As the previous Terri Schiavo thread threatens to reach 500 posts, I thought I’d start a new thread. Please use this thread to continue any discussions started on the three previous extra-huge Schiavo discussion threads.
To start us off, a few links:
The Gimp Parade has a collection of links to articles by disabled activists about the Schiavo case and its related issues. From Harriet McBryde Johnson’s Slate article:
There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms. Schiavo believed and expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became incapacitated; certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance directive like a living will. If we assume that Ms. Schiavo is aware and conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can’t justify her death as her preference. She has no preference.
I think Johnson has a good point regarding changing preferences. However, if we accept that point, then why does it make a difference whether or not someone leaves a living will? If someone who is not yet disabled lacks the information needed to make an informed choice about life while disabled – and it seems to me that is probably true – then they don’t magically become more informed if they leave their wishes in the form of a living will, rather than in the form of talking to their spouses and loved ones.
See also this Washington Post article, which respectfully quotes disabled activists on both sides of the Schiavo issue (is that fair because it doesn’t pretend that all disabled activists agree, or unfair because it gives undue prominence to marginal dissenters from a genuine consensus?), and this critique of the disabled rights argument by Cathy Young. (Like Young, I just can’t get over my belief that there is a substantial difference between being disabled and having no cerebral cortex to speak of). Both links via Disability Law.
An “Alas” reader George F pointed out this article, “Before the Circus,” by a journalist who visited Terri Schiavo several years ago.
Back then, both sides were civil to one another. No one disputed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and had been for a decade. Or that an eating disorder probably had led to Terri’s cardiac arrest and collapse, not physical abuse by Michael as some now contend.
Nobody was a murderer, an abuser, an adulterer, a fanatic, a liar. They were just family, trying their best to do right by their daughter, wife, sister. […]
After all these years, what haunts me is something Terri’s brother once said: “If Terri knew what this had done to this family, she would go ballistic.”
And he told me that before things spun out of control.
And, finally, a Schiavo-inspired post from the blog Transterrestrial Musings, which is noodling about with the question of self and soul. If we replaced someone’s brain with a mechanical brain, but the person still “feels” like herself, then does she still have a soul?
To the degree that I understand the concept of the soul, I can’t believe that it is associated simply with a body, living or breathing. To the degree that I believe in souls, I think of it as a different word for “mind.”
Actually, we have no way of knowing if this is true or not. We know that he didn’t articulate this on the public record; we don’t know what he did or did not articulate in private. Back then, Terri’s case wasn’t a public issue, so virtually nothing said was on the public record, apart from the malpractice lawsuit. And there’s no reason to expect Terri’s wishes to come up in the context of a malpractice lawsuit, because neither side’s lawyers had reason to bring that up. (For a more detailed discussion of this, read this post by a Florida lawyer).
Pearse was removed as guardian because Schiavo argued, successfully, that it was biased of Pearse to suggest that Michael had a conflict of interest (due to the money) but failed to mention that Michael had offered to donate all the money to charity. Frankly, I think that dismissing Pearse was the correct thing to do; the guardian ad litum’s report is supposed to mention all relevant facts. Considering how much attention Pearse paid to money, for him not to mention Michael’s offer to donate the money to charity is unconscionable.
The fact is, Michael had offered – in writing – to donate all the money to charity if the Schindlers would drop their objections to letting Terri’s wishes be carried out. And he had told the GAL that he’d agree to give away all the money. And he turned down people who offered him six-or-seven figure sums to change his position. In light of all that, I think the argument that Michael is money-motivated doesn’t look very certain.
Possibly he thought that she’d want treatment so long as there was a chance of recovery, but wouldn’t want her mindless body to be kept alive without hope of recovery. That’s hardly a far-out 0r unusual preference.
According to Michael (as he said to Pearse, among others), he didn’t lose hope that Terri would recover until about four years after her heart attack. If so, it’s not suspicious that he sought treatment until he lost heart. You’re assuming he’s a liar, but as far as I can tell you have no logical basis for that assumption.
P.S. In real life, people aren’t always perfect logic machines. It’s easy for you to look at the experimental brain implants and see that they were futile; you’re not the one who has lost a wife, or a daughter. (Remember, the brain implants were put in at a time that the Schindlers and Michael were getting along and collaborating on Terri’s treatment). But I can easily understand how desperate relatives can convince themselves to take a medical long shot – even one that, from a more objective perspective (and with 20-20 hindsight), was clearly not going to work.
By the way, this FAQ at the blog “Football Fans for Truth” pretty well covers the sorts of objections Disinterested is raising.
Amp, I think that’s a sensitive look at Michael. And it certainly fits the facts. Hindsight is always 20/20, but it’s not so unreasonable that Michael continuned to hope, for some years, that somehow this tragedy, which came on him so suddenly, might somehow be reversed.
I think it best, as a general rule, to assume the best about people, especially people one has never met, until there’s conclusive proof to the contrary. I don’t see that kind of proof here.
If I had been Terri, and this had happened to me, I certainly would have wanted my husband to be realistic about this thing, and to start a new life, and have the family he and I wanted but could not have.
Dispassionate,
Thanks for the reply. I did not know the method of brain stimulation used on her, but that explanation helps. I work in the computer field, so to me constant current fed in is great, electrical “stimulation”, tends to fry the things. Kind of had a feeling I’d better not try to relate computer experience directly to that of the human brain. Sure, go ahead and send me a link or two, if I get time today, I’ll take a look at them.
From a laymans view I had some reservations about him his intentions, but that’s from what I’ve read. My opinion, was that, her family was the best choice of guardian. Her husband had moved on to another, and I didn’t feel real comfortable about him. Others on here have a higher comfort level, with him than I do, and that’s ok. I really don’t want to pass judgement on him. It’s one thing to bring a glass of water, another to be guardian of a person. I was a guardian once, and really didn’t like it. He hung on, so to some he is quite the guy carrying out her wishes, others wonder why did he really stay in there.
Susan, I think earlier you’d mentioned correctly that I seemed a bit biased against him. Didn’t go back and read, the old posts, but you were right. Logically it’s best to keep an open mind, especially when sitting in Illinois, and running ones mouth, about something going on in Florida.
I’ll try to look at the link Amp has on the page.
If any of you did read my post about the bar experience, I did find the bar about 7 years after that. I have also ran across someone who also knew that lady. I mentioned that, simply to point out there are things we have yet to learn about the human mind. While we sometimes might take pride (or not), with where we sit on the IQ or educational level, there are some measures I think we have yet to take. That is also probably part of why I sided with the err towards life group.
This was from the site that Amp referred me to “Football Fans for Truth” (Even the name of the site give me a wry chuckle)
Tell me, Amp, have you ever suffered a urinary tract infection? I have.
It is literally like peeing molten lead. How utterly cruel!
Tell me, Amp, why do you suppose that facility threw such a fit about that order? Do you suppose they felt an ethical need to provide basic decent care to someone who might be in excruciating pain but could not articulate that pain? Perhaps they were covering their butts, having some knowledge that they were dealing with a dogmatic man who had a record of litigation against the medical profession? Perhaps a little of both? I wonder how long that physician retained visting right to that facility?
I rest my case about whether MS was concerned with his wife’s comfort. while he was doing her “wishes/”
Terri Schiavo hasn’t – at least, not anytime since her heart attack. She hasn’t “suffered” anything at all, because she wasn’t capable of suffering, or of any other feeling or experience.
It’s not helpful to pretend that Terri Schiavo had abilities she didn’t. Michael decided to stop treatment, in all liklihood, because he had accepted the doctors’ opinions that Terri’s mind was completely gone, and she was incapable of feeling any discomfort at all.
* * *
By the way, I noticed that you didn’t respond to a single one of my refutations of your previous (now dropped) points. I’m assuming that’s because you have no logical response.
Hello Dan,
I like you tend to err on the side of life in cases with this much ambiguity about circumstances, desires, actual degree of disability, etc., etc..
Those who disagree have their opinions; and I have mine.
We disagree whether MS believes he was acting out of his wife’s interests, if he was just acting out of his own motives, or whether there had been spousal abuse prior to her incapacitating incident. Although the California psychiatrist Carole Lieberman appears to be self-serving and a sensationalist, she is dead on right about the markers for abuse; and that bone scan (which can be read in facscimilie form on the internet) just won’t go away. I urge you to check out these things and form your own opionions. The leopard does not typically change its spots, and time will very likely prove either me or those who disagree with me wrong, probably thanks to the ubiquitous media which has no respect for privacy.
An interesting thing about the media did occur to me during this whole ordeal. Nowhere is there much if any to be found about MS’s companion and children. Sparse references and no photos that I have seen. This is so completely out of character for the media. (Think about all the instances where broadcasts have endangered people, soldiers for instance.) So, I sincerely doubt conspicuous absence of the companion and the kids is out of fear for their safety, or respect or deceny on the part of the media. I wonder if there is some other agenda at play here? I freely admit that cynicism is one of my virtues (lol).
We agree that the appeals court acted within the law, ruling on point of law. Our legal system is one of the best in the world and certainly the best thing we have, but it is not infallible and he who can affort the best representation generally get the best justice–IF your definition of justice is winning your case. Case in point: OJ Simpson. The Schindlers were out gunned from the outset. They ran the race from behind, with no chance of winning once original decision were made about evidence, etc. Were the original rulings made in good efficacy. I don’t think so and it will remain a topic of debate for many.
And the discussion about the legalities brings me to my opinion of what I believe this case was really all about: It was not about our right to privacy or our right to make end of life decisions. Under the law we already have those rights should we choose to exercise them. This case was about the rights of self-determination for the disabled. And it has created a controvery which will not subside until changes are made about who and more importantly under what circumstances contorls the right to live and die of those who cannot speak for themselves.
An earlier poster on here left a link to a site with a wealth of infomation about the feelings of disabled Americans about the ramifications of the Schiavo case for them. They are deeply concerned and have a right to be concerned. The url is: http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/
I urge you to go there and read extensively and carefully. Do find and read the sentiments of Senator Tom Harken (D.IA) about the rights of the disabled and how he beleives those right should be protected . It is very illuminating and I tend to agree with him.
Make no mistake. Theresa Schindler-Schiavo was definitely not brain dead and apparently not terminally ill. She was profoundly mentally disabled with accompanying neurological infirmities. Persistently vegetative? I have not seen her therapy progress reports or have no way to know if her therapy was appropriate…can’t say. But PVS is not synonymous with brain dead. BTW, a feeding tube is a low tech-device depending on a gravity feed and has only in recent years become viewed by some as comparable to a vent, heart-lung machine, dialysis, etc. She could have lived in her state for many, many more years had she not been starved to death or killed by some other method.
The question was: Did she want to live on like that? We will never know because she could not speak for herself, and her decision was made for her by a constellation of others, many of whom do not pass the “smell” test. The statistical probability that the preponderance evidence provided by the husband and his doctors was accurate and the preponderance of contradictory evidence provided by doctors and others of an opposing viewpoint was inaccurate is very low. But the weighing of all evidence ultimately rested in the hands of one human being who is no more or less subject to conscious or unconscious biases than the rest of us. John Grisham once wryly remarked that the reason the statue of Justice wears her blindfold is because she can’t stand to look at what we mortals do to the law. Well said, John. Ahh…those southern writers…
That having been said ,I have enjoyed reading your posts and appreciate that you may have found something enlightening in mine. Once again, do check it out: http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/
Once again, Dispassionate, you don’t bother responding after your points have been knocked down; you just move on to making new smears about Michael Schiavo.
Yes, but the difference is that my opinions are supported with evidence and logic, while yours are made up out of nothing. Just because everyone has an opinion doesn’t make an uninformed, illogical opinion just as good as a fact-based, reasonable opinion.
Regarding the 1991 bone scan, as I understand it the scan itself is long lost; all we have is one doctor’s summary of the scan. And two other doctors – including the doctor who ordered the scan made – disagree with that doctor’s conclusions.
Normally, I disapprove of super-long quotations, but as the site owner I get to make an exception for myself. :-) From Abstract Appeal’s question and answer page:
I know some people have suggested that there’s no evidence that Terri actually suffered from bulimia; however, I find it incredible to believe that a million-dollar-plus lawsuit can be won with no evidence. And it’s a well-known fact that eating disorders cause osteoporosis (brittle bones).
One right-wing doctor blog, codeblue, has argued repeatedly that the only reasonable explanation of the bone scan report is abuse. However, as Cathy Young at Reason points out, Codeblue blog seems less than reliable.
Majikthise also has a good post debunking the “Michael Schiavo is an abuser” argument.
My belief is that it’s impossible to say for sure that Michael – or any husband, for that matter – has not beaten his wife. Nonetheless, there certainly isn’t enough evidence to say for certain that he did. Lacking evidence, I think we ought to give Michael the benefit of the doubt. I’m also bewildered as to why Michael, if he really had caused Terri’s injuries, would have initiated a law suit which would lead to the cause of Terri’s injuries being closely examined by opposition doctors; and I’m also bewildered as to why those doctors didn’t bring up any allegations of abuse in their own defense, if there was medical evidence to support such allegations.
Of course, it may be that the autopsy report, when released, will change how things look.
* * *
I have a lot of respect for the disabled activist view. Nonetheless, unless you want to completely ignore everything that happened in court, it’s just a plain fact that this case was decided based on the courts determining, as best as possible, what Terri Schaivo would have preferred.
Please list for me your personal credentials and experience to support your statement.
Are you a physician?
nurse?
psychologist?
neuropsychologist?
physical therapist?
occupational therapist?
speech language pathologist?
assistive technologist?
Do you do bio-medical research?
How about your years of experience in close personal work with such people?
You have just made one of the most profoundly ignorant statements that I have ever read because you have absolutely no way of stating with certainty that she could not register and give meaning to pain. All you have is the word of some “experts” that a human judge chose to belive over other “experts”.
Tell me, Amp, have you ever visited an institution for those in that situation?
Oh, or better yet, a special education classroom for the severe-profound mentally disabled? These rooms are occupied by children (some with feeding tubes) who have less capacity to project awareness than Terri did on the famous video tape . They are not vocal, much less verbal. Terri was vocal. Some cannot turn their heads toward sound. Some cannot track with their eyes. Terri could do both as evidenced by the tape.
These children definitely do express emotion appropriate to situations and are able to interact with others if you have the training and the time with them to ascertain that. They are not brain dead; they are disabled. Some of them show improvement, some degenerate due to genetic syndromes, and some are vegetative (i.e. maintaining the status quo)–but they still get therapy. Laws require that they receive appropriate care, therapy and educational exposure.
Now you have postulated that the profound can’t feel anything or experience meaningful emotions, much less reasoning capabilities. So, given that stance, what are your answers to the following questions?
Is their state of existence useless to society?
Do they contribute nothing?
Do we do away with the laws that provide for their care and therapy?
Do we yank their feeding tubes, too?
Or take them off their seizure medications?
Or throw away their wheelchairs?
Should they be spared because they are children ,but adults need to go?
If they have no next of kin, precisely who should determine when and how they should “be allowed” to die?
Forget debating! Your answers to my questions would be vastly more interesting.
I have done all the debating that I am goint to do with you about Schiavo. You think he is a stand up guy. I think he is a creep. I don’t think the judicial system infallible; it appears that you do. We are both entitled to our opinions. If my opinions are so offensive to you, kick me off–it’s your site.
As for Terri being disabled. I am a trained expert in this area and would pit my judgement up against anybody’s . Even from the little I could observe on that tape, she was mentally disabled. About this particular fact I am correct and you are incorrect. It’s just that simple.
Not infallible, of course – who or what is?
Nevertheless, I will go with that system as opposed to the Ominscient Opinion of Dispassionate Reader (or Any Other Blogger), who has never even met any of the parties to this dispute, and whose opinions on this case are entirely garnered from the internet. This stacks up to an evidentiary hearing of some length, involving five neurologists and voluminous other evidence, how?
We have to decided disputed facts somehow or other, and how we do it is in a court of law. Overall this system works better than anything else anyone has figured out. So that’s how we do it here.
If dispassionate has a better system, we’re all ears. Understand that polls of random bloggers probably won’t make the cut, though.
dispassionate,
Do you not read stuff, or is it that you just don’t care?
Terri’s case has nothing to do with a judgment that Terri’s life wasn’t worth living, or that she had no worth because she was disabled. The decision was that Terri herself had asked not to be kept alive artificially in this condition. All your information about disabled children is irrelevant.
I suspect that you know this very well, and are simply unwilling to deal with the real issue. You disagree with the court’s decision on this case (for no very good reason that I can see, since you didn’t know Terri and have no first-hand data on what she wanted or who she was). OK. We get it.
I’ve been reading many news reports, websites, and blogs over the last few weeks, as well as having many discussions with family and friends. This whole situation has been very emotional for many people, and unfortunately, I think we’ll be seeing a lot of legislation in the next year or so based on what our lawmakers have heard from their constitutents. I say unfortunately because the four different sides on this event (at least, I’ve counted four – maybe there are more) are all very vocal, and I foresee many years of dispute ahead of us.
Just for, well, not fun, but for purposes of discussion, here’s what I’ve been thinking about it:
1. Michael and the Schindlers appeared to be getting along well until the malpractice claim was paid.
2. Both Michael and the Schindlers agree that their original falling-out was over the money.
3. Terri’s money was paid into a trust fund administered by a court appointee (I’m pretty sure I remember reading this in one of the court opinions, but I could be wrong.)
4. Having myself dealt with relatives in the Schindler’s age bracket over insurance reimbursements and medical issues, I wonder if they ever understood that Michael didn’t have full discretionary control over the money. I also wonder if they understood that only treatments and therapies that were generally accepted would be paid for by the trust fund.
5. Since Michael was studying to be a nurse at the time, I wonder if he learned enough in his courses to understand that many of the things they had been hoping to try were wishful thinking at best.
I realize this is highly speculative, but I think a large part of the original falling-out was due to the Schindler’s inability or refusal to understand that the rules had changed with the malpractice payment. I’m think they looked on it as, “Hey, now we have the money to try these therapies that might help Terri,” and couldn’t or wouldn’t understand that the trust fund wouldn’t pay for them. I also think that they were hoping that Michael would let them be in charge of their daughter, since he was so busy with school and things.
Why do I think this? Well, as I said before, I have dealt with relatives in the Schindler’s age bracket before, helping them deal with medical staff and medical decisions and with Medicaid or Medicare forms and rules and so on. Most of them just couldn’t understand why things were done the way they were done, no matter how many times, in how many different ways, I explained it to them. For instance, I have one relative who just doesn’t understand why she can’t go to Florida to visit her grandchildren for a month when she’s been living in a nursing home in Michigan with round-the-clock nursing care for 2 years. (She doesn’t have dementia or Alzheimer’s, BTW, she just doesn’t understand why Medicare won’t pay for what she wants to do.)
I am bothered by the feeding tube removal partly because Terri was healthy except for not having a huge chunk of her brain. I know the medical experts say she was only making reflexive random actions and that she was not responding reliably to stimulus, and I can even agree that was probably what was going on. I even think Terri probably did not want to live that way. But I also remember that it was not very long ago that doctors operated on babies without anesthesia because the doctors knew they either couldn’t feel pain or because they couldn’t remember the pain. And now they know that both of these positions are wrong. So it just makes me uneasy to hear dogmatic statements about what input Terri was able to process.
For purposes of discussion on this thread, I am not Catholic, but I have many close friends, including 2 of my college roommates, who are.
Hi Lee,
Indeed! And, circumcision without local anesthesia being one of these so called painless procedures. Please be prepared for an attempt at a similar ‘circumcision’ of your intellect and values (notice I said attempt) if you do not at some point concede to the moderator and his loyals that this case is all about the law and not about much of anything else , including your uneasiness.
There you go again, Susan, with your ASS-umptions. How do you know whom I may or may not have met?
you know, for someone calling themselves “dispassionate reader” you’re quite a sanctimonious git.
not all that dispassionate.
or that literate.
Had sent a post, but it does not show now. If I’ve sent it twice, bash me well for running my jaw twice, dsl is acting up today.
Amp,
Thanks for this forum, I’ve enjoyed it. Is that all your artwork, cool stuff. I have a viewpoint on pvs towards the bottom, if interested. The other stuff in the middle, only thoughts, and frankly some that I didn’t really like, but ideas usually don’t knock before entering.
Dispassionate,
I got the link, thanks, believe I’d seen it before in my web “skimming”. You mentioned that we have a point of disagreement on whether MS was acting out of his or his wife’s interests. I don’t necessarily disagree with you as to MS, looking out for his own interest. I am a guy outside of Chicago, reading some things on the net, and typing some thoughts about events in Florida, I was not there to witness.
Words well formed can wield power, so for that reason, and the fact I did not witness the events, it’s best for me to avoid statements that might in some way harm.
As to what has went through my mind regarding MS, first I see intelligence in his face. I think more so than a pic. of one judge on the case. I see no harm in voicing that opinion. As to some that would say nonsense, I will answer that now, go to the store, 2 equal lines, do you go for the fast smart looking checkout clerk or the somewhat slower moving un-focused one? We make those judgments everyday, with hardly a thought. So here are 2 thoughts at extreme ends that occurred to me.
Positive: MS, tried an experimental treatment to help his wife, to no avail but it was a gesture of love, I’ve seen that he insisted on her having makeup put on each day (probably cost more), he moved on to another woman but he did not forget his wife-visiting her and reconciling in his good mind with a lot of wisdom that he could love both of them after all Christ had loved all. When he seen that her recovery was beyond all hope, remembering her words that she would not wish to live in this damaged shell of herself, he petitioned the court to allow her wishes be filled, to not allow her body to persist in a such manner. He had her body cremated, the ashes spread, on his family plot, his wish to join her, when his time of passing would come. Many have cursed him from afar; it occurs to me that, this might not approach the agony and torment of decision in his own mind.
Negative: I asked you about the brain treatment to learn. It had occurred to me that such treatment could stimulate, and also could harm already damaged cells beyond repair. The twist of a knob (potentiometer) more current; no knob or hard to access; just work around that. A chart recorder; work around it; just a mechanical issue. Why, physical trauma, not a heart attack at all. She started to form a word of remembrance, so the treatment became necessary. As to bone scans, Felos said the drug regimen she was on could cause them. Did the judge have checked out thoroughly, her recent muscular strength, bone density & diameter, fracture direction, other stress fractures near, when it occurred, was she sentient at the time, and if it would have caused pain, was there a record of it? Did the judge, with sympathy in his heart, lean towards Felos’s statement looking at her husband, cradling his head in his hands.
With cremation complete, a clever mind has anticipated and defeated, tomorrows forensics, that might date a fracture more accurately, or un-cover things beyond todays science. The situation is controlled and complete, not a single loose end.
Again those are only some thoughts that went through my mind, not opinions at all, I would deserve a foot to the keister should I state them as fact. There is a conflagration of info. on the web. Not all on the web is to be trusted or not trusted. I will tell you that I don’t have a good feeling about the event, and really haven’t gotten away from that. As mentioned in other posts, I tend to value instinct more than some might.
We have a good legal system, and I believe it best for our country that it’s balance held in this. I think the decision of guardianship was wrong, my opinion. As to PVS, my opinion is there is much we don’t know, and while some may confidently say she had it and therefore could not feel pain. I say maybe so, but lets not do what might cause pain, she is a child in the most elemental sense, and if you are wrong she is feeling it. The Catholic in me remembers something said to the effect of “be as a child”.
I think they used to say tomatoes were poisonous. Now they have luetin and vitamin c? Good for the prostate, or hamburger or umm what ever.
Good summary, dan, pro and con.
Can I ask you – what would you want for yourself if you were in that condition? Assume for purposes of the question what we cannot know: that you feel nothing, think nothing. Your brain is almost entirely destroyed.
Putting myself into that situation….I think of my family. (Since by definition I’m gone.) I’d want out. Anyone who was still clinging to the empty shell of what I was should – my opinion – get over it and move on. Remember me was I was before this horrible thing happened. And the resources used to keep “me” “alive” could certainly find better use. The method of exit is complicated, as we have reflected. Do we stop artificial feeding of such a person? Artificial respiration? At my age (nearly 60) I doubt I’d last long in any case, thank God.
There is more life than this life.
——————-
I’m personally glad I wasn’t put in Michael Schiavo’s position. What a horrible thing to happen to this young man. Whether he’s a demon or an angel – and he seems to be neither, just a guy – I’m glad it’s over for him, and that he and his new family can go on with their lives.
Susan,
I hope Scotland finds you well if you’re still there. Now if you practiced law in Illinois, I’d have to tell you to give me a call. It occurs that you are an honest lawyer, and a good one. I think the law is important to you, and understandably so. Believe I mentioned earlier it’s time to re-do our wills. It would be good fun to chat about it, after all of this, and then finally write the thing. You’d have to match the local rates, though, sorry I’m firm on that.
I plan on “talking to my daughters in it”, I won’t want to be left on a machine with a limited quality of life & little or no brain activity. I’ll tell them not to use every last dime. Irish-Catholic farm raised people tend to be conservative financially, out of necessity. They will be reminded, of how I once was. I’ll tell them it’s ok to make their decision, and it doesn’t have to be perfect, it will be done from love, that’s enough and all I can ask. I might add for them to do as they were told, of course reminding that I tend to be “right” about things.
Yes he is probably just a guy. I think in all of us, there is demon and angel. It’s how we control that. It was a hellish situation. In rough times in my life, the good and bad always talk to me. Decisions made in rough times for me don’t go away quickly. You seen in my situation every last one in the family I grew up with is now gone. (starting at my age of 19 till about 45) I’m in my 50’s now.
The lady I mentioned in an earlier post, talked about my all too intimate acquaintanceship with death, amongst a lot of other things. You see she didn’t ask me anything, and I did not say a word. That might explain, my “going with my gut” feelings in this.
dan,
Get Amp to give you my email address.
I am a good lawyer. In California. But I’m no more qualified to practice law in Illinois than you are – less, if you’re a member of the Illinois bar – but it might be fun to talk about it anyway. It’s not a complicated process, wills, but you have to do some thinking. I can suggest topics of thought. Of course I can’t charge you.
As for end of life decisions, I think one thing we’ve learned from the deplorable Terri Schiavo situation is that we should try to bring all our family members onto the same page. Families being what they are, we may not succeed.
It’s quite cold in Edinburgh. Like seriously cold. I hear it gets quite cold in Illinois too – colder, actually. Either way I’m chilled, but I’m having a great time.
Amp,
If you would, please forward Susan’s email to me, and you can forward mine to her also. Please note her contact right above this. Thanks for that.
Susan, are you of Scottish descent? I met a Scotsman once at a party, we got a long in a great way. Should we talk on email, I’ll tell of this Scotsman, and his reprehensible conduct at the party. It’ll make a good conversation for any your wish to repeat it to in Scotland. Probably best not to waste space on here with my rambling about that. I’m not a member of the bar, well not the law bar anyway.
No, mostly German descent.
My daughter did her junior year abroad at St. Andrew’s, and met and married a local. Great guy. That’s why I’m here.
The weather is worse than ever, and I got seriously chilled yesterday. I’m coming down with something. I don’t blame the chill though – there are toddler children in the household, and naturally anyone who comes into contact with them gets sick.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/cuba/11363300.htm
IRONY?
Well that link does not appear to work.
Try Googling the news for the name Juan Emilio Aboy….or Feds can put feeding tube in Cuban exile on hunger strike.
dispassionate,
I read the article. It’s pretty vague about what the legal basis would be for inserting a feeding tube into this man against his will. Or for holding him in prison indefinitely, for that matter.
I’d suspect this is more of the “Homeland Security” nonsense.
It’s ironical only in the sense that here is yet another attempt by the government to control individual choice. Government (in that case, the Florida courts) declined to exert that kind of unconstitutional control over Terri Schiavo. I can only hope someone forces them to do the same in Mr. Aboy’s case.
Of course Mr. Aboy doesn’t want to die – he wants to make a fuss, which he is doing, apparently.
ps – someone who starts at 225 has some room to make a fuss without putting himself in serious danger.
Well…let’s see…..do you think that should be Congress’ job under Article III?
(Blockquote above should be on top not bottom paragraph.)
Oh, and to “karpad” …or maybe it should be “kapok”:
“git” ??? …how very quaint! I know you must have heard it because I doubt you ever looked in or were able to read well enough to comprehend an entry in the OED. But while we are using British colloquialisms…..Piss Off! I am a much better troll than you.
from the NYT:
Of course, I am not surprised that this has fallen off the radar of CNN, Fox and others of their ilk.
I don’t know who’s involved here because the article is so vague. I also don’t know which law the authorities think they’re operating under.
It’s nice to see that you admit that you’re a troll, dispassionate. We’ve all known it for a long time; I’m glad to see that you know it too.
Now that Terri’s wishes have been carried out, and that matter is closed, you’ll have to find something else to complain about. There’s always something. This Cuban fellow is probably as good as anything else.
Trolls & gits, hmm, I’ve learned a bit. Can any of you tell me what they mean? So I’m too lazy to look em up on the net.
Catholocism; well now, Susan, Monica, Katherine did get heated on that one, and Amp said to turn the heat down. I can also get irritated when someone “attacks” my faith, Monica, hit quite well on it saying family, tradition were part of Catholicism.
With me, who has lost the family he grew up with it’s a connection to that family, so an attack on Catholocism hits quite close to that connection, and therefore my family. I would tend to think that would also apply to other faiths, and if they have happy memories of that family watch out.
Summing that up, most of us know that our faith has not always the greatest ideas, but it’s part of us, our identity, tradition. Just a thought, any others?
And you “took the bait” anyway!
Dan,
A “git” is English slang for another whom one considers to be an idiot.
OED=Oxford English Dictionary, the comprehensive and definitive dictionary for the English language. It contains the words their etymologies , whether the word has ameliorated or pejorated over time, language of origing and other interesting information about English words.
“Troll” is a term applied to one who deliberately antagonizes another or particular group of others on a message board. It does not necessarily mean that the “troll” in incorrect, just that he knows full well his views and statements are going to be unpopular.
No, dear, it means a bastard – beget, begotten, remember? – but is used as a general term of abuse for someone who does not justify the effort of thinking up a more elaborate insult. As ever, Quinion is your man for a full explanation – http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-git1.htm
Dan,
There are those here who believe that the right thing (I disagree) according to the law was done in this case. But they have also openly voiced concern for the financial drain the baby boomers will make on society as the boomers reach aged infirmity while simultaneously discounting (and conveniently choosing not to address) my questions about profoundly disabled children. Their tangential references are reasonable, but mine are not? In other words…does a different set of rules for this debate apply to them?
It has been said by M. Schiavo , in a interview on NIGHTLINE, and I quote directly from the transcript:
Dan, can you explain the logic in that statement? I sure don’t see it.
There are those on here who will try to rationalize that taking away nutition and hydration is not starvation in the case of a person who is in a persistent vegetative state, because they believe that person cannot feel pain or emotions. The key word is “believe” They believe; they cannot know for sure. But they have put forth their beliefs as fact.
Did you know that there is still a raging debate among experts as to exactly what constitutes a PVS and whether it is a true medical diagnosis or more of a “coined term” for a syndrome the physical and mental ramifications of which are far from being clearly understood–even by those in the medical profession?
Since you seem to be one of the few moderate voices on this board, who is willing to explore beyond the boundaries of your preconceived notions, I am leaving you a link to a discussion of PVS. I belive you might find it interesting.
http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring/pvsilm.htm
A quote from the article:
Dan,
Our family (parents, wife, and we siblings) made a decision 9 years ago to take my older brother off of a ventilator because he was brain dead. Not (the questionable) PVS–not disabled–but clearly WHOLE brain dead. We did not make a mistake. Having walked my proverbial mile…I resent those on here who make implications that I have no knowledge of what I speak, both professionally and personally.
You feel “uneasy” about the Schiavo case. I do too. Gut feelings are not always to be discounted.
I am going to depart this board. Amp has my permission to supply my email address to you should you desire. I will be happy to address any questions or sentiments you might wish to address to me in private correspondence.
PS: Loved your story about the lady in the bar.
I’ll concede that point gladly, as I’m not a troll.
and actually, trolls are by definition without merit. they act to provoke, and ONLY to provoke. be it someone who shows up on a board to express their own opinion where they know it won’t be welcome and have no intention of honest debate, or will simply spout nonsense to get people angry.
examples of trollish behavior:
going to the Star Trek: TNG message board, and talking about how Kirk is a better captian than Picard, and that claiming “P1c@rd is teh gay.”
logging onto, say, dailykos, and posting in some thread “you lost the election, so no one cares what you think!”
yeah, I don’t do those.
and I’m not averse to calling names when someone else starts it.
that’s incredibly childish.
hence: git
Actually, Maureen, the word has many meanings (hence my reference to the OED) but don’t take my word for it.
In English it originally referred to one’s progeny and had no pejorative slant, as in “his get” referring to one’s chilren. Only later did it pejorate to mean illegitimate offspring.
In modern slang (as used on the internet) it has pejorated even more to mean someone who is afflicted, with one meaning being not very bright.
But it also has other pejorative meanings……
Do an internet seach. I did and found:
The above list could go on and on, but I perceived that the individual was primarily intending to insult my intelligence. I will readily concede, however, that s/he could very well have intended to insult my parentage, too….given the fact that some of you appear to be unable to produce anything other than childish, “naa-naa-nah-boo-boo” comments.
don’t feed the troll
From your own cited source. I rest my case.
YOU said it. I didn’t. Take it up with your board mate.
What some of you people can’t deal with is someone who gives back as good as you try to give. Don’t worry you are safe. As the kids sometimes say, “I am outta here!”
Amp, if you would, you can do the exchange of email things between dispassionate and I if you get this, thanks.
Guess I got things rather “wound up”, with my question, lol. Probably should’ve just done a web search.
Dispassionate, if you note this, we’ll see if Amp shares the emails, I’d be interested in your ideas, on some things. The bar story, I think you might find interesting as, unless I’m mistaken it is somewhat related to your field. Will look at the pvs link, tks. Hard choice with your brother, so goes life, it occurs to have fun, if & it presents itself.
As per the news tonight, Terry Schiavo was never abused, Michael Schiavo never said, “When is the B…. going to die…”, there never was any insulin injections, and so on and so on. Lies were reported by the news and allowed the public to become polarized and a man who loved his wife, who was “always courteous” to be slandered and hated. The CAT scan should have been convincing for most people. The media doesn’t report facts, they “create” “news” when they have to and clearly they did in this instance. RIP Terry.
Sadly true, Barb. The Terri Schiavo case made big news over here in Scotland, though my Scottish friends puzzle over it. “What does any of this have to do with us?” And indeed their ways of dealing with this are different than ours (and since I’m on holiday I haven’t bothered to find out what they are).
Slow news interval, I guess. Charles and Camilla hadn’t gotten married yet, the Pope hadn’t died, nothing much happening….so a big noise is made about this woman and her family. And suddenly there’s Jesse Jackson of all people, in every photograph. (!!)
But the Schindlers too share some of the blame. Their website is full of half-truths and just plain misinformation, and they charge their son-in-law with every sort of crime. It’s a sad business.
I’m hoping that everyone has a chance to recover, and to regain some balance about the very sad death – from brain damage, long ago – of this young woman.
Michael stood the course, and did what he thought was right. Whether he really was right or not about what Terri wanted, I have to admire his courage and persistence, which were very costly for him personally.
Susan & Barb,
Hello, I’ve only a bit of time. I think the Schindlers were just retiries or close to it trying to save the life of their daughter, that is hellish, so their actions were clumsy. I don’t blame them for that.
I’m not ready to say angel or devil about M.S.. Mentioned some thoughts earlier. I will say there is a lot of B.S. on the web.
So ignoring that, I will also say that as he had a new woman, and had a wife in the nursing home who I guesss he used to visit often, do you not think she might get jealous. Knowing women as I don’t, that is a possibility, depending on her character. I will state being around a jealous woman is not a single – solitary bit of fun. So as he says his wife didn’t know anything or feel anything, why not give her back to the parents. Might have made the new woman happy, and a happy woman is much fun to be around.
We can say what we want based on all the so called (b.s.) facts on the web. I have my doubts, as to M.S. being totally altruistic, and I’ll leave it at that.
So as he says his wife didn’t know anything or feel anything, why not give her back to the parents
Because she was not an object, Dan. It wasn’t a simple matter of passing a body around. She had chosen to marry him, he was her husband and legal guardian. Why should he have forfeited that responsibility? Wouldn’t that be a betrayal?
I must say I didn’t know the details of how the Schindlers had accused him of the worst things including abuse. I retract what I said about imagining that even the worst of their behaviour was only a consequence of obstinate attachment to their daughter and refusal to accept what had happened to her. Of course I can’t judge people I don’t know, and even then I wouldn’t judge strictly speaking as I wouldn’t know the whole story anyway, but my impression now leans towards “control freaks”. Which might also help explain why poor Terri developed an eating disorder. Even loving parents can be control freaks, by the way, so I’m not saying anyone’s a devil here. But it’s just shocking they would make up that kind of allegations against their daughter’s husband. Not to mention, by doing so, they’re also degrading her entire marriage. I don’t know, you just don’t make that kind of accusation lightly. For me, that’s the worst bit.
Dan, You should be as quick to judge the parents as you are Michael Schiavo. And on as flimsy evidence. Then you could congratulate your self as to how even handed you are.
Monica,
You make a valid point, he might well have considered that betrayal. I don’t know what went through his head. I’m not calling him, angel, devil, altruistic, self-centered or much of anything. Believe my general point in the previous post was that, he had a lot of perseverance, and perhaps not a smooth road at home, really just a passing thought. It might be as you say, that he thought betrayal, it might also have been another motive. Unless either of us has full knowledge, how do we know?
As to the parents, and I believe they did talk of some possible abuse? At least I think I seen something of that on the web. Maybe it was something they felt had went on? If they didn’t feel that and made it up, ok, Monica, that was a nasty thing, period.
As to them being control freaks and causing Terris eating disorder, lets pause on this a bit. How long was she married, and how long living with her husband? So did they cause it? Does she look really thin in the wedding photos, and before? I don’t think she does, how about after she was married? I don’t have photos or links, sorry, but maybe you might want to look them up. She died while living with him, somehow her brother and sister are alive. Better re-think that one, Monica. Logically the the eating disorder would have came from her husband rather than her parents. It might have came from a screwed up look in the mirror. Her brother and sister are alive, and fought along side the controlling parents. They don’t look thin as a bone.
Now you refer to them as control freaks, maybe, they fought for guardianship. They went to extremes in the media to get control. Maybe her hubby, he kept and fought for control for what 15 yrs.? He got his way, she is dead, cremated and buried I believe at his family burial area?
As far as them degrading her marriage, yes I suppose they did. I suppose also, her husband petitioned the court to have her starved to death, the court agreed with testimony, and ordered the tube removed.
Regina,
This is part of what I said earlier: I’m not ready to say angel or devil about M.S.. Mentioned some thoughts earlier. I will say there is a lot of B.S. on the web.
Do you take that as judgement?
There is a lot of false information on the web, I didn’t say which way it went, most likely both ways. Now if you want to congratulate yourself on your logic saying how anti M. Schiavo I am from that statement I guess you can do so.
As to judging the parents or anybody, it’s not my job, nor yours. In their minds they fought for their daughter, it was a terrible situation for all concerned. Her husband I believe is on record as fighting to honor her wishes.
I will also add this was about taking of a human life. Like it or not that is what was done. The courts decided that is what she would have wanted. I will also add that medical opinion is just that, opinion: specifically, that she could not feel pain. Some people accept that as total and complete truth, to do so is simple short sightedness and naivety.
Logic in this is that she could not communicate, that does not mean she could not feel pain. It means she cannot express that it is felt or not. As far as todays science, it’s better than yesterdays, worse than tomorrows, and all we have. So when you yank that tube, ignore an infection, or not it might be felt.
dan,
The causes of eating disorders, like the causes of so many other psychological conditions, are mysterious to us. I’m hesitant to blame parents or husbands or anybody, remembering that there was a time, not so long ago, within my lifetime, when parents were blamed for schizophrenia (which we now know to be almost entirely genetic) and autism (which has strong genetic components, and for which environmental agents seem to be chemical rather than psychological in nature).
At one time I did a bit of research on sociopaths – people who just don’t relate to the rest of us, and who are capable of appalling crimes – and found that here too the causes are unknown, and probably include a strong genetic component.
Eating disorders are something of a puzzle because they seem so recent in development. My 20 year old asserts that “there were anorexics when you were a kid you just didn’t notice” (in line with her general position that I’m a dolt) but severe anorexia isn’t something you just “don’t notice.” Shrinking down to skin and bones? People notice. It didn’t exist when I was in college. If Terri Schiavo had been my college classmate, she would not have had bullimia. Because almost no one did. Now it seems that every third kid has it.
My own theory here is that our young women are the canary in the coal mine – the first to warn us that something is gravely wrong. There is some stressor in the general environment, the social environment.
I’m back in California now from a visit with my second child and elder daughter. She’s 35. OK, she has Asperger’s Syndrome (an autism variant), but she is operating under so much stress that she’s just barely holding it together. Her husband of like age, neurotypical (“NT”) (I’m not allowed, in my family, to say “normal”) can’t sleep. Like, chronically. Sometimes he takes pills, sometimes not, but basically the guy is so wired up he can’t sleep.
Back at the ranch in California, my eldest and older son, also Asperger’s, operates under tremendous stress, and seems to worry all the time. His wife, NT, is seriously depressed, but soldiers on.
Were we like this in our 30’s? My husband has Asperger’s too (the thing is known to be hereditary), and I remember being sort of driven, but I don’t remember so many of my friends having “breakdowns” as my kids report.
I don’t know, obviously, why Terri had bullimia. But I’m not about to park it on either her parents or her husband. This is a much more complicated situation.
Logically the the eating disorder would have came from her husband rather than her parents. It might have came from a screwed up look in the mirror.
Dan, don’t misunderstand me, I understand my comment may have seemed too strong, but it was definitely not meant as direct blame-the-parents “accusation” of a direct cause-effect link betwen parental behaviour and developing eating disorders.
Whether the Schindler’s behaviour was out of understandable obstinate parental attachment, or obstinate dogmatic religious beliefs, or a mix of all that, wether we attribute them more or less good faith, even if they obviously cared for their daughter, they still do come off as control freaks, to put it bluntly. In my view. In the view of those who were most disturbed by things like them calling in all the fundie troops, and exposing such a delicate matter to political exploitation, and most of all accusing their daughter’s husband of abusing Terri — which in this case was not something that they either perceived in good faith or made up in bad faith: the allegations have been proven unfounded, so it means they did make them up. Plus, they brought them up *only after* the legal disagreement, long after Terri’s accident. If they’d really in good faith believed there may have been domestic abuse, they’d have said so while Terri was still fine and conscious and her own normal self, and they certainly wouldn’t have spent time with Michael even after Terri’s accident, urging him to get a new life and all that. It really is very disturbing, for them to bring up that sort of charge so late, because it means they were using it only as another tool to get guardianship revoked from him. It does make them look even more “controlling”, if they thought denigrating their son in law and degrading their daughter’s marriage was fair game too. That’s what I found saddest.
I really don’t intend to criminalise anybody, I don’t even want to “judge” really because how can I know? I hate the very fact a personal family diatribe has become a public matter in that way. But since it’s become a public matter of argument, then I can’t help having my own impressions, it’s inevitable — impressions on the individuals involved, and not just on the principles and politics and legal aspects, which go beyond the individual persons involved in the case and are the most important aspect anyway.
I understand you’re more bothered by the removal of the tube, ok. I’m not going to argue with that all over. I understand your point of view. But whatever the point of view here, I don’t think what they did can be attributed entirely to good faith, specifically with those allegations which I find are the lowest point in their behaviour.
What I said was simply: my impression now leans towards “control freaks”?. Which might also help explain why poor Terri developed an eating disorder. Even loving parents can be control freaks, by the way…
I agree with Susan, again, there obviously isn’t a direct cause-effect link. I didn’t mean to suggest that. Neither the parents alone, or the husband alone, or much less the look-in-the-mirror alone, can have “caused” bulimia. Wish it was that simple, would be a lot easier to prevent or get out of… But controlling parents can be one of the triggering factors, especially when bulimia is developed at a young age. Of course there is a predisposition, it may have a genetic part (I know there were studies in this sense, but no pyschological disorder can ever be attributed entirely to either genetics or environment), and it does develop in personalities already inclined to some form of obsessive/compulsive and addictive behaviour (I hate labels and categories, but for the sake of convenience, that’s the traits that bulimia and anorexia relate to). Family dynamics, or of the general environment one grows up in, do play a bigger role than media standards of skinny beauty, though. To put it succintly and in inevitably generalised form, eating disorders are a self-destructive way of trying to control one’s body and one’s life, a distorted mechanism of rebellion against the feeling it is being controlled by others. (That’s why I think it’s even sadder that she ended up losing any control whatsoever on her body for fiteen years… life can really have a sick, sadistic sense of humour sometimes.)
Now we have no way of knowing how long Terri had been suffering from bulimia, it can be hidden rather easily and for a long time even from people closest to the person. But since her potassium levels were so bad they caused her a heart attack, and most of all since it seems her bones were so frail, it must have been going on for a while.
Sure, in theory, it could have been that her marriage was so oppressive and her husband such a controlling freak, it was that situation that finally triggered that disorder. But if that’s what the parents are suggesting, how come they were so friendly with Michael, how come no one thought anything so terrible was going on in their marriage even while they were all living in the same house, how come it took them years to come up with those suggestions?
Let’s scratch any allusion to any implication that the parents played any factor whatsoever in her disorder, ok, I don’t even want to go there. But please don’t tell me they’re not to blame for painting their son-in-law as a batterer, only when it served a legal purpose, not when it could have been brought up to *help* their daugther and stop her being abused (if the allegations had been true, that is). Even without being an abuser, he may still be a jerk ,for all we know, but he never said, in public or in court, anything about them that can even compare to what they accused him of. That I can’t get over. The level to which they stooped.
My 20 year old asserts that “there were anorexics when you were a kid you just didn’t notice”? (in line with her general position that I’m a dolt) but severe anorexia isn’t something you just “don’t notice.”?
Susan, I happen to agree with your daughter (and no I don’t think you’re a dolt!). Actually, I think you’re both right. It is something that has spread today but it goes back a long way, longer than a few decades ago.
Of course severe anorexia is noticeable – but back when there was no psychology, no studies, no concept of eating disorders, these things were often classified, or explained or understood, in different ways, with other tools available at the time (and they also manifested themselves in different ways). Same as with all other disorders, after all. Before there was a science to study them, they didn’t exist as such.
The first specific mentions of anorexia as pathological condition date back to the 1800’s. But even before that, there have been studies of the lives of female ascetics in the Christian tradition, that have displayed those typical traits of the illness (“holy anorexia”). It goes back to medieval times, at least.
I think it’s both a modern and an ancient thing, having to do with more general pressures, than the specific one to be thin or correspond to some fashion “ideal” – that’s the symptom, and it does play a part, but I don’t think it’s the main factor.
monica,
In the course of my growing up I must have known thousands of young women my age. Not one of them was severely anorexic enough to be noticed, even to be noticed as unusually thin. Not one. I’ve met several anorexics my daughter’s age, and believe me, this isn’t something you miss or overlook.
However you classify, explain, understand, whatever, whatever tools you have or don’t have, a young woman of normal height who weights 80 pounds isn’t something you just ignore. And I’m here to tell you that I never met or even saw anyone like that in all my growing up. I first heard of the disorder when I was in law school, and in that case it was the much-younger sister of a classmate, not a contemporary. (I went to law school a little late, too.)
Where was it all this time, in your view? Where were all the anorexics? Did they just magically not attend any of the schools I went to, or live in any of my neighborhoods? I know that there have always been a few seriously ill people, and I’m sure that’s true in this case too, but the key word here is few. If it was anything like as common then as it is now, believe me, dolts or not, my generation would have noticed it.
(I was born in 1945, just so we know which generation we’re talking about.)
They do. And the vile accusations they leveled at their son-in-law don’t improve the picture. As you point out, if any of this had been true, or even if they had had any reasonable suspicion, they would have brought all this up much earlier in the process. The Schindlers’ behavior contrasts with Michael’s, who said almost nothing in public, never to my knowledge accused his parents-in-law of anything, did not put up a ranting-and-raving website, on and on, even when accused of the most disgusting crimes.
I do think the Schindlers deeply believed in their cause, and that they were, in their view, fighting for the life of their child. That position does tend to cause some excesses. What they seem to have lost track of is the notion that Terri was an adult, a person in her own right, and that she had rather different views about what should be done than they did. Parents who can’t absorb that idea about children in their 20’s (or, worse, their 40’s) do have a bit of a problem.
I’m hoping that now that this is over, that they get some rest, perhaps take some time away, and are enabled to place this whole transaction in perspective. They have, after all, two other children, and perhaps grandchildren? who need and deserve their attention.
Susan, I didn’t mean it was as common in the past – whether a few decades ago, or a few centuries ago – as today. Of course it wasn’t. I think you’re right on that. It’s not completely new either, that’s what I meant.
So yes it wasn’t as widespread, definitely, but it also wasn’t recognised, or talked about, or much less treated. Even autism, however different a condition and more neurological than psychological, not too long ago wasn’t even identified in most cases, so today it seems like it’s an epidemic compared to that. Of course, anorexia in its extreme form, where the weight goes down to 80 pounds, would be impossible to ignore – but a lot of girls with an eating disorder do not display such extreme visible signs. Terri apparently did not.
So perhaps it’s a bit of both – it is more common, but also more acknowledged.
What they seem to have lost track of is the notion that Terri was an adult, a person in her own right, and that she had rather different views about what should be done than they did.
Exactly, that’s what made me say that that kind of behaviour from parents may have something to do with the eating disorder, although of course I said that rather carelessly and I’m not making any direct link. Maybe what happened to Terri exacerbated that kind of controlling attitude, but they probably had that tendency before too. And I don’t doubt they cared for her, but parental love doesn’t always manifest itself in healthy ways…
There are a few elements in this story that made me identify with Terri, so of course I bring my own bias and projections to this. I just hope and pray that there will be no other case where everything is subjected to such media scrutiny and political fighting and privacy violations. No one wants to be famous like this.
I have to join you in this one. Again, it is the parents who brought this entire business into the media spotlight, not to mention the political spotlight.
I stumbled on the Schindlers’ website a few years ago, and was totally taken in. But then early this year I found out that the money the Schindlers were accusing Michael of wanting was pretty much gone, and my curiosity was twigged. So, what’s in it for him? Why is he doing this?
I was unable to find a website posted by Michael telling his side of the story, because there isn’t one. I had to do some digging to figure out what was really going on. When I got hold of the facts, I went back to the parents’ site and found the lies, the omissions, the misrepresentations….it’s not obvious on first reading.
They even got Jesse Jackson involved at the end. Yuck.
I’m glad it’s over.
Susan, we must be of an age. When I was in high school in the very late 60’s, I was called “Twiggy” by my classmates. Remember her? I did not consider it a compliment and was desperately desirous of being a girl with boobs and a curvaceous figure. Marilyn Monroe, despite her untimely death, was still considered a standard of feminine beauty. If you go back and look at her actual size, she was not anorexic. Quite the opposite.
It has only been in the past 20-30 years that the ideal as expressed in fashion models has become so very thin. I think it is this that has changed the landscape and is one major reason for the rise in anorexia and bulimia.
I’d have to agree, rhc. I don’t think families now are more sick than families two generations ago…..and the genome certainly doesn’t change that fast. What has changed is the image of beauty we’re projecting to young women.
Marilyn was…ample. Not fat, mind you, but not skinny either.
There are probably other factors.
Ah, I can resist everything except digressions…
It’s not necessarily that a family has to be “sick”, for one of their children to develop a disorder of that kind. I don’t think it has to do necessarily with the family environment, either. But I think it’s very reductive to identify the major reason in the fashion trends. That is the superficial level on which things get played out – the body, body image – but the body is the seat of a lot of deeper, messier emotions and for someone to get to the levels of such a devastating condition, obviously there has to be something more than simply being conditioned by ideals of thinness. Those definitely affect the dieting craze, and issue of self-esteem, and all kinds of widespread behaviour. But to go to the length of literally starving yourself, or binge and purge several times a day, is quite another thing. It’d take a lot more than brainwashing to convince someone to do such harm to themselves. It does not happen to everyone who gets more or less obsessed with dieting, or fashion, or looks, as a lot of people do. It doesn’t even happen to most, or to a significant percentage. I don’t believe in labelling or profiling, but there are often common traits among people displaying the same condition. Individual psychological traits. The influence of family dynamics, where it can play a role, can complicate those factors. And unsurprisingly, a lot of parents often are very unwilling to even admit their children have a problem. Guess what happens when the family dynamics are are actually bit screwed up? Parents are the last to acknowledge this. And by screwed up, it can be ordinarily screwed up, not pathologically sick or abusive. It can be the sort of situation where parents can be a little too authoritarian or controlling, or ambivalent, or maybe have their own problems, and that would not have any serious impact on children with a “tougher skin” and without the psychological predispositon to those disorders.
For these parents, pointing the finger at those skinny models can be the easiest and most welcome scapegoating in the world. Especially if they think that acknowledging something wrong within the family would equal “taking all the blame” or that they have “failed” as parents. There’s no contest, no one succeeds or fails, there should be no blame, but no scapegoating or pretending either.
Maybe people are all a bit more screwed up today than in the past. Or maybe there is more of an outlet today for problems that didn’t emerge as such before. But to think that a social trend alone is enough to cause individuals to act on such self-destructive behaviour, is a bit of a stretch. It’s taking the symptom and making it the cause. Even the Werther effect itself didn’t affect simply everyone who read the book, but those who were presumably already suicidal. Who would commit suicide simply because it was done by the cool protagonist of a cool novel, if they weren’t already attracted to suicide? 1700’s, there were already very screwed up people, and there probably always have been…
well, OK monica, the Werther effect is a good example of massive adolescent screw-up which much pre-dates our current difficulties.
Still, I’m wondering if the general fragility of the family – a 50% failure rate for marriage is hardly good news – isn’t partly implicated in the increase in eating and other disorders in adolescents.
Then again, maybe teenagers and people in their twenties are just plain nuts. That statement (with which it is hardly possible to argue) may cover the whole thing.
Well, I think a confluence of two trends has impact here, even if Monica doesn’t. I’ve already talked about how models, and thus society’s ideals of beauty, have become much slimmer in the past decades. But the other trend is the fattening of Americans overall. So if you want to be skinny but don’t possess the will to restrain your eating habits, you get there by 1) taking drugs (remember fen fen?) or 2) surgery or 3) eating and then purging. Now I know the Romans did a lot of eating and purging, so I will concede that this has been with us for a while. But I think that this is one of those trends where there are vectors–as high school age girls discovered it, they shared it with their friends and it took off.
You can disagree b/ it makes sense to me.
I will be brief, a couple beers are calling me. It’s not possible for us to know what caused Terri’s condition, it might have triggered from a derisive comment from an unknown guy she admired in high school. We don’t have the history of her weight versus date so we can chart it, for whatever that would tell us, I’m visual, so give me a chart please!
Watch any home remodeling show, how many are there now. Do they have plump carpenters or hosts on them? I really don’t like the damn things, they cause my wife to want to remodel that of which I am content with, and give my $’s to home depot. The “hot & slim”, image of our society, may have well, been the primary cause of her problem. Who is there Page: that hot female carpenter, and don’t forget the hot male remodlers. Too many channels, umm, ok, off the subject.
As I seem stuck in the position of opposition, I will tell you of a friend I have. A woman, about 45 yrs., had lived for about 15 yrs. with her husband, towards the end of the relationship, she had a heart attack, weighing then about 85#’s. He was a bit of a controlling lout, so she finally got out. About 4 years later she is still alive and now weighs in about 115#. In her case getting away from the cause (hubby), alleviated her stress, and she was able to get back to a somewhat normal weight, and probably saved her life.
If we take her eating disorder as the cause of her demise, and assume it may have came from society, parents, the wise cracking kid in high school. Why didn’t it go away or lessen when she married and moved in with Mike, her husband? Maybe it just couldn’t go away, or they were just busy young and starting out, did he manage a restaurant? That can be time consuming to the max, too busy for him to notice, maybe if he worked 70 hours a week. I’ll leave you with that question, why didn’t it go away or lessen when she lived with Mike? It didn’t, she died, well almost. Any thoughts?
Monica,
I’ve returned from my beers, and feeling a bit talkative. You said: which in this case was not something that they either perceived in good faith or made up in bad faith: the allegations have been proven unfounded, so it means they did make them up.
It does not mean that at all, it simply means that the allegations weren’t proven. I don’t necessarily believe them, but there is something to a parents intuition.
My youngest daughter was about 1/3 of the way through her senior year in high school. She got distant, grouchy, tempermental, we tried to talk to her, and usually got snapped at. We did not know what it was, she ended up going out of state to college, I think mostly to get away from some pain here. We finally figured out it was a former boyfriend, we don’t know much more than that, even that was vague. It finally came out he said some things about her “things she had not done”. We knew it was about him, just couldn’t put a finger on it. Sometimes you talk about it to figure things out, and that takes a while.
I couldn’t “prove” it, but I felt pretty early, that it had something to do with her ex-boyfriend. Two or three years later, we finally get told there was a rumor in high school she was pregnant. Moral of that story, don’t be too quick to discount the intuition of a parent, slow though it may be.
You wrote: But please don’t tell me they’re not to blame for painting their son-in-law as a batterer, only when it served a legal purpose
That is probably your best arguement to sway me, although you may not have realized how I would look at it. Yes they probably did paint him that way to help sway, gave you that opinion earlier as nasty if they did not believe it. As a guy, should I have been placed in that situation, and really believed, “known” he had caused her death, my actions would have been quite different, calculating, secretive, and well just take cruel to another level. So you see I can’t relate to simply bringing Jesse J. and George W. in, not remotely enough, so that does not add up quite right.
As Matt at abstract appeal has pointed out, if Terri’s initial injury really had been the result of assault, Michael would hardly have initiated a malpractice lawsuit against her doctors, alleging that they should have realized that she was suffering from bullimia. Filing suit guarantees that the attorneys for the doctors will do their level best to prove that her injuries had another cause, and will prompt the most searching inquiry into Michael’s own behavior.
I’m sure the defense attorneys did just that, and were unable to prove that Michael had anything to do with her initial collapse.
No one in the family mentioned this batterer charge at that time. That only came up much later, as the Schindlers desperately made every charge and dreamed up every theory imaginable. If they had the kind of intuition you’re talking about, dan, they would have mentioned it far earlier in the process.
So, they either just made this up out of their heads as a tactic (vile behavior) or they convinced themselves years later that somehow, somehow, this son-in-law, who will not take directions (because they really are control freaks) must be to blame.
MS, who knew them very well by this time, had the sense to keep his mouth shut, but it must have hurt.
__________________
A lovely young woman, married, trying to conceive a child, was caught up by the demons in her personality, and unwittingly destroyed herself. It happens hundreds of times a day, in intoxicated young people who run head-on into bridge supports at 70 mph, in drug using kids who go just a little too far, in so many ways.
We know too little to place “blame.” Her parents loved her, and their other two kids seem fine; her husband loved her to the end, at considerable personal cost. Terri certainly did not intend to kill herself when she played along with her eating disorder: she was sick, and needed treatment which she didn’t get. That’s why the malpractice carrier for her doctor paid out $1m – because the doctor had a duty to figure this out, and was maybe in too much of a hurry or who knows what, and dropped the ball.
Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, rest in peace.
Monica, I have to agree with your words:
“It’s not necessarily that a family has to be “sick”?, for one of their children to develop a disorder of that kind. I don’t think it has to do necessarily with the family environment, either. But I think it’s very reductive to identify the major reason in the fashion trends… the body is the seat of a lot of deeper, messier emotions and for someone to get to the levels of such a devastating condition, obviously there has to be something more than simply being conditioned by ideals of thinness… to go to the length of literally starving yourself, or binge and purge several times a day, is quite another thing… It does not happen to everyone who gets more or less obsessed with dieting, or fashion, or looks… It doesn’t even happen to most, or to a significant percentage… there are often common traits among people displaying the same condition. Individual psychological traits. The influence of family dynamics, where it can play a role, can complicate those factors. And unsurprisingly, a lot of parents often are very unwilling to even admit their children have a problem.”
Speaking from my own experience here. My sister and I grew up in the same “dysfunctional” family. Despite the sometimes ineffective (read dysfunctional) ways of dealing with life and parenting that our parents had, they were loving, caring, concerned and involved parents. They did the best they could with what knowledge they had.
Nonetheless, the alcoholism/addictive personality, the severe mental illness, the curly hair and freckles of previous generations all genetically manifested in me. My sister got the straight, thin hair, porcelain skin, and migrains. People can’t tell by looking that we’re sisters.
Family dynamics have played a part in my own difficulties, but the genetic tendencies have been the most influential.
Alcoholism, major depression, bulimia, and anorexia are all listed as diseases in by the AMA for a reason. Contrary to lingering beliefs, they are not problems of morality, will power, or environmental “allergies” or reactions to the external world.
To say that Terri’s parents caused her eating disorder is true in only one aspect: they gave her the genetics with which she lived. Can they be blamed for that? I don’t see how.
If there was any family dynamic which exacerbated her natural tendencies, whether in her family of origin or in her relationship with Michael, we may never know. Only those individuals, perhaps in conjunction with professional assistance, can make that determination.
I daresay the majority of people would be unwilling to undergo that deep a personal investigation or face their potential culpability in any such personal situation with out some extremely motivating factor. Denial is simple human nature, as is our tendency to blame external “forces” such as media, doctors, society, religions, “the man”, races, governments, aliens, “the devil”, the “victim”, and family members.
And Susan, I must reiterate your words:
“We know too little to place “blame.”? Her parents loved her, and their other two kids seem fine; her husband loved her to the end, at considerable personal cost. Terri… was sick, and needed treatment which she didn’t get.”
Her illness lead to her brain-death, and would naturally have lead to the death of her body. Only “heroic” measures of modern medical science kept her from her natural course. It was determined, ad nauseum, that Terri would not have chosen those measures for herself.
Does that mean she wished to commit suicide? Only Terri could have told us that. And of course, modern medicine is forcing us to reconsider what constitutes suicide. It beggs philosophical and ethical (theological for some) questions galore.
Ahh, food for discussion.
Susan,
As you say it happens a lot, young people self-destruct all the time. You seem to see the parents as control freaks, I see them as blundering, retires, trying to hang on to their daughter. I don’t like labeling people so I will refrain from labeling anybody anything. As you said earlier, Mike was persistent; I think we can all agree on that. He did want & achieve control. An old saying: watch out for the quiet one, that guy or gal that says nothing, but silently evaluates the situation, and acts with calculation in ever single move.
I would tend to think that if they had that intuition, or thought, it would have formed within 6 months, by that time, they might have become vocal. Some things take a while, to form, so finding a solution takes a while in many things. We keep working to find a cure for cancer, spending years on it. I believe that the parents did not vocalize that for well beyond 6 months, so we are not in total disagreement there. In their case, they don’t seem clever, so perhaps 6 months was not enough.
If I take a lit cigarette, put it to my hand, my hand is burnt; take the cigarette away, the burning stops, the wound is there yet. If I run some water on the wound quickly, the wound is lessened. Terri seems not to have had that cool water on her wound of anorexia, isn’t that part of being a partner, to be that cool water? He was there to petition the court to remove the tube. So while several on here will mention the parents as control freaks, I won’t label Mike, my gut instincts seem to trust him as far as I could throw him.
Lastly, yes, I agree 100%, May Terri rest in peace, I would pray she has found that cool water now, in Christ.
Here’s my opinion:
1. The Schindlers have been through an incredibly difficult time. They did not act perfectly, but under the circumstances, I don’t think I’m in any position to cast judgement on them. There’s certainly not enough evidence to justify speculation that they abused Terri before or after the accident; such speculation, in my opinion, is mean-spirited and pointless.
2. Michael Schiavo has been through an incredibly difficult time. He did not act perfectly, but under the circumstances, I don’t think I’m in any position to cast judgement on him. There’s certainly not enough evidence to justify speculation that he abused Terri before or after the accident; such speculation, in my opinion, is mean-spirited and pointless.
3. I’d really rather not have my website used for mean-spirited speculation or accusations against the Schindlers or against Michael Schiavo. If that’s what you want to discuss, then take it to a different website.
Honestly, I am really sorry I threw in that comment about the eating disorder, I certaintly did not mean it as a matter of cause-effect, blame or accusation of abuse against any of the parties involved, or much less start an argument in that sense, but I realise it did come across that way, besides, I’m inevitably projecting personal experiences and biases in this respect because there are things in there that do resonate on a personal level. I’m honestly not interested in casting blame or judgement, much less for people I don’t know, but I couldn’t help reacting to certain public elements of this story that I found most sad. For what it’s worth, just as I don’t think any single external influence can “cause” such a problem, I know no amount of love and support from even the most caring and open-minded parents or partners can “rescue” a person with that kind of problem, so in the end it’s pointless to even suggest any degree of external “responsibility” in that sense. I think it was sad that she didn’t seek help before it got that bad, I can definitely sympathise with that, and who knows, maybe ultimately it’s down to sheer luck if such tragedies can be avoided. It just makes me sad and angry that life wasn’t that generous to Terri. But that’s nobody’s fault, and I apologise for suggesting otherwise.
Kathi, I definitely agree and sympathise with what you wrote, thank you for putting what I meant in a much more thoughtful way… It’s a very messy and contradictory topic and I don’t have enough emotional distance about this.
Alcoholism, major depression, bulimia, and anorexia are all listed as diseases in by the AMA for a reason. Contrary to lingering beliefs, they are not problems of morality, will power, or environmental “allergies”? or reactions to the external world.
Indeed, that’s what bothers me most, those lingering beliefs, and sometimes, because I most often come across the kind of mentality that blames everything on the media and social trends, I tend to shift the focus more on the family environment, even if I know that there is no such cause-effect “blame” there either, but it’s just, that in my experience very often that’s where the denial can be stronger. Of course, it’s strongest of all in the person herself who suffers, when the problem is still being hidden, so that’s what often makes it so hard to deal with. It’s not easy, to learn not to blame oneself, or other people, to learn to get out of that trap of thinking in terms of blame that gets shifted around. I still haven’t managed that myself.
Good point, Amp, I’d been thinking it was time to change the subject a bit anyway.
Kathi,
You mentioned: Does that mean she wished to commit suicide? Only Terri could have told us that. And of course, modern medicine is forcing us to reconsider what constitutes suicide. It beggs philosophical and ethical (theological for some) questions galore.
Ahh, food for discussion.
Ok, my my point of view is that Terri did not have suicide on her mind or in the back of it. Neither do most of the other women that develop this disorder. A couple of the other members have mentioned on here that it was not nearly as noticeable some 30 years ago. I agree with that, although communications are better now. Genetics do play a huge role in making us “what we are”. In the area of “anorexia”, I see that as more society driven. Anorexia, if in the gene pool, would tend to self eliminate, in past times there was scant food. Eating out is a national pass-time, that has not always been the case.
The anorexic woman, is trying to make her self slim, and slim to her makes her more appealing. More appealing for, a mate, a mate for reproduction. That is the very act of life itself. Really sort of a perverse affliction. Yes that does mean I consider all the ads, on tv, wherever else contributory to women desiring to be very slim to be beautiful.
I live in Illinois, it used to snow more, now younger people don’t see that, and sometimes they show skepticism, when I tell them that. There is global warming, I don’t really have to read about it to know it as true, it only take a memory from what to me is a long time ago. Same holds true for anorexia, you see us “codgers”, do have knowledge that the younger generation can’t have. I’m 53, by the way.
As to the future, the courts decision on Terri, that will affect things to come, laws etc.. I’m not sure how, of course.
In writing on here, I came to think of all things an earthworm. Blind, navigates by feel, pretty low on the scale of things. Imagine the worms brain might give new meaning to the phrase “pin head”.
Fishing is thought of a fun, wholesome, activity, I have good memories of it myself. My father liked to relax along the water and spend time with me. He didn’t like to run the worm on the hook, I really don’t either. The helpless creature writhes in agony as you run a shaft of steel through a good percent of it’s body, leaving part of it to still wiggle to attract a fish. It’s simple nervous system, knows pain, but at the same time it’s resistant to the massive damage. Try that on one of us, we would die in a few seconds.
That brings me to my next point, if we go fishing for sharks, a worm isn’t big enough, sometimes we use other fish, why don’t we use a dog? As far as I can tell because the dog is smarter.
Then there are humans, lose your smarts, and someone might yank your plug. If and when to do that will speak of our civilization. It will be debated intensely; I think that’s a good thing.
The anorexic woman, is trying to make her self slim, and slim to her makes her more appealing. More appealing for, a mate, a mate for reproduction
Oh please… Dan, it is a serious psychological disorder you’re talking about, a mental illness, which by the way is a definition that should have no stigma attached to it, lots of people have psychological problems of different kinds and degrees, and it’s hard enough to deal with them without all the tabloid-style reductionism. If you’re interested in the cultural aspects and how gender roles and standard beauty images can play into eating disorders, then by all means there are very interesting studies that have taken pains to approach that angle in a serious, thoughtful, well-researched manner, whatever the different points of view. Pseudo-evolutionary babble about ‘competing for reproduction’ is not a good substitute for basic knowledge or helpful in any way. Especially when it comes from men who most likely have not experienced any of those problems. No polemics intended, just an observation.
Monica,
You said: it is a serious psychological disorder
I agree, and I did blame present day society primarily as the cause of it. You didn’t say what you think causes it, I’d be interested in your ideas of exactly what the causes might be.
I am a man, and have not experienced it first hand. I also tend to think that most night gowns from Penny’s might be cheaper that ones from Victoria’s Secret’s. Don’t have to go into either store, to look at prices, don’t want to, and I really don’t need to. In other words, we don’t always have to jump on the horse to know that there is a chance we might get bucked off.
As to babble, I call that common sense.
Dan, if I were ever able to tell you “the exact causes”, I’d be either a Nobel prize winner, or completely insane, or both.
I wrote about my personal views based on experiences and a bit of research, but I think I said already I believe there is no such thing as a single cause or sets of causes. If there was, we wouldn’t be humans, but robots. Not even genetics claims or aims to be able to reduce states of mind to automatic explanations.
Does anyone know “the exact causes” of depression? Will it ever be conceivable, to get at that point? We might as well be asking what is “the exact cause” of fear, hate, love, friendship, idealism, optimism, pessimism, generosity, and all emotions and attitudes in life. If the mind worked like that, with exactly predicable causes and effects, life would be simpler, but much poorer.
Psychological disorders, just like climate changes, for that matter, I’m sure you know are also object of research and study by specialists, or at least people who have devoted to the topic more attention than most people. Be they medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, writers, historians, people interested in cultural studies, sociologists, or, of course, people who have gone through a direct first-hand experience of those problems, who, after all, are those who really “know” more about it, in the end. The existence of a diversity of experiences, opinions, interpretations, and approaches, is a testament to how complex these matters are, and I believe it’s useful to take in different views, that take into account many factors (physiological, psychological, hereditary, cultural, social, etc.) precisely because there is not a single reductive explanation. As is only natural, since the mind is a very complex thing. So I suggest that if you’re really curious and interested in exploring the topic of eating disorders, you seek out some of the literature on the matter.
There are not matters on which “common sense” is a substitute for knowledge. In the past, schizophrenia was explained in terms of demonic possession, and depression as a dysfunction of the spleen. It was definitely a simpler explanation. Doesn’t mean it was accurate, or helpful.
Well, you’re both right.
Anorexia is virtually a new disease. Extremely rare only two generations ago, it’s common now, and that is not just because in my generation we were blind as bats and sort of didn’t notice girls who only weighed 80 pounds. People my age, and dan’s age, are impatient with the view that things have always been the way they are now, since we know better. It just won’t do to say that the frequency is the same now as it always has been.
This rapid change in the frequency of anorexia strongly suggests a powerful environmental component, since the genome doesn’t change anything like that quickly. That’s common sense.
What exactly are the environmental components? That’s a lot more complex.
Monica,
I suppose it might reflect my view more accurately if I referred to our present day “slim” society as a catalyst rather than a cause. Certainly some people seem more vulnerable to it than others, and I would not argue that. I will not argue that it’s complex, and there are myriad issues of the mind, genetics, etc., etc.. Of course there are social pressures, I happened to think of the reproductive area as primary, there are others; acceptance etc.. Styles in which we dress, I’ve noted now women seem to have taken to wearing some kind of a blouse I’d not seen before. Guys; dockers one year, so on and so forth. Some men take steroids. So I see some guys as wanting to “bulk up”, some women want to “thin down”. In that aspect we are 180 degrees apart, and yet the same. Some men have damaged their bodies with steroid use.
Ok, I’ll pick a trait, self-assured: I don’t think someone that is self-assured & independent is greatly interested in style.
Another, worrier: Someone who is insecure and very concerned with what others will think, I think they might be interested in style.
Just a couple of thoughts, and while I am saying style I am referring to clothes, body type, even speech (slang, he’s cool etc.) and not differentiating between male and female.
Susan,
No argument, on that. It’s great to be umm, “experienced”? lol.
Susan, the point is not to “accuse” any generation of being “blind as bats”, the point is that there is both a history of phenomena of self-starvation especially among females that dates back to medieval and pre-industrial times, and today an influence of current social factors into modern forms of eating disorders (which, again, are not always a matter of girls looking like scarecrows that you can’t possibly avoid noticing). Some argue the two are a continuous development, some argue they are radically different, some a mix of both things, but no one denies there are historical precedents, and not insignificant ones either.*
No one was saying “things have always been exactly the same as now”. Societies change with each decade! The fact there are historical precedents is not a denial of the modern aspects, it is just one of the ways to try and understand more about the phenomenon. I don’t know why everything has to be read as either/or, really.
Age has nothing to do with “knowing better” about these things, nor has common sense – common sense is useful for common aspects of ordinary life, not for mental illnesses. Those who can know a bit better in that respect are those who have gone through it and/or those who have researched the matter, from all kinds of approaches, medical or psychological or social or cultural.
Common sense alone cannot explain or understand phenomena like people cutting themselves, or the increase in panic attacks even among people with no specific psychological disorder, or social phobias.
Only fifty years ago, people got locked up in mental institutions for far less than that. A thousand years ago, they may have been burnt on the stake. Because that was the ‘common sense’ of the time.
Also, I was responding to Dan’s statement about it being a matter of competition for reproduction and attractiveness in a male’s eyes. That’s not even close to a social explanation, that is trite recycling of popularised pseudo-evolutionary-psychology views of the kind that tend to explain every female behaviour in particular as revolving around biological functions and essentialist views of gender roles.
Not everthing women do, be it healthy or unealthy behaviour, has to revolve around men’s precious existence and irresistible allure, you know. Mostly, when women want to make themselves more attractive, for themselves or others, they don’t go and starve themselves to death or stick a finger in their throat ten times a day, with the risk of losing their teeth and hair and getting the skin of a drug addict and having heart seizures, as well as the risk of being unable to maintain a job or continue studying or keep a social life, nevermind a boyfriend. They go shopping, they go have beauty treatments, they go buy cosmetics, whether they do it in a healthy manner because they enjoy it or in a less healthy manner because they’ve become obsessed by a mentality of conformity and beauty standards. But there is still another step to develop an eating disorder, and it only happens when there is something else already going on at psychological level. Even with the dieting craze, even with all the near-pathological pressures to conform to some ‘ideal’ and flatten individual differences, people don’t become anorexic simply by dieting, just like a heroin addict doesn’t become a heroin addict simply after smoking pot. When any behaviour gets obsessive and pathological and self-destructive, it’s because there is already a pathology that isn’t a simple matter of vanity, or ‘competition for a mate’, or a direct effect of media brainwashing.
Social pressures of all kinds contribute to eating disorders as well as other psychological disorders, and for women in particular there can be many extra pressures of expectations and fixed roles in modern patriarchal society, and extra difficulties in finding a healthy route to self-expression, in their families and social enviroments at large, factors that do complicate the predispostion to that kind of disorder, especially when they’re ambitious, ‘over-achieving’, intelligent and sensitive, as many sufferers of eating disorders are, as well as displaying the signs of obsessive and compulsive behaviour (which is one of the worst ‘category’ of disorders, making life very difficult for people suffering it).
Reducing it to a matter of ‘making oneself more attractive’ or simple copycat imitation of fashion trends only shows little knowledge of the gravity of the illness. As Kathi said, there are already so many common misperceptions on these issues, and they do make it harder for women to seek and get proper help. We don’t need the tabloid approach, that incidentally distorts in simplistic and reductive ways even some of the good work of feminists who have studied these issues (not necessarily the most well-known), we need more serious, thoughftul and well-researched approaches to these issues. The less they are talked about in daytime talk-show terms, the better.
*If of any interest, here’s only a few references to historical research, books, more books, and an excellent review of some of that literature (not for the squeamish). There’s much more out there, from all kinds of points of view.
No offense, but this is sheer, utter bullshit. Like a whole lot of anorexics, I started starving myself immediately after hitting puberty, in an effort to get back my childlike body. I wasn’t ready to be a woman, I didn’t want to have to deal with adult sexuality, and I thought if I starved myself I could just make it go away. This is an extremely common pattern for anorexics, and it’s why there’s such a spike in anorexia among 11, 12 and 13-year-old girls. Anorexia is, in my experience, often more about *not* wanting to be “appealing” than about wanting to be sexy and attractive.
Second, Terri Schiavo was bulimic, not anorexic. And I think the psychology of bulimia is pretty different from the psychology of anorexia. There’s also some evidence that bulimia is genetically linked to addictive behaviors and to depression.
My doctors’ theory was that the underlying cause of eating disorders was biological but that the particular manifestation was cultural. I have no evidence at all for that, but it’s always rung true to me.
Hi Monica,
You said: Age has nothing to do with “knowing better”? about these things, nor has common sense – common sense is useful for common aspects of ordinary life, not for mental illnesses.
I will mention an experience of mine, we have a daughter that is learning disabled, and she needs meds.
Her behavior worsened, and ended up moving back home. She was under professional care. At the time, she was under 4 or 5 different medications. She had been seen by 3 doctors. None seemed to help a lot, she was just not “herself”. I reasoned that the mind is a complex thing, and I had observed that the administration of medication dealing with the mind is an art. You may well know that a certain quantity of a med, will not produce repeatable results in all cases. From that, I reasoned that 4 or 5 meds. had introduced too wide a variable. I am not a doctor, and do not have a medical background.
I didn’t know what each med. does nor the best one. I did know to look back at a time her behavior was best, and check the meds she was on at the time. The last doctor left, and she went back to a doctor she had seen only briefly about 6 years ago. We talked about it, I voiced my opinion, and what I had seen of her behavior, as did others, and he said he hoped to get her meds down to 3 or possibly 2. His approach was slow, (mentioning that as some medications build up on the body that necessitates a slow change). Now our daughter is “back”. She achieved employee of the year at her place of work, which she had never done before.
It took a fewer number of medications, lessening the chance of interactions between them, & lessening the variables of too great a number of similar meds, slowing down the changes in medication to about 1/10th the rate at which other doctors seemed to make changes. You see the last doctor is quite gifted, at least in my opinion.
I knew, that the greater number of meds, the greater the variable. I also knew that the medication might build up in the body, and that a slower change would help keep her stable. I did not know the meds to use, and until I met him, that we would have to take literally months between each small change.
That was all from “common sense”. It is quite true, and just an example.
I too have a disabled child, a son, and we’ve fought with “learned” doctors all his life. Never underestimate the power of a parent’s common sense.
Wow! Opinionated discussion is so much fun!
If I could include yet another variable to the eating disorders discussion, it would be to say that though the majority of people with these diseases are women, men too can have eating disorders.
From my study of Anoriexia and my treatment for Bulimia, I must agree that root causes have more to do with a person’s genetic and psycological makeup than they do with the effects of societal expectations.
Anorexia usually is an attempt to control some aspect of one’s life when one has an overwhelming sense of losing or being out of control. (Hence Sally’s explanation: I started starving myself immediately after hitting puberty, in an effort to get back my childlike body. I wasn’t ready to be a woman, I didn’t want to have to deal with adult sexuality, and I thought if I starved myself I could just make it go away.)
Bulimia, as explained in the ED Unit of the psych ward I went to, has more to do with compulsion, lack of impulse control, and guilt/shame. As Sally also mentioned, it is more closely tied to addiction and depression.
As far as my common sense takes me, after spending nearly 20 years in A.A., I can safely opine that depression, eating disorders, and other psychological ailments are prevelent among alcoholics.
Somewhat recently, scientists have discovered a gene they believe is responsible for alcoholism. (Sorry but I can’t remember where I read that, or I’d give you a link)
Every single one of my father’s 5 siblings has some mental illness, ranging from depression to anxiety disorders to borderline personality disorder. Their grandmother lived out her years in a mental institution. I know where my mental illness comes from. I expect sometime in the near future science will be able to identify which gene is responsible for this genetic disease. And it would not surprise me if that was the same gene responsible for alcoholism or if the possible two genes somehow interacted in some way.
That said, it is important to recognise that society/culture play a role in how we perceive ourselves. If that were not true, there would be little need for changing trends as one generation after another develops its own identity. Differences in “acceptable” or “cool” behavior/appearance/thinking are part of the human experience. As we grow older are we not amazed, even shocked by what “they get away with on tv these days” or what young pop stars are (or aren’t) wearing? I shudder to think what my Grandmother would have thought of the infamous “wardrobe malfunction”.
My opinion is that these diseases have genetic bases and historic record. The advent of rapid, long distance communication has caused information about these and many other things to be disseminated in a way previous generations never experienced. The advancement of medical science as well as changing social mores also have affected how information about these diseases is presented and disseminated. Previous generations simply did not have had access to information about these diseases unless someone they knew was afflicted.
That’s not to say people had their heads in the sand. It is to say that the sign (information) was buried in the sand.
Unfortunately, despite the plethora of information about eating disorders, depression, alcoholism, etc… persistant denial, an aspect of these conditions (and human nature), still prevents many from recognizing the symptoms in themselves or in others.
Therefore, people still die from these untreated illnesses. It is sad.
I hope Terri’s experience will be a catalyst for many others to seek help. May she rest in peace.
Dan and Susan, I’m glad to hear you dealt with your children’s disability in a positive way, but I don’t know why you took the discussion personally as a criticism of your general common sense as parents. We were talking specifically of eating disorders, and the kind of ‘common sense’ I criticised was that simplistic statement from Dan about anorexic women, that Sally, as someone who actually went through anorexia, also described as nonsense. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that things you have no experience or knowledge of may just be a little more complex than that?
Besides, when I spoke of the research, I certainly did not intend to put “learned doctors” on some kind of pedestal, I’ve had my own mixed bag of experiences with doctors, but like I said, both people who have actually researched these matters (definitely not just doctors) and most of all, people who have lived them on their own skin, may be able to tell the uber-simplistic views from what feels a little truer to the real life complexity of the issue. I’m not suprised though, that people feel entitled to speak with such certainty about eating disorders despite no direct knowledge of the matter, in a way they probably wouldn’t if it was about many other disorders. After all, it’s only screwed up girls who took their pursuit of attractiveness too far. Who’d even want to listen?
Sally,
I don’t mind your use of b.s. at all. It’s direct, I know what you think, and frankly you saved me from having to pull up the dictionary. Also, I am not going to argue a single bit, as your experience is yours. That does not mean in the least that I agree that my statement was b.s.. It means I’d be dead wrong to argue with a pained individual experience of anther person, whose thoughts and experience I know zero about.
I hope your affliction is well past you now and stays that way.
I’ll jot something back in a bit, just so you know; you can say I’m full of it, anytime you want. I will return the favor if & when it seems appropriate.
That’s nice, Dan, but I actually don’t need your permission to say you’re full of it.
I’d be the last person to argue that you should blindly obey doctors, and I’m a big fan of common sense when it comes to my own medical treatment. But there’s a difference between the wisdom that comes from knowing your own (or your child’s) body and the “common sense” that comes from having a passing familiarity with pop evolutionary psychology.
Monica,
You wrote: I don’t know why you took the discussion personally as a criticism of your general common sense as parents.
I gave you an example of how I was able to use simple common sense in a medical situation; I never sensed any criticism from you as far as my parenting. You had said common sense really is not of use in a medical situation, but appropriate in every day life. That was an example where it did work in a medical situation, it can work any time actually.
I did look at some of the links in your reply to Susan, and noted the reference to eating disorders of prior times. I don’t believe I stated that it never had occurred before, say 20 years for example. I do agree with Susan, in that we did not see the quantity (hardly any) extremely slim young women, during 20 to 30 years ago. Presently we seem to have a national pass time of eating out. That was not always the case, and I imagine she will remember times of less restaurants, we’ll see.
Also the last link in that batch dealt with religious fasting, that’s simplified, & I know it. In those times, I believe that certain individuals probably had similar combinations within them to allow such conduct. We have dealt with those as complex, and I agree with that. I will also mention, that segments of society in that time probably encouraged it somewhat. So aren’t we looking at societies influence, from your link?
I normally don’t send links, considering a lot on the net questionable. It occurred to me yesterday, that primitive societies, should see a much smaller percentile of eating disorders than a more advanced civilization. If not, then I might have to back off from my initial statement. My reasoning was that they don’t have sophisticated communication, excess food, and much work might be done yet by hand. That is also another example of common sense or reason if you prefer, used in relation to a medical question.
So I’m finally sending a link, with a couple of pastes from it.
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic144.htm
Background: Richard Morton first described anorexia nervosa more than 300 years ago, in 1689.
Believe that supports you statement that the condition has been here for awhile.
Frequency:
In the US: Anorexia nervosa, meeting full Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria, has been found to occur in 1 out of 100-200 females in late adolescence and early adulthood. Individuals who are subthreshold for the disorder are encountered more commonly. Incidence rates have increased in recent years. A familial pattern has been noted.
Internationally: Rates of anorexia nervosa are similar in all developed countries with high economic status. The disorder is far more prevalent in industrialized societies where food is abundant and thinness is a measure of feminine attractiveness.
Believe that backs up my theory. You might want to re-think the simple & b.s. statements on here. I will remind you of the level of communication and instant information we have now, 2 yrs year ago, going into Iraq was thought a fine idea by a lot of people, why did they come to that opinion? That opinion formed via mass communications. What else do we see on ads, slim women, guys with muscles? Sex sells, there is a reason they use it so much in ads- tv, etc..
As we have more eating disorders now, as opposed to recent times, then I believe that cause to be pressure of our “slim” society. The people that pay, are those that starve them selves or take too many steroids.
I do not think Terri was suicidal, or that her eating disorder would indicate such.
Sally,
I apparently did not get it right as to the exact eating disorder Terri had. The truth was that I took the one I knew how to spell, it was the point I was after, and the logic of it rather than the exact word. Again, in my wording, I’m trying to be broad based, and also have included an example of male steroid use as comparison.
Dan – You had said common sense really is not of use in a medical situation, but appropriate in every day life. That was an example where it did work in a medical situation, it can work any time actually.
But, again, for the sake of boring pedantic clarity, the “common sense” I was referring to was your statement about “The anorexic woman, is trying to make her self slim, and slim to her makes her more appealing for a mate for reproduction”, which you see as common sense, whereas others see it as cheap, simplistic, reductive, tabloid-like pseudo-evolutionary pop psychology not even worthy of appearing in a Murdoch newspaper – in other words, in case any of those terms require the dictionary, a pile of crap.
You get told that in not so many words, and you respond with a dismissive “your experience is yours” and a truckload of patronising, and you don’t even realise that.
You reduce comments that argue with you to straw men – no one ever denied any social influence. It’s just your idea of social influence is extremely reductive. And who ever said Terri was suicidal?? Eating disorders are obviously self-destructive, it’s quite a different thing from suicide, if you knew what you were talking about. If you think this all discussion on eating disorders is supposedly another argument in support of the judge’s decision in pulling the feeding tube, then that’s a seriously twisted misreading. I do happen to think the decision was right, but definitely not because of anything to do with Terri’s eating disorder.
You possess the magic ability not only to have the ultimate answer to a serious mental illness you’ve never experienced in any direct or indirect way, but also to dismiss any and all literature on the matter in one minute. You mix in unrelated things – what does Iraq have to do with this? Mass communication, globalisation, advertising, industrialised societies are obviously more complex than “primitive societies” in anything from technology to mental illnesses (do you think social phobias and panic attacks are as widespread among the last Yanomami in the Amazon?) – what does any of that tell us specifically about any anorexic or bulimic girl’s experience?
Of all the women exposed to ads for dieting methods and magazine articles on how to lose enough weight to fit into a gucci bikini for the summer, why doesn’t everyone or even the majority develop an eating disorder?
Why, of everyone living in the same society with the same mass communication and advertising and ambivalent consumerism and celebrity cult phenomena, only a subset develop a specific disorder in its specific form? That is the first question to go looking for any social influences, as well as the biological and psychological aspects. That is good common sense, in my book. Starting from the person, and looking at both closer and larger social environments. I also think it’s common sense not to dismiss the actual experiences of a person. Because there is a difference between common sense and ignorance.
Oh, I should add I must be obviously biased, because I did have an eating disorder for many years, alternating, and on and off, between anorexia and mostly bulimia, and where I think that the research and studies can be helpful and interesting, it’s because so many things do ring true to my experience. Which on the one hand, of course, is mine, personal, not universal, and every woman with an eating disorder will have had her own, and her own views of it; but since I did know others with similar problems, I know there can be common traits, among which family dynamics, for instance, which is where this discussion started. Not as a matter of “exact causes”, there just aren’t, but as an extra element to consider, not for the sake of arguments on what causes what — for the sake of approaching the problem with the purpose of dealing with it.
The historical research is also useful because it can highlight some of those common traits – biological, psychological, familial and social – even across different societies, even in different times. It can perfectly stand side by side with other approaches, as in any other behavioural disorder, because there is never a single simple explanation or one single truth. There’s nothing difficult about that and no need to reduce it to a matter of either/or.
Possible genetic predisposition, psychological traits, family environment, social enviroment, social pressures, general and specific – all these things can fit in the bigger picture, in a serious and helpful general approach.
I’ve encountered a lot of examples of the non-helpful, simplistic attitudes and if I’m still bothered by them, is because I know that, even if (unlike tabloid sensationalism and exploitment) they may be well-intentioned, they can cause more incomprehension, stigmatisation and denial, and can result in more reluctance to seek and get help.
A woman I shared an apartment with in graduate school was bulimic, but her behavior varied with her stress levels. Most of the time, she appeared to eat normally, but when she was stressed, she would binge and purge more often – the greater the stress, the more cycles per day she would go through. I didn’t twig to her condition for quite a long time because it wasn’t a constant. She was very slender but looked bigger because she was extremely well-endowed, so you couldn’t tell just by looking at her. Part of her binging ritual was to pick one of several Broadway musical soundtracks and listen to it over and over and over and over, sometimes for days. To this day, I can’t listen to the Evita soundtrack without cringing.
I agree that today’s body images promoted in the media are probably less healthy than they used to be. Just look at many of the cartoon characters – long, impossibly thin limbs, elongated and skinny torsos, no bumps or curves on the kid ones. Bratz and Power Puff Girlz are two such. I limit my kids’ TV time to 1 hour a day, and we have a list of pre-approved programs from which they may choose for that hour, but somehow they are still absorbing negative images. My 7-year-old daughter totally shocked me last week by asking me if her thighs were too big, and my 4-year-old son took me by surprise yesterday by stating he didn’t want to invite one of the girls in his preschool class to his birthday party because she was fat. (The girl in question is not fat but she is chunkier than the other girls.) As Charlie Brown would say, “Aaaaaaaaugh!”
Monica,
You said: And who ever said Terri was suicidal??
I don’t recall anyone saying that. Here is a paste from Kathi: Does that mean she wished to commit suicide? Only Terri could have told us that. And of course, modern medicine is forcing us to reconsider what constitutes suicide. It beggs philosophical and ethical (theological for some) questions galore.
Ahh, food for discussion.
So I gave my opinion to Kathis comment, that Terri was not suicidal. At the time, Amp had rightfully asked us to keep negative comments of any sort on. So when I mentioned that recently, I was going back to the original issue. See I started this, with my opinion as I thought it a good subject to get us all away from the negativity, which we had displayed, shame on us both for that. It certainly worked, didn’t it?
Iraq, simply an example of the power of mass communication.
Patronizing, yes you can call it that. I prefer not to take the chance of cruelty, so I will not argue her individual experience, and try not to trod on her feelings. I can actually learn from her. The same for you or anyone. Also, I wish you well and hope you never are troubled again with the affliction we have discussed. Now if you consider that patronizing, so be it. I’m getting tired of a barrage of sarcasm and contempt, even when I try to be decent. When I feel the urge strongly enough, to call anothers opinion, nonsense, get mean, or ignore their experience, I will cease to post on here.
You said: why doesn’t everyone or even the majority develop an eating disorder? Actually we agreed on that, there are genetic, issues, social issues, individual personality, etc., that make some more vulnerable than others. Don’t recall a significant disagreement on that. I simply view the slim sexual based ads, etc.., as a catalyst, and the reason why the affliction has become more prevelent. In your link, the religious fasting might also have occurred during a period of strong religious bias in that society. In that case, I wonder, if when they fasted, they were responding to our strongest instinct, that of self-preservation, self preservation of the soul, not the body. Just a thought, might be interesting food for conversation.
You said: You possess the magic ability not only to have the ultimate answer to a serious mental illness you’ve never experienced in any direct or indirect way, but also to dismiss any and all literature on the matter in one minute.
I actually responded to your links, something you’ve not done with mine yet. In that I pasted some things that supported some things we’d both said. That link also mentioned that some men, in a much smaller ratio, as compared with women, have had this affliction also. A couple of us, I believe are a generation ahead of you, you seem to place more value on what is written on a web page, than the first hand observation of an individual. Our observations are dismissed, that’s understandable, I take what’s written on here with a grain of salt. Nonetheless you aren’t in any position to talk about another dismissing anything.
Now that’s off my chest, let’s try to stay on the subject(s) more, I really don’t want to fight on here.
My youngest daughter is anorexic. She advises me that this is not a curable condition; rather, one is a “recovering anorexic” in much the same way that one may become a “recovering alcoholic.” She also at one time cut herself. Right now she is the right weight, an NCAA athlete, an A student at a demanding academic college.
Why did she develop an eating disorder? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. When she was born she was an extraordinarily high-strung infant, who screamed a lot in the early months, and drove the rest of us nuts. She has remained very high-strung. She is now taking medication both for depression and ADHD, and both seem to help. But she is not Miss Serene, and never will be.
I think it possible but not certain that this youngster would have run into some kind of trouble two generations ago. (I’m 40 years older than she is.) Just different trouble. We’re quite similar actually, but the world I grew up in put a lot less pressure on people. Perhaps a different kind of trouble. If I had been b0rn in 1985 instead of 1945 I might be anorexic too. As it is I think I have something of a handle on my temperament. I was fortunate in the year I was born. If I could describe the serenity of the 1950’s, you wouldn’t believe me.
This is the kind of perspective, monica, which makes those of us like me and dan, who are older, less inclined to accept everything we read in books or on the internet. We’ve seen enormous changes in the structure of society just in our lifetimes. And we see the ways that not just the media but society in general puts tremendous pressures on young people which we did not experience as children. It is natural for you to think that life was more or less the same in 1955 as it is in 2005, but you could not possibly be more mistaken.
My youngest daughter is high strung, intelligent, likes to run long distance, emotional, and worries terribly about the opinions of others. You see I’ve worried for long before this blog, about her developing what we talk about here. She is 22 now, so far so good. The middle daughter is not so concerned with pleasing, or so high strung. I don’t worry so much for her on this, but there are always other things.
So my interest in this is not necessarily just passing.
Dan, have a heart-to-heart talk with this daughter. Get her off by herself, and establish as much trust as you can. She may be showing troubling symptoms and hiding them from you. She’ll be hugely relieved if you call her on this. In my experience, these kids really do want the atttention of parents, whatever they say casually.
Ask her if she’s ever cut herself or intentionally injured herself, and listen carefully to the answer. Ask in detail about eating, all that. Don’t be afraid to be specific. Is she using drugs of any kind? Why, how often? How’s the rest of her life? Is she in school? How are the grades? Are her relationships working? In my experience, parental caring can be a very powerful medicine.
Dan Actually we agreed on that, there are genetic, issues, social issues, individual personality, etc., that make some more vulnerable than others. Don’t recall a significant disagreement on that. I simply view the slim sexual based ads, etc.., as a catalyst, and the reason why the affliction has become more prevelent.
Except that’s not really how you put it, with your mighty sentences about anorexic women being driven by the pursuit of attractiveness in the eyes of a mate.
You can’t expect to come out with stuff like that and then be surprised when someone calls it bullshit, patronising and offensive. I am not attacking or offending you personally, I’m arguing with specific statements you made. This is a discussion on a specific topic that happens to be a mental health issue, and it would be nice if people could take in the complexity of the topic and the relevance of personal experiences, before coming out with such ridiculous, simplistic claims.
Let me give you another example of what I mean by simplistic and unhelpful approaches to eating disorders. A few years ago in UK the tabloids made a big deal of Victoria Beckham appearing at a fashion show looking like a scarecrow. The tone of the tabloid reactions was, oooh the bitch is obviously anorexic, and being a celebrity this means she’s being a very bad role model for all the girls in this country, so let’s pour all our moral outrage on her, so that we can prevent the poor girls of this country from being irresistibly seduced into such an appealing behavioural disorder, the kind of thing that’s so fun and cool that everyone wants to do it, just like snorting coke. Note how that belief that getting anorexia is a matter of both choice and automatic brainwashing (I don’t know how they pulled that off), and that girls would be in danger just from looking at that picture, didn’t stop the tabloids from splashing that picture all across their front pages! Note also how, when later Victoria Beckhan regained a healthier appearance, went on to have two kids and forgave her husband for cheating, she was back in favour with the tabloids, all charges of anorexia dropped – because that’s what it had come down to, as if she’d commited a crime. I couldn’t care less about the celebrity in question, but I care much less about this kind of approach, because, apart from telling us that kind of tabloids are run by a bunch of greedy hypocrite scum, what does that tell us about anorexia? That women “suspected” of being anorexic are to be denigrated; that it’s just a stupid whim of stupid, vain women; that it’s as contagious as the flu; that young girls are brainless robots and all potentially anorexic and therefore, to be watched and controlled, and so on and so forth.
That’s the tabloid caricature of any serious cultural and social studies of the impact of advertising or celebrity images and the like, including from feminist writers.
What on earth does this achieve? It certainly won’t make someone who already has a hard time speaking about the problem more inclined to speak about it and seek help; it won’t make those close to her, from parents to boyfriends to friends of the sme age, more understanding and sensitive to the problem. It will most likely achieve the opposite effect.
Then people wonder why people like Terri never said a word to anyone.
A couple of us, I believe are a generation ahead of you, you seem to place more value on what is written on a web page, than the first hand observation of an individual.
Well that’s a bit rich, since it was you who dismissed the comments coming from individuals with first hand experience.
The links I provided, once more for the hard of hearing, are about some of the historical research I found interesting.
If you want to tell me that being older grants you more insight into something you have never experienced, well under what definition of the term is that not patronising?
No one denied those disorders are more common as well as talked about today. Or the influence of social pressures. What was being denied was that ridiculous pop-psychologising about anorexic women. In case that wasn’t clear already.
Funnily, the woman who started one of the help centres for anorexia and bulimia where I live is more than 60 years old, and a survivor of anorexia herself. Remind me never to speak again about these topics until I reach her age. Oh but then, there’ll always be someone telling me my experience doesn’t count anyway.
Our observations are dismissed, that’s understandable
Your specific observations are criticisable, like anyone’s, mine included, and if you want to support them, you could try actually engaging in a discussion where you also do a bit of listening, and drop this ‘I’m older and wiser than you’. You’re a man who’s never had experience of eating disorders and yet makes claims about knowing the psychology of THE anorexic woman. Excuse me if your own idea of common sense doesn’t put me in awe.
Nonetheless you aren’t in any position to talk about another dismissing anything.
Well thank you! Heh, I’m impressed. How very generous of you. Not patronising in the last, nope. Only wiser. Thank you for this oh so productive and not at all boring discussion, I will treasure these insights of yours for the next therapy session. In fact, why should I bother with therapy, when I can get much more helpful enligthening from a bloke on the internet. (Obviously, what with having had mental health issues, I’m in no position to be arguing on the internet anyway.)
monica, your messages are only partly intelligible, but it is clear that you are very angry. Care to share the reason with us?
Monica,
I don’t want to sound unsympathetic. But you are very angry. Honest, we’d like to help out here. Dan and I are both parents, probably of people your age. I just this minute talked to my 20 year old daughter. I said, “How are the anorexic wars? Scale it one to ten, ten being I’ve got it totally licked, one being I’m about to check into the hospital.”
She said, “Well, 6.” This is good, we’ll all agree. “Cutting yourself?” I asked. “Not since last year.” (This was new information to me. The “last year” part.)
Monica, what exactly do you want dan and me to do about this? Say, “OK, kids, go for it, destroy yourselves with our blessing.”? Not tell the truth, the truth being, this behavior is self-destructive, which is a nice word for suicidal? As parents, this is supposed to be OK with us?
Do you have kids? Excuse me if you don’t, but if you don’t, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Try making sense for a change.
I think it possible but not certain that this youngster would have run into some kind of trouble two generations ago. (I’m 40 years older than she is.) Just different trouble. We’re quite similar actually, but the world I grew up in put a lot less pressure on people. Perhaps a different kind of trouble.
Susan, you’ll have no argument from me on that, in fact, it’s precisely one reason why I think it’s reductive to focus only on the ads, dieting crazes, etc. as a triggering mechanism. I think the pressures on any younger kids, especially females, are so many and so contradictory and coming from so many different angles. That’s why other disorders have sprung up or increased, too. Different outlets for what are often similar kinds of problems.
Although, I very much appreciate the plus side of not living in my parents’ times, and keep in mind I’m not in America, and though many things are common among different countries, there are many differences too. My parents and people in in their generation and environment were a lot poorer, had just survived the war and/or deportation, had lot less opportunities, less access to education, less freedom and independence as kids, lived in a much more bigoted and close-minded society, and also less access to help for psychological problems, since there were definitely a lot more prejudiced on that kind of thing back then (not to mention, forced internment in mental institutions, which was abolished in the 60’s). My mom, whom I love to bits but was very hard to deal with as I was growing up, also had severe depression (her mother, too), that was never properly diagnosed or treated, because in her times and her environment, all those things were considered luxuries that only the rich could afford. She kept going through her job which she loved, swept all under the carpet, only to explode from time to time. She is the one who constantly told me how lucky we were, me and my siblings, to live today and not in the years when she was young. (In fact, my grandma, who went through two wars, was the one who went on about that constantly. How lucky you are! How dare you complain! If you only knew what we went through – and on an on with stories of the bombings, the shelters, the hiding from nazis, etc. I felt guilty enough about having the luxury to read and hear about it from a distance…)
Overall, in this respect, apart from the economic and social aspects, I think it’s a good thing that at least, there is more attention to problems like that.
I’m sorry to hear of your daughter, I hope she can find a balance that makes her happy. I think it’s good that you’re open to listen to her.
This is the kind of perspective, monica, which makes those of us like me and dan, who are older, less inclined to accept everything we read in books or on the internet.
But you misunderstood me, if you think my point was to tell people to accept everything they read in books at face value. I was only pointing to some examples of historical analysis, and some views I found interesting, in terms a general cultural approach on the specific matter. I found it interesting, on the basis of my own direct experience. Not because it’s on the internet, or a literary review, or in some book.
It is natural for you to think that life was more or less the same in 1955 as it is in 2005, but you could not possibly be more mistaken.
No, wait, I never said that life was the same in 1995, or 1155 for that matter. Of course that’d be something absurd to say. I explained already what I meant by the historical precedents, and how this does not in any way deny the modern aspects of these disorders.
I’m really not putting forth any single theory myself, it’s a shame if it came across that way. I’m more interested in multiple approaches, and what I really dislike are reductions that achieve nothing.
Susan, no offence, but my comments are written in plain, intelligible English, if you are not interested in any discussion, just say so. The only thing I’m angry at is this impossibility of having a serious exchange because, the moment I think there is actually a discussion going on, some other misunderstanding or straw man or personalised twist of the discussion comes up.
I’m not angry. I’m stating my own opinions, if you don’t mind. Some of Dan’s comments are nonsense, as well as patronising and arrogant. I wish I could have said this in one clear sentence, like Sally did, and leave it at that. I also wish I hadn’t brought up my own personal experiences.
Monica, what exactly do you want dan and me to do about this? Say, “OK, kids, go for it, destroy yourselves with our blessing.”?? Not tell the truth, the truth being, this behavior is self-destructive, which is a nice word for suicidal? As parents, this is supposed to be OK with us?
I’m sorry, but I never intended to discuss how you personally decide to approach your children as parents. I never made such a claim. It’s not for me to tell you, and I certainly have no interest in doing that. We were discussing in general about perceptions of eating disorders. Individual approaches are up to the individual.
Do you have kids? Excuse me if you don’t, but if you don’t, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
My my, I indeed happen to have two kids. Also, I do happen to know what I’m talking about. If you feel personally attacked in your role as parents just because of a discussion about perceptions of eating disorders, then don’t blame it on me, because I never even dreamt of that.
I think the exchanges above are clear enough already. But thanks for the time anyway, and thanks for the kind offer to help, but there’s really nothing you could help me with, except understand if this whole exchange that started about Terri’s eating disorder was a huge waste of time, or not.
monica,
I like to think that I’m a reasonably intelligent person. Nevertheless, I can’t make head or tail of about 85% of what you say in your immediately previous posts.
We’ve never met. But you address me in anger and hostility. Since I didn’t do anything to you, I have to assume that these are qualities in your own personality.
Well, you might try dealing with your anger in a more helpful forum than this one.
Susan, with all due respect, “anger and hostility” are perfectly understandable reactions to statements like these:
In my judgement, those statements were extremely rude, and I’d encourage you to think twice before posting such statements on this site again.
[By saying this, I am in no way implying that you’re the only person in the discussion to have ever been rude. Time limitations make it impossible for me to moderate every single comment; so I use a somewhat arbitrary “spot-checking” approach. This sometimes has an unfair result, but it’s still better than if I didn’t moderate at all. ]
Susan, that’s quite funny. You’re the one suddenly turning the discussion into personal attacks, telling me I must be unreasonably angry, that I don’t know what I’m talking about, that I cannot possibly have kids otherwise, just by virtue of having kids, I couldn’t possibly disagree with something another person who has kids says, and then you tell me I’m the one addressing you in an insulting manner, and that this anger and hostility must be a character flaw of mine. Ok.
If that is your idea of discussion, then it’s clear there’s nothing more to add. It would have been nice to know beforehand. I was under the naive impression there might have been an actual genuine attempt at a grown-up discussion on an actual argument here, instead of an attempt to avoid it by way of straw men and ad-homs. Why didn’t I see that coming. That’s what makes me, not angry, but irritated. Unreasonably so, of course.
Well, you might try dealing with your anger in a more helpful forum than this one.
Heh, thanks. That’s the spirit of a good, interested discussion, isn’t it? Don’t worry, a tequila with my s.o. will do just fine. Adios, and many best wishes.
Sorry, Amp.
I’m reacting, perhaps unfairly, to the implication that as parents we’re responsible for all the ills of our kids. We’re not, and we’re trying very hard.
This isn’t rude? Or hostile?
Try this one:
Or try this one:
Amp, I’m being singled out by you. Some folks here have been far more rude and insulting that I have been.
I’d suggest that accusing other people of being “patronizing” isn’t exactly good manners. (Note that I wasn’t the target of these accusations.) Nor is accusing other people of being putting out “nonsense” or being “arrogant.”
Check out the whole discussion before you blame me for the whole thing.
monica,
When you call dan “arrogant,” “patronizing” and a purveyor of “nonsense” you are hardly the one to criticize someone who notices that you’re just a bit angry.
Susan, as I wrote before:
By saying this, I am in no way implying that you’re the only person in the discussion to have ever been rude. Time limitations make it impossible for me to moderate every single comment; so I use a somewhat arbitrary “spot-checking”? approach. This sometimes has an unfair result, but it’s still better than if I didn’t moderate at all.
I realize that you are not to blame for this whole thread; I’m sorry if I gave the wrong impression that I think you’re the only one. Obviously, you’re not.
Everyone: Please tone it down a couple of notches, if you can.
I’d just like to add a few things about anorexia. A couple of posters mentioned that anorexia is a new disease. It was first named as such in the 1800s and has existed in one form or another since the middle ages when it first showed up in medical writings. Who knows if it was the same thing, but self starvation is a pretty glaring problem when it presents itself. It is certainly more prealent now, but I still think it has little to do with cultural pressures. My personal opinion, based on what I know about the disease, is that it is genetic and might well be brought on by viral infection. Since it might be genetic, its prevalence in our culture (or Western cultures) might have little to do with culture per se, but be related to its prevalence in our gene pool (as opposed to an Eastern type gene pool),
The viral theory goes something like this. Certain people have a genetic predisposition to an anorexic condition, but it only makes itself apparent when they get infected with a common virus (on such possible culprit is mononucleosis). When they become infected they have a change in their brain chemistry that brings upon the anorexia. It’s not been proven, but it is an interesting notion. Several others noted that anorexia tends to go with certain personality types, and this might also be related to the same set of genes as they might be partly responsible for that as well. The development of anorexia is about 8 times more common in females that have a family history. It is fairly rare in males, but it does show up on occassion.
Personally, I have alot of trouble with the social factors hypothesis. Bulemia I buy into somewhat, but anorexia is far too harsh of a disease and its nearly impossible for the body to tolerate the extremes without some changes in chemistry of the brain that make it possible to ignore the hunger and other bad things that come with it. This is just my opinion of course.
So what does any of this anorexia discussion have to do with Terri Schiavo. I noticed about 50 posts ago someone tried to point out that she had bulemia but to no avail in redirecting the discussion.
When do the autopsy results come out?