March 27, 2005
Inconsistency is the name of the game, when you have no principles.
When you have to take each decision on the basis of expediency, immediate gratification, political correctness or end results, each decision by a person, each policy by a party, each law by government and each judgment from the Courts may hold water for a short time, then start to leek. In some case, the leakage is already occurring.
Where are the feminist, left wing, social justice groups in the Terri Schiavo case? They are apparently going along with removing rights, first of all the right to life, from Terri Schiavo, based on her condition.
Let us examine possible legislation consistent with the Terri Schiavo precedent setting case. According to the Courts:
- Terri's husband had the right to decide for his wife whether she should live or not. He needs no written wish, will or document to enforce his decision. He lives and has children with someone else, but he is still considered the custodian of Terri.
Possible conflicts of interest, moral, economic or otherwise are not considered relevant. The fact that he divulged her wish after several years is not relevant. The fact that he did not use any of the money for her rehabilitation and that he wanted her to die is not relevant.
What would the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) say if government passed a law granting husbands the right to decide whether their wives should live or not, when senile, injured or severely handicapped, unless they have a written document specifying otherwise?
What would the Human Rights Tribunals say?
- A judge had the right to order water and nutrition removed from a severely handicapped person so that she is "allowed" to die of starvation. What would the ACLU say if a serial killer, like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson or Paul Bernardo was sentenced to death by starvation?
- A judge has the right to enforce an order that no food should be given to a person who is not "self conscious".
The fact that she may have been misdiagnosed is not relevant. The fact that she has tried to speak and communicate is not relevant. The fact that she could be trained to swallow on her own is not relevant. The fact that her parents and family want to take care of her is not relevant.
What would the animal lover's group PETA say if a cat or a mouse or another animal was first given an anesthetic, then starved to death in a lab of a pharmaceutical company to find the effects of dehydration on the liver?
- The state has the right to perform euthanasia on a person if this person's quality of life is considered too low.
What would the euthanasia groups say if one of the leftist leaders (e.g.: Alexa McDonough) was found to have a low quality of life and was scheduled for euthanasia this coming Sunday without her consent?
What would Amnesty International say? What would the Liberals and the New Democrats say?
- The state has the right to withdraw food and water from a person, if this person is not useful in society.
What would the groups for "Public Justice", the national Church and "interfaith" councils and the anti-poverty groups say if we picked up the poor from Toronto's sidewalks and closed them in a hospital room, put a guard in front of the doors with orders not to let anyone in to bring food or water to them?
All of the above would be ridiculous and immoral laws. Yet, none of these groups made statements in favour of Terri's life.
They want her to die because conservative Christians want her to live.
Remember this inconsistency, when such groups ask for your support.