Why Would a Feminist Support Michael Schiavo?

Why would any feminist support the right of the husband to make a life and death decision over the fate of an uncomprehending brain damaged wife in the absence of a living will? Feminism values the struggle for equality in relationships whether that relationship be between a woman and man, a woman and a woman or a man and a man. When a person enters into a committed kind of relationship in this case a marriage. the assumption exists that in the future many important decisions can and will be made that can affect both parties and in the event of illness or death the spouse unless stated otherwise will make those decisions unless there is evidence that the wishes of the spouse were contraindicated.

If Michael Schiavo were in Terri Schiavo's condition and she was the healthy one and it was clear this is what he wanted, then it would be Terri making the decision to pull or not to pull the feeding tube. If a wife or any person does not trust her male spouse, she has the right to give the right of decision making to another person. The same is true for a male spouse. It could be argued that since there is an unequal relationship between husband and wife in society, that there is a danger that this right is being abused or has the potential to be abused by the male spouse for selfish reasons. This may be true and the system as it stands is clearly not perfect.

In any case, even if one thinks heteterosexal marrage implies ownership of a wife by a husband, the alternative of allowing parents to decide over the legitimate spouses's right to make decisions is just as wrong, for according to this kind of thinking the decision making would fall to the father and then one is talking about two men fighting for the right to make a decision over a vulnerable woman's life. Giving the state or parents or even grandparents rights over a legal spousal relationship or domestic partnership undermines the basic freedom of the individual to make the original choice about who she or he decides is the primary person and co-decision maker in her or his life.

The answer here is not to give the state or parents or grandparent more rights but to strengthen the rights of the individual to make her or his own decisions about who she or he wishes to trust to make life and death decisions whether that be husband and wife, same sex partners, or friends trusting friends. I would hope in this case that the feminist perspective and humanist perspective are one and the same which should be to support the right of the individual to create the kind of primary family bonds he or she chooses. Legally, these family type bonds come with legal implications and should not be entered into without forethought.


I welcome other opinions, given that I am not an authority on the law and there are many strains of feminist thinking when it comes to family issues.