Euthanasia:Crime, or Logical Choice?
...gests that government policies prevent independent living for disabled people, which makes their live unbearable. Longmore concludes that granting physician-assisted suicide for disabled people would be prejudicial and discriminatory. I concur with some of Longmore’s points, but it seems as though he gives limited reasoning for opposing physician-assisted suicide. In talking only about the disabled, he does not recognize other types of people. What about the terminally ill? Or someone in a great amount of pain? I needed to find out as much as I could about euthanasia to try to come to a conclusion. Araujo 3 The first questions I had on my mind were what types of people are obtaining euthanasia and where is euthanasia legal? Oregon is the only state in the United States that has legalized physician-assisted suicide. Oregon’s Death With Dignity law consists of doctors prescribing lethal medications to the terminally ill. The law went into effect in 1997. Fewer than 50 people a year die from assisted suicide; it accounts for only one-seventh of one percent of all deaths in Oregon. It seemed to me that there is not anything wrong with this law. It’s not out of control, and there have been no reported complications. I think that Oregon’s Death with Dignity law does have merit . The only question I had was, whether or not this law should be limited only to the terminally ill. What about the severely disabled? I realized that in order to come to a position on this issue I would have to research an actual case of physician-assisted suicide. I decided to explore the Terri Schiavo case. Theresa “Terri” Schiavo experienced a heart attack while at her home in 1990. The lack of oxygen for several minutes caused massive brain damage. Three years later doctors diagnosed Terri to be in a persistent vegetative state, which means that there is an absence of voluntary action and an inability to interact with her environment. She had a slim chance for recovery. In 1998, Terri’s husband Michael requested that Terri’s feeding tube, which was keeping her alive, be removed. However, Terri’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, fought many legal battles that opposed Michael’s requests. The courts were continually in favor of Michael and, despite the Schindler’s interventions, found that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state with no chances of recovery and would not want to be kept on life support. Terri’s feeding tube was removed on March 18, 2005, and she died fourteen days later at the age of 41. As I studied the case many Araujo 4 questions came to me. Was it right for Terri to die from starvation? Was this what Terri wanted? There were two sides to this story and I wanted to understand both. I started with the opposing side. Robert and Mary Schindler wanted their daughter to stay alive. They believed that killing their daughter by starvation and dehydration would be inhumane. I started to think, could I even go one day without eating or drinking? It seems to me that starvation and dehydration would be a very painful death. Was this the way that Terri should have died? I’m sure watching someone you love starve and dehydrate to death must be unforgettably horrible. Another opposing argument is that Terri is severally disabled, not terminally ill. Her medical condition would not eventually kill her. Maybe if she was given rehabilitation treatment, her condition might have improved. Being devout Catholics and pro-life activists, the Schindler family was thought to value life. Removing their daughter’s feeding tube would go against the teachings of the Church. After researching the opposing side, I felt sick to my stomach. I could not even imagine watching someone, let alone my own daughter, starve and dehydrate to death. I agree with some of the points Robert and Mary Schindler made. I agree that Terri should have been given rehabilitation treatment in hopes of improving her condition, and I also agree that Terri should have died differently. Unlike Robert and Mary Schindler, Michael Schiavo felt that his wife should not continue living. Michael Schiavo petitioned to have his wife’s feeding tube removed eight years after her heart attack. He argued that Terri made credible statements that she would not want to live dependent on a machine. By removing her feeding tube, Michael felt that he was carrying out his wife’s wishes. Doctors said that Terri had almost no chance of ever recovering. Throughout the Araujo 5 first eight years kept alive in a vegetative state, she did not improve at all. It seems to me that there was no hope for Terri. Before Terri died, she had been in a persistent vegetative state for fifteen years. I put myself in Terri’s position. Personally, if I lived like a vegetable for fifteen years, I would want to kill myself. I do not see how anyone would want to live like that. You have to ask yourself this question: is lying around all day long, unable to communicate with others, and completely unaware of your surroundings really considered living? Also, would you want to see a loved one in this hopeless situation? I felt as though Michael Schiavo had some very r...