A Living Will For The Living
I love this version of a living will! (It’s been modified from this original.)
If I wind up severely brain damaged you will perform all the tests. You will not rely on the word of some clown who’s too lazy or stupid to do a proper examination, you will do an MRI and a PET. Poking me with car keys does not constitute a proper test to determine my mental acuity. A slap to the forehead is not a valid measure of my pain threshold. Forty-five minutes is not enough time to make a diagnosis that will get me killed. Do it right, with a real doctor who has no connection to the Hemlock Society. I hate those creeps.
You will engage me in conversation. You will stimulate what remains of my mind. I will be taken outside for daily walks, given dogs and cats to pet (as well as I am able), and otherwise involved in the world. You will not keep me locked up away from the world, the better to expedite deterioration and death.
I will have rehabilitation. If there is even the slightest chance I can improve you will encourage that improvement.
Anyone who has no knowledge of my case who claims that I am in a persistent vegetative state shall be taken to court for defamation. The money gained from such suits will go to my support. The same applies to those who do examine me, and then lie about my condition. Especially if they have ever had any connection to the Hemlock Society, or Planned Parenthood, or the NEA (either NEA--I’m not choosy) (I would also include the ACLU in this list. -Ed). If it turns out they have had such associations, then sue those groups too. They have lots of money that would be better used making me well.
If I need a feeding tube any attempt to remove said feeding tube shall be considered attempted homicide and prosecuted accordingly. In addition, if said action was ordered by a court of law the judge presiding is to be charged on civil rights grounds and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Any pundit of any stripe who states that I would not want to be in such a state is to be stripped naked, his skin rubbed raw with scrubbing pads, salt placed on the wounds, and then tossed into a vat of carrion beetles. After being given drugs that heighten sensation. This action will be taped and distributed on the internet.
If provided with a guardian and said guardian petitions to have me killed, that guardian is to be charged with attempted murder and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. See above paragraph for hints of my other wishes involving said guardian.
I’ll die when I die. You will not rush matters. You will leave well enough alone. Death happens soon enough for us all, don’t be so damn eager to hurry it up.
Doggon! I wish I had written this. It’s just sooooo good!
It used to be that you needed a living will to tell the doctors, family and courts when to stop trying to keep us alive when we were dying. How the heck has our country gone a full 180 to the point where we need a living will to tell those same people (especially the courts!) to not murder us if we become disabled?
Here are some more excellent articles on Terri’s situation:
Update: Added two more articles to the list.
There IS a Difference Mr Kurtz!
Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post recently participated in an online chat. He was pressed about why he considered Terri Schiavo’s situation to be similar to the death of Tom DeLay’s father:
Evansville, Ind.: You said, “As I wrote last week, there have been many, many cases like this (including, we now know, that of Tom DeLay’s father), that didn’t rate a paragraph in the paper.” But DeLay’s father’s had a brain hemorrhage and broken ribs; he needed a tracheotomy and ventilator to assist his breathing; and his body was full of infections. Terri Schiavo’s vital functions are working perfectly well; she simply needs a feeding tube because she cannot swallow on her own.
Unlike Terri Schiavo, he was in a state of steady deterioration and at death’s imminent doorstep within days of his accident. Unlike the Schiavo case, there was a family consensus among the DeLays and no dispute over what the father would have wanted. Moreover, DeLay was not the primary decision-maker in the family’s choice to withhold heroic treatment. That role fell to his mother and another brother and sister.
Why say they’re similar?
Howard Kurtz: Similar in this respect: The family had to make a decision on whether to end the life of a seriously ill person with no realistic hope of recovery. Obviously the medical details of every case are different, and in some cases family members are in agreement and in others they’re not. But the question, which the Schiavo case has underscored, is whether family members, in consultation with doctors, get to make the decision, or whether government gets to intervene.
There is one very vital difference between Terri Schiavo’s case and that of Mr. DeLay which Mr. Kurtz and his ilk are glossing over. Mr. DeLay was about to die within a number of days in spite of any efforts to the contrary. Terri Schiavo was in no danger of dying as long as her basic needs for food, water and air were met; needs shared by every human being on this planet.
Anyone who attempts to downplay this difference is either woefully ignorant, completely lacking in critical thinking skills, or they have an agenda. Those who are ignorant or thickheaded can be pitied. It’s those with an agenda who are dangerous. Their underhanded attempts to create a so-called “Right To Die” for those who are not actually dying is nothing more than demanding the power to have the weak and disabled “put out of our their misery for our their own good.”
There is a vast difference between ceasing to struggle when a battle has already been lost and actively killing someone who is not engaged in a battle for their life.
When death cannot be stopped, continuing treatment can only cause harm. That is the premise of a legitimate right to die. For example, a patient suffering from incurable cancer cannot be saved by doing chemotherapy. If they’re given chemo anyway, not only is the patient still dying, they’re also made more miserable by chemotherapy’s side effects.
When death is not near, as in Terri’s case, having a doctor stop food and water violates the cardinal rule of medicine: “First do no harm.” Without this rule in place, we set the practice of medicine back 2,400 years to the time before the Hippocratic Oath; a time when doctors might not have the patient’s best interests at heart.
Without a solid prohibition against taking life, it is one small step to move from a “Right To Die for the Living“ to a “Duty To Die” and society killing the unwanted and defenseless without regard for their “wishes.” This mistake has been made in the past with devastating consequences. I pray that our country realizes the danger of this path before we also reenter the meat grinder of history because we ignored its lessons.
(Also be sure to read this article on euthanasia.)
(HT: Michelle Malkin)
The Commander
The Commander was shouting as he burst in. “My Lord! My Lord! They have arrested your son!”
“I knew they would.” came the calm reply.
“But my Lord,” protested the Commander, “he has never done anything wrong!”
“I know.” The reply was as calm as before. “When I sent him among them, I knew that most of them would not want to hear what he had to say. This was their response.”
“If you knew this was going to happen, then why did you send him?”
“I sent him for those who would receive him.”
“But there are so few!” protested the Commander.
“They are enough. They are a beginning.” replied the Lord.
“Then your son’s mission is finished, my Lord. Let me go rescue him.”
“NO!” The answer was swift and final. “His mission is not yet finished. You are to return and watch. No more.”
The Commander saluted. “As you wish, my Lord.” Then with a bow he was gone.
A short while later he was back, even more agitated than before.
“Yes, Commander?” asked the Lord.
“They’ve held a trial, my Lord. He has been condemned to death!” The Commander was almost visibly shaking.
“So he has.” replied the Lord.
“But my Lord,” cried the Commander. “It was not even a fair trial! They held it in the middle of the night. They had false witnesses who told lies about him. And even though your son told the truth, they would not believe him. In fact, they based their sentencing on his own words! This was not justice, my Lord. This was…”
“Condemning him for their own faults.” interrupted the Lord.
“Yes, my Lord.” said the Commander.
“This was also part of his mission.”
“I, I don’t understand my Lord,” the Commander stammered.
“Then return and watch, Commander. That is your mission; to watch and learn.”
“As you wish, my Lord.” And once again, the Commander was gone.
“A murderer!” the Commander shouted.
“Excuse me, Commander?”
The Commander was almost beside himself. “A murderer, I said. They chose a murderer over your son!”
“Please elaborate, Commander.”
“After the trial, they took your son to the local governor for execution. After talking with your son, he realized that your son did not deserve to be put to death. So he decided to offer a choice to the crowd that was watching. He let them choose between freeing your son or the most rotten murderer in his prison. I was sure they would choose to free your son. But they chose to free the murderer instead. Please, my Lord, please let me rescue him!”
“No, Commander. That cannot be.”
“But why, my Lord?”
“His mission is still not finished, Commander. There is more for him to do.”
“How, my Lord? How can he complete his mission in the midst of such obvious hostility? Some of those people that called for his death were the same people that welcomed him into the city only one week ago! It’s almost as if…”
“As if they too want to blame him for their own faults and failures.”
“Yes, my Lord,” replied the Commander. “Is this also part of his misson?”
“It is, Commander. Now it is time for you to return and watch.”
“As you wish, my Lord. But I still do not understand.”
“You will, Commander. You will.”
The Commander was back. This time, the agitation was gone.
“Yes, Commander?” asked the Lord.
The Commander’s voice was shaking. “It’s over, my Lord. Your son is dead.”
“I know, Commander. I know.” The softness of the reply startled the Commander.
“My Lord, you’ve been crying!”
“Yes, Commander.”
“Did you know this would happen, my Lord?”
“Yes, Commander.”
“Then why did you send your son?”
“Because there was no other way, Commander. I sent my son to bring the people back to me.”
“But my Lord, how can he bring anyone back to you if he is dead?”
“Return and watch, Commander. Then you will understand.”
Three days later, the Commander finally understood.
More Terri Facts
Over the last couple of days I’ve collected quite a number of facts about Terri’s case. Here is what I’ve found (in no particular order).
Myths vs. Facts
It’s clear that many people are unclear Terri Schiavo’s situation. TerrisFight has a page which discusses various myths vs. facts about Terri’s situation.
The Full Report
Dr. William Hammesfahr is a neurologist who has spent more time evaluating Terri than any other neurologist involved in the case. (10 hours vs. 45 minutes total for the doctors who want her dead.) Here is his complete report from September 2002. Here is a summary of some of the information from the report:
The patient is not in coma.
She is alert and responsive to her environment. She responds to specific people best.
She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise.
She responds negatively to poor tone of voice.
She responds to music.
She differentiates sounds from voices.
She differentiates specific people’s voices from others.
She differentiates music from stray sound.
She attempts to verbalize.
She has voluntary control over multiple extremities
She can swallow.
She is partially blind
She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia.
She can feel pain.
The patient can clearly swallow, and is able to swallow approximately 2 liters of water per day (the daily amount of saliva generated). Water is one of the most difficult things for people to swallow. It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube.
Diagnosing PVS
I spent a fair amount of time searching the internet for what the medical standards are for diagnosing PVS. What I found is that PVS is incredibly difficult for the medical establishment to define, let alone accurately diagnose. Here are the most authoritative references I could find without having to pay money:
This article was reprinted from Issues in Law and Medicine. It discusses a consensus statement on PVS which was hammered out by a group of professional neurology associations. This review of the article highlights just how difficult it is to even define just what PVS is. From the conclusions:
It is possible to argue that people who have been diagnosed as having PVS might indeed be better off dead. The difficulty is that the Multi-Society Task Force is not willing to admit to the public - are perhaps not prepared to admit to themselves - that these benefits may have attached costs. They would seem to believe, perhaps rightly, that if they concede any considerable degree of uncertainty in the situation of
