| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Life - A Liberal Conundrum |
03 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
The second problem with the living will concept is more prosaic, but just as important. Namely that people stirred to draw up a living will may consult a lawyer or other legal professional to lay out a document giving detailed instructions for any possible eventuality related to their treatment. But in busy hospital wards, especially with the assumption that advance directives are usually about withholding treatment, staff often understand patients' wills to imply that no treatment is desired, without examining the details of the document. One likely result of this situation is that a patient would have life saving treatment withheld, treatment that they would want to receive according to their directions, because of the fact that the staff have not checked the details, either due to their assumptions or because of the limited information available.
Evidently, disputes concerning treatment will continue to occur despite the presence of living wills, since the different views towards life and death lie so close to the cultural fault line running through American society.
As well as the heated disputes in the media, what provoked the ire of both sides in the debate was the action (or inaction) of the federal organs of government. The processing and signing into law of specific legislation for the Schiavo case was seen as tantamount to an abuse of constitutional powers, as well as an undue interference from the federal level in the sovereign state of Florida. On the right there was condemnation of the indifference of the judiciary towards the fate of Terri. However in the coming months, the media furore surrounding the Schiavo case will seem like a minor skirmish compared to the approaching clash over the Supreme Court, which is likely to involve a mix of the same issues, only magnified.
As the third branch of government, the Supreme Court is the pinnacle of judicial power in the US and has been the final arbiter in many of the mostly hotly contested political disputes. Appointed to the court by the President, the Chief Justice and his eight associate Justices give their legal opinions on cases brought before them, which are generally appeals on decisions made in lower federal and state courts. The court's opinion is that which the majority of the justices decide (whether in favour of the petitioner or respondent). The current make up of the court has been crucial to recent decisions as it has been split on partisan lines. Of the nine Justices, the Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas generally follow conservative lines on the key issues. Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are considered to be the liberal wing of the court. Justices Sandra Day-Connor and Anthony Kennedy both have centrist temperaments and thus hold the balance on the key decisions, as they are the most likely to not follow traditional party lines. On issues such as the disputed Bush-Gore election of 2000, the court decided 5-4 so the prospect of a change in the political balance of the court will have immense ramifications.
The nomination of John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor was considered a shrewd move by Bush in that Roberts record on the surface is not considered outside the mainstream. The nomination of more conservative judges like Roberts or future ultra-conservatives to replace Rehnquist would swing the balance of power decisively in favour of the Republicans. And since the Justices only leave their posts by retirement or demise, the effect of Bush's choices could last for a generation.
Given the authority of the Supreme Court, such a decisive swing towards the conservative camp would have an immense impact on political life, but the most important repercussion is likely to be the issue of abortion. The case of Roe vs. Wade, decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, confirmed the legality of abortion. The court at that time ruled that the right to privacy as recognised by the US Constitution meant that the state did not have the right to monitor the birth control choices of citizens. As a result of this right to privacy, pregnant women can receive abortions without informing, or seeking the permission, of the state.
The three ultra-conservative justices, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, are all of the opinion that the original case was wrongly decided and should be overturned, but they are still in the minority in the court. When the court has had the opportunity to overturn the ruling in the past, it has not done so, even though both Kennedy and Day-Connor are anti-Roe. With the appointment of an additional conservative justice in place of one of the liberals however, this would be an opportunity to completely outlaw abortion. While it is not likely that a complete ban would be agreed on, a conservative court would at least place severe restrictions on the practice, as legislatures across the states have attempted to do for years while still complying with Roe vs. Wade.
Liberal values seem to be on the defensive in the US at the moment, and beleaguered liberals are in the foetal position. Their positions on a number of issues are under attack from a conservative camp that is better organised and adept at setting the terms of debate. Notwithstanding the distaste felt by many about the tactics of the conservatives during the Schiavo case, it seems generally that one side is receiving most of the political blows. It would seem that this has more to do with the values that are being espoused that it does with manipulation of the media.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 1 2 3 4 >
Page 3 of 4 pages
| |
|
|
