Armchair Pundits

Another Historic Day

Unless judicial intervention occurs, 5pm EST will see the removal of a feeding tube from Terri Schiavo, leading her to experience the slow death of starvation. This case is no stranger to any of us, considering all of the media attention it has garnered.

The case is a complex one, as Terri Schiavo has been in a vegatative state for nearly 15 years. Second, her husband, Michael Schiavo, is petitioning for the removal of the feeding tube (citing Terri's wishes). He is presently estranged from his wife. In fact, he is living with another woman, with whom he has fathered two children. Schiavo's parents have expressed their desire to be appointed guardians, asking Michael to divorce their daughter.

This case has provoked quite the debate and outrage in our society, as it once again stirs the morality question concerning human life. And once again, it raises many other issues. Are we talking about a right to die or a right to kill? Do such rights even exist? Are Mr. Schiavo's motives altruistic (love, compassion, dignity) or does he stand to benefit (finanical settlement)? Does Terri have no value, simply because she is now an unwanted inconvenience? If she would not wish to have life saving measures employed, why did she not have a written, legalized health care directive? Is not such a document prudent planning? Especially, in trying to avoid a tense familal struggle such as this? A plethora of information exists concerning these questions, and in particular, the facts pertinent to this particular case; however, the ultimate answers seem to be contingent on which side of the first question one comes down on. This in turn, leads to a broader and more perilous issue.

In my previous disection of the Groningen Protocol (See December archives-A Winter's Afternoon With Bobby), the point was made that the dialogue has moved from the viability of human life to that of the value of human life. The result of this distinction is unfolding before our very eyes. The most salient of questions remains, what should be our guide regarding grave matters? Do we appeal to the relativism of our own authority, or to a higher standard? Once again, this oft cited favorite of the Armchair Pundits, has delineated a clear and decisive line between the schools of thought on this issue.

I hope you took the time to read it. Where are you most comfortable? Do you appreciate the precarious nature of such distinctions?

posted by Grisby @ 1:40 PM