The Dartmouth Beacon

From the Left, Brennan Mallonee '04

Everyone has the right to die with dignity. In an ideal world everyone would have a living will explaining in writing her wishes for end-of-life care in the awful event that she should become indefinitely unconscious. The unfortunate reality is that many Americans don’t have regular wills, much less living wills. Thinking about the logistical details of our own deaths can seem cold or morbid and writing them down can be downright frightening. Making these wishes permanent may feel like it makes a remote possibility very real and scary, especially to someone just starting her adult life. For other people death may seem so far off that it just doesn’t seem urgent. Considering that it takes money and legal expertise to make the document valid, it’s not surprising that many people haven’t created a living will. This doesn’t mean, however, that they haven’t thought about these issues in some quiet moment, perhaps when watching a loved one die. Most people do have definite wishes for end-of-life care even if they aren’t written down, and in many cases they have shared these wishes with spouses, parents, or children. A verbal statement doesn’t have the legal certainty of a living will but it does represent a person’s deep wishes regarding a very personal event.

If it can be medically established that a person will not regain consciousness and there is no living will, then in the interest of the patient’s dignity we should take into account any wishes she expressed verbally. If it is evident that the spouse or family member is acting out of a desire to obey the patient’s wishes, then that testimony should be considered as the best course of action for preserving the patient’s dignity and allowing her a peaceful, private death.

From the Right, Meghan Feely '08

According to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “The history of liberty is the history of due process.” This fundamental human right was denied to Terri Schiavo, a disabled woman, who died of forced starvation and dehydration in the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast on March 31st. As Ralph Nader stated on March 24th, “The court is imposing process over justice…much evidence has been procured that should allow for a new trial – which was the point of the hasty federal legislation.” As further stated by Nat Hentoff, “Among many other violations of her due process rights, Terri Schiavo has never been allowed by the primary judge in her case—Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, whose conclusions have been robotically upheld by all the courts above him—to have her own lawyer represent her.”

Many of us have read a disturbing array of allegations contradicting the findings of Probate Judge George Greer of the Florida Sixth Circuit Court. His “facts” have had one review, by Judge Chris Altenbernd, of Florida’s Second Court of Appeals, and since then all subsequent court hearings have dealt only with matters of judicial process despite Congress’ request for a de novo hearing. In addition, there are several allegations (too numerous to list here) of conflict of interest and willful misconduct by Judge Greer, Judge Altenbernd, and George Felos, Michael Schiavo’s lawyer. Furthermore, it has come to light that members of the Hospice Board (where Felos was Chairman!) played a pivotal role in writing the Florida law that made possible Greer’s ruling of death for Terri.

After watching this travesty of justice unfold, many Americans have come to the conclusion that the courts are more interested in protecting their prerogatives and power than in protecting the weak and defenseless. Where is the equity that is supposed to temper justice? The answer we hear from the pro-death forces is that it is the fault of President Bush and the Republican Congress for pointing out the wooden beam in the Court’s eye, and that, on “principle” alone, the courts should rebuff (as they did) the other two branches of Government’s request. Lest the reader be moved by this canard, note that all of the above quotations supporting the appeal to save Terri’s life are from well-know liberals and non-Republicans.

If nothing else, this case further validates the public’s distrust of our courts. It also calls into question the assumption that government should be allowed to judicially put someone to death for being sick and disabled. The moral, legal, and political aspects of this case will reverberate for years to come. The pro-death forces should not think they have won a victory, for they have stirred the public to ask, “Are we a nation of mercy?”