LIFE AND DEATH QUESTIONS

You may or may not have heard of the Terri Schiavo case in Florida. Schiavo is 39 and has been in what doctors call a persistent vegetative state since 1990 as the result of a heart attack cutting off the oxygen supply to her brain. Schiavo seems aware of her surroundings, is capable of greeting visitors and opens her eyes on command. Doctors say this is a reflex action that does not mean her damaged brain can consciously perceive objects. Her parents say she responds to them and may benefit from experimental treatment.

Unfortunately, her parents and her husband are in disagreement as to whether her life support should be terminated. The case has spawned much publicity in the United States. Religious groups have coalesced around her parents and right to die advocates have been drawn to the husband's position. The case has gone to the courts of Florida who have upheld Mr. Shiavo's right to terminate his wife's life support.

Her parents have now appealed to the Florida legislature and in an extraordinary move, Governor Jeff Bush, brother of President George W. Bush, and the Florida legislature have ordered that life support be continued. Stay tuned as the case will more than likely end up back in court.

Obviously, there is no easy answer to these types of questions. The very essence of life is being grappled with by courts of law and the legislature. As is typical in such situations various special interest groups get involved and the case takes on a life of it's own. Unfortunately the human aftermath is that the lady sits in a hospital bed in Florida with little chance of resuming her former life. Her parents and her husband do not speak to one another. In fact, the parents are not even allowed to visit their daughter alone as her husband still has legal guardianship.

In the U.S.A. the legal test is "clear and convincing evidence" of her wishes. The courts have partially focused on a statement that she made to her husband after watching a television show. Apparently the gist of it was that she would not wish to be kept alive under circumstances in which she believed she had drastically altered existence. This is thin proof of her intentions.

It is common ground that if Terri Schiavo had a living will or in proper terminology, a health care representation agreement, her husband would have the right to make such decisions. The Representation Agreement Act made such agreements possible in 2000. These documents normally contain a general statement concerning a person's wishes. For example, it may say they do not wish extraordinary measures taken to keep them alive. The agreements also stipulate a specific person or persons that would make these decisions. A list of alternates can also be drawn up.

In the absence of a health care representation agreement a pecking order of classes of relatives may equally have a say in health care decisions. The Public Trustee may become involved if there is a dispute. If there were a dispute between the same classes of family members or as in the Shiavo case, disputes between parents and the husband, the agreement would be definitive as to the patient's request. In the Shiavo case the husband should have been the priority decision maker but the issue still ended up in court. Even if you do not think your family would squabble over such issues it is hard to know until the time comes. Deep religious and philosophical differences or plain hostility between potential decision makers are your early warning signs. Proper planning provides peace of mind, reduced family stress and will hopefully keep your personal life out of the court system.