Another Angle | The life of one woman turns into activist icon

Amanda Melillo Opinions Editor

The media circus has again shifted its focus recently from Michael Jackson’s trial and his choice in what pajama pants to wear to court to the much debated Florida case of Terri Schiavo. Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state for the past 15 years after a heart attack caused by an eating disorder cut off air circulation to her brain for over five minutes. In the past five years, a legal battle ensued between her husband and her parents on the removal of her feeding tube.

There’s no clear answer in such an emotional case; her husband Michael has repeatedly said that her wishes would not have been to be kept alive if there’s no hope of recovery, and that she should at least die with dignity. Many of his opponents, including Terri’s parents, feel there is a conflict of interest within his case since he has started a new life with his girlfriend and their children. Terri’s parents, the Schindlers are following their parental instincts in wanting to keep their child alive. From an emotional perspective, dying of hunger and thirst is one of the most primitive forms of death.

Somewhere along the line it ceased to be a private matter between family members, or even a court case of public interest. Terri Schiavo became an icon of a right-to-life crusade in what Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jeff Sekulow has called “the most significant life-and-death case the country has faced in years.” Any chance she had of dying a quiet death of dignity was been pretty much obliterated when CNN headlines read “Schiavo receives drop of wine” for Easter Communion. This is akin to the BBC headline “Pope waves from window” when Pope John Paul II was hospitalized from serious illness a few weeks past.

Americans have gone too far with this case. On an MSNBC broadcast report, protestors told guards that restricted them from entering her hospice, “That’s what the guards said at Auschwitz.” It is beyond extreme to compare Terri Schiavo’s guards to those standing outside a concentration camp that was instrumental in the genocide of 6 million people. The judges that ruled to remove her feeding tube were not maliciously trying to kill her, but behaving in a manner they believed to be humane. The other side isn’t much better; members of a group by the name of Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigades condemned the Schindler family spokesperson, also an anti-abortion activist, as a “Christian fascist thug.” Trying to protect life certainly isn’t a sign of fascism, no matter how much one might disagree with the cause. So many people have lost all reason over this case, including those getting arrested for trying to sneak her food that she can’t even eat.

The worst part is not how misdirected people have become in their fanatical concern, but how Terri Schiavo has been turned into a political pawn. She has become a figure that Congresspersons and the president alike rally behind. On the day that her feeding tube was scheduled to be disconnected, Congress issued her a subpoena to appear before its members. Since it is illegal to harm anyone under federal subpoena, this government move effectively thwarted the 2001 ruling of Florida courts. It’s interesting that states’ rights are so important in this country in terms of gay marriage, abortion laws, and the death penalty…but not in the family crisis of this one woman. It’s also curious as to why the legislative branch has decided that the judicial branch cannot make a qualified ruling without interference. Florida state law dictates that guardianship of a patient in vegetative state goes to the spouse. The state courts are doing their job by upholding and interpreting the law, which nobody had a problem with when it came to other vegetative state patients.

Luckily, the government can change laws that are unjust; President Bush took advantage of this when he flew into Washington on March 21 to sign a bill that turned jurisdiction over to federal courts. He heroically dashed in at the last moment, “…on behalf of Terri Schiavo for violation of her rights relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life," as said in his statement. There is slim chance that this would appear to be anything other than a political maneuver, since Presidents can sign bills anywhere; they don’t need to make a special trip to Washington.

Using her as a maneuvering point isn’t as outrageous as the hypocrisy that is rife within the whole ordeal. It was George W. Bush that signed into law the Advance Directives Act when he was acting as Texas governor. This allowed physicians to disconnect life support from patients that they determined had no hope of recovery after consultation with a bioethics committe, even if this was against the wishes of the patient’s guardian. This was put into effect when a mother at a Houston hospital gave birth to a child with severe dwarfism, which leads to health problems and a drastically shortened life span. When asked whether or not to disconnect life support, the infant’s mother chose to keep her child alive; however, when the doctors determined there was no hope of recovery, a judge ruled to have the child’s breathing tube disconnected, resulting in the infant’s death. First of all, anti-abortion activists say that every fetus has a right to life; since when does a fetus have more rights than a child that’s already been born? Second of all, why is an infant disconnected from oxygen so that it suffocates, when there is a debate over the feeding tube of a woman that has lost 80 to 90 percent of her cerebral cortex and has no hope of recovery? If Bush is going the “right-to-life” route, shouldn’t there be some consistency? Furthermore, he portrayed Texas law and Terry Schiavo’s case as two different types of disputes; Texas law is a dispute between doctors and family members, whereas in Terri’s case, it’s a dispute between her family members. But this logic in itself is flawed. Isn’t it better to have life-and-death decisions made by family members that love and care for the patient?

Another point of irony in this case is that Terri Schiavo’s medical care is paid from a trust fund of $700,000 after a malpractice suit awarded her $1 million dollars. Under Bush’s tort reforms to limit the $2 billion in spending a year towards malpractice lawsuits, patients suing would be limited to $250,000 rewards. The money that has gone to keeping Terri alive wouldn’t even be rewarded under Bush’s new plan. The government is interfering in the medical situation of this one woman when 45 million Americans did not even have health insurance as of 2003, with 18,000 non-elderly citizens dying each year because they do not have insurance. If this country truly valued human life, perhaps health care would be a higher priority than tax cuts for the wealthy.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, there are no easy answers. However, it is tragic that her case has ceased to be a private decision at the hands of government. Scott Schiavo, her husband’s brother, stated to CNN, “Mike never wanted to put Terri out here like a clown in a circus.” Between activists, the media and federal government, any chance she had of dignity in death is gone.