Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Scenic Sounds

I suppose that my view is so extreme, that if I had my way, this discussion would be irrelevant. I don't believe ANYONE should be denied food and water for ANY reason. I don't believe the courts, the family, or even the patient themselves has a "right" to willfully die. I wrote an e-mail shortly after Terri's passing, explaining why I feel this way:


"This whole thing is really freaking me out. I just can’t believe that there are so many people out there who believe what went on here was not only okay for Terri, but it is also what they would wish upon themselves if they were to end up like her. How vain, selfish, and arrogant these people are!

I think it is flat-out impossible to ascertain whether a person in Terri's condition would want to live. That person might hold a different position (brain damage does tend to change your perspective) than they held when they "expressed the will to die". To me, it's quite possible that the pleasant smell of shampoo, the soft caress of a loved one, or the wonder sparked by a simple, shiny balloon, were experiences/sensations that were sufficient enough for a brain-damaged Terri to want to live. The truth is that our values and long-held beliefs are subject to change as our circumstances do. Becoming a parent is a good example of this. I try very hard not to state what I would or wouldn't do in any given situation, because I have so many times failed to act in the manner I would have previously predicted. We are ever maturing, learning, changing, and adapting. Healthy, 21 year old Terri Shiavo’s statements should not have been attributed to a brain-damaged, 41 year old Terri Shiavo. Bottom line.

The selfishness of our society is demonstrated by the fact that most people believe the "right to die" belongs strictly to the patient. That fact assumes that our lives are lived only for ourselves. For most of us, there are others who would be affected by our decision to starve, ahem, "dehydrate" ourselves to death. If Terri ever did wish such a fate upon herself, it would have no doubt been difficult to contemplate her parents being forced to bear witness to her slow, agonizing death. Of course, we are not encouraged to think of others when making this kind of a decision, and it is almost always assumed that we would be a burden to our loved ones. Or God forbid, the State. But, it is wrong to believe your life begins and ends with you. Your presence on this earth, whatever your condition, could potentially affect those around you. And it’s wrong to assume that the effect would be negative. Particularly if you are loved and valued by those around you.

..And isn't there an element of suicide here? Doesn't it really boil down to: "Life sucks, and I don't want to live like this anymore..."? Who hasn't expressed that sentiment at one time or another? Can everyone of us be trusted to decide what amount of pain and suffering we can endure? I don't mean to be rude here, but there are those of us who are a little on the wimpy side. For those of us who truly believe that God does not give us more than we can handle, the decision whether or not to willfully end our lives in order to prematurely escape our misery, is easily made.

In 1993, Michael Shiavo wanted to withhold antibiotic from Terri, hoping that she would develop sepsis and die. If the nursing home had accommodated Michael, then withholding the antibiotic could be construed as removing Terri's "artificial life support". Down the line, anything that can save your life or improve your health becomes "life support" if someone has the motivation to kill you. Be it the State, or a loving husband. Judge Greer's denial of Terri's parent's motion to feed her naturally, tells us that even if Terri could have been fed by mouth, she was still deemed by the court not fit to live. So here they've raised the bar again. This is just scary to me.

And until a few months ago, I didn’t understand what a calm, peaceful, and I even heard one doctor say, "loving" experience, dehydration is for the patient. To hear these doctors on TV describe the process, I can’t imagine why it is illegal to do this to animals. Sounds like it would be an inexpensive, convenient, and “loving” way to dispose of your unwanted pet. No vet bills, heck, you don’t even have to transport the animal into town… simply stop re-filling the food and water dish, and let nature take it from there. I honestly feel like I am in the Twilight Zone. I mean, I always kind of took for granted that dying of hunger and thirst was a terrible way to expire. It’s a no-brainer, right? Wrong! Now the doctors are coming out of the woodwork (or out from under their rocks) to proclaim to the world how serene, merciful, and natural the process of death by dehydration can be! As a result, people who have believed their entire lives that starving to death was a horrible way to die, today will look you in the face and tell you that death by starvation and dehydration is painless! Those people would rather appear as utter fools, than admit Terri suffered as she died. Cowards. They won’t so much as glance at her suffering, yet in the days before her death, they were screaming for it to be done to her.

I cannot let this go. I will not let this go. I will never forget Terri and what the good ole’ boy network did to her down there in Florida. I know that Terri is at peace now, but I continue to suffer at the thought of what she endured in that hospice. Tortured for the pleasure of her husband, and most people were okay with it. Most people would prefer to die Terri‘s death, than to live Terri’s life. Shocking. Just unbelievable."

-Dawn Sanborn


241 posted on 04/07/2005 10:23:49 AM PDT by backtalk2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies ]


To: backtalk2000

We certainly wouldn't starve any patients by mistake if we followed that rule!!

It just doesn't get much better than that, backtalk - beautiful, very eloquent. ;-)

243 posted on 04/07/2005 3:40:30 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds (Sí, estamos libres sonreír otra vez - ahora y siempre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies ]

To: backtalk2000

After reading this, I corrected another post I'd done. I think Dawn Sanborn is right, that we can't know what we would want in a situation like that.

I had unwittingly used the argument against suffering in writing about Shelly and Brian Howard's tragic death this week. I thought we shouldn't ask her to suffer painful burn therapy, how selfish of us. But that was wrong. Thinking it's merciful, when in actuality it's murder. It's one step away from killing Terri.

Thank you for the post.


250 posted on 04/10/2005 9:35:14 PM PDT by gentlestrength
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson