The Execution of Terri Schiavo
Commentary by Judie Brown
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10779.shtml
It is with great sadness that we reflect upon the death of Terri Schiavo, an innocent victim of a heinous crime, who was unjustly sentenced to die an excruciatingly painful death by starvation and dehydration. Words cannot express the inhumanity of the actions taken against Terri.
Despite what was played out in the mainstream news media, Terri Schiavo was not a “vegetable,” nor was she terminally ill. Numerous medical professionals, including neurologists, attested to this truth. Before her feeding tube was so callously removed, Terri functioned as a living, breathing, human person who simply received her food and water by different means than most people. These differences did not warrant the violence imposed upon her through the cruel and misguided desires of persons who wished to expedite her death.
The citizens of this country and beyond should be outraged at the process that led to Terri’s painful death. Terri’s human rights were trampled as she was forced to die in a manner deemed inhumane for even an animal. The entire chain of events was deplorable and avoidable.
Among the many erroneous assertions that have been made during this whole ordeal is the suggestion that it is somehow permissible to take the life of a person who deems his existence not worth continuing. Well, that is wrong, not only because of religious teaching, but because that is the Natural Law. The Natural Law is what is imprinted on your heart. You can rationalize all you wish, but the taking of one’s own life is wrong, and the assignment of that purported right to other persons is equally wrong.
A second erroneous assertion is that a feeding tube constitutes extraordinary treatment. Granted, most of us do not take our food and water via tube feedings, but there is nothing extraordinary about nutrition and hydration. That was, in fact, the only thing that was different about Terri Schiavo’s care. Her heart continued to beat on its own. She continued to breathe on her own. Yes, she was disabled and took nutrition and hydration through a tube. Physically, she was in good condition. Withdrawing food and water did not “permit her to die.” It was the direct – and only – cause of her death.
The pundits worked up their most theatrical furrowed brows and solemnly intoned the near-commandment-like declaration that everyone simply must go out and sign a living will, lest they end up in a predicament similar to Terri’s. Perhaps putting things in writing will eliminate doubts about a person’s own views. But the matter of interpreting a living will is still in the hands of others, who may not interpret the document the way the signer intended. You may rightly say that if you are dying, extraordinary means need not be used to extend your life. However, as noted, some now consider food and water to be “extraordinary means.” Despite your wishes to the contrary, if you were to become incapacitated, you could face starvation at the hands of uncaring people who would prefer to see you dead.
Anyone who does have such a written declaration should immediately revise it to insist that nutrition and hydration must be provided, except in the time immediately prior to death when the body can no longer process them.
The most egregious erroneous assertion during Terri’s plight was the suggestion that she was experiencing “death with dignity.” A death by starvation and dehydration imposed by judicial directive while a loving family desperately pleaded for mercy is anything but dignified.
Death with dignity is lovingly letting go of a dying loved one, knowing you and the medical professionals have done everything possible to treat the condition, surrendering to the inevitable when the realization sinks in that death is the only possible outcome, and doing the utmost to make the loved one’s final days on earth as pleasant and pain-free as humanly possible.
No, that did not apply in Terri Schiavo’s case at all. As previously noted, she was severely disabled, but alive and otherwise well until her source of nutrition and hydration was cut off. The physical impacts of denying nutrition and hydration are graphic, and need not be recounted here as they have been accurately reported elsewhere. Whether Terri felt any pain during this ordeal is irrelevant. It was inhumane treatment, more cruel and unusual than any lawful form of capital punishment. It was treatment that would not be tolerated if inflicted upon a dog, yet it was imposed on a human being, a person.
It is our sincere hope that this tragedy will serve as an impetus for an awakening in this nation. We pray that the wrongs that were forced upon Terri will help people to recognize the undeniable right to life – and the personhood – of every human being, regardless of his or her perceived condition. The truly frightening aspect of Terri’s death is that it sets a precedent that can be used to impose a similar fate on other innocent, disabled human beings. Today’s victim is Terri Schiavo. Who’s next?
We pray that our Lord will comfort the Schindler family and all those who mourn Terri’s death. May God bless Terri Schiavo, her family and all who stand for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves.
Judie Brown is president and founder of American Life League, the nation's largest Catholic pro-life educational grassroots organization. She is a recognized expert on the sanctity of human life and member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Mrs. Brown is the author of three books.
Copyright retained by individual authors. All rights reserved
Judicial Tyranny
WORLD Magazine - Judge Roy Moore
By Joe Maxwell
WORLD Magazineis located on the World Wide Web at http://www.worldmag.com/world/home.asp
Atheists marched and Christians knelt. A lanky teenage boy blew his shofar over the Alabama Judicial Courthouse steps as a lone man on horseback circled the judicial house seven times, praying. Sixteen network broadcast trucks ringed the judicial courthouse, aiming massive satellite dishes skyward while reporters swarmed the complex.
More intriguing, however, were the two embattled conservative Alabamans—Roy Moore and Bill Pryor—facing off inside the courthouse. Both are nationally known: Mr. Moore as the "Ten Commandments judge," Mr. Pryor as a presidential nominee for the federal courts. Both originally were appointed to state public service by former Alabama Gov. Fob James: Mr. Moore as a circuit judge, Mr. Pryor as state attorney general. Both were embroiled in battles of great consequence: Mr. Moore to keep his Supreme Court chief justice post in Alabama, Mr. Pryor to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as a judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Both are strong supporters of the Ten Commandments but disagree about whether the federal courts have proper jurisdiction over state displays of Commandments monuments.
Add about 200 onlookers, whose seats in first- and second-floor chambers were harder to secure than Alabama or Auburn football tickets, plus two overflow rooms, and there was high drama.
Inside the cavernous Supreme Court chambers, nine appointees of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary heard charges from Mr. Pryor that Mr. Moore violated six points of the state's Canon of Judicial Ethics by disobeying a federal order to remove a massive Ten Commandments monument from the judicial house rotunda. The panel reconvened a day later, having voted unanimously to remove Mr. Moore, the 56-year-old West Point graduate and Vietnam vet, from office.
Mr. Moore was suspended with pay nearly three months ago from his post for not removing the monument he commissioned from an Alabama artisan and then placed in the judicial building rotunda four months after his March 2001 election.
"Law has a moral foundation," the now-former chief justice testified during his trial. "It comes from the acknowledgment of the God of the Bible. Without acknowledgment of God, you can have no moral foundation." Mr. Moore and his team frequently cited quotations from judges from the 1700s and 1800s to bolster their case that the modern judiciary has strayed from biblical roots.
Ultimately, Mr. Moore hung his argument on the idea that the removal order was illegitimate: Continue reading...
© 1996 - 2003 WORLD Magazine. mailbag@worldmag.com
Copyright retained by individual authors. All rights reserved
