January 28, 2005
Commentary:
A forgotten controversy
By Jack GrantWith the Presidential election, the upcoming election in Iraq, the Iraq occupation and the associated violence, and the furor du jour, older controversies fall off the radar and are forgotten, even if they haven't arrived at their denouement.
One of those controversies has broad implications for the role of the state and federal governments in decisions that are very personal and painful. This is the dispute over the future of Terri Schiavo, who suffered brain damage when her heart stopped temporarily due to the effects of an eating disorder. Mrs. Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, states that she never wanted to be kept alive artificially. In this case, she is kept alive with a feeding tube, because she cannot swallow, and Mr. Schiavo requested that the feeding tube be removed. Mrs, Schiavo's parents contested this request, and ultimately Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the legislature passed "Terri's Law" aimed at preventing the removal of the feeding tube. Now the US Supreme Court has refused to reinstate this law, which was overturned by a lower court, and Mrs. Schiavo's parents have asked Mr. Schiavo to divorce their daughter so they can have control over her fate.
The parents contend that their daughter still has brain function and personality, and the use of a feeding tube seems less like "artificial means" of maintaining life as a full respirator would. These are just some of the factors that make this case so hazy and not clear-cut.
This story has so many facets to it that they are difficult to even list:
Right to life versus right to dieWho becomes the most appropriate guardian of an adult who is brain damaged and can no longer make decisions
What leeway does the guardian have in making decisions
When is it appropriate for others to recourse to the judicial system to contest the decisions of the guardian
Is it appropriate at all for the executive branch and legislative branch of the government to intervene directly at all in individual cases like this
In the end, the only certainty that comes out of this is that there is a lot of pain caused for all those who care about Mrs. Schiavo, and regardless of the ultimate resolution, this has been an unmitigated tragedy.
Posted by Jack Grant at 09:25 on 28 January 2005
Actually, I would make it very cut and dry. Unless a person leaves behind a living will or similar document, power of attorney needs to pass to that person's spouse. Period. To do otherwise invites far too many families to drag their personal quarrels into the courts.
--|PW|--
Posted by: pennywit at January 28, 2005 01:18 PMI agree with Pennywit here.
In this case there looks like some foul play may even be involved, but the Governmaent still needs to acknowledge and respect the spouse.
Honestly when I first heard about this case I supported the parents, but the more I have come to understand the laws involved, I changed my position.
Husband and wife should speak as one, even if our society has denegrated marriage to something people do for tax, lust, or publicity rather than love.
Posted by: Cinomed at January 28, 2005 07:42 PMI have to side with the court on this one... The state had no business intervening in this most personal of decisions.
Feeding tubes are a tough call. Feeding tubes have been around since Galen. If not a feeding tube then what about hydration? What about oxygen? These are not questions I'd want decided by 50+% of professional politicians.
