| Terri Schiavo |
| Honestly, I'm kind of ticked off about this case. Mainly, because it's encouraged pro-lifers to say stupid, stupid things. Also, because it's shown how truly evil the people that want her dead are. But, I'll save my opinion for the end. First, I'll just recount stupid things I've heard people say:
1) The parents should have a (or the) say in the matter. *BUZZ* WRONG! See, I hold to a Christian view of family and marriage. And you know what the Scripture says about that? "A man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24 NASB) You know what happens in a Christian wedding ceremony? The bride's father GIVES the bride AWAY. Do you know what that means? It means that your rights and responsibilities as the woman's father are transferred, in their entirety, to the husband. That's it. In Old Testament law, if something happened to the husband, do you know whose responsibility it was to take care of the woman? It was the husband's brothers (or further kinsmen, if necessary). Not the woman's parents. Never the woman's parents. That is what Scripture teaches, Christian community. So, don't give me this crap about the parents having rights over what happens to their daughter. They don't. They gave them up, as the Scripture says they are supposed to when the woman gets married. So, instead of creating whatever stupid anti-Biblical argument will justify your preconceived notion of what is right, read your Bible like a good Christian and discover that you are actually arguing AGAINST the very revealed words of God. Ask forgiveness for rebelling against God's revealed wisdom in favor of your own finite human judgment. And then, think about what marriage means. If it means nothing, then give up your faith. You don't belong in God's Church. If, however, marriage is a blessed sacrament creating a spiritual union between man and wife that trumps all other human unions (including parent and child), then think about what that means in this case. Thank you. 2) Jeb Bush should stop this from happening. Okay, okay, okay, okay... Have you ever heard of separation of powers? It's a simple idea. Each branch of government has certain powers they hold. In this case, they work together this way: Legislature says "Living will = enough to take someone off life support if they are not able to communicate". Judiciary says "Husband's account = enough evidence to establish existence of a living will". Executive (in this case Jeb) says "I'll uphold the law, and uphold the refusal of life support." That's the way the constitutional system is supposed to work. In order for anyone to deviate from this, they have to believe that there is a directly constitutional reason to interfere. If, for example, the Florida Constitution said "Living will must be in writing.", then Jeb Bush could say "I'm not uphold that, you stupid judge." My understand is that it does not say that, so he can't constitutionally do anything. So, conservatives who love strict constructionism: be quiet about what Jeb Bush should do. Read the Constitution, instead. Then formulate a better argument. 3) Feeding tubes are not an artificial way of sustaining life. So... Who do you know that I don't? Because apparently, you know someone who was born with a feeding tube that didn't require swallowing as part of the process. And, apparently, you know enough such people to call this "natural". Personally, I've never met such a person. And, if I did, I would call it "strange", not "natural". Now, some people like to say "There's a difference between a respirator and a feeding tube." Oh, really? What is that? "You die faster if they stop a respirator." Oh... So, it's not a matter of whether it's an artificial way of sustaining life. It's a matter of whether it's an extremely necessary way of sustaining life. That, my friends, is extremely subjective, not to mention just silly. So, how about how evil anti-pro-lifers are: 1) Arresting people for trying to bring her a drink of water and/or food. 2) Ruling that feeding her by mouth is equivalent to having a feeding tube (strangely enough, pro-lifers de facto claim the same thing with their argument #3 above). These two are also stupid. But, they also lead to evil: being the starving of a woman against her will. So, where do I stand? Personally, I think that she should be kept on the feeding tube. I'm going to leave out how much of a creep Mr. Schiavo is, though it's important to note. He is a creep. And I think he's a greedy creep and a bad husband. And I'm mad at the people that stand outside the hospital with signs that say "Divorce is an option. Murder is not." HELLO!!! She's CATHOLIC. Divorce is NOT an option. Just a side rant. But, why she should be kept on: 1) The only evidence of her living will is hearsay evidence by an interested party. In short, the judge made the wrong decision. Hearsay evidence is NOT evidence. (I remember a line from the G&S Opera Iolanthe... "You must not tell us what he told you. It's not evidence." So, Mr. Shiavo saying "She said she wouldn't want this" is not admissable evidence. Seeing as there is no living will (according to proper evidence rules), we have to defer to another standard. I would say we should use the "dependent child" standard. Legally, parents or guardians have a responsibility to care for their dependents (children or invalids). Anything else is negligence. So, there you have it. Mr. Shiavo, as his spouse's guardian, has a responsibility to care for his wife. If he doesn't (say, by ordering her feeding tube removed), he should be criminally prosecuted, and the courts should order proper care reestablished. That's the legal grounds for what should happen. 2) Orally giving food is not the same as a feeding tube. This is another point where the government followed its own natural tendency, and messed things up. Simple fact is this: if she chooses to swallow sustenance, she is showing that she, in fact, wants to live. If she can't swallow sustenance, then it doesn't matter if people try to feed her. She won't be able to take the food in by natural means, so she'll starve to death anyway. So, don't turn away (or arrest) the people that want to try giving her food. In the end, they won't do any harm to what her wishes are. There's an important point that Irked brought up in conversation about this case the other day... A few years ago, there would be no "Terri Schiavo case". She would have died already. [Now my expansion on this point] But, as our medical technology increases, we're faced with more and more power over life and death. On the one hand, this is good, in that we can save more people that want to be saved. On the other hand, it creates debates where there wouldn't have been any before. I would add that it adds a silly humanistic side to our thought. It tricks us into thinking that life is more about making the world what we want it to be than it is about accepting reality as it is. I think that there's a single statement that Christ made that needs to be our focus in the Christian life: "Not my will, but thine be done." We are not to be the movers and shakers. Even when we think we are, we're not. ["Any power you have comes to you from above."] Rather, our goal should be, first and foremost, to accept God's will for our lives. After we've done that, we can worry about figuring out what it is, and then doing it. I'm tempted to write another little entry about that being the proper order... But, I'll save that for another day. So, to conclude, the courts are stupid twice over. Pro-lifers are stupid three times over. And Anti-pro-lifers are evil twice over. But, in the end, Terri Shiavo is a victim of it all. |
| Home Philosophy Theology Economics and Finance Politics The Arts Costa Rica 2004 Fun Stuff Links My Blog E-mail Me |
 |