The Pope's Feeding Tube: Redemption Through Suffering

by Darren, April Fool's Day, 2005

Yet another outrage from the pseudo-Christian right comes to a dramatic conclusion, followed by one of the greatest ironic coincidences of the Bush years. The hypocrisy of the fascist morality was palpable this morning (April 1st, April Fools' Day 2005) with the denouement of Terry Schiavo's death coinciding with the impending death of Pope John Paul II. I was listening to the right wing talk radio propagandist Mike Gallagher on the local Fox affiliate AM 1570. His rant for the morning was against the "death watch" of the Pope. He stated that the intensive media coverage of the pontiff's condition was tacky and inappropriate. He deserves some peace, respect and privacy. Apparently, he is so unreflective that he couldn't perceive the irony of the contrast between the way they abused Terry Schiavo, and the ancient pomp and circumstance of Vatican traditions. Even the Italians in Rome will tell you that this close attention is quite normal and even desired by the faithful. The Pope expressed his own living will stating that he wanted his suffering to be visible and an object lesson in the Christian doctrine of redemption through suffering. It is in fact the central magical formula behind mainstream Christian religions--the ecstatic beholding of the punishment and slow death of their Immortal God. Although it might suggest delusions of grandeur on his part, I admire his philosophical cogency--he at least realizes that he has to back up his lifetime of moral pontification with actions. Or at least he knows that he has no choice.

However, the invasive and disingenuous, wall-to-wall media obsession with the Schindler/Schiavo case was indeed tacky, disturbing and above all, a major distraction from real news about Tom DeLay's malfeasance and Bush's idiotic campaigning for the destruction of Social Security. Mr. Gallagher has proven to us that his agenda is utterly political, with no grounding in sensibility. He can't even respect the living will of the Pope, expressed publicly before his death. I do not believe that even he takes his own words seriously. If he does, he is an idiot. What they realize is that Terry Shiavo's feeding tube is also Tom DeLay's feeding tube, prolonging his agonizing demise. [April 5, '05 update: If my opinion isn't enough here, maybe some polls will help you face reality. Bush's approval rating following this debacle is now the lowest of any second term president since WWII. USA Today]

Even more bizarre, Gallagher continued his rant, pointing to how the media was turning the Pope's death into a circus--meanwhile, he was providing a nationally broadcast forum for knuckle-dragging callers to help that very process along. There was no evidence that any of the callers noticed either. I couldn't think of a better example of a media circus exploiting the Pope's death than the nonsense I was listening right there at that moment. Don't these people think? Have they no ability to step outside themselves and look at themselves from an objective, non-Republican perspective?

I really deplore the coverage of the Schiavo story. I resisted writing anything on it for quite a while, but Gallagher drove me over the edge. I have to comment...

First, I'd like to point you all to an excellent piece of writing out of St. Petersburg Florida: Living Will is the Best Revenge, by Robert Friedman. Using the literary trope of irony, he does a superb job clarifying the profound evil and ignorance of the right wing campaign to "save" Terry Schiavo. I couldn't have said it better, but I would like to add an argument to extend the debate into a more philosophical and ethically reflective domain. Mark Morford's article also drives home the moral ironies.

Let's take a look at the dubious claims made by those who attacked Terry's husband, who fought so hard to fulfill what was allegedly his wife's will. They claim that he abused her and that she wouldn't want to die.

OK then, let's take the Schindlers at face value. Let's map out their arguments, starting with a summary of their legal plea--their daughter is semi-conscious, and does not want to die. To withhold the feeding tube would be to commit murder. Passive euthanasia is acceptable only if the patient has previously indicated that they did not want to be kept alive under extreme circumstances. Terry did not give such instructions and we are quite sure Terry is telling us that she doesn't want to die. Let's analyze their plea and its ramifications.

1. Although I disagree, let's assume current US law regarding euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is accepted and even religiously sanctioned--at least until recently. It is clearly permissible to withhold extreme measures that only prolong suffering. This is the legal norm in this country, and it's a standard that both Tom DeLay and Bill Frist have availed themselves of in their own lives. My own opinion is that something like the Dutch system is the ideal one. Anything else is superstitious hogwash and should be relegated to the realm of church policy, not public policy. I disagree with the premise, but let's accept it for argument's sake. Passive euthanasia is exactly what we are looking at with the Schiavo case. Tom DeLay killed his own father under similar circumstances, so this is not a valid logical way to argue for reinserting the feeding tube, at least not coming from his mouth. That is a textbook example of hypocrisy. It is a blatant overthrow of their own articulated Federalist Papers philosophy of states' rights. It is a bold faced subversion of this country's carefully evolved and negotiated tradition of attitudes toward death with dignity. 82% of Americans disagree with them. 82%. That means that we are talking about an 18% portion of the population. Hmmm. I wonder if that's a good barometer of George W. Bush's real and solid political supporters.

2. Terry Shiavo's brain was in fact mostly jelly and fluids. Her apparent acts of consciousness were merely primal reflexes. There was no evidence of brain activity, and the only doctors who contradicted that were religio-political partisans whose integrity was not taken seriously by the medical system as a whole. But, her parents had become quite attached to those behaviors, and it might be argued that their emotional needs should figure into the equation. How much time is enough to hold out this kind of hope? 5 years? 10 years? Is there a limit? Would it be acceptable for the family to keep her alive, like a warm blooded rag doll to salve their consciences and give them the illusion that their daughter was still alive? Or, does the medical profession need to step in to help people deal with the grieving process, and let go of such illusions? I can't answer that question for you, but I can't help but feel that the Schindlers' behavior was indicative of a profound state of denial and inability to face the facts. Even public opinion has proven them wrong here. The large majority of Americans are not agreeing with this idiotic show. The end result has been to reveal the totalitarian talons the Bush administration already deeply planted into the throat of the body politic. A lot of people are starting to get nervous about the Godfather, George "The Executioner" Bush and Tom "The Mouth" DeLay, both examples of sleazy Texas Jesus Gangsters.

3. As a logical consequence of the previous point, another philosophical problem arises. In spite of any metaphysical claims made by some devoutly religious people, the personality of Terry Schiavo dissolved years ago. If by some miracle they manage to revive her, it will only happen with new brain cells that cannot possibly carry the memories and personality of Terry Schiavo. She will not recognize her parents. Chances are, she would be like a newborn infant in a frail, atrophied adult body. The Terry Schiavo they would have then would be nothing whatsoever like the one they remember. If we look at this honestly, it should be clear that an unhealthy pattern of thought that many of these same people would criticize in regards to human cloning and fetal stem cells. It offers only the visible illusion of the continuance of human identity, but nothing of the personal identity or soul that they claim they value so much. Reviving Terry at this point would not be dramatically different, from an ethical and pragmatic perspectives, from cloning her.

I was under the impression that they were staunchly opposed to this sort of foolishness. There is no Christian reason to cling to a brain dead body like that. Their dogma offers hope for the afterlife, or resurrection. They behave as if they fear that when she dies she will go straight to Hell. What's up with that? That's not to mention the psychopathic behavior of the right-to-lifers who are issuing death threats in regards to this case. You'll probably recall that these are the same Jesus Bullies who think it's justifiable to assassinate abortion providers. Again, it is extremely difficult to harmonize their behaviors with the actual scriptures of their religion, and even their publicly stated moral positions.

4. They claim that Mr. Schiavo might have done improper things that contributed to Terry's condition. I have no way of verifying this, and I have absolutely no inclination to check into this private matter. But, let's assume for the sake of argument that he was one of those men who weighs his wife's food and criticizes her weight, thus driving her to anorexia. Obviously, there are a lot of men like that out there. I see plenty of underfed trophy wives in the Republican suburbs. This is a widespread problem. Let's even assume, for the sake of argument that he physically abused her. I have no idea if he did or not, but given the media behavior, I'm personally inclined to doubt everything the Schindler side says.

If Terry's collapse were caused by some vile actions of her husband, we would still have to explain how any abuse justifies torturing the victim with fifteen years of a nightmare life in a corporeal prison. The idea is rather disturbing.

I heard a fascinating remark on NPR-TOTN from a neurologist who pointed out another astoundingly simple oversight in their argument: If Terry was indeed conscious as her family said, then her suffering was immeasurably worse than it would be if she were, as the doctors said, utterly unconscious. Hence, if she was somewhat aware, then she was surely in agony over what her condition had caused her family to do--not to mention the ongoing burden on their resources and time.

It is difficult to explain why a man who only wanted her insurance money, or something like that would persevere for the decade and half that the nightmare lasted. If Michael is innocent, as I am inclined to believe, then I feel deeply sorry for him. If not, then I guess he already got what he deserved: litiginous Jesus Bully Inlaws obsessed with a flesh puppet of his "murdered" wife. Neither Sartre nor Bosch could have dreamed up a more unsettling vision of Hell.

Hence, if we accept the claims of the Schindlers', we are expected to assume that her husband's alleged evil behavior justified the extended torture they put their daughter through. There is no rational connection between the alleged crime and the desire to keep her corpse breathing and eating. In my opinion, this was the most shocking aspect of the whole situation. In fairness, I guess the family was using the vile attacks on Michael Schiavo to discredit his claims about his wife's wishes, but the fact is that the ultimate effect was to destroy the life of Mr. Schiavo, and to perpetrate inexcusable cruelty on Terry. To make matters worse, they created a horrific media circus that disturbed other patients in that hospice, some of whom I suspect had stories every bit as sad as Terry's. In their proclaimed project to save Terry, they actually created a hell of a lot more suffering for many people.

If indeed Michael Schiavo did commit such abuses, then it makes no sense to attack him by means of fighting over their daughter's arguably dead body. They should file charges against him in criminal court where a crime like that belongs. The only connection between his alleged actions and the current state of affairs is obviously quite personal on their part and profoundly political on their supporters' parts. If he is guilty, then why have they not filed such charges? Better yet, why don't they mount a campaign to educate men, and women, about the dangers of anorexia, and its connection to their husband's dubious desires for an eternal teenager as a spouse. Did you know that there is a diet craze for Christians? An Evangelical fitness and diet industry? It is Gnosticism gone haywire. I'm trying to imagine the Triune man-god Christ leading an aerobic workout with ceramic dumbeks and lute-like string instruments pumping out the jams in that characteristic musical style so connected with that area--a blend of African, Gypsy and Arabic styles. I wonder what Jesus would have used to for his routine to cheer on the sweaty disciples as they flatten their abs and tighten their buns?

5. The Republicans are at the same time striving to cut and even eliminate the very health care entitlements that keep people like Terry Schiavo alive. Hence, it is evident that this circus is merely a symbolic and political scam that has nothing to do with protecting people from having the plug pulled when they are weak. It is a fact that at the same time she was the center of a radical campaign to subvert all sorts of constitutional law and common sense that many poor people in much less grave states were forced to accept death simply because there was no money to keep them alive. Furthermore, president Bush is the same man who decided to execute Karla Faye Tucker by lethal injection in spite of the fact that she gave every sign of being reformed and even of having converted to his own style of Evangelical Christianity. He signed her death warrant, and then on the public media, mockingly imitated her pleas for life saying, "Please don't kill me!" This is the man who believes that it is okay to execute teenagers and retards, and send our children to die for oil. This is a man who truly enjoys killing people. It is very difficult to harmonize Bush's bloodthirsty actions with his allegedly life affirming agenda. Consequently, there is no reason to take seriously the Bushy rhetoric about a "culture of life." What seems odd to me is that if they are successful in destroying the legal precedents that allow people to die with dignity, they will never be able to back it up with the financial and medical resources necessary to make it happen.

6. Terry's survival depended upon expensive medical care and resources that could have been better applied to other people who actually stood a chance of recovery. Terry had been in this state for 15 years, which is plenty of time to come to the conclusion that recovery is impossible and all efforts are a waste of precious resources. Most important, it is not fair to single out one white woman for extreme measures while leaving large numbers of people to die. It seems to me that we need to define more clearly the point where it is no longer rational to expend such resources merely to please people who hope to avoid dealing with the real grieving process of death. Given a choice between spending tax dollars on someone who has been in a persistent vegetative state for more than, say, five years, and spending them on providing general health care to poor families, I'll take the latter. We cannot speak of a "culture of life" at the same time we slash public health care for the poor, execute criminals and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in foreign countries. Bush's is a culture of violence. The only logical conclusion that we can draw from this is that it is all a political show aimed at raising campaign money and "firming up their 18% fascist base."

So, let's give the Pope what he wants. I suggest that we give Pope John Paul II every bit as much and more attention than Terry Shiavo. May he slip into a minimally conscious state, and let him live for fifteen years like a zombie attached to tubes and machines that provide him the most extreme of medical intervention. Let him become a macabre, suffering puppet trapped in a dead body that they can put up for his faithful fans and the media to see for another fifteen years. Then, let the Catholic Church split over a fight to keep him alive or to let him die with dignity. May their internecine war lead to the fragmentation of the Church. May it also bring that noisy and irrational 18% of Americans to enlightenment. That is karma. And, when Mr. Bush's LifeCor LifeVest pacemaker finally gives out, or he suffers a stroke, let's hope and pray that he too can know a little of the suffering that Terry and her husband knew.

April 16, 2005 update: I didn't get what I asked for, but I got what I wanted. Take a look at these two links: The Cellphone as Church Chronicle, Creating Digital Relics, which has an example for your phony, maudlin adoration and eulogizing.
Snapping the dead pope on a camera phone, which has a wonderful picture of a throng of amateur papparazzi, empowered by the digital camera/cellphone revolution. No doubt Mike Gallagher isn't too happy about that, which makes this karmic backlash all the more inspiring. It has been most enlightening to watch as the Medieval passion for religious relics merges into and blurs with the nihilistic voyeurism and amoral opportunism that so pervades our culture--all thanks to a technology for which Donald Rumsfeld might be understood, metaphorically, as the current pope.

April 20th update: The new pope, or "pabstfuhrer" made the news last year for demanding of bishops to inform priests that any overtly pro-choice parishioners, particularly a certain unnamed Catholic political candidate, should not be given Communion. I guess that's a good way for a former Nazi youth and reactionary conservative "No-man" to start things off. It's bad enough to have these fascists controlling all the wings of government, but now they have a stranglehold on the Pope, who they have recently transformed into a sort of "safe-for-evangelicals" spiritual Head Honcho.