Avvenire, a prominent Italian newspaper, has been following a story there of denied end-of-life care. The reporter wanted to know the opinion of Wesley Smith, Discovery Sr. Fellow, and his replies are printed here (translated):
"After Terri Schiavo, Silence"Wesley J. Smith is the author of numerous books, most notably Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America. Mr. Smith, a member of the Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and an advocate for Terri Schiavo and her family, was happy to chat with us about "end of life" issues. He began by saying that "no human being, even if they are in Eluana (Englaro's) condition, may be called a 'vegetable'. It is a word that is intended to dehumanize them."
What is the importance of cases like Eluana, and what is the public's reaction to them?
The country (USA) is generally unaware of the Eluana Englaro case. Ever since the Terri Schiavo media circus, I think that the attention to these issues has waned, especially if they are overseas stories --perhaps because the media think the issue has been settled.
From a legal point of view, what are the repercussions of the Schiavo case in the United States?
After Terri's death, there have been a few attempts to make it more difficult to dehydrate people with cognitive disabilities. But politicians were scared off by the media outcry against Terri's family and the "religious right", ignoring the fact that disability rights activists were also part of the movement to save her life.
The issue of artificial nutrition as a medical treatment is of very topical interest in Italy. What do American doctors think about it?
I don't think that doctors behaved differently after the Terri Schiavo case. Food and water are pulled almost as a matter of routine. Most doctors think of it as just part of the practice of medicine. It is only when families disagree that these cases go to court or make news.
What are the consequences of these definitions?
Because the tube requires a minor surgical procedure and the sustenance is specially prepared to have a proper balance of nutrients, in the United States it is defined as a medical treatment. But if it means that it can be refused as you can refuse an aspirin, then there are ethical problems, because refusing food and water will have only one possible outcome: death. So I think artificial nutrition and hydration should be in a category of its own and not so easily withheld or withdrawn.
Seeing this in context shows how hard it has become in the U.S. to stop the current slippery slide into moral relativism.
