WASHINGTON (March 24, 2005)—In an op-ed today in Newsday, Cathy Cleaver
Ruse, Esq., Director of Planning and Information for the U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, argued that, as
long as food and water provide nourishment and comfort, we should see them
as part of what we owe to all people who are helpless and in our care.
The Newsday op-ed follows.
Terri Schiavo is at the heart of a human tragedy being played out in our
nation, and watched by the world.
Her husband wants to remove her feeding tube, saying this is her wish,
while her parents and siblings vigorously disagree that she would have
wanted to die. Since last Friday, Schiavo has faced each new day without
food or water, by order of a Florida State judge.
"Complex" seems to be the latest watchword in her case. But some things
are simple and clear. Terri Schiavo is a woman living with severe
disabilities. She is not comatose or "brain dead." She is not terminally
ill or dying: Her heart beats on its own and her lungs work without
assistance. The thing with Schiavo is that she cannot feed herself without
assistance - but then again, neither could Christopher Reeve.
A terribly misleading ABC News Poll, repeated in news reports ad nauseam,
says that 63 percent of Americans want Schiavo's feeding tube removed. The
poll says she's "on life support," which is not true, and that she has "no
consciousness," which her family and dozens of doctors dispute in sworn
affidavits. The poll also says the family disagreement is whether she
would have wanted to "be kept alive." But Schiavo is not dying - or
wasn't, while she was being fed. So the question isn't whether she should
be "kept alive" or "allowed to die," but whether to stop feeding her, in
which case she will die. By most accounts, death by starvation and
dehydration is a painful, even gruesome death. That's why we don't starve
convicted criminals to death, or animals either.
Michael Schiavo says she would have wanted to die this way, but what is
the proof? Only his claim that Terri told him once that she would not want
to live on anything artificial, a claim his family members support. Years
before, in the medical malpractice suit he filed after she became
disabled, he claimed that she would have a long life and would need
expensive rehabilitative care, and that he would provide this care as long
as he lived.
Many are asking why it took six years for him to remember that dying was
actually his wife's wish. Others ask whether a disaffected husband with
dubious motives should be granted absolute control over his wife's fate.
It's a good question, one that was not explored in the original trial, but
could be explored in a new trial - if Schiavo does not die first.
And that is why Congress acted.
Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed a bill giving
Schiavo's parents the right to be heard in federal court on the question
of whether their daughter's legal rights have been violated. The
Constitution guarantees all persons the right to equal protection and due
process of law, Congress argued; without access to a federal appeal, which
death-row inmates have every day, Terri Schiavo was being denied both.
All this effort may be tragically moot. On Tuesday a federal district
judge denied the petition to reinsert Terri's feeding tube while a new
trial could proceed, and yesterday the federal appeals court agreed. The
final recourse for Schiavo's parents will be to the Supreme Court.
Schiavo cannot speak on her own behalf. She is totally defenseless and
dependent on others, but she retains every ounce of her human dignity and
deserves respect and care. Her plight dramatizes one of the most critical
questions we face: To be a truly human society, how should we care for
those who cannot care for themselves? Ultimately what happens to Terri
Schiavo will say more about us than it does about her.
A year ago Pope John Paul II answered this question by reaffirming that
"the administration of food and water, even when provided by artificial
means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical
act." He said such feeding should be considered "morally obligatory" as
long as it provides nourishment and alleviation of suffering.
In other words, as long as food and water provide nourishment and comfort,
we should see them as part of what we owe to all people who are helpless
and in our care.
Terri Schiavo's parents see it this way, and are begging for the chance to
take care of their daughter. Congress and the president were right to do
what they could to give them that chance.