The latest in the unfortunate case of Terri Schiavo is that the US Congress is going to pass legislation allowing a federal court to review the Florida State judge's decision in her case. With her feeding tube having been removed yesterday, the idea is that it would be re-inserted and she would be kept fed and hydrated until the federal appeal is finished.
I admit that I am torn on this issue, however I tend toward the position of her husband since I don't think I would want to continue indefinitely in the state that Terri is in. There are both valid and invalid arguments for each side and I don't have a firm opinion either way.
However, I do have a comment about how those who support keeping her alive have characterized the action of removing her tube. They claim that removing the tube will kill her. Actually, that's not really true. There's a difference between taking deliberate action to bring about the end of someone's life, and no longer performing actions that are preventing someone from dying.
So, for example, putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger would be killing her. Pulling out her tube would not be the cause of her death. It will, however, allow starvation and dehydration to occur which would be the cause. Yes, it's essentially arguing semantics but I think it's an important distinction. I do not agree with those who oppose removing the tube that it is an act of murder.
No comments:
Post a Comment