| Stockman91790@yahoo.com 2005-04-11, 6:46 pm |
|
Chuck wrote:
quote:
> Stockman91790@yahoo.com wrote in news:1112447144.624886.245850
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
wishes[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I have no desire to waste time arguing with an ideologue, so I hope
you
quote:
> can respect a different opinion.
It is your time- it is your decision. I can respect a dif. opinion as
long as it convinces me with facts that I am wrong.
quote:
> As a medical professional, you know and have stated here, that
patients
quote:
> have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT, to refuse medical treatment.
I never said "absolute right". I have treated many pts. that refused
tmt. that I treated anyway. A pt. who is not capable to make a rational
decision about it is treated even if they have to be tied to the bed to
do it. We note in their chart that they are "combative" and not able to
make a cognitive decision about it. See the distinction about it.
quote:
> The Florida legislature has acknowleged a feeding tube as medical
> treatment and a form of life support.
A feeding tube bypasses the normal channel thru the mouth and goes
directly into a stomach. Without food and water a person will die
absolutely. Supplying food and water by mouth or tube is a basic nec.
for life. It is life support but not an artificial way to do it. It
does not take a machine to do it and food is not a medicine.
A Court has had numerous hearings
quote:
> to determine the facts of the case and hear evidence. Through clear
and
quote:
> convinsing evidence
There was nothing clear or convincing about it.
, from multiple sources for and against, the court
quote:
> found that Terri would not have wanted this.
Common sense tells us that it was impossible to know her wishes since
she had no living will, no durable power of attny, no witnesses other
than a husband with a hidden agenda saying it and so her wishes remain
unknown.
It was appealed multiple
quote:
> times and on multiple counts, and yet this is the decision we have.
> Thats what this should be about, not what the husband or parents
want,
quote:
> what congress wants, what you want, what I want, or what the church
> wants, but what Terri wants.
Terri was incapable of relaying her wants.
quote:
>
> So how do we decide when the patient cant speak? We have what
happened
quote:
> in this case, we adjudicate it. Ultimately, one side is not going to
be
quote:
> happy. But, with any rule that AUTOMATICALLY favors one side over
the
quote:
> other, we risk assaulting the patient. And as you're also aware,
> treatment against wishes is ASSAULT. One may feel that one of Gods
> greatest gifts is also self determination.
Only assault on a pt. who is capable mentally to make that decision.
quote:
> Now, to stretch this out abit, I'm sure you've seen advanced
Alzheimers
quote:
> patients who just quit eating. Or advanced MS, Parkinsons, other
> degenerative neurological diseases? Cancer patients before they
finish
quote:
> Chemotherapy? Do we now place a feeding tube in all of them without
any
quote:
> concern to their wishes. Or do we sit with the patient, or if
they're
quote:
> unable, their family and loved ones and try our best, in our human
> fallibility, to try to determine what is best? I personally believe
the
quote:
> question is best posed by: Are we prolonging their life, or mearly
> stretching out their death? That may not seem to make sense, but
people
quote:
> in the situation understand.
Since being born is a death sentence, then anything that prolongs our
life is stretching out death and that is the normal case.
On a person who is capable of making an informed decision their wishes
are to be complyed with regarding med. tmt.
quote:
> I personally would have no problem with either decision in this case,
as
quote:
> long as we try to do with what Terri wished.
It is not absolutely up to what Terri wished even if she indicated what
those wishes were. Of course she is a major part of it but not the
final decision.
quote:
> Yes, there is hypocricy on both sides. But there are also principled
quote:
> arguements on both sides, and I'd hope we could respect them,
ignoring
quote:
> the supercharged atmosphere and ideologues on both sides.
I personaly have, had no control over it but I did play a role in it in
my work. When a person enters a hospital the papers signed by someone-
responsible party says that they will accept medical tmt. in the best
judgement of those treating them. Then in the course of tmt. it can not
be argued that any "assault" has taken place when the best med.
interests of the patient is done.
Thanks for discussing this matter with me- an "ideogogue"- whatever
that means.
|