It’s truly sad news that Teri Schiavo has died. Many Christians today are questioning how this happened and what it says about our culture and legal system.<\/p>\n
I’ve found this particular case profoundly frustrating. As a Christian who is ardently pro-life, I hate disagreeing with my brothers and sisters who feel so strongly about this case. I certainly do stand with anyone who fears the prospects of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and a culture of death. However, as a lawyer, I understand some aspects of this case perhaps too well. And, as a lawyer, I simply can’t find any fault in how this case was handled, nor can I find any normative principle arising from it which makes it in any way unique. It’s been agonizing to hear otherwise thoughtful people rail against the courts and judges involved in this case and mis-state the nature of the law that was applied. The truth is, the courts applied the law exactly as the people of the State of Florida enacted it through their elected representatives, as confirmed in the independent Guardian ad Litem’s Report<\/a>.<\/p>\n I’d like to suggest that, if you are a Christian who truly feels Terri Schiavo was murdered, you need to pressure your state legislators to change certain laws that almost certainly are on the books in your state. Before you do that, though, I’d also like to suggest that there are serious questions you need to resolve. The Florida statute provides for surrogate decision making by the spouse when a person does not leave a written advance health care directive (2004->Ch0765->Section%20401#0765.401″>FS 765.401<\/a>), defines a “persistent vegitative state” and the procedures to be followed in such cases (2004->Ch0765->Section%20404#0765.404″>FS765.404<\/a>, and defines the types of medical procedures that may be terminated under the law to include “artificially provided sustenance and hydration” (2004->Ch0765->Section%20101#0765.101″>FS 765.101(10)<\/a>.<\/p>\n This type of statute is not unique to Florida, nor is it a novel development. For a good overview of the development and application of similar statutes, read the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Cruzan v. Director, APH<\/a>, a 1990 decision. The Cruzan decision illustrates several things: (1) legal questions about PVS and artificial nutrition and hydration are not novel; they’ve been in the courts and legislatures for decades; (2) Terri Schiavo’s medical condition, and the decision made to remove artificial nutrition and hydration, were not exceptional or novel; (3) most states have had statutes dealing with situations like Terri Schiavo’s for decades, and they are relatively uniform in how they address the situation.<\/p>\n
\n
\nContrary to the comments of many conservative pundits, the Schiavo case had nothing to do with judicial activism. The truth is that the Florida courts followed a statute that was enacted by the people of the State of Florida through their elected representatives in 1990 and 1999. The court did not interpret the statute in any unique way. It simply applied the law. Generally, this is what most of us judicial conservatives want courts to do.<\/p>\n