Column: Right To Die

By Bridget Sharkey

Last week the Supreme Court ruled against keeping comatose patient Terry Schiavo alive through artificial means. This ruling not only puts a stop to Gov. Jeb Bush’s attempts to keep in her feeding tube, but it also ends a seven-year battle between Terry’s parents and her husband.

Terry’s husband, Michael Schiavo, claims his wife did not want to be kept alive by a machine and has been struggling to have her feeding tube removed. Her parents, on the other hand, claim Michael is only interested in the money that he stands to inherit after her death.

Maybe Michael’s intentions concerning his wife are not truly honorable. Maybe he is sick of the hospital scene and wants to move on to a woman who is a little more motivated. But even if that is the case, one has to wonder how Terry Schiavo feels about how all of this. Does she want to be a vegetable tied to a machine, with only quarreling relatives and reruns of Becker to occupy her time? Even if a miracle occurred and she came to, she would hardly be able to jump out of bed, not even for an appearance on Oprah.

However, because no one knows Terry’s true feelings, the battle over her life has escalated into a virtual tug-of-war. On two occasions Terry has had her tube removed, only to have it replaced again when Michael’s wishes were appealed.

This woman has been on the brink of death two times, only to have life instilled back in her by legal authorities. Not only is this probably not good for her health, but it is also a cruel form of ironic torture. After all, Terry is in this vegetable state due to an eating disorder and now they are taunting her with the very food she used to hate. If Kirstie Alley was on her deathbed, we wouldn’t force apples and celery down her throat, now would we? Of course not. It’s all about respect.

Get The Daily Illini in your inbox!

  • Catch the latest on University of Illinois news, sports, and more. Delivered every weekday.
  • Stay up to date on all things Illini sports. Delivered every Monday.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Thank you for subscribing!

This same respect should also tell us that if someone is very ill and hurting, they should be allowed to die. If an adult who is of sound mind and judgment decides that they would rather die gracefully as opposed to live on Jell-O and morphine, this “right to die” should be given to them. People commit suicide everyday, directly and indirectly, and while it may be the wrong thing to do, it is still a basic human right. When all is said and done, there is only one person keeping each of us alive – and that is ourselves.

Why do courts therefore feel that they have the right to intervene in the most important decision of someone’s life? In Terry’s case, it is because she did not leave behind a written directive concerning assisted living. However, when other invalids and cancer patients beg for assisted suicide, people view it as a form of murder. Indeed, Terry’s father accused the Supreme Court of committing “judicial homicide.”

Logically speaking, it does not make sense that assisted suicide is considered “homicide” but suicide is not. Why is it okay for someone who isn’t sick to swallow a bunch of pills if they are healthy, but for it to be a crime if they are sick? Why should the Sylvia Plaths of the world have rights that tormented hospital patients do not?

These patients who seek assisted suicide do not have the selfish reasons that other suicide victims have. In many cases, families of the patient realize that death is the only thing that can bring their loved one peace and resolution. If even they do not want their relative to be forced to live, there should be no opposition from Jeb Bush.

We are forced to do many things in our lifetime. We are forced to work, we are forced to pay taxes, and we are even forced to pretend that Bright Eyes is pure genius. But we should never be forced to live a life of pain and emptiness.