Not long ago, I read of the ruling on Terri Schiavo and when it wasn't her decision, she has no living will, it is legalized murder because it's on the say-so of another human being.
And this seems to run through the whole of life in disability issues. If one cannot be cured, you cannot be used as a success statistic by the doctors, so you are nowhere near top of their priorities, and probably nearer the bottom. If you cannot work, through the disability, (and therefore contribute to society in that way) and have no dependents, you are disposable. There have been cases here in England of even life-saving heart surgery not being given as spending the money, (in a socialized medicine system) could not be justified when people who can be fixed up as good as new, go back to work, and have people who need them and depend on them, can have the money better spent.
It all comes down to figures in the end. Whether it be statistics in success rates, or financially. The elderly who are infirm will often be given preferential treatment over the long-term disabled because they have been contributing up until they retired and often have families.
As a severely disabled person, I've also considered recently the value of making perhaps a living will or Advanced directive which is basically the same thing. And that can seem a huge temptation for someone in my shoes. Yet, it also speaks of defeatism, and assuming an eventual outcome of this disease. Yet it's just as likely for madness to take hold permanently somehwere down the line, and that to me, is far more of a dread than being helpless in the ways these living wills cover.
I just think the value of human life is grossly under-rated in whatever its form. Ask how many parents who have Downs Syndrome children, or an autistic child, if they regret having the child. The answer will invariably be no. Samuel, My Joy Yet, those with downs, autism, or a multitude of other disabilities, are some of the offcasts of society too.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - SFC Ski
A very good commentary which offers a lot to think about.
2 - Cpt. Willard
eugenics: an unfortunate American bs theory on creating a superior race, later used as a model for Nazi scientists on their way to 'cleansing' Germany and Europe.
3 - Vidar Hokstad
As someone who have seen both my grandmothers whither away to Alzheimers I have another perspective. One of them died several years ago, the other one is now close to being in a persistent vegetative state.
I can not see letting people that are truly in a persistent vegetative state as murder - for all practical purposes they are already dead. Their brain may still exhibit electrical activity, but it is either so damaged or literally wasted away (in the case of Alzheimers) that there is no basis to say that the person that used to inhabit that body still exists.
Perhaps it is easier to accept with Alzheimers because you often get years to get used to the idea and see the gradual deterioration.
This will always be a tough decision when there isn't a clear, well documented wish from the patient, but once in a vegetative state I don't think it matters either way - by then you're gone.
In a way I think that is the only reason for NOT letting Schiavo die - if she's truly vegetative, then it doesn't hurt anyone (including her) to keep her alive. Not for her sake - she's already dead in all but name - but for her parents.
And that is the key for the other situations you mention as well: I see no need to protect life for life itself when there is no evidence of a conscious, self aware identity - in a situation like that what matters is the wishes of those closets.
As a result I support abortions, and I support euthanasia whenever a person either have clearly indicated their wishes themselves, or if they are in a state where they are clearly not yet or no longer self aware and those closest do not wish to hang on.
I personally find the attempt to justify the concept of "right to life" as some sort of universal morality highly offensive, as it is nothing more than an attempt of pretending that it has validity beyond your own moral code for no other reason than that you believe so.
For my part, my thoughts on this are based on what I would accept and want for myself: If I'd been aborted before I was self aware it would've done me no harm. If I'm killed at a stage when I'm no longer self aware it will do me no harm. If I ever whither away with a ny form of dementia, I'd hope I get killed significantly earlier.
I find it offensive to be told that this is somehow wrong, or that it is somehow wrong for someone else to want this for a person they're close to.
And I find it even more offensive to see the underhanded tactic of trying to tie this debate to a book about historys most extensive systematic murders of people who WERE self aware, intelligent beings fully capable of expressing whether or not they wanted to die.
At best I can ascribe this to a stunning display of insensitivity and lack of judgement. At worst it is a vicious attempt to cast judgement on people for violating a personal moral code that is in no way universal or even widely accepted by comparing any opponent with one of the most evil regimes mankind have known.
I will never be able to hold any respect for people who sink that low.
Vidar Hokstad
4 - Steve S
Not long ago, I read of the ruling on Terri Schiavo and when it wasn't her decision, she has no living will,
Just because she has no living will does not mean it's not her decision.
it's on the say-so of another human being.
Yeah, the spouse. The relationship should be sacrosanct. Should I become unable to state my wishes there is no better person to speak for me than the one committed to me. It should not be any other way.
5 - Denise Jones
I have an illness that is killing me. I live on morphine which only just keeps my pain levels from stopping me screaming. I could live another 20 years like this. As the illness progresses I could be insane or suffer severe dementia and be in an apparent vegetative state. (its pretty much inevitable) I am looking down the barrel of this particular gun, do I think another has a right to say what happens to me when that stage of life comes to me? No! Insensitive? No. Spoken by someone whose already warming up the shoes for this particular race.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, I think her husbands motives more than questionable.
6 - Denise Jones
A spouse now with another woman, who has two children by this other woman. He's not exactly without motive for saying his wife said she wanted this even if sheh didn't is he?
.Cover up
7 - Denise jones
if the relationship WAS as sacrosanct as its supposed to be, he would not have two children by another woman while still married to his wife.
8 - Steve S
do I think another has a right to say what happens to me when that stage of life comes to me? No! Insensitive? No.
I don't think that's insensitive. I think that is your right. However when someone is at the stage of Terri Schiavo, we can't just leave her on the curb, SOMEONE has to make decisions. I hope and pray you are never in that situation. Should you be one day, someone WILL be given the ability to make that decision about you, UNLESS you have a written will. If you aren't married, it will fall to a parent, then to a child or sibling, I'm not sure which is next.
If YOU don't want that decision made for you, that is your right. I don't think you need to set that policy for all of us, I think the majority of Americans do want a spouse to be able to look after their best interests when they are no longer capable of doing so.
if the relationship WAS as sacrosanct as its supposed to be, he would not have two children by another woman while still married to his wife.
Denise, his relationship with her has stood up against 20+ judges, many of them conservative and probably pro-life but able to rule judicially rather than ideologically. It is not for you or I to play God and moralize on THEIR relationship. It is not for you or I to decide which relationships, which spouses have 'earned' the right to speak for their spouse in these types of situations. It is not for us to impose our moralistic views upon other relationships this way, we should not play God and judge the worthiness of what others have between them, get it?
9 - Denise jones
My reason for mentioning morphine and pain, is this case is the tip of the iceberg. How many terminal cancer patients who are in great pain want to end there life after living with it for about six months. We can all relate to that i think, with great compassion, as most people have lost a loved one to cancer. Yet the degree of pain with cancer is not limited to cancer patients and for many its a much longer journey. This case in many ways is just the tip of the ice berg, and one that could significantly change values on how we percieve peoples value based on their quality of life. If this ruling somehow gets a last minute over turning, then Terri Schiavo will have done far more for the sanctity of life even from her vegetative state, than many of us do when fully able.
10 - Denise Jones
Steve, its not a case of "playing God" its a case of standing up for what's right. Murder, and that's what it is, can never be right. Ending a human life, that's playing God.
11 - Denise jones
This is always a very emotive issue (the whole subject) for most people whichever side of the fence they fall on.
And tho I am strong in my convictions, over this, I empathise with anyone watching a loved one suffer, and certainly dont mean to be insensitive on that issue. I spoke of my own situation as there's nothing that gets my goat more than airy fairy idealistic opinions often based in ignorance and not something we will ever have to face. Many people tho if faced with such a certainty and at one time felt they would not want to live that way, often change there minds over time, and may not believe that for the duration.
But i know this is always an emotive subject, and its always something everyone feels strongly about. And I'm not insensitive even tho convicted by what I believe about this decision, about the torture invovlved for those closest when watching a loved one suffer or too far gone to know what day of the week it is.
So, I am not minimizing that, even while thinking this decision is totally wrong.
Evening all.
12 - Eric Olsen
very powerful Denise and very sorry you have the insight of your difficult perspective. Thanks and welcome!
13 - Denise jones
Thank you for the welcome, Eric.
14 - Steve S
Without medical care (man's intervention), Terri would have died years ago. Perhaps God is calling her home and man is interfering with that.
15 - gonzo marx
might i say welcome, Denise and thank you for putting such a Thoughtful piece out there for us to read and contemplate..
i can Respect your Position concerning this matter, however i must disagree on a few points..
Denise sez..
*she has no living will, it is legalized murder because it's on the say-so of another human being.*
according to Florida Law and based on the testimony of her Husband and 2 other Witnesses...is WAS her Will...this has satisfied the Court and has ruled according to the Law...hence your accurate use of the word "legalized" but i contend and inaccurate use of the emotionally charged word "murder"
as for the rest of your originally Posted Article, i have NO argument with the sentiment, nor the factual basis of yoru assessment...these are very sticky Issues
my only other point of contention stems from this...
Denise sez..
*In the case of Terri Schiavo, I think her husbands motives more than questionable.*
tho it is a matter of public Record that he has a significant other, with whom he resides and has children now...i would put to you that eh waited more than a Respectable interval before any other Relationship began...he still remains married to Terri, when it woudl have been much easier to walk away years ago..
i have, of course, read my disparaging comment as to him haveing some vague and sinister financial Motive...but as i have said elsewhere...it is also a matter of Public Record that he was offered 1 million dollars and legal expenses to divorce her and walk away....no harm...no foul
he chose NOT to do so...
to me this does NOT seem consistent with any kind of financial motive..and instead tends to bolster the Argument upheld by the Court that he is tending to his wife's Wishes as best as he is able...
there appears to be no "winner" in this, for either side of the Families involved
but there are some Lessons we should all take form the Ordeal...
one...cover your ass...have your Wishes written out in a legally binding "Living Will"
and place not your Trust in those that twist in a political wind...one Moment they sign a Bill into Law that places the Choice in the hands of the doctors and the "ability to pay"...not too long a time passes and they sign a Bill into Law that makes and exception...in just one case...to insert the Federal Government into the Realm of a State's Law and Court decisions...
my sympathies and best Wishes for your own Situation...
Excelsior!
16 - RJ
Vidar Hokstad:
The NAZIs killed more than Jews and Gypsies and homosexuals. They also killed cripples and retards and the like.
The author, I think, I simply bringing up the slippery-slope argument. Not comparing the impending death of Terri (and others like her) to the concentration camps...
17 - RJ
"Yeah, the spouse. The relationship should be sacrosanct. Should I become unable to state my wishes there is no better person to speak for me than the one committed to me. It should not be any other way."
When the person with the legal authority to end a life is a spouse, certain conflicts-of-interest arise. Of course, this is also the case with blood relatives, but less so.
18 - RJ
"Denise, his relationship with her has stood up against 20+ judges"
That's disingenuous.
The judge with original jurisdiction over the case if Judge Greer. He made the original decision. All the other courts/judges have been on the Appellate level.
In other words, they have not re-tried the case 20+ times. The other courts/judges have simply affirmed that the original decision did not violate any rights, not that they neccesarily agree with the outcome.
19 - gonzo marx
RJ sez...
*When the person with the legal authority to end a life is a spouse, certain conflicts-of-interest arise. Of course, this is also the case with blood relatives, but less so.*
take me down the slippery slow RJ...what conflicts of interest..and how are some relatives less so than others..
you offer a Statement as a Postulate..but i don't follow the Logic here and you offer no Facts to substantiate...
as has been pointed out previously..but largely forgotten by those that Wish to impugn the husband as a "bad guy"...he was offered 1 million plus legal and divorce fees to step away
he chose not to
so where's the "conflict" here?
the other relatives also do not appear to have any ulterior motive
but all this is moot..it is NONE of our fewking business...and the Rule of Law is there to decide these things impartially
and the basis of the Decision is that it was her Will to not go on like this and was found in accordance with Florida Law..
or is it your Contention that the Federal Government should violate State's Rights and interfere in a medical case and a Family dispute?
Excelsior!
20 - Steve S
How is it disingenuous? Nobody at any level found anything.
When the person with the legal authority to end a life is a spouse, certain conflicts-of-interest arise. Of course, this is also the case with blood relatives, but less so.
So what you are saying, RJ, is that you believe the relationship between a man and a woman is of utmost importance except where financial gain might be involved?
I don't know about you, but I trust my spouse. I have absolute faith that if I were laying comatose and he could have the choice of 20 million dollars or me, I know he'd choose me. And vice versa. It's called faith and love and is the cornerstone of working relationships.
Also, even if he did decide based on monetary gain, I GAVE THE DECISION TO HIM. It goes to the spouse. If you believe your spouse will kill you for money, what are you doing in the relationship?
21 - RJ
"I don't know about you, but I trust my spouse. I have absolute faith that if I were laying comatose and he could have the choice of 20 million dollars or me, I know he'd choose me. And vice versa. It's called faith and love and is the cornerstone of working relationships."
Are you familiar with the 50% divorce rate, Steve?
Are you familiar with the high rates of infidelity in relationships, Steve?
Are you familiar with the data on spousal abuse, Steve?
Just because YOU have a super-duper relationship, doesn't mean everyone does.
And that's just a few reasons why marital relationships have more conflicts-of-interest than blood relationships in such cases as these.
22 - Steve S
So RJ, let's say a man and a woman have been married for 20 years and the man goes into an irrecoverable coma. You are recommending that the spouse does not get to make decisions there?
23 - Steve S
You have done a complete 180 on the value of relationships as compared to when I first arrived here.
24 - gonzo marx
RJ sez..
*And that's just a few reasons why marital relationships have more conflicts-of-interest than blood relationships in such cases as these.*
and are YOU familiar with the rate of physical abuse perpetrated by parents?
how about sexual abuse by parents and other members of the immediate Family?
that Argument cuts both ways just as visciously
not all Families are Ozzie and Harriet
thank you fer Playing..please try again
Excelsior!
25 - Denise Jones
Thank you, gonzo for your welcoming comments