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 Con