The silence is deafening.
The State of Massachusetts has ruled that 11-year-old Haleigh Poutre can be taken off life support and "allowed" to die, agreeing with the Department of Social Services that she is in a "persistent vegetative state."
So where are the pro-life armies who were ubiquitous during the Schiavo tragedy? Where are the reams of op-ed pieces decrying the assumption that life in a "p.v.s" is not worth saving? Why is the President not rushing back from a vacation to sign legislation especially written and designed to save Haleigh?
Ah...because this case is more complicated. In Teri's case, there was a simple tug-of-war between parents who wanted her to live and a husband who wanted her to die so he could get on with his life. But in Haleigh's case, those who might otherwise be quick to jump in on the side of life have shied away from a righteous stand because to allow Haleigh to live is to save the stepfather who beat her with a baseball bat from being charged with her murder.
So now the muddiness actually makes the question more clear: is there a standard? Do we stand on the side of life at all costs? Or do we approach these matters on a case-by-case basis, coming down on the side of life only when there's no scumbag stepfather begging for his comatose victim to live?
If we argue for the sanctity of life, we'd better be sure that we don't shrink from our convictions when the circumstances surrounding the life are unpalatable. There's no way we can be taken seriously if we hide behind the bushes when the choice to respect life leaves some garbage in its wake.
posted by Granny at 1/20/2006 11:01:00 AM
.jpg)
5 Comments:
I have to admit, I caught myself thinking "man I'd hate to see him get off because she lives that way for years". It seems that justice for one might preclude it for the other. But you're right -- the most important right thing is to allow her life as long as God wills.
Remember, the step-father's judgement is already stored up for him. There is nothing the secular authorities can do that will be worse.
To be honest I'm not sure "wrong" has been done here. Granted I know next to nothing about the case only the little snippets of news I've read. But from what I understand doctors pronounced that she was in a state of permanent PVS.
The state then ruled that the victim's body should be allowed to die. Two days later the doctors reconsidered and said that in fact she might not be in a PVS and the State has stayed the order to remove life support.
My thoughts are a medical mistake was made here, that mistake was recognized and so far corrected. It seems to me that this is how the system should work.
From what I understand the difference between this case and Shiavo was that before January 17th there was never a realistic question that Haleigh wasn't brain dead. Whereas with Shiavo there were strong arguments that her brain was responding to outside stimuli (apparently proven wrong after her body died).
I've often wondered about the moral implications of allowing someone to die out of PVS. Hypothetically if caught at the right time all of humanity could be stored in PVS indefinitely. In the future this option could not only be certain but very easy to accomplish. It could be that at some point in the future anytime someone's body dies it’s because a decision was made to deny the PVS option. So the question is, is it wrong to allow a heart to stop beating?
My uninformed take is that there is difference between allowing a life to end on its own and ending a life that could survive on its on abilities. I don’t know what’s right, all I know is that I’m thankfully God didn’t put these decisions in my hands.
if your son was in a PVS and the doctors told you he would never wake up, would you really want the state stepping in to tell you whether you could take him off life support? i'd have to say i think the girl's mother should be able to decide what's best for her daughter. even if its not the right decision in the end, we all want the right to make those calls on our own without the interference of the government. if this woman is stripped of her right to make the call, it could lead to the disintegration of our rights as parents.
Anne
(the previous comment was from my better half.)
aleb, you raise very good points. And unfortunately, those points are here because we live in a fallen world and have to wrestle with decisions that, ideally, should not be ours to make.
The point about keeping people in permanent (or semi-permanent) PVS raises all sorts of ethical issues. In the future will those type of cases be resolved on the side of "future harvesting of organs"? Or will they be decided on what's best for those left behind? Or...and so on. Has an almost Matrix feel to it.
Like you my knowledge is peripheral at best. In that I do not have much faith in local, or state, or national governments to make decision with the right basis (for us that would be Scripture), it become even more imperative that we are being the type of influence that makes a difference in the culture around us.
And I echo your thanks, that God didn't say, "John, work this out. And don't mess it up."
Post a Comment
<< Home