Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 8:50 AM
Subject: RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 6:13 AM
>
>> Some would answer #1 that it's never appropriate. In that
>> case the details
>> of the Schiavo case are irrelevant. That is a consistent
>> position to take
>> but those who do so should say that clearly & not confuse the
>> issue by
>> debating the husband's motives, &c.
>
> In such cases it is always appropriate to look at motivation. Only in
> some ivory tower philosophical discussion does this kind of separation
> of issues arise. For Schiavo, this isn't a theoretical discussion.

If we don't have some sound theory (theological, scientific, legal &c as
appropriate) to start with we're likely to make a mess of things: Hard
cases make bad law. You then end up with judges making decisions based on
their personal opinions, vague ideas about "fairness" &c.

IF one holds that sustenance for someone in a PVS should NEVER be withheld
then the motives of anybody wanting to do one thing or another in a
particular case are indeed irrelevant to what you think should be done.
I.e., if you hold that view you've decided that Terri Schiavo should
continue to receive nutrition & hydration before you know anything about the
particulars of the situation, & knowing those particulars won't change your
view. I am not here critcizing that position but just saying what it is.

For a person who holds that view, talking about the husband's motivation &c
may be a legitimate way to gain political leverage to achieve the desired
end. It also clouds the issue & makes it more likely that the next such
case will also be decided on issues of motivation &c rather than on
fundamental principles.

OTOH, if you think that withholding of sustenance in such a situation
sometimes IS justified then you'll want their to be some reasonable clear
criteria for deciding when & when not, and issues of possible conflict of
interest for parties who are involved (relatives &c) then may be germane.

I make no apology for being a theorist. We do have our place.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
 
Received on Sat Mar 19 09:45:26 2005