Anyone following the Terri Schiavo situation with an open, rational, compassionate mind can see that religious zealots are some of the most immoral people on earth. Who else but Congressional religious zealots would subpoena a woman in a persistent vegetative state to come “testify” (as if she could) on Capitol Hill? And now it appears that the same zealots are rushing through half-baked emergency legislation that would overturn longstanding principles about how end-of-life medical care decisions are made.
This is happening while other religious zealots are trying to break into the hospice where Schiavo is being cared for, trying to bring her bread and water—even though they know that she can’t eat on her own. I feel like puking.
But I won’t. For I’ve just eaten a large, tasty, healthy pancake, topped with strawberries and whipped cream, in honor of Terri Schiavo and her brave husband, Michael. I did this to counter the ridiculous call for a “Fast for Terri.” This is more hypocrisy from those who think that they alone know what is moral.
Michael has it right when he said, after Terri’s feeding tube was removed, “It felt like some peace was happening for Terri. And I felt like she was finally going to get what she wants, and be at peace and be with the Lord.” Amen.
My wife and I can’t understand why those who claim to believe in Christian everlasting life are so afraid of letting death happen naturally. Methinks their lack of faith betrays itself in their reluctance to let Terri pass to the other side, where Michael, her legal guardian, is convinced she wants to be.
Note what often gets forgotten by the zealots: Terri’s husband is her legal guardian. As Arthur Caplan, one of the nation’s leading bioethicists, wrote last October:
“No court has ever been persuaded that Michael Schiavo should be disqualified from making medical decisions on behalf of his wife. And no court has ever been persuaded that Terri has any hope of recovering from her severely brain-damaged state. So the courts have sided with Michael Schiavo using a well-established rule of law, which states that when a patient cannot communicate and has left no written instructions about their wishes, spouses have discretion about continuing or stopping medical care.”
A Fox News poll found that 59% of Americans agree that Terri’s feeding tube should be removed and say that if they were in the same situation, they wouldn’t want to be kept alive artificially. So what the hell is Congress doing trying to interfere with what should be a private decision between Terri’s caregivers and her legal guardian?
The only bright spot in this depressing display of neoconservative/religious intrusion on individual rights is that it should spur more people to sign living wills and health care powers of attorney. In the late 1980s I was one of the founders of Oregon Health Decisions and its first executive director. (Here's a history of OHD) With Ralph Crawshaw, Michael Garland, Carolyn Lobitz, and others dedicated to helping Oregonians make wiser personal and political health decisions, we did a lot to make people realize that these “advance directives” need to be signed before you become seriously ill. If Terri had done this, the legal battles surrounding her wouldn’t be happening.
If you live in Oregon, you can order advance directive forms from the Oregon Health Decisions web site. A FAQ page has some useful information about advance directives. Before filling one out, you need to think carefully about what you want when the end of life nears. Laurel (my wife) and I have different opinions, but we each have advance directives.
Laurel is certain that she doesn’t want extraordinary measures like a feeding tube used to keep her alive if she is terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state, as Terri Schiavo is. So her advance directive makes this clear. I’d rather have Laurel making the decisions on the spot for me, so I’ve signed a health care power of attorney that authorizes her to do just that.
Laurel’s approach assures that she won’t be given extraordinary measures even if I get cold feet and want to keep her alive against her stated wishes. My approach is more flexible because I find it difficult to envision what I would want in a situation that I’ve never experienced.
Here’s an interesting bioethics blog that has some informative and moving posts about the Schiavo case. Glancing through them confirmed my suspicion that those who know the most about bioethical decision-making almost universally are appalled at how ill-informed religious meddlers have injected themselves into the private lives of Terri and Michael.
Another weblog dispels myths and misrepresentations being put forward by Terri’s parents, their attorneys, and fanatical groups such as the Christian Defense Coalition, which is listed as a domestic terrorist group.
Ah, behold the benefits of slavish adherence to religious fundamentalism. From a normal caring human being you can become a domestic terrorist. Count me out. Way out.
Thank you for posting this. You said it ever so much more eloquently than I could have.
I appalled at the cynical, brazenly-opportunistic behavior of the extremists who are seizing this tragedy and twisting it to their own ends. It disgusts me.
Posted by: Greg | March 19, 2005 at 03:25 PM
More Twilight Zone! We really must be on the same wave length. As in your previous post "Why Don't Religions Evolve?", I wrote on this VERY SAME TOPIC this morning. We really need to get together; our minds already seem to be there.
Posted by: Trey | March 19, 2005 at 09:04 PM
Excellent Brian. I'm glad you are on the job.
Posted by: Randy | March 20, 2005 at 07:56 PM
" . . .[R]eligious zealots are some of the most immoral people on earth." I couldn't agree more. I am in the midst of Susan Neiman's "Evil in Modern Thought." In her discussion of Kant, she quotes from his "Lectures on Philosohical Theology":
"Suppose we could attain to scientific knowledge of God's existence . . . all our morality would break down. In his every action, man would represent God to himself as rewarder or avenger. This image would force intself upon his soul, and his hope for reward and fear of punishment would take the place of moral motives."
Reading this and following the Shiavo tragedy, it really hits home that the greater your certainty, the more incapable you are of acting morally. The greater the certainty that you are doing what God would want, the greater the chance that you will behave in an immoral manner. And that seems to just about summarize what the evangelicals are doing to this poor woman.
Posted by: Richard | March 21, 2005 at 11:51 AM
I think President Bush has taken the right decision first time in his life which shows that he has concerns for the humanity. Who are we to take the decision to take away the life of patient who is in vegetative state? This means that we can even kill millions of other people who are suffering from AIDS, brain development disorders and disabled elderly people. This is a complicated ethical dilemma and it is difficult to arrive on the any decision.
President Bush has surprised the world by considering the appeal of Mother. But in contrast Killers of 329 innocent passengers of Air India Flight 182 Montreal-Bombay –Delhi (www.flight182.com) are acquitted by the Canadian court. This is a great injustice in the history of world. I think court has given the different decision, if the Aircraft belongs to USA or European countries. The reason is that the aircraft belongs to third world country. I feel hurt when these persons and organisations which they belong to claimed that bomb was planted by Indian Govt ,a completely baseless allegation by fanatics. It seems that Law of morality no more exists in this world. Moreover, western media called these persons as Militants instead of Terrorist. Well anyway in the eye of western countries, anybody who raises the guns against them is terrorist and if the gun is on third world countries then it is Militancy.
Also have a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/23/newsid_2518000/2518857.stm
Posted by: Ak | March 21, 2005 at 02:18 PM
My family went through this same situation. My aunt was in a vegetative state for 11 years following and overdose of insulin. She was not diabetic and this caused the brain damage. The difference in our case was that my uncle was an abuser. But here's what happens when the spouse doesn't care. You can buy them off. We did. My grandparents got power of attorney, and my uncle took off. Not even his kids ever saw him again. Michael Schiavo was offered a million dollars to change his mind. If he didn't care about her he would've taken it. The decision he made is not one made over night. That decision plays over and over and over and over in your head day in day out every single year your family member is in this state. The parents, or at least my grandparents, had guilt issues over stopping my aunt's life. They couldn't do it. Like Terry, my aunt seemed responsive; she could cry, smile, get angry. But even so, the only bright part of her day was when one of us came by to see her. She was atrophied in a nursing home bed, sharing the room with a woman with dementia, and the only thing to look forward to was seeing a family member for one or two hours a day. Eventually she got pnuemonia and was put on a respirator and the family decided it was time to let her go. Here is what I have to say about the Schiavo case to the fanatics: It is an incredibly tough decision that takes decades to make, not just a few months, and takes information to pour over and examine, not just news stories, and also personal experience with the person in question. The media just needs to leave the family and the situation alone, and the government doesn't need to be making split second decisions that could effect so many other different things.
Posted by: Jinny | March 22, 2005 at 10:28 AM
You should try speaking the truth, barring that then just be factual.
Only ONE judge has looked at the facts. Not as you say, umpteen.
Why don't you describe those who want to kill her as pro-death zealots? Oh yeah, you don't hate them.
How is starving a woman, preserving 'individual rights'? And how does that have anything to do with 'living wills', which may or may not be legal and/or binding?
And anyone with an "Open, rational, and compassionate mind" would not want to see her starve. How sad that you so want Euthanasia and abortion that you will sacrifice one innocent woman for your cause. Sick. How can you equate compassion with starving?
You realize, no wait you don't; that Terri is NOT in a PVS. Do you care that you are siding with someone who has withheld medical treatment from her for 15years? Do you care that you are now making it easier for men to kill women and vice-versa and get away with it?
Do you care? Of course not. You are driven by hate. Hate of anyone who does not lap up your secular humanist agenda and beliefs.
How sad.
Posted by: Real Man | March 23, 2005 at 03:44 PM
Real Man, I note that you didn't refer to any facts in your accusatory comment that I'm being unfactual. Why don't you read the full report of the Guardian Ad Litem who conducted a complete, objective, and unbiased review of Terri Schiavo's condition? Here's where you can find it:
http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm
Everything you said is contradicted by the facts. Please, don't let your passionate religious convictions blind you to reality. Blind faith is fine when it is kept personal. Blind faith is destructive when it is used to interfere with the rights of other people--such as Terri, who has a right to die with dignity.
If you don't want to read the full report, here's the "bottom line" conclusion of the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL):
"The GAL concludes from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information within the file concerning Theresa Schiavo consists of competent, well documented information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement, and that the neurological and speech pathology evidence in the file support the contention that she cannot take oral nutrition or hydration and cannot consciously interact with her environment. The GAL concludes that the trier of fact and the evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition in cases of persistent vegetative states, where there is no advance directive, through substituted/proxy judgment of the guardian and/or the court as guardian, and with the use of evidence regarding the medical condition and the intent of the parties that was deemed, by the trier of fact to be clear and convincing."
Posted by: Brian | March 24, 2005 at 12:22 PM
I'm only going to say, that was a really excellent post, and yes, very eloquently put.
Also, Jinny's comment. Very thoughtful.
I really wish we lived in a world where these issues are treaded on delicately with due respect and dignity and maybe a bit of silence...
Maybe you've all seen this already:
http://www.gorrellart.com/index.asp?link=archive&id=303
Posted by: monica | March 26, 2005 at 11:25 AM
I'm a Pro-Life Christian, but even I know when enough is enough. Forcing someone, anyone, like Terri Schiavo to live is cruel and unusual punishment, and it should never be allowed. Period! Why? Because when an animal suffers and does not recover, we put it down just to put it out of its misery. We do not force it to live knowing it will only prolong its suffering. Why treat a human being any different if they are going to remain prisoners of their own bodies and never recover? It makes no sense!
Posted by: Joann | January 10, 2007 at 01:50 AM
Joann, That's a sad mentality. You are hardly a christian if you would take life and death into your own hands. You certainly do not know if Shaivo was "suffering". You have no sense.
Posted by: tao | January 10, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Fundamentalists use Ad Hominem attacks.
People with common sense use... well, common sense.
'Nuff said!
Posted by: Common sense | June 24, 2008 at 05:01 PM