Numbers change when proper questions are asked.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.
The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and hasn ot expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri’s case, 43 percent say “the law presume that the person wants to live,
even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube” while just 30 percent disagree.
Another Zogby question his directly on Terri’s circumstances.
“If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water,” the poll asked.
A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.
“From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides,” Concerned Women for America’s Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side “believes Terri’s life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo’s actions as merciful, and appropriate.”
More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, “because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water.”
The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri’s starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.
“When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place,” respondents were asked.
Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.
Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient’s family has a dispute over the care.
“According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we’re trying to accomplish,” she said.
The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.
When asked directly about Terri’s case and told the her estranged husband Michael “has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her” 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri’s parents while 37 percent disagreed.
A decision was made to kill Terri through the removal of her feeding tube. Why? My guess is because she was unable to speak for herself and her husband Michael spoke for her. So who speaks for other’s after today? Who is going to make the decision on who lives or dies if they can’t speak for themselves? Do we form a “Committee” that decides on the value of someone’s life? Maybe we should starve the baby’s who are born with Down’s Syndrome or those with spina bifidia? Maybe we should re-read Hitler’s theology and get some pointer’s from him? Maybe when you get to be old and unproductive we should starve you too or a shot would be more humane I suppose.
The point is, what was done to Terri Schavo was an act committed against a helpless human who had no voice and the question is, who is next? Maybe you?
Polls can be (ab)used to show whatever you want them to show: http://www.pollingreport.com/news.htm
Feeding tube is clearly stated and named, still the majority was behind the decision in several polls and against the intervention of congress.
The only intelligent and worthwhile conclusion that can be drawn from your poll is the one you don’t want to hear because it prevents you from going off on a tangent and claim Nazi ideology is at the doorstep.
Majority in favour of pulling the feeding tube from a PVS patient.
Majority in favour of feeding a disabled person.
Conclusion: the majority of Americans thought Terri was in a persistant vegitative state, understood that she could not be fed by normal means and hence supported the removal of the feeding tube.
Furthermore, the majority of Americans does not wish to kill off every disabled person as you’re all so convinced of.
“However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.”
Is there any more information on this poll? The Zogby site doesn’t mention it. A quick trip around the internet reveals no other references to it. Also, what is the date, number of people contacted, margin of error? Without that information it is impossible even to know what to think about it.
Note 2. Vanessa, the point in bringing up the Zogby poll shows exactly what you assert: polls change according to the questions posed. For that reason your conclusion that polls show the majority of Americans approve of the Schiavo killing ought to offered with a bit more humility, don’t you think?
Yes, I agree that most Americans don’t want to kill off the disabled. The disabled, however, are worried that some Americans want to kill them. Some Americans don’t hold life sacred, and the disabled realize they fall into the category of useless and non-productive life — like Terri Schiavo. I posted some links reporting this.
Not Dead At All
It’s not About Terri Schiavo Anymore
Read them to see what the disabled themselves are saying.
The disabled are in a position of weakness and currently being preyed upon by pro-life propaganda suggesting that from now on they should constantly be fearing for their lives because the evil ‘liberals’ are after them next.
That’s just pure and utter nonsense and a rather dirty trick to play on anyone.
Most families aren’t even close to showing the same level of dysfunction as Terri’s. Michael wanted her to pass on and allegedly had her approval for it, Terri’s parents wanted her alive at any and all costs, regardless of her wishes.
Michael can be shown to have ulterior motives for wanting that, but so can the Schindlers. Terri’s father was torn and guilt ridden over the decision to pull the plug on his mother and then he was confronted with his daughter in a similar (live or die wise, not medicially speaking) condition and I’m sure he cracked.
A decent family does not elevate a family member’s suffering to a media circus and reality soap drama for the whole word to gawk over. A decent family does not condone selling videotapes of their daughter’s condition at $100 a tape. And so on and on.
I won’t argue with you that I’m certain that some families will choose to let a family member pass on when they feel they’ve become a burden to them. Whether that’s the right thing to do or not, I don’t know and noone will ever know. If they have any level of consciousness and awareness, and aren’t in constant pain, I’d say it’s wrong, based on my personal feelings.
At the other side I’m also certain there are families who keep a family member alive against all odds because it makes them feel better, or because they can’t bear to come to terms with what has happened. Same conclusion, I don’t know if that’s wrong or not. And in this case the opposite, if there’s no consciousness or aware, or if they are in constant pain, keeping them alive because it’s “easier” is wrong.
I don’t see any need for radical reform, beyond the fact that everything should be done to keep arguements out of the court where they don’t belong and, as important, a best attempt to judge that families aren’t killing their family members because of the burden they prepresent and equally, don’t keep a body alive for the sole sake of not having to come to terms that their loved one has passed on.
In the end I fail to see the use of any poll in this. People’s lives aren’t decided by general consensus but by the family (absent a living will, or when the living will is in dispute). In this case, the decision process has to be reviewed, and one pending bill where an estranged spouse can no longer withhold nutrition or medicial care from the other has my full support.
On the other side, there should probably be stricter monitoring on families’ end-of-life decisions to see if there was no foul play.
Still, pro-this and pro-that should back away from this and stop abusing it. Terri’s suffered enough in life, her memory doesn’t deserve to get exploited even more than it already has been.
Here we have the typical Leftist reaction to information that doesn’t jive with their worldview.
In one case (Jim Holman) the reaction is to raise all kinds of questions. This, of course, begs the question: Where was this “critical” attitude was when polls seemed to support the death of Terri?
In the second case (Vanessa) the original poll is used to argue that most people support the death of Terri, and then all polls are simply dismissed. In other words, “Heads we win, tails you lose.” But, this line of argument didn’t stop here. It went on to argue that everyone, especially those who takes a Pro-Life position, should simply be quiet. There’s a good way to persuade people, “I’m right, your wrong, besides you should just shut up.”
As far as which poll more reflects most people’s opinion; the questions I’ve seen from the Zogby poll seem far more fair, they don’t seem to lead one to a conclusion. I don’t know how many people were polled or when the poll was conducted. I’ve looked for this kind of info on the Zogby website but couldn’t find it. My guess is that you have to pay for it.
The problem I have is the overwhelming amount of attention the ABC News poll got (it was an obvious push poll, conducted on 1 day and only surveyed 501 people) from MSM. But the Zogby poll is barely a ripple in the media pool. I think if Jim, Vanesa, or anyone else are going to be honest in this debate they must ask themselve why the MSM was so intent on pushing the ABC poll, but the only Life News seems to be paying attention to the Zogby poll.
Of course, some will respond to my point by simply stating, “Well, the ABC News poll is solid scientific research and the Zogby poll is obviously a biased push poll. MSM knows this, so it is simply ignoring what is nothing more than propoganda.”
To which one can only respond, as one would to any True Believer, “Uh, Yeeeaaah, …. Riiiight.”
Daniel writes: “In one case (Jim Holman) the reaction is to raise all kinds of questions.”
When Zogby does a poll, you expect to see the results on their web site. In this case there were no results. Also, polls are meaningless unless you know when the poll was conducted, the number of people involved, and the margin of error. If you see a poll that doesn’t include those data, you should raise questions.
As of today, the Zogby site does mention the poll. But the problem is that the Zogby site only mentions the results as reported by lifenews.com. So my guess is that lifenews.com paid Zogby for the poll. So far lifenews.com is the only organization that has any information about the poll. In most cases we have no idea what questions were asked, or is lifenews.com is reporting all the questions or just the ones that favor their position.
The poll is supposed to have “fairer questions.” But it doesn’t. The questions are so generic that they could apply to almost any situation. The questions don’t appear to mention Schiavo or any of the particulars of the Schiavo case. For example
“If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?”
What the heck is a “disabled person?” Someone in a wheelchair? A deaf person? Someone with a bad knee? Brain dead? Comatose? PVS?
Daniel: “As far as which poll more reflects most people’s opinion; the questions I’ve seen from the Zogby poll seem far more fair, they don’t seem to lead one to a conclusion.”
They do that by not dealing with the specifics of the Schiavo situation. Why even bother mentioning the word “disabled?”
Daniel: “think if Jim, Vanesa, or anyone else are going to be honest in this debate they must ask themselve why the MSM was so intent on pushing the ABC poll, but the only Life News seems to be paying attention to the Zogby poll.”
Because we don’t know anything about the poll that Life News is reporting. I tried for a long time to get the date, number of people involved, and the margin of error, but found nothing. With the ABC poll at least you know what you’re getting. In addition, the results of the ABC poll were consistent with a number of other polls, including polls done by Fox News, hardly a liberal organization. The ABC poll asked questions specific to the Schiavo case. The poll results as reported by Life News seem to omit any reference to Schiavo.
Daniel: ” . . . it was an obvious push poll . . .”
It wasn’t a push poll. A push poll is like what George Bush did in his campaign against John McCain. The ABC poll did mention the phrase “life support,” but it also referenced Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube twice. Again, the results of the ABC poll were consistent with other polls done at that time.
In the absense of any other information, at this point I suspect that Life News paid for the poll in order to use it for disinformation purposes. It’s disinformation because it is purported to be about Terri Schiavo, even though it appears that only one question dealt with her situation with her husband and none of the questions dealt specifically with her medical situation.
If you have any friends over at Life News, call ‘em up and get the rest of the information on that poll.
Based on Jim’s reluctance to accept the Zogby poll results, as reported by Life News, I can only assume that Jim rejects the following poll summaries. In one case we have no idea on size, date and time of group polled, and on both we have no idea what the questions were like that provided these percentages. Since The Register-Guard, Washington Times or New York Times could have had Zogby conduct these polls on their behalf we must reject their results, based on the criteria Jim has established, ”
1. “A recent Zogby International poll shows 55 percent oppose drilling in ANWR compared to 38 percent that support it.” (3/30/2005) – The Register-Guard, Oregon
2. “In a Zogby poll conducted in Vermont in December, 78 percent of 500 randomly selected adults said they would support a bill to allow terminally ill patients to get medication from their doctors to hasten death.” (3/29/2005)
- The New York Times
For those interested, the Washington Times summarized the NYT’s Vermont assisted suicide story. That story is also at the Zogby website. What I find fascinating is how the Washington Time summarized the Zogby poll: “The Times cited a Zogby poll from December in which 78 percent of 500 respondents said they would support a physician-assisted suicide bill.”
An aside: Note the difference in descriptions between NYT & WT: in the former we are dealing with a bill that “allow[s] terminally ill patients to get medication for their doctors to hasten death.” True enough, a description that makes one sound rather intelligent when discussing this story at the latest opening at the Met. In the latter we get a much more straightforward and accurate description: the bill is “a physician-assisted suicide bill.”
Perhaps the writers at the NYT could use a copy of Write Tight
To close, let as use Jim’s criteria on which to judge these reported numbers on ANWR and assisted suicide in Vermont: “But the problem is that the Zogby site only mentions the results as reported by [The Register-Guard or New York Times]. So my guess is that [The Register-Guard or New York Times] paid Zogby for the poll. So far [The Register-Guard or New York Times] is the only organization that has any information about the poll. In most cases we have no idea what questions were asked, or [if The Register-Guard or New York Times] is reporting all the questions or just the ones that favor their position.”
Thank you, Jim, for this enlightened standard by which to judge polls.
Does anyone have any idea how many respondents participated in the Zogby poll? I can’t find the usual polling details (e.g. number of people responding, dates the poll was conducted, reliability of the poll, etc.) anywhere on the Web.
Matthew writes: “Does anyone have any idea how many respondents participated in the Zogby poll? I can’t find the usual polling details (e.g. number of people responding, dates the poll was conducted, reliability of the poll, etc.) anywhere on the Web.”
I have checked everywhere, including the Zogby site and found nothing of relevance. I emailed Zogby and heard nothing. The poll results are worthless without the other information. Pollingreport.com doesn’t mention it. It could have been an interactive poll on the Zogby web site for all we know.
Zogby poll
Jim, just so everyone will know where you stand regarding polls. Is that poll above in Note 8, that shows opposition to drilling in ANWR,”worthless” because the Register-Guardian in Oregon didn’t tell us how many people were polled?
Or in this case is that poll perfectly valid because it is intended to show support for saving the “pristine” Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, whereas the Life News reported poll is merely intended to show support for the saving of human lives.
BTW, Jim, you’re not going to hear from Zogby because you didn’t commission the poll. If I were working for Zogby I’d ignore every email, letter and fax I received, asking about poll results, from anyone other than those who commissioned the poll. Otherwise I’d probably never get my work done.
I would hazard a guess that Zogby simple received a request, and payment, for the inclusion of these questions in their latest Zogby America Poll. If that is the case, then the results, showing opposition to removing food and water, were derived from twice as many people as the widely reported ABC News poll. And if you think buying a question on a Zogby poll invalidates the question then that makes everything Zogby does invalid, including the poll above that shows support for physician assisted suicide in Vermont, because Zogby doesn’t do polls for free.
I grant you that this is just a guess. When it comes down to it, what do I really know? After all, I’m so ill-informed that I still think that human life has inherent worth and shouldn’t ride on how a public poll turns out.
Oh, about that poll that reported:
“… that eight-in-ten (80%) likely voters say that a disabled person who is not terminally ill or in a coma, and not being kept alive by life support should not, in the absence of a written directive to the contrary, be denied food and water. By a three-to-one (44% to 14%) margin, likely voters say that, when there is conflicting evidence on the wishes of a patient, elected officials should order that a feeding tube remain in place.”
There is now a bit more information on it at the Zogby website:
“Zogby International conducted interviews of 1019 likely voters nationwide on behalf of the Christian Defense Coalition. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., March 30 through April 2, 2005. The margin of error is +/-3.2 percentage points.”
Zogby International interviews 1,019 (I was almost right about the number polled) over 4 days and ABC News polls 500 in one day. Do you still think Zogby’s is “worthless”, Jim?
What about those questions? Lets see what kind of loaded questions the survey asked:
“Do you agree or disagree??”
“It is proper for the federal government to intervene when basic civil rights are being denied?” Agree: 74% Disagree: 19%
“The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities?” Agree: 57% Disagree: 33%
“Michael Schiavo should turn guardianship of Terri over to her parents, considering he has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her?” Agree: 56%Disagree: 35%
A couple of questions show a much closer split in opinion, for example:
“It is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge?s order?” Agree: 44% Disagree: 43%
“The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled?” Agree: 42% Disagree: 48%
And one actually goes your way, Jim:
“Elected officials should intervene to protect a disabled person?s right to live if there is conflicting testimony concerning removing a feeding tube?” Agree: 38% Disagree: 54%
And if you want to know the Methodology you can go here.
All in all, it strikes me that Zogby pretty much makes the widely reported ABC News poll look like just what it is: A highly biased push poll intended to create the result the reporters wanted.
I think that makes Game, Set and Match regarding polls.
Daniel writes: “Jim, just so everyone will know where you stand regarding polls. Is that poll above in Note 8, that shows opposition to drilling in ANWR, ‘worthless’ because the Register-Guardian in Oregon didn’t tell us how many people were polled?”
I was able to find the information on the web site of the organization that commissioned the poll:
“Zogby International conducted interviews of 1,203 likely voters chosen at random nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from 12/13/04 through 12/15/04. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest percent and might not total 100.”
Daniel: “Or in this case is that poll perfectly valid because it is intended to show support for saving the ‘pristine’ Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, whereas the Life News reported poll is merely intended to show support for the saving of human lives.”
Whoa dude, cut back on the steriods. That stuff’s bad for you.
Daniel: “BTW, Jim, you’re not going to hear from Zogby because you didn’t commission the poll. If I were working for Zogby I’d ignore every email, letter and fax I received, asking about poll results, from anyone other than those who commissioned the poll. Otherwise I’d probably never get my work done.”
That’s probably what they’re doing. But since the relevant information cannot be found anywhere else . . . Maybe your Life News buddies could post the information?
Daniel: “I would hazard a guess that Zogby simple received a request, and payment, for the inclusion of these questions in their latest Zogby America Poll.”
If the Life News people posted the relevant information we wouldn’t have to guess.
Daniel: “And if you think buying a question on a Zogby poll invalidates the question then that makes everything Zogby does invalid, including the poll above that shows support for physician assisted suicide in Vermont, because Zogby doesn’t do polls for free.”
People buy polls all the time. I don’t have a problem with that. But it would be nice to know what the full results were.
Daniel: “After all, I’m so ill-informed that I still think that human life has inherent worth and shouldn’t ride on how a public poll turns out.”
If you’re concerned with issues at the political or social change level, then you should be interested in polls. The trick is not to focus on a single poll, but to look at the results across a number of polls. When you’re looking at poll results between several polls, if available, then a more definitive picture emerges, and you start to correct for whatever bias that might found in a single poll.
For the Schiavo situation, take a look at http://www.pollingreport.com and select “Schiavo.” There you’ll find polls commissioned by Fox, Times, CNN/USA Today, CBS, ABC, conducted by various polling organizations over the last few weeks. I think you’ll find that they paint a consistent picture that is quite different from the Life News poll. But most of the questions in the Life News poll weren’t about the Schiavo situation anyway.
Daniel writes: “There is now a bit more information on it at the Zogby website.”
Thanks much for the reference. I really wish Zobgy would have referenced the poll when it was released.
Daniel: “All in all, it strikes me that Zogby pretty much makes the widely reported ABC News poll look like just what it is: A highly biased push poll intended to create the result the reporters wanted. I think that makes Game, Set and Match regarding polls.”
Please look at the site to which I referred in a previous post. The ABC poll is consistent with the results of other polls, including Fox.
Jim, I just wondering: Why do you think all the other polls went one way and the Zogby poll went another? Or do you just say, “Well, it’s 10 to 1 against your point of view, so you lose. Sorry, try again next time.” Is that what establishes the standards, the principles that you live by?
After all this discussion, I’m just left with the feeling that all these polls were sampling very biased populations (including, perhaps, the Zogby poll) and, as a poster earlier said, they are all worthless.
Or, if I accept your assertion, that 8 Americans out of 10 (I’m using the number 8 just to make a point) are in favor of killing the severely cognitively disabled, abortion on demand, euthanasia and physician assisted suicide then I’m must admit that this nation is so far down the road to Perdition that nothing can stop it, and we might as well join the EU tomorrow, because, at our core, we are no different than the Godless Europeans.
If your position is what fills the hearts of most Americans, then, Jim, I’ll admit, this fills me with a great deal of dread and despair. For we are truly lost.
Daniel writes: “Why do you think all the other polls went one way and the Zogby poll went another? Or do you just say, ‘Well, it’s 10 to 1 against your point of view, so you lose. Sorry, try again next time.’”
The other polls were actually *about* the Schiavo case. The main question in the Zogby poll wasn’t about Terri Schivo. It wasn’t even about her situation. It talked about a “disabled person.” Now I suppose that one can refer to someone in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years as “disabled,” but it’s not very accurate. I mean, why even use the word “disabled?” Why not just ask about whether the person is “under the weather” or perhaps “indisposed.” I didn’t find the question reflective of her situation in any way. Let me put it to you this way: I was in favor of withdrawing Terri Schiavo’s tube feeding, but I also would have voted “no” on the Zogby question. If the claim is that the Zogby poll question has some connection to the Schiavo situation, then I have a problem with that. It’s because the word “disabled” could mean virtually any level of disability, while at the same time not explicitly denoting that most of the person’s brain is gone, has no hope of recovery, no consciousness, no awareness, and a virtually flat EEG.
Daniel: “Is that what establishes the standards, the principles that you live by?”
Of course not. But you have to realize that the U.S. has a certain culture. We don’t like to be told what to do. We’re independent. We want to make our own decisions. We’re all about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I believe these cultural values come into direct conflict with institutions such as the Catholic or Orthodox church and with conservative Christianity in general. On certain issues that don’t impact the self-identity of a people, when it’s culture vs. church, church can win. But when the issue goes to the heart of self-identity and it’s culture vs. church, church doesn’t have a chance. So the church might be able to nibble around the edges of end of life issues, but it doesn’t have a chance of getting rid of patient autonomy.
The bottom line is that with respect to the Schiavo case conservative Christians are profoundly out of step with the rest of the country. The only thing they have going is that so many of the Republicans pander to the religious right. In this case the religious right tail has been wagging the Republican dog. But even with that the Republican dog has not been nearly as obedient as the right would want.
Daniel: “After all this discussion, I’m just left with the feeling that all these polls were sampling very biased populations (including, perhaps, the Zogby poll) and, as a poster earlier said, they are all worthless.”
Well, they have ways of controlling for this. While it is possible to have the occasional bum poll, when you have a number of polls with low margins of error pointing in the same direction, that’s pretty definitive.
Daniel: “Or, if I accept your assertion, that 8 Americans out of 10 (I’m using the number 8 just to make a point) are in favor of killing the severely cognitively disabled, abortion on demand, euthanasia and physician assisted suicide then I’m must admit that this nation is so far down the road to Perdition that nothing can stop it, and we might as well join the EU tomorrow, because, at our core, we are no different than the Godless Europeans.”
Is it really that bad? It seems to me that you’re leaving out all the important distinctions. Let’s deal for a moment at the level of what people believed about the Schiavo case, without debating the actual facts. Most Americans believe that Terri Schiavo was in a PVS. That means that they believed that she was virtually brain dead — that she had no consciousness, no awareness, no possibility of recovery. Not “congnitively disabled” but “virtually brain dead.” They also believed that it was highly likely that her wish was not to be maintained in that condition. And they overwhelmingly did not want to be in such a condition themselves.
So it’s not that American wanted to kill the “cognitively disabled.” It’s that they disagreed with that assessment of the case, and saw her condition as profoundly much worse.
Euthanasia — still completely illegal in the U.S. and no level of approval whatsoever for it, as far as I know.
Physician-assisted suicide — legal in Oregon for some years now, but only a tiny fraction of one percent of people who die take advantage of it. And many who receive lethal prescriptions don’t actually use them. I live in Oregon and I can assure you that we don’t have to get up in the morning and bulldoze away all the PAS bodies littering the streets. PAS is rarely used, highly controlled, and governed by state law.
Abortion — most people don’t like it but feel that it should be legal. These numbers have not changed much over the years. Most people don’t feel that a fertilized egg cell is a person. But at the same time they aren’t leaving unwanted babies in the street to die of exposure, as was common in the first century.
I think the problem is that people in the religious right become prisoners of their own rhetoric. So if Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube is removed today, then tomorrow we’ll be strangling everyone over the age of 70. But nobody in the U.S. except the religious right actually thinks that. Oh, they’ll scour the four corners of the earth looking for examples, and once in a while they’ll find one that “proves” the point. But again, no one but the religious right thinks that way.
My suggestion: it’s not as bad as you think. Look, for conservative Christians we’ve been on the road to perdition for 2,000 years. In 1969 when I was involved with a fundamentalist group, we were on the road to perdition then too. Going to hell in a handbasket. And that was BEFORE legalized abortion, physician-assisted suicide, homosexuals out of the closet, euthanasia, etc., etc. If you read some of the Christian dispensationalist books from the 30s and 40s we were on the road to perdition then too. Read the New Testament. Everything was going to hell in a handbasket back then. At some point I think it’s fair to speculate that perhaps we’re really NOT on the road to perdition.
Jim,
You’re conflating. The Religious Right is a prisoner of both its own rhetoric and its Premillenial dispensationalism. The Orthodox Church and the Roman Church are not.
The Religious Right blurs the line between what is a church, and what is a political group. There is no real distinction between political groups and fundamentalist churches, since the fundamentalist ‘churches’ are themselves organized along lines that really should be considered ‘parachurch’ movements. They hyperventilate on a regular basis as a method of fundraising.
The historic churches (Orthodox and Roman Catholic) are very, very different. There is a clear line between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and any political groups that might form around the laity. These churches have been quite clear and steady in their teaching on the subject of life. If that teaching is not embraced by the majority of Americans, that is irrelevent to the question of whether or not that teaching is morally correct. Part of winning others to your side is to stay true to your own ideals. That is how the Church converted Rome, and how it someday may convert America into an actual Christian society.
Whether millions of people avail themselves of Physician Assisted Suicide, or only a few, its still wrong. While there are areas of the United States that abortion would be legal, even under state law, there are many as well that would outlaw abortion tomorrow.
Which just brings up a big point – the U.S. is vast, culturally diverse, and shouldn’t be run from Washington. If the VOTERS of Oregon want PAS, let them have it. If I lived in Oregon, I’d fight it. Just don’t have it forced through because of the courts. I feel the same way about gay marriage, and most other social issues. If the VOTERS adopt a policy, then our way is clear as moral reformers – convince enough voters to change their minds and you can reverse the policy. The entire system of self-governance, however, breaks down when philosophical and moral decisions are removed from the hands of the branches over which voters can exercise control, and are instead put into the hands of judges. That is the problem with abortion and many other issues today. Control over them has been effectively stripped from our hands and placed in those of the courts.
As for Euthanasia, assisted suicide, and abortion – there is no logical reason why these should be considered ‘wrong.’ After all, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, these are all useful methods of controlling pesky social problems and keeping down costs. There is no intrinsic reason why the poor, the weak, or the sick should be cared for rather than exterminated. After all, Social Darwinism as preached by Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler would dictate that society shouldn’t waste its resources on the ‘unworthy.’
If what is left of the Christian consciousness in this country collapses, as it did in NAZI Germany or the USSR, there is no logical reason to assume that a humanist policy would not devolve into Euthanasia on a grand scale.
I generally do not like slippery slope arguments because as Jim said, other than extremists on both sides of the ideological fence, most people do not pursue various ideologies to their logical conclusions. The dilemma is that moderate positions are difficult to legislate for the very fact that they are never based on moral, philosophical or legal ideals.
Most reasonable people would agree that aborting a day-old fertilized egg is not the same as terminating a third-trimester fetus. Most reasonable people believe that allowing people the right to have some autonomy in determining when their time to die is does not equate to having physicians and the State decide for that for them. Likewise, most Americans don’t think homosexual conduct should be criminalized even though many on the Right were in a state of outraged apoplexy over the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, insisting that bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia would be legalized next. However, these middle-of-the-road stances are difficult to defend in a court of law where such vague boundaries of what should be legal or not would not be tolerated.
Actually, the problem in Lawrence vs. Texas was that the Supreme Court invalidated the state law. I doubt anyone would have cared much if the State of Texas had changed the law. The problem is that the court short-circuited the legislative process and created a Constitutional right out of thin air. A right that will now be considered absolute.
The Supreme Court first created a right to privacy in the Griswold Case, when it struck down state laws against birth control. Birth control should have been legal, so most people didn’t care. But, then the right to privacy was extended to cover abortion, sodomy, and more besides.
If that isn’t a slippery slope, I have no idea what is.
As a political scientist, I take the opposite view, James. The middle ground is easy to legislate, as most legislation is reached by a compromise process. It is possible that extremists on one side of the issue will seize hold of the legislature, but that is rare. Compromise is how legislatures function.
If we dispensed with Roe v. Wade tomorrow, for example, I would expect that some states would have unfettered abortion, but very few. Most would be along a continuum of regulation that would extend from absolute prohibition to absolute access. That continuum would reflect the differing cultural and religious attitudes of the various regions of our nation.
Judicial activism, by contrast, is a blanket solution. The judges can not simply amend or adjust legislation they find fault with. They have to either uphold the statute, or declare that it is unconstitutional. When they declare it unconstitutional, they often create a right to engage in some behavior or other that was previously subject to legislation, but now becomes absolutized as a ‘RIGHT.’
Look at the current debate over the PATRIOT Act. There is a good chance that the most threatening provisions of it will be amended or abolished, not by the judiciary, but through the give-and-take of the legislative process.
If a legislature makes a mistake, it can just clean it up later. Some harm may come of it, but I am not particularly fearful of it.
When a court creates a ‘constitutional right,’ it is next to impossible to do anything about it. When the Court upheld Roe v. Wade in the Casey v. Planned Parenthood Case, Sandra O’Connor wrote that the original legal reasoning in Roe was faulty, but that it was important for the court to be consistent, and for the American people to do what the court says.
This is a recipe for disaster, because people who feel that they have no recourse for social change through the ballot box may eventually seek stronger measures.
Separation of Power and Checks and Balances:
Note 20. Well said, Glen. The reason that judicial activism is improper is that it is a violation of the separation of powers. Judges are not supposed to create law, that is left to the elected legislature. I totally agree with Glen’s observation that extreme positions are less likely to result from legislation because extremes tend to get cancalled by compromises reached in the legislative process. Legislatures can recognize mistakes for what they are and simply repeal old law or enact new law with little or not difficulty. Judicial rulings that invalidate a law are based on less flexible absolutes. In theory, judges are bound by the principle of “stare decisis” or the authoritative power of prior rulings and they cannot in principle turn on a dime and say “oops, that was a very bad ruling.” We live with bad rulings for decades in Supreme Court jurisdiction.
Most offensive about judicial activism is the idea that it tends to overrule democracy. The Supreme Court took away the right of the people of Texas to control the nature of the society they live in. Bow to our robed masters.
Note 17. I’m in Tampa all weekend so won’t be able to respond much.
I heard Zogby on the radio. He explained that the disparity in the polls was that 1) the ABC poll, while ostensibly about the Schiavo case had two points not relevant to it, and 2) asked the questions before the public understood the particulars of the case.
The Zogby poll, OTOH, asked questions after the public began to understand the particulars, and avoided the loaded questions which tended to elicit very personalized responses that had little direct connection with the Schiavo killing.
Note 20: I should clarify. I meant positions of compromise are easy to legislate but difficult in the judicial process to defend.
Jim, you write… “But you have to realize that the U.S. has a certain culture. We don’t like to be told what to do. We’re independent. We want to make our own decisions. We’re all about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I believe these cultural values come into direct conflict with institutions such as the Catholic or Orthodox church and with conservative Christianity in general.”
It appears that you have a very distorted view of the nature of the Orthodox Church and traditional Christianity in general. Orthodoxy Christianity is all about life (Jesus came that we might have life more abudundantly), liberty (the truth will set you free), and true happiness, i.e., on going communion with God and other people through the sacremental life of the Chruch. The Church does come into direct and strong conflict with man’s desire is established as the measure of all things. All of the social issues mentioned have their root in the desire of certain people to do what they want to do when they want to do it regardless of the civil and social consequences or indeed the consequences to their own beings.
Human beings are simply not autonomous; we are, even on a purely secular, humanistic level, social beings, interconnected with one another and the rest of life. We can do nothing that does not in some way effect each and every other person on this planet. Much of the time the effect of our personal decisions is negligible on everyone else, or at least seems that way, but the manner in which we treat the most vulnerable among us has profound consequences in every aspect of our living. As more and more people accept without much thought, the secular anthropology of consciousness and utility, the less meaning life will have.
It is interesting to me that even many of the posters who strongly disagree with the treatment of Terri Schiavo still on many levels accept that she had very little consciousness. I, and I believe the traditional teaching of the Church, reject such a flawed understanding not only of worth, but of being. For we Orthodox, the brain is not the center of consciousness or being, the nous is. Unfortunately, nous has no English translation, but in general it means the core of spiritual identity. It is through the nous that our communion with God is realized on the deepest levels. As long as there is life in the body, the consciousness of the nous is active in the corporeal world. It matters not that the person cannot actively communicate with other humans, or act on their own behalf. The person is still there.
Since we are not autonomous, the very fact of the continued existence of a human being, is important to each and every one of us on the earth. If we respond to that person with mercy, grace, and kindness, we are strengthening humanity. If we respond with selfishness, cruelty, and neglect, we weaken humanity.
Jesus Christ became human. God became man. He took that human body and that human nature with Him when He ascended. Whatever we do to the least of us, we do to Him.
His love is so uncomprehendably ineffable that in the face of it, most of us choose to follow our own idiotic will instead of accepting His love, grace, and mercy and thereby really having life, liberty, and an experience so far beyond happiness that there are no words that I have to express the joy.
Authentic Christianity is not a prison or a set of rules or does it in anyway attempt to force anyone to do anything. We have become so used to the despicable truncation and falsification of Christianity that is popularly expressed, that many kind, thoughtful, merciful people reject Christ because of the failure of His people. I hope you are not among them.
Note 17. If Americans were all about “personal autonomy,” then 13 states would not have passed voter referendums against gay marriage. “Personal autonomy” is a polemical phrase for which liberal activits are trying to craft a legal meaning by having an activist judge apply it in specific legal cases — like “right to privacy” was. Once the particulars of the progressive agenda are better understood, you find many Americans turning against them — like the Zogby poll about the Schiavo killing reveals.
Malcolm Muggeridge said that the only mysticism left for the materialist is sex. Another commentator said Muggeridge should have added death. It’s true. The two areas where the secularist demands total personal autonomy deals with sex and death. “Autonomy” here deals with the notion that any decision about sex and death is not bound to an transcendent referent, and thus no cultural or communal obligations needs to be considered. Individual desire trumps everything else. (In almost every other area they want over-regulation of behavior.)
And the courts are usually the only avenue by which autonomy supremacists win the day. Bring their ideas to state legislatures, most of them would not stand a chance.
Glen writes: “The Religious Right is a prisoner of both its own rhetoric and its Premillenial dispensationalism. The Orthodox Church and the Roman Church are not.”
By “prisoner of rhetoric” I mean that people assemble conceptual structures that tie together a number of elements that may or may not in fact not have anything to do with each other, and then recommend action based on that construct. But it’s action based on the rhetoric — on how the situation is interpreted — not on the actual situation itself.
For example, many Christians saw the Terri Schiavo situation in terms of euthanasia of the disabled, abortion, and physician-assisted suicide. These are then seen as eventually sliding down the slippery slope into Nazi-like extermination of _lebensunwerten _Lebens_. Thus we heard a lot about the “murder” or “killing” of Terri Schiavo. Her husband is described as a “monster.” And so on.
If a person makes those sorts of connections, then certain conclusions follow logically. Thus I was not surprised to see calls for Bush president and Bush governor to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody by force of arms. This is what I mean by “prisoner of rhetoric” — that extreme actions are recommended based not so much on what the case is in itself, but on the context in which it is placed.
In thinking about moral issues we often reason by analogy — what cases are like the case under discussion, and in what way do the cases differ. Many Christian conservatives saw the Schiavo case as analogous to cases that are in my view morally quite distant from it.
Personally, I see the Schiavo case as being extremely similar to the case of Tom DeLay’s father, who suffered a grievious brain injury. (I assume that everyone is familiar with the details.) But there are two main differences between the cases. First, Tom DeLay’s family waited 28 days to discontinue artificial life support, whereas Terri Schiavo’s husband waited years before actively seeking withdrawal of life support. Second, the DeLay family members were in agreement with the decision, and the Schiavo family members weren’t. Beyond that the similarities are quite striking. But Michael Schiavo is demonized and Tom DeLay is not.
Glen: “If what is left of the Christian consciousness in this country collapses, as it did in NAZI Germany or the USSR, there is no logical reason to assume that a humanist policy would not devolve into Euthanasia on a grand scale.”
I don’t see much evidence of such a collapse. Take physician-assisted suicide for example. It is highly-controlled, rarely used, and motivated by a desire to alleviate suffering. The vast majority of people who use it are dying from end-stage cancer. Alleviating suffering seems to me to be a very Christian concern, especially in the cases addressed by PAS. In fact, one could say that absent a Christian or at least a moral influence people in Oregon wouldn’t have voted — twice — for PAS.
Michael writes: “It appears that you have a very distorted view of the nature of the Orthodox Church and traditional Christianity in general. Orthodoxy Christianity is all about life (Jesus came that we might have life more abudundantly), liberty (the truth will set you free), and true happiness, i.e., on going communion with God and other people through the sacremental life of the Church. The Church does come into direct and strong conflict with man’s desire is established as the measure of all things.”
But isn’t “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” a way of saying that “man’s desire . . . is the measure of all things?” To the extent that the Orthodox church seeks to propagate its view through the “power of the jawbone,” (Glen’s “teaching on the subject of life”) I don’t see a political conflict. To the extent that the Orthodox church seeks to propagate its view through law, then yes, there is a political conflict.
Fr. Hans writes: “If Americans were all about ‘personal autonomy,’ then 13 states would not have passed voter referendums against gay marriage.”
Well, we want personal autonomy for ourselves, but not necessarily for others. Thus even Oregon supported PAS, but not gay marriage. As the Gospel says, we lay burdens on others that we ourselves would not bear.
Fr. Hans: “‘Personal autonomy’ is a polemical phrase for which liberal activits are trying to craft a legal meaning by having an activist judge apply it in specific legal cases – like ‘right to privacy’ was.
“Personal autonomy” is also the central concept of medical ethics as practiced in the U.S.
Note 26. Jim: “Well, we want personal autonomy for ourselves, but not necessarily for others. Thus even Oregon supported PAS, but not gay marriage. As the Gospel says, we lay burdens on others that we ourselves would not bear.”
I’d have a bit more faith in your understanding of scripture if you had not worked so diligently for Terri’s Schiavo’s death, citing “personal autonomy” to justify hearsay and silence dissenting voices. I don’t believe for a moment you want it only “for ourselves.”
Jim: “‘Personal autonomy’ is also the central concept of medical ethics as practiced in the U.S.”
Let’s be accurate. “Personal autonomy” is a central concept in great dispute among medical ethicists in the US.
Fr. Hans writes: “I’d have a bit more faith in your understanding of scripture if you had not worked so diligently for Terri’s Schiavo’s death, citing ‘personal autonomy’ to justify hearsay and silence dissenting voices.
————————————-
There is a recent interesting article about hearsay evidence written by a Florida attorney who has commented extensively on the Schiavo case. From his Abstract Appeal blog:
“The common assumption seems to be that hearsay is unreliable — and should be kept out of court — because the witness might be lying about what someone else said. Let’s put this in Michael/Terri terms. I’ve heard innumerable people say Michael Schiavo should never have been allowed to testify to what Terri told him because he may have been making it up.
“That a witness might be lying about what someone else said is a valid concern, but it’s no reason to keep such testimony out of court. After all, what’s the difference between Michael testifying that he heard Terri say “don’t let me live like that” and Michael testifying that he saw Terri run a red light, or that he saw Terri eat broccoli one night? Nothing, in the sense of Michael’s truthfulness. Theoretically, a witness could lie about what someone did just as easily as about what someone said. So, no, we don’t make a special case out of hearsay because the witness might not be telling the truth.
“We make a special case out of hearsay because, even if the witness really heard the statement, the witness might not reliably convey what the original speaker really meant — either by mistake or because the original speaker wasn’t clear.
“A well known example of the problem here can be found in the modern classic My Cousin Vinny. When the officer accuses Billy of shooting the convenience store clerk, Billy responds in disbelief, “I shot the clerk?” Later, when the officer takes the stand and is asked to repeat what Billy said when confronted with the charge, the officer testifies, “He said, ‘I shot the clerk.’” Subtle difference, but a huge one. The officer got the words right but the meaning wrong. You’d want to talk to Billy to be sure you understood what he really meant.
“So the trouble with hearsay isn’t that the witness might not be telling the truth about what someone else said. The witness’s truthfulness can be an issue no matter what the witness claims to have heard or seen or done. The trouble with hearsay is that without the ‘someone else’ there to examine, it can be very difficult to determine the reliability of the witness’s interpretation of the other person’s words.
“If you look at the exceptions to the hearsay rule — and there are dozens — you’ll notice that lots of them concern situations where we can be fairly sure of what the speaker meant. I may discuss this in more detail at a later time.
“The next time you hear someone say Michael shouldn’t have been allowed to testify to what Terri told him, ask if the person is being critical of Michael’s ability to convey what Terri really meant or if the person just doubts Michael told the truth. If the answer is that we can’t be sure what Terri’s words meant, then at least the person’s in the ballpark with the problems of hearsay (though it was still admissible…). If the answer is that Michael may have been lying, then the person doesn’t really understand hearsay in the first place.”
http://www.abstractappeal.com/
Fr. Hans: “I don’t believe for a moment you want it only ‘for ourselves.’”
I’m a big fan of autonomy within medical ethics. I mean, if you want to be kept alive indefinetly in a persistent vegetative state, you can state that in your advanced directive. If you believe that the person is present as long as the body is alive you can craft an advanced directive that embodies that belief. I think that’s great. I just don’t want the course of *my* end of life days to be determined by *your* religious or metaphysical beliefs.
Fr. Hans: “Let’s be accurate. ‘Personal autonomy’ is a central concept in great dispute among medical ethicists in the US.”
To be honest, that comes as a surprise to me, although I am coming to understand that some people are willing to jettison most anything in order to get the result they want in the Schiavo case. I understand that we carve out some exceptions in the case of people from other cultures. But other than that I’ve honestly not heard of any particular opposition to the concept of patient autonomy. Nor is it clear to me what would replace it.
Jim quotes some expert: “The next time you hear someone say Michael shouldn’t have been allowed to testify to what Terri told him, ask if the person is being critical of Michael?’ ability to convey what Terri really meant or if the person just doubts Michael told the truth. If the answer is that we can’ be sure what Terri’ words meant, then at least the person’ in the ballpark with the problems of hearsay (though it was still admissible?). If the answer is that Michael may have been lying, then the person doesn?t really understand hearsay in the first place.”
I’ll let Missourian handle the legal end of the hearsay rule, but this quote mistates the problem. The issue is not that hearsay is in evidence, it’s that a death sentence was handed down based solely on the hearsay. This ignores for the time being whether a judge even has authority to make a determination in the manner that Judge Greer did.
Hopefully, the irony of your example wasn’t lost on either the author or you. Who shot Terry?
____________
Fr. Hans: “Let’s accurate. ‘Personal autonomy’ is a central concept in great dispute among medical ethicists in the US.”
Jim: “To be honest, that comes as a surprise to me, although I am coming to understand that some people are willing to jettison most anything in order to get the result they want in the Schiavo case. I understand that we carve out some exceptions in the case of people from other cultures. But other than that I?ve honestly not heard of any particular opposition to the concept of patient autonomy. Nor is it clear to me what would replace it.”
There was only one result in the Schiavo case: her death. The only other possible result was life. That leaves only two choices.
Your concept of “patient autonomy” (how you define it) has presuppositions that are challenged all the time, the notion that pulling tubes feeding and hydration tubes for example is humane care. This is one area in serious dispute. I’m surprised you are not aware of this.
Your concept (the euthanasia advocate’s) of “Patient autonomy,” as I said upstream, is looking for legal groundng. Proponents hope to provide a legal definition through the cooperation of activist judges ruling in favor of euthanasia. If Terry Schiavo’s death is considered a victory for the concept (you imply it is), no one is safe given how poorly ajudicated the case was.
Euthanasia activists herald the Schiavo death as a victory for ending the life of the infirm. Clearly the moral barrier against indiscriminate killing has been lifted, and in the end any killing can be justified given the appropriate convergence of cultural and economic factors.
Schiavo’s death was unjustified and grossly inhumane. You can get arrested for starving your dog to death, but do it to a human under the rubric of “patient autonomy” and suddenly it is justified — at least in the mind of euthanasia activist. It’s what the rest of us call the culture of death – an inversion of morality where acts that once were evil are now touted as good.
The following excerpt is from a 1997 study published in the British medical journal, the Lancet:
“According to the report, doctors were killing approximately 8 percent of all infants who died each year in the Netherlands. That amounts to approximately 80-90 per year. Of these, one-third would have lived more than a month. At least 10-15 of these killings involved infants who did not require life-sustaining treatment to stay alive. Approximately 21 percent of the infant euthanasia deaths occurred without request or consent of parents. The study found that 45 percent of neo-natologists and 31 percent of pediatricians who responded to questionnaires had killed infants.”
The slope is quite slippery downhill from PAS, as in Oregon, to Euthanasia. In the Netherlands, the first step was PAS, now it is spreading to killing children, under the age of 12, who are incurable and in pain.
If this doesn’t reach this level in the U.S., it will only be because what is left of a Christian conscience in this country is so shocked by this as to stop it in its tracks.
The same ‘ethics’ however, that would regard a baby in the womb as expendable, could hardly be expected to care much for other extraneous forms of life such as the elderly, the infirm, or the handicapped. It wasn’t just Hitler that practiced such things, but the Soviet Union and other Marxist nations as well. In a world of scarce resources, a utilitarian social ethic seems to almost invariably fixate on ‘removing’ unnecessary people for the good of all. A focus on individual autonomy can easily degenerate into a sacrifice, usually involuntary, of the individual for the good of the collective. Once that nasty business about God is out of the way, at least.
Fr. Hans writes: “Your concept of ‘patient autonomy’ (how you define it) has presuppositions that are challenged all the time, the notion that pulling tubes feeding and hydration tubes for example is humane care. This is one area in serious dispute. I’m surprised you are not aware of this.”
By “patient automony” I mean only that medical decisions are based on the patient’s wishes — that the patient has the right to refuse or accept any and all recommended interventions. The concept for me does not exclude any particular intervention.
Now if you want to carve out a particular exclusion for feeding tubes, we can talk about that. I’m not sure on what grounds you would base that exclusion. In the past, your objections have been focused on withdrawal of care when death is not imminent. The problem is that most any intervention can be used when death isn’t imminent, in particular ventilators. (This is why both the Schiavo and DeLay cases have some significant similarities.)
If you want to argue that tube feeding should not be discontinued because nutrition and hydration are basic to life, the same argument — actually a stronger argument — can be made for not discontinuing a ventilator, air being even more fundamental.
To be clear, withdrawing a feeding tube is not an example of humane care. It’s an example of withdrawing a medical intervention based on a the patient’s wishes. I acknowledge that there is a difference between administering treatment and withdrawing it. Whether one considers it humane is irrelevant, if it is consistent with the patient’s wishes. Is it humane to turn off a ventilator?
Fr. Hans: “Your concept (the euthanasia advocate’s) of ‘Patient autonomy,’ as I said upstream, is looking for legal groundng. Proponents hope to provide a legal definition through the cooperation of activist judges ruling in favor of euthanasia. If Terry Schiavo’s death is considered a victory for the concept (you imply it is), no one is safe given how poorly ajudicated the case was.”
It’s not a victory of the concept; it follows from the concept. When the DeLay family discontinued the ventilator for Tom DeLay’s father, was that a victory for euthanasia?
Fr. Hans: “Euthanasia activists herald the Schiavo death as a victory for ending the life of the infirm. Clearly the moral barrier against indiscriminate killing has been lifted, and in the end any killing can be justified given the appropriate convergence of cultural and economic factors.”
I don’t see that the Schiavo case is quite such a watershed. Over the years there have probably been thousands of similar cases in the U.S. and other countries. Many states use advanced directive forms that specifically allow people to elect not to be tube fed if in a PVS state.
You see the withdrawal of a feeding tube as a sign of creeping euthanasia. I see it as a sign of people trying to determine the limits of when medical intenventions make sense. The common use of feeding tubes is a relatively recent development. I read one article by a physician who said that the use of feeding tubes was rare in 1972. A few decades ago the Terri Schiavo situation would not have existed because she would have died within a few weeks of her brain injury. The doctor’s explanation for why feedings tubes were not commonly used in previous decades is very telling:
“The cultural attitudes were just different then,” [Dr.] Compher said. “People understood there’s birth, there’s death, and I think we’re in a different environment now.”
It is true that we can keep people alive a very long time through artificial means. This is all thanks to modern technology that didn’t exist a few decades ago. We can even keep brain-dead people alive for a very long time; of course, the only reason we know they’re brain dead is through modern technology.
I see your position as very modernist, not at all originating in traditional morality or in a traditional view of life and death. Traditionally, people were born, people died, and there wasn’t a lot we could do about it, especially in the case of severe injuries. Now we can. In fact, in the opinions of many people, we can do too good a job of extending the duration of physical existence.
Here is where patient autonomy comes in. Patient autonomy in effect allows a patient to say “here is the limit that I myself place on modern technology. Here are the conditions under which I say that modern technology should be withdrawn.”
Michael Bauman made an interesting remark a few days ago. He said
“For we Orthodox, the brain is not the center of consciousness or being, the nous is. Unfortunately, nous has no English translation, but in general it means the core of spiritual identity. It is through the nous that our communion with God is realized on the deepest levels. As long as there is life in the body, the consciousness of the nous is active in the corporeal world. It matters not that the person cannot actively communicate with other humans, or act on their own behalf. The person is still there.”
But what’s happening is that we’re taking a very traditional view of life and death and joining it with modern technology that would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago. The Orthodox view of the body and life developed in a time when death came with a finality, definitiveness, and certainty that could not be overcome by any human effort. Now we arrest the natural processes that would have led to death, and extend the life of the body almost indefinetly. Personally, that is something that is grotesque to me — to extend the duration of a physical body through artificial means when there is no hope of restoration of any kind of consciousness. It is a manifestation of a kind of hubris and a false belief that somehow the natural order is defeated through the intervention of modern technology — as if death were unnatural, and an artifically extended and unconscious bodily existence “natural.” I believe Terri Schiavo also saw that kind of existence as grotesque, and communicated that to her husband and other relatives.
In the article “An Orthodox View of Heart Transplantations” Metropolital Philaret notes that “The world, including most people who would identify themselves as ‘Christians,’ receives every new attainment of modern science as an undoubted blessing to be accepted as a matter of course. Orthodox Christians, however, must be more discriminating, for our hope is not in this world that passes, but in eternal life.”
It seems to me that throughout the Terri Schiavo case many people have viewed modern medical technology as an unquestioned good but patient autonomy as inherently suspect. Personally, I think the reverse is true. There is no doubt that modern medical technology has a role to play, but it is a role that has to be carefully considered and continually reevaluated as each case progresses. Most importantly, modern medical technology must always be used with a specific treatment goal in mind, and not merely used “as a matter of course.” You might consider that thought to be an example of the “culture of death” but I see it as basic humility originating in an acceptance of the natural order of things and a rejection of an unthinking acceptance of technology.
Jim: “‘Personal autonomy’ is also the central concept of medical ethics as practiced in the U.S.”
You’re correct, Jim, but it only comes into play when the patient is being “allowed to die”, and that is a serious problem with medical profession today. When a patient or a patient’s family want care and life to continue and a hospital declares this care and this life “futile” personal autonomy gets dumped in the circular file, i.e., the trash can and what the hospital wants becomes the central concept of medical ethics.
Furthermore, How do infants express their “personal autonomy”? How does the elderly suffering from dementia express their “personal autonomy”? How do children with Down Syndrome express their “personal autonomy”? How do millions of adult head trauma victims who operate at the level of preverbal children express their “personal autonomy”?
Daniel writes: [Patient autonomy] “only comes into play when the patient is being ‘allowed to die’, and that is a serious problem with medical profession today.”
Actually, it permeates all of medicine, even in some very basic ways. For example, when you go to the doctor you expect him to be honest with you. That’s patient autonomy in action. You expect to be able to make informed decisions about your own care. And so on. These are all directly related to patient autonomy.
Daniel: “When a patient or a patient’s family want care and life to continue and a hospital declares this care and this life ‘futile’ personal autonomy gets dumped in the circular file, i.e., the trash can and what the hospital wants becomes the central concept of medical ethics.”
I suppose there are times when that happens. But sometimes people really do want care that is futile. For example, family members might want a brain-dead patient left on a ventilator. Or they might want CPR for a patient who has terminal cancer and starting to suffer from multiple organ failures. There really are times when care is futile; it’s not just an empty term. There are also times when it is not clear whether treatment is futile. Generally I think families and hospitals end up agreeing most of the time. At least you don’t hear about these things ending up in court very often.
Daniel: “Furthermore, How do infants express their ‘personal autonomy’? How does the elderly suffering from dementia express their ‘personal autonomy’? How do children with Down Syndrome express their ‘personal autonomy’? How do millions of adult head trauma victims who operate at the level of preverbal children express their ‘personal autonomy’?”
Well, many of the people you list can’t, and so people have to make those decisions for them. In my experience we don’t have a culture in medicine in which people are seen as disposable. I mean, you get the occasional controversial case, but in general people in medicine are interested in treating people, not giving up on them. All the people I’ve known in the medical ethics field are very interested in the right decisions being made and patients being treated humanely.
Jim, Patient autonomy like so many other ethical questions is more smoke and mirrors in my experience than anthing else. I work in the insurance field and have been more or less privy to applicant’s medical records for over 20 years. Countless times, I have seen records in which significant problems were written about in the records, but not disclosed in anyway to the patient. Alzheimer’s, diabetes, depression, cardiac problems, the list goes on and on. Some of the conditions were treatable, many were not presenting immediate symptoms that would interfer with the patients current life, yet no information was given to patients. At best the doctors would contine to monitor their patients to interveen later if they could. Sometimes, I’ll grant you, the patient was told and choose to ignore it, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
In my own personal experience, 30 years ago, my mother developed a pre-leukemia condition and nothing was said to her or my father (who was a physician) even though the doctor treating my mother was a medical school classmate of my dad’s.
A few years ago when,during a routine exam, my chest X-ray revealed what appeared to the x-ray tech as an enlarged heart, my doctor said absolutely nothing to me, recommended no course of treatment or even further investigation–Nothing. I only found out about it after I had been declined for health insurance and obtained my own records.
When my wife was recently in ICU in the terminal stages of diabetic ketoacidosis, I had to really press the doctors to give me the prognosis information I needed to make informed decisions. Fortunately, I have a friend who is an ER doctor and I was able to turn to him to get the information I needed.
I have knowledge, resources, and expertise that most people don’t have and yet I find it difficult to get real information from doctors so that I can give informed consent and exercise my autonomy. Doctor’s and hospitals want to remain in control, so they only give enough information to allow them to continue that control while giving the appearance, to most people, of allowing patient autonomy. IMO, informed consent is a farce rarely given. Without real informed consent, patient autonomy is also a farce.
Jim writes: “Well, many of the people you list can’t, and so people have to make those decisions for them. In my experience we don’t have a culture in medicine in which people are seen as disposable. I mean, you get the occasional controversial case, but in general people in medicine are interested in treating people, not giving up on them. All the people I’ve known in the medical ethics field are very interested in the right decisions being made and patients being treated humanely.”
Which is one reason why your drive (in your role as a euthanasia advocate) to craft a legal definition for “patient autonomy” with cases like Terri Schiavo is so dangerous. The medical community is deeply split over questions such as whether dehydration and starvation constitute humane care (you argue it does). No concensus exists. Yet as these cases end up in the courtrooms of rogue judges, legal precedent is set and we will be killing more people before we even have time to think through the issues in any responsible way.
Your ideas about “patient autonomy” are very fuzzy. On the one hand you argue that “patient autonomy” justifies the death of Terri Schiavo without examining the presuppositions that inform your argument. On the other hand, when challenged on the pressupositions you respond only with the fact that “patient autonomy” already exists in practice, which it does of course, but not necessarily to the extent you describe.
Euthanasia activism ignores many of the real world considerations that surround death and dying. Daniel pointed out a crucial one above. I’ve pointed out others, such as family dynamics, upstream. The only rationale you have provided so far is that because there are some very tough cases that we don’t have answers for yet (PVS, etc.), a radically individualistic definition of “patient autonomy” is the only reasonable solution to these hard cases. The problem is, as we have seen with Terri Schiavo, radical individualism is biased towards death.
Jim writes, “You expect to be able to make informed decisions about your own care.”
Correct, I expect to be able to make informed decisions. Today, however, with medicine in thrall to “quality of life” utilitarian ethics, “futile care theory” and “rational suicide”. Doctors aren’t giving patients all the options and information one would need to make informed decisions on palliative and hospice care when facing end of life decisions. Re-read the comments by Michael above, I can tell you similar stories about my own family.
Jim writes, “In my experience we don?t have a culture in medicine in which people are seen as disposable.”
Then, Jim, you have very limited experience. I also believe that you are shutting your eyes and ears to what is happening around you. Not only do we have a culture in medicine which people are seen as disposable, we have a culture in medicine in which people are seen as a resources – for organs and stem cells.
During the Terri Schiavo case, Michael Schiavo stated that what he wanted done to Terri happens all the time. He, of course is correct. In fact, in Georgia another woman is about to be dehydrated and starved to death. Father Rob Johansen has the low down on what is happening here and more information here. “Oh, don’t worry,” they said as they promoted the death of Terri Schiavo, “This is only something that would be used in cases of the PVS or similar ‘brain death’ situations.” Well, reap what you have sown.
Mrs. Mae Magouirk was completely lucid and had a living will that stated hydration & nutrition could only be removed if she was comatose or vegatative. She is neither and she is not dying. But now she’s in a hospice where hydration and nutrition have been removed by order of a probate court as requested by a family member who had no power of attorney to make medical decisions.
Beth Gaddy, the granddaughter seeking to kill grandma, said, “Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus,” Gaddy told Magouirk’s brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. “She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?”
Fr. Johansen writes, “During the last couple of weeks, we’ve heard a constant drumbeat from the MSM, and seen a constant parade of pundits, telling us to make sure we get a living will, so that what happened to Terri Schiavo didn’t happen to us.”
“But now, it appears that a living will is no guarantee, either. If a relative decides your life is no longer worth living, and a judge is willing to overrule your living will and make him or her guardian, you too could end up dying over 10-14 days, starving and dehydrating to death.”
–end snip–
We who adamently oppose the culture of death are characterized as just a bunch of religious zealots and chicken littles jumping up and down about how the medical and legal sky is falling. America is not, in fact, on a very steep, very slippery slope. Things are fine, there’s nothing to worry about. Oh, really?
Michael writes: “Patient autonomy like so many other ethical questions is more smoke and mirrors in my experience than anthing else. I work in the insurance field and have been more or less privy to applicant’s medical records for over 20 years. Countless times, I have seen records in which significant problems were written about in the records, but not disclosed in anyway to the patient.”
Daniel, agreeing with Michael, writes: “Doctors aren’t giving patients all the options and information one would need to make informed decisions on palliative and hospice care when facing end of life decisions.”
To say that patient autonomy is central to modern medical ethics is rather like saying that sanitation is central to modern medical care — you train people, put programs in place, do quality checks, etc. But in the end things don’t always work out the way they’re supposed to — patients aren’t always informed, and things aren’t always clean. That’s not a criticism of either goal, but a criticism of our efforts. often lacking, to achieve the goal. The solution is more patient autonomy, not less, more sanitation, not less.
Daniel: “Mrs. Mae Magouirk was completely lucid and had a living will that stated hydration & nutrition could only be removed if she was comatose or vegatative. She is neither and she is not dying. But now she’s in a hospice where hydration and nutrition have been removed by order of a probate court as requested by a family member who had no power of attorney to make medical decisions.”
I believe the facts of the case will prove to be different from your description. For example, one blog offers the following clarification:
“I just got a telephone call from Judge Boyd. He was very nice, and cleared up a lot of questions I had about the case.
“The basic overview of what he told me was that the whole family was in agreement when they came to court, and that they had all decided that Beth Gaddy should be made the legal guardian (under certain conditions). Three doctors should evaluate her condition, and all of the family would agree to their suggestion. He did not have to decide anything, he just wrote down what they agreed to. He made Gaddy the guardian, but made her so under the condition that she must make sure that Mae Magouirk was given proper food and care. He also told me that he ordered that none of the family members could try to convince any of the doctors to their side, and that the doctors were ordered to check her within 24 hrs, or as soon thereafter as possible, because time was important. He has promised to send me a copy of the court order, I will make it available as soon as I receive it.
“I asked him how it could be that he had made these orders, and yet they had not been obeyed? He told me that he had no clue that his orders were not being carried out, and that the family should have let him know. Then he would have been able to enforce his orders; but as it was they did not let him know what was going on, so he could not do anything about it.
http://soundingthetrumpet.blogspot.com/2005/04/clarification-from-judge-boyd.html
I’m not sure what lesson we’re supposed to draw from that case, since we’re apparently not in possession of all the facts. Frankly, having waded through thousands of words of disinformation on the Schiavo case I’m going to wait for a while on this before coming to any conclusions.
Fr. Hans: “The only rationale you have provided so far is that because there are some very tough cases that we don’t have answers for yet (PVS, etc.), a radically individualistic definition of ‘patient autonomy’ is the only reasonable solution to these hard cases.”
Ok, if you don’t like the “radically individualistic” verion of patient autonomy, what’s your version?
Her food and hydration were removed on March 28th. So while you and many other Americans sit back and wait, Jim, Mae Magouirk and thousands like her die by dehydration and starvation. And when all these people die, they will simply be dropped down the memory hole. And this goes on and on and on and on and on and on and …