|
|
April 8, 2005/Adar II 28 5765, Volume 57, No. 32
What's right to do?
VICKI CABOT
Contributing Editor
What would Jesus do?
Religious conservatives have co-opted the case of Terri Schiavo and imposed a measure of fundamental belief as simplistic as a four-word teen evangelical slogan.
They've reduced an immensely complex and emotionally charged issue into a mean battle between good and evil. It's the culture of life versus the culture of death, they say, and seek to rally the troops with shameless politicizing and unseemly publicizing.
Would that the conflict be that simple, its resolution that neat.
As the wrenching drama played out, what became painfully clear were the very intricacy of end-of-life decisions and the very intimacy of the endeavor. It reminded of the value of faith and family, of the import of spiritual guidance and loving support. It recalled the precious freedoms we have that preserve individual autonomy, especially when faced with personal life-and-death decisions. And, too, it evinced the need for substantive medical understanding, sound legal advice and timely family discussion and planning.
Terri Schiavo died in a Florida hospice two weeks after her feeding tube was removed. She had suffered a heart attack 15 years ago that left her in a persistent vegetative state. She did not have a living will.
Five years ago, her husband, Michael, who is her permanent guardian, asked the Florida courts to disconnect the feeding tube. Michael Schiavo testified that his wife would not want to be kept alive in her current state. The courts concurred. In a protracted and very public legal battle, Terri's parents, Mary and Robert Schindler, fought the ruling and sought to keep their daughter alive.
Jewish response to the Schiavo case reflects Judaism's broad denominational spectrum and its rich discursive tradition.
Sanctity of life is essential, but how to animate that value flushes out theological difference. Some rabbis believe that life must be preserved no matter the state of the individual, and that removing Terri's feeding tube represented an abrogation of that obligation. Others condone the removal of the feeding tube, suggesting that quality of life must be considered in such decisions.
The heartbreaking Schiavo case forces us to confront these excruciatingly difficult issues. No one wants to talk about physical or mental incapacity. No one wants to discuss feeding tubes and respirators and kidney dialysis machines. No one wants to talk about what it means to live in a severely diminished state, or to die.
But we must talk about it. We must speak to our rabbis, to our spouses, to our parents, to our adult children. We must choose whom we would want to make these agonizing decisions for us, if we can't make them ourselves, and we must provide clear, detailed medical directives that reflect our wishes.
What would Terri do? The courts had to discern her wishes.
Now, the question is, what would I do?
And you?
Contact the writer here
|
|
