I do not want to add to the caucaphony of coverage surrouding Terry Schiavo’s life and death, so I will keep this short. I have talked with a number of medical professionals and they have all agreed on one point–in many cases involving a feeding tube, the patient is on the verge of death. In this case, the starvation is part of the natural shutdown of the body leading up to death. Consequently it is a very different process from starving an otherwise healthy person; the body does not experience pain in the same way that a healthy person would.
I do not believe in human will triumphing over God’s will, whether it be in determining when a life ends, or _how long a life is prolonged_. I am equally disgusted with advocates on both sides of the issue, whether they be pro-abortion liberals or the vocal conservatives who were front and center in this recent case.
This is the key point on which I differ from many fellow conservatives: I do not believe that extending life is _always_ in accordance with God’s will. When God’s time comes for me to die, I hope my family has the strength and faith to say good-bye and just let me die. I am relieved that Terry has passed on and hope that her death is the beginning of healing for both families.
April 3rd, 2005 at 7:48 pm
As someone who followed this case, I am going to have to disagree. Terry was not near death when they stopped feeding her and could have lived a long time. Now it may well be that she didn’t feel pain, because she was gettng regular doses of morphine. I think the issue is not how she died, but whether we will allow the death of/kill people in her condition. If we are going to decide to let them die by starvation then we might as well give them a lethal injection. Peronally I don’t think she should have been allowed to die. Based on what I have heard she was not a vegetable, she could recognize family members, attempt speech, and keep eye contact. Are we going to argue that she didn’t have quality of life so then she should die? I find that an extremely dangerous argument because first of all who decides what quality of life is and why wouldn’t we just begin killing many other “drains” on society. I’ve heard many people say they wouldn’t want to live if they were paralyzed, so should they die? I think human life should be valued even though it might not be fully functional. I see a big difference between a feeding tube and a respirator.
I also find the God’s will argument dangerous in this case. Couldn’t I attempt suicide and say well if its God’s will he will stop me? Is sin God’s will? I don’t think so. He may allow it for reasons such as giving humans free will, but there is still human responsibility for murder and sin that can’t just be chalked up to it was there time to die. Maybe God has a greater plan in this case, but that does not absolve us from responsiblity.
I didn’t appreciate a lot of the media coverage either. I think the “liberal” media didn’t portray Terri’s condition well. And I really didn’t like the convervative media villifying Terri’s husband and judge Greer with no attempt to understand their position. I think they were doing what they thought was right and they certainly have an angle of doing what is right for Terri although I don’t agree with it.
April 4th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
All of the indications of responsiveness that I have seen were attributed by those on the Schindler’s side. Court-appointed neurologists determined that she was in a persistant vegitative state (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/330/21/1499 ). To me, this isn’t about quality of life; it’s about prolonging life beyond nature’s capability to sustain it.
DISCLAIMER: Forgive the over-simplification that follows. Medical science has unquestionably allowed us to sustain life beyond when it normally would have ended. Sometimes that sustenance is only short-term, such as various cardiac arrest procedures that are only needed until the heart begins beating on its own. There are other cases where the sustenance is much longer term, perhaps even indefinite. It is these prolonged cases that make me question whether we are respecting God’s will.
As is the case any time we look for God’s will, there is room for discernment. There are obvious cases (suicide, murder) where the person is taking their life before God wills it. I would contend there are also less obvious cases where people prolong life beyond when God wills it.
I generally feel that PROLONGED human intervention against death is generally interferring with the natural order of things, i.e., the way God created things.
April 4th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
As an aside, the Supreme Court has already decided, in the 1990 case Cruzan vs. Director of the Missouri Department of Health (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=497&invol=261 ), that it is legally acceptable to withhold hydration and nutrition from someone in a persistent vegatative state (PSV), if that was their clear wish before they entered PSV. It’s interesting to note that neither of the conservatives (Scalia, Rehnquist) dissented.
All of the Schiavo mess could have been avoided if she’d created a living will, something I’d recommend to anyone if they want their medical treatment desires to be explicit and clear.
April 4th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
If we look at the definition of PSV, a quote from the website listed: “The vegetative state is a clinical condition of complete unawareness of the self and the environment”. That does not at all describe the condition of Terri according to several doctors, nurses and family members. It seems many people do not understand what a feeding tube is and seem to think it is some high tech machine or something. It is simply a tube to the stomach for people who cannot swallow which many very aware people have. A person that is paralyzed relies on others for food and some have feeding tubes even though they are mentally aware and coherent, they require prolonged human intervention to survive. Its ridiculous to say that because people cannot care for themselves they should be left to die. The question is where we draw the line and what life is and I think that in the case of Terri the line was crossed.
April 11th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
Ah, I see your point. I’ll conceed that my previous “if they can’t live without assistance” point is a slippery slope I don’t want to get on.
I think John nailed it on the head: the issue is where we draw the line between life and death. I believe that someone in a PSV is just an empty husk of an earthly body–the soul has passed on (I know there are deep philosophical discussions on the relationship between the soul and the body, but it’s been five years since my intro philosophy course, so I’ll leave that to the experts).
I also believe that the best evidence available indicated Terry was in a PSV; that the five doctor panel (two from each side, one court-appointed) decided she was in a PSV is the deciding factor for me.
As an aside, this is the type of conversation we (the Church) should be having, rather than the vitriol-laced extremism that showed up in the news reports. I’m not sure whether the stuff I saw on the news was the norm for conservatives, or just the sensational stuff that makes for a juicier newscast. That is, I’m not sure I could have a civil dissenting conversation with the majority of conservatives.
I’m reminded of popular quote from the Restoration Movement, “In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity.” Combining my restoration past with my reformation present, I would look to the Apostle’s Creed for a good summary of “the essentials”. Though the “culture of life” is important, I would classify this discussion as one of the non-essentials.