Imagine that tomorrow, you suffer a cerebral hemorrhage, and by the time that you can be treated, all your higher brain functions have been damaged beyond repair. You have told your spouse that you want them to make the decision in that situation, to make the call as to what is right given the situation. And after a great time of grief, and argument, and even trips to court, your spouse makes arrangements to do what they think is right: they ask the doctors to pull the plug, as they believe you would have wanted.
And then, before the doctors can act, the government interposes itself to keep you alive. And not just the government, but the United States Congress and the President of the United States themselves, calling your beloved spouse a murderer and worse, saying that they’re doing it for you.
It is the ultimate imposition, the government stepping in and interjecting itself into the deepest and most personal decisions, decisions that have no business being made by impersonal fools making diagnoses from Washington, D.C.
The federal government decided, for reasons I will never understand, to get involved in the horrible, wrenching decision of a husband to end life support for his wife. And the results were horiffic. Mercifully, the American people saw the actions as they were, and rose up in fury. The American courts reacted properly, and threw the case out. And Terri Schiavo was finally given the rest that she deserved.
But for a brief moment, we got to see the America the fundamentalists and the firebreathers dream of, an America in which intimate and personal decisions are subject to the whims of authority. It is the nightmare vision that animates the right, from the abstinence-only movement to the anti-choice movement to the anti-gay movement, all played out at Terri Schiavo’s deathbed. It was a reminder of how fragile our liberties are — and how so, so many Americans see no value in liberty at all.
an America in which intimate and personal decisions are subject to the whims of authority
Something I don’t understand here – aren’t the right wingers the ones complaining about “nanny states” and “big government” and promoting less regulation and government interference? Obviously, this may not be the case in practice, but the focus on stopping gay marriage, abortions or pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo would seem to be a direct conflict with this attitude.
One of the few things I agree with some members of the Australian Liberal Party (=centre-right) about is government staying out of private affairs like marriage and abortion. There is a strong divide in the party over this – some, like ex-PM John Howard and former health minister Tony Abbott think like the American right wing, proposing more control in your life; others want less regulation and interference (e.g. gay marriage is a private matter so anyone who wants to marry should). I don’t see this divide in American right wing politics – the same people seem to want less government AND more government at the same time.
It has been one of the great failures for conservativism in the United States that the political party that is supposedly supporting their principles in fact often does no such thing. Instead, many of the party’s members give lip service to conservativism, but when they get to power they simply substitute favoring their friends and interests over the Democrat’s friends and interests using the same methods the Democrats did.
This can be seen in a different light. Her husband was only in name as he was seeing someone else as quickly as you could snap your fingers. He would have had no responsibility for her as her parents wanted to take over and pay for everything and do everything for her. The government stepped in at her parents request.
I don’t know this one is a tough call for me as this is close to my own heart. As an abused woman I was so afraid something would happen to me (as had been threatened many times) and my abuser would be able to have the sole decision as to whether or not I continued to breath? Whether on machines or not, would I want him to have that decision, if he was responsible for me being in that position? There is a lot to the Schiavo story that we do not know.
Yes it was a media circus and no I do not think the govt should have stepped in, but why on earth would a man want to shut the machines off to a woman he was no longer interested in (evidenced by his new relationship)? And in light of her parents wanting to become completely responsible for her?
GC: Maybe because she had no brain function?
I would hope my spouse could find someone else to make him happy after my demise, as quickly as possible, no matter what people who want to dictate the proper ways to grieve might think about it.
Seriously, RonF, that is as bizarre a re-writing of history as Richard Pearl’s current claim that neo-cons had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. It was the staunch social conservatives who see the Republican party as just a vehicle for reaching their goals who were pushing the Schiavo debacle. Professional Republican insiders were embarrassed by the Schiavo affair, seeing it as the political loser it was and a useless distraction from the real, important business of using the government to shovel taxpayer money to corporations.
I the United States, the people who value the consistency that lilacsigil refers to are called libertarians. Libertarians are treated as jokes even by the party they virtually all support, and their use of the term “libertarian” is as weird from an international perspective as the Australian Liberal Party’s use of the term “liberal”.
but why on earth would a man want to shut the machines off to a woman he was no longer interested in (evidenced by his new relationship)? And in light of her parents wanting to become completely responsible for her?
Given that the autopsy showed no evidence of abuse — none — and that no credible evidence of abuse has ever been offered — none — I find this slanderous.
Frankly, I always thought Michael Schiavo’s refusal to simply take $10 million and walk away to be strong evidence that he wasn’t doing this for any other reason than to give Terri what he thought she would want — a death with dignity. If he was truly the monster that the Randall Terrys of the world painted him as, he would have grabbed the money and run. He didn’t. That’s not the actions of a man who was trying to pull the plug just so he could get on with his life.
I’ve never been married, let alone widowed, but I can imagine that a long, loving relationship with someone who suffered a tragic injury and left you responsible for their care could inspire you to remain interested in that person’s well-being, despite having found love again elsewhere.
This is why we all have opinions. I have mine based on the televised and written accounts of this debacle. Had she been allowed to die on her own naturally without being deprived food, what would the autopsy have shown? And again, as someone well-versed in how the media works, I can tell you that many things were probably left out in the accounts of her life and death.
I still do not understand what his motivation was. There were people who came forward who attested to the status of the relationship between him and Terri, not just her family/parents. This is why it is so important for all to have a living will so that our wishes can be respected. When this was active and I was in the throngs of being abused by my now ex-husband, I made sure to alert people to his abusive actions and made sure that he was to NOT have any responsibility for my care at all. I now do not have to worry about this as we are divorced and he is unable to state anything at all regarding my care. I should also add that there are documents placed with various people and organizations that state should I be killed or die under questionable circumstances that my ex-husband should be looked at very severely. This is due to the threats made by him.
This could have prevented all of this and hopefully the lessons learned by this will be that one must have some sort of living will in place to prevent these types of actions and behaviors.
Again I will have to agree to disagree with you on this point. Schiavo had “ALREADY” moved on. He did not need to have the money to be induced to move on.
I am in total agreement that the religious right took this story and made political hay with it, in the grossest, most disgusting possible fashion. I doubt they gave a shit about the human being that was Terri Schiavo.
That said, I worried about the ‘writing off’ of a woman who might have had “locked-in syndrome”–something that is apparently very hard to diagnose. We NOW know she had no brain function… but I followed all of the stories I could find, and it wasn’t a solid conclusion until after the autopsy. That worried me, as disability rights advocate. The stuff people were saying about her, that she was a ‘vegetable’ and therefore didn’t matter, bothered me bigtime... and I assume that is what also made the case so incendiary for so many people.
Michael Schiavo was expecting a child with another woman. Why not simply (quietly) divorce her? No court in the country would have stopped him.
Obviously, he wanted the financial compensation, and THAT is what scared so many people with disabilities and got them out there demonstrating, too: greed. (This is also an ongoing concern about assisted suicide–who stands to benefit?)
You seem to have forgotten that disability groups like “Not Dead Yet” were also out there demonstrating. It was not ALL a right wing frenzy, even though they tried hard to portray it that way, bolstering the right wing claim that they have the monopoly on “life issues”. But please remember the disability community’s writing and activism about this issue.
Just like it’s considered rude to point out that Jett Travolta’s untimely death gave us the major creeps, some of us wondered if the eagerness to let Schiavo die, was due to similar knee-jerk anti-disability prejudices.
For me, the basic question was, “who ought to make the decisions about my life and healthcare if I am no longer able to either make or communicate them?”
The fact that anyone, whether it’s the Republican party, the disability community, my parents, my neighbors, my church, or anyone at all would come up with an answer to that question other than, “the person or people I specify,” is really disturbing to me.
Terri Schiavo specified her husband. I don’t see how ignoring or denigrating her choice is somehow supposed to respect her.
—Myca
Just like it’s considered rude to point out that Jett Travolta’s untimely death gave us the major creeps, some of us wondered if the eagerness to let Schiavo die, was due to similar knee-jerk anti-disability prejudices.
Not in my case. I’m pro-choice on end-of-life issues; if Michael Schiavo was being prevented from keeping his wife on life support, I would have been just as aghast. It’s not your decision nor mine.
That said, Terri Schiavo was not suffering from LIS; well over half of her brain was liquefied. She had nothing left capable of higher function. I’m perfectly fine with being careful about pulling the plug — but I don’t believe that my views should be substituted for an individual, or in the event that they’re not able to make the decision, their closest relative. That is the sin of the Schiavo affair. Terri Schiavo’s death wasn’t a good thing for anyone, but it was, ultimately, the right decision from the standpoint that it was about her rights, and yours.
I’m not even sure that this statement makes sense.
According to your logic, Schiavo had “already moved on” (which somehow makes him a monster instead of a human being… but, whatever).
So if he had “already moved on”, why would he NOT take the money that was being offered to him and just walk away? If he REALLY didn’t give a shit, why not just let it all go and get paid for his trouble?
The fact is: there is no evidence that he was doing anything OTHER than absolutely respecting his wife’s earlier decisions, and he wasn’t going to let someone BUY HIM OFF to do something contrary.
I would hope that my significant other would do the same… even if we were on the “outs” at the time (and I would hope that she would have someone to be there for her, just like Mr. Schiavo).
Just so we’re clear, do you think Paul McCartney should be socially crucified as well, for marrying so quickly after HIS wife’s death? Or, more ruthlessly, should we assume that he’s somehow a wife-abusing murderer?
It’s like you’re obtusely trying to read more drama into it because that’s more interesting, instead of looking at the evidence which suggests that this was nothing more than a shitty situation and a person was trying to do right by someone else.
Exactly. But respecting her decision doesn’t make an interesting read. So it’s more important that people create an illusion of murderous malice and venomous adultery than actually honor her and her husband’s choices and show some respect for the intolerable situation that they were in.
I mean, really. How dare we intrude upon the macabre fantasy they’ve constructed?
Here I am, tiresomely explaining the facts again.
Terri did not “specify her husband” to make this decision. She put nothing into writing. The case was decided by the Florida Courts on the question of what Terri’s own opinion was on what should be done in such a case. It so happens that although Terri, a young woman previously in good health, had not put her wishes into writing, she had made some fairly emphatic statements about her wishes in this matter on the occasion of the funeral of a family member, and on other occasions as well. The Florida trial court found, under the high standard of “clear and convincing evidence” that she would not have wanted to continue to “live” if brain-destroyed and supported by a feeding tube.
Her husband’s only role in this drama was to bring this question to the court. He believed that she would refuse surgical treatment (the feeding tube was surgery, though minor surgery) to perpetuate her “life” under these circumstances. Her parents believed otherwise. Both sides presented their evidence, and the trial court ruled that Terri’s own desire was that this measure be terminated.
Was this really her desire? How can I possibly know? But we have courts to determine such questionable matters, and that’s how this one came out.
For purely political reasons – they could not possibly have cared less about Theresa or her family – the Bushies made this a political cause. Thank God they lost. I don’t want the government dictating such a decision to me, about my own life, thanks anyway.
I would like to interject something here.
Terri was my father’s cousin. I met her before her collapse, and met her husband. I was very young, but I met them. She had no living will, no proof for either the contention that she wanted to be taken off machines or kept on. She had mentioned to her family that he was emotionally abusing her, threatening to divorce her if she got fat, cheating and being a general all around asshole. There was also no evidence of abuse at autopsy because she had been sitting in a hospice for nearly a decade. All they do in hospice care is wait for you to die. No one examines you that closely, and no one makes sure that your condition is good beyond egregious conditions. If being taken off the machines was what Terri wanted, why did he let her sit on them for nearly a decade before trying to take her off? Why put her into hospice care?
Her parents got the “right to life” groups to help out of desperation. Those groups used it as an opportunity to pull this bullshit move that only resulted in backlash, and the parents actual efforts being drowned out.
After she died, her husband wouldn’t even tell her parents where he was having her buried.
There is more to every story. I am as liberal as they come, but this particular case has many aspects that did not make it into the media hubbub because her parents were trying to keep this fight above mudslinging.
Michael Schiavo was expecting a child with another woman. Why not simply (quietly) divorce her?
He’s Catholic, and if he had, getting married to another woman in the Catholic church would not have been possible for him.
Dori, interesting. Was any of the evidence you allude to brought into court? Surely Terri’s parents had every motivation to do so?
“Proof” need not be in writing. Most proof isn’t.
The court took extensive testimony from everyone who was brought forth or who came forth. The court decided, on the basis of all the proof that was offered, that she would not have wanted to continue her life under the circumstances that obtained. Was this truly her opinion? I have no idea. Courts exist to make such determinations. This decision was affirmed time and again upon appeal.
The idea that Theresa’s parents were trying to keep this business above mudslinging is somewhat odd. They mounted not only a website, but extensive political efforts, and accused Michael of every crime under the sun.
Was he guilty? I have no idea. I’ve never met any of these people. And you were, from your account, a child. No one can know now, absent some proof which does not seem to be available.
The point here is, a court of competent jurisdiction – that’s how we determine disputed facts, if you have a better method in mind, please do tell – found that Theresa herself would not have wanted to be maintained in her current condition.
The Bush administration decided, for political reasons, that they didn’t much care what Theresa wanted, that they would exploit this situation for political gain.
Ted Kennedy had a great quote about this, for a documentary about government censorship of art.
He said something like: conservatives insist that the government is so incompetent that it shouldn’t regulate markets or provide health care, yet this same government is competent to decide what art Americans can see?
Why do some people think the government can make good moral decisions for individuals?
Hey Susan, thanks for the clarification. It’s much appreciated.
—Myca
I don’t think that’s correct.
I did take the disabled activist’s take on Schiavo seriously, and wish that they had been the predominant voices on the “save Schiavo” side of the debate, rather than that side being dominated by the religious right.
I did take the disabled activist’s take on Schiavo seriously, and wish that they had been the predominant voices on the “save Schiavo” side of the debate, rather than that side being dominated by the religious right.
Agreed. That would at least have been a legitimate debate. Instead, we got Randall Terry’s freak show, which created much more heat than light, as per usual.
Some of these questions are really hard to live with, and knowing the “right” answer is far from easy.
Lots of people now have written Advance Directives for Health Care or Living Wills or whatever they’re called in your jurisdiction. In my practice I pass around the California Medical Association’s standard form like candy, and urge everyone to fill it out. So I’ve read hundreds, maybe more, of these things, and all the ones I see say the same thing, in effect, “Don’t keep me alive in Terri Schiavo’s situation.” That’s what Terri said when she was young and healthy. I get that part.
But the advocates for the disabled make the point that you may think that NOW, but you may not feel that way when the time comes. Very often someone like Christopher Reeve, to take one example, wants to commit suicide immediately after a catastrophic injury, but he changed his mind on that later. Apparently many if not most people in his situation do the same, and decide that life is worth living after all. And as long as someone is competent to change their mind and able to communicate that to us, we are required to follow their current opinion on the matter, not what they may have thought 15 years ago.
As Amp has linked, we had data from the get-go on Theresa that she in effect had no brain left, and thus, we may assume, no capacity to change her mind. The advocates for the disabled made the point that sometimes people may indeed change their minds on this but not be able to communicate that, and be thus done in for economic or other reasons. Or because we, the temporarily able-bodied, think that their lives aren’t worth living, which is none of our business. This may or may not be relevant in Theresa’s case, but they were fighting the assumption that being disabled makes life worthless, and they were right to fight that.
The law right now is, you have the right to refuse medical treatment, and we are required to follow your directions on that in your case. Whatever directions we have, your most recent verifiable opinion. I don’t honestly see any other way to play that one, short of having the government or the church or the disabled movement or someone else other than you dictate the most intimate details of the medical treatment you are subjected to, perhaps against your wishes, which I think is a remedy worse than the disease.
There are no easy answers here. A hundred years ago, Theresa would have died the night her heart stopped. The technology that revived her and kept her going for so many years hadn’t been invented yet. But that’s not an answer either, because a lot of peoples’ hearts stop for a lot of reasons, and then they are revived by modern medical miracles and return to happy, productive lives. Unhappily for her and her family, Theresa didn’t make the cut: there was too much damage. Just because we CAN do something medically doesn’t mean we ought to, but it can be impossibly difficult to draw those lines. I don’t know the answers, and I don’t think anyone does.
None of these nuances were of any concern, I believe, to the politicians who tried to make hay out of this family’s tragedy. Randall Terry is a nut-job in my considered opinion, and as Jeff says, his insertion of himself into this circus was counter-productive, as is his wont.
He said something like: conservatives insist that the government is so incompetent that it shouldn’t regulate markets or provide health care, yet this same government is competent to decide what art Americans can see?
Marmalade – this is off subject, I guess, but from what I’ve heard most vociferous objections that conservatives make to art is not what Americans can see but what Americans’ tax money goes to pay for creating.
Susan –
These events happened in Florida. I can tell you from personal experience that Florida courts are the most backwards of any state in the United States. They do not get DV, they do not get child abuse, they do not get stalking. They are constantly putting victims in harms way. I advocate in the southern states for abused women and children and I am contacted daily by women in Florida. Georgia and Alabama I get emails or calls about once a week, but Florida is nearly every day!!!! I have heard of abused mothers who have to do shared parenting with the perps. These same perps are constantly contacting DCF (I think that is what it is called in Fl) with false allegations. Perps are allowed to have constant court intervention, but when a mother attempts to utilize the court system, she is abused further.
Florida is uneducated as far as abuse issues, so when you say the courts made this decision, I could see how they arrived at their conclusions. Look at recently exposed judges doing things like releasing employee’s relatives when there should have been no release, doing drugs in a local park – and more!!!
It is a sad sad scene in the South for abused women and children, with Florida leading the pack.
I was also shared this link just a few moments agoi in my email – thought I would share it with all of you :-)
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2009/01/13/stringer_stripper/
This pertains to this very topic and shows the “judges” mentalities.
Susan is exactly right in her tellling of the case. The issue was NOT that society as a whole, or Michael Schiavo specifically, was deciding to write Terri off because of a specific level of brain damage. The issue at hand is what Terri wanted. There were trials, and there was clear and convincing evidence that she had made comments to the effect of “not wanting to be kept alive like that” to friends and relatives. Her parents also testified that they would disregard her wishes because of their desire to keep her alive.
The Florida courts make these determinations — what would an incapacitated patient want — all the time. There was nothing special about the Schiavo case except the fact that it went public.
By the way, Ronald Cranford, the best neurologist in the country, and 6 or 7 other neurologists (I don’t recall the exact number) personally examined her and all concluded that she had a PVS. The one who didn’t, Dr. Hammesfahr — his medical school, Northwestern University, issued a statement to the effect that they distance themselves from his practice of neurology. The neurological community was aghast at how an obvious-PVS case was being second-guessed by everyone and his brother, particularly DeLay.
I urge anyone interested in the facts to read http://www.abstractappeal.com; it has the original source documents (court testimony, etc.).
And my living will explicitly references the Schiavo case and is unequivocally clear that my spouse has the power to carry out my wishes.
I have no personal experience on that point, but if it is true, I would recommend the citizens of Florida to get busy and fix this.
Notwithstanding that fact, the courts of Florida are the courts Florida now has, and they have jurisdiction over disputes arising in Florida. Are you advocating that California courts, say (I don’t know what jurisdictions you approve of) should try Florida cases? I do know a lot about California courts, and I can assure you that they are plenty busy, and do not want to take over all or any of Florida’s cases.
I’m just advocating for the rule of law, not because I think the law always produces a perfect or even a good result, but because that’s what we have, and I have yet to hear a better suggestion. If you have one, Glenn’s Cult, please, let us know what it is.
No I am not advocating that any other courts should take care of Florida problems. I wish there was an easy fix for Florida issues. As a woman living in the South and speaking with women in states all over the south I have noticed this as a huge problem in FL. Not as bad in say GA or Alabama, issues in LA as well. Sorry to be somewhat rambling trying to get my thoughts down quickly :-) I am also working with advocacy groups to get these issues with all southern states fixed legally. Documenting the bad as well as the good is the key and I know this (as well as my associates in FL, GA, AL, LA, TX). It is not an overnight thing though. Education is the key also. The fact that you were willing to read my post with an open mind and be open to other ideas is a start in educating people IMO. And for that I thank you.
This issue is extremely difficult. I think the biggest thing is Terri left no clue to her wishes except to her husband and he was under scrutiny at times during this case. If this case does one thing – I would hope it will show people that a living will or legal directives regarding end of life wishes to be followed will be a priority in everyone’s life – no matter their age. It is hard talking about what will happen should one be on death’s door, but to leave this decision to someone else who might or might not have your best interests in mind is irrespnsible :-) I have mine…Have you done yours?
I urge everyone to go out and do this asap!!! You might not ever need it, but it will be there – just in case.
I would also add that the reason for sharing the link I shared is not to degrade the courts or the judge – it is simply to show what types of issues people in Florida deal with. We have judges who are human and as such make human errors. Can it be said he made an error on the Schiavo case? I don’t know and personally if it were me, I would want it to be discovered what made me faint and cause the damage that was caused to Terri if this were to happen to me. This case is an extremely emotional issue as well :-) All the more reason for living will/end of life directives.
I’m currently going through some similar family circumstances with my father, who recently suffered a massive heart attack and wasn’t found for some time afterward. We “know” what he would have wanted, not because he had some carefully written living will, but because we know that he didn’t even want to wind up in a nursing home — which he’s been in for the past six months or so — because that’s where “people go to die.”
And yet the “Every Sperm is Sacred” branch of the Jesus Party (the GOP, in case you can’t figure it out) would have me and my two brothers unable to reach kind of closure if it turns out that our father isn’t going to make it past the next few days without being hooked up to all sorts of machines.
My father has never been anything but a Republican. Heck, he probably voted for Nixon in 1960 — I know for a fact he voted for Nixon in 1968, and for every Republican since. And yet even he would never have wanted to be kept “alive” on all the life support gizmos modern medicine has to offer.
This statement is untrue. There were a number of witnesses who testified about Terri’s statements concerning her desires as to medical treatment, including her best friend.
Was the court’s decision about Terri’s opinion correct? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else. I think everyone made a good faith effort to get it right, so far as I can tell.
So sorry about your dad, furrycat. I hope this situation resolves for the good of all concerned.
Thank you Glenn’s Cult! Now, everyone 18 and over, please run out and do this. The forms are readily available online. If you are in California, say so, and I will post my email address so I can get your snail mail address, and I’ll send you the California Medical Association’s form. Free from me to you, and I even have to buy it (for a trivial cost, because I buy them by the hundred). You can make the directive of your choice, all the way from “pull the plug” to “keep me alive at all costs,” or anything in between. Your choice. The form tells you how to do all this. (If you’re in another jurisdiction you should do research online or ask somebody there. Even a defective statement on the back of an envelope is way better than nothing though.)
The younger you are the more important this is. It is not just the elderly who get in car crashes, for example, far from it. I’m 63, and if some dreadful thing happens to me how long am I likely to hang on anyway? But if you’re 20 you could become a big problem for yourself and everyone else for years. In fact, all of the celebrated cases in this area have involved young people, for obvious reasons. Terri is a perfect example.
Don’t argue, just go do it.
Thanks Susan and Glenn’s Cult. I’ve been thinking about this issue for a few years but still haven’t put anything down in writing, mostly because I didn’t know how to go about doing it in a way that would be legally relevant. Now I’m pretty sure I’m going to put my google-fu to work over the weekend and write up my own medical directive form.
And a note to any women out there who still have a chance of pregnancy, check out this sample directive, point 3 (regarding pregnancy). I would definitely recommend including a line like that clearly stating if you still want the directive to be followed or not if you happen to be pregnant.
FREE LEGAL ADVICE!!!
There are three documents which everyone should have, listed in order of importance:
1) health care proxy. Controls what happens to you when incapacitated but still alive. You don’t want the state doing this.
2) power of attorney. Allows a designate to “act like you” for legal reasons: pay your bills, write checks, sell/buy things, run your business, etc. These can be limited or unlimited. If written correctly and if you’re rich enough, this can allow your attorney to make last minute distributions which can save you tens or hudrends of thousands of dollars in estate taxes.
3) Will. Controls what happens to your kids and your stuff after you die.
Most people have them in the reverse order, which is a mistake. Truth be told, the state has a decent track record at distributing your stuff after you die. We’ve been doing it for millennia. it will probably go to your spouse or kids. YES, you should have a will anyway to make things clearer, though.
The state is HORRIBLE at making decisions for you while you’re alive, though. So you need a health care proxy and POA.
Thanks, Sailorman. That’s clear and useful.
The state is HORRIBLE at making decisions for you while you’re alive, though.
Although my views on the nature of property have changed radically since I was in college, requiring a break from the Libertarian Party, this simple truth is why I will always be *SOME* sort of libertarian.
I find this post ableist. I suggest you read some of the disability rights’ literature on the subject, especially this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2115208/
sanabituranima,
I found the arguments in the Slate piece unconvincing. Take this bit of reasoning: “If we assume that Ms. Schiavo is aware and conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can’t justify her death as her preference. She has no preference. ”
This logic would make useless advance directives, living wills and all other efforts to state a preference for what is to be done when one no longer can state a preference. My unwillingness to live on a feeding tube for 20 years with no higher brain function should not be waved away as “preconceived fears of the life she is now living.” That’s about as patronizing as Justice Kennedy’s telling a woman that she can’t get an abortion because she’ll regret it later. The fact that I am “unaware and unconscious” in 2015 does not make the preference I expressed in 2009 irrelevant.
And this is just shitty legal reasoning: “While we should not assume that disability prejudice tainted the Florida courts, we cannot reasonably assume that it did not.” Um, actually, if you’re going to accuse a judge of impermissible bias, you can’t do it on a “well maybe he did and maybe he didn’t, but we’d better not take the risk by not having the decision reviewed by ever more and more judges” argument. That’s not how appellate law works, and as a lawyer Johnson should know that.
Ditto here: “the legislation enabling Ms. Schiavo’s parents to sue did not take sides in the so-called culture wars. It did not dictate that Ms. Schiavo be fed. It simply created a procedure whereby the federal courts could decide whether Ms. Schiavo’s federally protected rights have been violated.”
If we needed legislation to allow a federal court to consider whether federal rights had been violated, why was that legislation strictly limited to Ms. Schiavo’s case? Shouldn’t it be generally available to everyone? This is what really pissed me off about the entire spectacle: instead of seriously debating whether we ought to change the law as a whole (I am amenable to the argument that we simply ought not to allow feeding tubes to be taken away in the absence of a duly authenticated advance directive), it all devolved down to one woman, her husband and her parents, and we have people like Glenn’s Cult obsessing over whether he was emotionally abusing her.
And of course, we DON’T need such legislation to allow a federal court to consider whether federal rights had been violated; we already have a little thing called federal question jurisdiction.