I do not believe Barbara Huttmann to be a murderer in any way. What she did was what the patient wanted—who had the right to deny him his release from suffering? If a man before you is writhing in agony, wasted away into a skeleton, lost the strength to move or eat, and is asking to die, what makes you want to keep him alive? I find the TV audience who accuses Huttmann of murder for her ‘crime’ of compassion to be absolutely wrong. No man or woman should have to live in that state.
The audience says, “What gives you the right to play God?” I say, what gives them to keep a dying man pleading for death alive? I agree with the author, do we not have the right to die?
Reading this article pulls at my heartstrings—I would be willing to lose my job just to save this man from the agony of lung cancer that has eaten away at his body and life. It’s an act of such compassion, such selflessness that I view as Christ-like.
Where do we draw the line in keeping someone alive as right or wrong? Many do not see a line—keep a person alive at all costs, the TV audience in the article seems to say. I see the line exists where the patient wishes to be let go—where ‘saving’ the patient means letting him die. Death is not always a horrible thing—‘saving’ a man, in this case, means giving him over to death. If the author had not released the man from his agony, then she would just be condemning him to a longer life of nothing but suffering at the hands of lung cancer.
This woman did the right thing. No matter what the media may say about her, she is protector, not a murderer. She saved that man by letting him die while his heart failed him. She did not take that man’s life—she set it free to be at peace.
I agree. She is not a murderer. Not only did the patient beg for death, but his wife begged for his death too. He needed to go.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you. It really was compassionate service to the patient to let him go. At the same time, people could probably argue that giving up on life (I'm talking about the patient's decision to want to die) is not "enduring to the end". This can be rather hard to judge, and I do not believe that I can personally judge such a thing, but it is my personal thought that since without the aid of current technology and life supporting chemicals the patient would have been dead long ago, that enduring to the end does not really apply here. If there is nothing left for the patient to do on this earth but suffer, then he should be freed from that suffering and allowed to die if that be his desire.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say I agree with you. I believe there are certain situations in which someone who wishes to die should be kept alive--someone who is in pain but will fully recover, or someone who is suicidal--but in a situation where there is no possibility of improvement, and constant ceaseless pain, everyone should have the right to die.
ReplyDeleteWe are not in a place at all to judge. I don't think any of us have ever had to deal with that kind of agony. I can see either viewpoint, but this woman didn't do the wrong thing. She was just trying to be compassionate. It's usually so hard for the family to watch their loved one writhe in pain. Death is not the end.
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with all the commentators who have gone before me. My Great Aunt had cancer and there was the moment that the family had to decide to let her go. BUT, this nurse did not have the right to let this man die. If he wanted death and his wife wanted him to stop suffering, then she should have signed a DNR (do not resuscitate). It a normal part of hospital procedure that comes with life threatening illness and coma. I understand that this nurse had the compassion to see another man's suffering and wish to give him peace, BUT it was not her place. The hospital was in charge of this man and her actions would be called homicidal negligence in a court of law. This sounds harsh and it is, but it is NEVER anyone's right to decide when someone else must leave this world, compassion or no compassion.
ReplyDeleteThis reminded me a little bit of the scene in The Incredibles where the civilian tries to sue Mr. Incredible for saving his life. I'm uncertain on whether or not it was wrong to end this guy's life. I think in general the LDS church opposes Euthanasia but they don't count taking a vegetable off of life support as bad necessarily.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think that man might as well have been dead already. He had no life left in him when she "murdered" him. He was a spirit trapped in a body, held prisoner by mans aims at controlling the world and having power over life and death. The true villans are them men who kept a sweet son of God and his beloved family suffering on and on. Huttmann did no crime, she was a saint, and may God bless her for having the courage to let that poor man's spirit go free.
ReplyDeleteI agree as well. It is not murder to help someone get out of their misery. The woman did the right thing.
ReplyDeleteThis story made me so sad to hear about. Just to clarify it wasn't sad because the woman let someone die, it was sad that he had to be kept in misery for so long. Its like enforced torture, only instead of being tortured by someone else, the man's body was torturing itself. I think it is almost sick what the doctors and legal system considered morally right.
ReplyDeleteAs terrible as it is, I would have totally helped the guy out. He was basically a ticking time bomb anyways and he was going to die a long slow painful death. I know I'd rather die in a semi- uh, i don't even know what, but I would hate to watch my body slowly fail me. I think she did the right thing. If they guy wants to die then she should just have helped him out. I'm glad she did what the guy wanted.
ReplyDeleteI think it was a difficult decision to make, and that no one has the right to judge her for what she did. She went through a lot of emotion and internal turmoil, and no one who hasn't been through that kind of a situation can say that she did wrong.
ReplyDeleteI basically agree with (most of) you guys. It's such a gray area, and she did what she thought was the right thing. I guess the question it brought to my mind is when you have to choose between what you believe is right and what society believes is right, which do you go with? She bravely stuck with her personal beliefs, despite the inevitable consequences, but where is that line?
ReplyDeleteIt's really controversial but in a situation like that, how could anyone deny the man his wish? He was in so much pain and it was causing his family so much suffering. Nobody can judge her because nobody can say for sure what is right or wrong and nobody can say for sure what they would have done in that situation.
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult situation, one in which I am not sure what I would personally do in the nurse's situation.Seeing a man in constant pain, would I keep him "alive" against his wishes? I am not sure. Society expected this nurse to. But she was strong enough to do what she believed to be best, she did what she felt to be right. Isn't that what we strive to do, especially as Latter day Saints? Do strive to do what we feel is right even when society doesn't agree?
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think it's one of the greatest rifts that exists--I mean, the desires or ideas of one person or group and how it clashes against the ideas of the society. I enjoyed reading your response.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe the doctor didn't agree with her as a nurse who was seeing the patient and his wife everyday. The author did the right thing according to the hospital so many times and then, she did the right thing according to the patient and his wife when she did not press the button the last time. We have no right to judge. The audience was unjust to accuse the author so readily.
ReplyDeleteThere shouldn't even be a debate on the subject. If the patient and his family are in agreement on the course they want to take, the hospital or government shouldn't be able to stop them. It's meddeling in personal affairs.
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely a tough subject to get involved in and one that will be controversial for years to come. I agree thought that there really shouldn't be much debate on the subject. Whatever the family and the patient feel is best should ALWAYS be what happens. I don't think it's right for anyone, corporation, or government to get that involved in personal lives and choices.
ReplyDeleteI think the nurse did the morally right thing for herself, but that the decision was not hers to make. It was not her place. God promotes order ("my house is a house of order") and when she took action into her own hands like that, she broke order.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe in suicide, or in assisted suicide. But there is a difference "playing God" and leaving it to God. I don't know what the woman's right was in this story, but there are thousands or millions of cases where families must decide if they will let their family members die, and that is sometimes the right decision.
ReplyDeletei can see that view point but i am just glad i don't have to make that decision, because who gives us the right to say this person's suffering is in vain and they have no reason to live? If we assume that we have a right to die, then suddenly suicide becomes okay. after all, they're suffering too. i sort of understand both views and if i had to make the decision, i'd run away.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't go so far as to call her a "protector". That just seems way too super-heroish for someone who lets someone die. It just seems contradictory. But, if what she said is true, than I believe she did the right thing, and I probably would have wanted her to do the same for me if I was in that kind of condition.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing how difficult this decision is. I would feel terrible letting him suffer, as well as letting him go, but I think that many people do not have the same views of death and the after life like the mormon faith does. It is so easy for us to see him being much happier on the other side rather than suffering in this temporal world, while many others do not see anything left for him in death. This contradicting viewpoint could make this argument a never ending battle between the right to live and the right to die.
ReplyDeleteMiranda has it right. It wasn't the nurse's place, no matter how much compassion she felt for him. In face, the more emotional connection between patient and caregiver, the more room there is for mistakes and feelings to get in the way. That's why doctors can't properly treat their own children or loved ones. The moment the nurse begins to feel "love" for the patient and all the family, that is when she begins to allow emotions to control decisions that aren't hers to make. Leave it to the family to make that choice.
ReplyDelete-Catelyn Gentry
I agree that she should not have been judged are accused of murder. That is always a tough decision to make and doctors have it the hardest. They are supposed to be working strictly professionally but who can blame them for getting attached to their patients. We are human and we are all about relationships and emotion plays a key role in how we live our life. Sometimes there isn't someone to blame for the trials we face and we just have to accept that we are supposed to be going through that challenge to test us.
ReplyDeleteThe statements that have been made are all valid. The family has the right to make the decision, BUT it still comes down to the procedures in the hospital. If the wife and husband did not sign the order to Do Not Resuscitate form then the nurse had no right, moral or not, to let that man die. Sorry, but i agree with Carlie. Even though the hospital is not God's house, it is in order and this nurse violated the order.
ReplyDeleteI also don't agree with the nurse's decision in the article. Maybe he wanted to die, and maybe his wife wanted his suffering to end, but that still doesn't leave the decision of taking a life to a nurse. God commanded us to obey the laws of the land, and as Miranda and Carlie said, the order of the hospital was frustrated with the nurse's actions. It was not up to her. She needed to follow procedure.
ReplyDeleteKeeping someone alive that long is also, in a sense, playing God. I believe if the only thing keeping someone alive is artificial and will always be the only thing that can keep that person alive, then they have the right to choose to die. Although the nurse wasn't in a position to make this decision, what she did wasn't morally wrong in regards to the sanctity of life.
ReplyDeleteThere's definitely a fine line when it comes to the ethics in this situation. Our medical technology is so advanced, and God has given us or allowed us to have so much power when it comes to medical procedures, that it's hard to know when we're believing too much in our own abilities and not trusting in God or allowing Him control. This woman did what she felt was right, and what the patient and the patient's family wanted. We all have our ability to make choices, and she was just honoring his.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a difficult zone to be in. There are so many factors involved in this kind of decision. Sometimes it is the right thing to do, and sometimes not. At least the way the author described this, she seemed to have made the right choice.
ReplyDeleteIn 8th grade we had a public debate on this topic. I agree with Lindsay. If someone asks for you to pull the plug then that is their choice. If they are suffering then those that love them should be able to talk to the patient and help to give them whatever their last wishes may be. Even if that wish is to end their suffering.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Lindsay I love how you wrote your response; I enjoyed reading it.
ReplyDeleteSuch a difficult situation, what would I do? I can't even imagine being in it, although it is best to not suffer, and move on if it's all your life will be about anyway.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it all depends on the situation. People value life in different ways. Sounds to me like the author made the right choice.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very difficult and controversial decision. To me, it seems that the author made the right decision, based on two things:
ReplyDelete1. The man begged every time to be allowed to die, and his family wanted this as well (so he could be relieved from his suffering).
2. There was nothing that the doctors could do to actually "fix" him. If she had not allowed him to die, he would have died anyway, just at a later time.
So to me, I think that she made the right decision. But it is still a very difficult, controversial decision to make.
Hmm. This one is tricky. While I feel that the decision to let this man was correct, I don't think it was up to this nurse to make that decision. However, since the hospital would not permit him to die, though he and his family desired it, perhaps her actions can be seen as a kind of civil disobedience: technically incorrect yet morally excusable.
ReplyDeleteIt's a pity when society decides to play God and the person himself wants to let go. I understand those who might have considered the protagonist a "Murderer" per se, but in reality, she was helping a man who was suffering, and I would be pretty sure it was God also indicating to the man that he's going to be in a better place.
ReplyDeleteI think she was not a murder. Compassion is not a transgression.
ReplyDeleteSituations like this are so crazy because there are so many things to take into account but i think you are right.
ReplyDeleteHehehehe, woops.... i turned mine a little late to be posted with this guy.
ReplyDelete