Terry Schiavo’s Civil Rights
March 23, 2005 – 2:38 pmFrom Not Dead Yet’s website:
Research shows that non-disabled people and medical professional devalue the quality of life of disabled people, yet the court took only the word of non-disability experts-those who historically have devalued people like Terri. Those ‘experts’ the court deemed more reliable are exactly those that research demonstrates devaluing people with disabilities.
How long will this form of bigotry remain in fashion?
5 Responses to “Terry Schiavo’s Civil Rights”
reading this brief piece, i have to wonder if the courts (and terri’s husband) haven’t set themselves up as ‘dr.kevorkian’? they’re going to ease her into death?
this doesn’t make much sense, in that kevorkian is in prison now for assisting people who requested his help in dying. this woman hasn’t requested the ‘help’ she’s being given.
the other question that comes to mind is about her husband. openly living with another woman, while his wife is in the hospital and using the settlement for her care to try to legally maneuver to have her taken off feeding? isn’t there something legal her family or anyone can do about this? seems that since the funds were set aside for her care and upkeep, he’s misappropriated funds.
what the hell kind of world do we live in?
By wil dunham on Mar 24, 2005
I think we live in a country that denies the frailty of human bodies. Terry Schiavo has a physical impairment - she cannot swallow.
But our culture has decided that Terry’s impairment deserves the death penalty.
Despite claims to otherwise, this case is not about whether a person believes in science or soul. This case is about how we value human life and the vicious devaluation of some humans.
And I’m with you on the husband. He sure seems sketchy to me.
Why can’t system devise a way where Terry could be divorced from her husband and live the remainder of her life with her parents?
By Jay Sennett on Mar 24, 2005
At the risk of voicing a potentially-unpopular sentiment, I must take issue with the fact that even on this blog Terri is being treated like a victim. It has been repeatedly reported that the cause of her brain damage has been linked to an eating disorder. Whether or not this is true is an issue for speculation. However, as a fellow struggler with an eating disorder - for over 20 years now - I have to say with all due compassion that Terri herself, as her own moral agent, is at least partially responsible for her situation today if this link is proven true. No one but Terri could be held responsible for her maladaptive coping, in the same way that no one but me is responsible for the amount of food I ingest each day. Choices, even co-opted ones, can still present room for options.
I’ve heard all the arguments before that blame social pressures for a person’s development of ED. While I don’t deny that social pressures can be ferocious, as a person of size even I have to say that an adult individual has to draw a gender-neutral line in the sand as to the limits of self-destruction for culture’s sake. Even at the end, there is room to consider how one’s own agency may or may not have facilitated the journey. It sickens me to know that she is most likely not aware enough to realize that her own choices may have helped end her life!
It’s just terribly sad, and completely preventable! Perhaps that’s the largest lesson of all.
By Jennifer Gee on Mar 25, 2005
Jennifer,
I’ve heard competing stories about how Terry became who she was.
Many choices appear preventable in retrospect. What is problematic in Terry’s case is that the notion of life being applied in her case is a very, very narrow one, and decisions have been made for her without the input of people with disabilities.
As a transsexual I am well aware of the dire consequences of non-trans people making decisions about what is “best” for me.
And the issue, ultimately, is whether life with a feeding tube is still life. And ultimately who gets to decide about quality of life?
Thanks for posting.
By Jay on Mar 30, 2005
Jay,
Thanks for the response. I don’t believe I was speaking to the “judging quality of life” issue, but rather to the fact that there is a dearth of personal responsibility in our culture, and this case highlights that lack with appalling clarity. [As an aside, I also feel that the manner in which her end came was needlessly cruel, but until we as a society become more comfortable with assisting death we will continue to see such scenarios played out to the heartbreak and outrage of all of us].
However, to speak further to your comments, I am really having trouble with the whole “validity of arguments” issue. It would appear to me that events have releaved a deliberate, and at times state-sponsored, attempt to insinuate outside values and opinions into a couple’s marriage. It would also appear, from the opinions voiced on this blog, that most people do not feel that Michael Schiavo was a “good” husband - whatever that means. How on earth can we dissect someone else’s private relationship, especially on as quixotic as marriage, knowing nothing of the Schiavos’ background ourselves? How can we possibly debate about their private conversations? I don’t for one minute believe that any loving, committed couple does NOT discuss these issues (related to end-of-life)! Does someone who doesn’t care about his spouse spend 15 years perceiving to act to defend her rights? I have a hard time thinking that he would.
I believe that most married people consider their spouses to be their next-of-kin, and to trust that their partners - whether or not they are disability rights “experts” - will act to ensure that end-of-life wishes are carried out. The Schiavos even had the privilege of being a LEGALLY married heretosexual couple, yet this protection was repeatedly violated in favor of a set of conservative values held by lawmakers and other activists who were convinced that they were somehow more knowledgeable that the persons involved, whose drama was being played out so painfully and publicly. For me, it all pivoted around respect - respect for the covenant of marriage and the persons involved, who made sacred vows to one another that were all but ignored in the legal frenzy.
As a straight man who was fortunate enough to marry his wife, do you see how this kind of circus scares me and others who do not enjoy the legal protections of marriage for our own relationships? You see it as a TS/TG/disability rights issue, I see it as a very valid challenge to the legal validity of marriage, and in a climate of backlash and hate, I am terrified about what this means for me and others in my situation.
By Jennifer Gee on Apr 1, 2005