Terri Schiavo – was it right to let her die? (written March 2005)

The morning of Thursday 31 March saw the end of what has been one of the most hotly debated ethical and moral subjects in quite a while. Terri Schiavo, a 41 year old American woman passed away in a hospice in Florida after twelve years of legal wrangling, and subsequent to being deprived of food and water for two weeks preceding her death.

It all started in 1990, when Terri collapsed at home inexplicably. Her heart stopped beating temporarily and she lapsed into a coma, which she came out of weeks later. At this stage medical personnel were able to determine that she had suffered hypoxia, and that this caused extensive impairment in her brain function as a result of the lack of oxygen suffered when her heart stopped. She was said to be in a persistent vegetative state (or PVS), and was left significantly disabled, with little or no movement and an inability to communicate or care for herself in any way.

Her parents Mary and Robert Schindler contested this diagnosis, insisting that with therapy, their daughter could respond to stimuli and show emotion by way of laughing and crying. According to them she also showed signs of alertness and awareness to varying degrees, all these being things she would not have been able to do if she was strictly PVS.

So two factions emerged; on the one hand her parents supported by her siblings Bobby and Suzanne, and on the other her husband and legal guardian Michael Schiavo, and these two parties battled each other passionately through the courts for twelve years. Her husband fought her family for the right to instruct her medical team to have her feeding tube removed, on the premise that he knew his wife better than anyone and was certain she did not wish to continue living the way she was. In addition to this, he claimed Terri had earlier stated in the late 1980s (prior to the series of events described) that she would not want to be kept alive under such conditions, should they ever occur. Her family disagreed vehemently with this, stating that their daughter was a devout Catholic who held the gift of life in the highest regard and would never consider taking it, no matter the circumstances. And so began a series of legal tussles and jargon, with the case being referred to several courts across the United States.

Lawyers acting on behalf of Terri’s parents argued that her husband’s hearsay testimony about statements that she allegedly made did not rise to the evidentiary level necessary to pass constitutional muster. In a last minute bid to keep her alive, they asked the US Supreme Court to intervene and vindicate her constitutional right to life. The application was denied, with the Supreme Court declining to take up Terri’s case three times within the last two weeks of her life. Even President Bush was drawn into the controversy as he tried to get involved in the judicial process by urging Congress to act, and he signed a law allowing a federal court to take on the case. He and majority of the members of Congress are conservative when it comes to right-to-die cases, and he is quoted as saying ‘The essence of civilisation is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in favour of life’. However, even such heavy leaning from the highest levels of the executive were resisted by the judiciary. The bitterness between the families goes on, with Terri’s family questioning her husband’s motives and claiming he was ‘seriously conflicted’, as he has lived with another woman for several years now, with whom he has two children. As one can imagine, there was quite a furore surrounding these events, both within the United States and around the world. Opinion is widely divided, depending on religious beliefs and location. Had she lived in the developing world, the mere financial implications of keeping her alive for so long would have easily determined the outcome of such an issue. Particularly in areas where so many struggle for food and other basic amenities and a huge proportion suffer the scourge of HIV and AIDS, there would have almost certainly have been no question of keeping her alive with tubes for fifteen years!   Even within the church, the only certain thing is that there is not one single train of thought!The conservative Christian movement argues that as long as she was breathing she was still alive, and should not have had that life terminated, regardless of whether she could fend for herself or not. Other more liberal of the faithful counter that to keep her alive can be construed as cruelty, and that since her quality of life had significantly deteriorated over such a long period of time she ought to be released from her pain.Personally I must confess that I remain conflicted and torn. I am extremely sceptical of doctors, and while I respect their opinions I do find they tend to be more negative than positive, and waste no time in declaring the worst. Could it be that with therapy and more importantly, prayers, Terri could have made a substantial (if not full) recovery? Surely, nothing is too hard for God to do?On the other hand, does ‘brain dead’ mean dead, and if one was in such a situation and needed to make a decision, when would it be time to let a loved one go? Where does the right to die with dignity come in, assuming we have such rights as Christians? Certainly once one has that saving relationship with Jesus, we have the confidence that on departing this realm we are headed for a much better place?

The debate goes on, and whatever your view you are sure to find justification for it – biblical or otherwise. What is sure is that there is never an easy, clear-cut answer to such emotive and ethical issues as this. Even if you think you think you have strong views, these may change with personal involvement.

First published in Outflow, May 2005.