In a comment on “Alas” last month, TZ and I had this exchange:
Amp: “What I haven’t seen is an explanation of how a woman who, according to cat scans, lacks the physical capability to have thought or emotion or feeling or experience, can be said to be having any sort of life.”?
TZ: “You’re making a statement on a highly complex clinical issue about which even experts in this matter disagree.”
It has not been established that “experts” do disagree. At her own (extremely good) blog, TZ writes:
Seventeen medical experts have reportedly filed affidavits questioning whether Terri Schindler-Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and supporting the need for additional neurological, neuropsychological, and other testing of her abilities, particularly with new technologies.
The affidavits are available on the web at Terri’s family’s website. Here’s a quotation from one of them: “She obviously is not in a vegetative state.”
“17 experts” certainly sounds impressive. Yet, if you visit creationist websites, you can find many more than 17 “experts” claiming that Darwinistic evolution couldn’t have happened. That doesn’t mean that it’s true that experts disagree about Darwinistic evolution; it just means that sometimes unqualified people claim to be experts, or advocates misunderstand or misrepresent what experts say.
The quote TZ provides is from Dr. David Hopper. Dr. Hopper does not comment on Terri’s cat scans at all; this is rather like someone arguing gravity doesn’t exist but not commenting on the issue of how it is everything tends to stick to the ground. He doesn’t disagree with the most essential evidence in Terri’s case; he ignores the evidence altogether.
Although Hopper claims to have a doctorate “in neuroscience” on his website, in his under-oath affidavit his only claimed Ph.D. is in counseling psychology. According to the bibliography he provides, he’s never had any research published in specialized neuroscience journals. In fact, apart from some allegedly “in press” articles, he hasn’t published anything in over a decade – and the majority of his publications before that point appeared in Somnology, a journal edited by – what a coincidence! – Dr. David Hopper. (Somnology, by the way, is the study of sleep disorders.)
Dr. Hopper is the sort of faux-expert who makes a big deal of being listed in a bunch of “Who’s Who’s” directories – never mentioning that virtually anyone can be in “Who’s Who” if they write a check to the publisher. He collects certifications – however lame most of them are – like they were baseball cards (hilariously, he reproduces 20 or 30 mostly irrelevant wall-decoration certificates and degrees with his affidavit). For most of the past decade his main academic position has been high school science teacher. There’s nothing wrong with teaching in high school, but it’s not a position held by actual experts in brain science.
* * *
How about the others? None of them apart from Dr. Hopper are ridiculous. However, regarding the specific issue discussed in my and TZ’s exchange, most of them are not experts. There are more speech pathologists and psychologists than there are neurologists. And the most qualified experts in this group, seem to take care not to state an opinion. For example, Dr. Kennedy – arguably the best-qualified neurology expert of the 17 – says that he’s willing to examine Terri with the most modern MRI technology. And that’s all he says.
I’ve read all 17 affidavits. I’m not a doctor, of course. But I know a lot about argumentation and debate. One of the most basic tenets of debate is that you have to address the opposing arguments. These affidavits simply don’t do that; like Dr. Hopper, rather than addressing the most crucial evidence and arguments in this case, they pretend that they don’t exist.
There are two issues here: Terri’s cerebral cortex, and the famous videos of Terri appearing to smile and react to her parents.
1. The Cerebral Cortex Argument.
The conclusion the court came to is that, based on medical testimony and Terri’s CAT scan, her cerebral cortex has basically turned to liquid. The cerebral cortex is the seat of all our higher brain functions. Without a cerebral cortex, it is impossible for a human being to experience thought, emotions, consciousness, pain, pleasure, or anything at all; nor, barring a miracle, is it possible for a patient lacking a cerebral cortex to recover.
There are only two logical responses to that argument, that I can think of.
A) An expert could argue that someone can experience consciousness without a cerebral cortex.
B) An expert could argue that Terri’s CAT scan was faulty, or was not read correctly.
Not one of the 17 experts clearly made either of the above arguments. Nor did they make some other argument I didn’t think of. In fact, none of them mentioned the term “cerebral cortex” at all. None of them even referred directly to Terri’s CAT scan.
Many of the 17 pointed out that there are more subtle tests than a CAT scan or MRI (several recommended an fMRI). However, it does not require a subtle test to detect that someone’s cerebral cortex is mostly liquid; nor do any of the experts suggest that a CAT scan is incapable of distinguishing between liquid and solid. (On the contrary, Dr. Uszler – an expert on medical scanning technology – states that “CAT scans are good for examining anatomy”).
None of the experts argued that any mental life is possible sans cerebral cortex. None of them argued that Terri’s CAT scan was inaccurate or misunderstood. Contrary to TZ’s claim, if these 17 affidavits are a fair sampling, experts don’t disagree about these matters.
However, two of the 17 – Dr Weidman and Dr. Uszler – addressed the cerebral cortex argument obliquely.
Dr. Uszler says that he hasn’t examined Terri, and has no opinion one way or the other about her case. He does say that “CAT scans are good for examining anatomy, but they do not tell you about brain function.”
That’s doubtless true in many cases, but in Terri’s case the CAT scan shows that her cerebral cortex anatomy has liquefied. It would be bizarre to claim that a CAT scan can accurately show that brain anatomy is essentially absent, but cannot support a claim that absent anatomy isn’t functioning. Nothing in Dr. Uszler’s comments addreses the specifics of Terri’s case, or argues that someone who lacks a cerebral cortex could possibly recover higher brain functions; nor does he argue that the CAT scan already done of Terri has been misunderstood or is faulty.
Dr. Weidman also addresses the question of the CAT scan, pointing out that his mother had cognitive functioning even after CAT scans showed “a significant decline in gray matter.” However, there’s a big difference between a “decline in gray matter” and a near-total liquidization. Unless Dr. Weidman’s mother’s CAT scan shows a cerebral cortex as destroyed as Terri’s – and he doesn’t claim it did – then the comparison simply doesn’t address the question of how someone without a cerebral cortex could possibly recover higher brain functions.
2. Those Famous Video Clips of Terri
So if none of the 17 experts address the cerebral cortex issue, what do they talk about? None of these experts have examined Terri, and only one claims to have looked at her medical records. What they discuss is the famous videos of Terri apparently tracking a balloon’s movement with her eyes, smiling at her mother, and so forth.
The court ruling addressed those videos. Although the out-of-context video snips featured on the terrisfight.org website, and on TV newscasts, seem to show Terri reacting to things around her, the full, uncut video shows Terri smiling and moving her eyes at random. In one instance, her eyes appear to track a balloon; that short sequence has been shown over and over. What they don’t show is the many failed attempts made to get Terri to follow the balloon. With clever editing, even random motions and reflexes – such as smiling and eye movements – can seem conscious. The intelligence and cognition on display isn’t Terri’s, but the film editor’s.
This is a well-known argument, brought up by past expert witnesses and relied on by Judge Greer in his decision. Yet not one of the 17 experts address this argument at all. Not one of the 17 experts reports having viewed the uncut films of Terri (and I doubt any of them did); in fact, several of them specify that they viewed the short clips available on the internet or seen on TV.
These 17 affidavits do not respond, in any way at all, to the court’s reasoning regarding the videos of Terri. Again, rather than addressing essential arguments, they simply pretend they don’t exist.
* * *
Obviously, I am not a medical expert. But you don’t have to be a doctor to understand that you can’t refute an argument if you don’t address it. These 17 expert opinions do not address any of the arguments for why Terri experiences no cognition, feelings or thoughts at all; nor do they address the court’s reasoning regarding the videos. They do nothing but repeat long-discredited arguments; which is great if the goal is to be able to say “look, 17 doctors say blah blah blah,” but not useful if the goal is to meaningfully discuss Terri’s medical condition.
UPDATE: Majikthise has more criticism of the 17 affidavits.
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: Pandagon
I believe you meant “One of the most basic tenets of debate”, not “One of the most basic tenants of debate”.
[Thanks! Correction made! –Amp]
Aw, you deleted the ipod scam spam!
For me, the value of the affidavits is that they make a case for two things: re-examination and retesting. I have no personal knowledge of Terri’s case; however, it would seem to me that it is more reasonable and prudent to test a person with currently available technologies — to exhaust every avenue — before deciding to take the person’s life. In a simple cost-versus-benefits analysis, testing has more advantages than imminent death with out them, and no harm is done by the testing.
If new tests do not demonstrate that she is not in a PVS, then there would, of course, for some, be less to argue about. Then, again, if you read my “nature of the person post,” you might see how I have discussed whether Terri’s life is worth arguing for regardless of her particular cognitive capacity. I am, of course, quite wary of valuing human life by measures of cognitive capacity and function. To do so is to buy into the monist belief that we are nothing more than the sum of our working parts. I have ethical issues with that stance.
I think one matter is particularly notable in this case, which is that Terri’s life circumstances have galvanized the nation — perhaps the world — around a number of issues, many of which are moral in nature. Many people now care about what happens to Terri. I care, not because I want to see one moral argument trump another; I care because, fundamentally, all persons deserve our respect and care.
The difficulty for the state, of course, is that it does not operate within a moral framework beyond that of established law, and Terri’s case, if it is about anything at all, is about morality, even moreso than cognition, and that, of course, is the main reason why it has galvanized the opinions of so many.
Even if she had no higher brain function at all, even if the best medico-ethical arguments were made in favour of her life being ended, many people would still not want to see her ordered to death, particularly in the manner set to occur March 18, 2005. Personally, I wouldn’t let my dog die in that manner, and that, for me, is just one of the reasons her case has captured my attention.
With warmest regards,
tz
It’s the PRECEDENT it sets, NOT Jeb’s dubious involvement, NOT the right-to-lifers’ involvement, or Michael Schiavo’s dubious “saintliness” that’s the issue.
I have YET to read ONE coherent argument in favor of Schiavo having his wife killed by starvation. NOT one.
And this is from somebody who is pro-choice on abortion, but this case stinks to high heaven on the part of the “husband.”
With all due respect, TZ, the Terri Schiavo case has been going on for many years. The medical issues have been carefully examined in not just one, but two trials. There is no question of rushing Terri to her death; on the contrary, her condition and the questions surrounding her treatment have been given more examination than that of any other medical patient this decade, with the exception of the Pope.
There really does not seem to be legitimate doubt about Terri’s medical condition. Nor do any of the 17 affidavits suggest any real reason to doubt the tests that have already been done. Instead, the continual call for new treatments seems more like a pretext to delay the court’s decision from ever being carried out.
You say “no harm” is done. But if (and I realize this is a big “if”) the court was correct that Terri would not have wished to have her body kept alive indefinitely, then neverending delays do harm to the principle that her wishes should be respected. It’s quite possible that Terri would have found the idea of her body being kept alive and moving for over a decade after she had died to be grotesque (I’d certainly find the thought of my being treated that way grotesque).
Am I absolutely certain that the court’s decision was correct? No, I’m not. But since making a decision is unavoidable, we need some means of deciding; and a trial with advocates on both sides making their best case seems to me to be the most legitimate decision-making mechanism we have available to us, in our system.
Then how is it acceptable to ever say that anyone is dead, under any circumstances at all? There is no way of determining death apart from reference to the physical parts.
Would I put a dog down by starvation? No, of course not; there are humane and virtually painless ways of putting a dog down, when necessary, and I’m extremely grateful for that. However, the reason I feel that way is that dogs are capable of suffering. Terri Schiavo has not been capable of suffering for many years.
Terri Schiavo has not been capable of suffering for many years.
If this is true, then there is no harm being done in letting the shell of her body live on, regardless of its condition or quality of life.
If you genuinely believe that her life is over and she is deceased, then from your point of view she is, essentially, property – and the dispute is over who gets to dispose of the property, her parents or her husband. The complication to the dispute is that one side appears to think that the property in question is a human being.
That being the case, the appropriate resolution would be for Terri’s husband and parents negotiate over the status of the property. Unless, as a leftist, you subscribe to the notion that people with a greater moral claim to a particular piece of property should get it. In which case, I would think that you’d be on her parents’ side of this dispute.
“It’s quite possible that Terri would have found the idea of her body being kept alive and moving for over a decade after she had died to be grotesque (I’d certainly find the thought of my being treated that way grotesque).”
You are correct in saying that the above statement is a big “if.” It’s tempting to think about how we, personally, might want or not want to be treated in Terri’s situation. On the other hand, the only overtly documented evidence of how she lived her life and what she might have wished to have happen is her personal choice for faith and morality. One of the reasons that a large question mark forms in my mind with regard to claims about her “wish” to die is that it appears to be morally inconsistent with how she lived her life premorbidly.
I, personally, would be inclined to examine whether the morality of the guardian appears to match that of the vulnerable person. Unfortunately, the test is not perfect because moralities can change. However, we at least do know something about her premorbid belief system, and it might be appropriate to use that as a guideline for whether people who now are speaking on her behalf are respecting how she lived her life previously.
I want to add one further point. I think I’ve stated this before here, but I think it’s important to reiterate that determination of PVS is extremely complex and not something that can be solved through socratic dialogue, rationalizing, or philosophizing. Your question about how to determine if a person is dead other than by “physical parts” is reductive in this instance because Terri Schiavo, in fact, is not dead, nor is she actively dying. She merely is being sustained by food and hydration through a tube due to alleged swallowing dysfunction. I would not consider that “artificial life support,” but apparently someone in Florida sought fit to lobby for that type of change in the law.
A coherent argument in favor of allowing Michael Schiavo to control his wife’s treatment – including allowing her body to die by starvation.
1) As much as possible, Terri’s treatment should be based on Terri’s decisions. No decision of Terri’s should be overturned or ignored lightly.
2) If Terri had made any direct decisions about this matter (e.g., a living will), we should respect those decisions. But she did not.
3) Since Terri did not decide what is to be done in this case, someone other than Terri will need to decide.
4) Terri did decide who should decide for her when she can’t decide for herself. By marrying Michael, she decided to make him her legal guardian should she ever be unable to take care of, speak for, or make decisions for herself.
5) We cannot put someone other than Michael in charge of controlling Terri’s treatment without ignoring or overturning the decision Terri made to make Michael Schiavo her closest relation. But (see premise 1) Terri’s decisions should not be overturned or ignored.
Therefore, Michael should be in charge of Terri’s medical care -including the decision to allow her body to die.
* * *
You might not agree with that argument, but it’s coherent.
I’d be more at ease making this argument, frankly, if it were Michael who was in a vegetative state and Terri who were trying to have his body put to rest. I’m aware that my argument can be misinterpreted as a “husband owns the wife” argument. But I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of what I’m saying; the proposition that one’s decisions in life (including who one chooses to marry) ought to be respected is sex-neutral.
Like you, I’m concerned about precedent. But what I see as problematic is the president that if the usual legal decision-making procedures lead to an outcome the Christian Right disagrees with, then our usual decision-making procedures should be chucked out the window. I’m concerned about the precedent that our individual moral decisions should only be allowed when they don’t conflict with fundimentalist Christian theology.
I also see a problem with the anti-science president set by all this; it’s not a coincidence that the claim that Terri can recover is coming from the same people who brought us creationism, “there is no such thing as global warming” and “breast cancer is caused by abortion.”
Finally, I agree with you that Michael’s character isn’t the issue here (I’ve never called him a saint!). But whether or not he stinks to high heaven isn’t the issue, either. Unless there’s very strong evidence against him – not just speculation – I don’t think ignoring Terri’s choice for guardian is justified.
I read statements like this on your blog, and I’m frankly amazed at how confident you seem to be that you know what Terri’s beliefs were better than Michael possibly could, and better than a court which heard from many witnesses possibly could.
As I said earlier, it seems to me that the best way our society has of resolving unresolvable conflicts like “what would Terri have wanted,” if our usual decision-making mechanisms have somehow broken down, is to allow advocates on both sides to present their best case in a courtroom. That has been done, and the view you express here has been presented in great detail to a judge. The court came to a decision you personally disagree with, but you haven’t explained why the decision-making process was illegitimate, or what a better decision-making process would be, in your view.
You’re right. It’s something that can be solved through looking at CAT scans, which show unambiguously that she has no cerebral cortex to speak of, and is therefore in a permanent vegetative state.
Your response to that fact is to engage in unashamed rationalization and philosophizing to try and get around it (i.e., “to do so is to buy into the monist belief that we are nothing more than the sum of our working parts”). I think that questioning to your rationalizations and philosophical arguments with more of the same is legitimate; and I’m not in agreement with your “philosophical arguments are fine when they support my beliefs, but are dismissable when they don’t” approach.
Edited to add: I’m concerned that the tone of this post may seem too harsh. I disagree with you, but I’ve got a lot of respect for you; sorry if that didn’t come through in my tone.
I see two harms. First of all, there’s the harm done to the principle that Terri’s decisions (including her decision to marry Michael, making him her legal guardian if tragedy occured) ought to be respected. Second, there’s harm done to the principle that we should be legally allowed to make moral decisions that contradict evangelical Christian moral values.
It’s pretty ugly the way that parents and their supporters demonize Michael. However, I suppose it’s necessary to hold up their point of view, otherwise they would have to consider the pain it puts you through to watch a spouse rot in a hospital bed for god knows how long. I know people who’ve been through it–it does a number on you. Finality causes grief but at least it allows the grief process to begin, which I guess is what the parents are trying to avoid.
Taking away the right of a husband to make a decision for his wife does more to undermine traditional marriage than gays ever could.
That said, I’ll make a few other points.
In every instance (if I’m not mistaken) where this case has gone before a judge who has seen ALL of the evidence, Michael Schiavo has prevailed.
Unless you believe the latest stories coming from her parents, Terri Schiavo had an eating disorder. Eating disorders are all about control. In that context, I shudder to think how she would feel about her situation today.
I can only pray that if I were in Terri’s position, my husband would care enough about me to allow me to die. Michael Schiavo has absolutely no reason to continue this fight except that he thinks he’s doing the right thing for Terri. He could turn over her care to her parents today, move away and be done with her if he were not concerned with carrying out her wishes. (For those who want to argue that he wants the malpractice settlement, you obviously don’t know how much nursing care costs).
Another thing, people die of starvation every day. When my father-in-law was ready to die (a year after suffering a stroke), he simply refused food and liquid. This is a natural part of the dying process for lots of people.
And finally, where is the faith of Terri’s family. If they are as religious as they proclaim, why do they hang on so fiercely to having her live on in this world. Shouldn’t they want to release her to go on to the next where she is free of pain and suffering? I say that as a deeply religious person, not as a cynic.
“I read statements like this on your blog, and I’m frankly amazed at how confident you seem to be that you know what Terri’s beliefs were better than Michael possibly could, and better than a court which heard from many witnesses possibly could.”
It’s difficult to make any definitive statements about her case because none of us are parties to it. However, based on what I have read about the case, it does seem disturbing that there is such a split between the husband/in-law camp and the biological family/close friend camp, particularly in light of recent discussions regarding how the court interpreted information regarding Terri’s views on Karen Ann Quinlan.
One thing that troubles me about your arguments in this matter is your ongoing reference to the premise that “the court already decided that” or “evidence was already presented.” In this particular case, I believe we could, as a society, commit a real injustice by failing to reconsider whether what was done in the past was, in fact, the best that could have been done for this woman.
First of all, there’s the harm done to the principle that Terri’s decisions (including her decision to marry Michael, making him her legal guardian if tragedy occured) ought to be respected.
To clarify:
The rationale of the Florida court’s decision was that the evidence showed that Terri Schiavo would have wanted termination of nutrition, etc., based on testimony by Michael Schiavo and other witnesses that she had made statements to that effect before she was stricken. (Her parents testified that she would would have wanted continued nutrition, etc.) The court ruled that the evidence showed that her wishes were in accord with Michael Schiavo’s position, not her parents’ position.
(Florida law is very clear that living wills or other written documents are not required; you can establish an incapacitated person’s wishes by testimony alone.)
In short, the rule of law that was applied is that Terri Schiavo should be treated in accordance with what the evidence shows her wishes would have been. That’s different from a rule that Terri Schiavo should be treated in accordance with the wishes of the person whom Terri chose to make decisions for her.
This isn’t really about whether Terri Schiavo is aware. It’s about the problem that, to all appearances, her husband took money that was meant for her rehabilitation and used it to find himself a girlfriend and start a new life the second Terri died, and nobody wants to see him get away with it.
Mythago, he didn’t start a new life the second Terri died (not sure how you are calculating her death date). Terri was PVS for something like five or six years before Michael began to believe that she would not recover. He took her to California when he heard of an innovative program there. I think he even took a nursing course so he could care for her without subjecting her to the usual secondary effects of being bedridden. She has never had bedsores. His in-laws actually encouraged him to begin dating. They never had a bad word for him until he changed his mind about life support. This is all in the Florida record.
He could start a new life now, I can’t believe there’s much if anything left of the malpractice recovery. So that just doesn’t seem like a plausible explanation for what’s happening. It’s certainly not the most likely, in my judgment.
The hardest thing about this case is that the court relied principally upon the testimony of Michael’s relatives in determining Terri’s wishes. This makes me very nervous. On the other hand, I have to say that even if Michael is misguided I think that he is sincere in his belief that this is what Terri would want. I feel the same way about the parents though, as they have said themselves, they don’t want Terri to be taken off life support even if that is what she would have wanted. It was honest of them to say so, but it probably didn’t boost their case much.
he didn’t start a new life the second Terri died
I understand, but I’m addressing the public perception–and really, from the court’s or Terri’s parents’ point of view, a husband who has a girlfriend and a child with that girlfriend, and apparently still has money that was not spent on his wife’s rehabilitation, may not be the most credible source for saying “No, she would preferred to have died.”
First I want to thank the host of this blog and the comment posters. This conversation is head and shoulders above what passes for dialogue on most websites.
I would like to extend (or maybe restate) slightly to #9 Ampersand’s argument of why the husband should be allowed to make these decisions. To me it comes down to 3 reasons:
1> As Americans we have the right to control what medical treatments we accept. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, other Christian Science adherents refuse most treatment. The doctor makes recommendations, but in all cases I have the right to make the final decision. Sometimes it may offend others, but we can refuse medical treatment if we wish.
2> Since the early 1990’s (when Nancy Cruzan entered the national psyche) nutrition and hydration pumps have been considered medical treatments and can be refused.
3> If a person is unable to make that decision for him/herself then the court system must try to divine their wishes, giving special consideration to the opinions of those closest to the patient.
This is not really that unusual of a case. Every week hundreds of families have to make the heart rending decision whether or not to end medical treatment of a loved one. Most are older than Terri Schiavo, and most never enter the public consciousness. If you believe this is being decided incorrectly, I challenge you to come up with a different construct that will allow families all over the country to make the decisions for their loved ones without huge intrusions by the local constabulary into their private grief.
Susan S says: “Taking away the right of a husband to make a decision for his wife does more to undermine traditional marriage than gays ever could.”
Yeah, because we all know that only men and women can make decisions for each other. Those damn queers shouldn’t be able to make the same decisions for their loved ones…
alkali wrote:
Well, yes and no. The reason the trial was held is that Michael – recognizing that he appeared to have a conflict of interest – petitioned for a trial to determine what Terri’s wishes would have been. The court virtually automatically granted this request, because it came from Terri’s legal guardian; they might not have granted the request had it come from another sourse. But Terri’s chosen guardian still made the decision, in a sense – in this case, her chosen guardian made the decision to have a trial to determine what Terri would have wanted.
I’d be happy with either form of decision-making, “Terri’s chosen guardian decides” or “court decides what Terri’s wishes might have been.” Both those decision-making models are based on the idea that Terri’s choices – even if we can only determine them in a fragmented, indirect or unreliable fashion – should guide her treatment and fate. It’s an imperfect method, but no one that I’ve seen has suggested any better method of decision-making.
TZ may be an exception, but in general I think many of the folks who oppose Terri’s death would oppose anyone being allowed to choose to die, ever – even if there were a living will, or even if the person was conscious and in sound mind and wanted to die. It’s a position based, for most of those folks, in a religious belief in the sanctity of human life – not in a belief in letting people choose their own paths.
Yeah, because we all know that only men and women can make decisions for each other. Those damn queers shouldn’t be able to make the same decisions for their loved ones…
Q Grrl, did you read Susan S’s comments as implying that? I ask because I read them as implying something much closer to the opposite. Something like: “the people who are raising the bullshit specter of gay marriage undermining traditional marriage are the same people who want to apparently eliminate the ability of spouses to make decisions for one another, which is far more harmful to ‘traditional marriage’ than gay marriage would ever be.”
—Myca
Yes, this is the position of Terri’s parents, as I said above, and it did not sit well with the court. They would oppose removing life support even if the evidence indisputably showed that Terri would have wanted to remove life support. I agree with Buckland that the process utilized in this case was eminently fair, I just get a little queasy that the only evidence of Terri’s wishes came from parties with an arguable bias. However, I don’t know these people personally, and it may very well be that they would never lie on behalf of Michael Schiavo, especially about something with such grave consequences.
Myca, thanks, you read me right.
What would have ‘indisputably shown’ Terri Schiavo’s wishes would have been a living will or medical directive, prepared while she was alive; it’s very unfortunate (to say the least) that she did not have one.
Absolutely agreed, Mythago.
even terrisfight.org acknowledges there is no more than $50,000 left in the trust, so monetary conflicts are not an issue at this point
the girlfriend issue is similarly specious – the parents did not just acquiesce, but actively encouraged the husband to date again, as they freely admit, as a tactic to get him to relinquish guardianship.
since they chose that approach they hardly can claim it is a conflict of interest. the courts have agreed repeatedly that it is not a sufficient conflict to remove the husband as guardian
remember, it does not matter at this point whom is guardian.
the decision to remove the feeding tube stands as an independent ajudication of Terri’s wishes.
unless successfully challenged, when all stays expire (good luck), whomever is guardian is compelled by court order to remove the feeding tube
since the parents and related family testified they would not remove the feeding tube, no matter Terri’s wishes, they have no chance of ever being guardian for her
even if the Florida DCF chooses to ignore the court’s order and chooses to take Terri into protective custody, they do not have the authority to appoint a guardian.
nor can they prevent the removal of the feeding tube, unless the appellate court so orders
I noticed Barbara said Terri has never had bedsores.
Dr. Wolfson, in his December 2003 report as guardian ad litem, also notes that, which he attributes to her husband’s attentiveness to her care.
however, shortly after that report, she did indeed develop one, which fortunately was resolved.
it is important to emphasize that Terri is not getting better, but is having all the complications we would expect for someone in her debilitated condition
she has also had at least one episode of pneumonia, in 2003 as well.
but ultimately, there is very little objective medical information now coming out about her condition.
we probably have HIPAA to thank for that.
one of the more recent complaints the parents have made was that whenever they went to visit Terri, she had a new hospital bracelet on, and no one would tell them why
oral antibiotics could easily be administered via her feeding tube
if she has to go to the hospital for whatever is happening, it suggests serious complications are even now occurring, though we as the public have little chance of ever knowing what they are
it should not surprise anyone to read one morning that Terri had died the previous night, as the result of aspiration pneumonia, or sepsis from an infected bedsore
even with the money he spent on his care, the lowly bedsore claimed Christopher Reeve
Tom Delay says, “Terri doesn’t want to die.” I really wonder how he knows this.
Additionally, for those who say that the only thing that Terri cannot do by herself is to eat and drink (therefore she needs her “feeding tube”) no one has addressed the issue of how she deficates and urinates.
I really don’t think that’s relevant or important, Joe. Everyone knows that Terri Schiavo requires help to deficate (and also to avoid bed sores, and many other things); it is not an “issue” that requires addressing.
There are many people who lead great, worthwhile lives while requiring assitance going to the bathroom, eatiing, etc.. That’s not in dispute, and it’s not (or shouldn’t be) part of the issue when considering the Terri Schiavo case.
Pingback: crayz.org » Schiavo
I find all of this incredible. Lawmakers are clearly wasting taxpayer money on a person’s choice to refuse treatment. It ahs long been established that a person can refuse treatment at any point. It’s not a right to live or a right to die issue. That is why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, because that pecident has long been set. Her husband has the legal authority to make the decision to stop treatment, because she cannot make that decision for herself. You may not like him for how he has lived his life, but the fact remains he is her legal representative.
“”A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It’s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke…Attorney George Felos has claimed that Terri’s cerebral cortex has “liquefied,”? and doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri’s cerebral cortex “have been replaced by fluid.”? The problem with such contentions is that the available evidence can’t support them. Dr. Zabiega explained that “a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed”? to make such a pronouncement: “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.”? Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.”? Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive”? brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal”? MRI.” Massive damage would make her require much more life support than a simple feeding tube.
This quote contradicts your analysis, or rather, your conclusions. Your analysis seems to support the idea that if CT/CAT scans lack the resolution to determine “liquefication” then another conclusion is required.
The quote comes from a conservative mag article. Honestly, I myself doubt whether all the facts are straight in this piece, but even if there is severe bias, I’m impressed that the quotes are from among “50 board certified neurologists”–including professors of neurology at major universities and a nobel-nominated neurologist. They all say more tests are needed.
These aren’t just pundits. And concerning bias, the doctor the court has relied on most is not independent, but was hired by the husband’s attorney, AND is a leading advocate of the right to die movement who has misdiagnosed multiple patients as PVS in the past. He’s the one who says the CAT scan shows what neurologists say CAT scans can’t show in this case, that the cortex is shot. This is the guy you’ve been relying on for your “unbiased” opinions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp
Pingback: feministe » More On Schiavo
“4) Terri did decide who should decide for her when she can’t decide for herself. By marrying Michael, she decided to make him her legal guardian should she ever be unable to take care of, speak for, or make decisions for herself.”
People make mistakes. Perhaps after the honeymoon wore off, Michael turned out not to be the person she thought he was? Happens to the best of ’em.
“Second, there’s harm done to the principle that we should be legally allowed to make moral decisions that contradict evangelical Christian moral values.”
You don’t have to be an evangelical Christian to think Terri should live, but that’s not the point. Some decisions affect more than just the person making it (we all know what George Felos will do with the publicity). I worry that anyone who is considered burdensome or somehow less than human — whether that’s babies, Jews, disabled people, whatever — could become fair game; my faith in this country is pretty much my only reassurance.
On a tangent…
…”there is no such thing as global warming”? and “breast cancer is caused by abortion.”?
I think that’s a bit unfair to conservatives…the question is not whether global warming exists (the planet has warmed and cooled since it came into existence, in other words, without our help), it’s whether humans can do a damn thing about it. And the claim was not that abortion causes breast cancer, only that it increases the risk.
observer, a lot of the things that you mentioned are factually correct, but either incomplete or not relevant to the Schiavo case. Ischemic brain injury is tough (often impossible) to see on a CT — that’s true. However, ischemic brain injury is generally followed by a process known as liquefactive necrosis — turning the brain to liquid. That is absolutely visible on a CT. This is the case with Terry Schiavo. Her brain injury would probably not have been visible immediately following her ishemic event, but the results of necrosis would become visible within days, and would certainly be evident now.
Many people in a PVS do have rather normal appearing scans. That’s not the case with Terry Schiavo. She is not merely brain damaged; she has no cerebral cortex. The fact that there are other people in a PVS who do not have the same level of brain damage does not say anything about Terry Schiavo’s state.
I am horrified by the Political challenge to fundamental US constitutional rights for a husband to make the ultimate decisions for his wife – It is no business of other family members and certainly no business of the government – Unless you agree that the Government should have a right to meddle in you choice of medical treatment this congressional action based on an uninformed emotional response should be challenged and quashed; just as quite rightly the highest court in the country has refused to get involved. How can this view be voiced ?
This is a photo of Terri’s scan they used in the original 2000 trial showing a very large dark area where Terri’s cerebral cortex used to reside. It’s now filled with cerebral/spinal fluid.
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png
Terri no longer has a cerebral cortex. what little showed up in the scan, as very light areas, has since deteriotated further because that is what happens to vegitative people.
They need to let her body die ASAP like she did 15 years ago.
I am so outraged by this congressional action that I need to respond somewhere. My wife just had surgery and as standard procedure she had a living will. She’s fine but I was honor bond to not resesitate by her wishes even at the risk of offending her relatives. So is Michael Schiavo. Bond till death do you part.
Bottom line: We don’t know of she is in there. Neither position can be villified, because we all go on what we think is happening.
Caution, and ethical prudence demand that we err on the side of hope, and keep her alive. I don’t, however, think that euthanasia supporters have anything but her best interests in mind. This is just a very tough decision.
Who are we to say anyone’s life has no value? As long as extraordinary means are not required to keep Terry alive, I don’t see the harm in feeding her. Even if the euthanasia supporters are right, and she experiences nothing, then it won’t hurt her.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA) ON THE CASE OF TERRI SCHIAVO
FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 2005
March 18, 2005
“I have long been an advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. Many in that community are keenly aware of the risk of incapacitation. In such cases, I believe that every precaution should be taken to learn and respect their desires regarding the removal of life supports.
“Over the last week, I have been working hard, and in good faith with Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), and others to come up with legislation that would allow federal review of the Terri Schiavo case. Yesterday afternoon, we came up with bipartisan measure that did just that and many of my Senate Republican and Democratic colleagues deserve praise for their hard and swift work.
“Unfortunately, the House Republican Leadership refused to take up the bill before sending members home for a two week vacation. There is no excuse for stalling a matter of such an urgent and life threatening nature. They are solely responsible for the consequences Ms. Schiavo and her family now face, as well as for today’s unfortunate events. Congressional action is this area should be based on respect for the wishes and dignity of those who are incapacitated.
“It is my belief that people with disabilities and those who are incapacitated deserve the utmost dignity and respect. I plan to continue to work with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give cases like this an opportunity for further review in federal courts.”?
–30–
The only scans that have been done on Terri Schiavo were CAT scans, rather than the more sophisticated MRI and PET scans that should have been done. Here’s what some prominent neurologists have said about that (this is an excerpt from an article by Reverend Robert Johansen):
[Long quote from National Review article snipped by Amp. I’ve already linked to, and discussed, that article in this post. –Amp]
Oops… Michael Schiavo departed from Felos’s script, and admitted the truth on Larry King Live:
CNN LARRY KING LIVE March 18, 2005
That’s consistent with what he told other people (including a girlfriend) up until the malpractice settlement was awarded (which he stood to inherit): that he didn’t know what Terri’s wishes would be.
It also vindicates guardian ad litem Pearse, who concluded that Michael Schiavo’s claim (to recall conversations with Terri in which she said she’d not want to be kept alive) was not credible.
It also means that a key official conclusion of Judge Greer was wrong. Greer ruled that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Terri had told Michael that she not wish be kept alive with assisted feeding or other support if she were in this condition. But now we know that is untrue, because Michael, himself, has admitted it: Terri did not express a wish to die in circumstances like these.
-Dave
One frequently reported misunderstanding by laypersons is that death by dehydration — NOT starving; if Ms. Schiavo dies after her artificial nutrition and hydration are removed, it will be from dehydration — is somehow cruel or painful.
Indeed, as hospice workers and hospice physicians and nurses will tell you if you interview them (as I have as a journalist, extensively, for many years) that dehydration is actually the most natural death in the world.
Essentially, once there is no more water to process, urination output turns dark, then ceases altogether. Then, toxins begin to build up in the kidneys, and move into other organs and systems. Physicians believe that these toxins even produce an “endorphin effect,” a natural response — sort of nature’s morphine — that paves the way for death.
Meanwhile, hospice workers also will tell you that the people with the most agitation and evident discomfort in dying are those who have been artificially hydrated in a hospital setting before coming to hospice. The medical director of HospiceCare of Boulder and Broomfield Counties in Colorado says that of “thousands” of terminal cases she’s worked with through hospice, those who have been artificially hydrated to extend life are in the most discomfort during the dying process. Such treatment, in such cases, is “not prolonging life,” she says, “but prolonging death.”
I personally have been at bedside for three terminal cases, my brother’s, my father’s, and that of a man about whom I was writing a story on hospice care. The best of the three deaths — i.e. the most peaceful — by far was that of the third man, who consciously rejected all artificial nutrition and hydration. When his body was “ready to go,” it simply rejected the water he tried to drink. Hospice workers kept his lips and mouth moist, but just hours later, he peacefully died. Meanwhile, my father was maintained in a coma, in a brain-damaged condition, with artificial hydration for two and a half weeks; the hydration caused severe edema in his lungs, necessitating suction, and his body bloated beyond all recognition. I had to fight hard to get that “treatment” removed.
The implication that “starving” Terri Schiavo — again, that’s not what would happen — is like denying food to a dog is simply wrong, informed by emotion rather than reality.
Quoting Ampersand, from No. 6, above…
I understand and agree with the “dog bit” of Ampersand’s arguement from 6. above. Starving a dog to death should get you put away for a long time.
However, the unequivocal claim that Terry Schiavo has not been capable of suffering for many years, without even the slightest consideration that this might not be the case, is unnerving. Even a comatose dog lying at side of the road, speculations on the impossibility of recovering from injuries notwithstanding, would be given the benefit of the doubt and put down humanely, not left to die “…like a dog”.
Why doesn’t Terry Schiavo deserve the same unwillingness to take even the most remote chance that death by starvation will be experienced with some degree of sentience, however primitive? Fact is, I don’t believe we know what the body experiences at the unconscious or even cellular level when despite it’s fiercest, most desperate, and still coordinated efforts to retain life, it is denied food and drink.
Consider, for instance, the recent research establishing that the heart is loaded with receptors that respond only to specific ligands, i.e. chemicals originating in the brain. As an organ, it seems the heart has its own way of “feeling”… see “broken heart, “sinking heart”, “heartsick”, etc.
That’s not aerie faerie, that’s not even the Ancients, who thoughts on the subject have survived in dozens of expressions in most languages… that’s today’s science. Do we really know what Terry Schievo’s heart may or may not “know”, as it struggles against purposeful deprivation to continue beating? I believe the answer is “No, we do not.”
Seems to me that at minimum, if we’re determined the deed be done, it’s moral cowardice to “watch” her body fight to the last breath instead of stepping up with a needle and putting it to an end, right now, just as we’d expect from the SPCA on behalf of the lowliest mutt, and for the same reasons.
As a footnote… thanks to everyone who has argued their case on this blog. I may not agree, but respect the thoughtfulness, honesty and passion of most every post.
CB Evans, posting No. 44, provides a harrowing account of hospice death that has the ring of truth. However, it seems to me there is a profound difference that renders it largely irrelevant to Terri Schiavo’s circumstances. Terry Schiavo was not on death’s doorstep, as hopsice patients are, by definition. In fact, quite the opposite… the problem for those who will her death is that her body has been altogether too robustly successful in its efforts to stay alive and support whatever limited mental functioning she maintains. The decision to deny her body food and water is neither a concession to impending death nor an attempt to ease her crossing. Rather, it is a forceful shove across the threshold, and she is unlikely to go gently into that dark night. That’s not emotion, that’s fact.
Hi, Howard. I appreciate your civil disagreement; there’s too little of that in the world today, imo.
You said that “it’s moral cowardice to “watch”? her body fight to the last breath instead of stepping up with a needle and putting it to an end, right now.” But I can understand that sort of moral cowardice; it’s the “cowardice” of people who don’t want to spend the rest of their lives in prison for homocide. Considering that the people in question believe that Terri is already gone and incapable of feeling pain, I think it’s too much to expect that they should be willing to spend life in prison over the exact means of Terri’s death.
I think that the law should allow humans the same mercy we’d show a begrudged pet; a humane shot would be better, for those who are already dead (which I believe is the case with Terri) or (much more so) for those who are in pain and would choose to die. But that’s not going to happen in any realistic political future, alas.
As for the “there is no absolute certainty” objection, I think I answered that in my comment number 6 on this thread, and I stand by what I wrote there.
Hello Ampersand,
Thanks for the reply. If I’d focused more closely, I would have said that it’s our society that stands indicted for “moral cowardice”… when it comes to the innocent, we can apparently accept slow death induced by witholding food and water, but not quick death by injection with which we favour the guilty. Moral equivocation of the first order.
When I listened to the Terri Schiavo tape, I found it quite horrifying. On the other hand, my wife, who has worked for two years as a volunteer with the severely mentally handicapped in the Riding for the Disabled program, she was not horrified at all… many of the youngsters and adults who partake of that program have little or no more ability to express themselves verbally than Terri Schiavo. It’s difficult for the non-familiar to conceive that many of them could receive any pleasurable sensation from contact with a horse… and yet they do… and sometimes express their reaction more eloquently – perhaps sporadic gentle stroking, for instance – than they do with their human caregivers, who see such behaviors on the part of their charges under no other circumstances.
These are people who are either assisted in the saddle, or held there. Their various “positive” reactions on a given day may include hardly any at all, grunting, eyes rolling, babbling… you name it – but they are reacting, sometimes in ways that can’t even be pinned down, but are clearly positive. One woman in her mid-thirties who has been blind and deaf from birth – with a few other problems thrown in for good measure – sits “alert” and confidently, and leans over the horse’s neck to sniff its scent, which seems to give her pleasure. How can she be so clearly confident, when she has never seen, and never heard? Maybe God knows, but I don’t.
Long-term volunteers with these folks learn, often more quickly than they would have expected, to see through the behaviors we would find unbearable from the point of our own wholeness – and to notice and marvel at the courage of life that finds ways to express itself.
I’m not suggesting that there isn’t a qualitative difference between anyone who can sit a horse, however aided, and Terry Schiavo. Nevertheless, she is in a place on a continuum… and here’s my point: I have a virtual certainty that much or most “public opinion” would be quite comfortable making the case, for instance, that a severely deformed thirty-year-old with an always-protruding tongue, rolling eyes and strangled grunts – who communicates “something pleasurable” from placing his now-quieted hands on the neck of a walking horse, led around the arena and supported on both sides… should be done away with for offending our sensibilities with their impossibly compromised humanity.
One problem… to do so, they’d have to get through the laymen – and laywomen, mostly, who have come to see them as individuals in their peculiarities… over their dead bodies as it were. And surely this protectiveness of the life they recognise pales in its intensity besides that of Terri Schiavo’s parents.
If her husband “can’t take it any more”… who would blame him? But if her family – mother, father and brother – are willing to provide the mental and emotional underpinnings to sustain her until she dies a natural death, I for one can’t see why the state sees an urgent need to stop them.
And I’ve got to wonder, once society has got used to the idea, who else will be given a push down the slippery slope.
I would like to respond to two of Howard’s comments:
First, you infer that Terri does not fit the criteria for Hospice because she wasn’t at death’s door. My mom was a Hospice patient for two and a half years. It’s my understanding that the only criteria to become a Hospice patient is that you are terminal and are no longer seeking treatment for whatever illness you are suffering.
Second, you state that by removing the feeding tube from Terri Shiavo, we are going over some “slippery slope.” Hardly. Similar situations to Terri’s are happening in hundreds of hospitals and nursing homes around the country every day. Hers is just being exploited to further the agenda of right wing zealots. My friend’s 85 year old father is presently dying in a nursing home because he is no longer taking in food, and is only swallowing small amounts of water. He isn’t capable of making decisions for himself. Should my friend ask the doctors to insert a feeding tube to keep him alive? Is she going over a “slippery slope” by not doing so?
I am wondering if she will feel pain in the starvation process and if there is not a better way to end this then to let her starve to death.
I for one feel the government is on board to detract from the mess they have created in Iraq and our economy etc….
I would assume Hospice is giving her pain medication just in case. For my mom, that was one of the biggest benefits. They are more knowledgeable and have more leeway with pain medications than ordinary caregivers.
So much for staying on issue… there’s my correct point of view on the one hand, and on the other, ya got yer right wing zealots. Ah, well. But name-calling is not actually an arguement.
Folks don’t usually take up residence in a hospice unless death is actually on the horizon, agreed? On the other hand, Terri Schiavo is being pushed over that horizon to meet her death… that’s the difference, and it’s a big one.
Howard,
I wasn’t calling you a name. I was referring to the people in Pinellas Park, Florida (about 20 miles from where I live) who are controlling the Schindler family throughout this ordeal. Check out this website and then look who’s milling around in the background at every Schindler press conference.
http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/misc/misc/director.html
My mom turned to Hospice at the doctor’s recommendation when she was diagnosed with emphysema. Her death was not imminent but she was in need of an array of services, including pain relief, that we couldn’t coordinate on our own.
In Post #35, Nikki opined:
Which seems to be a meme which has spread like wildfire through the blogosphere as a seemingly obligatory reference to the Schiavo case by those who are (typically) adamant that Terri S. MUST be allowed to “live” (regardless of any other considerations). “‘Save Terri’, or else it’s ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ time.”
You must know, Nikki (if you have read even a fraction of the ink/pixels expended on discussions of the Terri Schiavo case) that her case (which, to push the point home yet again is NOT in ANY WAY unusual in this country) has been examined, adjudicated, re-examined, and re-adjudicated under a stringent framework of legal controls (adminstered by each State’s court system) designed specifically to avoid making “fair game” of ANY disabled patient; especially in the absence of a specific directive from the patient concerning their treatments.
The problem with the Schindler family is that they just simply don’t want to accept the findings and rulings of the courts which have gone against their obsessive fixations, and have resorted to the “court” of loud political activism to make their “case”.
If you are indeed worried about becoming “fair game”, Nikki, I would first of all advise you to make your wishes known, in writing, as to what sort of “terminal” care you would prefer. But, even if you don’t, you should then get about your life like the rest of us, secure in the knowledge that the law, not just “faith in the country” will actually be on YOUR side should anything happen to you.
Just as (like it or not) it was/is for Terri Schiavo.
I’m not saying that I am an expert, but I am currently working toward becoming a board ceritfied Chiropractic Neurologist. Having a large amount of study in radialogy, neurological examination, neurophysiology, and various ways to stimulate different regions of the nervous system, I can tell you for assurity that if Terri’s Cerebral Cortex has liquified in enough regions she will never be able to gain consiousness. She may have reflexes that are viewed during an exam, but a reflex is a far cry from cognition and intention. The pure neuronal synaptic action that happens with a reflex is typically only from a simple neuronal route. Just as when you burn your finger on the stove, the impulse is sent and the hand is pulled away long before the neuronal stimulus is recieved into the brain. There are many functions that happen in the mid-brain and lower that can account for Terri’s ability to breath, blink eyes, digest food…etc. Point being she will never be able to be contious again with the amount of damage that, neuronal liquifaction has created. I know of several highly respected Chiropractic Neurologists that work intensly with post-stroke and current coma patients. I am sure that they would offer the same type of information. One of the World’s most acknowledged Doctors specializing in Coma is just down the road from Terri, in the Daytona Beach area. I’m sure that he has probably been solicited for this patient, yet she hasn’t been able to come out of it, even if he has very near a 70% success rate. Anyone that has been given the opportunity to view her medical records can come to this conclusion.
Susan, my apologies for misinterpreting your” zealots” remark. But I don’t think that zealots are “controlling” the Schindlers just because they’ve made the Schindlers’ cause their own. Once a private cause becomes a public cause, there’s not much can be done to suppress “allies” that you’d perhaps rather not have and that may even do more harm than good by appropriating the private cause in question, often motivated by an agenda of their own.
On the subject of hospice stays, thank you for clarifying your earlier reference to a two-and-a-half year stay, which I now understand. Unless my information is incorrect, though, there are federal guidelines that usually require a doctor’s assertion, with supporting tests, etc. that a prospective hospice patient is expected to be deceased within six months.
The tenacity of life is not subject to accurate prediction, so naturally, there will be patients who “linger” longer, sometimes much longer. But five years? That’s how long ago Terri Schiavo was transferred from a nursing home to a hospice where Michael Schiavo’s lawyer is chairman of the board of directors. Whereupon two things happened: therapy ceased, and costs-per-day rose, but were covered by a successful application for Medicaid, despite the non-existence of a fatal illness. Whether Terri lives or dies in the next few days, now that the glare of publicity is shining into some dark corners, it appears there’s some explaining to be done, probably in a court of law.
Finally, my “slippery slope” comment was not intended to apply to hospice patients for whom death is already on the horizon, where surcease is mercy. My reference was to people suffering from severe mental disabilities who are healthy enough in a physical sense, but cause us, with our intact faculties, to flinch, to quail, and in some instances, to be willing to prescribe death in the face of their “horrifying” incapacities and “bizarre” behaviors.
Visit a therapy center for the severely mentally handicapped and focus on the most severely handicapped individual – the one whose quality of life seems most lacking or disturbs you the most. Then ask yourself if you would be willing to turn thumbs down. From your comments, I don’t think you could do it, especially if you asked a caregiver who knows and loves that person to tell you their inevitable stories of successes, tiny by our enabled standards, but nevertheless real.
But there are plenty who could, and they’re standing at the top of the slope, ready to give a shove. In Terry Schiavo’s case, they’ve done just that, and they’ll probably succeed… and accomplish… exactly what?
The latest “expert” to weigh in on the case is Dr. William Cheshire, who asserts Terri Schiavo is “most likely in a state of minimal consciousness.” I was curious about the medical credentials of the Mayo Clinic (Jacksonville) neurosurgeon, cited by Gov. Jeb Bush in suggesting she may regain consciousness.
The trail may be found at this entry on my blog.
Two points:
1. Dr Cheshire is and makes a big deal out of the fact that he is a member of the Christian Medical and Dental Association. I have insufficient information concerning his educational and professional bona fides, but note that he has offered his opinion based on an hour’s observation of Ms. Schiavo at some unspecified time and not on an independent medical examination.
2. An MRI is inot possible for Ms. Schiavo because there are shunts/electrodes that were implanted in her brain when the experimental procedure in CA was tried that have not been removed. MRI depends on massive amounts of magnetism–these units have metal in them. Put the two together……you get the picture. That’s why many folks w/ tattoos learn later to their dismay that they cannot have an MRI if there is some sort of metal in the dye used.
an article from the NY Times on Dr. Cheshire’s bona fides.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/national/24doctor.html
This has been a very informative and interesting blog. I have been watching all of the newscasts…reading the papers…and of course reading the above. As do all, I have my opinion which is to allow the lovely lady to die with dignity, without all of the news media, politicians and supposed do gooders around
My County in PA has a 13 page pamphlet written by lawyers and physicians on the County website. It has been approved by both the County Medical Assoc. and the County Bar Assoc. It shall be filled out, notarized and will only be accepted in it’s complete 13 page form and can be reproduced for the purposes of receiving/refusing medical care in case of unresponsiveness whether it is from an accident or by natural reasons, such as Terri’s case. Needless to say, I have printed the forms and will have them notarized Monday. Everyone should think of this and take care of it before the fact. My parents did it for me…they made the decision, ……..I didn’t have to.
I thank them for that.
Has anyone on here actually read Dr. Cheshire’s deposition? Here it is.
Of course, we can’t trust his citations, observations or conclusions since he’s a well, he’s a… Christian. And we can’t possibly allow a shred of doubt to creep into our “thumbs down” conclusions. Because a shred of doubt would be all it would take ‘most any thinking, feeling person to recoil in horror from what’s being done in the name of moral rightness and compassion. Happy Easter, folks.
Well, Howard, I looked at the link you provided and it is not a deposition of Dr. Cheshire. It is an affidavit. That’s a very different thing. Depositions are where the individual with the information is sworn in, usually by the court reporter who is transcribing the testimony, and then the witness is questioned by both sides under the Rules of Evidence. What that means is that in a deposition, the witness’ testimony is subject to cross examination by the other side. In other words, nothing can be taken for granted, all bets are on the table and if you are a good attorney, you can find holes in the testimony and not just point them out, but use them to kick bigger holes in the testimony. What this means is that the evidence gets parsed down through this process to what can actually be proven and relied upon by the finder of fact, or judge. That of course, assumes the competence of both sets of attorneys.
An affidavit, like what you cite to, is not a deposition. It is merely a witness saying, this is what I experienced, saw, ate, heard, said, and these are my opinions. There is no cross examination present, no clash of opposing forces that would allow the process to eliminate the extraneous, the unproven, the confusing, the hearsay from coming in.
So affidavits, generally are not admitted at trial (I leave off summary judgment motions under CR 56 b/c that gets us into a side alley and is just not applicable here). You want to attempt to get that evidence in, you either call the witness to testify at trial or you take their perpetuation deposition.
I’ve read deposition testimony in the Schiavo case sourtesy of the UMiami website, and I’ve read many of the court decisions and the Guardian ad Litem’s report from 2003. Bsed on my training and experience, I tend to accept evidence that was tempered by the crucible of trial. Not self serving statements offered at the last minute.
These are perhaps the most intelligent and thoughtful posts I have read thus far on the subject of Mrs. Shiavo.
I have a brother in law who is substantially in the same condition as Terri. He has massive damage to his cerebral cortex and additional damage in the brain stem. His eyes are open, he makes sounds, he moves his eyes and he also has a feeding tube. There have been CAT scans done, MRI’s, PETs – you name the test and it has been done. There is NO hope that he will ever ever ever recover and become the man that should have been. He has been in this condition for 15 years in May. I wish that he had died in the tragic accident that caused him to be trapped in this horrible half life for so long. The person that he was died in May 1990. But his body will be kept alive by my mother in law in the hope that a miracle will occur and he will just get up one day and be himself again. I say let that poor woman go.
Somebody please tell Susan Nunes to stop believing everything the Schindlers and their allies tell her.
Check the frigging time line, Susan. The Schindlers first split with Michael over the malpractice money. It was only when he refused to give them any (which makes sense, considering that HE is the who is her legal guardian, and the vast majority of the money went straight to her medical bills) that they suddenly decided he wasn’t their son-in-law anymore.
If the Schindlers really believed the slanders that they are circulating about Michael, why the hell did they live with him for over two years after Terri’s heart attack?!?! Would YOU live with the man you thought had murdered your daughter? I didn’t think so. That little fact should tell you all you need to know about the reality behind the Schindlers’ allegations.
Like most English professors, I teach argumentation in Freshman Composition and in my literature classes, and your examination of the “17 experts” claim is a model of logic, thoroughness, and clarity. If I could get each of my students, or even most of them, to follow your example, I would be thrilled. You can be sure I’ll be using this in class (with proper attribution, of course). Be careful! You’re liable to give blogging a good name!
Thanks to you and to the parents and teachers who taught you to reason so well in an age where logic is growing scarce.
Wow, students at VMI are going to read something I wrote! Cool! :-)
Seriously, thank you for the compliments; it’s always nice to read.
It seems to me that what is needed is a law which would remove the custodial rights of a husband over an infirm wife when the husband commits adultery– and how much more if a “husband” moves in and lives with another woman in a virtual common law marrage.
While we are at it, of course, we could reinstate the laws which for centuries made adultery a crime in its own right. Then who would grant a felon convicted and imprisoned for adultery the right to dictate the life of an infirm wife?
Enoch, I hope you feel the same way about Paul Wolfowitz who has been living in sin w/ an Arab woman.
Regina, why is the race of Wolfowitz’s partner material?
She’s an associate of Chalabi’s and may have had some influence on Wolfowitz’s actions at DoD.
And as I understand it, Wolfowitz’s wife is very much alive.
here
One thing I find most intriguing in the Schiavo case is the presumption on the part of those who wish her to continue living that she would prefer this existence to death.
We cannot know for sure, of course, but at best — and this is accepting the Schindlers’ assertions — she is minimally interactive with her environment for just minutes out of every day (and doctors who know about such things are skeptical, of course).
So this is her life, presuming she has some awareness: deaf, blind, unable to communicate anything at all, or if so, only unclearly and for just minutes a day (otherwise, she’s inert; check out the report by Jay Wolfson, a guardian ad litem appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush for more details). She receives hydration and nutrition via the stomach tube, and must have all her other needs taken care of by others.
She was, by all accounts, a vivacious woman who placed a high value on her physical appearance. Given the limitations of her life in this best-case scenario, I find it curious that the presumption is that she would prefer to remain in this state indefinitely rather than die and go to the God of her faith.
As I say, we don’t, and can’t, know. But the presumption that she would prefer an existence that the vast majority of conscious people would reject is, to me, a reflection more of her family’s fears of death than their concern for her wellbeing.
She would not have improved. That much is very clear from the medical evidence.
I, too, appreciate the civility of most posters on this site.
P.S. It’s my understanding that Terri was taken to the hospice after it was determined that no medical care was providing real benefit to her at the hospitals she’d been in.
Also. the family did try to care for her themselves, but years ago recognized they were not capable of providing full-time care. (See Wolfson.) Thus it’s curious to me that years later, the Schindlers have agreed to take on that care once more.
The Schindlers themselves would not do the care. That would be handled by either their son or daughter, they have said. I would assume that Terri would be left in a care situation similar to what she is presently in w/ occasional family visits after the press goes away, just like it was before.
I do wish people bitching about Michael Schiavo having a girlfriend and children with her would take a bit of time to likewise criticize Randall Terry, the family-values-pro-life(for fetuses but not for doctors) guy for leaving his wife after nineteen years for a woman younger than his son. The Schindlers have said they’d keep her alive no matter what, because their desires matter more than hers. MS has not divorced her all these years because evidently he does not want to prolong this God awful ordeal.
The Schindler’s grief has been an awful sight. That doesn’t mean, however, that it should be indulged—especially for their sake.
First, I would like to commend everyone writing on this web site. It is the first time I have seen an intelligent conversation about anything, let alone a controvercial subject such as this. I would like to make a few points .
First, to Dave…you gave an exerpt from a Larry King episode in which he interviewed Michael Schiavo. I don’t know where you got this exerpt but, wherever it was, it is a prime example of how media and special interests groups twist words to suit their arguments. I am not implying that it is you who has twisted this statement, but perhaps the place where you read it did.
I saw that show with Larry King and paid very close attention to the interveiw as it was one of the only ones in which Michael spoke in public. The line in which he said, “We don’t know what Terry wanted, we only know what we want” was said by him, but it was in reference as to what her father said, as recorded by the courts during trial. He was saying that, in fact, the reason the judge sided with Michael instead of the family was because of his own statement, and other’s, that Terry had expressed that she did not want to live this way if anything ever happened to her. Her family, on the other hand, is recorded in the court transcripts as stating that they had no knowledge of what Terry wanted but that they did not want her to die. Her father further said that he would have her put on breathing machines and have her go through open heart surgery to continue keeping her alive if that were to be needed.
Now, please don’t understand me. I can completely understand why her family feels this way. They love her and do not want to let her go. It is unimaginable pain to let go of a child, at any age. However, our courts have to rule on the law of evidence.
The fact is, Michael Schiavo and others came forward and gave testimony under oath expressing Terry’s expressed wishes. The family did not dispute that in court by stating that she had ever said anything to the contrary. They simply did not believe that she would have wanted this and they certainly did not want this for her. The judge, or any judge, has no choice but to rule in favor of the law. One side presented witnesses and the other did not.
Further, throughout history, the spouse is given more weight as legal gaurdian and as the person who, more than likely, knows the person’s wishes more than anyone else. Most people would say that their spouse knows what they think and feel about things that they have never discussed with other family members. It comes with the intimacy of marriage. So, the judge ruled in favor of which the evidence leaned.
One other compelling reason for the parents not winning in their legal arguments is that the doctors they used were not credible. The fact is sad that the family, in their fight, got swept up by many special interest groups who had their own agenda in mind as they swoooped in. The family started with one attorney and then switched to the one they still have. He is a staunch pro-life attorney who has been so controversial in his past that he is actually banned from going near any abortion clinics. Hiring him was a grave mistake on the family’s part. This man is well known and is thought of as not being very credible in the eyes of the court. The doctor who states he is a Nobel prize nominee is just another example of why they got no where with their medical evidence. He is not a nobel prize nominee and that has been proven. He works with stroke victims, which Terry is not as she had a heart attack, and he is listed on the internets web site of ‘quack doctors’ who’s practices should be avoided. These people preyed on the family as an avenue for them to further their own causes and it is the family who suffered for it. While they believed that these people were there to genuinely care and help them, they accepted their offers of free legal help and fundraising and, in the end, they may have had a better shot if they had stuck with a legitimate group of legal strategies.
Honestly, I don’t think it would have made a difference in the long run, but perhaps the radical groups who wouldn’t even calm down at the family’s request, who stopped children from being able to go to school for a week, who disturbed all the other innocent people who were trying to live their last days in the hospice in peace and quiet, who’s security requirements cost a woman from being with her dying grandfather and missing him by just one minute because of the check points she had to go through…perhaps they would not have been able to cause such a disturbance and make this poor woman’s life and death a public debate in which, I can only imagine, she would be mortified to know happened to her.
Outstanding discussion here. With an issue spun so many ways in the media, your site is most refreshing.
I’ve been in hopes of finding the opinions or observations of someone such as a hospice worker who had dealt with Terri Schiavo on a regular basis in a more mundane professional capacity without familial nor financial interests.
Regarding the “slow and agonizing death” she was administered, I am amused to imagine that as we speak, millions are desperately seeking all possible legal assurances and the solemn promises of their loved ones that, should such misfortune ever befall them, they will be killed in this terrible way.
# 52
Howard, I’d like to clarify a few aspects of the hospice admission and billing process, both in general and as they apply to Ms. Schiavo. I work in hospice management, although not at the hospice where she resided — for which I am grateful. There’s a lot of misinformation floating around the internet regarding hospice’s role in the Schiavo program, by individuals that want to demonize hospice care, and I’d like to set the record straight as best I can.
You have to distinguish between hospice as a philosophy of care, and program or place one goes to receive that care, from the hospice payment benefit as it is defined by Medicare and Medicaid. The six month prognosis rule, only kicks in if a patient is admitted under Medicare/Medicaid, or if it’s a condition of a private insurer.
Hospices routinely admit patients to the program, for both in-home and in-patient care, who do not have a source of reimbursement, because they are ineligible for Medicare or Medicaid. They are classified as indigent. Medicare-certified hospices are required to provide indigent care, which is paid through other program revenue. The hospice which cared for Mrs. Schiavo, has stated in interviews, that they have been paying for her care for the last five years, and that her medication costs, which come to about $200 a month, have been paid through Medicaid for the last two years. She doesn’t have to meet the six-month rule, because she is privately funded. It would be difficult for a physician to certify her with a PVS diagnosis, unless she suffered from other commorbidity factors.
I don’t want to take up a lot of space talking about the tedious details of the Medicare hospice benefit, but if you’d like more information, check at the top of the other Terri Schiavo thread on this site, where I’ve posted a couple of explanations.
Pingback: popkitty.com » Blog Archive » No Shame
Regina, why do you ask about Arab woman??
I worked for a couple of years at a state school for the mentally retarded (what it was called then). There were many non-responsive patients who received direct care that included feeding tubes and physical therapy. I’m sure they had no living will. They definitely had no money – no future – only the present. I can’t imagine at the time someone taking a look at them and deciding that these people probably preferred death and therefore food and water would be withheld so that they could die by starvation and dehydration.
How times have changed in twenty years.
By the way, it is not legal to do this to puppies. It is considered inhumane.
When we need to put puppies to sleep, we are allowed to have a doctor do it in the most humane way possible. You’re right; it’s a shame that it was illegal to do so in Terri Shiavo’s case, since doing so might have set some people’s minds at ease about the means of her death.
However, since Ms. Schiavo was completely incapable of suffering, it really made no difference to her either way.
Nobody decided that Terri “probably preferred death.” A court held, after hearing all the evidence, that she had clearly and convincingly manifested her desire not to be kept alive in the condition in which she was later found.
kadamson, you don’t say much about the patients you refer to, but I am assuming that most or all of them had been in that condition since birth. Therefore, they had probably never achieved the level of consciousness necessary to form the opinion Terri held. Accordingly, such people continue to be maintained in their current condition.
It has long been held in our legal system that no one will have medical treatment forced upon them against their will. This is not a rule I am anxious to see vanish.
It has long been held in our legal system that no one will have medical treatment forced upon them against their will.
Do the courts know this? Forced treatment is currently one of the more humane options in our idiot War on Some Drugs. In practice, I mean. As a matter of principle it actually seems worse.
hf, please cite specific references to the practices you mention. Please refrain from quoting newspapers and confine yourself to reliable data.
I find it interesting that humaneness for pupplies does not apply to humans. What we cannot justify for animals we can for humans.
It took Terri Schiavo 10 days to die. Thirst and hunger are the most basic needs of life. You will notice the most disabled, brain impaired babies react to thirst and hunger, though they cannot communicate the need. I missed the medical report that said she unequivically did not “suffer”. In fact, what is the part of the brain that registers suffering? There was some brain left as all other body functions worked without assistance.
” …but I am assuming that most or all of them had been in that condition since birth. Therefore, they had probably never achieved the level of consciousness necessary to form the opinion Terri held. ” That would be a false assumption.
Kadamson, “suffering” is not possible without a functioning cerebral cortex. Shiavo’s cortex had turned to liquid; it would have been physically impossible for her to experience suffering.
It’s not true that all of Shiavo’s bodily functions worked without assistance (iirc, she wasn’t capable of normal swallowing, which is why she needed a feeding tube). But that’s besides the point. The parts of the brain which regulate heartbeat and breathing are not the same as the parts of the brain that experience suffering. Someone without a cerebral cortex can breathe, but they can’t suffer.
The puppy/Schiavo comparison is pretty illogical; my guess is that you only bring it up because you want to demonize people who disagree with you with an empty but emotionally appealing argument, not because you’re interested in a respectful discussion. The bottom line is, puppies can suffer; Schiavo couldn’t. I don’t approve of making anyone, either Schiavo or a puppy, suffer needlessly. That is, or should be, the bottom line for human treatment.
I am simply saying that denying food and water to a living, breathing animal of anykind is inhumane.
It is a long, slow, painful death regardless of your perception of how that is processed by the dying. If it is in principal inhumane to puppies, when is it justified for humans?
I would also like you to call Pfizer as that company is spending billions of R&D dollars on pain management when you already have the answer.
If there was any credible evidence at all that Schaivo was suffering because of this, I would agree.
I believe that long, slow, painful deaths are inhumane for puppies.
I do not believe that long, slow, painful deaths are inhumane for puppies who have no capacity to suffer.
The same thing applies to humans.
There’s no such thing as a ‘painful death’ for someone who does not feel pain.
“I do not believe that long, slow, painful deaths are inhumane for puppies who have no capacity to suffer.”
So, it would be okay to let it die over days because you did not let it have food or water? You could look at at it and say “oh, it’s not suffering.”
You are much tougher than I.
Yes, I could say that, because it would not be suffering.
If it had no capacity for suffering, then it would not suffer. Period.
Kadamson, we may have an entirely false view of how the brain works, but according to Ampersand the human brain is not simply a puppy brain with a human cortex added. The different bits all work together at this point. If you remove the more specifically human parts of the brain (as happened with Ms. Schiavo) you don’t get an animal, you get a brain that doesn’t work. It won’t produce consciousness of any kind.
Susan, what are you asking me? Do you doubt that the court system sends people to rehab for what they do with their own brains? Or do you mean to suggest that involving the court system does not always count as coercion?
Make that “involving the justice system”.
“It won’t produce consciousness of any kind.”
Here is an article on consciousness from Time magazine.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
Please call the scientists of the world and let them know you have figured out what they could not.
It is very interesting how you can nuance a principal you otherwise value in order to make it right in this situation.
Susan, what are you asking me? Do you doubt that the court system sends people to rehab for what they do with their own brains? Or do you mean to suggest that involving the court system does not always count as coercion?
People who have broken the law in various ways can be imprisoned. It sometimes happens that a court will offer people like that the alternative of accepting treatment for their illness (typically addiction).
This is not properly “coercion.” The people involved have forfeited their right to various freedoms by breaking the law. They remain perfectly free to take the consequences. If you feel that these laws should be changed (“what they do with their own brains”) you should contact your elected representatives.
Theresa Schiavo did not break any laws. There would have been no excuse for any court to offer her such an alternative, much less to force her, without any alternative, to undergo medical treatment, including a surgical procedure, against her will.
What finally happened was the working out of this concept. A court found, upon presentation of the evidence, that Theresa had stated that she did not want the procedures which had been performed on her. (If you don’t agree that this is what Theresa wanted, I’d wonder how you know that.) She was not a lawbreaker, and the court accordingly ruled that refusing those treatments was a legitimate exercise of her freedom. (Even if she had broken the law, she would in any case have had the alternative of going to prison rather than being forced to submit.)
I believe that this is an important freedom – the freedom to refuse treatment. Even criminals retain that freedom; how much more the innocent. I do not want the State to sail in and dictate to me what medical treatments I will be forced to accept whether I want them or not.
“Even criminals retain that freedom; how much more the innocent. I do not want the State to sail in and dictate to me what medical treatments I will be forced to accept whether I want them or not.”
The state sails in in many occasions whether you are aware of it or not. Specifically, if you are deemed harmful to yourself or others, you will receive treatment. The state does not let you terminate your life just because you don’t like it’s circumstances. The state also does not allow you to terminate the life of someone in your charge just because they and/or you do not like their circumstances.
Terri Schiavo was not terminally ill. She was severely brain damaged. There is a difference between letting someone with a terminal illness die on their own terms and instigating death on a disabled person regardless of opionions regarding their view of life circumstances.
If anyone, including prisoners, attempts to starve or dehydrate themselves to death, they will be issued treatment – medical treatment.
Terri Schiavo was not terminally ill. She was severely brain damaged. There is a difference between letting someone with a terminal illness die on their own terms and instigating death on a disabled person regardless of opionions regarding their view of life circumstances.
I can’t figure out what this means. Whose opinions are we discussing?
When facts are disputed in this culture we have a procedure for determining the truth. That procedure involves a court proceeding. That’s not the only way we could do it. Various societies have use various methods. Some look to the stars; some analyze bird (or human) entrails; some flip coins or cast lots; some consult oracles; and so forth. This is the way we do it.
The fact in dispute here was Theresa’s opinion. If she had been conscious and coherent she would have had the right to reject a surgical procedure to feed her (or to do anything else). She had the right in addition to do this in advance.
Florida does not require a written determination. Perhaps they should. Write your elected representative (if you are in Florida). Enough evidence of her opinion was presented to a judge that he determined “by clear and convincing evidence” that she did not want the treatment which was prolonging her life. That was her right. As it is yours and mine.
You think the judge was wrong about Theresa’s opinion? And you would know that how? Even if you had known her personally (which I doubt) and you had formed that opinion, all you’re telling me now is that you disagree with the court’s determination. That’s common enough. Usually someone (the losing side of every controversy) disagrees with every court decision.
If you have a better way to determine disputed facts, let us know what it is, we’re all ears. If you think I shouldn’t have the right to tell the State when it can and cannot perform surgery on me, I would respectfully disagree.
I don’t know what is so hard to understand.
Bottom line: Death by starvation and dehydration is not humane and is not, under any circumstances, acceptable. Regardless of nutrients and liquids are administered denial of those should not be an avenue to death.
Side note: It is misguided to think that the state does not intervene when you have a death wish and are not terminally ill. Take too many sleeping pills – someone finds you – treatment is issued. OD on any drug, profess your profound wish to die, treatment is issued. Unless of course, you live in Darfur. There, you may profess your wish to live and you will die of starvation – the state reserves the right to terminate your life without your permission. Whatever – at some point you live in a state and your rights are subject to that.
“Bottom line: Death by starvation and dehydration is not humane and is not, under any circumstances, acceptable.”
So every hospice patient refusing to eat or drink (a VERY common occurence) should be forced not to starve or dehydrate? Using whatever means necessary including 4 point restraints, forced feedings or surgical procedures (cut into the person and implant a “tube”)?
If family members are known to be “complicit” or “conspiratorial” or in agreement with the patients refusal of hydration and nutrition? We would need some sort of screening or testing process to objectively determine the likelihood of intentional interference with the hydration and nutrition process. We would need a scoring or ranking system. We could color code things like doors or patient wrist bands to reflect the level of “risk”. High alert orange. Elevated alert red.
Whispered conversations at the nurses desks: “Better watch that one, he’s an orange- everyone in his family and all of his friends tested pretty high on wanting to see the patients choices respected, watch the brother like a hawk…”
Family, friends, mere aquaintances, activists- test them all.
Whatever it takes to get a handle on this whole MEDICAL CHOICE thing.
CHOICE. Self determination. Not really the side that got a lot of air time during the Schiavo media feeding frenzy. CHOICE wasn’t really the slogan of the day. PRO CHOICE wasn’t sending its staff of paid lawyers to help out the Schindler family. PRO CHOICE wasn’t really getting the job done. PRO CHOICE wasn’t sending cash donations to the family.
As to your other points about drug overdose patients:
There is a differentiation between suicidal gestures born of mental defect (whether acute and transitory or chronic) and the choice of a mentally competant person to accept or refuse medical treatment.
Because it takes time and the proper conditions to evaluate mental health status, and because police officers cannot deprive you of liberty without just cause, laws were passed making suicide illegal. That way, you see, the cops can restrain a person whom they suspect is a danger to themselves or others and take them somewhere that can provide a proper evaluation.
And your point about people in jail:
Persons who are in state custody and not empowered (for the duration of their incarceration) with FREEDOM of self determination. If they are jailed the law makes the jailer or the custodian responsible for their well being. The jailer becomes the guardian of their person.
It is a terrible thing that people starve to death in poverty stricken countries and in countries that lack the infrastructure, expertise or resources to sustain a level of production that supports their entire population.
I’m not exactly sure how that observation has any relationship to the Schiavo case however. I’m not exactly sure how it relates to the need to honor and respect the choices Americans make as to what medical treatments they would accept or reject.
Starving people in Africa. Terri Schiavo saying “no tubes for me”.
Famine in Africa. An American declaring “I want no artificial life support”.
For the sake of argument it is best to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
As to the laws that protect cute and adorable puppies:
Those laws have their origin with the laws that were enacted to protect farmers property rights in their animals in an era when Americas economy was farm driven and it was recognized that the value of farm animals needed protecting. Farmers needed animal protection laws in order to prevent their animals from being stolen or willfully or maliciously injured or killed.
Later when America became more industrialized and children were being employed in sweat shops for 18 hour work days and in dangerous occupations social activists seized upon the existing animal protection laws and tried to use them as the basis for protecting children. This in an era when parents welcomed or absolutely needed the additional income being brought home by the children they sent out to work those jobs. This in an era when there were no child protection laws because parents were trusted to protect their children.
Apparently it was easier even then for rich families to protect their children but poor families made decisions based on their needs and not so much on what would make everyone happy. Social activists wanted to create a different reality for those kids.
Back to the point at hand – the laws that protect cute and adorable puppies were not created because society cared about being humane to puppies. In point of fact the originators of those laws didn’t give a damn about dogs or cats. The laws were originated to protect the monetary value of cattle. Of course city folk love their puppies and kittens and an animal is an animal so these days the laws are relied upon more to protect dogs and cats than to protect farm animals.
***The “puppies get more protection” comparison***
Fact is this is a nicely inflammatory comparison that also appeals greatly to the masses. It has proven to be very durable and easy to use. Pro Schindler folks pull this one out a lot. I’m thinking this one was custom tailored by the Schindler support staff so even the weakest mind could use it.
It has the excellent imagery of the cute and cuddly puppy having the big old mean giant “state” to protect it. And all because society passed laws fueled by compassion and caring and because society demands “humane” treatment of even the lowliest of animals, including pet hamsters, gerbils and rats.
Contrast that against the stark cold imagery of how Terri Schiavo was somehow abandoned and orphaned by the state and not afforded the same protection that a puppy gets.
Or a condemned prisoner.
Don’t even get me started on the differences between criminal proceedings and probate proceedings.
The best part of the “pupies get more protection” comparisson is that it totally distracts the ignorant masses from the reality and facts of the case:
1.Terri Schiavo had an opinion about life support.
2.The Schindlers put their best case in front of the court.
3. The court heard from Terri’s husband and 17 other witnesses.
4. 5 witnesses testified as to their knowlege of Terri’s opinion including Mary Schindler (Terri’s mother)
5. The court was interested in determining and then enforcing Terri Schiavos choice.
6. The Schindlers stated that even if they had Terri Schiavos written directive against life support that they would not have abided by it.
Bottom line: growing up in the Schindler house must have been a nightmare. Those people never cared what Terri Schiavo wanted. Not when she was a child, not when she was an adult and not when she was married.
Hard to imagine a more classic example of “family of origin”. She escaped into marriage but not without a lot of baggage. Maybe if she recognized how much baggage and sought treatment things might have turned out differently for her.