Quotes to remember about the Schiavo case
Some of those who have written about the Schiavo case in recent days and weeks have summed up the situation beautifully. A lot of those writers have asked, in one form or another, the question, "Where are the liberals, those self-proclaimed defenders of the weak, the forgotten, the oppressed, the downtrodden?" I have decided to post excerpts from those articles I have found.
From Thomas Sowell:
"Terri Schiavo is being killed because she is inconvenient to her husband and because she is inconvenient to those who do not want the idea of the sanctity of life to be strengthened and become an impediment to abortion. Nor do they want the supremacy of judges to be challenged, when judges are the liberals' last refuge."
From the Independent Women's Forum:
"'We are appalled that the Florida courts have not removed Mr. Schiavo as Terri’s guardian,' says Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women’s Forum. 'There is an inherent conflict between the interests of Mr. Schiavo, his live-in girlfriend, his children with this woman, and the needs of his wife. Given this conflict of interest, it shocks the conscience that Mr. Schiavo still controls whether Terri lives or dies.
'All organizations that claim to speak for women should be outraged at this injustice. Effectively, Terri is being sentenced to an early grave because her husband would prefer her death to a divorce,' Pfotenhauer continued.
'Why is there no outcry from so-called women’s organizations about Terri’s rights? Where are N.O.W, the Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women’s Organizations and the National Women’s Law Center in defending her?' Pfotenhauer added."
From Eric Cohen in The Weekly Standard:
"Procedural liberalism (discerning and respecting the prior wishes of the incompetent person; preserving life when such wishes are not clear) gave way to ideological liberalism (treating incompetence itself as reasonable grounds for assuming that life is not worth living). ...
A true adherence to procedural liberalism--respecting a person's clear wishes when they can be discovered, erring on the side of life when they cannot--would have led to a much better outcome in this case. It would have led the court to preserve Terri Schiavo's life and deny Michael Schiavo's request to let her die. But as we have learned, the descent from procedural liberalism's respect for a person's wishes to ideological liberalism's lack of respect for incapacitated persons is relatively swift. Treating autonomy as an absolute makes a person's dignity turn entirely on his or her capacity to act autonomously. It leads to the view that only those with the ability to express their will possess any dignity at all--everyone else is 'life unworthy of life.'
This is what ideological liberalism now seems to believe--whether in regard to early human embryos, or late-stage dementia patients, or fetuses with Down syndrome. And in the end, the Schiavo case is just one more act in modern liberalism's betrayal of the vulnerable people it once claimed to speak for. Instead of sympathizing with Terri Schiavo--a disabled woman, abandoned by her husband, seen by many as a burden on society--modern liberalism now sympathizes with Michael Schiavo, a healthy man seeking freedom from the burden of his disabled wife and self-fulfillment in the arms of another."
From Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal online:
"I do not understand why people who want to save the whales (so do I) find campaigns to save humans so much less arresting. I do not understand their lack of passion. But the save-the-whales people are somehow rarely the stop-abortion-please people.
The PETA people, who say they are committed to ending cruelty to animals, seem disinterested in the fact of late-term abortion, which is a cruel procedure performed on a human.
I do not understand why the don't-drill-in-Alaska-and-destroy-its-prime-beauty people do not join forces with the don't-end-a-life-that-holds-within-it-beauty people.
I do not understand why those who want a freeze on all death penalty cases in order to review each of them in light of DNA testing--an act of justice and compassion toward those who have been found guilty of crimes in a court of law--are uninterested in giving every last chance and every last test to a woman whom no one has ever accused of anything.
There are passionate groups of women in America who decry spousal abuse, give beaten wives shelter, insist that a woman is not a husband's chattel. This is good work. Why are they not taking part in the fight for Terri Schiavo? Again, what explains their lack of passion on this? If Mrs. Schiavo dies, it will be because her husband, and only her husband, insists she wanted to, or would want to, or said she wanted to in a hypothetical conversation long ago. A thin reed on which to base the killing of a human being."
And here's an interesting one. If the disabled gay community has to complain, the liberal abandonment is complete, is it not?
From Not Dead Yet's website, a statement from Disabled Queers in Action:
"MARCH 23, 2005 4:30 a. m. -- In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled early this morning that Terri has no right to eat, thus no right to live. Although our justice system presumes innocence until proven guilty, Terri has been tried and convicted without any charges against her -- for the capital offense of being disabled. Society and the courts have deemed her "better off dead than disabled". America was built upon presumed checks and balances, yet for people with disabilities like Terri, those balances failed again and again.
Today is one of the darkest hours in disability history for three reasons:
(1) This is a civil rights issue.
Let's answer the following logic puzzles to determine various civil rights.
a. If "B" is an African American, should she be denied food and water because of her race? Yes or No. NO of course not.
b. If "I" is a woman, should she be denied food and water due to her sex? Yes or No. Absolutely NOT.
c. If "A" is an alleged criminal, should he be denied food and water because of his legal status? Yes or No. NO- that is cruel and unusual punishment-he is not yet proven guilty.
d. If "S" is a mother with 2 children, should she be denied food and water because of her being a mother? Yes or No? That is absurd.
e. If "E" is 18 years old and just coming out as gay, should he be denied food and water because of his sexual orientation? Yes or No? Even the most radical antigay person would say no.
f. If "D" is disabled, and thus can not speak, should she be denied food and water? Yes or No? According to the court's illogical rulings, the answer is YES.
Solely based on her perceived disability, she was denied the rights afforded to other classes of people. The court deems her 'non-human' and thus will not feel pain to not eat or drink. Does anyone know with 100% clarity that Terri will not feel anything or even wants to die? Oddly enough for 15 years without any life supports, she continues to live. She deserves food, water, and civil rights.
Research shows that non-disabled people and medical professional devalue the quality of life of disabled people, yet the court took only the word of non-disability experts-those who historically have devalued people like Terri. Those 'experts' the court deemed more reliable are exactly those that research demonstrates devaluing people with disabilities.
(2) There was 'reasonable doubt' on Terri's wishes and conflicting testimony from her husband.
In 1993, he won $750,000 to care for Terri by promising to bring her home and care for her. "She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows." Yet after he received the money, he started living openly with a fiancee and has fathered two children by her.
After this malpractice award, he refused to allow even the most basic rehabilitation and then requested court authorization to starve her to death.
At the 2000 trial, Schiavo suddenly remembered that Terri would not want "to live like that."
The court-appointed guardian ad litem found that Schiavo had a conflict of interest, since he would inherit the money intended for her care. Upon Schiavo's request, the judge dismissed the guardian and never appointed another! Terri Schiavo has had no representation ever since.
Over $500,000 of the money intended for Terri's care has been spent on lawyer fees trying to have her killed. $400,000 has gone to the traveling "better dead than disabled" lawyer.
(3) She has never been judged by a jury of her peers -- which would be people with disabilities.
The courts in essence used Jim Crow methods -- non-disabled people to judge, assess, and condemn her.
Not Dead Yet's briefs with more than 26 disability groups fell upon 'deaf' judicial ears.
Today is the 6th anniversary of my mother's death. She too was declared 'in a vegetative state" like Terri. Yet for the three months in the hospital with this diagnosis, the medical staff nagged us daily to 'pull the plug'. However my mom made clear her wishes and kicked out her abusive husband without any of our family there -- the nursing staff called us to inform us how my mom cussed him out and told him to never visit again. Then she went back to "sleep". When we saw her that day, she smiled, spoke about her kicking him out, then back to "sleep". She hung on, in various ways, until she decided to die -- after everyone in our family visited her and told her she was loved, and we respect her decisions, whatever they were.
No one knows exactly what Terri is thinking or feeling, but it's clear -- she has an amazing power to hang on to life without any 'life supports'. She is not terminally ill except for the court's ruling. Why can't we give her the benefit of the doubt, and follow the logic that she should not be killed for the crime of being disabled?"
From Thomas Sowell:
"Terri Schiavo is being killed because she is inconvenient to her husband and because she is inconvenient to those who do not want the idea of the sanctity of life to be strengthened and become an impediment to abortion. Nor do they want the supremacy of judges to be challenged, when judges are the liberals' last refuge."
From the Independent Women's Forum:
"'We are appalled that the Florida courts have not removed Mr. Schiavo as Terri’s guardian,' says Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women’s Forum. 'There is an inherent conflict between the interests of Mr. Schiavo, his live-in girlfriend, his children with this woman, and the needs of his wife. Given this conflict of interest, it shocks the conscience that Mr. Schiavo still controls whether Terri lives or dies.
'All organizations that claim to speak for women should be outraged at this injustice. Effectively, Terri is being sentenced to an early grave because her husband would prefer her death to a divorce,' Pfotenhauer continued.
'Why is there no outcry from so-called women’s organizations about Terri’s rights? Where are N.O.W, the Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women’s Organizations and the National Women’s Law Center in defending her?' Pfotenhauer added."
From Eric Cohen in The Weekly Standard:
"Procedural liberalism (discerning and respecting the prior wishes of the incompetent person; preserving life when such wishes are not clear) gave way to ideological liberalism (treating incompetence itself as reasonable grounds for assuming that life is not worth living). ...
A true adherence to procedural liberalism--respecting a person's clear wishes when they can be discovered, erring on the side of life when they cannot--would have led to a much better outcome in this case. It would have led the court to preserve Terri Schiavo's life and deny Michael Schiavo's request to let her die. But as we have learned, the descent from procedural liberalism's respect for a person's wishes to ideological liberalism's lack of respect for incapacitated persons is relatively swift. Treating autonomy as an absolute makes a person's dignity turn entirely on his or her capacity to act autonomously. It leads to the view that only those with the ability to express their will possess any dignity at all--everyone else is 'life unworthy of life.'
This is what ideological liberalism now seems to believe--whether in regard to early human embryos, or late-stage dementia patients, or fetuses with Down syndrome. And in the end, the Schiavo case is just one more act in modern liberalism's betrayal of the vulnerable people it once claimed to speak for. Instead of sympathizing with Terri Schiavo--a disabled woman, abandoned by her husband, seen by many as a burden on society--modern liberalism now sympathizes with Michael Schiavo, a healthy man seeking freedom from the burden of his disabled wife and self-fulfillment in the arms of another."
From Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal online:
"I do not understand why people who want to save the whales (so do I) find campaigns to save humans so much less arresting. I do not understand their lack of passion. But the save-the-whales people are somehow rarely the stop-abortion-please people.
The PETA people, who say they are committed to ending cruelty to animals, seem disinterested in the fact of late-term abortion, which is a cruel procedure performed on a human.
I do not understand why the don't-drill-in-Alaska-and-destroy-its-prime-beauty people do not join forces with the don't-end-a-life-that-holds-within-it-beauty people.
I do not understand why those who want a freeze on all death penalty cases in order to review each of them in light of DNA testing--an act of justice and compassion toward those who have been found guilty of crimes in a court of law--are uninterested in giving every last chance and every last test to a woman whom no one has ever accused of anything.
There are passionate groups of women in America who decry spousal abuse, give beaten wives shelter, insist that a woman is not a husband's chattel. This is good work. Why are they not taking part in the fight for Terri Schiavo? Again, what explains their lack of passion on this? If Mrs. Schiavo dies, it will be because her husband, and only her husband, insists she wanted to, or would want to, or said she wanted to in a hypothetical conversation long ago. A thin reed on which to base the killing of a human being."
And here's an interesting one. If the disabled gay community has to complain, the liberal abandonment is complete, is it not?
From Not Dead Yet's website, a statement from Disabled Queers in Action:
"MARCH 23, 2005 4:30 a. m. -- In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled early this morning that Terri has no right to eat, thus no right to live. Although our justice system presumes innocence until proven guilty, Terri has been tried and convicted without any charges against her -- for the capital offense of being disabled. Society and the courts have deemed her "better off dead than disabled". America was built upon presumed checks and balances, yet for people with disabilities like Terri, those balances failed again and again.
Today is one of the darkest hours in disability history for three reasons:
(1) This is a civil rights issue.
Let's answer the following logic puzzles to determine various civil rights.
a. If "B" is an African American, should she be denied food and water because of her race? Yes or No. NO of course not.
b. If "I" is a woman, should she be denied food and water due to her sex? Yes or No. Absolutely NOT.
c. If "A" is an alleged criminal, should he be denied food and water because of his legal status? Yes or No. NO- that is cruel and unusual punishment-he is not yet proven guilty.
d. If "S" is a mother with 2 children, should she be denied food and water because of her being a mother? Yes or No? That is absurd.
e. If "E" is 18 years old and just coming out as gay, should he be denied food and water because of his sexual orientation? Yes or No? Even the most radical antigay person would say no.
f. If "D" is disabled, and thus can not speak, should she be denied food and water? Yes or No? According to the court's illogical rulings, the answer is YES.
Solely based on her perceived disability, she was denied the rights afforded to other classes of people. The court deems her 'non-human' and thus will not feel pain to not eat or drink. Does anyone know with 100% clarity that Terri will not feel anything or even wants to die? Oddly enough for 15 years without any life supports, she continues to live. She deserves food, water, and civil rights.
Research shows that non-disabled people and medical professional devalue the quality of life of disabled people, yet the court took only the word of non-disability experts-those who historically have devalued people like Terri. Those 'experts' the court deemed more reliable are exactly those that research demonstrates devaluing people with disabilities.
(2) There was 'reasonable doubt' on Terri's wishes and conflicting testimony from her husband.
In 1993, he won $750,000 to care for Terri by promising to bring her home and care for her. "She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows." Yet after he received the money, he started living openly with a fiancee and has fathered two children by her.
After this malpractice award, he refused to allow even the most basic rehabilitation and then requested court authorization to starve her to death.
At the 2000 trial, Schiavo suddenly remembered that Terri would not want "to live like that."
The court-appointed guardian ad litem found that Schiavo had a conflict of interest, since he would inherit the money intended for her care. Upon Schiavo's request, the judge dismissed the guardian and never appointed another! Terri Schiavo has had no representation ever since.
Over $500,000 of the money intended for Terri's care has been spent on lawyer fees trying to have her killed. $400,000 has gone to the traveling "better dead than disabled" lawyer.
(3) She has never been judged by a jury of her peers -- which would be people with disabilities.
The courts in essence used Jim Crow methods -- non-disabled people to judge, assess, and condemn her.
Not Dead Yet's briefs with more than 26 disability groups fell upon 'deaf' judicial ears.
Today is the 6th anniversary of my mother's death. She too was declared 'in a vegetative state" like Terri. Yet for the three months in the hospital with this diagnosis, the medical staff nagged us daily to 'pull the plug'. However my mom made clear her wishes and kicked out her abusive husband without any of our family there -- the nursing staff called us to inform us how my mom cussed him out and told him to never visit again. Then she went back to "sleep". When we saw her that day, she smiled, spoke about her kicking him out, then back to "sleep". She hung on, in various ways, until she decided to die -- after everyone in our family visited her and told her she was loved, and we respect her decisions, whatever they were.
No one knows exactly what Terri is thinking or feeling, but it's clear -- she has an amazing power to hang on to life without any 'life supports'. She is not terminally ill except for the court's ruling. Why can't we give her the benefit of the doubt, and follow the logic that she should not be killed for the crime of being disabled?"
posted by Portia Sterling | 9:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home