This situation has made it very clear that everyone should have a living will in place. In the absence of such a document, we should err on the side of least damage - in this case, life for Terri.
I did my living will several years ago spelling out explicitly what I do and do not want done (the file cabinet under the disco ball if my family is wondering). Coincidentally, the one thing I said not to remove is the feeding tube. I figure that if the only thing you have to do to keep me alive is feed me, my brain is still functioning on some level - and starvation is not the way I want to go.
However, many on the death side of this argument are saying that starvation is a peaceful end. It is actually the dehydration, they say, and you go into a coma so it is painless. (yeah, right) Now these are, to a great extent, the same people who argue in support of euthanasia and abortion. Apparently they don't need to fight those fights.
"Starvation is a peaceful and dignified end", so anyone with a terminal disease who chooses to end their life can simply stop eating and drinking. Eventually they will just slip softly away into a coma and their troubles will all be behind them.
A woman who decides that she can't bother to be inconvenienced by an unplanned pregnancy can simply cease eating. Before too long the lack of nutrients will take care of the problem for her. She may slip out of consciousness first, but she will be ever so svelte when she wakes up - no troublesome child, no excess baby fat.
No muss, no fuss, no costly litigation, no litmus tests for judicial nominees - just someone choosing whether they want to eat or not. How long could you go without food? Without water?
Unfortunately, in Terri's case, this isn't a choice she is making but one being forced upon her.
UPDATE: Solves the death penalty problem, too. No more debate about "cruel and unusual" punishment - make that prisoner's last meal their last MEAL. In a week or two or three it will all be over, "peaceful and dignified", so we can all feel just peachy about how justice was done.
Posted by Vox at March 22, 2005 12:54 PM | generalthere is a difference between allowing someone to die and making them die. if you take away food & water you are making them die. this is not a "right to die" issue. Terri was not dying. most people giving their testimonials about how they had to remove their loved ones from life support, their situation was not like Terri's. their loved ones were not alive for **15 YEARS**, ******AND THEN******, one day decide to withhold food & water from them. they probably made the choice within the first 48 hours or a week, at most. they didn't allow their loved ones to live *15 YEARS*, and then stopped feeding them one day. she was not on life support, she wasn't dying. Terri was living. she was not ambulanced into an emergency room last night with her vitals slipping & being kept alive on machines. she has been living the way a lot of mentally challenged people live throughout this world, with their parents taking care of them, which her mother was doing. Lot's of people have feeding tubes. She also is not required to "get better" or improve. All this talk about, "can she improve", can she recover, NEEDS TO STOP!!!!!! There are mentally handicapped people across this world who will never emotionally or mentally advance past, say age 5 or 6. technically they are not "getting better", but we don't stop feeding them do we? If it was Terri's wish to die, why wasn't it done immediately or soon after the accident? why wait 7 years, as Michael did, to BEGIN to say it is now Terri's wishes to die? Even if you claim he was trying to get treatment for her in those 7 years, would you allow her mom to take care of her daughter for 7 years, loving, dressing & comforting her daughter, for 7 years & then claim Terri wanted to die...how merciless is that? If you want to be merciful, you do it soon after the "accident", not 15 years later! Terri was living, & could have lived a long time more, but her life was taken from her...she was not allowed to die, because she wasn't dying. she was made to die..take food from any of us & we will die also....
p.s. terri's death doesn't bring closure to her family, the Schindlers..it is the BEGINNING of the worst pain & suffering, because they know their loved one was killed for no good reason.
This case does not point to the need for living wills, it raises questions about their legitimacy, and especially about their limits.
Terri Schiavo is disabled, and, until her food and water was taken away, she was not dying. No legitimate "living will" could have been activated in her case, even if it existed. Even if, as her husband claims, Terri had stated that she would rather be dead than disabled, that would not justify causing her death.
We do not, and should not, cause or allow the death of people who lose limbs or who suffer spinal injuries. We should not tolerate it for those with brain damage.
Posted by: bk at March 27, 2005 10:16 AM