Euthanasia versus Neglect
Jay Tea at Wizbang makes some interesting observations this morning. He hasn’t taken sides on the Teri Schiavo case, but he is pointing out that if you decide on a course of action, then you should do it with the courage of your convictions. Letting Terri die by starvation is cowardly.
In the Terri Schiavo case (which I NOT taking sides on — I intend to maintain my personal boycott of the topic), the pragmatic approach for the “remove the tube” side would be to say that removing the tube would not be acceptable. If the decision is that her body be allowed to cease functioning, then simply allowing her to expire by neglect is needlessly cruel. A quick, painless passing would be better than simply standing by while starvation and dehydration take their toll. A large dose of a sedative (much like the way we execute prisoners) would be more ethical — even if it means that someone has to live with the burden of being the “executioner” of a woman who certainly deserved better than her fate. And if that smacks of euthenasia, that’s because that’s what it is — the only difference is in the level of compassion being shown and having the courage of your convictions.
If the intention is to let her die without feeling any responsibility, then letting her starve to death fails. Letting somebody die by inaction achieves the same results as intentionally killing her, so there’s no difference in the amount of responsibility. So if the desired result is to see her die, then why not “put her to sleep?”
If it feels unethical, that’s probably because it is.
Thanks for the thoughts, but I feel compelled to point out that “Wizbang” didn’t make those observations — one part of it (namely, I) did. My colleagues, Kevin and Paul, have repeatedly made their positions (with the parents) clear. I’m the only one boycotting.
J.
Jay Tea
March 22, 2005
My apologies, and I’ll correct the above post. Thanks.
I guess I refer to “Wizbang” as I do “Opinion Journal”. It’s a group of well-respected authors I’ve been referring to collectively.
Michael
March 22, 2005
Yes, and this throws human nature, not to mention the Good Samaritan law, out the window. How many of us, if we saw someone suffering, human OR animal, would walk on by? A parent would be charged with murder in the death of her child if she just stopped feeding him/her, even if the child was severly retarded! The fact that they are even denying her ice ships to wet her lips is unconscionable.
onelamb
March 23, 2005