i, heretic
Terri Schiavo's impending death should give each of us pause no matter where we come down on the issue of her continued access to food. That I am on the side of life for Terri will come as no to surprise to those of you familiar with me. That I am mortified by the desecration of the rule of law by those who in a general sense agree with me will be probably less surprising to you still.
In a New York Times op-ed today, Charles Fried characterized the superficial problem well when he expressed dismay at the Republican’s situational contempt for the rule of law in light of their traditional patronage of that worthy cause. Whether the Republicans ever had a drop of sincerity in their support for the rule of law is hard to say, but it should be clear now that their purported high regard of America as a nation of laws is ultimately subservient to their political agenda. Unfortunately, a lack of fidelity to one’s stated High Ideals is nothing new for our political class regardless of which side of the isle on which they stand.
I seldom get more nauseous than when a Democrat or Republican is accusing other politicians of hypocrisy thereby achieving the epistemological marvel of hypocritical hypocrisy.
But my nausea today stems more from a profound discouragement that we as a society will ever be able to tackle complex ethical problems in a useful manner. We have become so dysfunctional that as a nation that we are not only unamazed at the politicization of a politically neutral moral issue, but we also unrepentantly accept this state of affairs as the norm. Our continuing voluntary acquiescence to content free dialog has brought us to this point where it is highly probable that we will come through the long and arduous “discussion” concerning Terri Schiavo and arrive at the other side with no more understanding or consensus than when we first considered the issues.
While I share the distress of many Americans over the need to find a socially useful definition of life, my greater terror comes from recognizing that the issues presented by the Schiavo case are of great simplicity when compared to profound bioethical questions that lie just over the horizon of popular consciousness. A society that cannot corporately determine that which is Life when dealing with familiar things such as the human genome will surely be dashed to philosophical pieces by the radical technologies which will explode upon us long before this writer reaches his actuarial expectation of the hereafter.
And make no mistake about it, what lays ahead is perhaps more daunting than what any of us can imagine. Will the mice with quasi-human brains that they claim are presently not allowed to fully develop be deemed worthy of any kind of human rights protection? What are we to do with other chimeras yet to be born? And fasten your seat-belts bio-sports fans because mere genetic tinkering of this kind is child’s play compared to efforts to use the building blocks of life to create fundamentally new biologies.
Hyperbole is scarcely even possible in these matters.
What is happening due to our collective inability to intelligently arrive at a conclusion on any issue that presents an ethical conflict is that we are abandoning some of our most important decisions to the political elite. Being dependable politicians, they of course pursue political advantage rather than leading constructive ethical debate. It is the ultimate in naiveté to be shocked by this.
The real shock is that we are missing here a great opportunity to set the law on the reasonable path of a presumption for the continuation of life. Certainly other positions are possible and should be discussed, but it seems likely that most Americans would favor a presumption of life in the absence of a prior clear expression to the contrary by the one who is no longer able to speak for themselves. Instead, we ogle the facts before us, stamp our feet in righteous anger and carefully avoid the uniquely American heresy of substantive dialog.
The politicians will have the last “laugh”, I suppose, because when the petition for injunctive relief to support the human rights of something akin to a pig-human chimera that can be shown to possess a brain with a human structure and chemistry, America will habitually turn to them to be told what to think. And what we must think will then of course depend on the red-blue topography of the upcoming election.
When bioethics questions come up, I often think about the line uttered by the Jeff Goldblum character from the movie Jurassic Park where he admonishes that “life will find a way”. As we set a course for tinkering with life in ways grander still than even what was depicted in that movie, it is a frightening thing to know that we proceed not only without a navigator, but without a rudder as well.
32 Comments:
Andrew,
I completely agree that the law must respect Terri’s choice. I disagree with her choice. I even would change the law so that there was a clear presumption in favor of life. But we trust courts with weighing the facts all of the time. As you said, a lot of judges have looked at these facts and been unmoved.
I would add that Florida has a particularly convoluted history in this area of law. One of my writing projects in school was to draft an opinion on behalf of the Florida Supreme Court regarding then current facts wherein some parents wanted to harvest the organs of an anencephalic baby prior to having it unhooked from life support. The conflicts of interest there makes the Schiavo case look juvenile. But what I found was the law in Florida was a mess and that had some confused case law that clearly seemed to favor euthanasia. Judge Curmudgeon’s solution was to create a hearing whereby judges would assess the conflicts of interest and facts before them and determine whether or not organ harvesting could go forward. The point of this being, if we are to be a nation of laws, the courts are our instituted triers of fact. Either you are going to follow the rule of law or not. And if you think the results of such a system could ever be totally satisfactory to any individual, you are just dreaming.
Molly was unusually good today on this very subject.
Thomas,
The problem you fail to realize is that you may in fact be substituting your own judgment for that of Terri. I personally think we have no collective guilt on this one because the court has done its best to determine her wishes based on the available evidence. I think you, and many others, are letting your own feelings on suicide color your perception of the situation.
Andrew,
Thanks for the Living Will. I’ve already modified it, but can’t get the Notary to accept my cat’s paw print as a signature. :-D I know this is her will. I was there when she scratched me and signed it.
Re: Schiavo. I’m so glad its not my job to answer this situation. Last fall a friend and client of mine fell from a significant height. He was in a coma for a couple of weeks and has had to relearn so much. He just recently got to go home from the hospital to his family, though with six hours of therapy 5 days a week for the next few months. Two weeks ago today, some other friends had a baby at home with a midwife. The child was born w/o breathing or detectable heartbeat, but CPR was performed, 911 called, and the baby was resuscitated. Unfortunately, the child was determined to have severe brain damage. The difficult decision to remove him from the respirator was made, but the child has now lived a whole week post-respirator, but not expected to live much longer. I grieve and pray for these friends. I am clueless how I would act or react in these cases. I do not currently have a Living Will. I know its sticking my head in the sand mentality, but there are some things I’d rather not consider a possibility. Having it hit so close to home, I guess I need to make the effort to not burden those I leave behind with the decision or the court battle. As many of my family members as I have seen in a hospital bed over the years, Its just too possible not to act on it now.
Prof. Ricardo
DavidR,
I believe that suicide is morally wrong. Perhaps when we know more about the brain and what constitutes death, I might have a change in opinion on Terri’s choice being the wrong one. To me, I think the only border that I am comfortable with in terms of defining death is that of brain death. Brain death is pretty well defined and I feel confident that corporeal existence ends at that point.
Of course in a free society, I believe she is entitled to that choice. And in a practical way, I can tell you in all honesty that there are circumstance where I might in desperation choose suicide myself, though I would also say it would still be an immoral choice on my part. Now, I do not think I would chose suicide, but I am being frank in my admission that I understanding that there exists depths of human suffering that I hope to never experience.
It is also my sincere belief that should I come to experience those depths of suffering, my God will provide me the comfort and strength I need to persevere. Having now gained some years of experience and seen such suffering first hand, I am not about to dictate those choices to others. I will state my view clearly and then leave the matter between them and God, which is where the matter belongs anyway.
DavidR,
Yes, the hypocrisy of the Religious Right is an amazing thing to behold. I narrowed the discussion for my blog piece, but I had originally planned to link this one.
And speaking of links, if you didn’t read the stories I linked, you have to see at least this one. I think a lot of people think that the coming bioethical issues are a long ways off and that I am just a wild-eyed doomsayer. But this stuff is close to reality and we will be confronting big issues within a handful of years.
DavidR,
First let me say, than God for us having something to disagree about. I feel much better now.
I don’t see the significance of participating in the act in “in some directly physical way”. What matters is your mental posture. I have trouble drawing these lines I totally admit. Lets say that someone has a serious injury of some kind and they only way they have of getting assistance is to drag themselves over a hot bed of coals to help, but the choose not to on whatever basis and choose to just lie there and “leave it in God’s hands”. I realize this is different and that is my point: I could probably easily and quickly come up with a hundred close calls like that. This is why it is important to leave it to the individual.
I am not saying that I’m positive that a persistent vegetative state is not death. I am saying that there is too much life there for me to feel comfortable saying in advance that I would no longer want to live from a moral standpoint. Brain death in my view is comfortably on the other side of the death line and I have no problem saying in advance that I would like the plug pulled in those circumstances.
Common Good, the blonde babe has spoken.
An excerpt of Ann Coulter on the Schiavo case: Starved for Justice...Florida state court Judge George Greer – last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death – determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman.
Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan – although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them.
Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers....
-----
Prof. Ricardo
C.G., I checked out your inequality.org site. I am terribly afraid that you or others might take this information and its foundational reasoning as something more than an embarrassment to true scholarly analysis of economic issues.
Ever been to one of those meetings where this home business will make you wealthy beyond your dreams, save you taxes, and oh, by-the-way, it’s not a pyramid? Now if you can build your “down-line” while progressing up your “up-line,” did I mention this wasn’t a pyramid? Same thing with this web site and the idea of inequality of income. They expressly say they are not involved in “class warfare.” Why would they feel the need to bring that up? If it looks like a duck, and walks like a....
Analogy. You and I have two vehicles. Mine gets 10 mpg and yours gets 20 mpg. New rules mandate a replacement and we replace them with their new high mileage counter parts. Now mine gets 17 mpg and yours gets 42 mpg. Are we both better off? Yes. Is the disparity (inequality) greater? Yes. Is that bad? No. If you did not exist, and I jumped from 10 to 17 mpg I have benefitted. If you chose to shirk the law and drive your old vehicle at 20 mpg, does that affect me? No. What effects me is what I do! Inequality is the sin of comparison to indulge pride or envy. If you have a 1200 sq ft. home with two window A/C units, an 11 cubic foot refrigerator, and only a 1967 VW bug for your family of four, are you poor or wealthy? It depends doesn’t it, on whether you are in rural China, or Hollywood, California? Actual conditions did not dictate poorness. Being poor, or unequal, was you relationship to the level of others.
If you want to, from a humanitarian standpoint, discuss a minimal level of nutrition, shelter, healthcare, liberties, etc. that a human being should have, I’m with you C.G. But if your $75,000 a year is some how tainted by the fact that Tony makes $300,000 a year (Didn’t know you got a raise, huh?), that is pure unadulterated envy, and it ain’t pretty.
This web site drips of envy. It ignores realistic influential trends in trying to show some meaningful correlations (as if even they would have some relevance), because the site has an agenda. Surprising, huh?
For instance, do you think a relevant fact in the disparity of income might have been the explosion of illegal immigration in the past 30 years? Did you see a graph where that influence was pulled out to see “inequality” w/o it? Do you think the explosion in the use of personal computers caused an increase, not only in general productivity, but in the potential for great wealth acquisition? Does the phrase "dot.com" mean anything to you? Ever considered doing an online business, say, in the distance learning area? Were you expecting to make more than minimum wage at it? How capitalist of you. That might have provided a disparity between what you currently make, and what you could make selling a useful service to tens of thousands of buyers eagerly offering up their credit card numbers to you. How about doing your job sans the PC this coming year? Just work a little harder, you’ll make up the difference right?
Inequality.org dismisses the technology aspect in item #5 when it said: When asked to explain the inequality surge, economists often point to globalization, new technology, and other deep impersonal forces.
Good grief Charley Brown. This sounds like a women’s magazine with the “deep impersonal forces” wording.
C.G., I’ve already committed myself to purchasing “Perfectly Legal.” Promise me it is deeper in substance than the girlie economics on this web site.
Prof. Ricardo
C.G.,
I wish you could see your letter through my eyes. So as not to totally devastate my earnings this year, I’ll respond to your post one paragraph at a time.
You quoted inequality.org: These laments arise out of feelings about justice, suffering, and mutual obligation that are as old as humanity, and deserve respect rather than scorn. Says who? Injustice means you got dealt unjustly, unfairly, not as a reasonable transaction would have dealt. What is the standard? In economics we deal with the concept of Fair Market Value. It’s how you value your contributions of non-cash assets on your tax return. It’s what happens 10 million times a day on ebay, and millions of times in the want-ad portion of every newspaper the world over. Someone offers their wares or service, and you can accept or reject it, thus establishing the market price for that item. Injustice happens when you do not have access to this market. Injustice happens when your government says “I know your skills are worth only 5 dollars an hour, but the minimum wage is $10/hr, therefor you will never be employed and are not employable. Thus someone who has their labor as an asset, and is willing to take what it is worth, is prevented from doing so, because of an “arbitrary” decision of government to elevate the poor.
Mutual obligation? So you have accepted the Christian ethos of being your brother’s keeper. However, you have failed to value his right to dispose of his assets as he sees fit. The corporate world is very simple.
Shareholders elect the board of directors.
Board of directors appoint and compensate officers.
As representatives of the shareholders they hopefully want the best officer for the company’s bottom line. If International Business Machines pays their Officers what you and I make, sell your shares now, do not wait a moment, that company is not in good hands. They are after a qualified candidate with qualifications you and I and just about everybody we know does not have. Because of that, he or she will be compensated by an amount that neither you and I and just about everybody we know does not receive.
If you wish to disrupt the natural flow of rights of shareholders to elect the directors, and then compensate the officers, at what level do you wish to usurp? Do you wish to neuter the stockholders and have the Board of directors be bureaucrats? Do you wish to neuter the Board who represent the stockholders? Shall we criminalize bad management as well since paying a CEO “too much” is just not fair to the Janitor? Maybe we could have the CEO and Janitor swap duties every other month, because, if their compensations should not be materially different, then surely their responsibilities are not vastly different as well? A janitor running Microsoft might be amusing for the 35,000 employees and 650,000,000 users of their products. Probably not.
“It is only by making a religion of the “free market” that anyone could possibly construct a reasonable-seeming justification for American-style differences in earning-power between, say, a janitor and an investment banker.”
This is so absurd as to baffle me on how far back I need to go to find common ground. You have established your position elsewhere that you are not a friend of property rights as understood in the Constitution, our founders, nearly all of humanity since time began. You know, like the dreaded “C” word describes. However, your argument against “injustice” demands a respect for private property rights. The inequality is what? Of what the Janitor has v.s. what the investment banker has? If it is not theirs to dispose of as they see fit, then its not theirs.
A few years ago I invested in Oracle stock. Lost money. But I sold it because of a stupid move their officers did. They hired President Bill Clinton to speak at one of their meetings. $100,000 for one speech. I figured if they didn’t know any better, they could kiss my grits. In the free market you can do that. Nobody made me buy it. Nobody made me sell it. Injustice is not when Oracle did something stupid. It’s when I am prevented from moving about the free market as each individual person sees fit.
Terri Schiavo is part of that free market. Is it “a religion of the free market” that Terri’s wishes not to be held on life support are to be honored? Would it be an injustice to not honor her wishes. You be the judge.
Prof. Ricardo
Further decimation to socialism to follow...
OK. We have a case where a living will or medical directive was absent. The second tier of authority was the husband’s assertion of an oral directive. This oral directive apparently has the authority of a written directive, because, in light of the husbands actions that often appeared to not be in his wife’s best interest, and in contradistinction to what Terri’s parents believe are Terri’s wishes, the oral directive, as we are now seeing played out, has the ultimate effect of ending life. The correct rule is that the husband, all else being equal, has the authority over the parent’s when it comes to representing Terri. From a Christian point of view, Terri was “given” in marriage and is now united with her husband, a bond that should not easily be broken, particularly by intrusive parents, do-gooders, or even government.
But apparently “all else” is not even. We like to see ourselves as heros. We would like to say “I gave it my all. For my army buddies, I would dive on to the grenade to save them all.” Jesus gave his life for me and I should easily give it back to him. In fact, we would die for our offspring and spouse.
It sounds good. But how come so many who would die for the ones they love, fail miserably at living for the ones they love? The “all else” that is not even is the apparent abandonment of Michael Schiavo from Terri to this other woman and now their two children.
Terri is legally alive, but many say that in reality, as Andrew said in his first post above,
the real Terri is dead, her soul is in the hands of God. So that what appears to be, and may even be legally so, may not in fact or substance actually be. Michael Schiavo may be Terri’s husband legally, but in substance, since without question he has abandoned Terri’ therapy, Terri’s care, his marriage with Terri, and every other conceivable link to his former marriage, Michael in essence is not qualified to speak in Terri’s best interest by claiming the authority of husband, the post he abandoned years ago. At least not to the point of life and death equaling a written, notarized statement by Terri herself.
One thing is certain. As much coverage, discussion, and outrage as has been displayed on both sides, now that the cat is out of the bag, now that a self-written document is not required for the cessation of life, the next case that comes along will not get as much attention, as much coverage, as much outrage. When Terri goes flat line next week, time will pass, our outrage will have been spent, and the next in line, whether it was their wish to die or not, may not even get our attention. Outrage will have turned to being disgruntled, which over time will turn to tolerance, which is the final step to acceptance. How long until the case comes up where an asserted oral statement challenges a written directive? After all, they now have the same authority. That is, the authority to end life.
Prof. Ricardo
C.G., maybe this will cheer you up. I dove into my hardback copy of Perfectly Legal last night.
Prof. Ricardo
Andrew said: All of the pro-life and anti-euthanasia people don't give a flip about this poor lady.
“All” is a fairly inclusive word. Are you certain about that? :-)
Prof. Ricardo
What I wonderful discussion I missed out on during my 3 day weekend. I think most of the points have been well hashed out.
I would like to discuss briefly, however, what is or is not suicide. It seems to me that while I believe the Bible is clear that suicide is immoral, I do not believe it is equally so clear what suicide is, or is not. And it would be wise here to remember that the Bible was not originally written in English so the proscribed conduct can easily get misunderstood though the prism of language.
Unlike other acts we undertake, suicide is inherently subjective. You can only define suicide through a reference to an individual personality. Now if you want to narrowly define suicide to as the dictionary does, there are many acts that technically are suicidal without deserving moral condemnation. It might be useful to look at the Merriam-Webster definition:
Main Entry: sui·cide
Pronunciation: 'sü-&-"sId
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin sui (general) of oneself + English -cide; akin to Old English & Old High German sIn his, Latin suus one's own, sed, se without, Sanskrit sva oneself, one's own
1 a : the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind b : ruin of one's own interests < political suicide >
2 : one that commits or attempts suicide
By the dictionary definition, the soldier who throws himself a grenade is committing suicide. But to illustrate the subjectivity, look at the difference between:
1) Throwing one-self on the grenade to end one’s own suffering (this is pretty realistic if you have heard from people who have been under the stress of battle), and
2) Throwing one-self on the grenade to save your squad.
There is all of the moral difference in the world between the two. I think that if I spent a great deal of time I could define a bunch of situations that are technically (dictionary definition) suicide, but for which there would be no moral condemnation from God because they are foremost acts of Love. A great example I just thought of was the Mother with cancer a few years back that elected to continue her pregnancy and forwent medical care that would’ve saved her but killed her baby (I’m sure there are many instances of this, I just am remembering a particular national story). How heroic did her death seem to those of us opposed to abortion!
I could go on and on but what it clearly boils down to is one’s state of mind. The inherent subjectivity I am describing is not in any way relativistic, however. I believe there is an absolute standard of immoral suicide-ish conduct and it goes something like the act of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion, of sound mind, and who is under no compulsion to carry out the act for a greater moral good.
So it is impossible to know what acts constitute suicide without seeing into the mind of the actor unless of course they tell us themselves. I think absent the actor’s ability to speak for themselves, we are in great peril of error to presumptively bandy about that label.
Just to further stir the pot a bit, I am curious as to whether anybody has any thoughts about the coming crisis of bioethics I described in my leader post. I think this is a very big deal. If you read the links about the genetically altered mice, I think it should disturb most of us on some level. Interestingly, I have invited the topic in my leader post, yet it has not been taken up by any of my readers.
Let me say it more directly: these chimeras are real and are being born in labs around the world TODAY. This is not idle speculation of a science geek, but rather it is coming soon to a neighborhood near YOU. Am I the only one concerned about this?
{sigh} I probably am.
Randy,
First let me say that this facility is here for pretty close to whatever purpose the readers of the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon choose to make it. I have yet to delete something and while I don’t wish to formally relinquish that possibility, I highly doubt I shall. For instance, if a Nigerian letter promising riches in exchange for bank account numbers to be posted, I probably would delete that assuming it had no purpose in a discussion.
Next, I have a rather substantial personal commitment to the area of cancer research, so your post in that regard would be not only appropriate, but completely in line with my own view as to what are worthy causes.
Now, to post a link, I’ll give you an example. A link to my main page would be posted as follows:
<*a href="http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/">Disenfranchised Curmudgeon<*/a>
Just remove the “*” characters from that line, and it will post as a link thus:
Disenfranchised Curmudgeon
Now, I hope you were being tongue in cheek with your remarks shaming me for disparaging the soldiers who have cast themselves on grenades. I think either I didn’t write very clearly, or you didn’t read very clearly one. First, I don’t know how likely it is to survive a grenade blanketing, but I’m comfortable with saying that I think that people contemplating such an act are pretty much planning on checking out. My whole point was that the act was a morally noble act and that the dictionary definition would seem to not make this distinction.
And honestly, I have no clue how you traveled from my proffered definition of a word that does not exists but that means something like “an immoral taking of ones own life”, to your statement that I am suggesting that any marine volunteer would be committing suicide, to be a bizarre extrapolation. I certainly don’t mean that nor do I see how you can take my words and get there.
CG,
I think the phrase “slippery slope” profoundly understates the importance of the underlying principals that are up for discussion in the whole Schiavo matter. First, while the term is useful in the law, I believe that it automatically gets points of view unfairly criticized in popular usage. Call it a “crock” if you wish, but the fact is that law is a living thing and it accretes over time. What is done today has ripples and those ripples will be felt by succeeding generations of Americans.
Why err on the side of life? Because the founding principal of our nation of laws is that the individual is sovereign. I realize that you have a lot of problems with that concept, but it is notwithstanding the way our system of laws is designed. And fundamental to personal sovereignty is the idea that as individuals alone do we have a right to decide how to dispose of our lives. Any retreat from this line, no matter how slight, is tantamount to unconditional surrender of Liberty because if we do not under our system of laws retain the unfettered right to Life, then our Liberty has no meaning at all.
Such distinctions do not trouble everybody of course. Those who believe that the only moral measure of all things is social justice will of course love the argument that a majority gets to decide how one disposes of their life. But then, our law has never worked that way and never should. I have said it what feels like a billion times, but I think there is so much fuzzy thinking on this essential point that repetition is sadly in order: in the American system of law, there are certain things the majority does not get to decide. We should all be thankful for this because it is this principle from which all our freedoms flow.
Now lest you think that I feel that we are at some cross-roads on this point, let me be as clear as I possibly can be: we have already reached that cross-roads and crossed over into the abyss of majority rule. I seriously doubt that there is any turning back at this point, so honestly, if you want to criticize me for tilting at windmills, I could not find fault with THAT argument.
But you go on to say, “What's moral is in the eye of the beholder” and you most certainly already know I will give no ground on that particular point. I would say that moral relativism is at the bottom of the social divide on any number of social points. Those of us who believe in antithesis are clearly in the decline notwithstanding the fact that most Americans label themselves as Christian. And here is the reason I will continue to rail on this particular point: most people accept this modern rehash of ancient intellectual tripe with out serious criticism or understanding.
For those of you who have come thoughtfully to a relativistic notion of morality, I apologize because perhaps tripe is a bit harsh. I understand well that there are intelligent and thoughtful people who have strong opinions in favor of these views. But having examined closely and rejected the various ideas that fit generally under the umbrellas of utilitarianism, materialism and humanism, I think I have earned the right to call it tripe because of the great suffering that I believe it is bringing on mankind.
So CG, you would leave us in that sorry state of affairs where my fellow citizens have the power to circumscribe my right to life. Or put differently, you claim, as a matter of right, a vote on determining the dimensions of my right to chose how to dispose of my own life. Any claims of this sort I utterly reject. You may indeed succeed in imposing your will on me through legal means, however that claim can never be made a moral one.
The measure of the right to life must surely always remain what individuals would choose for themselves if they were able to make the choice. Absent an ability to determine that, we must err on the side of life because anything less is for the state to seize that which is fundamentally mine and this would indeed be the de jure end of personal sovereignty.
Which of course brings us full circle again. We have been around this circle so many times I am verging on a permanent state of dizziness. But is it not interesting that it always seems to be that the result of strenuous demands for social justice is a curtailment of this liberty or that? You can continue to claim the mantel of capitalism if you so choose sir, just be prepared to suffer the slings and arrows of the occasional snicker from those of use who can see the internal inconsistency.
Randy,
I'm just curious what kinds of freedoms do you think we "give to people that do not deserve them"?
On my bioethics yawn I've recieved...this isn't as interesting as my other links, but relevant. I am particularly intrigued by the name of the website.
C.G.: ...where in your world do we violate individual sovereignty when someone is allowed to die?
Of course there is so many grey areas in these arguments in Terri Schiavo, that each area is dependent on another grey area.
Is a feeding tube different from a ventilator. Yes and no. Yes in that it is a man made mechanical devise that helps facilitate eating. But so are forks, knives, kitchen appliances, baby bottles, dentures, and a few other things that escape my imagination. However, rarely does the average person require assistance breathing. Those with asthma obviously do, as well as any of us put under for surgery.
The problem I saw with Terri’s being “allowed to die,” is that she was prevented from any nourishment by decree. Were extraordinary measures removed and she were “allowed to die,” that would be one thing. But she is being prevented from “ordinary” measures of acquiring food. THAT was a step beyond “allowed to die.” That became a mandate to die.
Friends of ours took their newborn off a ventilator two weeks ago. They knew that it would die. It was only a matter of time. Now we are two weeks after removal and the child still lives. They took away the “extraordinary” measure of the ventilator. Should they now take away the ordinary source of oxygen known as “breathing?” Should they also remove his feeding tube?
Are we “allowing” people on death row to die? When I see people arrested for trying to get bottled water to another person, and have the police have a confrontation with a state agency that was going to barge in and give nutrition to Terri, it is hard to think this is “allowing” nature to take its course. Instead, we have stepped out into extraordinary measures to make sure that she can not, and does not, live.
All this to 1) honor her wishes, which were so heart felt that she had written directives and living wills written up. Well, not written, but everybody knew her wishes. Well, not everybody, but most everyone. Actually, just her husband. But being a fine upstanding sacrificial husband always doing what’s in Terri’s interest, who could argue with him? Ok, he did withhold all treatments that might have improved her, but at least he didn’t abandon her. Ok, maybe he abandoned her, but who wouldn’t, right? I mean, everybody here on this Tony’s blog would certainly abandon their wives after a few years of difficulty, right?
And 2) End her suffering. All that wailing and gnashing of teeth. But at least she has the, as the doctors called it, euphoria, of starving to death. Apparently, she has been in constant pain that could have been alleviated by an empty stomach. I knew the natural holistic sciences offered a better method.
Prof. Ricardo
CG,
I am a drug-free blogger. Perhaps some of these arguments would be easier to bear with medicinal assistance, but outside a pint or two of beer at night, I strictly avoid such measures.
Now, if you had been actually listening to what I was saying, my point was directed at what should be a default position in the absence of an advance written and properly attested directive. The point of yours at which I took great umbrage was that since 80% of Americans would not want extraordinary measures, pulling the plug should be the rule in those cases of individuals with out advance directives. I think I have made the argument for how this notion contradicts the fundamental right to life with sufficient clarity that I shall not at this point elaborate further, though I certainly am willing if those points remain less than clear to you, or anyone else here for that matter.
I have, of course, never laid out in terms of positive law those rules that I would adopt or support were I a member of an appropriate legislative body. I think, however, my position on the matter is pretty clear from my various opinions expressed in these pages. Since you have suggested that I am somehow unwilling to “get [my] hands dirty”, I will address the question you advance directly, but only over the objection that I think a fair examination of my work here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon would clearly reveal where I stand on this matter.
My opinion is that the law should protect our right to life through a presumption that favors the individual’s continued possession of that life. Until such time as we have an adequate legal definition of life, a proper respect for the right to life compels a conservative definition of what constitutes life. It is tempting here to proffer my own view on the matter as a reasonable position and suggest that brain death should constitute a safe harbor for defining death, but I feel that the greater protection of life others might desire deserves its fair hearing as well. Until we come to grips as a society with this issue, we must act with extraordinary care in the protection of that which is most sacred to us as human beings.
I state this position, hopefully with sufficient clarity this time to achieve your satisfaction in being able to apprehend it clearly, with full appreciation of the complications you suggest. I am extremely mindful, in this age of a collapsing healthcare system, of the financial burden that this may at times impose. It is these burdens that I believe compel us as a society to grapple with the topic of defining life and death. But that the problem is difficult or expensive does not make an adequate moral case for adopting the contrary view in the minds of all but the most ardent utilitarian.
In my view, some things are worth dying for. Or even bankrupting one’s self for. The right to life of all Americans is one of those things.
I hope that now my hands are sufficiently soiled.
Randy,
Well, we probably have more common ground on the point of prisoner treatment than you might imagine. You might also guess that I approach the topic in a different way than you.
The prisoners deserve human rights because they are human. This is not something earned, but rather a matter of the inherent value of life. To say they do not “deserve” rights is to miss the important nuance of the better statement: “they have forfeited the right to enjoy their human rights”. Stated in this way, we could probably find much common agreement.
I am tempted to get into the broader topic or crime and punishment but that is probably best for another day and another thread of conversation.
CG,
You know, Randy seems like a really decent guy. I shudder to think what his reaction might be were he to see a real display of temper.
Randy,
Let me just assure you that such a display of temper would be an ugly thing and tender military types that are merely accustomed to death, gore and destruction should best shield their eyes should it come to such extremes.
CG,
Speaking for myself, I would want no one other than my spouse to have a say in such matters. I will probably draft a living will for the purpose of making that crystal clear: whatever she says if I am in such a condition, she speaks for me. I find this far preferable to a document that she might somehow be legally bound to yet contrary to what my actual wishes would be had I had perfect foreknowledge of the facts. It seems not unlikely that there could be some circumstance, some knew knowledge, some possibility that I can not remotely foresee that I would trust her at that point of time to decide upon for me more than I would trust myself to attempt to provide a crude form of remote control.
And this is not unreasonable from a social standpoint. Absent a statement of the arguably deceased, who is better able to understand and appreciate my wishes than my spouse? I certainly would not want my Parents having a say. And that is not out of a lack of trust, but rather recognition that at this point in my life, they do not have a full appreciation of my thoughts and approach on matter of this kind. I suspect this is true of most people if they stop and think about it.
I can think of a lot of ways to make this work, but I certainly would not want so elaborate federal law on the subject. A presumption favoring life and a hearing in court should be adequate protection enough.
C.G.: the most painless method... lethal injection or whatever should occur.
Ah... more grey area. When does my directive become a pre-written, under certain circumstances, suicide note? Would at some point suicide have to be legalized? Where, oh where, is my black and white world?
Prof. Ricardo
CG,
You are correct gray-area breath: I did broad brush it. And the details are included in my broader statement.
In my early reply, I said, “[m]y opinion is that the law should protect our right to life through a presumption that favors the individual’s continued possession of that life.” I did not qualify this in any way. To emphasize my point, I continued later in the post, “In my view, some things are worth dying for. Or even bankrupting one’s self for. The right to life of all Americans is one of those things.”
So to answer your question narrowly, as you insist I must do in order to make sense to you: we must do whatever it takes and do so no matter what the cost because life is the most precious thing we have under the laws of men. Don’t bother with the what-if questions on this point, because I see the grey and I reject it.
More mystifying still is your assertion that a presumption favoring life is useless. Somehow you think I’m being vague and impractical, but that is exactly how law works on many key issues. Presumption of innocence comes to mind. A presumption favoring life would make the law work and not muddy the water. You just don’t like the result I’m advocating, and in attacking the result you are vainly suggesting that creating a presumption isn’t “making the call through law”. Actually, it is exactly that.
I also pause to marvel at your contempt for “high minded ideas”. I would think a social justice utopian such as you would at least appreciate the appeal to principal. Or is it only the “high minded ideas” that you support are to be deemed worthy of respect in your version of utopia? I make no apology for defending the great principals of our civilization.
On Crime and Punishment: I might have to blog on that one some day soon. I think my view that all violent felons should merit the death penalty might stir up a nice little argument or two.
CG,
No, I won’t admit it because it is not true. I care a great deal about making this a better place.
And I could care less about “claiming the moral high ground” and rather am very adamant about pursing a moral course of action.
You ridiculed my position that the cost does not matter when it comes to protecting the right to life, but I could not be more serious when I state that nothing is more important. I definitely believe that we should deal with a definition of life (and death) and not avoid it. The fact is that I am not the one avoiding the topic; rather it is most of America because of its perceived political interests. I have and will continue to take this topic head-on and your accusation to the contrary must sound pretty hollow to anyone who has read what I actually have said.
So let me say it again, just in case that I left a bit of ambiguity on this most important of topics. I believe that it is possible to come to a social compromise on this matter that will prevent the bankrupting of our national coffers. We are tragically not engaging in that dialog. Until we reach a mature consensus on the matter, our Constitution must continue to protect the right to life conservatively because that is the function of that instrument of law. If because of our communal intellectual sloth we do not correct our course and it results in the destruction of our nation, then I am of the opinion that is a fair result. A society that claims to hold Liberty dear but then abandons those core values is not worth preserving.
You seem to advocate a legislative tinkering to solve every problem that rears its head. Band-aid solutions will only get us deeper into the morass that passes as modern American political thought. I instead take the long term view and want to set us on a path that is grounded in shared values because only by doing so can we guarantee the blessings of Liberty to our posterity. And for this desire you have the audacity to suggest that I am unwilling to confront the problem?
I think perhaps that I am not the one who is in denial about the gravity and importance of the situation.
CG,
And you call me irritating.
Tinkering is slapping an unconstitutional legislative band-aid on a matter of serious constitutional dimensions. I seek solutions, not sweeping it under the legislative carpet.
What do you call my statement in my last post where I said, ”I definitely believe that we should deal with a definition of life (and death) and not avoid it.”
Further, I have offered the definition of life and death I advocate. I have articulated a legal mechanism that would function to protect the individual’s right to life when they are unable to speak for themselves (presumption favoring life and hearings to make life ending treatment decisions).
In turn you accuse me of engaging in mere platitudes. Are you certain you aren’t confusing my arguments with a duck-billed mammal?
You also suggest that I would leave defining life to the courts. I have never said that and in fact am on record here and in other threads to hold the exact opposite of that position.
In sum, you seemed to totally miss every argument I have made in this thread. I don’t mind being disagreed with, but at least take the time to understand what I am in fact saying.
Randy,
Andrew is not kidding. That is real laws up for consideration.
As for CG and I, don’t worry yourself. We have been doing this for 21 years. Its kind of like James Carville and Mary Matalin. Well, perhaps not THAT much like that. But if it were like that, CG would be Mary.
I’m not one to hold back too much with anyone once I get riled up though I like to think of myself as agreeably disagreeable.
Andrew,
Jeb and Jesse sitting in a tree...
I agree – what the courts have done is correct. You can argue the facts till doomsday but few of us are in a position to substitute our judgment for the court. While it is totally possible in a probabilistic sense that they got it wrong, I don’t see that we have better tools available today. Certainly, the law could be improved as I have described, but under the parameters of the law, the legal result seems correct.
Like so many other issues, people have a lot of trouble separating their own moral outlook from what the law IS. I disagree with the law, but I abhor the violence being done to our system of government by politicians who put themselves above constitution. Sickening really.
Yes, may Terri rest in peace. It is my prayer that her wishes were upheld in all of this.
I wish I could see the good in all of it that you see Andrew. While I agree that it is good that the courts functioned and did their duty in spite of meddling from the highest reaches of our decaying Republic, I think the political popularity of the constitutional shenanigans is a point of serious concern.
We have slowly drifted from our institutions of the Rule of Law founded upon Natural Rights to a new and frightening thing, which is the Rule of the Majority founded upon No Discernable Principals. To the extent that the Schiavo case fits in the continuum of that downward spiral, this matter will reverberate through our institutions for some years to come. My predication is that Terri Schiavo will become a political cliché and the whole matter is far from over in terms of social impact.
Randy,
I'll try to get something else posted soon. I've had life getting in the way of important stuff like blogging.
I'll add that this is a great country. I think a lot of times the fact that I'm critical gets interpreted as some sort of America loathing. I'm far from that I'll assure you. But, in all things I try to look at things honestly and just because we have a lot of things right, doesn't mean we should not strive to be better.
And there is my present irritation. It appear to me that we have quit striving to be better and instead we are striving to maintain wealth. And this change will be our undoing as a civilization.
Post a Comment
<< Home