The Courts and Death

As I’m sure most of you by now know Terry Schiavo died today. Yes my last entry I stated that I believed that the tube should remain removed and that Terry should be allowed to die. She should have been allowed to die in 2001 the first time the tube was removed. Even so I give my sympathy to her parents, and hope that now that it is final that they will be able to move on with their lives and continue to live their lives with happy memories of Terry rather than the years of legal battles and television interviews that they forced themselves to go through. It is my hope that they can come to see the this final answer is what was best for Terry, even if it’s not what they wanted.

However, I keep hearing certain things repeated over and over … and I’m tired of it.

The courts killed Terry.

No, they didn’t. That is simply the rhetoric of the ‘right to life’ crowd … the courts did not order that Terry be killed, nor did they order that anyone kill her. The court’s ruling was simple … that Michael Schiavo was Terry’s legal guardian and, as such, he had the legal right to have the tube removed. The court also ruled that it would be ‘unlawful’ for anyone to prevent him from removing the tube or otherwise interfere without Michael’s consent.

Given the fact that Michael wanted the tube removed did that ruling mean that Terry would likely die because Michael would remove the tube? Yes. But although it may seem cold and heartless, that isn’t the concern of the court … the concern of the court was … who in the eyes of the law has the authority to make that decision in the case of Terry Schiavo?

If she’d had a living will we wouldn’t be having this fight.

More than likely this is incorrect. First off, living wills aren’t quite so cut and dry and they ultimately rely on an executor that is willing to carry them out. Secondly, just like a normal ‘last will and testament’, they can be contested by family members that disagree with the situation. From what I’ve seen of the parents they would likely have contested any living will bringing us right back to the court battle that we’ve had over the last several years.

This creates a precedent that could lead to the court condemning handicapped people to death.

No, not at all. First there is the point I made above, the court ruling did not order Terry’s death. It ruled that Michael, as her legal guardian, had sole authority to make that choice and no one could interfere with it. Second off, because of the previous statement, there would have to be a legal guardian that was trying to kill the handicapped person through removal of a feeding tube or other form of life support …

The court ignored the law passed by congress and the President.

Well … there are a whole slew of issues there. Ignoring the issues with passing a law for a specific person and the questions of whether congress or the president should be involved at all, there is a very dangerous precedent in that. The ‘law’ that congress passed stated that the Court HAD to review the case as if it was a brand new case and had never before been heard by the court. … What’s the danger in that you ask? Simple … it opens the door to congress forcing ANY ruling that they don’t agree with to be reheard by the court as a new case. If the result of that review wasn’t to their liking they could just bounce it back to the court again … and again … and again … until they get a ruling they like and clogging up the judicial system in the mean time. (Or until they just couldn’t get enough votes to pass the ‘law’)

I don’t always agree with the courts, but I believe that in this case they did their job.