Saturday, March 19, 2005
Right to Die...
Brittany: I suppose that by this point, most individuals have probably heard about the “right-to-die” case in Florida. It concerns Terri Schiavo, a woman who has been in a vegetative state for fifteen years. Schiavo’s husband insists that his wife would not want to be kept alive artificially (he has been fighting for her right to die for seven years), but her parents feel that she could improve over time. Blah. This one gets messy. State government declares that lawmakers should act on behalf of Schiavo since she is incapable of acting for herself. A bill was passed in 2003 that ordered doctors to restore Schiavo’s feeding tube six days after it had been removed. “Late Wednesday, the U.S. House passed legislation that would delay the removal of the feeding tube by moving the case to federal court. Federal judges have twice turned down efforts by the parents to move the case out of Florida courts, citing a lack of jurisdiction (Yahoo News).”
The first major snare seems to be the fact that there is discrepancy between Michael Schiavo and his wife’s parents. When dealing with life or death situations, the family of the individual should be in agreement before such weighty decisions are made. Another problem is the fact that Schiavo did not leave specific instructions in regards to such care. Even if she had prepared a living will, that might not have been enough to do away with her feeding tube. Families have the option to decline a feeding tube, but once one is installed, it is much harder to get rid of. Individuals are pulled off of life-support every day, but Schiavo does not fall under this category because she is self-breathing and has a certain level of consciousness.
It certainly seems inhumane to allow another human being to starve to death (lawmakers claim it violates constitutional rights), but I can understand that fifteen years of seemingly senseless suffering would become rather cumbersome. If in a similar state, I do not think that I would want to be artificially supported, but yet there is always a chance that she might improve. There seem to be so many uncertainties regarding this situation, so it seems that the safest bet would be to allow her to live. As of today, federal lawmakers reached a compromise that will restore Schiavo’s feeding tube (which was removed Friday afternoon) and push the “right-to-die” case back into court. I dunno…I’m interested to see where this will go. ¶ 7:15 PM
Brittany: I suppose that by this point, most individuals have probably heard about the “right-to-die” case in Florida. It concerns Terri Schiavo, a woman who has been in a vegetative state for fifteen years. Schiavo’s husband insists that his wife would not want to be kept alive artificially (he has been fighting for her right to die for seven years), but her parents feel that she could improve over time. Blah. This one gets messy. State government declares that lawmakers should act on behalf of Schiavo since she is incapable of acting for herself. A bill was passed in 2003 that ordered doctors to restore Schiavo’s feeding tube six days after it had been removed. “Late Wednesday, the U.S. House passed legislation that would delay the removal of the feeding tube by moving the case to federal court. Federal judges have twice turned down efforts by the parents to move the case out of Florida courts, citing a lack of jurisdiction (Yahoo News).”
The first major snare seems to be the fact that there is discrepancy between Michael Schiavo and his wife’s parents. When dealing with life or death situations, the family of the individual should be in agreement before such weighty decisions are made. Another problem is the fact that Schiavo did not leave specific instructions in regards to such care. Even if she had prepared a living will, that might not have been enough to do away with her feeding tube. Families have the option to decline a feeding tube, but once one is installed, it is much harder to get rid of. Individuals are pulled off of life-support every day, but Schiavo does not fall under this category because she is self-breathing and has a certain level of consciousness.
It certainly seems inhumane to allow another human being to starve to death (lawmakers claim it violates constitutional rights), but I can understand that fifteen years of seemingly senseless suffering would become rather cumbersome. If in a similar state, I do not think that I would want to be artificially supported, but yet there is always a chance that she might improve. There seem to be so many uncertainties regarding this situation, so it seems that the safest bet would be to allow her to live. As of today, federal lawmakers reached a compromise that will restore Schiavo’s feeding tube (which was removed Friday afternoon) and push the “right-to-die” case back into court. I dunno…I’m interested to see where this will go. ¶ 7:15 PM
