This, along with ranting hysterical screeds from Peggy Noonan claiming people like me have a “passion for pulling the plug” on Terri Schiavo, is the type of sophistry and appeals to emotion that got us into this mess in the first place:
A Few Questions…
What if Terri Schiavo were a five-year-old child with no apparent disability, and the “rule of law” said she should be starved to death?
What if you saw that five-year-old on television begging for a drink of water and saying she was in pain?
How many of you would be concerned with states rights or separation of powers then?
How many people would be able to say that this “very personal matter” should be “left to the courts to decide”, and then just forget it was happening?
Terri Schiavo is not five years old, she is 41.
Despite the nonsense propagated in the last couple of weeks, Terri Schiavo is not disabled. She is in a persistent vegetative state, and has been for 15 years. She will not recover. Not ever.
The “rule of law,” is not saying that she should be starved to death, the “rule of law” says that we, as people with a deep respect for individual liberty, should act in best faith, in accordance with the law, to do what we can determine with her wishes. It has been determined, through careful, studious, tedious, and repeated litigation that Terri would not have wanted to live in this state, and she is being taken off of her feeding tube in order to acquiese to her wishes.
If I saw a five year old on television begging for a glass of water, the first thing I would do is slap the shit out of the cameramen and newscasters for not giving her the water. Is that what you think this is all about- a thirsty five year old?
Steven Taylor
Indeed.
That kind of “logic” is what has been wrong with this debate from the beginning.
The shrillness of many with whom I might otherwise normally agree has been rather frustrating.
Certainly the lack of reliance on facts has been most annoying.
Fersboo
The fact that Michael told the court he needed the money to help her recover and then 8 years later he told another court that he just remembered that she wouldn’t want to go on in this state.
Those kind of facts?
Defense Guy
Or is it the facts that some tests that could be done, have been withheld. The sealing of financial records is a good fact too.
I don’t know what to make of Mr. Shiavo, but there is a part of me screaming ‘dont trust him’. I hope I can be forgivin if that part of me turns out to be a moron.
Greg Burton
Over 10 million children under the age of 5 die, worldwide, every year. Over 1.5 million of those deaths are attributed to diarrhea – often caused or exacerbated by malnutrition and bad drinking water.
I don’t see the hysterics in this case even considering that we might have some kind of moral obligation to help these tragedies. So let’s let the askers of such rhetorical questions talk about this, and see just how fast they tell us that “it’s different”
foo
Jahn,
I know this is offtopic, but Amitai’s first name is Amitai, which is spelled Amitai, and not Amatai, which you have erroneously mispelled as Amatai.
Defense Guy
Yes Greg, because it is clearly an honest man who deflects one conversation by pointing to another. By no means should we treat every circumstance as individual. Let us be borg.
jack
So much clouds this….
“The fact that Michael told the court he needed the money to help her recover and then 8 years later he told another court that he just remembered that she wouldn’t want to go on in this state.”
What about the fact that $750,000 of that money was placed in a trust, for Terri’s care, that Michael was unable to touch
Or the fact that Michael started talking about Terri’s wishes AFTER years of “aggressive rahab”, tests, experimental brain surgery to try thalamic implants among other courses.
Those facts are all verified, in court documents…where do yours come from?
Would it have been better if Michael had, right after the accident, when it became evident that Terri had suffered massive brain damage and before ANYTHING had been tried, immediately started telling anyone who would listen that Terri wanted to die, that she didn’t want to live like that?
Or would that have been the wrong thing too?
Greg Burton
“What if you saw that five-year-old on television begging for a drink of water and saying she was in pain?”
DG, that’s the line from Noonan that I’m responding to – directly. Sorry you can’t see that the deflection occured in her “hypothetical case” – and that except for the television part it’s not hypothetical.
AT
Oh, for the love of God.
“She is in a persistent vegetative state, and has been for 15 years.”
A number of doctors disagree that that finding is accurate.
“She will not recover. Not ever.”
“Recover?” You mean hop out of bed, walk around and sing, “I’ve Got a Golden Ticket?” No, nobody thinks that. Is that’s what’s necessary for you? They think there could be some improvement in her condition.
“The “rule of law,” is not saying that she should be starved to death, the “rule of law” says that we, as people with a deep respect for individual liberty, should act in best faith, in accordance with the law, to do what we can determine with her wishes.”
No, not really. If you think that’s what happens, you’re mistaken. We admit that can’t be done, so we rely on a legal guardian to determine the “best interests” of the ward.
“It has been determined, through careful, studious, tedious, and repeated litigation that Terri would not have wanted to live in this state, and she is being taken off of her feeding tube in order to acquiese to her wishes.”
Again, no. That’s a legal fiction. We execute her wishes as expressed through her legal guardian. There’s quite a difference.
Do you think it’s the End Of All Things that some believe there should be federal review of due process violations under the federal Constitution in making life-or-death decisions? I’m not asking if you disagree, I’m asking if it’s almost as bad as allowing fathers to kill their daughters when they’re raped, which you seem to think it is.
joe
Greg,
If you’re so worried about the plight of the dying then why are you blogging about TiVo?
Poster,
If by “tedious litigation” you mean a ruling in a probate court by one judge, and not a trial by jury as a criminal would get, then yes, it has been tediously litigated.
CaseyL
Oh for the love of God II:
“A number of doctors disagree that that finding [that she’s in a PVS state] is accurate.”
A “number of doctors” – how many of them are neurologists? How many of them actually examined her? What do they say about the CAT scan, which shows her cerebral cortex no longer exists?
“They think there could be some improvement in her condition.” – What kind of improvement? Like, her brain will grow back? What treatments do they suggest that will grow her brain back?
“Again, no. That [her wishes, as determined by repeated medical review, a GAL evaluation, and years of litigation] is a legal fiction. We execute her wishes as expressed through her legal guardian. There’s quite a difference.” – So, what are you saying here?
The years of review, evaluation, and litigation were all meaningless? The concept of ‘legal guardian’ is meaningless? Is this a standard you believe should be applied universally?
“Do you think it’s the End Of All Things that some believe there should be federal review of due process violations under the federal Constitution in making life-or-death decisions?” What due process was violated here? Please be specific. Also, do you intend for this same standard to be universally applied – such as, for example, in cases like Sun Hudson’s? Or in cases where death row inmates had inadequate counsel, were convicted by use of perjured witnesses, police corruption and intimidation, and a Governor who can’t be bothered to review appeal briefs in depth?
Taliban
I for one am ashamed to live in a country where officials of the government would try to act to save the life of an innocent woman.
For shame, right-wingers!
Too bad things went to hell in a handbasket in Ahgjanistan or I’d move back.
Bob
AT, people don’t regrow brains. Stop listening to the fakes on Fox. She’s not going to get any better. If you want to argue whether or not she should be preserved until she develops an infection from bed sores and dies, or until she gets pneumonia and dies or until she dies from any of the various conditions that eventually kill bed-ridden, brain-dead patients, then do that, but please don’t repeat the lies about her getting better.
And since Ms. Schiavo is now pretty much living on the federal dole, AT, I support your stand at keeping Medicare/Medicaid levels at current levels, or even expanding them. If those funds were available to that baby that was taken off the respirator in Texas a week ago, he would not have been “deathed” because his mom couldn’t afford the medical care.
The rule of law is that the decision for continuing or ending this medical treatment is with the husband. The parents disagreed and exhausted every judicial means. They lost. Would you rather have the decision be made by the husband or Congress? Or the mother of that baby in Texas, or the hospital?
This reminds me of the Knauer case in 1930s Germany, where Hitler was given the power to decide the death of a “defective” baby, which led to other things.
When Michael Schiavo makes a decision about his wife, backed by years of court deliberation, whether it’s right or wrong, it’s only about one person. There is no legal precedent here. I feel better about it than decisions of life or death based on money, politics or religion. Bad track record.