ommentary
^^2 LA CKA MA Sprint
April 13, 2005
F ace O ff :
Student Poll:
Did courts, husband make right decision for
Terri Schiavo?
i’s husband not qualified to
make death decision
Jaden Triplett
tonentary Editor
The Clackamas Print
O
Pt L A C KAMA
19600 S. Molalla Ave.
Dragon City, OR 97045
603) 657-6958 ex. 2309
■The C lackamas Print is a weekly
I student publication and is __
distributed every Wednesday except
finals week. ■./
' .
E ditor - in -C hief : Isaiah Creel
C opy E ditor : lames Tombe
N ews E ditor : Ben Maras
C ommentary E ditor : Shannon
Armstead
F eature E ditor : Karlin Johnson
S ports E ditor : Mike McCormack
A&E E ditor : Hilliary Ferguson
P hoto E ditor : Jeff Sorensen
A d M anager : Ben Holm
What do you think
about the Terri
Schiavo case?
Opposition to Terri’s death:
ignorance
annon Armstead
n March 18 when a judge ruled Terri Schiavo’s
nutrition taken from her, she was denied the most
basic right given any person, the only thing that a
person actually possesses, life.
First of all, in the case of Terri, let’s understand that she
was not “brain dead;” she was in a vegetative state that
people can recover from. Advances in biotech and
nanotech promise new therapies currently beyond our
reach, but they may have one day been available to
Teni. Yet the courts gave Michael Schiavo, the late
Terri’s husband, the right to decide whether or not she
would continue to be given the chance to improve.
Michael claimed that starvation would have been her
“wish” in her situation.
He spoke on “Larry King Live” while his
wife was undergoing starvation and said,
‘Terri is my life.” Yet Michael has been
living in a common-law relationship with
another woman, by whom he has fathered
children, and has not only withheld various
therapeutic and other treatments from Terri,
he decided that he wanted his wife, who was
his “life,” to die.
Later in the show, Michael gave himself
away as a man with a di ffercnt agenda,
when he said, “We don’t know what Terri
would have wanted, but this is what we
want.” Michael was not to be trusted with
Terri’s life. He made a vow to be faithful
to his wife in sickness and in health, for
saking all others till death did they part.
He forsook his wife and has been unfaith
ful to her. He has taken a new wife in all
but name; Terri was, in principle, his ex-
wife, yet he was given the right to order
her execution.
While Michael was determined to
end Terri’s life, she had parents and
many supporters who loved her and
would have cared for her. Michael
claimed that Terri had “no conscious
ness;” those on her parents’ side
claimed that she recognized her fam
ily, smiled, and made other “basic,
childlike reactions,” regardless of
the fact that she had a feeding tube
for mealtimes. If her parents where
correct, ending Terri’s life was mur
der. If her husband was right, and
she was already in essence “dead,”
there was no miseiy to put her out of
since she was experiencing no misery. Life is
the sensible default to the irreversible effects of i
death, thus the president’s statement to “err on
the side of life.”
Because Terri was not living as she once
was did not mean that what life she did have
was worthless. It was possible that in the future
there could have been new treatments for her, but
those who agreed that she should die believed that
life in her state was intolerable because she did
not lead a life that any functioning person would
choose. These people are in essence saying that in
their opinion, her life was not worth living. Yet this
attitude leads to a slippery slope premise of leben-
sumverten Lehens— “lives unworthy of life”—used
by Germany’s National Socialists, and we all know
where that lead Terri should have been given the
dignified treatment of basic sustenance, which we
all need, and allowed the obvious default of life,
rather than having her life assigned as ‘unworthy. ’
*5
erri Schiavo is finally dead, and so is the media circus,
with all the protests and litigation and endless commen
tary articles (actually that one is still pending).
There is much passion involved in the Terry Schiavo
case and the right-to-die controversy. Passion is very hard to
ignore. The problem with passion in cases like this is that it is
often driven by ignorance. People are more interested
in pushing their own point of views
than doing what is right
There is no uniform
solution that should
be produced to deal
with all right-to-die
situations, because ndt
all situations are the
same.
The oft-ignored fact
about Terry Schiavo is that before she died,
she was already dead. Yes, her heart was
still beating, but in the 15 years since she
had cardiac arrest, her cranium was not
filled with living brain matter. Her cranium
was filled with spinal fluid.
There have been doctors who have
disputed this diagnosis, hired by Schiavo’s
parents. However, this evidence was not
substantial enough to be taken seriously by
our legal system, or the doctors hired by
Schiavo’s husband. Every single doctor
hired byAhe different courts that have seen
the lengthy litigation of this case has agreed
that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative
state. The only thing alive in Schiavo’s
brain are a few automatic functions, the rest
of it is gone. Calling Schiavo “brain-dam
aged” is akin to calling a quadruple-ampu
tee “limb-damaged.”
This is a tough issue. It would be
certainly tougher if somebody reading this
had a loved one in this situation, or even
worse, were in it themselves. It is easy to
see only one side, black or White, and run
to that side, refusing to admit shades of
gray. The truth about the right-to-die con
troversy, like many issues fundamentalist
thinkers are fond of making out to be black
and white, is that each case must be treated
individually. '
Those opposed to pulling the plug are
most often of the opinion that it is not
only torture, but murder, and therefore a
sin. This is simply ignorance. God-driven
and passionate, yes, but ignorance is igno
rance, whether you invoke the Lord or not
Schiavo was brain-damaged to the point
that she was not capable of feeling hunger,
so she died a painless death. Furthermore,
according to her spouse, who for the last
200 years has rightly been considered the
foremost authority on medical decisions
in this country, die did not want to be
kept alive in the first place. The courts
concurred
It is not up to us to decide what God
would want for us to do here on Earth in
these situations, it is up to us to figure out
what humans would want for themselves.
God did not create us so we could try and
make every decision with his blessing in
mind. If he had, he wouldn’t have given
us the power to think for ourselves.
T
D esign E ditor : Michaele Cooper
S taff W riters : Frank Jordan,
Joe Piazzisi, Jadon Triplett, Katie
Wilson, Laura Cameron, Christa
Danielson, Mike Guidice, Kyle
Slate, Elizabeth Tobey, Norma
Martinez, Joanne Bergstrom, ÇJ
Ciamarello, Sam Krause, Jimi
McDonald
P roduction A ssistants : Jesse
Arguello, Joanne Bergstrom,
Norma Martinez, Jadon-Triplett,
Randy
P hotographers : Brie Daykin,
Angela Gerhart, Stephen Hayes
D epartment A dvisor : Linda Vogt
D epartment A ssistant : Pat Lichen
“I think it was an outrage, they
should have taken her off life
support a long time ago.”
Matt Baker
“I think her family should have
complete say in what happens
to her.”
Oliver Dale
“Tragic, and I hope that it does
not affect Oregon’s Death with
Dignity Act.”
Bob Misley
“We don’t know enough about
the motives of either party to
make an informed decision.”
Elizabeth Hitz
“I think it’s about what she'
wants, but we don’t know what
she would want; then, from a
biblical standpoint, it should be
decided by the husband.”
Caleb Butler
This week’s pole compiled
by Taura Cameron and
CJ Ciamarello
G oals : The C lackamas Print aims
to report the news in an honest,
unbiased, professional manner.
The opinions expressed do not
necessarily reflect those of the stu
dent body, college administration,
its faculty or The Print. E-mail
comments to chiefed@dackamas.
edu.