So Republicans are scrambling to save Terri Schiavo's life and for once I'm in agreement with them.
For those who haven't heard about this story, Terri Schiavo is a Florida woman who has been in a vegetative state for 15 years. She can breathe on her own, but needs a feeding tube to stay alive. There's been a protracted battle between her parents (who want her kept alive) and her husband (who wants the feeding tube removed). This is a huge right-to-life issue.
I'll keep my two cents to two cents and not to two dollars, but my opinion is this: let her live.
I believe in the right to die. I believe in euthenasia. But I don't know that Terri wants to die. She left no living will. Her husband claims that she said she would never want to be kept in a vegetative state, and he may be telling the truth. The problem is that he didn't reveal this until she had already lain in a bed for several years. He revealed this after there was a million dollar malpractice settlement awareded to Terri. He doesn't get the money until she is dead. He currently has a long time girlfriend with children by her that he's not marrying because he refuses to divorce Terri, because by divorcing her he would lose custody of her and would also loose the money.
Whether this is a conspiracy or not, I try and look at it from Terri's perspective: maybe she did want to die, but right now she's not aware of anything. Her parents say she can laugh, and it's been show that sometimes she can respond to stimuli, smiling at her mother's voice or opening her eyes when doctors tell her to, but for the most part she has no cognitive function. So three things can happen: she will get old and die unaware of having lived, she can have the feeding tube removed and starve to death, or she can make a miraculous recovery.
I believe in miracles. I believe enough random shit happens in life to keep us interested in it. I'm not saying one will happen with Terri, but the other two options don't give her a chance. More to the point, to Terri, the other two options don't make a difference, because she's unaware of them. Keeping her alive does no harm. Letting her starve to death doesn't even give her a chance.
From her husband's point of view, if he doesn't have to care for her (he doesn't) and if he's already started a new life (he has), why is it so important that he end Terri's life (other than the money)? If he loves her, why doesn't het let her parents care for her and move on?
Her parents, they are hoping for a miracle, and if they are willing to bear the burden of caring for a body that spends most its waking hours staring, so be it.
I believe in erring on the side of life.
If she were in pain, I would suggest ethanasia. If she had no functions whatsoever, couldn't breathe or pump blood without machines, then I would say let her die. But if all she needs is to be kept fed, then feed her. If she's not experiencing the world, then she is not suffering. And if she is, there's a hope for some recovery. It's happened before.
If it were me in that vegetative state, I would say to let me go. Turn the machines off. But that's my opinion and I've made it known to my family. I can't speak for Terri, and if she never made her wishes truly known, then there is a chance that either choice is a mistake, but if a mistake is to be made, let's err on the side of life.
I don't know why I'm agreeing with republicans, but miracles happen every day.