Religious conservatives are hurting Terri's case by injecting this sort of ideological zealotry into the discussion. This argument is not about Terri, it's about the personal religious ideology of those making it. Most Americans, and particularly most well-educated Americans such as those who are involved in making the decisions in this and similar cases, do not question the premise that people should be allowed to choose not to continue life-sustaining treatments, when they believe their quality of life no longer justifies it. Many of us are horrified at the thought that these religious zealots may one day manage to take over our own lives, and force us to stay alive well beyond when we want to, using huge amounts of personal, taxpayer, and insurer funds that we don't think should be expended on unwilling patients.
But none of this has anything to do with Terri Schiavo, who left no instructions as to her wishes, and who is unable to clearly express her wishes now. That's where the focus needs to be -- on what constitutes legally valid evidence of a patient's choice not to continue life-sustaining treatment. And the much-belated "memory" of a husband who has both personal and financial interests in ending his brain-damaged wife's life should most certainly be found NOT to constitute such legally valid evidence, especially in the face of conflicting testimony and wishes of other close family members.
Agreed, and well put, with whom do we need to share this, knowing that the ACLJ has been denied a court room presence?
But none of this has anything to do with Terri Schiavo, who left no instructions as to her wishes, and who is unable to clearly express her wishes now. That's where the focus needs to be -- on what constitutes legally valid evidence of a patient's choice not to continue life-sustaining treatment. And the much-belated "memory" of a husband who has both personal and financial interests in ending his brain-damaged wife's life should most certainly be found NOT to constitute such legally valid evidence, especially in the face of conflicting testimony and wishes of other close family members.
First, let me agree with your very well-reasoned, and very accurate statement here. I have one question about one aspect of it, but more about that in a minute.
Religious conservatives are hurting Terri's case by injecting this sort of ideological zealotry into the discussion. This argument is not about Terri, it's about the personal religious ideology of those making it. Most Americans, and particularly most well-educated Americans such as those who are involved in making the decisions in this and similar cases, do not question the premise that people should be allowed to choose not to continue life-sustaining treatments, when they believe their quality of life no longer justifies it. Many of us are horrified at the thought that these religious zealots may one day manage to take over our own lives, and force us to stay alive well beyond when we want to, using huge amounts of personal, taxpayer, and insurer funds that we don't think should be expended on unwilling patients.
Here is where I have a first question. Why the invective directed against religious conservatives? I would doubt that any reasoned religious conservative would think it moral to attempt to extend a dying person's life from extraordinary medical treatment. [Unlike purely medical treatment, when food and water is withdrawn, the cause of death is not the terminal or underlying condition but rather starvation or lack of hydration. The crazy circular reasoning underlying the food and water as 'medical treatment' crowd is that ANY condition could be termed 'terminal' because any human being would die within a certain number of days if food and water were withdrawn.] There is a difference between allowing a dying person to die, against which there is no moral prohibition, and conversely, killing a person who is not dying.
However, one of the central points of the statements quoted in the article from Father Frank Pavone is that that though significant, even the fact that Schiavo is trying to cause Terri's death by dehydration is not the key factor because "that happens routinely, and he says that "Terri's case is a test of whether we will wake up and realize that letting patients decide they want to be killed means that some patients will be killed against their will."
You say that none of this has anything to do with Terri's case, and in an ideal world, you would be right. However, no matter what "safegaurds" or "precautionary procedures" you seek to invoke, it is indisputable that the lack of respect for the lives of certain individuals has historically led to the involuntary (on the part of the victims) active killing of many innocent people. How do you address this question, that is, beyond a rant against religious conservatives?
You can have a written directive if you want, (I always wonder what one is supposed to do if one has executed a written directive, but has changed his mind and cannot presently communicate that change of mind) but what do you propose as a "safeguard" for those who do not, so that those who are merely disabled or young and not termianlly ill cannot simply be killed at the whim of others?
Cordially,