I’ve been thinking a lot about Terri Schiavo, which, I think, puts me in some pretty good company–that of people who believe life is sacred and we shouldn’t allow it to end without good reason.
Like the abortion and death penalty debates, poor Terri has become a nexus of American confusion among our nation of laws, our nation under God, and our nation currently being run by the people who only believe in the law or God when it suits their political purpose.
As for what I think of whether Terri Schiavo should die, I couldn’t put it nearly so well as Harriet McBryde Johnson did on Slate yesterday. If Terri can live, like any profoundly injured or ill person–with care and feeding–she should. What’s being done to let her die is wrong, but it does have a rationale I can understand. It is not murder theologically unless Michael Schiavo believes it to be. He doesn’t. Unlike DeLay, Frist and Bush, he’s not a cynic. And whether Michael Schiavo is right or not, someday he will know when his own time comes.
What makes the political right’s attempt to keep Terri alive even more vile than her husband’s desire to let her die though is beautifully summed up by this piece by Dahlia Lithwick, also posted on Slate yesterday. She points out the irony of the right’s signature “defense of marriage” at the same time they are willing to put government firmly between a man and his wife. (Lithwick also notes that the money which has paid for Terri’s care came from a malpractice lawsuit of just the sort Congress wants to limit.)
When it comes down to it, I think I’d rather have someone like Michael Schiavo representing my interests than DeLay, Frist or Bush. I can only hope that that epiphany I spoke of above comes, too, to that unholy trinity. It would be great if it came early in November 2006, but I can wait for St. Peter if I have to.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply