Ellington

In times of great suffering and sadness, it seems as though there is often much more yelling and screaming than there is loving and listening. The fact of the matter is this—there is a long list of ways in which life can go terribly wrong. Except for the grace and mercy of God, here we are facing each new day head on and with great courage. This subject of suffering and sadness is at the heart of the Terry Schiavo matter. And as long as we have loved ones, and as long as each day is subject to human tragedy, we will always have Terri Schiavos with us—and the moral dilemma it entails.

At the heart of the matter, we see a woman with a debilitating condition that limits her to the interaction of a 6-month-old child. She cannot feed herself, clean herself or communicate with much sense. Terri has been rendered to a vegetative state. But, this calamity has not affected just Terri. Involved in this human condition are the mother and father of Terri and her husband, who has custody of her. It would be enough that these people must fact this tragedy by itself—but there is the other dimension of conflicting value structures. Those conflicting values have created a chasm so deep that it seems as though we have forgotten about Terri and the human tragedy that created the dilemma in the first place.

Terri's husband was seeking to remove the feeding tube that sustains her very existence. Terri's husband views her condition as permanent suffering that could be ended through a dignified death. On the other side of the rift are Terri's parents, whose married love created her. They saw her in all of her precious moments—first step, baptism, prom, graduation, college and marriage. We can see why they would be so hesitant to remove their child's only method of survival.

As desperate people do, they turn to desperate measures and not collaboration in order to seek resolve. Court after court has sided with Mr. Schiavo as the guardian of his wife, and a conservative-dominated Congress along with Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have sided with Terri's parents.

The core of this ethical argument lies rooted in a very Roman Catholic concept of life. The universal law, which has been formed by Church fathers, suggests that life should never be prematurely taken—from conception until natural death. This is why the Catholic Church stands against abortion, capital punishment, suicide, war and euthanasia. Life is a total and complete gift from God and cannot be taken away except by the Creator.

Unfortunately, these very meaningful and well-thought-out universal principles suffer from constraints within the world that we live. Particularly difficult is euthanasia. Both sides come from an ethical vantage point—Terri's husband wants to relieve the suffering of his wife, and Terri's parents want to support the notion that life is precious is every state. But we must come to an answer and stop straddling the fence. There cannot be this talk—"if it were me I'd want to be let go" or "they should let her live." No, there must be an ethical answer, and it is this:

Life is precious and should not be taken prematurely. However, life fails to be so black and white—human beings, in a volatile and tragic world, cannot live up to this each and every day. There is another principle, and it is one deeply rooted in the Christian tradition of preventing suffering and spreading peace and justice. Terri should not be allowed to suffer any longer. The cries of her family should be placed at bay, and Terri must come front and center—we must let her go. We are not relegating those of disability to an existence of future death, but rather that suffering of individuals should be prevented. And Terri should suffer no more.

Aside from the moral and ethical dilemma here and aside from the court's place in this matter, I find it wholly incongruous of the GOP-dominated Congress and its leader Tom DeLay to be seeking political gain out of a monumental tragedy. DeLay and his colleagues moved in—like vultures—to grasp at whatever political gain they can at the expense of Terri and her loving family.

Remember: This is the same Republican Congress that has blocked child health care, cut the education budget and supported the death penalty. How are those moves supportive of life? I fail to see the correlation.

The fact of the matter is this—the courts are the proper place to sort out issues of guardianship and not the U.S. Congress. The Republican Party and its ethically challenged Tom DeLay should be ashamed of themselves in seeking to profit from a family's immense pain.

If they want to spread the notion of building a culture of life, then pass laws to educate our youth, reduce crime and expand free health care. These political vultures must not attempt to present themselves as the morally righteous side, when it is fully known that their righteousness has long left the halls of the Capitol with a decidedly anti-life stance.

John Sawyer is a senior political science major at Millsaps College. He plans to enter the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in the fall to become a priest dedicated to social justice concerns. He is also a JFP columnist, writing about religion and social justice. He also interviewed progressive evangelical Jim Wallis this issue.

Previous Comments

ID

69758

Comment

Court after court has sided with Mr. Schiavo as the guardian of his wife, Nope: http://www.2dca.org/opinion/March%2016,%202005/2D05-968.pdf (The 16 March opinion of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, in PDF format) To illustrate what I'm talking about, here's an excerpt: As a result of an earlier motion for relief from judgment, we required the trial court to reconfirm that medical science offered no meaningful treatment for her condition. In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo III). The trial court decided not only to reconfirm that issue but also to review its earlier decision that Mrs. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. Following another extensive hearing at which many highly qualified physicians testified, the trial court denied the motion for relief from judgment. This court affirmed that decision. In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Schiavo IV). The trial court's decision does not give Mrs. Schiavo's legal guardian the option of leaving the life-prolonging procedures in place. No matter who her guardian is, the guardian is required to obey the court order because the court, and not the guardian, has determined the decision that Mrs. Schiavo herself would make. (Emphasis in last sentence mine; rest of emphasis in original) Best, Tim

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2005-03-24T07:51:12-06:00

ID

69759

Comment

Finally! Someone actually taking a stance on this hot topic rather than dodging the bullet. Excellent article, especially for a devout Catholic!

Author

paige henderson

Date

2005-03-24T09:50:48-06:00

ID

69760

Comment

I agree with some of your statements, disagree with some, but I would like a better explanation or definition of what you mean (example) by "pass laws to educate our youth, reduce crime and expand free health care." For the record, I would be labeled a "conservative" (whatever that means), but I am disheartened by the "conservative" politicians and the "liberal" ones as well. It seems that 99% of them are just playing the Washington game of professional politics, while a very small few are actually representing those who elected them and trying to actually bring about positive change.

Author

brandon/jade

Date

2005-03-24T10:41:01-06:00

ID

69761

Comment

Good column, John. A lot has been off-putting politically with respect to this, although I won't let it offset the reality that a woman who may or may not feel pain, but grantedly is not sentient, is starving to death. Clearly, this is apprehensible. From any perspective. And I understand the argument of "the culture of life" being tried to exhaust all legal possibilities to keep her alive, and I sympathize with it. However, one action by Sen. Frist particularly bothered me--he knows, as every doctor in the country knows, that you can't make a diagnosis from a videotape. I don't care about Congress passing a case-specific law as far as separation of powers--if they can do it, they should (and indeed they did), because this situation is wrong and cruel. As much as she is PVS, despite recent suggestions by Gov. Bush to the contrary, she is not brain-dead. We run into here the psychological problem of the 'face' syndrome--the parents see a face, they see their daughter. This is normal, but not exactly rational. However, whereas in PVS patients who are brain-dead, the eventual reaction is ameliorated when they can understand the situation in a crude fashion (i.e., here are some spinach leaves, here's your son/daughter ... guess if one has more cognitive ability than the other), with the case of Terry Schiavo, she's not brain-dead, and consequently has more cognitive ability, and so people attribute more "life" to her because she can "do" something more than nothing. This further complicates the decision. Do I think this all has been politicized? Yes. Do I think that's necessarily a bad thing? No. If I want to get political, and you know I never do but it's vacation and I've nothing better to do, this issue showed the spinelessness of many congressional Democrats. 60 or 70% of Americans want the feeding tube removed (CNN/Gallup), yet half of the Democrats in the House voted for the bill to reinsert her feeding tube--I'm guessing under the faulty logic that they didn't want their name, or their party, associated with having "killed" Schiavo. It's image for them, not conviction. For all of DeLay's ethical and moral lapses, I really believed this time what he was saying was a belief that he held, even if he were using it for something else. The same holds true for the other Republicans who spoke in the Palm Sunday session. The bottom line that I keep coming back to in my understanding of this issue is that it stinks that a woman is starving to death. Even if she can't feel pain, she is living. Let's say she has the cognitive ability of a 6 month year old--would we have a problem starving to death a 6 month old who couldn't feel pain? I think we would; the pain would not be the determining factor; it would the be totality of life, not its value. The "pain standard" stinks in this case, because you can argue from both sides--she feels pain, so we need to end her suffering, she feels pain, so we have proof that she still is alive, she doesn't feel pain, so there's nothing wrong with starving her to death, she doesn't feel pain, so what's the problem with keeping her alive. She is helpless before God just like we are--we should try and help her, support both sides of her torn family, and let come what comes. More than the politicians using this issue, look at how the MEDIA is using it; 10 dead, 10 fully sentient Terry Schiavo's in effect, at Red Lake High School in upstate Minnesota, pretty much pushed into the background by the national media. All this having been said, we must obey the laws, and courts have determined that Terry Schiavo had intent with respect to this issue, and that intent was to not have extraordinary measures taken, and courts have long ruled that people can declare such an intent. There is just some moral uncomfortability with the reality that the law takes. And that's natural. But let's let the law run its course, even if it produces an immoral result.

Author

Kevin J. Maguire

Date

2005-03-24T10:44:55-06:00

ID

69762

Comment

As much as she is PVS, despite recent suggestions by Gov. Bush to the contrary, she is not brain-dead. We run into here the psychological problem of the 'face' syndrome--the parents see a face, they see their daughter. This is normal, but not exactly rational. However, whereas in PVS patients who are brain-dead, the eventual reaction is ameliorated when they can understand the situation in a crude fashion (i.e., here are some spinach leaves, here's your son/daughter ... guess if one has more cognitive ability than the other), with the case of Terry Schiavo, she's not brain-dead, and consequently has more cognitive ability, and so people attribute more "life" to her because she can "do" something more than nothing. This further complicates the decision. Her brain has atrophied and most of her skull cavity is filled with spinal fluid. I don't know how much more "brain-dead" you can get. Most of her brain is physically GONE. All this having been said, we must obey the laws, and courts have determined that Terry Schiavo had intent with respect to this issue, and that intent was to not have extraordinary measures taken, and courts have long ruled that people can declare such an intent. There is just some moral uncomfortability with the reality that the law takes. And that's natural. But let's let the law run its course, even if it produces an immoral result. I wouldn't say this is an immoral result. Just a difficult one. By definition, when the law is followed, it produces the most moral result that we can produce short of actually being God. God knows (and I mean that seriously, not as hyperbole) what Terri Schiavo's intentions actually were. We can't be entirely sure -- but the courts have determined that her intention was not to be kept alive by artificial means. Best, Tim

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2005-03-24T10:54:42-06:00

ID

69763

Comment

Brandon/Jade: Thanks for your comments. As to what I was referring to with respect to "pass laws to educate our youth, reduce crime and expand free health care": I find it reprehensible that the Republican party is claiming to be "erring on the side of life" in this matter when the majority of their economic policy causes so many to suffer! They don't fully fund education, they don't fully fund medicaid (maybe her medicaid will run out), and they are more focused on one woman for politial gain than 44 million americans without health insurance! That seems to be less "life driven" than failing to support the reinsertion of Terri's feeding tube. And hypocrisy for your party, Brandon: (Source Congressional Democratic Caucus) As Republicans plotted congressional intervention last week to extend the life of Terri Schiavo, a Texas woman named Wanda Hudson watched her six-month-old baby die in her arms after doctors removed the breathing tube that kept him alive. Hudson didn't want the tube removed, but the baby's doctors decided for her. A judge signed off on the decision under the Texas futile care law -- a provision first signed into law in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush. Under the 1999 law, doctors in Texas can, with the support of a hospital ethics committee, can overrule the wishes of family members and terminate life-support measures if they believe further care would be futile. Bush signed the bill after interested parties, including anti-abortion activists, agreed on compromise language that required hospitals to give families 10 days' notice before terminating care and to help families find an alternative treatment facility that would continue care instead.

Author

John Sawyer

Date

2005-03-24T11:20:04-06:00

ID

69764

Comment

Someone told me that Texas law allows the tube to be removed from people who *can't pay*. Tell me this isn't true. Really, tell me this isn't true.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-24T11:43:13-06:00

ID

69765

Comment

Update today from AP: The U.S. Supreme Court turned down Terri Schiavo's parents Thursday, declining to intervene to keep the brain-damaged woman alive, but their supporters pressed a last-ditch effort in Florida courts. Justices didn't explain their decision, which was received by somber supporters outside the woman's hospice with bowed heads and prayers for help from Gov. Jeb Bush. "The governor is disappointed (at the Supreme Court decision) and will continue to do whatever he can within the law to save Terri's life," Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre said. Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, had urged the high court Thursday not to intervene, saying her case has been endlessly litigated. This was at least the fifth time the nation's high court has declined to get involved in the Schiavo case. The appeal by her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, was part of a rush of legal activity in the unprecedented right-to-die struggle.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-24T11:44:32-06:00

ID

69766

Comment

Oops. Backfiring? More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by Congress and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate. A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting the GOP almost that high. Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down from 49 percent last month. Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through emergency legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was signed by the president early Monday.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-24T11:46:26-06:00

ID

69767

Comment

Someone told me that Texas law allows the tube to be removed from people who *can't pay*. Tell me this isn't true. Really, tell me this isn't true. Sun Hudson, a six month old infant with a fatal form of dwarfism, was removed from life support last week by a Houston hospital against his mother's wishes. Their actions were in line with the Texas law that allows hospitals to discontinue treatment even if it is against the wishes of family members. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934 The law can be found here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm The law states that anyone who is judged to have an irreversible condition by an attending physician can be removed from artificial nutrition and hydration even if the family of the patient objects. The family must be given ten days notice of the of the removal in order to find another health care provider. The implication of this law is that if the law is invoked and you cannot afford to continue treatment at facility willing to treat someone in your family with an irreversible condition, then yes, the tube will be removed. As an aside, this piece of legislation was signed into law by the then governor of Texas, George W. Bush.

Author

Count No Account

Date

2005-03-24T12:56:20-06:00

ID

69768

Comment

I'm sure Tom DeLay was protesting outside the governor's mansion as Bush signed it. The word "hypocrites" comes to mind.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-24T12:58:45-06:00

ID

69769

Comment

From MSNBC: Gov. Jeb Bush wants the Department of Children and Families to use its authority to take emergency custody. State law grants that power in cases where the department believes a disabled adult is being neglected or abused. A ruling on Bush's long shot request for court permission to take custody of Schiavo was expected Thursday afternoon.

Author

Steph

Date

2005-03-24T13:04:09-06:00

ID

69770

Comment

Actually, DeLay was probably tied up in court that day.....

Author

Count No Account

Date

2005-03-24T13:56:49-06:00

ID

69771

Comment

Tom DeLay SHAMELESSLY using the Schiavo fiasco to bring sympathy to the "frivolous" charges against him: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1040968,00.html?cnn=yes

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-03-24T14:06:08-06:00

ID

69772

Comment

Mr. Sawyer, just for the record, I am a "conservative", but not a Republican or Democrat. I consider myself to be a true blue, issue voting independent.

Author

brandon/jade

Date

2005-03-24T14:26:23-06:00

ID

69773

Comment

Another interesting layer in all this, considering how worried the national GOP is about Schiavo's "life": "The case is full of great ironies. A large part of Terri's hospice costs are paid by Medicaid, a program that the administration and conservatives in Congress would sharply reduce. Some of her other expenses have been covered by the million-dollar proceeds of a malpractice suit - the kind of suit that President Bush has fought to scale back." - NPR commentator Daniel Schorr.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-03-24T16:34:05-06:00

ID

69774

Comment

AP today: Tom Delay "joined members of his own family nearly 17 years ago in allowing doctors not to take extraordinary measures to extend his father's life, a newspaper reported Sunday. DeLay had just been re-elected to his third term in Congress in 1988 when his father, Charles DeLay, was severely injured in an accident. As the elder DeLay's vital organs began failing, the family chose not to connect him to a dialysis machine or take other measures to prolong his life, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday, citing court documents, medical records and interviews with family members. "There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old mother, told the Times. "Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way." DeLay helped push through Congress a special law allowing Terri Schiavo's parents to ask federal courts to order their brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube reinserted after state courts allowed it to be removed. However, after hearing their pleas, federal judges refused to intervene. [...] The congressman declined to be interviewed about his father's case, but a press aide said it was "entirely different than Terri Schiavo's." "The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said DeLay spokesman Dan Allen. Source

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-27T15:11:35-06:00

ID

69775

Comment

I think the word "execrable" is appropriate in this case.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-27T15:13:35-06:00

ID

69776

Comment

I believe this reveal's Tom Delay's 'moral values' to be bovine excrement, at that. . .

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-03-27T15:33:27-06:00

ID

69777

Comment

I believe this reveals Tom Delay's 'moral values' to be bovine excrement, at that. . .

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-03-27T15:33:37-06:00