A federal judge heard arguments today on whether he should order the feeding tube that keeps Terri Schiavo alive to be reinserted. This tug-of-war over Terri's life and and possible death has generated tremendous debate around this country and around the world. What has struck me is not the issue people are discussing: the interplay betweeen Terri's husband, Terri's parents, and remarkably, the United States Congress is naturally a topic that needs exploring. Rather, what has stood out to me is what is not being discussed. Specifically, what the removal of a feeding tube will do to Terri.
Granted, this has been going on for seven years, so I've probably missed a great deal of debate. But I'm curious as to know whether this is going to result in a great deal of pain for Terri. I imagine it will. Assuming that it does, I'm also curious as to how the desire for a "good" death can justify the means employed to get there. Terri's husband has emphasized that this is what Terri would have wanted. But we are certainly far removed from what she could have ever envisioned. Aren't we?
Much is also made of whether a feeding tube is an extraordinary means of keeping someone alive. I worry that we make too much of the distinction between extraordinary and ordinary means. Can you really justify inflicting pain on an individual by simply claiming that you are refusing to intervene using extraordinary methods? In fact, it is extraordinary interventions that normally evoke images of needless suffering. When people don't want excessive intervention, it's often because they think that many strategies for prolonging life are invasive and painful. But in this instance, I cannot grasp why there is a perceived need to remove the feeding tube, when it's the very thing that keeps her from suffering.
Above all, this is a saddening situation. My prayers go out to Terri and her family.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with m.g. on this one. Something is wrong when it is immoral (and illegal) to kill a death row inmate in this fashion, but we can kill an innocent person in this way. (Here I am assuming a notion of persons and killing that would need to be explored to fully justify these assertions - but my comment relates to one's basic intuitions.)
People on death row are not allowed to suffer the horrible death Terry is being subjected to--dehydration is painful and no pain meds are being given to her. Keep in mind that Terry is not being kept alive by some heroic means. There is no "plug" to be pulled. She is only being fed. She is not brain dead. Her organs have not stopped functioning. She is a handicapped person comparable to a severly mentally retarded child. Let's keep in mind that Terry is not being allowed to die a comfortable death. She is being killed. We are looking over the edge and staring down a slippery slope.
Post a Comment