|
|
|
Jewish World Review April 4, 2005 / 24 Adar II, 5765 Congressional retrogression in Schiavo intervention By Robert Robb
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
May Terri Schiavo rest in peace. And may the rest of us be circumspect in
the political use we seek to make of her death.
Although my libertarian instincts occasionally prevail, for the most part I
share the social conservative critique and support its agenda. I am
pro-life, believe that society should have greater authority to minimize
culturally harmful influences, and find much of popular culture to be
deracinated and degrading.
Yet I found much of what social conservatives were saying in the Schiavo
case to be perplexing and even troubling.
For example, the claim that this was a battle between a culture of life on
the right and a culture of death on the left. This found additional
articulation in the claim that Schiavo was being "killed" or even
"murdered."
Social conservatives had various perpetrators fingered for this crime: her
husband, the judges, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for not defying court orders,
even the rest of us for a lack of collective will to change the course of
events.
This takes the moral argument well beyond where the case began, as a
dispute over her medical condition and appropriate guardianship.
Over the last three decades, American law has made substantial progress
toward giving individuals and families more control over decisions to
medically intervene to prolong life.
Yet if withdrawing the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo was "killing" or
"murdering" her, then it would have been morally wrong even if her parents
had agreed with the decision, rather than bitterly fighting it.
After all, her parents had no more right to kill or murder Terri than did
her husband. Nor collectively did they have any more right to do so than
each acting singly.
Nor, for that matter, would Schiavo have had the right to make that
decision for herself, for example through a living will. If withdrawing the
feeding tube was killing or murder, it would still be so if done by others
in accordance with her wishes. And if she could have done it herself, it
would have been suicide.
The implication of what social conservatives said during this controversy
is that these difficult decisions should be removed from individuals and
families. Indeed, part of Terri's Law was the stated intention of Congress
to pass federal legislation dealing with medical intervention on behalf of
the incapacitated.
This would be retrogression. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that
declining medical treatment, even when such refusal will be fatal, is a
protected aspect of liberty. It has left broad discretion to the states to
establish processes by which such decisions are made for the incapacitated.
Some states require a clear prior expression by the patient. Some permit
family members to make the decision.
There is no reason to believe that Congress possesses some special wisdom
or moral insight about these decisions. And constricting the ability of
families to make them, as Congress seems to want to do, is an affront to
moral sensibilities, not in service to them.
The attitude of social conservatives toward death, as reflected in this
debate, is perplexing.
Social conservatism is primarily a movement of Christian evangelicals and
Catholics. Christians believe that life is a gift from G-d, which carries a
moral obligation to exercise good and wise stewardship of it. But death is
not to be feared or preternaturally resisted, since it is a gateway to a
closer and fuller relationship with G-d.
It's worth noting that the movement toward greater authority for family
members regarding these decisions began with the Karen Ann Quinlan case in
1976, which has many parallels with the Schiavo case.
Quinlan was severely brain damaged and her life was being sustained by
medical intervention, a respirator and a feeding tube. A living will hadn't
been executed. Her father was a devout Catholic.
But in this case, the father successfully petitioned the court for the
right to stop the medical interventions. And the Catholic Church entered
the case as amicus curiae in support of his request.
In the Schiavo debate, some social conservatives made the point that
Schiavo wasn't dying. She just couldn't feed herself. Some also made a
distinction between a feeding tube and other artificial means of life
support, such as a respirator or heart machine.
There are, of course, important gradations of dependence and cognition in
these cases. But there certainly wouldn't seem to be a moral difference
between needing medical intervention to nourish and hydrate and needing it
to breathe or circulate blood.
These are difficult decisions, obviously involving the difference between
life and death. But they are not a choice between a culture of life and a
culture of death. Nor is allowing death to happen without medical
intervention the same as killing or murder.
They can also be messy decisions, particularly when there is a family
conflict, as was the case with Terri Schiavo.
But, as unsatisfactory as the outcome in this case was to many, they remain
decisions best made by individuals and their families rather than by
politicians.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Robert Robb is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Comment by clicking here.
© 2005, The Arizona Republic |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||
