Friday, March 25, 2005

COM: Living part 3

At New Donkey is a nice commentary on life distinctions in the Schiavo case.

I want to reiterate here (and as i've done on several other blogs): this is a politico-religious stand being made by a group that seems to have found new boldness in the Bush "mandate" -- a new light at the end of their theocratical aspirations tunnel.

While it's being couched in "right-to-life" terms, they only have standing at all because of the lack of a living will, and the subsequent use of the courts to impart a decision about whether or not life support should be withdrawn in an instance where there is familial disagreement.

If the issue really IS about the right to life: a) would those same folks be raising this stink in this very case IF there was a living will?; and if so, B) why aren't they doing so in the many other cases around the nation where the same issue is being played out?

Various sites report that either/both 35,000 other cases in the U.S. fall under this same general cloud, and/or up to 4,000 cases at any one time are undergoing routine disconnection from life support. However you parse those numbers they are significant, and yet where are the angry people if indeed this is about the "right to life".

By logic of the going argument, of which no one else seems to have any problem with the contradiction, IF there is a living will somehow the issue of the "cruelty/barbarism" of the starvation/dehydration routine seems to simply disappear.

At least the anti-abortion right-to-lifers picket any number of clinics and individuals they can find. How many hospices are being picketed?

Granted that many of these cases involve disconnecting a respirator which results in fairly rapid death, still a number of others do not. And in Terri Schiavo's case would not. So, faction, if there WAS a living will would you be so incensed? And if so, you better gear up for the many others out there once Schiavo passes on.

You know the answer as well as i do. And because of that, there is no conclusion other than this is about making a shrill public exhibition.

This is about a Bush brother's ability to make headlines, about TV cameras, and about political aspirations -- it is not and never was about any "right to life".

Having said that, i want to make clear that i know full well that there are indeed many people, of good heart and faith, for whom this really is a right to life issue. Nevertheless, have those same people been out protesting elsewhere or did they just jump on this bandwagon.

If you'll read my other short posts on this subject you'll note that i am personally unsettled by this case. However, i am not unsettled about the political hay being made, and the great damage being done to two families, and the quality of debate about bioethics in this country, not to mention the continued destruction of the constitution.

Commentary from Bull Moose and Maureen Dowd

Thanks to Wild Sects

Then, check this:

Sadly, even now we fail to see what lead us to this point. Many well-meaning people mistakenly believe this issue is about the “right-to-die.” But at its core, the Schiavo case is not about bioethics, living wills, or medial choices.

Agreement?!

Well, this comment at Evangelical Outpost(!) says it's about bigamy and the sanctity of marriage . . . hmmm.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home