英語流行話題閱讀:語境識詞4500 81 Terri Is Not a Vegetable

00:00

00:00

MP3下載 文本下載

https://online2.tingclass.net/lesson/shi0529/0008/8492/081.mp3

https://image.tingclass.net/statics/js/2012

Terri Is Not a Vegetable

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 that resulted in a potassium 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 poorer. 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; 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. 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 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 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 views 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 court's giving Michael such unfettered control ought to be a cause for concern.

The Florida legislature has given Terri a reprieve from her death by starvation, allowing for a little more time to sort out the wrenching 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 few 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 actually have hidden reserves of mental activity."

This year, a man named Terry Wallis work 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.