Philosophical Reasoning and "Delayed Personhood"

[Crosspost to Catholics in the Public Square]

Over the past week I've immersed myself in a provocative debate with Nathan Nelson of the blog Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. Our debate began with my response to a post of his -- "Returning to Christendom" June 25, 2005 -- in which he contends that Catholics make a grave mistake in seeking common ground with evangelical Christians ("extremist Christians" or the "Christian Right" in his words), due to the latter's belief in "dominion theology" and, according to Nathan, implicit desire to establish a theocracy. Examples of this collaboration would be Fr. Pavone standing beside Operation Rescue's Randall Terry in the defense of Terry Schiavo and "the vast majority of neoconservative Catholic leaders [who] endorsed and actively promoted a man who clearly does believe in dominion theology for President of the United States."

According to Nathan, such collaborations are ultimately detrimental to Catholics because "When the common enemy of the Evangelical Right and the Catholic Right has been eliminated, the Catholic Christian minority in this country will be in very real danger from the theocratic government ruled primarily by evangelical Christians." Consequently:

[Nathan Nelson]: I consider the alliance between Catholics, Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants on the one hand and evangelical Christians on the other to be an unholy alliance that will eventually come back to bite the Catholics, Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants. The majority of evangelical Christian leaders do want a theocracy, and have said so publicly, and the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the mainstream Protestant Churches are helping them reach their goal. . . .

Dialoguing and aligning ourselves with extremist evangelical Christians who want a theocracy would be tantamount to rational Muslims sitting down to dialogue and align themselves with Wahabi Islam and al-Qaeda.

Given the absurdity of this comparison (Randall Terry the Christian equivalent of Osama Bin Ladin?) one might be tempted to abandon the discussion at this point, but in the course of further comments I decided to explore the reason behind Nathan's charge that Fr. Pavone seeks "the enforcement of Catholic doctrine at the state level." While Nathan asserted the charge against Pavone was made with reference to contraception, he maintained it would equally apply to any Catholic supporting anti-abortion legislation with the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Before long, we had arrived at the philosophical core of our disagreement:

[Nathan Nelson] Regardless of how one tries to paint the picture, Catholic teaching on abortion is Catholic teaching on abortion. The debate is not a debate about the scientific beginning of human life -- everyone agrees that occurs at conception -- but the beginning of personhood. When is this human life to be considered a human person? Current Catholic teaching -- and it is current Catholic teaching, not Catholic teaching throughout all time -- says that the embryo is to be regarded as a human person from the moment of conception. This, of course, is not consistent with what Aquinas and the Church Fathers thought about the beginning of personhood, but that's beside the point. The point is that we're not having a debate about the beginning of life in this country, we're having a debate about the beginning of personhood. For Catholics these days, the beginning of personhood is conception. But for Jews, the beginning of personhood comes some time later. Whereas the beginning of life is a scientific issue, the beginning of personhood is a philosophical and/or ethical issue that has a lot more grey area than Fr. Pavone, George Weigel, et al. are willing to admit.

Which of course brings us to the question: Is the contention that the unborn are persons an essentially Catholic proposition or is it one that can be defended by reason alone? That is to say, absent of appeal to Catholic dogma and divine revelation?

If the argument that Nathan is proposing sounds familiar to readers, it should. It's the same argument advanced by Senator Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election, in an interview with Peter Jennings. It was addressed by Amy Welborn and myself ("Senator Kerry may be human -- but is he a person?", CatholicKerryWatch July 23, 2004).

It was also made by Ron Reagan during the 2004 Democratic National Convention, making the case for embryonic stem cell research (Ron Reagan and Functionalism, Revisited CatholicKerryWatch July 29, 2004).

The Defense of Personhood - Three Worthy Articles

In responding to Nathan, I had recommended the following articles, which I believe would be helpful to our readers and anybody considering this matter:

• Distorting Catholic Doctrine, Newsmax.com. April 16, 2004. Phil Brennan interviews George Weigel on Senator Kerry's "systematic misrepresentation" of the nature of Catholic teaching on the life issues:
  "What belongs to everyone, since this is a national candidacy, is the responsibility to make clear that when Kerry says the Church's pro-life teaching is a sectarian position which cannot be imposed on a pluralistic society, he is willfully misrepresenting the nature of the Church's position – by suggesting that this is something analogous to the Catholic Church trying to force everyone in the United States to abstain from eating hot dogs on Fridays during Lent."

  "This is simply false . . . The Church's pro-life teaching is something that can be engaged seriously by anyone. You don't have to believe that there are seven sacraments to deal with this, you don't have to believe in the primacy of the bishop of Rome to engage this position. You don't even have to believe in God to engage this [pro-Life] position because it's a position rooted in basic embryology and in basic logic, and anybody can engage that."

• Human Personhood Begins at Conception, by Peter Kreeft. Medical Ethics Policy Monograph Stafford, Virginia: Castello Institute. Boston University professor and Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft begins:
  Non-Christians and even Christians can take opposite positions on abortion even when they think rationally, honestly, and with good will. The continuing controversy over abortion shows that it is a truly controversial issue. It is not simple and clear-cut, but complex. Just as the choices for action are often difficult for a woman contemplating abortion, the choices for thought are often difficult for open-minded philosophers.

  Everything I have said so far is a lie, in fact a dangerous lie.

  In a hard-hitting passage, he explains exactly what is at stake in the debate over personhood and why it matters:

  Are there any human beings who are not persons? If so, killing them might be permissible, like killing warts. But who might these human non-persons be? Jews? Blacks? Slaves? Infidels? Counterrevolutionaries? Others have said so, and justified their genocide, lynching, slavery, jihad, or gulag. But pro-choicers never include these groups as non-persons. Many pro-choicers include severely retarded or handicapped humans, or very old and sick humans, as non-persons, but this is still morally shocking to most people, and many pro-choicers avoid that morally shocking position by including only fetuses as members of this newly invented class of human non-persons, or non-personal humans. I think no one ever conceived of this category before the abortion controversy. It looks very suspiciously like the category was invented to justify the killing, for its only members are the humans we happen to be now killing and want to keep killing and want to justify killing.

  Kreeft proceeds to make a sound case for the personhood of the fetus, presenting (in Thomistic fashion) a number of arguments commonly employed to explain why the unborn child is not a human person, and then soundly refuting them.

  He reveals the philosophical premises of those who through pure sophistry attempt to separate personhood from humanity:

  There is a common premise hidden behind all seven of these pro-choice arguments. It is the premise of Functionalism: defining a person by his or her functioning or behavior. A "behavioral definition" is proper and practical for scientific purposes of prediction and experimentation, but it is not adequate for ordinary reason and common sense, much less for good philosophy or morality, which should be based on common sense. Why? Because common sense distinguishes between what one is and what one does, between being and fun functioning, thus between "being a person" and "functioning as a person." One cannot function as a person without being a person, but one can surely be a person without functioning as a person.

• God's Reasons (1998), by Princeton University Professor of Jurisprudence Robert P. George, on the relevance of appeals to religious authority have a role in public policy debate. Nathan remarks: "Without having yet read the essay, I can already tell you that I reject any assertion that appeals to religious authority have a place in the formation of public policy," and launches into an explanation of why he believes this is the case. Had he actually read the essay, he would have discovered that Dr. George agrees with him:
  Appeals to religious authority have their place. That place is plainly not, however, in philosophical debates, including philosophical debates about public policy.

  Do such appeals have a legitimate place in political advocacy? I think they do, but at the same time, I have some sympathy with Professor John Rawls's proposition that such appeals are legitimate only where they are offered to buttress and motivate people to act on positions that are defensible without such appeals. . . .

  Many, perhaps most, serious religious believers in our society believe . . . that God is a God of justice, who cares what the public policy of our society is on morally significant questions -- e.g., abortion, euthanasia, and marriage and sexuality, not to mention capital punishment, civil and human rights, military policy, economic justice, etc. And a great many believers, though not all, believe, as I do, that God wills that the unborn, handicapped, and frail elderly be protected by law, and that the institution of marriage as a permanent and exclusive union of one man and one woman be preserved against what we believe are the corrupting influences of sexual immorality.

  But we also believe not only that there are reasons (apart from revelation) for these policy positions, but also that these reasons are (or, at least, are among) God's reasons for willing what He wills. Indeed, it is our view that often the identification of these reasons by philosophical inquiry and analysis, supplemented sometimes by knowledge derived from the natural and/or social sciences, is critical to an accurate understanding of the content of revelation in, say, the Bible or Jewish or Christian tradition.

  George goes on to demonstrate exactly how the case for the humanity of the unborn can be made independantly of appeal to religious authority. (He has little patience for those who attempt to distinguish between human beings in the biological sense and beings in the moral sense, or "persons." For George, a honest and dispassionate consideration of the scientific evidence suffices to establish

  "the fact that each of us was, from conception, a human being. Science, not religion, vindicates this crucial premise of the pro-life claim. From it, there is no avoiding the conclusion that deliberate feticide is a form of homicide."

A religious defense of Roe v. Wade?

In what seems to me rather odd behavior for a Catholic blog that characterizes itself as one "[seeking] to joyfully proclaim the fullness of Catholic social teaching for progress in the American government and politics in general", Nathan actually defends Roe v. Wade as a protection of the "right to privacy" and a necessary bullwark against the encroachment of Christian theocracy:

I am not dodging the issue. I am stating quite clearly that the personhood of human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses in early stages of development is questionable. I am saying that the Catholic Church's belief regarding human zygotes, embryos, and early stage fetuses, cannot be imposed upon a secular democratic society that believes in religious liberty. In other words, I am saying, quite clearly: Roe v. Wade should not be overturned simply because Christians would like it to happen. Such an idea is totally contrary to American democratic principles. Roe v. Wade is, thanks to the Constitution's guarantee to the right to privacy, the law of this land. Anyone who doesn't like it should work through socio-economic means to reduce the number of abortions, or perhaps they should leave the country and find one that more suits their theocratic tendencies. I hear Vatican City and Saudi Arabia are nice this time of year.

In the article I mentioned above, Dr. George turns this argument on its head, noting that many of those who defend abortion now find themselves in the curious position of defending the choice to abort one's child as a distinctly religious one -- against those who ground the right to life in an appeal to human reason:

. . . people on the pro-life side insist that the central issue in the debate is the question "as to when the beginning of life occurs." And they insist with equal vigor that this question is not a "religious" or even "metaphysical" one: it is rather, . . . "scientific."

In response to this insistence, it is pro-choice advocates who typically want to transform the question into a "metaphysical" or "religious" one. It was Justice Harry Blackmun who claimed in his opinion for the Court legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) that "at this point in man's knowledge" the scientific evidence was inconclusive and therefore cold not determine the outcome of the case. And twenty years later, the influential pro-choice writer Ronald Dworkin went on record claiming that the question of abortion is inherently "religious." (See Ronald Dworkin, Life's Dominion (Alfred A. Knopf, 1993).) It is pro-choice advocates, such as Dworkin, who want to distinguish between when a human being comes into existence "in the biological sense" and when a human being comes into existence "in the moral sense." It is they who want to distinguish a class of human beings "with rights" from pre-(or post-) conscious human beings who "don't have rights." And the reason for this, I submit, is that, short of defending abortion as "justifiable homicide," the pro-choice position collapses if the issue is to be settled purely on the basis of scientific inquiry into the question of when a new member of homo sapiens comes into existence as a self-integrating organism whose unity, distinctiveness, and identity remain intact as it develops without substantial change from the point of its beginning through the various stages of its development and into adulthood. (I explain this point more fully below. Also see Patrick Lee, Abortion and Unborn Human Life (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, I995) and Dianne Nutwell Irving, "Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on 'Personhood'," Linacre Quarterly, Vol. 60 (1993), pp. 18-46.)

With the vacancy in the U.S. Supreme Court and both sides gearing up to address the merits of the President's nomination, we can expect the host of "life issues" to play their part. As we prepare for the oncoming debates, it is important to recognize the philosophical grounds on which the advocates of abortion, euthanasia ("mercy killing"); embroyonic stem-cell research and human cloning make their case, and to recognize as well false arguments that are erected in the attempt to restrict the role of American Catholics in shaping a culture of life and a nation that truly ensures the right of life for all.

* * *

As a supplement to this post I recommend "Church Teachings and the "Delayed Personhood" Ruse" (August 12, 2004), by Dianne N. Irving (LifeIssues.Net). According to Dianne:

Having written a 400-page doctoral dissertation precisely on this issue over 13 years ago which analyzed in excruciating detail the "delayed personhood" positions of over 23 different bioethics arguments still used today, and having been immediately engaged in the various "disputes" since then, it is my considered opinion at this point, at least, that these current "delayed personhood" debates are nothing more than a huge, very sophisticated, and very successful RUSE -- a rhetorical attempt to confuse good people in order to do things that most people would instinctively know to be fundamentally and unequivocally unethical.

Dianne has compiled for our benefit a list of teachings by the Church -- stated verbatim -- on the issue of "personhood." As the reader will discover,

. . . the issue of whether "personhood" can be empirically, philosophically or theologically proven and/or documented is IRRELEVANT. What is relevant -- morally speaking -- is whether or not a human BEING is known to already exist. If this is empirically knowable -- which it is -- then it automatically follows that there is also a "person" present immediately as well. This is because of the philosophical and theological "anthropology" that the Church has traditionally used for centuries on which to base her formal moral teachings -- informal personal theological speculations aside.

Again, although "personhood" can be reliably reasoned back to as beginning immediately when the human being begins to exist (using the accurate empirical facts of human embryology and human genetics), the issue is morally irrelevant for purposes of these debates -- and has been turned into nothing more than a rhetorical ruse to confuse people. Rather, these moral teachings are grounded in the inviolable dignity and equality of every single human BEING from the first moment of their existence. And this is clearly, unambiguously stated in the following direct quotations -- over and over again.

R. I. P. Terri Schiavo, 1963-2005.

Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon her. And may the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

• Statement from the Schiavo Family:
  . . . Our family had hoped this day would never come, but as it has now arrived, we ask ourselves a question in these incredibly sad circumstances: What would the Lord Jesus ask us to do in a moment like this? In John’s Gospel, Jesus responded to the questions of the rabbis, who asked why a man had been born blind. He said: “it is so that the works of God might be made manifest through him.”

  God’s plan for Terri is unfolding before our eyes. Our prayer at this time is that our Nation will remember the plight of persons with disabilities and commit within our hearts to defend their lives and their dignity for many generations to come.

• Statement of Cardinal Keeler, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities:
  "Any man's death diminishes me," said the poet John Donne, "because I am involved in mankind." We are all diminished by this woman's death, a death that speaks to the moral confusion we face today. Ours is a culture in which human life is increasingly devalued and violated, especially where that life is most weak and fragile.

  We pray this human tragedy will lead our nation to a greater commitment to protect helpless patients and all the weakest among us. "

Nat Hentoff: "Judicial Murder"

Via I. Shawn McElhinney of Rerum Novarum, Nat Hentoff weighs in on the murder of Terri Schiavo, calling it for what it is:

For all the world to see, a 41-year-old woman, who has committed no crime, will die of dehydration and starvation in the longest public execution in American history.

She is not brain-dead or comatose, and breathes naturally on her own. Although brain-damaged, she is not in a persistent vegetative state, according to an increasing number of radiologists and neurologists.

Among many other violations of her due process rights, Terri Schiavo has never been allowed by the primary judge in her case -- Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, whose conclusions have been robotically upheld by all the courts above him -- to have her own lawyer represent her. . . . READ MORE

Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder Village Voice March 29, 2005.

Net Hentoff, who was a friend and biographer of Cardinal John O'Connor, describes himself as a "Jewish, atheist, civil libertarian, left-wing pro-lifer" and is heralded by others as "the last honest liberal". As such, he is something of a curiousity on the usually militantly pro-abortion Village Voice. You can find a collection of his other articles here.

So much for the defense of Terri Schiavo being a sole manifestation of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Is Terry Schiavo a Person?

Is Terri Schiavo a person? -- Not if the intellectuals have anything to say about it. In "Human Non-Person" (National Review Online, March 29, 2005), Wesley J. Smith examines the "personhood theories" propogated in the halls of academica by so-called "bioethicists" like Peter Singer of Princeton U., and Tom Beauchamp of Georgetown University. The same line of thinking that motivates some to call for Terry's death leads these kind of professors to deny personhood to newborn infants as well as suffering victims of Alzheimer's.

Even worse, patients who are thus "cognitively impaired" are, in the minds of such intellectuals, prime candidates for organ-harvesting or human research subjects. The kind of talk that was once the inspiration for medical horror films, or the fevered speculations of Jack "Dr. Death" Kevorkian, are now, according to Smith, no longer on the fringe in bioethics:

Personhood theory would reduce some of us into killable and harvestable people. [Bioethics professor John] Harris wrote explicitly that killing human non-persons would be fine because "Non-persons or potential persons cannot be wronged" by being killed "because death does not deprive them of something they can value. If they cannot wish to live, they cannot have that wish frustrated by being killed."

And killing isn't the half of it. Some of the same bioethicists who have been telling us how right and moral it is to dehydrate Terri Schiavo have also urged that people like Terri -- that is, human non-persons -- be harvested or otherwise used as mere instrumentalities. Bioethicist big-wig Tom Beauchamp of Georgetown University has suggested that "because many humans lack properties of personhood or are less than full persons, they . . . might be aggressively used as human research subjects or sources of organs." . . .

If organ harvesting from the cognitively devastated were legal today -- thank goodness, it isn't -- Michael Schiavo would be the one, no doubt sanctioned by Judge Greer, who could consent to doctors' "stopping" Terri's heart and harvesting her organs. . . . there is a direct line from the Terri Schiavo dehydration to the potential for this stunning human strip-mining scenario's becoming a reality."

Mr. Smith is an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. He is the author most recently of Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World.

Terri Schiavo - A Roundup of News & Commentary

• Background info on Michael Schiavo and Terri's "condition". -- "The following documents have been collected from case evidence, testimony and other sources in the public record. These items give significant illustration that the circumstances surrounding Terri's collapse may be suspect and that the following actions by the guardian should be investigated."

  (Via Victor Lams @ Et Cetera).

• Thomas More Law Center: Governor Bush Has Authority Under State Criminal Laws to Prevent Death of Terri Schiavo
  Former prosecutor of Jack Kevorkian, Richard Thompson, reaffirmed Thursday morning the authority of Florida Governor Jeb Bush to utilize state criminal laws to prevent the death of Terri Schiavo. Pointing to two legal memos prepared by the Thomas More Law Center which were delivered to Governor Bush in October of 2003, Thompson again urged Bush to launch a formal criminal investigation into the facts surrounding the disability of Schiavo. . . .

• Last year around this time, Pope John Paul II affirmed obligation to feed patients in the “vegetative” state. (Via Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam).

• Day-by-day commentary from Earl E. Appleby and company at LifeMatters, the blog of Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia.

• Neurologists Say: Recording of Terri Shows She's Not PVS - Fr. Rob Johansen @ Thrown Back asked several neurologists to review the audiotape of Terri responding to her father. The verdict? "Three of the four neurologists reported that they believed that Terri was responding to her father, and was attempting to form words. The fourth, Dr. Peter Morin, demurred, saying that he did not want to venture an opinion based on an audio recording without accompanying video. The remaining neurologists all expressed confident opinions regarding what they heard in Terri's recording."

• Theophilus @ Vivificat believes our "justice system" is courting illegitimacy.

• William Luse (Apologia) says "Goodbye, Terri", Apologia, March 24, 2005.

• Dr. Oswald Sobrino (Catholic Analysis/ Catholics in the Public Square) describes Terri as a "a new kind of martyr", and in "Martyrdom and Legal Positivism", has strong words for those who would make an idol of the law:
  . . . many in our society insist on bending the knee to law even though it is the obviously imperfect creation of imperfect and yes, even corrupt, legislators. The fancy term for all of this is "legal positivism," the view that the dictates of the law must be followed at all costs regardless of morality. Legal positivism made the Nazi project of Hitler possible in a highly cultured country like Germany. Legal positivism--the mania for legalities as ends in themselves--is now making America the scene of a Nazi-like execution by starvation of a life deemed unworthy of life.

• Can you spare a dime? -- The Old Oligarch reports that BlogsForTerri.com could use some help paying for its server fees. They've been a big help in organizing bloggers across the net, not to mention hosting videos of Terri to prove to the misinformed public that, contrary the reporting of the MainstreamMedia, she's neither "brain-dead" nor a "vegetable."

• Of course, we have a dissenting opinion from Fr. John Paris, SJ, professor of bioethics at Boston College, says "This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life" and that Michael Schiavo is a "a caring, loving spouse whose actions were in Terri's best interests." (Salon.com January 24, 2005. Via Bettnet). Wouldn't you just figure it'd be a Jesuit?

On the secular front . . .

• The whole Terri Schiavo story, World Net Daily has "the 15-year saga of brain-injured woman no clear-cut, right-to-die case," which it has been covering since the very beginning. The Michael Schiavo, who appears so utterly convinced that Terri wanted to die, is a far cry from the one who, when asked about treatment in 2001, responded: "How the hell should I know? We never spoke about this. My God, I was only 25 years old. How the hell should I know? We were young. We never spoke of this."

  Likewise, the husband who is now living with his mistress with the intent on remarrying just as soon as Terri is "put away" is a far cry from the one who once proclaimed in 1992: "I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

• A Doctor with Religious Beliefs? Must Be "Bogus, a Pro-Life Fanatic" - documenting and exposing the liberal bias of the New York Times, TimesWatch reveals how Thursday's story on Terri Schiavo by John Schwartz and Denise Grady ("A Diagnosis With a Dose Of Religion") suggests a doctor's religious beliefs make him an unreliable person to diagnose Schiavo.

• Not Dead at All, Slate March 25, 2004. Disability rights activist Harriet McBryde Johnson explains why "Congress was right to stick up for Terri Schiavo."

• Ann Coulter muses:
  "Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be shot at her husband's request -- a more humane death, by the way -- the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the court's ruling because of the "rule of law" and "federalism." President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police.

• "Slanting the News Against Terri Schiavo" - The Media Research Center finds that "[ABC, CBS and NBC] newscasts have tilted their recent coverage of the Terri Schiavo case in ways that bolster her husband Michael's arguments that the severely disabled woman is in an irreversible vegetative state and had clearly expressed a desire to die."

• "So: Where Did It Come From?" Powerline has more about that curious "GOP talking points" memo produced by ABC News. Michelle Malkin has a roundup of blogs on the issue and asks "Did the MSM learn nothing from RatherGate?".

Terri Schiavo - A Roundup of News & Commentary

As you know by now, President Bush Signs Law to Save Terri Schiavo - Case Before Federal Court LifeSiteNews.com. March 21, 2005. Following is a roundup of related commentary . . .

• Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life -- who, according to Catholic News Service usually doesn't comment on cases currently before the courts -- makes an exception on grounds that "silence in this case could be interpreted as approval":
  "The removal of the gastric tube used for nourishing her cannot be considered an 'extraordinary' measure or a therapeutic measure," he said. "It is an essential part of the way in which Mrs. Terri Schiavo is nourished and hydrated.

  "As far as we are concerned, denying someone access to food and water is a cruel way of killing someone," he said.

• The AAPS, or Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, insists that Schindler-Schiavo is NOT a "death with dignity" issue, asking: "She is not dependent on advanced medical interventions. Nothing is mechanically beating her heart, or forcing oxygen into her lungs. She is simply being fed through a gastrostomy tube. Would we allow a retarded child to be starved to death?" (via Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

• The Washington Post reported yesterday on an anonymous memo relating to the Terri Schiavo case that allegedly was sent to all of the Republicans in the Senate. ABC News apparently obtained a copy of the memo, and gave it to the Post. Powerline wonders if this is the biggest hoax since RatherGate?: "It does not sound like something written by a conservative; it sounds like a liberal fantasy of how conservatives talk."

• "Right-to-Life Hypocrisy, or Blogger Illiteracy?" @ Just One Minute. The Terri Schiavo case is being compared to two other recent medical cases in Texas, or what Michelle Malkin calls the "the blame-Bush-for-killing-patients-for-money" meme. Tom Maguire takes a look at the facts.

• After the passing of the Schiavo bill, Andrew C. McCarthy has Lingering Questions, and reminds us:
  in an age where more and more people get their news from television, and in the most fleeting of snatches, the language battle is more important than ever. It also remains the one thing the mainstream media still dominates. After watching the coverage over the weekend and the House debate last night, we should be very troubled by terms like life support, brain dead, and recover. . . .

  And wonders as well:

  Regardless of what one thinks of the evidence developed and the procedures followed in the Florida courts, how is a judge empowered, ever, to order or license torture? Let's hope the federal court asks.

  (See also Andrew C. McCarthy's Is Prosecution the Solution?, in which he ponders the question posed on the Corner: "If somebody put a pistol to [Terri] Schiavo's head and pulled the trigger--you know, to give the 'dying process' a little nudge--would the shooter be guilty of murder under Florida law?"

• "Terri's death wish or Michael's?" World Net Daily. March 20, 2005. Michael Schiavo blatantly contradicts himself in an interview with Larry King on CNN:
  Shortly after saying his determination to end Terri's life was about her wishes, Schiavo changed his story in the King interview. Asked if he understood her family's feelings, he said: "Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want. . . . "

  (Full Transcript):

• Mark R. Levin @ The Corner:
  What really offends the Left is Congress asserting its constitutional power over a court, and not in service to the liberal agenda. Article III specifically empowers Congress to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts, which is all it did today. It authorized a federal court to determine whether Terri Schiavo's due process rights and the right not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment were properly protected by a state court. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided on its own that abortion was a federal question, not to be left to the states, without any constitutional basis whatsoever. It preempted every state court and legislature (and Congress, for that matter). And the Left celebrates this decision.

  As for why Congress is acting here, as opposed to any other case with overlapping issues, I suppose that question could be asked whenever Congress acts. The Schiavo case has risen to national attention. So, Congress is responding. That's how representative government works.

• "Always to Care, Never to Kill": Terri Schiavo and the right to life National Review Online [NRO] -- Robert P. George, McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, weighs in the legal and moral issues involved, and the question "How should we go about thinking about the circumstances under which it is morally permissible to refuse medical treatment?"

• "Terri Schiavo and the Law" Wall Street Journal March 21, 2005:
  We'd have more sympathy for this argument if the same liberals who are complaining about the possibility of the federal courts reviewing Mrs. Schiavo's case felt as strongly about restraining the federal judiciary when it comes to abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues they don't want to trust to local communities. In any event, these critics betray their lack of understanding of the meaning of federalism. It is not simply about "states' rights." Conservatives support states' rights in areas that are not delegated to the federal government but they also support federal power in areas that are delegated.

  Think of an analogy to the writ of habeas corpus. As John Eastman of the Claremont Institute points out, "We have federal court review of state court judgments all the time in the criminal law context." The bill before Congress essentially treats the Florida judgment as a death sentence, warranting federal habeas review. Mrs. Schiavo is not on life support. The court order to remove the feeding tube is an order to starve her to death. Moreover, Mrs. Schiavo is arguably being deprived of her life without due process of law, a violation of the 14th Amendment that Congress has the power to address.

  The "right to die" has become another liberal cause, part of the "privacy" canon that extends through Roe (abortion) and Lawrence (homosexuality) and the Ninth Circuit's views on assisted suicide that the Supreme Court is taking up this year. Of course, it gets a little messy when someone is actually being killed, and a husband with a conflict of interest is the one who claims she wanted to kill herself, but the left apparently believes these are mere details that shouldn't interfere with the broader cause. Thus the discovery of federalism.

Update Judge Won't Order Schiavo Tube Reinserted AP Press, March 22, 2005.

And so it continues.

Please Pray for Terri Schiavo.

Fr. Rob Johansen reports:

After a roller-coaster night and day, in which Congress first appeared to have abandoned Terri, then in which some Congressmen intervened in a last-ditch effort to prevent the feeding tube removal, and Judge Greer again demonstrated his singleminded intent to have Terri die, it comes to this.

According to reports at Blogs For Terri and from the Schindlers, Terri's feeding tube was removed at about 2:00 PM this afternoon.

Congress may intervene next week, but may not. What is certain is that from this moment on, unless someone can unsuccessfully undo the work of Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer, Terri begins dying.

Fr. Rob also provides a line-by-line commentary of Terri Schiavo's "Exit Protocol" prepared by Terry's own doctors and nurses at the hospital where she resides, "a regimen of medication intended to perpetrate an illusion: the illusion that someone is peacefully "slipping away", when in fact they are dying in a painful and brutal way."

Pray for Terri, pray for this country, God have mercy.

• Starving for a Fair Diagnosis, by Fr. Rob Johansen. National Review March 16, 2005. The courts, and many in the mainstream media, seem matter-of-fact that Terri has had the best of medical care, that she has been subject to every attempt at therapy and rehabilitation, and that she has been correctly diagnosed to be in a "persistent vegetative state" [PVS]. Don't believe a word.
• 3/19/05 - Congress Moves Again to Keep Fla. Woman Alive Reuters, March 19, 2005.
• 3/20/05 - Update! - US House to Reconvene at 12:01 AM for Terri's Bill
  In an unprecedented move, the United States House of Representatives convened today at 1 PM and immediately went into recess until 12:01 AM. This was a tactical move to prevent certain representatives from killing a bill designed to give Terry Schiavo standing in Federal Court.

  At this time, the House is scheduled to vote on the measure at one minute past midnight and the Senate is to take up the measure sometime thereafter. President George W. Bush has already left his Crawford, TX, ranch to return to Washington so he will be available to sign the bill, if passed by Congress.

  We urge you to pray for this measure and contact members of the US House (http://www.house.gov/) and Senate (http://www.senate.gov/) and urge them to support Terri's Bill.

  (via Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam).

"Those Who Forget the Past . . ." -- The Lessons of "Mercy Killing"

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's website has a section on the Nazi Persecution of the Disabled, including the origins of the Nazi T4 Euthanasia Program.

The T4 Euthanasia Program had its roots in Hitler's drive to develop a "master race" out of a "biologically pure" Aryan population. The forced sterilization of those suffering from hereditary disease -- a move reflected in the United States' eugenics movement -- was a precursor to the mercy killing of those deemed "uncurable."

According to the HMM, planning for the Euthanasia Program was believed to be initiated in 1939. In October of that year, Hitler signed a secret authorization granting doctors the right to carry out "mercy deaths" of patients considered "incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health." The authorization gave physicians, medical staff and administrators immunity from prosecution for their participation in the program. Six gassing installations were subsequently established to facilitate the secret execution of children and adults with physical disabilities or mental ilness, otherwise deemed "unfit" for life. (Mentally and Physically Handicapped: Victims of the Nazi Era; also available in PDF format).

Eventually, the T4 Program became public knowledge, and in August 1941 was formally halted by order of Hitler, in response to "private and public protests concerning the killings, especially from members of the German clergy." This did not bring an end to the executions, however, which secretly resumed in 1942. Rather than gassing, the executions were carried out by lethal injection and drug overdose in clinics throughout Germany into the last days of World War II, "expanding to include an ever wider range of victims: so-called asocials, geriatric patients, bombing victims, and foreign forced laborers.":

During the initial phase of operations, from 1939 until 1941, about 70,000 people were killed under the Euthanasia Program. At the proceedings of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg (1945-1946), it was estimated that the total number of victims was 275,000 people.

The Euthanasia Program instituted the use of gas chambers and crematoria for systematic murder. The experts who participated in the Euthanasia Program were instrumental in establishing and operating the extermination camps later used to implement the "Final Solution".

For further documentation of the T4 Euthanasia Program, see Henry Friedlander's The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution.

* * *

In December 2004, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) "asked the Netherlands Ministry of Health to create an independent board to evaluate euthanasia cases for each category of people 'with no free will,' a category that would include children, the severely mentally retarded and patients in irreversible comas. ("Dutch ponder 'mercy killing' rules", CNN Dec. 2, 2004).

According to the Associated Press, the Groningen Academic Hospital in Amsterdam "recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives." ("Netherlands grapples with euthanasia of babies" MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2004). The story made its rounds through the blogosphere, but as Hugh Hewitt noted in the Weekly Standard ("Death by Committee", received precious little mention by the editors and pundits in the mainstream press.

Now, according to Knight Ridder News, a group of Dutch doctors are pressing the issue further by publicly admitting to killing twenty newborns, presenting themselves to public prosecutors with the intent of provoking public recognition of their actions by the Dutch Parliament:

The law says people can elect suicide over continued treatment for terminal conditions, but it does not apply to children under 12. Debate over the sanctioned killing of children has been raging in the Netherlands for months and has drawn the attention of the Vatican and anti-euthanasia groups from around the world.

The nation's Supreme Court first approved of euthanasia, under certain circumstances, in 1984. Ten years later, the parliament outlined rules to follow to avoid prosecution. In 2002, members of parliament voted it into law.

But the law has dealt with patients who have requested death. This discussion - which is in a very preliminary stage and expected soon on the parliament's calendar - is about those who cannot request death, or voice a choice for life.

"Doctors report killing of babies" Knight Ridder News (March 7, 2005).

The Dutch Parliament's approval of euthanasia "under certain circumstances" is practically a myth. Euthanasia is now being performed in the Netherlands not only by consent of the patient but autonomous fiat of the physician -- as Henk Reitsema, leader of the L'Abri Fellowship in Holland, learned when he discovered the facts behind his grandfather's death. (Deadly Diagnosis in the Netherlands, by Jonathan Imbody. Family Voice January/February 2001).

According to the report by Concerned Women for America, "Dutch politicians and health officials carefully emphasize a system of controls designed to ensure patient autonomy. In practice, however, those controls are a fairy tale. Dutch medical surveys reveal that in three out of four cases where doctors intervened to hasten death, the patient did not give permission."

And according to a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine by euthanasia advocates Eduard Verhagen and Pieter Sauer, infant euthanasia is unreported and widespread as well, by a rate of "15-20 cases every year -- yet only an average of three reported annually." (LifeSiteNews, March 11, 2005).

It is an "irony of history," notes the International Task Force on Euthanasia, that Holland was the only occupied country whose doctors refused to participate in the Nazieuthanasia program:

Dutch physicians openly defied an order to treat only those patients who had a good chance of full recovery. They recognized that to comply with the order would have been the first step away from their duty to care for all patients. The German officer who gave that order was later executed for war crimes. Remarkably, during the entire German occupation of Holland, Dutch doctors never recommended nor participated in one euthanasia death. Commenting on this fact in his essay "The Humane Holocaust," highly respected British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge wrote that it took only a few decades "to transform a war crime into an act of compassion."

* * *

Those living in the United States might react with horror and moral repugnance at the news coming from the Netherlands, but we've got monsters in our own backyard to contend with. The State of Oregon has already taken the plunge by passing its own doctor-assisted suicide law in 1997, resulting in the documented deaths of more than 170 patients (I'm not sure if this one counts).

And as I write this, Florida's 6th Circuit Courge Judge Greer is hell-bent -- figuratively and metaphysically -- on ensuring the death of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, brushing aside every attempt by her parents to save her life (as reported by Fr. Rob Johansen of Thrown Back, March 8, 2005).

At this point, all that seems to stand between Judge Greer and Terri's demise are the efforts of Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala and the Florida legislature (as reported by Sun Sentinel March 10, 2005; further commentary on Earl Appleby of LifeMatters, Catholics in the Public Square).

And, as we noted in an earlier post ("Better Off Dead" or "Not Dead Yet?" March 2, 2005), the lawyer for Terri's husband Michael, as well as the leading medical witness, are both personally involved in the movement to legalize euthanasia in the United States. No small coincidence, that.

* * *

Those involved in Germany's T4 program were compelled by social Darwinianism (for whom the disabled were considered an impediment to their utopian dream of a master race); the Dutch on the other hand are motivated by a more enlightened compassion (desiring a quick and "painless" end to those for whom there is no cure), and Michael Schiavo is driven by the desire to put his wife out of her alleged misery and go on with his own life (having already done so to a certain extent, shacking up with his mistress and melting down Terri's wedding rings to make jewelry for himself). Regardless of the historical context or personal motivation, there seems to be an underlying theme to these situations: when faced with the task of caring for the disabled, and especially those deemed incurable, all those involved have subjectively decided that the patient's life is of such a quality that he or she may be deemed expendable. Suffering is regarded as the greatest offense, and killing is considered the chief act of mercy.

As Dr. Bert P. Dorenbos, President Schreeuw om Leven (Cry for Life) Hilversum, Holland, observes, underlying the push for euthanasia is an attempt to get rid of suffering, and all the inconvenience and human drudgery that suffering entails. In a report on The Dutch Euthanasia Law (Public Justice Report Vol. 25, No. 3, 2002), Dr. Dorenbos examines the implications of this view:

Those against euthanasia are portrayed as fundamentalists and brutal people who are willing to extend suffering rather than accept the merciful killing of those who suffer. It is quite obvious, however, that it is impossible to ban suffering from society. After the fall into sin, suffering belongs to humankind. One day it will be vanished when God's new order of righteousness and justice arrives. But for now, the answer to suffering is not killing the patient, but caring for the patient. If the doctor cannot cure the patient, the time has come to care for the patient.

Euthanasia, seen in a broader context, is part of the hedonistic, egoistic, materialistic mindset by which humans think they have the right to decide about anything they want. This leads to a society in which people think of themselves first. When humans drift away from the universal principles of love, righteousness and justice, then life is at stake. To resist euthanasia is therefore to resist the deterioration of society. We increasingly face the threat that only those who are strong will live, that only the fittest will survive. Euthanasia is a Darwinist, evolutionary principle.

By contrast, the true basis of human life is that the strong should take care of the weak, from conception to the grave. Humans are crying for a way out of suffering, death, and meaninglessness, often not knowing where to turn. The fight for life creates a mission field, because life is life only in the eternal perspective of the new heaven and new earth. During the apocalyptic times through which we are living, it is clear that killing humans at any point between conception and death is a brutal offense against the Creator of life. Without doubt, the judgment of such a killing society will come. Only through repentance and living in the expectation of the Lord's eternal kingdom is there a way of life on the way to life.

When Dr. Dorenbos was notified of the plight of Terri Schiavo in 2003, he responded with a "warning from Holland" that Judge Greer's decision to deprive Terri of essential nutrition and hydration "is more important than the Supreme Court Decision to ban euthanasia in the United States of America," given that it would "[open] the floodgate of subjective decision making in cases of life and death":

At the moment when, in the Dutch debate on euthanasia, a court ruled that withholding food and fluid is a permissible medical treatment, the road was paved for the euthanasia law currently in force in Holland. In the case of Mrs. Ineke Stinissen, who had been in coma for several years, a Dutch court ruled in 1990 that food and fluid could be withheld from her. Mrs. Stinissen died shortly afterward from starvation. The request to remove Mrs. Schiavo’s food and water came from her husband.

Since then, discussion about the termination of life is no longer based on the objective fact of a patient’s terminal illness, but more and more on a subjective approach to the quality of that patient’s life and the subjective view of professional and nonprofessional persons about the right to life or death.

Dr. Dorenbos should know the dangers of the subjective approach, as his country has already made the transition from formal legalization of voluntary euthanasia to covert involuntary euthanasia for the elderly, to what looks to be the impending endorsement of infanticide (but only under certain conditions) in a matter of decades.

There is a memorable scene in The Thanatos Syndrome, by Walker Percy, involving a chapter-length conversation between the protagonist, Dr. Thomas More, and Father Smith, a somewhat off-kilter but perceptive priest holed up in a fire-tower:

[Father Smith] "You are an able psychiatrist, on the whole a decent, generous humanitarian person in the abstract sense of the word. You know what is going to happen to you?"

[Dr. More] "What?"

You are a member of the first generation of doctors in the history of medicine to turn their backs on the oath of Hippocrates an d kill millions of old useless people, unborn children, born malformed children, for the good of mankind -- and to do so without a single murmur from one of you. Not a single letter of protest in the august New England Journal of Medicine. And do you know what you're going to end up doing? You a graduate of Harvard and a reader of The New York Times and a member of the Ford Foundation's Program for the Third World? Do you know what's going to happen to you?"

"What's going to happen to me, Father?"

"You're going to end up killing Jews."

Dr. More shrugs off the priest's response. Readers may be inclined to do so as well, convinced that any mention of the Holocaust in the context of a moral argument borders on the cliche. However, it is altogether likely that, barring persistent action by our legislators and the vocal protest and opposition of fellow Americans, we will witness an increasing number of "mercy killings" such as those already happening in the Netherlands under the masque of compassion. We best heed the cryptic warning of Fr. Smith:

"Do you know where tenderness always leads?

"No, where?"

"To the gas chamber."

"I see."

"Tenderness is the first disguise of the murderer."

Recommended Links:

• The International Task Force on Euthanasia's website compiles articles "addressing the issues of euthanasia, assisted suicide, advance directives, assisted suicide proposals, "right-to-die" cases, euthanasia practices in the Netherlands, disability rights, pain control and much, much more" -- including a one-page fact sheet on Terri Schiavo you can send to journalists ignorant about the case.

"Better Off Dead" or "Not Dead Yet?" - Terry Schiavo & Million Dollar Baby

The ongoing legal battle over Terri Schindler-Schiavo between a family who wants to care for her and a husband who wants to move on. The case of Million Dollar Baby, upon which Hollywood bestowed its greatest honor this week for its "honest" depiction of a mercy-killing as a desparate solution to the heroine's suffering.

I've been thinking about the confluence of these two issues in the news over the past several weeks and the underlying themes that they share: the fear of suffering and disability that pervades our culture that compels some to seek "an easy way out", a quick painless end -- "better off dead" rather than a burden to self and others.

In Killing Terri Schiavo, (Crisis Magazine January 4, 2004), Rev. Robert Johansen examines "the euthanasia connection" in great detail. It is no coincidence that Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, is a member of the Hemlock Society (presently known as the warm, fuzzy and politically-correct Compassion & Choices"), or that Felos' book Litigation as Spiritual Practice describes him as "spearheading a social revolution to enable death with dignity in the state of Florida."

Neither is it a coincidence that Michael Schiavo's leading medical witness in the case, Dr. Ronald Cranford, "was the leading medical voice calling for the deaths of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci, all of whom were brain-damaged but not dying."

You can read more about Felos and Cranford in Tony Collins' substantial article "Dealers of Death" (Envoy Magazine January 2004), in which she exames the Right-to-Die movement's exploitation of Terri Schiavo to advance their political agenda. How often do we hear pundits murmur in sympathetic tones that the plight of Terri Schiavo could have been avoided if only she had "A Living Will"?

Whereas right-to-die advocates see Terri Schiavo as a lesson in opportunities lost, disability rights advocates express concern that Million Dollar Baby will bolster the public case for physician-assisted suicide. In Seeing Million Dollar Baby From My Wheelchair, Diane Coleman, J.D., president of disability-rights organization Not Dead Yet, describes her experience watching the film and being a part of the audience:

I've always felt a tension between how others see me and how I see myself. By now, that tension, and my coping mechanisms, are way below the surface. Denial, the fantasy of acceptance, I have used whatever I could to endure and manage over 50 years of those looks, and looks away, to be who I am out in the world everyday.

But now I am forced to see how critics and audiences love this movie, resent our anger, and extol the virtues of open public discussion of euthanasia based on disability. My fantasy is ripped away.

If I'd been truly prepared, I'd have brought a sign to hold up, saying, "I Am Not Better Off Dead." I would have looked into every face exiting the theater, insisting that they see me, and this simple yet apparently incomprehensible message.

Not Dead Yet joins other organizations such as the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, in its opposition to the film. According to CNN:

Marcie Roth, executive director of the NSCA, said her group has been working to improve conditions for the disabled since 1948, "yet lo these many years later, many people still think having a spinal-cord injury is a fate worse than death.

"Unfortunately, a message like the one in 'Million Dollar Baby' just perpetuates exactly what we work so hard to dispel."

(Source: The backlash over 'Million Dollar Baby' CNN. Feb. 7, 2005.)

Related Links:

• Emotional Punch, Jay Cridlin. St. Petersburg Times February 27, 2005. Another journalist looks at the comparisons between the film and real-life happenings in Florida.
• "The Oscars, Suicide Movies, Clint Eastwood & the ADA", by disability-rights publication The Ragged Edge.
• "Dangerous Times", a review of Million Dollar Baby by Steve Drake, Research Analyst for Not Dead Yet. Ragged Edge January 11, 2005.
• BlogsForTerri, a list of sites that are committed to supporting and defending the life of Terri Schiavo through their blogging activities.

Pray for Terri Schiavo, about whom Cardinal Martino spoke:

In statements on Vatican Radio, Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said: "If Mr. Schiavo succeeds legally in causing the death of his wife, this not only would be tragic in itself, but would be a grave step toward the legal approval of euthanasia in the United States."

He added: "I would like to remind everyone in this connection, about all that the Holy Father has said in past days to the Pontifical Academy for Life, confirming that the quality of life is not interpreted as economic success, beauty and physical pleasure, but consists in the supreme dignity of the creature made in the image and likeness of God.

"No one can be the arbiter of life except God himself."

Pray for the Holy Father as well, who returned to the hospital for emergency surgery (Pope on Respirator After Airway Surgery, Associated Press).

I. Shawn McElhinney on Terry Schiavo and a "plea for consistent principles"

It looks like Judge Greer has granted Terri Schiavo another stay of execution, buying some time for Terri's parents, at least until Friday, and granting us as well to step back and, with the help of a fellow blogger, take a broader look at the predicament of Terri Schiavo.

I. Shawn McElhinney (Rerum Novarum) has a provocative and well-written string of posts on this subject. The essence of his argument is this: that there are three fundamental rights of man (life, liberty, property):

The fundamental rights of man are three in number. They are God-given and they precede all man made laws. It is in fact because these rights already existed -and an innate understanding of their implications- which is why men formed societies and wrote laws to begin with. And as these rights do not depend on laws for their existence, they likewise cannot be repealed by laws without perverting justice and the very notion of what law in a just society is intended to achieve.

These rights must be defended together as a unit, or else they will fail -- that is to say, to defend one to the exclusion of the others (by neglect and inattention) is ultimately counter-productive.

The argument was made on Rerum Novarum well before the plight of Terri Schiavo, but it is no less relevant to the discussion, and I mention it for the benefit of our readers:

Basically my friends, the approach of too many well-meaning people is merely to get Terri another "stay of execution" and that is not a viable long-term approach to this issue. What is needed long term is learning a valuable theory which will aid people of a conservative mindset in supplying order to their thinking and helping them to see the broader forest for the trees.

But this is not an "either/or" situation by any means but instead it is a "both/and" situation. Or to phrase it in that manner, we should be seeking both to preserve Terri's life and laying in place a consistent principle of argumentation for defending the fundamental rights of man. These rights are all dependent upon one another and when one is undermined, the other two by logical extension are as well. I am left wondering when Terri's advocates are not only going to stop seeing this as only a "life" issue but are also going to start seeing both parts of the "both/and" rather than only the first one. But that is all I will say on the matter at this time.

More on Terri Schiavo and the Fundamental Rights of Man. Feb. 18, 2005.

Related posts from Rerum Novarum:

• More on Terri Schiavo, an Activist Blogosphere Effort on Her Behalf, Etc. Feb. 20, 2005.
• More on Terri Schiavo and the Fundamental Rights of Man. Feb. 18, 2005.
• Developing a Consistent Principle of Argumentation, Oct. 30, 2003.
• Discussion of these fundamental rights and their unity took place last year, when Shawn defended the right of fellow blogger Jeff Cullbreath and his family against those who attacked his printing business on account of his refusal to print documents he found morally objectionable. Oct. 15, 2003.

For updates on Terri Schiavo, stay tuned to Fr. Rob Johansen @ Thrown Back.

A Novena for the Conversion of Michael Schiavo

A Novena for the Conversion of Michael Schiavo, posted by Jean of Catholic Fire.

Further commentary

• Minutes to Midnight: America in the Dock - For Earl Appleby of Life Matters, "Those for whom the fight for Terri is not our first fight for life nor our last know only too well that America’s surrender to the law of the jungle was made long ago and that rather than high noon, it is minutes to midnight for our Nation. "
• Point Blank: Blogger's Best for Terri Earl Appleby "goes beyond ['St. Blog's Parish'] to bring you the best of Bloggers Best for Terri Schiavo, graciously compiled by Dory at Wittenberg Gate."
• Oswald Sobrino (Catholic Analysis) takes a look at the "Inane Legal System for Terri Schiavo".

Help Save Terri Schiavo!

Get regular updates and find out how to help from Fr. Rob Johansen (Thrown Back) and Hyscience.

Paul Copeland, who heads SaveTerri.com, provides background information on Terri Schiavo in four convenient posts examining "The Case Against Terri Schiavo":

1. Part I: Terry's Feeding Tube -- Noting that "in the media there has been a lot of talk about the gastronomy tube, perhaps influencing some folk to believe that intense medical care must be used to keep Terri alive," Paul explains exactly what a gastronomy tube is, and what is involved in taking care of Terri.
2. Part II: Is Terri in a Persistent Vegetative State? -- Granting that "it is a good and fair question and needs to be looked at very carefully so that the general public, that's you and I, can make an informed opinion," Paul takes a look at the evidence.
3. Part III: Terri's "Death Wish" -- Paul looks at the claims of Terri's husband that she "wanted to die"
4. Part IV: Is Terri being "force-fed"?, Paul examines the claim by Michael Schiavo that Terri would not have desired to be kept alive under such circumstances, with some speculation as to why Michael "would say this approximately six years after being awarded significant malpractice damages for his wife's brain injury."

Update on Terri Schiavo

New developments in the struggle to save the life of Terri Schiavo and it's not looking good:

Reuters reports that the Florida Supreme Court has refused to reconsider its 7-0 ruling overturning Terri's Law, a state statute supported by Gov. Jeb Bush that put a halt to the forced fatal starvation of Terri Schindler Schiavo by her unfaithful husband. . . .

Times Against Humanity has the details.

Another Chapter in the Fight for Terri Schiavo.

The Florida Supreme Court issued a 8-0 ruling today striking down Terri's Law as unconstitutional, the legal intervention issued by Gov. Jeb Bush that had stood between Miss Schiavo and forced starvation at the request of her husband.

• Statement by CURE, "Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia.
• Statement by the Schindler Family.
• Fr. Rob Johansen ("Thrown Back") is covering the story, with daily updates.
• Fight4Terri, a blog by Cheryl Ford, "a Registered Nurse and patient advocate who believes in patient rights and patient choices."

Lest we forget . . .

On August 31st the Florida State Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of Terri's Law, which the State Legislature passed in emergency session in October 2003, preventing the execution-by-starvation of Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

Fr. Rob Johansen explains what we can do for Terri. (One word: PRAY!)

Meanwhile, LifeSiteNews.com reports on a similar euthanasia case in West Monroe, Louisiana:

An 89 year-old woman who suffered a debilitating stroke is being denied life-sustaining food and water by her family and doctors -- a court said it was okay because Doris Smith signed a living will. The daughter of the woman argues, however, that her mother never intended to be starved to death when she signed the legal document before her stroke.

Nurses at the nursing home stopped administering food and water to Mrs. Smith Monday, following the instruction of two other children, despite the efforts of attorney Jack Wright. The Louisiana Supreme Court refused to hear Smith's daughter, Oris Pettis', appeal. "We're at the end," Wright told the Associated Press.

"Most people have no idea that when it states in a Living Will/Power of Attorney that no further medical treatment will be provided in certain circumstances that it means they will also be denied food and fluids," according to Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. "The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is called regularly by people who have no intention of granting their doctor or family members the right to dehydrate and starve them to death and yet have a Living Will/Power of Attorney document that would do just that.

Related Links:

• TerrisFight.Org

Responding to Larry King's Love-Fest.

Fr. Rob Johansen gave Bob & Mary Schindler the opportunity to respond point-by-point to Michael's allegations -- about her settlement, the rehabilitation (or lack thereof), Terri's medical condition prior to and after the "accident", and the manner in which she suffered her collapse, -- in a comparatively substantial interview with them on his blog.

As has been mentioned by a number of bloggers, a troubling aspect of this whole affair has been the notable absence of involvement by the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersberg and Bishop Lynch. (Domenico Bettinelli asks, for instance, "why did a priest have to fly from Kalamazoo, Michigan, to provide spiritual care for Terri's family and supporters?"). This disturbing lack of concern was apparently present among some pro-life organizations as well, a fact made clear by Fr. Bob in his interview:

As to the contention that the Schindlers are being put up to their defense of Terri's life by "right-wing" pro-life groups, Bob & Mary Schindler dismiss it as ridiculous. "The first offers of assistance we got from national pro-life or conservative groups was about two weeks ago", Bob said. Furthermore, the assistance offered was in terms of organization and mobilizing grass-roots support, not financial support. "We actually approached a couple of organizations back in 2000 after the first trial", Bob added, "but they weren't interested in getting involved at that time."

Indeed, the Schindlers have fought for more than a decade with little more than their own resources and some local help . . . . The Schindlers started the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation to get the word out about Terri's plight and to raise money to help defray the considerable expenses they have incurred in their efforts to save her.

Terri Schiavo saved!

• Monday 11:01PM - Life Matters reports that:

  The Florida House voted late Monday to give Gov. Jeb Bush the power to intervene in [the case of Terri Schiavo].

  The House voted 68-23 in favor of the bill. . . . The bill would give the state's governor 15 days to order a feeding tube to be reinserted in cases like Terri Schiavo's. The governor's power would be limited to cases where a person has left no living will, is in a persistent vegetative state, has had nutrition and hydration tubes removed and where a family member has challenged the removal.

  Schiavo, 39, meets all the bill's requirements.

  Bush said in a statement earlier Monday that lawmakers understand the "unique and tragic circumstances of Ms. Schiavo's case, and I am hopeful the Legislature will pass a bill immediately."

• Update Tuesday 4:27pm From Times Against Humanity:

  Your efforts, calls, e-mails, and faxes have made a difference! . . . the Florida State Senate has just passed the Terri Bill, which now goes to Gov. Jeb Bush for his signature. According to the Associated Press, "the House approved the [Senate] bill 73-24 after the Senate passed it 23-15."

• Update - Tuesday Evening - Fox News' Hannity & Combes are covering the case. Gov. Bush signed the executive order for the reinsertion of the feeding tube. Terri is currently being re-hydrated (the first step of the process). According to Fox News:

  After the Senate's vote, a cheer went up among about 80 protesters outside Schiavo's hospice in Pinellas Park.

  "We are just ecstatic," Bob Schindler said after Bush told him he would issue the order. "It's restored my belief in God."

  Suzanne Carr, Terri Schiavo's sister, called the development "a miracle, an absolute miracle." Terri's mother broke down crying when she heard the news.

• To Gov. Bush and Florida Lawmakers, to those who spread the word by phones and over the web, to those who were present at the vigil -- thanks to you, Terri is alive today.

Silence from the Left . . .

It is unfortunately noted that the case of Terri Schiavo has been by and large a topic of internet conversation among Catholic and religious bloggers. Raving Atheist can be credited for bringing this matter to the attention of his readers. From the comments box, a possible and jarring explanation for the silence of so many:

"I think (and hope) that most atheists, like most anybody, would oppose Terri Schiavo's death by starvation for a simple, non-theological reason: it's murder. More importantly, as RA notes, why does the interest in this stem largely from religious and conservative blogs/websites? Where is the liberal outrage over this? Is RA right that the left's support of abortion and reflexive opposition to most positions of the Catholic Church puts them in an untenable position regarding a case like Terri Schiavo's? As a liberal, I find that horrifying..."

Catholic Bloggers on Terry Schiavo . . .

• Fellow Catholic bloggers (Life Matters; Times Against Humanity; Thrown Back, among others) relay the news that a number of legal specialists are insisting that Gov. Bush does in fact posses the legal authority (and obligation) to intervene on behalf of Terry Schiavo, despite his claims to the contrary. Unfortunately, Gov. Bush appears to be lacking the political motivation to do so, prompting many to query along with Newsmax.com: "Has Gov. Bush wimped out?".

  Those wishing to ask Gov. Bush about his reluctance to assist can e-mail him at jeb.bush@myflorida.com or phone him at 850-488-7146 (comments line) and 850-488-4441. I confess to being skeptical when it comes to politicans taking action on behalf of moral causes -- short of a miracle, I think that only an overwhelming outcry among resident voters in Florida will prompt him to further action. (Of course, I hope he'll prove me wrong and said as much in my letter).

  [UPDATE: As reported by Mark Shea, Jeb Bush has called a special session of the Fla. legislature for Monday, and a state legislator will introduce "Terri's Bill," a bill to put a temporary moratorium on all dehydration and starvation deaths underway in Florida].

• Peter Vere from Catholic Light wonders (justifiably so, I think) if there is something more than money motivating Mr. Schiavo's desire to end the life of his wife. He also requests prayers for Christopher Ferrara, who is providing legal assistance to Schiavo's family in seeking an intervention.
• Providing a different stance on the issue, Mark from Minute Particulars blogs on one what he believes is a neglected element of this debate, namely, the "right of a husband or wife to determine what is best for his or her incapacitated spouse." Peter of Sursum Corda responds, initiating an interesting exchange in the comments section with El Camino Real's Jeff Culbreath and others.
• Finally, Disturber of the Peace posts some stern criticisms pertaining to Schiavo case from one courageous Catholic bishop. Bishop Lynch of St. Petersberg, FL? -- Unfortunately, no. Rather, from Cardinal Clemens von Galen, Archbishop of Munster, Germany, 1941, who spoke out against the "mercy killings" of the Nazi euthanasia movement.