Terri leaves America to reflect

IN Media Practice | 05/04/2005

Dasu Krishnamoorty

Terri Schiavo’s death or murder, depending on how one perceives it, has divided the Christian world into two querulous groups, supported and opposed from the periphery by sympathizers and critics in the media, activists inhabiting the world of human rights, non-Christian clergy, men of medicine and law etc. The Economist wrote, "Her life, whatever its quality, became the property not merely of her husband (who had the legal right to speak for her) and her parents (who had brought her up), but of the courts, the state, and thousands of self-appointed medical and psychological experts across the world." Several questions scream for answers before one can determine whether Terri’s end was murder or death, whether she had a right to die, whether she was sentient enough to give assent, if not was it her parents or husband who could consent to ending her life, and whether courts could decide it in favor of either of them.

There are some who believe that the number of players in this tragedy could have been restricted if the media had not thrust it onto the center-stage. How is Terri different from the Jane you had met the other day that her exit should leave millions of hearts bleeding and extract worldwide media attention? The answer to this question highlights the power of the media to set the public agenda and create the context for opinion formation. American homes, watching TV for a minimum of five hours every day, receive an average of 100 channels, all of them in the race for grabbing TRPs.  These channels continuously ran video clips of Schiavo shot years ago, showing her childlike face, apparently looking cognizant. These images helped buttress the case of right-to-life groups to maintain that her recovery was still possible. Irrespective of the images selected for transmission, TV has played a role in turning Terri Schiavo’s vegetative state from a family tragedy into a national issue and in conditioning the minds of the viewers.

Too many players unconnected with the pain and grief of the two families jumped on to the stage and turned what was purely a private predicament into national theatre. The media --print, radio, TV and Internet - helped achieve a crystallization of public attitudes and kept the raucous debate alive till the chief protagonist breathed her last. As Dana Milbank, a staff writer for the Washington Post, wrote, "Terri Schiavo is dead, but the passions stirred by the fight over her will shape the political debate for a long time to come."

Life and death issues agitated the minds of millions of Americans resulting in a cacophony of clashing voices, some defending Terri’s right to die and others stressing the value of life. They made Democrats and Republicans rush to the Capitol Hill to participate in a midnight vote to enable the courts to intervene in Terri’s case. Bush hurried back from his Texas ranch to sign the enabling law in the small hours of the morning. Bush expressed his sympathy for Terri’s family. "The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts, the presumption should be in favour of life," he said.

His brother Jeb Bush, governor of Florida where the tragedy took place, said the debate over Terri’s fate could help others grapple with end-of-life issues. Many people saw in this a political motivation and a Republican anxiety to deflect public attention from the many scandals troubling the Bush administration. The Democrats, not sure of the public mood, played safe and voted with the Republicans to neutralize any possible effect on their senator’s re-election next year in Florida. This intervention became an issue when the CBS and ABC conducted separate polls asking people to deliver their verdict on the Congressional act.  An overwhelming majority of those polled decried Congressional intervention. The Republicans, however, are bent on winning constitutional approval of the idea that the government has an obligation to protect life.

Two staff writers of the Christian Science Monitor believed that while many Americans were opposed to government intervention in what they viewed as private medical decisions dealing with end-of-life issues, the Schiavo case had also raised concerns about the power of guardians and judges to end someone’s life even when a patient’s wishes remain a matter of dispute among the family members. Some analysts argued that judges should be required to ascertain whether earlier casual statements by an individual who is now in a persistent vegetative state were well-informed and specific enough to justify a decision years later by a spouse/judge to end that person’s life.

The New York Times was clear in its stance supporting the court’s decision not to restore the feeding tube to extend the life of the dying woman. In an editorial NYT said, "Some people hold religious convictions so heartfelt that they could not bow to public opinion or the courts and accept the conclusion that Ms Schiavo should be allowed to die." In a reference to the media, the editorial said, " those relatives also deserve to be left alone, to be protected from a spotlight that turned a family tragedy into an international spectacle of sometimes shocking vulgarity and viciousness." 

At the very beginning, a Los Angeles Times editorial blamed the parents saying they had turned her death into a three-ring circus. Considering the irreparable loss the parents have suffered, LAT could have spared them or muted or even postponed such harsh indictment. "They generated a sad made-for-cable-TV spectacle and fed it with edited video footage from their daughter’s hospice bed and sinister accusations about Michael Schiavo." The editorial quoted reports saying that a group of conservative foundations had contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Schindlers’ (parents) vain efforts to keep their uncomprehending daughter’s feeding tube from being removed.

Murder, cried an article in Village Voice, one of the leading alternative media. Critical of the role of judges in what he called "the longest public execution in American history," Nat Hentoff attacked the manner in which it was concluded that Terri was not in a position to signify her mind. He quoted radiologists and neurologists to argue that Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state. Hentoff pilloried the ‘disgracefully ignorant coverage of the case by the great majority of the media, including such pillars of the trade as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Miami Herald and the Los Angeles Times as they copied each other’s misinformation like Terri Schiavo being in a persistent vegetative state.’ Primary judge George Greer failed to recognize Terri’s husband Michael Schiavo’s interest in ending his wife’s life. According to Hentoff, Michael was already living with a woman and their two children and judge Greer refused to entertain a petition by Florida’s Department of Children and Families pointing out neglect, abuse and exploitation of Terri by her husband. The husband never got an MRI or PET scan or a neurological diagnosis done for his wife.

From any angle, the courts gave the impression that they had overreached themselves. As early as 2000, a Florida court ordered Terri’s feeding tube removed. But the parents challenged the decision in courts several times, six of them in the Supreme Court. The husband contested the parents’ petitions. As a result, the tube was removed and inserted twice.

Religion, which is an essential part of the make-up of a majority of world’s population, played a part in conditioning the Terri debate. A Vatican newspaper described the court decision to deny permission to reconnect the feeding tube as tragic. It ridiculed the view that since Schiavo has no chance of leading a normal life she must die. In much of Europe too, where physician-induced deaths are not uncommon, the Schiavo case struck a chord, as Deutche Welle put it. In contrast, Islamic clerics opposed "the irreligious philosophy in the west that measures the value of life by one’s contributions of production and creativity in and towards society." They quoted Allah as saying "And take not life which Allah has made sacred, except by way of justice and law."

Death with dignity seems to be a popular concept in most of Europe. Therefore, western press was very critical of Bush. The Daily Mirror of London called the congressional intervention on behalf of life "another stark sign of a dangerous fusing of politics, morals and religion in the era of George W. Bush." Der Spiegel wrote, "Schiavo’s family managed to push her case under the noses of Congress and onto the radar of the nation’s born-again Christian president." A French media commentator ridiculed Bush as "the keen defender of the death penalty and domestic fire arms who launched two international wars that killed tens and thousands of people for his sudden attachment to life."

Readers representing the most discriminating consumers of media content reflected the kaleidoscopic nature of public response. In a letter to the New York Times, Oren Spiegler complained that what should have been a ‘private, intimate matter’ was turned into a publicity-crazed, history-making event, one from which we are likely to have great difficulty in recovering. "Weep for our nation, for it once stood near unanimously for freedom, self-determination and stunting the reach of the long arm of the central government," he said. "It is not for the courts to decide when an innocent person’s life should be ended," wrote Victor Henderson.

Pat Gallant made a thought-provoking point about who has the right to decide for a brain-damaged wife. She wrote, "The divorce rate in the United States is 50 per cent. Husbands and wives come and go. Parents stay. Spouses move on. As in Schiavo’s case, the husband has a new family and a new life. I don’t have the answers. I am just wondering if the wishes of a spouse should override the wishes of parents. Certainly, these situations scream for the necessity of living wills."

A few months ago, Venkatesh, 25, of Hyderabad, suffering from muscular dystrophy, wanted his life support system turned off before his organs suffered irreparable damage. But euthanasia is outlawed in India and organ donation may only take place if the donor is declared brain dead. The Constitution of India also upholds the sanctity of human life. The fundamental Right to Life in Art 21 says a person cannot be denied the right to live ‘except in acceptance with procedures defined by law.’ Venkatesh wrote in a note that he wanted to donate his organs. His mother appealed to the Andhra Pradesh High Court after failing to persuade the hospital authorities to switch her son`s life support system off. "The law does not allow transplanting organs from a person who is still alive," High Court judges Devender Gupta and Narayan Reddy said. "The existing law has no such provision and such a request cannot be conceded," they added.

Contact: dasukrishnamoorty@hotmail.com