Thursday, March 24, 2005
Terry Schiavo
Ok, since most of our conversations seem to be stalled right now, I want to jump into a new one: the Terry Schiavo situation. It strikes me that this is a tremendously important issue for all sorts of reasons and is on my mind (and probably yours) all the time as the media gives us a minute by minute accounting of this woman hanging between life and death. So, what do you think? Should her husband have the right to decide what is in the best interest of his wife, to interpret her desire to be kept alive or not by artificial means? Or, conversely, should the parents be able to legally trump the husband (who is, after all, her legal guardian) when they disagree with his decisions? And why in the world has this become so politicized? Schiavo has become exemplary—she is able to function as a signifier in this discourse because she is both just like so many other people (and thus, a representative example), and also somehow different from all the rest such that she stands out and is separate from all those in her condition. And it is this difference that most interests me. What is it about her, in particular, that allows hers to be the one “personal” life and death decision, out of the hundreds made each day, that Congress, and even the President of the United States, takes notice of and tries to intervene in? Think about that—Congress passed a law, that Bush quickly signed, that applies to the body of an individual. This use of federal power is, to my knowledge, without precedent. But even as I say that, I think back to the one rainy day we had over spring break when I sat for a few hours and watched as Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa and the rest testified to a congressional subcommittee, again about their bodies. To what extent should Congress be involved in baseball (which, at its core, is business and entertainment) or the Schiavo case? Should the federal government have the right to exert power over individual bodies? And what does it mean that the Republican party, traditional champion of limited government and states rights, is so aggressively seeking to expand the power of the legislature into these other regions? Maybe those of you with more economic/political science backgrounds can help me out with this. But I think we can all agree that, no matter where we come down in all of this, something very interesting is happening in this country of ours. I have my theories, which I will share in a few days when I have more time, but until then… let’s have a conversation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, I don't believe that any of us have the information necessary to pass judgment on the personal decisions made by Michael Shiavo and by Terry's parents, and I think the media coverage of this aspect has been overly invasive and somewhat perverse. The legal and political issues, however, are really too interesting not to talk about.
As for the rest of the issues in this post, the word that comes to mind is "hyposcisy". There's no corruption in the federal government, so they have the time and money to investigate major league baseball. Give me a break. How often have we heard Republicans in congress perpetually complain about "revisionist" judges who try to write new laws instead of interpreting the laws passed by the legislature, but in this case it is the legislative branch that is encroaching on the judiciary. If congress doesn't like a judgment, then they pass an ad hoc law (something which violates the very principle of law) and move the case into a different court. I thought they were the great defenders of "separation of powers"? Speaking of which, they also trampled all over the authority of the State of Florida, and I can tell you from experience that Southern Republicans (or Southerners in general) are not a fan of the Federal government taking power away from the states (remember the 1860s?). Not to mention the fact that the powers of the Executive have expanded more in the last 5 years than in any administration since FDR. I was talking to a friend just yesterday about whether the Republican party can maintain its small-government, limited-federal-power base if it continues on its power hungry growth spurt. But the really amazing thing, at least in Texas, is that almost none of the conservative republicans seem to see any problems (or even any changes) in the current government's abandoment of the republican party's traditional platform. I don't get it. OK, I'll stop now.
Even the Japanese media has taken its cue from the American media, and has begun to give us frequent updates in the situation.
www.sahv.com/pictures/
I wish the Federal government would have stayed out of the Schiavo case, and as insensitive as this sounds, I'm sick of hearing about it. I believe in the sanctity of life, but unless there's a legitimate chance of recovery (there's a debate, how much of a chance of recovery is legitimate?), I have no problem with taking someone off life support.
Then, you get this case with conflicting family wishes. I like a suggestion that I read in the paper the other day. The laws could be revised that the plug is not pulled on a patient as long as there is some close family who want to keep going and are willing to find a way to cover the treatment.
Of course, in the Schiavo case you get the awkwardness that the husband wants to remarry, but his wife is sort of alive still.
As for why Schiavo case is publicized, many have accused it of being a publicity stunt by Republicans to make Christian supporters think that the Republican party is responding to their wishes. And I must admit that some people at my church did respond to it that way.
At the risk of offending someone, it scares me when people rabidly support political parties even though these people usually don't investigate the issues or accept the party line as true and suspend thought from that point on.
Andy...have you been reading too much Foucault? Be honest, now...
Post a Comment