Schiavo case stirs passions around the country

March 25, 2005

Frontiersman editorial board

All over the country, people are watching the Terri Schiavo case in Florida bounce from courtroom to courtroom. At this writing, Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court had declined to hear her parents' effort to reinsert a feeding tube that has been keeping her alive since 1990.

The Schiavo case is sparking ferocious debate. Some believe her husband's claim that his wife would not have wanted to linger in a twilight existence, dependent on a feeding tube. Others believe her parents, who say their daughter's real wishes were not expressed in writing and her condition could improve with proper treatment.

Making the decision to remove the feeding tube that has sustained her existence for a little more than 15 years should be a personal, family decision based on the known wishes of close family members, rather than a euthanasia "issue" for politicians, Democrats and Republicans, pro-choice and pro-life advocates, to rip into.

When family members disagree about the wishes of a loved one in a situation like Terri Schiavo's, it is wise to have a judge giving cool, impartial, unemotional consideration to each side, and yet it is, at the same time, disturbing to see how these judges' decisions are fenced by inflexible dictates of the law: a spouse's word carries more legal weight than a parent's, for example, even though there is nothing conclusive to prove which choice Terri Schiavo would have made about continuing - or not continuing - her life.

One can easily argue that existing in an alleged vegetative state for the number of years Schiavo has is not considered living. Claims that Schiavo is not, and has not, been responsive since her February 1990 collapse at home, however, are dismissed as untrue by her parents.

What disturbs some of us is that Terri Schiavo is not alive because she is hooked up to machines that are breathing for her. She is able to breathe without assistance. What she relies on is a feeding tube to receive nourishment - food and water - just as every living creature relies on these things in order to survive.

Some might argue that death is the kinder option. If a person's quality of life is not up to par with our standards, why should they continue living? Let go and let them die.

So, allowing Terri Schiavo to die by denying her food and water could be seen as an incredible act of compassion.

That may be easier to say if weren't your family member, if it weren't once a baby you carried inside you, a child you saw flowering into an adult. Would a person feel the same way standing outside and hearing the story on the news as they would if they were standing in the shoes of Schiavo's parents?

On the other hand, hope is an angel. Hope that POWs might return from past wars. Hope that missing children might turn up alive, and without signs of abuse. Hope that Terri Schiavo might get better and be able to take in food without tubes.

One might commend her parents for their enduring hope rather than condemn them for not letting go of their hopes and her life.