This is prompted by the comment by JT on my last review. He makes a compelling case for disassociating abortion and the murder of Terri Schaivo. (Go read his post before finishing this one – you might agree with him 🙂 ). If JT is correct and Terri Schiavo was truly braindead, then he would be right in saying that it was not murder. Truly, it would not have been a case for the news.
The real question is this: Was Terri Schaivo braindead? I do not have the medical background to evaluate this; I must rely on the sources that I read. Several things standout about this case. First, the fact that she did laugh and respond to family members does seem to imply a limited intelligence and I do believe that her mental capacities were limited. Secondly, a sufficient amount of people disagreed, to give credence to the challenge that Terri was not braindead. I realize that majority does not equal right, but something about the case seems “fishy.”
I know what the medical examiner wrote about the autopsy. But, there is also a trend among doctors to refuse any medical assistance if they deem the person incapable of recovering to a sufficient level of “quality of life.” World magazine recently wrote an article, which quoted different hospital officials. These officials openly admitted to having a policy which enabled doctors to choose to deny treatment. The criteria for the choice is not “can the patient recover,” but “will the patient have a decent quality of life.” I am not a conspiracy theorist, but those policies make me pause and take situations like Terri’s with a bit of healthy skepticism. Terri may have been braindead, but I suspect she wasn’t.
Further, Michael Schaivo has been exonerated. No one can prove his actions as wrong. Do I think that he is guilty of murder? Definitely! I don’t accuse him of harming his wife or failing to notify authorities in time. Rather, I condemn his refusal to accept a divorce and to allow Terri’s family custody of her. Since he was already having a family with another woman, he couldn’t object to divorce in principle. For some other reason, he insisted on her death. Why? That fact alone, makes me suspicious of everything he says. While I disapprove of divorce, I don’t think that anyone would really have been upset if he had accepted the divorce that her parents wanted. No one would have cared if her parents had taken her home and cared for her. Why demand her death?
Because of the strange nature of the situation and the reaction that Terri gave on tape and to others, I maintain that Terri was not a true vegetable. She was alive and was murdered by her husband and the courts. JT, thanks for the great comments. Definitely something to ponder some more.