There are at least two sides to the Terri Schiavo case: 1) She should be given every opportunity to recover, including living out a life-span of 30-40 more years connected to medical devices; and 2) Every effort has been reasonably exhausted to give her the chance for any recovery and it’s time to let her go.

I fall onto the side of #2. There are several reasons (moral, legal, and humane) why I’m on the side of letting her go.

Morally, I find it objectionable to allow someone to lay in a bed for fifteen years as a vegetable and decide that it would be better for her/him to lay in that bed for another forty years. There comes a time as reasoning human beings that we decide that enough is enough. In Terri’s case, Michael gave her eight years (1990 – 1998) to show any sign of recovery. She showed no sign of recovery. After eight years of seeing your spouse lying in a bed with no change, wouldn’t you also decide that it was time to let him/her go? I would. I hope my wife would before that long had passed.

So, Michael filed all of the necessary paperwork and consulted doctors to make sure he was making the right decision. He decided it was and proceeded. Terri’s parents, however, decided that it wasn’t the right decision and began filing claims to stop him. While I understand that parents don’t want to see their child die, they must realize that there is a time that even they must let go.

Legally, states have traditionally given a husband or wife the final say in medical treatment of their spouse. This is for very good reason. Who should know a person’s wishes better than their spouse? Parents can claim to know better, but the law conveys those rights to a spouse as part of the legally binding agreement of marriage — an institution that, evidently, the Republicans in Congress no longer hold sacred. What happened in the past couple of weeks to turn them 180 degrees? Politics.

In addition, Terri didn’t secretly tell Michael that she didn’t want to be kept alive on tubes. She told her best friend, her brother-in-law, and an uncle that she didn’t want to be kept alive artificially.

If there had been abuse, I could understand the Schindler’s argument that Terri’s and Michael’s marriage should be disolved and the right to determine her medical treatment be conveyed to them. However, an investigation concluded that there was no abuse on the part of Michael. To the contrary, I applaud Michael’s resolve to pursue her treatment for eight years before deciding that it was time to let her go.

With Congressional “leaders” spouting off how we should protect the sanctity of marriage, in the case of Terri and Michael Schiavo they are saying, “Her husband doesn’t know best. We, the Congress in Washington D.C., know what’s best for his wife.” While they spout that a husband should love their wife and vice versa, they are saying that it doesn’t matter unless they agree. Basically, they are saying “To Hell with their marriage, it’s worthless.”

So where does it stop? Florida state law says that Michael should decide, as her husband, what is best for her. The Congress disagrees with his decisions and the decisions of many courts and doctors over the past seven years.

Many say, “If she had only had a living will, none of this would have happened.” Is that true? I wonder.

How would having a living will make the situation any different? Her parents would argue that she didn’t mean it, or that Michael had forced her to write it, or that she didn’t understand it, or that what she wrote didn’t specifically apply to what was happening to her. Could we cover all of the possible things that can happen to us? Probably not. Why not, then, just say that we give legal authority to our spouse to decide based on the circumstances? Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong. That’s what the law says in regards to those in Terri’s position without a written document specifying what happens. It gives the spouse, Michael Schiavo in this case, the right to decide what is best for their spouse, Terri Schiavo in this case.

So, even if you write a living will, this precedent, if it stands, will allow congress the authority to override any living will you may write to prohibit your death in the case you are a vegetable, severely disabled, or even terminally ill. Regardless of your wishes. Furthermore, if this precedent stands, they would have the legal authority to override ALL STATE LAWS regarding medical treatment. From prenatal care to end of life care, we would be subject to the rules and regulations of Congress.

I believe that this move by Congress is a move toward creating a legal Federal precedent to give the Federal government the right to outlaw physician assisted suicide and euthenasia. If this stands, it will be a short step to give the Federal government the ability to move all cases where individuals (either themselves or via their medial guardian) decide that they should end their life.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, I think it is inhumane to allow someone to live year after year, with no hope of recovery, in a state such as Terri’s, so that the parents and sister can feel good about themselves. That is totally selfish, doesn’t do Terri any medical good, would probably disgust her, and is disrespectful toward Michael.

Bottom line, I agree with seven years’ worth of court rulings. It’s time to let Terri rest in peace. May God have mercy on the Schindler’s souls for putting her through this against her wishes.

— Mark —