Terri Schiavo's Life (and Death) Will Not Be in Vain
Peggy Noonan writes a heartfelt yet supremely bloated piece on today's OpinionJournal.com, imploring the federal government to stop the withdrawal of Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube by any means necessary. She notes that there are three "angles" to this case: the legal one, the public relations one, and the political one. Florida Governor Jeb Bush has used this controversy as a political opportunity to bolster his pro-life credentials, looking to take on the perceived imperiousness of the judiciary with his own brand of paternalism. Noonan does not mention this aspect, instead assessing the state of the two "camps" in this fashion:
The supporters of Terri Schiavo's right to continue living have fought for her heroically, through the courts and through the legislatures. They're still fighting. They really mean it. And they have memories.
On the other side of this debate, one would assume there is an equally well organized and passionate group of organizations deeply committed to removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. But that's not true. There's just about no one on the other side. Or rather there is one person, a disaffected husband who insists Terri once told him she didn't want to be kept alive by extraordinary measures.
Not exactly right, Ms. Noonan. No one in this controversy gleefully looks forward to ending Mrs. Schiavo's life, not even her "evil" husband. If anything, conservatives should recognize that legal spouses ought to be the default decisionmaker in end-of-life issues, at least when there is no living will or advance health care directive. The conflict between the pro-marriage and pro-life elements of this case has not been adequately addressed by either conservative leaders or those in the media. This is an uncomfortable situation for anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds, but life brings discomfort of its own accord. It is hard not to empathize with Mrs. Schiavo's parents, who rightly cling to the vain hope that recovery will miraculously appear at any moment, although the past decade and half counsels against that outcome.
As such, "cold" reason is the best remedy -- and that is why the court system fills the various voids unaddressed by the political and public relations angles. If there are any cardinal values to the operation of the law, one of them is that it serves to bring closure to endless public (and private) contentiousness.
Mrs. Schiavo's plight reminds all of us -- even those of us who are relatively young and relatively healthy -- that we need to put our own legal houses in order. There will be no Anthony Robbins or Suze Ormandy to goad individuals into action. However, the California Coalition for Compassionate Care provides an Advance Health Care Directive form that every adult Californian should fill out.
The problem with expecting persons to fill out such forms is largely grounded in the false assumption that an attorney is needed to execute this type of form, which automatically means hundreds of dollars. The state bar should educate the general public about the opportunities to unilaterally assert one's legal interests, even if it operates to the economic detriment of the legal profession. After all, isn't the law a "higher calling," or is that just something the establishment tells itself to soothe its own collective conscience?
The supporters of Terri Schiavo's right to continue living have fought for her heroically, through the courts and through the legislatures. They're still fighting. They really mean it. And they have memories.
On the other side of this debate, one would assume there is an equally well organized and passionate group of organizations deeply committed to removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. But that's not true. There's just about no one on the other side. Or rather there is one person, a disaffected husband who insists Terri once told him she didn't want to be kept alive by extraordinary measures.
Not exactly right, Ms. Noonan. No one in this controversy gleefully looks forward to ending Mrs. Schiavo's life, not even her "evil" husband. If anything, conservatives should recognize that legal spouses ought to be the default decisionmaker in end-of-life issues, at least when there is no living will or advance health care directive. The conflict between the pro-marriage and pro-life elements of this case has not been adequately addressed by either conservative leaders or those in the media. This is an uncomfortable situation for anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds, but life brings discomfort of its own accord. It is hard not to empathize with Mrs. Schiavo's parents, who rightly cling to the vain hope that recovery will miraculously appear at any moment, although the past decade and half counsels against that outcome.
As such, "cold" reason is the best remedy -- and that is why the court system fills the various voids unaddressed by the political and public relations angles. If there are any cardinal values to the operation of the law, one of them is that it serves to bring closure to endless public (and private) contentiousness.
Mrs. Schiavo's plight reminds all of us -- even those of us who are relatively young and relatively healthy -- that we need to put our own legal houses in order. There will be no Anthony Robbins or Suze Ormandy to goad individuals into action. However, the California Coalition for Compassionate Care provides an Advance Health Care Directive form that every adult Californian should fill out.
The problem with expecting persons to fill out such forms is largely grounded in the false assumption that an attorney is needed to execute this type of form, which automatically means hundreds of dollars. The state bar should educate the general public about the opportunities to unilaterally assert one's legal interests, even if it operates to the economic detriment of the legal profession. After all, isn't the law a "higher calling," or is that just something the establishment tells itself to soothe its own collective conscience?

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home