Truth: A Casualty in the Schiavo Case?
The best workshop I attended at the Evangelical Press Association meeting in Chicago this year was the one covering bioethical issues. It was led by a high-ranking Christian doc at a US well-known med institution. And we discussed the Schiavo case at length. In one sense that's old news; on the other hand, the issues are not going to go away...
So let me begin by asking, Do you think the journalistic coverage by the secular media was fair? What about that of the Christian media?
Both sides of the journalistic coverage on that case, it seems, were slanted. We expect the secular press to get it wrong. But the Christians also "missed it" considerably in several ways. Here are some questions to consider:
1. Do we really believe parents' rights trump spouses' rights. What does it mean to "leave and cleave"? Do good parents trump a lousy spouse? Do we think the courts were so dumb as to be blind to the husband's conflict of interest?
2. The parents said on the record that even if Terri Schaivo had said she wanted to be kept on a feeding tube, they would have disregarded her wishes. Wasn't a patient's right to choose whether to be left on life support at the core of what this case was about? Do we really think it's not up to the patient in such cases? Must we ALWAYS opt for artificially prolonging life?
3. Do we really believe someone is obligated to keep a spouse alive indefinitely on a feeding tube because death is the enemy? Do we think it's a sin ever to discontinue feeding? Are we really promoting life in such cases or are we prolonging death? Most Christian ethicists believe the patient's wishes here should be respected and there is no obligation to keep someone on artificial support indefinitely. Did that come through in how Christian views were presented in the religious press?
4. Should we really be happy when a court decides that a feeding tube is not medical treatment, as one conservative group was this week? Do we really believe a feeding tube is not medical treatment? A nice rule of thumb is that if the doc in Little House on the Prairie didn't have it as an option, it's probably medical treatment. Are we doing the medical equivalent of trying to define what "is" is?
5. The courts found over and over and over that there was enough evidence that Terri Schaivo would not want to be kept alive. We are suspicious about this because her husband had a conflict of interest. Fine. Why didn't we go grab the transcripts and see what testimony it was that convinced every judge that listened? THIS is where our journalistic talents should have been focused. We assume that because the court is secular, it's biased against life, yet the way the law is now, it is actually pretty consistent with what Christian ethicists believe.
6. Do we think the Bible teaches we must prolong life at all cost? Isn't prolonging life sometimes really just prolonging death? Do we want to outlaw the option of "do not resuscitate "?
One of my journalism students noted that the apostle Paul wrote that he faced a dilemma between staying and ministering or going to be with Christ. What if he had been in a persistent vegetative state? Would he want to stay if he could not minister? Should we artificially prevent a believer from going to be with Christ?
I'm not saying Terri Schaivo's husband was right. I'm not saying her parents were right. As a journalist, I'm asking why I didn't hear much about these questions during the entire fiasco. If we hold truth as a core value, why didn't we pursue it more enthusiastically?