Their seems to be a consensus that the main case for either camp's views towards Schiavo's right to die or right to live forever, no matter what, is based, ultimately, upon morals. But
roger is correct in envisioning storms clouds upon the moral horizon--whose morals should guide us? There are some whose view is optimistically viewed thru rose colored glasses which imparts a softer more benign view until, that is, the storm is actually upon us (error on the side of lifers). Others willingly choose to view the approaching storm via grayed spectacles that would imply dire circumstances earlier on, thereby suggesting that decisions are to be carried out sooner effecting earlier preparation for the inevitable (me).
But there is a third group of entities or institutions that look through clear unbiased lenses. These, of course, would be the courts and their bedrock?-the U.S. Constitution. This institution of laws and guiding principles can be our only moral basis not because it is always right but because its validity stems from its being informed by the process of obtaining the simple goal of political and economic freedom of all individuals sans the dissolution of minority rights. Simply, the courts and the constitution spring from the synthesis of public debate on the subject of good government and its realization. As Aristotle once said "The law is reason free from passion". As to our laws, we simply can hope for no more and should settle for no less.
The Schiavo debate has been framed in the context of Terry's wish to die (given her state and other alternatives) by her husband but since there is no legal documentation supporting such a claim the door was open for others to claim she made no such wish and therefore we, society, should error on her behalf and keep her alive with no absolute termination date. Michael Schiavo's decision involved only the family and this seems the correct venue.
However, Terry's parents' (Schindlers) path is morally troublesome. Up until 5-6 years after her bulimiaiclly induced heart attack (Her constant purging put her in a state of hypokalemia--low potassium blood levels-- which prevented her heart from functioning properly) they and Michael shared the common goal of Terry's rehabilitation. But after a final consultation with various medical professionals they parted ways. Her parents' decided, essentially, that come hell or high water they were going to keep her alive, a decision obviously fraught with passion and, like all such decisions so arrived at, prone to moralistic error.
But setting this aside, the Schindlers then continued to ask society to intervene (The majority of Terry's health care had been and continued to be paid for by the state). This is where the courts and U.S. Constitution became involved. The Schindlers thought their case a "slam dunk" since the Constitution deals in promises of individual rights. They should have read further, for the U.S. Constitution guarantees individual rights only in so far as other's rights are not violated. Indeed, requiring all to pay a small stipend to unfortunate individuals may seem the right thing to do but this ignores the zero sum game involved. This small stipend may be the difference for other individuals being able to afford a nicer car, a good college education, nice clothes, food for their children, perhaps, even the ability to support their own failing mother-in-law in her waning years. Ah ha! Some might say, surely those better off might forego a nicer car or nice clothes to help the unfortunate. Well maybe, maybe not. The Constitution is clear on this point: these are individual choices to be made only by those individuals regarding the disposition of personal wealth and not by those who have reached a self determined conclusion of need while riding a moralistic high horse.
I cannot let the behavior of those that sided with the Schindlers (and not necessarily with Terry herself) at the very, very end of this tragic tale go without comment. I could describe them and their actions but this would be just as deplorable and irrelevant as Tom DeLay's moral descent into the questioning of Michael Schiavo's ethics and morals. Jessie Jackson's actions were just plain bizarre, at best.
My overall impression is that the legal system worked well. This is not because of Schindleresque reasoning that it verified my own personal opinion but because it was consistent in its own findings. The American legal establishment can be proud that using jurisprudence, legal precedent, original thought, and reasoning it has built a practical system for the determination of justice (not fairness, after all Terry's predicament was unfair, thereby implying interminability, and therefore demanded a just legal decision). Additionally, the U.S. governmental system (of checks and balances) is able to apply a mediating force and disallow extreme factions from trampling minority rights. Madison would be proud. Also, looked at from a different point of view (one must endeavor, via political correctness, to be pluralistic after all), the system of checks and balances can been see as a way, if they stop to think for a little while, of preventing legislators, and political CEO's from making total fools of themselves. This, of course, demands a period of required introspection carried out by such individuals.
My over all point is that
roger's concern of the plurality of morals obfuscating the decision making process in such cases as these can rightly be overcome by the reagent of our legal and constitutional systems reacting with divers competing moral positions that seemingly cloud our vision, the resultant precipitation of superfluous and irrelevant moral positions resulting in a clear legal solution to the problem. Let the Constitution be our guide. But, what about the religious/moral beliefs of others, are these to be ignored altogether? Not at all, as has been said before, our laws, legal system, and even our Constitution has been constructed with these contributing various influences in mind, but even the extremely religious Christian founding fathers used Greek, Judaic, and Roman legal concepts merging them with that of British jurisprudence, Common Law, and other sources to produce the synthesis we know as the U.S. Constitution.
FreeDuck in his post # 1252671 cites a seemingly troubling issue (given my perspective) regarding public works funding.
Quote:"
and as to the point of requiring people to contribut to the system who have no interest in doing so, we freely agree to do this in other cases. Public education being one. The transportation system being another. Perhaps I don't drive or perhaps I have no children or send them to private school. I still pay into both benefits and, whether I know it or not, I still benefit from both. My grocery store is stocked with goods from far away because the government built roads to carry the trucks that brought them. My business can hire literate workers because the education system taught them to read and to count money."
I find little moral or constitutional problem with this concept. The problem always seems to lie in the real life extremes and not the concept of public good. These are all good examples of how tax dollars can be spent for the good of all despite the fact that they allow the federal government a large club regarding fund dispensation to be contingent upon moralistic values such as civil rights and education requirements (good) or speed limit requirements on all highways, state or federal (bad). But is it OK for some to request, because of disability or whatever they feel are special circumstances, that interstate 95 and an on ramp be built right next to their home and then moved when they do? How far does the imperative of 12 years of secondary school accreditation go? Can one continue to try for that goal, at state expense, until 30 years of age, 40, or 50 is reached? For the extreme example of heath care one need only be familiar with the subject of this thread. Yes, we pretty much agree there must be "limits".
Regarding the free market system,
FreeDuck finds "there is a direct conflict, in the case of health care, between profit and benefit" but this assumes "there is a moral imperative to provide a service". As I have said before, it is when we assume a moral imperative to what I believe is really an individual responsibility we then bump into arguments as to how much "the state" should pay for.
"Moral imperative" suggests heroic efforts are called for in accomplishing the desired goal. A "moral imperative" of the U.S. Marines demands that no member is left behind on the field of conflict, dead or, certainly, otherwise. This decision is also informed by any number of obvious practical considerations. But with health care what is the obvious practical consideration that impels us to perpetuate the condition of those in such PVS's (Persistent Vegetative State) that defined Terry's condition?
Further, if universal health care is demanded by a "moral imperative", the free market is not a consideration at all and we must simply fulfill the obligation, the free market being damned. This can be done but requires extreme cost cutting measures that would not only decrease the quality of health care, as seen in other socialistic systems, but put the medical insurance industry out of business as we now know it. So we see that FreeDuck's inclusion of the market system has a legitimate place in any future synthesis of a U.S. health care system. Any American system would include some competition for individual's business. But questions still present. Should we loosen medical school requirements to increase the supply of their product or cut down on intern hours? Further, how about, the cost of drugs? Should we disallow the drug companies "detail men" (salesmen) and free stuff (including trips) to doctors? No, this is the drug companies' decision to make freely. However, if the federal government became involved in the health care system it might want to decrease its costs by using its considerable buying power as a bargaining chip (some might say club). Then if the drug companies feel they must cut costs in the name of competition and profitability, it would remain their decision on how this would be best accomplished. But the American system would also hold the feet of the demand side of the market to the fire with choices of increasing levels of health care (with correspondent increased cost) and deductibles.
This is a terribly thorny problem but I am convinced social medicine is not the answer and is inherently un-American. Up until recently the free market has reigned supreme in this area but the maturity of the baby boomers has brought the drug and medical care industry under increasing pressure to cut costs. Roger's post has rightly pointed to the fact that we must first define the problem as it relates to exactly what we want to accomplish with the proposed American Health Care System. FreeDuck and his "moral imperative" explicitly points to some sort of need that must be met. My "Individualistic responsibility" concept is an attempt to keep the resultant system morally honest and therefore impart validity and legitimacy to the final product. The result, given it actually appears, will be a real world compromise hopefully encompassing all these elements. It will be, unmistakably, American.
JM
P.S. for those I have mentioned and perhaps insulted by assuming gender I apologize, but I feel that my possible mistake and their gender are both of little or no consequence to our purposes in this or any other thread.
