Just wondering which side you support: Layla honoring Evangeline's wishes...or Lisa doing everything she can to keep her alive?

See below

Unpopular opinion, probably but if Lisa feels so strongly about it and can afford the care, why not? Perhaps if Evangeline could know how her mom is suffering would say, okay leave me hooked up. After all, what is the harm? Just recently in England a man who was in a vegetative state for years and needed all the hook-ups to stay alive woke up and seemed mentally fine, just saying, one never knows.

I am torn kind of. Since she is on a breathing machine, there's no real moral obligation to keep her on it if there isn't reasonable hope for recovery.(Although they have to keep the feeding tube in, starving somebody to death is just inhumane) At the same time, if Lisa is willing to do it, I don't see that as a bad thing either. As said, people can come out of these things and there is always hope.

I am going to side with Lisa simply because I don't like how they are really portraying Layla. She isn't even considering the fact that Vangie might've changed her mind. However, in a real life situation, I can't say the answer here would be all that clear, although both decisions I do feel morally permissible, assuming that the person isn't being starved. That's just unacceptable.

Yeah, I remember the case where the parents had to sit and watch their daughter starve to death, that was legal murder, imo.

pisces33 wrote:

Yeah, I remember the case where the parents had to sit and watch their daughter starve to death, that was legal murder, imo.

I met them.

Really, gosh what could one say? I remember being so angry when the feeding tube was removed. My thoughts then and now, was that if it gave the parents peace and contentment caring for their child, why take that away. Who did it hurt keeping her alive?

pisces33 wrote:

Really, gosh what could one say? I remember being so angry when the feeding tube was removed. My thoughts then and now, was that if it gave the parents peace and contentment caring for their child, why take that away. Who did it hurt keeping her alive?

Assuming it's the same nationally known case, yes. (The family was originally from not too far from here so they had a memorial mass nearby open to the public) I think more than the parents' peace, I was outraged because this woman was not even comatose. She could react, breathe on her own, and we'd later see that she probably could've been fed without the tube anyway.(But they wouldn't let them try, and some of the things I read happened are outright out of a political horror story) She might've been handicapped both physically and mentally but she in no way was comatose, much less brain dead. And as for "honoring her wishes," there was never any proof of what we she wanted either way.

Who did it hurt keeping her alive? The husband who wanted to marry the woman he had already had two children with? I think he wanted her out of the way.

Again, this is assuming we are talking about the same case. I think we are since only one case like this received national attention, but I am making sure, just in case.

Anyway, in regards to Evangeline, she is clearly much worse off than this woman was. So I couldn't say I'd be against taking her off the breathing tube if she has no reasonable hope of improving and can't live without it. I consider a breathing machine extraordinary measures, but not a feeding tube. However, I feel for Lisa. Layla suddenly comes in and is all gung-ho to take Vangie off life support. Lisa is the one who has been there for Vangie through it all; Layla has a hell of a lot of nerve, IMO.

pisces33 wrote:

Yeah, I remember the case where the parents had to sit and watch their daughter starve to death, that was legal murder, imo.

I remember the Terry Shiavo case. I thought the autopsy backed up the husband's pov. Strictly speaking for myself I don't want to live half a life with my brain mush.

My father suffered stroke last year, needed surgery and for a time we had to consider what to do if he wound up on life support. He hadn't gotten around to doing a LIVING WILL despite our prodding that if he didn't want life support we needed to have that in writing. Luckily, he survived the surgery and afterwards I made sure he had a signed, legal LIVING WILL and his doctors had a copy too. It put HIS mind at ease and OURS. We know exactly what he wants and he knows we'll honor it, too.

I do think families need to openly discuss this to avoid the fights Lisa and Layla are having. In Evangeline's case, she did have a signed copy of a living will. She took the time to draw one up and signed it. Not filing it to me is a legal technocality. I would respect her wishes...

Also, I think Lisa is coming off very selfish here as if she needs Vangie to live FOR HER. It's something I've seen in caregivers, they cease to think of the person inside's wishes as they can't bear to say goodbye. It becomes more their rights to keep someone alive than the person lying there or brain dead.

It's very difficult decsion to remove that tube, we did it for my grandmother and she lived for weeks afterwards gasping for every breath. Her kids couldn't bear to remove feeding tubes too despite my pleading she died slowly and IMO suffered needlessly.

Pilaring wrote:

I remember the Terry Shiavo case. I thought the autopsy backed up the husband's pov. Strictly speaking for myself I don't want to live half a life with my brain mush.

The autopsy can't back up his POV cause anyone worth their skin cells could see that the woman wasn't brain dead. Besides, she wasn't on a breathing tube, and you should NEVER starve somebody to death under the guise of being humane. If anything, the husband's POV was debunked when she was successfully given her final communion wine the week she died. We know what THAT means. The husband's POV was that he wanted her dead, so I guess in that sense, the autopsy showed that he got his way. The very fact that she could breathe and maybe even swallow on her own, however, proved the parents' POV.

I wouldn't want to live with my brain turned half to mush either, but that doesn't mean I'd prefer to STARVE to death. Removing feeding tubes does NOT make death less painful. It's a ridiculous notion. As somebody who HAS dehydrated, it's NOT pleasant. You think gasping for every breathe for weeks is fun? Now add to that having your body slowly shut down due to not being fed. It's like adding insult to injury.

Food is NOT life support. (Especially when in the case of Sciavo, evidence is there that the person might have the chance to swallow food on her own. Of course, they had sharpshooters there to make sure nobody gave her water.)

And another thing, everybody always tries to bring in personal cases to decide what a specific different person without a living will would want. It doesn't matter where I or you would want to live that way. Without a legally filed living will, there's plenty of doubt as to what a person would want. Now in Evangeline's case, she's on life support so removing the breathing tube is not immoral. But removing a feeding tube is just outright barbaric. Is starving to death is such a darn good way to go, let's by all means save some money and starve death row inmates. Oh wait, that would be inhumane, and we can't be inhumane to killers, just the unwanted like the handicapped.

FM we are speaking of the same case. She was murdered, no doubt in my mind, and I have read one of the most agonizing deaths is dying of thirst. Why TPTB took her husband's side who clearly had his reasons I will never know. It was a shameful thing, imo. I think there was probably pressure on the one who did the autopsy to make it look good.

pisces33 wrote:

FM we are speaking of the same case. She was murdered, no doubt in my mind, and I have read one of the most agonizing deaths is dying of thirst. Why TPTB took her husband's side who clearly had his reasons I will never know. It was a shameful thing, imo. I think there was probably pressure on the one who did the autopsy to make it look good.

Good, just making sure. lol No doubt in my mind either, murder, outright. The guy on GMA said that dying of dehydration isn't painful. I was dehydrated once as a kid. So I say to him, BULL PUCKY! lol Dying of dehydration is not fun at all. The idea that it's "merciful" is laughable.

We will never know for sure, but seeing as he did remarry the woman whom he had been shacking up with and had already had two kids with at the time of his first wife's death(she is stupid for marrying a guy who had his wife killed if you ask me), I think it isn't too hard to guess what his reasons were.

Of course there was pressure, the court's mandated her execution. But if somebody is clearly alive and responsive, an autopsy saying that they weren't doesn't undo that. She could breath on her own and was conscious, and could possibly swallow at least small amounts of nourishment given orally. Yes, it may not be the ideal life but that doesn't give people the right to decide it should be taken from her.

I believe the autopsy proved that Terry's cognitive section of the brain had been destroyed and she was incapable of the speech and visual responses as her parents insisted were signs she was more a case of a thinking woman trapped inside a damaged body. Personally, I don't want to live like that incapable of real thought and response so my own living will states no feeding tubes, nothing. Once my mind is gone, I want it ended.

Anyways, my point was in cases like this, I feel after a time it becomes more about the caregivers need to hold on versus considering what the person herself wanted. In my grandmother's case, it was far less human to let her struggle for every breath for weeks as her organs shut down one by one. But her kids couldn't face pulling the tube so she suffered needlessly and it was a very painful time.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I guess I'm on Layla's side, although I'm still pissed that the writers decided to let Evangeline fall by the wayside just for the sake of plot point. Evangeline should have woken up from the coma years ago. The show was just letting her languish in an attempt to tread lightly with the fans.

Pilaring wrote:

I believe the autopsy proved that Terry's cognitive section of the brain had been destroyed and she was incapable of the speech and visual responses as her parents insisted were signs she was more a case of a thinking woman trapped inside a damaged body. Personally, I don't want to live like that incapable of real thought and response so my own living will states no feeding tubes, nothing. Once my mind is gone, I want it ended.

Anyways, my point was in cases like this, I feel after a time it becomes more about the caregivers need to hold on versus considering what the person herself wanted. In my grandmother's case, it was far less human to let her struggle for every breath for weeks as her organs shut down one by one. But her kids couldn't face pulling the tube so she suffered needlessly and it was a very painful time.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Maybe it was destroyed from being starved/dehydrated to death. But anybody with eyes could see that she had speech and visual responses. Sometimes I think a "vegetable" could sit up, ask for a burger, and some would still try to argue that it's just a "reflex."(Hyperbole example to prove a point) You could easily tell that she wasn't brain dead. As for what you'd do, that's your legal right. We have no way of knowing what Terry wanted besides the word of the husband who fathered two children with another woman before his wife was dead. Sorry, but I don't trust his so-called claim in that light.

My point was that her organs would've shut down one by one if they starved her to death too. Unless you are proposing they give her a drip, the idea that starving her would've been more humane just doesn't float with me. Starving/dehydrating to death is an extremely painful way to go. I got a taste of dehydration, and you do NOT want to have that carried out to the point where you are dead from it. I mean, if we want to just pile on things that could help hasten the death, why not just shoot them and let them bleed out too?

It's not about the families, IMO. It's about not causing more harm to the patient under the guise of mercy. I think we get so caught up in ending their suffering that we never consider the fact that we're only adding to it.

I can do that.

Considering the autospy results were looked at by multiple experts I'll go with the science. Then again that's me, I believe in science and feel it's too often discounted in our current society.

Like I said my family faced a similar choice and my mom and her siblings couldn't do it despite the doctors advice it was more humane than her body gasping for breath and organs shutting down. They couldn't let her go and it was horrible to watch up close and personal like I did.

Anyhoo, we'll just agree to disagree.

Pilaring wrote:

Considering the autospy results were looked at by multiple experts I'll go with the science. Then again that's me, I believe in science and feel it's too often discounted in our current society.

Like I said my family faced a similar choice and my mom and her siblings couldn't do it despite the doctors advice it was more humane than her body gasping for breath and organs shutting down. They couldn't let her go and it was horrible to watch up close and personal like I did.

Anyhoo, we'll just agree to disagree.

I believe in Science too, but I also believe in common sense. And if Science tells me that a person who I clearly see is alive and aware isn't, then I question the science. If she can swallow food(and she did), then obviously, the Science is screwy.

They pulled the breathing tube, obviously they could let her go. Starving her to death wouldn't have spared suffering but would only add to it. If something is slowly killing you, you don't add another thing to slowly kill you in an attempt to alleviate the suffering. It takes days for the body to die by dehydration and it is a very painful way to die. If you were saying to up a morphine drip, you'd have a case for being humane. Starving/dehydration is by no means humane. (And because of the story you tell me, you're giving me a strong case to make sure they keep the tubes IN since taking them out seems to increase the misery)

I can agree to disagree.

Wow, FM, I really don't know what there is to laugh about in this subject at all so I will just get the heck out of here.

Pilaring wrote:

Wow, FM, I really don't know what there is to laugh about in this subject at all so I will just get the heck out of here.

Sometimes people laugh at how ridiculous a notion is. Like the idea of relieving suffering by adding to it.

I really didn't want Leyla to pull the plug. You never can tell what is going to happen.

I wish Layla had not pulled the plug, it seems she spent hardly any time thinking about it. Evangeline was still young, and she could have awakened, it can happen.