Posted on 03/06/2015 7:39:49 AM PST by wagglebee
At the end of this month, Terri Schiavo will be ten years dead. But she is far from forgotten. Everyone reading these words knows the story, and everyone has an opinion. What began in 1990 as a private tragedy—a vivacious young woman stricken in the prime of life with a severe cognitive disability—became a source of profound cultural division, as likely to spark debate today as when the case first broke into the public’s consciousness.
Why has her story remained so potent? Part of it has to do with the high-profile and vituperative legal and public-relations battle between Terri’s husband, Michael, and her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. Still, most heated public controversies run their course and fade into history. But not this one. Since her death, Terri has become a symbol of deep-seated conflicts in our country about the nature of human life and what role we have in controlling it—or ending it.
Even though Terri’s case had nothing to do with abortion, she quickly became mired in the “pro-life” versus “pro-choice” argument. True, abortion opponents strongly supported the Schindlers’ effort. But they were not alone in defending Terri’s life. For example, the disability rights movement—generally secular, distinctly liberal in political outlook, and hardly pro-life on the abortion issue—also vociferously opposed Terri’s dehydration (which precipitated her death). So did some progressives, like Jesse Jackson.
But the political diversity of Terri’s supporters has been ignored or downplayed in most media stories—and from the beginning. The New York Times, for instance, barely mentioned Terri’s name until Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry appeared on the scene. Under the front-page headline “Victory in Florida Feeding Case Emboldens the Religions Right,” the paper reported forebodingly that Terri’s socially conservative supporters intended to harness public sympathy to “chip away at court rulings allowing abortion and banning organized prayer in schools and the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools.”
Utter drivel, but once the story settled into a theocrats-versus-rationalists contest, people divided into their usual ideological corners, and most remain there to this day. In fact, the left and the mainstream media are now using Terri's case as a cudgel with which to damage the presidential chances of Republican Jeb Bush–who, as governor of Florida, sided strongly with the Schindlers.
The recourse to her case in electoral politics wouldn’t happen if it didn’t invoke current disputes over the meaning of life and death. Supporters of Terri’s parents believe in the equality and sanctity of life, an ethic under which Terri remained infinitely precious regardless of her impairments. In this view, whether she was conscious or not didn’t matter. Her parents should have been allowed to care for her for as long as she lived.
Those who support Michael’s successful effort to remove her feeding tube—including most of those in the bioethics movement—tend to adhere to the “quality of life” ethic that perceives some lives as not worth living. This is usually framed as a question of personal autonomy—for example, as the “right to die.” But behind that rationale lingers a profound loathing or disregard for impaired human life—to the point that some denigrated Terri as not worth the cost of care, while others opined that she should be lethally injected or that her organs should have been available for transplantation.
Debates over the sexual revolution and the meaning of marriage also became entangled in opinions about Terri’s fate. In the media, Michael is often identified simply as Terri’s “husband” who pursued a difficult course because that is what she would have wanted. But it wasn’t nearly that simple. Prior to petitioning the court to remove Terri’s feeding tube, Michael began cohabiting with another woman with whom he had sired two children.
Those who supported Michael often shrugged off his adulterous involvement as an understandable part of the process of “moving on.” In contrast, those who opposed Terri’s dehydration believed that, by starting another family, Michael had effectively abandoned his marriage—meaning that he should have had no part in deciding Terri’s fate.
Polls tend to show public support for the fatal outcome. But I don’t sense any peace about it. Indeed, I think our inner voices, the part of us that never lies, may harbor lingering doubts. Perhaps the reason we still react so viscerally to Terri Schiavo—why she remains an open cultural sore—is that our consciences are haunted by the enduring memory of her smiling face.
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patient’s Rights Council.
AMEN! I’m afraid that if Jeb Bush was the Republican nominee, I could not vote for him because of this. It was cowardly and despicable.
Jeb Bush murdered Terri Schiavo.
Yes, he asked lots of OTHER people to save her. But they refused to do so. When it was JEB’S turn to save her life, he cowered under his desk.
Just remember that it took 13 days for Terri to die, from when water was withheld from her.
She died the most excruciating and painful, tortuous death one can imagine.
We would not allow a dog or a cat to die in this manner.
And Jeb did nothing.
Stay out da Bushes.
Yes. Ten years! This tragedy also explained to me quite plainly, through the prism of FR, that being conservative means completely different things for many people.
The same people who object to the death penalty, so that society must pay to warehouse a violent sadist for the next fifty years.
This is a disqualifier for the Jebster. I hope he doesn’t win a single delegate.
She was not on life support, I did not post that. I suppose you are referring to a another post.
As far as what I did post which was the “death spiral” comment what I was referring to was the thing that killed her. The removal of her feeding tube was the thing that put her in to a death spiral.
As far as Jebbie Bush? To hell with that wimp. His brother, George W. at least tried to reverse things. Why? Call me cynical but IMO it was because his brother, Jebbie, was being feckless and “W” was flying cover. Why? Because eventually Jebbie would run for the big show.
As far as death and not being able to “avoid it” Terri Schiavo could not protect herself. Jebbie could have but he lacks balls. I’d be happy to tell that to his face just like I told Neil Bush once to his face he was a crook. This country would be much better off if the entire Bush family got their greedy hands out of the taxpayers pockets. They also use their influence with many levels of government to enrich themselves. Mostly with equity in private companies in exchange for their influence which at times includes involvement in stock pump and dump schemes.
Terri Schiavo is an excellent example of what kind of man Jebbie is. He is a man not much different than the fraud Obama. Empty.
the feeding tube was life support.
She had been in a death spiral for 11 years.
You really don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Thanks for the ping!
Hogwash. You've been sold a bill of goods. Two state troopers with an order from the governor would have pulled her out of there, no problem.
This is not speculation on my part. I was standing in front of that hospice-made-Auschwitz, and directly asked the head of the security team that was there what he would do if such an order arrived. He without hesitation replied that he would of course obey any order from Governor Bush.
Of course no such order was forthcoming from Jeb Bush. He utterly failed to keep the most important obligation of his sacred oath.
She had been in a death spiral for 11 years.
What disease was she dying from? What was her life expectancy? Do you class your food and water as "life support". Why do you think that needing food and water is extraordinary measures to sustain life?
Sorry I misread it.
Spreading the love....
Nick
bump
never
I believe Jeb never planned to save her and used any excuse to have her killed. Has he even been asked to any extent to comment on the case now that he thinks he should carry on the Bush dynasty?
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.