Regarding PVS

I was just listening to Rush Limbaugh on KFBK. Limbaugh was attacking the 'mercy killing' lobby for exploiting Terri Schiavo's agonizing starvation. He even featured a recent jail interview with Jack Kevorkian (Kevorkian hoped that the case would increase the public's awareness of these issues). One can hardly fail to notice, however, that Limbaugh was exploiting the tragedy himself. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

Here's a discussion between us three college buddies regarding Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) (Walt provided the link earlier this week):

John
Hi Walt,
Thanks for forwarding the link about PVS. I found it interesting but not entirely compelling. I kept getting the nagging feeling that the author was pushing some sort of personal agenda. It seemed to me that he was quick to point out cases where people had recovered but he cited only one case and even there lacked specifics. Further, he never defined "recovered". Is a recovery in which a person regains consciousness but has greatly diminished mental and physical faculties truly a recovery? By my thinking it is not.

I am personally aware of two cases in which people in a comatose state for several days fully recovered. One is my wife who suffered a massive head injury in an automobile accident in 1967; the other was the 85-year-old mother of a former employer. In the former case the doctors went to great lengths to save her life and were completely successful. In the latter case doctors held out out little hope but she awoke and, while health issues continued to plague her for the remaining 3 years she lived, her mental faculties were undiminished. So I strongly believe that medical intervention should be used in such cases.

The Schiavo case, however seems to be completely different. By all accounts there is no possibility whatsoever that she can ever recover even a miniscule amount of her previous mental and physical abilities. This is a case that should have been settled by the family and their doctors years ago. And I feel that the highest levels of the federal government getting involved in it for apparently partisan political reasons is totally appalling.

In the past this sort of case was handled quietly and with dignity. (personal information removed) A few years ago Jack Kevorkian tried to bring such practices into the open but for a variety of reasons he did not succeed. And that is unfortunate because by incarcerating him the state is effectively telling us all that metabolic activity must always be maintained regardless of the quality of life.

The thing that I find most disturbing about this whole affair is that the state is now willing to allow starvation to end a hopeless life. We go to tremendous lengths to execute the most heinous and monstrous criminals in a painless manner but we are now preparing to allow starvation of the terminally ill. Jack Kevorkian is certainly eccentric--perhaps even insane--but his methods are more appropriate and certainly more humane. Eventually society will have to give them more consideration.

And then there is the financial cost to society--mostly borne by taxpayers--of maintaining metabolism of people suffering from terminal illnesses. It may sound harsh but society does not have a vested interest in maintaining such lives. Further, in many cases the people being kept alive artificially, would never choose that existence if they had any say in the matter. Religion and news stories about miraculous recoveries have caused many people in America to expect miracles. Spending tens of billions of dollars a year on the chance that a miracle might occur is a foolish price to pay. It's time we started taking amore realistic views of things.

Walt

[Walt's contribution subsequently redacted at his request]

Marc

It's a hard case, that's for sure. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have risen so high in national attention.

I'm sure Michael Schiavo would respond to O'Reilley that he is a decent guy, and he's made up his mind that the decent thing to do is to pull the plug.

In my opinion, continued care is called for in this case. Michael Schiavo disagrees, however, and I'm willing to defer to his judgement, as I almost always do for family members.

I thought Congress' intervention was grotesque:

1.) Bill Frist compromising his medical training and offering a medical diagnosis on the floor of the Senate based on a videotape examination. Frist's concern was puzzling, since he is generally dismissive of the rights of the dying; e.g., he is favor of harvesting the organs of ancephalic babies.

2.) Tom DeLay equating a desire to stop life support for Terry Schiavo to criticism of Tom DeLay and the conservative movement.

3.) A brazen interference in the workings of the court system. There is no indication that the courts have been careless here (11 years, 39 judges: nothing hasty or ill-considered here.) Now, Congressmen are going around condemning liberal activist judges in this case, when most of the judges involved are conservatives hewing carefully and meticulously to the law. Reality and ideology are so far apart!

4.) Numerous Congressmen condemning Michael Schiavo's marriage in public debate, when they could barely pronounce his name, and certainly don't know him at all.

5.) Congressmen stating over and over that this case does not serve as a precedent, when clearly it is a precedent. Some 35,000 people are in PVS right now, and even if only a tiny fraction of their cases make it to the floor of the Senate, the Senate will still be able to do nothing else but consider these cases.

There are an awful lot of cold-hearted politicos involved now who will try to make Terry Schiavo a martyr for their various causes. Sad.

And the whole case is sad, of course....