A Response To: 'Death of Terri Schiavo ... Threatens Us All'
Monday, March 28, 2005
By Cal Thomas
Fox News
Editorial Link: Here
My Response:
Your over-simplification of this case is what is dangerous to us all. You have allowed the emotional rhetoric of a very sad state of affairs to create a smoke screen to the issue that was at the crux of this case. Indeed, your own rhetoric and PERSONAL FEELINGS only adds fuel to the fire; a fire that is illogical and ideologically driven.
This case is about the following:
A) A person's right to determine the process by which they CHOOSE to die in circumstances that suggest that recovery is simply not in their future. This stems from our ability to keep someone biologically operative, but not necessarily alive in the sentient sense.
B) State law on guardianship. As it stands now, it is almost unanimous that the spouse has defacto guardianship rights in any case where the other spouse is involved. In essence, once you marry, your parents become secondary. That is the LAW, take it or leave it. If you try to change it, the problems that will be caused for the solution as you see it will be wholly worse than the ONE problem it is intended to solve.
C) Due process and legal procedure. This case, more than most I might add, has received due process at virtually every level of the judiciary; in fact it has been the beneficiary several times over. Imagine the lives that could have been saved if the millions of dollars spent on this case by the "right to life" groups had been spent on anti-poverty programs or local health clinics. Regardless, the process of law functioned not only as it was supposed to, but exceedingly well given the intense emotional pressures.
In short, by all statutes in the state of Florida AND the federal government, Michael's continued right to be the guardian has been upheld...all the way to the Supreme Court. So, all other issues about guardianship are moot from a legal standpoint. Once guardianship is established, then it becomes an issue as to whether there was ever a contract or intent to NOT live under the conditions under which Terri is currently being kept biologically alive. The courts, through the testimony of Michael AND others, determined that Terri had indeed made the choice NOT to live under such conditions. This too has stood the test of scrutiny all the way to the Supreme Court and therefore is, for ALL intents and purposes, fact. New revelations and all other assertion have NOT stood through such scrutiny and therefore the FACT stands on its own.
Given the above, it is clear, in the eyes of the law, that Michael is indeed carrying out the wishes of the person for whom the court deems him legally responsible with respect to medical and end or life decisions. Given this position and the legally accepted fact that she maintained a position that specifically requested that she not be kept alive by the means currently being employed, Michael has chosen to fulfill her wish.
HOW she passes and the attendant emotional revulsion by some is irrelevant. No one deserves to die; yet, we all do; and few ever have a choice in how. Your emotional appeals are just that, emotion. They are not based on how we as a nation of laws conduct business and frankly are more about your ideology than your understanding of how America works or your feelings about the person who is Terri. Your shrill calls to emotion are born of your frustration that life as we know it does not conform to life as you wish it were; something that afflicts all of those who cannot deal with the gray of life that many like you try to shoe-horn into black and white.
The real issue is trying to define what is life, and perhaps death as well, in the eyes of the law. If America could come to a legal consensus of what constitutes "life" with respect to when it begins and when it ends (good luck), then all of these issues would be easily addressed. But, in doing so, it would almost guarantee that life would be viewed as more than just a biological function and would become a question of when does self-aware, sentient life begin and end. This would not mean knowing when the biological body senses pain and sends appropriate signals, but when does the sentient self realize what it means and is capable of reacting without artificial assistance. Given these constraints, it's also easy to see that such a consensus would almost certainly mean that euthanasia and abortion would be legal at some point in the chain of life. Given this, it's even easier to see why the radical social right would much prefer to have the definition of life remain an emotional debate as opposed to a logical and legal debate. It's the hypocrisy of all fundamentalist ideology that, in the end, cannot stand up to, or deal with, the logic that defines the laws of a liberal democracy. The Bible, Koran, Torah, (place your holy book here) are great guides, but lousy constitutions by which to govern the diverse human race - hence the brilliance of our Constitution.
While Terri's situation is indeed tragic on almost any human level, it should not be the rallying cry for the destruction of the very government construct our men and women are supposedly fighting and dying for in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should we allow our emotions and ideology to govern our land, then I ask you, what is the difference between us and the Taliban?
Monday, March 28, 2005
By Cal Thomas
Fox News
Editorial Link: Here
My Response:
Your over-simplification of this case is what is dangerous to us all. You have allowed the emotional rhetoric of a very sad state of affairs to create a smoke screen to the issue that was at the crux of this case. Indeed, your own rhetoric and PERSONAL FEELINGS only adds fuel to the fire; a fire that is illogical and ideologically driven.
This case is about the following:
A) A person's right to determine the process by which they CHOOSE to die in circumstances that suggest that recovery is simply not in their future. This stems from our ability to keep someone biologically operative, but not necessarily alive in the sentient sense.
B) State law on guardianship. As it stands now, it is almost unanimous that the spouse has defacto guardianship rights in any case where the other spouse is involved. In essence, once you marry, your parents become secondary. That is the LAW, take it or leave it. If you try to change it, the problems that will be caused for the solution as you see it will be wholly worse than the ONE problem it is intended to solve.
C) Due process and legal procedure. This case, more than most I might add, has received due process at virtually every level of the judiciary; in fact it has been the beneficiary several times over. Imagine the lives that could have been saved if the millions of dollars spent on this case by the "right to life" groups had been spent on anti-poverty programs or local health clinics. Regardless, the process of law functioned not only as it was supposed to, but exceedingly well given the intense emotional pressures.
In short, by all statutes in the state of Florida AND the federal government, Michael's continued right to be the guardian has been upheld...all the way to the Supreme Court. So, all other issues about guardianship are moot from a legal standpoint. Once guardianship is established, then it becomes an issue as to whether there was ever a contract or intent to NOT live under the conditions under which Terri is currently being kept biologically alive. The courts, through the testimony of Michael AND others, determined that Terri had indeed made the choice NOT to live under such conditions. This too has stood the test of scrutiny all the way to the Supreme Court and therefore is, for ALL intents and purposes, fact. New revelations and all other assertion have NOT stood through such scrutiny and therefore the FACT stands on its own.
Given the above, it is clear, in the eyes of the law, that Michael is indeed carrying out the wishes of the person for whom the court deems him legally responsible with respect to medical and end or life decisions. Given this position and the legally accepted fact that she maintained a position that specifically requested that she not be kept alive by the means currently being employed, Michael has chosen to fulfill her wish.
HOW she passes and the attendant emotional revulsion by some is irrelevant. No one deserves to die; yet, we all do; and few ever have a choice in how. Your emotional appeals are just that, emotion. They are not based on how we as a nation of laws conduct business and frankly are more about your ideology than your understanding of how America works or your feelings about the person who is Terri. Your shrill calls to emotion are born of your frustration that life as we know it does not conform to life as you wish it were; something that afflicts all of those who cannot deal with the gray of life that many like you try to shoe-horn into black and white.
The real issue is trying to define what is life, and perhaps death as well, in the eyes of the law. If America could come to a legal consensus of what constitutes "life" with respect to when it begins and when it ends (good luck), then all of these issues would be easily addressed. But, in doing so, it would almost guarantee that life would be viewed as more than just a biological function and would become a question of when does self-aware, sentient life begin and end. This would not mean knowing when the biological body senses pain and sends appropriate signals, but when does the sentient self realize what it means and is capable of reacting without artificial assistance. Given these constraints, it's also easy to see that such a consensus would almost certainly mean that euthanasia and abortion would be legal at some point in the chain of life. Given this, it's even easier to see why the radical social right would much prefer to have the definition of life remain an emotional debate as opposed to a logical and legal debate. It's the hypocrisy of all fundamentalist ideology that, in the end, cannot stand up to, or deal with, the logic that defines the laws of a liberal democracy. The Bible, Koran, Torah, (place your holy book here) are great guides, but lousy constitutions by which to govern the diverse human race - hence the brilliance of our Constitution.
While Terri's situation is indeed tragic on almost any human level, it should not be the rallying cry for the destruction of the very government construct our men and women are supposedly fighting and dying for in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should we allow our emotions and ideology to govern our land, then I ask you, what is the difference between us and the Taliban?
posted by Mike at 3:46 PM
1 Comments:
Emotion sells Mike. The main body cares not for rational discourse, for a reasoned, impartial objective view at the things around us. The main body wants drama, conflict, and it damn well better wrap up in 23 minutes, cause after that, the next big thing is coming down the pike.
Fight the good fight.
Namaste.
N
Post a Comment
<< Home