"Along with all of its unexpected political implications, the Schiavo case has had the effect of exposing the enormous gap between what Americans imaginedeath should be like and what death actually is like for most people in the 21st century. A hundred years ago, when average life expectancy was 47, people who got sick either recovered or died quickly. Now that life expectancy is 75, most Americans will spend at least two years of their lives too disabled, one way or another, to care for themselves without help."
The Schiavo case has most certainly NOT exposed what death is like for most people of the 21st century. It has, however, exposed the fact that if you become disabled, and are not terminally ill, your guardian can decide to have you killed.
"But because we don't dwell on it, and because we haven't thought about it, the system that has sprung up to care for the elderly and the terminally ill is neither medically nor ethically consistent."
Ms. Applebaum might have included “the disabled” in here as well. Terri is not elderly, nor is she terminally ill, she is disabled. But, the last paragraph really sends me over the edge ...
"...All of the commentary makes it sound as though these momentous decisions are not only crystal clear but are ultimately made on moral grounds, as if there were something important at stake: the sanctity of human life vs. the right to die, or the wishes of the dying person vs. the wishes of the family...."
It appears Ms. Applebaum does not consider issues of life vs. death important, and finds the entire notion that they could be thought important preposterous. At least, as far as Terri's case is concerned. She seems more comfortable seeing Terri's situation as "serendipitous."
Isn't that nice? It certainly lets us all off the hook.
No comments:
Post a Comment