A number of our readers disagreed with our position on Terry Schiavo during the height of that controversy last year, but in our disagreement there is one subject upon which we can all agree. Every adult should have a living will, every adult should clearly outline their wishes in the event that they are incapacitated and appoint and executor to ensure that those wishes are carried out. In the case of Terry Schiavo, no such action was taken, leading to a bitter and ongoing struggle between Terry’s “husband” and her parents.
Terry’s husband, Michael Schiavo married his long time lover this weekend. Schiavo had long claimed that his wife was in a persistent vegetative state, with no hope of recovery, a position later supported by an autopsy. Her parents, however, argued that there remained the possibility that she could survive with continuous advances in medical technology, something that was equally possible. The reality is Michael Schiavo should never have been regarded by the state as an appropriate spokesman for Terry’s wishes. Why? After all, he was her husband? Yes he was her husband, but how many wives would won’t an adulterous husband who was living with another woman, by whom he had two kids, to speak on their behalf?
Terry Schiavo’s condition is irrelevant to the fact that her husband’s life after the incapacitation of Terry rendered his impartiality questionable at best, which calls in to question his true motivations. Michael Schiavo, who had once committed himself to maintaining Terry’s life, even pursuing radical treatments to further that objective, changed his position after winning a medical malpractice suit, which included funds to maintain Terry’s life. After that suit, Schiavo soon began a relationship with another woman, only then did he “remember” his wife never wanted to be kept alive artificially, how convenient.
Critics, mostly on the left and fellow libertarians have argued that the government should never have become involved in such a matter. Under normal circumstances this would be an accurate assessment, but in the case of Terry Schiavo such a position is flawed. As stated, Michael Schiavo had a conflict of interest. No one would question the involvement of the state when a child were neglected or abused, in such cases the court would appoint an impartial third part to represent the interest of the child, Terry Schiavo deserved the same. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-22-schiavo-remarries_x.htm
