"...but would you want your sister to marry one???"

By Hootsbuddy

This is the Story

My wife and I just returned from a Saturday drive in the country, first looking for a rural place that is apparently locally famous for homemade cakes and pies, then enjoying semi-country views, driving around for relaxation on the way home. Going through one of several wide spots in the road, we saw a hand-made sign with a red arrow that said "Estate Sale." You never know, but sometimes people have Antiques Roadshow moments, so we left the trail for an even more out of the way trail leading to a steep driveway leading up to a modern house hidden behind the trees and underbrush.

We met a friendly couple who were liquidating their stuff, planning to move to California. She was an artist and he a freelance home inspector and with the economy being what it is they are moving to California where the grass is greener for home inspectors. My guess is that with the bursting of the real estate bubble, it's very likely that the services of home inspectors are more in demand there than in rural Georgia where new home construction is dead in the water, and other residential real estate  transactions are few and far between. Besides,  in this buyer's market, who needs a home inspector? The price is already rock bottom and it's not realistic it can be negotiated any lower. But that's all guesswork on my part.

The real reason for their moving is more visceral. She of the artistic temperament has lived in San Francisco before and totally loves it. And he, who has also been a pastor in the past, told me in conversation that he heard from God and was to start a church in California. I'm not one to make quick judgments about other people so the reader may read the rest of this story as a piece of fiction.

Because there seemed to be an age difference in this couple, that there was no evidence of children and it was a log house with hardwood floors with a virtual This Old House array of tools in the basement, my imagination told me that we had found a couple of offspring from the generation that followed Woodstock. Neither of them was old enough to have gone skinny-dipping in mixed company in the Sixties. He would have been in elementary school about that time and she was not yet born. But as they grew, each of them had enough romance in there genes to be drawn to the exurban quiet of the Georgia foothills to build and finish a house with their own hands, cooking and crafting their needs, growing old together surrounded by a lifetime accumulation of solid stuff, not extravagant, mind you, but quality all the way. 

But this economic tsunami came along, like a war or flood, and their plans are turning to dust. There is a mortgage to pay and other expenses. And although I know nothing of their financial arrangements, my guess is that in order to acquire the house and furnishings we saw they must have had (and may still have) really good credit. I dunno. But when we saw the prices on various items it was clear that these are not people who have been to many yard sales or estate sales. Casual weekend shoppers are not in the market for a nearly new Kitchen Aid mixer that looks new priced at three hundred dollars plus, even if it did cost four hundred dollars new. Or a spectacularly beautiful, hand crafted rosewood dining set with mother of pearl inlay, including eight chairs, for over four grand. It was a steal at that price, but even if Ii could have bought it for half the amount, getting it off that hill, down the driveway and back home would have taken a day, a moving truck and two strong men... and I could see marks in the asphalt where the steep driveway caused the rear ends of trucks to dig as they start the climb. 

But that is not what I wanted to talk about. The part of out outing prompting this story was something the man said during our short exchange of no more than three or four sentences. When he told me he was led to start a church I said a few words of encouragement, something along the lines of "I'm sure there are lots of people in California who can benefit from a new church."

"Not just California," he said, "people all over this country need to turn to God and make changes."

"I know," I said. "This is a bad time for a lot of people and the country is facing a lot of hard times."

"Sure is. People are afraid of all the changes taking place. All the talk of getting rid of old people... euthanasia... "

About that time my wife intervened. She was ready to go and overheard me leading the conversation in the direction of health care reform. The word "euthanasia" told me all I needed to know about this man. He would not be one of the animated, fist-shaking, yelling people so well-represented on television. He is a calm and reasonable man. But he would be quite comfortable sitting nearby, as are so many others in the pictures, nodding in agreement with the shouters, pleased to know that someone was speaking out, loudly and forcefully, on his behalf.

At my wife's urging I decided "not to go there" with this good man.

On the way home I told her about his telling me that the Lord had told him to move to California an start a church. One thing led to another and I mentioned that he had used the word "euthanasia" which let me know a lot about him.

"Well he may know someone who is older and is worried about them," she said.

"No," I answered. "He was not talking about old people. When he mentioned euthanasia he was using a buzzword. He doesn't know anyone who has ever been deliberately put out of their misery and he never will."

Buzzwords and Other Stuff

What passes for discussion in the current climate reminds me of similar "discussions" I had in the with Southern racists opposing what was to become the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Segregation of blacks and whites was the norm at that time and although there were daily interactions between the races, it was all handled with a special protocol, well-understood by both races, and anyone who broke ranks on either side of the line was viewed with mistrust and suspicion. The day was coming when black activists would use the term "Uncle Tom" to shame others into activism, but everyone understood then that following protocol, even if you were black, meant personal safety, job security and a better future for your children. Anything with a whiff of change was suspicious. Remember, this was only a few years following Joe McCarthy's red baiting of the Fifties. 

We had many long arguments at the time, some of which were valid and interesting, others less so. The question of "states rights" was argued hotly in Washington as Southern Congressmen and Representatives closed ranks, arguing that what happened in the various states is not the business of the federal government. That is not a specious argument, because it is a valid argument to this day about many issues. It is no accident that the ages at which young people may legally marry, drink and drive varies from state to state.

In the case of insurance, to use an example relevant to the current reform legislation, individual states regulate insurance companies individually, determining what may and may not be allowed or mandated. Auto insurance, for example, is mandatory in Georgia but the "uninsured motorist" clause is optional (and added at additional cost). Some years ago the state adopted what is called "no fault" insurance, whereby medical expenses sustained as the result of a car accident are paid by the insured driver's policy, no matter who is at fault, and all insurances involved are required to settle among themselves afterward by "subrogation." This was enacted to insure that drivers would not lack medical care while their insurance companies quarreled among themselves over which one of them was liable for the bill. 

Getting back to the old days, after all the usual points were covered, there was always a fool-proof question that would stop any white boy from arguing against segregation in his tracks:

"Well would you want your sister to marry one???"

This was the ultimate argument, because no respectable white boy (or girl for that matter) would ever dream of letting racial integration get to the point where marriage might occur between the races. Even the most doctrinaire Southern white liberal dared not go there, at least in public, lest he be marginalized by all but the most tolerant of his peers. Besides, answering in the affirmative would basically end the argument in favor of the questioner, because at that time it was the equivalent of saying, "Why yes, I'm in favor of race-mixing."  (My own ready response, of which I was quite proud, was "Uh,  which one did you have in mind? I can think of a few outstanding blacks I would be proud to have in the family."  Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was not to be shown until 1967.)

Today's ultimate buzzword, aimed at ending all arguments, is the word euthanasia. I have heard it enough to know that even in the mouths of people who know better, the word invokes all the visceral negative responses of Would you want your sister..  in the past. Never mind the idea not been discussed seriously, and like alligators in New York sewers the meme has the durability of all urban myths. "Everyone knows"  the Europeans are already killing off old people and we know all about Jack Kevorkian and assisted suicide. Besides, assisted suicide is now sweeping the country like a flu virus and if we don't do something to put a stop to it, next thing you know they'll be coming for you and me when we get old.  

One of the reasons this buzzword gets so much attention is that the case of Terry Schiavo is still in our collective memory, lurking there like a childhood fear of the dark or a monster under the bed, waiting to some an get us when we least expect it. Likewise, any mention of final directives or critical conditions planning is unploughed ground for all but the most knowledgeable among us. As an employee of a health care system for five years I became aware of the importance and commonplace acceptance of final directives years ago. The importance and need was underscored for me in a continuing education course in gerontology at a local university. Nevertheless, this remains a tender spot for most of America.

It might be pointed out that the insurance industry has polite ways of manipulating exactly the same fears and misunderstandings about death and dying. Why else does one buy life insurance? Or consider "estate planning." These everyday terms are so much a part of our vocabulary we forget they are in response to dying.

In fact, we live in a time when thanks to science dying is almost optional. There are cases when people get unquestionably dead, like after a car crash, suffering a heart attack or coming home in a casket from war. But in many cases, maybe most, we tend to sneak up on death a little at a time. In many instances the mind goes first and the body stays healthy for years afterward, and even when the body begins to fail, medicine offers all kinds of ways to keep it "alive" (now using the word carelessly) in a persistent vegetative state for a very long time.

But these are not questions we will resolve today. My guess is they will never be answered in my lifetime, and likely not for generations yet to come. But in the meantime we are faced with irrational fears that the matter is about to be snatched from our democratic hands by sinister forces over which we have no control. The reality that we live in a system by which elected representatives, subject to being fired in the next election. are sent off to Washington to do our bidding. 

Regarding Euthanasia, Terri Schiavo and Nancy Cruzon

Discussions of both euthanasia and assisted suicide are appropriate, perhaps even timely. But they have nothing to do with legislation being discussed in Washington. If America has not at this point been able to standardize the drinking age all over the country, how in the world can any legislation even come close to mandating or even enabling euthanasia?

If and when that day comes, the road will be rough and contentious, not something that comes about during the Blue Dog Days of August. Four years ago, following the grandstanding of Washington in passing a special law, pandering for political gain, the US Congress convened for a special session called by a Republican president for the sole purpose of passing a federal law aimed at prolonging the life of Terry Schiavo. Wikipedia has this account of what came to be called the Palm Sunday Compromise.

On March 19, [2005] congressional leaders announced that they were drafting a bill which would transfer the case from state court to federal court. In the very early hours of March 21, Congress approved emergency legislation. Despite an absence of a quorum, the Senate approved the bill (S. 686 CPS) by voice vote on Palm Sunday, March 20. The bill passed unanimously and no formal record of the vote was made. (In reality, the three Senators present, Bill Frist (R-TN), Rick Santorum (R-PA), and Mel Martinez (R-FL) voted for the bill and the remaining 97 Senators were not present.) The bill was received in the House of Representatives at 9:02 p.m., and deliberation continued during the unusual Sunday session. When it came to a vote, the motion was passed 203-58 (156 Republicans and 47 Democrats in favor, 5 Republicans and 53 Democrats against), with 174 Representatives (74 Republicans and 100 Democrats) not present on the floor at the time of the vote. The vote concluded at 12:41 a.m. EST; President Bush returned from vacation at his Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas to Washington, D.C. and signed the bill at 1:11 a.m. when it became Public Law 109-3.

I expect the current legislation to generate even more political kabuki than we have already seen. Even at this late date I hold out hope for civil compromises that do not torpedo either the letter or the spirit of the legislation, which is to reform how insurance is done in America and how the serious improvements to Medicare and Medicaid can be enacted. Whatever happens, however, it cannot possibly come close to the tawdry show of the US Congress at that time just four years ago.

Prior to that the Florida legislature has passed what was called "Terri's Law" attempting to intervene in the matter in the same way. That was unconstitutional on the face of it, and it was shot down accordingly by a Florida judge. On appeal that ruling was supported in Atlanta by a concurring opinion by Judge Stanley Birch. His opinion should not be forgotten.

��the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers� blueprint for the governance of a free people � our Constitution�I conclude that �Terri�s Law� is unconstitutional�when the fervor of political passion moves the Executive and Legislative branches to act in ways inimical to basic constitutional principles, it is the duty of the judiciary to intervene. If sacrifices to the independence of the judiciary are permitted today, precedent is established for the constitutional transgressions of tomorrow.�

How many times do they have to learn the same lesson? Or more to the point, is it any wonder that ordinary people fail to trust elected representatives when they are subjected to so many mixed signals from them? It's a great blessing to have checks and balances, but when the three branches of government are so much at odds, how are the citizens to make sense of what is happening?

The Nancy Cruzon case several years earlier illustrates how long, slow and contentious these issues move along the judicial highway. Left in a persistent vegetative state following an auto accident in 1983, she was kept alive by the medical community despite her parent' clear wishes that she be allowed to die. The law made no provision for that to happen in the absence of clear instructions from the victim, so she was kept alive nearly eight more years. Her tombstone is inscribed...

NANCY BETH CRUZAN
MOST LOVED
DAUGHTER - SISTER - AUNT
BORN JULY 20, 1957

DEPARTED JAN 11, 1983

AT PEACE DEC 26, 1990

Between that time and the Terri Schiavo case legal questions regarding how we regard death and dying may have inched forward a bit, but even to this day there is no national consensus. It is doubtful that any will be reached in our lifetime, but one fact is clear. No national legislation is about to touch this fragile and contentious issue and anyone who says otherwise is only trying to distract the conversation with the same ridiculous maneuver as someone years ago saying, "Okay, but would you want your sister to marry one???"