Terri

[cmotherofpirl]

The Schiavo Case: Right to Die or Right to Kill?

By Mary Beth Bonacci

Herald Columnist

(From the issue of 12/18/03)

I’m getting tired of hearing how "right wing zealots" are denying Terri Schiavo her constitutional "right to die."

For those of you unfamiliar with the Schiavo case, let me summarize. In 1990, a 26-year-old woman named Terri Schiavo collapsed in her home. No one knows why. She lapsed into a coma, from which she emerged several weeks later. Since that time, she has been in what doctors call a "locked in" state. According to her family’s Web site, "she is responsive to stimuli, interacts with her environment and her loved ones and is capable of communicating in limited ways … ."

After emerging from her coma, Terri’s doctors noted her efforts to speak and her responsiveness to external stimuli. She was able to eat Jell-O and was speaking words. But after a 1993 court settlement awarded Terri $1.2 million, her husband and guardian Michael Schiavo — who had promised to use the money to rehabilitate and care for Terri "for the rest of her life" — ordered that her rehabilitative therapy be stopped. As a result, Terri once again lost the ability to eat, and a feeding tube was inserted to nourish and hydrate her. In 1998 Schiavo petitioned the circuit courts of Pinellas County, Fla. to end her life by removing her feeding tube. After a protracted legal battle between Schiavo and Terri’s parents, the court ordered in the fall of 2003 that the tubes be removed. They were indeed removed, which would have caused Terri to die of starvation and dehydration within 10 to 14 days. But Florida governor Jeb Bush and the state legislature intervened, passing "Terri’s Law" and requiring the reinsertion of the tubes while the matter is examined more thoroughly.

And so Terri Schiavo’s life hangs in the balance.

Many in the media are hailing this as a "right to die" case. They say that Terri is in persistent vegetative state, that she has no hope of meaningful life, and that she should be allowed to die.

But make no mistake — this is most definitely not a right-to-die case. It’s a right-to-kill case. And the stakes are high, not just for Terri, but for all of the vulnerable, disabled people of the world.

First of all, numerous doctors have observed that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state. The state of Florida defines persistent vegetative state as "a permanent and irreversible state of unconsciousness in which there is an absence of voluntary or cognitive behavior and an inability to interact purposefully with one’s environment." Terri is in no such condition. Videotapes show Terri closely watching her family’s movement, verbalizing in response to questions, responding to simple commands and laughing when listening to her favorite music. No fewer than 10 physicians are on record with the court saying that Terri was aware and her condition could improve with therapy. In fact, a Nobel nominee in medicine, Dr. William Hammesfahr, has offered to treat her and provide her rehabilitation without charge.

And then there are the issues surrounding her guardian and husband, Michael Schiavo. He has repeatedly denied Terri the rehabilitative therapy recommended by medical professionals treating her. He has also repeatedly ordered that Terri not be treated for life-threatening infections and blocked "swallowing tests" that would determine whether Terri could be taught to eat without her feeding tubes. Schiavo has also blocked tests that would determine if Terri sustained bone damage around the time of her collapse, clarifying lingering suspicions that her collapse may have been the result of abuse at Schiavo’s hand.

In 1995 Schiavo moved in with girlfriend Jodi Centonze, and in 1997 the two announced their engagement. The couple, still cohabitating, now have two children together. And yet Schiavo refuses to divorce Terri.

And what of Terri’s wishes? Schiavo and his brother claim that, in casual conversation, they heard Terri say that she wouldn’t want to be "kept alive by machines." Her parents vigorously deny that she ever made any such comments.

Even if Terri expressed such a wish, was it an offhand comment or something she had reflected deeply upon? And was she really saying that she’d want to starve to death? Those close to her believe that she is now making every effort to communicate that she does not want to die.

Terri Schiavo is aware of her surroundings. She feels pain. And starvation is not a painless way to die. It is, in fact, a particularly torturous and cruel death.

This case is not about the right of a terminally ill person to refuse useless life-prolonging treatment. It is about the right of an adulterous, neglectful and possibly abusive husband to sentence his wife to a slow, excruciating death.

If Michael Schiavo prevails, Terri will not be the only victim. The world will become a far more dangerous place for all of those who are disabled and unable to speak for themselves. Someday, that could be you or me.

For more information, go to www.terrisfight.org

Bonacci is a frequent lecturer on chastity.

Copyright ©2003 Arlington Catholic Herald. All rights reserved

---------------------

[geetarplayer]

It's hard to think that Michael Schiavo actually loves his wife Terri anymore.

-Mark

[MrsFrozen]

It's hard to think that Michael Schiavo actually loves his wife Terri anymore.

-Mark

I agree. I don't think he could love her, if he is with another woman and finds it acceptable to allow her to starve to death. If he's living with another woman, he obviously doesn't have her best interest in mind, and shouldn't be her guardian.

[Don John of Austria]

Do you really believe that you can stop loveing somebody? I don't if you really love someone you don't stop loveing them ever; even if you grow to hate them as well.

[Muschi]

Once one TRULY loves someone, then no.....they DON'T stop loving. It depends on the motive of the love. For us the word "love" has many differing meanings and connotations. So it's hard to tell what Michael Schiavo felt or might feel for his wife today.

HOWEVER..........the fact that he is cohabitating with another woman and raising children with her tells me that he doesn't have Terri's best interests at heart either.

I can't help but think he just wants the insurance so he can "move on" as we all seem to "have to do" nowadays. Sorry for the sarcasm. I too, have been stupid in my life.

There used to be some sort of morals/mores that society followed. Now it seems that there are none or soon will be none! I just don't get it! - Muschi

[hopeful1]

i remember ppl were talking about this case in psychology this semester, most of them ( the professor in particularly) said that the if you really follow the story closely enough the parents are only keeping her alive to make him suffer and extort money from him The ironic thing is this really opinionated lady was like " You know this whole story goes to show that people don't have the right to play God , you might make the real one mad" but she ment it as a way to support euthanasia <_<

Edited December 19, 2003 by hopeful1

[cmotherofpirl]

Ironic isn't it, since the husband has set himself up as executioner.

[geetarplayer]

Do you really believe that you can stop loveing somebody? I don't if you really love someone you don't stop loveing them ever; even if you grow to hate them as well.

Maybe Michael Schiavo never really loved Terri in the first place.

[Confessionator741]

I think that it is for sure very likely that he loved her. She was a very attractive woman, inside and out...but an accident such as hers, and the "state" she is in, may have made Mr. S feel that there relationship is going to go nowhere...

and thats wrong, of course, he cant just ditch his wife and move on, and then neglect her...but he did.

people see this as a "right to die" case, just as the article pointed out. And, sure, from the looks of things....it seems like one. But you really have to dig deeper and realize all that terri has (material stuff, cash)... there is motive, intent, some sort of reason for mr. s to give his wife the "right to die." But if he is doing it for monetary reasons, and so that he can just get on with his life...it sure does switch from the right to die, to the right to kill...he is looking for an easy way out. He wants her money, and his life. he's saying "to heck with terri...ive got somebody else"....

I am tho, very proud of jeb bush and his efforts to stall her death. he should be comended for that, even tho many will attack him for it.

I, and a couple of other kids, made this case known to the kids at our school...notifying them of what was going on.... i announced it to all classes, and made them understand what was going on....

i got to one particular class (history) and brought the issue up. My very liberal teacher informed me that my view was byassed, and that he has the right to let her die....i was infurriated when he shot me down.... but none the less...the message was out, and people in my school took a stand and filled out terris pettions...

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

God Bless...

B

[PedroX]

Confessionator, there are many reports alleging that Michael beat Terry before the accident, and some people believe that the accident was the result of domestic violence as well. So, I guess I'm not to sure that Michael did love her in the beginning.

Don John, brillant analysis. As I do marriage counseling, I see my clients who have grown to hate each other, and yet strangely they will turn around and say really loving things as well. Poisoned love is the worst.

peace...

[beng]

If she's in a persistent (is this the word used?) vegetative state. Then according to Catholic teaching it is OK to discontinue the life support.

[cmotherofpirl]

If she's in a persistent (is this the word used?) vegetative state. Then according to Catholic teaching it is OK to discontinue the life support.

She is not in a vegatative state and no the Church does not give you permission to withhold food and water from someone who is not dying, but simply inconvenient alive.

[beng]

She is not in a vegatative state and no the Church  does not give you permission to withhold food and water from someone who is not dying, but simply inconvenient alive.

An article by Father Gerald D. Coleman, S.S.. Dec 2003on Orange County Catholic. (The official newspaper of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange)

Diagnosis:

In 2002 Five phisicians examined Teri and Three of them concluded that she was in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS). The diagnosis has been confirmed by expert neurologist Ronald Cranford, who has concluded. "There's no chance for reversebility and no chance for treatment.

Analysis:

PVS: Patient in PVS sustain certain motoric skills: for example, their eyes open, close and blink, and reflexing movement occur in response to pain stimulus and visual and auditory stimuli.

Coma: Patients do not hear, see, communicate or show any emotion: their eyes are closed; all movements are reflexive. Patients usually remain in this state for about 4 to 5 weeks.

Minimally COnscious: This state has been identified by Dr Joseph Giacino of the JFK medical center, and by associates working at the New Jersey Neuro-Science Institute in Edison, N.J. Patients in this state may reach for objects (someone's hand), may grasp things, and respond to words and sounds; they may also verbalize and gesture, but very inconsistently.

Patients in a coma or patients who are in minimally conscious state retain the potential to become fully conscious. Patients in PVS do not hold this potential and will remain in this state as long as they are given food and drink (artificially, since they cannot take food or drink themselves, even if assisted by another), and do not die of other causes.

Catholic Teaching:

This teaching is located most distinctly in the "Declaration on Euthanasia," the 1980 document from the Congregationj for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), as well as "The Gift of Life, "1987 document from the CDF, and the Cathecism for the Catholic Church (nos. 2276-2279). What element of this teaching are relevant in the Schiavo case?

First, avoid "over zealous treatment;" for example, initiating or continuing medical procedures that are "burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary or disproportionate to the expected outcome..." The Church does not hold a "vitalist" approach to medicine as if one's "body" must be kept alive at all cost. Eternal life with God is our ultimate goall the preservation of life is thus, not absolute but relative.

Second, when the preservation of life amounts in fact to simply "prolonging the dying process," the medical procedures can be withheld or withdrawn since they only bring burden tot eh patient, with no true benefit.

Third, palliative care must always be given to the patient; for instance always keep the patient confortable and as free of pain as possible.

Fourth, nutrition can be withheld or withdrawn if the patient is dying.

Fifth, hydrationis often "linked" to nutrition as if they are one and the same. Some hydration can be considered a form of palliative care, and assist a patient to die easier or more comfortably.

Conclusion:

Terry Schiavo's medical condition is heartbreaking, especially when we see her smiling and luminous face in the pages of megazine. Among many things, her legacy should remind all of us of the absolute necessity of having a "living will," or more importantly, a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care (DPHAC).

Although the church's magisterium has not officially taught in this regard, it is the clear judgment of the majority of the medical experts in this field that a PVS patient is indeed "dying," since there is virtually no chance of reversibility of treatment.

Consequesntly, can one conside artificial nutrition extraordinary and disproportionate for a PVS patient because such treatment is only prolonging the person and adding nothing to the person's qualitative living?

I would think that after a careful discernment of the church's teaching on the matter of dying, coupled with awareness of the medical understanding of PVS, one can prudently conclude that artificial nutrition can be withheld or withdrawn from a PVS patient, allowing this person to die in peace and with full palliative care, including hydration.

I agree.

Edited December 22, 2003 by beng

[cmotherofpirl]

"Fourth, nutrition can be withheld or withdrawn if the patient is dying."

Terri is NOT dying!!

Unless her husband has her starved to death.

This priest is wrong, and is condoning murder.

Edited December 22, 2003 by cmotherofpirl

[beng]

"Fourth, nutrition can be withheld or withdrawn if the patient is dying."

Terri is NOT dying!!

Unless her husband has her starved to death.

This priest is wrong, and is condoning murder.

Read the definition of "dying" on the post.

The priest gave sound argument with reference from CCC, Catholic doctrine and medical science.

Simply, "Oh look at her! How could one do such thing??! She's still moving and smiling!! She could eat. I feel for her" won't cut it. This is not reasoning.

Edited December 22, 2003 by beng