|
 Jesse
Love
Celestopea Times Editorial Columnist
The Lessons of Terri's Saga
Regardless of where you stand on the Terri Schiavo right-to-life
or right-to-die case, you probably haven’t been able to avoid
hearing about it, thinking about it and talking about it during
the last week or two. It is a case that cuts to the core of
something that will eventually affect every single person on the
planet-death; and embodies many other epic themes such as life,
love, relationships, health, dignity and happiness.
When we looked at Terri Schiavo it wasn’t a difficult leap to
imagine our own mother or sister or daughter in that heart-rending
place and wonder what we would do if that day ever came. Most of
us have felt a very strong empathy and sympathy for Terri Schiavo
and select members of her family because it is not so difficult to
put ourselves somewhere in the picture. Because of the Terri
Schiavo case, we have been not just captivated, but actively
engaged in thought and conversation about vital matters; and
that’s something to be applauded for it is not seen often enough.
When Terri finally gave up the ghost today, after an amazing
thirteen days without water or sustenance, she left a country of
people firmly entrenched in diametrically opposite camps, with few
wandering a middle ground. People either strongly applaud that
justice and right finally prevailed, or vehemently feel the
opposite- that a great moral injustice and horrible wrong has just
transpired. Where do you stand? Do you know why you stand there?
Is it based upon emotions, ideology or heresy, or upon reason,
fairness and fact?
Do you feel like Scott Schiavo, Terri’s husband’s brother?
Who after her death said, “She's got all of her dignity back, she's now in
heaven, she's now with God, and she's walking with grace.” Or do
you resonate more with the words of Rev. Frank Pavone, a Roman
Catholic priest? Who said, "This is not only a death, with all the
sadness that brings, but this is a killing, and for that we not
only grieve that Terri has passed but we grieve that our nation
has allowed such an atrocity…"
Most Americans will eventually try to find a middle of the road where
we can all agree on some points, as Florida governor Jeb Bush did
when he expressed his belief that though many people around the
world will grieve her death, it could be the catalyst to help
others come to an understanding about their own end-of-life
issues, “After an extraordinarily difficult and tragic journey,
Terri Schiavo is at rest," he said. "I remain convinced, however,
that Terri's death is a window through which we can see the many
issues left unresolved in our families and in our society. For
that, we can be thankful for all that the life of Terri Schiavo
has taught us."
As a hobby, I have collected quartz crystals in the old mines found in
the high mountains of the west. In the process, I learned a
little about mining law. Now you might think that mining law has
nothing to do with the Terri Schiavo case, but in fact, it
should. For unlike criminal or civil law, which can be rigid and
inflexible, callous and cold; mining law is still based on
statutes from the late 1800’s that were formed by very practical,
hard-working people trying to look at things with fairness and
objectivity, something often missing in other legal venues.
Mining law has a key element they call the “Prudent Man Test”. This is
the standard by which the government would judge the merits of a
miners petition to gain a deeded title to their mining claim.
Without the title, they just have the right to extract minerals
and can’t sell the timber or turn the property into a ski resort
or a nature preserve, or whatever they desire. When their
petition is considered, the government looks at two things: First,
is there enough mineral (like gold or silver) in the ground to
warrant extraction? Second, if there is a good quantity of
mineral available, is it easy enough to extract and close enough
to major transportation that a “prudent man” would have good
reason to believe that a profitable mining venture was possible.
As an outside judge looking in upon the Terri Schiavo case, I tried to
remove my personal beliefs and simply ask questions using the
Prudent Man Test. As I see it there are three major issues to
consider.
1. Who should Terri Schiavo’s legal guardian be? Michael
Schiavo or Terri’s parents?
2. As she left no written instructions, what should the criteria be
to determine whether she lives or dies? In considering this,
I am throwing out all heresy for there is no way to determine if
any third party statements truly reflect Terri Schiavo’s feelings
on the matter when she could communicate, let alone 15 years in a
hospital bed later. I know one side says that Terri told some
people once at a funeral that she would never want to be kept
alive and her husband claims she told her the same thing. And I
know her parents and siblings say she never said anything like
that to them, and her priests say such an action would be contrary
to her religious faith. Those are all weighty arguments for both
sides but as they are all still heresy and any judgment would be
purely subjective.
3. If it is determined that the proper course of action is to allow
Terri to pass from this life, how should that be accomplished?
With the first issue, who should be Terri’s legal guardian; I would
vote unequivocally to install her parents as her legal guardians.
They and their other children, (who all support their position to
continue Terri’s life), have known Terri since birth and each
individually for far more years than Michael Schiavo. His is but
a single, short-term, tenuous bond to Terri. Her parents, brother
and sisters have a multiple, longer-term, far greater bond of
shared experiences that should be the sure foundation of legal
guardian. Furthermore, it is a sham to refer to Michael Schiavo
as “her husband”. He has been blatantly living with another woman
in a ten year relationship that has produced two children. At the
proceedings to determine the million dollar financial compensation
for Terri’s condition, and making a determination of guardianship,
he never told the court he would seek to terminate Terri’s life,
but just the contrary, he said that he was committed to seeing she
continued to get the best possible care for as long as it took.
However, once he was paid the million dollar settlement he quickly
began proceedings to terminate her life. A prudent man would be
led to think by that action that he was more interested in seeing
her die as soon as possible so there would be less money spent on
her care and more to keep for himself. He is an adulterer and a
liar and should be thrown in jail not given the keys to her life
or death.
Nobody can look at the second issue without realizing they may
encounter the very same thing at some point in their life; either
as the person laying in a bed, unable to communicate but watching
and listening as family members decide whether they live or die;
or as family members having to make that difficult decision about
a mother or a father or a child that they love. A prudent man
would say, if the patient did not make their wishes known in
writing, if they are not in pain or obvious suffering and if being
with them gives their husband, wife, father, mother or siblings
joy, and the cost to keep them alive is not being asked of the
taxpayers, then they should be maintained with the hope, however
tenuous, that they might improve. And while they live, they
continue to give joy to those they love. Terri smiled when her
face was touched and expressed happiness in many ways, even though
the doctors said it was just her body doing things unconnected to
her brain. But who is to say how much joy they are receiving in
return from the love and time given to them by their family?
Perhaps much more than anyone looking from the outside can ever
know.
A sideline to this question is: what to do if some members of the
family feel the life support should not be continued and others
feel it should, as has been encountered with Terri Schiavo.
Though I disagree with President Bush on many things, a prudent
man would have to agree with him that in situations like Terri’s,
“the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there
are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in
favor of life."
The decision to terminate a loved ones life should only be able to move
forward if every adult member of immediate family agrees with the
decision; which brings up the third and perhaps most troubling of
issues.
3. If all of the nearest family members support a decision to
terminate a non-ambulatory, non-communicable person’s life or the
life of someone with a painful, terminal disease or condition, how
should that ending of life be accomplished? Cases like Terri
Schiavo’s must be looked at more closely than someone in great
pain with something like terminal cancer. Terri was not in pain
and she was not on any type of life support. Because she did not
have controlled movement of her body, she merely needed a feeding
tube to provide daily nutrients. However, all of her organs
worked fine. So fine that even after 12 days without food or
water they were all still working and finally gave out only at the
end of the 13th day.
I have known several people with loved ones on kidney dialysis, which
is a true “artificial life support system”, and they would never
consider to take their loved one off that life saving machine,
even those whose mind and memory disappeared in senility or
Alzheimer’s long ago. The family members still get joy in
visiting their loved one in the hospice or nursing home. I am
unable to understand how Terri Schiavo’s case would warrant death
while cases like those above warrant life.
But if death is deemed best and supported by everyone, then let it be
swift and merciful and dignified. A prudent man would condemn
every person from Michael Schiavo to government officials or
religious ideologues, who insisted that the only way Terri Schiavo
could die was by the torturous method of dehydration and
starvation, without even an ice cube to give relief to her cracked
and parched lips.
If a heinous murderer had reached his appointed time of execution, and
was told he was going to be strapped into a bed and deprived of
food and water for however many days it took for him to slowly and
agonizingly die of dehydration and starvation, with his tongue
swelling up too big for his mouth to hold and his eyes sinking
down as the water disappeared from his body, he would appeal to
the Supreme Court and get an immediate stay of execution on the
grounds of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Or if someone had a
dog that got sick and instead of trying to make it well they just
strapped it into a bed and then withheld all food and water they
would be charged with “cruelty to animals”. But it is alright to
do this barbaric torture to someone we love? If this is the
topsy-turvy morality of the planet Earth, I’m taking the next
space ship to Pluto.
A prudent man would say, if we take the animals we love, who have given
us years of joy and memories, to the vet to be quietly and
painlessly put to sleep, while we hold them one last time, we can
do no less than provide the same dignity, and merciful swiftness,
cradled in tender love and tears, for the people who are as dear
to us as life itself.
In your weighty considerations of the Terri Schiavo case, of the
dignity of death, the quality of life, and the bonds of love that
span through life and reach beyond death, please ponder upon these
points. |
