Reasonable Doubt

The Terri Schiavo circus that has errupted in Florida has lead me to some deep thinking about the case. I've determined that the answer is unbelievably simple and right now they're doing the wrong thing.

First some background. Both my parents have a living will. It states carefully and meticulously that they are not to be kept alive by heroic means if anything should happen to them. They've done more than write it down. They've talked to my sister and I about it. Their friends know. There is to be no doubt should the event ever arise. This is smart planning. Aside from the preservation of their dignity in such a case, it also thwarts organ harvesters who would be willing to force a person in a vegitative state (also known as a "neomort" by people in the business) to continue living simply for the possibility that a need for their organs might arise.

Death is a serious thing, if simply because of it's irrevocable finality. If you were convicted of a crime you'd have at least a year to sit on death row in case some mistake had been made. Moreover, if you were on trial, a jury would have to be convinced of your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Doubt, is a killer for prosecutors and defense attorneys spend a massive amount of time simply casting doubt on the prosecution's case. If the jury is in doubt, they cannot convict, cannot sentence to death. The law must always side with caution in handing down death.

Which brings me swiftly to Terri Schiavo, her husband claims that Terri did not want to be kept alive artificially. Her parents disagree. They claim she did not want to be kept on a ventillator. Terri did not make her wishes clear. There is no undoubtable source for her wishes. In addition, her husband has some skelitons in his closet which suggest that he may not really have Terri's best interest at heart. Now, we can argue the finer points of this case all day long. Back and forth, endlessly because it is all clouded in uncertainty. However, this very fact necessitates that the State of Florida not allow her feeding tube to be removed because there is reasonable doubt as to the wishes of Terri Schiavo prior to her arriving in the situation she is now in. The law MUST err on the side of caution. There is no choice when there is uncertainty. A man may not be given the death penalty if there is doubt, a woman with brain damage cannot be euthanized if there is doubt.

Moreover, a mentally incapacitated person who can be shown to have committed a crime beyond all doubt still cannot be sentenced to death because they have no understanding of their circumstances. A husband or parent is such a case could not be presumed to speak for that person in such a case, so why in the Schiavo case? It just doesn't hold up to the intent of the Law.

Frankly, what really irks me, is the political battle lines being drawn up by extremists. The radical right is claiming this as a pro-life issue. While the liberal left is forcing it into the ever dull context of abortion. The devaluation of human life by the left and the blind insistance on human life by the right. But in this, I see a dangerous precedent being set which gives a woman's life into the hands of her husband. This case sets up a whole dialogue about ownership of life which devolves a hundred years of women's rights. The law has come down on the side of the husband's right to decide if his wife lives or dies. But the feminists, caught in a tangle of far left politics, can only worry about the effect this insistence on life might have on abortion.

The problem the liberal left is having with this is that suddenly they find themselves with only specific issues to support, and no ideology driving the support of those issues. While the right for all it's conservative faults at least has a solid ideological backbone which drives its issues. I think everyone should decide what they believe in at a very basic level and stick to it... or at least turn to it when examining this sort of issue. For example, I believe in truth and freedom. So in every issue, I seek a way to find truth and enhance freedom. If there is no clear path, then I have to choose a path that at the very least does not run counter to those ideals.