Robbert Herring, a “tycoon”, has offered Michael Schiavo $1million if he hands over the rights to decide whether or not to take his wife, Terri Schiavo, to her parents. Mr. Schiavo says that she’d told him she didn’t want to live that way, but her parents disagree and think she could become better with treatment. Mr. Herring, who is a completely independent party, thinks that new developments in stem-cell research may provide hope for Mrs. Schiavo.
This case touches on several big issues in politics, including the rights of the disabled, the right to die, and stem-cell research (which has the potential to save many lives). It seems to me that there isn’t a real conflict here between these groups on fundamental issues, but rather on the specifics of what Mrs. Schiavo’s wishes really were.
In any event, irrespective of how one feels about what is the right thing to do in this case, the generosity of Mr. Herring is inspiring.
{ 6 comments }
Seems to me like yet another person is mastaking money for something that can solve social problems.
Are you crazy?
If Michael believes his wife is truly in pain that’s significantly worse than death, I bet that’s worth $1 million dollars to him.
More importantly, the reason we don’t constantly elect free-market politicians is because people do not think the way you do. If Michael “sold” his wife for $1 million, I don’t think he’d survive the lynch mob before he could cash his check.
Exactly. The ‘generosity’ of Mr. Herring seems to me to be based on the idea that human life is worth less than $1 million. This bothers me not just that one would blatantly put a price on someone’s life, but that one would lowball it like this.
There is no moral debate on this issue, the medical experts are uniform in their assesment. Trying to bribe Mr. Schiavo into betraying the wishes of his deceased (and make no mistake about it, her higher brain functions are gone) wife is a monsterous act.
Terri Schindler
Schiavois not “deceased,” and is not even on life support.And one thing that no one in this comment thread has mentioned is the financial motive that Michael Schiavo has for killing his wife… There was the issue of the malpractice lawsuit and the money that he has received from that, and the money that he will inherit if his wife passes away.
While I have been an admirer of the BBC in the past, I think it’s quite unfortunate what the title of that article is. The fact that she is not in a coma beyond dispute. It can be tempting, when writing snappy lines, to resort to the use of alliteration, but it shouldn’t be used if it is inaccurate.
[Looking at the articles in the right sidebar of that BBC article page, I see that they used the incorrect "coma" term even in other articles; someone should ask them to correct that.]
For the audience of the Mises Blog, I think that one article that some of you may find interesting is this July 1991 article by the one we all know and love:
THE RIGHT TO KILL, WITH DIGNITY?
Mr. Schiavo doesn’t own the rights to Terri’s life. Only Terri can decide if she wants to die and by which means. Since she didn’t specify she wanted to die in a will, the government should not give *anyone* the right to kill her.
The government shouldn’t be involved at all; naturally they shouldn’t claim to be able to grant anyone the right to kill her (or anyone else, healthy or not). But given she’s incapacitated, her husband is the next best thing.
What I think is funny (not in a laughing way) is that it’s OK (or it isn’t…or it is…whatever) to pull her feeding tube and let her starve to death over a week or two, but not to give her a lethal dose of morphine or something to kill her quickly and painlessly (granted, she can’t feel anything anyway, but still…)
Comments on this entry are closed.