The Right to Life

Terri Schiavo is dead.

So is "the Right to Life."

The death of Terri Schiavo represents the triumph -- culturally and legally -- of the forces advocating "the Right to Die."

The concept of "rights" in America used to mean "duties." You have a duty not to kill me, which is what guarantees my "right to life." Today the concept of "rights" means "government entitlements." I have a "right to healthcare," a "right to a living wage," or a "right to quality education," which means the government has the right to confiscate the wealth of others to pay for my rights (which, ironically, decline in quality as the government intervenes to "guarantee" those "rights").

In this context, we can only begin to imagine what it will mean when the government begins to guarantee your "right to die."

The "right to die" is the ultimate in autonomy. It is the ultimate statement of personal selfishness. It is the denial of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Michael Schindler and his attorney George Felos have made this clear. Here's how:

The New England Journal of Medicine rushed their current issue to the newsstands ahead of schedule, because it has several articles on the Schiavo case. Timothy Quill, M.D. is a nationally-recognized expert in palliative care and end-of-life issues who is a professor of medicine, psychiatry, and medical humanities at the University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, and makes the following observation:

In considering this profound decision, the central issue is not what family members would want for themselves or what they want for their incapacitated loved one, but rather what the patient would want for himself or herself. The New Jersey Supreme Court that decided the case of Karen Ann Quinlan got the question of substituted judgment right:
If the patient could wake up for 15 minutes and understand his or her condition fully, and then had to return to it, what would he or she tell you to do?
Let me interrupt Dr. Quill and ask a question. If Terri Schiavo could have awakened for 15 minutes, and seen her parents, her sister and brother, hundreds of people outside her hospice, and millions of Americans who did not want her to die, what would have been her wishes? Here are the options:
  • "I have been in no pain or discomfort all this time; if you feel my condition can be improved, and if you don't feel that I would be too much of a burden on you, and if you would rather I be alive than dead, please continue feeding me."
  •  "Screw all of you! I want to go to heaven RIGHT NOW!"

If Terri had voiced the second option, would you want to pull the plug on her, and have her die with that thought in her heart? Or would you want to keep her alive just long enough to explain why she ought to consider the feelings of others? Is "Screw you!" the attitude that gets one into heaven? The law often makes assumptions about what "the reasonable man" would think or do. Why would we assume that with an entire nation praying for her life, Terri Schiavo, in no pain whatsoever, would choose to have the police forcibly prevent her parents from giving her food and water, and would choose to set a legal precedent that a person who did not make a "living will" instructing her food and water to be denied her should be presumed to have done so and to be forced to die of dehydration/starvation, despite the desires of millions of people?

But Dr. Quill makes it clear that the wishes of family are secondary to the wishes of the judicial architects of the New World Order. In Schiavo's case, a pro-death judge, a pro-death doctor, and a pro-death estranged husband combined to impose their will on Terri Schiavo and those who loved her. Dr. Quill continues:

If the data about the patient’s wishes are not clear, then in the absence of public policy or family consensus, we should err on the side of continued treatment even in cases of a persistent vegetative state in which there is no hope of recovery. But if the evidence is clear, as the courts have found in the case of Terri Schiavo, then enforcing life-prolonging treatment against what is agreed to be the patient’s will is both unethical and illegal.

"Courts have found." This was the rallying cry of those who defend "the Rule of Law." The legislative branch, representing The People, must not be allowed to question the decision of a judge, nazi doctors, and an estranged husband who have a love of death. So we have been told.

Morphine is a good thing, and it's too bad the "war on [some] drugs" has made it more difficult for people at death's door to benefit from many drugs. Computer guru/author Peter McWilliams was being treated for cancer and was subject to intense nausea. He found relief from the vomiting by using marijuana, but a federal judge overruled California's Proposition 215 which would have allowed McWilliams legally to use marijuana for medical purposes, and McWilliams died choking on his own vomit. ("But at least he didn't become addicted to marijuana," some might say.) Ironic that something which which makes death less attractive is opposed by  "right-to-life" forces.

Among the right-to-die advocates, there was universal agreement that Terri Schiavo was a vegetable. She may have looked like she could interact with others around her, but those were reflex actions, we were told. She had no mental cognition. We were told her death would be pain free (though she was given morphine). So what would you say to a person whom doctors agreed was in no pain, who put your hand around a gun pointed at his head and wanted you to pull the trigger? Would you kill the person simply because "it was their wish?" Up until now, a person who killed another person could not escape conviction by saying "The deceased asked me to kill him."

There was a reason for laws against suicide. They teach that life has value, that even the life in darkness can be redeemed. And they teach that those who are not contemplating suicide should explain why to those who are.

Many people have said that all of this could have been avoided if only Terri had made out a living will. Trouble is, until the last few weeks, nobody knew you needed a living will if you wanted to, you know, live.

But Dr. Quill says (rather dogmatically) that the feelings of those who wish to give food and water to the dying are to be ignored and the "court-determined" feelings of a person who the same court determined has no feelings at all are to be "honored."

Suppose Terri had in fact drawn up a "living will," specifically stating that even if she were in no pain, and even if her parents wanted to bear the expenses of taking care of her, the government should use force to prevent them from giving her food and water. Isn't it the case the some wills are declared "void as against public policy?" Suppose Terri had left a will stating that all her assets should be used to hire a contract killer to murder her parents. Would any court enforce that will? The link above is to a case where the decedent's will ordered his horses destroyed. The court denied the request as "inhumane." Judge Greer implied a will never written, that a human being could be destroyed, and the parents of that human being could not care for her, though they wanted desperately to do so.

Christian ethics teaches that the way we treat "the least of these" is an index of our relation to Christ Himself.

(Matthew 25:31-46) When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: {32} And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth His sheep from the goats: {33} And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. {34} Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: {35} For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: {36} Naked, and ye clothed Me: I was sick, and ye visited Me: I was in prison, and ye came unto Me. {37} Then shall the righteous answer Him, saying, Lord, when saw we Thee an hungered, and fed Thee? or thirsty, and gave Thee drink? {38} When saw we Thee a stranger, and took Thee in? or naked, and clothed Thee? {39} Or when saw we Thee sick, or in prison, and came unto Thee? {40} And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me. {41} Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: {42} For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me no drink: {43} I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in: naked, and ye clothed Me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited Me not. {44} Then shall they also answer Him, saying, Lord, when saw we Thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee? {45} Then shall He answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me. {46} And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Our acts of feeding the hungry and caring for the dying make us more Christian.

Our society is more Christian when we allow those who wish to give water to the thirsty to do so, rather than using government force to prevent them from doing so.

"I wouldn't want to live that way" is an oft-heard slogan today. Americans have developed a habit of thinking in bumper stickers and slogans. The question that should have been asked was, "Would Terri want to die this way?"

No humane parent wants to keep a child alive who is in pain if there is no possibility of diminishing the pain. Terri Schiavo's parents are not insane. Both sides acknowledged that Terri was not in pain or discomfort. There is a legitimate issue in "right to die" cases, and that is the right not to have millions of dollars in medical bills racked up for family or neighbors to have to pay after the patient dies a protracted and painful death. There is a sense in which death is "natural" and unavoidable. But in Terri's case, she was not in pain, and forcing her to endure a protracted death by dehydration was painful to those who loved her. She was a pawn in the hand of "pro-death" forces and their political agenda.

The forces of government were arrayed against Terri Schiavo and those who loved her. Her parents were forcibly prohibited from giving their daughter water and food. Now that we know the government is on the side of those who want others to die, and against those who want to give food and water to the disabled, we can say "Farewell" to "the right to life."

The following was written before Terri Schiavo's murder became a fait accompli.

The central position of Libertarianism is the "non-aggression axiom." To become a member of the Libertarian Party, one must make the following pledge:

I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

A 10-year old boy was arrested the other day for attempting to give Terri Schiavo a drink of water. The police were engaged in the "initiation of force" against the boy -- unless the boy was engaged in the "initiation of force" against Terri Schiavo. Was he?

The answer to that question is determined in part by Terri Schiavo's wishes.

I say "in part" for two reasons. First, it's not clear what Terri Schiavo's wishes are right now.

Second, her wishes may not be decisive, even if her wishes were clear. When I was a child, my mother made me eat my spinach. I preferred eating "Baby Ruth" candy bars. As an adult, I now believe that it was in my best interests to have a diverse diet that at times did not reflect my pro-candybar wishes. Did my mother engage in the "initiation of force" against me? I would say no, since she was my parent/guardian.

Even if Terri Schiavo were an adult with no physical "brain damage," I might apply this same principle. Suppose an adult but unmarried Terri Schiavo decided to commit suicide by dehydration. Suppose further than Terri's parents were good friends with Captain James T. Kirk of the Federation Starship Enterprise, and they called him on the phone and persuaded him to use the ship's transporter beam to beam water into Terri Schiavo's stomach periodically without her knowledge. I would support that action because I believe suicide is wrong. I would say Terri Schiavo should be kept alive against her will until she can be talked out of wanting to kill herself. If she were brandishing a gun to kill herself, I would use "force" to confiscate her gun. But this is not directly relevant to the case; I'm just admitting my anti-suicide biases.

I believe Terri Schiavo is being murdered. Some would say she's being "allowed" to die, but if my mother refused to feed me when I was a baby and stood outside the door saying she was "allowing" me to die, and threatening to initiate force against anyone who tried to give me food and water, I would say she was trying to murder me.

Terri Schiavo might just approve of that action right now (she is still alive as I write this), but she can't tell us what she wants. (Or if she can, we're being told she can't [Michael Schiavo won't allow video taping of Terri Schiavo; Michael doesn't seem to want the facts to leave the hospice room]. There have been a few certified medical experts who have given Terri brighter prognoses than Michael's pro-death experts.)

So the question is, who speaks for Terri Schiavo?

Michael Schiavo claims the right to speak for Terri Schiavo on the grounds that he was married to her at one time. I don't believe "marriage" is defined or determined by "the government." I'm willing to examine the grounds claimed by Michael Schiavo. And a quick examination suggests he is no longer married to Terri Schiavo. He lives with another woman and has fathered children by her. I would say Terri Schiavo's parents have a more natural claim to speak for Terri Schiavo than her estranged husband. "Conflict of interest" is a phrase that immediately comes to mind, and it is doubtful that Michael Schiavo has Terri's best interests in mind.

I can't understand why anyone would advocate slow protracted death by starvation and dehydration rather than lethal injection. We are taxed millions of dollars by the government to keep those pot-bellied babies in Biafra from dying this way.

If Terri's parents' claim of guardianship is accepted, then I would conclude that their desire to give food and water to Terri Schiavo is not an "initiation of force" inconsistent with the fundamental Libertarian principle.

Deciding the guardianship claim is critical. Fairly deciding the issue depends on knowing the facts. I don't know the facts. Here's what the most rabid pro-life advocates are saying:

Michael tried to kill his wife. He failed. There was evidence of trauma when Terri was brought to the hospital, not just "potassium deficiency." The husband found a lawyer who sued the caregivers for failing to discover the potassium deficiency, and a judgment was awarded. With his wife worth more to him dead than alive, his intent is steadfast: he wants to kill his wife. He orders that his wife, still under medical care, not be given any further rehabilitative care or physical therapy despite hundreds of thousands of court-ordered dollars to do so. That money goes to attorneys who are on the Board of Directors of the hospice and front for a right-to-die organization, "The Hemlock Society," a group that wants to assist in killing people.*  The husband shacks up with another woman and fathers two kids. Terri dies slowly. Finally, in a case where the medical witness is also a right-to-die advocate, the husband is given the legal right to starve his wife to death.

If these allegations are true, there is a clear "conflict of interest" between Michael and Terri Schiavo, and Terri's parents, who want Terri to live, are a better choice for Terri's guardian.

The following is from Is It "Murder" to Pull Terri's Feeding Tube?

Let us peruse some of the evidence of Michael Schiavo’s malicious intent against his wife.  The following is taken from http://www.terrisfight.org/: "In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a 'houseplant' and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book."

To be precise, in 1992, two and a half years after Terri’s accident, a total of 2.25 million dollars was awarded to Mr. Schiavo in a total of three suits.  It was only then that Mr. Schiavo placed a “Do Not Resuscitate” order in his wife’s chart and began to deny her therapy.

An affidavit has been put forth by a licensed practical nurse (L.P.N.) who cared for Terri Schiavo at the Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in Largo, Florida.  She was very concerned about the neglect and lack of care provided to Terri Schiavo under the insistence of her Michael Schiavo.  She documents Terri responding to her, laughing at jokes, speaking several words with appropriate contexts, and informing her of the presence and location of pain and when her diaper needed to be changed.  This nurse made several positive comments in the chart about Terri's improvement, but those comments were always deleted from the chart.  She noted that Mr. Schiavo would express glee over any illness that Terri suffered, hoping that she would die, and even once exclaiming, "I'm going to be rich!"  He would gloat over all of the things he would buy when Terri died.  He would order the nurses staff not to contact Terri's parents, and was very intimidating to the staff.  The nurse documents strong evidence that Mr. Schiavo attempted to kill Terri by injecting her with insulin.  Once he shouted to the nurses, "When is that bitch gonna die!?"  (This affidavit can be read at http://www.rense.com/general63/aff.htm and an interview with the nurse can be read at http://www.thedavidallenshow.com/guests/iyer.carla.20050309.)

Michael Schiavo has not only failed his obligation to provide for his wife's care, he has maliciously mistreated her, and possibly tried to murder her.  He has exploited his wife's tragedy to rake in a million, and has not employed this money to provide the care intended.  He became engaged to another woman in 1997 and he lives with her and has two children by her!  Mr. Schiavo’s ex-girlfriend testifies that Michael Schiavo lied about Terri’s last wishes, evidence that Judge Greer refused to consider.  Michael Schiavo doesn't want Terri to improve, he doesn't want her to have physical, occupational and speech therapy, he doesn't want her to have a swallowing study, he doesn't want to provide comfort measures to her, he doesn't want to be a faithful husband, he doesn't want to let Terri's parents take her home and take care of her until she dies, as many loving Hospice families do.  Michael Schiavo wants his wife to die because he wants to keep the money intended to provide Terri's care and he wants to marry his adulteress, and he has found a judge and a doctor to serve as his accomplices in this crime.

Terri should have been -- but was not -- represented by counsel. The allegations in this case should have been -- but were not -- considered in a court of law. The original court has ordered many records sealed. Michael Schiavo insists on immediate cremation of Terri's body, possibly to avoid detection of abuse and criminal acts against her. The deliberate and intentional killing of a human being ought to take place only after all the facts have been carefully considered. Criminals accused of murder cannot be executed unless the evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is not clear "beyond a resonable doubt" that Terri should be killed. Public officials who give deference to "the law" or "the Rule of Law" rather than the life of Terri Schiavo are political cowards.

I invite your comments: schiavo@KevinCraig.US

More rabidly pro-life resources:


WND's comprehensive coverage of Terri Schindler-Schiavo case

Stand to Reason: End of Life Ethics: A Primer

Part 2: To Hell with "The Rule of Law" -- Why Congress did nothing wrong in trying to keep Terri Schiavo alive.

Part 3: A Response to Neal Boortz