The View From Here . . .

With some trepidation, I express my opinions in this column on the very sad case of Terri Schiavo.

I have trepidation because, consistent with the role of a general interest column in my family's community newspapers, this space very rarely wades into the most emotional social issues. Indeed, as young Robert and I are leaving for Spain a few hours after this column is finished, I will return to more familiar ground when I write next week's piece from an internet cafÈ in Madrid. But the Schiavo case has become such a center of national attention that I do believe that it should be addressed. One caveat - I am writing on Monday and Tuesday, and I recognize that the situation could change dramatically in a number of ways.

Let me start out with my one direct life experience in this area. A number of years ago, I was in a situation involving signing, as recommended by a doctor, a do not resuscitate (DNR) certificate in respect of an unconscious and hopelessly ill loved one. Frankly uncertain and distraught, I consulted a Catholic priest on this and was informed that the church did not require that extraordinary means be used to preserve a life. The priest's basic message was that it was permissible to sign the certificate.

I think that my experience demonstrates what the Schiavo case is not. It is not about prohibiting, under all circumstances, terminally people from being allowed to die naturally without heroic medical intervention to prolong their life. This is frequently sanctioned by the medical community, and indeed by the Catholic Church, perhaps the strongest prolife voice in our society.

But there are a number of specifically troubling issues about the Schiavo situation. First, of course, Terri Schiavo is not brain dead and she is not terminally ill. Like the rest of us, she will die if she does not receive food and water. But if she does receive nutrients through a feeding tube, there is a good possibility that she will live for decades. Moreover, there is considerable debate over whether she is in a persistent vegetative state or whether even now she has some level of consciousness and can perform some life functions. This situation obviously is a long way from declining to restart the heartbeat of a completely unresponsive patient suffering from a fatal illness.

Second, the role of Ms. Schiavo's husband, Michael, is quite problematic here, even giving him the benefit of the doubt on his good faith. Mr. Schiavo's decision to start life over with another woman is frankly understandable under the difficult circumstances, but it seems inconsistent with his asserted role as next of kin. This is especially true when his case for removing the feeding tube is vehemently opposed by Terri Schiavo's blood relatives, and is based upon his recollections of conversations with his wife, rather than any document she executed.

Under the extraordinary circumstances, it seems that Congress acted prudently to permit the federal courts to review this matter. While the Florida courts are entitled to some deference, they are not allowed to take away someone's life without due process. Convicted killers facing the death penalty invariably receive plenary review of their claims in federal courts. It would seem that Terri Schiavo, convicted of nothing, and her family have every right to the same consideration.