| |
Dr. Ron Gleason's Column
ETHOS -- March 31, 2005 ------ Please visit my web site at http://www.rongleason.org
Terri Schiavo and the Culture of Death
Special Issue (II) -- An "Inconsistent" Ethic of Life.
As you know, I've been interacting with Jim Wallis in his recent
book God's Politics. In Part V, Chapter 18 (A Consistent Ethic of
Life) Wallis makes his points about abortion and capital punishment.
What he aims at-but really doesn't achieve-is a consistency in ethics.
I raise this point because it is at the front of the Terri Schiavo
case and her death today.
The Liberal Religious Left has a "smorgasbord" or "pick
and choose" mentality when it comes to courts and court decisions.
They hope that we have short memories and little or no historical
consciousness, of which many today possess both. It's funny how
we are on a sliding scale when it comes to these matters and we
tend to embrace an ethic of expediency rather than consistency.
A while back, then Governor Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas
National Guard specifically for the purpose of "defying rulings
of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts."[1] The
other-and more recent example of this type of defiance-is former
President Bill Clinton sending armed agents from the Immigration
and Naturalization Service to seize Elian Gonzalez from a family
to whom the Florida courts had granted custody. In short, Mr. Clinton
overrode the courts.
I, for one, am in favor of the rule of law and following the laws
of the land or overturning them by means of popular vote. Civil
disobedience should not be considered except under the direst of
circumstances. Having said that, I also want to voice a serious
concern that has been growing in my heart and, I suspect, in yours
as well: the license activist judges are taking in our country.
Instead of interpreting the laws, some seem intent on making (up)
a few extra laws up as they rule from the bench. It is clear that
over the past few decades-or longer-that some of our sitting judges
have come to have an increasingly high regard for their own self-importance.
A good word to describe their attitudes is arrogance.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all judges are arrogant
and self-serving. I am asserting, however, that there are enough
of them out there today to be a cause of grave concern. When was
the last time you voted and had enough the foggiest notion what
the judges you were voting for stood for? Had you even heard of
them? And yet, we vote them into office where they begin to "work
their magic." It's a chilling thought. For example, our courts
"discover" on a frequent basis "secret legal provisions
requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public prayer
and Ten Commandments displays."[2]
Judge Greer & Bioethicists
I heard that Judge Greer is a Christian. He might very well be.
Far be it from me to question his faith. I do, however, question
his judgment. He has made some questionable decisions during his
tenure. His defense in the Terri Schiavo case is that he is merely
interpreting the law. I think that he is. My wife and I were driving
back from our "date day" in Huntington Beach, CA last
week and she said to me, "law and morality seem to be on a
collision course in our country." That wasn't always the case.
The two were often-quite often-placed in close proximity. To my
mind, many of our activist judges have set the two on a collision
course.
I've heard the phrase "matters in extenuation and mitigation
of the circumstances" before and I believe it applies in the
Michael and Terri Schiavo case. According to law, the husband has
the "right" to make the sort of determination that Mr.
Schiavo has made. But aren't there matter in extenuation and mitigation
of the circumstances? Does it bear any weight that Mr. Schiavo is
an adulterer? Is it an acceptable practice in America today that
a man can have a blatant disregard to his wedding vows? Where is
promising "in sickness and in health"? In our society,
are you kidding me? The short answer is a resounding No! After all,
it's only sex. Never mind that Michael moved on with his life and
committed adultery and has two children out of wedlock. Terri's
life was not the quality of life that some Americans find worthwhile.
I'm still waiting to hear someone use the argument that human beings
are created in the image of God!
On a different plane, however, wouldn't it have been prudent for
Judge Greer to have ordered basic medical tests-extensive tests-before
making a legal decision? As far as the literature I've looked at,
she was not given either an MRI or PET scans. Was there any possible
way that Mrs. Schiavo could have had legal counsel to defend her
before the courts rushed to judgment? Moreover, there was nothing
in writing about what Terri wanted. That is to say, there was no
legal document stating that if she were ever in a PVS that she would
want a feeding tube removed. It will be interesting to see what
happens to Judge Greer in the aftermath of this particular case.
Of course, the matter is being debated by "bioethicists"
around the country. The mere name "bioethicist" sounds
both imposing and formidable doesn't it? May I quote a couple of
them for you? Here's what the elitist are thinking: "If we
assume that the disabled do not have a right to unlimited health
care because no one has such a right, then are the disabled morally
obligated to establish their own health priorities for themselves
within the context of a budget? I believe this question requires
an affirmative answer, painful as it might be for the disabled themselves."
(Leonard Fleck, Ph.D., "Just Caring: Health Care and the Disabled,"
in Medical Humanities Report, Spring (1992).) Or how about Dr. Willard
Gaylin, M.D.? "Preventive medicine drives up the ultimate cost
of health care to society by enlarging the population of the elderly
and infirm. The child who would have died from polio will grow up
to be a very expensive old man or woman." (Harpers Magazine,
Oct. 1993.)
It sounds like something out of Brave New World doesn't it? In
1994, Alice Mailhot (is that her real name? I've heard of Hotmail,
but never Mailhot.) wrote an article in Mouth entitled "Bioethics:
introduction to theories from hell." She is at least asking
us not to put bioethicists on a pedestal. Why not? "Bioethicists
live off tax dollars and wealthy foundations. They teach medical
professional and community elites to decide who lives and who dies."[3]
Well, not all of them teach that Ms. Mailhot, but your point is
well taken.(I have found a web site that is very helpful and want
to pass on to you: www.cbhd.org. There you'll find some very helpful
articles.)
Right to Privacy & Personhood
Providentially, I was reading Mark Levin's book, Men in Black last
week and came across his chapter entitled, "Death by Privacy."[4]
I mention this because it is one of the key arguments in what will
forever be known as the Terri Schiavo Case. There was an interesting
chat room interview on Court TV Online.[5] Bill Allen, who is the
director of the program in Bioethics, Law and Medical Professionalism
at the University of Florida College of Medicine was debating Wesley
Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, attorney for the
International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and
special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture. Allen
supported the Florida court decision and Smith believed that Terri
Schiavo should be kept alive.
One of Allen's arguments was that Florida voters passed a constitutional
amendment in 1980 saying that government cannot interfere in citizens'
private lives.[6] Levin makes this point: "Today, legalized
abortion is the law of the land because the Supreme Court decided
in 1973 that its recently created constitutional right to privacy
also included a new constitutional right to abortion. If you look
in the Constitution, however, you will find no general 'right to
privacy' any more than you will find a right to abortion-and for
good reason: It's not there."[7]
This is not to say that Americans have no privacy rights whatsoever.
There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional
provisions "which are designed in part to protect privacy at
certain times and places with respect to certain activities."[8]
We are not given the right of privacy with a view to murder behind
closed doors, rape, incest, polygamy, child pornography, and a number
of other ethical issues. Smith's answer to Allen is well taken:
"We intervene to prevent the use of drugs. We intervene to
stop people from abusing themselves. Of course, the government should
not intrude lightly. But to protect life, that is one of the most
important purposes of government."[9] He added, "The Florida
Supreme Court, however ruled that the constitutional right did not
include the right to assisted suicide."[10] Touché.
And that is precisely where the debate is right now-at least in
part. Is America ready for euthanasia? If our answer is No, then
we must be prepared for a huge fight, because that is where we are
heading even though our "experts" say that we're not.
The other ethical issue has to do with "personhood."
In the course of the interview, Bill Allen's perspective became
crystal clear when Wesley Smith asked him this question: "Bill,
do you think Terri is a person?"[11] Allen answered, "No,
I do not."[12] He went on to add, "I think an anencephalic
infant is a non-person. In distinction from an infant with a brain
who may not have all the fully developed characteristics of personhood,
but does have the potential for personhood."[13] If I'm hearing
Allen correctly, then he doesn't even believe an infant with a brain
is a person, but merely possesses the potential for personhood.
This begs all kinds of ethical questions not the least of which
are these: When does an infant with a brain morph over from potential
person to de facto person? Are infants with a brain possible subjects
for euthanasia until they achieve personhood? Who are the ones who
decide when a human being has reached personhood? How can we trust
their judgments? Who judges them?
The Subtlety of Language
For such a landmark case, the situation with Terri Schiavo is teeming
with euphemisms. We're told from some quarters that he is being
allowed to die a natural death or to die with dignity. Neither is
the case; neither is true. Surely she is dying, but not from natural
causes. Make no mistake: she is not dying a natural death. She's
being starved to death. What would we call it if someone withheld
food and water from us? A natural death? Hardly. Why is it all of
a sudden death with dignity or a "gentle" death when the
New York Times reported in 2002 of the people starving in India
that they died "clutching pained stomachs"? I suppose
starvation is not death with dignity in India, but it is for Terri
Schiavo here in the United States it apparently is.
Just by way of reminder, it was Hitler and the Third Reich that
popularized the term "euthanasia," and that is where we
are rushing with this decision. Of course, it is much akin to other
moral and ethical decisions that are made in a culture that embraces
relativism as its modus operandi.
Some commentators try to avoid words like "starvation"
and "dehydration" and opt for something less upsetting
like "gentle" death or, you could even use "euthanasia"
because in its etiology it means "good" or "soft"
death. I have written previously that rather than becoming a nation
that embraces euthanasia, we ought to be more concerned about ortho-thanasia:
Right or proper death. There is such a thing that honors the person
made in the image of God and truly-not merely in words-offers death
with dignity.[14] My main concern about this case is not merely
the "legality" of it, although that is important, but
the step down the slippery slope of euthanasia.[15] There are no
brakes in the relativists car. Secular humanism offers no real solutions
that takes the value of human beings into account. Now is the time
for the Church of Jesus Christ to speak, to speak often, and to
speak loudly.
Pastor Ron Gleason, Ph.D.
Yorba Linda, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Ann Coulter, "Starved for justice," at www.townhall.com,
3.28.05, p. 1.
[2] Ibid., 2.
[3] http://www.normemma.com/areut_bioethics.htm, p. 1.
[4] Mark Levin, Men in Black, (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing,
Inc., 2005).
[5] http://courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2005/0324schiavo-debate.html.
[6] Ibid., 2.
[7] Levin, MB, 55.
[8] Ibid., 58. Italics mine.
[9] Courttv, 2.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 6.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid., 7.
[14] See my pamphlet available through Renewed Life Ministries
entitled Euthanasia
or Ortho-thanasia? available on my web site at www.rongleason.org.
[15] In a future issue of Ethos I will deal with what is now called
"The Groningen
Protocol," which is a Dutch movement to make infanticide at
the hands of doctors
legal. In a relativistic, godless world, why shouldn't it be?
Searching for bin Laden
Dr. Ron Gleason, Ph.D.
Pastor Grace Presbyterian Church
23655 Via del Rio, Ste. G
Yorba Linda, CA 92887
bavinck@prodigy.net tel:
fax:
mobile: 714/692-2390
714/692-2491
714/318-6843
|
