Junto Boys

DEVIL IN THE DETAILS

There's a perfectly good argument going around about how a Husband has the obligation and the authority to make life and death situations for his wife. Another perfectly reasonable argument is that most of us wouldn't want to survive in the situation that Terrie Shiavo is presently in. The polls ask these two questions and the American public agrees with the decision made by Michael Shaivo and the judge. The controversy arises out of whether things are as they appear.

The reason we have judges is to weigh the context in which these laws are applied. The law by itself is a blunt instrument. A judge is the only figure that can see the human element. Why isn't this judge suspicious of Michael's motives?

If Michael is living with another woman and reproducing why hasn't he divorced his wife? Can he mentally peform the functions of a husband when he first answers to a different woman?

His loyalties are to his new family. That being the case, the court can't fully trust his word or judgment. A life and death situation doesn't need a protagonist with divided loyalties. While it may be interesting to have a bunch of doctors diagnose Terrie, it might be equally interesting to have a psychologist examine Michael's state of mind. Can a man be the head of two households? If he knows a dead Terrie provides money for the family he now supports, wouldn't it be awful hard not to wish her death a bit sooner?

We can argue that he beat her or that these were her wishes. We can argue whether or not she is a vegetable or cognizant. We can argue how this hurts or strengthens abortion law. I've heard a bunch of people on TV arguing all of these points. What we should be arguing is whether Michael's actions post accident make him a good objective candidate for guardianship. If we can't be sure of his objectivity, we should give custodial rights to someone else.

I don't know what the judge has in mind here. Maybe he thinks this case will create a precedent for a lot of other people who are suffering and need relief. Maybe his interest lies in getting rich by writing a book about this famous case. What he isn't doing is judging the credibility of the star witness. Michael Shiavo may have the best of intentions, but he has too much baggage to be the last word.

You can't always default to the husband here just like you can't always give custody of the kids to the wife after a divorce. You not only have to believe that Michael is being objective but her parents are so selfish that they want her suffering to continue. Is it possible to look at this case and think her parents are more likely to have divided loyalties?

Context is the key to the situation and the polls. The pollster didn't tell respondents that Michael has another wife and kids. The pollster didn't tell the respondents that Terrie isn't in pain. When it’s simply about whether a husband has the right to let his wife pass comfortably into the beyond, then yes he does have the right. It's a national event because it’s being presented as a simple "husband doing the best for his wife" case when it's much more complicated than that.

The same people who always criticize rightwing thinking as being simple minded, or black and white are perfectly willing to simplify things here. Elian Gonzalez was a good example from 2000. Sure a child should be with his father, but would we have sent Anne Frank back to the concentration camp to be with her father?

We always hear catchy phrases like "living constitution" and "social justice" when academics and the learned culture want to force laws that have no popular appeal down our throats. When it comes to individuals, the same learned monster's hands are tied by the letter of the law.

This case has become a circus of politicians throwing blame at one another, but that's a sideshow compared to the runaway judiciary that answers to no one. For this case to have been solved correctly you have to believe that Terrie's parents want to selfishly extend her painful life while her cheating husband only wants the best for her. That's a tough one for me to swallow.

UPDATE: Democrats have been out since late last week trying to make this a partisan issue, although Jesse Jackson seems to have other ideas. I've heard a dozen different liberals argue that it's a state's rights issue. Only a bunch of judge-loving lefties could argue that local and state judges embody the founder's ideas of Federalism. The 10th amendment gives the states the right to decide local through legislative bodies. How are the state's rights protected when judges go unchecked?

The shame of this whole issue is that Terrie will die on the word of a shaky husband and it will result in the kind of legislation that will prolong the lives of people who really do want to die. We're seeing the worst of government from the judge's decision to the circus atmosphere outside her hospice. Thomas Sowell has a good breakdown of how the court system is running amok in this case.