Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies

What would God say?

Many religious leaders say it is within His will to withhold basic needs from someone with no chance of recovery, such as Terri Schiavo.

For months, the nation has watched lawyers, judges and politicians debate the Terri Schiavo case. Doctors, ethicists and talk-radio hosts weigh in daily on whether a feeding tube should continue supplying nourishment or if it should be removed, resulting in death by malnutrition and dehydration.

But to some, it doesn't matter what they say.

What does God, the giver of life, say?

Several faiths and denominations say God is okay with taking steps toward death, when there is no chance of recovery and sustaining life creates an overwhelming burden for family members.

"In point of fact, these issues are decided every day by families," says Sharon Iler, director of the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg's Respect Life office. "And they have to consider all of the realities of their own unique situation."

When the patient is Christian, the family has assurance that death means their loved one is going to a better place, Iler said. Life on Earth, then, is not the end-all or "the highest good," she said. "Death is looked upon as a passageway to life eternal."

Bob and Mary Schindler, Schiavo's parents, are Catholic. The local diocese and the Florida Catholic Conference, an organization for bishops, encouraged authorities to closely examine the case before removing her feeding tube. In a recent statement, the conference applauded legislators and Gov. Jeb Bush for demanding the tube be reinserted, after it had been removed by court order.

The Catholic leaders' actions are based on the disagreement between the Schindlers, who believe there may be a chance for recovery, and their son-in-law, Michael Schiavo, who says there is not. God would allow for the tube to be removed if the two sides were in agreement that Mrs. Schiavo's condition was irreversible and "burdensome," or if it were clear she would want the tube removed:

"If Terri's feeding tube is removed, it will undoubtedly be followed by her death. If it were to be removed because the nutrition which she receives from it is of no use to her, or because it is unreasonably burdensome for her and her family or her caregivers, it could be seen as permissible," Bishop Robert N. Lynch wrote in a statement dated Aug. 12. "But if it were to be removed simply because she is not dying quickly enough and some believe she would be better off because of her low quality of life, this would be wrong."

The case has reached far beyond Tampa Bay, shining light on what other faiths believe.

"The controversial issue is whether in any circumstances such basic needs as food, water and oxygen can be considered extraordinary means," said David Strand, spokesman for the 2.5-million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. "We think it's possible - again, when all hope of recovery is lost and when the doctors and family agree that allowing a dignified death to occur is appropriate - for food, water and air to be considered extraordinary."

In those cases, he said, it may be best to "let nature take its course."

But Strand stressed the church believes Christians should "aim always to care, never to kill" and "if we're going to err on one side or another, we want to err on the side of life rather than death."

From the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline: "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."

The Rev. Jackson Day, a consultant for the United Methodists' General Board of Church and Society, said the statement could support either side in the Schiavo case because it refers to "responsible judgment." The Schindlers say some doctors have said their daughter's condition might improve with therapy. Other doctors have said she won't improve, that she is in a permanent vegetative state and her movements are only involuntary reflexes.

"From a theological perspective, what one is doing is attempting to discern the will of God," Day said.

Would he want Terri Schiavo to hold on or go on to heaven?

"In a situation where there is no apparent ability for a change . . . where brain function is essentially gone, then I think that the best reasonable interpretation of the will of God is that God has called that person home," Day said.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America detailed its stance in "Allowing Death and Taking Life: Withholding or Withdrawing Artificially Administered Nutrition and Hydration."

"Food and water are part of our basic human care. Artificially administered nutrition and hydration move beyond basic care to become medical treatment," the statement says. When doctors determine such treatment won't help improve the patient's condition, patients or their legal spokespersons "may consider them unduly burdensome treatment." In these cases "it may be morally responsible to withhold or withdraw them and allow death to occur."

But, like most things biblical, how God would want believers to act is a matter of interpretation. And the Southern Baptist Convention, with more than 16-million members, stands in staunch opposition to its Christian brethren.

"The Schiavo case 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 neopagan, relativist, quality-of-life civilization," said Richard Land, president of the convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

"The problem is that we have courts that have been infected with this quality of life ethic. . . . For over 30 years now, we have been killing a baby every 20 seconds. By allowing this barbarity, we have brutalized our whole society, including our court system, in that we have devalued and desanctified human life to the point that now a court can casually sentence a human being to die by malnutrition and dehydration."

Some faith groups are still determining responses to advances in technology that extend life. Rabbi Paul Menitoff, executive vice president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, based in New York, said a committee has studied the issue for several years, but has not yet crafted a formal position. Even within the Reform Jewish movement, which CCAR represents, there is a diversity of opinions. "It's a complex issue," Menitoff said.

Mohammad Sultan, director for the Islamic Society of Tampa Bay, said Muslims believe that "the soul is the secret of life," rather than a person's body. Only God controls the soul, he said.

Sultan said that if a person is being kept alive by life support and has no living will, he would advocate removing the support to see if the person could survive. If so, he said, the soul is still there, and God has not ended earthly life. If not, God has already taken the soul away, rendering physical life useless.

Either way, he said, Muslims use only religious opinions and doctors' opinions, "not politicians."

Iler, with the Catholic diocese, said Christians "partner" with God in the sense that he grants free will and autonomy over their bodies.

This is why believers must make decisions based on their individual circumstances. "It's what is in the heart," Iler said.

"We may face a situation at the end of our lives where we say, "I don't want anymore chemotherapy' or "I don't want to put my family through a heart transplant."'

Family members may decide to stop efforts that prolong a loved one's life.

That's all right with God, she says.

"Everyone's life is precious," she said. "Even after the patient expires, we still consider the life to be precious even though the person has moved from this life on our journey to be with God."