March 22, 2005
Where are the Conservatives?
The Terri Schiavo case has exploded into public consciousness in the last few days, as her parents’ state appeals were exhausted and Federal Government stepped into the controversy. The debate is essentially a question of whether “life” is more important than law, and whether the government should intervene to save a life. So, where are the Conservatives arguing against this intervention?
If the comments of certain visitors to this site are to be believed, liberals have a bloodlust to kill Terri Schiavo:
- I 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. - Peter
- Why is it the only time the liberials worry about the vaule of human life is when a murderer is about to be executed? - Ron Brown
- When the right tries to protect someone's rights, the left will try anything to sabotage it. - TheTraveler
- The left has a fit when someone tries to starve an animal to death. Are thier lives more important than Terri's? - TheTraveler
This attitude is extraordinary to me because this issue isn't being driven by a Democratic Party trying to kill someone. This issue is the result of a family disagreement that one part of the family took to court for years, and later took to Congress when the court said the law wasn't on their side. On this large scale, the Religious Right wing of the Republican party has taken the issue and made great show of trying to "save Terri," whatever Terri and her husband may have wanted.
So where are the Classical Conservatives, arguing that the Federal government has no right to interfere with the decisions of a state court on state law? Where are the Classical Conservatives, arguing that the Federal government has no right to interfere in a family decision? Where are the Conservatives saying that the law must be upheld and agreements between husband and wife honored?
I have talked to a close Conservative friend who is appalled at the governmental interference: "The thing that really pisses me off about the case is how the Republicans are being so F*****G Democratic." In his opinion, "using government to interfere with individual lives is supposed to be a leftist idea." Of course, I don't agree, but I do wonder why his voice is seemingly alone.
Has the Religious Right so completely taken over the Republican Party that distaste with government interference is no longer in the party? That now the Democratic Party will have to take on the ideas of protecting the people from the government? Have I just missed the Conservative voices against this interference? Is the Republican Party no longer Classically Conservative?
Posted by LawnBoy at March 22, 2005 06:59 PMIf the comments of certain visitors to this site are to be believed, liberals have a bloodlust to kill Terri Schiavo…
This attitude is extraordinary to me because this issue isn’t being driven by a Democratic Party trying to kill someone.
All Republicans are not conserative and all Democcrats are not liberal. As the congressional votes showed, this is not entirely about D v. R. That pretty much answers your whole post. I’m not a Republican, by the way.
So if it’s not “bloodlust” then why do they want her dead? Because the left refuses to be seen as agreeing with Bush or the right on any issue.
People who were in worse conditions than Terri’s have come out of it, and that’s good enough for me. But not for those of you on the left, because slamming conservatives is more important to you than her life. The very subject of this post bears that out. When the right tries to protect someone’s rights (or someone’s very life), the left will try anything and say anything to sabotage it.
Maybe the true conservatives are too busy focusing on more important issues. Like, gee, I dont know - Chinese foreign policy or the bankruptcy bill?
Posted by: Paul D at March 22, 2005 09:15 PMAll Republicans are not conserative and all Democcrats are not liberal.
Yes, that’s obvious. But where are the Conservatives? Their viewpoint isn’t being heard. Why not?
As the congressional votes showed, this is not entirely about D v. R. That pretty much answers your whole post.
Actually, it ignores pretty much every question I asked.
So if it’s not “bloodlust” then why do they want her dead?We don’t want her dead. We want the woman’s wishes to be honored and the law to be followed and the circus to be over. Her death is not the goal, respecting her wishes and following the law and ending a circus is the goal. The law and her wishes say that the pain should be over.
But not for those of you on the left, because slamming conservatives is more important to you than her life.Not really sure what you’re talking about, since the position you are slamming is a position to support the law and prevent government interference, which is a core Conservative position. Or maybe it’s just more important to you to slam liberals than it is to understand what I’ve actually said.
The very subject of this post bears that out.Since I’m actually agreeing with Conservatives and hoping their viewpoint is expressed, I have to assume you didn’t actually bother to read the post when you claim my primary goal is to slam Conservatives. Wanna try again?
When the right tries to protect someone’s rights (or someone’s very life), the left will try anything and say anything to sabotage it.Or perhaps the right is trying to sabotage protecting family rights and the medical wishes of a patient as they were expressed to her legal guardian.
Huh, it’s equally easy for me to irresponsibly misrepresent your position as it is for you to irresponsibly misrepresent mine. Would you look at that.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 22, 2005 09:58 PMMaybe the true conservatives are too busy focusing on more important issues. Like, gee, I dont know - Chinese foreign policy or the bankruptcy bill?I wish that all politicians were focusing on those important issues instead of taking an issue that belongs within a family (or at most within state courts) and literally making a federal issue of it.
Maybe they are focusing on what they see is more important, maybe they’re too cowed by party leadership and polling numbers, or maybe they’re just not around anymore. I don’t know.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 22, 2005 10:01 PMTheTraveler, I’m going to have to ask what case you’ve heard of where someone whose been worse off than Terri and “come out of it.” I would think a medical miracle like that would be internationally famous. I await your response :).
By the by, expanding on your point that, “All Republicans are not conserative and all Democcrats are not liberal,” I would like to point out that all conservatives are not wholly conservative (and the same goes for liberals). I mean, I’m not really decisively either (half my peers think I’m a neo-con while the other thinks I’m a flaming liberal), but I still think Terri should have her feeding tube removed. Does this mean that now I’m a liberal? If so I’m the first liberal Social Darwinist I know. Yipee!
Posted by: Zeek at March 22, 2005 10:03 PMI wish this administration had a China policy. Is China a rising threat? A strategic competitor? A strategic partner? Who knows. There certainly isn’t a concensus in the Bush administration.
I’d like to see true conservatives working on the national debt and conservationism too, but if there are any left, they’re kowtowing to the wackos.
Knowing I probably will not get a response in the Red column, thought I’d re-post this comment here. Apologies LawnBoy:
Blaine wrote:
Since dogs in the state get more humane treatment than Terri Schiavo, perhaps it would have been better to have the Florida State Police just put her out of her misery with a bullet. I’m sure that would please everyone: her husband, the judges, & all the compassionate people. Most of you seem to be compassionate toward Terri & her family, at least that is what you say.
I for one, am glad there is such petty, partisan bile like this being expressed openly by the Right, because it cements the image and negative opinion a majority of Americans now have of Bush and the Republicans, according to the latest polls.
I can argue the basic Conservative tenets violated here - against government intrusion, the right to privacy, respect for state’s rights - but I know I’d never get a defense on point, in this Red column thread. I can express outrage over bloggers from the Right now calling Democrats ‘killers’, only to find commenters here distancing themselves instead. I can point out the blatant distortions about Shiavio’s documented medical condition advanced by Bill Frist, Tom DeLay and the Conservative media, only to read a response of unsubstantiated lies presently circulating the Conservative Echo Chamber as the truth.
However, the Republicans will count this as a victory, because it pleased and energized their pro-Life base. Also good timing, after the RNC warned they could seriously lose their 32 seat margin in the House, come the 2006 Mid Terms.
And, they seriously believed this helps?
I’d just like to state that most conservatives in the “religious right” are idiots. I’m extremely religious, and I am a Constitutionalist. Congress, as far as I know, as well as the President, can intervene on this woman’s behalf to protect her LIFE. Her “wishes to die” are nothing more than a memory her husband “remembered” several years after the incident, then they want to STARVE THE WOMAN? God dangit, give her lethal injection.
Sorry folks, the Judicial Branch of the Government can be overrided by Congress. Go read the Constitution, there is no judicial factor in the checks and balances. Congress has almost complete control over the Supreme Court, it’s just a common misconception that the Courts are separate of Congress ever since John Marshall.
Posted by: Lance Adams at March 23, 2005 12:04 AMNo problem, Bert.
I think the reason they think it helps is that the symbolism and sound bites for the Religious Right on this issue are much more compelling than what we have. They’re advocating for “the life of a woman who is being starved by her philandering husband and can’t protect herself.” We’re advocating for the rule of law and the principles of individual rights and even states rights. There’s no way we can make our sound bites as emotionally compelling.
I am curious about the ideological foundations for a liberal perspective on this. I know how I stand, but I feel it’s for the ideals I’ve mentioned a few times in this thread, and I don’t feel they’re particularly liberal ideals. I mean, respecting states rights hasn’t exactly been at the top of the liberal ideological charts for the past few years. So, why do I agree with Al Franken and Think Progress and other liberals on the blog on this issue?
I listened to a bit of Michael Savage this evening while I was running errands, and he, of course, claimed that liberals are “death worshippers” salivating to kill this poor innocent girl (or something like that). Of course, Savage is a grandstanding idiotic blowhard, but there are people here who seem to agree with him.
As several people have noted, Democratic leadership supported the law to move this private matter into the Federal courts. So, the Democratic leadership either disagrees with my position or is basing its decision on political expediency. Also, the fact that Democratic members of Congress voted in favor of the law makes me really wonder where people like Savage and TheTraveler are coming from.
I actually understand my position on this issue more from a Classical Conservative perspective than from a liberal perspective, so I’m wondering if any other liberals out there see the same disconnect.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 23, 2005 12:13 AMHer “wishes to die” are nothing more than a memory her husband “remembered” several years after the incidentWhat is the basis for the claim? If this were true, I would think that at least one of the many legal challenges over the years would have found something credible in the claim. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 23, 2005 12:16 AM
This is about Republican political leverage, at bottom. People like Traveler are either accidentally or willfully ignorant of what a persistent vegetative state.
In either case, they should honor Ludwig Wittgenstein and not speak about things they do not know about. Of course, that’s true of Bill Frist (what’s the medical equivalent of barratry) and Tom DeLay (the equivalent of pot-calling-kettle whenever he speaks about ethics).
Face it, you far-righters:
Not just a majority of Republicans, but a majority of evangelical Christians want Frist and DeLay to BUTT OUT.
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2005/03/medical-equivalent-of-barratry.html
Posted by: Steve Snyder at March 23, 2005 01:33 AMThis is about Republican political leverage, at bottom. People like Traveler are either accidentally or willfully ignorant of what a persistent vegetative state.
In either case, they should honor Ludwig Wittgenstein and not speak about things they do not know about. Of course, that’s true of Bill Frist (what’s the medical equivalent of barratry) and Tom DeLay (the equivalent of pot-calling-kettle whenever he speaks about ethics).
Face it, you far-righters:
Not just a majority of Republicans, but a majority of evangelical Christians want Frist and DeLay to BUTT OUT.
Posted by: Steve Snyder at March 23, 2005 01:34 AMLawnBoy, there’s no disconnect. By the classic, and even the current definition of liberal, we don’t want the government in our private lives (fine print: caveats apply pertaining to the common good and the security of the country). We don’t want the government deciding who we can marry, what we can watch on TV, what we can read, what we can view on the internet, what we can say, and even which sexual positions we can use.
The government should not be making decisions that override the philisophical and ethical beliefs of individuals (again with the fine print). And that includes the definition of “life”, both before birth and after brain death.
The majority of Americans believe there are cases where abortion is acceptable, and cases where euthanasia is acceptable. We have a pretty good system now where those decisions are made by the individuals involved, their doctors, and the courts if it comes to that.
To have the ruling party of the federal government intervene in this case - circumventing judicial procedures, knowing that it would be futile, and just to cynically strengthen their position with the religious conservative minority - is morally shameful and most likely unconstitutional.
And the Democratic leadership didn’t take a position one way or the other. They left it up to individual lawmakers as to whether they would support it or not. 47 of 202 Democrats in the House did. The Senate passed the bill by voice vote “in a nearly empty chamber.”
BTW Lance, Mr. Schiavo produced two other witnesses to his wife’s wishes and it was good enough for a federal judge and a bunch of other courts over the last 7 years. And my understanding is that most of her brain is now liquid. I’m no doctor, Traveller, but I’d be surprised if you could recover from something like that.
LawnBoy,
I will contend, the reason you perceive yourself (along with the Democrats) on the shaky side of this issue - although a vast majority of Americans agree with you - is the Right’s ability to frame the issue, along with a complicit broadcast media anxious to perpetuate the controversy and great ratings.
Underneath the banner headlines, I read a balanced account in the print media, of the issues involved. On the cable news networks however, it was the same 24 hour/1 news story treatment similar to the Atlanta murders.
Here’s some interesting facts, I recently came across. In February, CNN lost 21% percent and MSNBC lost 18% percent of their audience, compared to the previous year - while Fox gained 15% percent. Last week, the most visited cable news website was MSNBC with 17 million visits, CNN next with 15 million and Fox News not even in the Top 5.
The distortions of DeLay and Frist are not challenged on air, yet there’s ample evidence to discredit them online.
Coincidence?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 23, 2005 02:03 AMI think the biggest split here isn’t left versus right. It’s the people versus the politicians. And what people are calling the “left” position is actually the mainstream position.
Check out this poll:
http://www.pollingreport.com/news.htm
If you look at the poll, overwhelming majorities say that:
1) her feeding tube should have been removed (following her husbands wishes)
2) it should not be reinserted for more appeals
3) Congress should not get involved
4) the politicians championing this case are interested in gaining political advantage, not helping Terri Schiavo.
So that is the vox populi. I’m not saying that should determine the outcome, but it is what it is.
Posted by: Woody Mena at March 23, 2005 08:26 AMThe Republicans can certainly count this as a win, because they have made it seem like they are trying to save a life. It’s hard to argue that Terri Schiavo is alive, even by the standards set by the Republican party (embryos). Her cerebral cortex is essentially mush, and she has no power of conscious thought. We need to accept the fact that Terri’s soul is already at rest, and that we are simply arguing about a body.
Posted by: Ransom at March 23, 2005 08:40 AMLawn Boy-
If you look in AP’s blog below you will see Jack saying he could not defend the decision. I also posted that this was nothing more than political “feel good” grandstanding and I think I have been proven correct. Craig stated that only because the bill was very narrowly defined was it acceptable, and as such the courts would (and did) make the right decision.
I’d say that the conservatives showed up on this one.
Posted by: George in SC at March 23, 2005 10:17 AMGeorge,
Thanks for your comment. I had missed Jack’s comment (although I would have guessed that I would find common ground on this issue with him) and wasn’t sure I could interpret your overall position from the grandstanding comment.
I guess there are a few Conservatives arguing as I would expect, but they’re just being drowned out.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 23, 2005 10:55 AMNo problem LB-
There certainly is a lot of noise on this one, but it’s also coming from both sides. I was listening to Air America this morning on the way to work, and I have to say their parody of the situation was in very poor taste.
Most of the people I talk here, including our token liberal (we take the duct tape off his mouth on occasion), really just want to understand the facts given all the misinformation. And once you get past the mother’s tears, Frist’s Senate floor medical practice, and Hannity’s “everyone who opposes this is a murdererâ€, you come to a couple of these facts that were determined long ago: She will not recover and she did not want to live this way.
Neither would I.
Posted by: George in SC at March 23, 2005 11:28 AMGeorge,
Air America isn’t broadcast where I am. What was the parody? Which show (I think it was too early for Franken)?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 23, 2005 11:31 AMA recent poll revealed that not only do most Democrats disagree with this, but so do most independents and conservatives as well by a smaller margin.
I think this highlights a fact that many conservatives and even a few liberals have trouble comprehending or admitting to: The horror of government interference in our lives is common to all parties. Republicans are not the only people who dislike a bloated bureaucracy, excessively restrictive laws, and invasions of privacy. Democrats object to this as well, though from a different angle.
What distinguishes the two are the things that will motivate this distaste for authoritarianism to come to the surface. With the Right, it’s been traditionally religion and rugged individualism. With the Left, it’s more secular, still concerned with individualism, but individualism as supported by society, and to some extent the government.
One could sum up the differences in political philosophy in terms of whether the support of the individual against the authorities and powers that be is active or passive.
Of course, there is always the impulse to control and dominate, and due to the complexity and perverseness of human nature, it can often be the folks claiming they love freedom best. I’d like to say my party doesn’t have those people, but that would be dishonest. We must search, as a people, for the fair balance between freedom and authority.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2005 11:41 AMIt was one of the Marc’s on the morning program.
Posted by: George in SC at March 23, 2005 12:08 PMSo if it’s not “bloodlust” then why do they want her dead?Because time after time the courts in Florida had ruled that Terri’s wishes were to be left to die in dignity.
People who were in worse conditions than Terri’s have come out of it, and that’s good enough for me.Really? “People” have had their brains regrow? Seriously? I’d love to see links/stories/a Readers Digest article/something! I’ll be axniously awaiting your links to the most amazing recoveries of all time.
Have you seen a CT? Do you honestly believe that doctors that live this are all in a vast conspiracy to kill this woman? Why do I think this is good enough for you, because that’s what those you do your thinking for you tell you to believe?
But not for those of you on the left, because slamming conservatives is more important to you than her life. The very subject of this post bears that out. When the right tries to protect someone’s rights (or someone’s very life), the left will try anything and say anything to sabotage it.
Terri’s rights are TRYING TO BE PROTECTED! But, you’d rather argue emotions and lunacy than facts and law. Well done. BTW lovely how Bush “errs on the side of life” here, but signs a law in 1999 that allows hospitals to pull the plug if patients can’t pay. Google “Sun Hudson” and tell me more about “the culture of life” that W proclaims.
Posted by: Rooster Cogburn at March 23, 2005 03:33 PMLefties like me don’t want to KILL her. We just want her own wishes to be carried out. Why is it that conservatives feel they have cornered the morality market with the “right-to-life” rhetoric, but have no problem supporting the death penalty? They are truly hypocrites. This case had painstakenly followed the legal channels for over ten years or more. Let her have her own wish. I will admit that I don’t like having her starve to death, but unfortunately, right-to-lifer’s won’t allow a euthenasia laws, whereby she could humanely be passed.
Posted by: tigerman at March 23, 2005 05:54 PMDo you have any proof that she wants to die besides her adulterer husbands words?
Posted by: Nostradamus at March 23, 2005 06:09 PMNostradamus, wrong question. Does anyone have any proof her husband is lying, and if so, why did they not present it to the court proceedings over the last decade? The courts believed there was sufficient evidence Michael was telling the truth and they certainly had access to all of the evidence that was put forth.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 23, 2005 06:17 PMNostradamus,
Why do you hate that man? It’s amazing the bile that is spewed for a man whose wife has been in a persistent vegetative state for fourteen years, who persevered eight years before accepting modical opinion that she wouldn’t recover, and has followed the legal process completely.
Your hatred seems to be based in part on his moving on with life, a healthy step that is completely understandable given that he has essentially been a widower for 14 years.
You dismiss him as an adulterer, but do you know anything about his situation? Do you know when the relationship started? Or do you just listen to too much Michael Savage?
BTW, he’s not the only witness saying she wouldn’t want this. Othershve testified to this as well, and when making the decision in the case, the trial judge took into account all of that testimony and additional evidence. As the Second District explained:
We note that the guardianship court’s original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo’s earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See � 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo’s values, personality, and her own decision-making process.Abstract Appeal Posted by: LawnBoy at March 23, 2005 06:35 PM
Sighs… Can’t we just get on to more important things like… eh… the Michael Jackson trial?
… [Pause for effect] …
Posted by: Zeek at March 23, 2005 06:36 PMIf it was the decision of buying a new car then I would take his word for it. But since its a human life, I need more then the husbands and a laywers word.
If he had wanted to move on with his life then he should have divorced her and married the woman he’s living with, then he wouldnt have to deal with the issue.
Do I understand the situation? Lets see, he claimed 7 years after the innitial hospitalization that she had wanted to die. And since then that’s about all he’s fought for.
To me that looks like he got tired of being married to a wife that can’t engage with him, so he looked for an escape route.
And of course I dismiss his word. He cheated on his wife. When you take the vows you take a covenant to stay with the other for better or for worse. If you break that bond, then I’m sorry, but your word now means nothing.
Posted by: Nostradamus at March 23, 2005 07:09 PM“Do I understand the situation? Lets see, he claimed 7 years after the innitial hospitalization that she had wanted to die. And since then that’s about all he’s fought for.”
I thought about that.
Maybe at first he couldn’t bring himself to fulfill her wishes. Maybe he believed she could be helped. They were doing everything to help her at first.
Maybe he finally came to the realization that the Terri he loved and married could not come back.
he should have divorced herI’m not sure that’s an option under Florida law. I think I saw somewhere that divorce was impossible because she wouldn’t be able to consent to it. Does anyone know?
And of course I dismiss his word. He cheated on his wife. When you take the vows you take a covenant to stay with the other for better or for worse. If you break that bond, then I’m sorry, but your word now means nothing.Well, at least we know that you consider yourself holier than him. Unfortunately, reality is a lot more difficult than the ideal of a perfect marriage you impose on a man who had been essentially widowed for five years. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 23, 2005 08:55 PM
I find the whole situation very disturbing. My father had a heart attack in Jan. 1980 and was declared brain dead. He was hooked up to life support for eleven days. We were not asked by the doctors to make a decision and did not have to, because on the eleventh day his heart just quit. We know his situation and that he would never recover.
I am a conservative Christian and I have not really wanted to talk about this. I believe on the one hand that the government should stay out of state decisions, but on the other hand I believe there is information about this case that has not been reviewed. I have heard on the news, the stories of nurses who worked with Terri and of their reports of her husband’s reactions to physical therapy. I also heard today about a well-known neurologist who believes Terri is not necessarily in a vegetative state. There are unanswered questions that will never be answered if she is allowed to die. What if her problem is not what it is reported to be by the court appointed doctors? What if we are killing a woman who can regain some of her life? Maybe not all, but some. I wouldn’t consider being a paraplegic as a good quality of life, but if I were a paraplegic I would no doubt want to live. I believe it is human nature to want to live, no matter in what state we exist.
I also worry about the precedent set by this case. Not necessarily the precedent of the federal government getting involved, but a move toward euthanasia. Is it possible to someday view older retired and sick people as a drain on society and just put them to sleep? What if a judge orders them to be put to sleep? Is that so illogical?
Blaine,
I think you should be much more concerned about the implications of the Sun Hudson case, in which a 6-month old was taken off life support against parental wishes partially due to an inability to pay for the care. This euthanization was a direct rule of a Texas state law signed by George W. Bush.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 23, 2005 09:58 PMBlaine, I have stated several times why every point you made in your second paragraph is faulty. If you have any interest in hearing why Terri is indeed in a vegetative state, read my other posts on the many other Terri Schiavo blogs on this website.
As to your third/final paragraph, the slippery-slop argument is especially ineffective here because of Terri’s unique condition. This may set a precedent, but only a precedent for euthanizing people that have a liquidated brain. I would not doubt that the public outcry would be unanimous and furious if older retired people were euthanized.
Posted by: Zeek at March 23, 2005 10:32 PMTerri does not have a liquidated brain, her brain has atrophied to such a degree that the majority of her brain cavity is now filled with fluid. (Just to be clear)
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-terri-schiavos-brain
I actually felt very conflicted about this case until I actually looked at the evidence presented to the courts. Michael Schiavo has said that he would give all the money to charity if Terri’s parents would drop their suit. Two other people testified as to Terri’s wishes (it’s not just a husband vs parents issue). And Terri’s brain is in bad, bad, bad shape.
If this had been left in the hands of God, Terri would have died naturally years ago.
It’s reinforced my belief that these cases should not be tried in the court of public opinion.
My other grandmother had clear wishes of “do not resucitate” when she went into the hospital. She believed God was ready to take her. Did she have a “culture of death”? No. She had a culture of faith.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at March 24, 2005 12:03 AMNostradamus-
You carry a fortune teller’s name. Did you know that under biblical law fortune-telling’s a crime? I guess we shouldn’t trust a thing you say…
…or maybe we should try and understand you first before we make snap judgments of your entire character.
Personally, I don’t blame the guy for moving on. Companionship is not limited to that which occurs between the sheets. Perhaps if you took that into account you might be able to take a more forgiving angle on things.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2005 12:12 AMRansom wrote:
The Republicans can certainly count this as a win, because they have made it seem like they are trying to save a life.
However, the image of the ‘life’ they’re attempting to manufacture is based on outright distortions and manipulations. One sees less images of her current state in the media, instead older pictures before her illness are being used, giving a false perception. Then there is the continuing parade of pro-Life advocates making false claims as to her current condition, and giving unsubstantiated prognoses of recovery, that go unchallenged by the media.
If this is the way this tragedy is being inaccurately framed, then Ransom you’re right, this is a victory for the Republicans.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 24, 2005 12:56 AMIn response to the author:
‘This issue is the result of a family disagreement that one part of the family took to court for years, and later took to Congress when the court said the law wasn’t on their side.’
So if I want to kill someone in my family because I can get life insurance - well thats my right no govt agency (ie the police) can interfere?
“Where are the Conservatives saying that the law must be upheld and agreements between husband and wife honored?”
I thought the vow said for better or worse? What happenend to enforcing the vow (ie the contract)?
The atrophied portion of Terri’s brain is the cerebrum the largest portion of the brain. This portion of the brain is also known as the higher brain. Here are the cerebrum’s four lobes and their functions.
Frontal Lobe- associated with reasoning, planning, parts of speech, movement, emotions, and problem solving
Parietal Lobe- associated with movement, orientation, recognition, perception of stimuli
Occipital Lobe- associated with visual processing
Temporal Lobe- associated with perception and recognition of auditory stimuli, memory, and speech
So, if these are the portions of the brain that have irreversible damage; how can there be rehabilitation? How can she recognize anything?
Posted by: chad at March 24, 2005 09:09 AMSo if I want to kill someone in my family because I can get life insurance - well thats my right no govt agency (ie the police) can interfere?Nope. This is a completely different situation. This isn’t murder for greed (although Mr. Schiavo has definitely been accused of that). This is a right-to-die case involving the expressed wishes of someone who later ended up in a persistence vegetative state. The analogy is meaningless.
I thought the vow said for better or worse? What happenend to enforcing the vow (ie the contract)?I personally haven’t seen the video of their wedding, so I don’t know what their vows were. Could you send me a copy?
It’s not for you or me to judge whether upholding her wishes about this medical condition would follow the vows more than denying her wishes and keep her indefinitely in a state with practically no chance of improvement.
Anyway, the vows aren’t legally binding, unlike, say, decisions about medical care made by the legal guardian.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2005 10:13 AMGeorge in SC
And once you get past the mother’s tears, Frist’s Senate floor medical practice, and Hannity’s “everyone who opposes this is a murdererâ€, you come to a couple of these facts that were determined long ago: She will not recover and she did not want to live this way.
Neither would I.
You say facts. I would hope never to have you in my jury. As to weather you would like to live this way. You can?t know until you get there.
Zeek
I would not doubt that the public outcry would be unanimous and furious if older retired people were euthanized
We will probably find out in 2040 when the work tax may be 25 to 30 percent.
Julia
My other grandmother had clear wishes of “do not resucitate” when she went into the hospital. She believed God was ready to take her. Did she have a “culture of death”? No. She had a culture of faith.
What does resucitate mean? Is Teri being resucitated. All she needs now is water then food.
What about the nurse who said she follows her around the room with her eyes, smiles and has said something like mama, pain, hi, love?
What about the nurse who said she filled a police report against michael?
What about the nurse who said she follows her around the room with her eyes, smiles and has said something like mama, pain, hi, love?
Many (though not all) doctors involved in the case say that those signs of awareness are misleading. Supposedly, they show evidence of lower brain functions that have nothing to do with actual consciousness. Check out this analysis of the different positions.
What about the nurse who said she filled a police report against michael?What about her? Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2005 10:50 AM
I think this thread pretty much proves that the left is filled with hypocrites. Oh, don’t get me wrong, the right looks horribly inconsistent too, but there’s a fine difference.
It’s one thing for right wingers to make a claim that this case is exceptional and to say that it therefore falls out of their normal philosophy. Its quite another for the left to all of a sudden embrace states’ rights, individual autonomy over government, and the supremacy of state courts in the face of about five decades of the contrary. The former case reflects a “this situation is different” attitude, the latter reflects a “say anything to get our way” attitude.
I don’t particularly think Terri has any chance of getting out of her state of being or even improving marginaly. Vegitatively persistent states are just that.
But I don’t think you folks on the left know how ghoulish you look in this effort, or how ironic it is to see the party that “defends those who can not defend themselves” positively ripple with glee as this woman inches closer to death.
You have no idea how this will swell the ranks of the religious conservatives. All opinion dynamics ignore the power that the right will get from the images provided by the left. When campaign adds start flying showing protestors applauding and cheering at what is, in essence, bad news for Schiavo, this situation will be revealed as the huge political blunder for the left that it was.
I’m a libertarian conservative. I have reservations about “the right” and its positions on this case, but the way the left, even moderate democrats, have handled this was, plainly spoken, stupid. It is not enough to choose the popular side, you have to take that side in a way that does not reveal an ugly underbelly. At the moment, you cats look like a Time’s Square new years eve crowd, anxiously counting down the seconds to Terminal Midnight with what almost appears to be an attitude of excitement.
Not very smart.
Posted by: Damon at March 24, 2005 11:56 AMDamon,
Who is “positively rippl(ing) with glee”? I just don’t see where this comes from. No one in Democratic leadership is calling for Terri’s head (and no one even voted against the congressional overreach this weekend), so who are the liberals leading the charge and being so disgusting? Am I just missing it?
Both parties have had “states’ rights, individual autonomy over government, and the supremacy of state courts” in their agendas for decades. For Republicans, those arguments come to the front in economic and some religious issues. For Democrats, those arguments come to the front for social, sexual, and some family issues. This case is consistent.
So where’s the hypocracy, and who’s leading it? I just don’t see it.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2005 12:11 PMIn response to Nostradamus,
Terri’s husband was not the only witness that testified about her wish NOT to remain in such a state. Two other witnesses claimed that they heard her say the same thing that her husband is claiming. During years of litigation, these witnesses helped the courts arrive at their decision. It’s not that anyone is in favor of death. It just that why can’t we abide by her verbal living will? She specifically asked not to be kept alive to be a burden to everyone. I would feel the same way about myself.
I was just as guilty for leaping to conclusions. When my sister and I discussed this, I had bought into the arguments that Michael was financially motivated, and a jerk. Of course, I got this info from the parents website. Then I actually bothered to READ THE DETAILS ON THE CASE COURT DOCUMENTS.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
The court said that it found that Michael AND Terri’s parents had financial motivations, so neither could represent her wishes. The court represented her wishes and heard all arguments on her behalf. It heard the claims of the nurses, and found them blatantly false.
Just read the court transcript and make up your own mind if it was handled correctly.
But don’t continue to malign the character of Terri’s husband until you know the facts of the case.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at March 24, 2005 02:18 PMLet me go.
It’s my soul. My essence. My “I”. This body, this ‘life’ on this earth, is finite. The life of my soul is eternal.
Let me go.
By what right do you hold me here in anguish, pain, and powerlessness? I did not express in writing or sign any document that said I wanted to spend my final days? or weeks? or years in suffering.
I am not afraid that the flame of my essence will be extinguished with the death of this body. I believe in the eternal nature of my soul. Do not bind it to this failed body, this cage, this tortuous prison.
Let me go.
Perhaps some would choose to stay. Perhaps they fear the judgment of their god, and would prefer this torture to the punishment they fear. Perhaps they fear that they would truly cease to exist, and prefer this pain to put off extinction. Perhaps they would choose willingly to suffer in order to arouse compassion in others. A compassion, perhaps, that might move our society to alleviate such suffering.
But that is not my purpose. I would have told you if it were so.
Neither do I fear the life after this. My creator loves me, and gave me a life that is not dependant on this broken shell.
Let me go.
I have a right to life. The life of my soul. No one can deprive me of it. It is my liberty you constrain by trapping me here.
It is torture for me. You are kinder to animals and murderers. What have I done to deserve this from you?
Let me go. If you cannot find the com[passion, the tools, or the strength to assist me in my escape from this terrible prison, at least stop propping up the walls. Do not extend my sentence in the name of your fear.
I have no voice. Speak for me.
Let me go.
Forget the trolls. When you read everything, it doesn’t seem that either of the parties are financially driven. In the end, I think it comes down to who has the final say: The parents (or in-laws), the husband, or the state. The law said, with appropriate small print, the husband. The in-laws can be forgiven for wanting to have the say and doing everything they can to do so. The Bushes and Congress changing the law for their own expediency is inexcusable. Her brain is dead and being replaced with fluid. Let her pass.
Per today’s Chicago Tribune:
The close relationship between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo broke down in 1993, shortly after the malpractice settlement. Michael Schiavo claims that Bob Schindler asked for a share of the money. The Schindlers say their son-in-law stopped rehabilitation efforts and blocked them from seeing their daughter.
But court records from that period, when the Schindlers first attempted to have Michael Schiavo removed as their daughter’s guardian, do not indicate neglect.
John Pecarek, a Largo, Fla., attorney, served as Terri Schiavo’s first independent guardian in 1994 when the Schindlers first sought to have Michael Schiavo removed as his wife’s guardian. On Feb. 17 of that year, he said in his report to the court that Terri Schiavo’s husband reportedly brought nurses to tears as he berated them for not taking better care of his wife.
“Although I have concluded that Mr. Schiavo is a nursing home administrator’s nightmare,” the report stated, “I believe the ward gets more care and attention from the staff at Sabal Palms as a result of Mr. Schiavo’s advocacy and complaining on her behalf.”
Wolfson says the nursing home even tried to get a restraining order against Michael Schiavo.
“He’d come in and, if her hair hadn’t been combed or there was any urine smell in the room, he would go nuts,” Wolfson said.
Reached Wednesday, Pecarek said: “In my opinion, he was doing a great job for his wife.”
To hold and to cherish, for better or worse,
in sickness and in health, till death do us part.
These words still mean something, to some
of us.
Traveler, you say: “People who were in worse conditions than Terri’s have come out of it, and that’s good enough for me.”
I sincerely doubt that as Ms. Schiavo’s cerebral cortex has dissolved. It’s liquid. It will not reverse itself. She will never get any better.
Aside from that, this is such a transparent attempt to politically capitalize on this tragedy, it’s sickening. GWB signed a right-to-die bill when he was governor of Texas, so where does this concern for life come from, all of a suddden? Can you say “hypocrits”?
Posted by: Lyn at March 24, 2005 06:54 PMJake: Terri died in 1990, only the body lives on. Are you saying that Michael must continue to keep the body alive to meet his marital obligation?
Posted by: Dave at March 24, 2005 09:26 PMJake-
You assume much about Michael’s character. Do you want to take the chance in the world to come that you have judged hims so, and he turns out to be more Godly man than you?
You don’t have to like that he’s in an unmarried relationship with another woman, but we are all sinners, and only God knows who the better among us really are.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2005 09:37 PM
What we do here will matter. A promise made
in front of our creator is not something to
take lightly. The price to pay is up to him
Do you want to find out the hard way. He is
pretty fair and just, but his sense of humor
has no bounds. Just listen to the ones on this
page. They know all, and nothing, at the same
time.
Husband, in-laws once were united in caring for Terri
In 2000, despite conceding their daughter’s persistent vegetative state, the Schindlers said they still believed she knew when they were there. When Felos, Michael Schiavo’s lawyer, asked Bob Schindler if he thought Terri would be tormented by her current state, he replied ”Yes,” but added, “she’s not that cognizant to be aware of it.”
Posted by: Julia at March 25, 2005 12:10 AM
Cut and paste all you like. The basic fact
of the matter remains in front of your nose.
A contract sworn in front of your creator is
in effect until your released from it. The
one who you answer to in the end will decide
how you get to work it out. Like I said before
his sense of humor has no bounds.
Look at the nonsense on this site.
This 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.
Seytay, good point. The abstracts actually do document what tests have been done, and there have been a lot. successive CT scans date from 1996-2002. The doctors uniformly agreed that Terri’s brain had atrophied 70-90%.
Posted by: Julia at March 25, 2005 02:04 AM
Let’s see.
Who’s next? The expert doctors decree your not
worth keeping around anymore either. O well,
too bad. Goodby. Is this how you really want
it to play out? Think again, wake up. Once
the courts get involved in deciding who is
worth keeping alive, your life will be worth
all of 5cents.
The right to murder unborns law opened Pandora’s
box. And all you so so smart ones never saw it coming? Why, you opened the door for just this.
Now suck it up.
Jake,
Actually the Florida courts aren’t deciding who’s “worth” keeping alive. They are weighing in on two issues. The first is the likelihood of recovery, and the pro-life doctors offered no evidence to corroborate their views that Terri could recover. (not one proven case study) The other issue the court weighed was whether or not Terri would choose to be removed from all forms of life support in the condition that she is in. They found that she would have chosen to do so.
Really, the only thing that is arguable here is whether or not oral evidence should be allowed to indicate what someone’s wishes are. Michael’s guardianship has nothing to do with the judges ruling. If the judge believed the oral arguments that Terri would wish to live, then Michael would have to abide by his decision.
The only case law that I know of that allows the courts to decide who should live and who should die without knowing the person’s wishes and against the desires of their family, is the law created by Bush and the Republicans in Texas.
That’s a whole different issue to argue.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at March 25, 2005 03:48 AMPredispositions to the Terri Schiavo case have caused Florida and federal judges not to consider the national consequences of this case. This case is not just about Terri but also about the growing concern that there is no sufficient means to protect the basic rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) of American citizens. Terri has become a symbol of the vulnerability of the American people to a system of jurisprudence that ignores the basic rights of its people in favor of personal legal preferences that constrain any sense of humanity and compassion. What can the people of this nation expect from a judicial system that would willingly stand by and watch one of its citizens die without exhausting every possible means to spare that person’s life. We, the people of the United States of America, deserve to have every consideration fully examined before a rush to a previous judgment based on questionable evidence. We want to know that no evidence has been ignored and that all evidence is properly considered for the sake of our basic rights. If our faith in the judicial system is to continue, then the courts must demonstrate a sensitivity to the needs of the people it represents. Both houses of the legislature and the presidency have responded appropriately in seeking a national review of the Schiavo case. The Supreme Court has grievously erred in determining not to consider the needs of the people of this nation. If Terri dies, there will be a time of great national mourning. We would mourn her death and the loss of our confidence that our judicial system, headed by the Supreme Court, is able to faithfully perform its duties to promote, to the fullest extent, liberty and justice for all.
Posted by: iamcitizen at March 25, 2005 05:31 AMiamcitizen-
The price of the Government being able to use extraordinary means to work on our behalf is that these means can be repurposed for less noble ends. Congress can use the precent of Terri’s law to save their special interest pals from prosecution or civil case defeats. Certain powers are off limits to congress not because good could not be done with them, but because uncontainable evil would proceed from their liberty to operate in such ways.
I think you underestimate and misjudge the quality of Michael Schiavo’s case. You may not like-in fact may hate-the outcome of the cases, but they have been decided again and again under the law, and not even the Supreme Court, which is majority Republican, has seen fit to knock its quality.
I would rather have a case lost on the law, in some way that I hate, than have a case I love won on questionable grounds. First, the process is what keeps the cases on the whole straight. Mess with that, and you end up with a lot of evil done to the framework, for the limited good it does. Second, any victory based on questionable premises is a victory built on quicksand. It is not enough to fight for good, we must preserve it, and the balances that maintain it.
Jake-
I do not underestimate the importance of keeping our promises to God. I also do not underestimate the value of following the example of Jesus, who protected the adulteress from stoning, and told his followers to exhibit the mercy that he promised to them to others. It’s not our job to pass such judgments, or to save the world from sin. Jesus has both ends of that covered.
If Joseph had been as zealous as you in condemning adultery, we might be short a savior, as the punishment for what Joseph thought had gotten Mary with child was death by stoning. Had Joseph judged Mary on the terms of her covenant to God without full understanding or wisdom of her situation, the results would have been tragic.
God is not lacking in humor, true enough, but also not lacking in mercy and understanding, two qualities that can be lacking in those who presume to judge in this world, rather than let God do it in the next. We need to let go of our sins and encourage others to do the same, rather than taking the hopeless position that those who fail God, or appear to fail him to our fallible eyes, are incapable of being part of his kingdom.
On this Good Friday, I suggest Christians remember that Christ forgave those who mocked and tortured him, even in all the pain. If a Christ who was fully man could do that, we can too. Let us not be the ones who, having had our debt forgiven, fail to forgive others theirs.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2005 12:16 PMJulia, LawnBoy, Tigerman, Stephen, et al:
You are wasting your time.
You are trying to have a rational discussion with people who, regardless of overwhelming evidence, “know” that Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state, that she can recover, that her death by starvation will be “exruciating”, that Michael Schiavo CANNOT have her best interests at heart, and a host of other facts-that-aren’t.
Those who are on the other side “know” that any evidence that contradicts what THEY “know” must be invalid. Wny? Because when evidence contradicts Truth, Truth always trumps evidence.
They will not listen to anything you say. They CANNOT listen to anything you say. You are threatening everything they believe about the universe, everything that they desperately need to hold onto.
Posted by: Robert Benjamin at March 25, 2005 01:51 PMRobert-
Public Opinion is not a monolithic thing. We can exploit the cracks in the other side’s arguments and perhaps convince a few people we thought were dead set in their opinion. Besides, sometimes you just got to speak your peace for the benefit of the spectators in the debate, so that you win with them. We cannot let them have the monopoly simply because they stubbornly insist on their views.
Stephen,
Generally speaking, you are right when you say that public opinion is not a monolithic thing. The opinion of the public on many issues often changes as information is shared and openly discussed.
However, those to whom I was referring in my previous posting do not represent this segment of public opinion. They represent not a social or economic class, but a psychological class - people to whom nothing is as terrifying as doubt and uncertainty.
One thing I have noticed about people who are TRULY “strong in their faith” and the foot soldiers in the “Save Terri” is that the former can stand up to doubt, uncertainty, and evidence with both moral courage and intellectual integrity. I simply do not see any of that true strength in the latter.
Instead, I see people whose psychological wholeness depends entirely on unquestioned beliefs. They are intensely, personally threatened by anything that pressures them to question what they believe.
That is why they reflexively and angrily reject any evidence unless it positively confirms their beliefs. If it does not do so, it is irrelevant. If it actually contradicts their beliefs, that fact alone proves it must not be considered, much less accepted.
Posted by: Robert Benjamin at March 25, 2005 04:36 PM“in 1992, Schiavo had filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against two doctors who had been treating his wife before she was stricken. Late that year came a settlement: Schiavo received $300,000 for loss of consortium - his wife’s companionship. Another $700,000 was ordered for Terri’s care”
OOH such a lot of moneyain’t it!
and this:
Despite the row over money, Schiavo and the Schindlers agreed on one major point in the 2000 testimony: the extent of Terri’s brain damage, according to additional court documents cited by The Miami Herald. In the documents, Pamela Campbell, then the Schindlers’ lawyer, told the court that “we do not doubt that she’s in a persistent vegetative state.” Campbell could not be reached to confirm the statement.
At this point, however, the gulf between Schiavo and the Schindlers could not be bridged.
“On Feb. 14, 1993, this amicable relationship between the parties was severed,” Greer wrote. “While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler.”
How sad that this is what it really is al about Mom and Dad didn’t get any money. They have already admitted that she is in a persistant vegetative state.
Something to think about!
I found this from a link from Yahoo.
To read the whole article go to Yahoo news and then to USA Today. then go down to the article it is lower on the page.Sorry I can’t seem to get the link to here.
Robert-
The implication of non-monolithic thought is that people are persuadable, even those folks who have set themselves up as Terri Schiavo’s defenders. Short of that, though, there are plenty of people, for whom a good awareness of the facts and a compelling argument could be all that’s needed for a change of heart. Some of these people present similar faces to the more radical adversaries, repeating what the folks they trust say, but they will present more of an opportunity for persuasion.
Stephen,
Then we should focus on identifying and coommunicating with those who are capable of considering viewpoints other than their own. We should not waste our time trying to communicate with those who are incapable of rational discussion and beyond the reach of evidence. As you can see from the previous discussions, many of both are out there.
Posted by: Robert Benjamin at March 25, 2005 09:30 PMRobert-
How do you know in advance, though, who is unpersuadable? People aren’t assembled automatons, they are grown human beings, and that means that there are years worth of experience, thought, and emotion that we have little or no advance knowledge of. We may not even discover them after the fact! But importantly, They can individualize people’s response to events in a way we cannot predict.
When we start deciding that there are certain people beyond persuasion, or worse, unworthy of the efforts of persuasion, we start losing the opportunities inherent in a non-partisan approach to public discourse.
We make ourselves predictable, aloof opponents. If the other side successfully appeals beyond their circle of absolute loyalties, they gain ground on us.
We must not bask in the glow of our self-righteousness, congratulating ourselves that we have it all figured out, and that we need not communicate what we at heart believe beyond ourselves.
We must be understanding and effective advocates of what we know to be right, not just correct in our facts and analysis, but eloquent in our presentation. Truth plus eloquence equals the power to change people’s minds and keep them persuaded thereafter.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2005 07:59 AMStephen,
This is an admirable and generous view of human nature. But as indicated by the kind of responses you have already gotten from many participants on this forum, I think it is unrealistic.
Truth (which I assume you mean that which is based on factual evidence, not “Truths” that ignore or contradict evidence) plus eloquence MAY have the power to change people’s minds and keep them persuaded thereafter. But we delude ourselves if we do not recognize that many on the extreme right (or left) have conditioned themselves (or have been successfully indoctrinated) to deny evidence that conflicts with their truth, no matter how incontrovertible we think it is or how eloquently we present it.
You are right when you say we CANNOT know who is and who is not like this in advance. People like this are not always evident on first glance. You can only know them by the inverse relationship between the amount of factual evidence and eloquence you present to them and the hostility with which they treat both. It is only the demonstrated obsessiveness of their ideas and beliefs that make me walk away from further dealings with them
A French Nazi named Darquier de Pellepoix once responded to the statement that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were a forgery by saying, “It does not matter that they are a forgery. It is the vision that counts.”
To people locked into unquestionable “truths”, whether based on secular ideologies or fundamentalist theologies, your truth, i.e. evidence and mine, and all of the eloquence we can muster to support them, rarely matter. It is their vision that counts. The odds against success are too long, and I have too many other things to do try to communicate with every such damaged mind.
Posted by: Robert Benjamin at March 26, 2005 04:00 PMRobert-
The brain is an organ known for making long odds short. Even those that put up a fight can find their the ground shifted beneath them on an argument if it’s eloquent enough, and based on good enough evidence. I think people, given enough evidence, start getting a different feeling about things, if the spin and the facts don’t add up to the same thing. It’s frustratingly slow sometimes, but it works.
We got to be persistent though, and not expect that the first exchange is going to get things all the way. People are gradually coming over to our way of seeing things. You just got to be patient.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2005 10:31 PM
