Terri Schiavo
What do you make of this story? Surely, first, that it ought not to be a story at all. A family has been struggling with its grief for many years over the woman's seemingly irreversible brain damage and whether to withdraw life support. You can be sure when it gets into the US Congress, the issue has become something other than how best to resolve a terrible dilemma. The politicians, from Governor Bush to President Bush to the members of Congress bring shame on our political life and on themselves. People of conscience would have left it to the family to struggle with.
Now it seems the family is split. Her husband says Terri told him she did not want to be kept alive in a vegatative state. Her parents disagree. A family nightmare. The courts have ruled that her husband, I suppose as the person closest to her and therefore most likely to know, has the right to speak her wishes. Too bad she didn't write something down. I don't know if she had a living will. I do know that living wills can be ignored when family members make a fuss.
Many say that when things are unclear, always come down on the side of life. But that means different things to different people. I know a family in which a brain dead baby has just been born. They are choosing to remove life support even though they have bonded fiercely with the baby's body since it was born. They believe it is the most humane, life affirming choice.
My wife and I have living wills. I have told all my children dying is not the worst thing that can happen to me. Yes, it is akin to abortion in that it cannot be reversed. The Episcopal Church has called abortion a tragic necessity. Death seems to me a hard way for life to end. But it is the way. And when the time comes, I hope to embrace it.
Now it seems the family is split. Her husband says Terri told him she did not want to be kept alive in a vegatative state. Her parents disagree. A family nightmare. The courts have ruled that her husband, I suppose as the person closest to her and therefore most likely to know, has the right to speak her wishes. Too bad she didn't write something down. I don't know if she had a living will. I do know that living wills can be ignored when family members make a fuss.
Many say that when things are unclear, always come down on the side of life. But that means different things to different people. I know a family in which a brain dead baby has just been born. They are choosing to remove life support even though they have bonded fiercely with the baby's body since it was born. They believe it is the most humane, life affirming choice.
My wife and I have living wills. I have told all my children dying is not the worst thing that can happen to me. Yes, it is akin to abortion in that it cannot be reversed. The Episcopal Church has called abortion a tragic necessity. Death seems to me a hard way for life to end. But it is the way. And when the time comes, I hope to embrace it.
posted by Blayney at 3:01 PM
7 Comments:
And i will help you embrace it !
I think we have such a story in our abhorrence of death. Death was created by God and is something that so far every human has shared in. Is it true that death is something to fight rather than to embrace? In fighting for the life of Terri (ultimately, as we all know, a fight that cannot be won) are her parents simply fighting against their own fear of the unknown?
Terri apparantly cannot survive without medical intervention. Are we sure that it is God's will that she survive? Our best evidence, from her husband, seems to be that it was not her will.
Who's will be done?
Why can't we just let this poor woman die in peace? Her parents need to truly grieve, and move on. Her husband has grieved for years, and needs permission to move on. That society gets in the way, manipulating the courts to their will, is disgusting. The huge news event leaves me with two other reactions:
First, where is the outcry and education to our children (and adults) - largely female - that this woman's condition was caused by an eating disorder? Why not use the tragedy of her circumstances to some good as a teachable moment? Wouldn't using all of the resources that have been spent on the fight to fight against eating disorders in memory of her be more productive and a more fitting memorial to her?
Second, speaking of resources, the Congress of the United States stayed late, in an extraordinary session, to pass legislation about her. The President (with his entire entourage) made a special trip from Texas back to DC. How much did that cost us taxpayers? This is rediculous!!
I find it all the more disgusting because the fiscal conservative, small government" types are spending this money and inserting goverment into very private moments of life. What hypocrisy!
Let her die, in peace.
Ian, I had not heard that her heart attack was triggered by an eating disorder. If so, all the more reason to treat her terrible tragedy with compassion rather than exploiting it. This is turning into one of the most appalling instances of cynical using of human tragedy for political gain I have ever seen.
Perhaps, at last, the matter has been overreached and the counter reaction, to the President flying to D.C. to sign a bill everyone knows is not only unconstitutional but unrelated to the presenting issues, will begin to build.
In addition to our morbid obsession with death, this story also exposes another of our country's fallacies: the completeness of The Law. We seem to have interpreted statements such as "We are a Nation of Laws" to imply that through Law (and all that encompasses) we can resolve any possible dilemma, moral or otherwise. Sure, our legal system is an essential branch of our government's structure - that's why it is critical to impede this administration's corruption of that branch. But that importance does not implies its completeness. I'm using "complete" in the sense it is used in mathematical logic. For example, Godel, in his most famous theorem, proved the incompleteness of any formal mathematical system. Simply because we can (and should) resolve some disputes via The Law, does not mean that it can, or should, resolve all.
Right, Chuck, the courts, being a creature of our own making, are merely extensions of us, hardly divine or infallible. But we have agreed in this country that when we cannot agree we will turn to the courts and abide by their decision. The courts are supposed to be dispassionate (a pipe dream sometimes), look hard at the facts, measure them as best they can against the constitution, and decide who is right.
Looks like they have done that in this case.
But the courts may, and I believe should, also decide not to decide. They do this, of course, but usually (as far as I know) as a way of saying the matter is "not within our jurisdiction." But has a court ever said "the matter is not in any court's jurisdiction, we will not rule"?
Post a Comment
<< Home