« One of these things is not like the other | Main | This guy needs a Tic-Tac »
March 28, 2005
What of the right to life?
I've written about the right to die in my book, "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down: Closing Arguments That Changed the Way We Live--From Protecting Free Speech to Winning Women's Suffrage to Defending the Right to Die," in the chapter dealing with the Karen Ann Quinlan case. I haven't said much about the Terri Schiavo case -- apart from a great post-dinner conversation at my bride's family's house Sunday night.
But I find it ironic that the debate in the country has shifted from society's predisposition to err on the side of life when it comes to the severely ill, where Quinlan's parents had to fight for years for their daughter's right to refuse heroic medical measures, to today, when Schiavo's parents are losing the battle to keep their daughter from being killed. And I find it even more ironic that the court's have said, "Let us err on the side of life when it comes to convicted killers, preventing the execution of 17-year-old stone-cold murderers, but brain-damaged women are unworthy of such caution and not in need of such protection."
The key distinction between the two cases -- apart from the State, the doctors and the courts wanting to save Karen Ann and the courts refusing to save Terri's life, is that Karen Ann's desires were reliably known. Her parents testified that she had expressed a lack of fear about dying, and a willingness to meet her Maker when He deemed her time on earth to be at an end. Karen Ann was a deeply religious Catholic -- as were her parents -- and refusing mechanical means of extending life was consistent with their faith.
Ultimately, she was taken off the respirator, but continued to breathe on her own, until she finally passed away years later. No one denied Karen Ann food or water, and I don't hesitate to say that all parties, most certainly her parents, would have been horrified at the suggestion that they starve their daughter to hasten her death.
Schiavo, on the other hand . . . . There has never been a reliable record that Terri intended to reject all life-saving measures, certainly not food and water. To rely upon the representations of Michael Schiavo about her wishes is a fool's errand. Michael Schaivo did not raise the supposed statement by his wife regarding medical treatment until years after her illness.
Terri is not on a respirator; unlike Quinlan, heroic measures were not being used to keep her alive. A feeding tube is not comparable to being on a heart-lung machine.
What troubles me is the issue of others deciding when a life is not worth living. It is far closer to 1930s Germany than I'm comfortable with, and before anyone accuses me of hysterical Nazi-phobic ravings, take some time and acquaint yourself with the eugenics policies of the Nazi regime. During the Weimar regime of the 1920s, handicapped children were integrated into society, and Germany led the world in their efforts to provide for the needs of the handicapped. Later, mental defectives and children suffering from severe handicaps were euthanized by the Nazis years before they turned to industrial-scale extermination of the Jews.
Neither those children -- nor Terri Schiavo -- had a say in whether their lives were unworthy, whether society was better off without them burdening the rest of us by dint of their existence.
My bride's uncle was extremely upset by what he perceives to be the intrusion of the Congress into a deeply personal family decision. I, on the other hand, believe that, although imperfect, the actions of Congress were of the utmost importance, inasmuch as two parents were crying out for assistance, while the courts prevented them from saving their daughter's life.
Returning to Germany, terrible things occurred in a Western nation when its political system, it's legal system, and its people lost their moral compass. Pastor Martin Niemoller spoke of the end result when good people fail to act to prevent great evil.
Should the people and their elected representatives stand by and do nothing in the face of injustice? I'm disappointed that no elected official had the courage to do as Pres. Andrew Jackson, who, when he defied a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, said, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has issued his decision; now let him enforce it!"
As a result of the Karen Ann Quinlan case, patients are routinely given paperwork to fill out, telling hospital administrators of their wishes should they need to be revived.
Who would have thought that within a scant thirty years, we'll need to have forms to tell health care professionals, "I do NOT want you to kill me; I do NOT want you to starve me; I do NOT want you to decide that my life is not worth living unless I so decide."
Chilling.
Posted by Mike Lief at March 28, 2005 04:16 PM