schiavo case: some thoughts

All is well in the world for now, as I have found CSPAN in my new cable channels. I had thought it wasn't in the free package I'm taking advantage of but I can now watch endless hours of edge-of-your-seat thrilling political debate. (As evidence of how much of a loser I am, consider that I watched the 11 hour, 15 minute steroids in baseball debate almost straight through, breaking every now and then only to check the tourney games or get more food. And I actually found it very interesting--should have live-blogged it.)

Right now CSPAN is showing U.S. House debate on some bill to allow federal courts to decide Terri's fate. I don't know the details because I haven't kept up with the case closely this past week. But I don't like the sound of it. Is more court intervention really what we want? Sure, it might work well in this particular case, but us right-wingers must remember that any law that can be used in our favor can probably be used against us just as easily. And given liberals' blatant disregard for such archaic concepts as the Constitution and legislative intent, they wouldn't think twice about twisting something however many ways necessary to push through their agenda.

Don't get me wrong, I support Terri and I think she ought to be kept alive. But I disagree with some ways that goal is being pursued. I would even say the libs could have a leg up on this issue. As much as we might not want it to be the case, the truth is that Michael Schiavo has the legal right to decide his wife's fate if she cannot make that decision for herself. Granted his story is more than a bit shady, but numerous courts have reviewed the case and basically decided in his favor. If we're going to talk about respect for the law and due process then we have no choice to accept this and let Michael make the decision he is legally entitled to make. "We don't like it" is never a good enough reason to change any laws. Emotions and law never go together and that includes this case. Now if Terri has been denied due process, or laws have been circumvented (such as ordered treatment being denied or earmarked money being taken away and used for other things, to name a couple examples), that's a different story. I'm not familiar enough with the details to know to what extent that's happened and what the legal process would be to counter it. And I'm not against Jeb Bush making a one-time decision (i.e., no legal precedent) to keep her alive. But creating or changing laws so one situation is easier to live with is a bad idea.

I read some time back (I think Wendy McElroy wrote it but I can't remember) an excellent article about the ramifications of changing laws to accommodate this case. For example, if conservatives are so in favor of the sanctity and power of marriage, why would we want responsibility for Terri to be taken from her spouse and given to her parents? When she married, her primary caregiver in times of sickness and health became her husband. That doesn't change if the husband unexpectedly morphs into some kind of monster. Life sure would be great if there were an easy "back door" out of such predicaments, but guess what, there's not. The lesson I'm drawing here is to be very careful in choosing someone to spend your life with because they might just be making your most important decisions for you someday. Another issue is that laws being enacted to deal with this specific case may end up taking power away from individuals in the long run. (Okay, everything government does is for that aim so that's not such a grand statement, but stay with me.) Allowing for more extensive government/court review of such right-to-die cases could pose major complications down the road. As someone recently put it, the more narrowly defined a law is the better--no reason to open the door to excessive abuses of government power.

Even now I'm listening to a representative (not watching so I don't know who it is) quoting the emotional appeals of her father--"I gave her hand in marriage," "I watched her grow," etc.--and asking the Speaker to "please give this woman food and water." In my humble opinion such emotional arguments have no place in the House chambers regardless of the issue at hand. It's simply a bad foundation for laws, period. And it's being made on both sides, too, with opponents talking about how Terri's life is so bad and worthless because she can't do things most of us are accustomed to. Both sides need to drop it and talk facts and logic.

Bottom line: No amount of laws or government tapdancing will solve all problems, so we must accept that sometimes we won't like the results. There are right ways and wrong ways of getting to an end--choose wrong and reap the consequences later.

Update: It seems the federal bill in question is narrowly defined enough to only apply to this case, and that some House leaders (read: conservatives) wanted it to be broader but Dems stonewalled and fought for a compromise. This will likely be the first and last time you ever read this on my blog, but...good for the Dems.