Religious views of Schiavo case vary
Positions on ending nutrition differed within groups
While Catholic clergy were perhaps the most vocal religious voices during the controversy over Terri Schiavo’s life and death, all major religions emphasize the preservation of life. Where standpoints vary, even within religions, is on the question of how long to prolong life.
Schiavo’s parents, who like their daughter are Catholic, insisted that removal of the tube delivering nutrients and water to her violated her religious beliefs. Spokesmen for the Catholic church, both in Florida where the family lives and in Rome, echoed that sentiment with statements based on a 2004 speech by the late Pope John Paul II, who said food and water must be delivered to patients in persistent vegetative states (PVS).
The late pope said in that speech that food and water are part of basic human care, and should not be considered medicine or extraordinary measures. The Catholic church has long held that, if food and water do not provide a benefit to the patient, if they cause harm and place an excessive burden on the family, in some circumstances they can be discontinued.
Islam: PVS still is life
The teachings of Islam are less amenable to advance directives and withdrawal of care, according to Jamal Badawi, PhD, a professor in the department of religious studies at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
"The term right to die’ carries a meaning different from Muslim perception of life and death and the role of the human on earth," he says. "The human being doesn’t own his body."
Islam, according to Badawi, divides euthanasia into two categories: active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia includes such measures as lethal injection, or other active steps taken to end a life, either at the patient’s request or on the patient’s behalf.
Passive euthanasia involves hastening or allowing death by withdrawing food, water, drugs, medicine, surgery, resuscitation, and life support. Some Muslim scholars maintain that all types of euthanasia are forbidden as a violation of Islamic law, and most agree that active euthanasia is absolutely forbidden.
In the case of Schiavo, Badawi says, in comments made before Schiavo died, the teachings of Islam are clear.
"She is in a persistent vegetative state, but she is not dead," he explains. "She is not dying. She is not brain-dead. There is brain activity.
"Who determines what quality of life is acceptable and what is not? Where do you draw the line?"
Judaism: Traditional and progressive views
Jewish law traditionally would forbid removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube, because to do so would interfere with her continued life. If Schiavo had been dying, and feeding her was merely prolonging her death, withdrawing the tube to allow death to take its natural course could be permissible.
But Daniel Eisenberg, MD, assistant professor of diagnostic imaging at Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine in Philadelphia and a noted medical ethicist, says Schiavo’s impairment was cognitive and that Judaism deems her to have the same right to treatment as someone with full mental cognition.
Rabbi Elliott Dorff, PhD, noted author on medical ethics from the Jewish perspective and chair of the bioethics department at Los Angeles-based University of Judaism, wrote that from a less traditional view, in Schiavo’s case the feeding tube might have been considered an extraordinary measure because of the apparently irreversible state of her condition.
Protestant views wide-ranging
Mainline Protestant groups’ views on the Schiavo case varied, according to a statement released by the National Council of Churches, an association of Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox Christian faiths. While some clergy members support keeping feeding tubes in until natural death occurs, the predominant Protestant view favors individual choice, according to the council’s statement.
The United Methodist Church’s Book of Discipline states, "The use of medical technologies to prolong terminal illnesses requires responsible judgment about when life-sustaining treatments truly support the goals of life, and when they have reached their limits. There is no moral or religious obligation to use these when they impose undue burdens or only extend the process of dying."
In "Allowing Death and Taking Life: Withhold-ing or Withdrawing Artificially Administered Nutrition and Hydration," the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America defines artificial nutrition and hydration as medical treatment, not basic care. In cases where such treatment becomes futile and burdensome, "it may be morally responsible to withhold or withdraw them and allow death to occur," the position paper states.
Gerald B. Kieschnick, M Div, president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in St. Louis, says because it did not appear that Schiavo had "entered irretrievably into the dying process, administering food and hydration would belong in the realm of ordinary care and should not be withdrawn."
Kieschnick, speaking before Schiavo’s death, said the removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube "will not allow her to die, since she is not dying. Removing her tube will, in fact, cause her to die."
Sources
- Jamal Badawi, PhD, Professor, Department of Religious Studies, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. E-mail: [email protected].
- Daniel Eisenberg, MD, Assistant Professor, Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine, Philadelphia. E-mail: [email protected].
- Gerald B. Kieschnick, M Div, President, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, St. Louis. Phone: (888) 843-5267.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content