Terri Schiavo

I have been trying to put together my thoughts on Terri Schiavo for some time. When I first heard about this case, I simply tried to ignore it and wondered why the news was focusing so much attention on one case. After all this is only one woman. There are many similar cases everyday. Why are people so passionate about this one particular case? Then I realized that it is not often that we experience such a confluence or moral and legal questions. On one side are those who want to let her die because that is what she wanted and she has no hope of recovery. On the other side are those who want to protect her life even if means circumventing the law.
Both raise significant questions.

First, I have an issue with framing this as a matter of her choice to die with dignity. There is no written or verbal record that this is indeed her choice. All we have is the word of her husband who has already moved on to another woman and fathered two children with her. Because of this conflict of interest there is reason to question his validity. In fact there is currently a bill in the Michigan legislature that would take away the rights of spouses to make life and death decisions if they are involved in an adulterous relationship so as to avoid this type of case happening in Michigan.

Secondly, there are a lot of misconceptions about her medical condition. She is not completely brain dead. She is able to respond to certain stimuli. Her body can function on its own. The only artificial help she needs is a feeding tube which is much different than being kept alive by a machine that keeps her heart beating. When I hear that she is suffering and she would want to die, I often wonder how they know this? Then I wonder what we would do to someone who was born this way. Would we simply walk away from her and let her die because she suffering and subject to a life of disability? I have a hard time thinking we would starve a baby to death simply because she didn't have full brain activity. Is Terri's quality of life directly tied to probability of her recovery? Does she still have value if she never recovers? When someone asked her brother if he thought she would ever recover, he simply replied that he loved Terri in her current condition. To me that says it all.

From a political perspective, I find it fascinating that the media thinks this case will somehow help Republicans. The polls suggest a majority oppose government intervention. One reason for the polls is because of the public's desire to simply see this issue go away. This is not a fun topic to discuss or think about. Life and death issues never are. As a professional politician, I can tell you that it is not good politics to oppose the will of the majority. Sometimes however, even politicians muster the courage to do the right thing regardless of public opinion and this is one of those times.

Finally, the questions is: do we really want government involving themselves in such personal matters? Where does the fight for life trump respect for the law. The law is inherently neutral and based on fact. This often sets it apart from the moral implications it hands down. I have been trying to find a parallel case in our legal history. Probably the closest thing I can compare is the dred scot case which ruled that slaves were property and had no rights under the law. This case was based on the law of the day but was obviously immoral. I am glad our country had the courage to not accept the court's decisions as final. Today we look back and wonder how the court could have made such a bad decision. I hope that someday we will look back at this case and ask the same question.