I’ve been rather active in the current current discussion about Terri Schindler-Schiavo. I’ve discovered that my opinions don’t fit well on either side of the argument, and I’ve been active because this sort of situation has been more than an ideological exercise for me in the past. But after several days of hard thought and discussion, I’ve reached the end of the road. There isn’t a positive outcome right now.

There is little doubt that Michael Schiavo could have provided better care for Terri. But it also seems that her parents went up and down the state court system in Florida to no avail, leading me to think that either there are serious problems with the family courts, or Mr. Schiavo’s care was not as terrible as some would have us believe. I’m having trouble determining which is the case, given that the versions of the facts that each side presents are so different.

The federal government, in the shape of Congress and the President, have gotten involved with S. 686, aimed specifically at getting the Schiavo matter into the federal court system. While there is proof that much of this is nothing more than political grandstanding, our legislators are painting themselves as warriors for the “culture of life” that is so important for the Republian party (note, however, that most conservatives, while fighting for Ms. Schiavo’s life, have no problem strapping criminals into the electric chair). While conservatives are framing this as protecting someone’s right to live, I see it (as does Joe Kearns) as encroaching on our ability to make medical decisions for our families.

For me, the issue at stake here is simple — is it morally permissible to allow someone who is sick to die? Are we morally obligated to poke holes in our loved ones to pump them full of food, oxygen, and medicine? What defines extra-ordinary medical measures? Fifty years ago (as Dr. Kearns so eloquently points out) we allowed our family members to pass away when they were sick, partially because medical technology couldn’t necessarily keep them alive, but also perhaps because that generation understood death (especially from a Christian perspective) a bit better. Conservatives have cried “Nazi” at this, claiming we are only a short step away from the eugenics of the Third Reich. We only slouch toward totalitarianism when the State cannot allow families to care for their own. Let us make the medical decisions for our loved ones. If someone believes this has been done in bad faith, the state court system can arbitrate those disagreements. A “culture of life” does not mean we cannot allow our loved ones to pass away.

But this is the end of the road for me on this topic. Any effort to find a bedrock moral compass for this issue will fail. There are only two conclusions to be draw — either we do everything possible in every situation to prolong life (whether or not the family or patient approves) or we simply do not care for the sick. Neither option is very palatable or, at least for me, morally appropriate. So I’m left with a grey area — one which I hope to never have to navigate again. But I’m done talking about it.

I leave this with Dahlia Lithwick’s take on our activist Congress

Posted on 22 March 2005