|
|
Terry Schiavo: Medical Dilemmas The situation involving Terry Schiavo has been very sad to watch. I had been married just about two years when my wife was the age of Terry Schiavo at the time of her medical disaster. My wife and I have a daughter who is just a couple of years older than Terry was at the time of her disaster. I cannot imagine having to face that situation either as a parent or a spouse. I can understand the strong feelings on both sides. From a human point of view it is sad to see this matter having ended with broken families and broken hopes. However, I think something very important has been overlooked in the politicization of the situation. Modern medicine has allowed man to do many wonderful things. We are saving lives now that several years ago could never have been saved. People live longer and, in most instances, have healthier and happier lives. With these wonderful capabilities, however, has come a question which is almost impossible to answer in many instances - when does life end? This question can be addressed on several levels, but the difficulty of providing an answer persists on each of these levels. On a physical basis, life ends when the brain stops working, the heart stops beating, and breathing has ceased. However, it is possible to maintain almost all body functions other than brain function even when in a natural state without medical assistance the functions could not be maintained. Is artificial continuation of body functions maintaining life or experimenting with medical possibilities? With most of the brain incapable of functioning, some base functions will still be maintained by the brain stem. For instance, the brain stem can maintain a beating heart and breathing. However, feeding and hydration must be done artificially because the person in such a state cannot take in enough food and water by natural means to sustain life. With eyelids open and only the brain stem functioning, it is even possible that the eyes will track light, which can give the illusion of seeing and perceiving movement. Is such a person alive or dead physically? On a philosophical basis, without cognitive awareness, is a person alive? Such a person cannot think, cannot make judgments, cannot react to a surrounding environment except possibly in a very primitive manner, apparently cannot have emotional reactions and interaction and cannot choose which physical actions to take. Many people who are mentally ill or substantially mentally retarded can still do most or all of these things, though the choices and actions may be limited and possibly dangerous to oneself or others. Without being able to react in these various ways, is a person truly alive? Spiritually, when does the soul - the breath from God that makes a human being special and each life extremely valuable - depart? If none of the mental functions noted above exist, and none of the physical functions can be maintained except by use of artificial means, has the soul actually left? With past studies into near death experiences, it might be suggested that cognitive capacity is an essential aspect of the presence of the soul. People who have been clinically dead and come back to life routinely have a degree of cognitive and physical capabilities which allow them to act upon the spiritual nature of the near death experience and often to undergo a substantial transformation. Without this cognitive ability, do we then have a loss of spiritual life, i.e., has the soul departed? With the inability to provide clear answers to these questions because of medical intervention to maintain various body functions that could not otherwise be sustained, states have enacted different laws which provide a hierarchy of persons to consult to make decisions about maintaining heroic artificial efforts at sustaining life when a person has not left written indications of how that person would want to have such decisions made. Florida has such a statute, Chapter 765 of the Florida Statutes. Under that statute, if a person has left no directive, then 765.401 sets out who is to make such a decision. The first choice under Florida law is a court appointed guardian. (Under many laws such a guardian is used only if certain family members are not available.) If there is not such a guardian, then the order of consultation is first the spouse. Michael was both the spouse and the court appointed guardian. Thus, he was the proper person to make the decision. The efforts - though maybe not the motives - of others to change this statutory procedure for this one situation are highly suspect. I am not sure that you and I would want such interference, including from the Congress and the President, in our lives in such difficult personal decisions. If Michael Schiavo was indeed a cad who should be punished under law, let that be done. However, I cannot in good conscious myself say whether he or Terry's parents were right. I can only hope none of my family ever faces such a choice, and that, if any of my family does face such a choice, there will be an effort to support each other in love without outside interference and grandstanding by politicians. This is not a plea for assisted suicide or eliminating lives that are not economically productive. I am strongly pro-life. I believe God created life for good, and the best we can do is to honor God by living well and trying to help others to do likewise. But I do believe that medical science has progressed so far that it leaves us with extremely difficult physical, philosophical and spiritual decisions, and that the laws such as in Florida are a reasonable means of dealing with this very difficult situation. Too strong a reaction in either direction because of the strong feelings generated by the Schiavo case could undo much that is good. For this reason, I would do nothing to change any of the laws currently on the books, and I do not fault the judges for following such laws. |
|
