The members of Congress who are addressing the Terry Schiavo controversy aren't just throwing their weight around to earn political points. They're doing the jobs we elected them to do.

Terry Schiavo is the ultimate human sacrifice. Her life, by all reasonable accounts, has ceased to have meaning for her. Whether she continues to live for some indeterminate time with the aid of feeding tubes or dies because they have been removed will be of little consequence to her. But her outcome matters tremendously to millions of others who have chosen to make her the vessel of their beliefs.

Much criticism has been heaped on the members of Congress who have "politicized" the Schiavo controversy. They have, some argue, no moral right to compel additional court review of the decision to allow Terry, who has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, to die peacefully of dehydration.

This is a decision that should be made by her family with the advice of their doctors and spiritual counselors, many say. And here lies the crux of the problem.

Who Decides?

Who should make life-or-death decisions when the family disagrees? Terry's husband clearly has the legal upper hand. He says he's sure Terry would not want to continue living in her condition.

Terry's parents want to leave the tubes in. Possibly they cling to the hope that a medical miracle will occur -- if not now, then maybe 10 years from now. Terry is still a young woman, after all -- just 41. Maybe they believe that on some level, Terry is still fighting for her life.

Should the instincts, wishes and beliefs of the people who brought Terry into the world and raised her to adulthood be swept aside?

Medical Miracles

There's "zero" chance of recovery, doctors say. They're probably right. Almost certainly, they are. By today's understanding of what is possible, little argument can be made against their bleak assessment.

But doctors have no more capacity to look into the future than the rest of us mere mortals. Astounding things have happened in the past, and it is certain that even more amazing things lie ahead. The human brain is territory that is almost as mysterious and uncharted as outer space. We know a lot about it, but what we don't know is vast by comparison.

The question is, would Terry want to become part of an experiment to see whether she could regain some level of awareness if such a "miracle" became possible? It is conceivable that such a fate would be even worse than death or unconsciousness, after all.

Surely, there would be those who would trumpet any sign of sentience in Terry as proof that God wanted her to live. Others might consider anything less than a full restoration of neurological functioning an abomination. Again, Terry would have no say in the matter.

Inevitable Martyrdom

For her, there is no way out. Whether the tubes stay in or are removed, Terry is doomed to be a martyr, and I think it's safe to assume that was never one of her personal goals.

Given the ferocity of the medical, legal, moral, ethical, religious and personal debate, and the lack of a clearly correct path, it seems absurd to keep politics out of it. Every other card has been played.

Terry's story has grown to cosmic proportions. It's really not about her anymore. Doctors say that if her tubes are removed, she'll feel no pain. If they're left in, she'll also feel no pain. So, reduced to its essence, the argument over feeding Terry has nothing to do with her comfort or lack thereof. It's about the comfort of her family -- and the comfort of the millions who have made her the standard bearer for their opposing beliefs.

Congress Has It Right

Terry's life is a custody battle. To decide such matters, we have laws, and if we find we don't like the way they work, we have legislators to change them.

The members of Congress who are jumping into the fray aren't just throwing their weight around to earn political points. They're doing the jobs we elected them to do.