UPDATE (April 5th): This thread is now closed. For further responses and comments, please use this thread, instead.
The following topics have now (as of 5:30pm Tuesday, pacific time) been banned from this thread:
1) Evidence or arguments intended to prove that the Schindlers are badly motivated or bad human beings. This includes any further discussion of them selling an email list or wanting an inheritance or anything like that.
2) Evidence or arguments intended to prove that Michael Schiavo, his lawyers, or Judge Greer are badly motivated or bad human beings. I think y’all know the sort of thing this includes.
3) Nazism and comparisons to Nazism, or reasons why comparisons to Nazism are inappropriate.
I will delete any further posts including any of the above subjects.
Since the post about Terri Schiavo’s CT scan now has over 400 comments, which is a bit of a huge file, I’ve decided to close comments on that thread. People who want to respond to a comment in that thread, or who want to make a comment on the Schiavo case in general, may do so in this new thread.
Please don’t post here to suggest that Michael Schiavo, or Judge Greer, are evil people who are conspiring to murder Terri. Please refrain from comments suggesting that the Schindlers are evil people, as well.
To get things started, I’ll quote in full the most recent (as of this moment) two posts from the thread I’m closing, both of which I thought were excellent.
Susan wrote:
Thank you, Barbara, for your clear formulation.
It seems to me that the people who want that feeding tube re-connected take one of two positions, and sometimes both:
- They think Terri has a duty to live that transcends what she would have wanted, as you say, or in the alternative, a duty to follow the speaker’s position on this instead of her own, and/or
- They think the court was wrong about what she wanted, for a variety of reasons, either that Judge Greer is a vulture or that Michael Schiavo has evil eyes or whatever.
Both positions can be defended, but I’d like to see a defense up-front.
As for thinking the court was wrong, I donno. I disagree with a lot of court decisions (especially when I lose!), but that’s the way we do things here, and for obvious reasons we don’t re-litigate things just because the loser is unhappy with the outcome. All the appellate courts are convinced that Judge Greer did a responsible job. I’d invite skeptics to read the Second District’s first opinion on this matter. What’s the theory here? That all the state and federal judges who’ve reviewed this are vultures? This wades us deep into conspiracy theory, deeper than I personally wish to go.
If you think Terri has a duty to live regardless of what she thinks, or that your opinion is to be preferred to hers, I’d be interested in hearing why.
A minute or so later, Sally posted the following. Since it was posted so quickly, I think it may have been intended to be a response to an ealier post of Susan’s, but it’s nonetheless an apt reply to Susan’s point about the courts.
Sally wrote:
I think the difference, Susan, is that I have less faith than you do in the courts’ ability to determine Terri Schiavo’s wishes. The court is relying on eyewitness testimony about conversations that happened many years ago. People’s memories are notoriously selective, not because they’re consciously distorting anything, but because we remember things by slotting them into certain narratives, and we tend to select out the memories that don’t fit into those narratives. Michael Schiavo and his brother and sister-in-law believe that Terri would want to die, and it seems likely that they’d select out any memories that would contradict that narrative.
I realize that all we have to go on here is hearsay, but it makes me nervous. It would make me nervous in any court case: I’m really wary of convictions based only on eyewitness testimony, too.
And secondly, the courts don’t float above society: they’re subject to the same prejudices as everyone else. And one of those prejudices is a widespread belief that some lives are not worth living, that some people are just empty husks who are a burden on society, that medical care is a zero-sum game, and if we keep those people alive, we’re taking treatment away from someone more deserving. When judges weigh evidence, they have those prejudices in the back of their minds. I don’t have a lot of faith in the courts as neutral actors here. And given that they are biased, in the ways that everyone is biased, I tend to think we should err on the side of not killing people.
Well, Robin, I guess we’re back to how you don’t agree with the decision, or the diagnosis either maybe. To solve this you want yet more medicine, yet more litigation, and I have the idea that no matter how many times this was examined and litigated you would not be happy until the answer came out the way you want it to.
According to your posts, on the basis of nothing much by way of personal contact with this case, you are prepared to
(a) advise the neurologists on how to make a diagnosis,
(b) advise the entire judiciary, right up to the Supremes, and most emphatically including Judge Greer, how to do their jobs,
( c) advise Judge Greer on his efforts at public relations (if any; so far as I can tell, he’s trying to administer justice and doesn’t have much time to play for MSNBC),
(d) tell Michael Schiavo (and maybe the rest of us too, who knows) who he should be entitled to hire as an advocate,
(e) tell Terri, and all of us, to confide our deepest wishes to our mothers instead of our husbands and our best friends (why? mothers are better or something? I am a mother, and even I don’t buy that one..I have the hope that my married daughter is closer to her husband than she is to me),
(f) appoint a guardian for Terri satisfactory to yourself, and
(g) rewrite the entire law both of Florida and the United States on many points, including the weight given a trial, how many trials you’re entitled to (an infinite number, monthly maybe, until the answer comes out to Robin’s satisfaction), and the balance of powers among the various branches of government.
Until you get your way on this. Because, as you say yourself, This case greatly disturbs me, as I am sure is clear.
All I can think is that you are morally and spiritually and emotionally appalled at what is happening here, so much so that you are ready to disregard every medical and legal consideration whatever in order to put a stop to it. This is certainly understandable. I’m personally upset by it myself.
I keep saying this, tiresome person that I am. This is how we do things here. This case has received more medical and legal attention than any guardianship case in history. Every single court which has reviewed this matter has ruled that it was done properly.
You may be, but I am not, prepared to overturn the entire structure of western medicine and Anglo-American law just because you don’t like the way this case came out.
As an example, he could have easily allowed them to take pictures or forced a Catholic burial in Florida rather than cremation
Except for that unfortunate inicdent with the earlier tape they’d made….. And, her own priest testified she hadn’t attended mass or received sacraments in two years, despite the claim that she was “devout.”
You must subscribe to the adage””once a Catholic, always a Catholic.”
My own brother, a Catholic priest, tells me he is under no obligation to honor my end of life care directives, because I have an “unformed conscience,” and his conscience, as a practicing Catholic, is more perfectly aligned with Christ’s. In his mind, his more perfect” nature compels him to override my desire not to be maintained artificially. The fact that I left the Church 25 years and don’t even consider myself Christian, is trumped by the fact that I was baptised Catholic.
All this points out the need to make sure that everyone here spell out their wishes clearly in your living will or better, advanced directive., — even those aspects of your end of life needs, that aren’t strictly medical in nature.
“Conscience laws” are being expanded to include more than abortion an d birth control, and I predict that Pro-Life doctors, practicing in public hospitals, may soon be allowed to override patients’ end of life care wishes, if they conflict with their own conscience. I have stipulated that I not be cared for in a Catholic hospital, by any Catholic doctor, or any other doctor who claims exemption through conscience. I have also directed that I not be provided with communion or last rites.
Now my mother and one sister, Mormons, have threatened to have me baptised after I die. I mean their good natured about, but I know their serious. They believe that families must be “sealed” to one another, in order to be in heaven together. This problem was easier to take care of, as the LDS maintain a database of people who’ve requested that they not be baptised after death.
Believe me, family are the last people I want making decisions, and many people feel the same way about their families of origin.
Even though I’ve probably done this in the prior thread, I’d like to cite to one of my favorite plays/movies, A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt. It is a fictional recreation of the religious and political battles Sir Thomas More engaged in when HenryVIII cut England off from Rome. More lost his life in the struggle. Here he is talking with his son in law Roper after they were visited by someone suspected of informing on him:
William Roper: So, now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
Thomas More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes! I’d cut down every law in England to do that.
Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to caost, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.
What really disturbs me is that people who have not had any formal training in law or medicine are so willing to substitute their judgment for that of highly qualified trained professionals. That to me is a prescription for absolute anarchy. Go watch Oprah or wherever you get your knowledge, but don’t think you can substitute your uninformed judgment for that of people who have spent literally decades aquiring the knowledge and skills that most of us accept and rely on.
You know, I’ll always really liked the Amish. They’re able to live in accordance with their beliefs, are good neighbors, and never expect that the whole fabric of society should be overturned to accomodate their beliefs.
Notice we don’t see any Amish demonstrating anywhere?
Emmetropia, you’re just a hard case. Won’t let anyone save you! (grin)
I’m fairly knowledgable on this matter, and your brother needs a refresher course in theology, as well as a retroactive “F” grade in Christology. He could use some work on Scripture and the writings of the major councils too. Father Emmetropia-brother, emergency! Call your seminary!
Ye gods, these characters with the Roman collars get delusions of grandeur fairly badly, don’t they. Tell your brother that according to the Roman Catholic Church, your conscience is your “inner forum” (be sure to use those words) where you are alone with God, and invite him to butt out.
Just as I’d invite the government likewise to butt out of our private decisions about how our medical care should be handled.
A devout Roman Catholic
A patriotic American
Regina, to answer your question, people who don’t believe numerous neurologists and judges without count are not going to believe one medical examiner either.
It’s all part of the great conspiracy. Don’t you understand?
Glad I’m not the only one who was pissed off by that strain of argument.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has for the first time ruled the Congressional act of interference in the Schiavo case (Public Law 109-3) unconstitutional.
This is being described as a horrible tragedy, a murder, on and on. Listen people, death is a part of life. I have lost a child myself. I had to stop a venilator and give up a neonatal bed. I was glad to do it because a child with more hope to live could have it. Does that make me a murderer? No, it made me a realist who loved my child enough to NOT prolong his suffering. He was not my object, he was God’s child. He was trusted to me, and the was gone. It was hard, but it was not the end of my life. The family needs to adjust, accept and move on. If they really love Terri and believe she cognates why are visitors telling her she is being starved. Why is she being demanded back to them as though she were an object? So many people face the end of life decisions and the harsh words hurt them. It is difficult to sort out the issues, but the dogmatic approaches used by many who refuse to even consider any other thoughts, is frightening. I am a Republican conservative and my party and fellow Christians are scaring me half to death. Let me say this: you do not speak for all of us, you are making us fear a time when you will have government interferring with our very dying, you are robbing us of liberty, peopele are out there with no regard for the dying inside. What kind of humanity is this? I have tried to educate a little about the need to consider each case alone, of the physiology of tube feeding, of brain death. I have not advocated killing anyone, but I see generally no response by most to the facts. Some of you have a lot of real thinking to do as opposed to reacting. good questions from others: will it be murder when a patient aspirates? According to what I see and hear, yes, and caregivers all over will spend life savings defending themselves from the conservatives. Where do we go from here? Some liberals trying to destroy marriage, some conservatives destroying intimate relationships on matters of end of life decisions….makes me feel this is not representing the best of America. Why can’t each case be evaluated individually? Please answer the question someone: if the visitors think Terri can hear and understand, and they LOVE her, why would they be telling her she is being starved and murdered, and would any of you do that to your loved one? I sure would not. Do not want to slam anyone, but I can only assume she is an object now and it is important to win and get the object out of the clutches of the other party, who may also be competing for the object. Even when my little baby was dying, I whispered words of kindness in his ear.
Jan,
Thanks for the link. Of course the law was unconstitutional – you didn’t need to be a rocket scientist, or even a lawyer, to know that – but it’s nice to see it said definitively.
The congressmen who passed it knew it was unconstitutional too, but they were posturing. Alas.
NP, of course the Schindlers are at this point way out of touch with reality. The stresses of the situation – which they helped to create, but still – would drive anyone around the bend.
I’m sorry about your child. And for all the parents whose children die untimely, for whatever reason. It is the greatest grief.
The number of political figures who seek to make hay of this don’t help. Jesse Jackson even, for cryingoutloud.
I’m hoping that when it is all over, and the Schindlers have a chance to get some sleep and some time away, things will fall into a more realistic perspective for them. Hopefully someone, hopefully everyone who knew her, will come to remember again the lovely young woman Terri was – married, wanting a baby, all her life before her – before her heart stopped.
A few other random thoughts:
Isn’t it ironic that this whole sad affair started with an eating issue (bulima) and now ends with another “eating issue”? (the feeding tube)?
If I were in a similar state, how vigorously would my spouse fight to carry out my last wishes?
Should a parent’s wishes carry more weight than a spouse’s? Kinda puts that whole “giving the bride away”? tradition in a different perspective….
On any given day, how many people are forced to make (and live with) the decision to remove life sustaining support for a loved one? What makes this case any more profound or tragic than theirs?
I can not even imagine the pain and anguish the girlfriend and Michael’s children must be living through during this time…
If a person is truly in a “persistent vegetative state,”? do they feel pain from dehydration or starvation?
I agree with the many posters who have stated over and over again on this blog that this is a matter of law, which has been settled. Only ignorant people argue that the courts were conspiring to KILL Terri. I also believe that the issue is also philosophical and that is the problem.
I think if the Christians protesters wish to be “people of the book” they should let Terri go to heaven. You cannot insist on being a Christian and also insist that Terri be kept alive artificially; after all, they did not have feeding tubes 2000 years ago. I do not recall reading any passages or psalms in the Bible stating that we must keep people alive at all costs. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The basic question is: What makes us human? Is it a brain or a soul?
I found an excellent article titled “The Ghost in the Machine” which I think touches on this subject. Perhaps others will find it germane. I strongly urge all parties to read it.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html
Is Terri’s soul really in there? If yes, why not release her? If no, what is the point? To keep her just for the “joy” of her parents is behind understanding, reason or compassion. For myself, if I could not enjoy TV or control my computer I would want to leave this “mortal coil.”
The majority of people (60 to 69%) would not want to be kept alive in Terri’s case. I believe that 100% of the people on this board would not want to be kept alive. Information is lacking when a poll can only come up with 60 or 69%.
You’re probably right about that poll, Atheistfundamentalist.
The “orthodox” (using the phrase loosely here) Christian position is that whereas we may not legitimately commit suicide, since life and death belong to the Lord, on the other hand we are under no obligation to avail ourselves of every single technological gadget to prolong “life.”
Artificial nutrition and hydration present problems which have now been discussed to death here. The Pope recently opined that ANH is always and under all cases required, but it is not and has never been Roman Catholic doctrine that every single thing the Pope says is infallible. We can take this one under advisement, I think, even as Roman Catholics. Many theologians disagree with him on this one, as do I, and we all have that right, even under RC dcotrine, to say nothing of other Christians.
From a Christian standpoint, there is something unseemly about clinging, at vast cost and trouble, to organic life alone. Your take on the Christian point of view is correct. We do not believe that life ends when physical life ends.
I do hope, though, for your sake, that you eventually find better reasons for living than TV and the computer. (grin)
Sorry about that, I should have said, “my minimal requirements” for living.
NP, thank you….thatt is a very touching post. I am sure that people who have not BEEN THERE cannot really conceive of all sides of this. There is more bravery in letting go than in holding on. Pity Mrs Schindler, for her daughter is gone, and she can’t bear to let go.
Much as I love my mom, I would not choose her over my spouse to make this decision for me. And while I think Mom would agree, what if she fought? I would trust my spouse to fulfill my wishes more than mom. After 10 years together, we (my spouse and I) are more and more united in thought and connected. It would break her heart, it would break mine. but we would do what the other wanted, in respect for the love and fortune we have had.
But NP, I’m not allowed that privilege. See, I’m one of those gay liberals whom you are also accusing of trying to destroy marriage, despite my 10 years of love and devotion to my sweet wife. And that saddens me.
On this side of the pond the nearest equivalent we would have, I believe, to the Supreme Court would be the House of Lords. Readers might be interested in
the judgment in the case of Anthony Bland. (Be prepared for a long read though).
The cases are not the same – of course; not least because Anthony had not, as far as is known, expressed any wish at all about his treatment in circumstances with many broad similarites to Terri’s. (He was still a teenager when he suffered his injuries).
Two key similarities are PVS and artificial feeding. There are of course many differences. Anthony’s parents and his doctors agreed that all life-prolonging measures be discontinued. They sought declarations that this would be lawful. And such declarations were given in the High Court, upheld by the Appeal Court, and then in the House of Lords (see the link given above). The judgment was given in 1993. Not surprisingly it was controversial.
I am not a lawyer and cannot say whether this is the current state of British law; nor am I sufficiently adept at internet searches to find anything more relevant or recent. Even so I think it makes for interesting reading.
Not being a lawyer (or a doctor) I take some risks of over simplifying a complex issue (which their Lordships clearly felt needed lengthy explanation); indeed I may not have properly understood the judgment. But here’s my attempt to draw out what seem to me to be salient points:
* It would be unlawful to continue to provide medical treatment against a patient’s consent
* That applies even when the patient cannot give or withold consent now, if his wishes were made clear in advance
* Medical treatment’s purpose is to prevent or cure illness, or prevent it getting worse, or relieve pain and suffering and is directed at benefit to the patient
* There is a fundamental prinicple of the sanctity of human life, but it is not absolute
* In some circumstances that principle must yield to the principle of self determination
* The entire treatment regime should be viewed as a whole and the provision of nourishment is part of that, especially so when it is artificial
* In some cases, and particularly in some cases where continued treatment will provide no benefit to the patient, discountinuing some or all of that treatment would be lawful
Those who read the judgment may well be struck by the heavy emphasis given to the best interests of the patient, rather than to his or her wishes. In my view it is important to bear in mind that in Anthony’s case not only was he was incapable of expressing those wishes but there was no available evidence that he had ever expressed any wishes on the matter. The judgement suggests that in those circumstances, in English law, it would not be right to attempt to determine what those wishes would have been, but the best interests tests should prevail.
No, Susan, I don’t want to advise neurologists how to make decisions etc. and so forth.
What I said is that this case is literally changing the fabric of this country.
What I said was that we need to as a society consider how to handle this kind of custodial/end of life war before the next Shiavo type case ends up on international big screen.
What I said was that medicine – of which I am a part – does not know everything. No doctor knows everything, no nurse, no nurse practitioner, ad nauseum. There is a reason that medical consumers are advised over and over to get a second opinion. There is a reason why parents of children born with genetic defects keep hoping year after year. Things CHANGE – often very rapidly. And lest we forget, medicine is often wrong. This country is full of people who have been told to have no hope that have recovered dispite the prognosis. Our malpractice load is over the moon. Any innocent human life who cannot speak for herself, whose family violently disagrees on course of action, deserves the very best we can give them as a society when making a decision of this nature.
No doctor – good or bad – in his right mind would perform surgery on you without a very recent medical exam and thorough testing. If you let him, you would be a fool. Why should individuals in this particular drastic situation – not family agreement, not living will, not a patient speaking for himself – THIS situation – be entitled to any less care than would be used to perform a stomach stapling?
Someone accused me of comparing the life of a 4 year old to the life of a 41 year old woman. Get a life. Learn to understand what you read. I was not comparing life to life or death to death but rather the way two different courts in two different parts of the country handled this kind of decision between a patient’s warring families.
In the case of the 4 year old, no matter how you feel about the results of the court action, everyone involved and everyone who witnessed agrees that the judge tried very hard to avoid all appearances of conflict of interest or favoritism. Everyone got some things dear to their hearts. Everyone lost some things too. Everyone was held to the same standard.
In the Florida case the entire world stands a witness. Each saw something different as is always the case with witnesses. Modern technology allows everyone to participate in what should, hopefully, be a decision among family members rather than an international debate. If you know anything about media relations or salesmanship or public relations – and I do – then it is readily apparent that this case, for whatever reason, was not handled well.
Court TV has been around for a couple of decades. The judge in the case cannot have been unaware that his actions and those that he allowed to or denied to the parties in the case would come under intense, worldwide media scrutiny. And he knew that from the very day that Attorney Felos, a well-known, high-paid right-to-die lawyer walked into his court room. I don’t know about law, but in the Marines, the Navy, the Army and medicine one of the very first acronyms you learn in CYA – cover your ***
The internet is not in its infancy anymore and the judge in this case cannot be said to be unaware of the technology, even if he is one of the shrinking number of older Americans who are not “online.” The net, with all its undocumented rumors, oft-repeated falsehoods, ommissions of fact and huge mass of population, too busy or too undereducated to understand what they read, has only added to the mess. Even the very documents of the case are available for the world to review at its leisure. The judge had to have known that this would happen also.
Therefor, it was paramount for the integrity of his decision, to bend over backwards to appear to be fair, merciful and just while avoiding every possible hint of conflict of interest. That effort in this case, residing the entire time in the hands of the judge, has been at best inept. Millions of Americans believe that justice was not done in this case precisely because of the way in which it has been handled, whether the decision is ultimately right or ultimately wrong.
There is not a single word that anyone will ever say to convince those millions of Americans, whose voice is just as important as yours – even when they hold a different position than you do – that anything other than injustice was done here solely and entirely because it appears unjust, unmerciful and vindictive.
And all of that has been fed by special interest groups, starting first and foremost with Michael Schiavo’s attorney. It has all been grist for the mill, fuel for the flames and downhill all the way from there.
Even here, which many have remarked as one of the more reasoned forums, participants often descend to ASS-U-MEing things not stated, name calling, flame wars and quite literally the tallying of the number times that “I” is used in a particular post by individuals that apparently have no valid reasoned opinions with which to debate and so resort to mob rule. Do you think that if you laugh hard enough I will go away?
Worse, many have descended even to criticism, libel and belittlement of an obviously distraught woman whose daughter is dying. What have we come to as a people that we have nothing but scorn , harsh words and derision for the wounded and grieving?
Those who have not walked a mile in her shoes, have not held their dying child or beloved family member should be ASHAMED to criticize this poor woman at the eleventh hour simply because she wishes a different end for her precious child than you would choose for your own. You never know what you will do, what you will put up with, what choices you will make until you have to do and put up with and choose.
Choice without alternatives to pick and choose between is tyranny.
Courts and lawyers do not rule the land under the US Constitution, despite the self interested statements of various attorneys to the contrary. Even Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Constitution, had this to say in 1819 about the powers of the judiciary of this country under the Constitution that he authored:
The Courts, specifically do not, stated over and over by the Founding Fathers, among the very best educated men in the Western world of their time, hold the final authority. Many of them comment on that very danger, stating that it would lead to judicial tyranny. We the People hold the final authority. We hold a precious birthright. To stay silent, to laugh, to slander and belittle those that would challenge your position, demeans the birthright of us all.
To fail to correct a clear problem, to pass off an issue because it is tough politically, to choose money – how many dying patients can we process – over the clearly defined right to life of the lowest and most unworthy amongst us is betrayal of every principle this nation was founded on.
It appears that we as a society have become to self absorbed, too uneducated, too disinterested to care. We would rather make and interpret our laws by media polls
and mass hysteria.
God – whoever you choose to believe He/She/It may be – help us all.
That is a great link Acrossthepond. Indeed.
AcrossThePond, I’m reading, I’m reading …. (;-)} Thank you much for the link.
I do wish, sometimes, that our system had the ability to put the President on-the-spot in the manner of the PM’s Question Time. I listen to that regularly on BBC Online. Great, great fun.
Atheist wrote:
Moral decisions are not made by a show of hands. None of the polls were either structured in a way to give a true statistical picture, even if we were to allow some sort of consent by majority.
I have never seen anyone argue that the courts were conspiring to kill Terri – at least not here. Certainly I have never stated that and don’t think that is the case, though I do believe that this has been so poorly handled that it gives to many the LOOK of this.
There are a couple of problems here. First and foremost, what you are seeing here is something near miraculous, if I may use such a word. You see, the protesters are not all or even primarily right-wing ultra-conservative, right to life screaming Christians as they have all too often been portrayed through this.
If you saw the folks in the wheel chairs, they are there representing virtually all of the Disabled Rights groups in the nation. They are left of center, liberal Democrats.
Jesse Jackson is also a liberal Democrat, and his is the paramount moral voice in the black community of this nation.
Women’s rights supporters are protesting this – including NOW. Liberal, leftish.
All these folks – black and white, healthy, disabled (including the gay disabled), Christian, not, Dem & Republican – are crossing over the line that has existed in our country ever since Roe v. Wade and saying – “Let’s ignore that. Let’s join hands and work together on this one. This is wrong.”
That you do not see a million protesters at the hospice, don’t think for a second that there are not that many and far more that are burning the wires protesting this.
As far as Christians being “people of the book” and “letting Terri go to heaven” read some of the Jewish and Muslim voices that are weighing in on this. They too, are people of the book.
Virtually no one can define the “average” Christian, but in general Christians do NOT believe that you hurry up – or hurry someone else up – just so you can go to heaven. Most believe that God put us here on this Earth for a certain time and purpose and that the heavenly father has control over the date of our admission to heaven. Martyrdom of the type that you are describing is a Muslim philosophy held by certain groups of Muslims rather than a Christian one.
My Grandma used to tell me “The Good Lord will never give you a cross he won’t help you carry.” I guess that sums it up for me.
Robin says:
Society has handled it; get a living will or have clear and convincing evidence(in Florida) from a GUARDIAN, that that was the wish of the human vegetable.
This is true, but science reigns.
Well, I was going to dissect each of your paragraphs but based on the above it would be pointless. The reason being that the masses do not really know what is going on. They are ignorant and you are on a soap box.
Your posts are pointless because you refuse to acknowledge that the courts have maintained that Terri is in PVS. The New video on CNN proves that Terri is no longer here. Stop postulating.
Robin,
It appears that we as a society have become to self absorbed, too uneducated, too disinterested to care. We would rather make and interpret our laws by media polls and mass hysteria.
Not at all, my dear. This case was settled in the regular way, exactly as it should have been, in a court of law, by a man who was apparently more interested in doing justice than in pandering to the camera. Good for him, that’s what I say. He did not, as you think he should have, trim his sails to the wind of “what will everyone think” or “how will this look to MSNBC.” He just sat there and did his job.
It is you who would drag this business out of where it belongs, in court, where it was solved correctly, and into the heat of your contrary opinion about how it should have come out. You have a thousand shifting reasons and strategies, but what it works out to, I’m afraid, is just that you disagree with the outcome.
We the People hold the final authority. Indeed. But nowhere in the Constitution, and no where in our legal heritage, can you find the idea that the results of any trial should be determined by popular vote. We call that “mob rule,” and cultures where English is spoken have always abhored the very idea. We have a rule of law here, not a rule of men (or women).
Even when Robin disagrees with the final decision. No, we’re not going to abandon 1000 years of legal history, of the slow building of the protection of the individual and his or her rights from the mob, just because you personally disagree with this one decision.
And I guess we’ll see once again if the Supreme Court once again allows the 11th Circuit to simply stand without comment, or takes it on.
This has got to be a difficult decision for them. Particularly with the opinions recorded in the 11th Circuit’s decision, the case is begging for a final ruling on the constitutionality of Public Law 109-3 and, in particular, determinations on the opinions of the justices recording opinions from the 11th Circuit.
I am no law expert of any kind, but if I were them, I would be loathe to take it on right now because it then would seem they would have been manipulated into reversing their earlier decision not to hear. If they take it on and choose to rule on the feeding tube reconnection question, then it seems they have to reconnect to give themselves time. More manipulation, something the Court would be loathe to submit themselves to. If Terri Schiavo Incapacitated passes, then there’s something to be heard, namely, the constitutionality question. Or the Court could be really brazen and sever the question of the reconnection of the feeding tube from the constitutionality question, dismissing the former and ruling on the latter. I don’t know if there’s any precedent for that kind of thing. Irrespective, it would probably create a stir.
Sorry, forget the link.
Robin,
All the tangential rambling in your world will not alter two simple realities:
1) Virtually every credible neurologist with knowledge of this case is diametrically opposed to your view of medicine in this case.
2) An overwhelming majority of Americans (many major polls available) are diametrically opposed to your view of ehthical considerations in this case (e.g., feeding tube removal, spousal decision primacy, agreement with Judiciary)
It will never come to pass that … she who rants most wins. You have already lost all arguments.
Alan J. Denis:
So very true.
[Atheistfundamentalist: At the risk of catalyzing Alan into making another post about the lousiness of my moderation, let me say – with all due respect – that I’d prefer that people avoid posting “cheerleading” posts on my website, especially in heated debates. My observation is that such posts can sometimes make the person with the minority viewpoint feel piled-on, which I’m sure isn’t your intent. –Amp]
Atheistfundamentalist,
You’re wrong. The “masses” know very well what is going on, and all the polls I’ve seen support the decision of the court, and are very critical of the involvement of the federal legislative and executive branches (where they clearly do not belong) and of the posturing of religious fanatics, anti-abortion leaders, politically ambitious ministers, congresspersons and so forth. As well they should be.
But whether or no. As I said to Robin, we don’t take polls on the issues of fact properly decided in court. The key decision, of course, was not Terri’s precise diagnosis, but the determination of what she wanted us to do about her present situation, whatever you wish to call it.
Robin would overrule all that, Terri’s own opinion, on the basis – I guess – that she knows better. Or that it isn’t really Terri’s opinion, which Robin knows (and this about someone she’s never met) by mystical means or something. Or that it shouldn’t be Terri’s opinion. I’m not quite sure.
I just hope Robin and her mob don’t get loose on me if I ever end up in Terri’s situation. And I hope the President keeps his or her nose out of it too, thank you very much.
Jan,
Interesting. I’m betting they drag their heels until Terri is gone, then take it on on the Constitutional issue if they think the law was constitutional. (Unlikely.) If they think the law unconstitutional anyhow, they’ll just deny cert and let the 11 Circuit decision stand. (Most probable.)
But betting on the Supremes is an old passtime among lawyers and pundits, like playing the horses. Both amusements are full of surprises.
But NP, I’m not allowed that privilege. See, I’m one of those gay liberals whom you are also accusing of trying to destroy marriage, despite my 10 years of love and devotion to my sweet wife. And that saddens me.
IT, this is a bit off topic, but bear with us here, I believe that gay marriage will be legalized in a very few years in the United States, as it already has been in Canada and other parts of the world.
Now, all you good Christian guys and gals, don’t jump all over me. I didn’t say whether I was in favor of that or not, did I. I just made a prediction.
Susan, the masses–even those that agree with me and you–do not have all facts. Shit, we do not have all the facts, we just have more than most. Even so, the masses still agree, even if they are ignorant of the facts, that TERRI is dead. They just a have a feeling. We have a feeling and we have more knowledge. I think it makes a difference.
Thus only 69% agreement in the polls.
Amp, my friend,
Never meant to imply that your burgeoning “moderation” was lousy. Excessive and selective, maybe. But never lousy. ;)
I just wish to correct my previous post. Facts should be changed to information.
Golly, thanks!
Seriously, my previous comment was tongue-in-cheek. Don’t sweat it, bro.
Well, in what’s got to be record time, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of the Schindlers in the case of Terri Schiavo ex rel.
Good call, Susan!
Y’know, if I were a Supreme Court justice, I think I’d be pissed.
Yeah, it took the Supreme Court all of two hours.
Hello to all,
I have been reading all the comments, the pros and cons, regarding Terri`s case. There have been some wonderful comments, some wise comments, very compashionate comments, and there have been some bloody stupid and self-centered comments. I thought I would input my feeling on this. I used to be a Catholic, for 30 years, before moving to Japan and converting to Buddhism. As I see it, there really is only one main issue to be dealt with at this moment and that is “what is best for Terri right now.”
Terri is to all intents dead, and probably has been for quite some time. The body, however,is alive, and could be kept alive for many years to come, but what is the point in doing this. Terri, or the part that constitutes Terri as a person, is long gone. It is a sad but medical fact that she will never recover to have an even half-way decent quality of life. Why can people not just let her go. If they wish to take up the other issues, of which there are indeed many (I myself have a problem with the idea of starving someone to death and denying them water) let them do so after she is gone. It is selfish to keep her with us in this state so that others can use her to push their individual agendas or so they can say “see, I was right” This is undignified, inhumane, self-centered and totally, totally wrong. Give here peace, pray for her and let her move on to whatever awaits her. Then deal with the issues, but first let her go with dignity.
Amazing, that they don’t want to be activist judges, like the congress wants them to be just this one time.
Then they should go back to decrying it as they normally do, right?
Athiesfundamentalist wrote:
Who are you kidding? The religious right votes at a rate of nearly 100%. NOW votes. The disabled rights groups all vote. Jesse Jackson can turn out the black vote like no tomorrow.
I am not on a soapbox. I simply disagree with you – strongly.
The last time that I knew, one was required to earn a medical degree in order to hold a medical license. Federal Laws that regulate the health care industry drastically limit who can define a diagnosis of any given disease in any given individual. For the purpsoes of neurology, that would be an MD. I have never heard of Dr. Court of Pinnelas County, MD – there is no such thing.
No matter what this court maintains – no examination, therapy or hearing since 2003 – that diagnosis is too old to be currently medically valid according to virtually all standard medical protocols for anything.
Apparently you are of the mindset that has decided that each and every decision made in every court is always correct. I maintain that this is not the case by a long shot.
You simply don’t want to have to acknowledge that your view of the situation may be incorrect. You “voted” after all, right?
Aren’t you the very individual that was commenting not long ago that fully qualified MDs could not tell anything from watching a patient on a TV screen
What makes you think that you are in ANY way even minimally qualified to make a judgement as to authenticity of such a video, either as to the unretouched quality and photographic integrity of the video or in regards to any medical information that might be gleaned?
OK, I just went and looked at every single Schiavo video on the CNN web site. There is no NEW footage of her. That has been disallowed by the court order. Many of the pictures contained in these videos are old stills worked into the report. All the news agencies are using old pictures.
HOW can that in any way prove anything whatever about Terri in even the smallest and illogical of brains?
IT, thanks for reading my long post. You sound like a nice person. The funny thing is, right now am probably closer to the liberals than to the conservatives on this particular case. Never thought I would agree with Barney Frank, but I could have kissed him on the head last week when he spoke out about government intrusion! You see, I don’t want the government telling me I cannot stop treatment OR that I have to keep it going. The thought of that is overwhelming. One thing I am convinced of, is that in our nation we are polarized too far left and too far right which is apparent from the posts and the news. It is my hope that you can legally do what you need to do for the end of life planning with your loved one. It is very important. In Tennessee there has been recent legislation to make it easier for non marrieds and non family to act as surrogates even when a person does not leave a LW or advanced directives. It would be wonderful if this young woman could pass away without all this upset. Continue to be very concerned about the need we have to veiw the situations without applying absolutes to all other cases that seem similar. As a hospice nurse, I have not seen one case to be exactly like another, especially considering disease and spiritual states, and family dynamics. What do all of you think about CONSCIOUS SEDATION? (not yelling, emphasizing) I’m beginning to think I am the only night owl on here.
IT, forgot to mention, it was interesting you mentioned the gay thing. Many conservatives believe that very far left influences adversely affect marriage and family. Your personal lifestyle has no bearing on that. I do not believe that you are personally involved in a sinister plot to destroy our marriages. To think so would be laughable or cryable. ( I like to make up words) Many liberals want to legalize things that are anti family to the thinking of the right wing. So really, this blog is not about all that, and certainly not about gay marriage, but wanted you to know that when conservatives use these terms they are not always to be interpreted so specifically, in other words, I was using a broad broom about things that concern me. Some of the things for example that have created an explosion in home schooling. One very important thing: I do not purport to speak for all conservatives or all liberals, only my take on current events. Tonight, I am concerned about the extreme positions in a young woman’s family that are tearing that family apart. Some would say not because they do not consider MS to be a part of the family, but he is married to the S. daughter which does make him family. If we don’t stick to the Terri S. case, our very focused moderator, AMP will have to bump me off the blog and that would be very distressing indeed. Night night, God Bless and thanks for reading.
I’ve cut & pasted my post at #227 … lazy, I know. Thought it might be less tedious than arguing point-by-point (over and over) the absence of virtue in the rambling, repetitive diatribes of she who imagines that she will simply drone all others into a trance.
Robin,
All the tangential rambling in your world will not alter two simple realities:
1) Virtually every credible neurologist with knowledge of this case is diametrically opposed to your view of medicine in this case.
2) An overwhelming majority of Americans (many major polls available) are diametrically opposed to your view of ehthical considerations in this case (e.g., feeding tube removal, spousal decision primacy, agreement with Judiciary)
It will never come to pass that … she who rants most wins. You have already lost all arguments.
Good night, God bless, and have a pleasant tomorrow, all.
Well, Robin has said that she will not accept the results of an autopsy, so I guess this argument can go on ad inifnitum.
Just one more thing, to note a ‘discrepancy’ in something Robin state above. There were 2 and probably 3 Guardian ad Litems in the case. The most recent one, Dr. Wolfson, was w/drawn when Terri’s Law was declared unconstitutional. Michael Schiavo did not ask to have him removed. It was a previous GAL, Pearse. Let’s go to the trial court’s 2000 decision for more on this:
brackets mine.
Michael Shiavo contested that conclusion from the then Guardian Ad Litem. From the Wolfson Report of 2003 :
A second excerpt from that trial order:
Obviously, Judge Greer who only presided over the entire case for more than 7 years, who lost his membership in his church over this, who has round the clock guards protecting his life, knows absolutely nothing about what REALLY went on. And we do.
How very odd.
Just to clarify, I’ve only recently been following this issue and sought to get some background info so I could actually understand what my opinion of this issue should be. I am not an expert of any kind, and I am not even sure why I took as much time to look into this issue as I have. I just wanted to express a few thoughts, the first being that there are quite a few good ideas and arguements out there and here and they’ve helped me make up my mind. For that I thank each one of you.
Personally I feel that no matter what happens (I’m pretty sure she will ultimately die, as will every single one of us at some point) I won’t lose any sleep over it. This one incident isn’t going to give anyone the last bit of footing that they need to take over the world, be them left, right, catholic or atheist. And neither will it stop anyone from suceeding in pushing through some bit of legislation or rendering a decision that will bring about the potential end of civilization as we know it (again… there has always been someone who claimes that something must be stopped before it destroys the very fabric of society…)
It makes for a good debate but now that I’ve gotten this out of my system, I think I’ll be more interested in seeing how quickly things subside after she passes… The band wagon will probably empty out as quickly as it filled up.
No, Regina, I did NOT say that I would not accept the results of the autopsy. What I said was that there would be no meaningful results to accept, if you can stop your nit-picking over the number of GAL appointed temporarily throughout 15 years long enough to understand the difference.
The act of starvation and dehydration on the human body – with or without a functional intellect inside the brain – will remove a great deal of her body weight prior to death.
Her kidneys will fail.
Her liver will be destroyed.
Every single possible chemical parameter by which we measure the status of human health will be drastically out of normal bounds.
She will untimately suffer massive heart faillure.
Her brain will shrink from dehydration, rendering any accurate assessment of the condition of her brain prior to the removal of the feeding tube moot.
EVEN if her brain did not shrink, an autopsy can only determine visual and chemical evidence of disease.
PVS by its very definition has NO known defining chemical parameters. It also has NO known visual factors that can be pointed to *even in a living human being* that distinguish PVS from something else.
No further imaging tests – CAT. PET, MRI can be performed after death.
Her cranium will be cut from the top of her head, the remains of her brain will be removed from her skull, they will be weighed, visually inspected for damage, and then cut into pieces so that the interior of the brain can be examined.
Her brain will show trauma from at least two known sources outside of whatever caused her inital state. One of those was a surgery performed many years ago that left pieces of metal in her brain. The other of those is the dramatic shrinkage that is occurring dur to starvation and dehydration.
There is virtually nothing that we will be able to learn by autopsy to remove our collect guilt or to point to in support of the idea that “Terri wouldn’t want to live this way.”
There will be NO meaningful results from any autopsy performed anywhere to accept.
Virtually everyone with any pathology experience already know this. The media simply isn’t telling you this, either because it has not yet occurred to them to question the issue or because for one reason or another they choose not to tell you.
The autopsy results WILL be “negative” as far as any substantiating information goes. The only question is whether or not they will be publicly accepted.
Michael Schiavo works for Pinnelas County as does the County Medical Examiner. An autopsy performed by that particular medical examiner will always be called into question.
The ultimate outcome of Terri Schiavo’s case has been extremely interesting and of particular relevance for two equally important yet distinct reasons.
The first one, of course, concerns the political consequences the current “Duty to live” frenzy has or could lead to. I believe this subject matters a great deal to all of us, but I also think it has been rehearsed enough times and in all its forms to come as tiring for those who would want to adress other issues this particular situation has placed on the spotlight, which concern new ethical dilemmas science and medicine will be forced to confront from now on due to the progress of technology.
However, since the first subject pretty much determines our standing ground before we even attempt to talk about the second, I’ll try to summarize quickly what the essential points are, in my opinion.
As has time and again been repeated, the whole issue with Mrs Schiavo now comes down to respecting the law. Now, I have had serious disagreements with existing laws and actively tried to fight them (the Patriot Act and other corollaries come to mind), of course, but the main point in those cases was that those new laws directly violated other laws already in effect, and as such contradicted not my interpretation of the Constitution, but the express statements contained in it.
This is not the case for people who have tried to circumvent the judicial system in order to “rescue” Terri Schiavo. All laws in the USA state that such cases are private, that powers of attorney ultimately prevail over other conflicting opinions unless the courts deem it otherwise, and that once the whole string of appeals has been exhausted, the courts’s decisions are legally binding to all.
So yeah, in this specific instance, everything has rightfully been decided, and continuing to pretend otherwise is tantamount to ignoring the Constitution and dismissing the reign of Law.
Now, as for why judges ruled this way in the first place… Again, I would like to emphasize, as others have done in this post, that it isn’t because they thought PVS patients should die. The one thing that matters is that Terri Schiavo had loudly and repeatedly asserted that she did not want to be kept alive at all costs if she ever found herself in such a dire situation. We could discuss whether she meant PVS or minimally-conscious state, but she’s in PVS, period. Deal with it.
There are, on the other hand, a whole lot of issues we could be examining right now, since the impact of Terri Schiavo’s ordeal in mainstream media has brought to the forefront the question of medical and ethical concerns.
In a few words, what should we do with the technological possibilities now open to us ? I would ask whether we are prepared to deal with them, but it a moot point, and we can no longer ignore them, however frightening they may be.
I saw a Brit reader, and I would be especially interested in his opinion about a case that presented itself a few years ago. I don’t know if any of you remember the siamese baby girls whose parents took to England for a medical consult (they came from Malta), whom the Court ordered be separated against the parents’ wishes (inspired on religious reasons), on the ground that none of them had a chance to survive if maintained together, whereas the operation would kill one of them while ensuring the survival of the other twin.
Of course, a patient’s right to refuse medication is sacred. We could despair over a 19 years old Mormon’s decision to refuse a blood transmission, but it would be his legal right to do so. Nonetheless, these twins were not in that position, since they couldn’t make their wishes known. The court thereby decided to remove the parents ‘ custody in order to protect life. They didn’t do it on the State’s behalf, though, but on the kids’ behalf, judging that what they would have wanted (maybe I should say “what the surviving one would have wanted”, but it opens another can of worms) would have been to live.
I have many more things to say about the “right to suicide”, our stance on disability, the sustainability of human life and the role of the State in all of this, and how they’re all connected to each other in my mind, but before I launch into them, I’d really like to know what you think about the case above and its effects, all of you.
Regina, what I have stated repeatedly is that –
It is immaterial to the world-wide perception of the case whether or not Judge Greer made the correct decision and what evidence he did or did not examine.
Judge Greer has left himself wide open to the charges of being biased and unfair, unsympathetic and without mercy.
That isn’t going to go away, will always be a huge factor in public perception of this case and could have been avoided.
No meaningful results to accept vs. won’t accept results of autopsy? Not much of a diff to me, Robin.
No reasoning, logical human being, let alone a scientist or medical personnel and others who know what autopsy is all about can ACCEPT results that DO NOT EXIST.
If that isn’t much of a difference to you then I can’t help you. That does not either make falsehood into truth or invalidate my opinion.
Forgot to mention, that CNN reported that the Schindlers have also agreed that an autopsy would help answer questions.
I am going to plagiarize part of Bob’s comment on the NRO Lies thread because I thought it captured something essential about this dispute in an especially eloquent manner:
And I will add: that system won’t be perfect but it will be more perfect than enacting a one-size-fits-all assumption. Many people who are not disabled (that is, terminally ill people who never considered themselves to be harboring a disability prior to their illness) choose to forego ANH or even normal delivery of nutrition in order to hasten the end of their lives. There’s no reason to believe that disabled people would never choose the same if faced with the same physical or mental challenges, and it seems insulting and condescending to assume that a disabled person’s views would be fundamentally different from a non-disabled person’s — I expect their views would be as diverse and nuanced as a non-disabled person’s, but I would never assume that I know anything about an individual’s views would without even making an inquiry. I do think it’s important to make the inquiry and I do think it’s important not to prejudge the outcome.
More plagiarism, I’m sorry Amp, but I think it’s helpful to post some of the more eloquent views I’ve found, especially as they discuss this issue in terms of disability:
Michael Berube
As I said above, one reason why there appears to be such a compulsion to vilify Michael Schiavo in spite of available evidence is to avoid having to face the idea that other people, good people, might disagree with you on something you truly believe, or to extend charity to someone whose views are anathema.
Robin,
Indeed he has. This is sometimes the penalty of doing the right thing.
You seem very concerned about what “everybody” (that is, you and your friends – polls show that you’re much in the minority) thinks here.
Judge Greer, quite properly, does not run his courtroom according to public polls or perceptions, however. So far as I and all the appellate courts can see, he runs his courtroom according to the law.
That is his job, and his oath – not to bend the law to pander to you and your type. It often happens that people suffer for doing their job right, and Judge Greer is well aware of that, and has the courage and integrity to do his job right anyway. I for one admire him a great deal for that, and I think most people do.
Judge Greer makes me proud of our judiciary. Men and women who stick to their guns, who do what they think is right, and according to the law, regardless of what the mob of the moment is demanding. This is what we look to judges, and to the law, for – to be the voice of rule and reason when much of the world goes nuts.
I’m proud to be a member of the bar with this man.
I was just reading through information regarding the testimony re Karen Ann Quinlan and Terri watching the movie and realized something:
Your “right to die” or “right to remove life support” is based in the US entirely on the Karen Ann Quinlan decision by the Supreme Court in 1976 that allowed the removal of “life support.”
Karen Ann Quinlan lived for 9 years in a coma. She was fed by tube for 9 years. The Supreme Court did not allow her to be starved and dehydrated to death.
December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005
Robin’s endless (!!) threats aside, I have confidence that the republic will weather this storm as it has weathered so many other, bigger ones.
The rule of law will not be overturned in favor of mob clamor, as Robin desires.
Judges will not be forced to submit their verdicts to MSNBC polls, as Robin demands, before they are valid.
Trial judges will continue to apply the law, heedless of how this show of integrity “looks” to a “worldwide” audience.
Appellate courts will continue to resist congressional grandstanding, and they will contine to apply the law even-handedly and according to the Constitution, as they have done, to a man. They will continue to ignore NOW, Jesse Jackson, disabled “rights” groups, religious fanatics, and the President of the United States, among others, in this endeavor, as is their oath. (We govern by law here, not by who can make the loudest noise. Laws are changed at the ballot box, not by microphone in front of hospices in Florida.)
The State will not begin to dictate who you can and cannot hire to represent you, as Robin demands.
The desires of even the disabled will continue to be respected, they will be accorded the dignity of adults just as though – imagine! – just as though they were not disabled. Not even the parents of adults will be allowed to treat them as infants.
Medical treatment will not, for the first time in a thousand years, be legally forced on those who do not want it.
Almost everyone involved, and certainly everyone in the judiciary, has behaved with great integrity, restraint and good sense. I think we’ve done very well, overall, in spite of some very ugly demogogery intended to upset both good medicine and the rule of law.
Overall, we should be proud of ourselves, I think.
(Regina. Psst! What Robin means by her posts on the autopsy is “if I agree with the results I’ll accept it, otherwise not.” Just like everything else in this case.)
Robin,
One more thing, then I have to go to work. I wouldn’t want you to stop posting here – you’re the one who’s keeping this discussion going! – but you might also try http://www.thrownback.blogspot.com/and the blogs listed there. These folks all agree with you. This is just in case you get tired of everyone arguing with you.
While I am not familiar with the case, I believe it’s likely that the Court based its view on what it deemed to be “the best interests” of the patient(s).
That would be consistent with its judgment in the case of Bland (see the link in post 218) where the “best interests” consideration is much discussed – particularly in circumstances (which I assume prevailed for thses twins) where the patient could not, or had not, expressed any wishes about their care.
I recommend that link again – not of course because it would be decisive in the United States, but because it seems to me to be a thoughtful analysis of many of the issues. It includes, for example, some interesting material on withdrawl of care versus murder or manslaughter.
I am certain that there will now be debates about whether legislators should enact new laws. I hope those debates will be informed, careful, conscientious, and principled. While I’m sure that many of the debaters will be all of these, I fear that some will not (probably on every side of all the questions).
I read that Terri has now passed on. I hope that the coming days will give those who have been in anguish over this tragedy a chance to find some relief and peace.
Terri has died.
Rest in peace, rest in Christ, Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo. We never knew you, and all we saw were videos taken after your brain was destroyed. May everyone who loved you forget all the ugly things, and remember the lovely young woman you were before all these horrible things happened.
May you meet all who loved you in that kingdom where every tear is wiped away.
Regina:
Since the questions that they want answered related to her initial injuries and allegations of abuse, the autopsy may in fact answer those. That said, it has been 15 years, so any bone damage that would indicate those assertions may not be discoverable.
Any moral position when taken to the extreme will produce excesses.
If I believe human existence begins at conception, then by extension a pregnant woman who smokes, uses alcohol, or uses other mind altering substances should be arrested for neglect, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or other charges which we now apply only after birth. If I believe absolutely that death penalties are wrong then I have to protect psychopathic criminals who have committed the most egregious acts against other human beings. If I am virulently anti-war, I allow Hitler-like tyrants to subjugate entire populations.
That is not to say we should not take moral positions. Without morality we become feral beasts. We sink to the law of the jungle. Kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten. Survival of the strongest (or the luckiest).
But, morality has to have subtleties. Sometimes it is moral to take another human life; sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is moral to lie; sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is moral to remove a feeding tube; sometimes it is not. So much depends on intent, and intent is simply not visible to others.
I do not know what is in the heart of the Schindlers or Mr. Schiavo, and neither does anyone else. If the Schindlers and Mr. Schiavo are honest with themselves (which is more difficult to do than you might imagine, particularly at this stage of developments), they almost certainly have complex feelings on this issue which even they cannot resolve. That will take several years of professional counseling which will help only if each of them has the courage to confront his or her internal conflicts. At least, that has been my experience. Our feelings and intentions are never as simple as we present them to be. Love, doubt, guilt, envy, greed, selfishness, hurt, pain, fear; all are present to some degree. Absent an opportunity for an extended discussion with each of them, I will not even attempt to judge their motives.
The system we use to resolve morally ambiguous positions (at least in our country) is the rule of law. We are the fortunate participants in a system which has been evolving for more than 3,000 years, and which continues to evolve today as we are forced to confront moral dilemmas created by advancing technology. A physical trauma like Terri Schiavo’s, had it occurred earlier in the century, would not have placed her family in a position to have to make the kind of gut wrenching decisions which are faced today. She would have been declared dead and no efforts could have been made to revive her. The technical ability to resuscitate someone who had been deprived of oxygen for several minutes did not exist. But, because the technology does exist today, we are forced into a morally-conflicted choice. Thus, the issue wound up in court.
I have read the court opinions. I have even read the deposition of the radiologist who reviewed the infamous bone scans. (Everything is available on the internet. Who would’ve thunk!). I have to agree with one of the earlier posts. This is not about right or wrong: it is about winning and losing. It is about forcing others to admit that they are wrong and I am right. It is about individuals pushing moral positions to excess.
You Brits,
My daughter married a Scot and lives in the UK, and I have many friends there.
For all of our likenesses, there are some profound differences between us.
From where we sit, Brits seem uncommonly trusting of their government. Perhaps that has to do with how small the place is. Americans, on the other hand, are quite mistrustful of government. (You guys taught us that one!)
Look at health care. My daughter, when she had her babies, was visited every week by a government employee (styled “health visitor”) who checked up on the baby. Along with handing out help and advice, this person also has the power to alert the Scottish equivalent of Child Protective Services. I very much doubt that many American mothers would welcome such visits, not because we abuse our kids necessarily – I don’t think we do any more often than anyone else – but because we don’t want the government in our houses every week snooping about.
This bears on the case cited. It was my understanding that the government overruled the parents on this one?
We don’t do things that way here. Or we’re not supposed to.
I second that Susan ….
As of this moment, Terri or what was left of her is in a better place. As a Christian, my emotions and raw Christianity have run the entire spectrum of emotions. I found it quite ironic that on the day that Jesus said “I thirst”, there was a woman in Florida Thirsting. This is a tragendy to both sides of the family, and a tragedy that has affected the world. I can’t help but see that Terri’s brain was severely damaged, and that at one time the family had done all that was possible to bring terri back. Alas, it was not Gods will. Somehow, I prefer to think that 15 years ago Terri went to sit at the right hand of God and was blessed. What we see as Terri is merely a shell that was left behind. I pray for both sides of the family and find no fault in either side. Both were doing what they felt was what Terri would have wanted. A living will would have avoided all of this, but the debate on what is and is not murder presents very interesting insight into our society and may never be resolved.
I hate to add a comment after susan. I would not want to detract from the beauty of her words. (I defer to ampersand whether to add this or not since perhaps we should end on susan’s note. )
To the many hospice folks and drs who blogged that this would be a quick, painless, organ by organ death, reconsider your “knowledge base”.
The end came as a painful heart attack in an otherwise healthy body, not a diseased, terminally ill, aged corpse.
Susan,
We Brits have a lower infant mortality rate – deaths up to one year – than the US and Health Visitors have played a part in the steady reduction in that rate over many decades.
In the case of the twins the government had nothing to do with it. The medical facts – shared organs I seem to remember – meant that while there was a very good chance of saving the most complete child it was impossible to save both. In that case we had devout catholics arguing that both should be allowed to die, even when one could and did live.
If you’ve not yet read it, may I reiterate the commendation of the Anthony Bland judgement in the House of Lords – posted at 218.
We have a healthy scepticism of whichever government is in power. Perhaps the difference is in the importance we attach to knowing and understanding all the facts. Or perhaps the Englightenment just “took” better over here!
Well, it’s over, I hope that peace will descend, but I doubt it. I suspect more suits and counter suits, wrongful death, and all that sort of thing, regardless of the autopsy results. It’s a sorry business and the media feeding frenzy just disgusts me.
NP, thanks for your comments. I think your point about polarization is well taken, adn there is a regretable tendency to stereotype and de-humanize people of opposite viewpoints. Shrill stridency is an enemy to understanding, and we must all be willing to compromise a little. I suspect if we met, you and I, we’d get along just fine, with more in common than not, despite different views on some things. (But religion isn’t necessarily one of them; my spouse is a woman of deep faith too). But these loud politicians on both edges are creating more problems than they solve.
Off -topic, but relevant to your last post– in some states (eg, Virginia) they have passed laws that specifically DENY couples like me the rights to contracts like living wells, etc. So we have a long way to go.
Susan
Susan, I have been an activist since the age of 13.
I have fought for civil rights for all people, no matter their color. If you live in this country and are black, I spoke for you.
I have fought for the right of an 18 year old draftee to drink a lousy beer, since he was old enough to kill.
I still believe that if you are old enough to be drafted or sign a contract, then you are old enough to hold the personal responsibility to choose whether or not to drink. Since the 18 year old drinking age has been upped, our society has infantalized youth to the point that 30 year olds are considered “too young to be responsible” in some of our courts. We can all see the results of our society’s failure to hold young people responsible.
I fought against the Vietnam War
from the hardest position of all – Army wife. I laugh when I hear the hand-wring about our 1500 Iraq dead, because I remember days when we lost that many bright, beautiful, valuable young men in a single hour.
It brings me to tears to see the Green Mountain Boys march off to war with such ceremony and return to a community welcome. My generation’s young men came home to be spit on and be called baby killers. Most have never recovered from their country’s need for them, and our communal disregard for their great sacrifice in a cause that We the People asked them to serve.
I have fought for women’s rights.
If you are female, then nowhere in this land are you required to list your husband’s name, address and place of employment on a job application as I was.
Nowhere in this country are you legally considered chattel – property – as our sisters in Louisiana were well into the 70’s.
Nowhere in this country can you be denied credit or education simply because you are either female and married.
I’m still fighting for women’s rights.
I have fought for the right of every woman to make her own personal choices in regards to the fetus she is carrying and answer to her own God for her decision.
When we started fighting this one babies born much prior to the 8th month of gestation simply did not survive. Those of us who fought for this felt that the view of Deuteronomy, the Old Testament book that lays out the laws for the Jewish people, had it right. In Deuteronomy it states that – rough quote, depends on translation you use – Should a man kick a pregnant woman in the stomach and cause her to lose her child, he shall not be guilty of murder unless it is the 8th month of pregnancy.
Technology has changed. A 20 week fetus is viable these days. I support the right of the viable unborn to life – but I also still support the right of each woman to make her own choice and face her own God regarding and unwanted pregnancy of a non-viable fetus. We need to revist this and try to heal the breach in society that Roe v. Wade has brought among us.
I have fought for the rights of the disabled and the poor. The care that society shows to our weakest reflects the sum total of the value of that society.
I have fought and will continue to fight for Terri Schiavo. She – and we all – have been done a huge injustice that many think may very well lead to our destruction. I am among them.
I’ve been fighting to change this country’s injustices since I was 13 years old. The rights you hold are fights that I have battled on your behalf.
I’ve learned one thing. To change laws, you have to change minds. People who already agree with you do not need their minds changed.
On autopsy;
As a complete layman I’d expect that changes in Terri’s body over the last few weeks would at least partially limit the value of its being performed.
That said, I’d prefer that any assessment of what it does show, and what can be concluded from it, be from qualified medical examiners.
For myself, I would be entirely willing to be autopsied (if that’s a word) if it were done to gain information that would be helpful in the treatment of others, or if it were essential to resolve an issue over the manner and causes of my death. And I think I’d be willing even if it were being
done only in the hope that it might bring some comfort to my family.
Sadly I think it highly probable that there will be people who will not accept any findings that are possible, who will challenge the competence or good faith of whoever performs it.
Sadder still I think it will divert attention from the issues which now face us – should the laws be changed? if so, how? how can the debate be free from rancour? how can the outcome be more widely accepted?
maureen,
Our infant mortality rate among middle class and upper folks is the same as yours. The problem is not so much the absence of health visitors per se, but our lack of any comprehensive medical insurance at all. No one here that I am aware of defends our “system”. (To call it a “system” implies that it’s halfway organized, which it isn’t. It’s a disaster.)
Who did make the judgment about the twins if the parents didn’t?
Knowing and understanding all the facts might be easier in a country the size of California. Actually, though, my experience is that Brits pretty much take whatever the BBC dishes out, pretty uncritically. And skepticism? I’ve yet to meet it over there. Not so’s an American can recognize it. You folks sure do know how to queue up straight.
Hey, it works for you. I’m just saying that we don’t trust our government as much as you trust yours. And I do think size has a lot to do with it. Unless you’ve been here, there’s no way on earth I can tell you how just plain big this place is. All the Brits I’ve escourted around are astonished, just as Americans are by the relative tininess of the UK, indeed, of all Europe. Also, until recently, you were all of about four closely related tribes, sharing a common language.
No one has ever attempted what we’re trying to do here: meld every language, race and color, over and entire continent, into one nation. We do pretty well, considering, but the jury’s still out on that one.
The civility of Brits always delights me, by comparison to American behavior. Hyde Park would be impossible here. And, well, there’s just no other word for it, the insularity of the place.
I’m off for Edinburgh Monday, for a couple of weeks with my daughter and her family, and save for the weather, I’m looking forward to it very much.
Acrossthepond,
how can the debate be free from rancour?
Move it to Nottingham. (Maybe!) We don’t do things that way here, sadly.
I cannot believe the egregious inaccuracy of Susan’s statement. I have lived in England, had an English parent, and because of that, have a healthy (but reasoned) distrust of government, something most of my American compatriots sadly seem to lack. Government is not inherently evil or innocuous. It could be, instead, effective or ineffective in managing society’s ills. Is lack of universal healthcare comparable to distrust of govt. ? I don’t think so. It just shows irrationality and, perhaps, a dislike of joining the other industrialized nations. “Hey, we’re all dying young, but at least we’re not like those Commie Swedes, Koreans, Taiwanese, et al.” Also, I saw the role of Health Visitors first-hand as a child, and still hope that this may become the norm here. I’m happy that Terry Schiavo was able to die in a somewhat peaceful way (had a parent who died of glioma, comatose, and a grandparent who refused nourishment in late Alzheimer’s).
I had visiting nurses two or three times a week for about three weeks when my daughter came home from the hospital because she was so premature. Among other things, they weighed my baby and gave me tips on both bottle and breastfeeding. They also assessed jaundice, reflexes, and developmental progress. I think a lot of mothers, particularly first-time mothers, in the U.S. would love to have an educated person helping them with their difficulties in the first weeks or months after a child’s birth. I think that France has the same kind of care in place.
I belong to a discussion list about, of all things, Brittany Spaniels. Well, of course there’s a European branch and an American branch, and believe me, we’ve been over the American/Brit/Europe stuff ad nauseum.
Will it help if I just admit that you guys are better in every way? (grin)
Robin,
I respectfully disagree. I believe that you were fighting to defeat Terri’s right to make her own decisions. It is the contrary choice, the idea that Robin (or anyone else) has the right to make my decisions for me that may lead to our destruction.
Fortunately that idea have been defeated yet again.
have/has. sorry
Oh yes, and the rule of law, as opposed to the Rule Of She Who Makes The Loudest Noise, has been reaffirmed again, as it has been so many times in the history of our legal system, sometimes with a much greater struggle.
(Can I tell the Brits that we owe our legal system, and our very ideas of fairness, to you?)
We made a lot of noise, but in the end we did very well.
You were a civil rights activist, and no black person ever took you aside to discuss this kind of phrasing? If that’s so, I doubt they were terribly excited to have you on board. They were probably hoping you’d get bored eventually and go speak for some other minority group. They were probably all, “Her? Oh, no, officer, she’s not with us.”
I don’t even know where to begin with this one, Ms. Every Life is Sacred, but do me a favor, will you? Don’t ever get involved with transgender rights. I want to keep my health coverage and employment protections, if you don’t mind.
Being an activist–whatever your actual contributions to civil rights for any group–doesn’t mean that you can’t be out of touch with reality. Heck, look at Randall Terry: he’s an activist and a batshit loonball. They aren’t mutually exclusive conditions. Susan wasn’t calling you heartless, or even saying that you aren’t committed. (The sheer volume of posting on this thread alone is proof against that.) She was telling you that you have been throwing yourself into the wrong cause, because you’re incapable of seeing reason or engaging opposing arguments.
Look, Robin, I’m about your age, and I too was an activist for most of the causes you name. (Not abortion, but everything else.) A feminist pioneer in my own profession, demostrations, legal efforts, yadda yadda. My credentials in this area, as it happens, are just as good as yours.
The difference is, those struggles have not yet imbued me with the idea that I know the facts of a disputed case better than the judge who tried it, or that I, an attorney, can make better diagnoses than trained neurologists. And I haven’t yet acquired the idea that I’m better qualified to make life and death decisions for a young woman I’ve never met than she is.
OK, you’re righteous. But don’t let your righteousness go to your head, to the point that you become an instant expert on everything, even things you know nothing about, and that you judge every matter by whether you agree with the outcome or not.
We don’t do it that way here. We have an orderly process to discern facts, and orderly statutes for reacting to facts. I think that Terri (and I) should have the right, as we have all had from time immemorial, to refuse medical treatment (including implanted feeding tubes) for any reason or for no reason. You, so far as I can tell, would force that treatment on us whether we wanted it or not.
I’m glad the law won this one.
Susan,
The Court of Appeal transcript for the twins is here
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/254.html
but although it includes permission to take the case to the House of Lords I have’t been able to find that.
Have fun in Scotland. The weather is variable, as you would expect, but really not too bad. My daughter just had a great couple of days in Skye.
M
piny
“Batshit loonball.” I like it, and I don’t even necessarily agree about Randall Terry. (Well, I donno, I’ll have to think about that one…) I hope Amp doesn’t strike it out! I want to remember it, and use it sometime.
maureen,
For a Californian, calling Edinburgh weather “variable” is like calling a snowstorm “cool.”
Of course one must drop one’s standards. If I step out my daughter’s front door and my nose does not instantly freeze solid and drop off my face onto the stoop, I say, “Well! This isn’t too bad!” because what can you do?
I’ll say this, I run more frequently in Scotland, which is good for me. (The locals just shake their heads and say, “There goes Abi’s crazy American Mum again.”) It’s the only way I can get out into the country and not freeze to death. (My daughter’s right on the edge of town – Gilmerton – and there’s a lot of very pretty country right there, trees, a big open estate, all that. Well worth the effort.) Otherwise I’d have to bundle up like an Eskimo.
Meh. I just dislike the man’s work. I don’t mean to imply that he’s actually crazy, although I do see some of the same ideological strains that we were commenting on.
Not to derail the thread–and I’m not really interested in having this hairy discussion on top of the other hairy discussion–but I take it that you’re pro-life, then? Since you said that you weren’t an abortion rights activist?
I’m just curious.
Susan wrote: (Can I tell the Brits that we owe our legal system, and our very ideas of fairness, to you?)
Certainly, of course you can. It probably will not even make us blush.
By and large we think your doing OK – not bad at all for a bunch of raw colonials. (Now all I need is the HTML for tongue-in-cheel-mode off).
Mostly, by the way, we don’t believe the BBC any more. Now, London taxi-drivers — but that’s a different story.
And yes, Nottingham is a wonderful idea. We’ll decide ths issues on who looks best in green tights.
I promised myself I would let this lie, but there are a few comments above that I feel really need to be addressed.
1-The business about “judicial tyranny.” Nonsense. We live in a representive democracy, which means “we the people” choose the representatives who make the laws as well as those who uphold the laws. So, when a case is decided in court it is a decision made by “we the people.” This country is a wee tad too large for a true democracy to work. However, if every single registered voter in the US had heard all the evidence and voted on this case (a pretty cumbersome undertaking though it would be), I daresay the outcome would’ve been the same. The polls tell us that our democracy is working. To have elected officials go outside the law & outside the legislated processes would undermine OUR democracy. If we don’t like the outcome on particular issues, then we do our research & vote for electives who share our ideals. But, if our candidate loses, we can’t kick and yell and fuss until we get our way. This is fair, this is part of the remaining good in our country.
2-Should all lawyers be court appointed? I’m not sure how Michael Schiavo’s hiring of a “right to die” lawyer is problematic. In fact, it makes a lot of sense. He hired someone who would be familiar with the LAWS &previous rulings that were relevant to this case. He didn’t invent laws or fabricate evidence, he used his knowledge of existing laws to make sure Schiavo’s wishes were well represented. Likewise, as I file for divorce, I hire a lawyer who specializes in family law…I don’t think, say, a corporate lawyer, would be of much assistance to me as they wouldn’t be as familiar with the laws surrounding issues like child custody, support or alimony. Again, it makes perfect sense. To try to dictate which lawyer one is “allowed” to hire is a ridiculous notion.
3-If all of this is part of some huge conspiracy of people who just wanted Terri Schiavo to die…could someone fill me in on what the motivation might be?
4- I do NOT think that the legalities of this should be tinkered with. It could open up a huge can of worms for all families dealing with chronic & life-threatening illnesses or conditions. As my daughter has a life-threatening illness, I’m frightened of what it could entail. When chemo didn’t work for her, we had three options: 1)full-dose of radiation to entire brain & spine, leaving her SEVERELY mentally retarded but cured of tumors.2)partial-dose of radiation, loss of some intelligence but regaining of quality time, 1-2 years survival3)discontinue treatment & begin hospice care. It was the most gut-wrenching, thought requiring decision I ever had to make, one that I still question to this day. For any of the three we had the doctors approval, but it came down to not being selfish & doing what was right for HER (and us a little bit). We chose 2, because we weren’t ready to let go, but we knew that 1 would be purely selfish. I wanted to see her dance again, to see the spark in her eye. We made the best choice we could based on the most accurate information doctors gave us, even though we know that doctors aren’t always right. And the doctors WERE wrong–she’s now 2.5 years out of radiation with stable remaining tumors–but the fact remains: HER guardians made a CHOICE regarding HER treatment based on the most reliable information WE had. What if a court had, in the interest of a “culture of life”, forced us to give her a full dose of radiation? She’d be dead, the partial dose of radiation nearly killed her & left her in the hospital for 2 months. Medical choices are not & should not be based purely on saving lives. I know this is somewhat tangential…but I do not EVER want to be forced into consenting to treatment for her, based on who’s shouting the loudest.
5-My heart is with the Schiavo & Schindler families today. Surely it was a difficult decision for her husband to concede that recovery was unlikely & surely her parents will have a long way to go to find peace, since they disagree. It’s a sad story any way you slice it.
Sorry so verbose. Peace to all.
piny,
Yes, I am pro-life, if that means anti-abortion.
The proper role of law on this is more thorny. I could make some kind of deal like that suggested by Robin, that the line be drawn at viability. Before, legal, after, not legal. Neither side would like it, but that’s probably a sign that it’s going in the right direction.
But the zealots on both sides really are batshit loonballs. On the one hand, some scream that the morning-after pill is the equivalent of Murder One; on the other, some advocate the right of a woman to have her 8 months fetus dismembered and removed. When does common sense kick in?
Susan:
Perhaps that is precisely because you are an attorney. You chose to become part of the system. I did not.
You are qualified to speak for the courts and the judges and attorneys. The very ethics of your profession require you to set aside all moral compunction and values, to act as your client wishes on his behalf until the money runs out. Your field is subject to virtually no Congressional oversight.
You know every bit as well as I do that in a court of law, the guy with the most money wins on most occassions. Money talks and what the law says about everything from child support to murder takes a big. long hike.
I am qualified to speak for those millions of people who spend their lives in medicine trying to help people rather than kill them. “First, do no harm.” It is part of every physician’s oath to preserve life rather than end it. All the many other medical professions have very similar ethical codes.
I am not qualified to speak as to the adequacy of Terri’s nursing care other than peripherally because I am not a nurse. I am fully qualified, however, to speak on the adequacy and sufficiency of medical testing and evaluation – because the ASCP, the ACS and the Federal government say I am. People in the medical professions are subject not only to the same rigorous education in our respective disciplines as you have received at law, but subsequent extended training and testing. Many of our professions are subject to strict federal guidelines set by the Legislature.
I say the medical evaluations were inadequate, insufficient, outdated and well below the most minimal level that would be required for an in-office surgical procedure. I am qualified to say that. Even a death-row inmate is in virtually all states that allow the death penalty, medically examined immediately before the sentence is carried out.
You say that the law was adequately followed. As a lawyer perhaps you know enough of the case to state that.
However, if you are correct and the law has indeed been adequately followed, then the LAW is wrong and it needs to be changed, just as numerous other unjust laws have been changed throughout our history. The American people are not and never have been slaves & servants to the law. The law does not rule. We the People rule. Or have you forgotten that from the days when you were an activist?
The Constitution clearly states that the Legislature shall make and enact the law. It is only recently that judges and attorneys – many immune from all oversight outside of the judiciary – have decided that they shall make the law by judicial decree and precedent, right down to a local probate judge that feels himself free to *ignore* a subpeona from the Congress of the United States.
I suspect that you will see some changes made.
C. Snyder,
I’m with you. I think the laws are about right, and I think the system worked very well for us, in spite of some very determined efforts to derail it. I’m proud of us.
Over the past two days I’ve read all the posts here & onthe previous thread.
It seems to me the idea that’s neglected most by people upset by TS’s dying is that the question in the courst was not “is this moral;” it was “is this what she asked to be done?” If you think it’s immoral or wrong, then find someone who will offer up legislation from that belief. But that wasn’t the question here–it was a question of legality.
I wanted to respond to post 213, as well–about giving away the bride. I don’t think this is a new concept or a new interpretation of what it means to be married; even in the Bible it says that a man shall leave his mother and cleave to his wife. The question present in this case, it seems to me, was one of authority. To whom do the decisions about a married person’s life belong–the parents, or the spouse? Well, Christian history and American legal writings both support the bond between spousal partners as stronger than that between parent and grown child.
In any case, as of this writing, Mrs. Schiavo has passed away. My worry now is the precedent for argument her case has set in the arena of dying.
C. Snyder wrote
Not quite right. We elect our Legislatures and President. Our Federal judges are appointed, as are all judges in a number of states.
Should the President do something egregious he can be investigated and removed from office by the Congress – We the People. Or we can vote him out on election day. Again, We the People Same of Congressional members.
The judiciary supervises itself. Some judicial appointments are for life. There is no public oversight of the judiciary and in some jurisdictions only the judiciary can investigate a member of the judiciary. They take action in the name of We the People, but they are specifically barred from making law via the Constitution.
Like I said, I don’t really want to get into a long, drawn-out, not exactly on-topic conversation on this particular thread. Amp will probably have an abortion-related thread in a few days or weeks, and I’m sure we’ll be locking horns then (I’m pro-choice). Hopefully in a more constructive and respectful way* than some of the arguments in this thread.
I do admit–because it’s true of every point of contention–that there are irrational zealots on both sides of the debate. I don’t personally believe that partial-birth abortion is an indication of that, but….Anyway. Anyway. Thanks for answering my question. I look forward to discussing this with you in the future–which is saying a lot, since it’s usually about as fun as extracting wisdom teeth without anesthetic.
*Not that I didn’t make my own contributions to that problem.
I’ve read most (although there are too many to read the entire string) of the comments regarding Terri Schiavo and have to say that I don’t believe I would want to live if I were in her position and I am a Christian.
Although I do have to say that it is interesting how neo-libs want to save murders from being put to death (as they obviously have some sort of brain damage, just like Terri, to be able to take a life – I wonder what a cat scan of a murder’s brain would show?) but on the other hand they want to unplug Terri’s feeding tube. Seems contradictory to me. If you are against the death penalty doesn’t that mean you are pro-life? Maybe medical science isn’t God’s will.
Also, you hear each side say that she is suffering (one side says from being starved to death and the other side says from being kept alive) but who really knows? It all seems like a guessing game to me.
Robin, You missed an important point. Who appoints the judges???
The officials that “We the People” have elected.
Thank you Brad…took the words right out of my keyboard. :-)
Robin,
You are incorrect. Most of the time, the right side wins.
Because you disagree with the proposition that I should have the right to make my own decisions.
You are entitled, in this democracy, even to hold totalitarian views, as you clearly do. I do not believe, however, that most of our countrymen and women agree with you, thank God.
Another point on appointed judges….I am not sure if this holds true in all states, but here in Massachusetts, there are ways, albeit limited, to remove “activist judges”. There is a movement in this state right now, after the firestorm about homosexual marriage.
There is clearly no point in discussing much of anything with Robin, and I for one propose to stop.
She thinks she knows everything, including the wishes (or, even more poisonously, all about what should be the wishes) of complete strangers, including, I assume, myself; how society should be rightly ordered (in every case, in accord with Robin’s unfettered opinion as to what is right); the proper diagnosis of someone she’s never met, and she’s not even a doctor; even down to whom you should be allowed to hire to represent you. And probably, what I should have had for breakfast.
There will always be people like this, but there’s no point in discussing anything with them, because they don’t listen, because they’re always right, get it? And I’m an attorney anyhow, so I’ve sold my soul to the system.
Go for it Robin. And crew. My further messages will ignore her.