Thanks to those comments below, which make me think harder about why I believe what I believe. Iron sharpens iron.
Here are two more articles, which I believe are insightful, on Terri’s plight:
“In Love With Death”
“Starved for Justice”
Peggy Noonan and Ann Coulter are two of my favorite columnists, despite the fact that they each have very distinctive writing styles and personalities!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Can't help but respond to some of the things I've been reading. Here are a few of the arguments I've been seeing here and other places and my take on them. Some of the things I refute are not arguments which have been made the way I state them but merely what I inferred was the logical end of the argument.
1. Government should make mandatory the use of life support machines? (Erring on the side of life)
A. Feeding tube v. life support distinction?
Is air really more important than food? Why?
B. Does morality “move with the times”?
100 years ago feeding tubes were not available. A family’s choice not to use new technology makes them (or the state) guilty of murder?
C. Natural v. Artificial
God never requires the use of artificial, man-made devices to uphold his laws. God’s laws are unchanging. While the use of such devices may be permitted, I cannot see how they are required. Many times in scripture God actually condemns the “devices of man” instead of reliance on God.
2. Government should step in and rule who is an appropriate/ inappropriate guardian?
Conservatives have long railed against such practices as it relates to the government deciding who is being an “adequate” guardian of children. Should we be campaigning that this power be expanded?
3. Executive should take guardianship of spouse despite rulings by the judiciary that an appropriate guardian is in place?
Many have used the example of “Hitler” to describe Jeb Bush “allowing murder” on his watch. This example is laughable since Hitler’s agenda was made up entirely of taking as much power as possible DESPITE jurisdictional bounds. To usurp the judiciary would be a CLASSIC example of someone behaving in a “Hitleresque” fashion.
Nathan:
Alright, I think I’m going to try to quickly address your questions and then move on with my life. Although, I’ll never forget Terri (who has now died, God rest her soul) … the innocent victim of these crazed “right to die” advocates. And that terminology, in and of itself, bugs me. Where the heck did they come up with this alleged “right to die”? Certainly not from the Constitution. Or … maybe the leftists have found another mysterious “penumbra”?
1) “Government should make mandatory the use of life support machines?”
I don’t know where you got that notion. No one is arguing the government should make “mandatory use” of life support machines. Honestly, if Terri had left express, written wishes that she would not want any medical intervention, including a feeding tube, then I think that should be honored. The problem I have … how many times have I said this? … is that Michael should not have been allowed to force the starvation and dehydration of his wife whom he clearly did not care a hoot about (i.e., conflict of interest).
A) “Is air really more important than food?”
I hope you can understand the plain distinction between a person being pronounced “clinically dead” (say, after a car accident) where a machine is keeping the patient’s lungs working and a person who has brain damage and simply cannot swallow adequately on her own.
There are machines which keep dead people temporarily alive. And then there are medical interventions which can help people who are very much alive to live longer. For instance, pace maker machines, blood transfusions, organ transplants, etc. Certainly you are not arguing that all medical interventions are equal with “artificial life support.”
Just because a person can’t feed themselves … even if they don’t have any “foreseeable potential,” doesn’t mean they should be starved when their wishes about receiving medical care are unknown. Again, I believe we should err on the side of LIFE.
B) “Does morality move with the times?”
People living many years ago had less options than they do today in choosing what medical care they will receive. With medical technology, there are more opportunities to save life, which is sacred. These should be utilized. I strongly believe there’s a difference between artificial life support and a feeding tube. If a person can consciously agree to not eat (receive a feeding tube), let it be. If the person expressed in writing before they became incompetent that they didn’t want a feeding tube, let it be. But for God’s sake, please don’t starve a woman whom you have no clue what she’d want. Starving someone (i.e., not feeding them when they can’t feed themselves, even though we are ABLE to do this) is different than taking a person off a machine that’s keeping their heart beating when it wouldn’t beat on its own.
C) “God never requires the use of artificial, man-made devices to uphold his laws …”
Since you didn’t cite any scripture, and it’s hard to argue from a ‘negative,’ I’m not sure exactly how to respond to this. I do know that God always requires us to speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves, to love others as we love ourselves, and He tells us that it is “always lawful to do good.” I don’t see anything loving or good in permitting an evil man to starve a woman whom society is fully capable of feeding and taking care of. If anything, Terri’s parents are the epitome of unconditional love. They have stayed by her side through thick and thin, regardless of any promise of hope for Terri’s recovery. They have valued Terri’s life even when the man who swore to love her “for better or worse,” abandoned her for another woman.
2) “Government should step in and rule who is an appropriate/ inappropriate guardian?”
Yes. Government bears the sword for justice. That’s why we have laws against elder abuse. That’s why we have court-appointed attorneys (which Terri never had, by the way) and court-appointed conservatorships. In the interests of public policy, we can’t permit those who are weak and frail to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous would-be guardians who simply want their money, or want to exercise some sort of cruel power over them, or want them bumped-off so they can marry their adulterous lover who is Catholic and won’t marry a divorced man, but WILL marry a widower (as is the case with Michael Schiavo).
I don’t quite know what you’re talking about when you say that conservatives rail against government (I presume you mean judges) deciding who is an ‘adequate guardian’ for children. I believe in parental rights over their children. But some parents are indeed abusive. I think that there is an appropriate place for courts and the CPS to step in, even tho’ CPS often tends to abuse its power. I also believe that courts should step in when there’s domestic violence between spouses, even though I believe in the sanctity of the marriage bond. There is a general rule … and then there is an exception for persons who seek to abuse and destroy life, which is preeminent.
3) “Executive should take [custody] … despite rulings of the judiciary?”
Last time I checked they are equal braches of government. I have no problem with the executive branch stepping in to reign-in a tyrant judge and preserve life. Frankly, I’m sick of judicial activists. I’m still reeling from the fact that the Massachusetts legislature bowed to the Mass. Supreme Court and legalized gay marriage. Why did they do that? As an equal branch of government, they could’ve just said “no.” Judges have gotten out of hand. One president – I can’t remember who he was now – once said to the Supreme Court, “Now you have ruled, but who will enforce it?” when he disagreed with a decision that was made by the Court. Somehow the democracy has survived, despite this President’s conduct. :-)
Alright, I have zero time to re-read what I just wrote for typos … so forgive them when you spot them.
-Amy
As a diabetic, I fear for my life if Nathan Stewart rules the world. AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a mother, I mourn with Terri's parents; as a sister, I mourn with Terri's siblings. My son couldn't feed himself for quite sometime and was dependent on me to look out for his best interests. I can't imagine having that privilege taken away by a court of law.
In response to an earlier comment that Terri's parents testified to Michael's good character at the malpractice hearing. I'm just reminded of how much Laci Peterson's parents loved and believed in Scott initially. Sometimes you don't know a person as well as you think you do. --rlr
Anonymous:
I hate to be misunderstood. If I were in charge you would have plenty of insulin and needles to go around.(and yes, feeding tubes) However, if you had a child and you wished to use another means of treatment (faith, prayer, naturopathic medicine, etc, etc ) I would not FORCE you to use insulin to "save" your child. My point is freedom, not anti-medical advancement. You should have the right, without critique from the government to use what you think best. As a result, my firm contention is that the court should not say that removing a feeding tube is murder as MANY conservative commentators have insinuated. One last thing I will say that if it was MY wife I would never in a million years remove the tube. I suppose I may be more of a libertarian than I ever suspected...(wink)
Amy:
I don't want to belabor the argument, but in response to your contention that Michael was a bad and inappropriate guardian I cannot disagree. The main thrust of my argument was not aimed at whether or not he was fit to serve as guardian but rather whether Terri's death should be classified as a "murder". Personally, I think Michael Schiavo is a real jerk. I would hate to be his wife, lawyer, or anything else. With that said, I cannot ignore the precedent setting nature of cases like this, the laws that may be passed in reaction to it, or the unintended effects they may have down the road. This is my only concern.
The following are irrelevant:
a) Michael Schiavo's personal character.
b) Terri Schiavo's prior wishes.
c) The status of a feeding tube as a "medical intervention."
The only relevant issue:
It is wrong to deliberately starve and/or dehydrate another human being.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that a feeding tube is a medical intervention. Fine. Then we could have required Michael Shiavo to sit by Terri's side and feed her with a spoon until she died.
I'm quite willing to listen to the libertarian arguments that say a parent should be able to choose prayer over insulin as a treatment for their diabetic child. I have yet to hear the argument--even in the most radical of libertarian books--that parents should be able to choose prayer over dinner for their hungry child.
A closer analogy to what happened to Terri Schiavo than shutting off a respirator would be putting a wet cloth over her mouth. She was not deprived of a substitute for her body's functions; she was deprived of the basic ingredients of life. The difference would be, the wet cloth would be a relatively painless and humane death.
For this reason, I don't think anyone should have the right to put "no food or water" in a living will. Do not resuscitate is one thing--that is indeed a medical intervention. But requiring one's nearest and dearest to murder one is simply beyond the power of the law.
Freedom is a beautiful thing. Freedom does not permit murder. Deliberately depriving someone of food and water is murder.
I presume when the Vegetable Queen says irrelevant, she does not mean it in the legal sense of the word?
If Terri had a clear directive regarding feeding tubes and the like, we would not even know she existed. Therefore, her prior wishes are extremely relevant.
Nathan:
I've been very careful to avoid using the word "murder" as I believe that's an extreme classification as well. There's a difference between letting die and actively killing. Although, with Terri, I think the lines are blurred because we're refusing to feed someone who cannot feed herself or speak for herself about her wishes. That's an extreme inhumanity. But, please do note (give me some credit) :-), I personally have never used the word "murder."
Thanks,
Amy
"Then we could have required Michael Shiavo to sit by Terri's side and feed her with a spoon until she died. "
I'm no medical authority, but based on the reports I've heard, I'm not sure it would have been physically possible to spoon-feed Terri like that, because she lacked the physical capacity to swallow. If that was indeed the case, then the question of whether the feeding tube constituted "medical intervention" becomes much more relevant to the moral discussion. I'm curious how that fact, if true, might affect Queen's position.
I indeed did not mean irrelevant in the legal sense of the word, but in the moral sense of the word. I think people should have the right to decline medical treatment (but, like all life and death matters, it should be very clearly documented); however, I don't think food and water are medical treatment. You might deny a particular delivery method, but to compel one's family to starve one to death seems to me to go beyond what anyone should have the right to do.
From what I have heard, Terri was able to swallow soft foods, although Michael Schiavo refused to allow this to happen. I believe the proper legal standard for the duties of a guardian, however, would be a "good faith" effort. If Michael Schaivo was making a good faith effort to see that she was given food and water, then it would be within his discretion to decline a particular delivery means. No one has contended that this was the case.
Post a Comment