Skip to main content

Terry Schiavo -- In Search of an American Way of Death (Opinion)

Terry Schiavo died one year ago this Friday, thirteen days after the removal of the feeding tube that had sustained her since 1990 in what her doctors diagnosed as a “persistent vegetative state.”

As all but the most media-averse will remember, Schiavo’s husband, Mark, and her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, disagreed bitterly about removing the feeding tube. Their dispute – which had been played out in the Florida legal system for over a decade – exploded in the court of public opinion last spring, when finally the Schindlers’ appeals were exhausted, and Mark Schiavo was granted legal authority to order the tube removed.

The plight of Terry Schiavo and her family sent shivers of recognition across America – almost everyone could imagine their own family torn over what to do if a young loved one were cut down by illness or accident before having spelled out explicit end-of-life instructions.

Schiavo’s tragedy also captured the public imagination because her family’s differences of opinion seemed representative of the larger cultural divide on which the mainstream media was increasingly focused in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential election.

Politicians, pundits and religious leaders weighed in on both sides of what became a national debate. Some aligned themselves with the Schindlers, deploring Mark Schiavo’s decision to unhook the feeding tube as a heartless violation of his wife’s “right to life.” Others saw the decision as a tragic but entirely commonsensical – even compassionate – choice, given the reality of Terry’s condition. In her dying days, Terry Schiavo became a political football.
One year later, the memory of Terry Schiavo presents us with a fundamental challenge: can we envision an American way of death that would bring us together as families and as a nation?

To talk about an “American way of death” may, at first, sound puzzling to the modern ear. But for most of western history a good death or “happy death” – in which the dying were perceived to be spiritually prepared to die – was understood to be the crowning achievement of a life well-lived.

The search for a happy death led our ancestors to prepare themselves – practically, emotionally and spiritually – to die. For this reason – and not just because they had fewer medical options to choose from – they struggled much less than we do with decisions at the end of life.

A broad-scale conversation about what constitutes a good death in the 21st century might not eliminate entirely the tensions and competing concerns that so often present themselves at life’s end.

Such a conversation would, however, encourage people to be pro-active throughout their lives in communicating what they hoped for in their dying days. In doing so it would dramatically reduce the number of people who end up in Terry Schiavo’s predicament.

A renewed search for an American way of death would lead us all to do more than merely lament the agonizing choices faced by families like Terry Schiavo’s. Instead this search would challenge us to ask and answer questions like these:

What kind of death do I aspire to? What kind of death do I desire for those I love? What can we learn about dying from people who finish their lives with grace and dignity? And what can we begin doing now that will prepare us to die the kinds of deaths that will make our families – and our country – proud?

Some day we may look back upon Terry Schiavo as the harbinger of things that were simply destined to come. The first baby-boomers turn 60 this year. With advances in modern medical technology continuing unabated, it is easy to imagine a future in which legions of older Americans live for decades hooked up to breathing machines and feeding tubes, while their families fight over their fates in hospital corridors and courts of law and the halls of state and federal legislatures.

I believe that few Americans want to see this future come to pass. If we are to avoid it, we have some hard talking to do.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

THE HUBRIS OF INCLUSION: Thoughts on the Future of the United Methodist Church

The United Methodist Church was born in a specific time and place, in the mid-twentieth century in the United States of America. Protestant denominations were ascendant, and with them a brand of "ecumenism" that would only decades later be recognized by those who championed it as culturally bound to the white "mainline." Mergers were all the buzz, including the one that created the UMC in 1968, and Methodists embraced their new denomination as partial fulfillment of a dream of "Christian unity." As the historian Robert Handy noted in his wonderful little 1971 book,  A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities , leaders of the new denomination thought of it as "a kind of unofficial national church." Because they sat at the midpoint of mainline American Protestantism in so many respects -- ecclesial, theological, liturgical -- it was easy for them to assume that as all churches became one, pretty much everyone else would eventua

On the 40th Anniversary of Friendship Park

Imagine the First Lady of the United States punching a hole in the fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.   Imagine her publicly lamenting that there was a border fence at all. In fact this scenario doesn’t need to be imagined … because it happened forty years ago right here in San Diego County.   The date was August 18, 1971 and the location was “Friendship Park,” the small cement plaza on the U.S.-Mexico border, at the southwest-most corner of the continental United States. The First Lady was Pat Nixon, who had been a prominent champion of our state’s public parks when her husband Richard Nixon was Governor of California, before being elected President of the United States.    She came to Friendship Park to inaugurate the surrounding area as California’s Border Field State Park.    After planting a tree as part of the inauguration ceremony, Mrs. Nixon approached the large stone monument which sits at the heart of Friendship Park.   The monument commemorates the first meeting of the U.S

Here Come the Brides

Sidney and Diane met at an April Fool’s Day party in 2006.   They began dating the next day and fell in love.   They weren’t quite ready to get married in the summer of 2008, when California was granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.    They told me they hadn’t wanted to get married “just because they could,” and while they were (of course) opposed to California's Proposition 8 , they weren’t looking to make a political statement with their nuptials. By year-end 2008, however, Sidney and Diane had reached a decision.   They loved each other.   They wanted to spend their lives together.   They knew that the State of California wouldn’t give them a marriage license but they wanted to get married anyway.    They wanted a wedding for their families, for their friends, for each other. As I sat with Sidney and Diane through our pre-marital sessions, I saw the tenderness and respect with which they treated each other, the true delight they took in each other’s comp