I have been troubled, for quite some time with the legal battle being waged for the life of Terri Schiavo. I have also, for some reason I can’t quite articulate, avoided writing about Terri until today. So why am I writing now? Maybe I just can’t stomach it anymore. This whole situation is absolutely ridiculous!
The husband (who currently lives with another woman) and his attorneys have won a court order that Terri stop receiving food – not just a feeding tube, but that no one can give her food. Seeking to justify starving her to death they prop themselves up by saying “we are just trying to carry out Terri’s wishes.”
Her parents are fighting to save her life – asking a judge to prevent someone from legally killing their daughter.
In spite of all the rhetoric, in spite of all the posturing, this case at its most basic level is about the sanctity of life ‚Äì the sanctity of Terri’s life, the sanctity of all human life.
There are those who wish to make this a “quality of life issue” that somehow her life, because of those things she cannot do, is not worth living. Is that true? Do we honestly want to open the floodgate and travel down this road? Is this really a position we want to defend – that when my life is defined by those things that I cannot do then my life is not worth living?
Terri can smile, can blink her eyes, can recognize her family members, can breathe (on her own) and she can swallow, Her parents could feed her – and would willingly do so - if allowed.
Her parents, no doubt, remember an earlier time in Terri’s life when she was defined by all those things she could not do. She could not talk, she could not walk, she could not run, she could not completely understand her surroundings or recognize everyone who looked at her adoringly – there were so many things she could not do!
But there were some things she could do! She could smile, she could blink her eyes, she could breathe and she could swallow – and as a baby she had to be fed or she would have starved to death.
It is a sad commentary on any society who preys upon and abuses those who are unable to speak for themselves, those whose voice we cannot hear. Shame on us a people who invent and tolerate legal ways to end human life.
Sadly, we have already opened the floodgate where quality of life is more important than life. Our nation has legally killed over 40 million babies since 1973, and right now it sure looks like very soon we will have killed one more.
4 Responses to “A Life Worth Living”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:28 am
This a tough one for me. I have been assimilating the arguements on both sides and it raises tough questions for me. I would have to rely on your understanding of the theological issues here for guidance.
There is some contention to put it mildly about what her wishes were regarding this. So here is my question. What if there was no dispute about her wishes and she wanted to be let go and not be fed manually? Should such an instruction be carried out?
The dispute about how severe the “vegetative state” is, is equally ferocious even though there is scant detail about what her present situation is. I accept that at one time she was able to blink, smile and swallow but what about now? What kind of degeneration if any has occured?
What about people in a coma or brain dead and who are medically certified unresponsive? Would I be wrong if I told Gesla that I do not want to be kept alive artificially should I degenetate to that condition?
Would I be wrong if I choose to spare Gesla, my siblings and my parents the emotional and financial cost of a drawn out and painful process with no hope of recovery.
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:43 pm
This indeed is a tough one for anyone. Not sure exactly where I come down on it either…and certainly it would be much clearer if I/we were in the midst of it.
Nonetheless, one other consideration is would/could she (or the many others) live without the tubes and medical equipment? If not, then maybe that’s the way God intended for our short time here on Earth. It has certainly been that way for millenia up to this past century. No one is playing God. Perhaps it’s time and God is calling her home, in the most natural way possible.
Should we as a society and medical attendants as professionals utilize every piece of equipment and knowledge available to us to extend the life of person? Medical professionals take an oath to do so, certainly. Now we’re back at the quality of life and prognosis for living argument.
This is something my wife faces regularly in the course of her work and just had to deal with again last week with a newborn, term baby. It was one of the worst weeks of her life.
Ebyboy raises legitimate questions about if one has made it clear what his or her end of life wishes are. Am I not free to make that decision? Does God give me the freedom to make such a decision? Perhaps more importantly, am I doomed to eternal damnation if I make such a decision? If my wife makes that decision for herself, what is my obligation to carry out her wishes?
Not easy stuff by any means.
March 24th, 2005 at 11:42 am
In Matthew 25:42-45 Jesus says:
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
March 31st, 2005 at 10:35 am
It’s ironic that someone who has probably not acted in Terri’s best interests for the past 15 years (*) is claiming to be doing what Terri wanted all along.
(*) Refusing physical therapy, having a common-law wife (is that bigamy?), harassing her parents when they want to see her, etc. I could go on here.