Replies

I'm not affiliated with SPT. They obtained court records, and misreported the contents of those records.

Allowing Terri to live out the natural course of her life would not have required extending it artificially. Food and water is not artificial. There are a handful of people who claim it is, but Terri was not among them. Feeding tubes are not recent inventions. They've been in use, in one form or another, for hundreds of years. Terri was put on a feeding tube and made dependant on it, but with proper therapy, she could have continued to eat and drink orally.

Since your own disablity gives you a different perspective on "right-to-die" issues than most of us, do you mind if I ask you to elaborate on that perspective? Most of us assume a patient wants to live, unless they express otherwise. You seem to be expressing the assumption that most severely disabled patients would prefer to die, unless they clearly and convincely state otherwise. Is this based on your own experience, and conversations you've had with others? The conversations I've had with disabled people, their family, and friends have left me with the impression that almost none of them wants to be euthanized. They wish they were healthy, sometimes get depressed, and occasionally question whether suicide is the answer before quickly answering with a resounding "No." I suppose if those conversations had been limited to patients currently suffering from depression, the attitudes would be different.

If you've read the available court transcripts, then you know there was never so much as an allegation that Terri would rather be killed than live with a disability. She's alleged to have said that she wouldn't want to be in that situation, but that's really not the same thing, is it? I don't know of anyone who would rather be sick than healthy. I take that back. I do know two hypochondriacs, but even they don't take it to that level. There was never any evidence that Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death, and denied visits from those who loved her. There was very strong evidence to the contrary, including the testimony of Michael Schiavo. He testified that he wanted to become a nurse so that he could fulfill his vow to take care of her for the rest of his life. Why would she want him to make such a vow if she didn't want him to keep it?

Since your own disablity gives you a different perspective on "right-to-die" issues than most of us, do you mind if I ask you to elaborate on that perspective? Most of us assume a patient wants to live, unless they express otherwise. You seem to be expressing the assumption that most severely disabled patients would prefer to die, unless they clearly and convincely state otherwise. Is this based on your own experience, and conversations you've had with others?

Yes, it has been my experience that most disabled people would rather be let go if they should go into crisis and a decision has to be made whether or not to bring them back. Most people I have talked to have clear and emphatic DNR orders prepared. Speaking only for myself, I would be absolutely furious if someone--no matter how well-meaning--were to try to circumvent my wishes. Neither my wife nor our children would do so, but my family of origin would. My wife has sworn to block my mother, sister, and brothers should such an occasion arise.

Here's the thing: my disability causes me to be powerless in many areas of my life. I absolutely refuse to give up the power to make my own end-of-life decisions.

I think what you and I have in common is that we would both have wished for Terri Schiavo's power not to have been taken away from her. We merely differ in how we interpret the circumstances of the case and in who we believe to have stolen her power.