Here’s a question I can’t get out of my head. What if Terri Schiavo had had a living will saying she wouldn’t want a feeding tube to keep her alive for decades with no reasonable hope for recovery? Legally, of course, there’d be no issue. She’d get her chance to die in peace. But morally? The arguments of the proponents for keeping the feeding tube in indefinitely suggest that removing the tube is simply murder. If that is the case, then how can removing the tube ever be justified – even if she consented in advance? Murder is murder, right? Isn’t a “living will” essentially a mandate for future assisted suicide? It seems to me that the logic of the absolutist pro-life advocates means that this should be forbidden too. They should logically support a law which forbids the murder of anyone, regardless of living wills. In a society that legally mandates the “culture of life,” the individual’s choice for death is irrelevant, no? Or am I missing something here?
You aren’t missing anything. If some have their way, living wills will be invalidated:
RICHARD LAND, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: My position is that I would morally object to it, but not legally, if it was the clear, manifest will of the person who is having the feeding tube removed. In other words, I accept that people have a right to refuse medical treatment. And if it was clear that Terri Schiavo had clearly said, I do not want to have a feeding tube if I
over it
In my opinion(humble it is not), how are food and water any more or less important than air?
If removing a feeding tube is ‘starving’ someone to death….isn’t removing a ventilator ‘suffocating’ someone to death?
Both a feeding tube and ventilator are medical methods of keeping someone alive beyond the point they would live naturally. Both are categorized as ‘extraordinary’ measures.
I see no moral difference in removing one from the other.
Juliette
You are mis-characterizing what this man said. He wouldn’t legally object to living wills, but you say “laws don’t matter,” as if he did.
Also, would this more accurately be catagorized under, say “Southern Baptist Convention” Stupidity? I see nothing in the article that suggests that even a large minority of republicans object to wishes concretely and legally spelled out in living wills.
Also, if there’s religious right blogger that has expressed the opinion that concrete living wills should be overruled for moral/religious reasons, please point me to them, so I can castigate them.
Juliette
Even if this guy would do what you say he would, big whoop. Who died and made him king of all Republicans, conservatives, Christians or even Baptists?
Where is the proof that all of his bent want to override *actual* living wills?
John Cole
No, Juliette. He ‘accepts’ that it is the law. Really big of him.
I dont think he is anything more than what I labelled him- but he is an honest window into the minds of the theocons.
DANEgerus
You mean if the debate was actually about the “Right to Die”?
Instead of an ex-Husband’s right to choose?
Juliette
What word would you have had him use instead? We all accept a lot of things we don’t approve of or that we think are immoral. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we want to outlaw them. For instance, I don’t want unwed parents arrested.
My other point is that this guy is nobody, in spite of his being a bigwig in a Baptist organization. Sure anyone who would override concrete living wills is a nut, but Protestants are the most decentralized of Christians.
If you are merely pointing out that *this guy* is wrong and to watch out for him, then I get your point. (I bet that even most of his parishioners disagree.) However, as I said before, I don’t know of anyone deemed to be religious right–outside of this guy–who wants to override the wishes *spelled out* in a paper or electronic living will.
CadillaqJaq
Later, down the road that will inevitably come, what does a spouse or family do when the insurance and medicare runs out and the cost of keeping a relative alive via feeding tube (as in the case of Terri Schiavo) become such a burden as to bankrupt the family causing them to lose everything?
I don’t expect an answer but raise the question because in the past couple of days I’ve heard rattlings that Congress and some states are considering legislation that would forever ban the removal of feeding tubes in the future, even with a living will stating otherwise.
No governmental intrusion there…
Juliette
Cad: Where are these rattlings? Got a link? I’d love to take them on at my blog.
Charles
As a libertarian, you’ve got the problem exactly right. The government is supposed to protect life? The same government that cannot reliably deliver the mail? The same government killing our best young boys in a undeclared war in Iraq? The same governmnet that’s entirely in the pockets of the megabanks? Look soon for entrenched warfare on the field of living wills, which some wannabe theocrats want to end.
Where’s the respect for tradition, that which is supposed to render conservtive people conservative? some of our oldest traditions, both religious and political, state that the husband has rights, until divorce, as next of kin. and our republic, the oldest one in human history, and the longest, sits on the basis of separation of powers, on, let’s face it, an IN-efficient government. I mean, do we really want government to be effiient? stalin’s russia was very efficient, and was Hitler’s Germany.
SDN
Actually, there’s a HUGE difference in ACCEPTING a law while it’s on the books.
Remember a little case in April 2000 when a state court in Florida ruled that someone had custody over another human deemed unable to speak for themselves? I seem to recall that there were no debates in Congress, no doubts about what to do: DEMOCRAT Janet Reno sent armed troops waving real assault rifles and dispensing tear gas with a lavish hand. No difference?
Jon H
Here’s a question that’ll explode the head of many right-wing anti-death people:
“If a poor illegal immigrant enters a persistent vegetative state while in the US, should that person be maintained on a feeding tube, in perpetuity, at taxpayer expense?”
Err on the side of life?
Dave
Gee Jon H, I guess you told us anti-death Republicans. But you must tell me, as a pro-death lib (liberal or libertarian), does this poor illegal alien have a living will? It
BumperStickerist
Here’s a question that’ll explode the head of many right-wing anti-death people:
“If a poor illegal immigrant enters a persistent vegetative state while in the US, should that person be maintained on a feeding tube, in perpetuity, at taxpayer expense?”
Err on the side of life?
Well .. that’s an easy one.
Harvest a kidney,
both corneas,
part of the liver,
take skin grafts,
check the bone marrow for possible matches to leukemia patients,
draw off blood every 60 days for use in the blood banks,
and …. let’s see …
oh yeah ….
kick the relatives out of the country for being here illegally.
“Erring on the side of life” doesn’t mean you can’t exploit the crap out of the life on whose side you erred.
Jeesh … didn’t you get the memo?
BumperStickerist
ps. there’s an irony tag in there somewhere
.
.
.
…. I hope
BumperStickerist
But, more to the point … Sullivan is wrong and John has become fascinated by those exceptions which prove his rule, which ever rule it is that he’s trying to prove.
Sullivan, for one, is in no position to insist on rigor and logic given his track record especially with regard to something which is, for Sullivan, intensely personal like religion.
http://www.sullywatch.blogspot.com can provide further instances of Sullivan being less-than-rigorous in his approaches.
CaseyL
The more I reflect on this story, the more it baffles me.
The central dispute is neither unique nor new. There are at any moment hundreds, if not thousands, of families agonizing over the same decision. Even in the statistically small universe of dramatis personae in this case, there were two people who had made the same decision they were now attacking Michael Schiavo for making: Rob Schindler and Tom DeLay had both ended life support for their fathers.
If the idea was to make a case for a “parental rights,” why was there no similar coverage of the Sun Hudson case, where a hospital turned off life support against the wishes of Sun’s mother? Why have the people who continuously attacked Michael Schiavo said nothing, not a single blasted word, about Sun Hudson?
And if the idea was to make a case for a “culture of life,” why was there no discussion, not a single blasted word, about the Texas Futile Care Bill – supported and signed by George Bush, for chrissake – which allows hospitals to end medical treatment and life support for hopeless cases once their families can no longer afford to pay for it?
The same alleged values that everyone was yelling about in the Terri Schiavo story were, and are, applicable to the Texas Futile Care law – as well as to the defunding of healthcare programs for poor people generally. Yet nobody – NOBODY – not on the blogs, not on the news, and certainly not in Congress or the WH – NOBODY – mentioned them. At all.
Why?
Would any of the people here who keep going off about “slow starvation,” and “agonizing death” and “Michael Schiavo is an adulterous murderer,” and “life is precious” and “culture of life” and alla that crap please take a stab at explaining this?
van
Admit it John; you are becoming more and more Libertarian:). As I tell my mother (a Southern Democrat), you didn’t leave the Democratic Party. It left you. Whether you agree or disagree with what happened in Florida, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not have been involved in a STATE matter.
On some blogs, Conservative writers have taken to attacking libertarians for wanting Schiavo to die. This is the farthest thing from the truth. What libertarians are saying is the government should not have any say in the matter.
As we move towards universal healthcare (it’ll be here with the next Democratic President), we’ll see more of these cases. Only the government will be the legal guardian.
Jon H
“Even in the statistically small universe of dramatis personae in this case, there were two people who had made the same decision they were now attacking Michael Schiavo for making: Rob Schindler and Tom DeLay had both ended life support for their fathers.”
Actually, three!
The friar guys who were hanging around. The founder of their order suffered something like Terri Schiavo, and was kept in a PVS for years. Eventually, some complication arose, and they (the other brothers) opted not to treat it, resulting in his death. This was sometime in the last decade.
This struck me, as well.
The other thing that struck me is that, despite how common this sort of decision is, many people seem to be really ignorant of end-of-life issues, and how people die.
Jon H
CaseyL, I agree about the Texas law and the way it’s been danced around.
It seems like these people believe the only appropriate person to make these life and death decisions is an accountant.
They don’t err on the side of life, they err on the side of cash.
BumperStickerist
actually, Casey, there was quite a lot of comparision to both DeLay’s father and the Sun Hudson/Dubya cases.
They’re completely distinct from the issues presented in the Schiavo case
justoneminute.typepad.com had a good roundup of each. Trackbacks and some comments in those threads can reverse search it out to other blogs that dealt with the non-hypocritical nature of both DeLay and Bush (in this instance)
Sue
Cut support for Medicaid by $5 billion. Limit medical lawsuit recovery to $250k. Prevent families from declaring bankruptcy if a medical crisis occurs. Implement legislation that “errs on the side of life.”
Huh?
CadillaqJaq
Juliette;
As I posted, I “heard” what I referred to as rattlings on talk radio. It was Rush or one of his callers, maybe it was only speculation on their part (?). I was exiting my car to post some letters at the time, the subject had changed when I returned.
I thoroughly Googled the issue last night, found nothing pertinent regarding future feeding tube legislation. What I am certain of is both DeLay and Frist are pandering to the religious right promising new legislation to prevent another “Terri Schiavo.”
Here’s a thought for the religious right to ponder: I believe Terri’s soul had long ago left the body, like a motorist would leave a damaged vehicle with the engine still running. What to do morally? Turn off the ignition or continue supplying fuel to the tank?
alizonia
The comparison of respirator vs feeding tube in lay circles is based on ignorance. Placing a feeding tube is arguably a more invasive procedure than a respirator. Non-medical pontificators should go to their local hospital and witness the procedure required to placea tube as well as the maintenance. I would bet half of them would lose their lunch at the site of tubes coming out of the patient’s stomach.
Juliette
CadJaq: Thanks.
“I believe Terri’s soul had long ago left the body…”
What should we ponder? At exactly what point the soul leaves the body? Um…I don’t think so. (And people say that the “religious right” have presumptuous ideas.)
One of the things I’m content with is that there are some things to which I will never have the answer on this Earth. That sort of situation is one of them, so lets just say that I’m agnostic on that, so to speak.
Scrawler
Has anyone else noted the strange discord in coverage by the media from the Terri Shiavo story to the Pope’s illness?
In one case we have the culture of life forces fighting to keep a person alive. Politicians and the Pope himself saying we need to err on the side of life. Without the direct knowledge of a person’s wishes, the act of ending Mrs. Shiavo’s life was defined as murder.
Yet, when the Pope himself falls gravely ill he decides not to return to the hospital. He decides to take his final journey with dignity and end his struggle with illness and pain. Yet if we follow the logic of the Shiavo affair coudn’t we also define this as an assisted suicide? Shouldn’t all means to stay alive be exhausted?
Also, couldn’t we question the actions of the Vatican as we did Michael Shiavo? Just how lucid is the Pope? Which of the Cardinals stands to benefit from this death (i.e. who will be named the next Pontiff.)
And if the state of the brain is unknowable and life the overiding rule, shouldn’t we just keep the Pope alive for 1, 5, 15 years, conscious or not?
I know these cases are not the same and the comparison is silly. Still, it would have been nice if we had treated Terri Shiavo’s death with the same acceptance we seem to have for the Pope’s.
q
Imagine this…
What if Terri’s parents ALSO testified that Terri had expresly stated that she would not want to live in this condition. How entirely different this issue would have been.
After contemplating that “what if”, now think about this….imagine if judge Greer, against the sowrn testimony of the parents, Michael, and others – STILL refused to allow the tube to be removed? How many of those on the parent’s side would have been AGHAST that a judge could be so cruel?
This issue is a total mindf*ck.
While I have always supported the court’s decision, because I think it was the correct lEGAL decision, I think the problem I and many others had was that we didn’t find Michael credible.
As I’ve said from teh beginning, the law is poorly written – not specific enough. That’s the way these things work. Hopefully, the law wil become more precise and “nuanced”. However, regardless of how well-written this type of law could be, thre will ALWAYS be those excpetional cases where the judicial system must make decisions. What I think those polls really reflected was that the majority of Americans are more comfortable with the judicial process playing out and arriving at a decision rather than politicians whims.
Gary Farber
“…would quote the pope, who said the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.”
It’s interesting to see that the Pope didn’t follow this at all when his own time came, but refused “food” as to be administered via a stomach tube.
TM Lutas
I think that there’s a bit of drift away from reality here. If Terri Schiavo had food and water, she would be alive today. There were medical professionals who thought that they could teach her to drink and eat on her own. Therapy would have been paid for by the parents, I have no doubt (it would have been cheaper than the lawyers).
The medical professionals were not permitted to try and reteach how to swallow. Terri’s family was not permitted to try to give her water and food. This is the case at hand and I cannot find any moral justification for it.
Sure, if you screwed up she aspirated and died but you die if you attempt lots of medical treatments and fail. It happens all the time with no immorality attached. The judge and Terri’s husband didn’t allow the blood relatives to try to teach her to eat and drink and police patted them down during visits to make sure she wasn’t going be orally sneaked nutrition. That’s morally outrageous, legally dubious, and I would like to hear what sort of people would defend this.
Steve Malynn
Gary, I understand that the Pope DID take a tube for his sustinance, but that he succombed to the infection, not lack of nutrition or water.
AH
Granddaugther yanks feeding tube from consious granny.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688