Congressman David Weldon (R-FL), a medical doctor, plans to introduce legislation titled the Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act (Terri’s Law), which will hopefully help save Terri Schiavo’s life. The legislation would give Terri and others in similar situations the same constitutional protection of due process as death row inmates. Already this week, attorneys for Terri’s parents have filed six different motions to help save their daughter, all of which are now on appeal. Dr. Weldon’s legislation would allow Terri to have her own counsel who can argue her case, a right given to any criminal in the United States.
Terri is, of course, not a criminal but a woman fighting for her life. As Terri’s fight intensifies, I cannot be more frank on the fate of this poor woman if her husband has his way. If Terri’s feeding tubes are removed, she will face a slow death through starvation, which can take anywhere from 7 to 30 days. Terri’s parents, as do Congressman Weldon a nd I, truly believe Terri is alive and deserves to continue living. Please call, e-mail, AND fax your U.S. representative to support Terri’s Law — truly life-saving legislation. Time is of the essence.
I would love to see legislation passed to avoid the limbo Terri has had to live in for years. The problem is that judicial tyranny has lead to poor enforcement of existing laws. Terri should be with those who have not abused her. Intead we have fifteen years of her being abused by Michael and the justice system. We have cases where people who could communicate died begging for water. I would like to prevent that also in the future before more hearts are broken.
Couldn’t the Florida legislature simply pass a law saying that you can’t serve as guardian for your spouse if you’re cheating on him/her? That would get Michael removed as guardian, wouldn’t it?
We could simply throw out the entire system of how medical decisions are made, and remove all such decisions from the consideration of the courts. Close family members would also be prohibited from making any such decisions, so as to avoid all conflict of interest. In place of that system we’ll simply let the Worldnet Daily, the Heritage Foundation, or some other conservative organization decide what to do. That would guarantee that only correct decisions would be made.
“Close family members”? Who do you mean? Is an adulterous husband who chooses to live with his concubine and bastard children a “close family member?” Or is a “close family member” a mother and father sitting by their daughters bedside, doing everything they can to keep their daughter alive?
Be honest, Jim, you could care less about the role of the family in this case. For you what is important are panels of doctors, lawyers and judges.
Note 3 is Hysterical Nonsense
Let’s remember that Terry Schiavo’s husband is asking the Courts to allow her to starve to death painfully based on ORAL statements.
Compare the Schiavo case to the formalities required in a will. No will is considered valid without extensive authentication. The will must be signed in front of a notary AND several witnesses. The witnesses signatures must be notarized. Any document with a lower level of authentication is discarded. Wills by definition do not affect life and death decisions, they just control the distribution of property.
Compare the Schiavo case to a real estate deal. All the States refuse to enforce a contract for the sale of real estate UNLESS it is in writing. Again, not a life and death matter, yet, it must be in writing before it will be enforced.
Compare to the Shiavo case to certain commercial transactions. Most states have adopted a form of the ancient Statute of Frauds which prohibits the enforcement of oral contracts which call for the performance of a service more than one year in advance. We require this degree of formality and authentication for commercial contracts but not for a life and death decision.
Now, go back to Terry Schiavo. A man who stands to inherit money, who has a child with a mistress and who wants to be free of the burden of caring for his wife, claims that Terry told him she wouldn’t want to live the way she lives now. Regardless of your theological or philosophical position this stinks to high heaven.
Missourian writes: “Let’s remember that Terry Schiavo’s husband is asking the Courts to allow her to starve to death painfully based on ORAL statements.”
First, if she’s not aware, there is no pain.
In the absence of an advanced directive, this is how such decisions are made. This is how it works. Were you to collapse comatose from, say, a massive stroke, heaven forbid, and you didn’t have an advanced directive, the doctors would be talking to your husband, and he would speak in your behalf.
Missourian: “Compare the Schiavo case to the formalities required in a will. No will is considered valid without extensive authentication. The will must be signed in front of a notary AND several witnesses.”
As I recall an advanced directive takes two signatures and a notary.
Missourian: “Now, go back to Terry Schiavo. A man who stands to inherit money . . .”
As far as I know the money in the trust account is gone. He isn’t going to get anything.
Missourian: ” . . . who has a child with a mistress . . . ”
The court records document that even Terri Schiavo’s parents encouraged him to “get on” with his life, even to the point of recommending a woman he could date. I suppose a good Orthodox man would have stayed celebate for the rest of his life, but this guy apparently is not Orthodox.
MIssourian: “. . . and who wants to be free of the burden of caring for his wife . . . ”
This is your assumption, your interpretation. The case record documents the extensive care that he gave to his wife, attempts at rehabilitation, the personal sacrifices, etc.
Missourian: ” . . . claims that Terry told him she wouldn’t want to live the way she lives now.”
Yes, that’s correct. Again, this is how it works. Is he telling the truth? I have no way of knowing, the same way that I would have no way to verify what you husband might say were your wishes in a similar situation.
Missourian: “Regardless of your theological or philosophical position this stinks to high heaven.”
Have you read through the documents related to the case?
Daniel writes: “‘Close family members’? Who do you mean? Is an adulterous husband who chooses to live with his concubine and bastard children a ‘close family member?'”
Yes, he is.
First, look at the reality of the situation. Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. Most of her brain is gone. Please read that sentence again. Focus on the word “gone.” It’s not coming back. You don’t grow a new cerebral cortex. She is not merely “disabled” or “brain damaged.” She is not conscious. She is not aware. She cannot be rehabilitated. Her husband tried rehabilitation, even to the extent of having an experimental brain stimulator implanted. The recommended treatment duration was three months; he left it in for a year. No change. The various expressions and vocalizations and sleep cycles that her parents trumpet are completely consistent with a diagnosis of PVS. The parents take hours of video, then edit it down to a few seconds where it looks like she is interacting with them. What you don’t see is the other four hours of tape where she has the same expressions and vocalizations in response to nothing. (Judges have seen the full video and understand what’s going on.)
Concerning Michael Schiavo’s girlfriend — all I can say is that I haven’t walked in his shoes and I’m not going to cast the first stone.
Daniel: “Be honest, Jim, you could care less about the role of the family in this case. For you what is important are panels of doctors, lawyers and judges.”
I care about how decisions are made in medical ethics. I care about having standard processes and procedures. Within the context of medical ethics end of life decisions are made in a certain way. Michael Schiavo is Terri’s HUSBAND. Absent an advanced directive, he is the one who must speak for her. This is how such decisions are made.
In the U.S. we don’t vote on end of life decisions. We don’t make decisions based on Worldnet Daily or Focus on the Family. We don’t make decisions based on who has the best web site or who published the most propaganda. We don’t make decisions based on rumors.
What has happened in the Schiavo case is that Terri’s husband, Michael, has spoken in her behalf since she cannot speak for herself. I have no idea whether he is telling the truth about her wishes, in the same way that I have absolutely no idea whether all the hundreds of other spouses who are making end of life decisions at this moment around the country are telling the truth. Whether I like or don’t like Michael’s statement of his wife’s wishes is irrelevant. If he said that his wife wanted to be kept alive no matter what I’d support THAT decision.
Concerning the judges that have been involved in the case it is instructive to note that Michael Schiavo has prevailed in court time and again, over a period of years, at various levels, and in front of various judges. This should tell you something. His side of the case was largely confirmed by the most recent guardian ad litem, appointed by the State of Florida and Governor Bush. That should also tell you something.
Accepting the Original Idea: Why is their a Need to Kill?
In order to support Terry Schiavo’s death, we have to support the idea that testimony about an oral statement made by a person who is now disabled should be given the weight of a death sentence.
May I remind you that you cannot enforce a will without three disinterested witnesses and four notarized signatures. There is no document equivalent to that in this case. A will controls nothing by property, not life and death decisions.
Allwe have here is hearsay evidence of an oral directive.
You need to remember that the Court system of this country happily promoted and enforced racist Jim Crow laws and laws that deprived women of the status of complete persons for generations. The fact that some Court have ruled in favor of the husband doesn’t counteract my right to be an advocate on behalf of Terry Schiavo.
Sorry about typos, I am in a rush.
Missourian writes: “In order to support Terry Schiavo’s death, we have to support the idea that testimony about an oral statement made by a person who is now disabled should be given the weight of a death sentence.”
No, you have to support the idea that people have the right to accept or refuse medical treatments personally, through advanced directives, or through some other way of ascertaining what the person’s wishes would be in such a situation.
Missourian: “All we have here is hearsay evidence of an oral directive.”
And not really a directive, but a statement about not wanting to be “hooked up to machines,” along with some similar sentiments. In the absence of a written document the court and the medical community consider whatever information is available.
Missourian: “The fact that some Court have ruled in favor of the husband doesn’t counteract my right to be an advocate on behalf of Terry Schiavo.”
The court didn’t rule “in favor of the husband.” The court made a determination of what Ms. Schiavo’s wishes would be in the current situation. That determination was consistent with what the husband reported. In saying that you’re an “advocate” for Terri Schiavo you’re actually saying either that a) you oppose her own wishes as recognized by the court, or b) the court, which carefully weighed all the evidence and testimony related to her wishes got it wrong, and that you, without benefit of evidence or testimony, know what her wishes would have been.
Imagine going back fifteen years and asking a healthy Terri Schiavo the following question: “In the event that you suffer massive brain damage to the point that most of your brain is gone, and you exist in a state of non-awareness and non-responsiveness from which you will never recover, kept alive by food and water administered through a tube, how long do you want us to maintain you in that state?”
What do you think her answer would have been?
Her brain is not “gone” Mr. Holman. She suffered brain damage. Her brain was not removed. But by going on and on about Terri Schiavo’s brain being “gone” you appear to believe that brain damage is irreversible.
Any rational person will tell you that that is absolutely not the case.
A boy’s brain damage is treated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy succesfully. “The oxygen dissolves into the patient?s body fluids and has been known to treat wounds, smoke inhalation, electrocution, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis and any trauma resultant of oxygen deprivation to the brain.” (Didn’t Terriy Schiavo suffer brain damage because of oxygen deprivation to her brain?)
Or there’s this report, where mere exercise regimen shows evidence that it can literally rewire the cerebellum. “Clients are given customized exercises designed to stimulate the cerebellum and, through repetition, create new nerve pathways that will allow information to be transmitted more efficiently. “We’re finding the symptoms are either resolved completely or dramatically improved,” says Dr. Linda Williams.
Is that possible? Can the brain actually be repaired or rewired? Jim doesn’t seem to believe so, despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence that the brain can generate new neural pathways that will compensate for damaged pathways. But, according Jim, once it’s damaged, that’s it. Throw it on the junk heap, or in Terri Schiavo’s case starve and dehydrate her to death and dump the body in a grave, there’s no point in trying anything. Jim’s gods have spoken, “Terri Schiavo must die.”
Re: what constitutes a “close family member”: Let me see if have this bit of sophistry right. A husband who has abandoned his wife, who wants her dead and who has squandered a legal settlement that was supposed to be used to care for her to reach that goal is a “close family member”, but a mother and father who deeply love their daughter, stand by her day by day, and do everything they can to treat her and keep her alive do not. Amazing. Simply amazing.
My understanding of PVS is that determining it is somewhat inexact (and sometimes misdiagnosed) as we can only rely on outward behavior and movement while real “brain death” is completely irreversible and more readily diagnosable, usually accompanied by the body requiring artificial means to maintain normal respiratory and/or cardiac functions (which Terri does not?). Honestly, I believe Terri’s parents are seeing what they want to see (which is, of course, understandable). However, even though it is unlikely to the extreme that Terri will ever regain normal brain function, she is just beyond the shadow of physical death to the degree that to terminate her life would require pro-active measures on our part.
For that reason alone, I’d say let her parents gain custody.
Daniel writes: “Her brain is not ‘gone’ Mr. Holman. She suffered brain damage. Her brain was not removed. But by going on and on about Terri Schiavo’s brain being ‘gone’ you appear to believe that brain damage is irreversible.”
Here’s what the Second District Court found: “Over the span of this last decade, Theresa’s brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid.”
And in a later opinion: “Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo’s brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.”
From the recent report of the guardian ad litem to Governor Bush: “These data indicate that Theresa’s cerebral cortex is principally liquid, having shrunken due to the severe anoxic trauma experienced 13 years ago.”
And yes, this kind of brain damage is irreversible. When a brain injury is severe enough, the affected tissue atrophies. When you have massive tissue loss in a certain part of the brain, you lose the functions done in that part.
Concerning hyperbaric oxygen therapy, the court considered that: “Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford have all referred patients for hyperbaric therapy but none for this type of brain injury. They felt that such therapy would have no affect on Terry Schiavo. It is interesting to note the absence of any case studies since this therapy is not new and this condition has long been in the medical arena. . . . They were also able to credibly testify that neither hyperbaric therapy nor vasodilatation therapy was an effective treatment for this sort of injury.”
Daniel: “Is that possible? Can the brain actually be repaired or rewired? Jim doesn’t seem to believe so, despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence that the brain can generate new neural pathways that will compensate for damaged pathways. But, according Jim, once it’s damaged, that’s it.”
Daniel, your argument isn’t with me. It’s with the various physicians who have testified in this case. I’m simply reporting what the physicians have said.
When you talk about therapies and rehabilitation you have to compare like cases. You can’t compare comatose or brain-injured patients with intact brains to someone whose brain tissue has largely been destroyed.
Daniel: “Re: what constitutes a ‘close family member’: Let me see if have this bit of sophistry right. A husband who has abandoned his wife, who wants her dead and who has squandered a legal settlement that was supposed to be used to care for her to reach that goal is a ‘close family member’, but a mother and father who deeply love their daughter, stand by her day by day, and do everything they can to treat her and keep her alive do not. Amazing. Simply amazing.”
First of all, whether you or I or anyone else considers Michael Schiavo to be a close family member is irrelevant. The point is to ascertain what Terri Schiavo’s wishes would be were she able to communicate. You say that Michael Schiavo “abandoned” his wife. What do you mean by that? He did everything he could for her until the point at which it became obvious that she would never recover. Even Terri Schiavo’s family told him to get on with his life, even to the point of suggesting someone he could date. You say he “wants her dead.” What he’s doing is reporting what he believes are her wishes based on conversations they had when she was conscious. You say he squandered the legal settlement, but that’s your opinion.
I don’t doubt that the parents care for her, but they are basically opposing what Terri Schiavo’s own wishes are, as best we can determine them.
Jim, don’t be a coward in addition to a cold hearted proponent of killing the infirm. If you didn’t agree with the killing of Terri Schiavo then you wouldn’t be spending so much time pounding away at your keyboard defending this evil act. My argument is with you and the doctors and the lawyers and the judges and anyone else who stands up and says, “Come on, let’s get on with the starvation already. The Law has spoken.”
If you can’t wait to see what a starved body looks like I’ll help you out, but I caution you this is not for the faint of heart:
Nazi Starvation expirements
An aside: Did everyone, who had it, enjoy what the lawyers have called “artificial sustanence”, “artificial means of support”, “artificial life support” and (this one’s my favorite) “artificial life-sustaining medical treatement” or what most people call Lunch?
Daniel writes: “Jim, don’t be a coward in addition to a cold hearted proponent of killing the infirm. If you didn’t agree with the killing of Terri Schiavo then you wouldn’t be spending so much time pounding away at your keyboard defending this evil act.”
I don’t advocate for any particular outcome in that case. I argue that people have a right to accept or decline ANY medical treatment or therapy. I argue if they cannot communicate their wishes that an attempt to understand those wishes through the testimony of family and friends is appropriate. I argue in the event of a dispute over those wishes, such as exists in the Schiavo case, that the appropriate forum for settling that dispute is a court, complete with rules of evidence and testimony under oath.
That’s my position, and the process that I advocate. If that process is followed, and the outcome is that Terri Schiavo should be indefinetly maintained in her current condition in accordance with her wishes as best as we can determine them, I have absolutely no problem with that. Note that I personally would not want to be thus maintained. But I cannot impose my wishes on someone else’s situation.
It seems to me that you and I are arguing for two different kinds of things. You are arguing for a particular *outcome* in this one case. I’m arguing that for a particular *process* that should be followed in all cases.
Remember, there are hundreds or thousands of cases across the country every day in which people have to make critical medical decisions in behalf of family members who cannot communicate their own wishes. I it’s unworkable to say “screw the process, I demand this-or-that outcome in this case.” If you feel the process is wrong, what do you suggest in its place — keeping in mind that the process has to serve thousands of people, not just one person?
Daniel: “If you can’t wait to see what a starved body looks like I’ll help you out, but I caution you this is not for the faint of heart.”
Several points. First, someone who dies from a withdrawal of nutrition and hydration is going to pass away much quicker than an otherwise healthy person who is being starved. He or she is not going to look like a starved person. Second, I have to remind you again and again that I’m not in favor of any particular outcome in the Schiavo case. If her wishes were not to be maintained in the state she is in, that’s the way it is. That’s the end of the story, and you can wave all the gruesome pictures that you want, but there’s no point to it.
Third, you describe what would happen to Terri Schiavo as “starving to death.” But the reality is very different from how you picture it. At age 83 my mother was stricken with a condition known as “ischemic bowel,” in which the blood supply to the bowel is occluded. She decided against any agressive measures (such as surgery) and ended up in a nursing home “starving to death,” as you would put it. I was with her for the six weeks that the process took. Obviously, it’s not something that one would hope for, but in a sense it really wasn’t terrible either. We played a lot of cribbage over the six weeks. She was kept as comfortable as possible, and on continuous morphine for pain control. She was conscious most of the time, though toward the end she began to have hallucinations from the morphine. The day before she died she told me to take twenty dollars out of her account and give it to my stepdaughter for a birthday present. Twelve hours later she was dead. Again, not quite the end one would hope for, but nothing reminiscent of the Holocaust either.
I think there were a lot of folks in Germany during the 30s and 40s who said, “We were never in favor of the concentration camps. We were simply working with the process we had at our disposal. Did we not have a Jewish problem? So we worked within the process and reached a particular conclusion. But Auchwitz? Buchenwald? We never favored that result! You can’t blame us!”
Allow me a little poetic license with a description of Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann and the ‘Banality of Evil’:
“As far … could be discerned, Jim came to his willing involvement with the program of eliminating the infirm through a failure or absence of the faculties of sound thinking and judgement. It was concluded that far from exhibiting a malevolent hatred of the infirm which could have accounted psychologically for his participation in the starving of Terri Schiavo, Jim was an utterly innocuous individual. He operated unthinkingly, following The Law, efficiently carrying … out legal edicts, with no consideration of their effects upon those he targeted. The human dimension of these activities were not entertained, so the elimination of the infirm became indistinguishable from any other bureaucratically assigned and discharged responsibility for Jim and his ilk.”
No Jim, your defense of “following the process” doesn’t wash. It is your focus on the “process” that is blinding you to the fact that you are dealing with a person, an Icon of God.
Daniel writes: “I think there were a lot of folks in Germany during the 30s and 40s who said, ‘We were never in favor of the concentration camps. We were simply working with the process we had at our disposal.'”
You’re talking about a “proess” that was a conspiracy to commit mass murder. I’m talking about a process for making decisions in the context of medical ethics. The intent of the process to which I refer is to honor the patient’s wishes, inasmuch as we can determine what those are, whether or not we happen to agree with them.
This may come as a surprise to you, but not all people want to be maintained indefinetly in a comatose or PVS state. In fact, I would say that most people don’t. The reason why people make out advanced directives is precisely so that things like that don’t happen to them — so that they can *limit* the medical interventions inflicted upon them. Of course you also get the “pull out all the stops” people — folks who want to be kept alive as long as possible by any means possible. But I think there aren’t many of them.
Even after all the discussion I’m not sure what your position actually is. Do you think that Terri Schiavo would want to be maintained in her current state? If so, would you maintain her in that state regardless of her wishes? If not, upon what do you base that opinion? Do you think her parents’ wishes should trump hers? Should we never withdraw care from any patient for any reason? It’s not clear to me what you’re arguing for.
At this point I feel like it would be useful for you to be a little lighter on the ridicule and sarcasm and a little heavier on the actual issues. I give detailed information on my understanding of what is required by medical ethics and on the medical and legal facts of the case. I post references to the case documents. I cite specific language in court orders. I lay out exactly what I think should be the process in such cases.
What I get from you now is clever comparisons of me to Nazis. I have the impression that you’ve never read any of the documents, a large number of which are available for free online, to which I have posted references a number of times. You ridicule Michael Schiavo but seemingly are not aware of the many extremely positive things said about him in the legal record. You don’t address any specific issues in medical ethics or how decisions are supposed to be made. You ridicule the idea of “process,” but are silent on how we are to make such decisions. You ridicule the idea that someone can have irreversible loss of brain tissue, but cite no medical authorities.
JamesK writes: “However, even though it is unlikely to the extreme that Terri will ever regain normal brain function, she is just beyond the shadow of physical death to the degree that to terminate her life would require pro-active measures on our part.
For that reason alone, I’d say let her parents gain custody.”
The main issue here is not to find a guardian for Terri Schiavo who would maintain her existence for as long as possible. The main issue is to honor what Terri Schiavo’s wishes would have been inasmuch as those wishes can be ascertained. Furthermore, Michael Schiavo has withstood all the many challenges to his guardianship by the Schindlers.
Concerning Terri Schiavo’s wishes, the court already ruled on that five years ago.
Here’s some intereating information that is in the legal record, but that you won’t find on any of the thousands of right-wing web sites. As you read them you will realize why the right-wing propagandists never mention these.
Myth vs. reality. The propagandists always claim that Michael Schiavo has this great financial conflict of interest, but the Schindlers don’t. Here’s what the court said:
“While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. And Mrs. Schindler. . . . Regrettably, money overshadows this entire case and creates potential of conflict of interest for both sides. . . . The record before this court discloses that should Mr. and Mrs. Schindler prevail, their stated hope is that Mr. Schiavo would divorce their daughter, get on with his life, they would be appointed guardians of Terri Schiavo and become her heirs at law. They have even encouraged him to ‘get on with his life.'”
Note that the breakdown between the families occurred when Michael Schiavo refused to split with the Schindlers the money he received from his loss of consortium award related to the malpractice suit. The court acknowledges that BOTH parties have potential conflicts of interest, not just Michael Schiavo. Note also that the Schindlers hoped that Michael would divorce Terri and get on with his life.
Concerning the care that Michael Schiavo gave to his wife:
“By all accounts Mr. Schiavo has been was very [sic] motivated in pursuing the best medical care for his wife, even taking her to California for a month or so for experimental treatment. It is undisputed that he was very aggressive with nursing home personnel to make certain that she received the finest of care.”
Not bad for a guy who supposedly “abandoned” his wife.
The judge’s conclusion concerning Terri Schiavo’s condition:
“But the overwhelming credible evidence is that Terri Schiavo has been totally unresponsive since lapsing into the coma almost ten years ago, that her movements are reflexive and predicated on brain stemp activity alone, that she suffers from severe structural brain damage and to a large extent her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid, that with the exception of one witness whom the court finds to be so biased as to lack credibility, her movements are occasional and totally consistent with the testimony of the expert medical witnesses.”
Conderning the determination of Terri Schiavo’s wishes:
“The court has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor, hear inflections, note pregnant pauses, and in all manners assess credibility above and beyond the spoken or typed word. Interestingly enough, there is little discrepancy in the testimony the court must rely upon in order to arrive at its decision in this case.”
The judge saw that there were problems with some of the testimony on the Schidler side of the case, for example:
“The court further notes that this witness had quite specific memory during trial but much less menory a few weeks earlier on deposition.”
Michael Schiavo was not the only one to testify concerning his wife’s wishes. His brother and sister-in-law also did. Here his how the judge viewed their testimony:
“The court has reviewed the testimony of Scott Schiavo and Joan Schiavo and finds nothing contained therein to be unreliable. The court notes that neither of these witnesses appeared to have shaded his or her testimony or even attempt to exclude unfavorable comments or points regarding those discussions. They were not impeached on cross-examination.”
“The court specifically finds that these statements are Teri Schiavo’s oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court.”
You can read all the above and more at http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
The document you quote are the judgments of Judge Greer. But it’s precisely these judgments that are in question.
Fr. Hans writes: “The document you quote are the judgments of Judge Greer. But it’s precisely these judgments that are in question.”
What I see here are repeated accusations and spins from other web sites but hardly any references to the actual material from the court cases. People here disagree with the outcome of Greer’s decision but seem unable to talk about *how* his decision wrong. If someone disagrees with Judge Greer, that’s fine. But what’s the basis of the disagreement? What exactly is his error? He listened to testimony from several people and he discusses his decision at length. So with what specifically do you disagree? It’s not enough to dislike the outcome and then assume that some kind of error was made.
Matthew 7:15-16
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.”
With that I’m done on this thread.
Much of this has already been covered. If you asking what the legal case should be, well, ask the lawyers. That too has been posted here and elsewhere.
What concerns me more however is your comment upstream that you care less about the outcome than the process. ISTM, that process ought to be determined by outcomes, not the other way around, especially in matters of life and death.
Daniel writes: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.
With that I’m done on this thread.”
What I have tried to do is to engage you at the level of the facts, details, policies, and practices related to this case. I have attempted to show that the facts and details of the case have little to do with much of the propaganda that comes from the right-wing web sites. You respond by comparing me to a Nazi and calling me a wolf. What’s up with that? If you want to retire from the discussion, fine, but there’s no reason to throw rocks on the way out.
Fr. Hans writes: “What concerns me more however is your comment upstream that you care less about the outcome than the process. ISTM, that process out to be determined by outcomes, not the other way around, especially in matters of life and death.”
What I mean is that we shouldn’t game the process so as to ensure that a particular decision is made. The current system of medical ethics in the U.S. is designed around the concept of patient autonomy. The most successful outcome is when the patient receives all the information he or she needs to make an informed decision, and then is able to make a decision that is in keeping with his or her values and life priorities. This is true whether a grave decision, such as an end of life issues, is involved, or whether a relatively minor decision is involved — when, for example, you have to decide whether to have a minor surgical procedure now or next year. Note that the successful outcome is marked by the way the patient makes the decision — not the decision itself that is made.
In the case of medical decisions where the patient cannot communicate or participate in the decision, the successful outcome is one in which the patient receives the treatment that we can best determine that he or she would have wanted. Again, success has to do with the process by which the decision is made, not the decision itself. Where the patient cannot communicate, we are forced to deal with information that is not as complete or certain as we would like. Nonetheless, that does not relieve us of the obligation of trying to make that determination.
In my view the Schiavo case, considered from the point of view of the facts of the case, presents us with a reasonably straightforward situation. A young woman is stricken down and as a result her brain deteriorates. Most if not all of the cerebral cortex is gone. The medical concensus is that she is in a PVS, which means that she is not aware and never will be, and she exists in that state for a number of years. Her husband and other family members believe that she would not want to be maintained in that condition. Other family members disagree with the diagnosis and with the determiniation of her wishes. A judge considers all information and concludes that the feeding tube should be removed — that this is what the young woman would have wanted.
This may come as a shock to many people, but hundreds of such decisions are made every day. The only difference in this case is that the legal system was involved and that the case gained national attention. But there’s really nothing remarkable about it. Had the parents agreed with the husband’s description of his wife’s wishes, no one would ever have heard of this case. There’s nothing about the case that should have elevated it to national attention.
The reason that the case gained national attention is because of, in my opinion, a great deal of misinformation propagated by those who wanted use it as a political cause celebre. But as medical ethics cases go, it is a fairly mundane case. By that I don’t mean that it’s trivial or that the people involved are trivial. I mean that there aren’t really any issues here that people should go to the barricades over.
By the way, a friend told me about a recent Fox News poll on the Schiavo case. Here are some of the results:
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. March 1-2, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE +- 3.
“If a patient has been in what doctors call a ‘persistent vegetative’ or a coma-like state with no higher brain activity for a significant amount of time, who do you think should make the decision whether the patient should be kept alive or not: the person’s parents or other family members, the person’s spouse, or the government?”
45 percent said the person’s spouse should make the decision.
“Terri Schiavo has been in a so-called ‘persistent vegetative state’ since 1990. Terri’s husband says his wife would rather die than be kept alive artificially and wants her feeding tube removed. Terri’s parents believe she could still recover and want the feeding tube to remain. If you were Terri’s guardian, what would you do? Would you remove the feeding tube or would you keep the feeding tube inserted?”
59 percent said the feeding tube should be removed.
“If you were in Terri Schiavo’s place, what would you want your guardian to do? Would you have your guardian remove the feeding tube or keep the feeding tube inserted?”
74 percent said they would remove the feeding tube.
You can see the complete results here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/news
1. Why can’t she be manually fed or given liquids – why no food or liquids at all?
Taking the feeding tube out is one thing, denying all food and liquids by any means is murder isn’t it?
2. Why did it take years before her ‘husband’ said she did not want to live this way?
3. Her friends said she was considering a divorce…certainly an indication that the relationship dynamics were in question,
4. Why can’t guardianship be given to her parents so her ‘husband’ can go on with what he has already determined to be ‘his own life’….another woman…2 children…engagement….common-law marriage (By the way, how did he file federal taxes?…joint or single and who was listed as the spouse and dependants?
5. What message is this giving to children today?
6. Could this issue possibly have contributed to the Minnesota school killings?
7. How do people with brain damage view this and what do they think? Are they next?
8. Why has the ADA been so silent? Why is no one calling them or why are they not on the news with statements?
9. What precedence will this now set?anyone who has a ?loved one? in ICU or on feeding or other life sustaining means could now say, ?it was not the wish of this person to be this way, so pull the plug??let me get the inheritance?let me stop the expenses?forget what the person wants?..whatever
10. Why can?t President Bush just ?pardon her??