Wednesday, March 30, 2005
My goal when I started this blog was to avoid repeating what everyone else is saying. Jay Nordlinger repeated a question other bloggers have had in response to Rep. Loretta Sanchez's baiting on a talking head show: "I thought conservatives believed in the sanctity of marriage." Jay asks "Who knew you owned your spouse as a chattel, to do with her as you wished." (Actually, he may have asked before other blogger, given that he was there.)
I have a different question:
I'm of the opinion it is unfortunate the family, by which I mean the husband and the parents, do not agree on what Terri would want. But much worse is that the parents don't agree that she is brain dead (er, in a persistive vegative state, there being a vast difference except in terms of conscious thought). Ignoring that Michael Schiavo has moved on with his life and it is hard to see how morally he retains stronger legal rights to dispose of his wife's affairs than her parents do, given his current domestic situation (I tried to ignore it, but how can anyone claim it is irrelevent), does the state not have a responsibility in a domestic quarrel such as this to balance the interests of all parties involved, to the limits of reason? I would think it is in the government's interest to settle disputed points to the satisfaction of all parties.
If the parents have a reasonable belief that Terri Schiavo is not brain dead, should the state not attempt, to the limits of science, to convince them that she is before it OKs starving her to death?
Her husband has refused to order advanced brain scans before her death, but afterward he will allow an autopsy to prove she was brain dead. What? Is he going to wave the grey matter in front of the parents and say "See, I told you so"? Is it so much to ask that he make a reasonable attempt to convince them before she dies.
I suppose even confronted with iron-clad proof, the parents might still deny Terri is brain dead, but at this point the proof consists of the testimony of a few doctors, and the only people who think doctors are infallible are doctors themselves.
I have read atPowerline that Terri's brain death is termed "a finding of fact", which is to say the courts have found it to be true in an earlier hearing and appeals courts are not free to contravene that finding, but instead are limited to questions of whether the Shindlers were given a fair shake during that hearing. Apparently, the Shindlers were given a fair hearing, back in 1998, so there is no reason to question the finding of fact.
Now that we are on the cusp of allowing Terri Schiavo to die (and I say we because the patriotic thing to do is include myself as an actor when my country acts on my behalf, even if I disagree), I would have hoped the courts would take one last shot at convincing the Shindlers (and the rest of us) that Terri is really and truly brain dead. That was the apparent intent of the bill passed by the Senate and House, requiring that a federal court re-establish "de novo" the earlier findings of fact. The whole gamut of courts, from the bottom to the Supremes, instead punted, seeing no procedural justification for such a reexamination.
It seems the only group of people with a higher opinion of their infallibility than doctors is Florida judges.
That's all a long way of saying, there is a right way to kill a mother's girl, and this wasn't it. I think the courts should have crushed the Shindler's illusions of their daughter's cognitive state before they crushed their hopes of seeing her alive next Christmas.
I have a different question:
I'm of the opinion it is unfortunate the family, by which I mean the husband and the parents, do not agree on what Terri would want. But much worse is that the parents don't agree that she is brain dead (er, in a persistive vegative state, there being a vast difference except in terms of conscious thought). Ignoring that Michael Schiavo has moved on with his life and it is hard to see how morally he retains stronger legal rights to dispose of his wife's affairs than her parents do, given his current domestic situation (I tried to ignore it, but how can anyone claim it is irrelevent), does the state not have a responsibility in a domestic quarrel such as this to balance the interests of all parties involved, to the limits of reason? I would think it is in the government's interest to settle disputed points to the satisfaction of all parties.
If the parents have a reasonable belief that Terri Schiavo is not brain dead, should the state not attempt, to the limits of science, to convince them that she is before it OKs starving her to death?
Her husband has refused to order advanced brain scans before her death, but afterward he will allow an autopsy to prove she was brain dead. What? Is he going to wave the grey matter in front of the parents and say "See, I told you so"? Is it so much to ask that he make a reasonable attempt to convince them before she dies.
I suppose even confronted with iron-clad proof, the parents might still deny Terri is brain dead, but at this point the proof consists of the testimony of a few doctors, and the only people who think doctors are infallible are doctors themselves.
I have read atPowerline that Terri's brain death is termed "a finding of fact", which is to say the courts have found it to be true in an earlier hearing and appeals courts are not free to contravene that finding, but instead are limited to questions of whether the Shindlers were given a fair shake during that hearing. Apparently, the Shindlers were given a fair hearing, back in 1998, so there is no reason to question the finding of fact.
Now that we are on the cusp of allowing Terri Schiavo to die (and I say we because the patriotic thing to do is include myself as an actor when my country acts on my behalf, even if I disagree), I would have hoped the courts would take one last shot at convincing the Shindlers (and the rest of us) that Terri is really and truly brain dead. That was the apparent intent of the bill passed by the Senate and House, requiring that a federal court re-establish "de novo" the earlier findings of fact. The whole gamut of courts, from the bottom to the Supremes, instead punted, seeing no procedural justification for such a reexamination.
It seems the only group of people with a higher opinion of their infallibility than doctors is Florida judges.
That's all a long way of saying, there is a right way to kill a mother's girl, and this wasn't it. I think the courts should have crushed the Shindler's illusions of their daughter's cognitive state before they crushed their hopes of seeing her alive next Christmas.
Almost missed another month. Fortunately, I never miss an opportunity to say "I told you so", and National Review's The Corner served up a cream puff:
I mentioned this months ago. If only Ramesh Ponnuru read Knowledge Transfer. If only Ramesh were as smart as I.
I mean, that's not even Ramesh talking. He had to have it pointed out to him by an emailer.
At least he doesn't stoop to meaningless "told you so" Corner entries after a month of absenteeism. See you all (both of you) next month.
But merely overturning Roe wouldn't turn the U.S. into some weird outlier compared with European countries. Roe is the outlier. A constitutionally- (or, if one prefers, "constitutionally-" with scare quotes) mandated prohibition on any restriction of abortion for two trimesters and little constitutionally permissible space for regulation even in the third trimester-- this is unique....
...Germany's abortion law is much more restrictive than anything I'd expect to see in a post-Roe federal legal code, or in the post-Roe legal codes of any but a few states or jurisdictions such as Louisiana and Guam.
I mentioned this months ago. If only Ramesh Ponnuru read Knowledge Transfer. If only Ramesh were as smart as I.
I mean, that's not even Ramesh talking. He had to have it pointed out to him by an emailer.
At least he doesn't stoop to meaningless "told you so" Corner entries after a month of absenteeism. See you all (both of you) next month.
