New York Daily News - Ideas & Opinions - Stanley Crouch: Fight for life whenever possible

New York Daily News - Ideas & Opinions - Stanley Crouch: Fight for life whenever possible: Fight for life
whenever possible

Perhaps the most difficult thing to accept in modern life is the presence and the inevitability of death.

In our films we have tried to make fun of it in images of horror and cartoon butchery that we are supposed to be frightened by but not take seriously. Some say that the idea of eternal life as played out in Christianity or even more complexly in the reincarnation beliefs are both inventions to keep the force of death at bay.

In our own time and in our own society we have very complicated difficulties with the Grim Reaper. Most of our troubles are founded in our society's terrible hatred of aging and even of the human body in its natural form, which we see proven out in alterations like cosmetic surgery, implants and liposuction.

All of this was played out in the mounting hysteria and self-righteousness that attended the spectacle of Terri Schiavo's death last week. Much was revealed. Of course, there are those who are opposed to abortion and are also opposed to unplugging life supports but stand behind the death penalty. There are those who support a woman's right to choose but somehow felt that Schiavo's husband should have been able to make the choice of whether she lived or died. Many took all of the wrangling in Congress and the passage of bills as but an attempt on the part of the GOP to placate its fundamentalist voters. There were others who thought that the Democrats kept their mouths shut because they feared angering the very voters who kept their candidate out of the Oval Office.

It seems to me that the argument should not be in religious terms at all. There are too many religions and our nation is not a theocracy. The terms of the argument should be within the realm of civic morality and what that morality means to individuals within the context of our medical and technological capabilities.

We have long heard the complaint that one can live or die based upon how much money one has or does not have. The more fortunate can get better care and the less fortunate have to depend on the durability of their bodies and their good luck.

Now, after thousands of years, we have the technology to save or sustain life, and the question is what do we really believe about the right to life or the right a person has to get the best that the medical profession can provide.

This is not a religious question. It is a question of civic morality. It is made more complex because our hospitals save and sustain the lives of premature babies who would have died in times past. If a crack dealer wanted for multiple murders is brought into the emergency room with a pocket full of dope and a belly full of lead, our doctors do their best to save the life and leave the judgments to the courts.

That is the line on which the Schiavo cases should be decided. Not by the spouse, not by the family, but by the tradition of modern medicine, which is to fight death with everything that it has at every step of the way. In some terrible future of overcrowded countries and diminishing foodstuffs and all of the horrors our science fiction writers have predicted, we might decide to routinely pull the plug. But until then, I say give death as little as you can because the Grim Reaper is going to win the game in every case, no matter what.

Originally published on April 4, 2005