The Master Speaks - Terri Schiavo

The Master has another excellent column. This one is about Terri Schiavo. The Master came to the same conclusion in this column as I have, that you really can’t blame the judges in this case. They are doing their jobs by upholding the law. The problem is with the law.

The Master boils the issue down to this:

The crucial issue in deciding whether one would want to intervene to keep her alive is whether there is, as one bioethicist put it to me, "anyone home." Her parents, who see her often, believe that there is. The husband maintains that there is no one home. (But then again he has another home, making his judgment somewhat suspect.)

Have I told you I love Krauthammer?

The law declares that if a patient did not leave any instructions on what to do in this situation, then the decision comes down to the spouse. In Texas, and I guess most other states, the line is: spouse, adult children, parents. However, the law does not take into account the fidelity of the spouse. Michael Schiavo has certainly not remained a faithful husband while Terri has been ill. If Terri could speak for herself, then she would demand a divorce. But, she cannot, so Michael is still her husband and still has the power to make life decisions for her. That’s the law, even if it is wrong.

The Master’s solution is his version of Terri’s law: give authority to “whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it.” The Texian Party agrees.

The Master was also critical of the federal government’s involvement in this case. He believes that, out of respect for States’ Rights, this should have never become a federal issue. The Texian Party finds Congress’ actions troubling, and we fear they may backfire in the future. However, we believe Congress did what it had to do to save a life. This points out the legal and moral problems in this issue. What do you do when the law prevents you from saving an innocent life? We believe the Right to Life is superior to the principle of federalism. But, if The Master’s solution is enacted, then there shouldn’t be any need for us to sacrifice a principle.

The Master did not cover this in his column, but I will. There has been talk that the GOP may pay a political price over this issue. They did everything they could to save Terri’s life, even though polls indicate a lack of support, and they still failed. But, I don’t think they will pay a price for this. A Democrat opponent will find it very hard to attack a Republican incumbent for trying to save a life. Besides, quite a few Dems supported Congress’ actions, also. But, you never know in today’s political environment.

One more thing. There has also been a debate over whether Terri is in pain now that the feeding tube has been removed. Is she feeling hunger pangs? Is she thirsty? From what I have heard, she is not (though we can’t be sure), but only because she is receiving pain medication. I think it is ironic. We can give her medicine to ease the pain, but we cannot reconnect the feeding tube to prevent the pain in the first place.

–J.E. Heath
Impressed by my wisdom? Get more at per-fidem.org.
Comments? Email us.

Texian Weblog © Copyright 2005, Jason E. Heath