Terri Schiavo

I have refrained from commenting on the drama unfolding in Florida over the past few weeks in the case of Terri Schiavo, in part because I don't have all of the facts at my command to comment thoroughly, and in part because almost everything that there is to be said has already been said in other venues. There are a couple of points that I feel deserve attention, however.

As a matter of judicial practice, it seems irresponsible for the federal courts, after Congress passed a bill in extended session which the president flew back to Washington in order to sign into law, giving federal courts jurisdiction to review the case de novo, to essentially abdicate this extraordinary authority by refusing to order the re-insertion of the feeding tube that would keep the subject of the legislation alive long enough to conduct the review contemplated by the law. The courts have not conducted that review, and likely never will, as Ms. Schiavo will probably die before they have the opportunity. This seems to me to be a deliberate poke in the eye by the judicial branch to the other, coordinate, equal branches of the federal government, and the unblinking acceptance by most of the populace of this tragic example of judicial supremacy is discouraging.

Where I part company with many other conservatives on this issue is on the question of who should make the ultimate decision for Terri Schiavo. If Florida law gives that authority to the spouse, then unless there is a compelling reason to deprive the spouse of that authority, his decision should be honored. What makes this case difficult is Michael Schiavo's actions over the past few years. After testifying at trial that he wanted the money to take care of Terri for the rest of her life, he received the award and went on with his life, fathering two children by another woman, and later recalled that Terri had once told him that she would not want to live on artificial life support. His actions suggest that his motives may be less than pure, and they are certainly self-serving.

As is probably obvious from the previous paragraph, I have little confidence in the motives of Michael Schiavo, and his fidelity (or lack thereof) to his wife speaks for itself. But if the law provides that he make this decision, the law should be respected. Of course, in Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens wrote, "'If the law supposes that,' said Mr. Bumble . . . 'the law is a ass, a idiot.'" That may well be true in this particular case, and the answer is to rectify the law through the political process, not the judicial process. As far as Michael Schiavo's situation is concerned, though, Mr. Bumble is right.