2008 Woodie Awards
Terri Schiavo and the Age Old Question
When is someone's life worth saving and who gets to decide the answer?
Jami Furo
Issue date: 4/8/05 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
It has happened. After lying in a hospital bed surrounded by the cacophony of the world's debate, Terri Schiavo has passed away. She wasted away over the course of almost two weeks without food or water, and she finally succumbed.
Some good has come out of this at least. People who never would have considered themselves in such a condition have written their living wills, to ensure that their loved ones are aware of their wishes.
No one will deny that her situation was a tragic one. She lay in a bed while the world argued over her fate. No one denied her right to live. The debate was over Michael Schiavo's right to make the decision that she should die-and that is where we must focus our energies.
Where do we draw the line? When does a person's life become the possession of another person? What defines life, anyway? Is a person still alive when all brain functions have ceased? Is a person still alive when he or she cannot breathe on their own? Is a person not alive when he or she cannot eat without assistance?
The question is always one of definition. That is the question with abortion, as well. It always comes back to the same thing: when is a life a life?
So Terri Schiavo could not eat by herself. Eating is a voluntary function, such as walking. If a person cannot walk, is he or she no longer capable of living because they require assistance for a voluntary function?
I know that this is a logic fallacy. That is my point. We know that it is ridiculous, not to mention cruel, to even consider that because a person cannot walk, he or she is not just as alive and valuable as someone who can walk. But where is that line drawn? Where is the line between what is absurd and what is accepted when defining life?
Science has never been able to define when a life is worth saving. There are no facts and numbers that will prove a point when a life is no longer worth saving. It is all subjective. When a person has not made a living will and we do not know the expressed will of a person in this condition, do we not owe them the benefit of the doubt? Should we not err on the side of caution that the life is still worth saving-even when that life is in a vegetative state for 15 years?
When there are no facts to dictate what actions we should take, it always gets sticky. Morals and interpretations of those morals begin to fly, and pandemonium ensues. Here is what I say to you: one person cannot decide the fate or worth of another person's life. It is not up to a man or to the entire human race to make such a decision.
May Terri Schiavo rest in peace. May her family, including her husband, find strength during this difficult time. As for us, the time to decide when a person is allowed to decide the fate of another person's life is upon us. The debate is certainly not an easy one because it always goes back to the same question: where do we draw the line?
Some lines just cannot be drawn. Some lines simply should not be drawn.
Some good has come out of this at least. People who never would have considered themselves in such a condition have written their living wills, to ensure that their loved ones are aware of their wishes.
No one will deny that her situation was a tragic one. She lay in a bed while the world argued over her fate. No one denied her right to live. The debate was over Michael Schiavo's right to make the decision that she should die-and that is where we must focus our energies.
Where do we draw the line? When does a person's life become the possession of another person? What defines life, anyway? Is a person still alive when all brain functions have ceased? Is a person still alive when he or she cannot breathe on their own? Is a person not alive when he or she cannot eat without assistance?
The question is always one of definition. That is the question with abortion, as well. It always comes back to the same thing: when is a life a life?
So Terri Schiavo could not eat by herself. Eating is a voluntary function, such as walking. If a person cannot walk, is he or she no longer capable of living because they require assistance for a voluntary function?
I know that this is a logic fallacy. That is my point. We know that it is ridiculous, not to mention cruel, to even consider that because a person cannot walk, he or she is not just as alive and valuable as someone who can walk. But where is that line drawn? Where is the line between what is absurd and what is accepted when defining life?
Science has never been able to define when a life is worth saving. There are no facts and numbers that will prove a point when a life is no longer worth saving. It is all subjective. When a person has not made a living will and we do not know the expressed will of a person in this condition, do we not owe them the benefit of the doubt? Should we not err on the side of caution that the life is still worth saving-even when that life is in a vegetative state for 15 years?
When there are no facts to dictate what actions we should take, it always gets sticky. Morals and interpretations of those morals begin to fly, and pandemonium ensues. Here is what I say to you: one person cannot decide the fate or worth of another person's life. It is not up to a man or to the entire human race to make such a decision.
May Terri Schiavo rest in peace. May her family, including her husband, find strength during this difficult time. As for us, the time to decide when a person is allowed to decide the fate of another person's life is upon us. The debate is certainly not an easy one because it always goes back to the same question: where do we draw the line?
Some lines just cannot be drawn. Some lines simply should not be drawn.