Terri Schiavo Case Made Headlines

Terri Schiavo case made headlines in the past month or so. According to doctor's, Terri has been in a "persistent vegetative state" for over a decade (Dorf, 2003). Her husband Michael and her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler had been in a feud between Terri's wishes of either wanting to live in the vegetative state or not. Terri's husband insisted that she told him she would not have wanted to live that way. Accordingly, he asked a Florida court to order the withdrawal of the devices that supply her body with food and water. On the other hand, her parents had continually fought for the opposite. They fought to try and have her continue in the state she was in and prevent any withdrawing of devices that supply her body with food and water. There are many moral questions that can be asked in regards to the case of Terri Schiavo. For example, how certain were medical science professional's about Terri's condition and her chances for recovery? Could Michael, who has a daughter with a girlfriend he started dating after Terri's accident, be trusted to provide an accurate report of Terri's wishes? Are Terri's parents, who insisted that Terri would have wanted every chance at continued life, stubbornly, refusing to do what's best for Terri because they can't bear to part with their daughter? There are no easy answers to these types of moral questions. This paper will discuss different aspects of the Terri Schiavo case to include the legal, ethical, sociological, political and administrative aspects of this end-of-life case.

Legal Aspects

The Florida trial and immediate appellate courts repeatedly found that the feeding tube should be removed from Terri Schiavo. They rejected her parent's plea that their daughter may someday recover from her conditions. They also rejected the contention that the parents said that she would wish to have been kept alive. Based on extensive medical testimony, the courts determined that Terri Schiavo had suffered massive and irreversible brain damage (Dorf, 2003). The courts further found that Terri would have chosen to die rather than live under her circumstances, based largely on her husband's testimony. The judge in the appellate court made a decision:

For our review of the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable injuries, we understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function remained. If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a faith. But in the end, this case is not about aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo's right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband (Dorf, 2003).

Terri's parents went on to keep fighting in the courts in order to attempt to keep their daughter alive. All attempts were ultimately unsuccessful. The claims set forth in the Schindler's original complaint failed to take advantage of the procedural opportunities that Congress presented them in the special bill it passed on their behalf, now known as Terri's law. After Terri's parents first unsuccessful attempt all the way up the federal judicial ladder, which ended on March 24, 2005, the Schindler's returned to the federal district court the next day. The amended complaint they then filed contained one potentially meritorious claim, but by that time the courts had concluded there was nothing to their case. Judge Whittemore and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals made short work of their five new claims.

Only after they lost in the district court, before the three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit, before the en banc Eleventh Circuit court, and in the United States Supreme court, did the Schindlers' lawyers discover the claim on which they should have staked their case in the first place. They asserted that their daughter has a federal constitutional right not to have her life extinguished by the state-ordered withdrawal of her feeding tube, absent evidence that she would have wished that result. However, the lawyers were still unsuccessful in winning a case with this new claim.

Ethical Aspects

In order to further evaluate what is really at happening in the Schiavo case, we need to understand the scope of the real struggle. This is not just a disagreement, but also a moral and ethical issue. We are witnesses to a life and death struggle of a civilization that was historically defined by the moral understanding of Christianity. Christian civilization seems as if it is being replaced by a rival civilization based on entirely different principles, a civilization that can only live if a Christian civilization dies (Wiker, 2003). What is this new civilization, you may ask? The new civilization is based on the belief that human life is no different from animal life and that just like other animals human beings have only one life to live. Humans should be able to live life with the most pleasure and least pain possible. According to this view, since human beings are animals, we should apply to human beings the same moral standards as we apply to animals (Wiker, 2003). Is this an act of compassion or cold murder? How we define this situation will determine the fate of our civilization. Terri Schiavo is a witness to this great battle.

Sociological Aspects

The case of Terri Schiavo is part of a battle, far larger than we can ever imagine. This battle is tearing apart much of the social fabric of the West. Society has acted in different ways in reaction to this case. There have been people that are willing to give much of themselves to help with the situation. These individuals seem to be more on Terri's parent's side, wanting Terri to live. On the other hand, there have been people on the husband's side, as well, believing that Terri should not live that way and that her devices that supply her body with food and water should be taken out. This dilemma has caused much debate among our society and will continue to, if a clear cut method is not devised. It is a difficult issue, as this was a human being.

Political Aspects

Politics came into play in Terri's case. The case was continually being bounced back and forth among different courts, with no success. Politicians were also continually expressing their views on the issue, some maybe for political gain and others just because. For example, Republicans betrayed two of their own fundamental beliefs: the belief in federalism or "states" rights, and the belief in the sanctity of marriage. Politicians often referred to the Pope's pronouncement against the state court order and even referred to the "passion of Terri," equating her state with the suffering of Jesus on the cross (Cassel, 2005). Governor Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, also came into the picture at one point, the Florida legislature granted him the power to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Bush promptly exercised that power, the feeding tube was reinserted and the lawyers headed back to court (Dorf, 2003).