I am hearing some back stage grumbling that I included Terri Schiavo in my Weekly Standard article about the Rom Houben situation when they had different neurological conditions. There is no question in my mind that Terri was not in a locked in state and that Houben is. But so what? I was not comparing or conflating their neurological conditions. I was focusing on ethics and the morality of taking food and fluids away from people because of quality of life judgmentalism.
I mean think about it: Had Houben’s family lived in the USA and elected dehydration (I don’t know the law about that matter in Belgium), before the PET Scans revealed he is fully aware, there is no question that he would have been dehydrated. Indeed, if Houben had come before Judge Greer in a similar situation as Terri, I believe he would have issued the same order, and might have refused a request for a PET scan, just like he did in Terri’s case.
But even that wasn’t the point of my piece. What I find interesting is how our society remains emotionally immersed in the Schiavo case, which I believe is based on the moral weightiness of removing food and fluids from people who are not otherwise dying. That is why whenever these “awakening” cases come into the news, Terri Schiavo and what happened to her leaps immediately to mind.
In other words, the issue isn’t over. And thank goodness for that!
December 5th, 2009 | 7:52 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Schiavo and Houben: It Isn’t the Neurology, It’s the Ethics » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog – http://shar.es/aIA9H [...]
December 5th, 2009 | 10:22 pm
Wesley: “What [you] find interesting is how our society remains emotionally immersed in the Schiavo case…”? Thankfully, only a small fringe of society remains “immersed.” The more rational beings among us have moved on with their lives, realizing that a court examined the available evidence concerning Terri’s wishes and allowed her husband to act on them without interference from assorted busybodies. Indeed, the civilized world would have forgotten the Schiavo case by now, except that those same busybodies keep dragging her memory out of mothballs and parading it around as if she were still alive. And now you express wonder that interest persists?
December 6th, 2009 | 10:34 pm
For “evidence,” the court had two instances of hearsay, offered by a man who was about to marry and start a family with another woman.
December 7th, 2009 | 7:57 am
bmmg39: The judge’s decision was upheld. If you have a problem with American jurisprudence — well, that’s another matter.
December 7th, 2009 | 4:51 pm
I forgot that you believe that mushrooms would begin growing on pine trees if only a judge said they do.
January 1st, 2010 | 6:15 pm
“The more rational among us” realize that courts, juries, police departments, etc. are made up of human beings who can err, or be subject to prejudices of which they may not even be aware. One need only look at Brown v. Board, the Duke lacrosse team, or the work of the Innocence Project. Look at James Bain, who was just exonerated after 35 years in prison; he’s entitled to almost two million dollars but they can’t give him 35 years of his life back. Why should the American public be quick to forget victims of the system that was supposed to protect them? They should spur us on.
Also, tell me if I’m mistaken but can’t a decision be reviewed and upheld based on procedural technicalities rather than a re-examination of the evidence?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact