This blog has been quiet waaaaay too long! Again work, school, and personal obligations have pre-empted my blog time. Actually, it should still be pre-empting my blog time. I should be writing some code right now but couldn't leave this one topic unaddressed. I have actually tossed and turned a few nights with these thoughts rattling in my head and wanted to blog them a week ago. Please forgive the long posting...
The case all over the media right now about Terri Schiavo is one in which I had an opinion based only on a very few tidbits of news. After hearing repeatedly that she was in a "persistent vegetative state" and there was no hope of recovery for her after all these years, I was of two opinions: (1) this is not a matter for litigation or for congressional involvement; it's a personal issue that should be settled between the spouse and the family, and (2) poor Terri Schiavo, who would want to live like that? Her poor husband has to be so tired of that emotional rollercoaster.
Now that more and more facts are coming to light in the media about this case, I have changed my opinion greatly. The facts that have been uncovered recently are: (1) according to an affidavit filed by a nurse at the hospice and a Nobel prize nominated neurologist, Terri is not in a "persistent vegetative state" and that she is responsive verbally (to some degree) and in other ways to stimuli; (2) according to the nurse's affidavit, Terri's spouse has denied Terri any therapy whatsoever even when it was recommended by her doctors; (3) according to the family, the EMT personnel who answered the 911 call on the day that Terri suffered whatever illness or trama she suffered that day, called the police to file a report -- they suspected foul play and there is suspicion that Terri's husband is/was abusive; and (3) the judges who have heard this case have accepted Terri's spouse's word (hearsay) that she didn't want to live if extraordinary measures were necessary to keep her alive -- this is almost never permissible in court, is it? And, since when is a feeding tube considered an extraordinary life support measure?
My opinon has changed, as I mentioned before, now that I have more detail about what's happened in this situation. I believe that it is better to err on the side of allowing this woman to live by keeping her feeding tube in and her care status quo until/if more can be determined about her true wishes, her spouse's involvement (if any) in the accident or illness that put her where she is today; and a more thorough review by other neurologists about her true state of being and the possibility of rehabilitation. I cannot believe that this isn't happening -- after all, it seems that death row inmates are given more legal consideration in their cases than what has been given to Terri Schiavo and her parents! What has gone wrong with our society that this can be true?!
I generally dislike litigation and government involvement in the personal lives of our citizens; however, in this case it could very well be that by letting this court-ordered removal of Terri's feeding tube stand, the judges involved have helped this spouse commit murder and get away with it legally. Her death will remove any possibility that the truth will be discovered and Terri rehabilitated. Given more of the facts in this situation, it now seems like court sanctioned murder to me. It also certainly seems like a situation that requires more involvement at the federal level. Those who are upset about Congress's involvement in this case need to take a look at Article III of the Constitution; they have every right to get involved.
We give death row inmates more opportunities to live than the courts are giving Terri Schiavo. I never thought I'd be of that opinion. I understand the value of having as much information as possible before forming an opinon and/or taking action on an issue; I certainly hope the same will be true of the courts in Terri Schiavo's case!
If you find yourself playing catch-up on this particular case, check out For the Life of Terri Schiavo page for a comprehensive and extensive list of informative links. And, of course, Terri Schiavo's family has a site with lots of good information as well.
The case all over the media right now about Terri Schiavo is one in which I had an opinion based only on a very few tidbits of news. After hearing repeatedly that she was in a "persistent vegetative state" and there was no hope of recovery for her after all these years, I was of two opinions: (1) this is not a matter for litigation or for congressional involvement; it's a personal issue that should be settled between the spouse and the family, and (2) poor Terri Schiavo, who would want to live like that? Her poor husband has to be so tired of that emotional rollercoaster.
Now that more and more facts are coming to light in the media about this case, I have changed my opinion greatly. The facts that have been uncovered recently are: (1) according to an affidavit filed by a nurse at the hospice and a Nobel prize nominated neurologist, Terri is not in a "persistent vegetative state" and that she is responsive verbally (to some degree) and in other ways to stimuli; (2) according to the nurse's affidavit, Terri's spouse has denied Terri any therapy whatsoever even when it was recommended by her doctors; (3) according to the family, the EMT personnel who answered the 911 call on the day that Terri suffered whatever illness or trama she suffered that day, called the police to file a report -- they suspected foul play and there is suspicion that Terri's husband is/was abusive; and (3) the judges who have heard this case have accepted Terri's spouse's word (hearsay) that she didn't want to live if extraordinary measures were necessary to keep her alive -- this is almost never permissible in court, is it? And, since when is a feeding tube considered an extraordinary life support measure?
My opinon has changed, as I mentioned before, now that I have more detail about what's happened in this situation. I believe that it is better to err on the side of allowing this woman to live by keeping her feeding tube in and her care status quo until/if more can be determined about her true wishes, her spouse's involvement (if any) in the accident or illness that put her where she is today; and a more thorough review by other neurologists about her true state of being and the possibility of rehabilitation. I cannot believe that this isn't happening -- after all, it seems that death row inmates are given more legal consideration in their cases than what has been given to Terri Schiavo and her parents! What has gone wrong with our society that this can be true?!
I generally dislike litigation and government involvement in the personal lives of our citizens; however, in this case it could very well be that by letting this court-ordered removal of Terri's feeding tube stand, the judges involved have helped this spouse commit murder and get away with it legally. Her death will remove any possibility that the truth will be discovered and Terri rehabilitated. Given more of the facts in this situation, it now seems like court sanctioned murder to me. It also certainly seems like a situation that requires more involvement at the federal level. Those who are upset about Congress's involvement in this case need to take a look at Article III of the Constitution; they have every right to get involved.
We give death row inmates more opportunities to live than the courts are giving Terri Schiavo. I never thought I'd be of that opinion. I understand the value of having as much information as possible before forming an opinon and/or taking action on an issue; I certainly hope the same will be true of the courts in Terri Schiavo's case!
If you find yourself playing catch-up on this particular case, check out For the Life of Terri Schiavo page for a comprehensive and extensive list of informative links. And, of course, Terri Schiavo's family has a site with lots of good information as well.
Comments