We haven't said anything about the whole Terri Schiavo debacle because, frankly, we hadn't looked into it enough to have an educated opinion. When we decided to do a little research, it became apparent that with even a cursory look, two factors were the keys for us. The first factor is what the scientific and medical evidence says about Terri's state and her ability to recover. Assuming for a moment that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no real hope for recovery, the second factor is that her wishes (which her husband claims to represent) should be carried out.

Over on World Wide Rant, Andy says something very similar. PZ Myers of Pharyngula presents some information in two posts on the topic, as does Lindsay on Majikthise. Both point to the Rude Pundit, who is pretty harsh in his wording (not that there's anything wrong with that), but ultimately gets it absolutely correct. PZ's second post also points to a brain scan comparison that pretty thoroughly spells out Terri's condition. Ed Brayton on Dispatches from the Culture Wars also outlines the issue along the same lines as we do.

The Medical Facts
From these posts, comments, and further links, as well as various other reading we've now done, it seems clear to us that Terri's brain is gone. She is in a persistent vegetative state and her movements and "interactions" are involuntary. The people who claim that she is still alive in any meaningful sense are wrong. They are either wrong because, like her parents, they just want to believe so badly that they can't let go, or because, like the religious right, they want to use this as political leverage. We can empathize with her parents (though we disagree with them), but what these politicians are doing is just plain twisted. Forget the videos where Terri appears to be interacting with her parents — we can show you videos of David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear, but that didn't really happen either. Based upon the data, her brain is so severely damaged that she is not capable of any meaningful interactions. She is gone, and of that we have no doubt.

Terri's Wishes
With our view on her condition decided, we have to ask what Terri would have wanted in a situation like this. Yes, we just argued that she is no longer alive in any real sense, and yes, this means that she is little more than a corpse, but that doesn't mean that her wishes when she was alive and functional should now be ignored. In the same way that a person's wishes to be buried or cremated should be respected after they are dead, Terri's wishes in this case should likewise be respected. It isn't something that she can be happy about now, but that's not entirely the point. The courts have decided that Michael Schiavo is trying to do what his wife would want him to do, and that he does not have questionable motives (as Terri's parents have tried to argue of late).

To us, this is the end of the discussion. She is gone, her wish was that she not be kept alive by articifial means, her husband's motivation is to adhere to her earlier wishes, therefore, Terri should be allowed to die.

Non-Issues
To some, this is not the end of the argument, so we'll address the arguments that we've read around the internet which we consider to be non-issues.

[This is not about euthanasia, which is actively ending a life. It is about the right to decline artifical life support. There is a difference under the law. That said, we do support euthanasia. -Ed] If Michael Schiavo favors it, Terri should be humanely euthanized. Yes, we know that gradual starvation will likely not be noticed by Terri due to her current state, and yes, we know that she never made it clear that she would want to be proactively killed in this situation (in contrast to passively dying as a result of the termination of life support), but to us this is a very minor distinction. All doctors on both sides would agree, we are sure, that removal of the feeding tube will result in death. To us, whether that death comes slowly via starvation (with or without pain killers) or quickly via lethal injection (or some other means) is, medically speaking, a minor issue which should be decided without fanfare by Michael Schiavo. Either way, the end result is the same. We understand the rationale behind this argument, we just think it's a matter of splitting hairs. If there was any possibility that removing the tube would not result in Terri's death, then we would oppose active euthanasia, but we are not aware of such a possibility.

Terri should be allowed to die, and the courts, the religious right, and any other self-serving nosy-neighbors who say differently should mind their own business. These people should simply shut the hell up, and just hope (and pray as is often their wont) that they aren't one day faced with a similar decision in their own personal lives. And if they are, they should hope that outsiders and politicians who have no direct interest or stake in the situation aren't allowed to dictate this most personal of decisions.

This isn't about the left vs. the right, or liberals, conservatives, democrats, or republicans; we consider ourselves to fall into none of those categories, and we view this issue, like all others, to be a matter of common sense, and not politics. That said, the political maneuvering around this issue is absolutely sickening. Take, for example, this GOP memo found via World Wide Rant:

Republican leaders believe their attention to the Terri Schiavo issue could pay dividends with Christian conservatives whose support they covet in the 2006 midterm elections, according to a GOP memo intended to be seen only by senators.

The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, called the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year.

[Ed: See below regarding the source of this memo, which could be in doubt.]

The politicos aren't truly interested in what is best for Terri Schiavo. To them, it's just another chip they can throw in the pot, as they gamble (with other people's lives) to win re-election, or push their favorite legislation through congress, or strive to realize whatever their own particular goals are at this moment.

We'll also note that public sentiment seems to be on Michael Schiavo's side. Is this important to the decision? Not really, except to show that even though the press coverage is mostly showing those opposing Terri's wish to die, that is not necessarily indicative of widespread sentiment. As usual, it is a vocal minority that is viewed as "the general public." Accordingly, we also doubt this will politically alienate those who back Terri's husband as much as some people seem to think it will.

This isn't about what Terri's parents want, or whether her Catholic upbringing dictates her desires. We know plenty of people who were raised Catholic whose beliefs are now nothing like traditional Catholic beliefs. This is about what Terri wanted, and we believe that her husband is the best person to make that determination. Parents have a view of their children that isn't always realistic and up to date. Maybe they believe that Terri's Catholic upbringing would never allow her to consider being euthanized, but maybe that's only because she never shared her changing religious views with them. That's not uncommon, especially when it comes to religion. Once people are married, their spouses are the people who tend to know the most about them, not their parents. If we were ever in the same position, we would look first to a spouse to make this decision, as the person best informed about our inner-most thoughts and desires; the same should be true for Terri.

This also isn't about ownership of women (as some people have suggested) since we'd have the exact same position if Michael Schiavo was rendered a non-person and Terri was the one fighting to pull out the tube.

The bottom line for us is that Terri Schiavo is already gone, and what is left should be allowed to die. Her husband is doing what he believes is right, according to the wishes of his wife, and that is the only opinion that should be considered.

There is an important lesson here: take care of this issue for yourself. Draw up your own living will for you and your family so that you're never in a position like this. It is terrible enough to have to decide whether to keep a loved one alive via artifical life support — questions about the wishes of the loved one only make it harder. Make it clear what you want, and you'll never put your family in a similar position.

[Editor's note: We left out the first part of the paragraph above on euthanasia vs. the right to die. It has now been added.]

[Update 03-22: For more information, read our other posts on Terri Schiavo.]

[Update 03-23: According to In the Agora (found via Dispatches from the Culture Wars), the origin of the GOP talking points memo first reported by ABC News is in question. It seems that it may not have originated with the Republicans (the point is still up for debate). Either way, as Ed points out, the motivations of the Republicans are still clearly political in nature, and they are still, in our view, incredibly misguided. Accordingly, The Two Percent Company stands by our above assessment.]

[Update 04-07: As it turns out, the memo in question was written by a Republican after all. From the Washington Post:

As we said above, whether it was written by the Republicans or not, we believed that it accurately reflected their attitudes. But it's nice to know that it wasn't a Democrat pulling a fast one.]

I'm not sure if the situation was reversed and it was a wife's word against the rest of her husband's blood relatives thatf the court would have ruled in the same way. For me there is a strong undercurrent which isnt being talked about where it boils down to the wife being the husbands property.

It would seem to me that this is a family decision and family means more than just the husband. Part of the marriage contract is to love someone in sickness and in health. The husband has since started a new life with a woman and has fathered kids with her while at the same time staying legally married to Terri Schiavo. I don't necessarily blame him for moving on, but doing so does break his marriage contract.

I'm not sure if the situation was reversed and it was a wife's word against the rest of her husband's blood relatives thatf the court would have ruled in the same way. For me there is a strong undercurrent which isnt being talked about where it boils down to the wife being the husbands property.

First, we can't say that reversing roles by gender here would not change the court's decision since various courts have made ridiculous decisions in the past with no basis in logic or reality. We can say that it absolutely should not make any difference, and that if it did, we would hope a higher court would overturn such a miscarriage of justice. We can also say that if the situation was reversed and the courts ruled that Michael's parents, rather than his wife, held the power to make decisions on his behalf, we would be Ranting about that injustice just as surely as we are Ranting about this one.

The bottom line is that this is not about gender roles, and we would feel the same way if the roles were reversed. We can't speak for any court, except to say what a court should do, and what is consistent with US law — and that is treating husband and wife as equals with respect to a decision like this one.

It would seem to me that this is a family decision and family means more than just the husband.

Ideally, sure, the entire family would get a say. In many cases (including ones that we are personally familiar with), that's how this works. The problem comes when different members of the family have vastly different opinions, as they do with Terri. Then it is important to know who, under the law, is the primary decision maker. In this case, it is unequivocally Michael Schiavo, as the courts have affirmed. As sad as it may be to some that the wishes of Terri's parents are not being accommodated, it is what it is. Once you marry, you are essentially affirming that your immediate family is no longer comprised of your parents and any siblings, but rather your spouse and any children; and the law recognizes this affirmation.

Part of the marriage contract is to love someone in sickness and in health.

In point of fact, we believe that is exactly what Michael Schiavo is trying to do. He loves his wife (or at this point, the memory of her), and he is trying to respect her wishes not to be kept alive by artificial means. If he didn't love her, it would be all too easy to simply divorce her, and hand her body over to her parents' care. He could avoid this entire drawn out saga by doing this. So why doesn't he do this? We think that Lindsay on Majikthise has nicely put to rest the rumors of financial gain for Michael should Terri die, as well as the other exaggerated or fabricated reasons for him wanting her dead. We are therefore left with the likely scenario that he really does want to honor her wishes. That is love.

The husband has since started a new life with a woman and has fathered kids with her while at the same time staying legally married to Terri Schiavo. I don't necessarily blame him for moving on, but doing so does break his marriage contract.

Has Michael Schiavo moved on and started a new life with a new woman? Yes. His wife has been one notch away from a corpse for fifteen years. He should move on (as you seem to agree). Does this "break his marriage contract"? Legally, a marriage contract is broken only by death or divorce (or anullment). Neither applies here. Under the law, adultery is not a "breach of contract" (so to speak). Many marriages go on for decades after adultery has occurred. Only religion would view adultery as a breach of the marriage bond, and we're not talking about religion. So, no — Michael has not broken his marriage contract, and accordingly he is still Terri's guardian (as she would be for him).

I've been looking into this too after repeated rants from my mother about the unjust actions of her husband.

I agree with you and also want to add one thing -- this is a great example of why it's CRUCIAL to be careful when marrying. Do you want this person to have the final say on your life? Because once you marry, the spouse rules not your parents. Sad as this case is, her parents are making a bad situation worse for all concerned. Even if Terri's husband's motives are less than honourable, the fact is, he remains her legal husband and so - he gets final say when she can't speak for herself.

We agree. Not only are Terri's parents making a bad situation worse, now the government (including the president) is making the situation worse still. As you said, the bottom line is that Michael gets to decide for Terri, and no one should be standing in the way.

Be careful who you marry, indeed. That person may one day decide your fate. For our part, we believe that Michael is acting correctly. We can only hope that, if faced with a similar decision, everyone's spouse would act correctly.

Be careful who you elect as well.