|
|
|
Jewish World Review March 23, 2005 / 12 Adar II, 5765 Terri Schiavo: She would have better off being one of the ‘protected species’ By Jack Kelly
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Terri Schiavo is suffering a slow, agonizing death as I write these words.
Liberals are pleased. Why?
If Terri were John Evander Couey, the pervert who raped and murdered
9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, many on the Left would protest a death sentence
because they oppose capital punishment, no matter how atrocious the crime.
And if Couey were sentenced to death, most Americans would expect the
sentence to be reviewed in federal courts before it could be carried out.
And if Florida were to execute John Evander Couey by starving him to death,
the outcry would (properly) be enormous, because that would be the kind of
"cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the constitution.
If I were in Terri's condition, I wouldn't want to live. I do not wish to
become a burden on my loved ones, or on the state. We spend a grotesque
amount of money trying to preserve for a few days, weeks or months the
existence of the terminally ill. This is chiefly why Medicare and Medicaid
are on the verge of bankruptcy. I believe with former Colorado Gov. Dick
Lamm that at some point we have not merely the right, but the duty, to die.
But I'm not Terri, and these circumstances do not apply in her case. She is
not in a coma, not on life support. This isn't a question of switching off
a ventilator and letting her gently slip away. For Terri to die, she has to
be killed.
Terri's parents and siblings would eagerly have relieved her husband and our
government of the burden of her care. And what they could not provide,
philanthropists offered to pay for. So she imposes no financial burden on
her husband, or the taxpayers.
Terri's husband, Michael, says Terri would want to die, but we have only his
word for that, and Michael didn't remember his wife wanted to die until
after a jury had awarded him $1.25 million in damages, the bulk of it for
Terri's care. She left nothing in writing. No other family member ever
heard her say any such thing.
Some harsh and unjust things have been said about Michael Schiavo. He could
well be telling the truth about Terri's desires, and there is no evidence he
has profited from his wife's misfortune. But should we assume a practicing
Catholic would go against the teaching of her church based solely on the
testimony of a party whose interests differ from hers?
There is ambiguity about Terri's condition as well as her desires. Most of
the physicians who have examined her say she's in a "persistent vegetative
state" from which she'll never emerge. But some doctors disagree, and there
have been instances where people have emerged from PVS to lead normal lives.
We don't know for sure how much damage there is to Terri's brain because a
PET scan and an MRI were never done.
Terri had been receiving, and some say responding to, physical therapy. But
as soon as he put the malpractice check in the bank, Michael ordered all
rehabilitative measures stopped. In the 12 years since, Terri may not have
gotten better simply because no effort has been made to help her get better.
This isn't a right to die case. It's a right to kill case. And it sets a
terrible precedent.
Some say we're doing Terri a favor by killing her. Maybe so. But she was in
no pain until Judge Greer ordered her starved to death.
Terri is being killed despite the fact her life imposes no financial
hardship on her husband or society.
Terri is being killed despite the fact that it isn't clear she would want to
die in these circumstances, or in this manner.
Terri is being killed despite the fact that medical opinion is divided about
whether she could recover.
Terri is being killed despite the fact that her parents and siblings are
strongly opposed to it.
If Terri Schiavo can be put to death under these ambiguous circumstances, so
can other severely handicapped persons. This isn't mercy killing. It's
killing for convenience.
"Who is safe under a government that assigns to itself the power to
determine whose life is meaningful enough to be protected?" asks George
Neumayr of the American Spectator.
People have a right to die when they feel life has become too painful for
themselves or too burdensome for their loved ones. But people also have the
right not to be killed simply because others find their existence
inconvenient. We've slid far down a slippery slope.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
© 2005, Jack Kelly |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
>
