It has been a bit ghoulish, checking the news a few times a day, expecting her to die. I lack the emotional attachment of many on the ‘she should live’ side, but I still feel the heaviness of a tragic course of events. As I said before, we need to consider the laws and be sure they are serving all parties appropriately. If there weren’t so many questions about the husband’s conduct, this wouldn’t have been an issue in the first place. As the ‘let he die’ crowd observes, this is going on all over the place all the time, but I respond by saying the difference here is in the questionable conduct on the part of the guardian.

Should our daughters fall into such a state, do we want a protective mechanism to examine the motivation and activities of the husband? Do we want to allow a verbal authorization, almost heresay, to serve as an instrument of intent? Valid questions, and I think if both sides can climb down from their perches, they would agree that these things should at least be examined.

Unfortunately, I’m not confident on the level of discourse elevating over the next month or so. Let each side vent, gloat, riducule, and spew. Get it out so we can move on to proper reform.

Maybe this wasn’t in vain.

Do I really have to compare and contrast? There are certainly differences in brain function between the two, but is this considered an artificial means of support? If the pope grew too weak to communicate or too palsied to write down his wishes, what would be the proper course of action in Florida? Can we say that the man’s professed love of God and calm acceptance is sufficient indication of a desire to die?

Depends on which Cardinal has the votes and the power of attorney…

Several bloggers have pointed out what they see as an inconsistency in the position of the religious right. If there is a God and a heaven, then why the overwhelming desire to cling to this life? For a time, I’ve shared their perspective, but certainly without a sense of righteous glee over a fallacy in the religious position.

Upon consideration, I think we should be thankful for this perspective on the part of the ‘pew population’. Imagine a world where the faithful did embrace the afterlife as something not only to be embraced, but actively sought. Imagine a religion where the highest duty was to dispatch people to God’s judgment, even at the cost of your own life. And while it might be currently fashionable to correctly point to Islam, I’m taking a longer view back to the Catholic/Protestant/Lutheran clashes of the middle teen centuries.

Should we mock a faith that has turned away from a logical thread that would lead to widespread bloodshed in the name of Allah God, or should we congratulate the evolution of thought that says life is sacred, regardless of the condition and circumstance of such life? Is it better to have killing in God’s name, arbitrated by the clergy, or to have the occasional sanctioned killing governed by due process of law answerable to the people, regardless of faith?

By this standard, we should admire the logical consistency of Islam. After all, they care so much for the soul of the infidel they are willing to convert us by the sword, even at their own expense in life and treasure. They brook no alternative faith, like any good meme.

Ridicule of hypocrisy is usually an effort to change behavior. Consider the alternatives.

The Wall Street Journal has a reasoned and rational position on the Schiavo case, and I wish I had the ability to frame the issue so clearly.

And what of the local Florida judge–George Greer–who has found himself the target of vicious attacks ever since Terri’s case first came before him? The problem here is not so much the judge himself, but a legal system that makes it extremely difficult for any appeals court to overturn a trial judge’s finding of fact unless there has been an egregious procedural or legal error. Once Judge Greer ruled that Terri’s husband Michael showed “clear and convincing” evidence that his wife did not want to be kept alive artificially, her fate was probably sealed. No court was likely to challenge it.

…

But the biggest failing of our legal system is that it could not accommodate the most humane outcome–to return Terri to the care of her parents and siblings, who are willing to provide for her. Judge Greer’s ruling that Terri’s husband is the sole guardian made such compromise impossible. But how can it be morally responsible to let a woman die when there are family members pleading to take on the burden of caring for her?

It keeps coming back to the issue of custodial fidelity to the interests of the patient. In happier times, we all expect our spouses to have our interests at heart; but this is an unrealistic idealism that should not be maintained when so many questions remain unanswered.

The consistency of the judicial rulings, all by a diverse group of judges with various political provenances, suggests to me that the legal standards for evaluating custodial abuse are insufficient to detect or act upon instances where a healthy spouse might wish to dispose of a disabled spouse. I’ll never know what is in Michael Schiavo’s heart, but I can’t help but wonder how many judges exercised an appropriate degree of judicial restraint in the face of their personal desires? Judge Greer set this into motion, and what followed is the natural consequence of our system, as tragic as it might have been.

The correct response is to address laws that might not be up to dealing with modern health technology, and are not capable of responding to the darker side of the marriage contract.

Finally, someone steps up and answers some questions.

The medical reality of Ms. Schiavo’s case is this: She has been in what is medically referred to as a “permanent vegetative state” for the past 15 years, ever since her heart temporarily stopped (probably due to the severe effects of an eating disorder), depriving her brain of oxygen. Brain scans indicate that her cerebral cortex ceased functioning — probably just after she experienced cardiac arrest in 1990. Ms. Schiavo’s CAT scan shows massive shrinking of the brain, and her EEG is flat. Physicians confirm that there is no electrical activity coming from her brain. While the family video repeatedly shown on television suggests otherwise, her non-functioning cortex precludes cognition, including any ability to interact or communicate with people or show any signs of awareness. Dozens of experts over the years who have examined Ms. Schiavo agree that there is no hope of her recovering — even though her body, face and eyes (if she is given food and hydration) might continue to move for decades to come.

A search on the American Council for Science and Health suggests they are a trustworthy group. Therefore, it seems to me that my question of her mental status has been answered.

As much as I detest the actions of the husband, it seems that the feeding tube removal has met the criteria of the law, and what follows is consistent with the laws drafted by duly elected officials.

Now we move on to things that can be modified by the electorate. Do we wish to classify food and water delivery as ‘life support’? How does this effect handicapped people who need tubes, but are otherwise mentally functional? What of potential custodial abuse in choice of care? Should spousal rights be honored when the marriage is ‘in name’ only?

We need to refine the entire end of life process so that something like this doesn’t happen again. It is time for a rational debate outside of the emotional totem of a dying woman, so that the next Terri Schiavo, regardless of her mental condition, will have her day in court to protect her interests.

Whatever Terri wanted is unknowable, and under the law, what follows from here is sanctioned and appropriate. Those who don’t like it have the task before them of lobbying lawmakers and fellow voters through the traditional process of elections.

Both sides need to have the debate out in the open and through the proxies of political candidates. It serves no one to debate in the middle of the night on the courthouse steps. The law seems to have been fullfilled, therefore interested parties need to look forward to the next battle.

So Schiavo is a political football and the GOP is guilty of pandering for votes?

More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by Congress and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate.

A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting the GOP almost that high.

One of two things has to be true.

1). The GOP has completely misread their constituency.

or

2). They did what they thought was right, regardless of popular opinion.

I have a hard time believing number 1, not in the age of overnight focus groups. While I disagree strongly with the notion that Federal Intervention was appropriate, I at least respect option number 2.

I’ve seen so many polls of people saying Terri should die. The media keeps pounding that drum even as they refuse to provide any conclusive accounting of the discrepancies in medical opinions. It is easy to engineer any poll result if the data is muddled sufficiently.

But that isn’t the point. This is not a matter for polls or opinion. The legal foundation has already been established. We have defined laws on living wills, spousal custody and protocols for removal of heroic care. Unfortunately for Terri, the courts will continue to uphold these principles. But the legal mechanism also presupposes a good faith effort on the part of the judiciary to investigate and weigh the interests of the silent party, and I can’t help but suspect that this has not been the case. There are too many uncertainties in this case that place it on the fringes of our accepted legal mechanism.

Vocal medical experts that have testified to Terri’s PVS condition have ties to euthanasia movements. Medical experts with contrary testimony are tied to the anti-abortion movement. Michael Schiavo has refused any attempt at rehab or therapy. And those videos of Terri still haven’t been explained to the lay audience.

Resolve her status, and the argument moves away from Terri and focuses on the legal mechanism of heroic care. THIS is where our focus should be, to prevent these situations from occurring in the future. Spousal fidelity, custodial abuse and the clear expression of desire through a living will are the essential elements at question here. If the Judiciary has illustrated their unwillingness to investigate such claims, then it is up to the legislature to enact appropriate mechanisms to compel such investigation by force of law.

Decades of trivial electoral decision has led us to this point. Lack of attention to judicial appointment, local political offices, and inattention to judicial usurpation of legislative power has brought us a Schiavo situation. Ultimately, the voters are to blame. Will they now try to correct the situation?

I’m not hopeful.

But now that the issue is moving forward, I feel compelled to post.

Unfortunately for me, the stark contrast of the issue has given way to the legalistic gray. I wake to a less clear position.

First, my opinions…

Michael Schiavo is a horrible human being, worthy of the strongest possible opprobrium.

Terri Schiavo, seen in the various videos, is far from a vegetative state. There can be no doubt she is severely impaired, but no reasonable person can maintain that she is comatose and nonresponsive.

Ultimately, Mr. Schiavo’s custody over Terri needs to be examined under the appropriate laws. If her case is not an example of custodial abuse, then the laws are in serious need of modification.

Given all of that, the removal of her feeding tube on Friday was a horrible thing, and like everyone else, I hoped for a speedy resolution to restore the tube.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure that Congressional action is appropriate within the greater context of the function of the Republic.

In essence, we have had a state matter seized by the Federal system, simply because a large section of the electorate was unhappy with the events occurring in a State in which they don’t even reside. My understanding of the situation so far indicates the entire matter was being handled under State law. Congress has now decided to kick the process over to Federal court, superseding Florida law. I’m not entirely clear about what happens next, but we will either have the Custodial issue decided under the Federal system, or the Federal government will order Florida to modify their own law. I’m open to further explanation if someone knows more than I do at the moment.

Fundamentally, I’m not sure this Federal intervention, regardless of the ‘goodness’ of the intent, is the proper way to move forward given the long view of individual liberty. There is a tragic irony in a situation where extending protection to a helpless individual may harm the larger principle of individual freedom. While this isn’t equitable to the Civil War, it does mirror an interesting paradox. The Slave States invoked individual freedom to enslave individuals, while the Federal government invoked the primacy of the Federal Government to subjugate States in the name of individual rights.

The Schiavo case shouldn’t have come to this. The Florida system should have been more responsive to the potential custodial abuse. The Florida electorate should have been more effective at getting the attention of local politicians. Florida voters are now aware of their gutless politicians, and should they retain them next cycle, well…shame on them.

Given all of that, my discomfort is tempered by an unresolved issue. Provided a State fails to observe the basic protections of the helpless, at what point is Federal intervention justified? There is no question in my mind that any Federal action is harmful of our long term freedoms, but when the State fails in its responsibility to safeguard our freedoms, then perhaps we deserve an incremental loss of our rights. After all, the State is composed of officials we select, and it appears that we are failing our own self-interest when we refuse to weigh the seriousness of our choice of local representation.

We shouldn’t be surprised when our Federal government continues to grow. Not when the ethical concern of starving a woman to death becomes irresolvable at the State level. Shame on us all.

Anyway, the Schiavo case is back in the news, and frequent comment-leaver Jody, over at The Bandwagon has an exhaustive roundup of the case. Go spend some time on it.