Contents

THE SHADOW OF DEATH Justin Soutar

This past spring, a formidable shadow eclipsed the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". The shadow of death enveloped America like the ominous clouds of an approaching thunderstorm. Court-enforced euthanasia deprived Terri Schiavo of her right to life, cursing a land that once was free and a home that once was brave. Because cowardice and indifference reigned supreme, an innocent human being lost her freedom. No one can say that we weren't warned. Amidst media misrepresentation and nationwide lethargy, a few voices rang out against the imminent atrocity. EWTN warned of it in numerous sermons and live shows. Priests for Life, Sanctity of Life Ministries, and numerous other right to life organizations worked to muster opposition to the execution. Last year, Pope John Paul II stated that removing artificially administered nutrition and hydration from a medically disabled person would be "euthanasia by omission". And the Vatican specifically declared that removal of Terri's feeding tube would be "direct euthanasia." By legally starving Terri to death, the state of Florida would set a terrible precedent for our entire nation, prophesied Cardinal Renato Martino, former Prefect of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Because we have chosen to ignore the warnings, we must now endure the consequences. We are in a similar situation as in 1965. At that time, Pope Paul VI forecast the evils to be unleashed from the acceptance of birth control. He declared that it would lead to abortion, divorce, sexual abuse, and general disrespect for human life and the family. When America refused to listen, the Pope was proved right. Crimes against the dignity of human beings escalated to all-time highs, with abortion even legalized. And the priceless values of human life and the family were incessantly attacked and diminished. Throughout the two and a half decades of his pontificate, Pope John Paul II has reminded us of our duty to respect human life in all its stages. He warned that when we forget that every person has infinite value, we will eliminate all the weak and suffering people in our society. As euthanasia spreads its poison everywhere, the resulting evils will be as great in magnitude as the current evils resulting from the acceptance of birth control. Our currently stable population will decline drastically; suffering and pain will be regarded by almost everyone as totally useless; euthanasia of the chronically ill, mentally ill, and elderly incapacitated will escalate; and the poor and homeless will be ignored and forgotten. Today, just as forty years ago, America's rejection of the Pope's prophecy will open the door to a horde of evils. Now we examine more closely the Terri Schiavo situation. First of all, the American news media grossly misrepresented this situation by concealing the truth. They hid Terri's good health aside from her brain damage. They hid her ability to communicate through facial expressions and laughter. They hid the importance of Bob and Mary Schindler's attempts to save their daughter's life. And, most appallingly, they even dared to conceal the horrific, inhuman torture of Terri's death by dehydration and starvation. The media's portrayal of the situation was of a miserable, comatose, seriously ill, dying woman whose death was being unduly prolonged by expensive life support. On the contrary, Terri was a conscious, healthy, normal human being in every way except for some brain damage preventing her from talking and taking care of herself. A simple, inexpensive feeding tube was all that was required to keep her alive. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church ¤ 2277, every human being has the right to food and water, even when artificially administered. In just the last decade or so, our secular culture has rejected this most basic principle. Even a patient in a PVS (which Terri was NOT) has this right. An argument expressing a popular opinion was, "Terri wants to be relieved of her misery." As a Catholic, however, knowing the Church's teaching, the opposite was more likely true. But guessing someone's wishes is too feeble a foundation for such a weighty matter as life or death. The Church states clearly that no one may assist or allow someone to die by withdrawing food and water. Only one narrowly defined exception to this exists. If a person is in the process of dying and food and water are no longer nourishing the person but are merely prolonging the dying process, then and only then may food and water be withdrawn. Clearly, Terri was not in that situation; consequently, it was morally wrong to withdraw her feeding tube. In our Declaration of Independence, our nation's founders acknowledged that life is an "inalienable" right of human beings. But unfortunately, in our country today, a vicious "right to die" movement is busily working to enable the weaker members of our society to kill themselves. However, no one has that right and no one can give it. Nowhere in America's treasured founding documents is the right to die mentioned. The supposed grant of this right in the Fifth Amendment, which requires "due process of law" for depriving anyone of life, does not mean that a law can be passed or a judge can rule to allow euthanasia. Our founders actually intended the due process clause to prevent abuse of grave penalties, especially the death penalty. They didn't intend it to be a license for the death of innocent people. The very fact that the right to life we traditionally recognize is inalienable means that we don't have the right to take it away—that is, we don't have the "right to die". Clearly, this movement lacks any logical or patriotic foundation; it is based solely on the fallacy of appeal to pity. As we continue to erode the great solid principles of America's foundation, America slowly but surely comes crashing down. The outrageously cruel method of Terri's death—starvation and dehydration—is unprecedented in American history. By blatantly portraying her passing as comfortable and peaceful, the media effectively prevented a storm of opposition from the American people. Being deprived of food and water is anything but comfortable and peaceful. Terri endured skin cracking, nosebleed, and extreme thirst during her two-week-long death. By comparison, death by gunshot, while still murder, would have been rather humane. Had the media carried some TV coverage of Terri's excruciating agony, they would have electrified the nation, raising a storm of outrage. Indeed, no sane supporter of the right to die would have been able to tolerate such cruelty. Instead the media has helped usher in a horrible new era. In what was once the most civilized country in the world, the barbaric death of innocent people by dehydration and starvation is now legal. America desperately needs to learn from Catholic teaching on suffering. Our modern culture teaches us to avoid pain and problems at any cost; to make life as fun and easy as possible. The problem is that breaking the moral law to avoid suffering always produces other, greater problems. For example, Terri would have had less pain to endure if she had simply been allowed to live. Furthermore, the pain of guilt haunts, to some degree or another, Michael Schiavo and everyone involved in Terri's murder. And the pain of grief has distressed those people who did recognize the injustice of Terri's death, most especially her own parents. In the name of ending one human being's suffering, so much more has been produced. Contrary to Catholic teaching, our society prefers euthanasia to prolonged suffering. But society's logic leads to some terrible conclusions. If it's loving to kill those who suffer chronic illness, why not kill every terminally ill, mentally ill, comatose, and elderly incapacitated person in every nursing home, HMO, asylum, and hospital? For what purpose does a nursing home or asylum even exist? By the rationale for Terri's death, we should get rid of all those facilities that are cruelly keeping people alive. From killing the chronically ill we will go to killing the acutely ill, all those who have a "low quality of life", and everyone else who cannot produce or contribute to society. That would be well over half the current population of America and at least four times the number of abortions since 1973. This might sound rather farfetched, but I believe it's coming. With Terri Schiavo's death, we have started down a slippery slope to a dreadful abyss of destruction. In the face of our comfort-loving culture, we Catholics maintain that suffering has tremendous value. God permits it in order to bring about a greater good than would be possible without it. Yet despite this truth, suffering remains a mystery. Seen from this perspective, it has value and makes a good deal of sense. Our modern mystery-hating culture wants to understand suffering and get rid of it. But the real solution is to accept it. I believe the crux of the whole Terri Schiavo case can be summarized as a collision of two issues: right to life and suffering. These two issues became blurred and confused in the minds of many Americans, resulting in an incorrect perception of the situation. Even though America, by and large, is pro-life, suffering remains a difficult mystery. Yet no suffering, however great, ever justifies euthanasia. God cannot reward those who dishonor his law in order to end the suffering that he wisely permits. After reviewing this crime, we ought to look at its perpetrators, and how they managed to achieve it. First, Terri's husband Michael Schiavo, for fifteen years, sought every possible legal method of killing his wife. Starving an innocent person to death was unthinkable in the early 1990s, being regarded as it is—murder. But in the last ten or so years, our culture gradually lost respect for the chronically ill. This made Judge Greer more comfortable in issuing his fatal ruling. The lawyer Michael Schiavo chose, George Felos, is an avowed right to die supporter, former member of the board of directors for Terri's hospice, and former Chairman of the Board for Partnership in Caring. This organization was created by merging several organizations including the Euthanasia Society of America. The physician Michael appointed for Terri, Dr. Ronald Cranford, was a member of the ESA and is an outspoken advocate of the right to die. Mary Labyak, who is CEO of the hospice where Terri was living, is on the Board of Directors of Partnership in Caring. After learning all that, I realized that the perpetrators had the full might of the right to die movement biased against Terri. As for Michael himself, he should be investigated because it seems likely that he is guilty of spousal abuse. If so, it would explain both Terri's condition and his long struggle to dispatch her. He may have worried that she would one day "wake up", as brain-damaged people sometimes do, testify in court of his abuse, and have him imprisoned. Another possible cause of Terri's condition was Michael's failure to remove from Terri's brain electrodes which he had implanted over ten years ago for a brain test. Such failure creates a risk of serious brain damage, and is a crime under Florida law. Therefore, Michael is certainly guilty of neglecting proper medical care for Terri. For all of this Michael must be brought to justice; here's what I propose should be done. After Judge George Greer is impeached, Michael should be arrested and tried for criminal dereliction of duty as Terri's guardian, assault, and murder. Right to die supporters are eager to give their interpretation of the due process clause. But to their credit, Terri was deprived of life without a hint of due process of law. In America, criminals are allowed to have lawyers represent them; but Terri, an innocent person, was denied a lawyer. She was also denied an accurate determination of her condition by a physician. The American Civil Liberties Union, which should have taken up her cause, instead shamefully defended Michael Schiavo. Human rights activists were nowhere to be found. Except for Terri's family and their excellent lawyer David Gibbs, virtually no one defended her right to life. Because Terri's due process rights were ignored, Michael only had a semblance of acting under the law. He claimed to be doing "what was best" for Terri as her legal guardian. Yet if he was really doing what was best for his wife, he would have honored her due process rights. But ignorance of due process is only part of the legal story. In Terri's case, the "rule of law" simply meant that a judge gave an order and it was enforced. Judge George Greer actually achieved Terri's execution by unequivocally violating dozens of provisions in Florida law. For example, he denied Terri the right to counsel (Statute 744.3215(l)), the right to be restored to capacity (744.3215(C)), the right to be treated humanely (744.3215(d)(d)), and the right to remain as independent as possible (744.3215(f)). Michael should have been removed from guardianship of Terri for failure to discharge his guardianship duties (744.474(2)), attempting to end Terri's life (744.474(3)), and conflict of interest by adultery (744.474(11)). Judge Greer used a physician's definition of PVS quite different from the definition in Florida law. And most significantly, Judge Greer committed criminal malpractice by misdiagnosing Terri as comatose and unconscious. It is clear that Terri did not die under the rule of law, but under grave infractions of the law. Therefore, I have no doubt whatsoever that Judge Greer must be impeached. The inaction of state politicians during Terri's death was frustrating, cowardly, and dishonorable. What are things coming to when the rulers of the most powerful nation on earth are powerless in the face of a homicide warrant? What respect does America deserve when it values human rights abroad but fails to preserve them at home? Our leaders failed to do their duty to save Terri's life. The Florida Senate failed to pass the Medically Incapacitated Persons Protection Act. More disappointing, however, was Governor Jeb Bush's failure to take Terri into protective custody. If a judge in the US two hundred or more years ago had issued a court order to kill an innocent person by starvation, how would the nation have reacted? The people would have thronged city streets, demanding that the state legislature impeach and remove that judge. And the legislature would have gladly complied. Or the people would have demanded the governor to take the threatened person into protective custody. And he would have gladly done so.But America has changed drastically since two hundred years ago. Instead of human rights being respected above everything else, the "rule of law" is respected above everything else. What a terrible breakdown this is in the understanding of law. Law should be at the service of human rights, not the other way around. Indeed, the Catholic Church maintains that immoral laws never bind and must be disobeyed. So Governor Bush had every right to exercise his police power to protect Terri Schiavo. Yet he permitted court-ordered murder. Because of this, I favor his impeachment in addition to the impeachment of Judge Greer. I'm not so disappointed about the federal government's part in the case, for two reasons. The first is that Congress passed the private relief bill allowing the case to be appealed. Secondly, I believe the Florida state government bore primary responsibility for ensuring Terri's rights. I wish that President Bush would have declared martial law, sending federal troops into Florida to replace her feeding tube. It would have been a fine display to see, showing that America really does value human rights. Yet the president shouldn't have to step in just because the state shirks its duty. In my opinion, the federal government shouldn't be considered culpable. The significance of the Terri Schiavo case must not be underestimated. From the spark of this fateful incident, the fire of euthanasia will spread throughout Florida and beyond the state border into other states, finally engulfing the entire nation. To stop this tide of death, our country needs to take action. The state legislature of Ohio has introduced a bill to prevent a state judge from ordering food and water to be withdrawn from medically incapacitated persons. If many states pass such laws, euthanasia can be significantly restricted. We must petition state legislatures for the impeachment of judges such as Greer who dare to contravene our laws and God's laws. We even have a formidable weapon against the US Supreme Court. If Congress remains overwhelmingly pro-life, it can easily impeach and remove federal judges who violate their duty to preserve human rights by misinterpreting the Constitution. Let's also pressure our senators and representatives to take a vote stopping the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees. For by packing the Supreme Court with pro-life judges, the president can prevent the Court from ruling in favor of state laws permitting euthanasia. This would prevent a "Roe v. Wade of euthanasia" and save our country from so much more evil. These are all good possibilities, which we should pursue for all they're worth. Our country is inundated by a culture of death that seems so oppressive and formidable. But in the face of the increasing darkness, we must not lose heart. We must walk through this valley of the shadow of death, but fear no evil, because God is with us. In the midst of the dark night of evil, the cross of Jesus glows in the firmament; and as he once assured Constantine, he assures us today: "In this sign you will conquer." For the cross is the true power of God which dooms evil to ultimate defeat. So as we strive to make our darkened country shine once again as the land of the free and the home of the brave, let us take up the cross of misunderstanding, of rejection, of apparent failure in the fight for life—confident that, through the cross, we will share in Jesus' victorious resurrection for all eternity. Justin Soutar is a beginning writer. At age 19, he is a close observer of the American scene and has strong desire to spread the truth regarding pro-life issues.