Hey folks. It isn't a matter of party politics, right? It is a question of what is humane. What would Mrs. Schiavo want? Who can answer that best? Her husband maybe. Maybe not. Her parents? I doubt it, though I do believe they love her dearly.
She will never function normally. She isn't the woman Mr. Schiavo married either. She can't be a wife to him. Perhaps he should divorce her and the parents could resume care for her along with fiduciary responsibility. But would that be humane?
I believe at this point, her husband is making the more humane case. He knows she would never want to go on in this life not being able to contribute to the quality of life of others. Nor would she want everyone catering to her needs without being able to return the favors. I'm guessing about this of course. There are those on earth who are selfish and couldn't care whatsoever about others. Was the healthy Mrs. Schiavo this kind of person? I think both her parents and her husband would answer, "No."
(This should not be something we decide federally and it smacks of other arguments to come, especially in the case of abortions. Would a child being born to parents that didn't want it wish to be born into this world? Again, only that child could answer that question and by the time it did, it could be too late.)
Some will say it will be so cruel to let her starve. I agree; however, we must weigh the degree of cruelty to her through starving versus years and years of her under her parents care on feeding tubes till the day they die. What happens when they die? Who will see to it she is hooked to those feeding tubes when they pass on? She will have to die one day and if it is God's will and nature's will, we must ask ourselves; "What argument can we ethically make to prolong her inevitable suffering?"
Sincerely,
Chelle Stockman
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment