What I think about the Schiavo case

Here’s one of the better articles regarding the Terri Schiavo case. The article simply presents objective facts leaving the floor open to debate.

At the risk of being judged as an evil person – I would have to take the side of Mr. Schiavo. But hear me out before you judge me.

If I, for one, should be in a state wherein absolutely no possible chance of recovery can be found through empirical means; I would like to say that I’m fine with killing me off – I don’t want to be baggage for my loved ones. Sure, I’d like to recover and live if possible, but if the time/money/emotional stress it takes for me to recover is beyond reasonable, then I would hold no I’ll will against anyone wanting to pull th plug – regardless how I think (if I’m still thinking that is). Even if it was my wife herself who requested it, I wouldn’t blame her. I’d imagine I would love my wife, and would rather see her happy going on with her life, wether it be independently, or in another man’s arms, than wasting it taking care of a helpless vegetable who cannot give her anything but misery and emotional stress.

Besides, I want to live my life, not merely “live.” If there is a Heaven, then I’d imagine wanting to get there ASAP than just sit here idly, oblivious to the world, for 15 or more years.

But that’s just me.

Personally, I think that all individuals, upon reaching legal age (or not) to simply state their views regarding sensitive issues such as these. Not so much to start debates, but simply to apply the law to them accordingly should they meet such unfortunate fates. Have them sign legal documents if need be. I guess it would be like signing a card agreeing to give away your organs should you die. Maybe you’d want to clarify if you want to be buried or cremated should you die. That sort of stuff.

Starving her to death however, is too brutal for my taste (more on this later).

The circus surrounding this issue basically boils down to two things: practicality, and life.

Of course even I would champion the right to life/live… whenever possible, but sometimes you just have to look at the bigger picture and the choice isn’t quite as clear-cut as one would hope it would be.

One of the main complains I have with pro-life lobbyists is that they simply (and sometimes blindly) cry out pro-life as black and white. Most of the arguments root from Religion obviously, and they dare insinuate that you as a person will diminish just because you chose death over life. I guess these people would rather see a person tortured and then killed, rather than being killed immediately – on the grounds that during the torture, some SWAT team may miraculously come and save the day – which may or may not happen.

And quite honestly, Religion is there to make you a better person. I believe that either choice here is valid, wether it be death or life, just depends on the people involved and how it would affect them, not us. This whole issue and its connection with morality and Religion doesn’t have anything to do with making the people involved better or worse – because the family, husband, doctors, and state are trying to guess what is in Mrs. Schiavo’s best interest.

That’s exactly how this issue is hitting me. I do not deny the fact that one can recover. But only two things will make me regret choosing death over life in the Schiavo case. One is if there’s a miracle that’s sure to happen; another would be the advancement of technology/medicine – which God knows when it’ll be able to address the issue.

Enter the practicality of everything. Of course by now you know that I’m with practicality. And practically speaking, my whole argument about being “baggage” should explain everything. That “baggage” argument for me has more weight than the possibility of recovery by miracles or medicinal advancement in my opinion. It’s not always black and white.

Does she want to live or die? It is a reasonable argument to consider. One cannot, beyond reasonable doubt, say that she wants to live (as I myself would choose death) or die (as George Carlin chooses to live). That’s why that legal document I proposed would’ve come in handy.

So if you’d ask me, I’d approve euthanasia without any doubt… but since it was illegal in their country, then they plan to starve her to death. Now that’s just torture. I’d rather see the law against euthanasia lifted temporarily to kill her off quickly and peacefully than starving her to death. Another question would be how brain dead she is. She is alive and sometimes involuntarily does things that seem “responsive” but is she really aware of it? Does she feel hunger or pain? If not, then maybe you can starve her too since her body would die, but her consciousness wouldn’t notice it (not that she notices anything in the first place). But still, I wish there was a better way of letting her go.

I wish would people stop considering her “responsive” after seeing the video footage of her moving. You can hang a person in a high-voltage electric fence and see them moving quite perpetually for as long as the electricity hasn’t stopped (and his nerves haven’t been fried) – that doesn’t mean he can still survive after x hours of electrocution.

Mrs. Schiavo is “dead”… for 15yrs nonetheless… let her rest. Don’t people realize that tests have been going on the whole time this legal battle has begun… and all results (that’s 15 years worth of tests) say she’s beyond recovery. Have a little faith in medicine, if they could save her they would… and they tried! Have a little faith in her husband who stuck by her even when her parents told him to move on. He could’ve just left her with her parents, get on with his life, and forget about her (and this legal issue). Yet he’s petitioning nonetheless because he thinks she is suffering more in this state – any man who loves his wife wouldn’t want to see her suffer. Starving her may be distasteful, but compared to 15 years of limbo, are we really in the position to argue?

Unless people are expecting (not hoping) a miracle, I’d say there’s nothing malicious with the state and husband’s intent to send Mrs. Schiavo to a better place.

I guess the bottom line here is that no argument is, or should be absolute. There are always exceptions to every “teaching.” Simply being Religious and blindly following religious doctrine – trying to apply it arbitrarily is simply foolish as even the church itself changes over time. Not to mention society is comprised of religious and non-religious people who still adhere to practically the same moral code – so even an atheist can be a better person than your child-molesting reverend. Having said that, it would be wise to take Religion into context and know when you should bend the rules little.