"I wouldn't want to live like that".
The most common comment I hear from people who seem to support the tragic court orders withholding hydration and nutrition (food & water) from Terri Schiavo.
Is it really true what the media is reporting, that 70% of Americans think the government should butt out and let Terri die in peace? Is it really true that 70% of Americans think it's OK to starve someone to death if they are living a life most of us would find of low quality?
I've heard outrageous rhetoric from both sides of the issue. One side suggests the original cause of Terri's condition was brought on directly through abuse by her husband, and there are all sorts of evil motives behind his fight to keep her parents away and starve her to death. On the other side are claims that Terri feels no pain, is somehow happy to be in her final hours, and that a feeding tube represents some sort of artificial life support.
As I always try to do in every issue, I've bypassed all the hype and spin to get to the basic facts of the case. Only by thinking about what we know for sure can we make a reasoned decision about how we feel about whether we're killing Terri by starving her to death or merely letting her die by removing medical treatment.
The facts: Terri is profoundly brain-damaged, but does not require any special medical treatment to keep her alive. There are conflicting stories about whether she receives nutrition via feeding tube because she's incapable of ingesting food and water, or whether the feeding tube is merely for convenience of her caregivers, as feeding her normally would be similar to feeding an infant.
Also being argued is whether or how much Terri is able to feel, interact, understand, etc. There seem to be plenty of opinions ranging from those who say she is awake, aware, and even responds to others by smiling and grunting, to those who try to suggest she is "brain dead". Where is the line exactly drawn where anyone could be declared "brain dead"? I certainly don't know, but more importantly, who gets to decide?
So, the courts have ruled that Terri must die. The interpretation of the law as I understand it is that her husband, as her legal guardian, has the right to make that decision on her behalf. Her death is to occur by the simple removal of food and water until she dies of dehydration and/or malnutrition.
Is this where our society has arrived? Are we now prepared to starve people to death based on our own feelings about whether their quality of life matches our own standards? How does this case effect what might happen to our grandparents, our parents, ourselves?
The description of Terri's functional level I recently heard was that of about a 10-month-old infant. That certainly doesn't sound "brain dead" to me. How many Alzheimers patients are in nursing homes everywhere who could also be described as functioning at the level of a 10-month-old infant? Is their quality of life any better or worse? Should we starve them to death as well?
How many family members, whether spouses or children, might be tempted to use the Terri Schiavo precedent to kill their disabled loved one? How easy could it be to simply go tell the judge that "Dad told me not to let him live like that, so I am requesting that we remove his nutritional treatments so he can die in peace". After all, if Dad doesn't die soon, the nursing home is going to get all of his estate and his living children won't get their inheritance. Is that OK with everyone?
Thinking about Christopher Reeve. He really shouldn't have survived his accident, then nobody expected him to live nearly as long as he did. Without the unbelievably expensive yet innovative medical care, along with his own very strong desire to live, he proved that life finds a way. Wouldn't most people in his condition also say, "I wouldn't want to live like that"? Should Christopher Reeve been allowed to die by removing his respirator?
Where does it end? Should we just euthanize cancer patients, people with disabilities, Down's Syndrome, amputees, paraplegics, quadriplegics, schizophrenics, obsessive-compulsives, depressed people? What is "quality of life"? Who has it and who doesn't? Most of all, who gets to decide?
I think we've crossed a line that we may never again be able to re-cross. And I'm very frightened and depressed.
WAIT! I didn't mean I don't want to live like this. Please don't kill me!
2 comments:
Thank you for leaving a comment on my blog. It helps to have a male point of view.
I do agree with you in that no one should die that way. To me it seems pretty cruel. I thought in this day and age things like that don't happen, I thought we were in an age of humanity? I have a 4-month-old daughter who is completly dependant on me. The only interacting she does is when she smiles and laughs at us. She does "talk" or babble, actually. Her brain is not developed to where she can think or talk as we do, but she is aware of her surroundings and knows who loves her.
I understand not wanting to live in a vegitative state like that. (terri's) The problem I have I suppose is the same you seem to have. Where do we draw the line? How brain dead is she? How aware is she? Who are we to decide weather someone should live or die, based on their inabilities?
I do actually see both sides of this. BUT, it is a horrible way to die.
Hi,
I think this is the key issue, now that Terri has died. There's a lot of discussion about not wanting to be stuck in a nonresponsive or minimally responsive body. This is understandable thinking, from a person with a healthy, strong body. But no one is printing/airing many interviews from people who live in limited bodies every day.
Post a Comment