From the Terri Schiavo website
Please phone and write to save Terri’s life
Florida: Clearwater: On January 21, 2005 the parents of Terri Schiavo were turned away from the Federal Supreme Court which refused to hear their daughter’s case. This means that the way is clear for the husband of Terri, Michael Schiavo, to have his wife’s feeding tube removed, so that she will starve to death. An exact date for this event has not been set.
Additionally, on December 29, 2004 Terri’ss parents lost their appeal on behalf of saving their daughter on the grounds that to murder her in such a way is a violation of her religious beliefs. The judge did not issue a written statement, only the verdict. It is believed this action was taken because there is no explanation possible in this violation of freedom of religion. It is not known if the Appelate court which originally heard the case, would re-hear it, due to the fact that no written decision was given, or if the Florida State Supreme Court would also re-hear the case.
Terri’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, also believe they have grounds for appeal, since their son-in-law Michael Schiavo did not provide his wife Terri with an attorney to defend her during his aggressive legal pursuit of her demise, and he also has spent half a million dollars awarded for Terri’s care for his own legal counsel, leaving another million dollars for his own use, should Terri die. These are conflicts of interest, and grounds for additional legal action.
A critical write-in campaign has been begun for people to call, fax, e-mail or write to Florida’s Governor Jeb Bush, 400 S. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Fl 32399, or phone # (850) 488-4441, or fax # (850) 487-0801 and e-mail is www.jebbush@myflorida.com For more information go to: www.terrisfight.org
122 comments Saturday 29 Jan 2005 | Jacobse | Terri Schiavo |
Help Save Terri Schiavo
Please phone and write to save Terri’s life. Details at Orthodoxy Today….
Sorry about the multiple pings. My browser gave me problems and I made the mistake of hitting “back” (twice). Thanks for this excellent post.
Fr. Hans quotes: “On January 21, 2005 the parents of Terri Schiavo were turned away from the Federal Supreme Court which refused to hear their daughter’s case.”
Why do you think that courts at all levels support Michael Schiavo’s side of the case?
Fr. Hans, quoting: “Additionally, on December 29, 2004 Terri’s parents lost their appeal on behalf of saving their daughter on the grounds that to murder her in such a way is a violation of her religious beliefs.”
How long had it been since Terri Schiavo went to church before she was hospitalized? How many masses did she miss?
Fr. Hans, quoting: “It is believed this action was taken because there is no explanation possible in this violation of freedom of religion.”
Could it be that the appeal was turned down because it had no legal merit?
Fr. Hans: ” . . . and he also has spent half a million dollars awarded for Terri’s care for his own legal counsel . . .”
How much did Terri Schiavo’s family spend, and where did that money come from?
Fr. Hans: ” . . . leaving another million dollars for his own use, should Terri die.”
Reference? Source? Documentation? Proof? Evidence?
Fr. Hans: “These are conflicts of interest, and grounds for additional legal action.”
Sez who? Apparently not the courts, and not Terri Schiavo’s guardian ad litem, appointed by the State of Florida.
I just love it how this whole issue continually proceeds without ANY serious reference to the court decisions, findings of fact, or legal reasoning — and without ANY reference to the extensive case review and report of the state-appointed guardian ad litem.
At this point, I can only conclude that some web site is supposed to outweigh the legal proceedings of the all the courts that have been involved.
Why have a legal system if all we need are right-wing web sites? Why bother with all the expense of a court system when we can just look up the correct decision on http://www.rumor-and-speculation.com? Is that the thinking in this case?
First off, I’m not the author of the piece so the quotes are not appropriate, even though I disagree with nothing it asserts.
Second, sometimes you have to do a little research on your own. No editorial or opinion or advocacy piece recites all the specifics in a case every time something is published.
I also caution you against faith in the court system without any examination of the particulars of this case. In fact, I would offer that caution about any ruling on any case that came down from the courts. Might doesn’t make right, as the saying goes that we learned as kids. Look at Dredd Scott, or Roe v. Wade.
Fr. Hans writes: “Second, sometimes you have to do a little research on your own. No editorial or opinion or advocacy piece recites all the specifics in a case every time something is published.”
I wouldn’t expect every opinion piece to rehash all the facts of the case. My complaint is that time and again the quoted references contain NO significant content related to the court decisions, findings, and official reports. I discovered this by doing the very research that you recommend.
In addition, what I have seen here is a presentation of only ONE side of the case. The Schindlers have taken a very public stance, and their side of the case is echoed throughout a thousand web sites. Michael Schiavo by comparison has been much less in the public eye. If you want his side of the case, you have to look to the official documents and testimony. “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” — John 7:51
Fr. Hans: “I also caution you against faith in the court system without any examination of the particulars of this case.
I have argued repeatedly that people NEED to look at the particulars of the case. But where are they going to find them? On the Schindler family web site? The particulars of the case can be found in the official documents related to the case. In some cases the judges comment on *why* they came to certain decisions. With respect to the particulars of the case, the case review and report of the guardian ad litem, appointed by the State of Florida, is particularly valuable. As I recall it runs to over 40 pages.
Fr. Hans: “In fact, I would offer that caution about any ruling on any case that came down from the courts. Might doesn’t make right, as the saying goes that we learned as kids. Look at Dredd Scott, or Roe v. Wade.”
Good advice. But if you want to understand Dredd Scott or Roe v. Wade or any other case at some point you have to actually look at the particulars of those cases. With any case it’s not enough to reject the legal result without looking at the evidence and legal reasoning behind the result. My complaint is that in this case the official court records and other reports are repeatedly ignored or downplayed in favor of a periodic replay of only one side of the case.
I don’t want to sound “conspiratorial” here, but at this point it seems to me that the repeated one-sided posts are all about staying “on-message” rather than about a serious examination of the factual, legal, and moral elements of the case.
The websites exist as a reaction and response to the judiciary, not the other way around. It’s the way a free press works. On the other hand, Michael Schiavo and his attorney and doctors (both pro-euthanasia types) don’t need the websites as much as they need a compliant judge.
As for the judicial rulings not being available, take a look at terrisfight.org. It’s the main website and it’s chock full of legal rulings. In fact, one page lists all the documents. Check out the page “Myth’s About Terri” to read objections to testimony and rulings.
“I don’t want to sound ‘conspiratorial’ here, but at this point it seems to me that the repeated one-sided posts are all about staying ‘on-message’ rather than about a serious examination of the factual, legal, and moral elements of the case.”
You don’t sound conspiratorial. You sound like you are confusing editorial/opinion pieces with legal briefs.
JIm points at two cases, as he speaks out in defense of killing Terry Schiavo, oh, excuse me – let me rephrase that – as he speaks out in defense of the legal establishment that is trying to kill Terry Schiavo: Dredd Scott and Roe v. Wade.
I’ll admit I’m no legal scholar, just an observer of the passing scene; and so I will readily admit not being familiar with every legal detail and nicety of the these two landmark cases.
Yet one thing I do know about these cases: Dredd Scott decided that black Americans are not full human beings worthy of rights endowed to them by their Creator. Roe v. Wade decided that unborn children are not full human beings worthy of rights endowed to them by their Creator.
And now it seems the legal establishment (and its defenders) are working hard to ensure that the handicapped are viewed as not full human beings worthy of rights endowed to them by their Creator.
Anyone see a pattern here?
I think this is what happens when the Constitution becomes divorced from the Declaration of Indepence.
Daniel, you say exactly what handicapped activists say. They are worried that they will be the next target. I have an essay coming out on this taken from Richard Weikart’s book “From Darwin to Hitler” the chronicles the rise of killing the defenseless, weak, and infirm in pre-WWII Germany. Germany knows this reasoning all too well. That’s why they don’t allow the euthanasia that culture of death advocates (like the attorney and doctor for Michael Schiavo) want to impose in the United States.
Fr. Hans writes: “The websites exist as a reaction and response to the judiciary, not the other way around. It’s the way a free press works.”
It’s a “free press” in the sense that with few restrictions people can say whatever they want to say on a web site. But if the concept of a “free press” carries with it any possible notion of fairness, objectivity, accuracy, truth, etc., then that particular web site — and I have looked at it — is not an instance of a free press. It’s just the point of view of the Schindler family, with many of the inconvenient facts and documents carefully omitted.
And they have every right to that point of view, and every right to publish it on a web site. The question I ask is why *other people* choose to repeat their allegations and interpretations without any effort to see what the other side of the issue is.
Fr. Hans: “As for the judicial rulings not being available, take a look at terrisfight.org. It’s the main website and it’s chock full of legal rulings. In fact, one page lists all the documents.”
Where is the 2004 case review and report of the guardian ad litem to Governor Bush?
Let me explain how the free press works. If you oppose the effort to save Terri Schiavo’s life, you have every right to make your case. Merely complaining about your opposition doesn’t make it, however. You have no challenged any facts. You have only complained that authors like myself have not held the court’s rulings sancrosanct.
Fr. Hans writes: “You have not challenged any facts. You have only complained that authors like myself have not held the court’s rulings sancrosanct – more precisely, you implicitly argue that the court’s rulings ought to remain unchallenged.”
Let me give you a brief list of the facts that I have challenged over the last few months. Working from memory, but here goes:
1) “Michael Schiavo will inherit a lot of money upon his wife’s death.” The most recent post here said that he would end up with a million dollars. But even the Schindler web site acknowledges that there is only $50 thousand left in the guardianship account. Michael Schiavo says that current expenses have consumed most of that.
2) “Michael Schiavo has a conflict of interest.” The problem here is that virtually anyone in a case involving termination of life support could potentially benefit from that decision. There is nothing unusual about this case, except for the medical circumstances.
3) “Michael Schiavo has mishandled money intended for his wife.” All expenses from that account have been authorized by the court. The 2004 report of the guardian at litem (GAL) says that the funds have been meticulously accounted for.
4) “Michael Schiavo refused to try to rehabilitate his wife.” The GAL report documents all the various therapies and treatements that Michael Schiavo tried, all wihtout success.
5) “Terry Schiavo could be rehabilitated.” The court considered the testimony of physicians who said that they could rehabilitate her. The court found that the suggestion of how she could be rehabilitated to be very vague, and the supposed successful treatments did not involve any patients similar to Terri Schiavo. Medical evidence shows that most of her cerebral cortex is gone and has been replaced by fluid.
6) “Michael Schiavo abandoned his wife for another woman.” GAL 2004 report documents that the *Schindler* family actually told him that he needed to “get on with his life” and even tried to introduce him to another woman.
7) “Michael Schiavo abandoned his wife medically.” GAL 2004 report documents the extreme devotion of Michael Schiavo to his wife. Schiavo was known as “nursing home administrator’s nightmare.” After 14 years in bed Terri Schiavo has never had a bed sore. Michael Schiavo actually became a respiratory therapist so he could work at a hospital near his wife. GAL 2004 report — commissioned by the State of Florida — consistently speaks of his great devotion to his wife, of the extensive efforts he made at rehabilitation.
9) “Terri Schiavo can recover.” The medical concensus is that there is absolutely no hope of recovery. This is confirmed both by the hard evidence (CAT scans) that document the extensive and irreparable brain atrophy, and by the duration of the condition, now around 14 years. Judge Greer expounded at length on why he determined that there was no hope of recovery, commenting on the testimony of all the physicians in the case.
10) “Terri Schiavo is being denied her religious freedom to practice her Catholic faith.” Terri Schiavo did not attend church for years prior to her illness.
11) “Terminating life support for Terri Schiavo is inconsistent with Catholic teaching.” This is based on a statement — not an encyclical — made by the pope in 2004. Many practicing Catholic ethicists and hospital chaplains found the statement very problematic.
12) “Artificial hydration and nutrition are natural and ordinary types of care that should never be withdrawn.” Artificial hydration and nutrition are medical interventions that can only be administered through a physician’s order. They require a full complement of medial services including nutritionists, nursing staff, and pharmacists. There are a variety of medical complications that can result from these treatments.
The list goes on and on, but these should be a good start.
Now my point is not that people should agree with all of the above. I think a reasonable person can read through all the material and come to a different conclusion. My point is that aside from my posts, the other side of the argument is NEVER presented.
Fr. Hans writes: “If you oppose the effort to save Terri Schiavo�s life, you have every right to make your case.”
That’s right. All I would ask is that one make the WHOLE case — that one offers ALL the evidence. What is typically presented here is a highly selective presentation of the facts that omits most of the other side of the argument. Against, I’m not arguing that people should come to a certain conclusion or agree with me. I’m arguing that ALL the evidence needs to be considered.
For example, in much of what you read on the web sites Michael Schiavo is portrayed as a kind of demon, never having done anything for her, and trying to kill his wife to get her money. You can read through these sites for days and never see a single positive about him. Then, you read through the official documents, and a very different picture is presented.
The bottom line is that I’m not arguing for a certain conclusion. I’m arguing for a presentation of all the evidence so that people are equipped with a full set of the facts. Otherwise there is no way that they can make informed decisions.
I’m too busy right now to give this a suitable answer. Give me a couple of days to respond.
I support the Mother and Father of Terri.
Please do whatever you can to help them.
Life is not diposable and I am concerned of the
future repercussions of the decision to end Terri’s
life.
God will take Terri home when the time is right.
I don’t believe it is our place to play God. Let the Doctor’s continue to administer what is necessary to feed Terri. Whom is it bothering other than her husband that she is living and breathing and most of all WHY is it bothering him? He doesn’t have to come around and has moved on with his life. Give total guardianship to her parents. I really don’t fully understand him. Seriously, why is her life bothering him?
I don’t believe it is our place to play God. Let the Doctor’s continue to administer what is necessary to feed Terri. Whom is it bothering other than her husband that she is living and breathing and most of all WHY is it bothering him? He doesn’t have to come around and has moved on with his life. Give total guardianship to her parents. I really don’t fully understand him. Seriously, why is her life bothering him?
Terri Schiavo’s husband has at least one child by his mistress, and he wants to marry her. Terri is the obstacle in his path. He can’t divorce her, for obvious reasons, so he has to “solve his problem” some other way.
My final disenchantment with NPR came last summer, when I heard Robert Siegel announce at the top of ATC that “the right-to-die movement experienced a setback today when Florida Governer Jeb Bush [issued an order to keep Terri alive, etc.].” The Schiavo case is not a “right-to-die” case by any stretch of the imagination. It should be called a “right-to-kill” case. Those who favor killing the weak in our society have latched onto Mr. Schiavo’s selfishness–that’s all it is–and clothed it in the false seriousness of a major ethical debate. Has your spouse become a burden to you? No problem: just starve her to death!
Terri Schiavo’s husband has at least one child by his mistress, and he wants to marry her. Terri is the obstacle in his path. He can’t divorce her, for obvious reasons, so he has to “solve his problem” some other way.
My final disenchantment with NPR came last summer, when I heard Robert Siegel announce on ATC that “the right-to-die movement experienced a setback today when Florida Governer Jeb Bush [issued an order to keep Terri alive, etc.].” The Schiavo case is not a “right-to-die” case by any stretch of the imagination. It should be called a “right-to-kill” case. Those who favor killing the weak in our society have latched onto Mr. Schiavo’s selfishness–that’s all it is–and clothed it in the false seriousness of a major ethical debate. Has your spouse become a burden to you? No problem: just starve her to death!
Whoops. Sorry for the double post.
Will this case go to the Supreme Court (SCUSA)? What would have to happen beforehand? Missourian?
Need a Federal Issue:
In order to get to the US Supreme Court you need to raise an issues of federal law. The federal law involved can be the United States Constitution, a federal statute or a federal rule or regulation.
The laws governing conservatorship, guardianships, wills and trusts and inheritance are all traditional state law issues. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t want to touch those topics, per se, unless a party can claim that a federally guaranteed constitutional right has been violated. Off the top of my head, I would assume the best shot at a federal issue would be an alleged deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This argument would be available to Terry Schiavo’s defenders.
The U.S. Supreme Court is a strickler for proper procedure. A party must have raised the issue at the very lowest level of the controversy, the state trial court and have persued the issue all the way up to the highest State Court (with only a few obscure exceptions).
Getting the Full Picture of What is Going on in a Case
Most people understand that court records are public records. More and more courts are posting parts of court records on the internet. This is a good trend. The tricky part is that is sometimes takes a bit of work to make sure that you have everything that is relevant to a case.
PLEADINGS:
Assume that someone has filed a guarandianship. The initial pleading, the documents which formally ask the Court to do something are filed in paper form in a local county courthouse. If this is not posted on the internet you have to go there in person and ask the Clerk to produce it for you.
TRANSCRIPTS OF TESTIMONY GIVEN IN A COURTROOM:
If the Court holds a hearing and takes evidence there will be a court reporter there to take down the testimony. However, unless a party specifically requests a written transcript and pays for the service of translating the record from court reporter’s abbreviated language system, there is no transcript of the evidence prepared. Transcripts are generally only prepared if someone wants to appeal a court’s decision to the next higher level. Even if a transcript is prepared a newsreporter may not be able to do more than read it in the courthouse unless he pays for his own copy. A morning’s worth of testimony will fill about 400 pages of transcript and will cost you about $400.
TRANSCRIPTS OF TESTIMONY GIVEN IN A PRIVATE DEPOSITION
A great deal of what really happens in a case, happens in a private deposition taken in an attorney’s office. The court reporter appears and swears in the witness and the attorneys ask questions. Again, the court reporter creates a special record that only she can read, she transcribes it into English if someone pays her to do it. In many cases, attorneys are NOT required to file copies of deposition transcripts with the Court. They can take some effort to get your hands on.
TRIAL COURT DECISIONS/APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS
Some trial court decision are very short, less than a page. The Court may just summarize in a few sentences the rationale for his or her decision. Frequently there will be page references to the official record. If you don’t have a transcript of the official record it may be hard to follow the decision completely.Appellate court generally take pains to write more complete decisions, but, again they are working off an official record of the case which the reader may or may not have.
If you give me a copy of an official court opnion I can tell you what the precise legal issues were and how they were resolved. I may not be able to answer all quesetions about the case without access to the transcripts from public testimony in court or private testimony in depositions.
CLOSED PROCEEDINGS
Closed proceedings are rare, but, in some cases the Court can order part of a proceeding closed to protect a minor or national security or witness security.The record is still public but you have to get special permission to get access to it and you may have to swear to confidentialilty requirements.
Inevitable Conflicts of Interest
Michael Schiavo has a conflict of interest.? The problem here is that virtually anyone in a case involving termination of life support could potentially benefit from that decision.
************************************************************************************
This is exactly true and it is an argument against the entire “right to die” approach to taking care of our injured and elderly.
Many who are close to the sick or injured person will benefit financially from receiving an inheritance from the sick or injured person. If nothing else, they will benefit from being relieved of the caregiver duty or set free to marry again without the messiness of a divorce. division.
I can think of a million different situations in which it would be difficult to determine what a person really wants with respect to their death. In order to make the decision to die in the first place the person needs to have a clear mind to be legally competent and the person must be able to communicate clearly. There would have to be a very high level of formality and proof required of the desire to die.Wills have to be witnessed by several people. You can’t enforce an oral agreement to buy or sell land, you need a written contract. Documentation of the desire to die should be at least as formal.
What about a person changing their minds? How do you we know that the decision to die isn’t the product of short-term depression? Until recently, the desire to die was considered a psychiatric problem, the desire to die was per se a sign of mental imbalance.
Missourian writes: ” . . . it [the inherent conflict of interest] is an argument against the entire ‘right to die’ approach to taking care of our injured and elderly.
The Schiavo case is very unusual, very sad, and has a number of complicating factors. Thus it is difficult to generalize from that situation to other cases.
As you indicate, the majority of end-of-life cases occur with elderly patients, severely if not terminally ill. The problem is that if the patient cannot speak for him- or herself, and if there is no advanced directive, medical decisions will be made in behalf of the patient by others, typically family members.
Many times monumental decisions HAVE TO BE made, often with little notice or time for discussion. If you have an 80 year old comatose woman, with terminal metastatic cancer going, into respiratory failure, someone has to decide whether to put her on a vent. Or the same patient might need emergency surgery. Some procedures that might be tried to prolong life might actually kill the person. Someone has to make those decisions. In the absense of an advanced directive, who but the family is best qualified to do that? It’s not a perfect system, but I can’t think of a better one.
One might be tempted to say that we should always “opt for life.” But again, that could entail procedures and interventions that the patient would hever have wanted. It could mean subjecting a patient to life-threatening surgeries with questionable benefit. It could mean extraordinarily expensive and resource-intensive treatments.
For example, given that you wouldn’t withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from Terri Schiavo, would you give her a heart transplant if she suffered a severe heart attack? This would be a procedure with over a $100 thousand price tag, would involve lifetime administration of very powerful and expensive anti-rejection and steriodal drugs, and would require her to undergo a large number of scheduled exams including biopsies of the transplanted cardiac tissue done in a cardiac cath lab, and would put her at risk of developing many different complications.
Note 19. Bill, this did go to the Supreme Court. They chose not to hear the case.
Yes, sometimes monumental decisions have to be made, but starving and dehydrating Terri Schiavo is not one of them.
Note 23 Jim Holman, Hard Cases Make Bad Law
What does “hard cases make bad law” mean.
This is an old saying in the law and it means that you cannot make good law by anecdote, or by conjuring a single case in which an hardship would result by following the law. The lawmaker has to take an Olympian view and consider all possible cases and give weight to the most common or probable case. The lawmaker also has to recognize that there is no rule which does not produce some undesired results. Example: the traffic law direct drivers to come to a full stop at a red light. In most cases, this rule helps regulate conflicting traffic flows through an intersection. However, we all have had the experience of sitting at a red light knowing that there was not one other car within a mile of us. In one sense, sitting there in front of the red light is ridiculous, but, most of us do it anyway. This is an inconvenient or bad result of the rule that all drivers must stop at red lights at intersections. The proper analysis is: does the benefit that society gains from drivers stopping at red lights outweigh the occaisional inefficiency of a driver sitting a red light for no good reason. Answer yes, the benefit of the red light rule vastly outweighs the inconvenience it causes.
When considering the stop light example, one is only taking practical safety benefits into account. Right to die cases involve some deeper principles about policy about the value and meaning of human life.
So applied to the right to die cases, it is not enough to imagine a case in which an elderly person hangs on hopelessly for several months only to die in the end. One can imagine an undesirable result from any rule of law or rule of conduct, the ability to imagine one or several undesirable results from a rule of law does not make that rule of law unacceptable.
DEAR GOV. BUSH: PLEASE SAVE TERRI. AFTER WATCHING TV ALL DAY AND HEARING DOCTORS SPEAK WITH ALMOST CERTAINITY THAT THEY BELEIVED WITH THE PROPER TREATMENT THEY COULD HAVE TERRI TALKING IN SEVERAL MONTS. THERE WAS A NURSE WHO HAD TAKEN CARE OF TERRI FOR A YEAR WHO STATED THAT AFTER NOTIFIYING HER SUPERIORS THAT AFTER HER HUSBAND HAD A LONG VISIT WITH TERRI AT ONE TIME SHE FOUND TERRI IN A STATE OF TOTAL SWEATING. SHE TOOK TERRI’S SUGAR AND COULD NOT EVEN GET A READING. SHE FOUND A SYRIENGE IN THE GARBAGE CAN AND EXAMINED TERRI AND FOUND NEEDLE MARKS UNDER TERR’S BREAST AND ARMS. SHE WAS FIRED THE NEXT DAY. SHE EVEN WENT TO THE POLICE AND NOTHING WAS DONE. TERRI’S SO CALLED HUSBAND WHO HAS A COMMONLAW WIFE ALREADY AND CHILDREN HAS NEVER EVEN ALLOWED THE SIMPLEST OF TEST OR TREATMENT FOR HER. PLEASE GO IN WITH THE STATE POLICE AND GET HER AND TAKE HER TO A HOSPITAL WHERE SHE CAN HAVE HER FEEDING TUBE REPLACED AT LEAST UNTIL ALL PROPER TEST AND TREATMENT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED. WE WHO WANT TO SAVE TERRI WILL FIGHT FOR YOU ALL THE WAY. GOD BLESS YOU.
I’m a christian I can’t believe that her so call husband, wants to kill her I truly I’m with her parents all the way. Terri Schiavo, who is a christan, I believe that she never wanted the tube removed, and GOD never wanted it either. This is not a godly thing that Michael Schiavo, is doing to Terri, If I was there, and the tube would been back in just to save my heavenly sisters life. I pray that christian people will all get together, and fight the killers who wants to do a very sick deed.
Anyone can reproduce this text, without any alteration. Just use my full name as authoress. Jacqueline Kim Casillas. Coyright 2005.
There is such a thing as telepathic and psychic people. Peole who cannot use their ears have more sensitive eyes and noses and other sense. In that same way, people who cannot use their bodies to communicate find that they become telepathic and psychic. Just because someone cannot speak to you does not mean that their mind is not communicating with you, though you may not be aware that information appearing in your mind is coming from them.
Telepaths and psychics bear this out. These kinds of people are more sensitive to thoughts – what you are actually thinking and saying to others behind their back – than the filtered expressions which are manipulations, which are the things that people pick and chose to express to manipulate a situation.
Christ said that we were just as responsible for our inner feelings and thoughts as we are for what we say. This is because we are all interconnected even mentally and emotionally.
Terri should be tested for having telepathic or psychic ability (using telepathic and psychic individuals) because this could show what we already know about the blind and deaf and atustic people. That deficiency in one area is made up by an astonishing degree of ability in another area.
Terri would still be fully experiencing life if she were so. It would just be that experiencing reality has shifted to the mind instead of the senses.
I am not trying to say that only those who have special ability should live, I am trying to say that there are different ways to experience life, love and reality fully, not all those ways are known or understood and this fact needs to be appreciated.
I have not heard of people coming out of a state like Terri’s where they say that they found that they had developed unusual mental powers or “empathic” (able to sense emotions and feelings). But that does not mean it has not happened. I don’t know of anyone who came out of a similar state.
She is also receiving a lot of love in prayer and thought from people all over the nation. I believe that she is feeling this love and it is horrible to take this from her.
IF THAT MAN LOVED HER, he would want her to continue to live for as long as she can to experience all this love pouring out to her. He could never give her the love that is being given to her now. He wants to deprive her of this because he was always a jealous control freak. A jealous fool.
He cannot feel the love that people have for her, he cannot share in this love, because he never has loved her. Misogynist abusive men want isolation for the women and children they torture. They do not want them to receive love from the world, or to know that such selfish love is no love whatsoever.
Love is the most valuable life experience. If we could all also feel some pure love from millions of people, we would probably want to sit around all day and just bask in it. It is probably a wonderful experience that other experiences, things Terri cannot participate in, don’t compare to.
Jacqueline Kim Casillas
I was watching the news and I saw what i beleave to be
so wrong that people are trying to save animals more
then a human being. I also think that Michael should
just let her be she is no longer his responsability
he needs to just leave her alone she is none of his
buisness any more.
LET TERRI EAT PLEASE HELP
How many people make the decision every year to pull the tubes or source of nutrition on a loved one every year?
How many people will die today across the world due to starvation due to our unwillingness to help?
How many innocents die in a war that they never wanted?
I don’t think that Michael Schiavo should be judged as an evil adulterer, he believes that she is in a persistant vegetative state (due to the testimony of all of the doctors that have actually diagnosed her,) and he believes that she will be for as long as she draws breath.
I don’t believe that her parents are evil and self-serving, they’re parents who are having an incredibly hard time letting go of their child.
It disgusts me that this has been turned into a media circus, a political issue, and a religious debate.
This one thing confirms for me that the media, politics, and religion, are nothing more than self-serving forms of the most selfish and shameless forms of entertainment.
Jesus showed compassion, he still does.
I personally think that he is waiting for Terri to be released from her suffering, to welcome her with open arms.
LET TERRI GO HOME TO HER LORD AND SAVIOR.
The Terri Schiavo controversy has reached the level of mass religious hysteria that usually accompanies accounts of weeping Madonnas and reports of imprints of the face of Jesus burned into the sides of grilled cheese sandwiches. Addditionally, Ms. Schiavo’s case has also provoked the most blatant, obnoxious and rascally political opportunism, making a grotesque parody of our politcal and judicial systems.
One thing we know for certain about the issue of Euthanasia is that it is tremendously complex and eludes simple explanations either in support or opposition. Certainly, left unrestricted, euthanasia is fraught with the potential for great abuse. “Lets pull the plug on Grandpa and inherit his estate a few years sooner.” On the other hand there are some people whose medical conditions have rendered them soul-less shells without meaningful brain activity. In such cases, death with dignity is a far more preferable option than to have one’s vegetative body maintained as if it was an actual person, propped up in a manner not unlike that depicted in the movie “Weekend at Bernies”, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098627/
We would be tremendously naive to ignore the political context and background behind the swirling Schiavo controversy. A recently released GOP memo described the Schiavo episode as the perfect wag-the-dog distraction and red-herring to divert the mind of the public from House Majority Whip Tom DeLay’s ethical violations, the continuing quagmire in Iraq, the continuing fiscal and moral irresponsibility of the House Republicans with their shameful tax cuts for the rich and heartless slashes to programs that assist the poor, and lastly the sour public reaction to President Bush’s risky social security privatization scheme.
It’s political theatre and farce folks. Step right up! Step right up! See the brain-dead-woman who seems almost alive. Pay no attention to America’s real problems and truly immoral outrages.
Dean,
You are indeed a sad individual who lacks the most basic human decency and objectivity when it comes to this tragedy. The fact that you cannot put aside your ideological bias and hatred for anything “non-liberal” speaks volumes about how you approach the situation.
I agree with you Dean.
There has been very little coverage by the talking heads, of Social Security, practically none of the nightmare in Iraq, and none at all about Tom DeLay’s total lack of ethics.
The Religious Right (of which I used to be part) has become a mindless tool of the Republican party. I stopped going to church when Rush Limbaugh was quoted more than Jesus of Nazareth. I am not anti-Christ, but I have become *very* anti-Christian.
Terri Schiavo is being used and manipulated as are “Christians” all across the United States, and like Terri, those same “Christians” are totally oblivious to all of it.
If Terri could feed herself would they kill her?
If Terri Schiavo had the ability to raise a hand to her mouth and to swallow food, would her husband be allowed to deny her access to food?
I formerly thought the answer to that question would be in the negative, now I am not so sure.
Misourian writes: “If Terri Schiavo had the ability to raise a hand to her mouth and to swallow food, would her husband be allowed to deny her access to food?
I formerly thought the answer to that question would be in the negative, now I am not so sure.”
Normally consumed food is not considered a medical intervention. It is considered routine care, such as having a warm room, clean sheets, bed baths, and so on. She is currently fed through a surgically implanted tube.
People often see only what they want to see and perceive reality through the prism of their hopes and fears. These, along with beliefs, operate as a preformed lens that bends the facts in the same way a convex or concave glass bends light. In the movie “Rashoman”, by the great Japanese director Akira Kurasawa, four people witness the same event, but later provide starkily different versions of what they’ve seen.
How terrible and heart-breakingly tragic it is for the parents of Terri Shiavo that her physical movements seem to slightly mimic those of a conscious, sentient person. In their hearts there is nothing they yearn for more than to see their daughter sit up, flash her old smile and speak once again, like the little girl Jesus raised from the dead and then suggested be given something to eat. No doubt, Terri’s open eyes and slowly moving head seemed to encourage such deep and desperate hopes.
Many Christians, feeling love and emphathy with Terri and her parents, want to believe that she can rise again as well. They want to grasp at any straw of hope for the poor wonman. These are noble and well intentioned sentiments, I don’t want to disparage them, but they are perhaps misguided. How can we dismiss the conclusions of experts whom for years have said she is beyond recovery. Have not many different investigations and many different court proceedings over the years arrived at the same conclusion? What is different now?
As Christians we should neither dismiss Terri Schiavo, nor entertain false hopes, but rather pray to God to comfort her family and for her look after her soul.
It is said that liberals love people in denominations of 1 million or more. They wax eloquently about the big picture, while being ill at-ease with individual suffering. After all, Rousseau was famous for his works about the suffering of people far away, yet abandoned not one but four of his own children in an orphanage where most of them died, and the rest became beggars.
The Religious Right, founded as it is by Protestants fundamentalists, has the exact opposite problem. They can successfully ignore the big picture, including the deaths of thousands of innocent foreigners in a U.S. military intervention (Kosovo, Iraq), but they come unglued over the sufferings of individuals. A writer who has called for the destruction of Fallujah to teach Muslims a lesson will go on to great lengths to defend Terri’s right to live. As long as you advocate killing certain classes of nameless, faceless people, the Religious Right is down with it. Just make sure none of them have a name and a face, or else they might get emotionally engaged.
Both attitudes are abysmal. The Republicans and Democrats alike stink to high Heaven, and this is only the latest example of that.
Sure, there is a ‘bread and circuses’ aspect to the Republicans handling of the Terri case. It is sucking up coverage for other issues. An Assyrian writer just published a story entitled, “Iraqi Christians need Congress too!” He didn’t denigrate Terri, merely pointed out that she isn’t the only one dying, but she did appear to be the only one getting any attention.
The fact that it is being handled badly doesn’t mean that stopping her death isn’t a noble cause. It also doesn’t mean that a serious principle isn’t at stake. The Christian ethicists, such as the Pope, have staked a claim that food and water are reasonable and ordinary care. A non-terminal patient needing only food and water should be given food and water.
The courts are taking a completely different stance. The courts have said that they have the right to judge whether a person has a suitable quality of life to be worth sustaining. Where will this end? Roe v. Wade initially only covered the first trimester. Now, its no-holds barred.
I am really sympathetic to concerns about hypocrisy here. The Republicans have been terrible on many issues. That doesn’t mean that what is happening is right. Simply because Tom Delay is a slime bucket doesn’t mean Terri’s life isn’t worth fighting for.
If Karl Rove is sitting in the White House, gleefully assuming that this is a campaign issue for 2006 and 2008, he’d better think again. I have been talking all day to fellow Republicans in the State of Florida. For years Republicans have been grousing about rogue judges, and, yet, the party has done nothing about it. Mitt Romney rolled over in Masschusetts and enacted gay marriage. That killed his political future. The same thing is going to happen to Jeb. If Jeb will step up and order the feeding tube re-inserted, the courts be damned, he will grab a wave of support no matter what the outcome.
However, if he simply does what his brother has done, mug for the cameras and pretend to be doing something while doing nothing, then his political career is toast. If Terri dies, Jeb Bush’s future dies with him. If Rove tries to use this as an issue, it will fall flat, since we are all tired of excuses.
Look, Democrats, here’s the deal. Get your party and your message under control. Take abortion off the table by endorsing a federalist solution that allows the individual states to regulate it. Stop kissing up to judges who invalidate perfectly good laws and push around the executive branch. Embrace the populism of Andrew Jackson who stood up to the Supreme Court and told them to shove it. Become the party of Jefferson, of Jackson, of Kennedy, of Richard Daly. Embrace life, including Terri’s. Shame the stew out of Republican hypocrites by your actions and deeds. Declare the need for more Medicaid funding to ensure that what is happening to Terri never happens to another person. Embrace an end to the Iraq War instead playing ‘me-too’ on occupation. Get in touch with your inner-federalist, and let states express a variety of solutions rather than mandates from Congress.
Above all, be loving and expansive, not petty. The American people want their votes to control policy, not the will of unelected courts. They want a social safety net (though disagree on funding it), and a robust, free market economy. They want the elderly taken care of, and a culture in which life is respected. They want a good standard of living, safety, protection of the borders, and a host of other thinks that Democrats should be standing for.
I criticize Republicans all the time. Why? Because its my party and it is my responsibility not to win elections, but to stand for the truth. I tell fellow Republicans all the time, the problem is not the Democrats – it’s us. We are the problem. Same thing applies to Democrats. The Republicans and their petty, hypocritical methods aren’t your problem. You are, and it is in your hands to fix it.
You can start by joining with the Pope in support of Terri’s right to live, while still pointing out that there are many, many other issues that also need our urgent attention.
Glen writes: “The Christian ethicists, such as the Pope, have staked a claim that food and water are reasonable and ordinary care. A non-terminal patient needing only food and water should be given food and water.”
Food and water per se are reasonable and ordinary care. When administered through an implanted stomach tube they become part of an invasive medical intervention. Look at it this way: air is even more fundamental to life than food and water. Thus air per se is ordinary care, but not when it is administered through a respirator.
An ethicist can “stake a claim” about anything. But at the point where you’re performing surgery on someone in order to implant a tube, in order to administer a formula that can only be administered upon a physician’s order, I have a hard time understanding how that’s “ordinary” care. In other words, the issue is not the substance, but the manner of delivery.
Glen: “The courts have said that they have the right to judge whether a person has a suitable quality of life to be worth sustaining.”
It’s important not to overstate the case. All the court did in this case was to ascertain the likelihood that Ms. Schiavo would recover and be able to express her own wishes. (Likelihood = 0.) The court also determined, through depositions and testimony of a number of different people, what her wishes were when she was able to communicate. In other words, the decision of what quality of life is acceptable is up to the patient, not the court. Given that the family members could not agree, the court had to determine what the patient’s wishes were.
Glen – I agree with your comments on the Democrats and abortion.
In my perfect world President Hillary Clinton would announce the following measures: the CDC will count the number of abortions annually and government would set as a goal, measurable reductions in the number of abortions by 10% each year. To reach this goal government would employ a strong public health educational campaign, similar to what the judgements from Tobacco lawsuits are paying for, combined with financial disincentives for non-medically necessary abortions and finanacial incentives for adoption.
Education on sexually responsible behavior would be manadatory for all high school students, with abstinence taught as the primary means of avoiding pregnancy and contraception as the secondary line of defense. Non-medically necessary procedures should be treated like cosmetic surgery and not be covered by insurance or public health programs. There should be stipends for unwed mothers who carry to term and additional tax breaks and additional tax breaks and subsidies for adopting parents. Every Planned Parenthood clinic would be legally required to offer adoption counseling and services as a form of family planning.
Antonin Scalia recently observed that if teenagers are too immature to be held fully responsible for committing murder, and thus not subject to the death penalty, perhaps they are also too immature to make decsions regarding abortion. Some form of parental or judicial consent for teenagers should be in place.
If all of these measures prove inadequete to meet the goal of 10% annual reduction, than stronger measures should be considered.
This is the sane middle ground between treating the taking of unborn life as another form of birth control, and outlawing all abortions, thus spawning a dangerous underground abortion industry.
Jim writes: “It’s important not to overstate the case. All the court did in this case was to ascertain the likelihood that Ms. Schiavo would recover and be able to express her own wishes. (Likelihood = 0.)”
Not overstate the case? This is a prescription that requires all the mentally handicapped to express a desire for living in order to avoid capital starvation and dehydration. Due process has been turned on its head, the burden of proof is on the victim. All it takes to die is the testimony of someone who claims he heard you express a wish to die.
Glen, the saying goes like this: liberals love humanity, it’s people they don’t like.
You are right about Jeb Bush’s prospects. All claims will henceforth ring hollow. I don’t know where Republicans will go from here. They were tested and have been found wanting. I don’t think the Democrats will be able to shake off their corruption although I would welcome it if they would.
The liberals I see on the side of life are largely distanced from the party, ie: Henthoff, Nader, there must be a few others.
Fr. Hans writes: “This is a prescription that requires all the mentally handicapped to express a desire for living in order to avoid capital starvation and dehydration.”
That also seems a very great overstatement to me.
Look at the phrase “all the mentally handicapped.” That simply is not the case. We’re talking about someone whose cerebral cortex is destroyed, who has been found by a court of law to be in a persistent vegetative state, which means that she has no awareness or consciousness, and who was judged to have expressed a desire not to live in such a state.
In other words, we’re talking about some very restrictive circumstances here. How could that possibly fit “all the mentally handicapped?” You’re referring to a much larger group of people who simply do not fit into the criteria under discussion.
It is interesting to me that throughout this discussion those on the Schindler side of the issue seem incapable of discussing the case in terms of the actual facts of the case, using the relevant distinctions. It’s always Michael Schiavo is murdering his wife, or bringing up Hitler, the culture of death, etc.
I think the problem is that the religious right spends a lot of time talking to the religious right. Preaching to the choir, in other words. If all you want to do is to preach to someone who already agrees with you then stop reading now.
Some friendly advice to those on the Schindler side: If you ever want to be taken seriously by people who deal with medical ethics at a professional level you need to observe the necessary distinctions, use appropriate terms, and grasp the fundamental concepts. For example, anyone who doesn’t understand or accept the basic concept of patient autonomy is not going to be taken seriously by people in medical ethics. Maybe you don’t believe that patient autonomy is a good concept. That’s fine, it’s a free country. But good luck arguing that. Anyone who doesn’t grasp the distinction between withdrawing or withholding medical treatment vs. killing someone isn’t going to be taken seriously. Anyone who can’t discuss a case such as the Schiavo case without referring to Hitler is not going to be taken seriously. Anyone who feels the need to reference the culture of death every five minutes — a phrase that has absolutely no meaning outside of the religious right — will not be taken seriously by ethics professionals. If you want to argue that the entire system of how ethical decisions are made in medicine needs to be thrown out, great, but don’t expect the professionals to give you a hearing.
The first thing to do in arguing any point in medical ethics is to at least get the basic facts of the situation correct. So don’t claim that Michael Schiavo is going to inherit millions of dollars if he isn’t. Don’t claim that Dr. Hammesfahr’s (or whatever his name is) treatment is going to work if there’s no evidence for it, and the court has already torn him and his supposed treatment apart. Don’t claim that Terri Schiavo never received any therapy, because she did. Don’t claim that Michael Schiavo tried to strangle his wife unless you think you could get an indictment with your argument. Don’t automatically assume that anything on the Schindler side of the case is true without checking it out first. Don’t repeat wild rumors. Don’t grab on to any and every argument just because the argument supports your side of the case. Don’t reapeat crap that’s been discredited months or years ago. Most importantly, become acquainted with the basic facts and documents of the case, which are readily available on the internet, and which can be read in about an hour.
Father,
I met with one of my Republican friends today. He and I have both worked with the party in the past, and we were just so sickened by this. Neither of us liked the federal overreach in Congress, seeing it as a ploy by Big Brother Bush to get little brother off the hook. But what made us both the most angry was the fact that at the end of the day, after all the shouting, the hooting, and the hollering – Terri is still going to just be executed.
Jeb’s career is finished. As for the Republicans, I don’t know what to say at this point. We have been showing up, working for the party, and voting for decades now. What have we got to show for it? Are we really any closer to building a ‘culture of life’ than we were in 1975? I’d argue that we seem to be ever further from that goal.
You are right, they have been tried and found wanting. I’d love to see the Democratic Party step up to the plate with a consistent pro-life stance. I don’t think that is going to happen either, but it would be great if they at least took Dean’s advice.
I suppose I’ll end up voting for the Constitution Party more often. Here is how their last presidential candidate, Mike Peroutka, spoke of this issue:
“You, Mr. President, and you, Governor Bush do, however, have this power. And we intend no presumption, sirs, when we tell both of you that you must exercise the power you have to save Terri Schiavo’s life because God commands you to do so and your oath of office makes it your affirmative duty!
Both of you have the power and ability to stop the murder of Terri Schiavo. If you do not act and use the power you have, her innocent blood will be on your hands.
Here, please, are some of the things we think both of you have the power and ability to do right away:
— You, Mr. President, could order Federal marshals to be sent to guard Terri Schiavo, have her feeding tube reinserted, and arrest anyone who attempted her murder by removing this tube. If her case goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the ruling there is to take her feeding tube out, ignore this ruling and leave the Federal marshals there as long as is necessary to keep her from being murdered. Any court ruling that orders murder is illegal and binds nobody.
— You, Governor Bush, could do, basically, the same thing — order your relevant law enforcement personnel to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody; order her feeding tube to be reinserted; and arrest anyone who attempts to murder her be removing this feeding tube. And if any court, at any level, orders her feeding tube to be removed, ignore this order because no court order that orders the murder of anybody has any validity.
Mr. President, Governor Bush, you are men to whom much has been given; thus much is required of you. We pray fervently that you do your Christian and Constitutional duty (remember your oath) and act now to save the life of Terri Schiavo.”
HELLO? What is going on in our country? Very simple, this woman is alive and breathing without a life support machine. This should not be an issue. This is murder by torture. Something is very wrong when our government removes water and nourishment from a breathing, alive human being who cannot speak for themselves. We are so kind to murderers like Scott Peterson whom I am sure that if he reaches the death chamber before he dies of natural causes, the system will put his life on a level of undesrerved dignity, yet we starve an innocent woman to death because she can not speak. VERY SCARY, isnt it?
Jim, actions have consequences. The Schiavo death will embolden other culture of death judges like Judge Greer. Watch for it. The justifications they will be using to kill others will be the same employed in this case. And the process will be the same: burden of proof on the victim. Your assurances that this won’t happen, as well as your scolding that the discussion should be restricted only to facts in evidence strike me as historically and culturally naive.
Does the order to remove the feeding tube, extend to the act of attempting to feed Terri orally? Is there a chance a judge could legally grant the parents the right to try? This should at least be pursued as a final effort.
Hopefully, Terri could prove that she has enough voluntary command left to nuture herself through swallowing.
Prayers,
Lou Skaggs
“Liberals love humanity, it?s people they don?t like”
I think on the converse side, it could be said that many “Conservatives love life, it’s people that are alive that they don’t like”.
When President Bush was governor, 150 men and 2 women were executed in Texas, one of which was a 33 year old mentally retarded man with the communication skills of a seven-year-old. Both Scalia and Thomas agreed that the Constitution allows for the execution of retarded individuals.
Bush also refused to grant clemency to born-again Christian Karla Faye Tucker, despite the pleas of death penalty supporters Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
While I’m reluctant to bring up the Iraq war in this context, I don’t think we went into that with “erring on the side of life” in mind either, considering we knew that there would be a cost in the lives of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers no matter what the outcome.
To both parties, the value of life is apparently relative.
Fr. Hans writes: “Your assurances that this won’t happen, as well as your scolding that the discussion should be restricted only to facts in evidence strike me as historically and culturally naive.”
What I’m saying is that if you (the generic ‘you’, not necessarily you personally) want to have an influence on professionals in the field, then you have to be able to discuss the issues on their terms.
The problem with the inflammatory language is twofold. First, it obscures some very important distinctions. Second, it injects emotion into the discussion and makes it virtually impossible to talk about the issues in a productive way.
Of course, the main thing is to make sure that one is possessed of the actual facts. Throughout the discussion I have noticed that many people don’t have even a basic understanding of the facts of the case. This is like trying to have a discussion about Jesus with someone who doesn’t know that there are four canonical gospels. If you don’t have the basic information down no one in the field is going to talk to you.
Another problem with the inflammatory language is that it necessarily focuses on people rather than on the process. There’s the evil Michael Schiavo, the reprehensible Judge Greer, and their various culture of death allies. Ok, great, now what? Now that you’ve successfully labeled on the bad guys, what’s your next act? Oh, and then there’s the obligatory reference to Hitler, so throw that in too. Yeah, that’s going to go over real big at the next hospital ethics committee meeting. Blaming people and calling them names does absolutely nothing to address the process. In fact, it implies that the process is Ok, and that the real problem in this situation is a few bad actors.
No, if you want to have an influence on people who are actually working in the field of medical ethics, you have to be able to raise issues related to the process of how these decisions are made. But when you talk about process you have to talk about the process by which all cases are considered. In other words, you can’t suggest changes to the process that would have generated a different outcome in the Schiavo situation without considering how those changes would affect all potential cases.
Now if I were going to critique the Shiavo case in the context of overall process, I think I’d start to question whether the court is the correct and only venue where these issues and decisions should be addressed. A court is a pretty blunt instrument for decision-making. Courts have very tight schedules and they make very binary decisions with a sense of great finality and in the context of an adversarial process. Is this the place where we want to make life and death decisions?
In a situation such as with Terri Schiavo, is it really necessary to make a final life and death determination in a one or two day court hearing? Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a more leisurly process that focused more on communication and understanding? Wouldn’t it be nice if not one but several people with a variety of backgrounds more reflective of the larger community made the decision? Wouldn’t it be nice if someone could say “we’re going to look at this case over the next year and carefully consider all the evidence and make sure that we haven’t missed anything. We want to make sure that there’s a concensus on the medical facts of the case, and we want to hear from as many people as necessary in order to make that happen.”
In other words, there are many models of how decisions can be made, and the court model is only one. Other models that are based more on mediation and arbitration and concensus might be more appropriate. Now it may be that even with a different model for deciding cases like this that the Schiavo case would still have ended up in court, and it may be that the decision to discontinue tube feeding would have been the same. But at least we would have had a process that was slower, more comprensive, more focused on resolving differences, more credible with the public at large, and perhaps better able to accomplish a concensus.
Whether or not this is a good idea, please note that I just described a change to the *process* that could be adopted for all cases. It’s not a change that guarantees a certain result in the Schiavo situation while ignoring everything else. Note that in order to recommend that change I didn’t have to reference Hitler, didn’t have to refer to the culture of death, didn’t assume that there is going to be an adversarial relationship, didn’t assume that there is a victim and saints on one side and euthanizers and devils on the other, and didn’t assume that the greatest desire of liberals is to strangle your grandmother in her bed. Instead, my suggestion presumes that people want to do the right thing, that more information is better than less, and more time to decide is better than less time, and that the goal should not be a particular outcome but an outcome that’s most appropriate to the circumstances and wishes of the patient.
Upon reflection, this may not be a good suggestion. But it’s an example of the kind of approach that you have to take if you want to be taken seriously in the medical ethics community. If you don’t want to be taken seriously there but want to continue to preach to the choir, then repetition of the Hitler and culture of death phrases are the way to go.
JamesK wrote, “To both parties, the value of life is apparently relative.”
You are correct, sir. It is. That’s why I’ve smacked both sides of this. I am perfectly willing to sign on board with a death penalty ban if we can move the chain forward on protecting life.
As for the Iraq War, I’ve been opposed to it from the start. I agree with you, it shows a large blind spot on the part of the Religious Right.
Please, however, don’t mistake this situation for politics as usual. The Republicans may be trying to play this for political gain, but they are trying to ride a tiger.
Roman Catholic priests, Pat Robertson, Alan Keyes, Randall Terry, and a whole slew of others have called on Governor Bush to save Terri by any means necessary. He won’t do it, and that has left many of these religious leaders openly questioning what good our government is, if it can’t save an innocent woman’s life.
Whether you agree with the Religious Right or not, and my relationship with them is tortured at best, you have to understand this sea-change. The Religious Right has always conceived of the United States as God’s Chosen Nation. A ’shining city on a hill,’ if you would. The office of the presidency has been cast in explicitly religious terms. The symbols of the U.S., such as the flag, have been invested with religious authority. In addition to slavish devotion to the Federal government, the Religious Right has had an affinity with police and police tactics.
Now, suddenly, even with Republicans in power at all levels in this country, the Religious Right has begun to speak of the government as an enemy. Pat Robertson said that the State Troopers should be sent in to rescue Terri, and that force should be used if the local Sheriffs resisted. A Roman Catholic priest said this morning that if the government can not protect Terri, then what good is it?
This is radical stuff. I’ve been a Republican my whole life, and never heard anything like this. No one is interested in excuses; they want results. If the Religious Right actually flips over and begins to fully radicalize, I am not sure that we are prepared for what can happen.
I am profoundly concerned that the current legal environment in the United States has completely ended the efficacy of political action. If you can get nowhere at the ballot box, since elected officials will always bow to the unelected judiciary on any issue when a conflict arises, then what is left to accomplish by voting?
The Protestant culture doesn’t produce martyrs such as St. Justin. It produces radicals such as Samuel Adams. I think progressives in this country need to understand what is happening, and take steps to forestall this. Pro-life Democrats can work with pro-life Republicans in a give-and-take manner to solve these problems before they escalate. Republicans can give up the death penalty, Democrats can give up abortion, and we can all live without the Iraq War.
If we can’t solve these problems throught negotiation and compromise, however, then I am afraid we will end up solving them in the street.
Note 43: “first thing to do in arguing any point in medical ethics is to at least get the basic facts of the situation correct.” OK, then…
Fact: Terri Schiavo has not received any therapy since approximately 1992, when Michael Schiavo started the legal battle to withdraw the feeding tube.
Fact: Michael Schiavo has strictly forbidden the removal of stints in Terri’s brain, which should have been removed 1 year after they were implanted to facilitate a particular kind of therapy. Removal of these stints would make it possible to conduct an MRI or PET Scan.
Fact: Michael Schiavo has strictly forbidden conducting an MRI or PET Scan, under the mistaken belief that the CT Scan done during the malpractice lawsuit is all that should be done to diagnose PVS.
Fact: Any money left from the lawsuit, that was intended for Terri’s care and rehabilitation, will go to Michael Schiavo upon Terri’s death. True, it is not anything approaching millions or even $1 million, but it is not small change either. At this point, after hundreds of thousands have been spent from this fund for George Felos’ fees, it could approach $400,000.
Fact: Judge Greer has ordered, in addition to removal of the feeding tube, that no attempts be made to administer food or water to Terri orally. This includes providing Terri with the Catholic practice of Viaticom – the Eucharist for the dying.
Fact: Dr. Ron Cranford, a witness for removing Terri’s feeding tube, is a long term proponent of euthanizing the infirm. He is the author of the following (among many others articles promoting euthanasia in law and medicine):
“Brain Death, Pro-Life and Catholic Confusion. America 1982″
“Termination of Treatment in the Persistent Vegetative State. Seminars in Neurology 1984″
“Use of Anencephalic Infants as Organ Donors: Crossing a Threshold.” [Using infants as organ donors, if complete and informed consent is obtained from parents, may be acceptable. It is that subtitle - "Crossing a Threshold" - that should raise concerns. What "threshold", exactly, does the good doc think needs to "crossed?" Should pediatric doctors give birth, then hand the child over to an ethics panel, who then decides - without informing the parents - that this one is going to be used for organ donation while that one will live? Or maybe Dr. Cranford thinks physicians are wise enough, on their own, to make this call.]
Fact: One judge, and one judge only – Judge Greer – has weighed in on the evidence of this case. The appeals before recent legislation did not reexamine the evidence. The legislation passed by Congress intended of a de novo review of all the evidence. The federal judges have ignored this intent.
I would shorten your list of Don’ts down to: “Don’t say anything that doesn’t lead one to conclude that Terri’s nourishment and hydration should be withheld and we need no longer look at this case.” That is kind of like arguing that Scott Peterson should not receive a single habeas coprus review on the facts of his case, because those facts have all been decided and we should just get on with his execution. We all know that that would never be defended by those supporting the death of Terri, and we all know that Scott Peterson will receive many habeas corpus reviews, and several judges will pour over the facts of his case, and Scott will linger on death row for many, many years.
Jim, you tell us “Don?t automatically assume that anything on the Schindler side of the case is true without checking it out first.” That is wise council. I would also tell you, don’t automatically assume that anything Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer have said or written is true without checking it out first. You seem more than willing to unquestioningly accept anything that comes out of a courtroom in Florida and dismis any claims to contrary with nary a by-your-leave. Do you really want to tell me that judges are never wrong?
Just reflect on this for a few moments: If Judge Greer is wrong, about Terri’s wishes, about the PVS diagnosis, about likelihood of therapy to help, about rulings on abuse claims – all of which have been disputed – there is no do over. In a few days Terri will be dead.
Note 50. From my POV, Glen’s political analysis is right on. I don’t have a moral problem with the death penalty in certain cases, which is to say that I think some crimes are so heinous that death is just judgment (the kidnapping of a nine year old from her bedroom, raping and mutilating her, and then killing her, for example — which happened just last week). However, it is imperative that the ability of the state to legislate death be curtailed as soon, and as much, as possible, and the death penality for heinous crimes falls under this prohibition as much as the capital execution of Terri Schiavo.
Years ago a State in our Nation wanted to deny a black girl access to a certain public school, the Feds used millitary protection to make sure this girl had access to this “right” they claimed she had while the State said she didn’t.
If has to education is so vital to send in over 10,000 troops for nine children…what does it say when we say the right to life warrants no security of protection? The feeding tube nonsense isn’t “life support”. I can remember 10 people I worked with in a state ran hospital that would of died if we didn’t feed them either because of physical or mental disabilities. Nursing homes all across this country are filled with people that require human intervention to feed them.
“If you harm one of these little ones who belongs to Me, it would be better
off for you to be drowned with a millstone around your neck.”
Who could deny that Christ would consider Terry in her state is one of his “little ones”?
Adam
“In 1957, Arkansas Gov. Orville Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students from entering a Little Rock High School. The controversy attracted national media coverage, which in turn sparked a national controversy as Americans everywhere witnessed brutal racism night after night on the televised news. President Eisenhower demanded that the black students be allowed access to the white high school. When Gov. Faubus refused, the president federalized the 10,000-man strong Arkansas National Guard and sent in a thousand paratroopers to protect nine black students who were seeking to attend the school.”
I wrote, “If has to education is so vital to…”
sorry, I meant, “If access to education is so vital to…”
Note 49. Jim writes: “In other words, there are many models of how decisions can be made, and the court model is only one. Other models that are based more on mediation and arbitration and concensus might be more appropriate. Now it may be that even with a different model for deciding cases like this that the Schiavo case would still have ended up in court, and it may be that the decision to discontinue tube feeding would have been the same. But at least we would have had a process that was slower, more comprensive, more focused on resolving differences, more credible with the public at large, and perhaps better able to accomplish a concensus.”
Oh Jim. You are argued for weeks to remove the tube. Your efforts contributed to the acceptance of a state-sanctioned execution of a handicapped person. Due process has been turned on its head. If the victim can’t speak the state can kill her on hearsay — like the two false witnesses trotted out to cover up the corruption of the Sanhedrin when they chose to kill Christ. She was not allowed no appeal.
Now you backtrack, trying to soften your advocacy. But it’s too late.
Don’t you see how wrong this is? I tried to tell you.
Fr. Hans writes: “Now you backtrack, trying to soften your advocacy. But it’s too late.”
What I tried to do was to suggest a line of argument that advocates for the Schindler side of the issue might want to consider — an approach that I believe would be vastly more likely to appeal to professionals in the medical ethics field. In fact, just an hour ago I read an early release article upcoming in the New England Journal of Medicine that expresses the very same sentiment I expressed earlier today:
“This sad saga reinforces my personal belief that the courts — though their involvement in sometimes necessary — are the last place one wants to be when working through these complex dilemmas.” — Timothy E. Quill, MD.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMp058062.pdf
You and I have argued over this case for almost a couple of years now. You know my position, so there’s no reason to rehash the old arguments. I wish Terri Schiavo a peaceful death — a death that, given all the evidence — I believe she would have wanted. You disagree. Fair enough.
What I’m saying is that moving forward the question is whether you and those likeminded want to be taken seriously by those in the medical ethics field or whether you want to be critics or prophets on the sidelines with marginal influence.
If you want to be taken seriously there’s a way to do that — a way of arguing a case, a disciplined way of using language, a certain set of relevant considerations, and so on. If you don’t want to be taken seriously, but prefer to preach to the choir then your current approach is fine. I say this as a 21-year employee of a medical university who has been involved in a volunteer capacity in various ways with professionals in the medical ethics field — PhDs, MDs, RNs, MDivs. So, for what it’s worth. I find a lot to disagree with in your position, but feel that it’s a valid and sincere perspective that should be taken seriously, and one that, if presented in the right manner, could be influential.
Maybe I’ve worked in the bureaucracy too long, but I’m convinced that if you want to have an influence on mainstream medical ethics thinking you have to lay aside the rhetoric and speak in terms that ethics professionals will appreciate.
“And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law . . . ” 1 Cor. 9:20-21
I’d like to see you and others who support the killing of Terri Schiavo change your minds. I don’t think that I can, but I will engage your arguments anyway to persuade others who have not yet made up their minds.
Ethics committees are fine, but if the ethicists debase life (think Peter Singer), their designs on killing need to be prohibited. I don’t think you perceive yet how Terri’s death will impact the culture. You may find the autonomy the committees once enjoyed becoming more limited. In fact, I think that Terri’s death will shock a lot of people, and they will realize for the first time that the warnings about a death culture are true.
Tonight a woman I know and like approached me and said that even though she is a feminist who even marched in pro-choice parades in college, realizes that abortion deals with real people — a realization that ocurred watching the killing of Terri. She has three very liberal friends. They are appalled by the spectacle as well.
If you think the revulsion will be limited only to the “religious right” (a favorite term of yours in times of frustration), I think you will be proven wrong. The death of Terri Schiavo (assuming Jeb Bush doesn’t step up to the plate which I don’t think he will) is a watershed, perhaps even cataclysmic, cultural event. It is going to change a lot of minds — and harden others.
Many liberals are very, very, disturbed by this I think, and rightfully so. Your ethics committees are going feel the impact.
I think we will all have to pay someday for allowing this to happen. Why do we elect judges who would do this? They have comitted murder in my book if Terry is to die and this type of treatment could continue if we do not stand up and be counted.
We need reformation in this country. Back to the BiBle. Every person in this country of ours should be outraged and not one should support the husband. If he doesn’t want to take care of Terry many people would. My mother -in-law was in a deeper state of unconsciousness than Terry will ever be. I am so glad we didn’t think this way. Mom lived 8 years of a non productive life but we still would never have let her starve.
In this state it is against the law to treat an animal this badly.
Fr. Hans writes: “I don’t think you perceive yet how Terri’s death will impact the culture. You may find the autonomy the committees once enjoyed becoming more limited. In fact, I think that Terri’s death will shock a lot of people, and they will realize for the first time that the warnings about a death culture are true”
You may be right, but I don’t think so. If you look at all the polls that have been conducted recently, there seems to be tremendous support for the Michael Schiavo side and much less support for the Schindler side. Some have called these “push polls,” but they’re not. There have been several different polls and they all generate the same basic result. And remember, the public relations campaign has been on the Schindler side. Their side of the issue has it’s own web site, and there are literally tens of thousands of other web sites around the country that mirror their statements and sentiments. If you want the Michael Schiavo side, I can think of maybe only three sites, plus a few occasional comments on blogs. So the massive public relations campaign has not done all that much for the Schindler side. Surprisingly, even Catholics and evangelicals are on the Michael Schiavo side of the case, by significant margins.
To be frank, the problem is that the average person has beliefs and feelings very different from those of the religious right. The concerns of the religous right are not the concerns of the average American. The arguments that are slam-dunk for the religious right are not persuasive to the average person.
For example, people in the religious right are outraged over Michael Schiavo living with another woman. But most people aren’t outraged. Most people I talk to say that were they in his circumstances they would do exactly the same thing. One fellow at work said to me “what’s the guy supposed to do? Give up his chance of having a family even though his real wife is practically brain dead?” This may not be the saintly or the Orthodox thing to do, but most people aren’t saints or Orthodox. And just look at the polls on the Schiavo side:
CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 3/22/05
“As you may know, Michael Schiavo said his wife, Terri, told him that she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means. Do you think he is definitely telling the truth, probably telling the truth, probably not telling the truth, or definitely not telling the truth?” [Options rotated]
Definetly true: 21%
Probably true: 43%
Probably not true: 17%
Definetly not true: 8%
Unsure: 11%
People believe the Michael Schiavo account at more than a 2 to 1 margin. And it’s like this on virtually every issue, in some cases even among Catholics and evangelicals. This is not because most people are evil or immoral, but because it would be unthinkable to them to be indefinetly maintained in the condition of Terri Schiavo. It is unthinkable to them that their parents would make such a decision for them. One friend said to me “Hell, my co-workers know me better than my parents! Why would I want my parents to make that kind of decision for me?”
It is a plain fact that the arguments and considerations that are persuasive for the religious right are not persuasive to the average person. Thus what I see as the fallout from this is not an undermining of “the culture of death,” but a decreased influence of the religious right. The religious right have taken what has proved to be an extremely unpopular position on the Schiavo case. In recent weeks both the economic conservatives and the religious conservatives have discovered that there are limits to their power and influence. The economic conservatives ran into the brick wall of Social Security, and the religious conservatives ran into the brick wall of Terri and Michael Schiavo. The economic conservatives had the good sense to pull back. Will the religious conservatives have the same good sense? I doubt it. Having driven into the ditch, the religious conservatives won’t be satisfied until they’ve driven off the cliff. We’ve already seen this with calls for the Bush brothers to “send in the troops” in spite of polls showing between 70 and 80 percent of people think that government should stay out of such decisions.
I am disabled and I take the Schindler case personally. Michael Schiavo is Terri’s husband only in name. He has children by his mistress. He put Terri in the condition that she is in now. He wanted to be a nurse so he can go into Terri’s hospital room unoticed. It is suspected that he caused Terri’s brain injury in her hospital room.
Your willing to let an innocent person, Terri, starve to death, while the sex offenders and criminals live their life out in prison or get off. If anyone should starve to death, it should be these people. Here, we are paying for the criminals to live the rest of their lives, but we can’t help Terri lives hers. Terri, should be given another opportunity to live her life, with the proper test and rehabilition.
What is this country coming to. We kill the innocent and support the criminals. This is why our country is in such a turmoil today.
Linda, no one should starve to death, not even criminals. They should be put in jail though.
Why can’t the law release Teri from Michael? No, water for the lips and tongue? Is that what Teri wanted? There is so much to this story. Give Teri back to her parents and Schiavo can have his mistress and the children bore between them and leave Teri to be and complete her life out.
Can Teri tolerate swallowing or does she choke miserably? Tax payers money goes out to so many other people in far worse circumstances, ie.: hooked to a ventilator and placed in a long term care facility, without it the person would cease to breath upon their own….
I ask that Teri be released by Michael. He loose her and all money surrounding her case. What judgements will be placed upon him if she dies at his hands? Can he truly live with himself and protect his family in saftey?
Let her be and let her go Michael. There is nothing to be gained. Right?
Holman Note 69
Jim Holman types:
We’ve already seen this with calls for the Bush brothers to “send in the troops” in spite of polls showing between 70 and 80 percent of people think that government should stay out of such decisions.
************************************************************************************
The government should stay out of the decision? It is the government that is killing Terri.
Don’t be so sure that people don’t think this horrendous. Tricks can be played with polls pretty easily. We shall see.
It is pretty darn sad when a person who is appalled by the prospect of starving someone to death is referred to with contempt as the “religious right.” Funny, until very recently I never thought of myself as the religious right, but, I guess I just found out I am one of those people. So be it.
I think that the gov’t of the U.S. was wrong for doing this to Terri. She was alert and breathing and that did not give anyone the right to take her life away. Thou shall not kill, well everyone can say now the gov’t has comitted that crime. As for the pledge of Alligence ( Liberty and Justice for some but not everyone). God rest her soul, but those people shall see the wrath of God in the end. Peace be with Terri now and for always.
No doubt the Terri Schiavo case, regardless of the perspective, is tragic. However, the real tragedy (I hope we can all agree) occurred in 1990. I am a committed United Methodist – I am also an epileptic, and at any time, a seizure of unusual severity or length could render me in the same condition as Terri Schiavo. Knowing this, I wish we could recognize that none of us in the American public have the knowledge, facts, training, or expertise in legal or medical matters that the doctors or judges who were versed in the case have had. It’s incredibly difficult for most of us to realize that a condition such as PVS can even exist – yet in fact it does, and it renders a painful situation even more heartbreaking for a family. We simply CANNOT know whether she was or was not conscious based on a few seconds of videotape!
I hope we would also recognize that, as probably most of us learned in school, the U.S. was actually founded NOT on Christian principles, but rather to escape religious persecution (there were other reasons as well, as you know). To ensure this, our founding governmental doctrines ensured a SEPARATION OF POWERS between the three branches of government, with a system of checks and balances amongst the three. No doubt there have been errors in our 200+ years of government – however, it’s worked REMARKABLY well for its errors nonetheless. So whether you believe (as I do) that the courts acted within their authority, or whether you believe the courts erred, I would question what other system of government in existence on earth would you PREFER to live under? Seriously. As it is, our LEGISLATIVE branch makes the laws in accordance with the will of the people. The EXECUTIVE branch enforces the laws. And the LEGISLATIVE branch interprets the laws – it is not accountable to the “will” of the people. How many of us are legal scholars? Doctors of Jurisprudence? How many of us have studied Constitutional law? Each branch has “checks” over the other – our system, despite its flaws, is one that I’ll take any day. Or are we just supportive of democracy when it happens to be supportive of our views?
I am, again, a person of faith. And if those of us of faith would remember, our Savior’s kingdom isn’t of this world and He left governmental matters to the government – remember? And we were charged to not be quarrelsome and live in peace.
Dawn: You echo the sentiments of former Missouri Senator, and Episcopal minister, John C. Danforth, who wrote yesterday:
“The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.
Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.
During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.”
“In the Name of Politics”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html?th&emc=th
Dean, Religious Beliefs Do No Disqualify Citizens from Participation
You are obviously much more comfortable with your Leftist secular friends than people who actually believe that Jesus is Lord and the Son of God. The use of the term “agenda of the Christian right” is telling. First you hold a group of American citizens at arms length and claim that simply because they hold religious ideas that their goals constitute an “agenda.” We all know that an “agenda” is a bad thing and a “goal” is a good thing. Liberals have noble goals. The Christian Right has an “agenda.” Law is nothing be applied morality. Why should be have an “age of consent” for sexual activity? Because it is considered immoral to sexually exploit children.
It is impossible and undesirabel to separate morality from law. Why should citizens of a country have the right to participate in the shaping of the society they live in. Should only people who don’t believe in God be allowed to vote?
What you call the “agenda” of the Christian Right are the very ideas that our Founders would have, with few exceptions, heartily endorsed.
Why don’t you identify those parts of the dreaded Christian right agenda that you specifically oppose.
Note 67. Dean, do you understand the points? No one opposses stem cell research. The only morally objectionable research is embryonic.
Also, there is a difference between moral outrage and ideas. You specialize in the outrage, disappear when the scant ideas you offer are discredited, only to return with outrage about another topic. It’s like reading the local edition of Nation magazine.
You backed off from the challenge that your support of Terri Schaivo’s death violates the Orthodox moral tradition. You do agree the killing was immoral, correct?
Dean, I appreciate the URL – I believe the senator’s statements would likely closely reflect my views. It would be interesting reading.
Again, I would encourage us – since we all profess to be Christians – that while we disagree, there is no need to be “disagreeable” while we do so. If, truly, we wish to reflect our beliefs and encourage others to consider them as well, we would probably be better served by FIRST living Christ’s example rather PRIOR to attempting to legistlating it. As I recall, Christ’s example was perfectly forgiving, perfectly humble, perfectly compassionate — most especially to those who were perceived to be the “sinners” in society. And his example converted THOUSANDS at a time. Can any of us say the same?
Again, I would encourage each of us to examine our true motives. If, in fact, we are attempting to encourage others in Christ, this is something which CANNOT be attained through legislation – it is best attained (and think back to Christ and the Apostles) through living personal testaments of love, peace, humility, patience, and suffering. But these are difficult things. Carrying placards, pasting on bumper stickers, or waving the flag (whatever end of the spectrum we’re on) are not difficult whatsoever.
And for those of my fellow believers who believe that government should, in fact, be a Christian “theocracy”, I would encourage you to consider that Christ did not, in fact, take – or act upon – that viewpoint. Perhaps we shouldn’t either.
Dawn,
From the Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church: “However, in the cases where the human law completely rejects the absolute divine norm, replacing it by an opposite one, it ceases to be law and becomes lawlessness, in whatever legal garments it may dress itself. For instance, the Decalogue clearly states: ‘Honour thy father and thy mother’ (Ex. 20:12). Any secular norm that contradicts this commandment indicts not its offender but the legislator himself. In other words, the human law has never contained the divine law in its fullness, but in order to remain law it is obliged to conform to the God-established principles, rather then to erode them.”
For the Orthodox Christian, law or judicial actions which do not conform to the fundamental teachings of the Orthodox Church are not law. They are a rejection of God. We are not talking, of course, about tax policy or economic policies, or other kinds of laws over which even the most devout Orthodox Christians may disagree. Most public policy decisions fall into this realm, in which good people can disagree.
The bishops of your church condemned the Schiavo decision. They did so because what happened to Terri was the product of a moral decision-making process which was totally at odds with the faith of the Orthodox Church. As such, it is not law but rather lawlessness. You are free to reject the reasoning of the Church, but to do so is to reject the teaching of the Church as expressed by the Bishops of the OCA and Bishop Maximos.
As for our system of government, I would rather live under the Constitution as understood in 1787 than as understood today. As designed, the judiciary was supposed to be the weakest branch of government. Hamilton did not consider it co-equal. Neither did Madison. The Supreme Court itself seized the right to declare acts of the Congress and the Executive to be unconstitutional. This right was not granted it by the Constitution, and was largely the product of the political dispute between Jefferson and the Federalist Party.
The courts have increasingly become, since that time, an agent of social transformation. This has led to no end of grief. The Dred Scott case, for example, basically destroyed all compromises worked out in the Congress over the issue of slavery. It led to the Civil War, in which 600,000 men died in combat. Remember the social experimentation rammed through in the courts that outlawed school prayer, created a right to abortion, created Affirmative Action set asides, invalidated the presidential line-item veto, created gay marriage in Massachusetts, and more? None of these issues could have won support in either Congress or state legislatures. The people, as a whole, didn’t want them. Some might have, but certainly nowhere close to a majority in most states.
If the branches are co-equal, why doesn’t the judiciary ever lose an argument? The judges hold the ultimate trump card – they can simply declare an act of Congress or the President to be against the Constitution. What then, can be done to be ‘co-equal’ with them? As long as we are willing to abide by any decision, whether it be Roe v. Wade or the Terri Schiavo case, no matter how patently absurd – then we are no longer living in a Republic but an oligarchy.
Here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson concerning the Judiciary. Unless you studied Political Science and History (as I did), you probably didn’t hear these kinds of sentiments in standard civics classes:
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
-Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
“For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819
Co-equality would mean that both the Congress and the Executive would have a say in what is, and what is not Constitutional. The State of Florida addressed the Terri Schiavo situation in a law in 2003. It was duly passed and signed by the Governor of the State of Florida, and would have prevented her death. It was declared unconstitutional by a State Court. How can you have co-equality when one branch can unilaterally trump the other two?
You can’t. Jefferson knew it, and so do all traditional conservatives. Look at his phrase, “The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” That is where we are today. And the shape it is twisted into is not one that pleases God.
For those who believe in “separation of church and state” (read the Constitution of the USSR – it’s in there, NOT in the Constitution of the United States), Christ not getting involved in the political government at the time, and ad naseum, we must remember that we have a government “Of the people, by the people, and for the people.” In otherwords “people” we are Caesar. We will be held accountable for what our government does because we are The Government.
Just something to keep in mind as we make decisions as to who will represent us and what moral/amoral path we chose to go down.
Dawn,
From the Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, “In the contemporary world, state is normally secular and not bound by any religious commitments. Its co-operation with the Church is limited to several areas and based on mutual non-interference into each other’s affairs. However, the state is aware as a rule that earthly well-being is unthinkable without respect for certain moral norms – the norms which are also essential for the eternal salvation of man. Therefore, the tasks and work of the Church and the state may coincide not only in seeking purely earthly welfare, but also in the fulfilment of the salvific mission of the Church.
The principle of the secular state cannot be understood as implying that religion should be radically forced out of all the spheres of the people’s life, that religious associations should be debarred from decision-making on socially significant problems and deprived of the right to evaluate the actions of the authorities.”
Calling for the law to respect moral norms is not the same thing as trying to establish a Theocracy. That would imply rule by God, and has not been practiced since ancient Israel prior to the establishment of the kingdom. Read Judges for a description of this period in the Bible. There may be groups in society trying to get back to that model, but most of them don’t post on this Website.
What you are probably envisioning would be some kind of Ecclesiastical government simlar to Iran in which clerics dominate. Such a system is not permitted in Orthodoxy, as priests and bishops cannot hold political office, except in very limited situations. I don’t think most Evangelicals are out to put Pat Robertson in the White House, either.
On the other hand, are you upset about the idea of a confessional state in which the government recognizes a national church? In other words, the situation that prevails in most Orthodox countries today? Does that bother you? It doesn’t concern me in the least. If a state recognizes a national church, then it is explicitly stating that the moral norms of that church form the basis of law. I have no problem with that.
On the other hand, if you are criticizing the deification of the state in contemporary American life – I can agree wholeheartedly that this is a bad thing. I’d recommend reading more Orthodox sources when trying to form opinions about political topics. In the U.S., the Orthodox are a powerless and neglected group. That has not been the case for most of Orthodox history, nor is it the case today in some of the largest nations (Russia, Ukraine) on Earth. The Church has a long history dealing with states, many hostile to her historic witness, and has a large body of writing to guide the faithful in dealing with political and religious questions.
Missourian: John C. Danforth of Missouri (the author of the opinion piece I quoted) is a Republican.
John C. Danforth is also an Episcopalian clergyman.
You probably voted for him.
Has Danforth now suddenly become a “secular leftist” because he questions the extent to which his party should be dominated by the views of one faction of Christianity. As indication of this, he expresses amazement that the Republican party has suddenly become indifferent to our nation’s economic and fiscal well being, and has decided to serve as the nation’s moral scold instead.
Danforth argues that good people of faith can have differing views on certain issues, and that the Republican party would be prudent to be respectful of all of them. Is it really that inconceivable to you that some Christians might consider a quick, merciful death to be a more loving outcome than years of slow, agonizing physical disintegration, after scores of competent medical experts over 12 years have determined that person to be permanently brain-dead and beyond recovery?
Glen, apologies if there was confusion of some sort… but I am not Russian Orthodox.
Also, interestingly Glen, as I’m sure we all learned, a system of checks and balances doesn’t mean that all checks/balances have immediate effects all the time. As I’m sure you’re aware, one of the “checks” on the judiciary by the executive branch is the power by the executive to appoint to the Supreme Court. This power is also “checked” by the legislative branch in that appointees must be approved by them. Additionally, amendments may be proposed to the Constitution, etc. While the length of this process may disappoint those who seek an immediate resolution of any issue in their favor, I would put forth that it fairly questions a notion that any one branch “unilaterally trumps” another. I remember studying this – and having it hammered home – at a fairly early age, and I came from a fairly conservative state!
While any of us may be disappointed in any particular action/decision of any branch at any given time, our system of government quite clearly calls for a separation of Church and state. This, in fact, I do support in the manner of Christ’s example, and no, I would NOT support the concept of a national church, regardless which church it were. If we take the position that “whoever is in the majority” in American society would get to dictate the church, then perhaps we should be careful with this. I’m Hispanic, although not Catholic, and by 2050, Hispanics (who are mostly Catholic!) will be the majority population in the U.S. So by any argument of “majority rules” when it comes to endorsing/establishing a national church/religion, then we would have a Catholic society in a very short span of time.
Again, Christ’s example – which is the one which matters – was for the Church to tend to people’s spiritual needs and to help in the development of a personal relationship with God. As God’s people, we might consider that we would be more effective bringing people to God if we followed His example. As for my government, I would appreciate its focus on such crises as our trade deficit with China, the falling dollar, soaring fuel costs, the level of child poverty in the U.S., options for overhauling Social Security and Medicare, and simplifying the tax code.
In all seriousness, we might consider that we would do better focusing on what we do BEST (witnessing about Christ’s love for us, and demonstrating it peacefully) rather than attempting to legislate the Word with others. In this, perhaps we might consider our motives – Christ never interfered with government while He walked on earth, rather, He knew his kingdom was “not of this earth.” He knew this – why don’t we?
I am 22 years old. To be honest with you, I rarely ever read the news or watch tv, but Terri’s case really concerned me. I believe our judicial system has become very twisted and our society very weak. What a better way to commit murder than have the court system approve and order it! Removal of food and water from Terri was murder and it was approved by THE COURT?!!! I am scared to know how our society will end up in the future- my future. I believe Terri’s health would have improved in the past if her husband hadn’t of declined curtain medical treatments. Something was seriously twisted throughout all of Terri’s case. I’m sure there were many certain issues left unsaid, hidden, and lied about. Seems as if EVERYONE (even President Bush) got involved in Terri’s trial and disagreed with the withholding of her water and feeding tubes, BUT…THAT didn’t even seem to matter! It doesn’t matter what I say now though, huh? She’s dead. Way to go- all whoever were responsible for her death.
LINE #: 64 & 65 / ABOVE
“The government should stay out of the decision? It is the government that is killing Terri.
Don?t be so sure that people don?t think this horrendous. Tricks can be played with polls pretty easily. We shall see.
It is pretty darn sad when a person who is appalled by the prospect of starving someone to death is referred to with contempt as the ?religious right.? Funny, until very recently I never thought of myself as the religious right, but, I guess I just found out I am one of those people. So be it.
Comment by Missourian ? March 30, 2005 @ 1:23 am
I think that the gov?t of the U.S. was wrong for doing this to Terri. She was alert and breathing and that did not give anyone the right to take her life away. Thou shall not kill, well everyone can say now the gov?t has comitted that crime. As for the pledge of Alligence ( Liberty and Justice for some but not everyone). God rest her soul, but those people shall see the wrath of God in the end. Peace be with Terri now and for always.”
From a couple of the United Methodist websites…
http://www.unitedmethodist.org/
http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1670
Dean, Note 24
No, I said you would be more comfortable with leftist secularists. No comment on who Danforth is or was.
Take a deep breath and read this very slowly.
The jurisdiction of federal courts is defined by the Constitution and by Congress. Congress has the complete and perfect right to required federal courts to protect federal rights. The legislation passed by Congress in response to the Shiavo case, did nothing more than that, require federal courts to protect federal rights of citizens who have cases in state courts. This is what habeus corpus does. Remember habeus corpus, a right venerated by the Left because it generally assists those who have been convicted of a crime.
You are ill-informed.
Note 74.
Dean writes: “Danforth argues that good people of faith can have differing views on certain issues, and that the Republican party would be prudent to be respectful of all of them. Is it really that inconceivable to you that some Christians might consider a quick, merciful death to be a more loving outcome than years of slow, agonizing physical disintegration, after scores of competent medical experts over 12 years have determined that person to be permanently brain-dead and beyond recovery?”
Dean, maybe you could become the local chairman of “Democrats against the disabled.”
Terri Schiavo was not “permanently brain dead.” Nor did “scores of medical experts” examine her. (50 doctors signed affidavits challenging the PVS diagnosis after looking at the medical records.) I don’t want to reargue the case, she’s dead after all, but it’s important not to obsfucate the facts.
Inconceivable? Yes, in a way it is. A Christian who has even a rudimentary understanding of the moral precepts of the tradition ought to see the dehydration and starvation for what it is: a deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Appeals to Terri’s severe disability don’t change this fact.
I’m surprised to see you implicitly justifying her death. You are an Orthodox Christian and should know better.
Missourian, not to replace any response by Dean: I’m not sure of the releavance of the mention of the writ of habeas corpus in this instance? This is typically filed in criminal cases when the convicted argues either 1) their incarceration is illegal or 2)their trial attorney was incompetent. While we may agree that it is often used as a mechanism of grandstanding, no doubt it also has its place in the American legal system to prevent injustices, and we accept certain “ills” to prevent injustice.
However, I wish we could agree in this – and any – forum that while we may disagree on certain policy issues, that we agree on the truth of Christ crucified, and that therefore we agree on his first two GREATEST commandments: 1)that we love our God with all our mind, all our heart, and all our soul and 2)that we love our brother AS OURSELVES. To this end, it might be beneficial in this forum if we could discuss our differences with greatest respect and courtesy, in the example of Christ.
Dean, what part of my procedural argument is based on “far-right” fanaticism?
Dean, the fact is that virtually every medical fact is controverted in this case.
Teri did not get a jury trial, which means that the factual controversy was resolved by ONE PERSON not TWELVE.
On appeal the appellate court COULD NOT disturb the factual conclusions unless it found that the lower court’s decision was an ABUSE OF DISCRETION. It is nearly impossible to overturn a decision on that standard.
To recap, people who wanted Teri dead could argue the case with a lower burden of proof than a criminal case.
People who wanted Teri dead could rely on the judgment of only one person, a judge, rather than twelve people, a jury, which is required in a criminal case.
People who wanted Teri dead could rely on the appellate court whose hands were tied on appeal, unlike that ina criminal case.
Neat case. If this was a criminal would you care more?
Relevance of habeus corpus
Dawn, I have never questioned the importance of habeus corpus. I will take the trouble of explaining this, trusting that you will actually read what I say, and that you are sincere in trying to understand my argument.
Habeaus corpus came up in the context of a discussion of the legislation passed by Congress in response to the Shiavo case. This legislation was improperly attacked as a case in which Congress “overstepped its bounds.” The opponents claimed that Congress failed to recognize limits on FEDERAL POWER imposed under the doctrine of federalism. Federalism is a legal doctrine that establishes the respective roles of the federal government with respect to the various state governments. It also establishes the role of the federal courts with respect to the various state courts.
Are you following me so far?
So, in a nut shell, the opponents of the legislation passed by Congress in the Shivao case are claiming that the legislation violated federalist principles by calling for improper interference in the functioning of a state court by a federal court.
This is a specious argument, easily made, because in this day and age, nobody but lawyers has a glimmer of what federalism is. Here is the correct analysis.
The jurisdiction of federal courts is set by the U.S. Constitution and that same Constitution allows Congress the right to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Congress passed a law which directed federal courts to review the action of state probate courts to ensure that the a person involved in probate proceeding in state court had her FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS protected.
Habeus corpus is a proceeding in which a person involved in a CRIMINAL proceeding in state court can have the action of the state court reviewed by the federal court to ensure that that his FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS were protected.
If you believe that CONVICTED CRIMINALS should have resort to the federal courts to correct improper action by state court, then, to be consistent you should also believe that INNOCENTS who are about to have their lives taken from them should have resort to federal courts.
Dawn
By the way, if you haven’t been with this forum very long, I am an attorney with more than twenty years legal practice. I am a litigator, this means I specialize in handling TRIALS. Less than 5% of all lawyers are specialists in litigation.
I have made the case that Terri Shiavo was denied due process of law. I previously wrote an essay titled “how did this horror happen” which sets out in full my due process argument.
I have never attempted to evaluate whatever medical evidence is available to the public. I have restricted myself to procedural arguments.
Dawn,
Whether you are Orthodox or heterodox is not really relevant to me. My frame of reference is Orthodox, and I follow the teachings of my Church and her bishops. The Church is clearly aware that the ultimate fulfillment of Christ’s Kingdom will not be in this age. The Church rejects any form of Millenialism which seeks to build Christ’s Kingdom on Earth through social action, applying Biblical laws, or any other kind of belief in ‘progress.’ To that end, the Orthodox Church has never embraced such ideas as put forward by millenialists such as prohibition of alcohol or radical abolitionism. The Church understands that the world is fallen, will remain fallen until the Second Coming establishes a new age, and that there is no Utopia waiting to be built if we could only stop people from sinning.
That being said, the Church does see a role for itself within society and within the process of making law. For example, from the Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church: “In face of political differences, contradictions and struggle, the Church preaches peace and co-operation among people holding various political views. She also acknowledges the presence of various political convictions among her episcopate, clergy and laity, except for such as to lead clearly to actions contradicting the faith and moral norms of the church Tradition.”
Actions that clearly contradict the faith of the Church are not legal in the eyes of the church. Such situations are usually rare, as the Church obviously does not have an opinion on most fiscal and legal matters. However, the Schiavo Case was so egregious that the Bishops of the Orthodox Church felt that they had to speak out. Judge Greer’s decisions shocked the moral conscience of the Church, violated the Law of God, and as such have no moral authority.
Period. The United Methodists may feel differently, that is fine by me. I am Orthodox, and this is the stand of my church. You are free to reject the teaching of the Orthodox Church, but to state that the Church or individual Christians should not stand up for basic morality simply is simply erroneous. The Methodists may think this way, but the Orthodox Church does not. There are limits to the efficacy of law, as it can not be used to perfect human character, but if the law does not protect the weak and the innocent then it is not law from an Orthodox perspective.
Do not confuse the stand of the Orthodox Church with heterodox organizations such as the Southern Baptists whose millenialist heritage has resulted in them seeing the law as a way to shape and improve human character. The Orthodox do believe that only sincere repentence and communion with God can perfect character, and that external coercion has limits. The purpose of law, from an Orthodox perspective, is not to establish Heaven on Earth, but to prevent Earth from becoming Hell.
By the way, Christ criticized the Jewish establishment of his day. That establishment wielded both temporal and religious authority. It got him killed, remember? Do you think the Pharisees and Temple Priests only led religious services? Of course not, why would Christ denounce them for devouring widows if they were only prayer-leaders? John the Baptist denounced Herod for marrying his brother’s widow, that got him killed. Injustice is injustice, and must be opposed.
Finally, as to checks and balances – Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to define the jurisdiction of federal courts. Legislation can be designated as ineligible for judicial review, in which case federal courts have no jurisdiction. You also mentioned other checks that the executive and legislatures have over the judiciary. These are all accurate.
However, simply because these ‘checks and balances’ exist in theory, does not mean that they are being applied. If the Terri Schiavo Case were a lone example of judicially inflicted injustice, then I am sure that most conservatives like myself would simply shrug it off. However, this is part of a series of abuses of judicial authority that have simply gone completely unchecked. The 9th Circuit just overturned the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 as unconstitutional on Good Friday. This law was designed to speed the deportation of illegal immigrants caught in the United States a second time, after having already been deported. The specific intent was to reduce overcrowding at immigrant detention facilities. Overcrowding had caused the INS to release many illegal immigrants on bond, with a promise to appear later. Most never did.
You may remember one of the persons released on such a bond due to overcrowding. His name was Lee Boyd Malvo – the D.C. sniper.
These kinds of cases are what are driving conservatives over the edge. No one is advocating junking the Constitution. Instead, we want the legislature and the executive to aggressively assert their Constitutional rights. If that means passing legislation and specfically exempting it from judicial review – then great. If it means impeaching judges, that’s fine too. Checks on judicial excess only work if they are used in practice. That is what conservatives want, and they are not interested in excuses.
You laid out some of your concerns such as the falling dollar, etc. I share those concerns as well. Judicial activism is also a concern, and should be addressed along with the budget deficit and the other problems we currently face.
One last thing, I lived in Poland for years. The Roman Church is immensely powerful there, which is why abortion is practically illegal. I have no problem living in a country whose legal system is grounded in Catholic moral teaching. I have no problem living in a country whose legal system is grounded in Orthodox Christian moral teachings. In fact, I would prefer that to our current cultural chaos.
I understand that this may be a problem for you, looking at this from an American perspective of ’separation of Church and state.’ However, law must be grounded in a system of ethics. If it is not, then it quickly decays into a morass of hopeless contradictions. That is the case we are experiencing now. If the future Catholic majority of the United States succeeds in moving us closer to the social and moral teachings of Pope John Paul II, then I am more than happy for that to occur.
Note: 80: Father Jacobse: I don’t think we have a theological disagreement; we have a medical disagreement regarding Ms. Sciavo’s condition prior to the removal of the feeding tube. If I shared your assessment of her medical condition then I would have also shared your opposition to Michael Schiavo’s decision.
You believe that her brain was severely injured, but maintained some minimal level of activity, so therefore she was still alive, and protected by moral prohibitions against the taking of human life. I believe that the scans showing a total absence of electrical activity in her brain indicated a permanent and complete loss of mental function, and that her lack of conciousness and self-awareness meant that for all intents and purposes she was not alive – she was already gone.
This is probably why Michael Schiavo has ordered an autopsy so that people could see the extremely atrophied and diminished state of her brain tissue. He does not believe he killed his wife. He believes that his wife was already gone.
Missourian, I can appreciate your perspective, and the fervor with which you argue your beliefs.
With regards to the writ of habeas corpus, I can only speak from my own perspective, as that is the only perspective with which I am intimately familiar. The writ of habeas corpus is typically applied (as I understand this): 1)in criminal cases (i.e. – a crime has been committed) 2) a death sentence has been pronounced, and the argument is typically that the state did not have the right to incarcerate the person (on a couple of grounds). Personally, I can see where this does not apply to Terri Schiavo’s case, most clearly because this is not a criminal case (i.e. – no crime was committed), and there appears to have been evidence from more than one witness that it was her wish that her life not continue in this fashion should she ever be in such a condition. Therefore, the courts’ determination was whether they were acting within her will, and if they were, there was no necessity to “free her” from death.
Unquestionably the Terri Schiavo case is a tragedy for everyone involved, and I would hope that we would extend them all mercy and compassion. However, for ourselves, I would ask if we might consider something else: does the “legal wrangling” of the public constitute little more than Monday morning quarterbacking?
Let me explain lest I be misunderstood, and perhaps draw an analogy. Not to trivialize, but I absolutely LOVE football, and am one of the few women I know who do. (And get this – I’m a Redskin fan living near Dallas!) During the games, everybody I know (as both Redskin fans and Dallas fans aren’t winning) figuring out what plays we SHOULD be running, who we SHOULD be playing, when we SHOULD be taking our time-outs, etc. We all think we know better than the people closest to field: the people who care the most, who are around it 24/7, who have the most years of experience, the greatest knowledge, who watch the game films, etc. Yet we all (I know I do, and I bet some of you do as well!) will yell “What are you doing?” at the TV during the games, thinking we know better. Not that we aren’t entitled to a perspective – but is ours really the BEST or MOST APPROPRIATE one? And I ask myself this with regards to this terrible tragedy – while we all have a perspective, I doubt that any of our perspectives would be the best or most appropriate ones, regardless of our beliefs.
As Christians, I wonder if we would be perhaps better served if we, according to our individual consciences, followed our charge to live life ABUNDANTLY, to the greater glory of God and the greater good of our communities? What would that look like? Seriously. What would it look like if each of us, every day, reflected God’s love to the greatest degree possible to other people? How would we live? Would each of us, be willing on this forum, to talk about what we do EVERY DAY to reflect God’s love to others? Writing a blog is easy, I think. And I even think political activism is easy. Showing love to others in concrete, tangible ways, even when we disagree with them, is remarkably hard – and yet that was Christ’s example. Many thanks for the kind discussion.
Also, while not a Catholic, and while disagreeing with some Church doctrine, nontheless an incredible man of God and of peace is likely dying. We may wish to consider praying that God’s will be done and that Christ’s peace be upon him in these hours.
Dawn, from browsing your comments I’m left wondering for what are you arguing?
Should Christians have sat on their hands in this case?
Should we not have appealed to the courts and legislatures on behalf of Terri’s life?
Should we have simply seperated ourselves from the entire debate and prayed in our closets for a miracle?
I’m just not clear on what exactly, in this case, you are endorsing?
That you love Jesus is clear, but I fail to see how that plays out in defense of Terri Schiavo (and the millions of severely disable who today tremble in fear wondering when their time will come).
Furthermore, I find it troubling when people throw up Christ as a defense when they may face vigorous disagreement (though I’m not sure I disagree with you on this case, because what you write is all over the place). To me it is tantamount to saying, “Hey, come on, we’re all Christians, can’t we all just get along.”
Sure, Dawn, we should all be nice to each other. Yet if your interpretation of the Christian faith leads you to conclude that Christians were wrong to appeal to the courts and to their elected representatives in their attempts to prevent the killing of Terri Schiavo then I am going to vigorously argue with you on that point. And if you think that’s not being nice, well, forgive me for being blunt, but, get over it.
Glen, your post is interesting and certainly well-conceived. However, with regards to any government which aligns itself with any religious group or institution, even a Catholic one, I would direct you to the Magdalene asylums in Ireland, run by the Sisters of Mercy – nuns of the Catholic Church. The last one shut down as recently as 1996. In these, as many as 30,000 women were imprisoned against their will and used as slave labor. The women’s crimes? Being raped, having a baby out of wedlock, being too attractive, etc. It was discovered when one of the convents tried to sell some of the land of one of the laundries, and 133 unmarked graves (graves of women who had died imprisoned there) were discovered. 60 Minutes did a report on it, and it was the basis for an Irish documentary called “Sex in a Cold Climate” and later a movie called “The Magdalene Sisters.” The Catholic Church issued no apologies for this, nor any reparations, and condemned the movie.
But please, don’t take my word for this – look it up for yourself. Decidedly, I would take the chaos of our system, and seek Christ through my church and my conscience, spreading His love and mercy through my example, my testimony, and my works.
Dawn, I am arguing law not beliefs, not medicine
Dawn, as I mentioned earlier, I have declined to discuss the medical issues or even the theological issues, I have addressed legal issues. My stances is that Teri Shiavo did not receive the due process of law that she was entitled to under the American constitution. Remember until Thurgood Marshall challenged “separate but equal” education, it was accepted as constitutional. We need to challenge the constitutionality of Teri’s treatment as a matter of “due process of law” which is a legal term and a legal concept. This transcends her particular medical condition. Her particular medical condition is irrelevant to my argument, as is my own personal theological positions.
I am completely qualified by education and experience to fully critique the court’s opinion’s and actions. There is no bona fide reason for me to DEFER to someone CLOSER to the case on LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL issues. The football fan analogy doesn’t apply.
Daniel, in this particular case, my personal opinion, based on my faith, reason and conscience, would be, that as Christians, we would:
1)have prayed first and foremost for the elimination of OUR wills, so that we may actually seek the truth of God’s will and that, whatever that is, it might be done;
2)have acknowledged that we individually lack sufficient professional knowledge (i.e. – medical, legal, etc.) to render judgment;
3)to have prayed for and sought – whether through discussion, reading, research, etc. – UNDERSTANDING, of this issue, of the people on the other side of the issue, and that none of us are “bad”;
4)to have prayed, and actively worked for, RECONCILIATION between the two parties to the greatest degree possible so that God’s will might be achieved;
5)to have remembered the central figure in this struggle – Terri Schiavo – and ensuring that our interest, our presence, and our hopes did not actually hinder or interfere with the workings between the two parties or Terri’s struggle;
6)to have conversations with our own loved ones, doctors, and attorneys with regards to our wishes – and to ensure that our wishes are enforced through the necessary legal documentation;
7)to consider what means are best used to win others to the Word of God, whether its our neighbors, our elected officials; and what a TRULY CHRISTIAN society would look like in EVERY way;
and finally
7)that we would pray for, and have the wisdom to pursue, forgiveness and healing amongst ourselves and for others, so that some of the incredible un-Christlike behavior I’ve seen among Christians over the past few weeks wouldn’t occur again.
That’s what I would have advocated.
Fighting for justice is serving Christ
I know that I am subject to criticism for this the title of this post. It is just a bit…hmm…..self-glorifying and maybe a bit histrionic.
However, I will tell you that I have believed in the justice of EVERY SINGLE CASE I have ever taken to trial.
I served in an quasi-prosecutorial role in over 25 child abuse cases. I won 24 of those cases. They were tough fights and I was the only person, at that point in time, standing between innocent children and a child abuser. It was a fight, a very tough fight, against a determined opponent who could easily have won.
I have taken many cases in the civil courts. As I said I have believed in every case I took, because I don’t take cases I don’t believe in. I was the only person standing between an innocent person and personal disaster.
Evil is very real Dawn and it walks around in a well-dressed clothes and speaks with cultured tones, we are constantly struggling with it. We have a duty to oppose and fight it whenever we can.
Dawn, as a Christian, if you can’t look at what is happening in Florida from your position in Texas and come down on the side of Life, …. well, then I am somewhat at a loss for words. Let me share a few thoughts from G. K. Chesterton, quoted in the preface to Alan Jacob’s Shaming the Devil: Essays in Truthtelling, that I think addresses your call for, what I can’t help but describe as, inaction.
“What we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of convictions; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert – himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt – the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But he new skeptic is so humble that he doubts if he can skeptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn ? The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.”
Daniel, I can appreciate your commentary and will not criticize your perspective nor how you chose to arrive at it. I very much come down on the side of life – as well as each person’s right to choose it for themselves. If we think of it, even the Apostles didn’t “choose life” in a strictly pro-life sense: had they stopped teaching and renounced their faith, they conceivably would have lived. In essence, then, they chose to hasten the end of their own lives – through execution – because they chose Christ!
Perhaps this is something we must consider as Christians: that through Christ’s example (and that of the Apostles) we know that life isn’t always an unmitigated joy, that death is sometimes a release – and that for the Christian, it is never anything to fear.
Missourian, I do recognize your interest in legal arguments, and I recognize that you may well be a lawyer. From what you write, it sounds as if you were some sort of prosecutor, perhaps in a district attorney’s office somewhere. So I would not dispute that you would have some sort of knowledge with regards to criminal law. But I think that perhaps we might all agree that there are hundreds of thousands of attorneys out there, each with a different field of expertise (in Texas, for example, they have the option to become Board Certified in a specialty) and each would have a wide range of opinion with regards to this issue.
Even within my own congregation, which is fairly close to Southern Methodist University (and its School of Law), and its large membership of elderly (and a huge deaf ministry) opinion over the last few weeks did not seem, in fact, to favor the more conservative stance in this issue.
No doubt evil takes many forms. If you’ve never read the book “The Name of the Rose” by Umberto Eco, it’s excellent reading. And for the Christian, of course, our greatest examination, as Christ teaches us, is for each of us to prayerfully consider our own “evils” even as we are hope to heal others of theirs.
Note 86.
No, we have a theological disagreement, more specifically, your implicit defense of the killing of Terri Schiavo violates Orthodox moral teaching.
First off, your facts in the case are wrong. You are arguing that she was brain dead. She wasn’t. Again, don’t obsfucate facts.
Secondly, avoid euphemistic phrases like “she was already gone.” You are trying to imply that Terri Schiavo was already dead, thus killing her does not constitute a moral crime. But if she was already “gone,” why was it necessary to pull the tubes?
Thirdly, hidden in the phrase is confusion about Orthodox anthropology, a point I raised earlier to which you never responded (and how I know that this confusion exists): the body is not extrinsic to being; man is both soul and body. Listen more closely to the Orthodox prayers, specifically take a look at the Orthodox prayers of healing. They go to great effort to avoid any hint of body-soul dualism. Your thinking assumes such dualism actually exists.
Further, it doesn’t matter if Michael Schiavo doesn’t think he killed his wife. The intent of the perpetrator has no bearing on the veracity or authority of moral or civil law, even though intent can mitigate the degree of punishment. The only question is whether or not the killing was just. Our Orthodox faith responds with a resounding no.
Remember Cain’s question to Abel after the murder: Am I my brother’s keeper? The answer is yes.
I told my congregation last Sunday: if we disagree with the moral tradition about the killing of Terri Schiavo, it indicates that our ideas and beliefs need more examination than we give them.
You need to examine your ideas and beliefs more closely than you do.
Dawn, it is axiomatic to the Christian tradition that one does not seek martyrdom, least of all as a release from anything difficult in life. (I will leave out the scriptural and patristic examples right now but will provide them if asked). If one seeks martyrdom, one seeks one’s own will and therefore is not a martyr. Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor any other Christian martyr acclaimed as such ever sought their deaths, even if they were intelligent enough (as Jesus and St. Paul were) to see them coming. Rather, they stubbornly fought on the side of life until the world killed them. In their deaths they witnessed for life. Every Christian suffers death as a passion, just as Christ did: That is, as something which sweeps over one, which is irresistable, which cannot be stopped in earthly terms. Yet God the Father vindicated Jesus and raised him. And as St. Paul writes in Romans 6:5, “…if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”
Your language in this and other posts suggests that you consider passivity the correct course of action for Christians. Certainly we can’t rush to judgment, but when confronted with evil, a Christian may not acquiese to it, even if it is too strong for him or her in earthly terms. You wrote earlier about seeking God’s will. This is important, but it is not enough. We must also do God’s will. If that means calling evil by its true name and standing up to it, then merely refraining from judgment is worse than futile. It is effective complicity.
Dawn
Am I supposed to muzzle myself because I learn that there exists contrary opinion out there?
Should Thurgood Marshall have muzzled himself because there were attorneys who believed that “separate but equal” education was constitutional?
Our American legal system is based on the premise that issues will be vigorously debated and I intend to continue to do so within the bounds of my expertise.
AS I have noted, I take some care to observe the limits of my expertise. The issue of whether Teri Shiavo received “due process of law” is important. It is an issue which I am fully qualified to discuss and debate.
I may note that you have not really read my rather lengthy explanation of the relevance of habeus corpus to the federalism issue. You have not responded to it which tends to make me not to want to take care to explain things to you in any detail in the future.
Body of Christ
Isn’t one of the ideas behind the phrase “Body of Christ” is that we are His instrumentalities here on Earth during our lives. Each of us does what we can in our situation. I don’t think passivity is justified, becauase, after all we will all be joined together in the afterlife.
Christ did throw the moneychangers out of the Temple.
Note 99 (just so I can get Note 100): Yes, Missourian, you are right.
Missourian, you know, that’s one of the most fascinating passages in the Gospels, I think. Do you know why? Because that wasn’t Christ imposing His will on the government: rather, that was Him reflecting His authority in His jurisdiction, which was the TEMPLE! The money changers were in the TEMPLE. If I’m not mistaken, this is the only instance in which we actually see Christ angered and taking action: they were acting inappropriately within HIS JURISDICTION!…..
Note 95.
Dawn, essentially you brush off Missourian’s arguments with the retort “well, that’s your opinion.”
In actual fact however, the scriptural exhortation to “consider our own evil” does not mean that we either quit thinking, or that we should consider all ideas morally equal. We try to avoid intellectual and moral relativism on this blog as much as possible.
If you challenge someone and they respond, you are expected to meet that response. If the challenge lies outside of your area of expertise, don’t be afraid to say so. Ask for clarification instead.
Responding that other people see things differently merely states the obvious. Couching the response in the Christian vocabularly however, lends it an appearance of authority that it does not in fact possess.
Dawn,
Again, from the Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, “God keeps man free, never forcing his will. Contrary to it, Satan seeks to possess the human will, to enslave it. If the law conforms to the divine truth revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ, then it also stands guard over human freedom: ‘Where the Spirit is, there is liberty’ (2 Cor. 3:17). Therefore, it guards the inalienable rights of the personality. Those traditions, however, which do not know of the principle of the freedom of Christ, often seek to subject the human consciousness to the external will of a ruler or a collective.
The law and order of a particular country is a special version of the common worldview law characteristic of a given nation. The national law expresses the fundamental principles of relations between persons, between power and society and between institutions in accordance with the peculiarities of a given nation moving in history. The national law is imperfect, for imperfect and sinful is any nation. However, it establishes a framework for the people’s life if it translates God’s absolute truths into and adjusts them to the concrete historical and national existence.”
The kinds of abuses you outline in Ireland are contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, and should be contrary to the teachings of the Roman Church as well. Sin which harms no one other than the sinner should be reserved outside the legal realm. Prostitution is a sin to Orthodoxy, yet most Orthodox countries have legal prostitution. The Orthodox tradition is much less prohibitionist than a Calvinist tradition, again because Orthodoxy has no history of Millenialism.
Roman Catholic societies are also usually fairly tolerant of most sins from a legal standpoint, while teaching against them. If you have spent any time in Latin America, as I have, then you would have noticed that legal authorities are very tolerant of many vices. At the same time, however, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church provide a framework for their overall legal system.
The case with Ireland is fairly unique. It is a symptom of the pecularities of Irish culture and history, combined with the Roman Catholic Church having entirely too much temporal power. The Church should not be called upon to exercise temporal power, or to function as jailers. Power corrupts, which is why the direct participation of Orthodox clerics in the political process is prohibited, as is too close a collusion between Church and State.
In other words, I wouldn’t generalize too much from Irish experience. The key thing is this statement, “The national law expresses the fundamental principles of relations between persons, between power and society and between institutions in accordance with the peculiarities of a given nation moving in history.” The fundamental principles so expressed must come from somewhere – be it Marxism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or generic ‘Christianity’ in the American sense. The specific outworking of those ideals, even in an Orthodox context, will be unique in time and place. If you have no coherent set of principles to draw from, then you create a vacuum which will be filled by some kind of ideaology.
Bill, I would disagree that I endorse passivity as a course of action at all. However, it may be that we disagree as to what we consider to be the best course of action.
First, I would ask that each of us consider what our general goals for living might be. For me, in accordance with the principles of United Methodist teaching which encourage individual conscience and reasoning, governed by the Bible, that would be: 1)spiritual growth, so that through my example, testimony, and works reflect Christ’s love into the world (so that I would be able to face my Creator in the hereafter), 2)to encourage others to know Christ, to live in his Word and to grow in him, 3)to prayerfully seek those ways in which I can seek the greatest change, the greatest service, and the greatest good to His people on this earth.
So, how then, do I believe we as Christians should go about it to effect the GREATEST POSITIVE CHANGE? Again, I look to the example of Christ and the Apostles. But before we do that, let me ask each of you one question: has anybody ever tried to sell you something that you just DIDN’T want to buy? Really. I mean, whether it’s a telemarketer, a car salesman, a demonstrator in a store, an insurance salesperson, or whatever, haven’t we ALL been approached by somebody who tried to sell us something – who tried to convince us HOW GREAT THEIR PRODUCT WAS – and we just didn’t buy into it? Well, why didn’t you buy?
Probably, I bet the answer a lot of times was some combination of 1)you felt you didn’t need what they were selling, 2)you knew this person didn’t know you and was just trying to “sell” you on something, and 3)you didn’t feel that this person was REALLY vested in your personal well being.
As Christians, when we go to “take action”, we often do the same thing as these sales people, often to our detriment! Do we really convince people that Christ loves and forgives them? Do we really go far towards reducing evil? Poverty? Crime? Hunger? Despair? Immorality? Why not?
Christ and the Apostles took a different approach – they didn’t take the “hard sell” that we so often do. When we look at the Gospels, it would appear that (and perhaps I’m wrong) but in each instance of Christ teaching, he fed people, or forgave them, or healed them, or blessed them, or simply showed them compassion. Each of his miracles (with exception of his walking on water) was conducting with the purpose of rendering aid to someone in need. This doesn’t mean he failed to confront people – he did – but he confronted people in a spirit of compassion, pity, and humility; not self-righteousness, anger, and contentiousness. And how many did he convert in his life? And in his death?
Interestingly, many of Christ’s problems emerged because he wasn’t willing to “take more action” – because many believed that the Messiah would come to free them from bondage in a much more direct, physical manner. So again, it might be worth 1)considering what our goals are (are they truly Christ-like?) 2)considering how to go about them (are THEY truly Christ-like?) and then 3)proceeding (in a manner which is Christ-like).
Simply my opinion, and hopefully we are continuing to pray God’s will and Christ’s peace for the Pope.
Glen, this is really a remarkable passage from the Russian Church – I confess I know really nothing of the Russian Orthodox Church, how it differs from Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, etc.
However, I did want you to know that there were some of these asylums in Australia as well (interestingly, where there is also legal prostitution).
Have to run for the moment, but I am enjoying this friendly discourse and find it mutually beneficial. Best regards.
Dawn, Christ was not just the “sweet Jesus” you depict. Read the Woes against the Pharisees.
Moreover, in note 101, you project a modern secular concept of “separation of church and state” on first-century Palestine, in which government and religion were two sides of the same coin. We have to understand the Bible in its original terms before we can teach from it.
So a Christian tells someone who is embracing their “right” to kill themselves (a “right” that, based on what Dawn wrote above in Note 94, she embraces since if someone has a “right” to choose life then by extension they also have a “right” to not choose life) that what they are about to do is a sin against God, that God loves them and wants their life to go on until He calls him or her home at a time of His choosing, not theirs, this Christian is equivalent to a car salesman forcing a used Ford on someone who doesn’t want it.
There is a saying in the Talmud, “Those who are compassionate when they should be cruel, will end up being cruel when they should be compassionate.” Dawn expresses a great deal of compassion in her comments. However, with regards to what I read in her comments as a “right” to not “choose life” her compassionate is, sadly, leading her into a place of great cruelty.
Dawn,
Practically speaking, the term ‘Eastern Orthodox’ refers to all the national churches who are in communion with each other and who remained faithful to the decrees of Ephesus and Calcedon when Nestorianism and Monophysitism cut away the national Churches in Syria and Egypt. This includes the churches in Greece, Russia, Ukraine, and Serbia.
I originally came into the Orthodox Church through a Greek parish. Later, my wife and I switched to a parish of the OCA, which has Russian roots. The full document I have been quoting is at the following link: http://www.mospat.ru/chapters/e_conception/
I think a lot of what is in that document will surprise you.
The Russian Church seems to have been the most progressive of all the Orthodox Churches in terms of compiling its teachings into clear and concise documents. I have never found anything referenced in the teachings of the Russian Church that I would consider to not be universal in its message. I would love it if the American jurisdictions of Orthodoxy would compile a similar document, but that has just not happened yet. To get the same information on Orthodox teaching, but from American sources, I would have to comb the Greek Archdiocese server, the OCA server, the Antiochian server, etc. In the end, I would compile a list of information that was almost identical to what I would have gotten going straight to the Russian documents.
Glen, thank you for the URL. While I can’t say whether or not the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church would align perfectly (or even well?) with those of my faith, I have added the URL to my “list of favorites” so that I can learn more: one of the basic precepts of the United Methodist Church is to embrace reason as a way for us to understand and grow closer to God and (so I believe) His people as well.
Thank you again for the link so that I can read more.
I think what I was actually doing Bill was setting forth the concept that Christ recognized that (and he even stated this, when he stated that His kingdom wasn’t of this earth) He would exercise his authority only in spiritual matters. Note he didn’t interfere with the business of money changers, prostitutes, tax collectors (or anybody else) at any other time – in fact, he sat down and ate with them in an effort to demonstrate God’s love and compassion.
Comment 107:
Daniel, as I understand, my Church has not come out with a position against living wills, or removing someone from a respirator or feeding tube, so long as we have reason to believe that 1) their recovery is unlikely (such as in the case of brain death) and 2) it would be the person’s wish. In the United Methodist Church, faith is partnered with reason so that it is a rare thing for the Church to declare that it “knows God’s will.” In general, my Church’s doctrine is that the only One who knows the Lord’s will is the Lord, and that we may pray about it, discuss it, attempt to discern it, but that humanity is not the Infinite and Almighty God, and there are limits to what we may know.
Therefore, I would never declare to another person that their action “was against the will of God.”
http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1659
Daniel, Glen
Grab my hands, disconnect my keyboard, turn off my computer, keep me from typing…. please.
I am fighting an overwhelming urge to write an essay on why I left the UMC after having been raised in it.
Stop me, stop me, somebody stop me….
I’m glad you left the UMC. You belong in the Orthodox Church. Take deep breaths and walk around some. The urge will pass.
Dawn, in other words, we can know nothing, do nothing, but if we pray hard enough everything will turn out OK because that is God’s will. O, but God’s will is going to be done anyway, so why even bother with that–just don’t make a fuss. Such an attitude is an affront to all of the faithful down through the ages from St. Stephen, the protomarytr to the nameless marytrs in the Sudan today. Not to mention all of the confessors of Christ who have endured hardship, torture, and pain as a witness to the truth of God’s love. Your idea turns man into a spineless automaton and has nothing to do with God, Jesus Christ, the Gospel or the Church. It might as well be, “Hey, whatever turns you on man! Go for it dude. Who am I to judge.” Your belief also leads to the idea that God is a cosmic sadist and we are his puppets.
Where do you draw the line? Who has to be killed in what manner by whom before you would stand up and say, enough!
To be Christian is to confront evil where ever it is. Yes, we must confront evil with love and forgiveness and an understanding that our own nature is corrupted by sin, but confront it we must, even unto death. In fact, a genuine confrontation with evil will lead more often than not to disruption and pain rather than acceptance by others. After all, Jesus said that the world would hate those who followed Him just as the world hated Him.
People are capable of recognizing the truth when it appears. We can make consistent moral judgements based on an understanding of immutable reality revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Gospel, His saints, and His Church. We have a God given responsibility to both live and proclaim that truth in every situation and circumstance possible.
Thanks for the intervention Glen
Your technique worked. Breath…… Breath….. Breath….. AHHHHHH. Very good.
If not Orthodox, then at least something like the Wesleyan Church which is pretty much the Church I was born into and have fond memories of. Tackling huge theological issues involved in an intelligent choice of denomination is daunting. The Orthodox seem to have a more secure theological anchor. I am sympathetic to the desire for orthodoxy which leads Protestants to strive to be ruled solely by Scripture but that rule has not prevented schism after schism.
Some truly bizarre practices have developed from Prostestanism.
It all makes my head hurt. I can’t support the current UMC though that is for sure.
Dawn, study your own history. English abolition came out of Methodist circles. The early Methodists knew slavery was evil, and eventually moved a nation to abolish it. If they followed the counsel of modern Methodism, they would have had plenty of discussions about how evil slavery might be, but would have done nothing to stop it.
I know my Church’s history and wouldn’t disagree with you at all about abolition. However, I strongly suspect Methodists – given their belief systems as defined by their Church – wouldn’t endorse calling others murderers, leave threatening, hateful messages on people’s VM, or “confront” through otherwise hateful language and action. Confrontation of evil is one thing – confrontation THROUGH evil is another.
What are you arguing here, that evil should not be confronted, or that a person should not return evil for evil? If the latter, well, yes. That should be obvious.
Dawn, no one here defends the vituperative over-reaction to injustice. However, it is understandable that people get down right mad and loose control. Even St. Nicholas in the First Council of Nicea got so angry that he punched Arius-an over reaction that caused him to be expelled from the Council and very nearly defrocked.
The fact that there are people who react in evil ways to the Terri Schiavo case does not in any way invalidate the necessity to proclaim and act upon the truth, in fact just the opposite. We should have the courage and moral consistency to renounce such acts and do whatever we can to stop them.
Notes 110 and 117. Well, 117 first. Dawn, yes, confrontation of evil through evil is in itself evil. 110: I understand how you’re interpreting those verses, but we have to take them in context, since the Bible is composed of stories/contexts woven into one great story/context, not individual aphorisms. When Jesus points out that his kingdom is not of this world, he means that it is a greater kingdom which does not need to compete with earthly kingdoms to keep its authority. That authority comes from God, which is what Jesus points out when he says in the same passage that Pilate would have no authority over him unless it had been given to him by God. This means that God’s (and therefore Jesus’, since he is the Son of God) business is greater than and incorporates the business of earthly kingdoms. In other words, Jesus executes his authority in all matters, not just in “spiritual” ones (this, as I already pointed out, is a secular distinction anyway).
Mrs. Schiavo was nothing more than a political pawn for both of the Bush Administrations. As the mother of a handicaped child I would not have wanted him exploited by the media, as Mrs. Schiavo was. I love him way to much to let that happen to him.I’ve been with him in a media situation before and they are ANIMALS. THANK YOU.
PAM
Pam,
So you’d rather that your son’s wife could starve him to death in private, and no one would get involved?
The Schindler’s wanted help. They got it. The problem was – the help was ineffective. That is my beef with the Bush Administrations, both in Washington and in Florida- don’t get involved only to fail.
Was this case manipulated for political gain? Probably. I am sure that the motives of many of the actors was far from pure. That doesn’t take away from the essential justice of their ultimate aim, which was to stop a woman from being starved to death. If the Schindlers hadn’t wanted to save their daughter, then none of this would have happened.
The Vatican, the Orthodox Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and even some of the more liberal mainline denominations opposed what happened to Terri. In fact, most of the advocacy groups for the disabled did as well.
As the mother of a disabled child, I would think that you would be more sensitive to the potential catastrophe that can arise from deeming a person’s life not worth living.
I have criticized the Bush Administration bitterly over foreign policy, economic policy, judicial policy, fiscal policy, and more besides. But I will not criticize the administration or Congress for trying to save Terri’s life. It was the right thing to do morally.
I criticize them for failing. Effort isn’t good enough in life and death situations. If Terri’s parents wishes, the ethical guidance of all major Christian churches, the law as passed by the State of Florida house and senate, and the doubts surrounding the motivations of her husband (shacked up with another woman with children) aren’t enough for you – then I fail to see how anything I could say would have any effect on you.