Jewish World Review Nat Henthoff
http://www.NewsandOpinion.com | Florida Circuit Court Judge George Greer has again ordered the removal of 41-year-old Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. As of this writing, attempts by the Republican Congressional leadership and some Democrats are being made to save her, through the courts, but the odds are long. If she dies of dehydration and starvation, this grave injustice can affect the rights of many disabled Americans who do not have clearly written directives as to their treatment when they can no longer speak their wishes.
The fundamental issue in Terri’s case is disability rights — not the right to die. Throughout all the extensive media coverage of the case, there has been only slight mention — usually none at all — that nearly every major disability rights organization has filed legal briefs to prevent what they and I regard as judicial murder. The protests are not only from pro-lifers and the Christian Right.
A couple of things to think about in this case. If dehydration and starvation are such peaceful ways to die, why aren’t they methods used to execute death row inmates?
That is one question this report fails to ask those like Dr. Fred Mirarchi who stated, “The process of starving to death seems very barbaric but in actuality is very peaceful,” said Dr. Fred Mirarchi, assistant clinical professor of emergency medicine at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia.”
An aside: Would you want your children treated by a physician who thinks starvation is “peaceful”?
If it is so peaceful, why is the hospice doping Terri up with Morphine? Search the article linked above; you will not find one mention of morphine in it. Does this look like honest reporting to you?
Daniel writes: “A couple of things to think about in this case. If dehydration and starvation are such peaceful ways to die, why aren�t they methods used to execute death row inmates?”
Because inmates are conscious. Because they can eat on their own.
Daniel: “An aside: Would you want your children treated by a physician who thinks starvation is ‘peaceful’?
What is your personal experience with patients who have stopped eating and drinking? Please reflect on that before turning on the outrage dispenser.
Daniel: “If it is so peaceful, why is the hospice doping Terri up with Morphine? Search the article linked above; you will not find one mention of morphine in it. Does this look like honest reporting to you?”
If she’s getting morphine, it’s because her physician ordered it. My guess is that it is probably standard care at the hospice. She may be receiving other medications as well. While life-extending treatments are withdrawn, palliative care — comfort care, in other words, is never withdrawn. Dr. Ward, an Orthodox palliative care physician who posted here for a while could have answered your concerns in detail, but he left here a while back after being compared to Hitler, or something like that. Score another point for the usefulness of the “culture of death” rhetoric.
Notes 1 and 2. Terri is getting morphine because there is a chance she is feeling pain. That is the only reason dying people get it. “Because her doctor ordered it,” or “it is probably standard care” are appeals to authority, not answers.
In your moral world Jim, the decision of a judge or doctor is holy writ. You offer no moral justification for Terri’s starvation because in your mind these decisions are strictly utilitarian, not moral. Call it the triumph of the medical technocrat.
You share the same moral universe as Peter Singer. You also are powerless to stand up to his radicalism. If the euthanasia thinking takes hold in the culture, and it might, it will be almost impossible to reverse the slide into barbarism until the nation doubles over from spiritual exhaustion. The tragedy is that many, many, people will die until that place is reached.
Here’s what I wrote earlier. You have not answered but it still applies. (Edited a bit, the meaning is the same.)
————-
Every time you are asked to provide your moral reasons justifying Terri’s starvation, you backtrack into uncertainty, or appeals to authority.
Yes, end of life decisions are complex and difficult. But the terms “culture of life” and “err on the side of life” describe the moral calculus applied to end of life decisions precisely because they are complex and difficult. You argue the reverse: because the decisions are complex and difficult, moral considerations about the value of life ought not apply.
Your thinking is utilitarian. The only moral rational your arguments employ to justify Terri’s starvation is that the court ordered it. But you don’t have the courage to admit it up front. If I am wrong, show me where I am wrong.
You share the same moral universe as Princeton “ethicist” Peter Singer. You might be personally repulsed by some of his ideas (killing children up to two years old, for example), but your moral reasoning does not differ from his and you stand powerless before his radicalism.