One liberal on the Rights to Live and Die

I do not think that people with severe disabilities should be denied medical care. I hope that we all receive extraordinary medical care when we need it. But, I think it is too easy to say that is the beginning and the end of Terri Schiavo's case.

I am not pro-death, when people die it usually sucks. I must admit that I tend to be quite cavalier with the lives of anything that is smaller than 5 inches long. So while I am in favor of life, I am not in favor of life without any question of its quality.

I understand that in saying so I am setting up a difficult situation. What is an acceptable quality of life for me may not be the same for someone else. I can understand that some people choose to bring prenancies to term even when they know they cannot afford to feed the resulting child. But, for me, I would not choose that quality of life for myself as a mother nor a child.

In terms of issues of disability and quality of life, I believe that I could handle not being able to see with my eyes, hear with my ears or move my extremities, but if I were left with no way to communicate with others* I would prefer not to continue living. It would just be pure torture for me.

So I'm just trying to think through what the decision rules that are guiding my feelings about the Terri Schiavo case and how I think others like it ought to be resolved.

1. Does Terri Schiavo want to continue living?

This is the most important question for me.Whether you believe in God or you do not, whether you think the State should help people make good choices or you think the State incapable of doing so...I do not understand how people come to a decision that they can force someone else to stay alive when that person does not want to be alive.

I grew up in the Midwest/South where we went to church most every Sunday (sometimes twice on the same sunday) and frequently on Tuesdays (bible study) and Thursdays (prayer meeting) and sometimes on other days of the week if we were in the choir, on the usher board, etc. So I've thought a bit about God in my time. And the nice thing about our particular brand of Protestantism (and for most people in America) is the belief that one's relationship is individual and God has invested us with free-will. So, in fact, if you choose to end your life and that turns out to be a sin that sends you to hell for eternity, well, I can try to explain to you the consequences, I can try to help you make a different choice by making staying alive more appealing but in the end it is your call.

So, I am always at a loss when people go beyond simply making Christian appeals to others to the point of trying to use force on these same individuals. If you want to force people to do something because it is the law then go for it. But, if you want to say that something has to be the law because GOD said so then choke on it. The more strongly you believe in God the more ridiculous it seems to me for you to argue that God needs your help to run the planet. I think he's got some decent work experience.

Unfortunately, it appears that Terri cannot communicate either through spoken lanuage, written word or some system of signs how she would currently answer that question of whether she wants to be alive or how she thinks God will judge her for her decision.

2. Since Terri does not seem able to tell us and she has left no independent statement of her wishes, who should be able to speak for her?

It seems that alot of people think that in a situation like this one's family should be allowed to speak for us. And I generally agree, even though I know that this is based on two faulty assumptions.

One it assumes that a family is a monlithic entity, when in fact, within a single family there can be very different opinions. One of the cliches of history is that the Civil War "set brother against brother" and surely I cannot be the only person who has witnessed fights over funeral arrangments or where to educate offspring.

Second, it assumes that all families are the same loving, trusting, open communicative relations that are for the most part the American ideal. Truthfully, however, we sometimes avoid talking to the people we love the most about our life and death choices because we do not want to upset them, we want to upset them or it just never occurs to us to have that kind of conversation in our family. Sometimes we are even related to people that we do not love or at the very least that we do not like very much.

As a result of the faulty assumption there is no doubt that there will be many messy situations like the Schiavo case. Therefore, I think it makes sense to create some hierarchy of familial relations (i.e. spouse trumps parents, parents trump siblings, etc.). But, this hierarchy is not without issues, should mom have more power than dad, should twins have more say than parents, etc?

3. But let's say we get the hierarchy in place, aren't their conditions where we might think that the person inhabiting the top position in the hierarchy really shouldn't get to make the call?

I think the answer to that is yes. For example, if the person is in the midst of a psychotic episode maybe we don't have to let them make the call. But, who will decide when that person is no longer in a position to make said decision. The answer is the social institutions we have put in place to protect our citizens. For example, we could have a hearing that shows that your spouse has wanted to kill you for a while and that your state of incapacitation gives them the perfect opening.

I do not think that the fact that Michael Schiavo has started a family with another person means that he is no longer Terri's husband. First of all, people cheat on one another all the time and that doesn't mean that stop being married or even stop loving one another. Second, as my mother explained to me when my younger brother was born, you can love more than one person (with your whole heart, even) at a time. Or as I like to say state, love is not a zero-sum game. Finally, even if he no longer thinks that his wife is alive in any meaningful way it doesn't mean that he can just let people do whatever they want with her body. If there were a common way of thinking in our society then organ donors would be easy to find and you wouldn't be bothered if you heard that someone was digging up grandma and having a good old time with her body.

4. What about starving to death? I mean even if she can't consistenly respond to pain or whatever, what if she feels the pain of starvation at some point does not that seem cruel?

Heck yes, I mean I act like a baby if I don't eat a decent meal in a 24 hour period so come on I don't want people to starve. Therefore, I advocate giving her a lethal injection that ends her life.

Oh yeah, there I said it, euthanasia, if we were better about providing it to people in the first place then we wouldn't have to go through horrific spectacles like watching someone waste away from dehydration or starvation. The same logic that says that if we think women have a right to choose whether or not to be mothers, that abortion is an acceptable tool in this decision and that such a right cannot be said to exist when abortions are expensive, clinics are hard to access (either because they are far away or because nutballs are blocking the doors) , or your doctor keeps getting killed leads me to say that if people have a right to choose death because life is too painful or serves no purpose for the individual experiencing it then they have a right to choose a death that is the most painful option and when possible gives them the greatest sense of purpose.

5. So what are my guiding principles...
a. My body, by choice
b. Human life is about human interactions

* I am okay with the idea that I might have to communicate using assistive technologies or sign language, but if I could not use any then I would not want to be alive.