MSNBC's Caplan All Wrong on Schiavo

Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, has penned an irresponsible piece of nonsense ("The time has come to let Terri Schiavo die") for MSNBC.  His piece is yet another example of bad opinion from major media outlets.  It's also an example of how the "experts" can be brilliantly wrong in their assessments of a situation - even one within their own field of expertise.

Caplan Ignores the Evidence

Caplan writes:

We have now reached the endgame in the case of Terri Schiavo. Her husband, Michael, remains unwavering in his view that she would not want to live in the state she is in. Despite the fact that he has been made the target of an incredible organized campaign of vilification, slander and just plain nastiness, he remains unmoved. Even a pathetic effort to bribe him into changing his mind with the offer of $1 million did not budge him.

He says he loves his wife and will do whatever it takes to end an existence that he believes she would not want to endure. He thinks that she would want her feeding tube stopped and that she would wish to die rather than remain bed-bound in a nursing home in a permanent vegetative state for the rest of her days.

First of all, the evidence is shaky that Terri "would not want to live in the state she is in."  There is no written document, no living will, only conflicting reports about what Terri had said with regard to artificial life support. 

The artificial life support in question is a feeding tube.  Is not being able to feed oneself a sufficient reason to permit someone to die?  I don't think so - there are lots of people who can't feed themselves.  Babies and some elderly people, as well as some accident and stroke victims, can't feed themselves.  Furthermore, it's possible that Terri could be liberated from the feeding tube through therapy - therapy which her husband and Judge Greer have refused to allow.

So it comes down to Terri's mental and physical health.  Is Terri in a permanent vegetative state?  Is she doomed to be so for the rest of her days?

Watch the videos of Terri.  She recognizes and responds favorably to her mom.  She laughs.  She tries to talk.  She responds to music.  If laughing is a sign of being in a vegetative state, what isn't?

We don't know how much ability Terri can recover.  We don't know because the relevant tests haven't been done, and because Terri has been denied therapy.  And yet the major media outlets - and so-called "experts" - persist in ignoring these important facts.  Pathetic.

Caplan on the Husband-Wife Bond

Caplan goes on to criticize opponents of Michael Schiavo on the basis of the marital bond:

Remember the recent debate about gay marriage and the sanctity of the bond between husband and wife? Nearly all of those now trying to push their views forward about what should be done with Terri Schiavo told us that marriage is a sacred trust between a man and a woman. Well, if that is what marriage means then it is very clear who should be making the medical decisions for Terri — her husband.

Is Caplan really so obtuse?  Michael Schiavo is sleeping with another woman, is engaged to be married to her upon Terri's death, and has had two children with her.  (In the face of this, Caplan writes that Michael "loves her and has stuck by her for more than 15 years."  Typically, sticking by one's spouse involves marital fidelity.)  On the traditional notion of marriage as one-flesh union, sexual intercourse consummates the union (thus "mating").  Intercourse with another outside the marriage therefore constitutes a direct attack on that union.  Adultery is widely understood as the classic case of betrayal in marriage and the primary justification for its dissolution.  So from the traditional viewpoint, Michael Schiavo is in no position to be Terri's guardian.  Caplan is clueless.

Add to that the neglect that Terri has suffered under Michael's care, and there should be no question that Terri needs a new advocate.

Deadly Implications

Near the end of the article, Caplan articulates his principle of refusing treatment:

We have had a consensus in this country that you have a right to refuse any and all medical care that you might not want. Christian Scientists do not have to accept medical care nor do Jehovah’s Witnesses need to accept blood transfusions or fundamentalist Protestants who would rather pray than get chemotherapy. Those who are disabled and cannot communicate have the exact same rights. Their closest family members have the power to speak for them.

If people have the right to refuse any and all medical care, then its difficult to see how life can have any objective value.  Suppose a teenager takes a bottle of pills and you find a note in the breast pocket of his shirt: "We have a consensus in this country that we have a right to refuse any and all medical care that we don't want.  I don't want you to save my life.  Let me die."  On Caplan's principle above, should we let the teen commit suicide?

In the course of his brief article, Arthur Caplan has demonstrated that he is unfamiliar with important facts of the case, unfamiliar with the moral authority of marital relations and the ways such authority can be compromised, and grossly unaware of the dangers of the principles he is advocating.  It's difficult to believe that someone like Caplan can rise to the position of authority he has, and surprising that MSNBC wouldn't pause to confirm the facts when life and death are in the balance. 

Contra Caplan, the time has come to protect the life and well-being of Terri Schiavo.

terrisfight.org