Sure, I'll tell you what I think. I think the husband is wrong. Here's why, as far as I understand this very expansive situation: 1) She's not actively dying of a disease process. Her status (before they decide to let her starve or dehydrate) was stable, as I understand it. She is not filled with cancer or battling an infectious process. She was hydrated and nourished, and comfortable. She's in a vegetative state with basic brain function. She is not brain-dead. There's a difference. 2) She left nothing in writing to verify her wishes. Could this be her wish? Perhaps. But there's no concrete evidence. THAT'S WHY WRITTEN/NOTARIZED WISHES ARE SO CRUTIAL! The "quality" of her life is being determined by a man who did not have the decency to divorce her before shacking with another woman. The conflict of interest seems to make the whole dignity/ quality of life thing rather arbitrary. 3) She's not on extenuating "life support", meaning a ventilator or drips that sustain cardiovascular function, ie. Dopamine, Vasopressin. She has a digestive system that can accommodate food in a liquid form and is working normally, except that she would choke if she tried to eat herself. Many people have feeding tubes, many walk among us. It can't even be argued that she's on IV feeding. It's food. (I drink the same stuff twice a day during my pregnancy.)
If it was my sister, or mother, I wouldn't do this. I cannot pretend to know what the husband is motivated by. It's very complex and messy, I'm sure. Does he legally have the right? Yes, as I understand it, he does. (I think the hospital ethics board should have bought a set of balls somewhere and taken over power of attorney before this. The farther away a case gets from the origin makes it less likely that the unique nuances of the case will be considered.) However, decisions like this are not, and have not been, made in a vacuum in history. What I fear is that this decision will set precedent for dealing with retarded/disabled/discarded people everywhere. The case is not unique, people really do do these types of things all over the country (decide for themselves or others that life as they have it is too uncomfortable to exist). Life is becoming a cheap commodity, especially for those who cannot speak for themselves. We give value to a life when it can be productive. Productivity equals meaning.
It's a slippery slope. It started with abortion, picked up steam with Kevorkian, moved quicker as states began to grapple with "right to die" issues at a legislative level, and now this. My 15.99 year old babysitter is here visiting from Buffalo for her spring break. We were discussing the case, and her point, which I hadn't thought of before, was this: Why doesn't he turn over power of attorney to her parents? They obviously love her and would care for her. The same people who howl that this is probably what she wants don't acknowledge that the flip side of that is she may very much want to live. There's no evidence to support either argument, in my opinion. So why don't we default to choosing life? Because the definition of "life" has been reinterpreted and narrowed over the years.
There are ripple effects that occur when we make decisions. We're not the only ones effected. Our family, our town/state, our country and civilization are all impacted by the types of choices we make. The very reason that we're even hearing about this case is because many people made choices that enabled the husband to entertain and defend this choice. A number of years ago I read a book called The Right To Die by Joni Erickson Tada, a quadraplegic. It wasn't a complicated book, that's good for me. One of the things she talked about was the ripple effect.
I came away understanding that I have a responsibility to not only myself and my loved ones, but to my culture, to value life. Working in health care I've seen many situations like that of TS. I can say that many families choose life and abide alongside the patient, and it has become a part on my legacy too. To witness the persistent love that these families display gives me courage. I know this is a very simplistic point of view. I'm not well-spoken at this level, but in my gut I know what I would do and why. This morning I reminded Matt that we need to get our lawyer to draw up our will and Power of attorney forms, and I said point-blank, "If I was ever in a situation like Terri, please let me live."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
And can I say - once again - AMEN
Heidi,
Thanks for your blog. It was insightful and (along with Cobb's) made me consider Terri's life (and situation) from other vantage points I had not considered before.
I have noticed that the discussions I get in also seem to be divided in another way. While I agree the husband is a scoundrel, I am not sure why most men I speak with seem to bo OK with taking Terri off her feeding tube (siting humane rationale) and most women I speak with seem to be dead against it (for the same reason). I have not unpacked this further with many of them, but wondered if you found this true?
I read your last line..."This morning I reminded Matt that we need to get our lawyer to draw up our will and Power of attorney forms, and I said point-blank, If I was ever in a situation like Terri, please let me live."
I would answer the opposite and have asked Melanie to remove me from life support or similar life-sustaining help.
JMak
Post a Comment