With Heads Bowed

Money killed Terri Schiavo. To be more precise, our money killed her. Her death was forseeable, inevitable and preventable. All the rightous indignation, outrage or relief that is being expressed as the result of the her death, depending on your point of view, cannot change that reality.

SC&A have long believed that our past is as good a predictor as any other kind of analysis. Society understands that, of course. We learn from the bible, and mythology, family history, anecdotes and an education system that tells us that lessons are applicable today as they were hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

While we are comfortable with history, tales and fables, we always seem to keep the lessons they teach at arm's length, to learn from, but never quite important enough to apply to ourselves.

One of the great lessons that history teaches us, is that the better off we are financially, the less community oriented we are. We may have the trappings of a community, but they are external in nature.

When money and power were controlled by the very few- the monarchs, the Church and the few they favored, we know that for the most part, that power and wealth were wielded cruelly, and much suffering was dispensed.

With the industrial revolution and free markets, a new age was born. Individuality, private markets and competition on a scale not seen, became our reality. Like the monarchs and Church, having money changed the balance of power- and the priorities of money.

Now, SC&A are great believers in capitalism and the free market system. We are also great believers in being 'Our Brothers' Keeper.' The two notions are not mutually exclusive. In a way, the obvious friction, is a good thing- much like the friction between Justice and Liberty. Our democracy is a living, breathing entity. As such, it needs constant fine tuning and attention. There are flaws that need correction and things that need tweaking, always. If we don't do that maintenance we will inevitably cease to function.

We need dissent as much as we need harmony. Without dissent, we atrophy and lose our edge, our sharpness. Dissent and harmony are the necessary evolutionary balance we need to move ahead. Vigorous debate has on more than one instance, been the foundation for ideas that have changed the world.

Dissent and harmony are the also the basis for redemption and spiritual serenity. It is only through the real struggle that we find meaing. One great theologian said, in effect, 'The greater the Faith, the greater the struggle.' We engage in public and personal dissent as if the who and what we are, will be defined daily by our actions and words.

Dissent and harmony come in many varieties.

The reality of our existance is that we create the shortcomings of of our society, and we also fix the problems. In an ideal world, we all work towards that goal, irrespective of our beliefs. The common good trumps supercedes the individual need to simply be heard.

It is when we no longer care about fixing the problems, but rather, that simply having our way becomes our guiding beacon, that we begin to resemble those for whom only power matters. We begin to use money as a hammer, not unlike the monarchs and clergy we mentioned earlier.

We live now in an era of unprecented wealth- and unprecedented consumption. Still, those that acquire wealth are also looking for meaning. When the novelty of the money wears thin, the yearning for real purpose becomes even more sharply felt. Nowadays, 'simplifying' one's life is becoming more than a simple, fashionable mantra. It has become a quest, to find what is truly meaningful.

We also live an era of an unprecedented disconnect with spirituality. We live in a time when spirituality is being cast in our image, as opposed to us being cast in a spiritual image. We want God to resemble us- and no longer see the need for us to resemble God. It is ironic that in all the debate, God holds center stage. We are not sure what that says about us, or about God.

When we can integrate the power that wealth, science and technology gives us, with the purpose that meaning and being 'Our Brother's Keepers,' we will have achieved a certain balance or equilibrium. Will we ever be free from dissent? Of course not. Will the point and purpose of that dissent be different? Yes, it will.

We don't know what the final disposition of the Terri Schiavo case might have been. We do know that it would not have ended the way it did.

With the right balance, our wealth and meaning or purpose in life, would not be at odds. Material wealth would no longer simply be an end, but a means to something greater. With the right balance, meaning and purpose become entwined with our material possessions. With the societal accumulation of wealth, comes an understanding of responsibility. To date, the understanding of that responsibility remains unrecognized. All along, we were unwilling to do what needed to be done, to become engaged or even to care.

We see in ourselves, our wealth as a measure of who we are, of what defines us. Take away a bit of that wealth, and somehow, we are less. So, we chase wealth and the material things- and the problems that Terri Schiavo represented are relegated to a back burner, because dealing with all the realities she represented, might cost us all money or time.

That is why Terri Schiavo died the way she did. We did not take the time to make our laws work in the way which we want them to. We did not look or care to look at the reality that technology impacts our lives, every day. We didn't take the time needed or attention away from the pursuit of those material needs.

A clearer analogy: No one wanted to spend the money or the time taking care of the boat. Only when she started sinking did we all realize we had to bail like crazy.

There were those of course, who reveled in Terri Schiavo's death. There were those who celebrated at the discomfort and pain, suffered by many. They of course, are irrelevant, to our present and future. People who celebrated this tragedy as a political event, as if their 'side' were somehow being rewarded with a victory, are despicable.

They are the example of what happens when priviledge- of any kind- is allowed to run amuck. They are voices from the past- the very voices that throughout history, celebrated the deaths of those lives they determined were meaningless.

There but for the Grace of God, go us.

From the 23rd Psalm: Divine or poetic, these are always words to reflect upon.

"Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil, for Thou art with me, thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me...

"Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the House of the Lord, forever"

Rest in Peace, Terri Schiavo. You have shed the shackles that so cruelly bound you on this earth. Live now, eternally free and watch over us all, undeserving at times, as we may be.

A Need to Contemplate

SC&A can only imagine the avalanche of words that will be written on the matter of Terri Schiavo. There will be finger pointing, accusations, claims and counter-claims. In the end of course. it will all be for naught. We will ride our moral ponies, wanting to be right- as if being right trumps evreything else.

Many of us, in our zeal to be heard (the "look at me!" school of real life failure) will have forgotten that the "I told you so's" represent failures, and not success.

With that in mind, SC&A would like to take the time to reiterate a few thoughts and ideas. As we wrote earlier, what happened as the Terri Schiavo matter played out, was a destiny of our own creation. We could have done something about it. Not only did we chose not to, but we allowed others with their own agenda to highlight a deep chasm amongst us.

SC&A will have have more to say, later on. For now, we shall reflect on Terri Schiavo the person, not the icon. Our need to contemplate a life and death so tragic, far outweighs our need to be heard, at this time.

"Let He Who is Without Sin" or "People in Glass Houses.."

SC&A believe this NYT OP-ED piece is worth a look, again. We don't necessarily agree with Mr Brook's conclusions- that both sides of the Terri Scihavo case can be readily and easily defined, and thus their motives clearly understood. Nevertheless, a slow and thoughtful read of the NYT piece reiterate that there are worthwhile ideas worth considering- not the least of which is that Terri Schiavo is a real human being and not the exclusive property of idealogues on either side of the debate. His final words resonate deeply. The OP-ED is presented here, in it's entirety.

Morality and Reality

The core belief that social conservatives bring to cases like Terri Schiavo's is that the value of each individual life is intrinsic. The value of a life doesn't depend upon what a person can physically do, experience, or achieve. The life of a comatose person or a fetus has the same dignity and worth as the life of a fully functioning adult.

Social conservatives go on to say that if we make distinctions about the value of different lives, if we downgrade those who are physically alive but mentally incapacitated, if we say that some people can be more easily moved toward death than others, then the strong will prey upon the helpless, and the dignity of all our lives will be diminished.

The true bright line is not between lives, they say, but between life and death. The proper rule, as Robert P. George of Princeton puts it, should be, "Always to care, never to kill."

The weakness of the social conservative case is that for most of us, especially in these days of advanced medical technology, it is hard to ignore distinctions between different modes of living. In some hospital rooms, there are people living forms of existence that upon direct contact do seem even worse than death.

Moreover, most of us believe in transcendence, in life beyond this one. Therefore why is it so necessary to cling ferociously to this life? Why not allow the soul to ascend to whatever is in store for it?

The core belief that social liberals bring to cases like Schiavo's is that the quality of life is a fundamental human value. They don't emphasize the bright line between life and death; they describe a continuum between a fully lived life and a life that, by the sort of incapacity Terri Schiavo has suffered, is mere existence.

On one end of that continuum are those fortunate enough to be able to live fully -- to decide and act, to experience the world, and be free. On the other end are those who, tragically, can do none of these things, and who are merely existing.

Social liberals warn against vitalism, the elevation of physical existence over other values. They say it is up to each individual or family to draw their own line to define when life passes to mere existence.

The central weakness of the liberal case is that it is morally thin. Once you say that it is up to individuals or families to draw their own lines separating life from existence, and reasonable people will differ, then you are taking a fundamental issue out of the realm of morality and into the realm of relativism and mere taste.

You are saying, as liberals do say, that society should be neutral and allow people to make their own choices. You are saying, as liberals do say, that we should be tolerant and nonjudgmental toward people who make different choices.

What begins as an appealing notion -- that life and death are joined by a continuum -- becomes vapid mush, because we are all invited to punt when it comes time to do the hard job of standing up for common principles, arguing right and wrong, and judging those who make bad decisions.

You end up exactly where many liberals ended up this week, trying to shift arguments away from morality and on to process.

If you surveyed the avalanche of TV and print commentary that descended upon us this week, you found social conservatives would start the discussion with a moral argument about the sanctity of life, and then social liberals would immediately start talking about jurisdictions, legalisms, politics, and procedures. They were more comfortable talking about at what level the decision should be taken than what the decision should be.

Then, if social conservatives tried to push their moral claims, you'd find liberals accusing them of turning this country into a theocracy -- which is an effort to cast all moral arguments beyond the realm of polite conversation.

Once moral argument is abandoned, there are no ethical checks, no universal standards, and everything is left to the convenience and sentiments of the individual survivors.

What I'm describing here is the clash of two serious but flawed arguments. The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force.

No wonder many of us feel agonized this week, betwixt and between, as that poor woman slowly dehydrates.

David Brooks is a columnist for The New York Times. His e-mail is dabrooks@nytimes.com.

SC&A Want You to Sound Smart

Want to sound smart, like us? We can help. You won't really be smart, but you might actually come across as erudite to anyone who doesn't really know you.

So many strive for it. So many are obsessed by the idea. Mirrors, sweat, dance music and determination are found in great measure. There is even a word for it, found here.

Here is a concise history of the word.

We've done our part, now you do yours. Don't sit down on the job, OK?

"Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is!"

Via the ever informed Anchoress, a challenge from Dr Boyle, of CodeBlue Blog:

To prove my point I am offering $100,000 on a $25,000 wager for ANY neurologist (and $125,000 for any neurologist/bioethicist) involved in Terri Schiavo's case--including all the neurologists reviewed on television and in the newspapers who can accurately single out PVS patients from functioning patients with better than 60% accuracy on CT scans.

See the entire Anchoress post here and click through to CodeBlue blog. Dr Boyle's reputation, experience and credentials are apparently, beyond reproach. The offer is extraordinary.

If indeed Dr Boyle is correct- and a $100,000 challenge is a pretty good indicator he knows what he's talking about- well, this party is just getting underway.

Ballroom Dancing

One might think Kofi Annan was just another hapless victim of his adversaries and UN haters. The headlines read as follows:

Annan: I'm in the clear on oil-for-food

Annan cleared of wrongdoing

There have a plethora of such headlines, of course.

Then, there is the reality:

The probe into the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal has not cleared UN chief Kofi Annan, an investigator said today.

Mark Pieth rejected Annan’s declaration that the report, released yesterday, exonerated him on the matter of Cotecna Inspections winning a £5 million-a-year UN contract while he was secretary-general and it employed his son Kojo.

“We did not exonerate Kofi Annan,” Pieth said. “We should not brush this off. A certain mea culpa would have been appropriate.”

More, here:

Have you investigated the role of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan?

M.P.: In this preliminary report, we have not looked at Annan’s potential conflict of interest, nor have we investigated the involvement of his son with the Swiss-based company Cotecna. That is going to be the focus of another report which will be published soon.

SC&A EXCLUSIVE-White House Scandal!

Washington, DC (SC&A)- President George Bush will announce later today that he will not resign from office, despite the White House being directly implicated in a massive financial scandal.

Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, had ordered the shredding of White House documents, relating to the matter and oversaw the destruction of those documents for seven months.

Relatives and close assocites of both the President and Vice-President have been implicated in bribe taking and other misdeeds. The investigation is ongoing.

While the White House is belived to be at the center of the 64 billion dollar scandal, there is reason to believe that the size and scope of the scandal will only get bigger.

When asked if he would resign, the President said, "Hell, No!" There has been no such call for the President's resignation and France has offered her full support for Mr. Bush.

Given the mood and response from the International community, it appears as President Bush will not have to the very few demands that he be held accountable.

The ISM and other peace, anarchy and anti globalization movements have shown no interest in the matter, thus giving further indication that the matter is of no political or moral importance to the vast majority of the world community and thus conveys further belief in President Bush's tenure and policies.

The White House did announce yesterday that it will not be footing Vice-President Cheney's legal bill, after all. The spokesman said the White House wanted to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. There was no information on the money spent on Mr Cheney's legal defense so far.

As is White House policy, fiscal audits are not made on a regular basis, and when they are, those audits not forthcoming or released to the media or any other oversight committee.

On a related note, see this.

-END ITEM-

You're Not So Special, Really

SC&A are upset, but we will contain ourselves for a bit, so as to make our point. The focus of our attention will be evident later in the post.

We flawed. Each and every one of us.

Real heroes, are those that represent the best of us, find within themselves the capacity to reach beyond their capabilities and excel.

Real heroes also sacrifice that which comes instinctively- the urge to protect and defend oneself, first. Real heroes extend that best part of themselves, outward.

Real heroes are also real people- and they too, are flawed.

None of that diminishes their contributions, made to benefit us all. Our nation, our communities and even our neighborhoods have all been made better because of their contributions. We secretly want to see a bit of ourselves in our heroes- as if we too, could have made a difference. The efforts our heroes to make their corner of the world a better place are what make these people stand out.

In the matter of Terri Schiavo, there have been no heroes to be found. Just the opposite, really. Despite a facade of 'reasonableness,' the real effort was made to politicize the issue.

It has been said that there is a reason Lady Justice is blind and Lady Liberty holds a torch. Justice must remain blind, to be arrived at without favor or influence. Liberty must always shed light on what is the natural human instinct to excel and exceed.

There are times we demand absolute justice from an imperfect system, in an imperfect world. We become indignant and angry when we cannot find an outlet for our indignation. At other times, we demand absolute liberty for ourselves and our beliefs and think nothing of our obligation to our neighbors and others around us, in allowing them to have their say and commitment to their ideals.

The reality is that at times, the friction between justice and liberty is important, if for no other reason to keep us aware of the precious nature of this very system we often take for granted.

We are meant to argue, debate and discuss the balance of this living organism we call democracy.

In the matter of Terri Schiavo, there has been no real moral debate and no high minded discussion. This mythical reality, as it unfolds every day in front of us, is the carefully crafted mass marketing and oversimplification of ideas, truths and realities. Both sides of the political spectrum are happy to dismiss each other with mischaracterizations and oversimplifications of beliefs and intent. The media, whorish as ever, is happy to play along.

The only thing that is real is that Terri Schiavo is being starved to death.

Well, here's a wake-up call to to all of you: Very few of you are heroes. Very few of you are willing to extend yourselves to deserve that title, because unlike real heroes, most of you care only about your own beliefs and your own back yards.

Here's a bit of reality: Whether you like it or not, we're all in this boat together- and no one has or will appoint you, superior to your neighbor or to anyone else for that matter. Your ideas and beliefs are what works for you- and only you. That there are others who share your beliefs are nice, but that's about it. There are plenty of other nice people with beliefs of their own, different than yours. Unless you are a radical Islamist who believes in the subjugation of the kafir world (most often stated at end of a sword), get off your high horse.

There is a passionate liberal argument for universal compassion, tolerance and acceptance.

There is an equally passionate argument made by social and religious conservatives, that faith in God makes clear the difference between right and wrong. There is a commitment to a just and caring society.

OK, with us so far? If not, pretend you are.

The real differences between us are fostered and cultivated by the media- and by the politicians themselves. Don't agree? Think- do you have a real animus for the neighbor who sees things differently than you do? Or, are you somehow able to get along, reserving your rage for the guy on TV or the politicians you don't like?

There is no real difference between the ideas and ideologies that would best serve our nation. The difference is in the paths taken. The division is one of direction, not values. No one group can obviate the other- in reality, they aren't that much different.

Neither side of the political divide will be happy to be reminded that the other side feeds millions of mouths a day. Sorry to make so many of you so ill upon that discovery. Must be tough, not being so special.

Of course, some idiots will immediately jump up and say, "They want to blah blah blah and then they want to restrict blah blah blah." Of course, that is why they are idiots and will remain so. Remember the differences between Lady Liberty and Lady Justice? Deal with it. Hard as it is to imagine, it isn't all about you and what you think and what you believe and what you want. As a matter of fact, you are irrelevant, until you start contributing in earnest, to a common good. Heroes are relevant and important- and you are not a hero.

Here is another bit of reality that you may find disheartening: There is middle ground. We don't always have to see eye to eye, but we can work with each other- it is in our nature to do so.

In nature, we find the opposites in every organism and opposites in every man made endeavor. Trees have solid trunks, immovable and resolute and they have branches that sway in the wind, leaves fluttering. Language has defined letters and punctuation, from which poetry and great literature emerges, and causes us to emote and reflect. Music is result of a rigid, mathematical structure from which emerges a passion so deep so as to move people of different backgrounds, together.

What does all this have to do with Terri Shiavo? Everything. As we have let the media and politicians define what we are seeing, it is important that the truth be brought to the fore.

This didn't have to be political and his didn't have to be about sides. We didn't have to let the media define the players.

Does God belong in politics? Some would answer no, the doctrine of the Church and State division acts as a buffer to religious extremism. There is after all, a history of Church repression. Political Islam, speaks for itself. Faith is best kept a private and personal matter.

Others might say that this country was founded on religious principles, and indeed, faith based good works have left an indelible mark on this nation. Thus, faith alone is the underpinning of our society.

In truth, for a long time, religion was used as method of oppression. However, that expression of faith has no foothold here. We founded by those who wished to escape that and other forms of tyranny. It is religion that allowed for and was the original guarantor of freedom in this country.

Is secularism the answer to our future? Secularism, and all it's derivatives, were understandable reactions to being held underfoot by a Church and faith that cared not a whit for it's believers. That Church, thankfully, no longer exists, in no small measure due to the reality that human dignity, especially under God's Dominion, demanded freedom. When a slave broke the chains of his bondage, he didn't stay long enough to have tea and say good bye to his master. He ran, as far and fast as he could.

Those former slaves to that less than whole and open Church, found a new replacement for God. That new religion, for many, was Science- and Ethics. Nietzsche defiantly and confidently declared that "God is Dead." He was right. The God that Nietzche and the other starring cast of the Enlightenment understood and knew, was indeed dead. In it's place a new belief structure arouse. As the Church once oppressed, in extremis, so too did the resulting backlash of secularism, in a hedonistic orgy of self centered obsession.

The Church has changed and Secularism has changed.

Much has changed, in both the liberal and conservative communities. Take away the politics and there is ground for discussion and acceptance.

Had that real discussion begun, Terri Schiavo might have been more than the rope in a political tug of war. She might actually have been a person.

Looking Into The Mirror

Beth, of MyVastRightWing Conspiracy, makes clear another reality in the Terri Schiavo case. In a cogent and convincing manner, she discusses "Bigotry and the murder of Terri Schiavo, a look at some of what remains unsaid and undiscussed.

It is tempting to copy her entire piece here, but that would, in reality, be an out of context display. Here are some selected quotes. They have been taken from a longer piece. To fully appreciate Beth's remarks, read the entire post, here.

...Here’s why I am so angry about this–a personal story. My ex-husband’s mother is in a nursing home because she has multiple sclerosis (I won’t even get into my opinion about that situation, but I’m sure some of my regular readers can guess what it is). One argument my ex and I could never reconcile was his saying “if I’m ever like that, I’d want to die.” This he said in referring to his own MOTHER. Keep in mind, she still has full cognition and can still eat, but has to be “spoon-fed” due to her paralysis. But she’s a “burden” to the family (hence her being in a nursing home), and therefore her life is worthless, I guess.

Some of you know that in 1996 I began a long period of my own medical problems. I was medically retired from the Air Force after I had surgery for the first time to remove a nasty spinal cord tumor that inexplicably had not disabled me yet beyond occasionally tripping on things just a little bit more than seemed normal. Most people, even those I worked with, would never even notice it. Since the first operation, I’ve had six more operations as the tumor has come back, plus ten months of chemotherapy and radiation. Every single doctor I’ve seen for this has remarked about their shock that I can still walk–all said it was likely I would be wheelchair-bound, if not DEAD....

Be honest–do you think the disabled are a BURDEN to society and to you? Do you think that not wanting to “be a burden” means a person would rather be DEAD? I don’t want to be a burden–but if I am burdensome to you, then please leave; I don’t need you around. But I don’t want to die. And so I believe that if the Michael Schiavos of the world are burdened, they should leave their loved ones alone and let the stronger people carry the load and give them the love they deserve as any other human being. The only reason Terri Schiavo would be miserable where one wouldn’t want to “live like that” is because of the way Michael Schiavo has deemed her worthless and burdensome.

Nothing about the Terri Schiavo saga is easy. Most of it is complicated and convoluted. Those realities notwithstanding, Beth's post forces us to look where we might not want to- into the mirror. While it is easy to focus our outrages outward, that may be a whole lot easier than looking inward.

This may be a good time to look into that mirror.

Terri Schiavo, Right, Left and Redemption

What should have been a national debate on right and wrong, has turned into another 'take no prisoners' confrontation between the right and left wings of what passes for political ideology in this country.

Terri Schiavo's fate was claimed by the right and the left. Her fate was claimed by the religious community and her fate was claimed by the specifically non religious. Her fate was also claimed by those advocating the 'right to life' and those advocating the 'right to die'.

For the most part, every one of those voices were sincere (save the spectacular monuments to stupidity who were ecstatic and overjoyed because a Bush was at the losing end of a court battle). Also for the most part, every one of those voices- save very, very few, were voices of hypocrisy.

Terri Schiavo was a single case, with a single set of specifics. She was never meant to be the poster child for anything.

Her case was about the rights and wrongs that were being done to her, and by whom. The media has once more failed us and because of that, no one is informed and the truth remains as elusive as ever, veiled behind the curtain that is deceit.

The right, in co-operation with the religious right, has been as realistic in the matter of Terri Schiavo as they were in understanding the mindset of Americans as it related to abortion. That abortion is legal is a good thing. That there are too many abortions, as readily available as they are, is not a good thing. Thus, despite shrill voices and the inevitable 'empowerment' rallies, abortion is here to stay. It's about politics and political power and influence.

The left, without fail, never remembers it's own track record. Being a poster child for left wing causes based only on a political agenda (and thus excluding anyone who might have a different view), is a guaranteed route into oblivion. The moral policies of the Communists, Castro, the Sandanistas and various liberation movements and anarchy ideologies have been relegated to irrelevance. Those efforts and causes all had one thing in common. The left attempted to gain legitimacy by doing everything they could to influence others, regardless of the means and irrespective of the truth. And yes, they all failed.

America will embark on a remaking and redefining of itself. Notwithstanding the self emasculated media, this remaking and redefinition will come about precisely because the matter of Terri Schiavo was never about anything other than right and wrong- and more people than the right and left would have you believe, understood exactly what was happening.

Make no mistake about it, we all need the redemption.

SC&A Mailbox

SC&A received an email questioning our position in our previous post. The correspondent disagreed with our take that the Schiavo matter was politicized, insisting instead that the religious right had made the Terri Schiavo case about the right to life, instead of the right to die. It was the left, our correspondent wrote, that was truly understanding and caring of the Terri Schiavo matter at hand. Our correspondent insisted that it was always the left that held the moral high ground. Religion is always a negative influence on contemporary morality, he states.

It is hard to say how and why the level of of what passes for intelligence nowadays is constantly being downgraded. It isn't hard to see the net result.

The left, by virtue of being left, is in no way superior to any ideology or the right- any more than the right is superior to any ideology or the left.

If our correspondent is sincere, his position begs a few questions. Where is the left as Darfurians are still being slaughtered? Where was the left as the GIA in Algeria raped and dismembered children, as a matter of course? Where are the outraged voices against FGM and honor killings? Where is the left to be seen protesting China's own human rights violations?

This is not meant to be SC&A's left bashing festival. SC&A are far too aware of the contributions to our society that the left has made- and continues to make. SC&A is also aware of the contributions that the right has made and continues to make.

Americans, in their desire to see a 'more perfect union' and a better backyard, may choose to better our world from a variety of directions and opinions, including the left and right. With good intentions, all are welcome. Some of us may get our feathers ruffled every now and then, but that's a good thing. Where some Americans go wrong is in believing that anyone who believes differently than they do, are somehow, less than equal.

Our correspondent needs to think more and posture less.

We would call him an idiot, but we are feeling somewhat charitable today. How much longer that will last will depend on the contents of our email.

Professional Courtesy

SC&A are always ready to extend a professional courtesy to others in the helping professions.

Together with The Proctology Institute Social Sanitation Education Department (P.I.S.S.E.D), SC&A wish to publicly endorse others who are a credit to the helping profession. We are most gratified to be among the very first to endorse this 'relief valve' product and therapy, so effective in reducing stress. We cannot help but admire and endorse so noble and selfless a cause.

SC&A are introducing you to the therapy and product in advance on the national rollout. Although the company is not yet open for business, SC&A hope you consider their product as an effective way to combat stress.

Better Blog, Better Blogger

The best blogs make you think. The best bloggers make your connection with them, personal.

MaxedOutMama has one such blog, and is one such blogger.

Read this post by MaxedOutMama. Take your time, read it slowly- as if matters. You'll be a lot better off for it.

Definition and Defilement

First things first: Read The Anchoress this morning. Then, to understand where she is coming from, read her reponses to our questions posed to her On The Couch.

It has struck us how much the Terri Schiavo debate has come to resemble a political debate. Half truths, some truths and complete disregard for the truth are what will eventually be regarded as the hallmarks of the Terri Schiavo case.

What should be clear to any observer is the following: No one really knows what is going on. The media is quick to point out and feature medical opinion that insists Terri Schiavo is completely unaware and feels nothing. The media is also careful to leave anyone with the impression that there are no credible voices that see things differently. Those voices- many of which are more than credible, are ignored or brushed away by anyone with another view, as if those choosing to ignore opposing voices are qualified to do so.

That the media has sullied and soiled itself should come as no surprise. For a long time now, the media has lacked any real credibility. In their zeal to be 'evenhanded,' the media has forgotten it's mission: to provide the truth. That mission became lost when it was decided that in addition to providing information, the media took it upon themselves to in some convoluted way, make everything 'relative.' As a result, cable news providers have walked away with viewers in droves and newspapers are helpless as readership dwindles. What much of the media has forgotten- or chosen to ignore- is that truth, by definition, designates right from wrong.

The media could have garnered great credibility had they been loyal to the god that is science. In any endeavor, science welcomes challenge and debate. Science wishes to prove it's theory and propositions. Had media been quick to seek out alternative viewpoints and opinions (remember investigative journalism?) and had they been willing to give qualified opponents air time to express their views, perhaps then our opinion of journalism would improve. The media had no trouble airing the views of a tobacco insider, so as to question big tobacco (and the courts that ruled in Big Tobacco's favor), but for some reason, don't want to discuss Terri Schiavo. Ask yourself why.

Media touts poll results that say spouses should have the final say in matters of health decisions for each other. Media also conveniently avoids questioning a 'husband' that has openly abandoned his wife to love another woman and father children with her- and yet expects us to believe that should not impact our impression of his credibility or intent. Investigative journalism it seems, is not to be found when it comes to the hard questioning of Michael Schiavo, either.

Terri Schiavo's broken wheelchair was never fixed. Terri Schiavo was not allowed to go outdoors. Terri Schiavo was not allowed a radio or television in her room and she was denied any therapy after a large settlement was awarded to her husband. For some reason, Michael Schiavo denied any form of stimulus for Terri Schiavo. To this day, no media has questioned those realities.

Instead, the media is once more engaging in the deceit that it has helped shape and define.

And on this Easter Day, a day regarded by much of the planet as a day commemorating an ultimate truth, we have allowed a story of life and death to defined (or as many might say, defiled) by mainstream journalists.

Against this background, Terri Schiavo is dying.

SC&A want you to know this video originates at the Air Force Academy.

We are seriously considering open up an Institute annex in Colorado Springs.

Feeling Sorry For Yourself?

(We thought we'd break from posting on Terri Schiavo for a few hours.)

People are complaining about their jobs- again.

Naturally, we don't care to listen to your whining unless we're getting paid, but in the interest of science, SC&A are going to help you with a bit of shock therapy. No, moron, not that kind of shock. You do not need to race to put on rubber soled shoes.

Every time you think your job leaves you unhappy, unfulfilled or just isn't 'challenging' enough for your sorry ass, be glad you didn't have to work in one of these jobs.

Do We Really Need to Prove Ourselves?

Many have tried- none have succeeded. We are after all, SC&A. To make it fair, you face only Sigmund.

Your turn to try.

How Not To Impress SC&A

Yesterday, SC&A were the recipients of two ecards, from a secret admirer.

Notwithstanding the fact that SC&A and NG are indeed an item (so as to be clear, an item that includes heavy breathing), our secret admirer appears to be a person of limited wit, taste and intelligence. The ecards that we received were juvenile, sophomoric (look it up), and utterly classless, best suited for a White Trash Wednesday post.

In any event, we thought our hordes (as opposed to herds- look it up) of readers would enjoy seeing the ecards for themselves. They can be viewed here and here. Please be advised that if you wish to admire, or otherwise adore and worship SC&A, the use of good grammer will definately give you an advantage. NG has graciously agreed to help SC&A select the finalists in the SC&A secret admirer fan club.

So as to be clear to those who wish to flirt with us, please be advised that the position has been filled.

We actually think it's a guy (a really, really sick guy) and we have an idea of who it might be. We had no idea he cared.

That said, we encourage everyone to take advantage of the opportunity to reply to the anonymous sender via the option offered by the card company. Your kindness might soften the blow of our rejection. And you thought we didn't care.

SC&A are grateful in that the sender has given ourselves and NG a good laugh.

Treetop View

Like most bloggers, SC&A cannot seem to find enough time in the day to visit good blogs.

BirdsEyeView is one of those blogs we have been aware of, and sadly, do not spend enough time reading. The author has a few blogs (how he manages we have no idea), each a worthy read.

One recent post that grabbed our attention was, I'm stuck on this one story. In the post, the auhor manages a cogent and calm presentation of those issues that strike a chord in the matter of Terri Schiavo. for example, he presents the following observations and a snippet from an Newsweek column by Rabbi Marc Gellman:

"Gellman sees a very simple truth at the heart of the issue, the woman is not dying (at least not dying naturally). There is a world of difference between allowing someone who is dying to do so unimpeded, and taking the life of someone who is otherwise not at risk of death.

It is one thing to let a person die in peace who is already dying. It is one thing to remove an obstacle to death. It is quite another to cause death. When you add in her parents' willingness to assume the financial and emotional burden of her care, the insistence of her husband that he be given the right to starve his wife to death just seems insanely ghoulish to many people who are otherwise in favor of a person's right to die. Death, they argue-and I agree-is not always an insult or a betrayal. Death can be a natural and welcome release from pain and suffering. We now face the frightening possibility of modern medicine, motivated more by a defensive fear of lawsuits than the Hippocratic oath of “first do no harm,” stopping us from crossing over when it is our time. But this obviously is not Terri Schiavo's time. She is alive, innocent and mute. She is not at death's door. All this sound and fury is about cruelly bringing the door to her.

Gellman brings a very welcome maturity to this discussion. The "rights" of the dying and the disabled is a very difficult issue. The moral and emotional terrain is murky and perilous."

BirdsEyeView's author has gone to great lengths to present his views in a clear and logical manner. His ideas, thoughts and conclusions are all sobering and are seemingly, beyond reproach. He has posted a few times on Terri Schiavo- and each post is worth the read.

OnThe Couch With The Anchoress

Not too long ago, SC&A were fortunate enough to have found The Anchoress, a blogger we like, a lot. She is articulate, smart, thoughtful and almost edgy- just enough so as to keep you from remaining too comfortable. Like other bloggers we like (on both sides of the political spectrum), The Anchoress is obviously well read and erudite, without being stuffy or predicatable.

In a blogosphere that is no more than a monument to spectacular mediocrity and inertia, The Anchoress will make you think- and perhaps, even more importantly, she will keep you thinking long after you leave her site.


You write from a religious/moral standpoint. You are also at times, irreverent and biting. Is there a balance? Is there a connection?

Biting, I like that, but I do worry, sometimes, that I bite too quickly or too hard.

Just as there are fine lines between love and hate, laughter or tears, I think there is a fine line between reverence and irreverence, and they seem to continually overlap, or meld into each other. I am half Scots-Irish and half Italian, and I do believe that might have something to do with it, at least for me. When I was little and sharing a room with my grandmother, I would watch her say her prayers at night. She was a convert from Lutheranism, and every night she'd kneel by her bed, say her prayers, bless herself with holy water and give me a kiss. Then she'd reach under her pillow for the racing forms for the next days runs at Belmont. I learned at an early age that the sacred and the secular intersected on a daily basis. Sometimes on an hourly basis. We're not angels but humans, and we serve both our higher and baser natures with some regularity.

I don't know that I would say I write from a "moral" standpoint. If I do, I don't intend to. I have been writing all my life, and it has only been in the last few years I realized what was clear to so many others - that I am a completely "Catholic" writer. 85% of what I write will, sooner or later, turn to God or scripture or something - and I never plan that. It's completely destroyed one novel I was in the middle of - suddenly things started going all Catholic, and I said, "No! NO, dammit, STOP THAT! That's NOT what I want! Can't I just enjoy the freakin' story?"

Sadly, I could not, and the thing is in the bottom drawer of my desk. And it had been such a FUN story up 'til then. Sigh. Now, I'll probably never finish it because I'm so pissed that it misbehaved and went Catholic.

Terri Schiavo is at the fore right now. Can her case be made equally well from a moral as well as a religious standpoint? We see images depicting her supporters as being religious zealots- is it fair to say that the religious right is at the fore of that fight? Is it right that they have assumed that position?

Good questions. I have to admit that, while I knew of Terri for years, I had simply considered the issue a family squabble. It was only when the issue heated up over the last few months, when I began reading different and troubling accounts and imagined her, imprisoned in her body, but still able to process information on some level, starving...that I found myself writing and writing about her. The blog has almost become All-Terri-All-the-Time, which again - I did not plan to happen. I think it's pretty obvious that her case may be made from a moral as well as a religious standpoint, and I'll cite as an example Rachel Lucas at Blue Eyed Infidel - a proud atheist who is nevertheless furious about what is happening to Terri. She makes it clear that if there was proof that Terri wished to die, and if some other, more humane way could be found to accomplish that, she would support it, but she finds this current situation unspeakable. Same with Megan over at lesbiencestmoi. She is not classically a "pro-lifer" and yet she, too, feels the sense of injustice and outrage.

I think for many people - both religious and secular - the great sense that Terri has been short-changed is what is driving them. I think it's true for myself. If she'd had therapy for the last few years, if she'd had an MRI that confirmed PVS, if she'd been treated like a human being - allowed to receive the sacraments, have a tv in her room or at least a radio, if she'd been re-evaluated every few years...it would be much easier to put down the fight. What is missing here, is a sense of justice and fair play.

When my brother was dying a few months ago, we would have done anything - anything - to keep him with us because even having him in terrible condition, incapacitated, was still better than NOT having him. Until his final few days, we'd managed, still to talk, to convey our love for each other, and every day of that was incredibly precious. It seems to me that Terri - from what I have read and seen on the tapes - has the capacity to understand that someone LOVES her...and has a minimal capacity to express that love in return. As long as that exists, why steal from her family the opportunity to express that love. Why steal from Terri the chance to have her dignity and worth affirmed? When my brother couldn't live anymore, he died. And we were crushed and remain crushed. But I wouldn't trade the time in hospice for anything, and if you told me we'd have had that for the next 30 years, we'd have taken it. I believe my brother would have, too. The love, the humor, the terrible sadness...it was all LIFE. It was a celebration of the life he, at that point, still had.

As to the rest of your question, it's clear that the press is portraying this as another "pro-life-Christian-fanatic" situation, but I think that's unfair. As I said, many secularists and pro-choicers are disturbed by this issue - Lanny Davis said last night that he thought Michael Schiavo should let his wife life, and let her parents care for her. The press simply has a story it wants to frame a certain way. That said, the so-called "religious right" IS at the forefront of the fight. Terri's parents are devout Catholics, so it's not surprising that they would have some helpful priests around them, and the evangelicals have been very vocal in support of Terri. Should they be at the forefront? I don't know. I confess to being a little concerned that so many of the talking heads I am seeing lately are publicity hogs like Randall Terry and Pat Robertson. They may be sincere as all get out, but they're also ambitious political animals that I would rather not see all over the place. Clearly, the ideal situation would have been for these two families to settle this matter privately...since that hasn't happened, both sides will now demonize each other, which is all very sad and tiring. For me, speaking for myself alone...all I see in Terri is her humanity, and I will always say 'err on the side of life."

We hear much about the divide between religious and moral America. Are they mutually exclusive?

Religious and moral America? People of faith on one side and people of reason on the other? Is that what you're saying? Because I don't think "moral" America is just one side. Clearly folks on both sides of the political spectrum have their "morals" and are continually trying to ram them down the other side's throat. I think the 'divide' is given more import that it deserves. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, and I would point to John Paul II (who wrote an encyclical called "Faith and Reason" that I have never been able to get through because it is very dense, but in a good way, and so am I, but in a thick-headed way.) as a living example. He is a man of great faith, but also of great reason. There are plenty of people on the right who are not religious but who display excellent morals and reasoning skills...Jonah Goldberg comes to mind, although I am in no way putting him in the same class as the pope!

Clearly, there have been liberal patriots and moral beacons in the past. Certainly, many liberal ideas have served our country well. Are there any liberals today that you respect, if do not agree with?

I'm not a life-long conservative. Like Ronald Reagan, I feel the Democrat party left me, rather than my leaving them. When Reagan was president, btw, I hated him, because I read headlines and heard sound bites and thought I was informed. My appreciation of him came very late. I still am uncomfortable calling myself a conservative because much of what is "conservative" today was classic liberalism when I was a kid, and Hubert Humphrey was my hero. I like Harold Ford a lot, and I respect Howard Fineman, even when I disagree with him, I think he's eminently fair. I would like Barak Obama more if I didn't feel he was just a littttle too slick. I loved Daniel Patrick Moynahan, even though by the time he died I was veering to the right. Joe Lieberman I have always liked, although he DID piss me off about the military ballots in 2000. There are liberals I admire and respect...it's just a pitifully short list. I used to like my county executive - a democrat I voted for twice, until he spoke at a commencement and made stupid and bigoted jokes about "people down south." I like Tim Russert.

Can moral values can be taught without the framework of religion?

Sure. It's nice if they can compliment each other, but often religion and morality end up a strange, oppressive and anxiety-producing mixture. But that goes both for the formal, recognised religions of the world AND the informal, unacknowledged religion of "political correctness" and for secular humanism as well. When you mix a stern and narrow morality with either theology or ideology, you can create precisely the same unhealthy, combustible force. Witness the stupid crap going on at Harvard, where Jada Pinkett Smith was castigated as "insensitive and alarmingly heteronormitive" for daring to speak only from her perspective as a married hetero woman, without including every special interest group attending her speech. Many of our college campuses are places where dissent is dangerous.

In the end zealotry of any sort is dangerous and destructive. I never trust a zealot. (I know, some would call me one, but really...if you read my blog thoroughly, I'm not such a one-note...as I said, Terri's situation wasn't supposed to take over my blog as it has!) I know plenty of non-religious people whose well-developed sense of justice and right and wrong is inspiring and instructive.

Should the teaching of science be outside the sphere of religious influence?

Why? Gregor Mendl was a monk. Why must they be mutually exclusive? Some scientists are now saying that they have become believers THRU science - that our growing ability to look deeply inside every portion of our being has revealed pumps and pulleys and engines suggesting some sort of intelligent design. Are we talking Darwinism and his theory of evolution? It's never been more than a theory, and yet it is taught as fact. No one has yet found the ape who could play the cello or compose opera. If his theory is correct, why has evolution apparently STOPPED not just for man, but for all the other species as well. I think religion has interesting questions, both intellectual and ethical, to bring to bear upon science, and science has much to offer religion in terms of exposing how we are "fearfully and wonderfully made." On Saturday night, at the Easter vigil, we'll hear the story of Creation again, and once again, I will think of how the big bang theory has its place in it...I think the two - science and religion are (like secularism and the sacred) things that intersect and sometimes overlap, and that they can and should work together, and not be caught up in the endless breaking off, splintering and polarization between everything and everything and everyone and everyone which is going on, all over the world. When religion and science stop talking...well then...here be monsters.

Where does faith end and opinion begin? Can one be equally Christian (or Jewish or Hindu or Muslim) and have disparate political opinions?

Of course. Peter and Paul often disagreed. Sometimes the disparate political opinions can exist in the same person as they are evolving. For example the pro-life question wasn't completely ultimately and in all-ways settled for me until my brother's illness and death. He taught me so very much from his bed. So, my husband was "very" pro-life, and I was "still thinking about every case" but we were one in our faith. But the first part of your question is the most difficult to answer. Where does faith end and opinion begin? I don't know if that is answerable. My faith informs my opinion, just as my reason does. My pro-life opinion has been formed by both, given what it has taught and what I have learned on my own even - as I said - as recently as a few months ago I was still reasoning and learning. That is a VERY big question. I don't know if I can answer it, except to say I don't know everything, I KNOW how woefully inadequate my understanding is, and that I bring a lot of issues to prayer and leave them at the foot of my God.

If your readers were to walk away from your blog with one idea or thought, what would you want that to be?

She's a decent person with some worthwhile insights, not a total waste of time to read.

You have written on fashion and cooking. Those posts really were engaging, funny and entertaining. Will we see more of that side of you?

I sure hope so! As I said, this Schiavo case is all-consuming in ways that I simply never anticipated and which are - quite frankly - a little out of character for me. I DO have other interests, as anyone who goes into my archives will see. I love baseball. I love working in a flower garden. I love the free exchange of political ideas, I love my kids when they are goofy and weird, and I love to make fun of pop culture and whack-job women who embarrass me and I love to write about all of those things. I like writing about things like this: http://theanchoress.blogspot.com/2004/12/anchoress-crashes -and-burns-film-at.html and this: http://theanchoress.blogspot.com/2004/12/my-vagina-and-me-politically-incorrect.html and this: http://theanchoress.blogspot.com/2004/11/bookworms-dilemma.html and I want to get back to it. Just not possible to be flippant and silly right now. But I want to be, again.

From the SC&A Author

My lawyer and I had a conversation today and we discussed Terri Schiavo. He was quite taken by the fact that Dr William Cheshire had filed an affidavit on behalf of Terri Schiavo, questioning her diagnosis. He remarked that the Doctor didn't 'have a dog in that fight,' meaning that he had nothing to gain and everything to lose by involving himself in matters that did not concern him. The same could be said for the 15 other neurologists that have entered the fray with nothing to gain and a whole lot to lose.

Smart people don't involve themselves in matters they don't have to, unless they have a good reason.

MaxedOutMama, as usual, has an excellent post worth reading. You may not be happy, but you will be better informed.

Much has been made in the past few days of the motivations of the parties involved in the Terri Schiavo matter.

I certainly cannot state with any degree of certainty what anyone else's motivations are, but I can say this: As the father of teenage daughter, I can assure anyone reading this that if indeed my daughter were so far removed from this world, myself and her mother, I would, as any parent who loves their own child as only a parent can, ease my child from her suffering. I would have no problem 'letting go'- how could I? I would never allow my child- or for that matter, any child, to suffer needlessly.

By the same token, if there were but a small spark of life in her, I would move heaven and earth to keep her with us.

Many of you might argue that her 'quality of life' is an issue that I might consider. To you I say, go to hell.

If you aren't happy with that answer, too bad- unless you are happy with the idea that I might have a say in the private lives of your family. How dare you even insinuate that you have a right to determine 'quality of life' for anyone other than your immediate family. What does that mean? Simply put, I might not want to have to pay for the long term care of your relatives- because I don't think the 'quality of life' they have suits my beliefs.

Does that put a clearer picture on things now?

I have said earlier that I am not taking sides in this matter. To me, it is still a matter of right and wrong.

The Barking Dingo, (I like Dingo, a lot. See his comments on this piece and learn something) perhaps said it best on his blog and in the comments section of Beth's blog. To paraphrase, it hasn't been the courts that have failed us- it has been the laws that have failed us. Whether we like it or not, he is right. The courts have been bound by laws that our lawmakers have enacted- and we have been let down by those laws, on a myriad of issues, many times. That lawmakers failed to act now should not be the bitter surprise it is- both sides of our political realities have failed us miserably- and they have failed Terri Schiavo. We have, by our own inattention and disregard, created the environment those lawmaker live in. We tolerate the deceit, fraud and intolerance that has become our legislatures.

I have said earlier, this is not about taking 'sides.' It is about what is right and wrong.

On The Matter of Terri Schiavo And The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of The United States has ruled they will not intervene in the Terri Schiavo matter.

There will of course, be finger pointing and recriminations. Most importantly, there will be consequences.

...let us videotape her [Terri Schiavo] last few days. Let see how ‘unfeeling’ and how out of touch she is with pain and suffering.

Let America see those tapes of her, in agony. Let America watch as she pleaded with her eyes and with the most basic of sounds, for food and water...

...Finally, at the next election campaign, let those tapes be played as a backdrop to ads asking viewers a simple question: If so and so couldn’t be bothered to keep Terri Schiavo alive, how can you believe he cares about you and those values you hold dear?...

Do those politicians really believe they would be forgiven at the polls?

Read more over at Beth's, here.

Blogrolling

Is anyone else having a problem with blogrolling, or is it just SC&A?

Oh Yes, How We Have Progressed

You know, there was a time this type of news would have elicted outrage. We suppose the irony may be lost on some of you, but we suspect that most of you will be able to connect the dots.

Apparently, the doctor in the story won't face trial because now, the doctor sufferes severe dementia (or so goes the claim. Read the story for more on that).

Austrian Doctor Accused in Killing Handicapped Children Won't Face Trial

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - An Austrian doctor who worked at a clinic where the Nazis killed thousands of children deemed "unworthy" will not be put on trial because he suffers from severe dementia, Austria's justice minister said.

Dr. Heinrich Gross, who faced charges in the deaths of nine children, is not mentally capable of following court proceedings, Justice Minister Karin Miklautsch said in a document released Tuesday. Three previous cases against Gross dating to the 1950s have been dismissed.

Experts found Gross, 89, has a limited ability "to understand and analyze new information and to participate in complex communication processes with several participants - such as a court hearing," Miklautsch said.

Miklautsch cited a court's decision in November 2003 that Gross was unfit to stand trial and said no further evaluation is needed.

The charges against Gross will remain pending, said Viktor Eggert, head of the Justice Ministry's political and war-crimes department.

"The process is only suspended. It will end at some point with the suspect's death," he said.

Gross was a leading doctor in Vienna's notorious Am Spiegelgrund clinic. Historians and survivors of the clinic have accused him of participating in clinic experiments on thousands of children deemed by the Nazis to be physically, mentally or otherwise unfit. The Nazis called such children "unworthy lives."

Gross became a prominent neurologist after the Second World War and was awarded the prestigious Austrian Honorary Cross for Science and Art in 1975. He was stripped of the medal in 2003.

Gross has been put on trial three times but all the cases were dismissed. In a trial in the 1950s, the case was thrown out because of legal technicalities. A second case in the 1980s was dismissed because the 30-year statute of limitations on manslaughter had expired.

A third trial in 2000, in which Gross was accused of complicity in the deaths of nine handicapped children from abuse, was suspended after a psychiatrist testified he was unfit for trial because of advanced dementia.

Immediately after the suspension, Gross gave lively interviews in a local coffeehouse.

The minister's statement Tuesday was a response to Green party legislator Karl Oellinger's request for information on the status of the case.

Oellinger said he found the answer to be an "undignified end" to a "decade-long justice scandal." He said he would ask Miklautsch more questions in an attempt to establish whether more evaluations of Gross's health might be needed.

Make Yourselves Useful

Jen, a regular reader, noted in a comment in our post below, that one good thing might come out of the Schiavo disaster (She has also written a thoughtful post on the subject, here).

Jen kindly provided a link to a relevent CNN story.

Always ahead of the curve (and sleep deprived), Beth posted on resources for living wills (advance directive/medical declarations)- and how you can procure them for yourselves.

If you don't understand the why, feel free to go on leading lives of ignorant bliss.

Close to Home

SC&A have received a number of emails concerning Terri Schiavo, and in particular, in response to our Life, Death and Reality post, in which we queried a Health Care Professional about end of life and quality of life issues.

In addition, we are pleased to note that those of you that have commented have left very insightful and profound remarks. SC&A are particularly pleased with the insight and light shed on the Schiavo matters, in remarks left on this blog.We would urge you to read the comments. Our readership has been most generous in helping us to understand a painfully difficult situation. As of late, Boomr and Mango (who has a very good post on the subject) in particular, have weighed in with ideas and thoughts that have given us pause.

We say this not to toss a bouquet, but rather as a statement of fact. Our reader's comments and letters have been all read and considered.

As as aside from our usual jocularity (look it up), we realize that this blog would be meaningless without your input- whatever that is. For that, we thank you.

We wish to publish one such letter here, from Kimberly, of Music and Cats (with the writer's permission), to serve as food for thought. What is right for one, may not be right for another- and that bears repeating. That said, this was written by a reader, for whom SC&A has a great deal of respect. We have barely edited the letter, so as to keep the writer's orginal intent clear.

I haven't been able to bring myself to comment at SC&A about the Schiavo case, in part because it all feels much too close to me.

I know with great certainty that Paul would choose not to live in the condition in which Terri Schiavo now lives, no matter whether there was some slight possibility for some recovery of mental function. And, having spent 12 hours last February waiting to hear whether his chemotherapy-damaged heart would make it through his cancer surgery, I've thought long and hard about the anguish that I would go through in making a decision to terminate life support for this man whom I love so deeply.

This is the sort of decision of which I've been a part before. My grandmother died nine years ago, 2 1/2 weeks after my mother, my aunt, my sister and I decided to have her feeding tube disconnected. During the previous two years, my grandmother had suffered a series of small strokes; each one took a little more of her reasoning and language abilities. I am very much her granddaughter, so perhaps it will be no surprise that these were devastating losses to her. The day before the stroke that took all of her language, she told my sister that she was ready to go. She had previously told my aunt, with whom she lived, that when the next one came she wanted not to be taken to the hospital, that she wanted to die at home. However, when it happened, my aunt couldn't bring herself to do nothing. I don't know that I would've been able to just watch her die in that way, either. Unfortunately, that hospitalization meant a feeding tube... which was in for three months, during which time she had at least one more small stroke. Even knowing that 1) she did not want to live like that and 2) it was only going to get worse, the decision to stop the tube feeding was difficult. My grandmother died - as far as I could tell, peacefully - at home, a couple of weeks later.

While Paul has vented some at Ratiocination, here's the personal side of his take on the matter. It's worth the read.

This situation is particularly messy. From my (admittedly not exhaustive) reading of the information available, I have concerns about either Terri's husband or her parents being able to carry out her wishes (were they clear) rather than acting on their own wishes. I think it's much less simple than many people make it out to be... which is a large part of the problem that I have with much of what passes for political discourse these days.

Well, that's enough for now. Tomorrow is another day.

It's Not Over Till SC&A Sing

SC&A wish that life were so simple that we would not need to blog. Unfortunately, our guidance is fast becoming as necessary a commodity as air.

It has come to our attention that some of you are actually tiring of the Schiavo matter.

As we have said earlier,

"... SC&A wish to make the following clear: We are not 'taking sides' on the Schiavo matter. There are no sides to be taken. There are only issues of right or wrong.

We do believe that there are enough issues that remain unclear and ambigious that warrant a 'hold' on whatever action(s) a court may impose- not the least of which is intentionally removing a feeding tube and starving someone to death.

For you sorry and miserable bastards, see this, (found at Beth's) and be sure to actually read the links provided. There is a description of the interpretation of the Terri Schiavo CAT scans. Yes, there are people out there that know more about the matter than you do- hard as that may be for you to believe.

Finally, here's your chance to get into the driver's seat and actually read and experience the matter from the perspective of someone who has been there- and we don't mean from the sidelines, but rather, from someone who escaped the 'fog.'

MaxedOutMama's description of her journey will change you- as it should. Her presence and story, in this time and place, is a gift. Read her story here and here.

This is important. If nothing else, issues of morality and ethics are meant to be examined, discussed and kept at the fore. That in itself keeps us aware and more sensitive to those who may otherwise be forgotten, or pushed to the side.

SC&A apologize if our interest in the matter detracts from your mindless, meaningless and otherwise irrelevent lives.

You can of course, change that. Learn and get involved.

One More Time

If there is one more must read post on Terri Schiavo, this is it.

Beth, of MyVastRightWingConspiracy, links to a few people who not only know the Schiavo case inside and out, they also understand the implications- better than most of us can.

A Canadian quadrapalegic writer says as follows:

The first has to do with who, if anyone, should be responsible for making the decision as to whether she lives or dies. Legally the husband is generally regarded as the closest next of kin. The water here is somewhat muddied, however, because Michael Schiavo has had another love interest for some years.

I don't hold that against him, but it strikes me as incredibly strange that her husband, who has moved on with his life to the point of embracing another woman, still has the legal right to starve Terri to death.

This raises the question of who should therefore be Terri's legal and moral guardian. The parents? The Schindlers' love for their daughter is what's kept her alive for years. Other parents in similar circumstances have fought to have life-support systems removed.

The medical team? It states that Terri has no cognitive awareness and no hope of ever regaining any. The Schindlers, on the other hand, have found 33 doctors and therapists, 15 of whom are neurosurgeons, who state a contradictory view.

See MyVastRightWingConspiracy, click through and read it all.

Look In The Mirror, it's You!

Every now and then, it is good to be reminded the divisions and similarities that we share.

If nothing else, the differing opinions serve to remind us of a) universal ideals, shared by all, b) what self serving jackasses we can be or c) how we appear to each other.

See this, at the The Barking Dingo.

Now maybe we can go back to when nobody liked us- you know, like when we wrote this.

Where is God In All This?

In our post, Life, Death and Reality, Mac, of Pesky Apostrophe asks a pointed question in the comments section:

"...how does the health care provider justify the use of tubes and machines to keep people alive, or even surgeons performing life saving procedures? I mean, if God is the one who decides, aren't doctors and nurses then playing God -- which is exactly what those who favor letting Terri go to God are being accused of doing?"

A fair question- and until God answers for himself, we can only speculate. Still, one may opine within the confines of societal norms.

We can argue that we are encumbered with the obligation to do what is best for ourselves and our fellow man, as best we can. Religion first codified and set down a set of laws for us to follow.

If we humans are indeed no more than a rung on the animal kingdom ladder, why have hospitals at all? It is true that an argument can be be made that one does need religion to be moral- and we agree with that argument. Nonetheless, that argument does not obviate religion either. Moral and religious ideologies each require us to extend ourselves.

There is a belief, postulated by Rabbi Harold Kushner (this has got to be my week for rabbis!) that quite eloquently puts forth that religious belief as follows:

God set forth rules of nature. For example, babies cannot swim. When a baby falls into the pool and drowns, God is not punishing the baby, the parents or anyone else. Babies cannot swim- they will drown. In the end, Rabbi Kushner says, God cries with us at the loss of that child. The laws of nature, those laws He set forth, reign. We are obligated to do the best we can to protect and preserve life. We need to build fences around pools to protect children- that is clear. The laws of nature demand we cooperate.

As our capacities, knowledge and capabilities to help and improve our lives and the lives of others increase, we are obligated to pass that on, too. Children that only a few short years ago would not have lived, are now routinely saved from childhood diseases and afflictions.

Are we playing God, as you ask? We don't believe so. We believe that we are using ever expanding knowledge to make our world a better place- and finding new ways to cooperate with those laws of nature. Doing what is best for others, as best we can, is a calling that moral and religious people can agree upon.

Is it all easy and perfect? Of course not. It does however, beat the alternatives

A Moment of Clarity

We have received much email and communication today regarding our post below and our position on the Schiavo matter. We will discuss some of those communications in a later post.

To begin with however, SC&A wish to make the following clear: We are not 'taking sides' on the Schiavo matter. There are no sides to be taken. There are only issues of right or wrong.

We do believe that there are enough issues that remain unclear and ambigious that warrant a 'hold' on whatever action(s) a court may impose- not the least of which is intentionally removing a feeding tube and starving someone to death.

Further, we wish to make clear that until these matters are discussed, resolved, clarified and understood, we believe there is no choice but 'err on the side of life.'

Ending Terri Schiavo's life now, while these matters are still being adjudicated, allows for no reversal.

We ask for moratoriums on capital punishment 'just in case' those judged guilty were victims of a judicial system not performing as it was intended. There are appeals after appeals and middle of the night calls to judges of the highest courts in the land, to the very last minute.

Surely Terri Schiavo deserves the same consideration as this very imperfect, represented by very imperfect litigants (on both sides) case makes it's way around the legal system.

Life, Death and Reality

This morning, a Federal Judge refused the request of Terri Schiavo's family to have her feeding tube reinserted.

Others will opine and comment on the matters of Law and Ethics. That is a good thing, as SC&A are not experts in either. We have an opinion, but for now, we think it is best to hear from those who have experience, or at the very least, a better understanding of these matters.

There are times that we benefit from the wisdom and experience of others. We are grateful for that, of course- the road before us is smoothed and we go about our business, a load a bit lightened.

It is a rare thing when we can have our awareness- real awareness- enlightened. When that happens, we are changed. That happened to us, today.

SC&A asked a health care professional for their opinion and thoughts on the matters. This person is well qualified and experienced- and faces issues that are at the fore today on a regular basis. This professional is employed by a major hospital facility, in a position of medical and administrative oversight.

Some responses may give you comfort and assurance. Some of the answers may surprise you- and give you pause for thought.

More than anything, the answers to the questions will make you think- and humble you.

What is quality of life? Is it strictly a medical/legal issue? In other words, does family (on either side of the issue) have any input into the definition?

It depends on how you use the term. By definition, "quality of life" is a subjective measurement of several factors by which one defines their satisfaction with life. Also, as in the case at hand, it can be used to assign a value to the duration of a life when it is modified by disease or injury. As medical professionals, we use the term a lot. For example, there are Quality of LIfe Instruments commonly used to asses the effect of a chronic or terminal illness or the treatment of such an illness such as cancer or chemotherapy, on a person's day to day activities and feelings. In this way, it is certainly a patient and family as well as a medical issue. When "quality of life" is used when death is imminent and decisions are to be made, the family does have input into whether or not to use extraordinary means to prolong life. I do note that what constitutes "extraorindary means" is a primary point in this debate. However, when it is used a factor to determine directly if a person should live or die, no one has "input", other people cannot decide if someone's life is worth living under the guise of quality of life.

In your opinion, does the state have a role to play in the 'quality of life' determination- or is that matter best determined by influences other than the state (e.g., medical, family)?

It's sad that this issue has gotten to the point where the government feels an obligation to intervene. I don't feel that the govenrment or any human can or should decide if someone's life is worth living or not. God and only God decides when death occurs, until then, the person is alive. The government, however, does have a responsibility to act in the case of deliberate attempts to kill. Food and hydration are not "extraordinary", they are human rights. Witholding this to hasten death is morally wrong. More on this in question #5.

You have watched people pass. Like all health care professionals, you have to develop a dissociative personality characteristic, so as not to get too close. Was it difficult for you to do? Is it still difficult?

I don't think of the ability to properly handle a patient death as "dissociative". To me, that implies a lack of connection or emotion that is not (usually) the case with healthcare workers. On the contrary, people in healthcare for the right reasons should and do have an appropriate emotional connection to their patients and they grieve when they die. However, many healthcare workers don't understand that this is "allowed" and problems may arise when people don't know what to do with their grief.

As for it being difficult, I don't think you ever really get "used to" it, especially when it happens unexpectedly, but you feel, learn from it, tuck it away into your memories and keep going to be there for the next person. For me, the hardest part was (I'm not currently in direct inpatient care) was feeling like I had to say the "right thing" when working with the families. I understand that's human nature, but I always felt pressure on myself to "make it better" for them. I have to work on accepting I can't always fix things!

We read that many of Terri Schiavos caretakers are adament in their positions of support of Terri- even those caretakers appointed by the Florida State Judge. Although you cannot offer a fair medical assessment, inasmuch as you are not a part of her health care team, does that reality tell you anything?

There are a couple of things this tells me. One is that there are people who may believe she has potential to "get better" after seeing her. While I don't believe that, I do believe that others in her presence are reminded that this is a real living and breathing person and not just a "news story" or an "ethical issue". It is immaterial whether or not she can act with reason or control her environment or whatever the arguments may be. Life is valuable in and of itself and doesn't depend on the degree that it brings pleasure or well-being. And, she is alive. It is painful to see sometimes and we don't always understand why God permits such suffering, but suffering does not diminish the value of life.

In your opinion, is the Schiavo case about the 'right to die' or the 'right to life'? Why?

The Terri Schiavo case is about the right to life. As a Catholic, I do not believe that human beings freedoms extend to ending their own life or having it deliberately ended for them. That being said, I do believe that a person has the right to refuse extraordinary measures and aggressive means to preserve life. Refusing this kind of intervention shows a proper acceptance of the human condition in the face of death. Therefore, this case, in part, comes down to the feeding tube as being a medical intervention vs basic care. I believe that the insertion of a the feeding tube is a medical intervention, that could have been morally and legally refused at the time. Though this conflicts with legal judgements, I believe that use of the tube once inserted constitutes basic care. Human beings have a right to nutritiion and hydration to sustain life. Cessation of this care is done is done with the intent to "hasten death" or to killand there's a commandment given to us by God that says don't do that.

(While some of you might be tempted to differentiate 'religious' beliefs from 'moral' ones, in this matter, it is hard to distinguish the two. In no way can religious beliefs be considered 'out of bounds' in this case.

We would encourage everyone to read this again- ed)