Posted by giveawayboy on March 29, 2005 at 02:28:45:
In Reply to: Michael Schiavo a greedy adulterer? posted by Dave on March 28, 2005 at 16:35:29:
: One of the things I don't understand about the whole Terri Schiavo case is the willingness on the part of so many people (especially pro-life Christians) to impugn Michael Schiavo's character. One website, for instance, calls him the "worst husband in America since Bill Clinton" (http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/005350.php). It seems there are far too many people these days who consider themselves qualified to pass judgment (from the safe distance of not being in his position, of course). He seems like an easy target: wife in a semi-comatose state, husband has already moved on with new family. But let me share a little personal experience that might explain why I am slow to judge him.
: In 1992 my seemingly healthy stepmother began having blackouts. She went to the doctor, and was diagnosed with two brain tumors. The surgeon removed them, and followed up with radiation treatment. He managed to spare her life, but she suffered catastrophic brain damage. By the time the treatments were completed, my stepmom, who had had an IQ somewhere in the 140 range, was functioning on the level of your average 10 year old. Moreover, the doctors told my father she wouldn't live longer than six months.
: Well, thirteen years later, she's still alive. But she hasn't improved. In fact, her condition has atrophied even further, to the point that she now has the mental capacity of a kindergartner, and she needs constant attention. She must wear a diaper, for instance, and she cannot move around (even to use the bathroom) unaided. And she must be bathed, which means she must be lifted out of her chair and back in again (my father is not a large man). And she frequently wakes up multiple times in the middle of the night claiming she has to go to the bathroom (she refuses to wet her diaper). So my dad gets up and takes her to the bathroom, only to have her say she doesn't really have to go. This scenario is repeated several times a night, and my father has not had a good night's sleep in years, and it shows; though he’s only 62, he looks 80.
: Essentially, my father has not had a wife for thirteen years now. He admits to me that, especially over the past several years, he has begun dating again occasionally. He feels terribly guilty about this, and he has asked me on numerous occasions whether I thought he was wrong to seek out female “companionship.” Because he doesn’t want to hurt his wife (“just in case she can understand,” he says) he never brings women to their home, and so he doesn’t date unless he can find a baby-sitter for a few hours—a tremendous task in itself, given my stepmom’s neediness. Meanwhile, my stepmother’s medical bills have completely drained my father’s retirement fund. He has been reduced to living in a small cabin in the woods.
: So, why doesn’t he just get on with his life? He could divorce her. After all, she has one grown child who lives out of town. So, why doesn’t he just leave, get on with his life, let his wife’s daughter assume responsibility for her care? Even if the state were to take everything he owns so as to finance his wife’s care—so what? My dad is still able-bodied enough that he could work, if need be, to support himself.
: So, why doesn’t he just go?
: He says it’s because he still loves the woman she once was. The daughter has a drug problem, so it is likely that, if my dad were to leave, my stepmother would end up in a low-rate, hole-in-the-wall state nursing facility somewhere, where she would die alone, a destitute charge of Medicaid. My dad says he can’t stand the thought of that. Every time he is tempted to leave, he says, he remembers the woman who once loved him so tenderly, and he can’t abandon her. So he stays, and when he needs to feel a woman’s embrace, he cheats. Do you think he’s wrong? Is any one of us in a good position to say?
Good call. Thanks for sharing this perspective. You know, if it's not 9/11 or the elections, something will polarize us and cause us to show all our worst sides -- believe me I know because I showed mine. I'm glad that I have been open to other points of view though. I have modified my earlier take on this. Growing up in evangelicalism and then becoming Catholic, it's easy to reduce all thinking to life issues (since that is seen as the most important issue for pro-lifers). Still, I like what my friend Cory says here:
...I would be willing to put money on the bet that, were there no one to pay for the medical expenses, then there would not be this level of controversy. In a system based on economic merit, if you cannot pay then you are not deserving. For the government to pay would raise the boogieman of socialized health care, and I doubt anyone else would be willing to foot the bill for the rest of Terry's artificial life.
Even worse if the person reduced to a vegetative state were of the desperate poor to begin with. A homeless person in such a state would be dead at the moment it happened, yet there are no demonstrations on their behalf. The desperate poor, it seems, are not innocent... They are poor, and the poor are guilty of being poor.
And thank God that Terry was not an Iraqi woman. Feeding tube or no feeding tube, these same Christians striving bravely to defend Terry's right to live would, at the same time, cheer a bomb dropped on her Iraqi counterpart's hospital, pausing only to brush it off as a necessary cost to protect American lives. It disturbingly resembles that same fundamental hypocrisy of the American "pro-life" movement: an abortion performed by a doctor is a crime while an abortion performed by a soldier or a bomb is heroism.
Just a few things to consider. I'm torn. As a Christian I uphold that the willfull taking of a human life in any way, shape or form is sinful. Removing or foregoing artifical life support machines is one thing, but removing food is another altogether. I believe once we make decisions which end human lives, it puts us at the edge of a slippery slope, one which I won't hesitate to compare to Nazism, since it's the most graphic picture in our time of medical professionals and scientists, who could separate their convictions from their actions. Yet, as a United States citizen I also have concerns about a proper balance between judicial, legislative and executive powers. Still, I won't go as far as to say that the use of executive power at this time is unwarranted. I have heard some who felt it was and their arguments actually made alot of sense. I walk here w fear and trembling. And lots of prayers. Thanks Dave.