Saving Terri
Eric Cohen approaches the cliff but fails to take the last step over ("How Liberalism Failed Terri Schiavo," April 4). Yes, liberalism failed Terri Schiavo, and yes, as Cohen perceptively notes, it did so by moving beyond the principles of procedural autonomy to embracing those of "ideological" autonomy. As Cohen also rightly observes, ideological autonomy requires liberals to judge the worth of the life being discussed. But on that brink of the truth, Cohen stops.
The ideological autonomy of which Cohen so trenchantly speaks is entirely in keeping with the collectivist core of modern liberalism, and the couching of the ultimate decision in terms of procedural autonomy is likewise consistent with the liberal approach. What the courts in the Schiavo case did was impose their views by appealing to an ostensible desire to succor the individual.
To the courts, society should have properly recoiled from Terri. The judges in their current lucid state would never have chosen to live as Terri was, and since liberals project their enlightenment onto the rest of humanity, that means society as a whole had to reject Terri's continued life. Which means, ipso facto, that Terri in her non-lucid state did not want to live.
The liberal playbook never changes. Explaining the necessity for collective decision-making (meaning, naturally, decision-making by a powered elite) in the name of the good of the individual has been the tactic, witting or not, of every authoritarian government in history.
Cohen should complete the circle he began. Yes, liberalism indeed failed Terri Schiavo. But the reason is that it could not do otherwise.
John Rogitz
San Diego, CA
Eric Cohen claims that the Florida district court decided Terri Schiavo's case solely on the basis of Michael Schiavo's testimony about Terri's prior wishes.
This is demonstrably false, as even a cursory reading of Judge George Greer's ruling shows. Greer relied on three witnesses to satisfy himself that a clear and convincing standard of evidence as to Terri's prior wishes had been met.
Cohen also states with certainty several assumptions about Michael Schiavo's state of mind at the time he was deciding on his wife's treatment. Cohen cites no sources for these claims. They are thus pure speculation and have no place in serious moral and public policy consideration of this case.
Laurence B. McCullough
Houston, TX
Eric Cohen responds: Laurence B. McCullough is correct to note that Michael Schiavo's brother and his brother's wife also testified about their recollection of Terri's supposed wishes. But he fails to address the real problem with how this case was adjudicated: A few casual remarks, over a decade old, recalled by Michael Schiavo and his own immediate family, hardly constitute "clear and convincing" evidence of Terri's prior wishes regarding medical treatment in her specific condition. This is especially so when the primary witness in the case--Michael Schiavo--demonstrated compelling evidence that he did not have only Terri's best interests at heart.
And McCullough fails to address the main point of my article, which is that prior wishes are not the only moral guide we need to follow in caring for loved ones who become cognitively disabled and fully dependent on our care. Might the competent Terri Schiavo have changed her mind if she could have watched this whole case, seen the behavior of her husband, witnessed the suffering of her parents, and known their desire to care for her rather than let her die?
As to Michael Schiavo's state of mind, you need not rely on my speculations but on his own deposition of November 19, 1993, where he describes his multiple other romantic relationships and his initial unwillingness to remove his wife's feeding tube. Or on Dr. Jay Wolfson's Guardian Ad Litem report, where he describes how "Michael's attitude and perspective about Theresa's condition changed" when he realized he would never get back the vibrant wife he once had.
But such a realization hardly provides grounds for breaking the marital covenant with the Terri Schiavo still entrusted in his care--a woman who was not dead or dying, but simply dependent on her husband's devotion.
The Imperial Judiciary
William Kristol correctly heaps scorn on the bizarre decisions recently handed down by our various courts ("'Evolving Standards of Decency,'" April 4).
Among other connections, the Terri Schiavo case, the Christopher Simmons case, and several other recent judicial precedents are related this way: The judicial ruling has in no way considered the law as enacted by the legislature and signed by the executive. These rulings have, essentially, reflected the personal whims of the judges--whims that then become enforced as the new law of the land.
If that is the way the law of this country is going to be, then I must ask, Why should anyone obey the law? Why should there be the slightest respect for a "rule by law" if no such rule by law exists? If the courts set aside the law when and as they please, then we have no law--only absolutism. And if people are forced to live under absolutism, then why should they not start considering first and foremost their own personal interests, with complete disregard for what the law says?
I am not preaching sedition here, but rather predicting it. Don't these seem natural questions? There has to be a genuine rule of law if a nation is going to hold itself together. If the government of a nation no longer depends upon the laws, then it will soon cease to exist, and become a scattered collection of individuals who seek their own survival, often at the expense of those around them.
Benjamin F. Lasseter
Indianapolis, IN
Unfair and Unbalanced
Fred Barnes makes an excellent point when he singles out the bias of the mainstream media's polls on Terri Schiavo ("The ABCs of Media Bias," April 4). Here's an earlier example: When Terri's feeding tube was removed for six days in October 2003, a poll overwhelmingly showed that people would want their "spouse" to make such medical decisions for them. The only thing is, "estranged spouse" wasn't given as a choice.
How many people would choose their spouse to make medical decisions for them if their spouse was living with a new lover with whom he or she had children? That's a poll I'd like to see.
Katie Brown
Philadelphia, PA
A Matter of Trusts
It is stunning and shameful that The Weekly Standard would publish a lengthy column (The Scrapbook, April 4) rehashing unsubstantiated statements by a former Pew employee while burying the truth--that the Trusts has stated in no uncertain terms the remarks have no basis in fact--in the final paragraphs. Even more disconcerting, you chose to ignore that the employee has retracted his remarks, stating "at no time in my experience with the Trusts did anyone attempt to hide, deceive or lie," and admitted publicly that his statements were misleading.
From the beginning, the Trusts's grants on campaign finance reform were transparent and intended to be. Any assertion that we tried to hide our support of these grantees is false. As we do with all of our work, we have fully disclosed our support for grantees working on campaign finance reform in a variety of forms over the last nine years.
The remarks of the former employee and The Weekly Standard have done a huge disservice to the organizations and policymakers who have been working to address this important issue for more than 30 years. In reality, opponents are trying to reverse the demonstrable, positive progress that has been made to improve political campaigns in the United States.
I trust you share our commitment to transparency and accuracy and that, in the future, you will better serve your readers by giving them all the facts.
Rebecca W. Rimel
CEO, The Pew Charitable Trusts
Philadelphia, PA
Slapshot
I was shocked to read Matt Labash's "Welcome to Canada" (March 21), in which he showed how little Americans really know about our culture in Canada. To label us a haven for "Nazi war criminals, drawing-room socialists, and hockey goons" is not entirely correct. Sure, there are a few hockey goons up here. But those individuals ultimately get jobs in police work or in Canadian military units protecting American troops in the opium capital of the world (Afghanistan).
Labash makes it sound like every Canadian drives a Zamboni. Not true. Driving a Zamboni is a right of passage for a selected few. Stats show that only one in seven men get their Zamboni license--and only then after many attempts. You try cleaning the ice with only one hand on the wheel (I'm sure you've figured out that the other hand is holding a Molson) and getting close enough to the penalty box to pick up refills.
And try doing all this work in the fifteen minutes between periods. Zamboni drivers tend to build up one arm, the drinking arm, before making the transition to hockey goon.
Labash's comment that "You can tell a lot about a nation's mediocrity index by learning that they invented synchronized swimming" is a low blow, eh! We Canadians invented that sport so we could check out the chicks in the pool. Substitute "beach" for "pool" and you have the same reason that Americans invented Spring Break.
And speaking of spring and sports, while your country is totally immersed in basketball madness, would this be a good time to remind Weekly Standard readers that basketball was invented by a Canadian?
John Townson
Victoria, British Columbia