"A Thin View of Life" is the title of yesterday's op-ed column by E.J. Dionne. Dionne asks -- discussing, among other things, the Schiavo case, tort reform, gun control, and the death penalty -- "[w]hat does it mean to be pro-life?" He concludes:
People who lack access to health care because they can't afford insurance often die earlier than they have to -- with absolutely no national publicity and with no members of Congress rising up at midnight to pass bills on their behalf. What is the point of standing up for life in an individual case but not confronting the cost of choosing life for all who are threatened within the health care system or by their lack of access to it?
What does it mean to be pro-life? As far as I can tell, most of those who would keep Schiavo alive favor the death penalty. Most favored allowing the assault weapons ban to expire and oppose other forms of gun control. The president makes an excellent point when he says we "ought to err on the side of life." It's a shame how rarely that principle is put into practice.
I always read, and almost always learn from, Dionne's columns. Unfortunately, in his effort to focus the attention of political conservatives who are pro-life on other issues that, in Dionne's view, they should also care about, he misses an important point, and throws a cheap shot.
He asks, "[w]hat is the point of standing up for life in an individual case but not confronting the cost of choosing life for all who are threatened within the health care system or by their lack of access to it?" Well, the point, I suppose, is to witness against, and perhaps to stop, what many people believe is (at best) an assisted suicide and (at worst) the intentional killing -- wrapped in the rhetoric of "death with dignity" and autonomy -- of a disabled human being. (To be clear: I'm not convinced that people who believe this are right.) And, contra Dionne, it is not pointless or hypocritical to oppose, and to try to stop, intentional homicides of disabled people, just because one is not also lobbying for medical-insurance reform.
It is a common move -- I do it too, and I probably shouldn't -- in public discourse to focus on the alleged hypocrisies and imagined inconsistencies in others' views, as a way to avoid engaging the merits of one's own. (For example, a columnist might point out, in response to Dionne, the many glaring inconsistencies in the positions of those who today are invoking family privacy, comity, finality, and federalism in support of ending feeding and hydration for Ms. Schiavo. But that would be a cheap shot.)
Thus, Dionne paints a quite-imcomplete picture of the "1999 Texas Advance Directives Act signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush", suggesting that, by signing this Act, Bush undermined his ability to say today that we should "err on the side of life." And, he asserts that "[a]s far as I can tell, most of those who would keep Schiavo alive favor the death penalty. Most favored allowing the assault weapons ban to expire and oppose other forms of gun control." But, even opponents of capital punishment -- and I am one -- could think that it is perfectly reasonable to distinguish between the imposition of capital punishment on those who have been convicted, under a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, of particularly blameworthy homicides, and the intentional causing of an innocent diabled person's death -- whose own wishes might not be known or knowable -- by cessation of artificial nutrition and hydration. And, that one believes the so-called assault-weapons ban was more about symbolism and fund-raising than saving lives does not make one a hypocrite for opposing what could be a case of intentional euthanasia.
I don't know what to think about the Schiavo case. I've been horrified by some of the disgusting comments and "jokes" about disabled people that I've read, by people who purport to be progressive and compassionate. I also recoil from charges of "judicial murder" and calls to send in the National Guard. As I see it -- and I'd welcome help in seeing it more clearly -- the case requires us to engage (at least) three very difficult questions: First, is it wrong to end "artificial nutrition and hydration" (ANH) in cases where the recipient is not dying and where, as I see it, the cessation of ANH looks more like "intentionally causing death" than "refusing disproportionate medical treatment"? Second, are the recipient's wishes -- whether expressed by her or by a surrogate -- relevant to the question one? Third, what executive and legislative steps to prevent what could be regarded as an instance of legally authorized, but still wrong, intentional causing of death are appropriate, given our justifiable commitments to the constitutional order and the rule of law?
I'm struggling with these questions. But I am pretty confident that my views on assault weapons and tort reform have little to do with the good faith of my efforts or the merits of my conclusions.
Rick
Friday, March 25, 2005
In reading Rick's post of Charles Peguy, I thought of a contemporary reflection on the same subject, namely, how our denial of Christ is at work in his crucifixtion. Indeed, his life was offered up to give us a way, through grace, to overcome this denial, to overcome what we could not overcome on our own. The passage I have in mind comes from the collaboration of B.B. King and U2 from 1989 entitled "When Love Comes to Town." As much as we on MOJ criticize much of contemporary culture, and deservedly so, this song, at least in my mind, demonstrates that the culture we inhabit, as decadent and morbid as it is, is not without it bright points. The last verse reads:
I was there when they crucified my Lord
I held the scabbard when the soldier drewn the sword
I threw the dice when they pierced his side
But I've seen love conquer the great divide!
May everyone on MOJ have a prayerful Good Friday and a joyful Easter . . .when love comes to town!
John
This is from Charles Peguy's "The Mystery of the Charity of St. Joan of Arc":
Peter’s denial, Peter’s denial. You have nothing to say but this: Peter’s denial. You put this forward, this denial, you say this to disguise, to hide, to excuse our own denials. To make ourselves forget, to forget, to make ourselves forget our own denials. In order to speak about something else. To change the subject. Peter denied Him three times, So what? We’ve denied Him hundreds and thousands of times because of sin, because of the bewilderment of sin, in the denials caused by sin. And the cock crowed. But for us it’s the thousandth time, the hundred thousandth, the hundred thousandth time we give Him over, we abandon Him, we betray Him.
Rick
Strange bedfellows? Consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader issued this statement today, along with bioethics writer Wesley Smith:
"A profound injustice is being inflicted on Terri Schiavo," Nader and Smith asserted today. "Worse, this slow death by dehydration is being imposed upon her under the color of law, in proceedings in which every benefit of the doubt-and there are many doubts in this case-has been given to her death, rather than her continued life."
Rick
