cultural dilemma
By GUEST COMMENTARY BY CLIFF NICHOLS
What is the real question our culture is grappling with when it comes to Terri Schiavo?
There is no question that she was once a vibrant human being, nor that her quality of life today would be defined by most as all but non-existent. There also is no question that many among us may think we would choose not to live under such circumstances. So why the debate? Why can’t we all just agree to let her die and be done with it?
What is it that is nagging at our souls? Could it be the feeling there is more at stake here than the life of one bed-ridden individual? Could it be that how we respond may well define our society either for the better or worse? Could it be that setting aside her medical condition there are other facts of which we are equally certain that make us uncomfortable with a decision to dispatch her into the land of the dead?
There is no question that she is a human being who is alive, nor is there a question that some people’s lives will be enhanced by her continued existence in this world. There exist people who love her and, were she able to do so, there is no question that Terri would tell us that she loves them in return. However, in a case like this should such considerations be given any weight, and if so, why?
Could it be that what is nagging us is a belief that Terri is causing us to cull from the deepest recesses of our cultural soul a principal we seem to have set aside: That to love and to be loved may well be the primary purpose of any life? And, if this is true, what factors exist to cause us to find that the love flowing to and from Terri in her present condition should somehow be of less value than the love experienced and cherished by others? She is neither guilty of any heinous crime nor a combatant in a war with anyone other than herself.
So, what is it in her case that outweighs the value we otherwise would ordinarily attribute to a person’s life emanating from their capacity to love and to be loved? Is it a concern over money, convenience or a philosophy that for a life to be worth continuing it must contribute some tangible utilitarian purpose to society? If so, our problem grows. ■ If money is our justification, why not do away also with the idle rich and distribute their wealth amongst us? ■ If people like Terri are to be dispatched for the sake of convenience, why not push the severely handicapped over the edge of a cliff? ■ If we attempt to rely on the belief that a life must contribute some utilitarian social purpose to have value, why do we not also extinguish the homeless?
Unthinkable? Before you answer, consider Hitler’s Germany, Saddam’s Iraq, Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. These otherwise “civilized” societies did not think such actions unthinkable.
But never could this happen in America, you say? Ponder this: If America is immune, the question is, “Why?” What sets us as a nation apart from others? Could it be that our culture has imbedded among its core beliefs the notion that a civilization must either place an inherently sacred valuation upon human life transcending concerns about money, convenience and a person’s utilitarian contributions or it will cease to be civilized?
Surely, as a people, Americans have always traditionally believed that to be true. But, again would we not be derelict if we failed to again ask, “Why?” Why do we feel compelled to value human life above the temporal concepts of money, convenience and utilitarian purpose? It is an imperative predicate to determining if this core belief in our country is inviolable: a principal that America must, and in the future will, keep sacred. For, as we know, citizens in nations where it has not been held inviolate have found they are solely dependent on the shifting winds of political whim and so, may all at some time or another be exposed to peril. Only those nations whose people have collectively clung to the belief that certain principals are derived from God — and, thus, beyond human tampering — have managed to avoid the inhumanities that mankind is fully capable of rationalizing in his absence. That is because a people’s acknowledgment and appreciation of God mandates a belief structure that determines the contours of the government they create. Such a people are led to operate on the belief that the value of a human being must be based upon his or her ability to give and receive love.
So, in answering the question of whether or not the lives of people like Terri Schiavo are worth sustaining, we may now better appreciate that the question really being asked is whether or not our society is committed to our historical tradition of core beliefs founded upon our nation’s acknowledgment of God and the value that God has placed on such lives? In short, does the God acknowledged by our founders have any role left in today’s society at all?
Sadly, the course our nation has set in recent years is not encouraging. Has not our nation’s answer to the question already been rendered when we consider the valuation America has afforded its unborn?
Perhaps we would do well to reflect upon the fact that a malevolent dictatorship or regime is not always a prerequisite to placing people’s lives in jeopardy. In our country, our core values, and the rights and liberties that depend upon them, appear to be eroding with equal rapidity as a result of our apathy when confronted with judicial tyranny. However, in the end, whether the course we have set ourselves upon is the product of some malevolent intent or mere apathy on the part of the people is irrelevant.
The fact remains — soon “God Bless America” will be useful only to assist us as a nation to define our hypocrisy. (Cliff Nichols is a West Los Angeles resident and an attorney practicing in Santa Monica.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 23, 2005. Read the original PDF.