A woman’s life is at stake, and so is the conscience of America.

An on-going Florida court battle to remove brain-damaged Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube does not only affect her and her family, but also speaks volumes about where Americans stand on the value of life.

Terry suffered brain damage in 1990. Her husband Michael won a million dollar malpractice suit for Terry’s long-term care. Only months later, he began withholding therapy and care, then in 1998 he petitioned the court to remove her feeding tube because he claims she would not have desired to be kept alive by artificial means.

Terry’s parents are desperately fighting to keep her alive, saying they will take over as guardians and will let Michael divorce Terry. After years of bitter conflict between Terry’s parents and Michael, Judge George Greer ruled that he can have her feeding tube removed on March 18.

In the name of objectivity, the news media is feeding us a bland, “politically neutral” view of this case. They continually insist on referring to Terry as being in a “persistent vegetative state” and refer to this as a part of the “right to die” movement as if this case is about human dignity and respecting individual wishes. It is not nearly that simple.

Michael has been living with another woman for a decade and has two children with her. He has consistently neglected to cherish or even care for Terry, the woman he is still married to.

Some of the claims the media is choosing to ignore are astonishing. Michael refuses to allow Terry to receive physical therapy, rehabilitation, or swallowing tests, despite medical claims that she is responsive to treatment and may be able to be taught to eat.

He refuses to allow her to receive antibiotics or dental cleaning. He refuses to fix her broken wheelchair, to allow her to leave her hospital room and to attend Mass even though she is a devout Catholic.

This is only the beginning of a long list of alleged abuses. There are even questions of whether Terry’s brain damage was a result of physical domestic abuse from Michael and he has only strengthened that argument by insisting that, upon death, her body be immediately cremated.

Today, people receive therapy for minor operations or even ankle sprains; of course major trauma like a brain injury would require extensive physical therapy. Terry breathes on her own and, with the rapid pace of technological development, a medical breakthrough could happen tomorrow.

For instance, neuroscientists recently discovered that brains of “minimally conscience” patients can have a surprising amount of brain activity. Promising new brain-computer interfacing can translate brain activity into computer keystrokes and mouse movements which may allow these patients to communicate.

Then, there is the brain damaged woman in Kansas who had not spoken in 20 years but suddenly began speaking again last month. Would a restoration like that be enough for the court to deem Terry’s life worth protecting?

Over the last century, Americans have taken great strides in recognizing the rights of people who had previously relegated to second-class citizens including women, minorities, children and the disabled. As a society, have we forgotten this great crusade to value and protect each life?

In Terry’s case, if her feeding tube is removed, the government is essentially sanctioning the taking of an innocent life. Apparently, interests groups and the court care more about an idealistic “right to die” claim than a woman’s life.

Who will we let decide what life is worthwhile? What determines the value of individual life?

Just last week, Hollywood awarded the Oscar for best picture to “Million Dollar Baby,” a film about a woman who was a boxer, but then becomes a paraplegic on a ventilator. So, she then makes the apparently “difficult but heroic” choice to end her life. Is this what our culture values? Where is the celebration of heroically preserving life and tenaciously striving to buck the odds?

Look at Christopher Reeves, the handsome, accomplished actor who we celebrated for pursuing a full life, despite becoming a quadriplegic on a ventilator. Will this so-called “right to die” turn into the “duty to die” for those people society views as useless or a burden? We should not allow the media, Hollywood or the courts to answer any of these difficult questions for us.

When Americans decide what the purpose of life is, then they can decide why they would ever want to determine a life “not worth living.” Ultimately, it boils down to how we view our roles as humans and our view of life on earth. What purpose does this life serve, and does it connect to a grander scheme of the universe?

Until we can confidently answer those questions, it is arrogant to assume that, with man’s limited view of the mysteries of life and death, we can presume to be capable of deciding when a life should end.

Send comments to Amanda at [email protected].