There is much to be learned from the case of Terri Schiavo, not just in the fields of medical ethics, the physiology of the brain, and our moral duties to the disabled, but also eschatology.
When I tell friends that I believe we're already in "the New Heavens and the New Earth," they're startled. "Why is there still death and war?" they ask. I reply that Isaiah the prophet foretold that there would be death in "the New Heavens and the New Earth":
(Isaiah 65:20) No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old person who does not live out a lifetime; for one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth, and one who falls short of a hundred will be considered accursed.
This surprises many people, who have been raised to believe that at the Second Coming a perfect world without death, without pain, without challenges or obstacles, will be handed to us on a silver platter.
Does the Bible teach that those who are passive in this life will be rewarded with a static, predictable life in which there will a no race to run, no duties to perform, and no hurdles to overcome?
This question is related to decisions that were made in the case of Terry Schiavo, and the precedent set in that case may result in many millions of similar decisions being made in the future.
The New England Journal of Medicine rushed their current issue to the newsstands ahead of schedule, because it has several articles on the Schiavo case. Timothy Quill, M.D. is a nationally-recognized expert in palliative care and end-of-life issues who is a professor of medicine, psychiatry, and medical humanities at the University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, and makes the following observation:
If the data about the patient’s wishes are not clear, then in the absence of public policy or family consensus, we should err on the side of continued treatment even in cases of a persistent vegetative state in which there is no hope of recovery. But if the evidence is clear, as the courts have found in the case of Terri Schiavo, then enforcing life-prolonging treatment against what is agreed to be the patient’s will is both unethical and illegal. |
"Courts have found." This was the rallying cry of those who defend "the Rule of Law." The legislative branch, representing The People, must not be allowed to question the decision of a judge, a doctor, and an estranged husband who have a love of death. So we have been told.
|
Among the right-to-die advocates, there was universal agreement that Terri Schiavo was a vegetable. She may have looked like she could interact with others around her, but those were reflex actions, we were told. She had no mental cognition. We were told her death would be pain free (though she was given morphine). So what would you say to a person whom doctors agreed was in no pain, who put your hand around a gun pointed at his head and wanted you to pull the trigger? Would you kill the person simply because "it was their wish?" Up until now, a person who killed another person could not escape conviction by saying "The deceased asked me to kill him."
There was a reason for laws against suicide. They teach that life has value, and even the life in darkness can be redeemed. And they teach that those who are not contemplating suicide should explain why to those who are.
|
But Dr. Quill says (rather dogmatically) that the feelings of those who wish to give food and water to the dying are to be ignored and the "court-determined" feelings of a person who the same court determined has no feelings at all are to be "honored."
Suppose Terri had in fact drawn up a "living will," specifically stating that even if she were in no pain, and even if her parents wanted to bear the expenses of taking care of her, the government should use force to prevent them from giving her food and water. Isn't it the case the some wills are declared "void as against public policy?" Suppose Terri had left a will stating that all her assets should be used to hire a contract killer to murder her parents. Would any court enforce that will? The link above is to a case where the decedent's will ordered his horses destroyed. The court denied the request as "inhumane" and gave the horses to a horse club, which wanted the horses. Judge Greer implied a will never written, that a human being could be destroyed, and the parents of that human being could not care for her, though they wanted desperately to do so.
Christian ethics teaches that the way we treat "the least of these" is an index of our relation to Christ Himself.
|
Our acts of feeding the hungry and caring for the dying make us more Christian.
Our society is more Christian when we allow those who wish to give water to the thirsty to do so, rather than using government force to prevent them from doing so.
The Prophet Isaiah might have had some sympathy for people who lived in the "primitive" conditions of his day, centuries before Christ, who said they could not bear the rigors of life, and wanted to commit suicide. But today, 20 centuries after Christ, we live in luxury Isaiah could not have imagined. It is a different world altogether.
The only thing that hasn't changed is Christ and His Commandments.
Isaiah said that in "the New Heavens and the New Earth" people would die. Is it possible that these people might be in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) for some time before they died? Of course it's possible. Is it possible that Jesus wants people to obey His commandments and become more like Him even in "the New Heavens and the New Earth?" Why not? What is the alternative to obeying Christ and becoming increasingly more like Him?
Do we deceive ourselves if we think we will become "qualified" to live in "the New Heavens and the New Earth" by refusing to work and live in a way that is calculated to bring those conditions about?
Many people today are not clear about why they are here, why they were created (or evolved), and what it is they're supposed to do with their time on earth. These fundamental questions of human existence do not change in "the New Heavens and the New Earth," if we are to believe Isaiah. Isaiah said people will still die, people will still build houses (why would they need to build a(nother) house?), and people still plant crops ("I thought there would be no scarcity in 'the New Heavens and the New Earth,' and no work!").
The Bible says that some people are "willingly ignorant" of the truth. Where does the Bible say that all of the sudden these people, who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness," will passively become just like Christ -- without anyone having to preach to them, bear with them, encourage them, rebuke them, or go through all those time-consuming obstacles? Why won't "easy street" be handed to us on a silver platter?
This is Part Four of a series of reflections on the Terri Schiavo case.
The two stories below come from Linda Marshall, M.Div. RelationshipCoachingInstitute.com - The titles are mine.
One night, this guy has a dream, and in the dream an angel comes and takes him on a tour of heaven and hell.
They visit hell first. It turns out that hell, surprisingly enough, is this huge banquet room, with tables full of all the food and drink you could possibly want. The people at the tables, however, are all thin and emaciated and wasting away. It seems that the silverware in hell is about four feet long and can only be picked up by the very end. So all these people are unable to feed themselves.
They leave hell and then go to visit heaven. It turns out that heaven, surprisingly enough, is also a huge banquet room, with tables full of all the food and drink you could possibly want. The silverware is exactly the same as in hell, four feet long and can only be picked up by the very end. The people in heaven, however, are all full, content and happy. The simple, yet profound difference is that in heaven, the people are reaching across the table and feeding each other.
Some time ago I received this e-mail that touched me deeply and spoke to me of the way I want to be with my friend. I sent it to her husband, as I will be one of his major supports in the coming years. I hope it is helpful to you.
|
Terri Schiavo's parents will no longer have to worry about keeping Terri waiting for breakfast.
We have argued that feeding the hungry makes us more like Christ.
But what about those who don't want to be fed?
There are many such people. This thinking is behind many "living wills" which express the wishes of those who "do not want to be a burden on anyone."
Do we become more like Christ if we allow ourselves to "become a burden?"
Nobody approves of lazy people who sponge off others. But if, through no fault of your own, you become needy, does God want you to let others meet your need, or is it better to be a "rugged individualist" and spurn their help?
What about the fact that Medicare and Social Security are fiscally bankrupt, and caring for people who are inevitably going to die puts a great strain on government resources?
|