By Any Other Name

The Terri Schiavo case is everything but clear and straightforward. There has been sworn testimony from doctors, nurses, her parents, the husband; rulings from judges, orders from a governor, requests and legislation from congress; protests, interviews, arguments.

It might be good to ignore all that for a moment and simply ask a few questions, make a few observations, find some similarities. Just what is it that makes Terri unique? Exactly who should be treated in the same way?

It is beneficial to compare her to someone on life-support, because she is not and has not been on life-support. She has not been kept alive through artificial means – there's no machine breathing for her, nothing outside of herself is keeping her heart beating. No piece of equipment is assisting or replacing a function of her body. Just like you and me her body digests food. Just like you and me without that food she will eventually die. It's just that she needs some help eating.

So what is it that makes it alright to starve Terri? If it's okay to let her die this peaceful, dignified death, who else can be the beneficiary of our new enlightenment?

Are those that are unable to lift a fork to their mouth – or unable to chew – unfit to live? Should Christopher Reeve's life have been ended years ago? What if they simply can't physically prepare the food? Should the elderly man who needs help getting to the dining hall in his nursing home just be left to starve in his room? Should the parents of a paralyze teen girl do her a favor and not feed her? Perhaps we should end meals on wheels?

Maybe it's not that she can't physically care for herself – but that she can't mentally care for herself. Is that why she can be starved? Perhaps that 20 year old son – who's parents have cared for him all his life – should be treated like Terri. Sure he could physically feed himself – but he's not mentally capable. So should he starve?

Children aren't able to feed themselves, but we let them live. Maybe it's because they usually become able to care for themselves. Should those who's physical or mental capabilities are permanently lacking be left uncared for? Should they be left to die because of their inability? Who can determine what will never change? Who can say what abilities will never be recovered?

Is it just because her husband wants her to starve that this is happening? Does a legal guardian have the right to make any decision over a person in their guardianship? If a husband can order the death of his spouse, can a parent order the death of a child? Maybe they can, as long as the child in unborn. Perhaps Terri is just the logical extension of an already existing societal norm. So when does the guardian's ability to control the life and death of another end? Is it when the individual can speak? When they can sign some legal document? When does a person become a person? And when do they stop?

Or maybe it's just the hotly debated belief that she didn't want to live this way. Does that even really matter? If a person is rushed to the hospital because of dehydration and lack of nourishment it doesn't really matter whether they want to live or not, the hospital will care for them. If someone is tired of living the way that they're living and jumps from a bridge, should the rescue team rush them to the bridge so they can try again? If a person attempts a suicide is the proper response to offer some constructive criticism on how to be successful on the next attempt?

What exactly is it that makes it alright for Terri to starve to death? Perhaps it's just that she's Terri Schiavo, wife of estranged husband Michael Schiavo, who resides in the jurisdiction of Judge George Grier.

So I must ask - would Terri by any other name die this way?