It reminds me, as I read some of the reactions to the release of the Schiavo autopsy, that the whole thing boils down to whether or not one is an extremist on the issue of life (yes, that is in an odd formulation—indeed, many may be asking how can one be anything but an extremist on the issue?). By this I mean, does one think that life is to be preserved no matter what. I am pro-life, and think that the default position in any situation should be to sustain life. However, this does not mean that in every single situation that life must be sustained. There are clearly times when death is the better option. Further, the Schiavo case raised the question of what “alive” and “dead” may mean in a given context. It is as clear as it can be to me (meaning from a distance, through media filters and not experiencing it myself) that Terri died fifteen years ago of a heart attack and lack of oxygen to the brain and that because of our understanding of human biology and some technology, it was possible to keep her body functioning. I figure that if your cerebral cortext is filled with spinal fluid, you are gone.
However, some feel that life should be preserved no matter what, so long as preservation is possible. As such, I expect that the autopsy results really don’t resolve the issue, as those facts will be viewed through the position one had already taken prior to the autopsy.
Clearly, many believed it was best that Terri be on a feeding tube and utterly absent mentally until she was ninety and died of natural causes if need be. I just don’t see that as the appropriate alternative.
And there is no doubt this would have been an easier case if Michael and the Schindlers hadn’t ended up at odds and if Michael had refrained from finding another mate while staying married to Terri. However, those soap operatic details really don’t have much of anything to do with Terri’s biological state.
June 15th, 2024 at 10:05 pm
Well said. Very well said.
-Grace