Some final notes on the Terri Schiavo case
TownHall.com John Leo
The behavior of conservatives. Uneven and sometimes awful, with lots of vituperation and extreme charges. (Jeb Bush does not remind me of Pontius Pilate; I don’t think it’s fair to circulate rumors that Michael Schiavo was a wife-beater.) Worse were the revolutionary suggestions that the courts be ignored or defied, perhaps by sending in the National Guard to reconnect the tube. This is “by any means necessary” rhetoric of the radical left, this time let loose by angry conservatives. Where does this rhetoric lead?
The behavior of liberals. Mystifying. While conservative opinion was severely splintered, liberal opinion seemed monolithic: Let her die.
2 comments | 
| 
|
Jacobse | Sanctity of Life, Terri Schiavo |
Terri Schiavo has done us all a great service by forcing us to discuss end-of-life issues and how these issues are played out in a culture of life versus a culture of death. I think the intense focus on the judiciary is distracting us from those who, in the case of Terri Schiavo, gave Judge Greer much of the amunition he needed to accept the idea that Terri no longer had a “quality of life” that warranted “medical care” such as a feeding tube.
The medical community seems to be getting a pass from much of the commentary surrounding this case. Sure there are a few who rightly point out Dr. Ronald Cranford (not “Dr. Randall Crandall”, Father
) has a long history with pro-euthanasia and pro-physician assisted suicide activists. Sure there were the brief comments about the baby’s death in Texas after the child was removed from life support against the mother’s wishes (though this was brought up to show that Pres. Bush & other Republicans were just a bunch of hypocrites). However, from what I’ve seen only Wesley J. Smith is rightly pointing out that we reached this stage because the medical community – doctors, nurses, hospital administrators and bioethicists – have given themselves over to the utilitarian philosophers like Peter Singer et al who tell us that one does not have moral worth just because one is human. As Singer has written, it is one’s congitive capacity that gives one moral worth and those without sufficient cognition can be killed.
If you think I’m unfairly characterizing a community that works hard to ensure that the sick and injured are cared for then answer me this: Why would this caring community encourage women to have abortions because they may give birth to study published in the March issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology shows that many pregnant women receive only negative information from medical professionals when a prenatal diagnosis reveals a potential for giving birth to a baby with Down syndrome.”
“Among the examples noted in the report was an expectant mother who spoke of a medical professional who “showed a really pitiful video, first of people with Down syndrome who were very low tone and lethargic-looking, and then proceeded to tell us [in 1999] that our child would never be able to read, write or count change.”
“The study also found that expectant mothers were often not counseled by medical personnel regarding the latest information on Down syndrome or given any contact information about parent support groups during the emotional period when many women decide whether to seek an abortion.”
–end snip–
Oh, and if you think this is just a silly little survey by a group of folks with a pro-life agenda you would, of course, be wrong. “”The study is being billed by the Harvard University Gazette as “the largest and most comprehensive study on prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome to date.” It surveyed “2,945 mothers of children with Down syndrome from five parent support groups in five different states (CA, CO, MA, NC, RI)” and was conducted by the National Down Syndrome Congres, which, according to Sue Joe, a resource specialist with the Down Syndrome Congress, tries to remain neutral on whether or not a mother should have an abortion.
Terri Schiavo should wake us up to what is happening in our medical community. As it has been pointed out elsewhere, Nazi euthanasia programs did not start with Hitler. It started in the 20s and 30s under the Weimar Republic and was promoted by highly regarded physicians and philosophers.
A great deal of commentary has taken place on the role of the judiciary in the Terri Schiavo case. This commentary has said either we should accept the will of the judges and move on or the judges are out of control, exercising tyranny in America and we need to make them answer for their behavior. I can understand why so much attention is being paid to the judges in this case, since it is a Judge – Judge Greer – who signed the death warrant, who accepted Michael Schiavo’s lawyer’s pleadings to remove the feeding tube and then added, in his court order, that no food or water be administered orally. This focus, warranted as it is, misses a very large player in this case – the medical community and the thinking that runs through it.
There was some discussion of Ronald Cranford, MD, neurologist and medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota. When Dr. Cranford?s name was mentioned it was done so to buttress arguments for killing Terri. There was little mention of his connections with pro-euthanasia and pro-physician assisted suicide activists and his record of PVS diagnosis in 100% of the cases he has examined.
There was also some discussion the death of a child in Texas after a hospital unilaterally decided to remove life support and refuse treatment against a mother?s wishes. Yet this case was brought up predominantly to cast Pres. Bush and Republicans, in general, as a bunch of hypocrites using Terri Schiavo for political advantage.
After all the commentary about Terri Schiavo, all people seem to be inspired to do is get a living will. Terri Schiavo was killed as much, if not more so, by a medical community that is held captive by “quality of life” arguments when it comes to end-of-life decisions. If your life is deemed as having insufficient quality the medical community will consider it ethical to kill you.
Do I overreach with this argument? Consider published in the March issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology shows that many pregnant women receive only negative information from medical professionals when a prenatal diagnosis reveals a potential for giving birth to a baby with Down syndrome.”
“Among the examples noted in the report was an expectant mother who spoke of a medical professional who “showed a really pitiful video, first of people with Down syndrome who were very low tone and lethargic-looking, and then proceeded to tell us [in 1999] that our child would never be able to read, write or count change.”
“The study also found that expectant mothers were often not counseled by medical personnel regarding the latest information on Down syndrome or given any contact information about parent support groups during the emotional period when many women decide whether to seek an abortion.”
–end snip–
George Neumyar wrote about the “engineers” of the “humane holocaust”, posted elsewhere at this blog. As we think about those “engineers” we must remember that Nazi Euthanasia did not start with Hitler. It started with well regarded doctors and philosophers justifying the ending of life unworthy of life. A doctor or “genetic counselor” who tells a mother that the child within her may have Down Syndrome and it would be better if she have an abortion, that her child is not worthy of life, because that ?child would never be able to read, write or count change? has drunk deeply from the well of utilitarian philosophers like Peter Singer and like those who supported Weimar Republic?s euthanasia programs.