Life-death equation requires love
To call this a moral dilemma would be something of an understatement. Who makes the ultimate decision? What is the right thing to do? I suppose it depends on where you sit on the ideological spectrum.
A young woman went into a coma in Dunedin, Fla. Her name is Terri Schindler-Schiavo. She's married, and her husband has lived at her side through 12 years of what may, or may not, be a persistent vegetative state. Her parents have lived at her side, too.
Doctors are divided on whether the woman knows her relatives or understands her plight.
Though all people in comas have "waking" and "sleeping" states, Schiavo's folks think hers are more pronounced than they would be if she were truly "brain-dead."
Her husband, however, says his wife would hate her existence -- being tube-fed, bathed by others and unable to move on her own.
But Schiavo never left written instructions what should happen in the event of her incapacitation; no one knows for sure what she would want.
Of course, conspiracy theories abound. Some point out that Teri Schiavo's husband has a girlfriend and a great deal to gain via a life-insurance policy on his wife. Just as predictably, there are those who hint that the husband may have had a hand in her condition, although no one seems to know exactly why she is in a coma.
Schiavo's feeding tube was due to be disconnected by court order on Sept. 11, but that decision has been stayed. Her parents want custody of her and do not care whether her husband divorces her.
There are people who would say that Schiavo should not be allowed to starve to death no matter what -- that all life is sacred, that we have no idea of her place in the grand scheme.
Others say that maintaining an essentially useless life is criminal -- that money spent on Schiavo's care, no matter who pays, is money funneled to nowhere.
So, who wins? Clearly, no one....
