Originally posted by Liberator
Yeah, but it would establish the precedent.
Who decides how much suffering is too much? The doctor? The government? If so, where do they derive that kind of authority?
What if you are in a wreck and are diagnosed with a spinal injury that leaves you paralyzed from the neck down, unable to speak. At that point, according to you're standard we should whack you, but what if a treatment was developed days after you're executed(and let's not mince words, it is execution) that would have restored you to something resembling full function?
The person decides. If the person is left in a completely incommunicado state, brain damaged to the extent they cannot communicate or even form rational thought (note; there's at least one instance where a paraplegic has learned to communicate through blinking, and even wrote a book as a result), then the responsibility passes to the next of kin, whose motives are examined by the courts to ensure they are neutral.
In both cases, medical evidence is required in order prove that further recovery is impossible. I believe Switzerland and Holland in particular already have laws to this effect.
If medical technology is developed days after the euthenisation, then it's tough cheese
(NB: of course, medical technology and treatment is developed, documented and tested over long periods of time; any competent doctor would be able to point out the potential for treatment during an evaluation; as such it is vastly unlikely a wonder-cure would unexpectedly emerge 'days', or weeks, or even months after the person dies in a useable state)
(more general reply; not specifically @Lib)
On this specific case... firstly, it's completely wrong to pass a law for a single specific case and person (and the law apparently specifically refers to the Schiavos) - it smacks of dictatorial rule, and is simply morally wrong, regardless of what that law is.
Reading a little about it, Terry Schiavo has been described as in a Persistent Vegatative State for now 15 years, where involuntary stimuli such as screaming, smiling, grunting, etc can occur; it'd be very easy for hopeful parents to interpret this as voluntary response. Either way, it's symptomatic of PVs, so the issue is the medical diagnosis.
As such, if the doctors diagnose it as unrecoverable PVS, then I think there is a right to withdraw treatment; and I think it's the humane thing to do, rather than let her live in this way.
(note; this is not euthanasia in legal terms, because the patient cannot independently survive without treatment. So it's actually a different issue than letting a cancer sufferer OD, for example)
There is an issue of the humanity of allowing her to starve to death over a 2 wekks period... however, medical diagnosis apparently indicates that a large portion of her cerebral cortex has turned into fluid - in effect, she cannot actually
feel hunger or thirst.
Incidentally, PVS is diagnosed as a case of serious brain damage with "wakefulness without awareness"; it was coined in 1972 partly because of medicines increased ability to keep the
body alive. There are, IIRC, studies in the use of MRI that help determine whether PVS can be recovered from.
(another note; there's a difference in PVS compared to brain damage; PVS sufferers are never 'awake' and able to perceive the world around them - brain damaged or retarded individuals can, but in a 'damaged' manner)
Finally, Michael Schiavo won his malpractice suit in 1992 (according to the beeb); that's over 12 years ago. He's also
refused $1m dollars (my emphasis) offered by a Californian businessman to keep his wife alive (and presumably sign away his guardianship rights). Perhaps it would be fair to mention
that whilst you're busy character assassinating him?
