Congress intervenes in Shiavo case

CNN.com:

Members of Congress on Friday stepped up their efforts to keep a severely brain-damaged Florida woman alive, as a deadline neared to have the woman's feeding tube removed. Terri Schiavo was scheduled to have her feeding tube removed at 1 p.m. ET today, under court order. ... A House committee subpoenaed the brain-damaged woman to appear before Congress next week, and Schiavo's family was "hopeful" the brain-damaged woman would make that appearance in Washington, an attorney for her parents said Friday. Meanwhile, a Senate committee issued an invitation for Terri Schiavo and her husband to testify on Capitol Hill. U.S. marshals were expected to serve the House Committee on Government Reform subpoenas at The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast on Friday, attorney David Gibbs said.

Regardless of the merits of this case, I think this tactic is wrong. Congress isn't trying to learn anything or make any law relating to this case, they are simply abusing their subpoena power as a means of by passing the legal system. That is wrong, and it should not be applauded even if you favor the effect that it will have. There is a lot of disinformation and confusion about Terry Schiavo's case. I am certainly not competant to sift through conflicting medical testimony, although the side that says she is 'brain dead' seems a bit more reliable to me. What is more troubling to me is the endless speculation on the motives of those involved. Most of these speculations seems to be grasping at straws as a way of making those who disagree with one side or the other not only wrong, but evil and filled with ulterior motives. I hear that those who want to keep Schiavo alive want her to suffer to are trying to condemn her to a state of endless pain. The invective is even stronger against Michael Schivo who obviously (according to some) doesn't love his wife and just wants her dead so he can get on with his life and collect all that insurance money. I believe quite strongly that both sides in this are trying to do what they feel is best for Terry Schiavo. Absent compelling evidence of this, not mere speculation, I will continue to believe that. This is such a fundamental issue on the nature of life and what is moral that it is pretty much impossible to get any clear, unbiased opinions on the matter, and that most definitely includes opinions from Doctors. I am biased in on this issue as well. Several years ago my youngest brother developed a swift cancerous growth in his throat that swelled up and cut off his breathing. By the time the paramedics arrived he had been without air for 8 minutes or so. He was flown to a local hospital here in Spokane and his condition was stabilized with the aid of extaordinary life saving measures. The next morning, after we were sure he was brain dead, my parents had him taken off of life support and a few minutes later he died. I was there most of that night from when I found out what had happened until after he was dead. Early on he was moving somewhat and his eyes would flutter open, later he was completely comatose. I don't know when he 'died' but I do know he was never going to get better. He was never going to be again. Obviously there are differences between my brother's case and Schiavo's. She is certainly closer to the line than he was. I can look at her case though and feel a certain sympathy. If the paramedics had arrived perhaps a minute sooner my family would have had to face the far more agonizing choice that Michael Schivo had to make. From a purely selfish point of view, I am glad I was able to have closure on this issue. To know that he was dead and not a vegetable forever. Yes, this has made it easier for me and my family to get on with our lives. I also strongly believe that this was best for my brother as well, it allowed him to get on with his existence, whatever that may be. There are many people who believe that even removing someone from extraordinarly life saving machines is wrong, that as long as the body can be compelled by science to maintain a semblance of life we are morally obligated to continue those measures. I respect their right to believe that. I accept their condemnation of my parents choice (which I agreed with) as morally wrong. They can make their own moral judgments. What I cannot accept though, is anyone who condemns my families decision as being based upon our own selfish desires. (update: if anyone wishes to comment more generally on the Schiavo case I have another post about that here. This blog post is obviously very personal, but don't fear offending me because we disagree.