Religious views have been central to the debate regarding the fate of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman with severe brain damage who was disconnected from her feeding tube per court order over a week ago. Both Terri's husband (who fought for the disconnection) and her parents (who have tried in vain to keep her alive) have invoked religious beliefs in justifying their positions. In the case of the parents, the power of religion also exerted a strong influence on both the legislative and judicial branches.

Muslim voices were not altogether absent in the public debate over the moral dilemmas of this case, but leaned towards support of the position of Terri's parents. (In contrast, over 80% of Americans - including 68% of those who call themselves "evangelicals" - supported the position of Terri's husband.) "Even if [Schiavo] wanted to withdraw the tube," argued Boca Raton, Florida Imam Sayed Mohammad Jawad Al Qazwini, "Islam would say she could not... We don't have authority over our souls; only God does." Seattle commentator Aziz Junejo agreed. "The majority of Muslims in America believe her life should be saved, and perhaps doctors should reinsert the feeding tube." (We must have missed the polling of Muslims on this issue.) "You cannot deny hydration or nutrition in a vegetative state," said Dr. Shahid Athar, head of medical ethics for the Islamic Medical Association of North America and a professor at Indiana University School of Medicine. "It's not a heroic measure."

And even the folks at CAIR, who make unfortunate, occasional forays into Islamic morals, chimed in on the side of those they usually disagree with. "I personally agree that Bush and Congress have intervened to save one life," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. But behind the statements of these spokesmen is a much more complex picture. "Some say that ending the life of a person in a hopeless condition is considered murder and is forbidden, while others say that it could be done, "said Safwat Hijazy, a prominent Egyptian Islamic cleric. "In cases when sickness gets out of hand, and recovery happens to be tied to miracle," explained Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, "no one can say treatment then is obligatory or even recommended." Dr. Abdulaziz Sachedina of the University of Virginia goes further. "Islamic law does not forbid withdrawal of the futile and disproportional treatment on the basis of the consent of the immediate family members who act upon the professional advice of the physician in charge of the case."

Nevertheless, the most-quoted Muslim position on this issue is in support of the parents, which should please fundamentalists like Randall Terry - at least until the issue is over and he and his compatriots can go back to hating Muslims.

The right to die (at a time of our choosing) is not a right granted to us (as Muslims) regardless of how much we suffer while living. We also do not have the right to kill someone (outside of capital punishment, that also by a state, as individuals we never have the right to kill someone).

So the question is: Does Terri Schaiavo want to die? or is she being killed (albeit indirectly) by the withdrawal of food?

What is the ideological difference between an old man who cannot provide for himself b/c of his age/disability and a woman who gets her food from a feeding tube?

I personally think withholding food and essentially forcing ÏstarvationÓ is not permitted. Withholding ÏuselessÓ medical treatment is a toss up, and may actually boil down to affordability and access to resources÷÷.

Unless theres an advance directive, removing the feeding tube is wrong and cruel. They should be kept alive as long as possible. If the issue is money, perhaps wasteful spending on things like israel should be reconsidered, and funds should be diverted to invalids like Schaiavo.
Speaking of Randall Terry, its clear to me that evangelical scum are anti-life hypocrites, on one hand they claim to be pro-life, on the other they support terrorism to speed up the end of the world. What a better place the world would if these lunatics were in Gitmo.

From what I understand Terri is not braindead but has severe brain damage (she is NOT on any artificial respiration or other forms of support aside from the feeding tube, correct?). She is also not terminally ill and can conceivably live for a significant amount of time if the feeding tube remains. Nevertheless, her central nervous system has been irreperably damaged to such an extent that she can no longer think, feel or communicate, correct? If this is so then doesn't that make her effectively "braindead" ie. is the case not somewhat similar to when a person is in a coma?

"Some scholars have considered passive euthanasia, which is removing life support from a patient who shows no symptoms of recovery, if a person is under a prolonged coma or is brain-dead. In these cases, a team of competent doctors may decide to remove the life support, but every case has to be looked at very carefully and it should not be done in a rush of judgement. In a similar way, if a patient shows no symptoms of recovery, certain medicine can also be stopped. The person is left to nature to take its own course, but the food should not be stopped. "

(http://www.islamonline.net/livefatwa/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=598e41)

Is the reasoning behind our scholars' rulings that the tube should be left in because the patient is not 100% brain-dead in the sense that her brainstem can still breath for her? In the above quote of Dr. Muzammil Siddiqui why is food specifically singled out as to not be stopped. How is it different, in terms of supporting life, from stopping an artificial ventilator?

Jazzakum ullahu Khair

Wassalamu Alaikum
Uzer

Salaam,

This is meant more as a general comment than something specific to the Terri Schiavo case, but I tend to be on skeptical side when it comes to fatwas regarding contemporary issues in biomedical ethics. Some cases may be clear, but for many situations, each case is unique, and has various complicating factors which make it difficult to generalize in a simplistic way about what to do. And I'm not sure if all the ethical implications of the various new medical technologies have really been digested even for the Western ethicists. And I'm not sure how much communication really occurs back and forth between traditional ulema on the one hand, and the medical authorities who understand what is happening physically/biologically on the other.