A recent case in Manassas, Va., has renewed interest in a question that has never been far beneath the surface of the American consciousness: Do people have a "right to die?"
Gov. James Gilmore attempted to answer this question when he tried to prevent a family from discontinuing artificial life support for a man who had been in a vegetative state for three years. He contended that the 1992 state law allowing the removal of feeding tubes from vegetative patients should not apply to Hugh Finn, a 44-year old who suffered extensive brain damage in a 1995 car accident. He argued that because Finn is not already dying, removal of a feeding tube would amount to euthanasia, illegal in the state of Virginia.
But the Supreme Court, which delivered a three-paragraph opinion last Friday, disagreed, saying that removing nutrition "merely permits the natural process of dying and is not mercy-killing or euthanasia."
The governor has been sharply criticized for his decision to interfere in this case, and with good reason. Although Gilmore was certainly within his right to challenge this case, he should have exercised his right in a different manner.
If Gilmore opposes the policy of allowing vegetative patients to die, he should attempt to reform the laws of his state rather than attack a family that is already consumed by personal crisis. His legal challenge was in poor taste and has continued and prolonged the pain of a family already suffering from the loss of a loved one and grappling with the issues that surround life and death.
Although Gilmore's legal effort was misguided, the recent attention does beg a greater question. Should there be safety nets to ensure that families like Finn's are not left to make these difficult and painful choices?
This decision would be better made by the individual, before such tragic accidents occur. It is a difficult personal choice to make, but including living-will information on something as simple as a driver's license-much like the current program of organ donor notification-could save many families from agonizing decisions and possible legal troubles in the future.
Finn's family has already had to deal with this decision and soon their ordeal will be over. But current laws regarding discontinuing life-sustaining care for patients are too vague to prevent their ordeal from recurring with a different family.
It has been said that death is as much a part of life as life itself is. If so, it is time to face the inevitability of our life's end and answer the difficult questions while we still have a voice in the matter.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.