|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Harry and Terri - the Schiavo case
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post but is this a lie?
" MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri�s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri�s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri�s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo�s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri�s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri�s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years."
source: look under for more myths about Terri click here (the parents website) italics mine
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
The parents' website is not exactly a neutral source of information.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
And yes it is a lie.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Her parents are long past needing to take the hyperspace ship back to Earth from planet Totally-Out-of-Touch-With-Reality. Her brain is now a packet of cerebro-spinal fluid. It CANNOT be fixed. She died a long time ago. They should let her body go, too.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I have an Aunt who is totally with the husband on this one, due to her own personal experience with death.
And I'm right there with her.
My mother was suffering from dementia; she was middling in the progress of the disease. She still knew who she was, and still knew who we were, although she didn't know much else. She didn't know what time of year it was, or where she was (unless she was at home), or what she had done 15 minutes ago.
Then she quit eating and drinking. My father did everything he could do to get her to eat and drink short of putting her in the hospital for tube feeding and IVs. One of their friends was furious with him for not taking her to the hospital. She insisted that Mother would have lived longer if he'd done so.
And, yes, she would have. She was in far better shape than Terri Schiavo is. But if he'd taken her to the hospital, and then brought her home once she'd been rehydrated, what would the consequence have been? To do it again. And again. And again.
At that point, food and water administered through a tube into the stomach or in an IV isn't feeding, it is medical treatment. And if anyone had tried to force medical treatment on my mother that my father did not authorize -- that friend, or my mother's father, or Bill Frist, or anyone else -- I'd have been beyond furious. I'd have been ready to kill someone.
My parents' friend thought my father came off as cold and heartless and uncaring -- just as Terri's husband comes off to some people. But he wasn't. He was making a very difficult decision, trying to care for her as best he could. He was never one to show his emotions in public. And there was no reason for him to. He deserved to keep his emotions to himself. He deserved to have his choices respected. It wasn't up to anyone else. It was his choice.
And this is Terri's husband's choice. It's his decision. It doesn't belong to her parents, to the demonstrators, to Bill Frist, or to anyone else. The rest of them need to go away and leave him alone.
May God grant mercy to him, to her, to all.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
My fondest dream for this situation is that it will end with the Supreme Court bitchslapping Congress back into the Stone Age. What a bunch of power-mad morality cops.[...]
A very accurate, succinct, and well-written post. I agree wholeheartedly and am looking forward to the upcoming bitchslap from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The senate is grandstanding, utilizing Terri for purely political ends. Sick bastards.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
so someone explain to me... what makes terri schiavo more important than this case?
sun hudson
or this case?
spiro nikolouzos
why in one case is all the machinery of government keeping this person "alive", when in these two, the machinery of law is geared to making sure they come off life support?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kyzyl
Ship's dog
# 374
|
Posted
FYI, interesting CT scans at this site. The conversation that follows is farily interesting, too.
CT scans
Scroll down a bit.
[ 21. March 2005, 20:01: Message edited by: Kyzyl ]
--------------------
I need a quote.
Posts: 668 | From: Wapasha's Prairie | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
And this is Terri's husband's choice. It's his decision.
Technically, it's not his decision--it's the state court's decision, at least according to the website Erin posted a link to on the first page of this thread. And the state court has ruled. Congress has shifted the case to a federal court, but it seems to me that if they go on the merits of the case, that court will eventually rule that the feeding tube should be pulled. The judge could (and I'll bet will) rule that the tube should be replaced until the case is heard, but in the end I don't see how the federal court can rule any differently than the state court did.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
The husband isn't responsible for squat. In the original case, however many years ago, he asked the court to determine what should be done and Terry has been technically a ward of the court since. That the husband has been portrayed as some sort of monster just shows how sad the media really are. Panels of experts have argued well on both sides, and every review at every level has decided consistently in favour of letting the brainless sack of meat cease its ghoulish pantomime of the technicalities of survival.
For those capable of reading, go to Respectful Otters and Obsidian Wings.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I've actually read the Court decisions. They are well-considered decisions that took into account a great deal of evidence. I have heard virtually nothing in the media about the fact that a well-considered judge of a court of competent jurisdication in the home state of this person has repeatedly decided the same thing OVER and OVER. What's the point of having a system if Congress can overide it for a media stunt.
Bleah. I'm with Scot. They need bitch-slapping. And the current Supreme Court's vaunted convictions re: non-interference in matters that belong to states will be on the line.
[ 21. March 2005, 20:46: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
And yes it is a lie.
Sorry, you know this how?
The parts of her brain which govern those functions are gone. Not damaged, GONE. How many times does this need to be repeated in this thread before people understand?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Ah... so this thread isn't about Prince William's little brother and his new girl friend. I was afraid that he'd gotten into some little scrape again.
Any word as to who's paying the bills? I presume that those clamoring for life support aren't paying for it themselves. If they were, then there would be no need for this to become a national issue.
Just staying in a hospital can easily cost $500 a day. Terri has been there fifteen years. Expecting the public to finance keeping her there much longer is sentimentality on the part of relatives, serving as a springboard for an episode of cynical distraction on the part of politicians.
This case may be easily doable as one drop out of the bucket of insurance or welfare assets; but if you consider the precedent it sets, this one case can become many thousands, at a time when countless children are deprived of the most basic medical care. Can it be justified in terms of triage? Can-do doesn't mean should-do.
It looks to me as though what's really behind this is a refusal, perhaps quite a childish one, to face the inevitablity of physical death. It's typical of modern western secular culture. But why should Christians jump on the bandwagon?
[ 21. March 2005, 21:10: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Ah... so this thread isn't about Prince William's little brother and his new girl friend. I was afraid that he'd gotten into some little scrape again.
Thread title changed accordingly.
RuthW
Purgatory host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
And yes it is a lie.
Sorry, you know this how?
The parts of her brain which govern those functions are gone. Not damaged, GONE. How many times does this need to be repeated in this thread before people understand?
Unless the evidence of the people Duchess cited is not a lie. In which case it follows that the tests have been misread to some extent (and that is, the extent to which the evidence Duchess cited is correct).
Different, yet not so: some friends of mine have a newly born healthy baby. This made news here in Sydney in the last few months because the baby was diagnosed as likely to be severely retarded, on the basis of ultrasounds and similar diagnostic information, ie what you can tell from outside the body. Abortion was recommended as an option not once but several times through the course of the pregnancy, as late as 20 weeks. The baby was born completely healthy.
This simply illustrates [I say again, illustrates] a point that anyone with knowledge of scientific or medical method should know, namely: you don't just go on the results of diagnostic tests and scans (which can be inaccurate or misread), you go on all the evidence available. Including, presumably, eyewitness reports of patient behaviour. It's just wrong to dismiss those reports as 'lies' — this seems to suggest that the one dismissing such reports has already made up their mind.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This simply illustrates [I say again, illustrates] a point that anyone with knowledge of scientific or medical method should know, namely: you don't just go on the results of diagnostic tests and scans (which can be inaccurate or misread), you go on all the evidence available. Including, presumably, eyewitness reports of patient behaviour.
And conversely, eyewitnesses of patient behaviour can misread and be inaccurate about what they see. Wishful thinking plays a large role in this - this is why objective diagnostic tests go a lot further in diagnosing patient condition than subjective reports from family members who are always hoping and looking for any signs of recovery.
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I'm not making a judgment on my own. I am relying on the court-appointed independent physicians who have examined her and her records and tests in person. Read the independent evidence on the site I linked to on the previous page.
You, on the other hand, appear to be making a judgment based on Ma and Pa Schindler's word. While it is understandable that they attempt to read meaning into reptilian gestures and grunts, it is also delusional and cruel.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Gordon writes:
quote:
This simply illustrates [I say again, illustrates] a point that anyone with knowledge of scientific or medical method should know, namely: you don't just go on the results of diagnostic tests and scans (which can be inaccurate or misread), you go on all the evidence available. Including, presumably, eyewitness reports of patient behaviour.
And that's exactly what has been done, Gordon, over and over, through God knows how many pages of briefing and testimony. If you look at the timeline from the neutral website Erin linked to, you'll get an idea of how thoroughly this tragedy has been litigated - with the same result each and every time. Evidence from her parents, eyewitnesses, and medical experts they retained was considered, and found to be wanting.
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
You, on the other hand, appear to be making a judgment based on Ma and Pa Schindler's word. While it is understandable that they attempt to read meaning into reptilian gestures and grunts, it is also delusional and cruel.
No, I'm going to admit to ignorance here and not make a judgment. But I also think 99.99% of the human population ought to do the same regarding this specific case at this particular time.
I do have a view on the involvement of legislators in specific cases, which is that I would rather they butt out altogether. When the judiciary gets involved, however, the legislature is also involved, like it or not, as they have a duty to pay attention to the consequences of existing legislation.
Once the legislature are involved, I personally think they ought to take a position of extreme conservatism on whether or not to allow the ending of human life. I don't know if I even think that on primarily ethical grounds; more because I have a deep and abiding mistrust of government to get it right, in anything — or rather, a suspicion that they will frequently get it wrong.
If this suspicion is correct (and I don't mind arguing for it on another thread), then the status quo (in this case, maintaining the feeding regime of someone who appears to be alive) should be upheld.
FWIW I would use a similar argument to oppose the death penalty, which thankfully we don't have here in Australia.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Once the legislature are involved, I personally think they ought to take a position of extreme conservatism on whether or not to allow the ending of human life.
Did you read the links RooK provided? Please do.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
No, I'm going to admit to ignorance here and not make a judgment. But I also think 99.99% of the human population ought to do the same regarding this specific case at this particular time.
But the evidence is out there to make an informed judgment. This is what is so frustrating for me -- it's there. But I keep hearing people (including members of Congress, which just makes me want to puke) claim that they have no knowledge so naturally they should err on the side of caution. If no evidence was available, I'd agree. But it's there. Pages and pages and reams and reams of it.
quote:
I do have a view on the involvement of legislators in specific cases, which is that I would rather they butt out altogether. When the judiciary gets involved, however, the legislature is also involved, like it or not, as they have a duty to pay attention to the consequences of existing legislation.
Well, except that this has nothing to do with the US Congress or federal government as a whole. This is purely a state matter, in that the relevant laws are applicable in the state of Florida by the state of Florida, and the judiciary of the state of Florida has previously judged that based on current Florida law, this is the appropriate action.
quote:
Once the legislature are involved, I personally think they ought to take a position of extreme conservatism on whether or not to allow the ending of human life. I don't know if I even think that on primarily ethical grounds; more because I have a deep and abiding mistrust of government to get it right, in anything — or rather, a suspicion that they will frequently get it wrong.
They have nothing to get wrong here -- the Florida courts have repeatedly found that Terri's wishes were to not be sustained on artifical life support (and make no mistake, adminsitration of nutrition through a feeding tube IS artificial life support). No court has ever found otherwise.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I do have a view on the involvement of legislators in specific cases, which is that I would rather they butt out altogether. When the judiciary gets involved, however, the legislature is also involved, like it or not, as they have a duty to pay attention to the consequences of existing legislation.
But not at the federal level on a case by case basis. I have repeatedly seen the legislation rammed through Congress in the middle of the night described as "applying only to the Schiavo case". This is appallingly inappropriate.
If Congress has a problem with the way the courts are interpreting laws, then they should be drafting and debating well-thought-out legislation to make corrections to the direction sailed by the ship of state. What they are doing amounts to jerking the rudder violently without adjusting the sails.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
But the evidence is out there to make an informed judgment. This is what is so frustrating for me -- it's there.
I don't know if it would reduce your frustration level to consider the possibility that some of the questions at stake here are not resolvable by recourse to evidence. For example, the question of how much brain she has left is a matter of fact that can be settled by the evidence. The question of whether the "self" is entirely co-extensive with the cerebral cortex is not an evidential matter, but (dare I say it) a metaphysical one. I tend to think that the self is not identical with the cerebral cortex: much of what makes us who are are resides in ingrained reflex and autonomic response. I yell at my kids out of reflex, but being an impatient bastard is certainly part of who I am. In some ways, our "self" even resides outside our bodies, in the interpersonal space of our relationship with others. So I don't think that Terri Shiavo's parents are total whack jobs for thinking that in some sense she's still "there."
That said, I am genuinely on the fence with regard to this case. On the one hand, I hate to see politicians making politcal hay over a family's tragedy, and I'm inclined to be against anything that Tom Delay is for.
On the other hand, I don't think providing nutrition and hydration is the same as putting someone on a respirator, though how that difference ought to play out in specific cases is unclear to me. Would it make a difference in people's minds if Terri Shiavo had a swallowing reflex and could be fed with a spoon?
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
I realize that the beginning of my last post comes across as a bit condescending toward Erin. That was not my intention. Sorry (please don't hurt me!).
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
FCB there's quite a bit of discussion on page 1 of this thread re tube vs spoon feeding, if that helps...
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
For the sake of completeness, as it were, the law in the UK was decided by the House of Lords in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland in 1993. A succinct summary of law and practice can be found here .
A court order is required to discontinue feeding.The court attempts to decide, on the best evidence available, what is in the best interests of the patient.
Personally, I am with the husband. I can fully understand how the parents feel, but in my opinion, if he is next-of-kin, his rights should prevail. There are no easy answers in these cases, and the old adage that "hard cases make bad law" seems likely to prove true.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
Had this all transpired 75 years ago, there would likely be no dilemma for Congress to consider. (Actually, there is none now, though Congress has stuck its nose in anyway.) Terri would have died long ago after suffering the original cardiac arrest brought on by her eating disorder and resulant brain damage from oxygen deprivation.
Her current dreadful circumstances result from a combination of her illness and our developing technology capable of sustaining life without advancing any concomitant ethical wisdom which such capabilities call for. In my not so humble opinion, we meddle in such matters at our peril.
What is a human being, or a "self" or (more legalistically, a "person?" What physical capacities are essential for a "self" to be said to be present? Is the presence of human DNA alone sufficient to assume the presence of a "human being?"
To whom does any individual human life belong?
What does "human life" consist of? In the field of developmental disabilities with which I have some experience, at least 4 of 7 kinds of limitations must be present for a person to qualify for services to this poulation.
1. Limitations on learning
2. Limitations on decision-making
3. Limitations on independent mobility
4. Limitations on receptive and/or expressive communication
5. Limitations on the ability to work
6. Limitations on judgment
7. Sensory limitations
People in such circumstances must experience such severe limitations that they cannot cope with typical work, learning, or social situations. As an example, someone with such severe mental retardation that s/he has a hard time keeping clothes on or controlling elimination is assuredly developmentally disabled by this definition, but is still a person with legal rights under the law. Despite there being little hope that this person will become a productive worker, a responsible parent, etc., we sustain and maintain this person in a safe and humane (we hope) manner.
But how about those cases where such an individual has only a brain stem? I once stood over a crib in a pediatric nursing facility, reading a legal document aloud to a 21-year-old who was about 20 inches long and, as far as could be determined at that point, could not see or hear. (He could make sounds.) Periodically I would stop and ask if there were any questions, or explain some bit of terminology. Grant you, this person was not being fed/hydrated through tubes; there was still a swallow reflex.
Is a swallow reflex what determines the dividing line between "sack of meat" and "human being?"
I don't pretend to know the answers. But I wish we had a Congress readier to engage these issues and less ready to make a God-awful chaos out of Terri Schiavo's (possible) last days.
As challenging as these questions are, they are nothing to the question of who a life belongs to. Is my life mine, to do with as I see fit? Or is it on loan to me from God? Is it the state's, to determine where and how and how long I draw breath?
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
From a legal standpoint, for Congress to entervene to do a private bill (which is not uncommon) the rule is that it must confer a benefit. If it confers some sort of legal disability, it's an unconstitutional act in the nature of a Bill of Attainder. So the question is regarding Congress' action, is this indeed a "benefit" to Terry Schiavo? If not, Congress was acting way outside its authority. That's why we have separation of powers.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I don't think the question here is so much, "Is Terri still a person who deserves care?" but much more simply and less metaphysically, first, "Does a competent adult have the right to refuse medical treatment?" If the answer is yes, the second question is,"If the adult in question is no longer competent, does that adult's previously expressed desire to refuse such treatment, or any treatment in such circumstances, legally and ethically equivalent to the patient's personal refusal?" If the answer to that question is yes, then the only question left to be answered is, "Did this patient express a desire to refuse such treatment, or any treatment in such circumstances?"
And the courts of Florida have examined the evidence and answered this question repeatedly. Terri did express such a desire.
The question is therefore not, "Should we continue to provide nutrition and hydration to Terri?" (how benign that sounds) but, to be plain, "Should we continue to force-feed Terri against her will?"
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
I hope and pray that the long, slow deterioration of Terri Schiavo's brain has deprived her of the ability to feel discomfort.
Only if this is the case can there be any "benefit" conferred on her by Congressional intervention. Or am I missing something here?
If there is any possibility that she experiences discomfort in her situation, I cannot conceive of how she or her loved ones benefit from her continued existence. If I were going to err on the side of caution here, I would be attending to this question: what, if anything, can she feel? The woman has existed in this state for 15 years. Personally, I would want to be damned certain this hasn't been 15 years of torture.
I do not discount the possibility of miracles. But even if Terri Schiavo were to somehow become alert and responsive within the next 24 hours, she will still suffer from devastating brain damage and her ability to meaningfully participate in what we're pleased to call "life" will still be profoundly compromised. Massive amounts of care, support and resources will be needed to maintain any existence.
Which of us is worth such an enormous investment of human energies -- especially as this must come at no small emotional, social, and financial cost to others?
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
Which of us is worth such an enormous investment of human energies -- especially as this must come at no small emotional, social, and financial cost to others?
There are those who would ask which of us is not worth such investment. I count myself among them.
Financial grounds should never stop us doing whatever we can to care for those who both need and want such care.
However, I also believe that it is wrong, wrong, wrong to force medical treatment on someone who doesn't want it. All the indications are (and several court cases have established) that Terri falls into this category. Thus I say obey her wishes and pull the damn plug already.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
Which of us is worth such an enormous investment of human energies -- especially as this must come at no small emotional, social, and financial cost to others?
One of the commentators on NPR pointed out yesterday the irony that her care is being funded by the Medicaid system and proceeds from a large malpractice award -- both sources of funding that the politicians who are keeping her alive would like to cut.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lawrence
Ship's Grill Master
# 4913
|
Posted
I think the two sides can be boiled down to this: does someone ( either he or she acting or, if not competent to act, their legal guardian acting on their behalf and wishes) have the right to let nature take its course and be allowed to die versus does a legal guardian, acting with the power of the state behind him or her have the right to kill someone because it is the guardian or the states' opinion that the quality of life no longer warrants being kept alive.
Obviously Terri's husband and the Florida courts are taking the former position, since assisted suicide or murder ( depending on whether you think Terri would want to be dead now or just her husband and the state)is against the law in the US (with the exception of Oregon concerning assisted suicide) and Terri's parents and the Right to Life movement are taking the later position ( which is why Right to Life is involved).
God have mercy on Terri, her husband, her parents and on all of us now that this case is caught up in the extremist politics of abortion in America ( I speak of the the extremism on both sides). (Sorry for all the parenthetical comments).
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence:
I think the two sides can be boiled down to this: does someone ( either he or she acting or, if not competent to act, their legal guardian acting on their behalf and wishes) have the right to let nature take its course and be allowed to die versus does a legal guardian, acting with the power of the state behind him or her have the right to kill someone because it is the guardian or the states' opinion that the quality of life no longer warrants being kept alive.
Obviously Terri's husband and the Florida courts are taking the former position, since assisted suicide or murder ( depending on whether you think Terri would want to be dead now or just her husband and the state)is against the law in the US (with the exception of Oregon concerning assisted suicide) and Terri's parents and the Right to Life movement are taking the later position ( which is why Right to Life is involved).
God have mercy on Terri, her husband, her parents and on all of us now that this case is caught up in the extremist politics of abortion in America ( I speak of the the extremism on both sides). (Sorry for all the parenthetical comments).
But: this again skips over the question underlying the "Right to Die/Right to Life" positions.
Whose is the life?
For those favoring the right to life, it would appear that at some level, Terri really hasn't the option of rejecting this right. After all, she has done so, with witnesses; and they are determined to make her "live" anyway. Ergo, the life still belongs in some sense to the original giver -- often conceived of as God.
For those favoring the right to die, that life apparently belongs to the recipient, and the choice of using, or rejecting, the gift should lie wholly with the individual.
But the state, too, has an interest in our individual lives. A state can't run happily on if people go about whole-sale offing themselves. This is why some states have laws against attempting suicide.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lawrence
Ship's Grill Master
# 4913
|
Posted
I think that letting nature take its course really answers that ultimately it is God's life to decide about. Intervening by law and making a body stay functioning is the State claiming that right and playing God.
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Just read a long article in the Washington Post about the (Federal) District Court judge's ruling that because the parents would most likely not succeed on the merits there would not be an order to reinsert the feeding tube. For those who don't understand this, what the parents are doing formally is applying for a temporary restraining order to reinsert the feeding tube so that the case can be heard on the merits at whatever time in the future. In order to win this sort of injunctive relief, you have to be able to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The Federal Judge is essentially saying to the parents, "you offer no new evidence which would counter the very-well established record in this case and are very likely to lose on the merits at trial." He also said he was temporarly sidestepping substantial questions about Congress' action. But my favorite quote is this:
quote:
Richard Doerflinger, vice president of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement on Monday praising Congress and Bush. "Terri is not terminally ill," he said. "She is a woman with cognitive disabilities."
Riiiiiiiiight. I like him better when he's opposing abortion. I may not agree with him, but in that case, he's got a point.
The ball now goes to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, GA, for those trying to follow the action.
[ 22. March 2005, 16:49: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
And these are the same people who seem to be indifferent to how many Iraqis or coalition soldiers get killed. The sanctity of life seems to be on a sliding scale of a sort which I don't understand. Unless it has something to do with publicity.
I can't watch the news anymore. Really I can't. I just go into a small room, close the door and listen to my Taize CD. Otherwise I can't take it.
What makes you think that the people who wish for Terri to be kept alive are indifferent to how many Iraqis or soilders get killed. I see no conection between the two things. I have prayed that she would not be allowed to die of hunger or thirst, and I do care very much about the Iraqis and coalition soldiers who are being killed.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
I think he was referring to federal government officials who have voting records, barrea, not any random ordinary citizen.
There is a certain inconsistency when one fervently supports conducting an undeclared war in a way which leads to the deaths of both soldiers and civilians (many if not most of them non-combat), is working to dismantle the Medicaid/SocSecurity safety net (which picks up a big chunk of the cost when someone needs years of medical care), and then turns around and makes a big to-do about saving the life of one particular woman who has been in some sort of medical limbo of brain function for fifteen years because "We must not let this innocent woman die!".
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes you think that the people who wish for Terri to be kept alive are indifferent to how many Iraqis or soilders get killed.
The politicians who were queuing up to wear the velvet mantle of tear-filled compassion for the sanctity of human life don't even know how many Iraqis have been killed, don't show any signs of even discussing it and don't have any idea how to stop coalition soldiers getting killed. Sine's allusion to the hypocrisy of some politicians was well made.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
For example, the question of how much brain she has left is a matter of fact that can be settled by the evidence. The question of whether the "self" is entirely co-extensive with the cerebral cortex is not an evidential matter, but (dare I say it) a metaphysical one. I tend to think that the self is not identical with the cerebral cortex: much of what makes us who are are resides in ingrained reflex and autonomic response.
That's all well and good, but I'm not sure that's the question before the court, as it were. This isn't a metaphysical issue, it's a biological one. Does Terri have the necessary tissue to regain any cognitive function? The answer is no. So even if the self isn't the cerebral cortex, it is interpreted through that part of the brain, so with a missing cerebral cortex you have no sentience to express that self.
The court has found 17 times previously that Terri's wishes, were she to be in this condition, would to be allowed to die. One can argue that she never had the right to make that determination, but you're arguing against quite a number of state and federal laws.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
I'm still undecided about this particular issue. This worries me, however:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
[QUOTE] So even if the self isn't the cerebral cortex, it is interpreted through that part of the brain, so with a missing cerebral cortex you have no sentience to express that self.
As it appears to make personhood a matter of functionality rather than ontology; or if not, are you suggesting that the right to be kept alive is predicated upon whether the person is able to function?
If so, my concern is not so much for extreme cases such as this one (although I am concerned), but for the much closer calls where lines are required to be drawn.
But I may not have got your meaning right?
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Well, actually, what I'm saying is that a person has the right to determine when they should receive life-prolonging treatment. The court has found 17 times that Terri's wishes were to be allowed to die if she were in such a state, and neither her parents nor any of the various scumbags and leeches who've crawled out from under their rocks like Randall Terry or the US Congress has the right to impose their beliefs on her.
I am curious, though, as to why anyone would think someone is still "there", so to speak, if that person cannot think or feel pain and does not have the physical capacity to be aware of her surroundings. If she is in there, it's been a fifteen year sojourn in the sensory deprivation tank and her parents should be ashamed beyond words that they're inflicting that kind of torture on her.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I am curious, though, as to why anyone would think someone is still "there", so to speak, if that person cannot think or feel pain and does not have the physical capacity to be aware of her surroundings.
I am clearer on what I don't think than on what I do. I don't think personhood is defined in terms of consciousness or functionality — included in which is the ability to relate to others. I believe those things are ultimately essential to healthy personhood, but that is not the same thing. Personhood (on my view) is given by God and only ultimately to be understood by Him.
This is linked to the question of the taking of life, or the allowing of life to cease, but it's not the same. Hence my confusion about this case.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
Which of us is worth such an enormous investment of human energies -- especially as this must come at no small emotional, social, and financial cost to others?
There are those who would ask which of us is not worth such investment. I count myself among them.
Financial grounds should never stop us doing whatever we can to care for those who both need and want such care.
However, I also believe that it is wrong, wrong, wrong to force medical treatment on someone who doesn't want it. All the indications are (and several court cases have established) that Terri falls into this category. Thus I say obey her wishes and pull the damn plug already.
Is it wrong to force medical treatment on someone with mental illness, when s/he poses a threat to his/her own life or someone else's, left untreated?
And this goes far, far beyond financial sacrifices. If it were only money we were talking about, I would agree.
But far more is at stake here. The personal and social costs of this (now) circus are staggering. The parents' lives, for the last 15 years, have probably centered around Terri and her "case." So has the husband's, no doubt -- with what effect on his children with his new partner? On their partnership?
Being involved in a lengthy, drawn-out legal matter of this ilk is to have your life overtaken by constant, ongoing paperwork, appearances, notices, etc. It's like having a second full-time job, only one that costs you energy and money without providing any real rewards -- just more appeals. Might there be a more productive use of these people's time and abilities?
And then there's all the rubbishy misconceptions the publicity has generated on the front pages of the public imagination . . .
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
I expect Terri will be gone on to wherever she's going within the next week or so, God have mercy on her and on us all.
Her case, and little Sun's (that one really raised my blood pressure when I heard of it a few days back), as examples, sure do provide a lot of opportunity to watch your friends and associates line up in philosophical groups.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Was it Sun's raving lunatic mother that irked you, Janine?
I have to say, I thought this snippet from a story on CNN did elicit a chuckle:
quote:
Gibbs [the Schindler family lawyer] repeatedly called for urgent action, saying Schiavo is dehydrating and starving "as we speak."
He said her right to due process has consistently been denied by lower courts -- a statement that drew intense questioning from the judge.
Pressed by Whittemore to cite any case law to support his argument, Gibbs admitted he could not think of any.
One can only imagine the humiliation in store from SCOTUS.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
Is there any guarantee they'll actually hear this, though?
Seems like a candidate for referral back to the judge who may be the poor woman's only advocate . . .
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm wondering...
Part of the problem (for some people) seems to be the whole active "yank the tube" bit. I have to say it bothers me a little as well, having been through dehydration. It made me feel like sh*t. I hope she hasn't the ability to feel that anymore. Going without food would probably be easier, though.
Perhaps the tube could be put back and a Do Not Resuscitate order placed on her chart. Also, no antibiotics, etc. for the next infection/ pneumonia that I expect she's very vulnerable to (as all bedridden folk are).
I don't think it would take long before nature took over and that was the end.
Somebody will probably jump on me with "well, that's no different than yanking the tube." Well, to some of us it is. Passive vs. active makes a difference.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
