This is of interest to folks who have been following the Terri Schiavo case: unless a court intervenes, Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube will be removed today. (So far – as of 10am Florida time – there has not been a court intervention – although there was a false report of a court intervention, so that’s created some confusion.)
Do I want Schiavo to die? No, but to me the question is nonsensical, because I’m convinced she died 15 years ago. Not everyone agrees with me, of course. The pro-life blogs are making a final (or not?) push to try and save Terri’s “life” by placing an ad in the St. Petersburg Times.
As always, Abstract Appeal is the blog with the best information on this case (especially for legal matters). The medical blog RangelMD also has an excellent series on the medical and ethical issues involved.
Also of interest is this Ragged Edge point-counterpoint feature (it’s actually a couple of years old), debating whether or not Schiavo’s cause should be a concern of the disabled rights community.
Amp, I’m not sure why you insist on making the concerns of disabled people seem peripheral to this, even if you disagree with their perspective. To reduce the disability community’s interest in this case to one point-counterpoint article about the relevance of disability issues in the Schiavo case ignores the overwhelming reaction of the disability activist community at large. There were 12 disability organizations who filed an amicus brief in Florida in 2003 arguing Schiavo’s right to basic food and medical care. The organizations involved are:
Not Dead Yet, ADAPT, American Association of People with Disabilities, Center for Self-Determination, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Half the Planet Foundation, National Council on Independent Living, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered, TASH, World Association of Persons with Disabilities, and World Institute on Disability
This is an impressively broad coalition of activist, advocacy/informational, and legal organizations that represents not just the “radical” disability activists (NDY and ADAPT, for example) but a pretty “mainstream” chunk of the disability community. They were joined in the amicus brief by a university-affiliated policy group (Center on Human Policy at Syracuse University), a patients’ rights group (Hospice Patients’ Alliance), and two people who’ve experienced very TBI (traumatic brain injury).
While the same old interplay of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” plays out among liberals and conservatives, the group of people most likely to be affected by decisions from medical experts and societal attitudes about quality of life ARE disabled people. And yes, I know, Amp, you’ve decided Schiavo is not disabled because that would be an insult to disabled people. Funny that. Is it a rhetorical strategy to deny the arguments actual disabled people have because of the parallels they see in this case and their own experiences? Or do you really think this kind of paternalism helpful (or even new) to us? Because really it’s more of the same.
So if I don’t automatically agree with everything a disabled activist says – even when I am, in fact, agreeing with what a different disabled activist says – that’s being “paternalistic”?
In my opinion, someone who is completely, physically, utterly incapable of experiencing any thought, any feeling, any emotion, any desire, etc.., is no longer a person, and therefore not comparable to a disabled person. That is just my opinion, nothing more.
I recognize that not all disabled people agree with me. I don’t think my opinion is more valid than theirs; I don’t think my opinion should carry more weight (quite the opposite, when it comes to any disabled rights issue); I acknowlege the possibility that I could be mistaken in my opinion; I don’t think anyone, disabled or otherwise, is obliged to agree with me, or even to speak to me or acknowledge my opinion in any way.
I don’t think that’s “paternalistic.” I think that’s “having an opinion that doesn’t agree with yours.” Sorry you can’t tell the difference.
“Funny that. Is it a rhetorical strategy to deny the arguments actual disabled people have because of the parallels they see in this case and their own experiences?”
Wow. Almost like when women in feminism have different perspectives on issues that affect them directly and on a level, that is unique to them, yet we have different groups of men fighting over what defines our belief system for us. What we say *feels* peripheal too to their intellectual analysis of our life situations under patriarchy, which by the way, favors women and men who are abled to the point where the pro-life and pro-choice, liberals and conservatives can intellectually fence over “quality of life” issues for anyone who fall short of the standard of ableness. And of course, it’s the able-bodied people under patriarchy who are “right.”
Not that this is germaine here to this thread, blue lily. But yeah, you raised that point. Same defense mechanism in response. :-(
Thanks for the resources btw on the amicus curae brief.
Actually, I just said the opposite; I don’t assume that I’m right, and where disabled people and me disagree about disabled issues I think disabled views should obviously carry more weight.
If you want to assume I’m lying when I say that, okay; I can’t help that.
Actually, I just said the opposite; I don’t assume that I’m right, and where disabled people and me disagree about disabled issues I think disabled views should obviously carry more weight. ”
The problem is, you just showed differently. You posted a topic with your views. Blue Lily, a disabled woman who is really tied into her community opined from her perspective, and you not only rejected her opinion by frankly, being dismissive, but you pitted her against another disabled activist(who I guess shares your view) which I guess is supposed to cancel her views out? Those of us who have watched our views as feminists being pitted against the “good” feminists(although Heart’s views just got her knocked out of the “good” category, I see) by several men on other threads can relate to this.
————————————————————————-
“In my opinion, someone who is completely, physically, utterly incapable of experiencing any thought, any feeling, any emotion, any desire, etc.., is no longer a person, and therefore not comparable to a disabled person. That is just my opinion, nothing more.”
So, a person is human once, then human no longer….gee, I can think of some serious ass trouble our country has caused against groups of people with this HUMAN v NONHUMAN dichotomy. Stripping someone of their humanity simply because they don’t *act* human by our definition of humanity strips them of their dignity and their right to be treated with dignity and integrity, because what are they then, if they are no longer human?
And it’s not just your opinion, it’s greater society’s opinion. Blue Lily’s opinion runs counter to what greater society believes. Her opinion doesn’t hold much weight at the individual level on this thread, so how can the disabled communities opinions(as diverse as they are within) hold any weight collectively then?
I’m not trying to be rude here or assume that anyone’s lying. I haven’t accused anyone here of lying yet, and I probably won’t.
Umn…. I genuinely don’t understand the logic of this position. So if I post a topic with my views, that means I’m saying that my views should carry greater weight than Blue Lily’s?
No, I didn’t say or imply that it canceled her view out.
My point was that if someone says or implies that to disagree with a disabled activist is to be patronizing to the disabled, then there is no possible position that is not patronizing, because disabled activists don’t all agree among themselves.
That’s the point I was making. I now think I was wrong to make that point, because I think I misunderstood Blue Lily’s argument.
I don’t think Blue Lily was saying that it was patronizing for me to disagree with disabled activists about an issue; I think she was saying that it was patronizing of me to say that it’s an insult to disabled people to say that the Schiavo case is a disabled rights issue. (This is referring to something I wrote in an earlier post, not in this post).
If that was Blue Lily’s point, then she was correct to call my previous post patronizing; it was a stupid and patronizing thing for me to say. I wish I could unsay it now, but I can at least promise not to make that particular argument again, and to try to think more carefully before making that sort of argument in the future.
I wasn’t making a human vs. nonhuman dichotomy; I was making a person vs. nonperson dichotomy. But you’re right, that the distinction has historically been misused many times, including the Holocaust, Slavery, and – not at all incidentally – the historic and ongoing treatment of the disabled.
However, just because a distinction can be misused doesn’t establish that every use of that distinction is a misuse. Pro-choicers make the person/non-person distinction frequently, for example. So do doctors, when they have to cut an arm off after an accident – the reason they cut the arm off and save the bit with the head, rather than vice-versa, is that they recognize that the arm is not a person in the same way the bit with the head is.
You’re misunderstanding my position. I’m not saying that someone is not a person because of how they act; I have made absolutely no reference to how Terri Schiavo acts. I’m saying that once the cerebral cortex is utterly destroyed, what remains is not a person.
If you saw a decapitated body on life support – no head at all – would you call it a person, due the exact same respect and rights as any other person?
Cat scans show that the higher centers of Ms. Schiavo’s brains – the parts of the brain that make thought, desire, emotion, and all other internal experiences possible – no longer exist. They have been completely destroyed. Saying she is dead is no different than saying the headless body is dead; in both cases, it has nothing to do with the way Ms. Schiavo or the headless body acts.
I don’t think that it’s clear, at least in Florida, that greater society agrees more with me than with Blue Lily. So much of Florida agrees with Blue Lily that the legislature and the governor made a blatantly unconstitutional bid to save Terri Schiavo, even though it was virtually certain that the courts would overrule it.
For the record, I do not agree with “stripping someone of their humanity simply because they don’t *act* human by our definition of humanity.” I agree with you, and with Blue Lily, that to do that is wrong.
P.S. Sorry I thought you were accusing me of lying. But I honestly do think you have a tendency to attribute views to me that I don’t actually hold, although I’ll trust you when you say it’s not intentional.
I was very pleased when I saw the update about this case. I thought finally, that poor woman will be able to die with dignity. But no, once again folks are meddling. Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer issued a one-day stay on removing the feeding tube. I wonder how long they will drag that “one day” out for.
I can imagine nothing worse than the possibility that my body be forced to stay alive after I am unable to think or feel. It seems to me that all these folks stepping in to “help” Schiavo are not thinking about her at all. If they were, they would let her go. This poor woman died years ago. The kindest thing now would be to let her rest in peace.
mousehounde wrote:
“I thought finally, that poor woman will be able to die with dignity. But no, once again folks are meddling. ”
Further:
“I can imagine nothing worse than the possibility that my body be forced to stay alive after I am unable to think or feel. It seems to me that all these folks stepping in to “help”? Schiavo are not thinking about her at all. If they were, they would let her go. This poor woman died years ago. The kindest thing now would be to let her rest in peace. ”
So you, personally, find her existence yucky and aesthetically unpleasing, so she should be killed. Nevermind that she never indicated that if she were to find herself in a vegetative state that she would wish to be allowed to die. After all, we can’t let little things like Terri’s own wishes interfere with her “right to die,” which is conveniently a lot like your right to not imagine that there are people whose lives you consider sub-human.
“Nevermind that she never indicated that if she were to find herself in a vegetative state that she would wish to be allowed to die”
She didn’t indicate that she would want to be kept alive either.
I think *both* sides in this debate are actually working from the point “what I would want for myself if I were in her position”, which is understandable because that’s a common way to view things, and also because in this case we have no clear indication of her wishes. That said, if I were in that position I would prefer to be allowed to die, but I don’t see why she shouldn’t be kept alive, particularly as (IIRC) that’s what her own family wants.
“In my opinion, someone who is completely, physically, utterly incapable of experiencing any thought, any feeling, any emotion, any desire, etc.., is no longer a person, and therefore not comparable to a disabled person. That is just my opinion, nothing more.”
I don’t know Terri, but I do know that, after seeing post-TBI videos of her interactions, I think your comment very well might not apply to her case. You might consider reading more about her behavior, history, and some of the affidavits in her case available online before making this kind of statement regarding her life or future.
Sheena:
Well, it depends on if you consider her husband family or not. If you do, then her family is split on what they want.
Also, it depends on whether or not you think her husband is lying when he says that he remembered Terri saying in passing once that she wouldn’t want to be kept alive on machines.
It’s also confusing because so many horrible accusations have been made against Michael Schiavo (the husband). If the accusations of abuse came from Terri, I’d assume they were true. But the accusations aren’t coming from Terri; they’re coming mostly from extremely biased pro-life investigations, and I don’t trust them.
I’ve seen the videos, read many affidavits on both sides, and read a lot of other information about this case. I’ve also read doctor after doctor after doctor testifying – I think convincingly – that hours of videos edited down to tiny snippits don’t actually prove anything. (I could shoot a video of a broken clock for 24 hours and edit it down to the few moments when the clock was by random chance showing the correct time; doing so would not be proof that the clock was functioning.)
What I haven’t seen is an explanation of how a woman who, according to cat scans, lacks the physical capability to have thought or emotion or feeling or experience, can be said to be having any sort of life.
I think this case is tricky because you do have her family being split, if you consider her husband family. And while I strongly feel that her wishes should be realized, I have a bit of a problem with that decision being based on something someone said in passing.
It’s very unfortunate that this case has become so highly politicized. But, ignoring the fact that this case is setting precedent in Florida, is there anything wrong with a person’s body being kept alive, if it is what her or his family wants? I support the right to die, especially if these wishes have been made explicit. But if they haven’t, taking away the legal issues, why shouldn’t the feeding tube stay in, and is there are an ethical problem, a negative to society, with following the parents’ wishes?
(And I’m not very well versed in the legal issues, so I apologize if I misspoke about precedent or misstated something.)
I think what Blue Lilly was trying to point out is how this case’s implications create medical and social climates that harm the disabled (and ultimately are paternalistic in the medical jargon sense, not in the feminist sense). The specifics of this case are what you seem to be arguing Amp; but BL wants to point out the deep concern of disabled activists, from many backgrounds and diverging opinions apparently.
Amp, imagine reading your comment above about no emotions, no thoughts, etc., if you were a currently disabled individual who has a degenerative disease that will someday lead to this point. Wouldn’t you be very concerned about the medical practices, medical ethics, and social norms (that might persuade politicos like Jeb Bush to inappropriately intervene on behalf of the State) that would affect you future life? Shouldn’t you, as a disabled person be able to state, to clarify, to legislate if needed, what you think is important? Shouldn’t you be able to say that able bodied people are ill equipped to determine the “quality” of life for all people? Wouldn’t you be concerned that such a case as this, with it’s high drama and easy categorization of players into either good or evil, would have undue influence on public opinion and public policy?
If that’s what BL was saying – and I don’t know if it is or not – then I sort of agree and sort of disagree. I agree it’s important to look at deep concerns, but I think the individuals involved in the Schiavo case (including, most of all, Ms. Schiavo herself) deserve to have it treated based on its individual details.
There’s the whole “if I can’t wipe my own ass then I don’t want to live” bullshit which I’ve heard from too many ablebodied people (as many disabled activists have pointed out, is wiping one’s own ass really the meaning of life?). AndI can see how the cultural discussion of Schiavo can play into and encourage that kind of bigotry and nonsense, and that’s completely objectionable.
On the other hand, I really don’t think that arguing that a life without higher brain functions is no life at all, is the same thing as arguing that a life which requires assistance for managing daily tasks is no life at all. And no one seems willing to explain to me why I’m mistaken to think that there is a real difference there.
These issues – what a person is, what life is, and what medicine should do – are obviously of enourmous and particular importance to the disabled community. But they’re also questions that matter to every human being. Being currently ablebodied is no guarantee that we won’t someday be in Terri Schiavo’s situation, as Schiavo’s history shows.
Well, if I were a currently disabled individual with a degenerative disease that will someday lead to this point, then I would probably say that once I reach that point I’ll be dead – not because I can’ t move, not because I can’t communicate, but because I can’t think or feel. Some disabled people do feel that way, and my suspicion is I’d be one of them, although of course I acknowlege that there’s no way I can know for certain.
However, that’s just what I’d believe – obviously, a different person in that situation could have very different views. Many (probably most) disabled activists, clearly, do have different views.
As for the rest, I certainly think that disabled people should be setting policy for how disabled people are treated in society. And I definitely agree that “a case as this, with it’s high drama and easy categorization of players into either good or evil, would have undue influence on public opinion and public policy.” In fact, I think I agree with everything you said in that passage.
“What I haven’t seen is an explanation of how a woman who, according to cat scans, lacks the physical capability to have thought or emotion or feeling or experience, can be said to be having any sort of life.”
You’re making a statement on a highly complex clinical issue about which even experts in this matter disagree. However, you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.
“wasn’t making a human vs. nonhuman dichotomy; I was making a person vs. nonperson dichotomy. But you’re right, that the distinction has historically been misused many times, including the Holocaust, Slavery, and – not at all incidentally – the historic and ongoing treatment of the disabled.
However, just because a distinction can be misused doesn’t establish that every use of that distinction is a misuse. Pro-choicers make the person/non-person distinction frequently, for example. So do doctors, when they have to cut an arm off after an accident – the reason they cut the arm off and save the bit with the head, rather than vice-versa, is that they recognize that the arm is not a person in the same way the bit with the head is.
Stripping someone of their humanity simply because they don’t *act* human by our definition of humanity strips them of their dignity and their right to be treated with dignity and integrity, because what are they then, if they are no longer human?
You’re misunderstanding my position. I’m not saying that someone is not a person because of how they act; I have made absolutely no reference to how Terri Schiavo acts. I’m saying that once the cerebral cortex is utterly destroyed, what remains is not a person.
If you saw a decapitated body on life support – no head at all – would you call it a person, due the exact same respect and rights as any other person?”
—————————————————————————————————-
I will return and give this the response it deserves, when I quit shaking with rage….
Amp wrote:
My point was that if someone says or implies that to disagree with a disabled activist is to be patronizing to the disabled, then there is no possible position that is not patronizing, because disabled activists don’t all agree among themselves.
Well, my comment was not that you chose the wrong disabled activist to agree with, though if you chose Christina Hoff Sommers to agree with about women’s issues I would question your understanding of women’s issues in the same way I am challenging your understanding of disability issues here. It’s very true that not all disabled people agree on everything, but from a disability rights perspective (as from a feminist perspective) not all opinions equally represent the general state of disability politics.
Amp further said:
I don’t think Blue Lily was saying that it was patronizing for me to disagree with disabled activists about an issue; I think she was saying that it was patronizing of me to say that it’s an insult to disabled people to say that the Schiavo case is a disabled rights issue. (This is referring to something I wrote in an earlier post, not in this post).
You are correct in what I was not saying, but not quite in what I was saying. In that earlier post you said that calling Schiavo a disabled person was an insult to disabled people. With so many disabled people going to so much effort (i.e. amicus briefs with arguments distinct from the right-to-lifers, 12 organizations, etc.) to attempt to illustrate how this affects our lives, it is patronizing to suggest we are irrelevant to this discussion. When disabled people are saying, “These are our experiences with the medical profession and with societal attitudes and this is what we have in common with Terri Schiavo,” for a non-disabled man to declare we have nothing in common with Schiavo because to say otherwise would be insulting to us is to negate our cries for justice and our concerns about public policy affecting us today.
My perception of your previous post (and the careful limits you set to our relevance in this current one) was that you were saying disabled people have no standing in this argument. Thus, my belief that you were falling back on a classic stereotypical treatment toward the disabled — patronization for their own good.
THE SAGA OF TERRI SCHIAVO
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Terri_Doc.htm
Terri breathes on her on and maintains her own blood pressure, she requires a simple tube into her abdomen to her stomach for nourishment and hydration.
Cozy Bunch of Killers:
Judge George Greer:
“I don’t want anyone trying to feed that girl,” Greer thundered.
Ruler of the Kangaroo Court set on killing Terri Schiavo. Worked side by side as county commissioner with Barbara Sheen Todd (county commissioner) for eight YEARS. Barbara Sheen Todd is on the board of the hospice. Also, Judge Greer’s fellow judge, Judge John Lenderman is the brother of Martha Lenderman (also on the hospice board! And more…..
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/terri.htm
———————————
Michael’s 6’6″ – probably 260 pounds, and he, he’s very intimidating physically. Uh, I think he bullies girls around as much as he can. I think he intimidates women.
What is Michael Schiavo afraid of?
See http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Terri_michael.htm
See Terri Schiavo’s Bone scan
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bonescan.htm
I disagree that you’ve given an accurate or a fair summary of what I wrote before. In the post you’re referring to, what I was objecting to was specifically the idea that there is not any difference between killing Terri Schiavo and killing any disabled person.
Despite your above-quoted claim, I never said anything about experiences with the medical profession. And although you claim I said disabled activists don’t have something in common with Ms. Schiavo when it comes to societal attitudes, what I actually said was almost exactly the opposite, talking about the media coverage of Terri Schiavo:
So now you’re saying it was wrong of me to say things I never actually said (and in one case said almost exactly the opposite). I don’t think that’s fair of you.
Probably I haven’t been clear enough about this, but I disagree with disabled activists about the Schiavo case in one regard, and one regard only: That someone without a cerebral cortex should be considered disabled, rather than dead.
As I said, I probably haven’t been clear, so your misunderstanding of what I meant is my own fault. But, just to clarify: I don’t disagree with what I’ve read from disabled rights activists about anything at all related to the Schiavo case, aside from that one specific point. If I ever said I disagree about any other aspect, I think that’s a case of either you misreading me, me “miswriting” me, or both.