Thursday, March 17, 2005

Shades of grey

The law is stepping in the Terri Schiavo case. I wish I could formulate a coherent opinion about this one, but I can't. It's brutal on both sides, and it's a slippery slope: do you allow euthanesia and under what conditions and who is authorized to make that decision? The truth is, only about 20 percent of Americans have living wills, but I'd be curious to see who would choose to live the way Terri Schiavo has been 'living' for the last 15 years. I also want to know who would choose to have the state or federal government making decisions about their health care.

I also find an incredible hypocrisy in this case. While conservatives are doing their best to trim entitlement programs like Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security,their concern seems more focused on those who are not born and those who are near the end of their lives, while the rest of us have to keep on keeping on, dealing with increasing costs of health care -- even when employed and heaven help you with those premiums if you aren't. The schism was clearly illustrated to me yesterday on a conservative blog where a poster was trying to organize support for Terri's cause. Yet in another posting, the same commentator said she didn't support any 'free' health care plans; what would she say if she knew Terri's cost could total up to $80,000 a year and was borne primarily by the taxpayers? What then?

Don't get me wrong -- the question of life or death cannot be reduced to a financial equation and I'm very much conflicted on whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed. If her parents are willing to assume the responsibility of caring for her, then that's what should happen. If their belief and faith is so strong that she can recover, that a miracle is in the offing, then perhaps the tube should not be removed; perhaps the taxpayers and lawmakers, who have fought so hard for Terri, will see $80,000/year for the rest of Terri's life as a good investment. I'm not necessarily sure I'm one of them as that money could be used to help someone who has a treatable afflication and a chance of living a fulfilling life if given treatment, but has no money to pay. But then again, I also find something repungnant about starving and dehydrating someone to death; perhaps there's some comfort that Terri has no cerebral cortex, that perhaps she won't feel anything at all. But like so many things in this case, we simply do not know.

No comments: