Legal, Ethical, and Moral Issues Related to Schiavo and End of Life

¶ … Terry Schiavo died, she had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than ten years. Her husband claimed that Terry "wouldn't have wanted to live in her condition," and had legal guardianship over his wife in her condition ("Terry Schiavo Has Died," 2005). Although Terry's parents' feelings are valid and they do matter, it is clear that the courts made the right decision. There are many reasons why the courts made the right decision. The first reason is purely legal. Michael Schiavo, the husband, did have legal guardianship over his wife in this case. The parents of Terry, Bob and Mary Schindler, tried to wrest legal control from their son-in-law to gain control over their daughter's life. While it is understandable the parents would have wanted control, there is a reason why the law offers legal guardianship to the husband. If Michael Schiavo were unfit to be the legal guardian for his wife, then the courts would have ruled in their favor. As it was, the parents fought to take guardianship from the husband since 1998 and failed. Therefore, the husband had the right -- legally and ethically -- to make decisions on behalf of his wife. When Michael Schiavo decided that once and for all his wife should be permitted to die with dignity rather than remain any longer on the feeding tube in a persistent vegetative state, the courts obliged.

The second reason why the courts made the right decision can be attributed to a combination of common sense and morality. Common sense shows that after ten years, Terry Schiavo was unlikely to recover from a persistent vegetative state. Even if she had awoken, she would not be a fully functional human being because she had already suffered "severe brain damage." Schiavo was already a burden on her family and the healthcare system, and taking her off of life support alleviated a burden undoubtedly felt most poignantly by her husband Michael. In addition to the emotional burden borne by the husband, Terry Shiavo had a financial burden to her husband and to the medical system.

The parents objected mainly on religious grounds, as they refer to their praying for Terry. Religion may offer the parents solace, but religion has no place in legal decisions. Furthermore, religion offers comfort in times of despair. It does not, or should not, teach denial of death. Death is a natural and inevitable part of the human life experience. The parents should have recognized that death was the inevitable outcome of the persistent vegetative state and accepted death with peace rather than creating stress and strife. Michael Schiavo was already suffering enough from losing his wife; why should the parents have the right to bother him any more? When a person is in a persistent vegetative state for as long as Terry Schiavo was, the person cannot make decisions except by proxy. In this and similar cases, the spouse is the legal proxy because that person spends the most time with the individual in their adult life. Ideally, the person would have clearly outlined their preferences and stipulations for how they would like to be treated if they should fall into a persistent vegetative state. Any person who provides a "do not resuscitate" (DNR) order or who wishes to die with dignity should certainly be permitted to do so. Life is sacred, but prolonging life unnaturally is unhealthy.