Talk by David Gibbs, lawyer to Terri Schiavo
This is an extended talk given by David Gibbs, lawyer to Terri Schiavo and eyewittness to her malady, and ultimately her death.
Sunday 01 Jul 2007 | Jacobse | Terri Schiavo |
This is an extended talk given by David Gibbs, lawyer to Terri Schiavo and eyewittness to her malady, and ultimately her death.
Sunday 01 Jul 2007 | Jacobse | Terri Schiavo |
Ok, I listened to around the first 15 or 20 minutes of the video. The attorney made three statements that struck me in particular:
1) in the early 90s, after the brain injury, Terri was learning to walk using parallel bars.
2) Michael Schiavo won a “multi-million” dollar award.
3) in cases of dehydration, the heart explodes, it “literally disintegrates.”
Other than the attorney having said this, and other than its repetition in right-wing blogs, is there any evidence, anywhere in the known universe, or in any other space-time dimension, that any of those things are true? If so, please list. If not, please acknowledge.
Missourian really is correct. When faced with uncomfortable truths you retreat and scatter hoping to find a weak point, and then pound that point as if the entire argument rests on it.
I’ll take the attorney’s word that Terri was learning how to walk when Michael Schiavo stopped therapy. We know that he stopped the therapy; whether or not Terri was using parallel bars in her therapy doesn’t really have to proved.
We know that Michael won around $2 million in the settlement.
As for how dehydration attacks healthy organs in the body, I’ll take the the lawyers’ word for it. If it works differently for different people, so be it.
Why are you so eager to defend this killing?
Fr. Hans writes: “Missourian really is correct. When faced with uncomfortable truths you retreat and scatter hoping to find a weak point, and then pound that point as if the entire argument rests on it.”
In my experience, when I bring up serious issues with the Schindler side of the case, backed by actual documentation, you stop talking about the case and start talking about me. Which is exactly what is happening now.
When it comes to the Schiavo case, it seems that you accept without question or verification anything that comes from the Schindler side. You say that there is a lot of information not contained in the case record, but then you seem indifferent to what is in the record, as if the record is always trumped by what is not in the record. It appears that the record is irrelevant to you. You never cite anything in it. You don’t test the claims of the various parties by referring to it. And when I refer to it, you see that as a distraction from the “true issue.”
As of 2003 David Gibbs became the lead attorney for one side of the Schiavo case — the most highly litigated medical ethics case in recent years, a case that was discussed in congress and by the president, and that went before the Supreme Court twice. In a video that you posted — not me, but you — the Schindler attorney makes various remarkable claims of which I had never heard before.
These are not trivial “weak points.” To claim that Terri Schiavo was learning to walk when Michael discontinued treatment, is to assert that Terri was making regular progress, in fact remarkable and miraculous progress. This makes his discontinuation of therapy seem even more reprehensible, even monstrous. But we know from the case record that she was making no progress, and that the doctors had been telling Michael for three years that the case was hopeless. In spite of that Michael continued aggressive therapy, until in 1994 he came to accept the prognosis that he had been told all along. Note that David Gibbs says that Terri was learning to walk, but he does not say when or where that happened. Next time you run into him, ask him about that. Is there a photo? If she were learning to walk, surely that would be documented in the medical record. If she were learning to walk, why was that never disclosed in any of the many legal proceedings? Why does the guardian ad litem report in 1998 not mention it? Why does the guardian ad litem report of 2003 not mention it? A reasonable person might conclude it’s because it never happened.
Claiming that Michael Schiavo got a “multi-million dollar” settlement gives the impression that he received far more than he actually did. The case record clearly shows that he personally received $300,000 for loss of consortium, and that $750,000 went into a trust fund for Terri. Gibbs knows this. He’s not stupid or misinformed. But he intentionally exaggerates the amount so as to give more of an impression that Michael was “out for the money.”
To imply that Terri’s heart “exploded” is first, to be completely wrong about what happens in dehydration, and second, to ignore the extensive pathology report on Terri’s heart at the time of her death. Again, Gibbs know about this.
I was simply asking whether or not there is any way to verify his assertions. Either there is or there isn’t. I think you’ve answered my question. There isn’t.
Fr. Hans: “Why are you so eager to defend this killing?”
How does verifying the facts constitute a defense of killing? It’s as if you assume that the remarks of the Shindlers and their allies and attorneys are sacrosanct, utterly beyond all doubt or question. Not because their statements are true or accurate, but merely in virtue of their strong and sincere feelings about the case. With respect to other topics, you would call that “moralizing,” and that’s exactly what it is in this case. Something is true or believable based on its own merits, not on the strength or sincerity of emotion behind the claim.
In my experience, when I bring up serious issues with the Schindler side of the case, backed by actual documentation, you stop talking about the case and start talking about me.
Because you do not listen, you are not capable of processing information that lies outside your neo-pagan world view. You are utterly incapable of believing anything that would challenge this worldview, thus you hide in “legal documents”
in fact remarkable and miraculous progress
Only remarkable and “miraculous” if you are dead set on believing a certain set of facts in this case - the facts that you choose to believe.
It’s as if you assume that the remarks of the Shindlers and their allies and attorneys are sacrosanct, utterly beyond all doubt or question. Not because their statements are true or accurate, but merely in virtue of their strong and sincere feelings about the case.
Which is the crux for you - you believe anyone who does not buy your thinking is being sentimental. The idea that you are being sentimental (toward a neo-pagan philosophy) does not cross your mind. Thus, you really do believe the “facts” support neo-paganism.
Thus, you are not open to discussion, you are only open to endless “debate”. Question is, how long will the Orthodox on this list tolerate it?
Note 3. Jim, you hold the court record as sancrosanct, while ignoring that the only doctors whose testimony was considered were euthanasia advocates chosen by George Felos (Michael Schiavo’s attorney) who is also a euthanasia activist.
Yet you insist that only this record, and not the credible testimony of witnesses not called, be allowed in the discussion.
You want us to believe that this record ought to be the end of the debate, and that those who dispute Judge Greer’s decision are making up points out of whole cloth. Then, to drive the point home, you brand all those objections as stemming from the “religious right” — as if that appellation drives the final nail into this coffin you built.
This issue won’t go away because the capital death of a non-criminal is an agregious injustice, no matter how handicapped she may have been. You are defending a principle here whether you like it or not: courts can arbitrarily decide who lives and who dies. And while you mitigate the principle by arguing that Terri was PVS (a charge her attorney, an eyewitness, disputes), the principle still holds.
The truth is that Terri Schiavo did not have to die. She was healthy, albeit disabled. Michael Schiavo could have quietly divorced her and her parents would have taken over the care and feeding. That’s why I view her death as martyrdom. See: The Martyrdom of Terri Schiavo.
Fr. Hans writes: “Jim, you hold the court record as sancrosanct, while ignoring that the only doctors whose testimony was considered were euthanasia advocates chosen by George Felos (Michael Schiavo’s attorney) who is also a euthanasia activist.”
First, let’s talk about the legal record, and other related documents, that together I will refer to as the “case record.”
I look at it this way. The case record functions as a timeline. It also functions as a repository of the basic facts of the case. It contains information on the major players, who testified and who did not. To some extent it contains a record of that testimony. It records the judge’s opinion, and often the judge’s reasoning behind the opinion, both at the trial court and appellate levels. It contains other information compiled by the guardians ad litem, serving in 1998 and 2003. It also contains the extensive pathology report.
Think of it this way: the case record is book that is required reading for the “class” on the Schiavo situation. The price of being a serious contender in the debate is reading the book. Is the book perfect or sacrosanct? Of course not. But it is the starting point of the discussion. If someone wants to dispute the book, great, bring it on, complete with the reasons why you doubt the book.
In my experience, the problem is that people do not offer a reason for disputing it. For example, you just said that “the only doctors whose testimony was considered were euthanasia advocates chosen by George Felos.” But we know that’s not true. Both sides presented expert testimony. There was an evidentiary hearing ordered by the Court of Appeals precisely to hear that evidence. Judge Greer found that the expert testimony presented by the Schindler’s physicians was not persuasive. He even discusses his reasons for not finding it persuasive. So the starting point of your discussion should be explaining why you think Greer was wrong in not finding them persuasive. But in order to do that, you have to know the material. Fortunately, that is not hard to do. In other words, there’s an argument on your side to be made, but it’s not the argument that you’re making.
Fr. Hans: “Yet you insist that only this record, and not the credible testimony of witnesses not called, be allowed in the discussion.”
I am happy to talk about the other witnesses who were not part of the official proceeding. But I’m going to examine what they say. I’m going to look for corroboration. A recent post by — someone whose name escapes me at the moment — listed some of those sources. There being only 24 hours in a day I don’t have time right now to respond to all of that. But the poster is right to introduce other sources.
On a different note — If you run into Christopher, please tell him that I am no longer responding to him. I mentioned that already, but he may have missed it. I want to talk about the issues. He wants to talk about me. Frankly, I’m not all that interesting, and I’m quite sure that others are bored by the continual back-and-forth. So as long as he wants to discuss me as the topic, he’ll have to do that without my assistance. So he is free to attack or denounce me as he feels necessary. And as Forrest Gump said, that’s all I have to say about that.
You can’t debate the Schiavo case with the faithful using facts and evidence.
It is very simple. The Schindlers and their advisors made a fateful decision early on to abandon the simplest and most powerful argument in their favor.
Faith was taken out of the equation. Instead they adopted the philosphy of war. They also adopted a Madison Ave approach: proper packaging, putting the proper spin on things, damage control, slogans, sprucing it up, giving it a fresh coat of paint, selective imagery, specially selected snap shots of only the best moments.
The Schindler family felt the need to edit.
Why?
My opinion is that they felt the truth was ugly and they were advised that the American public wouldn’t embrace the ugly truth or help them in their fight if there was full disclosure without editing.
I think this is a safe assumption considering that the Schindler family has never (and will never) release the full and unedited many hours of video tape that they have of their daughter.
I’m referring of course to the video tape from which they carefully selected (edited?) a few moments to release out to the internet.
When the Schindler family wrote their book they did not quote from or make reference to any kind of official records. When Michael Schiavo wrote his book (or had it ghost written…) he included quotations and references to the official records.
Mary Schindler testifies in court under oath - an official proceeding with an official record- and states Michael Schiavo is a wonderful person, son in law and husband. I refer to Mary Schindlers testimony in the public record of the medical malpractice trial. Under oath and under penalty of prosecution for perjury she says nothing about impending divorce. Nothing about abusive behavior. Nothing about controlling behavior. Nothing about violent assaults. Nothing about suspecting Michael Schiavo of anything other than being a good and supportive son in law.
In my opinion what happened later- the deceptions, the misrepresentations, the outright lies- came out of the Schindler “under seige” and at war mentality. The “all is fair in love and war” mentality they adopted after abandoning their faith in God and their faith in the American legal system and their faith in Government.
The point is that the ship has sailed. In trying to inflame the passions of the American people and incite an uprising against the legal system the Schindlers and their supporters very obviously felt it was necessary to give truth the night off. Well more like they felt the need to send the truth on a vacation. An extended vacation. They didn’t show case the truth.
They appealed to the conspiracy nuts and fed them tall tales of far reaching efforts to cover up. Tales of medical records being altered. Tales of Terri speaking. Tales of Terri on parallel bars. Tales of Terri complaining about menstrual cramps (because she could feel and complain about menstrual pain but had to wear diapers because: A. she couldn’t feel the need to purge or B. Couldn’t find a way to communicate she needed the toilet but could figure out how to communicate she had menstrual cramps?) Tales of abuse and neglect.
Multiple (more than 100) investigations by Florida DCF uncovered no verifiable or substantiated incidents of abuse, neglect or mismanagement of finances. The Florida attorney general was asked by the governor of Florida to find evidence of crimes and more specifically was asked to find evidence that Michael Schiavo had committed a crime. The report made to the governor was crystal clear that there was no evidence, no crime and no possibility to prosecute.
The point is the passionately faithful have embraced the Schindler versions and variations not because the evidence clearly indicates that the Schindlers were honest and truthful. Quite the contrary.
One of the most outrageously effective tools the Schindlers used was to convince their supporters that if they weren’t with them then they were with the enemy. If they weren’t entirely on their side and entirely supportive of their statements then they were a traitor. To support the Schindlers was to support Catholics, pro life and disability rights.
To disagree with them or to call them on their lies was to be against them and meant you were anti-catholic, pro euthanasia, a dog beater, woman hater, against equal protection, etc.
In other words to support the Schindlers is saintly. To dispel the lies and misrepresentations or to point out the facts and evidence that contradicts the Schindlers, well, that makes you evil and means you are pro euthanasia.
Note 7. Interesting theory, Amazed. Is this a backhanded justification for dehydrating the poor woman?
Note 8: While I may sympathize and even agree with the Schindler’s cause, I must ask: do the ends justify the means?
In other words, if the cause itself is right, does it thereby negate any wrongdoing that may be done to accomplish that goal? It seems that what many have implied here is that dishonesty is a lesser evil than the perceived injustice of what occurred in this case, so it shouldn’t be mentioned.
I’m not saying that the Schindlers were dishonest about some things, but when it’s noted that the evidence points in that direction, it seems to be ignored.
Amazed writes: “You can’t debate the Schiavo case with the faithful using facts and evidence.”
You got that right. I tried — and have the scars to prove it. For the faithful, the Schindlers and their advocates always speak ex cathedra. Everything is infallible. It can never be doubted. If the Schindler side says it, it’s true, end of story, end of discussion.
Over a period of a few years I wrote a number of Schiavo posts here, quoting verbatim from the case record, posting extensive links and references. The faithful received that information with indifference at best, outrage and derision at worst. Unlike you, I am not “amazed.” It is standard operating procedure, totally predictable. So I can tell you exactly what will happen. If you post a few more things like that, you will be personally attacked and insulted. Your motives will be questioned. You will be accused of supporting murder, a mouthpiece for the culture of death. Been there, done that, got the tshirt. Standard operating procedure.
Amazed, you have written a great piece, articulate, interesting, eloquent, and — dare I say it — true. I’m going to have it engraved in bronze,and see if I can get it mounted on the wall of my local courthouse, right next to the Ten Commandments and the icon of Jesus.
You won’t last long here, but if you’re posting anywhere else, please let everyone know where that is.
Unfortunate but true that debate and discussion about the issue quickly degenerates to personal attacks because, as I have pointed out, the majority of people involved have a VERY black and white perception.
You are either for it or against it. If you point out the contradictions, falsehoods or misrepresentations and draw a clear line to the Schindler camp as the origin then you are labelled as being against the Schindlers and therefore you support all things evil.
It creates a true quandary. If you want to get at the truth you are walking in a mine field. The issue inflames. It polarizes. People feel like they have to be completely entrenched on their own side of the issue.
People have compassion for the Schindlers. People have sympathy for the Schindlers. People have embraced the Schindlers as icons.
A black and white view with no shades of gray.
People have lost sight of the fact that the Schindlers were typical human beings with flaws and faults and weaknesses. They could be misled. They could be influenced.
Robert Sr was out hawking the foundation mailing list to the highest bidder even as his daughter was in her final days on earth. He was out cutting deals with professional solicitors to increase donations to the foundation. At the time the stated purpose of the foundation- and thus the purpose of any donations made to it- was to save Mrs Schiavo.
But at the same time Robert Sr was making deals for the solicitation of funds he was also insisting that the family would ONLY accept pro bono legal services. They would only accept help/supplies/publicity if it was donated or gifted. They would only accept the help of volunteers.
So why did the foundation make MAJOR fundraising efforts? What did they need all that money when they were insisting and demanding that all contributions be gifted or donated?
I think the answer is pretty clear when you investigate who is on the foundation payroll. Robert Sr was looking out for his family and was forward thinking and looking to the future needs of his family. The updated, currently stated purpose of the foundation is very noble. It has a worthy purpose and goal. The Schindlers may have made the ultimate purpose to their lives.
My point is that they were not above criticism and they opened themselves up to criticism. They created a public persona. They entered the arena of politics. Maybe the end does justify the means. Maybe it doesn’t. But if you make claims in the public media, especially claims of conspiracies and plots among government officials and agencies, you should expect scrutiny. If you are honest in your claims and have nothing to hide you should welcome it.
David Gibbs rides the boat. The one I mentioned previously. The one that had already sailed.
His approach to “informing” the public and telling the “real” story as he witnessed it is nothing new or unique with passionate Schindler supporters.
If the public records and the court records don’t support your claims then it is mandatory to cast suspicion on the record as being incomplete or inaccurate. The court of popular public opinion is MUCH different from the courts of law. The court of public opinion doesn’t demand you swear an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The court of popular public opinion doesn’t have rules of evidence. You can testify to anything in the court of popular public opinion- it doesn’t matter if you have direct knowlege, or expert knowlege or what your motivations might be or what your personal agenda is.
Therefore the story you ascertain from the official record and the sworn statements is notably and glaringly different from the story you hear during the public appearances. In fact it is almost like two separate worlds and two separate realities. In order to maintain Mr Gibbs market value as a paid public speaker (Bobby Schindlers as well) they have to keep people convinced that they have the inside story, that there are “facts and evidence that have never been revealed” or “testimony that wasn’t allowed”.
The advertisements and introductions to their public speaking engagements read a lot like super market tabloid headlines: GET THE REAL STORY, WE HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE INSIDE COVERAGE.
If the Schindlers wanted you to know the REAL story then they would release the many hours of video tape that they withold from public inspection and scrutiny.
Amazed writes: “Unfortunate but true that debate and discussion about the issue quickly degenerates to personal attacks because, as I have pointed out, the majority of people involved have a VERY black and white perception.”
Yes, and a black and white perception that has been largely formed by misinformation, rumor, speculation, and unfounded allegation.
My personal opinion, upon reviewing the case record many times, is that the outcome in this case, however sad, is the appropriate outcome, based on Terri’s condition and what she would have wanted. That said, reasonable people can disagree. If someone reads the case record and concludes that the outcome was wrong or immoral, I have no problem with that — as long as it is an opinion that is informed by the actual facts and evidence in the case.
Amazed: “It creates a true quandary. If you want to get at the truth you are walking in a mine field. The issue inflames. It polarizes. People feel like they have to be completely entrenched on their own side of the issue.”
I think that the people who accepted the Schindler side of the case without question have a problem. There is at present a huge amount of information contradicting and refuting that side of the case. But at this point they are so invested in it that it’s difficult to back out. It’s like having bought Enron at $100 per share, and now the price has dropped to 50 cents, but to sell would be an admission that it was wrong to buy into it in the first place.
My frustration is that those on the Schindler side do have legitimate concerns. But the vast amount of misinformation obscures those concerns. In other words, those on the Schindler side have a legitimate case to make, but it’s not the case that they are making.
Frankly, everyone should be concerned about how that case played out. Is the legal system really the right venue for such cases? Are there resources that could be brought to bear — bioethics committees, mediation, pastoral or other counseling, etc., that could have averted the tragic split between the Schindlers and Michael? We’ll never know.
Amazed: “People have lost sight of the fact that the Schindlers were typical human beings with flaws and faults and weaknesses.”
And Michael too. When the case became famous and polarized, what was lost were the people. They were no longer people, but symbols, demanding allegiance, useful for scoring political points. You feel love and compassion for people, but not for symbols. You feel compassion for a husband who was so devastated by his wife’s collapse that he suffered extreme depression to the point that he thought about killing himself. You don’t feel compassion for a “monster.”
Amazed, I’m really impressed by your blunt honesty and insight. I hope you continue to post here, whatever your religious orientation. I posted here for several years, but recently came to understand that my posts often created a negative atmosphere that was not helpful. I’m might drop in from time to time, but do not plan on posting regularly. The Schiavo case is of particular interest to me, so I decided to drop in. Anyway, I hope you will consider posting on other topics. Your experience here may be different from mine. I’ve also been impressed with Jonathan Tartell’s posts, new to this venue as far as I know. I hope that intelligent and articulate people will always be welcome here. Best wishes.
Note 11. Amazed writes:
No, not “all things evil” but just euthanasia, which is an evil.
And no, the dissent is not merely “contradictions, falsehoods or misrepresentations” but compelling questions about what testimony was allowed in the record, contradictory testimony not allowed in, and so forth.
It’s easy to believe that the dissenters are part of a vast conspiracy of right wing yahoos, but this sidesteps the grave moral questions raised by Terri Schiavo’s death, such as:
1). Why was it necessary that Terri be killed when her parents were willing to pay for her continued support?
2) Why did not Michael Schiavo just divorce Terri and let her parents take over?
3) Death row inmates get an automatic appeal. Terri’s death was a capital death. Why no appeal?
4) Why where on the record pro-euthanasia physician/activists the primary physicians called to testify? Hardly a trustworthy or neutral party.
It would be nice if the discussion about Terri Schiavo were as black and white as you wish it was (portraying dissenters as right wing zealots does just that). It’s easier to justify her death that way.
But why do you think the handicapped, hardly a conservative constituency, were outraged by Terri’s killing? See: Not Dead Yet, and the Not Dead Yet Schiavo page. Even the Nation weighed in (to their credit I might add): Killed by Prejudice.
Thank you Jim. Whether it is apparent in my posts or not, I agree that the Schindlers and their followers and supporters needed to make a stand- indeed had a duty and obligation to object and to resist. The public debate is very important. The law in Florida, texas and many other states may very well be greatly in need of revision.
The problem is that the debate should be framed accurately and honestly.
You expect integrity, honesty and transparency from those who would take the moral high ground. It is rather disappointing to learn that people who profess a powerful and compelling faith actually demonstrate just the opposite at times when they should be relying upon their faith above all else.
Truth has a way of finding the people who are looking for it regardless of the obstacles placed in its path. Lies can certainly change a persons mind but it is truth that eventually changes a persons heart. I beleive the Schindlers and their supporters were more focused on changing minds than changing hearts or changing lives. I am certain they and their foundation will make a difference in the world but I am equally certain that they could have influenced many more people in a positive way if they had taken a different approach in bringing their private battle into the public arena.
Peace.
Amazed, your words would fit a white Christian country clubber when Martin Luther King was organizing the Birmingham bus boycott.
Jacobse,
In the end these discussions about the holiness or righteousness of the people involved only contribute noise of no value.
The focus should never have been on the soap opera like plots or the performances of the various cast members.
The focus should be on this: should the laws be changed? Do we have bad laws on the books? If they need to be changed then what needs to be changed?
The endless discussions about who should be cast into hell and who should be spared, who was more right or who was more wrong, such discussions simply drain the energy and burden the spirit.
As a man of religion I am surprised you are not more sensitive to the damage being done to your heart and spirit by not trying to lift these discussions and debates to a higher level and to have them serve a greater purpose than to simply try to fix blame or focus hate on one party or another.
Human beings will be human beings with all the inherent flaws and weaknesses. Those who would call themselves leaders, and in particular those that would be religious leaders need to rise above and have a broader vision, a greater perspective and be more mindful of the need for healing and forgiveness.
***
In anticipation of your disappoitment that I would not be engaged in further debate here is my response to your questions:
In answer to your questions 1 and 3 my response is that this was NOT a criminal case and was not about serving justice. This was a probate case and under probate law the court was charged with answering the question what would Terri Schiavo have wanted for herself under the circumstances. The court proceedings were not to determine whether she had committed a crime or, once found guilty, to determine the sentence. In answer to your question #3 in criminal cases to insure the requirement of due process is met the convicted is granted an automatic appeal. The Terri Schiavo case was by far the most litigated and reviewed case in US probate court history. I’ll say that again for emphasis- the TERRI SCHIAVO case was the most litigated and reviewed probate court case in US history. That hardly leaves room to debate whether their was adequate due process.
In answer to your question #4- the Schindlers had their witnesses and were allowed their own witnesses and in fact the Schindlers witnesses did testify. If those witenesses were unable to give them the outcome they wanted then I guess they chose their witnesses poorly and that is an issue you would need to take up with them and their legal counsel.
In answer to your question #2 in the record, specifically in the GAL reports, you will find that the Schindlers stated that even if they knew to a certainity that Terri would not want to be kept alive artificially that they would not have followed her instruction. Michael Schiavo stated very pointedly that Terri Schiavo was not an object or some THING that you simply returned or gave back and he stated very pointedly that he wanted to make sure that what she would have wanted is what was going to be done.
You can choose your friends. You certainly CHOOSE your mate. You cannot choose your family.
When you wed YOU remove yourself from the authority of mother and father and childhood and you begin your adult married life.
The wisdom in allowing the spouse to make medical and legal decisions before parents and family is that a persons CHOICE of mate should be honored and respected, that the institution of marriage is to be respected. You wed before God and man, you wed before the entire world. It is a testament to your desire to have your life and your fate intertwined with that of your mate. It is testament to your desire to follow your mate.
I am not interested in debating you on the relative merits of Mrs Schiavos choice of a husband. In hind sight she may have made a bad choice but it was HER CHOICE to make.
It was not within the rights of her parents to attempt to obtain a divorce on her behalf. I would again point out the GREAT contradiction in such an act. On the one hand they would claim Mrs Schiavo to be a practicing and faithful Catholic and that they themselves were practicing and faithful Catholics but then they would actively solicit a divorce on her behalf. Incredible and disturbing.
By the way I don’t support euthanasia or suicide.
I do support the right of individuals to make decisions about what medical treatments they would accept or reject. Not accepting painful, experimental, scarring, dangerous, futile or just plain vanilla UNWANTED medical treatment or surgery is every Americans right. Even the Catholics agree that man is not obligated to accept every medical treatment or surgery possible.
It is unfortunate that Terri Schiavo left no written directive but not surprising given her age at the time she collapsed.
That the courts acted to determine what she would have wanted for herself under the circumstances was not evil but the law as it was written and on the books at the time. The American legal system may not be perfect but it is better than most and certainly better than no law or regulation at all.
There were no “grave moral questions” surrounding Terri Schiavos death- at least nothing like what Jacobse listed.
Cutting through the skin, fascia and muscle to surgically implant a tube into the stomache, with the intent to leave such a device permanently protruding from the abdominal wall, is most definately a “medical treatment” and more exactly it is most definately a surgical procedure. It is not “natural” in the least to have such a medical device protruding from your stomache and out into the world through your abdomen. It is not comparable to the spoon feeding an infant receives unless you think infants are fed by cutting into them to get directly at their stomache.
I beleive the hearsay quote attributed to Terri Schiavo during the court proceedings was “no tubes for me”.
The only true and honest moral question raised in the case is whether a person should be allowed a choice in the matter.
The pro life activists hate the word CHOICE. The imperative moral question has nothing to do with Schindlers, Schiavos or Greers. The imperative moral question is how far will we allow activists to go in making medical decisions for us.
Note 17. Amazed, you start your post with:
. . . and end it with:
. . . revealing that your reasoning is nothing more that the abortion ideology applied to the infirm. You in fact do support euthansia, although perhaps unkowingly, in which case you don’t understand the implications of your own reasoning.
Fr. Hans writes: “And no, the dissent is not merely “contradictions, falsehoods or misrepresentations” but compelling questions about what testimony was allowed in the record, contradictory testimony not allowed in, and so forth.”
Amazed has already answered your specific questions, and better than I could. Here I would only point out that much of what you would say was “not allowed in,” was in fact considered and rejected, for various reasons. Take, for example, the affidavits of staff who claimed abuse on the part of Micael Schiavo:
Concerning medical testimony that was “not allowed in,” the physicians testifying on Michael Schiavo’s side of the case were not the “primary physicians.” As Amazed notes, physicians from both sides testified. In his ruling Judge Greer discusses why he found the Schiavo side compelling. That doesn’t mean that testimony on the other side was “not allowed in.”
It is true that later on other physicians filed affidavits stating that Terri Schiavo was not in a PVS. You’ll find that many of them based their opinions on nothing more than having seen the highly-edited videotape. Also, keep in mind that long before the case became controversial, Terri Schiavo had been diagnosed by her treating physicians as in a PVS back in November 1991.
Fr. Hans: “Why did not Michael Schiavo just divorce Terri and let her parents take over?”
Just to supplement what Amazed said. As guardian, Michael Schiavo had standing to petition the court to make a neutral determination of what his wife’s wishes would have been concerning continuance or withdrawal of medical interventions. Once the court made that determination, then any subsequent guardian would be dealing with the same finding, since it was not the guardian, but the court, acting as surrogate, that made the finding.
No Jacobse, despite your assignment of moral values to me based upon your interpretation, I do NOT support euthanasia, suicide or abortion.
I do support the right of Americans to choose and decide for themselves what medical treatments and surgeries they would accept or reject. I feel it is wrong to force anyone to accept intrusive or invasive, experimental, painful, scarring, futile or just simply UNWANTED medical treatments or surgeries. I really am not interested in what the persons justification or reasoning would be for their decision nor do I think they should have to justify their decision to anyone- not to me, not to you, not to the courts.
What a person decides is between them, their conscience and their God. The courts seem to agree since persons who object to blood transfusions on religious grounds are NOT forced to undergo the procedure even in the face of compelling and overwhelming evidence of great risk of death or substantial bodily harm.
One could always argue that the persons refusal is tantamount to suicide. Yet they are granted the freedom- the liberty- to make such a decision.
Human beings have free will and were granted free will. Activists seem to think that they have some right or duty to control the freedoms and liberties of others, that they have a superior morality and therefore should be allowed to inflict their superior morality upon others.
Oddly enough the most morally superior human to walk the face of this earth, the only human that ever lived without sin, made it a point to forgive and not to condemn. The most morally superior human to walk the face of this earth did nothing to eliminate free will or control the lives of others. Rather he tried to teach them the error of their ways so that they could decide and choose to live better lives.
The ultimate role of religious leadership is to lead by example and to educate. Not to rule nor to enforce.
Sheep really aren’t too discerning about the shephard they will follow:
“I’ll take the attorney’s word that Terri was learning how to walk when Michael Schiavo stopped therapy. We know that he stopped the therapy; whether or not Terri was using parallel bars in her therapy doesn’t really have to proved.” - Jacobse
“As for how dehydration attacks healthy organs in the body, I’ll take the the lawyers’ word for it. If it works differently for different people, so be it.” - Jacobse
As simple as it would be to do your own research and ascertain the truth for yourself you would prefer to be spoon fed whatever this lawyer loads on the spoon.
Dehydration is well documented in the medical texts, it follows a predictable course and its effects on the human body are well documented. No disintegrating or exploding hearts- though thats a VERY creative and colorful embellishment not to mention stunning, shocking and disturbing to the uninformed, uneducated and easily led and mislead.
It is a very good example of how certain advisors and assistants to the Schindlers- not to mention the Schindlers themselves- used colorful and creative embellishment, selective and well edited video imagery and misrepresentation of medical documents, medical test results, court evidence and testimony to influence public opinion and inflame a passionate response from the easily lead and mislead.
There are many other examples:
In court the Schindler attorneys admitted to being in possession of the bone scan test results for years but in public appearances the Schindlers claimed the bone scan was “recently uncovered” evidence and, according to Schindler claims but NOT according to doctors, it was evidence that their daughter had been assaulted. Not any ordinary assault mind you but according to the Schindler claims an assault so severe it left her with a broken vetebra and multiple broken bones.
In other words the kind of aggravated assault (severe beating) requiring life saving medical attention and hospitalization.
The problem with those claims? The Schindlers and their attorneys were aware of the testimony given by the doctor who did the bone scan and knew the reason that the bone scan was ordered by Terri’s rehab physcian was that the rehab technician had reported unusual resistance in one knee and apparent inflamation for which there was no readily apparent explaination.
They were also aware that the diagnosis by the rehab physcian was H.O. or Heterotropic Ossification.
H.O. is naturally occurring bone degeneration taking place over time when a patient is immobile or bedridden.
James says:
I’m not saying that the Schindlers were dishonest about some things, but when it’s noted that the evidence points in that direction, it seems to be ignored.
Well yes, it is “ignored” because it is simply the nat on the Elephant. Again, you speak as a materialist. Who but a materialist would focus on the truth of this or that statement about this or that material fact when the huge fact of the execution of an innocent women stands over you?
Why have we been talking about this execution for weeks, and the materialist insist on talking about the relatively unimportant??
Fr. Jacobse asks:
1). Why was it necessary that Terri be killed when her parents were willing to pay for her continued support?
Because men like “Amazed” and Jim (how long did his grand exit last? two days?) have a materialist anthropology, thus they are deathly afraid of pain. They believe it is an act of mercy to kill Terri (even by de-hydration!). Thus they Troll an Orthodox blog wanting to talk endlessly about what the court said, “PVS”, and whatever supports their cause in their truncated view of the world and man.
2) Why did not Michael Schiavo just divorce Terri and let her parents take over?
Because he is a sincere pagan, who truly believes that it was right to kill here - indeed it was his mission
#’3 and 4 simply follow from the above
It was not within the rights of her parents to attempt to obtain a divorce on her behalf. I would again point out the GREAT contradiction in such an act. On the one hand they would claim Mrs Schiavo to be a practicing and faithful Catholic and that they themselves were practicing and faithful Catholics but then they would actively solicit a divorce on her behalf. Incredible and disturbing.
Disturbing because you have a pagan world view. In a just society (one where pagan ideas of “marriage” have not become the norm) Mr. Schiavo’s actions would have led to a rather “automatic” divorce (i.e. lying with another women). Terri Schindler (NOT Schiavo to a traditional Christian) would of course not been executed in a just society no matter what her marriage status…
No Jacobse, despite your assignment of moral values to me based upon your interpretation, I do NOT support euthanasia, suicide or abortion.
Come on, this sort of rationalization can is seen right through by a 5 year old. You DO support all the above, because you DO support radical individualism, the right for “one to define one’s own concept of existence”. Think about it…
One could always argue that the persons refusal is tantamount to suicide. Yet they are granted the freedom- the liberty- to make such a decision….Human beings have free will and were granted free will. Activists seem to think that they have some right or duty to control the freedoms and liberties of others, that they have a superior morality and therefore should be allowed to inflict their superior morality upon others.
So your a radical Libertarian, of the nasty type who believes any other philosophy besides radical libertarianism is an effort to “inflict superior morality upon others”. Luckily for you and the rest of us, such an arrogant philosophy (one that simply condemns all moral thought) has never been the basis of this country (or any other) and our laws….
Oddly enough the most morally superior human to walk the face of this earth, the only human that ever lived without sin, made it a point to forgive and not to condemn. The most morally superior human to walk the face of this earth did nothing to eliminate free will or control the lives of others. Rather he tried to teach them the error of their ways so that they could decide and choose to live better lives. The ultimate role of religious leadership is to lead by example and to educate. Not to rule nor to enforce.
BAHHHH!!! Jesus as radical libertarian. That’s “rich” as they say. Please, follow this howler up with more!!!
Christopher writes: “Because men like “Amazed” and Jim (how long did his grand exit last? two days?) have a materialist anthropology, thus they are deathly afraid of pain.”
I emerged from my hole in the ground because of Amazed’s amazingly accurate take on the Schiavo case. You’ll notice that I’m not commenting on the virtue of having a copy of a 16th century Russian Orthodox icon on display in a Louisiana courthouse, or any other thread.
A question for you — I’m not trying to pick a fight here, just curious. Which statement do you think best captures your view of the situation:
1) Terri Schiavo definetly would have wanted to be maintained in that condition as long as reasonably possible. Therefore it was wrong to discontinue the feeding tube.
2) Since we cannot know what Terri Schiavo would have wanted with any degree of certainty, it was wrong to discontinue the feeding tube.
3) The wishes of Terri Schiavo were irrelevant. She should have been kept alive as long as reasonably possible.
If none of those work for you, feel free to improvise. I’m trying to understand what your particular objection is.
Christopher asks: “Who but a materialist would focus on the truth of this or that statement about this or that material fact when the huge fact of the execution of an innocent women stands over you?”
Well, I just wanted to clarify whether or not the use of dishonesty in the interest of a “greater cause” (however you determine that to be) is morally acceptable or not.
You imply that it is.
I just wanted to clear up how the Orthodox approach issues of ethics. Thank you. I’m not sure how you can ever then refer to “moral absolutes”, however. In other words, you can’t say that telling a lie is always wrong. It’s not. Its use can be deemed not only understandable (and forgivable) but also desirable if the situation warrants it (such as this case).
ps. I have already stated I am not a materialist.
Note 16. Amazed writes:
So? How does this justify her dehydration? Further, the evidence for her ostensible desire “not to live like that” was so scant that another judge could just have easily made the opposite ruling. (Greer erred on the side of death, another might err on the side of life.)
Look, you really ought not to be arguing that her killing is justified because it was deemed so by the court. The case is way too shaky. I can understand why you and Jim and others want to ruling to stand as sancrosanct because that way the moral dimension can be overlooked.
Jim says he could accept a judgment either way, whether she lives or dies is a matter of indifference as long as the court decided it. Do you hold the same view?
But, there’s a law that supercedes all your legal locutions: thou shalt not kill. No amount of “choice” nullifies this law.
JamesK, you state:
You draw the wrong conclusion from what Christopher says. He is simply saying that whether factual incosistencies, even outright lies occur in those who supported not killing Terri, that is not the real issue. IMO, it would be amazing had they not. The real issue is the killing of a human being. All of the empiricism, etc. used to defend the killing is an inconsequential smoke screen that ignores the main issue. The real issue, what is a human being and under what conditions should human life be protected?
Actually, the problem here goes back long before the decision to terminate Terri’s life. It really brings to the fore front the use of “life sustaining” technology. I’ll admit I’m a radical when it comes to this stuff. I wouldn’t want most of it used on me at all. If I suffer an injury that is so severe or a disease process that requires a machine to keep me from dying–let me go.
However, once the decision to use life sustaining technology has been made a contract has been entered into which must be honored. As long as you live, we will support your life.
One of the problems is genuine informed consent. Doctors, in my experience, refuse to say someone is dying. At least that is what happened to me when my wife lay dying. All of those attending her knew, the nurses were legally prohibited from telling me (although bless them they tried to tell me anyway) and the doctor’s wouldn’t even when I explicitily demanded it.
The medical profession is, IMO, profoundly dishonest and afraid in the face of death. From that dishonesty flows a miasmic river of false hope and decisions are made that would be different were the truth told. That is from the best of the profession where necessary professional confidence and optimism quickly turns into denial and fear of lawsuit.
JamesK, if you will examine your thoughts and assumptions you are probably more of a materialist than you realize. I know I am. We cannot but help be infected with the spirit of the age. In our case that is materialism (and all of the demon spawn associated with it).
Note 31. Michael writes:
Michael, I’ve seen my share of this stuff and I don’t think the cynicism is justified. Doctors have to be extremely cautious because of malpractice suits. They don’t dare make any prognosis beyond offering odds, because if something unexpected develops, they can be sued, just as you say. It makes for confusion, but in our litigious society what other option do they have?
Further, it is not up to them to withhold treatment. They might obliquely make a recommendation, but the decision is always the family’s to make.
Also, life sustaining measures extending over a long period of time is very rare. Most measures don’t last all that long. As difficult as these decisions are, most families make them in relatively short order, but the adjustment still takes time. That too is something the doctors and nurses understand and why you see on ocassion care that might, under other circumstances, seem entirely unreasonable.
After months and months of conversation on the topic I’d like to sum up the two sides (nothing has been added to either since the inception)
Those in favor of Terri’s termination: its the law, its the facts (ad nauseum)
Those in favor of sustaining her life: she is a living human being, how can we kill her?
The higher, harder course is the one proceeding from the FACT that Terri was a living human being and now she is not. She did not die, she was killed.
But of course, many of the empiricists who have commented here even refuse to acknowledge that Terri is human, even that she was really alive. Until you are really willing to face that FACT, all the rest is nothing more than a “pomander’s perfume in the sewerage”.
Fr. all I can say, is that in my case the attending physcians were both profoundly uncomfortable when I asked direct questions about my wife’s prognosis and did all that they could do to avoid answering at all. To get an honest perspective, I had to go to a physican in my Church but because he was not directly involved in her treatment, he could only give me partial clues.
All to often “clinical detachment” becomes an excuse to become less human, not more.
I did not want or expect the doctor’s to make any decision as to treatment not was I in any way expecting guarantees, but they refused to give me the information I asked for and gave misleading explanations of outcomes. By doing that are they not deciding the course of treatment?
In the end, our technology has out striped our ability as human beings to utilize it. In many cases, good decisions become functionally impossible. Even Tristram Englehardt in one essay of his gave as the only solution “we have to be saints”.
I have a couple of good friends in my parish from whom I have sought medical advice and treatment from time to time. Fact of the matter is, they are still just guessing. The guesses are better than mine because they know more, but they are still just guesses. Even these guys have a tendancy to cover up the fact with bluster and bravado and these are really good people with strong faith.
Fr. Hans writes: “How does this justify her dehydration? Further, the evidence for her ostensible desire “not to live like that” was so scant that another judge could just have easily made the opposite ruling. (Greer erred on the side of death, another might err on the side of life.)”
On what do you base “so scant?” Judge Greer’s opinion was at the “clear and convincing” standard of evidence. When the District Court of Appeals received the case, they actually read the testimony on which Greer’s opinion was based, and concluded that the testimony was sufficient to constitute “clear and convincing” evidence. (This is all in the case record. I’ll provide a link if you want to read for yourself.) So it’s not just one judge, but a panel of appeals court judges coming to the same conclusion upon reviewing the very same testimony.
Fr. Hans: “Look, you really ought not to be arguing that her killing is justified because it was deemed so by the court. The case is way too shaky.”
Not to be rude, but it’s only shaky if you haven’t spent time with the case record.
Fr. Hans: “I can understand why you and Jim and others want to ruling to stand as sancrosanct because that way the moral dimension can be overlooked.”
The moral dimension is intimately connected to ruling and overall legal process, because the legal process was the context in which the facts of the case came to be known. It was the context in which testimony under oath was given, depositions were taken, medical opinions received and considered, evidence examined, witnesses cross-examined, appeals filed, case reviews performed, allegations investigated.
You speak of the moral dimension as something almost platonic, a disembidied entity that floats around independtly from the facts. But the moral dimension is something that arises from the facts, not something independent from them.
Fr. Hans: “Jim says he could accept a judgment either way, whether she lives or dies is a matter of indifference as long as the court decided it. Do you hold the same view?”
What I said is that my concern was that her wishes should be followed, as much as is possible to determine them.
It’s ironic to me that you and others here want to have the Ten Commandments and pictures of Jesus ON the courthouse, but then you have a kind of contempt for what goes on IN the courthouse — as if this whole legal thing is fundamentally irrelevant to truth and morality. If the court process is so trivial, and carries so little weight with you, why do you want to park the Ten Commandments there?
Note 35. Jim writes:
I’m reading David Gibbs’ book “Fighting for Dear Life” that outlines some of the backroom maneuvering of facts and data that never made the public record. He outlines the evidence offered that ostensibly proves Terri Schiavo wanted to die and there is not much there.
Do you really want to make this argument on a case that has created so much contention not only because of the judgment, but also on how that judgment was obtained? Not all judgments are sancrosanct, Jim. Look at Dredd Scott, or the handful of death row convictions that got overtuned when DNA evidence came of age even though the convictions were obtained by ostensibly incontrovertible evidence.
But that’s the point Jim. There is no evidence except hearsay, not to mention whether Terri Schiavo’s medical condition usually employed when life support is withdrawn. If you could offer something concrete, something beyond a back handed comment by a husband who hired a pro-euthanasia lawyer trying to change the world to his bizarre vision of human society (I read parts of his book), I’d grant you a little more room than I do. Like I said, you put a lot of faith in the courts.
But getting back to my first point, you did say that if the court had decided to let her live, you would be fine with that too. So what’s the moral principle you are defending here — it’s OK to kill people if they made an offhanded comment at one time or another that they would rather die than be infirm? Terri’s physical infirmity wass constant either way so I don’t see what else it could be.
All this aside however, it is still unclear to me why she needed to be killed. The woman had parents who wanted to take care of her. Why kill her?
Fr. Hans writes: “If you could offer something concrete, something beyond a back handed comment by a husband who hired a pro-euthanasia lawyer trying to change the world to his bizarre vision of human society (I read parts of his book), I’d grant you a little more room than I do. Like I said, you put a lot of faith in the courts.”
Two others also testified concerning her wishes, and their testimony was not disputed by the Schindler’s attorney. It’s not just an offhand comment. When you’re married you know what kind of person your spouse is, you know what the spouse would want. (In the same way that Tom Delay’s family knew what his father would have wanted after his father’s accident, even without quoting a specific statement.)
But let’s focus on Michael. What exactly would be his motivation in testifying falsely about his wife’s wishes? He was already living with his fiance, and had children with her. Even the conservative WorldnetDaily web site reported that Michael Schiavo rejected an offer of $1 million from a California businessman, if he walked away from the case. He rejected other offers, one reportedly for $10 million. He had already said that were any money from the trust fund left over he would donate that from charity. In fact, he didn’t receive any money upon Terri’s death. He was daily demonized and attacked in 100,000 conservative web sites, and in nationwide conservative talk shows. Utter lies were told about him. He received death threats. Walking away would have been the easiest thing to do, and according to public reports he could have done that with a million bucks in his wallet. But he didn’t. To me, it’s reasonable to conclude that he sincerely believed he was representing his wife’s wishes, and that he had good grounds for doing so.
Let’s talk about Judge Greer. He heard all the testimony. He was a lifelong Republican and conservative Christian. One of his friends said of him that “he IS the religious right.” Greer also was demonized by his co-religionists, and was forced to leave his church. He received multiple death threats, and had to travel with two armed state police officers. What was HIS motivation for ruling in favor of Michael’s side of the case, other than that he found that it was “clear and convincing.”
Let’s talk about the Court of Appeals. The panel of judges reviewed the actual testimony and concurred that the evidence was “clear and convincing,” thus opening themselves to attack and demonization.
To me, all of this constitutes “something concrete.”
Fr. Hans: “But getting back to my first point, you did say that if the court had decided to let her live, you would be fine with that too. So what’s the moral principle you are defending here — it’s OK to kill people if they made an offhanded comment at one time or another that they would rather die than be infirm?”
The moral principle is that every adult has the right to reject any and all medical interventions — whether you, I, or anyone else would agree with him or her. Perhaps the person should want something else. Perhaps the person has made a mistake. One of my family’s lifelong neighbors developed an ulcer on his leg, due to diabetes. But he “didn’t want to go to the doctor.” The leg became gangrenous. He didn’t want surgery. His family argued with him, but he was unmoved. He eventually died from that. May he rest in peace, I thought he made a terrible decision, a tragic decisions. But it was his decision to make.
Fr, Hans: “All this aside however, it is still unclear to me why she needed to be killed. The woman had parents who wanted to take care of her. Why kill her?”
It’s a simple answer. If she truly did not want to be maintained indefinitely in that situation, then the feeding tube should have been discontinued. Having people who want to take care of you is not a substitute for your own wishes being carried out.
Michael writes: “If I suffer an injury that is so severe or a disease process that requires a machine to keep me from dying–let me go. However, once the decision to use life sustaining technology has been made a contract has been entered into which must be honored. As long as you live, we will support your life.”
That is the “lobster trap” approach to medical technology. Once you get in, you can’t get out. I don’t think you’ll find much support for that.
Michael: “Those in favor of sustaining her life: she is a living human being, how can we kill her?”
Because she didn’t want to be maintained like that. Remember, no one asked her permission to surgically insert a feeding tube. That was done early on, because at first her prognosis was not known. In less than a year, the prognosis was known. As I stated before, Michael basically ignored the diagnosis for two more years in the hope of bringing his wife back. Therapy was not effective. There was no change.
Until recently only a criminal court could sentence someone to death
The legal standard of “clear and convincing evidence” sounds good but it is a a far lower standard that “beyond reasonable doubt” which is required in criminal cases that might result in death penalty. This, to me, is the biggest problem with the Schiavo case.
Prior to the acceptance of euthanasia in America post WWII, only one type of court could sentence someone to death- a criminal court. As everyone knows, defendants accused of murder are entitled to a very long list of procedural protections. Foremost among those procedural protections is the burden of proof in criminal cases commonly expressed as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This standard of proof was only the beginning. There are rights under the 6th Amendment to confront witnesses, rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, rights to speedy trial, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and many more. No Supreme Court would allow a convicted murderer to be killed by starvatoin and dehydration over the course of days. It would be ruled cruel and unusual.
By contrast, prior to WWII, probate court was seen as a protector of the disabled and infirm. The Court supervised the affairs of the disabled and the infirm and protected them from harm and exploitation. The Court itself never entered an order that harmed the disabled or infirm. The standard of proof in probate court is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” but “clear and convincing evidence.” Now probate judges can issue death sentences but the disabled lack the protections of a person accused of a crime. The standard of proof is lower. There is no protection against self-incrimination. There is no 4th amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure. With these protections I could have easily defeated Terri’s husband, had Terry been a criminal defendant I could have gotten her off. She died at the hands of a probate judge, a sad state of affairs.
Wow. Some of you are truly angry, spiteful and hate filled. So much labelling. So much contempt for your fellow human beings.
If truth is really the gnat on the elephants back in this case then why spend so much time and energy avoiding the truth? Why expend so much effort and energy (FURY?) resisting the truth, circumventing it and claiming it to be irrelevant? Could it be because the truth doesn’t serve your purpose?
You want to argue the issue of what is right and what is wrong but you want to do it without TRUTH?
You want to argue morality but at the same time you want to argue that truth is unimportant?
If you want to know why the Schindlers lost in their efforts you need look no further than the nearest mirror. They lost with the help of supporters such as yourself, people who came to their aid with nothing to offer but vitriol and venom. Profiteers and opportunists flocked to the Schindlers like moths to a light. You were a perfect follower. Willing to overlook contradictions and outright lies, unwilling to do your own research, unwilling to think for yourself because that might have carried you too close to the edge of the flat world in which you live. Past the edge of your world is “individuality”.
You wouldn’t want to be UNIQUE with your own thoughts and ideas. That might make you a radical.
Missourian
Is it possible that the probate judge in Terri’s case was incompetent of making the decisions he did because of limited legal experience or knowledge in this type of case?
I know incompetent is a strong word, but I couldnt’ think of anything else at the moment.
JBL, possible, of course, but procedurally the entire things still stinks
JBL, sure, it is possible that he is incompetent, it was very possible that the Schindler’s first lawyer failed to fully appreciate the lengths to which Schiavo would go and she didn’t prepare properly. I haven’t studied the entire transcript and I don’t see myself doing that.
I am just pointing out the obvious, until recently only a criminal court could issue a ruling that would result in someone’s death. Now a probate court can and there are far fewer procedural protections.
“Clear and convincing” isn’t that high a standard of proof.
Although a judge will never instruct a jury this crudely, here are the short-hand informal descriptions of legal burdens of proof:
Beyond a reasonable doubt= more than 85 - 90 % certain
Clear and convincing = more than 60 to 65%
Preponderance of the evidence = 51% plus
Clear and convincing is a civil standard and it really isn’t that tough to meet.
Outside of cases like these, “clear and convincing” has NEVER been used when someone’s life is at stake.
Missourian writes: “The legal standard of “clear and convincing evidence” sounds good but it is a a far lower standard that “beyond reasonable doubt” which is required in criminal cases that might result in death penalty. This, to me, is the biggest problem with the Schiavo case.”
It is the highest burden of proof in civil cases. But believe it or not, I’m going to agree with you, in this sense: you raise an issue that is global, that is not restricted to the Schiavo case. In raising that issue you’re not doing “special pleading” for the Schiavo case. I will ultimately disagree with you, but you’re raising the right kind of issue.
But let’s talk about what the “clear and convincing” standard of evidence really means in Florida law:
Florida Supreme Court, In re Davey, 1994. [From Matt Conigliario's web site, a practicinig attorney in Florida.]
So “clear and convincing” is not a trivial standard.
Missourian: “By contrast, prior to WWII . . . ”
But feeding tubes are a relatively recent innovation:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05342/619286.stm
As a relatively new technology we need to consider when the feeding tube is truly consistent with the wishes of the patient.
Missourian: “The standard of proof is lower. There is no protection against self-incrimination. ”
Ok, but since there is no crime, there is no self-incrimination.
Missourian: “There is no 4th amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.”
Not sure how this relates. In layperson’s terms, you can’t conceal relevant information from the court. What is demanded in civil cases is optional in criminal cases. E.g., physicians investigated by state medical boards for diversion of narcotics have no “right to privacy,” no “right to remain silent.”
Misssourian: “With these protections I could have easily defeated Terri’s husband, had Terry been a criminal defendant I could have gotten her off.”
In other words, yeah, given a burden of proof that no state in the country has adopted for civil cases, you could have maintained her in a condition that to a “clear and convincing” standard of evidence she would not have wanted to be maintained. If you want to make the case around the country that in end of life cases, the burden of proof should be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” great, go for it, see what happens.
But keep in mind that the vast majority of such cases never reach the courts, and never get beyond the family’s consensus that the loved one would not have wanted to be maintained in such a condition. Had the Schindlers and Michael not become alienated, we never would have heard about anything.
“Had the Schindlers and Michael not become alienated, we never would have heard about anything.”
Not entirely accurate. More accurate would be to say that had the case not been brought to the media in an effort to get it into the political arena and the court of popular public opinion THEN we never would have heard anything.
Now that the discussion is civilized I’m curious how people here react to the texas futile treatment law.
Schiavo presents the circumstance of a family dispute at its core. Regardless of how you view Michael Schiavo or the Schindler family and how they behaved, etc etc. when you strip away all the extraneous noise it really boils down to a family dispute brought before the probate court for a decision.
The Texas law actually takes the decision power away from the family and even the patient and puts it squarely in the hands of hospitals and more accurately it puts the decision power in the hands of the hospitals ethics committee.
Note 41. Missourian writes:
Missourian, this is exactly what David Gibbs, lawyer for the Schindlers, said. The Schindlers, not being lawyers, didn’t really understand the legal subtleties at first and hired the wrong lawyer. If the case was handeled differently from the outset, the outcome could have been different.
I’m not a lawyer, but life and death being decided through a probate court strikes me as highly irregular, if not bizarre.
Note 39. Amazed, one of the rules on this blog is that moral posturing is highly discouraged. You are free to disagree with ideas expressed here, but posturing, by which I mean assertions of the kind you make in your note that don’t really discuss ideas but only cast moral opprobium, are better made elsewhere.
Missourian wrote:
So the only evidence presented in probate court that Terri — the testimony of her husband, his brother, and sister-in-law to an offhand comment of Terri’s years before — would have wanted to die if in a comatose state, would not have held held up in murder trial?
Missourian: “. . . procedurally the entire thing still stinks.”
Missourian, the number of such cases that actually reach the courts is so small I doubt we could even calculate a percentage. So to even have ANY legal review is rare. To have the level of legal review that happened in the Schiavo case is literally unprecedented.
For a moment, imagine an alternate reality in which Michael and the Schindlers had not become alienated, and that some time in the 90s they all agreed that the feeding tube should be discontinued. There would have been no judge, no trial, no sworn testimony, no cross-examination of witnesses, no evidence, no rules of evidence, no legal procedure, no attorneys, no legal record, no appeals, no investigations, no accusations of conflict of interest, no affidavits, no depositions, no protests outside the nursing home, no talk shows, no books written.
All you would have had was a note scrawled in the medical record: “family agrees to d/c peg tube.” This is standard procedure in the great majority of such cases. For a hard case you might have a medical ethics consult.
If you think the procedure in the Schiavo case stank, how do you like the standard procedure?
Amazed writes: “If truth is really the gnat on the elephants back in this case then why spend so much time and energy avoiding the truth? Why expend so much effort and energy (FURY?) resisting the truth, circumventing it and claiming it to be irrelevant? Could it be because the truth doesn’t serve your purpose?”
Hard also for me to understand, but there it is. How often I have wished that just a fraction of the emotional energy expended on this case could have been redirected into an examination of the case record, much of it freely and easily available. Had that happened, the Schiavo discussions here over the last few years would have been very different.
Note 29 JamesK says:
You imply that it is.
LOL! I did not. You simply are focusing on the nat, when you should focus on the beam. IF the Schindlers lied, cheated, frauded, etc. then yes, it is wrong. Now why are we talking about that when Terri was executed?
I just wanted to clear up how the Orthodox approach issues of ethics. Thank you. I’m not sure how you can ever then refer to “moral absolutes”, however. In other words, you can’t say that telling a lie is always wrong. It’s not. Its use can be deemed not only understandable (and forgivable) but also desirable if the situation warrants it (such as this case).
It’s garbage like this that makes me think you are a Troll. Question, did you bother to do a little reading on Orthodox Anthropology??
ps. I have already stated I am not a materialist.
You can state it until the cows come home. Your reasoning on all sort’s of subjects reveals you do not understand the ground of your own thought. You reason from materialist premises, arrive at materialist conclusions, and then come here and ask why Orthodoxy does not conform to your materialist vision…
Note 49: From greekorthodox.net:
“In instances where it is completely evident that death is inescapable, and the person is spiritually prepared for death by means of confession and communion, the Church blesses that person to die, without the interference of various life-prolonging medical devices and drugs”
“One ought not to generalise about the Church’s approach to this question. The problem of maintaining the life of the gravely ill needs an individualised approach - a careful and round discussion in each instance with the relatives of the ill person, his physician and spiritual director. ”
You seem to be saying that the Schindler’s testimony is irrelevant in the scheme of things while simultaneously using their testimony to assert that Terri was otherwise “healthy” and ready to get up and walk around at any moment. IF the Schindler’s, their attorneys and physicians were NOT accurate in their assessments, then you cannot say that this case was an “execution” of a healthy person. You might be led instead to believe that we were extending the life of a person through artificial means (which the Orthodox church does not deem necessary). Whether there was dishonesty on their part is NOT irrelevant!
By the way, are you trying to suggest that you’d be making this big of a fuss had Terri not had any form of insurance or any means of support and had to rely on state funding to keep her alive? For all of your opposition to “socialized medicine”, I’m doubting it.
I’m not making medical judgments here, but simply suggesting that it seems unwise to completely discard the testimonies of medical practitioners just because you WANT to believe otherwise.
Jim asks:
A question for you — I’m not trying to pick a fight here, just curious. Which statement do you think best captures your view of the situation:
1) Terri Schiavo definitely would have wanted to be maintained in that condition as long as reasonably possible. Therefore it was wrong to discontinue the feeding tube.
2) Since we cannot know what Terri Schiavo would have wanted with any degree of certainty, it was wrong to discontinue the feeding tube.
3) The wishes of Terri Schiavo were irrelevant. She should have been kept alive as long as reasonably possible.
Your questions all revolve around your central dilemma, which is the “wishes” of the individual vs. family/doctors/state. This is of course related to your worldview, where pain vs. pleasure is really the ground of your “morality”, thus the individual conscious “decision” is exploded to fill the moral horizon.
Christianly, we approach the question from a different perspective altogether. This is not to say that the “wishes” of the individual (indeed, as has been argued here many times, secularist “liberty” was invented in a Christian culture) and pain (the old idea of a “mercy killing” arose in a Christian culture) are not important.
Whatever her wishes, her adulterated “husband”, her family, etc. the fact is that she was executed. As a disabled person, who served her family (I know, this concept is lost on you, or is completely discounted) and who was (and is, even now) a LIVING PERSON/SOUL, the State should not have executed her.
So, to answer your question, #2 is probably the best (though incomplete) answer…
You seem to be saying that the Schindler’s testimony is irrelevant….Whether there was dishonesty on their part is NOT irrelevant!
Read the above post - your approaching this from the wrong perspective. Even in the “generalized” sentences you take, we have a family willing to care for her. The ‘off handed comment’ is what it is - not a basis to execute someone because her political activist adulterated “husband” wants her dead - and in his death eater worldview she is already dead (thus the date he put on her tombstone).
In a just society, he would have no legal standing based on his adultery…
You are (along with the other materialists - but strangely, you are not a materialist - though you do arrive at the same place
asking the wrong questions..
15) | Jul 08 2007 | Jacobse
Amazed, your words would fit a white Christian country clubber when Martin Luther King was organizing the Birmingham bus boycott.
26) | Jul 09 2007 | Christopher
So your a radical Libertarian, of the nasty type who believes any other philosophy besides radical libertarianism is an effort to “inflict superior morality upon others”. Luckily for you and the rest of us, such an arrogant philosophy (one that simply condemns all moral thought) has never been the basis of this country (or any other) and our laws….
27) | Jul 09 2007 | Christopher
BAHHHH!!! Jesus as radical libertarian. That’s “rich” as they say. Please, follow this howler up with more!!!
46) | Jul 10 2007 | Jacobse
Note 39. Amazed, one of the rules on this blog is that moral posturing is highly discouraged. You are free to disagree with ideas expressed here, but posturing, by which I mean assertions of the kind you make in your note that don’t really discuss ideas but only cast moral opprobium, are better made elsewhere.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I’m not making medical judgments here, but simply suggesting that it seems unwise to completely discard the testimonies of medical practitioners just because you WANT to believe otherwise.
You WANT to believe otherwise. Fr. Jacobse has noted how the preponderance of “medical practitioners” were in fact death eaters - activists for the euthanasia cause (it’s in the middle of this thread somewhere). Besides, you are WANTING to rest on the “experts” rather than think through the fact that Terri was executed…
Note 54: I honestly have not made a judgment on it, as I have not fully read both sides and all of the court testimonies.
My question is: on what basis have you determined that Terri was in a state that would, from an Orthodox perspective, mandate that she be kept alive via methods such as a feeding tube? If you’ve determined that via the testimonies of all of those on the Schindler side, it would seem you should at least attempt to discern whether their testimony is accurate and truthful, no?
I don’t care if the Schindlers have a bias. I expect them to, and that does not necessarily impact the truthfulness of their testimony, nor does bias in of itself determine the truthfulness of the opposition, either. Calling either side names does not make them liars.
You want to analyze the issue of what is right and what is wrong pertaining to the Schiavo case but you want to do it without TRUTH or honesty as any part of the discussion?
You want to argue morality but at the same time you want to argue that truth is unimportant?
Apparently your most fervently held beleif is that discontinuing medical treatment = execution
Someone even posted that if a person is placed on life support it establishes a contract. Interesting position to take.
Traumatic brain injury generally results in immediate and life threatening consequences requiring immediate medical intervention including respiratory support (mechanical ventilation) when the patient is obviously nuerologically impaired - not even making reflexive attempts to draw a breath.
Patients present in acute coma origin unknown.
The immediate medical response is to stabilize the patient and support their life until a complete examination can be conducted, diagnostic imaging accomplished and other testing and evaluations performed. Doctors don’t necessarily have time to conduct interviews of the bystanders, witnesses or family members and such things are not the primary concern when time is of the essence.
The nature and extent of a persons injuries does not necessarily become readily apparent for many hours. The potential for full or partial recovery can remain a question mark for days, weeks or months.
Contracts generally require a “meeting of the minds” before they can be enforced. The meeting of the minds is required so both parties can clearly understand the terms and conditions they are agreeing upon.
The doctor doesn’t know the patient- to the doctor this is a unknown person. The doctor simply acts to save a life under circumstances where time is of the essence and because that is the doctors duty.
It is an interesting concept to say that once a medical treatment has been started a contract is established to continue it.
That seems like bad policy, bad law and bad medical care.
Note 56. Amazed writes:
No, I don’t really want to argue that truth is unimportant or that honesty should have no part in the discussion. But neither do I want to defend myself against your implicit charge that a critique of the killing of Terri Schiavo somehow skirts truth and honesty. That’s what I mean by moral posturing.
Funny how one sided all the inflammatory phrasing is. Apparently thats been a very effective tool.
Disturbing visual imagery and inflammatory phrases.
Sort of a reverse Madison Ave approach- rather than spruce it up, or present it naked, in order to sell it you have to wrapper it and package it in a very negative way and in such a way that it provokes a emotional response- the target emotions being anger, outrage or disgust.
I never made an “implicit charge that a critique of the killing of Terri Schiavo somehow skirts truth and honesty.”
I certainly did imply that there is much misleading and innaccurate information about the case.
That does not automatically mean that people using that false or innacurate information are aware it is false, dishonest or innaccurate.
Now it is an entirely different story if it has been proven that their “facts” or “information” are wrong and they continue using them even after being confronted.
Perhaps the confusion is in the fact that I tend to say “the Schindlers and their supporters”. I should really apologize for that. What I mean to say is “the Schindlers and SOME of their supporters”
I can see where people would get angry at over generalization.
On the other hand it might not be the generalizations I made at all. It could be that you simply decided I was your enemy. Or more accurately you decided to be my enemy. I issued no invitation either way, I never asked you to be my friend and I never declared you to be my enemy. But you apparently decided we were on entirely opposite sides of the fence.
No society, no culture, no level of human organization is held together by law alone. Law, if it is functioning, represents the minimum requirements for participation in the society.
When law becomes the primary means of attempting to order society, that society is in trouble.
If there are not un-voiced but deeply understood common principals within a society, it begins to disintegrate. Constant recourse to law in what should be a fundamental underpinning of a society (for instance respect for human life) at best delays the unraveling of which it is a symptom. Most of the time the unraveling is hastened because each “victory” in court merely increases the mistrust of the defeated party. At worst, the law, in the hands of skillful manipulators becomes an active agent for the destruction of the society. IMO special intersts law groups, all of them, all too often serve the interests of the manipulators and become tools for advancing a specific set of values and/or ideology to the exclusion of all others. Dialectic battles result that only do damage to the fabric of our society as real consensus is attacked and wounded.
When individualism is untempered by cultural expectations societal cohesion declines. Eventually such a course leads to anarchy
When the common good is untempered by the conscience of the individual, the cohesion gained coaleses into tryanny as feedom is lost.
A healthy society manages to navigate between anarchy and tryanny. Law alone makes that impossible, politics tends to exacerbate the divisions and ideology hardens the divisions permanently.
So do we persist in a legalistic, ideological poltics or do we actually attempt to see each other as human beings, each of us wounded and suffering, each of us needing the other yet striking out at one another from the pain we endure.
The courts could not adjudicate the pain in the Shiavo case, the greed, the lust for power, the fear of death. We should not expect them to once it gets to that level, everyone looses.
The bottom line for me is that no matter what the reasons, no matter what sins parties to the dispute have and exhibited, a woman who did not have to die, was forced to die. If we as suffering human beings cannot find a way to eliminate such an outcome, we are indeed becoming less than human. We have surrendered to the legalistic, mechanistic ideologs who always seek to rule for their own gain at the expense of the rest of us.
Excellent and amazing piece Mr Bauman.
Note 59. Amazed writes:
You really have to move beyond this. It adds nothing to your credibility. In fact, it undermines it. Not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. Not everyone who agrees with you is your friend. To label challenges to your ideas as motivated by “anger” emotionalizes the issue and discussion degrades into the moral posturing I called you on earlier.
Having said that, I am on the other side of the fence. I do not believe the killing of Terri Schiavo is morally justifiable.
Amazed, if you want to be further amazed, here is the direct inspiration for what I wrote: I’m Glad We Cleared that Up
#1. Credibility doesn’t concern me.
#2. Moral posturing was an issue before I posted here and it is interesting that you single me out but not those you consider to be “on your side” of the issue.
#3. People who resort to name calling and labelling are generally doing so out of anger and I lost count of how many different labels have been applied to ME- not to my ideas but to me personally.
#4. I never said Terri Schiavos death was morally justifiable.
You asked questions based on incorrect interpretations or application of legal theory and by explaining the difference between criminal legal procedure and probate legal procedure I was not “justifying” anything. You were stating that CRIMINAL legal procedure and concepts were not followed or applied. I pointed out the case was not CRIMINAL, it was probate. All such cases fall into the probate category. Probate courts are not new. What happened in the probate court in this case was not “new”. It was not uncommon. It just happened to be highly publicized in this case.
It is possible to be critical of the Schindler family and NOT be pro euthanasia at the same time. It is possible to be critical of lies, dishonesty and misrepresentations given or uttered in an effort to save Terri Schiavos life and NOT be pro euthanasia or pro death.
Amazed, whom are you addressing?
It would be helpful to quote the person you are responding to. I don’t know the identity of people that you are addressing in Note 64.
Just a suggestion.
The bottom line for me is that no matter what the reasons, no matter what sins parties to the dispute have and exhibited, a woman who did not have to die, was forced to die.
Which is the bottom line for myself as well. The secularists (I put JamesK and Jim here, “Amazed” I think as well though it is difficult to read through the “moral posturing”) start with someone they really believe is already dead, and go and on about this or that diagnoses, this or that “medical treatment”, this or that “expressed or implied desire”, etc. What they leave behind is the that a women, who was serving, died in the name of “right to die” - a secularist vision of morality that Christians (this is after all “OrthodoxyToday”) find revaluating.
Being rightly labeled a secularist and a modernist is not “calling someone names”, anymore than myself being labeled a Christian, or conservative, or what not. Jamesk fails to refute (and what Jim, and probably “Amazed” explicitly embrace) the evidence that his thinking is materialist. How is their reasoning is related to Christianity, or any other philosophy other than modernism? How does a culture which embraces “euthanasia”, abortion, and the like not a horror? How does the pleasure vs. pain principle lead to a morality that is anything but a horror? Instead, the secularists want to talk about the minutia, the detail, and if so and so was honest when he said such and such - all when this women was killed!!
p.s. Is “Amazed” a Jim pseudomen? His emotionalism would seem to say yes, but his style seems just different enough…;)
66) | Jul 10 2007 | Christopher
“that a women, who was serving, died in the name of “right to die” - a secularist vision of morality that Christians (this is after all “OrthodoxyToday”) find revaluating.”
______
Revaluating of what? Morality? Life? secularism? I’m not exactly sure what you mean. What exactly are Christians trying to revalue?
Explain please, if you can, the inaction of the Christian church in this matter.
As you may or may not know the Schindlers appealed to the many bishops of the Catholic church to act on their behalf or at the least to take a public stand. Would you appraise the Christian response as apathetic?
Sorry, my bad. I meant “revolting”, not re-value…
Christopher, under what circumstances is someone (according to Orthodox moral theology) ethically required to remain alive using medical technology? In other words, when do the Orthodox say “It is not a moral evil to not give this person life-extending or life-saving medical care”?
I need a quote and reference, please, ideally with a concrete example, not just abstractions.
Explain please, if you can, the inaction of the Christian church in this matter. As you may or may not know the Schindlers appealed to the many bishops of the Catholic church to act on their behalf or at the least to take a public stand. Would you appraise the Christian response as apathetic?
I don’t think the “Christian church” (leaving aside for a moment quibbles about what IS the Church) was apathetic. Christians, and all others who did not follow the modernist line caused enough uproar to get Congress to act, largely symbolic as it was.
That said, I think our culture has already past the point of no return. It is Slouching toward Gomorrah - Christianity, western culture, will be a minority - surviving only “in the ghetto”. What our culture will become I don’t know, as I agree with Fr. Jacobse in that modernism/secularism is not robust enough to sustain itself (ends up eating itself up, through abortion, lack of children, etc.). I vote for an Islamic takeover through immigration
Other’s, like Fr. Jacobse, are much more optimistic, seeing real life in a repressed “western civilization”…
RE: note 69
That makes sense to me now.
I am keenly interested in knowing how you would explain the deafening silence from the Church (in particular the Catholic church) as the Schiavo case progressed?
Christopher, Islam will appeal to men tired of feminism
Creepy as it sounds, Islam, IMHO, appeal to some men who are tired of feminism. So much of what is seen as Christian has become a haven for feminism. The mainstream Protestant Churches are increasingly led by female feminst clerics and their allies. The Academy is losing male students and they don’t know why. It is obvious why. The college campus is a very hostile environment for men. Unfortunately, some men will find Islam to be appealing because it makes no bones about male supremacy.
By the way, Islam creates a society in which each man is a little dictator in his own household with unfettered right to divorce a wife at any time for any reason along with the right to add a wife to the family up to four at a time.
Outside the family, men are given automatic deference in all things. So an Islamic man can claim precedence, outside his home, over half of the population. It automatically makes him part of the “top half” or “ruling half” of society. It can have alot of appeal to men, don’t underestimate it.
Christopher, Islam can appeal to women who are tired of men who don’t marry
I read an article about indigenous Italian woman marrying Muslims. GAG. The reason given was that indigenous Italian men from the Christian culture had abandoned marriage almost completely and only offered transient living together options. Muslim men married and usually for life. Of course, there is the occaisional beating, the ever present threat of divorce on a male whim and the possibility that you can be displaced in your husband’s affections by wife number two.
If someone would have told me back in 1960 that Islam would have been considered a serious cutlural alternative in Western societies I would have thought them insane. Phew!!!
Sorry Christopher, our posts crossed. Thank you for responding.
Apparently we aren’t worlds apart in our views after all- at least from my perspective.
I was largely disappointed by the response.
IMHO bystanders and the “not religious” expected a larger and louder response from the faithful. Perhaps this is an odd assertion but I think the faithless were really hoping for a powerful, large, overwhelming response from the faithful because #1 it would prove they were still out there and #2 it would prove there was still hope for the world.
Just to clarify- I meant “I was largely disappointed by the response of the church (any church) and the response of its faithful members”
Unfortunately, Islam fits right in with the blasphemous way that some protestants interpret the description of marriage in Ephesians. They quote “The man is head of the wife…” Many stop right there or compound their blasphemy by making Jesus Christ a dictator rather than the one who died on the Cross for us that we might have life.
You don’t need a degree in advanced theology to understand what St. Paul is saying, you have to willfully misinterpret his words to get to the point some of these folks do.
I am beginning to think that we need to open our southern borders and say ‘yall come. I don’t think the Hispanic population will be as amendable to Islamic take over as us effite white folk and there is a core of Christian identity there.
Of course the other possiblity is China. Yeah Wal-Mart!
Watch and pray!
#77
Michael,
Muslim missionaries have been very active in Mexico the past ten years or so. They have been very successful in the Chiapas region with a message that appeals to a downtrodden people.
Islamic Radicalism in Mexico: The Threat from South of the Border
? Excuse me
Brother — is it possible you use the term “protestants” in a manner which is not good? Is this akin to a Lutheran scholar quoting from the Book of Concord. If you recall JBL correcting me — He said, ‘this is not done.’
You are casting a slur on “protestants.” [*]
At least distinguish — between Classic Protestants versus an individual who starts up her/his church in a storefront w/an internet ordination.
I would prefer you had said
I put this in the category “doesn’t matter.” It is said St John Maximovich had a habit of moving his hand in a depracating manner while saying, ‘not important.’
I certainly don’t mean Ortho-Praxy doesn’t matter! Men and women SERVE one another — and Patriarchy is a good thing taught by St Paul. Can we find failure [against orthopraxy] — in Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant realms?
Good Grief, if you have talked to some women from the “Old Country.”
Since you use the term “blasphemous”, I do not doubt you will find apostates. Creedal? yes. Practice? yes. Whether it be found with a) Individual Hearts, b) Families, c ) Churches, d) Civil Governments, e) entire people groups/nations.
Footnote:
* From the Psalter today Morning Prayers:
Thou sattest and spakest against thy brother; yea, and hast slandered thine own mother’s son. Psalm 50:20
So, my plea, a sister to you, my brother is:
be careful how you cast your slurs — especially as it concerns
Do good unto all, especially those of the Household of Faith.
St Paul. my emphasis
May I say, love - for the Headship of Christ,
Nancy L.
Nancy, for give me if the following does not answer your question (?). I will try to state in a more complete way what I mean.
Blasphemy: 1a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
There are many out there who use the passage in Ephesians as an excuse to dominate, abuse and humiliate women in the name of God (It is similar to the abuse within Islam). Close friends of mine have suffered through such abuse.
Is such abuse not a contemptuous, profane act concerning God? Are they not claiming for themselves the attributes and rights of God?
IMO, it blasphemes the Church; it blasphemes the sacrament of marriage, and exposes the name and person of our Lord to the scorn of unbelievers.
I purposely used the lower case p because these folks not only claim to be Protestants, but frequently as (the only real) Christians. Since I have respect for Protestants, I use the lower case p for these people for whom I, unfortunately, have little respect. IMO those who have these beliefs may not be technically apostate but it will make it easier for them to accept Islam if Islam begins to be a really significant presence in the U.S.
The only way a man can claim headship in marriage is if he does all that he can to pour himself out for his wife in love and sacrifice. The verses are quite clear even if you only finish the quote: Man is head of the wife as Christ is Head of the Church. He established the Church with His Blood and through the forgiveness He pronounced from that very same Cross and sent us the Comforter so that we could be included in His Church and be united with Him in mystical communion; a communion which marriage is designed to replicate and foster.
Of course, there are those within the Church who are abusive to women in the same way, but such abuse is not part of the theology of the Church. Just because sin exists elsewhere does not excuse sin in me or any one else. You will not, I hope, find me defending sin in or out of the Church least of all in myself. Do you have the opinion that a Christian should not say anything critical of another until perfection is reached? Should we temporize in the face of obvious sin because we ourselves are sinners?
People die because of the twisted theology of these folks.
Christopher writes: “Which is the bottom line for myself as well. The secularists (I put JamesK and Jim here, “Amazed” I think as well though it is difficult to read through the “moral posturing”) start with someone they really believe is already dead, and go and on about this or that diagnoses, this or that “medical treatment”, this or that “expressed or implied desire”, etc. What they leave behind is the that a women, who was serving, died in the name of “right to die” - a secularist vision of morality that Christians (this is after all “OrthodoxyToday”) find revolting.”
First, I don’t mind being called a secularist or modernist, as long as the term is not used in a dismissive way or to end a discussion.
Let me explain a little bit. The “secularist vision” to which you refer is not really a vision, but simply how these decisions are currently made. In the world in which we currently live, one of the main principles of medical ethics, perhaps the main principle, is patient autonomy. Stated simply, it is the principle that the wishes of an adult patient to accept or reject any medical intervention are paramount. The current laws and procedures we have are designed, as much as possible to determine what those wishes are. Behind the laws are a very large body of legal precedent.
This is the world in which we currently live. Because of that, my comments on the importance of the patient’s wishes, and the necessity of understanding the case record, are made in that context. I make these comments not because I’m a secularist or modernist, but because I have tried to explicate the situation in terms of the situation as it exists now.
For this reason, I think that the participants in this discussion often talk past each other. My remarks are a response to the situation as it exists — the current understanding of medical ethics, and the laws and precedents that have arisen in response to that understanding.
You, Christopher, and others, are, I believe, not responding to the world as it currently exists. Rather, you are trying to articulate a vision of a different kind of world — a world in which certain spiritual values are paramount, with the necessary ethical principles, laws, and precedents supporting that vision. In that sense, I think the facts and laws to which I refer are not relevant to the better world, informed by the spiritual visions, that you envision.
The problem as I see it, is that we don’t currently live in that different world. Furthermore, most people in the U.S., even Christians, do not share your vision. Even many who opposed the outcome in the Schiavo case did not do so because they share your vision, but because they wanted to use the case for political purposes, or because they wanted to use the case as a weapon in the culture war.
This is the question I have: how do you propose to bring about the vision of a better world, to make it not just a vision but a reality? You mentioned earlier that “I think our culture has already passed the point of no return.” If you are right, then the spiritual vision you want to make a reality will never happen.
If that’s really the case, then I would ask you to consider that the current system of medical ethics and the related laws is better than nothing. You don’t like the outcome in the Schiavo case, but then again, we’re not shooting nursing home patients in the street. We’re not forcing chemotherapy on terminal cancer patients who don’t want it. Rather than offering a “scorched earth” criticism of the current system, perhaps a better strategy would be to support the current system, with all of its faults and warts, while advocating reforms that would make it better. In other words, don’t tear down what we have, but build upon it and make it better.
I don’t want to reopen recent wounds, but when you’re not calling people trolls, your posts are interesting and substantive.
Of course, there are those within the Church who are abusive to women in the same way, but such abuse is not part of the theology of the Church.
Michael, since you brought up this horrible thing — would it be proper to name the church which you imply includes “such abuse” as your friend[s] has[ve] experienced?
It should be exposed, imo. How does this particular church incorporate “twisted theology?” But you say, they are not technically apostate? For all practical purposes — they certainly are
You say
Michael writes:
“The only way a man can claim headship in marriage is if he does all that he can to pour himself out for his wife in love and sacrifice. ”
———
Michael, by perception, I certainly know what you are saying. But does a man “set out to claim?” The appeal is to Creation [anthropology] — the man IS the head of the woman.
I wanted to thank you for going the extra mile, to meet my complaint. I appreciate it.
Note 81. Jim writes:
Not really accurate. Patient wishes are always considered, but in the context of the families who have authority to make the final decisions about the care of a patient who no longer can take care of himself. What your “patient autonomy” movement seeks to do, is remove family authority altogether and place it in the hands of ethic committees and other medical bureaucrats. Here is where your theory can lead: Death by Ethics Committee: Refusing to treat lives deemed unworthy of living.
Again, this too is not accurate. No cancer patient who does not want treatment is compelled to take it. I have dealt with enough families who face these kinds of issues to know that what you describe just is not true. Now, sometimes it is hard for a family to face that a family member undergoing treatment just cannot take it any more, and sometimes this hardship (which is really a coming to grips with the fact that their loved one is going to die) causes some discord and rancor, but this gets resolved in almost all cases. Sometimes the patient needs someone to communicate their wishes to the rest of the family because it is very difficult for the patient to ask the family to let him go. But forced chemotherapy? No, this is a gross overstatement.
Criticism of euthanasia, Terri’s Schiavo’s death in particular, is not a “scorched earth” criticism of the current system. Yes, the system is not a smooth running machine, but turning over these difficult decisions to a committee industrializes the enter process. How long do you think decisions would be made solely by a cost-benefit calculus? A year or two or three? Not much longer would be my guess.
And what happens when Jack Kervorkian types head the committee? Far-fetched? It shouldn’t be. Two of the star witnesses arguing for Terri Schiavo’s were doctors with a record of hard core euthanasia advocacy. Can you imagine them making decisions about who should live and who should die?
O come Nancy, are you abtuse to the wide spread interpretation in certain so called evangelical circles that subjugates the woman to the man even in cases of abuse? Man is head of the wife, period. What he says goes, period. ’cause that’s the what the Bible says. I can’t keep all of the splinters of the shattered Protestant tree straight. Any name I would give could well slander others.
Here’s one story. One of my friends who is now Orthodox (praise God!) went to a evangelical Bible college. The entire thrust of the curriculum as far as the place of the woman as she describes it was that women were secondary. While there she met a man who she ended up marrying. He was addicted to prostitutes and porn, and oh, beat her up from time to time when she didn’t do what he wanted. She went to the elders of her ‘church’ and was told she had to stay with him because he had ‘repented’ and he was her head. His repentence did not involve any change in behavior, just the typical abusers remorse. When a pastor of another affliated church she knew gave her sancutary in his home, he got in trouble. We’ll she eventually got a divorce, but of course that was not accepted in her church. This was years ago. By the grace of God, it set her on the course to the Church. However, she still sometimes desribes herself as a ‘recovering evangelical’. Some women are not as fortunate as my friend. They go back to the abuser and get beaten to death, or snap and kill their abuser.
Not long ago another young man from the same general persuasion was talking to her, he found out she had been divorced (she does not hide the fact) and even a bit about why. He flat out told her she was in sin because of the divorce and should look to her own actions as the cause of what her ex-husband did. Because “all togther now” “he was her head and she should have obeyed him because that was God’s will.” By leaving him, she had put her own soul in jeopardy. (He wrote this to her in an e-mail which she forwarded to me). How sick is that!
It is indefensible and I am astonished at your professed ignorace of such attitudes and behavior unless you have lived all of your life on one of the coasts. In the non-liturgical Protestant evangelical churches in the middle part of the country such belief is quite common.
You know Nancy, I get angry when my friends are hurt. The case I describe is only one of which I am aware. Such belief is not limited to evangelical circles, but it is more common there. It is a disgusting twisting of Scripture and denies Jesus own witness to the equality of men and women even when the functions are different.
The authority given to a husband as head is real. However, a man can lay claim to that authority only if he is obedient himself to the parmeters the scripture describes. It is not inherent to his maleness nor to the simple fact that he is married.
84) | Jul 10 2007 | Michael Bauman
Yes. You are right about the slander part. One saint I long to meet is St Seraphim of Sarov. One of the first things I read when we considered Orthodoxy, was about his making Shelter for women who were dealt with treacherously by men.
No. I am not obtuse as to one-half of what you say, because I endured 18 mos of a bogus-marriage Chamber, rural Pennsylvania, 1978. Fr Hans and (woops…almost wrote Fr Jim), meant to say Plain Old Jim Holman - know of it. I said “of” it. That’s it. Since our histories criss-crossed as youths.
I would like to thank you, Michael — for listening well to women. As to the personal sufferings at the hand of predators there are Tender Mercies and Compassion, because of your kind. Keep listening.
About your splinters, you can add this to the complexity of the church in America. You think you are angry? I am angry when you cast about slurs that touch on my Healers. The Jesus People outfit was not church. Any good that came from it was by accident and not design - but even that is only a loose assessment. I understand, God and his tender mercies for Lost and wayward youth. If he can raise up stones for seed unto Abraham — he can certainly use holy fools, like the Jesus people, for some use.
My healers happened to be Middle America Evangelical Church/ Churches. Can you hear this? Don’t hurt healthy Border Collies! Or Good Shepherds. If i owe them everything, it is glory to God, his means of grace.
And I hope you can address the problem of naivety in young women. That’s thorns as well. And other questions. Who is truly naive? Who is willingly deceived?
If Sophia is reading this by chance: I have a scripture
Michael, ceasefire then
p.s. If anyone doubts Torture Chambers occur in Christian homes, please read this book, written by Minnesotans
Let me explain a little bit. The “secularist vision” to which you refer is not really a vision, but simply how these decisions are currently made.
To take a slightly different tack than what Fr. Jacobse did in note 83, the phrases of “patient autonomy”, “medical ethics”, etc. can refer to different things. Again, it comes back to anthropology, what man is as man. Differing religious beliefs (e.g. secularist anthropology vs. Christian anthropology) lead to different (and incompatible) systems of “ethics”, ideas of “patient autonomy”, etc.
Thus in a sense you are right when you say:
Rather, you are trying to articulate a vision of a different kind of world — a world in which certain spiritual values are paramount, with the necessary ethical principles, laws, and precedents supporting that vision. In that sense, I think the facts and laws to which I refer are not relevant to the better world, informed by the spiritual visions, that you envision.
Yes, in the neo-pagan worldview and those who hold to it. The question is what does the larger public think? What are the central belief, the central anthropology, that we as a culture adhere to? It is obviously at a crossroads, and all the signs seem to point that it is headed toward the modernist (and thus nihilistic) vision.
But where you are being deeply hypocritical is when you say things like:
Even many who opposed the outcome in the Schiavo case did not do so because they share your vision, but because they wanted to use the case for political purposes, or because they wanted to use the case as a weapon in the culture war.
Why are you arguing for a system, an outcome, and this or that point in the case, if not out of your worldview - your anthropology? That is also “using” the case for “political purposes”. Christian’s wanted Terri to live because yes, they have a vision - an anthropology and want that vision to prevail. So they do share the vision, they wanted her to not be executed. Where you are being hypocritical is your belief that by sticking with the “facts of the case” you are somehow rising above your own, Schinlders, the publics, everyone’s beliefs and have entered a neutral ground. From this vantage point you can rise above and take in the “human drama” of it all - the tragedy - and then stand in judgment and claim everyone else is “using” this case as a political weapon.
This false moral neutrality is a central error in the liberal world view. Notice how it is playing out in Phil’s and Fr. Jacobse exchange. It is of course related to liberalisms quest for something to rest ethical decisions on (the innate realization that materialism is not a source for morality). If you have not read John Rawl’s “A Theory of Justice” you should really chew on that for a while. He almost single-handedly defined the discussion for liberals on what is ethical for the last 40 years or so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls
So when you come to an Orthodox site and argue that Christians should accept a court case, a death eater like Michael, etc. because of the system is what it is, or it is “better than nothing”, etc. It is not going to fly. We don’t buy the “neutral” ground paradigm, we don’t buy any belief or “system” that gets you to the “outcome” of Terri being executed.
Also when you say:
“Perhaps a better strategy would be to support the current system, with all of its faults and warts, while advocating reforms that would make it better. In other words, don’t tear down what we have, but build upon it and make it better.”
Certainly what should have been torn down long ago is an adulterous Michael’s claims to “family”, both culturally and legally over Terri. What needs to be torn down is this idea that one is not a Person unless one is conscious, self determined, and all the other ambiguous and materialist ideas of modern man. Any “system of medical ethics” that allows this execution (or abortion for that matter) is not worth a hill of beans in the first place. It is not an otherwise healthy body with a few faults and warts, it is something much deeper. A tweak here, a reform over there, does not fix the false idea of man on which it is based.
I realize you work (or worked) in a hospital, in billing if memory serves. Why do you support the current “system” as it is so vehemently? The question is mostly rhetorical, because it of course comes back to your anthropology, and how (as a secularist) you would resolve religious differences (i.e. collapse them back into the modernistic world view - thus enforcing modernism as the state/public religion). The real question is why you promote, defend, your worldview on a site called OrthodoxyToday? This is crux of my (and others) beef with you here - and why I believe “Troll” accurately describes your participation here.
The Jesus People outfit was not church.
Nancy, are you referring here to “Jesus People USA” of Chicago?
Oh, no Christopher. Similar.
Here’s a description. The address was LOST VALLEY LANE - interesting name, isn’t it? On 94 acres in the Willamette Valley.
There were no pretentions of identity with protestants, or Protestants — either one. Rather the positive vision was Acts Two. Wherever the Early Church left off –the J. P. Faithful picked it up. That was the essence of the Christian side of the hippie movement.
Another former associate of the group.
My homechurch pastor, Baptist General Conference, discouraged me from joining Shiloh. However — Baptists being the far Left as concerns freedom of religion, ultimately blessed me to go and in fact held a public prayer service as……..i went. At the end of the day, they were there with open arms, when I required the healing I mentioned to Michael. Ten years of it.
As for my father, his roots since childhood were deep with the pietistic movement out of the Lutheran State church. Again, far Left as concerns religious freedom. Pietists were not citizens in good standing in Sweden until 1951. But, at the end of the day — he also was there for me with welcoming healing arms. Now is in heaven.
But JamesK says there is no way of knowing anything like this — for sure.
In note 68 Christopher writes:
Can I ask you, from the Orthodox perspective, what the definition of person is? What is the Orthodox definition of person that is not ambiguous or materialist?
Christopher, what you have not really addressed is how your anthropology can be accommodated by current (and expanding) medical technology and what related ethical demands arise as a result of the existence of that technology.
Would you still permit DNS orders (Do Not Resuscitate) set forth explicitly by the person in question? When is it permissible to deny cancer treatments for oneself and just allow nature to run its course? How much medical consensus is needed for someone to be designated as “brain dead” (which is, after all, a medical term), thereby permitting a patient to be taken off any and all means of artificial life support?
Your answers would seem to be “No”, “Never”, and “100%”, if I’m understanding you correctly? Please clarify.
Christopher writes: “I realize you work (or worked) in a hospital, in billing if memory serves.
Several places, but 8 years as a medical data analyst, and 10 years as a senior systems and business analyst. Also worked as a volunteer for several years with the Center for Ethics at a medical university.
Christopher: ” Why do you support the current “system” as it is so vehemently?”
I support the current system overall, though not necessarily in all of its details. The current system works quite well most of the time. Given that millions of people, including patients and family, face end of life decisions every year, it works well in the great majority of cases. But there will be hard cases, even controversial cases. You will have these cases in EVERY conceivable system. The existence of those cases doesn’t mean that the entire system is bankrupt. (For example, I think the criminal justice system has far more problems than we see in end of life cases, but no one suggests scrapping the entire system and starting from scratch. That said, legitimate improvements to the system should always be welcome.)
Christopher: “The question is mostly rhetorical, because it of course comes back to your anthropology, and how (as a secularist) you would resolve religious differences (i.e. collapse them back into the modernistic world view - thus enforcing modernism as the state/public religion).
Frankly, it comes back to the anthropology of the people in the country. In spite of many months of criticism, most of the people in the country supported the outcome in the Schiavo case. A majority of the people in the country said that were they in a PVS they wouldn’t want to be maintained in that condition either. Reportedly many thousands of people filled out advanced directives to make sure that didn’t happen.
The thing about patient autonomy is that it works both ways. If you and your family want to make sure that you are kept alive as long as humanly possible, in any condition in which you might find yourself, you can fill out an advanced directive to that effect. Patient autonomy doesn’t mean that people will only opt out of treatments; it also means that they can choose to continue treatment. You might run into trouble with that in Texas, but I don’t support the Texas law (signed into law, as I recall, by then Gov. George Bush).
Christopher: “The real question is why you promote, defend, your worldview on a site called OrthodoxyToday?”
Because the content of the posts is not dictated by the name of the site, and because the site owner, last I knew, permitted people with other perspectives to post. He could end that at any time. I guess the real question is why he allows people of other perspectives to post on his web site. I have an idea why he does, but you’d have to ask him that. I agree that it would be interesting to see what discussions here would look like with participants all of whom had identical viewpoints.
Christopher: “This is crux of my (and others) beef with you here - and why I believe “Troll” accurately describes your participation here.”
You may have noticed that I have not posted on any other topics. I jumped back in when the Schiavo discussion unexpectedly heated up. Although many here are not interested in the facts of the case, I have noticed that people are not talking about Michael Schiavo getting a million dollars after Terri died, nor are they talking about Terri Schiavo talking and walking. I think that in the future others may even be a little more skeptical of claims coming from the Schindler side. I believe this is a result of Amazed’s and my participation in this discussion.
After this discussion cools off I have no plans to post regularly here. So be thou comforted. Verily the end draweth nigh.
JamesK, I’ll let Christopher expand on the Orthodox understanding of person, I’ll just say you have it backwards. We as human beings created in the image and likeness of God, should not have to be accomodated by technology, it is the other way around. The very way you phrase your question shows you have abandoned humanity to the machine; forsaken our diaphanous yet ever so substantial being to the individualistic and the material.
Note 90. I deal with this stuff and can answer it.
Yes.
It is always permissible to deny cancer treatments for oneself. People want to live though and most fight hard to remain alive. (When they don’t, most often they are depressed.)
Two or three specialists could do it. A diagnosis of brain death (very rare, BTW) is a straightforward matter (conclusive data, etc.). No obligtion exists to maintain the person on life support. Are you thinking of coma here? If so, that’s a different issue.
Fr. Hans writes: “Two or three specialists could do it. A diagnosis of brain death (very rare, BTW) is a straightforward matter (conclusive data, etc.).”
Pardon me as I “troll” here a little more, as Christopher says, but brain death is a medical diagnosis, and is subject to a certain degree of uncertainty, just like any other medical diagnosis. In fact it is a relatively new diagnosis. Standard, nationwide guidelines for the diagnosis of brain death were not even published until 1981. Further guidelines for the diagnosis were published in 1995 by the American Academy of Neurology.
A 2001 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, “The Diagnosis of Brain Death,” goes on for pages detailing the clinical steps of coming to that diagnosis. There are many conditions and situations that mimic brain death. For example, “More dramatic is the reversible Guillain–Barré syndrome involving all the peripheral and cranial nerves. The progression occurs over a period of days, and knowledge of the history should prevent the dangerous error of diagnosing brain death.” Which is fine unless no one knows that the patient has has syndrome. The article notes that “A more complex problem is the possible confounding of the clinical determination of brain death by metabolites or traces of circulating pharmaceutical agents. Screening tests for drugs may be helpful, but some toxins (e.g., cyanide, lithium, and fentanyl) may not be detected by routine screening tests.”
You can read the entire article here:
scalpel.stanford.edu/articles/Brain%20Death.pdf
An article in the Boston Globe Online speaks in lay terms about the problems of the brain death diagnosis:
http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/bglobe_mar_13_01_b.pdf
So much for the straightforward diagnosis.
More importantly, the definition of brain death as the actual death of the person, that actually lets you turn off ventilators, etc., is a LEGAL definition, not a medical definition. So let’s review what you and others have had to say about the legal system:
“But, there’s a law that supercedes all your legal locutions: thou shalt not kill.” — Fr. Hans
“I can understand why you and Jim and others want the [legal] ruling to stand as sancrosanct because that way the moral dimension can be overlooked.” - Fr. Hans
“You are utterly incapable of believing anything that would challenge this worldview, thus you hide in ‘legal documents’” - Christopher
“When law becomes the primary means of attempting to order society, that society is in trouble.” — Michael
“We have surrendered to the legalistic, mechanistic ideologs who always seek to rule for their own gain at the expense of the rest of us.” — Michael
So if you guys are going to reject the “legal locutions,” in the Schiavo case, keep in mind that it’s the same kind of “legal locutions” that make it possible to pull the plug on patients who meet the clinical criteria for brain death. All this legalese in the Schiavo case is irrelevant? Great. Then it’s irrelevant in all cases of brain death as well.
The whole idea of brain death as constituting the death of the person is very much culturally conditioned. For example, in Japan a large percentage of the population rejects that idea. As long as the heart can still beat, many Japanese see that as evidence that the person is still alive. To suggest that brain death is the criterion of death would strike many Japanese as a kind of “culture of death” thinking. But over here, even for the Orthodox, it is completely accepted.
Fr. Hans: “No obligtion exists to maintain the [brain dead] person on life support.”
See, this is where it all gets VERY arbitrary. The same kind of moral accusations and denunciations leveled against people such as Amazed and me could just as easily be applied to you. “You are a materialist, because you think that personhood is somehow related to some kind of electrical activity in the brain. You take refuge in the legal definition of “brain death” in order to kill people by depriving them of oxygen, an even more basic need than food and water. You are a secularist, a neo-pagan for believing that the life of brain dead person has no value. And by the way, why are you spouting all this on an Orthodox web site?” And so on. Whatever sticks to me because of my views on PVS, also sticks to you because of your views on brain death. Materialist? Secularist? Neo-pagan? Culture of death? Troll? Welcome aboard. You’re in good company.
Note 94. No real argument about the brain death diagnosis Jim. I am not arguing the criteria of what constitutes brain death (I don’t have the expertise to say one way or another.) I am responding to James’ question on what process you would employ when a family has to make a decision on when to withdraw life support.
You’re missing the point. The point is not the legal locutions, the point is the ethical orientation of those who arrange the data. Give me a doctor who values life over a euthanasia activist any day because I know that the life affirming doctor will fight for his patient, where the death affirming doctor has his decisions clouded by utopian notions of social reorganization.
There is no moral obligation to maintain a person on life support who has irrevocably entered the stage of imminent death. But this definition cannot be mechanized. It must be taken on a case by case basis. And because these situations are fluid and outcomes are not preordained, by all means keep the death advocates away from the patient. Death advocates will drive the medical decisions toward death rather than life.
In the last six months I dealt with two elderly men, both suffering from a ruptured colon, both caused in some part by hospital negligence (the first by gross negligence, the second a lesser negligence). Both survived. Nobody thought that they would. These were extreme cases, but also cases where death advocates would have counseled only palliative care because of the vast odds against any recovery (fecal matter had entered the lungs and infection set in), and their advanced age. Yet both survived. The first came back to church several months ago, the second just this last Sunday.
Jim, you misrepresent what I said. The law is an instrument and a tool. It has to be founded upon commonly understood moral principals in order to function properly. When we look to the law in place of moral principals (the law becomes primary) then the culture begins to disintegrate into either tryanny or anarchy.
When there is a shift in moral understanding (as is going on) then a great deal more is expected from law than it can really handle.
My real point is that the technology to prolong life far exceeds our ability to use it appropriately. Even before I became Christian I had decided I didn’t want it used on me. I have never understood the “prolong life at any cost” mindset. We Orthodox pray that our death be “…painless, blameless with a good defense before the dread judgement seat of Christ.” Death is not oblivion.
But like I also said, once the decision is made to use the technology, it is incumbent upon those supporting the life to contiune to do so. And one does not do anything to hasten demise in someone who is otherwise independent (like Kevorkian did).
To take snippets of what I say on this topic does not represent my thought well nor the thought of Christopher and Fr. Hans either. The diagnosis of death is always uncertain and has always been. That is why for a time in Europe caskets were equipped with bells in case the “deceased” woke up.
There is a big difference between accepting the uncertainty and living with the parameters of current understanding and forcing certainty by dehydration and starvation. Empiricists and body snatchers require absolute certainty of death. We don’t because we have certainty of life.
Note 69. Michael writes:
Yes. And in fact, the “prolong life at any cost” is relatively rare anyway, at least in my experience. Further, the process of dying often has a relentlessness to it, especially in old age. When one organ fails, other organs often follow. It affirms the corruptibility of materiality. We carry the effects of the Fall in our bodies. In younger people of course this is much less evident because the corruption takes time to do its work.
But I also wonder about what those who decree that the Terri Schaivo’s death is morally acceptable because they see only themselves in her situation and are scared by it. What do they think their own death will ultimately be? Death is not a pleasant process, but it is universal. Everyone will die. Everyone will experience the failure of parts of the body. Is this pro-euthanasia fervor driven by a fear of death? Do the euthanasia people think they will escape the final suffering — if they think about it at all?
Every time I go to the hospital or the hospice and see a patient lying on the bed and entering the stage of death, I remind myself that one day I will lie there too. It keeps me sober. It clarifies why life is such a precious gift.
Note 95, Jacobse writes:
I have heard of doctors that inaccurately and inappropriately claim to be Nobel nominees and continue to do so after being confronted.
I have heard of doctors that can’t (in court under oath) provide any evidence or proof of the miracle healings claimed in their public appearances and on their website.
Such a doctor might be very “life affirming” but his credibility and judgment would be highly suspect.
I have even heard that someone has a list of 40 affadavits from medical professionals, doctors included, and it is being claimed that those affadavits were written to dispute the diagnosis of Terri Schiavo. I have read them. Apparently you need special glasses to find the ones that don’t start out saying “I have not examined the patient or reviewed the patients medical records and this is my personal opinion not my professional medical opinion…”
Personal opinion, coming from a doctor stating he or she is NOT providing a consultation or a professional medical opinion, cannot be pointed to as “refuting” or questioning the professional MEDICAL opinion on record in a patients case file.
Especially when the doctor states that he/she has not examined the patient or the patients medical records and knows nothing of the patients medical history.
Amazed, medicine, as you may know, is art as well as science. So when you write:
to infer that the Schiavo case is black and white, well, you error. That’s why you get contradictory opinions from qualified medical professionals concerning her diagnosis.
Also, let’s look at the history of Dr. Cranford who was hired by George Felos, the lawyer for Michael Schlinder. (Felos is himself a euthanasia ideologue. Take a look at his book. Some of his ideas are bizarre.)
You can read about Cranford here: Starving for a Fair Diagnosis.
Now, do you really want me to believe Felos hired Cranford with no regard for his euthanasia ideology? And do you really want me to believe other experts should not question his diagnosis given his activist history and misdiagnoses of other cases? (In times like this I am glad I live in a country with a free press. Yes, I know it frustrates you — right wing yahoos and all that — but imagine if court records were closed to public scrutiny. Some people on death row would have been unjustly killed just like Terri Schiavo.)
Pardon me if I don’t accept your (and Jim’s) claim to have complete knowledge of the situtation. People with greater expertise and credibility than you possess have raised questions that, frankly, you (and Jim) are not qualified to answer.
Also, why embrace this case as a model for euthanasia activism? Yes, I know you will retort by asking how do I know you endorse euthanasia? I don’t. I’ll just go with it until you lower the emotion and stop the finger wagging and make a real argument.
99 Jacobse:
First: I have written nothing that infers the Schiavo case is black and white.
Second: I never claimed to have complete knowlege of the situation.
Third: You would have no idea what I am qualified to speak to as I have never mentioned my education, training or occupation.
You have a fascination for Dr Cranford as though he was the ONLY physician/expert to examine Mrs Schiavo and determine her to be PVS.
Perhaps ALL of the many physicians who actually examined Mrs Schiavo and determined her to be PVS are death eater, pro euthanasia activists:
But really it isn’t even a question of doctor versus doctor. The reality of Mrs Schiavos condition was made abundantly clear by a non physcian. One has only to read the GAL report to Gov Bush. It was crystal clear (from page 30):
But you will cling to what Gibbs had to say as though it were gospel truth.
Note 100. Amazed writes:
First, your insistence that the court record is sancrosanct imposes a black or white, win or lose, matrix on the discussion. As far as you are concerned, the case is close. Fine. Others don’t see it in such black and white terms.
Second, no, you have not made the claim. My comment was not offered as a rebutal to that claim, but to the assertions upstream that counter-claims by medical professionals were part of some blind political reaction to the court ruling.
Third, yes, you have never made any statement about your qualifications. But, you seem so steamed up that I made the assumption that if you had credentials to throw into the stew, you would have done so. If my assumption is wrong, correct me on it.
All that being said…
Given the conflicting testimony maybe, just maybe, the more prudent course would have been not to kill her at all. Why didn’t we let the poor woman live, especially when she had two loving parents to take care of her?
The first came back to church several months ago, the second just this last Sunday.
GLORY TO GOD
Fr writes: Amazed, medicine, as you may know, is art as well as science.
Art.
Love - from immediate family, or from Church family. Which makes most any person desire to live on in love’s enjoyment.
Supplication - to the Great Physician, who at a minimum invites and desires all to rely upon him - for the strength He supplies, and the gifts of healing he grants health care professionals.
Miracles occur.
Grace to give up one’s soul and hear from a priest, “Go from this world, Christian soul….” [it goes something like that..]
Death, being precious
Fr. Hans writes: “First, your insistence that the court record is sancrosanct imposes a black or white, win or lose, matrix on the discussion. As far as you are concerned, the case is close. Fine. Others don’t see it in such black and white terms.”
The problem is not that Amazed and I hold the case record sacrosanct, but rather that you rarely mention anything but very brief selections from it, often little more than sound bites. In many cases you raise issues that are already addressed in the record. You criticize Dr. Cranford. Have you read his response to various allegations in the National Review Online?
http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-dr-cranford-offers-reply.html
Have you read his 17-page take on the Schiavo case, his detailed description of the diagnostic work done, his history of the various physicians involved in the case? See the above for a link to that.
If you want to dispute the case record, great. If you want to say “this is what the case record says, but here is this other information, and here are the reasons why I believe this over the case record,” that’s fine. The case record is not sacrosanct, but it is necessary. It is the starting point. You’re certainly welcome to dispute it. But currently you dispute it without offering anything else in its place, without ever saying what the other evidence is. If the case isn’t closed, open it up for us. What is the new material, and why do you believe the new material over the case record? Simple questions, yes?
Note 103. Look, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a doctor. One reason I don’t go through every transcript is 1) I don’t have the time, and 2) I am waiting for a definitive study on the entire case (if it comes, which I believe it might). And even if I did have the time, I am not sure what debating these points over and over again with you would resolve the issue because you are not a doctor or lawyer either. In fact, I probably have much more experience in end of life events than you do, but that still does not make me a doctor or lawyer.
What I do question is why did she have to die?
And even that question has a problem because it implies that if her parents we not there to help her, then it would have been fine to kill her, something I don’t agree with either.
But why did she have to die?
All this talk about autonomy, PVS, etc. skirts around the issue that she was killed by withholding water and food. Civilized people don’t do this.
I realize it is more “gnat on the back of the elephant” discussion but you have said repeatedly that her parents just wanted to take her home and care for her.
The truth is they had taken her home to care for her early on, before the dispute began. They discovered it was too much of a burden and they returned her to institutional care. Perhaps burden is too emotional a word with too much negative spin. Perhaps the more neutral wording would be to say that they discovered it required skills they did not possess: lifting and turning and otherwise being able to move a person who is unable to assist themselve in any way and doing so safely, without risk of injury to the assistant or the patient, is a skill set like any skill set- it must be taught, learned and then practiced until it is mastered.
For the brain injured things become even more complicated as there is, in some cases, a risk of triggering seizures due to the inherent stimulation.
Contractures can make it very difficult for the inexperienced to lift or move a patient alone. Contractures being the result of nuerological impairment. In a person without contractures the brain controls opposing muscle pairs by providing the nerve signals that coordinate the effort of the opposing muscles- ordinarily one muscle in the pair relaxes while the other contracts. With nuerological impairment this coordination ceases. There is no balance to opposing forces. Voluntary muscle control is diminished or altogether absent. The unopposed and nearly continuous contracting of one muscle causes rigidity and eventually damage.
But I digress.
Considering that 10+ years had passed and Terri Schiavos mother and father didn’t get any younger in those 10+ years I am wondering if they would have been more or less successful in bringing Terri home. Perhaps “bring Terri home to care for her” was more a figure of speech. Then again, unlike the first time they brought Terri home, they would have had the financial resources to have their home modified, to buy the lift equipped vehicle and to hire nurses.
Which the above post- that describes that Terri was brought home but then was returned to institutional care- brings up one of the buried and obscurred opportunities to have a meaningful and valuable conversation.
How sad it is that in this one moment of time in the course of the case there was a missed opportunity and failure. How different the case might have turned out if the family had somehow received the resources and support needed to be successful with home care for their daughter. How did this affect them?
It gives one pause. How many other families struggle without necessary support and resources?
Hopefully when the definitive tome is written about the Schiavo case the author doesn’t overlook the possibility of bringing such things to light.
Sure. Much of this could be true. The difficulty of dealing with mobility and mentally imparied people certainly is. I’ve seen it myself firsthand. Sometimes the care is best left to a nursing facility. They have the resources.
Fr. Hans asks: “But why did she have to die? All this talk about autonomy, PVS, etc. skirts around the issue that she was killed by withholding water and food. Civilized people don’t do this.”
At this point, I’m not sure what kind of response would constitute an answer to your question . What concepts would it reference? What language would be used?
Let’s assume for a moment that Judge Greer got it right, that she really would not have wanted to be maintained in a PVS. Would that be part of an acceptable answer? Or are a patient’s wishes irrelevant? Do you believe that medical interventions should never be withdrawn, regardless of the patient’s wishes, unless the patient is literally within days (or hours?) of death? Or not until multiple organs have failed? Or not unless we know the patient’s wishes with absolute certainty?
Is there any new information about the case, not currently known, that if you knew it would lead you to believe that discontinuing the feeding tube was the right thing to do?
Let’s assume for a moment that Judge Greer got it right, that she really would not have wanted to be maintained in a PVS.
Which is of course what you fervently believe. It comes from your worldview, and ALL of you questions, arguments, etc. assume this - why do you insist on banging your paganism up against Christians over and over and over….
Would that be part of an acceptable answer? Or are a patient’s wishes irrelevant? Do you believe that medical interventions should never be withdrawn, regardless of the patient’s wishes, unless the patient is literally within days (or hours?) of death? Or not until multiple organs have failed? Or not unless we know the patient’s wishes with absolute certainty?
All questions from your perspective, which you refuse to question. Think of it this way: Why don’t we (as of yet - coming soon to a locality near you) accept suicide as a “wish” of a “patient”? Let’s assume I am suffering from a dread and painful disease (deep depression) of which there is no known cure and I suffer horribly daily. Let’s assume I declare my intent to halt my “medical intervention” of medication and daily food. I climb a tall building (with the owners permission), and…why would the state interfere??
You keep asking the same questions from the same (anti-Christian) perspective, and wondering why the answers don’t suit you. NO, the state should not have killed Terri!!!!!
Repeat after me: Terri should not have been killed!!!!!!
“Amazed” asks:
It gives one pause. How many other families struggle without necessary support and resources?
NONE of them have the “necessary” support and resources. My wife is a physiatrist (http://www.aapmr.org/condtreat/what.htm). Her patients are those with such dread and horrible diseases such as ALS, spinal cord injuries where people can’t move/feed/breath on their own, TBI that leaves family members with severe physical and mental side effects, folks with severe incurable pain, etc.
There is no real good level of support because these states of being “human”, being a sever disabled person, cause such a burden that no amount of help and support nullifies the “tragedy”.
All that is beside the point, of whether we should kill these people…
“Amazed” asks:
It gives one pause. How many other families struggle without necessary support and resources?
NONE of them have the “necessary” support and resources. My wife is a physiatrist (http://www.aapmr.org/condtreat/what.htm). Her patients are those with such dread and horrible diseases such as ALS, spinal cord injuries where people can’t move/feed/breath on their own, TBI that leaves family members with severe physical and mental side effects, folks with severe incurable pain, etc.
There is no real good level of support because these states of being “human”, being a sever disabled person, cause such a burden that no amount of help and support nullifies the “tragedy”.
All that is beside the point, of whether we should kill these people…….
Jim: One of the unique perspectives you offer is that your home state of Oregon is one of the few that have actually considered prioritizing and rationing health care.
Former Oregon Governor Kitzhaber introduced legislation that rationed care “contending that .. it made little sense for the state to pay for costly services, such as transplants, that would benefit relatively few Medicaid recipients. He argued that, although Oregon could not conceivably afford to pay for every medical care service for every person, it could expand insurance to cover all the uninsured while controlling expenditures if it was willing to ration care.”
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/11/1583
“Oregon’s model of rationing revolved around the creation of a list of medical services. A state-appointed Health Services Commission reduced over 10 000 medical procedures to a list of 709 medical conditions and their related treatments.”
While the Oregon plan had serious flaws it highlighted important issues. I think one of the dimesions we need to explore in the Terri Schiavo case is the allocation of scarce resources in an environment of rising prices and limited fuunding. There is a conflict between traditional Christian ethics regarding life and a more cold-hearted economic appproach. Christian ethics teaches that all lives have equal value before God and are worth saving.
In a book called “Your Money or Your Life: Strong Medicine for America’s Health Care System ” economist David Cutler argues that the money spent by Americans on health care is well worth it, despite it’s high price tag, because it has extended the lives of millions of productive people still in their working years, increasing their contribution to society. As part of his analysis, Cutler assigns a dollar value to each year of additional life that he can then use to calculate as a “return on investment” for medical care.
If we use Cutler’s model then obviously the spending money to provide one more year of additional life to a 96-year old produces less “return on investment”, than spending the treat 3 or 4 adults in the prime of their working lives.
In the years ahead pressure to ration health care may become more acute. healrg care spending and inflation is on an unsustainable path. According to a federal analysis released January, 2007, in 2005 U.S. health care spending increased 6.9 percent to almost $2.0 trillion, or $6,697 per person. The health care portion of gross domestic product (GDP) was 16.0 percent, slightly higher than the 15.9 percent share in 2004. Many projections show health care spending as a percentage of GDP rising well over 20% withing the next 10 -20 years.
As Christians we need to reconcile the moral imperative to value and save every human life with the need to use increasingly scarce resources in the most efficient manner possible. Christian ethicists will need to grapple with issues like “If we have only $500,000 to spend should we use it saving one 96-year old or treating a dozen children and young and middle-aged adults with many more years of life ahead of them?”
This is why as a Christian I feel it is so neccesary to beging reducing inefficencies and perverse incentives that lead to overspending from our health care system now, rather than deferring to the powerful special interests and allowing the overspending to continue. If we do nothing rationing, either legally-mandated or defacto, will be the result.
Amazed asks
It gives one pause. How many other families struggle without necessary support and resources?
NONE of them have the “necessary” support and resources. My wife is a physiatrist (http://www.aapmr.org/condtreat/what.htm). Her patients are those with such dread and horrible diseases such as ALS, spinal cord injuries where people can’t move/feed/breath on their own, TBI that leaves family members with severe physical and mental side effects, folks with severe incurable pain, etc.
There is no real good level of support because these states of being “human”, being a sever disabled person, cause such a burden that no amount of help and support nullifies the “tragedy”.
All that is beside the point, of whether we should kill these people…
Repeat after me- she was returned to a natural state, the unnatural medical device that was surgically inflicted upon her without her affirmative consent or awareness, was removed.
Seems rather circular really- a device that was implanted without her permission was removed without her permission.
Apparently it is completely and purely ethical and moral to cut into human beings and implant medical devices without their informed consent or awareness for the purpose of preventing their natural death- and no one came forward to label Michael Schiavo a monster for allowing this. No one turned to the courts to prevent the installation of the medical device.
Apparently the flip side of the coin is an entirely different matter. It causes great consternation and debate when a person is returned to their natural state without their informed consent or awareness by removing medical devices.
“Amazed” asks:
It gives one pause. How many other families struggle without necessary support and resources?
Answer:
None of them have the “necessary” support and resources. My wife is a physchiatrist (http://www.aapmr.org/condtreat/what.htm). Her patients are those with such dread and horrible diseases such as ALS, spinal cord injuries where people can’t move/feed/breath on their own, TBI that leaves family members with severe physical and mental side effects, folks with severe incurable pain, etc.
There is no real good level of support because these states of being “human”, being a severely disabled person, cause such a burden that no amount of help and support nullifies the “tragedy”.
All that is beside the point, of whether we should kill these people…
There is no real good level of support because these states of being “human”, being a sever disabled person, cause such a burden that no amount of help and support nullifies the “tragedy”. All that is beside the point, of whether we should kill these people.
note 111:
Again, for yourself and Dean “patient autonomy”, “informed consistent” - the whole individualistic idea of man, consciousness, self determination, etc. looms large on the moral horizon. So large in fact, you can’t bring yourself to think of this case in different terms. almost EVERY post and argument you guys write ALWAYS comes back to this.
Question: Why, to a Christian, would this dilemma not occur? Why would Christians not start and end with your concern for self determination?
Repeat after me- she was returned to a natural state, the unnatural medical device that was surgically inflicted upon her without her affirmative consent or awareness, was removed.
Repeat after me - an infant child is returned to it’s “natural state” when left exposed to the elements to die. An unborn child is returned to it’s “natural state” when this unwanted “tissue” is removed from the “mother”. Why, I return to my “natural state” when I jump off a bridge and splatter my head on the concrete below.
Question: How does a Christian view, metaphysically, the “natural state” of man? How is that different from how a modernist views man’s “natural state”?
Note 117.
Repeat after me — when you get old and your joints give out, no artificial knees for you — it’s not natural.
110 Dean Scourtes writes:
Render onto caesar what is caesars.
It doesn’t sound very spirtually healthy to me to be considering such questions as the one quoted above…
Amazed writes:
Dear Amazed,
the Pope said, “Food and water is not medical intervention.”
Why do I need special permission to give you food & water should you need it? Don’t you agree with this straightforward reasoning, kindness, humanity and love?
123 Jacobse writes:
Add to that list: hips, heart valves, pacemakers, Implantable defibrillators, Implantable medication pumps, metal plates,pins and anchors, etc.
Medical technology has progressed. It will continue to progress. In some respects the capability of the technology exceeds our wisdom in using it.
But rest assured most doctors have never been introduced to a new technology or device that they didn’t want to use. And rest assured their continuing education requirments place very little or no emphasis on morality or spirituality and very little emphasis on ethics beyond what is necessary to avoid law suits. They will however receive at least a training DVD or booklet from the vendor of that new device.
Good point.
The only thing missing is food, water and normal care.
And, if an automous person goes on a hunger strike, refusing food and water unto death — that is simply suicide. It breaks the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.”
WHO will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail?
Isaiah 32:5,6
Note 122 Nancy L. writes:
Keep the cheese, I just want out of the maze.
Another way of answering would be to say it is not the WHAT of what you are offering that I might object to-
because the WHAT (food and water) seems innocent enough
- it is HOW you intend for me to take it from you that I might object to.
If you want to hand to me a glass of water and a loaf of bread I wouldn’t find that objectionable.
If you want to cut into me, through my skin, through the fascia, through muscle and find your way to my stomache, then cut into my stomache and put a funnel or tube into my stomache so you can then poor the water in and force a paste of bread in- Well I guess I object to that.
In note 119 Christopher writes:
1. There is nothing “natural” about abandonment of an infant. Mothers form attachments to their young and care for their young- THAT is natural.
2. Do you manage to bring all of your conversations/discussions/debates over to the topic of abortion or is this something special and new for you?
3. I don’t know if being spattered on concrete is a natural state for any human being- even you.
I do know that having a plastic tube protruding from the site of a surgical incision and threaded through my body to a hole cut into my stomache is NOT natural. I know this as no human being has ever been born with such a thing.
Keep the cheese, I just want out of the maze.
I’m rather Obtuse [when I want to be.] Understand? Let’s think it over.
If you want to cut into me, through my skin, through the fascia, through muscle and find your way to my stomache, then cut into my stomache and put a funnel or tube into my stomache so you can then poor the water in and force a paste of bread in- Well I guess I object to that.
Some of that happened to me. What’s so repulsive?
I had a C-Section and was complaining about it just yesterday to my husband because — because I’m a complainer, I suppose.
HOWEVER. Jim, I would have experienced it a thousand times…..if you only could meet my 17 year old. Now he is a man framing houses with his Daddy. They came home an hour ago.
Terri? I’ve seen some of the pictures of her making eye contact with her loved ones. Yes, normal people want to give that kind of joy to their parents even if it means her helpless kind of submission to their care. Of course! Yes! She wanted to make them happy.
There are no words for you, dear Jim. I do not want you to usher anyone into eternity one second, not one second, before their time. Because of what that Fearful Moment can mean.
I want every person to hear: “GO FORTH FROM THIS WORLD CHRISTIAN SOUL! At the moment the angel of death arrives.
Please provide for them & their loved ones every opportunity for all parties concerned to make preparation.
You made one good point. The definition of “Person” is not necessarily easy to make. Much mystery is in it.
Christopher writes: “Again, for yourself and Dean “patient autonomy”, “informed consistent” - the whole individualistic idea of man, consciousness, self determination, etc. looms large on the moral horizon. So large in fact, you can’t bring yourself to think of this case in different terms. almost EVERY post and argument you guys write ALWAYS comes back to this.”
It is a simple fact than medical decisions concerning the beginning or continuation of medical care have to be made, sometimes in a short amount of time.
As a purely practical matter, there have to be SOME decisions made, and some general principles for making those decisions.
There are all sorts of ways that we could make such decisions. We could flip a coin. We could ask the local priest. We could take a vote. We could let the doctor decide. We could ask the family what they want, ignoring the wishes of the patient. So there is no shortage of options, all sorts of different terms in which to think.
So what do you think? If we’re not going to follow the wishes of the patient as best they can be determined, then how are those decisions made?
In note 118 Christopher writes:
What dilemma are you referring to?
Do you beleive in Heaven Christopher? You strike me as not REALLY Christian but more like someone that is very casual in the practice and understanding of the faith.
Amazed:
If your not going to accept that some think Terri should not have been killed, that’s your decision - but why are you arguing your case here? What is the point of coming to OrthodoxyToday and arguing that a feeding tube is not “natural”? We see clear connections between this and other things (abortion for example), in that a truncated view of man is what leave you with such a focused attention on what is “natural” and what is not.
Like I have said at least 5 times here, all that fills your moral horizon is personal autonomy. Fine. Your a modernist. We get it.
Why are you harassing Christians??
Note 127. Amazed writes:
What’s natural about a metal knee?
What’s natural about a metal hip?
What’s natural about a pacemaker?
What’s natural about eye glasses?
What’s natural about a heart shunt?
What’s natural about a colostomy bag?
In note 128 Nancy L writes:
You miss the point dear lady.
Lets say I hate Brocolli.
Is it supposed to make a difference to my hating Brocolli that 1,000 other people like Brocolli or even that you like Brocolli? I suppose I should have to eat it because you like it and if you like it what is the harm in making me eat it?
So what do you think? If we’re not going to follow the wishes of the patient as best they can be determined, then how are those decisions made?
AGAIN, your asking the wrong questions. Your a modernist - and you CAN”T think outside it (dim witted is how these things are often put).
Fine. Your a modernist. We get it. Why are you harassing Christians??
Note 125. Nancy asks:
Those who seek to define giving food and water as a medical intervention. Nice euphemism, that. Hides the real terms: starvation and dehydration.
You miss the point dear lady.
No, you miss the point. We don’t think like you, so we don’t come to the same moral conclusions. You can persist on “debating”, and thus being a Troll, or you can try to understand.
Fr. Jacobse, it’s at this point where this blog really breaks down. Jim and “amazed” are in no way interested in anything to do with Orthodoxy or anything else here - they simply want to “debate”…
Note 137. Christopher, I see it. The sheer opacity of the thinking (it’s not natural?!) is hard to penetrate.
Note 137: I think what I don’t get is how there’s a moral obligation to continue life via a feeding tube but no ethical obligation whatsoever to attempt to prolong life via a pacemaker or other kinds of medical treatment.
Now, if you wished to argue that we have a responsibility (under pain of sin) to attempt to extend our lives and the lives of others using all available medical technology, then the anger over the removal of Terri’s feeding tube would make more sense (at least to me). Is this a concession to human weakness or just a matter of practicality?
After all, when one disconnects a respirator, it is conceivable that some pain may be endured by the patient (similar to suffocation?). Yet, there is never any mandate that such treatments be continued.
I guess my point is that I don’t see consistency between when it’s permissible to terminate some kinds of treatment but not others. Does it have to do with the length of suffering endured by the ending of the medical treatment in question or rather the degree of the person’s inability to survive on their own without the aid? The cessation of treatment will almost always involve discomfort, I would think, in which case the physician would be obligated towards providing some sort of palliative care or something to reduce the discomfort involved.
While I too would any day prefer a physician willing to take some degree of risk and hope in providing treatment to patients over a euthanasia advocate (for myself or a family member), I’m not willing to assert that one who has made that reasonable effort and came to the conclusion that nothing else can be done is some sort of Nazi.
JamesK writes: “While I too would any day prefer a physician willing to take some degree of risk and hope in providing treatment to patients over a euthanasia advocate . . . . .
This whole thing of physicians as “euthanasia advocates” is way overblown, in my opinion. I’m sure in any field you’ll find people who advocate anything. For all lI know there are doctors who are members of the nazi party. But this whole idea of the medical profession as being infested with them is just wrong, unless you define “euthanasia advocate” as anyone who doesn’t agree with the Orthodox position, whatever that is. (Other than “don’t kill Terri Schiavo” no one here seems to be able or willing to articulate what that position is.)
Years ago I used to do some financial reporting for all the transplant programs where I worked. One day I was talking to the director of the heart transplant program about survival rates and other statistics. I asked him what they were doing to improve the survival rate over X number of years, though it was already respectable.
He replied, “well, you don’t want to have a survival rate that is too high.”
I thought this was a very odd comment, so I asked for a clarification.
He replied, “if you have a 100 percent survival rate, that means that you’re only admitting the most healthy patients into the program. And that means that there are people who could have benefited, who could have done just fine, but they end up dying because you’re only taking the healthiest people. You can’t be too conservative, you have to push the envelope, take people who aren’t necessarily ideal candidates. When you do that, you’re going to lose some of those people, and your survival rate will go down. But you’re also going to save a lot of people who otherwise would have died.”
In my 20+ years of experience at a hospital, that was by far the typical attitude. Doctors don’t want to “lose.” They are in the business of saving lives, extending lives, not calling it quits. In fact, the impetus behind the concept of “patient autonomy” was developed because many doctors tended to be too aggressive in treatment. You’d have patients who were going downhill, people who were very sick, who just wanted to have a few months of life that weren’t structured by the schedule of hospital visits, but the doctor would always want “another round” of chemo, another procedure, try this new experimental thing, this new technology.
If anything, doctors tended to “err on the side of life” too much, tended to overlook what the patient actually felt, didn’t ask the patient “is this something that you really want?”
In recent years physicians have increasingly come to understand that the wishes of the patient have to take center stage. It’s the role of the physician to give accurate information, and to present options. But it is the role of the patient to decide what options he or she wants to employ. This is what patient autonomy is all about.
I think what I don’t get is how there’s a moral obligation to continue life via a feeding tube but no ethical obligation whatsoever to attempt to prolong life via a pacemaker or other kinds of medical treatment.
True, you don’t get it.
I guess my point is that I don’t see consistency between when it’s permissible to terminate some kinds of treatment but not others.
True, you don’t see it.
JamesK, if you don’t see the immorality of this execution, that is your problem. If you don’t “get” Orthodox morality, that is your problem. Possibly a problem with wit - as we have already answered your questions many times (see posts 1 through 130 or so). Go read a book, grapple with the links we gave you, go to Church.
Please stop posting your ignorance over and over and over and over…..
But this whole idea of the medical profession as being infested with them is just wrong
It is correct - you don’t see it because you have a different conception of what a “euthanasia advocates” is. You have a different conception of what man is, who God is.
Which is fine, but because you are a bit dim witted (I just don’t know how else to put it - offense this may be to you) you insist on posting your ignorance over and over and over and over and over and over. We get it - your a modernist - a culture of death advocate - fine - go to http://www.modernism.com where you will be welcomed with open arms and stop harassing Christians…
If anything, doctors tended to “err on the side of life” too much, tended to overlook what the patient actually felt, didn’t ask the patient “is this something that you really want?”
EXACTLY - SELF DETERMINATION IS EVERYTHING TO YOU - WHAT IT IS SOMEBODY WANTS SUBJECTIVELY - WE GET IT - IT’S CALLED “MODERNISM” AND “CULTURE OF DEATH” CAN I MAKE IT ANY CLEARER - WE GET IT!!!!
In recent years physicians have increasingly come to understand that the wishes of the patient have to take center stage.
Right, culture of death is “taking center stage” - now if us ignorant Christians would just shut up and fall in line - WE GET IT!!!!
It’s the role of the physician to give accurate information, and to present options. But it is the role of the patient to decide what options he or she wants to employ. This is what patient autonomy is all about.
ARE YOU INSANE!!!! YOU ALREADY SAID THIS AT LEAST A FREAKIN 100 OF TIMES!!!! WE GET IT!!!!! YOUR ALL ABOUT SELF DETERMINATION - THE “RIGHT TO DEFINE’S ONE OWN CONCEPT OF EXISTANCE” AS YOUR HIGH PRIESTS PUT IT…WE GET IT!!!!
Now, please go to http://www.IWorshiptheSupremeCourt.com
THIS IS ORTHODOXYTODAY!!!!!!!
Christopher writes: “JamesK, if you don’t see the immorality of this execution, that is your problem.”
Are you off your psychotropic meds or something? Look, I’m asking a simple question: under what circumstances is it immoral to discontinue or avoid using the use of medical technology to preserve or continue life?
Give me a useful, practical definition from an Orthodox link if you wish.
Note 135 Jacobse writes:
And again, the issue isn’t in the WHAT but in the HOW.
Giving food and water by cutting into the skin, through the fascia, through the muscle and into the stomache is not the same as walking up and offering someone a loaf of bread and a glass of water.
In the first place when you offer the glass of water and the loaf of bread the person is in a position to choose whether to accept those items from you, accept those items from someone else because they don’t like YOU or they don’t trust you or to not accept those items at all.
From the discussion it appears you are trying to say is that from the Orthodox perspective the only thing that is important is what YOU want. It matters that you want to give the bread and the water. It matters that you think everyone would want your bread and water.
What it appears you are trying to tell me is that from an Orthodox perspective the HOW of accomplishing what you want to accomplish is not relevant nor is it relevant whether someone WANTS to accept your gift of food and water.
From all that has been said, particularly by Christopher who seems to be the self appointed expert on what is Orthodox and what is not, it appears the lessons to be learned here are simple and child like in their simplicity: 1. we don’t care what you want, we will force our will upon you. 2. if you don’t think like us then you aren’t right in the head. 3. Everyone SHOULD think like us. 4. If you don’t think EXACTLY like us on every topic and issue then you can’t be one of us. 5. If you aren’t one of us then we wouldn’t want you so go away.
Almost seems like the rules one would expect to find on a small boys treehouse or clubhouse door.
Bottom line:
You took “do what is right” and perverted it into “decide what is right for everyone else”
JamesK, the BIG part of the puzzle you are missing is that you expect (demand?) legalism from Orthodoxy just as it exists in western Chritianity and certainly in modernism. You aren’t going to find it. Sorry. Ofen within western Christianity, morality is the way to God. Just the opposite within the Church.
When God is removed from the equation, the really absurd statement that doctors are only there to guide begins to come into play. Without God individual choice becomes paramount. We begin to lead our lives on the basis of our own knowledge of good and evil. That is the perfection of the fallen state which is death. The “culture of death” is all about glorifying the individual above all else. Or as Christopher Fry wrote: “We defend ourselves against pain and death, by pain and death…”
Christopher (not Fry) is neither tactful nor elegant but he has a point, although he is not specific enough. He says “go to church” but that alone won’t do it or Dean S. would have it already. It is much more than that. It comes back to what it means to be a person. Unfortunately, modernism and post-moderism always attempt to define being (if it is considered at all) separate from God. We attempt to make God in our image and likeness rather than the other way around.
Again, the world (and unfortunately you it seems) have it backwards: God is determined by each individual. NO!!!!! You, Christopher, all of us are confirmed as persons by God. We have no being, no life, NOTHING without God. The ultimate expression of our life in God is community, not the individual. Yet each of us comes to Him in our own unique way and each of us adds to the whole. Each person comes to our deepest personhood only in our communion with God and through Him with each other. Yet what is unique about each of us in not destroyed, only enhanced.
Legalism is the attempt to force uniformity in an effort to create a false community. Uniformity is not unity.
As long as all it takes is food and water to maintain the soul/body unity as in Terri’s case it is obvious that she was still at some deep level still in communion with God, perhaps in a way more profound than she had ever experienced in her life. In a living, functioning community that would never have been taken from her. In a living, functioning community focused on God as has been revealed through Jesus Christ and the Church, many of the answers to the questions our technology raise will be found. Outside the Church especially in the atomized modern world that is destroying all culture there are no answers.
Tristram Engelhardt is a well known authority on bioethics, a physician and ethicist and quite Orthodox. His approach often comes down to “repent and be baptised.” In the midst of international gatherings of esteemed and learned men he will confront them with the poverty of worldly thought and directly tell them that. My brother, an Orthodox priest, was invited to one such conference in Germany not long ago. He told me after he returned that he had nothing to offer in the discussions, in fact could not even follow the course of many of them. Yet there he sat, honored by Dr. Engelhardt as a priest. At one point during one of his presentations Dr. Engelhardt pointed to a few of the attendees, calling them by name and saying, “You need to be baptized, we have a priest here, we have a stream outside…” Unfortunately, no one took up the invitation.
The Orthodox answer, the Chrisitan answer, as impractical as it may seem, is founded on the words Jesus Himself used at the beginning of His earthly ministry: “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand”.
note 144 Michael Bauman writes:
Is this and the entire content of note 144 consistent with Orthodox beleif? If so I finally have found what I have been looking for- something valuable.
Awesome! (as juvenile and exuberant as that is)
Please tell me this is what everyone here has been trying to get at.
I think this puts everything into a new perspective for me. Sorry if I have been a thorn. I appreciate your tolerance of me even as I provoked some people and raised the ire of others. I honestly wanted to understand the Orthodox point of view.
Michael writes: “As long as all it takes is food and water to maintain the soul/body unity as in Terri’s case it is obvious that she was still at some deep level still in communion with God, perhaps in a way more profound than she had ever experienced in her life. In a living, functioning community that would never have been taken from her. In a living, functioning community focused on God as has been revealed through Jesus Christ and the Church, many of the answers to the questions our technology raise will be found. Outside the Church especially in the atomized modern world that is destroying all culture there are no answers.”
I have followed the Schiavo discussion here for as long as it has been going on. I’ve seen people be outraged, doctors denounced, lawyers denounced, judges denounced, Michael Schiavo denounced, and so on. I usually get denounced on a regular basis. Now Amazed is denounced by the self-appointed “denouncer.” JamesK will be denounced shortly, if he hasn’t been already.
What I’ve always waited for, always hoped for, is some sense from the people here of how they would do it differently. By “it” I don’t mean the Schiavo case. I mean the whole system of ethical principles and laws that govern how ALL such cases are handled in the larger society.
As you say, in “a living, functioning community focused on God as has been revealed through Jesus Christ and the Church” a lot of these questions would be answered. Or more precisely, they wouldn’t even be asked. But to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you deal with the community you have, not with the community you might want or wish to have.
So if the Orthodox have all this medical ethics stuff figured out for a theoretical community in which everyone has the same beliefs, well, that’s just wonderful. But that does nothing for the larger society.
I have attempted, time and again, to try to discern what system of medical ethics the Orthodox would have to offer the larger society, the society that reflects the reality on the ground. I conclude that they have NOTHING. Absolutely zero. All they can say is “if you all were Orthodox, you wouldn’t ask those questions.” Then they go about their business.
Here’s why I say they have nothing:
ln response to obvious questions, all Christopher can say is “wrong question.” He never says what the right question is. I think the “right question” must be some kind of Orthodox secret, like a password or a secret handshake. The Orthodox themselves know what it is, but they can’t tell anyone else.
In fact, Christopher thinks that even asking questions is “harassment.” “How dare you ask questions on an Orthodox site!” he says.
A couple of ordinary people like Amazed and me walk in off the street, point out some facts, try to engage people in the discussion, and the home team has to grab rifles and circle the wagons for protection. The Orthodox outnumber the “modernists” here, the blog owner controls what articles that get posted, and the Orthodox can label, call names, and insult with impunity. They have every home court advantage. But when a couple people from the other team show up, Christopher drops the ball and runs up into the bleachers, gravely insulted. How dare they! What gives them the idea that they can come into Orthodox Memorial Stadium and compete with us! The nerve!
Amazed and I recommend reading the case record, but Fr. Hans “doesn’t have time” to do that. He has time, over the last few years, to post 96 articles on Schiavo, according to the left sidebar. But he doesn’t have time to read the case record. How easy it is to denounce people who have the wrong ideas, but how hard it is to actually inform oneself. Of course, within Orthodoxy he doesn’t need to inform himself, because everyone already agrees with him. Uniformity of opinion solves all sorts of problems.
The Orthodox point of view is apparently so ineffable and so incomprehensible that “modernists” have no chance of understanding it. Modernists, of which there are probably only 200 million in the U.S., are so utterly clueless that it’s beneath the dignity of the Orthodox even to try to explain it. It’s just “if you were one of us, you would understand. But you’re not, so forget it. And why are you even bothering me about that.”
Well isn’t that precious.
So apparently you guys have all this stuff figured out within Orthodoxy. But good luck ever trying to sell it on the outside. As you say, “outside the church there are no answers.” And I would add, inside the church there are no questions. To the extent that the Orthodox are unable or unwilling to engage the outside world in debate and discussion, the Orthodox become irrelevant to the outside world.
In the final analysis, all the Orthodox have to offer the outside world is “become like us.” So really, why even denounce “culture of death” physicians and attorneys? Why denounce Michael Schiavo? You’re ultimately denouncing them for not being Orthodox. But surely you knew that already.
So you all just stay within the walls of the Orthodox Church. You’ll be safe there, you and the other fraction of a percent of the population that are Orthodox. Meanwhile, people like me will actually try to work with the other 99.5 percent of the population, and try to construct and improve the ethical and legal framework in which these issues are addressed. And when I walk by the church, you can yell and me.
Nte 142. Amazed quotes me and then retorts:
No, the issue here is why you hide behind the euphemism.
Why are you so eager to pull the feeding and hydration tubes Amazed? And why hide behind euphemism to justify it?
BTW, still waiting for a defense of your point that starvation and dehydration are perfectly humane ways to kill people because it’s natural.
Amazed, you say,
A few comments:
As a member of the Orthodox Church, Christopher has the right and responsibility to speak of the Church. Each of us is also subject to correction, if need be, by our fellow believers and the Church as a whole. Christopher is not “self-appointed” but he may not be correct in all things.
1. Force is not part of genuine Christianity and no one here has said anything about forcing anything on anybody (except those who believe killing Terri was right)
2&3 The path to salvation is narrow. Orthodox means, in part, right belief. It would be rather strange if we did not believe that as we draw closer to God our thoughts will be more like His thoughts. The thoughts of fallen man are insane.
4. It is not the thoughts that separate it is the orientation toward Jesus Christ and union with Him.
5. Again, speaking for myself, I am willing to engage anyone as long as the other person is respectful and listening. My frustration stems from having to go over the same thing with the same people time and time and time and time….again when there is no visible attempt to engage either our foundational beliefs or our critique of modernity. Often much of what we understand is held up to ridicule and/or dismissed as without reality or substance. To come onto an Orthodox blog simply to dispute our beliefs is not profitable (not to mention rude), you will not prevail nor will you learn anything. If that is the case, you really have no good reason to be here.
You took “do what is right” and perverted it into “decide what is right for everyone else”
Uh hu. You got it. We Christians are no different than the Jihadists; Just a bunch of fundamentalist who want to impose a theocracy. Our cover is blown. Your quite clever, figuring out the “truth” in only 140 posts or so.
Now, why are you posting here at OrthdoxyToday?
Michael, what I think I’m looking for is something like this:
Christopher states that Terri served a “role” in the state she was in, a state which Orthodox moral theology mandates she remain in by utilizing the medical technology currently being used at the time. He mocks and insults those of us who question whether, after 15 years, that role was perhaps sufficiently lived out. Yet, we are expected to accept the premise that denying oneself other types of medical technology that are even less invasive than a feeding tube for an even shorter duration is not a refusal to “live out that role”. Why? This is not a consistent application of morality.
Is this and the entire content of note 144 consistent with Orthodox belief? If so I finally have found what I have been looking for- something valuable.
Well good. Not that it was all presented by post 50 or so, and you have been repeating the same questions since then (rather rudely at that), whining like a child when the answers don’t suit you, complaining that it is everyone else’s fault but your own…
Each person comes to our deepest personhood only in our communion with God and through Him with each other. Yet what is unique about each of us is not destroyed, only enhanced.
Awesome! (as juvenile and exuberant as that is)
I suspected you would be impressed with this. I would ultimately disagree with the way Michael puts this (though in essence I believe he is correct) because it leads modernists such as yourself to a false sense of “uniqueness” - something very important to the modern mind because the ground you stand on is materialism which means there is nothing truly unique about anybody or anything. I think you will likely run with this and “uniquely” justify your own morality, and accuse the Church of “uniformity” and “traditionalism”…
From all that has been said, particularly by Christopher who seems to be the self appointed expert on what is Orthodox and what is not, it appears the lessons to be learned here are simple and child like in their simplicity: 1. we don’t care what you want, we will force our will upon you. 2. if you don’t think like us then you aren’t right in the head. 3. Everyone SHOULD think like us. 4. If you don’t think EXACTLY like us on every topic and issue then you can’t be one of us. 5. If you aren’t one of us then we wouldn’t want you so go away.
Now your just being a reactionary, whiny modernist who does not like “fundamentalists” because your so “unique”.
Why do you post rudely at OrthdoxyToday? You got it all figured out, why harass us Christians??
Christopher states that Terri served a “role” in the state she was in, a state which Orthodox moral theology mandates she remain in by utilizing the medical technology currently being used at the time.
You see, right there. You need to separate here “person”, from which an attribute might be “her role”, from what you term “medical technology currently used”. We are not defined primarily, even secondarily, by the “medical technology” being used on or for us. Also, “mandate” is too strong of a term.
This is why I alleged your thinking as modernist: You want to define Terri, as a person, in such a way that the “medical technology” is an important part of that definition. This is NOT how Christians (or most philosophies known to man through the ages) would do it. It IS how (necessarily so) a materialist would do it…
I think this puts everything into a new perspective for me. Sorry if I have been a thorn. I appreciate your tolerance of me even as I provoked some people and raised the ire of others. I honestly wanted to understand the Orthodox point of view.
Ah yes, which is why you drop bombs such as:
…all that has been said, particularly by Christopher who seems to be the self appointed expert on what is Orthodox and what is not, it appears the lessons to be learned here are simple and child like in their simplicity: 1. we don’t care what you want, we will force our will upon you. 2. if you don’t think like us then you aren’t right in the head. 3. Everyone SHOULD think like us. 4. If you don’t think EXACTLY like us on every topic and issue then you can’t be one of us. 5. If you aren’t one of us then we wouldn’t want you so go away.
Oh yea, you REALLY want to understand. When you don’t, you default to the usual NPR cliche’s…your REALLY motivated…;)
JamesK, you are assuming facts that are not in evidence, i.e., Terri did not want to continue. To me the very fact that she was continuing refutes the contention that she did not want to. All evidence of her supposedly stated desires not to are hearsay. Testimony that would not be admitted in a normal capital trial.
Modernity posits incorrectly that consciousnes and therefore personhood lies solely with very limited brain functions that have to be obvious in outward behavior.
In reality, consciousness lies within the core of our being and may or may not be mesurable or obvious.
Not to belabor the point, but it is yet another instance when, knowingly or not, you have accepted an essentially materialist explanation of man’s being.
Repentance is the only tool I am aware of that allows someone to begin to touch the non-material level of their own being. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable that not only was Terri serving but was repenting.
This is a sliver of the anthropology which the Church teaches and the saints practice. It is as far different from anything in modern philosophy or western Christian theology as anything I can imagine. It is part of what is meant by being made in the image and likeness of God. We are embodied, living souls, not electro-mechanical, biologic entities.
He mocks and insults those of us who question whether, after 15 years, that role was perhaps sufficiently lived out.
You don’t even understand that role, or Orthodoxy (by your own admission), so how do you presume to suggest that the role was “sufficiently lived out”?
What you call “mocking” would not occur if you simply admit your own perspective, admit you don’t understand Orthodoxy, ask a question (or two or three), and when you don’t understand the answer follow the suggested links and reading materials. Instead, you “debate”, ask the same question over and over and over and over, insist that your lack of understanding is the fault of the those who answer and not the fault of those who question, rudely post the same questions and arguments over and over and over and over, ask the same questions again, post the same modernist arguments again, etc.
Did I mention you tend to post the same questions, slightly re-phrased, again and again? Did I mention you tend to “debate” without admitting your premises again and again and again?
Christopher you say
Good point. I am sure you are right. I am sure my point that only by obedience to God within the Church are we human was not heard. Only by acknowledging that by ourselves we can do nothing are we able to do anything righteous. So if Amazed takes my words and uses them to justify his own behavior he is wrong and did not understand one thing that I said.
Thank you.
Christopher why do YOU post rudely? You really come accross as a child throwing a temper tantrum in most of your posts.
Jacobse, the issue I asked you about is exactly as I posted it. Your note 146 was not responsive- it is just another example of the smoke screen used when someone does not have the ability or the knowledge to answer the question. Your declaration on a separate topic is not an answer to my question- it is just a declaration about your feelings on another topic.
If you have no suitable response just admit that and move on.
YOU, Jacobse, hide behind your own euphemisms in order to avoid the ugly reality that cutting into a person is about as far from “ordinary care” as one can get. Ordinary care is care that can be provided in an ordinary way and by ordinary people.
The next time you are thirsty or hungry perhaps you’ll want to call for a surgeon so you can receive your food paste and water in the same “ordinary care” manner that you decided it was acceptable to force on Terri.
The issue is not that you and the others here beleive Terri should have been given food and water or that you beleive her life should have been maintained.
The issue is in whether she would have wanted your food and water and whether she would want to be left cut up, scarred and with a plastic tube sticking out of her when you were done giving it to her.
As far as all your starvation and dehydration claims go: YOU, Jacobse, obviously have spent no time working OR volunteering in hospice because if you had you would know better. Patients make the voluntary choice to refuse food and water, or not to take life sustaining amounts. This is a VERY common occurance. They are fully informed of the consequences. They are fully aware of what they are doing.
I know this just invites the arm chair diagnosticians to start chattering about undiagnosed and untreated depression, that nuerotropic pain is the only untreatable pain, etc etc yadda yadda ad nauseum- a lot of noise by people without education, training, experience or first hand knowlege to support their declarations, statements and opinions.
Amazed, that is Fr. Jacobse to you
Amazed, you might want to address Fr. Jacobse properly as “Fr. Jacobse” rather than Jacobse. Even if you reject his faith, it is considered polite to use the proper title. I am not Jewish but if I met a Rabbi I would address him as Rabbi. I am not Roman Catholic but if I met a Roman Catholic priest I would call him Father as a respectful form of address.
As much as I have enjoyed my time here I am forced to admit you all have contributed about as much as you are capable of contributing.
Yes, Christopher I was motivated to understand but I wasn’t necessarily inspired, awed or partcularly instructed by anything you had to contribute.
Jacobse, you are very sincere and passionate.
Mr Bauman I thank you. You are the most atypical. I’ve been doing a lot of research accross many venues and I seldom encounter one such as you. For what it is worth coming from a radical modernist materialist medical professional and author- Thank you.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Note 156. Amazed writes:
Every surgery cuts into people, Amazed. Ever had an abcess tooth? The dentist drills holes in your teeth. Ever had an apendectomy? The doctor cuts open your side. Would you rather suffer in pain? Would you rather have the appendix burst?
What happens when a paramedic has to perform an emergency tracheotomy at the scene of an accident? Are you arguing that he should be restricted from doing so because the procedure is extraordinary?
And where do you get the notion that surgery is an “ugly reality”? Does this tie into your notion that surgery is “not natural”? Are you a Christian Scientist or something?
From my point of view, surgery is a blessing to mankind. It restores health.
Actually, I have spent more time in hospices than you might think. And yes, in the final stages of dying, patients often refuse food and water. It is morally permissible to let nature take its course here and respect the wish of the patient. (Never, however, have I seen the moistening of the lips and palate restricted as was the case with Terri Schiavo. This moistening is basic palliative care. What was forced on Terri was barbaric. The skin in her mouth started to flake off.)
Look, if you are afraid that you might end up like Terri Schiavo some day, make it crystal clear that you don’t want a feeding or hydration tube. It will make the decisions your family might have to make a bit easier.
But as far as your pronouncements about how these decisions should be made for others, well, your ideas about what is and isn’t natural, your inability to explain why your euphemism is legitimate, your arguments that surgical interventions are an “ugly reality”, shows you don’t really think as much as react. Much of your writing is reflexive. You don’t support what you say; you just say it over and over again. I’ll take a pass on your recommendations, thank you.
My apologies to Father Jacobse. My apologies to you Missourian if I offended you. My apologies to Christopher as well- I spoke poorly of you and insulted you and I shouldn’t have.
Father Jacobse,
Out of respect I will reply to you. No, I am not a Christian Scientist. Unfortunate but you still have your facts wrong. It is not that Terri Schiavos lips and mouth were not moistened. They were. This was done by Hospice staff. Read the autopsy report.
Admittedly the Schindlers were NOT allowed to do this. The Schindlers were not allowed to place ice chips in her mouth. Barbaric treatment of the Schindlers, perhaps.
Again you twist what I have said into something I did not say.
I dare say I know far more about surgery and emergency medical care than you because medicine is my choosen profession and yours is religion. I certainly don’t expect to tell you how to minister to your flock, please don’t presume you are in any position to tell me how medical care should be provided. You don’t know enough about the subject to instruct me.
Again, your arrogance is amazing:
In fact I do know something about natural death having been in attendance more often than I care to think about and without a doubt far more often than you.
Terri Schiavo case bashing is nothing more than a hobby for many of the people I have been in contact with. This one case caught their attention and it influenced their opinion of Hospice care and of the medical profession. Beyond Terri Schiavo? There is no beyond Terri Schiavo for most folks. This one case is the Alpha and the Omega of their thinking on the topic of Hospice.
It was probably my mistake to be here at all. For some people Terri Schiavo case bashing is simply a hobby. For others it is far more than that. There is serious interest beyond water cooler chats and what shows up on religious and political blogs. Some of the research being done will shape policy. Assuming anyone is ready to listen.
Just to be clear before I leave understand this: the practice of medicine is strongly influenced by legal considerations. The church has no standing to sue if the patients rights are infringed.
So at the end of the day, if you want your religion to impact medical care than you will need to be prepared to change the law. You won’t be changing the law until you change public opinion.
Quite frankly the public, reading what has been posted here, isn’t likely to find much reason to change.
But don’t feel too bad about that. Of the many places I have looked this place is no worse and no better than most. Like it or not your opinion is NOT the majority public opinion- not even close.
Note 162. Amazed writes:
Listen I will, but first you have to have something coherent to say. Frankly, I found a lot of what you said incoherent, most of which I listed in note #160. You don’t seem willing (capable?) to provide the ideas that inform your judgments, and when called on them you return to the assertion that you know more about the Terri Schiavo case than most people. How one relates to the other is never clarified, but castigation seems to be your stock in trade whenever you are asked to explain yourself. As for Terri Schiavo, I will wait for a definitive study unencumbered by the questionable notions you have introduced, your assurances of expertise notwithstanding.
Michael writes: “Often much of what we understand is held up to ridicule and/or dismissed as without reality or substance. To come onto an Orthodox blog simply to dispute our beliefs is not profitable (not to mention rude), you will not prevail nor will you learn anything. If that is the case, you really have no good reason to be here.”
Michael, I’m sure you remember that a couple of years ago there was a very extensive discussion on warfare, pacifism, whether a Christian could in
conscience serve in the military, if so, what orders could or could not be
obeyed, just war theory, the Orthodox view of military service, what military
tactics and strategies were acceptable, and so on. Discussions were often very detailed. Historical situations were examined in detail. Different views were debated. No one was dismissed as a “modernist,” even though “modernists” sometimes joined in the discussion. There was no suggestion that other viewpoints were inappropriate. Positions were criticized in detail. Various religious texts from different centuries were discussed.
I didn’t always agree with everyone, but the Orthodox participants came across as informed, articulate, completely unafraid to enter into debate, perfectly able to hold their own on all points, and with viewpoints that would be very valid and valuable even outside Orthodoxy. The discussion was interesting, and I thought, of very high quality. It showed clearly the potential that a blog like this can have.
Now look at this discussion. It is completely different in tone and content.
The Orthodox participants seem to know few of the actual details of the case. They are not interested in the details; indeed, the details are seen as largely irrelevant, they can’t be bothered with the details. To press the details is seen as rude. Questions are not answered but dismissed as “wrong question,” even seen as “harassment.” “Modernist” viewpoints are not critiqued in detail, but simply rejected out of hand. The motives of non-Orthodox are questioned. The Orthodox position is not explained in detail, but is presented as an unexplained “foundation” that outsiders simply have to accept or go elsewhere. Questions, counter-examples, and critiques are seen as offensive.
Both the earlier and the current discussion involved serious life and death
issues. The earlier discussion was about war; the current discussion about medicine and death. Both involve personal decisions of great consequence. My question is — why the difference between the two discussions? What has happened in the intervening time? The Orthodox participants of two years ago were willing to handle the tough questions, tackle any position, get beat up and beat right back. There were no “wrong questions.”
The Orthodox participants on this issue today hide behind “why are you here,” and “wrong question,” and “don’t mess with our foundation.” They insist that others “don’t understand,” while providing little or no detailed information that might provide an understanding.
Amazed, you have provided a great service here. You have provided a great deal of clarity. You owe no apologies, though apologies are owed to you. As you said in your last, perhaps your final, post “Quite frankly the public, reading what has been posted here, isn’t likely to find much reason to change.” Exactly right. On this issue the “modernists” roll right over the Orthodox, like battle tanks over unarmed infantry. It was different two years ago. But those people are gone. Where did they go?
Some of that has to do with Christopher’s attitude, that increasingly infects the blog. He has the idea that contrary viewpoints are insults, things that the home team shouldn’t have to endure in their cozy little club. In his view, the Orthodox have but to state their position once, and then it is the job of the “outsiders” to fall down in admiration and agreement. And if that doesn’t happen, then that’s the outsiders’ fault.
That approach turns formerly bold people into wimps, people who can’t be bothered to do the hard work of research and systematic thinking on life and death issues, people who will take on “modernists” on “safe” issue like DDT in Uganda, but run for the bunker when life and death shows up.
If any of the Orthodox who were around two years ago decide to show up, let me know. They were a different breed of people back then. But if you like the “cream puff” version of Orthodoxy, then Christopher is your man.
Amazed,
Thanks for your comments on this topic, and good luck on your research. Below are words from Paul Tillich which you might find edifying.
“Existential anxiety of doubt drives the person toward the creation of certitude in systems of meaning, which are supported by tradition and authority. In spite of the element of doubt which is implied in man’s finite spirituality, and in spite of the threat of meaninglessness implied in man’s estrangement, anxiety is reduced by these ways of producing and preserving certitude. Neurotic anxiety builds a narrow castle of certitude which can be defended and is defended with the utmost tenacity. Man’s power of asking is prevented from becoming actual in this sphere, and if there is a danger of its becoming actualized by questions asked from the outside he reacts with a fanatical rejection. However the castle of undoubted certitude is not built on the rock of reality. The inability of the neurotic to have a full encounter with reality makes his doubts as well as his certitudes unrealistic. He puts both in the wrong place. He doubts what is practically above doubt and he is certain where doubt is adequate.”
“…so, he tries to break out of this situation, to identify himself with something transindividual, to surrender his separation and self-relatedness. He flees from his freedom of asking and answering for himself to a situation in which no further questions can be asked and the answers to previous questions are imposed on him authoritatively. In order to avoid the risk of asking and doubting he surrenders himself in order to save his spiritual life. He “escapes from his freedom” in order to escape the anxiety of meaninglessness. Now he is no longer lonely, not in existential doubt, not is despair. He “participates” and affirms by participation the contents of his spiritual life. Meaning is saved, but the self is sacrificed. And since the conquest of doubt was a matter of sacrifice, the sacrifice of the freedom of the self, it leaves a mark on the regained certitude: a fanatical self-assertiveness. Fanaticism is the correlate to spiritual self-surrender: it shows the anxiety which it was supposed to conquer, by attacking with disproportionate violence those who disagree and who demonstrate by their disagreement elements in the spiritual life of the fanatic which he must suppress in himself. Because he must suppress them in himself he must suppress them in others. His anxiety forces him to persecute dissenters. The weakness of the fanatic is that those whom he fights have a secret hold upon him; and to this weakness he and his group finally succumb.”
(Both passages from “The Courage to Be”)
JamesK writes:
I guess my point is that I don’t see consistency between when it’s permissible to terminate some kinds of treatment but not others.
James, I came across something this evening which was helpful to me anyways, on your question. It seems the first and basic question is whether one is terminally ill. Terri was not. She was disabled — that is absolutely all. This is the thing that makes her death horrific.
Her family even believed that with time and therapy she might likely have learned to eat. Nurses said they [on the sly] gave her jello which she took well. What is really troubling is —- why did not Michael Schiavo want her to receive rehabilitation? Was she going to tell us something about him? He didn’t want known? Why didn’t the Civil Government over-rule his diabolical prescription for her? Remember the businessman who offered $ — if Michael would simply “let her live?” Why did Felos and Michael deny the gift of the huge sum of money?
Do you find this following paragraph clarifying? It was to me. It’s from
Dr William Cheshire Jr’s affidavit to the court.
As for an Orthodox statement: I think “Thou shalt not kill” from the Second Table of the Ten Commandments written with the finger of God, and the same Second Table summarized and reiterated by Jesus Christ as “Love your neighbor as yourself” – is all that is required.
In Terri’s case the method of killing was via ordered Neglect, Abandonment, and an Absence of Pity by the Civil Government. An abuse of the office God ordained for the very protection of “her own.” The Civil Government is to be a terror to evil-doers. Not — pole opposite.
Yes, I’m afraid parallels to Nazi, Etc. is not that hard to draw.
Michael writes:
And,
Exactly. People die from broken hearts, ‘give up the ghost’ sometimes before they might need to. Lord have mercy. God is able to sustain his own, because one fruit of the Holy Spirit is Long-Suffering. Beyond that, where does radiance come from? Something more than ‘photogenic.’ Blessed - Not cursed. Love watering the soil of their life.
I believe this woman excercised her God-given faculty of Faith. The faculty given for the purpose of receiving. Making her to “to be” a light, “to do” things/ fulfill a role, then if Christopher has said that.
Michael you also write:
I think Terri was in the most advantageous situation to exercise Faith. What else could she do? Receive help from outside herself.
One baby in St Paul was named Grace. She lived 29 days as I recall and fulfilled an incredible role. Her mother spoke of her entire bundle of life and length of days — in the superlative. Tom C. and Family I think, attended the funeral, Renee was there, Juli, maybe Rhonda W?
Her parents wrote this on her memorial card: I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.
And she crossed the threshhold safely, born to Paradise…
Jim, the fact that you equate war with what happened to Terri Schiavo indicates to me that for all of your study and knowledge of Orthodox teaching, you fail to grasp it at all. Since you have said as much yourself, I hope you don’t think I am attacking you. War is a secondary issue in the Church. There is complete freedom of choice within the Church as to how, when or if to serve in the military. There really is no modern/traditional divide.
There is clear, unequivocable teaching on abortion (it is murder) and on ethanasia by extension there is little room for economia which has to be applied pastorally in any case, not in the abstract.
I have done all that I can to explain the foundation for those teachings. I can’t do any better. Christopher agreed with the essence of what I said, Fr. Hans and others made no objection.
As I have said all along, almost from the time I started posting on this blog, the major issues we discuss here divide along anthropological lines. Modernity has a view which is antithetical to and in direct opposition to what the Church experiences and teaches. To someone who has, in faith, accepted the modernist anthropology, very little of the Orthodox approach will make sense or be understood. It is seems to be nonesense, irrational, avoiding the “facts” all of those judgemental and profoundly untrue pejoratives that have been thrown at me and others.
If you want to take a stab at it though, I’d suggest reading Elder Sophrony’s writings especially his commentaries on the life and teaching of St. Silhouan the Athonite. The writings of Archmandrite Zacharias are in the same spiritual line. These are all 20th century men and Archmandrite Zacharias is still with us in this life.
Ultimately, however, as I told JamesK, only through repentance can we hope to learn who we are and how we are supposed to act. “A contrite and humble heart God will not despise”.
Michael writes: “Jim, the fact that you equate war with what happened to Terri Schiavo indicates to me that for all of your study and knowledge of Orthodox teaching, you fail to grasp it at all.”
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to “equate.” I was just using that as an example of the differences between the two discussions, both of which involved life and death issues.
I’m not in favor of euthanasia. If Terri Schiavo was in a PVS — and I believe that she was — then the person who was Terri Schiavo departed that body in 1993. It would be the same as brain death, the only difference being that enough lower brain remained to continue respiration, circulation, and so on.
I don’t see this as a modernist view. In fact, it is only because of modern technology that these issues even arise. Fifty years ago Terri Schiavo would have died within a few days or weeks, because the technique of long-term artificial feeding had not been developed. Modern technology forces these issues on us. In this case, the modernist position would be an uncritical acceptance of the use of technology in keeping people alive, or keeping bodies functioning, long after the time when, throughout most of history, the body would have stopped functioning. As I see it, a non-modernist position involves putting limits on when and how that technology is used.
Michael: “There is complete freedom of choice within the Church as to how, when or if to serve in the military. There really is no modern/traditional divide.”
But in reality “modernism” is built into structure of the situation through the destructive power of modern weapons and the use of large-scale destruction as a way to eliminate the other side’s productive capacity, and in some cases, their population. As with medical technology, someone has to decide when the use of such technology is appropriate or not - decisions that in previous centuries would have never been needed.
In other words, there are two parts to modernism. One is the understanding of the nature of the person — I believe you would call that “anthropology.” The other part of modernism is the huge effect on life that modern technology has. I don’t believe you can address one without addressing the other, since they are often interrelated. Part of the modernist attitude is the uncritical use of technology — whether it’s DDT, land mines, nuclear power, television, or a feeding tube.
Your yourself in this discussion have questioned organ transplantation and other modern medical interventions. One big impetus behind the development and acceptance of “brain death” as a definition of death, was so that organs could be harvested for transplantation. Stated simply, harvesting of organs for transplant involves the removal of organs from a live body; the removal of organs is actually what causes the death of the body — that in some cases could be kept going much longer (through technology).
http://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk/CMQ/Feb_1995
/nagging_doubts_about_brain_death.htm
Why is it immoral to remove an artificial feeding tube from a live body that could be kept going for a long time, but not immoral to remove a living organ from a live body that could be kept going for a long time?
In understanding modernism, you have to look both at anthropology and technology, since it is often the technology that creates the moral problem through altering our perception of what it means to be a “person.” (Prior to computers you asked a co-worker for his opinion. Now you ask for his “input.” Computer technology influences our view of the concept of “mind.”)
Michael: “To someone who has, in faith, accepted the modernist anthropology, very little of the Orthodox approach will make sense or be understood. It is seems to be nonesense, irrational, avoiding the “facts” all of those judgemental and profoundly untrue pejoratives that have been thrown at me and others.”
It’s not that it doesn’t make sense to me, but that it does not provide a comprehensive and systematic approach to the whole set of related issues. At least, it has not yet been elucidated to that extent. I see how it is applied in the Schiavo case, but not how it might be applied in other cases in which the circumstances (facts) are different. There hasn’t been an adequate explanation of how the approach takes patient autonomy into account. The approach has typically been offered without reference to any of the facts of the case — which gives at least the appearance that many of these issues have not been thought through. (E.g., Fr. Hans’ easy acceptance of the “brain death” criterion of the death of the person.)
When appeals have been made for more explanation, the response has often been “you just don’t get it.” But if the Orthodox want to advance a different view of how all of these decisions should be made throughout the great variety of circumstances, they have the burden of explaining in a systematic way how this is all supposed to work. Or more precisely, you have that burden if you truly want others outside the church to understand. If that’s not a concern then sure, no further explanation is necessary.
Michael: the problem as I see it is that moral doctrine is not clear in terms of end-of-life issues. You yourself stated that you wished to avoid “legalism”, but you must realize that by avoiding “legalism”, the inevitable result is a doctrine that is by nature ill-defined. No one here has really articulated clearly what parameters define an unjust termination of life from an unjust one. They only use anecdotal scenarios without defining how they arrived at their conclusions.
Why is it permissible to turn off a respirator that fills a person’s lungs with vital oxygen but not permissible to turn off a tube that fills their stomach with other kinds of nutrients? Is it the degree of pain involved, or is it the type of dependency? Orthodox doctrine from what I have read seems vague, yet some conservative posters here act as if there is no “wiggle room”.
167 Nancy L writes:
This just proves how successful the Schindler campaign of misinformation and misrepresentation was.
In the end it wouldn’t matter to Nancy if she had the medical chart in her hand and someone available to interpret it for her. It wouldn’t matter if the rehab physcian was standing in front of her and telling her what he wrote in the chart and that it was true.
Rehab was ineffective. Terri was making no progress. The rehab professionals- those that provided the rehab and charted her progress or lack of progress- recommended that rehab be discontinued. This was after 3 years. This is well documented.
Terri was a candidate for EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT. Perhaps you heard about the thalmic stimulators? That Michael had to take Terri accross country for the procedure? Terri would not have been a viable candidate and would not have received this particular experimental treatment (brain surgery…) unless it was well established and well documented that she had shown no improvement and was not benefitting AT ALL from standard treatments.
Now please tell me Nancy- why would Michael risk a possible miracle cure via experimental treatment if he didn’t want Terri to improve? Why would he go through all the hassle involved with qualifying his wife for experimental procedures and arranging the transportation, etc. etc. if he just really wanted her to die and take any secrets with her??
Maybe he was just doing it for appearances?
At the risk that she might suddenly jump up out of bed and run to the cops with a tale of rage and murder???
At the medical malpractice trial Mary Schindler testified under oath that Michael Schiavo was a wonderful person and son in law and that she didn’t know how she would have gotten along without him.
Either Mary Schindler was lying under oath at the medical malpractice trial or she was lying many years later in public and in media appearances when she started claiming that Terri had confided marriage troubles, abuse, controlling/stalking behaviors, and that she was considering divorce.
I could go into the credibility issues regarding the trio of nurses (well one NURSE and two FORMER nurses) that came forward and admitted willfully and intentionally abusing and endangering the life of a patient but it hardly seems worth addressing.
It would be interesting to know if any of the life threatening episodes of pneumonia and hospitalizations of Terri were related to the confessed criminal acts of those nurses.
“Gee doctor I have no idea why Terri suddenly developed pneumonia, we wouldn’t disregard the orders of her physcian, we wouldn’t ignore the obvious, we would never VIOLATE the standard of care, we would never VIOLATE work rules”
It wouldn’t have been silent aspiration of pudding, jello or milk shake by any chance??
Well the nurses really didn’t risk much in giving sworn confessions what with the statute of limitiations being expired.
JamesK writes: “No one here has really articulated clearly what parameters define an unjust termination of life from [a just] one.”
I think a lot of this hinges on how Orthodox believers understand their own approach to these issues vis-a-vis the outside world. Orthodox folks here have often presented their approach as following from foundational Orthodox beliefs. If that is really true, then when they say “why are you hanging out on an Orthodox site questioning Orthodox beliefs” they have a point. Why should they explain anything? We’re not Orthodox. I suppose it would be like us coming on here and saying “you guys are all wrong about icons.” What would be the point?
But there’s a flip side to that. If their beliefs about the Schiavo case are really foundational Orthodox beliefs, then why criticize people who don’t have those beliefs? Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer, etc., aren’t Orthodox. Why should they be criticized for not holding beliefs that are an organic and inseparable part of foundational Orthodox beliefs? To continue the analogy, it would be like Orthodox people criticizing Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer for having the wrong beliefs about icons.
So it’s one way or the other. If it’s all foundational, then we should shut up and not bother them. And they should refrain from criticizing people who aren’t Orthodox for not having Orthodox beliefs.
On the other hand, if they want to criticize people for having wrong beliefs about the Schiavo case, then they’ve entered the public arena, and their beliefs can be critiqued in the same way that any other point of view should be critiqued and held to the same standards. But when they set foot in the public arena they can’t plead immunity from criticism based on the foundational nature of the beliefs.
Of course, they could always say, “we want to criticize other people’s beliefs, but we don’t want our beliefs criticized.” It would be their right to do that, but at the cost of losing respect in the public arena. It really depends on which way they want to go.
Amazed writes: “I could go into the credibility issues regarding the trio of nurses (well one NURSE and two FORMER nurses) that came forward and admitted willfully and intentionally abusing and endangering the life of a patient but it hardly seems worth addressing.”
Just for the record, let’s be very specific. Nurses do not “improvise” on patient care. In a nursing home or skilled nursing facility every patient’s care is defined by the physician’s orders. The resident care manager then creates a written nursing care plan based on those orders. The only treatments that are at the nurse’s discretion are minor things (e.g., giving Tylenol) that are authorized in a written policy created by the house physician. In a life-threatening situation a nurse can send a patient to the emergency room, but even then the physician has to be notified afterward. Beyond that, all changes in treatment have to be authorized by the physician.
To give a patient unordered food by mouth would be very dangerous, even life-threatening. A nurse who did that could be disciplined by the state nursing board, up to an including a permanent revocation of the nursing license. Depending on the severity of the incident, the state board could also refer the case for criminal prosecution.
This is one of those pesky facts that has to be considered when evaluating affidavits such as the ones under discussion.
The Schindlers changed in order to accomodate their new legal tactic and their new lawyers and what they saw as their last and best hope to save their daughter.
New lawyers made it clear to the Schindlers that only two avenues were open to them: challenge the PVS finding and/or challenge the guardianship.
That is why it is so ironic to have people of religion parroting what came out of the Schindler 180 degree change. Either the Schindlers were being truthful working with their old lawyers or the Schindlers were being truthful while working with their new lawyers.
It would be one thing if people of religion would stick to faith based arguments. Instead they use the talking points that came out of the Schindler legal challenges salted up a bit with religion.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even if I look like an idiot quoting their lies. I would point out that their lies didn’t work for them in changing anyones mind and so it is unlikely that their lies will work for you in changing anyones mind.
A nurse who did that could be disciplined ….
This is one of those pesky facts that has to be considered when evaluating affidavits such as the ones under discussion.
Right, but how indeed *serious* could it be to offer a little Gelatin and water? Probably in the category ‘don’t ask-don’t tell’ not a job loss. But I see from reading further, especially reading some of the autopsy report, that I don’t think Terri was ever going to eat all her meals normally — short of a miracle.
But zero gelatin or water, that’s extreme. I understand the danger of aspirating, of pneumonia. Also, you say milkshake — [Clarence Darrow? stretching the truth a little or a lot?] — heh, these are healthcare professionals, mind you, with a little common sense!
Since you are mentioning ironies. How about this one? ‘Let us remove all danger that Terri does not aspirate/die of pneumonia…..before we Dehydrate her. In the end she does die of pneumonia with the dehydration. The Death Certificate says: Anoxic brain injury. Dehydration. Aspiration/Pneumonia. Some doctors have noted that the Death Certificate is not filled out — as per normal. Of course, one wonders, why not?
When you put down the cause of death — this is understood to mean that the cause of death * is the cause of death. The CAUSE was not anoxic brain injury, as listed. The cause was Dehydration. Also, I see the autopsy states her fatty tissue did not indicate Starvation. But the cause of death was the electrolyte imbalance due to Dehydration. Also Pneumonia.
Well, I believe Fr Hans made reference to a Final Report coming up.
Here’s another one. You mention the implants in her head, right? So Michael, or whoever, says — ‘Let’s not take the risk of doing an MRI because there’s a remote chance the MRI would hurt her ….. before we Dehydrate her!’
Jim, here is a Mr Mrs Shindler statement. I think you believe it to be contrived, maybe written by the lawyer?
Why and when did the In-Law relationship break down?
You write: At the medical malpractice trial Mary Shindler testified under oath that Michael Schiavo was a wonderful person and son in law and that she didn’t know how she would have gotten along without him.
Is this exactly the way she words it? Isn’t it possible Michael -was supportive of his in-laws during these particular times of duress, and she sincerely meant ‘couldn’t have got along w/out him?’ Maybe she thought he was repenting – better than he’d ever been. Forgetting for this present time the rocky marriage being that after-all, a crisis was indeed upon each one of them?
I’ve not heard M Schiavo on radio/t.v. Nor the Schindlers. So, then what happened. Did he become Jeckyl or Hyde? And confirm, rather resurrect his mother-in-laws worst fears and memory?
Again, you write: Either Mary Schindler was lying under oath at the medical malpractice trial or she was lying many years later in public and in media appearances when she started claiming that Terri had confided marriage troubles, abuse, controlling/stalking behaviors, and that she was considering divorce.
But I am wondering, must these statements be ‘at odds?’
Nancy writes: “Jim, here is a Mr Mrs Shindler statement. I think you believe it to be contrived, maybe written by the lawyer?”
Actually Nancy, the pieces you are quoting are from “Amazed,” not from me.
As a kind of “preview” to the issue, let me point out that much of what people have read about the case comes from web sites and sources close to the Schindlers. That fine, it’s a free country, people can post and read whatever they want.
But there are two sides to every case. For many people Michael Schiavo’s side is virtually unknown. Where you find Michael Schiavo’s side of the case is not in blogs and web sites advocating for him. You’ll find it in the actual court documents and related material.
An excellent place to start is Matt Conigliaro’s Abstract Appeal web site. Matt is an attorney in Florida, and thus well-informed about Florida law. His site contains links to many of the case documents, as well as his own commentary. If you take the time to review the material, I think you have a much better understanding of the case, and many of your questions will be answered. Rather than relying on my interpretation or someone else’s interpretation, you can come to your own conclusions. You can find Matt’s Schiavo material here:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Matt’s introductory comments will give you a sense of where he’s coming from: “As a Florida law blogger, I have created this page to help people understand the legal circumstances surrounding the Terri Schiavo saga. In my view, there continues to be a need for an objective look at the matter. There is an unbelievable amount of misinformation being circulated. . . . To be clear at the outset, I have no interest in taking any “side” in this dispute. Remarkably, I’ve been accused of being biased in favor of each side at one point or another. . . . Finally, and without unnecessary elaboration, I’ll point out that I sympathize with everyone involved. The circumstances here are tragic.”
Nancy L in note 177 asks:
Yes, they MUST necessarily be at odds because they are contradictory. You can easily find the transcript and read the exact quote for yourself because I wouldn’t expect you to take my word.
You also promote this theory:
Have you ever met a mother that would forgive and forget attacks on their child?
It makes little sense that Mary Schindler would keep silent at the medical malpractice trial but it makes even less sense that she would keep silent at the hearing in 2000.
Even if you can IMAGINE Mary Schindler keeping silent (about marital dischord, physical and emotional abuse and suspicions that Michael was the cause of her daughters collapse) at the medical malpractice trial can you imagine the Schindlers keeping silent about these at the 2000 hearing? Because they did- not a word.
Can you imagine them keeping silent about the alleged phone calls from nurse Carla Iyer informing them that Carla suspected Michael of murder attempts- as outlined in the affadavit? Because they did- not a word.
Can you imagine the Schindlers lawyer, no matter how incompetent, not calling such a witness as Carla Iyer?
How does it make sense, from any perspective, that they wouldn’t bring this information forward at the original hearing in 2000- knowing full well that their daughters life was at stake in the 2000 hearing- but WOULD bring it forward years later when their legal team had changed and so had their approach and legal tactics?
Assuming these were true facts in 2000 how can you NOT question why they were not brought forward in an all out best effort to present the best and most compelling facts, testimony and evidence available during a life and death struggle to save their daughter? Maybe the Schindlers were holding back? Keeping silent because they valued Michaels reputation above the life of their daughter?
Spelling of Schindler - got it.
I’m a citizen affected by laws in this country. I’ll read Matt Shiavo’s site who sounds very American, doesn’t he. Claims to “sympathize with everyone.” Claims not to be partial in the case — even of his own brother.
{….musing. i think of jamesk noticing ‘no one keeps friends anymore.’}
I cannot construe Matt’s claim to such compassion — to be equal to my suggested virtue i think Mrs Schindler may have/had when she *may have* been willing to overlook a multitude of former sins - Michael.
I understand it is generally agreed that Michael Schiavo took excellent care of Terri during the first two years after her mysterious cardiac arrest. Again, I am sure the Schindlers were thrilled at such [repentance, then.] Better to their daughter in her illness veritably? Than her wellness?
He does fit the profile of “possessive?” I see a picture here of him with her in the wheelchair in the early years. He looks …… Content. And the big question is, ‘was this to last?’ ‘Why not?’
I will not theorize until I read more then. But, on the other hand, I obviously am predisposed to go with the priest who knew the family Six Years (?) and was at Terri’s bedside at death. This carries a huge weight of credibility, for me. Nevertheless, thank you for the Shiavo link; most helpful.
Yes, a Rigid Commitment to moral neutrality taught in public schools is supposed to issue forth in compassion. In reality, this said compassion is not even remotely close to what proceeds from virtue taught in Christian shcools. A. Seeing sin B. Naming sin [the Law Giver has defined it & the Bible has easy access, #1 Best Seller] C) Forgiving sin D) even tears for the same said sin of another and especially when committed by close kin.
One other note re: presuppositions brought to reading the story.
I don’t know anything about this medical malpractice piece of the story. But if Mrs. Schindler knew of some concrete abuse to Terri which made the two of them speak of divorce [mind you a Catholic family now] — and the Schindlers are confused about how to handle the command to forgive with the right/mandate of the Civil Governement to prosecute…… well, I’m looking out for this. It’s common.
Christian people forgive, and they do so 70 x 7. And they do not have it straight in their heads that they can send a family member to be *stoned, iyw, i apologize for shocking language — and this has absolutely nothing to do with, forgiving 70 x 7. That is what goes on between God/Man. Brother/Brother.
There is a false dichotomy.
A Christian is a)to forgive, b)uphold the law. No one is asked to perjure themselves in a court of law, to take the law into ones own hand and in the end work against God’s Law of love — in the name of ‘forgiveness.’ Such law must be known and upheld as God’s Law of Love. That is what the Ten Commandments are.
Jim, we are lightyears away from seeing a Forgiving Christian do anything like “stoning.” Lightyears. It is spelled out as an oxymoron.
Yet, God has given the power of the sword to the Civil Government for the protection of citizens. If Mrs. Schindler thought forgiveness meant covering for Michael in a court of law, she was met by the Old Deluder Satan.
What kind of man has the next mate of “a criminal” — found?
God’s Law is orbital = God’s Law is fullness. Full of compassion and mercy.
Correction
Jim wrote: “You can find Matt’s Schiavo material here”
(note 180) - Slowing down, I see. Matt’s not a Schiavo family member
You say: “Matt Conigliaro’s Abstract Appeal web site.”
Matt writes:
I have never met, spoken with, or even seen anyone in the Schiavo or Schindler families. I use first names on this web log simply for convenience, and my interest is simply as someone who enjoys Florida law and wishes to add some clarity to the events here.
In note 181 Nancy L writes:
Wow, a perfect trifecta: it rationalizes what she did, it justifies what she did and it dismisses her personal ownership and responsibility for what she did.
Perfect trifecta, if only your laundry detergent were THIS good…
Amazed writes:
In note 181 Nancy L writes:
Wow, a perfect trifecta: it rationalizes what she did, it justifies what she did and it dismisses her personal ownership and responsibility for what she did.
Perfect trifecta, if only your laundry detergent were THIS good…
Nay.
Amazed. I don’t believe we’ve met — happy to meet you. I will compromise/try to keep you-all straight then whether I speak to Plain Old Jim Holman versus Amazed versus someone else. No problem.
You Amazed see win-win-win in the courtroom — I do not see.
Where is anything to do with Cleansing what-so-ever mentioned, Amazed? Nay - only Guilt black as sin. Let us seek justice.
What will the courts say about one who has perjured herself? Ready? We’ll go to the Heavenly Court. Wherein is God’s Law - that’s the Law of Love.
Now. This guilty woman should get the same punishment upon her own head - that were otherwise suffered by another due to her own false testimony. If you have heard of making restitution. If someone was not brought to justice because of her overmuch compassion gone astray — this criminal let loose may be reproducing his sins everywhere, and she will be part to blame.
What is she going to say to God of Perfection? The church tells her exactly what to say: Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Say it three times.
Surely you have been inside an Episcopal Church a time or two. You know this means “My fault. My own fault. My own most Grievous Fault.”
Then what should happen do you suppose?
Been away from this thread for 40 posts or so. Noticed that Jim says in # 146
What I’ve always waited for, always hoped for, is some sense from the people here of how they would do it differently. By “it” I don’t mean the Schiavo case.
What a howler. We have been saying since post #1 that how Christians would do “it” differently, namely we would not have executed her. This is why a Troll is a Troll…
Amazed, per #159 you probably should have gotten off the planet while you had the chance.
In light of the posts of the last few days I think it’s critical for you to keep this Guide entry in mind:
“There is a theory that if anyone discovers the meaning the universe, it will instantly turn itself into something even more bizarre and inexplicable.”
“There is another theory, that this has already happened.”
So apparently you guys have all this stuff figured out within Orthodoxy. But good luck ever trying to sell it on the outside. As you say, “outside the church there are no answers.” And I would add, inside the church there are no questions. To the extent that the Orthodox are unable or unwilling to engage the outside world in debate and discussion, the Orthodox become irrelevant to the outside world.
You have NOT BEEN LISTENING. We answer your questions, and because YOU DO NOT LIKE THE ANSWERS, you claim we have not answered your questions. That is why you are a Troll. Why are you harassing Christians? What are you doing here??
For what it is worth coming from a radical modernist materialist medical professional and author
And Jim claimed somewhere upstream that modern medicine does not have a tendency toward the culture of death (as if there are not 1+ million abortions a year, all done by “doctors”). Perhaps “Amazed” is patient zero…:)
This one case caught their attention and it influenced their opinion of Hospice care and of the medical profession.
As well it should. The “medical profession” has become part of the culture of death. So called “doctors” execute 1+ million unborn children a year. The culture of death has influenced our culture to a great degree when it comes to “death and dying”. Terri was unjustly executed, and the “medical profession” went along. A couple of months back, the editor of the “New England Journal of Medicine” wrote a hysterical article about congress “interference” with partial birth abortions.
My wife is a physiatrist. Too many of her colleagues (about half) accept this culture of death. Be very careful when you deal with “doctors”…
The Orthodox participants seem to know few of the actual details of the case.
Wrong. We don’t buy into your hand selected details - which support your culture of death…
Amazed, you have provided a great service here. You have provided a great deal of clarity.
Wrong. As Fr. Jacobse says, he presents no clear premises. Neither do you. You both can not turn around and look at the foundations of your own moral worldview. Instead, you simply harass Christians. Why are you here??
Note 166
LOL! Paul Tillich’s neo-Platonism and semi-Freudian speculations on freedom and the spiritual life as “edifying”!!!
Well, perhaps. A long time ago I was quite moved by Tillich’s Courage to Be. It is a good example of a modernist of sorts, not to confuse him with crude materialists like Dean and Jim, grappling with the ground of his thought. Tillich did have the ability to observe and comment on his own moral premises, unlike most crude materialists.
Scott, you should not recommend the weaker “Freudian” Tillich, but instead recommend the Tillich who speaks of “the Depths”, because while he super imposes his Platonism on God, God IS in “the Depths”.
That said, if Christians are “fanatics”, why are you here? Your not trying to evangelize us are you, save us from our “fanaticism”??
#168
Nancy Wrote
True and well put.
If you want to take a stab at it though, I’d suggest reading Elder Sophrony’s writings especially his commentaries on the life and teaching of St. Silhouan the Athonite. The writings of Archmandrite Zacharias are in the same spiritual line. These are all 20th century men and Archmandrite Zacharias is still with us in this life.
Fr. Seraphim Rose of blessed memory is also very very good at explaining Orthodoxy anthropology, and how it is different from modernism. Almost all his books delve into it because anthropology is so central to this conflict…
I’m not in favor of euthanasia. If Terri Schiavo was in a PVS — and I believe that she was — then the person who was Terri Schiavo departed that body in 1993.
EXACTLY. Christians however, DO NOT believe the “person who was Terri Schindler departed that body in 1993″. {let’s please use her Christian name – it is OrthodoxyToday after all}
ALL the modernist assumptions of anthropology, what a man is and what he is not, is on display in that sentence.
Now, why are you here??
I don’t see this as a modernist view.
LOL! ARE YOU INSANE?!?! That is EXACTLY the modernist view. You must REALLY be dimwitted.
WHY ARE YOU HERE HARRASING CHRISTIANS??????
This just proves how successful the Schindler campaign of misinformation and misrepresentation was.
In the end it wouldn’t matter to Nancy if she had the medical chart in her hand and someone available to interpret it for her. It wouldn’t matter if the rehab physician was standing in front of her and telling her what he wrote in the chart and that it was true.
No, it proves how you have taken one side of this issue (it so happens to be the culture of death) and now assert an “expertise” you in fact do not have. Honest medical professionals admit that medicine, particularly neurology, is 97% “art” and only 3% “science”.
My wife is a “rehab physician” (i.e. physiatrist) and she disagrees with your assessment “doctor” (are you a doctor, or are you a nurse/OT/PT posing as an “expert”)???
Well Scott (Note 186) Don’t Panic. At least not yet.
It is readily apparent that if the “wrong” side had stated that rocks were hard, fire was hot, the sky was blue, grass was green and water was wet there would be a flat earther ready with declarations to the contrary and the ability to list other flat earthers in the club that knew the secret handshake, understood things the same way, had impressive degrees and prestigious titles.
But there’s a flip side to that. If their beliefs about the Schiavo case are really foundational Orthodox beliefs, then why criticize people who don’t have those beliefs? Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer, etc., aren’t Orthodox.
Riigggghtttt. Christians have no business asserting Christianity into the culture - why, our public square is reserved for modernists only - don’t they know that?
Why are you here???
As a kind of “preview” to the issue, let me point out that much of what people have read about the case comes from web sites and sources close to the Schindlers.
Good thing we have Jim here representing the culture of death, straightening out all the “facts” for us…
Why are you here???
Fr. Jacobse
This thread has been taken over by Trolls. “Jim” and “Amazed” our two modern “death eaters” who have subjectively accepted some “facts”, not others, and are now here to “correct” us Christians. “Amazed” is even trying to argue “from authority” - perhaps he will lay his credentials on the line.
Regardless, they refuse to discuss their premises, although one has to give Jim credit - he against all truth at least tries to deny his morality/anthropology is not “modernist”. Best laugh I have had all day…:)….no doubt more to follow…:)
Christopher, are you asserting that the diagnosis of “PVS” is invalid as far as medical terminologies go or that the diagnosis of PVS does not imply one has any right to discontinue the use of any types of life-saving medical technology? Perhaps you’re suggesting that only some types of medical technologies can morally be discontinued if one is in a PVS?
See, I’ve read the Orthodox links on this site and on others, and I still can’t figure out where your central objection lies. For those of us who are not Orthodox, please clarify. Even if I allow that there can be numerous objections to this case, you haven’t really stated any objection grounded in Orthodox language except in the most vague and obtuse manner possible.
Christopher I have no doubt your wife impresses you and that you value her opinion.
Nothing I would list for qualifications would impress you or persuade you in your beliefs.
So lets just put it to bed right now and assume your wife is way more qualified than I am to shape your opinions or advise you. We will assume she attended better colleges, scored better on all exams, did her internship and residency in a well financed hospital that was larger or better respected, and was hired into or established her own highly successful practice.
Beyond that, someone will always be more or less qualified to render an opinion- it is not the qualifications that you would embrace, reject or find value in but the OPINION itself is what concerns you. If you agree with the opinion the opinion has value. If you do not agree it doesn’t matter how qualified or how expert the opinion is.
Do you have a source for this or is this another of your opinions stated as though it had some basis in fact? Perhaps your wife has some reason to hate nuerologists…
Perhaps what you meant to say is that success in medicine, like success in every other field of human endeavor, is influenced by God given talent, dedication, devotion, a willingness to expand our knowlege beyond what it was yesterday and what it is today,the ability to work with others in a team, the ability to admit our own short comings, limitations, faults and weaknesses and rely on others, to be humble and therefore able and willing to ask for help and advice, and many other tangible and intangibles.
Otherwise it appears what you are saying is that results are not quantifiable or measurable in the practice of medicine and therefore we have no way of knowing what works and what does not? No way to learn from our own mistakes or the mistakes of others. There are no standards, no guidelines, no texts, no experts and no superior authority to consult? No patient records to study? No quality assurance and review boards? No licensing standards? No peer review?
If we are able to leave the patient better off we owe it all to the kindness of our muse on that day and either dumb luck or good luck or randomness in the universe and Gods grace.
Christopher, are you asserting that the diagnosis of “PVS” is invalid as far as medical terminologies go or that the diagnosis of PVS does not imply one has any right to discontinue the use of any types of life-saving medical technology? Perhaps you’re suggesting that only some types of medical technologies can morally be discontinued if one is in a PVS?
PVS is to “medical terminologies”, as is “fetus” is to “medical terminologies”. They are beside the point of personhood.
Keep fishing James though, you want a materialist moral line of site from a bunch of Christians. You will have to wait until the Second Coming, but you seem ok with that. I admire your stubbornness!
Beyond that, someone will always be more or less qualified to render an opinion- it is not the qualifications that you would embrace, reject or find value in but the OPINION itself is what concerns you. If you agree with the opinion the opinion has value. If you do not agree it doesn’t matter how qualified or how expert the opinion is.
Actually, the opinions of various experts are besides the fact in this case, Christianly speaking. Jim earlier used the textbook definition of modernist anthropology “person who was Terri Schindler departed that body in 1993″. Christianly, this is untrue. This is the crux of the matter morally. As was stated why back at the beginning, this or that diagnosis is besides the point. IF you want to Troll, you can talk endlessly (and argue from a “position of authority”) about this or that diagnosis.
IF you want to discuss why Christianly this execution was unjust, then you will have to talk about your faith, your philosophy of man, your anthropology. AND, you will have to talk about it honestly, not dimwittedly (is that a word?
Do you have a source for this or is this another of your opinions stated as though it had some basis in fact?
Perhaps your wife has some reason to hate neurologists…
Source? You mean material, “scientific” source? You mean you buy into philosophical assertions of consciousness, and thus human “being” being a phenomena of the bio-chemistry? That is what you would have to talk about openly if want to talk about this case Christianly.
Honest physicians know how much they do not know. Shoot, even honest materialists (a philosophical, not “scientific” stance) know this.
Do you want to talk about this case Christianly or not?
Perhaps your wife has some reason to hate neurologists…
LOL! Well, she is a Christian, so have you not heard, she would hate them if a particular neurologist would be black, red, yellow, gay, liberal, from a blue state, or pagan…;)
Christopher, not only is it apparent that you don’t even read your own links, but it doesn’t seem you have even a superficial comprehension of Orthodox doctrine. It’s thus very difficult to take anything you write very seriously, least of all your continual labeling of those you disagree with.
From an Orthodox website:
Yet, “brain death” and all other “medical terminologies” are irrelevant to you.
Note 179. Amazed writes:
There could be a lot of different reasons. One could be the one you suggest: The defense of Terri Schiavo was a conspiracy ordered by the Schindlers. Another could be that they got lousy legal advice. A third could be that it was inconceivable to the Schindlers, as it was to many observers, that the court would actually order the killing of their daughter.
But how come you are drawing conclusions apart from the record? I though you declared that approach out of bounds for all critics of Terri Schiavo’s killing.
You seem unable to provide a moral argument justifying the dehydration and starvation of Terri Schiavo, preferring instead to attack the critics of the killing.
All these words expended strike me as avoidance of the fact that a woman was starved and dehydrated for –what? You tell me.
Christopher writes: “Christians have no business asserting Christianity into the culture - why, our public square is reserved for modernists only - don’t they know that?”
By all means, enter the public square. But you want to denounce people and take pot shots at them in the public square, and then claim immunity from criticism because “you can’t criticize our foundational beliefs.” You can give it, but you can’t take it.
Christopher: “Good thing we have Jim here representing the culture of death, straightening out all the “facts” for us…”
Yes it is good, other wise your blatently false beliefs would have gone unchallenged. So sorry to dent the fenders of your myth.
Christopher: “This thread has been taken over by Trolls.”
The thread started out with a video by the Schindler attorney, who made various claims of fact. Those claims and a vast number of claims on the Schindler side, proved to be false. Since this thread is about the facts of the Schiavo case, why are YOU here? You don’t care about the facts. Facts are irrelevant to you. So why bother people who are trying to discuss the facts? Why don’t you go troll over on some other thread?
Christopher: “Regardless, they refuse to discuss their premises, although one has to give Jim credit - he against all truth at least tries to deny his morality/anthropology is not “modernist”. ”
I’ll talk about my premises all day long. First, you criticize me for discussing anything at all. Then, you criticize me for not discusing “premises.” Well, which is it? Make up your mind. And no, calling into question the uncritical use of modern medical technology is not a “modernist” approach.
Christopher: “You must REALLY be dimwitted.”
What are you doing here? You don’t actually want to discuss anything. On the contrary, you hope to shut down discussion. Why don’t you go not-discuss somewhere else? Adults are trying to have a conversation here, and your whining interferes. Grow up.
Scott,
The more I think about it, the more I have to wonder - why don’t you take Tillich at his word? IF you are going to deconstruct Christianity, why not deconstruct Tillich? Just when is Tillich himself “He “escapes from his freedom” in order to escape the anxiety of meaninglessness.” - when is Tillich and his neo-Platonism himself escaping his freedom??
JamesK notes in post 106:
Good point JamesK!!!
Perhaps Fr. Jacobse can chime in here, but I do not accept what this website has to say (from my own “jurisdiction” none the less!!), particularly this point:
“In terms of brain-death, this action can become a moral imperative, as the person is no longer alive in any religiously significant way”
I can not tell the difference between this and modernistic definition of man. The writer must have consulted Jim and forgot the Saints. Did I link the OCA?? I make it a point not to (no offense to Fr. Jacobse, I find many problems with goarch’s site too).
The OCA is but a shadow of the Church (this is my opinion - and somewhat controversial). Currently, only 1 bishop out of 10 (or is it twelve) even has the basic integrity to follow the eight commandment (see http://www.ocanews.org). The OCA in bed with the NCC/WCC. The OCA is but a shadow of the Church.
In fact, in a bit of a public confusion, I have not been able to taste of the Cup since I learned of the details of the scandal, as my conscious will not allow it (one can’t say “the OCA is but a shadow of the Church” and mean it and continue to approach the Cup “with Faith and Love”). As there is no alternative in my area (besides ethnic enclaves) I will continue to wait.
But back to your good point, Michael, Fr Jacobse, what do you say to this sentence “In terms of brain-death, this action can become a moral imperative, as the person is no longer alive in any religiously significant way”??
I suggest it is flat wrong…
JamesK (and Fr. Jacobse & Michael)
I remember attending a talk by Fr. Hopko in the late 90’s. He spoke to what it means to serve, and to be served. He in fact used as an example a TBI victim who he believed was not only “alive” religously, and otherwise, but whose “religous” purpose (so to speak) sas to “be served”.
His reasoning agrees with what I have read of the Saints. I can not square this with the OCA’s:
“In terms of brain-death, this action can become a moral imperative, as the person is no longer alive in any religiously significant way”
I wonder if these “jurisdictions” know just what they put on their sites??
Christopher writes,
“That said, if Christians are “fanatics”, why are you here? Your not trying to evangelize us are you, save us from our “fanaticism”??”
Christopher, I’m here simply because you’re so much fun to be with.
As far as saving you from fanaticism, quite the contrary. My fondest desire would be to pipe OrthodoxyToday as it is, and your comments in particular, into every home in America.
note 212:
AH, you wish to “put us on display”, being the stuff of museums (buggy whips, leeches, and all that). See little boys and girls, what Christians used to think?
Still, what about Tillich?
Note 207 FATHER Jacobse writes:
A thousand words have what cost?
What purpose does any death serve? I cannot assign it a value, a purpose or a meaning. Who would argue there is a NEED for death?
It has been argued that Terri Schindler-Schiavos death served Michael Schiavos purposes. It has been argued that her death served the courts purposes. It has been argued that her death served the purposes of the “culture of death”, the euthanasia advocates, the radical individualist- separatist- communist- marxist- maoist- devil worshipping heathen purposes.
I research. I examine. I look at the cultural. I look at the social. I look at the economic. I look at the psychology. I look at the philosophy. I look to religion- not that I have much success discussing, debating, and exploring religion- nothing short of blind agreement prevents attacks. Any question, any hint of disagreement sets off a firestorm. My faults, my flaws and my weaknesses are part of my failure to get along well in religious circles. I play with words. I am willful. I am arrogant. I am opinionated. I engage. I insult. I offend. I seldom retreat. I seldom apologize.
I have met and held discussions with some very interesting people.
I said early on that people are very black and white in their thinking on this subject and people are VERY passionate and reactionary. Nevertheless I have harvested a good crop of unique thoughts, a great crop of insults, MUCH food for thought.
If such a thing as this can happen while men stand silent?
If such a thing as this can come to pass and is not noted or marked?
I really don’t think a man, a priest, can honestly wish for no discussion and no debate from the faithless, the Godless or the “trolls”.
Christopher writes: “I do not accept what this website has to say (from my own “jurisdiction” none the less!!)”
Now we’re getting somewhere. You reject the modern interpretation of your faith in favor of some earlier (or different) understanding of it, am I correct?
So what is your preferred reference point? I’m hoping you can point to an Orthodox source within this century (or the last), since I’m doubting medical ethics could possibly have been approached by the early Church Fathers, and I don’t think it’s safe to make assumptions about what they would have said.
Note 214:
Amazed, now that you have complained about the form of your “research”, “discussions”, etc. Will you answer the question? We have stated the “for what” Christianly speaking, why she should have NOT been executed:
1) She was a living person (i.e. she did not “die” in 1993), in communion with God and man
2) She still served both God and man (by serving God)
3) Modern conceptions of “person”, which are wrong in fact and truth, led to an ideological motivated execution
So, answer the question, why was she killed?
Note 216 Cristopher asks:
The “why” is pretty well documented, throughout the records, and even throughout this blog- clearly the “why” has to do with the fact that, strictly from a public opinion perspective, YOU were hopelessly outnumbered by people that don’t share your opinions or ideas, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that if they did think like you they weren’t willing to act or speak out.
You reject the modern interpretation of your faith in favor of some earlier (or different) understanding of it, am I correct?
No. The Faith does not “progress” in the progressive sort of thinking, so there is not an “earlier” vs. “later” interpretation. Not in the modern progressive way, not even in the way Newman described of Catholic dogma, as in “the development of dogma”.
In other words, the statement is just flat wrong - it is not a “modern interpretation”, it is a simple confusion.
I’m hoping you can point to an Orthodox source within this century (or the last), since I’m doubting medical ethics could possibly have been approached by the early Church Fathers, and I don’t think it’s safe to make assumptions about what they would have said.
Try book by Fr. Seraphim Rose. It is not a matter of “modern” vs. “early”, thus what the Church Fathers say about human personhood is independent from any modern technology, medical conundrum caused by said technology, etc. This independence is what enables it to be relevant to all the ages, not just some or “earlier” ones. Thus, Christianly speaking, what a human person is already a known “fact”. All human knowledge, until the end of time itself, does not “trump” this revealed knowledge - it only confirms it.
Try chewing on: “http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Seraphim-Rose/dp/1887904026
Fr. Seraphim even refutes such “progressives” as Thomas Aquinas…;)
Christopher, I too would strongly dispute the “moral imperative”, in fact I would tend to be the opposite.
Just a comment on your personal dilemma:
The grace of the sacraments is not determined by the personal virtue of the celebrant or the celebrant’s bishop, but on Apostolic sucession which the OCA has. The fact that bishops are often cowardly, corrupt and worse is sad and makes life more difficult, but I would likely be worse if I had their temptations and responsibilities. St. John Chrysostom in a vain attempt to avoid the priesthood claimed that “the road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests and bishops”. Whether those skulls are there or not, the Church is still alive with the Holy Spirit, even the OCA. It is a cause for rejoicing that there is one bishop (I think ultimately there are more) and a multitude of priests and lay people who are not going along with the crowd. I happen to have a number of personal friends who are OCA priests and I know them to be men of solid faith and integrity whom I have never know to just “go along”.
I think it is a mistake to cut yourself off because of a personal judgement. Whether you give of your money is another question entirely.
Or you could move. As my priest told me, nothing is more important that what you need to do for your salvation.
God bless you.
Michael,
Too true. St. Augustine had a word or two on this subject. Still, my dilemma is as much with my cowardly fellow parishioners as with the (non)Bishops. When the whole “church” is so cowardly, one has to question in what way exactly is it the Church? What fruit exactly is it producing? In other words “Whether those skulls are there or not, the Church is still alive with the Holy Spirit, even the OCA.” yes, but I am doubtful about the second part. If this was the appropriate forum, I would post the vacuous, meaningless letter the parish council sent to our bishop (unfortunately, the south).
Related to this, Amazed, you asked somewhere upstream about the reaction of the Catholic bishops. Unfortunately, today’s “churchman”, the average priest/bishop in traditional Christianity (whether it be Orthodoxy, Catholicism, or what is left of the traditional protestant denominations) is an unremarkable man at best. Too many of them try in the strangest ways to be “relevant”, and thus they end up compromising with the culture, instead of witnessing too it.
The American Catholic church in particular, is chalk full of “progressive” Catholics who are not in any real way Catholic, or even Christian…
JamesK,
Again as Christopher points out you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of the Orthodox. We are and always have been a contentious bunch especially with each other. It is no wonder that the Irish maintained the Orthodox mind the longest in the west. Often in the history of the Church lay people have corrected the hierarchy. The truth will out, the Holy Spirit leads. One of the most famous examples was the “Union of Florence” in 1438. All of the Orthodox bishops signed on while in Rome except Mark of Ephesus. Many recanted as soon as they got home. The ones who did not saw the people melt from their parishes. The Bishop of Moscow announced the “union” from the pulpit upon his return and was forcibly removed by the congregation and thrown in jail. He later was allowed out of jail on the condition that he resign his office and leave the country.
If you think that Christopher is too pugnacious just remember that many of the Apostles and early martyrs had an “in your face” approach to the heathens, heretics, and apostates of their time—destroying pagan temples, creating commotion in the streets, facing down emperors and kings. St. Nicholas-Wonderworker of Myra and Lycia, famous for his charity during his earthly life, punched out the arch-heretic Arius at the 1st Council of Constantinople. St. Nicholas was disciplined, but he was not alone in his feelings.
Christianity is not about “being nice” (nice has the same root word as ignorant). Christianity is about battle; it is about refusing to accept the spirit of the age no matter from where it comes. We are the lame, the halt and the maimed that Christ found in the byways and the alleys and compelled to come into His feast. As long as we accept His love we are in a state of being healed of our wounds and our sins even if we are vegetables according to the wisdom of the world.
There is a big difference between living with food and water and being forcibly maintained by machines that mimic life. There is no law, no set criteria by which such decisions can be made each and every time. JamesK, you and others seem shocked, SHOCKED, that the Church does not have all these issues decided down to the last jot and tittle (of course if the Church did, we would be lambasted for our inflexibility). Each case is pastoral in nature. The pastoral decision has to be made in light of who we are as human beings as revealed in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the experience and teaching of the Church. It is the highest standard by which to live. Few manage it and it must always be undertaken with humility towards God and in an attitude of contrition.
The fact that those who defend the killing of Terri Schiavo don’t get it or that the majority of the American public don’t get it, does not bother me in the least. If you choose to live in some other manner, that is your choice. I can’t convince you. All the evidence you need is already available and it is ignored. I have studied that evidence, partaken of that evidence as has Christopher and many to whom we have pointed. There is 2000 years of evidence which you throw out with one fey sweep of the wrist as “irrelevant”.
Your statement James “Now we’re getting somewhere. You reject the modern interpretation of your faith in favor of some earlier (or different) understanding of it, am I correct?
So what is your preferred reference point? I’m hoping you can point to an Orthodox source within this century (or the last), since I’m doubting medical ethics could possibly have been approached by the early Church Fathers, and I don’t think it’s safe to make assumptions about what they would have said.”
Reveals your modernist rationalism perfectly and why you have no genuine foundation to discuss the issue at all. Everything is simply the mind of the world. There are no real insights. You once again have the arrogance to instruct us on our faith. James, each and every one of your statements reveals you to be in total ignorance of our faith. You are simply acting in a passive-aggressive arrogance that is without substance or meaning. Have you read any of Fr. John Behr, Fr. Thomas Hopko, Dr. Tristram Englehardt yet—all quite alive? St. John Maximovitch, St. Silouan, St. Theophan, St. Seraphim of Sarov– 19th and 20th century folk; all eloquent spokesmen for the essence of humanity in a fallen world. If you decide to quaff the heady brew of Fr. Seraphim Rose, read Nihilism first. There are literally thousands of books and articles you could find if you would bother to search, to read and to think instead of demanding from two sinful converts the keys to the kingdom of heaven. You don’t even have to go any further than this web site. What you really don’t understand is there is no such thing as modern; we are still living out the same temptation as Adam. Instead of really trying to find the truth, you prefer to meander in the maze of your own confusion protesting against those who are trying to give you the key to get out of the maze. You have pointedly ignored my previous post that gave you the real answer and keep coming back with the same stale, arrogant, meaningless drivel based on the miasma of empiricism and the rest of the vomitus that passes for thought these days–pouncing like a three-legged cat when you see what you think is fresh meat. NOW WE’RE GETTING SOMEWHERE!!! Baloney, it is just a tired recycling of worn out ideas and ill-concealed contempt for traditional Christianity.
Michael writes: “There is no law, no set criteria by which such decisions can be made each and every time. JamesK, you and others seem shocked, SHOCKED, that the Church does not have all these issues decided down to the last jot and tittle (of course if the Church did, we would be lambasted for our inflexibility). Each case is pastoral in nature.”
Again, we come back to the issue of whether the Orthodox here see their viewpoint as having value in the larger world, or whether it is only valid within the Orthodox community.
If there are no “no set criteria by which such decisions can be made each and every time,” then you don’t have a system of ethics that could be used in the larger world. That doesn’t mean that “every jit and tittle” has to be pre-decided, but it does mean that you’d have to know how to go about deciding the jot and tittle.
If it’s “pastoral,” then what’s supposed to happen in the larger world? A family decides to turn off a ventilator and let granpda die naturally, and some version of Christopher runs up and says “STOP! You can’t do that! That’s modernist!”? Or the family doesn’t make the decision, but the local Orthodox priest does?
Even the most basic issues are not clear. Earlier, Christopher says that he rejects the modernist criterion of personhood, which I suppose would be the idea that when electrical activity in the brain is gone, the person is gone. If so, fair enough. But as far as I know, the Orthdox church approves of organ harvesting for transplantation, and you get those from people who have no electrical brain activity. In other words, if Terri Schiavo had had a flat EEG, and been diagnosed as brain dead, she could have had all of her organs harvested, leading to her immediate death, and that would have been no problem. But when Terri Schiavo has a flat EEG, and just enough lower brain stem activity to provide involuntary functions and unconscious bodily movement, then discontinuing the feeding tube is “killing.”
If the Orthodox approach to these issues really has no application outside of the Orthodox community — if the ideas as insufficiently developed, or purposefully vague — then it makes no sense for the Orthodox to criticize those on the outside for not having followed the Orthodox approach.
If there are no “no set criteria by which such decisions can be made each and every time,” then you don’t have a system of ethics that could be used in the larger world.
Such a Troll, such a Troll. Tell me, your an avowed neo-pagan - without the common decency to be respectful to others who are not like you, don‘t think like you. Why are you here harassing Christians?
as far as I know, the Orthodox church approves of organ harvesting for transplantation
&
she could have had all of her organs harvested, leading to her immediate death, and that would have been no problem.
For perhaps the first time on this entire thread, Jim has a point. I have explained it to my family this way:
“If a sliver of my finger nail will, beyond all doubt, save 100 school girls from dying of some dread disease, you are NOT to donate it to science, or anyone else”.
I can’t think of a stronger way to put my rejection of organ donation (problematic but possibly acceptable), let alone donation of the entire body for anatomy (not acceptable), etc.
The problem is that the Church has been slow to reason and think through these applications, and priests are WAY too quick to “apply economia”, etc. and give bad counsel to families who take the modernist approach. Shoot, we have the OCA defining man as a brainwave!
Perhaps Fr. Jacobse (or some other hapless priest
will chime in.
Still, it’s one thing to be ignorant and dimwitted, it’s another to say:
f the Orthodox approach to these issues really has no application outside of the Orthodox community — if the ideas as insufficiently developed, or purposefully vague — then it makes no sense for the Orthodox to criticize those on the outside for not having followed the Orthodox approach.
How long will Fr. Jacobse tolerate this Troll??
Note 222. Jim writes:
Jim, please. This is so arbitrary it is almost meaningless.
Look, marginalizing the “Orthodox” is just a rhetorical ploy. Put another way, marginalize the Orthodox and you marginalize the Christian tradition, the language of which even secularists still employ while denying the moral thinking to which it refers.
The truth is that your ethical “system” you want has to remain situation specific. It cannot be mechanized — unless of course we relegate our self-understanding to the level of biological machine, a view the euthansia types endorse and the idea informing much of the secular support behind the killing of Terri Schiavo (we leave the confused behind for the time being).
Death is a messy business. Why do you think such rancor exists about it? I hope you are not implying that a consistent ethical “system” exists at present. It doesn’t but this has a much to do with the fact that no “system” can address all situations short of redefining man as machine; the underlying issue is not the treatments as such (as important as they are), but how we value and define human life.
Christopher. I’m with you on organ harvesting. It is obscene.
Let me make a brief list of the foundation of genuine ethics–all of which Jim and the Modernists deny.
Human Beings
Created in
The Image and Likeness of
God
Fallen and Separated from
God by
Sin which is healed by
Repentance
Seems to me it has withstood over 6000 years as the highest calling ever articulated by human beings (not surprising since it comes from God).
All the philosophies and “ethics” founded up individualisim, rationalism, materialism, utilitarianism, hedonism, all the isms are cast away into nothingness as almost as soon as they are born–aborted by the onslaught of the modern, the new the (explative deleted). The exaltation of the nothing over man’s soul. Darkness over light.
Note 214. I asked:
Amazed responds:
Which means what, specifically? Give this to me in English.
Note 218. Someone wrote:
Medical “ethics” as such didn’t even exist as a discipline until relatively recently. An Orthodox philosophy on medicine, poverty, etc. however, reaches as far back into Byzantium. St. Basil, for example, founded hospitals and orphanges (they did not exist before then). Most of the attitudes on social welfare were derived from Byzantium after it fell, since Europe was still feudal at the time.
Dr. Demetrios Constantelos is the leading authority on these issues (Google his name). I spent two days listening to lectures on the history a while back. Very interesting. I can’t find an article on the net that isn’t behind some registration page, but I did find this by Fr. John Erickson (Human Dignity: Byzantine Political Philosophy Revisited):
The Russian Orthodox Church is making some important moves in this direction as well, quite rapidly in fact considering that Communism fell only 20 years ago. Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The American Church has some catching up to do, but we clearly have some good thinkers, Dr. Tristram Englehardt Jr. for example, who is regarded as one of the best thinkers on ethics in America today. (See: Life & Death After Christendom: The Moralization of Religion & the Culture of Death by Dr. Englehardt.) We also have some sharp students coming up the ranks, one I personally know who is working on his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Chicago under Dr. Leon Kass. All this takes time.
Fr. Hans writes: “Look, marginalizing the “Orthodox” is just a rhetorical ploy. Put another way, marginalize the Orthodox and you marginalize the Christian tradition, the language of which even secularists still employ while denying the moral thinking to which it refers.”
I don’t want to marginalize the Orthodox, but then Orthodox need to develop ethical principles that are consistent, known, and applicable to concrete situations. I don’t mean that Orthodox have to come up with a multi-volume handbook that covers every possible situation. I mean that any set of principles has to be sufficiently comprehensive so as to provide guidance in the great majority of situations that are likely to arise.
If people who reject ‘patient autonomy’ as individualistic, then there has to be something to replace that. If ‘brain death’ is rejected as a criterion for the death of the person, then we have to understand what the implications of that are. For example, if a brain dead individual could be kept alive for another year through ventilation, artificial nutrition, and other means, is that what is morally required? If the brain dead person then requires dialysis, do we administer that also? At what point — if ever — do we consider medical intervention to be ‘futile?’ Anyone who wants to implement significant changes to the way things are done now has to be able to talk about how the new principles will work. If you (not you personally, but the generic you) can’t do that, then you marginalize yourself.
Also, I think the Orthodox need to consider where it would be prudent to compromise, even on life and death issues. For example, something like a million people a year benefit from transplanted tissues. To reject organ and tissue harvesting — as two regular posters did today — is also to reject almost all organ transplants. Every year something like a million people receive transplanted tissue of some type. Over 20,000 solid organ transplants occur every year. Around half of those are for organs without which people would die. Kidney transplants don’t save life per se, but they allow people to live much longer than they would on dialysis. A huge majority of people in the U.S. support organ transplants. To reject transplants would be to alienate most of those people.
I’m not trying to marginalize the Orthodox point of view, but I am challenging people here to fill in some of the obvious blanks.
Fr. Hans: “I hope you are not implying that a consistent ethical “system” exists at present.”
I would say that it addresses the great majority of cases adequately. The Schiavo case caused a huge controversy, but we don’t see too many of those cases.
To Christopher and Michael — both of you reject organ harvesting. I’m in favor of it. But one of the features of patient autonomy is that YOUR wishes trump my belief every time. No matter how much power I might have, how much influence, how well I can make my case, YOUR wishes prevail. If a hundred million people disagree with you, YOUR wishes prevail, and your bodily integrity is assured. That’s not something to dispose of lightly.
Note 229 Jim writes:
Jim, you tend to take extreme examples to justify ideas that are themselves untested, and often extreme.
In the cases where decisions about life support has to be made, the patients wishes are already a considerable influence in the decisions made. You argue however, as if this is not true. Yet by “patient autonomy”, if you are true to how ‘patient autonomists’ use the term, ambiguity will be eliminated by deferring all decisions about life and death to the medical bureaucrats, which represents a very extreme departure from the way decisions are made today.
On organ harvesting, two things can be meant by the term. Does the Orthodox Church teach donation of one’s organs is morally allowed? Yes. On the rise of organ markets and the industrialization of organ harvesting however, while no statement has come out about this development yet, the mechanizing of medicine and the underlying view of the body as commodity is alarming.
Fr. Hans writes: “In the cases where decisions about life support has to be made, the patients wishes are already a considerable influence in the decisions made. You argue however, as if this is not true.”
Ok, so in other words, the Orthodox position DOES include the concept of patient autonomy, to some extent. It is not rejected out of hand. This is the kind of clarification that is quite helpful.
A little more on marginalization. You write “Put another way, marginalize the Orthodox and you marginalize the Christian tradition, the language of which even secularists still employ while denying the moral thinking to which it refers.”
But there’s another Christian approach to medical ethics that has not been discussed — the Catholic approach. In fact, the Catholic casuistic (case-based) approach to moral decision-making is actually the foundation of the process of how decisions are made in medical ethics — even among secular ethicists. (I believe you’ve read Toulmin’s The Abuse of Casuistry. I thnk I recommended that to you some years ago.) That doesn’t mean that the approach is itself religious, but that it comes from the religious tradition. Other Catholic moral principles (e.g., the Thomistic principle of “double effect”) are also part of the foundation of modern medical ethics. Remove the Catholic contribution to modern medical ethics, and there would be massive holes.
Frankly, were this a Catholic blog, the discussion here would have been very different. No one would be accusing the home team of having insufficiently developed ideas, or of being vague or insufficiently detailed. The Catholics have been at this for years, and there is an enormous body of material from literally hundreds of scholars. The Orthodox could do worse than to examine what the Catholics have been up to the last few decades.
As you say “All this takes time.” Indeed it does, not years, but decades. You know, as much as I enjoy rehashing the Schiavo case over and over — for future reference, it would be very interesting to see some articles posted that reference some of the serious academic work in medical ethics by Orthodox scholars.
Note 231. Jim writes:
“Patient autonomy” is a loaded term, because it refers to the movement to mechanize/bureaucratize decisions about life and death. The term takes the practice of respecting the wishes of the individual (which already is considered in the decisions about when to stop life support; a point I’ve made over and over again), and moves it toward a completely novel decision making apparatus.
The problem with the approach is that it pretends that these kinds of decisions are non-communal. It elevates individualism in order to shift decision making authority from the family to committee. In the analysis of patient autonomists, the messiness of end of life scenarios and the loss of efficiencies and other cost-benefit calculations in family based decision making, justifies delegating the decisions away from the family. (The committee replaces the family in this scenario; the communal dimension is shifted under the guise of autonomy.)
Morever, if the body is perceived as machine, if personhood is no more than bodily existence, or in philosophical terms, if the body is perceived as extrinsic to being (as Robert P. George discussed in “A Clash of Orthodoxies”), then why not terminate bodily existence when the body reaches a point of less than optimal functioning? The committee, of course, defines what is optimal. That’s how deaths like Terri Schiavo’s will be justified.
The Catholics unquestionably have the most compelling, perhaps even the most influential, thinking on ethical issues. It’s one of the reasons they were so savagely attacked when abortion advocates sought to devalue the unborn in the early days of their movement (”It’s a Catholic issue!”). Catholicism is also the source of the phrase “Culture of Death”, specifically Pope John-Paul II who vigorously denounced the devaluation of the person into machine and the cost-benefit calculus that informs it.
Fr Jacobse, in note 227 asks:
What part of it was unclear? I think the underlying question is whether it is more valuable to have discussion and debate on the issue or whether it is more valuable to have silence. At least one person has said fairly clearly that some voices should be silenced in favor of others.
I am interested in MANY perspectives. I am certainly interested in what YOU have to say on the issue. At this point I am more interested in reading than posting.
From: Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church
I noticed in my reading that Terri was informed ‘the feeding is going to cease.’ That she cried. I am thankful she had much comfort.
An unforgettable prayer in the Divine Liturgy Eastern rite — is: “For those who have no one to pray for them.”
As to ‘Where was Terri’s church?’
Some from the remnant:
http://www.catholicmediacoalition.org/bishops%20on%20terri.htm#Bishop%20Paul%20Loverde%20of%20Arlington,%20Virginia:
This next quote is fine — except…. I wonder why must the word vegetative should be used?
There has to be another word than a plant. Coma does not seem so bad. A Woman is a Woman. Terri is Terri. In her case minimally conscious with a strong heart and able to breathe fine. Able to feel a warm touch. Probably appreciate the turning of a colors in the window light. And how much mystery. She would moan.
We certainly hold a reverence for the material body that was joined to the spiritual element and which is proper. We hold funeral rites and respectfully place the body in the ground.
Why? If the body is not integral to what we are, why teat it differently than chicken bones we through out back. After all, you say “we don’t say that the body WAS the person”. {warning, this is a very loaded question :)}
However, we don’t say that the body WAS the person and so the person is no more.
To build on this, Christians (Traditional, classical Christianity) say the person IS the body, in that we are an integral mind-body-soul “thing”. To put it another way, the body is an attribute of personhood, not the reverse (i.e. personhood is an attribute of the body). Since the person is what is resurrected, then all the attributes of the person (e.g. the mind, the body, the soul, the heart - not the physical heart but the Christian heart) are also resurrected.
If the duration of one’s existence determines worth
Actually we are valuable not because we are eternal, but we are eternal because we are valuable. We are a “loved” creation of God. Love determines our worth, not the “fact” of our eternity.
Now, the difficulty is determining what makes someone obviously “alive” and what makes someone obviously “dead”. We know what this means in religious terms (the person is in Heaven), but that does us no good because we have no way of determining that, short of having some knowledge of the supernatural realm (and I’m not Miss Cleo).
Again, I believe the Tradition would say otherwise. It is here where you seem to make a dualistic, mind/soul and body break (not sure where you would put personhood in this), But I think I see what you are struggling with, when you say:
“Calcium ions leak into muscle cells, muscles stiffen but the cells can live on for several hours, skin cells remain alive for days, etc. Does this mean the person is “alive”? ”
Which is a purely physical/material determination. If you make only a physical determination, forgetting the other attributes of personhood (or worse, materialistically subsuming the attributes of personhood under the physical) then you end up believing Terri was “dead” - she had “PVS” after all - is she not dead? IF personhood is subsumed (i.e. if it is an attribute of the physical), then yes, she is “dead”. IF the material body is an attribute of the “person”, then no, she was not “dead”.
Why? Because she was visibly serving God and man (and herself) by her personhood - something more than body, more than mind, even more than soul and heart. She served her family, being a conduit for Hope and Love. She served herself by serving others (witnessing for the rest of us what it does and does not mean to be “alive”) and by simply being “alive”, thus the signs of her being “happy”. Happiness does not have to be “conscious” in the modern physiological way. She even served Michael by being a thorn in his side - which he eventually succumbed to - may God have mercy on him and the rest of us.
Being “alive” is more than being in a certain material state, defined by modern material concepts of brain waves, cell functionality, etc. We are more than the material, which is to say the material is an attribute (necessary but not sufficient) of what and who we are.
By the way, this dilemma parallels in some way the early efforts in the Church to understand who (and what) Christ is, and who and what the Holy Trinity is. Personhood stands over the attributes of “body”, and in God even Divine Attributes such as “essence”, “unity”, “Omniscience”, “Wisdom”, etc. This is why the “Infinite” can become a baby in a manger, because He is more than his attributes. His Personhood is more than his “Holiness”, “Infinity”, “eternity”, etc.
Note 233. Amazed writes:
The entire response was unclear.
You go to great lengths to discredit the critics of the Schiavo death, but when pressed on the moral assumptions informing your attacks, you turn mute.
Fr. Hans writes: “. . . but when pressed on the moral assumptions informing your attacks, you [Amazed] turn mute.”
Given the great theological differences between the Orthodox participants and others here, it is hard to know what moral assumptions would be seen as relevant. And many of the most relevant assumptions are not moral but medical.
One big issue is whether neurological criteria can be used as evidence that the person is dead and gone. The Orthodox church (and the Catholic church) apparently accept neurological criteria as definitive evidence in the case of brain death, but not in the case of PVS. That’s something I don’t understand.
In brain death, there is a flat EEG, typically some kind of brain injury, and no lower brain function to keep respiration going. In the Schiavo case, there was a flat EEG, massive loss of brain tissue, and enough lower brain function to maintain respiration and other autonomic functions.
For me, a flat EEG is evidence that the person is gone; I do not find the presence of some lower brain function to be significant. But that’s really the only neurological difference between the Schiavo case and brain death. It is not clear to me how, just because I reject the significance of lower brain function, that makes me a supporter of the “murder” of Terri Schiavo.
And it sounds like both Michael and Christopher disagree with the position of the Orthodox church on brain death and organ transplantation. So I guess that the Orthodox church is to some extent materialist, in their view. So apparently I’m in good company.
Christopher, does Orthodox doctrine not specify that the soul “departs” from the body at death? I don’t think there’s any indication that the soul lies bound to the body until the general resurrection (in some sort of state of “non-being”)? In other words, death is a real event that indicates a true break between the incorporeal soul and the body with which it was intertwined during life.
My point was that we cannot know in a religious sense when this occurs because we have no access to that realm. It could happen when the heart stops beating, it could happen an hour after that, or five hours or ten minutes before. Either way, we must recognize that, at some point, this split occurs, yes? A dead body is not responsible for “serving God” in any other capacity than as a dead body. Since we cannot know in a religious sense when it does occur, we must rely on medical science to give us an indication that death has occurred. What medical technology does is provide a relatively reliable list of physical “symptoms” of death, if you will. Is it flawless? Probably not. However, it’s better than nothing. Otherwise, how would you suggest we determine when one’s soul is no longer with us and it is then permissible to let the body run its natural course?
From this list, there is no need to infer that we must euthanize the elderly or the handicapped or the disabled, since we know that medical scientists agree that the “symptoms” of death are simply not there (although there may be a few who suggest doing so).
Now, if you wish to say that a flat EEG does not indicate death, that’s fine. However, by nature of that statement, you then must provide some alternative means of determining when the state of death can be discerned. What is that? Is one alive so long as there’s a pulse (using medical means or not)?
The Orthodox church (and the Catholic church) apparently accept neurological criteria as definitive evidence in the case of brain death, but not in the case of PVS. That’s something I don’t understand.
The “Orthodox Church” is not systematized, so priests and families end up making decisions to the best of their ability. Hopefully, the situation will change and the Church will gel more of a “system” of ethical guidelines in the future - and correct things like the OCA website - but for now, it is what we have.
For me, a flat EEG is evidence that the person is gone; I do not find the presence of some lower brain function to be significant. But that’s really the only neurological difference between the Schiavo case and brain death.
You already said that - she was dead in 1993 - you define “life” and “death” completely different from classical Christian and Western culture (indeed, from almost all philosophies/religions throughout the history of the world). Your a unrepentant modernist/materialist. We get it.
It is not clear to me how, just because I reject the significance of lower brain function, that makes me a supporter of the “murder” of Terri Schiavo.
Let me make this real simple. To you, life = higher brain function. To Christians, life = body/mind/soul/heart created by God. Completely different ground. Terri was still very much “alive” (not to you, to Christians). Therefore, the state executed her unjustly. What’s so hard to understand? You don’t have to accept it, but I bet you understand it.
And it sounds like both Michael and Christopher disagree with the position of the Orthodox church on brain death and organ transplantation. So I guess that the Orthodox church is to some extent materialist, in their view. So apparently I’m in good company.
Desperation is an ugly thing…
JamesK,
I don’t recall saying anything about brain death at all. I’m perfectly willing to accept the prouncement of death by trained professionals when all other outward signs are in agreement.
Organ transplantation is a problem because of the philosophy behind it. IMO, too many of our bishops have not educated themselves sufficiently on the issues. Some of them I’ve met personally tend to be a little naive’. I think we will see a revision of the “official position” as the effect of the transplantation mentality becomes more apparent.
The Orthodox Church has never been a part of organized religion.
Here is some food for thought: Life after Death by Fr. Thomas Hopko
One part in particularly from Fr. Hopko (paraphrase) it takes 40 days to die.
And this: The Boundary of Death
And: The Dignity of Man
JamesK,
When the angels come, death is quite near.
The traditional burial practice within the Church (illegal in many states without a waiver) is, after washing and preparing the body (no embalming) to stand vigil over it around the clock with prayer for three days. Then we pray the funeral service anoint and bury the body. Unfortunately, most here in the United States do not follow the complete practice.
You have no idea until you actually attend and enter into the spirit of an Orthodox funeral service what life is all about.
Michael and Christopher -
I’m having a hard time seeing how organ donation upon death is a problem. If so, would it not also be a problem with a living donor, e.g. kidney donation. Donating a kidney strikes me as a act of self-sacrifice for the benefit of another. If the integrity of the body is respected with the only exception being one act that allows another to live I can’t see how it offends Orthodox beliefs about the body.
Also, it’s not right to call organ donation “organ harvesting”, which generally refers to an entirely different set of circumstance.
Jim Holman -
I never followed the Schiavo case carefully and am not prepared to argue one side or the other. But there is one aspect of it that is very significant, and it seems to be what you base your view on. That is, the decision to let a scientific measurement (MRI, or EEG, or whatever) take precedence over common sensory perceptions of what life is.
The judgement that a certain pattern of electrical responses or electromagnetic responses is indicative of a defined mode of life is highly problematic. In the null case, where no brain waves corresonds to a corpse that everyone can see is dead, it is an easy correlation. But beyond that, who knows? How exactly does “some brain waves” correlate to a person who seems to respond to touch, soothing sounds, the presence of certain persons, etc. In such a case, it might be that the loved ones are being “fooled” by the responses. But it might be that they are not being fooled. Maybe the scientists are being fooled. They do not understand such conditions well enough to understand what the patient grasps or doesn’t grasp.
In such circumstances, it seems better to trust the commonly shared perceptions available to all people, rather than letting highly debatable scientific correlations trump all else.
Let me throw out an example from left field to try to illustrate what I am saying. Let’s say that a scientist announces that he knows what “love” is, and has even developed a test involving MRIs and the presence of certain chemical compounds to indicate when someone is loving another. His theory receives unanimous support from all other scientists involved in neuro-chemical research.
You are convinced that your wife loves you, based on her daily attention to your needs, self-sacrifice, loving gestures, etc. Then, she is requred to take the universally recognized “love test”. And, the results come back negative.
Which do you believe? The scientific results? Or your common, sensory, real-life experiences?
Christopher writes: “You already said that - she was dead in 1993 - you define “life” and “death” completely different from classical Christian and Western culture (indeed, from almost all philosophies/religions throughout the history of the world).”
Yeah, me and the Orthodox church and the Catholic church. The diagnosis of brain death is fairly recent. The determination that brain death constitutes the death of the person is even more recent. Any person or organization that accepts neurological data as a criterion for when death occurs is definetly outside of the Western tradition on that issue. Your point being . . . .?
Christopher: “Let me make this real simple. To you, life = higher brain function. To Christians, life = body/mind/soul/heart created by God. Completely different ground. Terri was still very much “alive” (not to you, to Christians). Therefore, the state executed her unjustly.”
Let me make this real simple:
Flat EEG:
Brain dead person - yes
Terri Schiavo - yes
Lower brain/autonomic functions:
Brain dead person - no
Terri Schiavo - yes
Functioning body:
Brain dead person - yes
Terri Schiavo - yes
Created by God:
Brain dead person - yes
Terri Schiavo - yes
Unity of soul/mind/heart/body:
Brain dead person - yes
Terri Schiavo - yes
Artificial means of extending life:
Brain dead person - ventilator, artificial nutrition
Terri Schiavo - artificial nutrition
With respect to discontinuing life support, please tell me why that can be done with a brain-dead person, but not with Terri Schivo? Or, if it is forbidden to disconnect Terri Schiavo from life support, why isn’t it forbidden to do so in the case of brain death?
Fr Jacobse writes:
My “attacks” weren’t originating from any difference in moral perspective.
YOU assume that any dispute or challenge (what you call an “attack”) arises because the parties involved in the discussion/debate have differing moral perspectives.
Do you assume that there is some kind of contract that exists that requires people that share one opinion or one position on a subject to remain silent if misinformation, misrepresentations or outright lies are used in support of that opinion during discussions and debates?
If I agreed 100% with your moral position it would have no effect on my reaction to lies, misinformation or misrepresentations.
A lie is a lie and it doesn’t matter what motivates the liar or who is repeating the lie or what motivates the continued repeating of the lie.
If I agreed and remained silent as you made 100 truthful, factual and accurate statements it would not stand to reason that I am obligated to remain silent when statement 101 is a blatent falsehood.
But I keep forgetting that TRUTH is the gnat on the elephants back. Or perhaps the bull in the china shop of certain strongly held personal beleifs.
Or perhaps it is just impossible to support and defend certain opinions or positions without relying on lies, misrepresentations, misquotes and a faulty understanding of medicine and science.
How am I supposed to know why someone would INSIST on being allowed, unchallenged, to repeat and use lies in their arguments, discuss
Tom C:
RE Organ donation. I’m a radical on it. No question. I’m somewhat of a Luddite
Live organ donation is a different category IMO. In the right circumstances it is, as you say, an act of sacrifice. Trouble for me is the whole philosophy within the medical community regarding organs and their use. The bio-mechancial machine idea in which organs are just inter-changeable parts and there is no respect for the body at all makes organ donation on death quite problematic for me. Add to that the whole idea that life must be extended and I’ll swap body parts to do it does violate the Orthodox understanding of the integrity of the body. The outcomes are seldom discussed (my understanding is that life is minimally extended).
I have no desire to impose my choice upon anyone else but I refuse to participate. No one would want my organs anyway because an idiot doctor who couldn’t keep his needles clean gave me hepatitis when I was a child (before disposables).
Actually my postion has little to do with Orthodoxy, but with a profound distrust of the medical community. As a group the philosophy stinks. I’ve seen too many of my friends and relatives slowly hacked to death by surgeons, been lied to over and over again and just plain ignored. The arrogance is high, the training dehumanizes, the structure is not geared to good patient care, but to maximize efficiency and promote control over the patients in the name of “autonomy”. The good folks within the system who are capable of delivering good care face all kinds of obstacles that prevent them from doing so in many cases.
The movie Hospital had it about right IMO.
Note 246. Amazed writes:
Not really. I think you should come clean about whether or not you think Terri Schaivo’s death is morally justifiable.
Amazed, you assert–
The Church teaches:
The “truth” of empirical facts are always dependent solely on the premises of the philosophy utilizing them, how they are selected, etc. In other words, the bias of the person using them.
I dare say that those here who defend Terri Schiavo have a much clearer understanding of medicine and science than you do of traditional Christianity. I grew up in a medical household, was pre-med in college for two years, my job involves evaluating the risk inherent in medical conditions, I have a keen interest in medical science and the philosphies expressed in the medical community–reading about them as often as I can. What are your credentials for evaluating or even questionning the claims of traditional Christianity except malice and contempt?
In any case as has been repeatedly said, what you claim as the “factual core” from a “medical and scientific” point of view is not the point. If you have not gotten that by now. You won’t
You demand that Fr. Hans, myself and others educate ourselves on what is important and crucial to you while at the same time showing no interest in the foundation of our argument. So, if you really want to advance discussion, you need to learn about Orthodox Christianity. My father, an M.D., always used to say that the way to win an argument is to know more about what the other person believes than they do. He didn’t loose many.
Since I find it pretty easy to predict the course of your agruments simply from my knowledge of the philosophical worldview you express and you have zero ability when it comes to understanding the Orthodox Church, the ball is in your court. If you were not so aggressively ignorant, I’m sure we could have some good discussions.
I’m also perfectly willing to allow you to retain your worldview, that is your choice. You do not seem to be willing to extend the same “freedom of choice” to those whom you oppose however.
Michael writes: “The “truth” of empirical facts are always dependent solely on the premises of the philosophy utilizing them, how they are selected, etc. In other words, the bias of the person using them.”
Perhaps what you mean to say is that the selective use of facts can paint a different portrait of reality than what may actually exist? This seems obvious. One simply has to spend an hour watching FOX News.
However, I don’t think you mean to say that “reality is relative”, however, or that truth is relative, right? If one is going to argue the validity of even the simplest of mathematical equations (”2 + 2 only seems to equal 4″), then I think it’s safe to say that the next “fact” one is going to assert might just be that they are really Napoleon. After all, if my “philosophy” says I am, then I am, and who are you to quibble with that?
Can you clarify, because this issue of the validity of facts has been raised before.
JamesK,
I don’t know of any Orthodox sources off the top of my head that directly address the question:
“does Orthodox doctrine not specify that the soul “departs” from the body at death? I don’t think there’s any indication that the soul lies bound to the body until the general resurrection (in some sort of state of “non-being”)? In other words, death is a real event that indicates a true break between the incorporeal soul and the body with which it was intertwined during life.”
Behind your question (I think) is a strong body/soul dualism, or so it seems to me. In other words, I my understanding is that you can not really have a soul without a body, thus we look for the “resurrection” of the dead, the bodily resurrection. What does it mean to (in the Christian sense) speak of a “incorporeal” soul? Perhaps Fr. Jacobse or Michael can way in with a source or two.
Seems to me you are looking for a material indication (e.g. lack of brain wave) to clearly and unambiguously indicate a spiritual condition (i.e. being “alive” or “dead”).
As far as the “soul after death”, I had it explained to me once by a priest this way. Upon my death, I will close my eyes, just a blink, and when I they open again a fraction of a second later, I will open them and I will be at the Dread Judgment Seat of Christ. What happened to my “soul”, to my “body”, to time, to everything between? I am not sure this is technically correct, but it does have a way of forcing the mind to deal with the paradox of life, death, time, infinity, God and man.
I have never read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Soul-After-Death-Contemporary-After-Death/dp/093863514X
But Fr. Seraphim had an encyclopedic knowledge of the Fathers, and an uncanny ability to explain/interpret them against “contemporary” issues. I think I will order this book and see if I can’t find a more direct answer to your question.
Also, check out the Link Michael posts above:
http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/afterdeath.htm
It looks like it will have an answer, though I don’t have time to read it at the moment…
Note 244:
Good point Tom. To what you are calling “Or your common, sensory, real-life experiences?” one has to include the idea of “knowing of the heart”, or what one might call “intuition”.
The problem is that the typical modern/materialist has trained himself to believe that all such knowledge is “wish fulfillment” and projection. In other words, he has a decidedly Freudian bias in his thinking. Jim, Amazed, have repeatedly pointed out that the Shcindlers perceptions in this area have no validity, are motivated by ill purposes, etc. They do not trust themselves, so how should they trust anyone else?
Christianly, we “know in our heart” certain things, as God Himself has “written on our heart” certain things. All the “sense data” in the world is not going to trump this.
When a Christian saw Terri, and saw her family with her, a Christian “knew in his heart” that she was “alive”. To the materialist, it was only low level “functioning of the brain stem”. This of course comes from his philosophy of the world, with which he filters all his sense data. Anyone who would filter out “Terri”, and leave a “brain stem”, is in an important sense himself dead. “Let the dead bury the dead” Christ says. Let Michael, the death eater (dead to God, his wife, the world) bury the dead indeed…
Perhaps what you mean to say is that the selective use of facts can paint a different portrait of reality than what may actually exist?
I will answer for myself. NO, he did not mean that.
“And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”
Perfect knowledge, total knowledge, leads exactly to….”nothing”
“However, I don’t think you mean to say that “reality is relative”, however, or that truth is relative, right? If one is going to argue the validity of even the simplest of mathematical equations (”2 + 2 only seems to equal 4″), ”
Reality itself is not relative, no. I take Michaels point to be that in that when it comes to empirical data, the meaning one takes from any set of facts reveals more about your philosophy than it does the “facts.
The meaning of PVS for example, what is it? To some here, it is death itself. To others here, it is a disability, a tragedy, a Trial (Father, save me from the Time of Trial!), but it is not “death”. Which is it to you?
In a sense, one has to admire Jim, Amazed, JamesK, who have (though I think only Jim has said so explicitly) decided that Terri was dead. They reflexively reel back from the picture of “keeping a body alive” like some Frankenstein. This is a fear of death, yes, but it also is a instinctive moral judgment on those who would deny death, as they see Michael, Fr. Jacobse, and myself arguing for (i.e. we don’t recognize Terri was dead).
Perhaps I have not given them enough credit before, because from whence does this revulsion come?
Note 244. Tom C. writes:
There is another dimension to this question as well. PVS is also the category that euthanasia advocates want to codify in law as the first step of their ideology. That’s why you hear the continual argument that Terri Schiavo was already dead. I liked Pat Buchanan’s retort however, “If she was already dead, why didn’t you bury her then?”
Whether or not Terri Schaivo was really PVS is an open question. Jim civilly disagrees while Amazed gets a bit heated by the challenge, but there are just too many witnesses stating she was severely disabled, but certainly not “brain dead”. (I won’t argue whether or not these witnesses are part of a grand conspiracy or public relations offensive.) It’s going to take a good deal of time and some qualified people to get to the bottom of all this.
But even if she were brain dead, why the eagerness to pull the tubes? Why such a passioned defense over the death of someone? I can understand why people fought for her life, by why fight for her death –unless of course one was fighting for a principle or ideology, which I believe was the case. The passion makes no sense otherwise.
Facts don’t make for truth in and of themselves.
2+2 = 4 is a fact in our universe as a numerical fact. In and of itself it doesn’t mean a whole lot. Only when you (unconsciously really) put it in the context of the whole of mathematics does it begin to take on meaning, substance and become a standard of veracity.
2+2 = interesting living arrangement?
Empiricism as a tool works pretty well when dealing with inanimate (to us) matter. Trying to use empirical philosophy to address questions of being is worse that useless.
The kind of thing you call truth is relative to God, the Person of Jesus Christ (He is the Truth). Everyone’s concept of truth changes when the standard for measuring changes. You and the others have, from an Orthodox understanding, an abysmally low standard. You refuse to even consider the idea that a higher standard, even if you don’t believe it actually exists, yields far different results than yours.
For some people what I am trying to communicate is real easy to understand, for others it seems to be impossible. Where is your faith, i.e., in what or in whom do you place your faith?
Note on references: Although I, in someways, consider Fr. Seraphim Rose as my God Father and have an immense respect for him (it would not surprise me to see him cannonized eventually), he is not a writer in whom it is easy to see and comprehend the essence of the Orthodox faith. He is quite controversial in some circles. If JamesK is looking for a system that he can plug into, he will not find it in Fr. Seraphim. Like his name sake, St. Seraphim of Sarov, for Fr. Seraphim the aim of the Christian life is the acquistion of the Holy Spirit. That and that alone allows one to take on the mind of the Fathers, live a genuine Christian life and perceive the truth in and about the world in which we live.
I would not recommend anyone starting an examination of the Orthodox attitude and belief about death and life afterwards with his Soul After Death.
That being said, Fr. Seraphim touched the lives of a whole generation of converts to the Orthodox Church, thousands upon thousands of people in Russia and in the United States have either come to the Church or returned to the Church with deepened understanding and fervor because of Fr. Seraphim. When I read him, I am frequently driven to prayer because of the obvious passion he has for Jesus Christ and the Church and how impoverished I am. He is an uncompromising critic of the modern mind and the “civilization” which has sprung from it. If some think Christopher has been less than Christian in his approach to belief that is not of God, you will find even stronger medicine in what Fr. Seraphim writes. He is better at tearing down than he is building up. He challenges easy belief at almost every turn.
Two books of his I unhesitatingly recommend however were written at opposite ends of his Orthodox life. Nihilism, written before he became Orthodox and Genesis, Creation, and Early Man was edited and compiled posthumously. I do not accept everything in either of them, but they both point to a way of thinking and living that is not of this world.
I would not recommend anyone starting an examination of the Orthodox attitude and belief about death and life afterwards with his Soul After Death.
Sounds like some of his conclusions raised questions in others minds perhaps? I have not yet read the book Michael, just ordered today in fact. Can you point me to a thoughtful critique?
He is better at tearing down than he is building up. He challenges easy belief at almost every turn.
I don’t think of “Genesis, Creation, and Early Man” in this vien. I appriciate how he could deal with philosophical naturalism on it’s own terms. Though he is rather direct with certain western saints, Thomas Aquinas for example.
Fr. Hans asks: “[E]ven if she were brain dead, why the eagerness to pull the tubes? Why such a passioned defense over the death of someone?”
First of all, with the exception of a few token individuals, no one knew Terri Schiavo personally, which is why I too have a difficult time understanding the degree of fervor this case has generated, especially given the fact that these same people probably react less strongly when similar situations involve people they do know.
Many of the people who have taken one side or the other in the media probably view the person Terri as part of a larger issue that they do feel passionately about, whether it’s “patient autonomy” or what they believe is a compassionate view of end-of-life issues or a general “life” issue. Some may even believe it possible that Terri may have been suffering in some unspeakable manner but unable to communicate that for over 15 years due to her state. To them, they view the unpleasant business of allowing someone to starve a lesser evil than the unknown horrors that accompany a hellish existence (or a limbo-like one) of being unable to respond or communicate in any way (assuming she had some form of awareness, which medical tests seem to indicate she could not have had). For others, Terri is a victim (perhaps even a martyr) of a general widespread decline in our culture involving a reverence for life.
I suppose that some may coldly believe that death is better than life no matter what the circumstances (or unless circumstances are “optimal”). I don’t think this was the general attitude of the entire range of judges and physicians who dealt with this case, however. They were individuals who it seems were doing their best to determine whether Terri was truly in a state that would ethically mandate she be kept artificially alive. “PVS” and “brain death” are, after all, medical terms used to describe physical conditions, and there are numerous overlapping similarities. If she was not dead, she was about as close to it as I can imagine anyone can be. As far as I know, her soul could have moved on when her EEG went flat. Thus, I think we have a responsibility to not cast a large number of individuals in such a negative light as if they were advocating the euthanizing of children with Down’s Syndrome or the elderly (yes, I know there are individuals who advocate this … I am not one of them by any stretch).
I have the feeling that much of the tone of Genesis, Creation and Early Man is supplied by Fr. Damascene who compiled and edited the book from Fr. Seraphim’s lecture notes and recordings.
Unfortunately, there is not a balanced critique of Soul After Death out there to my knowledge. Fr. Lazar Pulhalo has a book with a similar title which is not so much a critique as a frontal attack. I think it goes way too far. He obviously does not like Fr. Seraphim or his writings at all. Fr. Seraphim was not good at being diplomatic or making friends.
There are several flavors of thought within the Orthodox Tradtion. The Slavic approach, shared by Fr. Seraphim and St. John Maximovitch, focuses on podvig or struggle. Deep, continual repentance and acknowledgement of our sinful, fallen state is central to their approach–stringent ascesis. The outcome is being able to share the resurrected life and joy with our Savior.
The Greeks tend to put more emphasis on the Resurrected life through repentance. “What’s with this podvig, we celebrate the Resurrection!” (ascesis within the celebration of the Resurrection). Both are right but it is easy to pick one over the other. Actually I think the Syrian tradition has a balance of both.
Let me stress again, all three ‘flavors’ are emphatically Orthodox and the contentions that arise from time to time are just a rowdy family having fun.
First of all, with the exception of a few token individuals, no one knew Terri Schiavo personally, which is why I too have a difficult time understanding the degree of fervor this case has generated, especially given the fact that these same people probably react less strongly when similar situations involve people they do know.
I think you are wrong about that. The “fervor” is the “cultural war”, which is a real battle, not a small disagreement among about trivial matters. I think you said something similar upstream. It strikes me as a certain “I’m above such rancorous politics/issues”. Tell us how you are above it all…
“If she was not dead, she was about as close to it as I can imagine anyone can be. As far as I know, her soul could have moved on when her EEG went flat. Thus, I think we have a responsibility to not cast a large number of individuals in such a negative light as if they were advocating the euthanizing of children with Down’s Syndrome or the elderly”
AH, that’s how you are “above it all”. Those who recognize Terri as “alive” are wrong, and you are right (as in “as far as I know, her soul could have moved on”).
I think Fr. Jacobse has it right - why not let her serve God and her family by being alive? Oh yea, she could be, as you put it “suffering in some unspeakable manner but unable to communicate that for over 15 years”
This IS the modern man’s ultimate fear, pain. Even worse than pain to modern man, is being unable to “control your environment, your body, not being able to communicate.”
You don’t understand the evil here JamesK because you, unconsciously perhaps, assume all the modern fears and ideas of man. This post reveals how much of modern anthropology you taken as your own. You may claim to be Christian, but your willingness to go along with this evil (and to question those who call it what it is -an evil) shows the “could” and “possible” of modern man’s worse fears and myths have darken your mind.
So in a way, you have answered my ealier question:
“What does PVS mean to you”
It is a large and horrible enemy, worse than death,, how did you put it “Terri may have been suffering in some unspeakable manner but unable to communicate that for over 15 years due to her state.”
give you or in this case, Terri death first..even if it is by starvation and dehydration.
The battle cry of a modern myth, not Christianity…
p.s.
The tradition you claim to be a part of calls you to gird up your loins, and be a man. You can put away your childish fears (monsters under the bed, or now your adult aversion to imagined pain and suffering), take up your cross, and follow Him…St. Paul once thought as a child, but then a man…what’s holding you back?
Unfortunately, there is not a balanced critique of Soul After Death out there to my knowledge. Fr. Lazar Pulhalo has a book with a similar title which is not so much a critique as a frontal attack. I think it goes way too far. He obviously does not like Fr. Seraphim or his writings at all. Fr. Seraphim was not good at being diplomatic or making friends.
Interesting. Perhaps that’s one reason I appreciate him - he is more of your “straight talk” sort of person. I have little patience (painfully obvious I know) for the “diplomatic”. Perhaps between my family and my work, I use it all up. Perhaps I don’t find God much of a diplomat
I might have to get this book. I noticed another book by the “Synaxis Press” describes “the late neo-Gnostic philosopher, Fr. Seraphim Rose.” LOL! This press seems related to the OCA. I wonder just when the OCA went off the deep end…
JamesK
You said earlier:
One simply has to spend an hour watching FOX News.
I was reminded of this after driving home from work tonight listening to “National Pagan Radio” (or is it “National Liberal Democratic Radio”?). I felt like I had been hit on top of the head with a 150lb liberal sledge hammer. I had to turn on FOX News when I got home just to get my balance back…:)
Christopher asks: “why not let her serve God and her family by being alive?”
How do you know it wasn’t God’s will for her to die when she had her initial attack? Is it because she remained alive (thanks to modern technology invented by the very medical professionals you have such disdain for), or did you speak to Him personally about it?
Tom C writes: “But there is one aspect of it that is very significant, and it seems to be what you base your view on. That is, the decision to let a scientific measurement (MRI, or EEG, or whatever) take precedence over common sensory perceptions of what life is.”
To some extent modern technology forces that on us, because we have the ability to sustain bodily function much longer than in the past. E.g., does it make sense to intubate and ventilate someone who is brain dead? And if the person then needs dialysis, do we then do that?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the issue is whether or not neurological tests and data can be used in determining whether the person is legally dead. As far as I know, in the case of Catholic medical ethics, it’s a settled question, and the answer is “yes.” It appears to be a settled question in the Orthodox church — though not among all Orthodox believers, as the discussion here has demonstrated.
Tom: “The judgement that a certain pattern of electrical responses or electromagnetic responses is indicative of a defined mode of life is highly problematic.”
Problematic how? From the point of view of diagnosis? Or conceptually? I mean, people who are correctly diagnosed as brain dead don’t come back. So losing electrical activity in the brain is not like stubbing a toe.
Tom: “In the null case, where no brain waves corresponds to a corpse that everyone can see is dead, it is an easy correlation. But beyond that, who knows? How exactly does “some brain waves” correlate to a person who seems to respond to touch, soothing sounds, the presence of certain persons, etc.”
In Terri Schiavo’s case, the EEG was flat. But it’s not just the flat EEG. CT scans showed that the cerebral cortex was destroyed. Various other neurological exams were performed reflex, pain, visual tracking, etc. If in fact the person “seems to respond,” this will certainly be observed upon examination.
Tom: “In such a case, it might be that the loved ones are being “fooled” by the responses. But it might be that they are not being fooled. Maybe the scientists are being fooled. They do not understand such conditions well enough to understand what the patient grasps or doesn’t grasp.”
Yes, absolutely. That demonstrates the need for repeated exams over time, and for a length of time. In the Schiavo case, the problem is that the responses were neither consistent nor repeatable. Terri would exhibit the same movements whether or not anyone was in the room. There was no evidence that the movements were intentional. Let’s say that every once in a while Terri turns her head to the right, whether or not others are present. When people come into the room, someone standing to her right says something. Terri turns her head. It’s going to appear to be an intentional movement. But then the person says something again. Nothing happens. They try speaking on the left. Nothing. The right again. Nothing. This is what the unedited videotape showed.
Family believed that Terri could track objects with her eyes. Again, these movements were not repeatable. In addition, from the autopsy we know to a medical certainty that she was cortically blind — that the part of the brain that processes vision had been destroyed, completely gone, and replaced by cerebrospinal fluid. One of the tragedies of the PVS state is that the patient appears to respond, but in fact there is no response.
Even when dealing with an obviously conscious person, individual perceptions can be very misleading. A prime example of this is the sensation of the “phantom limb” of someone whose limb has been amputated. I’ll probably be accused of being a materialist, but just because an amputee senses the presence of a limb that has been amputated, I wouldn’t conclude that the person’s physical limb has been replaced by a “spiritual” limb, only discernible by Orthodox theology.
Tom: “In such circumstances, it seems better to trust the commonly shared perceptions available to all people, rather than letting highly debatable scientific correlations trump all else.”
In general, they are not highly-debated. And it works both ways. Family members might conclude that a ventilated unconscious patient was brain dead. But neurological tests could show that in fact the patient was comatose or in a “locked in” state, not at all brain dead. There are numerous examples of such patients improving, up to and including full recovery.
Tom: “Let me throw out an example from left field to try to illustrate what I am saying.”
Actually, I thought it was kind of a cool example, so I’m going to quote the whole thing.
Tom’s example: “Let’s say that a scientist announces that he knows what “love” is, and has even developed a test involving MRIs and the presence of certain chemical compounds to indicate when someone is loving another. His theory receives unanimous support from all other scientists involved in neuro-chemical research. You are convinced that your wife loves you, based on her daily attention to your needs, self-sacrifice, loving gestures, etc. Then, she is required to take the universally recognized “love test”. And, the results come back negative. Which do you believe? The scientific results? Or your common, sensory, real-life experiences?”
Of course I would believe my own experience. I would assume that future research would prove the scientists wrong. In the meantime, the scientists would consider me deluded.
But there are some problems with the example, at least as far as the
Schiavo case goes. The Schiavo case certainly presented at least the question of whether she was in a PVS. Frankly, had Terri Schiavo gone to the nurses’ station and played chess every day, there would have been no question that she wasn’t in a PVS. Any neurologist who claimed that she was would have been thought insane. But that wasn’t the case.
The diagnosis of PVS involves a number of different kinds of tests and considerations, all of which have to converge to the same conclusion. I’m not a neurologist, but just from my reading of the case material, and reading about the PVS diagnosis —
First, Terri Schiavo had an anoxic brain injury. Therapy was tried for three years, (two of those years after the PVS diagnosis) but unfortunately to no effect. The CT scan showed great loss of brain tissue, the destruction of the cerebral cortex. Neurological tests involving pain, reflexes, responsiveness, etc., were performed, but all those were consistent with the diagnosis. The EEG was flat. Finally, over a period of years there was no change in condition, no improvement. The autopsy results provided no surprises. In addition, these results were compared with the results of other similar cases.
So there were tests and considerations that were physical, radiological, electrical, behavioral, statistical, and temporal. All of these converged to the same conclusion. It wasn’t just a couple of abstract lab values.
So I have a problem with the idea that the family’s beliefs trump all of that — that the science turns out to be utterly irrelevant. In this venue, it appears that the theological beliefs of the Orthodox trump everything.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: why even bother doing neurological evaluations in such cases? Brain dead? PVS? Locked-in? Comatose? Flat EEG? No brain? Who cares? Orthodox theology renders scientific diagnosis irrelevant. Or the family’s belief renders scientific diagnosis irrelevant. No matter the condition of the patient, we’ll just hook them all up to every possible technology and keep them all going for as long as possible. To do otherwise would be to succumb to “modernist” thinking. And I think nothing less will satisfy the demands of Orthodox theology.
Being ROCOR, Fr. Seraphim had a lot of run-ins with the OCA including Fr. Alexander Schmemann. Before Fr. Seraphim died, he met with Fr. Alexander and they reconciled personally (Fr. Alexander is supposed to have remarked something to the effect that they’ll put us on the same icon togehter), but there seem to be a lingering bitterness with some in the OCA.
Fr. Seraphim had his shortcomings in a lot of areas, but the fruit of his work and life suggests to me that calling him a gnostic is not true. Obviously, we need to exercise caution and discernment in anything we read no matter who the author. It would not surprise me if Fr. Seraphim expressed ideas that could be considered gnostic. Gnosticism, like Epicurianism, hasn’t gone away and to a certain degree effects all of us.
But as I’ve tried recently to explain here, we Orthodox are a rowdy bunch. We are rowdy because there is acutal belief in the Church confirmed by personal experience. This stuff is important, not just a matter for intellectual discourse or ideological ramblings. Salvation is involved.
For over 2000 years we have maintained our rowdiness AND our unity. Western Chrisitianity has one or the other. Rome has unity by supressing rowdiness (as much as possible) while the Protestants protest and splinter every chance they get. That just might provide some evidence that the Church is who we say we are, the Church.
So sooner or later all the little stuff we worry about now (like jurisdictions) will be taken care of. That doesn’t mean we should be complacent, but it does mean we can act in faith and not despair.
How do you know it wasn’t God’s will for her to die when she had her initial attack? Is it because she remained alive (thanks to modern technology invented by the very medical professionals you have such disdain for), or did you speak to Him personally about it?
LOL! JamesK, have you read a basic catechism or been to a traditional Christian Church? When you pose this sort of thinking I really have to doubt your confessions to the contrary.
How do you know it wasn’t God’s will for her to die when she had her initial attack?
Because she did not die.
Alexandre Kalomiros and Origins. Not Good.
Note 258:
He is better at tearing down than he is building up. He challenges easy belief at almost every turn.
Christopher writes:
“I don’t think of “Genesis, Creation, and Early Man” in this vien. I appriciate how he could deal with philosophical naturalism on it’s own terms. Though he is rather direct with certain western saints, Thomas Aquinas for example.”
I had never thought of Seraphim Rose as tearing down. I’ve always read him as gently firm and honest. I don’t know we would have become Orthodox if not for his little book, The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church
In Genesis, Creation….. the editor writes, “In the altar of his monastery, Fr Seraphim was once found weeping before the Holy Table. When his monastic co-struggler asked him what was wrong, Fr. Seraphim replied, “The Truth is diminishing.”
But Christopher you mention ‘direct with certain western saints.’ Do you realize against whom he wrote his 40 page treatise which pulled him into studying Patristic thought on Genesis?
Thus exists this 700+ page volume. Owing to his dispute with Alexandre Kalomiros. Once again, Rose’s book on Genesis represent to us a voice of reason in the midst of chaos.
Eugene Rose asked Alexandre Kalomiros to send him his beliefs re: origins in English. He thought….maybe i’m misunderstanding him, hearing his beliefs 2nd-hand. Indeed Kalomiros send him a detailed paper.
Seraphim Rose:
Fr Seraphim tried persuasion, and apparently to no avail.
Rose writing to Kalomiros: “The evololutionary philosophy of “up from the beasts” certainly seems irreconcilable with the Christian view of “fall from Paradise,” and our whole view of history will certainly be determined by which way we believe!”
Nancy L.
Yes, “The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church” is an important work, which reminds us that despite Augustine’s errors (most importantly his neo-Platonic vision of the Holy Trinity) Augustine is a Saint. I agree with you, Fr. Seraphim does not seem to have been one to “deconstruct” or “tear down”, rather he was truthful and honest with what are problematic area’s in the history of western Christianity.
When I said “direct with western saints”, in particular I was thinking of somewhere in the middle of “Genesis, Creation….. ” he outlines in detail how Thomas Aquinas seems to have misinterpreted the fall and it’s consequences for the human body.
Christian Evolutionism is an oxymoron, and Fr. Seraphim rightly took this error head on…
#265 Jim Holman
Thank you for the well-thought-out response.
As I mentioned, I never followed the details of this issue so don’t have a firm opinion. It seems to me, though, that there is a gulf between the common perceptions of those who saw her on a daily basis and the medical opinions accepted by the court. Indeed, when I read your list of medical observations I envisioned a body laying flat and never moving, or maybe randomly twitching at best. I find it implausible that the caregivers - who have vastly more experience with this sort of thing than anyone else, including the doctors - could have been so mistaken.
I think the saying is that “hard cases make bad law” (Missourian will correct me if that is wrong). I think something similar applies here. This case is a bad one to use as a basis for discussions on end of life ethics since there is such disagreement about the facts.
P.S. In a post above I mentioned that it was not right to call organ donation “organ harvesting” since the latter suggested nefarious activites that are usually absent in the former. I have to call you out for a similar exaggeration for saying “we’ll just hook them all up to every possible technology and keep them all going for as long as possible.” when that is clearly different than someone receiving nutrition from a feeding tube.
So I have a problem with the idea that the family’s beliefs trump all of that — that the science turns out to be utterly irrelevant. In this venue, it appears that the theological beliefs of the Orthodox trump everything.
EXACTLY. You have a problem with that because you are a materialist. As a materialist, material considerations (i.e. brain waves, this or that diagnosis or autopsy, etc.) trump everything, which means you base the personhood of Terri on it, you base the family and their reactions on it, you base even the metaphysical (what it means to be man and “alive”) and morality of Terri’s life on it.
In this venue, theological belief trump everything, your starting to get it!! From correct theology, comes correct morality, anthropology, even correct materialism - what the “dust” is, how it is part of us, and how we are to relate to the fact of our “dust” morally, spiritually, etc.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: why even bother doing neurological evaluations in such cases? Brain dead? PVS? Locked-in? Comatose? Flat EEG? No brain? Who cares? Orthodox theology renders scientific diagnosis irrelevant. Or the family’s belief renders scientific diagnosis irrelevant. No matter the condition of the patient, we’ll just hook them all up to every possible technology and keep them all going for as long as possible. To do otherwise would be to succumb to “modernist” thinking. And I think nothing less will satisfy the demands of Orthodox theology.
This hysterical reaction on your part is very predictable, in that you fear pain and “lack of control” above all else (what more is there to morality in the materialist world?). However, why do you fear a Frankenstein, a body kept alive so much?
Let’s assume you are correct, and the person “Terri” died in 1993, the brain does = person, and the family was deluding themselves in recognizing Terri as alive. Why then is it such a revulsion to you to have kept this empty shell, this body, alive indefinably? If it provided some level of “artificial” comfort to her family, why not do it? Terri after all died in 1993, so “she” is no longer there. What’s the basis of your objection?
Fr. Seraphim tears down the worldly mind (at least for me). He is uncompromising. As I implied, I might not be Orthodox were it not for him.
I find is diagnosis of the problem quite accurate. I do not always find the specifics of his solutions as accurate or satisfactory. His general answer though, Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit in the Church, is the only one that really counts.
That is what I meant by he tears down better than he builds up. It seems that folks get what they need from his works. Perhaps and indication of his sanctity?
Christopher writes: “This IS the modern man’s ultimate fear, pain. Even worse than pain to modern man, is being unable to ‘control your environment, your body, not being able to communicate.’”
So Terri’s pain is irrelevant in this matter to you is it? So if you could not care less whether or not she may have been in a form of hell for 15 years, I doubt all this fuss you’re making is over the possibility of any discomfort she may have suffered while starving to death for 15 days.
So what is all this about, then, Christopher? You don’t seem to have a lot of empathy for anyone, as your posts imply. It is you, not I, who stated you would rather see 100 people die than … what was it … part with a fingernail? All for your “ideology”.
Again, why do you care, then? Is it over some offense you imagine is being committed against God? I can assure you, any God who needs you to defend Him is not much of a Being.
So Terri’s pain is irrelevant in this matter to you is it?
LOL! Your quite the hoot sometimes. Remember, the idea of a “mercy killing” has a long history in Christian/western culture
But back to this case, I did not know she was in pain. According to the materialist, brain=person philosophy, enough of her brain died in 1993 that “Terri” was already gone, already dead. How can a person who is gone/dead be in pain? Is not the brain the organ which translates/produces pain from other bodily actions?
So which is it, was she dead, or was she in pain? If she was in pain, how could she be dead?
Also, why would you weigh the possibility she was in pain (remember, this is a thought experiment that takes place in your mind within the context of your materialist mythical worldview) to such a high place that you would decide death by starvation/dehydration is the right thing to do. Do you KNOW she was in pain, or hell of “incommunication” or “lack of bodily control”?
I ask you again JamesK, “what does PVS mean to you”?
Tom C writes: “I find it implausible that the caregivers - who have vastly more experience with this sort of thing than anyone else, including the doctors - could have been so mistaken.”
This is the problem with PVS, and it is truly tragic. It is the nature of PVS. Humans instinctively look for patterns, for meaning, intention, consciousness. When you see a loved one making motions, sleeping, waking, turning her head, etc., it’s perfectly natural to perceive intention and consciousness. What people don’t understand is that what they are seeing is an intact brain stem sending electrical signals to muscles, unmediated by intention or awareness, or consciousness.
Tom: “This case is a bad one to use as a basis for discussions on end of life ethics since there is such disagreement about the facts.”
I agree in part. It shows the importance of understanding the facts, and what happens when the parties cannot agree on the basic facts.
Tom: “I have to call you out for a similar exaggeration for saying “we’ll just hook them all up to every possible technology and keep them all going for as long as possible.” when that is clearly different than someone receiving nutrition from a feeding tube.”
I was exaggerating, but not by much. It is not clear to me that a ventilator, feeding tube, or dialysis, etc., are all that much different from each other. In fact, the feeding tube is the most invasive of the three. All replace crucial bodily functions without which death follows. It’s also not clear to me that brain death and PVS are significantly different from each other in a moral sense. The only significant neurological difference between brain death and PVS is that in PVS there is a functioning brain stem. Both involve a living body. Why can we remove organs from a living, but brain dead both, thus directly causing the death of the body, but we cannot remove a feeding tube, that results in the death of the body?
And this is in the context of my main point: if the neurological science is truly irrelevant in these cases — dismissed as “materialism” by several here — then it seems that we are left with no option but to “pull out all the stops” in every such case. If neurological findings are irrelevant, then the patient’s neurological status is irrelevant from the point of view of providing the means to keep the physical body functioning.
If that’s not the case — if neurological science IS relevant — then I would like to hear from the Orthodox folks on how it is relevant. Is it relevant in the case of brain death, but not in the case of PVS? If so, why?
Christopher writes: “As a materialist, material considerations (i.e. brain waves, this or that diagnosis or autopsy, etc.) trump everything, which means you base the personhood of Terri on it, you base the family and their reactions on it, you base even the metaphysical (what it means to be man and “alive”) and morality of Terri’s life on it.”
Actually, material considerations don’t trump everything. For example, had Terri Schiavo been hit by a car and lost the spleen, she would still be a person. Had she lost all arms and legs she would still be a person. Were she blind and deaf she would still be a person.
The brain is different, and anyone who knows anything about the brain knows that. You know that. Remove a kidney and there’s still a person. Remove the brain and forget about it. In that sense, I’m not a materialist; I’m a realist.
But different parts of the brain provide different functions. Remove a small piece of the frontal lobe and there’s still a person. Remove the cerebral cortex and the person is gone. That’s Terri Schiavo.
Christopher: “In this venue, theological belief trumps everything, you’re starting to get it!!”
If it does, that’s unfortunate. And frankly, I think you know that it doesn’t. It makes for a clever debating point, but I think it’s not a point you would like to defend.
Christopher: “Let’s assume you are correct, and the person “Terri” died in 1993, the brain does = person, and the family was deluding themselves in recognizing Terri as alive.”
I don’t like the word “deluding.” They were mistaken. They were living in a world of hope, that unfortunately was not supported by reality. I don’t blame them for that.
Christopher: