Terri

I've been trying to avoid thinking about what's happening with Terri Schiavo, but since every news source I go to has her case front page 24-7, I guess it was inevitable that my mind started to think more generally about assisted suicides. Originally I felt that this was quite obviously none of my business; I don't know her and never will. I am not affected financially by her as I am not personally paying any part of her bills (or perhaps I am slightly via taxes?). Another first impression was that this was an overblown media frenzy that was meant to bring some House leaders back into the limelight, particularly Tom DeLay who is perhaps on the road to his political demise. Why should I be interested at all? But if you look at the reaction to her situation, for example the kid, Gabriel Keys, who tried to feed Terri with water and was taken away by police handcuffed, her case has certainly struck a nerve with many Americans. Is it ok to help someone end their life, particularly if they live a life where they cannot even enjoy the simplest of things, things we all take for granted? Smell the flowers, make some tea, walk, talk, feel? I believe life is precious, even more so when there is a purpose to living. Humans in particular, have a huge potential, with wisdom and some luck, for the greatest accomplishments. But when this capacity of being alive is taken away by incurable illness, perhaps it is better to end that life. For without purpose nor physical means for the individual, the "Terris" out there, to accomplish anything, life would be living hell! It is somewhat selfish of family to consider keeping the Terris alive, particularly if there is near certainty of no recovery, purely for the purpose of feeding their hopes against the insurmountable odds. I certainly understand their situation. But I feel I'd rather retain the memory of a vibrant and alive Terri. We all must eventually learn to let go.
Would her soul be forever condemned by taking the suicide route? I don't buy that. This "test" on earth is worse than hell in the afterlife, if there is one. We only go to hell because of the sins on earth. What sin is it to not be able to do anything at all? I just don't believe the sin of suicide applies, particularly when there is no longer a life you can really take away. It has already been taken away. What is left is the medical equivalent of a reaction chamber, one that simply takes oxygen and converts it to carbon dioxide, or takes sugars and makes them into enough energy to sustain the previous function.
But who can make such decisions as to whether one can assist in ending another's life? Certainly "Terri" could have made this choice while she was able to make decisions. But suppose one is past that point? I would think the most immediate family, that is spouse or children or parents, with the confirmation from at least three independent medical experts that chances of recovery is nearly zero, should have the jurisdiction to make such decisions.
This is a difficult question, and although I make the previous statement, I don't think there should be too specific a law dictating how to handle assisted suicides. Certainly I don't agree with outlawing it completely, nor do I agree with giving everyone the choice to choose it. Most often they must be dealt with case by case. Perhaps the best way is to institute a specific judicial court that handles such matters, case by case.