Comments on PVS
Is a person in a "
How would you answer?
As you may guess, I would answer "yes". Before her death this morning, Terri S was a living, breathing human being.
I found it very interesting that this exact terminology was used by her Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) in Dec. 2003 court ordered report to Gov. J. Bush (page 30 of 38) :
GAL states "...evidence is compelling [that] Theresa is in a persistent vegetative state" and in next paragraph he states..."Terri is a living, breathing human being."
From where I stand, persistent vegetative state or not, a living, breathing human being who is not allowed to have food & water is a human being who is being caused (not simply allowed) to die.
Even if all her movements, sounds, tracking etc could be ruled solely a result of reflex (and that is still controversial...too bad the courts would not allow the most up to date & sensitive tests) ...even if reflex...she still was a living, breathing human being until she starved.
Whether she felt pain in the process or not, she was starved so as to end her life.
Whether she had ever clearly expressed her absolute wish to die if in PVS (and I feel there is much doubt here), do any of us truly believe that she would have checked the box that said..."Stop hydration & nutrition and continue this course for as many days/weeks as it takes to cause death by dehydration/starvation."
One has to be HUMAN & ALIVE in order to have the PVS medical term applied. TS was human & alive.
All living human beings (functional or disabled) have an intrinsic need for & right to food & water. TS had an intrinsic need for & right to food & water. Removal of those elements is so different than removal of a respirator or repeated application of CPR & “life saving drugs”. I feel feeding is basic and normal; respirators & resuscitation are extraordinary. Feeding should continue & extraordinary means be used judiciously with respect for the body/soul’s attempts to die. Terri S did not appear to be trying to die before the feeding tube was removed. Life has “a life of its own” and it will leave the body when it is time to leave.
It is scary to realize that strict application of the letter of the law without view for the spirit of the law, can result in depriving a defenseless human being of an intrinsic right. It is sad to see celebration over that legal "victory".
More later. Comments welcome.
posted by Cindy at 6:21 PM
3 Comments:
Hmmm...you use the term legal "victory." But should legal/illegal even be brought into this? It seems to me that this is a domain that we don't want the govenment to enter. Would it really be wrong to allow the Shiavo family to decide this personally without the govenment dictating their course of action?
On another note, I am very perturbed by the (not surprising) lack of consistency in our president. His statement that, given the choice, we should always err on the side of life is somewhat at odds with his political history. Bush oversaw 152(!) executions in his term as governor of Texas. To me, erring on the side of life does not include putting people to death when they could still be found innocent (or, of course, even if they were guilty there is no reason to kill them). Just recently a prisoner was released from death row when he was proven innocent through use of DNA. Our courts are hardly perfect. This inconsistency on Bush's part drives me crazy.
And let's not even get into how the Iraq war factors into this.
It is sad to see celebration over that legal "victory".
I don't think anyone involved in this case was celebrating anything. It was a very sad case that has now come to an end. It's not fair to insinuate that Michael Shaivo and his family, lawyers etc were doing a dance of joy or anything after every court case.
I must agree with Jason also that I don't think matters like this even belong to the government, these should be kept to the families to decide what should happen. So I guess I am happy that the federal courts did not get involved in this case because it's not a place for the government. We don't always like it but the law is the law, and I don't think bending it for certain cases can ever be done. Blog on!
I'm going to go back to my comment at the junction. The courts decided via the evidence provided that this is what Terri would have wanted. This case is being presented as if two factions are at odds with each other and Terri was never a player. She was THE player. The husband never said "I" want her dead. The case was that this is what SHE would have wanted. OK, that's a tricky business since she couldn't communicate in any way but then the courts agreed over 20 times that YES this IS what she would have wanted. I think many precautions were taken with this decision and that is the whole point of the appellate court. For the dad to say that there was a conspiracy among the judges in the country to kill Terri is just sad. I feel bad for the guy but this explanation is just rediculus.
Post a Comment
<< Home