Pat Buchanan: Culture War to the Death

American Conservative ^ | November 17, 2003 | Pat Buchanan

[presidio9]

Gov. Jeb Bush has ordered the feeding tube reinserted into Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged Florida woman who has been artificially fed for 13 years. Bush contravened a court order. Terri’s parents had implored the governor to save their daughter.

Is cutting off food and water to a patient murder, as it surely would be with an infant? Is pulling out Terri’s feeding tube to let her die of starvation and dehydration morally different from giving her a lethal injection? In ending the life of a pet, the injection seems more “humane.”

In France, this debate has exploded. Marie Humbert, acting at the request of her mute, deaf, paralyzed, nearly blind son Vincent, put an overdose of sedatives in his feeding tube. Vincent did not die. He fell into a coma and became a “human vegetable.” Then, his doctor ordered all life support ended. About Vincent’s death, there is no argument. He was put to death by his mother and doctor.

On both cases, men and women who believe themselves moral are divided. In the phrase of author Thomas Sowell, what we have here are “Visions in Conflict.”

Christian traditionalists contend that God is the Author of life who alone decides when life ends. No man can destroy innocent life. Among such traditionalists are John Paul II and those lobbying Governor Bush to save the life of Terri Schiavo.

On the other side of the moral divide are those who argue that whether or not God exists, there is no higher law to which human law must conform. Each individual has the right to decide when to end a life that has become unbearable. And when a Terri Schiavo cannot make that decision, those closest to her can.

As Governor Bush intervened on behalf of Terri’s parents, the ACLU intervened on the side of her husband, who wanted Terri’s life ended.

The positions are irreconcilable. Each reflects the view of one of the adversaries in the great Culture War in the West, as we enter deeper into a post-Christian era where the old laws no longer bind.

There is no doubt that the traditionalists are in retreat. In France, 88 percent consider themselves tolerant of euthanasia. In Holland, assisted suicide and euthanasia have been legalized. Children from 12 to 18 can be euthanized with their parents’ consent, if they argue that their suffering is unbearable and a doctor concludes that there is no realistic chance of amelioration.

Oregon has passed a Death with Dignity Act, legalizing suicide for the terminally ill with six months to live. Eighteen Oregonians killed themselves in 1998. Last year, the number rose to 38. Even Dr. Kevorkian, in prison for having put to death individuals who were only deeply despondent, is admired by some as a social pioneer.

Trends in the moral and social universe seem such that the West of 2050 will not even be recognizable to the West of 1950.

Christianity is dying in Europe, its proscriptions ignored by the many and unknown to the young. Europeans believe they have a right to end their own lives as they choose and to abort the lives of their unborn. Dutch doctors perform “mercy killings” on terminally ill patients in a land where doctors were heroes, 60 years ago, for resisting the Nazis’ euthanasia program.

Moreover, Europe is aging. By mid-century, a third of Europe’s population will be over 65, a tenth over 80. Nursing homes will be stuffed to capacity with the elderly, feeble, sick, incontinent, dying.

To care for Europe’s exploding population of elderly, taxes will have to be raised repeatedly on the shrinking share of the population still working. Immigrants will have to be imported to care for them in retirement centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and hospices.

And among this godless population, for the young schooled in the utilitarian dogma of “the greatest good for the greatest number” and having embraced La Dolce Vita, a question will insistently arise: why work endlessly only to see half our wages go to keep alive, fed, and housed “useless eaters” whose lives are ending and who no longer contribute to society? Why should they not depart when they become ill, and cease to consume all our wealth?

If there is no God, no life after death, no higher law, and society may permit euthanasia, why can society not decide to make euthanasia mandatory for those who have begun to die? What is to stop the coming generation from kicking aged Baby Boomer and Gen Xers into their graves?

In 1938, the father of “Baby Knauer,” a retarded blind boy missing an arm and leg, appealed to Germany’s ruler to let his son die. Permission was granted. That leader was a father of the New Europe, and, as it now appears, a man ahead of his time.

[Alberta's Child]

PB is right on target.

If you look at the United States today and compare it with the world of 1938, you'll find that we have more in common with Nazi Germany of that era than we have in common with the United States. The fact that this is so does not surprise me -- what baffles the sh!t out of me is the number of people who don't seem too concerned about it.

[little jeremiah]

Just as it baffles (some of) us now, when reading about pre-war Germany, that so many allowed Hitler to come to power, listened rapt with awe at his speeches, and didn't protest his crimes.

People think it won't happen again.

Are people in general more moral, more courageous, more wise, more truthful, now?

[presidio9]

Are people in general more moral, more courageous, more wise, more truthful, now?

I would say that we are more connected. The main reason is the activity that you are engaged in right now. The internet and people like us are what saved Terri Schiavo's life. Back in 1933, there was limited radio and no TV, Terry would have been long gone before enough people to make a difference learned her name.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm not baffled about Germans from that era at all. In fact, Hitler did not rise to power in a vacuum -- the "modern, secular super-state" culture that was necessary for him to succeed had already been established before he arrived on the scene. I believe most of Germany's euthanasia laws were passed under the Weimar government of the 1920s, or at least they were based on a pragmatic, utilitarian philosophy that became popular during that decade.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[little jeremiah]

That, to me, is perhaps the saving grace - communication. Because, morally speaking, people in general have degraded considerably. And the more people are slaves to their immoral sensual demands, the more easily enslaved by others. A truly free man is one who is master of himself.

[iconoclast]

Me too.

[Messenja]

I am glad you mentioned higher law. Kids aren't taught it in school, nobody knows of it but a few of us christians and some highly intellectual lawyers. Is there a sense of law that is above that of a political government? Yes, it is within 2 types of laws. The 2 laws taken from Richard Maybury's book,"Whatever happened to justice?" which states "Do all you have agreed to do" and "Do not encroach on others" meaning agree to a common law and don't invoke problems on others. With these two laws advanced civilization is possible. The only problem with these laws is that they are too general. Here is how we determine higher law...by our own faults and errors and with religion. Now we run into two problems. What if people have different religions and what if your country is too diverse for that to have any effect. Multiculturalism is what is killing common law because we are being forced to accept and tolerate ideals, religions, and cultures that we do not even belong to. What I am saying is that cultures cannot coexist unless they come to a mutual understanding and a new culture is born. I see either that happening or all-out anarchy within the next generation in America unless a higher law is recognized and tradition is kept in America. Don't let the socialists tell you otherwise!

[T'wit]

There is another factor THICKLY involved that Pat did not mention, namely, socialized medicine. The market allocates scarce resources according to supply and demand; socialism has no such mechanism and can only ration services. Absent any moral concerns -- and moral concerns don't last long when the state is writing the checks -- those patients who are permanently disabled, or hopelessly ill, or who in some other way consume more than their share of medical care, are soon seen and resented as a burden on the system. Pretty soon they are denied care. Pretty soon after that, they are simply killed. I guess the doctors and nurses get hardened to it, as abortionists get hardened to destroying babies.

[nicmarlo]

If there is no God, no life after death, no higher law, and society may permit euthanasia, why can society not decide to make euthanasia mandatory for those who have begun to die?

Exactly!

[xzins]

If there is no God, no life after death, no higher law, and society may permit euthanasia, why can society not decide to make euthanasia mandatory for those who have begun to die? What is to stop the coming generation from kicking aged Baby Boomer and Gen Xers into their graves?

Ping to the line above, reference our previous discussion. Not to continue....merely to point out.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Very good points. It's basic set theory: the more cultures that we try to integrate, the smaller is the overlap which all can agree to.

The least common denominator is getting smaller and smaller each year.

[MattAMiller]

Pat is conflating the issue of people choosing to die with the issue of people being selected to die. It's as major a difference as there could be if you figure a person has a right to determine their own fate.

[walford]

This is where I part company with Pat Buchanan. I am also against euthanasia. I am also against Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube having been removed and was glad when it was re-inserted. I wrote this after all: http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2003/oct14.html

The issue in general and this case in particular has been successfully been framed -- as Felos describes -- as a compassionate husband who is striving to relieve his wife’s suffering pitted against “‘right-to-life anti-abortion groups that believe that irrespective of the patients’ wishes, people should be kept alive by feeding tubes’” [Saunders, Debra J. Erring on the Side of Death. The San Francisco Chronicle. 19 Aug. 2003.]

In other words, it is a struggle between secular dogmatists and religious dogmatists.

Those characterizations simply do not encompass all of those who are against euthanasia. Just as it is with abortion, it is a human rights issue for those of us who cherish life and are against any terminating people for being inconvenient. To allow those who cite religious dogma as the main counter-argument obscures the essential human rights of the people involved and only serves to alienate potential allies.

An ignored category of people that has the most interest are the disabled and their advocates. In a combined statement by a group of service providers for the disabled, they expressed concern that their “voices are often not heard over the din of political and religious rhetoric” of advocacy groups that are more interested in their own agendas than the interests of the most vulnerable. http://www.dspofamerica.org/10-30-2003a.shtm

People who had been medically determined to be unrecoverably PVS have indeed regained consciousness and had related horror stories of hearing their demise being calmly discussed while being unable to talk or move. One woman told of her agony while deprived of nutrition/hydration for eight days while her husband fought the courts for her life. She lived to tell her story. http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,102388,00.html

The only source of additional information has been advocacy groups and informal message exchange forums. Given that the putative ‘objective’ media has ignored it, this information can thus be easily dismissed as having emerged from those with an agenda.

[Graymatter]

>> those patients who are permanently disabled...or who in some other way consume more than their share of medical care, are soon seen and resented as a burden on the system. Pretty soon they are denied care.

I agree, T'wit, the blame lies squarely on socialism. It takes less than one generation to close off all argument on ending "useless" lives.
Once the "system"---ie, I and all my fellow citizens---pays the costs of medical care for the disabled person, I can no longer justify paying that cost. I am clearly advocating the pocket-picking, the involuntary servitude, the confiscatory taxation, of every one of my neighbors, and all my fellow Americans. Who am I to demand that they pay for the care of those who can never pay back?
Socialism opens with the moral demand that we act as our brothers' keepers, then compels us to destroy the very people we were exhorted to keep.

[stands2reason]

To allow those who cite religious dogma as the main counter-argument obscures the essential human rights of the people involved and only serves to alienate potential allies.

Thank you. I am not religious, but I am moral. This socialist utilitarianism leeches people of their humanity. And it doesn't take a religious to see that.

[stands2reason]

Pat is conflating the issue of people choosing to die with the issue of people being selected to die.

The chasm is shrinking between the two sides. Right now all it takes is hearsay of your "choice" and you're killed.

[stands2reason]

Pat is conflating the issue of people choosing to die with the issue of people being selected to die.

The chasm is shrinking between the two sides. Right now all it takes is hearsay of your "choice" and you're killed.

[John Galt's cousin]

I understand your position. I have a question, however. In a 'free market' or 'supply and demand' medical care economy, isn't the determining factor about who gets scarce medical care the ability to pay?