Death from dehydration a gentle process, scientists say

[truthpusher]

Death from dehydration a gentle process, scientists say
--------------------------------------
Posted on Sun, Mar. 27, 2005
BY STACEY BURLING AND MICHAEL VITEZ
Knight Ridder Newspapers
--------------------------------------
PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - Terri Schiavo is dying now as many aged and sick people have for eons.

Though some people see letting her die of dehydration as inhumane, doctors say it is a surprisingly gentle process.

"Nature has given us a wonderfully peaceful way to exit this life," said Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire. "The dominant way that mammals die is that, at some point, they lose interest or the ability to eat or drink. The physiology and experience of people who are unable or refuse to eat or drink after progressive or advanced illness is one that is very gentle and very comfortable."

John Hansen-Flaschen, chief of pulmonary, allergy and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, made a similar point, saying, "This is the way many, many people died over all of the millenniums until medicine got so actively engaged in the process."

more: http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/nation/11245844.htm

[mike_c]

1. shhhh-- facts will only confuse the issue....

eom

[napi21]

2. I've heard this several times over the last week or so.

I believe the Dr's. I've only experienced it once with my grandfather many years ago, but it really did happen that way. He was never on life support. They didn't do that in the late 50's, but he was in a lot of pain from arthritis for many years. about a week before he died, he was peaceful and pain free for the first time.

The protestors are playing with emotions. Viable humans know what thirst and hunger are, and don't recognize that those sensations can't be felt.

[SHRED]

3. My God!!!

How dare you point to the truth.
Haven't you heard?
Superstition and irrational emotionalism rule the day.
<tongue out of cheek>

[poppet]

4. Had she not had a feeding tube, she would have died this

same way from the brain injuries she received many years ago. I am not certain, but am assuming that her husband and her family tried treatments during the time she was being given tube feeding, but that none of these improved her condition -- I read that her brain was deprived of oxygen for ten minutes.

[Fridays Child]

5. This shows that removing her feeding tube is the most natural...

...and, therefore, God-given way for her to pass. It has occurred to some that so-called Christians who are opposed to her feeding tube being removed must not really believe their own dogma about heaven and so on. And that they would rail against such a peaceful and normal dying process only exposes further cracks in the right wing's false Christian front.

[Spinzonner]

6. Umm, how many dead scientists have written papers on this ?

[mondo joe]

7. Why would they have to be dead to have recorded data from

patients who undergo the process?

[LisaL]

8. Oh geez, if it's so gentle, why don't we do it to death row inmates?

And how is it gentle to the relatives that have to watch their loved one to die for weeks? I am pretty sure I wouldn't watch anyone of my relatives to be dehydrating to death over a long period of time. It has got to be agonizing to go trough this.

[mondo joe]

10. Non sequitur .

Is the point of death row execution to be gentle?

[LisaL]

28. Well, it ain't' supposed to be "cruel and unusual".

So, why not go with starvation/dehydration?

[ima_sinnic]

17. so you didn't read any of it, or any of the comments here or

in other threads that affirm this. I've lost track of the posters who have written from their own personal experience of dying relatives rejecting food and water of their own free will and dying a peaceful and painfree death.

death row inmates are normally healthy. for you or me to starve and dehydrate to death would be painful, yes, and take quite a while. for people who are on the brink of death, bedridden, weak, only half "here," no.

[LisaL]

29. She was not on the brink of death. Her body was healthy.

Look how long she lasted already. And why is she given morphine, I thought she wasn't supposed to feel pain because she is in PVS?

[Castilleja]

32. yeah, healthy from the neck down, I guess

you can just disregard that round thing on top of her neck when making her health assessment.......:eyes:

[poppet]

34. Perhaps, but what does it mean to say her "body" was healthy ...

she was not capable of eating or drinking on her own because of severe brain damage - I read that her brain was without oxygen for 10 minutes - so, in many important ways, she was not healthy.

[ultraist]

45. I agree. She is not healthy, she has massive brain damage.

Death row inmates do not have end of life conditions such as massive brain damage or terminal cancer.

Yet again, another illogical example from those who merely parrot RW fundie talking points.

[Quixote1818]

66. See post about Mike the Headless Chicken in GD. nt

[fat free goodness]

85. Not relevant, really.

A person dying and rejecting food and drink is not the same as denying food and drink so that someone will die.

Standard disclaimer: In the specific case of this woman, I believe she is unable consciously to feel anything at all. What I am arguing against is generalizing from this to saying dying of thirst is not torture.

In the case of Terry, you could remove her appendix without anesthesia without causing pain - this does not mean it's acceptable in other cases.

[Lindacooks]

24. Any death, no matter how long or short, is agonizing.

And it's not done to death row inmates because they aren't at the natural end of their lives.

[ultraist]

46. exactly, death row inmates do not have an end of life condition

apples and oranges

That comparison is another nonsensical RW fundie load of crap.

[Castilleja]

25. They are talking about people who are naturally dying...

Not a healthy person who is being punitively put to death. I'm thinking you have not read this article.......

[LisaL]

30. She was not dying naturally. She could have lasted for 50 years.

Her body is healthy. It's her brain that is a problem, not her body. And she is now into day 10. And god only knows how much longer she is going to last.
It's not humane to do that to someone, IMO. And to that person's relatives.

[Castilleja]

35. She was not dying naturally because she was being prevented

from doing so by machine asisted feeding. Furthermore, brain and body don't come separately, they are a package deal. Brain not healthy=person not healthy. Your brain is what makes you, you, it's absence means "you" are not there.

[LisaL]

42. It's not really a machine. It's a tube. That's all. No motor or anything

like that. Nothing like a ventilator.

[Castilleja]

57. The food tube is threaded through a wheel type of thing

which is inside of a metal box, as the wheel rotates it pushes the "food" through the tube. It is a machine, at least that is the set-up my father-in-law had.

[deek]

96. terri was fed via "gravity feed"

no feeding pump

[roseBudd]

81. Newborn babies with undeveloped brains can swallow. Terri can't

because her brain is massively damaged by 11 minutes without oxygen. The deprivation of oxygen results in ischemia and encephalopathy. The dead parts of her brain have been digested and the resulting empty space has been filled with cerebral spinal fluid. A worm has no brain, yet a worm reacts when I touch it.

[Lindacooks]

97. So, in other words, you could live like that. So why don't you?

If you want to prove that a stomach tube is so 'natural', go ahead and do it to yourself.

The definition of 'artificial life support' has nothing to do with motors or machines. It's anything that replaces a natural body function that has been lost.

"artificial life support systems that use medical technology to aid, support, or replace a vital function of the body that has been seriously damaged."

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0804884.html

[ultraist]

44. She would have died naturally from massive brain damage

had they not put her on LIFE SUPPORTS.

Have you ever been through the death process with a loved one?

[Quixote1818]

47. Why don't we just see if we can keep her alive for another 1500 years!

I swearer if some of these fundamentalist had their way even if she was just a brain hooked up to life support they would keep that brain alive FOREVER! Sooner or later it starts to become completely bizarre! Seventy five years ago we wouldn't have even had this kind of issue because Nature would have taken it's course but now some people want to keep people alive at ALL COSTS! It does not matter if their is NO QUALITY of life they just HAVE TO KEEP THEM ALIVE!!!!! FOREVER!!!!

[mopinko]

82. she is not healthy

after 15 years of permanent unconsciousness, her muscles are atrophied, her digestive system can barely process the pre-digested goop they were giving her. if she could get up and walk across the room, the strain would probably kill her. it takes full time care to keep her skin from just disintegrating. she is a shell. she is dead.
this is the craziest of all the crazy claims that are being made.

[saracat]

107. The body is nothing without a brain. She died fifteen years ago!

Jeesh. She isn't really alive! This is as bad as some who believe sperm is a life!

[ultraist]

43. You obviously have never been with a loved one while they died, lizzy

It is not painful. It's a natural and peaceful process. Go volunteer at a Hospice center or read up. You are so far off.

At the end of life, as with Terri, who has massive brain damage or with someone with terminal cancer or any other end of life condition, it is natural to dehydrate. It is not a painful process.

I'm so sick of ignorant posts that merely parrot RW fundie talking points.

[luvLLB]

110. yes, it is agonizing for us, but not for the one going thru it. eom

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. It's also not as messy as a bullet in the brain.

Of course, doing that would end her 'suffering' immediately, but we can't do anything 'compassionate' that would also be messy, now can we? Honest, but messy...

[mondo joe]

11. It would further not be a natural death.

But if you opt to put a bullet in your brain, I see no need to oppose you.

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. Nor is this a natural death.

Killing someone by dehydration is just as much a homicide as killing them with a bullet.

[mondo joe]

13. Of course this is a natural death. It occurs naturally every day in

homes and hospices across the country.

[Cuban_Liberal]

14. No, it isn't.

Let me lock you up and deny you food and water; think the Coroner and DA will call your death 'natural'?

[mondo joe]

15. By your rationale turning off a respirator is no different from

suffocating someone by blocking their airway.

Poor logic indeed.

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. Not at all.

I don't view a feeding tube as a heroic measure.

[mondo joe]

18. Who cares what you consider heroic? It's not your choice, and

neither the law nor medicine reflect your views.

You can view a band aid as heroic if you like - your views are not relevant.

[Cuban_Liberal]

20. Indeed they are relevant.

Laws are nothing more or less than an expression of 'views'.

[mondo joe]

21. Not all views are relevant.

And in this case, your views on what is heroic are certainly not.

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. In your OPINION.

I wasn't aware we were all obligated to bow to it.

[ultraist]

50. According to the law it is life support

If you don't agree with it, don't do it. Keep yourself or your next of kin on full life supports then. But you have no right to impose your illogical beliefs on all of us.

[daleo]

23. What about the pope's trachea tube?

If they removed it, and he died as a result, would that be murder? Or at least assisted suicide? If he took it out himself now, unaided, would he be committing suicide?

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. It would be homicide, yes.

And it would be suicide, if he did it himself.

[daleo]

38. OK, at least your answer is consistent and not wishy-washy.

I don't agree, as I think people should have the right to deny treatment.

[ultraist]

48. Not according to the Catholic church

You are wrong again. The Catholic church says it's "ok in the eyes of God" to remove a breathing tube.

It is not homocide or suicide. Are you Catholic?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. never mind...

[ultraist]

56. Can't support your position? Giving up?

Good. Because I read the Vatican's statement on this, did you?

If you choose to live according to a particular religious belief, fine. Don't ever remove any life supports from yourself or your next of kin. But keep the religion out of our laws.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Mighty Presumptuous...

I was going to ask you to elaborate but I am burned out on this argument....


It's the clash of absolutes....

[mondo joe]

68. Yes, a clash of absolute fact and absolute crap.

I hate to think you and Cuban Liberal might be the products of a Catholic school.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. I'm Not Catholic..

but I have slept with one or two...

[mondo joe]

70. Whew!

I was beginning to fear my own Catholic education might become devalued!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I Didn't Intrude On Your Priceless Hall Of Learning...

eom

[mondo joe]

73. That explains a lot. Thanks! n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. You Are Welcome-I Am Sorry My Level Of Erudition Fails To Meet

your exacting requiremets...


<<<<<<<<<looks at watch to time mondo joe's clever riposte...

[mondo joe]

75. Wow, that was some impressive vocabulary!

I sure did take note of those $10 words!

I'm more of the $.50 word type guy myself.

But I wasn't really commenting on your level of education. I just have certain expectations of a Catholic education.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. But You Failed To Find The Typo...

Good Night....


I'm on East Coast time....


Peace

Brian

[mondo joe]

77. Nah - sometimes you have to throw the small fry like "requiremets"

back so you can catch them later when they grow up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. I Knew You Would Make The Discovery

in the fullness of time...


Back to bed for moi....

[mondo joe]

80. If I'd known you were getting up from bed to check on it I'd have

delivered earlier - or I'd have suggested you let it go.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. It's O K... I Had To Vacate

eom

[Cuban_Liberal]

78. Under the *exact* fact patterns laid out, I am right.

The level of ignorance at DU regarding the Church's position on these matters is amazing.

[deadparrot]

31. How is pumping oxygen through a body

any more heroic than pumping nutrition? You need both to live.

[ultraist]

51. It's not a logical argument. But the Vatican says one is life support

and the other isn't . Fine, if they want to promote illogical beliefs they can. Just as they told people with AIDS, that they should not use condoms.

But, when it comes to our laws, we don't base them on illogical beliefs.

[deadparrot]

54. Yeah, I was aware of the Vatican's beliefs.

I'm a lapsed Catholic.

It still doesn't make sense that we should apply an illogical law to a whole nation of people with widely varying beliefs, as CL seems to attain.

[ultraist]

58. I agree. It's like abortion. Don't believe in it? Don't have one

If one doesn't believe it's ok to remove life supports, then don't do it. If they choose to keep their next of kin on life supports, that's their choice. But to deny all citizens from their right to choose for end of life decisions, is unconstitutional.

[deadparrot]

64. Yes...

even using the argument that TS was Catholic, you cannot put one's religious beliefs above the law of the state, or the law's opinion of your wishes. It would be chaos.

[mondo joe]

62. In its typical ass backwards way, the church has confused

the thing with its intent.

[ima_sinnic]

19. but "I" am healthy and able-bodied

--we're talking about people who are slipping into another realm.
you haven't read any of the comments from other posters who witnessed their own dying relatives refusing/rejecting food and water as they died peacefully and painlessly?

[LisaL]

She was not refusing food and water.

She was not dying. Her body was healthy. She lasted 9 days already without food or water. It's just ridiculous that it's being done to someone, to make them die such a slow death. She is apparently being given morphine. If she doesn't feel pain, why give her pain medication?

[deadparrot]

49. Doesn't anyone read the article anymore?

Here's your answer:

"Caregivers typically moisten the mouths of patients who have stopped eating and drinking, Byock said. Many, Hansen-Flaschen said, also give morphine, more to relieve the worries of relatives than to lessen pain."

[mondo joe]

59. If her body were healthy it would not require a feed tube,

Just as a healthy body does not require a respirator.

[LisaL]

27. So is death by bullet in a head. It occurs every day in US.

[Solon]

37. Except in her case...

Let's say someone put a gun at her temple and pulled the trigger, the bullet can go in that way, and out the other, and wouldn't hit what's left of her brain. With the exception of some bleeding and partially shattered skull, it wouldn't affect her much, unless the brain stem was hit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. But The Person Would Still Be Charged With Homocide

eom

[Solon]

41. Actually, if her body survived, then no they wouldn't

Attempted murder maybe, but its a moot point, a bullet in the head is an artificial way to die anyways. If they didn't use artificial means to prolong her body this long, it would have died by natural causes 15 years ago, per the death certificate.

[ultraist]

55. More nonsense

She has an end of life condition, lizzy. Massive brain damage with no chance for any level of recovery.

She had invasive surgery to insert a tube and requires medical technology to recieve H20/nutrition, just as some people require medical technology to recieve oxygen.

Your crass comments are very insenstive to those of us who have been with loved ones while they died. Do you realize has harsh you sound?

Please, try to show some respect for the natural death process, if you can.

[poppet]

53. I don't think so ...

when treatment is withheld, this is not considered direct killing or euthanasia. Withholding treatment is allowing the person to die from whatever pathology they, such as "catastrophic brain damage" or some disease. Unfortunately people are dying all the time - are we going to arrest someone everytime because the death wasn't prevented? Ultimately, no death is preventable, which is why individuals and their families should be allowed to make decisions, at least about refusing treatment.

[Individualist]

33. You'll never convince some

who stubbornly cling to lies and misconceptions. They refuse to let facts get in their way.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Euthanasia in the Third Reich: Lessons for Today?

How remarkable the similarities between the way the Third Reich disposed of the "useless" and the way our society justifies doing the same!

Euthanasia in the Third Reich: Lessons for Today?
J A Emerson Vermaat

‘At this stage I do not feel that I am going to die, but I don’t want to die away later with my body being reduced to a little more than a lump. Please, promise to help me before this moment comes.’

Today, many physicians are familiar with incurably ill patients requesting them to end their lives because of unbearable suffering. In the case of the above quote the request for euthanasia is not made by a desperate twenty-first century patient. One finds it in the Nazi film Ich Klage an (I Accuse) which was produced in 1941. The message of the the two hour long film was that doctors who submit to an incurable patient’s death wish act legally and morally.

<snip>

Hitler’s ‘Euthanasia Decree’

This remarkable propaganda film presents a case and a logic with which today’s medical profession is quite familiar. It is not the crude Nazi ideology of killing ‘worthless life.’ Rather it makes a smart plea for a terminally ill patient’s right to a ‘humane’ way of dying. Sixty years ago the Nazis occasionally used similar arguments as today’s humane and sincere advocates of euthanasia. Karl Brandt, the head of Hitler’s euthanasia program, claimed at his trial after the war: ‘The underlying motive was the desire to help individuals who could not help themselves and were thus prolonging their lives of torment.’ However plausible or humane this may sound, the reality was far from humane. Indeed, the Nazis went far beyond killing the incurably sick, and few of the ‘individuals’ Brandt had in mind actually made a request that ‘their lives of torment’ should not be prolonged.

‘Euthanasia’ in the Third Reich was even a prelude to the Final Solution (Endlösung). Euphemistic terminology and covering up was the rule. Hitler’s Euthanasia Decree (‘Erlass’) of 1 September 1939 ordered his personal physician Dr. Karl Brandt and Reichsleiter Philip Bouhler, head of the Reich Chancellery, ‘to enlarge the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death (Gradentod).’

Similar criteria were later found in Ich Klage an: Mercy killing (Gnadentod is in Nazi language synonymous to Erlösung) for those whose suffering could not be prolonged. However, the decree did not refer to the need for a specific request by the patient, in most cases persons with mental disorders. Karl Brandt later said in Nuremberg that ‘incurably sick persons’ primarily meant ‘insane persons.

http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/18/1/18-1-vermaat.htm

[Solon]

40. Linking this to the Nazis is a losing argument...

Using right wing lies and misinformation as well as ignorance of her actual condition also are inexcusable, use some common sense, she is, as an individual, already dead. Only the reptilian brain is left, and it is not even capable of emotions, her wishes are finally being carried out, why prolong the shell of your body if your mind is already gone? She didn't want that, who are you to make that decision for her?

[ultraist]

61. Yep, more RW fundie lies and talking points

Typical inflammatory fashion of lying RW fundies.

[mondo joe]

60. Way to go! Ignore the key difference: individual choice!

Sure - if someone decides they don't want life support and as a result they are not force fed, that makes America just like Nazis.

LOL

[ultraist]

63. Yes, forcing medical treatment on someone is very Nazi like

Like the eugenics experiments including forced sterlizations that were outlawed because the State has no right forcing any type of medical treatment on someone, including life supports.

[LisaL]

92. Well, in case you don't know, Hitler started on killing disabled first.

[mondo joe]

95. In case you didn''t know, Hitler forced medical experimentation on

people against their will.

Just like the Schindlers want to do.

[ljm2002]

65. The first person I was with as they lay dying,

...was a good gay friend, one of the early victims of AIDS. We were apartment dwellers in a tight knit neighborhood and many of us pitched in to make his final days on earth peaceful. We tended to him with the aid of a hospice worker, and checked in with the police also so that everyone knew what was going on: he had refused further heroic measures in the hospital, he wanted to be home and among friends when the end came. They advised me to wet his lips once in awhile with water or orange juice towards the end to help keep him somewhat comfortable. It did appear to be a peaceful process, and he had such a faraway dreamy look in his eyes... as he left this world.

Helping a friend in this way was something we all were glad we could do. I don't know about the others, but I suspect that like me, they felt good about themselves for their part in it.

Terri Schiavo and her husband and family have all suffered a terrible tragedy. The Florida courts have ruled as have the appeals courts. The Supreme Court has declined to hear the case. Maybe the Schindlers could have found some peace around her way of passing, if they had not been so shamelessly exploited by the current pack of wolves in Congress, led by Tom "slithering snake" DeLay.

[ultraist]

71. That is a loving, merciful, and natural approach

You should be commended for your generosity. Hospice is a wonderful organization and they are now attacking them as well to push their whacked out agenda. I shudder to think what millions of terminally ill, elderly, and others with end of life conditions would endure without Hospice or the choice to end medical treatment.

[fat free goodness]

84. I call bullshit on this one.

I am not arguing that she should be kept alive by a feeding tube no matter what, and I don't argue that in her specific case feeling much of anything is possible. (I understand that this is difficult, lacking a brain.)

However, as one who has experienced dehydration, I can tell you that it is NOT gentle and peaceful. Lacking food is, kinda. You get really hungry for a while, then it fades into the background. But you just get thirstier and thirstier. Maybe after you pass out, it's different; I didn't get that far.

My point is that there are a lot of people saying "don't confuse the issue with facts," meaning that the morons should know this is really a peaceful, gentle way to go. I suggest one make sure of those facts before saying this.

If you doubt my position, It's easy to find out for yourself. Just try going without food and water for a while - NOT to death, of course! By the end of the third or fourth day, your every thought will be about a drink, and you'll be willing to gouge out an eye to get one.

Someone observed that if the claim is true, then it would be a good way to execute those on death row - just stop giving them water, and they die peacefully. His point was that I think we all realize this would be torture.

[mondo joe]

86. Call it if you like, but there is science backing it up

from hospice.

As far as deathrow is concerned, it would be enormously inefficient and cost-ineffective, so that would be stupid.

[fat free goodness]

88. No, there are scientists backing it up.

Not the same thing at all, especially since others disagree.
In the best traditions of science, I propose a simple, repeatable experiment that can easily settle the issue: I'll listen to any scientist that goes five days without water and tells me that it was not torture.

Better yet, let's take about twenty in two groups, conduct blind trials, and compare the results.

I think you know what the results will be.

[mondo joe]

90. Actually, SCIENCE backs it up.

You can review medical findings in professional journals.

[LisaL]

93. Well, like somebody else suggested, don't eat and drink for

week or so, and then report to us if it was peaceful and gentle.

[mondo joe]

94. Do I get to use morphine for a week to see if it's painless too?

Or shall we abandon all medical findings and make it up person by person?

Do you need to try insulin to see what happens or can we take the medical findings as sufficient?

[fat free goodness]

98. This is simply false.

It is NOT gentle and peaceful. I can tell you this from personal experience. But my experience is far from unique. ANYONE who has been lost without water will tell you that intense thirst is torture.
This is easily verifiable by testing.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

Putting malarkey in a medical journal does not convert it from malarkey to fact.

Question: People will get high from inhaling, drinking, and eating the most disgusting and toxic substances you can name. If simply going without water would give you a peaceful, euphoric feeling, don't you think this would be more common?

[mondo joe]

100. Then you've confused your experience with hospice.

Why wouldn't someone spend a few DAYS getting progressively weaker in order to feel peaceful and verge on death?

I should think the answer is obvious.

[fat free goodness]

104. Clearly, you are the one confused.

or at least, your reply seems so. You wrote:

"Then you've confused your experience with hospice.
Why wouldn't someone spend a few DAYS getting progressively weaker in order to feel peaceful and verge on death?
I should think the answer is obvious."

Confused which experience with hospice? Experiencing dehydration? How does that relate to hospice?

Are you referring to my observation that if dehydration really produced euphoria (as claimed) then people would dehydrate rather than take drugs? Why would you think a few days of getting weaker would deter druggies? A few days of forgoing water is much safer, healthier (and cheaper) than heroin, or huffing glue. If dehydration lead to DAYS of euphoria, you can bet it would be done for fun.

My claim is simple: Dehydration is an amazingly unpleasant, even tortuous, way to die. Claiming that it is not is simply silly. Too many people have been through it and KNOW from personal experience how horrible it is. Anyone who really doubts this but has an open mind can easily (and fairly safely) test it and find out.

Relying on testimony from people who are on the point of death from something else, weakened to the point they decline food and water, to make the claim that dehydration is not unpleasant is ludicrous.

If you doubt this, give it a shot. Have no fear of going to the point of dying, or endangering your health. I guarantee you'll stop well short of that.

[mondo joe]

111. Pleas allow me to correct you:

There is much involved in how people go through any process.

The data says that in starvation, for example, people who receive little bits of food throughout the process DO experience pain - those who do not instead begin to shutdown and do not experience pain beyond some initial discomfort.

I know the scientific data about dehydration is about what happens in a hospice setting - I don't know what your circumstances were or what your process was like.

With regard to druggies: have you known a druggie who could wait a few DAYS for anything? Please. Furthermore, I haven't read anything about a several days worth of ecstatic euphoria - I read about a peaceful experience with some mild euphoria that diesn't sound to me like it's worth anyone's time to pursue just for the very mild high.

Lastly, I don't NEED to test it just like I don't NEED to test how insulin works, or how mad cow works. I trust the medical data - you're the one who takes issue with it.

[fat free goodness]

112. No, you don't trust data. You buy a wild claim.

"There is much involved in how people go through any process."
Nicely said, but untrue. There are indeed complicated processes, but some are simple to evaluate. Death by branding iron is pretty straightforward to assess: It will hurt, a lot. Killing someone by forcing them to slowly thirst to death is equally simple: it will be an excruciating death.

"The data says that in starvation, for example, people who receive little bits of food throughout the process DO experience pain - those who do not instead begin to shutdown and do not experience pain beyond some initial discomfort."
Not on topic. My first post pointed out that while hunger fades quickly, thirst is different. We are discussing thirst.

"I know the scientific data about dehydration is about what happens in a hospice setting - I don't know what your circumstances were or what your process was like."
Are you suggesting that thirst in a hospice is significantly different than thirst elsewhere? I don't think it is, and my assertion is that someone is wildly misrepresenting the data. The data is that people who are near death may loose their desire for food and water. It definitely does NOT follow that denying someone water will cause them to loose the desire for it. There is a rather immense body of evidence refuting that proposition.
(Note: That someone can be far enough gone that they do not notice either the previously mentioned branding iron or thirst is not evidence that hot iron or thirst is a peaceful way to go.)

"With regard to druggies: have you known a druggie who could wait a few DAYS for anything? Please. Furthermore, I haven't read anything about a several days worth of ecstatic euphoria - I read about a peaceful experience with some mild euphoria that doesn't sound to me like it's worth anyone's time to pursue just for the very mild high."
It seemed you must be thinking the peaceful state lasted all through the process, which lasts for maybe ten days. Are you admitting that most of the time the person is in agony, and maybe at the very last goes into a peaceful state? Or what? If the "high" lasts through the entire week long process, then yes, druggies would go for it. If it's pure torture for a week with a mild high just before death, how can you claim this is a pleasant way to go?

"Lastly, I don't NEED to test it just like I don't NEED to test how insulin works, or how mad cow works. I trust the medical data - you're the one who takes issue with it.
No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up."

No, you don’t trust medical data, because medical data does not support the position you are taking. Data on the topic is quite plentiful, and it dramatically contradicts your position.
Consider:
You would have us believe that what for thousands of years has been regarded as barbaric torture is actually quite pleasant. We should ignore the many studies on thirst and it's effects. We should ignore any personal, direct knowledge we may have in the matter.
A simple, safe experiment will easily settle this, but your position is that it "does not need to be tested" and we should just accept the claim.
That is just plain silly, and refusing to do so is not "cynical".

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

91. Um, because people in hospice do go through it and report on

their experience as they do.

Why would someone have to die and come back to report it?

Did anyone come back from a morphine overdose and report that it was painless?

[fat free goodness]

99. There is a difference between

a dying person becoming uninterested in food and water, and denying someone food and water so that they will die.

That someone who is dying declines to drink and reports their dying as feeling peaceful is not beyond belief. You cannot extend this to assume that denying someone water so that they die will result in the same peaceful passing.

As I've pointed out once or twice, in this specific case the point is moot - without a functioning brain, any discomfort (from thirst or otherwise) is probably impossible. However, I do object to justifying removing the feeding tube with a falsehood. I particularly object to a falsehood that will doubtless be used later on other people.

How about:
"Lets deny the people incarcerated as hostile combatants water for a few days. It will give them a relaxed feeling of euphoria that will aid us in questioning them."

[mondo joe]

102. And there is a difference between healthy people and

someone in PVS.

And subjecting a hostile combatant to a process that causes bodily damage is probably not a good idea.

[fat free goodness]

103. Your reply is confusing. Lets review the topic.

* It was stated that there is medical / scientific proof dehydration is a euphoric, peaceful way to die.

* I argued that this was BS; dehydration was an extraordinarily unpleasant, even torturous experience.

* You replied by pointing out that there is a difference between a healthy person, and a person in a persistent vegetative state.

I think you are trying to counter my illustration that there is a big difference between “a dying person being uninterested in water” and “denying someone water to make them die.” True? If so, look back a few posts and you will see that I have already said that for Terry, anything we do is moot as regards discomfort. Without a brain, she is unlikely to suffer no matter what.
Discomfort to Terry is not what I’m argument against.
I’m calling BS on the false assertion that death by dehydration is a pleasant, peaceful experience. If we accept this BS as fact, it can be recycled for other people.

[mondo joe]

105. Fine - reject it if you like.

People can reject medical findings when ever they like.

[fat free goodness]

109. Pay attention: It is NOT a "medical finding."

The claim that it is a scientific fact is false. The assertion that it is a medical finding is false. It is a lie.
More importantly, it is a lie intended to sell that this is an acceptable way to kill someone. This should give everyone involved pause.

The claim that "death by thirst is peaceful and euphoric" is such a blatantly obvious falsehood that it is virtually inconceivable that anyone with experience in the area would make it honestly.

Proof against it is given by an experiment that is repeatable by anyone, at virtually no cost or risk, and with no special equipment. In fact, it is inadvertently repeated all too often, and the results are well known.

Forced dehydration has been used as a particularly gruesome torture and execution method. It was considered up there with crucifixion or flaying alive.

---> read this fine print: The fact that it can't cause a brain dead person any discomfort is not the point - nothing can cause her any discomfort. Also, when I say it’s a blatantly obvious falsehood, I do not mean you are lying. I think you are sincerely misled by those who do know better and are lying to you. Again, I point out you can prove or disprove this assertion for yourself. Go without drinking anything for several days. You will discover that the "euphoria" claim is BS.

[LisaL]

89. To be honest with you, when I read the title of this thread,

"Death by dehydration is a gentle process", I imagined Dr. Mengele telling it to his human subjects. Brrrrr.

[jdj]

101. thank you, thank you , thank you.

this is exactly what happened with my grandmother. she refused to eat, and we were almost forcing her to until hospice got involved and told us this is the way nature works.

but I believe that fundies think that unless you are crucified, your death is unnatural.

[MaraJade]

108. This is the way my aunt went. . .

she had cancer. After a bit, she simply refused to eat or drink. Several days after that, the Oncologist prescribed morphine and she left quietly in her sleep.

No pain at all.

[jbnow]

106. I do think it's "cruel and unusual"

I understand she might well choose not to live this way, but this is not the same as removing a ventilator. If someone can't breathe they will die quickly.

In a case like this if someone is given no water or nutrition in any form they will also die but it takes much, much longer, especially with a healthy body.
OK, so it's "natural" but if we KNOW they will certainly die why not treat the person as humanely as we do a pet? Why not a shot that leads to a quick and definitely painless death.

We let them go on and on, dying slowly and can say we are humane, while a shot would be illegal. The hypocrisy makes me sick.

I would choose to die in her situation, but good lord, give me a shot so my family doesn't have to watch me wither.