Open letter to the White House - the "Culture of Life"
Dear Mr. President,
Maybe I've got my facts mixed up somehow, but didn't you call for a "culture of life" in the United States a few weeks ago? Terri Schiavo lay dying, the Republican-controlled Congress overthrew its long-claimed emphasis on states' rights and called upon federal courts to intervene in her case, and in signing the bill allowing for that unprecedented move you stated that in cases where life hung in the balance we ought to err on the side of life, isn't that what happened?
Now, I need a few more details. Some days ago you threatened to veto any relaxation of the rules governing stem-cell research. How does this promote a "culture of life"? In other words, what sort of "life" would you like us to culture?
I can hardly believe that the implications of your responses to Ms. Schiavo and to stem-cell research can really be described as a "culture of life," sir. Let's go over this carefully:
Ms. Schiavo, having lain in bed in a persistent vegetative state for well over a decade, could not feed herself or respond to the world in any meaningful way. Several qualified physicians examined her carefully over a period of months and concluded that her condition was not going to improve. All she could do for herself was breathe. She was, however, unquestionably "alive."
Stem-cell research, we are told, holds the real possibility of cures for degenerative and/or deadly diseases, from arthritis to diabetes and who knows what else. It's probably the most exciting development in biology since the advent of antibiotics. If that research delivers on even a portion of its promise, a great many human beings now in a twilight existence could conceivably enter into the fullness of life again. Now, however, even with the suffering their conditions bring, those people are, like Ms. Shiavo, unquestionably "alive".
Your concept of the "culture of life" apparently favors leaving both Ms. Schiavo and the prospective beneficiaries of stem cell research in the conditions they presented with at first, whether those conditions involve persistent vegetative state, chronic pain, dependence on expensive drugs or imminent death. Those who favor releasing people like Ms. Schiavo from their suffering, or researching ways and means of releasing other patients from their suffering through stem cell research, you and yours refer to as belonging to the "culture of death."
In short, the "culture of life" you refer to apparently favors the most limited kind of biological existence over any hope of improvement. Those who suffer may not be allowed to die, but neither may they be treated by the newest technolgies - they must simply go on living, because the "culture of life" will allow them nothing more. Evidently, a woman lying in bed unable to do anything but breathe is worthy of all our best efforts to save her and keep her in that state of merely technical "life", but millions of people in lesser pain are totally on their own. Now, come on, Mr. President, do you really favor pain and suffering over hope and knowledge? (Then again, why do I bother to ask the question? Based on your policies regarding the war on terror, the environment, education, national security and practically everything else, your answer is a resounding "yes".)
I notice that you have not even gone so far as to read the bill in question before donating your views on it. You noted that you oppose destroying life in order to save it, that you have mentioned this to Congress before, and that "If that is what the bill says, I will veto it." In other words, you have no idea what the bill says, but you want to make sure everyone knows how committed to "life" you are, just in case. This sounds uncommonly like what someone would do who was trying to play the issue in the press rather than in the legislature where such things should be decided; it's a clever political trick, and therefore entirely too nuanced for the kind of simple, 100% trustworthy image you have striven so hard to project for more than four years.
As your party in the Senate prepares its attempt to destroy, in the fillibuster, one of the last bastions of minority protection the United States affords, I have come to realize that if they succeed, you at least will retain the right to shoot your mouth off completely without limitation. I'm sure you'll find the privilege very enjoyable, but do remember - for your own sake if not the country's - that a man who opens his mouth too wide eventually sticks his foot in it. At the rate you're going, you'll choke on that foot long before you retire.
Maybe I've got my facts mixed up somehow, but didn't you call for a "culture of life" in the United States a few weeks ago? Terri Schiavo lay dying, the Republican-controlled Congress overthrew its long-claimed emphasis on states' rights and called upon federal courts to intervene in her case, and in signing the bill allowing for that unprecedented move you stated that in cases where life hung in the balance we ought to err on the side of life, isn't that what happened?
Now, I need a few more details. Some days ago you threatened to veto any relaxation of the rules governing stem-cell research. How does this promote a "culture of life"? In other words, what sort of "life" would you like us to culture?
I can hardly believe that the implications of your responses to Ms. Schiavo and to stem-cell research can really be described as a "culture of life," sir. Let's go over this carefully:
Ms. Schiavo, having lain in bed in a persistent vegetative state for well over a decade, could not feed herself or respond to the world in any meaningful way. Several qualified physicians examined her carefully over a period of months and concluded that her condition was not going to improve. All she could do for herself was breathe. She was, however, unquestionably "alive."
Stem-cell research, we are told, holds the real possibility of cures for degenerative and/or deadly diseases, from arthritis to diabetes and who knows what else. It's probably the most exciting development in biology since the advent of antibiotics. If that research delivers on even a portion of its promise, a great many human beings now in a twilight existence could conceivably enter into the fullness of life again. Now, however, even with the suffering their conditions bring, those people are, like Ms. Shiavo, unquestionably "alive".
Your concept of the "culture of life" apparently favors leaving both Ms. Schiavo and the prospective beneficiaries of stem cell research in the conditions they presented with at first, whether those conditions involve persistent vegetative state, chronic pain, dependence on expensive drugs or imminent death. Those who favor releasing people like Ms. Schiavo from their suffering, or researching ways and means of releasing other patients from their suffering through stem cell research, you and yours refer to as belonging to the "culture of death."
In short, the "culture of life" you refer to apparently favors the most limited kind of biological existence over any hope of improvement. Those who suffer may not be allowed to die, but neither may they be treated by the newest technolgies - they must simply go on living, because the "culture of life" will allow them nothing more. Evidently, a woman lying in bed unable to do anything but breathe is worthy of all our best efforts to save her and keep her in that state of merely technical "life", but millions of people in lesser pain are totally on their own. Now, come on, Mr. President, do you really favor pain and suffering over hope and knowledge? (Then again, why do I bother to ask the question? Based on your policies regarding the war on terror, the environment, education, national security and practically everything else, your answer is a resounding "yes".)
I notice that you have not even gone so far as to read the bill in question before donating your views on it. You noted that you oppose destroying life in order to save it, that you have mentioned this to Congress before, and that "If that is what the bill says, I will veto it." In other words, you have no idea what the bill says, but you want to make sure everyone knows how committed to "life" you are, just in case. This sounds uncommonly like what someone would do who was trying to play the issue in the press rather than in the legislature where such things should be decided; it's a clever political trick, and therefore entirely too nuanced for the kind of simple, 100% trustworthy image you have striven so hard to project for more than four years.
As your party in the Senate prepares its attempt to destroy, in the fillibuster, one of the last bastions of minority protection the United States affords, I have come to realize that if they succeed, you at least will retain the right to shoot your mouth off completely without limitation. I'm sure you'll find the privilege very enjoyable, but do remember - for your own sake if not the country's - that a man who opens his mouth too wide eventually sticks his foot in it. At the rate you're going, you'll choke on that foot long before you retire.
posted by benshlomo at 5:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home