Posted on 10/25/2003 6:00:26 AM PDT by NYer
In a court of law, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. They must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually did commit a crime.
In the court of public opinion, it is frequently the case that individuals who are accused of a crime are judged guilty regardless of the facts. Some call that bias; others label it as nothing more than ignorant.
In the case of a severely disabled woman whose starvation death was ordered by a Florida judge, the court of law has not determined her guilt or innocence, because she committed no crime. The court has preferred to arrogantly deem it compassionate to put her out of her alleged misery by sanctioning an act of murder.
Murder is defined as the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought. Such a definition applies in this case. However, no human court is going to find this particular judge guilty of a crime, and no human court is going to query this womans husband regarding why he thinks she should die. That has already been taken care of through an arduous five-year court battle that may yet end with this womans tragic death a death resulting from court-approved removal of food and water.
As one attorney recently wrote, if a judge or a state governor were to order the execution of a serial killer on death row by means of withholding food and water, a variety of courts would intervene at once to block that order, which would amount to constitutionally-prohibited cruel and unusual punishment. But in the case of Terri Schiavo, who is not terminally ill, and was not near death until the starvation process began, it has been ruled that her life is not worthy to be lived. Thus others were willing to impose on her a slow, agonizing death by starvation. That is murder according to the natural law; but according to the Florida judicial system, it is an exercise in compassion. So much for human justice!
The Terri Schiavo case is currently receiving widespread media coverage. The callous disregard for her human dignity is being exposed in many venues but only at the eleventh hour. Over the past five years, however, as this case has been unfolding, nary a word could be found describing the barbaric nature of what some were proposing should be done to her.
Perhaps the most appalling aspect of this womans plight is rarely noted. Terri Schiavo is a Catholic who, one would hope, would have been staunchly defended in every conceivable way by the Catholic hierarchy in her state. After all, she is vulnerable, she is totally dependent on others to speak for her, and she is a human being with the gift of human dignity that God bestows on each of us.
The sad reality is, however, that Floridas Catholic bishops have been virtually silent. These bishops joined together in a public statement begging Gov. Jeb Bush to spare the life of convicted killer Paul Hill, a man who murdered two people. The prosecution in the Hill case did its job. Yet the bishops publicly pleaded that his life be spared. But two days after defending Hills life, these same bishops said the Church could not make a decision regarding whether Terri Schiavo should be starved to death. These bishops urged that more time be given prior to Terris imposed death by starvation so that greater certainty as to her true condition could be reached.
How much more certainty does one need that a living, breathing human being will die if he or she is denied access to food and water? The burden of proof in Terris case must ultimately be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to cautiously stand aside and allow the courts to wield their power, even if the result will be the death of an innocent human being who never had the opportunity to defend herself. What crime did Terri Schiavo commit, I would ask the bishops that drove them into equivocating about whether or not she had a right to life?
Americans who care about this young woman have mounted campaigns to pressure Gov. Bush into doing all he can to save Terris life. Others have stepped to the forefront and applauded Florida state lawmakers who, after nearly six full days had passed in which Terri was denied nutrition, approved legislation to stop the starvation from continuing. Still others have offered legal opinions providing the governor with ammunition and exposing the reality of the situation: Terri Schiavo was being executed, pure and simple.
Yet nowhere in this flurry of last minute, desperate activity, do we find the Florida Catholic Conference. There has been a number prayer vigils held outside the hospice where Terri resides. To our knowledge, not one bishop has attended. There have been numerous public demonstrations of support for Terris parents, who are courageously doing all they can to defend their daughters right to life as her husband, her legal guardian, continues his quest to see that her food and water is denied. Not one bishop has offered Terris parents his public support. There is a courageous priest who has tried to provide Terri with Holy Communion. His efforts were thwarted by police officers who banned him from giving the Eucharist to Terri. As far as we can tell, not one bishop spoke out at such an outrage or applauded the commitment of this priest to be a true shepherd for Terri in what appeared to be her final days.
As the moments continued to pass, and the very life ebbed out of this lovely young woman at the center of this storm of controversy, one could only wonder what it really means to be innocent until proven guilty. To my mind, as I reflect on the burden of proof that never evolved prior to Terris death sentence, it occurs to me that some day, the most important Judge of all will have to deal with certain people who were aware of the travesty but chose to avoid a controversy because difficult cases are a bother. At that time, He will have amassed a burden of proof with regard to their culpability in the case of Terri Schiavo. In His court, justice will be done.
You can bet your life savings that "Superman" doesn't chow down on 1" porterhouse steaks! Anyone know how he is fed?
There are many other examples as well. How about this guy?
Famed physicist Stephen Hawking, travels around the world giving lectures! Say what?? He is completely paralyzed, except for 3 fingers. He can no longer verbalize and communicates with "grunts" that are 'interpreted' by an aide. Where's the clamor to terminate his life??? He can neither write a living will nor dictate one. Judging by his condition, I don't imagine he dines on Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Terri could eat if she were retaught but the courts have denied her THAT right, as well. The fiendish hubby and lawyer have even gone so far to petition the courts to allocate a portion of the funds awarded for her rehabilitation, to be used for her cremation!
Oh, and here's the best part, after the tube was removed, her pastor, Fr. Malanowski came to administer the Last Rites and was threatened with arrest for attempting to give her a sliver of the Eucharist. Reason? It is considered "sustenance". As catholics, we would agree but to deny a dieing person the last sacrament goes well beyond evil!
You're right ... but this unChristian idea seems to be at the heart of the public reaction to this case.
The question people are debating is, "Are we going to allow the disabled to live?" There's an almost overwhelming rejection of the value of a disabled person's life. Even many FReepers' comments are on the order of, "I'm making sure my Living Will makes it perfectly clear that I want to be DEAD, rather than disabled." And much of the discussion of Terri Schiavo seems to suggest that, if her condition never improves, then at some point in the future it would be acceptable to kill her.
It's a fearful prospect, being severely disabled, and something new for me to address spiritually ... I believe I'm prepared to die and be with the LORD, but am I prepared to accept that His will may allow me to be disabled, helpless, a "burden," perhaps for many years?
In a way, it's a parallel to our spiritual condition: we are all "disabled" before God, unable by our own efforts to overcome our sin and be united with Him. If we accept this, why can't we accept that we may at some time be physically disabled, and reliant on the "grace" of others for the continuance of our physical lives?
There will be no tears shed from my eyes.
Not a very hard concept is it?
Yet even here a lot of people have trouble with it.
Life is a gift. Deliberate murder of the innocent is wrong.
Why is there even an argument here?
Original sin, Ted. And despair. Many people don't even think of their own lives as a gift - although they certainly consider them more valuable than other people's lives, especially if the other person is "in their way" in some fashion. Why did Cain kill Abel? Because he damaged Cain's self-esteem.
Why do people kill unborn children, or shoot at drivers who turned in front of them without signalling? Solipsism - "nothing really exists except me."
Great point. Or, perhaps, the same might be true were her skin of a different hue.
What worries me is that the concept is being changed. The core concept that allows us to have a foundation to fight against it is being removed.
I am weird I guess but I would find Michael just going in and put a pillow over Terri's face it far less troubling then I find his going to court and trying to get societal approval for his actions.
As long as the concept remains the ideal, (even if it is not always followed) then the possibility for human and societal improvement remains. But if the ideal its self is thrown away then what hope is there?
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.