In death, Schiavo's wishes finally honored

With her passing yesterday morning, Terri Schiavo's wishes have finally been honored. Since her husband first tried to cease life support more than seven years ago, the question of her fate has made its way through the judicial system, into the halls of Congress — even to the desk of the president. The political circus of the last few weeks has obscured the fundamental right, supported by a vast majority of America, to choose whether to pursue life-sustaining medical treatment — a choice which rests solely with the person whose life is at stake.

Pundits on both sides of the debate have distorted the facts, but a few things are apparent. First, what befell Schiavo 15 years ago was a terrible tragedy. I can't imagine what it is like to lose a loved one in such a sudden and unexpected way. The Schindlers' reluctance to remove her feeding tube is understandable.

But — as no fewer than 33 courts have agreed — there is "clear and convincing evidence" that Schiavo had expressed a wish not to have her life extended by artificial means should she ever enter a permanent vegetative state. And — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's posturing after reviewing some videos provided by the right-to-life crowd notwithstanding — there has been a unanimous consensus among court-appointed doctors that Schiavo was in PVS with no hope of recovery. Unless Congress believed in the miraculous healing power of its own declarations, subpoenaing Schiavo to appear as a witness was a desperate and damaging step.

Tragedy alone is no justification for politicians to trample the Constitution, even if doing so scores points with the religious right. I watched with amazement as the party that fervently defends traditional marriage from those same-sex rascals who happen to love each other attacked a husband trying to carry out his wife's wishes. I was stunned to hear House Majority Leader Tom Delay, who decided not to allow doctors to take measures to prolong his father's life 17 years ago, call the treatment of Schiavo "murder."

I was most surprised, however, to hear Bush request that we "err on the side of life." The courts are already deferential to the life-sustaining position. That's why substantial evidence that Terri would not want to continue living artificially was required. That's why the Schindler family was able to have their case heard 33 times. What Bush and the rest of the "culture of life" community are asking is not that we defer to life, but rather that we err — that we choose their position incorrectly, all the time — because they really, really believe in it.

The "culture of life" is also marked by passionate concern for cases at the margin, with utter disregard for everything else. It would be much easier to take seriously their argument that we are morally obligated to pursue every avenue of life-extending care, if they showed any interest in making even the most rudimentary healthcare a reality for 40 million uninsured Americans. An obsession with life means little if it disregards the sort of life lived. It is wrong to tell an elderly man afflicted with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's — who could potentially be cured through embryonic stem cell research — that his illness cannot be treated because it would be immoral. I cannot reconcile the eagerness of the "supporters" of Terri Schiavo to see her kept alive against her wishes with their refusal to offer that man a chance to live.

America was founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but there are times when these rights compete. Pursuing liberty above all else leads to anarchy, just as pursuing only happiness leads to hedonism. When politicians blindly and unswervingly pledge allegiance to life without taking into account personal liberty and self-determination in even a single case, they put everybody's freedom at risk. President Bush can't mention freedom enough when talking about Iraq. He should remember that freedom is important at home, too. Mark Salzman is president of Princeton Pro-Choice and a member of the 'Prince' editorial board. He can be reached at msalzman@princeton.edu.