March 22, 2005
Leave It Alone
The news, as I wake up, is that Terr1 Schiavo’s parents have lost the case. I feel for them, but I am relieved. Terr1’s case, right or wrong, was lost according to the law, and we should not underestimate the good that has done.
The controversy, unlike what some would think, has not really been about whether we are going to kill a young woman, but rather, about whether there was a young woman there in the first place, and whether her immediate next of kin could fulfill her final wishes.
There has been ample opportunity, through a number of trials, for her parents to make the case that they knew her wishes best, and that Terri was alive beneath that impassive exterior. That is what several years worth of litigation has been about. Fifteen years have passed since Terri slipped away, poisoned by her heart's own potassium. Terri's parents have been given years to prove her continued life, and years to prove their case that they and not the husband should be the guardian.
This wasn't some decision out of the blue, but one backed by trials that have gone on for years, and which have been consistently decided in the favor of the husband. The trouble has been that one of the sides has decided that this is not about Guardianship, but instead about life, and one of these sides has decided, but has been unable to prove, that there still is a Terri Schiavo to save, and will not respect the decisions handed down.
We live under the rule of law, and although the living remains of Terri Schiavo will pass away under it, that rule of law saves lives on the balance. It keeps our Congress from acting as judge and jury on private citizens and public rivals. It keeps the Congress from passing ex post facto laws. It prevents the Congress from dictating the judgements of the court, and makes the courts a coequal branch of the government whether the Congress likes it or not.
It is important that these things are respected. Republicans trying to save our culture and the world with it, have pushed things to the limit and sometimes past it in trying to manifest their will. What they have not considered is that the limits placed on them are there for good reason, and that the possibility that the resistance they are facing from the courts are honest legal disagreements and not just a product of partisan politics.
One can believe with all one's heart in the righteousness of one's actions and still be wrong. People talk about Terri smiling, however, Real smiles are mostly involuntary to begin with, and the tightening of muscles of the jaw during a vegetative state can create the false impression of a smile. People talk about her eyes moving, but eye movement is controlled by nuclei in the midbrain that exist independent of the cerebrum, and the parts of the brain that recognize movement run through the midbrain instead of her destroyed cortex. There are many functions that do not require a conscious mind. In fact, most don't. Our conscious mind is not so much of a determinant of many actions as we would think.
Schiavo has not neglected his wife. I heard on CNN that Terri has never suffered a bedsore, an extraordinary thing when it comes to immobilized patients like herself. Bedsores are what killed Christopher Reeve, a rich and well cared for quadriplegic. Terri didn't even have the benefit of being conscious. The fact that she hasn't died after fifteen years of being in this state should signify somethings. As should the fact that she hasn't woken up in that time. People who spend this much time in this state rarely recover, and this whole thing smacks to me of people who want to believe in a miracle rather than acknowledge a tragedy. I think Michael Schiavo is a husband who has accepted a medical reality, and now wants to move on in his life, and let Terri's long vacated body go. I think many people want to use this as a way to gain more power in determining medical ethics, and thereby abortion.
While I oppose abortion myself, I want to preserve the rule of law and people's right to sovereignty over their body at the same time. The death of the unborn must be ended, but not in such a way that simply deprives somebody else of their due process.
In the end, doing good is a complicated thing, for our attempts at good deeds can have unexpected, even counterproductive results. I have continually pressed this point because I think it allows us to recognize two things: that we on both sides of political issues can do harm to one another, and the intent and spirit to do good is not enough to ensure that it is done. We must not fall asleep to the danger of well-intended tyranny, lest we become its victims.
Our country was set up so we would all together decide what was best for our country, and not simply have the elite of one political faction or another permanently emplaced to tell the rest of us poor dumb fools what we can say, do, and believe. I think God does not think much of people making death threats to the judges in the case, or calling people murderers when those people believe they are only letting nature and perhaps God's will take its course. We must recognize that the will to do good is not exclusive to one side or another. Let us find the wisdom to more prudently navigate the next such incident.
We hardly need to be discussing this subject in such a hateful manner, and such hatred can do as much harm to people's souls as any life-and-death situation wrongly decided.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2005 07:24 AMStephen-
I think you are giving the Republicans a little too much credit when you say they are trying to manifest their will upon us. To me this was pure political grandstanding and done with full knowledge that it would probably change nothing.
Posted by: George in SC at March 22, 2005 12:19 PMI understand the desire of the parents…I have kids of my own and would fight tooth and nail if I thought they had any chance at any resimblence of recovery. I even understand Michael’s desire to get on with his life with his life with his new significant other. Who wouldn’t. I just find the method of killing Terri……it isn’t compassionate……cruel and inhumaine. Many say she “can’t feel anything” and are they talking from experience????? It is a guess. Medical expertise aside, NO one has ever experienced the kind of damange Terri has and lived to express their experiences but it is STILL a guess. WE punish people who do this to unwanted pets but step aside and allow it to be done to a HUMAN being.
I understand that there is no other option. It isn’t like she is on a respirator which they can turn off. That would be simple and acceptable. Even I can be OK more with that quick death than a prolong suffering by being denied water and food.
Congress could have really taken up the issue and looked into a real solution to this kind of dilemma. Granted, it would be a legalized murder but certainly better than this alternative!
BTW….I AM a liberal. I just hate any perceived suffering like this. Makes my skin crawl!
Thanks, Stephen. I applaud Judge Whittmore, who had the fortitude to stand up against the runaway legislative-executive foolishness of yesterday. It takes courage to make a stand like that, and I hope his career isn’t slowed by this brave decision.
This whole scenario is one of the lowest examples of pandering and abuse of power I have ever seen in the U.S.A. Politicians often forget that they too are under law, and in this case they felt they could do something “good” by overstepping the law. They don’t seem to care that the law they glibly hopped over (that is, the constitution) is what holds this country together legally, politically, and morally.
Posted by: Chops at March 22, 2005 01:11 PMStephen
This time I agree and in sync with this. I’m not sure I agree with the Michael Schiavo not allowing properly authorized and legitimate medical procedures that COULD POSSIBLY help.
I as a republican do think there is some grandstanding as well as some real heart felt compassion.
Yet to pass in this manner of starvation is torture and cruel,and even with this said we would punish people doing this to other humans.
I just find the method of killing Terri……it isn’t compassionate……cruel and inhumaine.
I don’t like it either, it is cruel. But due to the public’s distaste for Kevorkian and euthanasia, that’s not an option here. This is a real moral dilema, as much as I value life, there’s plenty to be said for quality of life. Sustaining her indefinitely in her state sounds as cruel to me at the moment.
Posted by: Taylor at March 22, 2005 01:22 PMI so appreciate Stephen Daughtery’s calm, educated, and thoughtful exegesis of the Schiavo tragedy. As a progressive, I can easily lean toward feelings of outrage at most on the radical right, particularly when they so clearly (in this case) are using a family tragedy for grandstanding. While I do feel these exact feelings in this case, I’m grateful to be reminded that the parents would almost certainly have chosen hope as their north star, and anyone who comes along dangling hope, regardless of its fallaciousness or political intention, would be welcomed. It is sad to think that hope would be tweaked and exploited for political ends so much that the parents remain in denial, and large portions of the populace remain misinformed.
For those who fear that Terri is going to suffer “starvation”, please remember that her brain is no longer a functional brain except in the most rudimentary way; as I understand it, the brain has atrophied and spinal fluid has replaced what was there. EEG’s show no brain behavior which indicate consciousness or presence.
Actually, when someone (with a fully functional brain) is dying, force-feeding can be painful. Many dying stop eating as systems shut down. And when someone is dying, there are drugs to stop pain. Add to this the reality that Terri’s brain cannot even register this experience.
Terri herself is gone but Terri’s body has not been allowed to follow. So no one should automatically buy into the radical right’s “framing” of this event as “murder” or “euthanasia”. “Being force-fed for 15 years” is closer to the reality.
So each of us should ask the question: if we were in Terri’s situation, who should be in charge of the decisions? What would you want (and “want” is not even an appropriate word, since wanting requires consciousness)? Should the state overrule your spouse, who knows you best and who has been there for years, and your doctors, who have prevailed with clear, true science at every turn? Should politicians decide your end-of-life fate, and should their motives be trusted? Should they be allowed to decide that you remain “undead” in perpetuity? Is death itself now “anti-American”?
If I were Michael Schiavo’s attorneys, I would bring suit against the Congress, which has practiced medicine without a license. It’s political malpractice.
Blessings to the soul of Terri Schiavo, to Michael and his new family, and to the Schindler family. May they all find peace. Now let’s all go and write our Living Wills, so we don’t have to fear this administration’s appalling overreaching any more than we already do.
I am very sad because what is being done to Terri Schiavo. From listening to everything I have heard about this case I see two problems. The first, and to me the biggest, is that her husband is able to say she wants to die with out any proof of this. I would prefer that the burden of proof to kill someone should be on the side of life. If Michael Schiavo can not prove his wife wanted to end her life then it should be saved. If however a legal document is produced than her wishes should be granted, even if I disagree with them. For me this is the issue, that her husband is allowed to kill Terri based only on his word.
The second issue is the question of what determines a state that we as a country say ok you are so injured that death is an option. Lets set aside the first issue and pretend Terri signed a legal document that said if she was a vegetable she would want to pass away. I think there is still problems here and to be honest I am not sure where I stand. I think everyone agrees that if someone is in a coma and needs a respirator to breathe and a feeding tube to eat then only machines are keeping them alive. I would in that instance have no problem with letting that person pass on. However Terri is conscious and can breathe by herself, she only needs assistance in eating and drinking. I agree that there is probably no hope of recovery. I agree that she probably doesn’t have the capacity to understand anything that is going on. But I feel that when it comes to life or death and the issue is gray that choosing life would be best.
I do not know what Terris wishes were. I do not know if she can recover. I do not know if she is suffering in the state she is in. All I know is that it seems so unjust to end her life because her husband said thats what she wants.
Posted by: scott at March 22, 2005 03:06 PMHowever Terri is conscious and can breathe by herself, she only needs assistance in eating and drinking.This is contrary to all medical opinion on the matter. Being conscious is more thn having open eyes. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 22, 2005 03:37 PM
LawnBoy - Her consciousness may be contrary to SOME medical opinions but not ALL.
Posted by: scott at March 22, 2005 03:49 PMOK, all medical opinions judged by courts to have weight (doesn’t count snap judgements by cardiac doctors-turned-politicians who had seen a few minutes of tape).
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 22, 2005 03:58 PMI personally dissagree with this lady being starved to death.
I disagree with all the politics that have been interjected into this case.
Please tell me how the origional judge could rule that the ‘HUSBAND” ?, could be deemed as looking out for his wife’s best interests when he has basicly married another, fathered several children, collected a gob of cash, and started a new life from day one ??
If Scott Peterson’s wife had been found “not quite dead” would you also think that he should deside to finish her off or not??
Posted by: Beagle at March 22, 2005 04:04 PMLawnboy - I see, all doctors who have a difference of opinion make snap judgments based purly on politics. Well I’m glad to see you have an open mind and can respect others with a different opinion.
Posted by: scott at March 22, 2005 04:11 PMNo, scott. I was referring specifically to Senator Frist. I can respect others who have an opinion, but he was grandstanding, misusing his title as a doctor to make a political point by “diagnosing” a patient he never saw in an area outside his expertise.
It wasn’t a broad brush, but I guess you missed the reference.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 22, 2005 04:18 PMI don’t care for the politic’s brought into this issue, but they have been and both sides of the isle will have to deal with it in 2006/2008.
How will the blue states deal with the issues?
“Bush is stupid” and most voters wanted her to be starved to death?
Will Howard Dean do a “I have a scream” speach and say “Yee Haw…pull the plug” ?
That will sell great in the heartland?
60/40 senate anyone ?
Posted by: Beagle at March 22, 2005 04:29 PMScott, it’s interesting that you find it acceptable to allow a person in a coma to pass on, but you think Terri should continue living. People in comas can recover and possibly have full control of their body and mind. Terri however can control neither of these and never will be able to.
Like I said, all those spectacular signs of life (which are not nearly as frequent as a clip of her makes it seem) are completely reflexive. While I suppose it’s a matter of opinion, I would not consider Terri’s state of existance as “living.” As such, I fail to see how choosing life is even possible at this point in time.
Posted by: Zeek at March 22, 2005 05:36 PMI just saw a picture of a woman getting arrested for trying to give Terri Schiavo a sip of water. The left must be so proud.
I hope his slam-piece is worth it.
I wonder if she lets him have a picture of her in their house?
Posted by: Peter at March 22, 2005 06:03 PMPeter,
Why the hate? What is a slam-piece? Why do you insult people you don’t know? Why the hate?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 22, 2005 06:07 PMHow can you say that she is brain dead when there have not been any CAT scans in over three years, and the ones before then only stated that she was brain damaged, not brain dead.
Posted by: Nostradamus at March 22, 2005 06:34 PMCan anyone explain to me how there can be a recovery from a cerebral cortex that is liquid and has been liquid for years?
You folks are seeking sympathy for a being that doesn’t exist anymore. The body you see on television isn’t Terri Schiavo. It is merely the left over container that once held the being that was Terri Schiavo.
Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2005 07:15 PMActually Nostradamus, the most recent CAT scans performed on Terri show that parts of her brain have atrophied and have been replaced by spinal fluid. We can equate this damage with being shot several times in the head, except there was no coup de grace for Terri.
And, as Dinah said, EEG’s show that all signs of life have dissappeared from Terri’s brain and her movements are resultant of her spinal cord which still sends signals to her body (and is why she can move, breath, have a heart beat etc.).
However, kudos to the Republicans for once again choosing a debate where they could claim “moral high-ground” with the masses and come out of this win-win. If the Democrats knew how to do this kind of thing they wouldn’t get their heads handed to them so often.
Posted by: Zeek at March 22, 2005 07:35 PMWhere was Mr. Bush and Congress when the 6 month old baby was taken off life support against the wishes of his mother?
Made legal BTW by the pen of then Gov. Bush.
Does anyone really know what her condition is like? I hear so many differing opinions. I like to listen to conservative talk radio every so often, usually to laugh, but on the Mike Reagan show, he had medical professionals on his show that said Terri can recognize her parents, she is able to make noises to let her parents know that she recognizes them. She can swallow her saliva. This is just to frustrating. I don’t see how a judge can make the call to starve her without even going in to see her. There is also a big difference between being on a feeding tube, and being intubated. If you have a discussion with your wife about your living will, it is hard to know if she wanted to stay alive with a feeding tube. I work in a hospital in the Nuclear Medicine department. Many of the scans that we do are on patients who are close to the end of their life. If the patient does not want to be “hooked up to a tube” to save their lives, they wear a wristband that says DNR DNI, which means Do not recessutate and intubate. Basically that says that they do not want to have a machine breathing for them. However, most of these patients are on feeding tubes. So when the husband says that they had this talk about how neither of them wanted to be hooked up to tubes to stay alive, it is to vague. I for one, would keep my wife alive if she could still recognize me, even if she was hooked up to a feeding tube. On the other hand, if my wife had to be hooked up to life support, and couldn’t breathe for herself, I would want them to pull the cord. It’s hard to trust the husband. Of course the conservatives make him out to be a horrible person, and the liberals say that he is just trying to live his life and move on. I just don’t know. From what I hear, the husband will benefit greatly financially if Terri dies, but who know if that’s true. Also what frustrates me is that Terri has not had any therapy in over three years. We do studies in the radiology department with a speech therapist where the therapist can really make some great progress with people who are in horrible condition. I am wondering if she could learn to swallow her own food with some therapy. Anyways, no one knows. Stephen, you try to describe her physical status, but what is frustrating is that other medical professionals disagree with what you have described, and some would agree with your description. Anyways, I don’t think I could really understand the situation untill I could see Terri and talk with all of the Dr’s taking care of her. So I really couldn’t make an educated decision, I don’t see how anyone else could either.
Since we are on the abortion topic, I agree with democrats on most things; health care, job creation, and finding a different fuel source. But I just don’t understand this issue. Most Dems seem to be pro-choice, and against the death penalty. That just seems like such a contradiction. I understand the arguement that it is a women’s choice. What about a women’s choice to keep her pants on, that’s her choice. If someone has sex, they know what the consequences for that decision might be. Of course you have the exceptions to the rule, rape and a mothers life being at risk. I’m sorry but I just don’t understand how taking an innocent life is OK. I can understand the arguement with the death penalty. Thank goodness we Have Harry Reid and other Dems who oppose abortion.
Ivan
Hes already moved on with his life. He is seeing another woman and already has had two children with her. Doesnt that sort of adultery dismiss him as being a “loving” husband? If my wife was to cheat on me, I doubt that I would let her make life and death decisions for me.
Posted by: Nostradamus at March 22, 2005 08:11 PMNostradamus,
You haven’t been brain damaged, laying in a bed for 15 years.
Two times before the courts have ordered the feeding tube removed, the last time in 2001. The tape you have seen of her is dated at that time.
This case has been in the courts for 7 years. Why does Congress have the urge to act now?
Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2005 09:51 PMBrain tissue doesn’t regrow the way most tissue does. Her Cerebrum is pretty much dead. That doesn’t mean she makes no respsonses. It means that the responses will be those controlled by the more reflexive and primitive parts of the brain. Blinking, response to (but not tracking of ) visual and audio stimuli, and involuntary vocalization can be among those things a person in her condition would be capable of. I think somebody said it right when they said there was nothing left to do therapy on. People have problems speaking straight without a functioning Broca’s area. She’s missing the entire part of the brain that would allow her to speak as one of us.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2005 10:54 PMI had’nt been aware of the recent CAT scans, my apology.
I am aware of the damage to the cerebrum and that fact that brain cells do not reanimate, regrow or reproduce. However, why is it that therapists state that they could improve her state if she is completely brain dead.
Does’nt the fact that the husband is already had two children and living with another woman raise any concern? Or that he wants the body cremated immediately afterward? Or that if the parents do win the case to reinstate the tube, that he has requested a eight hour waiting period in order to give him time to file an appeal?
Just a side not, how much morphine are they giving her?
Posted by: Nostradamus at March 22, 2005 11:56 PMDoes’nt the fact that the husband is already had two children and living with another woman raise any concern?
Legally, no. Morally, I’d have to know when the relationship started. If it was going on when Terri was still conscious, then I’d have more concern about his motives. If it didn’t start until years after her accident, then I can’t hold it against him. He accepted the reality of the situtation long before his in-laws, that’s all. But legally, I don’t think it matters.
Or that he wants the body cremated immediately afterward?I know nothing about this, but what does it really matter? Could you imagine the shrine her grave would be to those fighting now to keep her fed? I can think of many non-sinister reasons for that request.
It’s just sad how this man has been demonized by people who don’t know him at all.
Or that if the parents do win the case to reinstate the tube, that he has requested a eight hour waiting period in order to give him time to file an appeal?They’ve had years upon years of failed appeals, and you’d disparage him for wanting to appeal himself? Please. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 23, 2005 12:24 AM
When the police showed up to the house and saw Terri, they had reported it as an attemped homicide. Granted, police will make mistakes. But because of that information, many believe he’s hiding something.
It would remove alot of doubt from the political right if he’d allow an autopsy before the cremation.
Posted by: Nostradamus at March 23, 2005 01:38 AMNostradamus,
In the trials held previously, he was thoroughly investigated and the evidence found that those points against him were untrue.
Posted by: Rocky at March 23, 2005 07:17 AMNostradamus-
I think the better word for what’s happened to Terri Schiavo’s Cerebrum is not damage so much as destruction. The big mushroom of neural tissue that allows us to think, reflect, and consciously percieve the world, that we think of as the brain has been destroyed. Scans of her brain have shown the internal ventricles, normally quite small, expanded to about a quarter of the brain. That means there has been some massive atrophy.
But the cerebrum is not the only part of the brain. You have the cerebellum, the thalamus, the hypothalamus, and the brain stem. An injury can destroy the more advanced parts of the brain while preserving the more basal parts. But these parts are concerned with reflexive and life support function, not learning. Therapy involves physical rehabilitation, but its also a learning experience, so the loss of her higher brain function precludes the benefits of therapy.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2005 08:11 AMOn Monday’s edition of “All Things Considered”, Dr. Jay Wolfson, who was Terri Schiavo’s court-appointed guardian in 2003, described his experiences in trying to find ANY evidence that Terri’s alleged responses to her surroundings were anything more than non-conscious reflexive functions. He could find none.
He also talked of her parents’ and her siblings’ obsession with keeping her body alive at literally any cost.
The Schindlers have unfortunately deluded themselves for years that Terri Schiavo can somehow be brought back. They have refused to consider, much less believe, any evidence to the contrary, no matter how overwhelming and compelling. And it IS overwhelmng and compelling to anyone who is not similarly deluded.
The pain that the Schindlers have inflicted on themselves is, if terrible and pitiable, at least understandable, considering their need to believe that Terri is still there in more than ravaged body. From personal experience, I know that it is sometimes agonizing to know when our children’s need - and right - to not suffer further trumps our own need to not let go.
What is also transparently understandable, but morally despicable, is the Religious Right’s attempt to use Terri Schiavo and her parents as political pawns. “Terri’s Law” is nothing more than an attempt to establish a legal precedent for government intrusion in any personal and family decisions, no matter how painful and private, at the behest of politically-powerful religious activists.
Posted by: Robert Benjamin at March 23, 2005 01:04 PMI think we should just forward all other posts on the Terri Schiavo case to Robert’s post. Pretty much answers everything you need to hear.
Posted by: Zeek at March 24, 2005 10:48 PMThis whole thing has turned into a real circus with idiots on both sides arguing over
Irrelevant abstracts where is the science in all this Tom Delay said nothing has been done scans or other test. Bill First (heart Surgeon good thing he went into politics for his patients well being) said by looking at the tapes he could tell her condition was not irreversible. For what it cost Bush to fly back to sign the bill, that he now probably wishes he hadn’t, the best team of doctors could have preformed every test known to man and established that what court records show she died 15 years ago. Where are we going with this are they that many religious freaks out there to hijack the nation. I have Kidney cancer and believe me when I tell you I believe in God very much so and have given this a lot of though. You want a fact 2 years ago I filled up my car with $13.00
Today it cost me $21.50. That and funding medical research, China, social security the war and count less other issues are what Tom And Bill and party should be working on, but they are not smart enough or maybe it is because who is paying for there campaign they do not have balls enough to take on a real challenge.
