When is a Life Worth Living?

Two recent items in the press served to shed more heat than light on two of the touchiest areas of our culture.

In one, Governor Jeb Bush and Florida's Legislature trumped both a husband's wishes and those of the patient by restoring artificial life support to his wife, who has been in a "persistent vegetative state" for thirteen years.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Brother George and Congress were in the process of banning so-called "partial birth abortions."

Both are classic examples of how the combined wisdom of our elected officials can screw things up when they venture into areas beyond their expertise - an expertise arguably dominated by their ability to get elected and thereafter pucker up to enough butts to stay in power.

In the Florida case, Michael Schiavo authorized removal of nutrition and hydration tubes from his comatose spouse, which would have permitted her to legally die. In doing so, he acted on the advice of her doctors that, although her eyes remained open, she had no consciousness and was, in fact, brain-dead.

He was further motivated by her expressed wish, made earlier on, that she would rather die than be kept alive artificially.

These positions were countered by Terri Schiavo's parents and brother, who said they had never heard her make any such statement and harbored the hope of a miraculous recovery, despite the experts' contrary prognosis.

Yielding to an emotional public outcry, fueled in part by militant "pro-life" groups, the Legislature hastily cobbled together a narrow bill mandating restoration of artificial life support when the patient has not left a living will and a family member has challenged the removal.

Governor Bush just as hastily signed the measure into law, restoring Terri to the vegetative state from which she had almost escaped.

Under the law, a guardian will be appointed to represent her interests, and one can hope that her body will eventually rejoin the soul that surely moved on to a higher life years ago.

Terri Schiavo's case raises the troublesome question of when real life truly comes to an end. Hard-line pro-lifers will contend that it extends to the final heartbeat, however extraordinary the measures might be needed to make it possible.

Others - the writer included - feel that when all quality of life and sense of being have been irretrievably lost, it is a cruel joke to sustain what is clearly a wasted vessel, especially given the resultant pain of surviving relatives and friends and the sometimes enormous cost of the procedures involved. Those costs, obviously, could be diverted to the saving of saveables, rather than the prolonging of hopeless causes.

With respect (or disrespect) to the abortion action, our Sinators and Reprehensibles once again demonstrated their talent for converting mole hills into mountains.

Faced with the opportunity to simply ban the late-term procedure that murders nearly-born and viable babies moments before their birth, they muddied the waters by expanding the prohibition to all second-trimester abortions, perhaps even when the mother's health may be at risk.

This will open the door to hordes of lawyers and massive gluts of litigation, as decisions made by health care professionals and patients in the delivery room are wrangled over by predatory barristers in court.

Two truths should have been made clear through the smoke of partisan prejudices: First, a baby that can survive outside the womb without seriously endangering the health of its mother has a right to life that no other person's "choice" can take away.

Likewise, if it comes to a choice between the life of that baby and that of its mother, the latter interest is paramount. Pregnancy, labor and delivery are high enough prices to pay without upping the ante to a supreme sacrifice.

By needlessly complicating the issues, those who fabricated the flawed law and the Otherbush who will sign it mobilized the extremists on both sides of the abortion conflict, and subsequent challenges will undoubtedly return the entire controversy to Square None.

There's an old adage that he who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. It is equally true that those who entrust highly technical medical decisions to pressure-sensitive politicians are placing human lives in incompetent hands.

Life is undeniably our most precious gift as human beings - a gift far too valuable to be placed in the unsafekeeping of those willing, able and thoughtless enough to use it as a bargaining chip in the competition for public approval.

Game scores in both of the cases cited: Expediency 1, Common Sense, Zip.

By the way, have you taken care of your own Living Will, or are you leaving gut-wrenching decisions to your loved ones, a thorny problem for your doctors and/or a possible bequest to the legal profession?