Posted on 03/27/2005 1:30:00 PM PST by Gondring
For 13 years Terri Schiavo has been in a coma - with her husband, her parents, the Christian right and now the president's brother locked in a bitter struggle over her fate. This week could see a final decision on whether she lives or dies. Suzanne Goldenberg reports from Florida
The woman's eyes are open in the video. She slowly rolls her head along the pillow, keeping up a constant low moan, as a man's arm dangles a metallic balloon overhead. "Look over here, Terri," a male voice says. "Can you follow that at all?"
The medical community and Florida's courts are convinced that Terri Schiavo can't, and, indeed, that she will never be able to recapture even this degree of cognitive ability. So too is her husband, Michael Schiavo. Over the years, he has tried three times to remove her feeding tube.
But Terri's parents, Mary and Robert Schindler, say she can improve, and have collaborated with the Christian right in America to turn this very private tragedy into a national pro-life pageant. Using the internet, press and Christian radio and television shows, anti-abortion groups have turned Terri's catastrophic loss into a major political gain, expanding the parameters of the pro-life debate.
This week could provide the last act. After a decade of exhausting every legal measure - and all the furore the Christian right can rustle up - the Schindlers have arrived at the final round of their struggle with their son-in-law for control of Terri's destiny.
A judge is deliberating whether to strike down so-called "Terri's Law" - a last-minute reprieve pushed through the Florida legislature by the state governor and presidential brother, Jeb Bush, that forced the hospital to resume feeding Terri two weeks ago.
Terri's Law, condemned by civil libertarians, the legal and medical community, and queasy state legislators, was the Schindlers' last hope. If it fails, the feeding tube will be removed, and Terri will slowly starve to death.
None of this has penetrated through to Terri. In February 1990, aged 26, she suffered a heart attack, brought on by acute potassium shortage caused by bulimia. By the time the ambulance arrived, her brain had been deprived of oxygen for six minutes. She has remained in what doctors call a persistent vegetative state ever since. Her eyes are open, her limbs are contracted, she smiles and grunts occasionally, but without any sense of purpose, according to the majority medical opinion presented to the courts.
But even in that seemingly senseless form, Terri's parents were able to discern a remarkable power within their semi-comatose daughter. Over the years, as successive judges refused their demand to be put in control of Terri's destiny, the Schindlers have enlisted the support of the Christian right to challenge court verdicts that have gone in her husband's favour. In the process, they have turned her into an unwitting heroine for the pro-life movement, and a convenient foil for Governor Bush.
With a year to go before the 2004 elections, Brother Bush has been keeping a weather eye out for causes that would mobilise the pro-life movement. Earlier this year, he outraged legal opinion by intervening to prevent a severely disabled woman, who had been raped in a state institution, from obtaining an abortion. Terri's case has proved as enticing a cause - and the Schindlers are extremely cooperative.
From their rented camper van across the road from the hospice, they have presided over prayer vigils and power rallies, pumping up the emotions in the campaign to keep their daughter alive by smuggling out videos of Terri in her bed, and making them available on the internet. Although her father, Robert, claims that he hates the circus that has developed around his daughter, he seems well practised at delivering his pitch. The fight for her life, the argument goes, is the fight for disabled people across America.
"People are being executed every day. I don't mean by the law. I mean executed by being starved to death - mainly the elderly, and people with Alzheimer's," says Robert. "There is a big, dark secret out there."
His other daughter, Suzanne Carr, who is five years younger than Terri, is more expansive. "This whole notion of doing away with a group of people who don't contribute to society or who can't feed themselves or who are expensive to maintain, that is bizarre, that is crazy," she says. "You might as well put down handicapped people."
It is difficult to know quite what Michael Schiavo makes of all this. As the Schindlers sit in their camper van discussing TV talkshow schedules, he has been all but silent, granting one interview in two years. And so, while one version of Terri's life - the one peddled by the Schindler family - remains well known, there is nothing forthcoming from the person who arguably knew her best: Michael, her husband of six years.
To hear the Schindler family tell it, the trajectory that led to Terri's tragic existence can be traced to her years as an awkward, overweight teenager in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Suzanne produces a sheaf of pictures of a chubby child and teenager, smiling at the camera from behind large spectacles. In the family's authorised version of events, the extra weight made Terri painfully shy.
She emerged from her shell only after slimming down in high school, and was still not entirely sure of herself when she started at a local college in the Philadelphia area. Within a few months, she had met Michael and fallen deeply in love - although perhaps not enough for Suzanne's standards. "He was the first guy to pay attention to her, the first guy to say, 'I love you', and so she married him," she says.
Nowadays, the Schindlers can barely avoid mentioning Michael's name without writhing in hatred. They have reinforced their accusations that he is neglecting Terri by suggesting that he tried to murder her, and that she was a victim of domestic violence.
The Schindlers' lurid accounts of abuse and neglect don't seem to tally with past events. In the early years of their marriage, Michael appeared to be on good terms with the Schindlers. The young couple lived in the Schindlers' condo after settling in Florida in the mid-80s. After Terri's accident, Michael and the Schindlers shared living quarters and the burden of care for Terri.
Those family bonds snapped in 1993 - the same year that a court awarded Terri $1m in a medical malpractice suit, and granted her husband authority over the money to use for her care. Each party now accuses the other of trying to get their hands on the funds. The cash question became even more urgent four years later, when Michael arrived at his momentous decision to end his wife's life. If Terri died, he would inherit the funds remaining in the malpractice suit; so long as she lived, the Schindlers had a hope of challenging his guardianship over Terri, and his control of the money.
By 1997, when Michael was set to remove the feeding tube for the first time, the stage was set for an epic confrontation. It is unclear what led to the change of heart, but Scott Schiavo, Michael's elder brother, says he arrived at the decision soon after the painful death of his own mother. "It sort of woke him up when he was watching my mother die," he says. "One day he just stood up and said: 'I can't do this any more. I can't do this to Terri.'"
Six years later, it has come down to this: videos of a stricken woman on the internet, accusations of murder, and lining up television interviews in a rented trailer.
Today, the Schindlers are spending much of the afternoon with a crew from the Christian Broadcasting Network, operated by the evangelist Pat Robertson. There is no question which side the CBN is on. "There is a spiritual battle going on. There is a pro-death movement out there right now, and it nearly killed Terri," says reporter Wendy Griffith. "From our perspective, it is a spiritual battle. It basically comes down to good and evil, life and death."
Outside the Christian right, such clarity over Terri's fate - or indeed the best recourse for any person condemned to live for years with virtually no brain function - is generally difficult to obtain.
But, given the vehemence with which he has been fighting to prolong Terri's life, it is a little surprising to learn that Robert decided to turn off the life-support system for his mother. She was 79 at the time, and had been ill with pneumonia for a week, when her kidneys gave out. "I can remember like yesterday the doctors said she had a good life. I asked, 'If you put her on a ventilator does she have a chance of surviving, of coming out of this thing?'" Robert says. "I was very angry with God because I didn't want to make those decisions."
Wow, I guess so!! The hate just oozed outta that pantload of a column!!
It appears that they did try to save her. The Church does not require "extraordinary means". She was probably given nourishment and hydration until she died of natural causes. Terri Shiavo is not dying of natural causes. She is being starved to death. That is the difference. There is a distinction. The Church believes that nourishment and hydration are never extraordinary means.
*bump*
Did Mr. Cruzan leave a suicide note? If so, what did it say? What does the Cruzan Foundation advocate regarding "letting people go" by denying their shell of a body sustenance and water?
Maybe there's something you haven't considered. Because there are so many questions about how Terri Shiavo became incapacitated in the first place, there is reason to question whether or not this could be "the perfect crime". IF Michael Shiavo had anything to do with her demise, shouldn't it at least be investigated? What's to stop the next guy from "finding" his wife nearly brain dead after a so called "accident"...and then saying, "She told me she'd never want to live this way."? Then, to top it all off, the courts agree with him and finish her off legally. And to add insult to injury, they do it by slowly dehydrating her. (Would you dehydrate your dog under any circumstances? )
It has been reported that Michael Shiavo has refused millions to release her to her parents...supposedly because he want to "honor her wishes". Why is honoring that "verbal contract" (her alleged wish to be allowed to die) any more important than honoring his marriage contract? If he's willing to let go of their marriage contract...then fine....but why not that other "contract" too? IMO, the case stinks to high Heaven. I pray no stone is left unturned. It's truly a crying shame. May God love and bless Terri Shiavo and her family.
Is he? Are you sure this is a problem with the law, or is it that some people have become subservient to a process?
This is a big deal, Miss Marple. This is not merely a legal matter where a judge screwed up and the enntire system whitewashed starving an innocent person against their wishes. How it plays out will illustrate the strength and weakness of human morality.
Terri Schiavo has no loss in autonomic function at all, in contrast to Schindler's mother. Withholding the artificial sustaining of autonomic function is a far, far different thing than witholding sustenance. Most if not all of the people you quoted will have no difficulty differentiating between the two.
All Terri needs is basic food and water, and she continues to live indefinitely. It's no different than people in a coma, people with swallowing disorders, babies, you name it. One of the McCaughey septuplets required a feeding tube for awhile. So did a little girl from Great Britain until our American medical system concluded that she was misdiagnosed and could swallow on her own. Should they all have been doomed? Of course not.
Now let's look at the other side of the coin. Here's a question for you, Walkin' Man. Open-heart surgery is possible today thanks to the development of the heart-lung machine---a machine that keeps blood oxygenated and circulating without the assistance of either the heart or the lungs. Presumably, there's no reason such a machine could not be used with anyone who isn't going through open-heart surgery---maybe they had a heart attack and their heart stopped and won't start again.
Is it murder not to connect someone to one of those machines? After all, it could keep the brain oxygenated for an extended length of time after the body's autonomic respiration and heartbeat functions cease. Think about the countless numbers of people whose lifes could be "prolonged" with these machines. Why aren't we passing legislation requiring that people be connected to heart-lung machines if their own tickers give out?
Actually, we'd better watch out! People are now perfecting heart surgery that takes place without the use of the heart-lung machine, by operating on the beating heart in place. The machine itself could go obsolete! Maybe we need to subsidize the continued development and production of these machines, or even step up production! Murder is happening on a daily basis because we're too heartless (pun intended) to have a full stock of these machines in ready supply!
If at this momement, Terri continues to fight to live......
A ventilator doing the work for the patient is quite different than a cheap piece of plastic tubing smeared with vaseline. When I was in medic's training, we were intubating each other with about 5 minutes of instructions. It's about as hi-tech as a spoon.
All these folks rushing out to get living wills should think twice. Insertion of an an I-V would be considered an "heroic measure" according to many of these people.
So when you people choose who gets to live and who must die, its justified.
I get it.
Now YOU rationalize this with your God not me..
How many young, practicing devout Catholic women who expressed a belief that Karen Ann Quinlan be kept alive have had a bigamist husband assure an incompetent judge that once she commented on a TV show in a manner which suggested she didn't want to be on a respirator, and therefore she ought to be starved to death, the most undignified manner of death known to humankind? OK, cannibalism might be worse.
I have no idea, reguarding a suicide note, and have no knowledge of what the Cruzan Foundation advocates.
It's only fair, Walkin' Man, that we ask you what medical measures we must apply to keep someone alive. Consider my post 187 above. Should we connect everyone who would otherwise die of a heart attack to a heart lung machine to keep 'em going as long as the hospital can keep it plugged in?
I haven't read the opinion. My only imput in this is that I was a neighbor and friend. Please don't take anything I have posted to mean that I advocate 'starving' someone to death. I don't. All I was doing is commenting, as someone else did, that the Cruzan case was precedent setting, and most state law in reguards to this matter stems from this case.
A gastrostomy tube (as was used to provide food and water to Nancy Cruzan, see ante at 266) or jejunostomy tube must be surgically implanted into the stomach or small intestine. Office of Technology Assessment Task Force, Life-Sustaining Technologies and the Elderly 282 (1988). Requiring a competent adult to endure such procedures against her will burdens the patient's liberty, dignity, and freedom to determine the course of her own treatment. Accordingly, the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause must protect, if it protects anything, an individual's deeply personal decision to reject medical treatment, including the artificial delivery of food and water.
most state law in reguards to this matter stems from this case.
Just reinforcing your facts.
This morally relative reasoning copuld justify killing all of socities most needy? -since Terri is a Catholic I would suggest the use this reference material is apprpriate:
Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used. It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity. It may happen that, by reason of prolonged and barely tolerable pain, for deeply personal or other reasons, people may be led to believe that they can legitimately ask for death or obtain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected.
The condemnation of euthanasia expressed by the Encyclical Evangelium vitae since it is a "grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person" (n. 65), reflects the impact of universal ethical reasoning (it is founded on natural law) and the elementary premise of faith in God the Creator and protector of every human person. 6. The approach to the gravely ill and the dying must therefore be inspired by the respect for the life and the dignity of the person. It should pursue the aim of making proportionate treatment available but without engaging in any form of "overzealous treatment" (cf. CCC, n. 2278). One should accept the patient's wishes when it is a matter of extraordinary or risky therapy which he is not morally obliged to accept. One must always provide ordinary care (including artificial nutrition and hydration), palliative treatment, especially the proper therapy for pain, in a dialogue with the patient which keeps him informed.At the approach of death, which appears inevitable, "it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life" (cf. Declaration on Euthanasia, part IV) because there is a major ethical difference between "procuring death" and "permitting death": the former attitude rejects and denies life, while the latter accepts its natural conclusion.
4. Medical doctors and health-care personnel, society and the Church have moral duties toward these persons from which they cannot exempt themselves without lessening the demands both of professional ethics and human and Christian solidarity.The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.
Thank you for posting this and making your initial comments ... we who believe in LIFE are getting a much better picture of the darkened souls inhabiting our FR home who want to make jokes and condescend regarding the execution of an innocent disabled woman. You must be so proud that you can get a rise out of us, you and SO9, etc.
It has been proven numerous times that ignorance is impossible to teach enlightenment......
If what you profess to be right than why be so defensive............
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.