After initially hearing of the controversial case involving Terri and Michael Schiavo my reaction was one of horror: Why would someone wish to end the life of someone else?
Then I learned more. I learned that Michael Schiavo was Catholic and it was only then that I understood. In case you have somehow spent your life residing under a rock, a park bench, a bridge, or somewhere akin to those places, I would like to make clear that Catholics + Divorce do not mix. Now, coming from a semi-Catholic background and having extreme Catholic sympathies I grew up knowing this. But this isn't entirely true.
It isn't so much the issue of divorce itself that Catholics have an issue with. Not in the least. The Catholic Church grants divorces on a regular basis--it is the practice of remarriage after a divorce that crawls around under the Church's proverbial skin. Remarriage is, of course, quite acceptable as long as the previous spouse no longer resides in the land of the living. Enter the Schiavo family.
Now I made the terrible mistake earlier of accidentally landing on Andrew Sullivan's website. Let's keep in mind that nothing we hear is necessarily fact. CNN is incredibly partial to the democratic party (as the Dan Rather incident earlier this year clearly proved) while Fox News, while claiming to be "fair and balanced" leans in favor of Republicans. I've heard that Michael did all he could to rehabilitate her in the beginning and I've heard that he had been making attempts to have her feeding tube removed ever since she first landed herself into that coma so many years ago. I've heard that she was anorexic, bulemic, and that she was beaten into that coma by her husband. I've heard that she was semi-conscious and I've heard that she was nearly comatose. I've heard it all and so have you.
Michael Schiavo claims his wife would not have wanted to persist in such a state. This is quite possibly true. Let it be stated here that if I ever experience any sort of accident that leaves me comatose--Nobody better pull my fucking plug. Got it?? Okay, that said, let's move on. Let's assume that most people (I've been doing some unofficial polling) besides myself would not wish to live while in a vegetative state. From this angle, Mr. Schiavo's actions seem understandable, if not compassionate. Enter the girlfriend.
The Catholic Church frowns on remarriage, remember? I asked over and over why on earth he couldn't just divorce his wife and marry his girlfriend--the mother of his two children. That became apparent when his denomination revealed itself. Remarriages by Catholics are not officially recognized by the Church. Terri's death did not become immediately necessary, therefore it was not requested until Michael made the decision--not that she was in torment--but that he wanted to remarry yet still retain his status as a Catholic.
Last time I checked, Catholics were not only Christians, but the first Christians. One of the Ten Commandments states clearly that, "Thou shalt not kill". There are those, myself included, who feel that the Bible should not be a strict dictator of modern American law, but the reason this case was propelled into the spotlight as a religious issue was due to the fact that within the familial dichotomy surrounding Terri, her life and death were, first and foremost, a religious issue. Without her death, Michael Schiavo could not carry on with his life--at least, not the way he wanted it. It became a religious issue in the media as a direct result of the relgious battle going on between both parties involved in Terri's case.
Ironically, in order to maintain one of the rules of the Catholic Church, Michael Schiavo had to break one of the fundamental principals of the religion that Caholicism is based upon--the basic right to life.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Terri Schiavo was anorexic and did place her own life in mortal jeapordy. Most anoretics (experienced ones, anyway) are very good at what they do. If you don't know what to look for (and sometimes even when you do) anoretic behavior is remarkably easy to overlook or rationalize away. However it is difficult (nearly impossible) to reach an anoretic state so advanced that one suffers permanent brain damage without unknowingly waving huge red flags in the face of loved ones. Bulemics do not always drop a large amount of weight. As a matter of fact, studies have shown that most bulemics do not lose much weight at all. Anoretics, on the other hand, do drop weight. It does not always begins drastically, but if it results in brain damage, it ends drastically. If this is truly what occured with Terri Schiavo then someone in her life was aware that she was not eating properly. One can only explain away a lack of hunger for so long before others begin to take note of excessive weight loss. Given that, since the 80's, knowlege of anorexia and bulemia has become common, these are conditions that pop to mind when one is presented with a loved one who either refuses to eat, claims repeatedly to have already eaten, or displays biazarre patterns of behavior regarding food (such as chopping a piece of celery into exactly 54 pieces and eating only five of those pieces every ten minutes). These are behaviors characteristic of anoretics and sooner or later these behaviors become apparent to even the most uneducated observer.
If Michael Schiavo is the true and compassionate caregiver he claims to be, and if Terri did suffer from anorexia, then her husband, at some point, had to have become aware of the fact. Taking her to the doctor would have been a wonderful start. Will a doctor's visit cure an anoretic? Fuck no. Nothing short of hospitalization and a choice on the part of the anoretic in question to change his/her own behavior will serve to alter the freight train of death that is an eating disorder. A doctor's visit would have, however, informed Michael of just what was going on with his wife's body and brain, so that he could make better informed decisions regarding her health--such as immediate hospitalization.
But, once again for the sake of argument, lets assume that Michael was entirely too wrapped up in school/work/personal problems to take notice of the issues suffered by his wife. We are all guilty of periodically neglecting our mates in times of stress. I do not know for certain whether or not Michael requested rehabiltation attempts and physical therapy for his ailing wife and contrary to the view of Fox News, lets assume that he did. Finally giving up, he resigns himself to a life without Terri.
And then what? She lingers on, in and out of consciousness, subsisting on a feeding tube due to the fact that her brain is so damaged she cannot swallow. He allows this to continue. Whether euthenizing her or not is morally sound, I cannot say, what I can say is that he chose to allow her to survive in this manner for many years before suddenly deciding that "she would not have wanted to live this way". Ironically, when this period of "enlightenment" occurs, Michael Schiavo had decided that he wished to remarry--something not allowed to him by his denomination as long as Terri was still physically alive.
Were Michael Schiavo's motives for euthenasia born out of simple pity for his wife, then one can surely sympathize, or at the very least empathize, with his decision to have her feeding tube removed. He also claims Terri was plagued by a plethora of infections--something that is probably accurate given her lack of movement and proper nourishment. However, he allowed these infections to continue until he wished to marry. It is only then that these persistant infections became "too painful" for him to bear.
The Schiavo case was not a landmark case in that the law dictated that a feeding tube could be removed from a semi-conscious person. That occurs every day. It is a far more common practice than one would think. Usually when feeding tubes are removed however, they are removed after a set period of time in which the person has had little or no activity. That period of time is not years--not in a case in which the family member with the authority to make that decision holds actual concern for the comfort of the loved one is question. Michael Schiavo allowed his wife to persist in a semi-vegetative state for years, only deciding to have that tube removed when the existence of a "first wife" became an unbearable inconveinence. It it his motives I question--not the act itself.
We can all make clear and definitive statements concerning what we would or would not do if we were placed in Michael Schiavo's situation. With matters such as this one, it is nearly impossible to say for certain what the emotional effects and the decision that resulted, would be. Michael Schiavo ended the life of his wife--not out of compassion for her well-being or consent to her wishes, but out of convienence. It is that one deciding factor that makes him a murderer--not the fact that he was the one who ordered the tube pulled.
The most fitting consequence I can see to this matter would be his excommunication from the Catholic Church--an act that would render all of his feelings, decisions, and resulting actions in this situation moot--to be forced out of the very institution he gave someone else's life to remain a part of.