Letters to the editor

As president of the all-volunteer board of governors of the Theatre Guild of Ancon, I am writing to inform you that we have an urgent need to replace our stage lighting equipment, which has served us for more than 30 years. We need to purchase some lights, dimmers, connectors in order to continue to bring our programmed season to you including the annual International School of Panama's play set for late May. The cost of this equipment, as estimated by several theater lighting experts, is $9,000 plus shipping and installation. Some of the equipment can be bought locally.

Because we have maintained low box office prices over the years, we do not have sufficient reserve to pay for the equipment and to pay our ongoing monthly expenses of more than $900, one of which is $210 monthly rental to ARI.

We currently have $1,000 pledged toward our goal of $15,000 for "Save the Lights Fund" and we hope you will consider donating no matter how little the amount. For those donating $250 or more your name or organization will be listed in future programs as "Benefactor" or we will respect your wish of anonymity. As we are a non-profit organization, your donation is tax deductible. Checks should be made payable to The Theatre Guild of Ancon.

The Guild is a community asset, especially now that the Panamanian educational system requires that English is taught in the schools and considering the rapid influx of English-speaking international people retiring in Panama, we need to continue. Recently, the Guild was recognized in a ceremony at the Cathedral in Panama Viejo in April 2004 by the Instituto Nacional de Arte y Cultura (INAC) for its meritorious work in the arts, so we know that the Guild continues to be a valued entity. We need your help to enable us to go forward. Your generous donation will allow us to continue to develop the cultural heritage of the arts in Panama.

John Carlson
President, The Theatre Guild of Ancon
Tel: 211-0186 Cell: 674-2622
jcarlson@cwpanama.net

Editor's note: For those claiming tax deductions for contributions to the Theatre Guild, the organization's RUC number is 1211-3-C-04811.

I have tried the white pages and the government but they never replied to any of my emails.

I don't know Terri Schiavo. I don't know her parents or husband either. I don't even need to know her or any other person. All I know is that Terri is a human being like every other human being. And I certainly empathize with them even if I may be on some other point in the globe. Perhaps it may have been my Christian upbringing and my mother's teachings. Life is sacred and Terri certainly has the right to live, just as other terminal patients who may even explicitly request to be put to death. It's the law, to assist them to die is equivalent to murder. Or just ask the infamous doctor Jack Kevorkian "angel of death" (and hero to some) in the headlines a few years ago, about it and why he is now in prison. Or just ask the other "angel of death" Dr. Mengele wherever he may be now. Or just ask those lesser health caretakers "angels of death" who practice involuntary euthanasia against the poor the disabled, the elderly in hospices in America and Europe today.

Truly Terri has the right to live and die like every other mortal in this planet. But I also believe that although Terri Schiavo has the right to die she also has the right not to be put to death. She definitely does not deserve to die (or be executed) in this manner or any other. But it seems the legal system is actively pursuing such penalty for her. However such penalty is only earned by the most heinous criminals. But even they have their own rights. Ask all the war criminals or any convicted felon on death row! So what crime has Terri Schiavo committed to gain this death penalty, this "ultimate punishment?"

We must also recognize Terri is not "brain dead" as her husband's side wishes us to believe. She can smile, gesticulate, mumble, mimic, experiment emotions. She can surely feel and she is certainly conscious. It seems that in this modern world of biotechnology, cellular clones and stem cells she deserves the possibility, the right to benefit from all these technology advances. To put her to death is to deprive her of her most basic legal rights.

By the same logic as espoused by Terri's husband we should also let all the paraplegic, the crippled, the Stephen Hawkings of this world and those disabled who cannot provide for themselves to die off unassisted. Is it the survival of the fittest? And now that everyone's eyes are focused on Rome and our Pope John Paul's health problems. By this same simplistic pseudo-legal logic just let him die off unassisted, get a new pope and finish this chapter once and for all? By the same logic we should do away with all intensive care units and just let all these patients to simply die off since they cannot take care of themselves. This shall represent quite a saving for the budget! But what a loss for humanity!

It seems that in this "antiseptic" society America has become, deadly pathogenic germs and grotesque laboratory specimens have acquired greater rights than the average human being. In this inhumane and impersonal society that America has also become, it seems that our average human being has become more expendable than our more prized commodities. WHAT HYPOCRISY!

Last but not least, I believe there is a point that Terri's parents and friends should investigate. I wonder why Terri's husband just doesn't request the annulment of his marriage. Or is it some other selfish logic he is after --- maybe life insurance payments? And for that purpose he must remain her legal husband and guardian? And/or other self interests that may escape us? That could explain his stubbornness and vehemence. Only he and his Creator must know.

Everything may seem perfectly legal --- shall we call it legal institutionalized MURDER? --- but somehow the smell is of a dead rat.

Editor's note: This letter was, of course, written before Ms. Schiavo's death. It should be pointed out that for purposes of the legal controversy in question, Florida courts appointed a guardian ad litem --- an independent lawyer to protect Ms. Schiavo's rights --- who ultimately sided with the husband on this matter. Understand that in years of litigation the courts found as a matter of fact that Ms. Schiavo had expressed her preference not to be kept alive in a vegetative state, and all of the legal battles to which the multinational mainstream media paid so much attention were, whether the news reports mentioned it or not, based on that finding of fact. It is this editor's opinion that the attribution of improper motives to either side immediately involved in this dispute --- Mr. Schiavo, whose life would be somewhat uncomplicated by his wife's death, and the Schindler family, who did what they had to do to raise the funds and make the political alliances they needed to carry on their struggle in the courts and for public support --- is unfortunate. The issues involved were neither simple nor clear-cut, and whatever may be said about the politicians and activists who jumped into this argument, Ms. Schiavo's relatives on both sides of the argument deserve people's sympathy and respect, from both those who agree with them and those who don't.

Shortly before the passing of the severely handicapped Terry Schiavo, whose death was hastened by a US court order to remove her feeding tube, Patrick J. Buchanan wrote: "That there arose a national outcry at the execution of Schiavo -- so loud Congress and President Bush heard it and came to the rescue --- is a sign America is

not morally dead… yet. But a culture of death has taken deep root in America's soul."

Terry Schiavo's ultimately tragic death demands a more serious look at euthanasia and the destructive direction in which it is leading society. This requires a more serious reflection on the implications of life-sustaining treatments as applied to patients in the clinical condition called the "vegetative state."

The term persistent vegetative state, which has questionably been applied to the Schiavo case and her condition, has been coined to indicate the condition of those patients whose "vegetative state" continues for over a year. Such people in a vegetative state show no evident sign of being aware of themselves or their environment, and seem unable to interact with others or to react to specific stimuli. Although such patients remain prisoners of their condition for long periods of time and without needing technological support, it cannot be underestimated that there has been at least partial recovery in some of these cases. I refer in particular to the situations regarding Terry Wallis and Karen Ann Quinlan. Medical science, therefore is unable to predict with exact certainty which patients in this condition will recover and which one's will not.

Nonetheless, there are those who, in such circumstances, cast doubt on the persistence of the "human quality" of these patients, suggesting that the clinical term "vegetative" could or should be applied directly to the sick person as such, actually demeaning their value and personal dignity.

In opposition to such trends of thought, it should be strongly stated that a person, even if seriously sick or prevented in the exercise of his higher functions or faculties, is and always will be a person. He will never become a “vegetable” or an “animal.” The intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being does not change depending on their circumstances.

Not only does the sick person in a vegetative state have the right to basic health care (warmth, cleanliness, hydration, nutrition etc.) --- such "natural" means of preserving life should be considered obligatory. The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.

The likelihood of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the termination of minimal care (nutrition and hydration) for the patient. The only possible outcome of such an act is death by starvation or dehydration. In this case it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, euthanasia by omission.

Such an act is always contrary to the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or

disproportionate to the expected outcome can, however, in certain circumstances where death is imminent, be legitimate. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted.

However, the "quality of life", often imposed by economic, social and psychological pressures, cannot take precedence over general principles according to which even the simple doubt of being in the presence of a living person morally obliges one to respectfully abstain from any act that aims at anticipating the person's death.

Moreover, it is not possible to say that the withdrawal of a feeding tube will not be the source of considerable suffering for the sick person, even if we can see only the patient's reactions at the level of the autonomic nervous system or of gestures. Modern science tends to point to the fact that there is a lasting quality in these patients of elementary forms of communication and analysis of stimuli.

Our present culture tends to consider suffering the epitome of evil. In such a culture there is a great temptation to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment considered most suitable.

According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the final moments of life, has a special place in God's saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ's passion. True compassion leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.

The pleas of the gravely ill who sometimes request death should not be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. Most people regard life as something sacred --- a gift of God's love --- which they are called upon, not to dispose of at will, but to preserve and make fruitful.

Intentionally causing one's own death, or suicide, is a rejection of God's sovereignty and loving plan. It is a refusal of love for self, the denial of a natural instinct to live, a flight from the duties of justice and charity owed to one's neighbor and to society.

According to the natural moral law, imprinted on each man's heart, nothing and no one can permit in any way the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, the moral law forbids that a person request this act of killing, either for himself or for another person entrusted to his care. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity. The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.

In the Netherlands, a policy originally encompassing only persistent requests for death from hopelessly suffering and dying patients has steadily expanded so that physicians have been allowed to kill patients who were physically healthy and handicapped children who never asked for death.

Dr. Eduard Verhagen, often referred to as "Dr. Death" has become famous in Europe for having presided over the medically induced deaths of four extraordinarily ill newborns. Verhagen describes himself as a bearer of peace and happiness to children. 'When these suffering little ones die", he says, "the child goes to sleep…. It's beautiful in a way…. They're children who are severely ill and in great pain. It is after they die that you see them relaxed for the first time. You see their faces in a way they should be for the first time.'' The Netherlands stands as a stark reminder of the slippery slope leading from supposedly limited killing to a broader culture of death.

There exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope.

What any sick person needs, besides medical care, is love --- the human and supernatural warmth provided by those close to him such as family, nurses and doctors.

Terry Schiavo's public "execution" is a strong reminder that euthanasia, understood as an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, is senseless and inhumane and should be opposed in all its forms.

Financial services at Finansbanken --- http://www.finansbanken.dk/english/index.html
Build a home in Las Cumbres with Villa Concordia --- http://villaconcordia-pma.com/
Make the Executive Hotel your headquarters in Panama City --- http://www.executivehotel-panama.com

letters