Tuesday, March 29, 2005

What I Have Learned

To be honest, it’s been difficult for me to keep the sufferings of poor, innocent Terri Schiavo out of my mind since we’ve returned to town … and reality. How far have we come as a society that we cannot save this unfortunate, vulnerable, disabled woman from her terrifying death sentence via dehydration and starvation? I’ve learned several things through this whole incident:

1) Be careful to not marry a loser.
2) There are many people in this world who think that, when you are no longer beneficial to society, you should be exterminated.
3) When you are disabled to the point where you are unable to speak for yourself, your guardian (despite glaring conflicts of interests and the fact that there is no concrete proof of your actual wishes concerning end-of-life care) can have you killed.
4) Many people cannot see the difference between “life support” and “food and water.” If the latter is synonymous with a respirator, then we’re ALL on life support.
5) Oh, and did I mention … ? Be careful to not marry a loser.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

You are SO SO right! Maybe should have a professional investigator too...when our youngest daughter finds someone! Sure is something to consider! What this is teaching a learning watching bunch of children in our country though! SO CRAZY...those killing her must assume they will never be in her shoes...I would not be so sure of that!

Elizabeth

Anonymous said...

You should have also learned that it may not be a bad idea to have a directive that clearly delineates your wishes in the event you are not able to communicate. Not marrying a loser would be number 2 in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Before I comment, just for the record I want to clarify that I personally would not remove Terri’s feeding tube. So please don’t beat me up for bringing up some thing that I’ve been mulling over! I’m just not so convinced that this is a clear black and white case.

Regarding your first point. I find it interesting that Terri’s parents testified (for the malpractice case) that Michael was a wonderful husband and caretaker. They had a great relationship with him. It seems that only post award money has the relationship changed and now become a contest of wills over what is best for Terri. (see for details: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-24-schiavo-money-cover_x.htm)

How do we know that everything we read about this case is true? Isn’t the same media covering it that we as conservative Christians always question for truth and honesty in reporting? I wish there was a way to cut through all the fluff and get the real facts. It seems at this point that either side will go to extremes to get their way, even if it means exaggerating to get there. It seems that almost every article I read has quotes from both Michael and Terri’s parents that directly contradict each other.

Terri’s case aside, consider the precedent that the recent government involvement sets. What happens when your spouse makes a decision on your behalf and another relative disagrees? Should they have the right to intervene? Next week the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be considering a case where the mother and daughter of a 74 year old man disagree over honoring his living will. And in that case his wishes are documented! Do we really want to open this can of worms? (see for details: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151862,00.html)


If medical technology advances far enough to replace virtually our whole bodies and brain who will be the human being? The functioning brain that's being transplanted or the functioning body that receives the brain? I’m not finding anywhere in the Bible that we have a duty to use machines.

Amy K said...

Anon.:

The biggest problem I have with Terri’s case is that, since her mysterious accident, her husband has moved on with his life, fathered two children with another woman, and stands to benefit financially from Terri’s demise. Considering these two facts, Michael is not fit to make unbiased decisions for Terri. Interestingly, it wasn’t until seven years after Terri’s accident that Michael conveniently “remembered” that Terri once told him she wouldn’t want to live in a vegetative state.

To answer your question, I think that the spouse of a person, being that person’s closest family member, SHOULD make medical decisions for a person … UNLESS circumstances exist that would indicate the spouse has a serious conflict of interest (e.g., the money and the honey, pardon the lame rhyme) and is not capable of making a decision in the best interest of the person. Why then are we allowing Terri’s adulterous, financially-blinded excuse-of-a-husband make the ultimate decisions?

I disagree that precluding Michael from removing the tube would set up bad precedent. I think the marriage bond would not be weakened by doing this anymore than it would be by placing a restraining order on husband who wants to murder his wife, like we do every day in domestic violence cases. The marriage bond must be protected. At the same time, life must be preserved. There’s no inconsistency in that line of reasoning.

Terri, until they removed her feeding tube, was not “dying.” She was as alive as you or I am. The only difference is that Terri has brain damage and cannot swallow on her own. She needs help getting nutrition. Would Terri have wanted to live in this state? We don’t know. Would Terri have wanted to die by dehydration and starvation? Probably not, but we don’t know that either. And since we don’t know, why are we as a society making presumptions that favor death? (A horrible, tortuous death, I might add.)

Lastly, I will respond to your statement: “I’m not finding anywhere in the Bible that we have a duty to use machines.”

I would contend that feeding someone via a TUBE is not artificial life support. We feed babies because they cannot lift a spoon to their mouths. How is that different than feeding a disabled woman who, because of tragic circumstances, cannot swallow?

-Amy K.

Amy K said...

One more note:

Arguing that it’s merciful to kill a person who is disabled is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler is the one who initiated “mercy killings” for the disabled in Nazi Germany.

That's the whole problem I have with euthansia. In order to "justify" killing a disabled patient, society has to make judgment calls on the value of that person's life (we must have "criteria" before we permit the killings). That devalues the life of the disabled! We cannot afford to go down that road.

"Nick" said...

Not to mention that letting someone die this way leads to euthanasia, which then leads to sterilzation and killing of the handicapped. After all, they can't be having a good life can they? And don't think it is such a hard sell, Oliver Wendell Holmes was one of the people Hitler quoted on that.

Anonymous said...

A little PS...just chatted this afternoon with my German friend who happened to talk with her mom (in Germany) today. Filled her in on all that the mainline news leaves out about Terri. She then asked her mom (who was a young woman when Hitler came to power) if this is how the Halocaust began there...her mom said, "Yes it is!" But then what does an old woman know anyway huh? (I am being sarcastic here). We will repeat the history we choose to ignore.
Elizabeth

Mark said...

Some of us work extremely hard at not marrying a loser.