Thursday, February 24, 2005
Is Removing Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube Murder?
Right up front: I am not going to answer that question in this post, I am just going to raise some questions about it. I think it is a question we need to ask.
One definition of murder is: To kill brutally or inhumanly. Keep that in mind as we go through this.
If food and water were withheld from some other helpless individual would it be murder?
If it was a baby, you betcha. Not a good analogy you think -- a baby is equally helpless, cannot feed itself, and is little more than responsive to stimuli, what;s the difference other than chronological age and how the individual came to be in that condition? Besides, there is the contention that with therapy, Terri could eat without assistance. We don't know.
Starving or dehydrating a living thing to death is cruel.
This is inescapable. If I had a pet that could no longer take food and I did not wish to go to the time, energy, and expense to put in a feeding tube, I would at least put the pet down. The last time I did put a pet down, I had the common decency to hold her until she passed. Furthermore, I think because one human being is inflicting this starvation on another, this is more than simply cruel, it is inhumane.
Isn't this really be a form of 'assisted suicide?'
I don't see how. Set aside for a moment the question of whether 'assisted suicide' is acceptable or not and grant that it is. Assisted suicide requires the positive, active consent of the person dying. Take Kervorkian, for example. He set up his apparatus, but it was still the individual that pushed the button.
Terri is not in a position where she can participate in her own death in anyway but suffer. Any statement by her husband concerning her purported desires is suspect because of the possibility that his motives are mixed. We can never answer the question about his motives, but we can acknowledge the possibility exists, and that qualifies as "reasonable doubt."
Absent some confirmable desire on Terri's part, I don't see any way this can be construed as suicide.
If not murder, what?
Euthanasia. That's the only term I can think of. Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 defines euthanasia as
One definition of murder is: To kill brutally or inhumanly. Keep that in mind as we go through this.
If food and water were withheld from some other helpless individual would it be murder?
If it was a baby, you betcha. Not a good analogy you think -- a baby is equally helpless, cannot feed itself, and is little more than responsive to stimuli, what;s the difference other than chronological age and how the individual came to be in that condition? Besides, there is the contention that with therapy, Terri could eat without assistance. We don't know.
Starving or dehydrating a living thing to death is cruel.
This is inescapable. If I had a pet that could no longer take food and I did not wish to go to the time, energy, and expense to put in a feeding tube, I would at least put the pet down. The last time I did put a pet down, I had the common decency to hold her until she passed. Furthermore, I think because one human being is inflicting this starvation on another, this is more than simply cruel, it is inhumane.
Isn't this really be a form of 'assisted suicide?'
I don't see how. Set aside for a moment the question of whether 'assisted suicide' is acceptable or not and grant that it is. Assisted suicide requires the positive, active consent of the person dying. Take Kervorkian, for example. He set up his apparatus, but it was still the individual that pushed the button.
Terri is not in a position where she can participate in her own death in anyway but suffer. Any statement by her husband concerning her purported desires is suspect because of the possibility that his motives are mixed. We can never answer the question about his motives, but we can acknowledge the possibility exists, and that qualifies as "reasonable doubt."
Absent some confirmable desire on Terri's part, I don't see any way this can be construed as suicide.
If not murder, what?
Euthanasia. That's the only term I can think of. Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 defines euthanasia as
the act of killing someone painlessly (especially someone suffering from an incurable illness) [syn: mercy killing]Two points:
- Starving someone to death cannot be construed in any way to be painless.
- Euthanasia is acceptable with animals, but as far as I know, to this point in human history, its been frowned upon for people, particularly within medical institutions.
I am not prepared to say that this is murder, but I sure do not know what else we can call it.
