Constructive gadfly
Published on March 29, 2005 By stevendedalus In Religion

It is said continually since removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube that the courts are defying the wishes of the majority of Americans when in reality that simply is not true. Over seventy percent think of it as a pragmatic, if not a serious medical decision and not a moral one. This issue is provoked by the religious right that opposes even living wills concerning the right to die; in its judgment only God has that right by religious proxy.

What makes this case bazaar is that the most important bodily function, the brain, is dead and precludes the natural function of food intake. The religionists argue that it is not the same as “pulling the plug” when other bodily functions are so impaired that death is inevitable and the patient is spared a painful termination. Whereas in Terri’s case she has all her bodily functions but for that which makes her human and in a fortunate sense free of pain. For fifteen years she has been treated as a favorite house plant on the decline, requiring constant watering and nutrition.

Of course, when the lawsuit money ran out several years ago, Medicaid kicked in and in reality the husband and parents have really no say in the matter even though it can be argued that if taxpayers’ money can continue to feed those on death row, we should be humane enough to supply nutrition to an innocent victim of disease or injury. The apple/orange dilemma always seems to rear up in these situations. If for instance Terri had had a living will that stated under no circumstance should the plug be pulled, regardless of the financial burden on the family and taxpayer, there would be no demonstrations outside the hospice as her “life” would continue indefinitely. Yet at the same time had she formally expressed euthanasia, there would be no issue either, except for those adamant about the right to live.

In face of this there has been a rush to living wills among many; yet it doesn’t solve the problem if in writing the patient insists that he or she go on “living” — mainly owing to religious beliefs supporting the “life culture.”

The irony here is that those with strong beliefs in divine intervention are denying that possibility by wanting poor Terri artificially alive. Perhaps they should have more faith in that God might pinch her tomorrow and tell her to order a meal.

 

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: March 2 9, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments
on Mar 30, 2005
I agree with you, totally.
on Mar 30, 2005
in reality the husband and parents have really no say in the matter


that's been the case since michael schiavo agreed to let the trial court act as his wife's surrogate and the court agreed to accept that role--a fact that seems to have escaped those who've wound themselves up to the point where i'm now regularly seeing predictions that mr schiavo is about to break out with the mark of cain.

good to see youre back btw.
on Mar 30, 2005

It is said continually since removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube that the courts are defying the wishes of the majority of Americans when in reality that simply is not true. Over seventy percent think of it as a pragmatic, if not a serious medical decision and not a moral one. This issue is provoked by the religious right that opposes even living wills concerning the right to die; in its judgment only God has that right by religious proxy.

Actually, that is the first (courts defying) I have heard of that arguement.  Can you cite a source?

Second, the '70%' you quote was done with a loaded poll.  Check out the wording of the question and then let us reword it more neutrally (probably see a closer to 50/50 split) or even inflamatory for her survival (instant reversal of the numbers).

The truth is 70% of America does not know squat about the case and they take their lead from the loaded questions.  If the question is loaded in the other direction, all of a sudden Michael Schiavo is the New Judas, and they are clamoring for her to live.

Anyone quoting those bogus polls to prop up their position cannot allow their own arguments to stand on their merits and have to hide behind the obvious Bias of the polls.

on Mar 30, 2005
One way or the other we are all sucked in by polls; I agree, it depends on the winds--come to praise or bury Caesar. My point is not predicated on sources or polls.