Althouse: "He'd always kiss her goodbye and hold her hand... He would never get mad at her and lose his patience."

November 22, 2010

"He'd always kiss her goodbye and hold her hand... He would never get mad at her and lose his patience."

"Whatever she asked of him, that's what he did."

88 comments:

Anonymous said...: I watched my father suffer through 10 years of dementia.

I hope somebody has the compassion to put me out of my misery when I fall into that.

And, I'd hate for that somebody to have to live with that decision.; 11/22/10, 8:36 AM
Jason said...: Book him. Then release him on a five dollar bail. Schedule a trial in 20 years.; 11/22/10, 8:37 AM
tim maguire said...: Jason's approach might be best in this case but I'm conflicted. While I'm a supporter of assisted suicide, euthanasia crosses a line I don't think our society should cross.; 11/22/10, 8:43 AM
Alex said...: This is clearly the fault of Christians who impose their ridiculous ideology on society. The man should not have had to stoop to such desperate measures.

How is immoral to euthanize a person who's mind is gone? It's just a vegetable at that point anyways.; 11/22/10, 8:47 AM
Scott M said...: There have got to be better ways to go about a "mercy" killing. Shooting is loud, messy, and leaves indelible images baked into the minds of anyone involved. There are far quieter, neater, and more dignified ways to die.

Like being chased to your death by a dozen hot chicks in topless rollerderby outfits on skates.; 11/22/10, 8:48 AM
Jason said...: I think seven decades of marriage and the overall circumstances give us a little slack to work with here.; 11/22/10, 8:49 AM
jr565 said...: If someone's mind is gone, then do they have the werewithal to agree to be shot in the head? It could be a mercy kiling or it could be he simply got tired of visiting her and taking care of her all the time.; 11/22/10, 8:54 AM
Known Unknown said...: Sadly, while I empathize with his plight, it's not his decision to make.; 11/22/10, 8:57 AM
jr565 said...: From the article:
By then, she was unable to feed herself, walk, sit up in a wheelchair or even recognize many of the people close to her, Palmateer said.

"Her mind was gone," Palmateer said.

Still, Roy would visit her three times a day, spoon-feeding her at each meal.

"He'd always kiss her goodbye and hold her hand," said Nancy Grijalva, a family friend. "He would never get mad at her and lose his patience.

"Whatever she asked of him, that's what he did," she said."
If she is recognizing some people but not others and is asking for things which he is delivering then her mind is not gone. She has some memories and the werewithal to ask for things.; 11/22/10, 8:58 AM
Scott M said...: How is immoral to euthanize a person who's mind is gone? It's just a vegetable at that point anyways.

Forget morality. I don't like the slippery slope to a society that's just hunkydorey with euthenasia of humans. Nice broad brush stroke there, Alex, lumping in all Christians as having fault in this matter. I suppose you also believe all Muslims are culpable for 9/11 as well?; 11/22/10, 8:58 AM
jr565 said...: and while i can understand and feel for the guy because he obviously loves her, you could just as easily have someone who says they're tired of waiting on someoneat a hospital that can't even feed themselves and who isn't getting better,and they're tired of it. THerefore kill the person so you can get on with your life.; 11/22/10, 9:00 AM
jr565 said...: Scott M wrote:
I suppose you also believe all Muslims are culpable for 9/11 as well?

He does.; 11/22/10, 9:00 AM
Scott M said...: He does.

Hard to tell. We either have two Alex's roundabouts, or one with severe bi-polar disorder.; 11/22/10, 9:02 AM
Triangle Man said...: Sadly, while I empathize with his plight, it's not his decision to make.

Please elaborate. Whose choice is it then?; 11/22/10, 9:07 AM
KCFleming said...: At 88, he very likely has dementia himself.; 11/22/10, 9:09 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Very sad story.

It is a slippery slope deciding when someone is no longer worthy of care, or guessing (in the case of dementia) that the person would be better off dead/gone.

At what point is the decision not only about the ill person, but also more about yourself?

Isn't it just this issue, someone or the Government, deciding who deserves to live or die (death panels) that we object to in the Obama care debacle?

Also: I'm bemused as to why the writer felt it necessary to describe the daughter's cigarette smoking. That seemed to be extremely extraneous to the story, unless the writer wanted to paint a picture of the family as being something lesser. Cigarette smoking being very low class in the minds of many in the media.; 11/22/10, 9:11 AM
MadisonMan said...: I suspect he is not a threat to society. And I agree with Pogo. At 88, this man's capability for rational thought is likely diminished.; 11/22/10, 9:11 AM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/22/10, 9:18 AM
jr565 said...: Madison Man wrote:
"I suspect he is not a threat to society. And I agree with Pogo. At 88, this man's capability for rational thought is likely diminished."

So maybe we should put a bullet through his head, since his capacity for rational thought is diminshed.And if he has demential too, clearly his life isn't worth living.; 11/22/10, 9:20 AM
bagoh20 said...: I suspect she would thank him if she could.

I don't have any moral problem with assisted suicide and I wish we had a mechanism for it.

If a panel of three judges reviewed the case and had to confirm that the person: 1)had no chance of recovery, 2) had no personal religious objection to suicide, and 3) preferred to be put down rather than linger, then I feel it should be legal.

Whether anyone would benefit from the death should not affect the decision if the other requirements are there.

Being forced to linger against your will, watching your hard earned assets, including your dignity and that of your loved ones be wiped out for no good reason, seems the ultimate loss of liberty and blind adherence to some other principle that should be inferior.; 11/22/10, 9:33 AM
Scott M said...: All well and good, bagoh20, but do you believe he was wrong or right in this case and in the manner he did it?; 11/22/10, 9:36 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Fuck, Ann, I'm all in a snarky mood and shit, and now you go and bring me back to earth.

Let the guy go. Jesus.

I didn't need this.; 11/22/10, 9:38 AM
Phil 314 said...: Is it not possible to have deep empathy for those involved and still condemn the act.

Having lived (recently) through dementia in my family and having care for many demented patients I can have nothing but sympathy for this man.

But I can't condone the act.; 11/22/10, 9:39 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: Can't say I've read an article about someone shooting someone else in the head where the writer so doggedly pursued a romantic tone. According to the article, shooter was a total saint. Devoted husband, generous neighbor, Little League supporter!

Advocacy journalism.

Who knows what the whole story is with an article like this?; 11/22/10, 9:39 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: E.M. Davis,

Sadly, while I empathize with his plight, it's not his decision to make.

He's her husband - who else's decision is it?; 11/22/10, 9:41 AM
bagoh20 said...: I believe what he did was wrong, but also that he had no choice if he loved her and knew she wanted it. There should be a decent way to do this, so it's not a desperate choice.

If you think about the possible alternative outcomes, this is only a bad one because it's illegal.

On the question of who judges? Right now, it's strangers who don't care about anyone involved or what they need.; 11/22/10, 9:44 AM
KCFleming said...: I advise smoking heavily once you hit age 60.

Then it's a race between cardiopulmonary and neurodegenerative diseases.; 11/22/10, 9:47 AM
KCFleming said...: Unless you're optimistic about our healthcare system in the next 20 years.

I suspect it'll be the best 1980s medicine had to offer.; 11/22/10, 9:49 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: bagoh20,

On the question of who judges? Right now, it's strangers who don't care about anyone involved or what they need.

If there's one thing I've learned, in the Western World, the role of "devoted husband" don't mean shit.; 11/22/10, 9:49 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Even to women.; 11/22/10, 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: If a panel of three judges reviewed the case and had to confirm that the person: 1)had no chance of recovery, 2) had no personal religious objection to suicide, and 3) preferred to be put down rather than linger, then I feel it should be legal.

I wonder if you would feel it were legal if the 3 judges were reviewing your medical state.; 11/22/10, 9:52 AM
traditionalguy said...: Didn' Clint Eastwood make a movie about this sort of dilemma with Hilary Swank as the Million Dollar Baby? The blog theme today seems to be real life repeating Drama in plays and movies. Henry V is a much quoted and loved play and Million Dollar Baby was Best Picture with three other Oscars. So this subject matter tugs our heart strings enough for the good fiction writers to get rich off of presenting the dilemma in a cathartic public performance. People that age are sort of beyond the law.; 11/22/10, 9:55 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: There should be a decent way to do this, so it's not a desperate choice.

I may be one of the few people who post here who have actually had to make this decision, with the rest of my family. Whether to 'pull the plug', literally, on my mother or continue hopeless life support efforts.

It is a rough decision to make. Unlike this case, where the woman is doomed to live on and on in a healthy shell of a body inhabited by no one, we had a medical solution that even though terrible, was a solution.

Our last decision was even harder because my mother had once before been injured and in a coma for many months, that we were told would not end, or if it did that she would be a vegetable. As it turned out, she recovered and lived for over 12 years, regained many of her abilities and lived to see her Granddaughter born, until she was in a serious auto accident.

Had we made the decision to 'pull the plug' the first time, we would not have had those years.

Making a decision on who should die or who should not receive treatment is a terrible burden and does NOT belong to the Government.; 11/22/10, 9:55 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Please elaborate. Whose choice is it then?

Yhwh's....; 11/22/10, 9:57 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: errrr.....She being my mother, not her granddaughter.; 11/22/10, 9:57 AM
jr565 said...: Let the guy go. He killed someone who's quality of life was terrible and couldnt feed herself. Let him go and then on the way out shoot him too. Becuase his quality of life is terrible and he has dementia. How good could his life be going forward? He just killed his wife, which I imagine must make him depressed. And he has dementia. And he's 88 years old. How much life does he have left.
Or we could ask him every day "did you kill your wife." As soon as he says "who?" Bam! Shoot him in the face!; 11/22/10, 9:58 AM
MadisonMan said...: So maybe we should put a bullet through his head, since his capacity for rational thought is diminshed.And if he has demential too, clearly his life isn't worth living.

If that's what you think, it's somewhat alarming.

My point was a legal one. If the old man has dementia -- possible, given his age -- should prosecution be pushed?; 11/22/10, 10:00 AM
traditionalguy said...: The amount of love a husband invests in his wife( for Crack, read, a good Christian wife who is super intelligent) is an eternal and quite profitable investment. That wife returns to him many times more good than the husband patiently invests by making her feel loved.; 11/22/10, 10:01 AM
bagoh20 said...: "I wonder if you would feel it were legal if the 3 judges were reviewing your medical state."

Absolutely. What's scary is the idea that I have no chance of following anything but the most undignified, expensive and heartbreaking path possible.

Today's medicine makes it worse than it was 1000 years ago. We need to adjust to that. If we are able to keep a person alive indefinitely regardless of their potential to recover, should we? Our technology is now, or is close, to being able to do it. Thus all such deaths will be by decision anyway. It will just be a question of when - before or after the damage is done.; 11/22/10, 10:04 AM
jr565 said...: madison man wrote;
If that's what you think, it's somewhat alarming.

My point was a legal one. If the old man has dementia -- possible, given his age -- should prosecution be pushed?

obviously Im being sarcastic. I'm just saying the same logic he used to determine that his wifes life had no worth and justified shooting her in the head, we could use to justify his life had no worth and justify shooting him in the head. He is 88 years old after all. And he probably has dementia.
If we want to wait till he gets the official diagnosis or has trouble feeding himself we can wait. But as soon as he has trouble lifting that spoon to his mouth or forgets his daughters name, POW right in the kisser.
It would be the merciful thing to do.
(again, sarcasm); 11/22/10, 10:07 AM
jr565 said...: bagoh20 wrote:
Today's medicine makes it worse than it was 1000 years ago. We need to adjust to that. If we are able to keep a person alive indefinitely regardless of their potential to recover, should we?

So wait, why are you against death panels again? wasnt't that a reason NOT to vote for Obamacare? Maybe if there are death panels that is a reason TO vote for Obama care.; 11/22/10, 10:09 AM
jr565 said...: bagoh20 wrote:
"I wonder if you would feel it were legal if the 3 judges were reviewing your medical state."

Don't judges work for courts, which is govt? So you are ok with judges, AKA GOVT! making decisions about your life?; 11/22/10, 10:11 AM
bagoh20 said...: It seems to me that we usually decide to do the least bad thing when given a choice. We don't purposely choose to do what is clearly a worse outcome, unless someone's rights overrule what may be best otherwise. This is why bad people get off for bad crimes, even when it's clear they did it. Their rights overrule what everyone else decides is best.

In the case of a lingering death, we purposefully choose to do the worse thing AND deny the person their basic human rights.; 11/22/10, 10:12 AM
Clyde said...: Sad, sad story. I saw an earlier article about the shooting without much in the way of details and this was pretty much how I envisioned it, as a mercy killing. I don't condone it, but I can understand it. My guess is that the man will probably die fairly quickly whether he is prosecuted or not. When one of an elderly, long-term couple dies, the other often soon follows.; 11/22/10, 10:13 AM
Scott M said...: Even to women.

Quite a broad brush, isn't it? My wife would have a few choice words about you lumping her in with every other woman in the western world re her husband's marital devotion.; 11/22/10, 10:14 AM
Scott M said...: Let the guy go. He killed someone who's quality of life was terrible and couldnt feed herself. Let him go and then on the way out shoot him too. Becuase his quality of life is terrible and he has dementia.

We could always put him behind the wheel of a station wagon and point it at a Farmer's Market.; 11/22/10, 10:15 AM
bagoh20 said...: "Don't judges work for courts, which is govt? So you are ok with judges, AKA GOVT! making decisions about your life?"

They already do, but they only have one choice.

Just like with the death panels, it's about choice - liberty. We're talking here about something the individual wants, not is forced into. It's a hard concept for some.; 11/22/10, 10:17 AM
MadisonMan said...: This seems a good time to push medical directives. If you entered a state like this man's wife, would your family know what your wishes are?

When my father-in-law reached a similar state, his wife and kids knew exactly what he wanted, and his wishes were followed when legally he could not have made any decision. It does mean you have to confront mortality and discuss your own death sooner rather than later. I think that's kind of off-putting for some.; 11/22/10, 10:20 AM
Pastafarian said...: Am I the only one to notice that they were just a month shy of their 70th anniversary?

That's motive right there. He didn't want to spring for the anniversary present. If the 50th is gold, what's the 70th? Einsteinium?

We should put some TSA agents on this investigation right away. They won't be fooled by the perp's age or devotion to the victim.; 11/22/10, 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: He should not be charged with any crime at all.

Peter; 11/22/10, 10:32 AM
Scott M said...: It does mean you have to confront mortality and discuss your own death sooner rather than later. I think that's kind of off-putting for some.

I think one could make a rather reasoned argument that it's gotten irresponsible not to do so. I can easily picture a societal move which includes these sort of responsibilities on par with paying your mortgage on time.

Of course, first we would have to live in a society that values paying the mortgage on time (lol).; 11/22/10, 10:32 AM
virgil xenophon said...: With all the attnys lurking around and with Ann herself a lawyer, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned living wills yet. Had they had one it quite possible could have solved a passel of legal, moral, ethical and financial problems.; 11/22/10, 10:40 AM
prairie wind said...: My mom suffered from dementia in her last years but I would never have said that dementia (and needing to be fed and dressed) meant that her quality of life wasn't worth having. I don't know what her life was like to her. The dementia is outwardly evident but perhaps in her own thoughts, the dementia wasn't there.

People in good health who swear up and down that they KNOW they don't want to live like "that" (however they define that)...when they are like "that", they may feel differently. They may cling to life for all they are worth. I'm not a big fan of advance directives.; 11/22/10, 10:42 AM
Alex said...: this case simply points out the need for every responsible adult to make a living will that stipulates that no artificial means of life support are to be used. I think I'll amend mine to add "incurable dementia means euthanize my vegetating body" clause.; 11/22/10, 10:44 AM
Michael said...: The man could no longer bear his OWN suffering and killed his wife to end it.

We do not know what is on the minds and hearts of those with dementia and so we project our own confusion and despair.

I am old school and believe that death should take its course. We cannot know what his wife was robbed of, but he took what he could never himself give.; 11/22/10, 10:47 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: We're talking here about something the individual wants, not is forced into. It's a hard concept for some.

You are assuming that the ill individual has made his/her choices clear to others AND that their choices were made freely, without coercion.

In the case of a person with diminished capacity, dementia, congenital conditions such as Down's syndrome.....making the decision to kill the individual falls upon the family members or others. The potential for abuse or self serving decisions is huge.

"Let's kill grandma because it is too expensive and the heirs see their inheritance being wasted on keeping her alive. After all, instead of spending the money on the old lady, the kids and grandkids could really use the money, sell the house etc and buy new cars, homes and invest in their own lives. Also.... they seem to remember that she really doesn't want to live in this manner anyway......right? So...let's just off the old lady."

The young Stephen Hawkings might have been 'terminated' by his parents in the aim of mercy, when it might have been that they were just unable to face caring for such a disabled person.

The young man with the facial deformities was given up by his parents. Under this type of scenario, he could just as well have been killed or denied treatment because some one made that decision FOR him.

Who gets to decide?

Note: I do have medical directives in place and there is no ambiguity.; 11/22/10, 10:48 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Had the Obamacare death panels being in place this tragedy would have been averted ;)

Seriously, there should be some sort of choice/option for people facing this kind of future.

I don't know.. convince a judge to sign an order and have a doctor do it..; 11/22/10, 10:50 AM
bagoh20 said...: I think people have a hard time really getting their head around the idea that they will die. This is not a question of will you live or die - you will die. Just how you die is at issue. I hope I get dignity, and that my family does not lose everything trying to prevent the unpreventable.

It reminds me a little of the bride-zillas (just a little) who want to spend a hundred thousand on their wedding day, and then start out their marriage broke.; 11/22/10, 10:54 AM
Alex said...: Why is Stephen Hawking so valuable, as if nobody else would make groundbreaking contributions to physics and cosmology? Not saying he should have been aborted, but at least 2010 tech would have given his parents the knowledge of his genetic defects and given them the option of sparing him a lifetime of suffering.; 11/22/10, 10:55 AM
traditionalguy said...: When at a recent visit with Billy Graham, who now suffesr from old age with Parkinson's disease, prostrate cancer and hearing loss, a friend pointed to the beautiful picture of a young Ruth Graham and said he should be happy to be seeing his deceased wife again soon. His answer was, "Not yet". FYI: Billy Graham was a 1950s evangelist and is now often referred to as The Pope of the Evangelicals.; 11/22/10, 11:06 AM
MadisonMan said...: Had the Obamacare death panels being in place this tragedy would have been averted

It occurred to me today that I am a Death Panel -- I have a ward, and I make all medical decisions. My ward does have a DNR in place, but I'm glad to report that she is healthy as a horse and I haven't had to make any thing close to a pull-the-plug decision. When I do, I'll listen to her doctors and nurses, and make the best decision for her.; 11/22/10, 11:07 AM
Sofa King said...: I agree that this man should be judged as guilty of violating our laws, for what he did *should* be illegal, but the circumstances should be taken into account in sentencing. Unfortunately, there may be mandatory sentencing laws that screw this up.; 11/22/10, 11:10 AM
Alex said...: Nobody promised you a rose garden.

There is a BIG difference between paradise and living with horrific genetic defects. You obviously are ok with unnecessary suffering. It's all "god's will" after all...; 11/22/10, 11:15 AM
jr565 said...: bagoh20 wrote:
Just like with the death panels, it's about choice - liberty. We're talking here about something the individual wants, not is forced into. It's a hard concept for some.

Except I dont recall her saying "shoot me in the head dear". Also, supposing she donesn' have any family and has dementia, so can't say whether she wants to be shot in the head, and no one is there to speak for her. The default position sould be?; 11/22/10, 11:28 AM
Deb said...: the man is 88 years old. Maybe he was afraid he would die first. It is doubtful anyone would care for his wife as he had done, not even her children, show her the geniune love and affection he obviously did, whether she was aware of it or not. Maybe he did not want her to be left alone in a hospital bed, cared for by strangers.

My mother had Alzheimer's disease and as painful and heartbreaking as it was, I cannot imagine putting a bullet through her head but I'm not 88 years old, with multiple health problems, fearful of leaving her alone.; 11/22/10, 11:29 AM
jr565 said...: That guy in My Left Foot did a lot considering he couldn't move antying but his left foot. A lot more than a lot of people with fully body function. But we should have shot him in the head because his existence was so pitiful and unworthy of life.; 11/22/10, 11:30 AM
jr565 said...: Considering if we shoot criminals that's considered cruel and inhumane treatment, the fact that this guy shot his wife in the head might be deemed cruel and inhumane. Couldn't he have found some less cruel way of killing his wife? Alternatively, since its ok to shoot your wife in the head if she's suffering and it's not curel and inhumane can we now start shooting criminals in the head. Becuase i'm thinking we can save a lot of money if we start using bullets instead of that elaborate setup we have now.; 11/22/10, 11:34 AM
Sofa King said...: But we should have shot him in the head because his existence was so pitiful and unworthy of life.

The technical term is "Lebensunwertes Leben."; 11/22/10, 11:35 AM
Scott M said...: Sometimes it's hard to tell from macho posturing.

What's the difference between macho posturing and estrigenical overbearing?; 11/22/10, 12:16 PM
bagoh20 said...: The justification for ending the suffering is obvious, but I haven't seen one here for extending it without choice, against the person's will.

There is the possibility of abuse, but there is in all things. We shouldn't avoid doing what's right because it might not work out every time. We don't usually operate that way. You simply put laws in place to prevent abuse, and we should then err on the side of individual liberty. If you avoid doing what is right because in one in a 1000 cases it goes wrong, then everything becomes impossible and we wouldn't be able to walk out the door in the morning.

The fact is that nearly everyone in such a situations suffers, long and hard for no good reason, and they have no choice about it only because of our laws combined with medical advances. One has changed the game significantly and the other has not kept up.; 11/22/10, 12:49 PM
traditionalguy said...: To paraphrase a great line about being rich, "I've been alive and I've been dead...and alive is better." The sun on your face and the gentle breezes and enjoying good balance on a walk outside can only be fully appreciated when they have been lost for a season.; 11/22/10, 12:55 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Scott M,

My wife would have a few choice words about you lumping her in with every other woman in the western world re her husband's marital devotion.

How your wife puts up with you nit-picking colloquial speech is the question I have:

Wife: Scott doesn't always care for salt.

Scott: I said sea salt, bitch!

Fucking brutal.; 11/22/10, 12:56 PM
Prosqtor said...: Well, I am not certain of the intention of the comments about the 88 year old man, but both of my grandfathers were very sharp at 90. I know numerous 90+ men and women in my county who are in full possession of their faculties.; 11/22/10, 1:00 PM
Scott M said...: Fucking brutal is, apparently, what happened to you. You perpetuate the brutality by hanging out on that cross you seem to enjoy swan diving from every so often to tell the rest of how wrong we are.

You want to talk in bullshit generalities? Fine. Don't drag the rest of us down with you because you got the shit kicked out of you emotionally.

There is such a thing as a healthy marriage, crack. Continue in the vein you seem to display here routinely and, I'm truly sorry to say, you'll never realize it.; 11/22/10, 1:03 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Scott M,

You want to talk in bullshit generalities? Fine.

Oh Jeez, here we go:

Scott, I've got news for you - at least 75% of the people on the planet speak in "bullshit generalities" and, somehow, we understand what one another means without the likes of you stepping in to tighten things up. (You must be a nightmare around someone speaking broken english.) Give it a rest, dude, it's a petty bullshit way to earn personal points that no one else will ever acknowledge.; 11/22/10, 1:10 PM
Scott M said...: I could give a shit less about scoring points (unless its something funny...then I like to see an occasional lol back in my direction, but who doesn't).

Generalities I can stomach and do all the time. It's bullshit I can't abide much by, especially when it concerns something I care deeply about, ie marriage. If we're somehow at opposite ends of the bell curve on that, then fine, but it would do you well not to assume everyone else on the curve inhabits the same statistical space you do. In fact, isn't that the very definition of being at the extreme end of a curve?

Feel free to drop any pretense you think you have about knowing anything about me other than what's written here.; 11/22/10, 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: That guy in My Left Foot did a lot considering he couldn't move antying but his left foot. A lot more than a lot of people with fully body function. But we should have shot him in the head because his existence was so pitiful and unworthy of life.

He had a functioning mind. So does Stephen Hawking. That's what really matters, the body is more or less irrelevant. The woman in this case no longer had anything remotely resembling a functioning human mind.

I'm not saying that what her husband is accused of doing was necessarily the right thing, but he does not deserve criminal punishment.

Peter; 11/22/10, 1:41 PM
bagoh20 said...: "It might seem hard looking in from the outside, but even extreme suffering is manageable "

So that's justification for forcing it on people - because it won't kill them? I assume you feel the same about the bankruptcy, lost homes, lost jobs, and all the rest that comes from the need to suffer through the last few months of life, only because it's medically possible to do so now.

And if they can be kept in this state for years then all the better to enrich their lives with all that wonderful suffering, expense and wasted lives in purgatory waiting.

Remembering this is all completely unnecessary and not part of normal human life prior to recent medical advances. It's not how we were meant to die, so I don't see any nobility in it, and even less than passing gracefully, on time, as we once did when there is no hope of recovery.; 11/22/10, 1:43 PM
Phil 314 said...: xenophon ;
You do understand that a living will, no matter how detailed would not necessarily have made this situation any better. She was not getting extraordinary measures.

DBQ;
Not to diminish your personal experience but in this case there was no plug to pull

And yes I went through this experience recently with my mother. While everyone (five sons, no daughters) agreed she didn't want to live like this we did agree to hospitalization AND we didn't approve of possible CPR, feeding tube or IV fluids.

However, one brother asked about euthanasia. She wasn't in a state that allowed assisted suicide. I told him that I couldn't agree to it.; 11/22/10, 1:51 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Scott M,

Feel free to drop any pretense you think you have about knowing anything about me other than what's written here.

Not a chance:

I'm assuming you're on drugs today and letting this slide.; 11/22/10, 1:57 PM
jr565 said...: bagoh20 wrote:
So that's justification for forcing it on people - because it won't kill them? I assume you feel the same about the bankruptcy, lost homes, lost jobs, and all the rest that comes from the need to suffer through the last few months of life, only because it's medically possible to do so now.

Except if you kill someone you are also forcing them to accept a degree of sufferning and then ending their existence based on your terms. How is that different? You can't argue against forcing people how to live and then justify how you can take their life. If you are for letting people live without interference, then you would be for letting life run its course until death occurs.
You wouldn't be forcing suffering on them, nature would do that naturally. But maybe that's beyond your control. If they don't feel anything though, I don't see why you have to end their suffering. Because they don't feel anything.; 11/22/10, 1:58 PM
Scott M said...: I'm assuming you're on drugs today and letting this slide.

Nary a whiff.; 11/22/10, 2:02 PM
jr565 said...: ironrailsironweight wrote:
He had a functioning mind. So does Stephen Hawking. That's what really matters, the body is more or less irrelevant. The woman in this case no longer had anything remotely resembling a functioning human mind.

Christie had a functioning mind, but until people finally caught on that he was trying to communicate he was that guy who just lies on the floor and groans. Considering we are discarding people when we think their minds are not up to snuff, would you have ever gotten to the point whereby you might have heard his voice, or simply assumed that his life was one that had no worth beause he was a guy who laid on the floor and groaned like an idiot for years.
For many he would be a prime abortion candidate.; 11/22/10, 2:05 PM
Larry Davis said...: Well said, Mary.

We don't know what others think, can endure, or deserve.; 11/22/10, 4:12 PM
Bob_R said...: Jason had my favorite comment at #2.

But I think that the prosecutor should bring the case to trial, present the facts, leave it in the hands of a jury and judge.

I'm all for shrinking the power of the state, but protection against murder is a pretty basic function. If states want to experiment with assisted suicide laws, that's fine with me. But for every case like this there are probably ten where the wife killed her long time husband for wearing shorts or installing florescent bulbs.; 11/22/10, 4:12 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Not to diminish your personal experience but in this case there was no plug to pull

I'm quite aware of that and referenced the difference in that there was a medical issue in my mother's case as opposed to where the dementia patient is living in a possibly relatively healthy body.

Pulling the plug....or in the case of this woman plugging her...or in the case of many othersjust giving the person an overdose of some sort..... It is all basically the same thing in that someone else, the husband, the family, the children are making the decision to either LET the person die or actively KILLING the person without their express consent.

If the person is unable to give consent and hasn't written down their wishes prior, then how do we KNOW that they really do want to die or whether it is for the convenience of the survivors.

I am not at all against assisted suicide. There are many instances where the ill person can and often does make that decision. There are many instances where the person who is ill has made their wishes known and has previously made the choice and it is the right thing to do.

I am just concerned about abuse and coercion in choosing to kill someone or to let them die.; 11/22/10, 5:43 PM
Unknown said...: Terri Schialvo? what is the difference?; 11/22/10, 6:16 PM
Anonymous said...: I drive by that depressing place several times a week, so it's weird to learn about this incident on a blog that originates in WI.

I agree with Freeman Hunt's comment.; 11/22/10, 8:00 PM