To be or not to be.....

When I was in my undergrad, I took a Philosophy class (I hate Philosophy, but I just had to take this class). But only a few days after attending it, I found myself totally engrossed in the subject. The topic we were going to discuss that semester was 'Euthanasia' also known as 'mercy killing'. So we had to do research all through the semester and in the end present a paper favoring or opposing 'Euthanasia'. So I was doing research on this topic most of the time. By the end of the semester, I thought that I was a master in this area and would continuously debate on this with my friends and family. Turned out, the debates didn't last forever and soon this topic was out of my mind.

This was 4 years back. I had not read or heard about any such cases since then.... until couple of weeks back.

The case of Terri Schiavo has grabbed national attention here in US. It is the headline of every news channel and every newspaper. So due to my past ties with this topic, I have been closely following it.

Terri Schiavo collapsed in her home in 1990, suffering from heart failure that led to severe brain damage. She is now 41 years old. Since then, she has been in an incapacitated form - a mere vegetable, as they call it. Every medical science discovery has lead to no improvement. She has been on food and fluid tubes. The only thing she could do on her own is – breathe! Her brain has been dead for 15 years.

Her husband who is her legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, believes his wife would not have wanted to live in a persistent vegetative state. He has wanted to get her tubes removed. Doctors believe, that once her tubes are removed, she would stay alive for 1-2 weeks. Her parents Mary and Bob Schindler, who are not her legal guardians, have not been in the favor of removing the tube.

Now this was a personal matter, but a few years after the accident, the legal system intervened. Now the first question that arises here is, whether it's an issue relating to moral values, or is it something where the legal system should decide what is right & wrong?

Anyways, Terry's husband has been able to get the tube removed twice in the past. But both the times, the parents have been able to get restraining order from the court orders to have them re-instated. So Terry has been able to live. Michael, has stayed firm on his believes that Terry would not have wanted to live in this state and that she would have not wanted to instill this suffering on her family. Her parents believe that she loved life, and would have wanted to live anyways and they believe that someday she would recover!

So the war has been ongoing. It wasn't until last year, that the state of Florida again took this case. It was on last Friday that her husband won the case and got the tube of Terry disconnected, leaving her without nutrients and water. The parents didn't give up. They approached the federal courts and George Bush had to rush back to the White House and signed a bill allowing the parents to take the case to the US courts.

President Bush said ' "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life."

There are many institutes in US that favor or oppose Euthanasia.

The institutes/individuals favoring Euthanasia say that euthanasia should be allowed if the person is suffering from a terminal illness and/or is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during her expected life, and/or is suffering from an intolerable pain which lead to him or her being dependent on others or on technological means of life support and/or has expressed a wish to die under such circumstances prior to his or her losing the competence to do so.

Court-appointed doctors say Terry is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery and so her husband believes that she should be allowed to die. Her parents insist she could recover with treatment.

So what do you think? When a person’s intentions regarding whether to receive lifesaving treatment are unclear, who should make a decision on his or her behalf? The family? The society? Or the courts?