Reflections on Teresa Schiavo

At this writing, myriad Florida state courts and several federal courts have determined that Michael Schiavo can authorize the withholding of nourishment from his "persistently vegitative" wife, Teri. Her feeding tube having been removed, it appears Teri may soon die, but not without having provoked a dubious cast of blowhard politicians to preen before cameras, declaring their support for, well, life.

Terry Schiavo's situation is tragic and puzzling for me on many levels. On a personal level, I think it is barbaric to starve Terry Schiavo to death. To her doctors' determination of her "persistent vegitative state", I say "so what"? She is not on life support (unless one considers nourishment to be life support--and then we're all in trouble), and she breathes on her own without a ventilator. This is not a case of "pulling the plug". Instead, it's just starving to death a low-functioning human being.

Unfortunately, we cannot know whether Ms. Schiavo ever expressed a desire not to live as she now clearly does. She left no living will or other written directive for the end of her life. In such a situation, the law permits her husband to make that decision for her, and he has done so--indicating Teri had verbally expressed a wish not to be kept alive by artificial means. So, this life of Teri's--her only life, however good, bad or indifferent--may likely end soon because her husband has directed so, purporting that Teri herself would want it that way.

Michael Schiavo might be right. Or he might not. I suspect most people who glibly voice aversion to living as a "vegetable" never envisioned Ms. Schiavo's eerily animated movements and gestures. Even those who thoughtfully decline life support likely picture themselves lying motionless, eyes closed, hooked up to monitors, heart pumps, and oxygen, not that middle ground of obvious, but impaired, life. Or maybe they have. And that's the problem.

In the absence of an express end-of-life directive, who gets to speak for the patient? State legislatures? Congress? The President? God help us. No, it's families that must be empowered to make these decision for their loved ones. And while this is the best choice, it's uncomfortably imperfect. Surely some people will be allowed to die (read: starved to death) who would not have chosen it. And still others will be condemned to an undesireable life who might have chosen otherwise. But as imperfect as this system might be, it's better than allowing this decision to be made outside the family. Congress has enough to work just undoing its own messes; I couldn't care less what it says about the highly personal issues of life or death.

Nice as it sounds, however, to say family should make these choices, it doesn't always work out that way. Teri's husband, Michael, is battling her parents who wish to keep her alive. And it is this issue that I find confusing. If "Teri" were "Terrence" and not "Teresa" (i.e., if the couple were gay partners, which I know they're not, but bear with me), the law would accord no rights whatsoever for Michael to intervene in Terry's end of life decisions. This is because neither Florida- nor federal law recognize the rights of gay partners to speak for their spouses in medical situations. Thus, the uncomfortable result in this situation is that whether Teri lives or dies depends on her being straight or gay. Think about it.

Clearly, such issues are best left to written directions. I have made my wishes known both verbally and in writing (...and if there's ever a conflict, let me say for the record that I value life for life's sake and would like to be kept alive unless two doctors agree there is no hope "HOWEVER REMOTE" of my recovery). In any event, I certainly never imagined a situation like Teri Schiavo, and would wish to be kept alive in a situation like hers. But absent written directions, such decisions should be left with a patient's family, which should err on the side of life. But that is just my opinion, which I would only want for my husband and family to honor. It's certainly too private an issue for intervention by public officials.

I acknowledge that it requires trust to leave such issues up to one's family. But who would you rather trust--your family or a politician?