Killing Terri Schiavo: A Study in Veggie Rights

By George Agathos
Photo and Technology Editor

Terri Schiavo lays comfortably in same way she's been laying for 15 years. She lays dormant, having left the complications of society long ago, unaware of the epic battle being fought over that tickly tube they keep putting in and pulling out. Nobody knows what shes thinking, or even if shes thinking at all. She could be hoping that her husband remembers soon how she would rather die than be like this, or she could be hoping that her parents dont let her die.  But scientifically, however, it can be said that a puppy has more human-like brain activities than poor Terri does, and there's no hope of recovery, according to her doctors.  This should make the decision pretty obvious.  We do let puppies die all the time, after all. 

Unfortunately, this is not the legal issue in question.

In fact, it doesn't appear that there actually is a specific issue in question.  Its more about the consequences of the legal decision than anything.  If the courts decide that Michael Schiavo has de facto authority to decide for his wife, then she dies.  If the court decides otherwise, she lives.  And yet it can become more complicated, and it does.

The United States Congress today passed a bill that very specifically grants the parents of Terri Schiavo standing- which could guarantee them a federal appeal as well as a restraining order during the appeal process that would resume feeding their daughter until a decision is reached. 

A similar bill was passed by the Florida legislature and was later ruled unconstitutional by state courts.  The federal courts will probably rule in the same fashion, though some traditionally liberal seats are fairly close to Terri's situation themselves, so there could be some moral influence.

And morality is what the politicians want.  Even Mel Gibson has rallied against what he sees as a "cruel starvation."    In fact, the "Save the Terri" website even has its own section devoted to Catholic issues.  A simple legal battle that was decided on with the first court decision has been taken up as a rallying cry for republicans and evangelical groups alike (though the line between the two seems to be fading anyway, maybe I should just call them republangelicals.)

But what of the government interferring morally?  What of our basic freedoms from the imposition of government-supported beliefs?  This is the serious issue, in my view.  Not some guy bickering with his inlaws about his wife.  I'm afraid I'm coming out on the left on this one.  And even worse, it seems that the left is... right.  Trying to convince the public about a moral standpoint is one thing, but imposing it legally is entirely another.

UPDATE:  The federal appeal process does not seem to be working.  Federal judges wouldn't touch this with a 10-foot gavel.  Theres talk about appealing up to the supreme court, which might be possible, but I have a feeling theyll avoid hearing it under a technicality (not standing, since congress took care of that, but perhaps juristiction).  The tube has not been re-inserted as Terri creeps slowly toward death.  Its still amazing how this has gotten so much attention, eh?

Note: If its not obvious, the opinions expressed in this commentary do not at all necessarily reflect the opinions of the Independent and its members. It does necessarily reflect my opinion, unless I'm a liar.