Posted on 03/30/2005 2:14:34 PM PST by CHARLITE
"Please, Lord," I groused plaintively last week as I stood a few yards from where Terri Schiavo lay dying because a gaggle of public officials had decided her life was not worth living. "Please don't let one more person tell me how 'complex' this whole case has become."
If I heard the "complexity" response once, I think I heard it a hundred times. Worst of all, I probably even thought it a few times myself.
But the Terri Schiavo case is "complex" only in the sense that any of our sinful behavior is complicated. Sometimes, it is true, we weave such contorted patterns that solutions seem hard to find. That's precisely when we ought to look for God's simpler answers.
There is nothing complex about a situation like this: Party A is desperately needy. Party B, the normal provider of Party A's needs, says he doesn't want to do so. Party C, however, is more than ready to step in and provide what Party B says he doesn't want to give. Doesn't seem so hard, does it?
The situation gets complicated only when an extraneous Party D steps in to say that Party C can't, by law, extend such a merciful hand. And Party D in this case, of course, turns out to be those same activist judges who have stood half of American society on its head in recent years.
Just think how simple all this might have been if it had not become the American habit to try to remedy every inconvenience in life with a trip to the courthouse. Set aside the worst things you've heard about Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband for eight years before she suffered a terrible heart attack in 1990 that left her with clearly serious brain damage. Instead, think only the best of Michael and the distress he faced.
Here's how the situation might have unfolded then. The growing emotional and financial burden confronting Mr. Schiavo might understandably have escalated to more than he was able to bear. That happens to lots of people all the time. Some such folk struggle on even then, buoyed either by remarkable personal courage, a wonderful faith, or a combination of the two. Others, however, stumble and fall. "It's too much," they say as they walk away from their burdens. And when we see that, we may be disappointed—but we temper our disappointment with understanding. Most of us haven't walked in those same shoes.
So Michael Schiavo could have done that, as thousands of people do every year, and we would never have known his name. He could have walked out on Terri, turned her care over to her willing parents, and there would have been no national debate last week. Michael Schiavo certainly wouldn't have been a hero, but neither would he have become known worldwide as a cad.
Only the American courts could have made it so complicated. It's not just the content of their decisions in all of this that have been so boneheaded. It's been the very thought that they had to make any decision at all. Why couldn't the very first judge to be involved with the Schiavos' sad tale not have had the wisdom to say to Michael, "Mr. Schiavo, why don't you simply divorce your wife, take the criticism that will come from such action, and get on with your life?"
That would have been too simple. I looked down the street from the Woodside Hospice last Saturday at the long lineup of TV trucks with their gigantic dishes and telescoping transmitting towers. I glimpsed the small city of high-priced reporters and network personnel who had moved in for a two- or three-day encampment. I tried—and failed—to estimate what legal fees and court costs and law enforcement bills might have been. The next day, Congress met in special session and President Bush and Air Force One made an unscheduled flight back to Washington to sign a special bill.
All this says nothing of the high spiritual, moral, and cultural bills from such folly. When the history of euthanasia in America is reviewed a generation or two from now, the story of Terri Schiavo will provide details for one of the earliest and most critical chapters.
It could all have been so simple. All it would have taken was a Solomonic decision by any of a dozen judges—all of whom in this case overcomplicated the case before them. One profound difference, of course, was that in Solomon's case, the court saw to it that the baby lived. —•
Thanks Charlite
Very good read. And so true.
This reminds me of the book "Johnny got his Gun", by Dalton Trumbo. The book is about a soldier in WWI who get all of his limbs blown off, goes deaf, loses his sight, and loses his speech, from a bomb. In the story, the soldier becomes concious again and realizes that he is just a "piece of meat that keeps on living." Years pass, and eventually he is able to communicate with his nurse by morse code. She tells the military about him, and they communicate. He tells them what its like to be a vegtable, and he asks them to kill him. When he does not get his wish granted, he realizes life for him will be a living hell for the rest of his existance. I think when you're nothing but a brainless bag of skin, you have the right to die.
The fact that so many of my fellow Americans think this decision is right fills me with despair.
Even the brutal Romans allowed bystanders to help Jesus on His way to the cross.
It is really pretty simple do we put her to death for being a useless disabled person or let her continue to provide joy to those who love her?
That would have been Judge Greer.
The reason he couldn't say that to Michael was that he was charged, by Florida law, to find "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes as they related to her condition.
The judge examined the evidence, heard sworn testimony, and concluded that Terri would not have wanted to live that way.
No one on this board wants to hear this, but it isn't the courts who made the case so complex, it is the Schindlers. The law says that the husband is the next of kin, not the parents, and barring directives to the contrary he is the presumptive guardian. The Schindlers don't like this, which I understand, and refuse to accept it, which has resulted in endless litigation.
Whether you agree with Michael Schiavo's decision or not, it is in line with what many others have done, given the doctors' diagnosis and the length of time elapsed. He would not have been publicly criticized, were it not for the Schindlers' long campaign to villanize him and contest the doctors' opinions on Terri's condition.
Perhaps it would have been best for the Schindlers to take custody of their daughter and care for her, since they feel so strongly about it. But litigation hasn't accomplished this. Th outcome causes one to wonder if possibly there wasn't a better way. It takes two to make a feud.
What if Nell had told others that she would not want to be rescued if she were in that condition?
Look at the people
around you. Remember, 'Rats
blamed the court system
for electing Bush!
Now we've got Republicans [!]
sounding just as weird.
But "that way" could be conditional on the quality and dedication of MS's care. Even if Terri has dim perceptions, perhaps her preference would be to fall under her own parents' guardianship.
Greer is being highly presumptive, and should have erred on the life-side, IMHO.
She is not a toy to be used to bring happiness to anyone.
The judge found "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri would not want to live this way. If her parents truly loved her, they accede to her wish.
Nell is gagged and cannot speak; aside from a low IQ due to a childhood injury, she enjoys life.
My saying about attorneys is
"Show me an efficient attorney and I'll show you a broke attorney"
Charlite, when big $$$$$$$$$ enter the picture, control over the source for big $$$$$$$$$ must be maintained at all costs. If the source for the big $$$$$$$$$ is the baby, too bad for the baby. That SEEMED to be the complicating factor.
I know that sometimes things can look an awful lot like they are a certain way, almost 99% like they're that way and not be that way at all. Our perceptions can be sincere, but sincerely wrong in attempting to judge another person's motives. Christ is the judge, and I am glad for that.
You are 100% correct. Different people could look at the situation differently.
That's why Michael turned it over to Judge Greer. This was Judge Greer's decision, not Michael's.
Judge Greer reviewed everything and came to the conclusion he did.
"Greer is being highly presumptive, and should have erred on the life-side, IMHO."
If Judge Greer could not find "clear and convincing" evidence, then yes, he should have ordered the feeding tube to remain.
What is obvious is that Greer never had any intention of making any decision other than to order Terri killed. For some reason, he hates the disabled.
So it all boils down to a subjective assessment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.