Terri Schiavo

Remove all ads!

First, wow thanks Rally, I don't think anyone else has every so succinctly or kindly stated my political views!

I hate this issue. It is hard to determine the facts, but it seems as though the truth lies somewhere in the middle, probably closer to the husbands view than the parents. It is hard for any parent to give up their child, and they will often hold on to any hope. At the same time, the establishment is making this as difficult as possible to make this a clean break for the parents by making them sit and watch their little girl starve to death (which is a visually gruesome way to die), and giving them false hope. At the same time, the husband watched the woman he supposedly loved languish for a number of years, and then he decided that there was no longer any hope for a recovery, and has moved on, in my opinion understandably. I know that there are claims of abuse by the family, but the time for such claims have long since passed, and there obviously was not sufficient evidence to claim that this alleged abuse contributed to Terri's condition, or the husband would have been charged with a crime. I also know that there are claims that the husband is after the money, but it has been reported that he has been offered $10 million to walk away, and he refused it, so that is rather hard to believe.

Given what I have seen so far, I am mostly sickened by the fact that no one seems to be willing to give Terri a peaceful easy death. I have to agree with Ravynn, euthanasia is in order here. We wouldn't treat a child molesting sociopathic torturing murderer this way, so why are we doing it to Terri? This death is going to be a trauma that her parents may never reconcile. If she were put to death peacefully it would be an easier pill for the parents to swallow.

As for the political ramifications, well, I hope a lot of politicians will be unemployed in the next few elections, including the Governor of Florida. I don't think it will happen though. This is the time that the press could really present the facts and allow the people to decide, but a large portion of the public no longer trusts the press anymore, so shills like Hannity and Rush will motivate the extreme right with their distortions, while the rest of us sit in the middle shaking our heads.

Just as a note, I have been out of pocket, so I have not been able to come in and see what's up lately. I quickly read through the posts here, so if I missed something or duplicated another’s views, and it is apparent in my post I apologize.

 

Last night while playing Vampire – Bloodlines something popped into my head. It isn’t a fully fleshed out idea, but it’s a work in progress that may have some large holes at this point. I was, and am, of the opinion that Schiavo is dead. I believe that the part of her brain that made Terri Schiavo Terri Schiavo is now liquid and that it won’t come back. I think that this view is common among those who feel the feeding tube should be removed.

I want to focus on what matters with respect to Terri Shchiavo. I’m talking about issues such as dignity in death, suffering, autonomy, etc. There are other issues too – pragmatic issues like who pays, the distribution of finite medical resources, the emotional impact on the parents and the husband, etc. For the purpose of this idea, I’m limiting myself to the first set of issues – those specific to Terri. I feel that these issues are of primary importance ethically speaking and trump the latter issus.

Suppose I’m right. Suppose that the part of Terri’s brain that makes her unique is liquid and that she is gone permanently. If I’m right, then the whole issue of whether to have the feeding tube in or not is irrelevant with respect to Terri. (There may be other issues, but they aren’t related to what is best for Terri). What is best for Terri at this point doesn’t matter because there is no Terri. Terri is gone. All that is left is a husk, an impressive machine - but just a machine. If you’ll excuse the crude 1980’s analogy, it’s like someone took Kitt from NightRider and ripped the computer that is Kitt out. You still have a car that people can drive, but Kitt is gone. And whether you put the car in the trash compactor or not doesn’t matter to Kitt, because there is no longer any Kitt in the car.

The only way it matters to Terri whether the feeding tube is put in place or not is if Terri is still there in the body. The only way that it matters, is if the parents are correct in saying that Terri still is there, somewhere. The medical evidence that supports that there is no hope for recovery seems to suggest to me that Terri isn’t there – it’s just a corpse with still functioning organs. So the supporting evidence for the husband suggests that it doesn’t matter to Terri what happens because there is no Terri anymore, only a body. It is only if Terri is there, or could be there, that it matters to Terri what happens to the body. And this is the parent’s side of the argument.

So, if you believe Terri is gone, like I do, it’s a big fight over a bag of bones and a sack of blood and fluid. If you believe that Terri is there, or could come back, then it is a more crucial issue. But it seems to me that if you believe like I do, then maybe I should step back and so long as the other issues unrelated to Terri specifically don’t outweigh the issues specific to Terri, let the parents do what they want. After all, if I’m right, what does it matter what is done to that hunk of meat? What does it matter to you and me what happens to our bodies after we’re dead? Once I’m dead, trn me into soylent green or place me in state in the Cistine Chapel (sp?), I don’t care at that point. If Terri’s parents are right though, if Terri is there or could come back, then doesn’t it make some sense to reinsert the tube?

The caveat to all of this is that there is no living will. The other caveat is I haven’t read the trial transcripts. The courts feel that the evidence indicates that Terri wouldn’t want to have the continued life-sustaining measures continued. If that is true, then even if the parents are right and Terri is there, Terri’s autonomy is implicated in the decision and so you may still pull the tube. The above idea is really only works where there isn’t strong evidence of what Terri would want. And, frankly, I’m not sure that a conversation during a T.V. program is particularly compelling evidence.

That’s just an initial thought. I haven’t thought it through, and it could have gaping holes.

@ Bion -

With respect to the Texas law signed by Bush in 1999, I think the internet postings by the Daily Kos and the emails are somewhat incomplete. It is true, from what I can tell, that the law in Texas was signed in 1999. It is true, from what I can tell, that the Texas law allows the husband to make some decisions regarding continued medical treatment in some circumstances. It may now seem like the federal bill by Bush is inconsistent with the past in that it seems to be seeking to allow life-sustaining measures to continue even though this is contrary to the wishes of the husband.

However, a google search will put the 1999 law into context. According to the news articles that I saw from that time, and news releases by agenda-driven “right-to-life” groups, the Texas bill was motivated by a desire to allow the continuation of life-sustaining measures. According to the releases, in Houston prior to the bill, doctors had the ability to decide to remove life-sustaining measures when a group of them determined there was no hope, even if that was contrary to the family’s decision. The purpose of the Texas bill was to prevent the removal of life-sustaining measures. Looked at in this way, the motivation of both the Texas and the federal bill are not inconsistent at all and you can see how the same person may sign both bills. The means may be different, but the ends seem to be similar – to continue life sustaining measures.

The above isn’t meant to express an opinion on the federal or Texas bill beyond saying that they may not be quite as inconsistent as they appear at first look. Personally speaking, I feel like the federal bill was a mistake. If you’re interested in following the discussion, check out the Volkoh Conspiracy for some law profs and students (and non-legal field folks) discussing the constitutional implications of the federal bill.

@ Chevalier -

see the link above in my previous post for the Florida statutes regarding whether the feeding tube is medical treatment, etc.

 

You know what I find strange? I know literally dozens of people who have talked about this case that say that if they were in a position like Terri's, that they wouldn't want to live. That they would prefer to be allowed to die. That life in that form is not life at all. On the other hand, I know of absolutely no one who says they would prefer to be sustained in such a state.

Laches and Darkthrone have stated their views rather elequently, and present a very good arguement for keeping the feeding tube in. However, my question is simply this: Does in not appear that Terri is merely existing and not living?

Regardless of whether money is a motivation for the husband or not I think is irrelevant at this point. It was several years after this happened to Terri that he met someone else, fell in live with her, had children with her, and wishes to marry her. I see many practical areas where I understand why he wants Terri to die. I do not think he is any type of scumbag for wanting this. I think it is a simple fact that he has been able to accept and move on from what has happened to Terri, while her parents have not.

 

Aldeth, I've seen two polls that show similar results: about 2/3 of respondents are in favor of letting Terri die. Now, these are just casual, non-scientific internet things (one on MSNBC.com and one on another board I read) but the similarity of results is what I find interesting.

And so the 11th Circuit denies the Schindlers' appeal, and they vow to file another - I guess with the Supreme Court this time? But they've already turned down the case once. After all these years in the courts, exactly how can the Schindlers claim that Terri right to due process has been violated?

Edited to add:

...and here's yet another politician who needs to be fired! Apparently the dissenting vote on the appeals panel argued that not re-inserting the feeding tube wasn't in line with Congress' intent in passing their emergency law calling for review of the case. I call Can anyone doubt that Congress had any intent other than currying the favor of the religious right? Maybe they're hoping to drag things out long enough for some Bush appointees to take the bench? How many times to the courts have to agree with Michael Schiavo before the Schindlers and their posse will accept that the law is not on their side? Oh yeah, I forgot - they'll just work to get the law re-written.

So now they're appealing to the Supreme Court yet again, after having been turned down once. I'm reminded of the old definition of insanity: doing the same things over and over again, expecting different results.

[ March 23, 2005, 14:14: Message edited by: Rallymama ]

 

I think that the demonization of the Michael is unjustified and sad. I also disagree with the parents belief that their daughter is still alive. However, I can understand how the parents can believe as they do and act as they are. I don't see them and their supporters as a 'posse' hellbent on circumventing the law, I see them as a group who really thinks Terri Schiavo is still alive and wouldn't/doesn't want to have the feeding tube removed. For that reason it is difficult for me to look down on the Schindlers much like it is difficult for me to look down on Michael. If you honestly believed you were doing something to protect your child's life, I can see how you might keep fighting.

I have no doubt that some of the politicians involved jumped on board to pander to certain voting blocks. But I also believe that many of the politicians honestly believe that what they're doing is the right thing to do. It's easy to paint 'politicians' with a broad brush as self-serving s.o.b.'s, it's like telling a lawyer joke comparing the lawyer to a shark - easy, but I haven't really seen anything to suggest that the politicians voting for the bill were motivated for reasons unrelated to their belief about Terri Schiavo.

I still believe Terri Schiavo is dead. I still think the federal law was a mistake and of questionable constitutionality. I still believe that the best option is for the tube to remain removed (actually, I think the best option is euthenasia). But the whole fight is, in my opinion, being engaged in by two opposing groups largely made up of sincere believers. They may be mistaken, they may be foolishly pressing on, but I don't think anyone is filled with nefarious intent, and I can see how one might press on.

Your mileage may vary.

@ Aldeth - I spoke with two people yesterday, Rachel and her husband Tom, who would want to have the feeding tube kept in if in Terri's situation. Here is something from another site I regular, and what someone there wrote:

I think the parents, and her supporters, honestly believe there is hope. Rachel and Tom yesterday kept saying we don't 'know' what it's like to be in Terri's situation, and we don't know about new advances, and felt there was hope. I don't think there is hope, but others do. *shrug.

 

Certainly they are playing to their base. But, IMO, they see this as another chance to pigeonhole the Democrats and other political opponents. Their new buzzword is "the culture of life." Perhaps they were hoping that the dems would be more vocal in this matter of letting her die. That would of course make the dems opposed to the "culture of life."

There must be a smug satisfaction that comes with painting those with whom one disagrees with ideologically as enemies of the "culture of life" and as "baby murderers" and "killers" of helpless invalids. There have been reports that the Republican memos, loaded with "talking points" are already floating around, citing this as a "great issue for Republicans in Floridia." How sick is that?

With that said, I have to say that I believe that the tubes should not be removed. I don't believe for a moment that Michael is doing it for the money. Or for some other motive of personal gain, except maybe some desperate need for closure regarding what he sees as a prolonged, painful situation that has robbed his wife first of her life, and now, whatever human dignity she has left. Nor am I going to fault the courts. They have given all parties due process of law and followed the Constitution in this matter, at least as they see it. Some may disagree.

But I am also a parent, and if the parents wish to conintue, then why rob them of whatever slight hope they have left? I can't say how I would react as a parent in their situation. It may seem hopeless to the rest of us, but to see the daughter they rasied from childhood, starved to death. What a horrid thought. If they harbour some degree of hope, well....

 

No matter if it's a steak with potatoes and beans or specially prepared food, it's still food. People who are by no one sane called dead still receive extremely unusual food in case of some diseases. My point is that providing nutrition is not an act of medical care. Everyone needs to eat and drink. The manner in which the food and drink is prepared doesn't change anything. It's just the diet being adjusted to the patient's current needs. For example, giving soft food or thick liquids to someone who can't bite or gnaw is not medical care. It's just giving him the kind of food he can take. This is the case with Terri here. She is incapacitated from eating and drinking in the normal process, so she receives her food and drink through the tube. The need for digestion or part of this process is removed, but the food and drink still meets the proper destination and nourishes the cells in her body.

It takes more "nerve" to refrain from calling an ambulance (which would be an obvious crime and just about any normal human would be repelled by the idea) than to insist on getting the tube removed in a process approved by the law and courts. It's also easier to justify in one's mind.

 

@ Chevalier - you are incorrect from a legal standpoint. You can check the links to read the relevant material in greater detail, but a quick cut and paste:

 

@ Chev: in other forums, like the Rape one, I have heard you mention a need for proof of wrong doing instead of word vs. word. So I ask you where is the proof that Michael Schiavo beat his wife? Where is the proof that he wants her dead because he is a selfish greedy bastard? Wasn't he offered money to keep her on the feeding tube (IIRC, it was around $1 million, and surely there is not anywhere near that much left in her fund.) So, where's the proof? Was there ever a police report about her being beaten? Do his actions suggest he wants to kill her for the money? While you may argue, correctly, that this doesn't mean he didn't hit her or doesn't want her money, I would say that you are mistaken, and I would take his word over the parents, provided you can't produce evidence of the above. Further, she is no longer a human being. She is a vegetable, and she will never get better. Let her go, she will likely be in a far better place after she dies than in a hospital bed hooked to machines. I say likely because it can't be proven that there is a heaven or hell, not that I think she will go to hell because of anything she did, I don't.

 

@Ravynn: I didn't say that he beat her with full certainty. I only said the family said that and, reportedly, there were traces like broken bones. I don't know if this means he beat her or not. As for his motives, it's speculation. And she is a human, as good as you or I.

@Laches: It's obvious I disagree with the Legislature then, with all respect. Feeding is not medical care, it's providing the necessary food like for everyone.

[ March 23, 2005, 20:17: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Regarding the evidence of physical abuse, you can read about it at the Abstract Appeal site. Basically, nobody knows. There has been testimony though that the evidence is consistent with bulemia, which is what is thought to have been the root cause of the heart attack in the first place. I do agree with Ravyyn, without any supporting evidence, questioning the husband's motives is not particularly compelling.

Regarding the 'are feeding tubes medical care' question, this probably states my opinion better than I could:

Pope's Directive Undermines Patients' Medical Rights

I know Chevalier is Catholic and follows the Pope's directives and thus I don't intend to argue and try to change anyone's mind, it can't happen in this case I think. But, that article is the other side of the coin.

 

@ chevalier - by that logic an iron lung or a tracheotemy would not qualify as medical care - all they do is provide the patient with the necessary ability to breath like everybody else.

Last time I checked the staff who work at senior citizens residences assisting them with the basic daily activities of living are considered to be providing medical care. If that is the case then certainly feeding a brain dead patient via a feeding tube would qualify.

 

Giving food alone of its own can never be considered treatment. Food is not treatment for hunger - hunger is a complication resulting from lack of food, but this doesn't make it an illness.

Assisting with basic daily activities is care but not medical care. It doesn't remove an illness or anything. Is giving someone a blanket medical care, too?

"She said she didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means. So I have to respect her wish and I forbid everyone from giving her the blanket."

By the way, would we let someone die rather than make him a tracheotomy because he didn't like artificial ways? I doubt it.

"No no. She said no artificial means. So no tracheotomy. Yes, let her choke to death. And give me my million."

Nah, sounds too gross even for our times.

As for wishes, people don't have any right to choose to die and commit suicide or obtain euthanasia. This isn't any right to respect, although some people would have us believe the opposite. Refusal to accept treatment is passive suicide. If food or water is the only thing one needs to continue living, withholding it is homicide. Refusing is suicide.

It's a Supreme Court ruling what decided that providing food and water is medical treatment, anyway, and they have the power to call white black. So what? Does it make the grass more or less green if they say so?

And I really can't understand the whole thing about "Pope's order undermines their rights". The Pope is a moral authority, the head of a religion. So now religions can't have moral rules because they undermine your liberties?

Let's say, does "thou shalt not commit adultery" limit your sexual freedom now, for instance? "Thou shalt not kill" has already been opposed on similar grounds.

Religion is about your relation with the higher powers and about leading a moral life, not about your liberty. Since when does calling something immoral restrict someone's freedom, anyway? It's rubbish.

People just want the psychological comfort of doing what they want and being told it's morally OK.

But, sad as this may be, no one has a basic human right to have his decisions approved and applauded by the Pope or any religious leader or any person whatsoever.

Or, finally, on the Judgement Day, Sorry, God, but the Nth Amendment protects me from this commandment. Brilliant.

[ March 23, 2005, 21:08: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Laches, that link to the Pope's directive makes me do one thing - refuse to ever set foot in a Catholic hospital for fear that my wishes will not be respected. We'll leave the question as to why the Pope expects the whole world to live in accordance with Catholic dictates for another thread.

BTW, welcome back. It's good to hear from you again, and I hope the new formats can induce you to stick around.

 

Well chevalier, the governments of both the United States of America and Canada disagree with you on the definition of what constitutes medical care.

I happen to agree with my government's definition but as you obviously don't I see no reason to argue this any further.

I would go on the record once again to say that I support the right of a person to choose to end his/her own life but again I know that I won't ever be able to change your opinion about this.

Personally I don't see how we can say that it is humane to have the family pet put to sleep in order to end its suffering and yet insist that a human be forced to live on in pain until he/she passes away - but that is hardly relevant to someone who is brain dead and thus wouldn't be in pain anyway.

 

It's a theoretical case, really... but I suppose most people would not want to "live" like that. Are you, after all, really alive in such a state? You are practically "lingering," your organs are functioning only artificially (those that still function), you are as sentient as a vegetable - for the person themselves, what would be the difference between that and actually being dead?

 

Has the "it's not her time to die" side considered that perhaps it WAS her time to die 14 years ago, and medical science has been interfering with God's plan for her all that time?

 

I think this little side-debate just boils down to whether you believe in personal autonomy. A focus on authoritarianism vs. a focus on individual self-determination.

Ain't gonna' change anyone's mind on that.