As past posts indicate, I have been repeatedly disappointed by rulings the U.S. Judiciary has handed down regarding the Terri Schiavo case. And true to form we find that the United States Supreme court has once again issued a ruling bereft of concern and acknowledgement of life's sanctity.
With the appeal of Terri's parents denied by the Supreme Court, the AP reports, "Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, had urged the high court Thursday not to intervene because her case has been endlessly litigated. This was at least the fifth time the nation's high court has declined to get involved in the Schiavo case." What's remarkable about this point is that it is her husband (a real stand-up guy who already has another family since she was injured) who wants to murder his ailing wife. It's a strange reflection on marriage vows and the whole phrase "till death do us part." Apparently he just wants to take a proactive role in death doing them part. I guess I can't argue with being proactive.
Cynicism aside, the case itself is really astounding. Terri left no living will, had no records indicating her wish to die. In fact, she was responsive to the scant therapy afforded her before a handful of doctors listed her in a persistent vegetative state. By definition a persistent vegetative state is "a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain no cognitive function and a preserved sleep-wake cycle."
Yet, the exact definition of cognitive neurological function, or cognition, is one very much open for debate because it involves the mental process of knowing- including aspects of awareness, perception, reasoning and judgment. Certainly I'm no expert, but it's an obvious fact that scientists and doctors are still learning how the brain controls these key facets of our day to day existence. The fact is, we don't actually know how we perceive, reason, or demonstrate awareness. As a result, how a small team of doctors (to be fair, the number of doctors who have examined her is necessarily scant) can rule some one unfit to live or in this state is a big question of ethics.
More to the point perhaps is the issue of the Judiciary. It's very disheartening to see that despite the effort of two branches of Federal Government to respect life, our despotic third branch (the evil step-child?) refuses to abide by the basic values its citizens and leaders hold dear. It's clear that more conservative, judges are needed to favorably mitigate these difficult social issues. I hope this will send a strong wake up call to the United States Senate to use the 'nuclear' option and make sure we have some good judges who respect life.
As an aside, the Supreme Court and previous court rulings have consistently failed to realize that starving a woman to death is not dignity, but rather cruel and unusual. Instead, the whims of a bloodthirsty judge with a liberal axe to grind carry the day while a poor woman starves in a FL hospice. The irony of the left is that while they raise arms in death penalty suits bemoaning the 'archaic' method of execution, they refuse to raise a similar voice in the case of an innocent woman who is executed by a a judge.
Then, there's the comments of Scott Schiavo, Terri's brother in law who said, "This is not about Terri anymore. This is all a political view...They're being bullied, actually, by these right-for-life people, basically telling them, 'If you don't go our way, you won't get our votes." Amazing. You have a man who wants to kill his wife with the courts blessing and the right-to-life supporters are the ones who are being bullies? It seems to me that murdering a helpless woman is a far greater act of bullying but maybe that's just me?