Thursday, March 28, 2024
Writing Common Sense to Power
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor
How did Terri Schiavo want to die?

MARCH 20, 2005 --

Did Terri Schiavo tell her husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, that she would prefer, if incapacitated to die by dehydration and/or starvation?

LPR acknowledges that it has not followed the legal history of this tragic case. If there is evidence that Mrs. Schiavo explicitly stated that she would like to die from withdrawal of all nourishment if incapacitated LPR would like to see it.

Did Mrs. Schiavo leave any indication how she would like to die, if incapacitated?

LPR senses that immediate death following removal of life support systems is not quite the same as death following removal of a feeding tube -- unless of course a feeding tube is seen as the same sort of life support system as, say, a respirator.

The tragedy of Terri Schiavo has, sadly, been turned into another occasion of political name-calling.

Can't we just take a common sense
view of this tragedy -- even at this late date?

(The suggestion by The New York Times that those opposed to removing Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube are ghouls is
unfortunate; to suggest that proponents of removing the feeding tube are barbarians is not helpful.)

It seems to LPR that, at this point, there is a husband, eager to see his wife's alleged wish for death, if incapacitated, to be complied with - and there are the parents of Teri Schiavo eager to care
for their daughter.

There are, of course, possible conflicts presented by the chief protagonists in this situation.( Why are there any contending parties in this tragedy, LPR wonders?)

 

On the one hand there is the possible conflict of the husband who, after Mrs. Schiavo dies, is apparently ready to begin
married life with the woman with whom he has had children. And there is the conflict of parents who apparently would not like to see a child predecease them.

Do these conflicts balance out? Is one more persuasive than the other?

Inmate No. 284797 is serving a prison term of 10 to 25 years in Michigan -- parole was denied last December --
for assisting in the death by lethal injection of terminally-ill Thomas Youk.

Was it the great mistake of Dr. Jack Kevorkian that he did not help Mr. Youk die from hunger and thirst?

Did Terri Schiavo want to die, if incapacitated, by removal of a heart-lung machine, by lethal injection, by denial of nourishment? By just one of the foregoing? By any of the foregoing?

In matters of the death of Terri Schiavo, shouldn't we be as certain of the facts as when a murderer is sentenced to death?

Chief Justice John Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden advised us to stick to the basics and not get distracted by "ingenious" counsel. One of the basics in this case is the manner of death and LPR suggests
that death following the directive "do not resuscitate" is not quite the same as death following the directive "do not feed."

In this case, LPR understands that there was no explicit directive. Is it that our society has declared: 15 years of feeding by tube are enough?

A great many years ago, a very wise king had to decide which of two women was the mother of a baby. He ruled against the woman who thought it would be fair that
the baby be cut in half. LPR has a hunch that if the Schiavo case were brought before King Solomon, he would rule for the parents.