Terri Schiavo and Her Reach Into the Future
By Paul Snamiska, Program Administrator-Christian Life Resources
Terri Schiavo is now dead after a 15-year battle. The influence of Terri’s death, however, has a far-reaching impact. The following Q&A format addresses some key facts and Biblical applications.
Q: What exactly was Terri’s condition?
A: Many said she was persistent vegetative state (PVS), but not all medical professionals agreed. Personal accounts, supported by videotape footage, provided evidence that Terri had awareness of family members, could show response to music and touch, and could follow objects that were moved around her. Some claimed that she tried to speak but was unable to actually form the words. Some medical experts agreed that Terri could have improved in her condition if proper therapy would have been provided.
Q: What is PVS?
A: It is diagnosed as a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
Q: Why would anyone say someone is a vegetable?
A: The crude reference came from people who have a general disrespect for those who suffer with a mental disability. The intent was to convey that the person is still living, but unable to do anything but “sit there like a piece of vegetable.”
Q: Was Terri brain dead?
A: No. This term is often misused. Brain dead is complete cessation of all brain activity, including the brain stem. No physician ever claimed Terri was brain dead.
Q: Could Terri respond at all?
A: There is strong evidence that Terri could respond in meaningful ways. Video of Terri showed her responding to various people or objects. Family members and nurses said they had minimal communication with Terri. Others argued that Terri’s responses were simply reflex actions and not purposeful or meaningful.
Q: What was the real debate in this case?
A: Clear and simple, it was Terri’s wishes. Every American adult has the legal right to make his/her own health care decisions. Since Terri did not make her wishes known, the doctors, legislators, and judges debated, “What would Terri want?”
Q: Why did Michael, the husband, get his way instead of Terri’s parents?
A: In most cases, the courts defer to the spouse over all other family members. Most people feel that a spouse knows the wishes of the loved one better than anyone else.
Q: Why were Christians opposed to the removal of Terri’s feeding tube?
A: Removal of the feeding tube led to Terri’s starvation and dehydration. This act took away God’s authority over life and death (Deuteronomy 32:39, Exodus 20:13, 1 Samuel 2:6).
Q: Wasn’t the feeding tube just keeping Terri alive artificially?
A: Terri was severely disabled, but was not dying. Feeding any living being is required to maintain life. Terri’s condition was fairly consistent for many years and she likely would have lived for many more years if feeding would have continued.
Q: What is man’s responsibility regarding life and death situations?
A: God requires that we preserve and protect human life (Genesis 9:5-6, Luke 10).
Q: Does that mean we must do everything humanly possible to extend life?
A: Not necessarily. At times we withhold treatment out of faith that God is taking that life. At other times, we withdraw treatment that is hastening death. In general, the principle dictates that we do not have the right to end life prematurely, nor do we have the responsibility to prolong the dying process.
Q: After thinking about this, I feel that I would not want to live in a condition like Terri’s. Is that wrong?
A: Absolutely not. No one wants to suffer or live in a reduced quality of life. That is just one reason for exercise, nutrition, and healthy life choices. Most people would not wish to be in a wheelchair, become blind, or suffer with cancer either. The real question is how you respond when these events come into your life. Even though you might not want to live with a disability, you still have the ability to glorify God in your life in spite of a reduced physical or mental quality.
Q: Terri’s quality of life was virtually gone. Why should we keep her alive?
A: A person’s quality of life is not the issue since “quality of life” is so subjective. We rejoice that God has given us absolute value regardless of our quality. It is true that Terri’s quality of life was diminished, but we still have the responsibility to provide care until the time comes when God takes her life. King David provided a good example when he took crippled Mephibosheth into his home and cared for him (2 Kings 9).
Q: Did Terri feel any pain?
A: This is a very good question. Throughout Terri’s fifteen years of nursing home care, she was not on any regular pain medication. Extreme suffering could not be used as an argument to kill Terri, because she wasn’t suffering. Once the feeding tube was removed, the debate intensified. Those who concluded Terri was PVS stated she had no feeling because that part of her brain was no longer active. Others said she did feel pain and requested pain medication for her last weeks of life. Dehydration is described as a very painful death as organs and tissue dry out from lack of fluids. In Terri’s case, there was an assumption that she would feel the pain so morphine was administered to provide comfort.
Q: I heard that Michael, Terri’s husband, was really trying to provide a death with dignity. Is that true?
A: When you witness a dying person it is hard to say there is dignity in the process. Death is a consequence of sin which is neither beautiful nor dignified. Yet there are various levels of comfort in the dying process. Advocates for euthanasia or assisted-suicide promote the withdrawal of a feeding tube, lethal injection, or a large dose of sleeping pills and a plastic bag. None of these scenarios seem very dignified. The “death with dignity” mantra is certainly not Biblical and is a misleading concept to mask the reality of the right-to-die organizations. When seeking dignity, it is better to look at the way a person lived rather than the way they die.
Q: Since God allowed man to develop new technologies, aren’t we required to use them?
A: God commands that we should be wise stewards in managing the blessings that He has provided to us. In some cases, technology is not readily available, is not reasonably administered, or is not expected to make a difference in sustaining life. In those situations, we are not required by God’s Word to implement the technology. When we have expectations that the technology will accomplish its purpose and we have access to it, we have the responsibility to use it.
Q: How could all of this mess with Terri Schiavo been avoided?
A: If Terri had created a medical directive, if she had communicated her wishes clearly to many people, or if the philosophy of Terri’s husband her parents would have been similar, then there would have been less fighting.
Q: What is the greatest lesson to learn from Terri’s situation?
A: The need for a medical directive is high on this list, but I would say the greatest lesson is how people devalue a person when a certain quality of life is no longer maintained.
Q: What can I do about end-of-life medical decisions in my own family?
A: First, talk to your parents about these issues. Discuss their desires and fears. Make sure their wishes are understood by all family members. If you disagree with their position, discuss it now rather than after it is too late. Second, start thinking about your own position on end-of-life situations. Some of these issues are very complicated, so seek help from Christian agencies that provide Bible-based information and direction.