The Execution of Terri Schiavo

"The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life."

"I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others.”

The crime is complete, the deed is done, and the long battle is over. Terri Schiavo is dead.

Terri’s so-called wishes if she was ever dramatically injured only surfaced some seven years into her condition and after a malpractice suit had been settled. This endless mantra that death by dehydration was ‘merely carrying out Terri’s wishes’ rings hollow when one looks at the evidence and once again common sense and rationality was the first casualty of the legal system.

In February 1990, a sudden loss of oxygen to the brain left Theresa Marie Schiavo in a coma and eventually in a profoundly incapacitated state. Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, took care of her, working alongside Terri's parents. He took her to numerous doctors; he pursued experimental treatments; he sought at least some modest restoration of her self-awareness. In November 1992, he testified at a malpractice hearing that he would care for Terri for the rest of her life, that he "wouldn't trade her for the world," that he was going to nursing school to become a better caregiver. He explicitly reaffirmed his marriage vow, "through sickness, in health."

When one doctor suggested that he remove Terri’s feeding tube he replied that “I couldn't do that to Terri," and let her die of dehydration. Yet by 1993 such sentiments increasingly fell by the wayside as Michael’s interests focused elsewhere. He was moving on and his brain damaged wife was becoming a mere problem and inconvenient tie to the past.

If my wife was in such a state I would allow physical therapy. I would want her to go outside in the sunshine and to receive friends and flowers. I would want her to have her teeth cleaned and life threatening infections treated. I would allow ‘pet therapy’ and for the blinds to be opened in her room. Even if she had told me she wanted no exceptional medical measures taken, I would make sure her existence while she was still alive was as pleasant and comfortable as possible. Common sense and natural compassion call for such simple measures yet these were the things that Michael denied Terri for many years.

Are these the actions of a man who deeply loved his wife and unselfishly wanted only to fulfill her wishes? No one would wish for themselves and their family to be treated that way. These are the actions of a man who I wouldn’t trust to water the houseplants over the weekend or feed the family pet, let alone make the ultimate decision whether I lived or died.

If any of us had treated a dog, cat or even an iguana the way Terri has been treated we would have been arrested and prosecuted by the same system that provided the legal cover and protection for Michael to deprive, mistreat, and eventually kill his wife. Terri was not a piece of unwelcome human debris to be hidden away in a darkened room barred from even the light of day or killed so that another could marry the mother of his children and move on with his life.

Regarding Terri’s care, Michael Schiavo once said: "How the hell should I know we never spoke about this, my God I was only 25 years old. How the hell should I know? We were young. We never spoke of this." – (Michael Schiavo’s former girl friend Cindy Shook in a May 8, 2001 Deposition.)

Some have argued that it is not about the right to die, that it is about the right to kill. Perhaps just a small matter of semantics, but more likely a significant difference in how one views the sanctity of human life. There is a distinct line between letting someone go and wanting to see them go and the cheerleading for the death of this brave woman with the tremendous will to live has finally been overcome by those with the tremendous will to see her die. She talked (a few words), she felt pain, she responded to commands, she laughed, she cried, and she brought joy to those around her.

Because of a court order Terri died at the command of the husband she feared and was preparing to leave. It’s sad to see a struggle in our culture and our society between those who seek a culture of life and those who vigorously champion the acceptance and advocacy of a culture of death. The secularists and the Christians. The Right to Life versus the Duty to Die. The representative branch versus the judicial branch. A society torn apart on such basic fundamental rights as human dignity, the sacredness of human life and the worthiness of those ‘less perfect’ than the rest of us.

Is she just the latest sacrifice on the blood splattered altar of convenience or a woman finally being granted her ultimate wish? Unfortunately, we will never know in this lifetime what she truly wanted and whether she wanted to leave her family who loved her and fought for her dignity, care, and finally her life. The love and devotion of such a family is a rare treasure to be cherished. She will be missed by those who loved and cared for her and her courage, and the courage of those who fought for her life, will be an inspiration for many others.

Thursday morning, as Terri was in her final hours of life, police prohibited any blood relatives from spending time with her. O'Donnell, one of the family's spiritual advisers, said that her parents and siblings were "begging to be at her bedside” but they were denied. In one final act of cruelty at the end, Terri’s parents were not allowed to be with their daughter as she died.

Terri was cremated against her family’s wishes, and her remains will be tucked away in her husband’s family crypt far removed from the ever faithful family who fought for her until the bitter end. The cruelty exhibited by Michael Schiavo to Terri’s parents continued to the very end and now even beyond her death. Though we will never know Terri’s true wishes as to whether she would have wanted to die this way, we do know for certain that Terri would have never wanted Michael to be so mean and cruel to her parents, and make them suffer like this.

The nationwide debate has not ended with Terri’s passing but has just begun. Political blood will be shed and with both barrels blasting the various sides will begin the long battle over whether we are a culture of life or a culture of expediency with a duty to die once we are not productive. Fascist regimes glorify the killing of the weak, the disabled, the helpless and ‘useless’ eaters that exist among us, not a civilized Western society with a heart of compassion.

Though technically not killed by the state, it was the state that allowed her to be killed by another. It was the state that failed to protect a helpless woman from a man who has shown his cruel and uncaring character time and time again. It was Terri, and those who need our protection and care the most, that was failed by the state and its cold laws that were not tempered by mercy. Michael Schiavo failed her, the courts failed her, our laws failed her, and ultimately we as a society failed her, for we allowed our culture to become one that would allow this to happen. "Dasein Ohne Leben", the Nazi idea of "Existence without life", must not be enshrined in law as an excuse for euthanasia.

Though I believe she was welcomed with open arms into the presence of the Lord, my family and I grieve her passing and empathize with the pain her parents are experiencing at the loss of their firstborn daughter. Death of a loved one is never easy, but we, and they, do not mourn as those who have no hope. God Bless you Terri, you will be missed and remembered.

........"Mrs. Schiavo's death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers and with Terri Schiavo's friends in this time of deep sorrow." – Congressman Tom DeLay.

The cult of death has gripped American courts. No court have the right to legally murder the infirm if some legal conditions are met. In Terri Schiavo, the courts glorified death.

In my opinion, the courts did not have the right to order the removal of fedding tube of Terri Schiavo. The parents of Terri Schiavo have pleaded with the courts to allow their daughter to live, but the courts connived with her husband to murder her.

The question of life is not an issue of just rights. This is the reason why President Bush has decided to side with the parents of Terri Schiavo against the court system of the United States.

President Bush's explanation why he believed that the parents of Terri Schiavo had the right to ask the courts to restore the life support of their daughter is found is this words:

"The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life."

Were the question of life just a mere issue of rights, then Terri Schiavo's husband, being her legal guardian, had the right to terminate his wife's life would be answered in the affirmative. Being her guardian, he alone could determine whether his wife should continue living or not.

This is why it is said that the essence of civilization should be that the strong protect the weak. Terri Schiavo was severely incapacitated and her wishes could not be known in this case. Her husband wanted her to die obstentiably giving the excuse that it was the wishes of his wife to die already but the parents of his wife refuted this. The court sided with Terri's husband rather than her parents, who had an equal interest in seeing that their daughter live.

The bone of contention was Terri's desire to die which she expressed to her husband. The parents contested this. In view of the inability of the courts to absolutely ascertain the wishes of the deceased, then the presumption should be for life. As long as there is no strong and incontestable proof that the patient wished his death, the presumption is that the patient wished to continue on living and therefore the patient's life should be allowed to continue.

This court decision has ramifications on the terminally ill. It shows that the courts can have power of life and death to anybody who is terminally ill.

This court decision will inevitably backfire on the courts themselves. There are tens of thousands of terminally ill in the United States and the hospitals taking care of them would want to be relieved of the responsibility of taking care of those who are terminally ill but continue on living because of sophisticated life support systems attached to their bodies. If the court decision means that the courts alone could decide whether a patient should live or not, the courts will be swamped with petitions to allow the life support system attached to a severely ill person be removed. Imagine if there courts are swamped with such petitions from thousands of people who are taking care of the severely ill who are being kept alive only because of sophisticated life support systems?

The courts are one thing and the American people are another thing. Will the American people embrace the cult of death that the courts have imposed on them without their consent? Only the American people can decide on that. One thing, this cult of death embraced by the courts in the form of euthanasia, abortion, pornography, homosexual marriages etc. will soon come to an end by the relentless protest of morally minded American men and women.

There is nothing that President Bush could have done to save Terri because of the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Only the courts had the power to order or not order the reconnection of Terri's life support system. The case was judicial, not executive. If Terri were confined in a hospital where Bush had definite influence, then it would be a different story. The hospital would simply ignore the court order saying it violated their rights and duty to prolong the life of the severely incapacitated. Then the courts will have to decide a different matter. It will be the courts against the hospital taking care of the severely ill. But the hospital simply obeyed the court order and not contested it.

Thank you for your opinion, but I think that we all and of course myself included, miss the point of what is happening or how dangerous a situation really can be, to all Americans.
Basically the judge ordered the death of an American Citizen for one reason only. He deemed her life not worthy to live in our society. Further, he included in his order to not feed her by mouth? It does not take a neuro surgeon to realize that Judge Greer openly admits that Terri is awake and aware and not in PVS. One must be awake and aware to accept food by mouth and someone who wants to die would refuse the act of feeding. Even though a swallow test was not allowed, Judge Greer must have believed that she could swallow food or there is no logical reason to include that in his order. Someone in PVS cannot be fed by mouth, because they are not conscious or aware.
To say that President Bush could not act to save Terri's life, because of the Constitution does not ring true. It is his sworn duty to protect every American Citizen from crimes against them. He is the highest law official in the country. If he truly believed that what was happening to Terri was wrong, it is his duty to act and prevent it and we all know he and the governor failed to do so. As much as I would like to believe that he could not act to save an innocent woman from an incredibly cruel death, my intellect tells me differently, because it flies in the face of reason.
This case can and most likely will be used as precedence to decide other cases, on the quality of life. It really is no different than Roe vs. Wade. One court decision based on the ending of one human life. The result is 30 million abortions. Roe vs. Wade is not law, but a court decision about one case. Now the "law" allows that abortion may be done up to normal delivery. All because our politicians failed to act.
Failure to act, to prevent, to protect and to serve is the easiest way in our political system for not taking responsibility of a crime against God, against nature, against the Constitution and finally against humanity. When history is written, as is the case during and before Hitler’s reign of power, failure to act is a crime. The circumstances of Terri's case are too similar to ignore.

"Right To Kill---we should focus on that. Who has that right? How did they get it? How do we change that?"

Good question! In The United Sates all laws are supposed to be based on The Constitution, but we all know that they are not and no one in the government is held accountable to their oath to it. It is no more than a piece of furniture to collect dust and is an obstacle that our beloved government would love to change or discard. They use it to their self serving means or ignore it when it serves their purpose. Perhaps we should have a ten year old (sarcasm) review our laws and determine what is constitutional and what is not. The Constitution is simple and to the point and says what it says. It does not say what we would like it to say or what others want it to say, it just says what it says. I often wonder if our fore fathers should have written it in Latin, a dead language, so that its meaning could not be twisted and perverted. However there is hope! We the people have the power to elect statesmen and not politicians, who will defend The Constitution and pass laws or overturn laws, according to The Constitution. So in short to your inquiry, it's we the people on all points of the question.

"OK. Do we need to explore again who are these people that are guaranteed a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? We did it before by correcting the slavery horror so do we start with that as a model?"

Nope, we just need to see what things are, for what they are and not what we want them to be, to include what others want us to see it as. :-) What separates us from animals is the ability to reason, we all need to exercise this ability and strengthen it. If we do not, we end up with abortion, slavery, Terri, etc..... Bottom line is we lose the ability to reason the value of life. Unfortunately in our society the trend towards devaluing life is self evident.

There is a difference between government of men and government of laws. The actions of government should always be circumscribed by law and not by the tides of public opinion. One big difference between Protestant nations and a majority of Catholic nations is that Protestant nations are a government of laws, while the majority of Catholic nations are a government of men. Protestant nations are run by parliamentarians, the majority of Catholic nations are run by demagogues.

A government of laws does not mean that a nation is completely trouble free. Right now, the Americans are agonizing about the effects of the court decision on Terri's case. But they would prefer the law to take its course rather than ask a demogogue to fix things up.

President Bush could not do anything about Terri's case because the law would not allow him. As I said, if Bush were a stockholder in the hospital where Terri was confined or was in a position where he could legally exert influence on the hospital's decision, then he could have done something. He could have persuaded the hospital to ignore the court order and reinsert Terri's feeding tube. President Bush did already what was right by saying that the court's opinion was wrong, but unfortunately, the hospital authorities were not convinced by Bush's moral and legal arguments. So they choose to obey the court order and be a party to the murder of Terri. Bush could not legally interfere in the court's decision because that would violate the separation of powers principle enshrined in the Constitution.

Interfering in normal court processes is not an easy matter. There are millions of Americans who believe that the judge was right in ordering that Terri's feeding tube be removed. Had Bush done what you suggested he should have done, he would have been equally condemned by those who believe that the judge was right.

This is the reason why in a democracy, conflicts of opinion should be resolved by law and not the force of personalities or demagogues. A law may be unpleasant but it is only enacted after careful deliberations of the people's representatives. A defect in the law is only discovered when an unusual barrage of criticisms ensues from the implementation of the law. It is then the responsibility of the legislators to listen carefully to the proponents and opponents of the law in view of coming up with a better law.

If you are dissatisfied with the way Americans handle conflicts of interests in the resolution of laws in their country, why don't you immigrate to one of South America's republics where you will be inundated with demagogues galore. In these countries, public opinion is more important than law.

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.