I've heard about the Terry Schiavo case, and am pretty disappointed with what I see. Apparently some 70% of the US are in favour of letting her die from dehydration. Some norwegian journalists mentioning the case (probably eager to align themselves with the usually more sympathetic american left) have called her "brain dead", but she's not brain dead (which is a medical term), she's just very severely mentally handicapped.
In Norway, she would have lived: doctors take the final decisions about continuing treatment, not relatives (although they have a say), and certainly not judges. In either case, nourishment is care, not treatment, so I don't think you can even refuse that if you're conscious. Even to those that support euthanasia, I suspect suicide by dehydration would be a bit on the macabre side. Sure, if she's essentially dead already, she doesn't feel it, I suppose, it's just that "essentialy dead" is clearly defined in most legislatures to be brain death.
We live in a state that takes good care of the handicapped, even those who can't speak, be useful, think or even respond very much. Isn't that as it should be? The state should have no religion, and thus don't assume anything like an afterlife. Considering that there may very well be no afterlife, shouldn't it prize every moment of its citizens as infinitely valuable, even if it is in a somewhat reduced state? I think Christians and atheists both should reflect on this. The best arguments for the value of life are often entirely faith-agnostic.
It's not so long ago since Terje died. He was an aquaintance of my father. I got along with his son, and I went to a fishing trip with them on one occasion. Now Terje was in a car accident, and was severely brain-damaged for the last years of his life. About fifteen years I think. He had almost only reflexive behaviour left, but isn't a little life better than no life at all?
Schiavo's husband claims that she wouldn't have wanted to live like that. That's the easy way out. The govermnent could also have argued like that, and refused the expensive care given to Terje. I don't see it as all that much of a difference whether a husband decides or the goverment. It would probably be all the same for Terje (or Terri).
The argument "they wouldn't want to live like that" also loses credence from that those severely handicapped groups that _can_ communicate, disagree.
Posted by vintermann at March 29, 2005 02:19 PM