Posted on 04/04/2005 4:03:41 PM PDT by Magilla
The Legacy of Terri Schiavo
From the April 11, 2005 issue: What we can do so this won't happen again.
by Wesley J. Smith 04/11/2005, Volume 010, Issue 28
TERRI SCHIAVO IS DEAD. But her death by dehydration last week need not be in vain. Great good can still come from the harsh, two week ordeal she--and to a lesser extent, we--were forced to undergo by court order.
Terri's story generated a torrent of compassion. (The root meaning of compassion is to "suffer with," which is precisely what her legions of supporters did.) Hundreds of thousands of people who had never participated before in a major public event engaged untiringly in advocating for the sanctity and equal moral worth of the life of Terri Schiavo. And these many supporters were not, as the mainstream media took great glee in portraying, limited to the Randall Terry brand of religious activist or to orthodox Catholics. To the contrary, notables of the secular and religious left--Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Nat Hentoff--joined in solidarity with their usual conservative opponents, such as President George W. Bush, Senator Bill Frist, and Rush Limbaugh, to declare that Terri should live.
This suggests that deep political divisions can be overcome, at least for a time, in pursuit of a public morality that was sorely missing in the Terri Schiavo saga. Indeed, if Terri's supporters channel their passion into productive democratic reform, we can almost surely prevent future such miscarriages of justice.
What would such reforms look like? While great care should be taken in this important matter, here are a few initial suggestions:
* First, as it is the law of the land to prevent discrimination against disabled people via the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), then surely these protections should apply explicitly where they are needed most desperately, in medical situations where discrimination can have lethal consequences. Obviously, legislation would have to be carefully worded to prevent overreaching and unintended consequences. But disabled people need to be able to enter hospitals and other medical institutions secure in the knowledge that the law requires their lives be just as valued and protected as those of patients who are not disabled. As matters stand now, some disabled people fear hospitalization precisely because they worry that their lives will be judged as being of insufficient quality to be sustained. The Terri Schiavo case exacerbates those fears.
* States need to review their laws of informed consent and refusal of medical treatment to ensure that casual conversations--the basis for Terri's death order--are never again deemed to be the legal equivalent of a well-thought-out, written advance medical directive. We don't permit the property of the deceased to be distributed based on their oral statements; surely human lives deserve as much protection.
* If people don't want feeding tubes if they become profoundly incapacitated, the law permits them to refuse such care. That isn't going to change. But if that is their desire, they have the responsibility to make sure that such wishes are put in a legally binding document. Absent that, the law should require the courts in contested cases to give every reasonable benefit of the doubt to sustaining life and not causing death by dehydration.
* Along these lines, our laws should be more nuanced. When people claim they would want the "plug pulled," many are worrying about being tethered to beeping machines in sterile intensive care units, not expressing a desire to be slowly dehydrated to death over 10-14 days. In the face of this potential misapprehension, we should create a distinction in law between food and water supplied through a tube and other forms of medical care. Withholding a respirator or antibiotics can lead to uncertain results. Take away anyone's food and water and they will die.
* Judge George Greer's embrace of Michael Schiavo's legal status as "husband" to Terri in the face of the pronounced personal and financial conflicts of interest he faced in making her life and death decisions may not require an explicit change of law. But surely we have every right to demand that judges remain acutely sensitive to changes in circumstances that often emerge over time in situations faced by families like Terri's. Why Judge Greer did not think it a matter of grave import that Michael had two children with another woman, even as he petitioned the court to hasten the day when death would part him from his wedded wife, will always be a source of bitter wonder to Terri's supporters.
As Terri's family made clear in their dignified public statement after her death, it would dishonor her memory for her supporters to indulge in hatred. Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge George Greer aren't worth the psychic cost. How much better to honor Terri's memory by enacting a series of legal reforms that rededicate our society to standing for the equal moral worth and unwavering legal protection of the most weak and vulnerable among us.
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His latest book is Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
While the law permits it, that doesn't make it right. I guess there is as much hope of changing the law, in this regard, as there is in making abortion illegal. A sad statement about where we are as a nation.
Could we not at least have the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in such instances, that is where we are going to take an otherwise healthy life?
This has really bugged me all along. (I work in a probate court.) I have never understood how Greer could allow heresay as evidence - even from a spouse. I know others, who have not had high-priced lawyers, that have not been able to make decisions for next of kin because they did not have anything in writing.
It is a thoughtful and reasoned approach to an obviously emotional and at times downright malicious chain of events. A campaign such as that suggested in the article would be a fitting tribute to Terri Schiavo, and most certainly far more productive than much of what we saw both in Florida and here on Free Republic.
Other legacies were: good people from FR posted their Opus's, Opi?? as a result of the intolernace from some; good republicans like Gov. Bush, and President Bush being compared to Pontius Pilate; anyone who thought one iota different from a self proclaimed righteous view was a Nazi or worse; politics of personal destruction practiced by supporters of Terri Schiavo's parents; thousands of new junior "Judge Dredds"(detective, arresting officer, judge and jury all in one person) wannabees.
And some just can't be satisfied with their "victory."
No opus from you? LOL! Still, I detect a note of bitterness. I take it you were on the right side of the Terri case, for killing Terri, I mean. Your wish has come true. Don't be a poor winner! :^)
Yes, lets keep people alive as long as possible, no matter how much they are suffering in pain.
She should be a poster child for the Boliemia foundation to remind others that this could happen to you if you keep puking up your food.
Yes, it was a time when conservatives bashed conservatives. Every left wing web site sat back and laughed as we seemingly transformed from the preeminent conservative site, with thoughtful and usually considerate discussion to something akin to the World Wrestling Foundation.
Huh? I thought she was in a PVS, and could feel no pain.
Precisely right! A point I made myself but NOT nearly as well.
Absolutely! When and IF Terri made those passing comments in 1985 or 6 at 20, feeding tubes were not an issue. Heart and lung machines were. It is certain she was not referring to STARVATION and DEHYDRATION.
That is why a movement to fix the law must NOT reside with ONE organization or group or person. It should be a COALITION of people and groups all having an input. Additionally, we ALL have a stake in it.
What victory? This should have been no more than a family squabble, but instead it became a national one. Both sides were exploited by people with agendas. It was just sad to see some Republicans and/or conservatives go off the deep end. With luck this will not damage the pro life movement if some people move on and let some common sense on our side prevail again.
How can any one that is pro life sit back and let such a death go unprotested?
How about requiring a more elaborate court process than one man ruling after a brief hearing? The Congres wanted a trial because there was so much dispute about the facts. A jury verdict would have more authority than the ruling of one judge.
That constant lefty drum beat of "family squabble" really makes me furious. There was no such thing in this case. Murder within a family is a lot moe than just a "family squabble". Mikey murdered his wife for the money he would receive when she died. He found a sicko, deathcult attorney more than willing to help for the $400,000 from Terri's "rehabilitation" money and also just for the jollies. A mediocre county judge went along with the plan for some reason to evil to understand. The husband's, attorney's and judge's justifications for this horrible act are absurd, pernicious rubbish. A sickening and cruel injustice was perpetrated in this case, and way too many others in authority passively or actively abetted the act.
"Family squabble" my rear!
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.