Who's Really Brain Dead In The Shiavo Case?

October 22, 2003

The controversy surrounding Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman in Florida whose husband has been trying for years to get a court-ordered execution, should be a wake-up call for us all.   Michael Shiavo, Terri's so-called husband, has been living with a little tart he wants to marry.   He has one child with this woman and another one on the way.   He's been trying as hard as he can to kill his wife so he can start a new life.   I'm telling you, if he's successful, this chick better sleep with one eye open.  

 

He almost succeeded in killing Terri Schiavo on October 15 th when a judge ordered that her feeding tube be removed.   In Terri's case, she supposedly suffered a heart attack at age 26 which temporarily deprived her brain of oxygen.   There's some question as to whether she was choked.   That could explain why her husband wants her remains cremated immediately after her death.   Whatever really happened, she was left brain-damaged but she is not in a comma.   She is not in a “persistent vegetative state,” as Michael Schiavo and his lawyers contend.   She is able to respond to her parents. She's wide-awake!  

 

You've probably seen the video her parents taped surreptitiously in her room.   Since Michael would allow no footage of her taken, they had to sneak a camera into her room during one of their “supervised” visits.   Her parents want to care for her and get her the rehabilitative help she needs.   Michael wants her dead and has deprived her of any rehabilitation over the last ten years.   He also stands to collect what's left of a malpractice fund she was awarded.   Why waste that money on helping his wife recover when he can bump her off and spend the money on his new little trollop, huh?

 

Here's the crux of the whole controversy.   Michael says Terri expressed to him before the “accident” that she didn't want to be kept alive by “artificial means.”   There was never anything in writing, of course.   Her parents debate Michael's contention since she helped care for her elderly grandmother who was on a ventilator and never once suggested she be taken off and allowed to die.   That being said, here's the problem:   Since when is feeding someone “artificial means?”   To me, there's a huge difference between having a machine breathe for you and having someone feed you.   If they're the same then all babies are kept alive by “artificial means” and it would logically follow that parents could just stop feeding them if they didn't want them.

 

A doctor called my show and argued that there was no difference between the two.   He cited medical ethicists who maintain this position.   It scares me that medical professionals will blindly abide by the opinion of these so-called “ethicists” without actually thinking for themselves.

 

If your 90-year-old grandmother becomes bed-ridden and can't get to the refrigerator, would it be “ethical” for you to simply stop feeding her and allow her to die “naturally?”