Terri - Where Do We Draw the Line?
Everyone is talking about the case concerning Terri who will soon starve to death due to her feeding tube being removed. A relationship between a man and a woman has blossomed into a nation-wide story with many people feeling passionately about both sides of whether or not she should have her feeding tube removed. I'm not writing this for an argument. Nor am I writing this to make a political pitch for my views on euthenasia, or to incite people's emotions. I am very troubled by this whole situation and I wonder how the case has come this far.
Part of what makes this case so frustrating is that I am not sure who to believe. Some doctors say that she is in PVS (Persistant Vegetative State) while some doctors say she is not. Some say that she has tried to communicate with people, others that she has not or cannot. Some say new therapy might work others say no chance in hell.
I must say this however: I think that this case marks a dangerous turning point. The court order to remove Terri's feeding tube is tantamount to court-sanctioned murder. I'm not saying this to be dramatic, but seriously; Terri's heart and lungs continue to pump and breathe without the aid of machinery. The only thing that the court has denied her is food and water, which we do not even deny prisoners on death row.
We have drawn a line and I am afraid that after this there may be no turning back. We have drawn a line as a nation and said that, beyond this point, life is no longer valuable. The arguments of many who say that Terri's feeding tube should be removed very often argue that, were they in a similiar position, they would want to just die. Thus Terri must want the same. Leaving aside the obvious philosophical and logical errors in that absurd argument, the argument draws a line in the sand and says beyond this point, not only do I not want to live but you also should not want to live and will not. The problem we have here is the same as is found with abortion, only inversed. True Life (read: human life) begins at such-and-such a point, now we also say True Life (read: human life) ends at this point. Summarily, we say that Terri is no longer human.
Who are we to make such a claim? As the King of Israel said when Namaan came to Israel and asked the King to have Elisha the prophet cooperate in that healing - "Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life?" The obvious answer is no, we are not and we can not. This decision, once made, cannot be reversed because with mankind - there is no coming back. Not with our power, and yet some of us are so vociferous to argue that we should rush across that threshold.
How can we be so cavalier, so gung-ho, to make such a dangerous decision? Why is there no hesitancy? Why do people protest for what is we sometimes call the right to die? We must realize that life is a precious, and often too tenuous thing. And if you disagree, well, trade places with Terri and see how much you would long for your old life again. Or any number of people who have not been so publicized and who suffer the same fate. If you do not think life is precious, wait for someone very close to you to die, and see if you are not shaken by that loss.
Instead of being so worked up to give Terri what some would call death with dignity, why do we not instead give dignity to the dying?
I once heard Ravi Zacharias relate this on a tape of him speaking to an audience of those in the medical profession. But he said that in Calcutta there stands a small hospice across the street fromt he Temple of Kali, the goddess of destruction. This hopsice is called the Tender Heart Home and was where Mother Theresa lived and worked among the poor of India. There is a sign outside for ambulance and taxi drivers saying that there was only room at the Tender Heart Home for the destitute of the destitute - those who truly had nowhere else to go. And while he was there, Mr. Zacharias saw a rail-thin man being cradled by a young woman and fed some water through a bottle. And as that man drank his last few drops of nourishment before dying, he looked up at her as a child at his long-lost mother. Mr. Zacharias commented that that was probably the only time, since he had been born, that someone had never held that poor dying man so close and so lovingly.
Let us not be so quick to dish out death with dignity. Let us emulate Mother Theresa, as she sought to follow Christ, by giving dignity to the dying. Those who are dying are yet human and yet live, let us not write them off so cavalierly and coldly.
We have drawn the line. Indeed, many of the people I see on television and read about in articles, who agree with the ruling, dismiss the appeals of Terri's parents as nothing but moral and emotional arguments and appeals with no basis in law.
What is law without morality? What is law without right and wrong? It is fascinating to me that it is impossible to live an amoral life without also living an immoral life. If we do not recognize the essential dignity of human beings merely for the life that they possess, it may not be long before we begin to put down anyone else who requires 24-hour care. Or those with severe but not critical handicaps. Or the blind. Or the mute. Or those with different color eyes and hair.
As Scrooge responds to the charity workers in A Christmas Carol - "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? ... decrease the surplous population..."
The world has seen this before. Once you devalue any living person because of that person's maladies, it is too easy to devalue more and more people. Have we not learned anything from Hitler? Have we not learned anything from Stalin?
Have we not learned anything from life, which is sometimes so fleeting, that we would brush even one life away because some of us say we prefer death to a life like that? Why embrace death? And, for that matter, why push someone into death's arms? Death will claim his due soon enough.
For a perspective you will not see on the news (except being badly misrepresented): http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/
Part of what makes this case so frustrating is that I am not sure who to believe. Some doctors say that she is in PVS (Persistant Vegetative State) while some doctors say she is not. Some say that she has tried to communicate with people, others that she has not or cannot. Some say new therapy might work others say no chance in hell.
I must say this however: I think that this case marks a dangerous turning point. The court order to remove Terri's feeding tube is tantamount to court-sanctioned murder. I'm not saying this to be dramatic, but seriously; Terri's heart and lungs continue to pump and breathe without the aid of machinery. The only thing that the court has denied her is food and water, which we do not even deny prisoners on death row.
We have drawn a line and I am afraid that after this there may be no turning back. We have drawn a line as a nation and said that, beyond this point, life is no longer valuable. The arguments of many who say that Terri's feeding tube should be removed very often argue that, were they in a similiar position, they would want to just die. Thus Terri must want the same. Leaving aside the obvious philosophical and logical errors in that absurd argument, the argument draws a line in the sand and says beyond this point, not only do I not want to live but you also should not want to live and will not. The problem we have here is the same as is found with abortion, only inversed. True Life (read: human life) begins at such-and-such a point, now we also say True Life (read: human life) ends at this point. Summarily, we say that Terri is no longer human.
Who are we to make such a claim? As the King of Israel said when Namaan came to Israel and asked the King to have Elisha the prophet cooperate in that healing - "Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life?" The obvious answer is no, we are not and we can not. This decision, once made, cannot be reversed because with mankind - there is no coming back. Not with our power, and yet some of us are so vociferous to argue that we should rush across that threshold.
How can we be so cavalier, so gung-ho, to make such a dangerous decision? Why is there no hesitancy? Why do people protest for what is we sometimes call the right to die? We must realize that life is a precious, and often too tenuous thing. And if you disagree, well, trade places with Terri and see how much you would long for your old life again. Or any number of people who have not been so publicized and who suffer the same fate. If you do not think life is precious, wait for someone very close to you to die, and see if you are not shaken by that loss.
Instead of being so worked up to give Terri what some would call death with dignity, why do we not instead give dignity to the dying?
I once heard Ravi Zacharias relate this on a tape of him speaking to an audience of those in the medical profession. But he said that in Calcutta there stands a small hospice across the street fromt he Temple of Kali, the goddess of destruction. This hopsice is called the Tender Heart Home and was where Mother Theresa lived and worked among the poor of India. There is a sign outside for ambulance and taxi drivers saying that there was only room at the Tender Heart Home for the destitute of the destitute - those who truly had nowhere else to go. And while he was there, Mr. Zacharias saw a rail-thin man being cradled by a young woman and fed some water through a bottle. And as that man drank his last few drops of nourishment before dying, he looked up at her as a child at his long-lost mother. Mr. Zacharias commented that that was probably the only time, since he had been born, that someone had never held that poor dying man so close and so lovingly.
Let us not be so quick to dish out death with dignity. Let us emulate Mother Theresa, as she sought to follow Christ, by giving dignity to the dying. Those who are dying are yet human and yet live, let us not write them off so cavalierly and coldly.
We have drawn the line. Indeed, many of the people I see on television and read about in articles, who agree with the ruling, dismiss the appeals of Terri's parents as nothing but moral and emotional arguments and appeals with no basis in law.
What is law without morality? What is law without right and wrong? It is fascinating to me that it is impossible to live an amoral life without also living an immoral life. If we do not recognize the essential dignity of human beings merely for the life that they possess, it may not be long before we begin to put down anyone else who requires 24-hour care. Or those with severe but not critical handicaps. Or the blind. Or the mute. Or those with different color eyes and hair.
As Scrooge responds to the charity workers in A Christmas Carol - "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? ... decrease the surplous population..."
The world has seen this before. Once you devalue any living person because of that person's maladies, it is too easy to devalue more and more people. Have we not learned anything from Hitler? Have we not learned anything from Stalin?
Have we not learned anything from life, which is sometimes so fleeting, that we would brush even one life away because some of us say we prefer death to a life like that? Why embrace death? And, for that matter, why push someone into death's arms? Death will claim his due soon enough.
For a perspective you will not see on the news (except being badly misrepresented): http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/
posted by Brian at 1:26 PM
6 Comments:
Friend, you are terribly mistaken. please check out http://www.blogsforterri.com/video.php and consider whether or not this "shell" is truly devoid of a soul.
Of course, also, by acknowledging that she HAS (or had, whichever) a soul, you also indicate that you believe in some sort of higher existance than mere physical humanity. This being the case, I must point out that God opposes murder and death. This case is clearly both. You have already suggested that she is less than human (which, unfortunately, is the first thing anyone does when they want to commit genocide), and you cite other people killing their 'loved ones' as positive examples of doing the same. You're right, they are doing the same - and it, as well, is murder. So is a suicide, if you want to boil it down to that. Perhaps another argument? : ) I believe it is all related.
Finally, let me point out that there are several individuals currently protesting outside Terri's residence who are also in a PVS. They are alive, simply because someone loves them. Terri's husband does not, ergo she is no longer a human, and able to be 'put down', as a dog. Please inform yourself a bit more about this particular case (the website Brian linked at the bottom is a good one, as is the www.blogsforterri.com), then I'd love to talk with you about the morality of euthanasia in general.
Is not humanity more than brains? I hate to quote myself (because it sounds so arrogant) but I discussed that issue at length in the string of posts called "Brains and Stomachs" that are collected from a message I heard Mr. Ravi Zacharias give. And just because we do it all the time does not make it right.
It is very American, and very existential, to base the importance of life on the basis of what we can do (or have done). One of the most popular American stereotypes is that of the self-made man who pulls himself up by his bootstraps because he is so busy "doing" stuff to succeed. What I think we are in danger of forgetting, among other things, is that we are human "beings" - that is we are human regardless of what we do, what we can do, and what we cannot do.
Now Zach, I want to be clear here that I'm not attacking you or anything like that. But you said that you "feel" her soul is no longer on this earth. Where are we going to go if feeling is the deciding factor? Now you could say I feel her soul is still with us, and am guilty of the same thing - but at the very least, I am allowing for the possibility of her soul still being with us. If her soul has since departed, then by keeping her alive we haven't done anything to her. As you yourself said, "no brain no pain" so if we keep her alive then she is not suffering either.
I am not willing to take the risk that she is already dead and act accordingly. Why treat life in such a cavalier fashion? If life is valuable (and it is) then life must have *essential* dignity, not contrived or somehow an addendum to a person's character based upon a person's actions or their medical condition. We don't see Jesus writing off the paralytics, the blind, the diseased and the possessed. Rather He tells us to love them. Why? Because every human being is made in the image of God. That is, I suspect, why Jesus says that whatever we do to the least of these (people) we do also to Him.
Furthermore, the more I investigate this whole case the more I am bothered by the possibility of what might be really going on here.
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/exclusive_personal_interview_Schindlers_respond_to_larry_king.html
I have had a hard time deciding my opinion on this case. Since the cost for caring for Terri is taken care of and her parents want to keep her alive, I'm inclined to err on the side of life. However, this is difficult for me to resolve.
One of the prayers said in Catholic Mass starts: "I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault,
in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do".
So, sins of omission are just as serious as sins of commission. But, at what point does refusing medical treatment become suicide versus a quality of life issue. Can someone choose to not undergo a painful treatment that will extend their life by a few months and, instead, choose to die sooner? By not choosing to live the longest possible life, is this suicide?
This is something I have thought about because my father has a living will and has instructed that no extraordinary measures are to be taken to keep him alive. My father's lungs collapsed when I was in 11th grade and he was on a ventilator, unconscious, for about two weeks and does not want to end up in that situation again. If my father were to end up in the situation Terri is in, he would want the feeding tube removed and has instructed my mother and I to ensure that this happens. At this point, I think I would instruct the doctor's to remove my father's feeding tube since, in some sense, it should never have been put in and, had my father been capable of preventing the treatment, he would have refused. Luckily, this situation has not occurred (yet) and no one in my family has been forced to make such a decision and I pray that I never have to.
OK, I realize that you don't know me. For introductions, I'm a close friend of Gelok's fiancee, Ning. From Dan's blog, I stumbled upon your site :) I am a Christian. I am also a medical student, but I certainly don't claim to have the answers. However, that having been said, I couldn't help but comment. I believe that there is another way to look at this. This is certainly an emotionally laden case, especially with family feuding and Terri's young age. But death happens. It happens to pediatric patients every day. It happens to young victims of trauma. And it has happened to Terri Schiavo.
More and more, hospital ethics boards are seeing cases like this - where families believe that the medical profession can offer magic - that more aggressive treatment might help - that a 'cure' might be found - and are unable or unwilling to accept that death has occurred to their loved one. Just because it is now possible to keep a person "alive", with no hope of recovery (and often in severe pain), does not always mean that such an existence is either ethically required or justified. I believe that the danger in this case is in 'playing God, not by refusing to accept her death - as many fundamentalists would lead us to believe, but by not accepting a fact that, on this earth all will reach an end. Witholding the truth that recovery is impossible and any treatment is futile, as difficult as it may be for both families and us (docs) to ingest, sometimes accepting fate and choosing to die with dignity is both morally and ethically justified. Do you truly believe that, in every case (as with terminal cancer), refusing painful aggressive treatment demonstrates either a lack of hope, a lack of faith, or a lack of courage - and do you believe that it is not a dangerous, foolish judgement to require this, especially against an individual's wishes, in order to fulfill a perceived need to uphold your theories? 'jamie' included this in a post, and I agree. Perhaps even carry this a bit further - God gives life, but God has also established death. I believe that it is a physician's duty to approach families with both honesty and compassion. Families need to understand and make informed decisions; they also need to be supported and attend to the grieving process, which I realize may take time, but they can only be partners in reasonable health care if provided with the facts and understanding that dying is not 'giving up'. Medicine is not a panacea - due to the mirage of treatment options, individuals must be allowed to be partners in their medical care and decision-making, or have a surrogate decision maker who will - no doctor or governmental entity can reasonably tell you what your body's response will be to a treatment regimen - realize that medicine is an inexact science of trial-and-error!; just the same, the appropriate measures or level of suffering that should be forced upon you before allowing a natural death is between you and God. Finally, medicine is a tool, it is not a weapon of magical, eternity-conveying power.
Let me first say that I am glad we have all approached this in a reasonable manner so that we can dialogue about this and hopefully find some answers rather than just trying to out-shout and out-quote the other person. So my thanks all-around.
Jamie, thanks for the personal note. My parents have made similiar requests of me, repeatedly, and I honestly don't know what to tell them. Certainly those are their wishes, and this will sound very anti-American, but are those wishes right?
ANonymous, thanks for the defining of what medicine can and cannot do. And the perspective of a Christian medical student is certainly welcome here. I think I udnerstand what you are saying, in that there are two points I took from your post: 1) where do we draw the line because certain cases at least seem hopeless and 2) that line is drawn in our personal relationship with God. And what I have to say in response will also tie in with a lot of what Ning has said.
And I'm not saying this because I'm trying to prove you, anonymous or Zach (or anyone) are wrong and that I am right. I do *think* I am right. But help me, and all of us, to try and figure this out here.
I think we all agree that killing another human is wrong. And what makes it wrong is that such ana ct of killing violates the image of God in which we are all made - it is an affront to God because it insults Him, specifically, because it removes a member of His only creation to bear His image. But the follow-up question to that is was it wrong to remove Terri's feeding tube?
God tells us, time and again in the Old Testament, to feed the hungry, uphold the cause of the poor, defend the widows and the orphans - to protect and defend those who cannot defend themselves because even these people are made in the image of God. And Jesus tells us that whatsoever we do to the least of the people (the poor, the hungry, etc.) we do also to him because we are all made in the image of God. So both the Old Testament and New Testament are very clear and in agreement here.
Now, Terri was hungry and we did not feed her. Terri was powerless and we did not defend her. Some cases may seem hopeless Anonymous, but I don't see Jesus ever telling us to only help those we have a good chance of actually healing. I don't see God ever warning us that we should "cut our losses" as it were and let people starve to death.
Regardless of her level of awareness of cognitive ability, Terri (and all humans if they are to be considered more than what they do, more than the sum of their parts (i.e. brains)) must have *essential* dignity - that is dignity that we cannot decide to either give or take away based on her medical or mental state. Terri has dignity in virtue of being Terri, no matter how sick or healthy, aware of comatose.
And Ning, no problem with the multiple deleted posts. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home