Weasel Words and Euphemisms Obscure the Known Facts

George C. Landrith

Speaking with many of my friends, it is clear that there is a great deal of confusion about the Terri Schiavo case. Apparently, the mainstream media has done an extraordinary job using weasel words and disingenuous euphemisms to make more acceptable government’s intervention to starve to death a clearly disabled, but otherwise healthy woman.

People say things like, “I think Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die….” Allowed to die? Are armed government guards making sure no one feeds her so she can be allowed to die? On her own and without any medical or mechanical assistance, she breathes, her heart beats, and her kidneys and other organs function properly. All doctors agree she is healthy, albeit disabled. Like most healthy Americans, she only needs food and water to live. However, after the passage of 10 to 18 days of being forcibly denied food and water, she will die. If armed government guards prevented any of us from receiving food and water, we too, could be allowed to die. Let’s be honest, she is being killed pursuant to a government order because she is severely disabled and government guards are carrying out the sentence.

Some then say, “Well, she is more than severely disabled, she is brain dead.” Wrong. She is not brain dead. Not even the government employee who ordered her death (i.e. the judge) or her erstwhile husband who seeks her death allege that she is brain dead. Some say she is in a “persistent vegetative state.” An equal number of impressively qualified and expert doctors disagree and say that with proper treatment and therapy she could partially recover. Family and friends say that she responds like a child – hardly a capital crime worthy of a death sentence. It is interesting to note that by order of her erstwhile husband no therapy has been allowed and no MRI has been done. An MRI is considered the conclusive way to determine the extent of the damage to her brain. Thus, without clear and convincing evidence and certainly without the best and most reliable evidence, a government employee determined that Terri Schiavo must die and ordered armed guards to see that the sentence is carried out.

Some say, “Why is Congress interfering and trying to make this woman live?” If we knew for sure that Terri Schiavo wanted to die, there would be no disagreement. No one has advocated that government force Terri Schiavo to live against her will. Even her family has said that if Terri had a living will, they would accept her wishes. The fact is we do not know what Terri wanted. Her “husband” and his brother claim one thing and her parents, siblings and a number of Terri’s friends say something very different. You can believe the erstwhile husband or the family and friends. But either way the required standard of clear and convincing evidence has not been established. The real question is should government force her death? Particularly since there is significant disagreement as to what her actual condition is. It doesn’t even matter who is right about her condition. The point is, the government employee who made this decision and posted armed guards to enforce his decision, did not have any sure knowledge of her condition or her wishes. Yet he ordered her death. Even if his conjecture turns out to be correct, it is a shocking violation of Terri’s rights to essentially flip a coin on such matters.

In response to the interest of Congress and the President in this matter, some say, “Government shouldn’t intervene in this decision. It is a family decision.” Normally, the family would make this decision, but the family fundamentally and irreconcilably disagrees. Interestingly, a government official intervened in the matter and ordered that Terri Schiavo must die and placed armed government guards to carry out that order. Why isn’t this government intervention objectionable? Why only object when government intervenes to preserve someone’s life?

I understand that Americans don’t want government interfering in family matters. I agree.
Like most Americans, I believe parents should raise and discipline their children without government intervention. For example, I don’t want a Senator or a bureaucrat telling me what my family eats for dinner, what chores my children do, or how long I can take the car keys away from my teenagers for breaking curfew. But I hope every American also agrees that if parents refuse to feed their children or in a drunken rage beat and injure them, government should intervene and stop the injustice. It simply wouldn’t due to respond, “I don’t think government should intervene. This is a family matter.”

Some argue, “It is not the proper role of government to get involved in something like this.” If you believe Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, government exists to protect our unalienable rights of life, liberty and property. Simply put, government is supposed to intervene when our life, liberty or property are threatened. For example, the federal government correctly intervened to protect the rights of blacks when some states and state courts systematically denied them. Additionally, we call the police (i.e. the government) when a prowler is outside our home because we want our right to life and property to be protected. Who would criticize the policeman for arresting the prowler saying, “I just don’t think government should interfere or intervene in these things.”

Others have said, “I don’t want government making me live after it is my time to die.” Everyone agrees with that. No one is arguing that people should be made to live or even that Terri Shiavo should be made to live. We don’t know with certainty what Terri Schiavo’s wishes are or what her condition is. No one is suggesting that society overturn the well-established and virtually universally accepted right to determine what medical treatment one will receive or reject. It is simply not a serious concern that government may start forcing people to live. The real risk is that disabled people will be killed against their will simply because they lack the ability to communicate. Those who say this would never happen need to take a look at Europe. In “civilized” nations (like Holland, France, Spain, Italy, and England) infirm senior citizens and disabled newborns are routinely euthanized (i.e. killed) without their consent and without being terminally ill on the presumption that they probably don’t want to live with their illness or disability. Who has the right to make that choice for us? Government certainly does not! The risk is not that government will force us to live, but that it will take our life before we are prepared to part with it. History is clear on this point. It is axiomatic that despotic governments devalue and often terminate the lives of the weak and unpopular.

Every American – Democrat, Republican and Independent – ought to recognize that killing the infirm and disabled is ugly and dangerous. Perhaps we don’t feel personally threatened yet. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. But more than simply hoping, let’s not allow it come to that. In modern history, folks kept quiet about killing the infirm and mentally disabled because it wasn’t their business. This was just the first step towards the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust. I am one American who has no interest in taking even one step in that direction.

###

Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.

george@ff.org