Thanks to Dory for this post:
No one has suggested that Terri should be "allowed to die" because she is dying anyway. What is being suggested is that she should be caused to die because her life is not worth living. "I wouldn't want to live that way," people are fond of saying. Well, thanks for sharing, but that's not really the point, is it? What if I decided that I wouldn't want to live as a diabetic with all the challenges that disease presents. Does that then justify me killing a diabetic child or spouse? Dare I argue that to suggest otherwise is to interfere with "a personal family decision?"
Terri Schiavo is a very disabled woman. As much as we wish to accurately reflect her condition and refute those who make it out to be worse than it seems to be, we must still acknowledge that hers is a life that many people might not want to live. As with many of life's trials we often think we could not endure them, until God thrusts them upon us and also gives the strength and endurance we need. I probably said or would have said at one time that I would rather die than to endure the death of one of my children. Yet two of my children are dead and I endure and live and thrive with a strength that is not my own, but God's.
Terri's situation is important, not only because of her precious life, but also because her case takes our country a step over an important line. That is the line between avoiding fruitless efforts to save a dying person and withdrawing efforts to sustain a person who is not dying, on the basis of our assessment of his or her "quality of life." The truth is, many people are killed because someone decides their life would not be worth living. It happens to disabled newborn babies all the time. It happens to disabled children and adults. The difference in Terri's case is that it is happening in full public view.
No comments:
Post a Comment