29 Mar 2005

THE RIGHT TO KILL?

What say you re Teri Schiavo?:

"If it is true she is vegetative and lacks all conciousness, she cannot be in pain and can neither recognise her "right to dignity" nor recognise the fullfillment of any invented "right to die". Indeed she does not even know she is alive,lacking all cognition. Keeping her alive at the expense and for the benefit of her parents thus gives two lives, theirs, more dignity and purpose-- at no expense of anyone's feelings.

If, on the other hand, she can recognise in any way the "rights" attributed to her (including the right to life), or simply recognise she is alive and cared for, then she has sufficient conciousness, and is being killed without the ability to express her consent to it." (PG)

Is this argument sharp or senile? I ask my friends!

4 comments:

Agammamon said...

"Keeping her alive at the expense and for the benefit of her parents thus gives two lives, theirs, more dignity and purpose-- at no expense of anyone's feelings."


Well, I would say that at the very least its would be at the expense of her husband's dignity, purpose, and feelings. Whether or not those are more important than her parents is something reasonable people can disagree on.

Orwells_Ghost said...

Orwells_Ghost Replies: Thanks for your comment, but it is inarguable that wheras a husband may choose his relationships, parenthood is principal and unalterable. I would think though reasonable people might disagree, the two parents whose bond to their daughter goes beyond the emotional to the genetic, have more rights in such a matter than the husband. It seems to me he wanted to get on with his life, which is reasonable enough, but the law had no mechaism to re-transfer custody back to the parents.

Orwells_Ghost said...

Incidentally, since it seemed Shiavo's hubby wanted out to get re-married, in some ways death was the only legal "option" for Terry since his desire was reasonable, but the state has no proper law to allow the divorce of a vegetative person and her custodial ytransfer back to parents, as the law always assumes the Judeo-Christian primacy of husband over parents.

Clearly, if someone wants to get on with life and others want to look after a vegetative but non suffering person, the law should be liberal enough for this to occurr.

Gruff said...

Very interesting argument indeed! The answer is not as glib as some hold.