Tue 29 Mar 2005
I’m going to put this badly and in a rambling sort of way because it’s late and I should have gone to bed hours ago, but something really troubles me about the very visible involvement of Christians in the Terri Schiavo case. We are the people who voted Bush back into office, rejecting the arrogance of the Democrats who believe in Big Government, and yet, are demanding that Jeb Bush do something beyond his state or Federal Constitutional powers, usurping authority from the courts like a leader of an African dictatorship. This (and other things) makes me think that Christians’ involvment with Terri Schiavo isn’t so much about Terri’s individual right to life as it is an expression of Chritian political power. Personally, I think the outpouring of Christian moralism in this case evidences a great deal of self-righteousness. We blast Michael Schiavo for being an “adulterer”, but we Christians get divorced at the same rate as “those” people who don’t have Jesus in their lives (but should godd#&@%*!). I think the story of the woman caught in adultery is very apropos here. Except this time, we we are the Pharisees, and Michael is the one being flung before Jesus and crapped on for his bad behavior.
There are two ways to look at Michael Schiavo: 1) the man who was unfaithful to his marriage vows and desires to kill his wife so he can marry another person (kind of like King David, but in reverse), or 2) the man who was faithful to his stricken wife and took care of her for 5 years, even going so far as to become a nurse to help her, until he succumbed to the temptation that at least 50% of Christians do today. But, in spite of this, he did not divorce his wife and instead, sought to carry out her wishes. Who is the real Michael Schiavo? Who knows.
Getting back on topic: besides divorce, our teenagers get have STDs at higher rates than the world around them because they make abstinence pledges that they don’t follow through with and didn’t teach them about birth control. I could keep going but, take one look at Barna’s website and you’ll find all kinds of statistics that show how Christians, as a people group aren’t doing so well morally culturally or intellectually in relation to their Jesus-less neighbors. We’re not good inside, but we sure look good, don’t we?
I’ve been thinking since the election that Christians have taken up activism of late in our society because we haven’t been able to “sell” Christianity to non-believers effectively enough. Ha! So much for semi-pelagian free-will evangelistic thinking that actually believes you can sell Christianity in the first place (I work in advertising, and you can’t sell something to somebody who just has no interest in your product, or the ego-boost you sell with it). Christianity in this country seems to have become a political party, and that, in my opinion, is evidence that it has transcended it’s organic cultural roots, and thus, its inherent power. The fact that Christians are winning in the political sphere at the expense of alienating our fellow citizens is really troublesome to me. That’s not good citizenry, not according to the New Testament, at least.
So, whether or not Michael Schiavo is a scumbag for shacking up with another woman and having kids is irrelevant to whether or not Christians are thinking about Terri’s case properly, on the whole. If we’re so concerned about life, why aren’t we there at EVERY (or even SOME) hospice(s) where a decision like this is made every day? Just an FYI, but Terri’s case, unfortunately, isn’t unique at all. Christians are acting and squawking on T.V. like this is the make-or-break moral compass issue for 2005. I think we’re becoming so “right-to-life” in the same way that N.O.W. is so pro-feminist agenda to the detriment of reason or compromise, like they were in the Scott Peterson trial. N.O.W. said that they didn’t want to support the 2nd charge against Scott for the murder of his unborn child, because it would imply that the child was actually a person, and not the woman’s “body”.
Call me crazy, but I don’t see this display of Christian activism as anything but irrational “right-to-life” politicking. It certainly isn’t a great moral issue of our time or even a small religious one, because a) this exact scenario happens to people every day (ask any hospital chaplain), and b) before these last couple of weeks, not a single Christian has said anything about Terri Schiavo’s life when it hanged in the balance before this time. Additionally, I don’t hear any Christians involved in this whole thing talk about Terri’s salvific state, only her physical one. I don’t hear them praying that she somehow come to know Christ if she doesn’t already, I just hear them saying that this is state-sponsored murder, which it isn’t for so many reasons that would be obvious to an even remotely civically educated person. Thank God for the Separation of Powers.
If I were Terri, I would want to be let go. Why would I want to stay here when I could be with the Lord? My mind is boggled that this isn’t what Christians are concerned about in Terri’s case. Whether or not Terri is being given a raw deal, or the one she wanted, we should be more concerned about where she goes after this life. It is not how one lives in this world that is half as important as where one lives in the next. If we cared about that, I believe we would care about the quality of her last days, not the quantity of them, and it would show.
March 31st, 2005 at 11:13 am
Neil,
I agree with you that the issue is not whether or not Mike Schiavo is a scumbag. I agree that the statistics on the divorce rate among professing evangelicals are alarming and diametrically opposed to a biblical view of marriage. However, I must absolutely disagree with your statement that this happens all the time. The idea that this is what occurs all the time in a hospice situation is just not true. George Felos has hi-jacked the hospice movement when he speaks of it, and instead of the “death with dignity” or dying quietly (which often happens) idea that really does have to do with hospice, the term has been equivocated to say that Schiavo’s death is a “death with dignity” and thus is part of what hospice is all about. But this begs the question. Is Schiavo’s death one of dignity? Individuals under hospice care are typically terminally ill, waiting for imminent death, dying quietly in their homes or in a comfortable setting. Shaivo’s death (which sadly occurred this morning, so she has passed to eternity) was not imminent but for the starvation diet that she was placed on. Her “death with dignity” is not that per se, but is an equivocation of terms. It is one thing to “die with dignity” when you are really already dying. It can’t be called “dying with dignity” when you are being killed.
Additionally, the point is not what you would want if you were in the same situation. This is entirely beside the point. It is a) biased by your subjective desire, and b) places you (and I speak generally, I’m not yelling :-) in the driver seat for determining who should live or not, ie; I wouldn’t like to live like that, ergo, she should not live like that. I wouldn’t like to live below the poverty line. This doesn’t mean that I should advocate the termination of all those who aren’t making the right amount of money.
This issue is one of a right to life (not a right to die case…right to kill would be more appropriate), and as Christians, we have a responsibility to protect life, for humans are created as bearers of God’s image.
I agree: there has not been much said regarding the state of Terri’s soul…but this does not undermine the point that it is still wrong at a moral/legal level to take life or deprive it of the means to live.
I hope to hear back from you…
~ben
March 31st, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Ben,
Thanks for the comments! The real question in medical scenarios like this one is: what is the nature of “basic care” and under what circumstances should it be removed? Which is another way of asking “What can we do?” vs. “What should we do”? While it is obvious that feeding via a tube is “basic care”, what is less obvious to people is that assisted (not artificial breathing) is also “basic care” and yet, people in a persistent vegetative state who have trouble breathing on their own are removed from assisted breathing devices all the time, with no argument at all about a “right to life” (it’s also true that thousands of people in a PVS are removed from their feeding tubes every year in America, but that’s beside the point). When an assisted breathing device is removed, the body will eventually die as it does not have the strength to carry on with what is as equally a basic life function as eating and drinking. Nevertheless, by removing these devices, we accelerate a ‚Äúsuffocation‚Äù process. Now, I must point out that these are devices that help them breathe, not do the breathing for them. But in a way, even that is moot because medical technology is such that we can keep bodies alive almost entirely artificially. Yet, almost none of us would say that we should. If we are going to be consistent, however, why shouldn’t we? Because it’s expensive? Well, doesn’t God own the cattle on a thousand hills? He can afford it can’t he? Or, maybe we have this technology and we use it past it’s useful point sometimes. Maybe, just maybe, God took Terri Schiavo 15 years ago, and we’re just now letting him have his way. It is a genuine possibility, y’know.
As I have said in numerous places besides my own blog, if Terry Schiavo had any medical consciousness, sentience, whatever you want to call it, then it would be a right to life issue, and I would wholeheartedly side with her. But, consistently, doctors who have treated her for years and a variety of others have concluded that she is not medically conscious anymore and hasn’t been for a long time. If in fact her diagnosis is correct, she is not “unconscious” like a comatose patient who otherwise remains a sentient being, she has no consciousness, i.e., she is not sentient anymore. She is not merely “incapacitated” like a child with down syndrome (or for that matter, a perfectly normal child in comparison to an adult), she doesn’t possesses any ability to think because she lacks a cerebral cortex. That, in my mind, makes her a non-person (but that is another issue). In such a state, withholding food from someone who cannot eat on her own (though she can process it) is absolutely no different from someone who‚Äôs lungs work fine but cannot maintain their own breathing for whatever reason. All we are doing is keeping a body alive, not a mind. Removing someone from assisted breathing is exactly the same thing as removing them from nourishment: we are removing that which is required for life. And yet, both the removal of food and the removal of air happen in people who are in persistent vegetative states all the time. Yes, all the time. There are 30,000 people currently classified as being in a persistent vegetative state in America, and every day family members are deciding whether or not to remove them from their “assisted life” devices. Not a single Christian has ever said a word outside a bioethics committee about it until Terry Schiavo. Why not? Terri‚Äôs scenario is not a euthanasia one, as most people are claiming, but an end-of‚Äìlife one by virtue of her mental state, and most people understand that, with the exception of a group of Christians who‚Äôs logic I can‚Äôt figure out. Now, I have read the affidavit of Dr. William Cheshire, who examined Terri Schiavo and as a physician who believes that it is permissible to remove food and hydration from a person in persistent vegetative state, he did not feel Terri’s diagnosis of PVS was correct based upon his obsvervations. He does, in fact, make a compelling case for reasonable doubt about her diagnosis. I do wonder, however, why her primary care physicians have not come to the same conclusion. I admit, it is impossible to know, therefore I must conclude that his convincing, but brief diagnosis is incorrect.
As you stated, the purpose of a hospice is to manage end-of-life care for patients who are going to die. This includes terminally ill patients, as well as those like Terry. Terry was put into a hospice after her tube was removed (at least originally). My own grandfather was put in a hospice after I, after much prayer and internal wrangling, ordered that his assisted breathing device be removed, after a brief but intense illness. My grandfather was not a terminal patient in that he could have been kept alive nearly forever. But, it was determined by credible physicians that his mind would never recover, and so, without a living will, I decided that he should be let go. What would have been the difference if he needed help eating as opposed to breathing?
On a moral level, what is the difference between “starvation” and eventual “suffocation”? In my opinion, absolutely nothing, besides duration. This is what I find so bizarre about Terry’s case is that it has become a “right-to-life” issue when I just don’t think it really is. When did Christians uphold physical life so much that when someone who has consistently been declared to be in a vegetative state, they still want to see the body live regardless? When did this happen? As far as I can tell, we Christians historically have been in favor of consciousness over physical life, because the physical/material has always been understood as being transient. I don’t mean to imply that Christians would therefore be in favor of general euthanasia, but just that in cases like Terri’s, Christians have historically been in favor of letting the person go, because physical existence in this world has always been thought of as “less-than” than the redeemed existence with Christ. If a person’s mind is gone, and is therefore no longer redeemable in a salvific sense, why then keep a body living? Modern medical technology can keep a person alive in almost any state, but, is that moral or humane? If it isn’t moral to let someone starve to death (who would otherwise starve to death anyway if it weren’t for modern medical technology, and we would not even be having this discussion), then why is it ignored or generally accepted to let someone suffocate to death by removal of an assisted breathing device, or removal of other medications or devices that keep life going? Does a man who refuses medical attention for any reason at all, from an anti-biotic to chemotherapy, commit self-murder if he ends up dying in the end? As I asked in a previous post, when did physical life itself become so sacred in the Christian mindset that we cannot willfully permit the end of a life when there is no hope for mental recovery as in Terri’s case?
Most non-Christians that I have spoken to about Terri’s case have been baffled by the Christian position on this one, because it doesn’t make any sense to them. Why would Christians, who are otherwise generally in favor of the death penalty, which in fact IS state-sanctioned judicial murder, and who (as they say) believe in an afterlife, care so much about physical life when the mind is gone? I am asking the same question.
Now, as to the subjectivity of it all, of course, my view of this is subject to my own personal wishes, but my own personal wishes are at least somewhat informed by Biblical truth, and I don‚Äôt see it anywhere in scripture that physical life is upheld over all other considerations. I want to be let go because God says “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.‚Äù If the Bible does anything, it shows life and death what they are: some people die, and some live. Some go out and die of ‚Äúold age‚Äù (which is just another way of saying that their systems fail) and others die in battle or from some other sickness. What matters is whether or not that person was one of God‚Äôs chosen, not whether they squeezed out every last day on earth. Physical death isn‚Äôt pathologically avoided in a manner akin to Schiavo‚Äôs case. It‚Äôs just a transition: to heaven for God‚Äôs people and to ‚Äúnot-heaven‚Äù for the rest. Life itself isn‚Äôt the end-all-be-all.
Your hyperbole about terminating those below the poverty line isn’t even remotely in the same category as what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about a person who, according to most doctors, has become a non-person by virtue of massive brain damage. This is totally unlike a person who is simply poor (or to use more recent “culture of death” examples: someone who isn’t an Aryan).
I am all for life, but not for existence. At the suggestion of TruePravda, I took a good long look at Terrisfight.org and saw the videos taken of her. And what I saw was very compelling in that Terri might have some “minimal consciousness”. However, I also found out that those few minutes of seeming consciousness were culled from hours and hours of footage where the Schindlers were fishing for anything that could even be remotely construed as “consciousness” and taken in context, it seems that Terri was in fact, a vegetable.
I believe we should always err on the side of life in as much as there is a remotely reasonable possibility of life. I just don‚Äôt think Terri had a reasonable possibility of life after 15 years in her state. This isn’t a case about a person who is merely physically incapacitated but mentally present in some form. She was in a completely different state than a comatose patient or a patient with another disease that ravages the body and spares the mind (like ALD or MS). I was not at her bedside, and I am not a doctor, so ultimately, I don’t know what kind of consciousness she had. Her primary care physicians believed she did not have any, and while her body could be trained to swallow (what the Schindler’s described as “getting better”), she would never be a conscious person again, according to them. I do know that a parent’s lack of objectivity can be both the greatest advocate for their sick child, as well as the greatest hindrance, and in this case, I think it eventually was a hindrance to them for seeing the truth about their daughter. Who can blame them though? In any case, we‚Äôll know for sure when the autopsy comes back. Nevertheless, the accusations about Terri Schiavo’s state being a product of a “culture of death” and state-sanctioned murder are so overblown and irrational that I one can hardly see whatever truth there is through this ridiculous rhetoric. I can’t understand why some people cannot discern that there is a moral distinction between purposefully starving a sentient human being, and removing a feeding tube from a non-sentient one in the same way there is a moral distinction between putting a pillow over someone’s head and suffocating a sentient being, vs. taking a non-sentient one off an assisted breathing device, something which most people generally consider to be within proper ethical and moral boundaries.
So, I would ask you, under what conditions would it be acceptable to remove any life-assisting device, and why? Why would removing any such devices for any reason be morally acceptable or consistent as opposed to never removing any such devices ever?
As an aside, if this is a “right to life” issue, then we should be concerned that people who, inspired by Terri Schiavo, are currently drafting living wills that say “do not resuscitate”, because that is also taking the power of life and death out of the hands of God. If I say “Do not resuscitate”, am I not saying that I have power over my own life? Isn’t this also morally unacceptable?
April 1st, 2005 at 10:35 am
Good post. I’m glad I’m not the only one banging the same drum. I’m a Christian who’s ardently pro-life, yet I’m also a lawyer, and I have some familiarity with the law relating to cases like Terri Schiavo’s. Neither the legal nor the ethical issues were in any way unique here. Moreover, there are serious consequences we need to consider before we start banging the drum about changing the law about advance directives. See my posts here, here, and here.
April 1st, 2005 at 11:42 am
Neil,
I’m gonna have to be brief here not because I don’t want to post, but because I have a limited amount of time here but wanted to let you know I read your post and will reply. :-)
“Maybe, just maybe, God took Terri Schiavo 15 years ago, and we‚Äôre just now letting him have his way. It is a genuine possibility, y‚Äôknow.”
The problem here is that we wind up being the ones who determine when God took someone or not. I understand the point that if there is no life there, then we should not continue with a body artificially sustained. However this was not the case with Terri. She was not “brain-dead,” or showing an ekg flatline. While it may be perfectly true that the family culled through hours of quiet and non-eventful video to compile a few minutes of evident cognizance, this does not mean that she is brain dead. Their appeal is to the public there, attempting to show that she was indeed aware and interacting with her environment in a purposeful way. Whether she does that all the time or no is beside the point, so long as she does it some of the time there must be cognizance there.
I don’t think she was gone 15 years ago…more on this to come later, I have to run. :-)
I’ll be back.
~ben
April 1st, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Ben,
Just a few comments:
Yeah, but our determination of when God took someone or not is done all the time anyway and nobody’s ever raised a fuss about this exact same scenario before this. This kind of thing has been debated in bioethical circles and pastoral circles for years, and the general conclusion by most Protestants has been to pull the plug if there is no meaningful sentience. Terri’s case is just high-profile, but it is not unique by any stretch of the imagination. Additioinally, we make this “playing God” decision anyway if we craft a living will stating “do no resuscitate” or if we have been a caregiver over someone like Terri and pulled the plug under exactly the same circumstances. So, it’s never been an issue before and that’s why I don’t think that’s the issue now. There is legitmate debate over whether or not Terri Schiavo had any meaningful sentience, but the playing God part we’ve been comfortable with for a long time, and I personally don’t find most of that behavior to have been amoral at all.
Furthermore, as far as being brain dead is concerned, it is just a more clearly defined state of being a non-person than PVS. The ethical conundrum created by PVS is that it is “wakeful” yet not meaningful as far as sentience is concerned. It can seem sentient, but it isn’t. So, my opinion is that person doesn’t need to be brain “dead” in order to still be a non-person, on a conscious level. As I said before, this does NOT include people in a coma or in other diseases that make a person physically incapacitated or simply “un”conscious, i.e., they still possess sentience without the ability to express it. So, slippery slope arguments about the weak, enfeebled, disabled are rendered not applicable because in Terri’s case we’re not talking about the euthanasia of an undesirable. We’re talking about removing life sustenance from an individual who most people acknowledge to one degree or another is no longer a sentient being, ergo, are classified as a non-person.
I look forward to your lengthier reply. :)
April 6th, 2005 at 1:16 am
Christian Carnival LXIV
Proverbs Daily is proud to present the 64th Christian Carnival. Below you will find this week’s best posts from 62 of the top Christian blogs. Proverbs Daily is a blog that ventures to, amongst many other things, take a biblical…
April 6th, 2005 at 2:17 am
“before these last couple of weeks, not a single Christian has said anything about Terri Schiavo‚Äôs life when it hanged in the balance before this time. “
No - that’s not true at all. People were saying things back in Feb when the court decision was due - before the media were even reporting it.
April 6th, 2005 at 4:05 am
I never heard any commentary at all about Terri Schiavo’s case being a right to life one from any Christians either in print or television (I don’t listen to the radio). But, for the sake of argument I’ll accept what you are saying. My question then is, where were the right-to-life campaigners BEFORE Terri? Nowhere. This has never been on the Christian radar, in spite of the fact that taking PVS patients off feeding tubes happens about 10 times a day.
Abortion, which is a bona-fide right-to-life issue has been on the Christian agenda from day one. The death penalty (which as I said earlier genuinely IS state-sponsored murder, technically) has always been a hotly debated issue in Christian circles. Removal of feeding tubes from PVS patients or those like them (PVS is a relatively recent diagnostic category)? Not an issue with Christians before Terri.
As I keep saying over and over, if Terri possessed sentience, then it’s a right-to-life issue. If she did not, I find it impossible to justify it as a right-to-life issue. If we as Christians want to argue about whether or not Terri possibly possessed sentience, then that’s a legitimate argument (though in her case I’m not yet convinced it was the stronger one). But that’s not what we were doing. We were saying that removal of a feeding tube is state-sponsored murder via starvation. That’s patently ridiculous, both on a moral level and a legal one. We can blame Judge Greer for being intractable, but Judge Greer wasn’t the end of the matter. As such, it’s much more difficult to try to blame the entire court system that looked at and ruled against the Schindlers over and over and over again, or the Supreme Court who saw that the Schindlers’ constitutional appeals were baseless, and thus refused to hear them.
In making extra-judiciary appeals to the supposed inhumanity of removing a feeding tube, what we were really doing was asking the Governor of Flordia and the President to override one of the most fundamental pillars of our government: the Separation of Powers. But God forbid either of them should override the courts and take away our guns, or free press, or our freedom of religion. We would start an armed rebellion!
April 6th, 2005 at 10:47 am
This in some strange way reminds me that we Christians are responsible for abortion being legal. It is our fault. We were the ones who treated the unwed mothers of the 40s and 50s with shame and derision rather than love and forgiveness. When they needed support, we attacked in our own self-righteousness. As a consequence, abortion is now legal. It is our fault, it is a judgement upon us.
The courts in this case ruled in favor of the husband. The consequences of that will lie upon the judges and Mr. Shiavo. We as Christians are called to minister to him. If our judgement superceded God’s love we will be lost again and suffer God’s judgement. Whenever “righteousness” is placed above Love, we are misguided and deceived. I pray that we as believers do not let ourselves become deceived with this issue in the same way that we became deceived about abortion. Salt flavors, but it also preserves!
Trey
April 6th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Neil,
Thank you for your post, and especially your follow-up comment. The seemingly monolithic response of religious politicos had me second-guessing myself on this. Very well said.
April 6th, 2005 at 11:58 am
Trey,
That’s precisely what bothers me: that we have become more concerned about behavior in the realm of politics than about other weightier matters and as such don’t think so much about Love. The more Christians get success in the political arena, the more we will forget what our boundaries are. Many non-Christians see us as potential tyrants on a socio-political level, and eventually, they may be proven right.
April 6th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Neil,
The arguments you present in favor of what happened to Terri seem to be, a) Christians are hypocrites, b) this sort of thing happens all the time, c) since this was done by a court it was not the government that did it was private d) you would want to be starved to death if you were in Terri’s shoes.
If in fact the people who have fought for Terri’s life are hypocrites how does that justify starving Terri? When one can’t attack the message one attacks the messenger which means they don’t have a valid argument themselves.
Because something unjust happens “all the time” does not make it right. Rape happens everyday, does that make it all right?
If the judiciary is not part of the government then what is it? I don’t think you quite understand the separation of powers or the rule of law. The way it works is that the legislative branch makes laws and the judicial follow those laws. Under the constitution a state government has no right to deprive a citizen of life without first being charged with a crime. If they are found guilty of said crime they then have the right to habeus corpus which means they can ask for a new trial (de novo) in federal court. That is basically what congress and the president did is tell the court to follow the constitution which they ignored. How does that make the courts right and the legislative and executive branches wrong?
Lastly, I think if you were in Terri’s shoes you might have a different opinion as to whether you wanted to die or not considering the human will to live. I also doubt you would want to be starved to death in any circumstance. Additionally, what you would want really has no bearing on what Terri wants. Seems to me you are being a little self-righteous here thinking that you can decide who is worthy to live or die.
You state that those of us fighting for her life are not concerned for her salvation then you go on to assume she is saved so that in dying she will go to be with the father. Seems a bit contradictory. At any rate, if one was worried about her salvation wouldn’t they want her kept alive until her armed guards are removed and someone could share the gospel with her?
I agree that there are too many Chrisitians that carry the Republican water and fight for things that are merely political and have nothing to do with the Kingdom. This however, is not one of them.
April 6th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
Mike,
I address much of what you say in a comment above but I’ll restate it anyway:
If in fact the people who have fought for Terri’s life are hypocrites how does that justify starving Terri? When one can’t attack the message one attacks the messenger which means they don’t have a valid argument themselves.
I am simply pointing out the incredible inconsistency with Christians on this matter. I am not “attacking the messenger” because my arguments are not otherwise valid. I am not saying “Christians are hypocrites, therefore our arguments in favor of saving Terri’s life are invalid.” I am saying that not only are our arguments in favor of saving Terri’s life are not well-thought out, but also, we are being incredibly inconsistent on what we feel is a right-to-life issue, given what we have cared about in the past.
Because something unjust happens “all the time” does not make it right. Rape happens everyday, does that make it all right?
Your assumption is that a) removing a feeding tube is inherently unjust no matter who it is removed from and b) as such it is equivalent to any other crime that is perpetrated upon an innocent victim. From a bioethics standpoint (something which takes into account the sentiments of doctors, clergy, philosophers and others), removing a feeding tube in specific circumstances is not unjust. As such, it isn’t a crime. So, removing a feeding tube isn’t even in the same category as rape (or any other crime), because rape is unjust and such we have criminalized it.
I am pointing out that that the removal of feeding tubes happens every day without argument because very few people really consider it a right-to-life issue (or at least they haven’t hitherto). The fact that it is commonplace, having been considered carefully by many bioethicists, clergy, thoughtful lay people, etc, WITHOUT much if any dissent, says to me that it is a practice that is morally acceptable.
Abortion, on the other hand, is legal (i.e. not a crime) and practiced every day, but most of us Christians consider it unjust BECAUSE it is perpetrated upon an innocent victim, someone who we consider a “person”. Even people who aren’t Christians generally agree that it shouldn’t be so commonplace. What make’s Terri’s case different from abortion is that there is a genuine issue of “personhood” in someone in Terri’s condition. Is a body a person, or is a body and a mind a person? If Terri has no mind, then is she a person? If she is not a person without a mind, then is the removal of nourishment a crime? My answer is no.
You also have not taken note of the fact that we remove assisted breathing devices from incapacitated people, but the general public thinks it’s OK to do that to a person in Terri’s condition. In point of fact, assisted breathing devices are removed from people who still possibly retain sentience, but are permanently incapacitated. So, it’s OK to suffocate someone who is still might be a person (but who won’t recover), but its not OK to starve someone who is considered a non-person from a sentience point of view? Isn’t there an incredible disparity here?
I also point out that before the invention of feeding tube technology, Terri would have died anyway. She would been unable to get the food in her stomach. Like every other medical technology, feeding tubes have created an ethical connundrum. We CAN keep them alive, but SHOULD we? Something that starts off as “extraordinary” care later becomes “ordinary” care. Anti-biotics used to be extraordinary, but are entirely commonplace now. Feeding tubes were once extraordinary, but aren’t anymore. Any kind of cancer used to be a death sentence, and now, many cancers are entirely survivable in the long term. But, in all these examples, we assume that the person we are treating still retains sentience. The question of basic care vs. extraordinary care is entirely turned on its head when the person we are treating may very well not have any sentience. I believe that we should provide even the most extraordinary care to a person if they retain any sentience at all. I do not believe we should provide even basic care for someone who does not possess sentience. I’m not talking about “consciousness”, I’m talking about sentience. I personally just don’t see the point in keeping a body alive where there is no mind. But, I also believe that if that person wanted to be kept alive in such a circumstance, and we know that’s what they wanted, then we should do it.
That is basically what congress and the president did is tell the court to follow the constitution which they ignored. How does that make the courts right and the legislative and executive branches wrong?
No, what we were asking the courts to do was make a different decision than the one they made. I understand very well the nature of the judicial system, and I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I don’t think the courts are part of the government. The courts looked at this case over and over again. Terri Schiavo was given more time before the courts than anyone in her condition in history. We just didn’t like what the courts ruled, and we wanted Jeb Bush and the Prez to FORCE them to make another decision. That is illegal. The courts saw it as illegal, and the Supreme Court (a conservative court mind you), which only deals with Constitutional matters, saw no violations of Terri’s constitutional rights, and thus, refused to hear the case.
I also doubt you would want to be starved to death in any circumstance.
If I were in Terri’s shoes there is a real question whether or not I would want anything at all, and that is precisely what is at issue here. Whether I’m starved or progressively suffocated, if I’m a non-person it doesn’t matter anyway. Additionally, I am not the one saying Terri SHOULD die, I’m saying if that’s what Terri wanted, then she should be let go. What I would do for someone else is another matter. See here.
At any rate, if one was worried about her salvation wouldn’t they want her kept alive until her armed guards are removed and someone could share the gospel with her?
If she has no sentience, then can the Gospel be received, though we share it?
April 6th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
I don’t want to argue it Neil. You said not one Christian had said anything prior to the last two weeks - I just wanted to point out that wasn’t correct. That ws all.
April 6th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Catez,
OK, I’ll go for that.
April 6th, 2005 at 9:25 pm
While it is obvious that feeding via a tube is ‚Äúbasic care”, what is less obvious to people is that assisted (not artificial breathing) is also ‚Äúbasic care‚Äù
Well, this may be true…though there are those who argue that there’s a difference. Whether their arguments are valid is another question. (It’s one I personally need to consider further.)
Terri’s scenario is not a euthanasia one, as most people are claiming, but an end-of–life one by virtue of her mental state, and most people understand that, with the exception of a group of Christians who’s logic I can’t figure out
First of all, I don’t agree that once a person loses sentience, they are a non-person. I would be interested to hear the case made for that. Second, I think there is enough doubt on both sides of the issue that it could be read either way – either that the evidence is solid that Terri was in a PVS, or that it isn’t. And if there is some doubt, why not err on the side of benefit of the doubt?
When did Christians uphold physical life so much that when someone who has consistently been declared to be in a vegetative state, they still want to see the body live regardless? When did this happen? As far as I can tell, we Christians historically have been in favor of consciousness over physical life, because the physical/material has always been understood as being transient.
I’m not clear on how physicality is more transient than consciousness (or sentience). What evidence would you cite to support your claim?
Does a man who refuses medical attention for any reason at all, from an anti-biotic to chemotherapy, commit self-murder if he ends up dying in the end?
A very good question. Though I think that the result a treatment may have can often be known only in hindsight. And in the case of an illness treatable by an antibiotic or chemo, brain damage to the point of PVS is probably unlikely (but I’m not an MD so I don’t know for sure). Death from such an illness would result from pathology, not starvation or suffocation.
when did physical life itself become so sacred in the Christian mindset that we cannot willfully permit the end of a life when there is no hope for mental recovery as in Terri’s case?
I can only speak for myself, but I’ve never concluded that it is OK to take someone off of life support, especially if they are not dying. I have not had to deal with a real-life case though so I don’t have the benefit of experience. But my (perhaps oversimplified) view is that God gives life and encourages us to revere and protect it, whether there is cognitive function or not. Why should we not? Because it is a burden? Because a person in a severely compromised state isn’t pretty? Because such a person’s life is “done”? That the kind of decision I don’t think is ours to make. How do we know the purpose God may or may not have for a person in that state?
I recognize the view that holds that keeping a person alive artificially to begin with is “playing God,” by not allowing the person to go, but then isn’t it inconsistent to not hold every other type of medical intervention to that criterion?
If there was no such thing as a Cesarean section, I wouldn’t be sitting here typing. I realize I’m not brain dead (at least most of the time) but that’s a separate issue from the “playing God” one. In the case of keeping someone with no cognitive function alive via tubes or machines, the real issue then isn’t the artificial support, it’s the brain state. Which goes back to deciding whether a functioning brain is necessary for personhood. I think it’s not; you think it is.
Physical death isn’t pathologically avoided in a manner akin to Schiavo’s case. It’s just a transition
I don’t think that Terri’s death was being pathologically avoided. Her life was being supported, with simple procedures.
I am all for life, but not for existence
Why? What is more meaningful about life over existence, from God’s point of view? I understand that life-sustaining measures that even allow “existence” are man-made. However, does that mean they are not therefore gifts given to man by God to help us honor and sustain life itself, from the level of mere existence on up?
So, I would ask you, under what conditions would it be acceptable to remove any life-assisting device, and why? Why would removing any such devices for any reason be morally acceptable or consistent as opposed to never removing any such devices ever?
Another good question. The way I answer it at the moment has to do with struggle; if a person is clearly in a decline, then I would call that “dying.” I would say at that point that struggling to keep such an individual alive would be fighting city hall. But Terri was not dying; she was quite healthy. I am well aware that other real situations may be more complex, involving other factors and considerations as to whether a person was “dying” or not. I make no claim whatsoever to sagehood; this is just my personal view, and I would take that guideline into any actual situation I might find myself in. And such might cause me to change my view, who knows.
As an aside, if this is a “right to life” issue, then we should be concerned that people who, inspired by Terri Schiavo, are currently drafting living wills that say “do not resuscitate”, because that is also taking the power of life and death out of the hands of God. If I say “Do not resuscitate”, am I not saying that I have power over my own life? Isn’t this also morally unacceptable?
Another excellent question. I personally would say that it is morally unacceptable, in a non-dying situation.
Yeah, but our determination of when God took someone or not is done all the time anyway and nobody’s ever raised a fuss about this exact same scenario before this. This kind of thing has been debated in bioethical circles and pastoral circles for years, and the general conclusion by most Protestants has been to pull the plug if there is no meaningful sentience
And maybe they’ve all been wrong! Nobody’s raised a fuss until recently regarding IVF, and maybe that’s been wrong too. There are other issues (that I won’t mention because I don’t want to start any more controversy nor open Pandora’s box) that we accept that are no doubt wrong as well, because they are ingrained in our thought and culture.
Terri’s case is just high-profile, but it is not unique by any stretch of the imagination.
I think it was at least unusual, because of the particular circumstances, plus the fact that the two parties most closely involved with Terri were diametrically opposed (in the latter part of the saga, anyway) as to Terri’s fate. If there are several PVS patients each day removed from life-sustaining interventions, surely there are several daily who are not, whose families keep them on tubes or machines of some sort.
but the playing God part we’ve been comfortable with for a long time, and I personally don’t find most of that behavior to have been amoral at all.
I guess it depends on the nature and motivation of the “playing God” part. What is in the heart of the intervener or non-intervener?
My question then is, where were the right-to-life campaigners BEFORE Terri? Nowhere. This has never been on the Christian radar, in spite of the fact that taking PVS patients off feeding tubes happens about 10 times a day.
Another good question! Maybe they were busy with other concerns, which kind of gave them blinders to this issue. That’s not so unusual. It happens to all of us daily in one way or another. Maybe the Schiavo case woke them up!
Also, I think these decisions have heretofore (with a few exceptions) been left to the persons themselves or their families/loved ones, and the courts. It just that this time, there was a bitter dispute between the two interested parties, plus no written directive on the part of the person whose continuance of life was in question, and questions as to the judicial process itself.
We can blame Judge Greer for being intractable, but Judge Greer wasn’t the end of the matter. As such, it’s much more difficult to try to blame the entire court system that looked at and ruled against the Schindlers over and over and over again, or the Supreme Court who saw that the Schindlers’ constitutional appeals were baseless, and thus refused to hear them.
I think that, on the judicial level, there may have been other things going on besides “merely upholding the law.” We all know that law is interpreted, and, as such, is not exact nor absolute. Otherwise, there would never be dissenting judges. I can’t imagine that all judges are individuals of sterling moral character any more than the rest of the population is, and therefore they are not beyond preserving their own sacred cows in whatever subtle or esoteric way they may. I can’t remember clearly, but I don’t think The Supreme Court decision was unanimous. I think there is a genuine question as to the constitutionality of the Schindlers’ appeals, as well as of Congress’ emergency legislation.
In making extra-judiciary appeals to the supposed inhumanity of removing a feeding tube, what we were really doing was asking the Governor of Flordia and the President to override one of the most fundamental pillars of our government: the Separation of Powers.
No, I think we were re-examining the balance of powers, and questioning whether proper means of accountability are in place.
That’s precisely what bothers me: that we have become more concerned about behavior in the realm of politics than about other weightier matters and as such don’t think so much about Love. The more Christians get success in the political arena, the more we will forget what our boundaries are.
I don’t think that political activism and love are necessarily mutually exclusive, though for some perhaps they are. But pointing out a wrong, or what seems to be a wrong, and fighting to have it righted is not the same as vilifying the perceived wrongdoer. Besides, any “Christian” activity can be grounded in either love or selfishness.
Many non-Christians see us as potential tyrants on a socio-political level, and eventually, they may be proven right.
Perhaps, but is this solely the fault of Christians? Could it not also be true that some non-Christians view anyone who opposes their desired socio-political goals as a tyrant, whether they really are or not? I certainly don’t think Christians have a corner on tyrannical behavior either.
No, what we were asking the courts to do was make a different decision than the one they made.
No, we were asking the courts to reconsider certain evidence as well as consider new evidence.
Neil, I really appreciate the depth to which you’ve analyzed the Schiavo issue. You have gotten down to, and articulated well, the most basic questions involved.
April 7th, 2005 at 4:12 am
Bonnie,
Excellent comments. I have to get back to them when it’s not 4am, but I will. Thank you!!
April 7th, 2005 at 7:52 am
Neil, found this site through the Christian Carnival. I want to be as kind as possible while at the same time saying that I really find your reasoning faulty at several key points. By paragraph (and I’ll try to limit comments to my major problems, and leave out minor ones):
Par. 1 -
1.) You jump to conclusions regarding motives, painting with a broad brush along the way. I don’t give a rip about amassing “power”; I cared about Terri’s life, but as well, about the culture that we live in, and its respect for life.
2.) By your logic, we should cease all moral pronouncements until Christians fix their problems. The tragedy of Christian immorality deserves as much public excoriation as possible–which I try to do regularly from my pulpit. How this should keep us from inveighing on moral issues of the day, though, is unclear to me. Taken to its extreme—and I assume you wouldn’t—I’d have to wait until all the folks in my church were perfectly sanctified (and that ain’t happenin’ soon, bro) before I raise my voice about the lottery in PA, say.
Par. 2 - I’ll call my beefs minor, except that you’ve assumed Terri’s wishes, and Michael’s behavior clearly, by any reasonable reading of the situation, calls his objectivity into question.
Par. 3 - Same beefs as Par. 1. Look, it’s a tragedy that PROFESSING Christians live this way—and our two-pronged attack ought to be to restore accountability as an expectation of Christian community, and to strengthen our teaching on holy living.
Par. 4 - Interesting opinions; some truth in them, probably; nonetheless, they are an example of “groupspeak”; how can you possibly know the motives of the 10’s of 1000’s of Christians who spoke out regarding Terri? You’re probably right about some—the sheer numbers would suggest it. But it’s pretty unfair to tar all of us with that brush.
Par. 5 - Decisions like this are NOT made at hospices every day. Decisions SOMEWHERE IN THE BALLPARK, BUT DIFFERING IN IMPORTANT WAYS are made at hospices every day. The real issues in this case were so obscured by our twisted media that the vast majority of American folks formed opinions regarding a situation that was not the one that existed in Terri’s case. Your comments in Par. 7 suggest that you are one of these. At my blog, I just posted on a Zogby poll showing that almost 80% of Americans, when given the exact parameters of Terri’s case, said that they believe that the feeding tube should NOT have been pulled. Maybe Terri’s crusaders were right?
Par. 6 - This paragraph is so full of red herrings that we could make a nice meal of it. The last few weeks are not the first time that Terri’s case has been an issue among Christians; naturally, after the death sentence was handed down, the urgency increased. You assume things about Terri’s spiritual state, and Christians’ concern for it, that you just, frankly, pull out of the air—the issue, in the case of a woman in Terri’s state, is saving her physical life—and then, in the event she pulls out of her state, we concern ourselves with gospel proclamation. I daresay many did what they could related to her spiritual state: they prayed. I did. Why you resort to insulting us in your last sentence, I don’t know, but it further harms your theses.
Par. 7 -
1.) You give evidence that you misunderstand the core issue, which perhaps is the reason you reach the conclusions you do. I’d have been in FAVOR of “letting Terri go”, IF this was what was truly happening. If it was a matter of removing a ventilator, there’d have been no issue; you’d not know Terri’s name, nor would I. No…this was a living, healthy woman, who was NOT dying—hence the wording “let go” is out of place. True, her quality of life was not what any of us would wish—and perhaps, perhaps, though the jury SHOULD still be out on this—it is not what she’d have wished. But a decision was reached to kill—just as surely as if a pistol had been put to her head, which incidentally would have been more humane—Terri Schiavo, though she was not dying. If you want to use the term “remotely civically educated person”, I’d ask how a “remotely civically educated person” could fail to see the slippery slope potential here, wherein we begin by starving a person whose wishes we’re not sure about (Michael’s integrity, remember, is hopelessly compromised) who is not in the act of dying. It’ll be gramma next, and it isn’t long before Peter Singer’s vision becomes reality. That’s what the fight is about.
2.) Once again, you assume, without foundation except your own guesswork, that Christians aren’t concerned about Terri’s spiritual state.
Neil, I appreciate your passion for the subject, but I don’t believe that you’re really on the right track here.
April 7th, 2005 at 7:53 am
Neil,
I wanted to resond to your response to my comment.
You said, “I am simply pointing out the incredible inconsistency with Christians on this matter. I am not ‚Äúattacking the messenger‚Äù because my arguments are not otherwise valid. I am not saying ‚ÄúChristians are hypocrites, therefore our arguments in favor of saving Terri‚Äôs life are invalid.‚Äù I am saying that not only are our arguments in favor of saving Terri‚Äôs life are not well-thought out, but also, we are being incredibly inconsistent on what we feel is a right-to-life issue, given what we have cared about in the past.”
Whether you use hypocritical or “inconsistent” is mere semantics, it implies the same thing. If I pressed you I am sure I could get you to admit that there are senarios where you would not be in favor of pulling a feeding tube. Would that make you inconsistant or say anything about your argument in this SPECIFIC case? No, it would be irrelevant just as what Christians think about other cases is irrelevant to this one.
You say “our” arguments are not well thought out, I disagree, I think your arguments are not well thought out. Witness your statement, ” Now, I have read the affidavit of Dr. William Cheshire, who examined Terri Schiavo and as a physician who believes that it is permissible to remove food and hydration from a person in persistent vegetative state, he did not feel Terri‚Äôs diagnosis of PVS was correct based upon his obsvervations. He does, in fact, make a compelling case for reasonable doubt about her diagnosis. I do wonder, however, why her primary care physicians have not come to the same conclusion. I admit, it is impossible to know, therefore I must conclude that his convincing, but brief diagnosis is incorrect.”
If you had done your homework you would find some very disturbing things in this case for example Greer was serving as Terri’s court advocate and judge at the same time, basically Terri had no one on her side. Greer dismissed any testimony that disagreed with the doctor HE APPOINTED. Read more about his bizzare rulingshere
Neil said, “Your assumption is that a) removing a feeding tube is inherently unjust no matter who it is removed from and b) as such it is equivalent to any other crime that is perpetrated upon an innocent victim. From a bioethics standpoint (something which takes into account the sentiments of doctors, clergy, philosophers and others), removing a feeding tube in specific circumstances is not unjust. As such, it isn‚Äôt a crime. So, removing a feeding tube isn‚Äôt even in the same category as rape (or any other crime), because rape is unjust and such we have criminalized it.”
All right, I will withdraw the rape part of my comment. Still, because something happens all the time doesn’t make it right. Your argument is the same as my kids saying “Everybody else is doing it”.
As for your insistance that Terri was not sentient, a pet scan and some other simple tests would have proven conclusively whether she was or not. Her “advocate” Judge Greer denied all attempts to let these tests be done. Your insistance that it is OK for some folks to be declared “non-persons” is frightening. Have you learned nothing from history. The people who always have the power to make judgements on personhood do not have the best interests of individuals in mind when they make those judgements. Judges declared blacks “non-persons” that had no rights under the constitution therefore they could not be citizens. Using your logic that judges rulings are the law of the land and may not be questioned then we must say that is still valid even though turned over by the legislative process. I would also like to hear the answer to Bonnie’s question, “First of all, I don‚Äôt agree that once a person loses sentience, they are a non-person. I would be interested to hear the case made for that.”
Neil said, “No, what we were asking the courts to do was make a different decision than the one they made.”
No we did not, you ignored my point. The constitution mandates that before a state can deprive on of life they must first charge them with a crime using a grand jury, they must prove they are guilty of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must be convicted by a jury of ones peers. If they are convicted they have the right to a new trial in federal court. The legislature ordered the courts to give her the same rights as a convicted killer by a de novo trial. You said what the legislature and the president was “illegal”. As I said, the legislature makes the laws and judges are sworn to follow those laws and the constitution. The judges didn’t therefore they were the ones engaging in illegal behavior.
Neil said, “If she has no sentience, then can the Gospel be received, though we share it?”
Well, you brought it up when you said, “Additionally, I don‚Äôt hear any Christians involved in this whole thing talk about Terri‚Äôs salvific state, only her physical one. I don‚Äôt hear them praying that she somehow come to know Christ if she doesn‚Äôt already, I just hear them saying that this is state-sponsored murder…”
Do you want us to be worried about it or not?
Niel, I know everything I have said sounds mean but I just want Christians to conform our thoughts to God’s way of thinking not to what the culture thinks. God gave us the ability to think logically and I think we should use it. I am afraid we have become “men without chests” as C.S. Lewis put it.
April 7th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Byron,
Thanks for your comments!
First, there’s a underlying current in your comments that seems to assume I’m not a Christian. I am. Very much one. If I wasn’t using the term “Christians” I was using the term “we” quite often. My point of view is as a Christian that is starting to see Christian activist politics as it is currently displayed in America as a reflection of a deeper problem in American Christianity.
OK, now on to your points…
p1. Straw man argument. I’m a Calvinist not a Wesleyan-Arminian. I don’t believe it’s even possible for people to be perfect so I don’t require it of them. I’m simply pointing out that in this matter, Christians seem to be pointilistic rather than canvassed in their selection of “issues” they raise Cain about.
p2. Michael Schiavo had 5 years where his motives weren’t suspect. I’m just trying to give the guy a fair shake, which almost no one did. Personally, I think there was more of an issue about money than about wanting to live freely with another woman. While I can buy into parts of this argument against this, I still find it questionable that if his only motive was to move on with his life, he wouldn’t have simply divorced her and let her parents take care of her. “No,” we said, “He wants to kill her so he can live with another woman.” I don’t buy it very much.
p3. Once again, I have to paint in broad strokes. I don’t think I should have to explain every paragraph that these are generalizations.
p5. Actually, yes they are. Sheer statistics prove that. Over 30000 people in America are diagnosed as being in a PVS. 10% of those are removed from their support every year. A great many of those are on feeding tubes. Yes, it happens every day. The only thing about Terri’s case vs. the rest of them is that Terri’s parents were absolutely not willing to let go under any circumstances. That intractability is what was uncommon, not the end result.
p6. Since I wasn’t at the hospice I can’t know what everyone had to say about Terri’s salvific state at every point in time, but what was reported was purely a concern about her physical life. I heard nothing (and I scoured for it) about her spiritual condition or the ramifications of letting her die. My penultimate sentence reflected what I see as a gross lack of civic education in this country (or, should I say merely “education”, period). That the activists in favor of Terri Schiavo couldn’t see what they were asking the President and the Gov. of Florida to do was on it’s face unconstitutional is simply baffling to me.
p7. I have said from the start that this whole thing is contingent upon a big “IF” and that big “IF” is IF Terri Schiavo didn’t have any sentience. And, you say that a ventilator is OK with you, but you still don’t answer why a ventilator or any other kind of life-assistance is OK with you to remove, but feeding is not. There is no difference. We have the technology to keep someone alive on an oxygen mask, a ventilator, an oxygen bubble. Only the ventilator we say is OK to remove. Any one of those things can be required for life for a person, yet we say it’s OK to remove any one of them if they can’t sustain themselves. Why is feeding inherently any different? IMHO, it isn’t. However, my ultimate point is that there are circumstances where removing ANY life sustenance IS justifiable, whether it’s food or breathing. Those circumstances should obviously be rare, but I’m not against them inherently. What I’m against in this case, is the inconsistentcy of thought about the actual means of life support itself.
April 7th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Assuming you’re talking about legal murder, the death penalty is, by definition, not murder of any sort. It is state-sanctioned, but that’s enough to show that it’s not murder. To be murder, a court would have to convict someone of it as being in violation of laws against murder, which can’t happen if it’s not illegal to begin with. If you mean moral murder, that’s a different story, but pulling Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube would be murder if that’s wrong and the government sanctions it. It’s a consistent position to hold that her case is morally muder (though not legally), while the death penalty is just and therefore not murder.
I agree with many of the things you say. Christians have repeatedly looked stupid on this issue. It is within the realm of possibility that Michael doesn’t deserve the harsh condemnation people have been directing his way, and it’s wrong for Christians to be saying the things they’re saying even if their claims are true. You’re also right that the individual elements of this case are not unique, though they have come together in unique way if you count the challenges to her consent and the claims that he has a conflict of interest. Nothing with all those features has happened before, to my knowledge, with a PVS case where the husband wanted to remove the feeding tube.
On the other hand, I have some serious reservations about a few things that happened in this case. One is that PVS diagnoses are really unclear. There have been cases that are either grossly false diagnoses, or people can come out of them and live a fairly normal life afterward. That’s probably extremely unlikely in any particular case, but it’s clear in this case that Michael didn’t even try to see if it was possible, and that’s suspicious. The woman in the post I linked to was fully aware of what was going on. She had complete experiences and just couldn’t respond in any way except to blink, which she eventually used to communicate, and that led to further therapy so she could talk and move.
There was also enough evidence for me to be convinced that the courts had a faulty basis for determining her consent (which shouldn’t be the only issue if it’s simply his choice as her husband, but the court did frame in terms of her consent and then didn’t have enough reason to say she had consented but said it anyway).
April 7th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Mike, there’s a crucial moral difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when you preach something but don’t do the same thing yourself. Inconsistency is when you believe something but fail to see that your view also applies to another position that you haven’t applied it to. That can happen out of ignorance or simply not careful enough thought, and virtually everyone does it at least to some degree. Neil’s charge, therefore, is much less severe than you’ve made it out to be.
A number of people here have assumed that, when Neil says Christians have done something, he means that every Christian who has said anything relevant to the issue has done that. He didn’t said that. He made some generalized statements, and I can say as someone who opposed what the courts were doing here that he was speaking a truth in those generalizations. Most of the people in the general group that he’s talking about are guilty of a number of things that he has called those people on. He’s talking about a general group, and when human beings talk about a general group they will tend to talk about general features that most people in that group have. Just because there are some blond Italians doesn’t mean that it’s false to say that Italians have dark hair. They do. Just because there are some African Americans with naturally straight hair doesn’t mean black people don’t have extremely curly hair. They do. A true generalization is a true generalization even if there are exceptions. That’s what a true generalization is.
Neil, one thing that I don’t think you’ve taken adequate stock of is that this court order was not simply a declaration that Michael can make the decision for her. It was an order that the feeding tube be removed. To my knowledge, this really is the first time a court in the U.S. has ordered someone killed when not sentencing that person for a crime the person has already been convicted of. That’s unique, and it’s really troubling. At most, the court should have continued to uphold his custody and not declare that an action be taken one way or the other.
April 7th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Hmm. The first comment I wrote got eaten, apparently, because I submitted it long before the one that just showed up. Unfortunately, I didn’t save it anywhere. I was assuming you just had comment moderation on, but the last comment showed up, and it didn’t. What I said was something like the following.
I agree that most of the features of this case are unique, but this is a unique combination. Someone else has pretty much said the same thing in the meantime, so I won’t belabor that. What I said in the last comment (the one that did show up) really does clinch it, though, and it’s important to note that we don’t see very many cases of PVS with removed feeding tubes with charges against a spouse’s ability to make a decision without a conflict of interest or with such a flimsy case for determining the consent of the person being killed. Those are significant factors.
Also, I don’t think we should ever be as confident of the claims you’re making about being in a PVS. People have been diagnosed as being in a PVS but have been fully aware and have come out of it. See here) for one such case.
I agree that Christians have looked stupid in this case in many ways, and some of that is from mere ignorance, though some is from an irrational commitment to a principle that life is worth doing anything possible no matter what to preserve. That principle is not in or implied by anything in the Bible, and it seems idiotic to most nonbelievers. When I think there are better reasons to question some of the reasoning behind killing Terri, it makes me wish all these people hadn’t said things the way they did, because a bad argument for a position I like is one of the worst things for the case I want to make.
I also agree that it’s possible to read Michael in a way that’s not as bad as what some are saying. You’re right that this will still involve something bad, since he’s still abandoned his wife, whom he made a commitment to, but what you didn’t mention is that her parents told him to do this, the same ones who later turned on him and tried to use his doing this as evidence that he shouldn’t have custody anymore. At least that’s one of the stories being told, and who knows what to believe with all the conflicting testimony in this case? The main point shouldn’t be that it’s possible to read him as not so bad. The main point should be that Christians have no business talking about him the way they are. It’s thoroughly unChristian.
One issue I wish you had dealt with is something that I consider more important than most of these other concerns, and that’s that this was a deliberate decision to kill her. People distinguish between killing and letting die, and I think there are clear cases of both, but this isn’t one of either. The motivation, however, would have been the same as the motivation behind wanting her to die more quickly and thus pulling the trigger on a gun. He wanted her to die. There’s no question about that. He wanted it to happen legally, but he wanted her to die. That means his action really was a killing in the same way that it’s killing a mentally retarded baby to refuse to do a simple operation to remove a blockage. People do that all the time, and I think it’s morally murder even if it’s legally not.
The only difference here, if any, is if she’s not there anymore to kill. You say she’s not, but as I said above I don’t think we should be as sure as that as the medical community wants us to be. I worry about whether they’re simply working from a physicalist model of the human person when they say that someone can’t be fully conscious merely because of lack of brain activity in the part of the brain that they think is the only part where conscious activity can occur. They’re actually wrong on that, too, because some rare people can meditate in such a way that they can give off no brain waves but can then consciously pull themselves back into a position of giving them off. Ken Wilber’s website has more on this, though it’s not very well organized, and I’m not sure I could easily find the stuff on that. Suffice it to say that he can control what brain waves he gives off at will while mediatating, and it can go down to nothing while he’s still conscious. There was also a case (reported in Reader’s Digest, of all things) where someone was declared brain dead, and she later was revived and could describe what was going on in the room with precise detail during the time she was brain dead. So I just don’t trust the medical
industrycommunity on matters such as when someone could and couldn’t be aware or having genuine experieneces. I just don’t think we know enough to make judgments on such matters if they’re matters of life or death.April 7th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
It just isn’t about self-righteousness. The tragedy of Terri Schiavo is out of disrespect for God and His perfect Law. No one had the right to take her life but God. At some point, government or the judicial system, and we didn’t care who, should have enforced the Higher Law that this nation was built on. If we fail to follow God’s way, who, in God’s name, will we follow?
April 7th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
In my 3:18 comment, that should be “most of the features of this case are NOT unique”. Sorry.
April 7th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Jeremy,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I’ll get back to it, but you bring up some very important issues which I’d like to address soon. And not necessarily in disagreement either.
Also, please forgive the problems with posting comments. Blacklist keeps spitting out errors that I can’t seem to fix. Your comments were posted, however. Also, since I have been getting so much spam, but do not want to require people to log in to comment, I’ve set my moderation to include comments with any links. Sorry for the trouble.
April 7th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Reflections on the Schiavo Case
Now that we’ve had some time to distance ourselves from Terri Schiavo’s death and some time to get distracted by the death of John Paul II, I’ve decided to share some of my mixed feelings from the whole affair. I…
April 8th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Neil, Byron and Jeremy,
I appreciate you guys and admire you greatly but I think you are all arguing the wrong points. Whether Christains are inconsistant or hypocritical and whether someone is painting someone else with a broad brush has nothing to do with the question of whether it was right or wrong to do what was done to Terri.
I think what makes Christains look bad is the fact that sometimes they are more worried about how they look than what is right or wrong. ( I am not applying this to you guys, I have read your blogs and know you stand for what is right, popular or not.) If the world hated Him they will certainly hate us.
You can tell by the title of my blog I consider it a compliment when people speak all manner of ill to me. If the world is mad at me I must be on the right track. I will be happy to concede the fact that I and some other Christians are a hypocrite, inconsistant or a sinner. That says nothing about whether what happened to Terri is right or wrong. That the Inquisition happened says nothing about whether the Gospel is true or not. As Christians we must learn to keep the main thing the main thing.
Here is the crux of the issue. “The constitution mandates that before a state can deprive on of life they must first charge them with a crime using a grand jury, they must prove they are guilty of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must be convicted by a jury of ones peers. If they are convicted they have the right to a new trial in federal court. The legislature ordered the courts to give her the same rights as a convicted killer by a de novo trial.” We have a constitutional right of habeas corpus to protect us from illegal state actions that deprive us of the rights given us by our Creator and guaranteed by the Constitution. Terri was denied all of this.
April 8th, 2005 at 9:17 am
It seems you’ve gotten comments that nitpick every aspect of this post to the point of emaciation. So let me encourage you by saying this: FINALLY! An original, thoughtful post on this subject! It was a great refresher, Neil. Keep up the good work.
April 8th, 2005 at 9:34 am
Sorry about the double post, but I had a couple more thoughts. The idea of courts or anyone else deciding “personhood” scares me. Do we want another Dred Scott case or certain personhood cases that happened in 1920’s Germany? I think not. Using a single case to decide personhood for a group of people is a dangerous business. The merits of this case are that a judges declared himself advocate and judge for Terri which is a conflict by any definition. There are tests which would prove conclusively the extent of Terri’s cortex and brain function. The judge/advocate denied these tests and relied on the opinion of a doctor he appointed (another conflict of interest). This doctors opinion was subjective no matter how highly he was trained in light of the fact that there are tests that would remove subjective opinion form the matter.
Providing food to someone who cannot feed themselves is not keeping someone alive artificially. What does it matter if you use a tube or a spoon to feed someone. Withholding food from someone who is otherwise healthy is not allowing them to die, it is killing them. Not allowing someone who can swallow their own saliva to attempt to swallow food is lunacy. Saying she doesn’t feel anything then administering morphine to her as she starves to death is complete contradiction. The least the people who wanted her dead could have done is give her a lethal injection so she didn’t have to suffer. They couldn’t do that because in their minds they thought they could assuage their conscience by convincing themselves they “let her die” rather than killing her.
This is the same kind of logic that justifies partial birth abortion by saying, “Well, they weren’t technically born because the last three inches of their head was still in the birth canal”. I ain’t buying it.
April 8th, 2005 at 10:28 am
To all,
This will have to be brief because I’ve got to start moving my house today (or I should say, the content thereof). But, it’s something I want to get back to.
On “Personhood”:
Terri was not declared a non-person by the courts, but rather, by doctors. Now, you can say that this isn’t much of a difference, but it is. The courts, and exclude Judge Greer if you must, were taking the decision of doctors and saying “OK, since she has been declared thus by doctors, we are allowing Michael Schiavo to carry out what we believe are Terri Schiavo’s wishes.” They did not say, “We order than Terri should die”. That would be a very different thing.
So, she did not have to be convicted of a crime to be removed from her feeding tube, because it was not the courts who were saying she should die, unlike a murder case which is “The State vs. Mr So-and-so”. It was Michael Schiavo who was saying she wanted to die, and all the courts did was side in his favor. THIS is why the appeals courts rejected all the Schindler’s claims. You can say whatever you want about Judge Greer, but you can’t say that all the appeals courts over the last two years all had it out for Terri as well. They did not feel her “rights” had been violated or that she lacked adequate representation before the courts. Their decision was narrow: find out what the patient wanted, therefore, execute the patient’s wishes. That is an entirely different scenario than if Terri lacked advocates and the government on it’s own said, “We declare that Terri should die”. You have two competing sets of “advocates” in this case, and the courts chose one. That’s all they did.
So, I don’t believe that this case is a slippery slope case at all because I don’t see the courts arbitrarily making a decision about someone’s state of “personhood”. This was already declared by physicians, even though there was dissent about that decision. The courts just took that opinion and made a choice between competing advocacies based upon that decision. Now, that medical opinion could very well possibly be wrong, but that’s not what Christians have been arguing about. Physicians are entitled (fortuntely or unfortunately) to declare someone dead, or a non-person, and if someone has a problem with that, it should be taken up with the medical community, not with the courts.
April 8th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Handwringing Over Terri Schiavo
or it’s all in the fingering style In the aftermath of the efforts to turn the tide in the Terri Schiavo case, many are reviewing the many issues that surfaced. Neil of Digitus, Finger & Co. was one. I read…
April 10th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
Neil,
Been away for a couple days, else I’d have responded sooner. First, an apology on my part for apparently poor writing; something I said indicated to you that I thought you were not a Christian. Gracious, I didn’t mean to suggest that in any way, shape or form—so maybe I did the same as you claimed you did and wrote a little too slapdash, huh?
I’ll not go back over but to comment on a couple, one to actually suggest that I might have been wrong about hospices doing this sort of thing regularly. You may very well be correct about this sort of thing happening regularly in hospices. In fact, on my site, I’ve quoted an article from WorldNetDaily.com that suggests that you are correct. Count me as HORRIFIED—and as a person who is going to strongly consider making some noise about hospices. I thought that these were organizations that served dying people well, but I honestly was not aware that this was going on. So, consider this point conceded, but consider me royally ticked at hospices!
Now, the point I will continue to argue is that you make no distinction between pulling a feeding tube and pulling a ventilator. Au contraire, my friend, and here’s why: the difference is between CAUSING death and ALLOWING death, and that is a huge difference, in my mind. People may live indefinitely without breathing assistance; pulling THAT plug MAY very well end in a person’s death, but it need not necessarily. Withholding food will CAUSE death in 100% of the cases in which it is tried. A ventilator is not REQUIRED for life; food and water ARE. Medicine is not required for life, and so withdrawing medication would not, per se, cause death—even though in some circumstances, withdrawing medication would allow it. There are any number of devices that can prolong life, but that, in normal circumstances, are not necessary for life to continue. There is a point in some people’s lives where questions have to be answered about keeping some of these devices attached; these questions turn, it seems to me, on whether they serve to prolong life or to prolong DEATH. On the other hand, keeping nourishment and hydration going enables a person to live as long as other organs keep functioning. The whole Terri Schiavo (and now Mae Magourik) thing is about the difference between passive euthanasia—with which many, myself included, agree—and active euthanasia, the taking of actions that can lead to no other end than the causation of death.
April 13th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Christian Carnival LXIV
The 64th Christian Carnival (yes, I know I’m a week behind, but I’ve had a particularly busy week) is at Proverbs Daily, with a nice topical categorization in terms of particular proverbs. My Intermediate State is there, and it’s consciously…
April 21st, 2005 at 11:52 am
You must gave received all of your information regarding the terri schiavo saga through the news media. There were also over 10 disability rights organizations and several prominent Democratic/liber voices who couldn’t get two second on prime time if they had gone to the podium naked.
These people had serious issues with Terri Schiavo’s circumstances and they are as follows:
She was awarded 1.4 million dollars by a jury for treatment and therapy. Court records indicate NONE of those funds were expended to that purpose. Court records indicate $350,000 of those funds were expended to litigate her death.
She was sentenced to death without representation. The closest representation was the guardians ad litem, both of whose recommendations for further investigation of her wishes were dismissed by the court.
She was placed in a hospice for five years without a terminal illness. Hospice laws, policies and procedures require a terminal diagnosis and short life expectancy prognosis. A hospice is equipped to assist the dying. It is not equipped or purposed to provide for the living – the disabled living.
Terri Schiavo was declared indigent at some point during that time. Taxpayers funded her stay at a facility not purposed to her needs.
Thus, there is now legal precedence to obtain a jury award for one ostensible purpose and use it for another. Treatment and therapy to disabled individuals who have funds allocated for that purpose can be denied by guardianship powers in complete disregard of the disabled individuals entitlement to those treatments and therapies. Laws and guidelines regarding appropriate facility placement have been ignored, thus making them ineffective. Furthermore, erroneous placement can be at taxpayer expense.