Catherine's Perspective on "Severe Handicap"

I read this entry from Catherine of Liberal Hawks and I think it shines a line into the little spoken corners of reality that people retreat from and choose not to deal with. And then.................and then there's Terri and the fallacy crashes and burns and the blinders are ripped off our face/

I don't know what Terri feels or wants, or how conscious she may (or may
not)  be.

My best guess, based mostly on two lines of research that are either  brand
new (the research on minimally conscious states) or somewhat, but  not
directly, related to Terri¹s situation (the research on quadriplegics  and
emotional well-being) is that she¹s not suffering horribly in her  current
state, and may be in a positive frame of mind when she is conscious  or
minimally conscious.

I don't think I¹m being as clear as I could be  if I spent more time writing
these posts.

What I'm trying to say is  that I do feel horrified at the thought of living
as a handicapped  person.

I feel so horrified at the thought of living as a severely  handicapped
person that I have actually had to wonder whether, if somebody  told me ŒI
can make you autistic for one day so you'll know what your  children's lives
are like, I would do it.

I'm afraid I wouldn't. I  live with two autistic kids, I just wrote a book
with an autistic adult, and  I think I'm too afraid of how hard and
frightening it might be to have autism  that I would not agree to be autistic
for even one day.

I don't  actually feel that I have more insight into the nature of a disabled
person's  consciousness than other people do (though I probably have more
insight into  autism specifically; that's true).

What I feel is that I have a pretty  sharp awareness of the negative feelings
being expressed in this public  debate towards people with severe handicaps.
AND I DON'T EXEMPT MYSELF FROM  THIS. It is horribly, horribly upsetting to
think about severe handicaps; it  is horribly upsetting to see a person with
severe handicaps; and it is  horribly upsetting to think about one day having
a severe handicap  oneself.

This emotion, which I share, translates directly into a very  widespread
feeling that death is preferable to life with a severe handicap.  And not
just preferable for me, but preferable for others. (If you look at  polling
on this question, a huge majority of people say they would rather be  dead
than be severely disabled.)

It¹s this link I¹d like to break.  Ideally, I would like our country to react
to the sight of Terri Schiavo as  warmly as possible; I would like people to
look at her and not have, as their  first thought, Œshe would be better off
dead.¹

I would like to see  our country reach a consensus‹recover a consensus,
actually‹that we err on  the side of life.

This does not mean that I would support laws that  everyone has to have all
the intrusive medical care a physician can give him,  come what may. Families
should be free to make their own decisions, and draw  their own lines.

But I hope to see the starting point for such decisions  be that all life has
equal moral worth and value. That should be our core  belief, as a culture.
Because I do believe we are on a slippery slope, and I  do believe‹and can
give evidence to support my belief‹that we have already  tumbled quite a long
ways down it.

Now I have a  question.

Here's John Derbyshire, at The Corner:

"I think it is  cruel to let this woman linger on in her degraded and
hopeless  condition."

And this:

"The life Terri Schiavo has is not worth  living."

To me, those are pretty close to fighting words.

At a  minimum I need to know John Derbyshire's views of the severely  disabled
children I saw at the school for the multiply handicapped in the  Valley.

Are their lives worth living?

I need to hear a yes on that  one.

Here is Ramesh Ponnoru's  reaction to Derbyshire:

RE: ABSOLUTISM [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Derbyshire  comes out and says it: "The life Terri Schiavo has is not worth
living. I  wouldn't want to live it, and I wouldn't want anyone I care about
to live it.  For once, I believe, the courts have got it right. For pity's
sake, let this  poor woman die." Let her die? She has no terminal illness.
She is being  killed by the denial of food and water. On Derbyshire's logic,
there is no  reason why we shouldn't--and every reason why we should--make
things easier  on Terri and ourselves by immediately giving her a lethal
injection. It would  be quicker, more efficient, and possibly less painful
for her.
Posted at  02:59 PM

What about this?

It would be radically more humane to  kill Terri Schiavo the way hospices
euthanize people, by giving them an  overdose of morphine. These deaths are
very quick and painless.

And  since I keep mentioning dogs, let me add that many, many people
euthanize  their dogs, and these deaths never, ever involve starving and
dehydrating the  animal for days and weeks. The animal is given an injection,
and they are  dead within seconds. Three years ago I held our dog Jazzy while
he  died.

If the issue is Terri Schiavo's suffering, if that is what we as a  culture
are truly concerned with, why are we putting her through 2 weeks  of
starvation and dehydration?