by Matt Barr

Starving little girls to death

When I blogged about the Schiavo case, there was a lot of noise in the background, most of it involving the proper use and limits of government power. Should Congress have stuck its nose in, both from an Article I (or III) standpoint and from a political standpoint? What would possess a court in a state that requires three notarized witnesses on a will before they'll give Junior the grand piano to order someone killed based on hearsay from an interested party? Do people who complain about "the government" being involved and say the courts should have the last word without seeming to understand that courts are part of "the government" ever listen to themselves?

The unbearably sad case of Haleigh Poutre doesn't yet have all the noise of the Schiavo case, thankfully, though ill-advised presidential aspirant Gov. Mitt Romney is giving it a go. At this point, though, it's still easy to see this for what it is: a state agency applying to a court to let it, um, what are we supposed to be saying so as to not inflame the unsophisticated Bible-thumping protoconservatives? "Remove her from life support"? "Hasten the end of her life"? "Withhold life-sustaining measures"? "Set condition 2 throughout the fleet"? With Schiavo, recall, it was "remove her feeding tube." I object to all these mealy-mouthed terms not as a human being but as a writer. Say what you mean. If it's too hard to say what you mean, spend as much time as you need thinking about why that is.

To fend off the most predictable comments, by the way: I believe in assisted suicide for the terminally ill or hopeless, as a concept, for those of sound mind, provided it's humane; and I believe those of sound mind should be able to anticipate the end of their life and direct their care (and death) via living will, provided it has the most basic of formal elements we need to be rudimentarily confident we're doing as someone would direct if able. Neither of these things would help Haleigh in the least, but I know those in favor of her death will be thinking about them as a way to argue with people like me.

Haleigh was beaten into a coma by her adoptive mother's husband. "Dad" will be charged with murder once she's dead, and is petitioning to be named "de facto" parent so he can see she's kept alive. Seein's how the result there would be that the persistently vegetative patient would live, the court spotted that conflict of interest a mile away, and denied the request. Courts as we recall are a little more lenient on possible conflicts if the result will be that someone will be killed.

The agency currently petitioning for the right to "remove Haleigh from life support" is the one that routinely failed to act on complaints that her adoptive parents were neglecting or abusing her, speaking of conflicts of interest. Haleigh's adoptive mother, Holli Strickland, withheld life-sustaining measures from herself and her grandmother a couple weeks after the latest beating, and we feel badly for the grandmother.

That Haleigh began breathing on her own once her ventilator was removed is more noise. I'm unwilling to use this as evidence that "HALEIGH WANTS TO LIVE," as grand as that might sound. I can believe there are plenty of adults who think about living like Terri Schiavo and conclude they would want to die. But I know several 11 year olds, and am heartened and saddened by stories my wife tells from the world of children's hematology and oncology, and believe -- correct me if you think I'm wrong -- that there's yet to be an 11 year old anywhere who would want anything other than to continue to live.

But biological mom Allison Avrett, adjudged unfit so that the far more qualified Holli Strickland could adopt Haleigh, originally went along with the petition to "withhold life sustaining measures" until Haleigh started to breathe on her own, which the state and doctors assured her wouldn't happen.

I don't know whose decision it should be in this case, and it's too sad to think critically about. I got a kick out of people during the Schiavo nonsense who accused me and other right-leaning critics of Mike of being inconsistent in that we're supposed to think husbands are the only ones qualified to make important decisions for their wives. All I know in this case is that if the only qualified entity to stand in as Haleigh's parent is the state Department of Social Services, (a) the poor girl deserves more of a fighting chance -- I'd be reluctant to have a government bureaucracy in charge of deciding almost anything about my life, let alone whether it should end, and (b) it should remember that it's standing in for Haleigh's parent -- I don't want to hear, absurdly, that Haleigh would want to be "removed from life support," and if you think her mother or father (if she had one) would so easily decide the "end of her life should be hastened," you yourself are not actually a parent.

Setting all of this tremendously difficult matter aside for the moment, the real issue absolutely everybody should be able to get on board with is this: Don't you dare starve that girl to death. I recall no one in Oregon getting together to pass a law that provided that doctors could help the terminally ill stop eating and starve and dehydrate themselves. The point there, I recall, was that the terminally ill could be made comfortable and could "die with dignity."

I was sickened that this "courtesy" wasn't extended to Terri Schiavo, and if you do it to this 11 year old girl, you're a monster. I seriously and earnestly wish whoever is involved in allowing this girl to die via the withholding of nutrition and hydration the level of comfort and "dignity" in their own death they feel comfortable providing Haleigh.

Browse books from Amazon.com:
euthanasia death+with+dignity