New Thread for Terri Schiavo Discussion
| March 29th, 2005UPDATE (April 5th): This thread is now closed. For further responses and comments, please use this thread, instead.
The following topics have now (as of 5:30pm Tuesday, pacific time) been banned from this thread:
1) Evidence or arguments intended to prove that the Schindlers are badly motivated or bad human beings. This includes any further discussion of them selling an email list or wanting an inheritance or anything like that.
2) Evidence or arguments intended to prove that Michael Schiavo, his lawyers, or Judge Greer are badly motivated or bad human beings. I think y’all know the sort of thing this includes.
3) Nazism and comparisons to Nazism, or reasons why comparisons to Nazism are inappropriate.
I will delete any further posts including any of the above subjects.
Since the post about Terri Schiavo’s CT scan now has over 400 comments, which is a bit of a huge file, I’ve decided to close comments on that thread. People who want to respond to a comment in that thread, or who want to make a comment on the Schiavo case in general, may do so in this new thread.
Please don’t post here to suggest that Michael Schiavo, or Judge Greer, are evil people who are conspiring to murder Terri. Please refrain from comments suggesting that the Schindlers are evil people, as well.
To get things started, I’ll quote in full the most recent (as of this moment) two posts from the thread I’m closing, both of which I thought were excellent.
Susan wrote:
Thank you, Barbara, for your clear formulation.
It seems to me that the people who want that feeding tube re-connected take one of two positions, and sometimes both:
- They think Terri has a duty to live that transcends what she would have wanted, as you say, or in the alternative, a duty to follow the speaker’s position on this instead of her own, and/or
- They think the court was wrong about what she wanted, for a variety of reasons, either that Judge Greer is a vulture or that Michael Schiavo has evil eyes or whatever.
Both positions can be defended, but I’d like to see a defense up-front.
As for thinking the court was wrong, I donno. I disagree with a lot of court decisions (especially when I lose!), but that’s the way we do things here, and for obvious reasons we don’t re-litigate things just because the loser is unhappy with the outcome. All the appellate courts are convinced that Judge Greer did a responsible job. I’d invite skeptics to read the Second District’s first opinion on this matter. What’s the theory here? That all the state and federal judges who’ve reviewed this are vultures? This wades us deep into conspiracy theory, deeper than I personally wish to go.
If you think Terri has a duty to live regardless of what she thinks, or that your opinion is to be preferred to hers, I’d be interested in hearing why.
A minute or so later, Sally posted the following. Since it was posted so quickly, I think it may have been intended to be a response to an ealier post of Susan’s, but it’s nonetheless an apt reply to Susan’s point about the courts.
Sally wrote:
I think the difference, Susan, is that I have less faith than you do in the courts’ ability to determine Terri Schiavo’s wishes. The court is relying on eyewitness testimony about conversations that happened many years ago. People’s memories are notoriously selective, not because they’re consciously distorting anything, but because we remember things by slotting them into certain narratives, and we tend to select out the memories that don’t fit into those narratives. Michael Schiavo and his brother and sister-in-law believe that Terri would want to die, and it seems likely that they’d select out any memories that would contradict that narrative.
I realize that all we have to go on here is hearsay, but it makes me nervous. It would make me nervous in any court case: I’m really wary of convictions based only on eyewitness testimony, too.
And secondly, the courts don’t float above society: they’re subject to the same prejudices as everyone else. And one of those prejudices is a widespread belief that some lives are not worth living, that some people are just empty husks who are a burden on society, that medical care is a zero-sum game, and if we keep those people alive, we’re taking treatment away from someone more deserving. When judges weigh evidence, they have those prejudices in the back of their minds. I don’t have a lot of faith in the courts as neutral actors here. And given that they are biased, in the ways that everyone is biased, I tend to think we should err on the side of not killing people.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Robin - It is simply not true that Terri has been supported by the state for five years, — I don’t care how often you find that “fact” repeated on Pro-Life websites or on Fox news. Woodside Hospice has stated in several reports that the cost of her care is subsidized through charitable donations. Only her medications, which cost under $200 a month, are paid for by Medicaid. That particular hospice provided $ 9 million in charitable care last year.
Hospice patients who are deemed “indigent” are ineligible for either Medicare or Medicaid. You can be poor, and yet be ineligible for Medicaid because your assets have a higher value than the benefit allows. My small rural hospice, is currently carrying eight patients on the census, who are indigent; their care is supported through donations, grants and community fundraising. Rather than requiring them to sell their family homes, we provide their care at no cost. Medicare requires that hospices provide this benefit for patients who lack insurance and who are ineligible for a public subsidy.
Another allegation floating around the net, and one which your post alludes to, is that her admission to hospice is illegal and that her hospice is guilty of fraud, because she doesn’t have the six month prognosis required by Medicaid or Medicare. Because her care is paid for privately, the hospice can care for her as long as they choose to. They are free to admit any patient for any reason, and hospices regularly admit patients for palliative care where there is no reimbursement.
If a hospice admits a patient under either federal benefit, and that person ends up living much longer than the initial prognosis, the maximum allowable CAP reimbursement for the year remains the same. Say the maximum per patient hospice allocation for a year is $20,000, and a hospice has admitted 100 patients. The maximum the gov’t will reimburse for is $2 million, which is about the cost of providing 18,000 days of inhome hospice care. If you have several patients who have been in care for over 180 days, the gov’t doesn’t increase the total amount you may receive. You have to admit several patients who will only live a few days, to offset the cost of providing those who are living longer. If you can’t find those patients, and the gov’t determines that they’ve “overpaid” for the care of those who lived too long, the hospice eats the difference. The gov’t may continue to pay for a patient if they live longer than six months, but that “overpayment” is essentially deducted from another patient’s account. That’s not fraud — that the reality of providing care under the government’s payment system.
Four years ago my hospice experienced a sharp increase in the number of patients who were admitted for chronic debilitating diseases, like COPD, Alzheimer’s, and CHF. These patients typically stablize after admission to hospice, and are released because they no longer qualify for care. When their conditions decline and they are hospitalized, they are again referred to hospice. They may be admitted, released and readmitted several times before death occurs. I have some patients on my census that were first admitted to hospice four years ago. Their care has the greatest impact on hospice costs. Under Medicare, only new admissions count in calculating your overall CAP allocation. Readmissions are not included in the formula.
During this same period, admissions for cancer which typically has a shorter length of prognosis, dropped. As a result, Medicare has determined that we’ve been “overpaid” nearly a million dollars over a three-year period, which we’ve absorbed as agency debt. We anticipate that we will continue to see an increase in the number of patients who are referred to us for chronic debilitating diseases. Our county has a whopping 19% unemployment rate, and the adult children who would normally help care for their parents, have moved out of the area because they can’t find jobs here. Physicians here often refer patients not simply because of their medical condition, but because they are not equipped to meet the complex needs of these patients, who often lack transportation, phones and even indoor plumbing.
I suggest if you’re really concerned about who is paying for Terri’s care, that you send Woodside Hospice a check.
As to your assertion that Terri has been subjected to,
…sensory deprivation to an extent that qualifies as torture and an international crime against humanity for the last five years or so.
Well, I’m absolutely speechless. Your charge is an affront to all the good hospice care providers, who feel that their work is a personal ministry.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 8:47 am
Thank you, Sally, for your confrontation of this issue. It is refreshing to read an argument that makes sense!
Courts, being run by human beings as they are, make many mistakes. We are fortunate in this country, and in most English-speaking countries, to have a judiciary which is, by and large, not corrupt, does not tolerate bribery, and is composed of very able and well-intentioned men and women. This is not true in much of the world; we have a lot to be thankful for.
That said, when facts are in dispute, as in this case, we must come up with an answer somehow. All societies face this problem. Some read bird entrails to find the answer; some utilize magic rites of one sort or another; some throw dice; the ways of solving this problem are innumerable. And none is perfect.
Your wariness about hearsay is well-founded, as is your wariness about eyewitness testimony. (Lawyers say, “As reliable as an eyewitness,” by which we mean, of course, totally unreliable.) This position of yours is tenable as a philosophical position, but is useless to us out here who are trying to make decisions, solve disputes, and make this society run. We can’t just sit here and say, well, nothing is certain, so we’ll just sit here and do nothing. Let the disputants fight it out with swords maybe. (That’s how disputes were settled before the law came along.)
Imperfect as our decision-making methods may be, they’re the best we have. We are all open, of course! to any suggestions you may have about how we may be able to make these decisions more reliably.
Your thought seems to be that we should, in President Bush’s phrase, “err on the side of life.” This statement struck me oddly, since what we are trying to do is NOT to “err” at all, but to get this thing right. But that aside, I take it that you would favor keeping all brain injured people alive as long as possible, regardless of what we may be able to discern (imperfectly, of course) about their own wishes, just on the chance we may be wrong? regardless of what they wanted?
This is certainly a clear and defensible position, and one that tempts me too, a great deal, except that I hope they don’t do it to me and my family.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 8:49 am
Barbara:
I am not saying not to trust your husband over your parents. I certainly have people I trust to make the right decisions for me too. I was specifically addressing those who have stated that they have told their husbands their wishes but not their parents. What would happen to you, in that case, if you were to say be in a car accident with your husband. He dies. You live, critically injured in a state you do not want to be preserved in. This and similar scenarios are not the least uncommon. BEGGING for trouble.
That is *exactly* my point. NOBODY can know - whether or not Terri is there, what she really wanted and what she might want now if she is there. And there is simply far too much conflict of interest, far too many shenanigans, far too much conflict among those that know her. If this were a criminal case and you were asked to serve on the jury to decide this woman’s life or death based on the totality of the evidence you could not cast a death penalty guilty vote as long as there remained reasonable doubt. Terri - and all the rest of us - are entitled to no less under this set of circumstances. Terri is NOT a terminal patient.
I was baptized and attend a Catholic church, and I don’t consider myself bound by Church doctrine on much of anything. Terri did not attend church regularly. I don’t even want to ask whether she used birth control, but if I had to bet, it would be that she did. This is just a factor, and not a very decisive one.
I was raised a Protestant in a fairly evenly divided Protestant-Catholic New England community. As I child I often attended Christian Doctrine Classes with my best friend. She came to Vacation Bible School with me. When I decided to marry a Catholic I got myself baptized as a Catholic so that we could have a church wedding, keeping in mind the Bible verse where Jesus says “Religion is of man, not of God.” Catholic women today - as in my younger years- often ignore church teachings on birth control. There is nothing more common - and wasn’t 50 years ago either - than a Catholic that shows up at church other than on those few days a year so holy that no one misses Mass.
With Terri not here to tell anyone exactly what her beliefs are, we can only use what we know of life and our own common sense to tell us what those beliefs are. First, apples do not fall too far from the tree. Smart parents usually raise smart children. Religious parents usually raise religious children. Parents who drink, lie and steal raise children that drink lie and steal. Sure, every family throughs a black sheep now and then but there is no evidence at all that Terri was greatly different than the family that raised her. THEY are religious people that have been making sure that Terri has a chance to practice her religious rites for some time despite her disability. They sent her to Catholic schools. I married a man that went to church 3 times a year and had been raised in Catholic schools. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary that Terri held beliefs differing from her families’, we can only assume that their beliefs reflect what would be her own.
I disagree - and I have read the records. The court(s) have NOT bent over backwards. There is tremendous appearance of conflict of interest on the part of the judge, the husband’s attorney and even the first attorney that represented the Schindlers. The judge admits that he discounted testimony that contradicted the husband’s re Terri’s wishes because he wrongly assumed that Karen Quinlan died in 1976. The sole person to ever investigate both sides after Terri’s Law was passed stated clearly and definitely that Michael Schiavo had a conflict of interest and should not serve as Terri’s guardian. He was removed from the case by the judge at Michael’s request.
There has been NO therapy and no medical assessment in the way of swallow tests, new brain imaging, etc. in a decade or more. In fact, there are implants in Terri’s brain due to some experimental procedure early on that prevent many kinds of brain imaging.
Terri was placed in the hospice in which she is currently dying in the year 2000. Medicaid (that means us) pays and has paid right along for Terri’s care there. Medicaid rules state that a patient cannot be placed in hospice unless they are 1.) TERMINAL and certified as such by their physician and 2.) expected to live less than 6 months. Terri’s then primary care physician specifically did not certify her as terminal and is no longer her physician. Terri does not have a terminal illness and has never had a terminal illness. She is profoundly disabled.
Terri is dying BY COURT ORDER - and there is a huge difference. This is NOT a case where the family went to court and asked the judge to allow them to disconnect, the judge wrote OK on the order and had done with it. This order directs the husband to end her life rather than allows permission for him to end her life. There is no evidence that the judge that has ordered the end of Terri’s life based on a decision that he made back in 1997 (based on an error he now admits) has ever so much as walked into her hospice room to see Terri with his own two eyes.
Given the totality of circumstance, it is not rational to assume that this is indeed Terri’s wish to start with. Further, if you or I make out a living will, we are free to go back later and rescind the thing, to change our mind about something, to refuse medical treatment we didn’t think of back then or ask for something we did not want. Terri, because of her condition, cannot do so.
But this isn’t really a question about Terri’s wishes. There are two options - kill her, don’t kill her. And two wishes - live, don’t live. So to lay it out we have these choices:
Terri wants to live - we kill her ERROR - IRREVERSIBLE
Terri wants to live - don’t kill her Correct choice - reversible
Terri wants to die - we kill her Correct choice -IRREVERSIBLE
Terri wants to die - don’t kill her ERROR - Reversible
So, whatever the decision, there is a 50/50 chance that it is the wrong decision to start with. Of the two correct choices, only one is reversible. The correct choice that is irreversible - terri wants to die, we kill her - is the incorrect choce 50% of the time.
The COURT has ordered Terri to die, so the question here is what decisions we will allow our courts to make as a society, what our values are as a society and what our responsibilities are as a society.
Under our own Constitution and international treaties we have a defined responsibility as a society to preserve Terri’s right to life. Terri has a right to take her own life under her right of self determination, but we do not have the right to exercise her self deterination for her. Her QUALITY of life - good or bad - and how any of us would want to live is completely immaterial under these circumstances. And that is written into both our treaties and the Florida constitution.
Remember - Terry is NOT TERMINAL. She is not suffering from some horrendous disease. In fact, those who say she is PVS would have us believe that she is not even there. That is a DISABILITY.
Killing Terri - a disabled individual entitled to all the protections of the Constitution and international law - by judicial order sets a precedent that allows the killing of ANY individual deemed disabled or judged to be of little value to society.
This exact same first step - killing the disabled who “wouldn’t want to live like this” using precisely the same arguments is what started the Nazis down the road to 12 million dead in the concentration camps. All perfectly “legal.” You don’t even have to turn to a history book to see that. There are thousands worldwide to provide first hand testimony.
To allow this as a society on ANY pretext is a crime against humanity. This decision sets a precedent. If you have no “quality of life” if you are of little or no “value” to society then a local probate judge can order your death by starvation and dehydration. Isn’t that a fine way to solve our problems. Takes care of the Social Security problem - and the homeless. The poor. The sick that cost us so much to provide care for.
Years ago we the United States of America stood in judgment over the Nazis. Who is going to judge us?
This is a near universal failing in the medical professions :) Everyone thinks they know more than they do about everyone else’s specialty.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 8:57 am
But again, I have to acknowledge a personal prejudice here, and one that may color my own desire not to be kept alive by feeding tubes or other devices as long as possible if I enter PVS.
I’m a Christian. This means that I do not believe that organic life here on earth is the only life. I look forward to a life to come, with Christ. Therefore I have no interest in clinging to organic life if all I have left is a brainstem without awareness. And as painful as my death would be to my family, I would hate to think of them undergoing the prolonged agony Terri’s long incapacity has meant to everyone who loved her.
People who do not hold this belief may indeed view organic life differently, and feel that it should be prolonged, in whatever condition, as long as possible.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 9:33 am
LETS SEE IF I HAVE THIS RIGHT:
Michael Schiavo received, after the attorney’s cut, something on the order of three-quarter million dollars in 1998 or so to provide for Terri’s care throughout her lifetime.
In the year 2000 Terri is admitted to Woodside Hospice, a hospice facility where the husband’s attorney had served on the Board of Directors for a number of years, as “indigent.” Medicaid pays for her medications and any other qualifying treatments (so they would have covered various therapies and rehabilitative services) and you say DONATIONS pay for the uncovered portion.
[Have you got a reference for that BTW? Everything I have read - and I read the left wing too - states that Terri's care is paid for by Medicaid per court order. I'm sure they would like to correct that if they are wrong. And I am sure Medicaid would like to check their records to insure that we the people are not being defrauded as is all too common.]
Meanwhile, Michael Schiavo’s attorney collects about half of the three-quarter million dollars of Terri’s money (remember, Michael got his own money) in attorney fees, documented in court record, a large portion of which are for dealing with the media.
Not a single dime of Terri’s money has been spent to fund the other possible side of the legal argument - that she does not want to die. OH - there is also the salient point that the first attorney for the Schindlers bought out the practice of the JUDGE in the case when he became a judge. AFTER the Schindlers had spoken to him about the case.
Can we say “Something is fishy in Denmark?” This stinks like a big fish rotting in the sun!
Virtually everyone on the “other” side of the case and a number of people who have provided direct care to Terri have stated just exactly this repeatedly over the course of years. As an example, they nearly all state that Terri cannot be taken out even to the garden - and has not been in years - because her wheelchair is broken and her husband refuses to have it fixed. For that matter, Medicaid pays for wheelchairs and would repair or replace it. Why hasn’t tht been done?
So, either they are ALL lying, including the ones who have laid their jobs on the line, or all is not as Michael Schiavo’s attorney would have you believe and good hospice care would require. In that case, this is all just a conspiracy to malign Michael Schivo, as was the guardian’s report that clearly stated his conflict of interest.
I’m quite sure that there are wonderful hospices and abominable ones, just a one can say the same of nursing homes and hospitals. The matter requires investigation.
Don’t you DARE accuse me of affronting “good hospice care providers” with that attitude! Medicine is a MULTIBILLION dollar INDUSTRY in this country. It is a business, just like any other business and the bottom line is profit. Good hospice care providers have nothing to fear - and the sleazy operations that rob every single American of tax dollars and run our insurance rates to the moon deserve to be investigated - EVEN if it is an “affront” to their dignity.
I found something last night - on a good left wing news site - that makes me think that the stuff coming out of Attorney Felos mouth is a great big con job. In an interview with CNN he states -
Unless there is some special dispensation that I cannot find and some new way to sneak solids through a feeding tube with grinding them up, this is an outright lie. The Catholic church **requires** that the host be administered by mouth and that it not be chewed or otherwise contaminated. In the case of disabled or ill patients the priest is required to perform a swallowing test first in order to insure that the patient will not cough, choke or otherwise contaminate the sanctity of the host. Look up communion in an online Catholic encyclopedia.
You might also note that since Zelos has been asked by the media if Terri had music playing, (she didn’t) the matter has been corrected and she is now being graciously killed to the strains of soothing music while cuddling a teddy bear surrounded by flowers. Sure sounds like Auschwitz to me. And a snow job of the first order.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 9:37 am
Sure, that is YOUR choice according to your own personal religious beliefs. Many other Christians would say to you that you have been put her by God to do a job/learn a lesson for whatever time he requires you to be here. That is there religious belief.
Your personal religious beliefs and your own wishes regarding what you want cannot be allowed to influence the law of the land to the deprivation of someone whose wishes may prove different than yours. ESPECIALLY if they cannot speak for themselves.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 9:43 am
My apologies for the lousy spelling - this is a laptop :(
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 9:54 am
AND ABOUT THAT HOSPICE CARE
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151806,00.html
Note that MD after the signature!
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:00 am
Emmetropia, thanks for the brilliant post, and your last comment about the affront to hospice workers everywhere. I have been thinking about the nurses and the nurses aides’ in the hospice where Terri is, and the enormous drain on their physical and emotional resources this maelstrom is causing.
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:13 am
Terri wants to live - we kill her ERROR - IRREVERSIBLE
Terri wants to live - don’t kill her Correct choice - reversible
Terri wants to die - we kill her Correct choice -IRREVERSIBLE
Terri wants to die - don’t kill her ERROR - Reversible
Well, okay, but for what reason would anyone ever reevaluate the decision to “reverse” anything? This isn’t a death row case with a series of procedural or substantive appeals to make. There’s no new evidence to be introduced; it isn’t as though we’re still searching for the living will, or as though there’s a chance in hell that she’ll ever wake up and communicate her wishes herself. Both of these decisions are pretty much permanent: either Michael’s description of her wishes is sufficient, or it’s not. And even the “reversible” options would mean that a woman would be spending extra non-reversible years on life support she may not have wanted.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:14 am
Robin, communion was provided yesterday — it is my understanding — via placing a drop of wine on Terri’s tongue. No swallowing was required. The prior communion was provided via the feeding tube, just prior to its removal. Either species is considered sufficient. My understanding is also that the trust fund has been depleted for at least the last several years (this was in the late 2003 Wolfson report), so the hospice may now be providing care for free. Hospices are one of the types of providers that are most likely to actually do their duty as a charitable organization to try to serve all people in need of their service. My father was cared for by hospice without charge because he had no insurance. I also am somewhat surprised that someone didn’t qualify Terri for SSI. Actually, I can probably answer my own question: she may have lacked the adequate work history predicate for SSI eligibility. But I don’t know for sure.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Yes, if you note the date on the quote above Felos comment re communion in the CNN interview refers to the “communion” by feeding tube. The one belatedly granted late on Easter Sunday is legitimate. The priest gave her only a drop of communion wine because she could not swallow. In the Catholic Church a normally you recieve a round white piece of flat bread called the host or a part of it. That is the part the priest could not give to Terry on Sunday.
If she did indeed receive communion shortly before her feeding tube was removed, it would have been administered in exactly the same way - by MOUTH. Not feeding tube.
Why would the hospice provide care for free to a patient that qualifies for Medicaid and is entitled to coverage in a skilled nursing facility?
Think about it - that does not even make good sense, to say nothing of good BUSINESS sense.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:27 am
She may not have had enough work history to qualify for SSD - that is the federal program paid for through your social security taxes. I doubt that though. They moved to Florida because she worked for an insurance company and was transferred there.
SSI is a state-funded program (with a little help from the feds) that provides a disability benefit to those who do not qualify for SSD or whose SSD benefit is only minimal. She would have qualified for that.
Of course both of those would be paid to Michael Schiavo a her guardian.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Robin, I think I already told you that I don’t like seeing the Holocuast trivialized. Allowing a single woman, who in all the important ways has been dead for over a decade, to have her body die after a court has found this is what she would want, may be a terrible thing, as you argue. But it is not the same thing as killing ten million people against their will in concentration camp. That you think these are the same things suggests to me that you’ve lost all moral perspective.
To imply that there is no distinction between these two events is beyond ridiculous. People can disagree with Robin’s opinion without being the moral equivilent of Nazis; if you can’t acknowlege that, then you should stop posting on my website.
Regarding Judge Greer’s order that Terri’s mouth not be moistened, I don’t think any such order exists. You can read Terri’s end-of-life care orders for yourself (in pdf format - here and here). The orders call for Terri’s lips to be moistened as necessary and for her mouth to be swabbed with saliva substitute.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:44 am
AMP -
It is you who are trivializing the Holocaust Amp, not me. The Holocaust started in Germany with the euthanasia in the early to mid thirties of the German disabled. Society didn’t raise a fuss, making it possible to go after all those other unworthies - the Jews, the Gypsies, the Christians of various stripes that raised a fuss and everyone that disagreed with the Final Solution. That is historically documented. That is the basis of “NEVER AGAIN” -
Every genocide starts with a first step. Allowing our courts to kill Terri Schindler-Schiavo sets a precedent that quite literally follows in goose-step the events in Germany that led to the Holocaust. 10 Million - though it was actually more than that - starts with ONE.
In comparing this event to the events of the Holocaust I am not calling any individual a Nazi. Whether the parallel fits your idea of what is politically correct or not, it is none the less valid and I am not the only one saying so by a very, very long shot. Not everyone who is saying that is a right-wing right-to-lifer whose opinion can be ignored. Many are Jewish. Many are historians.
Amp, please take the cinder out of your own eye before you worry about the cinder in mine :)
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:58 am
But Robin, you compared the manner in which Mrs. Schiavo is dying to “Auschwitz”, not to a case of euthanasia in Germany in the 30’s. You have also compared having a broken wheelchair and not being able to go out to the garden with torture that would constitute an international crime against humanity. I do think you should be more careful with your comparisons.
This comment was written by PaulD.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:04 am
Noooo, you’re just telling us that we’re Nazi-enablers, and saying that we’re goose-stepping. No offense there.
And if some Jewish people aren’t offended, it can’t possibly be anti-Semitic or offensive to Jews!
She’s not being euthanized. She’s being taken off life support. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are illegal in almost all of this country. Refusing medical intervention is everyone’s right; medical intervention without consent is battery. Refusing medical intervention for incapacitated family members with terminal illnesses is routine. My family just had to do it for my dying grandfather.*
Schiavo is not merely disabled–it isn’t as though she’s paralyzed, or even that she’s suffered simple brain damage. She’s not conscious. She never will be.
*Thankfully, he had been ill for a long time, and he left detailed instructions. But there were still many different decisions to be made.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:12 am
Terri Schindler-Schiavo is being starved and dehydrated to death by order of a court of the United States acting on behalf of and in the name of We the People of the United States.
Court actions taken on behalf of We the People set a precedent on which other court actions are based. Therefor, we MUST get this right or we have just opened the door to the killing of the disabled by starvation and dehydration based on quality of life.
I would refer you to the fact that Terri is not a
criminal, she is DISABLED. She has a right to life, paramount to all
else by the constitution of her state, the Constitution of the US and every international treaty on human rights.
The “principle” being used to kill Terri is that she is in a PVS, has no self, has no awareness and no idea what is happening to her. No quality of life. She is a vegetable with no human value. Many would dispute that - but ignore that side for a moment.
According to this idea being put forth by her husband’s attorney, Terri has no conciousness. Thus, if she lives, she does not know that she lives. And if she is alive, she can always die at a later date should a living will suddenly come to light.
Meanwhile, we have fulfilled our legal obligations to Terri under state/national/international law, two of which specifically guarantee her the right to life despite the fact that she is profoundly disabled - without exception. Those guarantees were written into place after the Holocaust, BTW.
Since Terri left no record, cannot speak to us and the family is in violent disagreement over what her wishes are, a betting man has got a 50/50 chance of making the right decision. Those aren’t very good odds. In medine we call that 50/50 “darned if I know your guess is as good as mine.”
If we allow a court of the United States to kill Terri acting on behalf of and in the name of We The People, that is irreversible once she is dead. Should we later find, either because such a stink has been raised and a thorough review is conducted after her death or because a living will turns up, that either Terri was not in PVS **or** that dying in this manner would not be her wish, the We The People - all of us - have just allowed the commission of a Crime Against Humanity. We will have forever lost all claim to the moral highground that we have enjoyed for so long. We will have besmirched the name of democracy throughout the world. And we will never regain that.
If we have no other standard that we can apply then it MUST be
the first rule of medicine:
FIRST -DO NO HARM!
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:32 am
She’s not being euthanized. She’s being taken off life support.
Food and water by you are life support?
Sorry. This is plainly euthanasia. (Euthanasia that the patient herself willed, if the judge’s ruling is correct, but euthanasia.)
This comment was written by Robert Not-Angel.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:32 am
So, whatever the decision, there is a 50/50 chance that it is the wrong decision to start with.
This is not mathematically correct. You are assuming each of your four choices carry equal probabiliies and they do not. Years of court proceedings were done to establish that the probability is significantly higher that Terri Schiavo would not choose to exist in her current state. It is impossible to quantify exactly, but it is certainly higher than 50/50.
Making her continue to exist in that state is grotesque.
This comment was written by Mick.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:37 am
If you’re getting them through a tube in your stomach because you’re permanently comatose and cannot feed yourself, yes. They fall into the category of medical care, medical intervention. Do you see oxygen as not-life-support, then, even if it’s supplied via respirator? It’s just as basic a need.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:39 am
I’ve been referring to this case as murder by court order for some time. Perhaps you haven’t read the other page of posts. Popular topic, page got too big.
When Jewish prisoners were brought into Auschwitz, they were separated on the train platform. One group was lead down a path, through beautiful gardens, to the accompaniment of an orchestra playing wonderful music in the park-like atmosphere. They were led into a room where they were told to remove their clothes, issued claim tickets, towels, soap - and then led into a large room containing multiple shower heads. It was only when those shower heads issued killing gasses rather than water than many realized they were to die.
Those in the other line were led away to perform slave labor, sleep four to the bunk and slowly starve from a diet that did not add up to 1000 calories a day. The water available was limited, dirty, and often led to typhus and other diseases. When their bodies became so starved and disease ridden they could no longer work, they too were led away through beautiful gardens while the orchestra played. These prisoners knew what to expect.
Last week Felos was asked in an interview, having described Terri as “more beautiful than he had seen her” while her family stated the diametric opposite, if there was music playing in Terri’s room. He said no.
Last night - after the fuss and bad press I suppose - he is suddenly describing the soft background music that wasn’t present earlier, the flowers, the teddy bear she is holding while she starves to death.
I trust you see the parallel.
For a healthy human being - self aware or not - death by starvation and dehydration is NOT beautiful or peaceful. It is excruciating. Ask anyone who has ever witnessed it firsthand. Ask the starving in Africa, the people who have worked with them or any of the thousands that survived the Holocaust.
You are quoting me responding to a partial quote from a post on an earlier page. If you carefully read through all of the various statement - many of which go back years - made by Terri’s family, caregivers and others, you will see that they allege that Terri has not received therapy, or even dental care (brushing her teeth) in years. The wheel chair has been broken for years. The list is very, very long so please read it for yourself. She has not been out of her room for **years.** The shades are kept pulled much of the time. Her access to friends and family has been drastically limited. If we as a nation did these things to a prisoner of war, we would be- and recently have been - crucified internationally for torture.
You might also note that the state of Florida yesterday arrested a farmer for failing to feed his animals and charged him with criminal neglect and abuse.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Would the difference here be that she is being allowed to die through NON action, as opposed to being euthanized through action?
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Food and water by you are life support?
When administered via a tube surgically inserted into one’s stomach, yeah.
This comment was written by pericat.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:46 am
The German people actually did protest the euthanizing of mentally retarded and elderly people, which, I might add, was undertaken unilaterally by government action without judicial restraint or family request. It was stopped as a result of this backlash. Like I said several weeks ago when holocaust comparisons were used by another poster — at best it’s a metaphor to describe something considered very evil by someone who is too lazy to be more specific. It’s also a diversionary tactic that avoids use of actual reason. Sorry to be harsh, but it adds nothing to the discussion. We already know you have strong feelings on the issue.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:53 am
…Essentially, yes. Euthanasia is sometimes defined as killing a patient (e.g. by lethal injection) and/or allowing a patient to die by refusing medical care. However, in any context that attempts to differentiate between a physician honoring a DNR and a phyisican actively causing the patient’s death, euthanasia usually means killing a patient rather than allowing a patient to die through non-action.
Euthanasia also implies a lack of agency on the part of the patient: it’s something that the phyiscian does. So it seems inappropriate to use it in the context of a physician following a patient’s orders to not do something. That’s just me, though.
Sometimes, there’s a further distinction: between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. When those two terms are used together, usually in the context of “Right to Die” laws, “euthanasia” is yet more specific. Physician-assisted suicide means that the doctor helps the patient to procure a lethal dose of medication, but does not actually administer it. Euthanasia means that the doctor administers the lethal dose.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:59 am
No, I am not telling you you are a Nazi enabler, I am telling you that evil is afoot in the land and if you don’t open your eyes to it, you may be next, as will all of the rest of us. Those who are goose-stepping are demonstrators bringing home the historical parallel.
Perhaps you should look up the term anti-semitic. I have said not a single word that is antisemitic. Calling a spade a spade is called telling the truth. Ignoring a spade or calling it a rose is sticking your head in the sand.
What would you call it then? I - and lots of others - call it judicial homicide. Murder.
No, she is not being taken off life support. The ONLY “life support” Terri Schindler-Schiavo has ever used is a feeding tube. She is not on a ventilator. She breathes and swallows her own saliva unassisted. She is not on kidney dialysis and she does not have a pacemaker.
If a feeding tube is “life support” and “drastic measure” then a huge number of patients can be terminated who are otherwwise very productive individuals.
Yes, it is isn’t it? But TERRI isn’t SICK (or at least she wasn’t). She does not HAVE a terminal illness. She was expected to live a lifetime as normal and lengthy as yours will be. She has been fed by tube for nearly 15 years. This is not refusing medical intervention.
Terri Schindler-Schiavo is INDEED concious and has been for 15 years. The degree of her awareness is in dispute, but she is not unconscious nor is she in a coma. She is not brain dead.
Even the finest medical minds in the world cannot determine her exact state of being. NO testing of her abilities has been done in years - many years. No therapy has been provided to her for over a decade. No autopsy will ever be able to determine the truth. and there are NO degrees of disability. You either are, or you are not.
This is murder, plain and simple.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Better tell the Pope that a feeding tube is life support:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151775,00.html
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
really my own thoughts, not consciously playing off of someone else’s post:
This comment was written by karpad.granting in a hypothetical that, yes, people in PVS are still alive, how long do we keep them like that?
people who don’t have feeding tubes and defribulators and iron lungs and whathaveyou eventually stop functioning. they die of old age.
using enough equipment, you could conceivably keep a person “alive” indefinately, even if their brain ceased to function long ago.
so, is it ok to unplug Ms. Schiavo when she reaches 60? 70? do we stipulate that she is “alive” and use her condition to set a new Guiness record for world’s oldest person?
Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
So, Robin, what’s the logical consequence of your proposal? Should all Living Wills be rendered illegal? Should hospitals and doctors be prohibited from honoring DNRs?
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Let us , for the sake of argument ( we love argument , don’t we? ) stipulate that she has some limited level of consciousness.
We are still in the same situation….she cannot articulate her wishes currently, and the courts have determined that she made it known that her wish would be to die if in this medical state.
People continue to say she has the right to life….of course she does, we all do. She also has the right to be allowed to die.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Shouldn’t a “culture of life” also mean (1) no capital punishment, (2) no war, (3) government subsidies to encourage families to have huge numbers of children, (4) reduction of the defense budget to help pay for these, (5) social activism to attach responsibility to corporations for the lives of their workers and customers? If it does not also embrace these, I’d say this is not at all a “culture of life” but, rather, a culture of political convenience.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Jan,
This comment was written by Brad.That is like saying, if you can’t fix everything, then fix nothing.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
This most certainly is mathematically correct. There is too much family dispute over her true wishes and too many shenanigans with the court, accompanied by complete lack of retrial by an independent judge to give any statistical, scientific or moral credence to the court decision.
In order to do so you must believe that a single judge did not make a mistake - also a 50/50 probability.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
The Pope’s situation is obviously different, however, what if he were in this situation? Would he be kept alive indefinitely? At what point, if ever, would a new Pope be named?
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
This is denial. Robin, she has no cerebral cortex left. If you wish to pretend she’s somehow conscious in spite of this, I suppose you can. But it’s not logically defensible; with no cerebral cortex, with a flatline EEG measurement, the degree of her awareness is zero.
This comment was written by pericat.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
This is absolutely, 100% false.
The principle being used to let Terri die is that that’s what she wanted. She expressed her wishes to her husband, her closest relative, and he conveyed them to the court. Her parents disagreed, but the courts have consistently found them to be less credible then her husband, especially because, as they’ve said, their desire to keep her alive has little to do with what she would want.
The fact that she’s a vegetable with zero consciousness and liquid for a cerebral cortex is only relevant in that it illustrates how frankly ignorant of medicine, science, logic, and morality* the Save! Terri! crowd is.
—Myca
* - Specifically in reference to Texas’ futile care law. Hey Robin, have you spent a lot of time comparing George W. Bush to Hitler for enabling the death of Baby Hudson? No? Imagine my surprise . . .
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Robin,
OK, thanks for the clarifications. Regarding the Auschwitz comparison:
I only see a very superficial parallel which, in my opinion, certainly does not merit comparisons with Nazi death camps and all the baggage that comes with that. As for the torture argument, again I don’t think it’s anywhere near as cut and dried as you make it out. For one thing, it could be argued that a person who cannot process any senses cannot be said to be sensory-deprived.
Look, I am aware the discussions in this forum, as interesting and well-elaborated as most of them are, have long ago stopped being about Terri Schiavo and are more about being right — about gathering and presenting all the available amunition that supports how you feel, to make you right and make the other side wrong. I’m no different — it is human nature, especially in complex cases like this. It makes for fascinating discussions.
I was commenting more on the argument itself — I think we need to be careful about exaggerations in our comparisons, firstly because exaggerations are easy to refute, and therefore the argument tends to veer off in the direction of the exaggeration and away from what it was originally about. Secondly exaggerations can easily offend people, if for example they percieve themselves being called Nazis simply because you disagree with them. Thirdly, exaggerations make your whole argument — which is for the most part well informed and presented — less credible.
This comment was written by PaulD.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
And comparing this case to the Holocaust or its prelude is minimizing anti-semitic genocide. That’s anti-semitic in practice, even if you don’t harbor any specific hatred. You don’t hestitate to call the people supporting Terri being taken off of life support anti-disabled.
It’s still life support. My granddad was never on dialysis or a respirator either; that doesn’t mean that nourishing and hydrating him through an IV wasn’t also a form of life support. And if she were on a respirator or in need of dialysis, the essential terms of the debate wouldn’t change. Also, the woman has a tube in her stomach. It’s at least as invasive and extreme a measure as any of the other procedures you mentioned.
Uh huh. And if they so choose, they will be. And not to split hairs or anything, but Terri isn’t anything like those people. We aren’t talking about someone who is conscious and in need of a feeding tube to survive, or someone who is conscious and communicating a desire to keep the feeding tube in.
No, she isn’t. The “conscious” parts of her brain have largely been destroyed and replaced by spinal fluid: even her own body didn’t think they were salvageable. The CAT scans show a totally unambiguous pattern of severe damage. An autopsy would be unecessary, but will certainly bear out the findings of the CAT scan.
Of course there are degrees of disability, just as there are degrees of damage. But if I understand the terms you wish to debate under, then fine: she isn’t disabled. She’s in a persistent vegetative state. “Disabled” implies that she has suffered some disabling injury, not that she’s pretty much gone.
And I don’t want to talk too much about my granddad, who’s nowhere near as abstract to me as Terri is to both of us, but so what if he was sick? He would have had several more months–including some lucid months–if he hadn’t had an advance directive. And many of those disabled people whose interests you so casually mention have radically shortened lives due to their conditions, from Tay-Sachs to muscular dystrophy to Downs. Why is that time less valuable than Terri’s?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Eventually everyone gets old and dies, don’t they? I see nothing whatever morally or legally wrong with not providing further life support to a patient in Terri’s condition. Especially if the entire family agrees. That is refusing intervention.
I repeat, Terri Schindler-Schiavo is NOT brain dead, nor is she “plugged in.” She simply needs a tube to provide nourishment. So do many stroke patients, trauma patients, newborns, cancer patients, and so on.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
I don’t think that we should keep all brain-injured people alive indefinitely, and I absolutely think that people have a right to make their wishes known about what they would do if they were incapacitated. I’m planning to write out a living will next weekend, and I’m pretty sure that I will say that I don’t want to be kept alive indefinitely in a PVS. In my perfect world, we’d all have living wills that spelled out in minute detail what we did and didn’t want to happen to us in the event that something like that happened. (And yeah, I know that living wills are imperfect, too.) And if there’s a silver lining to this whole sordid affair, it’s that many more people are taking steps to make their wishes clear.
But obviously there are always going to be instances in which people are incapacitated who haven’t clearly spelled out their wishes. And in those cases, especially if they aren’t suffering, my tendency is to be biased in favor of maintaining life support. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong, but that’s my impulse.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
If there is no degree of disability, then someone confined to a wheelchair is obviously in the same situation as someone in PVS ( Terri or anyone else )?
That is absurd.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
I’ve followed this discussion over the past several weeks, but this my first post. I would like to thank the many people who have sent very intelligent, well reasoned, and most of all civil posts on both sides of this divide. Here’s my 2 cents:
Regarding hospice care, I wish the people who believe that Terri’s body should be maintained would stop knocking it. My grandmother used home hospice care for three months and died with family around her at my mother’s home. My mom is still in touch with one of the nurses over 15 years later. My aunt also used hospice care while she was dying of pancreatic cancer only a couple of years ago. I have not seen anything but truly compassionate care from these dedicated workers. It’s wrong to smear them in this way.
Regarding religion, I was raised Catholic too, but no longer practice for a number of reasons. I remember being taught that life was sacred, but I also remember, and believe to this day that I have an existence beyond my physical body. I don’t recall that forcing food and water on anyone was part of that teaching. In fact, my grandmother, one of the most devout Catholics I have ever met, eventually refused food and drink. No one accused her of committing suicide.
Regarding comparisons of Terri Schiavo with Stephen Hawking and other disabled people, I think these folks are not comparing apples to apples. ALS is a disease that causes a fatal degeneration of motor function, not mental function. If one were to compare Terri’s CT with CT scans of Hawking, I would expect to find tremendous cortical activity, and probably degeneration in the cerebellum and perhaps part of the stem of Mr. Hawking. There is no question that he is “in there”, anyway since he is still publishing books. Terri’s CT scan shows massive loss of cortical tissue, and her EEG’s were flat, meaning NO activity. No amount of therapy can fix what isn’t there any more. If there had been damage were to her brain stem as well as her cortex, she would have been declared brain dead and we wouldn’t be discussing this at all. I took the time to check the various links and read input from neurologists, the guardian ad litem and others to get my own head in order. I think that what Terri was, as a human, conscious person, fled her body long ago, and the decision to stop keeping her physical body alive is the correct one. All evidence indicates that Michael Schiavo spent several years trying to help his wife recover before deciding that there was no hope left. When is enough enough?
Nonetheless, as a parent, I sympathize with Terri’s parents. If it were my child, I would also try to see signs of the person she once was there. Yes, those videos tug at my heartstrings, but hearing the Schindlers saying that Terri is trying to talk to them when medical evidence clearly no intellectual capacity to do so shows that wishing and reality are different things. I also question why, if they believe so strongly that Terri is “in there” they haven’t chosen to post unedited video footage. Other posters have already questioned whether this might be because the rest doesn’t support their contention. She appears to laugh in response to a joke, but if we saw the unedited video, would we also see her make this vocalization by herself and in response to nothing at all? We see her appear to track the motion of a balloon, but how many tries did it take to capture this footage? Photos may not lie, but they certainly can be manipulated.
Last, we have agreed in our constitutional democracy to live by the rule of law. One of our most precious rights is the right to privacy–to live our lives the way we choose without intrusion from our government. The courts have extensively reviewed this case, and I think that all the judges have done their best to come to the correct decision given the evidence presented by both sides and the existing case law. It’s time for the rest of us armchair jurists to butt out and respect that decision whether or not we agree with it. If we don’t, we will all pay the price in the end. Legal decisions will be made by whichever side shouts the loudest. That will be a tragedy for all of us..
This comment was written by Louise.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Perhaps it’s time to get away from the Nazi analogies. I’m Jewish and I see nothing in the removal of Terri’s feeding tube to prompt comparisons to the Holocaust. However, I do see comparisons in Congress and Bush going to extraordinary efforts over this one, lone Catholic white woman, when hundreds thousands of children are at risk for malnutrition and disease in this country, to the bigoted, uncaring hatred that permeates the right wing for “the little people.”
That, more than anything, tells me how skewed and perverted these people are in using their “God” to guide their decisions.
Before you jump on me about my anti-Bush stance, know that I’m ESRD - end-stage Renal disease and am on dialysis 3 times a week to keep me alive. Know that I bankrupted myself paying medical bills because my health insurance company didn’t like paying for my tests, etc. and dumped me as a client.
Know that my mother was dying of uterine cancer and I had to make the decision to stop her feeding. She was in pain, delirious and I thought it was kinder to let her go than to prolong her misery. It’s a decision I’d make again about anyone I love, and one that I’ve made for myself when the time comes.
I see nothing noble in the Schindlers’ behavior. I see selfishness and guilt at work here. I see a hubris and no regard for anyone’s feelings, least of all, Terri’s.
Their willingness to rabidly accept the “help” of Randall Terry - an anti-abortion activist who doesn’t mind people being killed for providing abortion services, but, O Yea, you can’t kill an unborn fetus, disgusts me. You are known by the company you keep.
The Schindlers’ willingness to grandstand in front of the media, all day and every day. And, the latest outrage -
The Schindlers took to email to raise money for their legal costs. They compiled a list of about 6,000 supporters who donated money (a sucker every minute, you know). And now they’re RENTING that list to Conservatives for their own fund-raising.
Disgusting. I can’t wait for the Movie of the Week - all from the Schindlers’ grief, of course.
This comment was written by Heathen Tart.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Piny said:
Let me point out to you that as horrible as the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis was, it was not simply a Jewish event. While 6 million or so Jews were killed during the Holocaust, an equal - and possibly greater - number of non-Jews were victims: gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, gays & lesbians, Christians who preached against the events taking place, Germans who protested……….the list goes on and on. Nobody knows the exact numbers. The Jewish people have gone to great lengths to document, but many members of those other groups simply disappeared. I’ve read estimates over the years that run 12 - 16 million people. The difference is that the Jews were actively sought out, hunted down and herded by state policy. Others tended to disappear in smaller groups more sporadically.
To hold the idea that the Holocaust must be talked about and spoken of only in whispers and solely in terms of Jewish victims in order to avoid offense or be politically correct is at the very best revisionist history. Revisionist history is at the heart of anti-semitism.
The reason that people study history is to allow the drawing of parallels. Haven’t you heard that “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”?
To make this a little short, let me just give a couple of other responses without bothering to quote you.
1.) Your grandfather was SICK and DYING.
2.) Allowing Terri to be starved and dehydrated to death without her express written or current verbal or unanimous agreement among her entire simply because she is disabled is murder, no matter how you want to white wash it and what pretty little terms you want to cloak it in.
3.) Terri has not had a CAT scan in many, many years. She has not had an MRI or a PET. She has metal in her brain that prevents many imaging techniques do to some experimental treatment over a decade ago. Things change over time - even brains.
4. ) An autopsy can determine to some extent that there was brain damage. What the effects of that damage are are best determined in living patients and often cannot be determined by autopsy.
5.) For the purposes of determing under either Florida or international law whether Terri qualifies as disabled there are specifically no degrees of disabled. The same is true under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Let me address this more directly:
You should talk to someone about your Grandad. I know this is hard - I did that for my mother. And myself. And others close to me. Your Grandad had an advance directive because he wanted to have one.
Life changes as you age as you will learn. My Grandma lived to be 95 years old. She had been partly paralyzed - her knee - as a young woman but quite nearly until the day she died she did her own laundry. As the years went by, some people in the family thought she was senile. She wasn’t - just horribly lonely. Her kids spent half the year in Florida. Most of her 16 grandchildren had moved away or never thought to visit. Every human being that she knew of her generation was gone - her friends, her husband, the people she grew up with. She used to tell me that she felt like the last of the dinosaurs.
Time gets shorter as you age. If you can remember how long it was till next Christmas when you were very little, by the time my Grandma was very old she thought it had been only a week since Christmas and that my Dad had lost his mind when he brought her flowers. And then my aunt had her dog put to sleep because he
peed on the floor. She had had Bono for 25 years - and they didn’t even tell her until they didn’t bring him back from the vet. He was her very last friend.
So, one bitterly cold New England night when the temperature was well below zero, Grandma went outside without her special shoes on, without a coat, in her summer pajamas. She had not been able to walk even to the bathroom without that shoe in 70 years. She knew she would fall.
The neighbor found her when he went to get his morning paper. At the hospital her brain was not dead, her heart still beat very faintly. The brought her body temp back to normal - told us she had the lowest body temp they had ever seen. She was “awake” - but she never knew anyone again. Her toes and fingers rottede off from frostbite. They had to feed her in the nursing home. After a couple of months she finally died - on the day before her birthday.
I know your pain. I cannot begin to tell you how much I wish that my dear Grandma had had an advance directive or that someone - anyone - from the family had been there to say “STOP!”
I don’t casually mention disabled people. I AM one. I’ve raised one. I’ve cared for many just within my own family. Every single day is precious. Terri’s condition is not any less worthy of care and concern than someone with Tay-Sachs or Downs or Aids. But her condition is worthy of every bit as MUCH concern as anyone with one of those “more worthy” disabilities simply because a single judge decided nearly a decade ago on what appears to be at best only partial evidence that she was a “vegetable.”
That is exactly why we must NOT allow our courts to make this kind of decision in this way.
I would have no problem with a judge issuing a “disconnect” order in the case of true terminal disease if a family simply cannot agree.
I have huge problems with a single man - any man - deciding this issue on the side of death in the name of We the People. If we must err, then we must err for life.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Of course not. That would be a violation of your individual right to self determination. I suspect that Piny might tell you he wishes they were more easily invalidated though. And you had better be careful what you ask for - some doctors/hospitals will abide by your living will even if you later change your mind during an illness on the assumption that you are no longer competent.
Terri, though, did not HAVE a living will. No DNR. No immediately raised wish to “not live this way” coming from the family - that waited 7 years until after a large insurance settlement.
From the standpoint of our responsibilities under law to the disabled there is no degree of disabiled. All of the human rights treaties, the Florida Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities act specify - “disabled.” No degree of disability and no exceptions. No differentiation between paralysis, Aids and PVS.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
It seems that the tenor of the argument is becoming less civilized. I started reading this blog b/c it seemed to attract thinking, sensitive people, unlike the vitriol found in some of th eother blogs. I’m sorry to see that qulity degrade over the past couple of days and hope that it can rebound.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
You know, there is the funny thing about Freedom of Speech. And all the rest of our freedoms for that matter. If you have to think like everyone else, talk like everyone else, agree with everyone else, dress like everyone else then you don’t HAVE freedom. Freedom of speech that we do not extend to someone else, especially when they disagree with us, is not freedom of speech at all.
Before you make THAT kind of allegation then you need to be really, really sure of your facts - and best have some proof to hand. You have heard of libel, right?
As far as the Schindler’s fudraising goes, you should be aware that the **court record** clearly shows that Michael Schiavo’s primary attorney (Felos) has received more than $300,000 from the money awarded for Terri’s care in the malpractice suit.
A good chunk of that is shown in the court records as having been paid for dealing with the media.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Well, Brad, that’s the nature of reasoning from moral principle. This argument is that protection of life trumps everything, and there should not be any compromise, no greys, no interpretation, no adjudication. This is certainly not my position.
The people like me who support a reasoned interpretation of the Constitution as it is, with no augmentation by a principle that “life trumps all”, are doing so because it is a practical thing. Criminals need punishing. Wars sometimes need to be fought. People sometimes make poor choices with their lives and need second chances. The biological world is an unfriendly place and we need all the tools we can to help the most people. And there are people who feel that life with large amounts of suffering isn’t worth living.
Even if “no greys” in regard to preserving life is accepted, surely someone killing someone with a gun in war is far more overt an attack than executing a DNR order. I am simply asking for logical consistency. And if logical consistency is not seen as important, then that is exactly the problem.
The same Congress that voted to pursue this specious intervention in a private matter, let alone a state matter, also voted billions more for the war in Iraq and the Pentagon, much of which goes to enrich defense contractors and outfits like Halburton and their shareholders. That same money could be used to protect life, by helping the poor, providing medical assistance, and innumerable other ways. Remember, I have no problem with the need for defense. A “culture of life” isn’t my thing.
The huge amounts of legal fees allocated to this fight, to alter the interpretation of the Constitution to be consistent with a “culture of life”, could be similarly applied.
Abortions could be reduced if birth control were widely available, but that’s not acceptable in a “culture of life” either.
No, its a purely political maneuver, and it is hypocrisy.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
You’re being condescending here, and way too familiar. Stop. I talk to other people about my granddad and my feelings about his death. You’re a stranger posting on a public blog, and I think I’d be even less inclined to unburden myself to you if I did know you better.
My granddad had an advance directive because he was a sexagenarian who’d had a blood disease for the preceding three decades. Even given that extraordinary circumstance, he probably wouldn’t have had an advance directive if he hadn’t been an attorney who was well-versed in living wills and other similar documents. Given that it took this case to get the general populace to start putting their affairs in order, the fact that a young woman didn’t have a living will fifteen years ago isn’t good evidence that she would have wanted to be kept in this condition.
I’ll respond to the rest of this later.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
I agree with Sally’s comments, basically, however, I think that Sally’s position is essentially consistent with the law of the state of Florida. A person seeking to withdraw support has the burden of establishing that support should be withdrawn by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the margin of error definitely falls on the side of not withdrawing support. What is or ought to be the basis of the dispute (IMHO) is whether Florida is carrying out the intent of its law. And on that score, I think it has on the issue of whether Terri is PVS, I am less certain about the issue of ascertaining Terri’s wishes. However, unlike some, I do not think it is fair to presume that Terri would have wished to be kept alive, and therefore, that her statements to friends and relatives should be given little persuasive effect. Even the heavily biased GAL thought that the issue was a very close call.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Barbara, consider what would have happened in this case if the monies for legal fees from the Right To Life folks and the ACLU had been withheld. That’s the situation that affects most people dealing with these tough questions. And that’s why the case of Terri Schiavo Incapacited is such an anomaly.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Jan - The same Congress that voted to pursue this specious intervention in a private matter, let alone a state matter
Please - The Civil War solved the issue of Federal rights versus States rights well over 100 years ago. That is why we don’t have legal slavery, remember?
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Jan,
This comment was written by Brad.How many issues are there in the world? Of course, it is impossible to know.
It is impossible to expect anybody to have moral consistency throughout an infinite number of possible situations. Or, to guess which situations you would like clarity on…
As humans, we take each situation as it arises and deal with it the best we can.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Piny - I did not suggest that you talk to ME and certainly did not mean to offend you. You write as if you are grieving and in pain. I intended only to extend you a bit of understanding, sympathy and maybe the ideas that things would ease over time. With or without a living will, losing someone you love and care for hurts.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
Interesting discussion, folks!
Thought I’d link my post at Reason’s Hit & Run blog examining some of the facts and myths of the Schiavo case, and referencing this blog. (I tried emailing the link to Barry but for some reason the email bounced back to me as undeliverable.)
This comment was written by Cathy Young.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Jan, your response is too cryptic for comment. I don’t know what you mean and I won’t speculate.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
JAN: The people like me who support a reasoned interpretation of the Constitution as it is
Our Constitution is BASED on moral principle. Were it not for moral principle we would be part of Canada and the property of Britain. You cannot pick and choose the bits you like and agree with while discarding the rest.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Perhaps, though, it should be?
This comment was written by Acrossthepond.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Barry’s email bounces back at me too, as undeliverable.
Earth to Ampersand, come in Ampersand, call home.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
BTW, a valid email address - before the law outlawing the practice - rented on the web for about $0.10 per. That would make 6000 email addresses worth approximately $60.00. They sold at that time for about $0.50-1.00 per, making 6000 emails addresses worth an absolutely max of $6000. If you had a really good newsletter that went out to 6000 people and showed great results, you could rent space for a 25 word ad for about $25.
However, it is now ILLEGAL (CAN-SPAM) to rent or sell email addresses without the specific permission of the subscriber. So, if in fact this is happening then all 6000 have agreed to have their addresses shared. ONE complaint by ONE person would have taken their website down - and that is before the FCC gets involved and files charges.
HOKUM! Specify your source.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Please. You’re the one who can’t stay away from the caps lock key. I write as though I’m someone who has some personal experience with a determining care for a family member who needs life support to stay alive. My grandfather is a good example, and a concrete one. When I said I didn’t want to talk much about him, I was referring to the personal nature of the subject. Your response proved me right.
You told me what to do with my grief. That was impolite; it’s not your place to talk to me about it or to suggest I get therapy, particularly not in this forum. Tenderness from you is pretty irritating, given that you feel free to tell me that I’m advocating murder and supporting eventual Nazism. And then you–and you’re a total stranger, remember?–presumed to tell me about the circumstances resulting in my grandfather’s advance directive. That’s presumptuous in an entirely different way, unless you’re clairvoyant.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
I think it is mostly a “selfish” act to want to keep someone alive like this. Not to offend, as this seems a rather “steamed” debate, but Terri’s days must be very long. Imagine not being able to move when you need to, walk, talk, enjoy a meal or even a glass of water. How miserable it is not to be able to scratch an itch or change position in bed. Her parents can only be there for so long each day and the rest of the time it is just her. I would hope she doesn’t know what is going on because you would go crazy in your own mind.
I also read her parents made a comment regarding her religion being the reason she would want to live no matter what. I don’t know about that - parents like to think they know their children but seldom really do. And all the accusations they have been making lately are wild. Now I read they are saying her husband abused her? It seems they are throwing out one thing after another just to win on some level.
I have started to lean towards believing him. Here is a guy who could have just said “Fine, see ya” and divorced her. Her received his own money in the settlement that he would have been able to walk away with but he didn’t. He has hung around for the last 15 years - yes he does have agirlfriend and two children but you could hardly call it moving on. Can anyone give a logical explanation as to why he has stuck around for so long?
This comment was written by Jen.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
This is a red herring. She’s not trapped in an incapacitated body, like the disabled people she’s being compared to. She’s not aware of her surroundings.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Brad,
Since it appears that you have been here all day, perhaps you could tell me what I have been wrong on. Just kidding, but in all seriousness, I assume you are refering to my politically motivated rants and none of the medical and scientific items I have mentioned or cited, in which case I would appreciate being corrected, with citations, for my own and everyone else’s knowledge.
On more thing for you though… I think Jan is not asking for moral consistency on every single issue in the world (even if that is sort of what she said). You are correct, this is clearly not possible. It is possible, though, to be morally consistent on a broad range of topics and to support why you are not being morally consistent when your actions waver for certain reasons.
I also saw up there in some post that Terri Schiavo would die of old age if the feeding tube was continued. While this might be possible, it is exceedingly unlikely. In most cases the digestive system will start to atrophy and will not be able to absorb nutrients anymore and this sometimes neccessitates a central line (injection of nutrients directly into the aorta). While this is not difficult to do, it is not really sustainable for a long period of time and leads to a VERY serious chance of a series of VERY nasty infections.
I also want to just reiterate what was mentioned in defense of hospice works as well (sorry I cannot remember who posted originally in this list, Nursepractitioner in the former, its taken me over an hour just to catch up in the discussion). Hospice workers take their work very seriously and do an amazing job of it. People don’t chose that feild for any reason other than feeling that it is their duty here on earth to provide love and care for people before death.
This comment was written by Dr. Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Acrossthepond Says:
March 29th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
In post 3: But this isn’t really a question about Terri’s wishes.
Perhaps, though, it should be?
Fifteen years ago it surely should have been all about Terri’s wishes. When a US judge in a US court issues a death order for a disabled indivual on behalf of and in the name of We the People, then it becomes a matter of what We the People will allow and what our previous obligations and responsibilities say we can allow.
Our court system does not rule and it is not paramount to nor can it issue orders to either the Executive branch (president) or the Legislative branch. Not sure how you work that on the other side of the pond.
It is truly sad that “what Terri would have wanted” was not resolved more than a decade ago without recourse to the courts. Maybe the law should insist that in cases of disputed wishes the parties must be locked in with a mediator until they agree like we do for contract talks before folks can hie themselves off to the courts.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
1. A court, after hearing evidence, decided that Terri wanted that tube disconnected under these circumstances. That finding was repeated affirmed by higher courts. So far as I can tell, Robin either doesn’t think the court was right or doesn’t care, wishing to impose her wishes on Terri.
However, in uncertain situations, what we have here, under the rule of law, is what the court found. I’m quite unwilling to let go of that in favor of the Rule of Robin.
Across - of course all this is about Terri’s wishes, which is as it should be.
2. As for myself, if I were in Terri’s situation I would certainly want that tube pulled. I’m hoping that neither the state, nor the federal government, nor Robin and those who agree with Robin, attempt to intervene if such a decision should be necessary. If Robin wishes to be kept alive by whatever means until the last possible moment, that’s OK too.
Both Terri and I, however, would beg Robin not to impose her views on us.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
Umm, our judicial system most certainly can and does issue orders to both the legislative and executive branches (especially the latter) when they are litigants before it. In fact, the executive branch of the government is hands down the most frequent litigant in the nation. The judiciary interprets law. In some cases (depending on its authority) it can make law (common law tradition). It can’t force legislators to legislate, it can’t force executives to propose specific policies or laws, or whatever, but it most certainly interprets laws for all branches of government as well as WE THE PEOPLE. In many respects, in spite of all the drubbing it takes, the judicial branch of government is the most accessible branch to US FOLKS.
As to whether the parties should have been forced into mediation, it appears that Michael Schiavo did try to work it out with the rest of Terri’s family for almost four years prior to petitioning the court. Perhaps he thought she would die in the interim, thus avoiding confrontation. It’s hard to know. But as the court said, it’s wrongheaded to blame Michael for waiting to bring the petition when, by not petitioning he was doing what his opponents wish to do indefinitely.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Robin,
You forgot to tell our friend across the pond that the Legislative branch is congress and the senate.
When the courts rule that a law is unconstitutional after it has been passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the president, what exactly are they doing if not giving an order on that law? Sure they do not “rule” in the sense that I think you intend, but they do “rule” on the constitutionality of laws, and thank goodness for that. The founding fathers came up with this wonderful thing called checks and balances which has, and still does, protect us from the whimsy of the politically motivated, who all need votes from their constituents. They also settle disputes between individuals where the legislator and president have no precedent to interfere. Now I’m no lawyer, but I imagine the parties involved gave mediation a shot at some point and it didn’t work out. I’m sure they also had ample opportunity to settle before going in front of a judge and were also unable to do so.
This comment was written by Dr. Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Piny -
I have never ONCE attacked you personally. If you are not in a frame of mind for reasoned debate, then don’t debate. You are personalizing every word I write and little or none of it is “pointing the finger” at you.
If you don’t want comments about your grandfather then please don’t either project his situation on to this one - they are very different - or write about him.
You certainly are not the only person to have real-time experience to bring to the table. , as I and others have repeatedly made clear.
I have apologized for any offense. Accept or don’t - I really don’t care. And for heaven’s sake, if you don’t want comments from strangers then stay out of chats, blogs and IM.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
Robin - For someone who professes to be a healthcare professional, your lack of understanding of the Medicare/Medicaid hospice benefit, is alarming. One would suspect that the only patients you’ve ever attended were cash-paying Saudi princes. We don’t get many of those in my part of the country.
All Medicare-certified hospices, as a condition of their certification, MUST provide care to patients who are ineligible for either Medicare or Medicaid. The amount of this care must be reported to the gov’t. It is up to the hospice to find the money to do so. Most use both operating surpluses and charitable contributions and grants. I’m sorry you feel this is bad business. Take it up with your elected officials. But could you do so quickly please? I am struggling to find some alternative sources of funding for those patients who cannot be admitted under any benefit. Their numbers are growing here.
It is impossible for anyone on this list, with the information available, to determine whether Mrs. Schiavo is eligible for the Medicaid hospice benefit, based on her finances and work history. Only someone familiar with the trust, other family assets and Florida’s formula for collecting under the benefit, could make that determination. Based on the hospice’s statement about who is covering the cost of her care, she is eligible for some drug benefit, but this is not necessarily part of a hospice benefit, but under some other program. In order to charge Medicaid for her care, she would still need to be certified that she had six or fewer months of life left. A diagnosis of PVS, in and of itself, would not be allow for that to happen.
She could, if admitted to a nursing home, most likely qualify for a long-term care benefit, under Medicaid. But her husband has elected to have her cared for at a hospice, which is not charging for that care. And I don’t find that all “fishy.”
You want to have it both ways: to be able to shout about greedy hospices, and at the same time to cast suspicion when they provide charitable care.
You are correct. Hospice is at least a multimillion dollar industry — I’m not sure it’s a multibillion dollar industry yet, but it might be. And it is no more immune to greed, than any other business. But I’ll tell you, it’s subject to much more oversight than those “nonprofits” that have sprung up the last few years that are making money off the Schiavo tragedy. Do you have any idea how many organizations have a PayPal button next to their “Save Terri” banner, allowing visitors to make a “donation?” Organizations where the board chair is also the executive director, and cuts all his own checks? All it takes is three people to form a board and start a nonprofit.
The Schindler’s themselves were charged with illegal fundraising in Florida two months ago, and fined $1,000. They were given 30 days to file a financial report, which they still haven’t done. They’re now allowing their mass mailer to sell the names of contributers to other prolife groups .(The Schindlers get the cash) Three years ago when I first started researching the case, I found they were selling video’s of their daughter on their website for a $100 donation. That’s why the judge, in all his wisdom, forbid the Schindlers from photographing their daughter. And I suspect, that one of her husband’s chief motivations is protecting Terri from this sort of opportunism.
You would know that if you’d taken the time to read all the court documents available on line.
You say you have, but your questioning whether Terri was using birth control, belies that statement. If you had read them, you would have found that she had been seeing a doctor for year, trying to get pregnant. You would have also found that she hadn’t told her parents about this, which calls into question, just how close a relationship she had with them.
I have a question for you. Let’s assume two laws were passed. You seem to have strong feelings about hospice, so let’s say that they’ve been outlawed , and there is no chance that any hospice can commit “fraud.” At the same time, another federal law is passed that requires that all patients who are started on feeding tubes, must be maintained on them for the rest of their natural lives. (Assuming of course, that they don’t recover the ability to eat.) Because we cannot know anyone’s specific wishes at any given time, or absolutely discern the motivations of involved family members, we opt to always err on the side of life. These patients can be taken care of at home, or if the family has difficulty providing their care, like the Schindlers did, transferred to a nursing home, where they will live out their days.
My question is, who pays for this care? If you are willing to be the Samaritan that saves all people from possible conflicts of interest , and from court decisions that may or may not represent the patient’s own wishes, are you willing to have your taxe raised to fund this care?
Or do you think that this care can be paid for through millions and millions of PayPal “Buy Now” buttons?
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
Dr. Ted - When the courts rule that a law is unconstitutional after it has been passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the president, what exactly are they doing if not giving an order on that law?
Throughout our history this issue has primarily come up when a law is ruled constitutional rather than unconstitutional. There are a number of examples but prob ably the most well known one is Dred Scott. In 15 words or less, the Supreme Court said slavery was legal, Lincoln said horse-hockey and the Civil War ensued.
The activism that we have seen in recent years by the courts is very new in our history. Tomas Jefferson specifically warned that we should not be ruled by the courts (I can find you the exact quote if you want). The Constitution specifically gives enforcement of laws interpreted by the courts to the Executive Branch and more than one President has effectively ignored them and told them to stick it in a hat. Fairly recently BTW.
Re mediation in this case, nothing that I can find. Apparently everything was hunky-dory, the lawsuit money was paid, there was a big falling out and the husband filed suit to “carry out Terri’s wishes.” The last three events apparently near simultaneously. That appears to be only HIS side of the story however and in my eperience every war has at least 3 sides - his, hers and the truth.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Robin, back off. You’re ranting and raving just a bit.
The court issued an order that the wishes of the patient be respected, after having a trial to determine what those wishes were. This is no different than a court order prohibiting battery - in fact it is a court order prohibiting battery. (Battery in common law is any unwanted touching; unwanted surgery certainly qualifies.) In no way is this a horror fit to be compared with the Holocaust, or a horror at all.
We believe here, and have, in the English-speaking countries, believed for time out of mind, that every individual has the right to refuse medical services. Even if the Robins of this word think they have the right to force this treatment on you against your will for some reason. Because they sympathize with the disabled, or are themselves disabled, or have raised a disabled child, or know more than you do, or something. Whatever. I raised a disabled child too. That doesn’t make me an oracle.
This right to refuse medical treatment, like most legal rights, may, upon request, be enforced by a court order, and by armed force if necessary, when some other person seeks to violate that right. WE THE PEOPLE, as you are so fond of saying, are saying, by this court order, that we are prepared to defend Terri’s (and your, and my) right to control access to our own bodies, and to refuse unwanted medical attention. I for one am 100% behind this idea.
You don’t like the way the trial came out. Join every other losing litigant and opinionated bystander in history. We don’t re-try every matter where the result makes somebody unhappy. If we did we’d never settle anything.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
People, please be sure to close your links when you include them.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
The actual Constitution — not some imagined one — still delegates whatever powers that aren’t specifically authorized in the Constitution to Congress and the Executive to the states.
The text of Cruzon v Director indicates this is the reason the federal cannot intervene in cases like Schiavo. The concurring opinion by one Justice Antonne Scalia in that case, normally considered a right to life advocate and quoted on the previous incarnation of this thread, specifically says the reason why Cruzon needs to be decided in the way it was is because the federal government has no authority there: it is a state matter.
Finally, from what I can see, we are heading for another civil war, since discussions like this make no sense, filled with acrimony, uncivility, emotion, and invention as they are.
Adieu.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
That is precisely what the Constitution and the judiciary are for.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Sorry about the blank, I had a fit trying to close the link. [No prob. I deleted the blank comment. -Amp]
Robin, what does this mean exactly? I’ve tried to hide it thus far, but I live in Canada and I hope you don’t mean to tell me that Canadians don’t have moral principal (or the British for that matter). Now I’m an American living in Canada, but living here has quite literally been a breath of fresh air. If there is a finer group of 30 million people anywhere in the world I challenge anyone to point them out.
I know being condescending, belittling and morally righteous is fun, but there are consequences.
This comment was written by Dr. Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
I my self think that starving some one to death is wrong.I feel like unless tha brain is completly dead one should continue life.I am sorry for the way I feel. If her brain is not completely dead she should be able to have life. I work in a nursing facility and I deal with patients with alzeimers diseas and dementia,as well as other stuff that goes with being old,also we have a few young ones there as well.But I am there to care for them and not to decide if they live or not.Yes Ihave seen a few starve just like terri is,but thats was in there own writing saying that was what they wanted.So if she never fixed a will say exactly what she wanted done, then who has the right to decide on it anyway,it should have been something that the whole family agrees(including the parents of terri) along with her husband in my opions has al ready got a life with another woman so how can he say he loves terri if he is living with someone eles.I can not believe that his love for terri is still there or ethier he is lying to the other woman.Think about that. Well I wish someone in the higher courts or goverment position would step in and intervene some how. Well I will be closing this,but Iwill be praying for her parents and I know how they must be felling.I will say that I pray that she will be able to fight it like Ihave seen them do at the nursing home and maybe then it will be allow to be put back in.The longest Ieen one live with out eating and drinking is 5 weeks and 4 days,It depends on the person will and desire Thank you for allowing us to write what we feel
This comment was written by Hilda.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
On our side of the pond, generally, we accept the idea that when there are laws governing a situation, and the Courts have applied them, and the appeals have been heard, then people who insist that, nonetheless, their view should prevail are wrong; and they don’t make themselves right by claiming to speak for “We, the People”.
We also, generally, accept the idea that if you don’t like the laws as they are, you vote for legislators who will enact laws that you prefer. We do not enjoy a Constitution nor, therefore, a judiciary responsible for ensuring that legislators do not trample over it. (Although some would argue that in some respects the Human Rights Act serves some of the same purposes).
I suppose it might be said that on this side of the pond our previous obligations and responsibilities would include respecting our Constitution if we had one, respecting the decisions of courts (subject to appeal), respecting the laws as they stand, and respecting the rights of others.
I have no idea what legal status anything like a “living will” or “nomination of proxy” would have over here. I’m glad my wife’s wishes were respected; I’m glad my mother’s wishes were respected; I hope mine will be - even if I haven’t written them down, signed them, or had them legally witnessed. And especially I hope that when (I think “when” is more realistic than “if”) I am in a situation where continuation of medical care is virtually certainly pointless, no army of demagogues will intrude.
On this side of the pond, we spell it “demagogue”.
This comment was written by Acrossthepond.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
On our side of the pond, generally, we accept the idea that when there are laws governing a situation, and the Courts have applied them, and the appeals have been heard, then people who insist that, nonetheless, their view should prevail are wrong; and they don’t make themselves right by claiming to speak for “We, the People”?.
Except for the lack of a written Constitution, you and we are on exactly the same page, Acrossthepond. Or we would be, but for demagogues.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Man, the British can do snippy like nobody’s business.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
And I mean that as a compliment.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Mea culpa for the long, long open link. I’m having trouble with links here, so I’ll just post the URL’s which you can cut in paste.
For information on the problems with the Schindler’s foundation:
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGBKY0BSY4E.html
For info on the sale of the new “Schindler’s List”:
http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2005/03/21.html
Or in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29donate.html
They’ve just tasered some protestor trying to run into the Woodside Hospice.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
I don’t do hospice so I am limited to the basic Medicaid guidelines for hospice care - terminal, under 6 months. I also don’t do billing :)
In my neck of the woods most of our old folk move to Florida, so much of our hospice care is provided in the patient’s home. Patient families provide much of the care with assistance from HHA or CNA and periodic (daily, serveral times daily, more - depending) check ins by an RN. The few I know personally that have availed themselves of hospice died in their own beds. Works very well for the most part.
This is true also in hospitals. As I recall, this is actually repayment in some way for funds extended by the government to build the hospital. I’ve known at least one that finished their repayment and stopped providing free care.
I don’t feel that is bad business. That said, if I came in to audit and saw this particular situation - especially the conflict of interest on the part of Felos - I would have alarm bells go off. This situation is not the norm by a long shot.
Latest figures I’ve heard were more than 50 million uninsured. It is a problem everywhere. That does not mean we can kill our patients.
Unfortunately by sealing many of the financial records away for all these years of dispute Mr. Schiavo is left with the appearance of impropriety, which rightly or wrongly arouses suspicion in many.
That is exactly what I said.
I do. Skilled nursing facilities are set up to provide the long term care PVS would dictate. Hospices are not.
Earlier in your post you were stating how difficult that it was becoming to adequately provide for the number of needy patients that are desperate for your services. I am sure that is the case at Westside too - as everywhere else.
There were plenty of needy patients around in 2000 also. So, why would a hospice with a long line of needy patients who are truly dying take in the profoundly disabled wife of a client of a long-time member of BOD who was expected to live years? Especially since other facilities are more adequately designed to meet her individual needs, which Medicaid would have covered the cost of.
Even if there is some perfectly innocent explanation it LOOKS wrong, alarming, downright fishy.
Medicine in general is probably the single largest industry in the US.
Virtually every family of every critically ill patient in the country sets up a non-profit. It is the only legal way that they can utilize donated/gifted money without declaring it as income for tax purposes. I’ve never known one to have a ED that actually collects a salary.
That type of thing is the province of larger charities. Note that the woman who was ED of the Red Cross on 911 made some $450,000 a year - more than we pay the President.
Never yet knew a family in a similar situation that actually managed to comply with all the laws & regulations concerning non-profits. Up here we ignore that. Florida is apparently a little less understanding.
Got a cite for that BTW?
Someone else stated this earlier. Trust me, they aren’t making any substantial amount of money off renting 6000 email addresses. You’ll find my reply to that above. This one is hokum. Cite?
RE the video, well you know PBS up here every single weekend runs a marathon all weekend. Send us $100 and we’ll send you a video. On the same benefit of the doubt principle that you are willing to extend to the husband, lets just say maybe somebody trying to help them had a “bright” idea.
The judge could easily have allowed the Schindlers to photograph their daughter while simultaneously restricting them from distributing the photos as you describe above.
This is another thing that looks exceedingly fishy to me. In probate court up here the judge allows virtually nothing that one party or the other does not prepare a written order to have allowed. I suspect Florida isn’t much different on that one.
I think that you are being overly harsh when you label them opportunist. Most of us would move heaven and earth to save our children in this situation if the husband was going to do what we saw as murder our child rather than carry out her wishes. Put yourself in their shoes a minute - if your daughter’s husband, after seven years and a million dollar settlement out of the blue decided that your daughter insisted on her right to die - something that your entire family had never heard mention - you would go a little ballistic too. NONE of us would simply stand back and say - “”Sure! Whatever you want!”
And then consider that Michael’s legal fight has been funded with a substantial portion of Terri’s trustfund money, with great input from the ACLU and various right-to-die organizations.
Justice where one side has a million or more and the other barely enough for a legal consult is not justice.
First, I did not write the bit about the birth control. That was supposed to be a quote of someone else’s writing. Unfortunately I am trying to type on my daughter’s laptop ROFL. The keypad is too small, I keep hitting the wrong key and highlighting/deleting/miss-spelling the wrong thing. My apologies.
I would never comment in more than a general way (see the following paragraph to the one you note) on anything regarding Terri’s birth control history, trying to get pregnanat, etc. I question that this would even be online as it has nothing whatever to do with this case. Sounds like a HUGE violation of her right to privacy by the GYN or somebody.
And to be perfectly honest about it, since you obviously are associated with a hospice in Florida, I am surprised that you would even bring up this particular set of facts.
This question is a bit of nonsense. First, I am not against hospice care in the least. I simply question the presence of a PVS but otherwise healthy woman in this particular hospice, since she obviously does not fit the normal criteria for hospice care and would have her needs better served at a facility specifically set up for long term care. I am not the only medical professional to mark this highly unusual.
So, back to appearances here. Whatever the true circumstances may be, this LOOKS like Michael put Terri into the hospice intending to terminate her life 5 years ago and that the sole purpose for her being there is life termination. Thus, no therapy that may have changed her condition - something that would have been near automatic in long term care, no further evaluations of any substance because she was intended for termination.
Well, I can think of many $100 dollar screwdrivers and toilet seats that we can forgo before we start talking about either raising taxes to pay for medical care or terminating the disabled so we don’t “waste” money on them.
Whatever our economic problems may be in providing medical care to our poor huddled masses, our Constitution dictates the right to life of each and every citizen. Our agreements under international treaty dictate that each and every one of us has an inalienable right to life, including specifically our disabled.
[Rest of post deleted by Amp]
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
We would be part of Canada, if you remember a little American and British history means that at one time much of Canada and all of the Colonies belonged to Britain. We didn’t like that Stamp Act, told the king to stick it in his hat and rebelled. Those who did not rebel eventually moved to Canada or went back to Britain. Some of the Redcoats decided they liked uppity colonials and stayed here. To this very day, Queen Camilla will be Queen of Canada along with the rest of the British empire.
I like Canada too - great place to visit. Live less than 100 miles from the border.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
ADMIN ANNOUNCEMENT: EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO KEEP POSTING ON THIS THREAD, PLEASE READ THIS!!
The following topics have now been banned from this thread:
1) Evidence or arguments intended to prove that the Schindlers are badly motivated or bad human beings. This includes any further discussion of them selling an email list or wanting an inheritance or anything like that.
2) Evidence or arguments intended to prove that Michael Schiavo, his lawyers, or Judge Greer are badly motivated or bad human beings. I think y’all know the sort of thing this includes.
3) Nazism and comparisons to Nazism, or reasons why comparisons to Nazism are inappropriate.
I will delete any further posts including any of the above subjects.
If you want to discuss these topics, of course that’s your right; but it’s not your right to discuss them on my website.
I’m not saying this to cast blame on anyone; on the contrary, I really appreciate the contributions of a lot of folks whose posts have touched on the above subjects. Sometimes I’ve even agreed with posts touching on the above subjects. But, with all due respect to everyone here, I’d rather see other aspects of these issues discussed here on my blog.
Also, as usual, I’m asking everyone to refrain from personal attacks. Attack the argument, not the person.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
RE NY Times link above.
I can well remember the day when the NY Times was THE paper of record in this country. If they said it you could take it to the bank and use it in a court of law.
BUT - in the last few years they have had at least two reporters in very responsible positions that have been fired for inventing the news. The last one invented dozens and dozens of stories about 9/11 from his living room.
The NY Times is not the paper of record anymore. I believe virtually nothing that they publish on hot-button issues unless I see it corroborated by some other completely independent source.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
[Post about if the Schindlers are evil or not, deleted by Amp.]
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
Amp,
It may be time to simply concede your weariness or bias and consider closing your thread. I think you omitted my last comment which offended none of your latest bans on expression.
People, as a result of their respective comments, will reveal themselves for who and what they are so long as others are free to highlight and respond to those comments.
If you’ve grown weary of noticing the fair — sometimes heated, sometimes caustic — exchange of debate and disagreement to the point where you are censoring non-vulgar expression, maybe it’s time to concede simply that.
Then again, it’s your blog.
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
CodeBlueBlogMD makes a lot of authoritative claims about Ms. Schiavo’s CAT scan. But he makes a stupid error on his own page, which suggests that he knows nothing at all about this case, and maybe not so much about any cases.
He says “why is there a shunt in Terri’s ventricle?” But there is no shunt. The white blob in the scan is an experimental brain implant that was supposed to “stimulate” her brain into finding new pathways. It didn’t work.
Maybe the good blogtor should stick to his typing and not try to diagnose patients based on a tiny JPG on a website, which he is clearly not capable of understanding.
Many esteemed neurosurgeons have actually looked into Ms. Schiavo’s case, and 23 judges have heard thousands of pages’ worth of evidence. Everything people are bringing up now has been brought up many times before, and evaluated fairly by some pretty smart people. They’ve decided. It’s the right decision. Ms. Schiavo is already gone; not just her brain but the rest of her body is falling apart as well. Let her go.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
Why should he concede anything? Like you said, it’s his blog and he explained his reasoning with perfect clarity.
I think it’s safe to say that a lot of people have grown weary of the sensationalized villiany that either side wishes to paint the other.
Sounds more to me like you’re miffed that you got called out for it.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Sounds to me more like he posted in the middle of the huge foulup with the 900 yeard link that threw off the HTML tags for miles and miles. Probably just got accidentally deleted while AMP was trying to fix the mess.
Why don’t you just repost Alan?
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
“Otherwise healthy woman”?
She’s had her gallbladder removed because of persistent bile and kidney stones. She has “drop foot”, which has caused one of her toes to be amputated. She has frequent urinary tract infe ctions, diarrhea, and vaginitis. Several cysts have been removed from her neck. Her feeding tube often was infected.
Her body is disintegrating.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
You’re wrong here, Kim,
When Amp chose to highlight the comment of the writer who compared the ‘look’ of the eyes of Scott Peterson and Michael Schiavo — the writer purporting to discern guilt from such ‘look’ — Amp plainly ridiculed the comments of the writer as either laughable or worthy of tears.
When I highlighted the caustic comments of a different “frequent” writer(verbatim) in order to reveal personal and professional bias, mine was ommitted.
Me miffed … maybe? Me honest and accurate here … you bet.
But as I said before you decided to parrot, it’s his blog.
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
It seems to me that one reason why it’s “necessary” (obviously not for everyone) to resort to allegations of villainy is that it borders on the irrational to deny that people of good will can and do obviously differ on end of life decisions. Hence, the need to challenge an individual’s good will and impugn their moral standing to make a fair, reasoned, and compassionate judgment, whether that judgement is to petition the court, or to agree that the outcome of the petition might very well have been correct. I feel deeply about lots of things, and I like to think that I have an acute sense of right and wrong, but I look at this case and think that neither Michael Schiavo nor his in-laws were “wrong” in a fundamental way about their desired outcome, and that either decision might have been reasonable depending on what the evidence showed. The touchstone is what Terri wished, something we will never know for sure, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to all parties that they tried to do their best to figure out what that was, in spite of whatever bias or conflicts they brought to bear on the subject. I could go on and on about my experience with disabled people or my father’s terminal illness, and I know through professional experience more about health care law and government program reimbursement than I ever wanted to. None of it is relevant.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Ms. Schiavo’s wishes were made clear, not just to her husband, but to others, and a court determined that that issue was settled. The decision has been upheld over and over and over again. She would not have wanted to live this way.
What her “current wishes” are is nonsensical; she doesn’t have any wishes. She doesn’t have a functioning brain — no electrical activity. There’s no one there.
Even if Mr. Schiavo went away forever — if the kooks who have threatened his life succeeded in killing him, if he took the $10 million kook offer and ran — the court would not allow her feeding tube to be reinstated. They are following HER wishes, not HIS.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
It is very unfortunate that this case has caused so much incivility, not just inside Terri’s family, but in the public generally. Even on this blog, the best I’ve found on the subject, there’s been a very high level of name calling, demonizing and just plain shouting.
I think everyone might take a deep breath, as Amp suggests, and calm down a bit.
None of us has met Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer, nor the Schindlers, so far as I know. None of us attended the trial in question; so far as I know, none of us has even done so much as read the transcript. We may approve or disapprove of various things these people have said or done, but we are very poorly placed to determine these peoples’ inner motivations.
Like the tiresome person I am, I keep asking, if you-all are so unhappy about the way we make decisions here, what would you suggest? Only a few, like Sally, have attempted to answer this question in a calm enough tone of voice that I could figure out what they were saying. I don’t necessarily agree with her answer, but it did cause me to stop and think a bit, which is what a discussion like this is supposed to be all about.
Like many of us, I’ve been on a personal inner journey in this matter. I started out about two years ago firmly on the Schindlers’ side. Of course all I had seen was their website, which contains many errors and omissions, but a lot of valuable information as well. They more or less make the case that Michael is in it for the money, that he’s an adulterer, yada yada. I went along with their characterization of him as a bad man.
Then recently, when things heated up, I found out that the money is gone anyhow, and I started to ask myself, “What’s in it for Michael?” The money is gone. He’s moved on in his life, he has a new family. Why not just divorce Terri and walk away? Let her parents take over, they seem eager to do that. Is he just being bad, using up all this energy, listening to himself being villified, just for the fun of it?
Then I thought, Hey, maybe he really thinks this is what Terri wanted, and he’s trying to honor that.
That’s when I dug into the court cases and found out that what this is really all about is not Michael’s desire to see Terri expire, as the Schindler’s website asserts, nor about murdering someone just because they’re brain-damaged, but all about the allegation that this is what Terri wanted.
This didn’t move me over to the view, however, that the Schindlers are evil people. The way Terri’s mother is suffering is truly heartrending. I have adult daughters myself; I can only imagine what she is going through.
That’s when the lawyer in me kicked in. What this is all about, besides Terri’s wishes, is the rule of law. And the ancient principle that every individual has the right to refuse medical treatment. And the almost as ancient principle that once we’ve tried something in court, and appealled it to death, we don’t just go on and on forever just because some people don’t like the answer.
So I’d like to say a word here not just for all the members of Terri’s family, but for the judges who’ve tried very hard, and very successfully, to do their jobs responsibly in the face of a great deal of pressure, especially for Judge Greer and his staff; for the attorneys on both sides, who’ve worked many long nights on the huge number of pleadings involved; and for the nurses and hospice staff, who must be suffering a great deal in this hard time.
And for Amp, who’s running a very useful blog thread on all this.
And for Terri, as she was. A lovely, alert young woman whose conscious life tragically ended 15 years ago. May she rise with Christ.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Amen, to that Susan. Amen from another attorney w/ 29 years of practice under her belt.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
According to the state of Florida, yes.
765.102(3), Florida Statutes: “Life-prolonging procedure” means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. “
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Barbara says:
It is really too bad that you feel that way. This country has been built over hundreds of years by people with lots of knowledge about some/certain things and/or strong feelings about some things that had the courage to stand up and put in their 2 cents and say “This is what I think!”
Were it not for people willing to do that, we would not be the USA, we would still have legalized slavery and child labor, women would still not have the vote or be able to get birth control if they wanted it, heaven only knows how Vietnam would have ended …… I could go on.
Citizenship is not just about showing up every couple of years on election day after you’ve listened to the schlock and putting a check next to the lesser of two lousy options who often know too much glad-handing and not enough real world anything. If we are going to continue to be a nation, then we *need* your rational voice telling what you think on issues that you know about or are concerned with, no matter who you disagree with.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Robin-
I am not in Florida, nor am I privy to any information not found on the abstractappeal.com website, or in other public notices on the web. If you had read the court documents posted on the abstract appeal website, you would have found that the information about her attempt at pregnancy, was directly related to the charge of malpractice, against her physician. This was all laid out in court.
The hospice I am associated with, is in a very rural, very impoverished community — demographically the county is one of the worst in the country, in terms of poverty levels, unemployment, and education. We have no endowment to support indigent patients, nor an industrial base to provide large corporate gifts, as does the hospice that is taking caring of Terri. I’ve seen their IRS filing (also public info on the web) and believe me, it’s like comparing apples and oranges, in terms of finances. Our funds must be raised each and every day. I suspect that a higher percentage of our patients are indigent, and I can just about guarantee, that our patients remain in care longer on average, because a large number of our patients are chronically ill. And so our need for funding for these patients, is probably more urgent then theirs. I have no explanation for how or why they’ve supported her care, but can probably understand the spirit behind it.
But let’s be honest here. You are not interested in any of these things. You ask for citations, and discount them when they are provided. You claim to have studied the court documents, yet time and again, you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about the most basic facts of the case. You are unwilling to consider scientific evidence. You back away from statements you’ve made by claiming they’ve mysteriously appeared from some other source on your computer.
So there really isn’t any reason to continue this dialogue.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
A tube to provide nourishment and hydration is artificial life support. In my opinion, life savings drugs are artificial life support as well, because artificial means : humanly contrived often on a natural model : MAN-MADE.
Man-made my friends. What would have happened to Terri had this happened to her before this contraption had been invented 20 or 30 years ago? Intravenous feeding would have been used, arguably even more artificial, and she certainly would not have lived 15 years on intravenous drip!
And Robin sounds a little like that Robert Henson fellow, avoiding facts and creating issues that are tangenital to the discussion.
My humble opinion–if the court papers I have read are true–that Terri Shciavo ceased to exist 15 years ago. I pay no heed to what is NOW being said by the Schindler family, since they admitted in court that they believed she was in PVS.
I go further and say, that even if Terri had left a living will that stated she WANTED to be kept alive in such a state that it would be incumbent on the family alone to bear the burden not society. I do not like Bush but I am all for the law he signed in Texas. Probably the only thing I have ever agreed with him on.
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Atheist-
Agreed. I’ve wondered, if feeding tubes are so damned natural and risk-free, why we don’t all get one.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
I think we all need a reminder of what a portion of Cruzan v Director said:
That’s from the concurring opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
[Personal attack on Robin, deleted by Amp. That was way over the line, Alan.
And yes, I make an exception for myself, sometimes; as you say, it's my blog. I thought my comment was a comment on the general state of the debate; the poster I was criticizing was an example of how nasty and ridiculous the "Michael is evil" debate has become. In contrast, your post was (in my opinion) purely an attack on Robin, with no relevance to larger issues.
I hope you'll stay around, but if you don't like the moderation here, of course you're free to leave. But if you want to discuss this question further, please do it via email - alas at amptoons dot com - and not on the threads.
--Amp]
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
[Post containing Michael-is-so-evil comments deleted by Amp]
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Robin,
Never mind that it wasn’t Canada in the time you are refering to. Furthermore, there is this place caled Quebec, where they still speak French and want nothing to do with the Queen. Also never mind that it was the only place in Canada, Quebec that is, at that time that existed in any shape or form. Never mind the French there fighting against the British and supporting us in our revolution. I could go on and on, for days, but I think Alan J Denis has summed it up nicely.
Time to move on…
Adios
This comment was written by Dr. Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
[Personal attack on Alan deleted by Amp.]
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
What is now called Canada did indeed belong to the English - not the French - at the time of the American Revolution. The French ceeded all claims to England at the end of what we call in the US the French and Indian war - mid 1750’s. That particular part of the North American continent was indeed called Canada at the time and is referred to as such repeatedly in extant documents, many of which you can buy at Borders in republication. Hunt up the Deerfield Captive narratives - there are a number of them.
The part of North America that remained French territory after that time was the big bit in the middle that we bought in the Louisiana Purchase. All of that lies within the borders of the United States. If you take a peek at Canadian history you will see that Quebec was hardly the only province extant during the Revolution. The east coast was very well settled. Many of the Tories that left or were driven out at the time of the revolution settled in Nova Scotia.
The French nationalist movement in Quebec is rather new - or at least they have been making waves only for the last 30 years or so. When I was a child, Canada was quite literally ruled by England as one of the Dominions. The King/Queen of England remains the titular executive power in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a number of other former British Territories. Queen EII was the Empress of India until near 1960. Canada was released from Dominion as a single, united country. If the French speaking peoples of Quebec want to break the bonds that is their business, but until that happens the Queen is their Queen, like it or not.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
Emmetropia says
I am perfectly willing to accept scientific evidence. However, absent current testing - the newest is a decade or more old - then I am not about to accept as “scientific evidence” a diagnosis that is at best iffy. When a patient has malaria or strep throat or liver failure there is direct, clear, indisputable evidence that can be quantified and duplicated. That is scientific. PVS is a syndrome - a diagnosis that we apply to a given set of criteria rather than a given set of numbers. Some MDs see that criteria, others do not.
Had you bothered to refer to the original post that I was quoting in the “birth control” post you would have clearly seen that the statement I stated was not mine was in fact NOT MINE.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Amp,
99% of my post was a verbatim highlight of Robin’s rather caustic statements attacking physicians. I am not a physician.
In a single 14-word sentence, I questioned the potential bias and/or emotional stability which framed her comment.
So … what precisely was the “way over the line” part?
Thanks,
Alan
BTW, I DID e-mail you on this subject several hours ago.
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Isn’t the whole point of this family’s tragedy that it really isn’t our business, or Congress’s business, or anyone’s business but thirs. And we have a legal system, and a rule of law to deal with things when the family disagrees. The judiciary has done its job as best it can. We may not all agree with the decision, but you must agree that after all th is litigation, it’s been argued so much, and the decision has been consistent.. And people of good will can and do disagree, without being evil incarnate.
I didn’t agree with the FLA courts when they stopped the counts in Bush v Gore. But I supported the ultimate deision not because I liked it, but because it was the system working, imperfect though it may be. I happen to agree with the courts here. Same standard should apply, though, for all concerned. We don’t get to pick and choose and adhere only to the decisions we agree with.
Lots of people have to undergo these choices, fortunately outside the spectacle of the media and the politicians trying to convert a tragedy to political benefit. A pox on ‘em, and on partially informed people trying to second guess those who actuallyknow the facts. We should all go make our medical powers of attorney and tell our own kin our wishes, and leave this fractured family in peace. (tho’ what do you want to bet someone will try to shoot Schiavo. Sometimes there is a really frightening mob instinct in America.) 80% of the population, I read, thinks that Congress and the media should just butt out. Now THAT I agree with.
This comment was written by IT.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
Amp,
Let me frame my question to you another way.
Are issues regarding bias and stable emotions somehow not pertinent to these discussions?
Or is any suggestion that one who comments on the Schiavo case might possibly be subject to bias or emotionalism somehow “over the line?”
Thanks,
Alan
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
As opposed to your highly-informed, absolutely certain position, I presume.
Numerous very highly regarded certified neurologists have actually examined Ms. Schiavo and diagnosed her. They are all in agreement.
A handful of dissidents with suspicious agendas have said they don’t believe it, and a million residents of the bloviosphere have come up with their own diagnoses and conspiracy theories, based on ten minutes’ worth of medical education and an inch-square JPG. Very impressive.
Supporters of the Schindlers always argue as if none of this had ever come up before. But it has, repeatedly, endlessly. Most of the important court documents are available online. Please read them. The decision of the court was not taken lightly, not the first time nor in the umpteen revisits. The experts spoke at the trial.
The Schindlers had their chance in court too; many of them. That they are now resorting to outright charlatans and kooks in their most recent filings is unfortunate. The last motion dated March 24 had affidavits from a man who has invented a machine to translate thought waves into speech (though of course Ms. Schiavo has no thought waves); a doctor who makes at least one substantial error of fact that even I, a casual lay person, can detect (that the swallowing reflex indicates higher brain function), and who — again — has presumed to make a diagnosis based on watching TV; and a doctor in California who has diagnosed spousal battery by watching Fox News. His credentials include ten pages of appearances on local TV news programs.
The court quite rightly dismissed this farrago of nonsense.
The question is settled, and it was heard fairly. Exhaustively even.
It is unimaginably tragic that the Schindlers have allowed their grief to paralyze their ability to think clearly; after fifteen years their inability to accept the truth is heart-rending. But just because they have convinced themselves that their daughter is communicating with them doesn’t make it so.
On the other hand, for people who know nothing of the case, who have never met any of the participants, have read none of the court documents, are unaware of the most basic facts, to make this same mistake is not tragic; it’s farcical.
What is happening outside that hospice in Florida is a farce. It’s an affront to every decent person no matter what they believe. Convicted rapists sending their children in to be arrested? Raving kooks waving bibles and shouting obscenities at the neighbors? Crowds demanding that the governor and the president send in soldiers to carry her away, in the face of the courts and the police? 60 dying patients being denied their last few weeks or days of sunshine because of the screaming lunatics in the yard? Jesse freaking Jackson? It’s obscene.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
Right you are, Steve!
Cerebral cortex liquefied. Cognition gone forever. However sad and tragic, it is irreversible truth of fact. Of course, it’s only every unbiased neurologist and brain scan that supports this.
Then again, these morbid sorts who want Terri in diapers, unable to comb her own hair, chew food, feel joy or pleasure, read, hear touch, taste, feel, speak for — oh, I don’t know — perhaps ANOTHER 15 years or so … these protesters are doing what Terri wants, right?
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
I have worked with many, many doctors over the years and trained more than a few. In the “old days” - not that long ago BTW - doctors knew laboratory medicine, pharmacy, xray and did most of it themselves in their office. As the medical field has become more and more complex no one human being can no it all - including MDs. That is specifically why you go to a lab for medical tests, imaging for xrays, PET, CAT, MRI and pharmacy for your meds. When you are diagnosed with leukemia it was not the MD that discovered it. Maybe - and that is a big maybe - he suspected. Just as often some sharp-eyed scientist behind a microscope in hematology found it out of the blue while looking at your blood smear.
Today’s MD no longer learns laboratory medicine in medical school. That is why the lab reports all say HI or LO., dirty urine, etc. If you have a quantifiable disease it may be the doctor who delivers the diagnosis to you, but it the laboratory that has the expertise that defines the diagnosis for him.
In the 50s there were only three or four antibiotics, virtually no psychotropics and little else. Fit in a chest in the office quite nicely. Today just the book that illustrates all the drugs is nearly 4 inches thick - and it doesn’t include anything that has come on the market in the last year. Many of them require certain levels in your blood stream that must be monitored in a certain way. Nearly all of them act adversely with something else. No one MD can keep up with all of that. Most do not know more than the most common on adverse interactions and know only that a given drug must be monitored, not how to monitor it or even necessarily what the correct parameters might be. Pharmacist does that.
Imaging is so specialized and the machines so complex that the person who performs the testing for a PET may not know how to do a CAT. Your average MD likely could not find the on button.
Respiratory therapists draw blood gases in most places. An average MD may not have drawn a blood gas since medical school unless he works in ER.
An MD that specializes in OB/GYN may know nothing whatever about malaria other than some long-forgotten line from a textbook far away and long ago. An MD that spends his working life with the elderly would be hard pressed to beat a cop or firefighter if he had to deliver a baby.
Complex world, too much information - more than even the most brilliant can process. Today’s MD is NOT a God. Your doctor is your interface, your coordinator. The good ones know that - and if you work with them you can tell. The really good ones try really hard to learn the salient points they need for their practice from the true experts on their support teams - the lab, pharmacy and imaging folks. The superb physicians will go so far as to walk into the lab or the pharmacy or imaging and say “I’ve got this patient, this is what I see, what do you think?” when presented with a puzzle.
All those good, very good and superb ones are rare. I know exactly 4 that I would call superb. Most MDs come out of Med school with very swollen heads that don’t contain much - the God syndrome. They treat the experts in the support network as peons and all too often their patients too. MANY of them simply never get over it. Dangerous disease - leads to an awful lot of error and misses.
Familiarity breeds contempt. I am not the first and won’t be the last to state that I would NEVER take the word of an MD over the word of the RN or CNA that provides patient care directly when it comes to a conflict over a patient’s condition. Many - in some places virtually all - of non MD medical personnel feel exactly the same, as do many, if not most, of the very good and superb MDs. Neither would I take the word of an MD that I knew to be a victim of God syndrome over the word of a “superb.” Medical people watch how doctors do their jobs. They know the outcomes, the success rates and the failures.
If you find that derogatory or as you state a “caustic attack” - oh well. That does not make me biased or emotionally unstable in any way. It simply means that I, like everyone else, judge the ability of the people that I work with.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
I will assume for the sake of argument that “Uncle Ho” in the previous thread and “Robin” are right about the Judge mistakenly believing that Quinlan died in 1976.
The reason that he threw out the testimony by Terri’s friend that Terri made a “no plug pulling” statement after watching a movie about Quinlan in 1982 was because she could not have seen that movie in 1982. Quinlan did die in 1985, but she was taken off a respirator in the mid to late 1970s. At that point she breathed on her own, and continued to do so, in a coma, for the rest of her life. The TV movie about Quinlan (the only movie about her listed on the IMDB) aired in September 1976.
It is theoretically possible that the movie re-aired, or that it was recorded in 1976 by one of the very early (and expensive) VCRs. But it is also possible that the thrown out testimony said it was on TV and that there were no re-airings.
This comment was written by Legalbeagle.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
Convicted rapists sending their children to be arrested? My, my!
If you want to talk kooks, the doctor on which the court primarily relies diagnoses nearly every patient he consults on as having PVS. Felos, the husband’s lead attorney, thinks he can talk in his spirit to people in PVS and that it is his mission to release them. Even written a book.
Doctors diagnosing from a TV screen - well glory be! I hate to be the one to tell you, but that is exactly how physicians consult in many of the more remote areas of the US. Patient sits in front of a camera and it is broadcast to the consulting doc online. OOPS.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
I have appreciated this forum very much. I have seen very thoughtful comments and insights by Dr. Ted, by a neuroscientist, a neuropsychologist, a lawyer, a mother, daughter, granddaughter, pharmacist, and many others. But the raw emotion by some is an example of the lowered inhibitions some people can develop when they deal with others through non personal forums. Because of that there are some people who will not reallly contemplate on the concerns and knowledge of others. Maybe this is a good time to stop and think before typing whatever blurts out. Again, I implore all of us to think not only of science and physiology, but of the need to make sure that legislators don’t knee jerk reaction to this by passing legislation that will make it impossible for MDs to determine medical futility, for loved ones to make decisions for people who cannot communicate their desires in these issues, and certainly…please, we do not need more legislation that will require concensus before decisions can be made or upheld. We need to avoid changing the entire health care delivery system based on an occasional dispute. And that is what this is.. a family dispute that has become the forum for politics and self-interest groups on both sides. I keep seeing emotional arguments disguised as ethical arguments. They are not the same. Emotional arugments are not very effective methods for the engagement of critical thinking and the critical thinking is what is needed the most. Is it possible for us to lift the discourse up a notch to concepts that require critical thinking? Also, I appreciate the personal experiences and antedotes. Without them, we have little to think about. The human experience is profound and the discussions are hollow without that. Thank you all again because it helps me to see so many people who care enough to spend time on these issues. Thank you also for the kind remarks to my posts. God bless those of you who appreciate hospice nurses and staff. Night, night.
This comment was written by NursePractitioner.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
From my understanding, it’s not quite correct to say “cerebral cortex liquified”. The cortex has shrunk dramatically, and the space which it used to occupy is now filled with cerebro-spinal fluid. This fluid is not liquified brain stuff; it’s the normal CSF. There’s just way more than normal of it, because of all the space it has to fill. Space where her brain used to be.
And of course there’s those EEGs.
But don’t take my word for it; I’m no doctor. Take the word of the doctors who have examined her.
That’s all I’m saying; too quickly this discussion has turned into competing nitwits, of whom I am one, with instantly-formulated medical opinions they are not even remotely qualified to make. I mean, come on — a JPG on MSNBC and you’re a doctor now?
The real doctors have had their say, and the court acted accordingly. There has been a fantastic amount of baloney put forth on the internet, but all of the deliberate lies, the pathetic fantasies, the conspiracy theories, the raving nutjob opinions (”the CAT scans were switched!” “she can talk!” “I was watching the news and I have proof — she has an arachnoid cyst!” “people don’t need brains to live normally!”) that I’ve heard have been from one side and one side only.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
Leaglebeagle wrote:
Everything that I have read on this issue states that the judge specifically stated he discounted the testimony because he had believed that Quinlan died in 76, at which time Terri would have been only ~12.
Reruns are nothing new - we used to get a ton of them before cable TV :) That was ALL you got in the summer.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
This problem can be relieved in many patients with the installation of a shunt - plastic tube that carries the excess away. Standard procedure in infants with hydrocephalus. Not uncommon anymore in adults either. My mom was the first adult to get one of these after a couple of cerebral hemorrages and brain surgery to repair the damage. She was initially “vegetative” - PVS did not exist back then - but after the shunt had full recovery.
You might also note that an MD who specializes in geriatrics posted on the other page that he could line that up with CATs of a hundred of his patient and you couldn’t pick it out. The difference being the old folks weren’t vegetative.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
Thought ya’ll might be interested in this information from an article by Fang (2003) This is from the website for the American Society for Gastroenterology. I have put my comments within parenthesis).
This comment was written by NursePractitioner.“PEGs are frequently placed in persons of advanced age, neurologic impairment, or incurable disease. Patient survival after PEG placement is poor and reflects the underlying comorbidities of the patient rather than problems with the PEG. In large-scale retrospective studies, mortality rates at 30 days were 22% to 24%, at 1 year 50% to 63%, and at 3 years 77% to 81%. (this is a huge morality rate and that is what I have been trying to communicate on the blog, Terri has lived a very long time on the tube and could not sustain that forever…she is terminally ill)12,13 A retrospective cohort study of nursing home patients found no difference in survival between patients who were hand-fed and those who had PEGs. (though the rationale for PEGS in patients is often the weight loss that goes with end of life deline and debility) Available data does not suggest that PEG leads to significant improvement in rates of aspiration pneumonia, survival, pressure sores, infections, overall function, or palliation.14 (So they are inserted at times, giving false hope to loved ones and facility caregivers).
Outcomes are far better for persons receiving PEG for malabsorption, after stroke, and in patients with cystic fibrosis. Prospective randomized studies compare PEG with nasogastric tube feeding in patients with acute stroke and demonstrate that PEG-fed patients have reduced fatality rates and treatment failures, and improved nutritional status, convenience of nursing care, and earlier hospital discharge.f (here comparing tubes through nose and those through stomach, this is not saying that tubes should be permanent or are problem/risk free). Review of retrospective data demonstrates that 10% to 20% of patients will have recovery to oral feeding after PEG placement.15″. (The bibliography is listed at the end of the article on the ASGE website. The malabsorption mentioned can be improved with special formulas, but not all malabsorption problems can be solved. The main thing to remember is that eventually the gut will not tolerate the TF. Please note the part about aspiration and neuro impairment which is a main reason why many people recieve the tube. In other words, a lot of controversy might be avoided if the tubes were not placed inappropriately in the first place). (I am not saying Terri’s tube was intially inappropriate as sometimes evaluation for prognosis is needed. I am speaking in general terms, not rights or wrongs, just things to consider on a case by case basis.) Really night night, I think.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
Yes, I’ve heard of that — doctors in remote areas sit back and watch snippets of Fox News as their only diagnostic tool.
Right.
Mr. Felos believes in life after death. He thinks he can communicate with the spirits of both departed and not-yet-born people. That clearly makes him a “diabolic servant of Satan”, as one of his more articulate critics puts it.
Right.
Dr. Cranford’s diagnosis has been supported by numerous other doctors and was closely examined by the court. The Schindlers were given every opportunity — far more than the law allows — to contradict them, but have been unable to do so. His views about the rights of vegetative or terminally ill patients to die with dignity are shared by the vast majority who have had to deal with that situation. You may disagree with him, but you can’t seriously argue that his neurological credentials are in question.
If you are unable to draw any conclusions about the character of the protesters outside the hospice from what we have all seen there, then I can’t help you. There is a travesty taking place in Pinella Pines, but it’s not in any of the hospice rooms. It’s out on the lawn.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Steve writes:
And don’t forget patients in PVS who can beg him to release them (his words.) Why do you denigrate the religous beliefs of the protestors - beliefs that a good chunk of the population would consider reasonably normal - and yet have no problem with Mr. Felos rather radical ideas, far different than any mainstream religious teaching, that some might interpret as sociopathic and delusional?
I’m a Civil Rights and Vietnam era girl :) Those protesters outside the clinic are tame. One thing my mother taught me really early on was to never judge a book by its cover. It takes courage to stand up for what you believe in that manner. They should be admired rather than ridiculed.
With all due respect to the court, I would venture that Judge Greer simply does not have the knowledge to “closely examine” Dr. Cranston’s findings. His acceptance of them simply means that he liked Cranston best or those were the findings he wanted to accept. That acceptance does not actually lend any credibility to the truth of those findings.
I have not investigated Cranston’s credentials in great detail. I do know that his exam was performed years ago and that medical diagnosis of a given syndrome often changes over time. I have seen it written at a number of at least reasonably responsible sources that he is known for consulting on PVS and that he diagnoses virtually everyone as having PVS. I have also read - though I cannot attest to the truth of the thing - that someone to test him wrote up a case study of a patient and asked for his diagnosis, which was PVS. The patient that had been written up was in fact Dr. Stephen Hawkings, who of course does not have PVS.
I do know that there are several good physicians in the US Senate that examined what documents and video is available and have questions about the accuracy of the diagnosis. And it is being reported that more than 30 doctors disagree with the diagnosis. They cannot all be quacks.
From everything that I have seen, there is enough doubt that has been raised that surely a new examination by a disinterested party should have been called for prior to this judgement.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
More on these deeply principled “culture of life” people in Florida:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151540,00.html
A woman missed being by her grandfather’s bedside as he died because of the protestors. After he repeatedly told his only grandchild that he did not want to die alone. His last days were spent locked inside, unab le to move freely about the grounds.
Animals.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
Robin, Terri is not disabled. She is essentially dead. Think of nothingness that is what she feels and thinks now. One hundred years ago Terri would have died within weeks,not lingered on for 15 years. Disabled people who have profound cognitive impairment can still feel, they have emotions even if they can’t learn;this is not Terri. Terri is unaware of anything including herself. Re tube feeding a few of the residents I work with use this,this is a viable option for someone with Retardation who is at risk of aspiration.It is not viable for someone who is essentially dead for 15 years.
This comment was written by Janice.Report this comment to the moderators
March 29th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
It’s quite likely that upwards of 50% of the “protest crowd” have a very slim grasp of the facts and had no strong opinion about this case — or these types of cases — a year ago. Many in the protest crowd simply enjoy the act of rebellion — anti-establishment anything. And as you pointed out, Steve, often protesters are comprised of exploited youngsters.
I was thinking about what a cruel insult these particular protesters effectively deliver to every parent, spouse, child or guardian who has made the heartrending decision to withhold life support from a vegetative loved one.
Very sad and aggravating, indeed.
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Mr. Schindler, Terri Schiavo’s father…
[Rest of post deleted by Amp. Nothing personal, Steve, but please reread the posting rules for this thread.]
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:01 am
The protestors reportedly only start up with the loud praying, acting out in the street, sign waving, etc. when the camera crews are there, and leave as soon as they do.
That’s from the poor sucker who has an auto-repair shop next door, which business is being destroyed by these salty nut bars.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:31 am
Randall Terry, Jesse Jackson, Bo Gritz, Rick Santorum.
Bill Tierney, a former military intelligence officer who has publicly bragged about committing torture in Iraq, and how “sadism” is both inevitable and “fun”. He’s there too, tears streaming down his cheeks.
http://billmon.org/archives/001784.html – follow the links and be amazed.
No word on when the Ringling Brothers will get there.
Is it possible for an entire country to be mentally ill?
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:34 am
If you know you can’t attest to the truth of something like that, why on Earth do you repeat it?
The lie about Hawking - and it is a lie - is derived from a misreading of a National Review article, in which the author claimed that Dr. Cranford had misdiagnosed a patient in a state allegedly similar to Hawking’s as having PVS. And that was a lie, too - Crawford didn’t diagnose the man as having PVS. I discuss this question a bit in this post.
To some extent, I think you’re right; the Schindlers chose a very poor expert witness, who would strike almost any objective person as not being credible. In that sense, the Judge probably did like Cranford - and a couple of other doctors who testified - “better.” But credibility is a perfectly logical and reasonable reason to like one witness better than another.
As for the doctors in the Senate, give me a break! Of course they’re hacks; they’re professional politicians. Plus, are we supposed to take the word of doctors who haven’t even examined the patient?
Of the nine neurologists who have personally given Terri a medical examination, eight agree. The ninth - Dr. Hammesfahr - has no credibility. It’s simple desperation that you’re trying to tell us that doctors in the Senate who have never examined Terri have more credibility than eight neurologists who have.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:40 am
Interview of Dr. CRANFORD on CNN
Let’s take a look at what Dr. Cranford has to say. He examined Ms. Schiavo in person for 42 minutes and it was a 2002 (3 yrs old, right?) CAT scan that he reviewed. I think he does rather nicely in this, given that his interviewers are so uninterested in getting to the facts.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:55 am
I did, and I reread them again before I posted. I don’t think my post was in violation of those rules. I did not call Mr. Schindler a bad person in any way; in fact I went out of my way to suggest that he is motivated by grief. The story I linked to is very important, I think, in understanding how crazy the situation has become.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 1:07 am
And Judge Greer would agree with you. That’s why he didn’t just ask one doctor. He asked a lot of them. And Greer’s opinion has been reviewed, and upheld, more times than just about any court decision I’ve ever heard of.
You mention “30 doctors” but who the heck are they? People that Hannity & Colmes were able to persuade to come on TV? There’s an infinite supply of THOSE kind of “experts”. But the doctors who actually know something about the case agree: Terri is gone, and has been for 15 years.
The “good doctors” in the senate: they’re neurologists, right? They’ve examined Ms. Schiavo, haven’t they? They’ve examined the court papers, right? There’s no possible chance that maybe they’re grandstanding for the public, is there?
Felos’s spiritual views are pretty much bog-standard new age stuff. There’s nothing that weird or radical there. I think it’s a load of rubbish, but his religion isn’t in question here; his argument before the court is. It was successful, what is it, eleven times now?
What I am trying to get across, Robin, is that neither you nor I know enough to say “there is enough doubt that has been raised that surely a new examination by a disinterested party should have been called for”. That’s absurd. You’ve spent how many hours examining the case — I’m talking about real evidence here, not posting on blogs. You have how much legal training to understand them? Or medical?
But other people have.
This was not a hasty decision; nor was it an unusual one. Feeding tubes are removed all over the country every day. It’s the humane thing to do in some circumstances. It’s usually a difficult decision; always a painful one. But this case is in fact the most settled, the most clear, one of its type to ever come down the pike.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 1:11 am
It’s a thing of beauty, and I think Dr. Cranford will find, like Jon Stewart before him, that when people stop being so cowed by these shouting morons on TV, and tell them to their faces exactly how full of crap they are, that the majority of normal people in this country (I pray it’s a majority) will stand up and applaud the for it.
And it’s not a left-right issue; there are shouting morons of all or almost all political stripes on TV. They disgust me. And I think this issue is going to turn a lot of people off them for good.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 1:23 am
In addition to the eight of nine doctors who have examined Terri Schiavo and agree re: Irreversible Brain Damage and PVS, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel asked three independent neurologists to view and comment on the T. Schiavo brain scans.
“This is as severe brain damage as I’ve ever seen.”
— Dr. Leon Prockop, Professor and former Chairman of Neurology, University of South Florida College of Medicine
“I doubt there’s any activity going on in the higher levels of her brain. I’m almost certain it has no neurons [brain cells responsible for thought] in it.”
— Dr. Walter Bradley, Chairman of Neurology, University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine
“Neurons do not grow back.” “The chance that this person is going to recover is about zero.”
— Dr. Michael T. Pulley, Assistant Neurology Professor, Shands Jacksonville Hospital, affiliated with the University of Florida Medical School
Just a thought: If there was any real, credible neurological evidence to refute the nearly universal medical opinions in this tragic case, wouldn’t you think that honorable docs from around the world would long ago have descended on Pinellas Park with a credible case to espouse?
I mean, if there wasn’t this murderous conspiracy, and all.
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 1:27 am
I’ve read through almost all of the posts and felt the need to say something. I’m young but have expressed my wishes to my family about what I would want if I was diagnosed as terminal. I would not want to be kept alive through machines. I’ve worked in the medical field for about 10 yrs, I also live in Texas.
This comment was written by victoria.My cousin was diagnosed as brain dead late last year. He was barely out of his teens. It’s very hard to make the choice to turn off life support when you are looking at your child — and who for all intent and purposes seems to be alive — but you have to do the best thing for them and sometimes it’s letting that person go. My aunt DID NOT murder my cousin when she turned the machines off. A brain that is denied of oxygen for too long dies. You can not jump start a brain. Without our brain we become a shell.
Yes a person can be kept “alive” indefinately through the marvels of science and medicine. But is a person alive when a ventilator is breathing for them, when a dialyis machine is doing the job of the kidneys, when a feeding tube is releasing nutrients directly into your stomach? Before I get jumped on, I realize that all of the above are not the case for Mrs Shiavo. If it is true what her parents have said they would do in regards to her treatment is she were to get worse (ie amputation and heart surgery) someone needs to despertly help these people. I’m not saying they are neccesarily bad but they are in need of grief counseling. Can they honestly say in their heart that Terri would be the same if all that was left was a torso and a head? Could they honestly and willingly say that would be better for their daughter? If she can feel the pain of starvation wouldn’t she feel that pain too? Would you want your own child to be in that situation?
I’m not sure what type of feeding she was receiving. But as part of my job I have made feedings for patients in comas and PVS. They are called TPNs and basically its a bag of medication. It’s not a hmaburger and fries. It’s composed of insulin, magnesium, potassium and the like.
If food or water was pushed down her throat and she choked and died, would that be murder? It’s been reported that she said “AHHH WANNA” when asked if she wanted to live. What if she was trying to say “I want to die”.
And as far as the CAT scan …. hello HIPPA? The release was a major violation. And the hospice nurses. I’m a pharmacy tech and if I saw a patienrt’s rights being violated I would contact the state medical board. If it is true what they saw are they being proscuted for their major violations and derelcition of duty?
AN infant was buried in Texas a few weeks back. His life support was turned off. Where were his protestors? Where was the pro-life attorney ?
Let her go home to heaven where she can be whole again.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 1:58 am
These conflicting comments are interesting.
“But even the very best of neurologists has absolutely no real clue as to whether or not Terri is present inside that head or not.”
“All too many of them are little better than quacks that I would not allow to treat my stuffed rabbit.”
— Robin on March 29th, 2005 at 6:18 am
“I do know that there are several good physicians in the US Senate that examined what documents and video is available and have questions about the accuracy of the diagnosis. And it is being reported that more than 30 doctors disagree with the diagnosis. They cannot all be quacks.”
— Robin on March 29th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 4:00 am
Robin, I have to go to work and actually get something done today, but you are wrong about what the court said on Karen Quinlan. You are truncating what it said, and merging its findings with regard to what Terri said at the time the Karen Quinlan lawsuit was being decided (when Terri really could have been no older than 13) and what one of her friends might have heard her say later during the airing of the movie. This finding was also colored by the fact that the friend’s testimony (or her memories of its alleged certainty) changed substantially between her deposition and her trial testimony. Please go read the initial decision again. The judge also refused to credit other testimony in favor of discontinuation of life support as being relevant to the issue.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 4:37 am
Okay Robin, you win. I do not have the time, nor the energy to keep this up and find every single selective case that supports my conclusions. As for what you said about Canada, you are correct on every point. MY point was merely to point out that gross generalizations are being thrown around here like nobody’s business. To that end, you forgot to mention the Quebec Act, signed by King George (if my memory is correct), that essentially left the French untouched by English rule here in Quebec. Whatever you might read in a history account about Quebec cannot replace the social history of the place, which has always and will always be French. The past 30 years have been known as the Second Revolution or the “Silent Revolution”. I assure you that the First Revolution has never stopped.
I’m leaving, thanks to Amp and many other, but especially Nurse Practitioner, Susan and Barbara. I have been enlightened by your sharing of reliable info. Amp has another discussion waiting to go under “Scientific American throws in the towel” which, if I may, I would like to invite people to for a discussion of evolution (I imagine I am overstepping my bounds on your post, so cut away if you will).
This comment was written by Dr Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 5:40 am
This discussion seems to have deteriorated into personalities and politics. Some of the issues and principles that are still open to discussion are:
- how is a person’s proxy decided when none has been appointed (actually, there are laws that have been made to determine this- in TS case her husband is the legal decision maker)
- how do we as a society make decisons on how to allocate resources (note tht I don’t say scarce, as we have lots of mondy for some things but none for others)
- how do we define life
- and a biggie for me that I haven’t seen discussed: once we have a technology, do we have to use it, and if we start to use it are we obligated to continue to use it or can it be stopped- either because it is deemed futile (by whom- a whole other issue) or not practical
For example, woman have babies (some exceptions, but biologically true for the population women) Becasue she can, does she have to? Once she starts, does she have to keep doing it? If there is technology involved, does it need to be continued at all costs, just becasue we can, rather than determining what she (the individual) wants (her autonomy and self determination).
This is not as well constructed as I would want as I am really late for work. I hope that this blog can continue to discuss some of the issues, rather than the politics and personalities of the current players.
This comment was written by Mary A.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 5:52 am
Bravo mary !
As for how we define life…I heard an interesting story awhile back, I think it was Stephen Hawking, who, simply for the sake of argument, asked, “Are computer viruses alive?” If not, Why not?
I apologize, but I think you lost me on the baby anaolgy. But, when there is a new technology, are we obligated to use it? I haven’t thought this through, but I would say the only obligation is the oath that doctors take stating they will do everything in their power to save and preserve life. But it does pose all sorts of questions doesn’t it?
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 6:21 am
Mary in post #143 says:
how is a person’s proxy decided when none has been appointed
Michael Schiavo went to the court long ago and said,in essence: look, I want YOU to decide for us whether to pull this tube. He presented his side, the parents presented theirs, the docs presented theirs, and the COURT ruled to pull the tube.
This comment was written by Frances.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 6:29 am
Also, I believe that Florida has a default process that is similar to that used in many other states to appoint a proxy. A spouse, if there is one, is usually ranked first, and so on. Really, Florida followed a pretty well established legal process. The judge did not make it up as he went along. If you think the Florida process was flawed, what would you put in its place?
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 6:34 am
The only issue I have with this whole process, is that I wish, once the decision has been made to allow her to die, that we euthanize her rather than starve her. I think we can at least do it in a somewhat dignified manner
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:12 am
I think this is an important topic, especially so far as it relates to the use of feeding tubes, Mary.
New medical technology, originally intended for discrete patient populations, tends to be applied for wider use as time passes. That is the reality of an economic system which seeks to maximize profits.
The use of feeding tubes, which had a narrowly defined use initially, are now regularly used for Alzheimer’s patients in nursing homes, essentially as a cost-cutting measure. Their use reduces the staff time needed to feed patients, who as their condition’s decline, take longer and longer to feed at each meal. While I would argue that something is lost in this use of technology, physical life is being maintained. Given the astronomical rate of Alzheimer’s, chances are good that many of us here, can expect to have a tube inserted at some point.
While some see only the good that feeding tubes provide, in terms of their ability to prolong life, there is also an inherent profit motive in their use. While the Pro-Life sector might argue their position from a moral point of view, and insist that the state always err on the side of life, there remains
a dark side if this position is adopted by the state.
Would the intrinsic moral value of “life at all costs,” be modified if Halliburton was awarded a sole source contract to provide those feeding tubes?
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:51 am
The analogy of the brother who suffered brain death and was on a ventilator is a good one for this. Sure the ventilator makes breathing occur, but that cannot last indefinately either. My sympathy to this family. However, the most important commonality is the no EEG (brain wave) activity in that case and Terri’s. When one looks at the Harvard criteria for brain death, that is a key factor. For those wanting to address the question as to whether or not we should use the technology of the TF (PEG), please read my previous post about tube feedings. That is a great question. It will not have a yes or no question common to all patients.
This comment was written by NursePractitioner.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:55 am
Feeding tubes although viable in some cases still cause a lot of health problems. Personally I know residents who are tube fed due to risk of aspiration who regurgitate and swallow what they have brought up. So they are still at risk of aspiration and some have died from this. Tube fed people will also put on a lot of weight if the amount they are fed is not monitored carefully. Some PMR residents will pull their tubes out if not strictly monitored (not on purpose they just see it and yank on it) causing it to be inserted again. The tubes also disintegrate and have to be replaced. Tube sites can become infected even if scrupulous hygiene is maintained; they are after all a foreign body.
This comment was written by Janice.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:39 am
I don’t really know the particulars of how this law applies in this case, but by analogy with law regarding suits for defamation of character and such, Terri Schiavo Incapacitated and her parents and, unfortunately, Michael Schiavo, have all become public personae because of the publicity initially sought by the Schindlers. As any public person, their expectations of privacy are significantly modified if specific steps are taken to compromise them and their is no opposition. Mr Schiavo may retain some defensible expectations of privacy, but not the Schindlers and, unfortunately, not their daughter, who can’t say or defend with anything.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:04 am
I think everyone has tried to over theorize this whole event. I would like to use a few examples of what we have been seeing and how we would react to these with different circumstances/situations.
1. A mother has a 6 month old baby, she decides it is a burden and doesnt want to care for it(even though someone else would love to care for that child). So she stops feeding and hydrating her baby. The baby can’t say I am hungry, I want to live. So the baby will die because it doesn’t have the ability to express what SHOULD be done by the people surrounding it.
I just want to say I pray for Terri. When this is all said and done this argument will be abandoned and Terri WILL be forgoton(mainly by the people on the side of death) and life for us will move on(well until maybe something likes this happens to us).
I remind these same people that we are in a temporary residence on earth and how we act to what happens in our life, and how we believe here, constitutes how we will be recieved when we die. Killing someone because one man wants her dead is not the right choice for any rational person, especially when there are people that would care for the person that is sick. The questionable thing in all this is, there is only 1 person that indicates she didn’t want to live this way but everyone else that knew her disagrees. I am awaiting the ruling and vote this morning from Florida.
A New Mexico Guy
This comment was written by New Mexico Guy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:07 am
I just wanted to add that my wife works with the mentally disabled and there are people way worse off than her that ARE in the public. That have to have the saliva sucked out of their mouths so they don’t choke and so on.
This comment was written by New Mexico Guy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Strictly speaking, people, this is not and cannot properly be a medical discussion, as Robin and others keep asserting. It is not our job to, nor can we, even those of us who are neurologists, re-diagnose Terri Schiavo.
This is a discussion of the law, or should be.
The question of the diagnosis (which is somewhat secondary) and the question of Terri’s preferences (which is primary) were both settled in a court of law. Much has been made in some quarters of Judge Greer’s failure ever to visit Terri, but actually such a visit would have been most improper, and possible grounds for the reversal of his decision. (For the same reason, a juror who, on his or her own, who goes to visit the scene of the accident in question is automatically disqualified.) The rule is, the evidence is all presented in court, and only what comes into the court is to be considered.
The Schindlers had the opportunity to call neurologists of their choice, and they did so. All the neurologists called by the Schindlers agreed about the severity of the brain damage here; two however thought that some therapy might be helpful, though nothing could restore Terri to anything like normal functioning. One was a man widely thought to be a quack. The two neurologists called by Michael Schiavo, and the fifth, a man appointed by the court, all agreed - actually, all five of them agreed - that the brain damage was very severe - and further these three did not think that any therapy would make much difference to Terri’s functioning.
Am I a neurologist? And even if I were, have I examined this patient? I’m not even Judge Greer, who made the decision. He did make a decision, and now we’re all bound by that, whether we like it or not. That’s how we do things here. Robin, if you have a better idea, please feel free to share it, but know that most of us are not ready to turn all decisions in this country over to your unfettered personal certainties.
This case is about two things:
1. Terri’s wish, which it has been found was to disconnect that tube, and
2. The rule of law.
Those who are so violently emoting around how horrible all this is, at this blog, on site and elsewhere, are quarelling with one of these two, usually both. That is, they wish - and I think this is the height of arrogance, by the way - to override Terri’s own wish in the name of some principle or their superior wisdom or something, and they do not accept the rule of law. I devoutly hope that none of these people get loose if I am ever in this condition. So far, it looks as though the rule of law will prevail regardless of this irresponsible hysteria, and for that we should all be grateful.
People who dispute the rule of law, who wish to substitute Their Own Preferences, are really frightening, for obvious reasons.
However, interestingly enough, this case further provides a springboard for a discussion of wider import, like the very interesting question raised by Mary, to wit, just because we have a certain technology, are we thereby required to use it in every case? I’d say No, but that throws us into a position where we have to make some very difficult moral decisions, decisions which we were spared for the thousands of years during which the Terri Schiavos of this world simply died outright of the initial trauma. I’m hoping we have the wisdom, because we’re going to have to make the decisions, whether we want to or not.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:14 am
medical tests, records and CAT scans fall under PPI. Protected medical information which is supposed to be just that. It doesn’t matter if she is a celebrity. I really don’t see her family suing on her behalf because her information was posted on the web. It shouldn’t matter if you’re Tom Cruise or just a patient in hospice, no one (the genreal public) has the right to view your personal medical information. I sincerelty doubt her husband gave authorization
This comment was written by victoria.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:23 am
Brad, I sympathize with your position. Wouldn’t it be kinder just to euthanize her? The only reason I can think of that this is not being done is that it would open a door to behavior which I’m not at all sure we are wise enough to control.
Perhaps that door will be opened, or is open already. That we affirmatively kill some patients. But I’m troubled by it, as I think most people are.
A word too for Mary Schindler. This woman is clearly off the deep end, and probably has been for years, but what she’s been through would derail nearly anyone, I think. It’s a pity that both of Terri’s parents were not able to keep their balance here, and to accept what happened to their daughter now 15 years ago. The articles I’ve read say PVS is like that: the body is there, the eyes are open, random gestures and vocalizations are made, and love and memory fill in the rest. It’s a fantasy, but an extremely compelling one. I don’t doubt for an instant that Mrs. Schindler is telling the absolute truth when she says that every night when she closes her eyes what she sees is Terri’s face as she is starving to death.
Terri of course sees and feels nothing, as she has for many years now. But her mother is suffering unspeakably. I hope Mrs. Schindler finds comfort and peace when this ordeal is over.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:24 am
victoria, it is possible that this scan was entered into evidence in court, in which case it is a public record. Such introduction waives any confidentiality.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:29 am
Being one that has study HIPAA quite extensibly, and seeings how I don’t exactly know how the information was leaked, there is something called “incidental disclosure”. If 2 Medical professionals are discussing health information of a patient and someone in the room(having no medical participation in the case) over hears it then it is deemed an “Incidental disclosure”(Which by the way should be documented). It can trickle from there, but becusse the information was not intended for the person that overheard it the blame falls on the person that re-iterates that information on to more people. My guess is a family member, press, police or someone not affilitaed with the Hospice heard, saw etc. the information and pased it on.
This comment was written by New Mexico Guy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Has anyone looked ito the possability of an annulment of Terry’s marrage by
This comment was written by George.the Catholic Church? There by reverting gaurdianship to the parents
Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Susan, I agree that we may not be, at least as yet, capable of controlling the affirmative killing. However, we need to get to that point.
My own discomfort eased when i realized, that is what we are doing anyway, we can just do it better.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Our legal rights (at least the federal ones) are basically negative, not positive affirmations. We have the right to be free of abridgement, intrusion, or government action that interferes with certain basic rights. We don’t have an affirmative right to demand the right to basic needs, such as health care, or even food or water or anything else. So, I can demand that I not be required to ingest food. I cannot demand that I be supplied with life ending medicines. In Terri’s case, IMHO, I do not think anyone including her husband would agree to be the direct agent of her death.
As for Terri’s records, in addition to having become public via inclusion in an apparently unsealed court record, the federal law referred to above did not go into effect until much of the material in the case had already been disseminated outside of the hospital or health care provider that had created it. I would also say that, notwithstanding how obnoxious disclosure is to Terri’s right of privacy, in many ways the parties (esp. Michael Schiavo) would likely be doing themselves no favors by refusing disclose it.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:16 am
Terri’s parents have shown little regard for her privacy by posting those awful videos on the internet.
One of my own grown daughters says that whatever else is done, if something like that happens to her, she absolutely prohibits the internet posting of pictures of her grunting and flopping about.
Yes yes I know they thought it was in a good cause. But this whole business makes me uneasy whenever anyone mentions privacy.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:22 am
I’m uncomfortable with PAS and euthanasia because of the profound potential for abuse.
Plus, it’s harder to justify them using the most important justification for refusing medical treatment: the right to sovereignity over one’s body that includes the right to refuse any medical treatment. Medical treatment is recognized as invasive; if the patient doesn’t consent to it, it’s battery. You can make a more tangential argument around the right to determine when to end one’s life and exit one’s body, but it’s different from having the right to allow one’s life to end naturally.
But patients do have the right to opt for treatments that ease pain even if they could potentially bring death sooner: enough morphine to slow respiration, for example.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:24 am
“grunting and flopping about” - You remind of that sicko on tv that said something about “Slobbering all over myself”. Have some respect.
This comment was written by New Mexico Guy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:25 am
Is potential for abuse enough to say we shouldn’t do it at all though?
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:31 am
My compliments to Ampersand for this excellent blog. The discussions here were outstanding and so were the links. I am not American and had not followed the case until recently. I have read plenty of material here and am grateful for very, very many contributions.
This comment was written by Daniela.I’d like to raise a point that I have not seen yet debated. Why Terri should not die at her home. I understand she has been in the hospice so long, that for all practical purposes the hospice is her home. And of course to her it would make no difference. However, she is not using medical technology that would not be available in any bedroom, and it would be easy for the hospice to provide personnel for the short period that she is left. This would first of all allow privacy and quiet for every other guest (and visitor) at the hospice. Would make it easier for the police (they’d have to control way, way less people that ask to enter the building). Would, of course, be inconvenient to the Schiavo’s neighbours, but it is now inconvenient to the hospice’s neighbours. As for the partner and the children of Michael, they could of course stay at friends for a few days, or choose to stay at home, it is impossible for me to give any advice on that, but I am sure their life these days is disrupted and it seems to me the extra inconvenience would be small. I am sure lots of people at the hospice would be grateful to be able to go out in the sun with a wheelchair without having to pass through a metal detector and without seeing the slogans and prayers of noisy protesters.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:39 am
Just a note:
The correct terminology is as follows:
HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)
PHI (Private Health Information)
EPHI (Electronic Private Health Information - which is what the CAT scan would fall under)
Being a public personality does not change the rules on PHI & EPHI. Only the patient and/or the patients legally recognized guardian can make the decision to make PHI available to the public.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Yes, Jake, but the law has been in place for less than two years. My understanding is that most of the information floating around was disclosed prior that time. Also, if it goes into court without a protective order, it really isn’t protected anymore, at least not in the hands of non-health care types.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Mrs. Schindler’s most recent (mini) press conference had her openly imploring the following into a media microphone and on broadcast TV camera: (Not verbatim, but very close, as I recall)
“Michael and Jody … I’m begging you … you have your own children … give me back my child.”
I think it continues to be purposeful to examine the specific statements that people make in this case. It is frequently revealing with respect to motivation, bias, perspective, etc. One can’t help but notice a couple things here.
First, the mere act of Mrs. Schindler verbalizing her entreaty directly at Michael implicitly propounds to demonize the man. It’s the same pathetic PR strategy that Schindler family clergyman, Brother O’donnel, utilized last week when he would implore: “… Please, Michael … have compassion …” Part of the intended effect is to present/paint the petitioner as “persecuted” and the respondednt as “controlling and lacking in compassion.”
Second, Mrs. Schindler doesn’t beg for Terri to have the opportunity to enjoy more of her own (Terri’s) life, or speak to the basic pleasures, activities and contributions that Terri has yet to experience and look forward to. Rather, it is “…Give ME back MY child.”
With respect to anyone who has suffered the loss of a family member (I know what it’s like), it’s not callous for us to yearn for unselfishness in our fellow travelers during this life — even at the most difficult times. It’s not cold-hearted to suggest that, after 15 long years, Mrs. Schindler might consider TERRI’s state of existence and TERRI’s possible end-of-life wishes as a significant priority over her (Mrs. Schindler’s) maternal instincts.
Although much easier said than done … if you love someone, set them free. Let her meet God and have command of her every faculty imaginable.
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Before hastily assuming that one knows everything there is to know about Terri Schiavo based on the condition of her brain, give some humble and thoughtful consideration to this Boston Globe article by a neurologist at Harvard Medical School:
This comment was written by Jack V..Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Susan wrote:
Susan, I had written a reply to a post you made yesterday that somehow magically disappeared, but since you ask let me put in a final $0.02.
This case greatly disturbs me, as I am sure is clear. I am sure that some feel that I don’t have enough “respect” for Terri’s wishes as put forth by her husband. Others I am sure feel that I don’t have enough respect for the law. Be that as it may -
This is always a horrifying decision for a family to have to make. I know, because my family has had to make decisions like this, most recently for my 4 year old great neice, who died on my sister’s - her grandmother’s - birthday. That, like the Schindler-Schiavo battle, was a pretty acrimonious situation. The funeral was absolutely devastating, let me tell you. Truthfully, I am surprised that no one ended up in jail.
My heart breaks for everyone personally involved in the Schindler-Schiavo tragedy. And that is exactly what it is - a horrible personal tragedy that has become a national tragedy involving every single one of us.
I wish with all my heart that these folks had worked this out between them long, long ago. I wish that the feeding tube had never been put in in the first place all those many long years ago. I am specifically not against not initiating treatment in hopeless situations or withdrawing life support - which I define as breathing assistance ie a ventilator, kidney dialysis, pacemaker, etc. - when all hope is lost. Turning off the ventilator is what we had to do for my great neice. But my great neice died of an incurable fungal infection in her lungs. We had no choice. She would never have recovered and to continue treatment was only prolonging her obvious agony.
It is my belief, however, both as one who has gone through this three times (once I was removing my own self from a ventilator) and as a medical professional quite used to reading the charts and the numbers that food and water are not “life support” and should not be defined as such, as they are not in some states.
A patient that is on a ventilator will either breath on his own when it is removed or he will die in pretty short order. Our little one died in under ten minutes from the time the vent was turned off. A patient on kidney dialysis generally has to be dialyzed every couple of days. There is not too much leeway between failure to do the dialysis on time and death. Note that Terri will not die until after her kidneys have failed. A patient that requires a pacemaker won’t live long without one and there are worse ways to go than a heart attack.
As we are all witnessing, death by starvation and dehydration is a LONG process. In a dying cancer patient this kind of death may very well be kind - often cancer patients have no hunger or thirst anyway. For you or me, our pet dog, a starving child in Africa it is a cruel and horrendously painful process. Were any of us anywhere in this land to starve our pets or our animals in this way we might very well go to jail. We are not allowed to starve and dehydrate the most horrendous of killers, sentenced to death and truly deserving of such, or our prisoners of war. Not a single meal can they miss. Death row inmates are usually even allowed to order a “last meal” of their choice. So, my very first problem with this is the manner in which it is being done. I believe this to be a crime against humanity, no matter how “legally” it has been done. That it has been judged “legal” makes it neither morally or ethically correct.
I have many problems with this judgement, many of which I have stated repeatedly. If I had to choose, as a medical professional, given all the he said/she said on both sides, I would insist that there be a new evaluation done by some independent neurologist specifically not associated with any of the various parties that have been involved in this long and bitter war - including all the various organizations that have provided funding on both sides.
Part of the reason that I would insist on that evaluation is because I know just how rapidly medical knowledge changes. Sheer impossibilities this week will bc common this time next year. Even if the CAT we have all been looking at was taken in 2003 it is old. However, my understanding is that no brain imaging has been done since Terri was taken out to California early on ?93 for the experimental brain implants. There was some discussion early on page 1 of the fact that the metal in her head would prevent many types of imaging. If that is the case, this CAT is downright ancient. For all you will hear that brain and nerve tissue don’t regenerate, stranger things have happened. Both Christopher Reeves and I were living proof.
The second half of the reason that I would insist on a new evaluation is that I do not believe that enough has been done by the judge to insure that all parties feel that they were treated fairly and that their concerns were adequately addressed. It is readily apparent that a huge part of the problem goes back to the initial war, whatever that was about. In our legal system parents of an adult child may not have legal rights equal to the husband’s but they most certainly do have moral rights that are the equal of his. Those moral rights should have been accomodated by this court.
Unfortunately, that has not been done. During the time that my little neice was ill and dying, the two families had an ongoing custody battle - very acrimonious - initiated by the mother’s abandonment of the child at the cancer treatment center. Our judge, no matter how bitter the feud, would never in a million years have allowed my sister as guardian to take some - well, many, actually - of the actions that have occurred in this case, apparently from the very day that Felos became involved, starting with the initial notification of the court action to terminate the feeding tube. That was more than 7 years ago. Our judge did not care how conniving or scheming the other party was purported to be from either side. Our judge also specifically did not allow a single red cent of my neice’s assets to be spent on anything at all other than items that directly benefited her. Over his dead body anybody would have paid a single dime in attorney fees out of my neice’s funds, as has been done in this case. And our judge made sure that my neicce had her very own, independent Guardian ad Litem that was a practicing attorney to represent her interests. I believe that had that been done in this case it might have led to a better outcome all around.
There is one other thing that our judge specifically did NOT allow. While he sealed the records from the public, all financial records and all medical records had to be available to the non-custodial mother at all times, on request. I believe that the Schindlers should have had equal access to those records, despite Michael’s guardianship. I think many questions and appearances of irregularities might have been avoided.
I do not believe that Attorney Felos should have been allowed to represent Michael Schiavo, specifically because he has a special interest in right-to-die cases. I would say the same were he associated with right-to-life. I believe that the interests of fairness, justice and judicial equality demand that in situations like these the attorneys involved must be as independent as possible of prejudice. I know that normally one is entitled to the attorney of one’s choice, but I believe in this kind of situation limitations must be placed. Special interest groups have fanned the flames on both sides here over nearly a decade. I think if we want to insure an outcome that everyone is comfortable with then the special interest groups and special interest lawyers need to be kept away.
I am not an attorney - perhaps some one can help here - but it is my understanding that ever since that PVS diagnosis way back when, the Schindlers have been required to prove that Terri could and was improving, not just that she was in some other type of minimally concious state. I believe that to be unfair and unethical when you are talking about the life of an innocent human being. To my mind, the Schindlers should have been allowed to go back to the court at any time - once a year or so - if they felt a new evaluation and judgement was required, just as child support recipients/payees are allowed back in court anew should income change. Terri, after all, is not a criminal.
I stronglybelieve that when the husband announced his engagement to another woman, cohabitated with her and fathered children by her, he should have been removed as the guardian. Our laws give primacy to the spouse in these situations based on “sanctity of marriage.” Our laws also do not allow a man - any man - to have more than one wife at a time. I believe that at least some of what we are basing the whole “marriage” argument is so archaic that it goes back to the days were chattel right along with the pots and pans and that they need to be rewritten. As far as I am concerned, when a custodial spouse commits an action that would otherwise lead to grant of divorce that custody should be removed from the offending spouse. However “modern” we would like to be, our legal structure is based on marital relationships that are understood to be monogamous. We make no legal allowances in divorce court for loving two women and we should make none in spousal guardianship either.
When We the People through our courts are thrust into this kind of decision, a decision that will lead to the life or death of a human being, however disabled that human being might be, that we must never make our judgement on quality of life.
In the absence of any kind of written statement or video and violent disagreement between the parties as to what the wishes might have been, then I believe that we must not choose death as the wish of choice unless it is based on testimony from more than one person who is not related to either party in the conflict. I am greatly disturbed that all of the testimony given credence in this case as to Terri’s wishes comes from the husband himself, his brother and his sister-in-law. Can we say conflict of interest three times fast?
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:30 am
This plea is further nonsense because Michael has no control over the situation at this time. Terri’s tube was disconnected by court order in response to the court’s determination of her wishes. Michael Schiavo can no more violate the court’s order than Mary Schindler can.
Mary Schindler is completely off the deep end, and has been for some time. My sympathies are with her, but I cannot countenance her attacks on her son-in-law, who is probably suffering also.
I’m hoping Terri’s mom recovers eventually, and perhaps even makes peace with Michael, after she’s had a chance to calm down.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Daniela, I like the idea of taking Terri “home,” but Michael by all accounts has been sitting by Terri pretty much non-stop, and given the antagonism (!!) between Terri’s parents and her husband, I’m wondering if having her in their home might be too explosive a situation. Certainly if I were the police chief, and hence charged with preventing assault and battery in this town, I’d instantly nix the idea of setting up this situation.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:47 am
In response to Jack V….
It has been judged that Terri did not want to live in this state, regardless of whether she may or may not have an extremely limited capacity to connect to her outside world.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:49 am
What difference would it make? Even if Mr. Schiavo fell under a bus, his wife’s feeding tube would not be reinserted. He didn’t order it pulled out, the court did. The COURT is her guardian now.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:54 am
[Criticism of Terri's parents deleted by Amp.]
This comment was written by Deleted by Amp.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Robin wrote:
Can we say “Amp has asked over and over that this sort of speculation about family members motives not be posted on his blog?”
Alan:
It’s not cold-hearted to suggest that you please respect my wishes not to put these sort of discussions on my blog.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:59 am
Robin,
For — oh, I don’t know — maybe the hundredth time within this forum, virtually every credible neurologist has agreed regarding Terri’s diagnosis and prognosis. They have agreed to the view diametrically opposed to yours.
The only exceptions have been neurologists hired by the Schindlers or their surrogates, and religious zealot physicians.
Personal storytelling and laborious tangential rants will never change the facts and lawful procedures in this case.
But, suit yourself, by all means.
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Yet another implied diagnosis from a guy who wasn’t there. When they tested the electrical activity of Ms. Schiavo, they found none. And they play music for her all the time and she has no reaction.
So many of these reports are just “well, you know, I had a hangnail once, but I recovered, so let’s not give up on ol’ Terri just yet, okay?” It’s not the same thing, and we do not need to rely on analogy when the actual patient in question has been examined by many reputable doctors, who all agree.
Terri died in 1990. Her earthly remains will be carried away to rest finally in a day or two.
However, I strongly urge all those who disagree with me to continue to rant and wave signs and threaten the lives of judges and compare grieving families with Nazis as long and as hard as they can, because by so doing you are destroying the very movement you claim to support. This phenomenon is well-known on the left; it’s about time the right got a taste of it. I hear Florida may be getting ready for a wholesale clearout of pandering Republicans next election, as they recoil in horror from the freak show in Pinellas Park. That would be good news for all decent Americans trying to live normally in crazy times.
This comment was written by Steve.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Susan -
At this point reinserting the tube is probably moot. She apparently has not been producing urine for a couple of days, so if not yet in kidney failure then that is right around the bend. After that the tube is too late.
I think I would like to see the court overturn a lot of what is going on anyway - including ordering the tube post haste. I think the only way we will ever resolve the acrimony over this event even as a society is if a brand new hearing is held.
As for removing Terri to her home, she doesn’t really have a home. Michael shares a house with the fiance and kids, the parents and sibs are virtually strip searched even to visit. The judge would have to issue a court order and that isn’t going to happen. I **really** wish that he had been a bit more even handed and thrown them a couple of bones.
Re Mom being off the deep end - ANY mother would be under these circumstances. This is downright horrifying if it is a choice you make yourself, or an event that you cannot control. I have four daughters - one near Terri’s age - that I have birthed and nursed and fed and loved all the days of their lives. I cannot even BEGIN to imagine the horror and helplessness of having to watch your precious child dying in this way.
Acrimony be you-know-whated, this could have and should have been made far and away much easier for them, over and above the husbands objection and it should have been.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Well, Robin, welcome back, and I’m glad we can talk calmly now.
And again,
And again,
But really, Robin, to whom would you expect Terri to confide her wishes but to her husband? And it just so happens that the sister-in-law was Terri’s best friend. (This often happens. When young people are thrown together by friendship, they do tend to intermarry.) Being Terri’s husband and her best friend is a conflict of interest? To whom else would I, a grown woman, tell such things? To my mother? Give me a break. You’re invalidating everything I tell my husband as soon as my mother puts up a stink?
In any case, the court found the testimony “clear and convincing.” So for our purposes, that’s what it is. Hence, this is what Terri wanted, according to what she said.
I submit that if the court had found the contrary, you would not be challenging this testimony, or this way of determining her wishes. In other words, your real problem here is that you disagree with the verdict. That is certainly your right, but if you don’t have anything better to offer I think you can understand that most people will ignore you.
Florida law specifically disagrees with you, listing ANH as artificial life support in the relevant statute. If you are unhappy with this, and you can vote in Florida, you should have a word with your representative. Be prepared, however, to be defeated if the majority of voters in Florida disagree with you, since we do live in a democracy.
We’re not up to regenerating the entire cerebral cortex yet, so far as I know.
If either of you regenerated your cerebral cortex, please contact the New England Journal of Medicine immediately.
Luckily for us all, the State does not yet dictate whom we can hire to represent us. I devoutly hope that day never comes. Your impulse to totalitarian state control is showing through, Robin. Don’t go there, I implore you.
On the basis of their subsequent behavior, I really don’t think there is anything either man or God could do to satisfy the Schindlers, short of getting their way. There are people like that.
In general here, you and much of this discussion is missing the point. Terri did not say, “If I am in PVS pull the tube, but if I’m minimally conscious, don’t.” She wasn’t a doctor, and those diagnostic categories probably hadn’t even been set up then. I haven’t read the trial transcript, but I imagine that what she said was more along the lines of, “If I’m so bad off as not to be able to enjoy life, if I’m seriously brain damaged, don’t just keep the shell alive.”
It is by no means certain, in fact it is quite unlikely, that even if the Schindlers could prove that Terri was “minimally conscious” that anything in the verdict would change.
This is all about what Terri wanted.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Amp, my good man,
I’m afraid you’ve lost it. You have effectively eliminated from your blog all critique — even thoughtful and polite critique — of Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer, Mr. or Mrs. Schindler … who else?
What is left to discuss … HIPPA, … Medicare minutiae?
I notice you are selective in whom you sensor, however. When Susan at #172 states that “Mrs. Schindler is off the deep end, and has been for some time,” you won’t delete. You won’t censor a few other of the female contributors regardless of their statements.
You may have morphed this into a uniquely “Meld with Amp’s opinions and sensibilities” blog. You have turned an open forum concept into Amp’s private (and censored) party.
I wish you courage and fairness.
Alan
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
I have a couple of random thoughts:
I have to take exception to the notion that Terri is being starved to death. The definition of stavation does include lack of food leading to death, but an integral part of the definition is that there is suffering associated with it. Terri does not hae the brain cells to process the any sensation and turn it in to an emotion that she feels or interprets as unpleasant. So I would argue that while the lack of food is leading to her death, the suffering that occurs is on the part of her loved ones and those who are empathetic enough to imagine what is would be like. And that’s what it is- someone who is capable of experiencing emotions is attributing them to a person who is not able to experience them. This is such a foreign idea to us- it’s like trying to imagine not being. And because she is embodied, all the behavior that is seen is interpreted by our own “filter” of how we read nonverbal communication.
This may be one reason for the administration of medications like morphine- we (the medical staff) are “doing something” that is intervening in what may or may not be percieved as suffering to those capable of having the emotion. Does Terri need it- no, but those watching her die might need the assurance that if there is even one funtioning neuron that might feel pain, it’s receptors are blocked. Just a note on one of the hospice myths- that morphine slows the respirations and hastens death. Opioids (the class of drug that morphine is in) do cause respiratory depression. However, that is with initial doses and it is a side effect that the body overrides after a few doses. After that, even large doses do not cause clinically significant respiratory depression. I have prescibed huge amounts of morphine for opioid experienced (as opposed to opioid naive) patients and it has been other side effects that have been what limits the amount given. Unfortunately, this is still argued and I’ll provide references if desired. The stories of people dying soon after morphine was started are more a reflection of waiting to the very end to start the drug.
Finally, I don’t have answers to the questions I ask and in even trying to answer them, generate more questions. Susan says says it very well:
This comment was written by Mary A.I’m hoping we have the wisdom, because we’re going to have to make the decisions, whether we want to or not. Forums like this that foster discussions of different points of view and allow for correction of misinformation are important. Our understanding of life is rapidly changing (just mapping the human genome) and things that were accepted as truth will need to be reexamined. And whatever we decide, it will never fit all situations or all people.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
In reference to Robins post..
” I do not believe that Attorney Felos should have been allowed to represent Michael Schiavo, specifically because he has a special interest in right-to-die cases”
Why would anyone possibly hire a lawyer who will deend your own position? Maybe Michael S. should be made to hire a right to life lawyer and the Schindler’s to hire a right to die lawyer !
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Susan, I understand very well that the situation is explosive, and you may be right that the police chief may not want to find himself in that situation. (Or maybe it would be easier? Aren’t there more limitation on demonstrations in residential areas than in “public places”?) Still, the world has to keep revolving around this little story. Terri is not the first human being to die, in fact, every human being has already died or will die. Specifically, about everybody in that hospice is going to die soon and they and their families have precisely the same right to privacy and quiet than Terri and her family has (in fact, we might argue, they have slightly more, because some of these people are conscious.) Do lots of people, coping with their own serious problems, have to be inconvenienced to accommodate a few persons that, sadly, have turned a terrible event into ? I don’t know enough the laws and regulations of Florida local law so I can’t comment more specifically, but I do think it was awful that someone died alone, which he stated many times he did not want to, because his relative was outside, without her driver’s licence, attempting to explain to security personnel and police and whatnot. Another thing, which is besides the point and also besides the police chief’s powers and also besides the hospice’s personnel powers and even beyond Michael Schiavo’s, but still let me say it: I think it was awful to arrest children “trying to bring water to Terri”. I’d have liked an officer to escort these children in the room with their water, and give them a little spoon. And have the children see Terri, and see that she can’t swallow much and besides hear a doctor or a nurse explain them about aspiration pneumonia. I am sure those kids would not have forgotten.
This comment was written by Daniela.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
As everyone can tell, it’s Mary Schindler I feel for, even though I think she’s wrong. Maybe that’s because I have grown daughters myself. How terrible for her.
I certainly don’t think the wishes of her adult daughter should be overridden to make her happy (since I certainly don’t feel that way about my own mother, nor do my daughters feel that way about me, quite properly in all cases) but I hate to see how much she is suffering. It’s truly heartrending. I hope she finds her way to peace when all this is over.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
I am not speculating about family members ir their motives here Amp. In medicine and law there are strict ethical guidelines for personnel in those fields that are intended to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest - and hopefully the real conflict of interest. Intended to preserve integrity. Prevents things like lawsuits and overturned judgements. I am simply saying that these are the three people that he credited and whatever the judge based that on, right or wrong, it LOOKS like conflict of interest.
Whatever you think of the parents, it looks to many eyes that they are being treated badly. Might leave a hole big enough to drive a Mac through for a wrongful death suit.
Many of the provisions of this judgement seem unduly and very harshly directed towards the parents. I think the Judge would have done better to bend over backwards, especially in this particular order, to appear merciful and even-handed towards the parents. In fact, had he thrown them a bone now and then in the way of certain things we might not be seeing this tragedy now.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Robin, I have no difficulty agreeing that additional protections for people in Terri’s condition might be appropriate, but there is a clear danger that such “protections” will make it more difficult to carry out a person’s legitimate wishes rather than assuring that those wishes will be honored. A burden can be set too high as well as too low.
The state could forbid the use of funds that were awarded for a person’s care from being used for legal fees, if it so chose. It could certainly ask for testimony from unrelated persons, but I would not favor this — who else do we share our most intimate thoughts with? The sister-in-law is not a blood relative of Michael’s and had nothing to gain financially. It was undisputed that she and Terri had been extremely close friends. The better resolution would be to probe very deeply the memories and context of those memories to adduce inconsistencies that are the hallmark of fabricated testimony. In addition, unrelated people may also have personal conflicts, even if the outcome they desire is motivated by something other than their relationship to the petitioner. So that doesn’t make sense to me — as in, it’s a measure that would just as likely impede as it would be to further the just resolution of these matters.
Terri was provided with a GAL who was an attorney who made recommendations to Judge Greer. This attorney was not Felos, and admitted to being biased against removing the ANH, nonetheless, he was not disqualified for the first hearing because the judge thought that anyone knowledgeable about the subject would likely have feelings in one direction or another. There were two rounds of medical examinations, one prior to the first and the second prior to the second evidentiary hearings. It was the second in which each party chose two experts, and the court ended up appointing the fifth, because the parties’ couldn’t agree among themselves. Even thoug the judge was surprised by the development, he permitted the parents to revisit the issue of whether Terri was PVS — he thought that they had in fact conceded it, but he didn’t hold them to it. If I’ve gotten some chronologies wrong, I’m sorry, but the point I’m trying to make is that I do think that Terri’s parents were treated fairly, and as an attorney I can’t begin to think of any case I’ve ever been involved in where the parties were permitted to litigate and relitigate the same issues. Which is another way of saying that I do think the court was exquisitely sensitive to the fact that the outcome of its decision could be, truly, irreversible.
As to whether Michael should have been given control — let me just say that, although the judge probably had a number of reasonable options (including appointing the GAL, which he did), I do not think giving guardianship to the Schindlers would have been reasonable. I am not bad mouthing them, but if Michael is biased, they are clearly biased in favor of a specific outcome.
I also do not see the qualitative difference that you do between dialysis, ventilators and ANH (particularly the surgically implanted kind). You are removing something that you know is essential to that person’s continued life. The fact that breathing and kidney function are never something that are under a person’s voluntary control (theoretically unlike feeding) just doesn’t seem to me to be a relevant difference from the perspective of the party removing the support. If someone came into their room and removed the support without permission it would be murder regardless of the character of the support. None of these functions is voluntary to the injured party — feeding is no longer voluntary for Terri.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Sue wrote
I pointed out to someone a few days ago that if you are smart you will discuss this particular issue with your mother. As one scenario, what if you and hubby are injured simultaneously, you are left a mess and Mom gets to decide?
On top of that you know, Moms get old and daughters get stuck with the hard decisions. Unless it is a book, a living will is a guideline. You should talk to your Mom about what she wants too, since you are in all likelihood stuck trying to figure out what that might be.
Moms are for putting up stinks - even when daughters are all grown up. Someday you’ll put up a stink too :) Meanwhile, enjoy your mom. When she’s gone you’ll wish she were here to fight with and put up a stink. Wish mine was stinking at me right now - sometimes I get tired of being the Mom.
Courts and juries have been dead wrong hundreds if not thousands of times. When we are talking about ordering a death - even a civil order - then we should apply the same standards that we apply to a criminal death and take evert possible care to get it right. Otherwise the judicial system is just going through the motions - and there is already too much of that.
Then you would be submitting and assuming incorrectly. Had the judge given all credence to the Schindlers while disallowing the sole witness on Michael’s side I would feel exactly the same. Right judgement or wrong judgement, this LOOKS bad.
I do disagree with the judgment. I absolutely disagree on moral and ethical grounds with the manner in which this is being carried out and am ever so glad that I neither work at that hospice nor am manning the police lines. I would simply have to quit my job. This is one order I would never participate in under any circumstance.
Remember though, I also have objections to the manner in which this has been conducted by our judiciary. I carefully my objections. Primarily, I believe that while this may still been contentious, things would never have reached the level that they have had the judge bent over backwards to make the Schindlers feel that he was being fair and trying to grant some of their needs/wishes too.
I would still object to the way in which this affair has been carried out by our judiciary if the decision had gone the other way, things were on the opposite feet. In exactly the same specific points as I outlined.
Well, heck, girl - if you don’t want to read for understanding and want to ignore me, that’s cool. I won’t die.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
There are two George’s posting. I’ll use a different name in the future.
This was answered in regard to the impact on the case at hand in post 175, but I’ll also note that no action of a Church can dissolve a civil marriage.
This comment was written by George.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
One note to Robin: I would NEVER let my mother make any decisions for me. You assume all mothers are June Cleaver. Well, some are more like Mary Schindler, for whom this is ‘all about her.’ Many of us have mothers like that and recoil in horror from the thought that given a spotlight, they could well become addicted to the publicity and forget the best interests of their daughter as a result.
[Note - please try to make your points without criticizing or discussing the motives of Terri's family members, from now on. Thanks! --Amp]
This comment was written by HRC.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
No. I also don’t believe that there is a right to suicide. And my support for the right to allow death is based much more on bodily integrity than in a right to decide when your life ends. If forced medical treatment weren’t a violation (here, for example, we’re talking about having a tube inserted into your stomach), I might not have that much of a problem with it. And it holds the same potential for abuse: someone can be manipulated into allowing death just as easily as they can be manipulated into causing death.
But I can’t imagine a scenario under which forced medical treatment wouldn’t be a violation of bodily integrity. It’s like those abortion hypotheticals that involve removing fertilized eggs via transporter nanoseconds after conception and putting them in robot incubators to develop: if every defining characteristic of pregnancy changed, would your feelings about pregnancy change? At some point, the number of alterations that would be required to make a hypothetical into reality are so many that the question becomes tautological: if everything were completely different, then yes, everything would be completely different.
Anyway, back to the topic: Rivka at Respectful of Otters has written some awesome posts about the “Right to Die,” euthanasia, and PAS. She has searchable archives. Most of what I’m gonna say is really just a less-eloquent retread of her thoughts.
Everyone, no matter how healthy, no matter what their prognosis, and no matter how lethal refusal of treatment would be, has the right to refuse medical care. There’s no double standard; a 19-year-old Jehovah’s witness who needs a blood transfusion and a 60-year-old with MS who needs a respirator have the same right to say no.
There is an enormous double standard around suicide, both PAS and euthanasia. No one is arguing that a perfectly healthy 19-year-old has the right to take a lethal dose of barbituates. Lots of people support the right of a 60-year-old with MS to take a lethal dose of barbituates. Many more people have less of a problem letting that person die, even though they would be aghast at the idea of our society allowing a healthy 19-year-old to kill herself, let alone handing her a loaded gun.
And yet, the reasons that sick, dying, elderly, and disabled people have for wanting to kill themselves are the same reasons that healthy people have: they’re desperately lonely, they have nothing to occupy their time, they feel worthless, and they believe that their loved ones would be better of without them.
The first two problems are the result of the way that society treats ill, elderly, and disabled people: they are denied even the most basic social support. If going to the supermarket is a three-hour ordeal, and going to a restaurant is impossible, how much human interaction will you have? What will you do with your time? The second two problems are the result of the way that society feels about ill, elderly, and disabled people: they are constantly told that they are worthless and burdensome. And with a healthcare safety net like ours, sick, elderly, and disabled people get to be burdens on their families.
There is one motive that the sick, dying, and disabled have that healthy people don’t, of course: pain and discomfort. People talk about them as though it’s inevitable, but this is inaccurate. Most hospitals are not well-equipped to care for patients in chronic pain. Many doctors are afraid to effectively manage pain because they could very well get in trouble with the DEA. And caring for the elderly, disabled, and terminal is a low priority overall: it’s expensive, and it’s not like they’re going to recover. I don’t want to sound as though I’m bashing healthcare providers, but we as a society don’t provide them with the resources they need, and their patients suffer because of it.
Until all of these problems are corrected, the “Right to Die” is an abstract question: there is so much pressure to go ahead and die that the possibility of making an independent, informed, self-interested decision is so slight as to be hypothetical.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Barbara -
I can think of a number of laws on our books that apply only to specific groups of people. I think it would be possible the raise the bar substantially in cases like Terri’s without changing the present proposition for everyone else. Maybe something through Social Service or Adult Protection.
I agree with you about testimony regarding someone’s wishes. That is one of the biggest issues that I have with this case. And I don’t think memory probing in any way would really help. Down the road we would just end up with allegations of invented memories.
Unfortunately that GAL was removed from the case - at Michael’s request from what I have seen reported. I believe that given her condition and the acrimony and out-right warfare between the parties that she should have had a GAL right up to this very day.
RE the PVS hearings, I do understand that the judge has looked at this a couple of times. But you are talking medicine here and in particular a syndrome - a set of symptoms that cannot be quantified or otherwise scientifically proven. The PVS diagnosis is entirely in the eyes of the observer. Things change - and in medicine they can change from one day to the next. PCR - a technique that duplicates DNA - was invented in 1988 or89. It was in regular lab use by 91.
When you go to the doctors you get weighed and measured. They take your temp. Go back next week and they will do those things all over again. Things change. Patients magically recover against all the odds. New meds, new surgeries. It would have hurt nothing whatever to have a new and independent assessment within the month or two immediately previous to the death order - and might very well have avoided a ton of conflict. Not to mention, the public is then assured that you have done every single thing possible to reach the correct judgement in fairness.
This judge has known for a long time that he was dealing with a very high profile case that had nowhere to go but up. While you, as an attorney, may be satisfied with the result, the general public doesn’t have your inside knowledge. To lots and lots of ordinary people this LOOKS (note I am not saying IS) like the judge made up his mind long ago and the rest is nothing more than a footnote on the railroad track.
The judge should have known that was coming even if only from Court TV reruns and bent over backwards to insure that there could be no accusations that he was prejudiced in any way. As an example, he could have easily allowed them to take pictures or forced a Catholic burial in Florida rather than cremation. Lots and lots of what has gone on over the last 13 days and some of the extremely insensitive words from Felos have convinced a tremendous number of people that this was, well, frankly a railroad job. Again, I am not saying that it IS this - I am saying that it LOOKS like this to ordinary people. And it is ordinary people who vote, who can recall him from the bench, etc. The stink is not going to go away the minute Terri dies - the stink is just then going to begin, you know.
RE Qualitative difference - well, you know there are lots of ways to die. A nice big oak tree at 100 MPH doesn’t hurt much, or if it does it is over quickly. A patient that is going to die if you disconnect a vent will usually do so in minutes. Dialysis patients already have fragile systems and kidney failure. Not as nice as the first two, but not a thing of weeks either. It isn’t about whether a vent or a dialysis machine or a feeding tube are all equally defined as life support. It is about the results of discontinuing the life support.
When you remove a feeding tube from an individual that does not otherwise have some acute illness that will kill the body (PVS doesn’t count. Something like Aids) then you are looking at weeks until death occurs. To an AIDS patient that might not matter - often they cannot keep food down anyway. To an otherwise healthy individual - or let me use the word body here - this is a long, drawn out, excruciating death if that individual is sentient.
Now, if Terri really is a “vegetable” and truly can feel absolutely nothing at all of any kind, then she should feel nothing. There is no need for morphine - no pain. To soothe labored breathing doesn’t cut it - that speeds heart failure and thus the demise.
But what if the doctor is wrong? Doctors are wrong even more often than judges. Even experts. Even collectively. What if the very premise of PVS is wrong and those patients do feel pain? (I remember lots of things they didn’t used to use painkillers for that we wouldn’t think of doing today.) Remember, syndromes come and go. They are entirely subjective and constantly being redefined and subdivided. If any of those are the case, then we are not giving Terri a peaceful, easy death - we are (I hate to use the word) torturing her while she dies.
Would you want to be the one to authorize that? Or the one to carry out the order? Or the one to stand guard on the porch? Or the one to answer to a higer power? Not me.
A dog has no awareness of self either. Starve your dog and see where you end up. People can get 20 years for that up here.
I am reasonably sure that I would not want to see the Schindlers senior as guardians either. Done correctly guardianship for a profoundly disabled individual is at best very stressful. And they are clearly getting on up there age wise. I’m not so sure they could stand the stress. The brother seems a good egg though. And of course there is always a third party.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Here is the 11th Circuit decision denying the last minute appeal. Judge Birch’s concurrence is as good a primer in federal jurisdiction and the checks and balances inherent in our government as you will get. I would highly recommend reading it.
11th Circuit opinion.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Well, personally I’d trust my husband to look out for my interests much more than my mom. Not everyone’s parents are rational and trustworthy. ;-)
This comment was written by pseu.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
I’d disagree mightily with that. Dogs, cats and other mammals may not have reasonsing abilities (or only minimal reasoning abilities) but they definitely have self-awareness.
This comment was written by pseu.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
One question to participants here. If there is a post mortem autopsy as promised, will you abide by the medical findings? Or will you question them based on your own pre-conceptions of the case? And if you have reason to attack the bona fides of the Pinellas County Medical examiner, let us know now.
I’d like to get this out now.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Barbara, one more thing about that feeling pain:
Did you ever look at someone in a wheelchair and think something on the order of _ Ok, paralyzed, can’t move it, can feel anything, doesn’t hurt?
I used to think that. Many people do. But then about 20 years ago I got run over by a drunk. Long story shortened, I ended up with 4 broken cervical nerves and my entire upper right quadrant was paralyzed. They said broken nerves don’t heal and I would be paralyzed for life. My right breast rested on my hip, my arm dried up to a stick about 1-inch diameter and wouldn’t stay in the socket so I had to wear a leather halter thing to hold it there. I could have put that arm into bonfire and never once felt a thing. I had to learn to tie my shoes with my left hand and my teeth.
That was when I learned that I was almost right about those paralyzed people in wheelchairs. Can’t move it - check. Can’t feel it - check. No Pain - welll maybe not. I had such horrendous pain that I had a never ending supply of morphine, which did absolutely nothing but make me so stoned I didn’t care if it hurt.
That’s probably the biggest reason I am not willing to accept without doubt the premise that Terri can feel no pain. Feeling pain and showing a response to it are two different things.
BTW, the doctors were dead wrong. Nerves do sometimes grow back. Been typing again 19 years and turning cartwheels for 18 or so.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
I believe/don’t believe; I think; To my mind; My belief: 15 times
I know; I’m sure; to my mind/understanding; As far as I’m concerned: 6 times
I would; I have; I had: 7 times
I am/was/were: 8 times
My; We/Our (personal references): 14 times
— Pronoun and phrase usage from a single essay: #171
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
So in essence, I’m reading that Robin is saying:
An attorney that specializes in right to life/death issues is in conflict of interest if he represents someone in a case of right to life/death issues?
And, in the case of New Mexico Guy;
You’re seriously going to sit here and compare a relationship of an infant and mother where the infant is healthy and developing to that of a 41 year old woman with severe, if not complete and irreversible brain atrophy and a mother that is unwilling to let her go? I can only say it’s pretty darn audacious of you to call others sicko’s if that’s how you really see it.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
The entire post mortem autopsy thing is a smokescreen. The autopsy *may* show any broken bones, though from 15 years ago - iffy.
Neurologists have a hard enough time attempting to decide what is going on with a brain that they can test and image. One that is removed from the head, weighed and cut up will tell virtually nothing other than was there brain damage.
We already know that there is brain damage, at least some of which is due to that old surgery. What effect that brain damage had on Terri is impossible to determine from an autopsy. Particularly the effedct of a syndrome - which by definition has no diagnostic features that are not based on patients reactions/interactions. The best we can do is say something on the order of the patient died of a cerebral hemorage - that likely won’t apply to Terri.
RE the Pinnelas County Medical Examiner. Don’t know him. Don’t know of him. But back to how things LOOK here. Husband works for the county. Medical Examiner works for the same county.
For acceptance of results with few whispers of collusion autopsy would best be performed by the Chief Medical Examiner of the State of Florida, ideally with a third party pathologist expert who is not from Florida.
None of that has anything to do with my preconception of the case but rather my knowledge of autopsies -
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Well, Robin, I guess we’re back to how you don’t agree with the decision, or the diagnosis either maybe. To solve this you want yet more medicine, yet more litigation, and I have the idea that no matter how many times this was examined and litigated you would not be happy until the answer came out the way you want it to.
According to your posts, on the basis of nothing much by way of personal contact with this case, you are prepared to
(a) advise the neurologists on how to make a diagnosis,
(b) advise the entire judiciary, right up to the Supremes, and most emphatically including Judge Greer, how to do their jobs,
( c) advise Judge Greer on his efforts at public relations (if any; so far as I can tell, he’s trying to administer justice and doesn’t have much time to play for MSNBC),
(d) tell Michael Schiavo (and maybe the rest of us too, who knows) who he should be entitled to hire as an advocate,
(e) tell Terri, and all of us, to confide our deepest wishes to our mothers instead of our husbands and our best friends (why? mothers are better or something? I am a mother, and even I don’t buy that one..I have the hope that my married daughter is closer to her husband than she is to me),
(f) appoint a guardian for Terri satisfactory to yourself, and
(g) rewrite the entire law both of Florida and the United States on many points, including the weight given a trial, how many trials you’re entitled to (an infinite number, monthly maybe, until the answer comes out to Robin’s satisfaction), and the balance of powers among the various branches of government.
Until you get your way on this. Because, as you say yourself, This case greatly disturbs me, as I am sure is clear.
All I can think is that you are morally and spiritually and emotionally appalled at what is happening here, so much so that you are ready to disregard every medical and legal consideration whatever in order to put a stop to it. This is certainly understandable. I’m personally upset by it myself.
I keep saying this, tiresome person that I am. This is how we do things here. This case has received more medical and legal attention than any guardianship case in history. Every single court which has reviewed this matter has ruled that it was done properly.
You may be, but I am not, prepared to overturn the entire structure of western medicine and Anglo-American law just because you don’t like the way this case came out.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
As an example, he could have easily allowed them to take pictures or forced a Catholic burial in Florida rather than cremation
Except for that unfortunate inicdent with the earlier tape they’d made….. And, her own priest testified she hadn’t attended mass or received sacraments in two years, despite the claim that she was “devout.”
You must subscribe to the adage”"once a Catholic, always a Catholic.”
My own brother, a Catholic priest, tells me he is under no obligation to honor my end of life care directives, because I have an “unformed conscience,” and his conscience, as a practicing Catholic, is more perfectly aligned with Christ’s. In his mind, his more perfect” nature compels him to override my desire not to be maintained artificially. The fact that I left the Church 25 years and don’t even consider myself Christian, is trumped by the fact that I was baptised Catholic.
All this points out the need to make sure that everyone here spell out their wishes clearly in your living will or better, advanced directive., — even those aspects of your end of life needs, that aren’t strictly medical in nature.
“Conscience laws” are being expanded to include more than abortion an d birth control, and I predict that Pro-Life doctors, practicing in public hospitals, may soon be allowed to override patients’ end of life care wishes, if they conflict with their own conscience. I have stipulated that I not be cared for in a Catholic hospital, by any Catholic doctor, or any other doctor who claims exemption through conscience. I have also directed that I not be provided with communion or last rites.
Now my mother and one sister, Mormons, have threatened to have me baptised after I die. I mean their good natured about, but I know their serious. They believe that families must be “sealed” to one another, in order to be in heaven together. This problem was easier to take care of, as the LDS maintain a database of people who’ve requested that they not be baptised after death.
Believe me, family are the last people I want making decisions, and many people feel the same way about their families of origin.
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Even though I’ve probably done this in the prior thread, I’d like to cite to one of my favorite plays/movies, A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt. It is a fictional recreation of the religious and political battles Sir Thomas More engaged in when HenryVIII cut England off from Rome. More lost his life in the struggle. Here he is talking with his son in law Roper after they were visited by someone suspected of informing on him:
William Roper: So, now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
Thomas More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes! I’d cut down every law in England to do that.
Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to caost, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.
What really disturbs me is that people who have not had any formal training in law or medicine are so willing to substitute their judgment for that of highly qualified trained professionals. That to me is a prescription for absolute anarchy. Go watch Oprah or wherever you get your knowledge, but don’t think you can substitute your uninformed judgment for that of people who have spent literally decades aquiring the knowledge and skills that most of us accept and rely on.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
You know, I’ll always really liked the Amish. They’re able to live in accordance with their beliefs, are good neighbors, and never expect that the whole fabric of society should be overturned to accomodate their beliefs.
Notice we don’t see any Amish demonstrating anywhere?
This comment was written by Emmetropia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Emmetropia, you’re just a hard case. Won’t let anyone save you! (grin)
I’m fairly knowledgable on this matter, and your brother needs a refresher course in theology, as well as a retroactive “F” grade in Christology. He could use some work on Scripture and the writings of the major councils too. Father Emmetropia-brother, emergency! Call your seminary!
Ye gods, these characters with the Roman collars get delusions of grandeur fairly badly, don’t they. Tell your brother that according to the Roman Catholic Church, your conscience is your “inner forum” (be sure to use those words) where you are alone with God, and invite him to butt out.
Just as I’d invite the government likewise to butt out of our private decisions about how our medical care should be handled.
A devout Roman Catholic
This comment was written by Susan.A patriotic American
Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
Regina, to answer your question, people who don’t believe numerous neurologists and judges without count are not going to believe one medical examiner either.
It’s all part of the great conspiracy. Don’t you understand?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Glad I’m not the only one who was pissed off by that strain of argument.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has for the first time ruled the Congressional act of interference in the Schiavo case (Public Law 109-3) unconstitutional.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
This is being described as a horrible tragedy, a murder, on and on. Listen people, death is a part of life. I have lost a child myself. I had to stop a venilator and give up a neonatal bed. I was glad to do it because a child with more hope to live could have it. Does that make me a murderer? No, it made me a realist who loved my child enough to NOT prolong his suffering. He was not my object, he was God’s child. He was trusted to me, and the was gone. It was hard, but it was not the end of my life. The family needs to adjust, accept and move on. If they really love Terri and believe she cognates why are visitors telling her she is being starved. Why is she being demanded back to them as though she were an object? So many people face the end of life decisions and the harsh words hurt them. It is difficult to sort out the issues, but the dogmatic approaches used by many who refuse to even consider any other thoughts, is frightening. I am a Republican conservative and my party and fellow Christians are scaring me half to death. Let me say this: you do not speak for all of us, you are making us fear a time when you will have government interferring with our very dying, you are robbing us of liberty, peopele are out there with no regard for the dying inside. What kind of humanity is this? I have tried to educate a little about the need to consider each case alone, of the physiology of tube feeding, of brain death. I have not advocated killing anyone, but I see generally no response by most to the facts. Some of you have a lot of real thinking to do as opposed to reacting. good questions from others: will it be murder when a patient aspirates? According to what I see and hear, yes, and caregivers all over will spend life savings defending themselves from the conservatives. Where do we go from here? Some liberals trying to destroy marriage, some conservatives destroying intimate relationships on matters of end of life decisions….makes me feel this is not representing the best of America. Why can’t each case be evaluated individually? Please answer the question someone: if the visitors think Terri can hear and understand, and they LOVE her, why would they be telling her she is being starved and murdered, and would any of you do that to your loved one? I sure would not. Do not want to slam anyone, but I can only assume she is an object now and it is important to win and get the object out of the clutches of the other party, who may also be competing for the object. Even when my little baby was dying, I whispered words of kindness in his ear.
This comment was written by NursePractitioner.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Jan,
Thanks for the link. Of course the law was unconstitutional - you didn’t need to be a rocket scientist, or even a lawyer, to know that - but it’s nice to see it said definitively.
The congressmen who passed it knew it was unconstitutional too, but they were posturing. Alas.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
NP, of course the Schindlers are at this point way out of touch with reality. The stresses of the situation - which they helped to create, but still - would drive anyone around the bend.
I’m sorry about your child. And for all the parents whose children die untimely, for whatever reason. It is the greatest grief.
The number of political figures who seek to make hay of this don’t help. Jesse Jackson even, for cryingoutloud.
I’m hoping that when it is all over, and the Schindlers have a chance to get some sleep and some time away, things will fall into a more realistic perspective for them. Hopefully someone, hopefully everyone who knew her, will come to remember again the lovely young woman Terri was - married, wanting a baby, all her life before her - before her heart stopped.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
A few other random thoughts:
Isn’t it ironic that this whole sad affair started with an eating issue (bulima) and now ends with another “eating issue”? (the feeding tube)?
If I were in a similar state, how vigorously would my spouse fight to carry out my last wishes?
Should a parent’s wishes carry more weight than a spouse’s? Kinda puts that whole “giving the bride away”? tradition in a different perspective….
On any given day, how many people are forced to make (and live with) the decision to remove life sustaining support for a loved one? What makes this case any more profound or tragic than theirs?
I can not even imagine the pain and anguish the girlfriend and Michael’s children must be living through during this time…
If a person is truly in a “persistent vegetative state,”? do they feel pain from dehydration or starvation?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
I agree with the many posters who have stated over and over again on this blog that this is a matter of law, which has been settled. Only ignorant people argue that the courts were conspiring to KILL Terri. I also believe that the issue is also philosophical and that is the problem.
I think if the Christians protesters wish to be “people of the book” they should let Terri go to heaven. You cannot insist on being a Christian and also insist that Terri be kept alive artificially; after all, they did not have feeding tubes 2000 years ago. I do not recall reading any passages or psalms in the Bible stating that we must keep people alive at all costs. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The basic question is: What makes us human? Is it a brain or a soul?
I found an excellent article titled “The Ghost in the Machine” which I think touches on this subject. Perhaps others will find it germane. I strongly urge all parties to read it.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html
Is Terri’s soul really in there? If yes, why not release her? If no, what is the point? To keep her just for the “joy” of her parents is behind understanding, reason or compassion. For myself, if I could not enjoy TV or control my computer I would want to leave this “mortal coil.”
The majority of people (60 to 69%) would not want to be kept alive in Terri’s case. I believe that 100% of the people on this board would not want to be kept alive. Information is lacking when a poll can only come up with 60 or 69%.
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
You’re probably right about that poll, Atheistfundamentalist.
The “orthodox” (using the phrase loosely here) Christian position is that whereas we may not legitimately commit suicide, since life and death belong to the Lord, on the other hand we are under no obligation to avail ourselves of every single technological gadget to prolong “life.”
Artificial nutrition and hydration present problems which have now been discussed to death here. The Pope recently opined that ANH is always and under all cases required, but it is not and has never been Roman Catholic doctrine that every single thing the Pope says is infallible. We can take this one under advisement, I think, even as Roman Catholics. Many theologians disagree with him on this one, as do I, and we all have that right, even under RC dcotrine, to say nothing of other Christians.
From a Christian standpoint, there is something unseemly about clinging, at vast cost and trouble, to organic life alone. Your take on the Christian point of view is correct. We do not believe that life ends when physical life ends.
I do hope, though, for your sake, that you eventually find better reasons for living than TV and the computer. (grin)
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Sorry about that, I should have said, “my minimal requirements” for living.
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
NP, thank you….thatt is a very touching post. I am sure that people who have not BEEN THERE cannot really conceive of all sides of this. There is more bravery in letting go than in holding on. Pity Mrs Schindler, for her daughter is gone, and she can’t bear to let go.
Much as I love my mom, I would not choose her over my spouse to make this decision for me. And while I think Mom would agree, what if she fought? I would trust my spouse to fulfill my wishes more than mom. After 10 years together, we (my spouse and I) are more and more united in thought and connected. It would break her heart, it would break mine. but we would do what the other wanted, in respect for the love and fortune we have had.
But NP, I’m not allowed that privilege. See, I’m one of those gay liberals whom you are also accusing of trying to destroy marriage, despite my 10 years of love and devotion to my sweet wife. And that saddens me.
This comment was written by IT.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
On this side of the pond the nearest equivalent we would have, I believe, to the Supreme Court would be the House of Lords. Readers might be interested in
the judgment in the case of Anthony Bland. (Be prepared for a long read though).
The cases are not the same - of course; not least because Anthony had not, as far as is known, expressed any wish at all about his treatment in circumstances with many broad similarites to Terri’s. (He was still a teenager when he suffered his injuries).
Two key similarities are PVS and artificial feeding. There are of course many differences. Anthony’s parents and his doctors agreed that all life-prolonging measures be discontinued. They sought declarations that this would be lawful. And such declarations were given in the High Court, upheld by the Appeal Court, and then in the House of Lords (see the link given above). The judgment was given in 1993. Not surprisingly it was controversial.
I am not a lawyer and cannot say whether this is the current state of British law; nor am I sufficiently adept at internet searches to find anything more relevant or recent. Even so I think it makes for interesting reading.
Not being a lawyer (or a doctor) I take some risks of over simplifying a complex issue (which their Lordships clearly felt needed lengthy explanation); indeed I may not have properly understood the judgment. But here’s my attempt to draw out what seem to me to be salient points:
* It would be unlawful to continue to provide medical treatment against a patient’s consent
* That applies even when the patient cannot give or withold consent now, if his wishes were made clear in advance
* Medical treatment’s purpose is to prevent or cure illness, or prevent it getting worse, or relieve pain and suffering and is directed at benefit to the patient
* There is a fundamental prinicple of the sanctity of human life, but it is not absolute
* In some circumstances that principle must yield to the principle of self determination
* The entire treatment regime should be viewed as a whole and the provision of nourishment is part of that, especially so when it is artificial
* In some cases, and particularly in some cases where continued treatment will provide no benefit to the patient, discountinuing some or all of that treatment would be lawful
Those who read the judgment may well be struck by the heavy emphasis given to the best interests of the patient, rather than to his or her wishes. In my view it is important to bear in mind that in Anthony’s case not only was he was incapable of expressing those wishes but there was no available evidence that he had ever expressed any wishes on the matter. The judgement suggests that in those circumstances, in English law, it would not be right to attempt to determine what those wishes would have been, but the best interests tests should prevail.
This comment was written by Acrossthepond.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
No, Susan, I don’t want to advise neurologists how to make decisions etc. and so forth.
What I said is that this case is literally changing the fabric of this country.
What I said was that we need to as a society consider how to handle this kind of custodial/end of life war before the next Shiavo type case ends up on international big screen.
What I said was that medicine - of which I am a part - does not know everything. No doctor knows everything, no nurse, no nurse practitioner, ad nauseum. There is a reason that medical consumers are advised over and over to get a second opinion. There is a reason why parents of children born with genetic defects keep hoping year after year. Things CHANGE - often very rapidly. And lest we forget, medicine is often wrong. This country is full of people who have been told to have no hope that have recovered dispite the prognosis. Our malpractice load is over the moon. Any innocent human life who cannot speak for herself, whose family violently disagrees on course of action, deserves the very best we can give them as a society when making a decision of this nature.
No doctor - good or bad - in his right mind would perform surgery on you without a very recent medical exam and thorough testing. If you let him, you would be a fool. Why should individuals in this particular drastic situation - not family agreement, not living will, not a patient speaking for himself - THIS situation - be entitled to any less care than would be used to perform a stomach stapling?
Someone accused me of comparing the life of a 4 year old to the life of a 41 year old woman. Get a life. Learn to understand what you read. I was not comparing life to life or death to death but rather the way two different courts in two different parts of the country handled this kind of decision between a patient’s warring families.
In the case of the 4 year old, no matter how you feel about the results of the court action, everyone involved and everyone who witnessed agrees that the judge tried very hard to avoid all appearances of conflict of interest or favoritism. Everyone got some things dear to their hearts. Everyone lost some things too. Everyone was held to the same standard.
In the Florida case the entire world stands a witness. Each saw something different as is always the case with witnesses. Modern technology allows everyone to participate in what should, hopefully, be a decision among family members rather than an international debate. If you know anything about media relations or salesmanship or public relations - and I do - then it is readily apparent that this case, for whatever reason, was not handled well.
Court TV has been around for a couple of decades. The judge in the case cannot have been unaware that his actions and those that he allowed to or denied to the parties in the case would come under intense, worldwide media scrutiny. And he knew that from the very day that Attorney Felos, a well-known, high-paid right-to-die lawyer walked into his court room. I don’t know about law, but in the Marines, the Navy, the Army and medicine one of the very first acronyms you learn in CYA - cover your ***
The internet is not in its infancy anymore and the judge in this case cannot be said to be unaware of the technology, even if he is one of the shrinking number of older Americans who are not “online.” The net, with all its undocumented rumors, oft-repeated falsehoods, ommissions of fact and huge mass of population, too busy or too undereducated to understand what they read, has only added to the mess. Even the very documents of the case are available for the world to review at its leisure. The judge had to have known that this would happen also.
Therefor, it was paramount for the integrity of his decision, to bend over backwards to appear to be fair, merciful and just while avoiding every possible hint of conflict of interest. That effort in this case, residing the entire time in the hands of the judge, has been at best inept. Millions of Americans believe that justice was not done in this case precisely because of the way in which it has been handled, whether the decision is ultimately right or ultimately wrong.
There is not a single word that anyone will ever say to convince those millions of Americans, whose voice is just as important as yours - even when they hold a different position than you do - that anything other than injustice was done here solely and entirely because it appears unjust, unmerciful and vindictive.
And all of that has been fed by special interest groups, starting first and foremost with Michael Schiavo’s attorney. It has all been grist for the mill, fuel for the flames and downhill all the way from there.
Even here, which many have remarked as one of the more reasoned forums, participants often descend to ASS-U-MEing things not stated, name calling, flame wars and quite literally the tallying of the number times that “I” is used in a particular post by individuals that apparently have no valid reasoned opinions with which to debate and so resort to mob rule. Do you think that if you laugh hard enough I will go away?
Worse, many have descended even to criticism, libel and belittlement of an obviously distraught woman whose daughter is dying. What have we come to as a people that we have nothing but scorn , harsh words and derision for the wounded and grieving?
Those who have not walked a mile in her shoes, have not held their dying child or beloved family member should be ASHAMED to criticize this poor woman at the eleventh hour simply because she wishes a different end for her precious child than you would choose for your own. You never know what you will do, what you will put up with, what choices you will make until you have to do and put up with and choose.
Choice without alternatives to pick and choose between is tyranny.
Courts and lawyers do not rule the land under the US Constitution, despite the self interested statements of various attorneys to the contrary. Even Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Constitution, had this to say in 1819 about the powers of the judiciary of this country under the Constitution that he authored:
The Courts, specifically do not, stated over and over by the Founding Fathers, among the very best educated men in the Western world of their time, hold the final authority. Many of them comment on that very danger, stating that it would lead to judicial tyranny. We the People hold the final authority. We hold a precious birthright. To stay silent, to laugh, to slander and belittle those that would challenge your position, demeans the birthright of us all.
To fail to correct a clear problem, to pass off an issue because it is tough politically, to choose money - how many dying patients can we process - over the clearly defined right to life of the lowest and most unworthy amongst us is betrayal of every principle this nation was founded on.
It appears that we as a society have become to self absorbed, too uneducated, too disinterested to care. We would rather make and interpret our laws by media polls
and mass hysteria.
God - whoever you choose to believe He/She/It may be - help us all.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
That is a great link Acrossthepond. Indeed.
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
AcrossThePond, I’m reading, I’m reading …. (;-)} Thank you much for the link.
I do wish, sometimes, that our system had the ability to put the President on-the-spot in the manner of the PM’s Question Time. I listen to that regularly on BBC Online. Great, great fun.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Atheist wrote:
Moral decisions are not made by a show of hands. None of the polls were either structured in a way to give a true statistical picture, even if we were to allow some sort of consent by majority.
I have never seen anyone argue that the courts were conspiring to kill Terri - at least not here. Certainly I have never stated that and don’t think that is the case, though I do believe that this has been so poorly handled that it gives to many the LOOK of this.
There are a couple of problems here. First and foremost, what you are seeing here is something near miraculous, if I may use such a word. You see, the protesters are not all or even primarily right-wing ultra-conservative, right to life screaming Christians as they have all too often been portrayed through this.
If you saw the folks in the wheel chairs, they are there representing virtually all of the Disabled Rights groups in the nation. They are left of center, liberal Democrats.
Jesse Jackson is also a liberal Democrat, and his is the paramount moral voice in the black community of this nation.
Women’s rights supporters are protesting this - including NOW. Liberal, leftish.
All these folks - black and white, healthy, disabled (including the gay disabled), Christian, not, Dem & Republican - are crossing over the line that has existed in our country ever since Roe v. Wade and saying - “Let’s ignore that. Let’s join hands and work together on this one. This is wrong.”
That you do not see a million protesters at the hospice, don’t think for a second that there are not that many and far more that are burning the wires protesting this.
As far as Christians being “people of the book” and “letting Terri go to heaven” read some of the Jewish and Muslim voices that are weighing in on this. They too, are people of the book.
Virtually no one can define the “average” Christian, but in general Christians do NOT believe that you hurry up - or hurry someone else up - just so you can go to heaven. Most believe that God put us here on this Earth for a certain time and purpose and that the heavenly father has control over the date of our admission to heaven. Martyrdom of the type that you are describing is a Muslim philosophy held by certain groups of Muslims rather than a Christian one.
My Grandma used to tell me “The Good Lord will never give you a cross he won’t help you carry.” I guess that sums it up for me.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Robin says:
Society has handled it; get a living will or have clear and convincing evidence(in Florida) from a GUARDIAN, that that was the wish of the human vegetable.
This is true, but science reigns.
Well, I was going to dissect each of your paragraphs but based on the above it would be pointless. The reason being that the masses do not really know what is going on. They are ignorant and you are on a soap box.
Your posts are pointless because you refuse to acknowledge that the courts have maintained that Terri is in PVS. The New video on CNN proves that Terri is no longer here. Stop postulating.
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
Robin,
It appears that we as a society have become to self absorbed, too uneducated, too disinterested to care. We would rather make and interpret our laws by media polls and mass hysteria.
Not at all, my dear. This case was settled in the regular way, exactly as it should have been, in a court of law, by a man who was apparently more interested in doing justice than in pandering to the camera. Good for him, that’s what I say. He did not, as you think he should have, trim his sails to the wind of “what will everyone think” or “how will this look to MSNBC.” He just sat there and did his job.
It is you who would drag this business out of where it belongs, in court, where it was solved correctly, and into the heat of your contrary opinion about how it should have come out. You have a thousand shifting reasons and strategies, but what it works out to, I’m afraid, is just that you disagree with the outcome.
We the People hold the final authority. Indeed. But nowhere in the Constitution, and no where in our legal heritage, can you find the idea that the results of any trial should be determined by popular vote. We call that “mob rule,” and cultures where English is spoken have always abhored the very idea. We have a rule of law here, not a rule of men (or women).
Even when Robin disagrees with the final decision. No, we’re not going to abandon 1000 years of legal history, of the slow building of the protection of the individual and his or her rights from the mob, just because you personally disagree with this one decision.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
And I guess we’ll see once again if the Supreme Court once again allows the 11th Circuit to simply stand without comment, or takes it on.
This has got to be a difficult decision for them. Particularly with the opinions recorded in the 11th Circuit’s decision, the case is begging for a final ruling on the constitutionality of Public Law 109-3 and, in particular, determinations on the opinions of the justices recording opinions from the 11th Circuit.
I am no law expert of any kind, but if I were them, I would be loathe to take it on right now because it then would seem they would have been manipulated into reversing their earlier decision not to hear. If they take it on and choose to rule on the feeding tube reconnection question, then it seems they have to reconnect to give themselves time. More manipulation, something the Court would be loathe to submit themselves to. If Terri Schiavo Incapacitated passes, then there’s something to be heard, namely, the constitutionality question. Or the Court could be really brazen and sever the question of the reconnection of the feeding tube from the constitutionality question, dismissing the former and ruling on the latter. I don’t know if there’s any precedent for that kind of thing. Irrespective, it would probably create a stir.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
Sorry, forget the link.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
Robin,
All the tangential rambling in your world will not alter two simple realities:
1) Virtually every credible neurologist with knowledge of this case is diametrically opposed to your view of medicine in this case.
2) An overwhelming majority of Americans (many major polls available) are diametrically opposed to your view of ehthical considerations in this case (e.g., feeding tube removal, spousal decision primacy, agreement with Judiciary)
It will never come to pass that … she who rants most wins. You have already lost all arguments.
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Alan J. Denis:
So very true.
[Atheistfundamentalist: At the risk of catalyzing Alan into making another post about the lousiness of my moderation, let me say - with all due respect - that I'd prefer that people avoid posting "cheerleading" posts on my website, especially in heated debates. My observation is that such posts can sometimes make the person with the minority viewpoint feel piled-on, which I'm sure isn't your intent. --Amp]
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
Atheistfundamentalist,
You’re wrong. The “masses” know very well what is going on, and all the polls I’ve seen support the decision of the court, and are very critical of the involvement of the federal legislative and executive branches (where they clearly do not belong) and of the posturing of religious fanatics, anti-abortion leaders, politically ambitious ministers, congresspersons and so forth. As well they should be.
But whether or no. As I said to Robin, we don’t take polls on the issues of fact properly decided in court. The key decision, of course, was not Terri’s precise diagnosis, but the determination of what she wanted us to do about her present situation, whatever you wish to call it.
Robin would overrule all that, Terri’s own opinion, on the basis - I guess - that she knows better. Or that it isn’t really Terri’s opinion, which Robin knows (and this about someone she’s never met) by mystical means or something. Or that it shouldn’t be Terri’s opinion. I’m not quite sure.
I just hope Robin and her mob don’t get loose on me if I ever end up in Terri’s situation. And I hope the President keeps his or her nose out of it too, thank you very much.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Jan,
Interesting. I’m betting they drag their heels until Terri is gone, then take it on on the Constitutional issue if they think the law was constitutional. (Unlikely.) If they think the law unconstitutional anyhow, they’ll just deny cert and let the 11 Circuit decision stand. (Most probable.)
But betting on the Supremes is an old passtime among lawyers and pundits, like playing the horses. Both amusements are full of surprises.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
But NP, I’m not allowed that privilege. See, I’m one of those gay liberals whom you are also accusing of trying to destroy marriage, despite my 10 years of love and devotion to my sweet wife. And that saddens me.
IT, this is a bit off topic, but bear with us here, I believe that gay marriage will be legalized in a very few years in the United States, as it already has been in Canada and other parts of the world.
Now, all you good Christian guys and gals, don’t jump all over me. I didn’t say whether I was in favor of that or not, did I. I just made a prediction.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Susan, the masses–even those that agree with me and you–do not have all facts. Shit, we do not have all the facts, we just have more than most. Even so, the masses still agree, even if they are ignorant of the facts, that TERRI is dead. They just a have a feeling. We have a feeling and we have more knowledge. I think it makes a difference.
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Thus only 69% agreement in the polls.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
Amp, my friend,
Never meant to imply that your burgeoning “moderation” was lousy. Excessive and selective, maybe. But never lousy. ;)
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
I just wish to correct my previous post. Facts should be changed to information.
This comment was written by Atheistfundamentalist.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
Golly, thanks!
Seriously, my previous comment was tongue-in-cheek. Don’t sweat it, bro.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Well, in what’s got to be record time, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of the Schindlers in the case of Terri Schiavo ex rel.
Good call, Susan!
Y’know, if I were a Supreme Court justice, I think I’d be pissed.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
Yeah, it took the Supreme Court all of two hours.
This comment was written by Jan Theodore Galkowski.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Hello to all,
This comment was written by Asiaprod - Tokyo.I have been reading all the comments, the pros and cons, regarding Terri`s case. There have been some wonderful comments, some wise comments, very compashionate comments, and there have been some bloody stupid and self-centered comments. I thought I would input my feeling on this. I used to be a Catholic, for 30 years, before moving to Japan and converting to Buddhism. As I see it, there really is only one main issue to be dealt with at this moment and that is “what is best for Terri right now.”
Terri is to all intents dead, and probably has been for quite some time. The body, however,is alive, and could be kept alive for many years to come, but what is the point in doing this. Terri, or the part that constitutes Terri as a person, is long gone. It is a sad but medical fact that she will never recover to have an even half-way decent quality of life. Why can people not just let her go. If they wish to take up the other issues, of which there are indeed many (I myself have a problem with the idea of starving someone to death and denying them water) let them do so after she is gone. It is selfish to keep her with us in this state so that others can use her to push their individual agendas or so they can say “see, I was right” This is undignified, inhumane, self-centered and totally, totally wrong. Give here peace, pray for her and let her move on to whatever awaits her. Then deal with the issues, but first let her go with dignity.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Amazing, that they don’t want to be activist judges, like the congress wants them to be just this one time.
Then they should go back to decrying it as they normally do, right?
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Athiesfundamentalist wrote:
Who are you kidding? The religious right votes at a rate of nearly 100%. NOW votes. The disabled rights groups all vote. Jesse Jackson can turn out the black vote like no tomorrow.
I am not on a soapbox. I simply disagree with you - strongly.
The last time that I knew, one was required to earn a medical degree in order to hold a medical license. Federal Laws that regulate the health care industry drastically limit who can define a diagnosis of any given disease in any given individual. For the purpsoes of neurology, that would be an MD. I have never heard of Dr. Court of Pinnelas County, MD - there is no such thing.
No matter what this court maintains - no examination, therapy or hearing since 2003 - that diagnosis is too old to be currently medically valid according to virtually all standard medical protocols for anything.
Apparently you are of the mindset that has decided that each and every decision made in every court is always correct. I maintain that this is not the case by a long shot.
You simply don’t want to have to acknowledge that your view of the situation may be incorrect. You “voted” after all, right?
Aren’t you the very individual that was commenting not long ago that fully qualified MDs could not tell anything from watching a patient on a TV screen
What makes you think that you are in ANY way even minimally qualified to make a judgement as to authenticity of such a video, either as to the unretouched quality and photographic integrity of the video or in regards to any medical information that might be gleaned?
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
OK, I just went and looked at every single Schiavo video on the CNN web site. There is no NEW footage of her. That has been disallowed by the court order. Many of the pictures contained in these videos are old stills worked into the report. All the news agencies are using old pictures.
HOW can that in any way prove anything whatever about Terri in even the smallest and illogical of brains?
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
IT, thanks for reading my long post. You sound like a nice person. The funny thing is, right now am probably closer to the liberals than to the conservatives on this particular case. Never thought I would agree with Barney Frank, but I could have kissed him on the head last week when he spoke out about government intrusion! You see, I don’t want the government telling me I cannot stop treatment OR that I have to keep it going. The thought of that is overwhelming. One thing I am convinced of, is that in our nation we are polarized too far left and too far right which is apparent from the posts and the news. It is my hope that you can legally do what you need to do for the end of life planning with your loved one. It is very important. In Tennessee there has been recent legislation to make it easier for non marrieds and non family to act as surrogates even when a person does not leave a LW or advanced directives. It would be wonderful if this young woman could pass away without all this upset. Continue to be very concerned about the need we have to veiw the situations without applying absolutes to all other cases that seem similar. As a hospice nurse, I have not seen one case to be exactly like another, especially considering disease and spiritual states, and family dynamics. What do all of you think about CONSCIOUS SEDATION? (not yelling, emphasizing) I’m beginning to think I am the only night owl on here.
This comment was written by NursePractitioner.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
IT, forgot to mention, it was interesting you mentioned the gay thing. Many conservatives believe that very far left influences adversely affect marriage and family. Your personal lifestyle has no bearing on that. I do not believe that you are personally involved in a sinister plot to destroy our marriages. To think so would be laughable or cryable. ( I like to make up words) Many liberals want to legalize things that are anti family to the thinking of the right wing. So really, this blog is not about all that, and certainly not about gay marriage, but wanted you to know that when conservatives use these terms they are not always to be interpreted so specifically, in other words, I was using a broad broom about things that concern me. Some of the things for example that have created an explosion in home schooling. One very important thing: I do not purport to speak for all conservatives or all liberals, only my take on current events. Tonight, I am concerned about the extreme positions in a young woman’s family that are tearing that family apart. Some would say not because they do not consider MS to be a part of the family, but he is married to the S. daughter which does make him family. If we don’t stick to the Terri S. case, our very focused moderator, AMP will have to bump me off the blog and that would be very distressing indeed. Night night, God Bless and thanks for reading.
This comment was written by NursePractitioner.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
I’ve cut & pasted my post at #227 … lazy, I know. Thought it might be less tedious than arguing point-by-point (over and over) the absence of virtue in the rambling, repetitive diatribes of she who imagines that she will simply drone all others into a trance.
Robin,
All the tangential rambling in your world will not alter two simple realities:
1) Virtually every credible neurologist with knowledge of this case is diametrically opposed to your view of medicine in this case.
2) An overwhelming majority of Americans (many major polls available) are diametrically opposed to your view of ehthical considerations in this case (e.g., feeding tube removal, spousal decision primacy, agreement with Judiciary)
It will never come to pass that … she who rants most wins. You have already lost all arguments.
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 10:35 pm
Good night, God bless, and have a pleasant tomorrow, all.
This comment was written by Alan J. Denis.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
Well, Robin has said that she will not accept the results of an autopsy, so I guess this argument can go on ad inifnitum.
Just one more thing, to note a ‘discrepancy’ in something Robin state above. There were 2 and probably 3 Guardian ad Litems in the case. The most recent one, Dr. Wolfson, was w/drawn when Terri’s Law was declared unconstitutional. Michael Schiavo did not ask to have him removed. It was a previous GAL, Pearse. Let’s go to the trial court’s 2000 decision for more on this:
brackets mine.
Michael Shiavo contested that conclusion from the then Guardian Ad Litem. From the Wolfson Report of 2003 :
A second excerpt from that trial order:
Obviously, Judge Greer who only presided over the entire case for more than 7 years, who lost his membership in his church over this, who has round the clock guards protecting his life, knows absolutely nothing about what REALLY went on. And we do.
How very odd.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
Just to clarify, I’ve only recently been following this issue and sought to get some background info so I could actually understand what my opinion of this issue should be. I am not an expert of any kind, and I am not even sure why I took as much time to look into this issue as I have. I just wanted to express a few thoughts, the first being that there are quite a few good ideas and arguements out there and here and they’ve helped me make up my mind. For that I thank each one of you.
Personally I feel that no matter what happens (I’m pretty sure she will ultimately die, as will every single one of us at some point) I won’t lose any sleep over it. This one incident isn’t going to give anyone the last bit of footing that they need to take over the world, be them left, right, catholic or atheist. And neither will it stop anyone from suceeding in pushing through some bit of legislation or rendering a decision that will bring about the potential end of civilization as we know it (again… there has always been someone who claimes that something must be stopped before it destroys the very fabric of society…)
It makes for a good debate but now that I’ve gotten this out of my system, I think I’ll be more interested in seeing how quickly things subside after she passes… The band wagon will probably empty out as quickly as it filled up.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 4:18 am
No, Regina, I did NOT say that I would not accept the results of the autopsy. What I said was that there would be no meaningful results to accept, if you can stop your nit-picking over the number of GAL appointed temporarily throughout 15 years long enough to understand the difference.
The act of starvation and dehydration on the human body - with or without a functional intellect inside the brain - will remove a great deal of her body weight prior to death.
Her kidneys will fail.
Her liver will be destroyed.
Every single possible chemical parameter by which we measure the status of human health will be drastically out of normal bounds.
She will untimately suffer massive heart faillure.
Her brain will shrink from dehydration, rendering any accurate assessment of the condition of her brain prior to the removal of the feeding tube moot.
EVEN if her brain did not shrink, an autopsy can only determine visual and chemical evidence of disease.
PVS by its very definition has NO known defining chemical parameters. It also has NO known visual factors that can be pointed to *even in a living human being* that distinguish PVS from something else.
No further imaging tests - CAT. PET, MRI can be performed after death.
Her cranium will be cut from the top of her head, the remains of her brain will be removed from her skull, they will be weighed, visually inspected for damage, and then cut into pieces so that the interior of the brain can be examined.
Her brain will show trauma from at least two known sources outside of whatever caused her inital state. One of those was a surgery performed many years ago that left pieces of metal in her brain. The other of those is the dramatic shrinkage that is occurring dur to starvation and dehydration.
There is virtually nothing that we will be able to learn by autopsy to remove our collect guilt or to point to in support of the idea that “Terri wouldn’t want to live this way.”
There will be NO meaningful results from any autopsy performed anywhere to accept.
Virtually everyone with any pathology experience already know this. The media simply isn’t telling you this, either because it has not yet occurred to them to question the issue or because for one reason or another they choose not to tell you.
The autopsy results WILL be “negative” as far as any substantiating information goes. The only question is whether or not they will be publicly accepted.
Michael Schiavo works for Pinnelas County as does the County Medical Examiner. An autopsy performed by that particular medical examiner will always be called into question.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 4:49 am
The ultimate outcome of Terri Schiavo’s case has been extremely interesting and of particular relevance for two equally important yet distinct reasons.
The first one, of course, concerns the political consequences the current “Duty to live” frenzy has or could lead to. I believe this subject matters a great deal to all of us, but I also think it has been rehearsed enough times and in all its forms to come as tiring for those who would want to adress other issues this particular situation has placed on the spotlight, which concern new ethical dilemmas science and medicine will be forced to confront from now on due to the progress of technology.
However, since the first subject pretty much determines our standing ground before we even attempt to talk about the second, I’ll try to summarize quickly what the essential points are, in my opinion.
As has time and again been repeated, the whole issue with Mrs Schiavo now comes down to respecting the law. Now, I have had serious disagreements with existing laws and actively tried to fight them (the Patriot Act and other corollaries come to mind), of course, but the main point in those cases was that those new laws directly violated other laws already in effect, and as such contradicted not my interpretation of the Constitution, but the express statements contained in it.
This is not the case for people who have tried to circumvent the judicial system in order to “rescue” Terri Schiavo. All laws in the USA state that such cases are private, that powers of attorney ultimately prevail over other conflicting opinions unless the courts deem it otherwise, and that once the whole string of appeals has been exhausted, the courts’s decisions are legally binding to all.
So yeah, in this specific instance, everything has rightfully been decided, and continuing to pretend otherwise is tantamount to ignoring the Constitution and dismissing the reign of Law.
Now, as for why judges ruled this way in the first place… Again, I would like to emphasize, as others have done in this post, that it isn’t because they thought PVS patients should die. The one thing that matters is that Terri Schiavo had loudly and repeatedly asserted that she did not want to be kept alive at all costs if she ever found herself in such a dire situation. We could discuss whether she meant PVS or minimally-conscious state, but she’s in PVS, period. Deal with it.
There are, on the other hand, a whole lot of issues we could be examining right now, since the impact of Terri Schiavo’s ordeal in mainstream media has brought to the forefront the question of medical and ethical concerns.
In a few words, what should we do with the technological possibilities now open to us ? I would ask whether we are prepared to deal with them, but it a moot point, and we can no longer ignore them, however frightening they may be.
I saw a Brit reader, and I would be especially interested in his opinion about a case that presented itself a few years ago. I don’t know if any of you remember the siamese baby girls whose parents took to England for a medical consult (they came from Malta), whom the Court ordered be separated against the parents’ wishes (inspired on religious reasons), on the ground that none of them had a chance to survive if maintained together, whereas the operation would kill one of them while ensuring the survival of the other twin.
Of course, a patient’s right to refuse medication is sacred. We could despair over a 19 years old Mormon’s decision to refuse a blood transmission, but it would be his legal right to do so. Nonetheless, these twins were not in that position, since they couldn’t make their wishes known. The court thereby decided to remove the parents ‘ custody in order to protect life. They didn’t do it on the State’s behalf, though, but on the kids’ behalf, judging that what they would have wanted (maybe I should say “what the surviving one would have wanted”, but it opens another can of worms) would have been to live.
I have many more things to say about the “right to suicide”, our stance on disability, the sustainability of human life and the role of the State in all of this, and how they’re all connected to each other in my mind, but before I launch into them, I’d really like to know what you think about the case above and its effects, all of you.
This comment was written by Ask, and you shall receive. Or not..Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 5:50 am
Regina, what I have stated repeatedly is that -
It is immaterial to the world-wide perception of the case whether or not Judge Greer made the correct decision and what evidence he did or did not examine.
Judge Greer has left himself wide open to the charges of being biased and unfair, unsympathetic and without mercy.
That isn’t going to go away, will always be a huge factor in public perception of this case and could have been avoided.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 5:56 am
No meaningful results to accept vs. won’t accept results of autopsy? Not much of a diff to me, Robin.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 6:07 am
No reasoning, logical human being, let alone a scientist or medical personnel and others who know what autopsy is all about can ACCEPT results that DO NOT EXIST.
If that isn’t much of a difference to you then I can’t help you. That does not either make falsehood into truth or invalidate my opinion.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 6:46 am
Forgot to mention, that CNN reported that the Schindlers have also agreed that an autopsy would help answer questions.
This comment was written by Regina.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 6:51 am
I am going to plagiarize part of Bob’s comment on the NRO Lies thread because I thought it captured something essential about this dispute in an especially eloquent manner:
And I will add: that system won’t be perfect but it will be more perfect than enacting a one-size-fits-all assumption. Many people who are not disabled (that is, terminally ill people who never considered themselves to be harboring a disability prior to their illness) choose to forego ANH or even normal delivery of nutrition in order to hasten the end of their lives. There’s no reason to believe that disabled people would never choose the same if faced with the same physical or mental challenges, and it seems insulting and condescending to assume that a disabled person’s views would be fundamentally different from a non-disabled person’s — I expect their views would be as diverse and nuanced as a non-disabled person’s, but I would never assume that I know anything about an individual’s views would without even making an inquiry. I do think it’s important to make the inquiry and I do think it’s important not to prejudge the outcome.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 7:08 am
More plagiarism, I’m sorry Amp, but I think it’s helpful to post some of the more eloquent views I’ve found, especially as they discuss this issue in terms of disability:
Michael Berube
As I said above, one reason why there appears to be such a compulsion to vilify Michael Schiavo in spite of available evidence is to avoid having to face the idea that other people, good people, might disagree with you on something you truly believe, or to extend charity to someone whose views are anathema.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 7:08 am
Robin,
Indeed he has. This is sometimes the penalty of doing the right thing.
You seem very concerned about what “everybody” (that is, you and your friends - polls show that you’re much in the minority) thinks here.
Judge Greer, quite properly, does not run his courtroom according to public polls or perceptions, however. So far as I and all the appellate courts can see, he runs his courtroom according to the law.
That is his job, and his oath - not to bend the law to pander to you and your type. It often happens that people suffer for doing their job right, and Judge Greer is well aware of that, and has the courage and integrity to do his job right anyway. I for one admire him a great deal for that, and I think most people do.
Judge Greer makes me proud of our judiciary. Men and women who stick to their guns, who do what they think is right, and according to the law, regardless of what the mob of the moment is demanding. This is what we look to judges, and to the law, for - to be the voice of rule and reason when much of the world goes nuts.
I’m proud to be a member of the bar with this man.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 7:12 am
I was just reading through information regarding the testimony re Karen Ann Quinlan and Terri watching the movie and realized something:
Your “right to die” or “right to remove life support” is based in the US entirely on the Karen Ann Quinlan decision by the Supreme Court in 1976 that allowed the removal of “life support.”
Karen Ann Quinlan lived for 9 years in a coma. She was fed by tube for 9 years. The Supreme Court did not allow her to be starved and dehydrated to death.
This comment was written by Robin.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 7:31 am
December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005
This comment was written by jack.Report this comment to the moderators
March 31st, 2005 at 7:32 am
Robin’s endless (!!) threats aside, I have confidence that the republic will weather this storm as it has weathered so many other, bigger ones.
The rule of law will not be overturned in favor of mob clamor, as Robin desires.
Judges will not be forced to submit their verdicts to MSNBC polls, as Robin demands, before they are valid.
Trial judges will continue to apply the law, heedless of how this show of integrity “looks” to a “worldwide” audience.
Appellate courts will continue to resist congressional grandstanding, and they will contine to apply the law even-handedly and according to the Constitution, as they have done, to a man. They will continue to ignore NOW, Jesse Jackson, disabled “rights” groups, religious fanatics, and the President of the United States, among others, in this endeavor, as is their oath. (We govern by law here, not by who can make the loudest noise. Laws are changed at the ballot box, not by microphone in front of hospices in Florida.)
The State will not begin to dictate who you can and cannot hire to represent you, as Robin demands.
The desires of even the disabled will continue to be respected, they will be accorded the dignity of adults just as though - imagine! - just as though they were not disabled. Not even the parents of adults will be allowed to treat them as infants.
Medical treatment will not, for the first time in a thousand years, be legally forced on those who do not want it.
Almost everyone i