On February 25th, 2005, Florida Circuit Judge George W. Greer signed an order stating that “absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Theresa Schiavo, at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18th 2005.” That this order amounts to a death warrant is apparent from additional language of the order in which Judge Greer grimly states, “a date and time certain should be established so that last rites and other similar matters can be addressed in an orderly manner.” This order, in its explicit finality, raises fundamental questions regarding life and the taking of life.

It is clear to all that the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration will result in the death of Terri Schiavo. The intent of this action is not in question. What is fundamentally at issue is whether such intent is or can be lawful.

In the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution, Article I Section 2 (Basic Rights) reads, “all natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty ... No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.”

Terri’s parents have made it clear that they believe that she enjoys life. The website of the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation contains multiple video clips which they say give “stunning testimony to Terri’s awareness”. But even if such evidence were nonexistent, would that void the right of Terri to defend her life? The Constitutional language is clear—Terri has a non-transferable right to enjoy her life AND to defend her life. Even if she could not enjoy life—even if she were completely unresponsive, her right to defend her life remains inalienably hers. And the Constitutional language is also clear that these rights to life cannot be deprived because of her physical disability.

In its Health Care Advance Directives statute, the Florida Legislature also found that, when Terri was competent, she had a fundamental right of self determination regarding decisions pertaining to her health, including the right to choose or refuse medical treatment. But when she became incompetent, these rights became exercisable by her husband, who is her guardian. And it is the conflict of these two rights—a legislatively-recognized right of self determination as presently exerted by her guardian, and a constitutionally inalienable right to enjoyment and defense of life as raised by her parents—that has become an epic legal battle.

Some argue that what makes this matter so difficult is that Terri cannot speak for herself. But it is clear that Terri is not terminally ill. Judge Greer expressed this well in his order, stating that “there appears to be no finality in sight to this process.” That her disability precludes her from objecting to the imposition of death by starvation and dehydration has given the Florida Circuit Court cause for years of deliberation on whether her life may be so taken.

But is it really that complicated? Absent her prior declaration, the State must now decide what is best for Terri. The State must ask, given its powers of life and death, when it is better to take life than to defend it. We all must hope that the State will set the highest bar for the decision not to defend a life. Terri has committed no capital offense. She has not asked that her life be taken. She continues to live with her disability and has not abandoned her right to defend her life. Absent the gravest of circumstances, the State must defend her life.

And the State must also ask, given the conflict of a legislatively recognized right and a constitutionally inalienable right, how shall the State proceed? Here again, the presumption must be for the defense of life. Terri’s inalienable right to defend her life may not be taken from her by her guardian, or by the Florida Legislature, or by the Florida Courts. If her guardian refuses to exercise it, the State of Florida must do so. If the State of Florida will not do so, then the United States must.

If we have come to the point that a severely disabled person, or even a person in a persistently vegetative state, may have their lives devalued and their inalienable Constitutional rights arbitrarily removed by legislative or judicial fiat, then we have reached a dangerous point indeed. For, in order for the rights of the remainder of us to be preserved, we must then argue that such humans in general, and that Terri Schiavo in particular, no longer can be considered true “natural persons.” We must argue that because a human no longer can react, or feed herself, or enjoy life, that she has become less than a person. We must argue that, because of criteria regarding physical disability which we have established legislatively or judicially, the basic rights of these individuals may be removed on the basis that they have forfeited personhood.

And if we have reached the point that personhood, and basic rights, may depend on the vagaries of physical debility, who is to say that in another time, another legislature and another judge may not define personhood by criteria of race, or religion, or national origin? Who has forgotten that in another time, legislatures and judges did just that?

In 1942, my father left his boyhood home in Arkansas and sailed an ocean to fight against such notions. He returned with memories of horrors which haunted him the rest of his life. The right of Terri Schiavo to live has been dearly defended, and its preservation dearly purchased. In the honor of my father’s memory, and in the hope of my children’s future, I will not sit silently while it is taken away.

Frederick J. White III, M.D., is Chairman of the Institutional Ethics Committee at Willis Knighton Medical Center in Shreveport, La.