Quality or Sanctity?

I’ve watched day after day as pollsters tell us how many Americans opposed the Schindler’s efforts to save their daughter Terri Schiavo’s life. I don’t have a lot of confidence in these polls.

One example is an ABC poll question which began, “Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years.” How many of the poll respondents knew that Terri’s “life-support” was a feeding tube? I spoke to two people this week who assumed that she was on a ventilator, permanent dialysis, or some other form of life support. There are thousands of disabled Americans who receive their nutrition via feeding tube. That is one reason that many advocates for the disabled were on the side of Terri’s parents in trying to get her feeding tube re-inserted.

The poll further stated, “Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible.” Some doctors do say that, but others disagree. And several of the primary care personnel who have worked with Terri echo her parent’s claims that Terri responds and reacts to attention and care in ways that leave little doubt she is conscious. One such doctor is William Cheshire, a neurologist with the Florida Department of Family and Children’s Services.

Critics of Terri’s parents accuse them of hiring doctors who will tell the courts what they want them to hear. That may be so. But how is that any different from Terri’s husband hiring neurologist Ronald Cranford, a euthanasia advocate who has referred to himself as “Dr. Humane Death”?

Many of the people I’ve spoken with bring up Michael Schiavo’s contention that Terri told him she would not want to live in such a state. But if Terri told her husband this, why, when charging two doctors with malpractice, did he say that he would have to care for Terri the rest of her life? Why did he say that he was studying nursing to better care for his wife? Why did he wait seven years to bring his wife’s wishes to a judge’s attention?

The Schiavos were awarded over one million dollars in the malpractice suit to provide for Terri’s long-term care. Before the award, Mr. Schiavo had Terri taken to two different rehabilitation facilities. After the award, he ordered rehabilitation discontinued and began ordering other medical treatments withheld. While nothing in this timeline is conclusive evidence of malfeasance on Michael Schiavo’s part, it is certainly enough to make me question his commitment to Terri’s well-being.

A husband has the right, both legally and morally, to make decisions for an incapacitated wife. That is so in part because the law assumes that no one will have the best interest of a person at heart more so than a husband or wife. But in this case, I strongly disagree. Mr. Schiavo has been living with another woman for years, and has children with her. That causes me to question his sincerity in this case.

Schiavo’s attorney claims that Terri’s death by starvation and dehydration was “painless,” and may have even been “euphoric.” If so, why was she given morphine after her feeding tube was removed? And if starvation is so euphoric, why do the starving children in third-world countries look so miserable in the commercials?

Congress was right to order the federal courts to review the case. Every convicted felon enjoys the right of appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, so why should a disabled woman under a death sentence deserve any less protection? A 17 year old can bind a woman and throw her off a bridge to drown, and he receives more compassion than an innocent woman who has caused no harm to anyone.

Congress acted completely within their constitutional power by intervening in this case (Article III gives Congress the power to set the jurisdictional limits of the federal courts). This was not a “Republican” intervention – The Senate voice vote was unanimous, and only 58 Democrats dissented in the House.

Many Americans told pollsters that Schiavo should be allowed to die, and that they felt Congress should not have intervened. But with misleading poll questions and no other knowledge of the case, I’m not sure how trustworthy those polls are. After all, 44% of the ABC poll respondents admitted to having followed the story either “not very closely” or “not at all.”

Too much has been made of quality of life, and not enough of the sanctity of life. Quality is far too subjective a criterion by which to judge a person’s fate. Innocent life is precious, and is to be preserved and protected. It’s been said many times and in different ways that the measure of a society is in how it protects those who cannot protect themselves.

I don’t have the answers, but I sure do have a lot of questions. Now that Mrs. Schiavo is dead, those questions will most likely remain unanswered.