Terri Schiavo and the U.S. Congress : Washington Post Columnist Just Doesn't Get It

In today's Washington Post, columnist Richard Cohen mocks congressional Republicans for passing legislation that permits a federal court to review the legal aspects of the Terri Schiavo case. In an article dripping with sarcasm, Cohen, at one point, sums up his view of the Republican rationale as follows,

Frist and his (mostly) GOP colleagues were operating under such pressure that they sometimes did not know which subterfuge to adopt. After all, it should not matter -- it must not matter -- if Schiavo is in a vegetative state or not. What should matter -- under right-to-life reasoning -- is that she is alive. In many respects, she is as alive as a zygote the moment after fertilization or a fetus that will die shortly after birth -- or any other manifestation of life as it either exists or is proclaimed to exist. Life is life, Frist. Get with the program. (emphasis mine).

I believe that Cohen has got it wrong here. Very wrong. Completely backwards, in fact.

The central concern of virtually everyone who is fighting for Terri's life (including myself and her family) is that it does matter whether Schiavo is in a vegetative state or not.

While there are clearly other important issues involved in this morally and legally tangled drama/tragedy, the one thing that sets this particular case apart from many others is the fact that it is not clear whether Terri Schiavo is or is not in a persistent vegetative state.

Her family and others who have visited with her over the past 15 years claim that she is conscious, aware of and interactive with her environment and able to express emotion in response to stimuli.

Every attempt to have a non-biased medical assessment made of Terri using the standard and usual diagnostic tests which determine whether or not a person is in a persistent vegetative state, has been denied by both Terri's "husband," Michael, and the presiding judge. The judge has gone so far as to refuse to even visit Terri to see for himself whether the testimony he has received from persons personally selected by Michael is accurate or true.

Most people would like to have a "second opinion" before having major surgery. Judge has not even allowed Terri a to get a "second opinion" concerning her condition before sentencing her to death by starvation (note that Terri is NOT on life-support).

Terri's family has repeatedly offered to take her home with them and care for her themselves. Since this offer has also been rejected repeatedly, they have simply asked for that second opinion.

That is all. That is the whole issue. Everything else; all other issues, both moral and medical; follow from this one, simple question as to whether Terri is "brain dead" or not.

For many of us, this uncertainly (supported by the manipulative and inconsistent behavior and testimony of Michael Schiavo) leaves us with the fear that a conscious, cognizant human being, unable to express herself due to a major physical disability, is being denied her God-given and Constitutionally-supported right to both life and liberty by being starved to death at the insistence of her husband.

At its core this is not a "pro-choice" or a "pro-life" issue. At its core it is not (or should not) be a "great political issue" either. Nor should it surprise us when a matter of law and the interpretation of law also becomes a matter of interest and concern amongst those who have been elected to legislate those laws in the first place!

Mr. Cohen's column today clearly demonstrates that yelling loudly and showering sarcasm on those with whom one disagrees does not show very much respect for the life or death issues involved in this debate. Good men and women have taken responsible and informed positions on both sides of this situation. Unfortunately, Mr. Cohen is not one of them.