THE FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT
And “TERRI’S LAW”
by
William E. May
On
September 23 2004, the Florida Supreme Court declared “Terri’s Law”
unconstitutional, alleging that it violated the separation of powers.
Fortunately, Florida Governor Bush is appealing this truly appalling
decision which in effect justifies mercy killing.
“Terri’s
Law” mandated that food and hydration be provided by tubal means to
Terri Schiavo because doing so is needed in order to prevent her from
dying by dehydration and starvation—very nasty ways of dying. It is true
that if someone is in the process of dying, for instance, if one is in the
final stage of pancreatic cancer and will die in a day or so, and if such
a person no longer feels like eating, it would not be appropriate to force
such a person to receive food and hydration by tubes because of the
burdens this would impose in needlessly prolonging this person’s dying
by means that are not now appropriate because of their burdensomeness.
But
this is not true of Terri Schiavo. She is definitely not dying or
in the process of dying, nor does she suffer from any fatal pathology such
as cancer in its terminal stages that could make tubal feeding excessively
burdensome. Terri is simply a fellow human person unable to feed
herself—much as a newborn baby. She has suffered severe trauma to her
brain, but she is in a stable condition and there is no imminent danger of
death so long as she receives the nourishment and hydration that all
living human persons need if they are to continue living. Deliberately to
withhold such nourishment and hydration would obviously be the cause of
her death. Her death would not be caused by some underlying pathological
condition such as cancer in its terminal stages. Deliberately to deprive
her of the food and hydration needed to prevent her death by
dehydration/starvation would be to kill an innocent person because other
people--her husband and apparently the Florida Supreme Court--think that
she would be better off dead than alive because in their opinion her life
is no longer of any worth but is now itself a terrible burden from which
death is an allegedly merciful release. It is legitimate to judge that
some treatments are excessively burdensome and that, therefore,
they can be withheld or withdrawn so that an underlying fatal pathology
such as pancreatic cancer can run its course. But it is never legitimate
to judge that a person’s life is
so burdensome that one is doing the person a favor by killing him or her
because life, even if burdened, is still something good. Life, for a
living person, is that person’s very being.
“Terri’s
Law” rightly seeks to protect the good of Terri’s life and to insure
that the protection afforded her by the law against homicide is not taken
away from her. The Court is seeking precisely to do this. May wiser courts
on appeal reverse this tragic judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
~
William E. May is the
Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology at the John Paul II
Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of
America.