Linda Glenn: Why the Schiavo Case is Personal
End of life issues are what brought me into the field of bioethics. I lost my first husband, Jack MacDonald, to cancer in 1984. He died after a long struggle with leukemia. I’ve written about his life and his death in an article in the journal Healing Ministry: Three Lives, Three Deaths, Three Journeys: Explorations on Dying Well, September/October 2001. What I didn’t write in that article was our discussion about a feeding tube. Jack’s chemotherapy had caused nausea, mouth sores, and esophageal ulcers. His oncologist had ordered a feeding tube (a jpeg) and the surgeon was discussing the procedure with him and I at the bedside and my husband start to cry. He pleaded, “please no more…let me go.” The surgeon, a kindly old gentleman, left the room for us to talk. Stunned, I didn’t know what to say. Jack took my hand, grasped it and repeatedly said, “Please no feeding tubes, no more tubes… no more.” He paused, rested a moment, then smiled (as if he knew what I was thinking) and said, “And if you wait until I’m unconscious to put one in, I swear I will come back after I‘ve died and haunt you for doing that.” I cried and laughed at the same time and promised that I would never do that to him. After a while, I stepped into the hallway, where the kindly old surgeon was waiting for me. This was the same surgeon who had put in Jack’s Hickman catheter months earlier and he wanted to tell me that he understood and supported Jack’s decision, and that at this point, death was a friend to be welcomed. I loved Jack, I did not want to let him go; but I did not want to see him suffer anymore. Jack had realized the fight was over long before I did; he tried to reassure me that he wasn’t frightened and that he wasn’t in any pain, that I shouldn't worry. Ultimately, I honored his wishes; but it was, without a doubt, one of the most difficult decisions of my life. A few weeks later, Jack slipped into unconsciousness and died quietly, peacefully, without struggle on February 8, 1984, at 6:33 p.m. So, as you can imagine, I sympathize with Michael Schiavo. One of the more disturbing aspects of the political rhetoric is the hyperbole of the politicians and the Schindlers (Terri's parents) talking about how Michael is intent on “starving” Terri to death, as if she were a person who was totally healthy and fully functional. Is it possible that none of these persons have ever witnessed a hospice death? And hospice organizations have explained time and time again that someone at the end-of-life doesn’t experience thirst and hunger in the same fashion that healthy individuals do. The language the politicians and the Schindlers are using is intended to provoke and inflame. What also puzzles me is that these devout Christians seem to be ignoring the fact that, according to the Christian doctrine, death is not the ultimate evil, but eternal damnation is; to allow Terri to die would be to allow her to join with God in eternal life. Perhaps the Schindlers and the politicians don’t really believe in an afterlife? But this case is no longer about Terri’s wishes, or her husband attempting to honor her wishes, or a family dispute. It has become a political battle reflecting the torn state of the nation, about "being right and looking good" and who has control. --- Linda MacDonald Glenncontribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
wow linda. thank you very much for sharing that.
- by glenn on Mar 19, 2005 at 7:25 PM | link
I have admired your work for many years and I consider you to be a very thoughtful and reasoned person. I am a life-long conservative and a staunch admirer of Ronald Reagan.
In this case, however, I believe that you are wrong. I love and adore my wife. Were she to be in the same situation as Terri Schiavo, I would fight for her wishes regardless of how "strange" it might seem. Fortunately my wife and I have living wills and have written down our wishes and communicated them to our parents, friends, and attorney. Alas, this isn't the case with the Schiavos.
A myriad of medical experts have stated that Terri is brain dead. Multiple courts have sided with her husband as the appropriate person to make this decision. After more than 10 years, it is time to let this woman die with dignity. It isn't this "strange-o" who is causing the problems. It is a family who can't bear to let their daughter go despite all evidence that she is already dead. It is politicians who claim to be conservative and who want the government to be less intrusive in people's lives who are intruding where they have no business.
You are a brilliant person and still someone whom I admire. But this time, you are wrong.
- by Dr. Reile on Mar 20, 2005 at 10:38 PM | link
It looks like you're responding to a comment that's been deleted...
- by Linda MacDonald Glenn on Mar 21, 2005 at 11:15 AM | link
Dr. Reile, Terri isn't brain-dead, and there's no evidence, on the record or otherwise, that indicates she is brain dead.
If I were to say that believing such preposterous things indicates you're brain dead, does that mean we could withhold food and water from you? Would that be a "private" decision?
- by Thomas on Mar 21, 2005 at 3:45 PM | link
Terri Schiavo's body is healthy - or at least it was last week. She was not at the "end-of-life."
- by Beverly on Mar 22, 2005 at 8:32 AM | link
Linda, thanks for sharing your story, I too was in the same position four and a half years ago.
Your post made me cry, some things can leave you raw for years.
Giving the okay for stopping life support is still the hardest thing I've ever had to do.
- by Pete on Mar 24, 2005 at 8:43 PM | link