A Question Never Answered

I've been watching this slow motion death drama for days. But through it all, one question has never really been addressed, let alone answered.

Why must Terry Schiavo die?

The courts have unanimously ruled that this is a necessity. She MUST die. It HAS to happen. It is the responsibility of the state to see that it does. Hundreds of police encircle her deathbed to ensure that her slow death proceeds.

But why? I'm not sure that people out here really understand.

People can understand compassion. They can understand trying to save a life. That's what we are supposed to do. That's what our hearts tell us to do. If we see a vulnerable person in danger, we will try to do something, even at risk of our own safety. That's supposed to be the good thing.

So the motivation of those hoping to give Terry Schiavo water is completely transparent. People can understand it, they can empathise with it. Part of them screams the same thing.

But the motivation of those pounding the drums of death, demanding a slow death of dehydration, isn't obvious at all. Why must this happen? What can possibly make it... good?

The cable channels have trotted out their university "medical ethicists", but these worthies have never thought to answer the most obvious question of all. They assumed that if they understand it (assuming that they do), then everyone in America must understand it too. So their commentary focuses on trivia and devolves into drivel. All that comes across is hubris.

I think that is where the TV and the newspapers have failed. This isn't a question of law, turning on tiny technicalities of pleadings and appeals. It's a basic issue of fundamental humanity.

It isn't a matter of political advantage, of demonizing the horrible evil Tom DeLay. It isn't a matter of sneeringly dismissing the anti-death side as "fundamentalists". (I saw a "medical ethicist" do that yesterday on MSNBC.)

It's just the fact that an terribly counter-intuitive act needs to be justified, needs to be explained. There has to be some answer provided that's as obvious to our hearts as our compassion for this dying woman.

I really fear that the press, the courts and the pundits are disconnected from the American people on this one.

 

<<I really fear that the press, the courts and the pundits are disconnected from the American people on this one.>>

The press and the courts have been disconnected from the American people for a VERY long time. Very sad. The last election, for example, was not about Bush and Kerry. There was a larger message sent. Unfortunately, I don't think many got it.

Pug

 

Wrong question. The right question is whether she, or thousands of similar, is/was alive. Alive as we so define. As has been defined and decided for as long as there has been people.

 

Hi Bill

Looking at this issue and how our society has approached it is fascinating.

Of course the courts haven't ruled that she must die, but they have ruled on the procedure involved in making that decision. They have approached it with logic and what they chose seems incomprehensible to those using emotion and compassion.

Realize this occurance, the removal of life support, happens every day in America. The only reason this case has become so large is tension between the parents and Mr Schivo. I would reason even that is not that rare but this happens to be case that grabbed us.

None of this happened over night. The case has been reviewed, rereviewed, and reviewed again. Terry has been examined by, I believe, 7 Neurologists. Her medical condition is not in question at all.

And yet many, most?, want to ignore that. Perhaps we don't want it to be true? Perhaps it interfers in how we would like to see the world? Perhaps it just hurts? Could it really be that simple?

In any event, my heart goes out to Terry, her Parents, and her Husband. May they all find peace at some point.

 

Interesting point. What do you believe the message was in the last election?

Your post reminds me the Courts have been pretty unified in this case. Also the public is apparently 7 out of 10 in support of the decisions involved.

 

I, too, wonder about this. Where is the harm in keeping her alive?

If heroic measures were necessary, I could see that. Resources like ventilators are scarce and there are plenty of people needing them. That's plain triage (usually done by NURSES btw).

Even the Catholic Church says that heroic measures should not be used to prolong life when there's no hope of recovery.

But that's not the case here.

Another question I have concerns what T.S. "wants". Everyone seems to ignore the dictates of her Church. Isn't it reasonable to assume that a Catholic woman would follow the dictates of the Catholic Church, absent any other evidence?

 

Hi Nosborne

I think the harm is interferring in a process that most ever one agrees is fair and logical. Do we want these decisions based on logic and law(?!) or emotion and compassion? What is the downside of basing it on emotion/compassion?

All the medical info I can find shows she has no awareness (conciousness) and because of the brain damage there is no chance of recovery. To the best of their ability the Court has found she would not want to be kept alive. So I am guessing you are suggesting people in these situations should be kept alive despite their wishes?

Apart from her case, I wonder about someone in a similiar siutation but WITH conciousness and no ability to communicate or participate in life. For me that would be a prison sentence.

 

Yes, great question. Her being alive is not a concern to anyone, so why should she die? I too find disturbing to know that she is being starved to death, watching impassibly how her body consumes itself. For different reasons each, they are just trying to keep alive her body but she actually died 15 years ago. All this has been just a futile attempt to deceive death.

Another question with no answer. For how long would she have to be kept “alive”? Until her parents/relatives die? Until her body “dies” by itself? Until the insurance coverage is exhausted?

 

Please pardon my ignorance if it shows. My understanding was that they did answer this question of why: this was Terry Shiavo’s wish. I am not offering my opinion on whether I believe they derived this conclusion fairly. I am only saying that it seems the question has been answered.

The courts are satisfied they are carrying out her wish to not remain in this state. Whether or not this was her true wish is a separate argument unrelated to the question of why they are doing it.

But maybe there is more here that I do not see.

 

DvaeHayden,

I absolutely agree with you about the harm caused by the political sideshow.

What I admit that I don't understand are the Court decisions.

Still, I really don't know the law in this area and I haven't seen the evidence, so why should I expect to understand?

 

The money. Filthy lucre. Money is but a way to measure wealth. Wealth is necessary for all of us to avoid starving to death. We cannot squander all of our wealth on every feel-good thing imaginable. So we make choices. Choices about life and choices about death. We did so at the time of Jesus and we did so at the time of Abraham and we do so today.

Harm to whom? Was (she's now been declared officially dead) Terri able to declare any harm to her? Harm to the next of kin having to make the decisions? Yes, Michael Schiavo may well be a dirtbag but I think there's not any prosciption against dirtbag kin being the ones to decide in even the oldest of religious texts or legal codes.

Were they necessary? If the screaming political scum and raving holy molies had truly cared about Terri Schiavo then they'd have been demanding one final testing of her medical condition and nothing else.

It's reasonable to assume that we've evolved legal procedures for these cases that have well included inputs from Catholics and every other religious group.

 

Thank you again, Bill, for a very thoughtful post.

 

But other evidence isn't absent. The courts have heard the evidence and found that Terri would not wanted to line in her current condition. And this evidence is not just on the statement of Michael Schaivo. Furthermore, it has been upheld through repeated appeals.

 

My observation is that she is not being kept alive through artificial means any more than a person that can chew and swallow their own food. If a feeding tube is a determinant of artificial life support, there are a lot of people that are leading productive lives artificially.

She is simply receiving food and water. I think it not an unreasonable idea that a person dies when they die. This does not seem to be such an odd concept. Her body is keeping itself alive like all bodies do: through nutrition and hydration. Nothing more.

There is plenty of room for arguing the relative value of her life, but this notion that I hear mentioned often in the news of her being kept alive artificially seems so patently incorrect as to make me wonder how I can see this in such a different way.

We deliver nutrition and hydration to babies that would die fairly quickly if we did not supply it to them. It's just food and water. I really don't get the artificial means or "extreme measures" angle.

 

I think that is her perpetually disrupted cognitive autonomy what makes her "dead" not her being artificially fed. I think human life is much more than metabolize nutrients and water, and unfortunately this young lady lost everything else 15 years ago.

Certainly but think about the consequences of that decision in a relatively short term when her relatives die, for instance, and no one cares about her. She´d probably be confined to some solitary room. Yeah, her body would still use food and water but she´d be dead long tiem before that. Would it be OK to let her die then? That´s my point, Paul. I think no one would want to live in that condition. I also have problems with this case, and I understand (and share) most of the fundamental ideas of both sides. This is truly a controversial case.



Regards

 

Originally Posted JLV

I think most here know where I stand on this issue, but this comment really gave me pause. While her parents are there to care and nurture her, there is at least an illusion to some quality in her life, but when they are gone, what's next? Hmmmmm

I still have a hard time with starving someone to death, but I don't think I would want to live that way.

Thanks JLV for making this even harder than it was.

 

Bill,

You've set up the answer by the way you framed the question. When you say, why must she die?, you're implying that her current state of existence is preferable to death. But that's the entire issue in a nutshell. That's where people break ranks. Many feel that this"existence" is not a life at all, and in fact may be as much torture as you feel her "starvation" is.

The question could easily be turned around if courts had ruled that the feeding tube must be maintained: why must her torture be prolonged by continuing to keep her alive, when everything else about her suggests that she is ready to move on?

It's ironic to me that the religious right, those who must believe in the gifts that await us (if anybody does) are the one most against letting her go. Strange.

 

People who lean towards the left always voice their fears of a Christian-led theoracy, but in fact, the US has been led by a theoracy for the past 20-odd years. The religion is secular humanism and its priests are the judiciary.

 

I believe that the most important question has not even been asked yet:

How do you make a dead Terry Schiavo float?

(The answer, of course: two scoops of dead Terry Schiavo and a little 7-Up.)*
_______________________

* Okay, that was originally a dead baby joke, but it works.

 

Re: Re: A Question Never Answered

First lady Laura Bush also commented on the case Tuesday, saying the government was right to have intervened on behalf of Schiavo.

"It is a life issue that really does require government to be involved"

What makes me wonder is if people who call this a "life issue" are able to differentiate between "quality of life" and "quantity of life". Keeping Terri alive is a quantity issue, not a quality one.

Would the average person choose 80 years of life with little to no function or 26 years of full function? According to the courts and the evidence provided, Terri had chosen the latter.

Cheers,
Mark