Yahoo! News - U.S. Judge Refuses More Feeding in Schiavo Case
just in case no one believes my living will, that I would not want to be kept in a persistent vegetative state. (I can just imagine it...blog used in legal case). But even more so, I would not want to become a 'cause' in which various groups, the Congress, and even the President of the United States become embroiled in what is essentially a family conflict.
I understand that Terri Schiavo's parents and siblings may not agree with her husband. It is understandable that they would think he would rather let his wife die than be saddled with medical bills, unable to move on with his life, etc. There have been accusations that he's just after her insurance. I can see where all these issues should be considered.
But also to be considered is that court after court has sided with the husband in this case, that life support should be removed and that this hell should be ended. There are other people besides the husband who have asserted that she had voiced a desire not to be left in this condition.
It's a sad state when any of these situations come up. But the law is based on reason, not passion, and by appealing to the legal system there seems to be one answer coming up here. Maybe it's time that all these other parties butt out and let the family grieve for its loss. Instead, I suspect this may go all the way to the Supreme Court, which may or may not hear the case. I don't believe in legislating to get around any one case, such as what the Congress did. There are other Terri Schiavos out there, daughters, wives, husbands, sons trapped between life and death, and this sort of thing makes a mockery out of a terrible situation, with perhaps long-ranging consequences.
When I made my living will, after my grandfather was revived because his was not on file at that hospital, I specifically made someone other than a family member my primary medical surrogate, because I knew that this person could separate reason from emotion. My mother is the seconday one, however, and I have discussed all this with her, so hopefully I would avoid the Schiavo situation. I also included my wish to be an organ donor, and my wish to be cremated, because I wanted a record of those wishes. I carry this document with me in my purse, and copies are at my home and with both the primary and secondary medical surrogates. One thing I decided to include was that in the unlikely event I was pregnant, I did want to be supported long enough to allow the pregnancy to come to term. What I discovered in my research is that although this is what I would choose, I really didn't have any choice in the matter, because my state requires this. This bothers me, because I see this as a decision to be made by a person, the family, and the person's doctors--not the state. There are some situations, I am sure, where recovery might be possible but be impeded by pregnancy, for example. Perhaps there will be concerns over the health of a child whos mother has undergone trauma and vegetative existence. Perhaps a surviving spouse cannot handle the prospect of raising a child without the mother. Or perhaps the pregnancy is so early that the spouse did not know and is not prepared for watching a baby form for nine months inside what is essentially the lifelesss husk of the woman. It's a disturbing thought. I don't like having legal directives taking away the choice over what happens in my womb, even though in this case I would choose the same thing. But I recognise that others might choose differently, and they should have that choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment