Bad Links?

Other glitches?

Notify Webmaster

What our Readers Are Saying

Letters to the Editor

Terri Schiavo: A matter of life, death

There are crises that, in a unique way, reveal our beliefs in an immediate way. These index crises expose one's world-view; what is right, what is wrong, and in the Terry Schiavo case, what is the value of human life?

It's difficult to sort out the real issues from the more peripheral ones because so many have said so much in the last week.

Did Terry Schiavo say that she would rather die than live in a "vegetative state?" Is she aware of her surroundings (family, care-givers, etc)? Is no hope of recovery or improvement grounds for removing her feeding tube?

Has the government (legislative or judicial) over-stepped its bounds? Is the sanctity of marriage under attack by those who want to deny Terry Schiavo's husband the right to make medical decisions on her behalf? Do her parents have any legal or moral rights in this matter? Is quality of life a determining factor in whether one should live or die?

Mercy killing is not a new phenomenon in our society. Dr. Kevorkian's suicide machine, books such as "Final Exit," and Clint Eastwood's Academy-Award-winning, "Million Dollar Baby," have all pushed the right-to-die movement forward.

Terry Schiavo's now-famous case has revealed in a new and horrifying way the extent of the moral anarchy of our age.

But the question that stands first in line is: "Is mercy killing ever morally permissible or justifiable (and) are there cases where it would be morally obligatory to remove a patient's suffering?" A Christian response is necessary.

There are moral absolutes. God has established a moral creation because He is a moral Being. The Terry Schiavo story has become the occasion for a major world-view clash (Christian theism versus naturalism).

The principle of life informs a Christian belief. God gives life and only He can authorize any taking of human life. Human government does not have autonomous rights. It cannot create rights. Suicide is wrong because it is self-murder.

The sanctity of human life has its roots in Christian teaching. The principle of death is an issue. Death is not a friend but an enemy. The last enemy to be destroyed is death and that will happen because of the death of Death in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Those who have not experienced God's pardon of sin in Christ and who are counting on their own good works to take them to heaven are deluded. The gaping jaws of eternal separation from God in hell await those whose only preparation for physical death is a living will.

Murder is wrong. Scripture forbids the taking of innocent life of creatures made in God's image. It is not a coincidence that many of those who want Terry Schiavo to die are also advocates of abortion on demand.

The principle of suffering is vital. Suffering can be an opportunity to glorify God. Affliction can have meaning because of the meaning of Jesus Christ's death on the cross.

Joni Eareckson Tada is a living testimony of how "God transformed an immature and headstrong teenager into a self-reliant young woman who is learning to rejoice in suffering."

I am not surprised that a culture of death is developing. Suffering without God is a bleak outlook.

Healing and loving care-giving are also potent factors in times of great pain. God may choose to heal. Recovery is sometimes possible and should not be ruled out. Comfort and help for the hurting are always right.

Even in those cases where recovery and improvement may not be possible, merciful care should be given. And for the Christian there is always the hope of a future resurrection body when all things will be made new.

The principle of precedent should guide our thinking as well. This is sometimes called the wedge principle or the slippery slope argument.

The practice of so-called mercy killing sets a dangerous precedent. It all starts with an attitude that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived.

In the words of one ethicist, "One might want to limit the breadth of the category of people who qualify for euthanasia, but once it is decided that certain people are to die, it is hard to find any logical grounds for keeping others alive."

While there seem to be some legitimate legal concerns involved in Schiavo's case, there are those guilty of moral turpitude seeking to hide behind the skirts of a judicial process. It is possible to be legally right and morally wrong.

The confusion over which handicapped and incapacitated people get to live and those who should die is a dilemma of modern man's own making.

The inability to think discerningly and morally is due to the judgment of God ("Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts ..." Romans 1:18ff).

When man wants to live without God there will be nothing but the increasing loss of moral perspective.

So then, is the removal of Terry Schiavo's feeding tube a merciful act? No.

What man calls mercy may not be mercy. It may be murder. But God has revealed His mercy in His Son, Jesus Christ.

The empty tomb of Jesus Christ offers us our only hope in a world that views personal existence as only a matter of life and death.

Dr. Howard E. Dial

Berachah Bible Church

Fayetteville, Ga.

In Schiavo case, following the law results in great injustice being done

As Terri Schiavo's last days seem to be coming to an end, I am deeply affected by the moral compromise in America. How can we let a disabled woman, especially since she is not terminally ill and has no "living will," starve and dehydrate to death?

I know that many will claim that this should be a "private family matter." But why is an estranged husband with suspect motives and conflicted interests allowed to decide that his wife's food and water be denied her?

He even refuses to let her parents (and siblings, her family) put ice chips in their dying daughter's parched mouth. Why is he so adamant that Terri not be given even a few drops of water to quench her thirst? Where is his compassion? How is denying water "death with dignity"?

Legally, a guardian may refuse any medical treatment, but giving water is not such and is not within a guardian's power to refuse it. However, the court continues to allow such abuses, even posting police officers nearby to enforce this ghastly order. This is more like communist China or Russia than America.

The Schindlers, Terri's parents, petitioned the court (Judge Greer) at the end of February to allow her family (and at least one registered nurse) "to provide Terri with food and water by natural means, by mouth," citing Terri's ability to swallow and that this would not be in violation of the court's order since the court had surmised only that Terri would not wish to live on "artificial life support."

Judge Greer determined that the family was asking for "an experimental procedure" and denied the motion.

How could anyone just walk on by a helpless puppy in need of water, allowing it to succumb to a "natural death process" (as the courts have prescribed for Terri) without at the very least giving it water by a dropper?

So, I wonder, how can Mr. Schiavo claim to love his child-like handicapped wife, yet close his ears to her loving parents' repeated pleas to allow them to care for her? If Terri feels no pain and is unaware as he claims, why does he callously deny her parents' passionate pleas to at least give her water?

(To show his compassion, Mr. Schiavo did euthanize Terri's cats, melted down her wedding ring, and has had various girlfriends and two out-of wedlock children rather than divorce Terri and relinquish guardianship of her to her parents.)

This issue is not just a cause of "right-wing nuts" as the mainstream media indicate.

Attorney Lanny Davis, special counsel to former President Clinton, appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" (3/23/05) and expressed his concerns about "the merits of erring on the side of life where we're not certain about this poor woman's wishes. We have a husband who claims what she said is that she wanted to be disconnected [Terri's not on life support]. But we're not certain. And at least in this instance, which is rare, where you have parents willing to go through the pain and the agony of tending to this poor young woman, we ought to err and allow those parents to do that."

Mr. Davis also reminded viewers that Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is "out there calling for this woman's life to be allowed to continue, whatever state it's in." Terri's plight has had some bipartisan legislative cooperation.

Mr. Schiavo's brother admitted to Greta Van Susteren ("On the Record," 3/24/05) that Terri's end-of life wishes were made during a casual conversation among several people after the death of an elderly grandmother who had been on a ventilator (unlike Terri) and died as a consequence of disease.

In a later news interview with Geraldo Rivera, he revealed that the grandmother was on a ventilator for just ONE DAY while her living will was being ascertained.

How could anyone be convinced that a healthy young woman's supposed comment at that time, "I don't want to be kept alive on a machine," is analogous to "don't give me food and water if I become incapacitated"?

How could Mr. Schiavo remember specific comments made by one particular person at such an emotionally stressful time when others were adding their own comments?

If Terri were so adamant about her desire to be euthanized by starvation and dehydration, why didn't she discuss her desires with an attorney and have her wishes clearly documented?

Her beliefs as a practicing Catholic (Mr. Schiavo's background is Lutheran, but church has had little importance to him) preclude suicide or "mercy" killing. Judge Greer has repeatedly ruled as unacceptable any testimony that would in any way suggest that death by dehydration is not Terri's wish.

This casual conversation is a poor basis, even for hearsay evidence, for Terri's judicially mandated death order which is all that the court has, for Terri's supposed request to end her own life. This is NOT "clear and convincing evidence" that most would expect the law to require.

Diane Coleman, president of a Not Dead Yet (www.notdeadyet.org), argues that disabled-rights activists "as a whole lean toward being pro-choice" on abortion, but want to protect individual rights of incapacitated people who might be considered a burden to both relatives and authorities.

Based on respected medical studies, disability rights advocates contend that a large portion of cases labeled "persistent vegetative state" (PVS), the category some doctors apply to Terri, are misdiagnosed and that "state courts tend to devalue people with disabilities."

What happened on "Larry King Live" (3/24/05) when a woman, who had been on a respirator, had a feeding tube, and had been diagnosed as PVS, came to the show believing that Terri should be allowed to die "with dignity" but then saw a video of Terri?

"I hadn't realized that she was quite as alert as she seemed to be. I hadn't seen any films of her until just now, and I'm pretty satisfied that the lady is definitely with us. I wasn't - I thought at one time that there was absolutely nothing going on, but I can't say that after having seen her ... I think that she's got a real strong case for living."

Mrs. Cole went on to point out that a feeding tube is not life support and questioned why Terri's rehab had been stopped. (A very good question since Mr. Schiavo won quite a lot of money from a malpractice suit to pay for Terri's rehabilitation but consequently moved her from a rehabilitation center to a nursing home, denied her any therapy, and ordered the staff not to treat her for any potentially fatal infection.)

Mrs. Cole pointed out, "Terri at one point was swallowing Jell-O, [and] we know she was saying some words. What happened to the speech pathologist?"

Recognized neurology expert Dr. B. Engstrand filed an affidavit and is willing to testify in court that Terri may "even be conscious," and that "therapy makes a difference. Holding back therapy from a sick patient can make that patient go backwards. Ms. Schiavo needs therapy ... With swallowing therapy Ms. Schiavo can slowly be trained and then the feeding tube can be removed ... Ms. Schiavo definitely needs speech therapy."

Dr. Ronald Cranford, (also on the same Larry King show) a neurologist and medical ethicist who advocates euthanasia (the starvation of Alzheimer's patients and brain-damaged children and "organ retrieval" from infants with anencephaly, etc.), briefly examined Terri in 2002. He insists, "She'll never regain consciousness. She's completely unconscious."

However, a registered nurse who cared for Terri for more than a year, in a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, testified "When I worked with her, she was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence, saying such things as 'mommy,' and 'help me' ... and would try to say the word 'pain,'" motioning where she hurt. (She has been given Tylenol to alleviate her monthly discomfort.) She and other caregivers realize that Terri is more responsive with those whom she trusts.

It is disheartening (criminal?) that so much medical testimony has been ignored by Judge Greer. Recently, Dr. William Cheshire, a neurologist and appointed volunteer with the Florida statewide Adult Protective Services team who was called to provide an "independent and objective medical review," came to this case with a belief that Terri's life should be ended.

In his sworn affidavit, however, he explains why he changed his mind in Terri's case. "There remain, in fact, huge uncertainties in regard to Terri's true neurologic[al] status."

He points out, "Some studies have indicated ... a high rate of false initial diagnosis of PVS," and that medical practice currently recognizes a minimally conscious state because of the significant medical strides that have been made in this field since Terri became incapacitated.

Dr. Cheshire elaborates on seven of Terri's behavioral responses that "cast a reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS," behavior that Mrs. Cole instinctively recognized as meaningful.

He also talked to the nurses about Terri's response to pain and documents her ability to experience pain (contrary to the definition of PVS) and her being given ibuprofen. He honestly admits, "One cannot directly know with certainty the pain another person experiences."

"Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not painful ... But for the decision to withdraw her feeding tube [despite her family's request that she not undergo this medical procedure], Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the withdrawal of food and water, she would not die," Dr. Cheshire writes in his report.

Dr. Cheshire concludes, "I could not withhold life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose face brightens in the presence of others." Why are his observations disallowed while Dr. "Death" Cranford's are accepted by Judge Greer?

Her family has requested (and been denied) that Terri be allowed to die at home because her family "does not want her to have to be alone at her death without people who love and care for her being near her" and in order to "maximize their final moments with her."

Their request that Terri not be cremated because it would be in contradiction to her religious faith and that she be buried in Florida "since the majority of people who would likely to visit the grave of the Ward reside in Pinellas County, Florida" has not been granted. Mr. Schiavo intends to cremate her (Judge Greer has already ordered that no autopsy be performed that might allay suspicions of physical abuse) and to put her remains in Pennsylvania although he resides in Florida.

Just how "fair" do you think the legal system has been to Terri and her family? Read the court documents (www.terrisfight.net) and listen to the interviews yourself and ask if there is much justice left in America any more.

Dr. Cheshire reminds us all, "How medicine and society choose to think about Terri Schiavo will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved, it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life."

Gayla Conley

Peachtree City, Ga.

Fayette loaded with 'Bubba' ball fields, but not a single arts venue

Last Wednesday's Free Speech brought out the nameless but none the less opinionated in force to ridicule Barry Amos and his suggestion of "the arts" and "culture" having a place in Tyrone.

I've never met Mr. Amos but I have to respect the only person in some position of government in Fayette County that realizes there is a need for the arts and culture.

I've suggested before Fayette County continues to cultivate an environment of sports in an attempt to develop our youth into the next generation of "Bubbas."

Sports are an integral ingredient in the development of children and should not be overlooked. However, there are other developmental areas requiring skill and talent which should not be ignored.

Take a few minutes to thumb through the local yellow pages and notice how many dance studios, music teachers and art instructors are available in our area. Then pick one at random and ask them where they hold their recitals (in Bubba lingo that means the field where they play).

Did you know Toastmasters is here in Fayette County, as well as several writers groups? Do you know what they do?

Last June the Free Speech and the Opinion sections of the paper contained the tirades of parents and others incensed because they had to sit in a church to hear a concert performed by the Whitewater High School Chorus.

They would rather rant their affront to religion than to push the county to provide proper facilities. With the exception of Sams Auditorium, (circa 1963), and the limited seating of the YMCA Lodge House, Fayette County has no venue for these groups.

The April/May issue of "arts & expressions" magazine lists plays, art shows and other upcoming performances. Atlanta, Griffin, Coweta and Clayton County all have facilities to accommodate these events, rain or shine. Fayetteville is having an outdoor art show, also rain or shine.

The county administration has no incentive to build a performing arts center as long as the community appears to only be interested in playing sports. Developers only have to put in a few soccer or ball fields to win favor in the community and the County.

I've never heard of John Wieland offering to build an auditorium. Could there be a consideration for an auditorium rather than another ball field or big box store? Is Fayette County cosmopolitan enough to consider cultural development?

It appears despite the grandiose facade, Peachtree City is not ready, and Fayetteville has no interest in the development of our youth beyond sports.

Chances are slim but I hope Barry Amos builds his cultural center.

Mike Loyd

Fayetteville, Ga.

Open Records: Paper struggles in 24/7 world

Those of you who are frequent readers of The Citizen might be surprised to read that [editor] Cal Beverly and I are actually friends.

We talk on the phone every couple of months about what's going on in Fayette County and what we think of it. It is always a friendly conversation. We usually don't agree on everything but we probably agree more often than not.

For those of you who are new readers to The Citizen, the reason that may shock some people is because Cal sometimes criticizes me in his paper when he thinks I'm wrong, and I always criticize him publicly when I know he is.

The relationship has remained cordial because we have known each other for 20 years, all the way