Terri has never been on life support. The only medical treatment Terri received for the past five years has been food and water through a feeding tube, which is nothing at all like artificial life support. Artificial life support consists of ventilation for people unable to breathe on their own. The question sets up a strawman argument that so completely contradicts reality that the entire poll must be considered invalid.Before my mom died, she had a feeding tube, and she had a machine to help her breathe. Guess which one required surgery (hint: the feeding tube doesn't run down the throat). This says that the courts have decided that "nutrition and hydration count as life-prolonging treatments" in cases such as Terri's.
I've read quite a bit about Terri Schiavo in the last few days. There's a lot here including Judge Greer's ruling, which I read last night. It's surprisingly interesting reading, and it left me convinced that the case has been considered well and decided well.
One thing I haven't done is watched the video. From what I hear, it's very convincing to people otherwise ignorant of the situation. The lesson seems clear. If you can tell a lie with a picture or a video that can only be refuted with a lot more effort, the lie wins. Everyone sees the video; everyone hears the sound bite; nobody spends 20 minutes listening to explanation from an expert.
2 comments:
I'm not sure that I would compare a surgically inserted feeding tube to a ventilator or other respiratory device. Without the vent, death occurs in a matter of minutes or hours, depending on the condition of the patient. Removal of the feeding tube causes death in a matter of days or weeks. Besides, if surgically inserted devices constitute extreme measures, then cerebrospinal shunts, pacemakers, etc could all be considered "extreme". (They probably wouldn't, but that's another issue.)
I suspect (and have stated) that most of the concern comes from the possiblity of a conflict of interest on the part of the husband, and the nature of her (presumed) death. If he had been living a celibate lifestyle (or at least a solitary one), and she were being unplugged from a respirator, there probably wouldn't be this national debate (unless it was a slow news week). Instead, he has kids with another woman, and she is being starved (whether or not she feels it). Both strike a good portion of society as failing the "gut check" of the morality of the action.
(Crud - long comment. I should have just made it a post instead. . . )
Questioning the husband's motives is all well and good, but (1) he had the authority to make this decision without the court, but (2) he asked the court to make the decision for him, and (3) other witnesses testified the same way he did, specifically that Terri would not have wanted to "live" this way. The objective third party sitting on the bench decided Schiavo's fate, not that (allegedly) vindictive turncoat who married her. Notice how the statement's still true if the husband wears a halo: an objective third party decided, not the angel. So what difference does it make?
I think of surgical procedures as pretty extreme. All the things you list are certainly "treatments" that could be refused by a patient who's able to make decisions, and I think a feeding tube falls well within those bounds as well. The fact that Terri can't make decisions for herself means that refusing treatment is up to third parties (the husband, who passed the buck to the state).
To be honest, I have some of the same gut reactions myself. My reaction doesn't end there, however.
Post a Comment