Home » Archives » March 2005 » Tabloid fodder

[Previous entry: "Yay for an easy week"] [Next entry: "The Axe"]

03/23/2005: "Tabloid fodder"

Song of the Day: Novaspace - Time After Time

Is there anyone out there who isn't sick of the Terri Schiavo case by now? What annoys me the most is that this could have been an honest look at the current state of right-to-die laws and of addressing how to decrease the painful choices that family members have to make when living wills and other health care documents don't exist.

Instead, it's turned into tabloid fodder, with people shrieking that doctors are murdering Terri and that her husband denied her treatment (a false statement) and is evil for having another family after his wife has been brain dead for fifteen years. I've heard so many different stories about how her heart stopped (ranging from bulemia to her husband beating her) that I doubt anyone out there honestly knows any facts about this case.

A year ago, I wrote a paper where I was required to take the position that euthanasia should not be allowed. There are so many levels of issues in the right-to-die arena that no newspaper or blog has touched on. Anyone who sees and agrees with only one side or the other isn't appreciating how complex the issue really is.

Replies: 2 Comments

I'm personally tired of hearing about how evil her parents are for wanting to keep her alive (even if she is a vegetable) from armchair experts. I'm sorry, just because you heard something on the internet and TV doesn't make it true, and your opinion isn't worth a crap. Take the high and mighty stance elsewhere.

Of course, I've already told you I think the whole thing is suspicious, and I also think that it's rather cruel to starve her if they want her to pass on so badly. And the language that's being used - "allowing" her to die? I find that pretty offensive.

I hereby allow everyone I don't like to die.

melantha, Thursday, March 24th

I think the starvation issue and the term "allowing" her to die highlights the big difference between this case and Dr. Kevorkian. They are "allowing" her to die rather than killing her by doing something active - such as a lethal injection or administration of carbon monoxide. It may not make much sense, but there's a difference between doctors omitting treatment and doctors doing something to end a patient's life. From the research I did on my paper, I gathered that doctors feel much more strongly against the latter than the former.

For what it's worth, neurologists have said in an AP article that with the damage to her brain, she won't feel anything when she starves to death. The objections to the starvation issue makes me wonder how people would react if her husband wanted to use a lethel injection instead - would it change it at all? If starvation is too cruel, what would the preferred method be?

My biggest question is one that I haven't seen anyone answer yet. What is the desired outcome in every case like Terri's? Should, in the absense of a living will directing otherwise, all patients be kept alive despite anyone's wishes to the contrary? Should Florida's law giving the spouse the deciding power be struck down, and in its place a law enacted that says only the patient may dictate her fate?

I'd like to see people tackle these questions that are at the core of the issue, rather than squabbling about whether Terri's husband should be making babies with another woman while his wife is in a persistent vegetative state.

Brooke, Thursday, March 24th