Right to Life? Or No "Right" Answer?

"I believe that in a case like this the legislative branch, the executive branch, ought to err on the side of life, which we have." - President Bush today.

Perhaps unintentionally, President Bush today quite accurately captured the complexity of the Schiavo case and expressed the kind of ambivalence that people on both side of the issue are likely to feel. His comment seemed to simultaneously acknowledge both the moral unease many of us feel about snuffing out a life and the understandable legal/political discomfort created by Congress's use of the legal system for such particular, controversial, and instrumental ends. Bush is right, I think to say that, in the absence of knowledge regarding a patient's wishes, preserving life is the more sensible and ethical default. But he is also right to say that Congress has "erred". Republicans and Democrats have virtually switched sides in the debate over federalism and states' rights, abandoning any attempt at remaning principled or consistent with their usual views on judicial activism. Moreover, since none of us can be sure what Terri Schiavo would have wanted, both sides must acknowledge that they may end up imposing a decision that she herself would have strenuously resisted if she were able.

I am deeply conflicted about the whole thing and am concinved that both Terri's parents and her husband are acting out of their deepest love for her. If anything, the case demonstrates the need for living wills as a default, so that doctors, family members, and politicians are not left to make these excruciating judgments. When a person hangs between life and death and has not indicated the level of treatment they wish to receive, there truly is no "right" answer.