Erring on the side of life
I don't really know what to make of the whole Terri Schiavo battle because I don't know enough of the particulars. Did she tell her husband she would want to die in these circumstances or didn't she? Is he an adulterous sleazebag who just wants the life insurance money, or does he have her interests at heart? I don't know, so I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide. I do know, however, that if I were in Terri's shoes, I'd want the tube removed. In fact, I'm working on a living will to say just that so that my family will never have to fight over what to do should this happen to me.
I have to admit that I'm confused by the conservative Christian stance here. I understand why Christians would be against euthanasia. I certainly am. But I'm not sure why a Christian, who presumably believes in a glorious afterlife with God, would want to artificially prolong a life here when the higher functions of the brain are gone. Do they really think it's better to lie in bed not able to think or feel or be than to move on to the next life just because we have the technology to do so? And yeah, I know there is disagreement about whether or not she's in a "persistent vegetative state," but I find it hard to believe that she isn't. If she hasn't recovered after 15 years, then how likely is it that tomorrow will be the day? Miracles can happen, but they can happen with or without the aid of technology and it seems cruel to me to use the technology just on the off chance that there might be a miracle.
The whole thing feels to me like her family is in a 15-year-long state of grief wherein they won't move to the final stage, acceptance, and their supporters are helping them stay stuck in that place.
I don't know that in this one particular case removing the tube is the right thing to do. But if it's ever me, please remove the tube, let me be alive with God instead of the living dead here, and let my family grieve and move on. That's how I would define "erring on the side of life."
posted by Bad Methodist @ 6:12 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
That's exactly how I feel -- it's so hard to know the truth in this case, since the mudslinging has been going on for so long, but I feel like at its heart it's about people who love someone deeply and want to do what's best for her. Do they still have her best interests at heart? I'm not sure. It's been a long fight, and I don't know that Terri herself is truly at the center of it anymore. But I agree that it's puzzling that Christians would want to keep her trapped in that body, knowing where (if reports of her faith are accurate) she's probably headed when she leaves it. That doesn't mean life isn't valuable -- just that it's not the HIGHEST value in every situation.
I posted my thoughts on the Schivo case on my own blog. Basically, I aggree with you that the case is complex and that weather or not a feeding tube is a medical device or a utensil is arguable, but think that Terry's parents loose by default because they dragged a whole menagerie of right-wing nutjobs into a private family dispute.
I haven't really followed the story all that closely, but here's my thinking. I don't think this would even BE a story if it wasn't for the allegations about the husband. From what little I've seen, there's alot to question about his motive and ethics. And I think the reaction of the "Christian Right" is brought on by the evidence that her husband Michael might not be acting in her best interests. If the parents and her husband both agreed that it was appropriate to remove the feeding tube, I'm relatively sure you would not have heard such a big comotion about it. I'm sure it happens somewhere almost every day.
With the evidence looking like Michael was a bit of a scum bag, I understand those who want to keep her alive and asked the courts to err on the side of life. Legally, unfortunatly, I don't think the parents had a case, so ultimately I think the courts did right. I just wish Michael would have divorced her and give up his right to want to end her life.
Post a Comment
<< Home