It Doesn't Always Matter What The Facts Are

The Houston Chronicle covers the "DeLay is a hypocrite for pulling the plug on his dad" story dreamed up by the LA Times.

Briefly, Tom DeLay's dad was in a ghastly accident, suffered severe injuries, and was in a coma with multiple organ failures; apparently he was on a respirator and about to be put on kidney dialysis when the family mutually agreed that enough was enough, and doctors declared him to be terminal.

Well, in a bit of a reversal, I think I can actually see the foundation of the "Delay is a hypocrite" idea.  This Kinsley column seems to presume that George Bush's dictum to "err on the side of life" means "never pull the plug".

And these letters to the Times suggest that the Times can find support for such an interpretation by cherry-picking its readers:

...What the "moralists" are really arguing is that a competent Ms. Schiavo would not have the right to refuse the feeding tube...

...That Mr. Brooks (as well as Congress, President Bush and the protesters outside Terri Schiavo's hospice) does not seem to take the individual's wishes into account is frightening.

...I thought the point about the "right to die" position is that there should not be a universal standard, but that the person himself (or his surrogate) makes the decision for himself.

The position that no one can tell me I must be forced to live by extraordinary means is surely based on moral grounds.

Well.  I'll say this - folks who believe Tom Delay's position to be that the plug must never be pulled are at least being consistent in following their caricature to its logical conclusion and deeming him to be a hypocrite with respect to his father.  And, as the Chronicle observes, sometimes facts don't matter.

However, I will toss in these facts - of the mainstream religious groups out there, I believe the Catholic Church is most strict in its guidelines for preserving life.  However, even the Church does not believe that heroic and extraordinary efforts to preserve life are always appropriate:

In 1998, speaking at a hospice in Vienna, Pope John Paul II proclaimed that keeping patients alive by "extraordinary or disproportionate means," as well as the artificial "hastening of death" by pulling the plug, were both at odds with Catholic principles. Both implied "that life and death are realities entrusted to humans beings to be disposed of at will," he said.

Or, here:

"The sick person in a 'vegetative state', awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery". (Pope John Paul II, March 20, 2004)

So, if you think (and would care to demonstrate) that Tom DeLay is stricter than the Pope about preserving life, then fine, he is a hypocrite.  But my guess is that the premise is flawed; here, for example, is his statement about Terri Schiavo:

“She’s not being ‘kept alive’; she is alive. It won’t take a miracle to help Terri Schiavo; it will only take the medical care and therapy that all patients deserve. Mrs. Schiavo is not being denied heroic measures; she’s being denied basic, basic, basic medical and personal care.

Emphasis added to make the point that he seems to be aware of the distinction between heroic and ordinary care.  DeLay is also troubled by the fact that Terri Schiavo's family and husband are not united (as his family was).

On the salient points, he has been consistent; however, facts probably don't matter.

Comments

[Joe Mealyus]

You write all this as though in the matter of Tom Delay, "facts" don't simply stand in the way of a higher truth arrived at via some sort of quasi-Hegelian dialectic - or something like that. Don't criticize what you don't understand. Nobody likes a pedant.

[GT]

Speaking for myself I don't see DeLay as a hypocrite because of the "pulling the plug in all cases" argument. I see him as a hypocrite because he and his family faced a difficult and deeply personal decision and acted according to what their personal views and the law allowed and nobody attacked them. But when Michael Schiavo tried to do the same he was demonized.

One would have expected that DeLay, having seen his mother go through the difficult process of making a decision of not keeping her husband alive through a machine, would have had a little more understanding and compassion of what Michael Schiavo is experiencing. Particularly since DeLay, like 99% of those commenting on this, doesn't know all the facts of the case.

[J. Puckett]

He wasn't just demonized, GT. He was called a perpetrator of "medical terrorism." You can find nicer words that Tom DeLay used, but it doesn't excuse that level of grandstanding. It's OK for DeLay when someone's on a respirator but suddenly it's "terrorism" when it's a feeding tube? Please.

[Inspector Callahan]

The first 3 commenters completely miss the point, therefore proving Tom's point.

We have 2 different cases - 1 person is terminal and WILL die soon, the other is not. One person has multiple organ failures, the other has brain damage - 1 organ, not multiple.

So to compare the two, and still believe the "hypocrite" BS, is ridiculous. There is no comparison between the two cases. Period.

Next issue.

TV (Harry)

[GT]

Oh, OK. Sorry Callahan, I wasn't aware that there is no comparison, perid. But now that you put it so eloquently I admit my mistake.

[TM]

I see him as a hypocrite because he and his family faced a difficult and deeply personal decision and acted according to what their personal views and the law allowed and nobody attacked them. But when Michael Schiavo tried to do the same he was demonized.

My impression is that the only thing we can infer from the 1988 incident is that Tom DeLay believes that if a family is in agreement, they can keep their decision private (a belief not shared by the LA Times, I guess).

To extrapolate from his experience the conclusion that Tom DeLay also belives that when families disagree, they should be allowed to settle their argument in the privacy of the courts strikes me as a conclusion that goes beyond the available evidence.

Now, that may be GT's belief; it may be the belief he wishes Tom DeLay held; it may be a belief held by many others; it may even be a perfectly laudable belief; but where is the evidence that DeLay believed, or said, that divided families should keep their dispute quiet?

If you want to say, this case proves Tom DeLay is a creep because he is encouraging undue public attention, fine, that's your opinion. But the charge of "hypocrisy" means more than "I disagree with what he is doing".

[BumperStickerist]

at the risk of coining a neologism, near-but-not-quite comparisons can be thought of as kosparisons.

[David Walser]

GT - I can see how you might view DeLay's reaction to the Schiavo case hypocritical. If I can sum up your view accurately, it is: DeLay's family took advantage of the provisions of Texas law to allow his father to die. DeLay tried to prevent a Florida family from taking advantage of the local law to allow Terri to die. Ergo, DeLay is a hypocrite.

I think this formulation is wrong on a number of levels:

* DeLay's family was ALL in agreement as to what actions should be taken. Terri's family is not. For DeLay to be a hypocrite on this basis, we'd need to know what he would have felt and done had his mother wanted to pull the plug on his father while the rest of the family wanted to keep him plugged in. That's not the case here.

* DeLay's father was dying. Without the machines he would have died within minutes. It has already taken more than 11 days for Terri to be starved to death. For DeLay to be a hypocrite on this basis, we'd need to know whether he feels the two types of cases, terminal and PVS, should be treated the same. (Personally, I don't think they should, but I have no way of knowing how DeLay feels on the question.)

* DeLay's father was in a comma with little hope of coming out of it before death (with or without the machines). In the comma, DeLay's father could not feel pain. Allowing him to die would not cause any suffering. Terri is being given morphine to prevent her from suffering (much). Is DeLay required to feel the same about an action that causes no suffering and one that may cause suffering (in the short term if not the long term)?

* DeLay's father needed increasing levels of intrusive care to keep him alive. His organs were failing and as they did, one by one, their functions were being taken over by machine. Terri needed the minimum care that a bed ridden patient receives -- she needed to be fed. None of her organs had failed to perform its proper bodily function. Is there no difference between allowing a family to refuse additional "heroic" measures and allowing a family to starve someone to death?

In short, any of these and the many other distinctions could reasonably call for the DeLay's situation to be treated differently than the Schiavo's. GT, are you so sure of your reading of DeLay's heart and mind on these questions that you are comfortable making the charge of hypocrite?

[creepy dude]

Well Delay was sure enough of his reading of Michael's Sciavo's heart and mind that he was comfortable making these statements:

Tom Delay:

"Well I've got to tell you, I don't have a whole lot of respect for a man that has treated this woman in this way. He has refused to allow her to have therapy. He has refused to even let her have an MRI. For the last five years, five years, she's been kept in a hospice and every time they've asked just to take her outside, which they can do, he has refused. She's not been outside, I think, for the last three years. Um..uh, I think his abuse and neglect of his position as guardian is outrageous. And, and,...and partnered with this judge that has allowed him to treat Terry like this for the last eleven years is outrageous. And my question is, what kind of man is he?"

What kind of man indeed...

Forget the hypocrisy charge, the guy is just a flat out asshole.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"Forget the hypocrisy charge, the guy is just a flat out asshole."

*shrug* did Delay say anything that wasn't truthful? You may disagree with Delay, but nothing he said required him to know anything of what was in Mr. Schivao's heart or mind.

It's a simple recounting of some facts.

[creepy dude]

Point out the facts in that statement Ed. I dare you.

[creepy dude]

Actually forget it, I already know what you'll say. My mistake. I was wrong to come back here.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"Point out the facts in that statement Ed. I dare you."

1. "He has refused to allow her to have therapy."
2. "He has refused to even let her have an MRI."
3. "For the last five years, five years, she's been kept in a hospice and every time they've asked just to take her outside, which they can do, he has refused."

The rest are basically opinions, such as "I think his abuse and neglect of his position as guardian is outrageous.", but most of it was a simple recounting of facts.

"Actually forget it, I already know what you'll say. My mistake. I was wrong to come back here."

Whatever floats your boat.

[GT]

Tom,

I admit you lost me. What does making it public have to do with anything?

David,

I understand you think those are the relevant comparisons. Do you accept that others, including myself, focus on other comparisons, like the ones I listed above? I have a hard time understanding how DeLay, having gone through what he did could say the things he did as quoted above. He claims therapy was denied. Couldn't DeLay bother to read the guardian's 2003 report to Gov Jeb Bush before he said something like that?

[mcg]

OK, I tell you what we'll do.

First, let's pull the plug on everyone who requires artificial machinery to continue their autonomic functions like respiration, heartbeat, kidney function, etc.

Then, at the same time, let's stop feeding everyone who can't feed themselves.

Then let's step back and see how long it takes for everyone to understand the sensible distinction between the two.

[TexasToast]

Yes, there are distinctions between Delay’s father and Terri S. The most commonly advanced being the agreement of the family, the “imminence” of death and the scope of medical intervention required.

What does Mr. Delay have to say about those things?

Let the family decide? Nope. He didn’t care what the husband said, or even what “…a few people …” said. It would take “… all of us to think this through.” “All of us” is larger than the husband, the family, or a few people by several orders of magnitude. So we can’t really argue that he thought that mere agreement of the family should resolve this issue.

What about the imminence of death? Hmmm, Mr. Delay seems to think her death would be quite imminent without reinsertion of the feeding tube. Why, the objecting Senators were “putting her life at risk” by causing undue delay. Not much difference here.

Scope of intervention? Mr. Delay has implied that this doesn’t matter either.

“All I know is Terri is alive. …”

That is all he needed to know?

So what are we left with? The difference between artificially feeding a body with no upper brain function (Terri S) or slowing the death of a body with no upper brain function (Delay’s father) . Make no mistake; the feeding tube is not a pacemaker regulating the heart of a sentient human being.

Seems like a mighty fine distinction in light of….

“And I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to elevate the visibility of what’s going on in America that Americans would be so barbaric as to pull a feeding tube out of a person that is lucid and starve them to death for two weeks.”

“The point is, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement, and that is to go after people personally, charge them with frivolous charges…”

"All we're doing in Congress is giving Terri Schiavo an opportunity to come to the federal courts and review what this judge in Florida has been doing, and he's been trying to kill Terri for 4 1/2 years."

What word should we use to describe this? I'm don't know what the man thinks - but I can read what he says.

[James B. Shearer]

"err on the side of life" can be reasonably seen as implying "never pull the plug". For "err on the side of life" could mean "never err on the side of death" and the only way to be sure that you "never err on the side of death" is to "never pull the plug". Compare to the death penalty, it is impossible to have a death penalty without some risk of executing innocents.

Also the pro-tube forces have a large list of procedural objections to the way the Schiavo decision was reached. As with death penalty opponents one can reasonably suspect the real goal of such procedural objections is to make executions or pulling the plug effectively impossible. In any case many of the procedural safeguards proposed in the Schiavo case were not applied in the DeLay case. For the elder DeLay didn't leave written instructions, his wishes were not determined by a jury trial with a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, he had no independent advocate, he had no independent medical exam and there was no examination of possible conflicts of interest among the family members making the decision. If Schiavo is entitled to such safeguards why not also DeLay?

[TM]

Forget the hypocrisy charge, the guy is just a flat out asshole.

That is a completely different argument the other side of which I am notprepared to take.

(And a brief "welcome back, Irish, we missed ya).

GT - your view is that DeLay is a hypocrite because, having been through a similar experience, he should not be demonizing Michael.

Let me reflect. I think Irish had a better word for that than hypocrite. Also, I am not sure that going through his own experience should have been enough to satisfy him that Michael S was *not* making some dubious decisions.

I mean, DeLay could be wrong, but I don't see why the only reasonable thing he could have taken from his experience was that all guardians always do what is best. Maybe he concluded that you settle it within the family, and never, ever go to court; maybe he concluded that you defer to mom - how do we know?

I still say, if you want to criticize it, fine, but it is some other failing than hypocrisy, which seems to be the Houston Chronicle theme.

[Cecil Turner]

I'm coming late to the discussion (after a workaholic trip which resulted in prolonged news deprivation . . . so at least I'm in the proper mind frame), but several things bother me about the whole situation. The family dissent is troubling. Schiavo would presumably be in a better position than others to know his wife's wishes, but that knowledge is still imperfect (I've been married much longer, and am surprised regularly). And while he would be in an advantageous position concerning knowledge, common sense suggests the parents might be in a superior position regarding motivation. This is especially true when he supports termination against their wishes. His competing family life further complicates the issue.

In the normal course of events, that would all be a question for the courts to decide, but the rules governing the courts' actions are properly the province of legislators. ISTM the rational course in a case where the family can't agree is to err on the side of caution (providing the family is willing to bear reasonable burdens associated with care, as they appear to be in this case), and I think I'd support legislation to that effect. To me, the most compelling argument against Congressional intervention in this case, is that they were apparently unwilling to pass such a law. In any event, the disparity between the legal safeguards for the life of a convicted murderer and an invalid is striking.

As to the argument about "heroic measures" vs "basic support," I confess it leaves me somewhat cold. The real issue in both cases is whether there is any real brain function (or chance of recovery), and in both cases I'm comfortably persuaded there isn't. My objection to withdrawal of the feeding tube is condemning the patient to death by dehydration . . . a sentence which, if imposed upon the most heinous mass-murderer, would be promptly overturned as "cruel and unusual." Why this is apparently okay in the Schiavo case (because she doesn't feel enough to suffer?) is beyond me.

[gt]

I don't think that the only reasonable thing DeLay could do was assume that the guardians know best. But that doesn't mean he had to accuse Schiavo of practicing medical terrorism. Given what he went thorugh, yes I think he is a hypocrite. Admittedly there are several other adjectives that apply as well.

BTW, I'm not sure I agree that hypocrisy is the overriding theme of the Chrionicle article. There are other descriptions that come to mind.

[TedL]

Ed said, of Tom Delay, that he had uttered at least three relevant facts about Mr. Schiavo:

1. "He has refused to allow her to have therapy."
2. "He has refused to even let her have an MRI."
3. "For the last five years, five years, she's been kept in a hospice and every time they've asked just to take her outside, which they can do, he has refused."

Do you really think this indicts Mr. Schiavo? His wife's EEG has been flat for 15 years. Her MRI shows that her cereberum is gone or nearly gone - and now, rather than run he shows the courage of his convictions by demanding an autopsy that he hopes will prove to at least some of those still in denial what he has long since accepted, that his wife died long ago.

Why is it relevant that Mr. Schiavo balked at allowing her parents to continue the cruel and bizarre charade of pretending that Ms. Schiavo's lifeless body retained higher brain functions and could somehow benefit from "therapy"?

I know that the left has been accused in this matter of turning to proceduralisms. But here, procedure is a guide to substance. The Schindlers had more than seven years in state court to convince a state court that their daughter retained some brain function. The court heard both sides at great length, and concluded that they were wrong. Then there were multiple levels of appellate review, as outside umpires were invited in to determine whether the judge had shown bias in weighing the evidence. No, they said, he did not.

Now comes Jim Frist, who watches a videotape of Ms. Schiavo and says she still functions. Tom Delay insists that she could recover with only a little therapy. This is madness, and it terribly abusive to those who have reconciled to the reality of her death.

Note that no one has made a credible claim that the trial judge was biased. What we have, instead, is the politicization of this case by distant politicians who have shown either the most cynical form of opportunism or else a mortal form of arrogance in their certainty that Mr. Schiavo and all the courts and neurologists involved were obviously wrong.

[ed]

Hmmm.

I must say that I've had to re-examine quite a few viewpoints over this subject.

Here is an interesting article written by someone who has experienced something similar to Mrs. Schivao. (ht: PowerlineBlog)

Possibly the one thing I've seen repeated, and never really thought about, is the recurring meme that Terri should be kept alive only if she could improve. After reading that article I must admit that this isn't something that can be defended. If there is life, without excessive pain, then there shouldn't be caveats on living that life.

At least one good thing has come of all this, perhaps the only good thing.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"Do you really think this indicts Mr. Schiavo?"

Yes.

"His wife's EEG has been flat for 15 years."

I've seen people repeat this but I frankly don't believe it. I've talked to a number of doctors, including a couple neurologists, and so far the concensus is that nobody with a flat EEG could possibly be moving around, as Terri Schivao demonstrably does in the videos.

"Her MRI shows that her cereberum is gone or nearly gone ..."

Actually she has only ever had a CAT scan, something that doesn't show the kind of damage you're talking about. She has never had an MRI or a PET scan.

"...and now, rather than run he shows the courage of his convictions by demanding an autopsy that he hopes will prove to at least some of those still in denial what he has long since accepted, that his wife died long ago. ..."

He HOPES proves him right.

If the autopsy shows far less brain damage than currently theorized, then the excrement will really hit the fan.

OT: Does images of England's Queen Mum with the crown on remind anyone else of the old Parkay margarine commercials? I keep expecting her to shout out a sly "Parkayyyy" now and then.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Sorry TedL, I missed one of your points so I'll answer it here.

"I know that the left has been accused in this matter of turning to proceduralisms. But here, procedure is a guide to substance. The Schindlers had more than seven years in state court to convince a state court that their daughter retained some brain function. The court heard both sides at great length, and concluded that they were wrong. Then there were multiple levels of appellate review, as outside umpires were invited in to determine whether the judge had shown bias in weighing the evidence. No, they said, he did not."

I suggest reading this. (ht: PowerlineBlog)

*shrug* I might be wrong but it does seem that all of the judicial reviews were entirely about procedural issues. Since Judge Greer didn't make any severe procedural errors, IANAL, there was nothing for the subsequent judicial reviews to do. Frankly I think it's an idiotic system, but that's judicial procedure for you.

Though I'm still EXTREMELy curious as to how Judge Greer was able to come up with his decision. Well considering that he's legally blind and has never actually visited Terri Schivao.

You'd think, for courtesy reasons alone, that Judge Greer would at least have a visit.

[creepy dude]

"If the autopsy shows far less brain damage than currently theorized, then the excrement will really hit the fan."

Don't worry Ed-Delay and them hope to have that covered too. The Schindler's medical malpractice claim will hopefully be capped at $250,000.

FWIW I'm troubled about the whole withrawal of treatment for Mrs. Schiavo-but I really know very little about the facts over the past 15 years. The immediate demonization of Mr. Schiavo by people who know as much as me I find equally troubling.

[gt]

ed,

what is your medical specialty? Are you a neurologist or something else?

[creepy dude]

He's a nutologist if nothing else. Thx for the welcome back TM.

[ed]

Hmmm.

1. "what is your medical specialty? Are you a neurologist or something else?"

I'm just a guy who has had to deal with kidney failure for about 4 years. I've nearly died 4 times from severe bacterial infections of the blood. Nearly died twice, almost bleeding out completely, from two cases of bleeding stomach ulcers. I've had pieces of flesh carved from my arm due to severe infection by MRSA. I've had 2 femoral catheters and 10+ chest catheters.

*shrug* all I know is from experience.

OT: did you know that there is not one single example, that I can find at least, of a living will that doesn't immediately and completely assume that you're going to want to die? :) I asked for one, a long time ago, that had a checkbox that read: "Don't ever unplug my fat ass!!". Everybody laughed, but I was actually serious.

heh.

2. "He's a nutologist if nothing else."

*shrug* no doubt you expect that I care. But you're not even on my radar. Sorry.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Oh. I forgot to include profession I guess.

I'm a software developer. Used to be a contract programmer, gave it up when my health turned sour. Now I'm semi-retired and working for a very nice small firm where I can trundle on in at 10am. Thank god, 'cause I'm not a morning person. Oh and I've been programming for 27+ years now. Not that it means anything. Anything over 4 years is obsolete so all I can claim is a history of funny programming stories.

*shrug* that's about it.

[TM]

Our day would not be complete if, in addition to the Southern Baptists, we did not hear from representatives of Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. (No Buddhists? Sorry.)

Jay Wolfson, the 2003 guardian ad litem, did a comprehensive review.

[ed]

Hmmm.

I've read the Wolfson report. Frankly I find it less than satisfactory. He takes, as credible, testimony from people who have fairly serious conflicts of interest. He quotes a hospice administrator, who actually works at the facility where Mr. Felos, Michael Schivao's lawyer, is on the Board of Directors.

Then there's "Hypothesis III": "Where Theresa's exclusive awareness for 13 years, to the extent that she may be aware of anything, is the equivalent of fear and perpetual horror."

What I find curious is that, of the 4 hypothesis, only one, and maybe another, could result in life and not death. I also find curious that he didn't include the alternative of III, that Theresa might be locked into the equivalent of joy and absolute happiness.

I seem to recollect a comedian having a skit about this. That wouldn't it suck if you ended up this way, and found it was wonderful, only to have them pull the plug on you.

Then there's his repeating a theory that Theresa's low potassium was related to drinking 10-15 glasses of ice tea per day. Is that a valid theory, and does that actually explain her condition? Frankly I've experienced extremely low amounts of potassium and you simply cannot mistake it. If you've got dangerously low potassium, you'd know it. Why? Because I get hemodialysis three times per week. Part of the artificial kidney's functioning requires a special "bath" that has to be keyed to the patient. Sometimes they get the mix wrong and it pulls waaayyy too much potassium from the blood.

When that happens your body literally vibrates. It's like you're standing on your own personal little earthquake faultline. You can't hold anything, you can't grasp anything and standing up is difficult. But this is from a machine drawing the potassium out within a few hours, and to a level that isn't fatal. For someone to experience this sort of thing, from drinking *ice tea*, and not realize that something is drastically wrong far in advance of any critical stage, is just ridiculous. I suppose that's why Wolfson alludes to it as a "theory". I frankly don't find it credible.

*shrug*. etc etc etc.

[MattR]

ed - I have to correct a few of your "facts". Terri has had an MRI done. But it was long ago before the extensive damage was done. She had a CAT scna in 2002. They could have done an MRI but that would have required surgery to remove the experimental device that was implanted in her brain when Michael took her to California for treatment. I don't know for sure, but the theory is that the 2002 CAT scan showed no improvement (and even slight deterioration) over the 1996 CAT scan so they did not feel it was necessary to subject Terri to brain surgery just so they could perform a slightly more accurate test. Seems reasonable to me.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"Terri has had an MRI done."

*shrug* I haven't seen any documents that showed this or testimony from anyone directly associated with this case that asserted this. I'm sure you've got a source so if you could provide a link, I'd appreciate it. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I'd like to make sure I'm current.

Thanks.

[TM]

OK, that is a good detail on the MRI (any supporting links?). Now, medical technologists, does that objection also preclude a PET scan?

My quick glance here and here suggest that a PET scan would not be ruled out based on a metal implant, and would be a useful diagnostic technique.

[creepy dude]

Here:

http://www.theempirejournal.com/
02230551_medical_observations_sh.htm

Please note this a website advocating the continued treatment of Mrs. Schiavo, and excerpting her medical charts.

See the 7/24/1990 entry on the MRI Report Dr. Pinkston.

As I said, I'm troubled by the withdrawal of treatment, but my interest in posting on this thread is only to show what a completely unadulterated asshole is Tom Delay.

[creepy dude]

I should add that Tom Delay represents a lot of constituents in his assholularity.

[MattR]

ed - Here is the source for my comments. You will have to scroll down a bit to get to the specific question.

abstract appeal

[ed]

Hmmm.

Thanks! I'll definitely give it a complete reading today.

Honestly the thing that bothers me the most about all this is relative lack of testing. Personally I've had more tests than I could ever have imagined previously. In the past four years I think I've had every single blood vessel, internal organ and skeletal structure photographed, measured, MRI'd and gamma-ray thingamajigy'd. So it just seems a bit strange to not have the same rigorousness applied to Terri.

OT: On the other hand the two absolute coolest test I've had in the past couple of years was a full-on panoramic x-ray of my skull and a 3-d map of my blood vessels.

The x-ray machine literally swivels completely around your head and outputs an x-ray that totally amazing. Doctor would'nt give to me, or sell since I offered to buy it.

The 3-d map was done with a radioactive dye injected into the bloodstream. Then this machine would traverse slowly up and down the body mapping where the radioactive dye goes. After a few minutes the entire blood system is permeated with the dye.

I'd love to have either of those on my wall. heh.

[Cecil Turner]

I'm not sure there's any chance of proving her medical condition beyond doubt; it'll always be a judgment call with some degree of uncertainty. And while I'm persuaded there's nothing approaching sentience and a poor prognosis, that's a far cry from what a family member would consider "no hope." If the family were unified, I would defer to their judgment, since if the patient's most partisan supporters are convinced there's no hope . . . .

Which leads to the subject of "demonizing" Michael Schiavo. If his motives are pure, his case is persuasive. Unfortunately, just as Terri's precise medical condition is unknowable, so is Schiavo's precise motivation. And while I'm reluctant to judge the behavior of someone in such a stressful situation, his seems a bit odd. In particular, he doesn't appear to consider himself still married. And if that's the case, the logical answer would be to placie Terri in the custody of her parents. Regardless, his motives and actions are a central issue, and questioning them is not only appropriate, but necessary.

". . . they did not feel it was necessary to subject Terri to brain surgery just so they could perform a slightly more accurate test."

Seems to me a logical disconnect here. Any argument about "subject[ing] Terri to" something is completely unpersuasive, if the alternative is to let her die of thirst. Perhaps the vanishingly small chance of her recovering made it unreasonable to expend scarce medical resources, but sparing her a medical procedure in order to kill her makes no sense.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"...but sparing her a medical procedure in order to kill her makes no sense"

Agreed. Just like the current insanity with regards to morphine. Terri is supposed to be an unfeeling vegetable, yet they're injecting her with morphine to quiet her down. Evidently starving to death isn't quite as joyful as Mr. Felos has stated and Terri is moaning, groaning, moving around and convulsing.

You'd almost imagine she was awake enough to try and communicate her distress. If she is a "vegetable" then she's quite a bit more active than the local varieties of tomato.

[Jamie]

The timeline of notes from TSS's medical history at Empire Journal, referenced above, is instructive, esp. when read in conjunction with FL's definition of PVS. How, exactly, did Greer reach his conclusion?

I could see it if only one medico, or only those retained by the Schindlers to provide testimony in their behalf, had observed her interacting with her environment (a defining characteristic of PVS in FL). But that's not the case.

Then there's the deeper question of whether her mental status matters. If she had an advance directive addressing the question, clearly it would.

I guess it's too late to care, by now.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"Then there's the deeper question of whether her mental status matters."

The most terrible thing I can imagine is that she is mostly unconcious but achieves conciousness on a random basis. In such an instance she might, or might not, interact with people, but could possibly achieve sufficient conciousness to be aware of a terrible hunger and thirst.

*shrug* perhaps the autopsy will answer these questions by determining the extent of the damage. I hate to write this but it would probably be better for the nation if it were determined that her brain damage was as extensive as currently proposed. If it turns out otherwise I can't even begin to imagine the level of acrimony.

[Jamie]

ed:

I think possibly you misunderstand me, though as I read your other comments we're in agreement on this matter - and though I COMPLETELY agree that it would be (is!) truly terrible to contemplate that Terri may be even periodically aware of what's being done to her.

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. As I was telling my husband last night, reading the Empire Journal timeline reminded me strongly of the so-called "fourth trimesters" of each of my children's early lives - their behavior from birth to three months.

A newborn baby is "disorganized"; he (I'll use "he" to avoid the clunky "s/he," etc. Please do not infer gender bias) can't focus much beyond his own face; his eyes don't track moving objects very well or for very long; while he can smile from birth, his smiles typically come during sleep and are fleeting and localized - mouth only, not face and eyes. If he gets his thumb to his mouth, he can often suck it, but getting it there is a matter of chance at first. He can usually suckle. He can recognize familiar smells and sounds but not do much besides squirming away from things he doesn't like and squirming toward things he does. His limbs move apparently randomly, though as the three months go on he seems to exert effort toward controlling them, usually without a whole lot of success. Until QUITE recently, many doctors held that he could not "really" feel pain because his nervous system wasn't yet sufficiently developed. By three months, he can usually smile purposefully, begins to laugh, recognizes his parents and maybe siblings, and can usually hold up his head briefly and track moving objects, say, halfway across a room or so.

Not a whole lot of meaningful interaction. But the look into my eyes my newborn babies first gave me from a few inches away was all it took for me to see the person inside them. If they'd never progressed beyond that first three months, I'd still never have doubted their humanity and the preciousness of their lives. That the Schindlers recognize, value, and honor their daughter's humanity while people all over this great land are saying, "She's been dead since 1990," "She's a vegetable," "She's not 'in there' any more - just let her go," "She doesn't have a life," and so on, is not at all surprising to me. The other side of the debate, however, I find profoundly troubling.

[TM]

Good job by Jamie. One point:

Please do not infer gender bias

Actually, we sort of hope someone *will* infer gender bias and accuse you of it, so that we can hammer on them. KIDDING! (Partly.)

[ed]

Hmmm.

"I think possibly you misunderstand me, though as I read your other comments we're in agreement on this matter"

Yes I believe we are in agreement, I just appropriated your very nice sentence as a lead-in for my own post. Sorry, I should have explicitly stated so.

[equitus]

If Tom Delay didn't exist, the Democrats would have to invent him.