Sam Bridges
Terri Schiavo: a line in the sand
By Sam Bridges
In the past few weeks and months, there has been widespread criticism of Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature for intervening in the Terri Schiavo case at the state level. Similarly, there has been much criticism of President Bush's administration and the U.S. Congress for intervening at the federal level. The criticism continues even after Ms. Schiavo's death.
The three branches of federal government were established to have primary responsibilities in certain realms of government and to provide checks and balances so that one branch does not become too powerful or overstep its primary responsibility. States also have similar distinctions of responsibilities and checks and balances.
I'm the first to say that government needs to stay out of where it doesn't belong. But a major part of government's role and function is to protect its citizens and guarantee "due process." Courts are increasingly acting as if they are some type of self-imposed divine authority and as if they not only interpret laws, but establish and enforce laws, as well. The legislative and executive branches are sometimes forced, and necessarily so, to intervene when judiciaries legislate from the bench, refuse to exercise "due process," or impose their own agenda. And it's easy to find other examples of this phenomenon ad nauseum; you need only look at gay "marriage," the prohibited acknowledgement of God in public life, the gross misapplication of the concept of separation of church and state, etc.
Those critical of the legislative and executive branches in this case need to pause from their judicial genuflection and be thankful that there is a system of checks and balances in the United States. Furthermore, all sides of the Schiavo case need to spend some quality introspection time to ensure their position is consistent with how they view other areas where "due process" may be jeopardized — the Patriot Act, for example. And for heaven's sake, why could Terri Schiavo's feeding tube not be left in while "due process" was either confirmed or established?
In the widely accepted practice of advance directives, the patient's acceptance or refusal of medical treatment is based on their own assessment of their quality of life. But I see one key area where the Schiavo case departs from this aspect of personal rights. Those rights and the resulting decisions are based on the individual's assessment their own quality of life, not society's assessment of the individual's quality of life, and definitely not the claims of a husband with questionable motives and problematic trustworthiness or an attorney who seems to glorify death and whitewash an agonizing method of dying.
Recent polls show that a majority of Americans approved of detaching Schiavo's feeding tube. I had suspected that poll response was largely made based on what the respondents' own choices would be, which was then confirmed by other polls showing 75-80% would choose to have the feeding tube removed if they were in a similar situation. I, for one, do not want society deciding my fate. I do not want a court, legislature, governor, or president deciding for me. And I certainly do not want an adulterous and untrustworthy spouse deciding whether I live or die.
If someone wants to commit suicide, society can do precious little to prevent it. If someone chooses to end their life based on their own prior assessment and documented decisions, society quietly accepts those decisions. But when society chooses to ignore dubious circumstances in any case such as this and allows itself to err on the side of death, it fosters a culture of death. If our government refuses to intercede on behalf of those who are truly innocent and truly vulnerable, it ceases to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. At that point, it has become nothing more than a bloody weapon in the hands of a society that embraces murder.
Courts are limited to jurisprudence based on man's laws. But if laws are increasingly based on man's relativism, self-righteousness, arrogance, and sin, and therefore are necessarily becoming increasingly contradictory to God's Law and His ways, the society producing those laws without restraint will ultimately meet its demise at its own hand or the hand of others.
Some call the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube a matter of personal choice and an act of mercy. I call it murder.
© Sam Bridges
In the past few weeks and months, there has been widespread criticism of Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature for intervening in the Terri Schiavo case at the state level. Similarly, there has been much criticism of President Bush's administration and the U.S. Congress for intervening at the federal level. The criticism continues even after Ms. Schiavo's death.
The three branches of federal government were established to have primary responsibilities in certain realms of government and to provide checks and balances so that one branch does not become too powerful or overstep its primary responsibility. States also have similar distinctions of responsibilities and checks and balances.
I'm the first to say that government needs to stay out of where it doesn't belong. But a major part of government's role and function is to protect its citizens and guarantee "due process." Courts are increasingly acting as if they are some type of self-imposed divine authority and as if they not only interpret laws, but establish and enforce laws, as well. The legislative and executive branches are sometimes forced, and necessarily so, to intervene when judiciaries legislate from the bench, refuse to exercise "due process," or impose their own agenda. And it's easy to find other examples of this phenomenon ad nauseum; you need only look at gay "marriage," the prohibited acknowledgement of God in public life, the gross misapplication of the concept of separation of church and state, etc.
Those critical of the legislative and executive branches in this case need to pause from their judicial genuflection and be thankful that there is a system of checks and balances in the United States. Furthermore, all sides of the Schiavo case need to spend some quality introspection time to ensure their position is consistent with how they view other areas where "due process" may be jeopardized — the Patriot Act, for example. And for heaven's sake, why could Terri Schiavo's feeding tube not be left in while "due process" was either confirmed or established?
In the widely accepted practice of advance directives, the patient's acceptance or refusal of medical treatment is based on their own assessment of their quality of life. But I see one key area where the Schiavo case departs from this aspect of personal rights. Those rights and the resulting decisions are based on the individual's assessment their own quality of life, not society's assessment of the individual's quality of life, and definitely not the claims of a husband with questionable motives and problematic trustworthiness or an attorney who seems to glorify death and whitewash an agonizing method of dying.
Recent polls show that a majority of Americans approved of detaching Schiavo's feeding tube. I had suspected that poll response was largely made based on what the respondents' own choices would be, which was then confirmed by other polls showing 75-80% would choose to have the feeding tube removed if they were in a similar situation. I, for one, do not want society deciding my fate. I do not want a court, legislature, governor, or president deciding for me. And I certainly do not want an adulterous and untrustworthy spouse deciding whether I live or die.
If someone wants to commit suicide, society can do precious little to prevent it. If someone chooses to end their life based on their own prior assessment and documented decisions, society quietly accepts those decisions. But when society chooses to ignore dubious circumstances in any case such as this and allows itself to err on the side of death, it fosters a culture of death. If our government refuses to intercede on behalf of those who are truly innocent and truly vulnerable, it ceases to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. At that point, it has become nothing more than a bloody weapon in the hands of a society that embraces murder.
Courts are limited to jurisprudence based on man's laws. But if laws are increasingly based on man's relativism, self-righteousness, arrogance, and sin, and therefore are necessarily becoming increasingly contradictory to God's Law and His ways, the society producing those laws without restraint will ultimately meet its demise at its own hand or the hand of others.
Some call the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube a matter of personal choice and an act of mercy. I call it murder.
© Sam Bridges
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
