Suicide By Sensationalism

By Steve Damerell

We’ve all been bombarded by the sad case of Terri Schiavo, who lies trapped in a vegetative state while a media hurricane has formed around her. Her husband insists that Terri told him privately that she would want the plug pulled in this situation, her parents insist otherwise, and we, the hapless viewers, are left with a 24-hour media frenzy that addresses few of the substantive questions peripherally related to this case.

There is a legal fight brewing in America over the right to death with dignity, and it is an important fight involving self-ownership, constitutional rights, federalism and the power of the state. Unfortunately, the Schiavo case is a terrible model for any of these issues, and the media does the public a tremendous disservice by emphasizing it while the true issues languish in the background.

So-called "right to life" activists have shrewdly seized upon this case, which grants them the opportunity to throw up smokescreens about Michael Schiavo’s motivations, the lack of a written living will and powers of attorney. This allows these groups to create a thick obfuscation and claim moral victory without addressing serious questions about the Fourth Amendment and the balance of power between the branches of government involved.

Much more substantive is an issue whose headlines lasted all of one day in 2004. Oregon, who has pioneered a strong piece of legislation permitting death with dignity for terminal patients of cancer and other diseases, was threatened by then-Attorney General Ashcroft with the de-certification of physicians who enabled their patients to pass away peacefully.

This threat had tremendous ramifications for any American who could one day find themselves knowing that they face a short lifespan of pain and tremendous expense to relatives. Agree with the law or not, Ashcroft’s attempted action was one that sought to preempt the sacred American institution of federalism, the very mechanism by which citizens are supposed to define their public morality. The notion of an appointed federal official usurping a state legislature, the AMA and most importantly a private patient-physician decision, is repulsive to the fundamental structure of our government.

And yet when Ashcroft launched this assault, Americans heard very little of it. It was a debate that had tremendous substance, deep ramifications and long-standing consequences – but it did not have an image of a woman trapped in agony in her bed, with her ex-husband and parents warring over her fate.
All of this is precisely why the Schiavo makes for sensational television, and terrible legal precedent. It is a case that is flooded with hearsay, unknowable facts and unsavory characters. A patient with terminal cancer, a written living will and well-established mental faculties, who wanted to shorten their own suffering, could spark an intelligent, straight-faced debate about life, death and the American system of rights and laws.

Terri Schiavo’s case captivates the country by spreading one family’s pain and sadness into millions of living rooms, but it doesn’t help the country reach a real understanding of euthanasia. Perhaps one day a riveting story will actually coincide with clear-cut facts and events that broaden the American conversation – but today, we’re left with nothing but a sad story and a debate weakened by our very institutions of public dialogue.

Steve Damerell is a contributing editor to the Free Liberal. He serves as chairman of the Libertarian Party of Virginia. He resides in Fairfax, Virginia where he works as an analyst for a federal government contractor.