Thoughts on the Terri Schiavo Case
Aussie Dave | Mar 23, 2005 | 7 comments
With a federal appeals court refusing early Wednesday to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, now may be an opportune time to share my thoughts on this case.
Various polls indicate that a majority of people favor the removal of Terri’s feeding tube, leading to certain death. I can understand why. It is hard for anyone who has seen Terri in the persistent vegetative state to do so without being overwhelmed by a sense of sorrow and compassion. Left to our own devices, most of us would surely desire that she be spared the misery of such a life, and this would drive our position on the issue. Just like we intrinsically feel that murder is abhorrent (although many of us define murder along different lines), so too we intrinsically feel that Terri should not be kept alive. I am no psychologist, but I assume that this “intrinsic morality mechanism” depends on environmental factors/societal norms, as well as our own emotional makeup.
In contrast, religions such as Judaism and Christianity, are based on the notion of objective morality handed down by G-d. In most cases, subjective morality and objective morality will intersect (such as cases of outright murder). But there are many cases in which the two will produce opposite results, the Schiavo case being a prime example of this. Therefore, I would also be unsurprised if the vast majority of people opposing the removal of Terri’s feeding tube, are “religiously observant.”
Why would Judaism be opposed to removing Terri’s feeding tube? I defer to Dr. Daniel Eisenberg:
She is not brain dead nor is she terminally ill. She is brain damaged and remains in what appears to be a persistent vegetative state. All of her bodily functions are essentially normal, but she lacks the ability to “meaningfully” interact with the outside world (although her parents claim that she does minimally respond to their presence and to outside stimuli).To remove the feeding tube from a patient whose only impairment is cognitive is simply murder.Her impairment is cognitive and Judaism does not recognize any less of a right to treatment for one cognitively impaired than one mentally astute.It is a denial of the Jewish ideal of the fundamental value of life that drives the forces that wish to remove Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. While Judaism does recognize quality of life in certain circumstances (such as the incurable terminally ill patient in intractable pain mentioned above), the Torah does not sanction euthanasia in any situation. To remove the feeding tube from a patient whose only impairment is cognitive is simply murder.
Dr Eisenberg also addresses the point that this may go against our own instincts:
We must ask ourselves when we view images of cognitively impaired patients such as Terri Schiavo whether the pain that we feel is Terri’s or whether it is our own. While we may suffer watching movies of the severely brain damaged, it is our own thoughts of the horror of a life without cognition that drives us to project that pain onto the victim who may not be suffering at all.
If I am to be honest about this, I would have to agree that my perceptions of Terri’s “suffering” are really a projection of my own thoughts on the horror of a cognition-free life. Who knows, for sure, whether or not Terri is suffering?
At the end of the day, I acknowledge that one’s views on this subject will, in large part, be dictated by whether or not you believe in an objective morality. In any event, I hope that Terri finds peace soon, if she hasn’t already.
Update: Dr Eisenberg addresses the issue of whether the existence of a living will from Terri, clearly spelling out her desires in case of incapacitation, would change how Jewish law (Halacha) approaches her case.
About the Author
An Australian immigrant to Israel, Aussie Dave has been blogging since early 2003.Filed Under: General
Ok, but in Judaism there is also a difference between causing a death (murder) and removing an impediment to death (not murder). As the classic case goes: If a person on their death bed asks to be moved to another place so that they may die–you cannot do it because it is an “active” movement and would be killing them. But, if a person on their death bed tells you to shut the window because the noise from outside is preventing them from dying–then you may do it because it is “passive” and is merely preventing the person from dying on their own. I wouldn’t be surprise if you found just the opposite from what you claim– Many orthodox Jews would claim that the feeding tube should not have been placed from the very beginning.
Anyway, this is just what I remember from a course on Orthodox Jewish Ethics.
I find this situation very disturbing. She’s not hooked up to a machine that’s beating her heart or breathing for her. She’s alive and awake and was being fed just as anyone would be who is unable to feed themselves, whether someone ill in the hospital, someone who has suffered a severe stroke, or a baby for that matter. If the family, doctors, and courts were to determine ending her life would be the best thing, they should do it in the most humane way possible, not starve her to death. People wouldn’t do that to their sick pet.
MatzahNacho
This is outright murder – plain and simple – especially according to Jewish Halacha.
What next? Alzheimer sufferers who cannot feed themselves can also be left to rot to death because their family or an institution thinks that’s what’s best?!
How about severly retarded babies? Or maybe we let them live until we can measure their IQ and anyone below a voted upon score is put 6 feet under?
And why not inject them right away with cyanide instead of killing them softly over 10 days or more?
And where’s PETA in all this? It shouldn’t happen to a dog, right?
Hey! This is just what the Nazis did with the mentally ill and handicapped. Great going, world!
Have you all gone insane?!
I hope some brave soul breaks into the hospital and either reattaches the tubes or puts a gun to someone’s head to do it. This is first degree murder.
Shy Guy, Jerusalem
“Various polls indicate that a majority of people favor the removal of Terri’s feeding tube, leading to certain death.”
May be because of compassion. Or, perhaps, it may just be that’s so easy to craft a poll to endorse about everything.
You are missing the point.
This is not an issue of religous law, but of religous freedom.
There is no reason to believe that the Husband is not carrying out the wishes of his wife in determining whether artificial means be used to preserve her life.
Whatever your religous beliefs are is irrelevant.
The religous beliefs of Terri Schiavo clearly allow for no artificial means of life support, which was her stated wish
I remember seeing someone handing out literature about the cruelty of circumcision. They were making the claim that it was child abuse, and were specifically targeting Jewish laws and tradition.
I am thankful that I live in a society that allows me my religous freedom to be a Jew. I do not want someone elses beliefs to dictate to me whether I can have a brit for my child. I am also grateful that I have the right to choose whether I want to be kept alive by artificial means.
So, the issue here is not what you believe, but the rights of people to follow their beliefs.
Stan
Actually, Stan, it is absolutely not true that “there is no reason to believe that the Husband is not carrying out the wishes of his wife in determining whether artificial means be used to preserve her life.” There are clear conflicts of interest with regard to Michael Schiavo. He is engaged to another woman, has fathered children with her, and could be suspected of wanting Terri out of the way so he can marry again. In addition, he stands to inherit what’s left of monies awarded in a malpractice lawsuit. How much more of a conflict of interest do you need?
You are basing your statement on information released to the press by the parents.
Multiple courts have heard these arguments in their entirety and have completely rejected them.
Stan