Friday, April 01, 2005
Our Rights to Live or Die
Now that the suffering and litigation are over, the questions raised by the way Terri Schiavo's life was ended are likely to get considerable calm attention at both the federal and state levels. As this NYT article title indicates Schiavo's Case May Reshape American Law . That seems likely as we seek a good, moral legal framework to address the balance between the "right to die" to the "right to live".
As the article puts it :" her legacy may be that she brought an intense dimension - the issue of death and dying - to the battle over what President Bush calls "the culture of life."
Nearly 30 years after the parents of another brain-damaged woman, Karen Ann Quinlan, injected the phrase "right to die" into the lexicon as they fought to unplug her respirator, Ms. Schiavo's case swung the pendulum in the other direction, pushing the debate toward what Wesley J. Smith, an author of books on bioethics, calls " the right to live." ...
Experts say that unlike the Quinlan case, which established the concept that families can prevail over the state in end-of-life decisions, the Schiavo case created no major legal precedents. But it could well lead to new laws. Already, some states are considering more restrictive end-of-life measures like preventing the withdrawal of a feeding tube without explicit written directions."
Indeed. There are apt to be a number of issues raised by different legislative bodies about what constitutes adequate evidence of a patient's "informed decision"; who gets to decide, and under what presumptions, if the patient can not express an "informed decision"; what constitutes a medical condition that allows a life-ending action; and what, if any, standards should apply to court reviews and to levels of confidence (e.g. "beyond reasonable doubt", "clear and convincing", etc.) in the decision and review process.
Beyond these immediate legal issues, there are underlying moral and ethical issues about the concepts of "personhood" as opposed to "human life" that are being discussed in the BioEthics community and which need a broader community audience and acceptance before they influence law.
Some of these issues may get addressed this summer in the Supreme Court review of the Oregon assisted suicide law. Even so, the lawmakers should stay engaged in the debate and listen to the citizens. As technology improves and offers more choices, the legal systems need to evolve; and everyone should be allowed to influence the debate when it's about our rights to live or die.
As the article puts it :" her legacy may be that she brought an intense dimension - the issue of death and dying - to the battle over what President Bush calls "the culture of life."
Nearly 30 years after the parents of another brain-damaged woman, Karen Ann Quinlan, injected the phrase "right to die" into the lexicon as they fought to unplug her respirator, Ms. Schiavo's case swung the pendulum in the other direction, pushing the debate toward what Wesley J. Smith, an author of books on bioethics, calls " the right to live." ...
Experts say that unlike the Quinlan case, which established the concept that families can prevail over the state in end-of-life decisions, the Schiavo case created no major legal precedents. But it could well lead to new laws. Already, some states are considering more restrictive end-of-life measures like preventing the withdrawal of a feeding tube without explicit written directions."
Indeed. There are apt to be a number of issues raised by different legislative bodies about what constitutes adequate evidence of a patient's "informed decision"; who gets to decide, and under what presumptions, if the patient can not express an "informed decision"; what constitutes a medical condition that allows a life-ending action; and what, if any, standards should apply to court reviews and to levels of confidence (e.g. "beyond reasonable doubt", "clear and convincing", etc.) in the decision and review process.
Beyond these immediate legal issues, there are underlying moral and ethical issues about the concepts of "personhood" as opposed to "human life" that are being discussed in the BioEthics community and which need a broader community audience and acceptance before they influence law.
Some of these issues may get addressed this summer in the Supreme Court review of the Oregon assisted suicide law. Even so, the lawmakers should stay engaged in the debate and listen to the citizens. As technology improves and offers more choices, the legal systems need to evolve; and everyone should be allowed to influence the debate when it's about our rights to live or die.
