Posted on 03/31/2005 10:35:48 PM PST by The_Reader_David
That's what we say in the Christian East, asking God that the departed not be forgotten in Sheol. We say it of those soon to be glorified as saints, of poor sinners, of priests, of laymen. Memory eternal.
As we mourn for Terri, let us not be too downcast by the poll results which suggest a majority of our countrymen approve this travesty of justice.
The poll questions and the false impressions given by the MSM made this appear to be a right-to-die case. And yes, most Americans, answering for themselves or their loved ones would not want expensive, futile, invasive medical procedures to be applied to their dying bodies to eak out a few more days or months of life. Many Americans truly believe they would rather die than live with severe mental impairment--may God be merciful to them and never oblige them to repent of that opinion while severely mentally impaired.
But the debate is not about those issues--Terri was not being futilely maintained at great cost by extraordinary medical interventions. We can frame it as a series of our own poll questions:
You get the idea.
And then there is the other question we should be asking:
Whenever any leftist (except Nat Hentoff, Ralph Nader, or Jesse Jackson) blathers on about 'speaking for the voiceless' or 'the downtrodden' or talks about how societies should be judged by how they treat their least fortunate, we must ask "Like Terri Schaivo?"
Whenever a feminist professes to speak for women, to defend them agaisnt abusive husbands. . . . we must ask "And Terri Schaivo? Where were you when the court killed her for her husband's convenience?"
(I know, I know, but this is in speaking to leftists. . .they won't remember her honorable birth name.)
And let us press our legislators both state and federal to pass laws defining judicial overreach as Misconduct so that the threat of impeachment hangs over every judge who makes law from the bench from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to the lowest judge in the smallest state district court in the land.
Lastly, and most importantly, it is plain that issues of life and death like Terri Schindler's case will continue to be decided in our courts. But they need not be decided by judges. There is a reason the nobles forced a right to trial by an impartial jury of their peers on King John. There is a reason the right was enshrined for all Americans accused of a crime. There is a reason most civil suits of consequence are decided by juries. That reason applies with equal, if not greater, force in cases like Terri Schindler's.
Judges are agents of the state, and as such are a danger to life, liberty and property. Lord Acton's dictum that power corrupts applies as much to our independent judiciary as to the judges who as agents of the Crown were despised by the nobles at Runnymede.
The infirmed, the truly voiceless, must be given the same level of protection we accord criminal defendants. In each case the power of the state weighs heavily upon them. Surely where innocence is undoubtable the same protection from the state should be accord as when it is presumed as part of our guarantees of liberty against state power.
Along the lines of this thought, and the last of my 'poll questions' above, on another thread which vanished from sight because I forgot to include Terri's name in the title, and forgot to include topics, I proposed some draft legislation. I reproduce that post below (with a few improvements) and ask for comments and improvements. Hopefully someone versed in law can pound on the draft below, fill in the gaps and make it into a really good draft bill we could all be proud to send as a suggestion to our senators and congressmen:
A BILL
To restore equal protection under the law
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NO DEPRIVATION OF LIFE WITHOUT A TRIAL BY JURY
(a) No court of the United States or of any state or jurisdiction thereof shall order or command actions that would result in the death of a United States citizen or other person present in the United States without the agreement of an impartial jury composed of twelve citizens.
(b) In all cases involving the provision of, or denial of, medical treatment, the presumption shall be in favor of measures to preserve the life of the person in question, unless the person in question is incapacitated so as to be unable to communicate his or her wishes to the court either orally or in writing, and unambiguously applicable written prior care directives, legally valid under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the case is tried, signed by the person in question and notarized (or equivalently witnessed pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction where the case is tried) are presented to the court, in which case the presumption shall be in favor of carrying out those directives. In cases where the person in question can speak to the court, unambiguous oral communication of a care directive in open court shall have the same force as a properly executed written prior care directive.
(c) In all procedings in which a court considers actions which would result in the death of a United States citizen or other person present in the United States, the person shall be entitled to legal counsel to argue on behalf of the preservation of the person’s life or the fulfillment of properly executed written prior care directives as appropriate under Section 1 Paragraph (b) of this act. In cases where the person cannot provide his or her own counsel, the jurisdiction in which the case is tried will provide legal counsel under the same terms as it is provided to defendants in criminal trials in that jurisdiction.
(d) [Legislative staff, draft appropriate procedures to implement (a) and (b) at the Federal level]
SECTION 2. TREATMENTS DEEMED CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT FOR CAPITAL CRIMES SHALL NOT BE APPLIED TO PERSONS NOT GUILTY OF CRIMES
(a) No citizen of the United States or other person present in the United States shall be subjected by any court of the United States or of any state or jurisdiction thereof, or by any agency of the Federal government, or the government of any of the states or jurisdictions thereof to treatment, which if applied to a person found guilty of a capital crime would be deemed cruel or unusual punishment under prevailing law.
(b) Any person subjected to such treatment, or in the case of minors or incapacitated persons, any parent, grandparent, child or grandchild, whether legal or biological, any legal guardian, of the person subjected to said treatment, or any person previously designated as having power of attorney to bring suit under the provisions of this act, shall have standing to seek injunctive relief from the federal courts, and to bring suit for compensation for such treatment. [Legislative staff, draft provisions for compensation].
SECTION 3. APPLICABLITY TO THE STATES
(a) Pursuant to the terms of this Act, and consistent with the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the legislatures of the several states shall enact legislation to implement the protections provided by this act.
Why was only one man, Judge Greer, the determinant of the facts in Terri's case? In most other cases, it is a jury that determines the facts. Certainly the facts in all capital cases are determined by a jury. Subsequent appeals generally deal with interpretations of the law, rather than redetermining the facts of the case, unless there is new evidence.
Setting aside personalities, as distasteful as they appear to be, having only one person determine the facts seems to be the central failing of the judicial system in Terri's case. For the future, that failing could be solved by legislative action.
The American people ALWAYS act appropriately when they know the truth. It will be the job of those of us who know the truth to let others know. The only poll that is really worthwhile is election day.
Please count me in.
This is an excellent thread and a great credit to you. I can only offer you my heartfelt thanks for your work here. May the Lord prosper the work of your hands and heart in this.
When someone is glorified as a saint and martyr in the Orthodox Church, when is the term "Passionbearer" appropriate? Specifically, could you conceive of that being an appropriate title for someone like Terri in the event they were glorified?
Bump
The Passion-Bearer designation certainly comes closest to Terri's circumstance, but doesn't quite fit (at least as I understand it). The distinctive feature of Passion-Bearers is that they died for their Christian faith, but were not killed for it. That is, they remained in harm's way, or acquiesed to their own deaths, in obedience to Christ's command to "take up thy cross and follow Me," but their Christian faith was not the motive of their murderers or executioners.
The models for the form of sanctity recognized by the title Passion-Bearer were SS. Boris and Gleb who in fidelity to the commands of the Gospel refused to take up arms against another claimant to the throne of Kiev and were killed by him.
The latest examples, of course, are the Royal Passion-Bearers of Russia. (Incidentally, I was immensely gratified that the Patriarchate of Moscow proclaimed the glorification of the last Imperial family with the title--I had for years been saying that last Tsar and his family were Passion-Bearers, not Martyrs as the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia proclaimed them.)
Did that obtain as well for "St. Elizabeth the New Martyr"? When they lived in the Holy Land, my father had a great devotion to her and would visit St. Mary Magdalene Church.
St. Elizabeth was singled out because she was a nun, so her murderers had a particular animus against her because of her faith.
Her glorification was proclaimed long before that of the Royal Passion-Bearers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.