Early yesterday afternoon, Terri Schiavo started on her road to Golgotha. If nature now runs its course, she will die, at some time during the next week or two, of hunger and thirst, like a traveler stranded unprepared in the desert.
In the Orwellian language to which we have become so accustomed, the process that is killing her is called “euthanasia”, “good death”, though it is not, I think, the way of dying that anyone chooses as a swift, painless dispatch. It is less agonizing than crucifixion, less merciful than the quick-acting poisons that terminate the lives of men judged guilty of murder.
To feel comfortable with such an act, those who approve it and carry it out must hold two contrary thoughts without ever noticing their contradiction. On the one hand, starvation and dehydration are not torture, because Mrs. Schiavo is “vegetative”, unaware of stimuli, unconscious of afflictions to her body and therefore not suffering.
At the same time, we are told that death will be a mercy to her, that it will end the misery of her bedridden existence. But if she will be unaware of her aching belly and dry throat, how can she despair over not being able to walk and talk? The administrators of her good death want us to view her simultaneously as a vegetable and as a sensitive, fastidious human being. If she is not both, their consciences are not so blunt that they can justify treating her in a manner that would be cruel to a dog or cat.
In many cases like these, there is a third consideration: The incapacitated person’s family undergoes financial hardship and emotional trauma. One can debate whether their desire to put a tragic incident behind them justifies physician-assisted homicide, and there are rational arguments (not, in my opinion, strong, but rational) in favor of that action. In Terri Schiavo’s case, though, part of her family – her husband – has already “moved on”. He has a new female companion, with whom he has children, whom he could marry were he willing to obtain a divorce. The other part of the family – Terri’s parents – desperately wants to keep her alive and has offered to bear the cost of caring for her. Michael Schiavo can walk away without responsibility or expense but chooses not to do so.
This is not, then, a genuine “right to life” case, where keeping one person alive will arguably harm another, where we must decide between the competing claims of life and other goods. It turns, rather, on personal autonomy. Mr. Schiavo holds, by decree of the Florida judiciary, the right to speak on behalf of his wife. Does he have the right to say whatever he wills in her voice, without interference from “outsiders”? Is he mutatis mutandis the sovereign of the Schiavo domain with the final authority over what goes on within its borders? Is Terri Schiavo on the same level with his other property, to be disposed of when no longer wanted?
That question is, odd as it may seem, a microcosm of one of the great issues in foreign policy today: Are rulers absolutely sovereign within their realms, licensed to do good or ill as they please? Are their subjects their property?
The answers to the two questions don’t have to be the same; there is a great deal of difference between a family and a country, between a husband and a supremo-for-life. Yet many people tend these days to answer both the same way. Conservatives, through a strange reversal of historical roles, are those who speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Liberals invoke legality (of a limited and blinkered sort) on behalf of power.
So far, legality and power have triumphed, just as they triumphed for a time at that other Golgotha, nearly 2,000 years ago. It is quite possible that Terri Schiavo will breathe her last while Western Christians are mourning on Good Friday. That prospective coincidence should remind us of the truth: The powerful of this world have no true power. One Who suffered is the Lord and Savior. In Him Terri Schiavo will live.
Related posts: You Don’t Have to be Pro-Life to Love Terri Schiavo
“Vegetables” Who Think
Further reading: Blogs for Terri
Wesley J. Smith, “A ‘Painless’ Death?”
Fr. Robert Johansen, “Killing Terri Schiavo”
Fr. Robert Johanson, “Terri’s ‘Exit Protocol’ Begins”
Andrew C. McCarthy, “The Court-Ordered Death of Terri Schiavo”
Megan Dillon, “Terri Schindler-Schiavo: Myths vs. Reality”
terri lives so others will die in her place..
each dollar spent on terri is one dollar less for some other unfortunate soul..
Me: You may be under the impression that Mrs. Schiavo is being kept alive by extraordinary medical measures. That is not the case. Her heart, lungs and other organs are functioning without artificial assistance. I hope that your utilitarian calculus is not so severe that you would deny aid to all people who consume more than they produce. For instance, would you complain that one dollar spent on a victim of the Indian Ocean tsunami is one less dollar for some other unfortunate soul?
Posted by: e m butler | Saturday, March 19, 2005 at 06:06 PM