Terry Schiavo is Still a Person

Blogodoxy contends that Terry Schiavo ought to live because she is still a "person."

Regrettably, too many Christians today have an heretical understanding of what it means to be a person, according to the Gospel.  You will hear at funerals, Christian funerals I note, the damnably pagan Platonic notion that our souls (or spirits) are the "real" us, our bodies just the shell housing us.  Under this rubric then, Terri is "no longer there," since she does not manifest any evidence of the sort of consciousness that souls housed in bodies manifest.  Thus, we're foolish and sentimental, the argument continues, in "holding on" to Terri by making her continue to live.

But according to the rubric of the Incarnation, Terri is still manifestly a person, and not "merely" a living, breathing human being. As such, the decisions about whether to actively bring her life to an end, cannot be predicated on matters of consciousness, improvement of her persistent vegetative state, or the normal length of time the PVS sufferers live after onset of their debilitation.  Furthermore, whether or not she feels pain at her starvation and dehydration, though imminently important and necessarily a factor in these considerations, is not the basis from which to make a decision about these matters. The sole basis of the decision must rest on the fact that she is a person.  She is a person, because she is made in the image of God, and not because she is conscious like us.  She is a person, because she is in community with her family, friends, a great many supporters in her country, and, most profoundly, with her church, and not because she merely has a human body and the right chromosomal configuration.  But lest I be misunderstood, even if she were alone, uncared for and unwanted, she would still be a person in community, the community that is the Person of God, her creator.

The urgency fueling this active end to Terri's life is predicated on demonic doctrines.  If she is a person, she deserves the utmost care to maintain her life until her body actively enters the dying process, at which point she deserves the utmost care to make that dying faithful to the love of God for her whose handmaiden she is.  Against the odds, her body has not yet begun to actively die of its own accord--at least hadn't until her active kakothanasia began last Friday.  Why it is that we must take it upon ourselves to end her life more quickly than God and her own body has determined is no mystery.  We know the origins of this impetus.  And it is helllish.

JS Bangs on the Boars Head Tavern said this was one of the best posts on the Terry Schiavo situation he had seen.  I wholeheartedly agree.

Update 3-24/05 @ 2:15pm:  Since I have been mentioned in an AP news story that has been featured on the websites of ABC News, Fox News, MSNBC, Yahoo and others I am getting lots of visitors reading what I have written about Terry Schiavo.  All are welcome here and all are welcome to leave comments, even those who disgree with me.  For the most part we have had respectful and helpful interaction from people on all sides of the issue.  However, today the comments are starting to turn nasty.  I've already deleted several comments from a gentleman seeking to incite violence against Michael Schiavo and others involved in this matter.  Others are resorting to name-calling, and at least one comment has been laced with profanity.  I realize the emotional nature of this issue and I feel passionately about it, as do many of you.  But, this blog will not be a forum for threats, name calling, profanity or anything else I feel is out of order, no matter who it is directed against.  I will delete all such comments.  Again, I welcome comments, even from those who disagree with me.  But when you comment, stay on point, speak as passionately as you want to, but speak respectfully.

Comments

[Joel Thomas]

I believe that there comes a time when we have the moral and legal right to surrender our lives to God, to let go of his gift and be admitted into heaven.

[David Wayne]

Do you believe that there comes a time when you have the moral and legal right to surrender my life to God and send me on to heaven?

[Joel Thomas]

No. That's why I disapprove of removing feeding tubes from anyone who hasn't signed a living will conclsuively providing to that effect.

At some point, for my own life, I have the right to say that medical technology has exceeded what God intended for my life.

[Joel Thomas]

Also, I saw your name and blog mentioned in an Associated Press story today. At first glance, not reading the story carefully, I thought to myself "no way he wrote that." Then I realized the story was quoting "Public Theologian" from your comments section.

[The Dane]

I wonder what Blogodoxy would term the Apostle Paul's understanding of the human body according to 2 Corinthians 5? Damnably pagan and Platonic, maybe?

But Paul still does seem to speak of the body as a mere tent. He does say "while we are still in this tent" - impying that the "we" is somehow seperate from the tent. He doesn't say that the "we" to which he refers is only soulish, but he does kind of describe the body as something of a shell to be exchanged: "burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life." Heretical? I don't know about that.

[dopderbeck]

I don't know, David. Why is this such a great post? Do we really believe that as long as the heart and lungs can continue to function, a body is in "community" with God or other people? What does "community" mean if there's a beating heart, pumping lungs, but no mind? Does this mean we're ethically obligated to take any measures, even "extraordinary measures," to keep a body functioning, under any cicrumstances? I've yet to see anyone in the Christian blogsphere address these ethical issues with any clarity at all. We're all engaged in this knee jerk reaction over this particular difficult and emotional case, and may are using it to bash the judiciary, but no one is addressing the underlying ethical issues.

[Robin Smith]

I don't see how people can stand around and judge if this person or that person should be living or not. We are all God's own creation and everyone has the right to command their own destiny. In this case NO ONE, not her husband, not her parents, not even a judge, has the right to do this. Why were the simple means to keep her alive even taken in the first place if you are going to change your mind later. Maybe she never wanted to be kept alive in the first place. Maybe when we die and go to heaven, we may find out.

[David Wayne]

Dane - your point is well taken but there is more to be said. I'm not sure that the shell is exchanged so much as it is changed. Granted, there is a temporary state where the soul is separated from the body, but in the eternal state our soul is reunited to our body. In one sense it is the same body that we have now, but in another sense it is not. This body will be perfected. Jesus is the prototype of this - his body was still recognizable and it still bore the scars of His earthly travails.
In this case I still think Blogodoxy is on to something. Does her personhood, or should I say, does her existence as the image of God depend on her being in a state of consciousness?
Also, is her soul still united to her body? Obviously, when the soul separates from the body a person is dead. But does the soul still exist in a person who is not conscious as we are? And of course I am not addressing the fact that there are many who believe she is conscious.

[David Wayne]

David - you raise good issues here and the hypotheticals you raise are definite dilemmmas.
But in this case there is some pretty good evidence that there is a mind present. And, providing food is not an "extraordinary measure." I haven't really thought this stuff through thoroughly until recently, but my understanding of "extraordinary measures" has always been that it is a respirator or something like that. I don't see the giving of food and water as an extraordinary measure. I give myself food and water every day, is that extraordinary?
I think the ethical issues are fairly clear here. I understand the legal issues aren't clear, but the ethical issues are clear.
There is no clear directive from Terri to withhold food and water from her. Even if Michael is right that she made some kind of offhand comment that she wouldn't want to be kept alive artificially or whatever it is he alleges she said, do you really think that she had food and water in mind when she said that.

[David Wayne]

Joel - you'll probably faint when you read this, but I pretty much agree with your next to last comment. There are all kinds of what-ifs and how-abouts I could throw in there, but basically I agree that you have the right to say that medical technology has exceeded what God intended for your life.
I also think you hit the nail on the head in this case and that is why so many of us are so upset. There is no living will conclusively providing for Terri to have the feeding tube removed.
Yeah, I caught the same thing in the AP story - hopefully the folks who come to my blog will be able to distinguish my words from his.

[dopderbeck]

David -- ok, but saying there's a mind present is different than equating personhood with physical functions, which is what the Blogodoxy post does. Almost no one would suggest that removing nutrition and hydration would be ethically appropriate if a mind is present. What we have here therefore isn't anything more than a factual question about whether a mind is in fact present. It's an important factual question, in fact it's a matter of life and death to Terry Schiavo, but it makes this case much less important to the broader ethical question of what constitutes personhood.

That's my primary beef with how this case is being portrayed in the Christian community. Our thinking about it has been muddle-headed. Is this really case symptomatic a systemic anti-life stance? Or is it a particular state trial court that came to a particular factual conclusion that might be incorrect? Are we saying that PVS is not a legitmate diagnosis ever, that higher brain function has nothing to do with personhood in our theology of the person, or just that the factual finding of PVS in this case is mistaken? Are we saying artificial nutrition and hydration can never be withdrawn, or only that they can't be withdrawn unless a PVS is clearly present, or that they can be withdrawn when complete "brain death" is present? If we say artificial nutrition and hydration can never be withdrawn, what's the principled distinction between artificial nutrition and hydration and artificial respiration and circulation? Should we require every means of sustaining the body no matter what?

These questions aren't merely hypotheticals. They impact directly on public policy, including whether the federal government should take the extraordinary step of intervening in a state judicial process.

[Clifton D. Healy]

As the author of the post in question, I will reproduce my reply there to dopderbeck (who posts a similar question here). I hope this clears up some matters.

dopderbeck:

I'm sorry I was so allusive, and not so clear.

No, I'm not advocating the opposite of soul/mind-body dualism, a sort of physicalism and a divinization of the "lifeforce." Rather, what I am insisting on is that personhood is an irreducible composite of soul and body.

The "rubric of the Incarnation" to which I referred has as its focus that Jesus is incarnate God. He assumed a body, he resurrected in his body, and he ascended in his body, and he is seated in glory with his body. To divorce the person from their body is to do violence to the central fact of the Christian Gospel: we are embodied souls, Christian bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, and we will be resurrected in our bodies, deified and healed of sin and death, to spend eternity in a bodily existence. We are not merely our bodies, of course. We are more than our bodies. But neither are we without our bodies.

So, even though to our limited perspectives, the soul that vivifies Terri Schiavo's body is largely hidden from us, the person that is Terri Schiavo is not reducible to this hidden soul. Terri, the person, is constituted by the soulish body and bodily soul which is uniquely hers. And therefore we may not cast off Terri's body to "free" her soul from its imprisonment. To do so in a scenario in which Terri is not yet actively dying is not mercy. It's murder.

[The Dane]

Jolly,

I absolutely agree that personhood is not related to consciousness. Too, I think we are intended to exist as body and soul. And while there is definitely Scripture that speaks of the body as the seed out of which our new clothing, the glorified body, will spring, I still think it fair to speak of the new body as more of a replacement than a resucitation.

[tangental aside] And still, in the body/soul connection, one piece of us is irreducible while the other is quite opposite. I lose a finger and I am still me. I lose a hand and I am still me. I lose a leg, an ear, my eyes, my hair, both arms and I am still me (worse for the wear yet still me). Certainly, there is some connection - in life - between personhood and the body/soul connection, which is why physical influence such as alcohol or fever have soulish consequences; but for the author to imply so plainly that a soul without a body being a person is ridiculous? Well, it just seems a stretch given the testimony of Scripture. [/tangental aside]

In the end, I wasn't so concerned with the conclusion reached - that Terri is a person fashioned in the image of God and deserves to be preserved as such - but more was made uncomfortable (as I think we should be made uncomfortable) by the author's accusations that those who would stand to equate the soul in funerary departure with the person - that he would use words like damnable and heretical to describe such a view. Especially since Paul speaks so similarly. And you yourself have just said that we exist temporarily without body; we may be awaiting our final state, but we do not mistake the body in the ground for the person, saying rather - with Christ - that in death and in leaving the body behind, we are with Christ in paradise. I don't think we would even say that only part of us is in paradise (though we might exist temporarily without the clothing of our new creation).

I'm hopeful that the author spoke in hyperbole, but even in exagerration, dangerous accusations of heresy are thrown around so lightly these days that I think it good for us to pause in the face of it.

[Clifton D. Healy]

Dane:

The damnable heresy to which I refer is the Platonic and pagan notion that our bodies are prisonhouses for our souls and that the "real" us, when we die, leaves our body behind.

It is a heresy because Christ himself did not cease to have a body when he resurrected and ascended into heaven. It is a heresy because Christ's body was not replaced at the resurrection: it was transfigured.

Read 1 Corinthians 15 again. The corruptible is not "exchanged" for the incorruptible, but "puts on" the incorruptible. It is not a replacement, it is a transfiguration.

When we die, our bodies are still us, as are our souls. It is the body that is called the temple of the Holy Spirit, not the soul or the "real us." The real us is the composite of body and soul. If we posit a "temporary" (which is how it looks for us in time) "separation" of soul and body after death and awaiting the resurrection, that is fine. But the body and soul that await the resurrection are both us.

If you want to speak, as Paul does, of being absent from the body and present with the Lord, fine. But the soul's absence from the body does not cause the body to cease being the temple of the Holy Spirit (which is why, historically, Christians have rejected the practice of cremation). The soul continues to exist because it is with the Lord. And the body will be resurrected and reunited with the body because it is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

I am warranted in labelling this "prisonhouse" mentality of soul and body a heresy. Christians must be extremely careful in our discussion of personhood in terms of soul and body, because if they are not, it will be all too easy to become participants in the sort of thing being done to Terri Schiavo.

[dopderbeck]

Clifton -- thanks for clarifying. I think I'm on board with your view of personhood -- neither monism nor dualism, but a sort of qualified unity that recognizes that we can exist apart from our present bodies if we die before the eschaton but that our bodies will be raised as glorified bodies, and that we will be physical as well as spiritual beings in the eschaton.

To advance the ethical issue a bit, if you hold a qualified unity view of personhood, does that necessarily imply that all available means must always be used to keep a person's body alive? I don't think so. In our present bodies, we inevitably die and enter an intermediate state prior to resurrection. The fact that we inevitably die in our present state, and that there is a future state, implies that there is not an ethical obligation to preserve the present bodily state under all circumstances.

I think many, if not most, Christians of all stripes would agree that if a person's brain were removed from the body (say, by a bullet), there would be no ethical obligation to put the person's body on a respirator or insert feeding tubes. I think most Christians also would agree that a paralyzed person with healthy brain function should be given these means of artifical support.

The question is when, in between these poles, artificial means of life support can ethically be withdrawn. That question, it seems to me, can't be answered simply by refuting the dualistic view of personhood.

[Clifton D. Healy]

I refer you to the sentence in my original post:

"If she is a person, she deserves the utmost care to maintain her life until her body actively enters the dying process, at which point she deserves the utmost care to make that dying faithful to the love of God for her whose handmaiden she is."

There are recognizable signs that the body has entered the dying process and is actively shutting down. We are obligated on the basis of personhood to fight for the life of the person up to the point of dying, and then to assist them while they are in the process dying in such a way as to honor the love with which God loves that person as they are dying. That is to say, we need not keep them living if they are in fact dying. But neither ought we make them die when they are still living.

Though Terri has apparently continued to live well past those who are diagnosed as PVS, this does not mean her dying process has been dragged out, because it had not even begun prior to the active step of making her die which was taken last week. Thus, we are obligated to give her the full care necessary to sustain her living process that she deserves merely in virtue of her being a person.

[Sunnye Tiedemann]

This is all very theological and lovely but the entire issue gets down to the fact that when Terri dies she is dead forever. As long as she lives there are medical procedures and therapy to help; and, best of all, the hope that medical research such as stem cell research can help. AND, if you want to be theological you have to believe in miracles. If God wanted Terri to die now, He would have taken her life. She is being murdered.

[jeremy]

1st of lets start with this let's just kill everyone that doesn't look like us talk like us feel like us and think like us. Isn't this how HITLER GOT STARTED... This is SICK and this is how it begins so before you think it's cool to kill Terri just think WHAT IS NEXT...

2nd the parents want to take care of her daughter this guy IN CHRISTIAN terms has basiclly walked away from his marrage and is having an AFFAIR... WHICH in GOD terms is basiclly a SIN... SO get it through your thick skulls people this guy is a person who isn't following God's purpose for his life.So those CHRISTIANS OF YOU who think that it's ok to pull the plug get on the table let me pull the plug on you. Also from an MD stand point this is a long and DRAWN out death... If you think it's a not so painful death try not eating or drinking for a week and see how well you personally do..

3rd... On top of all things the parents want to try to help there daughter. You are gonna sit here and tell me that if you guy's had a daughter or if this was your sister you wouldn't take the bullet for them. If you think for one min that if this was my sis i would just sit here and take that your nuts we live and DIE for family.

4th this guy tried to kill her yet there is no proof what is the harm of keeping her alive while the do DUE PROCESS and find out if this guy is up to no good.

5th - (edited out by the owner of the blog)

IT COMES DOWN TO THIS CHRISTIANS

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO..... SIMPLE... WHAT WOULD JESUS DO....

If you don't understand that then you don't have any right calling yourself a Christian because this is what WE AS CHRISTIANS BELIEVE...

Final thought when Jesus was on his way to get CRUSIFIED he was given water... WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM PEOPLE...

[Nancy]

I think Michael Schiavo is a murderer who hasn't quite finished the job. To kill Terri by starvation is one of the most horrible things I can think of. Thanks to our courts and judges who are equally to blame for this murder.

[The Dane]

I don't think Jesus would use quite so many capitals or ellipses. But maybe that's just me :-)

[David Wayne]

Jeremy - this is what I mean by saying this blog is not to be a forum for vitriol, for threats, name calling and the like. I've edited your comment because you really stepped over a line in the section I took out. I'll leave the rest even though I don't really like what you said.

As to what Jesus would do, I'll ask you the same thing. What did Jesus do to the apostle Paul, murderer of Christians? What did Jesus do to James and John in Luke 9:51-55 when they wanted to call down fire from heaven on the Samaritans who had rejected them?

I share your passion for Terri's life, but not your malice.

[Howard F. "Doc" Gemperline]

MY VIEWS ON CREATIONISM

In the beginning before there was religion, when we were still wearing animal skins, living in caves, and eating raw meat, we killed all unwhelped pups who wouldn't suckle or hunt. we also killed our own offspring who displayed these same tendencies.

Then came Abraham, Issac, Joseph, Moses, John The Baptist, and Jesus Christ, the Dark ages, the Crusades and the Holy Wars, the Rennisance and the age of Discovery and we had moved out of the caves into hovels. During the Industrial Revolution we had child labor, mothers who turned to prostitution to feed their children, and husbands whose lifes were committed to debtor prisons. During this period of time we had more deaths of children occuring from accidents in the workplace than occuring from the events we now think of as normal, playing together, walking home from school together. More kids were killed at work than were at columbine, or the school in Minnesotta.

Then because of the war to end all wars we started treating children more humanely, at least thats when we first start to record a major shift in what we thought of as our heirs, no matter whether they were born to aristocracy or the common man. What ever brought it about was a more than welcome change. Those born disabled or mentally challenged still didn't really have much of a chance until the 1960's. For whatever reasons they where kept locked away from the public eye, but at least they were not killed at birth. During the nineteen fifties and sixties, we found vaccines for polio and smallpox, and we started a medical revolution and refinedmedical procedures once villified when they were practiced by Dr. Joseph Mengeles. He was the "Nut" who worked in cloning during the fascist regime of Adolph Hitler.

But now as we enter the dawn of the Twenty First Century our reasoning has gone to Hell in a Handbasket in the light of Neo Born Again Christians.

Instead of stopping wars and ending violence in Gods Name we are backsliding into the past again. We are worshipping old technology and even older beliefs. We are seeing a hundred thousand plus people considering a Motor Outreach Ministers Prayer before a race, a time with God. Instead of demanding that racing be the key to new automotive development in alternative fuel supplies and power sources, we are holding to the Texas principle that oil is king. Instead of continuing a policy of balanced budgets and reduced deficits, we are continuing an ancient practice of population control by sending our economically disadvantaged off to fight in foriegn wars to preserve our rights to Crude Oil, Black Gold, or "Texas Tea!"

While we claim to want the right to life for offspring, we cut medical insurance for those who cannot aford it. We give tax breaks to the rich as we increase the costs of healthcare for seniors and deny them access to cheaper drugs. All across America the developmentally disabled are losing benefits because no one wants to pass a half mill levy that would increase their property taxes by ,oo1 dollars.

Is the Grand Experiment of John Kennedy over, "Ask Not what your country can do for you, But What can you do for your Country!" I believe it is when the people of this country don't express their Outrage for what is going on in Pinellas County Florida regarding "Terri Schiavo" and allow her husband Micheal Shiavo who has led what Conservative Christians would call a Polygamous relationship, to control her destiny. Lets Face it folks, would you want your spouse who has two children with another partner to tell the doctor to pull your plug because the money is almost gone!!!!!!!!!!

"Doc"

[Tripp]

I am with Joel on this.

Keep me alive with macines if there is a chance that I may recover. But if it is only the machine, or tube feeding, keeping my heart beating, then let's assume God has asked for me to become the dust once again.

It is more than a moral and religious right. It is True. We are eventually called to die. Think of it as a vocational change.

[Howard F. "Doc" Gemperline]

Joe Scarborough

Let me explain. This letter is to you, my readers at http://groups.msn.com/SpinalCordInjuryIncontinence our email is [email protected] , and any blog where I can post this. Hopefully jollyblogger as well.

Your show tonight, March 24, 2005 was to the point, the same point I have been trying to make for a long while, except that you made no mention of a person use of the court “With Unclean Hands.” I believe that is enough to have Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer removed from the proceedings. The use of “The Unclean hands” lingo is what stops drug dealers from reaping rewards when someone steals their product. How can a man who has violated his marriage vows ask the court to dispose of his first wife so he can feel good about marrying the second woman in his polygamous relationship, who has bore him the children he didn’t have with his first wife.

But about your show and some of the folks you had on it, in particular the “Wise Guy” who tried to quote the Texas Constitution. He was a jerk as were some of the others. Your closing remark reminded me of what is wrong with this country. There are so many people out there who want there 15 minutes of fame all consciousness of there realm of expertise goes right out the window with them. You may have crossed the border when you said “……..all Liberals want Terri Schiavo to hurry up and die……”

We don’t need this labeling of everyone who disagrees with the host of a nationally syndicated talk show do we. There are too many people in responsible positions right now who don’t know where the line in the sand is drawn and when the debating stops and the hating takes over. Too many times these days show hosts blow off opinionated people by placing upon the other with a self gratifying label that offends so many who watch and makes them wonder “Who’s In The Driver Seat!!!”

Aren’t there any better ways to deal with this kind of situation? How does the prayer go “ God give me the ability, knowledge, and perseverance to change the things I can, the grace, and understanding to know when I can’t, and the peace and tranquility to accept it. This may not make the news, but it is my prayer for you.

Howard F. “Doc” Gemperline II

[PaulinTexas]

This situation reminds of the unbelief of Mary and Martha - the belief that the Lord is the Lord of the Resurrected - and that Mary and Martha, though grieiving, unbelief in the Lord's teachings had filled their hearts even though they gave mental ascent to it. When they saw there brother Lazarus died and the Lord's slowness in coming, they questioned the Lord's inability to do the job of being a Miracle Worker in a timely fashion. Whom did Jesus wept for? Lazurus or the unbelief of Lazurus's sisters?