Asphyxiation vs. poisoning vs. starvation?

As Tom DeLay and my own embarrassment of a Senator, Rick man-on-dog, inserted themselves into what should have been a private matter within the state of Florida's jurisdiction, I keep hearing the term "death by starvation" used. While technically, the removal of a feeding tube causes a state of dehydration and kidney failure, it is obviously a politically charged term used to invoke feelings of a suffering death.

Tom DeLay had no problem removing his own father from a ventilator and I have heard much discussion on removing ventilators or refusing dialysis as "acceptable" while removing a feeding tube as "death by starvation".

Who decides that removing a ventilator, which could be termed "death by asphyxiation", or refusing dialysis as "death by uremic poisoning", are acceptable? Is the Federal government now going to tell us how we can die?

I am looking for leaders who respect privacy with minimal government intrusion into people's personal lives.

why did we find it more acceptable to pull a feeding tube knowing it would take her 14 days to die than to leave the feeding tube in and administer a slow poison that we knew would take her 14 days to die?

Just a thought.

The real underlying issue here is that we really don't have any better tool under the law than withholding care, and that will always be perceived as barbaric to some, and certainly can easily be portrayed that way.

those who wish to exploit the situation (Santorium, deLay,ect.ect, Randell Terry, etc). Those of us who are around the dying know that, in fact, many patients loose their appetite--they do not want to eat/drink--the body knows best--this is part of the dying process (takes longer for some than for others). The media has done a poor job of explaning to people how people die. Instead, they allow others to use this phase-and they themselves use this phase.

there should be no taboo in a case like this.
The problem is, a lethal injection of something would have been more humane, but our society and legal system, whatever, make it WRONG to do that, so witholding care is the only way to do it legally.

You raise a good question that there are better, more humane methods, but they are methods of active intervention rather than passive lack of intervention.

Reminds me of a brother in law, who used to work at a slaughterhouse in KY. they used to take the cows and shoot them in the head. One shot, boom, dead. But that was considered wrong, so what they had to do then legally was force the cow into a vise, and take a sledghammer and bash their heads in. he said, sometimes it took 3 or four blows to kill them.

I have no idea why that was considered more humane :crazy:

Can't remember his name but he's a very intelligent and well respected prominent attorney. Anyway, his point was that the fundy-zealots fought against assisted suicide but "supported" withdrawal of treatments. Of course, being fundy-zealots, they are not happy with that position now either...they will not stop until this country is a fundy Theocracy.

Terri's Schiavo's situation to just shoot me in the head. Of course, I can't put that in my living will, and that is my question: if I put it in writing that I would prefer a large dose of morphine to die instead of the withholding of care (if I were ever in Terri's condition), could that possibly be honored in any state? I would want to spare my siblings the pain of thinking they were "starving me to death".

Isn't the SCOTUS reviewing the Oregon law soon? I'm sure the fundies will be out in force to fight assisted suicide.

It takes several weeks to *starve to death. To be honest, pulling a feeding tube does seem barbaric to me, but much, MUCH less so than inserting a feeding tube and allowing a person in a persistant vegetative state to lie in bed for 15 years where they will develop painful bed sores and muscle atrophy as their brain slowly liquifies.

*I should add that it's reprehensible what the looney right has done in this case. Goddamned liars!

My point is, if pulling a tube is termed "starving", then pulling a ventilator could be termed "asphyxiation". Would Tom DeLay like to have his choice for his father termed "death by asphyxiation"?...I doubt it.

Nah, never mind.
Was gonna tell the differences in pulling a feeding tube and pulling a vent and the effects on the patients in general and which is worse--but I realize we all have to make these decisions at some point in life and nobody deserves to feel guilty about them.
The only thing I would advocate and only in TD's case--was to ask how it felt to watch his dad smother to death?

How can TD smugly insert himself into the personal tragedy of the dysfunctional Shiavo case and then basically offer up a bounty-hunter battle cry on the judiciary of this country. On second thought, it is not only hypocritical, it is a dangerous precedent.

My dad technically died, and his heart was jump-started, but only after he was without oxygen for over ten minutes. He was brain dead, and being kept alive with a ventilator. When we removed the ventilator, he breathed on his own for 17 hours, then his heart gave out and he died. He was not asphyxiated. He breathed on his own right up until his heart simply stopped beating.

But this is not to diminish your original point. The language used in Ms. Schiavo's case was very emotionally charged, and with craven political intent.

My point was the language being used.

Secondly, I am sympathetic and respectful of personal family decisions re: end-of-life care but when truly slimy politicians show no sympathy/respect for what SHOULD BE personal family situations, then their own family history comes into play and the inflammatory language can be used against them.

Completely despicable, they are.

attests to the good nursing care she did get. But over the years, the contractures did develop.


.....allowing a person in a persistant vegetative state to lie in bed for 15 years where they will develop painful bed sores and muscle atrophy as their brain slowly liquifies.....