Schiavo's Case May Reshape American Law

The life and death of Terri Schiavo - intensely public, highly polarizing and played out around the clock on the Internet and television- has become a touchstone in American culture. Rarely have the forces of politics, religion and medicine collided so spectacularly, and with such potential for lasting effect.

Ms. Schiavo, the profoundly incapacitated woman whose family split over whether she would have preferred to live or die, forced Americans into a national conversation about the end of life. Her case raised questions about the role of government in private family decisions.

But her legacy may be that she brought an intense dimension - the issue of death and dying - to the battle over what President Bush calls "the culture of life."

Nearly 30 years after the parents of another brain-damaged woman, Karen Ann Quinlan, injected the phrase "right to die" into the lexicon as they fought to unplug her respirator, Ms. Schiavo's case swung the pendulum in the other direction, pushing the debate toward what Wesley J. Smith, an author of books on bioethics, calls " the right to live."

"This is the counterrevolution," said Mr. Smith, who has been challenging what he calls the liberal assumptions of most bioethicists. "I have been frustrated at how difficult it is to bring the starkness of these issues into a bright public discussion. Schiavo did it."

Experts say that unlike the Quinlan case, which established the concept that families can prevail over the state in end-of-life decisions, the Schiavo case created no major legal precedents. But it could well lead to new laws. Already, some states are considering more restrictive end-of-life measures like preventing the withdrawal of a feeding tube without explicit written directions.

"I am concerned about the erosion of a very hard-won multiple-decade process of agreeing that these decisions belong inside families," said Dr. Diane E. Meier, an expert in end-of-life care at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "We've always said that autonomy and self-determination does trump the infinite value of an individual life, that people have the right to control what is done to their own body. I think that is at risk."

For social conservatives who argue that sanctity of life trumps quality of life, Ms. Schiavo came along at the right place and time, at a moment of their ascendancy in American politics. The election last November kept Mr. Bush in the White House and gave Republicans firmer control of Congress, particularly in the Senate, where conservatives gained several seats.

Among those conservative freshmen is Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, who prodded Congress to pass a bill allowing a federal court to review the Schiavo case. The move prompted a backlash, with polls showing an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to it, though there is no way to assess whether that sentiment will have lasting political effects.

"I am amazed by the attention and the passions that have been aroused by this," Mr. Martinez said. "It may be one of those issues that touches families, that transcends the cultural wars."

Others say that far from transcending the cultural wars, Ms. Schiavo's case landed smack in the middle of them.

"It may be that her legacy is to set off an ongoing debate in American public policy about the sanctity of life and how we are going as a society to make decisions about when life begins, when it ends and what protections it ought to have," said Gary L. Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative group.

That language percolates through other debates that involve clashes of medicine, politics and religion like the fights over abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian conservative group, drew the connection in an e-mail message to backers who mourned Ms. Schiavo.

"We often hear about the culture of life that we are trying to protect," Mr. Perkins wrote, "yet rarely do we talk about the culture of death."

Ms. Schiavo brought these ideas home in a deeply personal way. Her history had a captivating narrative arc and a compelling cast of characters. The patient: Ms. Schiavo, who had lingered for 15 years in what doctors describe as a "persistent vegetative state." The husband: Michael, painted by some as a villainous adulterer as he sought to have her feeding tube withdrawn. The parents: Robert and Mary Schindler, determined to keep their daughter alive.

As the drama unfolded, television viewers could watch Ms. Schiavo on videotape and make a judgment.

"The closest thing to it, but not quite as poignant, are the debates about stem cell research," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council, who became familiar with conservative politics when he worked for the Christian Coalition. "But they deal with diseases that touch upon every family, but not a single individual."

The debate also exposed fissures among Republicans, pitting social conservatives who framed the debate around preserving life against those who favor states' rights and limited government. "There was a philosophical train wreck," Mr. Wittmann said.

The case also fueled conservatives' anger over what they regarded as a runaway judiciary, laying the groundwork for future fights over Mr. Bush's judicial nominees.

"It shows just how much power the courts have usurped from the legislative and executive branches," Mr. Perkins said, "that they now hold within their hands the power of life and death."

The courts have been weighing in on such issues for years. One of the first major cases was in 1976, with Ms. Quinlan. The New Jersey Supreme Court permitted her parents to turn off her respirator.

In 1990, in the case of another brain-damaged woman, Nancy Cruzan, the United States Supreme Court recognized for the first time a right to forgo unwanted treatment. In 1997, Oregon passed an assisted suicide law, letting doctors prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Bush administration's challenge to the law.

In all these battles, the common theme was that medical technology had run amok, stripping patients of their dignity at the end of their lives.

"In the classic cases around death and dying, they were again and again efforts by families to get the patient out of the medical grip," said David J. Rothman, director of the Center for the Study of Society and Medicine at Columbia University.

The Schiavo case, Professor Rothman said, is "really the effort to force physicians to intervene, rather than force them to desist."

That shift made for odd bedfellows. Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, joined Mr. Smith, the bioethicist, in calling for legal action "to let Terri Schiavo live." Advocates for disability rights prompted Democrats like Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa to take up her cause.

Mr. Martinez, who said his sister suffered a brain disorder that left her unable to communicate at the time she died, called it "a beautiful moment of coming together for a sick and disabled person." He said he intended to work with Mr. Harkin to press Congress to "provide an avenue of due process and legal recourse which may not exist today" for patients like Ms. Schiavo.

Around the country, state lawmakers are contemplating changes, as well. The Alabama Starvation and Dehydration Prevention Act would bar the withdrawal of a feeding tube without explicit written instructions. A lawmaker in Michigan is proposing a measure that would prevent an adulterer from making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse.

Some medical ethicists say they are horrified. R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, foresees a chilling effect on hospitals and doctors, who may become uncomfortable carrying out a patient's wishes against the backdrop of a family feud. Professor Charo said there was no way for lawmakers to predict all the permutations that play into decisions on death and dying.

"If you go back to Cruzan, the presumption was in favor of extending biological life," she said. "Over the last 30 years, the presumption has slowly shifted toward allowing people to die. What we are seeing is the counterinsurgency."

"It shows just how much power the courts have usurped from the legislative and executive branches," Mr. Perkins said, "that they now hold within their hands the power of life and death."

Yes, indeed, to the point that now they have the power to withhold food and water, even provided by natural means, from an innocent, defenseless woman, despite the pleases of her parents for her life.

"ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Respondents' Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED"

--- Judge George Greer

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/030805orderdenyfood.pdf

And his earlier order denying Terri nutrition and hydration by any means:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-05.pdf

"This is the counterrevolution," said Mr. Smith,

I think a lot of people are beginning to sense that there may be some sort of intersection between "the right to live" and the alleged right to select the time and manner of one's own death. It's gonna be interesting. ;-)

"Even a convicted murderer gets their last meal on the same day they die."-Paloma_55

HEALTHFUL DRINKS WITH WARM MEALS SINCE THE ORDER-TO-MURDER-AN-INVALID BY JUDGE GREER
Subhuman scumbag Torturer and Murderer-At-Will Pinellas County Judgenfuhrer Greer ..... 65
..................................................................... Terri Shiavo 0
...................................................................... Lee Malvo 49
................................................................. Scott Peterson 48

In 1990, in the case of another brain-damaged woman, Nancy Cruzan, the United States Supreme Court recognized for the first time a right to forgo unwanted treatment.

How come when the libs mention Nancy, they don't seem to have the gonads to mention that she too was starved and dehydrated to death?

What I think a careful reading of this article and the various hospital "ethicists" quoted tells us, is exactly what many of us have been saying on these threads. Terri's death will mark a turning point. The judiciary went TOO FAR, and as a result they have undermined a "right to die" which they were trying to protect.

I know it won't be popular to say this, but this is a lesson that Freepers who have been arguing on various threads for Terri's right to die, or Michael's right to speak for her, have misunderstood the situation.

This wasn't about the right to die. But because Judge Greer has behaved so clearly unjustly and illegally, it will actually undermine the right of those who want a "right to die." Judges and hospitals will indeed feel a "chill" and will be less willing to kill their patients for fear of the consequences.

I've said all along that if some people choose to kill themselves, there's not much anyone can do to stop them. But the Euthanasia enthusiasts and NARAL and others who pushed so hard to kill Terri are now going to regret it.

I thought the Nancy Cruzan case was that she was on a ventillator, her parents fought to disconnect her, finally did, but she went on breathing and lived another 8 years.

At least back then the judge didn't order the withdrawal of all air from her, only to disconnect her from the ventillator.

Judge Greer, on the other hand didn't just order the removal of the feeding tube, he wanted to make sure that Terri won't start eating and live out her life, so he ordered to not give her any food or water even by natural means.

BREAKING: GOTTA SEE THIS:

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

Clearwater Bar Association 'recognized 'Judge George Greer for his decision to
execute Terri Schindler. They presented the John U. Bird award to the Pinellas-Pasco Circuit judge on May 15, 2004.
This prestigious award, which is the Clearwater bar's highest honor for a judge,
was granted to Judge Greer for the way he has handled himself in the Nazi fashion
(adopted by the Scientologists) of executing by dehydration and starvation while
the victim screams, as in the Terri Schiavo case!

Source 1

Source 2

Her case raised questions about the role of government in private family decisions.

No it didn't.

It raised questions about the court's so-called right to deprive someone (guilty of no crime) of their life.

As if someone thinks that starving to death and murdering your disabled wife/child/husband/parent is a private family matter!

The NYT and the MSM just don't seem to get it.

IDIOTS!

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

Very biased rubbish. The Guardianship laws were not followed. Neither was there CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence that Terri wanted to be starved to death. In fact, at the time of her collapse, feeding tubes were not an issue, heart and lung machines were.

Amazing that someone who so wanted to die, survived numerous attempts to kill her and lived for 15 years without the therapy and medical aid that would have improved the quality of her life. Unfortunately, one of the reasons Terri had to die, is to insure the world would NEVER learn that truth.

Lots of us are concerned.
The government had best stay out of my family's business.

So9

That was Karen Ann Quinlin who was on the ventilator and then lived for years afterwards. Nancy was starved and dehydrated to death. I remember a quote from one of the nurses in response to a comment that Nancy was nothing but a vegetable: Do carrots cry?

I think the pope has sucked the air out of the whole question. He proved that a life should be completed and a burden that has been undertaken should be taken to it's natural end.

"May" reshape American law?

The Terri Schiavo case already had. Death by dehydration and starvation is apparently no longer considered "cruel and unusual", as it is now "kind and usual". After all, the victim goes into a state of "euphoria", and apparently this disconnection of a feeding tube goes on all the time, or so we have it on good authority from Geroge Felos himself. And no crime need be committed for the death sentence to be applied, you just have to be on the wrong side of the outcome at a probate court. A probate court. Not even a criminal court.

And if that does not throw chills into the heart of everybody out there who is able-bodied, or suffering from some infirmity but still performing useful functions in society, it should, because compassion or mercy need no longer be "wasted" on those unfortunate enough to suddenly become dependent and unable to exercise one's potential.

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.