Are Feeding Tubes "Artificial" Life Support?

I have mostly tried to stay out of the Terry Schiavo case because I am not fully conversant in the facts of the case. But today, I received an email about those "facts" which brought me up short:

1. Schindlers Were Outgunned by Lawyers Early

In case you were wondering, with so many facts in dispute about the Terri Schiavo case, the answer is relatively clear: The Schindlers, well-intentioned as they have been, were outgunned in the early legal fight that sealed their daughter's fate.

The early legal maneuvering created "facts" that are now beyond dispute in higher courts. One is the unbelievable claim by Michael Schiavo that Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death.

One Florida attorney told the story on Steve Sailer's Web Log (www.isteve.com).

Here's what the lawyer wrote:

"I have been following the case for years. Something that interests me about the Terri Schiavo case, and that doesn't seem to have gotten much media attention: The whole case rests on the fact that the Schindlers (Terri's parents) were totally outlawyered by the husband (Michael Schiavo) at the trial court level.

"This happened because, in addition to getting a $750K judgment for Terri's medical care, Michael Schiavo individually got a $300K award of damages for loss of consortium, which gave him the money to hire a top-notch lawyer to represent him on the right-to-die claim. He hired George Felos, who specializes in this area and litigated one of the landmark right-to-die cases in Florida in the early '90s.

"By contrast, the Schindlers had trouble even finding a lawyer who would take their case since there was no money in it. Finally they found an inexperienced lawyer who agreed to take it partly out of sympathy for them, but she had almost no resources to work with and no experience in this area of the law. She didn't even depose Michael Schiavo's siblings, who were key witnesses at the trial that decided whether Terri would have wanted to be kept alive. Not surprisingly, Felos steamrollered her.

"The parents obviously had no idea what they were up against until it was too late. It was only after the trial that they started going around to religious and right-to-life groups to tell their story. These organizations were very supportive, but by that point their options were already limited because the trial judge had entered a judgment finding that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to live.

"This fact is of crucial importance -- and it's one often not fully appreciated by the media, who like to focus on the drama of cases going to the big, powerful appeals courts: Once a trial court enters a judgment into the record, that judgment's findings become THE FACTS of the case, and can only be overturned if the fact finder (in this case, the judge) acted capriciously (i.e., reached a conclusion that had essentially no basis in fact).

"In this case, the trial judge simply chose to believe Michael Schiavo's version of the facts over the Schindlers'. Since there was evidence to support his conclusion (in the form of testimony from Michael Schiavo's siblings), it became nearly impossible for the Schindlers to overturn it. The judges who considered the case after the trial-level proceeding could make decisions only on narrow questions of law. They had no room to ask, "Hey, wait a minute, would she really want to die?" That "fact" had already been decided.

"In essence, the finding that Terri Schiavo would want to die came down to the subjective opinion of one overworked trial judge who was confronted by a very sharp, experienced right-to-die attorney on one side and a young, quasi-pro bono lawyer on the other. "Nothing unusual about this, of course. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time. But it's an interesting point to keep in mind when you read that the Schiavo case has been litigated for years and has been reviewed by dozens of judges ... yadda yadda yadda.

"By the way, I'm guessing that George Felos is probably quite happy to work the Schiavo case for free at this point since it's making him one of the most famous right-to-kill -- I mean right-to-die -- lawyers in the country. His BlackBerry has probably melted down by now, what with all the messages from the hurry-up-and-die adult children you've been blogging about."

Go here to read a comprehensive accounting of the Terri Schiavo case.

I don't have a problem with people "pulling the plug" on artificial Life Support systems when there is little or no hope for survival of greviously injured patients. But the Terri Schiavo case seems to me to be different on two accounts.

1) Why is there a compelling need for Michael Schiavo to "pull the plug" on his wife in direct conflict with the wishes of his wife's parents?

Is there a financial motivation for ending his wife's life? If not, why not just divorce Terri, and allow her parents to continue caring for her? Also, why won't Michael Schiavo allow doctors to administer the PET scan that would conclusively show whether or not Terri is truly brain dead?

2) I am unconvinced that a feeding tube is an artificial life support system.

Babies cannot feed themselves. Paraplegics cannot feed themselves. But no one doubts their humanity or their rights to live. In fact, anyone who engaged in starving a baby or a paraplegic by "passively" refusing to provide sustenance would be criminally liable for murder. How is the Terri Schiavo case any different?

If providing external sources of food and water are "artificial," then all of us live by artificial means.

Right-to-die advocates often focus on "quality of life" issues and ignore the absolute nature of "value of life" morality. But quality of life arguments do not hold up under moral scrutiny. Just who gets to decide what is the acceptable level of "quality" for life to continue?

For example, did Helen Keller enjoy a "quality of life" that you and I would consider acceptable for our own lives? How about Christopher Reeves, post accident? Do third world children enjoy a "quality of life" that we would consider acceptable for ourselves?

My sister-in-law has severe health problems and is borderline mentally retarded. Should my family be allowed to starve her to death? I am overweight. I do not enjoy a "quality of life" that I would prefer. But should my less than optimal "quality of life" give courts the jursdiction to allow a relative to end my life? Or should they just be allowed to starve me until my wieght is lowered to the point where my "quality of life" is optimal?

The problem with "quality of life" arguments is that there is no clear line. But it seems rather clear to me that life has its own intrinsic value, and the decision to deprive an innocent human being of life by intentional starvation is barbaric.