unit36 Terri Is Not a Vegetable 特丽不是植物人（在线收听）

Terri Is Not a Vegetable 特丽不是植物人

本文看点

佛罗里达州的特丽?夏沃在1990年因医疗事故大脑严重受损，虽能自主呼吸，却只能靠胃管灌食维持生命。1998年，丈夫兼监护人麦克尔?夏沃声明妻子过去曾表示不愿靠食管(feed tube)苟活，向当地法院申请对特丽实施安乐死(euthanasia)。而特丽的父母施德勒夫妇认为，女儿对他们的呼唤偶尔会有反应，应该还有复原的希望。因此双方缠讼7年。期间，特丽的进食管两次被拔除，但在民众抗议声中又插了回去。2005年3月18日下午1点45根据地方法院法官的裁决，特丽的喂食管第三次被拔。如果事情没有变化，她可能在一到两个星期内饿死。本文写于3月19日，作者从女权主义角度，抨击古老的婚姻传统使妇女成为男人的法律上与社会上的附属品，认为美国法律不该给与麦克尔对妻子的生死决定权，希望特丽能得到再次重生的机会。这起案子使得安乐死在美国再度成为各方辩论的话题。

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 (易饿病) that resulted in a potassium (钾) 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 (配偶的权利); 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 (压制). 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 (请愿) 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 (无限制的) control ought to be a cause for concern.

The Florida legislature has given Terri a reprieve (缓刑) 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 (植物状态的) 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.