Schiavo tragedy
Terri Schiavo is dead.
It is a horrifying thing to have to watch a public execution by starvation, particularly when the victim has done nothing wrong and been convicted of no crime.
I met a gentleman yesterday who said something similar to what many well-intentioned people have no doubt been saying throughout the Terri Schiavo drama: “I wouldn’t want to live like that.”
The first problem I have with that statement is that it has been difficult for those of us watching from afar to know exactly what condition Terri was in. If you believe her husband and his doctors then you get one picture; quite another if you believe her family and their doctors. What should be clear from watching the few video clips available is that Terri was not in a coma and, while experts clearly have degrees of disagreement on this fact, she exhibited certain responses, albeit inconsistently, that belied the diagnosis that she was in a Persistent Vegetative State, defined as “wakefulness without awareness.”
Having viewed these video clips, this statement by neurologist William P. Cheshire, Jr. has the ring of truth:
In summary, Terri Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and indicative of cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on Terri’s behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that this neurologist is correct. Many of us still might say that we wouldn’t want to live that way, even if some improvement were possible with proper care and treatment (something Mrs. Schiavo was denied by her husband, by the way). That brings me to the second problem I have with the gentleman’s statement, above.
While we might all share the sentiment, I don’t believe that we have that choice.
Most of us agree, do we not, that suicide is morally wrong when committed by a teenager or a young adult? Indeed, we view it as horrifying and tragic. Consider, then, someone like Christopher Reeves or Joni Erickson Tada. While we would be perhaps more understanding of suicide in those circumstances, we would still recognize that the nobler thing is to struggle on in the face of adversity.
The law, in many cases, has come to recognize a “right to die.” I believe that this must be balanced against a duty to live and, by extension, a duty to preserve life. That means that as long as a person can be determined to be alive we must provide care for them. The trick, then, comes to determining the definition of alive.
When someone is truly being kept alive by machines, with no evidence of brain function, there is an argument, I believe, for allowing that person’s body to die. In cases such as Terri’s, however, God has seen fit to preserve this woman’s life, albeit in a severely inhibited condition and it is not our place, or her husband’s, or even her own, to determine that such a life is not worth living.
In any event, she is dead now and hopefully with the Lord. Many people are celebrating this fact and view it as a victory for personal liberty. I view it as a defeat for all of us; a further devaluation of the worth and dignity of human life.
Terri Schiavo was a living, breathing human being, however limited her brain function, and she was starved to death.
Comments Off
)
