301 Comments

1. mrp:

Why does the Schiavo case stand out amongst the thousands of similar cases that occur each year?

Here is one of many reasons:

It appears that Mike Schiavo’s attorneys have been sending campaign contributions to Judge Greer at critical points.

Excerpt:

The contribution from Felos came May 7, 2004, one day after Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge Douglas Baird ruled “Terri’s Law” unconstitutional. The Florida Legislature’s measure was designed to enable Gov. Bush to intervene in the previous instance in which Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed. The contribution from Felos was the only one made that day, indicating it was not part of a fund-raising effort. The Empire Journal also reported contributions to Greer were made by three other lawyers who represented Michael Schiavo at various stages in the case. Deborah Bushnell, Gwyneth Stanley and Stephen G. Nilsson each contributed at least $250 to Greer’s re-election campaign, as did court-appointed attorneys representing the husband’s interest, Pacarek & Herman and Richard Pearse.

Perhaps every attorney/law firm that regularly appears before state judge sends to the Robed One a nice check every election cycle. I don’t know, but for a case involving the involuntary starvation of a ‘living, breathing human being’, it stinks.

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:15 am 2. Old Dad:

Roger,

No doubt most would have vastly preferred that this family tragedy might have been managed within the privacy of the family. But it couldn’t be, and so the factions within the family brought it to the state to adjudicate. The state did not impose itself uninvited. Once pandora’s box was opened, though…

Scholars will usefully debate for years both the constitutionality and the propriety of the various legal and legislative actions. So far there has been a great deal of heat, and even a little light, and it’s certainly reasonable to wonder whether or not it will prove to be worth it. To my mind, this case reaches out far beyond Terri Schiavo’s hospice and broaches very important and unanswered questions about the balance of power in our government and the extremely complex legal and ethical problems raised by a right to die. When I consider the thousands of Americans who struggle today in incredibly painful end of life scenarios with loved ones, it seems that a careful reevaluation might help reduce some future pain. No doubt, Darfur is a monstrous human disaster, but how do you weight that against a thousand suffering Schindler families?

Mar 26, 2005 - 9:26 am 3. Godzilla:

If the MSM drummed up even a tenth of the interest they are evoking in the Schiavo case, Dafur might have a prayer of receiving national attention.

Meanwhile, you can be sure that the next depraved act by Michael Schiavo will be to immediately cremate Terri, and then give her ashes to her family.

Schiavo to Schindler:

“Here ya go! You want her? Here you go! This is just the way she wanted it. Here ya go!”

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:12 am 4. Mike Walsh:

The focus of Democrat spin on this case seems to be that the President’s current stance is in conflict with a law he signed as governor of Texas. Can anyone comment, please?

Mike Walsh, MM

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:15 am 5. djs:

I’m as much a libertarian as the next guy, but these claims circulating around the blogosphere that the government has no right to intervene in the Schiavo case are a bit difficult to take seriously.

First, as a libertarian, I believe the government’s role should be limited – not eliminated entirely. There are proper roles for government and defending the life of a defenseless woman from starvation seems like a proper role if there are any proper roles for government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

Second, who are the people arresting Schiavo family members for trying to save their daughter’s life? Are they from a private security company? It seems to me that the Schiavo family was more than willing to take care of their daughter indefinitely and would have done so were it not for government intervention. Yet it’s only government attempts to save her life that are characterized as overreach. How odd.

Third, what if Florida was trying to restrict a woman’s “right” to “choose”? Would it be overreach if the federal government intervened?

As to the Darfur is more important point, this is a precedent setting case. You can’t pretend that it won’t impact tens or hundreds of thousands of lives down the road. You can’t expect people to respect the sanctity of human life in Darfur and dismiss it at home. After all, how many of us would “want to go on living” if we were relegated to a life as a dirt poor peasant in Darfur? I don’t doubt that what makes a life worth living will be subject to our society’s “evolving standards of decency”.

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:32 am 6. cardeblu:

Mike W, I can’t confirm right now, but I think the law that Bush signed while governor of Texas extended the period from 3 days to 10 days in which cases would be reviewed before a decision could be made regarding termination of care. I don’t consider that a conflict.

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:40 am 7. Charlie (Colorado):

The worst part of this for me is that the whole notion of trying to find things out instead of making shit up has been eliminated. Consider, for example, the difference between “the next depraved act by Michael Schiavo” and what the most recent guardian ad litem report says:

‘it was determined that [Michael] had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as ÔøΩa nursing home administratorÔøΩs nightmareÔøΩ.’

Michael’s “depraved acts” come down to seeing that she was agressively cared for, long after any medical advice said she was gone; fighting for years, in the face of outrageous slanders, to do what he clearly feels is what Terri wanted.

Which, by the way, includes offering to give up all the money in the trust fund to charity if her parents would just let her go, and more recently turning down offers up to $10 million to give up guardianship.

Anyone who cares to read the record can find this out; anyone who looks at the people who claim she could recover can see the sad sort of medical charlatan who is thrilled to offer hope to the hopeless as long as the money holds out.

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:40 am 8. socalgal:

Roger, I think this issue became news at first because of the tenaciousness of her biological family, who have advocated ceaselessly to get just that sort of media attention to focus on their fight, and it was an interesting legal dilemma. It became a circus because of her imminent death. I believe that if the federal court had granted a stay while a federal review went forward, we would not now be hearing nearly as much about her. But once the deathwatch began, it cannot cease until she dies. Once focusing the attention, the media finds it difficult to withdraw it until there is some conclusion.

I am personally of mixed feelings about it, as I imagine many people are. Personally, I am very much in favor of the right to die – even supporting assisted suicide for those who want it. However, there seems to be a real question here as to whether it really was this woman’s choice to die. What the courts have decided is that the legal guardian responsible for those decisions is her husband. It seems to me that he has a vested interest in her death, and that bothers me. I can certainly see someone confronted with the picture of a loved one being kept alive with a ventilator saying that she wouldn’t want that for herself – but “pulling the plug” on a breathing or circulation device is not the same as witholding sustenance. This is quite different from Karen Quindlan – where her family agonized over the decision, made it, and the legal system stepped in and said they couldn’t do it.

The strangest part to me is the judicial laissez-faire that says that “oh well, the law says her husband is the guardian, there’s nothing we can do”. I think that the erring should be, as the Pres. said “on the side of life” – after all, if there is later found some legal reason that her husband should have been removed from guardianship, she will still be dead. Keeping her alive a little longer to continue the debate is certainly the lesser evil.

The media myopia regarding Darfur, and other international news is something I have mentioned before. They claim to us to “follow” our lead, but claim to each other their “duty” to “lead” us all to the important stories by appropriately “framing” them. Personally, I think it’s much more their own very narrow focus. After all, if THEY don’t care about Darfur, they think that means that WE don’t care – it’s the “Nobody I know voted for Nixon” syndrome. I would like to see more coverage of international news, like most here – but I don’t think we’re likely to get it on the network news.

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:42 am 9. Charlie (Colorado):

DJS, everything in the case says that Terri herself expressed the wish not to be maintainedd artificially. There were trials, appeals, more trials, more appeals. The court ordered the feeding tube removed, acting as Terri’s advocate in what was judged in the trial was most in agreement with Terri’s expressed wishes.

What kind of “libertarian” want the government to force medical treatment on someone who doesn’t want it?

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:49 am 10. djs:

Charlie,

What is the basis for the claim that her interest’s are being served? Her husband’s recounting of a remark she made as a healthy young woman? This is a life or death decision. That just doesn’t cut it.

What if her parent’s came forward and claimed that she told them that all of her assets should be left to them and not the husband? Would anyone take them seriously?

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:58 am 11. Charlie (Colorado):

SoCalGal, the trouble is that most of the things you’re saying aren’t quite true, and since you’re starting from flawed premises, you’re arriving at flawed conclusions. For example:

However, there seems to be a real question here as to whether it really was this woman’s choice to die.

There is, I suppose, always the chance that she would have changed her mind, but after a full trial of the issue, the court decided otherwise. If you know a 100 percent reliable psychic who can find out what she really wanted, I’m sure there are lots of people who would love to know. Otherwise, we have to use the methods we’ve got availaqble.

What the courts have decided is that the legal guardian responsible for those decisions is her husband.

No, what the courts decided was that there was clear and convincing evidence that Terri’s expressed wish was not to be maintained artificially. Specifically because there was a question of whether Michael was completely able to decide, a number of other people were questioned under oath in the trial. At that point the court decided it was Terri’s wish.

It seems to me that he has a vested interest in her death, and that bothers me.

It should. However, he doesn’t have any financial interest: the money’s gone, and he long ago offered to turn it over to charity. In fact, he’s turned down at least a million dollars, and perhaps ten million. He doesn’t need her to die to marry his girlfriend: he could have divorced her long ago. The notion that he abused her and is trying to cover up doesn’t hold water: no one, including the doctors who lost the malpractice suit, ever brought it up at the time. It’s just another one of the outrageous slanders.

I can certainly see someone confronted with the picture of a loved one being kept alive with a ventilator saying that she wouldn’t want that for herself – but “pulling the plug” on a breathing or circulation device is not the same as witholding sustenance.

Why? Someone on a ventilator can’t breathe on their own; someone in a PVS can’t swallow without choking. In one case the breathing reflex is being replaced; in the other, the natural ability to swallow is.

The strangest part to me is the judicial laissez-faire that says that “oh well, the law says her husband is the guardian, there’s nothing we can do”.

Except that this is just not true. It wasn’t Michael’s decision, it was the trial judge’s best effort to find out what Terri wanted that led to the trial deciding Terri’s decision.

The really sad part is that this — what one of the guardians ad litem called the “urban mythology” that arose around the case — is what people are deciding about and are going to remember.

Mar 26, 2005 - 11:04 am 12. Charlie (Colorado):

What is the basis for the claim that her interest’s are being served? Her husband’s recounting of a remark she made as a healthy young woman? This is a life or death decision. That just doesn’t cut it.

Go read the record and find out. It’s easily available (I don’t have time to get the link, but follow the discussion from Donald Sensing’s site and you can find it quickly.)

After you’ve gotten up to date, then you’ve got a right to an opinion that can be taken seriously.

Mar 26, 2005 - 11:07 am 13. djs:

Charlie,

No need to get nasty. The court’s decision was based entirely on accounts of oral statements made to interested parties when she was a healthy young woman.

Mar 26, 2005 - 11:37 am 14. flenser:

The interesting thing about this case is the way it is a proxy for so many other issues. One such issue is the struggle for power between the judicial and other branches of government.

Peoples views on the Schaivo matter seem to break down on who they want to see win this struggle. Roger and charlie both have a need for the judges to come out on top, as judicial supremacy is necessary for many of the public policy positions they hold. (Gay marriage being one, among others.)

The counter-argument, that laws should be made by the elected representatives of the people, seems to me to be to be much stronger, and I think will ultimately win out, although it may take another generation to happen.

Mar 26, 2005 - 11:59 am 15. Neo:

This real-life novel seems to be overloaded with “Pontius Pilate”-like characters.

When Terri is gone, while all of us will have to live with the outcome, Judges James Whittemore and George Greer will have to live with the stain on their professional careers that will follow them, scuttling any possible future advancement.

What Senator in his/her right mind would vote to put Judge James Whittemore on the appellate level.

Mar 26, 2005 - 12:08 pm 16. Buddy Larsen:

Charlie, you’re probably technically correct by and large, but the case is now so big it’s running by celebrity rules, which, if it’s famous for being famous, it’s still famous, and the technicalities are not going to stand against the common-sensical plain fact that she’s not terminally ill and her family wants to care for her. That’s also the rejoinder to the host post, that regardless of Darfur–and Roger is of course correct about proportionality–this is partly about Terri not as a symbol or a case, but as a person, and partly abouit the failure of the law to contain any particular text to address the non-personization of the natal family. This is a terrible way to notice the door wasn’t locked, granted, but the law as written has made what was meant to be a passive gesture into an active one–that gesture being the allowing of nature to take its course. Nature here has to include mom, dad, brother and sis, but an error of omission has excluded nature, and even though there is plenty of time and incentive to help mother nature here, some sort of weird pissing contest among various political entities seems to be taking place instead…rather suicidally I’ll bet.

And there’s also this:

Mar 26, 2005 - 12:22 pm 17. Godzilla:

For Charlie’s benefit, the first depraved act was to deny Terri her last rites, as has been reported. Hopefully, he has reconsidered this in these last hours of her life.

Mar 26, 2005 - 12:44 pm 18. Patrick Tyson:

Well, Buddy, your link tells me a lot about Gerald, but nothing of any moment or note about Michael.

In the comments to Catherine’s guest post here last weekend, I posted part of an e-mail I sent to Mickey Kaus in October of 2003 when the Florida legislative and executive branches intervened to restore the feeding tube after the judicial branch allowed it to be removed.

Mar 26, 2005 - 12:48 pm 19. Godzilla:

In the latest article on Drudge, there’s no mention of her receiving her last rites, but there is a stark description of her deterioration.

Doctors have said the 41-year-old woman would probably die within a week or two of the tube being removed. By Friday, dehydration was taking its toll. Terri Schiavo’s tongue and eyes were bleeding and her skin was flaking off, Weller said.

Mar 26, 2005 - 12:56 pm 20. Patrick Tyson:

continued…

My point about the e-mail to Kaus was that I stated at the time that a bunch of scumbag politicians got involved and delayed the inevitable end to all this to pander to the “right to life” crowd.

That’s what happened. The inevitable end has arrived.

She had Last Rites.

http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBCBB3DH6E.html

Mar 26, 2005 - 12:57 pm 21. Godzilla:

Thanks for posting that Patrick.

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:00 pm 22. Hogarth:

http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBCBB3DH6E.html

Last Rites Given

As judges at the local, federal and state Supreme Court levels considered and rejected attempts to block the feeding tube’s removal, the Schindlers sat by their daughter’s bedside while Monsignor Thaddeus Malanowski administered the last rites of the Catholic Church, the priest reported afterward.

Circuit Judge George Greer, who has repeatedly ordered the feeding tube’s removal based on his findings at a 2000 nonjury trial, had granted special permission for Terri Schiavo to receive communion via her feeding tube prior to its removal.

Malanowski said he anointed Schiavo with holy oil, then used an eye dropper to transfer a few droplets of consecrated wine into the feeding tube.

“Everybody was calm and peaceful,” the priest said. “I thought the mother [Mary Schindler] might faint but no, the mother was strong until just a half-hour ago.”

Shortly before 1:45 p.m., almost an hour after the tube was supposed to be removed, hospice officials asked Mary Schindler and other family members to leave so the removal could take place, Malanowski said.

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:01 pm 23. Bostonian:

I hope it is fair to say that the central issue is Terri’s actual wishes.

If Terri Schiavo, the healthy 25-year-old, were here now, would she tell us she’d rather die? Or would she prefer to live in this state?

And what exactly is this state? Well, she was neither dying or in pain; Greer, Michael, and Felos do not claim this.

And no one has claimed that her brain is dead. The dispute is exactly what her brain is like, will it ever recover, yadayada.

Her brain is not dead. Where there is a brain, there is a mind: emotions, memories, flitting inarticulate thoughts.

I don’t claim to *know* (as some do) that life is just worthless without the rational-thinking part. I also don’t claim to *know* how much of humanity lies above the waterline that divides congition from the underlying deep waters whence we came. What is human? Can I know? Can I pronounce this for another person?

Should I not, in fact, err on the side of letting someone live, just in case that person is getting something out of it, something that I perhaps cannot even understand?

***

So let’s talk about Terri’s supposed wishes. The evidence for them is hearsay, given to us by a man who has a conflict of interest. One man heard him out, no jury. The evidence was required only to be “clear and convincing,” not “beyond a reasonable doubt”–this is plain fact.

I do not think it is right at all to take life away from an innocent person without requiring as high a standard of evidence as we do for an accused criminal.

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:03 pm 24. alcibiades:

Mike Walsh:

Here is one explanation of what happened in Texas, under Bush, from The Corner.

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:15 pm 25. Terrye:

Charlie:

Letting this woman slowly starve to death while her parents stand by and helplessly watch is barbaric. It really is.

I don’t doubt that she had no wish to suffer or be a burden, who wants that? But nobody ask her if she wanted to starve to death.

I have had patients I cared for in worse shape than this woman and I have seen them do things people said they could not. But to remove food from a disabled brain damaged adult is perverse and if I as a caregiver did such a thing I would be accused of criminal neglect.

If people really believe that the man she married who has another mate and children can dispose of her based on what he says she said then the least they can do is find humane way to make that happen.

I have no idea if Micchel Shiavo will make money on this. My bet is the book and movie deal with be worth a small fortune but I have seen people just grow tired of caring for people like Terri. And when that happens you should abdicate the responsibility rather than just removing the person.

I know people do not want the government involved in family matters, but a judge is the government and her mother is her family.

BTW the Quinlands did not take their daughter off of all nutrition. After she was removed from the respirator she lived another nine years.

Food is not medicine and there are all kinds of people with feeding tubes. And why put it in the first place if the husband was convinced of her wishes?

It is easy to say this is the right thing to do when it is not your kid.

I had thought about a living will, but signing one means I have to lay in a dark room and starve I will have to reconsider.

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:18 pm 26. Terrye:

BTW Darfur is not as big a deal because you can not blame that tragedy on anyone named Bush.

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:23 pm 27. Patrick Tyson:

Godzilla—

You are welcome.

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:30 pm 28. Buddy Larsen:

Patrick, Gerald’s conjecture is part of this granfaloon, I wouldn’t impute those motives to Mr. Schiavo without more evidence.

My point was to ask the question, why, when he has been presented with plenty of CYA documents–by an officer of the court, mind you–which by merely acceding to the notion that Whittemore might within the realm of possibility had insufficient data for the original (and sole) ‘finding’–won’t Greer deflate this monster by calling an interim ‘whoa!’–the ‘de novo’ hearing?

Otherwise such speculation as Gerald’s is on the Glory Train to Conventional Wisdom (though at any rate, time will tell on Gerald’s particulars).

There is gonna be a dead woman–a martyr–and people are going to have yet another call to lunge at each other’s throats.

This court is irresponsible. Why?

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:34 pm 29. Buddy Larsen:

I was hoping to hear Nurse Terrye’s thoughts. Thank you. What in God’s name has first claim on empathy and humane treatment? The girl in the bed or Judge Whittemore’s local political power?

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:40 pm 30. Terrye:

They don’t want any reprieve for this woman that is why.

People think that this kind of thing happens every day. It does not. They want to set a precedent and I think they found a willing partner in Shiavo’s husband. I have no idea what his motives are and I will not demonize him but I would not do this to a dog, much less my exhusband.

People argue about whether or not it is torture for a woman in thong underwear and a mini skirt to come on to a Muslim prisoner at Gitmo. But this is just giving a poor brain damaged woman what she wants. They can say this is euphoric but according to the Geneva Conventions starvation and dehydration are torture.

I heard a young med student talking this morning and she said she would be glad when this vegetable died because it would really piss off the Jesus freaks and it the good news was that Bush’s approval ratings were down. I would not go into the hospital this woman would be working at unless I could hide a gun under my pillow.

The funny thing is we were at her mother in law’s house and the old lady immediately informed me she intended to remove the young lady as her power of attorney. All of a sudden she was afraid of the girl.

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:49 pm 31. Buddy Larsen:

Well. one answer that should be credible to those of you whose mindsets direct you to accuse congress of pandering–even tho half the house democrats in attendance (43 to be exact) voted with the majority (senate did the unrecorded voice vote)–is that the death will bring down Jeb Bush. Fine, I don’t like dynasty anyway. But, no de-novo, expect bad air, bad news, bad results, bad for everyone. Jeb may go, but so will any lingering doubt that there’s a bad judicial-over-reach problem in this nation. Let’s all gather ’round and crap all over this system our troops are dying to sell to the third world.

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:52 pm 32. djs:

Excellent column by Orson Scott Card (a Democrat) today – Whose Life is Worth Living. It begins:

It wasn?t that many years ago when I happened to be in Raleigh at a gathering of literary folk who were quite full of their own superiority. They started talking about people who (gasp!) let years go by without reading a single book.

?Why do they even bother being alive?? asked one of them. Almost everyone laughed.

They went on and on about the worthlessness of the lives of non-intellectuals. Shopping in malls. Eating at McDonald?s. Driving their gas-guzzling cars.

I did ask where they shopped, and which of them had arrived at the party by balloon. I have not been invited to such gatherings since.

It?s so easy to decide that someone else?s life is not worth living. Lacking something that we regard as essential, we cannot fathom how they get through a day.

The nattering of intellectuals about the valuelessness of the ?unexamined life? might be taken as hyperbole, if it weren?t for the fact that it is precisely our intellectual elite that has decided to set itself up as champions of the right to murder people ?for their own good.?

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:57 pm 33. Caroline:

There’s a piece of paper saying that Michael Schiavo is Terri’s husband. Based on his hearsay testimony, a court has ordered her death (rather her killing – as noone is permitted to give her water by mouth, even though Terri is able to swallow – as indicated by the fact that she swallows her own saliva).

Therefore, the law says Terri will die.

Colin Powell may have called Darfur a genocide – but the UN has not -

Therefore, the law says there is no genocide going on.

Process folks! Process!

Nothing to see here. Please move along….

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:57 pm 34. Sonetka:

Most reasonable points have already been made, but I just wanted to make one more; back when this started, there’s no way anyone could have predicted what it would turn into. The question really is not how much money is left *now* (I can readily believe it’s all been swallowed by lawyers) but how much was left when Schiavo first signed the DNR and then tried to get the tube removed. He probably wasn’t expecting to have to spend all the settlement on lawyers; he may well have thought that once he won in court, it would all be over and the tube could have been removed seven or eight years ago and left him with a fair residual amount of the settlement.

Mar 26, 2005 - 1:58 pm 35. Buddy Larsen:

“We’re gonna get this process right if it kills us!”

Mar 26, 2005 - 2:04 pm 36. Caroline:

Djs – I think you will appreciate this:

Euthanasia in Holland

This is precisely what happens when we start making assumptions about “quality of life”.

Mar 26, 2005 - 2:08 pm 37. ClericalGal:

My first post here.

I have very mixed feelings about this whole thing. I know I wouldn’t want to live the way Terri Schiavo is living now. However,I would have more sympathy with Michael Schiavo if he didn’t have two kids with another woman. I don’t know why he is so hellbent on having her die instead of giving up his guardianship so her family can care for her. It’s just a sad story all around. The most sickening thing is the Bush haters gloating about how this will hurt him. I must quit procrastinating and register as an Independent as soon as I can!

Mar 26, 2005 - 2:11 pm 38. Morgan:

What I know best about this whole case is that I don’t know enough to make a lot of noise for or against Terri’s death.

Maybe she wanted to be allowed to die if she were PVS. Maybe she didn’t. Absent a written statement, it’s difficult to see how much proof there could be either way. I don’t even know how likely it is that any randomly chosen person would want to have that tube removed, so I don’t know what kind of presumption any evidence should have to overcome.

Maybe the diagnosis of PVS was made with due consideration. Maybe not. I don’t know how difficult, or controversial, or conclusive that diagnosis is. I don’t even really know what it means – how “persistent” does it need to be, what is “vegetative”? I have seen video of Terri Schiavo appearing to be alert and responsive to her environment. I am told that these behaviors have been interpreted as reflexes by medical specialists of some sort. If so, this is a new definition of “reflexes” to me, but it may be the appropriate one.

I certainly understand that people who see a woman who, based on their knowledge, may or may not be PVS, want something – anything – to be done to save her until they are convinved that she is really PVS. I can even understand why some people say “I don’t care that she is PVS, she isn’t dying, and should be kept alive and given every possible chance to recover as much function as she can”. But I also understand those who say that people who are in such a state have the right to decide that the chances of recovery are so low, and the costs of keeping them alive are so high, that they don’t wish that effort to be made. I also understand that we need to have some consistent policy and “everyone in the country must be convinced that the patient is PVS and did, in fact, request that they not be kept alive through the use of a feeding tube” is not a realistic standard.

And so, while (as a parent) it makes me terribly sad to know that the parents of Terri Schiavo will have to watch their child die based on the word of her husband, and while I am perfectly willing to believe that the laws pertaining to situations like this should be modified in some way, I have no reason to believe that what is happening here does not represent the long-delayed outcome of a nearly-optimal process.

Mar 26, 2005 - 2:12 pm 39. flenser:

morgan

“I have no reason to believe that what is happening here does not represent the long-delayed outcome of a nearly-optimal process.”

I’ve seen this point before, and I don’t find it persuasive. The outcome of all human life is the same; death. Can we infer from this that collective action to delay death for some people is a pointless exercise? There is an argument to be made that the answer is ìYesî, but I think we should consider long and deeply before accepting it.

And, of course, it would be nice if WE were able to decide it, rather than having it determined by a class of philosopher-princes.

Mar 26, 2005 - 2:28 pm 40. Buddy Larsen:

“I have no reason to believe that what is happening here does not represent the long-delayed outcome of a nearly-optimal process.”

Morgan, if you can feel that way, then either you haven’t heard her mom, dad, sis, & bro, or you disbelieve them.

Mar 26, 2005 - 2:28 pm 41. Caroline:

Morgan: “I also understand that we need to have some consistent policy and “everyone in the country must be convinced that the patient is PVS and did, in fact, request that they not be kept alive through the use of a feeding tube” is not a realistic standard.”

A functional MRI could determine whether Terri has PVS (minimally conscious patients show a pattern of response which is similar to normals while PVS patients show no response) but both Michael S and the Judge refused to order the procedure. Re the husband’s testimony that she didn’t want to be kept alive artificially – even setting aside the proper definition of “husband” – it still raises the Q re the extent to which a feeding tube constitutes extraordinary measures. Fine, let’s assume that it does. Pull the feeding tube. Terri Schiavo can swallow her own saliva. What are the grounds then for denying any good samaritan to attmept to give her water by mouth? To deny that is akin to taking someone off a respirator – finding that they can in fact breathe on their own – and then covering their nose and mouth in order to suffocate them to death.

Mar 26, 2005 - 2:32 pm 42. flenser:

Hello Buddy.

Mar 26, 2005 - 2:32 pm 43. Buddy Larsen:

back atcha, flenser.

Mar 26, 2005 - 2:55 pm 44. Syl:

“I have seen video of Terri Schiavo appearing to be alert and responsive to her environment.”

Nobody has dared question the video. I personally don’t believe it shows what it purports to show. Like cherry-picking quotes, it looks to me like editing to pick out random eye motions that happen to co-incide with the moving object.

There, I’ve said it.

Who is being harmed the most from this circus? I think it’s Terri’s family. All the enablers who have re-inforced their hope for something impossible have left the family believing their own delusions and miserable and that is tragic. It is the living that are suffering the most from this.

To me this entire circus is mass hysteria.

Okay, shoot me now.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:00 pm 45. Terrye:

I have to say that when this whole thing started my natural inclination was to think the husband must want the best thing and then I heard from the rest of her family.

It has been my experience that siblings as a gneral rule are a pretty good source for what the family member would want. They are close, but not intimate. And when I heard her brother say that he wanted to know what happened to his sister I realized the depth of his distrust for the husband. He thinks that maybe Michael hurt her.

That made me wonder.

I have not worked in a facility like this for years but I have never known as many nurses and caregivers to sign affadavits against a family member has have been made against Michael Shiavo. One nurse actually went to the law because she thought he was trying to kill the woman. This is not the usual. Nurses are as afraid of law suits as doctors, they don’t really liked to get dragged into this stuff.

People can say this brave man’s character has been impugned by bad people that want to ….what? Why would all these people want to hurt this man?

I think families should deal with these things too, but this was one family that just could not do that.

I also think that getting pissy with Congress is silly. All they did was send the thing from one court to another, In the end she will die. Neither of the Bush brothers is going to storm the Bastille. So all those folks getting upset that Congress took precious time out from baseball to deal with unimportant stuff like life and death can rest assured our union still stands.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:04 pm 46. Terrye:

Syl:

I agree.

It is her family that will suffer the most. But then it is because of her family that it is happening. It is her father who is demanding that Jeb Bush come save his daughter.

I don’t know if those videos are the real thing or not, nor do I really care. Starving people to death is wrong. They should either find a better way or leave her alone.

And I would never shoot you.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:07 pm 47. flenser:

Syl

BANG!!

Seriously, I think the emotional level surrounding the matter is excessive.

As I said above, people die. Death is not preventable, which is a good thing if you think about it. There are important issues inherent in the Schiavo case, including the amount of effort we feel should be expended in prolonging life. It’s amazing and depressing that so much of the discussion dissolves so quickly into flame wars. It’s as if whatever virus leads to BDS has mutated and is spreading.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:10 pm 48. jab245:

What I don’t understand is why Judge Greer was not forced to reintroduce into evidence the statement made by Terri’s best friend. Apparently she had made joke in poor taste about Karen Quinlan and Terri and she had argued. Terri’s position being that they shouldn’t take KQ off life support and that “where there’s life there’s hope.” Supposedly Greer did not allow it in because of his OWN mistake in his recollections of when KQ died. He thought Terri would have been a minor when she made the comments, not realizing that KQ had died several years later and Terri’s comments were made when Terri was an adult.

I think this is highly relevant testimony. Isn’t that the kind of mistake that should force a new look at the rest of the facts, since Greer is the only Judge who actually ruled on the establishment of the facts. The rest of the Judges merely ruled on whether Greer had followed the relevant law procedures.

Which is why Congress, whether you like it or not, thought their legislation would get the Judiciary to take a fresh look at ALL the evidence, rather than just keep affirming the original facts Greer ruled on initially.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:12 pm 49. Caroline:

Syl – no one is going to shoot you. For me, much of the problem is the refusal to order the one state of the art test that could perhaps answer lingering questions re the PVS diagnosis – the functional MRI. I find it amazing that her parents cannot even pay out of pocket for this procedure to satisfy their own questions in this regard.

As I commented above, however, regarding Terri’s ability to swallow – I did want to link to this article:

Terri can swallow

And also – as I commented about the fact that no good samaritan (including her own biological family!) is permiited to give her oral water – I wanted to link to this:

Thirst

And also to point out in regard to the above article – that Drudge and others have been reporting that Terri is now bleeding from both her eyes and her tongue – consistent with the above account.

I understand that this case has prompted a lot of people to write living wills but for people like me, who are extremely prone to procrastinating, especially where paperwork is concerned, I casually recommend that if you don’t like the idea of dying by dehydration, that you simply tell your spouses now – “Honey – I haven’t figured all this out yet but I am telling you now, in no uncertain terms, that whatever happens to me – do not cut off my water. Hear that honey? (you know – he’s watching basketball!) Whatever happens, remember – give me water!” Well – that’s what I did. I wonder if he heard me?

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:17 pm 50. ed:

Hmmmm.

1. @ Charlie (Colorado)

“‘it was determined that [Michael] had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as ÔøΩa nursing home administratorÔøΩs nightmareÔøΩ.’”

This would be a LOT more impressive if it weren’t a fact that this administrator was employed at the hospice where Terri Schiavo is currently located.

Why?

Because Mr. Felos, Michael Schivao’s *attorney*, is on the Board of Directors for that hospice.

Felos

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:23 pm 51. ed:

Hmmm.

Last word on the subject:

I think it’s very likely that Terri Schivao will probably end up dying on Easter Sunday.

Just imagine. A Catholic being starved to death on Easter Sunday.

There are no words.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:26 pm 52. jab245:

Not only Felos… I think it was World Net Daily who reported that a certain Judge also sat on the board of a hospice with Felos.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:30 pm 53. Buddy Larsen:

Terrye, are you saying that it is uncommon in American medicine for multiple unconnected healthcare professionals to have built over the years a record of taking proactive steps to get some attention on a case even at the possible expense of their own careers? That’s pretty telling, I think, that something ought to be looked into further–and quickly–if for no other reason than to explain such an oddity as that to which you refer.

Syl, your point about the pain of the family–exactly what argument does that point support? That someone is out-of-line, yes, but whom?

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:34 pm 54. djs:

After reading Mr. Card’s column and Caroline’s link on Holland today, it occurred to me

that the same attitudes that drive the left’s contempt for “Red America” are also driving

both it’s indifference to the oppressed people it once professed to champion, and to it’s

willingness to end Terri’s life on little more than the word of her “guardian” that it’s

“what she would have wanted”.

Absent a fixed moral respect for the sanctity of all human life, the value of any given life

is driven by elite opinion, and as Mr. Card’s cocktail party demonstrates, that sort of

elite-driven morality is not necessarily benevolent. In fact, it seems downright dangerous.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:35 pm 55. Caroline:

Moreover – the doctor that pronounced her PVS – Dr. Cranston – is a prominent “right to die” advocate who endorses pulling the feeding tubes of Alzheimer’s patients. Major conlicts of interest all around as far as I can tell.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:35 pm 56. Morgan:

flenser:

“Can we infer from this that collective action to delay death for some people is a pointless exercise?”

Not in my view. We can infer that the focus needs to be on improving the process by which these decisions are made. Action to delay death in order to provide time to make those changes when the situation is acute might be appropriate, but how many years of delays have we had already in this case?

If you are proposing that we include in the process a determination on the correctness of the decision by the public at large, that might be a reasonable idea assuming that the number of such cases is small, but I’m not sure it’s better than allowing the determination to rest with the courts.

Caroline, I think your objections regarding the husband’s role as guardian in this case, and the lack of an MRI also fall into the realm of wanting changes to the process – perhaps you want the process to include chastity requirements, or a mandatory MRI. Also reasonable, perhaps.

Not incidentally, though, I don’t believe an MRI would provide clear-cut answers – an fMRI or PET scan would show patterns of activity, but they would certainly be abnormal. Then the questions would be “how abnormal is this pattern, and how abnormal does it need to be before we can diagnose PVS?” and “is this particular pattern indicative of PVS, or something else?”

Buddy: “…either you haven’t heard her mom, dad, sis, & bro, or you disbelieve them.”

I haven’t heard them, and I don’t know whether there is any reason to disbelieve them.

My point is that there needs to be some process in place that allows these decisions to be made – if one in a hundred or one in a thousand cases produces decisions that seem very wrong that is not evidence that the process is not nearly optimal. That doesn’t mean that the process can’t or shouldn’t be improved, but it is not evidence on its face that the process is broken.

For some people, the ideal process is one that goes to greater lengths to ensure that the diagnosis of PVS is correct. For others, PVS is irrelevant – they would allow the removal of a feeding tube only if there was written evidence stating that was the patient’s wish. Others think that a judge should weigh the evidence regarding the patient’s wishes and PVS status. Terrye wants the decision to be made by the patient’s mother where possible. Also reasonable.

I don’t have an ideal process in mind, but clearly efforts were made at one time to come up with a reasonable process, and that’s the one that is in place. Maybe that was before MRIs were available. Maybe judges were wiser, and husbands were less slimy then. I don’t know.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:36 pm 57. Terrye:

ed:

And a bunch of atheists jumping up and down in glee.

[no offence to decent atheists everywhere but I have been disgusted by the level disdain shown for this woman, pvs or not]

I just wish it would end so that we could get back to talking aoubt how the evil Republicans want to destroy social security so that sweet little old ladies will have to eat cat food.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:41 pm 58. Buddy Larsen:

Exactly, Morgan. We don’t know–but we are beginning to know what we don’t know. Unfortunately for everyone, Terri cannot abide while we learn. Doubly unfortunately, the reason she can’t abide while we learn is not a function of nature but of man, and specific men, in fact several specific men.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:48 pm 59. Caroline:

DJS – even though in some “objective” sense – I might well be classified as a conservative in today’s political climate – I think I will always think of myself as a liberal – albeit “liberal enough!” – having no desire to drift so far to the left that I end up agreeing with those on the far right, precisely as that article about Euthanasia in Holland appears to demonstrate. In other words, all those loudly scoffing at the absurdity of those who care about Terri Schiavo – IMHO ought to take a good hard look at what is going on in Holland today and the slippery slope into the realm of Nazi-type “elitist”-driven judgements about quality of life. It’s pretty darned scary. I don’t know what has happened to the political “left”. But I am still a liberal maybe in the classical sense and hence I do care about this judicial travesty and couldn’t give a rat’s ass about those on the “left” of the political spectrum outright mocking those of us who care about it as “red-stater”, “Taliban-lite” folks. I’m sure I’ll have the last laugh at them in the end.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:49 pm 60. Morgan:

Buddy:

I hope that this time the process produced the right outcome – even though that isn’t obviously so. I don’t think we’ll ever know.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:57 pm 61. Terrye:

Morgan has a good point here. There needs to be a system in place that allows people to better understand both what their rights are and what constitutes “life”.

I always believed that if the heart beats, it lives. Simple maybe, but it is what I think and feel. And I do believe that in this case the mother should be allowed to care for her daughter until the patient dies of natural causes. Believe it or not Terri and people like her are not immortal with their feeding tubes in place, they still die. I know I heard that in some states like New York a family member can not make the decision to end life. Perhaps they see too much inherent conflict.

But there may need to be some federal legislation in regards to what heroic measures really are. Say you are in a wreck and you stop breathing, do you want to be brought back? The worse case of PVS I ever dealt with was just such a scenario. When you say no machines, do you mean a feeding tube or a ventilator or both?

You know on TV we hear the news and there will be a shooting or a disaster or whatever they will 2 dead and 5 wounded..and people just assume those wounded are going to be fine. Not so, a lot of them end up like this.

Mar 26, 2005 - 3:59 pm 62. Buddy Larsen:

An MRI would douse this forest fire, Morgan. But you can’t, even given an infinite amount of time and effort, give one to a dead person. This court is just UNBELIEVABLT messing up. What is the other side asking for? A couple of days? A month?

Don’t believe this court’s hands are tied. Ex-parte is one of the court’s standard tools. The Schiavos are not asking anything extraordinary.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:07 pm 63. djs:

Caroline,

I probably somewhere to the right of you politically, but I know where you’re coming from. I always tell people that I vote Republican (flawed though they may be) because I’m a classical liberal democrat.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:08 pm 64. Caroline:

Morgan – I think you do a good job of laying out some of the subtleties of this case but even given all of that I think you are leaving out one very salient point – Terri Schiavo has people who are willing to assume her care. And they aren’t strangers – they are the people who brought her into this world. And my understanding is that they are willing to assume the financial expense of her care rather than force it onto the taxpayer. So – in the absence of 1) advanced life support mechanisms 2) evidence that Terri is in physical pain 3) a legal document expressing her explicit wishes to die in these circumstances (a living will) – it is simply criminal to stubbornly insist on killing her when there are people clearly willing to care for her. Especially when the argument for killing her rests on the grounds that she has no awareness whatsoever and therefore cannot feel her starvation/dehydration. If that is the assumption – then she cannot suffer in any way by being kept on a feeding tube in her parents care. At this point, in other words, no one can make an argument that she “wouldn’t want to live this way” because according to those same folks – she has zero awareness of her predicament.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:11 pm 65. Caroline:

DJS “I always tell people that I vote Republican (flawed though they may be) because I’m a classical liberal democrat.”

If there are enough of us out there who sort of recognize eachother – maybe we could start a club or something

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:13 pm 66. Buddy Larsen:

Caroline, in support of your point, I have heard that heart-rate is an absolute indicator of pain…you’re hurting, your heart rate increases.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:16 pm 67. alcibiades:

From the NYTimes, a portrait of a loving husband and a decent man:

Instead, Mr. Schiavo has even rejected the Schindlers’ request that their daughter be buried in Florida instead of cremated, which they object to as Catholics. He also refused their request to let Ms. Schiavo die in their home instead of at the hospice.

Mr. Schiavo’s lawyer told reporters this week that the cremated remains would be buried at the Schiavo family plot outside Philadelphia, far from the parents who fought so intensely to win her back. Whether they can or will visit her gravesite could be the next subject of dispute.

People accuse the religious right of being all fundamentalist on this, but I think Schiavo’s side is just as fundy and scary as the religious right. If Schiavo looks and acts mean spirited, the likeliest explanation is that he is.

At least the Schindler’s are being driven by love. What would motivate a loving husband “sending his wife into her dying process with dignity,” which is a beautiful euphemism for a terrible death, to treat even her remains in this spiteful manner.

Come on, Schiavo apologists. Let’s hear the reason why this, too, shows what a good and decent man he is at heart.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:20 pm 68. Charlie (Colorado):

No need to get nasty. The court’s decision was based entirely on accounts of oral statements made to interested parties when she was a healthy young woman.

I’m sorry. No, actually, I’m not. Until you read the damned record and show some evidence of it, I see no reason to be nice about it, frankly. In this case, for example, you are ignoring the fact that everyone involved was an interested party.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:23 pm 69. Buddy Larsen:

He has his new wife and two kids by her. His old wife’s mom, dad, sis & bro don’t have a replacement. And he has to take even the body away from them, too? What is this?

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:27 pm 70. Charlie (Colorado):

Charlie, you’re probably technically correct by and large, but the case is now so big it’s running by celebrity rules, which, if it’s famous for being famous, it’s still famous, and the technicalities are not going to stand against the common-sensical plain fact that she’s not terminally ill and her family wants to care for her.

So what you’re saying is that we ought to refuse to obey Terri’s wish not to be sustained artificially because she’s famous now?

Sure, that makes sense.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:27 pm 71. Charlie (Colorado):

For Charlie’s benefit, the first depraved act was to deny Terri her last rites, as has been reported. Hopefully, he has reconsidered this in these last hours of her life.

As has now been pointed out, this is another one of those examples of making shit up.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:28 pm 72. Caroline:

Buddy – something relevant to that claim is something I posted when Roger was undergoing his recent surgery. Apparently there are some folks for whom the “hypnotic” part of surgical anesthesia fails to work (the hypnotic part being the part that blocks off any conscious awareness) even as the “paralytic” part of the anesthesia works very well (the paralytic part being the part that freezes all voluntary motion to make the surgery easier). Anyway this leaves some folks totally aware of the surgery although they are paralyzed and unable to signal their awareness. One woman went through a 3 hour hernia operation complete with cauterization while another had her eyeball removed – both fully, viscerally aware of all of it. The interesting thing, however, is that both BP and pulse remained perfectly normal throughout, even though the women later testified to being in absolute agony. The point is that there is much that we do not understand about human consciousness and it is totally arrogant to assume we do. There is plenty enough conflicting testimony and evidence in Terri Schiavo’s case to err on the side of life – ESPECIALLY – when there are very close family members who are willing to assume her care and to love her! Her parents love her! They want to take care of her! How sick is our society that that matters so little!

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:29 pm 73. mrp:

Terrye:

The funny thing is we were at her mother in law’s house and the old lady immediately informed me she intended to remove the young lady as her power of attorney. All of a sudden she was afraid of the girl.

I bet conversations and reactions like that are going on all over the country. This case reveals a gleam of nature, red in tooth and claw.

A near-optimal system, to be sure. Just like the accepted wisdom demonstrated by our country’s judiciary as it routinely abided by Plessey vs. Ferguson for nearly fifty years.

We are seeing a prime example of justice without mercy.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:29 pm 74. Charlie (Colorado):

So let’s talk about Terri’s supposed wishes. The evidence for them is hearsay, given to us by a man who has a conflict of interest. One man heard him out, no jury. The evidence was required only to be “clear and convincing,” not “beyond a reasonable doubt”–this is plain fact.

See, this is the point. This simply isn’t true, not in any particular. In fact, the testimony was from five people, including several who had no particular interest; Michael’s testimony was specifically not weighted as heavily because the GAL at that time felt he had a separate interest. The testimony was made in open court, with cross-examination.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:34 pm 75. Charlie (Colorado):

Letting this woman slowly starve to death while her parents stand by and helplessly watch is barbaric. It really is.

Sadly, it’s the only option she has left. Don’t like it? do something to change Florida’s laws.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:36 pm 76. alcibiades:

The fact is, the Schindler’s were outlawyered. This happens all the time in the US. After the settlement Schiavo had the bucks, and his lawyer so he won the case and every judgement since, which were all based on the original decisions in that first case.

OJ is free because he had better lawyers, not because he is innocent. It’s only shocking here because the guilty don’t walk free, but instead the innocent are made to starve to death painfully.

This has been my private assessment for days,

Steve Sailor makes the case with rather more facts than I have.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:41 pm 77. Charlie (Colorado):

This would be a LOT more impressive if it weren’t a fact that this administrator was employed at the hospice where Terri Schiavo is currently located.

Ed, have you read the Wolfson report? If not, you aren’t entitlewd to an opinion either. And if you had, you’d know that Wolfson — who was employed as guardian ad litem by the state of Florida, under “Terri’s Law”, who is both an attorney and a DPH, and who specifically was brought into it to act as Terri’s advocate — repeatedly noted on the basis of many sources that Michael had been extrordinarily devoted.

But no, mere facts don’t matter.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:42 pm 78. Caroline:

mrp: “We are seeing a prime example of justice without mercy.”

No – we are seeing a prime example of Process without Justice (let alone mercy).

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:45 pm 79. Charlie (Colorado):

There’s a piece of paper saying that Michael Schiavo is Terri’s husband. Based on his hearsay testimony, a court has ordered her death (rather her killing – as noone is permitted to give her water by mouth, even though Terri is able to swallow – as indicated by the fact that she swallows her own saliva).

No, Caroline, you don’t have the fact part right either. The decision wasn’t baqsed on Michael’s testimony alone, he didn’t have particularly great input into anything except the decision to ask a court to intervene — in fact his input was specifically downgraded because the GAL at the time thought he had a vested interest — and the ability to swallow saliva (which is both more or less body normal and unlikely to cause sepsis) isn’t indicative of an ability to swallow nutrition, but multiple radiological examinations showed that she is in fact unable to swallow normally.

other than being based on incorrect facts in all respects though, it’s a nice try.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:48 pm 80. Buddy Larsen:

Charlie, that’s exactly what I meant. As you point out just above, there’s gonna be some statutory adjustments made to be sure. But the national backdrop will be sour, another objectively inconsequential but subjectively atavistic issue will have flamed the culture wars (and the whole world is now watching, including the part where we’re taking casualties to get folks to understand our sysytem)–unless someone walks across the street and makes an ink mark on a piece of paper and gives this girl’s family a few more weeks to get the testing done that has inexplicably been so far denied.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:49 pm 81. Caroline:

Charlie (Colorado)

Tell me something. Can Terri Schiavo swallow her own saliva? You’ve seen the videotapes – is she drooling? No. So assume she can swallow her own saliva. So once the feeding tube is removed by court order – please explain to me why anyone attempting to give her water orally is being arrested? Does providing water by mouth in some sense qualify as extraordinary measures? Because if so – we have a major problem on our hands – something that affects all of us.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:50 pm 82. Charlie (Colorado):

Most reasonable points have already been made, but I just wanted to make one more; back when this started, there’s no way anyone could have predicted what it would turn into. The question really is not how much money is left *now* (I can readily believe it’s all been swallowed by lawyers) but how much was left when Schiavo first signed the DNR and then tried to get the tube removed. He probably wasn’t expecting to have to spend all the settlement on lawyers; he may well have thought that once he won in court, it would all be over and the tube could have been removed seven or eight years ago and left him with a fair residual amount of the settlement.

I’d even grant that. But what goes unstated here is the issue (reported in USA Today, I think yesterday) that the Schindlers started pressing for guardianship when Michael didn’t fork over part of the settlement to them.

Is this true? I don’t know. But let’s just not forget that Michael isn’t the only person who might have had an interest.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:52 pm 83. Buddy Larsen:

I wouldn’t want to be an innocent man on your death row, Charlie. Even if the person I murdered showed back up tap dancing and singing Dixie, so long as your court hadn’t made any process errors, too bucking fad for me.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:54 pm 84. Buddy Larsen:

Even with USA Today’s adversarial stance on many cultural issues, that bit you mention simply adds to the noise that could be muted forever with a little more time and a de-novo hearing. And not just the Schiavos and Schlindlers,. but we’d ALL be so much better off.

Mar 26, 2005 - 4:59 pm 85. Charlie (Colorado):

I hope that this time the process produced the right outcome – even though that isn’t obviously so. I don’t think we’ll ever know.

Morgan, I honestly can’t think of any way that we could ever know what the “right” outcome would even be. Whether it’s “right” to let her die by inanition, or to keep feeding her artificially, or use her “swallowing reflex” to feed her until her inability to swallow led to aspiration and death by pneumonia, or give her a big pop of morpheine and go easily … well, that’s one of those points of personal belief that I think anyone has a right to.

I just think it would be nice if the people with such strong opinions about the facts of the case seemed to exhibit any sign of having read the available sources.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:00 pm 86. djs:

I’m no lawyer, but the following appears to the most relevant text in judge Greer’s decision.

The court does find that Terri Schiavo did make statements which are creditable and reliable with regard to her intention given the situation at hand. Initially, there is no question that Terri Schiavo does not pose a burden financially to anyone and this would appear to be a safe assumption for the foreseeable future. However, the court notes that the term “burden” is not restricted solely to dollars and cents since one can also be a burden to others emotionally and physically. Statements which Terri Schiavo made which do support the relief sought by her surrogate (Petitioner/Guardian) include statements to him prompted by her grandmother being in intensive care that if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that. Additionally, statements made to Michael Schiavo which were prompted by something on television regarding people on life support that she would not want to life (sic) like that also reflect her intention in this particular situation. Also the statements she made in the presence of Scott Schiavo at the funeral luncheon for his grandmother that “if I ever go like that just let me go. Don’t leave me there. I don’t want to be kept alive on a machine.” and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that ever happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent. The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo’s oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court.

This is ridiculous. I suppose you can describe this sort of evidence as being comprised of “oral statements”, but the term seems to attach more significance and seriousness to Terri’s assertions than is warranted. These were not serious, thoughtful statements followed by hand-shakes or solemn oaths. They were the cavalier, off-hand remarks of a young woman who knew but probably didn’t really believe that she would one day get sick and die.

I’ve made statements like this myself. So have my friends. Maybe I should call up everyone to whom I may have made such an off-hand remark and tell them to discount them lest they be taken to “rise to the level or clear and convincing evidence” by some court trying to deny me basic medical care.

Look, I could be wrong that the decision is this weak, but can someone explain why without resorting personal insults?

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:02 pm 87. SJ:

In thinking about this situation, I tried to put myself in the various parties places. I imagined myself as Michael Schiavo, Terri Schaivo, and the Schindlers. In doing so, I was able to understand how the actions of the husband and of the parents could all be explained as deriving from their love for Terrie. I know that people on both sides want to demonize the other, but in my opinion that is not warranted by the facts). Then I imagined a hypothetical situation in which Michael and Terri were parents (and the Schindlers grandparents) themselves when this happened. Interestingly, the morality of the situation became much more black and white to me. I felt certain that in that case, Michael’s decision to remove the feeding tube was the right one, for the sake of his and Terrie’s child. And I suspect that the Schindlers would feel the same way, for the sake of their grandchild. It would seem wrong to me to burden a small child with the emotional turmoil, sadness and confusion of having a mother in Terrie’s state indefinitely. And I feel quite sure that most mothers would also agree. After this experiment, I thought again about what I (in Terrie’s place) would have wanted in the situation as it stands now (no children). This time the answer seemed far more clear. I would not want my parents and siblings lives to be consumed with taking care of me. I would not want my husband to be consumed with guilt for going on with his life while I lay hopelessly brain damaged, unable to communicate with him in any significant way.

I feel great sadness for the Schindlers and for Michael Schiavo, but the truth is that the court was judged with determining TERRI’S WISHES, not theirs. We have only hearsay from the opposing sides. Some here argue that even if what Michael Schiavo has said were Terri’s statements are in fact true, they’re irrelevant in the face of her parents desire to take care of her, because they were made by a young healthy woman,who could not possibly know how she would feel in her current situation. That is a specious argument, because in cases like Terri’s, no one can ever know how they would feel. They can only make the decision when they are healthy, because once the brain damage has ocurred, it’s too late!

I respectfully suggest that before people make their moral evaluations of the parties involved, they try to identify with Terri, not with her parents or her husband. Look with all honesty at what you would want if you were Terri Schiavo.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:10 pm 88. Syl:

Buddy Larsen:

“Syl, your point about the pain of the family–exactly what argument does that point support? That someone is out-of-line, yes, but whom?”

Why must it support one side or the other? Does that mean you agree with the argument if it supports one side, disagree if it supports another? Let it stand on its own.

Caroline:

“Apparently there are some folks for whom the “hypnotic” part of surgical anesthesia fails to work (the hypnotic part being the part that blocks off any conscious awareness) even as the “paralytic” part of the anesthesia works very well (the paralytic part being the part that freezes all voluntary motion to make the surgery easier). ”

I don’t think this is quite true. It’s not a matter of blocking out consciousness, it’s more a matter of not laying down memory traces. I’ve been in that situation. I had some surgery and I was fully conscious during all of it, but the memory traces were laid down sporadically thus time moved very fast.

As for pain, no, I didn’t feel it because the memory was only of a feeling of pressure. If you don’t feel pain from moment to moment and have no memory of the previous instant it’s not the same as our fully conscious perception.

BTW, I even remember that the surgeon told a joke though I don’t remember the joke.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:10 pm 89. mrp:

Charlie:

I’ve read the Wolfson report. On page 30, there’s a simple, declarative sentence: Terri is a living, breathing human being . He wrote that, didn’t he? A ‘living, breathing human being’ is being starved to death.

Mr. Wolfson’s report does explain in detail the extraordinary efforts he made to aid his wife between 1900 and 1993. Mr. Wolfson also states that just a few months after the lawsuits were settled (1993, I believe), Michael delivered a ‘do not resuscitate’ order to the nursing home staff (early 1994) when his wife contracted a serious bacterial infection. Schiavo only backed down when the staff defied him and administered antibiotics.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:11 pm 90. Charlie (Colorado):

Caroline, there are a couple of things here to consider.

First of all, the video tapes you’ve seen on TV are a few minutes of edited tape produced by the Schindlers attorneys as part of their advocacy. If you look carefully at them, you’ll notice a couple of things that are … unusual. For one, she’s often shown wearing rouge and lipstick. This gives her a nice healthy glow … but would give the same to a wax dummy. Second, watch carefully, and you’ll notice there’s a camera cut between the shot of the balloon being waved above her head and the shot of her eyes going back and forth. Since random eye movements are characteristic of PVS, this looks to me like an artful attempt to make it appear that her eyes are tracking the balloon. But Wolfson, who spent many hours with her over many weeks, never saw any sign that she was actually responsive. My point is that it’s not to the Schindler’s advantage to shows her drooling, so I don’t see much information value in the fact that she isn’t drooling in their tapes.

Second, you’re misunderstanding the point about swallowing. Someone who is under general anaesthesia can’t volitionally swallow either, but will succeed in swallowing saliva. Swallowing saliva is a somewhat separate reflex. But what multiple swallowing studies have concluded is that Terri can’t take food or water by mouth because there would be a very great probability that she would aspirate. (Remember Jimi Hendrix? Janice Joplin? That’s how they died.)

If she did aspirate, and she was lucky, she’d just suffocate quietly. More likely in this context, she’d be rescucitated again, but would then develop pneumonia and die of that. If not the first time, then the next.

Think of it this way: would you try to force water or food down the throat of someone who was deeply asleep? If not, all the reasons you wouldn’t try that apply to Terri as well.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:20 pm 91. ed:

Hmmm.

“Ed, have you read the Wolfson report? If not, you aren’t entitlewd to an opinion either. And if you had, you’d know that Wolfson — who was employed as guardian ad litem by the state of Florida, under “Terri’s Law”, who is both an attorney and a DPH, and who specifically was brought into it to act as Terri’s advocate — repeatedly noted on the basis of many sources that Michael had been extrordinarily devoted.

But no, mere facts don’t matter.”

Really? Then go ahead and list each and every single one of them. Show me that you read the report.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:22 pm 92. Buddy Larsen:

Syl, no, wondering whose side you’re on is the farthestr thing from my mind. My point was far more simple, the family pain that you regret could be lessened to the degree added by the legal blows–at no apparent cost to a soul on earth–by merely backing up a couple weeks and running a few court-ordered tests. To worry about the Schindler’s pain without acknowledging the ease with which the proximate part could be lifted, is to shed crocodile tears–and I’ve read enough of your posts over the last year or two to know you don’t mean to do that. Neither you OR Charlie. Y’all are two of the clearest thinkers/writers anywhere in the blogosphere.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:23 pm 93. ed:

Hmmm.

“Think of it this way: would you try to force water or food down the throat of someone who was deeply asleep? If not, all the reasons you wouldn’t try that apply to Terri as well.”

It’s pretty easy to see that the word that completely defines your points is:

Probably.

That’s an astonishing level of proof.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:25 pm 94. Buddy Larsen:

Look, the Wolfson report is great exculpation for the Mr., that’s fine, but it’s not worth toilet paper to address the issue of why the court won’t hear what by any standard is enough NEW info to get a jaywalker facing 30 days another hearing. Yet for some unfathomable reason, on an actual life-and-death issue, these poor Schindlers can’t be granted a tiny nod. The judicial insult will ruin the rest of their lives. SO avoidable, at SO little cost.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:35 pm 95. Charlie (Colorado):

DJS, I don’t know any way to settle it with any finality. Terri didn’t have a Living Will or durable power of attorney. Under Florida law, once it was clear she would never recover, the court had to consider everything to determine if she would want the “heroic measures” to continue. The best they could figure it out, based on all the evidence (and by the way, note that unlike some people believe, “hearsay” doesn’t necessarily mean either “wrong” or “inadmissible”) that Terri didn’t want it.

Could they be wrong? Sure. If you know of a way to find out absolutely and certainly, I’d love to hear it. But don’t tell me that we shouldn’t then make life and death decisions based on this kind of evidence, because the courts make those decisions, based on “clear and convincing evidence” all the time, and not just about the right to refuse treatment.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:38 pm 96. Caroline:

Charlie: “Swallowing saliva is a somewhat separate reflex. But what multiple swallowing studies have concluded is that Terri can’t take food or water by mouth because there would be a very great probability that she would aspirate.”

Charlie – I appreciate that clarification. I’m not sure I completely buy it in this case because I notice a distinct tendency among Michael Schiavo and his professional medical “experts” to cut the evidence a hair short of what might convince other interested parties in this case – namely her biological family. But let’s say you’re right that she can’t swallow fluids even if she can swallow her own saliva. Please now explain to me why good samaritans cannot even try to put a little water on her tongue (which is now bleeding) – even at the risk of her aspirating to death. I mean – it just seems logical that if she feels absolutely zero in the face of being dehydarated to death – that the court shouldn’t really object to attempts to feed her oral fluids, even if that results in hastening her death by aspiration. I appreciate your patience in addressing all these issues – but that is an issue I would really like addressed.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:38 pm 97. Charlie (Colorado):

Ed, I’ve been quoting from Wolfson off and on for a while. You’ve been proving you don’t know what Wolfson says for a while. What part of “I don’t think you have an informed opinion worth considering” are you finding difficult to follow?

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:42 pm 98. Charlie (Colorado):

Caroline, do you have any evidence that any study would convince the Schindlers?

I’d say that if there was anything I learned in my six years in medical school, it’s these two things: doctors are mortals; doctors are on average very very aware that they’re dealing with people’s lives.

I find it very difficult to imagine that three different radioloigical studies would come to complete agreement about her ability to swallow, with all three of them being done by doctors who were sufficiently unethical that they’d agree to give false evidence that would lead to Terri’s death.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:48 pm 99. Caroline:

Syl: “I’ve been in that situation. I had some surgery and I was fully conscious during all of it, but the memory traces were laid down sporadically thus time moved very fast.”

Wow Syl! That is very interesting! Frankly that would worry me a little bit. I.e. – this time a little intermittent “pressure” rapidly forgotten due to failure to lay down memory traces – the next time, intermittent “pressure” coalescing into rapidly and sequentially laid down memory traces, resulting in a more temporally continuous and subjective experience of PAIN!

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:50 pm 100. djs:

Charlie,

Also pertaining to the admissability of oral statements in Florida:

Although a surrogate may rely on oral statements made by the incompetent, while competent, to exercise the incompetent’s wishes to forego life-sustaining treatment, the presumption of clear and convincing evidence that attaches to a written declaration does not attach to purely oral declarations. Oral evidence, considered alone, may constitute clear and convincing evidence. However, the surrogate would bear the burden of proof if a decision based on purely oral evidence is challenged.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:51 pm 101. Charlie (Colorado):

DJS, do you have an actual point there? According to the court, the burden of proof was met. Are you proposing that any court judgement should be vacated if you don’t agree with it?

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:55 pm 102. Charlie (Colorado):

For a traditional Christian viewpoint in this whole thing, see Rev. Don Sensing’s blog.

Mar 26, 2005 - 5:59 pm 103. Charlie (Colorado):

Charles Johnson has some good things to say:

Glenn also points out that the ÔøΩagree on everything or youÔøΩre evilÔøΩ approach is exactly what has gotten the Democrat Party into such trouble; and I would add to that: 1) the failure to fact check, and 2) the willingness to believe in questionable sources with unshakable certainty.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:01 pm 104. Terrye:

Charlie:

I fed sherbert to a man who was supposed to be just like this. Now you can tell me that I did not really feed him sherbert, I just thought I fed him sherbert because pvs people can not eat sherbert ergo I must have been hallucinating or whatever. But you know what? We do not decide if a person is a human being based upon whether or not he or she can swallow. One thing we know for sure, she can die and she is going to do that very soon.

But the point is we do not have sharia in this country and that woman is not the property of her husband. She has rights that have nothing to do with him.

As for her wishes… did you notice that all the people she made these offhand comments to were her husband’s family? Her friends and family say something else entirely and that is the problem.

A few years ago in Missouri the family of a young woman wanted to remove her from life support and a federal court said no, because they had nothing in writing. I have been told time again that in medicine if it is not documented it did not happen.

That is the problem, the system is capricious.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:01 pm 105. Caroline:

Charlie (Colorado) – yes – I am somewhat inclined to think that her parents would be greatly relieved by evidence of an fMRI that showed her to be totally unresponsive. It might make it easier to let go rather than them imagining until the end that she was communicating with them, even if she were not. But that aside, I simply see no reason for the courts to order her death based on her (sort of) husband’s hearsay evidence, based on the fact that she isn’t terminally ill or in pain or hogging advanced life support equipment that could better be used for someone more deserving (it’s just a feeding tube for Pete’s sake), based on the fact that she has parents who are willing to take care of her at their own financial expense. So actually it’s all quite senseless. But even setting that aside – anyone should be able to give her oral fluids even if she can’t swallow and even if it results in her aspiration. I’ll bet anything – that despite what you say about the difference between swallowing saliva and swallowing fluids – that someone could adminster a very tiny amount of fluid via an eyedropper that would somewhat relieve any potential agony she might be going through. Even though you are a health care professional, I doubt you are willing to 100% dismiss entirely the possibility that she might be suffering.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:02 pm 106. djs:

Charlie,

No, merely that their decision is laughable.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:07 pm 107. Charlie (Colorado):

Abstract Appeal has an excellent detailed explication ofr the points of law and medicine that people ought to read. Some specific points — not offered as argument, but as a tease to get you to read the whole thing:

An assertion that the ward made a particular statement may certainly be challenged as unreliable — that the ward never said it — but there is no question that evidence of the ward’s oral statements is admissible evidence, or that oral statements may constitute clear and convincing evidence.

On the topic of whether the “de novo review” was properly done:

De novo review is a common type of review in which the lower court’s decision is reexamined in its entirety. No deference is paid to the lower court’s conclusion, and the appellate court decides for itself whether it reaches the same conclusion the lower court reached. Importantly, though, in a de novo review, the appellate court looks only to the record produced below to make its decision. The appellate court does not accept new evidence. The court can review transcripts, exhibits, and whatever else was before the lower court.

Not accepting new evidence is what distinguishes de novo review from a de novo trial.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:08 pm 108. Buddy Larsen:

I’m just wondering if anyone knows the legal history of case law on denial of due process. But I’ve worked in enough foreign countries to know that one of the first things an ex-pat wants to know is whether or not the courts operate properly. I’m not going blue-sky here, merely wondering if this country routinely allows such arbitrary and controversial fiat decisions on definitions of merit.

BTW, the news reports just now that the Mr. denied her her final communion, just minutes ago. This reported by a priest speaking for the family, which has asked the crowd to go home now, and be with their families.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:08 pm 109. Charlie (Colorado):

Here’s an extended, and in my opinion, very balanced FAQ on the issue.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:09 pm 110. Charlie (Colorado):

I’ve read the Wolfson report. On page 30, there’s a simple, declarative sentence: Terri is a living, breathing human being.

Yes. One who you apparently believe you are entitled to force medical treatment on against her expressed desire.

Luckily, Florida citizens are protected against people like you by the Florida Constitution.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:13 pm 111. Charlie (Colorado):

Terrye, if you’re telling me that you fed significant amounts of sherbet to someone who had had three barium studies showing that feeding by mouth risked aspiration, and against medical orders to the contrary, don’t you think you should consult your attorney and your state licensing board before you admit it in print?

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:19 pm 112. Godzilla:

Buddy, at this point Felos and company will be fighting tooth and nail to “protect” her privacy. Remember, she’s dying peacefully.

Yeah, right.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:23 pm 113. Godzilla:

To add to my post. I would be amazed if they allow Terri to be seen at this point.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:25 pm 114. Buddy Larsen:

Appellates don’t take new evidence, but they do rule on whether the law was followed by the lower. But new evidence has no less weight, it’s that it has to be tried by the same rules–the rules of evidence. But some proceeding has to pass the baton. what if you meet the criteria for that proceeding–by reasonable standards of precedent–and can’t get it? What’s the recourse?

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:26 pm 115. Charlie (Colorado):

Caroline, you’re repeating the mistaken assertion that the decision was made on the basis of Michael’s heresay testimony alone. Please read the stuff I linked above: that isn’t true.

On the MRI or PET scan studies, the thing is that in Terri’s case there’s a great gaping hole where most of her cerebral cortex should be. An MRI would confirm that. A PET scan would confirm that what she’s got left was metabolizing. But we know that — if her cerebellum and midbrain weren’t functioning, she’d be on a respirator besides.

You don’t need detailed radiological studies to observe an amputation.

As far as the suffering question goes, I honestly don’t think there’s anyone there any longer to suffer.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:30 pm 116. Terrye:

Charlie:

I am telling you that sometimes things are not as simple as you think.

I took care of this man for four years, until his mother died. He was on a feeding tube, but every now and then we woud give him a taste of popsicle or sherbert.

Besides he was already really dead so who cares?

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:30 pm 117. Charlie (Colorado):

Terrye, I’m just saying that if you risked him aspirating against his attending’s orders, you probably don’t want to say so in print.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:34 pm 118. Charlie (Colorado):

This link to the Abstract Appeal TERRI SCHIAVO INFORMATION PAGE would probably be useful too. There’s a good explanation of the “due process” question above too.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:38 pm 119. Terrye:

I saw some information about how Terri told members of her husband’s family that she would not want to be a burden. Of course her best friend says she said she would want to be kept alive because where there is life there is hope. She might have said both. She was young, she had no way of knowing people were taking notes.

And you know the fact is that young woman probably did not even really understand what a feeding tube was. I don’t want to be a burden either. I don’t want to be on a ventilater either but if I have the choice of a feeding tube or being treated like this woman is right now I would take the feeding tube. Chances are she would have too if she had understood.

But hey, very soon her husband and his lawyers will have managed to starve a helpless woman to death. Way to go. Takes real guts to do that.

Has he even relented and said he woud let her family have the remains? Last I heard he had refused them even that much.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:38 pm 120. Terrye:

Charlie:

It was not against the orders. That is what I am saying. This man was at home, in the care of his family. I don’t know where you get the idea that it would be against orders. Now starving him was against the orders.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:42 pm 121. flenser:

charlie

Long time, amigo.

You say;

ì..you apparently believe you are entitled to force medical treatment on against her expressed desire. Luckily, Florida citizens are protected against people like you by the Florida Constitution.î

Here is what the Florida Constitution actually says.

ìEvery natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein.î

How does allowing the womans family to feed her constitute ìgovermental intrusionî into her private life?

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:45 pm 122. Caroline:

Charlie (Colorado) “As far as the suffering question goes, I honestly don’t think there’s anyone there any longer to suffer.”

Charlie – God bless you for fielding so many questions from all of us all by your lonesome. You must feel somewhat besieged! I don’t know what stage of your medical training you’ve completed – maybe you’re a resident at this point or maybe you dropped out altogether. And I accept your honest and professional assessment that Terri is not suffering through this process.

But I just want to make one point – something that you can’t and that I don’t expect you to address:

If there is noone “there any longer to suffer” then Michael Schiavo’s case is dead in the water. That assessment makes any claims that ‘Terri would not want to live this way’ irrelevant. The Terri who isn’t suffering through the abominable experience of dehydration is the same Terri who isn’t suffering any indignity in being hooked to a feeding tube and being cared for by her parents who can’t let go of her. Maybe it merely matters to the living. But one really can’t have it both ways.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:46 pm 123. Terrye:

It is hard to explain to people who have never taken care of other people like this that there is a difference between swabbing a mouth and pouring a cup of liquid down someone’s throat. There is a difference between taking a tiny bit of something soft and letting someone have a taste.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:48 pm 124. mrp:

Charlie wrote:

[mrp:] I’ve read the Wolfson report. On page 30, there’s a simple, declarative sentence: Terri is a living, breathing human being.

Yes. One who you apparently believe you are entitled to force medical treatment on against her expressed desire.

Luckily, Florida citizens are protected against people like you by the Florida Constitution.

—-

I’m not a licensed health care worker, so the good people of Florida can heave a great sigh of relief. Since the laws of Florida bar me from forcing medical treatment on anyone between Pensacola and Key West, I reckon the Florida Consitution is doing just as it was intended.

Nor do I believe that anyone should violate the Florida Constitution in order to ‘rescue’ Terri Schiavo. Indeed, her parents have never advocated violence on their daughter’s behalf.

I believe substantial evidence has been ignored; obvious conflicts of interest have been dismissed.

Charlie, I only comment and opinionate, without the slightest interest in forcing anyone to do anything.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:57 pm 125. Caroline:

Terrye: “It is hard to explain to people who have never taken care of other people like this that there is a difference between swabbing a mouth and pouring a cup of liquid down someone’s throat. There is a difference between taking a tiny bit of something soft and letting someone have a taste.”

It shouldn’t require any “explanation”. Just a slight capacity for “imagination” as a human being in that situation.

Mar 26, 2005 - 6:58 pm 126. Patrick Tyson:

Buddy—

This court is irresponsible. Why?

My opinion is that it is the politicians who have been irresponsible in leading the parents (and others) to believe that the supposed relief they enacted, at both the state and federal level, would lead to a result other than the one the courts have consistantly arrived at and that is now playing out.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:05 pm 127. Terrye:

CAroline:

I have had several people like Terri and I have had Alzheimer clients also.

And something I have discovered is that they are not at all alike.

Not once you get to know them. Obviously anyone who has a feeding tube has a swallowing disorder. And it goes without saying you can not be trying to force feed them..but some people seem to retain more function than others even if they are considered to be in a persistant vegetative state. But you have to know that patient. And in all the years I was with him I never caused him harm. And besides his mother was his primary caregiver and she pretty much knew what to do. She was great with him.

Now I had Alzheimer patients who seemed as or even more oblivious to their surroundings and yet they could eat without chocking.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:08 pm 128. Terrye:

Patrick:

Not really. It is very rare that physically healthy people are just starved like this and there had been enough cases where a living will or some other written authorization had been required that I think the family really thought they had a shot and besides it is almost impossible for a mother to give up hope so long as her child lives. There are a lot of states where this might have turned out very differntly.

I will tell you I have seen young people like this taken care of by parents and siblings more often than husbands and wives. Older people are different, they tend to stick together more.

Young people want a life, and that is not a bad thing.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:13 pm 129. Charlie (Colorado):

Ann Althouse:

Why, seriously, does he think so many federal judges took the position they did? Why did the United States Supreme Court not intervene? Not one Justice wrote a dissent from the denial of certiorari. All these able jurists are just outrageously sitting back, flouting the will of Congress and allowing a woman to die? Does that make any sense?

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:15 pm 130. flenser:

Come on, Charlie.

The Supreme Court refusal to review does not make a comment one way or the other on the merit of the case.

As for flouting the will of Congress; clearly, they did. Unless they actually thought the will of Congress was that they do nothing.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:24 pm 131. Charlie (Colorado):

Terrye:

It was not against the orders. That is what I am saying. This man was at home, in the care of his family. I don’t know where you get the idea that it would be against orders. Now starving him was against the orders.

Then I misunderstood what you were saying when you said that this guy was in the same state as Terri Schiavo. But now you tell me: did his attending’s orders include giving him enough by mouth that you could have sustained him? Or, if he’d aspirated, choked, and died, would that be morally different from stopping the feeding tube?

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:24 pm 132. Terrye:

Charlie:

I think the judges just took the facts from the first judge and went with them. But it is possible for reasonable people to disagree with the courts. Opponents of capital punishment do it all the time.

But it is still cruel.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:29 pm 133. Charlie (Colorado):

Flenser:

(1) Thanks. I’ve been busting my ass with a consulting client for weeks, it’s a relief to have some time off.

(2) I’ll claim some medical expertise, but law is too much for me. Follow the “Abstract Appeal” links for detailed discussion of the point about the Florida Constitution.

(3) Ditto the other: I was quoting Ann Althouse, you should argue with her about what she said. I’m not an attorney.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:30 pm 134. Buddy Larsen:

Terrye, I’d vote for you as my nurse any day. I did spend 15 months, 12 hours/day on this duty, it only ended in Aug’03 and i’m still not out of the woods myself on it. it was my mom. So, I know what you are saying about these cases being unique and in a right world only handled ny diktat in lieu of any other reasonable plan. This is what Caroline is saying, too.

Patrick, you’re slightly to the side of this point, I think…”the result that the court has arrived at” is what we onject to, not the courts right, or mandate or whatever, to arrive at a result. I think what you and Charlie and a few others are seeing as an extremely over-emotional personalized attack on the system–threatening Pandora’s Box–is not at all what we’re trying to get across.

Our point–or mine–is the Schindlers want to take care of their daughter, who is not really ill, just handicapped. Jesus Christ almighty, why is it so hard to see the moral correctness of this? The court holds the pencil, Patrick–I’m not doing democrat/republican here.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:35 pm 135. Patrick Tyson:

Terrye—

The Schindlers have my sympathy.

The politicians deserve anything and everything negative that comes their way.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:36 pm 136. djs:

From an excellent post over at CounterColumn – Terri

If Terri Schiavo is really vegetative, then let the burden of proof fall on those who wish to kill her. Let her undergo modern MRI and other testing.

If Terri Schiavo is really vegetative, then why the bloody rush?

I’m not a lawyer. But I know what a fiduciary is. There is no way on God’s green earth that Mr. Schiavo’s conduct can meet the standard of fiduciary. I expect less self dealing out of a registered investment advisor than I see on Mr. Schiavo’s part.

If we are going to uphold the rights of a guardian to pursue the interests of his charge, then we certainly ought to FIRST uphold the rights of the charge to a guardian who is free of obvious conflicts, and who will fight FOR the charge’s interests, and not against them. Otherwise the rights of the guardian are simply not worth upholding in the first place.

If Michael Schiavo is Terri’s guardian, by mere virtue of paper matrimony, then let him act like one.

Husbands are supposed to husband, protect, shelter, care for, and fight for their wives. They aren’t supposed to withhold therapy, withhold testing, and fight to see them dead.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:41 pm 137. Terrye:

Charlie:

This client had a feeding tube. That is how he took his meds and his food. He was supposed to be in a persistant vegitative state. But sometimes he did seem more aware than others.

His mother was his caregiver and on rare occasions she would give him a taste, and I do mean just a taste, of something like sherbert or a popsicle. She worked with a therapist on this in the home and while he could take a very minimal amount of something like that he could not begin to sustain life and you had to be extremely careful. Like I said she worked with a therapist on this, but with minimal success.

When I say he was like Terri, I am saying he was supposed to be unaware, not cognitive.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:42 pm 138. Terrye:

Charlie:

And no of course I would never risk the safety of a client.

After all I do think there is something there.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:46 pm 139. Charlie (Colorado):

Terrye, I agree that reasonable people can disagree; I just think it’s unfair to call Michael Schiavo a murderer for doing so.

Caroline, as usual with me, it’s not quite that simple. For complicated reasons, I basically did all the classroom work for an MD at Duke Med School (except for gross anatomy, darn it) while I was doing my PhD work; I then worked there for some years more. So I’m to some extent that most feared of patients: the guy with the training but little clinical experience. On the other hand, I get the emailed “how do you interpret these symptoms/this radiograph” questions right most of the time. But as I say, I did learn that its a damn rare MD who would let himself be used the way that Schiavo would have had to use dozens of independent MDs to force an unjustified result.

As to fielding so many questions, this is frighteningly sort of my idea of time off from the usual day’s work. Sad, isn’t it?

On the “no one left to suffer” point, well, I can’t argue it. Terri’s gone past that wall in the twilight that we all end up facing eventually; I don’t believe it concerns her any more. I do sort of feel that respect for her ought to include respect for her wishes as we best understand them, but I’d be hard pressed to argue for it on the basis of reason. But at this point I do think it’s most merciful for everyone involved — both the Schiavos and the Schindlers — to let her go.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:47 pm 140. flenser:

Charlie

From the Abstract;

ìJudge Greer held a full trial in this case to determine how Terri would choose to exercise her privacy rights. Michael was on one side; Terri’s parents were on the other. Both sides brought witnesses and experts. In the end, the judge ruled that Terri would not wish to continue receiving nurishment and hydration through a surgically implanted tube.î

Lets assume for the moment that Terri would agree that she would not wish to be fed through a tube.

The problem is that this has nothing at all to do with her privacy rights under the Florida constitution, unless the State of Florida proposed to force-feed her. I don’t believe that to be the case.

Again, her privacy rights under the constitution protect her solely against government intrusions into her private affairs. The constitution says nothing at all about whether she has privacy rights which her family, or any non-government body, must respect.

Interestingly, the court did not see fit to wonder whether it’s own involvement in this case constituted an infringement of her rights, although it unquestionably constitutes an involvement in her private affairs. Presumably this is the usual judicial arrogance at work; the idea that the ìgovernmentî mentioned in the constitution does not include the courts, which are in some sense above the law, in their own minds.

Anyway, have to go. G’night all.

Mar 26, 2005 - 7:58 pm 141. Terrye:

Charlie:

I don’t know the man [needless to say] but I just dislike the idea that a man has this power because of a socalled marriage. It bugs me. I can not help it.

But I think there is bad blood and too many years of anger here and that this thing has taken on a life of its own.

I doubt if these people recognize themselves sometimes.

And I think that my aversion to this comes from taking care of my own parents and my job.

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:03 pm 142. Charlie (Colorado):

Okay, Terrye, then I give up: what is your point? Of course no one belives that the ability to swallow defines “life”. Someone could be fed per rectum or by feeding in the vena cavae (damned if i mcan remember the right phrase offhand, and I don’t want to pull down my Harrison’s right now) after something like stomach cancer or drinking lye or something. If they were awake and even partially consscious, no one would say “don’t feed them” — and in fact they’d probably make an effort to force feed them if they decided to “turn their face to the wall.”

Nor do I blame the Schindlers for not wanting to give up. Hell, I just spent six months force feeding a Siamese hoping she’d recover, or just so that I wouldn’t have to give her up, and I still can’t think about it without tearing up. It’s goot to be immesnely worse for them.

But instead of recognizing that it’s tough for everyone concerned, look at what’s been said: that Micheal is a murderer; that Judge Greer was willing to condemn Terri in return for a campaign contribution; that dozens of judges ignored justice and mercy in order to maintain the process; that Michael is only after the money; that there is this immense conspiracy — the “Culture of Death” — that wants to kill her.

I dunno; I guess I just think anything that puts the “Operation Rescue” guy on one side, and me and Don Sensing on the other, has me where I want to be.

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:04 pm 143. Terrye:

Charlie:

One thing about my client I did not mention is that his mother would complain bitterly about the doctors. She said that once the diagnosis was made she played hell getting anyone to look at him again.

And so most of his care came from her. He was on medicaid and now that I think about it I can not even remember what his doctor’s name was. If he got a urinary tract infection or something she used a local doctor and every now and then she would get an agency [like mine] to send in therapists and nurses and aides. But the care he received was from her and his family. If I saw any neglect I was to report it, but in truth they were on their own. People get a diagnosis like this and unless they have a lot of money they just get forgotten. I guess the doctors just think there is no point in doing much with them.

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:11 pm 144. Terrye:

Charlie:

My point is that there is not a point. So what if she can swallow or not? My guy would have died without the feeding tube, but with therapy he could do better, but not better enough. He was what he was, but his mother loved him.

And I am not saying her husband is a murderer.

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:17 pm 145. djs:

“But instead of recognizing that it’s tough for everyone concerned, look at what’s been said:”

Oh spare me! You’ve easily been the most uncivil commenter on this thread. It’s hardly been the case the people taking your side of the issue have been without rhetorical excess. Take it from a “Jesus Freak” like me with no right to an opinion absent the ability to regurgitate legal jargon from memory.

Guardian Cartoon

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:27 pm 146. Charlie (Colorado):

So Terrye, if you knew he’d asked not to be mainained on support when there was no longer any hope, would you feel justified in keeping him on the feeding tube anyway? How about if there were a DNR order?

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:29 pm 147. Charlie (Colorado):

Take it from a “Jesus Freak” like me with no right to an opinion absent the ability to regurgitate legal jargon from memory.

Why bother when you’ve said it so ably yourself?

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:32 pm 148. mrp:

Charlie:

that Judge Greer was willing to condemn Terri in return for a campaign contribution;

Did someone on this thread accuse Judge Greer of accepting bribes in order to receive a favorable ruling?

I didn’t. As I stated above, for all I know, lawyers and law firms routinely give campaign contributions to state judges in whose courts their cases are tried.

It apparently isn’t illegal to do so; it does appear to me to be a conflict of interest; and there’s no evidence that Judge Greer returned his campaign contributions to Michael Schiavo’s attorneys.

I’m sure an attorney practicing law in Judge Greer’s court without contributing to Judge Greer’s re-election campaign will receive treatment equal to that of an attorney who did.

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:34 pm 149. djs:

Charlie,

Thanks for making my point for me!

Gotta run. Night all.

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:38 pm 150. Charlie (Colorado):

Charlie, I only comment and opinionate, without the slightest interest in forcing anyone to do anything.

So you feel justified in pressing your opinions without feeling any responsibility for the consequences of the outcome?

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:40 pm 151. Terrye:

Charlie:

I didn’t know and I can’t know because he did not have a living will and since his wife ran off with his brother and left his aging parents to care for him and his two children there was no way she was going to be making any decisions.

My feelings are that if the state is going to kill someone like Terri, they should do it in a humane fashion. I think that we will never know what Terri would have wanted, but it would have been better for her parents and her family if she had died when she went into cardiac arrest.

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:45 pm 152. Charlie (Colorado):

I don’t know the man [needless to say] but I just dislike the idea that a man has this power because of a socalled marriage. It bugs me. I can not help it.

Terrye, you’d find this a lot easier to take, I think, if you would read the stuff I’ve linked and find out what really happened. Michael didn’t and doesn’t have that power: all he could do is ask, as her guardian, that the court decide what her wishes would have been. There was then an extended trial with a guardian ad litem appointed to her — that is, an attorney who was acting specifically as her advocate — a trial with cross-examination and argument and all that stuff, which concluded that it was Terri’s own wish not to be maintained artificially.

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:50 pm 153. mrp:

Charlie:

[mrp:] Charlie, I only comment and opinionate, without the slightest interest in forcing anyone to do anything.

So you feel justified in pressing your opinions without feeling any responsibility for the consequences of the outcome?

——

You do me too much honor, Sir.

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:52 pm 154. Charlie (Colorado):

Okay, MRP, so you didn’t mean to imply that the fact that someone made a campaign contribution tto Judge Greer after the decision raised the question of whether Greer had been unfairly influenced.

I mean after all, who would have ever drawn that inference from the suggestion that there was a questionable conflict of interest involved?

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:53 pm 155. Terrye:

btw the guy I am talking about was in a bike wreck, he was revived at the scene, brought back from the dead.

And no Charlie I don’t think they should have done that. But they did not know what would happen.

But look at Africa and the Aids patients dying in misery. Compared to them the idea of someone like Terri being cared for people who love them does not exactly seem like a bad thing.

There is far too much misery in the world.

Good night Charlie and if I said anything I should not have I am sorry.

Mar 26, 2005 - 8:54 pm 156. Charlie (Colorado):

Nice dodge, MRP, but I’m quite serious: you don’t like it that the State of Florida has spent ten years and who knows how much attempting to protect Terri’s right to decline medical treatment because you don’t like the outcome, but you don’t mean to thereby compel Terri to have that medical treatment. You want to question whether Judge Greer was compromised by campaign contributions, but you don’t mean to imply that he was influenced by those contributions. Do you actually have an opinion you’ll stand up for?

Mar 26, 2005 - 9:04 pm 157. Terrye:

Charlie:

I love ya, I really do and I do have to go but you speak of Terr’s desires as if you knew them for certainty. And you don’t and you can’t. No one can. Too many years, too many conflicting reports and there is nothing in writing. I remember I used to tell people I wanted to be in the peace corps and that I thought wearing a bra was a sign of bondage.

Times have changed and so have I.

But we do know that no one if asked Terri if she wanted to starve to death.

We will just have to live with the outcome.

good night.

Mar 26, 2005 - 9:16 pm 158. richard mcenroe:

Charlie(Colorado) ó There is something fundamentally improper in a judge receiving campaign contributions from attorneys who appear before him, in any context, especially in a life-or-death situation such as this.

These were doubtless not the first donations Greer received from lawyers appearing before him. This is exactly the sort of incestuous relationship and procedure that poisons dependency courts all across this country.

Mar 26, 2005 - 9:40 pm 159. des:

Five years ago my father (then 83), who had suffered from mental illness most of his adult life and who, in the last 2 years or so of his life had rapidly progressing dementia coupled with pronounced physical deterioration, finally had to be institutionalized when he was no longer able to live in his own house anymore.

My sisters and I had resisted institutionalizing him for as long as we could, even though his quality of life as a shut-in would have been deemed intolerable by most people, because we knew due to his mental illness that removing him from his house would cause so much confusion that the stress and anxiety would kill him within a relatively short period of time.

So anyway, shortly after he was put in a nearby nursing home, my oldest sister flew down to FL to see him. (We were all living in different areas of the country, a circumstance that compounded the problem of caring for him. My middle sister wanted to move him to nearby where she lived, but she had to file a petition with the court to do so, and that was taking a lot of time, and in the meantime while the legal process ground on, Dad was shuttled from facility to facility. But that’s another story. And I digress.)

After visiting with him for 2 or 3 days, Oldest Sister reported that Dad had lost the will to live and was refusing his food, and getting physical with the nurses when they tried to feed him. Because of his tendency to wander and to struggle with his caregivers, they had to use restraints on him. Hence, said Older Sister, the resulting emotional shutdown and loss of the will to live, which Older Sister painted as a persistent and permanent state of mind on Dad’s part.

Shortly after receiving this report, Middle Sister and I spent a looooong time on the phone talking about what our options were. We weren’t even at the level of legal fine points or copiously researched medical procedures. This was just the initial gut call — what was the least worst thing we could do for our father? (Since there were no *good* options.)

Middle Sister, who is temperamentally very similar to me and shares many of my beliefs, told me that if Dad continued to refuse nourishment, then forcing nutrition on him (intravenously, most likely) would only prolong the profound mental and emotional anguish he was in — needlessly, in her opinion — and that, since his mental state would not reverse course, the “least worst” option would be to let him have his wish and die. (Translated: to let him starve himself to death)

I truly did understand the horror with which she regarded Dad’s anguish because I shared that horror myself. And I knew my sister loved Dad every bit as much as I did. And I also knew that she, being an intelligent and considerate person, was honestly trying to work out a course of action that she thought was best for Dad, not Middle Sister.

But.

Having told her that I understood all of the above, I also told her that I could not stress how strongly I disagreed with her on this. “T, I *can’t* let my father starve to death. I just can’t.” I acknowledged that forcibly keeping him alive against his wishes in his rapidly deteriorating condition could very well constitute subjecting him to further mental & emotional anguish, and that I didn’t like that one damn bit.

But.

I. Just. Couldn’t. Bring. Myself. To. Starve. My. Father. To. Death.

Mar 26, 2005 - 9:43 pm 160. des:

(continued)

So … was my extreme revulsion to the idea more about sparing Youngest Sister’s feelings (as in, trying to avert lifelong guilt) than about doing what was best for Dad?

Possible.

But extreme revulsion it was. And I could not get around it. Middle Sister and I were at an impasse.

We found out a few days later that Oldest Sister had overreacted to the situation during her visits and ended up painting too grim a picture. (We should have guessed — her family nickname is Eeyore!) Dad’s refusal to eat was temporary, not permanent, it turned out. So we were spared from having to explore any further down that road of horrible decision we were briefly faced with.

About two months later, Dad died of a heart attack.

There are so many differences between his condition and that of Terri Schiavo that I am not attempting to make a comparison or offer a prescription on that case.

I just wanted to offer the perspective of a family member who, for a brief time, thinking that they were faced with the decision of “force nutrition against loved one’s wishes vs. let starve” found themselves on the opposite side of the fence as another family member.

It’s an infernal position to be in.

And I am really, really, really glad that in the end we were not faced to make such a choice. Because I honestly don’t know what I would have done if Middle Sister and I had remained in such strong disagreement. It could very well have destroyed our relationship without resolving anything non-horrifically where Dad was concerned.

And so I don’t know how to put myself in the place of the Schiavos or the Schindlers. I wouldn’t wish that kind of decision on anyone. I can only say that my hunch is that I would have been on the side of Terri’s parents.

Can’t. Let. My. Daughter. Starve. To. Death.

I know, in my own wee, small, way, where that comes from.

Mar 26, 2005 - 9:58 pm 161. Buddy Larsen:

Been there des. Want to amplify but central Texas has ice cubes coming out the sky and my wifi is screwy, just want to try to pointout that the ‘don’t feed’ folks HAVE to be right, because she’ll be dead. anything comes out of all these smelly side issues–and I hope for us all that nothing does–and there’ll be some hard feelings. the ‘please judge greer, re-open the case’ folks do not have to be right. And I knoww the dangers of exceptionalism, precedent-setting, clogged courts, too many old folks for social security to feed, etcetera. I’m all for encouraging retired folks to smoke and drink and go out fast and fun-loving (jest)…but this case has some things that firewall those precedent worries. Everyone–judges too–would’ve been so much better off going the other way. I think cost free. Courts aren’t holy, many dictator/tyrants have done the worst things perfectly legally…this fact caused some new international law to be written in order to hold Nuremberg, for cryin’ out loud…because everything the n*zis did inside germany was legal as can be. And charlie, all due respect and sympathy–I love my dogs dearly–but why did you try so hard to save your siamese? Finality, right? The small chance was all you had, so you took it? well…can’t believe I didn’t lose my beam yet…g’nite and Lord have mercy on us all.

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:02 pm 162. mrp:

Charlie, I’ll tackle the other stuff later today (it’s 12:34AM here). But I’m going to address one point in your post now.

You want to question whether Judge Greer was compromised by campaign contributions, but you don’t mean to imply that he was influenced by those contributions.

As I stated in the my 8:34PM post:

it does appear to me to be a conflict of interest

That’s an opinion, Charlie. I believe, in general terms, that attorneys and law firms making campaign contributions to judges, especially judges before whom they plead cases, create an inherent conflict of interest. The fact that Michael Schiavo’s lawyers had indeed contributed money to Judge Greer’s re-election campaign, in my opinion, simply makes a specific example of a general statement of opinion.

One might ask: What’s the problem with lawyers sending checks to the campaign coffers of trial judges? Why do attorneys contribute to judges’ campaigns in the first place? Is there a penalty incurred by an attorney or a law firm if he/she/they don’t make a contribution?

Personally, I think it’s rather shameful that such questions have to be asked (by me, anyway) in the first place. I have no way of knowing whether or not Judge Greer or any other judge is influenced by a particular campaign contribution. But when attorneys for Michael Schiavo send hundreds of dollars to the judge’s campaign while an important case is being decided, I ask “Why did they do that?” I think even the appearance of a conflict of interest should have required the replacement of Judge Greer with someone else.

Take jury selection. What is the likelihood that a potential juror would be dismissed, if, say, he had personal financial dealings with the accused/plaintiff/defendant? Are judges held to a different standard?

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:16 pm 163. Terrye:

I can not sleep. damn.

des, My mom had problems like that and then she went blind and then she had an aneurism and then she got cancer. In the end she died in a nursing home with me at her side. Her last words to me were “I am sorry”..but I know what you mean about moving people from their safe place, you never know what a fragile person might do.

I don’t hold much stock with the Geneva Conventions people but they say this is torture, plain and simple. Deliberate starvation and dehydration are crimes against humanity. sheesh.

I think one thing that has bothered me is that if you had asked me a month ago I would have said let me go, but now that I know what that can mean I am having second thoughts. If I am maybe Terri would have too. We will never know.

My man friend said to me today: don’t let me kids starve me. I told him to put that in writing.

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:22 pm 164. Buddy Larsen:

I hate exceptionalism in thought…folks oughtta have principles and stick with ‘em. I’m on Greer’s side on almost anything close to this–practicality does have value to a society. But, everytime I think we’re all way too short of, well, taste, some great movie or book will come out, or some great star of some walk of life will emerge in the national spotlight…and then I get a lesson all over again in Amercan people-ism…we DO discern exceptions. We DO by-and-large have pretty good noses for the fragrant and the foul. Something about this case has got folks riled–really riled–and though my prejudice would like to ascribe it to media manipulation, and would 9 time out of 10 on something like this…I can’t on this, this is way too much to swallow…the post-mortem orders alone are literally screaming ‘foul’…we’re gonna find a miscarriage here, after it’s too late. Just watch.

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:40 pm 165. Terrye:

Buddy:

I think it is three things: starvation, the grief stricken family and the delight that some people seem to take in death.

I don’t mean that everybody that wants Terri Shiavo to die is gleeful, but when the end became apparent I actually saw someone rub her hands together and do a little jig. She was so excited about “beating the Bushes” and pushing down the president’s poll numbers that Terri Shiavo was irrelevant. We won she cried happily.

creepy.

I am going to try to give sleep another chance.

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:53 pm 166. Buddy Larsen:

As far as being better off dead, hell we’d ALL be better off dead; no worries, no bills, no Kerry, no Direct TV ads for ab machines, no arthrity, no cancer, heart-attacks, strokes, auto accidents, no more death, even. As a matter of fact, we’d all have been far better off not having been born in the first place, we’d never miss it, what the hell. This whole friggin’ planet is nothing but volcanoes and tsunamies and earthquakes terrorists, famines, frenchmen, rocks and hard places, the devil and the deep blue sea.

Mar 26, 2005 - 10:54 pm 167. Buddy Larsen:

G’nite, Terrye…thanks for being born.

Mar 26, 2005 - 11:01 pm 168. Syl:

I don’t blame anyone for legally attempting to change the outcome nor for passionate argument. I do, however, agree with Charlie that there is so much bad info running around. Not so much here, though there has been some, but on tv, in the papers, other blogs.

But that’s democracy too…everyone has different levels of info/facts and different capabilities to absorb same with and without excess emotion. So we all twist and shout and the constant chatter is part of our lives. When the chattering stops is when we should worry.

To me the legality of what happened is clear (though IANAL) it’s the gut reaction to starving her to death that is so grotesque. I’m with Terrye on that.

But we are a nation of laws and I don’t think we really want to fall in the hole the Moonbats dug after the 2000 election. Terri is gone. Terri has been gone for years. We have to just let go.

Mar 26, 2005 - 11:11 pm 169. Buddy Larsen:

Syl, with enough results like this one, we would not long remain a nation of laws. We’re a nation of laws not because someone told us to be, but because we’ve been vigilant enough to keep the laws workable. We pulled it up around us. It’s fragile, it only has respect holding it up, and you know yourself how respect and credibility work. Slow-build, fast-fall. So don’t, please, let this court live off it’s better history–not if you want what’s best for it. At what point would civil disobedience be called for? If she were talking? Some already think she can. Will they blow it off after she passes? I hope so too. You’re spot on, moonbatism is just around the corner. If you think there’s criticism warranted, lay it out, defuse in no uncertain terms…it’s always the barbarians who most want you civilized.

Mar 26, 2005 - 11:40 pm 170. des:

“Terri is gone. Terri has been gone for years. We have to just let go.”

—

Two problematic assumptions in the above statement, IMO, one philosophical, one semantic.

I’ll address the semantic one first b/c that’s the easier of the two.

When people refer to the dying process and say “let me go” or “let (so and so) go,” what they mean is that there is something which is actively causing Loved One to die, and that attempts to resist that something should be ceased. “Let go” of Loved One into the power of that which is causing them to die.

There was not anything that was actively causing Terry Schiavo to die, in the usual sense of the above paragraph.

Therefore, “letting go” in her circumstance means *causing* her death, not letting an already-set-in-motion-dying-process (like lungs that cannot inhale and exhale on their own; or terminal cancer) take its course.

To say that we should “let Terri go” is to change the terms of what “let go” means, mid-debate.

Sorry. Won’t fly with me.

Second problem, the philosophical one:

“Terri is gone. Terri has been gone for years.”

Only partly correct. Philosophers have been arguing for millenia about the mind-body connection. However you want to parse it, though, I don’t think I have seen anyone successfully argue that a human being is strictly a disembodied consciousness (any more than the opposite has been successfully argued, that a human being is strictly a consciousless body).

Even *if* one were to establish to 100% satisfaction that Terri’s consciousness were absolutely, completely, and permanently gone (and I think some people would argue about whether that *has* been established), we are still faced with the dilemma of Terri’s physical body.

Terri’s physical body, up until March 18, was still with us, not in a process of dying due to illness or physical collapse, but thriving.

And inasmuch as Terri’s physical body is/was a *part* of who Terri Schiavo is/was, when Terri Schiavo’s consciousness was still here (again, hypothetically granting that the latter is completely gone, hence the past tense verb in this portion of the sentence), then a *part* of Terri is still here. And will not “go away” (die), in the near future, unless and until someone causes that part of Terri to die.

Of course a lot of people will argue that “consciousness” is by far the more important component of “humanness” than is “body” — that a human body permanently without consciousness strikes us as terrible (or at least pitiable) and pointless.

I’m sympathetic to this argument, but I am verrrrry leery of using it to justify actively causing death to such a body (again, as opposed to letting an already-set-in-motion-dying process take its course).

If human bodies in and of themselves (ie, bodies without the conscious part) are so vastly unimportant, garbage to be disposed of as soon as the “real” person (the consciousness) has, like Elvis, left the building, then why the taboo against desecrating corpses (or, on the flip side, why such fascination and perceived benefit to consuming the body parts of one’s enemies)?

It’s apparent to me, anyway, that human beings across time and many different cultures have considered the human body (even the dead version) to be something important, to have some value or worth; that even without the conscious part of the person residing therein, the body is still connected to humanness.

Let’s face it, after thousands of years of philosophical debate, most people *still* don’t have a clear idea of what the mind-body connection is, exactly, and where they would draw the line regarding “how much does (your mind/your body) contribute to your being human.”

No wonder our laws are ill equipped to deal with this.

The people who are reacting (sometimes at a visceral level) in opposition to Terri’s being starved to death may well be registering an unconscious acknowledgement of the perceived innate worth of the human body.

This is not a new sentiment. Nor a new argument. Nor, on this particular line of thought, even an exclusively Christian argument.

We are back, it seems, to that age-old question that keeps popping up in so many different forms: What does it mean to be human?

Mar 27, 2005 - 12:09 am 171. Joe Schmoe:

Charlie-

I hear what you are saying but I must tell you that I find your tone on this thread pretty offensive. The facts are not nearly as cut-and-dried as you seem to think they are. Not by a longshot

I’ve read all three of the principal Florida opinions and the GAL report. And I’m a lawyer, so I’m capable of understanding them. Although you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand Judge Gree’s opinion, or the Court of Appeals’, becuase they only cite one case each.

Anyway, Judge Greer’s opinion of Terri’s intent is based on two, and only two, facts. First is her remark during a funeral of her in-laws’ grandmother — “I wouldn’t want to be a burden on anyone.” The second — the key piece of evidence — was an offhand remark made during a TV Movie of the Week on Karen Ann Qunlan. Terri allegedly said that “I wouldn’t want to end up like that” while sitting on the couch and watching the movie. She was in her late teens or early 20’s at at the time.

Both statements were hearsay and were several years old at the time of trial. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t admissible, or probative. It does mean that they aren’t as reliable as, say, sworn testimony under oath in open court, or a signed living will.

This isn’t a “clear and convincing” expression of Terri’s wishes, for two reasons. First, Terri was very young when she made those statements. The overwhelming majority of people in their teens and 20’s have no idea of their own mortality. Such decisions can, and do, change over the course of a lifetime. For instance, I bet if Terri had been a mom she wouldn’t have said that. I myself actually spent a year working in a care faclility for disabled people when I was 20 years old. I saw the horrors of severe disability up close and personal for over a year. Afterwords, I said that I would rather die than be a quadraplegic. All of my patients wanted to live — they hadn’t committed suicide — but I thought their lives were filled with suffering and didn’t want to emulate them. And my opinion, unlike Terri’s, was actually an informed one. Now that I am a father I don’t feel this way any more. I have a duty to stay alive for my kids even if my own life is unpleasant. The point is that these decisions can and do change over time when you are a young person.

Second, the circumstances are not indicative of reliability. Terri didn’t sit down and have “the conversation” with her famaily and friends and then, after much sober relfection and mulling it over for a week or two, decide that she wouldn’t wnat to be kept alive with extraordinary means. I could accept that. But this was a statement made while watching a TV movie of the week, for goodness sake!!

The point is that I think Judge Greer was wrong, wrong, wrong. I would never, not in a million years, sign an order directing a woman to be starved to death if the record before me consisted of “evidence” like that. It’s not clear and convincing. The judge made a terrible mistake. It is obvious that he did his best, and was conscientious and tried to do the right thing, but just blew it, big time.

That’s why, on the facts of this particular and unique case, I think it was appropriate for the judge to be legislatively overruled. Normally that sort of thing sets an awful precedent, but here a woman’s life is at stake. This is a horrible case. It is not the time or place to sacrifice a woman’s life in order to uphold the principle of seperation of powers.

Frankly, I think civil disobedience is appropriate too. If I were Terri’s parents you’d better believe that I would bring a shotgun to her hosptial room along with a bottle of water and a can of Ensure. It might be a futile gesture, and I wouldn’t kill any police officers, but I’d damn well rather go to jail than sit on my hands while my daughter is starved to death.

The evidence isn’t nearly as strong as you think it is. If Terri had signed a living will, I’d accept it without question even though she’d signed it when she was very young. But an offhand comment made during a TV movie of the week? Come on. Her intent is far from clear. She should not be starved to death, and her parents should not be devistated emotionally, on the basis of evidence like that.

Mar 27, 2005 - 6:00 am 172. Charlie (Colorado):

des, say you took all the memory out of a computer. The power supply is still there, the video card is there and you see the initial BIOS screen when you start it, but that’s it.

Is it still a computer?

The problem is we’re talking about a sorites — a “little by little” paradox. How much cerebral cortex do you have to lose before you’re not “a person”?

But in Terri Schiavo’s case, I don’t think that’s the issue. Let’s assume she is still “a person”, whatever that might mean. Then, isn’t she entitled to have her wishes about declining medical treatment respected?

Even if Jeb Bush and Bill Frist don’t like it?

Even if her parents don’t like it?

Mar 27, 2005 - 6:01 am 173. Bostonian:

flenser: “I think the emotional level surrounding the matter is excessive.”

Well, that’s your opinion, but I think that evaluation depends on what you think “the matter” is.

We seem to be in a situation now where we are asked to trust that a judge has chosen wisely, just as wisely as a jury of our peers. And it’s a life-and-death situation.

There are aspects of the case that are quite common, and there are others that are unusual. How wise is that judge, and why exactly am I supposed to trust him?

Juries screw up too, but they start from a variety of perspectives, backgrounds, and knowledge. They argue with each other and call each other ignorant fatheads. They thrash the whole thing out as the country is doing right now. And they do this BEFORE the verdict.

Then, they are to arrive at a unanimous verdict, a true consensus. It’s a lot of work.

So… how wise is that judge, and why exactly am I supposed to trust him?

Mar 27, 2005 - 6:11 am 174. Bostonian:

Charlie, the standard required for this civil case in FL was that it be “clear and convincing.”

This is not the same as “beyond a reasonable doubt” and that is EXACTLY the source of my objection.

Mar 27, 2005 - 6:17 am 175. Bostonian:

Charlie, let me be clear. If I were convinced that dying was indeed Terri’s wish, I would not be arguing anything at all here.

I suspect the same is true for many of us. So repeating the legal claim about her wishes does not advance your argument.

***

Raised in my liberal, feminist family, my earliest political belief was that women have the right to abortions. I’ve come to realize that the truly justifiable (IMO) reasons for this right are rooted in the cruelties of 19th century life and no longer apply. I won’t bore anyone with the details. So my mind has changed about the urgency of this right, and I’m in an undecided place about the morality.

I am still not bothered by the moral angle of abortion.

But if losing that supposed right is what is needed to prevent helpless adults from having their lives ended without CERTAINTY of their wishes, then I forswear that right.

Mar 27, 2005 - 6:33 am 176. Bostonian:

I’ve also come to think that our War on Drugs has removed comfort from some people who really need it.

Someone who knows could tell me for sure, but I’ve heard that doctors are a lot more reluctant to prescribe The Really Good Stuff, even for terminal patients.

Many people rightly fear that if they end up in a terminal state (which is not Terri’s case!), they will have to be in a lot of pain, and that does tend to hasten one’s desire to get out of here.

And I do not at all quarrel with the right to die, although assisted euthanasia troubles me.

But why WHY can we not eliminate the pain? If I were terminal with nasty cancer, I would really want to spend my last days high as a kite, enjoying sunshine and birdsong, and enjoying the awkward inanities of my more fortunate family members, with the assistance of powerful narcotics. And for those of you who do not approve of drugs, don’t take ‘em.

***

Thank all of you here for speaking.

Mar 27, 2005 - 6:45 am 177. ed:

Hmmm.

@ Charlie (Colorado)

“Ed, I’ve been quoting from Wolfson off and on for a while. You’ve been proving you don’t know what Wolfson says for a while. What part of “I don’t think you have an informed opinion worth considering” are you finding difficult to follow?”

The only relevant quote you provided was one listed on the “Football Fans for Truth”, site. Nothing you’ve written has shown any particular reading of the Wolfson report.

And another point is that the Wolfson report has at least a slight issue with credibility when it fails to note the excessive amounts of conflict of interest.

You can rely on the Wolfson report if you like, I’m frankly sceptical.

Mar 27, 2005 - 6:47 am 178. ed:

Hmmm.

“Someone who knows could tell me for sure, but I’ve heard that doctors are a lot more reluctant to prescribe The Really Good Stuff, even for terminal patients.”

If you’re actually terminal and in pain, there is no hesitation in prescribing medication. A very common way of dying in America is by morphine overdose. If you’re terminal and in pain, they’ll give you the control to the morphine drip so you can set the level of medication.

Mar 27, 2005 - 6:49 am 179. JenLArt:

Charlie, you’re being obtuse.

We don’t know and now we’ll never know what Terri’s wishes were should she become incapacitated.

All we have is Michael’s hearsay, which her parents, friend and nurses deny.

There is evidence to indicate that Michael tried to kill Terri by strangulation and that’s why she’s in the state she’s in.

If that’s true, then the courts are only helping to make that happen for him.

I doubt she knew about having to be fed through a tube.

(The Karen Quinlan case was about respirators.)

I sincerely doubt she’d want to be starved and dehydrated to death!

This whole thing terrifies me personally (All week, Ive worried about if I can I trust my husband not to do a “Michael Schiavo” to me?) and frightens me for our country should this bad law be allowed to stand and cited as precedent for murdering others.

We have a lady here in Dallas whose husband tried to kill her who’s been in a vegetative state/coma ever since (Peggy Raley)–is she next?

What about Sunny von Bulow?

What if you had a stroke today, then they resuscitated you and then had to put you on a feeding tube or a respirator?–

Would your Significant Other say you said to “pull the plug?”

And will a judge, enriched by campaign contributions, agree with them, citing Terri’s case as a precedent?

This is nothing but murder by judicial overreach and I am sick over it!

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:01 am 180. Brown Line:

I have come late to this thread. Having just read it, I do wish to thank the participants – Charlie (Colorado), Terrye, Buddy Larsen, and the rest – for your passion, knowledge, and civility.

My $0.02 worth: A lot of things about this case trouble me, but what particularly sticks in my craw is the cruelty of her death, in particular the denial of water.

Let’s assume that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to live in these circumstances. Assume, too, that the entity we call “Terri Schiavo” has long since departed, leaving only her animal husk behind. Will someone please explain to me why the removal of the feeding tube implies that this living creature must be denied all relief? What does anyone gain by forbidding this creature an ice chip or moist cloth to suck on?

Even if “Terri Schiavo” no longer exists, doesn’t simple humanity toward a fellow animal compel us not to increase its suffering? I wouldn’t treat a worm this badly, let alone a creature that once was a human being – and for all I know, may still be.

I know why the ACLU is not on this case. What astonishes me is that PETA is not protesting either.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:07 am 181. Terrye:

Good morning and Happy Easter. I put the ham in the oven.

I would say be very careful about what you say to the in laws when watching TV.

I mean there might some poor woman in a wheel chair come on there and you might say God I don’t want to be like that and then the next thing you know…..

Also I think giving Jeb Bush the devil is ridiculous. We have seperation of powers and he can not just ignore that. It would be like saying a pro life Governor is duty bound to shut down all the womens clinics and an anti death penalty Governor is duty bound to shut down death row.

Like it or not it is the law. Kinda like Dred Scott.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:11 am 182. socalgal:

Good lord what a lot of discussion went on here!

I would just like to say Charlie – yes, you have been a nasty commenter. The tenor of your posts has been persistently personal and snide towards those who disagree with you. The great thing about the comments here is that usually the discourse is held to a high standard, which you brought low here yesterday. If people disagree with your position, why not educate them with your wisdom and not snap that they are not informed enough to hold opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you have relevant facts to disclose, then do so – maybe you can persuade someone to see your point.

If you think that my summary of the situation was incorrect, I invite you to re-read the original judgment of Feb 11 2000. Despite some comments in the 2DCA which I think were very misleading on the Appeals Court’s part, and which have been used to bolster many arguments for Michael Schiavo – including yours, the original ruling actually upholds Michael Schiavo’s guardianship and his AUTHORIZATION to remove the feeding tube. The Judge found that there was not sufficient evidence to decide that he was trying to act outside of her wishes, and therefore to have him removed as guardian. Statements in the 2DCA ruling seem to say that the court acted as her guardian in deciding that case when, in fact, what the original ruling says is:

“…it is Ordered and Adjudged that the Petition for Authorization to Discontinue Artificial Life Support of Michael Schiavo, Guardian of the Person of Theresa Schiavo, an incapacitated person, be and the same is hereby Granted and Petitioner/Guardian is hereby authorized to proceed with the discontinuance of said artificial life support for Theresa Marie Schiavo.”

The court did NOT order the withholding of nutrition. Subsequent rulings DID so order, because that was what Michael Schiavo had determined should be done, and it was not being done.

Michael Schiavo is only Terri’s guardian because of their marriage. You assert that Michael could have divorced her – indeed, why hasn’t he? he obviously moved on with his life – many years ago. Perhaps he has some other interest in remaining married in name only? Is it a Catholic thing? I don’t know, but my original statement was that death is irreversible. If there are questions as to the facts, let her live while they are answered. The mere fact that in many states nutrition is NOT legally regarded as life support should suggest caution in applying that Florida statute.

There certainly are many misunderstandings about this case. One is that the Wolfson report contains something that is absent from the rulings. Another that I hear on the “die” side is that SO many courts have reviewed the case, SO many judges have heard the evidence and ruled that she wanted this. Yet this is patently untrue. All of the subsequent appeals were necessarily based on arguments as to the correctness of the judicial procedure in the original case – and in the federal courts the question of the constitutionality of the rulings. That is what appeals are. Even where it appears a de novo review was undertaken, if there were no procedural errors in the original ruling, that ruling stands. No new evidence is heard in appeals courts. It seems clear that Congress was attempting an end-run around that by insisting on a de novo TRIAL, but for whatever reason, the wording of the statute was not so pointed, and no judge has seen fit to rule that a new trial is necessary.

Finally, as you admit to having much academic and little practical experience, how about a little deference to those here who may not have the benefit of as many years of academic study as yourself, but who have much more practical experience? Even Gross Anatomy is very revealing about how the text differs greatly from real life – let alone dealing with real, individual patients. We are always sure that we know what we know until we know something new. Absolute surety should always to be taken with a grain of salt.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:16 am 183. Terrye:

Brown line:

The ACLU will no doubt fight Couey getting the death penalty for killing that child in Florida, even if he wants it. In fact if he refused appeals they would fight it and if he refused to eat to try and speed up the process they might well have him restrained and a feeding tube inserted because state assisted suicide is wrong.

Now if you are a helpless woman….

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:17 am 184. socalgal:

Also sort of OT to Syl, Caroline,

Anesthetic awareness is a terrible fact. Syl – count yourself lucky that you had the experience you did. In there are actually three parts to anesthesia: 1)analgesia- which is dampening of the pain receptors 2)immobilization – exactly what it sounds like – unhooking your voluntary muscle control and 3)amnesia – prevention of those “memory tracks” which would allow you to remember any unpleasant happenings or sensations. A surprisingly large number of people experience some sort of incomplete amnesia during surgery (it’s a large number, but still a small percentage), some experience no amnesia at all and find this a frightening experience due to the pressure sensations, the immobility, and the knowledge of what is happening to them. A thankfully small percentage remain awake AND not anesthetized, yet immobilized – a truly horrifying experience from which many find it difficult to recover. See:

Sentinel Event Alert JACHO – alert regarding the occurrence, incidence, and management of awareness during anesthesia

http://www.jcaho.org/about+us/news+letters/sentinel+event+alert/sea_32.htm

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:19 am 185. richard mcenroe:

It seems to me Michael Schiavo and his supporters are trying to have it both ways.

If in fact. the body in the bed is still Terri Schiavo, then there is someone still in there, and before she is killed by order of the court, she should have the right to have “her” statements and their corroboration investigated to at least the same standard of doubt we give convicted murderers. That has not happened.

If in fact, the body in the bed is still Terri Schiavo, then she is being subjected to a form of death that far exceeds any standard of “cruel and unusual punishment” we apply to the most vicious felons. At the very least, she is entitled either to a swift, medically assisted passing, or maintenance until her body takes its natural course.

If, in fact, the brain damage is so comprehensive that the body in the bed is effectively no longer Terri Schiavo, then Michael Schiavo has no further moral obligation in her regard. Particularly with the family willing to take over stewardship, he could have filed for a divorce and got on with his new life with his new family in peace. Of course, then his “stewardship” of Terri would be subject to a review where he has no control over the evidence presented, outside a Florida court system that seems to me, frankly, more concerned with protecting its own image of propriety than the welfare of the people it oversees.

It will likely be years before we can sort through the misinformation and dueling doctors and “experts”. My own subjective impression at this point is that Michael Schiavo is getting away with a court-assisted murder.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:37 am 186. Buddy Larsen:

Sure is good to see all these erudite people holding similarly–and similar–’ignorant’ positions. Dred Scott indeed, Terrye…how about John Brown, driven around the bend into armed insurrection by the government’s upholding the law and lashing runaway slaves back to their owners. “Their” owners. Even language itself exposes the vacuum where some law should exist–if the reciprocal is already in place.

Joe Schmoe, great to hear a member of the bar step forth and use the vernacular to describe the quality of the ‘findings’.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:42 am 187. Buddy Larsen:

Also brings to mind Lincoln’s story; referring to boilerplating the truth behind a ‘talking point’, he’s ask if a tail was a leg how many legs would a dog have…the answer would come back ‘5′, and he’d say, no, that calling a tail a leg doesn’t make a tail a leg.

Mar 27, 2005 - 8:03 am 188. richard mcenroe:

Roger ó Getting back to your original question, this was supposed to be a perfectTV news story. Something awful has happened, about which nobody can do anything, but we can pretend to be significant because we’re telling you about it and agonizing over the human tragedy. The classic “pregnant-homeless-woman-with-cancer” tearjerker.

Only it turned out that a lot of people thought there was something that could be done, or something was being done that should be stopped (pick your side).

Mar 27, 2005 - 8:13 am 189. Buddy Larsen:

That’s right, richard. 100 million people begging ‘time out, please?’ to a people’s system seemingly gone deaf. Like the ‘Jesus Freak’ said upthread, one minute you have High Olympian Law, the next minute you have a mumbo-jumbo pit full of ‘words’.

Mar 27, 2005 - 8:31 am 190. Buddy Larsen:

Wretchard is into the Donald Sensing you’ve been mentioning, Charlie. Some pretty heavy stuff, alright.

Mar 27, 2005 - 8:45 am 191. des:

“des, say you took all the memory out of a computer. The power supply is still there, the video card is there and you see the initial BIOS screen when you start it, but that’s it.

Is it still a computer?”

–

Y’know, when writing my previous post I actually considered using a car analogy (vehicle body minus vehicle engine – still a car?), but in the end I didn’t puruse the analogy because, like most analogies, it is limited and incomplete.

And on this particular issue, using mechanical or electronic analogies can lead us to a (faulty, IMO) strictly utilitarian view of the human body.

That is, that the body is nothing more than a receptacle for the mind/spirit (the “real” person); that the human body has no innate worth of its own; that one human body is completely interchangeable with any other human body and that the body in which the mind/spirit component of “Charlie” resides has utterly no bearing on how “Charlie” experiences life and therefore utterly no contribution who “Charlie” is, i.e., that the body is in no way any part of the humanity of the person; and, finally, that the body sans the mind/spirit component becomes so much detritus to be disposed of in a manner that you would dispose of, well, the wiring and “box” of an old computer or the body, fenders, tires, seats, etc. of an old car.

Such a utilitarian view is, I think, at odds with the general consensus of humans across time and cultures.

That’s the problem with such analogies. They do not address the unique status that we, as humans, have accorded our own bodies. A corpse is not a person, but neither is it garbage. People *know* this in their gut even if they cannot articulate it in philosophical terms. And if even a corpse is perceived as having some worth, some connection to humannness, then how much more so a body that is still breathing independently, still able to digest nutrients and eliminate waste, still possessing a functioning immune system, and not dying from any disease, infection, or organ shutdown.

I agree with you (at least I think I do) that there is the “sorites” aspect to the issue of personhood (if indeed that is the point you were trying to make), BUT … I had already said as much in my previous post, that the “how much” (as in a quantity or amount) question has been argued back and forth over the millenia, and that the one thing everyone has seemed to agree on over the years is that the answer is NOT a 0/100 split either way.

What the “pro-starvation” position in the Schiavo case seems to be doing (whether the proponents of that position are intentionally doing it or not) is attempting to impose one of those 0/100 splits, that which holds that a body without the mind/spirit component is utterly without any aspect of humanity: “Terri the ‘real person’ is completely and permanently gone; therefore, the body that is just so much pointless, worthless flesh and must be put to death.”

We have never solved the “how much” question philosophically. Nor have we solved it medically (at least IMO), even with all the insight that technology has brought to bear on human consciousness and biology.

And yet the current disposition in the Schiavo case (starving her to death) behaves as if we have, presto, suddenly solved this age-old pesky question via legal avenues.

I would submit that the brouhaha is a pretty good indication that there has been no such solving of the question.

Mar 27, 2005 - 8:56 am 192. Buddy Larsen:

Right, right, right. Your grandfather meant to pass down his axe, and for it to teach his descendants to chop wood. Your dad chopping wood broke the head and replaced it. You chopping wood broke the handle and replaced it. Now you want to give it to your son, to teach him to chop wood with it. Is it still your grandfather’s axe?

Mar 27, 2005 - 9:19 am 193. des:

“But in Terri Schiavo’s case, I don’t think that’s the issue. Let’s assume she is still “a person”, whatever that might mean. Then, isn’t she entitled to have her wishes about declining medical treatment respected?”

–

There are a few assumptions built into the question that I find I don’t agree with.

(1) Have her actual wishes been ascertained to a satisfying evidentiary standard (”clear and convincing”)? See Joe Schmoe’s post. I think there are reasonable grounds to argue “no,” even though arguing “yes” does not make one an amoral troglodyte.

I’m just pointing out that you can’t build an assumption into a question when that assumption has not been effectively established and agreed upon by both sides.

(2) “Medical treatment” is such a fuzzy term. Putting Neosporin on a cut could be considered “medical treatment.” Or giving someone a couple Tylenol.

What most people understand to be the kind of “medical treatment” at issue here is what, I believe, the doc-lawyer crowd calls “extraordinary measures”: dialysis, respirators, etc., in addition to ad nauseum resuscitation attempts.

The question is, does a feeding tube constitute such an “extraordinary measure,” esp. when the body is otherwise independently functional (no infection killing it, no organ shutdown)?

And would a 20-year-old (thereabouts) woman have been aware of all these definitions and distinctions when she made those alleged statements that are being disputed in (1)?

Even *if* Terry did make a statement to the effect of refusing something, WHAT, exactly, was she refusing, and was it a truly informed choice?

And *if* the ultimate answer were to end up being, “we cannot know,” does death via actively imposed starvation seem like the more just course of action?

If we were truly and honestly befuddled, say, by the genuine level of mental competence (you may substitute “sanity”) and therefore moral culpability of a murderer on death row [although admittedly it is difficult these days to separate out "truly and honestly befuddled" from "legal obscurantism and chicanery"], would “we cannot know” be so automatically translated by the courts into “Aw, go ahead and stick a needle in his arm” … or would “we cannot know” be the very reason we MUST *not* put to death that person unless and until further investigation and diagnoses brought us to a level of reasonable certitude warranting that person’s execution?

I’m just asking.

I do think it is an entirely reasonable position to point out that several deeply critical questions remain unanswered, that evidentiary standards *may* have been botched, and that therefore Terri Schiavo should be kept alive via the feeding tube until these questions and standards are resolved.

I’m not even saying that it’s inherently unreasonable to believe that the questions and standards have already been resolved (badly mistaken, maybe, but not inherently unreasonable).

But to say, with 100% absolutism and finality, “The courts have decided justly; the debate is over; take out the feeding tube,” — AND — to refuse to be held accountable (legally, politically and, most important, morally) for the result (Terri Schiavo’s death), or, worse still, to simply snarl, “All you Christers can shut the hell up now,” is IMO unsettling in the first instance, and downright ghoulish in the second. (Not implying that any of this represents your own position, Charlie; just saying that it does represent quite a few who have advocated or supported removing the feeding tube.)

We are putting a woman to death. Or, if you don’t even like that construction, we are killing an otherwise harmless something that is very much alive and which would otherwise remain alive given the same basic kind of care and sustenance given to billions of other living things.

And this putting to death is being done despite pronounced and passionate objections from significant portions of the population.

That being the case, those who are currently advocating the putting to death cannot reasonably expect to simply declare “game over” when Terri’s heart stops beating and walk away as if everything has been settled.

THAT is what is not reasonable. To end a life and expect, in so doing, to end the debate over that life.

Mar 27, 2005 - 9:58 am 194. Kyda Sylvester:

I’ve been off pursuing pleasure and, in the wake of a self-imposed news blackout, am just now catching up. I weep for Terri and everyone who loves her. This seems a most troubling matter regardless from what angle or mindset one approaches it. I find I’m terribly (and uncharacteristically) conflicted within my own value system. Sometimes, it seems, the best you can do is stand back from the minutia and allow a general philosophical rule of thumb have sway. Is it such a bad thing that mine, like so many others, says that because we are human we will err and if we are to err, should we not take care to do so on the side of life?

From time in memoriam, scientific and technological advances have presented man with moral, ethical and religious dilemmas, often before he is equipped to deal with them. The future stretching before us now is both promising and fraught with peril. Roger is perfectly correct that we will need sober and reasoned debate. A word, however: People of faith will bring to the table tenets of those faiths. There is nothing inherently wrong in that. People of faith generally will not accept moral relativism. There is nothing wrong with that either; in fact, it is preferable. There will be some things from which people of faith can not and will not divorce themselves, nor should they be expected to, not even in the name of sober and reasoned debate. I pray for Terri Schiavo and her family. I pray for guidance for all of us.

Mar 27, 2005 - 11:42 am 195. djs:

“High Olympian Law, the next minute you have a mumbo-jumbo pit full of ‘words’”

There’s a big difference between the ideals expressed in the Declaration and the day-to-day jargon used in the legal profession. And no inconsistency in having respect for one, and in many cases, contempt for the other. Mark Steyn makes a similar point today – No Compelling Reason:

As the columnist George Jonas commented:

”It seemed not to occur to him that it isn’t wrong to burn down barns because it’s illegal, but it’s illegal to burn down barns because it’s wrong. Like other statist politicians, Mr. Trudeau . . . either didn’t see, or resented, that right and wrong are only reflected by the laws, not determined by them.”

That’s how I feel about the Terri Schiavo case. I’m neither a Floridian nor a lawyer, and, for all I know, it may be legal under Florida law for the state to order her to be starved to death. But it is still wrong.

Mar 27, 2005 - 12:03 pm 196. Caroline:

Des: “That being the case, those who are currently advocating the putting to death cannot reasonably expect to simply declare “game over” when Terri’s heart stops beating and walk away as if everything has been settled.”

No Des – I think they fail to realize that the game has just begun. The game is musical chairs – too many people for the chairs and and when the music stops, you’re shit out of luck if you’re the one left standing.

Anyone who read that link I posted to the euthanasia scene in Holland right now can’t fail to see the writing on the wall. This is a case of actively “killing” a disabled woman based on hearsay evidence and assumptions re her “quality of life”.

Once this sets a precendent all sorts of utilitarian factors will come into play in the future that people aren’t considering now. This is how we will conveniently deal with the rising health care costs of caring for our increasingly aged population. Moreover, once we have the euthanasia option, where is the incentive to explore alternative palliative care options? Holland has only a few hospice facilities. Why would they have alot of them? This is so much easier.

I found this at David Horowitz’s new “Moonbat Central” site. As I don’t know how to link into the miidle of a page, I’ll quote it here:

“Soros and Schiavo

“We should consider laws that permit next of kin to decide to forgo life sustaining medical interventions even when a patient’s wishes are not known,” said George Soros in a speech of November 30, 1994, delivered at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center.

In that speech, Soros announced the launch of his Project on Death in America, a program designed to steer U.S. medicine toward a rationing system whereby only the fit received proper care, while the unfit such as Terri Schiavo were written off and allowed to die. In the same speech, Soros said:

“Can we afford to care for the dying properly? The number of people dying in the United States currently stands at 2.2 million annually. Increases in cancer and AIDS deaths and the aging of the baby boomers will cause this figure to climb faster than the population? The fear is that the dying of the elderly will drain the national treasury. Aggressive, life-prolonging interventions are much more expensive than proper care for the dying.”

Over the next ten years, Soros’ Open Society Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation poured $200 million into Project on Death in America.

Remember that it only took $140 million for Soros and his fellow Pewgate conspirators to bamboozle Americans into surrendering their precious right of free political speech, via the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 (see “Pewgate: The Battle of the Blogosphere.”) How much more could they buy with $200 million?

The change in the legal and medical climate which paved the way for Terri Schiavo’s bureaucratic murder arose directly from the work of Soros’ Project on Death in America.”

Mar 27, 2005 - 12:06 pm 197. Caroline:

I’ll try the link anyway. You have to scroll down to March 26 to the header “Soros and Schiavo”:

Soros and Schiavo

Mar 27, 2005 - 12:18 pm 198. Terrye:

CAroline:

Well it ain’t gonna be a problem for Soros is it? Rich men like him will not have to suffer the indignity of extermination.

Mar 27, 2005 - 12:23 pm 199. Caroline:

Terrye – Soros is the elitist “par excellence”. I may need to brush up on my french there but hopefully you get the idea that this is a potentially very dangerous man. We only need to look at his impact on McCain-Feingold to come to that conclusion. Does anyone know if he has made any public statements about McCain-Feingold as it relates to the possible crackdown on the blogosphere? Why do I suspect that he might have even seen it coming?

Mar 27, 2005 - 12:38 pm 200. Buddy Larsen:

Essence of opening sentences in many vote-influencing essays to come:

“Black-robe tyranny, brought to world attention by the slow-euthanization of a handicapped but otherwise healthy young woman in full view of her horrified family amid a storm of citizen protest, and exemplified by the two judges involved ignoring seperate congressional subpoenas and orders to re-examine evidence, will be on the ballot in the form of…(etcetera).”

Mar 27, 2005 - 1:10 pm 201. Caroline:

Heh – I just followed the link at the Horowitz site under the blurb about Soros that I linked to and under that item I followed the link to “Pewgate: The Battle of the Blogosphere” – a March 25 article at fontpagemag and who do we find quoted? Why our host!:

“I will continue to link to campaign websites whenever I want. If they put me into jail for it, so be it,” stated blogger Roger L. Simon.”

Small world huh? Anyway – it’s quite obvious we need to beware the elitists like Soros. After all, what he’s already managed to do for free speech, he just might manage to do for the disabled as well.

Mar 27, 2005 - 1:37 pm 202. mrp:

Charlie said:

Nice dodge, MRP, but I’m quite serious: you don’t like it that the State of Florida has spent ten years and who knows how much attempting to protect Terri’s right to decline medical treatment because you don’t like the outcome, but you don’t mean to thereby compel Terri to have that medical treatment.

Depends on what is meant by the term ‘The State of Florida’. If it refers to the procedures conducted and presided over by the Florida judiciary, yes, I don’t like what they did. As to the ‘ten year’ comment, Michael Schiavo filed a petition to remove Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube in May 1998. That’s seven years by my calculation.

The State Government of Florida also includes the Executive and Legislative branches. The State Legislature passed, and the governor signed, legislation popularly referred to as “Terri’s Law”. In my opinion, it was a good law, while it lasted, which wasn’t long. The Florida Supreme Court ‘fast-tracked’ the Schiavo appeal, and declared the law unconstitutional.

As far as the use of the phrase ‘medical treatment’, did Terri Schiavo ever tell anyone that under no circumstance was she ever to be fed?

Not that it matters, but Terri Schiavo hasn’t had a swallowing test since 1993. Michael Schiavo has consistently refused permission for such tests to take place.

Mar 27, 2005 - 1:55 pm 203. djs:

More vote influencing opening lines:

“‘Thou shalt not kill’ reads the sign held aloft by one protester. ‘Murder is wrong’ reads another. I approach a young woman wearing a ‘Save Terri!’ tee-shirt to get some idea of what motivates the people at this rally. But the conversation I have with her is no more reassuring than the rest. She is a Christian, and she believes that what is being done to Terri Schiavo is morally wrong. She is part of a frightening trend in American politics of injecting issues of morality into what were once purely legal issues…”

Mar 27, 2005 - 2:01 pm 204. Caroline:

Roger – some 200 posts later I want to come back to your original question which was why all this furor over one woman’s life while simultaneously a genocide is unfolding in Darfur? As I noted preciously up the thread the international legal body has not declared that there IS a genocide unfolding in Darfur. So what are you talking about? There is NO genocide according to international law. It’s rather similar to what we’re seeing in the Terri Schiavo case. The law of Florida has spoken. There IS no killing of a disabled innocent woman going on at all. The law has spoken. Ditto for the FEC regulations re political blogging. McCain-Feingold has set the precedent. You may object and fight it as an individual but the law is sacrosanct in these matters, isn’t it?

We’re talking about process, aren’t we? And of course process is certainly a major step up from the law of the jungle. But as I see it it’s still fallible. It’s just the next best thing we happen to have in lieu of the law of the jungle. It just so happens that that there are many people – call them unsophisticated if you will, who recognize something above and beyond process. I guess it’s just basic right and wrong. Frankly, I don’t think one can dismiss all these folks as rapid right-wing fundies as the current political climate, backed up by the MSM, is wont to do. I just call it common sense. There IS a genocide unfolding in Darfur. Terri Schiavo IS being killed on court order. Your freedom of speech as a blogger IS being threatened. I don’t know the answer to all this stuff. I’m just one citizen nobody or even everybody who sees REALITY. It doesn’t require a PhD to see REALITY. Frankly, I don?t even desire to get terribly sophisticated about it all. I believe in the simplicity of the perception of the ordinary person. But if as a society we didn’t believe in that, then why would we place people’s lives in the hands of 12 person juries. Why just just 12 common people?

Mar 27, 2005 - 2:31 pm 205. Caroline:

Man is it ever annoying to have to go through one’s entire post combing through every one of those question marks that comes up in lieu of an apostrophe, a dash and a comma. Sheesh! Of course there is the magic link factor to offset that inconvenience.

Mar 27, 2005 - 2:33 pm 206. Charlie (Colorado):

(1) Have her actual wishes been ascertained to a satisfying evidentiary standard (”clear and convincing”)? See Joe Schmoe’s post. I think there are reasonable grounds to argue “no,” even though arguing “yes” does not make one an amoral troglodyte.

I’m just pointing out that you can’t build an assumption into a question when that assumption has not been effectively established and agreed upon by both sides.

Why not? God knows similar sorts of assumptions have been built into most of the other arguments. But in any case, the standard isn’t “clear and convincing” to you — it’s clear and convincing to the court with competent jurisdiction. And that’s been established in trial and upheld in multiple appeals.

(2) “Medical treatment” is such a fuzzy term. Putting Neosporin on a cut could be considered “medical treatment.” Or giving someone a couple Tylenol.

What most people understand to be the kind of “medical treatment” at issue here is what, I believe, the doc-lawyer crowd calls “extraordinary measures”: dialysis, respirators, etc., in addition to ad nauseum resuscitation attempts.

You’re actually misinformed here, I believe. Once you have a DNR or similar order, I don’t think you get any treatment other than what’s needed (pain killers, sedatives) to reduce suffering.

The question is, does a feeding tube constitute such an “extraordinary measure,” esp. when the body is otherwise independently functional (no infection killing it, no organ shutdown)?

There’s a two-part answer to this: first, as Terrye and I were talking about, in this case it is a pretty artificial mechanism. Compare it to a respirator: in a respirator, a tube is introduced into the trachea to convey oxygen to the lungs when the breathing reflex is no longer sufficient; in this tube feeding, food is conveyed through a a tube introduced into (I think) the small intestine to convey nutrition to the digestive tract when the swallowing mechanism is no longer present.

If you want to continue the argument on the basis of this distinction, you’re going to need to explain to me exactly how they differ.

But there’s another point: are you old enough to remember “iron lungs”? If not, think about Christopher Reeve. In both cases, you had people who were conscious, aware, and fully intellectually functional, but couldn’t breath. And in both cases, we didn’t turn off the respirator then either.

The point is that when you say the body had “no organ shutdown”, you’re simply wrong: there is a very specific organ shutdown, and it’s a shutdown of the specific organ that is considered determinative.

The second part is that Florida law specifically defines artificial nutrition as an heroic artificial measure. So when someone says they don’t want artificial support, that includes nutrition.

Don’t like it? That’s fine. I don’t like the law that says I can’t drive 100 mph on the highway.

As far as your other point about moral responsibility, that’s a really fuzzy argument. I don’t have any trouble taking moral responsibility for my position — but the ongoing argument seems to be that since other perople think that position is immoral, I’m not taking the right kind of moral responsibility.

Convince me that your “moral responsibility” argument isn’t a covert way of saying “you don’t feel guilty enough about violating my moral principles” and we can talk.

Mar 27, 2005 - 4:49 pm 207. Charlie (Colorado):

We DO by-and-large have pretty good noses for the fragrant and the foul. Something about this case has got folks riled–really riled–and though my prejudice would like to ascribe it to media manipulation, and would 9 time out of 10 on something like this…I can’t on this, this is way too much to swallow…the post-mortem orders alone are literally screaming ‘foul’…we’re gonna find a miscarriage here, after it’s too late. Just watch.

Buddy, as I’ve said before, I’d take your suspicons — and not just you, but most everyone I’ve been arguing with — a lot more seriously if they didn’t seem, over and over again, to be based on notions that aren’t supported if you actually read the damned records.

Mar 27, 2005 - 4:54 pm 208. Charlie (Colorado):

I think it is three things: starvation, the grief stricken family and the delight that some people seem to take in death.

Oh, Terrye, who the hell are you talking about? Me? I sure don’t “delight” in her death — hell, I was an emotional cripple for a week after I put Vashti down. Michael? Show me an example. Judge Greer? Wolfson, the GAL I’ve been quoting?

This is pure second-hand mythology again: no one is delighted, everyone knows it’s a tragedy, and I think if you think about it for just a calm minute, you know it too.

Mar 27, 2005 - 4:59 pm 209. Charlie (Colorado):

I hear what you are saying but I must tell you that I find your tone on this thread pretty offensive.

Learn to cope.

Mar 27, 2005 - 5:00 pm 210. Charlie (Colorado):

SoCalGal:

“…it is Ordered and Adjudged that the Petition for Authorization to Discontinue Artificial Life Support of Michael Schiavo, Guardian of the Person of Theresa Schiavo, an incapacitated person, be and the same is hereby Granted and Petitioner/Guardian is hereby authorized to proceed with the discontinuance of said artificial life support for Theresa Marie Schiavo.”

The court did NOT order the withholding of nutrition. Subsequent rulings DID so order, because that was what Michael Schiavo had determined should be done, and it was not being done.

No, you’re mistaken, because nutrition is specifically named as part of “artificial life support” under Florida law.

But thanks for bothering to at least read some of this stuff.

Mar 27, 2005 - 5:23 pm 211. Charlie (Colorado):

Even if “Terri Schiavo” no longer exists, doesn’t simple humanity toward a fellow animal compel us not to increase its suffering? I wouldn’t treat a worm this badly, let alone a creature that once was a human being – and for all I know, may still be.

Brown, if I had my druthers, I wouldn’t see inanition as a good way to do this either. If it’s any comfort to you, as Terri shows distress, they’ll give her morpheine or something like it. If there weren’t an increasingly scary mob waiting outside the door, I wouldn’t be surprised if the dose of MS wasn’t pretty large, leading to cessation of respiration. But the fact is that under the laws right now, the only option she’s got is stopping the feeding.

Mar 27, 2005 - 5:29 pm 212. Charlie (Colorado):

Joe Schmo, after thinking about it for a moment, I realized that I had been too abrupt. As well as suggesting that you should learn to cope with your distress, I think there’s another point here.

You’re saying, as an attorney, that you don’t agree with the findings of a court, appealed, confirmed, appealled again, reconsidered, re-appealed, until it’s been to the Supreme Court, what, four times?

In other words, you simply don’t believe in the legal system.

Given that, why don’t you seek honest work?

Mar 27, 2005 - 5:33 pm 213. Buddy Larsen:

Charlie, if we’re being hard-headed, we’re not alone. I’ve read the summaries of Wolfson. The United States says that Wolfson describes an incomplete process. The United States, represented by Congress (including a unanimous Senate) issued an order that the case be reviewed. So we’re no more scofflaw than you, only other-directed. And we can be wrong without tragedy. You can’t. You should reverse your position. It would be an act of love over a blind aquiescence to a mal-formed status quo. I know, I sound like a goo-goo doll, please don’t remind me.

Mar 27, 2005 - 6:03 pm 214. SolexBold:

Here’s a short essay I saw about his case recently. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know how accurate it is:

I. We will never know what Mrs. Schiavo’s wishes really are/were. Whatever else, it’s absolutely certain that Mr. Schiavo wants his wife to die. It’s also absolutely certain that he has a conflict of interest. It can’t be proven, but I believe that Mr. Schiavo doesn’t really know what his wife would have wanted and is instead imposing his own will upon her.

A) Even this week, he said as much on national TV: “LARRY KING: Do you understand how [Terri's parents] feel?

“MICHAEL SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it’s about Terri. And I’ve also said that in court. We didn’t know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want…”

One can only guess who “we” is. It’s obvious from his statement that “we” does not include his wife.

B) Michael Schiavo may feel he is doing the right thing. One of the arguments I’ve seen is that the right thing is being done because who would want to live like that? Two hundred years ago, I might have said the same thing about being born as a minority. Today one might think the same thing after seeing Christopher Reeve on television. The point is, just because you (and/or Mr. Schiavo) pity Mrs. Schiavo, that does not mean the government can execute her without either giving her due process or tearing up the Constitution.

C) If you do want to accept the notion that Mrs. Schiavo would want to die in her condition because any reasonable person would want the same thing, then you must also accept the notion that Mr. Schiavo is not her legal guardian. No reasonable person would want to remain alive in Mrs. Schiavo’s condition. No reasonable person would want to remain married to Mr. Schiavo under the circumstances either.

II. Mrs. Schiavo is being executed by the state without being given due process.

A) One of the arguments that I’ve seen put forth throughout this week is the idea that the quantity of litigation means that due process must have been satisfied. This has been repeated over and over. The state is doing the right thing because hundreds of judges and thousands of courts over billions of years have all decided the same thing regarding Terri Schiavo. But this may or may not be true.

1. There has only been one judge and one court that has actually examined the evidence – Judge Greer. All of the subsequent rulings have dealt with procedure, not evidence. Only one Judge has made the decision that she is a vegetable, only one judge has decided that Michael Schiavo is telling the truth. All the other courts and judges and rulings have reviewed procedure and not evidence.

2. Quantity is not equal to quality. The judiciary, and certainly Judge Greer, is not infallible. If the proceedings continue on for a thousand years and they are all predicated upon a mistake made by Judge Greer, then they are all invalid. This was the principle reason that Congress ordered a de novo review – a review of the facts of the case from scratch. Because the only Judge and court that has reviewed the evidence up to this point is Greer, and there is compelling new information. All the other courts and judges have only reviewed procedure. They have only determined that the process was likely to result in a sound decision, they have not looked at the evidence. In this situation during capital cases, a brand new review of the evidence from scratch in Federal court is a matter of course for any other person who may be executed by the state. Mrs. Schiavo is due at least the same treatment as any convicted criminal.

B) The Constitution requires that any person deprived of their inalienable rights by the government must first be given due process. Part of due process is the right to make one’s wishes known. If you are unable to make your wishes known, due process requires that a third party, without a conflict of interest, must represent your wishes. This non-biased third party was not provided to Mrs. Schiavo during the most important portion of the proceedings regarding her – the fact finding by Judge Greer – she was represented by the Judge himself.

1. Before the trial, the Judge appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent Mrs. Schiavo’s interests. The GAL’s report documented abuse and neglect of Mrs. Schiavo by Mr. Schiavo. It also suggested that he was motivated by monetary gain, and that Mrs. Schiavo would not want her feeding tube removed, and that Mr. Schiavo should be removed as her legal guardian due to conflict of interest. The GAL also requested swallowing tests for Mrs. Schiavo, but the judge and Mr. Schiavo denied it (the most recent GAL, Wolfensen(?), also requested that swallowing tests be done, but Mr. Schiavo would not allow it). This previous GAL was removed by the court at the request of Mr. Schiavo. No new representative was appointed, so, during the proceedings, Mrs. Schiavo’s interests were only represented by the Judge. This is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. Can you imagine a capital case defendant being represented by the judge during his case and not be allowed to have his own lawyer? Mrs. Schiavo’s advocate was also her judge. At the point that Judge Greer, Mrs. Schaivo’s advocate, decided in favor of Mr. Schiavo, his conflict of interest became undeniable. Judge Greer continued to preside and make decisions on the case even though Mrs. Schiavo did not have an unbiased representative. No new representative for Mrs. Schiavo was appointed until Gov. Bush requested it 4(?) or more years later.

2. One of the places I’ve seen this concern addressed by the courts was by the Second District when they affirmed Greer’s decision. They explained that an additional guardian or lawyer for Mrs. Schiavo during these proceedings would essentially duplicate the function of the judge and might cause the trial to be influenced by hearsay evidence. They ignore the fact that Judge Greer’s decision was based almost entirely upon hearsay evidence provided by Mr. Schiavo and his immediate relatives. They also ignored the Constitutional requirement that anyone who’s rights are being removed by the state is entitled to unbiased representation.

3. The other place I’ve seen this concern addressed was this week by Judge Whittemore. He said, basically, that either Mr. Schiavo or Mrs. Schiavo’s parents were representing her interests. Mrs. Schiavo was “covered”. If Mr. Schiavo has it wrong, then the parents must have it right, and vice versa. This also ignores the requirement that anyone who’s rights are being removed by the state is entitled to unbiased representation. Both parties arguing on Mrs. Schiavo’s behalf have clear and undeniable conflicts of interest and therefore cannot be counted as representing her. Can you imagine a capital case in which the defendant is not represented? You’re in the midst of an appeal but you don’t go to court – instead your fate is determined by the ACLU in a court battle with the National Evangelical Association and your representative is the Judge, who’s already decided that you are guilty just last month. AND Your lawyer was dismissed by the judge because he didn’t agree with the ACLU.

C) The state is executing Mrs. Schiavo. Whether it is her wish or not, the state is the agent of her demise. The feeding tube was ordered removed by a state judge. Policemen will arrest anyone who gets near her with food or water. If someone placed an ice cube upon her lips, the police would remove it and arrest the person who placed it there. The state is THE ACTIVE participant causing her death. It doesn’t matter if it is her desire or not, according to the Constitution, the state cannot kill her without due process.

III. I am convinced. We no longer have three separate but equal branches of government. The Judiciary is the 800lb. gorilla, and this week, it flexed its muscles.

A) The Congress issued a subpoena for the Schiavo’s, so this entire week should be moot. The Congress does have a right to investigate. According the law, those for which the subpoena was issued have to be protected from death. If they die, Congress can’t question/examine/investigate them. Judge Greer denied Congress’ motion, ruling that no grounds exist for intervention. His decision was, not surprisingly, backed up by the Florida Supreme court and the Second District. The Florida Judiciary effectively told Congress that Congress cannot investigate how well the Florida Judiciary did it’s job. According the Constitution, the court takes it’s orders from Congress, not vice versa. The only court that doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of Congress is the Supreme Court. Who holds the Florida judiciary accountable in the Schiavo case? Apparently no one will be able to before Terri Schiavo is dead. It’s good to be the king, and a Florida state judge.

B) The Congress and President, the two branches directly elected by the people, created and passed a new law. This law called for a de novo review of the evidence in Federal court. A completely new trial, looking at the evidence of the case – something that has only been done once. A process that every death-row criminal has a right to. The Federal courts have ignored this law. They did not declare the law unconstitutional because of the “deadline” (excuse the pun). If they took the time to go through the process of examining the constitutionality of this new law, Mrs. Schiavo might have died. So, they assumed that the new law was Constitutional and then they did NOT obey it. The court has two options, it can either declare the law unconstitutional or it can obey the law. The court did neither.

This new law is unprecedented. I can’t think of any other time in history when the Congress and President acted in such an extraordinary manner in concert in order to achieve a single objective – a new review of the evidence in this case in Federal court. The Federal courts closed ranks with their state colleagues and broke the law, deciding instead to stick their bare rear-ends out the window and moon the people.

C) The state obtained new evidence that Mrs. Schaivo may not be in a persistent vegetative state. This would mean that her starvation is abuse and neglect at the hands of her legal guardian. There is also past evidence that Mr. Schiavo abused and neglected his wife. This evidence requires a state agency – the Department of Children and Families – to take Mrs. Schiavo into custody and investigate the allegations of abuse. Judge Greer issued an injunction preventing the department of Children and Families from FOLLOWING THE LAW. The Judge ordered this department of the state Government to BREAK THE LAW and not act upon this evidence. Agents of the DCF who ignored the Judge and acted, would be put in jail. A judge can put you in jail for doing what you are required to do by law. Amazing that a Judge can recreate law on the fly.

IV. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis.

Many Republicans will tell you that this just proves that Bush’s judicial appointments are that much more crucial. This weeks events will probably be the catalyst that brings about the “nuclear” option. This explains why the Democrats will bend the rules in order to prevent Bush nominees from being appointed.

But getting Bush nominees appointed is not the solution. Ten years from now, I don’t want a Bush-appointed Federal judge telling me I can’t tune into http://www.porn.com any more than I want Judge Greer starving me to death because my ex-wife wants it done.

Our new form of government is manipulating the Judiciary. Our elections only serve as making it more likely that our interests will, hopefully, be represented by judges’ decisions, but they don’t guarantee it. Right now, we have no guarantee of representative government.

I have long felt, and if you are honest I bet you would agree, that the most trustworthy branch of government is the Judiciary. There are so many laws and judges and courts and lawyers, surely it all works out correctly. But it doesn’t. A judge’s word is not law. And we’ve got a big problem.

Government is not your friend. That includes all three branches. This week, I realized that the Judiciary is the 800lb. gorilla, and it decided exactly where it would sit.

Mar 27, 2005 - 6:20 pm 215. socalgal:

Charlie,

You continue to be the only person on here who is routinely being a jerk to the other participants. You seem to feel as though you are the arbiter of truth here, and you are not. Other people can and do have valid reasons for their positions which you should not sneer at.

“No, you’re mistaken, because nutrition is specifically named as part of “artificial life support” under Florida law.”

Thanks for not bothering to carefully read what I said. What I said is that the trial court did not order the withholding of nutrition, it did not.

The trial court gave Michael Schiavo the authority to withhold life support, which in the state of Florida, (and NOT in many other states) includes nutrition. Does that fit your semantic game a little better if I don’t say that the subsequent orders called specifically for withholding food and water? I stand by my original interpretation.

“But thanks for bothering to at least read some of this stuff.”

Please don’t thank me for the fact that I am not the simple troglodyte you assumed I was.

“You’re saying, as an attorney, that you don’t agree with the findings of a court, appealed, confirmed, appealled again, reconsidered, re-appealed, until it’s been to the Supreme Court, what, four times?”

Yes, that’s exactly what he’s saying. There is nothing wrong with that, and nothing in his statement to provoke the bitter sniping that you threw back at him.

The fact that you even use that language “appealed, confirmed, appealled again…” just shows your ignorance regarding the legal system. Please refer to my previous post. An appeal is a procedural review. It does not examine evidence, or the fittness of the ruling of the prior court, it examines the procedure in the trial court. If no procedural error is found, the lower court’s ruling is upheld. Federal appeals are only concerned with the constitutionality of the issue. So YOU are operating under the same flawed premise as many of the “die” group – that the courts have re-TRIED this case in every appeal. One has only to read the actual appellate decisions to realize that this is hogwash. In our system, once the trial court has ruled, that ruling BECOMES THE FACTS OF THE CASE in appeals. There has never been another trial that acually examined the evidence again.

Why does disagreeing with the trial court judge mean we are stupid? Do YOU think that every decision made by a trial court judge is perfect? If you do then perhaps you should study a little law. Judges are people, they make mistakes, and this judge’s mistake is killing someone. How about a little deferment on the issues of law to an actual lawyer who tells you his opinion on the legal procedings? Or did you take a few law courses in school, too?

You agonized over killing your CAT for crying out loud. But once you decided to do it, you didn’t just put him in a box and close the lid, did you? Why, that would be inhumane! I am glad that your experience in life has only brought you that close to the kind of issue discussed here, but don’t assume that your experience makes you more informed than others – nurses who have cared for the terminally ill and disabled, people who have cared for family members – you mock their experiences in a very cold way. You keep telling people how Terri’s situation is different from whatever they describe, yet you do not have any direct experience with Terri to draw on. Aren’t you guilty of making the same type of assumptions without facts that you accuse others of? From what I hear, and speaking for myself, most of us are not nearly so self assured to think that I know what Terri was or is thinking. For the most part, I think what we are saying is not that she shouldn’t die – but that if there is any doubt, err on the side where she mistakenly lives a little longer, not on the side where she mistakenly dies.

Mar 27, 2005 - 6:29 pm 216. SJ:

>For the most part, I think what we are saying is not that she shouldn’t die – but that if there is any doubt, err on the side where she mistakenly lives a little longer, not on the side where she mistakenly dies.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:13 pm 217. mrp:

Michael Schiavo claimed that early in their marriage, Terri Schiavo expressed that she would never want to be kept on life support. That’s the basis for Ms. Schiavo’s “wish” to have her feeding tube withdrawn.

We’ve also been lectured (often) that that nutrition delivered via a ‘feeding tube’ is recognized in Section 765 of the Florida Statutes as a ‘life prolonging procedure’. This is true.

But Section 765 did NOT include ‘Artificially provided sustenance and hydration’ as a life prolonging procedure until April 1999, when Florida House Bill 2131 was introduced in the legislature by the Florida Elder Affairs & Long-Term Care Committee (it became law on Oct. 1, 1999). That’s nearly 9.5 years after Terri Schiavo’s collapse. So how can the tube pullers be so certain that Terri would want to starve to death?

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:16 pm 218. Buddy Larsen:

That haircut ought to keep you neat until, oh, Thanksgiving or so! When you get back up off the floor, may I second socalgal, and repeat that the set of facts that have been considered have throughout been the original–and many think loaded–’findings’. The same ‘findings’, over and over. The repetition of proceedings hasn’t resulted in wearing out the evidence, but in wearing out the rubber-stamp. Happens every day, i know. All the more reason for a ‘whoa! here. It’s probably already too late tho.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:18 pm 219. djs:

SJ,

Actually the appeals court stated that a surrogate decisionmaker should err on the side of life:

In Browning, we stated:

In making this difficult decision, a surrogate decisionmaker should err on the side of life…. In cases of doubt, we must assume that a patient would choose to defend life in exercising his or her right of privacy. In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d at 273. We reconfirm today that a court’s default position must favor life.

But in the final paragraph of their decision, they state:

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.

I don’t read a lot of court decisions, so I don’t know if this sort of language is commonplace, but it doesn’t strike me as the language that would be used by a dispassionate arbiter of a legal dispute. It seems more like … political advocacy.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:29 pm 220. djs:

It also seemed to draw more from their own personal views on the matter than the facts of the case.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:35 pm 221. SJ:

>Michael Schiavo claimed that early in their marriage, Terri Schiavo expressed that she would never want to be kept on life support. That’s the basis for Ms. Schiavo’s “wish” to have her feeding tube withdrawn.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:42 pm 222. Buddy Larsen:

If Mr.’s custodial rights were the issue of a trial, he would lose, on the basis of the new wife and the ’sickness & health’ vow. The expressed wishes of the natal family utterly change the premise of that final paragraph. It might as well be written in Martian, it describes a situation that doesn’t exist outside the 8.5″x11″ of the sheet of paper upon which it exists. Yet it put the .357 Mags of the County Sheriff behind itself. Coercive authority only.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:52 pm 223. SJ:

DJS, only read your posts after posting my last one. But obviously, we read the court’s decision very differently. To you, those comments sound like they are coming from the “court’s” personal and political beliefs, and not from the facts of the case. But do you KNOW all the facts? Not just about Terri’s medical condition, but about the person she was before her brain injury? I don’t pretend to, but that is what the court examined, and based their decision on, as the ruling reads. The decision was not whether a person in her particular set of circumstance would choose to be kept alive, but whether Terri Schiavo would. I repeat that people are basing their reaction to this on her parents wishes. But to the court, that is not the question.

Mar 27, 2005 - 7:57 pm 224. richard mcenroe:

Excellent thread on this over at Tom Maguire…

Mar 27, 2005 - 8:00 pm 225. Yehudit:

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/03/why_this_sad_st.php#c43716

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/03/why_this_sad_st.php#c43719

So how obnoxious do you have to be before you get banned, or at least reprimanded? I value this blog as a civil place to discuss.

Mar 27, 2005 - 8:37 pm 226. Buddy Larsen:

Having been scorched a few times, I’m qualified to point out that he’s been the only target in a big dodgeball game, and has had to snarl some to keep up. What I don’t get is how anyone with that perspicacity can accede so readily to them good ole boyz in Floridy.

Mar 27, 2005 - 8:47 pm 227. SJ:

>them good ole boyz in Floridy

Mar 27, 2005 - 8:59 pm 228. djs:

SJ,

It’s just that it reads more like something that belongs on the op ed pages of the New York Times than in a legal decision. You’re making you’re way through the decision and it’s all very dry and procedural. Then you hit the final paragraph and it seems out of place. It’s as though the author has switched gears and started addressing a wider audience than in the first part of the decision.

I could be wrong though. As I said, I don’t read many legal decisions.

Mar 27, 2005 - 9:03 pm 229. SJ:

>I could be wrong though. As I said, I don’t read many legal decisions.

Mar 27, 2005 - 9:10 pm 230. Buddy Larsen:

Are you a convict, then?

Mar 27, 2005 - 9:13 pm 231. Buddy Larsen:

Well, before this thing went ballistic, it was a little scuffier, a bit more under control of ‘the guys down at the courthouse’. C’mon. There’s always one side or the other that ‘fits in’ better with the local sensibility. Who wanted to live there in that community, the Mr or the Mrs?

Mar 27, 2005 - 9:19 pm 232. SJ:

No, but I play one on TV

Mar 27, 2005 - 9:29 pm 233. Patrick Tyson:

Yehudit—

So how obnoxious do you have to be before you get banned, or at least reprimanded? I value this blog as a civil place to discuss.

My first memory of Charlie (Colorado):

Now, looking at Mark Garrity’s posts, and Goof’s, there’s a lot of the same coercion-by-shame in that: Goof suggesting in so many words that you “sold your principles”

Me…

What words would those be?

Charlie…

These words:

…how much do you sell your principles for?

Me…

Those aren’t my words.

Charlie…

Oh, crap. You’re right. I swear to god I looked at that twelve times last night…

Sorry.

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000787.htm

That was 53 weeks and a lot of “obnoxious” words (from both of us) ago.

You just noticed?

I did get publicly reprimanded once—for wasting bandwidth.

Mar 27, 2005 - 9:38 pm 234. Joe Schmoe:

Charlie is a good guy with a lot of interesting points to make. I do think he has been obnoxious as hell on this thread, but we all have our bad days. This is a divisive issue that rubs everyone’s emotions raw.

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:36 am 235. Joe Schmoe:

Charlie-

You are making the slippery slope argument. If I don’t believe Judge Greer, then I don’t agree with the legal system. Let’s just do away with neutral courts and govern via legislation, dictatorship, etc.

I don’t think you can carry your point that far.

Judge Greer made a mistake. A hideous mistake. He was wrong, wrong, wrong. Not becuase he’s incompentent — he did a fairly thorough job. Not becuase he’s evil, or corrupt, or biased. 99.999% of all judges would be heartsick over a case like this, would agonize over it forever, and would move heaven and earth to try to formulate a just decision, and I am sure that Judge Greer did likewise.

He followed the governing law. He did his best. The law and the constitution require us to give him a great deal of discretion and to resolve every doubt in his favor.

But he’s wrong. His decision is fucking horrible. He’s starving a helpless woman to death! Devastating her parents. For nothing!

In almost every case, we must defer to the courts. If we don’t, and have government by legislature, whoever has the most political clout will win every dispute. This voluntary deference is the key to the independence of our judiciary, since the judiciary can’t coerce us to defer to it with money or guns.

But sometomes the courts are wrong. One of the reasons why we have three branches of government — not just the judiciary — is because the Framers recognized that if left unchecked, the courts would become dicatators.

To me, this case is like Dred Scott. A horror. A hideously unjust ruling. A nightmare. The worst result imaginable. If I were on the bench, I would not make a decision like this in 1,000,000 years. Usually, I can understand a judge’s decision even when I don’t agree with it. Judges deny my motions all the time and I understand this and acccept it. And I have great sympathy for judges becasue I know how difficult their jobs are. Almost all judges are very decent people who do thier best to issue fair decisions. But in this case, I cannot imagine why Judge Greer would issue a ruling like this. It is just crazy. Starve a woman to death and ruin her parents’ lives? When her husband has already moved on with his life? On the basis of evidence which consists of statements made by a young girl watching a TV movie of the week? Insane.

When a court is this wrong, I think it’s entirely approrpriate for the legislature to overrrule it. Or the executive. Civil disobedience is appropriate too. If I were on a jury, I would never convict Ms. Schiavo’s parents if they were charged with bringing a pistol and a bottle of water into her room.

And the truth is, in the real world, courts back down all the time. Remember FDR’s court packing plan? There’s jury nullification,

This is like slavery. It’s hideous. Terrible. As unjust as unjust could be. The courts followed the governing law and jumped through all procedural hoops — but they were WRONG. Judges make mistakes too.

Also, from a cold-blooded political perspective (and sometimes courts to have to play politics, remember) this was the wrong fight for the judiciary to pick. Moderates won’t be pulling the lever in 2006 with this case in the back of their minds. The courts have not won over any supporters here. But they have made a a bitter enemy, one with a great deal of political power — pro-lifers — and for what? To desegregate the lunch counters? To stop an innocent defendant from being executed? No, so they could starve a helpless woman to death unimpeded.

The long and short of it is that we should almost always defer to the courts even when we don’t agree with them. But in the exceptionally rare case when they are wrong enough, I think we shouldn’t defer. This is such a case. A helpless woman’s life is at stake. If saving a woman from death by starvation isn’t sufficient cause for a little friction between the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, I don’t know what is.

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:03 am 236. Charlie (Colorado):

Hmmm. So, Yehudit, you think calling Michael Schiavo a “murderer” — and since I’m defending his position, implying I’m an accessory to murder — or calling it “barbaric” to let her die by withdrawing life support — and thereby, since I’m in favor of letting the court’s decision stand, implying that I too am barbaric — is “civil”, but saying “learn to cope”, or suggesting that an attorney who believes in violent armed action to overturn the decisions of the Supreme Court might want to “find honest work” is overly harsh.

Right.

In technical rhetoric circles, I believe this argument is called “Daddy, Daddy, I’m losing, make him stop!”

Mar 28, 2005 - 7:41 am 237. Charlie (Colorado):

Yeah, right, Joe. “But it’s wrong!”

Well, you’re wrong.

Boy, that helped a lot, didn’t it?

The fact remains that after ten years of adjudication, every judge and every examination has come out on the side that Terri expressed the desire not to be maintained artificially. Is the law “right”? I dunno. Is it “just”? I used to date a lawyer and she told me that the first thing they told her in law school was not to expect the law to lead to “justice”?

But I’m not making a slippery slope argument: you’re specifically saying in this context, in this case, “When a court is this wrong, I think it’s entirely approrpriate for the legislature to overrrule it. Or the executive. Civil disobedience is appropriate too. If I were on a jury, I would never convict Ms. Schiavo’s parents if they were charged with bringing a pistol and a bottle of water into her room.”

And you’re an “officer of the court”.

Feh.

Mar 28, 2005 - 7:42 am 238. Buddy Larsen:

C/mon, Charlie…how long can you entertain yourself with this gratuitous disingenuousness? Nobody but you is arguing the technical legalities. As you continue to observe, you’re arguing with nothing, nobody disputes you. As you well know, the points being made concern the morality involved; morality being the presumptive basis of law. All you’re proving is that for avoiding issues, ridicule is what works for you. Here, have a look at a Slovak who detects secular fundamentalism in play.

Mar 28, 2005 - 8:17 am 239. Buddy Larsen:

You’ve got a lawyer in front of you who isn’t a royalist toady, and you criticize him? Fat lot of good you’d've been in 1776.

Mar 28, 2005 - 8:35 am 240. Buddy Larsen:

Besides, your image of an officer of the court making a plea for violence is not even close to what he said. Did you not note the subjunctive?

Mar 28, 2005 - 8:48 am 241. Kyda Sylvester:

I finally had the opportunity to read this entire thread. I see that I have no worries about the level and quality of debate under Roger’s roof. Except, Charlie, my man, you seem a tad over-wrought. Peggy Noonan had some observations last week about the passions of the pull-the-tube crowd. Take a deep breath, go, read and see if any apply.

Mar 28, 2005 - 10:00 am 242. jerry:

I am once again late to this dicscussion and I hope this post reaches a few people.

For the last several years we have heard a lot about “BushHitler” from the fringe left and Nazi name calling from the Senior Klansman from West Virginia. I know one thing though. When the choice is between the sanctity of life and a life worth living I know where the Nazis came down. We all would like to believe that in Nazi Germany we would have sided with the oppostion. The Terry Shiavo case is one those gut check moments that tells you which side of the fence you fall on. I don’t care if I sound judgementatl but those who have sided with “the life worth living” argument have sided with the Joseph Mengles of the world.

Mar 28, 2005 - 10:15 am 243. Buddy Larsen:

Jerry, clarify for me wouldja, is the ‘life-worth-living’ position that of the Mr & the Judge, or the Mrs & the family? Not being sarcastic, honestly didn’t follow the terminology.

Mar 28, 2005 - 10:23 am 244. jerry:

Buddy:

Buddy:

What we have here is a dispute between her parents and her husband with no verifiable statement of intentions on her part. By default the position should be sanctity of life. Her husband believes that her life is not worth living and should be terminated. Starving her is what Nazi medicine is about. Maximilian Kolb, a Polish priest in Auschwitz, was dealt with that way.

Mar 28, 2005 - 10:59 am 245. Morgan:

Buddy:

Jerry is comparing those who think that the standard should be whether Terri is living a “life worth living” (e.g. the Mr. and the judge) to Josef Mengele, and saying that those who argue that the tube should be pulled, regardless of their reasons for that argument, are on the Mengele side.

He has previously commented that pulling the tube should happen only if the patient has specified that course in writing. I think that was in a previous thread.

Long ago, Charlie responded to my comment:

I hope that this time the process produced the right outcome – even though that isn’t obviously so. I don’t think we’ll ever know.

Morgan, I honestly can’t think of any way that we could ever know what the “right” outcome would even be. Whether it’s “right” to let her die by inanition, or to keep feeding her artificially, or use her “swallowing reflex” to feed her until her inability to swallow led to aspiration and death by pneumonia, or give her a big pop of morpheine and go easily … well, that’s one of those points of personal belief that I think anyone has a right to.

I think that’s right, and that’s why we need a process to handle these things that overrides our individual personal beliefs regarding what is right in any particular case.

If the process is unacceptable, we should fix it – replace it with a process that we can agree is a better one. We have processes for doing that, too.

Most of the arguments come down to “the process is wrong, and it should be fixed to coincide with my ideal immediately”. That way lies chaos, because agreement on the process is vital.

We have systems of laws, and ways to change those laws. Attempts have been made to change the laws quickly in this case – in part they have succeeded, but those changes have not changed the outcome.

I still hope that the process has correctly diagnosed Terri Schiavo as PVS, and that it has correctly determined that her wish was not to be sustained artificially – even by a feeding tube – because I believe Terri is about to die.

Mar 28, 2005 - 11:14 am 246. jerry:

Morgan:

I concur with everything you say except your statement to the effect that it was her wish. We have no way to determine that. It is mere hearsay from parties with a conflict of interest. If there is someone who wants to take care of her then it is absolutely morally wrong to starve Terri Shiavo to death.

That should take all the ambiguity out of it.

Mar 28, 2005 - 11:33 am 247. Morgan:

jerry:

I think you’ve misread me slightly. I don’t know if it was, in fact, her wish. I only hope that the court was correct in making that determination, and that her wish is therefore being respected – even if we can’t know with certainty that is the case.

I don’t think that it is necessarily morally wrong to allow her to starve under these circumstances. The courts have attempted to divine her wishes, they may have done so correctly – in that case I would judge the act to be morally acceptable. You may, of course, reasonably disagree. I’m not sure I am wholeheartedly behind my own statement here.

I think your broader point is not that the act is necessarily immoral, but that a process that allows (interested?) hearsay evidence to override a presumption in favor of life is unacceptable and immoral. Fair enough?

Mar 28, 2005 - 12:07 pm 248. Buddy Larsen:

Morgan, fair enough for me. But since process has excluded this family’s right to prevent the arbitrary–though legal at this point in time due to the exigencies of extending process to an outcome that reflects this culture’s customs–legal euthanization of a family member, as far from fair enough as it is possible within the mortal realm to be, for them.

Mar 28, 2005 - 12:19 pm 249. Morgan:

Buddy:

I disagree regarding this being a case of “arbitrary” euthanization. An agreed-upon process that was designed to produce the optimal outcome has been followed. If the process appears to be flawed, we should try to fix it.

But we should try to fix it within the constraints of our system for fixing it, because the alternative is to say that those constraints only apply when everyone (or almost everyone) wants them to apply.

I think that’s true even though it may result in Terri’s death. Not because her life is inconsequential, but because the alternative is the usurpation of the agreement on process that is fundamental to a decent society.

That a flawed process produces less than optimal results is essentially tautological.

That the entire process, and most of all the outcome, have caused terrible pain to Terri’s family, no one doubts.

Mar 28, 2005 - 12:51 pm 250. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad:

Morgan, it was “arbitrary” in the following sense (as far as I can tell by reading the decisions, not having access to the evidence): the judge made a decision. He could have made a different decision.

I think he should have made a different decision. Florida Law, like Charlie says, includes feeding tubes as artificial life prolongation. But food is an ordinary requirement of all people. There is a big medical difference between stopping food and stopping “treatment”.

I believe Terri did NOT want to be starved to death, ever. The evidence does not show if she ever said whether she would want that.

The evidence did show she had spoken, to husband Michael and his brother Scott and his wife Joan to the effect of not wanting to be kept alive, “hooked to a machine”, like her grandmother in intensive care before she died.

Terri’s likely position:

I do not want to be hooked to a machine to live; I do not want to be starved to death.

The law should be changed so that these two normal desires are not legally incompatible, as they are today; Greer’s Mistake

Because I see no evidence, much less clear and convincing evidence, that she wanted to starve to death (ordinary food requirement of all living things), I think Judge Greer should have ruled that she can remain on feeding tubes until “nature takes its course”. Otherwise its the execution by starvation of an innocent, inconvenient woman.

Why do the anti-life people insist on it?

An American in Slovakia (for 14 years, thanks for reading me, Buddy)

Mar 28, 2005 - 1:44 pm 251. Morgan:

Tom:

Okay. I won’t arugue with your use of the word “arbitrary” there, but we mean different things. I mean that the process that put Greer in the position to make the decision was not an arbitrary one – it was based on the presumption that he would be in the best position to make it. You mean that his decision was ill-considered, wrong, and, well, arbitrary.

If you are right, this is more reason to change the process.

As for your question: Why do the anti-life people insist on “the execution by starvation of an innocent, inconvenient woman”? Well, I suppose those who are truly anti-life do so on the principle that it would end a life, which they presumably think is inherently good.

I hope you haven’t concluded that’s me.

Mar 28, 2005 - 2:28 pm 252. Buddy Larsen:

Reading you was most worthwhile, Tom. I’d say it was a pleasure but for the topic. I’m glad that y’all have carried this case to the understanding of the low-cost/high-benefit of exception-making under exceptional circumstances. And, congress had even made it technically unexceptional for Greer to’ve heard ex-parte the witnesses that showed up in his courthouse a few days ago, in response to a congressional call upon a federal court.

To ignore the exceptional circumstances self-demonstrated already in that fact, is itself exceptional. In fact, ignoring the subpoena is being said to be unprecedented (at least, in that court, and maybe more–data eludes).

Greer is exceptional. His action can’t be reasoned out by reason. Right, Morgan, tautologies spring up everywhere.

Here’s something real: Court treated her as having stated, strongly enough to take exceptional action, that she would wish this exceptional end on herself. Why, then, if that is anywhere near a reasonable finding in a court of equity, did she not take two minutes and write it down? That she didn’t is far more ‘clear and compelling evidence’ for an opposite finding, than exists for the finding as is. Boys and girls, this is bad, bad stuff.

Cold comfort: Tom’s blog slogan: There are two wolf packs, fighting in my heart. One mostly good; one mostly bad. Which pack will win? The wolves I feed. But this means the bad wolves in the good pack get fed, while the good wolves in the bad pack do not.

* Justice is a grey area. * Justice often requires force. *

Amen.

Mar 28, 2005 - 3:28 pm 253. Charlie (Colorado):

If Mr.’s custodial rights were the issue of a trial, he would lose, on the basis of the new wife and the ’sickness & health’ vow.

Buddy, they were the subject of a trial, not to mention a zillion appeals, and he won.

If “won” is the word.

GODDAMNIT, WOULD IT BE ASKING TO MUCH TO ASK YOU PEOPLE TO FIND OUT THE FACTS?

You may not like the results of the trial. You may think that a feeding tube shouldn’t count as artifical support. But a claim that there “was no trial” or that “the Mr would lose if there were a trial” is just flat making shit up.

Mar 28, 2005 - 3:31 pm 254. Charlie (Colorado):

By the way, Yehudit, since it seems to have been a little difficult for you, that last — that part that starts “goddamnit” — that was harsh.

Mar 28, 2005 - 3:34 pm 255. Charlie (Colorado):

Oh, and as long as I’m getting a little tempery here, Jerry, that place where you just said I was on the side of Joseph Mengele?

After due consideration and a couple of drafts, may I just express my fervent desire that you and your equine conveyance both be subjects of unaccustomed coital acts?

Mar 28, 2005 - 3:40 pm 256. Charlie (Colorado):

Tom, if anyone has answered this, I’ve missed it, so I’ll ask again: just what is it that makes this feeding tube less artificial than, say, a respirator?

It occurs to me that a lot of people may not know what’s involved here: this isn’t something like a tube down the throat delivering pre-chewed Big Macs. Terri has, most likely, a percutaneous gastrostomy and jejunostomy tube, or possibly a percutaneous gastrostomy. (See, eg, here.)

In other words, a tube inserted through the skin (”percutaneous”), the abdominal wall and the stomach (”gastrostomy”) is used to pump an artificial formula into the stomach, or sometimes into the jejunum — the upper end of the small intestine. The artificial formula isn’t “food”, it’s a liquid formula — for example Novartis’s formula is “Protein: 13% (Calcium and Sodium Caseinates, Soy Protein Isolate) Carbohydrate: 50% (Maltodextrin) Fat: 37% (Soy and MCT Oils)”.

Compare this to a respirator: with a respirator, you’ve got a tube into the throat; in tube feeding, you’ve got a tube through a surgical incision into the abdomen. With a respirator, you’ve getting air, possibly artificially enriched with O2. With the gastrostomy, you’re getting … well, it’s not very appetising and it’s not by any means something “natural”.

With the respirator, you’ve keeping someone alive by making up for the missing ability to respire; with the feeding tube you’re making up for the missing ability to swallow. Without the respirator, the patient dies for lack of air; without the feeding tube, the patient dies for lack of water.

Tell me again how the feeding tube isn’t artificial, but the respirator is?

Mar 28, 2005 - 4:03 pm 257. Buddy Larsen:

Charlie, again the subjunctive, i meant in a new trial. Would you bet on him in a new trial?

Mar 28, 2005 - 4:16 pm 258. Buddy Larsen:

And you misspelled ‘too’ after the “GODDAMNIT”.

Mar 28, 2005 - 4:23 pm 259. Caroline:

SolexBold had a brilliant post at 6:20 pm. 3/27. He/she indicated that it was a quote but didn’t provide a link. I wish he/she did.

Mar 28, 2005 - 4:40 pm 260. Bostonian:

Charlie, in most states in the Union, a feeding tube is not legally considered life support. It was not considered life support in Florida until long after Terri’s heart attack.

It stands to reason that Terri’s supposed remarks about not wanting life support DID NOT take that new legal consideration into account.

***

Charlie, you may see cases like this yourself, or at least cases that you think are like this. But this is an exceptional case, and it has caught attention because of that. I couldn’t say precisely which thing has made this case stand out: Michael’s insistence? Judge Greer? The parents? Maybe it’s a perfect storm.

Maybe, just maybe, something is going on that is worth paying attention to–something that cannot be made to vanish with a flourish of legalese.

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:09 pm 261. Buddy Larsen:

…though you’ve done a Promethean job of trying to make it do so. Why?

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:14 pm 262. Charlie (Colorado):

Bostonian, I’d have to say that it looks to me to be a combination of an amazingly facile job of media manipulation compounded with an astonishing amount of out and out lying. Along with a prodigious bit of self-deception and denial on the Schindler’s part, one that has ruined the lives of a lot more people than it had to.

If I were going to follow the kind of speculation that’s been so rife about Michael, there’s be plenty of meat for it: did her parents urge her strenuously to lose weight, and so they now don’t want to accept the bulemia that killed her? Did they become angry at Michael when he didn’t fork over part of his settlement?

But I prefer what Wolfson said about it: that they were all people who wanted the best for her, in a situation where outsiders finally had to make the decisions they weren’t able to make by agreement.

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:25 pm 263. Charlie (Colorado):

Buddy, do you really think a spelling flame is making a point?

As to your other question, I’d guess there are three aspects:

(1) for whatever reason, I’ve always had this desire to learn new things and so search for truth. Other people get religious feelings about God, I get them in the LIbrary of Congress. In this particular case, I eventually began to resent the way that making shit up is becoming an argument, even among people who not that long ago were being pretty harsh on — ah, hell, that guy at CBS. Dan Rather, that’s it.

It offends me just as much when “conservatives” make shit up as when Dan Rather does, and it disappoints me when I see that a lot of people who I thought better of show that it wasn’t so much the untruth, as the fact that it was their ox being gored that was the issue.

(2) I have that “liberal” inclination to root for the underdog, and a very strong feeling that the individual’s liberty is of central importance.

We’re seeing Michael being villified in ways that are hard to grasp; we’re seeing so much fury coming about because of the flat-out lies that are being told about the whole thing that Judge Greer now lives in fear of his life, with armed guards, and they’ve had to shut down the local grade school because the kids can’t get there without being subjected to the abuse of the demonstrators; and we’re seeing a situation where, as far as I or anyone else can tell, Terri had an expressed wish not to be kept alive artificially that we now think ought to be ignored, primarily because there is now sufficient hysteria that otherwise honest honorable people are saying that it would be okay with them if the Executive simply assumed power and negated the actions of the courts.

And folks, that is fascism. And I’m against it.

(3) I am facing a similar situation myself. My mother has chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and is showing signs of dementia. She’s expressed herself very strongly that she doesn’t want to be in the position Terri Schiavo is in. I could, in the future, find myself in a similar position. I thus find it easy to see myself in Michael’s shoes, and have bcome increasingly sensitive about being called a Nazi, a Mengele, and a murderer by association.

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:45 pm 264. Buddy Larsen:

No, nowhere near that. A month to run a few tests that she’s needed for eleven years. How many courts would not have granted that? How many?

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:46 pm 265. Caroline:

Bottom line – there were no grounds to deny that woman a little water – in the form of ice chips on her tongue while she was dehydrated to death – with her tongue swollen and bleeding and her eyes bleeding – or does anyone seriously want to claim that her (supposed) aversion to advanced life support actually included an informed decision to undergo that particular and most agonizing human torture in the interests of not being a burden on anyone?

But who knows? Maybe when some 20-something year old guy makes a casual statement to his wife that he doesn’t want to bring any more children into this world he is, unbeknownst to himself, actually giving her permission to castrate him at some point in the future when he won’t be in any position to have a whole lot of say in the matter.

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:47 pm 266. Buddy Larsen:

THAT’s how you shut people up and send them on their way, Charlie. Not by telling them they’re just stoopid.

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:48 pm 267. Patrick Tyson:

But I prefer what Wolfson said about it: that they were all people who wanted the best for her, in a situation where outsiders finally had to make the decisions they weren’t able to make by agreement.

Charlie—

Me, too. If they’d agreed, either way, only those who knew her and who cared for her would have known who she was.

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:48 pm 268. Buddy Larsen:

I meant the tests, not the castration. I’m literally out of line.

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:50 pm 269. Charlie (Colorado):

Buddy, I know I hit this before, but I’ll repeat it: you don’t need advanced tests to confirm a traumatic amputation. The fact that the foot is gone is enough.

In Terri’s case, there’s a good CT that shows a hole where most of her cerebral cortex should be. If we could take an MRI, it would show a hole where most of her cerebral cortex should be. If we were to take a PET, it would show metabolism in the brain stem, and nothing happening in the hole. And in any case, we can do neither without opening Terri’s skull to take out the experimental brain stimulator that was put in while Michael still thought there might be hope.

Which would very likely kill her.

So what you’re asking for is to make her go through an operation that would likely kill her in order to show something that you don’t need more tests to show.

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:56 pm 270. Charlie (Colorado):

By the way, along the lines of motivations: they just announced on MSNBC that Schiavo has now asked the ME to do a full PM to confirm she was not abused, and determine the extent of her brain damage, and make the results public.

Not that it will make any difference: I’ve already, in the span of an hour, seen someone suggest it was really poison so it wouldn’t show up on PM anyway.

Mar 28, 2005 - 5:59 pm 271. Charlie (Colorado):

Bottom line – there were no grounds to deny that woman a little water – in the form of ice chips on her tongue while she was dehydrated to death – with her tongue swollen and bleeding and her eyes bleeding – or does anyone seriously want to claim that her (supposed) aversion to advanced life support actually included an informed decision to undergo that particular and most agonizing human torture in the interests of not being a burden on anyone?

Bottom line: you’ve decided that what you want to be true is true, and you don’t care about anything else.

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:01 pm 272. Caroline:

No Charlie – bottome line is that YOU are in favor of denying that woman some ice chips on her tongue because YOU have decided “that what you want to be true is true”. As a former medical student you know darned well how little we actually know about human consciousness and it is frigging arrogant to pretend anything else. For some bizarre reason you can’t even stand up for the right of that woman to have ice chips on her tongue just IN CASE you are mistaken.

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:09 pm 273. Charlie (Colorado):

I just caught up with the pointer to Wretchard above: here’s something that’s very nicely said.

The real need to find Michael Schiavo or Judge Greer guilty of something … is to avoid accepting the possibility of senseless suffering.

Maybe it’s the Buddhist thing; I don’t think denying that suffering exists frees us from suffering.

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:10 pm 274. Bostonian:

Charlie, I do support the right to end one’s life. I have no moral hangup there.

I want to know that if I end up unable to speak but not terminal and not in pain, that no man will have the power over my life that Judge Greer has had over Terri Schiavo’s for the last decade.

Surely there is a way to accommodate both that position and the right to die.

How many of us have to put our wishes in writing? Every last one of us?

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:15 pm 275. Buddy Larsen:

Patrick, great, but ancient history. Here’s a taste of tomorrow (hope it’s been worth it!):

“Because of his recalcitrance in the Terri Schiavo case, the Southern Baptist pastor and congregation to which Judge George Greer belonged asked him to leave, the closest thing to excommunication a Baptist can experience. Pastor Will Rice’s last admonition to Greer was chilling: “You must know that in all likelihood it is this case which will define your career and this case that you will remember in the waning days of life.”

http://novaemilitiae.squarespace.com/blogoslovi-nevskis-periodic-mu/2005/3/26/the-pride-of-black-george.html

(ht Dymphna)

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:18 pm 276. Caroline:

“The real need to find Michael Schiavo or Judge Greer guilty of something … is to avoid accepting the possibility of senseless suffering.”

Bullshit – most of us our aren’t interested at this point in finding Schiavo or Greer guilty of something. What chance is there of that?? No chance! Process has spoken. Rather, we are interested in PREVENTING SENSELESS SUFFERING. You can’t seriously think the Buddha would argue with that? Most likely he’d have a whole lot to say to Michael Schiavo about letting go and getting on with the life he has chosen and leaving Terri to her parents. In fact Michael Schiavo’s obsessive determination to kill his wife flies entirely in the face of the Tao.

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:18 pm 277. Buddy Larsen:

Patrick, great, but ancient history. Here’s a taste of tomorrow (hope it’s been worth it!):

“Because of his recalcitrance in the Terri Schiavo case, the Southern Baptist pastor and congregation to which Judge George Greer belonged asked him to leave, the closest thing to excommunication a Baptist can experience. Pastor Will Rice’s last admonition to Greer was chilling: “You must know that in all likelihood it is this case which will define your career and this case that you will remember in the waning days of life.”

http://novaemilitiae.squarespace.com/blogoslovi-nevskis-periodic-mu/2005/3/26/the-pride-of-black-george.html

(ht Dymphna)

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:20 pm 278. Patrick Tyson:

Buddy—

It’s been worth it.

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:21 pm 279. Caroline:

“Because of his recalcitrance in the Terri Schiavo case, the Southern Baptist pastor and congregation to which Judge George Greer belonged asked him to leave, the closest thing to excommunication a Baptist can experience. ”

It’s just karma. The guy is lucky that he actually gets the chance to connect the dots in this lifetime.

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:31 pm 280. Charlie (Colorado):

I want to know that if I end up unable to speak but not terminal and not in pain, that no man will have the power over my life that Judge Greer has had over Terri Schiavo’s for the last decade.

Thus demonstrating that you, also, haven’t considered the implications of Terri’s real condition.

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:55 pm 281. Charlie (Colorado):

Bullshit – most of us our aren’t interested at this point in finding Schiavo or Greer guilty of something. What chance is there of that?? No chance! Process has spoken. Rather, we are interested in PREVENTING SENSELESS SUFFERING. You can’t seriously think the Buddha would argue with that? Most likely he’d have a whole lot to say to Michael Schiavo about letting go and getting on with the life he has chosen and leaving Terri to her parents. In fact Michael Schiavo’s obsessive determination to kill his wife flies entirely in the face of the Tao.

Bullshit yourself, Caroline. Terri isn’t suffering. Terri’s not there. Michael is suffering, her folks are suffering, all those people in the crowd outside the hospice are suffering. It’s all dukkha, all attachment, and all suffering and the root of suffering.

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:57 pm 282. Charlie (Colorado):

Don’t think you’re not making karma yourself, Caroline.

Mar 28, 2005 - 6:59 pm 283. Buddy Larsen:

Not too late to dust off that stay. Just to shut everybody the hell up. Extraordinary situation, extraordinary, one-time, step: a short stay and a few tests, to rest the family’s–and now the planet’s–mind. What’s the dowmside? What? Oh well. HMOs can recalculate the actuarials now, this is going to be easier/cheaper next time. Probably for the best. Capital invests the future, bad business to waste it on the past. Don’t worry about the unintended consequences, cross that bridge when we come to it.

Mar 28, 2005 - 7:34 pm 284. Luther McLeod:

Man, what a wrenching thread. My gut is telling me not to comment. I don’t know enough of the facts. So, this is just an observation.

I have known and paid attention to the plight of the Schiavo’s over the years. I never focused a lot of thought on it, always considered it a tragic family matter which would be sorted out in a legalistic way. Which it has, just not to the satisfaction of many/most/almost all who have written here, and many others of course.

My wife and I have no written living wills. We have been putting it off for at least the last 20 years. Excuses up the kazoo, of course. But we do have verbal, heartfelt agreements, that we would not want to continue existence if we were to be in a state of greatly diminished capacity, such as Terri Schiavo is and has been for the past 15 years. We have both agreed to help the other to a state of non-existence were the situation to arise. I see nothing wrong with this. I didn’t get a choice on coming into the world but I can certainly have a choice on when to depart it.

I have seen Michael Schiavo accused of many things in the past several weeks, and not just on this blog. But I have as yet seen nothing that has persuaded me that he does not have Terri’s interest at heart. I just cannot imagine that he would put himself through what he has otherwise. I guess I just don’t see motive. What is it that he has/will gain from his determination to see this through to the end? Money/Fame/Power/Arrogance? Why would he put himself through this. Why would he want to see Terri dead, other than by her own wishes. He could have walked away 15 years ago. He could walk away today. Why doesn’t he? Could it possibly be that he is truly trying to fulfill Terri’s wishes? And if that were so, would it make any difference to most who have commented here?

One question I do have is why all of these things were not being discussed six months ago, or three months ago? Forgive my cynicism, but it almost appears as an ‘issue de jour’, (hope that means what I think it means.)

I also want to stick up for Charlie, not that he needs my assistance or would want it. It is very natural, I think, to become a tad defensive when you are a lone voice against many. He may have been a little personal/testy at times, but a few of the comparison’s that were adjudged to him were a bit over the edge, I feel.

Mar 28, 2005 - 8:22 pm 285. Buddy Larsen:

Luther. Mom.

Mar 28, 2005 - 8:53 pm 286. Buddy Larsen:

Sorry, Luther, just tired and gone into full OCD. If you want to understand the wrenching, here’s the tip of the ALLEGATION iceberg (ht to Ledger):

re: The Fight Before Terri’s "Collapse" @ Monday, March 28, 2005 11:44 PM

Apparently, Terri probably was seeking a divorce and had a fight with her husband before her “unexplained collapse.” Further, the 6′6″ 250 lb. husband was using Welbutron, Paneior, Elavil and Prozac to calm his violent behavior.

[anchorrising.com]:

‘further insight into their marital problems at the time Terri sustained her injuries:

‘…medical records show that Terri has never been evaluated or treated by an orthopedic surgeon for the multiple injuries revealed in the bone scan, which may have a profound bearing on her current medical condition…

‘In testimony given during the 2000 trial, Terri’s girlfriend and co-worker [see item #6 on left side listing] Terri discussed getting a divorce and moving in with her. She also testified that the couple had a violent argument on the day of Terri’s collapse, which prompted her to urge Terri to not stay at home that night ? a suggestion Terri disregarded.’

http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/001672.html

[Michael Schiavo use of psychotic medications: Welbutron, Paneior, Elavil and Prozac, see zimp.org]:

“Some Background Information: Most people, particularly Terri, were easily intimidated because of Michael’s size. It has been documented that Michael had rages of anger and would use his physical stature to bully people, and as indicated in their attached personal experiences and affidavits, it was mostly women that were the subject of Michael’s episodes of anger. In the early 1990’s, Michael Schiavo’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Peter Kaplan, stated in a phone conversation with Terri’s father, in regards to a violent episode occurring between Michael and Terri’s younger sister Suzanne, that Michael was potentially dangerous and should a situation re occur, to call the police.

“In a deposition from November 1992, that Michael admitted Dr. Kaplan prescribed Welbutron, Paneior, Elavil and Prozac medication to treat his condition.”

[Mr. Schiavo jumped from job to job]

“Early Employment: Michael Schiavo’s initial employment in Florida was the onset of employment at six different restaurants over the ensuing 2 ? years. His length of employment at times was only for two weeks to a month.

“Michael Schiavo’s attitude was a major contributor to his chronic unemployment. He had a tendency to outspend Terri’s income, and his inability to retain employment created a serious financial problem, impacting their marriage. Also, it has been alleged that Michael’s restaurant environment introduced him to drugs.”

See:

1. Michael Schaivo

http://www.zimp.org/stuff/“>http://www.zimp.org/stuff/

[cause of fight]:

“So I called her Saturday afternoon and asked her, well, are we a blond or brunette? She said I’m still a blond. But she was very, very upset when I was talking to her. It sounded like she had been crying. I asked her if she was okay. She said she had a fight with Michael. That he was extremely upset with her because she had spent, I think she told me $80, on her hair…”

See:

6. Jackie Rhodes, Terri’s co-worker and close friend.

http://www.zimp.org/stuff/“>http://www.zimp.org/stuff/

Ledger

Mar 28, 2005 - 9:06 pm 287. Buddy Larsen:

Luther: your “One question I do have is why all of these things were not being discussed six months ago, or three months ago? Forgive my cynicism, but it almost appears as an ‘issue de jour’, (hope that means what I think it means.)”

Here’s a report from 2003. This fight with Florida has been going on for a long time. Look at the old man’s face.

Mar 28, 2005 - 10:33 pm 288. socalgal:

Charlie,

what Buddy said! dispassionate argument is the best way to get your point across. I think we can now better appreciate where your passion for this question comes from. That having been said, I think you should have a more open mind re:the quality of life. To you, as you have repeatedly observed, Terri IS no longer – because of her brain damage. Whatever happens to her body is unfelt and unknown by her – yet this is hardly a certainty. It wasn’t that long ago that physicians were certain that infants could not feel or remember pain the way adults can – even performing surgeries without any analgesia – because they insisted to everone, including agonized parents, that whatever they percieved as the infant’s pain was mere reflex and not to get so emotional about it. Again I say: we are SURE that we know what we know until we know something different.

I am not saying that you need to reverse your feelings about the matter – just that you should entertain the idea that many people might not feel the same as you do – and that they aren’t objectively WRONG just because they don’t agree with you. If anything is subjective, it surely is the point at which your life becomes unliveable. My personal feelings in the overall matter are that people should have the right to choose how and when they die. Suicide should not be a crime, nor assisted suicide. Many people, and their families, want to hang on as long as their body is capable – regardless of incapacity. Despite my feelings on the subject, I think those people have the right to go that route if they chose.

Let me also say that as far as the “making s**t up” peeve, you have no stronger supporter than me, although I think that the way you’ve chosen to express that sentiment is beneath the general tone of this blog’s comments.

Making personal attacks on you is not any more acceptable than the personal sniping you have made at others – it’s deplorable. But your saying “well they did it first!” does not justify your doing the same.

Demonizing Judge Greer and Michael makes me just as angry as demonizing anyone else – or calling people stoopid in so many words OR by inference. But I do not think that it is terrible to wonder whether the judge, the florida legislature, or Michael got it wrong – or even whether Michael might not be the best judge. (Don’t rehash how he wasn’t the only witness – if anyone has read the rulings and other documentation, I have. The basis of the decisions throughout has been that Michael is rightfully her guardian and his decision to withold life support should be implemented and upheld by court order. Yes, the judge did rule that way because he concluded it is what Terri would wish, but please, it is only happening because it was Michael’s decision as her guardian.) I still keep hearing about how many times this case has been tried and, pardon me for saying so, but you are making that up. This case has been tried once. That original trial has been ruled upon regarding the legality of the proceedings many times, yes, but that is not the same at all as being tried again.

The fact that many other states have wrestled over the question as to whether nutrition and hydration = life support and come out on the other side shows that it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. It is legally settled in Florida, yes, however I would bet that will soon change – and just because something is a law does not make it right.

You ARE right (surprise!) that absent all the media circus and legal attention, starvation and dehydration would not be the direct cause of Terri’s death – and that should tell you that physicians find this form of death repugnant, even if they think she cannot know what is happening to her body – they think “WHAT IF?” and give morphine… If Terri had, indeed, decided to die – then wetting her lips, eyes, and lessening her apparent suffering shouldn’t be discouraged. That the letter of the law makes that verboten is disgusting. We are reassured by some physicians that she will be given morphine so that she feels no pain – leaving us with the question – why is morphine OK but ice chips and wet cloths to lessen suffering are not? What suffering are drugs supposed to be alleviating if she cannot know pain?

Your own decisions shouldn’t blind you to the existence of opposing opinions that are just as valid for the people holding them. My position is, and has been, that there seem to be questions about the original evidence – whether you think so or not – PS, I think OJ did it, too, even though he was lawfully acquitted, and that McCain-Feingold is a rotten, unconstitutional law, even though the courts have found otherwise. Does that mean I should move to another country? should we scrap the legal system? drive 100 mph? Absent formal instructions I think the lesser evil is living while the debate is re-examined (as Congress seemingly intended), even if only to be very publicly overly careful. If the case were re-tried with the world watching, and the same conclusions were reached, there might be a few hold outs in the “never say die” group, but much of the division would melt away. If the opposite conclusion were reached, then a tragedy would have been averted – or would you still think that the new legal ruling should be upheld at all costs? As it stands, Michael will be a lightning rod for the rest of his life, as will Judge Greer – fairly or unfairly, and a woman will have been gruesomely dehydrated to death, whatever her quality of life.

Mar 29, 2005 - 12:12 am 289. socalgal:

P.S – I think I will be changing my offical ID to “windbag”… sorry I hardly ever have anything short to say.

Mar 29, 2005 - 12:13 am 290. jerry:

Charlie:

You propbably think that most Germans were just drooling over the prospect of killing the innocent. They weren’t. They were people just like you and me. The Nazis had to condition the German people were conditioned to disregard morality to advance someone else’s concept of the common good. The Holocaust was made possible by the stripping away the people’s reluctance to arbitrarily take the life of the old, the handicapped and the infirm. We are doing the same thing today. You seem to believe that somehow we are a much more ìmoralî society then the Nazis so we will be able to decide which lives are not worth living without compromising our humanity. That shows a lot hubris on your part. So I offer no apologies here for my position. If that makes you feel uncomfortable then too bad.

Mar 29, 2005 - 6:41 am 291. Morgan:

jerry:

We’re not that different from the Germans. We too are tempted to do things because they seem right at the time.

That’s why we need to focus on ensuring that there is a process in place that we can live with. One that reflects the best solution we can agree on, and that we are willing to allow to work even when we disagree with the outcome.

Mar 29, 2005 - 8:44 am 292. Buddy Larsen:

SoCalGal, that wasn’t verbose; it was ‘in-depth’ and valuable. Jerry, right, Karma, principle, it’s all being laid down continuously continually. Charlie I feel in my bones is primarily concerned about mass hysteria and wishes to damp it. Morgan explores tautology. Many of us are siding with Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson. And the Schindlers are being agonized inside the hellish gray area between the letter and the spiritual intent of the law. People trumpet allegations and feel like tabloid trash, but so what if there’s a lethal miscarriage of justice–fraught with ramifications and soon to be forever beyond all hope of repair–underway, and for what?

Mar 29, 2005 - 10:23 am 293. Buddy Larsen:

Here’s another thing, straight out of Tom Wolfe but not fiction: There’s a guy–a ‘wealthy businessman’ as the interviewer described him (yes, i missed the name), who, having lost a loved one once under similar blood-vs-marriage conditions, put $1mm in a trust account to go the Mr upon his signing a custodial quit-claim to the parents.

The patron was just interviewed (I watched it on Fox’s Linda Vestor show), and said that the time limit on the offer is the point at which Ms Terri is irreversibly dehydrated, so, “hurry”.

The offer had been conveyed to Mr and his reps some time ago, weeks or months, so there is no doubt as to his awareness of it.

Question: Since his reputation is gone in any case, why wouldn’t he take the offer–which would free his two kids from all financial risk? Is he principled beyond price? Would it disprove his contention that the extraordinariness of his behavior throughout is due to the extraordinary zeal of Ms Terri’s wish that she not be let die in any other way–a zeal that inexplicably did not include her grabbing a pencil and piece of paper and a minute’s time to insure?

Since I’ve fallen, and am now a fully-fulminating tabloidist, am I wrong to wallow in it and wonder, wrt the husband and his circle and the turn-down of the million-dollar trade for a presumably pointless custody, if–besides issues of principle–there is any other possible explanation?

Mar 29, 2005 - 11:33 am 294. Luther McLeod:

Buddy

Thanks for the links from last nights discussion. You mention mom, well she died last year, but as to your point, she was always in complete agreement re: my dnr request, and wished the same for herself should the need arise. Some people are just that way.

And, yes, I did look at the old man’s face. I feel the utmost empathy/sympathy for him and for the mother. I am neither callous nor cold. Not that you suggested such.

But I am wondering if I have read you correctly, “if–besides issues of principle–there is any other possible explanation?”? In my non-articulate way, that is the question I was asking last night, “Could it possibly be that he is truly trying to fulfill Terri’s wishes?”

I guess I just wonder if the demonization of Michael (not without reason perhaps, i.e. your links from last night) is a sub-conscious attempt by many to cover over the fact that he may truly feel he is carrying out Terri’s wishes. And, more importantly, that they were her wishes.

Mar 29, 2005 - 12:55 pm 295. Buddy Larsen:

Luther, you’re welcome, and thanks for the careful thoughts. Posting those allegations was trashy either way you look at it, but what the hell, they’ll redound to his benefit once the court of public opinion has had time to exonerate him.

Re your post, nothing in a short stay for a few put-the-family’s-mind-to-rest tests would in any real way interfere with the huband’s sincere wish for what is best for Ms Terri.

One of the things that you can be sure Ms Terri wants–wanted–is that her parents, sis and bro not be left hollowed out for their remaining lives.

There is one case in which the preceding paragraph could be wrong: if Ms Terri DID/DOES want her family to suffer.

Considering the bad blood between the family and the husband, the husband would have to be a saint not to have made mention of such.

If the husband is a saint, then God love him, he’ll understand and appreciate our fighting his unfortunate doppelganger for the rights of his beloved.

Mar 29, 2005 - 1:58 pm 296. Buddy Larsen:

My last lash across the rump of the dead horse. First half of 3rd para, conveniently bolded…not that recovery would’ve been possible, but that who can know what she is knowing right now?

Mar 29, 2005 - 3:15 pm 297. Buddy Larsen:

Well, dot that ‘i’:

Mar 29, 2005 - 4:49 pm 298. Buddy Larsen:

Charlie, I somehow missed the series above where you mentioned that the further tests required invasive brain surgery. Guess you had a point about blabbering from insufficient knowledge. But aside from the cost, talk about a risk-free operation.

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:17 pm 299. Bostonian:

Charlie, in your last post, you proved yourself to be indifferent to other people’s wishes, or in denial that they could be different from yours.

I will not waste my time with you any further.

Mar 29, 2005 - 5:25 pm 300. Buddy Larsen:

HT The Corner, The husband’s lawyer’s book gets reviewed, and another lawyer checks in.

Mar 29, 2005 - 8:05 pm 301. Buddy Larsen:

Wretchard continues with a ‘part 2′:

Apr 1, 2005 - 1:55 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: