Facts and Opinions: Abortion | Animal Rights | Companion Animals | Disability Rights | Education | Parenting | Sex | Sexism
Artwork | Vegan Recipes | Merchandise | Everything Else
Mary Schindler (left) interacting with her daughter, Terri Schiavo. |
by Rosemary Amey This weekend, I have not been able to stop thinking about the plight of Terri Schiavo, the disabled woman who is dying only because those who are supposed to be looking after her are no longer being allowed to give her food or water. What could Terri be experiencing? Here are the words of Kate Adamson, who was completely paralyzed after a stroke and, like Terri, was denied nutrition: When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I thought I was going insane. I was screaming out in my mind, "Don't you know I need to eat?" And even up until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going through the feeding tube. At that point, it sounded pretty good. I just wanted something. The fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode every thought I had. (source) Like Terri, Kate was expected to never recover. Now she has only some paralysis on the left side of her body, and is a motivational speaker and disability rights activist. Terri's potential to recover is unknown—her husband, Michael Schiavo, has refused to allow her to have any therapy, even something as minor as placing a wadded up cloth in her clenched hands to loosen them (source). Even if she never recovers beyond her current state, however, is it right to subject her to what may be a slow and painful death? Michael Schiavo has said that Terri would chose death by starvation in this situation. But is he a credible source about Terri's wishes? At the time that he was suing for malpractice, he said that he wanted to look after Terri for the rest of her life, and the damages were supposed to provide for Terri's care. After the money was secured, Schiavo announced that Terri would want to die in such circumstances. Why didn't he say that before the money was awarded, instead of seeking for her life-long care, which at the time he estimated to be 51 years? (source) And wouldn't it have been convenient if his wife had died after the award, leaving him a very wealthy man? (Michael Schiavo's supporters argue that the money is gone now so he has nothing to gain by killing her. That may be true, but he couldn't have known how much of the money for Terri's care would have been burned up by legal fees. If he did originally start trying to have her killed for the money, would he admit it and give up the case now that the money is gone?) If Michael does have Terri's best interests at heart, why did he ignore the recommendation of the professionals at Bradenton Mediplex Rehabilitation Center for therapy in 1991, because at that time Terri's condition was improving? Why did he instead have her put in a hospice, where she would get no therapy at all? (source) If Michael still has a husband-like relationship to Terri, why did he announce his engagement to another woman in 1997? Why didn't he divorce Terri if he wanted to move on to another relationship? (Perhaps because then he wouldn't have a hope of inheriting anything from Terri?) As well as the questions about Michael Schiavo's motivations, this question raises more general issues for disability rights advocates. Why should Terri's getting food be contingent on her cognitive function improving? (source) How intelligent must a person be to deserve something as basic as food? What does this imply for cognitively disabled people, should they become unable to feed themselves? Some are arguing that since Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, starving her won't cause suffering. But there is doubt as to how aware Terri actually is. What if she is aware, but unable to communicate her feelings in a conventional way, as her supporters argue? And if she even if she is unaware, why should she be starved? There is no need to kill her to end her suffering in this case, since she is not suffering at all. Money was already awarded for her life-long care, and her parents want to oversee that care. Besides, doctors have been wrong about how aware their patients are on other occasions. Rus Cooper-Dowda once found herself in a situation similar to Terri's, immobilized and unable to communicate conventionally as she listened in horror to her husband and her doctors discussing pulling the plug on her. She was very fortunate that a nurse recognized her struggles to communicate and found a way for her to make her wishes known. Since then, Cooper-Dowda has recovered far beyond the "experts'" original predictions. Other supporters of Michael Schiavo seem to be basing their support not so much on the facts of Terri's situation but on the "pro-life" movement's support of Terri and her parents. But should Terri be penalized because of some of her supporters' views on separate issues, like abortion? Terri's case is very different from abortion. Michael Schiavo can in no way be compared to a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy. No one is forcing him to continue to have anything to do with Terri; he could divorce her and get on with his life, while her parents and other care-givers look after her. It really is unfair that the media has depicted opposition to killing Terri as exclusive to right-wing, "pro-life", conservative Christians, for the most part ignoring the disability rights perspective. There are right-wing, "pro-life", conservative Christian disability rights advocates to be sure, but there are also lefties, pro-choicers, liberals, people from all religious backgrounds (or none) who support disability rights and do not want to see Terri starved to death. Terri's case is also not a "right to die" case, since she would not be dying if she was given food. Although she is severely disabled, she is healthy and could live for decades if given food. Food is not a medical treatment! We all need food! Terri also was not suffering any painful conditions before her food and water were removed. Even euthanasia advocate Peter Singer has said, It's not a classic right-to-die case, partly because her wishes were uncertain, and there also are conflicting claims about whether she has any awareness at all. It's certainly not a case where someone has clearly made a statement or signed a declaration about what should be done in certain circumstances. (source) I've been putting off writing about Terri on my website for a while because it all seems so hopeless, and it is so upsetting for me to think about. But if nothing else, by putting this up here at least people can know what I would want if I were in Terri's situation:
|
Links
Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation: website maintained by Terri's family.
Why, Michael? Twelve questions for Michael Schiavo. At the Inclusion Daily Express site, a disability rights news service. Schiavo case is about disability rights. From Not Dead Yet. Shocking affidavit from Terri's nurse. Speaking from experience about Terri Schiavo: relates experience of Kate Adamson, who was denied food for 8 days after she had a stroke. When I woke up: Rus Cooper-Dowda recounts her harrowing experience of almost having her life support removed because her disabilities interfered with her ability to communicate. Better dead than...: Terri's plight reminds us of the common assumption of better dead than disabled. No guts, no glory: Feminists and Terri Schiavo.
|
CodeBlueBlog has some important articles on Terri's case from a medical perspective: