Terri Schiavo, R.I.P.

The NY Times obit.

Most annoying excerpt:

"Not only has Mrs. Schiavo's case been given due process, but few, if any similar cases have ever been afforded this heightened level of process," Chief Judge Chris Altenbernd, of the Second Court of Appeal in Florida, wrote earlier this month.

Oh, you processed the tar out of it, all right.  Too bad the phrase "shocks the conscience" never crept into the analysis.

Of Missing Persons:  The Times told us a lot more about Michael Schiavo's life, including his new love interest, in this piece.

Possible recruit for the pajama-hadeen:

President Bush was awakened shortly after 1 a.m. that day and, still in his pajamas, signed the legislation.

I am deeply disappointed by this result.

MORE:  Hope is a good thing, maybe the best thing, and no good thing ever dies.

And this is either Hugh Hewitt, or Hugh quoting Peggy Noonan:

Terri Schiavo has endured long enough to force nearly everyone to recognize the barbarity of a court order that forbids a mother from offering her dying daughter an ice-chip.  The national shudder will have lasting effects, and those politicians who sought mercy for Terri Schiavo have nothing to fear from those effects.

Comments

[LagunaDave]

I agree. It's a very sad day.

At least we can take solace in the fact that "Federalism" and "the separation of powers" are safe, for today at least. One helpless person's innocent life is a small price to pay...right? Right?

Next time it will be easier.

Thanks for calling it like it was.

[Jamie]

God rest her soul.

From the Times article cited in the post about the "family" dispute:

Scott Schiavo said he felt sorry for Mrs. Schindler, who he said was always close to her daughter, but not for Mr. Schindler, who he said thrived on the attention. If it were not for the father, he added, "this could have been resolved a long time ago."

"Terri would still have whatever dignity she had left," Mr. Schiavo said, "and everything would be peaceful."

Instead, Mr. Schiavo has even rejected the Schindlers' request that their daughter be buried in Florida instead of cremated, which they object to as Catholics. He also refused their request to let Ms. Schiavo die in their home instead of at the hospice.

Mr. Schiavo's lawyer told reporters this week that the cremated remains would be buried at the Schiavo family plot outside Philadelphia, far from the parents who fought so intensely to win her back. Whether they can or will visit her gravesite could be the next subject of dispute.

In other words, Schiavo can't let it go even now. And it's all the Schindlers' fault.

If he's a praying man, Michael Shiavo ought to pray every day that neither of his children ever marries someone as potentially vengeful as he has proven to be. No matter what the provocation (and surely he can't delude himself that he didn't contribute to any of what the Schindlers may have said about him), even to consider denying his wife's parents the right to visit her grave, after putting them through the past two weeks (or fifteen years, depending on one's point of view), is beyond... the... pale.

[Brian]

Disappointed
doesn't express how I feel.

But now we must move on. It's our job now to spark the national debate that makes sure these circumstances will never result in death again--on a state-by-state legislative basis, of course.

[Les Nessman]

Well, was it:
Mr. Schiavo's lawyer told reporters this week that "the cremated remains would be buried at the Schiavo family plot outside Philadelphia, far from the parents who fought so intensely to win her back."

or was it:
Mr. Schiavo's lawyer told reporters this week that "the cremated remains would be buried at the Schiavo family plot outside Philadelphia", far from the parents who fought so intensely to win her back.

The actual quote would make a big difference.

Oh, and can we now have an end to the innuendo and speculation? This doesn't help :"...pray every day that neither of his children ever marries someone as potentially vengeful as he has proven to be."

Potentially vengeful? What is that? Either he is or he isn't, and gossiping about him is not the same as proof. I've heard enough rumors about Michael to last forever; start bringing _proof_ or STFU.

Thank God Terri is finally at peace. This whole fiasco wasn't going to have a happy ending now matter which way it went. The loudmouths on both sides just made it that much worse.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Not letting her parents visit her grave is just completely unacceptable.

[Jamie]

Les:

"Potentially vengeful" is clumsy on my part. What I meant was simply that there was probably no way for the Schindlers to know that one day their daughter's husband would not only fight to have her die in the face of their years-long pleas to let her live at their expense and trouble, then, once she was dead, deny even their request that she not be cremated, then, having cremated her, bury her ashes several states away with a family she was a fully conscious part of for only a few years and possibly even forbid them to visit the gravesite.

I'm not speculating as to his actions; he has indeed done or expressed his intent to do all those things, except forbidding them access to her grave, about which he may not yet have decided. I haven't done any of the things he has unquestionably done, yet ever since this story gained the spotlight it's been my fervent prayer that my children will choose more wisely than poor Terri did.

I join you in thanking God that she's at peace, though I stop short of saying that she couldn't have had peace while alive.

[Flamebait]

What exactly shocks the conscience about this? This sort of thing happens every day across America, the only differences being 1) that the husband and parents disagreed, and 2) the parents decided to make a media circus when they lost in court.

It's hardly an anomaly. It's a recognized bit of medicine: you have the right to decline any treatment whatsoever, and if you are incapable of communication, that right devolves to your surrogate. It's much easier in the presence of written advance directives, but I can't see why it is that the control somehow falls into the state's hands when there are no such directives.

Still, requiescat in pace.

[Towering Barbarian]

"...if you are incapable of communication, that right devolves to your surrogate"

So in other words you feel that deafmutes are chattel? o_O

[Creech]

Enough a-holes on both sides.
For all Mr. Schiavo's faults, and for all the parents faults, they managed to cover up a central "fact" of this case. Apparently, friends and acquaintances of
Terri, back in Pennsylvania, claim she was a big time
meth abuser. Such abuse of meth leads to eating disorders, chemical deficiencies, brain damage, heart trouble. Now that she is dead, perhaps the lesson of
drug abuse will come out and parents can once again
show their kids the possible outcome of drug use.
We can't let "social conservatives" win on their desire
to prohibit death with dignity even if a competent person has so requested it in writing. The Oregon law
needs to be adopted everywhere (and probably will be as millions of boomers soon confront their mortality and
feebleness.

[TexasToast]

“Rage, rage against the dying of the light”. – Dylan Thomas

Jamie – You said:
“What I meant by ‘Then there's the deeper question of whether her mental status matters’ is that I don't subscribe to the belief that only the full or near-full function of cognition defines the value of a human life.”

I don’t think that cognition defines the “value” of a human life either. No one is suggesting that the life of Terri S didn’t have value. I support the view that the mentally disabled or damaged be given the support, care and love that all humans deserve. I think we all agree that, when there is hope of recovery, or even a life limited by disability, we should not send them out in the snow to die.

This is not a “slippery slope” however. It’s a cliff.

The virtual absence of cognition does, in my view, determine the existence of human life. The developing cognition in a human infant is not a fair analogy. Lower order biological functions, without the hope of cognitive function, do not constitute “life” in any human sense. What, other than the ability to cognitively relate to the divine, separates a human from any other creature? What, in your view, makes us human?

I would suggest to you that Terri Schiavo’s “real” death occurred years ago. The body is only a shell for the soul, and Terri Schiavo’s soul departed when she lost the ability, forever, to think and feel. The shell has remained, and, thanks to the wonder/curse of modern medicine, continued to exist and function only by artificial means. “She” wasn’t starved to death; she died from a potassium imbalance related to bulimia.

Michael Schiavo’s “sin”, ISTM, was accepting the facts that existed - although it seems he spent at least 10 years hoping against hope for some kind of recovery for Terri – and insisting on her wishes over the objections of her parents. Recovery, in any meaningful sense, hadn’t happened. In the view of those who seem to be the most reputable experts, it wasn’t going to happen. It would take a miracle. If there were to be a miracle to save Terri S, the presence of a feeding tube would hardly matter.

I do wish the family had been able to agree, and I am troubled that this happened over the parents’ objections, but we cannot abolish tragedy by legal “process”, judicial order or act of Congress. Tragedy by its very nature, ‘shocks the conscience’, but changing the process will not prevent it.

As Tom said above, hope never dies. Lets have hope for Terri S. Our rage should be silenced.

PS

As to the burial site and other symbols, I am more sympathetic to your position. Perhaps things will change when the anger and grief have time to cool.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"What, in your view, makes us human?"

Good question and extremely relevant.

Humanity exists independent of any justification, authorization or categorization. Conciousness is irrelevant. Age is irrelevant. Ability to survive independent of a womb or life-sustaining machinery is irrelevant. Humanity isn't defined by shades of grey. Humanity isn't cataloged by grades.

If you're human, then you're wholly human. If you're not human, then you're not at all human.

Frankly this issue is only going to become more contentious. One of the more troubling aspects of modern bio-genetics is the creation of man/animal hybrids. Personally I think the inclusion of human genes into animals is just completely insane. I'm all for bio-genetics, I'm a definite advocate in many ways, but this strikes me as just potentially disasterous. The last thing we all need, in an age where people fear an avian flu with 80+% mortality, is yet another means for infection to jump the species barrier.

How many more man/animal hybrids are there going to be? In what form will they take? How much % of man's genetics is required to actually BE human? It's a dangerous blurring of lines that I do not at all welcome.

When the day comes when scientists can genetically manipulate a dog with human genes so that it looks like a man, walks like a man and can talk like a man. Is it still a dog? Is it 10% dog? 15%? Will we return to the days where terms like "octoroon", or it's equivalent, will have some significance?

It's all very disturbing and it all devolves down to the question of humanity. If we need a test to prove our humanity, then we must surely fear failing such a test.

[Jamie]

ed, hear hear.

TexasToast, I'm cooling as we speak, because it'll be necessary for the work ahead... but I think I disagree that "[n]o one is suggesting that the life of Terri S didn’t have value." Sorting out the verb tense is potentially problematic: If you meant "that the life of Terri S never had value," sure, of course.

But if you meant "that the life of Terri S over the last 13 days/7 years/15 years didn't have value," it seems to me that that's exactly the argument Michael Schiavo was making: that Terri's life, which had had value before her collapse, lost so much value because of her brain damage and the vanishingly small odds of any meaningful recovery, that it ought to be ended to spare her (wherever she was) the indignity of being a soulless shell, in your own words.

I disagree.

But you're right, I'm not going to sully her memory any further than I already have, with my despairingly contentious posts on this sad day, by continuing to argue. Not today. It can wait.

God, I'm sorry about this, so very sorry.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"The Oregon law needs to be adopted everywhere (and probably will be as millions of boomers soon confront their mortality and feebleness."

Actually I'd suggest reading an extremely interesting post on iSteve.com (ht: PowerlineBlog).

Why? Because the author of that blog has an extremely interesting point to make, one that had never crossed my mind. Perhaps I'm not cynical enough, but nobody who knows me would even consider that possibility, so who knows. Maybe it's just a lack of imagination.

Quote:
"The Baby Boom Generation tends to get what it wants in terms of social attitudes and policies, and the first wave of Baby Boomers (the Bill Clinton cohort born in 1946) is now 59. Their surviving parents are mostly octogenarians and nonagenarians, who are getting past the decorative and cuddly part of old age. But a lot of these parents of Baby Boomers are quite asset-rich, especially if they are homeowners in Blue States, where housing prices have gone up much faster over the last 25 years than in Red States."

I'd suggest reading it all as he broaches a number of interesting ideas. It is true that an increasingly large amount of assets are residing in the estates of the elderly. The dot-com bubble did enormous damage to the get-rich-quick retirement plans of many baby-boomers. I'm sure that most people aren't thinking of this during the Schivao case, but I also equally sure that this case will give people ideas.

After all, I have yet to read anything in any document that showed the doctors identified the actual cause of Terri Schivao's collapse. I've seen unsubstantiated allegations of bulimia, in the Wolfson report as an example. And in the same report the idea that drinking lots of ice tea caused the collapse. They know it was caused by a near-fatal lack of potassium, but they don't know why that happened.

So if you're on the wrong side of 50 and your retirement looks more like a part-time job at McDonald's than a party in Cancun, setting up a similar situation can't be all that far from your mind. Keep in mind that many elderly have real trouble keeping track of their medications. A friend's mother-in-law was evidently taking 8-10 Tylenol PM pills per *day* for the past couple months, in addition to the other 20-30 pills she takes per day. It was only last week that he and his wife found out about it and stopped it. That level of use is toxic. But this problem with keeping track of medication is endemic to the elderly. I see plenty of examples in the local dialysis unit I go to.

We're all worried about the people living longer and eventually bankrupting Social Security. I think we don't have anything to worry about. I bet if someone takes the time to track mortality among the elderly, we're going to see a sharp rise pretty soon.

Being afraid of age and illness is bad enough when you get old. Having to be afraid of your children, that's got to be even worse. I know I'm really speculating here. But I really have to wonder if we're going to see a rise in the number of people with severe brain damage, attributible to no particular cause, who must be regretfully "allowed their right to die with dignity".

Heh. I wonder what the *children* of baby-boomers will think of when their parents start hitting 70.

[Appalled Moderate]

ed:

So the baby boom adulthood arc is going from protesting Vietnam (considered to be murder by the protesters)to murdering mummy and daddy. Sounds like a great premise for a novel. Throw in an abortion sometime in the late 70s, an accidental death caused by someone's carelessness or intoxication in the late 80s. Finish with our elderly heroes protesting the war de jour, accusing the president de jour of murdering babies and old people in Dictatorstan.

As you like to say, ed. Hmmmmmm.....

[Fredrik Nyman]

ed,

That's one of the most disturbing things I've read in a long time. I wish I could say with any confidence that your speculation is baseless, but I can't. On the contrary, it seems well-founded because we have plenty of indications of the "me generation"'s narcissism.

The other day, Peggy Noonan used the term "half in love with death". Glenn Reynolds slammed her for that, calling it "absurdly over-the-top". At the time, I agreed with Glenn, but I'm starting to wonder if Peggy doesn't have a point.

We do see an enormous amount of rationalization and euphemisms from certain quarters, aimed at devaluing life and justify its taking for no better reason than convenience. Shouldn't we realistically expect these folks to be perfectly willing to hasten their parents' demise if pleasant-sounding euphemisms and/or rationalizations can be found?

[Appalled Moderate]

Jamie:

There are a large number of people who believe that Schiavo died 15 years ago, not yesterday. Michael Schiavo acts like he is one of them, and that he was strongly convinced it was time to admit that and bury the body in accordance with what he thought her wishes would be. (It bothers me that everyone who said Terri should have the tube removed has the last name of Schiavo, but, then, I was not in the courtroom, and the judge, I'm sure, took note of this factual problem in making his decision.)

There is also another large group of people who believe she was not dead until yesterday, as the result of judicial order.

Both groups contain reasonable, honorable people. Group A does not appreciate having the label "murderer" pinned on them. Group B does not understand why that label doesn't apply. Group A believes the Culture of Life trumps everything (except Capital Punishment, for the non-Catholics). Group B see themselves living like Terri for 15 years, or maybe even longer, with the intervention of a busy-body Federal government, and shrink in horror.

These are not positions that are going to reconcile. Unfortunately. The best thing would be for all of us to realize that there are people of honor and good will who disagree, and, under their own moral code, they are not murderers or officious busybodies. I also think, in situations like this, everyone is better served by following appropriate legal process, rather than trying to make up stuff as we go along.

[Fredrik Nyman]

Tom, I look forward to your thoughts about the Times' editorial on her death.

Some people hold religious convictions so heartfelt that they could not bow to public opinion or the courts and accept the conclusion that Ms. Schiavo should be allowed to die.

Leaving aside the NYTimes typical dishonest euphemism ("allowed to die"), whoever wrote that either doesn't have children, or has very utilitarian feelings about them.

[Jamie]

Appalled:

I agree that most people on both sides of this tragedy are people of good will, and people who honestly believe that their position is moral... and that the two positions are in large part unreconcilable. Therefore they won't be reconciled. And we can't all just "get along" or "give peace a chance" or anything (quotes to indicate the use of cliches, not to imply that you are using cliches or have expressed these thoughts), because each side considers the stakes so alarmingly high. But we can benefit from watching thirty years of the abortion debate and try, TRY, to keep our rhetoric to a dull roar.

I know that those on the other side of me don't want to start killing the "useless" next year. I hope that those on the other side of me know that I don't want to take control of their bodies. The right to refuse medical treatment is one I take very seriously and honor completely. But I can never concede that Terri Schindler Schiavo was not as human on the day her body stopped breathing than she was in 1989 - she was, in my opinion, only less able to demonstrate her humanity to the world, which put her in desperate need of protection.

[richard mcenroe]

Mark Steyn

[Paul Zrimsek]

A remarkable quote all around, Fredrik. Whatever one thinks of vox populi, vox Dei as a guide to political decision-making (and I don't recall the NYT being so very fond of it before now), it's surely odd to expect people to "bow to public opinion" in their personal beliefs!

[Jamie]

What the...?! I just read the NYT pieces. Appalled Moderate, if I ever find myself directly across the fence from those who wrote these two articles, I hope you'll understand my unwillingness to accept a moral-equivalency argument from them.

"In the case of Terri Schiavo, the whole world witnessed what happens when that natural emotional frailty [that of people grieving for lost loved ones] is taken captive by politics."

Is that what it was all about? Politicians making hay with the grief of Michael Schiavo for his lost wife, of the Schindlers for a daughter they simply couldn't let go although surely she was long gone? Somehow I got all caught up in the minutiae, I suppose: a judicial system unwilling to open itself to scrutiny on any but procedural grounds, a desperate bid for slightly prolonged life over immediate death, an innocent human being starving - pardon me, Dr. Crawford, dehydrating to death (why he made such a point of the difference on Scarborough, which I didn't see but read a transcript of, I have no idea, but do let's be accurate) at the request of a husband with another wife, a public discussion centered on "I wouldn't want to live that way," rather than "Since no one knows what she herself would have wanted (per MSchiavo's Larry King appearance), since she has a family eager to care for her so that she's not a public burden nor a continued burden on her husband, and since she's not in fact dying any faster than the rest of us, do we Americans really want to allow the government-sanctioned causing of her premature death?"

Now I see. It was the politicization of the story that was the tragedy, and that has the scary far-reaching tentacles.

[TexasToast]

Ed

Your define humanity as an absolute – but don’t say what that absolute is. The definition is therefore based upon faith – and is irrefutable using a rational argument. My definition is not based on a “shade of gray” (as your response implies), but draws the “absolute” line between black and white at cognition - a different place than apparently your definition does.

As AM points out, the definitions are not reconcilable.

Jamie

“Now I see. It was the politicization of the story that was the tragedy, and that has the scary far-reaching tentacles.”

I couldn’t disagree with this more strongly. The tragedy was an extremely personal private family matter, which was blown into a political fight by politicians not for the good of Terri S. – but for their own purposes. We have a star witness to this - Tom Delay himself – who calls Terri’s tragedy a “gift”. He doesn’t define it as a tragedy – he defined it as an opportunity – and I would define that as an obscenity.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"As AM points out, the definitions are not reconcilable."

I didn't think I really had to define it further as my definiton encompasses all of humanity without reservation.

i.e. if your genetics is human, your mother is human and your father is human, then you're a human too.

While you may be drawing a line at "cognition", how can you tell? How can you be sure? Here is an interesting article on that question.

[ed]

Hmmm.

I think what has happened is a vast miscarriage of justice. Quite a few people have formed their opinions based entirely on subjective reporting by the MSM. I believe that this viewpoint will change dramatically as the facts of this case come out, far from the control of Michael Schiavo and his supporters in the MSM.

And I think quite a few people will stand condemned for their actions.

[Cecil Turner]

"The tragedy was an extremely personal private family matter, which was blown into a political fight by politicians not for the good of Terri S. – but for their own purposes."

It'd be nice to see both sides extend a presumption of good faith. Many who believe life should be protected (especially when the subject is helpless) are quite consistent about it, and there's nothing nefarious about that purpose.

As to process, this ceased being a personal matter when it went to court. Where it highlighted a system that is spring-loaded to accept the spouse's wishes in a life-and-death matter--over the objections of the family--even when there are manifest conflicts of interest. I think Solomon could have figured out who had Terri's best interests at heart . . . but at its most basic this is a civil rights issue, and IMO the procedure does not adequately protect the uncommunicative individual.

"He doesn’t define it as a tragedy – he defined it as an opportunity – and I would define that as an obscenity."

As opposed to denying a paitent water until they die? Besides, it's fairly common usage to call a personal tragedy a "gift" (from God either explicitly stated, or implied). Here's one somebody quoted recently:

"As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last. For if this is indeed the gift of the One to Men, it is bitter to receive.”

[Forbes]

TexasToast has defined humanity at cognition.

Your definition would allow infanticide and the dispatching of those in a coma. I'd go on with other examples of those that would fall outside your definition of humanity--but I'd say such would result in pretty grizzly outcomes.

Perhaps you want to think on that definition a little longer?

[TexasToast]

CT

Agreed, with respect to the presumption of good faith. Nothing said by Jamie, for instance, seems inconsistent or nefarious. I have great respect for her obviously heartfelt views. I part from her when she implies that others view the politicization as the tragedy here and are unconcerned about the human tragedy.

As to process, the system is indeed weighted in favor of a spouse. In most cases, that is probably how it should be. However, the judge made the decision here, using a clear and convincing standard of proof, which is a very high standard of proof in non-criminal law. The political attack seems to have been an attack on the process because of a desire to second-guess the outcome.

Terri’s best interest, as determined by you, me, the judge, or Solomon, would to a large extent depend on a determination of what exactly Terri’s condition was, and I think three of the four of us would probably agree that the right decision was made under the facts as I understand them. There have been many opportunities to review these facts over the years. The individual in the best position to weight of testimony of the interested parties and determine what the facts actually were, the judge, made a determination as to what Terri’s wishes were. Additionally, the appeals process was more than fully utilized in this case.

Very cute with respect to “gift”. False, but cute.

Forbes

I shouldn’t bother, but if you scroll up a bit you will see that I said no cognition without hope of future development or recovery – so your examples are outside the definition.

[Cecil Turner]

"However, the judge made the decision here, using a clear and convincing standard of proof, which is a very high standard of proof in non-criminal law. The political attack seems to have been an attack on the process because of a desire to second-guess the outcome."

"Political attack"? Sorry, but that characterization is not on. Many of us believe this incident revealed flaws in the process, with tragic results, which means we have a duty to attempt change. That's not an "attack," nor is the outcome the problem. (And judging motives of others, especially those you disagree with, is risky.)

"The individual in the best position to weight of testimony of the interested parties and determine what the facts actually were, the judge, made a determination as to what Terri’s wishes were."

Using a standard insufficient to convict someone of jaywalking, a jurist who would never in any case be empowered to authorize a lethal injection to a mass-murderer decides to inflict death by dehydration on an innocent. If Michael Schiavo had decided to divorce Terri (and marry his live-in), the judge would never have gotten a say in the matter. Likewise, if the family had agreed it was in her best interest, there would have been no need for a court case. Again, it's the process that's the problem, not the outcome.

[MattR]

Cecil - If the roles were reversed and Michael wanted to keep Terri alive and the courts repeatedly agreed with him that those were Terri's wishes based on the same evidence (ie. Michael's brother saying that she wanted to stay hooked up to tubes), would you still have a problem with the process?

[Cecil Turner]

"If the roles were reversed and Michael wanted to keep Terri alive and the courts repeatedly agreed with him that those were Terri's wishes based on the same evidence . . ."

As I understand it, the court decided once those were Terri's wishes, and then repeatedly ruled on the process. (Until the last, cursory, federal review.)

" . . . would you still have a problem with the process? "

Obviously there ought to be a higher standard of care when deciding to do something as drastic (and irreversible) as pulling the plug. (Just as I'd be less stressed with lax procedure in traffic court as opposed to a capital murder case.) Withholding food and water is an extraordinary procedure, which ought to imply extraordinarily thorough deliberations and safeguards.

[creepy dude]

"And judging motives of others, especially those you disagree with, is risky."

I agree-so not another word about Michael Schiavo.

[Cecil Turner]

"I agree-so not another word about Michael Schiavo."

[Snort.] I'd suggest that unless we can be relatively assured Michael Schiavo's motivations are in Terri's best interests, he ought to have no say in the matter whatsoever. The presumption of his good intentions does not extend to killing someone on his say-so.

[creepy dude]

Fine then say what you really mean:

"And judging motives of others (EXCEPT MICHAEL SCHIAVO), especially those you disagree with, is risky"

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Ok here's a question for everyone.

Judge Greer ordered the feeding tube removed, which was under his authority.

What authority, what *law*, gave Judge Greer the authority to prevent anyone from giving Terri Schivao food and water by *mouth*?

And what precedent does this create?

Let's assume another patient, Mr. X, who does NOT have a feeding tube, is brain damaged and cannot speak for himself, and does NOT require any medical treatment, including a feeding tube or ventilator. I.e. Mr. X cannot feed himself, but IS able to swallow if food or water is placed in his mouth.

Could Judge Greer, in another case, issue a similar order, and would it be legal? Is it legal for a judge, Judge Greer in this instance, to order the death by starvation or dehydration who does not depend on a feeding tube?

[creepy dude]

Next-you're apparent ire is better directed at Judge Greer. Michael Schiavo just testified as his to understanding as to his wife's wishes. Her family testified the other way. Judge Greer ultimately determined what her wishes were based on the competing evidence.

Blast the process all you want-I'm ready to support you, i.e. I think a jury rather than a judge should decide.

But if Michael Schiavo had had a jury agree with him rather than a judge and his parents were blasting a jury rather than Judge greer would you maintain the same position?

And unless your position is without a living will treatment may not be withdrawn period-how should we determine the wishes of a person who cannot communicate as to medical treatment ?

[creepy dude]

Ed-let's add to your hypothetical-what if Mr. X has no family and no insurance?

Does the government have an obligation to provide medical care to Mr. X. If not-who does?

[Cecil Turner]

"Fine then say what you really mean:

'And judging motives of others (EXCEPT MICHAEL SCHIAVO), especially those you disagree with, is risky'"

Nonsense. If I were sure of the motives of Michael Schiavo, it would go a long way toward allaying my fears that a serious miscarriage of justice had occurred. The fact that it's difficult to judge is a large part of the problem. Moreover, even if this case was not a miscarriage, the system should have procedural safeguards to protect helpless individuals (in cases involving Michael Schiavo's evil twin). Which, if present, certainly don't appear to be very stringent.

[Neo]

"The court is imposing process over justice."
Ralph Nader

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"Ed-let's add to your hypothetical-what if Mr. X has no family and no insurance?"

Not a clue.

"Does the government have an obligation to provide medical care to Mr. X. If not-who does?"

Again, not a clue.

I really don't know, and I don't have any clear ideas on this measure.

On the other hand current law would determine that Mr. X was indigent, like Terri Schivao was determined an indigent, and the state government would provide the money for care.

But whether it's right or wrong, I'm not sure. Ultimately the question comes down to who has control. Does the courts, without any interference by citizens? Does the government, without interference by the courts? Does the spouse, without interference by the family, if there is one of course.

And when can this decision be made? At any time? When it's convenient? Only in the first few months of treatment? Only after 5, 10, 15 or 20+ years of treatment?

Should doctors be allowed to participate in the killing of patients by courts? Personally that creeps me out a lot. Particularly when there have been so many doctors convicted of being serial killers. Should we create a new profession, professional executioners?

*shrug* your guess is as good as mine on this, but it's a question we're going to have to address. But nobody has yet answered by hypothetical question. How on earth does a judge gain the power to starve someone to death by denying them any food or water at all?

On on earth, and in America no less, is that actually possible?

[Forbes]

TexasToast:

Whose hope? How much development? How much recovery, complete, or just a little better? How do we gauge such distinctions? Who is to decide such distinctions?

Your black and white definition has a lot of gray areas.

[TexasToast]

“The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.” – Tom Delay

"Political attack"? Sorry, but that characterization is not on. Many of us believe this incident revealed flaws in the process, with tragic results, which means we have a duty to attempt change. That's not an "attack," nor is the outcome the problem. (And judging motives of others, especially those you disagree with, is risky.)" – CT

You are correct – it is risky. How should we judge Delay’s statement?

Lets address your “process” argument with respect to this case and what the congress did. There was a determination under Florida law that certain facts existed. The judge then applied Florida law to those facts. The result was that the feeding tube was removed.

Now, Tom Delay (and many others) did not like the result. They disagreed with both the factfinding and with the result under the Florida law. What could they do? The answer is – change the factfinding or change the law.

Lets first address changing the law. The problem in this case is twofold. First, there had already been a determination under existing law – i.e. there was already a result determined. The legislature cannot change a result under existing law by changing the law after the fact. Ex post facto and I would argue unconstitutional. Second, this was Florida and not federal law and the Florida legislature had declined to change it.

So they couldn’t get the result they wanted in this case by changing the law. So they didn’t do that. Changing the law to affect the result in this case would be ineffective.

How did they attempt to get around this problem? By attempting to change the factfinding by creating another judicial avenue to re-review the facts. A judge does not “create” law in the sense that a legislature does. A judge instead determines what the facts are and, in a sense, what the applicable law is – whether constitutional, statutory or common law. So they attempted to create a de novo (and by their own admission, non-precedential) federal appeal right. In essense, they were inviting what has been branded by many as “judicial activism” to change the result by having a federal court draw a line determining that Terri Sheivo’s civil rights were being violated by the removal of the feeding tube – despite the fact that the existing legal precedents do not support that view.

I am not at all surprised that the courts declined to do this. It seems to me that it was doomed to be ineffective legally, even if it had been successful politically.

First, there are several “process” problems with this. Separation of powers, res judicata, and federalism to name those that come to mind most readily. Second, courts are loath to second-guess the factfinder, unless there is clear error, which there wasn’t in this case. Third, the court could clearly not change the standard of proof to some other standard based on a civil rights claim.

So, I wonder, what does Mr. Delay think “the men responsible” have to answer for?

Going forward, I think it’s a mistake to change the standard of proof from “clear and convincing” to “beyond a reasonable doubt” for several reasons. First, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is applied only against the state in a criminal context – which this is clearly not. Second, “clear and convincing” is a pretty darn high standard of proof.

It seems to me that the ultimate determination in this case should be the determination of who should be Terri’s guardian. Questions about Michael S go to his qualification – not his powers. If the state of Florida deems it important to disqualify anyone who might pull a plug from serving as a guardian, than it can do that.

Because of all this, I disagree with your characterization of the dispute here as a “process problem”. The dispute can be boiled down to one question – and one question only – Where do we draw the line defining the end of life?

[TexasToast]

Actually, to be more clear (and correct). It seems the Congress wanted the court to re-review the facts (as to Terri’s condition) and to re-review the application of the law to the facts (by creating a new civil rights claim through a determination that Terri S was on this side of a line determining “life”).

At the risk of judging motive, I suspect the new line drawing was no small part of their intent.

A side note – habeas corpus claims in a criminal context are claims against the state, and are distinguishable on that basis. A guardian is not a state actor.

[Cecil Turner]

"Now, Tom Delay (and many others) did not like the result."

Again, you're extrapolating from an assumption about others' motives--and that certainty exists only in your mind. If one assumes they had the purest possible intentions, I'm having a hard time seeing what they'd have done differently. If you can find something in their actions that supports nefarious intent, it might be convincing. Otherwise the attempt to delegitimize others' arguments falls flat (and in fact, tends to discredit your own).

"So they attempted to create a de novo (and by their own admission, non-precedential) federal appeal right."

Contrast that with mobilizing federal courts and the National Guard to allow individuals access to an integrated school. Is a federal appeal in a case of life-and-death really so novel?

"So, I wonder, what does Mr. Delay think “the men responsible” have to answer for?"

Putting someone to death based on imperfect (and perhaps not even terribly "clear" or "convincing") evidence?

"It seems to me that the ultimate determination in this case should be the determination of who should be Terri’s guardian. Questions about Michael S go to his qualification – not his powers."

I couldn't disagree more strongly. The idea of a guardian petitioning to dehydrate his ward is at best problematic. Doing it against the family's wishes is much more so. I'd also echo Ed's statement about the whole doctor-assisted dehydration thing "creeping me out." Finally, the spectacle of law enforcement officers holding family members at bay (lest they provide ice chips to the parched patient), is hard to characterize. ("Barbaric" maybe?)

ISTM the power of the state to deny someone food and water, or the guardian's power to deprive someone of a creator-endowed "inalienable right" ought to be very tightly controlled indeed. A determination that a particular person is best suited to be guardian does not meet that standard. (And I for one find the argument that the process must be left to a particular state jurisdiction completely unpersuasive.)

[ed]

Hmmm.

"At the risk of judging motive, I suspect the new line drawing was no small part of their intent."

What I find absurd is that, in every single other part of life, you can always get a second opinion. Unless a judge has rendered that opinion. In which case you cannot get a second opinion. Would we ever accept such a situation applied to any other part of life?

Got a problem with your house plumbing? Whoever is the first person to render a judgement on the problem, well that's the problem and nobody else can ever render a new judgement ever again.

A doctor diagnoses you with cancer? Well you've got cancer and that's all there is to it. No second opinions, no additional tests.

It's completely absurd. The only thing Congress did was allow for a last step, as a safety measure, at the federal level. To say that this violates states rights is complete nonsense. To say that this somehow is unconstitutional is also complete nonsense.

We are after all discussing a judicial system where a determination of facts by the *first* judge can then no longer be challenged at all. What isn't absurd about this? Am I to believe that judges don't make mistakes? That they aren't human? That they don't have their own political and social agendas?

And, to repeat this endlessly yet again, what is so wrong about giving disabled people the same level of protection afforded a serial killer? What isn't absurd about the SCOTUS determining that executing juvenile murders is wrong, but starving helpless people to death is right?

And all within the same month!

[TexasToast]

I fail to see how stating the obvious fact that Mr. Delay did not like the result even addresses his motives - but I can see it is pointless to argue further about it, so I wont.

If you look back at the history of civil rights cases, “state action” was a very important component. Your example of school integration is clearly within the realm of state action. The cases become much more difficult when the actors are private persons. Some might say that courts strain to find state action – but of course, that would be wrong.

Your other arguments (and Ed’s) beg the question, in that you have drawn the line of what is “life” at point B instead of point A. That question is the whole question here – IMHO. The “process” is irrelevant.

[Cecil Turner]

"I fail to see how stating the obvious fact that Mr. Delay did not like the result even addresses his motives - but I can see it is pointless to argue further about it, so I wont."

I was interpreting your argument as being that he didn't like the result (as opposed to believing the process was faulty), and therefore his attempts to change the process were illegitimate. Several others have made similar arguments (some going so far as to proffer "talking points" of dubious provenance claiming the point was partisan political advantage). At best, it's a distraction.

"If you look back at the history of civil rights cases, “state action” was a very important component."

I don't see how you can argue that police officers keeping family away from a patient (whilst she is denied sustenance) is not "state action."

"Your other arguments (and Ed’s) beg the question, in that you have drawn the line of what is “life” at point B instead of point A. That question is the whole question here – IMHO. The “process” is irrelevant."

I have a hard time believing anyone is going to draw the "life" line prior to the point where the patient breathes on their own. (And obviously in this case there was brain function, the question is how useful it was.) In any event, that line is difficult to draw, is situational, and I dispute the contention it's the main question. Again, if Michael Schiavo had decided to keep her alive, she'd still be alive. The question is under what circumstances a guardian should be able to deprive an uncommunicative patient of life (and to what degree the state should assist). And I'd submit that in this case, that determination was made with far less deference to the patient's rights than I am comfortable with.

[Neo]

The most overlooked part of the Shiavo case is the long lasting effect it may have on capital punishment.

Starting with Judge "Kevorkian" Greer and up through federal Judge Whittlemore, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, we now have a case where "death by dehydration/starvation" was not considered "cruel and unusual" . If anything, there was endless expression that this was quite "usual" and the clear expression that the Legislative and Executive branches should butt out. Even the ACLU didn't protest this death.

Think of the effect on the State of Florida, that has been looking for a replacement for "old Sparky", the electrocution chair. Now they just stop feeding those convicted of capital crimes. Unlike electrocution, there is an extended period for reconsideration, something like 8 to 14 days. No need for those midnight calls by the Governor to save the innocent.

And best of all, it would be quite usual.

[Jamie]

No, TexasToast, the question is not just where life begins or ends, though the question is partly that, and we differ irreconcilably on that point. I believe that my position is the easier one to keep from sliding down the slope toward the Netherlands, as well as the brighter line; you, I gather, believe that yours is the more practical and the kinder.

But the question is also in the integrity and correctness of the process, wherein a "clear and convincing" standard was required but in the opinion of many not met, and wherein a standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not required even though the life or death - at least the cessation of heart and breath - of a person who was not convicted of any crime hung in the balance. The process also decreed that a person who had known Terri for a fraction of her life, yet who sought her death, should be afforded more credence than the people who had known her since birth and who wanted her to live. My husband is in a better position than my natal family to know my wishes; he and I live across the country from my family and we've been together for almost half my life. But even so, if my family wanted me to live and my husband wanted me to die, and I had not left orders one way or the other, I believe that the judicial system of the US should afford more weight to the side that doesn't want to pull the plug (or feeding tube, and post armed guards around me), regardless of who that side comprises.

My concern is that the process was applied indiscriminately, as if its intrinsic value were greater than that of the life that stood to be lost. We're a nation of laws, and laws are our greatest institutional safeguard against tyranny, but they aren't our only weapon or even our first weapon. Our very first weapon is our own conscience, individually. Our individual morality ultimately colors our societal morality, and becomes the basis for laws and the basis for legislative change.

So here's where ed's question, still unanswered, really comes into play: how did it become acceptable to society to allow a judge to keep anyone from trying to feed Terri Schindler Schiavo or give her water by mouth? How? By a shift in societal mores from life-wherever-possible to life-until-unbearable. It's not a very big step, but it was enough in this case: the judge decided a long time ago that Terri's life was unbearable (his decision language clearly implies his own position, I think), and everything that followed was in service of that finding.

I can't argue against any person's right to try to minimize his own suffering. But each step seems small by itself until you look back at your starting point. That's why I continue to hold the view that humanity is independent of cognition or function, and that ending life on a third party's say-so, when another party with no "better" interest is willing to take on its burdens, is a dangerous course.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

John Leo

Please read the above linked article, particularly and *specifically* the last paragraph.

If the definition of a "person" must include the ability to have cognitive thought, then what is the definition of someone who is NOT a "person"? If someone with severe brain damage, or a brain disease such as Alzheimer's, isn't a "person", then what are they?

If they aren't "persons" then they must be "property".

Those are the only two states of being under the law. Either you're a human being, and thus infused with all the rights granted by the Creator, or you're NOT a human being and thus you are **property**.

Quote (from the above article): "On Court TV, Allen argued that the family could have removed Terri's organs while she was alive, "just as we allow people to say what they want done with their assets.""

"assets"!!

And don't think that this couldn't become the new reality either. If there is anything that has the potential to be a corrupting influence it is the organ market. In America you cannot *buy* organs for transplant purposes. But if you can find someone who is willing to donate an equivalent organ, such as a kidney, then you go IMMEDIATELY to the top of the list and get scheduled for the very next legal transplant. All you need is to find a willing donor. But if you've got some "property" that has a spare kidney, or even just one kidney left, how much could you charge for being willing to donate that kidney?

Now a straight cash payment would doubtless be scrutinized and perhaps punished. At least for now, but it would be very possible for such laws to be replaced or diluted. After all it's for the benefit of "sick people dammit!". We're seeing this now with the Embryonic Stem Cell debate. How heartless are these damn Christos, so opposed to helping sick people with their demented visions of Gods, Creators and ethics.

Where could this go? How utterly depraved could this end up?

1. If a human with severe brain damage is not a "person" then that human is someone's property.
2. If you have property then you have the right, within the law, to dispose of it.
3. The same logic and rules that apply to "excess" embryos can, and IMHO will, apply to non-"persons".
4. Dead human bodies are extremely valuable, but a living human body, that can be disposed of at will, is even more valuable.
5. Once people understand how lucrative this can be, will start specifically bearing brain damaged children. These children will not have higher brain functions and will fall entirely within the definition of a non-"person". And, since they cannot have ever filled out a living will, they will belong to their guardians.
6. Wealthy individuals, or ambitious businessmen, will create functioning "foundations" that are created to lodge and maintain such brain damaged non-"persons".
7. Poor and disadvantaged people will willingly have brain damaged children, for pay, that they will then sign over guardianship to a corporation.
8. The "guardian" corporation will maintain these children in the expectation of eventual organ harvesting. Either quickly, for replacement organs for injured children, or over a long-term basis for organ replacement for adults.
9. Specific body traits will become highly valuable as transplant technology advances. Such as specifically shaped, or sized, breasts.

I am sorrowed by JPII's recent death. But I am glad he won't be alive to see this monstrosity come to existence. As the old saying goes:

"Hell is empty, because all the devils are here."

If a human being is not a person, then what exactly is that human being?

[Appalled Moderate]

ed:

General rule of life is that you don't slip down every slippery slope. 2+2 doesn't equal 5 simply because someone down the road could add a +1 to the equation. If I reasoned the way you are doing, I would assume that some pro-life avenger will assassinate Judge Greer in the next few months, because Tom DeLay indicated that the judges who "failed" Terri would be dealt with later, "but now is not the time".