Back from yet another exhausting but rewarding business trip. In an airport terminal somewhere I saw some CNN images on the legal struggle concerning the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo. Having had a somewhat similar case in my immediate family, it brought back what are some of my most painful memories ever. But I had little doubt that eventually would happen what did (summary on Best of the Web): the House of Representatives voted through a special bill ordering the feeding tube restored. The roll-call vote passed by a lopsided majority: half of Democrats present voted yea, as did all except seven Republicans present. (The lone Independent congressman was absent.) The Democratic support would have been smaller except for a compromise under which the vote was a specific one "for the [judicial] relief of [the parents of] Terri Schiavo" ["voor de juridische genoegdoening van..."] rather than a new law curbing passive involuntary euthanasia (a nice legal euphemism for what it really is).
Partisan Republicans and euthanasia advocates, each for their own reasons, try to frame this as a "liberal vs. conservative" issue. In fact, a number of politically liberal advocates of rights for the disabled fear that allowing disconnecting feeding tubes in a case like Schiavo's --- at the request of a party manifestly interested in her death, in the absence of a "living will" (and with credible presumption to the contrary, as she was a practicing Roman Catholic while she was still among the healthy), and over the protest of her parents --- would create dangerous precedents for doing the same in other cases. Even some who would be willing to abide by passive or even active euthanasia if this were a documented patient's wish --- such as the conservative-libertarian blogger Clayton Cramer --- cannot condone disconnecting Schiavo's feeding tube.
I am not thrilled by people committing suicide, even under conditions of great pain with no hope of recovery, but there comes a certain point where you can only persuade and cajole so much.I am not thrilled about euthanasia--it bothers me to have doctors crossing the line from passive to active steps to end a life, but if the patient has clearly stated that this is his or her goal, and there is no question that the patient has made this request, I can weep a little, but accept it.
What is happening with Terri Schiavo is being done on the word of one person. The ACLU considers it "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute a person for murder based on a decision involving a jury of twelve, a judge, as well as appellate judges all the way up the line, none of whom have any financial interest in putting this person to death. Why should we trust the word of one man about what his wife wants, especially when the method would never have been considered constitutional if it were being done as a punishment for a felony?
I could not help noticing a number of fellow Jews among the Democratic Congressmen who voted "nay". Needless to say, their perspective --- whatever it may be --- is not that of halacha (Jewish law). Halacha allows --- under certain specific circumstances, and within specific boundaries --- for discontinuing "heroic" treatments or discontinuing artificial life support (respirator, heart-lung machine,...) in hopeless cases. As explained by Rabbi Aryeh Spero, it emphatically does not allow for discontinuing nutrition and liquids.
James Taranto can always be relied upon to be snarky yet commonsense.
Supporters of Michael Schiavo's effort to end his wife's life have asked how conservatives, who claim to believe in the sanctity of marriage, can fail to respect his husbandly authority. The most obvious answer is that a man's authority as a husband does not supersede his wife's rights as a human being--a principle we never thought we'd see liberals question.But why do those of us who aren't right-to-life absolutists side with Mrs. Schiavo's parents, who want to keep her alive, over her husband, who wants her dead? It's a fair question, and it raises another one: What kind of husband is Michael Schiavo?
According to news reports, Mr. Schiavo lives with a woman named Jodi Centonze, and they have two children together. Surely any court would consider this prima facie evidence of adultery. And this is no mere fling; a sympathetic 2003 profile in the Orlando Sentinel described Centonze as Mr. Schiavo's "fiancée." Mr. Schiavo, in other words, has virtually remarried. Short of outright bigamy, his relationship with Centonze is as thoroughgoing a violation of his marriage vows as it is possible to imagine.
The point here is not to castigate Mr. Schiavo for behaving badly. It would require a heroic degree of self-sacrifice for a man to forgo love and sex in order to remain faithful to an incapacitated wife, and it would be unreasonable to hold an ordinary man to a heroic standard.
But it is equally unreasonable to let Mr. Schiavo have it both ways. If he wishes to assert his marital authority to do his wife in, the least society can expect in return is that he refrain from making a mockery of his marital obligations. The grimmest irony in this tragic case is that those who want Terri Schiavo dead are resting their argument on the fiction that her marriage is still alive.
UPDATE: Instapundit declines to state an opinion, and points to Sissy Willis for detailed coverage. Instaman's fellow law professor Ann Althouse weighs in on the "Federalism vs. State's Rights" aspect.
UPDATE 2: as reported by NewsMax (caveat lector; see also related opinion piece), the New York Slimes [sic] claims --- employing the usual technique of cherry-picking experts that agree with you and ignoring others --- that death by dehydration is not painful. They of course do not cite counterveiling experts. NewsMax wonders sarcastically how the NYT ("all the news that's fit to spin") would react if coalition forces were witholding food and/or water from arrested terrorist in order to force them to "sing"...
UPDATE 3: The web site of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide has a PDF of its amicus curiae brief ("friend of the court", roughly the equivalent of "burgerlijke partij/parti civil" in Belgian law) to the Florida court online. A well-sourced summary of the pro-life position in this matter that also reveals inconsistencies in the pro-euthanasia position: for instance, the same woman argues in one forum for witholding food and fluids as a humane method of passive authanasia, and in another uses the pain and suffering caused by this selfsame method as an argument in favor of <active euthanasia. I recognize a "salami approach" when I see one ;-)
UPDATE 4: A National Review piece, "Starving for the truth", makes it pretty clear just who is not interested in being "confused with facts".
UPDATE 5: While I take anything written by any psychiatrist with an appopriate weight of NaCl, this is highly disturbing. (Hat tip: Jews4Life)
UPDATE 6: Jonathan Last wipes the floor with a New York Slimes puff piece that seeks to reassure readers that dehydration is a "gentle" death. Besides revealing the many connections with the euthanasia lobby of the one expert cited by the NYT, he quotes the testimony of a woman who was misdiagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state and had her feeding tube removed then (not in an attempt to starve her but in preparation for surgery to remove a bowel obstruction).
UPDATE 7: so the federal judge upheld the earlier state court ruling. The case will now go to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (in Atlanta, GA), and whoever loses there is almost certain to take it to the US Supreme Court (a.k.a. SCOTUS). The latter will be loath to rule "while standing on one foot" so, if it decides to take the case at all, will probably issue a temporary injunction to have the feeding tube reinserted pending a decision. [For those unfamiliar with the US legal system: SCOTUS is not required to take on every case brought to it. What happens is that a "request for a writ of certiorari" is submitted, in which [the attorney(s) for] the party requesting SCOTUS review outlines their legal grounds for requesting review (usually involving issues of Constitutional law). If at least four out of the nine judges approve of the request, the case is heard. This does not necessarily mean that SCOTUS disapproves with the lower court decision --- just that there is some legal issue that it feels needs to be looked at in detail, often with the purpose of setting a legal precedent for the future. Conversely, denying certiorari does not necessarily imply SCOTUS approval of the earlier decision.]
UPDATE 8: A 3-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court denied the request 2-1. [UP-UPDATE: James Taranto notes that the dissenting judge is actually the Clinton appointee among them, and rightly comments opinions in this case do not split along liberal vs. conservative lines.] I just see breaking news on Fox News (which I was watching with half an eye while working on something) that a motion requesting a hearing by the full court en banc was denied. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me this leaves SCOTUS as the only remaining legal venue.
Florida governor James Edward ("Jeb") Bush on TV: "I will do everything in my power to grant Terri Schiavo the same protections that our laws would grant to the most heinous criminals." In fact, the irrepressable cynic in me has a modest proposal. How about a deal with the ACLU: they will get their way on Ms. Schiavo, on one condition: that the next multiple murderer convicted and sentenced to the death penalty will get "executed" by dehydration and starvation. Yeah, I know, I know, it would violate the "Cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the Bill of Rights...
Incidentally, the two guys Fox News has on (anchor Shepard Smith and their resident legal pundit, retired Judge Andrew Napolitano) --- contrary to what you may expect --- do not seem to be supportive of the effort to keep Terri alive. What seems to bug both of them is the aspect of executive interference in matters reserved for the judicial branch. Fair enough --- and I agree in principle with the view that "terrible cases make for bad law" --- but I wish that all those who nod in agreement would be equally unenthusiastic when the shoe is on the other foot. Of course, I do not suspect either Shep or Andrew to have any sympathy at all for judicial overreach --- but plenty of social liberals are all too happy with the courts ramming things like homosexual "marriage" down people's throats...
Meanwhile, Shep and Andrew note they are getting hate Email from both sides... "Fair and balanced", I guess...
UPDATE 9: Shep Smith now interviews a lawyer engaged in the business of drafting "living wills", who says he's never seen so much business. People want to have their wishes either way documented in writing. If I weren't living in Israel (and a fair amateur at writing legal documents) I'd have one drafted rather today than tomorrow...
What will happen now? An emergency motion for a temporary injunction (pending a petition for certiorari) may be filed to SCOTUS as we speak. Such appeals are heard by whichever Supreme Court Justice is assigned to emergency appeals from the jurisdiction of the court being appealed against. (In the case of the 11th Circuit Court, that would be Justice Anthony Kennedy.) Note that SCOTUS does not accept electronic filing, so somebody would have to courier the appeal to SCOTUS (I doubt any commercial courier service could work on such short notice.) The easiest way would probably be for the parent's legal council (who by the way is working pro bono) to get in touch with a like-minded laywer in the DC area to submit it for him.
Justice Kennedy has a reputation as something of a fence-sitter, and is a little too concerned with what other countries think the law should be for my taste. However, had the assigned judge been Justice Scalia --- probably the most pro-life Justice of them all --- it is not clear this would have been what the parents wanted --- as Andrew pointed out on TV, Scalia is also a strict constructionist who is no fan of Congress meddling in affairs that properly belong to the judicial branch.
Stay tuned for further updates.
UPDATE 10: Can the "mainstream" media get any more contemptible?
Comments