What does it mean when you say "I wouldn't want to live like that"?
Doug at Bogus Gold makes an excellent point about many of those who begin (and sometimes end) their thoughts on the Terri Schiavo case with the declaration that they themselves "wouldn't want to live like that":
“I would never want to live like that.” It’s a phrase we’ve heard repeatedly from people commenting on the Terri Schiavo case. And it’s a phrase that disturbs me.
First the disclaimers. No, I don’t think expressing such a sentiment makes you a bad person, nor do I think it aligns you by default with either side in the Schiavo case. I take it as an honest expression of horror at the thought that you might one day find yourself in such a condition. The reaction seems visceral, but honest.
Yet here’s my problem. I don’t see how someone can simultaneously hold such a belief and not devalue the lives of those who live in that condition. This is not the same as “demonizing” or “de-humanizing” such people. But it does suggest that they drop down the scale from whatever value you think your life has now, to whatever value you fear it would have in a condition like Terri Schiavo’s. And intentional or not, such a belief must affect your assessment of the value of those who actually are in that condition.
Without sinister intent, this can produce terrible results, as I think it has in the case of Terri Schiavo. If Terri was a walking, talking person as fully functional as she used to be, we would not be having this debate. No court would sanction, and the public would not allow, her husband to have her starved to death - even if she explicitly asked him for such a thing. Yet it has become clear that because she now lives in a state a vast majority of people have determined they themselves would not want to live in, the value proposition of her life has changed in the eyes of the public. Not in the eyes of every single person, but certainly in the eyes of enough to allow it to happen.
(Hat tip: Rick at Stones Cry Out)
“I would never want to live like that.” It’s a phrase we’ve heard repeatedly from people commenting on the Terri Schiavo case. And it’s a phrase that disturbs me.
First the disclaimers. No, I don’t think expressing such a sentiment makes you a bad person, nor do I think it aligns you by default with either side in the Schiavo case. I take it as an honest expression of horror at the thought that you might one day find yourself in such a condition. The reaction seems visceral, but honest.
Yet here’s my problem. I don’t see how someone can simultaneously hold such a belief and not devalue the lives of those who live in that condition. This is not the same as “demonizing” or “de-humanizing” such people. But it does suggest that they drop down the scale from whatever value you think your life has now, to whatever value you fear it would have in a condition like Terri Schiavo’s. And intentional or not, such a belief must affect your assessment of the value of those who actually are in that condition.
Without sinister intent, this can produce terrible results, as I think it has in the case of Terri Schiavo. If Terri was a walking, talking person as fully functional as she used to be, we would not be having this debate. No court would sanction, and the public would not allow, her husband to have her starved to death - even if she explicitly asked him for such a thing. Yet it has become clear that because she now lives in a state a vast majority of people have determined they themselves would not want to live in, the value proposition of her life has changed in the eyes of the public. Not in the eyes of every single person, but certainly in the eyes of enough to allow it to happen.
(Hat tip: Rick at Stones Cry Out)
posted by Kate Marie | 3:37 PM | Permalink
|
3 comments
3 Comments:
I would never want to live like that.
Well, I'm sure NOBODY wants to live as a quadrapalegic or senile or brain damaged or whatever kind of severely impaired person. Nobody would choose that life. But, having been thrust into that position, would you want to die? How do you know?
It's not a far walk from "right to die" to "duty to die." I hear echos of the latter in many arguments to "let Terri go" (i.e., starve her).
Personally, I don't believe in a right to die. If you prefer not to be kept alive a few days or so by extraorinary means when you are dying anyway, well then sign a DNR or something.
I'd be locked up and treated if I tried to starve myself or shoot myself. Why does that law change if I'm a "burden"?
Food and water are not extraordinary. Why is this so hard to understand?
(Note: CIV would never ask to starve to death. Just in case some relative were to say otherwise...)
"Note: CIV would never ask to starve to death. Just in case some relative were to say otherwise..."
-- Okay, it's out there in the public record, C.I.V. We've got your back.
And Happy Easter to you and yours! Hope you have a nice holiday weekend.
"So you got my back and everything?"
-- Napoleon Dynamite
Happy Easter to you, CIV!
Post a Comment
<< Home