By Rev. Mark H. Creech
November 3, 2003

(AgapePress) - She was not comatose. She was not dependent on "life support." She was not dying. Nevertheless, because her mental capacity was significantly reduced by an accident and her husband said she wouldn't want to live this way, Judge George Greer ordered her feeding tube removed and that she be allowed to die by dehydration and starvation.

The Terri Schiavo case clearly demonstrates our nation's descent into a "culture of death." Indeed there are times when a person is already dying and forced hydration via a feeding tube is overly burdensome. But the only thing Terri was dying from was a judge's order. Obviously, the judge's decision was based on a presumption in favor of death, not life.

I agree with Dr. James Dobson who described the situation as "Naziesque." "It's what (Nazi Germany) did in 1939, '40 and '41 and on through the war (to the disabled, to Jews and others). It's where they started," he said. Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said: "The Schiavo situation is a terribly wrenching case wherein we see the clash of two very disparate civilizations -- the Judeo-Christian civilization, which is based upon the sanctity of all human life, and the neo-pagan relativist quality-of-life civilization. When these two totally antagonistic worldviews come up against each other, it makes a real difference in people's lives because real people die when the quality-of-life ethic usurps the sanctity-of-life ethic."

Fortunately, in the Schiavo case, the Florida Legislature intervened by crafting legislation that gave Governor Jeb Bush authority to rescind Judge Greer's court order and resume feeding Schiavo. Nevertheless, the battle is far from over. According to an editorial by the Asheville Citizen Times, Donald Jones, a professor at the University of Miami Law School, said the case "is the beginning of a long-running battle over where the line should be drawn on separation of powers and who makes the decisions about the right to die .... Is that going to be made by the family or is that going to be made by the state?"

One thing is for certain, however, without an "Advance Medical Directive" of some sort that outlines a patient's wishes in the event of incapacitation, these life and death decisions will fall to someone other than the patient. For instance, in North Carolina, legislation approved in 1996 says the decision falls to a hierarchy of persons. If one has been appointed, then a health-care agent makes the decision. If there is no health-care agent, then the decision falls to a person's guardian, then a spouse. If none of these person's are available, then the decision goes to a majority of close relatives – parents, siblings, and children. However, even when the person at the top of the hierarchy makes the decision, problems can still occur. Family members can go to court and try to overturn the decision of a guardian or spouse.

Living wills are the form of advance directives most often used, but living wills can be problematic. The standard living will typically refers only to the ending of medical treatment. Living wills are most often vague and without specifics, certain terms are not well defined and can be open to interpretation. Furthermore, living wills usually do not adapt to a patient's condition and some advocate them as a step toward active euthanasia or doctor-assisted suicide.

In an article titled, A Time To Live, A Time To Die, authors C. Ben Mitchell and Michael K. Whitehead suggest some excellent alternatives to living wills:

1. Execute a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care.
   This medical directive enables one to name a trusted friend or relative (someone who shares the patients' values) to make the difficult calls as to treatment, life and death, should the patient be unable. A hospital administrator or attorney should be able to make this arrangement.
2. Sign a "Will to Live" document.
   The "Will to Live" document is an alternative to designating life and death decision-making to a friend or loved one, and it is different than a standard living will because of its strong presumption in favor of life. It instructs the physician to do what is necessary to preserve life "without discrimination based on age or physical or mental disability or the 'quality' of life." It rejects "any action or omission that is intended to cause or hasten death." In other words, the "Will to Live" is a pro-life, anti-euthanasia alternative to a living will. It's also more specific concerning medical treatment to be withheld or withdrawn and specifically defines terms like "imminent death", which living wills often fail to do.
3. Talk to your physician and have the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care or "Will to Live" document added to your medical records.
   These measures are useless unless the doctor and family members know these documents exist. Legal copies should be shared with the physician, family members and perhaps even the pastor.
4. Take legal copies of your Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care or "Will to Live" document upon entering the hospital.
   Hospital personnel are required by law to ask if there is a medical directive. It would be wiser to provide them with one carefully prepared, than completing whatever standard form they may offer. However, no medical directive is required.

It's unfortunate our culture today no longer embraces the Judeo-Christian presumption in favor of life. Life is no longer a given, but something that has to be vigorously defended in the courts and legislatures. We should have known when we devalued life by declaring a defenseless unborn baby vulnerable to the abortionist's knife, it wouldn't be long before a court would casually sentence a defenseless and ailing adult to die by malnutrition.

Better take steps to protect yourselves, my friends. Better still, we need to reshape our nation back to a "culture of life."