The Terri Schindler-Schiavo case never should have become the highly publicized legal tug-of-war that it did. It all could have been avoided had Michael Schiavo allowed Bob and Mary Schindler to care for their daughter, as they so eagerly desired. Better yet, Michael Schiavo could have done what loving husbands should do and cared for his wife.
Instead Michael found a judge in his home state of Florida, George Greer, to support the ultimate goal of getting rid of Terri. As reported in the Empire Journal, Greer made his feelings quite clear long ago, saying from the bench in 2001, “The law of this case is that she will die … I don’t want anyone trying to feed that girl.”
Michael Schiavo continued his legal maneuvers until the case progressed to its present situation and presumable tragic ending. The legal fight Michael created never should have occurred, but since it did, Americans should observe two important things: the ability of the mainstream media to form public opinion on a case and how that same media coverage often reflects dominant attitudes of society.
Like him or not, one has to admit that Rush Limbaugh is correct when he says, “Words mean things.” Language influences discourse, and ultimately, viewpoints on particular issues. The Schiavo dispute has proved no exception.
Take, for example, the constant use of the loaded term “right to die”. As correctly noted by John Gibson and a few other commentators, there is a difference between allowing a patient to die and killing. Before the removal of her feeding tube March 18, Terri did not face imminent death due to terminal illness, nor did she use life support or extraordinary means to stay alive. She simply ate and drank in a different way and survived for 15 years while doing so.
Like Terri, one of my brothers used a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration for 10 years of his life. Had we removed the tube, he would have died the slow, painful death of starvation and dehydration — a process that Terri began over a week ago. (For that matter, she is dying in the exact same way that any of us would if we stopped eating food and drinking water.) Aided by therapy, loving care and patience, my brother recently began eating by mouth and, although developmentally disabled, has made remarkable progress overcoming other obstacles.
Not all stories have happy endings and one often cannot predict the outcome of therapy. However, the probability of success dramatically declines when a patient’s legal guardian refuses treatment or worse, works to undermine it. Evidence indicates that Michael may have done exactly that. In a 2003 sworn affidavit, Carla Sauer Iyer, a nurse and caretaker for Terri in the mid-1990s, described the shocking behavior of Michael. Iyer stated, “Michael would say ‘When is she going to die?’…and ‘When is that bitch gonna die?'” Iyer noted that Michael also discussed his plans for spending the leftover money awarded to him for Terri’s care after she died and even asked about accelerating Terri’s death.
Iyer made several references to Michael’s dictatorial nature prohibiting therapy and its influence on the hospice environment, “I became concerned because nothing was being done for Terri at all, no antibiotics, no tests, no range of motion therapy, no stimulation, no nothing. Michael said again and again that Terri should NOT get any rehab, that there should be no range of motion whatsoever, or anything else … One time I put a wash cloth in Terri’s hand to keep her fingers from curling together, and Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy.” She also describes interaction with Terri, raising questions of the persistent vegetative state claim.
In perhaps her most startling statement, she recounted several times where Terri’s blood sugar dropped to dangerously low levels — highly unusual for tube-fed patients on fixed diets. Iyer stated, “It is my belief that Michael injected Terri with regular insulin, which is very fast acting.”
These statements certainly cast doubt on the picture painted of a husband simply carrying out his wife’s wishes. Yet, they have received comparatively little attention, perhaps because a certain segment of the population would like to simply ignore them. To some, Terri has a low “quality of life” and its time for her to go, regardless of ulterior motives and sinister intentions.
As if opinion polls determined right and wrong, ABC reported that 63 percent of the public supports removal of Terri’s feeding tube. The poll also notes that support decreases among those with greater religious devotion, an unsurprising result. Those devoted to their faith generally believe that true happiness occurs not in this life, but the next, and in this life, humans will endure suffering.
While it is disheartening to see secularists unable to grasp this concept, the court-ordered starvation of an innocent woman against the wishes of her family is something else entirely. If it can happen to Terri Schiavo, it can happen to any of us.
And that is extremely frightening.
Mark A. Baumgardner ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.
