Terri Schiavo: My Turn To Weigh In
For what it worth anyway.
When this story first came to light it was barely a blip on my radar, it was simply a legal thing. As time went on and the debate heated up I got more and more interested. And yes, I debated the whole thing in my head, round and round I went. I don't mind a little grey in my life. Nothing ever is truly black and white, but what was puzzling me was this problem was exactly dead center neutral. There was equal balance and this simply doesn't happen.
It raised a red flag in my mind. I spend the next couple of days figuring out a few important points.
1. Legally there is absolutely no debate.
2. Emotionally there is absolutely no solution.
3. Factually there is no compromise.
Ok, three is actually not a true statement. The problem is we are currently in the comprimise position. Terri Schiavo is both equally living or dead based on your definition. There are three major and conflicting opinions on what "alive" is.
1. There is brain activity.
2. There is heart activity.
3. There is a soul in the body.
One and two are easily metted out. There is no brain activity* and her brain is turning to a tiny little ball of mush as we speak. So by brain activity she is dead. However, her heart is beating without the aid of a machine. Therefore by that argument she is very much alive. Point three is purely philosophy and therefore impossible to prove or disprove. It is the land of belief.
All of the actual "debate" about what to do with her stems from emotional responses. The fundi religious types as a rule believe that if the heart beats, there is a soul, so you must do everything you can to save the life (like abortion), even if it cost the life of another (like pregnet women with medical conditions), or the person being "saved" will never recover in any way (Like Terri or a deformed fetus). They have been indoctronated to believe that they are doing "good" by fighting for the rights of people like Teri Schiavo.
I disagree with them, and find their position spiritually ironic really. They see Teri Schiavo as a life they must extend at any cost even though she cannot recover. I see Teri Schiavo as nothing more than a prison holding a trapped and tortured spirit. That's why I have so little regard for the fundies. They are so caught up in righeousness that they forget to see the big picture.
But at any rate. The real problem isn't spiritual but legal. Teri's parents had complete say in the matter until she got married. Marriage is a contract and now the husband has the legal rights. The parents are so caught up in the incredible and unsurmountable emotion of it all that they are blind. I think if they were watching this on TV about someone else's daughter they would see the reality of what is and what is not and would make a rational decision.
But the world is an insane place as I have already brought up. So the political monster bit into the whole Teri Schiavo soundbite and is sucking out the marrow. I feel the involvement of the White House and Brother Jeb, is simply a ploy to rally the votes of a vocal conservative fundi mass. Bush has an empire to build after all.
While we are on the subject of what I believe, I am for the removing of her feeding tubes based on the fact that there is no brain activity* and what little grey matter is left will never recover. This said, I know her heart is beating so her body functions for now. What does this make her? Strip away all of the emotion for a second. All that is left is human parts in excellent condition. She could improve the quality of a whole bunch of lives, and those parts are being damaged beyond use as we speak.
*I realize that there is actually brain activity which is responsible for her breathing, heart beat, and the rest of the autonomic nervous system. However this does not allow her to think or feel. The lights are on, but no one's at home. This is what is known as "brain dead". Philosophically you exist, but you do not live.
Comments
"The lights are on, but no one's at home. This is what is known as "brain dead". Philosophically you exist, but you do not live."
Woody the same can be said about thousands of other folks who are "residents" of the many mental hospitals in our country. Many of them are just existing.
Shall we starve them to death too?
Posted by: inkslinger336 | March 24, 2005 8:52 PM
In World War II, the Nazis did the very same thing to handicapped people thats going on right now. Hitler's grand extermination plan included the handicapped, homosexuals, Jews, and anyone else that he considered as not being worthy to live. I think that this it is beyond comprehension to starve someone to death. No politics speaking here, no religion either. She is a living and breathing human being. Who are we to decide if someone should just go ahead and die based on "quality of life" issues? If that's the case, then people will be dropping like flies in mental wards and rest homes.
Posted by: Vector | March 24, 2005 10:54 PM
All of you are making the assumption that this decision is being made for her, it may very well be. BUT, if she had confided in her husband that her wishes were not to live in such a state, then it is HER choice. If so then let it be so, if its the actions of her husband...we can never know, and it will be his burdon to answer for when the time comes. Not anyone else. We have no say in this matter. Government has no say in this matter, nor do the courts.
Posted by: Jefe | March 25, 2005 7:48 AM
I agree with Jefe and Woody and, depending on what physical constructs you consider as anchors for a "soul", she could have been dead and gone as long as 15 years ago, and all that her husband and parents have been doing is "keeping the lights on". It's interesting to note that the religuous right has been deeply divided over this issue as well.
(http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2005/0325/p01s04-wogi.html)
I think it's also interesting to draw on the parallels of the parents and vocal activist portion of America against the rest of the world.
It's much like the Monica Lewinski scandal in that the rest of the world has difficulty ascertaining why such a case gets so much attention across the nation when that sort of thing happens in their hometowns and across the world all the time. Imagine if Terry wanted the money that went into keeping her body alive to go to something like the Bill and Melinda gates foundation?
Final thought: Is DeForest Kelley(Bones from Star Trek) still around?
Posted by: Jeffrey | March 26, 2005 10:41 AM
As i stated in a post at my blog, I have no problem with Terri dying.
It's the MANNER in which we are going to accomplish it.
Starvation.
Our criminals on death row and our household pets get more humane treatment.
If starving people because "the lights are on, but nobody's home" is going to be the norm, maybe we should let Dr. Kevorkian out of prison and let him continue his work and make it as painless as possible.
Posted by: inkslinger336 | March 26, 2005 11:08 AM
For me it comes down to this: Terry's husband says Terry expressed a desire not to live on life support after having watched a movie about what's her name. Several of their friends testified in court that he is telling the truth.
Terry's mother presented the court with absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Could Terry's husband and her friends ALL be lying? Yes, they could be, but their testimony stood up under cross-examination so what else is there to go on?
Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet | March 26, 2005 5:15 PM
inkslinger336, I see your point and think it's a valid one, but the current culture surrounding this country isn't willing to face up that deliberately withholding nourishment is as much killing someone as introducing a toxin. This way, they're not actively killing her, they're just watching as she dies on her own. Never mind that introducing the toxin is a much gentler way to go. Give us 50 years and maybe we'll catch up with the Dutch. :/
Posted by: Shannon | March 26, 2005 8:22 PM
Having watched two of my grandparents die, and I mean in the room with them, neither of them having brain functions at the time, I'm all for letting her go. Assisted suicide is a big no no, all they can do is give her enough morphine to make it not hurt.
There were quite a few things my grandmother had in her living will, which she had drawn up due to some issues with my grandfather's death. Some of those were in place to avoid financial ruin for her children, some to avoid straining family bonds, but all laid out in her wishes. Putting a tube down someone's throat to keep them alive for years when there is no measurable brain activity is more cruel and unusual than letting her meat starve to death. I'm with Woody on one subject of living wills.
Under the heading of "OK I'm pretty much screwed now"
Donate meaty parts out to those who need them with children having first preference.
Now with that said, if she had not said she didn't want to live under those conditions and the husband felt that he though she would not want to and her parent's though she would then it is NONE OF MY BUSINESS. This goes under the whole personal choice thing and who is considered the executor of her estate if/when she dies. That person gets the say of when to pull the plug. For anyone arguing that starving is cruel, imagine being coginant when they pull the plug on your heart/kidney/lung machine. beep... beep... beep... . bee.. b.... bbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.... beep. beep......... beeeeeeeeee.
Just for the record for anyone still reading. When the brain is oxygen starved it is not uncommon for someone to open their eyes and look around. This is a lower brain function. They may make eye contact with you and make you feel like they are blaming you or pleading, but there is nothing behind those eyes. Luckily a Doc mentioned that offhand during my Grandmother's passing, which did more mental healing for some of my family members, including myself, then they know.
Posted by: Rob | March 27, 2005 11:54 PM
inslinger336,
Each of the thousands of other folks who are in the same position are each separate cases, but the same rules apply. What was the wishes of the patient? Did the patient have a living will? If not who is the power of Atterny and what is their choice? My living will is going to state clearly that a.) If I should end up in a persistant vegistative state than 30 days after that diagnosis is made if I have not improved than I should be allowed to die. b.) Anyone who tries to keep my body alive against my wishes should be taken out and shot. This way, me and my jailer can debate it on even terms.
Vector,
There IS a "hitler" here trying to control whole segments of society against their wishes. It isn't who you believe it is. It has been proved in court time and time again that this woman would not want to live in this state. Anyone who would deny her of her wishes for any reason is behaving EXACTLY the same as Hitler did. Scary huh? It scares the bejesus out of me that there are people in America here today who want to enslave us, all the while claiming they have god on their side so its OK.
Posted by: woody | March 28, 2005 8:51 AM