Tom, good points. As I said, I had not followed a lot of the details so was not sure what backed up the “sleazy” allegations, but the facts you recite sure do seem sleazy. I also agree that feeding tubes are different than respirators; but some of the logic of many of the “pro-life” crowd would oppose detaching someone from a respirator as well as removing a feeding tube.
Also, from my libertarian view, the feeding tube is not the issue–the difference between the pope and Schiavo is that the pope is not brain dead. It seems rather obvious that most people would want to go on living even if they had to use a feeding tube, so long as they were still mentally alert etc.; but that most people would not want to go on living if they were effectively brain dead like Schiavo. I am always leery of conspiracy theories so have been skeptical of the offhand comments that she is really alert etc. I have no reason to assume that she is actually mentally alert and this fact has been ignored by the umpteen layers of courts that have examined this issue.
Moreover, Pius XII’s comments that stopping artificial respiration “is never more than an indirect cause of the cessation of life” would it seems to me, also apply to removing a feeding tube–that is, the removal of a feeding tube per se is not murder, it is indeed allowing her to die.
Tom, I also of course do not disagree that government courts are a problem–and inefficient and unjust–but the arguments by conservatives and libertarians against the Schiavo decisions to allow the husband to remove the feeding tube do not seem to rest upon the fact that it was government courts that decided this. In fact, had private courts decided the exact same thing, most of the conservative and libertarian arguments I have heard would still apply. Which implies that the problem many people have is not that it was government courts that decided this–but with the result. It is second-guessing.
I do agree that there are “dubious” aspects to this. But I have no reason to assume that this was not taken into account by the various courts that have looked into this matter.
“Killing someone by starvation” sounds bad, but as libertarians, we of course agree that people have a right to die if they wish; so if it is killing, then it is consented to (assuming that is their wish) so it is not objectionable for a libertarian. I quite agree with Tom that the purpose of courts ought to be “to protect our natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But giving effect to a person’s own wishes it seems to me is respecting their rights. Allowing the parents to keep her alive when (it is determined that) she would not have wanted to be is in fact a violation of her rights. So again–this all comes down to a merely factual dispute about what her actual wishes were, or would have been. The fact that the courts are government courts does not in and of itself mean their factual determinations were flawed. It does not mean the (sleazy) husband’s testimony is not evidence; and it does not change the quite obvious fact that almost no one would want to be kept alive in such circumstances. I wouldn’t. I assume you wouldn’t. (This assumes she is indeed effectively brain dead–another factual matter.)
Moreover, as far as I can tell, according to Pius’ standards, there is a moral distinction between killing and letting-die. Finally, it is indeed be horrible for a conscious person to starve to death, but for a brain dead person is it really so horrible? It’s not as if she experiences any of it (or so I assume).
9:03 am on March 31, 2005
