 |
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS HERALD |
 |
||
|
||||
|
ARREST THAT MAN So much has been written and said about the Terri Schiavo case that one wonders if anything constructive can be added. Yet the facts have been so twisted and distorted – to a considerable extent, by the Major Media – that one wonders if the public understands what has happened to this woman and what it means to the nation. On February 25, 1990, Terry Schiavo suffered an “accident” in the apartment where she lived with her husband. For reasons never satisfactorily explained, her brain was starved for oxygen long enough to leave her motor- and cognitively-impaired. She was 26 at the time. We have all seen video clips of her. She seems unable to see properly, and she cannot talk. She can move, but she cannot walk or function normally. She cannot feed herself, but must receive nourishment via a feeding tube. She is indeed a pitiable sight. Despite what one hears in news reports, however, Mrs. Schiavo is not on “life support” within the modern meaning of the term. Her vital organs are fully operational. She can breathe on her own; her heart operates independently and, indeed, appears to be quite healthy; her digestive system is also operational and normal. The only artificial support she receives is from the feeding tube. Mrs. Schiavo is disabled. She is not in a “vegetative” state, as has been frequently written. I have seen people who lie comatose in bed like a cabbage. Even a non-medical person can see that this does not describe Terri Schiavo. As compensation for Terri’s condition, her husband, Michael Schiavo, received $1 million – partly for his “loss of consort” and partly to pay for her treatment and possible rehabilitation. This was not unreasonable, except that Mr. Schiavo has refused to fund rehabilitative treatment for his wife since 1991. As an additional complication, he has lived conjugally for several years with a woman who has borne him two children. Although Mr. Schiavo has not disclosed why he has not simply divorced his wife, one can infer that he knows the money would follow his wife if he seeks that remedy. Instead, he has asked the courts to let him end Mrs. Schiavo’s life – i.e., to remove her feeding tube so she will starve to death. In his legal appeals Mr. Schiavo argued that his wife’s case is “hopeless”. He has claimed – without any documentation – that she did not want to be kept alive mechanically. At length, Michael Schiavo found a Florida court which agreed with his claim that Terri doesn’t want to be kept alive – despite the lack of a “living will”. The court ruled that as Terri’s guardian Mr. Schiavo has sole standing to make this claim. Counter-claims by her family were ignored. In October 2003 the Florida court ordered Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube removed. She went without food or water for six days before a new state law allowed Gov. Jeb Bush to order the tube reinserted. "Terri's Law" later was struck down by the Florida Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Despite Governor Bush’s vow to block the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling, all further initiatives – including an attempt to transfer custody of Mrs. Schiavo to the State of Florida – have failed. Terri’s feeding tube was finally removed on Friday, March 18, 2005. She began starving to death. Subsequently, the United States Congress passed a law which authorized the Federal courts to take a fresh look at the case, but that attempt was too timid by half. The courts declined rehear the case – instead, merely confirming earlier court actions. Eleven days on (at this writing), Terri remains alive, but continues to decline. When you read this, she will probably be dead. Many charges have been hurled about political “posturing”. The Congress – particularly Republicans – has borne much criticism for using Mrs. Schiavo’s pitiful case for “political gain”. Dueling medical experts have also debated whether Mrs. Schiavo’s death will be “peaceful” or painful. Reportedly, she is being given morphine to mitigate whatever pain there is. There has also been much hand-wringing by politicians who (one would think) might possess more power to stop this slow-motion execution than they have actually wielded. Governor Jeb Bush comes specifically to mind. He has publicly pleaded that his hands are tied and he must “obey the law”. Numerous appeals from groups concerned about rights of the disabled have not spurred him to act. The matter, he says, is entirely in the custody of the courts. For this pusillanimous evasion, I am embarrassed for Governor Bush. I know he comes from a family made of sterner stuff than this. How, one wonders, would he respond if it became known that a child was being done to death somewhere in Florida? Would he stand idly by because a court had ruled that parents can legally kill that child? I think not. I believe Mr. Bush would send state police to the rescue and let things be sorted out after the child’s safety was secured. Governor Bush could certainly act. He governs the State of Florida. State police are under his command. If they cannot rescue an innocent citizen being methodically killed, then what, exactly, is their function? Writing traffic tickets? I believe Mr. Bush could issue orders something like this: ‘Under my authority as Governor of Florida I have issued an Executive Order to reinstate the feeding of Terri Schiavo. Units of the Florida State Police will see that this occurs and will arrest any who resist this order. I also order rehabilitative therapy for Mrs. Schiavo at a time (and of a type) designated by her doctors. Finally, I order the arrest of Michael Schiavo for physical neglect of his wife. Her custody is hereby transferred to her parents. Florida law allows no person to starve a dependent. Courts may not abrogate those statutes except by written direction of the dependent. Mrs. Schiavo has given no such direction. I issue these orders because Mr. Schiavo’s representations that his wife wishes to die were, in my judgment, unconvincing. I am overruling her death in the same way that I should commute the execution of a condemned prisoner.’ Governor Bush knows he can do this. Why does he not? I believe it is because he has bought into the court-supremacy legend, as most politicians have. They act as though the courts cannot be gainsaid – that their word is law, with a finality possessed by no other branch. As I have pointed out in earlier writings, this is nonsense. The Constitution clearly states that Congress has power over the courts’ venue. I think politicians feel compelled to support the myth of court supremacy for two primary reasons:
In a previous article I said it was only a matter of time until the courts finally overstepped what the people would tolerate. I thought it might be a school principal jailed for contempt because he allowed Christmas Carols – or the like. I did not foresee the Schiavo case becoming the instance where the courts finally revealed that they are unmistakably out of control. I am not the first to say that if Terri Schiavo can be allowed to die, then no one is safe. Any person whose life has become “inconvenient” to his/her caregivers might be allowed to expire simply on the say-so of some judge. Thomas Sowell notes that a dog cannot legally be starved to death. If it became known that you were doing so, the police would arrest you. You would certainly be fined – possibly jailed – for animal cruelty. (And the dog would be spared.) Both a governor and a president can delay any execution by issuing a stay. They can cancel it entirely by commuting the prisoner’s sentence. They can even pardon a condemned prisoner and set him free. Each of these actions has been taken frequently in our history. But in these enlightened times (these times of “compassion”), a vast, preening host of the Culture of Death – including politicians, the media, academicians, and even some clergy – has declared that Terri Schiavo is beyond help. No one can save her. SHE MUST DIE! I denounce this death-sentence in the strongest terms. Where is the person of moral courage willing to stand up and say, “NO!”? Both Governor Bush and President Bush have the power, but they lack the will. Their failure to act will be a stain on their careers. They will look back and regret that they did nothing. So, indeed, shall we all.
|
|
| ||||||
