Wednesday, March 23rd
Every Sperm is Sacred? You've got to kidding right?
Next in my list of columnist to get the wrath of Ken is Jon Carroll. He wrote this column about Terri Schiavo and Congress. Here is my letter to him:
Mr. Carroll, I was very disappointed in your opinion piece written on March 23rd regarding Terri Schiavo.
I'm glad there is at least one thing we agree on: Terri Schiavo has been placed unfairly in the middle of a bitter political battle she doesn't deserve being inflicted on her. But you go dreadfully wrong in placing all that blame on those who want to see Terri live. This case was taken up by the "right-to-die" political proponents long before it was taken up by the "publicly pious" as you call them. It is worth noting that George Felos is a nationally recognized "right-to-die" lawyer. I'm not saying this in discredit to him, because I believe he honestly believes in the "right-to-die" movement. However, he would not be involved in this case nor would he have been involved for as long as he has if this case wasn't considered important to the "right-to-die" movement. Clearly that movement picked up on the importance of this case a long time ago. Similarly Dr. Cranford, the principle doctor on record in the cases tried before judge Greer, is a nationally recognized doctor in the "right-to-die" movement. He too would not be involved if this case was just about Terri. He too is involved because he believes PVS patients have the "right-to-die".
So while it is clear that the actions of Congress this week represent the actions and influence of a one politicized constituency, we also must be honest that the opposite side is just as politicized. In all honesty, Terri has become a precedent setting case of great national importance. Does that mean she deserves to live? No, of its own right it doesn't. But it does mean that it does belong on the national stage and that Congress is not out of place to be interested in the case.
In that sense this case is just one of a multitude of nationally important cases that, were they held at another time or considered of there own right, would be inconsequential. But just like in cases like Brown v. Board of Education, it is the nature of our nation's government and judiciary that important matters often come to the attention of the nation through a seemingly obscure case. Was there anything unique about Brown? No, there wasn't. Weren't millions of children being educated in segregated schools? Yes, there were. In fact, there was nothing more remarkable about little Linda Brown than there is about Terri Schiavo.
But none of this has anything to do with the merits of the case. Simply being one of a great multitude doesn't indicate that there is merit in either side of the case. In retrospect is quite clear that Brown v. Board of Education was an important and needed case. Without some little, inconsequential 3rd grader, we wouldn't have had this precedent setting case. Similarly it appears that without Terri Schiavo we wouldn't be having this national debate about the "right-to-die". It will surely be precedent setting in one form or another.
Yes this is a political case and yes Congress's involvement speaks of political involvement but to claim that it is single sided political case that is the fault of the "publicly pious" is disingenuous at best.
If you left your opinion piece to simply arguing that folly, I might not have even wrote the above admonishment. However, you also made some disgusting stereotypes that don't belong on the page of the San Francisco Chronicle.
Every sperm is sacred? As a faithful Catholic it disgusts me that you'll use this in what appears to be a serious opinion piece. While I enjoyed the skit/song in Monty Python's movie "The Meaning of Life", I don't find your comments even remotely appropriate. Maybe before you go quoting John Cleese you should do some actual research on the teachings of the Catholic Church and the beliefs of the Americans who stand for the sacredness of life.
It strikes me as funny that you're so quick to deny the sacredness of life (to quote you: "the idea that human life is sacred is not, alas, supported by the evidence"). Not three paragraphs later you bring up some of the great failings of our society: caring for poor children, those sick with HIV and the elderly who are neglected in their old age. Why does it matter if life isn't sacred? Why can't we just discard these children? Why can't we just kill the elderly that no one cares about? Why? Because there lives are sacred too.
Let me give you some advice from someone who has a difficult time supporting any political party: Everyone is a hypocrite of some sort. We all fail to consider all people and all interests. We all favor some group over another and without just cause. That is the nature of our humanity. That is why your tired liberal argument has been discredited. It has been discredited because it can just as quickly be thrown back in the face of those who bring it up because there is always some issue we're failing to consider. It does no good to bring it up. Or said differently, the act of bringing it up makes you a hypocrite.
Finally, it is irrelevant to mention that Congress wasn't there for the last 14.5 years bathing Terri every day. The people who most frequently visited Terri and were most responsible for caring for her are desperately fighting to save her life. While her husband rarely visits and pays for the professional care with a lawsuit won 15 years ago, it is her parents and her siblings who most often visit her. They are the ones who see her daily and brush her hair and help the nurses bath her. If we were solely interested in those who care for the disabled, this case would have been won by the Schindlers 10 years ago.
Ken Crawford
Online reader in Roseville, CA
kencraw on 03.23.05 @ 03:41 PM PST [link] [No Comments
]
Monday, March 21st
Last one for the day: another Myth of the 20th century!
Phew! I don't think I've EVER blogged this much in a day. I told you I had a lot to write!
OK, I've thought of a couple more Myth's that were popularized in the 20th century for my article/essay:
12. Men and Women are identical.
As I said in my original post I won't be using all of them and I'll be grouping some together, but this is another one that deserves consideration.
Any others out there?
kencraw on 03.21.05 @ 03:28 PM PST [link] [No Comments
]
Want to understand the will to live better? Read Jack London's 'The Sea Wolf'
While we're on these topics of life and death, I figured I should recommend a book that I think really drives to the heart of the subject (although I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions). I make sure to read this book every few years. The last time I read it was over 5 years ago. I read it to my wife in the evenings of our first few months of marriage. It is time to read it again.
You should read it too! It is a great achievement in expressing the inate desire in all of us to live:
The Sea Wolf by Jack London.
It is also, in my opinion, Jack London's best book. I can say this with some authority as I've read a great number of them: Call of the Wild, White Fang, Mutiny of the Elsinore, The Iron Heel (an interesting read) and others.
kencraw on 03.21.05 @ 03:23 PM PST [link] [No Comments
]
Why are Athiests for Euthenasia?
I used to be an Atheist, and I mean a hard-core Atheist. I was the type of Atheist who would read the Bible to be able to use it as a tool to discredit Christians. Thank God I met my wife when I did and the transforming power of God was able to help me see His presence in my life!
One of the things I most remember about being an Atheist was a great fear of death. It was very clear to me that this life was all I had. I had to "thread the needle" between living an adventurous life full of exploits and victories and carefully preserving my life. There could be nothing worse than a premature end to my life because that was it. Game over!
So why is it that Atheists are on the side of Euthenasia? You'd think that there understanding of the permanence of death would make them very weary of terminating anyone's life. Similarly, thinking as an Atheist, it doesn't make any sense that the religious would be so protective of life. Wouldn't it be good to die and go to heaven?
I think the answers to these questions are obvious, particularly for the religious person, with a little analysis. But I don't want to do that analysis right now. I just wanted to bring up this interesting thought that I bet most people don't think about.
kencraw on 03.21.05 @ 03:15 PM PST [link] [1 Comment
]
Congress's actions for Terri
It should be obvious from reading this blog that I strongly stand for Terri's life. What I question is whether we are doing the right thing in how we are fighting this fight. Should we allow a law to pass that only protects Terri and not others in her situation? Shouldn't we be pushing for laws that prevent removal of a feeding tube in all cases? Or at least in all cases without a written wish? Or at least opening a Federal review of all cases in which there is no written wish? Do the ends justify the means in this case? Does writing a law that seems to be begging a Constitutional challenge help the cause at all?
I don't know the answers to these questions but while I'm very happy that Terri may get a chance at being fed soon, I worry that the wrong actions are being taken at this point to help us win this fight against Euthenasia in the long run.
kencraw on 03.21.05 @ 03:06 PM PST [link] [No Comments
]
Watching Terri's videos and listening to Terri 'speak'
This weekend I finally got around to watching the various videos of Terri that were passed around the Internet in 2003. I also got the chance to hear Terri "speak" today from the audio from Friday.
While I think that these videos clearly show a human being worth being protected, I don't think they conclusively "prove" she's not PVS. In fact, I think that they will only prove whatever you already believe. If you believe that she's a blob, then she's going to look like a blog to you. If you believe she's a human being worth saving, the videos are only going to re-enforce that.
In fact, I'm worried that these videos only send the wrong message. In some twisted way they re-enforce the notion that "Quality of life" is all that matters. In some sense it is saying, "See! Look, she's got a life 'worth living'! Save her!" Isn't that in some way an implicit endorsement of the "Quality of life" philosophy? Wouldn't it be more important to argue against "Quality of life"?
kencraw on 03.21.05 @ 03:00 PM PST [link] [No Comments
]
Terri Schiavo's two separate problems
(I guess this is #2.5 on my list for the day)
I've been trying to wrap my brain around why there are so many people who think it is acceptable to let Terri Schiavo die. I occured to me yesterday that she has two separate "problems" that people like to treat as one.
The first problem she has is that she is significantly mentally handicapped. I heard my father-in-law say yesterday "Who would want to live like that?" Obviously anyone given the choice between living like Terri or between living without a mental handicap would choose to live without the handicap. However, I think many do not consider that the choice I just presented is not the choice we're talking about. The choice we're talking about is the choice between living with a severe mental handicap and being killed because that life "isn't worth living". I think it is very arrogant to say that the life of a handicapped person isn't worth living. We don't know what it is like to live like that and as such it is arrogant to assume that a life in that state "isn't worth living" or said differently, is worth killing.
But the vast majority of people are not willing to kill people who's lives "aren't worth living". Somewhere in their gut they know that there is something bothersome about doing that. I want to make this very clear that this applies even when it is "against the wishes" of the person in that state. If someone were to say "I'd hate being severely mentally handicapped" and then they were to get in an accident that left them as a "vegitable" but that person needed no medical help in living (I don't consider spoon feeding medical help), the vast majority of people wouldn't be willing to kill them even though they may have communicated that it was their wish. We don't let healthy people who think their life isn't worth living commit suicide and we apply the same principle to handicapped people, despite their wishes.
But Terri Schiavo has a second problem: she can't swallow. As such, she needs a feeding tube to eat. This all of a sudden changes things for a number of people. But I think that it only changes things for them because she is mentally handicapped. Last week I saw a local news story about a boy who had some kind of throat or mouth problem that required that he have a feeding tube. In all other ways (well, he might have been mute as a result of his deformity) he was a regular boy. Nevertheless he was going to need a feeding tube for the rest of his life. No one would suggest that this boy is on "life support" and that they needed to pull the plug. I suspect that if the boy said he wanted to die because he felt his "life wasn't worth living" the outcry to prevent his Mom from removing the tube would be overwhelming, as well it should be.
But here we have Terri Schiavo. A woman who needs a simple tube in her stomach to be able to eat and drink. If that alone was her problem, there would be no one who would stand up and ask that her feeding tube be removed no matter what her wishes were. Yet it is only because she is severely mentally handicapped, even in persistent "vegitative" state, that people are willing to consider this. Said differently, it is only their fears of her mentally handicapped state being "not worth living" that opens up the possiblity that her feeding tube is considered "life support".
Handled separately, neither her supposed PVS state nor her feeding tube would be cause for killing her. Why is it we are willing to do it with both symptoms together?
kencraw on 03.21.05 @ 02:40 PM PST [link] [No Comments
]
Question of the Week: What does the Catholic Church teach about end of life issues?
The short answer to this question is: a lot.
But with the story of Terri Schiavo, who is Catholic, taking up so much of the media attention I thought I'd answer a question about what the Catholic Church has to say about end of life issues.
There's a long-standing Internet belief in The Two things. As the story goes, someone once realized "For every subject, there are really only two things you really need to know. Everything else is the application of those two things, or just not important." See the above link for an amazing number of examples.
Here is my take on what The Two Things are for the Catholic perspective on end of life issues:
1. All life is valuable.
2. We need not fear death.
From the Catholic perspective, every human being is made in God's image and is inherently valuable. We are not to de-humanize anyone. People who are physically handicapped or mentally handicapped and just as much people as our most elevated athletes or experts. Similarly, the poor and the weak are just has valuable as the rich and powerful.
So we must charish life and everything we do must reflect that love for life.
However, that being said, as Catholic's we recognize that death is a part of life. In fact, for us to rise again in the company of God, we must first die. That is the pascal mystery: dying and rising to new life. We need not fear death, in fact, we must embrace this difficult part of life.
So when dealing with end of life issues, the issue comes down to satisfying both of The Two Things. While it may make "practical economic sense" to kill every infant born with a deformity that will ensure their burden on society is greater than their contribution to society, that clearly doesn't satisfy valuing all life. However, when an infant is born without sufficient lungs and there is no way to save them or help them live, it is not immoral to take them off the ventilator that will help them live for another few days and let them die. Said differently, we need not use every medically feasible option to try and prolong a life that is in the process of expiring.
This long-standing belief that the use of "extrodonary means" to keep someone alive is not morally necessary, recently was re-examined by our Pope, John Paul II in regards to feeding tubes. There were those who would call a feeding tube, "life support" and hence would deem its use as using "extrodinary means". The Pope clearly contradicted this belief saying that providing food and water is not "extrodinary" care. We have an obligation to try and provide food for everyone who is hungry and this obligation extends beyond those who can not afford food but to those who need physical help in receiving that food. A pretty obvious example of this would be a weak man or woman lying in a bed without the strength to use a spoon to eat from the bowl of soup in their lap. We have an obligation to help that person eat by spoon feeding them even though the could do it themselves.
Similarly, in cases like Terri Schaivo, where the person is in no way dying, we are obligated to feed them with a feeding tube and that this is not extrodinary care and as such is morally required.
kencraw on 03.21.05 @ 02:13 PM PST [link] [No Comments
]
Reflections on Sunday's readings
I figured that this week I'd have a lot to say about the Passion of Christ, which I do. I think that I will save those reflections for Good Friday when we will hear this central story of our faith played out again.
Today, however, I'm going to focus on one line of the Passion story that struck me. "And all the disciples spoke likewise." It struck me so much that I decided to make it the scripture quote of the week despite the multitude of great and important quotes to be used from the Passion story.
This quote comes from the portion of the Passion story that focuses on Peter's betrayal. Most of the time when I think of the story, I think of Peter alone both proclaiming his loyalty and faltering the next morning. But he didn't speak alone. He spoke first or at least as the lead representative of the 12 disciples, but it doesn't change the fact that "all the disciples spoke likewise."
To me, this was a strong glimpse/foreshadowing of the Catholic Church. The Church is led not just by the Pope, the successor of Peter, but by ALL the bishops, the successors of ALL the disciples. And just like the 12 sitting at the table with Jesus, they are all human. They all fail. The all dispurse when the shepard is struck down. They all deny Jesus.
But somehow, despite all of this, they manage to act as one body. It seems to me that we see the Catholic church at it's best when the Holy Father speaks (leads) and the entire chorus of bishops speak likewise. Because just as Peter fell separately from the rest of the 12, when they all spoke together, they spoke of the truth we should all be striving for:
"Even though I should have to die with you, I will not deny you."
kencraw on 03.21.05 @ 01:21 PM PST [link] [No Comments
]
A lot to post on today
I have a lot to post about today, hopefully I'll get to it all. Here's the list (in order I plan to complete):
1. Reflections on yesterday's reading.
2. Question of the week.
3. Terri Schaivo video/audio.
4. Terri's congressional law thoughts.
5. Fomer Athiest turned Catholic reflections on Euthenasia.
6. Added topics for Myth's of 20th century.
Check back later...
kencraw on 03.21.05 @ 11:40 AM PST [link] [No Comments
]
Scripture Quote of the Week
Peter said to him, "Even though I should have to die with you, I will not deny you." And all the disciples spoke likewise.
Matt 26:35
kencraw on 03.21.05 @ 11:34 AM PST [link] [No Comments
]
