The Editors on Terri Schiavo on National Review Online
Next time it will be easier. It always is. The tolerance of early-term abortion made it possible to tolerate partial-birth abortion, and to give advanced thinkers a hearing when they advocate outright infanticide. Letting the courts decide such life-and-death issues made it possible for us to let them decide others, made it seem somehow wrong for anyone to stand in their way. Now they are helping to snuff out the minimally conscious. Who's next?
Posted by Tim at April 1, 2005 06:51 AM"Now they are helping to snuff out the minimally conscious."
Or the fully unconscious, depending on how you interpret the CT scans . . .
Am I wrong in feeling as though those who wanted Terri to remain "alive" actually did so because it advances an agenda? Frankly, I'm a very, very conservative Christian (you should see my statement of faith, and where I went to school and seminary!). But I disagree with the majority of my evangelical bretheren, in that I truly believe that Terri died 15 years ago. I know, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence the other way - but a lot of other people have seen the CT scans and disagree.
It just seems to me that, if I'm right, and Terri died years ago, there would be no harm in releasing her to her destiny. But what I constantly hear is that "if we let her go, we start the slide into euthanasia . . ." a position which makes sense if, and only if, you agree with those who believe there's been someone home the last 15 years.
I don't believe that. And so, forgive me if I cynically wonder if maybe, instead of a human being, Terri has become more of a political football. And that, brothers, scares me almost more than anything else about this.
BTW - notice that I didn't use my real name, or give any other identifying information. The reason? Because I'm sick and blinkin' tired of being a spiritual pariah for holding a position which makes perfect sense if you hold the position about Terri's last 15 years that I do. Anyone can disagree with me - but the next brother who tells me I'm not a "real" Christian because I disagree with their medical diagnosis is going to get a serious power wedgie!
Hey ChurchPlanter,
Of course there are some people on BOTH sides using this tragedy for political reasons. I do agree that IF you are right and that she's been brain dead for 15 years then we should have let go. IF there were questions then I believe we need to error on the side of life.
It blows that people question your faith based just on a position you hold. I think this is an imporant issue but not one that should divide Christians. It's not the "main thing"; Christ is the "main thing" and is the bind that ties all believers together.
Tim
Posted by: Tim at April 1, 2005 10:29 AMre:"On March 18, Schiavo was in no medical danger of death. She was profoundly brain-damaged (although just how profoundly remains unknown), but she was not in a coma or on a respirator."(NRO)
re:"I do agree that IF you are right and that she's been brain dead for 15 years then we should have let go. " (Tim)
Tim, I'm not clear maybe where you are on this issue. Are you agreeing the NRO or not? It appears to me NRO is moving down the line of the Catholic Church argument, that PVS patients must be kept alive. PVS essentially means brain dead.
Are you saying something different? E.g., A guy is PVS for sure (brain dead) but on a feeding tube and the body still responds, you'd pull the tube?
I think this is a pretty important distinction. Especially when you get into a living will. To the Catholic Church, I believe, a living will dictating to pull the tube is a sin if you're PVS.
(BTW I love the way NRO is oddly mixing morality, amateur detective work (e.g., Michael Schiavo's supposedly denying basic care to his wife), and amateur medicine ("PVS diagnoses have a high error rate") in their essay. What WAS their point in that essay? Bad docs, bad husband, bad judges, or bad morality? All of the above? Two outta four?? Fire enough vague verbiage buckshot into an essay and you'll wound at least a few liberals???)
Posted by: Tom at April 1, 2005 01:09 PMTom,
I am not positive she was PVS. She did seem to react and there is honest dispute about her state. The fact that the latest technology was not used to determine her state I don't think is disputed. The fact that she's awake would indicate to me that she was still "there".
Tim
Posted by: Tim at April 1, 2005 01:26 PMHmmm.
I wonder where God separated the brain from the body as a means to determine life. Does someone have that verse? I've heard arguments over both sides and I can't reconcile her being dead because her brain may not have been working. When God "breathed life" into Adams nostrils, I read no distinction between Adam's mind and his body. My feeling is that as long as there's something working body or mind, life still exists. I also cannot find any verses about "Quality of Life" as a means to determine the viability life. Anyone got anything Biblical on this?
