Thursday, March 24, 2005 Comments (2)
Obligatory Terri Schiavo Ramblings
Let me preface my message with an apology: this is a very long ramble, and I apologize in advance.
First of all, I don't believe that Terri's feeding tube should be removed, but stick with me here (or at least skip to the last paragraph). However, this is simply my opinion, which is based on the following:
1. People tend to say that "they wouldn't want to live that way," and/or "she is alive but, doesn't know what's going on or that she is even alive." This latter is speculation, and can not be proved if Terri has no ability to communicate complex feelings or thoughts. The former is an opinion, and a choice, that each individual has the right to make. Unfortunately, because of communication issues, we have no idea how Terri feels, only how we think we would feel in that situation.
2. The fact that there is some doubt about her situation in the medical community gives me hope that she can be rehabilitated to some extent. Unfortunately, she has not received any significant rehabilitation since 1991. Medical advances in our time far exceed our expectations. I can't dismiss the possibility that there may be some kind of help for her that has been discovered in the past fifteen years. Criminals are innocent until proven guilty. Terri should be allowed to live until proven that there is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, no hope of any form of recovery.
3. Although the Declaration of Independence is not considered a legal document, it does stress the following: "..that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I happen to hold these ideas in very high regard, and I think it is large factor in my opinion of this issue. Terri has the right to life if she has not stated that she would wish to die in this situation, as long as her right is not interfering with the life or liberty of another citizen.
4. While I believe that the American media has deliberately attempted to ruin Michael Shiavo's reputation (with a fair amount of success), I can not dismiss the claims of numerous nurses and other medical staff that Mr. Shiavo is guilty of negligence. A negligent guardian should not be a guardian, and should certainly not make decisions for someone who is not able to do it themselves.
5. If Terri is basically being sentenced to die, by the removal of her feeding tube, her brother or other members of her family should be able to try to feed her naturally. Afterall, the opinion that she is not capable of swallowing is the crux of this issue to begin with. The idea of her not being able to feed herself naturally is the only thing that is keeping her from being completely without assistance from a machine. Unfortunately, Mr. Shiavo has refused to allow anyone to attempt this (even though a handful of Terri's nurses have signed affidavits that Terri has been received water and soft food via her mouth).
Now, with that said, I'll close with this: it was a completely inappropriate move by Jeb Bush and George Bush to attempt intervene in this issue which should not be of political nature, but of personal nature. Not only was this move inappropriate, I find the political hype around this case to be horribly disgusting. Regardless of my feelings about the morality of this case, I can not dismiss the fact that Michael Shiavo, as Terri's husband, is the legal guardian for Mrs. Shiavo and has the right to remove her feeding tube. I am not willing to challenge the court's decision (for the removal of the feeding tube) at the expense of the American people. The intervention by the Bush Brothers has set an amazingly scary precedent that family issues are no longer family issues, and the government has a right to step-in on situations they do not agree with from a moral standpoint. I believe allowing this type of behavior from our government is a very slippery slope on which we are skiing down.
Comments
Hi. We don't know each other. I web-surfed here from blog-link to blog-link, and don't remember quite how. But I appreciated your thoughts here. I disagree on one thing, however. This:
The intervention by the Bush Brothers has set an amazingly scary precedent that family issues are no longer family issues, and the government has a right to step-in on situations they do not agree with from a moral standpoint. I believe allowing this type of behavior from our government is a very slippery slope on which we are skiing down.
I accept the general point, but the Bushes hardly established the precedent. The willingness of the state to step in and regulate family life "from a moral standpoint" has been happening for years. Maybe decades. Maybe since the French revolutionary government declared "children belong to the state." This is a new milestone on the slope, but we're already way, way down the hill.
You know, I whole-heartedly agree with you on that point. I didn't mean it so generally however, but I can see where you're coming from and you're quite right. Thanks for your comments.
Post a comment
content © 2004-2005 Beth
design © 2004-2005 Beth & Rachel
hosted by Chattablogs