The aftermath of Terri Schiavo, part I

As I have mentioned before, I am a weblog contributor to Townhall.com, and frequently post there - mostly brief comments and references to other Townhall commentators and columnists. But every now and again when my post is a long one, I will cut-and-paste it here, too. Here's yesterday's:

You heard it here first

There have been so many astute and accurate observations about the Terri Schiavo case posted on Townhall over the past couple of weeks. It is important not to lose sight of the battles that are forthcoming that will still need to be fought, and why. The reactions to the Schiavo case demonstrate this. Let me offer just a few examples:

On March 24th, Peggy Noonan wrote in her column on OpinionJournal online (linked through Townhall):

"I do not understand the emotionalism of the pull-the-tube people. What is driving their engagement? ... Why are they so committed to this woman's death? ... What does Terri Schiavo's life symbolize to them? What does the idea that she might continue to live suggest to them? ...Why does this prospect so unnerve them?"

Fair questions. Thomas Sowell, in his column posted on Townhall on March 24th, gave some of the clearest and most concise reasons why the Left was salivating (if you'll excuse the metaphor) at the prospect of pulling Terri's tube, and so adamant that she must die. He said:

"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."

And today, he is proven correct. In an article published by LifeSiteNews.com, it states that Planned Parenthood offices in Florida e-mailed their supporters, asking them to write and thank the Florida legislators who voted to refuse to intervene to save Terri Schiavo's life. Ask yourself - why would Planned Parenthood have any vested interest in the life of a severely disabled woman who certainly needed no advice or services in the area of "reproductive rights"?

Relatedly, I and others here have remarked time and time again at the idiocy of those who insist that "government shouldn't get involved," as if a judge, a court system, and a police force aren't arms of government. When interviewed by David Bereit, a director of the American Life League, a Florida Planned Parenthood representative who sent out the e-mail said:

"I think probably the majority of our supporters feel that there should not be government intrusion, that the court should be the ones handling this issue, as it has, and so that's why I did it."

Duhhhhh.

And last week, I predicted that, now that we as a nation have accepted the courts' power to starve a disabled individual to death, the next step would be calls for faster and "more merciful" methods than the two weeks it takes someone to die by starvation and dehydration. Specifically, the way I put it was:

"There have already been scads of doctors and nurses who have attested in news articles that death by starvation and dehydration is NOT 'painless.' A few more Terri Schiavos, and we will begin to hear the drumbeats for methods that are in fact 'quicker,' more 'merciful,' and genuinely painless. And then, the lethal injections will start."

I was off by a bit. Just three days ago, an editorial by Radley Balko appeared on FoxNews.com, in which he says:

"Death by starvation might be the most excruciating kind of death imaginable. ... What’s most troubling about this case is the way we’re letting Terry Schiavo die. There’s no need for her to starve to death. ... For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Terry Schiavo had a living will, and that it explicitly said she’d have no desire to be kept alive in the condition she’s in today. In theory, her doctors could put a solution in her IV drip that would end her life peacefully, painlessly and quickly. In theory, doctors could do that for any terminal patient who’d rather die than battle on. But in our twisted conception of medical ethics, that wouldn’t be acceptable. 'First, do no harm' makes passive, undignified, and sometimes painful death by starvation, dehydration, or asphyxiation the norm. It makes measures that could bring a quicker, more peaceful death a crime. What in the world is wrong with us? We treat convicted murderers better than this. Most states now understand that state-sanctioned killing ought to be merciful, brief and painless. Most use lethal injection. But we can’t extend that same consideration to the most helpless and vulnerable among us. That, apparently, would be unethical. ... It’s time we stopped mingling our morals and our medicine."

Balko not only assumes away the very legal issue at stake (Terri Schiavo's complete lack of a written advance directive), but also criticizes the first - and some would say paramount - element of the Hippocratic Oath, and argues that medicine should be divorced from morals. If this is the direction that the medical community is headed, then it is even more important that there be serious reforms in the legal system - starting with the courts.