What Would Terry Do?
The title of this is a deliberate (in case you hadn't noticed) play on the popular "What Would Jesus Do" phrase.I feel that this in an appropriate question, because Terry Schiavo's case raises an uncomfortable question, a personal choice or decision that most of us avoid thinking about. That question - "What if that were me?".
This is not going to be a short post, simply because this is a difficult topic, and one where I'm not sure yet where I stand.
Most of us never seriously consider the possibility of such an injury/condition becoming the our mode of existence, or if we do, our minds shy away from it leaving the question unanswered. Our blythe assumption of "it can't happen to me" shields us from considering this extreme of the human condition as it might apply to ourselves.
But it can.
Traumatic injuries to the brain stem/spinal cord occur somewhere everyday to someone, through accident, malice, or acts of war. So if you wish to condone or condemn the ultimate outcome of what happened to Terry, you must in all honesty consider if it were you in that condition.
Because Terry's husband never allowed the proper diagnostic tests and the courts did nothing to remedy this, no one will every truly know how much of Terry was left. Terry's condition also challenges our understanding and belief in what constitutes life and spirit. There is an inherent contradiction to an extent in how the religious and right to life must view this and their actions in this case, as there is with the right to death/atheistic view that actually won the day.
What are our human bodies and mind? Are they truly the source of existence, of the "I" that views the world and those around me? Or are they just a shell, a housing for something greater that inhabits them for a time, as with a chrysalis, and discards them on a path to God or a higher state of existence (pick your personal religious preference).
It seems to me that if you are atheistic, then you must choose the former view - that consciouness/spirit is bound to the human body/brain, and that without the physical self, there is no "I". To my perspective, if this is what you believe, then physical life of the individual should be preserved at all costs, for the body's destruction/death results in final destruction of that "I" that informed that body. There is no reprieve, no passing on to some other existence, just a final end.
To the religous, the body (in my opinion) is the repository of the soul, the spirit, yet it is not the source. One of the teachings from my early catechism was that no matter what damage there was to the body, loss of limbs, etc, the soul remained perfect. It is how we live our lives that damage the soul, not the physical wear and tear of life. Thus when we die, we would be restored no matter what physical damage we may have incurred.
This is a critical point for me, in my own internal debate. If we take as a given, the assumption that all Terry's brain activity had truly ceased, that all that was present was reflexive activity from the brain stem, then was 'Terry' still present? How much of the body must be destroyed before the anchor of the soul is loosed? In this analogy, the brain is just the antenna that allows the mind/soul to be 'received' and allows it to perceive and communicate with our physical world. Damage/destruction of brain/body, does nothing except affect the quality of this 'communication', dropping the path as it were when brain is damaged beyond ability to function.
Given this understanding/assumption, and in Terry's case, basing it on the additional assumption that Terry was truly brain dead, then Terry, as an individual and soul was no longer, could no longer be present. In this scenario, then all that was being preserved was a husk, a shell no longer occupied or in use. In this case, keeping the body alive contradicts our belief in the greater soul/spirit and becomes a cruel act in itself since it prevents those left behind from moving on. Because the husband/courts prevented thet tests that might have given some clarification on the extent of Terry's brain damage/activity, this question is unanswerable in her case, as are what her true wishes may have been.
How does this play in our own personal choices? What perceptions are left in this condition if the brain is damaged but not destroyed? It is a 'fact' that true total sensory deprivation will drive a person to madness if extended long enough. Our minds/brains demand input and will cease to function if totally deprived of it for long enough. At the extreme, what if I'm so damaged that input ceases, yet "I" am still present, aware but unable to communicate or be communicated to? Is this life, or hell on earth, buried alive in a casket of bone, maintained by medical intervention? Consider all the gradiations in between from this extreme, to minor 'stroke' like symptoms, where movement or speach may be impaired, but full cognizance is still present. Where do you stand to draw your 'shining line' between life and death?
These are some of the questions we must each consider, and we should make a choice and document it in a living will if we do not want to be left on the tender mercies of a court. I still wrestle with this, with one additional parameter to make the mix spicier yet. I believe that we truly are given crosses to bear, to measure our faith and our character. Yet there is another side to this; through chance and circumstance, we may become someone else's cross, their own passage through fire and faith. So the additional question is - Whose cross am I, who will be influenced by my circumstance and choices? The ultimate answer to this passes beyond the obvious (to us) and is unknowable, but it cannot be without bearing on our own choices.
Christ made his choice, choosing certain death to fulfill his Father's promise, rather than life at any cost by running away. I do not believe and cannot choose life at any cost - it is the ultimate cowardice and can hide and justify far more horrible fates and crimes, such as creating life just to harvest organs and body parts to maintain existing lives that would otherwise end.
"Death with Dignity" can hide another host of evil, including killing the cripples/damaged in our lives simply because they are inconvenient. Once on this slope, it becomes easy to the add the old, retired, non-productive, or different.
From the perspective of our society, given this spectrum, we must not let Terry's case set a precedent. Our judiciary cannot be allowed to inflict death by fiat, especially when there are family who willing wish to take on the care of the individual in question. If we must err, then it must be on the side of life, not death, barring any conclusive medical tests that would indicate that there is nothing but autonomous/reflexive function left. And then, we owe these victims at least the same humane treatment we offer condemned criminals. The body must be humanely ended and the court should not be allowed to wash their hands as if they are Pontious Pilate and had not in fact ordered an execution.
As individuals, we must view this same spectrum and decide where within it we wish to make our own pre-determined choice. I read somewhere recently that we can't live without government, but only a fool depends on it. Nothing could be truer in considering this question - if you abdicate considering this question yourself to the government, you can't then complain at the choices government makes for you.
So, where does my choice lie, if I must chose? I cannot not imagine a life in which "I" am reduced to a congizance at level with or less than infant. I cannot abide the thought of my body being maintained, but 'no one is home' and only autonomous functions remain - that would unspeakably cruel to all of my family and especially my wife. Yet I would not want to end just being disabled but still cognizant. Yet caring for a disabled family member is a terrible burden on all involved, especially on those who may have no other family members or limited support from other family. Divorce, abandonment when the burden becomes too great is not uncommon while others persevere against odds that would make Sisyphus blanche.
So there is a point at which I would chose death over just 'existance', after all death is but a doorway to what ever your view of the after life is. If my body is being maintained by active intervention of machines causing my heart to beat, my lungs to breathe, then don't. A second criteria, if food and water are all that is necessary, then am I cognizant - is there brain activity to indicate that "I" am still there, or is it strictly autonomous, reflecixe function. If the later, then put the body down, for "I" have gone on.
These may not be your choices, but that is the point. This is probably one of the most important, individual choices you can make. It cannot be legislated, and there is no broad brush stroke standard that can apply to all. About the only standard I can envision for this would be to make a living will choice/determination along these lines part of the drivers license application/renewal process. Now that is a government function that can help.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home