Right to Die

Who should decide?

Sharon Siebert, a former Minneapolis "Aquatennial Queen of the Lakes," and Husband Richard, a neurosurgeon, had been married for twelve years when, in 1974, she began to suffer brain seizures. A cyst operation led to meningitis, and by 1976 she lay helpless at St. Mary's Rehabilitation Center in Minneapolis. Finally, last August, her family and physician agreed that if Siebert's heart or lungs should fail, the staff was in effect to let her die. Now her condition is at the center of a debate about who, if anyone, can make such a decision for a patient.

In the eyes of doctors and loved ones, Siebert, 41, is a virtual vegetable with no hope of improving. She cannot talk, does not recognize her family and has the mental age of a twelve-to 18-month-old child. This glum report is disputed by Jane Hoyt, 36, a self-styled nursing-home reformer who befriended Siebert four years ago. She says that the stricken woman can mouth the Lord's Prayer and play tic-tac-toe, and she insists that Siebert is progressing. Incensed by the August agreement, Hoyt obtained a temporary restraining order that directs St. Mary's to keep Siebert alive until State Judge Lindsay Arthur can resolve the dispute.

While the case brings to mind Karen Quinlan, the New Jersey woman whose parents asked doctors to unplug her respirator, there is a difference: Siebert is not comatose and conceivably, Hoyt contends, could decide the life-support question herself some day. Whatever the outcome, the tragedy is another reminder that society has failed to develop rules for the use of modern technology. qed

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.