A right to live

The Holy Week has for me always been a time not only to reaffirm our faith in the Resurrection and Eternal Life but also to reflect on the richness and complexity of life itself. We all know that our time on earth isn’t permanent but no one can blame us for trying to hang on to life for so long as we remain useful and productive.

Since life is a gift – we didn’t choose to come into this world – it is not in our power either to take it or end it as we please. Nor, in general, can we dictate the circumstances of our death. We all wish for a happy and peaceful end to life. But death, as we learn from the Bible, sometimes comes like a thief in the night. On the other hand, death can also linger, and keep us guessing when he will eventually claim us.

In this age of great technological and medical advances, human beings can hover between life and death, well, practically indefinitely. Life support systems can keep us nourished and sustain bodily functions even when the brain has stopped functioning on its own. One does not die, but is there life?

Current Christian doctrine is consistent in prescribing that when life is enabled by purely artificial means, by machines and drugs, for example, but cannot go on without those artificial means, the support system can be withdrawn without violation of moral or, in the case of Catholics, canon law. And Pope Paul II has made it crystal clear that the mechanical infusion of food and water, what doctors call nutrition and hydration, is not considered an "artificial" means of sustaining life in the same category as medicines or machines.

As we write this, ironically during this Holy Week, in a Florida hospital in the United States, 41-year old Teri Schindler Schiavo is dying. Doctors at the hospice where she is confined removed her feeding tube a week ago, following several court rulings.

Her husband, who obtained those rulings, says it was her wish– communicated to him before a heart attack 15 years ago left her severely brain damaged– not to be kept alive artificially. The doctors say it will take about two to three weeks for her to die without food, water and other nutrients.

Her parents are desperately trying to have doctors re-insert the feeding tubes, vigorously denying that Teri is in a "persistent vegetative state." The Schindlers insist that while her brain may be damaged, she is not brain-dead. Moreover, they claim Teri is alert, responds to them and is even able to utter a few words. They think that with a continuous therapy program, she may eventually be weaned from the life support system, and have offered to defray the costs of such therapy.

After they failed in the entire state court system, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to disturb the rulings of the state courts, the notoriety of this case moved the U.S. Congress to rush emergency legislation over the weekend authorizing recourse to the Federal courts. President George W. Bush signed the law in the middle of the night to enable the Schindlers to file an early morning petition with a Federal district judge for an injunction which would require doctors to re-insert the feeding tubes.

To the Schindlers’ dismay, the Federal Court also refused to issue an injunction, ruling that the matter had already been thoroughly litigated in the state courts and that it saw no adequate reason to overturn those decisions. Teri’s parents have appealed to a Federal appellate court which, as of this writing, has not yet acted on the matter. Her brother Bobby says what their parents are going through is "absolutely barbaric."

The legal wrangling appears to be over the Federal government’s right to intervene in an issue purely within the power of state courts to decide. Since the case has already wound its way through the state courts, including the State Supreme Court, and there are no less than 19 decisions resolving the matter, those who believe Teri should be allowed to die assert that due process has been fully accorded her and her family.

Apparently, in the U.S. federal system, states rights advocates, especially in the Southern states where Florida is, jealously guard the line between state and federal jurisdiction, especially when it comes to the courts. There are also constitutional experts who believe that there is a separation of powers issue here and that the law that allowed the Schindlers access to the federal courts is unconstitutional.

The Florida courts have also ruled that Teri’s legal spouse, Michael, has the right to do decide whether Teri’s life support system should be disconnected. His motives, though, are suspect. Although he never divorced Teri, he has lived with a girlfriend for many years and has two children by her. A medical malpractice case he filed in the early 1990’s resulted in a $1 million settlement. $300,000 was directly paid to him and the balance put in a special fund to pay for Teri’s medical bills. Michael insists the $700,000 fund is almost exhausted, although some bills are still being paid for by Medicare.

Whatever the legal arguments in this case, the central issue in my view is still Teri’s right to live. If Michael wants to give up on her, Bob and Mary Schindler should have the right to cling to hope and keep their daughter alive, since they are prepared to bear the costs of that effort. There is, at bottom, no certainty as to what Teri’s own wishes are, since the only indication of that is what Michael, a far from disinterested party, claims she told him. Incidentally, her so-called wishes surfaced only in the late 90’s, in the course of the acrimonious litigation before the state courts.

There is also expert evidence which says that Teri’s condition may be reversible and she is not in a persistent vegetative state. The mere possibility of the viability of life should be enough reason to sustain it, not end it. Indeed, if we keep Catholic teaching in mind, particularly the Pope’s, ending her life now, would be immoral. It could even be a ground for criminal, not to mention civil, liability.

I don’t agree with too many policies of George W. Bush or his conservative Republican allies. But on this issue I think he and the congressional majority, both Republican and Democrat, that supported him are right. The Democrats who opposed it, particularly on "state’s rights" grounds, are wrong, dead wrong. They are the moral cretins here.