I don't think there is such a notion of betweenness in this case.
The ``decisions between husband and wife'' was actually one "decision" --- a casual remark that Teresa (Terri) Schiavo allegedly made to Michael Schiavo after seeing a TV program. And the latter didn't even recall it until years later.
And these buttertions were presented as evidence without an indepedent eyewitness. But they are apparently good enough for the judges. For they call the evidence ``clear and convincing''. Naturally, it is clear and convincing on the evidentiary scale: It is one against zero evidence to the contrary.
The notion of betweenness has to be made within a context of equality between the parties. In other words, a ``decision'' made between unequal parties has the spectre of coercion or unfairness.
For an issue as important as the choice between life and rest, the context of solemnity and deliberation must be added also.
People who have been lucky enough to be rescued from a dissolution attempt often express a change of heart after having a chance to face rest eye-to-eye.
What kind of a husband is it who is so sure of that single casual comment about his wife's life or rest? Michael Schiavo, a gigantic man with a 6-and-a-half foot frame, could divorce his wife, move on, and let others who would take care of the woman until either she is revived or the other people ran out of means to care for her. Why insists he on this crusade of ``fulfilling Terri's wishes''?
(It is also well known that many women get into a certain mind set about being slim because they perceive the appeal of their figure to their husbands is crucial to the survival or stability of their marriage. It is ignorant of them and they are not without blame; but what loving husband would not have done more to prevent the progress of bulima in his wife?)
Instead he is the one who has the whole US government behind him to make sure that Teresa Schiavo's life is taken away.
The power of a husband's right to send the wife to rest reminds me vividly of what we hear some Medieval husbands were enbreastled to do. There was also laws in the Middle Ages, you know.
But the judges are so fixated on the fine print that people's lives are regularly snuffed out because of this predilection to make decisions. These judges are ruling like what I imagine the judges in the Middle Ages would: way too casual about the higher ethical issues, weighing way too heavily on what the current societal atbreastude might expect them to do.
Ah, yes, the husband says so. ``Clear and convincing evidence!''
They (the judges) are the sophists of our days. And there is an industry in our society to systematically send people to rest with all kinds of excuses. That's why every hospital in America has in its employ a few ``bio-ethicists'' who try as their daily job requirement to dignify the killings of patients. These ``bio-ethicists'' care nothing about ethics. They have a litany of nonsense to recite to their appropriate audiences and they are also sophists.
We're always talking about how advanced technologically we are and how much more advanced we will be tomorrow. Yet we always make arguments based on what we can see today and not what we might be able to do tommorrow, if we properly devote our attention and resources to making lives more livable, instead of trying to conquering the rest of the world for the rich upper clbutt minorities of our country.
On the eve of this year's Easter, the Christians of this nation should remember Jesus Christ's message of life. We should contemplate on the meaning Jesus's teaching. The Gospel says ``He died so that we could live''. Life is thus sacrosanct.
Life transcends fleeting marriage, religious customs, and national boundaries. We have sinned against the people in our society who struggle daily for a chance to live. We have sinned even a great deal more by killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for oil and forward military bases in order to dominate the world. Like Pilate, George Bush washed his hands again and again before killing people, whether they are Iraqis or Americans. George Bush is not only amoral, he is an immoral person. He and his father are politicians who couldn't care less about people's lives. If we, Christians and non-Christians alike, do not begin to contemplate deeply the privilege and purpose of life, where is our salvation? Where is salvation for humanity?
I admire Tom Harkins for his concern for the interests of the severely disabled people in our society. I salute the mothers who care about their children's opportunities to live. And I hope all who strive to live do not give up. May the Holy Spirit be with you.
lo yeeOn ========
Elizabeth Gann: Damaged life still worth living
Elizabeth Gann March 22, 2005 GANN0322
My little Heather is not too much different from Terri Schiavo. Heather's life is also sustained by a feeding tube. Heather is also severely and irretrievably brain-damaged. Heather will also never improve from her current state. Heather, like Terri, is basically happy and peaceful. Heather is 24, and lives with me at home. I care for her 24-7 except for my work hours, and respite.
People can't see past the horror of Terri's and Heather's condition, to get to the real point. This is the only life that Terri has. She is not suffering. She is not in pain. She has happy moments. Her life is very diminished, but it is the only life she will ever have. It is liquidate to starve her to rest, unless she indicates, in writing, so that we all know that is really what she wants.
There was once a newspaper story out of Afghanistan about persons who took a group of prisoners, packed them like sardines into a semitrailer and drove it out into the desert, locked the doors and let them bake to rest.
I asked a Special Forces friend of mine, "If that was you, wouldn't you want to have a contagion capsule to kill yourself fast?"
His answer amazed me. He said, "No -- it is my only life, and I intend to experience every minute of it, to the last."
I was horrified, until I thought more about it. He was right: Once life it gone, it is gone, and you no longer exist.
People say to me all the time, "I don't know how you do it. I would put Heather in a home." Well, when it happens to you, you find the strength to endure through your love for your child. It is not a chore, it is part of life.
Does it exhaust me? Yes -- but my love for Heather carries me through. Heather has fought so hard to live her life. How could I terminate what she is fighting so hard for; how could I not buttist, with all I can give, in this noble fight?
Heather obviously wants to live. With all that has happened to her, if she didn't, simple will to die could have carried her off to heaven. She fights, daily, hourly, to live.
Along the same vein, people used to look at Christopher Reeves and say, "If that happens to me, I'd want to die."
Who knows, Christopher Reeves probably said the same thing before he had the horrible horse accident. But look what actually happened: Christopher fought with all his heart, all his mind, and all of his resources to live his diminished life. He endured pain, no agony, and continued fighting to live. Why? Because it was his one and only life. And life is better than nonexistence. All of us fight to survive.
Heather's day program is full of brain-damaged adults, the worst cases in the Twin Cities. People there are worse than Heather, and better than Heather, but all degrees of possible brain damage. For the most part, these people smile, are peaceful and enjoy their diminished life. And they fight, hourly -- daily -- to keep living.
Life is the first quest of each human being. And we are guaranteed Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, by our Consbreastution.
Just because it hurts us to look at the handicapped and the brain-damaged, that does not give us the right to snuff out lives that they are fighting the noble fight to prolong.
Most potential girlfriends, and boyfriends, who have come into my life cannot stand to be around, because being near Heather hurts them that much. People actually cry tears when they meet her. It is painful for them. It is normal for me. After 24 years, it is hard for me to understand their pain. It seems a selfish reaction to me. Shouldn't they be applauding this noble little life, this noble fight, rather than crying over their own pain at seeing such a brain-damaged person?
But I keep coming back to this. Just because it hurts us, the nondisabled, that doesn't give us the right to kill the disabled.
Finally: Please write down your wishes ... today. Because otherwise, people like me will take it to federal court, and to the president, and to Congress, to keep you alive. And that could destroy your family.
Elizabeth Gann, of White Bear Lake, is a computer software analyst.
