午后咖啡unit36 Terri Is Not a Vegetable 特麗不是植物人
本文看點(diǎn)
佛羅里達(dá)州的特麗?夏沃在1990年因醫(yī)療事故大腦嚴(yán)重受損，雖能自主呼吸，卻只能靠胃管灌食維持生命。1998年，丈夫兼監(jiān)護(hù)人麥克爾?夏沃聲明妻子過(guò)去曾表示不愿靠食管(feed tube)茍活，向當(dāng)?shù)胤ㄔ荷暾?qǐng)對(duì)特麗實(shí)施安樂(lè)死(euthanasia)。而特麗的父母施德勒夫婦認(rèn)為，女兒對(duì)他們的呼喚偶爾會(huì)有反應(yīng)，應(yīng)該還有復(fù)原的希望。因此雙方纏訟7年。期間，特麗的進(jìn)食管兩次被拔除，但在民眾抗議聲中又插了回去。2005年3月18日下午1點(diǎn)45根據(jù)地方法院法官的裁決，特麗的喂食管第三次被拔。如果事情沒(méi)有變化，她可能在一到兩個(gè)星期內(nèi)餓死。本文寫(xiě)于3月19日，作者從女權(quán)主義角度，抨擊古老的婚姻傳統(tǒng)使婦女成為男人的法律上與社會(huì)上的附屬品，認(rèn)為美國(guó)法律不該給與麥克爾對(duì)妻子的生死決定權(quán)，希望特麗能得到再次重生的機(jī)會(huì)。這起案子使得安樂(lè)死在美國(guó)再度成為各方辯論的話(huà)題。
Terri Schiavo collapsed in her home in 1990, suffering from heart failure that rendered her severely brain-damaged. Michael Schiavo said his wife suffered from bulimia (易餓病) that resulted in a potassium (鉀) deficiency, triggering the heart failure. Michael filed a medical-malpractice suit on her behalf. In his testimony for that lawsuit, Michael reaffirmed his devotion to his now-disabled wife: "I believe in the vows I took with my wife: through sickness and health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her." The sympathetic jury awarded Michael $640,000 for loss of consortium (配偶的權(quán)利); Terry was awarded nearly $800,000 to be used for her rehabilitation and lifetime care. Because he is Terri's husband, Michael has the authority to administer this fund and to make medical decisions regarding her care.
Less than a year after the money was in the bank Michael apparently suffered a little cognitive deficiency himself, because he seemed to forget all about his promises to his wife and to the jury. The plans for rehabilitative therapy that he presented to the jury were squelched (壓制). He repeatedly denied treatment for infections that Terri suffered. He began to date other women, and currently lives with a woman who had a child by him. They are expecting another and plan to marry when Terri dies.
Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, objected to what they perceived as Michael's neglect of Terri's needs, so in 1993 they filed a petition (請(qǐng)?jiān)? to have him removed as Terri's guardian. Thus began one of the ugliest family feuds of all time. Michael demands that Terri not be fed or given water, claiming that she told him before she became disabled that she would rather die than be dependent on tubes. He declares that Terri has no significant mental function, so it is up to him as her loving husband to ensure that her desire to die be fulfilled. Terri's parents say that they have known her a lot longer than Michael has, and they never heard her say any such thing. Furthermore, they claim that Terri is not a vegetable, and that she responds to their attention in a meaningful way. They want Terri to live, and they want her to be provided the rehabilitative care that was supposed to have been funded by the malpractice award. They argue that their daughter's due process rights have been violated and that she would not have wanted to die this way due to her faith as a Roman Catholic.
Michael has prevailed in the courts, although Michael can offer no evidence about Terri's wishes but his word. He is her husband; therefore, the courts have agreed that he should have nearly absolute control over her fate, and her parents none at all.
Why did the courts accept such weak evidence as to whether Terri would want to be fed in her current condition? (If she did tell her husband what he claims she did, was it a well-thought-out opinion or just the sort of casual remark that healthy young people are prone to make?) Michael wants to marry his current girlfriend but of course cannot as long as he is married to Terri. But if he simply divorces her he will no longer stand to inherit her property, including whatever remains of her medical fund (incredibly, the court allowed him to pay his legal fees from this fund, which was intended to provide care for his wife; he has already paid his lawyers nearly $400,000 from it in his efforts to end her life.)
It seems odd that a husband with such questionable motives should be granted so much power over his wife's life. The case reminds one of the old view of marriage as the incorporation of the wife into the husband's legal and social identity: Married women had no independent rights. Feminists have been challenging this idea for more than a hundred years. Regardless of one's opinion about what course of action is in Terri's best interest, the courts' given Michael such unfettered (無(wú)限制的) control ought to be a cause for concern.
The Florida legislature has given Terri a reprieve (緩刑) from her death by starvation, allowing for a little more time to sort out the wrenching (痛苦折磨的) issues illuminated by her predicament. I hope that Michael will divorce Terri and allow her parents to assume responsibility for her. They are convinced that with therapy, her condition can improve. Their belief is supported by recent research described in a recent New York Times Magazine article ("What if There Is Something Going On in There," September 28, 2003). This research suggests that "even after an injury that leaves a brain badly damaged, even after months or years with little signs of consciousness, people may still be capable of complex mental activity," and that "a vast number of people who might once have been considered vegetative (植物狀態(tài)的) actually have hidden reserves of mental activity."
This year, a man named Terry Wallis woke up after 19 years in a coma. His wife never gave up on him. If Michael is successful in his efforts to give up on Terri, we'll never know what surprises she might have for us.
- 頻道推薦
- |
- 全站推薦
- 推薦下載
- 網(wǎng)站推薦
