Plan ahead to avoid Schiavo dilemma
Becky Jimenez
Issue date: 3/30/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Medical technology has had a great effect in our society today in regards to dying and death. Technology has allowed the use of certain procedures even when success or a cure is unlikely. We have now accepted the attitude that "what can be done, should be done."
This clearly seems to be the case in Florida.
A recent Florida case has people speculating whether it is ethical to determine when death is an acceptable option. Terry Schiavo has been in a vegetative state since 1990 after a heart attack. Since then, she has been kept alive on life support and fed through a feeding tube.
Terri's feeding tube was removed on March 18. In spite of this, lawyers for the House of Representatives filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case.
This particular family case has now risen to a political spectacle. Florida Governor Bush, President Bush and Congress accelerated the legal process and presented the federal courts to review Schiavo's case.
However, the appeal was denied. Federal judges from both Tampa and the Supreme Court refused to intervene the ruling of a state Pinellas Circuit Court judge.
The removal of the feeding tube will cause her to starve to death.
Terri's husband claims that his wife's wishes were to not to be kept alive. However, Terri's parents disagree with their son-in-law because they don't think his concern is in Terri's best interest, but rather his own.
Michael Schiavo is a perfect example of how controversial a "loving" husband can be. His judgment as a husband is not solely creditable because he will inherit, upon his wife's death, a large malpractice settlement. He has also been in a relationship with another woman since the vegetative state of his wife.
However, it is a fact that if you're married, your spouse has all control over what happens to your body whether it may be medical treatment or disposition.
The law states that you solely confide in your spouse to choose what is best for you in case of unconsciousness.
This clearly seems to be the case in Florida.
A recent Florida case has people speculating whether it is ethical to determine when death is an acceptable option. Terry Schiavo has been in a vegetative state since 1990 after a heart attack. Since then, she has been kept alive on life support and fed through a feeding tube.
Terri's feeding tube was removed on March 18. In spite of this, lawyers for the House of Representatives filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case.
This particular family case has now risen to a political spectacle. Florida Governor Bush, President Bush and Congress accelerated the legal process and presented the federal courts to review Schiavo's case.
However, the appeal was denied. Federal judges from both Tampa and the Supreme Court refused to intervene the ruling of a state Pinellas Circuit Court judge.
The removal of the feeding tube will cause her to starve to death.
Terri's husband claims that his wife's wishes were to not to be kept alive. However, Terri's parents disagree with their son-in-law because they don't think his concern is in Terri's best interest, but rather his own.
Michael Schiavo is a perfect example of how controversial a "loving" husband can be. His judgment as a husband is not solely creditable because he will inherit, upon his wife's death, a large malpractice settlement. He has also been in a relationship with another woman since the vegetative state of his wife.
However, it is a fact that if you're married, your spouse has all control over what happens to your body whether it may be medical treatment or disposition.
The law states that you solely confide in your spouse to choose what is best for you in case of unconsciousness.