In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Terri Schiavo Case May Soon Come To A Close

Lauren

The Guardian reports on the Terri Schiavo case, as the case goes back to the courts after rulings that gave her husband the right to remove her feeding tubes. Fifteen years after the accident that put Terri into a persistent vegetative state, she remains at the center of a long, angry legal and ideological battle.

A former advocate for Terri Schiavo gets to the real issue in this case.

Jay Wolfson, a University of South Florida medical professor who had briefly served as Terri Schiavo’s court-appointed advocate in 2003, said bringing the case to a close is going to be challenging for the court because of all the legal, religious and political issues that have become attached to it.

“This is hot stuff,” Wolfson said. “The implications of what happens in this case have already affected people. I think they are getting living wills and asking questions about death and dying. We just don’t like thinking about (death), let alone talking about it.”

What makes this case so nasty is the implications of the ruling. Who wins out? Blood relatives vs. spouses. Right-to-Life advocates vs. Right-to-Die advocates. Legal rulings vs. religious ideology.

The saddest part is that Schiavo, almost certainly unknowingly, has become a political pawn and is helpless to change it.

5 thoughts on Terri Schiavo Case May Soon Come To A Close

  2. My partner and I are not married and don’t want to be for a variety of reasons. Cases like this are one of the reasons that we went to a lawyer 2 years ago and had living wills, medical power of attorney papers, etc. drawn up.

    When discussing the case and arguing that the spouse should have the final say in this, I find myself taking the time to making it explicit that I’m NOT approaching this from some ancient notion of property. It seems weird that I should have to do that, but a couple of people have suggested that to me. No, rather there are just some things that I share with my partner that I would not share with my other family members, including issues surrounding death because it might upset those other family members.

    That’s the other issue that gets lost in this for me: “Blood relatives vs. spouses” is really a false dichotomy. They are all family members. There’s just a disagreement within this family – a severe one – but it’s within a family. All of them have her best interests at heart.

  3. It goes with the spouse, and if no spouse is should go to your eldest child or your ‘heir’. If you have none of these it should go to your parents, and if they arent about then to your siblings. Finally if none of this exists it should be a matter of tossing a coin – or leaving it to the doctors to decide.
    I think the reason your spouse must come first is because they are your spouse. I know that’s cyclical logic, but you choose your spouse, its the person you should love most in the world and the person who should most love you.

    The *only* real problem with leaving these decisions to any relative/heir is that they have a financial/selfish interest in your living or dying. Hence why we could say the decision should go to the doctors. However, their hospital is probably over-budget and short of beds, or they may have already had a few too many patients die recently, so their decision could be bias.

  4. What should worry is the thot that they’d pull the feeding tube. What?! Starve her to death? That’s so unnecessary! Whatever happened to the hypo and needle?

  5. They can’t give her a shot, because that would be euthanasia or assisted suicide, neither of which are legal in FL. The only way they can do this is to remove the feeding tube, because legally, that’s a denial of treatment by the patient [or her guardian, in this case], not an overt act on the physician’s part to bring death about.

    I also go back and forth on this case. I think the husband should have the final say legally, but I don’t understand why he’s so eager to end her life. Why not just divorce her and let her parents care for her?

    And that’s where the money issue comes in. The husband didn’t start suing for his wife’s right to die until after he’d collected a hefty sum in a malpractice suit. The money he sued for was to take care of her and rehabilitate her. Now he has the money and he doesn’t want to do those things. Makes me go “hm.”

    And to end it by starving her [which is ironic, since she ended up in her current condition by starving herself in the first place] just kind of seems cruel, doesn’t it?

Comments are currently closed.