Thoughts on Terri Shiavo

[Note: Excerpts from this entry (880 words) were published in the March 24, 2005, edition of the Tampa Tribune as an editorial on the Opinion Page.]

Once or twice in our lifetimes we have the opportunity to experience history in the making. But we rarely recognize it at the time.

This is one of those times.

Years from now historians and theologians will be looking back to the events of this past week as a pivotal moment in the history of the United States. It marks a monumental shift in our collective attitude toward the physically handicapped and the sanctity of life.

Please indulge me while I share some random thoughts on Terri Shiavo and her desperate situation. For some unknown reason her heart stopped 15 years ago, resulting in irreversible brain damage. She has been diagnosed as being in a "persistent vegetative state," though doctors disagree over whether or not she has any chance of improvement. Her husband wanted her feeding tube removed so she could die peacefully, which he believes is her wish (based on a comment made while watching a television show years ago). Her parents feel otherwise. They believe they still have a meaningful relationship with Terri and that her life still has value. They believe she does not want to die now. Today a federal judge denied the parents' request to re-insert a feeding tube that was removed at the end of last week by court order, ending years of court battles and flying in the face of congress, the President, and state lawmakers.

When I was a very young adult, I distinctly remember thinking that I'd rather be dead than paralyzed (the story of Karen Ann Quinlan was on everyone's mind back then). I also remember my mother telling us that she wanted to die before she reached 60. How perspectives change depending on our circumstances. My mom is now 63, and I think she sees her age as an asset, not a liability. If she were incapacitated because of an accident, I don't think she'd appreciate it if I opted for "pulling the plug" because she told everyone years ago she'd rather not live at this age. And now that I'm a little older and wiser, I am sure God would give me the grace to live through the challenge of a physical disability. So, the fact that Terri Shiavo made a comment during a movie that she'd rather die than be kept alive on a machine (and she's NOT being kept alive by any machine) is a non-issue.

I find it interesting the perspectives people have on being starved to death. Michael Shiavo's lawyer said on the news last night that it's a peaceful way to die. He also said that Terri has no conscious thought, so there will be no suffering at all as we understand it. She is not aware of anything happening to her. If that is true, then how is she suffering by being kept alive? If this lawyer is correct, then she has no consious thoughts like, "I wish they would just let me die." Being kept alive isn't cruel if they're correct. However, if any one of us chose to starve a cat or dog to death as a means of putting them out of their misery, we would be hauled off to court by the animal rights activists. It's cruel to starve an animal but not a human being? I don't quite understand that one!

Any way, while I'm speaking of animals... let me throw this one out. Many people have said that we are more merciful with dying animals than with dying people. We would never permit an animal to live on and on for so many years in such a state. They believe it's cruel to force a person to continue to live this way. First, I think this is where we need to acknowledge that the life of a human being is of greater value than that of an animal. But there's also a deeper spiritual issue here. Let me explain.

In the Garden of Eden, God gave mankind dominion over all the animals of the earth. That meant we were given authority over them and also the responsibility to care for them. In some respects, we are their "god." We have the responsibility to determine when they live and when they die. That goes for hunting them for food, putting them out of their pain when they're severely inured or too old, etc. We are the ones who are put in the position to make such life and death decisions. It's a responsibility given to us by God. But God never gave us dominion over one another (except to decree the death penalty for certain crimes, carrying out God's judgment in the way He prescribed). We don't have the right to take on God's role. He is the One who decides when someone lives or dies. We acknowledge His sovereignty. We yield control to Him. We place ourselves at His mercy and trust Him to do what is best and right and just. Who are we to question His ways? Terri's heart stopped once. If God was ready to take her home, it could and would stop again, regardless of whether or not she has a feeding tube. The fact that she's still here is an attestation to God's will for her life.

Sometimes the lives we live aren't for US at all. There are times God keeps us on this earth to do something for or in someone else. Family members learn unconditional, selfless love; they learn the blessing of caregiving. There are character traits that are never developed in us until we experience tragedy. That holds true for Terri's parents and for Terri as well. Who knows what is really going on in her mind? All the speculation in the world is irrelevant when it comes to God. How do we know He is not conversing with her, comforting her, drawing her heart to Him? How do we know she is ready to meet her Maker? God is doing something in Terri. He's doing something in her parents. To short-circuit the process is to thumb our noses at God and to tell Him we know more than He does and we are more loving than He is. We are more merciful. We are more gracious. Who do we think we are?

Terri's husband has lambasted the "government" for getting involved in a personal family matter. Let me just say, if the whole family agreed, the government wouldn't have to step in. One person opts for death and the other opts for life. The "government" stepped in when the case was taken to the courts. And who are they to decide whether a person should live or die -- a person who has committed no crime, a person who has no terminal illness, a person who is not being kept alive by any machine.

My son had an interesting observation. He said people are being kept alive by machines all the time. We call them pacemakers. Will we eventually get to the point where we would rather let someone die than put in a pacemaker to keep them alive artificially, by machine? I guess we all better think twice before signing that living will.

Years ago I remember watching a missionary film about Marilyn Laslo and her ministry among the Sepik Iwam people of Papua New Guinea. One scene in the film has stayed with me all these years. Marilyn almost lost her ministry because of this incident. This group of people believed that life was in the throat (we think of life being in the heart). Consequently, if a person is unable to speak, they're not alive. I don't remember what happened to Marilyn's closest friend in the village, but she was very sick and could no longer speak. She was still moving. Her eyes were open. But he villagers held a funeral procession and buried her alive. Marilyn was beside herself. She knew a doctor could help. But these people didn't understand. I believe we are those Sepik Iwam people. Terri Schiavo can't communicate with us. How do we know she has no "life"? The simple fact is that we have no idea what is going through her mind. We all think we wouldn't want to live that way, so we project our own feelings on to Terri and believe she'd rather be dead than alive as she is. We believe her life has no value at all. She's already dead in our eyes. So, what's the harm in starving her to death?

Don't think we haven't stepped on a slippery slope. I wouldn't want to live with Down's Syndrome. Will it be acceptable one day to let children born with this deformity simply starve to death in the hospital delivery room? What if they're born with Cystic Fibrosis or some other disease? If we decide life isn't important, where will this lead us? If a relative is severly injured in an accident and will be paralyzed, will we be opting to withhold food and water to "get it over with"? I can't help but believe we are somehow cheapening life here. And I shudder at where this will take us down the road.

Terri will probably die within a few days. I pray God will give peace to her and her family. And I pray He will spare us the judgment that we deserve as a country for allowing this to happen.