Life and Death

I got hit with a very busy week (with no relief for a while - there's more next week), so I wanted to squeeze in a blog entry during this one free evening I have. :-p And it's a more serious blog entry this time.

I've been trying to keep up with all the stories in the Terri Shiavo case. I think we all know how it's going to end, but I just wanted to put down some of my thoughts. So what's my opinion on the whole thing? Right to death or right to life?

Neither.

But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion or that I'm skirting the issue so as not to offend you. (When have I not had an opinion on something? And when have I been afraid of offending you? Those are the reasons I have this blog!) I just have a lot of skepticism for both sides involved, and thus I do not feel comfortable taking sides on this one. Like most of you, I don't have a lot of time to do any hardcore research on this story, but I have gathered many questions.

First off, Terri's parents make the case that with treatment, she could improve. Perhaps this is true, or perhaps she really is in a state with no hope. But why would it take 15 years to figure this out? I would think that back in the '90s (relatively recent), they would have been developing some treatments (if there were any) then. So why did it take so long for anyone to suggest giving Terri any treatment? Why didn't someone try to start helping her earlier?

And then the government interference. I'm not a libertarian, but I dislike unnecessary government intervention. (You may find that statement ironic I spent 6 months working for a government agency whose job is to monitor the public sector and intervene when necessary, but the key word here is NECESSARY.) And this is something that I am really not sure the government should get that involved in. Obviously, if Terri had a living will, a lot of the legal decision making would not be as hard, but still - is this really a government issue? I understand that you don't want something like this to get out of hand (i.e., a murder being equated to "assisted suicide"), so the government must set rules, but there needs to be a balance. (I find it interesting that the Commies have remained quiet during this entire debate, they who rely so much on the government to run societal issues. Hm. Wonder what they're thinking. :-D)

But on the other hand, something about Terri's husband seems very shady to me. The man has another girlfriend already that he fathered two children with. Maybe it's just me... but doesn't that make you doubt his sincerity a little? If he was totally devoted to his wife, why would he go find another woman? I know plenty of widowers who dated or remarried other women within a few years of being widowed, but certainly not while the wife was still alive. I think Terri's husband got frustrated of her not having any improvements over a few years and just gave up trying. (And apparently he's been with this new girlfriend long enough - I mean, how fast can you pop out two kids? You do the math.) But then why doesn't he divorce her as her parents have requested and give her over to them, since they obviously want to take care of her even in the state that she is in? You might say it's because he still loves Terri, but why would he sleep with another woman if he wholeheartedly loved Terri? And the girlfriend? I guess she has no shame to go after a married man. (Women like that disgust me... take note guys, and don't settle for that type of girl. It might seem fun at first but it'll get you in the end. Same thing goes for men who go after married women. Ok, sorry, I digress...)

The act of removing the feeding tube (i.e., letting Terri die of starvation) bothers me too. If this sort of thing were happening to a horse, it would be shot, no question - if you grew up on or near a farm, you know this is true. You wouldn't stop feeding a sick horse just to let its organs kick out one-by-one; you'd put it out of its misery as soon as possible. By using this example, I'm not suggesting that Terri be put to death through lethal injection or other methods, but something about letting her die of starvation just gives me shivers. Maybe it's just that the idea seems inhumane to me. And I am not sure how I would compare/contrast this to the removal of respiratory life support either. There really is no concrete answer.

No one, not even the best neurologist, really knows if Terri is aware or unaware of what is going on. And it's hard to speculate as to what you would do if you were in her parents' shoes or her husband's shoes. Very difficult for everyone indeed. But I guess the only thing we can do is pray that Terri and others in the same type of situation can leave this world in peace and that God will give their loved ones the strength to carry on.