—editorial (“Revisiting Schiavo—The only issue was privacy”) in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (6/17/2005)
Schiavo died of dehydration, said Dr. Jon R. Thogmartin, chief medical examiner for Pinellas and Pasco counties…. Thogmartin also said that if her feeding tube had remained intact, and ailments common to bed-ridden patients had been properly tended to, Schiavo might have lived another 10 years. The finding that she had been under no threat of imminent demise was seized upon by advocates for her parents as proof that her death was unnecessary, as well as immoral.
—Los Angeles Times wire story by John-Thor Dahlburg & Karen Kaplan in the same issue of the Minneapolis Star Tribune (6/17/2005)
Ms. Schiavo was not starved to death. She died of dehydration after her feeding tube was removed in March.… In short, the medical experts who testified that Ms. Schiavo was beyond recovery were right. So too were the 19 judges who reviewed the case and, based on medical evidence and the law, determined that her husband, Michael Schiavo, legally spoke for Terri…. We are a nation of laws, and the law in this case was clear. Ms. Schiavo did not have a living will or other written notice of how she wished to be treated if incapacitated. Mr. Schiavo said that his wife didn’t want to be kept alive through extraordinary measures…. We hope overreaching lawmakers learned a lesson here, although most appeared unapologetic this week. —editorial in the Miami Herald (6/17/2005) n Poll question invoking the Schiavo name: Turning now to Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who had been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990, and whose parents and husband disagreed over whether she should be kept alive. As you may know, the feeding tube that was keeping Terri Schiavo alive was removed on March 18th, and she died this past Thursday [3/31/2005]. Based on what you have heard or read about the case, do you think that the feeding tube should or should not have been removed? Responses: Should have - 53%. Should not have - 41%. Unsure - 6%. —CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 4/1-2/2005 n Poll question correctly describing Terri Schindler Schiavo’s condition without invoking her name: If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water? Responses: Should - 7%. Should not - 80%. Not sure - 13%.—Zogby International poll, 3/30 through 4/2/2005
n Poll question: Do you agree or disagree that it is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge’s order? Responses: Agree - 44%. Disagree - 43%. Not sure - 13%.—Zogby International poll, 3/30 through 4/2/2005
n Poll question: Do you agree or disagree that the representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled? Responses: Agree - 42%. Disagree - 48%. Not sure - 10%—Zogby International poll, 3/30 through 4/2/2005
The above quotes from editorials upon the release of the report on the autopsy of Terri Schindler Schiavo and the sample of poll questions surrounding her case should alarm everyone of us—especially if you are disabled. The editorial misrepresentations and baffling distinctions are astounding. Mrs. Schiavo “was not starved to death, she died of dehydration” is the petulant observation of the Miami Herald. Does that make killing her morally acceptable? No, the autopsy did not show that Mrs. Schiavo was “irreversibly brain dead” as the Minneapolis Star Tribune falsely claims. Had she been, she would have been on a ventilator. The autopsy did not show “beyond dispute” that she was in a “persistent vegetative state”—that is a clinical diagnosis to be made on a living patient. And physicians disagreed whether she was or not. No one had “to make difficult end of life choices” because she was not dying. She “might have lived another 10 years,” the medical examiner said. But “the only issue was privacy,” states the editorial headline in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Indeed, it is judicially invented “privacy” that allows one to make the decision to end the life of a disabled relative—as long as that relative is physically unable to voice an objection. The “private” decision to end the disabled person’s life still requires that the actual killing take place outside the privacy of one’s home, with the cooperation of others. You can’t just quietly suffocate that relative at home—not yet. “In privacy” one may also make the decision to kill that relative in a manner that would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment—if it were used to punish a serial murderer. And you may not starve/dehydrate to death your dog or cat or horse; and your veterinarian may not do it either. But a physician and other health professionals can be your accomplices in the protracted starvation/dehydration death of your disabled spouse, child, or parent—all in the name of “privacy.” “We are a nation of laws, and the law in this case was clear,” proclaims the Miami Herald. But it is highly disputable that the law was followed as Judge Greer elevated sheer hearsay (remembered years after the disabling incident) to the level of “clear and convincing evidence” that Terri Schindler Schiavo wished to be starved/dehydrated to death. Look at the polls and be very concerned.