March 22nd, 2005
Terri Shiavo’s sad condition and subsequent intervention into it by the federal government (at the behest of the Republican leadership), should be extremely illustrative of what has become of the Republican party — and an indication of what faction of the social-conservative movement has taken control of that pary. Any moderate Republican, concerned with limited government, should be paying close attention at how social/cultural issues are being used by the social-conservative faction that’s at the helm of the Republican party to advance a narrow social agenda. Ladies and gentleman, what this faction of the Republican party is really after is imposing and codefying their brand of “morality” on us — and, to do so, the social-conservative wing of the Republican party is willing to enlist the full-weight of the federal government on its behalf; thus abandoning any long-held pretense of being the party of state rights and of limited government. If we — the citizens of this country — are not careful, we may very well see a federal government that is permitted into our bedrooms (i.e.,”Gay marriage”), is able to use surveillance on its citizens (i.e., expanded “Patriot Act”) and, now, it seems, the federal government is being urged to intervene into what should be a private of decisions — all because a certain faction within the Republican party deems it expedient to do so in support of their agenda and of ther base.
Again, I sincerely hope that so-called moderates everywhere are paying close attention to this case… because there’ll be more like it if we permit it.
March 21st, 2005
How important a factor is quality of life to the Terri Shiavo tragedy? Or is absolutism the only item that some people care about? That is, quality of life doesn’t matter, as long as her body can be maintained functioning by any artificial means necessary. And, of course, there’s the other issue, how much intrusion by the federal government should we permit into what is an extremely personal matter, best resolved by the immediate parties involved?
Finally, do keep in mind that the only reason why certain groups (in the federal government and elsewhere) are focusing so intently on this one case is because they belive that they can score political points — given the “circus” they’ve created around what should’ve been a private matter. This, unfortunately, is the sad truth.
For instance, note that while other cases (i.e., 03.15.05 – Texas infant removed from life support with backing of Texas law) are ignored by the federal government and the media, Shivo’s tragedy garnered a special Congressional session. Again, the only reason why this occurred is because the party in control of Congress believes they can politicize the issue, and thereby score political points with their supporters. Back to the Texas law mentioned above, Texas Futile Care Law, the law was signed into the books by then governor George W Bush (after reaching a compromise and in consultation with the National Right to Life organization — [article]).
Interestingly, at the heart of the Texas Futile Care Law, cited above, is this rationale:
“(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).”
In other words, if the patient can’t afford to pay for treatment, and if no other hospital is available to take the patient, the hospital can seek to refuse treatment — including life support. (Which is exactly what’s occurring in this other Texas case.) Now, if the party in control of Congress and of the White House truly cared about the issue, and not merely about scoring political points with their supporters, why aren’t they calling for special sessions to step into this and other cases as well?
