Peter Espeut
THE PUBLIC reaction in the United States to the decision of Mr. Schiavo to remove the feeding tube from his wife's stomach (resulting in her death) has been extraordinary, especially in the context of the support that same U.S. public gives to the invasion of Iraq based on the myth of weapons of mass destruction, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis. The U.S. at present is morally challenged, and all people of goodwill need to pray for the conversion of that potentially-great country.
We students of Moral Theology in the 1980s would revel in unravelling knotty hypothetical cases about right and wrong, about life and death. The reality of the Terri Schiavo story is worthy of such treatment.
Christian morality begins with the assertion that only the one who gives life has the authority to take life. Since one did not give oneself life, then one is not permitted to take one's own life (suicide). Even when one is attacked by an unlawful aggressor; one must not use more force than is necessary to defend oneself.
If one kills an attacker when other means could be used to subdue or incapacitate, one could be guilty of murder. And when there is no other option to killing an attacker, the "Principle of the Double Effect" applies: where an action has two effects, one essential and intended (to legitimately defend oneself) and the other is not (that the attacker should die), it is morally right to do the former. The Gospel of Life is a package deal which demands that all life - even of criminals - is valued.
Christian moral teaching holds that the requirement to preserve one's life or the lives of one's relatives does not extend to the use of medical procedures which are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary or disproportionate to the expected outcome. One would, therefore, not be morally required to keep one's relative on a heart-lung machine, for example. Of course it would not be wrong to choose to do so; neither would it be wrong if first one had chosen to do so, later to decide to pull the plug.
BRAIN DAMAGED
But this is not the case with Terri Schiavo. She was not on any artificial life support machinery. Her brain had been damaged, but all her organs were working perfectly, including her heart, her lungs and her stomach. All she needed was the same thing we need to live: food and water. She had been fed through a tube for about 15 years, was healthy, and looked as if she could live at least another 15 years.
And so with that background, the moral question is, is it morally right to remove her feeding tube and her source of fluid, which will result in her death by starvation and dehydration? Is the use of a feeding tube "burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary or disproportionate to the expected outcome"?
The provision of food even through a tube is considered an 'ordinary' means of sustaining life, and so it would seem that, on this question alone, and no matter what else may be considered, it would not be morally right to remove her feeding tube.
HOPED FOR RECOVERY
Her parents argued that behind her 15-year-long wall of silence was sensitivity. They claimed to see a spark of recognition and responsiveness in her eyes, and hoped and prayed for her partial or full recovery. They wished the feeding tube to remain for as long as it took, or until she breathed her last on her own.
This may or may not be so, but it is irrelevant to the moral argument. The appearance of consciousness or responsiveness or lack thereof is not a factor in determining whether or not to remove the tube. As is often the case, people may come to the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason.
Her husband's claim was that he wanted her to die with dignity, and that before she had become brain-damaged she had told him she didn't want to live as a human vegetable. Her wishes are important, but since she does not have the moral right to end her own life - or to ask another to do so - that wish (true or false) is irrelevant to the moral argument.
Her husband's motives were clearly mixed. Even though he was still legally married to Terri , in the interim he entered another relationship which has resulted in two children, and he wanted to move on. What is interesting is that because of their marriage legally the decision about her future was in his hands, even though he had been unfaithful to that marriage.
He petitioned the court to give the order for the tube to be removed, and they upheld his right to do so over the wishes of his parents, the U.S. Congress and U.S. public opinion.
Further, he had sued the doctors who caused his wife's condition, and received US$1 million in compensation. This was just as much her money as his, and should have been used for her benefit as much as his.
These are painful decisions, and people often are not able to think straight when they are actually in a difficult situation. You will notice that the late Pope John Paul II - conscious at the end chose not to be taken to hospital for extreme treatment to preserve his life, but to remain in his apartment to die with dignity among his friends and countrymen.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
