Someone pointed me to this interesting and disturbing article on the foxnews website. It's an interview from the talkshow Hannity & Colmes. I have never seen these guys before because I don't watch Fox News, but they sound somewhat confrontational. Anyway, this doctor thinks that Terry is NOT in a PVS.
However, there are always two sides to the story. So, Hannity & Colmes interviewed a different doctor the next day.
So now we're back in the same situation as before - which doctor do we believe?
Well, to try and cut through the news-media rhetoric, I dug up Judge Greer's ruling from November 2002, which is pretty short, and pretty interesting. Take a read and see what you think.
However, there are always two sides to the story. So, Hannity & Colmes interviewed a different doctor the next day.
So now we're back in the same situation as before - which doctor do we believe?
Well, to try and cut through the news-media rhetoric, I dug up Judge Greer's ruling from November 2002, which is pretty short, and pretty interesting. Take a read and see what you think.
posted by Jonathan Ziman at
12:33 AM
1 Comments:
I'm surprised by all the media coverage about the Terri Schiavo case. Decisions regarding whether or not to pull feeding tubes occur on a regular basis all over the country. Why is this case hitting the national scene?
I think it's because the family is fighting. And that brings up another interesting aspect to this case - and a bit of a scary one, speaking as a single person.
The husband has the right to decide what to do with his wife's body. Many marriage ceremonies today embrace the concept that each partner is giving their body over to the other.
So, does Terri's husband have not only the legal but also the moral/spiritual right to decide whether or not to pull the feeding tube? I'd say he does- and the parents no longer have any say.
It's a good idea for couples getting ready to embark on a life together to think about what it means to give themselves over to the other.
Does her husband want to end Terri's life because he now wants to remarry? and is that justifiable cause to pull a tube? I'd say no.
Does he believe she shouldn't suffer? Then all the blogging I've read on this site becomes relevant and interesting.
I'd say again, that we don't have the big picture. What on earth is the value of prolonged suffering? Philip Yancey's book on this matter is excellent. We can't see the big picture. We don't know why God allows personal, individual suffering. Did Jesus have to just die? or die an agonizing, prolonged, tortured death? Why couldn't he just have died quickly? We cannot know, on this side of life, why suffering is permitted by God. But it's always interesting to discuss.
Does Terri's husband want to pull the tube because he sees no hope for Terri to ever recover? and does that justify pulling the tube?
I hold with the sanctity of life. I also hold with the notion that God performs miracles one way or the other. There are stories of someone deciding to turn off the respirator and the patient comes back to consciousness, breathing on their own- recovering completely. Despite our best efforts, what God wills will happen- either directly or through some greater good.
Finally, some other thoughts. The decision to prolong life is a messy one and our moral development has not grown to the point where we can make coherent wise decisions. If Terri's EEG is a flatline, why was the tube inserted in the first place? How was that decision made?
How far does my value of the sanctity of life go? To preserve a life that is truly vegetative without any cerebral functioning? When each of us is faced with that decision with our loved ones, we realize how agonizing difficult it is to say no. I use this argument often when discussing the cost of health care in our country. We can now do many things that are very expensive to prolong life at either end- with a very small premie baby or an elderly parent. While we often decry the costs in general, when it comes down to my premature baby, or my mother, would I be able to say no- let her go? It's very difficult.
My point is that the medical community makes these sorts of decisions all the time. I worked in an emergency room for a while and a baby was born prematurely. The hospital had a "rule" that if the baby was less than a certain number of inches long, then no efforts were made to preserve it's life. So this baby was born, completely intact, alive, moving feebly, breathing on it's own- pink skin- but it was about one inch too short. The baby was wrapped in a blanket and put to one side until it died. What if that baby was the child of the head of the hospital? would the same rule apply? Value judgements are made all the time.
What would I say to Terri's husband? He's certainly being judged by much of the country. Even if we knew his motives for this, we should not judge him. That's not our call- especially if he's not a follower of Christ.
In many ways I feel impotent. It's not my call to decide to end someones' life- I'm firmly against the death penalty- God decides how long someone should live, not I.
But 100 years ago, Terri would have never survived articially and so that puts us into a quandary. We can artifically prolong life and not allow death to happen naturally. But then we do not have the moral wisdom required to deal with the new technology.
By
Anonymous, at 11:47 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home