Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Terri Schiavo Re-Revisited

Both James Joyner and Chris Lawrence think Terri Schiavo should have her feeding tube removed. Joyner says:

While the issue of withdrawing life support is a messy one, I have a rough time getting too upset with the husband, who I consider the real victim in this case. His wife died fifteen years ago but, because of advancements in medical technology and the stubborn resistance of his in-laws to facing the truth, he's being cast as the villain for simply wanting to pull the plug and get on with his life. He shouldn't have to divorce a woman who died fifteen years ago in order to do that.

However, according to the folks at Hyscience, this viewpoint may be misguided:

I received this a few minutes ago from Bobby Schindler, Terri's brother, with a request to get it to Terri's bloggers.

- Press Release by Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, Feb 15, 2005.

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y., Feb. 15 (UPI) — Terri Schiavo is not dying. She has no terminal illness. She is not in a coma. She is not on life-support equipment. She is not alone, but rather has loving parents and siblings ready to care for her for the rest of her life. She has not requested death.

A battle rages over whether she should be starved to death. Schiavo sustained brain injuries and cannot speak or eat normally. Nevertheless, the only tube attached to her is a small, simple, painless feeding tube that provides her nourishment directly to her digestive system. Her legal guardian is her husband, who already has another woman — by whom he also has children. He wants Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed. Of course, he could simply allow her to be cared for by her parents and siblings and get on with his life, but he refuses.

I have had two opportunities to visit Terri Schiavo, most recently on the first Sunday of February. I have been able to talk to her, to listen to her struggle to speak, to watch her focus her eyes and smile and attempt to kiss her parents. I have prayed with her, blessed her, and assured her that she has many friends around the country and around the world, who love her and want her to enjoy the same protections we all enjoy, even when we're wounded.

News articles have recently characterized Terri's situation by saying that some want to keep her alive against her husband's wishes. But Terri Schiavo is not dying. What does keeping her alive mean, if not the same thing as keeping you and me alive — that is, by giving us adequate food, shelter, and care?

You can view the complete press release here.

You can also see video of Terry Schiavo interacting with people by clicking right here.

If all of the above is true, then I have to say that I do not understand reasoning which says that Michael Schiavo is a victim. Nor do I see why going to court to get a divorce should be more burdensome to him than going to court to get a feeding tube removed.

To be clear, I am not in the least bit comfortable with some of the ways the man has been demonized; however, if Terri Schiavo has family willing to care for her for the rest of her life, with no burden on Mr. Schiavo except that he go away and live his life as he pleases, I see no reason why the courts should order the feeding tube removed--nor do I see how anyone can categorize that as the state inappropriately interfering.

* Update * Now comes this release from Terri Schiavo's father:

By now you have probably heard about a young woman who is threatened with starvation in Florida.

That young woman is my daughter, Terri. In 1990, through circumstances which are shrouded in mystery (and may involve a criminal act by Terri's estranged husband), my daughter was left severely brain-damaged.

But before I go any further, I must put an end to the lies and misinformation that are circulating around the country through the media concerning my daughter's condition.

Contrary to anything you may have heard, Terri is NOT brain dead; Terri is NOT in a coma; she is NOT in a "persistent vegetative state;" nor is she on ANY life-support system.

Terri laughs, Terri cries, she moves, and she makes child-like attempts at speech with her mother and me. Sometimes she will say "Mom" or "Dad" or "yeah" when we ask her a question. When I kiss her hello or goodbye, she looks at me and "puckers up" her lips.

This may not seem like much to you, but it means everything to Terri's mother and me. It tells us she is still here, she still knows us, and with therapy and time she can have some level of recovery.

Source: Hyscience.

In light of cases like that of Sarah Scantlin, I do not agree that the husband's wishes should automatically supercede those of the rest of Terri's family. Even "living wills" are not always binding if the family or even the doctors choose to contest them, and Terri didn't even have such a will.

Assuming that these press releases are truthful, this woman is being cared for by her family and they ask nothing of Mr. Schiavo except that he go away and leave her with them. I do not see what more needs to be said.

Posted by Dean | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks
Chris Lawrence (www):
Dean, the problem I have is (a) I don't buy the evidence that Schiavo's parents and the anti-euthanasia folks have brought to bear and (b) the fact remains that Mr. Schiavo has the legitimate legal authority in the case.

And (c) I don't buy that it's anywhere near as simple as "he could simply allow her to be cared for by her parents and siblings and get on with his life, but he refuses." That sounds incredibly fishy to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's all about some people wanting a nice "poster child" for folks in PVSes and abusing the feelings of the parents of Mrs. Schiavo to get one.
2.16.2005 12:37am
Michael Berger (mail):
Let us make the following definition: death is complete brain death.

Let us make the following distinction:

Not applying heroic methods to save the life of a person suffering from a terminal illness. - This is ok if the patient does not request such methods, then the relatives/medical personel have no such obligation to do so. They may let the patient, who was on their way to die, do so with no further intervention.

Removing life support that is already in place for a terminal patient.- This is murder.

If Terri is on a feeding tube for life support - removal is murder.

Quality of life is not and cannot be an issue. Life is of supreme value in and of itself.
2.16.2005 12:37am
Rosemary Esmay (www):
I heard there is a large chunk of money on the line as well. Her husband sued some doctors on her behalf and won a fat settlement. He can't touch that money for himself if she lives. It is to be used to care for her.
2.16.2005 1:06am
Dean Esmay (www):
Chris: The law is not all that clear cut in these cases. Even living wills are sometimes ignored due to family disagreement or even doctors' disagreement.

But let me ask you this: if it is true that Michael Schiavo could just walk away and assume no financial or other burden (other than emotional) from doing so, what is the justification for removal of the feeding tube?

I'd rather err on the side of caution myself.
2.16.2005 1:08am
Inv A. DeSoda (mail) (www):
If those videos aren't faked, the husband is clearly a man with a vendetta, breathtakingly evil.
2.16.2005 1:48am
Elizabeth Reid:
If it were my husband, he would know I had expressed a wish not to be kept alive under those circumstances, and his refusal to divorce me and let my parents keep my alive against my wishes would be the ultimate expression of love for me.
2.16.2005 6:33am
Michael Berger (mail):
Elizabeth,
It seems to me that the imporatant qestion here is : what should the law be? And should it follow the feelings of individuals?
2.16.2005 8:57am
sherard (mail):
One more thing.

I'm sorry, but that is no kind of life for anyone. I have no doubts whatsoever, based only on my own experience and discussions with my wife that Terry Schiavo expressed to her husband she wanted no such kind of life.

Perpetuating Terry Schiavo's bed ridden existence serves only one purpose, and that is to placate her parents and siblings selfish desire to not let go of the woman she once was.
2.16.2005 8:58am
Drew Vogel (mail) (www):
Dean, I disagree entirely with your explanation of the debate. It's not about the husband's wishes. It's about Terri's wishes. The husband presented evidence in court that she expressed a wish to him that she not be kept alive in circumstances like these. For all we know, he may be lying, but he proved his case to the satisfaction of the Florida courts.

So it's not about husband's wishes vs. parents' wishes. It's about Terri's wishes vs. parents' wishes. The husband isn't trying to make a decision on her behalf. He's trying to implement her decision on her behalf. The difference is enormous.
2.16.2005 9:33am
Elizabeth Reid:
Michael,

I support the laws in place.

Personally, I don't agree with your statement, "Life is of supreme value in and of itself." I've had personal experiences that lead me to value human dignity and freedom from suffering, values that are sometimes at odds with the idea that 'life is of supreme value' - which could be re-written, 'life should be preserved at all costs'. I've seen what some of those costs are and I've talked with others who have been even closer to the issue than I have and it is certainly not true that all of them believe that the worth of keeping someone breathing outweighs everything else in the equation.

My point was, if one is assuming Michael Schiavo's purpose is entirely selfish, then sure, he should just divorce her and let her parents take care of her. I don't know about Mr. Schiavo to have an opinion about his motives, but I *know* that my husband could someday in the future be pursuing the right to remove my feeding tube through motives of love and respect for my wishes. Under the law, he has the right to do that, and I trust him utterly with that power.
2.16.2005 12:58pm
Michael Berger (mail):
Elizibeth,
Please read my post carefully. It does not say that 'life should be preserved at all costs'. The issue is one human actively taking the life of another.
2.16.2005 7:34pm
Elizabeth Reid:
Michael,

You said that quality of life is of no importance, and that life is of supreme value in and of itself. How does that differ in your mind from 'life should be preserved at all costs'?
2.16.2005 8:47pm
Michael Berger (mail):
Elizabeth,
A person suffering from a terminal illness may decide - don't take heroic measures to lenghten my life. If the person can't make their will known, the relitives might also instruct the doctors - no heroic measures please. If there is a stroke, heart attack, kidney failure - don't do experimental procedures, don't restart the heart etc. Therefore, life is not being preserved here at all costs. (Still, normal treatment is offered - feeding, medicine etc.)

That is in distinction to a person actively doing something that shortens the persons life. E.g - yank a tube, shut off the oxygen etc. That is murder.

This is a tough topic fraught with difficulty and pain and I don't pretend to have it fully understood. My point is - active shortening of life = murder.
2.17.2005 4:29pm