Monday, March 21, 2005

A Fine Mess

There is nothing I can say about the Terri Schiavo idiocy that I don’t believe has already been said. A smart person would just shake her head and walk away from the mess because, truth be told, it’s shameful and awful and unfair and wrong what the courts and congress are doing to this poor woman’s husband.

But what about the question at hand? What about proxy consent is so darn confusing, and so easy to set aside? And why can’t we get a handle on what we really want for ourselves and our loved ones?

This is what I think the dealio is: “Proxy consent” is “supposed to be” consent that is given FOR someone because they can’t give it for themselves AND (and this is a big AND), that consent SHOULD BE the consent that one would give for themselves were they able. Soooo, if KMR, as my mom, insists that SK is wrong about what I would want for myself, KMR can drag SK to court and do all that she wishes to ruin any semblance of respect for SK and my union and lives together. AND (again, a big AND) THAT’S what I think is the crux of the problem. Why should my wishes, post my ability to wish, be so darn important?

So, the real question becomes whether, when granting someone the right to advocate on our behalf, we really should be granting the right to make decisions they see fit. Not so much basing their decisions on what I would want, but what they want because, and this is always a logical possibility, the moment before I had my accident or whatever, I may have changed my mind on the topic and what about that??? What about that???? Nothing, if we allow the proxy to make decisions without guessing my theoretical and always unknowable desires. That’s my point. When I cease to have desires, get this, I CEASE TO HAVE DESIRES. What I “would have” wanted for myself makes absolutely NO LOGICAL SENSE. The reason we insist on appealing to it is because we are fearful idiots that refuse to take the lives of our loved-ones on as our responsibility. Now know that when I say “our responsibility” I mean the responsibility of the one that I gave that to. In my case, SK since I married the old boy. Once I give him that responsibility, my decision-making process is over. Further, since it is up to him, the still rational thinker to make up his mind, based on his mind, KRM no longer has the power to second-guess him. After all, only he can know his mind.

Okay, and now to what we want for ourselves and our loved ones in regards to a death that needs help. It seems that we have decided that “letting die” is somehow less participatory and less “wrong” than “helping die.” I contend here that this is a difference that makes no difference but for the weak of character and heart. If you can stomach a “letting die” situation, you should see the humanity in “helping die” and see that the latter is more gentle and kind.

Stupid mess.


Blogger SharonA said...

Don't forget, the mastermind behind this whole PR campaign is our old friend Randall Terry. This is not about Terry Schiavo at all, but all of our most sacred decisions... The old motto "Who Decides?" has never been more apropriate.
Thanks for your thoughts.

7:30 AM  
Blogger Aerenchyma said...

Randall Terry?? How many rocks did they have to turn over to find that idiot??

7:11 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home