A True Stand for Dignity

Why advocates of euthanasia should fight for Terri Schiavo’s life

By Kerry Eskenas
Posted on 03/05/05

In 1990, a 26-year-old woman named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage. Fifteen years later, a long and bitter court battle over Schiavo’s future remains unresolved. The media has largely portrayed this case as a fight between euthanasia advocates and opponents, but further investigation reveals that the situation in question actually has very little to do with this controversial topic as it has been addressed traditionally.

According to euthanasia.com, the broad definition of euthanasia is “the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.” The arguments made by euthanasia advocates center on the unbearable pain experienced by some terminally ill patients. According to these advocates, a person should not be forced to live in a state of constant pain, and such a person’s request for a peaceful, quick death should be honored. Those who oppose euthanasia do so on both religious and ethical grounds, pointing out that it is immoral to kill a person under any circumstances. Terri Schiavo’s case has become a centerpiece of this debate.

The details of the case, though, make its verdict anything but a simple decision against or in favor of euthanasia. While advocates point to the hopelessness of terminally ill and sometimes unconscious patients as justifying euthanasia, Schiavo’s collapse in 1990 did not make her comatose or terminally ill. What did result was severe brain damage due to oxygen being cut off from her brain for a number of minutes. While able to move, breathe, and sustain a heartbeat on her own, she is unable to eat or drink by herself and therefore requires a feeding tube. She’s unable to speak, but she does react upon seeing her family, leading some doctors to dispute the court decision that she is in a “persistent vegetative state.” She is not on life support, and she is not in a constant state of pain. Furthermore, doctors have testified that Schiavo has a normal life-span ahead of her. Of course, that could change if her husband, Michael Schiavo, has his way in court.

Michael Schiavo is a baffling figure in this court case. Terri’s parents point to the fact that their daughter is a Roman Catholic to show that their daughter would have opposed euthanasia on religious grounds. However, Michael claims that his wife told him that she would rather die than live in a vegetative state through artificial means. Michael’s lawyer says that his client is honoring his wife’s desire to “die with dignity.” This is certainly a strange claim to make when it is noted that Terri would die not painlessly and with dignity, but instead through dehydration and starvation through the removal of her feeding tube. After all, there is no life support to disconnect in Terri’s case.

Her body functions as any other person’s does, with the one exception that she is unable to feed herself. So, it seems that withholding food and water from Terri would be murder in the same way that depriving any other person of food and water, resulting in death, would be considered murder. Parents who neglected to feed their helpless newborn would be charged with murder when that baby died. The guardian of a mentally retarded person, unable to function alone, who failed to give food and water to the person under his or her care, would be charged with negligence and murder. The question is only whether Terri is like such a mentally impaired person, or whether she is unconscious; and there is testimony by doctors who have observed Terri in which they insist that she is conscious and that she does react to the presence of family members. Even though this testimony is disputed, the fact that even some doctors believe this should be enough to prevent Terri’s demise.

Michael insists that he is acting out of love for his wife, but there is evidence of abuse in the relationship that they had before Terri’s collapse. Not only was there emotional abuse, with Terri becoming bulimic in response to Michael’s complaining about her weight, but in 1991, a bone-scan revealed a head injury that could have caused Terri’s collapse in the first place. Michael won a malpractice suit claiming that Terri collapsed from cardiac arrest due to a potassium imbalance. However, a forensic pathologist familiar with this case, Dr. Michael Baden, said “It’s extremely rare for a 20-year-old to have a cardiac arrest from low potassium who has no other diseases… which she doesn’t have…” Terri’s parents, in fact, believe that their daughter was strangled by her husband, leaving her in the condition that she persists in to the present day.

During the malpractice suit filed by Michael Schiavo, he had already begun a relationship with another woman. Currently, he and his girlfriend have two children together. Since he has continued on with his life, it seems puzzling that he would not divorce Terri and grant guardianship rights to her family. It remains puzzling until it is noted that Terri’s death would allow him, as her husband, to inherit the money awarded to Terri for medical treatment as a result of the malpractice lawsuit. The result of that lawsuit was $300,000 for Michael and $750,000 for Terri, and Michael promised to use the money to provide treatment for Terri. However, he has constantly refused doctors’ recommended treatments for Terri. When she got an infection, he ordered doctors to stop treating her with antibiotics. He also refused to allow her to have therapy, and his failure to ensure that she received dental attention over a span of a few years resulted in the loss of five of her teeth. Through all of this, Michael says that his refusal to give treatment to his wife is out of respect for her wish to “die with dignity.” He doesn’t mention the financial incentive that he has for her death, and he seems to have forgotten that the monetary reward as a result of the malpractice lawsuit was intended for Terri’s care and well-being.

The way that the media has reported this story has misled the public to a great extent. As Terri’s father said, “The media’s killing us, and they’re killing her, frankly.” There is no written evidence that Terri Schiavo would have preferred to die than live in her current condition. Euthanasia advocates argue that it is only with the patient’s consent that he or she should be put to death, and in Terri’s case, that consent is unattainable. A judge has ruled that Terri’s feeding tube will be removed on March 18th, and the family hopes that it can prevent this from happening in a last-ditch effort to save Terri through legal means. Cardinal Renato Martino comments that the death of Terri Schiavo “not only would be tragic in itself, but would be a grave step toward the legal approval of euthanasia in the United States.” It seems, however, that Terri’s death would set a frightening precedent for other cases in which the patient is unable physically to give an explicit request to die or to live.

Euthanasia advocates should be wary of using this case as a good example of euthanasia in action, because their arguments are centered on mercy in granting requests to die for patients who are in extreme pain and who have no hope of recovery from that pain. Terri Schiavo is neither in extreme pain, nor has it been verified that she ever requested to die. This case is not so much about whether a patient has the right to die as it is about who has the power to decide whether a patient lives or dies. Advocates of euthanasia need to clarify whether or not they believe that a patient’s guardian has the right to make such a decision in a case like Terri’s, when the patient is unable to communicate. This matter goes beyond the question of whether euthanasia is a merciful or immoral act. Terri’s case takes the euthanasia debate to a whole new level, in which advocates themselves could be split over whether the life or death of a patient should be primarily the patient’s or the guardian’s decision.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot