Erring on the Side of Life

We have a moral obligation to let go of the ones hopelessly lost to this world. To keep their bodies alive through heroic or artificial measures does nothing for them in this life and most certainly delays their entry into the next life.

The problem comes in defining who is hopeless and what measures meet the definition of heroic and artificial. This problem played out on the public stage in the Terry Schaivo case.

I am satisfied that Mrs. Schaivo’s brain injury rendered her hopelessly lost to this world, and that a feeding tube surgically implanted in her abdomen meets the definition of artificial life support. But I understand that others might see it differently and there is certainly room to be on the fence in this case.

So, why not err on the side of life? Should her tube have been removed? That question is worthy of debate. Now that Terry has passed it is of course academic. But even while she was still alive the question was academic because we have no say in this matter. We have laws that value life, and recognize that personal, private and limited end of life decisions must be made from time to time. In this case, these carefully crafted laws were followed with scrupulous adherence to their intent of establishing the prognosis of the patient, honoring the wishes of the patient, and honoring the wishes of the family. 27 court decisions at the state and federal level have said so.

Erring on the side of life is prudent when there is uncertainty as to the integrity of the process or the merits of the situation. But neither case existed here. All those legislators, governors and the president knew that or should have known that before they acted so improperly and trampled the constitution they are sworn to protect. A law can be wrong, or have unintended consequences that need to be addressed. That’s handled by passing new legitimate laws that apply to everyone, not private bills that take court established rights away from specific individuals after the fact.

But was G.W. Bush erring on the side of life? He had 152 chances to do so while governor of Texas. That is the number put to death during his 6 years as governor. In all that time he commuted only one death sentence, that of serial Killer Henry Lee Lucas. He allowed to die several people who had troubling due process issues or where there was evidence of innocence. He let die a woman who committed a murder in drug-induced state as a young woman but had dedicated her life to Christ throughout her years in prison writing books, counseling others. His excuse for not considering any of these issues was he was bound to follow the law. But the law in Texas permitted him to intervene. He could have intervened, but chose not to intervene except in the case of Henry Lee Lucas.

The law was right then, but not now? Is he bound by the laws of Texas (which allows for the state to withdraw life support against the wishes of the family making Texas law even more anti-life than Florida law) but not the Laws of Florida? Or just bound by the laws he agrees with?

There is a saying that we are a nation of laws not men. That means that those in authority are bound by the law and checks and balances of our system. They are not free to ignore the law to have their way. They are not free to usurp the separation of powers to have their way. To do so turns elected constitutional officers into dictators.

There is plenty of room to argue this unfortunate case on the merits and from a position of belief. Perhaps the law will even be changed. But the events as they have unfolded, unconstitutional legislative interference in a private matter properly adjudicated within the law is beyond outrageous.

So G.W. Bush and his brother Jeb are disengenuous when they claim they were erring on the side of life. They were trying to score points by erring on the side of their political base. I think it backfired.