Posted on 10/29/2003 12:45:09 PM PST by FreepinforTerri
Right-to-die: Murder or mercy ? EDITORIAL
October 28, 2003
Most of us will never know the exact day or moment in which we'll die. We simply live our lives without regard for such things and enjoy the time that we are given. Unfortunately, for Terri Schiavo, her right-to-die and right-to-live are being debated in vicious court battles as her existence lies in limbo. The scenario being played out is simply this: Her husband wants her dead and her parents what her alive.
Terri Schiavo has spent the last 13 years in a "persistent vegetative state" after suffering a heart attack that left her so severely brain damaged that doctors claim she has no cognitive abilities at all. Thus, she cannot see, hear or think and, more than likely, she never will.
In Michael Schiavo's quest to let his wife die, he was successful once in 2001 when a court ordered her feeding tube to be disconnected for two days before being reconnected by order of a different judge after her parents petitioned. And again, her feeding tube was recently removed on Oct. 15 for a second time until a law tailor-made for Terri Schiavo was passed by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to mandate the tubes be reinserted.
The brazen law passed by Bush issued a "one-time stay to prevent the withholding of nutrition and hydration from a patient" who meets four criteria specifically meant for Terri Schiavo and has left many in the legal community angry, claiming that the law is a violation of her constitutional rights and liberties (NY Times, Oct. 23).
From a legal perspective, the word 'stay' typically refers to a temporary suspension of a judicial decision. But according to Patrick O. Guilridge, a law professor at the University of Miami, "They wanted to use the word 'stay' because the analogy is to a stay of execution" (NY Times, Oct. 23).
The main questions now become whether the Florida legislature was authorized to undo a judicial decision, and whether or not the separation of powers doctrine was violated in this recent act.
According to Kathryn McCauley, NT's student legal adviser, "The courts have already found by clear and convincing evidence that this woman didn't want to be kept alive like this," and to pass a law that opposes that is a violation of her civil liberties. Additionally, in this case, "The powers of separation were violated in a big, big way. And regardless of what you feel personally, ethically or morally, there are bigger questions regarding whether the legislature over-stepped it's bounds."
So what is it about this case that bothers us the most? Is it the idea of starvation? And would this case have gone this far had Terri Schiavo been kept alive on another form of life support?
Dr. Jacquelyn Clomka, registered nurse and assistant professor at the UT Health Science Center at Houston, claimed, "Providing nutrition and hydration is not synonymous with feeding someone or with eating. In fact until recently, the use of a feeding tube was called 'forced feeding' " (Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, June 2003).
As a matter of fact, withholding nutrition and hydration from patients is fairly common practice when it comes to patients who are nearing their last days. And it is said to be relatively painless as, "Anecdotal evidence has shown that ... the effects of ketosis [the body using fat for fuel] and the body's release of endogenous opioids [substances created by our bodies in order to fight pain] during starvation are thought to block pain and discomfort" (Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, June 2003).
Unfortunately, in Terri Schiavo's case, the Terri that her parents are fighting to save died within herself 13 years ago, and regardless of the legal outcome she will never be the same. "Most experts maintain that such hopes are grounded more in love than in medicine" (MSNBC, Oct. 26).
As Terri Schiavo's life is limboed in her own personal purgatory, we should ask ourselves: At what point do the abilities of law and medicine make gods of men? And where do we draw the line.
In Terri Schiavo's brief 26 years of consciousness, she was said to have been reserved, quiet and shy. With that in mind, you can't help but wonder if Schiavo were conscious today would she despise the legal battle she's become the subject of, or the bitter dispute it has created between those she loved? Would it be safe to assume that she would want to die the way she lived, privately? Despite the legal outcome of this case, everyone should realize the importance of communicating with your loved ones about what you would want if this were to happen to you. You should put your wishes in writing or contract a living will.
Jacqueline Harvey jch0066@unt.edu Graduate Student and NT Alumna
Lie. All they had was some off-hand remark that she may or may not have made at age 26 about not wanting to be "kept alive like that." No documentation whatsoever, and certainly no indication she wanted to starve to death.
"The powers of separation were violated in a big, big way. And regardless of what you feel personally, ethically or morally, there are bigger questions regarding whether the legislature over-stepped it's bounds."
Even bigger lie. The only thing being violated here is the unchecked power of the tyrranical judiciary. Governors and legislators should CONSTANTLY be undoing bad court decisions with new legislation--or better yet, impeaching rogue judges.
Actually, such things have happened. As for her care being billed to the taxpayers, if that is so it is only because her husband-in-name-only refuses to allow her parents to take care of her themselves. If the parents volunteer their time to take care of Terri, as is their stated intention, the actual monetary cost of care will be slight--comparable to that of a typical teenager. Besides, there was a $750K trust fund set aside for Terri's care and treatment. Given that very little of that trust fund has been used for Terri's care and treatment, it seems rather dubious for Michael to be billing Terri's care to the state, does it not?
Or else he would have done so but admitted same. I don't think many people here would have faulted him for seeking a divorce. I would expect that if he'd done so soon after winning the malpractice award, a jury would probably have found that Terri's $750K trust fund obviated the need for any other sort of alimony.
Since you seem to know everything, who has been paying for her care for the past 14 years?
Initially her parents. Then, briefly, Michael--probably using some of the trust fund money, even if stingily, for its intended purpose. Then the hospice where Terri was warehoused. And now, apparently, the state.
Excellent question. I'll venture an opinion about when "medicine makes gods of men". When medicine has within its means to prolong life instead of death, but the decision is made to prolong death, medicine has made a god of men. When medicine has the means and technology to save a life, but chooses to withold those methods and technology based on arbitary definitions of "quality of life" then medicine has made a god of men. No man can determine the quality of another man's life.
In other words, medicine is in the business of saving lives. Period. The natural death process should not be tampered with, but removing a feeding tube from someone who is being "forced fed" and dying is entirely different from removing a tube from someone who is not dying and needs it to sustain life. As of now, Terri Schindler is not dying. The gods would be those who choose to remove her tube.
I've sat on both sides of the fence and seen first hand how feeding tubes can save lives or prolong death temporarily.
Exactly. Feeding someone will not grant immortality, but starving someone or dehydrating them will certainly kill them.
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.