Tomarrow is the date that was set to remove Terri Schaivo's feeding tube. I am wondering whether this will actually happen or not.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7031915/
I don't think I would want to live on artificial support for fifteen years. The legal battle that has gone on is truly outrageous. I am deeply saddened that this has turned into a political issue for the anti-abortion movement. The Florida State legislature is again trying to intervene.
There had already been a court case and appeals which went to Ms. Schaivo's intent as to whether she would have wanted to be kept alive on artificial support. The finding was that her intent was not to be kept alive by artificial mean. Apparently there was also a financial settlement because she fell into the coma because of complications related to an eating disorder and was under the care of a doctor for some sort of fertility treatment at the time it happened. Whenever money is in play it brings out the worst in people.
Regardless I would never let my child be used as a political pawn. It's degrading and I think probably takes away from the life Ms. Schavo led. Who would want this for their child.
The real moral here is have a living will and name a medical power of attorney who would not benefit from your death at all... who would carry out your wishes regardless of those of your family.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Gina,
She isn't on life support. She has a feeding tube. Same life support a toddler has in a high chair. There is a big difference between being a vegetable with no brain waves, and being brain damaged. See my post over at Bookworm. I think you are missing some of this very sad, difficult, and painful picture.
-Phibian
I understand completely her medical situation. She is being fed by a feeding tube and her doctors (including the court appointed doctor) have said her brain damage is so severe that there is no hope of recovery. I see a lot of difference between this and a toddler situation. She doesn't even have the brain function of a toddler. I know her parents are devout Catholics and I feel for their situation.
My understanding of the situation is that the Florida Constitution was amended in 1980 to authorize a proxy to speak for one who becomes incapacitated, and in this situation, the husband was the proxy. The legal battles that have stemmed from the whole thing come from the battle of words; the husband says "she said she didn't want to live like this," while her family says "she wouldn't want to die." The State legislature passed a resolution that allowed Jeb to write a law that would prevent the husband from removing the tube, which is a: a separation of powers issue and could be b: either a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law. Everything else (from what I understand) stemmed directly from these issues, from a legal standpoint. I base my conclusions below on this understanding, and if I'm wrong, I'll have to reconsider.
If I separate the fact that we're talking about a person who's dying, I find that this is an issue about proper powers under the laws of the country, and can't, in good conscience justify an exception that would subvert the powers of any one branch of government to another branch of government, and I wonder why nobody has attempted to condemn any of the legislators of Florida for passing this amendment or the citizens for allowing such an amendment to stand, though so many people are eager to condemn the courts for not stopping this.
If I look at this from a strictly moral/religious standpoint, I find it atrocious that this husband (unless he truly is acting distinctly in accordance with her wishes) would not be willing to allow her family to take over her care, and I think that though the courts reached the correct decision, that decision was wrong.
If I'm off base here, please let me know. I've been very selective about posting on this matter, because there's so much disinformation out there on every front.
Post a Comment