This story ran in the Boston Globe on Sunday:

Haleigh Poutre, 11, clings to life in a hospital bed, her body sustained by
breathing machines and feeding tubes.

The state, which now has legal custody of the child, wants to terminate her
life support, citing medical tests that show she will never recover.

Her stepfather has launched a legal battle to keep her alive.

But more than Haleigh’s future hinges on the outcome. The stepfather, Jason
Strickland, 32, is accused of taking part in a savage beating that left the girl
in a vegetative state and dependent on life support.

And if she dies, he could be charged with murder.

That fact has some people in this sprawling Western Massachusetts community
questioning the stepfather’s motivation to prolong Haleigh’s life.

”Either he’s acting as a caring, loving father," said Westfield police
detective Michael McCabe, ”or he worries that if she dies, the charges
change."

     An awful situation certainly.  But I raise it here because if we think about this case in contrast to the Terri Schiavo case (which I assume everyone is familiar with) I believe we will be able to see how an ethical consideration drawn from ancient Chinese thought might be more flexible, yet still humane, than the usual pro-life v. right-to-die debate in the US.

    In the Schiavo case (for a timeline and access to documents see Abstract Appeal), the family was split on what to do: her husband wanted to allow her to die, her parents wanted to keep her alive.  Pro-life advocates lined up behind the parents; right-to-die advocates supported the husband.  There seemed to be no way to bring the two sides together.

   In my reading of the Schiavo case (and I am working on a longer piece that develops these ideas), I believe that a Taoist perspective would have come to the conclusion to let her die (base especially on Chuang Tzu’s acceptance of death) and a Confucian perspective would have agree to keep her alive (based on the parent’s claim that they would have cared for her).

   In the Poutre case, I can imagine (though I have not seen media reports of this sort) that right-to-life advocates would argue that her feeding tube should not be removed (she is also on a respirator and, I believe, the Catholic Church’s position would allow for such a machine to be turned off).  The right-to-die advocates would raise the same questions they did with Terri Schiavo: would she have wanted to live this way?  Although there might be some ground for compromise between the usual US arguments, I think there is more from the Taoist and Confucian points of view.

    Taoists and Confucians would likely agree in this case that she should be allowed to die.  A Taoist view would be essentially the same as the Schiavo case: she is at the end of her life, however terrible the conditions that brought it about, and all should yield to that ending.  Confucians would agree, in this case, I believe, because the father, having caused her death, has failed to live up to the role of father – which requires "cherishing the young" – and, therefore, he has no standing to decide what should happen.  If he faces a stiffer sentence because of her death, then that is his own responsibility for failing in his social duties. 

    I know this interpretation of Confucius is contrary to historical practice of Chinese family law, with its staunch patriarchy.  But I believe it is a faithful adaptation of the core Confucian principles of Humanity and Duty in a modern context.

    The difference here between the ancient Chinese and the typical American forms of ethical reasoning is this: if Haleigh Poutre’s medical condition was the same as Terri Schiavo’s (i.e. no respirator), US right-to-life advocates would almost certainly demand that she be kept alive; but a modern Confucian perspective would look at the social context, and especially the failed father, and say she should be allowed to die. 

   If anyone has further thoughts on the matter I would be most interested in hearing them…

   Update: Wizbang blogged this a few days ago.