Posted on 03/26/2005 2:00:47 AM PST by SusanD
For all the attention we have paid to the Schiavo case, we have asked many of the wrong questions, living as we do on the playing field of modern liberalism. We have asked whether she is really in a persistent vegetative state, instead of reflecting on what we owe people in a persistent vegetative state. We have asked what she would have wanted as a competent person imagining herself in such a condition, instead of asking what we owe the person who is now with us, a person who can no longer speak for herself, a person entrusted to the care of her family and the protection of her society.
Imagine, for example, that the Schindlers had agreed with Michael Schiavo that Terri's time had come, that she would never have wanted to live like this, that the feeding tube keeping her alive needed to come out. Chances are, there would have been no federal case, no national story, no political controversy. Terri Schiavo would have been buried long ago, mourned by the family that decided on her behalf that death was preferable to life in her incapacitated state. Under law, such an outcome would have been unproblematic and uneventful, so long as no one had claimed that Terri Schiavo's previous wishes were being violated. But morally, the deepest problem would remain: What do we owe those who are not dead or dying but profoundly disabled and permanently dependent? And even if such individuals made their desires clearly known while they were still competent, is it always right to follow their instructions--to be the executors of their living wills--even if it means being their willing executioners?
For some, it is an article of faith that individuals should decide for themselves how to be cared for in such cases. And no doubt one response to the Schiavo case will be a renewed call for living wills and advance directives--as if the tragedy here were that Michael Schiavo did not have written proof of Terri's desires. But the real lesson of the Schiavo case is not that we all need living wills; it is that our dignity does not reside in our will alone, and that it is foolish to believe that the competent person I am now can establish, in advance, how I should be cared for if I become incapacitated and incompetent. The real lesson is that we are not mere creatures of the will: We still possess dignity and rights even when our capacity to make free choices is gone; and we do not possess the right to demand that others treat us as less worthy of care than we really are.
A true adherence to procedural liberalism--respecting a person's clear wishes when they can be discovered, erring on the side of life when they cannot--would have led to a much better outcome in this case. It would have led the court to preserve Terri Schiavo's life and deny Michael Schiavo's request to let her die. But as we have learned, the descent from procedural liberalism's respect for a person's wishes to ideological liberalism's lack of respect for incapacitated persons is relatively swift. Treating autonomy as an absolute makes a person's dignity turn entirely on his or her capacity to act autonomously. It leads to the view that only those with the ability to express their will possess any dignity at all--everyone else is "life unworthy of life."
This is what ideological liberalism now seems to believe--whether in regard to early human embryos, or late-stage dementia patients, or fetuses with Down syndrome. And in the end, the Schiavo case is just one more act in modern liberalism's betrayal of the vulnerable people it once claimed to speak for. Instead of sympathizing with Terri Schiavo--a disabled woman, abandoned by her husband, seen by many as a burden on society--modern liberalism now sympathizes with Michael Schiavo, a healthy man seeking freedom from the burden of his disabled wife and self-fulfillment in the arms of another. And while one would think that divorce was the obvious solution, this was more than Michael Schiavo apparently could bear, since it would require a definitive act of betrayal instead of a supposed demonstration of loyalty to Terri's wishes.
This is a really good article, thanks for posting it.
There is something in Terri that wants to live and that something
should be honored.
=======
There is something called Michael that wants her dead and instantly
cremated, and that something should be publicly exposed,
tried, convicted, and permanantly imprisoned !!!
Alas, it has come to this, eh?
Herr Goebbels would be proud.
Has this peculiar set of syllogisms that describe the political position known as "liberalism" ever served ANYBODY? They use the legalistic wrangling of children to make a point, then almost immediately abandon that same point when forced to defend it on the basis of logic or precedent.
Aren't there ANY grownups still in the room? Through some kind of arcane reasoning, laws that are passed with a majority support of the legislature, in response to a demand from the general public, are overturned on "constitutional" grounds, by combing through the various placements of punctuation and redefined meanings of words, to derive a meaning exactly opposite of the original intent of the law as written. In other words, argue that black is white, when the plain evidence is that there is nothing to be seen but a very sharply defined statement.
We know that Judge Greer suffers from macular degeneration. Does this physical blindness somehow make his opinions from the bench more "just"? As in the old adage, "Justice is blind"? He is compelled to memorize, or recall from a spoken statement, how the reasoning that was used to arrive at a certain conclusion, should be used to build on a subsequent point. He lacks the capacity to review the written transcript of his own findings, which has to further handicap his ability to come to a fully reasoned position, therefore his unwillingness to consider even the smallest motion for new evidence. He has never SEEN the videotape of Terri Schiavo, and those who describe it to him may change the impression to anything they think the judge should hear.
He has the ability to talk (very slurred) and has a bright and inquisitive mind. He enjoys music and his computer.
He is not sick and could live many years.
How long before our society considers this young man not worthy to live because he cannot do what most can do?
I thought you might want to read this article.
A man abandons his wife--commits adultery, openly lives with another woman and his illegitimate children--can legally kill her because he is considered to be acting within the "sanctity of marriage."
They don't even begin to understand what marriage truly is all about, because they don't know the One who created marriage or life.
They are gods in their own eyes.
If Terri was meant to die, her vital organs would've deteriorated by now. But her brain was working to keep her alive and functioning. How can a "vegetable" have the brain power to make that happen? That's another form of dignity in my opinion.
Her evil, estranged husband took a lot of her dignity away by refusing therapy. He took the rest of it away along with the feeding tube.
The law in this case (and many others) is exactly backwards. The law should be that, without explicit written instructions from the patient, the medical community should be required by law to provide all life-sustaining measures. None of this hearsay testimony from anyone should overrule this.
I think that has been the law. The whole lie about this being Terri's "wishes" was just sugarcoating the fact that this case was about defining personhood in such a way as to exclude Terri and establish that persons unable to meet this particular standard can be legally killed. I don't think it'll be long at all before another case is brought, one in which the patient's supposed wishes aren't even considered.
Wretchard makes very important points ... and salutes FR.
http://www.wretchard.com/blogs/the_belmont_club/default.aspx
There are also instances where people did NOT die, despite all indications that their physical body was exhausted and needed to go Home.
What held them here on earth?
The family who refused to LET their LOVED ON........GO.
That is what the Schindlers are doing to their daughter. They are refusing to let her go.
IMO, really, really, sad.
More like a healthy man who beat his wife into her disability and then stole the award money set aside for her care and therapy...this physcially healthy man who wants the one witness against him dead...
Coupled with corrupt prosecutor, judge, and politicans too afraid to do the right thing.
imo
bttt
This is an excellent article; very much worth reading in full.
The author is brilliant, imho, and frames issues in a way that could help those on the other side find their way toward another point of view.
I do agree that no dignity was afforded this gal or her parents family.
This to me is liberalism at its base and it stinks to high heaven.
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.