A Drama Unfolds

tothesource.org ^ | March 23, 2005 | Wesley J. Smith

[Stand Watch Listen]

Regardless of who you believe, Terri Schiavo's parents or her husband, WHY do we treat convicted murderers better than we are treating Terri?

Dear concerned citizen,

Imagine if you will, that convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal had a bad lawyer during his murder trial. Assume further that when the new lawyer took over the case, she found credible evidence not originally presented on Jamal's behalf, evidence which could cast reasonable doubt upon the guilty verdict.

And then imagine that despite this newly uncovered evidence, one court after another obstinately refused to permit a new trial so that the new evidence could be considered, or even, permit the governor to use his clemency power to prevent Jamal's execution. Worse, assume that Jamal had been sentenced to die slowly by intentional dehydration.

Unthinkable, right? Convicted murderers would never be treated so unjustly or have such a cruel punishment imposed—at least not in this day and age.

Yet, this imaginary scenario is disturbingly close to the way that a purely innocent and profoundly disabled woman named Terri Schiavo is being treated.

But, you say, Terri hasn't been sentenced to death. She isn't being executed.

While that is true technically, the analogy between her sentence of death and a death penalty case is apt. Terri's food and water have been taken away, not by her husband/guardian Michael Schiavo, but at the explicit order of court (at Schiavo's request). That means her pending death by dehydration is not just being allowed, but has been required by the state.

Not only that, Terri’s situation is akin to that of the condemned prisoner imagined above—who could be saved if only the court would consider newly discovered facts. Here is just a sampling of facts and allegations that emerged since the original trial:

• Mr. Schiavo informed a medical malpractice jury, from which he was seeking millions of dollars in 1992, that he would care for his wife for the rest of his life, that she would live a normal life span, and that she would be provided rehabilitation and therapy. As soon as the money was in the bank, however, he refused all therapy and started to refuse medical treatment such as antibiotics. In other words, Schiavo's story changed when he went to court in 1998 seeking her early death, casting serious doubt on his testimony that Terri would “want to die.”

• Three nurses have signed affidavits under penalty of perjury that Mr. Schiavo used to go to Terri's nursing home and angrily demand to know why his wife was not yet dead.

• Friends of Terri have come forward stating that she believed in the old maxim, where there is life, there is hope. Indeed, all of her close friends and family deny that she would want to die under these circumstances.

• Several doctors and therapists have testified in written affidavits that she is not in a persistent vegetative state, and indeed, that she could be improved with proper therapy—treatment she has been denied since 1993.

• Dehydration may not be a painless way to die as some have asserted. Indeed, if the patient is conscious and not otherwise dying, it can be agonizing. [Weekly Standard Link]
  

Surely, facts and allegations of this substance presented in a death penalty case, would lead to a new trial, or at the very least, become the basis of a commutation. After all, when a human life is at stake, we strive as a society to give the benefit of every reasonable doubt to life.

But the benefit of reasonable doubts does not apply to Terri Schiavo. You see, she is not guilty of anything. If only she were a convicted murderer, her life would be seen as worthy of greater respect.

Award winning author Wesley J. Smith, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an attorney and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His most recent book is Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World.

[madprof98]

Wrong again! Why, MICHAEL IS A SAINT! The mainstream media have so decreed, and the sheeple have nodded their ascent. Why, we have FReepers already lined up to buy the forthcoming book!

[YOUGOTIT]

The left-wing fascist news media is in bed with the people who want to starve and kill people. They will print whatever lies that they want so that they can move the general population to the way of thinking of the Nazi. If starving is so peaceful and you are so happy they I suggest that the people at ABC news start starving today so that we may see their happiness and revel in their glory.

[maestro]

SWL.....thanks for 'being' there!

/Nazi-Nuemberg-Judges....'they' made everything NAZI 'legal' in Hitler's..."Super-Science-Man"... Germany....of SUPER-MURDERERS...

/...'under'-Mench-Nazi-Medicine too!

[BillyCrockett]

The only thing good coming out of all this fuss is that it's mighty important to have a Living Will. Period.

[RGSpincich]

WHY do we treat convicted murderers better than we are treating Terri?

All of the credible evidence has been weighed and the outcome decided...20 some odd times. I think that's more appeals than convicted murders normally get. Not to mention acts of congress, acts of the state legislature, acts of the Governor and the law signed by the President. The decision is to allow death to occur per the court order. Are you advocating a lethal injection, like a convicted killer who received the death penalty?

[jazzlite]

They are salivating at the thought of eliminating Christians.

[xzins]

pro-Michael freepers ignore important facts....

[Critter]

If none of the evidence was credible, do you think that congress would have acted as they did?

[Critter]

If none of the NEW evidence, I mean.

[editor-surveyor]

"All of the credible evidence has been weighed and the outcome decided...20 some odd times."

That is the biggest canard of all. - None of the credible evidence has ever been weighed; only the contrived hearsay that pleases the death culture that runs our kangaroo courts.

" Are you advocating a lethal injection, like a convicted killer who received the death penalty?"

No, we are advocating life, proper therapy, proper feeding, and an end to the death culture.

[RGSpincich]

The Schindlers have presented fantasy, quackery and cheap theatrics. Had they just valued Terri's life for what it is, they would not have alienated the courts and others. To side with them now means you buy into the freak show. It didn't have to happen this way. They could have just said that they love Terri "as is" and want to take care of her. The courts would not have been offended by neurological incompetents and probably would have been more sympathetic.

[mountaineer]

None of the credible evidence has ever been weighed; only the contrived hearsay that pleases the death culture that runs our kangaroo courts

I assume you have before you the transcripts of every hearing, so you not only can cite the testimony with which you disagreed, but can offer credible evidence to refute it.

[editor-surveyor]

You're obviously new to this issue; I, and hundreds of others here have followed it for several years. I don't feel obligated to give you a one post education, use the search engine.

[mountaineer]

No, I'm not new to this issue. Please continue making unsupported allegations - it makes this website look really good.

[Soul Seeker]

What use is a Living Will? If the Judiciary can choose if a woman dies, they can choose to disregard a Living Will.

[Soul Seeker]

That may be so, but 2000 years so far and they've failed miserably. :-)