You all have no doubt heard of the heartbreaking case of Terri Schiavo.
13 years ago Terri had a heart attack that kept her brain without oxygen long enough that once they were able to resucitate her, she was permanently brain-damaged.
Since that horrific day, her husband Michael has been taking care of her while coming to grips with the reality of losing a loved one. For the first few years, he fought to have her kept on life-support, and to try rehabilitation, but has since asked to have her feeding tube removed, and to let her die. He contends that his wife's wish was to not be on life-support, that they had a discussion about it one night after watching a movie, but neither thought it important enough to create a living will. Her parents say otherwise, and want her kept alive.
Unable to resolve this monumental difference between themselves, they went to the courts. The media picked up the story from there and this has quickly blown into a full-fledged circus. People around the world are now in such an uproar about this that the Florida legislature passed a bill giving the governor, Jeb Bush, the ability to order her feeding tube restored, which it was, which brings us back to debating the ethics of the dilema before anything is done, instead of after the fact.
My heart aches for all of the families involved in this case.
My heart aches because I know what it feels like to have a family member on life-support. I know what it feels like to debate turning off the machines and having to let go. My father died when I was 16 years old. He had pancreatic cancer, and had to be fed through a tube. The last 6 months of his life, he was delusional, and then finally comatose, and unable to respond. There was no way to know if he knew we were there, or the days were passing, or if he knew about anything around him. Eventually, his doctors and my mom agreed that it was best just to stop fighting the cancer and let him die. We didn't remove his feeding tube, but we stopped treatment, removed him from the repirator, and prepared for the certainity that he would die soon.
He did die, and only then was I able to move on. I didn't feel like I could move on, that I didn't have any closure until he had died. It wasn't that I wanted my father to die, but I knew it was eventual, my heart broke every time I sat in the nursing home. This man who had been a colossus in my life, seemed permanently taller than me, no matter how tall I'd gotten, and seemed tougher than anyone else I knew was laid low in an instant by something we couldn't even see.
| I held his hand and whispered "It's okay pubba, you can let go. Please let go. You don't need to hang on for us. It's okay." I just kept repeating that, holding his hand. I wasn't really ready for him to die, and I certainly wasn't okay with him not being in my life anymore, but I needed closure. |
The case of Terri Schiavo is different in particulars, though the emotions are almost certainly the same. Terri apparently still has some brain function, though no one can agree on how much, or to what extent. Her husband is seeking closure, and her family portrays him as a heartless monster. Her family wants to care for her, and her husband and her doctors think they're holding on to false hopes.
And everyone in the country has an opinion. Many, like me, are uncomfortable with the idea of taking her off the feeding tube. The notion of Terri starving to death is very unsettling.
But here's the difficult part of this whole debate. We have a good idea what's going on in the hearts of her parents. They mourn the loss of their child and want to hold on to her, hold on to the hope that maybe, beyond all doubts, she'll be revived to some level of functionality, something they can relate to, to some person that resembles the daughter they used to know.
But what about the husband? Sure he's dating someone now (as people are quick to point out), and people keep bringing up the money in the fund left over to care for her. Instead of looking at Michael Schiavo as a human, they're creating a monster, in the press, and in their own hearts. They don't recognize that it's easy to find a conspiracy anywhere you want if you look hard enough. How do we summarily dismiss the feelings of the husband? Maybe he doesn't feel he can reasonably move on if Terri's still alive. He loved this woman. They got married. They planned to have a family together, and a part of him probably still loves her. But that all came screaching to a halt, and now he's exhausted, beat up, and seeking closure. Maybe that won't come for him until she's passed on, and that may not happen naturally for another 30 or 40 years. Are we going to make him a prisoner to the hopes of his in-laws, forever to spend his days mourning for a wife he lost through no fault of his own, but hasn't passed yet?
| And trutfully, this matter will not be resolved by the doctors or the lawyers, the courts, or the governor, or even the Supreme Court and the President. |
My own personal take is this: I'm not comfortable with Terri starving to death, and if the families can agree to let her die, then I would ask they use Dr. Kevorkian's methods, and gently put her to sleep. Barring that, and if her family will not, or can not give up hope for Terri, they need to help find a way to let Michael Schiavo move on, and either way, I believe that they should personally apologize for villifying him in the press.
Comments (3)
Someone posted something here masquerading as a comment that was little more than spam that linked to a prayer site for Terri Schiavo/Schindler.
I respect and encourage net activism, but I will not abide someone trying to spray grafitti on my website to further their own goals, especially when I don't agree with them.
More later.
Posted by Maurice | November 24, 2003 8:48 PM
Posted on November 24, 2003 20:48
At this time Terri Schiavo is alive. For the entire time that her husband has decided to litigate her fate he has consistently denied her access to treatment and therapy. Terri Schiavo has been placed in a hospice for three years without ever having been terminally ill. According to a philly.com article, her hospice bills are in arears or paid by medicaid.
It is a shallow compassion that can only see a kindness during death. What about the here and now? The present? That last six years of denial of even the most basic treatment and therapy that is considered normal for all severely disabled individuals?
Does Terri Schiavo deserve even a modicum of compassion let alone in life? Should she be denied access to treatment and therapy during life because she can't speak and she's going to die anyway?
Your schpiel is narrow in dimension.
Sincerely,
Allyson
Posted by Allyson | January 14, 2004 6:24 PM
Posted on January 14, 2004 18:24
Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.
Posted by Meschel Judy | January 27, 2004 2:05 AM
Posted on January 27, 2004 02:05