Terri Schaivo’s recent death was an emotional affair for Americans, and it is one that we should not let vanish from our memory. A recent Zogby poll indicated that 79 percent of Americans were not in favor of Terri’s feeding tube being removed, while only 9 percent were in favor.
But, in all fairness, the legal battles leading up to the starvation and dehydration of Terri were not, and indeed should not have been, dictated by poll numbers. But they should have been dictated by righteousness, and they were not.
It seems that the battle between Michael Schaivo, Terri’s husband, and Terri’s parents, the Schindlers, boiled down to a decision based solely on the letter of the law. The question we must now ask is, was that sufficient?
The Schindlers took every legal avenue to save the life of their daughter. They disputed the opinions of court-appointed physicians, who claimed that Terri was in a permanent vegetative state, by providing video of Terri laughing, smiling, and crying as her parents talked with her. They begged the courts for compassion and promised to dedicate their lives to caring for their daughter and working towards her rehabilitation.
Michael Schaivo, on the other hand, fought determinedly for the removal of Terri’s feeding tube, claiming (but not until several years after Terri’s collapse) that she had previously expressed a wish to not be kept on life support. Michael, while Terri was still alive, moved on. Living with another woman and fathering children with her, he started another family.
The wisdom of the courts was: Despite the love and dedication of the Shcindlers, and despite the inconsistencies (in both words and actions) of Michael Schaivo, Michael was still Terri’s husband and legal guardian. Therefore, he was entitled to make the decision to end Terri’s life.
One wonders what the wisdom of Solomon might have been, and if it might have been based on who actually cared the most for Terri’s life. But Judge Greer, who presided over the case, was no Solomon.
But a decision to put Terri’s life in the hands of her parents would have had tough implications for the courts. If life and compassion were held to be as important as the letter of the law, what might that mean for others who are unable to speak in their own defense? What would it mean for the 30+ million pre-born children who have been aborted?
The prophet Micah said that God required three things of men: to execute judgment, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. In Terri Schaivo’s case, the courts lacked judgment, shunned mercy, and put themselves on the throne of God. Good judgment requires a balancing of justice and mercy. That is to say, it must actually seek the good of all parties involved, not sanction the demise of the weak.
This is not as much a failure of our legal system—which does allow for judgment that seeks to help the weak and voiceless—as it is a failure of the men and women who are placed in charge of making the judgments. But it is not their fault alone. Much of the blame must go to those who elect activist judges, either by directly voting for them or failing to vote against them.
The last time I voted in our local elections, there was virtually no competition for judgeships. The candidates who were presented had done no campaigning and had given no indication of their stances on various issues.
As Christian pilgrims, we need to use the civic rights that we have been blessed with for good. And the idea of casting a vote for a person of low character should be repulsive to us. Yet, to not cast a vote leaves us voiceless. We must endeavor to know the character of our judges, and, if no suitable competition is presented against godless judges, we need to provide it. After all, it is our calling to be salt and light to the world.
(Here is a link from ABC News that thoroughly details Terri’s story. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=629173&page=1 )
