Understanding the facts vital in Schiavo case

Whatever the final outcome of the Terry Schiavo case, one thing is sure -- all of us will take a new look at the end of our own lives.

In case you've been out of the country over the last few weeks, Terry Schiavo is the severely brain-damaged woman who is the center of a tragic, life-and-death legal battle.

For some reason, perhaps because of an eating disorder, Mrs. Schiavo's heart stopped temporarily 15 years ago, leaving her with extensive, permanent brain damage.

Since then, she has been in what some doctors call a "persistent vegetative state," which other doctors insist may actually be a minimally conscious state.

Her husband, Michael, began in 1998 seeking to have her feeding tube removed, allowing her to die of dehydration.

Callers to a local radio program Monday illustrated just how divisive the Terry Schiavo case is. An unscientific poll on whether her feeding tube should be reinserted was evenly split Monday afternoon on the newspaper Web site, http://mccookgazette.com.

But it's important that we understand the situation as much as possible, and the possible impact of the final court decision regarding the case.

For instance, several callers seemed to be under the false impression that Mrs. Schiavo is brain-dead, sustained only by a ventilator. In fact, she is able to breath without assistance, and her parents point to videos showing her apparent awareness of visitors, and even rudimentary communications. Who could possibly argue that the food and liquids she was receiving prior to Friday's removal of the feeding tube amounted to "heroic measures" to keep her alive?

One of the state's major newspapers displayed ignorance at best, or bias at worst, in headlines calling it a "right to die" case, as if Mrs. Schiavo was being kept alive against her will.

Another radio caller mentioned how sad he would be to have to "put down" his wife in such an instance, as if she were a stray dog or race horse with a broken leg. There's a wide gulf between withholding "heroic measures" and the euthanasia apparently suggested in such sentiments -- and it needs to stay that way.

Opponents to Mr. Schiavo's position contend that he sought and won a million-dollar medical malpractice suit in 1992, pledging to use the money for her care and therapy. They also say he immediately denied her the care, having her confined to a nursing home after winning the award. Since 1995, he has lived with his girlfriend, with whom he has two children.

Why not, some say, simply divorce his wife and let Mrs. Schiavo's parents take over her care, as they have repeatedly begged him? What harm could come from allowing her parents try to improve her quality of life in whatever way they can?

If any good can come out of the Terri Schiavo case, it's that many more of us will take the time to fill out advance directives, informing our family, in writing, what our wishes would be if we find ourselves in her situation.