Sometimes I wonder at my lack of moral clarity on an issue that others seem so convinced about. I'm talking about Terri Shiavo. I feel an ambivalence about this issue I probably shouldn't.
1) I don't understand why the federal legislature is intervening in this case, especially since they are looking to pass legislation specific only to her. How is this not an encroachment on the judiciary, in violation of constitutional separation of powers? The precedent established by this act will probably have a long-term adverse affect we cannot see now.
2) The examples I've read of people recovering from a Persistent Vegetative State are all inaccurate. They confuse lock-in, where there is continuing cognitive function, with PVS, where there is none.
3) Withdrawing nourishment and hydration is not the same as unplugging a respirator. A baby can breathe on its own, but cannot feed itself. Not giving Terri water seems more morally repulsive than pulling the plug on a respirator would be.
4) I don't understand the husband's motives; they seem inherently suspect anyway. He has moved on and has a new family. But he has not yet remarried because Terri remains alive. Doesn't he have a disqualifying interest in her death? Has anyone else confirmed that this would be Terri's wish? Her family is on the other side on this.
5) If her family is willing to care for her at their expense, why shouldn't they? The husband believes she is unaware and will never recover. What harm is there, then, in continuing to sustain her?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
What harm is there, then, in continuing to sustain her?
Maybe he's telling the truth, and knows she wouldn't want to live this way. She's been in "a persistent vegetative state" for fifteen years.
She was a very pretty girl; I can't imagine she would have wanted to be remembered this way.
Do yourself a favor and read the judge's decision. Very illuminating.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt
I don't think I have all the facts, but from what I've heard it seems pretty morally clear that the state should intervene to continue feeding Terri.
I don't know about the law, but in my book, that the husband has a live-in girlfriend disqualifies him from being Terri's primary care-giver.
"...from what I've heard..."
"...in my book.."
Yikes. God save the republic.
Read the decision for pete's sake. It'll take ten minutes to inform yourself.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt
Ok, so I first commented after reading a site that was written entirely from the Schindler's point of view. Now I'm going through the Wikipedia article and I can see that the issue is a little more complex. When it comes down to it I may just have to read that judge's decision.
So, the judge's decision is interesting with regard to medical opinion on her current state and efficacy of proposed new treatments. But it still does not answer the basic question about who represents her wishes.
"She was a very pretty girl" but now she's not doesn't diminish her dignity, nor is it a good enough reason to withdraw nutrition and hydration. She won't look real good once she's starved to death.
The suggestion that Michael Schiavo's "motives" are the issue here because of a settlement is fatuous. People get settlements all the time--it means nothing.
The courts have repeatedly found that he in fact represents his wife's best interest. They've repeatedly found that his representation of her medical condition is accurate. In short, the courts have repeatedly found that he is completely credible.
The Schindlers, on the other hand, have made--and continue to make--outrageous claims regarding their daughter's condition. These claims have been categorically disproved in court, yet they still make them. The Schindlers forced a lengthy legal battle using "expert medical witnesses" who the court found were at best unqualified and at worst lying quacks.
And all throughout this legal farce the Schindlers have waged a relentless smear campaign against their daughter's husband, leading--as they knew it would--to the the widespread conspiracy theories now clogging the nation's airwaves and Internet.
If anyone's credibility should be questioned it's the Schindlers.
Post a Comment