Terri Schiavo: Right-To-Life Or Mercy Killing
At what point is a person dead or alive? More specifically, at what point does a person depend completely and totally on an outside source for life? These are the questions that were debated in the lawsuits surrounding Terri Schiavo and the incidents leading to her physician assisted death. Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband at the time and the man who still had custody over her, said that Terri stated during her life that she would never want to be “kept alive on a machine”(Worldnetdaily.com, 2001). This may have been the case, but at the time of her death, Terri was still a functioning human being who was receiving food through a tube because the muscles that controlled her mouth and gag reflexes were uncoordinated. Terri Schiavo was denied her right to life, not because of her state, but for outside motives related to money and Michael Shiavo’s personal feelings. Her death was labeled a just, physician-assisted death, but in reality it was a violation of the most basic of human rights, the right to life.
Despite all of the objections by Terri’s parents and the repeated appeals and protests by pro-life activists, Michael Schiavo kept pressing and, on March 18, Terri’s feeding tube was removed, and by March 31, Terri Schiavo was dead (Cnn.com, 2001). Her parents were not allowed to be at her bedside and no flowers were allowed in her room. With her shades down, she had not seen the outside since 2000 No music was allowed in her room and no animals were allowed in her room, despite the fact that she was animal lover. These were all rules imposed by Michael at the time of Terri’s death (Worldnetdaily.com, 2001).
This is what our culture has become here in America, the land of the free (if you can talk). The right to life has been lost and people’s choice of whether they can live or not is placed on shoulders of others. Babies, brain damaged patients, the elderly, the case does not matter. If someone not useful, they do not deserve to live. If someone causes hardship on another, they do not deserve to live. All we, as a nation, can pray for is a better understanding of what a life is, where life begins and where life ends before we are the next person in a hospice with no one to care for us.
May 16, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I agree but only to a certain extent. Evidence in Terry’s case told that she was able to communicate and that she wanted life. However in other cases I believe that if a person is a total vegetable and/or brain dead that they should be removed from life support or whatever is keeping them alive.
May 16, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I agree with you a lot on this…I think it’s wrong that Terri’s husband was allowed to kill her without the opinions of the other doctors who knew that she was still living…It’s really sad that woman was forced to die when she clearly could have become well…
May 19, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hey JD. You did a good job on your paper. I agree with you, I do not think someone else should be able to make the decision wheither or not another person dies. I also think that if the decision had to be made, the parents should have made the decision because they are blood related, not just related because of their marriage.
May 19, 2008 at 3:52 pm
This is a reply to your comment on my exerpt, i was going to come from 3 different perspectives one from a christian view, one from a atheist view and also one from a gay person’s view, however mrs gillmore said that that would be to vague and similar to a novel instead of a research paper. But thanks for the comment i appreciate it.
May 19, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Zach, you are very right. I do agree with you, however, in Terri’s case she was not completely brain dead. She could still communicate and was aware of what was going on around her. The case was basically a violation of mentally hadicapped person’s rights.