Human Dignity and the Law

Our Uncle Bill is dying. He sustained a stroke on New Year's Day in 2004. He did fairly well until just after last Christmas. Since then his decline has been precipitous. He is only intermittently lucid. He spends most of his time in the bed. When he is alert enough to converse often times he speaks of matters from the past such as the need to sell his Ford. As in the Model T. He still pines for Aunt Jean who didn't wake up one morning last summer. They had been married for almost sixty years. He hates his life and the loss of his former vigorous health.

He is receiving hospice care in his home. He is cared for by a private duty nurse. He is fed and kept clean. He receives medication in sufficient doses to help him stay reasonably comfortable. However, in the event he sustains another stroke or acquires an illness, he will not receive aggressive medical care. Further, should he lapse into unconsciousness, he will be allowed to pass away. This decision was made by the family. After all, he is 86. He will never get be restored to his old pickup driving, deer hunting, Baptist church attending self. He will never see Jean again from this side of the shore. We think that this is what he would want. Are we assuming facts? Of course we are. But we know Bill. He is an Uncle, a father and a grandfather. Everybody is in agreement that this is the best plan under the circumstances.

Please let's keep this to ourselves. We do not wish Uncle Bill to be disturbed by Rev. Randall Terry and his so-called "Right to Life" acolytes. Maple Street in Benton, Arkansas is not wide enough to accommodate a mob of protestors and the media that would surely be there to record every hotheaded speech, every hysterical act of someone falling out, and every time a child was arrested for attempting to "rescue" Uncle Bill. And we simply do not need the unbidden presence of Jesse Jackson. The family has enough to contend with, thank you very much.

Is there one among us who does not own a heart that was not moved to pity as Terri Schiavo perished last week in Florida? And yet, for some of us at least , that pity was tempered by the knowledge that the poor woman was incapable of comprehending that her last days had unleashed a firestorm of protest, legal machinations and inflammatory commentary from both media and politicians alike. She had no knowledge of the psychodrama outside the door.

Let us be clear on what the Schiavo case was and was not about. It was not about the fact that Terri Schiavo was "alive" when the state court judge ordered the feeding tube removed. It was not about whether her husband is a heartless cad who fathered two children out of wedlock while seeking to terminate his wife's life. It is not about whether it is ethical or whether it should be legal to deny food and nutrition to a living person although this is a worthy subject for discussion for another day. And it is not about whether a spouse gets to make these decisions when the family of the vegetative person disagrees although this too is a worthy subject for a later date.

It is about respect for the rule of law. The sad details of the Schiavo case were litigated for almost 10 years. The decision of the state court judge was upheld by Florida's appellate courts. Despite the extraordinary special statute conferring federal jurisdiction over this case, the federal courts declined to intervene for the reason that Terri Schiavo's right so to due process had been protected by the Florida state courts.

What otherwise would be considered an exercise in judicial restraint is now considered an act of "judicial tyranny." Veiled threats have been leveled at the federal judges involved by unscrupulous politicians. Not so veiled threats were made against the state court trial judge who ordered the tube removed. The judge, a Southern Baptist, and his family are now under 24 hour guard. Certain radio and cable pundits urged Governor Jeb Bush to send the State Police in to "rescue" poor Terri. Amazingly enough, he evidently considered it but thought better of it when told that the local cops would enforce the court's order and block the entrance. Bless their underpaid little hearts.

Go to any law library in this great land of ours and you will see walls full of books that report the decisions made by the state and federal courts. In each and every one of the cases reported, exactly 50 percent of the parties to those cases left the courthouse pissed off. Some were incarcerated, some were ordered to pay money, some lost their land. And so on.

So where do we go from here? Will the Schiavo case stand for the proposition that you can take the law into your own hands when the court renders a decision that you don't agree with? Will the Schiavo case henceforth mean that the "Right to Life" trumps a person's right to a dignified death on terms dictated earlier by him or her? Or will the short life and tragic death of Terri Schiavo set off a reasoned and dispassionate nationwide discussion about "end of life" care for the elderly and the disabled? What will be Terri's legacy concerning these issues that all of us will have to face eventually if we have not already done so?

On second thought, we think that it would be interesting if the Reverends Terry and Jackson were to show up to "rescue" Bill from his family. We think that Bill's huntin' and fishin' buddies from Haskell would find their unbidden presence in the community thought provoking and useful.

And they would deal with them accordingly.