No arguments here that the Republicans are using Schiavo for gross political purposes. However, I found this
from the Daily Camera interesting.
from Daily Camera.
By Lisa Marshall, Camera Staff Writer
March 23, 2005
Rush Limbaugh is talking about it, and ABC is conducting opinion polls. But while the rest of America pontificates from afar about what should happen in a case like Terri Schiavo's, Linda Shepherd is living it.
For the past 17 years, the Longmont mother of two has spent much of her time by her daughter Laura's side, savoring each flicker of eye contact, subtle move of the tongue or sound, as Laura works with nurses, speech therapists and tutors. In 1988, a panel of 21 health care providers determined a violent car accident had left Laura, then 18 months old, in a "persistent vegetative state" and suggested her life-support be disconnected.
Shepherd declined their advice, and she says she has no regrets.
"If someone were to tell me today that she is not viable, that her life is not meaningful, that would be unthinkable," Shepherd said. "Quality of life to me is being alive and having love in your life. Terri Schiavo has both of those, and so does my daughter."
Shepherd is one of thousands of disability-rights activists who have weighed in on the side of Schiavo's parents in the Florida case, which they say transcends right-versus-left culture wars or "right to life" versus "right to die" debates. Rather, they say, it is a disability rights issue, and could have long-term implications on how people with severe brain damage are treated by hospitals or perceived by society.
In October 2003, a coalition of 26 well-known disability rights groups, many with largely liberal memberships, signed a position statement in support of Schiavo's right to continue to receive food and water.
Their main concern: "If the legal standard in cases involving termination of life support is reduced to the point where Ms. Schindler-Schiavo's 'quality of life' as determined by others justifies her death by starvation, then what protections exist for the thousands of us who cannot speak due to disabilities?"
...
Stephen Drake, a research analyst for the Chicago-based disability rights group Not Dead Yet, said he has no problem with a terminally ill person being taken off life support, or a person who has made it clear in an advanced directive that that is their wish. But the Schiavo case is different because she is not dying. Rather her "quality of life" is in question, he said.
Drake said he has seen a growing tendency -- in an age of managed care and limited health-care resources -- for doctors to recommend earlier that a patient be taken off life support. He points out that many hospitals nationwide have adopted "futility guidelines" that help them determine when to recommend it, and in some cases, overrule families who wish otherwise.
"There are a lot of very quiet changes in the health codes, making it easier, requiring a lower standard of proof that this is what a person would have wanted," Drake said.
Jackie Glover, an associate professor with the center for bioethics and humanities at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, said such futility guidelines have arisen out of doctors' desire to "preserve their professional values," and only provide care that is beneficial. . However, she does share some of Shepherd's concerns.
"I do have fears that we are just going to write off people, making judgments that they have an unacceptable quality of life," Glover said.
She said she hopes the intense media coverage of the Schiavo case will spark a long-overdue public discussion about end-of-life care, who pays for it and for how long, in the face of shrinking budgets and a growing population of uninsured.