Schiavo Case Goes to Heart of Principles of Medical Ethics!

by Voyager 2 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Voyager

  http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1328140.htm

  http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1328140.htm

  *********************************************************************************************************

  Schiavo case goes to heart of principles of medical ethics	PRINT FRIENDLY	EMAIL STORY
  The World Today - Monday, 21 March , 2005 12:18:00 Reporter: Edmond Roy ELEANOR HALL: So, how would such a case be handled in Australia? Medical ethicists here agree that most decisions about life support are dealt with by the physician, the family and the patient. But nevertheless, there have been instances when the courts have become involved. Edmond Roy spoke Dr Roseanna Capolingua, Chair of the Australian Medical Association's Ethics and Medico Legal committee. ROSEANNA CAPOLINGUA: This woman is actually not in a coma, she is alive. You could draw parallels to many people who are in prolonged care in Australia. You could look at children who are fed, who have disability. You could look at people who've had strokes, who are being cared for and fed, whether they're fed by a carer or whether they have a line in feeding them, it's the same thing. It is providing essential care for the maintenance and respect of that life. In this situation the court has ruled that that should be taken away, and the woman will die. So, it is not something that is legal or accepted in Australia, and we don't need to follow the American path here. EDMOND ROY: Have there been similar cases, though? ROSEANNA CAPOLINGUA: I don't think there's been a case where sustained sort of care has been an issue. Certainly, every now and again, and in fact last year I think on the East Coast of Australia there was a case where life support? as in a patient was in intensive care to maintain life, and the doctors felt that there was really absolutely no avenue of recovery, the complications of the intensive care was quite significant for the patient, and the family in this case did not want the intensive care support removed, and the doctors recommended that it should be removed, and that case went to the courts here. But usually what happens in acute situations is that decisions are resolved quite calmly, quite clearly between the guardians or the parents or relatives of the individual patient and the doctors caring, in the best interests of the patient. And that's in the acute situations. In the long-term care situation, long-term care is provided and sustained for the term of the person's natural life. EDMOND ROY: Now that, as you say, is also the ideal situation, but nevertheless the courts are there and are used? ROSEANNA CAPOLINGUA: Very occasionally the courts are used. Recently in WA, Princess Margaret Hospital, the children's hospital here, went to the court for a ruling with regards the use of a blood transfusion in a 14-year-old Jehovah's Witness, who was undergoing chemotherapy. The family were refusing to allow the child to have the transfusion. The doctors felt, obviously, the child was going to die if he did not receive the transfusion, and went to the court, and the court ruled that the transfusion should be given. It is an uncommon occurrence. Usually things are resolved between family and the doctors, the clinicians. But, again, that's in an acute situation. This is a scenario where someone has been in long-term care, where there aren't really medical complications occurring, the patient is relatively "well", in inverted commas. They may not be living a normal life, as you and I would view it, but they have life which in this case is quite obvious when you see photographs or film footage of this particular person, and she has only been requiring the feeding to sustain her, and proper nursing care. So, the decision to remove that from her is really a decision to kill her. The implications of? certainly it's not acceptable in Australian law, and the implications of these sorts of decisions allow for a great deal of concern. Remember, these people often cannot speak up for themselves, but they still have rights, and we need to make sure that the best interests of that person are always protected. ELEANOR HALL: The Australian Medical Association's Doctor Roseanna Capolingua speaking to Edmond Roy.
• 

  euripides

  Witnesses should be very concerned about the Schiavo case. Thusfar the law has been upheld. But say, just say, it wasn't about a feeding tube but a blood transfusion. Does this woman's husband, as her proxy, have a right to declare that she would not have wanted it? I say yes, and the law agrees with me.

  I say this as an ex-Witness who believes that most of their religious ideology is dismissable. However, people have a right to do what they want. So who are these so-called "conservatives" and Federalists who think Congress passing a bill for one person, designed to nullify a state's law and state court's decision, is a good idea? These "errant on the side of life" who are now standing in front of this woman's hospice with huges crosses and pushing their children forward with plastic cups of water to be arrested, to stand up and say, our law (which most people already agree with, by the way) is wrong, you should not have freedom to make this decision? This is already the law. If there were no disagreement in this family, we wouldn't hear about this at all.

  Witnesses should pay very close attention to this case, however. The next erosion, if a court or Congress or the governor were to intrusively act, would be to deny people the right to refuse blood transfusion or medical treatment. And then, whatever choice you may hold on to, someone else will decide what's best.

  If Terri Schiavo is conscious, what if she didn't want to be a prisoner in a completely broken body? Wouldn't that be even a greater suffering?

  In addressing the issue raised in the article above, the courts here in the U.S. have always held that the situation is different in the case of minors, and rightly so. Essentially the wishes of the parents in life and death cases may be overriden if there is a compelling governmental interest, No child sacrifice, in the mind of the law, if you will.

  I don't know what the Witness position is on the Schiavo case, I'll have to ask my mother. Any one out there know?

  Euripides
• 

  Leolaia

  I watched a medical ethics expert on CNN last night who made the same comparison between the Schiavo case and JW blood transfusions. As he put it, the issue is acceptance or refusal of medical care. The feeding tube in the Schiavo case is not equivalent to simple eating and drinking as it constitutes medical technology designed to extend life and its administration is de facto medical care. A JW husband refusing a transfusion for his wife (if no documentation from the wife exists) would be in the same or similar situation as Michael Schiavo.