Three Horrors, and Four

Dilating the Mind of Dave Delany ^ | 29 March 2005 | Dave Delany

[celano]

I made several startling discoveries in reading the court’s opinions regarding Terri’s condition. The court itself points to enough error in its mission and purpose to fill a large book, but consider just three paragraphs, all from the March 16 opinion of George Greer, with concurrence from Fulmer and Wallace, in Case No. 2D05-968 of the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida:

“The trial court’s decision does not give Mrs. Schiavo’s legal guardian the option of leaving the life-prolonging procedures in place. No matter who her guardian is, the guardian is required to obey the court order because the court, and not the guardian, has determined the decision that Mrs. Schiavo herself would make.

“But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children… The law has opened the doors of the circuit courts to permit trial judges to serve as surrogates or proxies to make decisions about life-prolonging procedures.

“The trial judge made this most difficult decision after fully considering the evidence and applying a heightened standard of proof that is designed to protect society’s interest in sustaining life.”

I find three consecutive horrors. First, Greer asserts that no authority may undermine the court’s decision and consequence; second, the court becomes the parent in matters of vital dispute; and third, Judge Greer asserts that his decision results from society’s goal of sustaining life.

Horror one asserts that your right to live is finally determined before the court. This means that a judge in court – without a need for moral reason or evidence of a crime – decides your fate based on his own interpretation of law, no matter how badly written, inconclusive, or faulted.

Horror two states that faith, love and hope have no place in a court of law. Cold surrogacy and icy pragmatism determine your right to live. This argument can be easily extended to include other medical care, warmth, clothing, therapy, transportation, and housing.

Horror three indicate that the State – society – in fact maintains the goal of sustaining life. Through the court’s twisted logic, the State failed to adequately present its goal, so death is life and life is death.

"Following orders" is not a justifiable excuse, Mr. Greer, especially when you acknowledge that they run contrary to the goal.

In 1892, Justice Josiah Brewster, of the United States Supreme Court, in turn quoted Chancellor Kent of New York, the commentator on American law: "We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of imposters."

Horror four is that the morality of our the country is now engrafted upon neither Christianity nor imposters; it is arbitrated by district courts.

[tallhappy]

Not good.

Normally I'm optimistic but there seems to be a boulder rolling that is only gaining momentum.