A Death Sentence for Terri

Joe Mariani

A Florida court has sentenced a woman to death by starvation. She didn't get a trial. She didn't get a lawyer. No one knows what crime she has committed. Yet Terri Schiavo has been condemned to a cruel death by slow starvation, for no good reason that I can discern. Although those who argue for her death repeatedly refer to "extraordinary measures" and "extensive medical procedures" meant to keep her alive, it's difficult to see how a simple nutrient tube qualifies as either of these two things. The inability to swallow solid food is not a reason for a death sentence in any civilised country of which I'm aware, nor is being mentally disabled.

Convicted mass-murderers get seemingly endless appeals on the public dime. When the sentence is finally carried out, the justice system goes to great lengths to ensure that the death is as quick and painless as possible. If convicted murderers aren't sentenced to starve to death, why has that sentence been passed on a woman whose only crime was to get sick?

In 1990, Terri Schiavo collapsed of heart failure, probably caused by a potassium imbalance. She suffered brain damage as a result of lack of oxygen. Unable to eat, she receives nutrients through a feeding tube. Michael Schiavo, her husband and legal guardian, first petitioned to have the tube removed in 1998. Two years later, Judge Greer of Florida's Sixth Judicial Circuit Court decided that Terri would have chosen to have the tube removed, because Michael claimed that she once told him so. Why it took him so long to remember this has yet to be explained.

A friend of Terri's testified that she once told Terri a cruel joke about a woman who fell into a coma after mixing drugs and alcohol. "What is the state vegetable of New Jersey?" the friend asked Terri. The punchline was, "Karen Ann Quinlan." Terri didn't find the joke about the fight to take Quinlan off life support funny. "How did they know she would want this?" she asked. This testimony was seemingly ignored, while her husband's insistence that Terri, a Roman Catholic like her parents, would not want to be kept alive using any artificial means was taken as fact. Judge Greer referred to Michael Schiavo's hearsay -- and that's what it amounts to -- as "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri would rather die than take food through a tube.

Terri Schiavo's condition is nothing like Karen Ann Quinlan's. Despite the picture painted by advocates for her death, Terri is not a vegetable, nor is she in a coma. She's not dying -- or wouldn't be, if she was being fed. She's merely brain-damaged in a way no one yet understands, yet she is responsive to various stimuli. Her eyes track motion, she responds to the sight of her family members, and she even laughs. How can you say that someone who can laugh at a joke is no longer deserving of the right to live? And how can you sentence someone to die of starvation because she can't eat properly?

This is not a "right to die" case, as Terri's husband and his lawyers portray it. It's a "right to kill your wife when that whole 'in sickness and in health' thing becomes inconvenient" case. As far as I'm concerned, Michael Schiavo stopped being Terri's husband in all but name when he broke his marriage vows by moving in with Jodie Centonze in 1995. He should have been removed as Terri's legal guardian at that time, and on those grounds. Since then, he's repeatedly tried to accomplish his wife's death, even refusing to allow therapy or tests that could determine whether improvement is even possible. A CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) who worked at the Palm Gardens Nursing Home testified in 2003 that she "was personally aware of orders for rehabilitation that were not being carried out. Even though they were ordered, Michael would stop them." Michael Schiavo is an unfit guardian who is not looking out for Terri's best interests, and ought to lose that power.

Congress has convened an emergency Sunday session concerning this case. They intend to pass legislation that might prevent Terri's life from being ended before the full extent of her present condition can be determined, by the very tests Michael Schiavo refuses to allow. This makes logical as well as moral sense. How can a person be sentenced to die -- the ultimate deprivation of civil rights -- when their condition isn't actually known?

Many of those on the Left are outraged by the involvement of Congress in this decision. They ask, "Do you want Congress to decide medical questions?" I don't see how allowing an unelected judge to decide medical questions is any worse. Their real concern, as evidenced by their speeches about "rule of law" and "judicial independence," is that the godlike power of activist judges will be curtailed.

http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-03_cy-2005_m-03_d-20_y-2005_o-0.html