Posted on 01/29/2005 8:32:27 AM PST by xzins
Save Terri Schiavo
by Terence P. Jeffrey
Posted Jan 26, 2005
Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature may not know it, but they acted in the spirit of Sir Philip Sidney when they tried to save the life of Terri Schiavo.
When Sidney, a young warrior and poet in the court of Queen Elizabeth I, was mortally wounded in battle, legend has it that he passed up a drink of water in deference to a common soldier who lay nearby in the throes of death.
"Thy need is greater than mine," Sidney told the dying man.
After his own death, Sidney's body was brought back to England where he was given a state funeral and held up by his countrymen as a model of virtue to be emulated by all.
Today, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, is trying to take an action that would reverse Sidney's. Rather than provide water to a stranger about to die, he wants to deny water to his own wife who persists in living. Since 1998, contrary to the wishes of Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, Michael Schiavo has been seeking to remove the nutrition-and-hydration tube that sustains Terri, who became mentally incapacitated 15 years ago when her heart temporarily stopped beating.
On Sept. 17, 2003, a Florida court authorized Schiavo to remove his wife's tube. On Oct. 15, 2003, the tube was removed and Terri began a slow death by dehydration. Six days after that, Gov. Bush signed a law enacted by the Florida legislature allowing him to issue a one-time stay of the court order that authorized the removal of Terri's nutrition-and-hydration tube.
Bush ordered the tube restored, and Terri is alive today.
This week, however, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to accept Bush's appeal of a Florida Supreme Court decision that overturned what became known as Terri's Law. Other litigation in the case will continue, but so far the courts have consistently sided in favor of starving and dehydrating Terri Schiavo.
The courts, however, are wrong, and the Florida legislature should not stop fighting them.
The disputants in Terri Schiavo's case disagree on her condition and prognosis. As noted in the petition Gov. Bush made to the Supreme Court, some say, "Terri Schiavo is not actually in a persistent vegetative state because she is able to interact with her visitors and caregivers."
But the key point is not disputed: Terri is unlikely to die soon unless deprived of food and water.
Indeed, the purpose of depriving her of food and water is to kill her.
This is not a case about withholding desperate and disproportionate medical treatment from a patient who is destined to die of a terminal illness. Ironically, if Terri were certain to die of disease tomorrow the purpose of denying her water today would go away.
At its core, this case is about whether one person can make a judgment that another person's "quality" of life justifies taking that person's life. What is at stake for society here was explained in a brief presented to the Supreme Court by the Catholic Medical Association (Terri Schiavo is a Catholic), which cited a letter published last March by Pope John Paul II in which the Pope said it is wrong to withhold food and water even from someone believed to be in a persistent vegetative state. "However, it is not enough to reaffirm the general principle according to which the value of a man's life cannot be made subordinate to any judgment of its quality expressed by other men," the Pope said. "it is necessary to promote the taking of positive actions as a stand against pressures to withdraw hydration and nutrition as a way to put an end to the lives of these patients."
The principle the Pope defends is not new. It is the same principle President Bush defended when he addressed the March for Life via phone last Monday. "We know that in a culture that does not protect the most dependent," Bush said, "the handicapped, the elderly, the unloved, or simply inconvenient become increasingly vulnerable."
And it is the same principle that Sir Philip Sidney acted on when he sent his drink of water to a dying soldier. All human life is sacred because God made it so, and no man can change that.
Florida's legislature should not surrender this principle to the courts. Inspired by Terri Schiavo, it should enact a new law. This time it should simply say: You may not kill a person through starvation or dehydration. Terence Jeffrey is Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.
If you would like to send a comment to Mr. Jeffrey you can reach him by email at terencejeffrey@eaglepub.com
But the key point is not disputed: Terri is unlikely to die soon unless deprived of food and water.Indeed, the purpose of depriving her of food and water is to kill her.
This is not a case about withholding desperate and disproportionate medical treatment from a patient who is destined to die of a terminal illness. Ironically, if Terri were certain to die of disease tomorrow the purpose of denying her water today would go away.
If Terri's worthless scumbag of a husband went into the home with a gun and shot her he would be tried for murder. Instead he wants to work his murderous intent through the media and so called medical society to murder his wife. One way he is a criminal the other he is a ''caring husband'' according to the libs.
I think that since her husband has assumed a life with another and also had children with that woman, he is no longer her "husband". He shouldn't be her legal representative
Yep. None of it makes any sense, until you start seeing this for what it really is; judicially legislated euthanasia.
Attempts at legalizing euthanasia have been unsuccessful, so it's supporters have seen Terri as a means to enact it through the courts. There is a mixture of backing for it, from assorted leftists, corrupt judges, corrupt politicians, and the hospice industry to scientologists.
In a sane world, it would be questioned as to why a woman ,who is not terminally ill and who does not require palliative care, would be placed in a hospice, a place to die. The hospice industry stands to reap financial rewards should they be allowed to take the step from supporting dying patients to outright killing them.
Liberal judges & democrats fight to save Criminals who murdered innocent people arguing they may be mentally insane. At the same time, Terri Schiavo committed no crime, other than to speak for her life & the same people (liberal judges & democrats) demanding her death.
Thanks for posting this xzins!
Terri ping! If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!
We need your tagline. I can't remember it this morning.
Thank you for posting this stunning piece of writing. Mr. Jeffrey nailed the situation pretty brilliantly.
I took the liberty of copying a post I received from phenn on another Terri thread with some interesting info about George Felos, who is Michael's lawyer. It's good information for anyone who doesn't necessarily understand all the connections going on here (not you, kenth).
The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast has Hospice Woodside in its network of facilities.
George Felos was their chairman of the board when Terri was transferred there in 2000 without necessary court approval.
They mention Soros (project on death) on one of their older pages: http://www.thehospice.org/caregiv/clelinks.htm.
Felos had at one time on his web site a downloadable profile of himself. He stated he was a member of Hemlock Society.
1,843 posted on 01/29/2005 5:18:59 AM EST by phenn (http://www.terrisfight.org)
Meant to ping you to my last post (#9). Sorry!
I wonder if any of you has watched someone die, slowly. I have.
I watched my sister die. I told God I did not want to watch, but circumstances left me as the only one who could.
Cancer turns the body against itself, sure. But, in the end you reject the water and food that sustains life. When the fuel is gone, including body fat, nothing is left to keep you going. You look like those poor souls that survived the concentration camps.
Is it Terri that is talking to us? Or, it is someone that thinks they know what is 'best' for Terri. As for me, I do not want to spend years waiting for my judgement day.
Let me die, if I am in her place. In fact, let me take her place. Would you?
I'm very sorry about your sister and have felt the same pain over someone I loved very much. Without trying to lecture you, I would respectfully ask that you keep in mind that Terri is healthy, not dying, not unconscious and responsive.
Nothing would cause her death at this stage except for willful neglect or omission.
Thanks.
I've watched both my father and my mother-in-law waste away and die from cancer. Yes, at the end, the body rejects food and water, as the organs are shutting down and don't need the sustenance. But this is not the case with Mrs. Shiavo. She is not dying from a terminal disease. She is not being kept alive artificially. If food and water is removed, she will die from dehydration and starvation, which is a terrible way to die. In fact, the "exit protocol" for her prescribes a regimen of painkillers. Now, why would that be needed if she is a vegetable, or brain dead?
How have we gotten to the point where it is considered ethical to starve and dehydrate a person to death? It is not the same thing as pulling the plug on a machine that is keeping a comatose person breathing.
Were Terri dying, your analogy might be applicable. I'm sorry about your sister. I watched my brother die of AIDS. So many diseases are an ugly way to die.
But, the difference is that Terri is not dying, no more than, hopefully, you or I at the moment. So many people, even at FR, throw out the plea, "let her go" and "send her to God". At this very moment, how could I be "let go"? For me to be "let go", in my current state of health, someone would have to kill me. Terri is no different. Someone will have to starve her to death for her to be "let go".
I, for one, cannot bind that phrase to murder, especially invoking God while doing so.
Thanks. Which hospice is Sen. James King a board member of? I was wondering if it is Suncoast too.
I have not heard one word that Terri has spoken for herself. All I hear is the opinions of others.
I have not made this case a priority, so I'm not sure how many years she has been immobile. All I am saying is, to me, that is not living.
You probably don't want to hear it, but accepted suffering can be a necessary and even valuable part of life. You understandably feel badly about watching your sister's difficult death, but you might feel even worse if, like Michael Schiavo, you had given the order to have her killed. Painkilling medication is entirely proper, even if as a side effect it shortens life; but deliberate killing is very questionable even in difficult circumstances.
As others have already said, however, Terri is not in pain. There is at least some question whether she may have gone into her coma because her husband choked her. X-rays appear to show damage in the neck area, but her husband has managed to suppress this evidence from the courts. He now has a new family and wants to collect the money that was supposed to be used to rehabilitate her.
Finally, he has ordered that no rehabilitation measures will be permitted. It's entirely possible that she could have been taken off her feeding tube and could have recovered some of her faculties if her husband and his lawyer, who was chairman of the board of the nursing home in which she is imprisoned, had not blocked all medical care beyond basic maintenance. They are, in effect, torturing her by blocking her possible recovery and by preventing her from having any but very occasional human contacts or other stimulation that would make her life more bearable.
I understand your thinking. If you get the time and inclination, you may want to wander over to www.terrisfight.org and have a look at the videos there.
There is no dispute that Terri lives with significant disabilities and I don't think anyone here would try to change your mind about that. But, have a look and ask yourself if this is a vegetative person.
Since it's required prior to removing enteral nourishment, it's pretty important that she fit the description. Ask yourself if she does.
I know it seems like all we hear is opinions of others. Perhaps the reason is that this is such an important issue and the courts have so totally overstepped the law in this particular case. It's pretty understandable why people become vocal.
In any event, have a peek when you can and take care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.