At church on Sunday, we were asked to pray for a member of our congregation who was appearing on the Heaven and Earth show to talk about euthenasia; whilst it wasn’t explicitly mentioned, this was clearly to do with the Schiavo case that’s been raising the ire of so many Conservative (and even a few not-so-conservative) bloggers in the US these last couple of weeks. I strongly suspect that I was about the only person in the congregation thanking God that, for a change, the American Justice system had acted exactly as it was supposed to. That’s going to upset some of my readers and delight some others. Let me explain.

First of all, irrespective of the moral rights and wrongs of this case (which I’ll get to in a minute), there’s been a big brouhaha about the fact that this went all the way up to the Supreme Court and still didn’t get overturned – even when El Presidente himself stuck his oar in; even when new legislation was passed to specifically enable the parents to sue the husband (and, here’s the crux, legal guardian) over the issue of removing her feeding tube. The Courts, sensibly (and frankly, somewhat surprisingly) ignored all the political and popular pressure and decided that the husband, being the legal guardian and all that, had the right to choose in this matter, not the parents. Not only that, but the court later overturned the new legislation, announcing that it was unconstitutional.

The thing is, this is exactly how the legal system is supposed to function. It’s not supposed to be subject to the whims of public (or even presidential) opinion – it’s supposed to be an impartial body passing judgement on cases brought before it in the light of the law, not public opinion. For better or for worse, in this instance, they decided that the right to choose whether the feeding tube should be withdrawn rested with Terri Schiavo’s legal guardian, her husband, and not her parents.

Okay, that’s my first point. My second is in regard to the whole right to life debate, and this is where things get sticky. Yes, I believe that a human life is a wonderful, beautiful, fragile and precious thing; yes, I believe that we should do our best to preserve it. But the point so often missed in the right to life debate is that of quality of life. In the event that Terri Schiavo had recovered, it is utterly impossible that she could have lived a full and even vaguely normal life; the majority of her cerebral cortex – the part of the brain responsible for thinking and feeling – had been destroyed and replaced by fluid. The cerebral cortex does not regrow. She would never have been able to interact with the world again. She would have continued to be dependent on outside help to live what would have basically been a shell of a life – with some biological functions intact but with virtually no thoughts or feelings and no interaction with the world other than reflexive action. That, to me, is not a life. Indeed, it is arguably even cruel to force someone to continue living if that is all the hope they have for the future.

I find it morally wrong to condemn someone to a living hell rather than a peaceful death: if, by keeping a person alive, we are merely prolonging their suffering, then, however hearthwrenching and difficult it is, I do not see that it is wrong in allowing them to choose to end this suffering in death.

One final point that seems to have been missed by the media in all the controversy: Despite Dubya’s support of Mrs Schivao’s parents and all his protestations about the right to life, it’s worth noting that, as governor of Texas, he signed into law measures to allow a hospital to pull the plug – against a families wishes – if they are unable to pay for the patient’s care.

This entry was posted on Monday, April 4th, 2005 at 1:45 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.