The Terri Schiavo case
Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die." She is not like someone whose breathing, blood circulation, kidney function, or other vital work of the body is being performed by machines. What she is getting by machine is what all of us get otherwise every day -- food and water. Depriving any of us of food and water would kill us just as surely, and just as agonizingly, as it is killing Terri Schiavo.
Every member of Terri Schiavo's family wants her kept alive -- except the one person who has a vested interest in her death, her husband. Her death will allow him to marry the woman he has been living with, and having children by, for years. Legally, he is Terri's guardian and that legal technicality is all that gives him the right to starve her to death.
posted by jdp @ 9:48 AM
7 Comments:
At 3:50 PM,
Anonymous said…
Give me a break - the portion of her brain where the higher cognitive functions reside has been turned to mush by the 5 minutes of anoxia. The only reason she is able to breathe on her own is that the brain stem (or reptilian brain) takes longer to die than the rest of the brain. She will never be more than she is now, because there is nothing there to rehabilitate. It is gone.
Secondly, this is a debate about marriage rights. Is a contract that a person willingly and knowingly enters into invalidated by another over which they have no control. Parents are automatically guardians until s person *chooses* a spouse who will make all the medical decisions for them. The Schindler family is seeking to reverse this right and return decision-making power to the people who should not have it, by law.
Third, the character assassination of Michael Schiavo is unwarranted. It's been 15 years. Can you really have expected him to not move on when all the court-apointed doctors have told him that his wife will never exit her PVS?
Fourth, a comment on the "cruelty" of the method of death: while no convict on death row would be treated this way, no convict on death row has their capacity for pain removed from them by brain death, either. The pain centers in Mrs. Schiavo's brain are among the parts that died in 1990.
Finally, if she really is Catholic, she wouldn't fear death, since it means that she will be reunited with her Lord. I would hope that were I in her position, someone would unplug me so I could move on and so could they...
At 4:45 PM,
Anonymous said…
Ian, I assume you believe Robert Latimer had every right to kill his daughter too.
Terri is a living person, other than the fact a machine is feeding her instead of herself or someone else. Killing a living person is illegal and should be illegal. Terri is the only person that should have the choice to end her life and she didn't make that choice when she had the chance.
At 5:07 PM,
jdp said…
First, you leave no room for God to work. Doctors don't always know for sure, and the family feels she responds to them.
Second, what marriage rights? If he had any honour, he'd have divorced her and remarried. He's already committed big time adultery with his "girlfriend".
Third, her parents have begged him to divorce her and let them care for her. He should have done that. Plus he won a million dollars in a lawsuit, and now he wants to "let her die", having suddenly remembered that was her wish. I'm not sure how much work you have to do to assasinate that character.
Fourth, since when is feeling pain a consideration with regard to someone's rights? If we adminster pain medication to convicts, does it make it ok to fry 'em?
Finally, this isn't about Terri's fear, if she has any, it's about her rights, and the right of the state to kill it's citizens. If you feel the way you do, put it in writing (I guess you have but will a blog comment stand up in court?) so everyone knows. The only person claiming she should be killed is the husband, who has an interest in her death.
At 10:32 PM,
Anonymous said…
So Jeremy, you'd be okay with federal politicians telling Kelly what she could or could not do with regards to your care?
Look, if it was about the money, Michael Schiavo would have taken the $10 million a California entrepreneur offered him to sign over guardianship to her parents. Obviously, this is about something more.
The religious right have come out foaming at the mouth about this very personal conflict, where they have absolutely no right to intrude. You guys are all for sanctity of marriage when it's about gays, but letting a spouse decide what's best for their partner? Oh, no... can't have that! Gimme a break!
Re: Latimer - I thought hard about this because I am, in fact, opposed to what Latimer did. I thought through why that might be, and I came to the conclusion that it's the difference between passive and active euthanasia. I've always supported passive euthanaisa (the removal of equipment maintaining life), but at the same time, I've been opposed to active euthanasia, or mercy killing, because it requires that a positive action be taken to end the life. There is no moral schism here.
"Killing a living person is illegal and should be illegal." -- not in the 'States it's not. Whether it's the death penalty, or a physician-assisted suicide law, the US is a patchwork when it comes to the legality of ending someone's life.
I never said this was about fear - her parents have repeatedly said that her Catholic beliefs preclude the actions that her husband has taken. I was responding to that assertion. I also don't get why it's okay for them to use her Catholicism to keep her alive, but convieniently ignore it when they want Michael to divorce her.
Re: not leaving God room to work -- God could make a cabbage talk, too, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. The neurologists who have examined her in the *ten years* this case has dragged on have all said she will never recover. This is not a coma, where there is no reason for unconsciousness. This is a vegetative state, where areas of her cerebrum have been replaced with cerebro-spinal fluid and scar tissue. Any reaction that the family members believe they are seeing is wishful thinking.
This is not about a state's right. This is about a guardian's right being removed by someone who is not legally entitled to make that decision. Again I ask, were you in that position, who would you want to make the decision on your behalf? Your spouse, or some federal politician hoping to make a political buck on your "issue"?
At 12:39 AM,
jdp said…
Yes Ian, I would be ok with Federal Politicians passing a law that ensured that my case was reviewed properly. That's what the law was about. And yes, I think politicians should err on the side of life.
Maybe he really thinks she's better off dead. Her parents dont', and they haven't moved on with their life, so I am apt to trust their judgement over his.
Of course the 'foaming' right should get involved. This issue is important both in principle and in practice. Right to privacy shouldn't include deciding to starve your spouse.
I'm not sure where you get the "you guys" from, but for me, sanctity of marriage is irrelivant when the guy has clearly moved on with another women. His conflict of interest is obvious.
Is death really her best option? Is that even scriptural?
On Latimer, that's a pretty thin hair you're splitting. But in any event, removing a feeding tube doesn't fall in to the category of machine - starving someone to death isn't ethical, no matter what the reason.
If the choice is divorce or death, it's not hard to see how their Catholisism informs their views.
No one's asking you to hold your breath, but I think a Christian should leave room for God to work. She essentially has a severe mental handicap, and I wouldn't be so quick to decide the family is suffering from wishful thinking...
Look at this case: http://gatheredtogether.org/article224.html
20 years after being in a car accident, Sarah Scantlin regained her memory and abiliy to speak.
You're right, it's not about state's rights. It's about the right of the state to intervene on the side of life, especially when there is such a clear conflict of interest.
I think you misunderstand what the politicians are doing - they are trying to ensure that every avenue for review of this case is explored, to ensure that a mistake isn't made.
Let me ask you this Ian: Why are Chuck Colson, Rick Warren, James Dobson, and the Pope all on the same side of this isse? Why are millions of Christians, not just people you think are wacko, united in prayer and hope that she will be allowed to live?
At 7:20 AM,
Anonymous said…
Why are 61% of Americans on the husband's side, including 54% who voted for Bush and 51% who attend church regularly? You can toss around names and figures all you want, but this is a case where seven years through state courts with many experts and hours of testimony have sided with the husband. If that isn't a case being reviewed properly, then we're all screwed, 'cause the legal system is toast.
At 3:03 PM,
Anonymous said…
But hey, if you have people like this on your side, you've gotta win:
Outside Hospice House Woodside, where Schiavo resides, Brother Paul O'Donnell, a Franciscan monk who serves as a spiritual advisor to the Schindlers, said the parents were ''devastated'' by the decision.
''But they're not giving up hope,'' he said.
He noted that this week carries special resonance for Christians, and he compared Terri Schiavo to Jesus and her mother to the biblical Mary.
''And during this week, as we look to Good Friday, He [Jesus] was condemned by unjust courts the same way Terri Schiavo is being condemned to die by court order,'' O'Donnell said. ``We pray that this modern-day crucifixion will not happen.''
Post a Comment
<< Home