Wednesday, February 16, 2005
In Defense of Terry Schiavo
When someone is brain dead and a number of medical tests confirm that they are brain dead, it is legal and ethical to take their heart and lungs off of life support.
However, there have been cases of persons whose medical tests showed that they were brain dead. And the family refused to pull the plug on the life support. And later the patient became conscious and returned to a normal life.
Now suppose that someone is not brain dead, but in a coma, in other words, they are persistently unconscious. They may awaken from the coma. There was a case in the news recently of a girl who awoke from a coma. For someone who is not brain dead, but is in a coma, it may or may not be ethical to end their life by withdrawing life support. If there is any chance that they will recover, they should be given that chance. If someone has been in a coma for many years without recovery, it may be ethical to withdraw life support.
But now let's consider the case of Terry Schiavo. She collapsed from an eating disorder in 1990 and suffered some brain damage. She is no longer as intelligent or as aware as she once was.
But she is not brain dead. And she is not in a coma. In fact, she is not even temporarily unconscious, as one might be after a fall or a car accident. She is awake. She breathes and her heart beats without life support. She is aware of her surroundings and responds to visits from her parents. She looks at people who are talking to her and responds to what they say.
She is unable to speak and she clearly has some brain damage that resulted in a state of mental retardation. But she is awake and aware. Some persons have claimed that she is in a "persistent vegitative state." There is no such medical diagnosis. There is no such term in the Merck Manual. She is merely mentally retarded as a result of prior brain damage (when her heart temporarily stopped beating and her brain was deprived of oxygen).
She needs to receive food and water through a feeding tube. Some other handicapped persons and many persons who are recovering from surgery also need to receive food and water through a feeding tube. Such efforts to keep her alive are not extraordinary.
Some people want to kill Terry Schiavo by withdrawing her feeding tube and slowly starving her to death, depriving her of food and water. We do not kill persons recovering from surgery by withdrawing their feeding tube. We do not kill handicapped persons by refusing to feed them with a feeding tube. There is no reasonable ethical argument to be make in favor of withdrawing her feeding tube.
She is not brain dead. She is not in a coma. She is not unconscious. She is not in a "persistent vegitative state" (that's just a nice way of calling her a vegetable). She is not a vegetable. She is an awake and aware human being who responds to the people and things around her.
Withdrawing her feeding tube is clearly unethical and immoral. And it certainly runs contrary to established medical ethics in both theory and practice.
However, there have been cases of persons whose medical tests showed that they were brain dead. And the family refused to pull the plug on the life support. And later the patient became conscious and returned to a normal life.
Now suppose that someone is not brain dead, but in a coma, in other words, they are persistently unconscious. They may awaken from the coma. There was a case in the news recently of a girl who awoke from a coma. For someone who is not brain dead, but is in a coma, it may or may not be ethical to end their life by withdrawing life support. If there is any chance that they will recover, they should be given that chance. If someone has been in a coma for many years without recovery, it may be ethical to withdraw life support.
But now let's consider the case of Terry Schiavo. She collapsed from an eating disorder in 1990 and suffered some brain damage. She is no longer as intelligent or as aware as she once was.
But she is not brain dead. And she is not in a coma. In fact, she is not even temporarily unconscious, as one might be after a fall or a car accident. She is awake. She breathes and her heart beats without life support. She is aware of her surroundings and responds to visits from her parents. She looks at people who are talking to her and responds to what they say.
She is unable to speak and she clearly has some brain damage that resulted in a state of mental retardation. But she is awake and aware. Some persons have claimed that she is in a "persistent vegitative state." There is no such medical diagnosis. There is no such term in the Merck Manual. She is merely mentally retarded as a result of prior brain damage (when her heart temporarily stopped beating and her brain was deprived of oxygen).
She needs to receive food and water through a feeding tube. Some other handicapped persons and many persons who are recovering from surgery also need to receive food and water through a feeding tube. Such efforts to keep her alive are not extraordinary.
Some people want to kill Terry Schiavo by withdrawing her feeding tube and slowly starving her to death, depriving her of food and water. We do not kill persons recovering from surgery by withdrawing their feeding tube. We do not kill handicapped persons by refusing to feed them with a feeding tube. There is no reasonable ethical argument to be make in favor of withdrawing her feeding tube.
She is not brain dead. She is not in a coma. She is not unconscious. She is not in a "persistent vegitative state" (that's just a nice way of calling her a vegetable). She is not a vegetable. She is an awake and aware human being who responds to the people and things around her.
Withdrawing her feeding tube is clearly unethical and immoral. And it certainly runs contrary to established medical ethics in both theory and practice.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Christopher Pittman's Unjust Sentence
Christopher Pittman should not have been found guilty.
In order to be found guilty, the jury would have to decide that the defendant, at the time of the crime, knew wrong from right with the level of understanding of an adult and that he freely chose to do wrong.
At the time of the crime, Christopher Pittman was only 12 years old. On that basis alone, his conviction might be overturned by a higher court.
He also had been diagnosed with clinical depression, which was so severe that he had to be hospitalized on a psychiatric unit.
He suffered from physical abuse by his grandfather, who, if he were not dead, would almost certainly be facing charges of the physical abuse of a minor.
He was on a medication that the FDA has warned can cause violent outbursts in children. And that dosage was doubled just before the crime.
Given all of the above undisputed facts, Christopher Pittman was not guilty of the adult crime of murder. He was guilty of being a confused, abused child who was under the influence of an excessive dosage of a powerful psychotropic medication. But he was not guilty, as an adult, of murder.
The jury's decision is clearly erroneous.
Hopefully, the higher court will overturn this unconstitutional verdict.
In order to be found guilty, the jury would have to decide that the defendant, at the time of the crime, knew wrong from right with the level of understanding of an adult and that he freely chose to do wrong.
At the time of the crime, Christopher Pittman was only 12 years old. On that basis alone, his conviction might be overturned by a higher court.
He also had been diagnosed with clinical depression, which was so severe that he had to be hospitalized on a psychiatric unit.
He suffered from physical abuse by his grandfather, who, if he were not dead, would almost certainly be facing charges of the physical abuse of a minor.
He was on a medication that the FDA has warned can cause violent outbursts in children. And that dosage was doubled just before the crime.
Given all of the above undisputed facts, Christopher Pittman was not guilty of the adult crime of murder. He was guilty of being a confused, abused child who was under the influence of an excessive dosage of a powerful psychotropic medication. But he was not guilty, as an adult, of murder.
The jury's decision is clearly erroneous.
Hopefully, the higher court will overturn this unconstitutional verdict.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
In Defense of Christopher Pittman
Christopher Pittman is on trial for killing his grandparents with a shotgun when he was 12. He is being tried as an adult.
In defense of Christopher Pittman, he should not be tried as an adult.
He is 15 now, but he was only 12 at the time of the killings. His age at the time of the crime should determine whether or not he is tried as an adult.
Someone that young should not be tried as an adult because they are not even close to having the understanding and experience of a 18 year old.
A 16 or 17 year old might sometimes be tried as an adult, if they are mature for their age. Some 16 or 17 year olds function as adults in society. Some become emancipated minors. They are treated as adults under the law. Some 16 or 17 year olds marry, with their parents permission. The minimum age to enter the military is 17. But a 12 year old is never treated as an adult by society. No one considers a 12 year old as old enough to marry, or to live on their own, or to work at a full-time job. Kids of that age are even too young to have a part-time job. No one considers a 12 year old as old enough to buy and drink alcohol, or to drive a car, or to fight in a war. Society sometimes treats older teenagers as adults, but never someone as young as 12.
To be tried as an adult, a 12 year old would have to have had the level of understanding of wrong and right of an adult age. But this boy's ability to understand wrong and right was compromised by his young age, and by psychological problems, and by physical beatings from his grandfather, and by a strong antidepressant called Zoloft.
He ran away from home, was found and placed in a child psychiatric institution for evaluation. He may have suffered some type of mistreatment, neglect or abuse in his home. He was so severely depressed that the doctors put him on Zoloft, an antidepressant known to increase the risk of suicide in children, an antidepressant that came close to being banned by the FDA. The doctors doubled his dosage in the days just before the killings.
In defense of Christopher Pittman, his ability to understand wrong and right was severely compromised by his young age, by physical beatings, by problems at home, by severe depression, and by a strong antidepressant called Zoloft.
He should not have been tried as an adult.
In defense of Christopher Pittman, he should not be tried as an adult.
He is 15 now, but he was only 12 at the time of the killings. His age at the time of the crime should determine whether or not he is tried as an adult.
Someone that young should not be tried as an adult because they are not even close to having the understanding and experience of a 18 year old.
A 16 or 17 year old might sometimes be tried as an adult, if they are mature for their age. Some 16 or 17 year olds function as adults in society. Some become emancipated minors. They are treated as adults under the law. Some 16 or 17 year olds marry, with their parents permission. The minimum age to enter the military is 17. But a 12 year old is never treated as an adult by society. No one considers a 12 year old as old enough to marry, or to live on their own, or to work at a full-time job. Kids of that age are even too young to have a part-time job. No one considers a 12 year old as old enough to buy and drink alcohol, or to drive a car, or to fight in a war. Society sometimes treats older teenagers as adults, but never someone as young as 12.
To be tried as an adult, a 12 year old would have to have had the level of understanding of wrong and right of an adult age. But this boy's ability to understand wrong and right was compromised by his young age, and by psychological problems, and by physical beatings from his grandfather, and by a strong antidepressant called Zoloft.
He ran away from home, was found and placed in a child psychiatric institution for evaluation. He may have suffered some type of mistreatment, neglect or abuse in his home. He was so severely depressed that the doctors put him on Zoloft, an antidepressant known to increase the risk of suicide in children, an antidepressant that came close to being banned by the FDA. The doctors doubled his dosage in the days just before the killings.
In defense of Christopher Pittman, his ability to understand wrong and right was severely compromised by his young age, by physical beatings, by problems at home, by severe depression, and by a strong antidepressant called Zoloft.
He should not have been tried as an adult.
