[ Post a Response | Inclusion Daily Express Discussion Board ]
Posted by Steven M. Busch We are talking about some really big issues here. We are talking about how we define humanity and how we view our place in the order of things. Our perception of reality determines how we make decisions and where we draw the lines. The right to “choose”, or put it another way, the right to make a decision leading to the death of oneself or the death of another person, is not an inviolable right in spite of court rulings to the contrary. I am specifically referring to euthanasia, suicide, abortion, infanticide, etc. I believe an individual’s right to choose or refuse medical treatment ends at the point where an individual actively seeks to cause their own death or the death of another person. In the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case, established legal and ethical lines were not only crossed, they were shoved far to the side. Please note: Food and water, otherwise known as “nutrition” should NEVER be defined as a “medical treatment”, even when/if an individual needs assistance to acquire it. Terri Schiavo was not hooked up to a mechanical life support system, which is traditionally defined as heart/lung/kidney machines. Terri was quite healthy, and not in a “persistent vegetative state”, as defined by Florida State law. Terri’s case also raises the very important issue about the role and responsibilities of the guardian. A court of law follows codified procedures to decide if an individual is in need of guardianship, what level of guardianship is appropriate, and who should be appointed guardian. There are a host of legal, moral, and ethical problems associated with the imposition of an “alternative decision maker” and there is a long, long list of guardianship abuses. The system in many states needs drastic revision, perhaps more so in Florida. During her outstanding tenure as Attorney General here in Washington State, Christine Gregoire, (now Governor), took on a large professional guardianship agency that was clearly acting outside of the best interests of some of their “wards”. Christine built the State’s case based on information provided by Department of Social and Health Services Division of Developmental Disabilities and individual testimonies. I am not a lawyer, however I was able to provide the Attorney General’s office with specific case histories showing a pattern of professional guardianship abuses in the matter of two individuals. This was essential information in an essential case that resulted in positive changes to guardianship law and guardian accountability procedures. Christine’s work, and the work of many others, notably Spokane Judge Neil O’Rielly, culminated in a better guardianship system and changed for the better some aspects of how we treat the most vulnerable among us. The point is, that although the guardianship system in Washington State is much improved, it still remains imperfect. Individuals who become “wards of the state” can lose most, if not all, of their civil rights- (i.e. the right to vote, handle their estate, and/or make medical decisions). But without due process, such as occurs after a criminal conviction, individuals must NEVER be compelled to give up their inalienable rights, which are defined as the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. There is no inalienable “right to die”. That concept is a fiction dreamed up in the minds of men. There will always be tension between the “law”, as defined by men, and human understanding of a higher, God-given “Law”. My guess is that this debate will continue raging until the day the Lord returns. So be it. In the meantime: The “actions” of a guardian (or care provider) can, and should, be challenged when necessary. The “rulings” of a court of law can, and should, be challenged when necessary. The “government” itself can, and should, be challenged when necessary. All of us have a part in this debate. I sincerely thank you for sharing your views.
on April 14, 2005, 3:10 pm, in reply to "Re: terri schiavo"
65.61.101.103
Paul, thank you for your thoughtful response. I believe that everyone following this discussion would agree that we must thoughtfully and continually re-examine how we treat the most vulnerable among us.
Let me say right up front (again) that I agree that an individual’s right to accept or refuse medical treatment should be respected, but not in all circumstances and only up to a point. Also, while the court endows guardians with the authority to make decisions on behalf of another person, that authority is not absolute nor beyond review.
As the tide of public opinion swings back and forth, one side or the other may temporarily win the legal battle. Legal definitions (the lines) are subject to endless revision and are constantly being redrawn. Yet some things never change. As guardian, I would never allow one of my "wards" (or one of my children) to “choose” euthanasia or abortion, in spite of their personal wishes or legal justifications.
You quoted an ACLU opinion that says, “A person is not incompetent merely because her treatment decision deviates from what the majority of patients would do, appears irrational, is not in her best interest, or contradicts a doctor’s advice.” I would turn that statement completely around and say that an individual is not proven competent or justified merely because their opinion coincides with one or more medical opinions, can be shown to be “legal” under the law, or even appears rationale. Medical opinions are often proven wrong. The notion that we should accept a particular “legal” definition or court decision as “right” can be equally misguided, even dangerous.
What would have happened had Terri's case been presented not before Judge Greer, but before a more conservative pro-life judge who ended up ruling differently? Would you and Mr. Welch be up in arms claiming the judge was biased and did not rule in Terri’s best interest? Judge Greer’s ruling was based on a very narrow definition of Florida guardianship law and a revised legal definition of “medical treatment”. These laws and definitions are now under intense scrutiny and will undoubtedly be revised again.
All of us by now have seen the video of Terri interacting with her mother and following a balloon with her eyes. She was clearly able to respond positively to the sound of her mother’s voice and to outside stimuli. Terri’s therapists consistently claimed from day one that Terri’s physical and mental condition could/did/would improve and that she could learn to eat and drink naturally, perhaps even speak, had she been afforded an opportunity to continue therapy. Yet, even without therapy, her condition was such that she could have easily gone home and lived with her parents. Unfortunately her parents request to care for their own daughter in their own home was denied by the guardian (who had, for all intents and purposes, abandoned her!)
The information presented to the court was that Terri was in a “persistent vegetative state”. Later, the media promoted a view that Terri was terminally ill and that this was a “right to die” case. Neither could be further from the truth.
The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread