3/31/05

by Kristen Houghton

The drama of Terri Schiavo was played out on an American stage with the final scene, Terri’s death, enacted today, March 31, 2005. While the drama occurred in the USA it was watched by an international audience. What should have private and intensely personal, was put on public display. I’m sorry to say this, but the USA didn’t present itself too well to the world audience. One of the things America stands for, compassion, the strong helping those who cannot help themselves, was thrown away by the Supreme Court of the land in the name of “non-interference.”

I do not agree with George W. Bush on many things but on the Schiavo case, I do. It was clear that he disagreed, and strongly, with the Supreme Court’s decision of not having Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube reinserted. In this case, Mr. Bush was right. The Supreme Court should have acted in an emergency action to have it reinstated. They should have acted humanely.

If Mr. Schiavo had a dog who was unable to eat or drink and he put the animal in a comfortable bed, sat petting its head, while it slowly dehydrated and died of thirst, you know he would be arrested for animal cruelty. No matter that he was caressing and holding the animal, denying it food and water is considered an act of cruelty. Should it be any less a cruelty to deny his wife, HIS WIFE, water?

A friend of mine from Italy was aghast that the government would allow anyone to suffer such a horrible death. Anyone who thinks it wasn’t horrible should think of how they feel when they’re thirsty. Deny yourself water for twenty-four hours and then say how peaceful her death was. Her body was without water for over twelve days. By the way death by dehydration was a popular form of death during the Inquisition.

My heart goes out to the Schindler family. How they can even be civil to Michael Schiavo is beyond my comprehension. The cruelty exhibited by him was unconscionable and his lawyer’s comment that he had “never seen Terri look so peaceful and beautiful” while she was being denied water, is nothing more than an outrageous insult to her parents, sister, and brother.

As stated in my article of March 23, 2005 in this column, no one should fault you for going on with your life and having a new relationship that produced children, but Mr. Schiavo, can you answer some simple questions? What purpose was served by you having sole guardianship of Terri? If you needed to start a new life, why not simply divorce her and let her parents become her guardians? Was there a reason you stayed tied to Terri after you felt there was no hope of ever having a normal life with her? Please don’t say the part about taking your marriage vows seriously. We’ve been through that and there is a problem with your assertion.

What’s the real reason you had to have complete guardianship? If her parents were abusive or out to gain monetary compensation we could understand it, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. What is your real reason? Do we have to wait for the inevitable “life-story” book and movie-of-the week about this case to find out your true motives?

In closing, Mr.Schiavo, I would like to say one thing to you. You are a parent. I hope you never have to go through the agony that you inflicted on Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. If God grants you that mercy, consider yourself blessed.