The Issue Behind the Issue
While it is obvious that religion has much to say about the Schiavo case, it has little to contribute in terms of a solution. The solution to this situation will be born of reason, not of faith. Faith can, and should, contribute to our having an understanding on the sanctity of human life; however, the reality of technological advancement can only be understood and executed from the frame of reference reason incorporates.
The Issue Behind the Issue
Terri Schiavo died today. Her death was certainly no surprise to anyone, although the furor surrounding her death surprised everyone. Underneath the media’s coverage of her passing was an interesting tension that says much about what really separates Americans - differences that do not fit the media’s portrayal of what binds us together and divides us apart. Polls show that a large majority of Americans feel the courts did the right thing by removing life support and allowing Terri to die. But the images surrounding the coverage of the issue attempted to show a sea of humanity pouring down to Florida to protest the court’s decision and to beg for someone in a position of authority to intervene and save her life. If America was as one-dimensional and monolithic in her views as the media’s portrayal has suggested, we would expect to see polls support the government stopping the court and re-inserting Schiavo’s feeding tube. But the reality was more complex, more nuanced and says something about our country; that most recognize the primacy of technology, science and medicine and have adapted themselves to the implications of these facts. We can and should see within the Schiavo case the reality that Americans are not ideologically in line with the religious establishment of our country’s view of certain hot button ideas (none more touchy than the debate over what constitutes life), but should equally recognize that the most organized group in the country today are the groups that use the church as a vehicle for projecting their voice into the country’s policy making institutions and culture.
What we all need to see, wrestle with, and respect in our dialogue with those we do not agree with is that what drives many of us to stand up and scream are issues that are hidden more deeply within our psyches, issues that prey on our deepest fears. Many can easily see the fear we all have of being Terri Schiavo. Our understanding of the reality of her situation is as filled with questioning and ambiguity as is our understanding of life after death: does she feel? Could she hear and think? Was she alive in any sense of the word, screaming from inside “see me, hear me, know that I am still here with you!”? We can not rely on religion for this answer, only on science. And it is here, the faith we must have in the objectivity of science and medicine, that our fear gathers force. We fear being Terri and being alive - hearing the doctors talk about pulling the tube, realizing its implications and watching our execution unfold, feeling its gradual creeping death over the course of two weeks. It is important that we all recognize this fear is real and plays a role in the emotions being generated over this case. But the secondary issue folded into the Schiavo situation is our fear over being Michael Schiavo; of being someone who has to wrestle with science we do not really understand, with a situation we could never envision, but most importantly with the sole and very direct responsibility of choosing life or death for a loved one. As much as we fear being Terri and watching our life be ended in front of us, we also fear having to be the one to make this decision. Last Sunday’s NY Times touched on how doctors are increasingly dealing with loved ones, who can not, will not, and do not choose to pull life support when every piece of compelling medical evidence suggests otherwise.
While it is obvious that religion has much to say about the Schiavo case, it has little to contribute in terms of a solution. The solution to this situation will be born of reason, not of faith. Faith can, and should, contribute to our having an understanding on the sanctity of human life; however, the reality of technological advancement can only be understood and executed from the frame of reference reason incorporates. Faith can at best make vague allusions to principles about life, but has nothing specific to offer when contemplating if Terri Schiavo was alive or dead. Only science coupled with reason and empathy can contribute to understanding whether this decision was made rightly. To believe, as many obviously do, that doctors and courts looked and seriously weighed the evidence but refused to acknowledge the realistic potential for her condition to improve seems to me to require us to believe that Michael Schiavo, the doctors and the judiciary are all conspiring to kill a disabled person. This smacks to me of hyperbolic fear mongering that seems incongruous with the facts of the situation. Unfortunately, it is obvious to us all that many of the more vocal opponents to her death believed this very thing.
A cacophony of voices is calling out to Americans asking us to take responsibility for the world we have created. Voices asking us to take more seriously challenges over our consumption of non-renewable energy sources, challenges on what technologies must be prioritized if we are to sustain our level of production and affluence, and questions over how technology impacts human life. Is debating over what is human life the essential point or is something deeper at play here, the uncertainty we all feel over the personal responsibility technology places on us? Has technology outpaced our ability to adapt to it, to understand it, to harness it productively? Are we being asked to make decisions we not only do not understand, but are not prepared for emotionally? It is here that religion could actually contribute, but only if it is willing to understand what it can assist in - a realistic view of life resting in the arms of a loving God - and what it can not - questions as to the science of life that are best answered by medicine.
previous post: Never Now, But Always Then
next post: March 2005 Bookshelf
2 Responses to “The Issue Behind the Issue”
Leave a Reply
About MysteriousFaith
“If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm.”
Themes
Now Reading
Search
Favorites
Personal Writing
Theology
Categories
Meta Data
April 1st, 2005 at 12:12 am
Ben: Polls show that a large majority of Americans feel the courts did the right thing by
removing life support and allowing Terri to die.
Steve: Actually, weren’t the court decisions focused on Michael being the closest “next of
kin;” therefore giving him the trump in terms of understanding (if not literally told by
Terri) what his wife may or may not have wanted for her life?
Ben: But the images surrounding the coverage of the issue attempted to show a sea of
humanity pouring down to Florida to protest the court’s decision and to beg for someone
in a position of authority to intervene and save her life. If America was as one-dimensional
and monolithic in her views as the media’s portrayal has suggested, we would expect to
see polls support the government stopping the court and re-inserting Schiavo’s feeding
tube.
Steve: Most folks I know, from those with disabilities (both religious and non-religious)
to those in the church community), did seem to support the reinsertion of the feeding
tube. (Perhaps the polls were wrong?) They generally did so because they believed that
nutrition and hydration are not “life support,” but rather a human right that, if denied,
imply that Terri was no longer being considered a human. I understand that particular
argument, especially since I am intensely involved in the lives of so many with disabilities.
I lost a friend just last week to death (she chose NOT to have a feeding tube placed in the
first place … and allowed herself to “starve” to death). Nobody jumped on the news to
argue for her … hmmmmm… I wonder why not??
Ben: We can and should see within the Schiavo case the reality that Americans are not
ideologically in line with the religious establishment of our country’s view of certain hot button ideas (none more touchy than the debate over what constitutes life), but should
equally recognize that the most organized group in the country today are the groups that
use the church as a vehicle for projecting their voice into the country’s policy making
institutions and culture.
Steve: Defining life is not as easy as it used to be. I think religious discussions along with
scientific insights are vital. But even with that, as science advances in years to come - and
as religious understanding evolves - chances are 100 years from now what has been pronounced by science today as fact (and called heresy by religion) will flip flop. And what has been preached by religion today as face (and called silly by science) will flip flop as well. Does that mean there is no answer? No. I believe it means God has the answer - and we’ll figure it out in the by and by… (and just try our best to figure it out in the mean time - all the while giving grace to the bad guys on the other side - smile)
Ben: And it is here, the faith we must have in the objectivity of science and medicine, that
our fear gathers force.
Steve: Do you really believe science and medicine are truly objective? They certainly
purport to be … I have my doubts.
Ben: We fear being Terri and being alive - hearing the doctors talk about pulling the tube,
realizing its implications and watching our execution unfold, feeling its gradual creeping
death over the course of two weeks. It is important that we all recognize this fear is real
and plays a role in the emotions being generated over this case.
Steve: Who was it that said, “I don’t fear death. It’s dying that concerns me…” Just don’t let me be buried alive in a casket - only to wake up after the dirt starts getting shoveled
over my expensive wooden box.
Ben: But the secondary issue folded into the Schiavo situation is our fear over being
Michael Schiavo; of being someone who has to wrestle with science we do not really
understand, with a situation we could never envision, but most importantly with the sole
and very direct responsibility of choosing life or death for a loved one.
Steve: I’ve seen many families wrestle with this. Most families have gone through these
discussions, and have come out the other side having made a decision with which they can
feel comfortable. Even though each family has had a “different” answer, I believe they
were each right in their particular circumstances. Time is helpful … allowing them the time to weigh the wishes and options of their loved one.
Ben: While it is obvious that religion has much to say about the Schiavo case, it has little
to contribute in terms of a solution. The solution to this situation will be born of reason, not of faith.
Steve: These two sentences concern me for two reasons: 1. What “solution” can reason
offer? “Reasonable” people are Democrats. “Reasonable” people are Republicans. Yet they often do not come to the same conclusions. Can “reason” be objective and
standardized? 2. The family still has to wrestle with the decision because the relationship is not based on reason, but rather on love and deep seated feelings. Faith and religion DO offer a solution - they encourage the decision makers to look for the desires and/or best interest of dying loved one. After all, isn’t that what ultimately matters?
Ben: Faith can at best make vague allusions to principles about life, but has nothing
specific to offer when contemplating if Terri Schiavo was alive or dead. Only science
coupled with reason and empathy can contribute to understanding whether this decision
was made rightly.
Steve: I don’t believe there was even a question of Terri’s “aliveness.” The issue seemed to be her desire (as voiced by Michael and disputed by her parents) to not want any
“tubes” to keep her going.
Ben: To believe, as many obviously do, that doctors and courts looked and seriously
weighed the evidence but refused to acknowledge the realistic potential for her condition
to improve seems to me to require us to believe that Michael Schiavo, the doctors and the
judiciary are all conspiring to kill a disabled person.
Steve: I don’t think “improvement” was the issue. Again, it was “should she be kept alive
against what she had expressed to Michael.” (As a side note, I don’t know whether she
really told him that or not … so I must leave that determination to the judges, Michael’s
conscience, and ultimately God’s knowledge….)
Ben: A cacophony of voices is calling out to Americans asking us to take responsibility
for the world we have created. Voices asking us to take more seriously challenges over
our consumption of non-renewable energy sources, challenges on what technologies must
be prioritized if we are to sustain our level of production and affluence, and questions over
how technology impacts human life. Is debating over what is human life the essential point
or is something deeper at play here, the uncertainty we all feel over the personal
responsibility technology places on us? Has technology outpaced our ability to adapt to it,
to understand it, to harness it productively? Are we being asked to make decisions we not
only do not understand, but are not prepared for emotionally? It is here that religion could
actually contribute, but only if it is willing to understand what it can assist in - a realistic
view of life resting in the arms of a loving God - and what it can not - questions as to the
science of life that are best answered by medicine.
Steve: Wish I had said that! Love ya, Ben.
April 1st, 2005 at 8:03 am
Steve - Thank you for your comments and for your perspective (for those who don’t know Steve, he runs his own not-for-profit focusing on the needs of the disabled - you can find information about what his group does here).
A couple of points, and let me first address one of the more important issues you raise from your learned and experienced perspective: I can only have detached empathy for what the Schiavo case means to the disabled community. I can appreciate it is very threatening, but would humbly suggest it does not have to be. I would contend it is threatening only when religious people manipulate the presentation of the facts to make it seem like the real objective here is to kill off those who do not fit a certain societal view of what is competent life. As I see it, the Schiavo case boils down (minus the inevitable interpersonal issues between the various family members) to letting our justice system do what it is supposed to do and that is to objectively weigh the evidence.
Perhaps the simplest thing I can say in response to your questions is to say that I do believe science and technology are more objective than religion and let me suggest why: in literally two thousand years, theologians still agree on almost nothing. The debates of Origin or Clement of Alexandria are still the debates of Philip Gulley and John McArthur. Religion has made really quite little progress. Every school of contemporary theological discourse can point to a past, even ancient, set of apostolic fathers who argued their case for them first. Peter Abelard makes this point in his Sic et Non where he took 180+ propositions by the Church fathers and showed each of the issues to be held on equaly valid but absolutely opposing ideas. Science does not have this problem! Science can only become science when theories become laws and laws are harnessed to technology. Yes, science includes disputes (the current argument over string theory is one such example), but this debate is always tied to having to prove your case and advance - two things theology simply does not have to do.
As I said in the last paragraph of my essay, I am a spiritual being who needs to have my soul nourished. I care about my soul and the souls of others. I care about morality and ethics. But I do not believe that religion and science are equal. They are different tools and need to be seen as such. This is a critical dimension to our contemporary public debate that if handled improperly will either crush religion into non-existence or squelsh reason into another Dark Ages.