Is there some kind of hierarchy of sanctity?
Help me out here, somebody. I'm just not well-versed in the intricacies and implications of sanctity. When we're talking about the sanctity-related properties of a sanctified thing, are some sanctified things, like, more sanctified than other sanctified things? I have some questions, I guess, about the sanctity of life versus the sanctity of marriage.
Here's a hypothetical case:
Let's say there's a sanctified husband and wife, ok? A church-authorized marriage between one man and one woman. Let's put them in the context of a marriage in which she has signed on to graciously submit to her husband's will on account of he's the biblically mandated head of their righteous christian household. And let's say they've performed their sanctified marital obligations (again) and now the gal is pregnant (yet again). For the purpose of this discussion, let's say she's in her forties, and they just got some test results, and the fetus she is carrying -- the pre-born individual, if you like -- is seriously and fatally flawed. Like, doesn't have lungs, or is missing its head or something. And also that at her age, and given that she has a few other chronic medical conditions that make pregnancy dangerous, and the wear and tear on her body from previous pregnancies and miscarriages, let's say that this pregnancy represents a very serious threat to her health and her life. With this in mind, as well as the -- let's say there are seven -- hypothetical little ones at home, let's say the husband decides that this pregnancy needs to be terminated.
Are you with me so far?
OK let's keep going. The husband, as biblically ordained and socially approved head of the household, makes a decision that he believes is in his wife's best interest, and in the best interest of his seven happy, healthy, living children, god's will or no. He tells his wife that he believes that this pregnancy should be terminated. That is to say, this fetus, this baby, this pre-born human, should be aborted -- in the interest of the whole family and in order to save her life. She says no way, every life is sacred, and even if the baby will not live very long after emerging from her body, it is her obligation to suffer the pregnancy, take all the risks, and allow the fetus to be born, suffer horribly, and die. She understands that the likelihood of death for her newborn baby is 100%, but she believes in the sanctity of life, and she accepts that whole thing about christians needing to suffer sometimes for their beliefs. But she also believes in the possibility of the occasional miracle. Her faith tells her it's possible that her baby will be just fine.
Yes, this is a difficult case. Yes, I can see that hard-liners will say that she is obliged to carry this pregnancy to term and that she has to defy her sanctified marital obligation to submit to her husband, even though she takes her obligations to her family seriously, and even though she fears the consequences of her decision.
I'm thinking that the hard-liners are wrong, and that if I were her I would want to think a little harder about things. But I'm a left-leaning libertarian heathen, and I always think that. I'm also pretty swayed by an argument that is both practical and compassionate. I say terminate the pregnancy. There is heartbreak either way, and yes indeed that is a bummer.
I try to avoid most of your large-scale media circuses, and so I haven't paid much attention to the very real case of Terri Schiavo; it's just too depressing. [And there's a lot out there -- I'm not going to link to every single thing, but I'm in general agreement with those expressed at Alas, A Blog and Pharyngula and the Rude Pundit.] I've been reading about the history and the details of the case this morning, though, and it's truly appalling. I mean, her brain has essentially dissolved, bless her. Her body is alive, without any cognitive function and possessing only the lowest-order reflexes. Since she lacks the ability to swallow food or water, she has -- for, what, some fifteen years now -- been given these vital substances via medical procedures and devices (feeding tubes, IV ports, etc.).
Some people argue that giving a patient food and water is not keeping her alive by artificial or extraordinary means, nor does it constitute "artificial life support," like dialysis or a heart-lung machine or whatever it is that we all fear being hooked up to in the end.
I'll certainly agree that withholding food and water from patients who are physically able to swallow it would be, well, murdering them in much the same way that putting a pillow over the face of a patient who is able to breathe would be murder. I mean, we don't go around depriving people of food, water, and air -- even when, say, they can't move to prevent us from suffocating them or they can't bring the food to their own mouths without assistance.
But when you have to employ medical devices and/or surgical procedures to get the air, food, or water into patients' bodies, then what you are doing is providing artificial life support. No matter how simple the procedure seems, no matter how much you say "it's just giving her food and water," it's still artificial life support in a way that holding food to someone's lips to allow them to eat it, or changing their diaper, or keeping them clean and free of bedsores and infections is not.
The legal issues behind the definition of artificial life support vary from state to state, of course, but it's my understanding that Florida law considers feeding tubes to be artificial life support. Abstract Appeal is the weblog of a Florida attorney (attorneys?) not connected with the case who has been following developments from the legal standpoint, and it's an excellent source of information.
Anyway, this particular case has obviously struck a deep loud chord for a lot of people. Is withdrawing her feeding tube merely allowing her to die, or is it the same as killing her? Who has the right to decide whether or when to discontinue such measures when the patient can't communicate? There are activists holding vigils and hunger strikes. The governor of Mrs. Schiavo's state (the brother of the president), has supported a bill that attempts to resolve the case in accordance with a hardline pro-life, and clearly rightwing worldview.
[update] Plus the US Congress has introduced a bill intended to force the case into federal court, though they deny having any political motives; they are just trying to save the woman's life: links here (free subscription req), and here and here.[/update]
It's a big hairy deal.
As I read through pages and pages and followed link after link to about a bazillion commentaries and news articles about the case, I was struck by a few things:
- One of the purported benefits of marriage is that your legal, sanctified spouse -- and not your parents or siblings or rich guys offering your spouse large sums of money or even Mel Gibson -- get to make medical decisions on your behalf in the event of your incapacitation. Nobody is talking about the sanctity of the Schiavos' marriage here. Why not? Isn't this the whole point? I mean, it doesn't take many clicks of the old mouse from the "Save Terri"-leaning websites to get to a "God Made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" type post on the same site. Or, as I asked above, do some kinds of sanctity trump others? On what grounds?
- The Florida courts have determined that removal of this particular woman's feeding tube is what she would have wanted -- whether or not her husband agrees. Why is it even an issue?
- Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo and her parents are devout catholics. Why are her parents trying to get them divorced? Which church teachings apply? Is divorce OK sometimes?
- It feels almost silly to mention it in the context of all these big issues, but this poor woman's condition is the result of her severely dysfunctional dieting/eating behavior. This is a whole separate issue, but one deserving of attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment