Have you heard about Terri Schiavo? If so, chances are good you think she’s fighting for her right to die. That’s how the
Terri Schiavo
hot air powers the point >>––> by Brent Logan
-
I'm Brent Logan and I've been here since 2004, writing about family, food, and fun (and my definition of fun moves around a lot). You can contact me at blogan@blogan.net, at +1 503.828.1772, or at blogan on Twitter. Find out more. Subscribe and follow
© 2004-2010 Brent Logan | 
This work by Brent Logan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. | Powered by WordPress
This is a family matter that the government had no right to butt into.
Does the federal government have the authority to play God? Execution, forced human vegetation, and forced birth by the government would seem to voilate the basic Constitutional requirement for “separation of church and state,” as it is commonly called. (Assuming that giving and taking life is divine). Was that Constitutional requirement a mistake or a lie by the “founding fathers?” At what point will the majority exercise its power of democracy and reform the country into a religious based state — like many muslim countries?
In for a penny, in for a pound. If the government can execute people who have acknowledged their wrogndoing and sought forgiveness with their God, then the government should also impose life on those who are innocent of crime.
The question is not — what is right or wrong.
The question is how much power should government have, as a representative embodiement of the public majority and their beliefs.
Put another way, how much individual freedom should we really have?
In Shaivo’s case, the question of freedom to exercise power lay between her (prior wishes), her parents, and her spouse. The question for government is whether they should be denied the freedom to exercise power — a question which government frequently answewrs in the affirmative in people’s lives. (E.g., pledge of alliegence / prayer).
Sadly, the assumption of human nature is that the relative (proximate or local) majority will prejudice the minority, rather than respect and enable their independence and exercise of freedom.
In the end, it seems that we cannot truly love and respect all others, because we do not unconditionally love ourself in our own heart.
I see three somewhat related questions:
What evidence does a state need before it gets suspicious that a husband might have caused his wife’s injuries?
What right does the state have to prevent citizens from choosing to refuse medical treatment?
What right does one person have to refuse treatment for another person who might be conscious/aware/etc. to some extent?
Assuming the first queston has been adequately answered, my answer to the second is that the state needs to stay out of these issues. Has Florida even considered this issue (other than the judge telling the state agency to keep away)?
The third question is more problematic: how incapacitated must someone be before society would allow another to make these decisions? Should it be more or less than “testamentary capacity,” the minimal level the law requires for people to create a document directing where their material possessions go upon death?
If Michael had relied on a recent MRI or PET scan to show that Terri has no ability to make her own decisions, I would have little to say about him making these decisions instead of her, her parents, or the state. As it is, I’m uncomfortable…
I’m relieved that Michael has chosen to have a full autopsy performed, but I would have preferred a test done before death.
[...] a binder and some note cards. I was able to rearrange, revise, and refine what I just wrote in a comment to make a more coherent argument as to what I think about the right to [...]
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s actual post text did not contain your blog url (http://blogan.net/blog/2005/02/25/105) and so is spam.