catapult magazine

As I wade thru the long “parents versus estranged husband” fight over the fate of disabled Terri Schiavo, the question above is the key issue today. Would YOU want to be starved? (And would you want an estranged spouse—who has found someone else—to shut out your parents, siblings & still decide your fate???)

As we speak, Terri dies of starvation and thirst. We are assured by…various sources that the death is painless.

But what if it is YOU lying there?

What if YOUR spouse/significant other has another woman/man? but still retains the legal guardianship right to make your life & death decisions?

There are some indications that Terri feels some pain—-it is said she gets some medication when her monthly cycle hits, for instance.

I saw a person who was actually in a kind of semi coma—-but he was responsive to our presence. I could tell by his movements which was confirmed by the comments of his mother, who cared for him at their home.

, I would not want to be continued on life support, but I thought (until a few weeks ago) that life support meant my heart or lungs were kept going by a machine.[/b:4163ee556b]

support now also means food & water…at least thru a tube. [/b:4163ee556b]

(Terri is said to have not wanted extreme life support.

Did she know she was talking about food & water & not just machines???)

I will inform my husband that I would NOT want to be starved to death. Also, tho I remain a confirmed Protestant, I would want him to consult the Catholic position on right to die issues, as they seem to think these things out well & thoroughly. If in doubt, they seem to “err” on the side of life.

I wonder what would happen if we did not feed death row inmates as they await appeal.

I agree that starving is a terrible way to die, especially in front of TV cameras. If I were her I would not want to become an “issue”, an object of public pity and hypocritical moral outrage. I would like to be allowed a dignified death that affirms the value of a life well lived.

By the way, I think this comparison to starving deathrow inmates (made by Jeb Bush today also) is startling and to me puzzling. Is it really life-affirming that the prisoners are fed before they are killed? If the feeding of deathrow prisoners represents the “culture of life” what’s next?

Would YOU want to be starved?

A very good question! Yet I can?t help but to wonder if our President and members of Congress have been asking this same question of themselves, as they continue to cut funding for programs that feed and house thousands of individuals across this country. Is it morally just, for us as a nation, to slowly starve the poorest of our own citizens (who are mostly children) for the sake of receiving a tax cut?

It is tragic that Terri Schiavo?s family (parents, siblings and husband) must grapple with these personal issues of life and death. I have sat and prayed with many families who have had to make similar hard decisions about a loved one. None of these families, however, have made the national news. And yet this same scenario is played out hundreds of times each day, without governmental intrusion.

vanlee, I think that you are very wise to inform your husband of your feelings regarding this issue. I would also encourage you to make out a living will. Give a copy of it to your doctor, hospital and clergy. But I would also encourage you to let your senators and state representatives know that this decision of life is a private and personal one, meant to be left up to the individual, their family and God. They have no business being there.

Children [i:24a9849d7f]starving[/i:24a9849d7f]? Last I checked no children in the United States had swollen bellies and were dying of malnutrition and easily curable disease. Some children don’t have good, responsible parents in this country, and that is unfortunate, but I pay enough taxes to know that they receive enough welfare checks and healthcare on middle America?s account. We live in a country more blessed with opportunity than any other in the world. You make it sound like our “poor” are on the same level as those in Sudan and the likes. Nobody has died of starvation in this world because nobody cared.

As to the Terri case, I find it disturbing. A brain dead person on life support is no more alive than a corpse. But all this woman needs is just a tube to feed and water her. I know many mentally handicapped people who can’t feed themselves, and certainly their position isn’t desirable. But can you deny their enjoyment of living? Can you deny the joy they bring to their parents lives? I really don’t see the difference in the Terri case. And if we deny this woman the right to live simply because she no longer has a desirable life, I think we would be no better than a group of people who murdered 12 million “unwanted” people 60 years ago. Among them the mentally handicapped. Our imperfections and our acceptance of them are what make us human.

As for the government getting involved, I believe there is a line in the declaration of independence that reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are [u:24a9849d7f][i:24a9849d7f][b:24a9849d7f]Life[/b:24a9849d7f][/i:24a9849d7f][/u:24a9849d7f], Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —[u:24a9849d7f][i:24a9849d7f][b:24a9849d7f]That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[/b:24a9849d7f][/i:24a9849d7f][/u:24a9849d7f]……Enough said.

What this case really comes down to is Terri’s right to pursue life and her “husband’s” right to pursue happiness. The reason it is at the court level is because this woman’s parents don’t want Mr. Shiavo to kill their daughter. It would be considered cruel and unusual punishment (and I think rightly so) to starve a convicted criminal to death. We use lethal injection, which some claim is cruel and unusual. But we aren’t talking about a criminal, we’re talking about a woman who has no even been charged with a crime and yet her life is at the mercy of the court.

What baffles me is why the Governor doesn’t order adult protective services to remove her from the situation. Based on the nurses’ affidavits, this woman is being abused by her “legal guardian” in being deprived basic medical care and therapy. That is abuse and I believe grounds for intervention. Think of all the abused/neglected children on who’s behalf the government intervenes … I bet even abused/neglected pets receive better case from the government.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not a big fan of government getting too involved in my life, but one of the responsibilities of government is to protect the innocent and to me that includes unborn babies, those with mental disabilities, and others who can’t speak for themselves.

I hate the phrase “dying with dignity” applied to this case. There is no dignity in being starved to death. Dying with dignity is what Christ did and what the martyrs did and are doing … this looks very different from what is being done to Terri.

Grace and peace,
David

I didn’t elaborate on what I meant by Mr. Shiavo’s right to happiness. He must think that happiness comes from his wife’s death. That way he can keep the money from the legal settlement from his wife’s accident and the subsequent medical malpractice and marry the woman who’s given birth to his children without being a polygamist, which I have to believe is still illegal in Florida, but you gotta wonder. This is why he isn’t willing to let her parents just take care of her. I’m sure he’d be ecstatic to have her out of his life, but that would mean he wouldn’t get any of the money.

That right seems dubious in light of the right that precedes it in the list – life.

An article from the Chicago Tribune regarding Michael Schiavo (might require free registration, but it’s worth it). It’s much easier to form an opinion of this situation when we’ve completely demonized Mr. Schiavo instead of viewing him as a human being.

i haven’t known many of the details of this case until recently, but i must say i can see both sides. here are some interesting things i’ve come across in the past couple of days:

“The case is full of great ironies. A large part of Terri’s hospice costs are paid by Medicaid, a program that the administration and conservatives in Congress would sharply reduce. Some of her other expenses have been covered by the million-dollar proceeds of a malpractice suit – the kind of suit that President Bush has fought to scale back.”

- NPR commentator Daniel Schorr. Congress met on Palm Sunday to pass a law, signed by Bush, to allow a federal judge to override the decisions of Florida courts to remove Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. The federal judge appointed to the case declined to intervene, though appeals by her parents’ lawyers are forthcoming.

“The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act,” and is, as such, “morally obligatory.”

-Pope John Paul II

also, here’s an article that raises some less cliche points.

laurencer,
I appreciate you pointing out the Chicago Tribune article. And I confess that I had demonized him … and that is the easy thing to do and not even particularly honest of me. He is a human being and if he really does believe he’s doing what his wife would have wanted then, I personally owe him an apology. But it is still difficult to believe that he can’t have a conflict of interest so deep that he may not be remembering what he wants to from their conversations. I know I do stuff like that sometimes, ashamedly.

I will accept your gentle chiding and in the future keep my comments to the facts and the ethical questions of one’s right to life. I still hold to my original view that what Mr. Shiavo and the Florida courts are doing is wrong, and I realize that this may seem somewhat inconsistent. I can comment on Mr. Shiavo’s actions which are a matter of fact, without making assumptions about his motives.

David

When I think about this entire situation, it simply makes me want to weep. Like kirstin, I feel like I can honestly empathize with both sides. No one is going to win out here; the entire situation is lose-lose.

Some interesting (and underdeveloped) thoughts to throw in the mix, culled from recent offline discussions:
[list:8dd932e328]:8dd932e328]During this Holy Week, it seems like we, the Church, need to relearn how to live into the reality of the Resurrection. While I’m not remotely interested in devaluing the individual as image bearer (see some of my other posts on this board regarding pacifism), it does seem necessary to approach death properly. If we believe in the Resurrection, we should take comfort in the fact that Terri Schiavo will be made whole in the life to come.
[:8dd932e328]It’s always helpful to imagine real, constructive and [i:8dd932e328]positive[/i:8dd932e328] motives for people involved in conflict. For example, Michael Schiavo could have relinquished all control over this years ago, allowing Terri’s parents to care for her indefinitely and moving on with his life. But he didn’t. Why? Likewise, Terri’s parents could have let go or capitulated, but they’ve chosen to spend the last six years of their lives fighting for their daughter’s life. Why?
[*:8dd932e328]Sanctity of life is one thing, but idolatry of life is quite another. It seems as though we lean too far away from sanctity on some issues (war, poverty, etc.) and too close to idolatry on others (abortion).
[/list:u:8dd932e328]