Philosophy
EUTHANASIA.
The terry Schiavo case is an example of an instance where a woman who had undergone a stroke that left her in a vegetative state was euthanized by her husband contrary to the wishes of her parents. I strongly disagree with the treatment that Terry Schiavo was afforded. I am pro-life and I believe in letting people live out their lives to the very end irrespective of their condition either medical or otherwise. I also believe that choices made by family members to end the life of a ‘loved one’ in a complicated medical situation is an act of cowardice on the side of the family. They are just looking for an easy way out to bail out on the family member with the medical complication and appallingly blame it on their humanitarian nature which drove them to desire an end to the suffering of the loved one. Ending the life of another person is a despicable act and is unacceptable irrespective of the situation or the circumstances leading up to the decision
Terry Schiavio was in a vegetative state thus unable to weigh in on the ongoing court battle between her husband and her parents on whether she should be taken off life support.in my opinion neither the parents nor the husband had the right to make that decision on behalf of terry Schiavio. Both parties claimed to be acting in her best interest but the only person truly capable of quantifying the best interest for terry Schiavio is none other than terry Schiavio. She was, at the time, unable to weigh in on the matter and I am of the opinion that she should have been left on life support until such a time when her body gave out and she died. It remains unclear whether she would have regained consciousness or remained in a vegetative state for the rest of her life. It is this uncertainty that fuels my opinion that no outside party truly had the exclusive right to decide that it was time to take terry schiavo off life support.no one truly knew for sure whether or not she would recover. Any decisions made on her behalf were purely emotional decisions based on the emotional disposition of the people making those decisions. No one can truly claim to have acted in her best interest because no one consulted her as to what her bet interest was and the course of action she desired be taken with regard to her life.
The medical community tried the best they could to get terry Schiavo out of her current medical predicament. They tried a variety of speech therapy but none seemed responsive. The medical community expressed their opinion that it was unlikely that terry schiavo would ever regain consciousness. Perhaps this is what fueled her husband to opt for her being taken off life support. It can be argued that he was acting in a way that he thought was in the best interest for terry schiavo. Perhaps her current medical disposition was putting tremendous strain on the financial status of the family and producing no tangible results in the end. This can also be a reason why the husband opted for her being taken off life support. Maybe in his opinion he was truly acting in her best interest in terms of her incapability to live her life and experience her environment as a result of the stroke that she suffered. Maybe in his opinion he thought it was better to take her off life support than to watch her live the rest of her life in a non-responsive vegetative state.
The husband of terry Schiavio was the chief advocate of her being taken off life support. According to him she was not conscious and had no hope of recovering.it can be argued that perhaps he felt that he was doing what was best for terry. Maybe her situation was causing the family emotional anguish as well as financial strain with no tangible results at all and it was better to put terry out of her misery.
Hardwig would have been in total agreement with the treatment afforded terry Schiavio. According to Hardwig the burden created by a person in a state such as terry schiavio’s is so great that such a person eventually develops a responsibility to die. According to Hardwig the family of the sick person should be spared the emotional anguish as well as the financial burden of financing the medical undertakings of a person who was eventually going to die. Hardwig also advocates for putting a person who is terminally ill out of their misery. Hardwig is of the opinion that the family has the responsibility to end the life of a loved one if it is clear that the loved one is in a state of agony, suffering or complete hopelessness. He would be in total agreement with terry schiavo’s husband that she should be taken off life support since she was non-responsive and there was no tangible evidence that she would ever fully recover (Hardwig, p.79). According to Hardwig it reaches a point in a person’s life when that person has the responsibility to die. This responsibility is brought about by the need to spare the family of the person the emotional and financial anguish associated with this person at this point of their life. The need for the family of the person to get emotional closure outweighs the need of the person to keep living at such a stage in life. The responsibility of the person to die is thus considered a charity to the family of the person in terms of their finances and emotional effort associated with the person.
Rachels would try and justify the husbands case in the terry Schiavio case Rachels coined the concept of passive euthanasia which permits the termination of means of prolonging the life of an individual when it is clear that death of the individual is imminent and unavoidable in spite of the forms of medical intervention under application. She also argues that the decision to take a person off life support should rest exclusively with the immediate family of the individual. She would agree with terry schiavio’s husband that she should be taken off life support since the medical community declared that it was unlikely that she would ever recover.
Gay Williams would be appalled by the wishes of terry shiavio’s husband. According to gay Williams all human beings have an urge deeply engraved in their nature to keep living irrespective of the condition and predicament of a person every person has an urge to live. To deprive a person of their life would be to force them against their nature. Gay Williams would argue that though not responsive terry schiavio’s nature was taking prominence and her nature desired life not death hence anything contrary would be murder (Williams, p.63). Any one claiming to be acting out what was best for terry would let her live because in a vegetative state her instincts took prominence and according to Gay Williams every human being has instincts inclined towards life. No one truly wants to die irrespective of their psychological state.
I have already expressed my disapproval of the concept of another person deciding to end the life of another person irrespective of circumstance. The case of terry Schiavio takes yet another sadistic and inhuman turn in the way she was euthanized. Her feeding tube was removed and she died a few weeks later. The sad part is that her cardiac arrest had absolutely nothing to do with the way she died. She died as a result of starvation after her medical tube was removed.in actuality her husband did not reduce her suffering, he actually increased it to a point where her body could not take it anymore and she died. Starving someone to death is one of the most inhuman ways to end the life of a person irrespective of the state of the person which motivated the decision to end their life. Rachels would however have no problem with the way terry Schiavio was killed. She argues that both passive and active euthanasia are in actuality the same concept but only differ on grounds of morality not law.
Works Cited
Hardwig, John, and Nat Hentoff. Is there a duty to die?: and other essays in bio-ethics. New York: Routledge, 2005. Print.
williams, gay. Euthanasia. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press ;, 2003. Print.
s
