|
Arthur Caplan, James McCartney, and Dominic Sisti, has a book out by Prometheus Books titled "The Case of Terri Schiavo: Ethics at the End of Life." The book was released on the anniversary of Terri's death.
Arthur Caplan is the director of the Center for Bioethics and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics at the University Of Pennsylvania School Of Medicine.
James McCartney is an associate at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics and an associate professor of philosophy at Villanova University.
Dominic Sisti is with the Department of Philosophy at Michigan State University.
Their opinions on the controversial death by starvation and dehydration are included. One comment states, "The key issues that were being keenly debated regarding Terri Schiavo had long been settled." The documents included in the collection state that the legal and bioethical consensus that Terri Schiavo's husband, as her legal surrogate, did have the established right to refuse tube feeding and thus "permit a natural death process to take place." Yet, for the mainstream bioethical community, the struggle over Terri Schiavo came "as a complete surprise." The editors acknowledge that "despite this consensus, many Americans still were not persuaded."
The reason Americans were, and still, are not persuaded is due to the heinous act of starving and dehydrating one to death, and then attempting to paint it as a good medical care and your rights.
Further, since Terri was not dying or in the process of dying, yanking her feeding tube did not allow or permit any natural death process to occur. That action purposely killed her, just like lack of food and fluids causes any plant or human to die.
Lack of or failure to provide sustenance to a human being is cruel, inhumane, abusive, and neglectful. Common sense dictates this is wrong. No law will ever convince me this is legal, and no bioethicist will ever convince me this is a natural occurrence.
A foreword by Jay Wolfson, Terri Schiavo's court-appointed guardian ad litem, is provided.
The book contains myriad documents and dwells on the right to refuse medical treatment, including artificial nutrition and hydration, opinion pieces, (by end of life/right to die groups, activists, bioethicists and lawyers) the Catholic Church struggle over withholding nutrition and hydration, and the involvement of our political leaders in the case.
Also included is a timeline of events, from Terri's collapse in 1990 to her death in 2005. This timeline is eerily similar to the timeline provided by the University of Miami's Ethics Program in concert with Nova Southeastern University.
Contrary to what these bioethicists would have you believe, there is no established consensus within the medical and theological fields on starving and dehydrating a non-terminal person to death. Nor is there established consensus on starving and dehydrating a brain injured person to death.
The legal field may have their majority consensus, but then their profession does not deal with the actual act of killing the disabled person.
If you are looking at this book to increase your knowledge base, you will find issues relevant to justifying the practice of starvation and dehydration, as it is biased in favor of passive non-voluntary euthanasia.
A public relations bulletin advertising the book offers it as "the response of those representing the established bioethical consensus in this country." While the authors lead you to believe there is established consensus among most, this only proves true within some quarters of the philosophical and legal communities.
There is nothing established as a consensus, or we would not have had the battle of preserving Terri's life for 15 years. We would not have the ongoing debate over her death to this day.
An excerpt reads, "The attempt to overcome the consensus did not succeed." But the only consensus is of some in the legal and bioethical communities.
Why do so many people in the U.S. and those from other countries disagree and refuse to accept the standard put out by the bioethical community?
Primarily, moral values guide our thoughts, actions, and behavior in life. Strong values demand the disabled have the same quality of life that we do and just as many rights as the rest of society. They demand our protection. And so, some find it morally insane to kill off the disabled in the name of dignity, mercy, or because some state legislature defines a medical condition as "terminal."
The mentally incapacitated displays varying degrees of cognition. Since we have no way of quantitatively testing cognitive levels, treating these individuals any differently than the rest of society is discriminatory. The justification to starve and dehydrate these people show weak values.
In the book, these writers assert that autonomy is the paramount ethical principle at issue. Do you assume that self determination or ownership of your medical decisions and rights are absolute? They are not.
A hospital ethics committee, a physician, a judge, and a guardian can override your rights. A member of the clergy, the media, and all of the above can sway your opinion or that of your family and surrogate thereby overriding your rights.
End of life decisions are often confusing and complex. Those who want to learn from the death of Terri Schiavo can find ample resources from Wesley Smith, Rita Marker, and other leaders and writers in the field who are against state sponsored assisted suicide and euthanasia.
We can only hope the societal, political, ethical, legal, and theological controversies continue so as to enlighten those still unaware of the euthanasia thrust in this country. 8-09-06
Karen is a registered nurse with a specialty in obstetrics and currently holds licenses in Ohio and Florida.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed by anyone without the express written permission of the publisher. This article is copyright protected and Fair Use is not applicable.
© 2006 North
Country Gazette
|
