Skip to comments.Marine Candidate Dehydrated to Death After Boot-camp Accident
Posted on 07/11/2007 8:13:06 PM PDT by monomaniac
PEACHTREE CITY, Georgia, July 11, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Marine candidate who nearly drowned four years ago in boot-camp met his death after his family agreed to let doctors remove his feeding tube.
"He smiled all week [since the tube was removed]. It was the first time. He seemed so happy, not in pain," his mother, Melia Isaac said of her son, who had been reduced to a comatose or minimal conscious state.
"I'm going to wonder for the rest of my life if I did the right thing. But I believe I did. He didn't have much of a life anymore. It was time to let go."
Josh Isaac was training at the US Marines Parris Island boot camp in South Carolina June 30, 2003, when he stopped breathing after leaping into a pool from a 10 foot platform during a routine combat survival class. Isaac went without air to his brain for approximately 8 to 10 minutes, which the Marines concluded could result in irreversible damage in a report.
Exactly four years to the day after the accident, doctors removed Josh Isaac's feeding tube and he died a week later at Dogwood Health and Rehabilitation Center in Fairburn. His funeral was held today in Peachtree City.
However, pro-life advocates pointed out that the manner of Isaac's death carries many similarities to Terri Schiavo's dehydration death in 2005 after her feeding tube was similarly withdrawn.
"You dehydrate somebody not because they're in pain, but because either A: they're dying, or B: their life is not worth living," Alex Schadenberg, a bioethics expert from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition told LifeSiteNews.com.
Schadenberg noted that any arguments to remove Isaac's feeding tube on account of "pain" does not make sense, since modern medicine can treat every sort of pain except neuropathic pain. If Isaac were truly in pain, it would cast doubt on the quality of care given him by medical professionals, who should have been able to make him pain-free.
Isaac died nearly 8 days after the feeding tube was withdrawn. Although medical science indicates the body on average takes 10-14 days to experience organ failure from dehydration, reports and Melia's own statement indicate that the removal of the feeding either caused or expedited Isaac's organ failure, indicating that he did not die a natural death. According to Schadenberg, removing the feeding tube would have been morally licit if Isaac was about to die of natural causes, but it could never be the direct cause of his death.
"Allowing them to die naturally is morally fine; causing their death is morally wrong," said Schadenberg. "By intentionally dehydrating them that's an intentional causation of death."
In my own personal viewpoint, if I turn out to be a vegetable, I’d want my relatives to pull the plug.
I totally agree. However, we’d better have it in writing to save our families the anguish of making that decision.
Actually, having already seen a family member go through a terrible, wasting death, I’m pretty sure my parents and children would do the right thing for me.
Better not let a life extension fanatic near. There is clearly a point where human life extension, even simply by means of artificial feeding, is cruel.
On the off chance that the person feels pain wouldn’t it be more humane to cut their throat? I mean if you’re going to kill the person it seems to me that you should have the guts to do it properly.
How did he go 8-10 minutes without oxygen? Was there no supervision? How deep was the pool?
Six minutes induces brain damage, except in the case of cold weather drowning.
Sounds like he might have incurred a dry drowning. Formerly on a dive team...I pulled several bodies from the ocean that had no water in their lungs.
This is not pulling the plug.
This is not giving a helpless body the food and water it needs to survive.
This is not the same as taking someone off life support which is acting in place of the heart and lungs.
Yeah, dying over a week-long period from dehydration is definitely not a pleasant way to go, especially considering those given to executed criminals.
America is dying.
I agree. Pulling the plug would be if one is on a life support machine. This particular fellow was starved and dehydrated to death.
I think that America is dying. Europe is farther along. We have the choice of whether to follow them or not, but it seems that we are following them.
Ping to a Schaivo like situation.
Unalienable Rights - From God
". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.
The Only Moral Basis
2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."
One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."
Right, Reason, and Capacity to Be Self-governing
3. For the security and enjoyment by Man of his Divinely created rights, it follows implicitly that Man is endowed by his Creator not only with the right to be self-governing but also with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing. This is implicit in the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, Man's unalienable rights would be of little or no use or benefit to him. Faith in Man--in his capacity to be self-governing--is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity.
Rights--as Prohibitions Against Government
4. Certain specific rights of The Individual are protected in the original Constitution but this is by way of statements "in reverse"--by way of express prohibitions against government. The word "right" does not appear in the original instrument. This is because it was designed to express the grant by the people of specific, limited powers to the central government--created by them through this basic law--as well as certain specific limitations on its powers, and on the preexisting powers of the State governments, expressed as prohibitions of things forbidden. Every provision in it pertains to power.
The Constitution's first eight (Bill of Rights) amendments list certain rights of The Individual and prohibit the doing of certain things by the central, or Federal, government which, if done, would violate these rights. These amendments were intended by their Framers and Adopters merely to make express a few of the already-existing, implied prohibitions against the Federal government only--supplementing the prohibitions previously specified expressly in the original Constitution and supplementing and confirming its general, over-all, implied, prohibition as to all things concerning which it withheld power from this government. Merely confirming expressly some of the already-existing, implied prohibitions, these amendments did not create any new ones. They are, therefore, more properly referred to as a partial list of limitations--or a partial Bill of Prohibitions--as was indicated by Hamilton in The Federalist number 84. This hinges upon the uniquely American concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence: that Men, created of God, in turn create their governments and grant to them only "just" (limited) powers--primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights including, in part, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. As Hamilton stated, under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, "the people surrender nothing;" instead, they merely delegate to government--to public servants as public trustees--limited powers and therefore, he added, "they have no need of particular reservations" (in a Bill of Rights). This is the basic reason why the Framing Convention omitted from the Constitution anything in the nature of a separate Bill of Rights, as being unnecessary.
An Endless List of Rights
5. To attempt to name all of these rights--starting with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence--would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man's Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Here "Constitution" includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man's activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do--and equally not to do--this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned "just powers" of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom--freedom of choice--is almost all-embracing.
Right To Be Let Alone
6. In one sense, such freedom to choose involves Man's right to be let alone, which is possessed by The Individual in keeping with the Declaration and Constitution as against government: in enjoyment of his unalienable rights, while respecting the equal rights of others and just laws (as defined in Paragraph 5 above). This right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right of most prized by civilized men. This right is, of course, also possessed as against all other Individuals, all obligated to act strictly within the limits of their own equal rights. Consequently any infringement of any Individual's rights is precluded.
Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others
7. Neither government nor any Individuals--acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations--could possibly possess any "just power" (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual's God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy--nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate--Man's God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man's deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man's unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people--acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution--oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).
Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations
8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.
An Offender's Just Punishment
9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.
It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.
10. Man's unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable--because of their Divine origin, according to the traditional American philosophy.
At least they should give them the same painless way of dying instead of this phony method of allowing a helpless person to die while claiming 'nature is taking its course'
You slice somebody’s neck open to save your own life.
So what would you do if there’s no brain activity?
Like the Laura Laughlin case, another quiet instance on starvation and dehydration has taken place somewhere in our country.
A while back, there was another disabled young woman named Laura Laughlin in Missouri. She was very similiar to Terri Schiavo and died not too long ago.
It was rumored that husband pulled her feeding tube and she starved and dehydrated her death but this was not confirmed. It unknown how exactly Laura Laughlin died.
It would be a surprise if she was starved and dehydrated to death given that her web site was receiving quite a bit of attention.
Nevertheless, the husband has done good by starting a nice foundation in Laura Laughlin’s Memory. It has gotten off to a good start and will continue to fund research to help brain injured patients.
Another person who was cognitively disabled has been Debbie Rich.
She received brain damage from a car accident in 2003.
Addition, Debbie also received severe damage to her lungs which was the primary cause of her death.
Reading the posts, the husband took good care of her for 4 years and never left her side. He provided Debbie with therapy right to the end.
Fortunately, Debbie was not starved and dehydrated to death; a method of death that has been deemed morally and medically unacceptable by a large number of people.
However, the husband did give up his efforts and did begin to think of Debbie’s wishes.
In his posts, I believe the care just became too burdensome.
The lung damage was the real problem rather than her brain damage.
Below is the last post:
DEBBIES FINAL JOURNEY
July 8, 2007
This morning at 12:27 am I lost a great mother of two kids,
wife, and the best friend I will ever have. Debbie pasted away at her
home with Krystal, Janet, Helen, Gerald, and I at her bed side. It all
started around 7:00 pm with heavy breathing noises and her
oxygen level dropped to 30%. We all got closer and held hands
with Debbie for thirty minutes then Debbies stats got better. I
learned tonight that people do not just pass away. It took over 5
hours for the whole process to take place.
Remember, all brain injuries are different. Debbie had a lung
issue that cost her life. After Debbies funeral, I will finish the web
page and if only one persons life is helped, it will be all worth it.
We want to thank everyone for their support and prayers through
out the past 4 years.
Please keep Debbie Rich in your prayers.
So far 2 people have gone who had major websites: Laura Laughlin and Debbie Rich.
4 other people still needs prayers on hope and encouragement:
Chris Barnes - http://chrisbarnes.blogharbor.com/
Tori Schmanski - http://pray4tori.com/
Michael Mobely - http://www.justiceformichael.com/index.html
Kathleen Davey - http://www.getwellkathleen.us/index.htm
All 4 of these individuals have the same things in common:
They all have anoxic brain damage.
They have dependance on a feeding tube (not 100%).
They are all cognivtely impaired and similiar to Terri Schiavo.
They have all had Stem Cell Therapy from China.
They all need prayers, financial help and medical help.
More time and energy need to be put into caring for these individuals.
The people I mentioned are greatly disabled. They are alive because they have loving guardians that allow them to stay alive. However, as time passes that could change if the guardian doesn’t see the improvement they want to see or if their care becomes too burdonsome to live with. In that case, there is nothing that can stop the guardians from advocating for their deaths. These people are vulnerable and some legal instrument needs to be in force to protect them.
Yep, me too! Everyone in my family agrees with this, also.
I predict about 5,000 posts to this thread by the end. A few suspensins and maybe a couple bannings, too.
I think the mother was in a better situation then anyone else to know how long to let this go on.
God Bless her.
A few important points:
1) Dehydration” is definitely NOT the same as “pulling the plug.” Dehydration-killing is the deliberate killing of a person by denying them a basic human need-water. “Pulling the plug” is withdrawal of life-sustaining equipment.
2) Dehydration is extremely painful to anyone who has any sensation whatsoever, even if they are judged to be “comatose.”
2) “Comatose” is a word for “we don’t know what their brain is doing.” Many, many people who have “awakened” from a “coma” knew and felt what was happening to them while they were unable to respond.
3) Comatose people don’t smile. Their faces might however be seen to grimace as the muscles contract from dehydration.
How the heck did the recruit remain underwater for that long a period of time? A DI and instructors are with recruits every minute of the day.
Was he in a comatose state prior to pulling the tube?
They mention that he was smiling all week after pulling the tube. If he was in a coma how is that possible?
If he wasn't in a coma, how could the doctor continuance such an action?
You mean, kill you? Let’s call it what it is. Murder.
“On the off chance that the person feels pain wouldnt it be more humane to cut their throat? I mean if youre going to kill the person it seems to me that you should have the guts to do it properly.”
Or use lethal injections.
Murder is Murder, no matter how you do it, whether by gunfire, stabbing, bombing, strangling, poison or starvation/dehydration.
Lethal Injection, at least the exspurts (spelling intentional) claim, is at least painless.
Really? I'd prefer they shoot me in the head. It's faster, and in the event I am able to comprehend what is going on, it seems much more humane and less horrifying than two-weeks of starvation/dehydration.
“America is dying.”
No it’s dead, now it’s rotting.
I Somewhat agree. Many people long for a death that is quick and painless; such as dying in one’s sleep. Unfortunately, this is not always so if a person has very debilitating terminal cancer. They may anguish for weeks before dying even though medical professionals do a good job at controlling pain and discomfort.
Subjecting someone to starvation and dehydration even if medically controlled is a prolonged process that should be avoided.
However, in the case of brain injured patients, they sometimes tend to be biologgically tenacious; meaning they won’t die when someone wants they to.
Depriving these people of food and water is a very aggressive approach to starting a process that will kill them.
No one can survive without food and water indefinitely.
Removing someone’s feeding tube if they not actively dying has one intent; To cause their death and kill them.
Even pulling the plug like with ventilator, the intent is not as strong as people sometimes survive after the ventilator is pulled.
KAQ (Karen Ann Quilen) was disconnected from a ventilator because the family felt it was overly burdonsome and causing her discomfort.
KAQ also had feeding tube. The family did not pull this and KAQ died of natural causes many years later.
When the family was asked on why they didn’t pull KAQ’s feeding tube, the family responded “It’s her nourishment.”
You slice somebodys neck open to save your own life.
That’s all these people are doing. They aren’t doing it for the benefit of the disabled one, they are doing it for personal expedience.
Let them go, pull the plug, all the euphemisms are used to hide the fact that this is a horrid way to die. People can go to jail for starving and dehydrating their pets to death. But a disabled person? Useless and not worthy of the basic compassion shown to animals.
It would be far more compassionate to put a bullet in their heads, give lethal injection or slash their throats.
I think we can all agree that in most situations it is morally wrong to cut someone’s throat.
Did you get the point I was trying to make? It’s one thing to disconnect a machine that is operating the heart and lungs. In those cases the patient is usually gone pretty quickly. That is how you define a machine that is keeping someone “artificially” alive.
It’s a whole different story to deny food or water. If you disagree you can try locking yourself in a room without either for a week or two.
Denying a person food and water is just a slow act of murder for cowards who can’t look their victim in the eyes.
So what would you do if theres no brain activity?
Assume they are a member of the United States Senate.
FWIW, I've told my next of kin to euthanize me if they must, but never to starve/dehydrate me to death.
Please see my post #35.
Great post, agree completely.
Starving and Dehydrating someone to death regardless of the person’s condition (not dying) and whether the practice is done by the removal of feeding tube or by natural means is a cruel inhumane process ON ITS FACE.
When I say ON IT FACE, I mean the whole sense of it.
Starvation and Dehydration is something that we can’t do to a dog, a deathrow imate or terrorists.
And yet the practice of starvation and dehydration was done to Terri and this individual.
The fact that feeding tube was simply removed changes little.
Issac was denied food and water.
Issac’s death was caused by starvation and dehydration.
It should also be noted that the provision of food and water is a basic humanitarian right.
Children in other countries die from lack of food and water.
Billions of dollars are sent each year to give these children food and water.
The provision of food and water is also a basic need under Maslow’s hiarchitory of Needs just like shelter.
So ON THE FACE OF IT, starvation and dehydration whether it be by removal of a feeding tube or by natural means is a inhumane process.
Issac was subjected to this inhumane process.
Issac was not dying.
Issac was deprived of the basic humanitarian right to food and water (feeding tube or natural means).
This is not the same as witholding a ventilator or kidney dialysis as those are true life support and person’s death are caused by organ failure.
In addition, starvation and dehydration is rather prolonged process as we have seen.
Issac’s death by a removal of feeding tube fell under the preumbra of starvation and dehydration, an act that is cruel and inhumane.
This technique is being confused with 'pulling the plug' which it isn't.
If there is no brain activity the body should not be operating.
That is a case when as soon as you take it off of life support the body does die since it is really already dead and the machines are working for it.
life extension fanatic
that’s what we are now if we value the sanctity of human life. yuck.