A physician friend of mine brought this to my attention:
Dear NewsMax Reader:
Please find below an important message regarding Terri Schiavo, the disabled woman in danger of being starved to death. Please take action right away to help urge Congress to pass legislation to save her -- a recent court decision only gives her until March 18th before her feeding tube is pulled. Time is short.
Thank you.
NewsMax.com
http://view.exacttarget.com/?ffcd16-feb81c727d6d0378-fe33117076640379751273 I've been reading all of the Terri threads, and though I've been aware of this case for years, it has recently become a personal issue for me. My family has been dealing with a similar issue. Three weeks ago, my stepfather's father (Ed) was found unconscious due to a seriously compromised heart and we had to begin the emotionally grueling task of deciding how to address his care. Luckily, we were in agreement for the most part (to let nature take it's course).
My heart breaks for my stepfather, as the burden of the decision fell on his shoulders. Of his six siblings, he is also the primary caregiver to his mother who has Alzheimer's (though she is in a home) and for his son who became a quadriplegic after a motorcycle accident this past summer (he is also in a home, as he requires a vent). My stepfather spends most of his free time caring for them ... taking his mother out weekly and driving almost 4 hours to spend the day with his son.
I'm sure there is a point in all of this ... so I'll try to get to it. Upon hearing of a situation involving right to life, I tend to side with the patient in terms of what is best - that their wishes must be respected at all costs. I learned in this experience, however, that consideration must be given to the person forced to make the decision as they have to live with the consequences. After Ed suffered two cardiac arrests (he was unresponsive), my stepdad had the option to pull life support immediately knowing that Ed would not want to live incapacitated. It was a cruel gamble: to let him die when he could be saved, or to risk his ire if he were to survive but be dependent on care. We opted for a 24 hour waiting period, in which Ed thankfully improved enough to make the decision himself, which we completely supported. He was put on "comfort care" and passed away peacefully Sunday night.
In relating this to the Schiavo case, I feel that concern for Terri has been superseded by her parents and her husband's needs. If her husband is truly championing her wishes, then I say "bravo". As I do not know him or his motives, I can't say for sure. As far as her parents are concerned, I do not understand how such supposedly devout and faithful people could keep their daughter tethered to this world if they truly believe in all that their religion teaches. I think it is selfish and cruel. Even if starvation point was as horrible as "right to lifers" are claiming, it pales in comparison to living out life in a vegetative state ... a matter of days versus years and years. I could not imagine that anyone would willingly endure that. It makes me sad to think that Terri is being lost in all of this - her will is bogged down in what amounts to petty trivialities and the twisting of dogma. People need to look past the immediate and do what is best for her, not her parents. While I brought up the point that the decision makers should give their emotional stake some weight ... it is absolutely abusive that they are putting their guilt or will or whatever it may be ahead of Terri. I only wish that people would see this situation through her eyes, and stop using her as a pawn in some sick legal and/or religious power struggle.