Hark, the cry of the "principled" modern liberal: If Jerry Falwell is for it, I must be against it.

*sigh* This is a person whose cerebral cortex is mostly gone. Without a thought in her head, literally.

I know. We relate to her, somehow. We think she would (can) feel how we think we would feel. This is the wonderful human empathy, misdirected. So we imagine the utter horror of malnutrition and dehydration -- but we can't imagine not having a thought in our heads. Can we?

Anyway, I thought the polls showed 66% support the tube removal, and the Congressional record showed most Dems voted for the Super-Special Schiavo Act. This issue SO should not be used for partisan purpose!

This issue SO should not be used for partisan purpose!

I think that's what Ilyka's reacting against (my apologies to her if I'm wrong). It's being framed by many as "it's just a bunch of crazy Bible thumpers" coming down on one side of the issue, and her link illustrated that it wasn't.

Also, I think she was pointing out that if there isn't a thought in the woman's head, what's the point of using painkillers?

"[I]f there isn't a thought in the woman's head, what's the point of using painkillers?"

Um, because it can't possibly hurt?

I think the point is that the instructions to monitor for signs of discomfort, and to be prepared to administer painkillers, are indicative of the possibility that it's an overstatement to say with such abolute certainty that she is "without a thought in her head." Perhaps you could still argue that it isn't germane to the case as a matter of law as the PVS diagnosis still applies, but it still is something to think about.

Wow. Girl takes a nap and all hell breaks loose.

I'm blaming magnets. Powerful hell-magnets.

Anyway:
-----
"[I]f there isn't a thought in the woman's head, what's the point of using painkillers?"

Um, because it can't possibly hurt?
-----

See that "perfectly painless" part that's linked in my post? That leads you to an exit protocol document--a care plan for patients on their way off this mortal coil, i.e., how to care for the dying.

Read it. Terri's "naturally painless" death could require administration of muscle relaxants, morphine, "saliva substitute," and . . . and a coupla Aleve up her ass, i.e., 375 mg naproxen p.r. q.8h.

Yeah, I still don't get it. So what? It's not unethical to administer painkillers prophylactically; hell, my dentist does that! You don't need proof the patient is in pain. Administering painkillers IS not proof the patient CAN feel pain. What's your point?

And what happens if we DO learn the patient can definitely feel pain? What does that mean??

This is not prophylactic. Item 3:

3. Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg Q8* prn.

Wait a minute! George Felos, Michael Schiavo, and all the other advocates of feeding-tube removal have been saying repeatedly that dying by denial of nutrition & hydration is "peaceful" and "painless". They've both said so in interviews and press conferences, such as on Larry King Live. So if dying by denial of nutrition and hydration is, as Michael said, "painless and probably the most natural way to die", then why is medication needed for pain and discomfort?

It's like this: I'm not anti-euthanasia. But have the stones to make it quick and, well, closer to painless than this, anyway. I don't know what she can or can't feel. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. Debating that gets us nowhere.

I'm erring on the side of doubt. If I'm wrong, Michael Schiavo's had to put up with some insulting behavior from people on (what we'll call for lack of a better term) "my side." If I'm right, I'd rather be wrong.

Well, dammit, I have privately agreed all along, but the problem is -- it isn't legal to actively kill her, is it? It's only legal to stop keeping her alive. The law is an ass, it's been said.

And I am officially done with this topic.