Distributed Mind

So... I was thinking about my sort of response, and just as much, my lack of response to the Terri Schiavo case, about which I only finally actually verbalized my thoughts. And even when I did that, I didn't really say anything. And I wondered why... Well, I didn't really wonder, because I already had some ideas, it was just a matter of organizing those ideas. So let me think through this out loud fot the benefit of everyone else as well.

I suppose I should start with the least dangerous reasons for my silence. The least bad reason for me to have been quiet is that I sort of had a sense that the case was somehow more complicated than I knew. Related to that is the idea that since it didn't really affect me, I wasn't in much of a place to say anything about it; any conservative readers will immediately have seen the fallacy in that thought, which I will address momentarily. But, regardless of whether it really had anything to do with me or not, I still felt fundamentally out of touch with what was really happening. Thus, as usual, as my laziness kicks in, I decided to stay out of the way.

Okay, outright laziness would have to be fully developed reason number 2 for not saying anything. (Though it was not laziness by itself; laziness combined with a personal distance from an issue was the deadly combination that kept me quiet.)

Also related to my sense that I was not fully aware of what was really going on, was a certain fear of being played by the politically conservative elements of the religious press. True. they usually have their heads on more straight in relation to abortion and euthanasia than much of the more moderate and liberal branches of the secular press, but still, it was largely manipulation in the conservative press that caused me to reconsider conservativism in the first place. I am not even sure what sort of manipulation I expected, but I just expected it. And if not manipulation, I guess I at least sort of suspected that their priorities - and thus potentially mine - might not be fully sorted. Why this one case which until very recently people in 49 states could do nothing about, and even those in the 50th could do little about? (Certainly, that last one did have a lot to do with my inaction.) What was it about this one case - a case where the courts bought the argument that Terri Schiavo's wishes would have been to die and took Michael Schiavo's side - out of all the death and destruction in the world, that was singled out? Was a huge fight over a potentially merely symbolic fight "worth it?" (Obviously this line of though ignores to some extent the crucial question of the merit of saving a specific individual regardless of cost; sort of a "take a stand" approach, which seems to be what "right-to-life" activists and politicians are hoping for.)

People of different ideological persuasions may view the last several reasons for silence and inaction as being of differing levels of "badness," as it were, but I think in general most can agree these are all issues we struggle with. The next one may be more polarizing though, and is probably much worse of a reason than the others I have mentioned, and thus that much more dangerous. I think a large part of the reason I had shown so much indifference (certainly not complete indifference, but enough to have not taken any action) to this case is that I do live in a time and a place, to which I have become perhaps too acclimated, in which the perspective on death has changed. The Terri Schiavo case was only interesting if it was definitely true that she would not have wanted to die, and if her husband was not acting maliciously, and probably the courts were in the best place to determine that. And it sort of seemed that any serious opposition to that idea - barring gross judicial misconduct - would have to be merely ideological opposition for its own sake.

Of course, this is exactly what the "right-to-life" perspective predicted what would happen. Euthanasia would slip in slowly till no one noticed it anymore. First, people could decide for themselves in advance not to be kept on life support if they were to be incapacitated. Given the odd sort of medical quandries we have created for ourselves these days, that certainly makes some sense. Just as much as humans weren't meant to let each other die through inaction as well as action, so to possibly were humans not meant to be kept alive indefinitely despite the hardest efforts of their bodies. Possibly. But it made some sense. On the other end of the spectrum, we have issues like assisted suicide and actual euthanasia - doctors killing people with lethal drugs, etc. These are basically definitely out from an ethical standpoint, but we have been arguing about the whole thing long enough, I have become rather jaded, which is foolish, but is also the reality. Then somewhere in between comes a case like Terri Schiavo's where we have someone who may have wanted to die, but didn't explicitly say so through the accepted procedures, and who doesn't need life support but does need food. It has clear cut boundaries, but because it sort of gets mixed in with the larger debate, it is easy to miss what is really going on. And so far, I have.

And as I think about it, it is silly for me to do so. Regardless of whether Michael Schiavo is correct that his wife would have wanted to die, or not, why would it make sense to allow someone to starve to death? Especially if there is some question as to whether that was really her wish or not.

I don't dent there are still some complexities to the ethics, specifically related to mental capacity. But it seems that is, as they say, better to be safe than sorry.

This approach does have broad implications, though. It will probably become necessary to question whether one should be allowed to choose to starve to death in advance if incapacitated. And, to be consistent, it may turn out that the answer to that question is negative. I say "may" but clearly that is where my line of argument takes us; the question is how consistent will Congress and the courts feel they need to be.

The broader implications, though, are only problematic if we really think that the "right to die" should be a major issue. I know there are people invested in that who have strong, sincere arguments. But, I don't know that medically, culturall, socially, or ethically we are ready to answer some of the tougher questions in that area. And some of them (e.g. assisted suicide) I already know the answer for myself, and again it is negative.

So, the only thing that should give me pause is an issue that I don't even agree with? Thus, I am forced to conclude that (1) Terri Schiavo should be kept fed, and (2) people in similar situations should likewise not be withheld nutrition. And, while it might not be an airtight conclusion, I suspect that (3) anyone arguing with this conclusion is probably doing so from an ideological standpoint that conflicts with my own view of human life.

Cases such as these can be harder for people like me to deal with, stuck as I am, I feel, between conservativism and radical liberalism, between conservative religion and yet also secular liberalism. It is hard sometimes to know which side to agree with, which side even to believe, in some cases. And I think that ultimately has been a large part of my silence on this issue. Having dealt with manipulation in the past on the conservative side and muddy ethical thinking from the other side (not to imply there is a shortage of that on the conservative side), on an issue that wasn't even being argued about directly by the left, I still felt the need to stay out. Well, now I am in, I guess.

Don't take this as the definitive statement from me on this issue, yet. Maybe this will be the final word. But mostly, I felt the need to say something, especially as I felt I owed it to those who, while they might have inconsistent and bizarre views on things like social justice, war, etc., are still genuinely trying to uphold the value of a single human life in this nation. I don't want to cut them slack on the issues they have botched badly (not like the left doesn't have plenty of those too), but when they are right, I have to acknowledge it. The fact that I waited as long as I did says more (negatively) about me than it does about them.