April 2005

A Response to the Terri Schiavo Case

            Let me begin by saying that my family faced a very difficult decision in 1997, when my father had a severe stroke.  He and my mother had been sitting out on the patio one evening talking about how wonderful their lives had been, and what good health they enjoyed for their age.  That night my father had a severe stroke while in bed.  When Sue and I arrived at the hospital from Ohio, hours later, he was on a ventilator which was keeping him alive.  There was no response and no brain activity.  We prayed, said our good-byes and asked the doctor to disconnect the breathing machine since their was no possibility for life.  Within five minutes he was gone.  The breathing machine was an artificial and extraordinary medical means of keeping his heart beating.  His body was trying to die.

            It is out of this experience, and from the perspective of historic Christian teaching based on Scripture, that I reply to the seriousness of the Terri Schiavo case.  Allow me to make several observations:

            First, Terri was not receiving any extraordinary “life support” measures.  She was breathing on her own.  Her husband had, some time before, told the medical personnel to cease all medications.  There was serious doubt as to whether she was actually in a PVS (Persistent Vegetative State).  According to her parents and some medical personnel working with her, she responded to stimuli, followed objects with her eyes and seemed to recognize family members.  The only thing she needed is what you and I need: food and hydration. 

            Secondly, Terri’s husband could have easily handed her care over to her parents who were willing to assume the medical expenses and other sacrifices necessary for her care.  Why he would not do this is a mystery.  He is currently living with another woman with whom he has fathered two children.  In the truest sense Terri was no longer his wife, and therefore Michael should not have been her legal guardian. 

            Third, death due to lack of hydration and starvation is a particularly cruel way to die.  If they were intent on ending her life, it would have been more humane, but no less criminal, to euthanize her Kavorkian style. 

            Fourth, Terri had done nothing deserving the death to which she was sentenced.  Criminals on death row are given more rights than Terri was afforded. 

            Fifth, the fact that she fought for thirteen days, clinging to life, says something about her will to live, as well as just how little she was “dependent” on life support measures. 

            Sixth, this speaks volumes about how we view people we no longer consider valuable.  It smacks of cultures in the past which abandoned their elderly and left them to die from exposure to the elements.  This is a step in the direction of euthanasia and assisted suicide for our culture.  This should give pause to every elderly or disabled person among us. 

            Even if Terri had expressed the desire to not be kept alive through extraordinary measures, it would not apply to keeping a person alive by giving them food and water.  This may come as a shock to us as Americans who prize freedom and individual autonomy, but we do not have the privilege of deciding when or how we die.  If this were so, then suicide, and in particular assisted suicide, would be legal. 

            Seventh, consider the argument of “quality of life.”  Unquestionably Terri’s quality of life was diminished.  I have heard any number of people say, “I would not want to live if I were in that condition!”  People are running to their attorneys to make sure they have a Durable Power of Attorney and a Living Will.  We never fail to make these situations “all about us.”  But again, the point is that Terri’s body was trying to live, not die.  “Quality of life” determining whether or not a person should live is a particularly American idea.  We have also placed ourselves in the position of being God when we determine when a person should live or be helped to die. 

            Allow me to use another personal example.  Sue’s mother is in a nursing home.  Her quality of life is greatly diminished.  She can no longer work in the garden with her roses which she loved.  She cannot drive, or walk much for that matter.  She is often in pain and uncomfortable.  She is too tired most of the time to try and do anything.  She can read, but does not comprehend much, and retains almost nothing.  There are very few things which give her pleasure.  The highlight of her day is when Sue or another family member visits.  And when we do, she has nothing to share because nothing has happened in her day, to speak of.  Should we ask the medical personnel to stop her feeding?  It certainly is not how she would have chosen to live 20 years ago.  Between 1 and 10 on the “quality of life” scale, she would probably say she fell around number one.  Should we then ask them to remove the nasal oxygen tube on which she is dependent?  Should we have her pacemaker disabled?  (A serious argument could be made for a pacemaker being an extraordinary medical measure.)  Interestingly, she still has a tremendous will to live.  She is 91 and talks of living to be 100. 

            It is ironic that the Pope was placed on a feeding tube the same week Terri died.  It is a good thing he does not live in Florida. 

            Again, there is a great deal of difference between trying to keep someone alive who is trying to die, and denying basic necessities to someone who is trying to live.  I believe we are at a turning point in our culture.  Society exists to protect its weakest and most vulnerable members.  It seems to me that we have failed to do this at the most basic level.  It does not bode well for our future. 

Rodney J. Buchanan
rod.buchanan@mulberryumc.org