Persistent Vegetative State (PVS)

Lately in the news due to the Terri Schiavo case, I recommend the following links:

THE PERMANENT VEGETATIVE STATE; ETHICAL CRUX, MEDICAL FICTION? and Dictionary.LaborLawTalk.com

The Schiavo cases raises many interesting issues. I'm omitting the many legal, political, and religious issues that have been widely discussed in the media, which is not to discount their relevance. I'm just trying to say something new and make my viewpoint known.

My standard for quality of life is "If I can't shovel the sidewalk, and I can't tell you not to pull the plug, then you have my current permission to kill my future body as expediently as possible." I wouldnot like to be dehydrated or starved to death. It seems like a cruel way to go. I'd have no problem with being taken off a respirator. If I was in a persistent vegetative state and able to breathe on my own, I'd rather be killed by an overdose of a drug. I think people can return from a persistent vegetative state, as some have. The process may be very long, perhaps years. If a loved one was in that state, I'd like to think I'd be patient. But if I was in that state, I see no reason to put my loved ones through the angst. They should have no compunction about ending a bad situation and getting on with their lives.

The problems I see with the Terri Schiavo case are as follows:

1. I don't like it when families fight. Yes, the parents might think it is their business, but when Terri married her husband, he got the right to make medical decisions for her. That is the way our system works, and I don't like people crying foul if they don't get their way. Either change the law or accept the law as written.

2. There is no legal basis for Congress to intervene. Yes, the presumption should be on the side of life, but Terri was given that presumption. Courts ruled that after considering the evidence, the presumption was not sufficient to sustain her body in a PVS.

3. I firmly believe in the right to die and that the state and federal gov't have no business intervening. I see the courts as upholding the sanctity of the individual and of marriage (not to be confused with simply anti-gay "sanctity of marriage") in this case. Two problems: First, the husband has moved on, and has a new family with another woman. That puts him in a bad political situation regardless of his motives. Second: By definition, Terri's wishes were for herself applied to her "self". It is less clear that those wishes apply to a body carrying Terri's old brain around. One could argue that the Terri that opted not to live in this state no longer exists. If the parents and siblings want to take possession of and care for the physical body, I would have no objection were it not for the rights of the husband. I don't want to admit that Terri has lost her rights, but it isn't crazy to suggest it, as you could argue that Terri no longer exists.

4. I don't know enough about neurology, but people and doctors tend to underestimate the consciousness of other people and animals. Ask yourself whether you attribute conscious thought to every other person you hear about, whether a criminal, a homeless person, a foreigner, etc. And few of us attribute consciousness to the animals we eat for food, despite obvious evidence that animals feel pain, etc. My point is that I see consciousness in severely disabled people where others discount it. Would we put Stephen Hawking to death if he didn't have a voice synthesizer?

5. I'd rather Congress vote whether to withhold hydration and nutrition from Tom DeLay.

Not a simple issue, but for different reasons than I usually hear discussed in the news (skip the "right to life", "due process", and "eternal damnation" arguments please--those have already been adjudicated).

posted on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 at 12:41 | path: /words | perma link