I have delayed weighing in on the Terri Shiavo case. I wanted to see how things played out and I honestly figured that her life would be spared. It might still be, but activist judges are making it difficult for Terri to remain alive. The whole case brings up some interesting things to discuss.
Terri Shiavo is basically being sentenced to death. She did not do anything wrong yet she is getting a death sentence. Unfortunately, if things are not reversed, Terri will die long before Scott Peterson, who was actually convicted of murder. If Terri had murdered someone she would stay alive for a long time while the appeal process proceeded. For Terri, the appeals of her family were not enough.
The US Congress tried to intervene on Terri’s behalf. I do not think they belong interfering in a matter that should be decided by the state but I have to admire the way they tried to do it. By issuing a subpoena for Terri to appear the law says she can not be interfered with or harmed in any manner. The unfortunate part is that a judge in Florida ignored the subpoena. He evidently found it irrelevant. Can anyone explain to me how it is that the Congress can subpoena baseball players and they are not allowed to refuse the “invitation†but a judge can over rule a subpoena by the very same Congress?
Terri Shiavo’s case also spotlights the importance of having a living will or medical power of attorney. This case hinges on what her wishes were. The “husband†says that she would not want to live this way and that is what she told him. Terri’s parents say she would not want to die and that they still hold out hope for her to get better. As a health care professional, I can not overstate the importance of having written instructions detailing your wishes. If Terri had these documents the whole issue would not exist. I am not opposed to taking someone in a persistent vegetative state off life support. From all accounts, Terri is not in such a state. Her parents have stated that they will take care of her and assume all burdens associated with that care. Her husband says he wants her dead. He could divorce her and let the parents take care of her but then he would lose a lot of money. Since it appears he is interested in her death to achieve financial gain, one has to question if he truly represents her wishes. In addition, no written document exists detailing her wishes. His account amounts to hear say evidence. There is a thing called implied consent. It basically states that if a person were capable of making his own decisions, he would choose to be helped. This is the premise that allows medical people to treat unconscious people without them actually asking for the help. One has to assume that if Terri were able to express her wishes she would not ask to die. It is a moral decision to err on the side of life. If you promised your Lexus to your neighbor if you were ever killed and did not tell your wife, do you think the court would side with you or the wife in deciding who gets the car? To me, this is what the case boils down to.
The people who are saying that Terri should not be cared for are condemning her to death. Why is it that we will go out of our way to protect animals in Alaska by not drilling for oil but we can not protect a human life? Why do these whacko protesters go out and protest the killing in war but they are not out protesting the killing of a defenseless person. This is the kind of universal health care John Kerry wanted to give you and that Hillary will assuredly use in her platform when she runs. We will cover everyone, but when you get sick we will starve you to death.
I stated before that I have no problems taking people who are in a vegetative state or who have made their wishes known off life support (and yes, food and water are life support). I have a problem with taking food and water away from a person who has people that will care for her and ensure she has the best quality of life possible given her circumstances. I also feel that without written instructions we should err on the side of the patient’s life being spared. Yes, Scott Peterson will eventually be put to death. He will be strapped down and given an injection that peacefully puts him into an everlasting sleep. Terri Shiavo will slowly starve and dehydrate. She will experience hunger and thirst and not be able to communicate this. She will wonder, in whatever capacity she can, why people are not helping her. Slowly, very slowly, her organ systems will shut down like the banks of lights in a stadium. Her kidneys will fail, her liver will fail, her heart will beat erratically and her breathing will become more labored. Terri will begin to experience more and more pain as her body begins to consume itself to try and stay alive. As each system fails she will begin a death march that will end with a last gasp for life sustaining air that will fail to have the desired effect. Terri will let out one last breath and the heart monitor will show a long, flat, line. The doctors will pronounce her dead and her husband will take all the money and live with, and maybe even marry, his common law wife. Yes my friends, Terri will die a long, slow, agonizing death and she did not do anything wrong. Maybe that is the problem with this country. The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for those who have committed horrible crimes but more than appropriate for those whose only mistake in life was having the misfortune to get ill without writing down their desires.