I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS STORY AT ALL.
I haven't really been following the Terri Schiavo story, but I see the headlines and am generally aware of the basic facts. Frankly I still don't get it. I don't know what the issue is around which it is suddenly so important that I have an opinion, and it is even less obvious to me why my opinion will label me as good or evil, moral or indecent, left or right.
I'm still unclear what exactly the controversy is. Is the dispute over the dignity of life? the rule of law? checks and balances between governmental branches? Is the dispute because she is being slowly (and maybe horribly and maybe not so horribly) starved to death rather than, say, taking her off a respirator, where death would be quicker? Is it because the husband may or may not have surrendered his legal right to speak on his wife's behalf when he took up with another woman? Seriously, I don't get what this story is about.
Another thing I don't get... I know there are lots of protestors out there on Terri's side. Has anyone been out there making the argument in favor of starving her to death? What is that argument? Simply that she said she would want it that way -- and if she didn't say that, then should have? Is the argument that, by implication, anyone in her condition would want taken out?
Why is this issue generally divided along party lines?
Maybe my confusion is because I do have a living will, and in it I state that if I should become incapacitated, then my wife can decide to authorize or refuse care in whatever ways she thinks is best. And if she is dead or likewise incapacitated, then my pastor makes the call. I figure in that condition, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and probably am in no position to judge. Am I now to conclude that my thinking is somehow missing the mark? Am I supposed to rethink the hypotheticals? Why? How? And why is this more important today than it was yesterday?
Is this a real story with lasting implications, or just this month's Big Story?
Seriously, help a fella out.
5 comments:
I completely agree with the E Head. There seem to be so many issues, but I haven't taken the time to sort them out. All I know is people are getting strongarmed for trying to bring her water on her deathbed. Again, I ask, if the call is made to let her go, why not let some humanity enter the equation and help her go out pain free?
I don't think this case has any lasting significance, but I'm thankful that it got me blogging again. I think the larger appeal is that it’s convoluted and you can argue any number of points pro or con. I sure did. I hope that it made larger America wake up to the idea that judges have far too much power in general. Jefferson and Hamilton didn’t agree on much but I bet they would collectively shake their heads at the way we’ve ceded power to the least representative of the branches.
The only issue is this, Terry Shaivo was granted a $1,000,000 settlement based on a malpractice lawsuit several years ago following her lapse into a vegatative state. Michael was granted $300,000 of it as compensation for loss of his "wife's daily affections" (per court language). Then $700,000 was given to a trust set-up for Terry's care until her death at which time Michael receives the balance. Her parents wanted Michael to share the wealth with them. He refused. Bickering ensued. If Michael had given them their $150,000, their wouldn't have been a controversy. It's about the money.
If the parents were only in it for the money then why did they bother to visit her in the hospital all these years?
It's always about the money. It figures that the parents would want their baby to "live" forever so long as somebody else is footing the bill. The husband's trust fund was waning, and it became expediant to remember that Terry would not care to survive this way any longer than 15 years. They should have said goodbye to the poor vegetable years ago, divvied up the cash and bought houses in separate states.
Post a Comment