Terri Schiavo Case: What It Means To You.

Unless you've been hiding your head in the sand over the past few days, you have probably heard something about this Terri Schiavo Case. As you probably know, the situation pits a brain damaged woman in a vegetative state between a husband that wants to end his wife's suffering and a loving mom and dad that don't want to lose their daughter. What hasn't been widely reported is that this case has been on-going for 15 years and has been heard by 20 judges (state and federal, Including US Supreme Courts). In the years that this situation has been in the courtroom, all 20 judges have agreed with the husband, Michael Schiavo, to remove the feeding tube and allow his wife to pass with mercy.

This past weekend, an emergency session of Congress was called to keep the feeding tube in Terri Schiavo. President Bush flew in from Crawford for this bill. Within 20 minutes of the vote from the Congress, Bush signed this into law. This forced the case back into court, where a federal judge has ruled that the feeding tube should be removed. Right now, the parents' attorneys are appealing to the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta.

So what does all of this mean to you and me? Well, first of all, I think this case speaks volumes about the need for a living will that stipulates the terms and conditions under which you wish to be disconnected from any life-support machines, if need for those machines should arise.

Secondly, we are often told that bureaucracy gets in the way of so many bills getting passed by the Federal government. The Schiavo case gives us evidence that these blockheads can put together legislation quickly, efficiently, and without much debate if it suits their political purposes. Do you think any environmental law would be passed through the system like an ex-lax brownie traveling at 100 miles per hour through your colon (i.e. the way the Schiavo legislation was passed)? In this administration, only if it was to further reduce the environmental protections afforded by the laws that remain on the books to protect our environment for future generations.

Third, I don't know about you, but I find it more than a little creepy that the federal government can tailor bills around an individual in this country.

In situations like Mrs. Schiavo's, where there is no living will, there are a couple of questions that need to be answered to determine whether a person should continue to live on life support or if she should be removed from life support and let nature take its entropic course.

• Will the patient be able to return to a conscious state?
• What will the quality of life be for this person?

In Terri's case, after 15 years, her internal organs have begun to shut down and degrade, including that organ that would bring her back to a conscious state, her brain. In mid-1996 CAT scans confirmed that her cerebral cortext has been severely damaged (i.e. beyond the healing abilities of modern medical science). Even if stem cell research was readily available in this country, it would not be at the level to return any cognitive ability to a patient as deeply damaged as Mrs. Schiavo. This should have never been an issue put before the courts or Congress.

How does this play into the sanctity of marriage? After all, once married, if a person falls into a comatose state, the spouse becomes the guardian of that individual, and, if worse comes to worse, the person to make the final call on keeping life-support on or to shut it off. According to Congress, they are the final arbitrators of life and death, not the loving spouse of a comatose patient. Gay and Lesbian couples trying to get marriage rights, I know this is one of the reasons you wanted the ability to marry. If these attacks on marriage rights continue to persist, then it could get to the point where straight couples will have the same rights as gay couples instead of the other way around.

I'll close this post with the following issue. It is fortunate that Mrs. Schiavo is not in Texas. In 1999, Gov. George W. Bush signed the Texas Futile Care Law into Texas Law. Under this law, doctors and hospitals can refuse to maintain life support of any patient, even against the will of the next of kin, if the patient does not have health insurance or any other way to pay for the care in exchange to tranfering the patient to a county hospital. Thus, the burden for maintaining life support falls to the taxpayer, not to the expert (i.e. the physician). Might I add that this appears to be a real slick way of getting out of a lawsuit. All of this coming from the same guy who later on said in this year's State Of The Union Address, "human life should not be a commodity".

It's the hypocrisy, stupid.