Socrates died unjustly, but he died in obedience to the law. Five hundred and one citizen jurors decided his fate and he would not flee the consequence of their folly. The judicial murder of Socrates demonstrates that legal injustice is nothing new.
Let’s examine the termination of Terry Schiavo with this thought in mind.
First of all – everything done as this tragedy has unfolded has been legal according to the small “ l ” sort of law; the laws that are made by men and placed on the books of the Florida state and the American federal governments. The state judge acted under the law by declaring Mike Schiavo, Terry’s guardian. According to Florida law, the Guardian does have the power to dictate the fate of a helpless person if that person has not taken the opportunity to let their own will be known in a written document. The Congress of the United States had the duty to pass a law mandating the federal court to review the case. The President of the United States followed the law of the land when he signed the bill passed by the Congress. Once in the federal court the federal judges followed the law when they chose to uphold the original ruling concerning Mike Schiavo’s authority over the life and death of his wife. The Governor of Florida followed the statues of the state when he asked a department of social welfare to intervene. The Florida judge acted legally when he placed an injunction on saving Terry’s life until after he has ruled on its legality. And on and on it goes.
Secondly – many heart-wrenching truths and conjectures make this a challenging situation to the consciences of observers. These include:
1. There is no way of knowing Terry’s true desires in this situation.
2. Mike Schiavo has acted in a way that questions the quality of his guardianship.
3. Terry’s condition is open to interpretation and debate.
Thirdly – The law has neither a heart nor a conscience; its course is not dictated by truth or justice
As I have read and discussed the Trial and Death of Socrates I have often wished I could have been there. I have wondered if I might have saved him. The truth is that I could not have stopped his poisoning any more than he was able to. The law demanded obedience. However, I have long rejoiced in the belief that, had Socrates been accused of “disrespecting the gods of the state”, “teaching false gods”, and “corrupting the youth” in an American court, he would have been acquitted. I believe that centuries of reflection on truth and justice have crafted laws that would have done right by Socrates.
I found myself helpless in my desire to spare the life of Terry Schiavo. I look upon her cruel death with all the disgust I hold for the hemlock that killed the “best of men”. I call for an examination of the small “ l ” law that could force such injustice. We must reexamine this death so that, in future, we might align our legal power with the right. To make this transition I call for two maturing evolutions to our system.
First, we must make a careful examination of the role of the courts in our government. Like the two hundred and fifty one votes that decided every case in ancient Athens, our present judiciary seeks to place itself above all other authority. There must be a reexamination of judicial supremacy. The law is not solely the province of the courts and to pretend it is places the natural rights of citizens in jeopardy to the caprice of an oligarchy of diploma touting tyrants. The separation of powers was originally intended to be between the President (the monarchy) the Senate (the Aristocracy) and the House of Representatives (the people – the democracy). The creation of a court of last resort in the judiciary is an extra Constitutional concoction of the courts themselves. Their elevation from the subordinate role spelled out in the Constitution, to that of equal (even superior) to the elected representatives of the people; is something that needs to be carefully reexamined in the light of this week’s disaster.
Secondly – a careful examination of the unalienable right we call life is demanded. Modern technology and medicine have vastly extended the possibilities of life. Those who crafted our government to defend life did not comprehend the ambiguity that would engulf the term. Like a rising tide, possibilities have swamped the simple “on\off” switch marked life and death. Man’s every evolving abilities have created in our present world a problem of understanding which must be clarified if truth and justice are to be obtained.
I close by asking you to think about the story presented in To Kill a Mockingbird. Remember that the folks of Macomb, GA accepted without too much question the "facts" of the law. Black men could not be trusted, white jurors could not doubt a white man or trust a black one. Are we to be like Jem and Scout, and in a childlike way accept the failings of our legal system, or are we to take the broader lesson of Lee’s warning and reach out for truth and justice. I can’t help but think that most Americans would choose not to live like Boo, but not knowing “Boo’s” will, isn’t it a sin to kill a mockingbird?
Kickstarter Campaign
10 years ago
17 comments:
Ares,
You are giving credit to the system as it exists on paper, not as it exists in practice. The sole essence of the "judge" and his or her position of arbiter of the law is that they are to have an unbiased ruling based on the facts at hand and not based off of their conscience, gut, or self-righteousness. Most of the time that a court case hits the news (save for maybe some that have more famous defendants - and only a few of those), it is because the judge is leaning one way or the other causing a flaw and ignoring the facts at hand.
What Florida courts have determined in Terri's case is that she suffers from a "persistent vegitative state" (as I said it sounds like the state of Florida itself...) But in essence that doesn't mean she can't recover. It means that none of the "experts" would put odds on her in Vegas. That's why we should err on the side of life. She's not brain dead, otherwise that would be her condition and her family would let her go. No one has even defined what a vegitative state is in this case. Usually the "vegetables" are still relatively conscious, with brain wave activity, they just don't have anything real to do with how they live anymore. It's much like being imprisoned in your own body.
And yeah, having a diploma doesn't make you a tyrant. I have one and I hardly can fit that bill. I haven't become ruler of the world yet. But being a judge doesn't mean that you uphold the constitution, either. There are obviously some gray areas where they have ruled, with or without anyone elses opinions even being considered.
Truthfully, I knew that the federal courts would rule the way they did in my heart of hearts. The family doesn't have a strong case, or don't seem to be presenting it right. It's still tragic... But I guess it takes me back to the question asked here (I'm pretty sure it was DannyBoy): What would you have done to YOU in this situation? Would you want to be on a feeding tube for the rest of your "natural" life? I can't really say. Of course if I were brain dead, it's over. I can't think of a single case where someone has recovered from braindeath. But if there's ever a sliver of an almost maybe, you're damn right I'd want my family there, waiting for me to wake up. I don't want to live until I'm old, broken down, or on a respirator. It's not fun. But I'm not going to just give up because you wouldn't bet on my recovery. Blowhard's wonderful doctors that he puts so much faith in have told too many of my friends and family that they have six months to live when they are still walking and talking years afterwards. So why would I listen to them tell me that my significant other only has a sliver of a maybe to come out of her waking coma? And why the hell would I starve her to death?
I'm sorry, for a second I had to reread who was posting what... I thought I heard Lysis echoing in these hallowed halls... But I'm glad that there's affirmation of opinions...
Let's back up a step or three there, Ares. Let's hit the topic of checks and balances, just so as to make sure that you're understanding what you're talking about. But (before I forget) it has been FIFTEEN years that she has been in this "persistant vegitative state".
Anyways... The item being checked in this case is Michael's right of power of attorney over his wife. Because she is incappacitated and otherwise not able to voice her opinion, AND is married, her "voice" has been transfered to her husband as legal guardian. For minors it is transfered to the parents, incappacitated or not. The balance to this is that her parents are allowed to contest his right to guardianship if they believe that he is not acting with just intentions on her behalf. Mind you this whole system is originally derived so as to ALLOW medical treatment. Doctors aren't allowed to opperate without permission (last I heard anything about it.)
And since Mike is taking active steps to starve his wife to death, the family feels justified in stepping in (using the checks and balance system) to hault that as they feel he is overstepping his bounds. Regardless of what you're feelings are on the matter, regardless of if you want the plug pulled on you or not (a relativist and romantic argument designed to attack the heart and not the truths), if he acts in a way that is contrary to her continued existence, they have grounds to contest it. If there was a new therapy that he isn't taking advantage of (which I haven't heard anything for, it's a hypothetical to further explain) and his parents felt he wasn't doing enough, again they can step up and contest on her behalf. So don't think that what they are doing is imbalancing the system. They are well within their bounds, it's what the courts are ruling on that is the question. Not the parents right to contest otherwise a suit can be filed against them for filing frivilous lawsuits and costing tax payers money. Not something you ever want to have against you...
As for her making any steps towards recovery, that point is moot. That's far from an actual point for the proactive assassination and murder of a defenseless woman. People who are in comas don't make any steps towards recovery. They simply wake up after months or even years. The biggest difference here is that she's in a sort of waking coma. No progress can be measured in those terms, we still don't know enough about the brain. You can measure brain swelling and other quantities such as that, but with damage of this type, there's no real indicator other than whether or not the subject is conscious or not.
And on to the judges "not having a choice". If the judges didn't have a choice, the trial would never enter court. Judges have plenty of choice. I dare you argue that the Supreme Court has never made a choice. They are supposed to uphold, arguably, the most important law in this land (and likely the most revered law in many others). That is their job, why they exist. They have plenty of choice, the family simply wasn't able to prove to all of those judges that Mike was the wrong thing for Terri. If it were congress that were to oversee the case (a very serious breach in protocol) we should all know how that would go. And everyone should be aware that it would be with support from both of the major parties.
I have enjoyed reading the ideas all have put forward on this subject. I think Shadow and Ares have zeroed in nicely on the problem. What the law in Florida “now” states is that spouses are minors once they become disabled. [I have noticed that the media has been careful not to call Terry a disabled person. I wonder if that is because such a title would give her back some of the rights that Florida allows her husband to usurp because she cannot speak for herself.] Anyway – I don’t believe Florida law would countenance the abuse of children – even though they are under their parent’s majority. Florida law is either wrong or being misinterpreted by the Florida courts if it allows unfettered control by the guardian over the fate over those under the guardian’s care. This is the very point Ares made above. Perhaps we would have a more just law if it clarified the situation by stating that those with life and death authority over others, be they states, husbands, or parents, must be circumscribed by consideration of the unalienable rights of those over whom they exercise control.
I am sorry if my original post lacked unity. It was my intention to point out - through two rather different references , the execution of Socrates, and the fate of Tom Robinson – that courts are not infallible. When ever the “l law” (man made) comes into conflict with L Law (Devine Reason) we should do all we can to move the laws of men into conformity with the Laws of Nature, or Nature’s God. This terrible tragedy (the death of Terry) gives us ample opportunity to see the failings of our present system of laws and to dream of a day when we might act more justly. There are always those who will fall back on convention. For example; some will maintain that husbands will always act in the best interest of their wives. What I call for above is a clarification of the definition of life and its nature as an unalienable right. I also ask us to consider that our present system of government (which includes courts, legislatures, and executive authority) is not yet fully just. We must not simply accept this injustice – as did the citizens of Athens and Macomb; we must continue to evolve our government toward absolute compliance with the Devine Reason which we share with the gods.
The essence of decision is that there will be a choice made. If there is no decision, there is no choice.
If the facts of the matter compel a judge to rule one way, that is one thing, but often that is ceremony and involve the plaintif just admitting his guilt.
Decisions require choice, if the judges aren't allowed to decide, if the facts dictate something that is irrefutable, it usually never enters the court other than for sentencing because there's no point. That's how it would be moot.
And you did nothing to combat my points on comas. I don't have any evidence that they ever show "signs" of recovery before they do. Yet we never just pull the plug on them within the day... Why is that? Why is it that for them it is ok to live, but when it's a semantical concoction of words: "persistent vegitative state" it is ok to kill because of no signs of recovery. Address please that seeming double standard and we'll have a grounds for discussion.
People aren’t flags. Sham on you Ares!
I wrote this in response to Ares last night, but blogspot wouldn't let me post it, so I saved it. It's a tad delayed, but it should still be in context:
I'm sorry to be relentless about this, but I feel that it is a very
important part of your puzzle: In comas they feel no stimuli, as you
said, if that is the case, what is different between that and a
"persistent vegitative state"? You made no points that really seem to
say anything that you haven't already. They don't respond to stimuli.
That's your entire case. I know you're not an expert, but I'm not
the one arguing the difference of the conditions of coma and
"persistent vegitative state".
As for them "waking up". Have you ever seen a picture of Mrs. Shciavo
with her eyes closed? I haven't... Maybe that's the difference?
That it's a waking coma versus a sleeping one? Early on I had seen
footage of her and her interactions with family, etc. She had
responses, they might not have been a cognitive backflip like we seem
to want. But I would say it's a far cry from brain death.
Since Shadow wants to know the difference:
A coma is state of unconciousness much like deep sleep. Only you can't react to stimuli. There may or may not be any permanent brain damage though.
a "persistant vegetative state" is like a coma + damage of higher brain functions, like self-awareness, conciousness, personality, etc. It's all back to basics, just breathing, heart rate and the like.
Also, the longer a person stays in a PVS, the worse the damage will be, and the lower the chance of recovery.
Thanks BlackWind, but you don't happen to have a source for that, do you? I'd give it all the credibility in the world for a source that I could check. Nothing on your honesty, I'm just curious about the conditions as a person of knowledge as well as how pertinent to this matter it is.
As for you Ares, I am in agreeance when you speak of the appeals. Unfortuneately I think the judges have ruled poorly, but I don't know of the evidence they're consulting, merely what I have seen. But I am of the same mind that after so many appeals, they can't win. I don't think there's any judge that would change the dicision now. But that's a far reach, I bet.
Anyways, it doesn't really give us a good definition as to when we should "give up hope", either. If there's not much difference between a coma and a "persistant vegitative state", then what stops someone from pulling the plug after a few weeks, or months? People have recovered from things like that, but where's the line to be drawn? Before I even suggest that, I want to read actual documentation on this "persistent vegitative state". If leading experts say it exists, then someone somewhere has written a paper on that. I guess now it's time to dig into it myself.
"Recovery usually occurs gradually, with patients acquiring more and more ability to respond. Some patients never progress beyond very basic responses, but many recover full awareness. Patients recovering from coma require close medical supervision. A coma rarely lasts more than 2 to 4 weeks. Some patients may regain a degree of awareness after vegetative state. Others may remain in a vegetative state for years or even decades. The most common cause of death for a person in a vegetative state is infection such as pneumonia."
I found enough for me, for now.
It says decades, and to me the way that sentence is phraised there have been recoveries after decades... So where do we draw the line?
For any naysayers:
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Coma_vegetative_state?open
And that "decades" quotes is pretty vague. It really sounds a little taken out of context, since it doesn't seem able to decide how likely you are to recover after decades of VGS.
As for how relative the idea is, very. Quality of Life is such a HUGE part of this debate. Differentiating between the two help us see where Quality of Life outweighs the suffering she would go through.
Also, the amount of hypocrisy surrounding this case is AB-SO-LUTELY Mind shattering. And I'm not just talking about Delay's decision to NOT put his father on life support.
BlackWind, I hardly know you and I'm already a nay-sayer and a hypocrite. Excellent. So, let "he" who is without sin cast the first stone. Why is it that the hypocrisy of this situation is "AB-SO-LUTELY mind blowing"?
I daresay that we've already covered the topic of how pulling out the respirator is infinately more human than starving a person to death. The rule of threes: 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food. Hmmm... Minutes... Days... Choices. I know that most of you wouldn't want to live on a respirator, but that's not what she's doing. Would you want to be starved to death or suffocated. Lysis, I know you'd want neither, but for the sake of argument, which would you prefer?
If the quality of life is what is at issue here, then we have much more to debate than whether or not Mike's actions are appropriate. Quality of life is a broad statement that you should have confined somehow. Should we hop nation-to-nation so that we may alieviate the suffering of their peoples because we wouldn't want their quality of life?
Well I suppose it's only fair for me to ask the same of you, Apollo, as I asked of blackwind: do you have proof of that? I hardly want to defend the guy, but I think that's a mighty big and important accusation that she wanted a murder investigation if she should die. And for the record: he's not married to this new woman. He won't divorce his "wife", but he'll live in the arms of another. I suppose the question then would be: is it really Mike making the decision? Suddenly after 15 years he wants to kill her?
All speculation and heresay. I don't have anymore proof than you've shown me. So what's the point?
I don't suppose, Ares, that you'd like to explain how it would give credit to him? But of course, it would, depending on who's the judge of "standard of living". Which was the point of my rebuttle. Who decides? There are plenty of starving children in the world who's "standard of living" isn't as wonderful as yours. Yeah, it's a cliche that your mom would use to get you to eat dinner, but give me a break. The point that I'm making is what the hell does standard of living have to do with right to live? No document on Earth lists a "good" standard of living as an unalienable right, merely the persuit thereof.
Oh boy, away we go...
First off, let me apologize to Shadow, we seemed to think I was accusing HIM of being hypocritical. I meant the people surrounding the case (protestors, parents, Delay) and you seem to have taken that as an attack. I apologize for any negative connotations you got there.
Regarding HOW she dies, I fail to see how it makes a difference. She feels no pain or any other kind of stimuli. I know I wouldn't care, particularly if I had asked not to be kept alive.
Whether or not we should help other nations with a lower standard of living is a moot point. We already do that. From Going to war to bring democracy to the world (that's the current reason we are sticking to, right? I can never keep up with its changing) to delivering food, we do it.
And Holy misinformation batman! 14 year old kids? MARRIED?! I don't think so. Jodi is his live-in girlfriend. They have had 2 children, one aged 1, one aged 2 and 1/2.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/26/Tampabay/She_s_the_other_woman.shtml
Also, Shadow, if you look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
Under Medical opinions: It says experts agree over 50% of her brain is irreversibly destroyed.
and under Controversy: It says this is not the first time he has tried to cut her off (1998)
This is not a sudden "My girlfriend wants to get married so kill her" thing.
Lastly, the first paragraph of that says the believed cause of this is her bulimia, not Michael Schiavo being some horrible man.
Knowledge is power.
-The Black Wind
And brilliantly executed, too. I love it when someone takes the approaches that I would to crush the competition. And so masterfully done.
I guess this is time to remind everyone that I've known little about the case from the get go... That's why I put forth the fact that the last so many posts were mostly speculation on everyone's part, save blackwind.
Blackwind, I didn't necessarily point it out that you were attacking any of the members of this blog, but the statement was rather unclarified, and still is. It was just as easy to assume it was directed here as out against the real world. I'd like to know about the hypocracy you speak of. I'm familiar with the father not being put on life support, but that topics been covered and can be again. Most of us feel that starving to death is far more inhumane than suffocating. I'm sure I've said that too many times lately.
But we go back to the quality of life that you feel is so important here. No one has touched any further (rebuttle wise) on why it's so important, and why her quality of life should dicate whether she lives or dies. That's why the argument about starving children. Should we just let them die? Their quality of life isn't what we have or would expect, after all. Or what about those that are without homes and wandering the streets?
I think it's a very pointless and vain topic to bring up on subjects of life and death. As it stands now it smacks of elitism and could very well paint you as a modern Hitler. It tells me now that it's ok to kill Terri because of her "low" quality of life. I don't buy that, and you haven't given me any incentive to.
And Ares, I know that you are arguing for Mike's rights based off of the powers that the law give him in this land. I don't think any of us question what the current law tells us that he can do. We are questioning the morality of such an act, and the justness of that law. You've entered on the side of that, and I thank you, I might be seen on the same side of that argument. I have been before. Not agreeing with the laws, but defending the citizens that use them. It's a hard line to draw.
I don't believe that he is right. And I don't believe that the law is right. I don't even think that in a million years Terri's parents would win a battle with the system how it is now. It just shows us potential judges and politicians what we need to see: a potential gap in the system that needs to be looked at. But I can already see the counter arguments, utilizing as their sword power of attourney. It's a tough call for sure. But I think I might side with leaving it how it is. That's the point of having power of attourney after all: deciding what the incappacitated person can't. I would hope that it's almost always used for the betterment of the disabled. But in this case it is not. I can't see taking away rights like that for one mans poor choices. He will be judged at some future time, an all knowing judge (and a little bit different judging than we or the courts have been doing). I just don't see any further parries that we can make, and doctors feel she will die by week's end.
The only thing left to do now, that would ultimately change the law forever, is pray that Terri gets out of her bed and finds the nurses, asking them why she's so damn hungry. I've felt that was the only recourse for a while.
Is it just me or did I just hear Shadow giving up?
I don't see how any of that attributed to me giving up. The immovable object meets the unstoppable force. Why bother?
It's a fact that all of their appeals have failed, why would that have changed in time to save her? Was it not worth trying, certainly not. But was the outcome going to be any different? Certainly not.
Post a Comment