March 18, 2005
-
POLITICS AND ETHICS - THE SCHAIVO CASE
The latest conservative hooraw is over Terri Schiavo, In case you've been visiting Mars, I'll summarize the case:
She suffered severe brain damage as a result of a botched hospital procedure about fifteen years ago. She has been in a persistent vegetative state since then. Her husband says she told him she did not want to live as a vegetable and despite her parent's vigorous protests, has attempted to remove her life support and let her die. The press accounts call this life support a feeding tube - it's not.
Here's a brief description from a report:
"The proposed measure appears to misunderstand that percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy (PEG) tube placements are surgical interventions. To use the term 'feeding tube' in this context is a misnomer; 'feeding' requires some level of human interaction with and appreciation of food. Use of a PEG tube implanted through the skin and stomach wall for infusion of liquid nutrient compounds over long periods of time does not constitute 'feeding' in any ordinary sense of the word," the bioethicists' group said in a March 7 report.
Mrs .Schaivo has no higher brain function and has not had for fifteen years. this has been through the courts many times and Mr. Schaivo has been upheld. The tube was supposed to be removed about thirty minutes ago.
Meanwhile - in the Congress of the United States, the Senate Majority Leader, one Bill Frist MD(?) has summoned Terri and Michael Schaivo to appear before a committee of Congress that will hold hearings on patient care.
This is a cynical and cruel pandering to an ignorant vocal group led by religious fanatics; and is a clear violation of the separation of powers set up in the Constitution itself.
I suppose Michael Schaivo could have his wife transported to Washington and wheeled before congress who could then take testimony from her. I await her testimony with baited breath.
Comments (4)
At the forefront of this battle to keep Mrs. Schiavo (or what's left of her) alive, sits Governor Jeb Bush. The earth-shaking irony in this lies in the callous decisions he has made regarding the health and welfare of his constituents while in office - for example, his budget, which significantly underfunds DFCS. So, while Governor Bush is okay with hungry, abandoned, abused children, when it comes to keeping a feeding tube in a brain-dead adult, suddenly he's Mr. Moral Values.
That being said, there is some room for moral ambivalence in the Schiavo case. She does have the brain function of an infant, which leads one to wonder if she can feel pain or hunger. (Furthermore, would removing her feeding tube be tantamount to starving a baby?) She can recognize her family, which leads one to wonder if she can feel happiness. That being said, she has no cognitive function, and could not possibly comprehend her vegetative state. She is technically alive, in that, except for needing a feeding tube, she can physically sustain life. She has some neurological function, albeit an amount so minimal as to parallel an infant or family pet. The greatest ethical concern is that removing the feeding tube would cause her to die a painful death. Other forms of humane euthanasia would be much better, were they not illegal.
Terri does NOT have the brain function of an infant. Terri does not recognize her family - though her parents vainly hope she will someday. Removing the PEG will not cause her discomfort, she has no "discomfort ability" left in her brain. Her brain does not register as does that of an infant or family pet (unless you have a pet sponge in your fishtank). The well publicized TVs of Terri smiling are pretty much staged photos of involuntary reactions. She is not and will not suffer.
Her parents are as guilty as Bush ijn this matter. They have fought a very long fight and have, as I remember, even involved the Pope at one point.
It's a sad, sad case. My mother aruges that, "any mother" would KNOW that their child is still there and wouldn't want to let them go. I disagree. As painful as it would be to let my child die, lingering is even worse.
The bottom line here is the discrepency between what the parents and the husband want. Terri no longer has any ability to, "want" anything. Her husband thinks she should be let to die (though whatever is left of, "her" as she was is already dead) and her parents want her to stay, "alive" which means, essentially, to continue to receive enough nourishment so that her lungs will continue to breathe and her heart will continue to beat. If her brain has been deemed too damaged to recover any significant function (fairly easy to assess with an MRI or CT scan) then it is illogical (and stupid) to think she will ever, "recover" If her parents want her alive for their own sake - so be it. However, they need to stop trying to make is sound like this is for Terri - she is gone, it's not for her.
I was there once. When my twins were born prematurely, I had a similiar decision to make. One of my girls died while on the respirator. The other one did better (if you can say that) and became somewhat stable on the respirator. However, the oxygen level in her brain was so far below what would be needed for normal brain function that it was impossible that she would have any, "normalcy" about her. This low level lasted for hours and hours - not just a few minutes (in fact, she never had any, "normal" O2 levels). She had many physical signs of this brain damage as well. I made the incredibly painful choice to have her taken off the respirator. She was brought to me right afterwards and placed in my arms. She died within an hour of being taken off the respirator. My family was here the whole time, and I held her and just cried. It was so painful - but what point would her being alive have been? If her lungs ever matured enough to be taken of the respirator, she wouldn't have been any better off than Terri. And she would have never, "recovered"
The sad thing here is that Terri didn't die right when she had her heart attack. That would have been the kindest way for her to go. Until she dies physically (not just neurologically) her parents will be stuck in this hell they have placed themselves in. Sadly, her parents will likely split after she dies - blame kills relationships like that (trust me - I was there) All these years they have been help together by this, "project" and they haven't had to look at what drove this girl to do the things that caused her heart attack in the first place. As long as they are fighting for her, they don't have to look at where they fell short as parents. It's so, so very sad.
Under the proposed legislation, Robyn would not have been allowed to take her baby off the respirator. Parent and child would be damned to a life of suffering and horror. On the other hand, JP2, and the neocons say suffering is good for you - it teaches you humility.