Posted on 09/17/2003 1:06:32 PM PDT by MarMema
There is a point that gets somewhat blurred in this long-running debate over whether to pull the plug on the life of the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo.
The point is, there isn't a plug to pull. At least, there isn't a plug in the sense that the term is usually used.
She is not hooked up to some machine that is breathing for her or pumping her blood. She is not in a coma, clinging to life.
Terri Schiavo lies in a bed while her 39-year-old body works pretty much like everybody else's. Her body functions under its own power. She wakes up in the morning. She goes to sleep at night.
She is not being kept alive with "extraordinary measures," except for one thing:
She is being fed through a tube.
So the decision to end her life is not as simple as flipping a switch, and having her body fail a few minutes later.
Instead, it is a matter of withholding nourishment and liquid from a body that otherwise might go on.
Maybe you still say:
"Well, that is okay with me. I wouldn't want to live life as a vegetable, and from what I hear about this case, she didn't want to live that way either."
And, you know, that is a defensible opinion.
All I'm saying is that there is a subtle difference of degree here. It seems to me that ending her life requires taking an active, extra step, not just "letting her go."
That may not be how the law sees it, though.
I talked to both sides in the case. George Felos is the lawyer for Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and legal guardian, who seeks to remove the tube. Michael has fought in court for years against Terri's parents, who want to keep her alive, holding out hope that she might one day improve, if only slightly.
Felos told me that the feeding tube is precisely the kind of artificial measure - "being hooked up to a tube," as people often put it - that Terri told her husband she never wanted.
The tube, in short, is a form of medical treatment. People in Florida have the right under the Constitution and state statutes to refuse medical treatment, Felos told me.
I asked him - using a harsh example - what difference exists between removing the tube, and just putting a pillow over her face.
The first instance, he replied, is a Florida citizen exercising the right to refuse medical care, letting "nature take its course." The second is murder, or even if done at the patient's own wishes, still an illegally assisted suicide.
I also talked to Pat Anderson, the lawyer for Robert and Mary Schindler, Terri's parents. Anderson said there is a difference between a person expressing the desire not to live "hooked up to machines" and saying, "Be sure not to feed me. Be sure not to do anything to see that I get better."
Anderson and the Schindlers still hold out hope that Terri might be able to take nourishment orally, despite past findings that she is incapable. They draw a difference between removing the feeding tube and starving her: "Did she also say, no spoons for me?" Anderson asked.
I was surprised to see how specific Florida law is on these points. Chapter 765 of the Florida Statutes is careful to include "artificially provided sustenance and hydration" in the list of things that are considered to be "life-prolonging procedures" that may be declined.
The law goes on to state explicitly:
The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide.
I take no stand on the conflicting claims of the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo over Terri's mental capacity, nor on their various allegations of misconduct against each other.
In fact, it is helpful to think about the case in the light least favorable to each side.
Even if the Schindlers are wrong, and her body will be nothing but an empty shell forever, does that justify starving her to death? Or if Michael is wrong, and she adapts to taking nourishment orally, should we magically be barred from considering her past wishes about the kind of life she did not want?
If a spoon vs. a tube is the entire difference between life or death, it is too fine a distinction. I would not be able to let her die on that basis.
We can now email Howard and let him know that we appreciate his looking into this issue and making the ethical choice, then stating it. I did.
please forgive me if I missed anyone in this ping.
It really is a death state. Illinois, as we know, is careful to include not allowing dehydration or starvation as a cause of death. All concerned Florida residents should move to Illinois. Heck with the beaches.
Sad part about the specificity of Florida law on including sustenance as an "extraordinary measure". Remind me never to go to Florida, just in case I land in a hospital, especially since I'm disabled.
It's an exceptionally well written article and manages to leave out the baggage of 13 years of litigation. I would like to question the article on one point:
"Anderson and the Schindlers still hold out hope that Terri might be able to take nourishment orally, despite past findings that she is incapable"
When was this test done? She can swallow her own saliva, but everything I've read about this case says a swallowing test has been repeatedly refused.
That is a frightening concept. I'm thinking of my husband, who spent 8 months in 1978-79 in a coma after a motorcycle accident. IV's could be considered "artificially provided sustenance and hydration" and therefore illegal for someone else in a similar situation.
Yes you did. You know...maybe this is where we're going wrong in Terri's defense. Any of us could be in Terri's predicament right now. Besides educating us on the pitfalls of living wills, Mike Chiavo's attitude toward his wife makes us appreciate the good one's we're blessed with all the more.
It has been reported that she had engaged in a similar discussion and said something to the effect that she didn't want to be kept alive on tubes. If true, I respect the personal desicions that both of you have made.
The husband claims that they had such a discussion. Based on the other things I've read about the case, though, I find that claim suspect. After all, the husband has indicated by his actions that he does not want his wife to get better. If he divorces her, then he will no longer be able to prevent her parents from getting her therapy. If, as a result of therapy, she is able to become fully mentally competant, she will be able to sue the husband and his lawyer for all the money they will ever own, and have no trouble finding a jury to go along with it.
O'Reilly's comment that he'll keep a watch on this case was really good news!
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.