:: Running from the Thought Police ::

:: Sunday, March 20, 2005 ::

Salient Point

ILPundit points out that by removing Michael Schiavo's right to act as proxy for his wife weakens the bonds of marriage that the GOP and Christian right seem so keen on harping about. I also agree with him that I'd rather have my potential spouse or kids being my proxy rather than my parents, though hopefully I'll never be in a situation where it'll come to that.

Before anyone piles onto me, I don't believe in a "right to die" any crap like that. Suicide is wrong. Killing is wrong. Any attempt to end someone's life for the sake of ending it is wrong. So what matters, morally, is whether or not Terri Schiavo has a functioning brain, and whether or not having an intact brain stem and "lower brain" functions counts as being alive. It ca be argued that being human requires the potentiality for consciousness. If Terri isn't conscious, and can never become conscious, then she's just as dead as a week-old corpse. The problem is proving that she can never become conscious - something that, to obtain a degree of certainty, requires more tests.

Legally, in the state of Florida, whether or not Terri is "alive" isn't the point of contention. It's a matter of deciding who best understands what Terri would've wanted in this situation. The courts have decided that the person best able to act as proxy for Terri is her husband, Michael. Terri's parents already had their day in court and weren't able to convince the judge that she would've wanted to live, yet this point gets shunted into the background. The courts don't exist to directly decide moral points, they decide legal points, and Terri's parents seem to be behind in this regard.

It appears that, since they know that their legal ground is tenuous at best, the "Save Terri" group of bloggers and opiners have decided that ad hominem attacks against Michael and the judge in the case are among the best tools to get what they want. I'm sorry, but whenever I see anyone arguing along those lines, I tune them out - their case should be good enough without the need to resort to such dishonest tactics.

So, my opinion is that no one is in a right moral position to withdraw treatment on Terri, since she's not dead in a physiological sense and she has yet to be ruled neurologically dead, but that there's little to no legal ground with which to keep her alive.

UPDATE: Maurice Bernstein, M.D., has some thoughts about the recent turn of events in the Schiavo case; part one is here, and part two is here. Also, via Kevin, M.D., ABC news has an article up on what actually happens to people in vegetative states who die after having food and water withheld.

:: The Squire 5:14 PM :: email this post :: ::
...