Posted on 09/12/2003 1:46:08 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Charlottesville, VA (LifeNews.com) -- Doctors at the University of Virginia Medical Center removed Jason Childress from a ventilator Thursday afternoon, despite videotaped evidence showing him expressing his desire to stay alive.
The family has been embroiled in a dispute as to whether Jason should live or die.
On one side is Jerry Childress, Jason's stepmother and her family, a brother and the mother of one of his children -- who want to continue life support. On the other side is his mother, Theresa Spencer, his sister and the mother of his other two children -- who want let Jason die.
The court appointed Herbert Pickford, a retired Charlottesville Circuit Court judge, to serve as Jason's guardian. He interviewed family members and decided Jason would have wanted to end his life.
"I have given my consent to remove the tube for breathing and to enter a 'do not resuscitate' order," retired Judge Herbert Pickford said.
Childress could be able to survive for several days without a ventilator. Pickford did not consent to removing Childress' feeding tube.
Tom Marzen, a pro-life attorney who monitors end of life issues, tells LifeNews.com that Jason was weaned off of the ventilator starting on Tuesday.
In an interview with LifeNews.com, Katrina Childress, Jason's stepmother, said she and Jerry, Jason's father, have visited Jason on a daily basis since his automobile accident. They say he is responding to them and has clearly indicated he wants to live.
"I have been working with Jason to get him to respond to commands," Katrina told LifeNews.com. "He is successfully responding."
"Jason has raised his finger several days in a row and several times a day," she said. Katrina also said Jason would have told his brother or father if he wanted to be removed from life support in a situation such as his.
Jason has been in a coma since July 16 after an automobile accident. He was nearly removed from life support prematurely when the University of Virginia Medical Center failed to provide two weeks notice to his family before doctors gave up and wanted to pull the plug.
Jason's father Jerry was able to get help from a local attorney, David Schreve, to delay ending Jason's life until a court could appoint a guardian to make the decision about Jason's fate.
"There's nothing we can do now," Katrina said. "We're going to pray ... and he's going to have to breathe on his own."
I'm sorry to say this, but what's the big fuss? He was going to die anyway. He can't live forever on a ventilator -- either he would eventually die of pneumonia or an infection. The ventilator only delayed the inevitable by a few weeks, at most.
Every single one of us will be, individually, at risk from this death movement. We all need to learn about and publicize the most dramatic cases to inform our fellow human beings what the health and legal professionals involved in them have in mind for everyone.
He is a goner, whether or not he is brain dead.
My understanding of the article, an an earlier one that I read yesterday, is that the ventilator is simply delaying his inevitable demise. Perhaps I'm wrong. Assuming I am correct, and I know I sound callous, but I am facing reality: As a society we cannot afford to give people endless medical care. Nowadays, technology can keep a corpse alive on a ventilator. People complain about the cost of medical premiums but then want endless care. What are we going to do -- bankrupt the country? Someone tell me, what are we going to do?
Probably the number one reason why medicine is so expensive is that most of it is covered by insurance or the government. There is no need for the patient, hospital or doctors to keep costs down. It's very easy to say: "keep him alive, no matter what" when someone else paying the bill and providing the care. Would they be so keen to keep him alive otherwise? Would you?
In today's Wall St. Journal there's a front page article about the reality of medical rationing. Unfortunately, so many conservatives, like the liberals, think this country is infinitely rich and that people are "entitled" to whatever they want.
Actually, I'd rather be dead than spend my life brain-damaged, lying flat on my back and staring blankly at the ceiling, even if I could breathe on my own. I don't want to be a burden on my family, or spend a lifetime's worth of savings, or sponge off the government.
Certainly, new medical technologies have created new moral dilemmas. I recall a comment made by someone writing in The National Review that we could spend the entire Gross National Product on healthcare. Are we going to? In most countries, a poor person is fortunate if his broken arm is set in a government-funded clinic -- anything beyond that he has to pay for himself. Even in Canada and Britain people are denied treatment because of their age, even if what they suffer from is treatable.
Would you agree that people should NOT be hooked up to machinery like a lab animal if they do not want to be? I never got that impression from your post, but I would like to know.
If it allegedly "futile" to keep someone alive since their so-called "quality of life" is considered low, they can legally be killed and/or "allowed to die" even when all indications are many cases are of people who wish to live if at all possible.
Which is one reason that I have a Living Will and a DNR Order on file in my personal papers, with a card in my wallet. I'll do everything in my power to avoid being connected to machines that breathe for me and carry on my body functions without my consent. That is one case in which I can truthfully say that I'd rather be dead.
Childress' ventilator was turned off, but the feeding tube is still on. Medical rationing is happening in this country -- read the article on Page 1 of today's Wall St. Journal.
Yes, I do make a distinction between turning off the ventilator and dehydration. Look, my take on the two articles I read was that the man was dying anyway and that the ventilator was just delaying the inevitable.
Ironically enough, I think that in the long run, the more society is bled dry by the cost of medical care, the more attractive euthanasia (first voluntary, then involuntary) will become. We may go from one extreme to another -- from keeping a virtual corpse alive on a ventilator to the widespread killing of the handicapped, elderly, etc.
What I think is inevitable is the paring back, if not outright collapse, of the welfare state -- the government will no longer have the funds to provide all the social services it now does. I'd say within 30 years, in one way our society will revert back to the way it was 100 years ago -- you take of yourself and your own. At that point, if a family wants to keep someone like Childress alive they better be willing to foot the bill themselves, which is the situation throughout most of the world today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.