This morning I read with care a column in the Dallas Morning News by radio talk show host Mark Davis: “Zeal for ‘life’ in Schiavo case blinds us to unknown.”
His basic point – without quoting from the column at length – is that we just don’t know what Terri’s wishes are, and since we don’t know with certainty we should be careful about making any judgments in this case. He asks several questions as well, including: Is it right for us to “err on the side of life”? Could the motives of many fighting for her cause be tainted by a zealous political agenda?
Regarding the last question, I find it dangerous to assess the motives of others, but I can honestly say that his description does not fit me. But truly that’s beside the point.
Mr. Davis is very sincere and thoughtful, and I sympathize somewhat with his fatalistic point of view:
When Terri dies after her tube removal, I will soberly and prayerfully hope that her wish has been granted. I would say the same if her parents were to win custody and keep her alive for years.
Anyone approaching her case without such a reservation is not thinking about it enough.
I can confidently say I have thought about it enough, have regularly visited BlogsforTerri with an open mind, and have weighed much of the evidence presented, including –
On and on it goes….
Do I have 100% absolute certainty about Terri’s wishes? No. But after much thoughtful consideration – and the honest reservation that whatever eventually happens is providential – I remain committed to speaking out on behalf of Terri’s life and her parents with as much fervency as possible while I still can.
If overwhelming evidence were presented in the other direction (and it would have been by now, if such evidence existed), I could be honest enough to change my position. But is the word of Michael Schiavo really the “best evidence”?
Mark Davis, you made me think about this case again, but my resolve is stronger than ever. It would be nice just to say piously, “whatever God wills…,” but knowing that life and death are in His hands, what right does a judge have to order a woman starved and dehydrated into oblivion? What right does he have not to exhaust every legitimate means of inquiry into Terri’s medical condition but instead to take the word of her estranged husband who wants her dead, when so many others have seen the rays of light inside her?
Do I have any reservations? I have reservations that someone would voluntarily submit to the slow, painful death of starvation when the 8th Amendment of our Constitution prevents our judicial system from inflicting any such punishment on the most heinous and hardened of its criminals. I have reservations about taking the word of someone of dubious motives and character that someone else would want to submit themselves to such a cruel death. I have reservations about staying silent while a travesty of injustice is being perpetrated in the state of Florida.