WOW!!! Has it been along time since I've been here! Some password trouble and time management issues have kept me away, but I've turned over a new leaf, and am resolved to resume posting these insignificant little rants, eventhough most of the time, I am the only one reading them.
At any rate, I feel obligated to weigh in on this whole Terri Schiavo issue (Isn't it a little sickening how this woman's life has become a political issue?). I mean, I would hate to be the only person in America who has not thrown in his 2 cents. So here goes....
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to simply remove her feeding tube and let her die, and right now I have so many reasons for this careening around in my head that I am going to have to try extraordinarily hard to make sure that this doesn't become incoherent.
First of all, it is my understanding that really, the only thing she can't do is feed herself. Her heart and lungs are working on their own, and with feeding tube inserted, she could live on indefinitely. So why is it acceptable to stop feeding her? It would be completely different if she were on a respirator or something; a situation where a machine is actually keeping her alive, but in this case, they simply had to reroute her food supply. So basically, the medical establishment is going to starve Terri Schiavo to death. Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath?
Now you're probably saying, "But Carl, she never wanted to live like that. Her husband says so. I mean would you?" Now, I will return to her husband later, but a very simple answer to that question is, "No, I wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state like that." As I sit here, 26 years old, in my prime so they say, I really wouldn't want to live like that. It's a very easy question for me to answer from where I am, but how do I know my answer wouldn't be different if the situation were staring me in the face? I don't, and neither do you, unless you were in a persistent vegetative state, and snapped out of it. The fact is, it seems like there are a lot of people deciding what Terri would or wouldn't have wanted with no idea what she is experiencing.
Now, although those last few points bother me, they don't bother me nearly as much as the aforementioned Michael Schiavo. I mean, where to begin with this guy? Now to be fair, I have never met him, and he might be a great man, but he really isn't coming across that way as this plays out. First of all, he wins a medical malpractice suit and pockets a small fortune thanks to his beloved wife, then proceeds to go and start a new family with someone else. After having two children with another woman, he decides that Terri never really wanted to live as a vegetable, and that she should be "allowed" to die. I use the word "allowed" in the same way I would if I said, "The teacher 'allowed' the child to go to the principal's office and miss recess." If I have any part of that wrong, please let me know. Anyway, Michael says that Terri would have wanted to die, and as proof of this, he presents a living will, right? Try again. Surely he must have some proof, like a letter from Terri saying that she would never want to live in a vegetative state, right? Sorry. It's Michael's word against Terri's, and we know that she isn't talking. Now, I went to Lowe's Foods the other night and had to present 2 forms of ID and sign a form to get a discount card. We live in a time when EVERYTHING needs to documented, and yet the court system in Florida agreed to put a woman to death based on the word of Mr. Schiavo. Am I the only one here who is completely baffled by that? Would the same thing work if someone died without a will? Would I be able to walk into a court and say that in fact, eventhough the deceased never wrote it down, he/she wanted me to have all of their worldly possessions? I don't think so. There are laws that state what is to be done with property in the event of death without a will, just as there need to be laws to cover cases such as Terri Schiavo's.
And I think, live or die, that is going to be the legacy of Terri Schiavo; as a society we are going to have settle back down, exhale all the emotion that has polarized ordinary people on this issue, and create a set of laws that govern how this sort of situation should be handled. Is this the job of our Congress? Certainly not. Nowhere in the Constitution is that power given to the federal government, and is therefore reserved for the individual states. So should Congress get involved here? The politician in my head says, "NO! This is a state matter," but the human being in my heart sees no alternative if her life is going to be saved. A hundred years ago lawmakers never could have imagined a situation like this, but modern medicine is going to force us to make some tough decisions as a society, something we don't seem all that willing to do. This issue about how life should be handled is sure to spill over into other human life issues such as euthanasia and abortion. Terri Schiavo may push our country to a point of finally having to make a stand morally about the issues of life and death, and if that is the case, maybe she really won't die in vain.
But that's just my opinion. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Lets say that Michael Shiavo does in fact have his wife's best interest in mind. She would not want to live like this. Mr. Shiavo in a desperate attempt to save his wife embarks on breakthrough territory with an experimental implant 8 months after her collapse. Progress is noted. Hope arrives, but significant improvement is yet to be seen.
In the year following over 2.125 million is awarded in malpratice suits. Mr. Shiavo of course used the money to continue giving his wife access to the most advanced treatment options in response to her improvement right? No. Michael Shiavo denies recommended rehabilitative treatment. These are not heroic measures he is denying but recommended rehabilitative treatments.
Let's also assume Terri Schiavo had drawn up a living will. She would certainly include in it that such recommended treatment be denied, she would also exclude her parents from having any say in the matter whatsoever, and bar them from viewing her medical charts? She would of course deny herself basic antibiotics to treat infection, and without a doubt refuse the spoon from her mothers hand. She would have chosen to die of dehyradtion and starvation keeping her parents just out of reach right?
What? It just doesn't make sense.
Terri Shiavo has been denied rehabilitative treatment since 1991 at the "mercy" of her husband? 14 years is a long time to let your beloved wife sit (or yourself for that matter if Terry's wishes are really anywhere here), without any intervention "in her best interest". It has not been proven that Terri cannot even swallow in fact if fed.
According to Florida Law, Terri is not even considered to be in a Persistant Vegitative State. "Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
Terri is certainly not unconscious and "her behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment".
If Michael Shiavo did want to move on, start another family, what would motivate a man to not permit her family to assume her care and responsibility?
Does it even need to be mentioned that large amounts of money are involved? Where is the basic humanity? If it were even remotely in question would not a true husband, even he who has moved on in life, continue with his wife's best interest in mind err on the side of life?
Thank you for your comment, and for making it even more obvious what kind of person we are dealing with in Michael Schiavo. As I said in the post, I don't know him and I would like to give the benefit of the doubt, but he makes it very difficult with his actions.
I am also glad that I am not the only one to whom this makes absolutely no sense. Why is Michael so hell bent on her dying? Couldn't some arraigement be reached where he is allowed to move on and Terri's parents assume responsibility for her care? I just keep thinking that I must not have all the facts, that I must be missing something, because it doesn't make any sense that we are going to starve a woman to death based on the wishes of her "husband", who in all truth should have forfeited any rights he had as Terri's husband when he started a family with someone else.
Am I wrong here? I must be, because I an ABC poll released yesterday said that less than half of people polled were in favor of reinserting Terri's feeding tube. These people must know something I don't. I wish they would tell me what it is I'm missing.
You are right, I don't know him either. We should give him the benefit of the doubt as neither of us know anything other than what has been reported to us. Nonetheless, the dehyration and starvation issue alone, could that ever be considered humane? Would any of us choose to die like that? Where does that precedence take us to? I realize that I may be getting radical here in my thought process, I probably am and I apologize for any ignorance, but newborns have limited motor functioning, limited cognitive ability and depend on someone to feed them. Once the line is crossed how do we draw a distinction? What kind of doors are we opening?
I don't think you are showing anyu ignorance at all. I thinking it is wise to think about where this course of action may take us in the future. And although I think newborns are safe for the time being, I totally agree with you that this can't lead us toward anything positive.
More than newborns, I worry about the severely mentally retarded, or the older Americans who are incapable of feeding themselves. What's stopping us from just starving them? Does the fact that their food comes from a nurse's spoon instead of a tube make them any less dependent on an outside source for nourishment? I think that is a legitimate issue. There are borders that need to be established through precedent, and right now the borders we're establishing are very scary.
I appreciate your delicate yet deliberate and moral insight as you approach these issues. Keep them coming, I'll keep reading. I can use the mental exercise when the New York weather isn't as accomodating.
Post a Comment