Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Where Church And State MUST Interact
As I continue to follow the case of Haleigh Poutre, I grow increasingly stunned at how cavalierly the discussion is held. In this case the child in question is a ward of the state. There are no competing family ties. While the child's stepfather has taken legal action to preserve her life, that is likely motivated by his desire to avoid a murder charge. Thus the decisions about her life are entirely bureacratic - entirely.
This leads us in some appalling directions in the commentary. Consider this:
Then there is the Boston Globe piece that appeared last week
Then there is this in the Globe piece:
It seems to me that in matters such as this there must be a place for moral authority. The government cannot claim such, particularly when the prevailing society prevents religious input on the decision. Surely a mechanism can be devised by which such decisions can be made without the establishment of religion. A board of clerics for all religions that care to participate - something!
I just cannot stand to think of this child ground up in the gears of government, regardless of how compassionate individuals may be.
Related Tags: bureacracy, Haleigh Poutre, right-to-life, religion, state, establishment
This leads us in some appalling directions in the commentary. Consider this:
A third, and final, issue is the culpability of DSS in not recognizing the on-going abuse that Haleigh suffered before the near-fatal beating. This is obviously a problem, as poingnatly illustrated by the horrible death of 7-year-old Nixzmary Brown in New York last week. But for those conservatives who want to argue that this is just another example of how government cannot carry out social policy, let's keep one thing in mind: tax cuts at both the national and state level have gutted the ability of state agencies to carry out these sorts of responsibilities.PLEASE! Money is not at issue for conservatives in a situation like this - it's who is an appropriate caretaker! The issue is about humanity not money and money cannot buy humanity.
Then there is the Boston Globe piece that appeared last week
With their cries of "medical terrorism" and their comparisons to Nazi Germany, these so-called champions of life created an atmosphere in which some of their supporters made death threats not only to Michael Schiavo but to judges and legislators who had been on the "wrong" side of the dispute.Ah, so it's our fault?! And is the entire conservative movement to be held accountable for the lunatic fringe? The VAST majority of people that campaigned for the life of Terri Schiavo, and for Haliegh do so not out of hatred for the left or distrust of medicine, but out of a rock solid conviction of the value of life - under any circumstance.
This kind of support is the last thing Haleigh Poutre needs. Haleigh's cause should be championed -- by those who have the moral authority and the credibility to speak about it. This case raises many disturbing issues, from the efficacy of child protection to care for comatose patients. It deserves to be in the spotlight; it does not deserve to be turned into Terri Schiavo II.
Then there is this in the Globe piece:
Some caution that the high cost of caring for comatose patients may become a financial incentive to end life support.SOME?! caution. Ask yourself this, on what other basis would an amoral, areligious bureacracy make such a decision? They are without any other cognitive framework on which to base their decision making.
It seems to me that in matters such as this there must be a place for moral authority. The government cannot claim such, particularly when the prevailing society prevents religious input on the decision. Surely a mechanism can be devised by which such decisions can be made without the establishment of religion. A board of clerics for all religions that care to participate - something!
I just cannot stand to think of this child ground up in the gears of government, regardless of how compassionate individuals may be.
Related Tags: bureacracy, Haleigh Poutre, right-to-life, religion, state, establishment
