All News & Blogs
It was not an easy decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, but it was the only decision.
By RICHARD AMRHINE
The legislation was rushed through both chambers without deliberation and was unlikely to have any impact on the case. In the end, it might seem that the legislation's only reason for being was for those who voted for it to appear compassionate to their constituents.
How out of touch with Americans can these politicians be? Did they not consider that the vast majority of Americans would oppose government intervention? Those lawmakers, as well as President Bush, should be held accountable for their arrogance and shortsightedness.
These are same public leaders who would be the first to remark that an ailing friend who died had gone to a "better place." Why would they not see that as a preferred alternative to living as a bedridden zombie year after year after year?
According to the CBS poll, 74 percent of Americans believe that elected officials became involved in order to advance a political agenda.
Let's hope the message gets through to Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, the General Assembly's poster boy for right-wing-agenda advancement. Marshall is threatening to introduce legislation next year that gives the state greater say-so in what happens in end-of-life cases, and next of kin less of a voice.
This is the same sort of thing he attempted following the Hugh Finn case. Finn died in a Manassas nursing home in 1998, eight days after removal of the feeding tube that had sustained him for 3 years. The difficult decision was made by Finn's wife, Michele, as it should have been.
Under Marshall's previous legislation, a spouse's wishes could be contested in the absence of a written directive by the incapacitated individual. That bill failed. Any new pursuit of such legislation would waste the taxpayers' time and money, and run counter to their convictions.
Marshall's conservative colleagues should talk him out of such nonsense this time around.
Basic to Marshall's argument is that someone, anyone, would "want" to live in the persistent vegetative state in which Terri Schiavo found herself for the past 16 years. I know I wouldn't want to exist that way, and I can't imagine why anyone would choose to. How many living wills out there do you suppose direct all possible extraordinary measures to be used indefinitely? Such self-importance is hard to imagine.
Some writers and commentators warned that "it could be you" in Terri Schiavo's situation, losing your source of food and water. Well, under similar circumstances, that's what I would want. I would consider it a selfish waste of money and hospice space to keep me alive.
If any legislation is necessary, it should be aimed at preventing the government from intruding on such wrenching decisions and limiting the process to a spouse or next immediate family member.
Del. Richard Black, R-Loudoun, one of the General Assembly's most outspoken conservatives, offered this reflection: "What we just went through was one of the most ghastly events in American history."
At least we agree on something.
To reach RICHARD AMRHINE: 540/374-5406 firstname.lastname@example.org