Posted on 03/23/2005 7:16:02 AM PST by MikeEdwards
Terri Schiavo’s situation has people lined up in opposing factions. They’re separated by contradictory medical opinions, disputed facts, divergent opinions on what constitutes death with dignity and a range of views on the legitimacy of government’s interest in her continued existence.
Perhaps the only point of agreement is that Terri’s plight is especially heartrending.
Terri’s husband, who remains her legal guardian, claims that removing her feeding tube will be a painless and probably most natural way to die. But who knows that with certainty?
Ten years ago, a woman was paralyzed by a stroke and unable to communicate. She found herself being starved for eight days. The entire time she was fully aware of exactly what was happening to her.
The woman says it was incredibly agonizing, both physically and mentally. She was fortunate. Her husband proved an indefatigable advocate and persuaded doctors to provide nourishment. She was saved and has since recovered to a great extent.
Terri’s husband has been living with to another woman since 1997. They have two children. It is not unreasonable to question his wholehearted commitment to Terri’s welfare.
He’s obviously moved on. Why does he not allow Terri’s parents, who have struggled all these years to keep their daughter alive, to be her guardians?
It was eight years after his wife’s collapse that her husband suddenly recalled Terri had mentioned she didn’t want to be kept alive by artificial means. Even if that were true, one wonders what she may have intended.
Terri is not, as some believe, in a coma and connected to a variety of machines. She is able to breathe on her own. She has no terminal illness. Until the court order to withhold nourishment, she was not dying. . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
It really frosts me that the culture of death has apparently won this battle.
Dr. Cranford, Michael's main medical "expert," who testified in Greer's court for Michael that Terri is PVS, has said that PVS patients have no constitutional rights. That's equivalent to saying they are non-persons.
I'm beginning to think this fight is not really about a husband's right to honor his wife's wishes.
This legal fight is really about having the state define PVS (and other severely disabled?) folks as NON-PERSONS.
5 years from now, will anyone who is PVS be allowed to have a feeding tube even if they had drawn up a medical directive asking for one?
What I find particularly troubling is that so many Americans believe Terri (and presumably other seriously disabled people) don't have lives worth living. IMHO, that's a dangerous value judgment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.