Politics: the Dean dilemma (on Terry Schiavo)

Bo has a scathing but fair post on Howard Dean and the DNC's inability to effectively deal with the Terry Schiavo situation.

I certainly take issue with his assertion that "the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party' (which Dean claims to represent) wants Schiavo to die." Terry Schiavo is already dead by any reasonable medical definition. Ask neurologists worth their salt, and they'll likely agree.

President Bush claims that:

In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life.

If I represent the 'Democratic wing,' which I believe I do in this case, I don't reasonably believe there are serious questions or substantial doubts for a secular government. For better or worse, we do have legal definitions of death based on neurological definitions. Neurologists agree that Terry Schiavo in fact does fit those definitions (I'm having trouble finding the specific language of the Florida law to make my point, though I know I saw it in an article a few days ago).

I won't dare to be so presumptious as to say that the only valid definitions of life and death are neurologically based. Certainly cultural or religious ideas of metaphysical matters are at least as valid, and I don't question the passion or the wisdom of those who really do believe that Terry Schiavo is alive and that removing her feeding tube is akin to murder. I will certainly question their medical knowledge, however. The law is strictly unambiguous in the matter, and empirical evidence suggests a drastically different conclusion than is being reached by those who prefer to view life in strictly metaphysical terms.