What exactly does it mean to die with dignity? I used to think that dying with dignity was throwing oneself in the path of the bullet to save the women and children, or perhaps staring the executioner in the eye rather than sniveling and begging for mercy. But now this phrase is used in a different way, and I can't get a grasp on what it means.
Somehow if Terri lives on a few more decades, and at some future time begins to age as we all will, and succumbs to one of those ailments that age brings, she will die without dignity. Or is it she will live all those years without dignity? Or is she already living without dignity and somehow in dehydrating she will regain it in death? And once she is dead, of what use will this dignity be?
And then there is this idea of dying in peace. Dying in peace used to mean that one left this world at peace with the Maker he was soon to meet, so that death could come calmly and without fear. Sometimes it meant to leave this world with no regrets, no apologies unsaid, no forgiveness withheld.
Now dying in peace seems to mean something Terri will not be able to do if she lives out her natural life, but will be able to accomplish if she dehydrates now. And for the life of me, I can't figure out what that would be.
The other thing that puzzles me is that those who insist that Terri needs to die with dignity and die in peace also assert that Terri is aware of nothing, feels nothing, or sometimes that she does not even have a life. Ignorance, (of one's lack of dignity and peace), it seems to me, would be bliss in such a situation. So then, I am puzzled about what use this dignity and peace will be to such a person, or non-person, as the case may be.
Dory-
- It's easy to see where your confusion is coming from on this issue. See, you are trying to use logic regarding the circumstances of Terri's death. Such logic is unhelpful, seeing as all we need is the proclamation of one judge that Terri must die NOW. No matter what.
- It is, afterall, for her own good. So please, leave logic and sound reasoning out of this.
Posted by: gaw | March 25, 2005 at 12:55 AM
Oh, yes, I forgot. I'm supposed to be purely emotional about this....;-)
Posted by: Dory | March 25, 2005 at 02:09 AM
As the Terri Schindler Schiavo story nears desperate stages, I am deeply troubled by the determinations of judges and doctors, but most disappointed by some newspapers and their writers who have asked us to focus on the politics of the issue, rather than the more important concerns of life and death. I cannot be so different from people who have read of, and witnessed these events on television -- surely, others who have experienced loved ones in marginal states of health must ask the same gut-wrenching questions that continue to churn my peace of mind.
1. When Terri requested that she did not want to be kept alive by "life support systems," was she sufficiently rational, mature, and informed at that time to comprehend that both a Foley catheter and a feeding (PEG) tube are utilized by healthy, thriving persons?
2. Is there a time frame, or time limit, to her request -- does such an important request require updating to assure conformance to Terri's current feelings?
3. I assume that is was deemed wise and reasonable to pursue therapy in the initial stages after her accident (however long); but what prompted the urgency to terminate her life now (15 years later)?
4. Why is Terri being euthanized (aka starved and dehydrated) if she suffers neither a terminal condition or disease, nor pain? In protecting Terri's welfare, has the State of Florida determined that it is better to be dead and suffer no pain -- rather than remain alive and suffer no pain?
5. Is there an ethical, moral, or legal (or financial) problem in allowing Terri to live out her remaining days, however long or short, considering that she has no terminal conditions and experiences neither pain nor indignity? Does guardianship require strict conformance with the patient's wishes -- or does it ask one to assume stewardship and make the best decision?
Having sat with aging friends in their final days and hours, I know that, from almost any adult perspective, life is very finte and short. And I also know that despite the bravado of these same friends in healthier stages of life, declaring emphatically that they "don't want to be kept alive by tubes" -- none wanted to die before their time was up, largely because they learned that the emotional and spiritual exchange between loved ones (between the dying and the living) -- often unspoken -- was far more important than their self focused wishes alone.
Posted by: shokenjii | March 25, 2005 at 05:54 PM
It was the boast of Augustus that he found Rome of brick and left it of marble. But how much nobler will be the sovereign's boast when he shall have it to say that he found law...a sealed book and left it a living letter; found it in the patrimony of the rich and left it in the inheritance of the poor; found it the two-edged sword of craft and oppression and left it the staff of honesty and the shield of innocence.
Posted by: Henry Brougham | March 26, 2005 at 03:55 AM
Amen on the changing definition of "death with dignity." It now means a handful of sleeping pills and a Hefty bag over your head, or attendants spraying your parched mouth with water while you waste away from dehydration.
I've been struck by the total lack of logic in those demanding Terri's death.
They say she is totally unaware and therefore won't suffer by being denied food and water. But if she's completely unaware, she's not suffering by being alive in the first place, so how can we be sparing her suffering by killing her?
They say that killing her is merely respecting her wishes. But the only person who says she wants her feeding tube yanked seemed to have conveniently forgotten that she'd said that, until he had cash in hand and Terri had become a liability. But they don't see anything odd about that. If Terri had said she'd not want to be kept alive like that, why wasn't Michael fighting to remove the feeding tube from the start?
Oh, well. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Jesus would say, "Forgive them; they know not what they do." But while I can weep for Terri and her family, I find it hard to weep for the ones killing her -- though, realisitically, they're the ones who need my tears a lot more. They've got a lot to answer for, especially Judge Greer, who is a professing Christian but seems to have ripped Matthew 25 out of his Bible. ("I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink...")
Posted by: Christina | March 26, 2005 at 10:38 PM
I think that the whole thing was stupid, and I'm greatfull that it is over with. I was getting sick of watching that stupid stuff on the news. If I ever become a vegetable like Terri was, I defiantly don't want to live. I don't want to live my life with people feeding me and changing me.
Posted by: Jackie | April 13, 2005 at 08:13 AM