It’s truly an amazing thing to watch elected Republicans try to manage the Terri Schiavo debacle. Two dozen polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of the nation believes that she should be permitted to die, as per her requests. Twenty courts — which is to say, every one that has ever heard the case — have ruled in favor of following her wishes. A unifying element of conservatism is that the husband has dominion over the wife, so Joe Republican (as poll after poll bears out) believes that her husband has the right to remove her feeding tube. Another unifying element of conservatism is the great importance of the family unit, and its position above government, and so conservatives strongly oppose (as all polls show) Congress’ and the president’s intervention into a private family matter. A unifying element of Christianity is post-Eden life is dreary, and heaven is our reward, and so an overwhelming majority of evangelicals (again, poll after poll) support following Schiavo’s wishes.
Helping nothing is how totally inconsistent that many elected Republicans’ records are when compared to this case. Just a few weeks ago, Republicans in the Senate voted to cut Medicare benefits — the very benefits that make it possible to pay the huge medical bills required to keep somebody on life support for decades. A major item on the Republican agenda — which is very much underway — is “tort reform,” or making it difficult or impossible for an individual to sue a corporation for harm inflicted by the company. Terri Schiavo is alive now only because of her family’s successful suit against the doctors who failed to correctly diagnose and prevent her condition that left her brain dead. Proposed tort reform would make such suits impossible and, if they had already been in effect, Schiavo would have been dead long ago. And, my favorite, was the bill that President Bush signed into law as governor of Texas in 1999, which permits hospitals to cease providing life support if there’s no indication that recovery is likely, no matter the family’s wishes. Elected Republicans in Washington are opposed to nearly every element of this case, whether practical, legal, or moral. This is pure opportunism, and 88% of the country (poll after poll) agrees with me.
Lacking anything better to do, Republicans are attacking the polls, as if dozens of polls taken by every major media outlet are all deliberately skewed identically. Their criticism is pathetic, but it’s all that’s left — logic is no longer on their side.
Conservatives that are on the wrong side of this argument ought to take a step back, take a deep breath, and reevaluate this situation. The law, their core beliefs, sound ethical reasoning and, indeed, logic, are against them on this. Of course, it’s my hope that they won’t. Much as with the Clinton impeachment hearings, Republicans are making a big, big deal about opposing something that the public overwhelming supports. It shows how completely out of touch that many elected Republicans are with genuine Republican and, indeed, American values.
Keep up the good work.
(Disclaimer: I think I’m one of the few Liberals who believes she should live)
I believe there are some inconsistencies in the Republican position on this, but concerning the polls, I have yet to read a national poll that asks the question like it really is. I blogged about a particular poll which asked simply If you were in this condition, would you want to be kept alive, or not? I guarantee that results would have been different if they asked, If you were in this condition, would you want to be starved to death, or not?
This may seem like splitting hairs, but I think we should all be able to come together on the fact that she is dying in an undignified way. Maybe Democrats and Liberals who argue for her death are being honest and up front, but when I see polls that cast the question in such an innocuous way I feel like we are overlooking the humanity of this situation.
I feel like we are overlooking the humanity of this situation.
I deliberately overlooked the humanity of the situation in this post — it’s purely political — but I agree that there are far better ways to die than starving to death.
I took a medical ethics course at UVa a couple of years ago. It was taught by a guy whose career consisted of palliative care — sitting next to people during the dying process and making it easier for them and their families. So we spent much of our time discussing ethical issues surrounding care, withholding care, and palliative care. One thing that I learned that surprised me is that dying through starvation — provided one is already severely ill — is not a particularly bad way to die. The individual just gradually fades out.
Though this is a much larger discussion, I think the Schiavo case makes clearer than ever that euthanasia must be legal. We “put to sleep” dogs and cats — beloved family companions — because we know that we “don’t want them to suffer.” Why we hold our families and ourselves to a lower standard, I don’t know.
You know why they don’t ask “would you like to be starved to death?” Because she’s not being starved do death. She’ll die from lack of water before she starves.
Just wondering how long that takes. It’s been six days already, and apparently she’s still alive.
The doctors I’ve seen comment on the case say anywhere between 7 and 14 days.
And, of course, she has no cerebral cortrex left, so starve to death, dehydrate to death, whatever, she won’t suffer in any event.
I recommend that everyone interested in this issue read David Brooks’ column in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/opinion/26brooks.html
Summary:
“What I’m describing here is the clash of two serious but flawed arguments. The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn’t accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force.
No wonder many of us feel agonized this week, betwixt and between, as that poor woman slowly dehydrates.”
Interesting commentary — thanks for the pointer, Will.
Ha. Typical Brooks column pretending to criticize both parties, but really telling liberals “you have no moral authority” while telling conservatives “oh you brave souls who stupidly ignore politics!”
Paul, I challenge you to show me a “liberal” columnist who shows as much understanding of conservative positions as Brooks does of liberal positions. Brooks is remarkably even-handed and perceptive of competing world views and that’s why I suggested his column.
I appreciate that Waldo saw some merit.
I think that Brooks presented the progressive perspective inaccurately, but not in a manner wholly without merit. Matthew Yglesias explains this better than I can.