The Death Precedent

I am more than a little frustrated with newspeople, even those on Fox News (Mara Liasson), who keep referring to Terri Schiavo as "comatose". Even the term "persistent vegetative state" (Mort Kondracke) is extremely bothersome because it is undefined, probably inaccurate and is a way of basically declaring her a non-person, much the way "fetus" depersonalizes the unborn child.

World Magazine has a timeline of Terri's Case which notes the troubling issue surrounding her ability to swallow. Three doctors have apparently filed affidavits indicating she can swallow on her own, yet she has been denied by Judge Greer, through the wishes of her husband, the administering of swallow tests, which would establish whether this supposedly "comatose" individual can eat and drink on her own.

Lately the debate has been all about the alleged hypocrisy of Republican lawmakers in attempting to intervene. Democrats, as well as Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, are incredulous that Republicans would be so dismissive of states rights in this case. Robert Bork sees no problem whatsoever with what lawmakers are attempting to do, as documented in this CNS News article. Bork says what is obvious, that the real issue is that any right to life case scares the Roe v. Wade supporters to death.

As always, what is missed, or deliberately ignored, is that this case is not just about Terri Schiavo. It is about legal precedent. For most of those movers and shakers who are not supportive of Terri's parents, it is not about marital rights or state rights. It is about the right to die. A precedent is being established here, and unfortunately, the actions of Congress are giving federal courts a chance to solidify that precedent. The precedent is that a human being who has no terminal illness, who requires only nutrition and hydration, who responds to stimulus and may be able to swallow on her own, is being legally defined by the courts as in a "persistent vegetative state", and is thus written off as having no legal right to life. The precedent is that a living human person is being starved to death by court order. The state is killing an innocent human being based only an arbitrary notion of quality of life.

This is why reshaping the courts is so critical. It matters not at all what laws are written when judicial decisions can so easily turn those laws on their heads or render them meaningless. Once a judge decides what a law "means", all subsequent decisions are negatively influenced because conservative judges are less likely to overturn precedents and liberal judges are more likely to establish them.

If Terry Schiavo is starved to death, after appeals to federal courts, the unwanted but predictable result will be that a Federal judicial precedent will have been set allowing starvation in future cases. This is an extremely dark day and I am quite sure most folks don't really get it.