The debate swirling like a moral tornado around the Schiavo case boils down to two issues: first, what is life and when are we merely holding on? and, secondly, who benefits from prolonging the life of the dying person?
Life, it seems to me, is defined largely by interaction with others. Some years ago, as we struggled with a pet dying from kidney failure, we asked our veterinarian for advice on when to let our cat go. "When an animal no longer responds to your touch or reacts to your voice as they did when they were healthy," he answered, "then perhaps it's time to let go."
This didn't make our decision any easier, but it did help us reach a decision. We can't equate the life of a pet with that of a son, daughter or spouse, but there seems to be a rationale in the vet's advice that could apply to the Schiavo controversy.
As for sustaining "life," we should ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish. There seems little argument that sustaining life by machines may not be desirable. In the Schiavo case, much is made about the fact that using a feeding tube is similar to feeding infants; an infant, left without assistance, would die, and so those in favor of sustaining life this way would argue we should do the same for someone in a vegetative state.
The difference is that for an infant, feeding is therapeutic; there is every expectation that the infant will grow to be a healthy, self-sustaining adult, and therefore the feeding is warranted.
In the Schiavo case and others like it - where the consensus of many doctors is that continuing to feed someone has no therapeutic value or chance of returning that person to a semblance of normalcy - it then begs the question of why we insist on continuing the process.
As with any disease, if there is hope of a cure or even prolonging a life with some quality, we should continue to help that person. But, as happens with certain cancer and AIDS patients, where the consensus of the medical profession is that life is not sustainable, we do what we can to make that person pain free. Sometimes we help that person die with dignity.
The second issue revolves around who are the real the beneficiary of all these extra, life-extending efforts. In the case of Terri Schiavo, is she benefiting from these efforts? All medical indications are that she has no sense of what is happening.
The assumption, then, is that all efforts at sustaining her life are for the benefit of the parents, who don't want to release their daughter - an understandable emotion, and also to some extent relevant for the religious conservatives who argue that even life without meaning, thought or consciousness should still be sustained.
I have a living will and durable power of attorney stipulating that I want reasonable efforts to sustain life; however, I do not want a feeding tube inserted, or any other extreme measures used, unless there is a reasonable chance of my returning to a quality life as determined by a team of doctors along with my wife or closest relative.
I do this, not for myself, but for my loved ones, for they will bear the burden - emotionally, psychologically and financially - if my natural death is prevented using excessive procedures having no therapeutic value.
And so, we have to answer the two questions posed at the beginning: what is life? and who is the beneficiary of the application of exceptional means to sustain a life.
Mike Davis is a freelance writer and columnist living in Magnolia. You can send him an email by way of the editor at mageditor@nwlink.com.[[In-content Ad]]
