What a revolting, necessary question.

The family has posted some of the documents related to her injuries on this website: www.terrisfight.org

Her husband does not sound like a very nice man.

From what has been reported locally, Schiavo had requested that his wife's body be cremated as soon as possible (after her death, of course) with no autopsy.

Very odd, Buttercup - Terri's Catholic, he claims to be Catholic, and Catholics don't get cremated. He's even said that he wants her to die, rather than get a divorce, because of his Catholicism (?!!).

Buttercup/PJ

Oh c'mon. Surely all the poor man wants is to bring "closure" to his grief, "get on with his life" and "remember Terri as she would want to be remembered."

Thirteen years after the fact, and the conclusive evidence is only now coming to light?

When it happened to Arnold, it was conclusive evidence of press bias. This sounds to me like a little more goose and gander thinking would be appropriate.

Dr. Baden might be entirely correct, which casts this whole thing in an entirely different light.

Or he might be very wrong. What is apparently so obvious now should have been manifestly so 13 years ago. Yet those in FL who should have seen the obvious didn't. Unless it wasn't there to be seen.

Color me skeptical.

P.J., as a rule Catholics don't get cremated
but my impression from reading certain catechetical documents is that is somewhat of
a grey area.

I believe what is definitely not allowed is having
ones ashes discarded in an undignified manner
(spread over a baseball field, put into firworks).

I guess I could look it up.

I understood that the prohibition on cremation had been lifted. Certainly, my Catholic grandfather was cremated, because his family was too poor to afford burial.

Jeff--

One reason I sent Paul that article because the Schiavo case DIDN'T strike me as a right-to-die case. I rather doubt that if Terri Schiavo had a living will that this case would have gotten any publicity or controversy, even though Catholic teaching is--if I understand this correctly--squarely against this practice. This makes Michael's speaking of his "Catholicism" (and note he also lives with his girlfriend with whom he has a child) QUITE suspect, don't you agree? Color ME skeptical.

The far more important point was the absolutely chilling nature of the ACLU's claim that the legilature has no power in this situation, or apparently any other. You strike me as a reasonable guy: I doubt you agree with their position either.

J.H. & Chris - I know Catholics can be cremated, but it's extremely rare. If it's true that Michael Schiavo wants his wife cremated, that leads me to question the validity of even his 'cultural Catholicism'.

Michael Schiavo seems to be transgressing a lot of social, cultural, and religious norms. What is motivating him to do so?

Brian:

I doubt both sides of this case--either has plenty of motivation to be extremely selective about what constitutes "facts."

To the extent--admittedly limited--that I understand the law, he is in fact her guardian. I believe the ACLU's position is that legislatures may not go about changing the law after the fact: they can change what constitutes guardianship in future marrriages, but not in marriages where guardianship was already defined. IF, and only if, that is their position, then it seems reasonable.

But I'm compounding relative ignorance with the absolute, since I am only guessing at what the ACLU's position is.

I'm a little sensitive to this. Six years ago my wife contracted a bacterial brain infection, went into a coma and nearly died. At one point the docs were cautioning me that she might be permanently vegetative.

Fortunately, the scare was intense but relatively brief, and she has made a full recovery.

We had previously talked about this sort of thing, and I knew her wishes, and she mine. We both find a prolonged vegetative existence personally unacceptable, and desired the other to not allow it. We didn't write it down. Beyond DNR orders which we had then, we still haven't. And we haven't changed our minds.

As ugly as certain alleged elements of this case may be, or as humanly understandable--wanting to have a wife and children when one's first wife is kept alive only through prolonged intense medical intervention clearly doesn't satisfy everyone, but it also doesn't seem to qualify as evil--it is hardly representative.

I would very much not welcome any party other than my wife making this sort of decision on my behalf, and if the legislature is doing that for the Schiavos, then why wouldn't a legislature feel compelled to provide me the same "consideration?"

But, Jeff, surely your and your wife's wishes stem from highly personal matters between you and have limited effect on law. You can't base laws of general application on spousal wishes alone. If a seriously depressed spouse requests help committing suicide, and the couple had previously(when well) decided that the bipolar depression they were both prone to for hereditary reasons was intolerable, is that ok?

Guardianship implies the assumption of care and control (more about duties than rights) and responsibility for legal affairs. It doesn't bestow powers of life and death, whether pursuant to wishes or not. You are your kids' guardian, but you can't let them die because of that. One can also cede guardianship to others, so why won't he?

If he wants to remarry, fine, he can get a divorce like everyone else. If he can't get a divorce because of her incapacity (which is unlikely), then he lives common law like everyone else in that situation. Life isn't always easy or fair. But what has all that got to do with stopping the rest of her family from caring for her? Surely you aren't arguing his happiness and convenience are factors to weigh in deciding whether to let Terri die, are you?

I completely agree his feelings MAY not be as deserving of censor as the media is portraying. (although they may.) I also agree that many in his position, including me, would have difficult, ambivalent emotions. That's why I suggested to Michael that feelings and motives are not really that important here. Are going to decide whether Terri lives or dies based on the purity of her husband's motives?

Brian has it right. This is not a right-to-die case. It is a right-to-kill-your-spouse case.

Brian has it right.

There's a first time for everything.

Here is a balanced article from a mainstream publication full of scary details.

Jeff--I understand (and sympathize with) what you're saying, but withholding of food is going way beyond a DNR, correct? This is the distinction the Church makes:

a great teaching effort is needed to clarify the substantive moral difference between discontinuing medical procedures that may be burdensome, dangerous or disproportionate to the expected outcome - what the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the refusal of over-zealous' treatment (No. 2278; cf. Evangelium Vitae, 65) - and taking away the ordinary means of preserving life, such as feeding, hydration and normal medical care.

It's also one that I think is clear to most folks (it certainly seems clear to Harry and to PJ); why isn't it clear to a "Catholic" like Michael Schiavo?

PS Jeff I haven't looked into the ACLU's position more closely (though the MSNBC article says that the "legal community widely expects" Michael to win...I think that phrase automatically makes us suspect but that doesn't mean it's wrong). Peter's argument strikes me as fairly persuasive--what if Michael just wanted to shoot her? That is, it's not obvious that the judges have interpreted the role of guardian correctly, and the MSNBC article says that Terri's family have won before SOME judges.

Finally, FWIW, one of Mark Shea's readers actually watched Michael's Larry King appearance last night:

In one segment, Larry asked Schiavo why Terri's parents would be motivated to keep Terri alive - to which Schiavo responded: "To make my life miserable."

and

Larry seemed to show some real moxy by challenging Schiavo to let CNN cameras go in and film Terri. He did this not once but three times! What did Felos say? "Oh no, we can't do that. Terri has a right to privacy."

Felos (Michael's lawyer) is a rather odd person, himself. BTW this article says that the FL Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that with a living will food and water can be withheld. I wonder if this is the question the courts have been ruling on in Terri's case.

Peter:

I don't care what effect my wife's and my desires have on the law; rather, I care about what effect the law might have on our desires.

I know exactly what my wife desires in the event she is unable to make, and enact, (unlike a spouse suffering from nothing other than depression) such decisions on her own. And what she absolutely doesn't desire is what constitutes life for Terri Schiavo.

So to me, this isn't a right-to-die v. a right-to-kill case; rather, it is a case about who gets to choose when the person is utterly unable to articulate, or enact, a choice for themselves.

Based on my, thankfully limited, first hand exposure to the problem, I know where the decision does not belong for me: anywhere near a legislature, court or judge.

Brian:

You are right, witholding nourishment is well beyond a DNR. Although, under the circumstances, it might be considered intrusive care. And, except for the advent of modern medicine, impossible. Which means God would have taken all of her, insteaed of just her mind, a long time ago, otherwise.

Unfortunately, Jeff, when it comes to the taking of life, the law is and should be involved. Pretty hard to have a civilized society if it isn't.

Jeff: Putting our personal disagreements on this to the side, might I strongly suggest that you and your wife memorialize these feelings, before notaries, now? At the very least, make sure so many people -- not just on this blog -- know what you're thinking, so it's admissible and probative evidence.

Mr. Guinn: I agree with Chris. If you and your wife have strong feelings about what you want and given that you have been in that position before, I would strongly recommend that the two of you get with a lawyer for an hour and put it in writing.

And, while you are at it, since you have a child (or children), make a will, too.

Okay, enough chiding from me today! But, seriously, it is important, costs little and your survivors will be grateful (although I'm not implying they won't be sad and sorry you are gone).

Thanks for advice about putting this sort of thing in writing, for you are well and truly correct.

Since my wife is well and truly on her way to earning a BSN, it would be beyond ironic if we didn't.