Left in a state of moral confusion

The Schindlers don't want their daughter to be dead. Who can blame them? But encouraging their denial is unhelpful

There are one or two possible indications that politicians on this side of the pond might be flirting with the sort of moral agenda that has been part of the mainstream political currency in Washington for years. I say "possible indications" because my own belief is that the abortion debate was reignited in the run-up to the election by Cosmopolitan magazine, rather than by the main political parties, which have in recent years tended to be fairly careful when debating emotive issues such as this one.

There are one or two possible indications that politicians on this side of the pond might be flirting with the sort of moral agenda that has been part of the mainstream political currency in Washington for years. I say "possible indications" because my own belief is that the abortion debate was reignited in the run-up to the election by Cosmopolitan magazine, rather than by the main political parties, which have in recent years tended to be fairly careful when debating emotive issues such as this one.

Cosmopolitan has been running a strident campaign for some time now, busily collecting signatures demanding that the present time limit on abortion should not be decreased. During the many months it has been running, I've been a little troubled by this campaign, since it seemed to be out there slugging away before an opponent had really stepped into the ring. The campaign was in response not to a specific threat to the abortion laws, but to a generalised feeling that pressure from the media (as well as religious groups) would at some point trigger a political debate.

Now, lo and behold, it has, because Cosmopolitan asked the leaders of all three political parties what their views were, in the run-up to an election. The magazine has, it seems, conjured up nothing more or less than a self-fulfilling prophecy. Religious leaders are lining up to press their suit, while commentators hone their arguments. If our political leaders do wish to adopt more fundamentalist attitudes to moral issues, then their opportunity to do so has just been handed to them on a plate.

Luckily too, like a celestial vision, a case has just sprung up in Washington that seems almost designed to remind British politicians what a stupid and irresponsible step that would be. President George Bush, amid much constitutional scuffling, has just returned from one of his holidays to sign a bill which exists for one reason only. That reason is to keep 41-year-old Terri Schiavo alive so that her parents and her husband can continue to argue over her.

Sure, there are moral and political aspects to the case - and plenty of them. But in essence the only thing that makes this case stand out from many others is that Terri Schiavo's parents will not accept the advice of the hundreds of doctors and lawyers who have been for years now involved in their daughter's case.

Terri Schiavo's heart stopped 15 years ago due to a lack of potassium in her system (attributed by some to the eating disorder bulimia). In the five minutes her brain was starved of oxygen, it was severely and irreparably damaged. She has been in a vegetative state since that time, able to breathe for herself, but unable to swallow. She is fed via a stomach tube.

Her guardian is her husband, Michael, who says that Terri told him she would not want to be kept alive if there was no hope. He began proceedings to remove her feeding tube in 1998, when his wife had been unconscious for eight years. In the seven years since, the tube has been removed five times. Each time, her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have managed to have the decision overturned.

Their argument is that their son-in-law is not putting his wife's interests first. They claim that Terrihad told them she wanted a divorce. In 1993, they launched a legal challenge to Michael's guardianship, which they lost. They also consider it pertinent that Michael has a new partner, with whom he has children.

There are financial issues as well. Two malpractice suits against doctors treating Terri at the time of her heart attack brought awards totalling more than £1m. It is now alleged that while Michael inherits the lot if he retains guardianship, he will have to split that money with her parents at some time in the perhaps distant future if she continues to be fed.

Interestingly, this theory that Michael is financially motivated is being rigorously tested at the moment. A Californian businessman called Robert Herring has lodged $10m in a trust fund, and has said it will be Michael's if he will hand over guardianship to the Schindlers. In explanation of his actions, he says: "I have seen miraculous recoveries occur through the use of stem cells in patients suffering a variety of conditions."

It's tempting to suggest that therefore the $10m might be better spent on stem cell research. But it's even more tempting to point out the greater irony, which is that Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group which has been supporting the Schindlers, is against stem cell research anyway.

Yet this small moral confusion is as nothing compared with the vast moral confusion that has seen Republicans lining up against Democrats, under the impression that this is a party political issue rather than an emotional issue. Terri's parents simply refuse to accept that the state their daughter has been in for 15 years is a terminal one. Her mother told a pro-life group campaigning outside the Florida hospital where Terri is treated: "We laugh together, we cry together, we smile together, we talk together. Please, please save my little girl."

It may look as though the issues contained in this case are closely related to abortion, to stem-cell research, to all kinds of ethical dilemmas over what medical science can do, and what it should be expected to do. But actually, the link between this situation and those debates is tenuous, and promulgated mainly by the fact that similar groups and individuals are rallying to the Schindlers' grief-stricken cry.

The Schindlers, like the parents in this country in the ongoing Charlotte Wyatt case, simply don't believe what medical experts are telling them. And for reasons that are easy to understand. They don't want their daughter to be dead. They don't want their own hope to be dead. Who can blame them for that? But encouraging their denial and their delusion is not in the long term useful or helpful to anyone.

The truth is that a "presumption to life" as simplistic as Mr Bush's just does not work in the modern world. Too many conditions and illnesses can now be maintained by medical science without the existence of sentient life. Too many people are terrified of a long, undignified, painful, silent, scary end for this posturing ever to work. The idea that all life should be maintained whenever possible is impractical and repellent.

The medical profession and the state law are in agreement with Michael Schiavo that after 15 years in a vegetative state Terri Schiavo cannot be considered, in any meaningful sense, to be alive. By intervening to change the law in defiance of all of these considered opinions, and in support of a couple who are simply and understandably unable to face the tragic end that has befallen their daughter, Mr Bush and his friends on the religious right are simply saying that such grave decisions can always be deferred by a sentimental pro-lifer's involvement in the decision-making process. In backing the Schindlers, who have no real case at all, the Republicans are making a moral, legal and practical error.

It may turn out to be a political error as well. An opinion poll conducted by Fox News found that while 59 per cent of respondents disagreed with the decision of Congress to halt the suspension of feeding, only 24 per cent agreed with it. If nothing else curbs the moralistic instincts of our own politicians, they might want to bear that in mind.

d.orr@independent.co.uk