|
| TERRI |
| Tuesday, March 01, 2005 |
| Schiavo case unsettling
I suspect that the human anatomy is playing a very cruel trick on the parents of Terri Schiavo. Medical experts appointed by the courts have testified that Terri's "reactions" are nothing more than random motor reflexes, and not indicative of real consciousness. Indeed, of nearly 4 1/2 hours of video taken by Terri's parents, there are only a few seconds that appear to be conscious moments.
The court's doctors say Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state." Doctors retained by Terri's family say she is not. Who is right? Apparently, no one has the expertise to be an infallible authority on the question. So what is the right thing to do?
If Terri had signed a living will, expressing a desire not to be kept alive by extraordinary means, the question would be easy. Simply follow her instructions. But she left no written instructions, so someone has to decide for her. That has set up a life or death conflict between her husband, Michael, who insists that Terri did not want to be kept alive with artificial means, and her parents, who want Terri to live.
Whose opinion should prevail? In the absence of an irrefutable conclusion that Schiavo has no awareness, the parents should prevail. If the court's experts are right, then Terri has no awareness and no consciousness, so she is not in any discomfort. Letting her die would not be a relief for her because - if her husband and the courts are right - then she is not capable of suffering. If the parents' medical experts are right, then the court has based its decision on faulty medical expertise. Either way, there is no downside to allowing the parents to prevail, other than the fulfillment of Terri's alleged but unproven wishes.
On the other hand, some 20 judges in six courts have examined the evidence and concurred that Terri's husband Michael has acted in her best interest. I suspect the courts have made the right judgment regarding the condition of Terri's brain - but I still see no downside to allowing the parents to prevail.
Today, the parents are asking a court to grant Terri a divorce from Michael on the grounds of adultery. They are grasping at anything that will remove Michael's authority as Terri's guardian to make decisions on her behalf.
If Michael Schiavo has any compassion, he will agree to the divorce and walk away, leaving Terri's parents as her guardian. Schiavo may well have been acting in the best interests of his wife, and he may be well within his legal rights. But if his and the courts' medical experts are right, Terri is incapable of either suffering, or knowing what is happening. Her parents' suffering, on the other hand, will never end if they are left to believe that her husband and the courts have murdered their daughter.
Ralph Bristol |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/01/2005 11:15:00 AM   |
|
| 10 Comments: |
-
Mrs. Schiavo's parents need to let her go. There is no rational justification for believing that there will be any improvement, and what she has experienced for the better part of twenty years can not in good conscience be considered "life."
More thoughts over at my place, if anyone's interested. Thanks for posting, Jack!
-
My uncle died on the dining room table, one minute he was alive the next a massive heart failure. He was dead before his head hit the table. My aunt, unwilling to let him go, had him put on life support, hoping against all hope that he would come back to her. The doctor, and I was there to witness it, stuck the corner of a notecard smack into his eye. He had no reaction whatsoever. He was deader than a doorknob. It took me 3 days to convince my aunt that the right thing to do was to let him go.
It was a rough experience.
Once I visited a "home" for children in persistant vegetative states, all of them. Aside from that, they were all in perfect health. Of course, they were getting all the essentials for life. The sounds of 30 ventilators was unsettling. I asked the administrator if their parents ever came to visit. "The State is their parent," she said. The birth parents had all given custody to the State.
I am of the same opinion as the fly. I tend to believe that Terry's husband really knows what she would want.
Who will visit Terry after her parents die? She has every chance to "live" until a ripe old age, you understand, and they have every chance of pre-deceasing her due to their ages.
And who is going to pay for her "life"?
-
Fly, the point is that if what all the medical authorities say is true--that she is dead anyway---then what harm is there in leaving what remains in her parent's custody? I know as a parent that if there was the barest hope that my child would come back I would hang on to that and preserve her against that day. Also, keep in mind that one of the failings in humanity is the human arrogance to assume we know what is "best" for someone. NO ONE can make that judgement except the individual--and one of the problems with the "enlightened and liberal mind" is that it thinks it knows what is best for others or that others feel the same way that they do. I lived all over the world, Fly, and I have to admit that the United States is one of the few places I have seen the epidemic of such omniscience. As Americans we always have it figured out, we think we know who would like to die, who wouldn't or what the "quality of life" should be. I understand what you're saying though, Fly, and I understand your empathy-- it truly is a sad state.
Hen, your uncle was already gone. But your aunt was the one needing closure and grief resolution. I think this is the point of the article. But in an answer to your last question--we live in a socialist society--Terri is as entitled as anyone to medical care paid for by our wonderful state.
Thank you both for your comments!
-j
-
Can be look at both ways....the parents in "good conscience" do not want to remove life support but at the same time there is no closure for any of them, including Terri, only prolonged anguish. Is there any brain activity as asked by rightthistyme? If the ventilators are removed what is left? If assuming the choice to remove artificial support is "arrogance", what of the choice to sustain ones existance through ventilators. Is this not arrogant as well? I am glad I am not in either pair of shoes, the husbands or the parents.
If a choice has to be made, I have to agree with Jack though, right or wrong, it should be that of the parents.
-
Jack,
Good post. I agree. But who's Ralph Bristol?
K
-
Let her croak already. Every time I see her I think to myself, "ah, another medical miracle. Years and years of needles suffering."
-
Hi Bug, according to one panel of expert doctors she isn't suffering...she's already dead. But if she's not, don't you think it should be her decision as to whether she lived or died?
-
Hi Bug, according to one panel of expert doctors she isn't suffering...she's already dead. But if she's not, don't you think it should be her decision as to whether she lived or died?
-
Well Jack, I think that you've made my point for me.
"I know as a parent that if there was the barest hope that my child would come back I would hang on to that and preserve her against that day."
According to all medical advice, there isn't the barest hope that Terry Schiavo is going to come back. And now her parents have been prolonging this travesty for fifteen years. Is it worth spending all of this money, at the taxpayers' expense, for endless legal battles and, eventually, an indefinite extension of her artificial life?
I could be mistaken, but you strike me as a free market type who wants less government interference. If the Schiavo case was in my state, I'd be furious at both her parents and the state government for allowing millions of dollars of my tax money to be spent on two parents who can't accept reality. Am I missing something here?
-
No, Fly! Not at all. Such are the evils of socialized medicine and its cost to society. But since the parents have a vested interest, I think they should have custody and care. While the socialized medicine is wrong, as long as we have it, Terri has as much right to it as any American. Make sense?
Also, there are still two opinions out there on the Terri case--one medical side says dead, the other alive with hope. As a regular human being I would rather err on the hope...
Appreciate your comments as always, Fly--you're a stand up guy!
-Jack
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
Mrs. Schiavo's parents need to let her go. There is no rational justification for believing that there will be any improvement, and what she has experienced for the better part of twenty years can not in good conscience be considered "life."
More thoughts over at my place, if anyone's interested. Thanks for posting, Jack!