Apparently a judge has ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be removed.
To say that I am unimpressed with this decision is an understatement. In taking this step, the judge has condemn Ms. Schiavo to a slow death by starvation and dehydration. Even the most heinous serial killer is given a more human exit from the world than this.
Her husband hold personal culpability in this death - it is by his actions in the courts that her tube is to be removed. Her parents have offered numerous times to take custody of their daughter, and he has refused to allow that to happen. His claim being that "she wouldn't want to be kept alive by artificial means". Perhaps that is true, but I don't believe that gives him the moral right to condemn her to a slow, painful death by starvation.
Over the last fifteen or so, there has been an emerging amount of evidence that suggests that 'persistent vegetative states' may well not indicate a complete lack of awareness of their surroundings and situation.
I find it disturbing that Michael Schiavo would not divorce his wife and allow her parents to take over. It leaves me deeply suspicious that he is after one thing - the money that he would collect from an insurance policy were Terri to die. If it were a matter of mere minutes after disconnection that she would die, I don't think I'd be anywhere near as upset. However, it will take days for Terri Schiavo to die, and those will be pain filled days for her - a death that would be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" if it was meted out to a condemned killer.
There's something seriously wrong with the rationale that allows people to play games like this and claim that this is the patients "expressed wishes". With nothing in writing, that seems to me to be a questionable call. Keeping Terri alive is no doubt expensive, and heart-breaking, but I don't believe that a 'do not resuscitate directive' gives Michael Schiavo the right to condemn his wife to a slow, painful death either.
Like the abortion issue, the lines that the Schiavo case draws are profoundly disturbing and at best arbitrary. I have a great deal of trouble with the notion of putting someone into a situation where they will suffer. Death doesn't bother me, but suffering really does. Starvation is up there with burning as one of the most painful ways for someone to die.
I think that the courts have missed this reality, and have condemned an innocent woman to a horrible, slow death. Michael Schiavo should be ashamed of his actions. He had many other exits from this situation that would have been much less objectionable than the one he chose.
A progressive voice shining light into the darkness of regressive politics. Pretty much anything will be fair game, and little will be held sacred.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alberta's Anti-Trans Legislation
So, now that the UCP has rolled out their anti-trans legislation, we can take a long look at it. Yesterday, they tabled 3 related bills and...
-
On March 19, 2024 the United Conservative Party of Alberta held an event that they called " Let Kids Be Kids " (spoiler alert: i...
-
There is an entire class of argument that we see in discourse that basically relies on the idea that “physical attribute X means that Y can ...
-
So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of ...
4 comments:
Let's see.. there are degrees of, shall we call them natural, mental disability right through to near-vegetative states. Is it then right to deny food and liquids to these people as well because if they WERE in full control of their mental facilities we believe they would want to die?
Slippery slope
Now, don't get me wrong - if it were a case that the individual were unable to live without the constant intervention of machines (heart pump, ventalator), and had zero chances of recovery, and that brain death had occured - unplugging can be merciful; but weeks of denying the basic needs of the body (food, water) certainly is no more merciful than, say, denying shelter and staking the body out in the middle of the forest to be ravaged by the elements and any predator that might come along.
It was my understanding (based off of Wild Rose Forum on CBC today) that wife had made her wishes known to the husband prior to the accident - that she didn't want to live as a vegetable if it ever came up.
In this case, Michael Schiavo is simply engaging in his duty as a husband.
Quixote
http://www.livejournal.com/users/quixote317/
Sadly, there's no written record of that wish. Michael Schiavo has simply asserted it repeatedly.
I wouldn't be nearly so troubled by it if the following were true:
a) The patient would not suffer a slow, agonizing death as a result. (I have huge problems with people suffering)
b) There weren't some very large insurance amounts involved. (Optically, - it stinks, and makes Michael Schiavo's claims suspect)
c) I do not consider "food and water" to be extreme measures. Withdrawing basics is deeply troubling to me.
Is Terri Schiavo in a vegetative state? Yes. Will she live a normal lifespan - probably not. However, I remain deeply troubled by the idea of starving another human being to death - no matter how severe the handicaps.
I concur with Grog - withholding food and water is significantly different than witholding extreme measures to "save" a life. I.e do not resuscitate means to withold CPR, it does not mean to deny the necessities of life to provide a slow, painful, suffering death.
I would not have nearly as much of a problem if it were a case of a machine keeping her alive, and pulling the plug resulted in a near-immediate, painless death.
Post a Comment