Larger questions ignored

By: PAUL JACOBS - For The Californian | Saturday, April 2, 2005 8:36 PM PST ∞

There has been a media, legal and political circus trilogy surrounding the slow death of Terri Schiavo. Last week, The Californian devoted its full Perspective page to four commentaries on what ordinarily is a very private and difficult family matter.

An acquaintance asked what I thought of the Schiavo situation, since my work involves providing direct care to individuals in a similar medical and mental condition as Terri. Before he asked, I hadn't really formulated an opinion, but his question prompted me to ponder things and respond.

I hesitate to agree with the courts, but I think the correct legal decisions were made. Ultimately, the larger issue ignored by politicians and the medical profession is bioethics in health care. When do we say when? Should the elderly be cut off from organ transplants at a certain age?

If we do this to Schiavo, will the disabled people I take care of who are fed through a gastronomy tube be next? The clients, as we call them, I work with suffered their disability before the age of 18 and therefore are considered developmentally disabled ---- mentally retarded ---- whether the brain injury occurred at birth or just before their 18th birthday. The legal distinction appears to be that the injury occurred before adulthood.

Terri Schiavo would fit right in among the clients I work with, but because her injury occurred as a married adult, her legal status is completely different. Legally, her husband is charged with the responsibility unless there is a living will authorizing somebody else to make medical decisions.

I think once the feeding tube is inserted, there is a moral/ethical obligation to continue that nourishment. Feeding is comparatively minimal medical intervention compared to respirators and other life-sustaining methods. Keeping the body fed and hydrated seems like the humane thing to do if the person is otherwise self-sustaining.

Some people ponder the question, "Why am I here?" With the clients I work with, I have wondered why are they here? I have come to the conclusion that they are perfect souls in imperfect bodies. Their personalities are no different from us so-called normal people. Some are a pleasure to be around and some can be difficult or snarly. Some seem happy and content while there seems to be no pleasing others. The individuals I work with may lack abilities and a purposeful consciousness, but they are otherwise just like you and me.

Who is to ponder the validity of the life of somebody born into this world? Meditation is often associated with spirituality and perhaps trapped souls have the greater spiritual experience compared to those of us distracted by walking and talking? Does God make mistakes, and if he does, do we kill them? I think not.

Until we decide a more humane way of dealing with the unfortunates among us on this planet, we have no business sentencing every conceived life to birth.

Legislation that protects brain-injured individuals and guarantees the continuance of basic life sustenance is something I could live with.

Paul Jacobs of Temecula is a regular columnist for The Californian. E-mail: TemeculaPaul@aol.com.