I have not posted at all on Terri Schiavo. I know too little of the facts to be able to sift through all the blather from all sides. The best I can do is say that it appears to me her husband decided long ago to let her die, and spent the money which was supposed to be dedicated to her medical care. I believe those to be facts, although I can’t be certain.
Another issue is her medical status. (Why is this a Democrat-Republican issue?) She is not in a coma. Nor has she ever been. She is not being kept alive by any medical equipment. She breathes on her own, and her heart continues to pump blood without assistance. She cannot swallow or ingest food normally, so is fed through a tube. This is not a situation where they unplug the life-preserving machines to allow someone to die with some semblance of humanity. She is being denied food. She will die by starvation.
The third issue is the Federal Government’s involvement. I have never really understood why suicide is a crime. If someone chooses to die, what allows a government to step in and prevent it? I would think that is as personal a decision as there is. The crux here is whether Terri, indeed, wants to die, and we can never be certain. She cannot make her desires known. So, her husband makes the decision. He, of all people, should be the one to make that decision. But his actions since her decline have put him under suspicion as to his motives. Again, who among us can really judge?
What this case really comes down to in my mind is a woman who will never be able to function on her own, and her husband who wants the burden lifted from him. Her parents have offered to take that burden, yet he declines. Again, painting himself as insensitive and having hidden agendas.
So, what is the answer to this dilemma? Does Terri Schiavo have the personal right to end her own life? Does her husband, as her next of kin, have that right?
Do any of us have the right (excluding religious beliefs) to end our own life? Why?
That question will not be answered in this case. And it shouldn’t be. That is a very personal decision, and the kind I don’t want government making.
Making Up Laws…
No matter where you stand on the issue of Terri Schiavo, something has just happened that will change the way the laws apply to all of us. President Bush has signed a bill designed to save the life of a severely brain-damaged woman, after lawmakers pas…
Trackback by Webfeed Central — March 21, 2005 @ 6:45 am
When you say That question will not be answered in this case are you referring to ALL the questions in the preceding two paragraphs, or just the one about choosing to end ones own life? I mean, someone has to answer something or this case will just remain in perpetual tug-of-war, no?
I also know very little of the particulars of this case, but from what Ive read in this post I just have to add some personal viewpoints:
If someone cannot ingest or swallow food normally, then a feeding tube certainly seems like a life-preserving machine to me.
Dying by starvation — dying by any means — has some semblance of humanity if the person dying that way would rather die than live with the alternative.
If the husband has hidden or sinister motives of any kind, then that simply adds to the already gigantic tragedy of the situation, but to me, if he is legally her husband and not guilty of any crime that that caused her current condition, then it is his role and his alone to state what she would have wanted under these circumstances. If he is not telling the truth about his wifes wishes, then it is up to God, karma, or simply his own conscience to intervene.
As sad as it is, her parents simply cannot have a say here, nor can the state. To let them have a say would be, in my eyes, a massive undermining of the institution of marriage. For every case like this, where the surviving spouses motives are in doubt, there will be dozens of other cases where the spouse truly knows his/her partners wishes and is simply acting upon them. Do we want the government making life or death decisions in all these cases as well?
Comment by Bogey — March 21, 2005 @ 5:09 pm
I don’t want the government involved in any way. As I say, this is a very personal choice. Only her husband can make the decision. There are literally hundreds of cases such as this right now. Why has this one garnered all the publicity? Could it be the question of the husband’s motives? Why would he not allow her parents to take over her care? The simple answer is that he sincerely believes he is complying with her desires.
Life-sustaining equipment has always been defined as those things which help in the automatic functions of the body such as cardio-vascular support. If they are simply “allowing her to die”, keeping nutrition from her isn’t the same thing.
Many, many questions, and few answers on this one. But the Federal Government getting involved is NOT an answer.
Comment by Bunker — March 21, 2005 @ 5:10 pm
Only her husband can make the decision.
Exactly… so…
Why has this one garnered all the publicity? Could it be the question of the husband’s motives?
Not exactly… but the fact that there IS a question as to his motives is being seized as an opportunity for those who want to get the government involved in other personal life-or-death decisions. Do you doubt that there is some effort here to set a precedent that will be tied to future abortion-related legislation? You’l probably accuse me of Vast Right Wing Conspiracy theories, but in this case I think they’re true, plain and simple.
To me, this issue is about him, her, their doctors, her parents, any children they have, whatever deities they worship, and no one or nothing else.
Life-sustaining equipment has always been defined as those things which help in the automatic functions of the body such as cardio-vascular support. If they are simply “allowing her to die”, keeping nutrition from her isn’t the same thing.
But a person who can’t put food into their system with no assistance (whether byfeeding tube or human with spoon) is exactly as doomed as a person who can’t put air into their lungs except via ventilator. The speed of the death is the only difference. I’m still not sure I get this point; what am I missing?
Bottom line to me: The only way we can prevent the government from making this most unwelcome intrusion into our lives is to draw that very difficult line which states that the buck stops with the next of kin and that is that. It’s sometimes painful — as in this case, where it does indeed appear that this husband is not necessarily acting in his wife’s interests — but absolutely essential.
Comment by Bogey — March 21, 2005 @ 5:11 pm
Feeding–think of our lovely Violet. Is she on life-support? Medically, providing food is not considered treatment. This is the difference between allowing someone to die peacefully and killing them by withholding food and water. I am not against euthanasia as a solution in many cases, and that is where we’re at in this case. So why not do it in a more straightforward way?
I’ve heard mention of anti-abortion advocates as the ones driving this. Not my issue. In fact I’ve pondered my thoughts on the whole concept of government involvement in someone’s death quite a bit today. As a libertarian, I believe the government has no place in the equation. Yet there is something inside me that keeps me from saying that with total conviction. Perhaps it is my religious upbringing.
The shady world of the husband’s actions leaves me torn on this case. Normally, I would say it is his choice. But with all the things that have gone on, I wonder why he is unwilling to allow her parents to take the responsibility.
Comment by Bunker — March 21, 2005 @ 5:22 pm
What has been left out of this whole situation, not brought up by anyone, is the cruel and inhuman treatment that “the law”, Mrs. Schiavo’s “husband”, and so-called “liberals” propose to do to this living organism — slow and agonizing death by starvation.
Whether she lives or dies is not the only question. How she dies is a very important part of it.
For myself, I would not sentence to death by starvation a rat or a roach. I would terminate their lives quickly.
If Mrs. Shiavo is to die, then let her “husband” (who has two children by another woman and has not had any husbandly duties with her for 15 years now) administer a lethal injection and put her out of her misery.
We give a Timothy McVey, mass murderer of 163 people, a lethal injection. Why didn’t we let him die of starvation and telecast it, which would have been a much more satisfying spectacle. But this type of punishment was only used by nazis and communists, up until now.
No — if Mrs. Shiavo is not to be fed (as humanity and decency, regardless of any religious beliefs, call for), then let her quickly and peaceably die by lethal injection.
Those who are making a big fuss about her husband’s rights are exactly, precisely, the same ones who, had she been physically alert and pregnant, would have refused him the right to prevent her from having an abortion two minutes before natural birth began.
So the husband has no rights to prevent a wife from aborting a child, but has the right to kill his wife?
Hypocrisy, thy name is DemocRat.
Comment by Nekultura — March 21, 2005 @ 7:22 pm
Way to go, Nekultura, you really elevated the discussion with your bloodthirsty rant. I would explain to you how misinformed you are about the position of most of the people you see on the other side of this issue, but you’ve made it abundantly clear that you won’t hear a word of it. I’m trying to discuss one of the juciest philosophical debates of our time with Bunker and you just jump on an opportunity to bash a political party and bring up abortion. Fantastic.
Bunker, feeding by beautful, perfect little daughter isn’t a relevant comparison in my eyes because an infant — and in my opinion, any minor under 18 or perhaps 21 — does not have the life experience to determine whether it wants to continue living under the conditions it is in. A mature adult, given the medical options available, can (and MUST) make decisions about what living conditions he or she is willing to endure, and he or she must engage in conversation with family to make wishes on this topic known. It transcends all politics and law; it is a basic responsibility we have as human beings. Bunker, I totally understand your reservations given the particulars of this horrible, sad case, but if you let the government in on just one of these critical personal decisions, they will invite themselves in over and over again.
Comment by Bogey — March 21, 2005 @ 10:12 pm
Like it or not, the government IS involved in this case. Whenever a court is involved, the government is involved. Terri did not leave her wishes documented, as she could have done by execution of a living will. Each state has different laws about what can be done in those circumstances. Apparently, Florida lets the next of kin — in this case her husband — make the decision. The question I have is whether his decision best reflects her decision. His conduct over the past 15 years — an adulterous, cohabitation arrangement with another woman with who he has fathered two children — lead me to question his judgment. Refusal to provide speech and physical therapy for over a decade are also problematic, as well as the refusal to allow simple diagnostic tests like an MRI that are helpfull in reaching a clinical diagnosis that one is in a persistent vegetative state.
I have a personal aversion to any expansion of federal jurisdiction — even for a single case. But I also belive that there has not been a sufficient determination that this woman is in a persistent vegetative state, that she would have wanted food and hydration denied (as opposed to removal from life support), and that her husband is the appropriate person to be making these decisions. Since the courts are already involved, why not hear evidence on these issues before starving this poor woman to death? A federal judge stepped in to stop the execution of confessed, convicted serial killer Michael Ross so he could hear more evidence as to his competency. If we tolerate such intervention in that case, we should be able to live with a little federal court invervention in this case. The victim here certainly deserves a second look more than a serial murderer.
Comment by John Adams at The Commons — March 21, 2005 @ 11:29 pm
All good points, John, and when you put it that way it’s hard not to say, well sure, why not let them just hear some evidence, where’s the harm? But I still feel like the line needs to be drawn on this one. My selfish motive in the argument, really, is wanting the peace of mind to know that MY (and my wife’s) wishes are going to be respected if my wife ever has to make a horrible decision like this on my behalf, and I don’t want this case setting a precedent wherein her responsibility and role under state law (if that even is the law in my home state… jeez, I’ve gotta look that up ASAP) can be easily called into question and challenged by groups with a wider political agenda in mind, which is undeniably part of this whole f*&^%ed up equation. Bunker dismissed that point with a “Not my issue,” but notice thathe can’t deny that this IS the issue to a lot of the vocal parties that entrenched themselves in this tragedy early on. At this point, I feel quite certain that even if he’d been at her side all these years, completely faithful and true, and simply came to the painful but certain conclusion the his wife’s condition would not improve and denial of feeding would be unquestionably be her choice, I think the opposition would be exactly the same.
Comment by Bogey — March 22, 2005 @ 12:51 am
It may be the issue for others, but I wanted to distance myself from that for discussion’s sake and keep it out of the political venue.
There is far too much information in this case that we don’t have for any of us to draw solid conclusions. And that is the primary reason I have not written about this before.
Bogey, I might point out that you have now dodged the feeding tube issue by saying our sweet Violet is under age. That makes the situation different how? The decision is not Terri’s but her husband’s. Likewise, the choice would not be Violet’s but yours. You still feed her, do you not? (And you know what the answer to that better be!) She cannot feed herself.
Okay. My conclusion is that if Michael Schiavo opts for letting his wife die, it needs to be done in a way that is completely painless to her. And we don’t even have enough information to know whether she is sedated right now. She either should be sedated or given a lethal dose of a sedative. If she is to be killed, make it quick.
Comment by Bunker — March 22, 2005 @ 5:31 am
We still feed her because she is in the normal, natural state of being for a human of her age (unlike poor Ms. Schiavo), because she is undeniably too young to have any reasonable wishes as to whether she should endure the situation or not, and because we WANT her to live and grow up, of course! I don’t see how that’s dodging the issue at all. She is underage, and so we are responsible morally and legally for her care. I think the situation would be more akin to the Shiavo’s if she were physically unable to swallow the food we gave her, and we’d have the incredibe agony of dealing with that, God forbid.
Plenty of good points about the other facts we don’t know about her condition, but I think we have just enough info here to argue our positions about the overarching debate over who is responsible for whom and when.
Comment by Bogey — March 22, 2005 @ 7:51 am
Oh, and of course your final conclusion is very well taken; I certainly agree that to me, that would be a much more merciful course of action. I’m still not quite convinced that it’s our place or a court’s place to insist on that, though, what if the Schiavos were opposed to modern medical care of all types for religious reasons, for example?
Comment by Bogey — March 22, 2005 @ 8:00 am
Again, the courts have interceded in situations where someone’s religion forbids medical care. If an adult chooses not to receive treatment, who are we to force them? Yet if that same adult refuses treatment for their child, is that not the same situation we have here? In that case, courts have taken children away from parents under the cover of preventing neglect and abuse.
I certainly don’t have any answers, just lots of questions. Freedom to worship and follow your religion is an area where most of us fear to tread–but not government! That’s why age has always played a part in such decisions. Some line must be drawn to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Comment by Bunker — March 22, 2005 @ 8:25 am
The danger in drawing the courts into this situation is that we may wind up with a legal ruling on exactly what constitutes a “human” for the purpose of legal protection under the Constitution. Either human life is sacred or it is not. Since the patient’s wishes in this case are unclear–her wish to die wasn’t “remembered” by her “husband” until seven years after her “accident”–then erring on the side of life is the right thing to do.
Death by dehydration is a horrible way to go. Anyone who killed a dog that way would be prosecuted, and rightly so. That otherwise intelligent people are perfectly willing to allow Terri Schiavo to suffer an agonizing death and pretend that it’s the humane thing to do shows only that we haven’t learned much in the years since Hitler went to meet his maker.
Today we declare the brain-damaged unworthy of legal protection; tomorrow, the diabetic, or the flat-footed, or the near-sighted, or the obese…
Comment by Derek — March 22, 2005 @ 10:36 am