The Good Professor weighs in on the Schiavo case:
Well pardon a Bunyip being frank, but this business isn't about compassion. It's about control -- control of both the individual and society's direction. As so many advocates of slow starvation are now demonstrating, they believe the common good means bowing to their definition of it -- and dying for it, too, when the more enlightened ordain it timely and appropriate.
They can't win elections and the bombast of their sermons is largely ignored outside the universities and broadsheets, but the mob that knows what's best for the rest of us, every one of us, has finally found someone on whom, at long last, it can impose its will. That Schiavo's parents will be harrowed, well their pain is inconsequential. As the Irving admirer might have noted, control is about being heeded and obeyed. It's hard to imagine stooping much lower than the depths so many determined tube-pullers are now plumbing, but if the advocates of death-when-convenient get their way in Florida, you can bet they soon will scramble for an even lower rung. Fact is, they can hardly wait to stretch their compassion one again.
What has staggered me about this case is that no one seems to mind that Schiavo's parents wishes about the welfare of their child are being overruled. Granted, this is an adult child, but even still, this seems to be... I mean, please. Where, indeed is the compassion?
I find it bizzare and grotesque that in a situation where the family is deciding whether or not Terri lives or dies that the parents wishes to keep their daughter alive can be over-ruled. And I also find it abhorrent that the method used to end Terri's life. Starvation? Is this humane? They say she can feel no pain. I hope they are right!
Fifteen years ago this would have been unthinkable. Where are we going to be fiteen years hence? And who decides? The Bunyip asks some good questions.
Scott, two quick points:
(a) Her husband believes her own wish would have been not to exist in such a state, and it's his wish.
(b) The reason why she will die in that way (which I agree is highly distressing) is that the US has no provision for euthanasia.
As to a) I don't see that as being cause enough to over-rule the parents. I think that if there is a disagreement like this, then when in doubt, the choice should be made in favour of keeping Terri alive.
As to b) I'd have to think about it, but my initial reaction would be to argue that its another reason to keep Terri alive.
Yes, I also thought Bunyip's piece had a moral clarity that many other contributions to the current debate (including my own) conspicuously lacked. I think the same is true of Brian Bahnisch's comment (in a more nuanced way) on my post on this topic.
I thought I had my attitude to this stuff all worked out after going through the whole euthanasia saga in the NT from fairly close quarters. But this Schiavo case has thrown all my beliefs up in the air. I think Geoff Honnor makes some very strong points too from the opposite camp. Buggered if I know. I haven't had time to read the original substantive court judgment on Schiavo yet. I intend doing so, because it might tell me a lot about just how conclusively irreversibly vegetative Terri really is. At the moment I have no way of distinguishing reliably between the competing advocates. I wonder how many commenters have actually read that judgment.
But maybe it still comes down to whether you reckon a person should be killed when she can exist unaided except for food, when her wishes in this situation are unknown and probably unknowable, when her parents don't want her killed but her husband does, and when the only legal option for death involves slow starvation where we simply can't know conclusively whether Terri will feel pain or not. All the political posturing on both sides, and even all the courtroom arguments in the world, doesn't change the fact that the basic situation is an extraordinarily tragic and complex one. But setting out the basic facts as I've just done DOES rather suggest that killing her (even "passively" by deliberate starvation) is morally ambiguous at the very least.
This is not an issue on which anybody can afford to pretend they sit on the high moral ground.
When a husband and a parent are in disagreement over the euthanasia of a wife and daughter, third parties cannot hope to help other than to respectfully & compassionately maintain some sort of decorum while the relevant legal bodies try to divine what Solomon's judgement might have been.
The level of hysteria and name-calling (not in this post I hasten to add) in blogs recently has been highly self-indulgent. If people were really concerned about the issue they'd feel some sort of sympathy for the people involved and be thanking their stars that they haven't had to face this question personally.
Scott, one thing that disturbs me about this whole issue is that it's being decided in the Courts and in the halls of Congress. But if it's a legal issue, it's very clear that when you get married, if you subsequently become unable to choose for yourself, then it's for your spouse to interpret your will, not your parents.
Other than that, I'm unwilling to express any opinion on this - not having studied the facts or thought through the issues - except to say that I agree with wbb.
Must say I agree with the good Prof. This is truly a dreadful case and one where no-one should grandstand, but one thing I'm sure of--regardless of whether she really said anything about ending her life if she was in this state (and how many people ever think of it, at that age, before it suddenly strikes?)Terri Schiavo would never have chosen to end her life by slow starvation. That is barbaric and revolting.
Of course the husband (or wife, as the case may be) overrules the parents.
Suppose, Scott, that a 75 year old woman has a severe stroke, is brain dead but breathing, and her husband of 50 years decides on doctors' advice to turn off her life support. But her 95 year old parents think she should be kept alive.
On your logic, the parents' wishes would overule the husband. It's just ridiculous.
Once people get married, they decide things for each other and the parents take a back seat. That's the way life is.
I agree with Sophie. I realize that many a fine and/or expensive legal mind has been applied to this case, and I rely on Ken P to enlighten me here, I would have thought that, barring any compelling evidence to the contrary, the status quo should prevail. I certainly don't see the husbands will as being compelling evidence. I doubt even Solomon could pull this one off.
NB I respect Mark B's opinion on most occassions but I'm curious as to the stated legality of
"if you subsequently become unable to choose for yourself, then it's for your spouse to interpret your will, not your parents."
One thing that's come up in a few places that I haven't seen discussed here is that ending someone's life by starvation (or dehydration) is actually common. I'm aware of several cases through family and friends, normally where an elderly patient is slowly dying of disease (say, a life expectancy of weeks or months) and loses the ability to swallow at some point. It seems usual for doctors to advise the family to refuse rehydration and nutrition for the patient in this case when there is no hope of recovery from the worsening illness.
I appreciate that that's not an exact parallel because the patient's life expentancy with nutrition/hydration is shorter than Terry Schiavo's life expectancy with the same, but nevertheless, these patients do die of dehydration/starvation (or the high morphine doses they're given for the pain cause their breathing to stop). Not all of these patients are comatose at the time that the family makes the decision either (although there's obviously some reason why the family has the power to refuse medical intervention for the patient -- often the patient's dementia).
It's discussed towards the end of this post wrt the commonness: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/03/hubris.html
I'm not offering the fact that it's common as some kind of justification for the practice, but as a request to broaden the discussion, if anything. If you object to the practice itself (rather than on performing it given Schiavo's particular condition) it's worth considering not as an uncommon cruelty but as a common one.
(Wrt to slowly dying patients I'm not sure what my own position is. Clearly it's the case, for example, that a competant patient may prefer to die at home surrounded by their family without hydration/nutrition than in a hospital with it. I don't really feel then, that it's possible to argue that "the patient would always prefer to die in another way than dehydration, so we'll never allow withdrawal of hydration from incompetant patients". Most ways of dying are horrible: how do we choose which one to give an incompetant person?)
People, get a grip. The poor lady has no cerebral cortex left - the things that make her human have gone forever. There is zero prospect of her knowing what's going on, zero prospect of recovery, and zero prospect of her feeling pain in any meaningful sense of the term, despite what some people with an agenda claim.
Just these points were established by not one but two US Federal courts. Ken, by all means cast a lawyerly eye over the transcripts but it's pretty unlikely that both got the facts on the ground wrong. And if they got these facts right I can't see the problem.
It would, of course, be kinder *on the living* if we had the courage to euthanase her properly - but it makes no difference to her. Bunyip's Bushian "moral clarity" is ignorant nonsense - as "moral clarity" so often is.
Its also just not true that "Fifteen years ago this would have been unthinkable". Thirty years ago the feeding tube may never have gone in in the first place, and would certainly have been removed some time ago without court action.
My wife said very clearly that if I was in Terri Schiavo's situation she wouldn't, couldn't pull the plug. Principally because she couldn't, wouldn't want to live with the decision. Also, given that I have three kids, two brothers and two sisters, I am sure she wouldn't ever turn out my lights if any or all of them wanted me kept alive.
Irrespective of the legal situation, the moral pressure (if that's the right word, we are all strong-willed but ultimately considerate and cooperative people) is considerable. Like Mark, I'm uncomfortable with the spouse alone having complete say.
For the record, I'd prefer not to have a conclusive opinion about the Schiavo case, rather to use it to try to gain insights into this kind of situation. Bernadette Tobin, director of the Plunkett Centre for Ethics in Health Care at Sydney's St. on Radio National yesterday seemed to know a lot more about the case than I do, but refused to come down on one side or another. She said she doesn't feel she is close enough to the case. Even so, in her work with people in similar situations, she says she typically does not have an final opinion herself. Her MO is to clarify the issues for those who do have to make up their minds.
Two other comments.
Firstly, I'm astonished that the court, while it is making up it's mind whether the tube should be in or out, does not make an order that the tube be put back in.
Secondly, while I understand that people have questioned the notion of the legislature interfering with the judiciary, the state interfering in people's lives etc, I don't ultimately have a problem with it. The state should protect the interest of individuals or the minority, especially when it seems no-one else can. I have no stomach for the religious schmalz, but occasionally I find myself agreeing with GWB.
Mary, on the broader issue of killing by withdrawing sustenance, I suspect it comes about because of the doctors' ethic of supporting life in all situations. so they are uncomfortable with actively assisting people to die.
On this one I am in sympathy with Phillip Nitscke's(?) approach that death is the culmination of life and doctors should assist us in this final step. OTOH I'm not unhappy with the present culture amongst doctors on focussing strongly on the preservation of life. In other words, I'm in sympathy with the notion of vuluntary euthanasia and would want to have the option myself. But I'm uneasy about the 'slippery slope' argument if assisting death becomes common within the practices doctors.
The answer probably lies in formalising the safety net precautions in a manner similar to what is proposed by the proponents of voluntary euthanasia.
I've never understood guys who get overly hung up on who should pay what for their kids - I think their priorities are completely screwed.
If you've accepted a kid as yours, invested your love and care in them, rejoiced in their achievements, then it ought not to matter for your relationship with the kid whose sperm caused the conception (though of course it may matter to your relationship with the mother). The kid's needs have first call on your money - that's the decision you made when you accepted him or her.
Having said that, there are sometimes morally legitimate reasons for wanting to establish paternity beyond doubt. The law should make it easy - but its often neither moral nor wise.
"People, get a grip. The poor lady has no cerebral cortex left - the things that make her human have gone forever."
dd, I'm no doctor, and I think the whole case does turn to a large extent on the true nature of the lady's cerebral cortex. I heard some-one on the radio this am saying that her CAT scan was similar to what you'd find in a 70 year old. All the more reason to use an MRI and/or PET scan. Unless her brain is conclusively shown to be gone and irrecoverable we should err on the side of safety IMHO in a first world context.
Again on the radio last night (via BBC) an Indian doctor told of how on his first shift as a young doctor he had to choose whether to treat a 22 year old or a 60 year old because he needed the same bit of equipment for both.
Moral clarity hey?
Spot the difference:
"...the mob that knows what's best for the rest of us, every one of us, has finally found someone on whom, at long last, it can impose its will. That Schiavo's husband will be harrowed, well his pain is inconsequential. As the Irving admirer might have noted, control is about being heeded and obeyed. It's hard to imagine stooping much lower than the depths so many determined tube-stuffers are now plumbing, but if the advocates of forestalling death (when it's politically expededient) get their way in Florida, you can bet they soon will scramble for an even lower rung. Fact is, they can hardly wait to stretch their self-righteousness once again".
It's as clear as mud KP, and I feel dirty for having had this close encounter with Bunyip's blinkered logic.
Well you can see her CAT scan along with some commentary here: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/18/terri-schiavo-news/
Um, Sophie?
"but one thing I'm sure of--regardless of whether she really said anything about ending her life if she was in this state (and how many people ever think of it, at that age, before it suddenly strikes?)Terri Schiavo would never have chosen to end her life by slow starvation. That is barbaric and revolting."
Nice try.
In this instance slow starvation is the ONLY option. So it is immaterial whether it is barbaric or revolting.
What if her (unknown of course) wish is for it all simply to be over?
I am reminded of my grandfather's angry words to my granmother as he lost even more control of his body "Oh, why can't I just die?!"
He was dying by a slow process of one organ/function after another shutting down - yes, barbaric and revolting.
And I know he felt helplessly guilty about dying before his wife of 60+ years.
This is the essential 'dignified death' scenario.
Find me a loving spouse, in a situation of having no cortex, who would force their partner to be in limbo for more than 15 years until they died of old age (or horrible lung infection, which is more likely).
We are talking about people who would (lyrically), in life, crawl over broken glass for each other.
"a young doctor he had to choose whether to treat a 22 year old or a 60 year old"
In all seriousness, it would probably be better to flip a coin. Age shouldn't be the only issue: the young man could be an Adolf Hitler and the woman a Mother Teresa.
"on the broader issue of killing by withdrawing sustenance, I suspect it comes about because of the doctors' ethic of supporting life in all situations. so they are uncomfortable with actively assisting people to die."
I think doctors are more uncomfortable about the possibility of being charged with murder as they would be (and, indeed, have been in the past) if they deliberately ended a patient's life. That's what the euthanasia argument is all about and it's why the withdrawal of nourishment and hydration is used to end lives rather than a shot of morphine (even though many terminally ill patients die effectively from a the effects of pain relief drugs).
It may seem distressing to us but Theresa Schiavo will feel nothing, no thirst, hunger, pain or distress and it is exactly this point - her absence of awareness, her -literally - 'vegetative' state that led to this situation in the first place. The truth is that this poor woman died 15 years ago, maybe she will finally be allowed to rest in peace soon.
Mary's obsidianwings link is very pertinent here and concurs with the typical family situation I outlined over at CLs, with respect to the death of my mother. As I said there, I couldn't hope to fathom how such a mini-drama would leave the players over a 15 yr period instead of 3 months.
I should emphasise that prolongation treatments are not without their own considerable pain and discomfort. Initially the feeding tube is placed through the nose with much discomfort and on occasions its uncomfortable removal by the patient herself is problematic. Also oxygen drys the mouth and throat and leads to mouth and throat ulcers. Ugly bed sores and infection of eventual stomach tube operation are also on the cards. In fact such infection saw the final removal of the stomach tube a day or so before my mother's death. Nevertheless such pain and discomfort can be addressed with drugs, as indeed it was. In extremely painful cases like cancer, it is often the increasing level of drug administering that proves fatal and in reality often becomes a merciful form of euthanasia.
In my mother's case I outlined at CLs, you will notice all the same tensions between players who 'owned' the problem. However intensive prolongation treatment had an administrative time frame attached and some of the players could acquiesce to those who wanted to use it all up, even though there was little doubt about the medical prognosis IMO.(Note the speed with which a nephew changed his prognosis) Ultimately, not too much abuse of the public purse there, although the private health bills would scare the daylights out of many. Welcome to rising private health insurance premia.
In the Schiavo case, I would generally agree with spouse rights taking over where parents leave off, but that goes out the door for me when say divorce occurs and grandparents need reasonable access rights to grandchildren. Welcome back to the Schiavo guardianship dilemma problem again Observa. Given the disagreement over care and accepting some equivalent moral guardianship rights, the mother, father, brother and sister should prevail here against the medicos and husband. They should have the legally enforced right to take Terri home to care for her themselves and work their miracle. After 15 years, to ask others to continue to indulge their personal belief in a miracle, is IMO a moral copout. Let the direct family put their efforts and hard-earned where their mouths are.
Can you imagine the horror of having a functioning brain and a completely paralysed body; not even being able to blink.
I wonder how long you would actually remain sane.
My wife and I are both making living wills as a result of this case: no resuscitation, no life support etc
"NB I respect Mark B's opinion on most occassions but I'm curious as to the stated legality of
"if you subsequently become unable to choose for yourself, then it's for your spouse to interpret your will, not your parents."
Ian, this paper sets out the legal position in Queensland:
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/about/ljj/editions/v4n1/white_willmott_full.jsp
Thanks for your post, Scott, and for your comment, Ken. Yes, the Professor's post was indeed one of his best. This man has a real gift for English expression, and expressed my own feelings on the matter in a way I could never replicate.
In response to those commenters who weighed in on the spouse v parents issue, the spouse effectively was no longer that as soon as he foresook his wife to effectively marry the mother of his two children that he fathered after the tragedy. I don't make a moral judgement about him in that regard, but really he can't have it both ways. Parents are always parents (and I am a parent and grandfather), no matter what misfortune overtakes their adult children, and certainly many I know resume their parenting role when dire misfortune hits their children later in life.
Your comments about people with an "agenda" are nothing short of ugly nastiness, Derrider. People on the Terri Schiavo side of this debate are experiencing a great deal of natural compassion and even pain. Shame on you.
That isn't moral clarity, that's just the ProfYip using Terri as a soapbox to bash his usual suspects, like far too many others across the whole political spectrum.
I don't think there's any way for anyone here to claim the high moral ground, and particularly not by accusing others of trying to do so.
This comment will now self-destruct in five seconds.
TrueRWDB write:
"People on the Terri Schiavo side of this debate are experiencing a great deal of natural compassion and even pain"
How can you possibly make the assumption that this is not the case on ALL sides of this 'debate'?
"In response to those commenters who weighed in on the spouse v parents issue, the spouse effectively was no longer that as soon as he foresook his wife to effectively marry the mother of his two children that he fathered after the tragedy. I don't make a moral judgement about him in that regard, but really he can't have it both ways."
TrueRWDB, I think since this matter is being resolved in the courts, what matters is his legal position vis-a-vis that of her parents. That's what I understand the judgements to have turned on, in part. I can certainly see how her parents would feel, but conversely I can also see how he continues to believe that he understands what her wishes were and would be.
I'd also draw the attention of readers to this research on ethical and legal issues relating to sustaining life where the person lacks capacity to make a decision being conducted in QUT's Law Faculty:
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/research/lifesustain/
There's an issues paper on the site which may be of interest.
Mark, of course you're right about the legal position. I was commenting from the view of real life. The law says she should be put to death. I can't comment on the legality, but I strongly disagree that it is right and proper.
Ron, I didn't make any assertion about the feelings of pro-death people. My comment related to the sheer nastiness of the Derrider comment which derided people on my side of the debate as agenda driven.
Well, TrueRWDB, don't use terms like "The law says she should be put to death." if you don't want to be labelled an "agenda pusher."
There is a vast gulf in meaning and insinuation between "being put to death" and "being allowed to die".
The other side of the fence will of course use terms such as "forced to live in a mindless purgatory-like state" to push their agenda.
Setting aside whether Schavio would want to continue in such a state it is not immaterial that starvation is the only option. It illustrates how ill equipped we are to deal with such cases. Even in a vegatative state, any family deserves better that seeing their loved ones die in such a way.
I agree with Sophie that it is barbaric. It seems that mercy is denied in such deaths. This whole case has convinced me that we need to start dealing with euthanasia issues properly.
I agree with Brian that actual laws (if properly implemented) for euthanasia won't lead to a slipperly slope. I think we can do better than simplistic anti-right or anti-left sloganeering.
TrueRWDB says: "the spouse effectively was no longer that as soon as he foresook his wife to effectively marry the mother of his two children ...really he can't have it both ways."
This is not in the least bit convincing. The issue is not what the parents want or what the husband wants, but what Ms. Schiavo herself would have wanted. Since she didn't write it down anywhere, the law assumes the husband has a better idea than the parents. Assuming he is the best placed to know what was in her mind, why would that change just because he effectively remarried?
I think mike got to the heart of it when he wrote:
'The truth is that this poor woman died 15 years ago, maybe she will finally be allowed to rest in peace soon.'
For many years now it had been possible through a radical intervention of medical process to halt the process of dying. If the patient has a strong enough heart, once they have been pulled through the trauma that would have killed them, they can linger on for decades without cognition of any kind, just waiting for their hearts to pack up. Nursing homes are full of such patients.
I recognise there are huge moral issues here, but to some extent we have created them for ourselves. There is such a thing as letting nature take its course. The problem is, we don't have to let it anymore.
As I understand it, the brain begins to die three minutes after the heart stops beating. One reads of paramedics and ambulance officers working for hours to resuscitate victims of car accidents, etc. Unfortunately the longer the delay, the greater the brain deficit they will suffer if they are resuscitated.
On the one hand, you can't say they shouldn't do it; on the other, you do have to wonder. My wife, who is a nurse, knows a physician who has the words 'not to be resuscitated' actually tattooed on his chest, because he knows that all too often resuscitation comes too late.
I think the commenters above are right who said even Solomon could not solve this one.
Irant,
To clarify. The fact that starvation is a horrible way to go could very well be immaterial to Mrs Schaivo if all she wants to do is die. If starvation is the only way out, then who's to say she wouldn't take it.
Sophie was saying that Terri shouldn't be allowed to die by starvation because it was a horrible way to go ie the feeding tube should be restored - along with Terri in limbo.
I agree that starving would be a horrible way to go but if you're tied to the stake you are going to breath in as much smoke as possible rather than holding out for someone in the crowd to dispatch you with a crossbow bolt before the flames get too high, right?
Harry,
I take your point. Indeed if you have a living will then you accept that starvation may be the way you go.
I was extending Sophie's comment to ask why aren't other options available? The main thing that this sad story has reinforced the current procedures are woefully inadequate.
I think Mary's comment is an important one. I don't know enough about this specific case to know whether derrida's dismissal of this example because 'she has no cerebral cortex left' at all is true - there seems to be dispute about that from what I have read, but it may well have been adequately proven to the relevant Judge.
Mary's comment takes us outside the specifics of this case, which is helpful, and makes the point that cases like this are not that uncommon. I've been uncomfortable with causing death through starvation/dehydration for some time, partly after reading a few accounts of it, although I realise that alternatives are not always much more pleasant - which is an argument for laws that allow more active euthanasia. (of course there are other arguments against such laws)
However, my views on this are very complex (which is fair enough as its hard to think of a more complex issue) and would take far too long to outline here.
Suffice to say that I think the slowness and painfulness of death by withdrawl of nourishment is very different to just 'pulling the plug' and we could benefit from a wider awarenss of that - none of which really 'solves' this specific case, but without the impossible scenario of Terri Schiavo being able to decide for herself if she wanted to die (in which case she should be allowed to die quickly), then I don't think there is any real solution which doesn't have some problematic components to it. Such is life (and death) I guess.
"There is a vast gulf in meaning and insinuation between "being put to death" and "being allowed to die"."
Being denied drink and food is hardly "being allowed to die". If I were locked up and denied water and drink, it wouldn't be called "allowed to die". I would be "put to death". It wouldn't matter if you rendered me unconscious first.
"the law assumes the husband has a better idea than the parents"
If the law assumes that, James Farrell, then the law is an ass.
Quotes from http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/001672.html
(admittedly an 'anti-Mr Schiavo' site.
"[Later in 1993,] Terri had a serious urinary tract infection and that Michael had ordered the nursing home not to give her treatment, which would have consisted of a simple course of antibiotics...the nursing home eventually gave Terri the antibiotics anyway. ....
Michael admitted [in a court hearing] that he had ordered the nursing home to deny Terri treatment for the infection and that he knew the infection, left untreated, would have caused Terri's death... "
Let's go back to basics, folks. Why is it so essential that Terri die now?
Do you have a problem because you think she's suffering, but on the other hand you think she's vegetative and doesn't feel a thing?
Do you have a problem because she's taking up scarce medical resources and money. Why not allow the parents and the myriad of other supporters take her to a private place and pay for expert facilities and care. You have a problem with "private" care, perhaps?
You accept a number of medicos' opinion that her condition is irreversible. How certain are these people of her actual condition? She's relatively young and future discoveries may change her prognosis. My understanding is that she's not brain-dead despite the Melbourne Age's Gawenda's repeated assertions.
In short, please tell me what harm to her or to society or to her husband you think would occur by continuing to feed and water her? Despite my attributed "agenda" I am interested in the answer to this question. Perhaps it's that, as Mark seems to be asserting, the "law" has spoken and the law must be obeyed - end of story?
TrueRWDB,
So you agree with me that there is a vast gulf between the two terms and that by using one you could be labelled as an agenda pusher?
In any event yours is a fallacious argument. If you are locked up the act of unlocking would "cure" you.
This woman will not be cured. All that anyone can do is wait for her to die.
In the context of this woman she can be "allowed to die" especially if that is what she wants!
If she was a terminal cancer patient and ethanased herself would you say she'd "condemned herself to death" or "heartlessly executed herself"?
Irant,
Agreed. In terms of pushing my barrow (legalised euthanasia), and from the position that she does want to die, it would useful (to put it extremely callously) for her to die from starvation. She cannot feel it, so she won't suffer. But if they allow her to die this way then they will *have* to provide an alternative for people who can feel. They would have to allow the 'green dream' as vets call it.
For me the whole thing revolves on whether she does indeed want to die.
The only "evidence" that she wants to die comes from her husband, who remembered this only after the courts awarded money for her care, and who has a great financial interest in her death.
I am perfectly happy for people who want to end their lives to do just that.
I'm not happy for financially interested relatives make the decision for them.
That a lucid person's exit strategy would be thirst/starvation, I cannot believe.
I'm perfectly happy for people who want to end their lives to do just that.
I'm not happy with financially interested parties making the decision for them.
The only 'evidence' that Ms Schiavo wants to die comes from her husband, who remembered this only after the courts had awarded a very tidy sum for her treatment.
Then there's the question of whether exit by thirst is also what she wants.
"So you agree with me that there is a vast gulf between the two terms and that by using one you could be labelled as an agenda pusher?"
- Of course there is a vast gulf between the two terms. One is murder the other is not. If stating my opinion is pushing an agenda, so be it. I can't account for your definition of "agenda". In your terms everyone with an opinion has an agenda? If that the case well I have an agenda. So what?
"This woman will not be cured. All that anyone can do is wait for her to die."
- Are you certain? That's a very dogmatic, brave assertion/prediction. See my comment prior to this one.
I agree with everything by blank except for the financial interested part because spouses ALWAYS have a life-insurance payout or martgage or any number of instances where the assets of two pass to one.
The main issue I have with blank is:
"Then there's the question of whether exit by thirst is also what she wants."
Exit by thirst is the only option she has.
Exit by thirst is what happens when you are in a PVS and they turn the machine off.
If you are in a coma on life-support your heart stops. That is what it means.
So, if it is decided that she did agree that if she ended up in a PVS that treatment should be removed, then she agreed to death by dehyration.
There are no choices here.
I think the only bone of contention is that some reckon that a choice, ie ethanasia, should not be an option.
I can't take this any more. Would everyone please read the f@#%*^g judgement from February 2000 before commenting any further?
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
The findings of the court back then were that:
1) Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state after [by then] nearly 10 years and has no hope of ever regaining consciousness. Her brain has largely been replaced by spinal fluid. This finding was based on the evidence of two doctors, and has NEVER been rebutted by medical evidence in ANY court.
2) Terri Schiavo is unable to eat or drink without a feeding tube, and she would die within 7-14 days without this feeding tube. She does not have the capacity to chew or swallow food placed in her mouth. [Quote] "The unrebutted medical testimony before this court is that such death would be painless."
3) Terri Schiavo made "creditable" and "reliable" oral statements to several witnesses that represent "clear and convincing evidence" of her intentions, i.e. that she would not want to be kept alive on a machine. The only rebutting evidence of her intentions was her parents' recall of something she said when she was 11 or 12.
This situation is not complex: just let the woman die. It's what she wanted.
Thanks Fyodor, you should get the shits more often. Does us all a world of good.
TrueRWDB,
You were the one complaining about being an 'agenda pusher' whilst using the term "condemned to death". I thought this strange, but I suspect that in the wash this is irrelevant.
None of my reasoning holds water if Terri is (a) not in a PVS, and (b) is deemed not to wish to die if in said state.
I shall take your sensible lead from several posts up and ask to get the nuts and bolts laid out.
My question to you is this hypothetical: A woman is definately in a PVS.
She has expressed to her husband that if in a PVS she be allowed to die. She knows that this death will be by dehydration.
What should happen?
"Perhaps it's that, as Mark seems to be asserting, the "law" has spoken and the law must be obeyed - end of story?"
That's not what I was asserting at all, TrueRWDB - I said right at the start that it's most unfortunate that this scenario is being played out in the Courts and Congress.
However, if there is doubt about her intention, it seems to be the only way to resolve it. I don't know how else people would suggest resolving the issue - it would be even worse if the decision were to be made politically as perhaps is already evident.
I'd repeat what I said at the start that the absence of legal provision for euthanasia in America necessarily implies that if her death comes, it will come in the way that disturbs many, including me.
^ Mark B. Many thanks for those links, Mark; it will take me a while to work through them and I suspect, after a quick perusal, that I am on a hiding to nowhere - Solomon AND Pandora in the same box, sheeesh!
You're not wrong, Ian. I became aware of some of these issues about a decade ago when I was doing a consultancy for a disability organisation and I'm glad to see there's been some serious thinking done in the Queensland jurisdiction as to how to handle them.
Mark; one can only hope that the resulting debate on this whole matter will allow some ongoing and rational progress on the so called "euthanasia issue".
I'd agree Ian but it seems unlikely that the debate will be all that rational.
"the Terri Schiavo side of the debate". Your comment, TrueRWDB, contains several rather subtle snide phrasings, some of which the other commentors have already taken issue with. Here you're implying, disgracefully, that the two sides of the issue are: a) those doing what Terri wants, and b) heartless murderers. Shame on *you*.
I don't think Terri should die, or be killed, or be allowed to die, or whatever. It's a very drastic measure, and besides, it doesn't really matter either way. As you said above, why is it so necessary that she die *now*? She's been in this state for so long, and shows no signs of physically dying soon (unless starved, o' course). Her mind is already dead. She won't feel a thing, whether she lives, dies painlessly, or starves. She won't even notice. Effectively, she's dead.
Her husband wants her to die to end her suffering. Fair enough, but if she's in the condition that every credible doctor --- and the courts --- say she's in, she can't possibly be suffering. No worries there. Her parents, meanwhile, cling to the impossible hope that she'll get better, and are willing to go to any lengths --- falsifying evidence, lying about Michael Schiavo's character (see blank's credulous comments above), procuring fake experts --- to see that nobody stands in the way of their fantasy. Obviously, they want it more.
Now, if I were in the sort of state Ron describes, I'd sure as hell want to die, and I'd be bloody cut if my dear old mother decided that she knew better, and there was nothing I could do to stop her needlessly prolonging my life. But in this case, it surely can't make a difference to Terri Schiavo. Why not give the Schindlers what they want, if only to end the sanctimonious bleating of hypocritical Republicans? (It's not okay to die if you want to, but if you're too poor to keep paying the hospital then there's no reason why they can't pull the plug straight away).
It's human nature to hope that someone gravely ill will one day get better. Unfortunately it's not always possible. You cannot recover from brain damage and a brain that has stopped functioning will never function again, in the same way that an amputated limb cannot be regrown.
It's human nature to hope that your 95 year old grandmother will recover from her massive heart attack. But the fact is that her heart has worn out and she is dying from it.
If the facts as quoted by Fyodor above are correct, I agree with his final point. Nature should have been allowed let to take its course 15 years ago. Not to sound religious - which I'm not - part of the problem is that doctors now have the technology that effectively allows them to play God and override God's or nature's decision about when a person's life would naturally come to an end. Their fear of being sued of course also plays into the equation.
From perusing this post and others around the sphere it seems to me that poor Terri should have been allowed to die years ago.
Not that I'm ignoring or trivialisng the moral issues involved.
Sophie said, "one thing I'm sure of ... Terri Schiavo would never have chosen to end her life by slow starvation. That is barbaric and revolting."
On what basis are you so sure? Are you universalising your own revulsion?
I can tell you right now that although a lethal injection would be preferable, I'd rather die by slow starvation over two weeks than "live" in a permanent vegetative state indefinitely.
Blank says, "The only 'evidence' that Ms Schiavo wants to die comes from her husband..."
That's not true.
I find it impossible to believe that the case could have gone through so many courts and appeals without being overturned if there was any substantial medical evidence to suggest that she might recover.
I'm also disturbed by the fact that the Schindler doctor is lying about being nominated for a Nobel prize (http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220009). It hardly inspires confidence in his professionalism and honesty.
Oh, come off the grass TrueRWDB. My "nasty" comments about agenda pushers were directed at the shenanigans in the US congress, and the bad faith exhibited in this matter by the Tom DeLays, Jeb Bushes and the rest of the organised US religious right. It was not directed at Ken's post or even at Prof Bunyip (who I believe based his "moral certainty" on ignorance of the facts, not on bad faith).
And mark's right - when it comes to prejudicial and abusive language you need to get the beam out of your own eye before pointing to the mote in your opponent's.
"despite what some people with an agenda claim"
That clearly applies to me and several others in this thread, derrida, as you omitted to qualify it at the time. As for prejudicial and abusive language, your "Bunyip's Bushian "moral clarity" is ignorant nonsense" is a major example, and was in fact the first instance of it in what until then had been a pretty civilised and intelligent comment box.
I don't know if this has been referenced before but this is very interesting reading.
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf
(1) So she's in a PVS. Let's assume this means she's ceased being a human being and that she is a a gendered plant. Why deliberately stop watering and feeding a plant which is loved and wanted by her parents? Because it's not human? Who says this is ethical?
(2) So she's a plant. Is the plant suffering? If not, see (1).
(3) Is there irrefutable evidence that before becoming a plant she has indicated she would want to be allowed to die if in a PVS? If not, there is doubt. If there is doubt, see (1).
Where are there any problems?
Why must she be denied the basic rights of a plant (i.e. access to food and water)?
The only question I can see is this: Who should bear the cost of the accomdation and feeding of this plant?
The answer is clear: Those who want her to be kept alive.
Everything else is agenda-driven rhetoric. Perhaps even my comments are nothing more than agenda-driven rhetoric. Perhaps all there is is agenda-driven rhetoric... Who knows...
So many questions, so few bullets... ;-)
Irant, having read through the document you refer to, and some other material, I've firmed up my views somewhat. I wouldn't express myself as strongly as Fyodor, but having read the document he referred to, his statement is perfectly justifiable IMO.
To repeat the reference Irant referred to:
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf
This was a report submitted to Governor Jeb Bush by Jay Wolfson, Guardian ad Litem to Theresa Marie Schiavo on 1 December 2003. It is a most intelligent and compassionate piece of work, completed after a review of the 30,000 pages of court documents, of talking to the interested parties, of visiting Terri especially in the company of her near relatives and observing the interactions. He gives a summary of the history of the whole matter and addresses the issues with admirable logic. His final footnote is instructive:
"The Schindlers [her parents] and the Schiavo's are normal, decent people who have found themselses within the construct of an exceptional circumstance which none of them, indeed few reasonable and normal people could have imagined. As a consequence of this circumstance, extensive urban mythology has created toxic clouds, causing the parties and others to behave in ways that may not, in the order of things, serve the best interests of the ward [ie. Terri]."
Two points here. First, most if not all the 'anti-Michael Schiavo' writing has been based on distortions, omissions, negative aspersions, and, in most cases, untruths. This includes the guest post by Jerri Lynn Ward at The Currency Lad:
http://thecurrencylad.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-case-history-and.html
The same seems to apply to some of the writing about the Schindlers.
Second, I now see Congress' intervention as entirely negative. It appears that legal matters affecting people's personal lives are typically handled at state level in the US system. It seems certain that the intervention of Congress has been/will be attended with less rationality, less human compassion and more political ideology than if left where it should be.
Bruce Schapiro talking to Phillip Adams on Wednesday saw it as the Bushies way of satisfying their religious right constituency without actually doing anything substantial.
On this matter the Slate article by Dahlia Lithwick 'Activist Legislators: The boundless overreaching behind Congress' new Schiavo bill' is absolutely worth reading. This was referred to by Geoff Honnor on the other thread and may be found at:
http://www.slate.com/id/2115124/
It begins:
"Whether Terri Schiavo will live or die in the coming days has come down to this: Can federal district judge James Whittemore set aside virtually every bedrock constitutional principle on which this nation was founded, just so members of the United States Congress may constitutionalize the nowhere-to-be-found legal principle that a "culture of life" is a good thing?"
It gets better from there.
The question needs to be asked whether Congress is serious in this "culture of life" agenda about addressing the 16,000 to 35,000 people currently in a persistent vegetative state in the US, not to mention the other areas of life they intend to involve themselves in. Or, OTOH, is it merely opportunistic so that they can appear to be doing something on an issue where they can hitch an easy ride? And at the same time keep their political constituency hitched? Far be it from me to make a call on this one.
It is not surprising in view of the precedent and the potential workload that both the Federal and the Supreme courts have declined to intervene.
On the matter of Terri's wishes, Wolfson makes clear that:
"Florida... has chosen to employ guidelines that include surrogate decisions by the bonafide legal guardian AND/OR clear and convincing evidence as to the intentions of the person."
He points out that some other states require a more stringent level of proof in terms of 'beyond reasonable doubt' or even a written statement of the living will kind. He points out that decisions regarding Terri Schiavo have been made, multiple times, not by Michael Schiavo but by the courts.
The 2000 court document referred to by Fyodor goes into some detail how the 'clear and convincing evidence' is based on statements made to people other than Michael Schiavo on more than one occasion. This document is at:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
Fundamental to the case is the condition of Terri Schiavo's brain. Bill had referred me to the CAT scans at:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/18/terri-schiavo-news/
I had already seen them, but as a non-medico I couldn't spot the healthy brain. It could be that a doctor, on seeing the CAT scan, would say, No need for an MRI, the situation is clear. Certainly the contrast in the images does appear stark.
Wolfson goes into the matter in some detail, concentrating instead on swallow tests. The gold standard test, he says, is the modified barium test. Terri failed this test three times in the early years.
Wolfson points out that we should be looking for signs of "purposeful, reproducible, interactive awareness." Over thirteen years, at the time of his review, there had never been any. Not a blip, with the possible exception of a sound that was perceived as "no" in an early physio session, but never repeated.
He points out that people in a persistent vegetative state typically track movement with their eyes, respond to deep pain, appear startled at loud noises, make gurgling sounds and have facial expressions that simulate a smile. These are reflex actions emanating from the brain stem and do not indicate any cognitive awareness.
He comments further that Terri Schiavo in real life and with caring people around her has "a distinct presence" that is deceiving. None of this indicates any cognitive brain function whatsoever.
He concludes that the law has worked well in this case in responding to the challenges put to it. Terri, it seems, has lived longer by far than is normal, even for a younger person, and has far exceeded any known case where there has been a recovery with "any functional capacity."
The document Fyodor referred to mentions that the falling out of the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo dates precisely with the payout of his successful medical negligence claim in 1993. He won $700,000 for the care of Terri, which was placed in a trust, and $300,000 for himself. It seems the Schindlers expected that he would share this amount with them. He didn't and they haven't spoken since.
It seems as Terri's heir Michael had a clear conflict of inerest, but the Schindlers by legally removing him from the scene would also have replaced him as heir.
Early on the Schindlers and Michael were very close. They encouraged Michael to get on with his life, and it seems that he introduced his early dates to them until they fell out.
What a tangled web we weave!
An excellent and well-considered post, Brian. Thanks for putting in the hard yards. Without wishing to re-trace your path through the relevant documents it seems to me that your reading is as close as we can get to a bottom line.
Terri died many years ago but has been artificially kept in a state of life - a living corpse, as Irant said on his blog. That itself appears to have more than a taint of moral transgression about it, despite the righteous indignation emanating from the right.
Thanks, Rob, I agree with your comment.
Diogenes, I don't want to enter your little construct, but I can sympathise with the parents.
I've known some oldies who looked forward to death, but the death of a child prior to a parent seems to offend nature. My wife often says that a parent never recovers from the death of a child and I daresay she's right.
In this case it apperars Michael was passionate and aggressive in trying to rehabilitate Terri for about four years. Then he recognized reality and tried to come to terms with it. Having been frustrated over the natural conclusion to things, he nevertheless is still the most assiduous visitor of Terri.
The Schindlers OTOH seem to have entered a phase of denial. After accepting that Terri was PVS now, it seems, they deny that such a state exists.
Nevertheless, Diogenes, the ability to pay should not be a factor in first world conditions. Far from being clear, some of us may find it offensive that the ability to pay comes into it.
This was the first instance where Bunyip is an idiot. Apparently he doesn't understand the concept of a "liquified cortex". Other commenters have said "you wouldn't do this (withholding nourishment) to a dog or horse". Well, of course, we don't. They get a needle or a captive bolt through the skull instead.
Sick people are killed every day in Australia, if you want to put it like that. Visit a cancer ward and experience the reality of assisted death.
My sainted mother-in-law was put down a few years ago. Did she really die of congestive heart failure, huge, bloated, and drowning in her own body fluids, hacking and gasping for breath in agony? Or was it the increasing and large doses or morphine that did it? With her husband and son and her bedside, "It OK Mum, it's time. You can let go now..."
The sanctimonious preaching of Bunyip, whose sheltered life doesn't extend to the reality of terminal illness, is nauseating.
"The sanctimonious preaching of Bunyip, whose sheltered life doesn't extend to the reality of terminal illness, is nauseating."
How do you know this? You personally met the fellow? I don't even know who he is.
Do not assume anything. Just because you read a man's blog does not mean that you know a man.
I agree with Scott. I suspect that Bunyip has experienced the reality of terminal illness - most of us have. That said, I found his post a bit puzzling. Has anyone, ever, said to their Next-Of-Kin - "look, if I end up in a persistent vegetative state don't - whatever you do - let me go peacefully into eternity?" I bet Bunyip hasn't heard that, nor me, nor most people. I guess I'm forced to conclude that Bunyip's position is motivated ultimately by a partisanship that doesn't have a lot to do with Terri Schiavo.
Having lived through similar scenarios - a blood relative and a lot of close friends with AIDS - I don't doubt that the Schindlers are well-intentioned. Equally, I don't doubt that a lot of people who don't know the Schiavos or the Schindlers are clamouring in support of positions that ultimately are totally peripheral to Terri Schiavo's specific circumstances.
The bulk of legal and medical opinion supports Michael Schiavo's position in respect of his wife and has done so consistently over 15 years. It's awful whatever way you look at it but that's where it is.
Fair point, Diogenes. And I promise that if you die young and your parents want to have you stuffed, I'll campaign tirelessly for their right to do so, as long as they're prepared to pay for it, and provided you haven't explicitly stated you don't want to be cuddly toy.
While I'm on the topic I just wanted to take up Irant's comment that we need to consider these and similar issues in our society.
Last year I recall an extended interview, probably by Phillip Adams, with some-one who had done research on the extent of unofficial voluntary euthanasia in Australia, with and without the participation of doctors. He found that such practices were quite common. Unfortunately I've forgotton his name.
On Wednesday Phillip Nitscke told Phillip Adams that the practice of doctors ramping up the morphine dose until the hopelessly terminal patient dies is quite common.
At the same time he said that where voluntary euthanasia had been made available, as in The Netherlands, its use had stabilised. (Cynics would say, he would say that!) The segment was titled "The Peaceful Pill Project" and was mainly about "current attempts at developing a 'peaceful pill' that would be reliable and would provide a peaceful, dignified death." Its available on audio at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lnl/s1330252.htm
On reflection, I think our neglect and our denial of the NTs euthanasia legislation has already put us on the slippery slope. Better that we consider the issues properly and make sensible decisions to provide reasonably orderly pathways when our time has come "to shuffle off this mortal coil." (Hamlet, see http://www.abc.net.au/classic/breakfast/stories/s763324.htm)
Mark has advised of a relevant project in Qld. The project " Rethinking Life-Sustaining Measures" is a project that "reviews the law that governs the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment from adults in Queensland and suggests how it might be improved."
It starts with the questions:
"When should a person who has a heart attack not be resuscitated? When should a patient no longer be kept alive on a ventilator, or be provided with artificial hydration and nutrition through a tube? When should a person not be given a blood transfusion they need to stay alive?"
The project site is at:
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/research/lifesustain/
Andrew Bartlett on the other thread makes reference to a relevant bill before the Senate that "seeks to make it an offence to use the internet to access, transmit or make available material that counsels or incites suicide."
I believe it was this bill that Dr Nitscke said would make activities planned by persons known and no doubt associated with him difficult to execute. Andrew questions the bill's practicality and whether it will work as planned. His comment and links are at:
http://andrewbartlettonline.blogspot.com/2005/03/live-and-let-die.html
Nitscke says that popular support for voluntary euthanasia has been flatlining for about 30 years at, from memory, about the 70-75% level. Regretfully one must anticipate, I think, more heat than light when these issues return to the public domain. No doubt pollies will be given a conscience vote, which seems to absolve them of representative duties, their consciences being more finely tuned than ours.
Brian, it is indeed the case, I believe, that euthanasia is practices 'unoffically' quite commonly in Australia.
For the relatives of such patients it is probably worst. But to perhaps open a different window on the issue, consider the health care professionals who watch patients suffering through months if not years of agony because the relatives have forbidden the use of ameliorative drugs that could potentially hasten the death of someone who is dying anyway.
A couple of years ago my wife, who has had experience of just about every condition known to nursing and is not easily shocked by what she encounters, came home in a flood of furious tears because she had been obliged to nurse a poor 90 year old woman who was literally decomposing while she was still alive. This because her relatives refused to countenance the use of drugs that might have had a terminative effect (i.e. killed her, put her out of her misery, whatever).
As she said, 'She knows she's dying, she wants to die, all her friends are dead, why can't they just LET HER GO?'
OK, TrueRWDB, if you think my language was a bit sharp, I'm sorry - let's both keep it a bit civilised.
But after reading Brain's long post above you must realise that my characterisation of Bunyip's post as "ignorant nonsense" might have been unwisely rude but it was on the mark - he hadn't bothered to acquaint himself with the facts and consequently spoke dogmatic nonsense. Oh, and I don't resile at all from the charge that there's a lot of bad faith amongst the Republican right politicians on this issue.
"Brian, it is indeed the case, I believe, that euthanasia is practices 'unoffically' quite commonly in Australia.'
All the time Rob. In a practical sense, there's a great amorphous, billowing, ill-defined line between euthanasia and providing compassionate, patient-centred, palliative care.
I take your point, Geoff. Scott called this post 'Where do you draw the line?' and it's a good question - the best question. I think the heat this case has evoked on this and other blogs is because there really is no more important issue than this one: that of life and death. Philosophers and moralists have debated this endlessly because it is the final, perhaps the unanswerable question. We are just reprising it.
I'm not religious, or at least not a believer, but I think maybe it's the language of religion more than any other that we have to rely on here.
Framed in religious terms, and I don't know how or by what means this could be translated in secular terms, my personal position would be: if God has decided that the time has come to gather one of His children into His arms then it is not for humans to gainsay Him. I just don't know how else to say it.
You can substitute 'nature' for 'God' and get the same effect.
What this would mean in practical terms is that if the life-force, however we define or understand it, has escaped or been expelled from its human carapace and gone to whence it came - whether back to God, to the soil, whatever - then it has gone. If you re-animate the body, the life-force will not return to it. You have an animate body without its necessary engine, its life-force, which seems to me to be what was done to Terri. At the risk of over-dramatising I think what you have is not a human being but humunculus - a grotesquerie masquerading as human but created and sustained by science.
Therefore, if ambulance officers happen across or are called to a motor car accident in which a person is clinically dead - UNLESS they know the person died less than three minutes prior - they should cover the victim's eyes, accept the fact of death, and accord the body the usual respects. As should everyone else.
Reading what I just wrote I'm conscious this probably does not answer your question and even sounds like New Age crap. It's what I think anyway, for what it's worth.
Oh dear, I am getting a hammering, what? Lots of emotions flying around this debate. I may be trying to defend the indefensible, but I feel I must try. These are the premises from which I'm operating:
(1) Terri is not discernably suffering, in distress, or in pain. As a vegetative organism she is operating normally except for the ability to chew or swallow i.e. her lungs, heart, kidneys, liver are all operating normally. I do not know if she does in fact have a "liquified cortex", nor do I know what this really means in terms of giving weight to the argument that she should not be kept alive any longer.
(2) There is no real evidence as to what her wishes would be regarding her present condition.
(3) There are several close relatives who very strongly want her to be kept alive.
(4) Terry's relatives live in a world where money does facilitate opportunites for those who have it which are not available to those who do not have it. To say that they should only have those opportunities which the most disadvantaged have (or don't have) is sophistry in this debate. Ultimately this line of "reasoning" would suggest I should stop buying food because others don't have money to buy food.
Therefore I can find no rational argument IN THIS CASE for instisting that Terri's life be ended.
Surely if those near and dear to Terri cannot agree whether she should live or die, and there is a passionate plea from some that she should be left to live, then we should not be over-riding this due to some academic argument about why she should not, keeping in mind that she is not suffering or in pain.
I'm all for mercy killing under some circummstances, but I have yet to read anything about this case that suggests that there is suffering, pain or any other reason that makes the case for terminating Terri's life compelling.
I'd be happy to hear from anyone who wants to tell me what the case is for a mandatory death sentence to be passed on Terri Schiavo (either here, or on my blog where I'm also airing my comment on this.)
And I think poor Terri's pitiful mortal remnants should be allowed to escape the clutches of the Frankensteinian talons which have claimed them these 15 years, and go to whatever 'beyond' in which her disembodied soul awaits a belated reunion.
(I am obviously ready for a religious conversion of some sort.)
I've just found a couple of posts by Rivka at Respectful of Otters, the last of which is at:
http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#111158642633733577
I'm not sure if they have been referred to earlier.
She(he?) quotes from a Dr Ronald Cranford a consulting neurologist on the original Schiavo trial. Here's an extract:
"An MRI was never recommended because, in this case and other patients in a permanent vegetative state, the CT scans were more than adequate to demonstrate the extremely severe atrophy of the cerebral hemispheres, and an MRI would add nothing of significance to what we see on the CT scans. Plus the MRI is contraindicated because of the intrathalamic stimulators implanted in Terri's brain. A PET scan was never done in this case because it was never needed. The classic clinical signs on examination, the CT scans, and the flat EEG's were more than adequate to diagnose PVS to the highest degree of medical certainty."
Pretty well nails it, I would think.
The earlier post goes into considerable detail, inter alia, about the incompetence of the medical witnesses used by the Schindlers and the utility of behavioural tests as against scans. It's at:
http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#111120735448873570
Rivka also makes manifestly clear that when we are talking about Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex we are talking about something that is simply not there.
Diogenes, beyond that I'm not going to answer your stuff because you are clearly not paying attention. Read the links suggested by Fyodor and Irant if you think that "there is no real evidence as to what her wishes would be regarding her present condition."
The form of words used is "clear and convincing evidence as to the intentions of the person." The references are:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
and:
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf
Finally I've read, for the first time actually, hilzoy at Obsidian Wings. Ken linked to this one in his post. It's at:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/03/terri_schiavo.html
It's an impressive post. She makes the point that "What's at issue in this case is not 'life'; it's patient autonomy." Shoving a tube down some-one's throat is already a major invasion of the person. Subsequent withdrawal of the tube is not killing some-one, it's withdrawing support.
She makes her case with great clarity, at some length.
Furthermore, she points out the uniqueness of individual cases and the impossibility of anticipating all circumstances. Hence even living wills are typically the subject of interpretation.
I've gotta do something else tomorrow, so for now, seeya.
My partner has told me she wouldn't want to be kept on unending life support if she was in a PVS (ok, ok, Shiavo is not on life support).
And I'd respect that decision.
But I'd draw the bloody line at making it if it meant starving her to death over a period of 10-14 days.
Brian, you dismissively refer to my "construct" and also decline to answer my "stuff" because you have decided that I am "clearly not paying attention" (again, a dismissive and evasive ploy).
Well, Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all positions taken in this debate, including yours, mere ethical constructs?
And perhaps you'd care to explain how "accepted testimony" is somehow synonymous with "irrefutable evidence"?
"Accepted testimony", last time I looked, meant "we'll take your word for it". That's hardly the same thing as irrefutable evidence. One is highly subjective whilst the other is objectively absolute.
What has been deftly obfuscated in all of this is that there is doubt about what her prior intentions actually were. The judge is guessing with regard to her prior intentions. On the basis of his "gut feelings" he is prepared to order the death of a person who is not demonstrably suffering or in pain, and despite the person's parents pleading she be allowed to contimue living.
In amongst all that stuff I'm accused me of "not paying attention" to, someone even trotted out Descartes's old chestnut. I mean, really!!!
Are you guys seriously suggesting that something exists only if it can think? The inverse being "I don't think, therefore I am not" ?? Someone's not really thinking today, are they?
You guys want to kill her because you've convinced yourselves she cannot think? Neurology is not yet rocket science. They don't really know what's going on inside the mind of that person. But on the basis of mere assumptions, you feel that a court should order her death.
Oh, I forgot, there is no mind, only a brain. And there is no soul, only a mental "construct" of a soul. And you're absolutely certain about this, are you?
My position is that there's too much we don't know to justify ordering the death of this person but it seems those more "knowledgeable" than I have no such qualms.
But I don't see that they have any knowledge, I only see flimsy ethical constructs no stronger than my own, but then I'm not using mine to jusify ordering a death to be caused.
I'll say what I suspect everyone's been thinking but no one's been saying yet: You're all worried that this might wedge the pro-choice abortion debate, right? That's the hidden agenda here, isn't it? That's why Terri Schiavo must die? Because you can't tell the difference between apples and oranges?
What a piss-weak excuse for killing someone...
You've all read too much Peter Singer.
At the end of the day we're all just taking our chosen ethical positions. What fascinates me though is this insistance, by those shouting me down, that Terri Schiavo must die because she is too profoundly disabled. Slippery slope here we come...
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12661249-23109,00.html What a crying shame that such a sad and private moment for any family has to be played out in a public area.
Having read through the link I provided and then Brian's I also have firmed my position that Terri is not there. Her cerebral cortex is gone and the EEGs are flat. Her brain is gone and there is no coming back. This should of been between her husband and her family. For the US government to get involved is simple political expediency but that doesn't excuse some elements of the left also using the issue in the same manner.
As for the slippery slope, that argument doesn't wash if your ability to think can rise above simple sloganeering. I repeat that the case has shown the inability of current legislation to deal with such patients (whether a living will exists or not). I don't want to her starve to death (even if totally unaware) for reasons mentioned before.
Terry Schiavo's case is not simply "the culture of life" vs "the culture of death" poltics. I don't blame her husband and I don't blame her parents. My reading is that they all tried to take what they thought was the best course of action. The case is a bloody mess that has drag on for 15 years and has now been over taken by self-righteous mobs from both sides of the political spectrum.
If any good comes out of this it will be the awareness of the need for living wills and also a re-examination of euthanasia laws to cope with living wills and humane deaths.
Brian Bahnisch mentions my mention of the Bill currently before a Senate Committee that seeks to make it an offence to use the internet to make available material that counsels or incites suicide. I'm a bit surprised given all the interest in the Terri Schiavo case from the USA that there's not more interest in a planned law here that touches on some of the same 'right to die' arguments (while acknowledging there are some very clear differences between the two issues too) - maybe people just see it as another Govt stunt and therefore of no real substance, but it could end up affecting people in some significant and maybe unintended ways.
Anyway, I was mainly re-entering this debate because I found a separate comment from that post of Brian's a bit curious - he said "when these issues return to the public domain, no doubt pollies will be given a conscience vote, which seems to absolve them of representative duties, their consciences being more finely tuned than ours."
I don't mind the last eight words, but I was curious about the suggestion that a conscience vote might absolve a representative duty. I don't want to go too far off-topic, but I would have thought if anything a conscience gave more scope for being representative than the usual 'toe the party line' vote. (my personal interest in the operation of this stuff is duly declared)
Andrew, on lack of interest, maybe Senate majorities are going to be truly debilitating for democratic debate. Also it is difficult, at least not straight forward, to hunt down a specific bill, even on the internet.
On the conscience vote question, the issue is whether my local rep should examine his conscience, or whether he should try to represent the consciences of his electorate. Phillip Nitschke was suggesting that the electorate was ahead (if that's progress) of the pollies on this one.
The last eight words were meant ot be ironic.
Cheers
Irant, the video clip that they keep playing and is apparently repeated endlessly in the US has me worried. It had me fooled at first until I understood that we were actually seeing reflex actions stemming from the brain stem, not the cerebral cortex. We may end up in the US with a significant proportion of people thinking a grave wrong was done.
Other than that I agree with your hope for better laws.
Ian, I think it was hilzoy who pointed out that many of us would rather be dead than have certain things happen. Most people, she suggests, would rather be dead than lie in a PVS condition while their intimates fight bitterly over what is to be done and our private affairs are picked over by all and sundry.
diogenes, I'm sorry I was dismissive and offhand. Both times you showed up I was trying to wrap up for the night. I probably should have engaged more fully or let it be. Actually I wouldn't mind moving on from this topic sometime soon. Yesterday a friend came around and largely convinced me that the po-mos have taken over the Ed dept as well as teacher education, at least wrt early childhood education. Horror of horrors they are openly debunking the human development theories of one Erik Erikson. Our friend blamed it all on a guy called Henry Foo-ko. Now there's a crisis in our civilisation for you!
Nevertheless I am of an age where I should be thinking about living wills and how best to die, so we'll stick with it for a bit.
Yes, diogenes, we come to the issue with what might be termed constructs. It's inevitable and better than coming with an empty head (no aspersions intended!)
I honestly thought that if you read some of the referenced material you wouldn't still say "I do not know if she does in fact have a "liquified cortex" or "There is no real evidence as to what her wishes would be regarding her present condition."
But if you picked up the Descartes reference you have indeed eyeballed some of the relevant material. From memory, the Descartes reference was to his notion that our conscious reflexive awareness (not quite the actual terms used) was what distinguished us as humans. It's inappropriate in this context, IMHO, to dismiss this as an "old chestnut". We are not principally in the domain of philosophical discourse, we are in the 'social norms' paddock. In this context Descartes old chestnut can pass as good common sense. In this context we should be ratcheting up the dial on common sense without turning down the dial on rationality. We haven't started on the metaphysics yet and I'm not about to begin.
On the state of Terri's brain, the best medical opinion is only divided on whether there is "a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex" or whether there isn't. No-one, it seems to me, who is properly qualified thinks the situation is retrievable. She will, with a high degree of certainty, be PVS until she dies. So the question is whether (1) she should maintained in a PVS state until she dies, (2) whether invasive, involuntary (no one asked her about this specific instance) life support should be withdrawn and the natural dying process be allowed to take it's course, or (3) whether she should be actively assisted to die, ie. killed.
The law in Florida doesn't allow (3).
Michael Schiavo has the right, under law, to ask the caring institution to implement (2). He hasn't done so. Rather, he has effectively abrogated this function in favour of the court, by asking the court in 1998 to so order. The law regognises the importance of establishing the incompetence of the 'ward' ie Terri and respects the wishes of the ward. (Maybe it could be stated more strongly than that, but that'll do.) In any case Michael took this action, he says, and I see no reason to doubt, because that is what Terri would want and actually said so.
The court appears to have satisfied itself that Terri is irretrievably PVS. You, diogenes, can still think otherwise, but I can't help you much more than that.
On Terri's wishes "accepted testimony" is NOT somehow synonymous with "irrefutable evidence". You are asking for 100% proof here, and hilzoy says "requiring 100% certainty about someone's wishes would make it impossible to decide what to do for any incompetent patient." The standard required in Florida is "clear and convincing evidence". "Convincing" means just that. The court decides which testimony is convincing and which isn't. The court was convinced by the testimony of Michael Schiavo and more particularly by the testimony of others. The court was unconvinced by the testimony of the Schindlers.
Jay Wolfson as Guardian ad Litem found that the courts had properly done their work. But he had sought a consensus from Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers, thought he had it, and was clearly distressed when it failed at the last moment. The higher courts have all confirmed the court's decision, which is now being implemented.
I simply note what's happening diogenes, I don't wish Terri Schiavo dead. My one wish would be that the enmity between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers would end. Exremely unlikely, I'm afraid.
For me there are two main questions (I leave aside the political carrying on for the moment).
Should the law be changed in Florida and elsewhere. Answer, yes, but I'm not sure how.
What should I do myself? It's a work in progress and the hour is late, but a few thoughts.
I was impressed with our young son's answer when we asked him once about what would he want to happen after he died. He gave us that 'stupid parents' look and said, If he was dead he would be dead and hence would have no interest in what happened. How could he? If you are dead, you're dead!
I don't mind what they do to me, but I'd prefer it be a bit respectful. I don't want to be a stuffed toy!
But even so, assuming I'm unable to express a view, but still not dead, I'd trust others who know me well to do the most appropriate thing in those specific circumstances, which may well be unforeseeable. I'd be looking for a process rather than an outcome, a clear decisionmaking capacity invested in one person, with some obligation to consult those with an immediate connection. Consensus would be the aim, but not ultimately mandatory.
But I'm sure the lawyer will have ideas too!
Sorry to be so long-winded, but most likely that's me all over on this one, as the fly said to... Oh gawd, stop!
"I don't mind the last eight words, but I was curious about the suggestion that a conscience vote might absolve a representative duty. I don't want to go too far off-topic, but I would have thought if anything a conscience gave more scope for being representative than the usual 'toe the party line' vote. (my personal interest in the operation of this stuff is duly declared)"
Andrew, I think the point here is that when we vote for our MPs (particularly in the lower house) typically we don't do so on the basis of their views on issues such as euthanasia and abortion which sometimes see conscience votes in Parliament, but rather on the basis of who we would like to see form the government. Therefore, as an elector of Brisbane, I see no reason why Arch Bevis' conscience should be particularly privileged (I don't know his position on these issues so the comment's not personal - and the fact that I don't is the point) over the rest of us. Particularly, since it seems that on a number of issues (euthanasia, abortion and also the decriminalisation of prostitution and recreational drugs) Parliamentarians seem either more conservative than the population or to give more weight to minorities than majorities on these issues.
I've just posted on the issue of conscience voting in Parliament and the duty representatives owe to their constituents' consciences:
http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/03/27/conscientious-representatives/
Great post, Mark, though I would probably go for the Burkean proposition over the 'consult the people's conscience rather than their own' option.
I don't know if it's a reasonable analogy but governments don't consult us over exactly how they spend our taxes or, as we saw pretty clearly over Iraq, on whether or not the nation goes to war. If we don't like their decisions we boot them out at the next election.
For governments to get involved in issues of morality or conscience makes my J.S. Mill-conditioned reflexes start to twitch. For example, I disagree vehemently with the British government's decision to ban fox-hunting - which I believe has majority support in the UK - on purely libertarian grounds. That is, no harm is being done (except to the foxes, which from a farmer's point of view are feral pests) and if people chose to make fools of themselves riding around the countryside at speed in silly costumes it's entirely up to them.
As for majority support for the progressive eposition - e.g. on voluntary euthanasia - my meaderings over the internet over the past few days has found many more blogs and comments that oppose, with various degrees of vehemence, the withdrawal of the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo than support it. Which surprised me, I must say.
I may be missing your point here, however.
Feel free to post your comment over at my place, Rob, and I'll post a response!
Shall do.
"governments don't consult us over exactly how they spend our taxes"
Rob there are many instances in Brazil at the city/municipal level where governments do consult the people on their budgets. It is termed 'participative democracy' and is one ray of hope for the future.
Unfortunately I don't have any references readily to hand. I've seen some materials via email from the Transnational Institute where they have a 'democratisation' project, but unfortunately their website is a bit of beast:
http://www.tni.org/
Brian, no apology necessary. I was just asking for my commnets to receive some genuine consideration.
It needs to be understood I'm not putting up a legal argument but a moral one.
I still don't think that I've been understood by anyone here yet. Or perhaps my ideas are just so unacceptabbly repulsive they must by their very nature be ignored. It's possible. But if so, I'd like to have my moral errors pointed out to me.
I accept she's in a PVS, my original "construct" indicated this very clearly if somewhat starkly..
I also believe she is not suffering or in any pain. This point is crucial, because from what I can make out, all arguments for killing her (and deliberately discontinuing the delivery of food/water is an act of killing - this crap about "allowing to die" is IMHO just that, crap) come down to just two justifications:
(1) She is suffering/in pain.
(2) In these circumnstances, she would want to die.
Well, (1) clearly does not apply.
So, down to (2): I still hold that anything less than 100% proof of her prior intention is unacceptable when one is claiming to come from the argument that it was her prior intention.
This then leaves us the default argument that most are comfortable with which is this: Under these circumstances, if she had made a living will, she would have expressed an intention to be euthanased.
Well, I find it gross that this view should be imposed upon her under the guise of "reasonable argument".
Another variant of this argument which has received popular support in this debate is that "most people would choose to die, therefore in the absence of knowledge about her wishes, we will kill her."
I think the sphistry inherent in this "argument" is quite obvious.
So this leaves us with the issue of guardianship. And this is where I have the biggest problem. I don't think the husband's guardianship powers (or the state's, or the court's) should extend to the power to order the death of someone whilst there are close relatives (e.g. parents) vehemently opposed to it.
All I'm saying is that where there are the moral dilemmas which exist in this case, one should not default to the death option and that (in this case) the parent's wishes should be allowed to prevail.
Where's the harm?
Why this insistence on death rather than life?
Descartes? Applying his maxim is IMHO very much in the realm of metaphysics (which you say we will not enter into). But in any case, if his maxim is to be applied to Terri's case then it could only be along the lines of "she doesn't think, therefore she does not (or must not be allowed to continue to) exist." I find such a negation of Terri's existence offensive and dangerous.
Whilst we good little secularists must not enter the realms of metaphysics or religion, we must, I think, nevertheless RESPECT and ACCOMMODATE the religious or spiritual beliefs/values of the family when it comes to death, dying or the termination of life, and whilst I don't know if any such beliefs/values apply in this case, much of the argument put forth here clearly sought to ignore or over-rule such "inferior" constructs. This, in my book, is akin to secular fundamentalism, and there is a lot of that about these days, albeit well disguised with meretricious rhetoric and well polished sophistry.
Let's remember, girls and boys, we cannot PROVE that there is no God, spiritual realm, soul, etc, etc, and we must never loses sight of this important fact.
diogenes it did occur to me that you were arguing on moral grounds, but it seemed to me that it was hypothetical if you didn't have the facts staight.
Also to be honest I was focussing so much on what I thought about it that I didn't want to play in your patch at that time. Parallel play is what my missus calls it in the preschool, but it doesn't result in useful discourse.
I'm not sure what I can do with your restated argument. Nothing right now, because we've got folks arriving soon. I'll try to have a look, a think and then see what happens.
diogenes, I guess that I'm on the other side of the line from you on this particular issue but you're absolutely right to remind us of the religious dimension.
Struggling to put myself in the position of a believer, I am conscious of some of the great words from the Anglican Burial Service (known to all): 'The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.'
I suspect, as perhaps you do too, that you cannot erase the presence of God from the point at which life begins and the point at which it ends. These are moments of unmasterable mystery. That's why every culture that I have studied or am aware of recognises (or imputes) the work of the hand of the divine at those times.
'Blessed be the name of the Lord' to me implies resignation, acceptance, a coming to terms with the grief of loss. To me, this says that Terri Schiavo died by the will of God fifteen years ago, but the expression of that will was rebutted by human technologies that enabled the confutation of resignation and acceptance. I wonder if this could not be regarded as a sacrilege of sorts?
I'm not trying to score points here and perhaps someone who is a believer (C.L.?) could shed some light on this aspect of the issue.
Rob, I alternate between atheism and agnosticism so I'm not going to speculate about what the will of God was, or whether or not God has taken any action at all with regards to Terri Schiavo.
As far as Terri having been dead for the last fifteen years, I would say that that in itself is an eminently debatable theory and not at all an absolute fact, and if you win THAT debate, then you win this one as well. If there's a key area in which I might have missed something whilst trawling through the mountains of references quoted here, it is this one.
diogenes, I'm still trying to nut things out and this is a first cut. There is much that I can agree with in your latest comment. I probably won't get to mention all of it. Also if we are going to talk about a moral argument some excursion into metaphysics (an area in which I claim no expertise) may be inevitable.
Let me say straight away that if one values most of all peace and harmony between those who are left behind, then the one most likely to be persuaded to shift ground is Michael Schiavo. The Schindlers position seems to be more emotional and irrational and ultimately harder to shift. If you were a mediator who wanted to get a result you'd target Michael.
I don't think he is likely to change his view on the nature of Terri's wishes. So you would have to persuade him that he should accord a greater value to harmony with the living than the wishes (or even the 'rights') of the effectively dead. Effectively dead, that is, in terms of being able to function as a human.
This is actually how I feel about myself. If I'm dead or in a PVS condition, and hence irretrievably incapable of intersubjectivity that is both responsive and positively creative , then per se what happens to me is no concern of mine. I feel it would be better for those left behind to let me go and to move on with their lives.
So, yes, there is some harm to those I once loved if they continue to fixate on me as the living dead. Better they hold me in memory, at least for a time, and then continue their life-course, enriched by creative interaction with other living beings.
Behind this is the notion that we are not rights bearing isolates. Rather we are in constant change and development through a process of creative interaction with each other. 'Creative' as an inner process and also in the sense that we are each contributing to the change in others and they in us. Actually that is still stated too much in transactional terms. Through intersubjectivity the whole is more than the sum of the parts when the new and magical is likely to occur.
I'm trying to say that what matters in terms of the 'culture of life' is what happens to the living rather to the dead or the living dead.
It may shock, but the dead have no rights other than those accorded by the living. In this regard I would put to you that Terri Schiavo's wishes should be respectively noted, taken on board, but should not be regarded as absolute. In any case, communication is never perfect and to demand a 100% standard is ultimately disabling.
Yet the Terri Schiavo situation still presents as a difficulty as no-one (incluiding the state) should force the Schindlers to let go and move on, especially if I consider that money and the ability to pay should be taken out of the equation. (This is a position I've come to only after reading your comment.) So the best solution to me is still that the Schindlers should concede to Michael's wish. If that doesn't happen we shouldn't force the Schindlers, so their will is a second best solution.
This leaves aside for now the question as to whether support should be withdrawn or a proactive solution should be preferred.
Rob, I'd also like to tackle the relgious dimension, but the hour is late and my head is thick!
I'm tired too, Brian and diogenes, but here's a thought from Arthur Conan Doyle that I tend to reflect on when these sorts of debates surface. It may be germane or not.
"There is danger there - a very real danger to humanity. Consider, Watson, that the material, the sensual, the worldly would all prolong their worthless lives. The spiritual would not avoid the call to something higher. It would be the survival of the least fit. What sort of cesspool may not our poor world become?"
From The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes ("The Creeping Man")
I was out working today and had a 60 acre property in Upper Brookfield all to myself. This whole issue was beautifully sorted in my mind. Came home and found an invited guest had turned up a week early, to her total embarrassment. Much wine and good conversation followed, but all is not now so clear.
Nevertheless the basic situation seems quite straight forward. Terri Schiavo has not been dead for 15 years, but tragically her life as a functioning human being has ended. Without medical intervention she would have died in 1990. Through modern medicine an attempt was made to rescue her at the point of death. The rescue attempt failed. It left her in a state where basic biological functions could continue, provided that the failed intervention continues, but with no hope of restoring a human life with volition, the capacities of awarenes, reflection, feeling and the abilty to interact with other human beings. In these terms the continued intervention has no purpose.
When we die Nature typically tidies up by turning us into food or fertiliser. The other main variant we have added is the cleansing effect of fire. But humans have added to this procedure routines and rituals through which we celebrate the life that has ended, mourn it, place it in memory, look forward and begin to move on. And if it is an Irish wake, although I've never been to one I understand that new life may well be created in the process.
In the PVS situation, we should now do what nature intended, and what will happen sooner or later. We should tidy up. We are dealing here, in strict practical terms, stripping away the emotion, not with a human life but the residue of one. A necessary condition for being human is clear: we need a functioning cerebral cortex.
We have used an intervention strategy which has failed. But the resultant situation is one for which we have no adequate socially constructed and accepted procedures and rituals. What these should be is ultimately not for me to say, but I do think that just letting things drift is not the answer.
Two further comments. Firstly, as I understand it every society has a concept of murder, but every society also has a concept of sanctioned (or at least decriminalised) killing. Typically this is for the defence of self, others or the state.
I would argue that that both the withdrawal of life support and the administration of a lethal injection are methods of killing. It is up to us as a society whether we construe them as legitimate and socially sanctioned killing or whether we treat them as murder.
Secondly, while we should always seek to understand, appreciate and respect religious views, we should also recognise them as being socially pathological if that is what they are. Yes, there is a danger of secular fundamentalism, but there is also a limit to tolerance of religious views. We shouldn't have to accommodate beliefs that do harm. But I can't immediately see this as a big issue in the matter under consideration.
I do hope my attempt to be clear and rational doesn't offend any-one and apologise in advace if it does.
A couple of things I noticed on the news last night:
1. Terri Schiavo is on a drip to minimise pain caused by her lack of hydration and nutrition;
2. Many protesters refused to leave the surrounds of the hospice where she is when asked to do so by the Schindler family.
In place of a trackback:
http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/03/29/calling-a-theocracy-a-theocracy/
Yes, I wondered about the morphine and the pain. I had read that she responded to "deep pain" yet we were assured she doesn't feel anything. Perhaps there is brain stem-based physical reflex reaction to deep pain.
Brian, I doffs me lid. Well argued. I'm still unsatisfied and I fear this will never change. But I respect how you put your case.
I think this debate here wants to die and therefore I will cease to feed it. It will only continue to live if others keep feeding it and in that case I cannot be held responsible. That's not to say I won't snatch the body, lug it over to my blog and try to keep it alive there until it dies of natural causes... ;-)
Some people do not understand yet that a Living Will or Advance Directive is not legally binding on the medical staff who are responsible for their wellbeing in hospital. If you have "Do Not Resuscitate" tatooed on your chest an ambulance driver will ignore it (Duty of Care?) and leave the doctor at the hospital to make his own decision on your fate. Lobby Victorian Politicians now if you don't believe me. The law as it stands at present does not ensure your wishes will be honoured.
diogenes, I had a look at your place earlier. I might be forced to have another look to see what you are up to. I'm pretty severely time-constrained, so I tend not to plant comments all over. I think you're right about this thread. It took me a while to kill it but we are probably almost there.
If people have a taste for more, there is an excellent post by hilzoy at Obsidian Wings on whether the judges in the Schiavo case can be legitimately accused of judicial activism (they can't). You'll find 20,000+ words of civilized argument at:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/03/terry_schiavo_a.html#more
btw it seems that 41 to 42 judges in 10 courts have looked at the case. The consensus seems to be that the law has been truly interpreted to the best ability of those involved. If you don't like the outcome, go see the legislators to have the law changed, don't blame the judges.
Meanwhile, discussion has broken out over at Mark's place:
http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/03/29/calling-a-theocracy-a-theocracy/
Sandy McCutcheon's 'Australia Talks Back' on RN tonight addressed the issue. I heard most of it. None of the experts he had on board seemed fully conversant with the Schiavo case.
Mary's point about the difficulty of having your directions followed is well taken it seems. One woman pointed out that she had purchased the Qld version of an Advance Medical Directive (available from newsagents for $6.95, she said) but was perplexed as to how it would be of any relevance. She could give it to her solicitor and her GP, but since she had no rellies she wondered how any-one would know that it existed in an emergency.
A GP with an interest in palliative care said decisions, for example to insert a feeding tube, are made by the duty registrar often without consulting anyone. Ethically, he said, it was harder to pull it out, once inserted, than not to insert it at all.
One woman citing the recent experience of her husband's death (again in Qld) said that having an advance directive filled out by him was a huge relief and comfort as it facilitated decision-making at a dificult time. Her personal witness has inspired me to have a serious look at it with a view to being more directive than I had previously had in mind. As I said earlier, I don't much mind what they do with me if I enter a state of irretrievable decrepitude, but if a few advance pointers eases the trouble I cause then let's do it!
Mary, are you the Mary Walsh I know? If so, go visit my blog at http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net
*sorry to be OT*
The following articles give soem insight into the state of play in Australia:
Gardner; re BWV: Victorian Supreme Court makes landmark Australian ruling on tube feeding.MJA 2004
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_08_181004/ash10074_fm.html
A time to die: Is there something wrong with the way CPR is presently practised?Michael J Mackay
MJA 2004; 181 (11/12): 667-668
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_11_061204/mac10703_fm.html