FYI: A Thin View of 'Life'

Mon Mar 28 20:51:11 CEST 2005

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

washingtonpost.com

A Thin View of 'Life'
By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Friday, March 25, 2005; Page A19
FORT MYERS, Fla. -- What does it mean to be pro-life?
The label is thrown around in American politics so blithely that you'd
imagine it refers to some workaday issue such as a tax bill or a trade
agreement. Might the one good thing to come out of the rancid politics
surrounding the Terri Schiavo case be a serious discussion of the meaning of
that term?
To begin with, why did Congress feel an obligation to turn Schiavo's tragedy
into a federal case? President Bush's answer was compelling: "In a case such
as this, the legislative branch, the executive branch ought to err on the
side of life."
You don't have to be a religious conservative to agree with that or to worry
about prematurely allowing someone to die. But what, exactly, does "a case
such as this" mean? Does it refer to one that received widespread publicity
and became a major national cause for the right-to-life movement? Does it
refer to one in which the parents and the spouse disagree?
There are countless decisions made every week when a family member removes
someone they love from life support. Just over a week ago, a 5 1/2-month-old
baby named Sun Hudson died after doctors at Texas Children's Hospital
removed the breathing tube that had kept him alive. It was removed over his
mother's opposition under the provisions of the 1999 Texas Advance
Directives Act signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush.
Democrats such as Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida have been arguing
that Bush's decision to sign the bill aimed at protecting Schiavo's life is
inconsistent with his earlier decision to sign a law designed to rationalize
the way end-of-life decisions are made.
But leave that aside and just ask why Schiavo's case was a national cause
and Sun Hudson's wasn't. I am sure there are medical and moral distinctions
to be made, but honestly: How many bills would Congress have to pass to
ensure that in every close medical call around the country, we "err on the
side of life"? How many courts would have to be involved? That's why it's
not surprising the Supreme Court decided yesterday to stay out of this
controversy.
Whether or not signing that Texas bill puts the 1999 Bush at odds with the
2005 Bush, the act of approving it was an acknowledgment that end-of-life
issues in an age of advanced medical technology must be confronted, however
wrenching they are. Facing up to those questions and drawing distinctions is
especially important for those -- and I'm one of them -- who oppose
doctor-assisted suicide.
How has Terri Schiavo's care been financed? The available information
suggests that some of the money came from one of those much-derided medical
malpractice lawsuits and that the drugs she needs have been paid for by
Medicaid.
The irony has not been lost on Democrats. Just a few days after most
Republicans in both houses of Congress had supported cuts in federal funding
of Medicaid, here they were erring "on the side of life" in a single case.
The same issue has come up here in Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush, a strong
supporter of keeping Schiavo alive, has been proposing cuts in Medicaid
spending.
Republicans cry foul when any link is made between the Schiavo question and
the Medicaid question. "The fact that they're tying a life issue to the
budget process shows just how disconnected Democrats are to reality,"
harrumphed Dan Allen, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Forgive me, Mr. Allen, I know you're just doing your job, but what's
disconnected from reality is refusing to accept the idea that health care is
about life issues and money issues.
People who lack access to health care because they can't afford insurance
often die earlier than they have to -- with absolutely no national publicity
and with no members of Congress rising up at midnight to pass bills on their
behalf. What is the point of standing up for life in an individual case but
not confronting the cost of choosing life for all who are threatened within
the health care system or by their lack of access to it?
What does it mean to be pro-life? As far as I can tell, most of those who
would keep Schiavo alive favor the death penalty. Most favored allowing the
assault weapons ban to expire and oppose other forms of gun control. The
president makes an excellent point when he says we "ought to err on the side
of life." It's a shame how rarely that principle is put into practice.
postchat at aol.com
(c) 2005 The Washington Post Company

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drs. W.E. van de Griendt
promovendus/Ph.D.-student Institute for Governance Studies (IGS)
Onderzoeker/Researcher van het Centre for European Studies (CES)
Universiteit Twente Faculteit Bedrijf, Bestuur en Technologie
Postbus 217 7500 AE  Enschede
Nederland/ The Netherlands
Room: E-206 (Capitool-gebouw)
Tel: 053-4891160 (direct)
Tel: 053-4893260 (secretariaat)
Email: mailto:w.e.vandegriendt at utwente.nl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished
in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even
perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin. - John F. Kennedy,
Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********