What a mess!
Something smells fishy somewhere (no offense to fisherpeople).
On the one hand, I don't get the husband. The money's gone, the parents will take care of her, her wishes don't seem to be that clear--why not divorce her and raise your new family and let the parents take care of her. After all, they've got a wad of cash now to tap that would support her with a vengeance!
On the other hand, I have real problems with Randall Terry and others who say Terry tried to speak. I'm not much for conspiracy theories. Ockam's Razor says that the most straightforward explanation is usually the correct one. That means that conspiracy theories by their very nature are from the get go less likely explanations of things.
I guess the husband is going to allow an autopsy, so then we'll know better what was really going on.
But to step back from this specific incidence, what are so many Christians really angry at? Is it
1. that they don't believe Schiavo is really in a persistent vegitative state and that a murder is taking place?
2. that they don't understand what a persistant vegitative state is and think that because her eyes are open and her head is moving that there is really awareness of any kind there?
3. that they don't believe a person whose body is still breathing on its own can be allowed to die, even if the "human" part of the brain is gone?
I know that the first possibility is the majority of what I'm picking up on, and that's fair enough. Surely those who are saying "We should err on the side of life" are correct. As the one dissenting judge said initially, I don't see the harm in taking another brain scan. I don't either. Why not before you make a truly grave error?
I'm also afraid that there's a good deal of number two going around. It's unfortunate in a way that the whole brain doesn't die at the same speed. They tell me the "me" part of the brain dies first. With each passing minute without oxygen after five minutes, I will go from brain damage to a new category, "minimally conscious state." Then from my point of view I'm gone, but my shell goes to a persistent vegitative state to a coma to a coma on life support to a corpse. I would hate it if this situation turned out to be a case of "Christians looking stupid" because of ignorance.
But I have also heard the third option expressed. I have a family member who put it this way: "the Bible says that the life is in the blood, not the life is in the brain." True, but I don't think that was exactly what Leviticus was really talking about. Nevertheless, it seems a coherent position, and I respect it.
So what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Although various people have various reasons for why this case has raised such emotion in people, I think there is a shared sentiment by many; a feeling of helplessness. Regardless of the "presistent vegetative state" debate I have seen many restless at the idea that this woman is slowly being starved to death. With a court order that this woman is not allowed to be fed, helplessness seems to dominate the thoughts of many. I pray that this feeling is a genuine concern for the woman and her family rather than a subtle desire to have control. Often times the reality is that we simply do not have control. That's where trust comes in. Perhaps we feel helpless because we struggle with trust in God...just some thoughts.
~Ben Robinson
I'll be honest I'm rather torn on the issue as a whole. I'd like to believe she has no idea whats going on and she not feeling any pain. There seem to be at least somewhat conflicting takes on whether or not she's actually in the state. Also, I struggle with letting someone die. You can give me a lot of rational reasons why it's ok, and I still have a tough time with it. I guess my real problem is who gets to decide. I don't think the "husband" (term used loosely) should really get the choice here. I will say this, I"m not sure protesting outside where she's residing is going to solve a lot nor change culture much I truly struggle with the way we as Christians respond in times of crisis.
"They tell me the "me" part of the brain dies first."
If only the "me part" was definable. If only the definition of a person wasn't something like "having a human body, mind, and soul," in which we have no clue what a soul actually consists of our functions as. So is the "me" the "soul?"
Great! Everything is crystal clear now! As if Christology didn't make my head hurt, now blogging causes me intellectual concussions.
Many people seem to say we have no right to take away her life if her body's still functioning. I wrestle with that statement though, because I'm not sure if it's true.
I have heard many say that we cannot play God, deciding who lives and who dies. I don't know how to respond to this though. After all, isn't all of modern medicine an attempt to "play God" and prolong our lives? Can't the feeding tube be seen as fighting God's supposed will? Often as Christians we take a decidedly myopic view of things and do not realize btoh sides of the issue - if taking away life is playing God, then is an emergency surgery to save a life also playing God? Is using a defribilator to start a stopped heart in essence playing God, by restarting a heart he supposedly stopped? Or does some invisible edict allow us to give play God in a positive way and not a negative - as if we can see through His purposes and know life is always the better answer . . .
Post a Comment