Who's Suffering is Being Relieved?

I just can't tell if Terri Schiavo is really there. I watch the video that we have all seen so many times, I listen to both sides ad nauseum (emphasis on the nauseum), and I just don't know. I am not sure, however, if it is necessary to know. There are three possibilites that I can see.

1. Terri isn't there, all that is there is the empty husk of her body running on autopilot.
2. Terri really is in there, self-aware, but is just incapable of expressing it for one reason or another.
3. Terri isn't really there. She isn't self-aware, but her soul is trapped inside her body because it hasn't died yet.

In saying that, though, I noticed that in none of the three instances does the word suffering appear. In looking at the video footage that is constantly being replayed, not once did I think that it appeared that Terri, herself, was suffering. I think that is important - Terri does not seem to be suffering.

If Terri isn't there, and all that is left is an empty, soul-less body that happens to still have a heartbeat and lungs pumping, then Terri really isn't living anymore. She is already dead. If that is the case, then killing her body isn't doing a darned thing to, or for, Terri. It is doing it to, and for, the people that love her. If this is indeed the case, it is Michael Schiavo, not Terri, that is being released. Terri's parents and siblings, however, are not being released at all. The act of forcing Terri's death will bring them nothing but pain and heartache. Even if she isn't there, taking away their hope is like taking Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny from a toddler. I suspect that they will never be able to look back at her passing and see it as a welcome release from her burdens, or their burdens, but instead as a constant reminder of the pain of losing her too soon. Their pain will be far more massive than the release that Michael receives.

If Terri is there, and aware of her surroundings, even minimally, then it would appear that there is a certain peaceful contentedness that she has found. If may be frustrating for her not to be able to communicate, but it certainly does not seem that she is suffering. There is no pain. Other than her lack of brain activity and muscle atrophy, she appears to be in good health. She appears to, at least at times, respond and perhaps even enjoy the company of loved ones. At least three nurses that have cared for Terri have reported that she could communicate with them, and did show emotion. You can read their affidavits for yourself here and here. These reports indicate nothing of a desire to end a life of suffering.

The third alternative is difficult to quantify, and starts to delve into the realm of metaphysics. If Terri is not self-aware, but has a soul that is trapped within her body, can that soul perceive and discern its surroundings? If not, then there is little difference between this, and the first instance, in which case, the relative pain and suffering of those close to the patient should be considered. If, however, it can perceive its surroundings, what then? It would see Terri surrounded by people that love her, and want to care for her. I find it hard to argue that this would be a state from which there would need to be 'release'.

As I have noted in a previous post, this case has made me think deeply about end of life matters, and I have found myself surprised at the conclusions that I come to. I do not fear my own death, whenever it may come. I plan to be able to face my God with a clear conscience, or at least as clear as a human conscience can expect to be. My greater fear is the effect that my death may have on others, just as I am concerned about the effect my life has on others. Though I do not fear death, I also will not rush to embrace it. Although I have no real desire myself to find myself in the state Terri Schiavo is, I cannot say that death is preferable. I believe that God does not put before us a cross too heavy to bear. Even if I were suffering, I am certain that I could find the strength to bear it. Again, I would be more concerned by the suffering that I caused others.

Why does God allow suffering? I do not believe that He causes it, but, as there is so much suffering in the world, He most certainly allows it. The answer that I have reached is that, by allowing suffering, others can become better. The tsunami in Indonesia was a great trajedy, but, by our response, we have become better people for it. In the same way, the trajedy that befalls a single individual, such as Terri Schiavo, can stir love and compassion that improves the character, even the soul, of those that desire to care for her. Who are we, who am I, to prevent this?

So, were I ever to find myself in a similar, or even worse state than Terri, my one great desire would be to never become a burden. As long as someone was willing and desired to love and care for me; as long as there is someone that takes solace in the fact that I am alive, and not dead; as long as my life resulted in more joy, happiness, love, etc. than pain in seeing me incapacitated, I will embrace life. If, however, my life results in more pain than joy in those around me, I shall not retreat from death, nor cling to life. In this instance, "pulling the plug" should cause no one to feel guilt nor remorse. There should only be joy in the fact that I am going to my eternal home, and a celebration of a life well lived. I also believe that vesting a single person with sole authority and responsibility over decisions of life and death is a great burden. Instead, I would prefer that my family and friends jointly come to a concensus about what is best for them, collectively.

All this has brought another thought to my mind. I do not believe that Terri Schiavo's wishes in this case are knowable, let alone known. Not being a lawyer myself, I don't know if there are other standards of proof, but I do know that in a criminal case, there is a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", and in a civil case, the standard is "by a preponderance of the evidence", the former being a much higher standard of proof. In a case such as this, when a patient's wishes regarding life and death are not known, isn't it reasonable to use the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." I cannot for a moment believe that there is not enough evidence that Terri would not want this that a reasonable person would have no doubt.

I have a suspicion, as well. Poll after poll has shown that the American public believes that Terri's feeding tube should not be re-inserted. My suspicion is that most of us are finding ourselves, even subconsciously, projecting our own beliefs about what we would want were we in her position. I am certainly willing to admit that it is a possibility in my case. It may be true in the case of Judge Greer as well. I think that this is a natural thing, and something that none of us can get away from. This is an issue that has touched our nation deeply. We all have that voice in the back of our heads that whispers, "there, but for the grace of God....." What is important, though, is what Terri would want, and that, ultimately, is unknowable. It now looks as if she will be passing soon, and I hope an pray that this debate does not end at the same time her life does. There are many questions that remain unanswered, from who has teh right to make medical decisions when the patient is unable to do so themselves, to what it is that constitutes 'life support' or what is the difference between basic care and extraordinary care. If we do not address these questions now, there will someday be another Terri Schiavo, and we will have to go through this ordeal again. Nobody, I am sure, wants that.