Pascal Fervor has an essay (hat tip: Francis Porretto) about moral relativism and its proponents’ desires for control: “The strongmen must, however “reluctantly,” decide who lives or dies because they do not wish to leave to chance that the wrong people will survive in a world of dwindling resources.”
Well, yeah, and this has always been true of those who desire control over others. I want to put in two quotes here, before I get back to the essay.
“I can’t help but think some people admire totalitarian regimes not because they want to live in one, but because they want to be in charge of one.” — Michael Totten
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. ” — Robert Heinlein
I put these quotes – two of my favorites – in here because I essentially agree with the underlying point Pascal Fervor is making. But I have a hard time agreeing with the issue on which he is standing to make the point: Terry Schiavo.
I think of myself in Michael Schiavo’s position: if my wife were in this state, what would I do? Certainly, I would make every attempt to revive her. After conventional medical treatments failed, I would go through the unconventional treatments. I would go through every traditional healing system in the world looking for something – anything – to help. I would exhaust myself emotionally, physically, financially to bring about some improvement. Then what?
Well, in my case, Stephanie has already told me that she wouldn’t want to be sustained this way. Nor would I. Nor, according to the person most likely to know, would Terry Schiavo. I don’t know what Terry said to her husband; neither do her parents. I don’t know which side is acting in the best interests of Terry Schiavo. But I do know that, in such a situation, where all hope was gone, the most important thing left to me – my last duty as a husband – would be to see to it that my wife’s wishes were respected. I would most emphatically not want to have to go through that process, and the after-process of seeking both closure and self-forgiveness – with vultures from all sides using my wife as a political point.
If nothing else, who will continue to pay for Terry Schiavo’s care once the malpractice settlement funds are exhausted (they may already have been)? Will Michael Schiavo now be forced to bankrupt himself to make us feel better? Will the State – that is to say, all of us who pay taxes – be forced to pay for Terry Schiavo’s maintenance and care? For how long?
As far as I can tell, Michael Schiavo has done all of the things I would do, has borne nearly 15 years of attempting to bring his wife back by every means available, and has finally come to the point of saying “Enough. Now I must do what Terry would want.” I could be wrong: Michael could be a monster who just wants to forget about Terry. There is no way for me to know. But I do know, of a certainty, this much: Michael is the only person who has any claim on making such a decision.
And if we cannot respect that claim, we immediately put ourselves in the category of those who want to control others.
Jeff, you are sorely mistaken in the view of the facts that you have expressed here. I urge you to look at this article in Natl. Review Online–
http://nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp
Johansen claims that he has 15 affidavits from board-certified neurologists who claim that an MRI and a PET scan should be done to determine the state of Schiavo’s brain. NO such scans have been done.
thus it seems clear to me that the husband, who has a massive conflict of interest in that he is cohabiting with a woman that he has had two children with, does NOT have Terri’s interests at heart.
But that really just proves my point: since none of us are involved in the situation, it’s all pretty much he said/she said as far as we can tell. So in that case, we have to either stay out of the situation, or assume that we know more and are better people that those involved. The hubris of the latter position – and the number of people who take it anyway – astounds me.
all he’d have to do is divorce her,andthen he wouldn’t be bankrupt.
he already has father two children by another woman. Not exactly acting like a “husband”,is he?
let’s say, for argument’s sake, he DID try to kill her, and had abused her. Should he be able to determine her life or death?
Children are routinely appointed guardians ad litem in custody cases. Why can’t a disabled woman be appointed one?
Actually, to claim that Michael Shiavo has spent 15 years trying to bring his wife back does not appear to be a true statement. Once he won a lawsuit against a hospital for a substantial sum of money, he ordered all rehabilitation of all kinds stopped immediately for his wife. When her wheelchair became damaged, he refused to have it fixed, thereby making it essentially unfeasible to even take her out of the hospice room and into the common area or out int o the sunlight. The funds that were won in the lawsuit cannot be touched by Mr. Schiavo until his wife is either much better, or very dead. His actions are quite suggestive.
Here’s a simple question: if a young husband takes a million-dollar life insurance policy out on his wife, and a few years later when she’s in bed asleep, or as you might say “in a vegetative, unresponsive, unconscious state”, he puts a loaded .357 Magnum revolver to her head right between the eyes and pulls the trigger, has he done anything that you would find wrong in any way?
Just curious.