Kind of interesting article in the Inclusion Daily Express about how saving Terri Schiavo through pro-life activism, has led to the disability rights issues being overlooked. The article criticizes both pro-life and pro-choice groups.
Disability advocates held candlelight vigils during the time Terri was without her feeding tube, to draw attention to what we consider her human rights struggle.
But almost immediately after her feeding tube was reinserted, Terri’s situation became reduced in the press to “right to die” versus “pro-life” sound-bites.
Those of us who support Terri’s struggle to stay alive, though grateful for the help, found ourselves – like it or not — allied with “anti-abortionists” on one side and the targets of scorn from “pro-choice” groups from the other.
I dunno, though. There’s a difference between being disabled and braindead. I mean, when Sonny Corleone got riddled with bullets at the toll booth, he didn’t lose his future as head of the family because he was disabled. He lost it because he was no longer alive.
(the strength of arguments are measured by how direct the reference to The Godfather don’t you know.)
The movie reference is cute. Really.
If it only were so simple as Terri Schiavo being “braindead.” Widespread use of the dubious medical term “vegetative state” has led the public to believe her case was and has always been hopeless. It certainly may be now after 14 years of neglect and even outright denial of basic medical care, but that shouldn’t be beside the point just because we all got the news so late.
I am always fascinated that people deny this is a disability issue. At what point between becoming impaired and being dead does one stop being disabled (barring total recovery)? And why? The Schiavo case may be the bellwether for how every injured or ill person the medical community ever said was “hopeless” is treated with the skyrocketing costs of medical treatment and the increasing intervention of corporations into what treatment is worthwhile and who is worthy to be saved. And it is an all-too-typical example of how disabled folks are viewed when it comes to needing medical help — already practically dead so why bother.
At the point when someone no longer has a cerebral cortex that is capable of supporting thought, then they are not disabled; they are dead. In Terri’s case, the tragedy is that she left a living shell behind, which is causing incredibly pain to everyone who loved her.
I discussed this in more detail a previous post, which you should read if you’d like to know my views on this question.
Amp –
I was not aware that there was a legal or scientific consensus that possession of a functional cerebral cortex was the dividing point between life and death. Could you expound?
First of all, I stated my opinion, not claiming that it’s the legal or scientific consensus. But it’s an opinion I’m willing to stand by; I think it’s an insult to disabled people, frankly, to equate not having a cerebral cortex with other conditions. There’s no reason a person with a disability, however severe, can’t experience a full and satisfying life.
However, someone without a cerebral cortex cannot “experience” satisfaction or anything else. To me, that means dead, and it’s an entirely different matter than being disabled.
In some cases, consensus seems to agree with me; for instance, it’s univerally accepted that infants born with anencephaly should be allowed to die, rather than putting them on life support or in other ways attempting to prevent their death.
And certainly, in Terri Schiavo’s case, the courts who have studied the matter agree with me – no working cerebral cortex is the same as dead. Even the quack doctors brought in to argue the other side didn’t disagree with that, in their testimony; they argued that Terri’s cortex wasn’t so bad or could be repaired, not that a meaningful life could be had without a working cortex.
On the other hand, the last official government commission to study the matter and produce an official definition of “brain death” – nearly a quarter century ago – said that there wasn’t sufficient knowlege to be sure that thought and consciousness couldn’t occur elsewhere in the brain. Science has advanced quite a bit since then, however, and nowadays I don’t think you can find a reputable scientist who’d say that thought or experience is possible without a cortex.
A cerebral cortex is paramount to thought processing, consciousness and the interpretation of pain, joy, etc. It truly is what makes us . . . well . . . us. Terri Schiavo operates with the brain stem only. That is why she is able to swallow her saliva – it’s responsible for that function. However, swallowing water (not produced by salvary glands) or food is not possible – as it’s introduced into the mouth and only a conscious individual can produce the voluntary motion to swallow the substance.
By fact of being cortex devoid, Terri Schiavo is PVS. That isn’t an opinion but a medical and scientific fact.
And I agree with the previous blogger who noted that it’s an insult to compare Terri with others with disabilities. There are far ranging disabilities of people who cannot see or hear or move. Consider Stephen Hawking – a world-renown physicist. He’s a brilliant human being who is wheelchair bound with motor neuron disease. He cannot move a single muscle. He cannot speak or feed himself. Everything is done for him yet he is able to communicate and has done extensive research on astronomy and written books related to the physical universe. Hawking – obviously – has more of a cortex than most of us (ha-ha). But seriously, although he depends on someone for his every need, he is not living a reflexive existence but one of conscious thought.
We are our consciousness. Without it, we are dead.
If anyone is interested in some facts, please read the “Guardian’s Dec. 2003 report to Gov. Bush” posted on http://www.OrlandoSentinel.com/schiavo
If anyone is interested in some facts, please read the “Guardian’s Dec. 2003 report to Gov. Bush” posted on http://www.OrlandoSentinel.com/schiavo
This is the 38 page report created by Dr. Jay Wolfson who was her guardian as a result of Governor Bush’s Terri’s Law. This report is the one the governor called for. It provides Terri’s entire health history, court testimony and the opinions of the neurologists and neurosurgeons. Terri Schiavo’s cerebral cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid. That alone renders her PVS.
“quack doctors”
Wow. No bias there, I guess.
It seems to me that to determine if that’s a biased statement or not, you and I would have to discuss the matter, agree what qualifies a doctor as a quack, and then I could explain why I think that Dr. Hammesfahr – to use the most obvious example – is, by reasonable definitions of the term, a quack. (Or a snake-oil salesman, if you prefer).
You might agree with me, once you’ve heard my explanation; or you might not. But until you do all that, I don’t think you can draw a fair judgement over whether or not I’m being biased or not. Unless you think it’s absolutely impossible that any doctor could be fairly judged a quack, of course.
Would you say that a doctor who claims impressive honors that he hasn’t recieved, and who reports having performed miraculous cures over and over but, when under oath, is unable to provide the names of any of these miracle-cure patients, is a quack?
My favorite anecdote about Hammesfahr is that while he hasn’t put forth any studies supporting his positions (or pointed to any studies done by others) he is widely read because he’s been published in the esteemed medical journal known as The National Enquirer.
And I think it’s worth noting that Hammesfahr doesn’t think his treatment just works on people who are in anything resembling a persistent vegetative state. If it’s neurologically based, he claims to be the man for the job with his one-size-fits-all treatment. And if it doesn’t work…well, that’s probably why he has a history of insisting his patients pay in cash upfront.
I’ll give him some credit: he does appear to have a degree in neurology, which is more than can be said for most of the experts the parents have brought forward.
Well, her husband is hardly an altruist. Didn’t she suffer lot of fractures that were attributed by him to “brittle bone” disease even though that usually starts showing signs prenatally? I don’t really trust his version of what his wife wanted. He just wants to finish her off, and collect what’s left of the money. And he’s her guardian!! What a bad joke, a woman allegedly gets abused by her husband, who then denies medical therapy for her for years, and he’s the one who gets to make the decisions. Though most feminist organizations won’t want to risk disagreeing with the prochoice(some choice, allow an abuser to make life and death decisions about his wife) movement to deal with some of the issues here that they would address for this women if she was able-bodied, did have a so-called conscious state, was “human.”
(from what I’ve read, Feminists for Life is the only self-identified feminist group to oppose the husband’s wishes)
I’m not sure many of the disabled activist organizations feel that it is an insult to them to call Schiavo disabled, because they are helping her parents, and view her situation as a human rights issue. Even though they aren’t portrayed in the media like the pro-life/pro-choice mostly able-bodied groups of people, they are playing an important role in this situation.
It’s not only “his version,” and it’s not Michael making the “life and death decision” in this case. Michael chose to let the the court decide. It was the court – not Michael – which judged what Terri Schiavo would have wanted, and decided that she should be allowed to die. They heard Michael’s testimony, true; but they also heard testimony from 17 other witnesses. Based on all of that, the court concluded that the weight of the evidence is that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive in her current state.
Maybe the court was wrong to decide that. But the fact remains, it was the court that decided, not Michael.
I don’t know if Michael abused Terri or not. If Terri had accused him of abuse, that would (to me) create a very strong presumption that Michael had abused her. But she didn’t; and it bothers me that some people (not you) have constructed this as a “she said/he said” issue, when in fact “she” didn’t say anything of the sort.
What we do have is a 1991 scan of damage to Terri’s bones, which could have been caused by abuse, but could also have been caused by a combination of ordinary injuries, bulimia and CPR. We also know that the doctors who were sued by Michael – who had actually examined Terri, and who had a million-dollar motivation to blame Terri’s injuries on Michael – didn’t allege any evidence of abuse.
Finally, there’s the money. But the conflict of interest goes in both directions; if Terri’s parents win their lawsuit, then they’ll inherit Terri’s estate. Just because someone will inheret if they win, doesn’t establish that they’re money-motivated.
* * *
This isn’t a simple issue. The truth is, despite the court’s decision, there is no way of knowing for sure what Terri would decide, if she could decide. We only know one thing, really: She decided to marry Michael. That is the only decision Terri made that we know about for certain, and it should be respected.
It was Terri’s decision to make Michael the person who decides for her when she can’t decide for herself. (Michael exercised that power by asking the court to decide). I don’t think that Terri’s decision should be irrevocable, but I think it should require clear and convincing evidence to undo her decision to make Michael her spokesperson in this sort of situation; and I don’t think that level of evidence exists.
Well, if you mean by marrying Mr. Schiavo and not leaving a living will, she made that decision, then I guess she did.
While it is true that some of her injuries could be attributed to bulimea(compression fractures of the spine, etc) others are more troublesome. I had two sisters who were bulimic, one to the point of having lower bone density due to estrogen production being lower, and they both were fairly active, and yet neither suffered anything near to the extent of injuries she suffered.
How many women who experience DV make allegations about it? Do ALL of them? Of course not! And many who do recant, up to 80 percent of the time(according to stats provided by several sources in my county, including D.A.’s office, Alternatives to Domestic Violence, etc.) which results in many DV cases going forward WITHOUT the victim’s cooperation. I’ve seen trials done where the victims recanted, the day after filling the report, at pre-lim, trial even when threatened with prosecution for perjury by those purporting to help them by prosecuting the case.
yeah, it would have been great if it happened and Terri could have said something about it, but it’s very possible that it could have happened and she chose to remain silent. So, ergo people can say that since she didn’t say it happened, it didn’t happen and they can rest easier ignoring that issue altogether.
Another thing, is that people are saying her life is painful, agonizing, worthless, gone whatever, yet they want to put her through slow starvation and liquid deprivation. How nice, isn’t that like torture? I guess after someone’s been stripped of their humanity, starvation and dehydration seem like perfectly appropriate and “humane” things to do to someone, or even as she is, something.
Radfem –
Lindsay at Pandagon does a better job than I have outlining why there’s no real evidence that Schiavo was abused.
Obviously, I don’t think that because Schiavo never accused Michael of abuse, that proves that Michael is not an abuser. As I said in my previous post, “I don’t know if Michael abused Terri or not.”
However, lacking any strong evidence of abuse (see Lindsay’s post), I think it’s unfair to assume that he’s an abuser.
Well, if someone’s said that her life is “painful, agonizing” to her, then I’d strongly disagree. Terri died long ago, and is no longer capable of experiencing pain or agony. By the same token, neither starvation nor dehydration are cruel, because she is incapable of experiencing hunger or thirst.
For that reason, I don’t think your analogy of Terri to a torture victim holds up.
Terry Schiavo has no cerebral cortex. She can’t feel pain. She-is-not-aware. She will not come out of a PVS. Period. Amen. End of story.
These same folks that go on and on about how this is a horrible way to die did not blink when a Black infant’s breathing tube was pulled. He was brain dead and his mother wanted to keep the tube in. Suffocation is pretty painful. So if one believes that someone who’s brain dead can feel anything, that case should be particularly horrific.
And all of these charges of abuse strike me as odd. Schiavo’s parents thought her husband was just freaking wonderful until he had a change of heart. There was nary a word about abuse from them until then. Now they’re saying he was abusive to her before the heart attack? If they aren’t lying, then they should at least admit to being complicit in her past abuse. If I was married to an abuser, my parents would not talk him up to the skies–even if he stood by me when I became incapacitated. If it was anything like Schiavo’s situation, they’d probably figure he was trying to keep me alive to duck a murder charge (since Michael did, in fact, hang on to hope for years).