a persons right to die

[Sheridan]

this has been big news here in the states for a day or two.
basically a woman in florida who has been in a vegetative state for 13 years had her feeding tube removed at the request of her husband and against the wishes of her parents and family. basically the state intervened and in a rush of legislation the govenor of florida jeb bush ordered her feeding tube reinserted.
here is a link for those who want to read more:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/22/coma.woman/index.html

but my question for you all is: does a person have the right to die and not have to worry about the state intervening?

[decadnids]

Originally posted by Sheridan

but my question for you all is: does a person have the right to die and not have to worry about the state intervening?
yes a person has the right to die.

[Atarythm]

this story is almost schocking... The politics should never have rights to decide about something like that, especially someone from the bush family...

[nico]

Originally posted by decadnids

yes a person has the right to die.

that´s my opinion, too.

[animal night train]

posted by Atarythm
this story is almost schocking... The politics should never have rights to decide about something like that, especially someone from the bush family...
I guess it makes an interesting distraction from signing execution authorisations, which is something they're more used to doing.

Absolutely, a person has the right to die.

[Atarythm]

@ ANT : you're surely right, I can imagine Jeb in his office thinking "hmm, what can I do today ?!? Ah yes, I could make a law who allows me to order the reinsertion of the feeding tube of this woman" just like I can imagine George W. thinking "hmm, well, I could bomb Iraq or Afghanistan today..."

It's just never good when a Bush thinks...

[Patrick]

Either of the Bush childs thinking ? What a funny notion !

[Atarythm]

Ok, you're right, I exagerated on this one ;)

[bitch one]

facetious comment #372:

i didn't realise we had a choice in the matter...

[Mirsha]

Originally posted by decadnids

yes a person has the right to die.
People like Dave Blaine and Graham Norton shouldn't have the right to live.

[Lady E]

aww, i like graham norton.

[jukka]

if someone is (deadly) ill he should have the right to end his life !!!

[a.rodin]

Originally posted by Sheridan
this has been big news here in the states for a day or two.
basically a woman in florida who has been in a vegetative state for 13 years had her feeding tube removed at the request of her husband and against the wishes of her parents and family.
but my question for you all is: does a person have the right to die and not have to worry about the state intervening?



... whether or not she is in a vegetative state, if the girl can not commit suicide on her own, then someone is killing her. The family has no right and neither does the government to make that decision to end her life.

Your question implies that the person can make that decision but since she can't, no one should be able to make it for her.

If some other entity does make those decisions, then the isssue of who 'gets it next and when' becomes pretty sticky.

[Patrick]

Originally posted by a.rodin


... whether or not she is in a vegetative state, if the girl can not commit suicide on her own, then someone is killing her. The family has no right and neither does the government to make that decision to end her life.


Without getting totally bogged down in semantics, I think it is more about the fact that the girl cannot continue to live without intervention. Without machines to make her breathe, without being force fed etc. she would die naturally. That's it in it's simplest form. Left alone, she would die. They are forcing life upon her. Do they have the right to do that ?

[a.rodin]

Originally posted by Patrick


Without getting totally bogged down in semantics, I think it is more about the fact that the girl cannot continue to live without intervention. Without machines to make her breathe, without being force fed etc. she would die naturally. That's it in it's simplest form. Left alone, she would die. They are forcing life upon her. Do they have the right to do that ?



... the immediate analogy that comes to my mind is Africa. Babies die every day for a multitude of reasons. These babies die naturally.

The family makes a conscious decision to keep her alive from the get go. If they make that decision, then they are responsible for her life. My point was, at what instance do they determine that enough is enough.

It's kind of like cutting your losses and going on without the burden. But at what point and at who's discretion does this action belong to?

At age 5, 25, 55?

[Patrick]

Hmm, for me the baby analogy doesn't hold water. A baby, no matter how young, will either intuitively or cognitively make a decision to ingest food presented to it. It has a will to live and given the opportunity will continue to do so. The unfortunate lady in this case no longer has that ability. "If you look at a brain scan of Terri, where her cerebral cortex used to be is a black hole filled with spinal fluid," he said. "There is simply no hope of recovery for Terri." . And that to me is the key difference. It would appear (and I freely admit that I haven't studied this case in any great depth, so I am talking in general terms about when cognitive functions have ceased) that this woman no longer has that will. Without machinery to force her body to feed, she would not and could not continue to do so for herself. Couple that with the fact that the lady has apparently already expressed a wish to die should this very eventuality befall her, then I think the state has absolutely no right to intervene.

But these two factors must be present. She cannot survive without artificial means and she has previously expressed that she would want to die if she were in this state. A baby has never expressed a desire to die. A baby is striving to live.
This isn't about killing someone. It is about allowing someone to die with dignity in accordance with their own wishes. The question is about whether we have the right, as individuals, to choose to die. I think we should have that right.

[animal night train]

well said, Patrick.

[Loz]

I second Patrick, I hope if I get in any state like that, my family and friends will have the decency to let me die. 13 years without any brain functions isn't much of a life, anyway.

I also second Emma, although it's not someone I admit to liking very often, because he is one of those people many really really hate.

[penciLneck]

It's strange that suicide has such a stigma attached to it, shouldn't the individual have an inalienable right to choose? What if someone asked you to help end their life - what would you do. That's the real dilemma I guess.

[Loz]

Depends who it was. If my best friend asked me to help them kill themselves, and I thought it was for the best for them (ie, if they had cancer and altseimers), I probably would have to help them, simply as a duty to our friendship. In fact, it's almost a strange honour to be asked, that someone trusts you enough to ask you to kill them.

[penciLneck]

I'm feelin it Loz, kill me quickly but kindly.

[7875]

who is graham norton?

[invisibleplanet]

he's an english chat-show host and he's very camp, very gay, and very critical at times.
he's like many gay english Tv-personalities,in that he loves a good bitch, and makes fun of other personalities, Tv or otherwise. One of his favoured methods of humiliation is to phone someone up he's found on the internet (often wacky americans) and pretend to be interested in whatever they are adverstising, whilst broadcasting the conversation to a live audience, who sit there, cackling at the joke which is being played on an unsuspecting victim. Some of the best jokes involve a fonecall to a fan of one of the 'stars' he is interviewing.

I quite like him, but sometimes he's too b!tchy for my taste LOL. If i knew someone who was like that, I would keep them at arms length.

As to the plight of the lady in question, if she had expressed a desire to die in a situation such as this, then i think that the family's inability to let go of their beloved relation needs to be addressed, more than her right to live/die. Their selfishness is keeping her entombed in a living death, for their comfort, and not her well-being. If she has no cerbral cortex left, then she has no faculty for sensation of any kind. she cannot see, she cannot hear, she cannot taste, she cannot sleep, she cannot dream, she cannot wake, she feels no pleasure, she feels no pain, she cannot live and neither death nor life cannot hurt her now.


Although the content of consciousness is associated with activity of the cerebral cortex, the reticular activating system is critical for the existence of the conscious state. Consciousness is lost in both coma and deep sleep, but these states are very different. Sleep is an active physiological process for the cerebral cortex, and cerebral oxygen uptake is comparable to that of the waking state. By contrast, cerebral oxygen uptake declines in states of coma.

the woman is kept alive for her family and their emotional inability to let her go, and for the governor's 'ain't i great' public image.
that's pretty sick in my book.

[a.rodin]

Originally posted by Patrick
Couple that with the fact that the lady has apparently already expressed a wish to die should this very eventuality befall her, then I think the state has absolutely no right to intervene.


... i didn't know that she expressed a desire to die. I thought she was a vegetable.


But these two factors must be present. She cannot survive without artificial means and she has previously expressed that she would want to die if she were in this state. A baby has never expressed a desire to die. A baby is striving to live.


... if she is alive, then the human autonomous state also has a will to live. Letting her live in the first place is playing God. If you want to play God, then continue to do so till her body gives out.




This isn't about killing someone. It is about allowing someone to die with dignity in accordance with their own wishes. The question is about whether we have the right, as individuals, to choose to die. I think we should have that right.


... in western society we do not have that choice so easily available to us. The state/govn't makes laws about drinking and driving, doing drugs, smoking, wearing seatbelts, etc. Why? To prevent ourselves from killing ourselves. Why? Because we are idiots and fallible and we can not fend for ourselves.

The question is do you let the person die as soon as you know that they are diagnosed as a 'vegetable' or let them live until you can't stand it anymore? This applies to euthanasia too.

[a.rodin]

Originally posted by Patrick
Hmm, for me the baby analogy doesn't hold water. A baby, no matter how young, will either intuitively or cognitively make a decision to ingest food presented to it. It has a will to live and given the opportunity will continue to do so. The unfortunate lady in this case no longer has that ability.


... if you had a child like this in Africa, but didn't have the means to give it food, then what's the difference? Sure it would ingest food, but where is it? What is the purpose of that will (instinctual) if it is not satiated? It will die like a fish out of water.


A baby has never expressed a desire to die. A baby is striving to live.


... then the difference is about 'striving'. But to me they are both helpless but alive. The right of the woman is the same as the baby. If you are alive, all rights are equal.