Terri Schiavo, and how we handle disputes

She's apparently near the end. What does the controversy surrounding her tragedy say about how we carry on discourse in this country?

I haven't said much here about Terri Schiavo. This may seem strange to some, because other bloggers have said so much, but that's actually one of the reasons I haven't. I don't know what I could add to the discussion. I certainly see a tragedy unfolding, but I think anyone with compassion, regardless of their position on the controversy, would have to agree with that.

The most thoughtful writing I've seen came (as is common) from Chuck Colson's Breakpoint. Much of the discussion reminds me of the evolution/creation controversy years ago, when I was a student at Michigan State (Go Green, by the way!). A lot of us were embroiled in the question of origins, arguing the fossil record and catastrophism and radiocarbon dating and the thickness of dust on the moon and ancient Semitic uses of figurative and literal language. Then it occurred to me, we're all music majors here. What do we know about these things?

I fell back to a position that I believed I could defend successfully with the knowledge I had. I had studied New Testament history. I had experienced my own changed life through the power of God. I had delved deeply into questions of ethics and meaning, and concluded that without God, all meaningfulness ultimately evaporates into nothing. So for a long time, I would say: "I don't know the details of how life came about, but I am quite sure that any explanation that says it all happened by blind physical/chemical processes, without God's oversight, has to be wrong."

(Since then I've continued to study the question. In my Origins blog entries I still stick to philosophical rather than technical scientific issues. I actually think the philosophical battle lines are the most crucial today. And it's also where I have something to contribute.)

Now in the Schiavo case, I would have to devote almost as much study to sort out the competing claims. Is she really in a persistent vegetative state? Doctors disagree. It's a very technical question. Did she tell her husband she never wanted to be kept alive like this? He says yes, others say he's a lying thug. I don't know him, so I wouldn't presume to say. Meanwhile, conservative pundits are making this an example of how the courts have run amok, and liberals say it proves the conservatives don't really believe in states' rights because they're so willing to fall back on Father Federal Government, and it's turned into a political football.

What I like about Colson's column is that he says we don't know enough answers yet, so let's not end it now. She's either a defenseless woman who really doesn't want to die, or she's someone who really isn't even there anymore. We don't know for sure yet, and it behooves the state not to allow the possibility (while it remains) of letting an innocent woman die of dehydration.

I wish we could agree on one impartial body to sort it all out. That's obviously what the courts are for, but their credibility is at issue here, too. I don't see a satisfactory outcome to this, no matter what we decide to do. Let's be in prayer for Terri, and for the unity of our country.

Posted: Sat - March 26, 2005 at 06:53 AM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

Terri Schiavo, and how we handle disputes

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson