With the failing of an attempt by some in Congress to stop it, Terri Schiavo is now being starved and dehydrated to death. An interesting article on National Review points out that Terri would receive far better treatment had she been a terrorist. Out of decency, we treat terrorists humanely, and yet an innocent, though severely disabled woman it now sentenced to a torturously painful two-week long death.
I, as much as anyone, do not want to see social justice replace the gospel as the mission of the church. But Jesus did instruct us to love our neighbor. And right now, two of our collective neighbors are forced to sit helplessly and watch their daughter be slowly killed. All they want is to be allowed to care for their daughter and try some rehabilitative therapy (which she has been denied).
The perversity of it is stunning, yet it is the natural result of the loss of the fundamental belief that life is sacred. It is only God’s take. Once that foundation is lost, we are at the whim of the shifting sands of societal preferences.
Do we abandon the gospel to take up social causes? No, but it isn’t really one or the other. As those informed by God’s truth, we must do all we can to speak to the culture and make a case for truth. One of the most fundamental truths is that life is sacred.
Anybody out there have links to good articles to help someone come up to speed on the issues involved with this on-going debate? Specifics about Terri’s condition as well as analysis of the moral, ethical, and political issues involved.
http://www.terrisfight.org/
I haven’t scanned much of the news on this topic, so I don’t have an educated opinion- just questions. It seems to me that behind this debate is the law that allows people to make provision for their right to refuse life-sustaining treatment before they are diagnosed PVS- and what to do if someone doesen’t utilize their right to make that provision.
Mrs. Shiavo did not sign any directives about her health care and she had no living will. Therefore, by law the husband can decide her fate. The parents disagree with his decision (most parents would, this guy sounds a little less than honorable).
To make matters much worse, it appears the courts overstepped their bounds in ordering the removal of the feeding tube.
So here is my question, why is no one in our country realizing that our courts have too much power and we are now at their mercy? Mercy for them is defined by a postmodern interpretation of the law that allows a judge to interpret the law in whatever way he or she deems is right. The objective meaning of a law as it was intended by those who made it is no longer relevant.
Christians should certainly have a voice in defining the value and dignity of life for our culture- a definition that is God’s as he reveals it in his Word. But we should also have a voice in teaching the culture around us how to make just laws, and how judges should interpret them once they are made. All of these things must be brought under the direction of God. Just putting a new law on the books is not enough. We must challenge judges to stop interpreting laws accourding to their non-Christian presuppostions.
I completely agree that judicial activism has become the tool of choice for those that wish change our country’s legal system by completely bypassing the other two branches of government—the two that the people have the most direct say in through the election process.
By the way, it is up for debate at to whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Her parents have credible medical evidence that she is not. She has been denied (by her husband) the sort of therapy that might help her to begin to communicate. Without that therapy, we don’t really know how much function she is capable of.
Also, I would make a distinction between withholding medical treatment (ventilators and the like) and withholding basic care (food and water). None of us would die without a ventilator, but any one of us would die if we were denied food and water. In virtually any other circumstance we would consider the act of starving someone to death as murder.
The fact that Terri requires a feeding tube is not morally relevant. She is no more dependant on others than a newborn baby would be. If the parents of a newborn allowed it to starve to death, saying “we didn’t do anything, we just left her there and nature took its course.” would be no excuse.
Just another example; consider Christopher Reeve. He required a ventilator (at least some of the time, anyway). Nobody seriously proposed putting him to sleep…
I’m curious. What is the line we’re trying to draw? On the one hand, while I don’t have formal legal documents written up, I wouldn’t want heroic measures performed on me if I were brain-dead and treatment was really just a fool’s errand.
On the other hand, I think of my grandmother, who suffered a devastating stroke last fall and was thought to be within hours of death. “Do not resuscitate” orders were being bandied about, when one doctor spoke up and said, “you know, we really can’t write her off here. She’s not there yet.” While she is definitely in bad shape, she is still with us…
Then there’s this case, which is somewhere in the middle. Biologically and spiritually, Terri Schiavo is alive. On the other hand, she hasn’t functioned as an autonomous human being in about fifteen years. But the latter does not nullify the former!
Clearly this is horrific in the specific case of the Schiavo family. What’s worse is that we seem to be arriving at a definition of “alive” that is neither biological nor spiritual – but merely relative to those responsible for the care of the creature in question.
Melinda Penner who is active on the STR blog and follows the political scene pretty astutely has good up to date info.
Let Terri Die…
Thank you Thumper for that substantive addition to the discussion.
You are very welcome.
My heart breaks for Terri and her family. I can’t imagine the turmoil that they have suffered through.
I don’t understand why Mr. Shaivo doesn’t allow her parents to care for her. What does he gain or lose? Seems like he’d rather starve and dehydrate his wife to death, rather than turn his back on his wife in allowing someone else to care for her. I was told that because he is Catholic, he can’t marry his new common law wife until Terri passes.
If he’s so spiritually minded, why isn’t he by her side, on his knees praying for a miracle? Instead, he’s off building a new family? I don’t get it.
I hope that all of us are taking this experience and having those difficult discussions with our spouses as to what we’d like if we were in a similar situation. And more importantly, that it’s put down on paper. So that in the chaos of the moment, there is no question as to what your wishes are in the event you can’t voice them yourself.
We’ve been having some lively discussion over on my blog about the topic where you might be able to get some answers to some of your questions and see some differing opinions.
http://www.guiroo.com
Eric et al.,
I am confused by what appears to be conflicting information. I have this nagging feeling that both sides are spinning the PR machine.
On the side of the Schindler’s:
The claim is that she is, in fact, NOT in a PVS, only in a state of limited consciousness and can therefore be brought out of this state through therapy.
On the side of the husband:
There is no amount of therapy that can regenerate a cerebral cortex that has liquified with atrophy. She is not conscious at all. She has no hope of recovery. She is like the thousands of others each year who, through the provisions of a living will, elect not to receive any type of sustenance when it is diagnosed that there is no hope of recovery. This appears to be the position taken by the courts in this case.
On the side of the Schindlers:
Just let us take care of her. Divorce her. Be done with it. Get on with your life.
On the side of the husband:
He has maintained that he had a conversation (and the courts have upheld his claim) with his wife in which she stated upon seeing images of a woman in a PVS that she didn’t want to be sustained if that ever happened to her. He is simply carrying out the wishes of his wife. He is unwilling to allow the parents to derail her express desires.
On the side of the Schindlers:
He’s in it for the money. He just wants the publicity and the settlements, etc.
On the side of the husband:
He has been offered millions to walk away and has refused. He insists that no amount of money could influence him to go back on his commitment to his wife to carry out her express wishes.
On the side of the Schindlers:
She hasn’t had an MRI to determine that the cerebral cortex is atrophied.
On the side of the husband:
She has had an MRI and it was admitted as evidence in court.
WHO’S TELLING THE TRUTH, if anyone?
I just don’t know whom to believe. As to the ethics of withholding sustenance to those with severe brain damage such as destruction of the cerebral cortex, I’m not sure where to land on this. I remember some time ago a case where a baby was born with only a brain stem. This enabled his autonomic funtions to continue but he had no hope of ever being conscious or of ever having any semblance of higher brain functions (he had nothing but a brain stem). In this case, it seemed the line between life and death is somewhat grey. Do you remember this? What was the outcome?
Yeah, Ken, both sides are so polarized that it is hard to assess many of the details of the case. I try to base my thoughts on it on the details that can be know combined with the general moral principles that would apply in any situation.
The fact that she is in a PVS is disputed by the parents. They may be wrong or they may be right, but until that is determined to their satisfaction (within reason) it seems to me that you’d have to err on the side of giving them every opportunity to make their case, just as we do with capital punishment cases, since the decision to terminate is permanent.
As to the withholding sustenance, I’d come down a little soft on this one myself. If there is any doubt about the patient’s wishes, I think it is pretty clear that again the default position of maintaining life should prevail.
Even in the case where the patient has an advanced directive indicating a desire to withhold treatment, I’m not sure that it would be morally permissible to withhold basic care (food and water). In the case of removal of a ventilator or some other extraordinary means of keeping a body alive, if those means are removed, the patient dies of the disease or condition in question. If food and water are withheld, then the patient dies of starvation/dehydration. So, I see Terri’s case as active euthanasia (albeit a horribly long and drawn out form). Any other form of active euthanasia is illegal in this country.
Here are links to what I could find on that matter:
Anencephalic Organ DonorsHydranencephaly Fact SheetSupreme Court of Florida: in the matter of Theresa Ann Campo Pearson
Food for thought (apologies in advance for lots of hypotheticals here):
Let’s suppose a researcher succeeds in cloning a human being.
Once the experiment is hailed as a success, the clone suffers a debilitating heart attack and is left in a condition essentially the same as Terri Schiavo’s.
I would expect that no one would be waging a strident fight to starve the clone to death. No, I would expect to see lots of support for the clone’s fight to survive.
In this hypothetical situation it seems to me Terri Schiavo would be judged to have less of a right to live than a clone.
To further stretch the bounds of conjecture…
Let’s suppose that the subject that was cloned was Terri Schiavo herself.
If that were the case, Terri Schiavo would be accorded less of a right to live than her own clone.
Ridiculous scenario? Or our brave new world?