Terri Schiavo Ethics
April 25, 2005
Should the feeding tube that had been keeping Terri Schiavo alive for the last fifteen years been removed? I do not think so. Michael Schiavo was fighting for the right to let Terri die, however she had no terminal disease and would only die if not fed and given water, just as you and I would.
First of all, Terri was in a comatose state. A state that, although it is rare, it is possible to recover from. Many people have awoken from comas against all odds and a few people have awoken after being in a coma for many years. Terri was not being a burden to anybody and her parents, brother and sister were more than willing to take the time and effort to take care of all of Terri’s needs. Terri’s parents were also financially capable of paying for all of Terri’s medical needs and there were also a few funds set up for her care that had thousands of dollars in them devoted directly for her. In fact the only legitimate reason that anyone would want Terri to die would be her husband, Michael who stood to gain a life insurance claim from her. Other than that she was only a benefit to keep alive. Just her being there and having the chance to recover, however small a chance it may have been, was a comfort to Terri’s parents.
Second, the only thing that Terri needed medically was a feeding tube for food and hydration – just as some people who are severely retarded or some of the elderly in nursing homes need. However, it is clearly wrong to remove the feeding tubes of these people, in a similar condition. Food and water are not medical treatment, if you keep food and water from anyone for a long period of time they will die. Just because the delivery system of the food is different does not make that much of a difference in the fact that it is needed by all living people. Babies are not able to feed themselves either, but if you stopped feeding a baby and it was allowed to die you would quickly be put into jail. In fact, if you quit feeding your dog for several days – even if it doesn’t die you are very likely to receive several years in jail. There is no real difference in feeding through a tube than a liquid diet or feeding babies. People with a broken jaw must be fed through a tube also, but it is a crime to remove their feeding tube. The fact that Terri is unconscious will surely be raised on this point, but there are many mentally handicapped people who also do not have full consciousness or mental capabilities and must be fed through a feeding tube. But if their tube was removed you would go to jail for murder. This seems to be a very inconsistent argument.
Third, it was argued that the feeding tube should be removed because Terri was suffering in her current state and would not want to live that way. If that in fact was true, and Terri was in a comatose state that could not be recovered from, then she was in fact not suffering at all and would not in the future at any time. In a coma, the part of the brain that produces feeling and consciousness is not functioning properly and thus the individual is in a coma. Therefore, in a coma a person feels nothing and could not be suffering, making this argument invalid. It was not known whether she would want to live or not.
However, if you look at the facts, a more accurate picture of this can be seen. Her parents thought Terri would want the chance to recover and would want to receive any and all treatment that would be necessary to keep her alive. They stood to gain nothing if they were right and Terri was kept on the feeding tube. In fact, they only added more responsibility upon their own shoulders. Michael Schiavo, on the other hand, believed that Terri would not want to live in a comatose state and after being given a reasonable time of a few days or weeks with no improvement would want to be killed (not passively euthanized because there is no underlying condition that would take her life, but actively killed by starvation, as in any other case of starvation). He stood to gain money from life insurance and would no longer be involved in the legal issues and medical decisions for Terri. Motives seem to be a factor in this case.
Many opponents of this case said that Terri’s comatose state had gone beyond recovery and in fact to a place where the brain had started to deteriorate away. This evidence was still being debated however, as the technology for this kind of imaging is still not perfect. It was unclear exactly was the state of Terri’s brain was.
Another argument against this case is that medical treatment should be stopped and Terri should be allowed to die because her life was no longer worth living. There was no medical procedure being done however to sustain Terri’s life and no artificial means of life support. The only thing that kept Terri alive is the very thing that keeps you and I alive – food and water.
The last main argument made against this case is that Terri was suffering in her comatose state and should not continue to be made to suffer. This issue has already been addressed and it seems to be clear that either way, she was not suffering.
The arguments in this case seem to be very clear. To cease feeding Terri is just as wrong as to stop feeding anyone else. This case has gone beyond decided whether Terri should die, and into whether the courts have the right to decide who lives and who does not. All human life is precious and no one has the right to take the life of anyone else no matter what state they may consider them to be in. If the court can decide to stop feeding Terri, can they not also decide that you should not be fed either? I vehemently say the court has no such right.
Comments
Got something to say?
