Thoughts on Judaism

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Terry Shiavo thoughts

Terry Shiavo was a person, not a political football. Her case filed under "right to die", even though she was not dying, or brain dead. She was severely brain damaged.

Those who feel that emotion tried to trump science miss some points here. This was not about science or religion.

1) Only one judge looked at this case. The other courts only looked at the handling of the case, not the case itself.
2) The matter of "permanent vegetative state" was simply not fully explored. It needed to be examined in light of her presumed stated wish of what circumstances she claimed the "right to die".
3) The matter of whether she actually expressed a wish for "right to die" is uncorroborated.
4) The guardianship of a husband who had effectively written her off and remarried was rabidly guarded by the court. Her family WANTED to take care of her. If she had not expressed a wish to die, they should have been allowed to do so.
5) She was not dying or brain-dead. She was not on "life support", but only assisted feeding and hydration. That is very different from ventilator, dialysis, cardiac machine type life support.
6) No one conclusive demonstrated that she only had brain stem function and not higher level brain function, nor that she would not feel the pain of dehydration.

Advocates for Terry did not help her case by claiming that she had spoken discernable words, or by trying to build a Michael Shiavo conspiracy without evidence.

In balance, though, there was a lot more to know before the tube came out.

1 Comments:

  • I realize this is old news now but I must say this, Ethically speaking, the Shiavo case boils down to one thing and one thing only: When all decency abandoned the consciousness of Michael Shiavo and he took another woman and had children with her while his wife was in the perpetual tragic state that she was in--even though anyone can understand his desire for human contact, especially of the feminine type--this cannot be denied as in the order of normal human emotion. But he should have had the decency to keep it a secret, and in public stood by his wife wholly and in fidelity. But he chose to no longer be a husband to his wife and at that time all rights concerning Terry's well being should have been relinquished. Her parents alone should have determined their daughters right to die. Not lawyers or judges or public opinion, and certainly not Michael Shiavo. Her Maker never forsook that role--without the feeding tube she simply would have and did die. So too is the natural order of the corporeal existence. Death always has been and always will be a part of life. But none of that was the issue. The sole issue was that her parents had the right to decide it--not whether it should be decided or not. That was decided long ago.

    By Blogger prettyarmor, at 9:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home