Choosing life in Texas

It’s a parent’s worst nightmare. One day, you have a bright, vivacious 25-year-old daughter. The next day, a freak accident takes away her ability to move, speak, or even receive basic nutrition without a feeding tube. Day after day, year after year, nothing changes. She’s not dying, but she’s not getting better either. There’s no reason to think she ever will.

That’s the life story of a young Texas woman named Margo Naranjo, and her parents, Mike and Cathy. It’s been four years since a drunk driver left Margo with a traumatic brain injury. Her disability is far from unique, but there’s a dark reason why we know her name. After using social media to stream and chronicle their journey through the years, her parents publicly announced that the journey would end soon. No, Margo’s health hadn’t taken a sudden dive. No, she still didn’t require any care more mechanically “extraordinary” than a feeding tube. But Mike and Cathy had decided it was extraordinary enough. They planned to remove the tube soon. Then they planned to have a funeral. It was already scheduled at a Catholic church.

As it turned out, that church hadn’t been made aware of how Margo was going to die. As her story began to go viral and draw outrage from pro-life media, her premature funeral was canceled, and a priest contacted Mike and Cathy and gave them a firm word about basic Catholic teaching. Among other pro-life writings, Pope John Paul II explicitly instructed that a feeding tube should be regarded as an “ordinary means” of care, and its removal should never be debatable.

Sadly, this appeared to come as news to Mike and Cathy, even though they’ve publicly prayed for Margo and appear to identify as sincere Catholics. In the livestreamed announcement, Cathy said Margo was a Christian and always looked forward to being in heaven with Jesus, so what could be better than “letting” her go there?

Cathy also recalls a conversation before the accident where Margo said she would want someone to “pull the plug” if she was ever catastrophically injured—though it wasn’t made clear if she specified a feeding tube. She wouldn’t have been the first person to seal her own fate with these sorts of casual remarks, which time and again have been brought back to haunt such cases when victims can no longer speak for themselves. Or, sometimes, as pro-life journalist Wesley J. Smith has documented, even when they can, no one listens.

These cases prove that liberalism’s promises of “autonomy” and “choice” will ultimately ring hollow in a culture that does not understand the good of vulnerability. When life is pitted against death, such a culture will repeatedly err on the side of death. Most discouragingly, it will teach even intuitively pro-life physicians and ethicists to question their better judgment and speak with an uncertain sound. One wishes all professing Christians in these fields felt bold enough to echo John Paul II’s crystal clarity, but this is sadly not the case.

Sometimes, medical professionals will override the wishes of both patients and guardians. In Texas, families used to have a mere 10 days to find a new facility if doctors decided to remove a patient’s life-sustaining care. That “10-day rule” has since been replaced by a law giving 25 days, motivated by a case where a mother successfully fought for the life of her disabled 2-year-old. Embarrassingly, only one Texas bishop took the mother’s side. Bishop Joseph Strickland (no longer serving the diocese in Texas) discussed Margo’s case in an interview, deploring the catechetical vacuum that has left parents like Mike and Cathy to be guided by hospice personnel instead.

Bishop Strickland and others also observe Cathy’s regurgitation of the common lie that Margo’s death would be “painless and peaceful.” Those who remember the agonizing murder of Terri Schiavo will remember how her brother, Bobby Schindler, exposed that lie. Despite what “experts say,” dehydration is hardly painless, nor is it quick, unless the process is “helped along” by the right cocktail of drugs.

Thankfully, several people are listening to Margo right now, including care workers who report that she can understand and turn her head to answer “yes/no” questions. In the livestream, she appears frightened and agitated as her mother calmly explains the decision to remove her care, several times snorting in a way that could be read as an inarticulate protest. Although Cathy claimed that Margo was unable to “make her own decisions,” the workers ignored this and asked Margo herself if she wanted to go on receiving food and water. According to a newly released court document, she indicated “yes.”

The Naranjos’ guardianship of their daughter has been temporarily removed while she continues to receive basic care. We can hope and pray that the restraining order will continue until they have a moral awakening. Meanwhile, we continue to work toward a world where parents and guardians don’t have to be restrained from killing the patients under their protection. We work toward a world where even in the face of that which makes living seem most unbearable, people will know how to choose life.