Schiavo: Difficult questions, unclear answers

A friend of mine recently sent me two good links on the Terry Schiavo case (read one or the other). Both point to a number of inconsistencies and hypocrisies in the media circus that this woman's case has become.

My concern, however, is to simply show that the case is very difficult from a Christian standpoint. What follows is a rambling attempt to think through what a very difficult issue. I'm not quite sure what I believe, but let me at least attempt to raise relevant Christian questions.

Although my gut tells me that the merciful thing is to let the poor woman die, thinking that position through is harder. From my standpoint, Christian thought must begin with the belief that human life is sacred because it bears the image of God. That belief, however, only begs other questions: What consitutes human life? And what varieties of life can be said to bear the image of God?

The most clear perspective (but not necessarily the right one), is the "seamless garment" position, the "consistent ethic of life" sustained by the Catholic church. In this viewpoint, anything with a claim to human life should be protected, including unborn fetuses, death row inmates, and terminally ill patients. Apparently this position extends to Schiavo: her parents are Catholics, and the Atlanta Journal-Consitution reports that they have been supported by the Vatican.

Others might reply, however, that life per se does not bear the image of God. Some have argued that personhood, defined as self-awareness and the capacity for decision-making, is the only sort of truly human life with a right to protection. Such a position allows Schiavo's feeding tube to be ethically removed, but it would also allow, say, the killing of a 8-month-old baby and probably the killing of a number of severly mentally handicapped people. It seems doubtful that we want a society that so callous; certainly, Christians could not live comfortably in such a society.

Yet I also think that the "image of God" involves more than a few cells bearing human DNA. For example, when I skin my knee, I do not think that I have lot something sacred by losing a bit of my epidermous.

So I'll give this my best shot, with fear and trembling: Assuming that doctors are correct about Schiavo's "persistent vegetative state," I think her tube should be removed. Here's my incomplete thought process:

1) There is a conflict of Christian ethical goods in this case. Mercy, it seems to me, is in conflict with a presumption toward life. More specifically: Both Schiavo's husband and parents can claim to be acting according to the supreme Christian value of love. Taking both parties at their word, her husband wants to love Schiavo by allowing a merciful death that honors her wishes. Her parents are trying to love her by protecting her life (at least her biological life). This means that neither side has a clear-cut, uncomplicated claim. However, I favor mercy for reason #2.

2) Christians err when we consider life as anything but a natural cycle. Evaluating what constitutes "life" at any given point risks misunderstanding what life is. Life is not summarized in an instance, but rather is a blessed cycle of conception, birth, maturation, adulthood, decline, and death. Clearly, life remains sacred at the various points in that cycle, but the cycle itself must retain an integrity. In short, the cycle should remain fundamentally in the hands of God.

But this position puts me on dicey ground for several reasons. Certainly, it requires skepticism about abortion. I admit that I drift closer to the pro-life position with every passing year, although I am not quite ready to ban abortion and despise many pro-lifers' tone, tactics, and lack of concern for children after they're born.

More gravely, though, doesn't any medical intervention interfere with the natural cycle of life?

Yes and no. I think we can distinguish between temporary interventions that restore life's natural flow (heart bypass surgery, for example) and intervention that overwhelms and supercedes that cycle, as in Schiavo's case.

As I write this, however, I realize that this raises another problem: It suggests that conscious people who require constant life-support (think Christopher Reeve) should be left to die. Clearly, I can't advocate this life-cycle idea without qualification. So let me try a third argument.

3) Perhaps we can say that life bears the image of God when it involves personhood (self-awareness, etc.) or the potential for it. A newborn does not yet possess personhood, but life's natural cycle will see the child develop into a self-aware person. The same is true with most people requiring medical attention and with self-aware people who need of life-support, as Reeve did.

Now, however, I must face one of my earlier objections: Must we declare that severely mentally handicapped people do not bear the image of God (if they lack self-awareness?)

I confess that I can't think much further than this. However, I think it is possible to say that sacred life must involve consciousness or the potential for consciousness, if not necessarily full mental functioning.

Of course, I'm walking an ethical tightrope. The simplicity and clarity of the Catholic position seem more appealing, and more convincing on the surface. Yet clarity sometimes ignores the truth that gray areas do exist -- or at least that sinful, fallen humans lack the ability to distill pure truth. Schiavo's case is difficult. Christ leads us to view life as sacred, but he also leads us to be merciful.

And if we believe in Christ's promises, we must concede that there are far worse things than death. If that's so, than allowing a merciful death seems an ethical option.