In Love With Death

Peggy Noonan: The bizarre passion of the pull-the-tube people.

God made the world or he didn’t. God made you or he didn’t.

I do not understand the emotionalism of the pull-the-tube people. What is driving their engagement? Is it because they are compassionate, and their hearts bleed at the thought that Mrs. Schiavo suffers? But throughout this case no one has testified that she is in persistent pain, as those with terminal cancer are.
If they care so much about her pain, why are they unconcerned at the suffering caused her by the denial of food and water? And why do those who argue for Mrs. Schiavo’s death employ language and imagery that is so violent and aggressive? The chairman of the Democratic National Committee calls Republicans “brain dead.” Michael Schiavo, the husband, calls House Majority Leader Tom DeLay “a slithering snake.”

Everyone who has written in defense of Mrs. Schiavo’s right to live has received e-mail blasts full of attacks that appear to have been dictated by the unstable and typed by the unhinged. On Democratic Underground they crowed about having “kicked the sh– out of the fascists.”

Why are they so committed to this woman’s death? They seem to have fallen half in love with death.

Related Posts:

I have read through articles, both pro and con about Terri’s case. It troubles me that we have, as a society, finally decided that those who cannot defend or support themselves have no right to live. I lost my wife in 2003, following an aneurism. When she was admitted to the hospital, she was unconscious, with a very low chance of recovery. At that time, I was asked about a do not resuscitate order. It was explained to me that in the event of her heart stopping from the injury to her brain, only chemicals would be given to her in an effort to start her heart, no CPR, no paddles. We both had living wills that stated we desired no extraneous measures used to prolong our lives. While she was in the hospital, she was fed, and hydrated, and she had a monitor to watch brain activity. For the next week, I sat at her bedside and watched her, talked to her, and held her hand, all the while staring at a monitor that showed her brain activity declining. When it flatlined, all that was keeping her alive were the machines. Then two minutes later, her heart stopped. The staff did what they could, but she was already gone. My reason in telling this is that I feel that as long as someone is able to function on some level, whether vegetative or not, they deserve every chance to live.
Prisoners on death row are given a last meal, before they are led to their fates. They are not starved, or left to die of thirst. To do this would be to deny them the simple human dignity af a quick, painless death. It would also have the Supreme Court up in arms about cruel and inhuman punishment. Yet they, in their wisdom, are allowing a person who cannot state her desires to be murdered while the world looks on. There is a difference between euthanasia and murder. Perhaps it is time for our Justices to take another look at the Constitution, and remember that it is how a government defends those who cannot defend themselves that all the world, and history will note. The willingness to allow this travesty of human rights to continue, in my opinion, will place this court, and all the judges involved, on the same page as the WWII criminals that were condemned. But at least, they were given the chance to speak for themselves.

1 thought on “In Love With Death”

Michael B.

March 24, 2005 at 2:57 pm

I have read through articles, both pro and con about Terri’s case. It troubles me that we have, as a society, finally decided that those who cannot defend or support themselves have no right to live. I lost my wife in 2003, following an aneurism. When she was admitted to the hospital, she was unconscious, with a very low chance of recovery. At that time, I was asked about a do not resuscitate order. It was explained to me that in the event of her heart stopping from the injury to her brain, only chemicals would be given to her in an effort to start her heart, no CPR, no paddles. We both had living wills that stated we desired no extraneous measures used to prolong our lives. While she was in the hospital, she was fed, and hydrated, and she had a monitor to watch brain activity. For the next week, I sat at her bedside and watched her, talked to her, and held her hand, all the while staring at a monitor that showed her brain activity declining. When it flatlined, all that was keeping her alive were the machines. Then two minutes later, her heart stopped. The staff did what they could, but she was already gone. My reason in telling this is that I feel that as long as someone is able to function on some level, whether vegetative or not, they deserve every chance to live.
Prisoners on death row are given a last meal, before they are led to their fates. They are not starved, or left to die of thirst. To do this would be to deny them the simple human dignity af a quick, painless death. It would also have the Supreme Court up in arms about cruel and inhuman punishment. Yet they, in their wisdom, are allowing a person who cannot state her desires to be murdered while the world looks on. There is a difference between euthanasia and murder. Perhaps it is time for our Justices to take another look at the Constitution, and remember that it is how a government defends those who cannot defend themselves that all the world, and history will note. The willingness to allow this travesty of human rights to continue, in my opinion, will place this court, and all the judges involved, on the same page as the WWII criminals that were condemned. But at least, they were given the chance to speak for themselves.

Comments are closed.