Posted on 03/28/2005 11:01:48 AM PST by marshmallow
Mar. 25 (CWNews.com) - The treatment of Terri Schiavo has emerged as a major watershed in the drive toward euthanasia in the US. If I were an enthusiastic proponent of "the right to die," I would not be comfortable with this test case.
There are times when it really is not clear when respirator should be disconnected-- times when it is difficult to know whether or not a beloved relative should be allowed to die in peace. This is not one of those cases.
Terri Schiavo was not close to death-- until her feeding tube was disconnected. She was not, apparently, in pain. She was not "brain dead" by any definition of that slippery term. She was not being kept alive by extraordinary means. Her death would be caused not by the suspension of medical treatment, but by starvation and dehydration.
From a non-medical perspective, it was all too clear that Michael Schiavo has incentives for seeking his wife's early death. He stood to gain a substantial financial inheritance, and freedom to marry the woman with whom he has conducted a lengthy affair. His implacable hostility toward his wife's parents showed all too clearly that he was on a personal crusade to end Terri's life. And those parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, were clear and outspoken in their insistence that Terri wanted to live.
No, this was not a good test case for the "right to die" movement. And yet the advocates of euthanasia have chosen to take a stand in this case, and thrown their full support behind Michael Schiavo. Why?
There are two answers to that question, I think. First, the "right to die" movement is seizing an unexpected opportunity. Second, the pro-life movement has been betrayed-- yet again-- by its political allies.
1) A careful political strategist, plotting a campaign for euthanasia, might have planned a series of test cases, beginning with "hard cases" (a patient who is in chronic severe pain, and terminally ill), and moving gradually forward as public acceptance increased. But with the Schiavo case, the "right to die" movement recognized the opportunity to skip over several intermediary steps, to score a major legal and political coup. If the courts would authorize the starvation of this woman, and if the public would accept it, the entire debate would shift in favor of euthanasia. If Terri Schiavo can be starved to death simply because her life has been judged burdensome, then every person who is disabled, retarded, or senile becomes a candidate for similar treatment. The key precedent will have been set; the principled opposition to "mercy killing" will be thoroughly undermined.
2) But why did the "right to die" movement perceive this enormous opportunity? Because as the Schiavo case developed, they encountered so little determined resistance. The courts sided with Michael Schiavo, and the people's elected representatives-- both in Florida and in Washington-- grudgingly acquiesced.
When they were presented with a judicial fait accompli, legislators could have begun impeachment proceedings to remove the judges who had produced these outrageous decisions. Executives could have intervened directly to save Terri Schiavo's life, claiming their authority to defend citizens from imminent danger. (As I write, there is still a flickering hope that Governor Bush will take that step.) Instead, fearful of avoiding a constitutional confrontation, both the legislative and executive branches announced that they would abide by the court's decisions.
Notice that both in Florida and in Washington, most elected officials (at least, most of those who had the courage to cast a vote) were inclined to help Terri Schiavo. But they were not willing to pay the price of intervention. A generation ago, the federal government summoned the political will to send federal troops into Mississippi, to integrate schools there, in a direct confrontation with state officials. On this occasion, our government has shown that it lacks the will to save an innocent citizen from a court-approved killing.
If Terri Schiavo dies, countless thousands of other Americans are instantly imperiled. And if that happens, it will be because the American forces of "culture of death" showed more political resolve than the pro-life movement.
The words of William Butler Yeats echo in my mind:
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
No, they were pretty wise, it's just you that is foolish to believe congress would really do anything about Terri. You are talking about a government has evolved from a representative republic to the socialistic nightmare we have today.
You are talking about a government has evolved from a representative republic
Can I ask you this? Do you understand the words "REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC"?
Do you understand the word "evolve?"
Sarcasm doesn't make you right, in this case it just shows you didn't read the entire sentence. Our Founding Fathers would find our present attempt at a representative republic beyond comprehension. No matter what you think it should be, our government has evolved from the intended pure representative democratic republic to the federal/socialist mess it is today.
Yes, it was foolish to think congress would save Terri. The State of Florida could have done it but they didn't get the job done.
Look, the original post asked for thoughts so, I posted one. If you have a problem with that, I'm sure you'll get over it. Eventually.
Sheesh.
The title of this post is dripping with fear of death. As a Christian, I'm just not afraid of death at all. Sure I'll go on living but I'm certainly not clinging to life like I see in so many people on or about this topic.
The title of this post is dripping with fear of death. As a Christian, I'm just not afraid of death at all. Sure I'll go on living but I'm certainly not clinging to life like I see in so many people on or about this topic.
This is not about your life and the writer is not fearful for his own.
The fact that we're not afraid to die is irrelevant to the issue of upholding the fifth commandment.
Killing does not become permissible if the victim is a Christian and unafraid of coming face to face with God. Furthermore, Christian duty obliges us to to protect the defenceless from those who seek to kill them.
There is no Christian duty to protect Terri.
I take seriously the words of Jesus when He says "whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me."
If Jesus is lying in that bed, what do I do?
Feed him or deliver the coup de gras?
That's a really dumb question. Can you even discuss this without painting such lame pictures?
The government is not even on the horizon. It is not a part of the equation nor even in the picture. My duties to the sick and dying do not derive from the government nor have any relevance to the government unless it attempts to impede me from performing them as it clearly is in the Schiavo case.
Did He tell you He wouldn't want to live like that?
Jesus "told" me (and you) that whatever you do to the least of His brethren you do to Him.
You want to starve and dehydrate the one who died on the cross for you? One who is helpless and who even resembles the dying Jesus in his Passion?
Count me out.
I'm not "painting" any pictures.
I quoted the words of Jesus and indicated that they apply to Terri Schiavo.
If you know of any reasons why she is excepted from those words, I'd like to hear them.
You should take seriously all of the words of the Bible. Then you would tend to think of Him glorified instead of retarded, paralized, mute and in a bed being changed several times a day.
The government -- which would have no authority unless it was given from above -- apparently decided Michael Schiavo has the power to speak on behalf of his disabled spouse. That he should speak for her seems reasonable in light of the fact that "they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Jesus "told" me (and you) that whatever you do to the least of His brethren you do to Him.
It appears that a husband is carrying out his wife's wishes. Or, was her union with him against her will? More than that, was it against God's will? Are her (alleged) suffering and (apparently) impending death against God's will?
You want to starve and dehydrate the one who died on the cross for you? One who is helpless and who even resembles the dying Jesus in his Passion? Count me out.
Indeed, some would insist that I should count you out. But, instead, I'm hoping you're not totally opposed to clear thinking.
Umm, there've been governments throughout history up to and including the present day that have wielded (and do wield) plenty of authority, but which I can pretty well guarantee weren't given it from anywhere above. Maybe you have a different interpretation of history, but I'm pretty sure yours is in the minority.
See, that's where you and I disagree. I can absolutely all power comes from above. I believe the Bible in its entirety, including the part where it's eminently clear that the Almighty is sovereign in everything.
Maybe you have a different interpretation of history, but I'm pretty sure yours is in the minority.
No doubt. That's by design, too.
Judges and blood sucking Attorneys.
The sovereign Creator is not subject to the will of His creation.
"Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
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.