Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Back and forth on Schiavo
By The Erudite Redneck
A good friend of mine is something like a field lieutenant for the Religious Right.
What I mean is, he is in a place of intellectual responsibility for a well-recognized organization that is a bastion of the RR. He and I went round and round with a coupla e-mails about Terri Schiavo yesterday.
It's just a snippet. Worth repeating though. Subject line: Ruefully
----------
ER:
Congress, and the country as a whole, will rue the day Congress involved itself in this tragedy in Florida. In ways that none of us can fathom, this will so come back and bite everybody it will astound. The only hope is the Lord Himself grows her a new cerebral cortex and damn quick. Maybe she'll be up and walking by Easter., If not, then this is the most morbid political theater I have ever seen.
Field lieutenant:
You know, though, that she is not terminally ill or on "life support." She is just disabled. I don't know how we can rue the day that the federal government steps in to stop a woman whose quality of life isn't good enough for some people from being starved to death. The federal government steps in all the time when there's a hint that someone has been wrongly charged with a crime -- presidential pardons. Why can't it move to prevent someone from beind denied the most basic right guaranteed by the Constitution -- life?
ER:
Because it wasn't the president. It was Congress. And hey, "the pursuit of happiness" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, along with "life" -- not the Constitution. I need some help paying my bills, Congress. Can you cut me a check? It would enhance my pursuit of happiness. Hell, why don't y'all just pay off my truck and buy me a pool table? The moral issue, of course, if vastly more profound. The level of meddling, though, is exactly the same.
Field lieutenant:
Days like this probably make you mad you're writing (at least tangentially) about [my newspaper beat], eh?
ER:
Maybe I'll blog about it.
(Done)
END
A good friend of mine is something like a field lieutenant for the Religious Right.
What I mean is, he is in a place of intellectual responsibility for a well-recognized organization that is a bastion of the RR. He and I went round and round with a coupla e-mails about Terri Schiavo yesterday.
It's just a snippet. Worth repeating though. Subject line: Ruefully
----------
ER:
Congress, and the country as a whole, will rue the day Congress involved itself in this tragedy in Florida. In ways that none of us can fathom, this will so come back and bite everybody it will astound. The only hope is the Lord Himself grows her a new cerebral cortex and damn quick. Maybe she'll be up and walking by Easter., If not, then this is the most morbid political theater I have ever seen.
Field lieutenant:
You know, though, that she is not terminally ill or on "life support." She is just disabled. I don't know how we can rue the day that the federal government steps in to stop a woman whose quality of life isn't good enough for some people from being starved to death. The federal government steps in all the time when there's a hint that someone has been wrongly charged with a crime -- presidential pardons. Why can't it move to prevent someone from beind denied the most basic right guaranteed by the Constitution -- life?
ER:
Because it wasn't the president. It was Congress. And hey, "the pursuit of happiness" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, along with "life" -- not the Constitution. I need some help paying my bills, Congress. Can you cut me a check? It would enhance my pursuit of happiness. Hell, why don't y'all just pay off my truck and buy me a pool table? The moral issue, of course, if vastly more profound. The level of meddling, though, is exactly the same.
Field lieutenant:
Days like this probably make you mad you're writing (at least tangentially) about [my newspaper beat], eh?
ER:
Maybe I'll blog about it.
(Done)
END
Comments:
<< Home
Or perhaps Braingirl you should use your brain and do some research into the actual facts of the case. For instance several doctors (21 at last count) including the head of a hospital have said that Schiavo could improve and that they do not find "clear signs" of Schiavo being brain dead. True, the other side has produced experts claiming that she is. However, both medical sides say that a MRI would produce clear evidence. Michael Schiavo refuses to allow it.
Terri Schiavo deserves the due process of law. Right-to-die depends on the law being upheld to the letter and to the spirit. This is not about Michael Schiavo trying to carry out the wishes of his wife; this is about a feud that he and her parents have fought without rest.
It is true that the religious right have jumped on this case, but in all their years of jumping, the odds had to favor them being right for once. Your casual dismissal of them is an indicator of why we lost the presidental election. Whether you agree with them or not, they represent voters. Voters, you might be surprised to learn, that hold doctorates and college degrees who pay taxes and deserve a voice in our government and not to be dismissed as Kool-aid kooks. This is their society also. Until we learn this and educate rather than ridicule we will continue to lose elections and we deserve to do so.
Terri Schiavo deserves the due process of law. Right-to-die depends on the law being upheld to the letter and to the spirit. This is not about Michael Schiavo trying to carry out the wishes of his wife; this is about a feud that he and her parents have fought without rest.
It is true that the religious right have jumped on this case, but in all their years of jumping, the odds had to favor them being right for once. Your casual dismissal of them is an indicator of why we lost the presidental election. Whether you agree with them or not, they represent voters. Voters, you might be surprised to learn, that hold doctorates and college degrees who pay taxes and deserve a voice in our government and not to be dismissed as Kool-aid kooks. This is their society also. Until we learn this and educate rather than ridicule we will continue to lose elections and we deserve to do so.
# posted by 
: 7:13 PM
: 7:13 PM
Heh -- Jake, you're right, due process and all. Check your con law books and they'll show you what due process means constitutionally. And, she's And, uh, those "several doctors (21 at last count)". Cite sources please. Cite balanced news sources that show 21 doctors have reviewed her case file and examined her in person and said she can recover. Cite a source that they haven't done MRIs. Do you really think that if she could recover with rehab she wouldn't be already? She's been in a persistent vegatative state for 15 years.
# posted by : 9:15 PM
: 9:15 PM
I agree with Nick. I want to make it clear that I do not think Schiavo's case is a right-to-die case. She left no confirmed (written) instructions. The default in such an instance should be to preserve life.
# posted by : 9:15 PM
: 9:15 PM
Braingirl, I never said that I expect her to wake up and be okay. I don't believe in miracles. I doubt even her parents expect that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
As for citing sources, cite yours. I didn't realize there would be a damn test. An easy Internet search will find many articles from both sides. The truth lies somewhere between. I recognize that. Do you? Or do you believe only one side holds all the truth?
My point - the point you and ER seem to be ignoring - is her death is unjustified by any reasonable standard of right-to-die legislation. You wave the Constitution around like a flag and use it as a justification for killing - withholding food and water - a woman. What Constitution are you using? The one I have respects people’s rights. Yours is apparently making vague references to state’s rights and checks and balances even though there is no connection other than in the minds of a few knee-jerk liberals.
A more important question is whether you or I could remove her food and water. Could we stand there and watch while she slowly dies? Her body thirsts and hungers. Her death will be damn hard. It would be kinder to shoot her in the head. We would do that for an animal.
I volunteer at a hospice. I’ve watched people suffer. Twice I’ve been there when they died. I support right-to-die because I don’t want to watch anyone die in pain. If she had left any written instructions, I would support it gladly and loudly. She didn’t.
I keep asking this question. Isn’t it better to err on the side of life? So far, no one has answered it.
As for citing sources, cite yours. I didn't realize there would be a damn test. An easy Internet search will find many articles from both sides. The truth lies somewhere between. I recognize that. Do you? Or do you believe only one side holds all the truth?
My point - the point you and ER seem to be ignoring - is her death is unjustified by any reasonable standard of right-to-die legislation. You wave the Constitution around like a flag and use it as a justification for killing - withholding food and water - a woman. What Constitution are you using? The one I have respects people’s rights. Yours is apparently making vague references to state’s rights and checks and balances even though there is no connection other than in the minds of a few knee-jerk liberals.
A more important question is whether you or I could remove her food and water. Could we stand there and watch while she slowly dies? Her body thirsts and hungers. Her death will be damn hard. It would be kinder to shoot her in the head. We would do that for an animal.
I volunteer at a hospice. I’ve watched people suffer. Twice I’ve been there when they died. I support right-to-die because I don’t want to watch anyone die in pain. If she had left any written instructions, I would support it gladly and loudly. She didn’t.
I keep asking this question. Isn’t it better to err on the side of life? So far, no one has answered it.
# posted by : 9:39 PM
: 9:39 PM
"I keep asking this question. Isn’t it better to err on the side of life? So far, no one has answered it."
Then let me be the cold-hearted bastard who does answer it: No, not if it means throwing out the concept of state's rights and the usual accepted ideas of what the federal government is for -- and it ain't this. Yes, that's more important. Call it legislative triage on my part.
Nick, ol' buddy, re: "What harm is there is reviewing her case to see if there may be a conflict of interest ..." Are you serious? It has been reviewed, pardon the expression, to death -- by the judicial system of the state of Florida. The harm? The entire federal system in this country.
Back to Jake: "What Constitution are you using? The one I have respects people’s rights. Yours is apparently making vague references to state’s rights and checks and balances even though there is no connection other than in the minds of a few knee-jerk liberals. A more important question is whether you or I could remove her food and water."
1. Well, I'll tell you: I like to remember that there are 50 other constitutions in this federated replublic we like to so inaccurately and casually refer to as THE United States. 2. I will answer to the roll call of "knee-jerk" sometimes, but to neither "liberal" nor "conservative" regarding this question. The labels have lost all meaning here. Come on, the most "conservative" Congress in my lifetine does THIS? Give me a break. 3. Whether you or I could remove her food and water is a profound question. Now, y'all go on and have your arguments about it. I extricated myself from the precise merits of the case several posts and-or comments back. My gripe is that Congress whored itself out to intervene in a family tragedy that, apparently, has been duly adjudicated in the state of Florida, apparently for political positioning and potential electoral gain.
Then let me be the cold-hearted bastard who does answer it: No, not if it means throwing out the concept of state's rights and the usual accepted ideas of what the federal government is for -- and it ain't this. Yes, that's more important. Call it legislative triage on my part.
Nick, ol' buddy, re: "What harm is there is reviewing her case to see if there may be a conflict of interest ..." Are you serious? It has been reviewed, pardon the expression, to death -- by the judicial system of the state of Florida. The harm? The entire federal system in this country.
Back to Jake: "What Constitution are you using? The one I have respects people’s rights. Yours is apparently making vague references to state’s rights and checks and balances even though there is no connection other than in the minds of a few knee-jerk liberals. A more important question is whether you or I could remove her food and water."
1. Well, I'll tell you: I like to remember that there are 50 other constitutions in this federated replublic we like to so inaccurately and casually refer to as THE United States. 2. I will answer to the roll call of "knee-jerk" sometimes, but to neither "liberal" nor "conservative" regarding this question. The labels have lost all meaning here. Come on, the most "conservative" Congress in my lifetine does THIS? Give me a break. 3. Whether you or I could remove her food and water is a profound question. Now, y'all go on and have your arguments about it. I extricated myself from the precise merits of the case several posts and-or comments back. My gripe is that Congress whored itself out to intervene in a family tragedy that, apparently, has been duly adjudicated in the state of Florida, apparently for political positioning and potential electoral gain.
Redneck --- so the state is more important than the individual? How Orwellian of you.
# posted by : 10:53 PM
: 10:53 PM
i've been tossing around the idea of a "terri" entry on my blog, but the subject is just too damn exhausting at this point; i'm sick to death of all the misinformation that's being circulated, and i don't have the energy to wade through it all anymore. i will say this, however: federal intervention in this matter was an outrage. there has been seven years of due process, and if errors were made, they would have been discovered and adjudicated by now. it's time to stop the madness, and let this woman go to god!
Nick, re: "when that happens, does anybody really think that the first thing on our minds will be engaging in these philosophical arguments about what the Founding Fathers would think about what Congress did...?"
No, that's why it's important that those of us noit in that terrible position talk about it now.
Nick, re: "there are more lasting and relevant things at work here than any system of government -- including our own."
I disagree totally. If not for our form of society -- and that's what we're really talking about here, is the form of society, not just a form of government -- we would not have the freedoms we have to worship and debate, balanced with the order imposed by our various constitutions, with the goal of equal justice and equality of opportunity. Those "philosophical arguments" are the only things that keep this country from propelling itself into balkanization or slipping back into the dark ages -- and I'm ready to defend them against all rhetorical enemies, foreign and domestic.
Anonymous, re: "Orwellian."
Ha! In this country, the state is not a separate entity from its citizens. We the people ARE the state known as the United States. Nick is part of the state where he is. Jake is part of the state where he is. I am part of the state that is the state of Oklahoma. Not very Orwellian at all. Very Jeffersonian.
No, that's why it's important that those of us noit in that terrible position talk about it now.
Nick, re: "there are more lasting and relevant things at work here than any system of government -- including our own."
I disagree totally. If not for our form of society -- and that's what we're really talking about here, is the form of society, not just a form of government -- we would not have the freedoms we have to worship and debate, balanced with the order imposed by our various constitutions, with the goal of equal justice and equality of opportunity. Those "philosophical arguments" are the only things that keep this country from propelling itself into balkanization or slipping back into the dark ages -- and I'm ready to defend them against all rhetorical enemies, foreign and domestic.
Anonymous, re: "Orwellian."
Ha! In this country, the state is not a separate entity from its citizens. We the people ARE the state known as the United States. Nick is part of the state where he is. Jake is part of the state where he is. I am part of the state that is the state of Oklahoma. Not very Orwellian at all. Very Jeffersonian.
nick,
you want to equate the schiavo situation with a raped and murdered child, and you expect others to engage in dialogue with you about it? uh...don't think so!
Post a Comment
you want to equate the schiavo situation with a raped and murdered child, and you expect others to engage in dialogue with you about it? uh...don't think so!
<< Home
