Sanctity of marriage vs. the right to life

You may have been following the story of Terri Schiavo (nee Schindler), the woman who has for the last 15 years been in a persistent vegetative state after a heart attack cut off the blood supply to her brain for several minutes. She has been kept alive since then on a feeding tube. Without the feeding tube she would die within two weeks. Her husband has been locked in a legal battle with Terri's parents for 7 years over whether Terri should be allowed to die by removal of the feeding tube. Her husband maintains that Terri expressed a wish to him before her heart attack that she never wanted to be kept alive artificially. Her parents argue that she is responsive to them and with rehabilitation her condition may improve. Judges in Terri's home state of Florida have now ruled 3 times that the feeding tube should be removed, most recently March 18 2005. Twice the feeding tube has been reinstated, and now the parents together with President Bush and 'Right to Life' activists, are again fighting for the feeding tube to be reinstated in spite of the recent court ruling. A decision will be made tonight.

I think there is a huge hypocrisy in this issue concerning the sanctity of the marriage between Terri and Michael Schiavo, and the right to life stance taken by Terri's parents. And I am not alone in this point of view.

Whether her parents like it or not, Terri is married to Michael Schiavo whilesoever she is kept alive, and the sanctity of that marriage was endorsed by religious and legal ceremony. Michael is Terri's legal guardian. When her parents dismiss Terri's wish never to be kept alive artificially, communicated to her husband BEFORE her heart attack, they dismiss the sanctity of her marriage. They selfishly treat her as a child (indeed she has been assessed to have the mental functioning of a 6-11 month infant), wanting what they think is best for her and for themselves, and dismiss what Terri wanted for herself, and her rights that her husband now fights for on her behalf.

If Terri's parents dismiss the sanctity of her marriage, it has to be on the grounds that the marriage means little (to them at least) given the artificiality of life that Terri has endured for the last 15 years. And if that is the case, is it really so hard for them to see the immorality of forcing Terri to continue her artificial life against her wishes and without the infrastructure of marriage that she and her husband created together years ago? Why is that so hard?

Some groups have argued that the marriage between Terri and Michael may no longer be legal. I am of the opinion that a marriage would end if one or more partner dies. So if they're no longer married then there is an implication that Terri is no longer alive. In which case, why are her parents hell-bent on keeping her 'alive'. They can't have it both ways.

Terri does not have a living will. There is no written record of her wishes. If she had a will, and if she had expressed within it her wish never to kept alive artificially, there would be no problem. I think that is the big moral of the story: Make your wishes known and have them legally recorded.

At the risk of appearing morbid, since I do not have a legal will at this time, I will write it here for all to witness:

I never want to be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state!