As the nation, and the world, continues to follow Terri Schiavo's path to death, there is nothing I can write here that would add anything to the intense debate raging on both sides of the issue. Emotions are so inflamed, both pro and con saving her life, that Terri herself has almost become a codicil to the philosophical and political arguments.
I have my stand on the issue; I'm sure you have yours. One of my dearest friends, an R.N. who spent a quarter century as a critical care nurse, has hers. Having participated in the disconnection of many feeding tubes over the years, my nurse friend's bottom line is this: What is best for Terri?
Here is the core of the many questions she posed to me during our discussion: What would Terri want? Would she want to be preserved indefinitely in her brain-damaged state? Or would she welcome the respite of death? Are her parents simply refusing to let go of her, long past the time they should have accepted the inevitable? Are they too controlling? Is Michael Schiavo entitled to take this step on Terri's behalf? Would we do the same for a loved one in such irreparable condition?
Isn't the inability to swallow food or water the signal that our lives are coming to their natural close? Hasn't modern medical technology taken us into realms of choice that were inconceivable to past generations, and has that technology forced us to make life-and-death decisions that we are unable to handle in our limited human wisdom?
Will God hold us responsible for abusing the technology He has gifted us with? Are we taking it beyond the boundaries intended to help humanity? Is Terri Shiavo's soul trapped and barred from sweet release because her family has insisted on keeping her here with them?
I don't pretend to know the answers to any of these questions. My friend, having extensive experience with dying patients and their family members, has much more profound insights and practical knowledge of the situation than I do. But nobody knows, for sure, what Terri would want if she could speak for herself--and as some maintain, she recently has.
I can not deny my own conscience. I don't believe that keeping the feeding tube inserted pending a new court review would have caused any harm. Isn't that the medical credo, according to the Hippocratic Oath? First, do no harm.
It's a shame that there isn't a Federal judge outside of Charles R. Wilson, either in Florida, the 11th Circuit, or on the Supreme Court, to be found who will step forward for that principle. Of all the tragic elements to this complex and very emotional case, the consistent judicial mercilessness is the most chilling to me.
