Posted on 09/07/2003 1:17:49 PM PDT by MarMema
Terri is not a convicted murderer. She is not terminally ill. Instead, she is a 39-year-old severely brain-injured woman whose parents and siblings, the Schindler family, have been waging a long legal battle to prevent Terri's husband and the legal system from ending her life.1
In July, 2003, Terri was granted perhaps her last "stay of execution" by a Florida appeals court before her case is returned to Judge George Greer, a Florida judge who has previously and repeatedly ordered Terri's tube feedings stopped. Although this will give the family's lawyers some time to file an appeal with the Florida Supreme Court, hope is slim because that court has declined to even hear Terri's case in the past.
The final hope to save Terri Schiavo's life may lay with Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who has recently received thousands of petitions for him to intervene to save Terri's life.2
Who is Terri Schiavo and Why Do Some People Believe She Should Die? In 1990, 26-year-old Terri Schiavo mysteriously collapsed at home and suffered brain damage as a result of oxygen deprivation. A medical malpractice suit ensued and a trust fund was established to pay for Terri's lifetime care. After the case was resolved, Terri's husband, Michael, claimed that he now remembered statements his wife had made in the past about not wanting to be kept alive in such a condition. (A former girlfriend has since disputed that claim because of statements Michael Schiavo made to her.) He petitioned a court for permission to stop her tube feedings and claimed that Terri was in a so-called "vegetative state", despite videotape evidence of Terri, showing her smiling, responding to her mother and even apparently trying to talk.
Florida law allows food and water to be withheld if a person meets the state's definition of "vegetative state" as "the absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind" and "an inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment". Experts for the husband claim that Terri's visible responses are mere "reflexes" and disagree with other medical experts who have testified that Terri has at least some basic awareness and could possibly be helped with therapy.
Terri's parents and siblings volunteered to take responsibility for Terri's care, but Michael Schiavo has refused to relinquish guardianship or divorce Terri, despite living with and fathering a child by a girlfriend. He has also refused to allow rehabilitation services and, despite the fact that Terri is not terminally ill, had her transferred to a hospice facility three years ago.
Nevertheless, Judge Greer and the Florida courts have so far dismissed all concerns about the circumstances surrounding this case and maintain that the only issues are Terri's disabled condition and her alleged desire to die. As a Florida probate court said in June, "we understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function remained. If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a faith. But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo's right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband".3
While the Schindler family endures such portrayals of themselves as being in denial over Terri's condition -- and incurs enormous legal bills fighting to save her -- the courts have allowed Michael Schiavo to use the funds for Terri's care to pay legal bills. George Felos, Mr. Schiavo's lawyer who has been involved in several other "right to die" cases, has reportedly received over $600,000 so far from the fund. His main medical expert was Dr. Ronald Cranford, who has testified in many "right to die" cases and who does not support even spoon-feeding for the so-called "vegetative" and people he terms "minimally conscious".
Although Terri Schiavo's case has received only a smattering of national media coverage, disability, pro-life, and other groups throughout the country have expressed outrage and alarm over this precedent-setting case. Terri's case is being seen as the final dismantling of any legal safeguards to protect the mentally disabled from the deliberate starvation and dehydration that would be unthinkable for a convicted murderer or even an animal.
The Catholic Connection
As Catholics, Terri's parents Bob and Mary Schindler requested the help of their local bishop, Bishop Robert Lynch of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida, to help save their daughter's life.4 Instead, Bishop Lynch issued a statement that "The Catholic Church would prefer to see all parties take the safer path but it must and will refrain from characterizing the actions of anyone in this tragic moment".5
This statement was particularly discouraging since Father Gerard Murphy, a pastor and former hospital chaplain, had already testified for Terri's husband that withdrawing Terri's tube feedings "would be consistent with the teaching of the Catholic church".6
Unfortunately, there is a long history of Catholic priests and ethicists who have given similar testimony in other public "right to die" cases without rebuttal by the local bishop, despite Church documents and a 1998 statement by Pope John Paul II emphasizing that "the omission of nutrition and hydration intended to cause a patient's death must be rejected".7 Instead, these priests and ethicists uniformly mischaracterize people like Terri Schiavo as "gravely ill" and simple feeding tubes as "prolonging death".
Unfortunately, these ethicists have often held prominent positions in Catholic health care and education for years. It has now become harder and harder to find a Catholic health facility that does more than provide mere lip service to principle on this crucial issue. It is telling that when Archbishop Justin Rigali of St. Louis issued a statement quoting Church teaching during the Steven Becker "right to die" case in 2000, many Catholic priests and ethicists from around the country criticized him for taking such an uninformed and "extreme" position in defense of life.8
Therefore, it is welcome news that Catholic groups are now challenging such misrepresentations in the Terri Schiavo case. Women for Faith and Family president Helen Hitchcock sent a letter to Florida Governor Jeb Bush asking him to "review Terri Schiavo's case and to intercede on her behalf", noting that Women for Faith and Family has filed amicus briefs in the similar Cruzan and Busalacchi cases.9 A Catholic media coalition sent a public letter to all the Florida bishops calling for them "to publicly condemn the injustice and moral evil of this deliberate act of euthanasia and to issue a plea for mercy to the Florida courts and to Governor Jeb Bush".10 The Catholic Medical Association issued a statement that "[d]iscontinuing nutrition and hydration in this circumstance violates in its intention the distinction between 'causing death' and 'allowing death'" and quotes the 1989 pastoral statement of the Bishops of Florida that states "We can never justify the withdrawal of sustenance on the basis of the quality of life of the patient".11
The National Catholic Partnership on Disability, which includes Cardinal Francis George on its board, has highlighted the differences between Terry Wallis, a man who recently regained full consciousness after 19 years when his family refused to give up, and Terri Schiavo, whose husband is seeking to end her life. In their press release, Mary Jane Owen, executive director of the partnership, states, "those of us who live with assorted disabilities are aware that when any of us is deprived of their essential dignity and worth, each of us face that same discounting by the judgments of the culture of death".12
A Precedent-Setting Case
The importance of saving Terri cannot be overestimated, not only for her right to live but also to apply a brake to the current "right to die" movement that seems bent on terminating people with severe brain injuries or conditions. It is no accident that people like Terri are put into hospices and cases like hers are included in "end of life" education programs for health care professionals and the public. It is no coincidence that withdrawal of treatment decisions have become the justification for the new non-heartbeating organ donation policies. And it is the ultimate irony that even families and patients who choose to live can now be overruled by medical futility policies being instituted at hospitals throughout the country.
Terri's family has put up a courageous fight to save their daughter's life and, if they finally lose, a terrible precedent will be set for coercing other families to give up fighting for their loved ones. If evidence of Terri's responsiveness, as well as questions of possible perjury and bias continue to be ignored by the courts, no one with a disability is ultimately safe from medical or legal discrimination.
Bob Schindler, Terri's father, poignantly observes, "We pay great lip service in this country to disability rights, but as the degree of a person's disability increases, the level of legal protection that person receives decreases".
I think you have made an important suggestion.
It is posted that her husband has refused to allow her to have a swallowing test. In these many instances, they do not actually remove the tube anyway - they use it to administer sedatives, morphine, etc in order to make the dehydration experience less agonal.
More and more horrid, isn't it? They keep the tube in but simply stop allowing the disabled person to have fluids or food.
In several of the cases I linked stories to on my FR page, the patients killed could and did chew food.
People who are disabled by a car accident should not be killed because they emerge with less mental functioning than the rest of us. In all of the cases I have read about there have been plenty of prolife groups willing to completely shoulder the care and costs of people who were disabled. But the family member in court still wanted that person killed, and more often than not, succeeded.
It is an entirely appropriate response to the situation.
In the 1970 edition of Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, the term vegetative state or persistent vegetative state is not to be found. The definition of coma is: "An abnormal deep stupor occurring in illness, or as a result of it, or it may be due to an injury. The patient cannot be aroused by stimuli." Tbaer's p.C-72 The 1982 edition of Stedman's Medical Dictionary has a similar definition for coma and nothing at all on vegetative state or persistent vegetative state.
Terri Schindler-Schiavo is not in a coma, obviously, since she is responsive to stimuli and has followed simple directions given to her. I'm trying to find a Medical Dictionary that actually lists PVS and then find when this term entered the regular medical vocabulary.
Yes, of course. Always include your parents, if possible, in the decisions for your future. A parents love is forever, where a spouse's love can be situational.
'The term "persistent vegetative state" was introduced by Jennett and Plum in a 1972 article in the journal Lancet to describe the condition of patients with severe brain damage in whom coma has progressed to a state of "wakefulness without awareness" (795).' http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Oasis/2919/pvsirr.html
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Oasis/2919/links.html
An imprecise term indicating a patient who was previously comatose, but whose eyes are now open and give the appearance that he or she is awake. It is properly characterized as a severe dementia due to global damage to the cerebral cortex. THERE IS COMPLETE INABILITY TO RESPOND TO STIMULI OR TO COMMUNICATE.
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.