By Jan A. Larson
Ultimately a court will decide if Terry Schiavo's feeding tube will be removed and she will endure a lingering, painful and inhumane death. If Terry Schiavo were a young child being starved by her parents, an elderly woman neglected by her family, a prisoner at Guantanamo being denied food or even a horse that was being starved by its owner, there would be outrage from all corners.
In this case, however, that of an otherwise healthy, but brain- damaged woman, many seem to think that it is OK to let her waste away until her organs fail.
According to a FOX News poll[1], 59% of those polled would remove Schiavo's feeding tube. This is absolutely shocking when one considers that this case is not a right-to-die case, at least in the classic sense. Terry Schiavo is not on any sort of life support other than required to provide food and water, the basic necessities of life.
Would those same 59% starve their grandmothers to death if it were no longer convenient to keep her around? Would they starve a sick child or an unwanted dog? Maybe they would.
There is more to this case than the simple (if such a thing were simple) decision to let a brain-damaged woman die in peace.
Terry's husband, Michael Schiavo, insists that Terry wouldn't want to live in her present condition, but can produce no documentation to prove that Terry agrees.
If Michael Schiavo were truly a loving husband, only concerned with questions about his wife's quality of life, he wouldn't have fathered two children with another woman in the years since Terry mysteriously fell into a so-called persistent vegetative state.
If Michael Schiavo were truly a loving husband, he would never consider torturing his wife by starvation.
If Michael Schiavo simply wanted to move on with his life, he would divorce Terry and turn her care over to her parents, who are desperately trying to keep their daughter from meeting a gruesome end.
There is more to this case than meets the eye. Just why does Michael Schiavo want Terry dead? Could it be that Michael had a hand in the events that put Terry in her current state? I don't know, but like they say, if it walks like a duck . Maybe Michael Schiavo is just an inept Scott Peterson.
No matter how Terry Schiavo came to be in her present state and no matter why Michael Schiavo may want her dead, how is it possible in this day and age, that our society would ever, ever allow someone, brain-damaged or not, to die this way?
Terry's parents insist that she responds to their presence, smiles when they enter her room, cries and sometimes tries to speak. Some "experts" dismiss these actions as reflexive and that Terry is not interacting with her surroundings. Other experts disagree.
Murderers must be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" before the death penalty is imposed, and are entitled to years of appeals. Despite plenty of doubt about Terry Schiavo's condition, Michael Schiavo is ready to strap Terry into the figurative electric chair and throw the switch, although her death would not be quite so humane.
With the recent awakening of a Kansas woman from a 20-year coma, who is to say what medical science may be able to do for Terry Schiavo in months or years to come? No one killed Christopher Reeve when he no longer had use of his limbs. With no evidence that Terry would want to end her life, her parents willing to assume responsibility for her care and let Michael Schiavo walk away, why must she die?
The more important question is why our government and our society would ever let it happen.
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149433,00.html
New Republic
Reason
The Nation
Jan A. Larson publishes a weekly commentary, "What is the Deal?" at the Pie of Knowledge (http://www.pieofknowledge.com). His work also appears from time to time on NewsBull (http://www.newsbull.com), OpinionEditorials (http://www.opinioneditorials.com), the Washington Dispatch (http://www.washingtondispatch.com), American Daily (http://www.americandaily.com) and and The Conservative Voice (http://www.theconservativevoice.com).
