End of life issues are what brought me into the field of bioethics. I lost my first husband, Jack MacDonald, to cancer in 1984. He died after a long struggle with leukemia. Ive written about his life and his death in an article in the journal Healing Ministry: Three Lives, Three Deaths, Three Journeys: Explorations on Dying Well, September/October 2001. What I didnt write in that article was our discussion about a feeding tube. Jacks chemotherapy had caused nausea, mouth sores, and esophageal ulcers. His oncologist had ordered a feeding tube (a jpeg) and the surgeon was discussing the procedure with him and I at the bedside and my husband start to cry. He pleaded, please no morelet me go. The surgeon, a kindly old gentleman, left the room for us to talk. Stunned, I didnt know what to say. Jack took my hand, grasped it and repeatedly said, Please no feeding tubes, no more tubes no more. He paused, rested a moment, then smiled (as if he knew what I was thinking) and said, And if you wait until Im unconscious to put one in, I swear I will come back after Ive died and haunt you for doing that.
I cried and laughed at the same time and promised that I would never do that to him. After a while, I stepped into the hallway, where the kindly old surgeon was waiting for me. This was the same surgeon who had put in Jacks Hickman catheter months earlier and he wanted to tell me that he understood and supported Jacks decision, and that at this point, death was a friend to be welcomed. I loved Jack, I did not want to let him go; but I did not want to see him suffer anymore. Jack had realized the fight was over long before I did; he tried to reassure me that he wasnt frightened and that he wasnt in any pain, that I shouldn’t worry. Ultimately, I honored his wishes; but it was, without a doubt, one of the most difficult decisions of my life.
A few weeks later, Jack slipped into unconsciousness and died quietly, peacefully, without struggle on February 8, 1984, at 6:33 p.m.
So, as you can imagine, I sympathize with Michael Schiavo. One of the more disturbing aspects of the political rhetoric is the hyperbole of the politicians and the Schindlers (Terri’s parents) talking about how Michael is intent on starving Terri to death, as if she were a person who was totally healthy and fully functional. Is it possible that none of these persons have ever witnessed a hospice death? And hospice organizations have explained time and time again that someone at the end-of-life doesnt experience thirst and hunger in the same fashion that healthy individuals do. The language the politicians and the Schindlers are using is intended to provoke and inflame. What also puzzles me is that these devout Christians seem to be ignoring the fact that, according to the Christian doctrine, death is not the ultimate evil, but eternal damnation is; to allow Terri to die would be to allow her to join with God in eternal life. Perhaps the Schindlers and the politicians dont really believe in an afterlife?
But this case is no longer about Terris wishes, or her husband attempting to honor her wishes, or a family dispute. It has become a political battle reflecting the torn state of the nation, about “being right and looking good” and who has control. —
Linda MacDonald Glenn