Jewish World Review March 23, 2005 / 12 Adar II, 5765

Terri Schiavo: She would have better off being one of the ‘protected species’

By Jack Kelly

	>

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Terri Schiavo is suffering a slow, agonizing death as I write these words. Liberals are pleased. Why?

If Terri were John Evander Couey, the pervert who raped and murdered 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, many on the Left would protest a death sentence because they oppose capital punishment, no matter how atrocious the crime. And if Couey were sentenced to death, most Americans would expect the sentence to be reviewed in federal courts before it could be carried out. And if Florida were to execute John Evander Couey by starving him to death, the outcry would (properly) be enormous, because that would be the kind of "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the constitution.

If I were in Terri's condition, I wouldn't want to live. I do not wish to become a burden on my loved ones, or on the state. We spend a grotesque amount of money trying to preserve for a few days, weeks or months the existence of the terminally ill. This is chiefly why Medicare and Medicaid are on the verge of bankruptcy. I believe with former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm that at some point we have not merely the right, but the duty, to die.

But I'm not Terri, and these circumstances do not apply in her case. She is not in a coma, not on life support. This isn't a question of switching off a ventilator and letting her gently slip away. For Terri to die, she has to be killed.

Terri's parents and siblings would eagerly have relieved her husband and our government of the burden of her care. And what they could not provide, philanthropists offered to pay for. So she imposes no financial burden on her husband, or the taxpayers.

Terri's husband, Michael, says Terri would want to die, but we have only his word for that, and Michael didn't remember his wife wanted to die until after a jury had awarded him $1.25 million in damages, the bulk of it for Terri's care. She left nothing in writing. No other family member ever heard her say any such thing.

Some harsh and unjust things have been said about Michael Schiavo. He could well be telling the truth about Terri's desires, and there is no evidence he has profited from his wife's misfortune. But should we assume a practicing Catholic would go against the teaching of her church based solely on the testimony of a party whose interests differ from hers?

There is ambiguity about Terri's condition as well as her desires. Most of the physicians who have examined her say she's in a "persistent vegetative state" from which she'll never emerge. But some doctors disagree, and there have been instances where people have emerged from PVS to lead normal lives. We don't know for sure how much damage there is to Terri's brain because a PET scan and an MRI were never done.

Terri had been receiving, and some say responding to, physical therapy. But as soon as he put the malpractice check in the bank, Michael ordered all rehabilitative measures stopped. In the 12 years since, Terri may not have gotten better simply because no effort has been made to help her get better. This isn't a right to die case. It's a right to kill case. And it sets a terrible precedent.

Some say we're doing Terri a favor by killing her. Maybe so. But she was in no pain until Judge Greer ordered her starved to death.

Terri is being killed despite the fact her life imposes no financial hardship on her husband or society.

Terri is being killed despite the fact that it isn't clear she would want to die in these circumstances, or in this manner.

Terri is being killed despite the fact that medical opinion is divided about whether she could recover.

Terri is being killed despite the fact that her parents and siblings are strongly opposed to it.

If Terri Schiavo can be put to death under these ambiguous circumstances, so can other severely handicapped persons. This isn't mercy killing. It's killing for convenience.

"Who is safe under a government that assigns to itself the power to determine whose life is meaningful enough to be protected?" asks George Neumayr of the American Spectator.

People have a right to die when they feel life has become too painful for themselves or too burdensome for their loved ones. But people also have the right not to be killed simply because others find their existence inconvenient. We've slid far down a slippery slope.