I wonder what no food/water in 7 days feels like...

[NeoConIV]

Just curious. Think the longest I've ever gone without food was 1 day, maybe 1 and a half. Pretty certain I've never had anything to eat in more than 48 hours.

[Mr. Ash]

When I was young and stupid, I fasted for two weeks as part of a sort of college dare and 'experiment'. At first it was constant headaches and hunger. After four or five days, I don't remember being hungry or in any way impaired. At 13 days, I passed out cold for about 10 seconds - and that was the end of that. The first meal I had came right back up - was not fun. I was sporadically dizzy and nauseous for about a week after that.

I drank water regularly throughout this. Dehydration would be a completely and utterly different experience.

[The Ressurrected One]

It's painful. Very, very painful.

[exstatic]

If this is about TS, she is reportedly on morphine.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm sure that it's not a pleasant experience.

But I'd say this, too: the pain you would normally feel might be mitigated if you had suffered brain damage that rendered you incapable of feeling pain, or if you were administered something like morphine to offset the pain.

[spurster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/national/20death.html

March 20, 2005
Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

To many people, death by removing a feeding tube brings to mind the agony of starvation. But medical experts say that the process of dying that begins when food and fluids cease is relatively straightforward, and can cause little discomfort.

"From the data that is available, it is not a horrific thing at all," said Dr. Linda Emanuel, the founder of the Education for Physicians in End-of-Life Care Project at Northwestern University.

In fact, declining food and water is a common way that terminally ill patients end their lives, because it is less painful than violent suicide and requires no help from doctors.

Terri Schiavo, who is in a persistent vegetative state, is "probably not experiencing anything at all subjectively," said Dr. Emanuel, and so the question of discomfort, from a scientific point of view, is not in dispute.

Patients who are terminally ill and conscious and refuse food and drink at the end of life say that they do not generally experience pangs of hunger, since their bodies do not need much food. But they can suffer from dry mouth and other symptoms of dehydration that can be treated effectively.

Once food and water stop, death usually comes in about two weeks, and is caused by effects of dehydration, not the loss of nutrition, said Dr. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "They generally slip into a peaceful coma," he said. "It's very quiet, it's very dignified - it's very gentle."

The process of dying begins in the kidneys, which filter toxins from the body's fluids. Without new fluids entering the body, the kidneys produce less and less urine, and the urine becomes darker and more concentrated until production stops entirely.

Toxins build up in the body, and the delicate balance of chemicals like potassium, sodium and calcium is disrupted, said Deborah Volker, an assistant professor of nursing at the University of Texas who has written extensively on end-of-life issues.

This electrolyte imbalance disrupts the electrical system that triggers the action of muscles, including the heart, and eventually the heart stops beating.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[NeoConIV]

I wonder if she realizes that's she's being killed intentionally....that must be terrifying.

[exstatic]

I wonder if she realizes that's she's being killed intentionally....that must be terrifying.

Doubtful. Have you seen MRIs of her brain? There is a lump about as big as an orange in the center. The rest is fluid. I wish her husband would turn control over to her parents, but I doubt she's suffering in any sense.

[GoldToe]

It feels like you are dying of thirst and hunger.
WTF do you think it feels like?

[exstatic]

She's on morphine. She probably isn't feeling much of anything, other than high.

[Duff McCartney]

Dying of thirst...is like having a very bad hangover.

[GoldToe]

Or cotton mouth.

[NeoConIV]

I wonder what will read on her death certificate.

"Starvation" or some other candy coated half-truth bullshit.

[GoldToe]

Natural Causes.

[NeoConIV]

Natural Causes.
candy coated half-truth bullshit.

Natural causes assumes one was not starving. Yes?

[The Ressurrected One]

I wonder what will read on her death certificate.

"Starvation" or some other candy coated half-truth bullshit.
Homicide. (Not murder). Her death is the result of the actions of another and not from natural causes.

[samikeyp]

probably something like complications due to her condition. not sure.

[NeoConIV]

probably something like complications due to her condition. not sure.
Huh? We all know how she is dying. STARVATION!!

What, are you in a vegetative state? :lol

[samikeyp]

It was a guess.

[Drachen]

Homicide. (Not murder). Her death is the result of the actions of another and not from natural causes.


No, actually her LIFE is the result of the actions of others.

[The Ressurrected One]

No, actually her LIFE is the result of the actions of others.
As is everyone's

[MannyIsGod]

It would not be homocide on her death certificate. It would have to be dehydration, which probably occours before starvation.

[Drachen]

As is everyone's


You know what I mean. In other words the feeding tube being inserted is the action of others that kept her alive. The pulling of the tube is just a return to where she was before.

[SpursWoman]

This is an incredibly insensitive thread. She and her family are by far not the only ones to experience this type of situation, and the media has absolutely no fucking place in it.

[The Ressurrected One]

It would not be homocide on her death certificate. It would have to be dehydration, which probably occours before starvation.
When a person dies from other than natural causes it is either homicide or suicide or accidental. Which is this?

A shooting victim dies of gunshot wounds a result of homicide or suicide or accident.

When someone removes a feeding tube from a person unable to do so themselves, it's starvation by either homicide or accident. Which is this?

Starvation isn't a natural cause of death; only disease processes can make that claim.

I would point out that I make the distinction between homicide and murder. One speaks to outcome, the other intent.

[SpursWoman]

They most certainly will not put homicide, suicide or whatever on her death certificate. That is in by no way the manner in which she was put in this position.

The closest to any of those if they were even remotely true would be suicide. No one put a gun to her head and made her throw up her dinner.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know, and frankly, I think it's a rather pointless debate.

[The Ressurrected One]

They most certainly will not put homicide, suicide or whatever on her death certificate. That is in by no way the manner in which she was put in this position.

The closest to any of those if they were even remotely true would be suicide. No one put a gun to her head and made her throw up her dinner.
She's not dying because she had bulimia. She's dying of starvation - induced by someone other than herself. That's homicide.

[desflood]

But she put herself into this state by being bulimic.

[The Ressurrected One]

But she put herself into this state by being bulimic.
Yes, and a lot of people put themselves into the hospital by their own actions. However, when it takes the act of another person for you to die, it's homicide.

[Kori Ellis]

Natural causes, homicide, suicide and accidental are not the only causes listed on death certificates.

What about "complications due to pneumonia", "cancer", "heart attack", etc. Those are not any of the above. Probably when she dies it will be "complications resulting from bulimia"or something like that. If someone has lung cancer and is being kept alive by a respirator, then the family takes them off, it's not listed as "homicide"'; it's listed as "lung cancer". This is the same thing.

[The Ressurrected One]

Natural causes, homicide, suicide and accidental are not the only causes listed on death certificates.

What about "complications due to pneumonia", "cancer", "heart attack", etc. Those are not any of the above. Probably when she dies it will be "complications resulting from bulimia"or something like that.
Natural causes, homicide, suicide, and accidental (trauma) are the major classifications of causes of death. Everything else falls into one of those categories.

If someone has lung cancer and is being kept alive by a respirator, then the family takes them off, it's not listed as "homicide"'; it's listed as "lung cancer". This is the same thing.
There is a difference between sustaining life and maintaining life. And, the argument isn't really about the difference between mechanisms of keeping people alive.

Christopher Reeve's life was maintained by a respirator. Would you advocate unplugging him? Of course not. Because, he was able to express that he had a level of awareness which was discernible. There are many people who's lives are sustained by feeding tubes as well. Most are able to lead productive lives without many people noticing they are being sustained by artificial means. Should we unplug them? Even sillier, I would imagine, than unplugging Christopher Reeves.

So, what's the difference with Mrs. Schiavo? She's not able to express herself in a way that is discernible and certain.

So, we have opposing sides arguing over whether she should be sustained or killed. The killers have won the argument.

[Bandit2981]

your argument has so many holes in it im not even going to bother addressing them all <sigh>

[The Ressurrected One]

your argument has so many holes in it im not even going to bother addressing them all <sigh>
You're not even going to bother addressing one.

Fine by me.

[MannyIsGod]

If Christopher Reeves would have wanted to stop using that respirator, that would have been his right, correct?

[The Ressurrected One]

Here's the affidavit of Dr. William Cheshire, Jr., the neurologist assigned by the Florida Adult Protection agency when they were called to intervene a few weeks back:

William Cheshire, Jr. (http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/Affidavit.pdf)

A couple of quotes from the affidavit:


"Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for persons in a permanent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to explain why I have changed my mind in regard to this particular case."
. . .
"All agree that this is an extraordinarily difficult case and that the family members on both sides must be suffering greatly."
. . .
"There is, at the heart of this case, uncertainty regarding the neurologic diagnosis on which treatment decisions have rested."
I recommend you read the rest of his affidavit to see how Mrs. Schiavo's condition differs from that of a person that is truly in a "persistent vegetative state."

[The Ressurrected One]

If Christopher Reeves would have wanted to stop using that respirator, that would have been his right, correct?
Yep.

[MannyIsGod]

So then, the issue is not what state Mrs. Schiavo is in, but the intent, correct?

[NameDropper]

Superman can do as he well pleases.

[ChumpDumper]

The neurologist, William Cheshire of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, is a bioethicist who is also an active member in Christian organizations, including two whose leaders have spoken out against the tube's removal.Interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4888083,00.html

[The Ressurrected One]

So then, the issue is not what state Mrs. Schiavo is in, but the intent, correct?
Yeah, her intent. And, the recollection of one statement made long before she entered her current state and even longer before the ONLY person to have "heard" it bothered to bring it up doesn't wash. Even if he was able to bamboozle the courts.

[The Ressurrected One]

Interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4888083,00.html
Yes. Very...

What does that have to do with his affidavit?

[ChumpDumper]

Pretty much everything.

[Man Mountain]

.

[The Ressurrected One]

Pretty much everything.
In your partisan world...maybe.

I notice they don't name the Christian organizations or the leaders.

He could be Catholic...and well, there are plenty of Catholics that disagree with their leader on this one.

I trust the Guardian as much as the NY Times.

[ChumpDumper]

In your partisan world...maybe.Or perhaps his.

[The Ressurrected One]

Or perhaps his.
What Christian organizations are we speaking of?

[ChumpDumper]

It would be nice to know, I agree.

[The Ressurrected One]

It would be nice to know, I agree.
Yeah, well it's how the liberally-biased media gets people like you to trash professionals like Dr. Cheshire.

Get your facts before you decide he's a partisan hack.

[ChumpDumper]

A Diagnosis With a Dose of Religion
By JOHN SCHWARTZ and DENISE GRADY

Published: March 24, 2005

William P. Cheshire Jr., the Florida doctor cited by Gov. Jeb Bush yesterday in his announcement that he would intervene again in the case of Terri Schiavo, is a neurologist and bioethicist whose life and work have been guided by his religious beliefs.

Dr. Cheshire directs a laboratory at the Mayo Clinic branch in Jacksonville dealing with unconscious reflexes like digestion, and he is director of biotech ethics at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, a nonprofit group founded by "more than a dozen leading Christian bioethicists," in the words of its Web site.

In an article last year in Physician magazine, published by the evangelical group Focus on the Family, Dr. Cheshire, 44, said doctors are too quick to declare that a patient is in a persistent vegetative state.

"I'm not sure the diagnosis is used consistently," he told Physician. "I am sometimes asked if a patient is in P.V.S., but it's only been a few days. By definition, you have to wait at least a month."

Yesterday, in an affidavit supporting a petition by the Florida Department of Children and Families in the case, Dr. Cheshire said it was more likely that Ms. Schiavo was in a "minimally conscious state."

"Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90-minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness or volitional behavior," he wrote, "yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of some things around her."

Mr. Bush called Dr. Cheshire a "renowned neurologist," but he is not widely known in the neurology or bioethics fields. Asked about him, Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, replied, "Who?"

Dr. Cheshire, who graduated from Princeton and earned a medical degree at West Virginia University, did not return calls to the Mayo Clinic seeking comment. The clinic said in a statement that his work on the Schiavo case was not related to his work at the clinic and that the state had invited his opinion. "He observed the patient at her bedside and conducted an extensive review of her medical history but did not conduct an examination," the statement said.

Dr. Caplan said that was not good enough. "There is just no excuse for going in and making any pronouncement about the state that Terri Schiavo is in unless you're going to go in and do some form of technologically mediated scanning that would overturn what's on the record already," he said.

Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School who has examined Ms. Schiavo on behalf of the Florida courts and declared her to be irredeemably brain-damaged, said, "I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and added: "He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic. You'll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she's not vegetative."

He said there was no doubt that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. "Her CAT scan shows massive shrinkage of the brain," he said. "Her EEG is flat - flat. There's no electrical activity coming from her brain."

Dr. Cheshire entered the field of bioethics relatively late in his career. A profile of him on the Web site of Trinity International University, where he enrolled in the master's program in bioethics in 2000, states that he was "searching for how he should integrate his faith with his medical career." After getting the degree, he became an adjunct professor of bioethics there.

A search of his publication record in the online medical library PubMed yielded articles in medical journals, with a focus on headache pain, in particular trigeminal neuralgia, a painful disorder originating in a cranial nerve called the trigeminal. None of the papers dealt with persistent vegetative states.

His papers show a fondness for puns, as in the title of a letter to The New England Journal of Medicine about a patient whose fillings caused an electrical current that made her condition worse: "The shocking tooth about trigeminal neuralgia."

He was also the author, with others from the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, of a paper opposing stem cell research.

The center's Web site notes that he and his wife and four children are members of the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Jacksonville and that he has done medical missionary work in Honduras and Siberia.

He has also written poetry, including "Exit Ramp," a poem about the movement to allow physician-assisted suicide that uses the metaphor of a highway off-ramp to warn of a different kind of slippery slope:

Such killing fast degenerates,
Despite concern for patients' best,
Into a plot that terminates
Without explicit prerequest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/national/24doctor.html

-------------------------------------------------------------


Hmmm.....

[The Ressurrected One]

"Mr. Bush called Dr. Cheshire a "renowned neurologist," but he is not widely known in the neurology or bioethics fields. Asked about him, Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, replied, "Who?""
Who is Arthur Caplan?

Like I said. I trust the NY Times sense of fairness about as much as the Guardian's.

They never said he wasn't qualified to make a diagnosis. He is a neurologist. I'm not sure what his family and mission work have to do with that.

[ChumpDumper]

Who is Arthur Caplan?
LMAO!

What part of "director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania" did you not understand?

[ChumpDumper]

What facts in the Times article are you disputing?

[The Ressurrected One]

LMAO!

What part of "director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania" did you not understand?
And? Dr. Cheshire is a Director and Bioethicist at the Mayo Clinic.

Both are prestigious institutions. I wonder if Cheshire has ever heard of your bozo.

[The Ressurrected One]

What facts in the Times article are you disputing?
Nothing. It just doesn't say anything about Dr. Cheshire's qualifications to make a professional diagnosis in Mrs. Schiavo's case.

[ChumpDumper]

It says volumes. You choose not to see.

I understand.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, her intent. And, the recollection of one statement made long before she entered her current state and even longer before the ONLY person to have "heard" it bothered to bring it up doesn't wash. Even if he was able to bamboozle the courts.

So then because the only issue at stake is her intent, the part of this case that revolves around her current medical state is irrelevent, yes?

[ChumpDumper]

It's so obvious this guy was hand-picked "invited by the state" to present his opinion. The folks who chose him took his history more into account than you choose to do.

[The Ressurrected One]

It's so obvious this guy was hand-picked "invited by the state" to present his opinion. The folks who chose him took his history more into account than you choose to do.
So, again, where does it say he's not qualified or that he's compromising his professional integrity for partisan politics?

I agree, it's implied...but, again, that's the NYTimes.

[MannyIsGod]

Answer my question please.

[The Ressurrected One]

So then because the only issue at stake is her intent, the part of this case that revolves around her current medical state is irrelevent, yes?
Nope. I believe it's relevant as well.

[The Ressurrected One]

Answer my question please.
Keep your tube in, I have to pee sometimes.

[ChumpDumper]

So, again, where does it say he's not qualified or that he's compromising his professional integrity for partisan politics?You don't have the slightest inkling he might be biased and therefore subject to being used by politicians?

[The Ressurrected One]

You don't have the slightest inkling he might be biased and therefore subject to being used by politicians?
I suppose it's possible but, it's not like they had John Edwards come in and channel her or anything. I think his professional opinion bears review; particularly one in affidavit form.

[MannyIsGod]

Keep your tube in, I have to pee sometimes.

:lmao

At least your funny.

If the central issue is her intent, and that intent has nothing to do with her current medical condition, how would her current condition be relevent?

[ChumpDumper]

I think his professional opinion bears review.I feel precisely the same about his potential biases and the motives of those who "invited" him to be a part of this show.

[The Ressurrected One]

:lmao

At least your funny.

If the central issue is her intent, and that intent has nothing to do with her current medical condition, how would her current condition be relevent?
Because it hasn't been definitively established as a "persistent vegetative state."

But, if you're intentionally leading this conversation somewhere, I'd suggest you get to the point because you're not the only person I'm talking to and I've already forgotten what you led into this interrogation with.

I believe this case has two elements:

1) What is Terri Schiavo's true medical condition.

2) What are Terri Schiavo's wishes with respect to her true medical condition.

Therefore, even if it were established (flimsily, I add) that she wanted to be allowed to die if she ever were in a "persistent vegetative state," that condition hasn't been definitively established.

[The Ressurrected One]

I feel precisely the same about his potential biases and the motives of those who "invited" him to be a part of this show.
So, it's not possible that Michael Schiavo might have some motive to select doctors that are sympathetic to his position?

[ChumpDumper]

So, it's not possible that Michael Schiavo might have some motive to select doctors that are sympathetic to his position?It's absolutely possible. Did the government invite him to give his opinion?

[The Ressurrected One]

It's absolutely possible. Did the government invite him to give his opinion?
Well, he's not a doctor...but, yeah, his opinion is on the record as are the opinions of the doctors he's employed. And, right now, it's his opinion that is prevailing.

Doesn't seem that he needs an "invitation" from anyone.

[MannyIsGod]

Because it hasn't been definitively established as a "persistent vegetative state."

But, if you're intentionally leading this conversation somewhere, I'd suggest you get to the point because you're not the only person I'm talking to and I've already forgotten what you led into this interrogation with.

I believe this case has two elements:

1) What is Terri Schiavo's true medical condition.

2) What are Terri Schiavo's wishes with respect to her true medical condition.

Therefore, even if it were established (flimsily, I add) that she wanted to be allowed to die if she ever were in a "persistent vegetative state," that condition hasn't been definitively established.

The fact that physcians are having so much trouble coming to a consensus on whether or not she has a state of minimal conciousness or whether hse is in a PVS is the tell tale sign that there is not a world of difference between the 2 as you would love for everyone to believe.

However, beyond that, the only medical observation of note is whether Terri is on life support. And that is undebateable fact. She is.

Which brings us to the point in the case which actually matters. Would Terri Schiavo want to be kept alive - and for your arguements sake i'll include both condidtions - in either a minimaly concious state or a PVS. Well, the courts have ruled consistently on that.

You maintaint that you don't believe the husband, yet you fail to acknowledge that he wasn't the only one testifying along those lines.

Also, in order for your case to hold water, there has to be a practical conspiracy going on, or in the very least a monumental level of oversight. Now, I'll be the first to point out that our judicial system is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from perfect and makes many mistakes. However, if all death peantly cases - you and your side are very fond of making the comparisons - got this type of media coverage and general awareness there would be a much smaller chance of error.

So in the end, what it all boils down to is that you dont' believe the husband.

Thats fine, but recognize that you are passing judgement on a man you don't know based on circumstancial and second hand hearsay while casting doubt upon a judgement based on first hand accounts and first hand perceptions.

Ironic, don'tcha think?

[ChumpDumper]

Doesn't seem that he needs an "invitation" from anyone.A subpoena is not an invitation.

[samikeyp]

So, it's not possible that Michael Schiavo might have some motive to select doctors that are sympathetic to his position?

So, it's not possible that Michael Schiavo might have some motive to select doctors that are best suited to his wife's condition?

[cherylsteele]

If this is about TS, she is reportedly on morphine.

We keep hearing she can feel no pain....then why give her morphine.....isn't this also a form of therapy?

[Extra Stout]

We keep hearing she can feel no pain....then why give her morphine.....isn't this also a form of therapy?I believe at some point without morphine her muscles will start to cramp violently due to the electrolyte imbalance... (isn't that how she got into this condition in the first place?)

Anyway, if that cramping isn't controlled, as an example, her jaw would contract so tightly her teeth would break. She might even break her own bones. Even if she's not feeling the pain because she checked out years ago, that would just add to the family's emotional trauma to witness that.

[cherylsteele]

I have never heard of that happening......I could be wrong though.....do you know where I can find some good info on this particular subject?

[sbsquared]

I suggest going to theempirejournal.com and reading the information they have on this case. It is quite interesting and quite enlightening. I don't have the time to go into all of it, but they have documentation of the incestuous relationship between the lawyers, judges and doctors involved in this case. It is quite disturbing to read how many statutes were violated with regard to conflict of interest.

Read some of the information and then tell me Michael Schiavo had pure motives!

[sbsquared]

Oh, btw, I heard on talk radio that they would list her cause of death as heart failure, because that is what is going to ultimately be the result of the starvation and dehydration.

[MannyIsGod]

Yet, no apeals court has found evidence of wrong doing even with the world's biggest spotlight, the media, right on this case.

[sbsquared]

Manny - are you really that dense? The appeals courts are ONLY ruling on the original findings in the case - and that is what is suspect! They have consistently refused to hear any new evidence or information. That was what the Federal legislation was supposed to rectify - they were asking for a whole new look at the case - not just a ruling on the original findings. Bottom line - the Schindlers had a crappy lawyer and she made a fatal mistake that has caused all subsequent appeals to fail. Read the information on the website I mentioned - just maybe you might learn something!

[MannyIsGod]

I know exactly what is going on, and they looked at the new evidence and deemed it irrelevent!

Appelas do look at new evidence in order to see if it would have changed the outcome of the first trial.

Are YOU that fucking dense?