The Schiavo Case
Dean
Well everyone's abuzz with the Schiavo case these days. The positions seem intractable.
Michele has the same reaction I did for a long time, saying that Terri Schiavo's condition is not living and she wouldn't want to live that way. I thought exactly the same thing, until I learned (see my earlier links below) that her parents and brother have consulted doctors who say they think that with treatment Terri could progress to where she could feed herself and possibly speak again, but that her husband Michael (who now lives with another woman with whom he has children) has absolutely refused to even let these doctors see Terri or to allow any form of therapy whatsoever--and that the Florida courts have refused to even hear much of that as evidence.
It was in learning about this, along with the "When is that b**** gonna die?" remarks, and learning that the family asks nothing of Michael Schiavo except that they allow them to take care of her and attempt whatever therapy may be available, that my sympathies in this case completely shifted.
I cannot imagine having my wife in a condition like Terri's, and having her entire family saying, "please stop, we'll take care of her, and we have doctors who we think can help her!" and my simply being able to say, "No. I am so absolutely certain that there is no hope that I don't even want you people even allowed to try."
I would also like to add (and I'm not picking on anyone in particular here) that I'm a little tired of those who insinuate that this is merely a "religious" argument, or a "right wing" argument, or whatever. I see people all over the political spectrum taking both sides on this. And religion? Please. As an atheist myself, I still think erring on the side of caution when there is doubt is the wisest and most humane thing.
I ask those of you (no one in particular, not picking on anybody) who say they want the feeding tube removed: would you support giving Terri Schiavo a lethal injection to "put her out of her misery?" Heck, wouldn't that be kinder than removing a simple tube that gives her food and water?
If not, why not?
The answer to me seems apparent: there are people ready, willing, and able to take care of this woman, and medical experts who, while they may be talking long shots, would like to attempt therapies that might help. That being the case, I cannot personally fathom refusing even to allow the attempt, and instead removing food and water in order to "let nature take its course."
I've made it very clear to my wife, not to mention everybody else in my immediate family, that I don't want to live as a vegetable. But I'd think common sense would indicate that I don't have to say, "if there are doctors who are offering therapies that might help, please don't rush to have me starved to death without at least giving it a shot."
But... How about this scenario.
She did tell him she didn't want to live like a vegetable. She's been one for many, many years. He's trying to put her out of her misery but her family wants to keep her alive against her wishes and he's trying to comply with her wishes.
They offered him $10 million, right?
If he's being principled, this has to be an incredibly hard time for him as he is painted as a monster who just wants to kill his wife.
Maybe he just wants some insurance money or doesn't want to have to divorce her to be able to get remarried.
I don't know the answer, but I do know that I would want to die in such a situation and I'm pretty sure my family would fight that. That's why the spouse gets the decision.
It was only after dealing with this for quite a while that it occured to me that I had never bothered to go and look up any sort of definition of Persistent Vegetative State; Healthlink has a description of it, as does Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada; Central Washington University has this interesting bit:
I started looking this stuff up this afternoon when my father, wise old dog that he is, pointed out to me that since we cannot measure or weigh thought, how can we know if there are any thoughts going on in the brain? This is a big "no duh" thing, but it hadn't occured to me before. We can see various things in the brain, but we can't say "see that electrical impulse? That's someone wanting a candy bar, meanwhile that bit over there is the 'don't eat the candy bar, fat ass', thought".
It seems that we are being rather catagorical about something we don't have sufficient data on. My view remains as it has been all along:
I don't know Michael Schiavo's motivation; there's a lot of questions (especially the flexible way he's interpreted "in sickness and in health" in the marriage vows; though he does seem rather keen on "until death do you part"}; at all events, his motivations are actually irrelevant. Base or pure as wind-driven snow, we simply cannot willy-nilly allow one person to make such a decision without debate, law enactment and judicial review. The new circumstances of our lives given medical science impell us into a required series of debates on the issues and the eventual settling upon some modus operendi regarding them. Most emphatically, the Courts are not competant to rule on their own on these issues.
You can remove the feeding tube, but you must allow an attempt to feed manually. We simply cannot starve a human being to death, regardless of circumstances. If her brain is really that wrecked, then manual attempts at feeding her will fail, and she'll die - but if we make this attempt and she can eat, then she's at least alive as a new born infant, and thus may not be harmed.
In any event, these critics betray their lack of understanding of the meaning of federalism. It is not simply about "states' rights." Conservatives support states' rights in areas that are not delegated to the federal government but they also support federal power in areas that are delegated.
Think of an analogy to the writ of habeas corpus. As John Eastman of the Claremont Institute points out, "We have federal court review of state court judgments all the time in the criminal law context." The bill before Congress essentially treats the Florida judgment as a death sentence, warranting federal habeas review. Mrs. Schiavo is not on life support. The court order to remove the feeding tube is an order to starve her to death. Moreover, Mrs. Schiavo is arguably being deprived of her life without due process of law, a violation of the 14th Amendment that Congress has the power to address."
Methinks some people are protesting too much.
(Entire editorial right here.)
Regardless what one might think of him, Michael Schiavo's word is all we have on this. Terri has no living will. We set a terrible, terrible precedent when we take this right away from the spouse.
Short of my dislike of Michael Schiavo and my suspicions about him - and they're only suspicions - he is the spouse, and he says he and Terri discussed this. The decision both of them made was for Terri not to have to go through this.
This is not about removing a feeding tube, and it is not about the method of her death. This is about the right of a spouse to decide for his wife when the wife cannot make the decision. That is something I absolutely support. And that Michael Schiavo is re-married and has kids might make you question his motives, but he is still the one who gets to make the decisions.
Do I want to see Terri die? No. Do I want to see her apparent wishes fulfilled? Absolutely. What I absolutely do NOT want to see is a group of congrssional Republicans passing notes around saying what a wonderful election issue it would make if they stepped in and "saved" her.
Due process ? This case has been up and down and back and forth through the courts for FIFTEEN years. How the HELL is that not due process ?
Unbelievable. Really.
As has already been pointed out here and elsewhere, the husband has refused to allow any treatment or therapy for 15 years.
Got that? Refused to allow it.
Your objection is therefore groundless and immaterial--and in fact illustrates that you aren't even bothering to pay attention.
I have made my wishes perfectly well known if God Forbid this happen to me. I have a Medical POA (the very thing the courts say Schavio has...and no court in the country has ever been against a spouse's rights to medical decisions until now), a Living Will and a DNR. Even with all those iron-clad USAF written and notarized documents certain elements of my family has made it perfectly clear they would battle my husband for the right to control my medical treatment because of their polar-opposite beliefs from mine. That is where I come from on this.
Everyone keeps throwing that the man has 2 kids with another woman out into the 'battle'. 15 years folks, how many 'happily married' men and women have affairs on perfectly capable spouses? How many bastard children are out there?!? What has the fact the man has a 'girlfriend/whore/mistress' got to do with this case?
I would rather believe he is acting out of the desire to fulfil what he believes is his wife's wishes rather than some cold calculating desire to kill her. If he just wanted done with it, why not take the money? Why not be rid of the evil, vile in-laws that have slandered him from day one and now launch attacks of how they think he 'put her' in this condition? I guess when legal means fail, there is always charecter assasination, and that's beyond pitiful.
By the sheer fact the man is doing what he thinks best he is attacked, villified, called horrible things and sued. He's even been attacked in the halls of politics in Florida and DC's gettin in on the free-for-all. If this is how badly his in-law treat him when they have nothing to do with him why on Earth would you wish to legislate that he must clear every decision with them? I'm supposedly a bad person for thinking giving her death after 15 years as a vegetable would be the best option. Perhaps some name callers need to take a good long look in the mirror.
Surely if there is some legal proof to this, especially considering it was the Flordia Legislature using this as a means for their un-constitutional bill, then there is proof?
I find it highly amussing in a very bad way that supposedly he 'said' this while no one produces actual documents, even the Florida state house that used them to base a law on. I would expect better fact checking on your site, while I distrust the other two for going out of their way to show only their side. I consider Dean's World fairly balanced, but in this one you've dropped all the wieght from the counter-balance...
That is, unless there is no possibility of such improvement.
Think about it. Seriously. Ignoring, of course, this ridiculous argument that allegedly someone overhear her say something. Ridiculous on it's face.
But in 15 years, don't you think someone, anyone, would have tried to get her to cognatively respond. You know, blink twice if you don't want to die, that sort of thing ? NOTHING but some vague reactions for 15 years.
If you guys think that's a "life" then all I can do is wish EXACTLY THAT upon you.
Do we, really? I've been thinking about this awhile, and it hasn't really come up too often in discussions about Terri Schiavo, but it seems to me that allowing the spouse to be the sole decision-maker in such situations is a bit antiquated. Maybe I'm cynical, but marriage seems to be a temporary arrangement in this day and age. I'm not sure I'd want all of my important decisions made exclusively by the person I happen to be married to at the moment. I think I'd want my family to have some say. But I guess that's reason #1246 not to get married.
Anyway, I guess I just find it odd that a man who happens to be her husband, but has largely moved on from the marriage years ago (if not legally, emotionally), gets all the power, but the family, who are willing to care for her, get none.
Starving this woman is clearly a cruel way for her to expire and I agree with Dean that a "lethal injection" would be far more humane. I've agreed with both sides in this fight at various times and do not feel certain in supporting either any longer. This is a bad situation that does not look like it will get better any time soon, if ever.
That said, with respect to Dean's point about hope for medical therapies those will always exist, Dean. Medicine will always advance and those new therapies "might" always offer hope. A better quation, I think, is what chance those therapies will have and from what I have read chances for Terri are very slim.
A cousin of mine, whom I never met, was in an auto accident. The top of her head was actually sheared off. But she was kept "alive" for decades - in her case, despite the family's wishes.
Who, when there is no written statement by the patient, should make the decision? The court (at least, one judge) has said the spouse. OK, even while I question some of what he has done, as a ruling applicable generally this may be about as good as we are going to get. Albeit in this particular case I do not understand why the court will not allow the family to bring suit - or did I miss that?
This leaves methodology. The SPCA (not to mention PETA, heh) would haul your corpus into court - and win - if you proposed to starve/dehydrate an injured animal to death: the established methods have long been medical euthanasia or shooting. It perturbs me that with humans the reverse is considered the "correct" way. Should I ever be in such state, I hope the law will have progressed to treating me with the consideration given to a pet rat!
For a decade, Micheal "When is that b_tch going to die" Shiavo has been living with another woman he calls his fiancee, that he has two kids with. He has only stayed married, apparently, to have the legal right to kill Terri Shiavo.
So many of you use the argument, "well, it is what Terri would have wanted." I am equally sure that if Terri could talk she would want a divorce, which would leave her custody and care in the hands of her blood relatives, who are more than willing to take care of her.
I would like to see with my own eyes instead of listening to attacks of 'he said this' with no proof supplied by those 'quoting' him. Thank you!
17 judges in 6 courts have heard this case. Congress has no right to get involved. Ever heard of a Bill of Attainder? (More on this at Zero Base Thinking.)
You want to teach creationism in high school science classes, and you want Congress to take end-of-life decisions away from state courts.
Where is the atheism or the federalism in these positions? The Schindler right is certainly not one of the "enumerated powers", and the 14th Amendment doesn't permit creation of rights for one family and one family only.
There's certainly nothing wrong with being a central-government theocrat, if that's what you are, but truth in advertising is a good thing.
I also notice the woman giving the statement has more than one ax to grind. She mentions a call to police about suspicious deaths, any way to back this up? IE any news stories about her prior to her giving Terry's family the statements they wanted to hear or Police Reports? (I am not saying it didn't happen that way, but the fact she was terminated, I've never read anything about this except here on DW, and there seems to be no mention of her in any previous rulings (a legitimate concern of a judge would be to evaluate all the evidence, and I would like to know why her's was discounted as being important...) makes me highly suspicious of the timing of this statement given she had been out of the employee of the home caring for Terry for 6 years...
I did a google for "Carla Iyer" and that was the first link and it was on topic. I posted it. I understand your thoughts on Free Republic, but I don't think they are the only source on this one. I'm not endorsing what she says, btw.
Here is a more refined search, take you pick.
In fact, between this ignorant comment, yesterday's third-grade civics lesson to an attorney and your own admission in this thread that you would rather die if you were Terri's shoes, I'm beginning to think you don't know a goddamed thing about Terri Schiavo's case. You say if you were Terri Schiavo you would want to die. Great, we'll all remember that when your time comes. But right now, it's her time, not yours. Unlike you, she left no living will or other documents to show this supposed intent, only the say-so of a rather disturbing individual who also appears to be obsessed with killing her, and a judge whose own ignorance caused him to ignore testimony that Terri herself had said the exact opposite about the "Terri Schiavo" of her day, Karen Ann Quinlan.
Of course, you don't care. Who needs facts when you've got a strong opinion?
While I see the legic in what you say I submit that if she has no cerebral cortex then there's no therapy on earth that will help her. Apparently a CT scan showed no cerebral cortex, but I'd have no problem allowing an MRI if they tend to show more and can therefore allow a definitive statement.
Regarding some of the people the family has consulted, who claim to be able to provide therapy, is a certain Nobel nominee named Hammesfahr, about whom a local neurologist wrote the following in an email to Fox News:
The long and short of it is that these "consultants" are mostly the sort of creature that the rest of us would call vultures. Catch my drift?
I agree that lethal injection would be more humane, and wouldn't be inconsistent assuming she really is in a vegetative state (which I'm beginning to suspect really is the case). It's only that we're too squeamish, that prevents us from employing that method. There is no ethical nicety between active or passive if there's no "person" there, and no possibility that the person who once was there will ever be again.
As for the fellow above who pointed out that new therapies may provide hope no matter what condition she is currently in, I feel compelled to point out that if she has no cerebral cortex then even if a method comes along that could regenerate a cerebral cortex the person inhabiting the body would be an infant, and would no longer be Terri Schaivo. That makes the present body a kind of vessel with no inherent identity of its own, and it would not be unethical (or at least would not be homicide) to end such a "life" even if there's a potential that a person might be "incorporated" through some sort of exotic synthetic means. Besides which, it's just plain icky.
But frankly, that possibility is rather remote and if we could regenerate a cerebral cortex we could do a lot of other amazing things that are a lot less ethically dubious. I tend to think that if we could regenerate a cerebral cortex, we could probably generate entire bodies (including brains), which again puts us in the icky territory.