March 24, 2005
Err on the Side of Life
I think that George Bush’s recent signing of the bill concerning Terri Schiavo and his comments that we should “err on the side of life” are both accurate representations of what government should be doing. Going back to John Locke, the father of classical liberalism, which in many respects is the same as modern conservatism, government’s job was to protect life, liberty, and property. These were the only functions of government. It is therefore appropriate that the government chose to intervene in this instance.
Liberals are upset and feel that the government should not be involved in matters of life and death, yet the government is involved in these types of things everyday. These same liberals who picket outside of prisons where someone is about to be executed, these same liberals who concern themselves with whales or dolphins who have beached themselves, are the same ones who could care less when a human life is at stake. They show great concern for convicted murderers about to go to the gas chamber, but show little if any concern for a women who is going to slowly starve to death, all because she has a selfish husband who no longer wants to be burdened with her.
The liberals are the ones who believe that government should use its power in a positive way to help a person bring about their full potential. Is Terri Schiavo's full potential to be starved to death through a slow, painful process? I do not think so. I believe that this case shows that the left in America is as morally bankrupt as we all believed them to be. But, after all they are the people who support abortion on demand. I just never thought that it applied to aborting those who are already born.
The federal courts have also done their part in contributing to this great injustice. Those vaunted judges who listen to the inane appeals of those sentenced to die, have now twice denied the re-insertion of Terri's feeding tube, because they do not see merit in the arguments of her parents. Have they taken testimony themselves? NO! This is not an instance where you can sit back and wait for judges to hold a lengthy trial and then make a decision . Terri might be dead by then. The judges should do as George Bush suggested and "err on the side of life."
Any and all mention of Michael Schiavo is a feeble attempt at diverting attention from the real issue. The fact is that, “erring on the side of life,” is no longer an option. Terri is dead. Get over it.
Posted by: Zeek at March 24, 2005 10:31 PMZeek
Terri is responsive to stimulus. SHE IS NOT DEAD!!! There are many examples of people being in a comatose state for many years and then come out of the comatose state and begin to function. Not overnight, of course. But after a short period of rehab and therapy. They many times get some normalcy in their life. Starving a person to death is barbaric, inhumane and evil. By the way she does have a heart beat and she breathes on her own; how can you declare that she is dead.
Zeek
Also Michael may be her legal husband in Florida. But I’ll bet that even Florida has laws where if one person in a marriage deserts the other then there is grounds for that marriage to no longer exist. Michael has deserted Terri and taken up residence with another woman who is now considered his common law wife, making Michael a bigamist.
With the recent death of a six month old child in Texas, after the doctors pulled the plug against the mothers wishes, a law signed by then Gov. Bush himself, it would appear that we should “err on the side of life”, only when it is politicaly expedient.
Posted by: Rocky at March 24, 2005 10:59 PMI’m too lazy to rewrite another response, so I’m just copy/pasting a post by Robert:
“On 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.”
Stop spreading misinformation and read all the data before you draw conclusions:
http://abstractappeal.com/
Abstract of the courts opinions on the likelihood of Terri recovering, and whether or not the doctors involved in the case were credible or not:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt
This is not a liberal/conservative issue. It’s the issue of the facts of the case. Every case is different. You need to understand the case before you can make a decision.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at March 24, 2005 11:31 PM“Liberals are upset and feel that the government should not be involved in matters of life and death…”
Personally, I do think the government should have been involved. I just don’t agree with you on which government. The government in Florida was heavily involved, and rightly so. The federal government had no business getting involved.
As for the “injustice” of the judges, it was never any judge’s decision as to whether Terri should be kept alive. The judges (both state and federal) have been called upon to answer one question — who has the right to determine Terri’s fate. In each case, they have determined that her husband has that right. No judge could claim that right for himself, as there is no basis in law for him to do so.
The law stands clear, and the judges have upheld it. Like it or not, Terri Schiavo’s husband has the authority and burden of making this decision. We might disagree with it (which I do), but I disagree with lots of decisions people make. That doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to make them.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at March 24, 2005 11:34 PMRegardless how tactless he was, Zeek does have a point. I submit that while Mrs. Shiavo has been responsive to stimulus, according to doctors, that little of a response has been persistent for 15 years. I am sympathetic to the family of having to endure Mrs. Shiavo’s catastrophic heart attack, but also having to deal with a barely responsive daughter they love and with do anything to protect as any parent should.
However, that’s not even the issue with regard to Congress’ and President Bush’s attempt to snatch jurisdiction from the State of Florida. In my non-attorney mind, I see this is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution by moving jurisdiction from Florida to U.S. courts flatly stepping on state’s rights.
Not once, not twice, but now three times has the Supreme Court refused certiorari in the case. With the number of state and federal judges who have ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo one can field the starters for a football game.
This is merely a social and religious conservative attempt to utter the words ‘right to life’ without saying ‘abortion’ in the same sentence. It’s political grandstanding with utter disregard for the emotions of this family. The family sees any attempt by the Republican base in government to help, no matter how weak or symbolic, as hope only for that hope to be stripped away by the courts.
The legal recourse has been exhausted. Gov. Jeb Bush’s behavior has been reprehensable. Mrs. Shiavo, who I understand to have been a warm, loving individual, is no longer with us. Her body lives only through medical assistance, and her soul is trapped inside it. Let her soul rest and move on to fill another body and fill another family with love.
Posted by: Rich at March 24, 2005 11:52 PMThe only problem with your article Nathan is that there has been no error. If there was a chance of error, then erring on the side of life makes sense. But, conclusive evidence has been reviewed many times by the courts, even Jeb Bush’s own appointee to independently assess Terri’s abilities and legal proceedings agreed, there is no sign of consciousness nor awareness and all of the legal matters have been handled appropriately and above board.
So there was no error, hence the possible circumstance of erring on the side of life or death has not existed. Bush was placating his right to life constituents and lobbyists as were so many Congresspersons who had not reviewed all the evidence and case history, which of course, they should have before trying to play Democrats and usurping state’s rights.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2005 12:44 AMNathan,
Us Democrats are grateful for such petty displays of partisan indictment, which obviously stem from the Right’s perception of defeat, rather than anger over Schiavo’s fate. And, I can only hope the hypocrisy of those allegedly showing a compassionate respect for the ‘culture of life’ - who are then calling Democrats ‘killers’ and ‘murderers’ - is not lost on the American people.
Although, while you’re focusing such vile condemnations at the Democrats, you fail to realize that the vast majority of Americans who agree with them, might take offense as well.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 25, 2005 02:57 AMI am glad to see you have gotten the GOP talking points on this. Remember to emphasize those Democrats who voted against this. Mention God and Morality too. Show clips of what’s-her-name and her mother everytime you do an interview.
With Luck, the Republicans can gain more seats in 2006. Keep up the pressure!!! After this, the RNC will find another poor soul to squeeze blood out of.
Posted by: Aldous at March 25, 2005 03:18 AMThe congress acted correctly. They can limit the courts scope of power. They tried to do that, but the state circuit court defied that. Time is of the essence. Had there been more time then the Congress could enforce their will. It is the 11th hour. And too many people are trying to ursurp power and authority. The bottom line is Michael will get over $1M when Terri dies. Therefore he wants her to die and wants nobody else in the picture. It is greed and money. For shame!!!
Posted by: Tom at March 25, 2005 04:52 AMI don’t really understand why the Bush Brothers just won’t ignore the Courts entirely and use Executive Authority to force Terri to stay alive. Could it be the Polls that say 2/3 of Americans are against it? Shame on Bush for letting Polls dictate his Decisions. For Shame!!!
Posted by: Aldous at March 25, 2005 05:06 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 05:26 AMAldous, I heard some Christian leader on CNN last night saying Jeb should take custody of Mrs. Schiavo and if it sparks a constitutional crisis, “so be it.”
There are a lot of people who are genuinely concerned about Mrs. Schiavo’s fate, but many in leadership positions like that are cynically trying to use that family’s tragedy to push their agenda. When Tom DeLay says that tragedy is “a gift from God” for the GOP, you know where he stands.
Nathan, you may be truly concerned about the Schiavo family’s tragedy, but your article is so pointedly partisan that it makes you look cynical. To think the man who mocked Karla Faye Tucker before pulling the lever is interested in “a culture of life” is just wacko.
If liberals picketed outside the death chambers where Gov. Bush - cackling with glee - executed hundreds of people, at least their representatives in Congress were wise enough not to gut the Constitution in the throws of cynically idealistic passion to “save” them - and oh yeah, shore up the base while they were at it.
iamcitizen
I might add to your posting, which I agree whole heartedly, that the public must stop judges from being legislators. Just intrepret the law, do not make law. We have elected leaders to enact law. All hell would break loose if the legislatures were to try to be judges and interpret the law. And rightly so.
Nathan -
I have to disagree with some of your basic premises. Your article is a very liberal piece. It sees the government as a protector and guarantor of rights. What I would consider to be the truly conservative position is that the government exists to enact and carry out laws as the representatives of the people, from whom power eminates. In this case, they have jeopordized all the people by ignoring that law. The new law that they made was illegitimate because it abbrogates our constitution.
When the highest standard of law in our land is no longer respected, we have truly become a liberal country. I’m not using that word as an insult, but rather in keeping with the philosophy that government should do what it considers best to help people; that is a liberal/socialist philosophy. A conservative philosophy is indeed “meaner” - it sees all people as being below the law, and refuses to go above that law even for a good cause.
Posted by: Chops at March 25, 2005 08:27 AMNathan
Your posting shows your ignorance of the case.
If you would educate yourself on the FACTS you would learn.
A) There was a TRIAL to determine the appropriate course of action — to determine what TERRI’s WISHES would have been.
BOTH sides were allowed to present evidence, medical records, etc. 5 medical experts testified, 2 for the husband, 2 for the parents and 1 appointed by the court. — The result was that the COURT ruled that the evidence was compelling and overwhelming that removing the life-support was in keeping with with Terri’s wishes. — essentially the COURT ruled as a guardian (at the behest of the husband) that life-support be removed.
That ruling has been reviewed over and over and over with the same results EVERY TIME.
2) The Money that the husband and Terri recieved from the lawsuit is more than likely used up by now for the medical bills and the legal proceedings forced by the parents, I doubt if there is any money left to be greedy about — as you accuse.
3) The courts, and any and all investigations into the treatment of Terri have shown that she has, and continues to have the highest standard of care. She has no skin lesions or sores, she has no wounds or abrasions, she was of a healthy weight — if you had EVERY had ANY experience with bed-ridden people, or even paraplegics you would know that for someone to be in her state for as many years, and not have had any amputations due to complications, or other signs of inactivity related medical issues is testimony to the highest level of care she has received.
4) The husband has been offered either 1 million or 10 million dollars to walk away (depending on who you believe) and has refused to do so — so he is greedy eh? — for what?
5) Those you label as being incompassionate for this woman — “liberals” “democrats” etc — ARE compassionate for this woman — A Buddist priest noted that Terri is now stuck between living and dying, not able to do either — in this condition her soul may be trapped and unable to move forward in its jouney — let her go — allow her to move on to the next reward. Attempting to interfere with that journey only brings pain and suffering — and just look at the pain and suffering caused by Terri’s parents in their efforts to artifically sustain a “life” that is really no longer there.
Which leads me to an intersting contradiction by the religious right — they constantly talk about going to one’s reward, that the dying have gone to a “better place” of peace and harmony — yet won’t allow someone the freedom to “go to their reward”.
6) All the medical evidence indicates that Terri’s cerebral cortex no longer exists — it has liquified and turned to fluid — among the medical experts the only arguement is whether the cortex is totally gone, or if there is a pea size amount left (less than what is needed to have ANY human cognitive function) in fact most of her brain cavity is filled with fluid, not brain matter. — There is nothing there to restore.
This DOES point to the need for a Living Will —
If you want everything done, regardless of the prognosis — then you can express that ahead of time
— If you are appalled at the thought of being kept alive in Terri’s state — then express that wish — to be allowed to die in dignity and in keeping with your own wishes.
If you TRUELY believe in a “better place” why do you fear allowing someone to move there?
Russ
Nathan Melton,
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,contain the primary sensory cortex which controls sensation (touch, pressure). Behind the primary sensory cortex is a large association area that controls fine sensation (judgment of texture, weight, size, shape).
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? The only movements her body can do are reflex movements. You asked,”Is Terri Schiavo’s full potential to be starved to death through a slow, painful process?”. Yes, starving to death for you and I would be a very long and painful process. But, Terri doesn’t feel anything, as she fades her body reacts to the situation. She will look like she is miserable but, she can’t feel anything. And if she can respond to stimuli and she can feel the pain she would resond as her old nurse said she can do. Unless of course she is a lier. Also, to call Micheal Schiavo an evil man is just wrong. He has taken the Dr.’s advice and moved on. What would you do if everybody that is professionally trained in brain functions and potential rehabilitation said for 15 years your wife is brain dead and will not recover? Would you beleive them or, would you ask your priest and other religious leaders if she is goig to be ok. They would know I mean they read the Bible.
Do you believe in what our courts hand down to us, the laws they pass and the constitution our government upholds? If so, why blame them for doing their job. You said “I believe that this case shows that the left in America is as morally bankrupt as we all believed them to be”. Morally bankrupt please, just because the supreme court is the only branch that seperates church from state doesn’t make them morally bankrupt. Where do you get your morals from? From inside or were you taught your morals from your local pastor? Would you like another religious based law forced upon a religiously free scociety? Checks and balances.
Posted by: chad at March 25, 2005 09:36 AMTerri wants to live…. and she wants to vote Democrat.
Posted by: Taylor at March 25, 2005 09:53 AMIt’s difficult, if not impossible, to follow the logic of conservative arguments for “saving life” when conservatives overwhelmingly support the death penalty.
Liberals do not invoke the “sanctity of life” when opposing capital punishment. Their arguments rely on gross imperfections in the judicial system. It’s a pity that conservatives, in their efforts to save Schaivo, cannot see that this might be an issue where both sides can agree. But conservatives will not go there because they would then have to as zealously oppose the death penalty as they do the removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tubes.
It sickens me to take part in this circus, but let me just say that the amount of distortion the right is throwing on this case is amazing. Terri can “talk,” she is “lucid,” she is in a “coma.” Lies.
Most astonishingly, the American People see through it all. It’s practically an 80% oppose, 20% support issue. Even though this whole affair is disgusting, at least it’s helping liberals by making the modern GOP look like the crazy power-grabbers they are.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 25, 2005 10:06 AMLast night Terri’s sister and brother were being interviewed…
It was pointed out that because of their Catholic beliefs they could not ‘pull the plug’.
Then it was asked, ‘In keeping with your beliefs, if you knew yourself that Terri would not have wanted to live this way would you follow her wishes and let her die?’ (Greta)
The answer, after trying to avoid it, was something like this… ‘If Terri had it in writing, and signed her name to it, we would follow her wishes.’
How many people have these living wills?
How many 15 years ago?
How many of us have discussed what we would want with our loved ones but never put it in writing? I know I have and don’t.
I am Terri’s age now. I have discussed this with my husband and parents but don’t recall discussing it with my brothers and sister.
Apparently Michael’s grandmother was put on a ventilator against her wishes. She was then removed from it and passed away. After the funeral is when the discussion happened where Terri said she would not want to be kept alive by life support. Apparently Terri’s family did not make it to the funeral and missed the discussion. That doesn’t mean it didn’t take place.
They may also have discussed what they would/should do with the rest of their lives if either of them were to die or become as ill as Terri.
I hope that if my husband and I end up in a situation like this, we are not judged by the whole country, either for or against our choices.
Terri is responsive to stimulus.
Tom, read the evidence at http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt. The link goes to the court documents concerning this exact issue. The majority medical opinion disagrees with you.
But I’ll bet that even Florida has laws where if one person in a marriage deserts the other then there is grounds for that marriage to no longer exist.I’m sure you’ll lose that bet, considering that the case has gone through over 20 appeals, and none of the appeals have agreed with that opinion.
Michael has deserted Terri and taken up residence with another woman who is now considered his common law wife, making Michael a bigamist.Florida is not a common law marriage state: unmarried.org. So, your claims are inaccurate. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2005 10:09 AM
Lawnboy
It is not material that there is or is not a Florida law concerning common law. Michael is shacking up with a woman who is not his wife. The trial never got to whether he was shacking up with that other woman. He deserted his wife by shacking up with another woman. The Dr. Cheshire checked Terri for 90 minutes and reviewed the records. He had Terri roll over on her side and stimulated her back. She responded immediately. The judges would not allow a number of doctors to enter into the record their findings. This whole thing is so evil and sick. Earlier Michael was asked if Terri had a living will. Michael responded that he did not know. He was asked if he knew what her choices were and he responded he did not know. All the revelation of Terri’s choices became known after the million dollar judgement. Then Michael shut off the treatment, therapy, and rehab of Terri. He wanted her to die so that the money would become his.
It is not material that there is or is not a Florida law concerning common law.
Now we’re to the heart of the matter. The law is immaterial in a legal matter. The only thing that matters is Tom’s opinion.
Why’d we waste all that time training lawyers and defining laws? We should just ask Tom.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2005 10:48 AMLawnboy
I have resources for knowledge that is not in my brain. Send those folks around if they need any information.
Tom,
Then provide the information. Earlier, I asked you for specific sources for information, and you responded with Various news agencies have reported this as news as well as interviews have given same testimony. Why would I send anyone to you for information when you refuse to cite anything other than your opinion? When you saw the law doesn’t matter when you disagree with it?
The trial never got to whether he was shacking up with that other woman.Do you have a source?
He deserted his wife by shacking up with another woman.That’s your definition of desertion. Is it the legal definition?
The Dr. Cheshire checked Terri for 90 minutes and reviewed the records. He had Terri roll over on her side and stimulated her back. She responded immediately.Do you have a source? Was the response proven to be a higher brain function and not a reflex?
The judges would not allow a number of doctors to enter into the record their findings.Do you have a source? Do you know if testimony from doctors on the other side were also disallowed?
This whole thing is so evil and sick.At least you’re staying rational about the discussion and not casting emotional aspersions.
Earlier Michael was asked if Terri had a living will. Michael responded that he did not know. He was asked if he knew what her choices were and he responded he did not know.Do you have a source?
All the revelation of Terri’s choices became known after the million dollar judgement.Do you know that? All you know is that the request to the court came years after the judgement, but you don’t know what was said in private or what precipitated the request. BTW, I don’t know either. Also, the courts found that the Schindlers also have a possible financial motive for their fight. Can I can them evil, too?
Then Michael shut off the treatment, therapy, and rehab of Terri. He wanted her to die so that the money would become his.How do you know his motive? You don’t. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2005 11:13 AM
Tom,
You said “All the revelation of Terri’s choices became known after the million dollar judgement. Then Michael shut off the treatment, therapy, and rehab of Terri. He wanted her to die so that the money would become his.” Uhhhhhhhh where did you get that.
Michael has said that if the parents gave up the fight and let her die, he would give all the money to charity. But, he’s moniterily motivated to kill her.
You also said “There are many examples of people being in a comatose state for many years and then come out of the comatose state and begin to function.” She’s not comatose she’s brain dead. Big difference one, brain activity the other, dead portions of the brain. Your right though there are a few examples of rehab working. Find one Dr. who’s willing to say an atrophied brain can heal and the owner will come back to normal; and i’ll show you a Dr. of theology. Because it would be a prayer and not be based on any factual information.
Posted by: chad at March 25, 2005 11:15 AMIt occurs to me that the Schindler strategy only makes sense in arguing agains Terri’s wishes. The validity of the Schindler’s case changes little if you take the issue of recoverability out of the equation, and just focus on the shakiness of Terri’s oral living will. In fact, that would have been a much less controversial but more effective legislative effort- to rewrite the laws concerning living wills to make the standard stricter.
However, people on Schindler’s side are playing this up as a matter of a homicidal, cheating husband, trying to kill a woman who might otherwise recover, this despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
In effect, they are both rejecting and stipulating her wishes, arguing that she did not want to be taken off life support, and that even if she didn’t want to be stuck on life support, she could recover, so it wouldn’t be an issue what she wished.
Instead of going through legal channels, the supporters of the Schindlers have spared little effort to trash the laws and the legal system when it suited their purpose. They speak of the Christian nature of what they’re doing, but that is hard to reconcile with all the accusations and revilements flung out, with the contempt that side has shown for their opponents. As a Christian myself, I have found their willingness to spread innuendo, pass judgment, pour out hatred and their contempt for the legal system deeply disquieting. If what they were saying was true, they would not need to put on a media circus, nor treat their adversaries so badly, they could simply state their case, and the nature of it would speak for them.
I think a case is most powerful when it can be stripped down to the facts and presented calmly, and yet still retain the power to outrage people at an injustice. I get wary when people resort to moral bludgeoning and emotional blackmail to get their point across.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2005 11:27 AMChad and Lawnboy
There are many sources. Court records, personal interviews, news reports, and the events as they unfold. For example, the congress on C-SPAN. The link cited earlier for court documents is only one source.
Stephen,
Very well put. Could you repost that as a featured article? :)
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2005 11:31 AMVery nice, Tom. You make wild accusations. When we ask to know what on earth you are talking about, you put the responsibility on us to research your claims. That’s not how debate typically works.
You’ll win very few arguments with this refusal to support your own claims.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2005 11:33 AMChops,
The argument is a classical liberalism argument not a modern liberalism argument. John Locke, the father of classical liberalism, stated that government’s job was to protect life, liberty, and property. It seems to me that in this case the government is doing the right thing by intervening to protect the life of Terri.
Posted by: Nathan Melton at March 25, 2005 11:34 AMI wanted to thank everyone for their comments. This is my first post on watchblog. I think that debate between differing ideologies and opinions is healthy for America and I wish that more people could engage in civil debate, rather than getting offended or upset.
Posted by: Nathan Melton at March 25, 2005 11:39 AMWelcome to the Blog, Nathan Melton.
It is now up to Bush to overrule the Courts and save Terri. All who wish to urge him on can email him or call.
Posted by: Aldous at March 25, 2005 11:59 AMTom,
I watch the news too but, I don’t sentance people to hell and damnation because of some slanted accusation on a news channel. I wish it was that easy. We as people had inter-active T.V’s where we choose life or death for all the people who piss us off on T.V. Think of it the new coliseum, your couch. GOD TOM TV. I’d watch.
Posted by: chad at March 25, 2005 12:01 PMIt’s difficult, if not impossible, to follow the logic of conservative arguments for “saving life” when conservatives overwhelmingly support the death penalty…
SKCOMM - Please be honest and don’t try to tell us you are unable to grasp the distinction between the taking of an innocent life such as a preborn infant or someone on a feeding tube and a convicted death row killer - no matter which side of the issue you are on. That is one of the least sensible and compelling arguements that can be made.
It is precisely because of the belief that life is sacred that most Americans favor the ‘ultimate price’ be required of those taking an innocent life.
John in Iowa,
Much of the debate about the death penalty focuses on the innacuracy and mistakes made by the courts. The contradiction in the Republican argument is as follows:
President Bush said: “if there is error to be made, let be in favor of life”
However, so far 119 people on death row have been exonerated. Seems like plenty of error to me. If error and the fallability of the courts are at issue, there is a problem reconciling Bush’s stand on the death penalty and this case.
To be more specific:
“I’m confident,” he said last February, “that every person that has been put to death in Texas under my watch has been guilty of the crime charged, and has had full access to the courts.”
That defense of the record ignores many notorious examples of unfairness in Texas death penalty cases. Lawyers have been under the influence of cocaine during the trial, or been drunk or asleep. One court dismissed a complaint about a lawyer who slept through a trial with the comment that courts are not “obligated to either constantly monitor trial counsel’s wakefulness or endeavor to wake counsel should he fall asleep.”source
It is hypocritical to argue that the courts are perfect when pushing for the death penalty, wherein the state actually kills people and it is a practical certainty that some of those people have been innocent, but to argue that they are radically wrong when they disagree with him.
Posted by: brian at March 25, 2005 02:06 PM@Rich: Sorry for being tactless, but I’m getting sick of saying the exact same crap to the exact same people on the exact same subject over and over again.
@everyone:
I’m guessing that a majority of the people that want Terri to continue “living” are “pro-life” and subsequently Christian. Christians believe in heaven no? So, what, you all want to go to heaven but you don’t want to die to get there? Just let Terri pass into whatever afterlife there may be; it’s surely better than what she’s got going for her in this life.
To have a successful life here on earth one must have a level of physical, mental and spiritual that he can be at peace with. If any component is not at that level,then there is a failure to understand life and all that it has to offer no matter what the conditions are. No one can offer the advice to let go of this life to accept the life hereafter. There is purpose for all of us to influence others whatever the lot of themselves or others is at any given time.
Posted by: Tom at March 25, 2005 05:09 PMIt has bothered me all through this that the media repeatedly shows video and photos of Terri from 2001 and 2002, leading Tom and many others like him to believe Terri is cognitive. Julia correctly leads us to the court abstract of November 2002 (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt) where the reasonble conclusion of all evidence presented to the court, and this includes viewing all the videotape evidence in context(as opposed to 5 second news clips) is that Terri was in a “persistent vegetative state”. And all this was over two years ago! It is no wonder to me that courts today could not reach a different conclusion. I have yet to see any current video or photos that would suggest that her condition is even at the same level as before. People are profoundly influenced by images and the media’s distortion of Terri’s current condition is, IMHO, a huge driver of the belief she is still “living” at some cognitive level. In reality Terri is dead as a human, existing only as living tissue. Let her pass in peace and let the media find another way to misrepresent facts and fuel their ratings.
Posted by: David Green at March 25, 2005 05:56 PMTo all for death:
Please inform me where I can go or what books to read or what schools to attend to become so friggin’ cynical. You people are pathetic. Please don’t respond I’ve read all your above comments, not everything is political. This chills me to the core. How can one kill hope? God help us all.
P.S. It’s called empathy not sympathy. There is a big difference.
Posted by: tim at March 25, 2005 09:15 PMTo all for death
I think you’re on the wrong board. There are people here in support of respecting the legal process, but no one has expressed a preference for death.
Or maybe you’re just too friggin’ cynical.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2005 10:01 PMDemocrats suck !!
Nice.
You people are pathetic.
Hmm…
Jack, what were you saying about hate? These comments aren’t even directed at policy or public figures.
Hello Everyone, both those with whom I agree and disagree.
As to the remark “Democrats suck!” I would like to point out that there are those on either side of the political spectrum which will sometimes get so sick of trying to make up their minds about a given subject that they resort to verbal vomit. But as we all know, vomit only causes those exposed to it to be revolted.
If at any time any of us feel wordy bile beginning to rise, it would be best to take some Pepto and walk away until we can answer once again with reason.
Posted by: Evangelyn at March 26, 2005 10:51 AMSKCOMM - Please be honest and don’t try to tell us you are unable to grasp the distinction between the taking of an innocent life such as a preborn infant or someone on a feeding tube and a convicted death row killer - no matter which side of the issue you are on.
I always thought life was life, that all lives are equally valuable. That is doesn’t matter who you are: your life is sacred. Are you telling me that is not the case?
SKComm
skcomm, I somehow doubt you hold animal life in the same esteem as human life. But wait, I thought you said a life was a life right? Didn’t you say that, “all lives are equally valuable?” So, shouldn’t you be one of those liberal tree-hugging PETA hippies?
(My point here obviously is that not all lives are equal depending on your point of view)
Posted by: Zeek at March 26, 2005 11:17 AMHere is a a link to an interesting article on this topic by Orson Scott Card.
Posted by: Nathan Melton at March 26, 2005 02:51 PMNathan Melton
Thank you for the link to Orson Scott Card. If this whole process were to have been a jury trial, I would be willing to bet that the feeding tube whould not have been removed. Instead George and George saw to it that murder is the better option. I lost a relative who was thirteen years old to medula blastoma. As a resident of Colorado his parents sought to get him the best care. They could at many times just had him killed, but they allowed a natural progression and he died without judicial intervention. Again thank you Nathan for that compassionate article.
How arrogant so many are! It amazes me that anyone can presume to determine the value of someone elses life (Be it Terri’s life, that of an unborn baby or anyone else). That is beside the fact that we are having to take someone else’s word for what Terri wanted. I personally would not want to live in her place, but to legislate against life, is unspeakable. Every person on this earth has the right to live every second God has determined for them. Any sort of legislation would put social pressure on them to ease the burden of their life on their family, therefore making them feel it necessary to end their life. Each and every one of us is going to reach this crossroad at some point. None of us know for certain how we will feel. This is in no way, shape, or form a positive thing. What has happened to so deaden the conscience of so many?
Posted by: Sue Meador at March 26, 2005 05:42 PMNathan-
I had disagreed with everything you had posted so far, until the link to the Orson Scott Card article. It seems to me that Card has the right idea. All life is precious and should be protected under the law regardless of the circumstance, be they criminals, the unborn, terminal patients.
That being said, can we find this tolerable as a nation? Can we accept the fiscal responsibility to pay for the incarceration and rehabilitation of the foulest criminals? Can we accept the possibility of unspeakable abuse upon unwanted children at the hands their unloving parents? Can we tell a living, cognizant person in unbearable pain that they have to live until nature takes it course?
It’s easy to make broad moral judgments, “All life is precious”. It’s just as easy to justify special circumstance “Terri isn’t cognizant, we should allow her to die”.
Personally it strikes me as interesting the way that liberal and conservatives are approaching this subject. Liberals should be taking the position “Terri didn’t want to be kept alive artificially, and her doctors give no chance of recovery, she should be allowed to die the way she wanted to.” Conservatives should be taking the position “Medical science cannot say for sure that she won’t be able to be rehabilitated, and her parents are willing to foot the bill, let her live”.
All things being equal, and even after reading and agreeing in principle with the Card article, I find it hard to justify allowing Terri to live in her condition, if not for the near miraculous abilities of medical science she would have died 15 years ago, and according to her husband, she would not want this. Her relatives have not been able to provide any credible evidence other than that she was raised Catholic and Catholics believe in sustaining life.
If I may be so bold to add, if Terri were not a human, but a beloved family pet, they would have had her humanely put down with no suffering to her, and with the comforting fact to them that at least they did the right thing, and didn?t let her suffer. (Disclaimer) I am in no way comparing Terri to an animal and am only making the analogy to show the hypocrisy of man.
Sue, you (as well as a few other people) tend to raise the point that the government has little business evaluating the worth of someone’s life. To this, I whole-heartedly agree. You also point out that every person has the right to live every second God has given them. To this, I also whole-heartedly agree.
However, I disagree that either of these beliefs is a basis for keeping Terri Schiavo as she is now. This is mainly because of my belief that God gave Terri life, and that life ended 14 years ago. Modern science kept her breathing for 14 joyless years hence, and so we have this cadaver on our hands that has been infused with life-like properties through what I find to be a sick perversion of medicine.
Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s wonderful that modern medicine can/does save so many lives and improves the over-all quality of life. Still, it has been misused in this particular case and instead of improving life it has made a mockery of it.
Posted by: Zeek at March 27, 2005 12:19 AMSo who decides the standards by which we live or die? Just because the individual cannot lift their hand to put a spoon or cup to their mouth does not set a standard. Just because the individual cannot convey by voice their thoughts does not set a standard. We can go on and on about what a standard should be and society could not come up with a viable standard. So let God be God and quit playing around trying to figure him out. Quit trying to decide that God would want this or that when nobody knows. Let nature take its course.
Posted by: Tom at March 27, 2005 12:37 AMThere seems to be a great deal of confusion on the part of those wishing for Terri Schiavo to be put back on life support (forced feeding). The whole issue does not revolve around whether anyone on this board believes her life has value or whether she is still “alive” or not. The only salient moral issue is Terri’s autonomy, which she can no longer protect herself. That autonomy has been entrusted to her husband, who, as far as I can tell, has faithfully fought for her both to ensure her recovery when that was still a possibility and for her expressed right to die when it became futile. I find it highly unlikely that over the years this has been held up in court that a massive conspiracy has taken place against Terri, a conspiracy that would involve most judges, most physicians, and most of the affiliated personnel. The few random folks who are trotted out by the Schindlers seem unconvincing, especially since they have had numerous opportunities to sway the courts over the years. The Schindlers have even released video tape of Terri, grossly violating her privacy, whereas Michael has refused to do so, even though court documents show that unedited video would provide ample evidence of her lack of cognitive response. But again, it’s not about that.
The tragedy is that, like me, many of you are expending enormous time and energy on this one pathetic, heartbreaking case, and ignoring the thousands of children who die from starvation and disease every day across the world, children who are innocent, vital, and recoverable, children who could be saved by the massive economic might of the US population. Where are our values that some of us express such outrage at this case, but we see no such outrage at the ongoing carnage throughout the world? This misplacement of attention and interest is not Christian by any stretch of the imagnination and seems like manipulation via the press.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at March 27, 2005 03:17 AMFrom Tom, “Let nature take its course.”
Exactly. Just let Terri die already.
Posted by: Zeek at March 27, 2005 12:20 PMZeek
I am not sure what you mean “Just let Terri die already.” She is not dead she breathes on her own without mechanical assistance. Likewise her heart is beating without mechanical assistance. She is approaching death because of dehydration and starvation mandated by judges with an agenda.
I completely agree with Bill (Although I am disappointed about Cards claims against Michael, which I think are completely false according to the evidence)
I’ve spent most of my time here arguing with individuals over Terri’s condition, and Michael’s “evilness” which most people get wrong. But the core issue is as Bill said, an argument between a husband who believes Terri wouldn’t want intervention in order to continue her life, and her parents who are willing to care for her, and believe that Terri would want to continue to live at all costs.
Mr. Schiavo said the primary reason he won’t allow that to happen is because he believes that her parents will do anything to prevent her from dying, including open heart surgery, if necesarry (which appears to be true).
There was an interesting article yesterday in the L.A. times about Edwarda O’Bara who has lived in this condition for 35 years, under her mother’s care (her mother wakes every 2 hours, in order to properly turn her daughter and prevent bedsores).
Mrs. O’Bara proves that you can indefinitely continue care for someone in this condition, and the costs can run under $20K a year (although if you charged for Mrs. O’Baras services it would be about $60K a year). You need a full time caregiver, who does nothing but care for the ill person, in a case of this severity. (preferably 2) If you want rehabilitation, you need 3 full-time individuals (with little likelihood of improvement). And it’s likely that you’d need them for the next 20 years. (or longer).
All of this, and the only communication you recieve is what you feel might be a smile directed at you, or an occasional directed moan. (Far different than Mr. Card’s child, who clearly interacted with his surroundings).
Mrs. O’Bara should clearly be commended for her dedication to her daughter, yet if you go to her website http://www.edwardaobara.com , you’ll see she that it is growing more difficult for her to financially bear this burden, and she needs your donations to continue this level of care. (And if you feel strongly about this, then I suggest you help her out).
I don’t claim to know what’s best. Personally, I feel that these decisions should be left to the families, and when they disagree, then the courts should adjudicate. However, I do think that laws can be wrong, and if we feel that they are wrong, then we should dedicate our efforts to changing the law.
The issue here, is that if the evidence shows that there is 99.9999% certainty that there will be no recovery, and the oral testimony is conflicting about the person’s wishes (although the veracity of the testimony indicates an individual would probably NOT want their life prolonged in this condition) should we still err on the side of caution and continue care indefinitely? Should that also mean, that we do ALL that is possible to save the individuals life, including heart surgery, amputation, and kidney surgery?
In addition, since this care almost always must be paid by the state, should the state pay for this type of aggressive care?
Because, let’s not be naive, there are children today who do not get life-saving transplants because they cannot afford them, and the state isn’t required to pay for them. We are making choices all the time about who gets care and who doesn’t. And yes, that includes the felon who recieved a heart transplant, ahead of law-abiding individuals:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/18/BA46334.DTL
So, I bring this up as the start of a dialogue, and not to put forth my opinion on the matter.
Julia
Julia
You say that most people get it wrong about Michael’s evilness. What then do you call person who deserts his wife for a woman who he lives with and has children with and stops paying for Terri’s care after he is awarded a million dollar settlement with the stipulation that the money goes for her test, therapy, rehab, and so on? Trustworthy? Truthful? Responsible? Loving? Kind? Scoundrel? Self-centered? Hedonistic? He waits seven years to tell anybody about her wishes. The chronology of the situation does not add up to Michael being honest and faitful.
Tom,
Once again, you present loaded interpretations of disputed facts without any supporting evidence as though your interpretations were facts themselves. Doesn’t it get tiring to have so much hate when there are reasonable explanations for everything you find hateful?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2005 08:47 PMJulia, fine thinking went into your comments above.
A couple things come to mind. What if it was Terri’s parents wanting to remove the tubes and Michael insisting on her body remaining alive as long as possible and he received an annuity for as long as she lived. What would the right to lifer’s position be then? What would there arguments then look like? It is always kinda fun to put the shoe on the other foot in personal debates of this kind.
As you said, our society and the medical and insurance industries play god everyday of the year regarding who can afford to live and who must die. As you rightly pointed out, there are economics to living and dying. In some tribes a century and a half ago, the elderly decided for themselves when it was time to go to their ancestors and they would leave the tribe alone and surrender themselves to the elements and wilds. It was noble, and born out of a concscientiousness for what is good for the tribe and survival of their offspring. Such acts were also motivated by the belief that their end resulted in being reunited with their ancestors whom they respected and loved. Is modern society better off for all this technology with regard to living and dying? I often don’t know the answer to that question and swing both ways.
Catholics are in a perplexing position on this issue. On the one hand, there is nothing to fear in dying as it liberates one’s soul from a body imprisoned, and sets the soul on course for reunification with the creator. Given that belief, why and how can it be justified to continue to imprison a soul in a body incapable of the freedom, joy, love, and sharing of experience that we normally call living? On the other hand, how can one justify removing life sustaining technology even if the soul is imprisoned in a dark dungeon of a non-functional body.
I loved Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World for bringing these issues to the fore. And your comments are very relevant to this dialogue. Thanks.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2005 09:26 PMLawnboy
Your talent for discernment is lacking. There is no hate. I find it discusting that the things that are presented about Michael and what a find fellow he must be is quite appalling. Any man who who would leave his wife for another woman, particularly when the wife is in a position to not defend or to prepare for a different life because he chose to whore around with someone else, does not measure up to a find upstanding citizen. A man of good measure would stay with the woman he marries, for richer or poorer, in sicknes and in health.
Your talent for discernment is lacking. There is no hate.
Really?
…chose to whore around…
…Michael’s evilness…
…The bottom line is Michael will get over $1M when Terri dies. Therefore he wants her to die and wants nobody else in the picture. It is greed and money…
…Am I to believe him? NO!…
…That should say a lot about a “devoted” husband…
…making Michael a bigamist…
If you really wanted to give the impression that you don’t hate him, you wouldn’t continually make statements about him that express hatred.
Statements claiming to know his motives are evil (when they are unknowable), accusing him of breaking laws that don’t exist, insulting him in a public forum, and referring to his “evilness” are such expressions of hatred.
Since your comments are so full of emotion and invective and devoid of source (despite multiple requests), you make it very easy discount your contributions to the debate.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2005 10:52 PMLawnboy
It goes like this. If I make any kind of statement that you don’t agree with, then you can read my heart and call me hateful. And if I make a statement that I feel is correct because I take the time to read and listen to a variety of sources you can again call me hateful without knowing my motive. It is your perception. If you disagree with me that is fine, but don’t say I am hateful just because you disagree with me.
I’m outa here for tonight. Going back to my stamp collection. That takes more patience.
Posted by: Tom at March 27, 2005 11:06 PMTom,
It’s not disagreement. I can disagree with someone without finding them hateful. It’s the words you choose.
When there are many ways to interpret a series of ambiguous data, and you consistently choose the most negative interpretation, I have to think there’s something behind it.
When you refer to someone’s “evilness”, hatred is apparent. That’s not my disagreeing with you. That’s invective from your fingers.
When you throw around phrases like “whoring around”, hatred is apparent.
Don’t blame me for reading your words as you wrote them.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 28, 2005 09:12 AMLawnboy
From my youngest days I have been taught to hate the sin but not the sinner. I practice that. Just because a person is evil, bad, inhumane and so on, I find no reason to hate person. I do hate what causes to person to be that way but I never hate the person; that just is not in me. So when I refer to someone in a tone that is not agreeable to someone else it is not hate for the person; only hat for the action.
“hate the sin but not the sinner”….
Selective hate? How convenient. Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson were surely hating the sin when they tied Matthew Shepard to a fence and beat him to death.
Hate is hate, just because christian organizations try to excuse it as hate for sin, hate is still a dangerous, destructive and intoxicating force.
Sorry Tom, Lawnboy’s got a valid point here.
Posted by: Taylor at March 28, 2005 10:40 AMTaylor
Let me try to explain it differently. If someone blows cigarette smoke in my face I hate the action, I don’t hate the person. If someone cuts me off on the highway, I hate the action but not the driver. If someone aborts a baby, I hate the action, I don’t hate the person. If my team does not win the game, I hate the action but not the other team. See its all about how you treat your fellow man. You can surely hate what someone does and still not hate the person. Did I communicate my heart better this time?
Tom,
You express the principle well. However, your actions and words betray you.
Let me try to explain with one of the examples from the debate. How to describe Tom Schiavo’s relationship with Jodi Centonze?
Factual (and I think we’d both agree):
Since 1995, five years after his wife had a heart attack that caused severe brain damage, Tom Schiavo started dating Jodi Centonze. Since then, he has had two children with her, and they live together.
Opinion/spin on one side:
Tom is an adulterer, and his relationship with another woman calls his motives into question. His actions since (asking for Terri’s feeding tube to be removed, etc.) show that he doesn’t care about Terri anymore.
Opinion/spin on the other side:
After essentially five years of widowhood, Tom Schiavo was able to move on and find someone else with whom he can be happy. His actions since (daily visits to Terri, upholding her wishes despite fierce opposition, etc.) show that he still loves and cares about Terri despite moving on.
Both of these opinions acknowledge some facts and downplay others. Both make significant assumptions about what the proper course of action should be. If you had stayed at this level and acknowledged that there is room for disagreement, I wouldn’t have complained. However, you didn’t acknowledge reasonable disagreement, and you went further.
Accusing Mr. Schiavo of breaking laws that don’t exist
“Michael has deserted Terri and taken up residence with another woman who is now considered his common law wife, making Michael a bigamist.”
Since Florida is not a common law state, you are incorrect. However, you expressed that you don’t care about the law when libeling him. Calling someone a felon when you know that it’s not true is not hating the sin, it’s hating the sinner.
Personal attacks
“he chose to whore around with someone else”
This is just not true. “Whore” is a loaded word, and it appropriately refers to someone in a particular profession. When you choose to describe someone you don’t know as a whore when the charge is not warranted, you have gone far beyond simple disagreement to hateful speech. Again, this is not hating the sin, it’s hating the sinner.
I don’t know if Michael Schiavo is a complete jerk or a great guy. I just don’t know. However, you have made your decision, and your anger and hatred at him suffuse your comments, obscuring any useful point you might have.
Although I don’t know Mr. Schiavo’s character, it really doesn’t matter. In my opinion, the important issues in this case are the existence of a right to die, determining whether Terri Schiavo expressed her wishes to her legal guardian, whether the proper due process was followed, what her medical condition is, and whether a loud minority should be able to bully the judiciary to make a favored decision (independent of the law).
Of these five important issues, none involve whether Michael Schiavo is a good guy or a creep. So why do you focus on it so much?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 28, 2005 01:33 PMTo All
This will be my last posting on this matter. If you knew me personally your attitude towards my writings would not be much in error. I will not go into my background or what my age is, but I can tell you this I have taught at various levels on a variety of subjects. I have always came away from the sessions knowing I communicated the message correctly and honestly. I have done that here also. See you all at another posting.
What have we learned? 1. Have a living will and check the state law. 2. The judges did what they are supposed to do…interpret, not make law. 3. Why wasn’t an EEG done to determine her response to stimulus? Some say there was, some say there wasn’t, Do it again to be sure. 4. With all the fuss the guardianship should have been challenged. If it was, then the legislature needs to take a look at that part of the law. 5. Politicians should have stayed out of it…period.
Posted by: Dee Lee at March 28, 2005 05:50 PMJust noticed my link isn’t working. here it is again:
Posted by: Julia at March 28, 2005 07:45 PMDee,
in response to
3) An EEG was done. It showed no response. CT scans and EEGs were done at the beginning of her care, and followed through to 2002, and routinely got worse as time progressed.
4)The guardianship was challenged. The testimony of the husband (and parents) was determined to be unduly influenced by other factors, and ultimately it was the testimony of the husband’s sister-in-law (who was one of Terri’s closest friends), and the husband’s brother that was the deciding factor in the case.
Posted by: Julia at March 28, 2005 07:53 PMOh, and in addition, the “trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo’s values, personality, and her own decision-making process.”
The law that would change this, is to have Florida law changed so that when oral testimony is provided, if there is a conflict within the immediate family about end of care wishes, then the court must allow care to continue.
Right now the law is that if there is clear and convincing oral evidence that someone would wish care to be withdrawn, then their right to privacy affords them the right to discontinue care.
In terms of the conflicting testimony given at the trial for Terri, the testimony given that she would want to continue to recieve care was very poor. The testimony that she would not wish to recieve care was of extremely high quality, and fit the picture of Terri at the time.
Honestly, I feel that if the immediate family of a person in a situation like this, is not satisfied with the result, then they should be able to appeal for a jury trial. I’d rather not have a blanket law, because I know plenty of immediate family members who would trump their loved ones wishes in a case of this kind.
But I think a jury feels a little more “safe” than just having judges review the evidence.
Posted by: Julia at March 28, 2005 08:50 PMJulia’s comments:
“The issue here, is that if the evidence shows that there is 99.9999% certainty that there will be no recovery, and the oral testimony is conflicting about the person’s wishes”
Unfortunately there is not that much certainty. People try to discredit experts on both sides. Unfortunately Mr. Schiavo has blocked attempts to have tests which would give an up to date picture of what Terri’s state is, using the technology we now have available, and not relying on tests done years ago, namely an EEG done at the bedside in a quiet condition and an MRI. These are minimally invasive tests which should be done when there is this much uncertainly as to a) Terri’s wishes and B) Terri’s potential for some recovery. I know everyone chooses their favorite news reports and their favorite experts to read, but in a situation where she left no written statement, and there is the possibility no matter how small that she would have wanted a chance at rehab, these tests should be done. If she has brainwaves, she is not legally in a state where she can be deprived of nutrition.
We should not be basing our opinions about how she would want to live, on how WE would want to live. Since the evidence in unclear, and I know all about the 19 hearings etc. (it all comes down to one judge, hearing evidence, and the others saying he followed legal procedure correctly, not 19 judges hearing the evidence) we owe it to this lady to make sure.
Having done that, and finding that she has no brain activity CURRENTLY everyone could know that what we see is reflex and not conscious thought. On the other hand, if she indeed has brain activity, and/or a clear current picture of her brain shows something new that the doctors agree warrants action, then we must hydrate her immediately.
I see the same principal here as that we use for convicted felons on death row. We would see many guilty go free than one innocent be put to death. Here I think we should not leave any EEG undone that might put to death a woman who had even the slightest chance of some recovery.
Shauna
“An MRI was never recommended because, in this case and other patients in a permanent vegetative state, the CT scans were more than adequate to demonstrate the extremely severe atrophy of the cerebral hemispheres, and an MRI would add nothing of significance to what we see on the CT scans. Plus the MRI is contraindicated because of the intrathalamic stimulators implanted in Terri’s brain. A PET scan was never done in this case because it was never needed. The classic clinical signs on examination, the CT scans, and the flat EEG’s were more than adequate to diagnose PVS to the highest degree of medical certainty.”
EEG’s were performed routinely from 1990-2002. All of the most recent ones indicated flat-lines. I am not aware of what conditions they were performed in.
Julia
Julia
If the EEG showed flat line she could not breathe on her own. The brain controls the breathing process as well as all other vital functions.
Julia,
Are you a neurologist? There was a neurologist from New York University School of Medicine on CNN the other night that made the very suggestion I cited here. He had read the reports you cited, and felt that these tests were pertinent and necessary. He suggested that the EEG should be done at her bedside in a non agitated state (in other words, her normal state) to look for signs of consciousness. He said that the tests that were done previously were of poor quality and should be repeated NOW. He mentioned something about the “noise reduction techniques used” obscuring the results. The MRI, he said would be helpful, but not so much as the EEG.
He made the strong point that where there are conflicting reports of her abilities, and where a life and death situation exists, there is an ethical responsibility to make sure. This particular test, done without bias, could do just that.
Now to go back and repeat what was said in these reports that were put before the judge, who was not a neurologist, is again begging the question. The test should have been repeated before feeding was stopped.
It’s like this, make sure I’m dead just before you bury me. Don’t rely on a test that was done 2 years, or 10 years, or 15 years ago. Who knows if there could have been a mistake, or something could have gotten better, probably not, but make Damn sure.
Shauna
Posted by: Shauna at March 29, 2005 07:17 PMI’m not a neurologist. I’m not even a doctor. (I assume you aren’t either). But I’ve read the testimonies of the neurologists associated with the case. The parents didn’t request a final EEG. They requested an MRI, and the lawyer believed that was a stalling technique. (And I’d agree, based on the neurologists testimony). The doctor’s all brought up the additional tests they thought were necesarry, and the new tests were all found to be stalling techniques. I don’t believe anyone requested a followup EEG. And no one said that the previous EEG’s were improperly performed. In fact, since some of them were performed by the parent’s own pro-life doctors, I’d be surprised if they didn’t do the best they can to get a positive result.
So I’d agree with you, if it had actually been a bone of contention. But as far as I can see, it wasn’t.
I do happen to be close friends with one of the top neurosurgeons in the country. He said that the CT scan was one of the worst he’d ever seen, but he said he’d never make a diagnosis on just a CT scan. I tried to get him to look over the other evidence, but he told me it was none of his business. He said he’d heard of the neurologists assigned to the case, and they were all excellent, and we should just let it go. Ah, if only I could be as mature.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at March 29, 2005 08:52 PMI just can’t let it go. It touches me personally. My dad suffered a massive stroke after series of smaller strokes. Entire left side of brain and part of right said to be gone. In coma for a month. Doctors first said put in tube and see what happened, then said remove tube he would be PVS. He was Totally unresponsive to any stimulus. We decided to put him in rehab facility and work with him for awhile, which 2 out of 3 of the doctors felt was foolish. 3 months later he came out of coma. He spoke. Had Aphasia. (First no speech then words did not come out as he intended…Brocas aread affected. Continued improvement. Next he began to walk, then with rehab regained ability to use hands and feed himself with assistance.
Now here is the kicker. The doctors absolutely couldn’t believe any of this. My dad had a will to live that was STRONG. When he was in coma his appearance was so much worse than that of Terry Schiavo there was absolutely no comparison. The end of the story is that my Dad recovered to the point that he was to be sent home from the rehab as he was able to physically care for himself, but was somewhat mentally impared and had the speech impairment. The thing is, he had never told his grown daughters that he loved them, and we had had much family estrangement. For 4 months we were given the gift of a Dad who let us know how much he cared for us and much was resolved with kids and grandkids that would have been left undone. He suddenly died of a massive stroke. But we received a gift. If we had listened to the doctors and removed the feeding tube we would never have had the chance to have these precious final months. Hard? Yes. An unexpected miracle, yes.
Should she be tested, yes. As your friend said, the court relied on the worst radiology images he had ever seen.
Posted by: Shauna at March 29, 2005 10:22 PMWell, when he said “worst” he meant, this was one of the most degraded brains he’d ever seen. The CT scan (as a scan) seemed fine to him.
I agree with you though, that doctor’s can be wrong. My personal philosophy is to give something 5 years. In a coma, with a brain that is still in good shape, you could go indefinitely, although I’ve told my husband to take me off after 5 years, regardless.
I do believe miracles can happen. I do believe people can beat the odds. However, I also know that it’s a fact that there is not one case study where someone with the same type of damage as Terri, has recovered. She would be the first. But firsts have happened before, right?
The courts gave the parents every opportunity to put forth one case study, or one EEG, or one CT scan that would prove there was a chance of recovery for her. They couldn’t do it.
But all that really means is that it’s never happened before.
Posted by: Julia at March 29, 2005 11:23 PMShauna,
The primary medical difference between your dad’s situation and Terri Schiavo’s situation is the length of time. Your dad came out of it at three months, which is about the longest PVS anyone has recovered from. Terri Schiavo has been in her condition for 15 years, which is orders of magnitude more.
More tests could have been performed, for sure. However, when the trend of the previous tests were all negative and any new tests could potentially lead to years of more legal entanglement, it seems reasonable to me to say that enough was enough
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2005 10:56 AMLawn Boy and Julia,
Thanks for your comments. The thing is, it’s just one more test. That’s all. One last test before “pulling the plug” metaphorically speaking. It may be “reasonable” to go ahead without, but after all is said and done, this one test would have given the DEFINITIVE, irrefutable answer before starvation as to whether she has brain activity and in what part of her brain. Then we are looking at fact, not opinion. AND the OPINION is current, not years old.
I have had EEG’s and believe me, they are no trouble at all. Just some goop on your head and lay still for 30 minutes. You then have your answer. The equipment is portable.
I just don’t see we could reasonably deny this to anyone in her position. It protects her AND it protects Schiavo. If it showed brain activity, it points to a misdiagnosis or a change in ther condition. Period.
Shauna
What’s the problem.
Shauna,
I’m only speculating here, so forgive me if my facts are wrong.
I wonder if the 2 year old tests were final, definitive tests performed one last time to make sure that her condition was correctly diagnosed. Then, it took two years for the lawyers and doctors to argue the results out to the point that the way was cleared for the tube to be removed and Terri’s wishes (according to legal findings) honored.
If my guess is right, then administering “one last test” might just be a cycle because the test is no longer definitive and irrefutable by the time it can be acted upon.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2005 02:51 PMMy point is, I haven’t heard any of the family asking for the test. All I’ve heard of is this CNN guy asking for it. Where’s the request that was denied? As far as I know, the MRI was what was denied.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at March 30, 2005 03:52 PMMy last comment is: If a baby had been born with the top of its brain just mush, itwould have been left to expire. Baby’s are born with little and sometimes no brain to speak of. They may be human, and it is tragic, but they are not kept alive. Is this cruel?
Posted by: Dee Lee at March 30, 2005 05:12 PMDee,
I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule. It’s a case by case basis. If a child can breathe on its own, its up to the parents to decide how far they want to go. If the doctors and ethics committee determine that the parents aren’t acting in the childs best interest, then it goes to the courts. Many children born with advanced brain damage are given care “just in case”.
Posted by: Julia at March 31, 2005 02:27 AMActually, even if a baby can’t breathe on its own, its still a case by case basis.
Posted by: Julia at March 31, 2005 02:28 AMto Julia: You seem to be pretty well informed. Your comments are appreciated. Someone’s example of a recovery didn’t impress me as that person still had a brain in all its proportions. This poor lady had a brain the top of which has been reported as mush. Perhaps the autopsy will settle some questions.
Posted by: Dee Lee at March 31, 2005 02:22 PM
