Of Gods and Courts and Life
Deborah
Venable
03/28/05
Question: Is anyone not aware of the Terri Schiavo
case? Answer: Probably fewer than could be counted a week ago.
So
the awareness has been raised, but what about the understanding? I am not encouraged as debate about this
case takes on a rhetoric that is typically political and analytically more and
more sophomoric in the points being made and ignored. When I first started following Terri’s struggle – and I insist on
calling it that and not “case” from here on – something told me that it would
be a precedent setting issue in our society for years to come. Recent actions have only supported that
belief.
If
you listen to the talking head interviews of supposed legal “experts” you will
come away with the same knowledge that you could have acquired by keeping your
ears open in high school history and government classes, but little more than
that. Hence my branding of the
rhetoric, “sophomoric.” These folks
have the irritating tendency to talk down to their adult audiences. Anytime the media seems to side with the
human element of such issues, they dilute any positive outcome with negative
academic admonishments. While the
“stories” are compiled supposedly with the intent to shed light on the plight
of individual humans, they are tempered with the expert opinions on
Constitutional law as it conflicts with individual plights. Excuse me!
Isn’t the groundwork of our whole system of Constitutional law based in
securing the rights of individuals?
Just asking.
I
have heard people say that Congress and the courts are being asked to “step in”
to a personal issue in a way that they have never been asked before. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Both branches have consistently
been asked to rule on issues that affect individuals, and in turn all of
society for years to come, many times before.
They do it without batting an eye!
They always have. In such cases
where one body tries try to exert power over the other, the plight of the
individual is left by the wayside while the entities wage the battle of
interpretation of law, sometimes rewriting law in the attempt to interpret
it. While it is true that all three
branches of government have at one time or another been involved in Terri’s
struggle, none of the three have absolutely postulated an indisputable defense
for individual rights. The
interpretation, legislation and execution of Constitutional law in this country
seems to care more for the preservation of each government entity in its
current condition that they do for the preservation of individual rights to be
served under them.
Personal
opinion paints the very definition of individual life and its quality, so it is
no wonder that disagreement ensues during these debates. However, everyone is born on this earth with
the determination to struggle at all costs to survive. This is a fact that cannot be denied by any
sentient being. That is what life is
all about. This fact has been “educated
out” of the human experience to a certain degree by the time one reaches
adulthood. We all form our opinions of
just what we are willing to struggle with to survive and to what degree we will
allow ourselves to relinquish this thing called life. These opinions make up the basis of our personal values, and laws
are written and adhered to based on a majority of consensus to these values.
Where
personal opinion cannot be known without a reasonable doubt, life must prevail
in whatever quality or quantity afford to us or we humans will continue to
depreciate our own value. Terri’s
struggle most definitely illustrates this situation, and that is why it has
finally captured so much of the country’s attention. There are only two sides to the issue: one seeks to devalue human life and one wishes to elevate it to
its original intent – struggling against all odds.
To
say that government should never have to be involved in such personal issues is
a statement of the obvious, however,
it becomes necessary when human failings allow miscarriage of personal justice
to the extent that innocent life is threatened by selfish motives. If Terri Schiavo had truly preferred death
to seriously handicapped life with such vigor as her husband believes or would
have everyone believe, she had ample opportunity to make that opinion
unquestionably known to everyone she knew and any future legal inquiries of her
wishes. The fact is that she did not. There is no “living will” and no conviction
of these wishes among those who have the most at stake if she dies – her caring
biological family. That her husband and
a few isolated friends insist that she made these feelings known to them is
legally only hearsay at best and suspicious at its core. Therefore, this is a slam - dunk for all out
government intervention in her obvious struggle to live! Obvious because she has survived numerous
attempts to end her life through unnatural means – dehydration and starvation
brought on by withholding these basic human needs.
As
I write this, Terri is holding on by a thread in this newest attempt to “let
her pass,” “allow her to die,” or “retain her dignity” – all terms used by
those seeking to depreciate human life.
By the time this piece is published, she may very likely be dead.
For
those of us who believe that all human rights are God given, as our Founders
believed and stated in our founding documents, the right to life does not carry
with it a qualification for value, so all life is of the same value as defined
by our laws. The courts have only to
interpret these laws and cannot legally rewrite any human law that would negate
the God given ones. One only needs a
simple intelligence to define life, but humans who would play God have been
trying to redefine it throughout all of man’s existence. Terri’s struggle illustrates one more
attempt to complicate the simple and allow evil to prevail over good.
If we wish to give up our right to life because of what we define as a diminished quality, we must make that opinion known in such a way that there can be no doubt – by an act of our own free will while we are able to do so. It is called a living will or a legally binding contract to have another person act on our behalf if we are unable. Marriage vows do not carry such an extended contract. In a world where spouses murder each other, parents murder children, and children murder parents, and doctors can set aside their Hippocratic oaths to administer death instead of life, we citizens had better get a good handle on our definitions, if nothing else, before someone else’s can determine our outcomes.