posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 07:27 PM
This is a long standing medical/ethical dilemma.
What does one do for a patient who "should" be dead? We have life support machines that can act as a heart, lungs, kidneys, and just about all
other vital organs. Technically speaking, that would mean a person could be kept "alive" virtually forever, even without a functioning heart, or
brain. As long as the organs' functions are being carried out (through whatever assitance necessary) a person is TECHNICALLY still alive.
The dilemma in this case is differing medical opinions. The husband states that all of the doctors who have checked out his wife have said the same
thing. Her brain is gone, she is not self aware, and in their opinion no longer "alive" anyways. The family says their doctors believe her
condition is grave but can be improved.
This, in my opinion is a medical/ethical dilemma that honestly is no business of politicians. Gov. Bush, in his infinite medical wisdom has made a
decision. How nice. I am not attempting to make a decision on Ms. Schiavo's case because I am not an expert neurologist, and I've never seen her.
Neither is Mr. Bush. Neither are most the people sending him letters.
These decisions are extremely difficult ones and should be made by a qualified, well researched, medical authority. If that authority deemed that Ms.
Schiavo was no longer "alive", well then decisions would need to be made on what to do. Slowly cutting off support and letting her body waste away
is not the way to do it of course.