**This is a common sense point/counterpoint on the Terri Schiavo case out of Florida. We make no legal argument whatsoever. For a legal analysis, please visit Abstract Appeal.**
In personal choice matters, it is important to grant wide latitude to the individual. Women should hold the decision-making power over their pregnancies, as terminally ill people living with excruciating pain must have the option to end their own lives. In the same spirit, living wills prohibiting extraordinary measures including ventilators, feeding tubes and the like should be respected as any legal contract.
Had Terri Schiavo put into writing her wishes against artificial life-support, this would have been over before it started years ago. But the lack of a living will has turned her case into a groundbreaking battle that may set new precedents. The main issue before the court is determining Terri’s intent, and the lack of a living will has forced the courts to rely on testimony from Terri’s husband Michael and others stating that she did not wish to be kept alive by artificial means. Since the court’s most recent decision setting a date to remove Terri’s feeding tube is based on testimony from third parties, it should not stand.
Michael Schiavo may be looking out for his wife’s best interests, but two factors seriously complicate the situation:
These circumstances set up a conflict of interest that is impossible to ignore. Terri should have had an independent guardian appointed for her. The fact that Michael Schiavo stands to gain financially and be freed to continue a new life with his other family makes it clear that he can’t speak for her. Terri’s parents have fought to keep her alive, and have stated that they will assume responsibility for her care, which concentrates even more focus on the financial issue.
And speaking of her parents, it is hard to believe that Terri would tell other people of her intentions yet exclude them. If she knew they were the kind of people who would not let go, there would have been extra incentive to put her wishes into writing. Absent a living will, how can they be asked to give up their daughter?
The court should not be in the business of determining the wishes of someone who is in a life or death situation. If Terri is, as the experts say, in a persistent vegetative state, then she is in no pain and no harm is being done to anyone. It makes no sense to end her life because of her husband’s testimony especially when he may be conflicted.
Of course political considerations are always a part of high profile, emotional cases, and this one is no exception. Republicans, like Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the majority of the Florida state house, see an opportunity to score points with anti-abortion / anti-assisted suicide groups by rushing legislation designed to protect Terri and subsequent cases. Some Democratic groups also see this as a proxy for abortion rights and right-to-die battles. Both are misguided as this case is, in fact, unrelated except when it comes to the Republican-framed “culture of life.”
As a pro-choice / right-to-die Democrat, it troubles me that Democratic groups are not only on the wrong side of this one, but also handing the Republicans (especially Jeb Bush, a possible Presidential candidate ) a gift-wrapped win/win issue. Republican legal wrangling will either “save Terri’s life,” or be thwarted by evil Democrats who don’t value life.
Well, I value life. Without Terri Schiavo’s written permission, it is wrong to do anything that hastens her death.
The other side of the argument (written by Jamie) is here.