The United States in general is currently embroiled in arguments over the case of Theresa (Terri) Schiavo. For those of you not in this country, or who have been living alone in a cave for the last few months, Terri Schiavo suffered a massive heart attack back in 1990, which stopped blood flow to her brain for several minutes. Although she was revived, the brain damage is severe and permanent.
After several years of being kept alive via feeding tube (she can breathe on her own), medical opinion and the opinion of her husband were that she was in a "persistent vegetative state" -- in other words, she is never going to recover. She's a vegetable. Nobody home. That being the case, the husband requested that they pull the plug on the life support and let her die, insisting that she would never have wanted to live like this.
Her parents disagree, on just about every level. First of all they are sure she can get better. Second of all, they feel that she would never want the feeding tube removed. Third of all, they want to take back custody of their daughter (which her husband has right now as next of kin), and be the ones to make the decisions.
This case has spent 7 years in the court systems, with the feeding tube removed, then re-inserted, twice already. Right now, the feeding tube has been out of her body for about 5 days, and the politicial and judicial uproar is deafening -- and so is the public outcry. Christian conservatives have rallied to the cause, demanding that the tube be re-inserted. Congress and the President, in emergency over-the-weekend meetings, passed special legislation to allow the case to go to the Federal court system for appeal. Two appeals, two denials.
The question is, who has the right to terminate life, and when? Those opposed to removing the tube claim that we are playing God by denying a living person food and water. Those in favor of removing the feeding tube argue that the person in that hospice bed is no longer Terri but a shell that used to house her soul and is now empty, and that when Terri was alive, she said she would never want to have that shell kept running by machines.
The dilemma is interesting because medicine plays such a huge role. Once upon a time, this issue could never have even begun, because the heart attack would have killed her 15 years ago. Modern medicine allowed us to resuscitate the body, but could not reverse the damage to the brain.
So, do we keep the feeding tube in, and "let God decide when to take her", or did God already make that decision, and 15 years later, she is only alive due to human interference?
she should die
Posted by: erik | April 21, 2005 at 02:24 PM
Well, Terri Schiavo is dead now, so that's a moot point. But the debate roused by the situation continues to rage, with all kinds of accusations being flung in public and private sectors.
If nothing else, hopefully this has inspired more people to think ahead, and to make plans in the event that something terrible happens to them. A living will settles the question, and everyone, at least in the US, should have one in writing so there is no confusion.
Posted by: LirianFae | April 22, 2005 at 11:45 AM