- Despite the ACLU's entry into the matter against Terri,
the constitutional rights being argued about are not Terri's constitutional
rights. The two main arguments are i) that the law that has interfered
with the euthanisation of Terri is technically flawed, and ii) that Terri
has a right to die of hunger and thirst if it is her final wish to do so.
-
- It is possible that the law that saved Terri recently,
being drafted with a very short sunset clause, may have been flawed by
design. Perhaps the legal flaws are intentional in order to give the situation
time to be examined by legislators, and the public, before Terri's life
is irretrievably snuffed out. In any case the law that has postponed Terri's
demise cannot be relied upon to save her life over a longer term, because
of its dubious constitutionality as a special case law.
-
- The second claim to a constitutional right by Michael
Schiavo is an assertion that Terri's so-called final wishes are being interfered
with. While a living will would clear up the matter to a large extent,
Terri does not have a terminal condition, and will not die soon, as long
as she is fed, and kept hydrated.
-
- The question of whether feeding, and hydration (giving
food and water) is allowed to be considered as extreme medical intervention
appears to be the outcome of some overzealous legal precedents, that good
judges need to challenge, and set right.
-
- Feeding someone, and giving them water, when they need
it, whether they are conscious or not, should not be considered unusual
or an extreme form of medical intervention. Food and drink is simple human
maintenance. When anyone eats or drinks, they are maintaining their life.
"Sustenance", another word for food and water, is distinctly
different from "medicine" in every dictionary you'll check.
-
- It is ludicrous to consider normal feeding and drinking
as an unusual or extreme medical intervention.
-
- Just because severe brain damage has reduced the control
of a patient's own power to handle a spoon, or raise a glass of water doesn't
mean that feeding such a person with a tube makes a person a candidate
for euthanasia. If we follow the ridiculous reasoning through, Alzheimer's
patients in advanced stages may find themselves routinely killed. Even
Parkinson's patients need to fear such a wild interpretation of the law,because
their inability to control their hands to eat and drink without assistance,
brings them dangerously close to the definitions being used in arguments
for Terri's death.
-
- Cognition, speech, and motor skills are separate issues
that are poor standards by which to sentence any person to death. The old
standards of "no brain activity" were also not perfect, but by
comparison, the subjective observations used to determine candidacy for
euthanasia, as used in Terri's case, have become a barbaric comedy of poor
legal precedents losing all appropriate balance and context on a slippery
slope.
-
- Even if we were to grant the very flawed logic used to
argue that Terri "should be allowed" to die of starvation and
thirst, then the same Constitutional rights that allow her to decide to
end her life demand that she be allowed to choose otherwise -- even now.
If Terri takes food and drink from a spoon, while being fed, it is a clear
indication of Terri's will to live. By denying Terri the opportunity to
be retrained, and fed with a spoon, as it is alleged Michael's strict instructions
explicitly forbade, we are assaulting Terri, and denying her her Constitutional
rights.
-
- If Michael wanted to protect Terri's rights in the first
place, then he would have allowed spoon feeding to be attempted upon denial
of food and water by the feeding tube. Terri has a right to be fed, and
a right to try to live if she wants to, even in her diminished state.
-
- If Terri is allowed to be euthanised, without giving
her a chance to try to eat from a spoon, and drink from a spoon or straw,
then her right to choose life is denied.
-
- Does the constitution require a dexterity or IQ test
to determine whether you have Constitutional rights? The litmus test on
whether Terri has a right to try to live or not, is an affront to Terri's
rights under the constitution. If Terri eats from a spoon, or even if she
just tries to eat and drink when she's hungry, then she cannot be denied
food or drink, even if a tube is necessary for a full meal.
-
- A single attempt on Terri's part, to eat from a single
spoonful of food is evidence of a desire to live. And we already have the
testimony of a nurse who has tried to feed Terri. Terri did not lie limp,
and unresponsive. Terri did not spit out the food, and effect a hunger
strike by sealing her lips. Terri ate, and clearly enjoyed some Jell-O
from a spoon.
-
- Such testimony may not show us that Terri has terribly
sophisticated tastes, but, such testimony unequivocally tells us that Terri
has a will to live, and that no earthly or constitutional court should
attempt to interfere with it.
|
