Jonathan David Morris’ essay “On Terri Schiavo,” which presumably was intended to be humorous, demonstrates a level of ignorance and immaturity that is not worthy of this life-and-death subject.  The essay is full of misstatements of fact, breezy value judgments, and an “everything is equal” mentality that leads Mr. Morris, ultimately, to deny the existence of right and wrong in this case.  In the amoral universe Mr. Morris portrays (without a hint of irony or satire), utility and convenience take on paramount importance.  While Mr. Morris does not say so outright, the upshot of his essay is that he believes Terri Schiavo should be put to death because her condition “freaks him out.”  Perhaps this was supposed to be part of the “humor” of the article, but I fear it reflects the real views of those who believe, as Mr. Morris apparently does, that “the only humane thing to do is to let her pass on.”     

Mr. Morris’ understanding of the facts of this case is fundamentally flawed.  First, the decision to remove Terri’s nutrition and hydration tube was made by the Florida probate court, not by her putative husband Michael Schiavo.  Contrary to Mr. Morris’ apparent belief, Florida law does not authorize a husband to decide the “fate” of his disabled wife.  (Neither does the Bible, as far as I know.)  The legal issue before the court was whether Terri Schiavo herself would want “to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures” in her present situation.  This is a factual question that, in theory at least, has a correct answer.  The debate over the probate court’s decision in Terri’s case centers on whether the procedures used by the court in reaching its decision were proper, and whether the decision itself was supported by the evidence (which, under Florida law, had to be “clear and convincing”).  

What was the evidence that the probate court used to justify its conclusion that if Terri were competent and aware of her present situation, she would want her feeding tube removed?  Testimony by Michael Schiavo, his brother, and sister-in-law that Terri allegedly said, after watching TV movies about people on life support, that she would not want to be “kept alive on a machine.”  This is an awfully thin reed on which to hang such a momentous decision.  Moreover, a feeding tube is not a “machine.”  Terri did not require a respirator or a heart-lung device or kidney dialysis to survive.  She simply required food and water, like every other human being.  There is absolutely no evidence that Terri ever expressed the opinion that she would not want to live if she were in her present condition.  On the contrary, her parents testified that she specifically said that people on life support should be kept alive.  So which is it?  Terri’s parents and Michael Schiavo cannot “both be wrong,” as Mr. Morris illogically maintains.

Unlike the probate court, most fair-minded observers would conclude that, based on the available evidence, it is impossible to determine, with any reasonable degree of certainty (let alone by “clear and convincing” evidence), what Terri would have wanted done in her present condition.  If so, it becomes murder (yes, Mr. Morris) to remove her feeding tube, no less so than if I were to walk into a local hospital and turn off an intensive-care patient’s oxygen supply or IV, causing the patient’s death.  The only legal justification for the probate court’s decision lies in its conclusion that Terri -- not Michael Schiavo, not the judge, not “society” -- would freely choose to have her feeding tube removed if she were competent and capable of making her own medical decisions.  If this conclusion is not legally and factually sound -- and I do not think it is -- then Terri was murdered:  her life is being deliberately and unlawfully taken away from her by another person, in this case, the probate court judge .

This extraordinary -- and truly frightening -- state of affairs does not seem to much bother Mr. Morris.  Yes, it makes him “a little uncomfortable,” but he nevertheless believes that someone should have the right to end Terri’s life.  (He repeatedly nominates Michael Schiavo, of whose good intentions and love for Terri, Mr. Morris amazingly has no doubts.)  After all, unlike TV personality Ryan Seacrest, whom Mr. Morris tells us he “would vote not to kill,” Terri is no longer young and healthy (or physically attractive).  In Mr. Morris’ words, she is “different.”  Would Mr. Morris “vote” to kill her?

Yes, Terri is profoundly disabled and incapable of either making her own decisions or caring for herself.  However, she is not “brain-dead.”  Indeed, one of the most contentious disputes in this case is over whether Terri’s condition meets the definition of “persistent vegetative state” under Florida law, which requires proof (again, by “clear and convincing” evidence) that the person is in “a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is (a) the absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind, and (b) an inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.”  (Emphasis added.)  There is no denying Terri suffered an extreme brain injury and retained very limited mental faculties.  But the available evidence simply does not support the conclusion that she had PVS.

Mr. Morris does not trouble himself with such legal niceties, however.  In his view, Terri should be killed because it is “selfish to hook her up to a machine in the faint hope that she’ll return to form.”  This sentence is positively mind-boggling in its logical and ethical confusion.  To begin with, how is it “selfish” to provide another human being with food and water?  And who is the person being “selfish” in this scenario?  Terri?  Her parents?  (What about Michael Schiavo?)  And what does Mr. Morris mean by “return to form?”  Is he arguing that it is selfish on the part of Terri’s parents to want to continue Terri’s life, although she will never again be young and healthy and beautiful?  Or never be able to regain her independence?  By this standard, Mr. Morris would condemn thousands of disabled and incapacitated Americans to an early and unnatural death.                   

I strongly suspect that, like so many young people entranced by their own vigor and ambition, and steeped in the doctrine of moral relativism, Mr. Morris believes that there are human beings whose lives are not worth living (because he would not want to live them), and who therefore may be killed for the convenience of others (provided appropriate clinical conditions are maintained).  Terri Schiavo apparently is one of these non-persons whose life does not matter to Mr. Morris, just as it does not matter to Michael Schiavo.  But it matters to Terri’s parents.  And there is no persuasive evidence that it does not matter to Terri herself.  Under these circumstances, neither the law nor morality -- nor simple human decency -- should allow Terri to be put to death.  The fact that her execution nevertheless proceeds apace is a stain on us all.

Steven M. Warshawsky frequently comments on politics and current affairs from a conservative perspective.

Email Steven Warshawsky

Send this Article to a Friend