2008 Woodie Awards
Should the ill choose to die? NO
The preservation of life is too important to give up on.
By: Aaron Dobruck
Issue date: 3/31/05 Section: Insight
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Assisted suicide and euthanasia are words that have been on the minds of many in recent weeks as a brain damaged woman is slowly being starved to death by the withholding of fluids and nourishment in spite of her parents' efforts to save her.
The Terri Schiavo case itself does not actually deal with the issues of doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia, since no active role is being taken to end the woman's life.
Instead, a passive and much more common course of action is being mandated by the courts, to simply withhold artificial means of prolonging life.
Controversy in this case only exists because Schiavo left no specified wishes in relation to her being kept alive by artificial means. Had she officially made her wishes known by way of a do-not-resuscitate order or other official means, then there would be no legal question as to whether she should be kept attached to the feeding tube that she requires to stay alive.
Since she left no such directive, the decision legally falls to her husband, Michael Schiavo, who has not remained faithful to her.
Some say that because he has been living with another woman for most of the time that Mrs. Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state, the responsibility for her medical decisions should be given back to her parents; they would have been responsible for her care had she not been married when she entered the persistent vegetative state.
Refusing medical treatment and artificial life prolonging are in no way the same as suicide and withholding treatment from a fatally ill patient who has made the wish to die known, whose spouse or nearest relative has decided that not preventing death is the best course of action.
Euthanasia, like assisted suicide, requires a doctor's role in ending life, whereas withholding treatment is passive Since a written directive from Schiavo stating that she did not want to be kept alive artificially never existed, the court-ordered action of withholding fluids and nourishment from this woman is negligent.
The Terri Schiavo case itself does not actually deal with the issues of doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia, since no active role is being taken to end the woman's life.
Instead, a passive and much more common course of action is being mandated by the courts, to simply withhold artificial means of prolonging life.
Controversy in this case only exists because Schiavo left no specified wishes in relation to her being kept alive by artificial means. Had she officially made her wishes known by way of a do-not-resuscitate order or other official means, then there would be no legal question as to whether she should be kept attached to the feeding tube that she requires to stay alive.
Since she left no such directive, the decision legally falls to her husband, Michael Schiavo, who has not remained faithful to her.
Some say that because he has been living with another woman for most of the time that Mrs. Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state, the responsibility for her medical decisions should be given back to her parents; they would have been responsible for her care had she not been married when she entered the persistent vegetative state.
Refusing medical treatment and artificial life prolonging are in no way the same as suicide and withholding treatment from a fatally ill patient who has made the wish to die known, whose spouse or nearest relative has decided that not preventing death is the best course of action.
Euthanasia, like assisted suicide, requires a doctor's role in ending life, whereas withholding treatment is passive Since a written directive from Schiavo stating that she did not want to be kept alive artificially never existed, the court-ordered action of withholding fluids and nourishment from this woman is negligent.