Douglas E. Noll, Esq.
April 2005
Terri Schiavo’s death has
dropped from the news. For the family, the news trucks,
interviews, and spotlights have been turned off, but the hostility,
anger, and unresolved conflict must remain. Considering the 12
year conflict played out in the courts, the Florida legislature, the
United States Congress and the White House, could reconciliation
between the family members be possible? As a peacemaker, I think
so. I also believe that until the family reconciles, personal
healing will be very difficult.
So how would a peacemaker approach this intense, very personal, very
private, yet very public family conflict?
In this case, we can expect that Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri’s
parents, and Michael Shiavo, her husband, detest each other.
Thus, expecting them to come together at the outset to discuss their
issues would be naïve and unrealistic. The idea that people in
highly escalated conflicts can talk rationally to each other is simply
wrong. When people are emotionally charged, they are reactive,
defensive, and anxious. They are not ready to talk out their
differences calmly. Much of the peacemaker’s work is in preparing
the parties to talk to each other. If the preparation is
thorough, a later peacemaking conference can be fruitful.
Preparing for peace requires a series of individual meetings. In
these private conferences, the peacemaker will ask each person to
reflect on the history of the conflict. What were the key points
during the conflict? What emotions and feelings were experienced
at each point? How did the others appear to feel? Much of
the conflict focused on Terri’s interests and needs. The
peacemaker would turn away from this and ask the family members to
reflect on and identify their personal needs, interests, goals, and
desires. How did each event satisfy or thwart those needs?
Gradually, the parties would learn that Terri was in many ways a symbol
for their deeper, unrealized relationship and identity goals. As
long as the focus was on Terri’s needs, the parties did not have to
look at their own needs and interests.
Accusations escalated as the conflict escalated. For example, the
Schindler’s accused Michael Shiavo of adultery and “wasting,
embezzling, or other mismanagement of [Terri’s funds].” Schiavo accused
the Schindler’s of fomenting the conflict because they did not share in
the malpractice settlement money. Each side accused the other
acting dishonestly and disreputably. Worse, these rounds of insults and
charges were played out in the media. From the peacemaker’s
perspective, a complete breakdown in empathy occurred. Each
family member individually and privately would be gently urged to
consider the possibility of other perspectives by telling the other
side’s story to the peacemaker. This reflective exercise causes
people to open themselves to a broader story than they had earlier
perceived. Subtle yet important emotional shifts occur as people
are asked to recast the story through the eyes of their adversary.
Injustices have played a major role in this conflict. The
peacemaker will therefore spend time inquiring about injustices.
How have the injustices been experienced? What are the
injustices? The parties will initially be seeking
retribution—“He/She hurt me and I want him/her to suffer just like I
did!” This is a typical and expected reaction to injustice and
injury. Peace can only be found when the parties move away from
justice as retribution and seek justice through restoration of
relationships. Simple questions from the peacemaker can cause
people to reflect on the personal effects of retribution. How
would punishing or penalizing the other party make your sense of
injustice go away? As people think about this and try on what
retribution would feel like, they learn that it does not satisfy
them. This opens the door to other options. Recognizing that many
injustices cannot be righted, what could the other side do to help make
things right? How would you feel if the other party strived to
make things right with you?
As the parties came to understand the subtleties and nuances of the
conflict, discussions about process would begin. How will it feel
to sit across the table from Bob and Mary or Michael? What
feelings are likely to come up for you? How will you respond to
those feelings? What would be a successful outcome for you?
What would be a miraculous outcome for you? The parties will tend
to focus away from themselves during this conversation. For
example, Bob might say, “I hope that Michael apologizes for all the
pain he caused me.” The peacemaker would ask Bob to focus on
himself by asking, “Recognizing that is what you would want from
Michael, what would be successful for you—how would you feel?”
Eventually, the parties will be ready to sit across from each
other. The peacemaker must create a safe, protected space for the
difficult conversations to occur. The discussions will be
emotional and heated at times. With proper preparation, however,
the parties can be shown the path towards reconciliation, forgiveness,
and restoration of their family relationship. It would not be an
easy path for them to walk, but with the help of the peacemaker, they
could find peace in Terri’s death that eluded them during her life.
Douglas E. Noll, Esq. is a lawyer specializing in peacemaking and mediation of difficult and intractable conflicts throughout California. His firm, Noll Associates is based in Central California. He may be reached through his website and email at doug@nollassociates.com
© 2005, Douglas E. Noll