|
I Just Don’t Understand
The Case of Terri Schiavo
Michael Murray
At this point all but the most unaware individuals have heard of the Terri Schiavo case. In February of 1990, Ms. Schiavo inexplicably collapsed in her home. She suffered brain injuries and currently lives in Florida in a stable condition with severe brain damage. Much like a baby on a bottle, she depends on a feeding tube for food and water. No other machines or life support devices sustain her life. According to numerous doctors, the permanence of her medical condition is uncertain. Currently, the Florida court system is arbitrating a battle between Ms. Schiavo’s husband, Michael, and her family. Michael Schiavo wants to be able to remove the nutrition and hydration care that Terri currently receives. This action would either parch or starve Terri Schiavo to death. Her parents do not want Michael to be able to cause their daughter’s death. Ms. Schiavo left no living will, so her intentions are unclear except for hearsay recollections.
There are many ethical and legal issues involved in the case. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are morally controversial practices, and important arguments concerning the prohibition on killing of innocents and the value of human life, the distinction between extraordinary and ordinary treatments, and the significance of death and the dying process must be analyzed. The legal issues are similarly complex. Important decisions must be made on topics such as guardianship status and spousal rights, advance directives and living wills, and divorce and inheritance. All of these issues are incredibly important. The answers to the ethical and legal questions must be pursued for their own sake because as individuals we should strive to act in a morally upright way, and our law should reflect correct moral determinations. The answers to these questions also are incredibly important because of their consequences. End-of-life decisions are literally a matter of life and death for an increasingly aging American population. The resolution of cases like Terri Schiavo’s will influence how we as individuals and as a society make the end-of-life care decisions that will face us in this age of revolutionary medical advancement.
But, I will save these ethical and legal concerns for another article. Instead, I will focus now on the case of Terri Schiavo and the question that immediately must strike any observer: Why? More specifically, why has the life of Terri Schiavo become a battle of life and death between a husband and two parents? Why has the court battle dragged on for over a decade?
These questions arise because of the goal of Terri Schiavo’s parents and family, as evidenced by an October 26, 2004, letter formally offering a solution to Michael’s attorney. They do not want Michael Schiavo, who in the past ten years has fathered two children with a woman he lives with, to have to take care of Terri. The parents and family want to do it themselves: their “sole desire in making this proposal is that they be permitted to take their daughter and sister home to care for her with their family.” They do not want Michael to be unable to legally divorce Terri. The parents have asked that he do so and guarantee that he “will retain any visiting rights he might desire for the rest of her life.” They do not want to hold Michael responsible for anything. They renounce “any and all future legal claims or actions against Michael or any of his agents in this matter for any reason.”
They do not want Michael Schiavo to have to pay for Terri’s care. They will pay themselves, and no one can doubt that private charity would at this point make cost irrelevant. In the letter they promise they will “not seek any financial help from him for any care, therapy or rehabilitation for Terri.” They do not even want access to the trust fund for Terri’s care set up as a result of a successful medical malpractice suit against Terri’s doctors. They have offered to give the trust fund, which was originally over a million dollars and will be inherited by Michael upon Terri’s death if she dies his wife, to Michael if he allows them to care for her. They write “he could retain any monies or other assets that might remain to him, either from their married life together, from the malpractice awards for himself or for Terri, or any other assets” and, in case he decides to divorce, “he would receive any of Terri’s estate that he would inherit were he to remain her husband.” In fact, “the Schindlers would permit Michael’s attorneys to draft any agreement regarding this matter that Michael would desire, including the above referenced terms and any other terms he and his attorneys would find appropriate.” Michael Schiavo rejected this offer, which is still on the table.
At this point, my reason for asking “Why?” is clear. Terri’s parents are completely reasonable in their request to be able to care for their daughter. Michael Schiavo has clearly moved on with his life. In fact, he proposed to the mother of his children several years ago. His financial incentive to eliminate Terri has been mitigated by the offer of the trust fund by her parents. What could he possibly have to gain by seeking her death and, in effect, prolonging the agony of the tragedy?
There are many theories about Michael Schiavo’s motives. It may be that at this point he cannot walk away with financial compensation from the trust fund because he fears looking like a monster in it for the money. Of course, that answer does not explain why he did not walk away before the media attention. Alternatively, it may be that Michael Schiavo is receiving bad legal advice. After all, his attorney, George Felos, has been paid approximately four hundred thousand dollars in legal fees, has received compensation for speaking appearances, and has plans to release a book. But, it’s hard to believe that anyone could be motivated by such ill intentions or that anyone could be so deceived. A permutation on this idea is that Mr. Felos or another right-to-die advocate is using the Terri Schiavo case to push forward a certain political agenda. Yet, it’s hard to see how this would be an ideal case for such activism, especially given the absence of a living will and the uncertain medical status of Terri. Finally, it’s possible that Michael Schiavo loves Terri and believes that she would want to be killed in this situation. Yet, it seems too much of a coincidence that Michael did not allege that Terri wanted to die until almost three years after Terri’s collapse and until after the courts awarded Terri over $1.6 million in damages from malpractice suits. The fact that none of Terri’s family members or closest friends recall such an intention, and that only Michael’s relatives can testify to its expression is also troubling. Also, his love for her must be questioned given his decisions to end all rehabilitative therapy before seeking death, restrict visitors, forbid flowers and sunlight in the room, and deny a priest the ability to visit and give communion.
The true motive may be a combination of these theories, or it may be something else. The truth is, no one but Michael Schiavo really knows why this tragic case continues. The solution proposed by the parents and family waits on the table. It seems so simple. I can only conclude in bewilderment: I just don’t understand.
Michael Murray is the Whig Editor of The Soapbox. He is a Junior in the Woodrow Wilson School focusing on bioethics and earning a certificate in Finance.
|
