WHEN WE SIDE WITH DEATH...
IT SEEMS THERE'S THE DEVIL TO PAY.
My old friend Ben Blankenship sent me this email, in response to my "Food and Water not 'Artificial Life Support'" (the post below this one):
"Gerry, I have to disagree with you on this one. Not the point about artificial life support, but the efforts to keep Terri alive. Such heartbreaking decisions happen every day. The family squabbles should not have occupied Florida courts all these years, and certainly should not have occupied the Johnny-come-lately Congress , the President and the federal courts for even one day.
"On the larger moral question, I agree pretty much with what Neal Boortz has written. If we believe in an afterlife, why are we so horribly reluctant to see anyone enter it?" (For the Boortz article, see here.)
When I replied, he wrote back saying, "Gerry, you should publish that response. It was truly fine." He is an excellent columnist and I take his editorial advice seriously. So here is the response to which he referred:
"Easter Sunday, March 27, 2005
"Dear Ben,
"My internet and email went out Thursday. (But it has come back – sometimes. Probably will be just fine when the technician comes in the morning!) So I have not been able to email or post, or reply to your thoughtful message. It is working right now, so I’ll try.
"Poor Boortz has been swamped with angry emails since he wrote that. But it’s a good question – if the afterlife is wonderful, why stay here?
"Paul wrote about it, saying that although heaven was better, he needed to stay here instead, for the sake of the churches he oversaw. My old friend Juan Carlos Ortiz sometimes preaches that if the sole point of converting to Christianity is to go to heaven, then churches should keep a pistol in the counseling room, and shoot people as soon as they convert! He was being funny, but it’s a logical extension of the point.
"But life is a gift. The greatest gift, since no other gifts are possible without it. Sooner or later, we come to that understanding. Our government is built around it. Murder is forbidden. Killing is permitted, but under carefully controlled circumstances; in war, to punish murderers, in self defense or in defense of others.
"When it comes to killing, that is not the private business of individuals or families. The nation sets the limits by law, and it is not left to individual judgement.
"In the Schiavo case, it seems obvious to me that Terri is not “being allowed to die,” but being killed. “Being allowed to die” has meant getting out of the way and letting someone who is already dying die. It is agreed that Terri was not already dying; that she was expected to live many more years.
"That is why the question is relevant as to whether getting food and water through a simple tube is “artificial life support.” In my view, it does not cross that line – any more than the invention of the baby bottle, which saved countless babies (and farm animals) who could not be breast fed. It was “artificial” – a tube closed at one end and with a nipple at the other. But it was so low-tech that it was not an heroic or expensive measure.
"On the other hand, when people are already dying, and near death; and when they are being kept alive by elaborate machinery such as heart, kidney or breathing machines; then, when those machines are turned off, death usually follows pretty quickly. Such equipment is much more justifiably called "artificial life support." And when such elaborate equipment is being used for the terminally ill, and when death would come quickly without it, that would seem to be the only instance in which stopping its use would qualify as someone's being “allowed to die.”
"So far in the U.S., that choice is restricted by law, not freely allowed. If it were, there would be the possibility of achieving the equivalent of divorce, robbery, abandonment, economizing, respite for caretakers, etc., by purported “mercy” killing. While most people might not ever be tempted to end someone’s life for such purposes, we need protection against those times when they might be.
"Terri’s case is so controversial because of such issues. First, she is being killed, not “being allowed to die.”Second, no one and nothing has been able to stop it so far. Not Congress and the President, not Florida Legislators, Governor or State Troopers. Policemen encircle her, protect her killers, and arrest any who try to save her.
"The court system is stacked against her. One probate judge, Greer, made all the findings of fact. No higher court will revisit those findings. In defiance of the law passed by Congress and signed by the President, they would not start de novo, revisiting the facts of the case and preserving Terri’s life during the process. But the facts of the case are under serious challenge.
"Third, the decision-making arrangements concerning Terri are very troubling. While the husband may have been maligned unfairly, and may be quite sincere in his motives, the circumstances are such that his interests should be judged to be contrary to Terri’s, as they certainly would be in any divorce court. He is very disturbing as her sole guardian.
"Fourth, Terri’s future care is already assured. Her family is heart-breakingly eager to care for her the rest of her life. A foundation with over $4 million is there to pay for her care.
"Actually, almost everything about Terri’s case is troubling.
"Meanwhile, families all over the country seem to fear that if she does not die, a precedent will be set which may work against them in cases where it is much more clear that it would be legal, and appropriate, to stop “artificial life support” and allow a dying person, who is already near death, to die more quickly.
"That is probably a justified concern. This is the time, while it is on the national mind, to address those issues. We need to work out better ways of protecting innocent people from being killed simply for the convenience of others, at one end of the spectrum; and allowing the ventilator to be turned off when there is brain-death, at the other.
"A harder issue, I think, is the question in each mind, “When would my life not be worth living?” First, we probably should not be allowed to decide that for other people. Second, we really don’t know how we would feel about most reverses until we get there.
"For instance, quadraplegic Jonnie Erickson Tada wanted to die at first, then found value in her life when she learned to paint with a brush held in her teeth. Christopher Reeve found such value. The Pope has. For myself, if I knew years before that in 1969 I would have begun 7½ years in prison, I think I might have considered suicide. Yet I found it to be one of the best things that ever happened to me. How can we know such things in advance? Even when we leave clear directives asking for death instead? Some legal allowance has to be made, somehow, for our changing our minds once we get there.
"And what of the role of suffering? Though we would ‘crawl through sewers’ to avoid it (C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain), most of us can look back to some hard times that brought some future benefit. Lewis also claims most of us would be insufferable without the benefit of a certain amount of pain! Christians depend on God’s promise that he brings good out of whatever happens to us (Romans 8:28.) So far, I have to admit that he has, at least for me.
"There is also concern about slippery slopes, when we decide for death over life. That has proven to be a well-founded concern.
"The killing of unborn children in the U.S. has been allowed since 1973. Opponents predicted then it would be the beginning of a ‘slippery slope’, going on to euthanasia and ‘mercy killings.’ So it has gone. In Oregon, recently. Even more so in places like Holland, where doctors readily admit to killing a few thousand elders, handicapped children, etc., a year without asking anyone, even in open defiance of the expressed wishes of the children’s parents.
"Finally, if most of us knew more about remorse, we would be much more cautious about getting into situations where we might feel tempted to harm anyone else for our own benefit, especially when it comes to ending the life of another. In prison, every killer I knew was, in various ways, living in hell. No exceptions. Taking a life, even when justified, is very hard on many policemen and soldiers. Even for lesser offenses, of which I committed many even before I broke the law, I can testify that when remorse eventually comes - and it will - it is devastating. If we but knew, I think most of us would live very differently.
"When we come down on the side of death, there seems to be the Devil to pay. Life gets measurably worse. Standing for life seems to be the only safe way to go.
"Best wishes,
"Gerry"
My old friend Ben Blankenship sent me this email, in response to my "Food and Water not 'Artificial Life Support'" (the post below this one):
"Gerry, I have to disagree with you on this one. Not the point about artificial life support, but the efforts to keep Terri alive. Such heartbreaking decisions happen every day. The family squabbles should not have occupied Florida courts all these years, and certainly should not have occupied the Johnny-come-lately Congress , the President and the federal courts for even one day.
"On the larger moral question, I agree pretty much with what Neal Boortz has written. If we believe in an afterlife, why are we so horribly reluctant to see anyone enter it?" (For the Boortz article, see here.)
When I replied, he wrote back saying, "Gerry, you should publish that response. It was truly fine." He is an excellent columnist and I take his editorial advice seriously. So here is the response to which he referred:
"Easter Sunday, March 27, 2005
"Dear Ben,
"My internet and email went out Thursday. (But it has come back – sometimes. Probably will be just fine when the technician comes in the morning!) So I have not been able to email or post, or reply to your thoughtful message. It is working right now, so I’ll try.
"Poor Boortz has been swamped with angry emails since he wrote that. But it’s a good question – if the afterlife is wonderful, why stay here?
"Paul wrote about it, saying that although heaven was better, he needed to stay here instead, for the sake of the churches he oversaw. My old friend Juan Carlos Ortiz sometimes preaches that if the sole point of converting to Christianity is to go to heaven, then churches should keep a pistol in the counseling room, and shoot people as soon as they convert! He was being funny, but it’s a logical extension of the point.
"But life is a gift. The greatest gift, since no other gifts are possible without it. Sooner or later, we come to that understanding. Our government is built around it. Murder is forbidden. Killing is permitted, but under carefully controlled circumstances; in war, to punish murderers, in self defense or in defense of others.
"When it comes to killing, that is not the private business of individuals or families. The nation sets the limits by law, and it is not left to individual judgement.
"In the Schiavo case, it seems obvious to me that Terri is not “being allowed to die,” but being killed. “Being allowed to die” has meant getting out of the way and letting someone who is already dying die. It is agreed that Terri was not already dying; that she was expected to live many more years.
"That is why the question is relevant as to whether getting food and water through a simple tube is “artificial life support.” In my view, it does not cross that line – any more than the invention of the baby bottle, which saved countless babies (and farm animals) who could not be breast fed. It was “artificial” – a tube closed at one end and with a nipple at the other. But it was so low-tech that it was not an heroic or expensive measure.
"On the other hand, when people are already dying, and near death; and when they are being kept alive by elaborate machinery such as heart, kidney or breathing machines; then, when those machines are turned off, death usually follows pretty quickly. Such equipment is much more justifiably called "artificial life support." And when such elaborate equipment is being used for the terminally ill, and when death would come quickly without it, that would seem to be the only instance in which stopping its use would qualify as someone's being “allowed to die.”
"So far in the U.S., that choice is restricted by law, not freely allowed. If it were, there would be the possibility of achieving the equivalent of divorce, robbery, abandonment, economizing, respite for caretakers, etc., by purported “mercy” killing. While most people might not ever be tempted to end someone’s life for such purposes, we need protection against those times when they might be.
"Terri’s case is so controversial because of such issues. First, she is being killed, not “being allowed to die.”Second, no one and nothing has been able to stop it so far. Not Congress and the President, not Florida Legislators, Governor or State Troopers. Policemen encircle her, protect her killers, and arrest any who try to save her.
"The court system is stacked against her. One probate judge, Greer, made all the findings of fact. No higher court will revisit those findings. In defiance of the law passed by Congress and signed by the President, they would not start de novo, revisiting the facts of the case and preserving Terri’s life during the process. But the facts of the case are under serious challenge.
"Third, the decision-making arrangements concerning Terri are very troubling. While the husband may have been maligned unfairly, and may be quite sincere in his motives, the circumstances are such that his interests should be judged to be contrary to Terri’s, as they certainly would be in any divorce court. He is very disturbing as her sole guardian.
"Fourth, Terri’s future care is already assured. Her family is heart-breakingly eager to care for her the rest of her life. A foundation with over $4 million is there to pay for her care.
"Actually, almost everything about Terri’s case is troubling.
"Meanwhile, families all over the country seem to fear that if she does not die, a precedent will be set which may work against them in cases where it is much more clear that it would be legal, and appropriate, to stop “artificial life support” and allow a dying person, who is already near death, to die more quickly.
"That is probably a justified concern. This is the time, while it is on the national mind, to address those issues. We need to work out better ways of protecting innocent people from being killed simply for the convenience of others, at one end of the spectrum; and allowing the ventilator to be turned off when there is brain-death, at the other.
"A harder issue, I think, is the question in each mind, “When would my life not be worth living?” First, we probably should not be allowed to decide that for other people. Second, we really don’t know how we would feel about most reverses until we get there.
"For instance, quadraplegic Jonnie Erickson Tada wanted to die at first, then found value in her life when she learned to paint with a brush held in her teeth. Christopher Reeve found such value. The Pope has. For myself, if I knew years before that in 1969 I would have begun 7½ years in prison, I think I might have considered suicide. Yet I found it to be one of the best things that ever happened to me. How can we know such things in advance? Even when we leave clear directives asking for death instead? Some legal allowance has to be made, somehow, for our changing our minds once we get there.
"And what of the role of suffering? Though we would ‘crawl through sewers’ to avoid it (C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain), most of us can look back to some hard times that brought some future benefit. Lewis also claims most of us would be insufferable without the benefit of a certain amount of pain! Christians depend on God’s promise that he brings good out of whatever happens to us (Romans 8:28.) So far, I have to admit that he has, at least for me.
"There is also concern about slippery slopes, when we decide for death over life. That has proven to be a well-founded concern.
"The killing of unborn children in the U.S. has been allowed since 1973. Opponents predicted then it would be the beginning of a ‘slippery slope’, going on to euthanasia and ‘mercy killings.’ So it has gone. In Oregon, recently. Even more so in places like Holland, where doctors readily admit to killing a few thousand elders, handicapped children, etc., a year without asking anyone, even in open defiance of the expressed wishes of the children’s parents.
"Finally, if most of us knew more about remorse, we would be much more cautious about getting into situations where we might feel tempted to harm anyone else for our own benefit, especially when it comes to ending the life of another. In prison, every killer I knew was, in various ways, living in hell. No exceptions. Taking a life, even when justified, is very hard on many policemen and soldiers. Even for lesser offenses, of which I committed many even before I broke the law, I can testify that when remorse eventually comes - and it will - it is devastating. If we but knew, I think most of us would live very differently.
"When we come down on the side of death, there seems to be the Devil to pay. Life gets measurably worse. Standing for life seems to be the only safe way to go.
"Best wishes,
"Gerry"
posted by Old Neocon at 12:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home