The Schiavo case has drawn international attention. I feel that there is uncertainty in the diagnosis of Terri Schiavo's case, and for that reason this case should be reviewed heavily and fairly. I think this cases has called into question the very laws which govern the ones who are in-between life and death, only to be sent either direction by our will.
"The appeals court decision upholds a similar ruling Tuesday by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore in Tampa, Fla, who said the woman's parents hadn't established a "substantial likelihood of success" that she could recover from what doctors have called the "permanent vegetative state" she's been in since 1990, the AP said."
I think the root of the problem is the laws which are in place and that have tied the courts hands. These lawyers and judges would do well to remember these laws were created by man and can be struck down by man. The laws are meant to serve society. Society is not meant to serve the laws.
Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband has also played an important role in this political play. He as been attacked, mauled, and beaten verbally by the media. Very little effort has been put into understanding his position and the reasoning behind his actions. Some have just pointed out he only remembered the conversation with Terri (the one where she said she did not want to live this way) after Terri received money from a malpractice suit. Some have tried to pin him down as greedy. That piece of the puzzle does not match the with the fact that Michael was offered a very large sum of money to hand over the guardian rights of Terri to her parents. I do not believe that Michael is doing this for money. Most of the money has been spent on her care and lawsuits, and taking the buyout would have been the right play for a man who wanted just money.
Michael as also said that he wanted to get one with his life and move on. It seemed to me that the point of no return was several years ago. Terri has been in the brain-damage state for 15 years. Michael could have taken the buyout and left the stage quietly a few months ago, before this got really big. Michael could have also handed Terri over to her parents many years ago and just left. No one would have blamed him, if he felt his wife was dead and was never coming back, and he left. I would have considered him to be much less of a man, but the "in sickness and health, death do we part" oath is really conditional to most people.
Taken into consideration these facts, I have to believe that Michael either wants Terri dead because he believes that he is fulfilling her wishes or he wants her dead because he is afraid of what she will say if she gets better. I believe that Terri is fighting for life for a reason, she had survived in her state for 15 years for a purpose. I do not believe that purpose to be some political goal or aim. I believe that it is intensely personal in nature. If Terri dies, her ghost will probably haunt Michael for the rest of his life.
cube
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't think it should be that big of a deal. I think 15 years is long enough to recover. Not keeping someone artificially alive is not the same thing as killing them.
frist off it is a big deal. I am not sure what arugment to take to convicne you of such so i will try a one.
Frist it is a big deal because it is the courts who are deciding life and death, not the person theirselves or the families involved. This repersents privacy issues and the right to choose issues.
if you do not think those issues are big deals, move to Iran.
You also are mistaken about her being kept "artifically alive". All she is reciving is a fedding tube and some fluids. She is NOT on being given artifical respiration. It has been claimed that with proper therphy terri could be taught to eat by herself.
I would agree that 15 years is long enough to recover if proper treatment has been given, but that is not clear in this case.
Secondly, we keep people who are in coma's alive long period of time, just in case they "just wake up" one day. And you want to tell me it is not a big deal staving a person to death that is alive (although with out the ablity to feed theirselves).
By the way that first comment was me. I was just to lazy to log in. Ulitmately the people involved did decide. The husband, who should have legal claims in these types of situations, had the feeding tube removed. Whatever the motives, whatever kind of person he is, I believe at this point it is his choice. Of course in our country something like this will be debated until everyone is puking through a feeding tube, but in the end the next of kin was able to make a decision for someone that was unable or unwilling to do it for themselves. I am not going to debate the possibility of recovery other than too say that anything is possible, but 15 years is a fair amount of time to demonstrate that potential. And they didn't.
Post a Comment