Bryan D. Brown

The dominate story of the week, maybe month, is the Terri Schiavo situation. Now despite the politically correct notion that euthanasia should be acceptable, I am not a big proponent. People like Mark O’Brien - who spent most of his life in an iron lung - lived amazingly productive lives in spite of horrendous handicaps.

However, a couple of things strike me about the case - at least in terms of its presentation via the media. The medical debate, which should be the focal point of the discussion, is remarkably absent. If there were a public medical discussion around her condition, then perhaps the desire to keep her alive would seem more reasonable.

Through the pleas of Terri Schiavo’s parent to keep her alive, the pleas of her husband to allow her to die, and the congressional maneuvering to intervene, the scientific debate over her actual state of being is barely visible. It’s odd that while one set of doctors believe she is doomed, and another set believe she could make a significant recovery, not one major media outlet is significantly focusing on the medical “controversy” surrounding Terri Schiavo’s condition. Clearly, one group is not being honest with their findings. If that discussion were to happen - and the public could judge for themselves which medical “experts” were more credible - then the debate would probably swing widely in one direction. That would be very bad for ratings.

No matter, as the politics of the Schiavo case are much more “interesting”. Take, for example, the Texas Futile Care Law (from the blog of one of the bills co-authors), signed by now-President but then-Governor George W. Bush in 1999. And quoting:

Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision… the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment.

In 2003, the law was amended to apply to minors. On March 15, 2005, the first casualty of this new law was six-month old Sun Hudson, who was removed from his respirator, over the objections of his mother, when a judge allowed the hospital to discontinue his life-sustaining care.

Sun Hudson’s prognosis was terminal. No question. Even if he were to survive a few months, there was no medical evidence to support him living through childhood. His lungs would never support his body. However, there was nothing mentally wrong with Sun Hudson. His brain function was normal. Doesn’t Sun Hudson’s mother have just as much of a right to prolong her son’s life as Terri Schiavo’s parents? What was Sun Hudson missing that Terri Schiavo isn’t?

The Seattle Times may just hold the answer. A memo regarding the GOP’s congressional rallying around the Schiavo case made its way to the press, “GOP memo says issue offers political rewards“:

“This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue,” said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. “This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.”

That’s what Terri Schiavo’s case had that Sun Hudson’s did not - not a medical debate over the possibility of a healthy future, or a religious rally rejecting euthanasia. No, what he needed was a conservative Christian state with a weak Democratic congressional representative. He needed Republicans to see a political opportunity in keeping him alive.

But who can really blame the parents of Terri Schiavo for fighting for what they presumably believe - that their daughter has some hope of a normal life. While it’s difficult to question the motives of parents in such a horrible situation and whether their motives are pure, the money being funneled to them surely isn’t. According to Jon B. Eisenberg, a lawyer working on the Schiavo case (as posted at blog.bioethics.net), the money for their continuous legal battles is coming from a number of far right-wing organizations:

Using [mediatransparency.com] and the Schindlers’ own site, terrisfight.org, I learned of a network of funding connections between some of the Philanthropy Roundtable’s members and various organizations behind the Schindlers, their lawyers and supporters, and the lawyers who represented Gov. Bush in Bush v. Schiavo…

The Philanthropy Roundtable is a collection of foundations that have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. The Roundtable members’ founders include scions of America’s wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products).

Eisenberg also lists other groups involved in funding, including the Life Legal Defense Foundation (an anti-abortion group), Alliance Defense Fund (an anti-gay rights group), and Family Research Council (prayer in school advocates, anti-gay marriage) - which all have connections to other right-wing advocacy groups, in addition to the Philanthropy Roundtable.

So as the Republicans in Congress stand up and “fight for the life” of Terri Schiavo, and medical experts like Pat Boone and Pastor Rick Warrengo appear on Larry King Live! and discuss how Terri Schiavo could lead a productive life, the uglier side of this case may not be readily apparent. And while the medical debate over her condition falls quietly into the background, it is doubtful that Terri Schiavo’s last wishes were to be used as martyr for a far right-wing agenda.