Terri Schaivo: Immediate Desire v. Higher Duty
In many ways I agree with CADRE member The Dawn Treader when he says in his post entitled "Exegeting Culture: The Terri Schiavo Story" that "I feel like we are all standing around a swimming pool and watching a child drown … and analyzing the drowning and discussing the ethical and legal issues involved in diving in to save the child." Still, I think that I have seen little discussion about is the difference between what we want (our desires) and what we would do if we choose to act virtuously.
As I understand the situation, Terri is being starved to death because her husband (and supposedly others who have never been identified that I can find) introduced testimony that Terri, in a casual conversation about people in persistent vegetative states, said words to the effect of "I wouldn't want to live that way." As I listen to the endless discussion of this matter on the radio, I hear person after person saying basically the same thing about Terri's position: "I wouldn't want to live like that."
Ignoring for a moment the dispute over whether she actually said such a thing, I guess I wonder whether we ought not take into account the difference between what we want and what we do on the basis that it is virtuous to do so. I may have a desire to do something or avoid doing something because of a gut reaction that it would be distasteful, but that doesn’t mean that in light of my concept of what is good or virtuous, I wouldn’t do it anyway. For example, I wouldn't want to go fight the war in Iraq, but I would go if I were called upon to do so -- there is a higher calling than my desires. I wouldn't want to be unmarried, teenage and pregnant, but if I had been in that position, I wouldn't have aborted the baby -- there is a higher calling than my desires.
I told my daughter the other day that I wouldn't want to live in the condition that Terri Schiavo is living. But you know what? I believe that only God can take life, and as long as I can live, I don't think it is right to pull the feeding tube and killing myself even if I am in the persistent vegetative state. My distaste at living life in a persistent vegetative state is outweighed by my beliefs that the better, more virtuous, road would be to live out my life in such a condition until God sees fit to bring me home.
Unfortunately, we will never know what Terri wanted because it has become fairly obvious that absent a miracle, Terri will shortly be starved to death. But I will always wonder whether when she said (allegedly) that she "wouldn't want to live that way," she meant that it would be distasteful or undesirable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she would have wanted the feeding tube removed. As many millions of people have been throughout history, she may have been motivated by a higher purpose.
In many ways I agree with CADRE member The Dawn Treader when he says in his post entitled "Exegeting Culture: The Terri Schiavo Story" that "I feel like we are all standing around a swimming pool and watching a child drown … and analyzing the drowning and discussing the ethical and legal issues involved in diving in to save the child." Still, I think that I have seen little discussion about is the difference between what we want (our desires) and what we would do if we choose to act virtuously.
As I understand the situation, Terri is being starved to death because her husband (and supposedly others who have never been identified that I can find) introduced testimony that Terri, in a casual conversation about people in persistent vegetative states, said words to the effect of "I wouldn't want to live that way." As I listen to the endless discussion of this matter on the radio, I hear person after person saying basically the same thing about Terri's position: "I wouldn't want to live like that."
Ignoring for a moment the dispute over whether she actually said such a thing, I guess I wonder whether we ought not take into account the difference between what we want and what we do on the basis that it is virtuous to do so. I may have a desire to do something or avoid doing something because of a gut reaction that it would be distasteful, but that doesn’t mean that in light of my concept of what is good or virtuous, I wouldn’t do it anyway. For example, I wouldn't want to go fight the war in Iraq, but I would go if I were called upon to do so -- there is a higher calling than my desires. I wouldn't want to be unmarried, teenage and pregnant, but if I had been in that position, I wouldn't have aborted the baby -- there is a higher calling than my desires.
I told my daughter the other day that I wouldn't want to live in the condition that Terri Schiavo is living. But you know what? I believe that only God can take life, and as long as I can live, I don't think it is right to pull the feeding tube and killing myself even if I am in the persistent vegetative state. My distaste at living life in a persistent vegetative state is outweighed by my beliefs that the better, more virtuous, road would be to live out my life in such a condition until God sees fit to bring me home.
Unfortunately, we will never know what Terri wanted because it has become fairly obvious that absent a miracle, Terri will shortly be starved to death. But I will always wonder whether when she said (allegedly) that she "wouldn't want to live that way," she meant that it would be distasteful or undesirable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she would have wanted the feeding tube removed. As many millions of people have been throughout history, she may have been motivated by a higher purpose.
Comments
"Boys and girls, if 1 = 0 what does 35 = ?" A wrong answer got an "F Grade."
If they said,"Zero," they got an "A."
America's human value system is based on the value of each Individual person; One.
If One equals Zero what will 160 million be worth?
Abortion/cannibalism is devaluing each and every individual in our Country including you
and me -- and each One in our families -- and each Individual American.
Terri is now being used to teach that each individual is in further jeopardy. She is being
placed there by law. Law which is minimal in describing human behavior and worth in a
civilized society.
Law raises no maxim high standard but only a minimum of acceptance -- not the highest.
Ethics and morality are higher standards which are not being used in Terri's protection
because lawyers and judges revere law as the highest standard -- when it is not. It is the
least standard. "Grade: F "
"Woe unto you lawyers and judges!" Your stewardship before The Creator is non-existent.
The Lord God will not be mocked. As you sow you will reap. Legalists are individuals and
will be weighed in the balances of their own choosing.
Observe.......Behold!