The right to die

Terri Schiavo’s case which has sparked a national debate in the US stands out because of its implications and ramifications on who should decide who lives and who dies. The question is not new, nor will answers ever be definitive. Indeed, answers raise even more questions beyond Terri Schiavo. It is uncanny that the issue of the right to die (which is the other side of the coin of the right to live) should be happening in the US as it is criticized for its preemptive war in Iraq. The debate may be on an individual’s right to die but a case could also be made on a people’s right to live. In this time of terrorism, the life and death of peoples are decided by those who have the power to enforce their beliefs.

In Terri Schiavo’s case, her right to die might not have been debated if she had been capable of deciding for herself or if her next of kin, her husband and her parents, did not differ. Her husband was permitted by the courts to remove feeding tubes which has kept her alive while her parents want these reinstated. What could have been a private decision has become public because of their differences.

The courts’ decision to remove the tubes is based on the widely accepted definition of death. Medically, she has been declared brain dead and this condition falls within the ambit of what is legally construed as dead. Being comatose, the next of kin will have to decide and in this case, the husband has prior rights over her parents. He went to court on the strength that this is what Terri wished. Before she had lapsed to unconsciousness, she is alleged to have told her husband that she did not want to be kept alive artificially.

Those against the removal of the feeding tubes, a plethora of opinions for varying reasons are supported by the Vatican. "Removing the feeding tube in Terri’s case is direct euthanasia and against the Church’s teaching," a Vatican representative said. As a counterpoint Lance Dickie of Seattle Times says the lesson of this and every Good Friday is that life is changed, not ended, by dying. "All of the political and emotional turmoil surrounding Terri Schiavo has made this Holy Week especially poignant" Dickie added.

Euthanasia is the practice of ending a life to free a person from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering. New definitions of death and medical responsibilities have to be changed to fit modern realities with the advance of science. Brain death which is defined as "the point when the higher centers of the brain cease to function and no electrical activity is registered in the brain, making death the inevitable outcome, is widely accepted as the time when it is legal to turn off a patient’s life-support system, with the permission of the family." The irreversible loss of brain activity is the sign that death has occurred. This prompted the court to decide in favor of Terri’s husband. Any political interference that would frustrate that decision will have to contend with the legal authority of America’s justice system.

Here in the Philippines, as elsewhere, many families including fervent Catholics are often faced with this decision. I know a few who opted for passive euthanasia – to end the suffering of a loved one with no hope to live.

Death or the concept of death is a natural preoccupation of man. Who should decide the criteria for death –should it be doctors, legislatures, or the individual or the Vatican? Is advancement of the moment of death by cutting off artificial support morally and legally permissible? Do people have the right to demand that extraordinary measures be stopped so they may die in peace? Can the next of kin or a legal guardian act for the comatose dying person under such circumstances? These questions underline the importance of a will to establish an individual’s "right to die". No such will was made by Terri Schiavo.

* * *

OIL AT $75? It was worth noting that when the high-powered oil delegation led by the amiable Minister Ali I. Al-Naimi came for Speaker JDV’s reception at the Peninsula, they all came in Western coat and tie instead of the Arab national costume which used to be de riguer for them. Is this a sign of the growing westernization of the Saudis? Speaker JDV was to give a congressional medal of achievement to Minister Naimi in recognition of his work as chairman of the board of the Saudi Arabian Oil Co. and as minister of petroleum and mineral resources.

More ominous was that his visit to Manila was foreshadowed by rumors, albeit from reliable sources, that oil could go up as high as $75 a barrel. This was, of course, vehemently denied by Minister Naimi but subsequent news and events coming from OPEC itself predict at least $60 per barrel anytime soon. This was being referred to as a self-fulfilling prediction of oil industry watchers. But the $75 a barrel price being predicted at the end of the year is more than just rumor or self-fulfilling predictions. It is feared that with the onset of winter in the Western countries a huge demand for heating fuel can be expected. This, coupled with the fact that oil is a fast diminishing resource, can only lead to higher prices. Just how high is the question.

We can only watch with bated breath in the coming months but with recent announcements (4 work day week is one) it is not an idle thought that Minister Naimi visited Manila for a specific purpose. The good news is that Minister Naimi categorically committed Saudi help in both oil and investments for the Philippines. In his response during the award ceremonies, Minister Naimi said they were looking into specific projects like the petrochemical industry.

* * *

FILIPINOS IN US REPRINT ARTICLE ON FVR AND CHARTER CHANGE. [email protected] wrote to ask permission to reprint ."FVR and Charter Change" in the Fil-Am Weekly MEGASCENES, a sister publication of Philippine TIME-USA News & People Magazine, based in Chicago. The letter was from Bart SG Tubalinal, Jr. Editor.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]