Terri is Dead
Did Anyone Ask Ms. Schiavo?
By John D. Turner
Thirteen days after "pulling
the plug", Terri Schiavo finally succumbed to the well-wishes of her
husband and various assorted judicial mind-readers, and shuffled off
this mortal coil to a far better place than the one in which we
live.
How long does it take for
someone to die, deprived of both food and water? In Terri’s case,
the answer was thirteen days. I could experiment. I could duct tape
my dog’s muzzle shut and see how long it would take her to perish in
similar circumstances. Except that if I were to do so, I would most
likely be thrown in jail for cruelty to animals; and deservedly so.
But for humans, apparently,
it’s ok. Particularly if we take a poll and most people seem to be
cool with it.
Admittedly, if this were
done to someone against their will, that would be deemed murder, and
quite unacceptable. The perpetrator would most likely go to jail,
unless, of course, they were rich enough to be able to afford good
enough lawyers to get them off the hook.
So then, since a court has
ordered that this be done to Ms Schiavo, we must conclude that, as
barbaric as it may seem, it was not done against her wishes. Did
anyone ask Ms Schiavo?
Well, we couldn’t of course.
As a severely brain-damaged person, she was unable to make her
wishes known. How then, do we know that this is what she wanted? Did
she left behind a legal document of some sort, stating what she
would desire in such a case? No, she didn’t. But her husband says
that she mentioned once after watching a movie that she wouldn’t
want to be kept alive by artificial means; that she would rather
they just pull the plug and get it over with. So that’s what,
ultimately, after much legal wrangling, was done.
If anyone benefited from
this, it was certainly the lawyers. Years of legal fighting must
have added up to quite a tab for them.
Even if true, it’s doubtful
that starving and dehydrating to death over a period of thirteen
days or longer is exactly what she had in mind. Is anyone out there
eager to select such an option for themselves?
Most people, when they think
of "pulling the plug" on life support envision turning off a
respirator connected to a brain-dead patient who then quickly
succumbs in a matter of minutes. A video of Terri quickly shows that
she was anything but brain-dead. And her death was anything but
quick.
We can discuss forever
exactly what is meant by "persistent vegetative state", but the
image that the term conjures in the minds of most people is hardly
consistent with the videos we have seen of her in the hospital.
Severely handicapped, yes.
Brain-damaged, certainly. But hardly comatose and unaware of her
surroundings.
I have heard it said that
due to her condition, she felt no pain. It’s a nice sentiment I’m
sure, and makes us feel better and more "caring", but how do we know
for sure that it’s true? I have also heard people in the past say
that babies undergoing an abortion, whereby they are literally torn
limb from limb feel no pain either. This has since proven to be
false (not that it seems to make any difference).
In a court of law, before we
put a person to death, a jury must be convinced "beyond a reasonable
doubt" that the perpetrator is guilty. The burden of proof for
sentencing another human being to die is much heavier than that
required in a civil court, where a "preponderance of the evidence"
is enough to gain a judgment against someone. Was it been proven
"beyond a reasonable doubt" that Terri Schiavo would want to die
under these circumstances? Was there even a preponderance of the
evidence?
Did we even have a
creditable witness? Her husband? A man who has established a
separate household and fathered two children with what is described
as his "common-law wife"? Didn’t he have a vested interest in seeing
Terri dead? Obviously, if she had suddenly "snapped out of it" and
become even semi-functional, he wouldn’t have simply picked up his
life with her where they left off. A divorce would certainly be in
the offing.
Why he didn’t simply file
for one before now is certainly a mystery - unless there is some
reason why he needed to be married to her when she died, vice simply
cutting all ties. The fact that he is now in a committed
relationship with another woman, raising another family would seem
to indicate that he was no longer in a committed relationship with
her. So why did his testimony carry so much weight, particularly
when her family had committed to taking care of her for the rest of
her natural existence? Michael Schiavo had no need to stick around;
he could have walked at any time - unless there was something else
going on that we are not aware of.
In the absence of a bona
fide legal document, attesting to her wishes, we are left with
hearsay evidence from her adulterous husband that once upon a time
Terri mentioned that she would not want to be kept alive in such
circumstances. Nice. Does this mean that any off-hand remark we
might make is now legally binding in a court of law? Be careful what
you say! Not only might you offend someone (so easy to do today
where it seems that so many people are just waiting to be offended
by someone), but you might end up dead as a result!
And who hasn’t said things,
at one time or another, they truly didn’t mean? Or which at a later
date they would change their mind on? As a teenager, I knew kids who
said they didn’t want to live past the age of 30. Although I haven’t
seen them in many years, I doubt they committed suicide once they
turned 31.
As barbaric as it may seem,
a court of law here in the United States of America, supposedly the
most powerful and freest nation that has ever existed, ordered the
death of one of its citizens by starvation and dehydration on the
hearsay evidence of an unfaithful husband. Without legal document to
the contrary, and with family members not only willing but eager to
care for her, shouldn’t we have sided with life over death?
They say that politics makes
for strange bedfellows. So apparently do moral issues. Thus it was
that I found myself, for the first time, in agreement with Jesse
Jackson, a man that I have absolutely no use for politically or
personally. It is my belief that the man is a hypocrite, a racist,
and an opportunist. When I first heard that he was traveling to
Florida to support Terri Schiavo, my first thought was that he was
taking the opportunity to get himself a little publicity; he hasn’t
been in the news much lately.
A natural thought, I
suppose, considering my political bent and personal dislike for the
man. An unworthy thought as well, and I have been humbled since I
heard him speak the other night on the Sean Hannity show. While I
still disagree with Jessie on almost every issue he espouses, he is
spot-on concerning this one. And sincere. Considering the stink the
major media made concerning those supporting re-inserting Terri’s
feeding tube, Jessie could hardly have come out in support in order
to win political points. In doing so, he went against major players
in his own political party, trying to convince them to change their
votes on legislation that would put the tube back in. I must say, my
hat is off to Jessie Jackson.
I heard on the radio,
someone, whose name currently escapes me, say that the only people
who were in support of not allowing Terri to die were a small
segment of society consisting mainly of "angry white males".
Interesting. I wonder if Jessie considers himself to be in that
category. And what about the many women I have heard also in
support?
Why should I not be angry?
This happened in a country where the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness is supposed to be unalienable. Of these three,
circumstance beyond the control of Man deprived Ms Schiavo of two.
Having been convicted of no crime deserving of a sentence of death,
it should not have been the position of Government (the courts being
one of its branches) to deprive her of the third.
Yet I hear on the left that
this is a victory for the right to die movement. That pulling the
plug is not only an option, it is the heroic thing to do. That
everyone should rush right out and get a living will so that if the
same happens to them, the decision will already be made. After all,
it’s all about quality of life and "moving on". Who wants to live,
being kept alive by a machine anyway?
Ask someone on kidney
dialysis. Incidentally, if you were to "pull the plug" on them, they
would die much quicker than Ms Schiavo has.
How many people in this
country are currently being kept alive by "artificial" means? What
about people who take medication for high blood pressure, or high
cholesterol, or heart medication? Should we "pull the plug" on them
as well? What about others who are perhaps not quite aware of their
surroundings?
Perhaps this is the
beginning of a liberal solution to the looming problems of Social
Security and Medicare. They don’t want to cut benefits. They don’t
want privatization. They don’t want to increase the age at which
benefits are drawn. They might not mind raising taxes, but that is a
political non-starter. The cause of the problem is two fold; not
enough new workers entering the workforce (of course, aborting 45
million of our citizens might have contributed to this problem) to
support a population that is living longer than ever before. Instead
of attacking the problem at the supply side (workers entering the
work force), perhaps they are looking at the demand (people living
past 65). If fewer people were to live so long, then fewer people
would be drawing benefits and the problem could be eliminated.
We could start with people
like Terri, and work our way down. Convince everyone that they need
a living will instructing doctors to let them punch out under the
proper circumstances. Convince people that this is a "heroic" thing
to do. Slowly lower the bar to include more marginal cases. Make
people feel guilty for wanting to live too long. Make them think
that a reduction in their "quality of life" (whatever that slippery,
indefinable term means) is a good reason to end it all.
Perhaps eventually we can
get to the world of Logan’s Run (the movie), populated by beautiful
people with all the quality of life you could ask for, who don’t
need social security, or Medicare, because no one lives past the age
of 30.
Anyone ready to concede now
that perhaps this was a bad idea?
We want your opinion! Tell us what you thought about
this article. Click the
Your Feedback menu item to send us
your comments.
