Liz writes in

from Liz:

The Terry Schiavo situation has been much on my mind and our discussion
in class yesterday has prompted me to submit this to your blog.

Often, when discussing this case, words like ‘killing’ ‘starving her to
death’ and ‘convenience’ are used. Some factions have advanced the
position that it has become inconvenient for Mrs. Schiavo’s husband to
care for her. They cite his relationship with another woman and his two
children with her as proof of their assertion. Others call this a right
to life case, stressing the ‘inalienable right to life…’ mentioned in
our Declaration of Independence. People argue about if Mrs. Schiavo is
‘really there’. Does she really smile in reaction to other people? Does
she follow with her eyes? Does she try to respond? Or are these all the
most basic involuntary reactions, completely unrelated to human thought
and cognizance?

The only thing I can say about the Schiavo case is this:

I don’t know.

What I do know is based on personal experience. I have been in the
unfortunate position of having to make a decision similar to
Mr.Schiavo’s two times: once for my father who'd been comatose for more
than a month after a work related head injury, once for my chronically
ill mother who suffered brain damage as a result of lack of oxygen. Her
body was so wracked and distorted with arthritis that when she needed to
be intubated by emts, they were unable to figure out how to do it.

My brother died at home, brain cancer at 29, assisted by hospice. Once
we knew that cancer treatments had failed, no 'life-saving' measures
were used. My brother in law died in the hospital, AIDS at 43. Again,
once it was clear that medicine was ineffective, no 'life-saving'
measures were employed.

My 'list' is much longer than this, as many of yours must be. These are
just the four most relevant to the discussion.

When my parents became incapacitated, – ten years apart and without
living wills - we as a family made the hard decisions together, in
consultation with the medical professionals and clergy we trusted. The
inevitable disagreements over which course to take, which ‘plugs to pull
when’ meant we waited a little longer to make our decision. One of us,
however - me - was given extra responsibility and my view was given
extra weight because of my position in the family and because the rest
of them trusted and loved me.

I can understand Mrs. Schiavo’s family's desperate hope because I lived
it. Every eye blink, every twitch – maybe that meant my parents or
brothers were ‘coming back’. We lived in hope, but had to be realistic.
I would have expected that somewhere along the line during these 15
years, that compassionate, experienced people would offer wiser counsel
to the Schiavo family than they've apparently been given. It seems that
counseling for THEM is in order.

Accepting the death of a loved one isn't easy, especially when they
appear to be 'awake'. And especially when you are, in effect,
facilitating their passing.

The question of 'is Terry alive?' is one that can only be answered by
the doctors and the family – and one it appears will soon be moot.

My own feeling is that...I don't know. I've been told that hearing is
the last sense to leave a dying person. Does Terri 'hear'? I don't know.
Is she sentient? I don't know. But it’s none of my damn business.

What I do know is that the decisions I made for my family members were
among the most difficult of my life. They were made with love, with
knowledge of the people I was speaking for, with occasional doubt, with
consultation with my brothers and sister, after talking with doctors,
with much thought and prayer and anguish and ultimately, with
responsible love. Woe betide the politician or ANYone who would have
tried to enter such a deeply familial time.

I'm sad that the toll of the last fifteen years has divided Mrs.
Schiavo’s family so deeply and that this painful situation is even worse
because of how they have conducted themselves. I wish there was an easy
answer. I know there is none. I know that any answer is individual in
nature.

But it is the rhetoric mongers on both sides of the issue who make me
ill: people who talk about 'starving the woman to death' when they have
no idea what they're talking about; people attempting to advance an
agenda using this poor family’s pain. Casually tossing around phrases
like ‘playing God’ and ‘murder’ and ‘starvation’ and ‘right to death’
with no thought to who is reading or hearing them, with no thought to
the pain they cause, with no compassion or empathy or kindness - and
frankly, with no business spouting off that faux Christianity when they
are not showing Christian love for all involved.

What I say to them is this:

Pray for Terri and the family if that's the thing you do.

Otherwise, butt the heck out.