The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has handed down a decision in the case of Haleigh Poutre, the 11 year-old girl beaten into a vegetative state by her step-parents.  As I have argued before, I believe that Haleigh should be kept alive until the final legal decisions are made about the guilt of those adults in her life who failed her so terribly.  Her presence lends more meaning to her story and her life.  Allowing her to receive, for a time longer, loving care would demonstrate how humanity should have operated in her life, and in the lives of the many, many abused children in the US. 

    The court has allowed the state to take her off life support, if it is deemed medically appropriate.   The state has already consulted two doctors, and they have split on their decision: one saying turn off both respirator and feeding tube, the other saying turn off just the respirator.  My worry here is that if the state goes forward with its court-recognized authority to deny her life support, the decision will be driven mostly by economic criteria.  They will turn off the machines because they are expensive.  And that, I think, is a bad reason for taking so serious a decision.

    Thus, I am thinking through alternative bases for making the decision and what I have settled on is the social meaning of her life.  That social meaning can be fulfilled by allowing her, even in a vegetative state, to bear a sort of witness to the judicial actions taken against the adults who failed her.  When those questions are settled and she has fulfilled that life’s mission, then we can let her die.

    The state, however, now has the authority to make the decision as it sees fit.  I can only hope that the economic argument does not overwhelm other, more humane criteria.

   The court, however, made a clear statement of what is at stake in this case; the basis of its reasoning is quite strong.  The court clearly recognized the fundamental failure of the step parents and denied the step father’s claim that he has parental interests and rights in this case:

"The petitioner [the step father] has proffered no evidence that would allow a conclusion
that his participation in (Haleigh’s) life was of a loving or nurturing
nature," the high court said in its ruling, "or even that it was
beneficial to the child."

"To recognize the petitioner as a de facto parent, in order that he may
participate in a medical end-of-life decision for the child, is
unthinkable in the circumstances of this case," the SJC said.

    Yes.  And now let’s define Haleigh’s life in terms of following the judicial resolution of these matters to their end, not merely in terms of money.  We should allow her to be present for the step father’s sentencing.

UPDATES: for January 19th, and January 20th.