug of the particular group is used to control pain for long term, there is a very good chance the feds will descend upon the prescriber, and cause him/her huge inconvenience at the least. criminal charges have been known to occur for what most of us consider reasonable cases. in particular, pain control specialists have been targeted.
|
?! Oh...well I guess the fact that the feds are not a protection, but an oppression force is not new - no wonder they seem to be hated so much - reminds me of an article I read aeons ago in the Economist, I think - and that was long before post-9/11 events...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
sue on what basis? medical malpractice requires 2 things in general: 1. that an actual error was made on the part of the medical provider that could reasonably be avoided; 2. the error had documentable negative consequences.
leaving aside the first issue, what documentable consequences do you have here? you have a symptom that is purely subjective on the part of the patient that has little to do with any medical condition. your cancer doesnt get better if youre drugged to the gills, and doesnt get worse if youre in agony.
|
I wasn't talking about medical malpractice - although one can always wonder what has become of hypocrite's, I mean Hypocrates Oath according to which a doctor's duty is to end the patient's pain - in fact, part of the oath reads as follows: "may I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain" (hell, the purpose of allopathy itself - "modern" medicine heh - is à priori to ease the symptoms, not the underlying cause) Nothing but warm words & empty talk I suppose, eh?
But as I said, I wasn't talking about malpractice - this is a typical human rights issue: refusing to attend to the pain even though the doctor or the authorities are aware of the patient"s plight - isn't that tantamount to torture? I know there is a article in your Constitution that speaks of "cruel & unjust treatment" - true, this only applies to criminals & has nothing to do with the medical field, but surely there must be something in the Constitution that the patients can call on to defend their own rights in such cases as the present one...
Posted by: redwench
im pretty sure there isnt anything in the constitution about the right to be pain free, unfortunately. were not talking about deliberately inflicted pain, but naturally occuring pain that is the consequence of a disease/injury or the medical treatment of it. so torture would hardly apply, and wouldnt be relevant anyway unless it was a military hospital. what right is being violated? freedom of religion, speech, the press? equality of race,gender, ethnicity? the right to vote? the right to bear arms? search & seizure rights?
our laws on controlled substances are quite baroque, and one of the causes of the problem. but only a doctor could sue the government regarding them. and there is no basis for a patient to sue a doctor for subjective symptomatic relief, at least with any hope of winning. any jury pool would buy into the notion that treating the pain would turn people into drug addicted zombies. just dont tell these people that their harmless coffee addiction is no different.......
Posted by: IceBreaker
Well that still doesn't answer my previous question:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
one can always wonder what has become of hypocrite's, I mean Hypocrates Oath according to which a doctor's duty is to end the patient's pain - in fact, part of the oath reads as follows: "may I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain" (hell, the purpose of allopathy itself - "modern" medicine heh - is à priori to ease the symptoms, not the underlying cause)
|
That alone, IMO, would be enough to successfully argue a case before a jury should the patient (yes the patient, not the doctor) decide to take legal action. Some jurors may be obtuse enough to fall for the "addiction" argument, but even they would shudder at the thought that one day, they themselves might have to endure sickness without painkillers :|
But if the hypocrites oath - which I believe, doctors are supposed to take upon graduation - as well as the definition of allopathy are nothing but hot air, and thus if the basic level of patient care does not even comprise pain control, then this I ask you: what exactly are the duties of the modern doctor?
Morevover you said that "were not talking about deliberately inflicted pain" - maybe so (and whether there is a legal framework within which the notion of "passive torture" can be found I know not) But when the authorities themselves intervene to cease such treatment - against the patient's will - can it not be considered deliberate? http://forum.presence-pc.com/images...20le%20loup.gif
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
But when the authorities themselves intervene to cease such treatment - against the patient's will - can it not be considered deliberate?
|
ah, but you see grasshopper, that they do not do. the government doesnt go after the patients, or intervene in their treatment. they control and prosecute doctors. they will remove the ability of a doctor to prescribe oxycontin, for example. but they dont have the ability to prevent a patient from receiving a prescription. so only a doctor could file any type of legal action, if its warranted.
the real question is why the pharmaceutical companies, aarp, and ama dont lobby to get these rather ludicrous regulations removed. they certainly dont prevent drug addiction or abuse, and surpress appropriate treatment.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
ah, but you see grasshopper, that they do not do. the government doesnt go after the patients, or intervene in their treatment. they control and prosecute doctors. they will remove the ability of a doctor to prescribe oxycontin, for example. but they dont have the ability to prevent a patient from receiving a prescription. so only a doctor could file any type of legal action, if its warranted.
|
The 'method' used is irrelevant - it is still deliberate intervention, it is still done against the patient's will and, most importantly, against the patient. For the patient IS at the heart of the matter - if not the only person really concerned - AND the sole victim - all the more so than sedation can only be prescribed by doctors, so the authorities intervening is akin to preventing a patient from receiving a prescription. The patient needs pain relief, as I said (twice) it is the doctor's duty to provide it, the State is interfering with that duty to the detriment of the patient, sounds like a cut & dry case to me I say. Simple as that. Therefore up to now I've seen NO reason whatsoever as to why a lawsuit filed by the patients (or their families) would not be upheld.
Let's take another example: suppose your house is on fire, and some bloke somehow prevents the firefighters from carrying out their task on whatever grounds (for example because you called him 'grasshopper' for some obscure reason, etc http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif), and suppose this results, despite your valiant efforts in fighting the blazing inferno on your own, in your house going up in smoke. Even though the bloke who's responsible for this did not himself set the house on fire, or even prevent YOU from fighting the flames, you can can still sue him can't you?
Posted by: redwench
hardly the same. youre comparing an emergency with a single solution to a planned event with multiple solutions. theres a doctor on every corner, and no ones house is going to burn down if they need to change doctors. and you cant sue over something purely subjective. how is a patient going to sue the government for revoking the liscense of a physician? or sue the physican for not treating something there is no evidence of?
Posted by: IceBreaker
(In the present situation, this is not about suing the doctor ; )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
you cant sue over something purely subjective. how is a patient going to sue the government for [...] something there is no evidence of?
|
"Purely subjective"? Pain is a perfectly defined physiological phenomenon. It's a process that can be detected (without telepathic or empathic means ^^), described at the molecular level, artificially triggered through simple means (hehe), and - to a point - visualized (eg. use of BIS monitoring during surgery to signal possible pain, etc)...it can even kill a patient by triggering a heart attack. And last but not least, it can be treated just like any disease, hence this very discussion: it can be dealt with through man-made drugs, not via magic incantations & witch-doctors. If it is "subjective", how come science can affect it in the first place? (and don't give me the 'placebo effect' retort: these drugs have been proven to work or they wouldn't even be allowed on the market ; )
To deem it "subjective" is akin to saying it solely involves the psyche, ie. that it is ONLY "in the mind" - and therefore deny it any scientific basis outright...which would make about as much sense as assigning some sibylline depth to the phenomenon, as though its origins lay outside the scope of science - a throwback to times when not only pain, but just about any kind of disease was considered a divine scourge inflicted upon a person because some Supreme Being up there just happened to be p*ssed off at the person... come now, Red - those were the Dark Ages. Surely people should know better by now http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif
It may be considered subjective in that some may perceive it with more intensity than others (in the same way that some people are more resistant to disease than others) but this doesn't change in ANY way the fact that just like any disease, pain is an affliction that affects everyone, affects the victim's everyday life & which can be treated through medicine, period.
So no, it is not "subjective". At least, not to a greater extent than any other ailment. And as I'm pointing out - for the third time - treating the symptoms (and first & foremost, pain) is not just one of the facets of modern medicine - but its purpose. To palliate, not cure.
And yes it can be an emergency - all the more so when you consider that in some cases the patients would eagerly favour the exit door over having to endure their plight any further http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/d4w4.gif
Posted by: Shalome
She's on morphine.
Quote:
Schindler said he feared the consequences of morphine that has been used to relieve his daughter's pain.
"I have a great concern that they will expedite the process to kill her with an overdose of morphine because that's the procedure that happens," he said.
Felos disputed that, saying that hospice records show Schiavo was given two low doses of morphine - one on March 19 and another on March 26 - and that she was not on a morphine drip. The records show that the second dose was given after nurses noticed "light moaning and facial grimacing and tensing of arms," he said.
Hospice spokesman Mike Bell said federal rules kept him from discussing Schiavo specifically, but said "a fundamental part of hospice is that we would do nothing to either hasten or postpone natural death."
Comfort measures, including morphine drips, are used in consultation with a patient's guardian, physician and hospice care team, Bell said.
|
Posted by: Oldcrocd
It appears the point has been missed here that she is 'brain dead' since the heart attack. It therefore follows that she will not feel any pain if the majority of her brain cavity has been reduced to fluid. People in coma do moan and groan quite regularly, this is not in pain it is to do with the airways and stomach. Much the same as a dead person when you move them they moan and groan, some people think they are still alive, but alas it only air expelling from the body cavities. If she has been adjudged by medical professionals as being in a continuous vegetative state, then she is far beyond the need of drugs as she will feel no pain once the brain cortex has died there is no way the nerves can transmit anything from anywhere in the body. One of the basic tests that you have probably experienced is a doctor pricking you with a sharp object like a pin and asking if you can feel it. This type of basic test is regularly undertaken with comatosed patients to determine the level of consciousness and awareness and the extent to which nerves are being interpreted by the brain, unfortunately in her case she has no reaction.
As posted by Shalome and Wenchie, this lady died fifteen years ago and should be allowed the dignity of final expiration as soon as possible.
From a personal point of view I have made it abundantly clear to my daughters that I am not to be kept alive in this state. I have seen too many people in this state of flux waiting to die.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
So no, it is not "subjective". At least, not to a greater extent than any other ailment. And as I'm pointing out - for the third time - treating the symptoms (and first & foremost, pain) is not just one of the facets of modern medicine - but its purpose. To palliate, not cure.
|
you're mixing up capitalism with medicine, which is what a lot of people do in the business world but still something to be pointed out as wrong. for example, stem cells, which can offer cures, is rejected for treatment drugs not by the modern medicinal community, but by capitalism.
Posted by: IceBreaker
http://forum.presence-pc.com/icones/smilies/heink.gif I don't see how my previous statement amounts to mixing up capitalism & medicine - you mention stem cells, however aren't painkillers - which is what it's about right now - approved by both by doctors and businesses?
I was merely referring to the definition of allopathy a few posts ago: it involves treating the symptoms, not the cause. Pain is a symptom. Painkillers deal with pain. Painkillers are legal & approved by your FDA (and - at least most of them I surmise, inc. morphine? - covered by insurances) Ergo there is no reason a patient should be deprived of them...
Oldcrocd>
I believe no one in this thread opposes euthanasia (except - perhaps - the author of this topic). Pain control is the main focus here - I suppose I'm partly to blame ^^ Basically you claim she cannot feel pain. Maybe, but we are not to be the judge of that. Like I said, sometimes pain can be detected by modern means, but there is no way of knowing for sure. Shalome said she was put on morphine, this suggests the doctors had a good reason for doing so.
Also:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by oldcrocd
One of the basic tests that you have probably experienced is a doctor pricking you with a sharp object like a pin and asking if you can feel it. This type of basic test is regularly undertaken with comatosed patients to determine the level of consciousness and awareness and the extent to which nerves are being interpreted by the brain, unfortunately in her case she has no reaction.
|
There are cases when such tests are futile - namely, when the patient is paralyzed (poisoning/nerve or brain damage etc). For example, if you inject someone with, say, 20 times the lethal doses of curare - and provide artificial respiration to the victim (curare kills by paralyzing the diaphragm), all "voluntary" movement is suppressed - this includes muscular reflexes. So unless the victim is endowed with the willpower of a Shaolin monk - which I doubt many are :| - the victim will be unable to move & therefore communicate with the outside world in any way, so the pricking test will be pointless.
Posted by: Ocean
place your bets
http://www.messedup.net/terry/
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Ice thanks for response, but I did say ONE OF THE TESTS.
Regarding the morphine, this is the doctors placating any criticism from external parties not to really to help the patient. If the brain cell and much of the brain has been reduced to fluid constituency then THERE ARE NO NERVE RESPONSES, they have no place to register apart from in the brain, if that is missing, [an earlier post I believe] then so are the impulses being sent for action by it.
Before someone says capitalism - this is purely medical fact which can easily be proved with either rats or mice (like what I did in biology class many many many years ago)
Which was just one of the items taught in that subject.
Posted by: IceBreaker
I beg to differ - yes, brain damage can dull the senses. But again we are not to be the judges of that, because as long as the patient is alive there is never a way of being 100% sure. I pointed out that even severe brain or nerve damage does not always result in the suppression of pain sensation - nay, in some cases it may actually be heightened, whilst giving the patient an apparently peaceful demeanor. I could cite cases in some aspects far worse than the present one, which would corroborate this.
If there were absolutely no rationale for using morphine, I doubt the doctors would have bothered. If there is even the slightest cause for concern, what's the problem with using sedatives anyway (outside the fact that insurances will have to pay the bill)? Where's the harm in taking every possible precaution?
Posted by: AltronHGX
Flatlined. It's over.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/
edit: in commemoration, I'm going to make a big salad
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
I beg to differ
|
Of course Ice you are allowed to differ, I am the last person to wish it otherwise. Nobody would learn if we all agreed to everything. However, my experience of having three relatives in this state and talking with the medicos looking after them gave me certain insights into the paraphernalia that they use to determine the very things you are worried about, as they view the 'taking of life' if you want to call it that very seriously.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
I beg to differ
If there were absolutely no rationale for using morphine, I doubt the doctors would have bothered. If there is even the slightest cause for concern, what's the problem with using sedatives anyway (outside the fact that insurances will have to pay the bill)? Where's the harm in taking every possible precaution?
|
I can see no harm whatever in administering any drugs if 'they are thought' to be helping. I am sure you and I would agree if we were in a similar state we would be thankful that a medico did actually give us a shot of something, whether it did any good or not, you always have the placebo effect, which is very strong, and anyway as you say 100% is very difficult to determine.
Posted by: SKYHN
I think you all need to watch last nights southpark.
Posted by: BooRadley
http://booradley.homeip.net/tfr/terryssupper.jpg
It's always fun when right-to-life groups get involved in things. I'm glad she was finally left alone, but it's a shame they turned a hospice into a circus freak show. Why do people still give any attention to schizophrenic fruitcakes?
Posted by: redwench
the news media needs ratings, thats why. the media now makes the news, rather than reports it.
i do hope those protesters' children make sure their deaths are painful and prolonged, just like they want them to be.
Posted by: BooRadley
"In Brave New World, non-stop distractions of the most fascinating nature are deliberately used as instruments of policy, for the purpose of preventing people from paying too much attention to the realities of the social and political situations." -- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Oldcrocd
Of course Ice you are allowed to differ
|
I wasn't really begging http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif
Posted by: Shalome
The absolute best thing about all those moronic protestors outside Terri Schiavo's hospice: The Schindlers (her parents) sold a list of names and addresses of "supporters" to a direct-marketing firm!
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...lo_wkmg/2648050
Quote:
Terri Schiavo's parents have agreed to sell their list of supporters to a direct-mailing firm, Local 6 News reported.
The company, "Response Unlimited" pays about $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 6,000 e-mail addresses.
|
They will shortly be deluged with spam email, junk mail, and telemarketing calls.
Posted by: SKYHN
WHAT?! You mean they would try to make a buck off their daughters self inflicted vegetative ultimate demise that they turned into a national media and judicial circus??
Wait, this is america.
Posted by: BooRadley
Oh, that's classic.
Posted by: redwench
muahahahaha
Posted by: 9:35
this is EXACTLY why people need to mind their own ****ing business:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...lo_wkmg/2648050
Posted by: SKYHN
Your about 11 days late.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SKYHN
Your about 11 days late.
|
shit 
i swear thats the first and last time i repeat a link like that
Posted by: AltronHGX
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
|
kruzen
edit oshit i didn't see this was two pages
|
|
|
|
|
