Sun Mar 20/05
The right to be left alone

I haven't been following the Terri Schiavo case very closely, mostly because it strikes me as a completely false debate. This isn't about "right to life"; it isn't about euthanasia. Were it ever resolved just what Terri wanted it might lead to a euthanasia debate, but right now it's just a lot of creepy people co-opting a family's nightmare for their own purposes.

The main force pushing for Schiavo to be allowed to die is her husband, whom she supposedly told that she wouldn't want to live like she's currently living. And that's the key, irresolvable, question: what exactly would/does she want? If she "wants to die", it would be a question of whether her family's wishes (and the law, of course) override her own; if she "wants to live", it's a matter for discussion between her family and her doctors. But what she said she wanted, and what if anything she "wants" now, are ultimately unknowable.

In short, if not absolutely unique, Schiavo's situation is certainly very unusual, full of all sorts of specific, complicated circumstances that make this an extremely poor "landmark case" in the euthanasia debate. If we knew what Terri Schiavo wanted, then we could debate whether or not she should be allowed to die… but we don't, so let's just leave these people alone to figure it out.

The most important question in the real euthanasia debate is still the most basic one: should doctors (or anyone, for that matter) be allowed to help a terminally ill person end his or her life? Neither answer is particularly satisfying, but nor should anyone be "satisfied" with the grotesque little "victories" (food tube goes in! food tube comes out!) claimed by each side in this most unsavoury battle.