Rebecca Dresser (Washington University - Law) has uploaded an abstract to SSRN entitled Schiavo and Contemporary Myths About Dying (University of Miami Law Review, Vol. 61, p. 401, 2007):
When the Schiavo case burst onto the national scene, most of us assumed that everyone would see the case as we did. But instead, Schiavo showed that U.S. pluralism was alive and well in decisions about life-sustaining treatment. Schiavo demonstrated, too, that at least some of this pluralism reflects misguided myths about human life and death. In this essay, I examine the myths that Schiavo exposed. One such myth is that death with dignity is easily attainable in modern America, as long as people make living wills. Another myth is that only patients themselves are permitted to take quality of life into account when deciding about life-sustaining interventions. A third myth is that research advances are bringing an end to the difficulties of aging. To examine the myths, I draw on public commentary about Schiavo and on four texts published in 2005, when the case was in the headlines.
This looks to be an important article for a variety of reasons. I recently co-authored a paper in which one of our central claims was that U.S. society remains deeply divided on all manner of issues related to death and dying, including, not least of all, how we assess when someone is dead. (I eschew the phrase "definition of death" because I am skeptical of the coherence of any such definition). Professor Dresser, who likely needs no introduction to the bioethics and MH audience, has written an important article questioning the notion of precommitment that lies at the heart of advance directives legislation, and using the Schiavo case as a lens for examining the current state of U.S. attitudes towards death and dying seems promising.
