My thoughts on the Terry Schiavo case

From: Jay Vance (jay_at_vancedigitalDELETE.com)
Date: 03/22/05 

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:25:56 -0700

If ever there was a situation that doesn't seem to have one "right"
solution, this is it. I feel for Terry's family, even though I don't
necessarily agree with their attempts to keep her alive at any cost, with no
real reason to expect that she will ever improve. I am staunchly pro-life,
but I have a real problem with the vast amounts of money that are spent to
add a few months or even weeks to our lives, and I also disagree with the
concept that if it is scientifically possible to do something, we ought to
do it, regardless of what the practical benefits may be. I have a problem
with using Christianity as the basis of a "life at all costs" philosophy
without also acknowledging that for a Christian this life isn't all there
is--on the contrary, what's waiting for us after this life is over is so
much better than anything we enjoy now. The Christian point of view about
the sanctity of life is incomplete without acknowledging that death for the
Christian is not some horror to be avoided at all costs. The Bible simply
does not teach that.

I realize my point of view is colored by the pragmatic nature of my
upbringing; my family has never been much into drama or histrionics. Death
has never been something to dread for us. My grandfather passed away at
home in his own bed with Alzheimer's. When he had no knowledge of anything
going on around him, we simply let him go--meaning we didn't force-feed him.
All this talk of how horrible it must be to die of starvation or dehydration
is simply not accurate when you're talking about someone who has no
cognitive abilities.

The fact that it is POSSIBLE to keep someone alive for years and years in a
vegetative state by feeding them parenterally or intravenously or whatever
doesn't mean that it is IMPERATIVE that we do so. In fact, I'm going to go
WAY out on a limb and suggest that what Terry did or did not say about being
kept alive at any cost is not the issue. Are we REALLY saying that if a
person says, "I want to be kept alive no matter how much it costs and no
matter how debilitated I am and no matter how much technology it takes," we
as a society are then REQUIRED to honor those wishes NO MATTER WHAT? Are we
going to start prosecuting people who don't spend every last dime of their
own money and/or society's resources in order to keep someone's heart
beating and lungs working a little while longer? I'm not talking about
actively causing someone's death, mind you, nor am I advocating legalizing
suicide or assisted suicide. But it should not be a crime to let someone
die in peace when their body and/or mind is simply worn out. I can hear the
question being asked, "So who gets to decide when enough is enough?" All I
can tell you is that for doggone sure I don't want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
making that decision!

I have a real problem with the federal government getting involved in this
for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's just another example of
government intrusion into our lives, something conservatives should be
fighting against tooth and nail. Furthermore, it undermines the rule of
law, something else that is a bedrock principle of conservatism. This issue
has been reviewed and re-reviewed ad infinitum by at least 19 judges and I
don't know how many legislators in Florida. The laws of Florida have been
followed; there is no cause for federal intervention, in my opinion.
Thirdly, I don't agree with using a tragic situation like this to further a
political agenda, I don't care whose it is. To me this is no different than
when feminists were using bogus statistics some years back about the
percentage of women who were the victims of abuse at the hands of men. When
they were confronted with the fact that their statistics were out and out
lies, they responded by saying that the issue of abuse was real, so
therefore anything that brought attention to the problem was okay, even if
it wasn't actually true! Regardless of what the issue is, it is morally and
ethically wrong to use false information or personal tragedy to further an
agenda, in my opinion.

Jay

Relevant Pages

  • Patients should not expect NHS to save their life if it costs too much
    ... Patients 'should not expect NHS to save their life if it costs too ... The NHS should not always attempt to save someone's life if the cost ... that people facing death should be treated regardless of the costs. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Lawb Dab or Teev Dab, Which is better?
    ... when you pay to dab - dab ... Please spend your money celebrating your parents living with them while ... costs while my brother spents 10/100 of his famili income for religious ... We both have an after life hope, ...
    (soc.culture.hmong)
  • Re: Is Britains weather getting worse?
    ... Life was concentric around a small area. ... Years ago in the 60's when I was a wee small boy, driving at 20 mph was normal in bad weather, nowadays that same road is a 40 mph and some drivers push 50 mph in their traction control cars. ... Why they have to arrive at their destination at all costs is a bit of a mystery in itself. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Perverting the course of justice?
    ... the legal process, or are incapable of viewing this matter rationally. ... changed my supplier. ... costs order against you, and don't expect that the other side would be ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Effects of transit on congestion
    ... At least, per-person healthcare costs are ... If the goal is to maximize life expectancy while minimizing expenses, ... One of my doctors often does surgery on Americans. ... I called my doctor today about a sore Achilles tendon. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)