The Pundit on Schiavo
Of course Bush is "pro-life," which is why he is unhappy with Judge Whittemore's recent ruling, but it is hard for me to reconcile the politics of abortion with the politics of removing the feeding tube from a suffering human being. Terri Schiavo is clearly in a vegetative state, as Florida law has ruled on her behalf. The New York Times reports that "doctors have said [she] has no hope of recovery." In addition, there is a good amount of proof that would suggest that Terri Schiavo herself would not desire to live in such a state.
State courts accepted Mr. Schiavo's testimony that several times, his wife told him she would not want life-prolonging measures.
Yet at the same time, Terri did not leave any written will or testimony that would break the case wide open. Throw that in with an appeal to religious liberty (Schiavo's Catholic parents insist that Pope John Paul II's statement against "refusal of food and water" somehow applies to this situation, even though it can be easily argued that this is referring to a completely different set of circumstances) and you've got a multi-faceted legal dilemma. Nevertheless, with the feeding tube already out, lawmakers don't have much time to come up with legislation that could put it back in for good.
Perhaps in this case it is best to apply a standard of utilitarian ethics. That is, the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people should be the prevailing factor. If Terri is allowed to die, not only will her soul finally be freed from the prison that has become her body (yes, I do believe in such things), but one could also look at it from the taxpayer's point of view. Why should we pay to keep someone alive whose husband, one who was her loving life partner, insists that she would not want to live this way? Of course her parents will be devastated; no one expected it to be otherwise. However, in all honesty, I think I would feel worse for her, even if I were her parent, if she were allowed to continue living in her present condition.
State courts accepted Mr. Schiavo's testimony that several times, his wife told him she would not want life-prolonging measures.
Yet at the same time, Terri did not leave any written will or testimony that would break the case wide open. Throw that in with an appeal to religious liberty (Schiavo's Catholic parents insist that Pope John Paul II's statement against "refusal of food and water" somehow applies to this situation, even though it can be easily argued that this is referring to a completely different set of circumstances) and you've got a multi-faceted legal dilemma. Nevertheless, with the feeding tube already out, lawmakers don't have much time to come up with legislation that could put it back in for good.
Perhaps in this case it is best to apply a standard of utilitarian ethics. That is, the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people should be the prevailing factor. If Terri is allowed to die, not only will her soul finally be freed from the prison that has become her body (yes, I do believe in such things), but one could also look at it from the taxpayer's point of view. Why should we pay to keep someone alive whose husband, one who was her loving life partner, insists that she would not want to live this way? Of course her parents will be devastated; no one expected it to be otherwise. However, in all honesty, I think I would feel worse for her, even if I were her parent, if she were allowed to continue living in her present condition.
posted by Remz Pokorny @ 10:50 PM
2 Comments:
At 1:44 PM,
Zina Irwin Aghdasi said…
Today 5.3 million people suffer brain-injury in America. That is roughly almost 3% of the entire population. "It is the leading cause of death among children and young adults, and it kills 1.5 times more people annually than AIDS."
http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=2930161
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3052433.stm
http://www.nysrighttolife.org/coma_recovery.htm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/22/content_411412.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6855373/
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/body/coma.html
As "stupid" as the American press may be, at least people are exercising their right to talk about, well, "stupid" things.
Sometimes we have to look at these "stupid" events as an opportunity to create a forum for much deeper issues. I think the heart of Schiavo's case goes much deeper than TV and cameras, the Constitution and Congress, the American public, President Bush, Terri's husband and her parents.
I think people are so busy with concentrating on their own ideologies, fighting for their own causes (however hollow they might be), that we -not as in you or I, but all of us as a collective human race have missed the point. The ball has past the flag, missed the hole, but has landed in a pile of gold.
We have an opportunity to ponder on what the media neglects -what academic scholars spend time debating rather than contemplating, what many people see as useless -and such is the cycle of apathy. It's not really about Terri. It's not about Bush's motives. It's about LIFE. WHAT IS LIFE? What does life mean to you? to me? to an old man? to a child? to a parent? to an orphan? to a war-stricken family? And WHAT COST -if any-must be given to preserving it?
Now. no one has to agree with me --that I believe there is a bigger picture in all of this. I am not starting a debate, nor do I want to. I am entitled to my own opinions. And if anyone criticises them, they are criticising my right to express the way I feel.
Personally, I feel we should preserve life at all costs. That's just what I believe. And you have a right to believe otherwise. But no need to criticize. We'll leave that to the media, and Bush, and nerdster debate groups.
-Zina
At 5:14 PM,
Remz Pokorny said…
I love this debate so far...really good stuff is coming out of this. So if you believe all life has worth, Sabers, does that mean you support the Supreme Court's decision or not?
Post a Comment
<< Home