March 23, 2005

The quality of mercy

Mar. 23 - Charles Krauthammer speaks to the issues in the Schiavo case, The law is failing Terri and to the conflict over whether Congress and the president overstepped their bounds:

The general rule of spousal supremacy leads you here to a thoroughly repulsive conclusion.

Repulsive because in a case where there is no consensus among the loved ones, one's natural human sympathies suggest giving custody to the party committed to her staying alive and pledging to carry the burden themselves.

[...]

Given our lack of certainty, given that there are loved ones prepared to keep her alive and care for her, how can you allow the husband to end her life on his say-so?

Because following the generally sensible rules of Florida custody laws, conducted with due diligence and great care over many years in this case, this is where the law led.

For Congress and the president to then step in and try to override that by shifting the venue to a federal court was a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers. The federal judge who refused to reverse the Florida court was certainly true to the law.

But the law, while scrupulous, has been merciless, and its conclusion very troubling morally. We ended up having to choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other.

No easy answers to this one. I think many of us have simply listened to our hearts, which whispered Mercy. As Tolkien pointed out, letting mercy stay one's hand may seem foolish but we should not be so quick to take away life when we cannot also restore it.

I can't judge if Terri Schiavo is truly "brain dead." I can't judge what her wishes would be could she express them. I can't judge if she is or is not capable of responding to therapy.

I can only judge that her life has great value to her parents and that they are willing to fight to preserve that life.

I prefer to go with the option that does less harm, the option that is not irreversible, the option that springs from love and faith.

I prefer not to play God.

05:45 - I think what is most in my mind when I look at this case is (almost unavoidably) the example of Pontius Pilate, who followed the letter of the law and has been reviled for doing so by Christians. It's so easy on this side of the judicial bench ...

I dislike publishing personal facts about my family, but after thinking about this I think I should probably disclose that my sister was in a coma for several months, was non-responsive, and that the odds she would recover were low (she suffered a base skull fracture.) BUT she did wake up, and despite her chronic physical problems due to the injury, I know for a fact that she is glad to be alive as indeed are those of us who love her. That is probably why I shrug when I read assumptions printed as "facts" about Terri's awareness and potential for recovery. Doctors, like weather forecasters, make predictions based on probabilities but do not - or should not - exclude possibilities.

06:22 - Michelle Malkin sheds considerable light on the ABC poll which purported to show most Americans would prefer not to be kept alive in similar circumstances as Terri: they were misled about her condition!

6:32 The 11th Circuit Court denied the request to re-insert the feeding tube 2-1. The Schindlers plan to appeal.

06:53 - Kateland is also awake and posting early. She has a couple of posts on Terri Schiavo, and poses an challenging question on the Pope's quality of life and why people in Israel might be horrified that a woman be allowed to die of thirst and hunger. Good, penetrating posts.

07:19 - Peter Worthington points out that should Mr. Schlinder kill Mr. Schiavo, Mrs. Schlinder's wishes would prevail. (Pull in your horns, people, no one is actually advocating such an act! He's simply making a point about the illogic of the current law which would, in the absence of the husband, grant the decision in this case to Terri's next closest kin.)

Posted by: Debbye at 05:33 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 714 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Yes, that's what the law says, but if we were paying attention to the actual laws in this case, her husband would be in jail for adultery. It's still in the law, and her husband is living with another woman, has two children with her, and calls her his fiancee. Money is also an issue here, as when Teresa Schiavo dies, he gets the remainder of a $20 million dollar legal settlement. You should look up the sworn statement of the nurse that used to help take care of her. He wants her to die, so that he can get the money, and marry his fiancee. Her parents offered him a divorce, so that he could marry this woman, and they could take over her care, but he wouldn't do it. He wants the money. She was not on life support, and she would "talk" to her nurses and family, even though her speech is garbled. Just because she can't feed herself, she should starve to death? By that reasoning all newborns, end-stage alzheimers patients, and any other person disabled so as not to be able to feed themselves should die. It's not right, and it shouldn't be happening. Should the federal gov't have stepped in, no, but somebody needs to. This is WRONG, INDECENT, and INHUMANE. Starving to death, or dying of dehydration are not "pleasant" or "peaceful" ways to die. This is WRONG. Her parents are willing to pay for her care, and to grant her husband a divorce. Shouldn't they be allowed to take over?

Posted by: Chad at March 23, 2005 09:34 AM (ogWpI)

2 I have enough doubts in both directions I wouldn't want to make the decision. I wouldn't want to live like that but that's just me, now. That being said, what bugs me is the word games they're playing - "allowing her to die". What a crock. They're killing her and they should admit that. Then they could give her the same decent execution any convicted murderer gets instead of torturing her to death. I wouldn't want to live like her, no - but I'd want even less to be starved to death.

Posted by: Jay at March 23, 2005 01:24 PM (PuNh2)

3 Good post Debbye. I believe it was Saint Thomas of Aquinas who said that a bad law is no law. Positive law (enacted by legislatures) draws its ultimate authority from the fact that it is consistent with natural law and Divine law. When it fails this test, as it does most egregiously with Terri Schiavo, it compels neither respect, nor obedience, from citizens.

Posted by: John the Mad at March 23, 2005 11:19 PM (SHENr)

4 I have a living will. Even with that, my family would not find much guidance for Terri's circumstances. I vote for her continued life because her ex-husband's word is too suspect, convenient, and 'timely'. And I don't think she should be neglected to death if we don't know what she wants. Her parents want her to receive aggressive therapy toward improvement. Her ex has demanded and succeeded in preventing this. I just don't think he is speaking in her interests and I certainly don't trust him. It is not enough for us to say what we would want, even if we knew her real prognosis. It is what she would want and we just don't know.

Posted by: mikem at March 23, 2005 11:51 PM (EzNXf)

5 How cute! The righties grab the new talking points that FOX was hammering home today about the husband being abusive and motivated by greed (despite the fact that both claims are total bullshit). You'll just parrot anything back as long as your told. You people are no better than Party members in the USSR. Are the networks and blogsphere your version of Pravda? Stalin would love people like you.* I'l look out with that living will mikem!! Your posts prove that you're already brain dead! (OH SNAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!)** * FIRST WITH THE STALIN REFERENCE! I PRE-EMPT ALL OF YOU! ** No "CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADIANS" Mikem? You must be losing your (retarded) touch. Looks like i broke you.

Posted by: Blackglasses at March 24, 2005 08:18 PM (t+KkC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
20kb generated in CPU 0.0111, elapsed 0.0906 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.083 seconds, 147 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.