[I’m “promoting” this comment left by “Cerebrocrat” in the Terri Schiavo News thread. –Amp]
Cerebrocrat wrote:
But there’s something being lost in this discussion of brain imaging methods. The fact that an MRI would give a better structural picture of Terri Schiavo’s brain does not at all mean that the existing CAT scan isn’t good enough for present purposes. I see much serious armchair scan-reading in this thread that signals ignorance of the subject. Let me tell you: if you are sufficiently familiar with brains and brain images, you do not need an MRI to tell you how severely the brain in the pictured CAT scan is damaged, nor do you need to see more slices than the one depicted here. This single image shows a very severely damaged brain. The large “blue blobs” in the middle are ventricles, also present in healthy brains (you can see the two little dark crescent shapes in the brain on the right) that have expanded to such a large size because the overall brain volume is so low. Cranial space that would otherwize have been filled by gray matter is now filled with cerebrospinal fluid. And yes, that’s what the blue space is: cerebrospinal fluid that is filling up space left behind by necrotic brain tissue that has been scavenged and removed by the body. The white squiggly things are white matter – connective tracts that have the loose, uncoiled look about them that they do because, again, the grey matter that once compressed them is no longer there, so they “float” loosely in CSF. The gigantic ventricles, expanded white matter, and undifferentiated blue space in that scan all point to the same thing: massive loss of grey matter in the cerebral cortex. You don’t need an MRI to tell you that, it’s clearly visible in the CAT scan.
It is true that given the poor resolution of this image, it’s possible that some cortical tissue has been spared. But that doesn’t matter. Whatever wisps of cortex we might be missing in this image are not enough to sustain behaviors that could differentiate Terri Schiavo from any other vertebrate. All the neural equipment you need to do ocular following and emotional responses is subcortical. All the neural equipment you need to be a self-aware, reasoning, behaving human being is cortical. And since i gather this image was made some time ago, the present condition of the brain can only be worse.
There is no way any qualified brain doctor or scientist could look at this image and suggest that significant recovery of function is possible. The fact that we could have all this discussion on the subject is a triumph of politics over science. Tragic for Terri Schiavo, and really for us all.
(Please see the comments for Cerebrocrat’s description of his background).
The issue wasn’t central to my case. dear. I could easily prove Cranford is a menace to society with other means.
The absolutely worst aspect of this affair is that so many democrats, by some strange alchemy have suddenly decided they are the party of euthansia and dogged PC support of euthanasia even at the expense of abused women and the disabled is the required line.
I fear this is the waterloo of civil society and now we descend the road to hell on earth. I wish the lot of Michael’s supporters would hop on their time machine, set the dial for 1941 and take euthanasia back where it should have been left.
Regarding Cranford and Felos and Greer, a darkly amuzing think just occured to me on my way out the door. Ward Churchill was really right that there are little Eichmans around. It’s real easy to tell who they are, too. They are arguing for the very same thing.
David, you’ve had a more than fair chance to make your case here. Instead, you’ve refused to provide evidence to back up your claims, and now you’ve accused the folks here who disagree with you of being “little Eichmans.” Clearly you’re not willing to engage in a civil debate.
I’m going to give you one more chance. Post without calling other posters “dear” or “little Eichmans,” and either back up your claim about Cranford or admit that you can’t. If you won’t do that, then you’re not welcome to post on my blog any more.
Here is probably the first instance of this report. Is Bill Buckley’s magazine so careless with the facts as to be tabloid in your opinion Ampersand?
[Enourmous quote, without any further commentary by David, snipped by Amp, except for a single relevant paragraph, below. Please don’t quote huge tracts of material easily available on the web – just quote the relevant bit and provide a link. –Amp]
Mr. Ampersand, debating with David Helson is futile. He is not concerned with facts only his agenda, which is either: supporting some misbegotten Christian concept, supporting the Bushes, or something in between. (Then again, he could just be deluded.) When you only support ideals instead of facts you will have a problem…usually. I have read all his posts and they can easily be refuted, as many of the posters have done so eloquently. Yet, Mr. Helson carrys on totally blind to his arguments that have been DESTROYED. It would not matter if 100% of the medical establishment says Terri’s body will remain as it is. The only thing that matters to people like David is winning the debate or perhaps, establishing their philosophy as king. David and his ilk will and have fabricated “facts” to support their claims. We have seen it right here on your blog. There is no point to debate with people like David Helson.
Thanks frances.
I wanted to know how it happens and wasn’t getting any replies. I hope she goes easily like you say although I fear that, since she is not elderly or terminally diseased, it might be tough. maybe since she has been bedridden for so long she is comprimised like you say.
Can one of the lawyers out there explain why providing baby food and water is the same as artificial life support? I still beleive the feeding tube is only a delivery system, not a digestive system whereas a dialysis machine or lung machine actually perform functions. This profoundly disturbs me.
If providing food is not allowed why not just put a pillow over her face and disallow air?
Not picking a fight, just looking for logical anwers. thanks
Kim,
Providing food to her through the tube is life support because she cannot feed herself, nor can she be fed by others, aside from through a tube. Hence, it is life support. You are confusing this with a life support system which facilitates breathing and heart function when the brain is dead, or a similar state is induced pharmacologically. She has an intact brain stem so she still has organ function (heart and breathing etc.), and is not neccessarily “brain dead” as she would be if all of her brain was non functional.
She apparently lacks most of her cortical areas, and hence, likely feels no pain. She might show what are called nocifensive responses, but these are mostly reflexive and can include vocalization. Moreover, her spinal reflexes are intact and she would therfore withdraw from a painful stimuli. Having said that, I see no reason why she couldn’t be administered morphine for the comfort of the family, although I would be absolutely stunned if it had any effect on her whatsoever as it is HIGHLY unlikely that she has any conscious perception of pain. We must remember that pain is a perception, or conscious state, and requires some communication of that state. This is a difficult thing to ascertain in someone who cannot cumminicate verbally and even more difficult in someone who lacks higher brain function. Any response, such as a withdrawal to a stimulus that would be painful in others (because they say so), would have to be termed nocifensive response without some indication that it is actually painful. Nocifensive responses DO NOT require cortical function or the perception of pain. They can be conveyed in the form of spinal reflexes or even rudimentary brain stem function, which feeds back to the spinal cord through neuronal circuits that never make it the higher brain centers. Having said all that, I would not be able to reach any conclusions in a patient like Terri without seeing her personally for an extended period of time with some very complex equipment. Any doc who can spend 90 minutes with a complex patient such as her, or see some video footage (even worse) and reach a conclusion is acting in an irresponsible manner and likely has some prejudged agenda to push.
Also this detailed account. Not as unimpeachable as NR perhaps but it adds weight at least.
David:
That’s the exact same National Review quote you provided the first time. I don’t think it proves a thing; the author (whom I’ve emailed, but not yet gotten a response from) doesn’t say what his source is. You don’t have evidence; you just have an article from a right-wing biased magazine written by an associate of Terri’s parents. Furthermore, I’ve read the California Supreme Court opinion he refers to, and nothing in it supports his account.
Your other link was even worse; it didn’t even claim that Dr. Crawford had ever diagnosed Wendland with PVS.
As far as I can tell, you simply can’t back up your claim at all.
David,
You are comparing non-comparable cases. Not only that, fixating on one doctor who may have questionable judgement does not indicate that all the other opinions offered are off base.
Mr. Wedland, if he indeed is able to move about in a mechanized chair and answer yes, no with blinking or some other means, is suffering from a condition quite different from Terri’s. She cannot move herself voluntarily (moving in response to stimuli does not count, see my above post) and she has never shown any ability to convey answers to questions even in the yes or no state. Maybe, although improbable, she cannot do so because she is unable to make any voluntary movement, but doctors must make judgements based on evidence, not on what we think might be the case or what the family “feels” is happening with her. Remember as well that we have no method to regenerate lost or degenerated brain tissue and there is no method for doing so that is anywhere close to making it into humans. Even stem cell research is far from giving a regenerated brain. Even if it could lead to regeneration there is no guarantee that you woould end with anything meaningful. Neurons and brain structures are important, but it is a lifetime of experience that forms the connections that manifest in a “person” or “personality”. These connections cannot be rewired through any means that any neurologist or neuroscientist is aware of. In fact, we don’t even understand how they are formed in the first place.
I’m finding two cases in the California Supreme Court.
Conserv. of Wendland co 29439
and
Wendland v Wendland SO 87265
I’ve read thru all 50 PDF pages of the first. Can’t find the second case in full yet. Admittedly I couldn’t find Cranford in the first.
Thank you, Dr Ted! I have searched everywhere for that!
So, still some question as to the level and degree of consciousness.
My father, known as Patient X, suffered a level 5 aneurism and survived as the first recipient of a new experimental drug that prevented swelling of the brain.
Yes, if he had not responded or was severly debilitated I would have opted for other choices. My choice. Not his. A lot of people pressured to give a little extra “push” to end it while he tried to rise from the coma and while I tried to collect more information.
Yeah, his brain scan looks like jello and they left the drainage stints in just like the picture at the top. Interesting: he also has a hole in the front of the skull where they went in just like the picture above.
My story is not comparable to this case but i am compassionate to both sides of this situation. I am trying to understand the issues further for when, not if, I have to deal with this again. Thanks.
What a tragic case. A tragic clash between Terri’s husband and parents, all of whom believe they are acting in her best interest.
I read a number of reports from both sides. Jay Wolfson’s guardian ad litem report is the complete overview and he does an excellent job at laying out the facts of this complex case. He also has spent many hours with all parties involved in the case, including Terri. He is balanced, factual and covers all sides.
The unfortunate thing is the amount of lies and distortions surrounding this case.
Take a look at the video posted by Terri’s parents. What you are seeing are carefully edited snippets. In the case of the one showing her “responding to music” note that initially we hear music- and there is no video picture. When the picture comes on, Terri is staring blankly. Then she appears to smile. But we have no idea how long the music was on for, or whether this was a random movement.
In another video, Terri is grimacing and trying to avoid a mouth swab. This does not suggest cognition, but it may suggest discomfort. Having cared for, as a nurse, some severely neurologically impaired patients (in varying degrees of coma), I was always concerned about whether our interventions caused discomfort or pain.
As for Carla Iyer, who claims she heard Terri speak, her affidavit contains claims that are fantastical. She states that she went to the police to report Michael Schiavo attempting to murder his wife with an overdose of insulin (and claims to have discovered the insulin vial in the garbage). She also implicates another employee as possibly murdering patients, insinuating that alot of patients died on that nurse’s shift. So- where is a copy of her police report? What did the police do when she made this report? (She was alleging attempted murder!) And why didn’t Michael’s parents use her affidavit?
The judges in this case have bent over backwards to accommodate Terri’s parents as well they should. Anyone who is a parent can sympathize with their heartrending situation- and can understand their desperate desire to cling to any hope no matter how outlandish or based on quackery. On the other hand, it has been documented that Terri said she wouldn’t want to live like that, so Michael Schiavo has to fight for her wishes. You wonder what this once beautiful girl, who was so proud when she got down to 11o pounds (from over 200), and whose concern for her appearance to the point of dieting/bulimia led to this tragic event, would have thought of herself in this condition. Whether she lives a while longer or dies shortly, Terri will never regain any of her mental faculties.
Ironically, while so much time and effort is being spent to save her “life”, tort reform is being enacted that may well preclude the kind of malpractice award received on her behalf- which has paid for her care. Medicaid is being cut as well, and it is Medicaid that Terri would be dependant on once her trust fund is exhausted, if she were to live longer.
David Helsen: I do not like being called a demon. I am certain you would not like being called the fool that you are. I am curious as to why Ampersand has allowed you to make a fool of yourself in this blog.
I just say simply; if Christianity is true why are you demanding that this poor woman continue to exist in this state? The only reason that you have been debating this issue is to support Christianity. Why do you argue against Christianity? Allow Terri to go to heaven. Isn’t that the ultimate goal of your philosophy? We suffer here for rewards in an afterlife? Terri has been in this condition for 15 years! Has she not suffered enough? Must you deny others their Glory to win a debate?
First of all, just as I told David that I don’t want him calling you a demon on my blog, I’d prefer you not call David a fool.
Second of all, you should see the comments I don’t let through! There was one earlier today from “eatshitanddie@yahoo.com” condemning us all to burn in Hell, for instance, which I deleted without letting it be posted.
But to more seriously answer your question: I find it helps my own thought processes to read, and sometimes respond to, skeptical opposition. I think it also brings out some of the best in some of the posters here who agree with me. I’ve learned a lot from reading replies “Alas” posters have written in response to David and other skeptics, and I wouldn’t like to have to do without that.
David, if you want people to take you seriously, you’ll have to at least appear to be reasonable. One hallmark of that is the ability and willingness to change your mind. Having read through your many, many comments, you seem to have your mind utterly made up, and seem unable to understand that reasonable people could come to a different conclusion than yours.
That’s unfortunate, as so many other comments here are thoughtful, perceptive, and reasonable. I know you’re hoping to persuade others to agree with you, but at least for me, you’ve had the opposite effect. Perhaps you could let other people who support the Schindlers’ viewpoint speak for a while?
and thanks to ampersand for hosting the blog. Alas, finally, one where I was able to learn and discourse. A blog with intelligence (blogencia?)
Robert Angel
Why do you argue against Christianity? Allow Terri to go to heaven. Isn’t that the ultimate goal of your philosophy? We suffer here for rewards in an afterlife?
Not exactly.
It seems to be God’s goal (or one of his goals) to win souls to heaven. God is not bound by time; He therefore is not overly invested in any particular time of death for an individual. (He has Will, and He has preferences; we don’t know always know them.)
However, that does not mean that Christians throw themselves in front of moving buses, or intentionally leave electrical appliances running while servicing them, or yield readily to the notion that someone ought to die at our hands.
So no one on the “let Terri live” side is arguing against “Christianity”, at least not as I or anyone I know understands the term.
Terri has been in this condition for 15 years! Has she not suffered enough?
If she is a condition where she can suffer, then the premises of many, many people in the “let Terri die” camp are false.
If she is in a condition where she can suffer, then she has sufficient standing as a living entity that honor (in one conception) or obedience to the moral law (in another) demands she consent to her death at our hands, since she has done no wrong.
That is, you must realize, the serious sticking point for many, many people in the “Christian right” (and many outside it who nonetheless share its premises on this issue). That we’ll be killing her. Someone pulled out the tube; that person did not intend murder (I hope and assume) but he or she did kill her. I don’t like assisted suicide but I wouldn’t go on a vigil to try and stop one. If it were materially possible, I would do so in this case.
There is a fundamental commonality to many of the evils that have swept this globe. That commonality is that they originate in a feeling, or an articulatedly rational belief, that certain human beings aren’t really people. Whether because of their skin color, or their sexual nature, or their disability, or their mental status – some other group of people didn’t consider them human, or fully human. Slavery; sterilization of the retarded; euthanasia in the Netherlands; medical horrors of the 20th century. The motives for that feeling or belief are not always horrific or even bad; indeed, I believe that my friend Barry has that belief to a degree in this case, but I am convinced a priori that his motives are among the highest and best. (He’s just terribly wrong, which is also what I suspect he’d say about me.)
That common factor seems operative here, and that is what has got the wind up among a small but not insignificant portion of the populace.
I did some extensive reading after being told that my opinions that perhaps the judicial system was created for a reason and in difficult cases such as this the people who heard all the evidence might be in the best position to make a decision. One of the things I read was found at a website mentioned earlier and which I will bring to the attention of all those “outraged” by the courts:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
I particularly reccomend the 38 page report from the Guardian Ad Litem appointed by Jeb Bush, after ordered the reinsertion of the feeding tube. According to Dr. Wolfson, who met with all parties–mulitple times, viewed the videos, talked with numerous experts and read through tens of thousands of legal and medical documents there is no evidence of Michael Schiavo assaulting his wife. According to him, both Mr. Schiavo and Terri’s parents are good, decent people stuck in the middle of a horrendous situation, made even worse by the media and public attention. The man appointed to look after Mrs. Schiavo’s best interests was convinced that a) she is in a PVS b) substantial effort has been made to offer Terri agressive therapy, which has not worked and c) though he does not say it in the recommendation to Governor Bush, has been interviewed and quoted as saying that he believes Terri would not want to be kept alive. (CNN, Friday, March 25, 2005 sometime between 1am and 3am, EST)
Reading his report has fully convinced me that everything that could be done for Mrs. Schiavo has been done and that the court has fulfilled its duty to look after the best interests of Mrs. Schiavo quite well.
……..And for Mr. Helson….in that report, Dr. Wolfson detailed that a second court, during the appeals reviewed ALL the evidence and found that there was nothing that would change the courts mind. I.E. the first judge had made a good decision. The other judges supported it. There is more than one judge who has reviewed the evidence and deemed it valid.)
…..Another side note, from way back….. Some of the early Christians could be seen as having a slight death wish. Martyrdom was a big deal. For an example, see the records regarding Perpetua and Felecity.
Note also…..as Christians we value life. But we are taught not to fear death. Death is not the end. It is true that death is not what God desired. Note 1 Corinthians 15:26 “The last enemy that will be destroyed is death”. And in each story in Luke where Jesus encounters death: the centurion’s daughter, the woman mourning her son, there’s another one or two in there I can’t bring to the top of my head at the moment, Jesus stands against death. Jesus raises each of these people from the dead. Poof. Miracle. They’re all better. Christians are for life.
And yet, it is not you or I who will conquer death, because we will all die. We cannot conquer death. Life will end, regardless of whether it’s tomorrow or 90 years from now. Christ conquers death. Only Christ. Therefore we do not need to fear death. And we can see this theology in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, and at least 1 other place in the Pauline letters where Paul almost laments the fact that he’s still alive and therefore seperated from total union with God and Christ.
In America’s obsession with youth and with preserving life at all costs, I see a denial of Christ’s dominion over death. This is not to say advanced medical techonology is not amazing, and a gift of God. But it is easy to become arrogant and fearful of death. Suddenly avoiding death is all important. It’s up to US to stop death. This can be seen in the Terry Schiavo case, where despite court evidence that she would have chosen to deny medical care, many are determined to keep her alive no matter what.
It can also be seen in hospitals across America. Not all of these circumstances are evident of Terri Schiavo’s case, but are representative of our culture’s fear of death and inability to grieve: Working in a hospital one summer as a hospital chaplain resident, in several ICUs I encountered patients whose bodies were decomposing as respirators and blood pressure medicine and dialysis and feeding tubes kept them alive. For many people, turning these machines off, which kept the body “alive” almost against its will was “playing God” and I could not help but wonder whether using these machines to keep a person clearly trying to die was playing God, not taking people off of them.
Obviously cases in which patients are in persistent vegetative states are different and more complex. As Christians, though, we should value the dignity of life. We should value the individual person. As such, each person has the right to deny care. Terri Schiavo will live regardless of whether it is in this life, or the next. I almost hesitate to say it, because of the criticism I may recieve, but perhaps we should allow Mrs. Schiavo to return to her maker in keeping with her wishes, as responsible parties in this nation have judged that she expressed.
Ultimately we cannot know with certainty what is God’s will, we can only move forward, having done our best to be faithful to Jesus and to the people we love, depending not on our human decision, or the courts, or the president or the country but on God’s grace and love as shown through the death and Ressurection of Jesus Christ.
Have a Blessed Good Friday everyone. And a Beautiful Easter. May there be life, joy and ressurection at the end of whatever darkness currently occupies your life. And may their be peace and dignity and life for Terri Schiavo, whether she lives in this life, or in the life to come.
Thanks for letting me ramble.
KW
It is not death I fear, but ‘personhood theory’, the ethical theory that people have to prove they are human enuff to deserve to live. We thot we had that beaten back when Jefferson announced all men had inalienable rights. We thot we had that beaten back when the concentration camps were emptied.
I can’t believe some in america are suggesting we start a list of persons whose lives are not worth living. The truth is that for the past ten years if we have even made passing remarks about heroic measures, the courts have started to starve and dehydrate you even if you are able to beg for food and water.
I am not about to make the Niemoeller mistake: First they came for the minimally conscious, but I was not minimally conscious. Then they came for the alzheimer’s victims, but I was not an alzheimer’s victim. Then they came for those in cronic pain, but I was not in chronic pain. Then they came for the retarded but I was not retarded…
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
We are almost all going to become disabled to some extent some day. Unless you want to be living in a society where the courts and your relatives insist you have a duty to die, you had better dig your heals in now, because it is already ten years past time you did.
To NY-RN post 212: Those video snippets we keep seeing were filmed in August 2001 (as far as I can tell, MSNBC is the only station that leaves the date and time stamp on when they show it)- surely by now there is more deterioration. Isn’t it safe to assume she’s had a few infections since then: UTIs at the very least, and possibly aspiration pnuemonia (which can happen even with PEG tubes)? And re: the nurses’ accusations that their documentation was found in the trash, and entries were deleted, and of course the insulin at the bedside–where is the evidence that the nurses reported this to their DON? or to the State Nursing Board? And why in heaven’s name would Mr. Schiavo leave such evidence out in a public trash can?
Good morning all….
I have a question. Much has been made about the arguement that maybe Terri is not in PVS, but perhaps MCS ( minimal cognitive state). Does the hold legal water? I mean, in lay terms, she supposedly told her husband that she would not want to live as a vegetable. I tend to doubt she meant she didn’t want to live in PVS, but MCS is ok. In lay terms, she is in a vegetative state,if the doctors call it PVS or MCS.
So, legally, she has the right to choose to die ( via proxy) if she is in PVS…Does she still have that right if in MCS??
Doctor Ted
She cannot move herself voluntarily (moving in response to stimuli does not count, see my above post) and she has never shown any ability to convey answers to questions even in the yes or no state.
Four of her caregivers sacrificed their jobs to deliver us the news that that is incorrect. I choose to honor their sacrifice. Others here do not.
Brad,
You raise a really excellent point. These are all clinical definitions which are based on evidence you can gather through neurological tests and observing the patient, but there is no “yes or no” test to tell you what is going on with the patient. If you have a patient with cancer you can run tests to obtain biological values (levels of certain proteins in the blood, etc.) that tell you with a degree of certainty that the patient has cancer. We can do this with virtually every condition. Unfortunately, in cases like these, we have virtually no molecular evidence to tell us what the condition is. Moreover, we are forced to conduct tests in which we must make a judgement, which introduces bias, and hence the interpretation of those results is open to further interpretation by others based on the biases of the interpreter, in htis case, the neurologist. There is some evidence that people in MCS have some rudimentary “cognitive function”. What does this mean though? It means that certain parts of their cortex show responses in a functional MRI (fMRI) test to certain stimuli, such as meaningful speech. Does this really mean they have some cognitive function? That is a hard question to answer. My opinion would be that you are correct, she is in a vegetative state in either MCS or PVS, but I have no evidence to back that up, and I doubt that anyone could back that up rigorously with our current understanding of how the brain manifests a conscious state.
I seriously doubt if many people distinguish between an MCS and PVS in a living will or advance directive. Both of them are horrible, there is reeally no condition worse than seeing a person who is really no longer themselves because of a severe brain injury. From a medical perspective, our “self” is a manifestation of our brain, and when our brain is largely gone, or non-functional, or both, there is little if any of that “self” left. It is really a nightmare scenario, be it PVS or MCS.
Thanks Ted,
The legal question remains though. There must be a line drawn somewhere. If we drew a “timeline”, starting at full cognitive ability, and ended at total and complete vegetative state, at what point along that line does the person get the legal ability to decide they no longer want to live?
Robert, do you agree that an arm – just an arm, nothing else – somehow kept alive by life support machines can be allowed to die (by turning the machines off) without committing the error you describe?
The arm is human (it has human DNA). But it’s not a person. Are you willing to accept that distinction? If so, then the only difference between your view on the matter, and mine, is where we each draw the line. What makes it okay to not go to extraordinary measures to keep an arm alive, in your view?
* * *
I actually think that the distinction is one of whether you think life is more essential than agency (and thus being willing to “err” on the side of saving a life, even if there’s a strong possibliity that the “person” you’re saving would have hated the idea of being kept “alive” in this fashion), or if you consider agency more essential (and thus being willing to “err” on the side of trying to respect Terri’s choices, as best as they can posisbly be determined – even though it’s always possible that “as best as they can possibly be determined” will be a mistake, and even if it means allowing a living person to die).
You’re willing to accept assisted suicide, but most people in your movement are firmly against it (the Bush administration will not pay a political price with their base for opposing Oregon’s assisted suicide law). In contrast, most liberals and leftists are willing to accept asisted suicide, as long as reasonable precautions are taken. I think that illustrates that the conflict I’m talking about – respect for life vs. respect for agency – really exists.
(Of course, by putting it this way, I’m not trying to imply that conservatives have no respect for agency, any more than I’m trying to imply that leftists have no respect for life.)
There’s also the question of religion here; although not everyone who sides with Terri’s parents is a right-wing evangelical or conservative Catholic, the large majority are. And the vast majority of those people would also, I suspect, feel that their religious preferences should be law not only in the matter of Terri Schiavo, but also in the matter of same-sex marriage, and in the matter of abortion.
The question is, when there’s a substantial lack of consensus on a moral question, should the law allow everyone to have their own agency, or should the law take the side of religious fundimentalism? (And please don’t bring up the “thou shall not murder” counterexample – that’s not a case where there’s a substantial lack of consensus).
Robert, you bring up the fact that many historic evils have been rooted in the belief “that certain human beings aren’t really people.” Wouldn’t you agree that many historic evils have also been rooted in the desire of religious fundimentalists to try to legally enforce their religious beliefs?
Brad, from what I have seen from what some lawyers have written on the issue, it doesn’t matter. What is important is wether she is able to recover or not from the state she is in right now.
Dsiclaimer: I am no a lawyer, and am only repeating my understanding of what other people have writen.
Kristjan, Thanks.
That is what I was thinking as well. I don’t see much of an arguement saying she will get better, the strongest arguement seems to be that perhaps she is in MCS rather than PVS. My reaction to that is…so what? I believe that she probably has the right to choose to die either way. So, PVS or MCS is a moot point.
Follow the money.
Oh please
David, she is tying up one bed for all these years. They’re not making money off of her. In 5 years time they could have turned that bed over 3 or 4 times, at rates adjusted higher each time. That’s one way hospitals avoid going broke. If all these people, who have direct access to her Protected Health Information, have come to the conclusion that removing the PEG tube is the right thing to do, that has to be enough.
This figure is taken from: The minimally conscious state: Definition and diagnostic criteria
J.T. Giacino, PhD, S. Ashwal, MD, N. Childs, MD, R. Cranford, MD, B. Jennett, MD, D.I. Katz, MD, J.P. Kelly, MD, J.H. Rosenberg, MD, J. Whyte, MD PhD;, R.D. Zafonte, DO and N.D. Zasler, MD
Neurology (2002) Vol 58 pg 349-353
Data is based on a series of meetings over several years of a large group of REAL experts.
i have included the following table, which is organized as column headers followed by the respective rows in the order of the headers:
Table 1. Comparison of clinical features associated with coma, vegetative state, minimally conscious state, and locked-in syndrome
A.Condition
B.Consciousness
C.Sleep/wake
D.Motor function
E.Auditory function
F.Visual function
G.Communication
H.Emotion
row 1
A.Coma
B. None
C. Absent
D. Reflex and postural responses only
E.None
F.None
G.None
H.None
Row 2
A.Vegetative state
B.None
C.Present
D.Postures or withdraws to noxious stimuli Occasional nonpurposeful movement
E.Startle Brief orienting to sound
F.Startle Brief visual fixation
G.None
H.None Reflexive crying or smiling
Row 3
A.Minimally conscious state
B.Partial
C.Present
D.Localizes noxious stimuli Reaches for objects
E.Localizes sound location Inconsistent command following
F.Sustained visual fixation Sustained visual pursuit
G.Contingent vocalization Inconsistent but intelligible verbalization or gesture
H.Contingent smiling or crying Holds or touches objects in a manner that accommodates size and shape, Automatic movements (e.g., scratching)
Sorry this is somewhat hard to follow since I cannot paste in the actual table. If the moderator would like feel free to email me and I can send the PDF of the article. These are accepted definitions of MCS and VS.
As I’ve stated before, it’s the vulture community.
The skids are greased.
Keep them alive, as the savvy and the connected strip the estate, kill them at your convenience, and hey, we can maybe even solve the social security/medicare crisis as the baby boom hits the end of the python and end up in those pretty, well respected, death camps.
Want a drink of water Gramps? Sorry, your estate just ran out and you’ve hit medicare.
And yet, it’s Democrats who (by and large) support medicare and the idea that every US citizen has a right to medical care. The “no money? No medical care” philosophy belongs to the right wing.
Its apparent this person will not recover. Its apparent there is a question as to her state.
Too many contradictions.
-The husband claimes she would not want to live this way and filed suit to care for her for life. Once he obtained settlement he filed to discontinue care.
-The husband owns a life insurance company with his partner.(?)
-His statement that she would not want to live this way is hearsay and new information.
-Court systems make errors, don’t they?
-The judge and lawyers have ownership in the hospice. Is anyone curious why a non-terminally ill body is in a hospice instead of a long term care facility as defined by medicare?
-The case should have been moved.
-Probably, who knows, this is an empty shell.
What about cases addresing ultimate disposal of a body? Don’t courts rule in the favor of the religious practices of the family and manner the person was raised? If he feels there is nothing there, why bother and give it over to the parents?
Personally, we should have the choice to die and I should be able to carry out the wishes of my loved ones if they are clear and well defined. I want this right.
But this man has not convinced me of those wishes and the courts made the descision based on a shaky PVS.
To our moderator: When is enough, enough as far as snark goes? It d/n appear to be letting up from certain quarters.
Actually, there was a gap of years between these two events. Michael filed to discontinue care about five or six years after receiving the settlement. See this timeline, or this one; the court ruled in Michael’s favor in the malpractice lawsuit in 1992, the settlement was paid in January 1993, and Michael asked the court to discontinue the feeding tube in 1998.
Abtract Appeal, a blog by a lawyer, addresses this question in detail.
Yes, they do; that’s why we have an appeals process. And this case has been through the appeals process again, and again, and again.
I don’t claim that a court system is incapable of making errors. I do claim, however, that a court system is how our society resolves questions like this one; and as imperfect as it is, no better system is available to us. Certainly, the “congress will try to overturn court decisions they don’t like, if those decisions have gotten a lot of press coverage” system is even more likely to be arbitrary and error-prone.
No, not really. You sound like a conspiracy theorist, frankly. I don’t think there’s some Evil Conspiracy between this judge, the many other judges who have seen this case, dozens of doctors and health workers, etc.
A lot of people seem to want to make this a simple case of Good vs. Evil; this is shown in the constant character attacks on Judge Greer, on Michael Schiavo, and on many other folks. The truth is, there is no Evil Conspiracy to Kill Terri Schiavo; and this is an issue people of good faith can legitimately disagree on.
Perhaps because he loved Terri and wants to respect what he beleives were her wishes? But for you to believe that would require you to accept that people can disagree with you without being Evil.
Never mind.
I know! Michael is doing what he’s doing because he’s Darth Vadar in disguise! Or maybe he’s Doctor Octopus! Yeah, that’s it!
The diagnosis of PVS has been made by at least five of the (that I know of) six neurologists who have actually performed examinations of Terri (and the sixth was hired by Terri’s parents). It is based on a MRI, multiple CAT scans, multiple EEGs, and direct patient observation by qualified experts. If you think it’s a “shaky” diagnosis at this point, then I doubt that any future evidence will convince you, either.
Finally, it’s not up to Michael Schiavo to convince you of anything. It’s not even Michael Schiavo’s decision to make, and hasn’t been for years (even if Michael changed his mind, he still couldn’t legally put the feeding tube back in). In our system, it’s the court – not you – who has to be convinced.
Actually, there was a gap of years between these two events. Michael filed to discontinue care about five or six years after receiving the settlement
Michael may have filed after the law change I documented above but he started witholding treatment and therapy almost immediately.
See the timeline at Terri’s Fight site instead…
If you think it’s a “shaky”? diagnosis at this point, then I doubt that any future evidence will convince you, either
Once there is one credible diagnosis to the contrary all other diagnosis are mute by the definition of PVS.
Once there is one credible person who says she has spoken all diagnosis of PVS are proven wrong by the very definition of PVS.
There are 34.
I’ll anticipate one objection. The main opinion of four that I am aware of that the court leaned on the heaviest was that of Dr Cranford. He spent 45 minutes with Terri complimenting her on how well she was responding and then sentenced her to death. Dr Hammesfahr by contrast spent ten hours with her and pronounced her minimally conscious or better.
So Cranford is the nation’s most notorious euthanasia activist and Hammesfahr is decidely pro-life. Which one gave her the better examination? IMO Cransford’s very conduct during his examination puts the lie to his diagnosis. Since Cranford actually believes both PVS and minimally conscious states deserve euthanasia why does his diagnosis carry any weight at all?
Robert, do you agree that an arm – just an arm, nothing else – somehow kept alive by life support machines can be allowed to die (by turning the machines off) without committing the error you describe? The arm is human (it has human DNA). But it’s not a person. Are you willing to accept that distinction? If so, then the only difference between your view on the matter, and mine, is where we each draw the line. What makes it okay to not go to extraordinary measures to keep an arm alive, in your view?
Sure. You can turn off an arm hooked to life support.
However, “where we draw the line” is not the difference between your view of the matter and mine. An arm does not analogize to a person who lacks some critical brain component in my view, because an arm was never a person.
The distinction between your view and mine is that your view is materialistic. You believe that the cerebral cortex is the necessary component of humanity or personhood (or whatever label you would prefer to mark someone who is the same as you or I). I disagree with that belief. Terri has (or is) a soul; it is her soul that makes her a person. I believe that while a person’s soul and body remain together, they are a person, whether their cerebral cortex functions or not, whether they are cognitively active or not.
I actually think that the distinction is one of whether you think life is more essential than agency (and thus being willing to “err”? on the side of saving a life, even if there’s a strong possibliity that the “person”? you’re saving would have hated the idea of being kept “alive”? in this fashion), or if you consider agency more essential (and thus being willing to “err”? on the side of trying to respect Terri’s choices, as best as they can posisbly be determined – even though it’s always possible that “as best as they can possibly be determined”? will be a mistake, and even if it means allowing a living person to die).
Agency is more important than life; both have very high value. But agency is something that we have to express ourselves. It is not “agency” or respect for agency that has a court making a determination of what someone would have wanted. That’s the court’s agency, or the petitioner’s agency, borne out of pragmatic concern (a decision must be made). If Terri Schiavo had provided any objective evidence of her desire not to be fed and hydrated in this circumstance, then following her will would be respecting her agency. Instead, the court is following hearsay (and hearsay on matters only somewhat related to the case in point – Terri didn’t say she didn’t want food and water, she said she didn’t want to end up like the folks who were kept alive by life support machinery.)
I think that illustrates that the conflict I’m talking about – respect for life vs. respect for agency – really exists.
I have no doubt that it does exist.
The question is, when there’s a substantial lack of consensus on a moral question, should the law allow everyone to have their own agency, or should the law take the side of religious fundimentalism?
This is a false dichotomization. This isn’t a question of “our beliefs versus your objective reality”, it’s a question of our beliefs versus your beliefs. The question could with equal fairness be phrased, “should the law respect human life, or should the law take the side of godless materialism?”
When there is a lack of consensus on a moral question, then the decisionmaking should be pushed down the hierarchy as far as possible. In this case, that would be to the individual in question. And if the person in question did not make a decision, and their feeling cannot now be determined with certainty, then I believe we should err on the side of preserving human life.
This is a nuanced view. If the consequence of the decision were trivial, or even only of moderate magnitude, then it would be acceptable, as a practical matter, to rely on the testimony of others or reasonable suppositions as to the implications of a person’s past verbal statements. As the consequences escalate, so too should the requirement we impose for clarity and objectivity in the evidence. Terri didn’t say write down what should happen to her dog, and if her guardian thinks the dog ought to go to the pound, then fine. Terri didn’t write down what should happen to her (hypothetical) million dollars in cash, so it should be administered by her husband or whomever the law specifies – but there ought to be more oversight than in the matter of the dog. Terri didn’t write down whether she wanted to be fed – and so she ought to be kept alive regardless of what her guardian wants.
Wouldn’t you agree that many historic evils have also been rooted in the desire of religious fundimentalists to try to legally enforce their religious beliefs?
Sure.
Ronald Cranfordlobbies for the euthanasia of Alzheimer’s patients.
Robert wrote:
I’ll answer the rest of your post later, but let me initially say that this strikes me more as a dodge than as a sincere answer to my question.
Let me rephrase the question: Two patients are rushed into a hospital after an accident in which both of them had body parts crushed beyond all hope of repair. Technology is sufficient to keep either patient alive – tht is, to keep the blood pumping and all the remaining body parts functioning – indefinitely, but since the hospital has financial difficulties, they must choose only one of the two patients to help.
Patient 1, “Joe,” has lost his limbs. Patient two, “Carl,” has lost his head.
Which one of these two patients do you think the hospital should choose to help, and why? Is there no way of distinguishing which one of these two people can benefit more from treatment, in your view?
The patient who has lost his limbs should be the one to live.
Yes, but why?
Because s/he has a better chance of making a recovery.
The decision about what to do for Mrs. Schiavo is moot – her soul left her body a very long time ago. What is left is an empty shell running on automatic. What remains now is just how far the balance of power will go and just how far the legislature can intrude into court rulings.
It scares me to think that some day the government will overrule a DNS order from someone I love and make me or my loved ones watch a husk of a human being wearing the face of someone they care about lie in a bed with no chance of recovery.
No s/he doesn’t. In my example, there is absolutely no chance that either patient will “recover,” that is, return to their previous state. Furthermore, there is an equal chance that either of them can be kept alive for a normal human lifespan.
The difference you suggest simply doesn’t exist, unless you are defining “recovery” in some odd way I’m unaware of.
By recovery I don’t mean restoration to full health, I mean transition to functioning independence. A person with no limbs can live independently. A person with no head will be on the machines forever.
I think what you’re getting at is that you want me to concede that a person without a head has died, in both your sense and mine. In the materialist sense, yes, a headless person is clearly dead, even on machinery. In the spiritual sense, it is somewhat indeterminate. I think most theologians would probably come down on the side that yes, once the head has been removed from the body, the person is effectively dead and the soul has left. So I’ll bow to their better knowledge and agree, yes, a headless person is dead and gone.
And now I assume you’ll analogize this to Terri, but brain damage – even massive brain damage – isn’t parallel to being headless. She breathes on her own. She vocalizes. She moves. She does things that a headless person could never do. And I don’t believe that she has died. She’s just profoundly disabled and incapacitated, almost certainly (at this point) beyond any hope of recovery or improvement.
Okay, thank you. Will you also concede that – if I did enough questions (“do you think a jawless person is dead and gone?” “Do you think an eyeless person is dead and gone?” etc) – you’d be forced to admit that the thing that’s special about the head – that makes a lost head different from a lost limb – is that the head contains the brain?
I very much deny that any of the traits you mention are at all morally relevant. Someone who requires mechanical assistance for breathing is not dead, or in any way less a person than you or I. Ditto for someone who cannot vocalize, or someone who is paralyzed. To destroy such a person, if they were otherwise like you or me, and assuming they hadn’t requested being killed, would be profoundly immoral.
On the other hand, I can easily create a machine that pumps air in and out, moans, and moves about now and then. (Well, okay, I can’t create such a machine. But I’m sure that it could be created). Yet such a machine would not be a person, and there’s nothing wrong with destroying it.
I can’t understand why you’d think any of the things you mention are morally relelvant at all.
The bottomline is that we are trying to figure out if there is a soul….yet, we cannot define what a soul actually is.
No, we are not trying to figure out if there is a soul – that’s something entirely left to religion, not science, medicine or law. We are entirely dealing with medical and legal issues here, and to try to bring religion into it goes against the whole separation of state and religion.
Will you also concede that – if I did enough questions (“?do you think a jawless person is dead and gone?”? “Do you think an eyeless person is dead and gone?”? etc) – you’d be forced to admit that the thing that’s special about the head – that makes a lost head different from a lost limb – is that the head contains the brain?
Sure.
I can’t understand why you’d think any of the things you mention are morally relelvant at all.
Because they’re things that require some brain function. Terri Schiavo isn’t brain-dead. She can’t do the things that (I think) you believe necessary for someone to be human, but her brain is still there, just in a very broken state.
Brokenness and incompleteness, to me, are not sufficient to remove someone’s status as a living person.
To refomulate a little, you can believe in conciousness without believing in a soul, and you can believe that in this specific case there is a possibility for conciousness to be regained, and a recovery be reached, even if you don’t believe in a soul. Likewise, you can believe that there is no regaining of consciouness or recovery possible, and that death is the kindest option, even if you believe in a soul.
I agree Kristjan. However, I was referring to the difference between the machine that “breathes” and moans and vocalizes, and a human. The difference being a soul. This is where legal and religous issues start getting very close. Why is it legal to “kill” that machine but not ok to kill a person?
Because the person has a soul….the legal and religous have overlapped at that point.
If you believe in consciousness, but not a soul…how would you define the distinction?
Breaking revelation! Terri did not receive her brain injury when you thot.
– codeblueblog 2004 MEDICAL WEBLOGS AWARDS: BEST CLINICAL SCIENCES WEBLOG
FINALIST: 2004 Weblog Awards: Best of the Top 2500 – 3500 Blogs
2004 MEDICAL WEBLOGS AWARDS FINALIST: BEST MEDICAL WEBLOG
Wonder how that happened…
I’d prefer we use the label “personhood” and “is a person” for this conversation, if it’s all the same to you.
There are a couple of things I wonder about the non-materialist viewpoint.
First of all, how can you EVER declare someone is dead? For instance, when a body “dies” (stops breathing, blood stops pumping, etc), the only real measures we have of that event are materialist measure. How can you be so sure that the soul isn’t still connected to the body?
Second, I really do think there is a separation of church and state issue that comes up when you say, in effect, “never mind the science, we have to design our laws to protect people’s souls.”
When, exactly, did Terri Schiavo say “I want Robert Hayes to be my decision-maker if I ever can’t decide for myself, and he should decide according to his religious beliefs?”
Terri Schiavo expressed agency when she chose to marry Michael Schiavo, making him her closest relative, and the person who decides for her when she can’t decide. I’m not sure why you think it’s possible to both respect Terri’s agency and ignore the one decision we know for sure she made; your two positions seem entirely contradictory to me.
I agree, it would be better if she had left a living will – although I think it’s likely that even if she had, her parents would have contested it legally (which is no more impossible to do than contesting a legal guardian’s decision – arguments like “Terri didn’t say she didn’t want food and water, she said she didn’t want to end up like the folks who were kept alive by life support machinery,” or something similar, can be – and in some circumstances, should be – applied to many living will documents).
In other words, “if the individual in question did not make a decision, then I believe we should err on the side of Bob Hayes’ religious beliefs.” But what makes your beliefs any better than mine, in this regard?
There is no such thing as “determined with certainty” in these cases. Earlier we argued about if an MRI was necessary, and you quoted me a NR article arguing that without an MRI, there is no certainty. However, if you read the affidavits submitted on behalf of Terri’s parents by various doctors, many of them argue that an MRI provides no certainty, and we need an fMRI . I’m certain if a fMRI was done, doctors would be found who are wiling to say that they wouldn’t make a diagnosis without a PET scan. And so on, and so on.
Unless Terri left behind a 1150-page document written by a law firm with her initials after every single paragraph, there is no way of determining to a “certainty” what she wanted, for those who are determined to find uncertainty. And even if she did leave such a document behind, how do we know she didn’t change her mind later? (Remember, her parents argued that Terri would have changed her mind had she been able to hear what the Pope said last year).
Take me, for example. I’ve written a ton about Terri Schiavo’s case, and you might think that’s enough to establish my views to a certainty; but if I ended up in a PVS but with an intact cortex, a smart lawyer could certainly argue that my views weren’t known to a certainty.
Demands for “certainty” are a red herring. It’s a way of saying “never, never” without coming right out and saying it. No one but God (if God exists) is every truly certain.
Yes, but you’re not requiring a higher standard of evidence. You’re proposing a higher standard of evidence for outcomes that disagree with your religious preference, while asking for an incredibly low standard of evidence for outcomes your religious preference favors. That makes no sense to me.
It’s likely, although not absolutely certain, that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive this way. It’s certain that Terri chose her husband Michael to be her husband (and therefore her guardian), not the Pope or Jeb Bush or George Bush. It’s more than a little bit possible, therefore, that we are doing Terri a gross injustice and ignoring her agency entirely by keeping her alive.
Why should doing that require virtually no evidence on your side? Why should doing what were probably Terri’s wishes (not living on like this), or what was definitely Terri’s wish (that Michael be her closest relative, and thus the decision-maker when Terri can’t decide), be something that requires impossibly high evidentary(sp?) hurdles to bring about; while doing what Christian fundamentalists would choose require almost no evidence at all?
I’d say not because of a “soul,” but because the person thinks and has consciousness, preferences, etc., while the machine does not.
If a machine does have consciousness – imagine the character “Data” from Star Trek, for example – then I would certainly want it to be murder to destroy such a person.
You implicitly seem to be saying that it’s important to you that her brain is there. But earlier I think you agreed with me that it’s not morally important if a person is missing a limb. Why, in your view, is a brain important while a limb is not?
A soul is a metaphysical thingy that continues to exist past the death of your body. Consciousness is an observable thingy that does not continue past death.
Amp, I will write a lengthy response to your points. But right now I am in the midst of working on a book and can delay it no longer. ;)
Ignore this if your conscience will let you.
David, that’s your 66th post on my blog. With all due respect, I don’t feel that you are really contributing to conversatational exchanges anymore. Plus, with 66 posts, I think you’ve been given a more-than-fair chance to express your views here.
So I’m therefore wishing you well, but asking that you not post on my website anymore.
Not a problem.
By the way, in case you were wondering, that was your 503rd comment on “Alas.”
I demand that time back.
Hi Im linda Im young 15. And i find whats been going on with Terri is interesting and disturning. firstly her “husband” I hate him . Why ? becasue all he wants is for her to Die so he can get her money. Its quite obvious. I mean he already has a new family with kids and all. How is it possible he still cars for her. HE DOESNT. he just wants her to slowly die with without the food tube. I belive that he has no right to have say what so ever since he now has a new wife and all. the parents should be the ones who decide whether or not to keep the food tube and keep her living. And the money shouldnt even go to him if she dies , because he DOES NOT deserve it. The FAMILY should be the only ones who make the decions and get any kind of money from Terri Schiavo . Another thing. Theres no reason to let her die. Shes still living on her own with no need of machine to keep her living. Also its not lke her brain is completley dead to the point that she has no use of it. It works , as seen in her videos she rsponds to many things. Like when her mom comes you see her brighten up and smile more. She responded when the doctors tell her to look in diffrent directions. So shes there. So its not like her living is pointless. And i DOUBT she said she doesnt want to live and that she made an agreement with her husband in the past. But according to her money hungry husband he says she doesnt want to live like that and they made a promise with eachother. I see right through that creep. He makes me angry. All I’m saying is that he deserves No say No money no NOTHING, let him go away and live his life with his new family and step out of Terri’s . The family are the ones that really care and know what is right. Who agrees??
That is akin to asking “where does walking go when you stop walking?”. Consciousness is a product of brain activity in the analogy of legs are to walking.
The soul would be a consciousness without a body–something that never been proven.
Linda: Before you make any more comments, you should first read all the posts on this thread and then go and read a couple of other threads from Alas and the posts that are there. And when they cite court records like the judge’s decisions and the report of the Guardian ad Litem, you should read those as well. You need to educate yourself to the facts in this case, and reading the court decisions and the Guardian ad Litem report is the best way to do it.
If you really are 15, then (I know you will find this hard to believe), you need to take some time and keep and open mind while you are growing up to look at the world around you and ask questions and not assume that you or anyone else knows everything there is to know.
The law in Florida gives spouses, not parents, the right to determine the future of their spouse. If you are only 15, it may not be within your experience to understand that when you marry someone you are taking a very public and solemn oath that you are now leaving your family and joining withthis other person. Your family, after you marry, comes second, according to the law.
Please do some reading on Alas and in the court records and think about it too. Good luck.
To address David’s point, the brain doesn’t immediately become hydrocephalic after damage. It takes time for the dead tissue to be carted away and metabolized, leaving fluid in its place. The post he cites seems to be fairly ignorant of what actually happens in brain damage. Suffice it to say that the cells die over the course of days after the ischemia, and take even longer to physically vacate the cavity, leaving room for more fluid.
Linda,
I agree with moe99 you need to read through everything before you make a judgement. I have been married for several years and my husband knows what my wishes are in the event I am incapacitated but my parents do not. As of this moment in my life, I only want my husband making those kind of decisions for me because I am much closer to my husband than I am to my parents. My husband knows everything about me and I tell him things that I dont tell my parents so to say Mr. Schiavo has no right as her husband to make decisions for her is not necessrily an accurate way of looking at the situation. Furthermore if I personally were in that state I would WANT my husband to move on eventually because I love him and I want him to be happy. Also if you read the document that Terri’s Guardian Ad Litem, who was appointed by the Governor’s office to review her case, submitted it states that Terri’s parents not only encouraged Michael Schiavo to date but that he also introduced the women he was dating to her parents so it was not a secret that he was moving on.
He has also offered to relinquish all of the money he won in his suits and has apparently also turned down 10 million offered to allow Terri’s parents to take over her care. If he was so concerned about the money, why didnt he divorce her and leave right after she was deemed incapacitated. Instead he has stayed married to her and fought for what he believes she wants. He knows that staying married to her is the only way to ensure that her wishes are carried out.
Also, your statement that she can live on her own without a machine is incorrect. She cannot swallow meaning she does in fact need a machine to live which, to me, is keeping someone alive artificially who otherwise would have passed on to a better place. And, as many people have pointed out, those videos are small edited sections of hours and hours of video of her not reacting to things and apparently some of her reactions have never been duplicated. Also realize that all of those videos are posted on Terrisfight.org, an obviously biased source of information, which is going to paint her mental capabilities in the greatest light possible and they will point out every bad thing that they can come up with about Mr. Schiavo and this legal battle.
Take some time to think about ALL of the facts rather than base your opinion on information from one or two sites. Rather than look at videos try to find testimony statements given by qualified medical professionals. This will be a good lesson in how to look at both sides of an argument (and there will always be at least two sides) and how to make an educated decision rather than one based on emotions.
I too thought that starving someone to death was cruel and believed a needle would have been better but I came across this article and am no longer concerned at all that it is cruel. Here is a snippet:
Instead of feeling pain, the patient experienced the sense of euphoria that accompanies a complete lack of food and water. She was cogent for weeks, chatting with her caregivers in the nursing home and writing letters to family and friends. As her organs failed, she slipped painlessly into a coma and died.
Read the entire article if you wish :
Newsday article
It will be a very positive attitude at the end of this whole ordeal if people are forced to face questions of life and death and realize that death is not quite so bad if the alternatives are truly terrible.
LindaMedina:
The argument “Having another family shows Michael Schiavo doesn’t love Terri, if he did he would divorce her and let her family care for her, he’s money hungry, hates her and wants her dead” wholly ignores two other equally likely things simultaneously: the central thesis that he believes what he is doing is what Terri [would have]wanted him to do, an obligation even, based on the relationship they had as husband and wife, and that his moving on, far from meaning he has it in for her, means he has accepted and understands that the “Terri” he knew and loved is gone and only her body remains.
terry schiavo is unable to feed or drink through the usual oral route without aspirating food into her lungs. Making a surgical hole into the stomach to place a feeding tube is, in my opinion, an extraordinary method of life support. I also feel the this not a unique case except for the politics involved. I have cared for several patients in a similar state. I have observed tremendous denial of reality by close family members.
I agree with Cerebrocrat’s assessment of her cat scan.
What I wonder about is why Christians are so afraid to let her die and go on to the afterlife, to a better place!
I’d think that if the religious right has any respect for ‘god’ whatsoever, they’d let ‘god’ take this ‘child’ of his (as is obviously hinted at by her condition.
If anyone in general has ever had a family member who was incapable of even wiping their own ass, couldn’t walk, needed a family member to help them sit up just to drink a glass of water, and then coughing for 30mins after that sip of water would understand that life under certain conditions is FAR worse than death.
The woman has no hope for consciousness ever again. She is nothing but a cerebellum, a brainstem, and a few limbs. The only thing keeping her alive is the machines. She’s incapable of sustaining herself and has no hope to ever do so. She’s dead already. Worse now, however, that her parents wouldn’t let her go at a time that could have allowed for a certain amount of dignity in passing.
LindaMedina:
I don’t mean any disrespect – but it’s quite obvious that you are young – even if you hadn’t told us as much.
I agree with others who have replied to you – you need to read what has been said on this blog (and elsewhere) a little more carefully – as despite what your *feelings* may be on this matter they are just that – *feelings* – with little or no objectivity involved.
You are taking a position that is based almost entirely on an affective emotional response to one side of the story – taken at face value. You simply cannot in all fairness take any position on this sort of thing based solely on your “feelings” or on a purely instinctive response – you may distrust this man – you may not like the look in his eyes – whatever – but you simply cannot judge him because you have some sort of visceral reaction to him – especially when you seem to have a somewhat distorted and partisan view of the subject.
Most of what you said is simply not true – and the rest is (as should be evident from the thread on this blog alone) very heavily debated and contentious.
I hope you eventually come to realise that there is more to making judgments and formulating your opinion than having a “feeling” – if life were truly that simple then we wouldn’t need any sort of legal system at all. Instinctive responses to complex issues lead to witchhunts and injustice in the worst case. At best you risk putting yourself in a vulnerable position where you stand to become hurt and confused by a world that you don’t even begin understand – because you don’t appreciate that it is a complex place and have a shallow and simplistic understanding of it.
Basically I have this advice for you – there are very few easy answers to anything and little in this world is so clear-cut as you seem to think.
You seemed to have missed quite a lot of what has been said so far – and appear to have made up your mind before you have actually heard even a fraction of what has been said by both sides. It is just *not* as simple as you have stated – and for this reason alone you need to take a closer look – and try your best to put how you *feel* aside for a while. You may not come to the same conclusion as I do – and thats fine- but as it is you are not being fair, reasonable – or the least bit objective.
Feelings are important – they are part of what makes us human – but they are a poor substitute for rationality – in fact I would contend that unchecked mammalian instincts are at the root of almost all of our problems as human beings. And not necessarily the ones you might think of right away either.
No matter what side of the fence you are on here the one thing that we should all agree on is that this is a very complex issue – if that is we stop to take a breath and try and be honest with ourselves. Too many people are making political mileage from this – and to be honest seem more concerned about ideology than anything else – it seems to me that many REALLY care less about the people involved than they do about what really amounts to dogma – yet another wedge issue that distracts us from far bigger and more pressing problems. And frankly the hypocrisy is getting a little hard to swallow. None of us are in a position to be judgmental here – because none of us know the truth. Self-righteousness is nothing but a function of fear – and as as someone very famous said amounts to nothing but “filthy rags” in the end.
You are only 15 years old – so it’s understandable that you react like this – I’m not so old that I have forgotten what being a teenager is like. I am not judging you – in fact I am sure I was more rational as an eleven year old than as a teenager – its a difficult time of your life – your emotions are turbulent and powerful – and it is tempting to reduce everything to “Black and White” or “Right or wrong” or “Left or Right”. But ultimately this a dangerous way to approach life – there are very few absolutes in the world. I hope you realise what exactly I am trying to say here someday – because far too many people never do – and it is largely to their own detriment.
Others I have been reading here however do not have youthfulness as an excuse for letting their limbic system override their neocortex. You know who you are – and considering what is being discussed here you should be grateful you still have a functioning forebrain to use (or MISuse as the case may be).
Peace
Brad, others have answered that question, so I won’t elaborate more on it, other than saying that souls are entirely within the bounds of religion (and probably most the Christian religion), while consciousness is well within the bounds of medicine. As an atheist, any medical or legal decisions based on souls, or lack of them, would be very troubling to me.
Once Randall Terry affiliated with the Shindlers, the whole “principle” aspect of the case changed. Clearly Randall Terry’s motives are far removed from what the family’s ultimate wish is (if they are being sincere). I feel terrible for us as a country and as a race as we allow ourselves to begin legislating in the name of idealogues. This all runs parallel to “10 commandments in courthouses” “right to life” “prayer in the classroom” “One nation under God” etc…Of course I empathize with the mother, father, sister, brother…How come the images of Mrs. Shindler receiving “responses” from Terri are dated several years back? We are being emotionally manipulated by very saavy media specialists such as Randall Terry…
Having seen firsthand and heard anecdotes about the care provided by hospice organizations in Florida, my first instinct would be to say that no finer care exists anywhere.
That members of the judiciary in Florida might be members of hospice orgs or right-to-die orgs does not seem at all extraordinary to me. Much of the retirement culture in Florida is about preparing for decline and death. Seniors are familiar with it and at a level of peace with approaching death, moreso than younger adults who have not lived in Florida’s elderly havens. Death is discussed there far more than in any other state I’ve lived in.
I can see no profit motive unless the judges run mortuaries, crematoriums and cemeteries. Bias? Okay, there’s no doubt that belief in euthanasia can create an acceptance more easily than one opposed to euthanasia (and there are few undecideds on the question). But all euthanasia supporters I’ve read about or known advocate strict controls and multiple reviews to ensure it does not get abused. Courts above rule on the merits of the arguments and the soundness of decisions and none have expressed concern about evidence of bias impinging on the sound outcome.
I see a lot of selective information being tossed about, I presume that some are clutching at straws in their selections. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover some of the judges being trashed might be members of pro-life organizations or evangelical religions, as most who’ve ruled are conservative Republican judges. Bias both ways might be found with full examination.
As to the question of where souls take part and depart a life, I do not think God has made that point clear (if any sacred text can put forth such clarity, I’m content to be proven wrong.) It would seem to me that hope and guesswork is all that’s available on that point.
I would not think anyone, unless motivated by strict religious instruction, would choose to live a life like Terri’s experiencing now. The evidence is pretty strong that thousands of Americans have started creating living wills in response to this case, principally to avoid such an existence, if the polls are correct.
I cannot be knowing, as a God might be, but the decision I’d make would be for death. Not to avoid my own potential for discomfort, but to spare my loved ones from the burden imposed. Perhaps Terri’s shell could function with a feeding tube indefinitely, but I’d consider it more ethical to see that same time and money invested on those more obviously alive, who will die for lack of affordable care. (and yes, until someone demonstrates such care is universal, I do consider it an either-or proposition presently.)
Thank you Kristjan for saying that. I would just like to add that people believe or have faith that they have a soul. I believe, or have faith, that I do not have a soul. I would never try to impose my faith that I have no soul on anyone else, nor would I like to have a belief that I have a soul imposed on me. As to the argument of Terri’s soul, is anyone sure they are not deciding for her that she has a soul? Is there any evidence that she had such a belief? Is there anyone in the world more likely to know that than her husband? Moreover, is there anyone in the world more likely to know what the brain inside Terri’s head had decided she wanted in the case that she would become totally mentally incapacitated than her husband? I really don’t think so. But I just believe that is the case. The burden of proof was placed on Terri’s husband, and he proved it to the courts over and over again.
There must be a case out there where someone has a cat scan showing severe brain damage but the victim functions surprising well.
Can we get a comparison of Terri’s brain to that brain? Why must we compare her to a healthy brain? Shouldn’t the test be against some minimum level? And hasn’t there been evidence of parts of the brain essentiall cross training to perform functions once handled by a damaged part of the brain? Could, on day, stem cell treatment repair some of the damage.. enough of the damage? Aren’t people actually getting cryogenically frozen with the hope that one day their problems will be solved by medical technologies?
Why stop feeding her?
Pingback: El Segundo.net - El Segundo, California
Question boy,
I am a neuroscientist, not a neurologist, I have a Ph.D. whereas neurologists have an MD. I teach medical students about the brain (and undergrads, etc., for that matter) and regularly publish my research findings in leading journals in the field of neuroscience. Your questions are good ones, and perfectly reasonable, but I’m afraid there are no answers.
Brain injury is a terrible thing, made all the more terrible by our nearly complete lack of treatments and the seeming randomness of how the smallest injuries can lead to total incapacitation whereas huge injuries leave others nearly unaffected. If you are interested in this topic I would suggest reading some of Antonio Damasio’s or Oliver Sach’s works. They are well written and accessible for the interested reader. However, injuries where the majority of the cortex atrophies from oxygen deprivation and is eaten up by immune cells within the brain and replaced by the expanded ventricles of the brain almost always lead to a persistent vegatative state or minimal conscious state. Comparing her CT scan to someone else in a similar situation would tell you nothing because it only tells of the anatomical injury, nothing about the way the injury has manifested in brain function.
You are correct that other parts of the brain can compensate for damaged areas and take over their function, at least to an extent. This has been most widely studied in animal models and there is little physical evidence of it happening in humans, although most of us suppose that it does and can. The thing is that it requires functional neural networks to remain intact. If the majority of the cortical areas are gone, there is little hope that subcortical areas will be able to compensate.
One day stem cells might be able to replace damaged brain areas. There are several problems with this, the most immediate being that in the US neuroscientists are effectively blocked from doing this research by congressional and presidential action. The stem cells that are out there are largely not useful, but even if congress doesn’t change its laws, we will find ways to get stem cells from tissues aside from fetal stem cells, which is fine, scientific progress should always include an ethical dialogue. More importantly, stem cells, even if they could, on day, be used to regrow Terri’s cortex, would not bring Terri’s brain back to life in the way that most people assume. Most of who we are (from a neuroscience perspective) resides in our cortex and is a product of the neurons that are there, and the connections between those neurons and the rest of the brain. Those connections are formed from a lifetime of experience with our environment and important developmental, biological cues that are only present during development. Simply regrowing the neurons of Terri’s cortex would likely have the end result of creating a new personality that bears little resemblance to the Terri that anyone knew before.
People are getting cryogenically frozen, but their expectations are far beyond the rhealm of what any reasonable responsible person could ever promise them.
So why stop feeding her? Because the courts have decided that those were her intended wishes if she ever ended up in the state she is in today.
Well, Terri Schiavo will presumably be dead within a week, so you’ll get a chance to show me how the money that would have been spent on her care will be used to save other people. I doubt that’s really true, but maybe you can show me how it works. My hunch is that Jeb Bush would rather cut taxes than extend coverage, so any money saved by killing off expensive patients will be given back to the rich rather than used to extend coverage to the poor.
But you know, this argument could be used about me, too. My insurance company spent tens of thousands of dollars on my medical care last year, money that came out of other people’s premiums. If it hadn’t been necessary to treat me and people like me, premiums would be lower and more people would be able to afford insurance. So maybe I should do a careful audit of my contributions to society and decide whether I’m worth the expense. If not, the un-selfish choice is to kill myself, right?
I believe people have a right to end their own lives. But the more I listen to this discussion, the more I understand the disability rights perspective on this case.
The Schindler’s are really pathetic.
Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.
The above speaks for itself but if you wish, read the entire report.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
OK, this is going to be super-quick, so please forgive me if I go roughshod over some fine points.
I’d prefer we use the label “personhood”? and “is a person”? for this conversation, if it’s all the same to you.
Suits.
First of all, how can you EVER declare someone is dead? For instance, when a body “dies”? (stops breathing, blood stops pumping, etc), the only real measures we have of that event are materialist measure. How can you be so sure that the soul isn’t still connected to the body?
If the body is dead – and I mean dead dead, not “her cerebral cortex doesn’t work so she’s as good as dead” – we can be reasonably sure.
Second, I really do think there is a separation of church and state issue that comes up when you say, in effect, “never mind the science, we have to design our laws to protect people’s souls.”?
And yet many of our laws were crafted by people who had/have that at the back of their minds.
Terri Schiavo expressed agency when she chose to marry Michael Schiavo, making him her closest relative, and the person who decides for her when she can’t decide. I’m not sure why you think it’s possible to both respect Terri’s agency and ignore the one decision we know for sure she made; your two positions seem entirely contradictory to me.
Well, I have to admit that’s a good point.
In other words, “if the individual in question did not make a decision, then I believe we should err on the side of Bob Hayes’ religious beliefs.”? But what makes your beliefs any better than mine, in this regard?
The fact that they preserve human life.
Unless Terri left behind a 1150-page document written by a law firm with her initials after every single paragraph, there is no way of determining to a “certainty”? what she wanted, for those who are determined to find uncertainty.
Even that wouldn’t establish it with certainty, of course. But you’re using a very high standard for certainty. I don’t argue that we must be certain beyond any possibility of any shred of any scintilla of doubt; I argue that hearsay ought not to be good enough. There’s a big spectrum between those two positions.
Demands for “certainty”? are a red herring. It’s a way of saying “never, never”? without coming right out and saying it. No one but God (if God exists) is every truly certain.
But all I’m asking for is something written and objective. I don’t ask for certainty; there is no certainty. Just better evidence than what we do have.
Yes, but you’re not requiring a higher standard of evidence. You’re proposing a higher standard of evidence for outcomes that disagree with your religious preference, while asking for an incredibly low standard of evidence for outcomes your religious preference favors. That makes no sense to me.
I’m proposing a higher standard of evidence for outcomes that end a life. That this is consistent with my religious beliefs is entirely immaterial. The preservation of life is a legitimate purpose for state action; a predisposition in favor of the preservation of life is consistent with my religious beliefs as well as with a secular preference for life.
I think that death penalty cases should face a very strict standard of judicial review; that’s also consistent with my religious beliefs. Is that problematic? If it isn’t, then neither should my view on this case.
Why should doing that require virtually no evidence on your side? Why should doing what were probably Terri’s wishes (not living on like this), or what was definitely Terri’s wish (that Michael be her closest relative, and thus the decision-maker when Terri can’t decide), be something that requires impossibly high evidentary(sp?) hurdles to bring about; while doing what Christian fundamentalists would choose require almost no evidence at all?
Two primary reasons.
One, the state interest in the preservation of life. Not at all costs, not in every circumstance – but as a basic assumption.
Two, because of the direction of the causal arrow. We can always kill a living person; we cannot resurrect a dead person. When we can fix one kind of mistake, and cannot fix a second kind of mistake, it behooves us to have a very strict set of safeguards around the second kind, and to be more relaxed about the first kind.
You and TS are both in PVS. We decide to kill you both. Tomorrow, we find a letter from Terri saying “I want to live”. Oops.
You and TS are both in PVS. We decide to keep you both alive. Tomorrow, we find a letter from you saying “let me die.” OK, we can fix our mistake.
David, re: post #256
you wrote:4. How does one get #3.
BY BEING HIT ON THE HEAD AND SUFFERING INTRACRANIAL HEMORRHAGE.
how about: BY FALLING OUT OF THE HOSPITAL BED/FALLING OFF THE COMMODE/ FALLING OUT OF THE GERI-CHAIR AND SUFFERING ICH.
any of the above could have happened. Why don’t you go ask if you can read the chart?
re: #285 Atheistfundamentalist quoted:
the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery.
Just where would they find a doctor who would do these surgeries on their daughter, given her condition? And if they did find one, I don’t believe that any hospital would allow that doctor to admit her for such procedures. Thank God for that.
The two images shown are possibly of two different people, but are most obviosly done at different levels of the brain. The one on the left has been done at a higher level with the frontal sinus visable at the top. The big dark areas you see in the middle are the ventricles…we all have them-they store the cerebralspinal fluid that flows through your spinal cords.
The image on the right is done at a much lower level. Cat scans are imaged like stacked plates and you can go from the top down or the bottom up.
In this case the two images are taken at distictly different levels of the brain…and besides that it is the cerebral cortex of Shiavo’s brain that is supposed to be damaged…not the middle part where the ventricles are…
I’m not sure what they were trying to do here but it doesnt support any theory of cerebral cortex damage by showing the wrong level of the brain…and yes I am familiar with cross-sectional anatomy and Computed Assisted Tomography…more than most.
//All the neural equipment you need to be a self-aware, reasoning, behaving human being is cortical//
Well, as a student of neuroscience myself, what I have read indicates to me that the above is an overgeneralization. Even if you reject the notion that the highest human mental functions belong to the spirit of man, not to his body, it seems to me that there would be a good possibility that the thalamus is involved in those functions you restrict to the cortex, the outermost part of the brain. Yet I have read that if one surgically removes either the left or right cortex, the persons is still there; and that such surgery has been done to help a patient with one sided brain damage.
If you look at a model of the brain, the thalamus looks like the best protected part of the brain.
And one question: Is the image you posted on this site an actual brain scan or an artist’s model of what someone thinks is in that brain? Indeed if the brain is as gone as that alleged brain scan shows, one might not wish to live.
Enoch
Guardianship is NOT ownership and we don’t live under a Taliban government where wives are their husbands chattel. Further, no matter what condition Terri is in she still has to the right to associate freely with her parents and they with her. Whatever Terri may have said before I seriously doubt that it included restricting her parents from associating with her.
That the courts decided that all artificial means of support should be withdrawn and she be allowed to die does not, or should not deprive her of the fundamental right to live. Though Michael, as her legal guardian, has the right to decline medical care for her by having the feeding tube removed, feeding her by mouth does NOT constitute a medical procedure and surely was never mentioned by her to anyone. If she is able and willing to eat she will and she will survive. If she is unwilling or unable to eat then she won’t eat. Using armed guards to prevent her parents from trying to care for her NON MEDICALLY and forcing her to starve to death is nothing short of homicide.
As far as the condition of her brain and the observation that she is no longer who she once was that is obvious. She isn’t who she once was, she is who she is now. She has much less brain to be sure but does she have less brain than say, a bird? It has been my observation that birds want to live. So why not Terri Schiavo?
This case is a tragedy at many levels. It is a tragedy that Terri’s
brain was so severely damaged, and it is also a tragedy that so much
that is said and written seems (on both sides) to address side issues,
or be based on ignorance or misunderstanding.
I am neither a doctor, nor a lawyer, nor any kind of expert on ethics,
brain scans or anything else. And I do not really expect my views to
persuade many (if any) of those who hold contrary opinions. But I have
tried to make informed judgements based on extensive reading on the web.
I’ve also reflected on the position I might have found myself facing
when both my wife and my mother were facing death. Their circumstances
were not the same as in Terri’s case, neither of them lived in Florida
or the United States, and nor do I. But each had expressed a wish
(orally) not to undergo prolonged medical intervention in the event that
they became so ill that recovery was unlikely, or if the likely effect
of intervention was only to postpone death.
I’m glad that they were able to face these issues and make their wishes
clear. I would have felt it utterly wrong for anybody else, whether
doctor, politician, other family member, religious leader, agnostic,
atheist, journalist, commentator, ANYONE, to interfere. And I hope
nobody will interefere with my wishes either if (maybe “when” is more
realistic) the situation arises for me.
So here are my views on the case of Terri and my understanding of it:
The decision about what treatment to receive, and whether to receive
food and water through a tube should be Terri’s alone. That’s my opinion
– but as I understand it that’s also a right enshrined in the State
Constitution, and statutes.
Terri cannot now take or communicate her decision so a way needs to be
found to determine as best as maybe what it would be. Laws can provide
such a process, and legislators have framed them, and a court has
reached a determination. Notice not her husband, (who of course has a
view), but a court after trial. And this determination was based on
evidence found to be clear and convincing and not only from the husband.
At trial the parents contested that view but the court found otherwise,
The dtermination has been upheld on appeal.
To give effect to Terri’s decision, as best can be determined, a court
has ordered withdrawl of the tube. Again, note, not her husband. The
court has again been supported on appeal.
Of course to accept this must be exteremely difficult for Terri’s
parents, who naturally want her to live, and to do everything they can
to “care for her”. But now are they not substituting what THEY want, for
what Terri wants?
Supporters of the parents may well be motivated by the very best
intentions, but in the end they too are seeking to have their views
given priority. If there are any whose motives are other than the purest
(on either side) they are exploiting a tragedy.
Medical science is not perfect, nor is the law. But are they not the
best you’ve got? You live in a society subject to laws and under a
constitution that is aimed at protecting the rule of law and the rights
of citizens. It separates the powers of legislators, judiciary and the
executive. You should jealously guard that system and allow it to do for
you and for Terri the best it can.
I take one small comfort from this tragic, horrific saga: that Terri
knows nothing of it. But it is a small comfort set beside the agony of
the family – the husband and his relatives, and the parents and Terri’s
other relatives. Please do not forget either the thousands of other
families who are now facing similar situations, or will do soon.
Find out what you can about the care of the terminally ill, and of those
with severe brain damage (they need not be the same thing), and decide
what you want want for yourself. Consider how to make your wishes known
– if that means a living will, perhaps you should make one.
And no matter how hard it is, let your system work!
I only think that painkillers would blur any mind she had left, that is assuming I believed after seeing the scans that she has any mind left at all. Starvation is the wrong way to do this, but at least it is supposed to be p[eacful. Euthanasia would be a more merciful way for her to go, though her parents won’t see it as such. I’m from Oregon and I voted for our Death with Dignity act both times because compassion is hard to have when it disagrees with our politics, but it is the right thing to do. I am not a wise person, but I have held the hands of dying people. Dying peacefully is definitely to be desired.
I’ve just spent the last hour or so reading through the many comments here. Many of you seem to be missing a couple of very significant points here.
First, were Terri a murderer rather than severely disabled her case would not be heard by a single judge but rather by a jury of 12. In most death penalty states those twelve jurors would be required to come to a unanimous agreement before a death verdict was rendered. Terri’s case, however, has been heard by a single judge. All of the various appeals courts have only been allowed to look at whether or not the judge followed the correct procedure.
Were Terri a convicted murderer both the state governor and the President of the US would have the authority to commute her sentence. Terri’s judicially ordered death is not subject to that commutation.
Terri is just one disabled person, but she represents all of us – including Dr. Stephen Hawkings and Christopher Reeves. She represents a possibility that each of us face. On that basis, how her case is handled and the precendent that it sets is important to each of us.
I’ve read a lot about the “sanctity of marriage” in regards to this case. But the cold hard facts in the USA today are different. More than 50% of all marriages end in divorce. If you don’t have an ex or soon to be ex out there, you very well may. In every state adultery is more than adequate grounds for divorce. Whatever else good or bad he may be, Michael Schiavo is an adulterer by his own admission. In most states Michael is not only an adulterer, he is a bigamist. He has lived with his current “fiance” for years and has two children by her. Even the Catholic Church would give Terri an annulment in light of Michael’s new relationship. In a divorce court Michael’s statement that he loves both women would be laughed out the door on the way to division of the assets.
There is a catch there though. Terri cannot file for divorce. No one but her legal guardian could file for divorce for her. In fact, in some states there can be no divorce simply because she is disabled in this way. Michael is Terri’s guardian only because no divorce has occurred and Florida state law says the husband gets guardianship. Had a divorce occurred Terri’s parent would be her guardians. I’m not at all sure I would want my ex-husband to decide my fate under these circumstances.
It really does not matter what cognitive state Terri is in. In truth, no one except Terri knows or can adequately determine that. Terri certainly does have a right to death with dignity, as do all of us. She also has the right to choose life, whatever the quality of that life may be. The choices that any of us make at 25 are very different than the ones we make at 40. The judge may be upholding the very letter of Florida law, but Florida law is wrong here. (Note that this would not be the first time that a law in the US was wrong – slavery was once legal. Even as recently as the early 1970’s married women in Massachusetts could not be prescribed birth control unless they asked the doctor for the prescription. Physicians were forbidden to bring up the subject.) The truth – and one of the underlying problems here – is that state law nearly everywhere dates from a time when marriage lasted a lifetime and divorce was frowned upon. Our laws simply have not kept up with changes in our society in this regard. Michael Schiavo effectively divorced Terri years ago. His wishes should not override those of her birth family.
And then there is the issue of killing Terri by way of starvation and dehydration. If Terri is completely unaware and feels no pain then perhaps (and even then I’m not so sure) this is acceptable. However, Terri’s physician regularly prescribes pain killers for her menstrual periods. Obviously she does indeed feel pain. As one who went through childbirth back in the old days when laboring women were not allowed so much as an ice chip, I can tell you that even a day of this is agonizing.
Were any of us to simply starve and dehydrate a sick pet to death, we would find ourselves in jail. Were we as a nation to deny any one of our thousands of prisoners a single meal we would be crucified. Death by starvation is quite simply inhumane by nearly any criteria. Why should any disabled individual – regardless of their mental state – be subjected to something that would be illegal to do to either a dog or a mass murderer?
In particular why should any disabled individual who did not leave specific written instructions and who is not capable of speaking for themselves be subjected to court-ordered death by starvation and dehydration on the word of a single judge rather than a jury and with no chance to have the sentence commuted?
All of these responses are coming form a different theoretical framework (biological, metaphysical, Christian, etc.) For me, the ethical principle of self determination is most important- each of us decides what is an acceptable quality of life and what measures we are willing to take to maintain that desired state of being. When one isn’t able speak for ones’ self, the idea of a proxy seems a very reasonable alternative. I think that Mr. Schiavo has acted with integrety in fighting to uphold Terri’s stated wishes. The idea of proxy is key here- he is acting for Terri, going on the best knowlege he has of her wishes. This is only because she can’t speak for herself. The rights are outlined in the Self Determination Act (1991, I think). I hope this is moving everyone towards formally appointing a health agent (each state decides how to implement, for example, the legal document in NYS is a health care proxy and living wills have no legal standing).
Regarding the starvation/dehydration concerns: I am a longtime hospice nurse and the lack of food and water has not contributed to any of our patient’s pain/discomfort during the dying process. If one were to offer Terri food or drink one would need to weigh the concern of aspiration and attendant distress from aspiration or pneumonia with the comfort he would derive from the food or drink. Since, based on available information about her degree of brain damage, she is not processing stimuli in a manner that would allow her to perceive suffering, it seems kind to allow her family to give her food or drink (or communion, which I read she wasn’t allowed to have placed in her mouth) as a way of caring for her in her last days.
Robin: You may have read but do not understand.
The Schindlers have committed a host of questionable acts. When I first started researching this case a few years back, they were hawking videos of their daughter on their website, for a $100 “donation.” Reading over the court records, it appears they were caught secretly videotaping her in her nursing home room. The judge put a stop to it. The state of Florida fined them for illegal fundraising in January of this year, and they were ordered to pay a fine and file a financial report within 30 days. They still haven’t done so. Although this has been reported in the local press, but I haven’t seen it picked up by any of the national news agencies. The St. Petersburg Times has published 500 articles about this case in the last 15 years, going back to a time when they liked Michael, and complimented his care of their daughter. The community sponsored fundraising events to raise the $100,000 necessary to have implants placed in her brain, and for a one-year follow-up treatment protocol. Michael pursued treatment for 3 years before agreeing that she was in a PVS. Terri is a cash cow for a host of organization’s allegedly trying to uphold a “Culture of Life.”
I can’t believe how slanted the news coverage has been, although it’s been shifting the last couple of days. If I hear the term “liberal press” one more time I’ll scream.
Frankly I think both Michael and Judge Greer are heros.
One thing I have to say about the whole “Michael Schiavo is an adulterous creep” argument is that it just doesnt stick for me. Yes adultery is grounds for divorce if your sneaking around behind your completely mentally and physically competant spouse’s back and hiding things from him or her but this is not the case at all. As Ive pointed out before, Terri’s Guardian Ad Litem, stated that the Schindlers gave permission and even ENCOURAGED Michael Schiavo to move on and start dating again. He has never kept his relationships secret and seems to have always been open with the Schindlers as to what he was doing in the romance department, at least until their falling out. (And if they were just saying it to be nice then that is on them because you should never tell anyone to do something unless youre actually prepared for the event of them doing it). Also, just because 50% of marriages these days end in divorce doesnt automatically mean that their marriage was going to. I think, Robin, you might have a slightly biased opinion as well since you mention that you yourself have an ex-husband and i would imagine your views towards men who are in the position of making a decision for a woman would be affected as a result of that. Believe me, I watched my aunt go through an incredibly nasty divorce and I know what a creep ex-husband is and how much it affected not only her but my mother’s views on marriage in general. You have every right to whatever opinion of men you may have Im just stating that our past colors ours views so thats something to think about when passing judgements on other people.
I would also like to pose a question in regards to Terri’s abnormal bone scan. What is the possibility that her fractures were possibly caused as a result of her bulimia? Osteoporosis is a side effect of bulimia and anorexia nervosa. Is there any way she could have sustained fractures from simple falls such as an elderly person would?