Terri Schiavo is facing the same question with which I confront my students on their first day of “Property” class: “do you own yourself?” As the ownership of any property interest finds expression in who gets to exercise ultimate decision-making control, this case – and how it is discussed – illustrates the paucity of understanding regarding property principles. I also try to get across to my students how and why all of our social problems are related to a failure to respect the inviolability of one another’s property interests. The sight of competing political and religious functionaries elbowing one another for television camera attention to exploit this situation reflects the conflict-ridden implications of property trespasses.
Terri Schiavo is much as she was as a baby when, lacking in decision-making capacities, she found herself under the control of her parents. Such is the nature of the parent-child relationship regarding the property issue: the parent acquires a property interest not in the child itself, but in a relationship with the child as it develops into a self-owning being (this is what makes teenage years so stressful, as parents and children negotiate for control over the behavior of children).
Because of her state – her inability to exercise conscious control over herself – Terri Schiavo’s fate will end up being controlled by someone else. But upon what basis will it be decided as to whom, as apparently this young woman left no clear indication regarding her will in the matter. The most troubling answer – not unexpected in our thoroghly politicized society – is for the state to provide such control. It was quite disturbing to see the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the state getting into this circus – even a state administrative agency was apparently tempted to join in – efforts that did little more than confirm that the “separation of powers” doctrine only determines which branch of government owns the rest of us!If, given her condition, we can think of Terri as an unowned person – because of her inability to exercise control over herself – then the question becomes one of determining who is to take control over her until – as with a baby – she might be capable of returning to a condition of self-ownership (if, indeed, that is even a possibility). Karen has provided an excellent question on this point: what is to keep anyone who chooses to do so from taking control over Terri for this purpose? Does the fact that such an option is not given serious consideration only reflect how much we have given over to the state – including the courts – the power to define the extent (or lack thereof) of our self-ownership?
10:29 am on March 29, 2005