Limelight: Whose life is it, anyway? By Lubna Abdel-Aziz The outpouring of sentiment and the extensive media coverage for a Florida woman condemned to die of starvation and dehydration by the courts of the US has stopped us in our tracks. A million questions arise with no answers -- questions of moral, ethical, social, and religious values that need to be resolved to protect the innocent, the helpless, the disabled. All constitutions of our modern civilisation assert the individual's right to life. Once upon a time it was easy to die -- when we stopped breathing and our hearts stopped beating. Thanks to advanced medical technology, doctors are now able to sustain these vital functions artificially. This called for a revision of our perception of death. Death is now considered to be the irreversible loss of brain function -- brain dead -- rendering our lives meaningless, a hollow and undesirable existence. Death now becomes a right, an act of dignity and mercy. But, not so fast! A Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) is different. It is a form of brain damage involving the areas of the brain considered to be responsible for all higher cognitive thought and consciousness, without damage to the areas that control the vital functions. These individuals are therefore able to continue breathing on their own, the heart beats normally, they demonstrate periods of waking and sleeping, moving arms and legs. They blink, smile, shed tears and appear to respond to their environment. The only artificial function they need is a feeding tube in order to sustain their lives. The fact that some PVS patients have become rehabilitated, makes physicians wonder if, or when others will experience similar reversals. To terminate such a life is heart-wrenching for the family, and requires an act of euthanasia -- namely withdrawing the feeding tube. In the case of , the young lady's legal guardian in the state of Florida is her husband, who since 1996 has lived with another woman, and together have two children. Conflict of interest? No say the courts in their infinite wisdom. They still consider him her only legal guardian over and above her mother and father. He alone, attest the courts, has her best interest at heart. Helpless, speechless Terri has nothing to say! The implications of a PVS to society are potentially troublesome. People have rushed to judgement clamouring for "the right to die". It is fine when applied to oneself, but how moral is it when applied to others. "It is precisely the subjectivity and the inaccuracy of the decision that fuels our discomfort, imposing it on others." With science advancing daily at a dazzling pace, who can condemn another to die when medical technology is available to sustain life. There are positive reports of three cases of PVS recovery from the Institute of Clinical Neurology, Vienna, Austria. "Any chance is better than none!" How could we have known what Terri really wanted? "The courts have consistently found that she did not want to be kept alive artificially." How could they know that? The only evidence came from her husband, who eight years after her collapse, remembered that once on seeing her grandmother on life support, Terri casually remarked that she would not wish to live with tubes. Her family never heard that. Michael even told a girlfriend he and Terri never discussed the issue. In the strictest sense, Terri was never really on life support. All she was on, was a feeding tube. Besides, had she indeed said that in her 20s, would she feel the same today at 40? There is evidence from several medical sources and case histories, that patients who once felt they did not wish to be kept alive artificially, changed their minds when confronted with that situation. They chose life. Despite new witnesses who have come forth to testify on Terri's behalf, refuting her husband's claims, despite reported abuse of his wife, despite the knowledge they had discussed divorce before her injury, despite suspicion that he may have caused her injury, the courts have upheld his testimony. Several physicians have confirmed that Terri's brain damage may not be as severe as previously thought, and have argued that rehabilitation could wean her off the feeding tube and help her speak. Michael Schiavo has repeatedly refused such treatment, refused to annul the marriage, divorce, or go on with his life. Nurses have testified that he brought girlfriends to show them his "vegetable of a wife" and have often heard him say "is the bitch still alive?" This "justice for all", is it only afforded to the rich, the able, and the criminals? Had Terri been a murderer she would have been guaranteed 20 or 30 years of appeals in US courts. Terri's only crime was she could not walk, talk, or feed herself. How many of us suffer these handicaps? Only all the babies in the whole world! With all his disabilities Christopher Reeve did not wish to die, although following his riding accident he was in a vegetable state himself. Advanced technology, aggressive therapy and the perseverance, love, and care of a devoted wife, added many useful and fruitful years to his life. How about other disabled? Would they have preferred death over life. Would Stephen Hawking? Would Helen Keller? Are we headed for a supremacist society where only the able are granted "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? How can anyone pretend to know what another deems as a life worth living. Once disabled, who speaks for us -- father, mother, sister, brother, son, daughter, husband, or friend? Ultimately it should be our duty when healthy and well, and in full control of all our faculties to let our wishes be known in writing, and to entrust our fate to those we trust the most. Teresa Schindler was born in 1964 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where she met husband Michael Schiavo at Pennsylvania Community College in 1981. They were married in 1984, and moved to Florida in 1986 where Terri worked for an insurance company. Terri was beautiful, perky, and vivacious, always considered a "smiler". She battled a weight problem as an adolescent and feared regaining her weight. She would often starve herself or go on "bulimic" binges. On 25 February 1990, Terri had a heart attack and collapsed at her Florida home. Doctors said it was a potassium imbalance. Her brain did not receive oxygen for about five minutes causing severe brain damage. In 1992 a Florida jury awarded Michael Schiavo $1.3 million malpractice judgement for Terri's medical care. As her legal guardian, with sole control of the funds, he has refused to pay for rehabilitative treatment, an MRI or a cat scan which she has not had in 10 years. In 1993 her parents Robert and Mary Schindler petitioned the courts to remove their son-in-law as their daughter's guardian. "Justice" prevailed -- 19 courts with 19 judges, who must not have children of their own, saw fit to condemn Terri to starve and die. Terri could breathe, blink, smile, swallow, and respond to her mother's tender touch. Terri took pain pills for menstrual cramps, and she was given morphine to alleviate the discomfort of dehydration and starvation. "The very joy of life, is life itself." Terri was a daughter, loved and cherished by her mother and father. Terri chose life over death, but her voice could not be heard. Now: "Death lies on her, like an untimely frost Upon the sweetest flower in all the field." As of this writing, there will be no traditional Catholic burial for Terri - husband Michael wishes her to be cremated. Legality triumphed over reason, compassion, love, hope, faith, and mercy. Terri may breathe her last this week, but not as a vegetable. "Justice" in this case was not only blind, but deaf, dumb, and unjust as well. Justice is so subtle a thing; To interpret it one has only need of a heart --- José Garcia Oliver (1898 -- 1949)
