WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions International (LDI), today called the killing of Terri Schindler Schiavo "a tragedy of our own making." Scott said the Pro-Life Movement, including LDI, failed to prevent the situation by educating Americans about such issues and proposing legislation to avoid it. "We surely knew this was coming," Scott said. "But everyone has been so busy putting out fires on other issues that our eyes were blinded to the smoldering embers. After all, this case has been ongoing for many years, yet we 'dropped the ball' in a big way. When are we as a movement going to get ahead of these issues instead of reacting after-the-fact?"

"Terri's death is partly due to public ignorance," Scott said. "Polls have shown that a vast majority of Americans supported the pulling of her feeding tube. Yet I would be willing to bet that no more than five percent of Americans had enough factual information to take such a position." Scott also said polls showed that most Americans opposed congressional intervention in the Schindler Schiavo case but "most Americans could not tell you exactly what Congress did." Scott said the stunning part of the polling was that most Catholics and Evangelicals supported removing Terri Schindler Schiavo's feeding tube.

"Unless we can make the case that nutrition and hydration are basic necessities and not 'medical treatment,' this battle is lost before it has really been fully engaged," Scott said. "With doctors and lawyers and reporters and commentators responsible for spreading false information, the Pro-Life Movement needs to find a way to reach Middle America."

Scott announced that LDI is calling for new legislation. "We are calling on Congress and state lawmakers to pass legislation making it illegal to withhold nutrition or hydration from any person unless it is determined to be an overwhelming and insurmountable physical burden or if nutrition and hydration cannot be assimilated by the body. It seems that allowing any person--or anyone acting on behalf of another person--to withdraw nutrition/hydration is tantamount to condoning killing and suicide. It strikes me as odd that if one of the people protesting outside the hospice had decided to go on a hunger strike, he or she would have been taken to the hospital, probably after collapsing, and given nutrition/hydration without consent."

"I realize many people will consider this proposal to be 'dead on arrival,' so to speak, because at the moment most people believe they should be able to refuse nutrition and hydration," Scott said. "But the Pro-Life Movement and the clergy need to undertake a massive educational campaign on this issue and it must commence immediately."

"Why is it that a diagnosis of 'persistent vegetative state' has somehow become a license to kill?" Scott asked. "No one should be killed just because he or she is determined to be in such a condition. And why must a person be in such a state if he or she wants to die? And why is it that the means by which a person receives nutrition and hydration can determine whether or not someone may refuse it? If a fully conscious, physically healthy adult wanted to be starved to death, what would be wrong with it? It seems to me that the condition of a person should not be at issue. No one has a 'right' to suicide with the help or consent of the state."

Abraham Maslow is known for establishing the theory of a hierarchy of basic needs. Food and water are part of the hierarchy. They are the strongest needs because if a person were deprived of all needs, food and water would come first in the search for satisfaction.

James Borkowski, a member of LDI's Board of Directors and a resident of British Columbia, Canada, has closely followed the Terri Schindler Schiavo case on television. "Certainly removing nutrition and hydration from the 'extraordinary means' list is critical. What could be less extraordinary than food and water?" he asked.

"It seems reasonable that when a husband enters into a new common-law relationship, he should become an ex-husband and the parents revert to being guardians," Borkowski said. "One would think that feminists would be all over this one. Allowing the equivalent of an ex-husband to make life ending decisions for someone who is essentially an ex-wife is bizarre and dangerous, but feminists were nowhere to be found."

"Suicide should not be condoned, legalized or turned into a team or spectator sport," Borkowski said.

"There is a lot of talk about a 'right to die,'" Scott added. "In this case the problem was that Terri was not dying when someone wanted her dead. So steps were taken to assure her death. If there is one thing we do not need it is a 'right to die.' Everyone will die. The problem is that far too many people want to be able to determine--for themselves or others--exactly how, when, where and under what circumstances death will occur. Now that's a different story," Scott said. "We all want to be in control, but there are some things that should simply be left in God's hands."