'Palliative care' or murder?

The Alaska Supreme Court has intervened to protect the life of a disabled patient that an Anchorage hospital wants to stop treating and allow to die. 

 

 

Less than one month ago, on May 9th, Mari Chamberlain's heart temporarily stopped, and she is now in a coma. Doctors at Providence Hospital in Anchorage, Alaska, believe there is no hope for her to recover.
 
Anchorage attorney Kenneth Kirk is working with the Alliance Defense Fund, representing the Chamberlain family. "And the hospital, which is Providence Hospital, is trying to put her on what they call 'palliative care,' which just simply means put her on pain killers and such and let her die," Kirk explains.
 
He says the hospital is, in essence, ignoring the family's wishes and concerns. "They're doing it so quickly that the family hasn't had a chance to really, to test this, to get a second opinion, have her looked at by another neurologist, figure out whether there is some hope of recovery. They're just insisting on their way or the highway," Kirk contends.
 
A state court ruled in the hospital's favor, but the Alaska Supreme court extended a temporary restraining order indefinitely until the family has exhausted their legal appeals. Kirk noted that this case is a stark reversal from the Nancy Cruzan case in the late 1980s and 1990, when doctors fought to keep two parents from terminating the life of their injured daughter.
 
"Nowadays, some medical professionals really seem to have changed their values and philosophy. They're much more oriented toward terminating life support," Kirk points out.
 
Kirk believes the hospital is stepping out of its purely medical role. "They insist that they're just basing it on the fact that they don't think she has any real hope of recovery. But they're pushing it so hard. I mean, May 9th is when she collapsed. This whole thing has happened in a few weeks, and they're very insistent," Kirk says.
 
The Alaska Supreme Court has extended a temporary injunction that requires the hospital to continue the woman's care while the legal fight continues. However, the hospital immediately filed an appeal asking the court to reconsider.

Anyone remember Terri Schiavo in Florida? Her parents wanted (and fought) to take on the entire responibility and care for her, but her so-called husband wanted her dead. (Besides, he had been shacking up with his honey, had 2 kids with her, and wanted to marry her, so Terri had to die - he also became rather wealthy - thanks to Terri's condition). Long story, but anyone who wants the details can readily find tons of information on the case. Anyway, she was disabled, she wasn't dying, but her scum/husband and the creeps involved in her case MURDERED HER BY STARVATION AND DEHYDRATION. It took her 12 or 13 agonizing days to die.

I seem to recall the "...first, do no harm..." that the medical establishment is to adhere to as their oath and duty.  My, what some lengths the cruel, sadistic among us won't go to have it their way. I hope and pray this one turns out differently, otherwise, it's MURDER. Rhonda

The Hippocratic Oath has become the Hipocritic Oath. It's like marriage: It used to be for better AND for worse; now it is simply for better UNTIL worse and then it's time for a no-fault divorce.

---

Good analogy, photoman. Sad, but true. Rhonda

Folks, don't forget that sometimes God is calling us home for a reason.  Prolonging agony in order to coddle a warm body might be the selfish choice.  I am firmly pro-life in every way possible, but is keeping a life artificially really life?

Do all of you have a living will?  If not, please get one, and make it abundantly clear to your loved ones what you want to have done. 

---

As for Terri Schiavo - she was not on a ventilator, iron lung, etc. She only had a feeding tube inserted in her stomach for nourishment. She was only handicapped, not brain dead, not in a coma, and not on any artificial life support. She had value --- she was just an inconvenience to her scumbag "husband" who had already had 2 kids with his shack up girlfriend and he wanted her dead.  God didn't call her home, she was murdered by cruel, heartless,gutless people for monetary and personal gain. Each one involved in her murder are hypocrits and liars. With any justice THEY will get to suffer the horrific death they gave her!  Rhonda

Medicine can keep people "alive" who would already be dead in the not so distant past.  Just because a person is in this state doesn't mean they have life.  If you've ever seen any of these people firsthand, you know exactly what I mean. 

They should give the family a chance to come to grips with reality, though.

As for Terri Schiavo, she was in a vegetative state.  The brain damage found at autopsy was far more severe than the doctors speculated about.  It would have been impossible for her to see, hear, talk, or anything else.  Keeping her alive like that was wrong.  Letting nature finish its course was humane.

And, I agree with elaina.  You better have a living will so this doesn't happen to you.   Talk to your close friends and family about it. 

---

Thank you, CM.  This is exactly what I just wanted to post.  You took the  words right out of my mouth.  I guess you have to have worked where we have, and seen what we have seen to understand the severity of this situation.

I give ya'll that much, Mr. Schiavo is not the best example of a loving husband.  But that has nothing to do with a life and death decision.    Even a dead person can have a heartbeat.  Really.

---

I beg to differ - Terri was not in a vegetative state, and her brain was of course in bad shape AT AUTOPSY --- the poor woman had been starved and dehydrated for almost 2 weeks! How would anyone's brain look after such horrendous treatment? Even if she had been in a vegetative state, her PARENTS and brother and sister wanted to take care of her at their own expense. But, her pig "husband" wanted her D-E-A-D! Do we now value handicapped, or the mentally deficient less than whole-bodied and sound of mind? My god, I hope not. Maybe Glenn Beck should be asked that question since he has a daughter with cerebal palsy - I beleive he'll tell you a great deal about the value his daughter has. And Terri did too.

She had family who loved her. THEY valued her life. THEY were denied their right and convictions of faith to care for her. Delve into her story from her family and you'll see an entirely opposite picture than what the media and her VILE "husband" gave.  She did NOT deserve to be murdered in the slow, mercilously, hideously painful manner to which she was subjected.

A DOG would bring a swift arrest to anyone who did that, so what's the justice for Terri? There was NONE.  And her family had to stand by and do nothing, without breaking some phony "law" and the creep Mr. Schiavo had the "next of kin" right to MURDER her. How pathetic.  Rhonda

Again, Rhonda, the Schiavo case is not a great example  when one discusses this matter.  It was taken out of propertion by the MSM and others. 

But, 

I wonder how Terri would have felt to have her likeness broadcasted day in and day out?  This should have been a private matter between the doctors and the family. 

Forgive me for asking this as well: what if Terri had made the decison not wanting to live like this?  What, if her husband, hated and despised everywhere, fulfilled her wishes, regardless how people thought of him? 

I know her story, and I know of many more.  I have been with people in these situations many times. When  doting families are faced with life and death decisions, they don't always base their judgement on what is real, but rather on what they want to be real. 

I understand how you feel about this.  But please also understand that circumstances often leave you no choice but to so what is right for a loved one, not what feels right to us. 

I feel for the family, but in this and other situations, the first and foremost concern should be the "patient". 

The justice for Terri is peace with the Lord.  It is God who will judge her husband, right or wrong. 

---

kmcheng said:

Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 6/6/2008 8:00:00 AMvar addthis_pub = 'onenewsnow';

The Alaska Supreme Court has intervened to protect the life of a disabled patient that an Anchorage hospital wants to stop treating and allow to die. 

 

 

Less than one month ago, on May 9th, Mari Chamberlain's heart temporarily stopped, and she is now in a coma. Doctors at Providence Hospital in Anchorage, Alaska, believe there is no hope for her to recover.
 
Anchorage attorney Kenneth Kirk is working with the Alliance Defense Fund, representing the Chamberlain family. "And the hospital, which is Providence Hospital, is trying to put her on what they call 'palliative care,' which just simply means put her on pain killers and such and let her die," Kirk explains.
 
He says the hospital is, in essence, ignoring the family's wishes and concerns. "They're doing it so quickly that the family hasn't had a chance to really, to test this, to get a second opinion, have her looked at by another neurologist, figure out whether there is some hope of recovery. They're just insisting on their way or the highway," Kirk contends.
 
A state court ruled in the hospital's favor, but the Alaska Supreme court extended a temporary restraining order indefinitely until the family has exhausted their legal appeals. Kirk noted that this case is a stark reversal from the Nancy Cruzan case in the late 1980s and 1990, when doctors fought to keep two parents from terminating the life of their injured daughter.
 
"Nowadays, some medical professionals really seem to have changed their values and philosophy. They're much more oriented toward terminating life support," Kirk points out.
 
Kirk believes the hospital is stepping out of its purely medical role. "They insist that they're just basing it on the fact that they don't think she has any real hope of recovery. But they're pushing it so hard. I mean, May 9th is when she collapsed. This whole thing has happened in a few weeks, and they're very insistent," Kirk says.
 
The Alaska Supreme Court has extended a temporary injunction that requires the hospital to continue the woman's care while the legal fight continues. However, the hospital immediately filed an appeal asking the court to reconsider.

 

In this case, the family has a right to have the patient transferred to another Hospital or a Rehab facility, or even a Longterm Care Facility.  Since I don't know all the facts in this case, and some of the accusations don't make much sense, I'd rather not opine any further.

---

Just one more difference of opinion, which I can respect, just disagree with. Had there been any choice from Terri, is it even remotely plausible she'd have said, oh, yes, and by the way I REALLY want to be dehydrated and starved to death, even though it's going to take almost 2 weeks to die. Don't think so. If there was one ounce of concern or love for her from her vile, rotten "husband" he'd have seen to it that her end came without the agonizing torture she endured. There MUST be a special place in hell for him and those who did that to her.

Wasn't it odd that until Scumbag Schiavo got the millions of dollars for his wife and her rehabilitation not once did he ever utter the words that Terri said she'd not want to live if she were in dire health conditions? After he got the bucks, THEN he "remembered" her comment, which he had no proof whatsoever. She was an inconvenience to him and his new life with his new shackup and their kids. No mystery there! Terri was defenseless. Rhonda

Winston & Rhonda Spaur said:

Just one more difference of opinion, which I can respect, just disagree with. Had there been any choice from Terri, is it even remotely plausible she'd have said, oh, yes, and by the way I REALLY want to be dehydrated and starved to death, even though it's going to take almost 2 weeks to die. Don't think so. If there was one ounce of concern or love for her from her vile, rotten "husband" he'd have seen to it that her end came without the agonizing torture she endured. There MUST be a special place in hell for him and those who did that to her.

Wasn't it odd that until Scumbag Schiavo got the millions of dollars for his wife and her rehabilitation not once did he ever utter the words that Terri said she'd not want to live if she were in dire health conditions? After he got the bucks, THEN he "remembered" her comment, which he had no proof whatsoever. She was an inconvenience to him and his new life with his new shackup and their kids. No mystery there! Terri was defenseless. Rhonda

 

He did spend almost all of the money on her care.  You have to take my word for it, because my senility won't let me rember the link to this.  It is true still.

Truce? 

---

Elaina, there's no need for a truce. We're not at war with one another.  And I do understand your points of view - we just vary on some and that's okay. I'm not upset with you or anyone for their thoughts on many subjects just because we don't agree 100%. We all come from different backgrounds and settings, but that's no reason to be angry with one another.  I love the interaction on FS! Rhonda

In case you want the truth about the autopys report, and some non-emotional opinion:

http://www.michellemalkin.com/2005/06...

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/doc/sch...

If you can't get the links, google Terri Schiavo autopsy, and go to the medical examiners office.  The report is very lengthy, thorough; very detailed.  The report also explaines away some of the rumors surrounding this case.

I hope you have plenty of time. 

---

I seem to recall the "...first, do no harm..." that the medical establishment is to adhere to as their oath and duty.  My, what some lengths the cruel, sadistic among us won't go to have it their way. I hope and pray this one turns out differently, otherwise, it's MURDER. Rhonda

We're not privy to detailed medical information.  The facts should control.  Doctors provide facts - they should not be making decisions on how to respond to those facts under these circumstances.  Additionally, it makes sense for doctors to stand up in defense of life but never in defense of death. 

Cruzan, iirc, said that the court was faced with a choice of errors in deciding whether or not to pull the plug.  They held, again this is from distant memory, that absent a clear life directive from the patient that the proper choice is life... and error less final and more reversible than the alternative.

elaina said:

Folks, don't forget that sometimes God is calling us home for a reason.  Prolonging agony in order to coddle a warm body might be the selfish choice.  I am firmly pro-life in every way possible, but is keeping a life artificially really life?

Do all of you have a living will?  If not, please get one, and make it abundantly clear to your loved ones what you want to have done. 

A life is a life regardless of how it is being maintained.  I had a friend in a coma for a few weeks... his life was sustained "artificially."  i think you may be getting at quality though.  What quality of life does the patient have and what hope of returning to a life of any quality?  Again, that's a fact driven question and the only people qualified to decide, imo, are the patient's family.