The award for the most over the top assessment of the Terri Schiavo issue, replete with crucifixion analogies and hysterical predictions, goes to Cal Thomas. Enjoy the references to the Holocaust and slavery, but ‘conservatives’ can still take comfort in the fact that fags are not mentioned, and should probably be considered fair game.
I actually saw this Saturday night after the WVU game and had to wait for the transcript. Here it is, in all its glory:
It’s Easter weekend and those who believe Easter is about something other than bunny rabbits, dyed eggs and marshmallow chickens, will find it eerie that a type of passion play is playing out in Florida.
Terry Schiavo has been sentenced to death.
One does not wish to push the analogy too far. Easter remains a unique event, but it will not be lost on the millions, who observe it as the death of an innocent man for guilty men and women, that Terri Schiavo does not deserve to die.
Those Catholics and evangelical Protestants who voted for President Bush in large numbers will be heartened that he and a republican Congress came to the aid of this Catholic woman in her time of distress. Beyond the politics, though, is something more important.
Our “evolving standards,” as Justice Kennedy recently called them in a death penalty case, means all of us are potentially at risk of euthanasia if we do not measure-up to cultural and arbitrary whims imposed by unaccountable judges. Do you see where this is headed?
Today, it’s Terri Schiavo. Tomorrow it could be you or me.
As pressure grows to ease the financial burden on social security, pressure will also grow to eliminate the elderly and infirm to “free-up” more money for the “fit” and those who contribute more than they take from society.
Events like this should not be seen in a vacuum. When one category of life is deemed unworthy of protection
Tongueboy
Next thing you know, the ‘Culture of Death’ Police will be pulling over blue-hairs on their way to the earlybird special, Mercury Marquis after Lincoln Town Car after Buick LeSabre, and shooting them by the side of the road because they are no longer worthwhile or ‘measure up.’
What a hysterical moron. And not, tragically, in the funny way.
I sense a bit of hysteria, as well.
John Cole
Today, it’s Terri Schiavo. Tomorrow it could be you or me.
As pressure grows to ease the financial burden on social security, pressure will also grow to eliminate the elderly and infirm to “free-up” more money for the “fit” and those who contribute more than they take from society.
Yeah- I am really misrepresenting what Cal Thomas is breathlessly exhorting.
willyb
Cal Thomas is apparently not alone in his characterization of this issue… http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050404/4john.htm
“The Schiavo case is a breakthrough for persuading the public to lower the bar on moral constraints. Once we had a bright line between pulling the plug on patients kept alive by life-support systems and killing people like Terri Schiavo who are not on life support but merely being fed through a tube. Requiring clear evidence of consent is no longer required. In the Schiavo case, we have vaguely remembered consent from a party with a vested interest (the husband) some eight years after the patient was stricken. And though the medical and media people seem to agree that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state, there is some doubt that this is so. She has never been given a PET scan, one of the most sophisticated tests used to diagnose PVS, apparently because her husband refused to allow it. The killing of Schiavo is a scandal successfully redefined as unexceptional and therefore moral.”
willyb
And yet another writer that worried about the consequences of Terri Schiavo
ron
you are calling someone a hysterical moron for wanting to err on the side of life. you’ve gone off the rails on this one.
disinherited
A bit maudlin, what?
I do find breathtaking the leap of logic that somehow due process of law implementing a recognized private right to die is opening the floodgates for deathsquads.
Jorge
“err on the side of life”
To add some levity – its funny how many politicians and folks have said that the people wanting to re-insert the feeding tube are “erring on the side of life” or “want to err on the side of life.” If taken literally, they are admitting to either making or wanting to make a mistake. The phrase should be “If we are to err, we want to err on the side of life.”
Kynn Bartlett
“As pressure grows to ease the financial burden on social security, pressure will also grow to eliminate the elderly and infirm to “free-up” more money for the “fit” and those who contribute more than they take from society.”
And yet, I’m sure that Cal Thomas has had nothing to say about the Texas 1999 law which, unlike the Schiavo case, really IS a step in that direction.
Tongueboy
Yeah- I am really misrepresenting what Cal Thomas is breathlessly exhorting.
Well, yes, actually you are. Let’s look at the rest of the excerpt you posted.
As pressure grows to ease the financial burden on social security, pressure will also grow to eliminate the elderly and infirm to “free-up” more money for the “fit” and those who contribute more than they take from society.
Events like this should not be seen in a vacuum. When one category of life is deemed unworthy of protection
John Cole
you are calling someone a hysterical moron for wanting to err on the side of life. you’ve gone off the rails on this one.
Cal Thomas is making dire policy predictions based on the slur that anyone who disagrees with him favors a cukture of death.
That makes this moronic column of his a sliper slope argument based on a nasty ad hominem. As fallacies go, it is a literal twofer.
Walt
Actually, Cal is indulging in influence without responsibility, a vice common to members of the commentariat, one which helps drive the inflammatory nature of the rhetoric on both sides. Hat tip to Michael Barone for a wonderful quote from Stanley Baldwin.
Bryan C
It is a little over the top, but I attribute that to Cal Thomas’ style and not the argument itself.
I know you don’t accept his argument that the Schaivo case as a valid example (I don’t either, not entirely) but I think there’s a good point buried in there. Namely, be careful what standards you allow to creep into the law, because those standards are often broadened and amplified through later misapplicaton. That makes sense to me.
CadillaqJaq
One thing for certain, with that column ol’ Cal certainly isn’t risking the loss of his extreme right evangelical readers.
Unfortunately for many of us, there are only two major political parties representing the kooks on both extreme fringes leaving us wondering where we belong.
John Cole
Namely, be careful what standards you allow to creep into the law, because those standards are often broadened and amplified through later misapplicaton.
Why? You can just have Congress re-convene and pass a new law if the established ones piss you off. The law is malleable. We don;t have to follow laws once we have written them.
Why should laws concern the lawless brigands and shameless theocrats that seem to make up the leadership of the current GOP? They answer to God, not you, me, or the law.
Defense Guy
Wasn’t it on this site that I read that the liberals were being proven right that some are trying to institute a theocracy in this country.
Hysteria is all over the place on this one.
scs2005
John- You seem to have trouble using logic to rebut facts and instead you result to insults, i.e. “moron”. I believe Cal is on a superior intellectual plane than you as I have never heard him resort to such juvenile ways to deal with someone he disagrees with.
He was using extreme historical examples to dramatize his case- that some beliefs, in this case the belief in the goodness of euthanasia, can lead us to the “slippery slope”. This is the same slope that many people in the past, who thought they were all doing the right things too, ended up descending, and we should be careful we are not doing the same. Even a moron should be able to get his point.
Rick
Why should laws concern the lawless brigands and shameless theocrats that seem to make up the leadership of the current GOP?
John,
To allude a remark of mine to you a day or so ago, please say it, don’t spray it.
You are being no less hyperbolic than anyone you’re assailing.
Cordially…
John Cole
Cal is on a different plane, alright. Apparently arguments are now any casual combination of fallacies and casuistries you can summon.
In other words, he wasn’t making an argument at all. He was lumping together a bunch of fallacies.
Rick
Both sides of this issue are pot & kettle. Or each brandishing its own set of facts.
Cordially…
EphSooner
It strikes me as ironic that people like Thomas are spreading the idea that the courts have somehow taken it upon themselves to declare Ms. Schiavo “unworthy of life,” which they emphatically have not.
In fact, they have merely decided, based upon competent evidence, that Ms. Schiavo herself would not have wanted to live the life she currently lives.
Of course, if Thomas, and Noonan, and other blowhards keep carrying on like this, it may become conventional wisdom that the courts CAN properly decide who “deserves” to live and who doesn’t, and that would not be a good thing.
Mike
Thank you for some sanity in this sea of insanity, John. I thought there were no more real republicans left, but you prove that there are still conservatives out there who haven’t been hi-jacked by the religous social right. I grew up in a strong Republican household. I learned that Republicans stood for a strong national defense, a conservative fiscal policy, small government and, most importantly, stay out of people’s lives. That certainly is not today’s Republican party — Today’s is all about spending, deficits and telling people how they should live thier lives. It looks the Democrats of the 60’s! With the Republicans catering to the extreme right and the Democrats to the extreme left, where is a moderate person to go? We need a third party. You are right to be outraged by this whole fiasco. Many of us are waking up and asking ourselves what has happend to our party.
S.W. Anderson
Cal Thomas and Peggy Noonan are both way out there
Copper
Cal Thomas, Bill Bennett, Pat Robertson, Bill Krystal, Jerry Falwell, et al are trying to scare people into believing that we are all doomed to be killed by the “culture of death”, yet I think those guys are already brain dead themselves. Most of them have skeletons in their cabinets and yet try to profess how “moral” they are. Sanctimonious jerks who try to intimidate and terrify those people without enough sense to figure out they are being had.
Gary Farber
I always enjoy a good reference to slabery, myself. It’s just not talked about enough, I say.
Gary Farber
Heard about this, by the way?
John Cole
I am beginning to think that people think slippery slope arguments are actual arguments- they are not- they are fallacies. So when Cal Thomas says that if Terri Schiavo dies, we are going to start executing old people because they are worthless, it should be summarily ignored.
People are able to understand the difference between removing life support from a loved one and outright murder. People can make distinctions. IF yuo don’t believe me, just ask Cal what he thinks about the death penalty.
What? He is a supporter of the culture of life AND in favor of executions? How can this be? You see- people can make distinctions between separate issues and events.
willyb
I give up, what is slabery??
John Cole
Me trying to type ‘slavery’ with my feet.
willyb
John:
How would you seen this article? http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article506716.html . The writer apparently suffers from cerebral palsy.
“The case of Terri Schiavo has been framed by the media as the battle between the “right to die” and pro-life groups, with the latter often referred to as “right-wing Christians.” Little attention has been paid to the more than twenty major disability rights organizations firmly supporting Schiavo’s right to nutrition and hydration. Terri Schindler-Schiavo, a severely disabled woman, is being starved and dehydrated to death in the name of supposed “dignity.” Polls show that most Americans believe that her death is a private matter and that her removal from a feeding tube
willyb
Pardon the typo in the first sentence…it should read “HAVE you seen this article?”
KC
Great comments, John.
Mikey
“Hysterical” does not begin to say it. This is over-reaction, big time. The facts of this case are too wierd to have much of an effect on the law. In my opinion.
Jorge
“How would you characterize Joe Ford’s arguments?”
The problem with the hole euthanasia argument is that the courts found that Mrs. Schiavo repeatedly said to numerous people that she would not want to be kept alive by aritificial means. An examiniation of any of the trials will reveal that if it had been determined that there was inconclusive evidence as to whether this was what Terri Schiavo wanted, the tube would never have been pulled. In other words, the courts in this case have not ruled that the next of kin have the right to remove the feeding tube. They have ruled that a person has the right to make that choice for themselves.
As far as her feeding tube being “low tech”, Schiavo had an operation in which a hole was cut into her stomach and was allowed to heal over. And now, in order to be fed, a machine pumps a nutritional mix into her stomach through a plastic tube inserted into that hole. She requires constant treatment to keep the hole from becoming infected. So, the term low tech is very relative here.
Also, it seems a clarification is needed here – extraordinary life saving devices and heroic life saving techniques do not necessarily mean “high-tech.” Basic CPR is a heroic life saving technique and is as “low-tech” as you can get. And I don’t think that anyone will argue that indefinitely feeding someone through a plastic tube inserted directly into the stomach through the abdomen is an ordinary means of keeping someone alive.
CaseyL
Diasabled-advocacy groups are going after the wrong target. Terri Schiavo’s case isn’t about killing people whom some authorities deem unworthy of life. The Texas “Turn ‘Em Off” law emphatically *is* about that. When the disabled advocacy groups go after Texas I’ll pay attention to them.
willyb
“When the disabled advocacy groups go after Texas I’ll pay attention to them.”
That’s downright white of you.
scs2005
John- yes I agree the slippery slope argument is not alaways valid as people are supposed to make distinctions. The problem is, they don’t always do so.
Some would argue that killing Terri Schiavo is already on the slippery slope as ‘pulling the plug’ was originally intended for someone like Karen Ann Quinlan who was in a coma and on a heart lung machine and whose whole family wanted her to let her go. Here we are now court mandating killing someone not in a coma and on a feeding tube whose whole family does not want to her die. Quite a progression in my opinion.
What’s next? Maybe a severely retarded quadriplegic accident victim who needs insulin shots whose wife claims he wouldn’t want to live like that? Would she be allowed to withhold the insulin shots? Insulin shots are artificial means too. Anyway, I don’t know, just another dramatisation.
Cal’s point is that we may have ALREADY started to go down the slippery slope. And I agree. Call me a moron.
Rick
scs,
Great to hear your voice of sanity in this hyperbolic cauldron.
Cordially…
willyb
Jorge:
For comments about Terri Schiavo intent to die, I refer you to the article at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050404/4john.htm. There are conflicting points of view about what Terri Schiavo would want, but I do not argue about the LEGALITY of “her” decision to have her feeding tube removed.
I will grant you that a feeding tube is not ordinary, but then again, the situation of many disabled folks in not ordinary.
Joe
“I am beginning to think that people think slippery slope arguments are actual arguments- they are not- they are fallacies.”
What about the “Congress intervening whenever they don’t like the outcome produced by the Judiciary” argument?
That’s pretty slippery.
Jorge
Jorge:
For comments about Terri Schiavo intent to die, I refer you to the article at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050404/4john.htm.
Mr. Leo actually demonstrates some of the ignorance of the judicial case which has dominated the headlines. Michael Schiavo was only one of three different people who testified that Terri Schiavo did not want to be kept alive by artificial means. Michael Schiavo’s brother and sister also testified that they’d had similar conversations with Terri. Actually, it was Schiavo’s sister who testified that Terri had said after the funeral of one of Mr. Schiavo’s grandparents that she would not want to be kept alive with tubes.
The burdern of proof in this case was clearly on Mr. Schiavo. He went to the courts to petition to have the tube removed. And after the testimony of witnesses, expert testimony from doctors picked by Schiavo, the Schindler’s and the court, the courts came to the conclusion that A) Terri was in a persistent vegitative state and B) she would not want to be kept alive through extraordinary or heroic means. The case was then appealed and the decision was upheld. It should be a prerequisite that any columnist or journalist who covers this case should read the court decisions.
Mr. Leo then goes on to say that a feeding tube is not life support. Well, despite what Mr. Leo’s opinion might be, artificial hydration and nutrition is indeed artificial life support.
CJ
For all the hullaballoo over hearsay evidence, I’m surprised you folks keep turning to opinion pieces for the facts. Go the actual court opinion that determined what Mrs. Schiavo’s wishes were. Note that the words ‘unrebutted’ and ‘unrefuted’ are used many times in relation to evidence that Mrs. Schiavo is in a PVS and that should would not have wanted to live in this manner. Her specific statements were along the lines of not wanting to be kept alive with tubes.
Enjoy: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
Jon H
What’s funny is that, when promoting malpractice reform, the GOP complains about doctors doing too many tests on patients, in order to avoid malpractice suits.
Now, they insist that Terri Schiavo should have been given a seemingly endless chain of examinations and brain scans.
willyb
Jorge:
Regardless of how many witnesses were called, it is indisputable that Terri Schiavo did not state that she wished to have her feeding tubes removed. A judge ruled that that is what she would have wanted. And there is a huge difference.
From the ORDER of Judge Greer (bottom of page 4 of 10):
“There are no written declarations by Terri Schiavo as to her intention with regard to this issue. Therefore, the court is left with oral declarations ALLEGEDLY made to parties and non-parties as to her feeling on this subject.” (Emphasis added)
People do change their mind about things… How do you know she didn’t change her mind?
Jorge
Willy –
What do you mean indisputable? The point here is that she didn’t write it down. Or is that what you mean by not stating it? That she didn’t sign a document? If so, I get you.
As far as changing her mind. I’m not sure how that applies. What if she had written out a living will and then had the sudden heart attack? How would we know whether she changed her mind or not?
And again, there is the marriage contract that Terri Schiavo signed with Michael. No one has ever been able to prove, despite countless rumors and slanders, that Michael Schiavo is doing anything but following the wishes of the woman who went before God and the law and made Michael her husband.
All arguments seem to boil down to either A) Michael Schiavo, his sister and his brother are lying or B) Someone other than the person who you chose as your spouse should be your legal guardian and make decisions for you.
I really think that the people who are against removing Terri’s feeding tube are painting themselves into a corner by making this about the legalities of Michael’s right to make the decision. Because right now what is under attack isn’t whether removing a feeding tube should be legal or not. Its whether it can be done on Michael’s word or not. So, what is really under attack are the rights afforded to couples under the marriage contract. And that’s what bothers me about this. I don’t want anyone telling me that if I am incapacitated that the state can come in and stop my wife from chosing a legal course of action on my behalf. One of the reasons we get married is to openly and legally state who it is we want making these decisions for us.
Jon H
willyb writes: “I will grant you that a feeding tube is not ordinary, but then again, the situation of many disabled folks in not ordinary.”
Sure. But those are different situations, to be decided by different people, according to their values and beliefs.
TM Lutas
I’m reminded of Winston Churchill’s “too far ahead of the curve” prediction that “you cannot have socialism without a gulag”. To a great extent, it cost him the election to Atlee. It was 1978, 32 years later, when the brain drain had gotten bad enough that restricting emigration from the UK was seriously put on the table, a very nice way to say the creation of a gulag. Unfortunately, I don’t think that the lag time would be quite that long as we have forced euthanasia happening today in the 1st world.
The tragedy of EU doctors, especially in the Netherlands, offing patients without family input to free up bed space has been pretty well documented. You can make an argument that it can’t happen here but you can’t just assert it or dismiss concerns that such atrocities are merely over the top theocrats venting noxious fumes into the body politic.
willyb
Jorge:
“What if she had written out a living will and then had the sudden heart attack? How would we know whether she changed her mind or not?”
We would not unless a family dispute arose. But this situation is much cleaner for me, since we definitely know what her feelings were at a point in time.
“No one has ever been able to prove, despite countless rumors and slanders, that Michael Schiavo is doing anything but following the wishes of the woman who went before God and the law and made Michael her husband.”
If you are going to bring God into this you might want to consider that adultery might not sit too well with God. The only reason we are having to endure this spectacle is because Michael Sciavo, and not her parents, are in control of Terri. Since he was her HUSBAND, this happened by operation of law, not God.
“I don’t want anyone telling me that if I am incapacitated that the state can come in and stop my wife from chosing a legal course of action on my behalf.”
Under current law in Florida, I don’t think your wife can CHOOSE to remove your feeding tube and starve you to death if that was not your wish. So what the spouse wants is theoretically irrelevant. But as a practical matter, if no family member objects, you will probably be left to die in silence (regardless of your wishes).
CJ
Willy:
willyb
Jon H:
“Sure. But those are different situations, to be decided by different people, according to their values and beliefs.”
Why do you think disabled people are concerned? It really boils down to whose values and beliefs will control. How far do you think Stephen W. Hawking, an ALS sufferer, would have gotten without the love and support of his family and friends? http://www.hawking.org.uk/disable/dindex.html.
By some of the standards floated around on this blog, he would have been offed long ago.
willyb
CJ:
My remarks were in the context of wishes, not family. I only mentioned family to explain what would happen if you had a living will and later changed your mind. You might try looking before you leap.
I read the opinion. I’m not disputing that the court ruled what her wishes were, but if you can’t see that that ruling might be different from what she actually wished, then you are the obtuse one.
“The Schindlers lost all rights to make any decisions of this sort when Terri and Michael married.”
In the generic sense you are right. Parents generally don’t make decisions for adult children. But in the context of an incapacitated person, there is a “pecking order” of who is responsible for decisions. If the husband dies and there are no children, the parents would make these decisions.
“This is a bit beside the point isn’t it? Remember, we live in a nation of laws, not a theocracy. In any case, the Schindlers not only condoned Michael
over it
There is no true similarity between Hawking and Shiavo. Hawking has a brain(a brilliant one at that!), Terri has only the remanants of one…with fluid filling in the blanks. Terri is no longer Terri. She has no thoughts. She feels no pain. For all intents and purposes she has been dead for years now. The same cannot be said for Hawking. Poor example. It is my opinion(please note ‘opinion’) that the part of Terri that housed her soul passed away years ago….it is only her earthy shell that is now being allowed to move on. Just my opinion though….an opinion that, like all the others voiced here, has no place in the decisions being made in FL.
willyb
over it:
The comment about Stephen Hawking was made in the context of an article by a disabled person. http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article506716.html.
I did not say they were similar situations. The comment I made about him being offed relates to his ability to care for himself and communicate without ARTIFICIAL means.
wild bird
Easter is about jesus rising from the dead and accending to heaven and its about his triumph over death
Jorge
“If you are going to bring God into this you might want to consider that adultery might not sit too well with God. The only reason we are having to endure this spectacle is because Michael Sciavo, and not her parents, are in control of Terri. Since he was her HUSBAND, this happened by operation of law, not God.”
Willy-
As a Christian, I actually believe that it is a sin for Michael to have started a family with another woman. However, I don’t think that changes the fact that Terri went before God AND the law and chose Michael to be her guardian. Yes, according to the apostel Paul what Michael has done is essentially divorce himself from Terri. And that’s between him and God. However, from a legal view point, Michael’s having started a new family does not mean that he has divorced Terri.
So, this still boils down to a group of people who think they know better than Terri did when she chose to enter into a legal marriage contract with Michael. Terri made a choice. Terri made her wishes known to her husband and her in-laws. I have still not seen any evidence that would make me believe that Michael Schiavo is doing anything but following his wife’s wishes.
Again, I get the sense that the real debate here is about removing feeding tubes in general and not about the specific legalities of the Schiavo case. Is removing a feeding tube when no other life support is needed murder or not? Under our current laws, it isn’t. Do we need to have a national debate over that issue? I think the general consensus would be that it isn’t murder and that the practice would remain legal. But maybe not.
CJ
Willy:
If I have confused your writings for those of Jorge, I apologize. However, your support for the Schindlers is misplaced.
Again, we live in a nation of laws, one of which indicates that if you prepare a living will (or effectively do so as in the case of Terri Schiavo), your wishes as expressed in that document will be carried out. If you change your mind, you had better leave explicit evidence to that effect as the courts will go with whatever your wishes appear to be. They are not, after all, mind readers. They use the objective evidence they are able to obtain to come to a decision. If you were negligent enough to leave things in a state such that your intent can be misconstrued, too bad. Such is the case here.
Can you speculate as to why things MUST be this way? The reason is that once we start questioning the explicit wishes of folks with living wills (including TS) on the basis of
willyb
Jorge:
The Terri Schiavo situation is pretty unique. And while I don’t disagree with the general thrust of your position, I just think in this situation the least harm is done by letting her parents take care of her.
Even though my spouse has expressed a wish to be left to die if she ever entered a PVS, I told her I would probably turn her over to her parents if the situation were similar to the Schiavos. She had NO problem with that.
CJ:
My position really has nothing to do with a value judgment I have made about the Schindlers or Schiavos. No human is perfect.
I agree we need the law and I agree the law has reached what appears to be a reasonable conclusion based on the facts that were available to them. However, I am generally not in favor of government involvement in private matters, and the courts are part of the government. This whole situation is regrettable.
My point about the pecking order was obviously made to highlight that Michael Schiavo has broken his vows to Terri Schiavo and has provided grounds for divorce in most states. IF he were to divorce TS, her parents would be in charge. And I do believe that have a moral obligation to their child.
CJ
Willy:
Your point out about the Schindlers being the ones to make decisions if their daughter were divorced is correct as far as it goes. However, it is a point without a purpose. Or rather, its only purpose is to cast Michael Schiavo in a bad light. Enough already. It serves no useful purpose to keep pointing it out.
CJ
willyb
CJ:
You are the one that keeps bringing it up… As far as casting a bad light on Michael Schiavo, if the shoe fits…
CJ
Willy:
You are amazing. Read your last post. You accuse me of bringing it up and then say “if the shoe fits”. Does it hurt when irony bites you in the arse?
Your post in response to Jorge brought God into this debate and simultaneously attempted to paint Michael as a bad person:
willyb
“You are amazing. Read your last post. You accuse me of bringing it up and then say “if the shoe fits”. Does it hurt when irony bites you in the arse?”
What irony??? You brought up the subject. If you wanted it to be over, why did you do that? Maybe you just want to argue about whether MS is morally right. Or maybe, pretty good next to the Schindlers?
“I like the fact that you feel that the Schindler
CJ
Willy:
So now we get a bit closer to what you truly feel:
“Once the courts were involved, it goes a little deeper for me. I don’t like the idea of a judge making a ruling, based on hearsay evidence, that has the effect of a death sentence on a person that can’t defend herself.”
Well. Its out now. Don’t you feel better? Since this is 100% emotional for you, arising from a fear of death or some religious feelings, I concede that you will not be swayed by rational arguments. That said, you have no rational basis to support your opposition. Now would be a good time to admit it.
Go read a bit of evidentiary law and perhaps some Florida law and get back to me on the hearsay thing. I imagine that you might be a bit chagrined when you learn that Judge Greer followed the law and that no inadmissible hearsay came into the matter. I promise not to say “I told you so”.
You should also go look up the definition of “Guardian ad litem.” Terri has had, I believe, three of them. In addition to the GAL’s, Terri has had her parents and their lawyers working on her behalf. You are either being disingenuous here or are being willfully ignorant.
You say that Terri can’t defend herself, but the fact is that she has had teams of people defending her for years. All that has happened is that the case for allowing Terri’s wishes to be carried out has become stronger.
You may want to tone down the death warrant bit here a little though. Nothing like inflamed passions to convince some idiot to put out a bounty on Judge Greer. Wouldn’t want to see that happen . . . oops. It alread did.
Whatever your fear is, perhaps you should see an attorney and take steps to prevent this from happening to you. Perhaps when you’ve done this you might be a bit more objective about this issue. In the mean time, do some reading: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#timeline
CJ
willyb
CJ:
“Well. Its out now. Don’t you feel better? Since this is 100% emotional for you, arising from a fear of death or some religious feelings, I concede that you will not be swayed by rational arguments. That said, you have no rational basis to support your opposition. Now would be a good time to admit it.”
You are so full of shit!
I never said the hearsay was inadmissable. And furthermore, I never said there was anything procedurally wrong with the decision. Why would I go research something I know is legally correct?? Do you have a comprehension problem?
“I concede that you will not be swayed by rational arguments. That said, you have no rational basis to support your opposition.”
I’m still waiting for you to make a rational argument. So far all you have done is cast aspersions on the Schindlers to distract from what is reality with MS.
My statement is not a rationalization for anything. The fact is the state is murdering Terri Schiavo. Period. Now you can rationalize that it is legal, what you would want, whatever. But that does not change the fact. It’s kind of like when it was legal to own slaves. Being legal does not make it moral!
willyb
“You say that Terri can’t defend herself, but the fact is that she has had teams of people defending her for years.”
And that’s why she is being starved to death. Because her “guardians” have defended her so well.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TERRI SCHIAVO DESIRES, OR DESIRED, with respect to her present situation. But, since a judge listened to 5 witnesses, and he concluded that he knew what TS wanted, everything is just perfect for you. The word naive comes to mind.
willyb
CJ:
Obviously, MS is not going to be convicted of murder. But, just for the fun of it, try some of your rock solid logic on the following article (if all you’re going to do is shoot the messenger, don’t waste your time).
“Under the common law, murder is defined as the taking of a human life by another, with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is intent to kill, intent to harm, or reckless disregard for human life. In Terri’s case, her husband removed her feeding tube with the intent of killing her. This fits the common law definition of murder. Regardless of why he wants to kill her, this is still murder (or possibly manslaughter) because he’s intentionally ending her life. Therefore, short of a legal defense that would excuse this homicide, Michael Schiavo could be convicted of murder under the common law.
Would a living will wherein Terri consents to having her feeding tube removed provide Michael with a common law defense to murder? No. Under common law, a person cannot consent to a crime. This has been the case because crimes are presumed to be committed against society and not necessarily against a particular person. That’s why when people are released from jail we often say that they had paid their debt to “society.” ” (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4373)
Jorge
“Would a living will wherein Terri consents to having her feeding tube removed provide Michael with a common law defense to murder? No. Under common law, a person cannot consent to a crime.”
So, this isn’t about the legality of this one case, its about whether removing feeding tubes in any situation is murder or not. Therefore, to argue that this shouldn’t happen because it would be against Terri’s wishes is not really an applicable argument since she has not right to consent to her own murder.
And if you follow the logic of this essay, then turning-off life support of any form is murder because it involves taking action to end someone’s life. So, the broader argument becomes whether once artificial life support has been implemented is it murder to turn it off or not.
CJ
Willy:
No, my comprehension is just fine. You prefer insinuation to debate. You didn
willyb
“What is wrong with using hearsay in this situation?”
Well, a person’s life is at stake. If Terri Schiavo were on trial for murder, could she be convicted on the evidence presented at the hearings used to determine her wishes?
“You suggest that God would be unhappy with MS because of his infidelity and that there is some ‘reality’ regarding MS that I am avoiding, but you never come out and say what that ‘reality’ is. What is that reality?”
Look, what started this whole episode about MS is a comment I made about him committing ADULTERY. That is the reality. Do you dispute that he has? Your response was to talk about how the Schindlers enabled him.
“Furthermore, your understanding of intent with regard to murder is pretty much nonexistent. But none of this matters because you think the situation is immoral.”
What??? I did not even address the issue of intent. But the article I referenced does. What do you think MS’s intent is? He is trying to end her “life.” And as for ESTABLISHING your conclusion, well just point to the place where you’ve done that.
The point of my comments has eluded you. Legal does not equal moral. Most of your comments relate to the system, and how it is working as intended. And because I don’t accept the result, I’m irrational? I thought the purpose of the discussion was to explore ideas. But you just go back to defending the result and the system. I say again, the result is legal!
“As to the issue of what TS desires or desired, has it ever occurred to you that you have no idea either?”
Yes, and I admit that I don’t know. The facts/rumors surrounding this case are conflicted. That’s why I’m not in favor of offing her! It has nothing to do with religion!!!
Your WHOLE rant is full of false premises and you have the audacity to lecture me on rationality? GET A CLUE!
CJ
Willy,
Your ignorance is showing.
willyb
So you see, hearsay is permissible in TS
willyb
After you tell me if slavery is moral, tell me what the purpose of Judge Greer’s hearing in 1998 was. If it was to determine Terri Schiavo’s wishes, tell me how they knew she hadn’t change her mind? To get this answer, wouldn’t you have to get the direct testimony of TS relative to this issue? Using what someone thought they heard her say is hearsay. Whether it’s legal or not is not the issue.
CJ
Nice strawman willy. Tell me, why is following Terri Schiavo’s wishes immoral?
As for how we knew what her wishes were, she told five other people, including her mother, what her wishes were. Now, tell me, was there any evidence that she changed her mind? No? I didn’t think so.
The fact that she might have changed her mind and kept it to herself (remember, no evidence of a change of heart here), does not render any of MS’s actions or those of the court immoral. As far as any of the actors in the affair are concerned, they are doing exactly what Terri wished. Tell me how that is immoral. They have no reason to believe that their actions are in any way improper and accordingly, they are not doing anything wrong, let alone immoral.
If “she might have changed her mind” is all you have to go on, I think we’re pretty much done here. Other than your own wishful thinking, there is nothing anywhere that anyone can point to that contradicts the fact that Terri did not want to be kept alive on tubes.
You have nothing to add to this debate. Your arguments are tired. You appear to be arguing from some emotional place that has no rational basis.
If you think that MS and the courts have acted in bad faith, tell me why. Give me facts, not simply assertions. An assertion without any backing falls flat before it gets anywhere.
Good luck.
CJ
willyb
CJ:
Are you a politician? You didn’t answer the question.
Why is that? Your silence tells me that you believe slavery was moral when it was legal, just as starving someone to death is moral, since it’s legal.
My original statement went something like….”I don’t like the idea of a judge making a ruling, based on hearsay evidence, that has the effect of a death sentence on a person that can’t defend herself.” You have provided no argument to make me retract what I stated, other than to tell me it’s legal.
You have nothing to add to this debate. Your arguments are tired. You appear to be arguing from some emotional place that has no rational basis.
I could say the same about you. In fact, consider it said!
Good Luck.
CJ
Willy:
I’ll answer your question and then turn it back on you.
It is, of course, settled that immoral actions can be legal. That said, it does not follow that since slavery was immoral and legal that following TS’s wishes is similarly immoral and legal. That sir, is a strawman.
You have yet to answer my question, to wit: what is immoral about following TS’s wishes? If TS had a clear living will, would you still consider this immoral? If so, why?
So, consider yourself questioned in return. WHAT IS IMMORAL ABOUT THIS SITUATION?
CJ
willyb
“You have yet to answer my question, to wit: what is immoral about following TS’s wishes? ”
Nothing, if we clearly know her wiahes.
“If TS had a clear living will, would you still consider this immoral? If so, why?”
NO. I have said all along that I am not against someone making this type of decision.
Terri Sciavo’s situation is different. She has not clearly indicated her wishes. Therefore, I say less harm is done if she would have been allowed to live in the care of her parents. The circumstances in this case are unique in that her parents are alive to take care of her.
CJ
Hey! It seems we’re finally getting somewhere. So the only problem is that you don’t like the law that allows a court to determine what a person’s wishes regarding medical care might have been? We could have avoided all of this if you would have simply made this point up front you know.
There a number reasons why I think you are wrong on this point. The first is that the concept of personal responsiblity dictates that if you have certain wishes, it is your responsibility to make sure that those wishes are known. In this case, they were known. She related them to five different people, including her own mother. There is nothing that contradicts her wishes other than the wishful thinking of third parties, which brings me to my second point.
Who gets to decide whether anyone has changed their minds? If you, god forbid, should fall into a PVS, who gets to decide what to do with you? It doesn’t matter whether you have a power of attorney, a spouse, or that you have related your wishes to your most trusted confidant. Under the rule that you are implicitly suggesting, someone, anyone actually, can argue that you may have changed your mind and that accordingly, whatever you want cannot be continued. What if it were your wish that you be maintained indefinitely and that you would wish to seek therapy, but someone decided that you had changed your mind, or might have, and that therefore the therapy was withheld, leaving you in a conscious, incapacitated state?
Before you dismiss this, keep in mind that many stroke victims can substantially recover if treated agressively soon enough. What happens if you do desire to be allowed to die as a result of the stroke, but then some ‘do-gooder’ determines that no, you really might have changed your mind? Would you like to be trapped permanently in such a state when it was your clearly stated wish to be allowed to pass on in natural manner? For many of our elderly, this is exactly the case.
Another reason I think you are wrong is that to allow third parties with no standing to interfere in the provision or withholding of medical care, is an outright attack on personal freedoms and on the institution of marriage. Under the US Constitution it is a right of each citizen to choose what kind of health care they wish to receive or not receive. Yet, you would have us abrogate this right on the flimsy grounds that someone might have changed their mind, a statement that is easily proved by simply showing the evidence. This theme is particularly troubling when those in favor of abrogating such rights seek to destroy the institution of marriage on their way to that abrogation.
Another reason I disagree with you on the grounds of morality is that the ‘culture of life’ that is put forward so often seems to be nurturing an irrational and unhealthy fear of death. As it if is some bad thing. Death is not an evil thing and welcoming death under certain circumstances, such as where one is kept alive on tubes, is not evil or immoral. The acceptance of death is a natural choice and one that all of us will make at some point. Rather than nurturing what is actually a culture of fear of death, we need to be more realistic and accept the fact that we will all die and that we can choose to do so in a dignified manner, as did TS. I will even go so far as to state that this culture of life at all costs is morally repugnant. Jesus willingly accepted his fate and accepted his death. Those who believe that Jesus’ acceptance of his fate was a good thing would be well served to emulate him when their time comes.
CJ
willyb
While I thought the foregoing responses answered your questions, to be clear: I am against the state taking the life of an individual unless it is clearly the documented wishes of the individual to have her life taken. If she changes her mind later, then she needs to change the document! While it may still be murder (even if the murdered person consents), I believe in an individual’s freedom to control his life, That is, as long as there is no direct harm to others.
This is different from someone expressing their wishes in a written document and someone later challenging those wishes. I am NOT in favor of that!
I understand that my position may not have perfect moral integrity. Sorry, I’m just not a complete sanctity of life kind of guy.
“Rather than nurturing what is actually a culture of fear of death, we need to be more realistic and accept the fact that we will all die and that we can choose to do so in a dignified manner, as did TS.”
I agree with most of your last post, but you are still using false premises … “as TS did” Why have you brought Jesus into this discussion? Are you a religious person, i.e., do you attend church on a regular basis?
cj
I brought Jesus into this matter as the example provided by Jesus with respect to rationally approaching one’s own death is one we can learn from. Nothing more.
Your idea of requiring living wills in writing may look good on its face, but then, how would people that are in no state to write their own wishes down satisfy such a requirement if there were a change of mind. It would be just as immoral to keep someone alive against their wishes as it woudl be to allow them to die against their wishes. Choosing death is not immoral.
Furthermore, oral statements have legal significance. Any law that abrogates a right to direct your own health care by subjagating that right to a writing requirement isn’t likely to pass Constitutional muster, so we’d be right back where we are.
This is a situation where folks need to recognize that it is acceptable to choose death over continued existence where a person’s life has become a burden to that person, in that person’s own estimation. Note that the current law protects those whose wishes are not known, providing them with a presumption that they would choose life, though that presumption is overruled by statute in some jursidictions (Texas being an example in the news of late).
CJ
willyb
“It would be just as immoral to keep someone alive against their wishes as it woudl be to allow them to die against their wishes.”
You are preaching to the choir. If someone can express their wishes, I think they should be allowed to die. To be clear, that person needs to express the wish to die, not some court as his proxy!
As a practical matter, people let their loved ones go on a daily basis without any document whatsoever. Which is why I wish the “family” had reached some sort of agreement without the government’s (courts) involvement. TS is a special case, and I believe adds to the precedents that are already out there. It’s only served to divide people.
willyb
Whoops, I meant to say: TS is a special case, and I believe adds LITTLE to the precedents that are already out there.
CJ
Willy:
There is a saying in the law that “hard cases make bad law.” TS is a perfect example of true that maxim is.
I appreciate your desire to make things a bit more certain on the living will issue. But the writing requirement will simply cause more problems. The current system works as well and any system can and works better than the writing requirement ever could. Another area where writing requirements are in place is in probate. Where no writing is in place or where the writing is defective, the courts fall back on set rules regarding what happens to a decedent’s estate. If you provide a mechanism for challenging someone’s wishes, i.e. allow a single disgruntled family member to challenge someone’s wishes concerning health care (which is what could easily occur if the wishes weren’t written down), then the law would have to step in to settle the dispute. Florida wisely has a system for solving such disputes that attempts to determine what the wishes of the person in question are/were. Where a dispute rises, go to the source, or at least get as close to the source as you can. If no oral statements were allowed, then we’d have an impasse, or worse, we’d have a situation where a legally mandated set of care directives woudl come into play. If you want to see a battle, imagine what would happen in the fight to get that directive written the way you want to see it. God forbid that the standard directive would be directly opposed to what the person actually wanted done. Given the number of people that don’t have living wills (my wife is a doctor and I have it on her say so that hardly anyone actually has written directives in place), the writing directive will actually increase the number of ugly cases in the courts as it would only take one asshole to challenge the status quo, thereby getting the case thrown to the courts on a mandatory basis.
The current system is about as good as it gets. The writing requirement will only make things worse. Writing requirements will be subject to the same amount of abuse or error as would the current system.
CJ
willyb
CJ:
Nice having this “discussion” with you. See ya around!