Schiavo v. Schindler

I promise to get back to the NCAAs in a minute.

The Terry Schiavo case is an extraordinarily sad and complicated story. It also seems to be a case where my favorite commentators on the right are headed into the dreaded “fever swamps.”

First off, this strikes me as an enormously difficult set of facts to argue for a neat solution. Should a few extra tests be done? It seems reasonable. If the tests were to confirm the diagnosis, would supporters of Terry’s parents’ efforts give up? I doubt it.

But at a high level, there are a few things that bother me from conservative commentators:

1. The Abandonment of a Spouses’ Rights. This is NOT a battle between Michael and Terry. This is a battle between Michael and Terry’s parents. If we knew Terry’s wishes beyond a doubt, there would be no case. But we don’t. Why does the right – which seems to be staunch defenders of the institution of marriage – want to abandon spousal rights now?

Marriage has no meaning if these sorts of decisions can’t be made by a spouse. These are gut wrenching, tragic choices. And to allow parents to step in – to reassert guardianship – is a dangerous precedent. But it gets worse. Congress steps in asserting some “interest.” Cough*political opportunists*cough. It is a shame that the President, who purports to be a strong defender of marriage, chooses to overrule a spouses decision.

Further, I find the smearing of Michael Schiavo really disturbing. James Taranto from OpinionJournal.com is typical: “According to news reports, Mr. Schiavo lives with a woman named Jodi Centonze, and they have two children together. Surely any court would consider this prima facie evidence of adultery. And this is no mere fling; a sympathetic 2003 profile in the Orlando Sentinel described Centonze as Mr. Schiavo's "fiancée." Mr. Schiavo, in other words, has virtually remarried. Short of outright bigamy, his relationship with Centonze is as thoroughgoing a violation of his marriage vows as it is possible to imagine.

The point here is not to castigate Mr. Schiavo for behaving badly. It would require a heroic degree of self-sacrifice for a man to forgo love and sex in order to remain faithful to an incapacitated wife, and it would be unreasonable to hold an ordinary man to a heroic standard.

But it is equally unreasonable to let Mr. Schiavo have it both ways. If he wishes to assert his marital authority to do his wife in, the least society can expect in return is that he refrain from making a mockery of his marital obligations. The grimmest irony in this tragic case is that those who want Terri Schiavo dead are resting their argument on the fiction that her marriage is still alive.”

The trick here is to act as if this is some recent desire of Michaels. But this case has been going on for years. According to the WSJ, “[i]n Florida so far, at least 19 judges in six courts have weighed in on Mrs. Schiavo's case since 1990, when she suffered the heart attack that left her severely brain damaged.” The fact that this been in the courts so long is NOT Michael’s fault – don’t act like it is. [UPDATE. According to a CNN timeline, Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers have been at odds since 1993.]

2. The Schindler’s are Unbiased. The conservative commentators are universal in describing Michael Schiavo as “conflicted” while Terry’s parents, the Schindlers, do not get the same scrutiny. I’m a parent, I agree whole heartedly with the Schindlers in that I would do anything to preserve my child’s life. But I am most certainly biased in this. To imply that Terry’s parents – who are undoubtedly (and rightfully) the MOST biased in this case – are some objective representative is completely dishonest.

3. Just One More Test. This is the most transparent of the claims – that all they want is one more test. Bull. This is a bigger struggle – a “right to life” struggle. Unlike Roe v. Wade, this is a right to life case that can be won because the outcome has not been set by the courts. Kathryn Lopez, bless her heart, at least is honest about the right to life principle.

For once I am with John Derbyshire at NRO: “I don't feel at all easy about commenting on the Schiavo case. It is a horrible moral conundrum -- a whole concatenation of such, in fact. Parents vs. spouse, judges playing God, federalism, right to life, cruel and unusual.. Oh, Lord.

I wish I could share the clear conviction of some of my colleagues, but I just can't. I know my wife pretty well, and she knows me pretty well, and we both have a lot of sympathy for Michael Schiavo. It strikes me as a bit glib to just thump the table and say: "He wants his wife to die!" I don't find it hard to imagine circumstances in which I would want my wife to die, too; nor circumstances in which my wife would, I hope, do everything she could to have me die. … We all bring personal baggage to this kind of issue… .”

The Derb sums up my feelings: “Hyperventilating about the inalienable right to life of everybody under all circumstances strikes me as silly. Anyone who has mixed much with medical professionals knows that "soft" euthanasia -- letting hopeless cases die, often with a gentle push to help them on their way -- was everyday practice, at least until the tort bar became the nation's Fifth Estate.”

I enjoy and respect Taranto, NRO, Captain's Quarters and the rest, but I am unconvinced.

Back to the banal...

[UPDATE 2: James Lileks weighs in. "In short: err on the side of life is not a bad motto to keep in mind. This seems simple enough. I respect those who nod, count to three, and offer a soft “however” so that we may refine the particulars. But I don’t have much time for those who hear “err on the side of life” and automatically bristle, because they hear the voice of someone who, damn their black and God-addled brain, once sent $10 to a politician who opposed parental notification law that did not have a judicial review.

You may not always agree with that sort of person. You may have no need for them. But you never think you have need of any chocks until you're in the truck, and you realize it's rolling down the hill. Backwards." Well said.]

[UPDATE 3: A link to the Guardian ad Litem report to Gov. Bush. The history articulated there paints a much different view than James Taranto.]

[UPDATE 4: Ryan Sager weighs in. Here, here. In summary, this is none of our business and certainly none of the governments' business. Jonathan Alter at BRO also. Finally, the Derb again. One quick thought: how come everyone's response seems to be "I would not want to live like that?" Yet, when it comes to Terry Schiavo those same people do not have a problem with HER living like that. Come on, K-Lo admit it -do you want to have every last breath, ounce of food, anything admitted to you to prolong those last few seconds, hours, days, months, years? Three years of diagnoses all over the country say you have no chance, do you want to live like that? If not (I don't), why is such an existence okay for Terry?]