Map of life expectancy at birth from Global Education Project.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Not Stayin' Alive

Today's harmonic convergence seems to be about death and dying.


  1. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Bush administration challenge to Oregon's law -- approved by the voters in 1994 -- allowing physicians to prescribe lethal doses of drugs to terminally ill people. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there was no constitutional "right to die," but that states could permit the practice, and since then, 170 people have taken advantage of the law in Oregon. But John Ashcroft (remember him?) declared upon taking office that doctors who wrote lethal prescriptions were in violation of federal drug laws. Oregon appealed, the lower court ruled its favor, and now we'll get a definitive ruling. I seem to remember a day when the Republican Party represented itself as a champion of states' rights. . .
  2. Terry Schiavo is back in the news. As you will recall, this is a severely brain damaged woman who has been on life support for 15 years. Her husband wants to remove the feeding tube, but her parents, fueled by religious fervor and backed by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have resisted. The Florida legislature passed a special law, just for her case, allowing Bush to order to feeding tube to remain. The courts ruled the law unconstitutional, but appeals haven't yet ended. They may today.
  3. Here in the Hub of the Universe, Mass. General Hospital wants to end life support for a woman with Lou Gehrig's Disease who has been on a ventilator for 5 years. Her doctors believe she is "suffering significantly and needlessly," but her daughter refuses to let them pull the plug. The doctors say she is "locked in," completely unable to move or communicate, but her daughter insists she can still "appreciate her family." A judge will have to decide this case as well.


The people in question are not brain dead, of course. They are indisputably alive. The affected people in Oregon are also competent and capable, and wish to make their own decisions. The people in the other two cases can no longer decide for themselves: they are helpless and passive. Others wish to decide for them, one way or the other. Who should decide? What should be the law?

No comments: