Terri Schiavo I have been hesitant to express my thoughts about the Terri Schiavo controversy, mainly because it and she have been turned into a political football.
I am not comfortable with the involvement of our legislative and executive branches into the question of whether Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should have been removed. I also am very skeptical of claims by many conservatives that she is in fact not in a vegetative state, and that she can recover with aggressive treatment. The innuendo placing Michael Schiavo - Terri's husband - in a demonic light also disturbs me.
I'm not interested in participating in a debate relating to Schiavo that centers around the contrasting views and values of liberalism and conservatism, or secularism and religiosity. It's not that those issues are not important in questions relating to medical ethics. Indeed, they are essential, as is the debate. But their application to the Schiavo case has made objective consideration difficult, with both sides distorting the reality in arguing its position.
Nevertheless, I think the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube is tragic.
Michael Schiavo claims that his wife told him that she did not have want to live in this vegetative state, but there is no evidence of his assertion, certainly nothing in writing. Common sense places Mr. Schiavo's claims in doubt. Terri was 26 when she went into cardiac arrest and suffered severe brain damage; it seems questionable at best that she would have seriously contemplated whether she would prefer to die rather than live in her current condition. Nobody can blame Mr. Schiavo for wanting to move on with his life and marry his girlfriend, but that desire is motivation for him to call for his wife's feeding tube to be removed so she dies.
President Bush has said it's best to err on the side of allowing Schiavo to live, but I think that misses the point. The real question is whether, without a writing expressing the patient's wishes, another person - including her husband - should be allowed to decide to take action to end the patient's life.
If the answer is yes, the question remains whether a person who is in a persistent vegetative state but whose condition is stable should be viewed identically as someone who is terminally ill. I think the answer is no. There is a difference between keeping someone on artificial life support, and allowing someone to eat. There is also, I believe, a difference between someone who is in a great deal of pain and Ms. Schiavo, who by all accounts is not experiencing any suffering.
Given that Ms. Schiavo's parents are willing to accept responsibility for her care and that there are - to use a term common in litigation - disputed issues of fact regarding what her wishes would be - I do not believe there was a basis for removal of her feeding tube.
Sadly, nor do I believe there is a legal basis for the United States Supreme Court to reverse state and federal decisions in favor of Mr. Schiavo's position.
posted on 3/23/2005
