The case of Terri Schiavo has apparently now reached a crisis point and as the writing of this entry (19 March 2005 at 1600hrs pst) by order of a Florida state court her feeding tube has been removed and she is now on a path of starvation and dehydration. A process that may take 10-14 days to finally kill her.
The facts of this case are widely known, though misunderstood by many. Terri Schiavo suffered a heart attack some 15 years ago and has been in a somewhat vegetative state since. She is not, however, comatose, and whether or not the state is permanent or if there is some hope of recovery is disputed. She left no will or written instructions as to how she would wish to be treated in such circumstances although her husband, who is acting as her legal guardian, has stated that she told her at one time that she would rather die than be kept alive in such circumstances. Her parents and family dispute this claim.
Her husband Michael has been attempting for several years to have her feeding tube removed so she could "die with dignity." Judge George Greer, the Florida judge who has been presiding over the case, has consistently ruled for the husband, although he has never even bothered to actually visit Terri in the hospice where she receives care.
What is notable here are two things: (1) she is not being kept alive by means of artificial breathing, heart, kidney or any other extraordinary means, she is only provided nourishment and fluids; (2) it is unclear what actual brain activity Terri has, because the most thorough tests have not been allowed by the husband, nor ordered by the court. See a more thorough story on this aspect of the case in an article by Rev. Robert Johansen. It is also a fact that there has (1) never really been a thorough diagnosis of her condition; (2) nor a thorough investigation into the original incident (as noted by her sister in an interview on the Larry King Show on 18 March 2005).
The motivation of the husband is certainly suspect. Even though still married to Terri, he has a girlfriend and a child by that relationship. Of course, adultery is no longer a crime or apparently even a good enough reason for Judge Greer to move guardianship of Terri from the husband to the parents or some other competent individual. There is also a large sum of money involved from the malpractice settlement, which, is under the husband's control. One has to wonder why else, does he just not cede guardianship to the parents and move on with his life?
Congress is now attempting several avenues to supercede the actions and rulings of this judge. If these efforts fail or become too prolonged to have the desired effect; I, for one, would like to see President Bush (who has come out strongly in favor of not allowing Terri to die) issue an executive order and send federal officers to place Terri in a place of protection outside the reach of both her husband and this incompetent judge (where she could both be treated properly and receive the testing that every expert would deem appropriate). Someone is about to be killed, or at least allowed to die, who should not. Life is the most basic of civil rights, an "unalienable right" that the founding fathers called a "self-evident" right. While such extreme action may sound high-handed and some might argue an abuse of power, better this than to allow an innocent person to die needlessly.
If Terri had left a will or some other undisputed document that detailed her wishes then that would be final for me. If she did not wish extraordinary measures to be implemented to keep her alive under these circumstances that is her individual right under all applicable laws. However, in this case there is no such document, and the hearsay evidence presented by her husband is certainly suspect at almost every level. This is not a "right to die" case as the husband, his attorney and the ACLU have purported it to be. It is a case where "the right to life" is being trampled in the most grievous manner possible. It is also not a case of preventing the government from intruding into the private affairs of people, it is about the legitimate and biblical role of government to protect those who are otherwise helpless to protect themselves.
The Bible is clear that government exists to be a "minister of God to you for good" (Romans 13:4). One local branch of government is failing, and failing miserably, in their God-ordained purpose and it is up to the other and higher branches of our government to ensure that good is upheld in this case and any action they take to accomplish this is justifiable.
Posted by Narnia3 at March 19, 2005 3:17 PM | TrackBackDennis... thanks for this short synopsis and good points. Perhaps I'm the only one that doesn't know much about this case, but for whatever reason I've not kept up with it. Your brief post has been helpful and I agree with your conclusions.
Eddie
Posted by: Eddie Exposito at March 20, 2005 5:58 AMit is unclear what actual brain activity Terri has, because the most thorough tests have not been allowed by the husband, nor ordered by the court.
A more thorough test isn't necessary; her brain is mush. If there were any doubt about whether her brain were actually mush, a more subtle test would be helpful. However, that isn't the case. For all intents and purposes, she doesn't have a cerebrum.
Posted by: jpe at March 20, 2005 5:39 PMAnd on what basis or observation of fact do you make this extraordinary medical analysis?
Posted by: Narnia 3 at March 20, 2005 7:02 PMRe: jpe’s comment above re: Terri Schiavo’s brain is “mush,” here’s a link discussing that, and disputing Rev. Robert Johansen’s claim in National Review you provided.
http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#111120735448873570
But I’m most interested in the politics and your comments about the husband. Specifically I interpret your essay in part to be saying the husband wants to kill Terri Schiavo for money (the malpractice settlement) and sex (the girlfriend). (See especially your paragraph starting “The motivation of the husband is certainly suspect.”)
What good evidence do you have of the evil feelings in this man’s heart? If you don't have good, hard evidence, I think you're making these statements more with an attempt to fool yourself (and us?) with bad analysis that you're morally superior.
What’s also interesting is the political response. My understanding is that the legislation introduced by Republican politicians (and signed off by many Democrats) is narrowly defined, i.e., Ms. Schiavo’s case is to be affected, not PVS (permanent vegetative state) cases nation-wide.
If so I think that's one more piece of evidence that this is pure political exploitation of a private, agonizing family matter. It’s about votes. It’s about power. It's disgusting.
Posted by: Tom at March 21, 2005 9:11 AMI'll refer back to a recent Weekley Standard article by Fred Barnes on the issues involved here, he makes the case better than I would have. I think the one quote about Senator Bill Frist (a licensed medical doctor) who spoke with a neruologist that had treated Terri. The neruologist's statement was that with proper treatment, she could make marked improvement.
Frankly I've been at the business of looking into people's motives for a long time, first as an LA Police Officer and later a pastor. I'm certainly not infalible at it, but I daresay that I'm a pretty god judge of character, even from afar. I've seen him the few times he has been interviewed and issue here is that there are too many things in his actions and words that simply do not add up and, to me, make his motives suspect. There seem to be two main bad motives here as you note.
I could be wrong about the legislation, but I think it is more encompassing than that. But even if not, history is full of "special legislation" directed at an individual. I don't think the Republicans are in this for votes (although no ones motives are entirely pure and there is an obvious political upside for the GOP on this) but consistent with their views on life and the protection of life.
In another vein, it was the Republicans who brought about the end of slavery (Lincoln was a Republican if you remmeber) even when the state governments and state courts were enforcing it down the road; it was a Republican President (Eisenhower) who used the direct power of his office to enforce desegregation orders, against the will of states and state courts, and lest it be forgotten, it was only because of Republican votes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, when President Johnson could not even get his own party on board.
This is a matter, as I noted, of the government doing what God intended government to do, protect those who are helpless to protect themselves.
Posted by: Narnia 3 at March 22, 2005 7:53 PMRe: your comments on Senator Bill Frist and the Republicans, the Washington Post notes (and I believe the Post is saying Frist is the author of the following):
"In a memo distributed only to Republican senators, the Schiavo case was characterized as "a great political issue" that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49701-2005Mar19.html
Charming, huh? How would any of us like a bunch of partisan hacks like that steal our own guardianship of a loved one? Does it get more craven or cynical? And don't peg me as saying the Dems are a bunch of heroes. Likewise cynically and craven, they voted with the Republicans.
I personally believe that her legal guardian should make the decision. The higher functions of her brain are apparently long gone. Many many judges have reviewed the case and looked out for her rights.
But if there are a few grains of sincerity and consistency in those that wish to keep Ms. Schiavo alive, they probably belong to the Pope. He doesn't bash the husband. He isn't looking for votes:
"In a front-page editorial, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano...'After all, Terri's destiny appears not unlike that of many men and women who in the United States get capital punishment for their crimes...But Terri has committed no crimes, if not that of being "useless" to the eyes of a society incapable of appreciating and defending the gift of life. Of any life.'
The Holy See has maintained that there is virtually no justification for the death penalty."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Vatican-Brain-Damaged-Woman.html
Posted by: Tom at March 23, 2005 10:34 AM