It’s a fine day in America when you see Rev. Jesse Jackson in agreement with President Bush. Terri Schiavo lays dying in a Florida hospice, and these two wildly different figureheads, are undoubtedly wondering why the media circus surrounding her case has failed to save her life.
Husband Michael has been fighting for a decade to remove her means of sustenance, which comes in the form of a feeding tube. He maintains that it was her ironclad wish to be terminated should she ever require assistance to live. So hewn in stone was this view that she never put it down on paper.
The courts have finally ruled in Michael’s favor, and sweet mercy has come at last — in the form of a fortnight of starvation.
Our judicial system has upheld this ruling despite attempted interventions from Gov. Bush of Florida, Congress and even our President. Alas, the President of the United States has the power to stay the execution of a serial killer, but not someone with brain damage. Whereas some cite states’ rights and the ill constitutionality of these attempts, I absolutely support any attempt, however questionable, of lawmakers to save this woman from a cruel and inhumane fate.
More laudable is the fact that this was an unpopular stand to make. The American people spoke out in favor of Federalism, and between his efforts in this case and a sharp hike in gas prices, Bush’s approval ratings have taken a supreme hit.
Such a precedent could open the door for purported mercy-killings of a multitude beyond any means of communication — a holocaust of the direly sick and bedridden.
I disagree with the ruling in two ways. First, when there is a dispute between the husband and the parents, it would be prudent, in the absence of a living will, to err on the side of caution. That is, no one can say for sure what her wishes now are, and feeding her certainly isn’t harmful to anyone.
One must also wonder why her husband has been handed sole lordship of her life while her immediate family remains close to her. It seems naïve to assume that he alone would be able to evaluate her wishes best, especially given that her supposed opinion of the matter is a view flippantly tossed about by most without much consideration.
But there is a profoundly sadder issue than this surrounding euthanasia, a practice I fully support in cases where one’s final wishes are irrefutably known. Her recent state has been compared to that of an Auschwitz prisoner, and it begs the question — why are rabid pets and murderers good enough for a swift lethal injection, but Terri Schiavo must endure weeks of emaciation? Are we so afraid of direct euthanasia that we will treat a severely injured woman with such cruelty?
Advocates of this indirect measure say that she cannot feel pain, but the battery of world-renowned neurologists flitting in and out of the news circuit has usually been loath to commit to any such position. Pain is one of the most mysterious facets of the brain, they say. How mysterious is it for someone after ten days of starvation?
It is as if society believes it can escape collective guilt for her death by depriving her of food and letting nature run its course. Cowardice and deliberate neglect must not be mistaken for mercy.
Ancient Sparta was a place noted for its strength, its military honor and its tendency to cleanse its citizenry by exposing and starving its handicapped. Infants who did not fit the Spartan model were left to die on a hillside without food or water. Society’s undesirables were disposed of with casual negligence, and the government looked on with approval.
It’s a fine day in America.
