The Many Faces of Terri Schindler

The Culture War heats up

by Patrick J. Shanahan
04/01/05

I know, I know. Technically it is Schiavo. But since her husband's shacked up with another babe I figured she might have wanted to use her maiden name again.

Cases like this are always larger than the people involved. They become "national" in scope specifically because they embody larger issues, because they clarify positions, because they bring out simmering frustrations. They also tend to be confusing, since the media rarely reports more than a sliver of the story. We know there's more there there, but we can't put our hands on it.

At its most immediate level, this is a story of personal tragedy. Terri Schiavo was felled by an illness born of an eating disorder, which led to a perilous and likely irreversible condition. But she has not been brain dead. She has been in a very similar condition to a newborn infant, incapable of most physical activity and unable to nourish herself without assistance. It is her husband who has wished her dead. A person cannot attribute motives without mind reading, but from where I sit his actions smell of selfishness. He wanted her alive until he won a huge medical malpractice suit, but once he settled down with a new woman he wanted her dead.

One thing we must remember about this case is that it would be of no interest to anybody if it were a "usual" case. Thousands of families every day are faced with making decisions about removing brain damaged relatives from life support. I have had to make that decision myself. And when it is right it is unarguable. Parents, children and siblings are all in agreement. But this is different. It is arguable. She is not brain dead. She is severely disabled, but that is a very different thing. Her husband has huge conflicts of interests, and her parents desperately wanted to keep her alive. This is virtually guaranteed to produce a wider conflict.

Because of the nature of Terri's condition, permitting her to be put to death through dehydration results in a de facto expansion of who is considered "killable." That used to be limited to people whose brains had ceased functioning in the ways required to support life. People who really were "dead" for all meaningful purposes. No longer. Now all you need is a fairly serious brain injury and a husband who would rather see you dead than alive.

This is at heart a fundamental "red state/blue state" issue. One of the key defining differences of blue state vs. red state thinking is one's attitude toward life. Blue State philosophy tends to be post-modern secular humanism. Red State is post-reformation Judeo-Christian humanism. Humanism requires the restraining force of religious belief to be kind. The religious Humanist sees human life - the essence of "Humanism" - as a sacred gift from God. It is thus not something to be tampered with lightly or disrespected. To the secular Humanist the only constraint is whatever we choose it to be. This permits "bioethicists" to draw the line of life vs. death more or less wherever they choose. The wrestling match over Terri's semi-conscious body has been to a large degree a fight over who gets to define societal norms of life and death.

As with almost all Blue State cultural and political priorities, this battle requires the summoning of the judicial cavalry to force an issue that is contrary to most Americans beliefs. One of the good things to come out of this affair is that it may represent the first, long overdue, effort by the other branches of government to begin reclaiming some of their abdicated power over the judiciary.

Conservatives are at an inherent disadvantage in both the day to day political battles and the Culture Wars. In order to "make things happen," power must be applied. This is true of any change. Change does not happen unless someone does something to make it happen. In the conservative worldview, change happens best when that power is dispersed among millions of people, each making tiny applications of power to create change. In fact, dispersion of power, otherwise known as limited government, is not just a means for conservatives. It is a very important end on its own terms. For liberals on the other hand, application of power at the most useful point is paramount. If it is more tactically useful to have centrally concentrated power (and it often is) then the power of the federal government is brought to bear. If the left is out of power, this usually means using the judiciary. If it is more useful to invoke family, community or state power, liberals will do that smoothly and easily. For how one uses power is a tactical decision for liberals, not an ideological issue. What will best achieve the desired leftist policy goal?

You don't have to be an engineer to see who benefits from these two differing views of applying political will to achieve a desired end. Conservatives are faced with a dilemma - do we adhere to our desire for limited government, even if by doing so we willingly lose an important battle? Or do we forego our principles for tactical reasons, and thereby risk achieving our ends but losing our ideological souls? "Pragmatists" will tend to compromise on principle, while "Purists" (in whose camp I tend to hang out) choose frustration through consistency. It's hard to win consistently when you start off most major issues with a split camp.

As my beautiful wife Karol and I were watching the news the other day, I asked her why they didn't just give Terri a lethal injection? That, after all, would be a much cleaner way of accomplishing the desired end. And with a whole lot less pain and suffering on all sides. The goal here was to make Terri dead. So why the illusion that all we are doing is "letting nature takes its course"? What we have decided to do with Terri Schindler is put her out of her misery. To put her to sleep. In a most drawn out and cruel manner. It seems that not even the enthusiasts of death can muster the courage to call this thing by its rightful name. They call it "Death with Dignity." No. The dogs at the pound get Death with Dignity. Terri Schindler gets starvation.

How dare they call themselves Humanists.