-273: 22 October 2003

« 21 October 2003 - 11:02 am | Main | 22 October 2003 - 11:59 pm »

22 October 2003 - 12:02 am

I don't usually go for the controversial here, but tonight I think I will. As some of you may know, there is a lady, Terri Schiavo, in Florida who has been in a vegetative state since 1990. She's not on a respirator, but is unable to feed herself, and has a feeding tube. Last week, Mrs. Schiavo's husband finally won a protracted legal battle with his in-laws and has given judicial approval to remove the feeding tube and let his wife die. Starving to death would be a terrible way to die. It's slow and agonizing and there are few cases where I would want someone to die that way. But I feel it was appropriate in this case. Mrs. Schiavo's parents claim she could smile and grunt, but doctors say this is a normal, involuntary response. I wonder if it is really relevant? If I were in a vegetative state and was capable of only the most base actions for more than ten years, I would certainly prefer death to life. But now the Florida legislature has decided that they are better arbiters of the dispute between Mr. Schiavo and his in-laws. They studied the issue for less than a week and then threw out years of court decisions. Yesterday the legislature enacted a narrowly-worded statute that lets Gov. Jeb Bush restore Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube. And Gov. Bush has done just that. The legal scholars seem to think this law will be ruled unconstitutional. I certainly hope so. Why continue to put this family through all this grief?

Here is the NY Times article on this case.

Posted by on 22 October 2003 at 12:03 AM

Comments

I agree that this is an amazing situation that got way out of hand. There are "living wills" you can fill out that spell out the situations under which you don't want life-sustaining measures to be taken.

Posted by rkc on 22 October 2003 - 4:03 AM

I'm no expert on the subject, but isn't there a more humane way to let her die? Are lethal injections only legal to use for criminals?

Also, I think it's great that the conservative talk-show DJs are going on about this. It's actually a really good topic to argue about. I would really buy into the whole right to life argument--in abortion, situations like this, etc.--if many of the same people who are fighting for Schiavo to live didn't feel that killing a thinking, non-vegetative person was totally fine.* Shouldn't life be considered valuable, no matter whose it is?**

Ah, inconsistency. It will be the downfall of us all.

*See: War in Iraq and/or death penalty cases.
**What I think the right to lifers should think, not what I actually do.

Posted by Rachel on 22 October 2003 - 5:55 PM

I was discussing that very topic (how do you let her die when she's unplugged) last night and my wife was shocked when I suggested lethal injection as a humane way for her to go. I thought the alternative of starving to death was more gruesome. I guess they would let her starve but put her on pain medication so she wouldn't feel it.

Posted by rkc on 23 October 2003 - 6:44 AM

In between pledge drive pleas for money on NPR this morning they interviewed a doctor on this issue. Apparently, people in a vegetative state like Mrs. Schiavo's don't actually feel any pain, so medication isn't really necessary. However, if I were her family member, I'd ask the doctors to dope her up anyway.

Also, like you guys, I'd prefer to give some kind of lethal injection. But Florida doesn't have a euthanasia law, and there is apparently a legal (and ethical?) difference between withholding medical services and taking proactive measures to end someone's life. But starving or dehydrating to death would be particularly unpleasant. Unlike taking someone off a respirator, when they'll die in a matter of minutes, when you remove a feeding tube it will take about three days to die. If you keep hydrating but withhold food, it will take about three weeks to do. That's a lot of time to second-guess yourself.

Posted by david on 23 October 2003 - 9:11 AM

Dahlia Lithwick has an interesting take on the legal aspects of this case on slate. Check it out: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090249/

Posted by david on 23 October 2003 - 5:57 PM

Recent Posts	About the Author	Navigation
For Chad Faceridge Everyone Gets an 'A' You Should See the Other Guy HRC Thinks I'm Second-Class Natural Doesn't Mean Good I-64 Update 2005 Chateau Beychevelle The Jefferson Bottles	David is an occasional blogger, software engineer, Nintendo fanboy, liberal, news magazine addict, voracious TiVo user, and bibliophile. He was born in St. Louis, grew up in southern Indiana, and returned to St. Louis to attend Washington University. He hasn't managed to escape yet. He's a fan of free wine tastings, too many tv shows to name, and eating out. David makes his living developing web applications used internally by his employer. He doesn't blog about work because he's heard too many stories about that causing workplace troubles. There's more on the about page.	archives features links photos contact
Recent Comments
Dahlia Lithwick has an interesting take on the legal aspects of this case on slate. Check it out: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090249/ In between pledge drive pleas for money on NPR this morning they interviewed a doctor on this issue. Apparently, people in a vegetative state like Mrs. Schiavo's don't actually feel any pain, so medication isn't really necessary. However, if I were her family member, I'd ask the doctors to dope her up anyway. Also, like you guys, I'd prefer to give some kind of lethal injection. But Florida doesn't have a euthanasia law, and there is apparently a legal (and ethical?) difference between withholding medical services and taking proactive measures to end someone's life. But starving or dehydrating to death would be particularly unpleasant. Unlike taking someone off a respirator, when they'll die in a matter of minutes, when you remove a feeding tube it will take about three days to die. If you keep hydrating but withhold food, it will take about three weeks to do. That's a lot of time to second-guess yourself. I was discussing that very topic (how do you let her die when she's unplugged) last night and my wife was shocked when I suggested lethal injection as a humane way for her to go. I thought the alternative of starving to death was more gruesome. I guess they would let her starve but put her on pain medication so she wouldn't feel it. I'm no expert on the subject, but isn't there a more humane way to let her die? Are lethal injections only legal to use for criminals? Also, I think it's great that the conservative talk-show DJs are going on about this. It's actually a really good topic to argue about. I would really buy into the whole right to life argument--in abortion, situations like this, etc.--if many of the same people who are fighting for Schiavo to live didn't feel that killing a thinking, non-vegetative person was totally fine.* Shouldn't life be considered valuable, no matter whose it is?** Ah, inconsistency. It will be the downfall of us all. See: War in Iraq and/or death penalty cases. *What I think the right to lifers should think, not what I actually do. I agree that this is an amazing situation that got way out of hand. There are "living wills" you can fill out that spell out the situations under which you don't want life-sustaining measures to be taken.
Recent Photos