| 
Judging
Terri
Thou Shalt Not Kill
by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
For some years now the case of Theresa
(Terri) Schiavo has sparked a white hot controversy in American
public opinion. After collapsing at home early in 1990,
Terri has been in what some call a Persistent Vegetative
State (PVS). Brain damage has left her unable to communicate
or swallow. As a result, she receives all her sustenance
through a feeding tube.
The controversy began when her husband,
Michael Schiavo ordered the removal of her feeding tube.
However, this action was opposed by her parents who are
committed to saving her life.
The resulting struggle has been an emotionally
charged debate, pitting “quality of life” advocates
against pro-life activists. “Terri’s fight”
has defied all odds: Court-ordered removal of her feeding
tube, lawsuits and adverse judicial decisions. She has become
a national figure reflecting a grassroots reaction to the
heartless, yet relentless efforts to deprive her of life.
Terri’s Condition
To properly judge her case, one must
go beyond the emotional issues and look at the moral principles
involved. Much depends on analyzing her condition and applying
natural ethics and Church teaching.
Although there is some controversy on whether
Terri’s condition is vegetative, Dr. Eugene F. Diamond,
in a Statement of the Catholic Medical Association, explained
that this state cannot be assimilated with coma: “Coma
and vegetative state are states devoid of consciousness.
In order to be conscious, the patient must be awake and
aware. A patient in coma is neither awake nor aware. A patient
in a vegetative state is awake, but not aware. Awareness
requires wakefulness, but wakefulness can be present without
awareness.”1
Moreover, there are many cases, albeit
uncommon, of people in a PVS who have recovered, sometimes
after a long periods of time.
In either case, the patient’s case
can be easily sustained and Dr. Diamond highlights, “the
decision to withhold food and drink would be the proximate
cause of death” not the illness itself. He explains,
“the continuation of feedings does not constitute
extraordinary care. The use of nasogastric feeding is probably
a century old and gastrostomies have been employed for at
least fifty years.”
Life Is Not Measured by Usefulness
Regardless of her chances for survival,
the most important consideration is that a person in this
state is a living person. Life is not measure by its usefulness
to others or its “quality.” Life is gift of
God. A living person who depends on others for his survival,
be he a baby or a disabled adult, maintains the rights of
a human person.
Unfortunately, Terri’s husband and
his legal team think differently. Aided by the American
Civil Liberties Unions (ACLU) and the implicit approval
of many bioethicists and liberal media, Mr. Schiavo successfully
petitioned for the removal of her feeding tube and hydration
line. The reaction to this brutal move was so great that
more than 100,000 people contacted Governor Jeb Bush demanding
that he intervene. The Florida Legislature forced doctors
to reinstall the feeding tube in Terri Schiavo, by passing
his controversial “Terri’s law.”
In May 2004, the “Terri’s
Law” was declared unconstitutional by Circuit Judge
W. Douglas Baird. Later, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court Judge
George Greer “issued an order preventing Schiavo's
husband from removing the feeding tube until at least Dec.
6 so lawyers can appeal his decision.” Governor Jeb
Bush is petitioning for review of the case to the Supreme
Court.2
The Catholic Response
Although moralists have debated artificial
feeding, there is no doubt on where the Catholic Church
stands. This is especially clear in light of recent and
unequivocal teaching from the Vatican.
From a moral standpoint, this dramatic
case should be judged according the principles of natural
law. John Paul II outlines Church teaching in his March
2004 Address to the Participants in the International Congress
on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State:
Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas."3
The document stated that the term “vegetative
life” is ambiguous and can lead to misinterpretation,
because a man is never a vegetable, but rather maintains
his humanity, regardless of his health condition. He states:
I feel the duty to reaffirm strongly
that the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every
human being do not change, no matter what the concrete
circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously
ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions,
is and always will be a man, and he will never become
a "vegetable" or an "animal."
Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the
clinical condition of a ‘vegetative state’
retain their human dignity in all its fullness. The loving
gaze of God the Father continues to fall upon them, acknowledging
them as his sons and daughters, especially in need of
help.
Feeding Is Not an Extraordinary
Means
Facing the uncertainty of many moralists
about whether artificial feeding (or to be more precise,
assisted feeding) is an ordinary or an extraordinary means
of health care, the Pope is clear and precise:
I should like particularly to
underline how the administration of water and food, even
when provided by artificial means, always represents a
natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its
use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle,
ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory,
insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper
finality, which in the present case consists in providing
nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering…
The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes
for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond
a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption
of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and
hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact,
the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal.
In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and
willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.
A Fight for Innocent Life
According to natural law and the teachings
of Holy Mother Church, it is obvious where all Catholics
must stand, not only in Terri’s case but that of countless
others whose feeding tubes are removed.
As a Catholic, Terri deserves the
support of the Faithful. It is a sad testimony of the times
that all do not actually come to her defense. Rather, it
falls to the countless prayers of grassroots activists,
who call upon God and apply pressure to frustrate the efforts
of those who would end her life.
_________________
|
