Well, I'm sure everyone here knows about Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman starving to death. Her husband claims that she is in a persistent vegetative state, and would not want to be kept alive. Her parents, on the other hand, say that she is responsive, could improve with therapy, and doubt that she had any wish not to have a feeding tube.
After reading some arguments on why she should be starved, either because it was her wish, or she has a poor quality of life/is a burden, I have to ask why it can't be okay to keep her alive.
First, let's assume she's in PVS, as the husband says. She is completely unaware of her surroundings, any movement is reflexive, and she cannot recover. He states that she told him that if she were in that condition, she would not want to live that way. Therefore, taking her off the feeding tube would be fulfilling her wish. Well, if it is true that she is totally unaware of anything, she certainly isn't "wishing" either way whether to live or die. We know that the parents would be happy to take care of her. If she is PVS, simply put, nobody's home. She doesn't have the capability of wanting to live or wanting to die. So, are we really doing her, personally, a disservice if we allow her parents to take over her care? The husband's attorney stated something to the affect of if they reinsert the tube, it would be an intrusion on her liberty. If she is in a PVS and effectively "no longer Terri", I must ask ... what liberty? Liberty is granted to people, right? Well, there are people who say that what makes Terri a person is gone. So, essentially, she could care less, really, what happens. So on that grounds, the question gets begged: What's wrong with letting her parents take care of her, if it helps ease their pain?
Now, let's assume, as the parents say, that she is NOT PVS, but rather is responsive. She responds, smiles, and shows pleasure when family members are visiting her. Also, she might improve with therapy. One might say that since she is still so limited, her quality of life is poor and she would be better off dead. Plus, of course, what about her supposedly having stated to her husband that she wouldn't want to be kept alive? Well, if she is in this responsive but severely disabled, it appears as though her actions speak louder than her previous words to her husband. Even if she said she would not want to live under these conditions, it appears that she is showing by expressing happiness, that she is quite happy to be alive, and that we are doing her a great disservice by forcing her to starve to death. Again, I must ask, what's so wrong about letting the parents take over her care?
After reading some arguments on why she should be starved, either because it was her wish, or she has a poor quality of life/is a burden, I have to ask why it can't be okay to keep her alive.
First, let's assume she's in PVS, as the husband says. She is completely unaware of her surroundings, any movement is reflexive, and she cannot recover. He states that she told him that if she were in that condition, she would not want to live that way. Therefore, taking her off the feeding tube would be fulfilling her wish. Well, if it is true that she is totally unaware of anything, she certainly isn't "wishing" either way whether to live or die. We know that the parents would be happy to take care of her. If she is PVS, simply put, nobody's home. She doesn't have the capability of wanting to live or wanting to die. So, are we really doing her, personally, a disservice if we allow her parents to take over her care? The husband's attorney stated something to the affect of if they reinsert the tube, it would be an intrusion on her liberty. If she is in a PVS and effectively "no longer Terri", I must ask ... what liberty? Liberty is granted to people, right? Well, there are people who say that what makes Terri a person is gone. So, essentially, she could care less, really, what happens. So on that grounds, the question gets begged: What's wrong with letting her parents take care of her, if it helps ease their pain?
Now, let's assume, as the parents say, that she is NOT PVS, but rather is responsive. She responds, smiles, and shows pleasure when family members are visiting her. Also, she might improve with therapy. One might say that since she is still so limited, her quality of life is poor and she would be better off dead. Plus, of course, what about her supposedly having stated to her husband that she wouldn't want to be kept alive? Well, if she is in this responsive but severely disabled, it appears as though her actions speak louder than her previous words to her husband. Even if she said she would not want to live under these conditions, it appears that she is showing by expressing happiness, that she is quite happy to be alive, and that we are doing her a great disservice by forcing her to starve to death. Again, I must ask, what's so wrong about letting the parents take over her care?
