Terry Schiavo: Conflicting Autopsy Reports

The Pasco County medical examiner has determined from the autopsy that Terry Schiavo was a hopeless, severely brain damaged woman who had zero prospects for future cognizance. For all
I can tell, he may very well be right.

Then again, maybe he's not. Other reports , from Worldnews.net and NewsMax, tell another side to this story, and, though I'm no expert in neurology, there does seem to be plenty of room for reasonable doubt regarding the Medical Examiners autopsy conclusions. Perhaps Terry was indeed simply a doomed vegetable who would never again perceive whether she was alive or dead. Then again, maybe she had a lot more awareness than we'll ever really know and suffered an agonizing and unnecessary death. I honestly don't know, and, if medical and legal experts are themselves in disagreement, I can only assume that nobody really knows for sure.

What I do know is that, according to all the experts, she was not dying when the feeding tube was removed, she had not been in physical pain, and she would be still alive today if she was permitted to continue receiving fluids and nutrients. These are the only facts in this case that are indisputable on all sides.

Now, I understand that most people who feel she shouldn't have been allowed to live in such a limited state really do mean well. They sincerely believe it was merciful to have her euthenized under such circumstances, and that euthenizing itself is an act of kindness when the quality of one's life becomes permanently limited to low level or no level cognizance.

The problem is, when we act on those seemingly compassionate impulses we are not giving enough credence to the value that just a little bit of life, or just a little bit of awareness, actually can have. By taking human life on a giant leap into subjective interpretation, we are setting a dangerous future precedent on who lives and who dies.

Every day, children are born severely retarded, or with Downs -- what is to become of them? How about geriatrics who develop sinility or Alzheimers? Are they to be viewed as drains upon civilization that must be eliminated, or do they deserve continued treatment even though the cause may be futile? What about those who are weak and face steep odds at recovering from risky surgeries? Will they be denied the operations because their chances are too poor?

While I do respect the thoughtful intentions of the pro-euthenizing crowd, good intentions alone are not reason enough to allow reckless liberties to be taken at the expense of human life. It is my opinion that Terry Schiavo became a casualty of well intended, but feckless, do-gooders, whose casualness towards death is hazardous to a civilized society, and eventually will unwittingly place all of our lives in a very precarious state.

This is not fundamentalist religion talking, nor is it politician posturing to a constituancy; it is a reasoned and logical approach to what is in the best interests of humanity. Until those on the pro-euthenizing side of the aisle realize this is not just an Evangelical Christian issue, but a universal question about the well being of mankind, they will continue being lost in their blind, knee-jerk hatred for the Religious Right and, therefore, remain unable to engage the matter from a rational, open minded perspective.