|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 8 |
 |
Pulling Terri Schiavo's tube would be morally wrong
GIL BARNDOLLAR
CONTRIBUTOR
In last week's Orient, James Baumberger confidently asserted that, "If you tell your spouse that you don't want to be kept alive by artificial means and you happen to fall into a permanent vegetative state, some Republicans might just force you to stay alive." This flippant remark misses half the story. Terri Schiavo, the woman in question, is not some poor, tortured victim of the religious right or the President's brother. Indeed, most well-informed observers would probably conclude pretty quickly that it's awfully premature, if not morally wrong, to pull the tube and let Terri Schiavo dehydrate and die.
First and foremost, it is not at all clear that, as Baumberger put it, "essentially, she is brain-dead." On the contrary, a host of medical experts have concluded that her condition could quite likely improve. Four certified neurologists, one neuro-psychologist, and two speech pathologists have testified that she is not in a persistent vegetative state. Sarah Green Mele, of the world-renowned Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, stated that Terri would "within a reasonable degree of clinical probability, be able to improve her ability to interact with her environment, communicate with others, and control her environment if she were given appropriate therapy and training . . ." It's too bad that Michael Schiavo, the grieving husband who wants to pull the plug, refused a doctor's 1998 request to approve an evaluation of Terri so that a physical therapy plan could be put into action.
Michael Schiavo is another misunderstood piece of the puzzle. Usually portrayed in the media as a courageous crusader for Terri's final wishes, Michael Schiavo's position is far more complicated. In fact, the state of Florida recognized this five years ago, when it appointed a guardian ad litem to investigate Terri's condition. Michael Schiavo, though it is scarcely ever mentioned in the press, has been living with his fiance for eight years and has had two children with her. It's hard to hold that against him; his wife has been in a hospital bed for over a decade. But if Schiavo is ready to move on with his life, shouldn't he leave Terri's care in the hands of her real guardians, her parents?
There is one big reason why he shouldn't: money. Terri Schiavo originally collapsed in 1990, and a medical malpractice suit by Michael Schiavo netted $1.3 million dollars. Half of the money, $750,000, was put in a trust fund that Michael promised he would use for Terri's care and rehabilitation for the rest of his life. Within a scant few months, however, Michael Schiavo had not only refused to provide his wife with any rehab, he had also given her doctors a do-not-resuscitate order. He even refused to let nursing home personnel clean her teeth. Terri Schiavo has been lying in a bed for over ten years, while her husband fights to put her to death and inherit somewhere between $30,000 and $750,000. While Michael Schiavo's actions do not automatically indict him as the most venal and despicable of men, they raise serious questions about his motivation for killing his wife, and point out an enormous conflict of interest.
Moreover, the idea that Terri Schiavo wanted to die is as questionable as her husband's behavior. Terri left no will, and her parents feel that as a devout Catholic she would want to live. Michael Schiavo's support for pulling his wife's feeding tube, described as "clear and convincing evidence" by the disturbingly hasty judge of Florida's Sixth Judicial Circuit, was a conversation Michael and Terri had during the second Reagan Administration. While watching a TV movie about a woman on a ventilator, Terri allegedly told her husband that she would not want to depend on a "machine" to live (she doesn't, a tube merely makes sure that she is fed). The only people that corroborate Michael's claim are members of his side of the family. None of Terri's blood relatives ever described her as wanting to be pulled off life support (which, as noted, she isn't even on).
Given all of this, we should be saluting Florida Governor Jeb Bush for stepping in and, at least temporarily, saving the life of a disabled woman who couldn't defend herself. This "rather disturbing political intervention" sounds to me like something right out of a Dick Gephardt stump speech, as the powerful and benign hand of government swooped in to right a wrong done to someone who was unable to stand up for herself. Legislative action circumventing the rulings of an overbearing, flawed judiciary is a legitimate part of the American system of checks and balances.
Baumberger seems confident in stating that, "The Schiavo case proved that the system worked." Surely he doesn't consider it progress when a disabled woman can be left to die with only an offhand remark during a TV movie as her final will and testament? Maybe it would be a good thing if Michael Schiavo could move on with his life, and perhaps build his nice new family a house with his dead wife's trust fund money. After all, there are those in this country who defend partial-birth abortion and euthanasia; Terri Schiavo's death would be a victory for this culture of convenience.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |