We are a Republic, not a democracy!!
America’s Level of Moral Acceptance
By Deanna Spingola
26 March 2005

Join Email List to receive notification of new Spingola articles

For the last eight days a relatively young, physically healthy but speechless young woman with definite brain damage probably due to some sort of trauma has been denied food and water, through a feeding tube, at the request of her husband who has been living with another woman for the last several years. Her current condition began in the early morning hours the very day after Terri announced to her friend that she was going to file for divorce. She was found clutching her throat at 5 AM. Who knows how long she had been laying in that condition before her "loving" husband called for medical help.

The feeding tube was removed at the request of her husband and sanctioned by the court. The Florida court judges have upheld his goal of death by starvation because he belatedly remembered that Terri said in her early twenties that she would never want to live under such negative health circumstances. Her husband previously received about $700,000 as a result of a medical suit in Terri’s behalf. This money was to be used for therapy which may have helped Terri regain her ability to speak. The money was never used for the intended purpose and Terri has not had therapy for the last twelve years.

Most of America has been intentionally polarized by this event because of the media coverage of the court proceedings in this case. The "conservatives" wanted to bring in the federal court which would eventually give the federal government more jurisdiction over matters of life and death. The liberals apparently side with the husband and feel that the government should not interfere in family health decisions. This is a bit ironic in as much as the liberal establishment has attempted to foist government health care on every American.

Terri Schiavo’s parents have pleaded, in vain, for the court to allow them to assume complete custody and care of their daughter. The court has upheld the husband’s questionable intentions in spite of his apparent lack of loving concern for Terri in other areas. Apparently Michael Schiavo such as his live in girl friend and the children they have had together. Michael Schiavo has persisted in his quest for tube removal which certainly raises questions about his motives considering he has quite obviously moved on with his life.

Terri’s parents have also appealed to the Florida governor, Jeb Bush, for his intervention. He apparently interceded in 2003 prior to the most current court action regarding the feeding tube. Apparently it was not an imminent life and death situation in 2003. Jeb Bush is unwilling to interfere in this case possibly because it would not be politically correct. So apparently personal career decisions are given more priority and significance than the life of an innocent, vulnerable woman. The governor’s brother, President George W. Bush, apparently feels the same way. Two men who have awesome power and could intervene have preferred not to because of some political reasons or agenda. What does this indicate about the professed faith and family value viewpoint of the president? This incident constitutes government sanctioned, assisted murder in which our government helped a man murder his wife.

Call me suspicious but things just do not add up in this situation. This is just one isolated case, right? In the judicial sense there is no such thing as an isolated case. Every case sets precedence for every future case. An isolated case may also become a law depending upon the agenda and the interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court. Such was the case with Roe versus Wade. What started as an isolated case became a privilege that many women feel entitled to. That entitlement to murder your own pre-born infant ultimately caused the death of about forty four million innocent, speechless human beings.

The common feature of abortion and the Schiavo case seems to be the ability of the victim to verbally defend themselves against their proposed demise. This sets the stage for the legal death, by starvation or other means, of anyone who is unable to speak. Benefactors no longer have to wait for parents or grandparents to inherit assets. There is another significant feature of this case – it was the heir of the estate (ie: next of kin) or very close personal relative that made the request. The government now has a legal but immoral precedent. This is unlike the illegal Kavorkian style assisted suicide where the patient actually makes the request. Abortion and euthanasia are about depriving others of their life. The scriptures warn us that the love of many will grow cold in the latter days - this is about as cold as it could get.

What does this case say about the government guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens? We have guarantees -abortion rights were granted in 1973 and probably, because of this case, in the near future we will have euthanasia rights with impatient greedy heirs clamoring to have the feeding tubes removed from ailing, speechless parents.

Comments: deannaATspingola.com
To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on this site are written with AT in place of the usual symbol. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address.

Back To Political Points

 © Deanna Spingola 2005 - All rights reserved

Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.