Overwhelming Media Presence
Dean
Our friend Trudy Schuett says that those of us writing about Terri Schiavo's case should stop, because we know not what we do.
My response to her is as follows:
Terri Schiavo's case has been in the public eye for years. Her parents and her siblings are adults. Furthermore, they are people who have not just wandered into the public eye, but have actually sought media attention. Indeed, after years of media attention to this matter, they have chosen to issue press releases and to take a firm public stance.
In other words, the notion that they are babes in the woods is well-meaning but wrong. These people have been in the public eye for several years now, and they are actively seeking further public scrutiny. Indeed, they say the mainstream media has been routinely misrepresenting their position, and they are begging for still more media attention.
In short: they've asked for attention from bloggers. Assuming them to be adults who fully know what they're asking for, I am quite willing to give it to them.
From what I can see, Terri Schiavo is alive and, according to people who love her, she is able to respond to them in a way that a human vegetable would not be able to. They say that they're willing to care for her for the rest of her natural life, and they say they ask nothing of her husband except that he go away and leave them alone. They also say that she is not on "life support," but rather, that she merely requires a single tube to provide her with food and water.
All of that being the case, I see no reason to support a court order which says that she should die of thirst. Which is what her estranged husband (who now lives with another woman with which he has children) demands.
Bottom line: her parents and siblings, who say they will take care of her, should not be dismissed simply because her husband doesn't want to file divorce papers.
Indeed, why should anyone think that filing divorce papers is more onerous than filing court papers to have her denied food and water?
This is the stand I take. I can take no other.
Please don't let them allow Terri Schiavo to die of thirst, when there are people who pledge to take care of her for the rest of her life.
(note: I am not here endorsing the idea of the "right to die", or that that's indeed what her husband is doing.)
Her parents and siblings say that's bullshit, she never said or believed that.
From where I stand, I see no reason to believe that her parents are liars. Maybe Michael isn't lying either, but, there is significant doubt here.'
With significant doubt, I continue to take the same position I always have: when in doubt, err on the side of caution. Don't deny her food and water.
Trudy writes from the perspective of an advocate, which is interesting. I write from the perspective of a public relations executive which means that even the most fantastic stories on a small subject matter can be handled both professionally and respectfully if Terri's family has hired someone to manage the media for them.
On a side note, I've been to Midland, TX on several occassions and the city is far from ravaged from Baby Jessica. In fact, I've never heard anyone from Midland ever even mention it and I've met plenty of people from Midland. All they talk about is their football team over and over and over.
First, you're right on with this regarding Trudy's post about "slacktivism". I don't need to add anything to what you've said about that. (And yes, they have hired someone, Randall Terry.)
Mainly I just want to say THANK YOU for writing about this. On your first post I saw you were a bit skeptical, but unlike a whole LOT of people, you've listened to both sides and come to your conclusion rather than one based on others' rhetoric.
I'll admit I hadn't read much from you in the past, but I spent hours reading here last night and I've been truly enlightened not just by what you have written throughout the site, but also by what I've seen on this one issue--again, by your ability to listen to both sides and make a judgement.
As you have probably guessed, one of the reasons why we're doing the blogburst is to try to get people to look at the issue more deeply than what they see from sound-bites on the news. It totally changed my knowledge and therefore opinion on the issue, and I'm sure that as more people know all the facts they'll feel the same way. Hopefully though, it won't be too late.
Thanks again,
Beth
I take a more affirmatively pro-life view of the matter; I wouldn't allow a person to voluntarily starve themself to death, let alone deliberately starve a helpless person to death. Even if the entire family was in favor of cutting off her food and water, I would fight them on it. Where there is life, there is hope and I'll never succumb to a shallow sophistication which says that dying is just a small thing. It'll come when it comes.
As for the linked article - upon thinking about it, its a weak-kneed cop-out of someone who is afraid to really take a position...just hoping that the issue would go away as its too uncomfortable to think about.
Just a thought: if he's been living with his girlfriend for seven years, isn't this a common law marriage? If so, couldn't he be prosecuted for bigamy and declared unfit to care for his wife?
How do you know? Do they tell you? Are some worse than others?
You see, Terri's family disagrees that she lives a painful tortured existence.
Strangely enough, my family faced a somewhat similar case as this one just over a year ago with my sister's husband. My sister reacted the way you would expect for someone who said these words "...in sickness and in health". She is with her husband every minute of the day. She takes him everywhere. She's gotten him the best care she can afford, and is bordering on sainthood for the way she cares for him.
And you know what? My brother-in-law's condition has improved. Sure he isn't the man he was, but he is a man - a human being - and deserving of the rights and protections that are due him.
Dean pointed out that he wonders how liberals can support barbaric means of death for the helpless like babies in utero and the handicapped, yet bristle at lethal injection for condemned killers. I too can't help but shake my head in amazement.
It's a form of moral bankruptcy that I simply cannot fathom.
What I want to say is this. Look: we try to prevent people from committing suicide, right? We have Suicide Prevention Hotlines where, if someone calls and tells them "I've got a gun pointed at my head right now, give me one good reason why I shouldn't pull the trigger," a volunteer will try their best to talk the person into putting the gun down and seeking psychiatric help. We've even got a suicide exception clause written into privacy laws regarding psychiatric counseling: nearly everything that goes on in counseling is utterly confidential, but if the counselor believes that their client is likely to harm others or themselves, then the counselor is under legal obligation to report that to the appropriate people.
And that's what baffles me. We'll expend so much effort on trying to talk people out of committing suicide even when it's clear that they want to. Yet are we willing to take someone else's word for it that Terri Schiavo wants to die?
That's why I wrote in an earlier comments section that her husband's legal standing is irrelevant. I find it irrelevant because I believe that nobody, not even a husband, should be able to claim that another person wants to die and should be killed. The only circumstance in which I'd be willing to listen is if there was no ambiguity, no possibility of doubt -- in other words, if the person had expressed their own wishes in writing, or in front of a sufficient number of witnesses (say half a dozen) that there was virtually no possibility of collusion.
I'm with Scott Kirwin on this: I cannot fathom how letting Terri Schiavo die could be seen as a moral position.
"With significant doubt, I continue to take the same position I always have: when in doubt, err on the side of caution. Don't deny her food and water."
Now you're talking. This is one of the few comments I've seen that addresses what I believe (possibly mistakenly) the ultimate legal issue to be. I respect your view, Dean, as you've clearly put some serious thought into it, but I disagree. If I many impose upon your blogspitality once more, I'd like to explain why.
What we have here is a dispute of fact between two parties. We also have a legal system specifically designed to arbitrate just this sort of dispute of fact. For all its fault, there is no better way of making an independent, unbiased, and well-informed determination of a disputed matter of fact than through the courts. Certainly, I trust the courts moreso than I would an elected official (such as a Governor) or a body of legislators. And, because they have access to the best and most complete assemblage of evidence in this matter, I trust courts over bloggers and other media commentators as well.
And this case has certainly not lacked for litigation. And the courts have determined (if I'm not mistaken), that Terri Schiavo did in fact express a wish not to be kept alive in circumstances roughly analogous to those in which she currently exists. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the matter. It is about "right to die", and while I'd be happy to argue that point with anyone, it's not really an available avenue of debate in this case, which is controlled by Florida law.
Terri Schiavo's situation raises a whole host of fascinating and difficult issues and questions, touching on religion, morality, philosophy, metaphysics, medical ethics, politics, public policy, etc. But these are all abstract issues. The concrete issue, in my mind, has been decided. Terri Schiavo expressed a wish not to be kept alive in a situation similar to the one in which she now exists. The husband should be allowed to fulfill that wish.
While I respect the court system, I just happen to have heard from a retired lawyer that the system is filled with injustice. I have recently taken issue with the Protection From Abuse (PFA) order - after it was used against my sister-in-law when she threw a cup of water at her soon to be ex-husband during an argument.
The intent of this law was to protect battered women; instead it is being used to deprive men of their parental rights, and ironically, used as a tool by abusive husbands to batter their wives some more (as in my sister-in-law's case).
I mention this because I believe that laws and morality often conflict, and that is the case with Terri. Laws, like the PFA and Right to Die, often have unforseen consequences and grey areas that must be changed and addressed.
However in the meantime my sister-in-law is abused, and by your logic, Terri should starve to death. Sorry, but I disagree.
It's also worth mentioning that the only reason there is any question of starvation is because the system is unjust in another way (in my admittedly controversial opinion), in that it doesn't allow a doctor to humanely end Terri's life painlessly and with dignity.
With a complex situation like this one, I think it's important to approach it not merely in the abstract, but also in the specific. It is good and useful to talk about the moral implications of the situation, but ultimately, that debate isn't going to resolve the particular case of Terri Schiavo. I think it's also important to discuss the actual practical issues on the basis of which this case must be decided, in addition to the broader themes and issues.
What on earth kind of logic is that? If Terri had had the good sense to murder Michael in cold blood rather than rather than fall ill and wait for him to assert "her" (his) right to "die" (kill), it would be unconstitutional to sentence her to die by starvation. Why make it easier to kill someone who hasn't done anything wrong at all?
That's exactly right! "By my logic, yes, Terri should starve to death, because that's what the law demands." What law? Not the law of the United States of America! In a Nazi or Communist death camp, yes. Here, no way, not in my country.
I'll say it again: Why is it that lethal injection is considered "cruel and unusual" when inflicted convicted serial murderers, but death by starvation or dismemberment (abortion) is supposedly humane as long it's called "therapy" instead of punishment?
You don't have to tell me - I watched it, personally, in the form of my mother for 8 months as she gasped for breath, dying from COPD. I didn't want her to suffer - and she sure in hell didn't want to suffer; but she also didn't want to die until she died. I remember seeing her two weeks before she died (I live in Las Vegas, she lived in Los Angeles) - she was so grateful to have been alive for Thanksgiving, to have seen her family and her grandchildren...
On that last visit before the final visit, I cooked her a favorite meal, including the mashed potatos which are a specialty of mine; most of the time for the past 8 months she had barely pushed her food around the plate, but this time she ate the whole thing and asked for seconds. She was suffering, but she was alive - and happy to see me; there was pleasure in her day, even amongst the suffering.
My view is that in the end she helped things along - on the night I got the call from dad that mom had been rushed to the hospital, it had been cold and damp in Los Angeles. After visiting the hospital and saying goodby, I went back to my parents house to await the end and I noticed in her room that the window was wide open and the blankets off the bed...the proximate cause of her death was pnuemonia, and I suspect that this had been mom's plan...knowing her condition, she decided that night that enough was, indeed, enough and so she set her place as likely to finish herself off, if it was indeed her time.
It is always rough to have a loved one in a bad way - but killing isn't the answer.
There is a movie that you can learn something from, it's The Widow of St. Pierre. It is a beautiful and fascinating movie about those that defend the law and those that defend mercy and justice. There is nothing black and white about any of these issues just as there is nothing to justify upholding the law in every case. Courts are wrong. Innocent Men and women have been executed right and left behind these perfect court systems.
I, too, nursed my father daily through the last 79 days of his life (from definitive diagnosis to death...79 days). His cancer started in his bladder three years earlier, but after removing his bladder it had metastisized to his kidneys, liver, spine, and testicles. He was in horrendous pain those last days, pain that not even large amounts of morphine could alleviate. He was unable to keep food down, except for a serving of baby food now and again. He lost 50 pounds in those 79 days.
I think the only thing that kept him going was tying up his business so as to not leave that for Mom to do after he was gone. As soon as that was done, he deteriorated quickly.
And he asked me a couple times if I thought he was doing the right thing by hanging on. I answered that I it was his life to end or not as he chose, but I would help him do whichever he wanted, regardless of the legal consequences to myself if he chose to end it. I would also care for him forever, if he chose to fight it.
Murder? Yup, it would have been, in the eyes of the law, if he had asked me to help him take enough morphine to die. To me it would have been an act of supreme mercy and love, and I would have done so willingly. Perhaps not gladly, as I adored my father and did not want him to die, but willingly.
When he finally entered hospice, they asked if he wanted an IV and feeding tube, and he refused both. It was time, he said, and seven days later I was holding him and feeling his pulse as it slowed and stopped. It was the cancer that got him officially, but the mechanics of his death was actually deydration and malnutrition.
I note this particularly, because had he agreed to the feeding tube and IV, he could have lived another month or two, easy. But he said the way he was living was no life at all and it was time to go. And this despite that there were many happy days in those last days. Apparently the happy weren't enough to offset the pain...