Live or let die?
As polarizing as the Terri Schiavo case is, I still find myself on the fence. One reason I wrote this was to get my messy thoughts out, so that I could organize them for myself.
No doubt, this case would have been emotionally easier to handle for all involved if Schiavo had simply died of her heart attack. I would not want to remain alive in a "persistent vegetative state"--which is not a coma nor brain death--if for nothing else than out of a desire not to inflict more pain and suffering on friends and family. And I think if I were a surviving husband, I would do the same thing as Michael Schiavo if I felt it was in accordance with her wishes, and there was no chance of recovery. Terri has no higher brain function: she flatlines an EEG, and the vast majority of her grey matter is destroyed, although she retains the ability to maintain the bodily functions necessary for life. She is not on true life support, which normally would involve circulatory or respiratory assistance. In her state, which has not improved for nearly 15 years, she lacks the ability to respond to any stimuli. She is not dead, but to call her "alive" runs against any common sense, useful concept of what it means for a human to live.
If she is technically alive, in the sense that her heart beats and she breathes, is removing her feeding tube assisted suicide, or worse yet, homicide? She cannot give consent, so it can hardly be termed assisted suicide, even if as her husband contends, she would have consented if able. But I still can't bring myself to think of this as the taking of a life, despite that I can't think of a good way to distinguish the legal meaning of homicide from this action--which would end the life of someone who is, technically, alive. If there were a slight chance that Terri could recover and live at least a semi-normal life, I think the law, and our ethics, would require everything possible be done to keep her ticking. But her brain is destroyed--she is a body that breathes and sweats but can do nothing else. She has no volition. I don't see that there is any "life," in the sense of a life worth living, not just "being alive", at stake.
You might say, is it right for man to choose who lives and dies? But this is, with today's science, a question we answer every day in the affirmative. Without modern medical technology, Schiavo wouldn't have lived five minutes after her initial collapse. We made the choice to keep her alive, but consequently we have trapped her in the grey area between human life and the next. Schiavo did not give consent to pull the plug, but she also did not give consent to be kept artificially alive in a situation where any recovery is nearly hopeless.
Medical advances have made it possible to keep people alive long after they would normally have died, or after they would have been considered, for all purposes, dead. Future medical advances might make it possible to keep people alive in a vegetative state indefinitely, or even to reverse situations like Schiavo's--although growing an entirely new neocortex would preclude considering the resulting person "Terri Schiavo". Because, ethically, this really is an impossible dilemma to decide on a broad scale, I'm willing to defer to the authority in Schiavo's case--and on legal grounds, the authority is her husband.
Not only did Michael Schiavo probably know Terri best and probably would be most in tune to what her wishes in this situation would be, he is, by Florida law, her legal guardian, and therefore the only person allowed to make this call. Whether or not you think his call is correct, or whether you think he has the right to make the call at all, is a side issue. According to myriad decisions, orders, and opinions this case has produced, as far as legality is concerned, Mr. Schiavo is running the show. And since taking someone off life support has long been legally accepted, even if it is ethically controversial, his decision is one I believe we must live with.
No doubt, this case would have been emotionally easier to handle for all involved if Schiavo had simply died of her heart attack. I would not want to remain alive in a "persistent vegetative state"--which is not a coma nor brain death--if for nothing else than out of a desire not to inflict more pain and suffering on friends and family. And I think if I were a surviving husband, I would do the same thing as Michael Schiavo if I felt it was in accordance with her wishes, and there was no chance of recovery. Terri has no higher brain function: she flatlines an EEG, and the vast majority of her grey matter is destroyed, although she retains the ability to maintain the bodily functions necessary for life. She is not on true life support, which normally would involve circulatory or respiratory assistance. In her state, which has not improved for nearly 15 years, she lacks the ability to respond to any stimuli. She is not dead, but to call her "alive" runs against any common sense, useful concept of what it means for a human to live.
If she is technically alive, in the sense that her heart beats and she breathes, is removing her feeding tube assisted suicide, or worse yet, homicide? She cannot give consent, so it can hardly be termed assisted suicide, even if as her husband contends, she would have consented if able. But I still can't bring myself to think of this as the taking of a life, despite that I can't think of a good way to distinguish the legal meaning of homicide from this action--which would end the life of someone who is, technically, alive. If there were a slight chance that Terri could recover and live at least a semi-normal life, I think the law, and our ethics, would require everything possible be done to keep her ticking. But her brain is destroyed--she is a body that breathes and sweats but can do nothing else. She has no volition. I don't see that there is any "life," in the sense of a life worth living, not just "being alive", at stake.
You might say, is it right for man to choose who lives and dies? But this is, with today's science, a question we answer every day in the affirmative. Without modern medical technology, Schiavo wouldn't have lived five minutes after her initial collapse. We made the choice to keep her alive, but consequently we have trapped her in the grey area between human life and the next. Schiavo did not give consent to pull the plug, but she also did not give consent to be kept artificially alive in a situation where any recovery is nearly hopeless.
Medical advances have made it possible to keep people alive long after they would normally have died, or after they would have been considered, for all purposes, dead. Future medical advances might make it possible to keep people alive in a vegetative state indefinitely, or even to reverse situations like Schiavo's--although growing an entirely new neocortex would preclude considering the resulting person "Terri Schiavo". Because, ethically, this really is an impossible dilemma to decide on a broad scale, I'm willing to defer to the authority in Schiavo's case--and on legal grounds, the authority is her husband.
Not only did Michael Schiavo probably know Terri best and probably would be most in tune to what her wishes in this situation would be, he is, by Florida law, her legal guardian, and therefore the only person allowed to make this call. Whether or not you think his call is correct, or whether you think he has the right to make the call at all, is a side issue. According to myriad decisions, orders, and opinions this case has produced, as far as legality is concerned, Mr. Schiavo is running the show. And since taking someone off life support has long been legally accepted, even if it is ethically controversial, his decision is one I believe we must live with.
5 Comments:
One thing to consider is Mr. Schiavo's current situation. He has moved on: he has 2 kids and a new fiance. I am not saying that he should have been celibate until her true death, none of us are perfect.
But given all this, does he really deserve to be the husband making decisions for Schiavo while at the same time give himself to a whole new family?
It seems like a conflict of interest. The parents have NOT moved on and want only her legal guardianship-- something to consider.
I don't want to be kept alive unnaturally, but that is MY choice to make and MY choice only. If thoughts on the matter can't be proven, shouldn't we err on the side of life?
Probably.
By Ben Polidore, At 6:25 PM EST
Whether Mr. Schiavo deserves to make the decision is legally irrelevant. He is the legal guardian.
I'm trying to reach an acceptable synthesis between what legally has to happen and what ethically should happen... although the two are not always distinct.
By Tim McGuire, At 6:29 PM EST
It certainly is difficult to argue against "erring on the side of life." Like I said, I am on the fence. My article was perhaps me trying to convince myself.
By Tim McGuire, At 6:34 PM EST
I think there is a higher question at stake here than just the ethical concerns of ending the 15-year-long vegetation of human beings. According to several witnesses Terri verbally confirmed her unwillingness to remain on life support if given the choice. And 15 years is a very long time. If Michael had not moved on, it would be a bigger problem in my opinion than the fact that he has.
So, back to the bigger question. The role of our federal government on making ethical decisions on behalf of patients and their close ones. In my opinion this is exactly the "big government" that every politician in the White House has spoken out against. Also, why is this particular case getting so much attention? Before being elected to Capitol Hill, Bush pushed through a bill in TX, (the only law of its kind) that enables DOCTORS to make the decision whether or not a patient gets to live. Primary example, 6-year-old baby with dwarfism whose lungs were not big enough to oxygenate to the level they had to. Doctor pulls the plug, child dies. Now a court case, by the way. And this is not the only case of its kind. So, how come now that Bush is not responsible to the doctors in his State, he is "flip-flopping" on the issue and pushing for life. Once again, let me reitterate, I don't think its the government's place to decide.
By z, At 10:31 AM EST
"I don't think its the government's place to decide."
Well that's advocating for anarchy. The whole purpose of government is to defend "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
I hate to argue this in a political way, as it is a moral, not a political issue, but...
What Bush and the congress did is change the jurisdiction of the federal court, something they're allowed to do under article 3 of the constitution. They didn't really interfere, per se. Only added another level of oversite. This is getting about as much litigation as the average death penalty case (probably less), and I'm all for it.
By Ben Polidore, At 5:24 PM EST
Post a Comment
<< Home