[Peace-discuss] Re: Liberals and Schiavo

[C. G. Estabrook]

Ideas aren't responsible for the people who believe in them, Tom: you
can't determine that something is false simply because people whom you
disapprove of believe it's true.  E.g., the "extreme right" are
Copernicans -- most of them, anyway -- and you wouldn't reject that view
just because they hold it.

So the question becomes, Is the state's procedure in this matter properly
termed "murder"?  The OED defines it as "The deliberate and unlawful
killing of a human being, esp. in a premeditated manner." The state's
action is obviously deliberate and premeditated -- that's what the court
cases have been about -- and it is certainly killing, not "letting die."  
As Harriet McBryde Johnson points out in the piece I posted earlier, "Ms.
Schiavo is not terminally ill ... The question is whether she should be
killed by starvation and dehydration."

The only question, then, is whether it's unlawful.  So far, the courts
have held that it is not, but we all agree that courts can err.  Johnson
again: "Obviously, Florida law would not allow a husband to kill a
nondisabled wife by starvation and dehydration; killing is not ordinarily
considered a private family concern or a matter of choice. It is Ms.
Schiavo's disability that makes her killing different in the eyes of the
Florida courts. Because the state is overtly drawing lines based on
disability, it has the burden ... of justifying those lines." Many people
(I'm among them) think that her disability doesn't justify her killing. As
Nader suggests, if there were this many doubts about a death penalty case,
it wouldn't be hard to see the execution as "judicial murder."

And I'm sure you would agree, perhaps particularly in the midst of war but
also domestically, that there are many murders done by the state, and yet
we rarely think that it's right or prudent to "take up arms and kill" in
response.  E.g., I wouldn't support attacking our Congressional
representative, although he undoubtedly has blood on his hands.

You seem very sure of your medical diagnosis, Tom -- much surer that the
courts whose pronouncements you support.  As Nader and his medical
colleague say, "The medical and rehabilitation experts are split on
whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state or whether Terri can be
improved with therapy. There is only one way to know for sure -- permit
the therapy."

Since you've obviously noticed that "the courts are not merely permitting
medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead," you
have to contend that there's not really a human being there anymore. But
you know that if her husband shot her, he would be prosecuted -- properly,
I'd say.  (Nader asks pointedly, "So why then does he not rise above the
acrimony and request from the court to give up his guardian status to
Terri's family? Why does Terri need to die? What interest, given the
family's desire to care for her, does the government have in ordering a
fatal procedure?")

Your legal argument seems to be a (surprising) assertion of state's
rights, anathema to progressives for two centuries.  And you know of
course that Congress frequently passes private bills, and that the
"separation of powers" doesn't mean that there's no contact between the
branches.  I in fact think it's quite dangerous to call upon independent
(i.e., undemocratic) courts to reform the social order -- a sort of legal
vanguardism.

Your touching faith in the science and rationality to be found in the
bourgeois state is again surprising.  I would have expected us to agree
that the state should be severely limited in its power to kill people.

(I am also surprised to find you supporting Clinton.  Not only was he
guilty as charged, his appropriate removal from office -- and the effects
of a Gore incumbency -- would have been the surest way to prevent a
Republican victory in 2000.  Nader was right about that, too.)

Finally, to return my first point, it's surely a mistake to say, "Whatever
Delay is for, I'm against!"  He might cross you up by coming out for
something you'd favor -- like Nixon's guaranteed annual income. I'm
convinced of the empirical truth of what we've called the Incompleteness
Principle on News from Neptune: "No one can be wrong all the time."

Regards, Carl


On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Tom Mackaman wrote:

> I'm sad to see you lining up with the extreme right in your coments
> below on the Schiavo case, Carl.  Using rhetoric such as "judicial
> murder", as you do, would be merely juvenile if it weren't so
> significant.  But such blood-curdling rhetoric has consequences.  If
> you really think, joining Delay and the quasi-fascist right, that this
> is "murder," then those who would take up arms and kill in order to
> "liberate" Schiavo would be within their right, as would those who
> might seek revenge on her "killers".  The very same language you use,
> Carl, has incited deranged anti-abortion zealots to kill doctors in
> the past.  As it stands, Michael Schiavo has already been the target
> of planned assasinations, and one religious fanatic (from Illinois!)
> attempted to seize guns in order to attack the hospice.  M. Schiavo
> and the judges involved have to be under 24 hour police surveillance.  
> So much for the "culture of life".
> 
> Like all the articles that view the situation as one of murder, that
> which Carl posted rests on misinformation.  T. Schiavo is not
> "disabled"(!), nor is she merely "brain damaged."  All the credible
> neurologists who have analyzed her have concluded that there is zero
> brain activity and zero chance for recovery.  Her brain is liquified;
> all that remains is a brain stem (the end of the spinal column) which
> controls the series of nervous reactions her parents tragically
> mistake for communication.  The only basis to argue that she thinks,
> "wants to live," or to believe that she has the chance to recover, is
> religion.  Of course, that is the principle that her parents and the
> extreme right operate from.  Yes; Schiavo cannot now say what she
> wants-- nor will she ever be able to do so.  The courts in this case
> have based their decision on the aforementioned scientific analysis
> and the legal guardianship that her husband maintains as next-of-kin.  
> This is as it should be.
>  This case is signficant for a number of reasons.  Most prominent
> among them has been the attempt to pass a number of special laws
> designed for one person.  That is a striking departure from
> long-standing Anglo-Saxon legal tradition and presages further erosion
> in basic civil rights.  It is an attack on both the separation of
> powers (the executive and the legislative attacking the judicial) and
> the theory that governance be constructed as rule of law over rule of
> men.  Second, it shows the degree to which out-and-out relgious
> irrationality has been embraced as public policy by most of the ruling
> elite and the media.  Science and rationality prevailed in the court
> decision, but they have taken a beating at the hands of the press and
> the political class.  Third, and contrary to what Carl argues, it
> shows once again the spinelessness of the liberal Democrats in
> Congress, who either lined up with the religious fanatics or simply
> vanished, in spite of polls which show that the vast
>  majority of Americans--including a majority of born-agains--think the
> press, the zealots, and the media should butt out!  Fourth, it is
> reaffirming to see how rationally the public has digested this case,
> in spite of the media storm and the hysterical calls of "murder", such
> as Carl deploys here.
>  As for Nader, this is not the first time he has lined up with the
> "moralists" of the extreme right.  Nader also openly championed the
> impeachment of Clinton over the Lewinsky affair.
>  On a lighter note, Carl closes by writing, in regard to Delay, "my
> enemy finds inimical is my friend? [sic?] That's a pretty weak
> argument."  No!  It's more than a strong argument; it should be
> adopted as a Universal Law.  If anyone ever has any doubts on an issue
> or no time to think, they will never go wrong by taking the line
> opposite Delay!
> 
> The wsws.org, by the way, has done excellent analysis of the Schiavo
> case.  Pasted below is a link to an exchange on the matter:
>  Best regards, Tom
>  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/schi-m28.shtml
>