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".

[ed]

Hmmm.

"General rule of life is that you don't slip down every slippery slope."

Sorry, but when a **bioethicist** is advocating harvesting the organs of the disabled, that's not a slippery slope?

When a **bioethicist** is advocating treating Alzheimer's patients as non-people, that's not a slippery slope?

I'll accept that I'm extrapolating excessively if you can show me ANY example of a legally determined non-person that CANNOT be treated in this way.

Any example at all.

[TexasToast]

“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.” Jamie

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

Jamie

Its interesting to me that both your argument and Ed’s description of hell on earth are the same argument. Both of you make the slippery slope argument for “life” (although you do it in a less, erm, colorful fashion).

ISTM that your argument has a logical force analogous to Pascal’s Wager has with respect to the existence of God. I mean, a person has everything to gain by belief in God and little to lose, but the cost of non-belief is rather high. Similarly, why not define “life” in the broadest possible way so as to avoid any mistakes that might do harm?

This would be fine if there were no competing interests – but there is a competing interest, and to some folks, a rather compelling competing interest – liberty. Slippery slopes run both directions, and the logical conclusion of your slope is the voiding of all living wills as suicide pacts. Suicide is illegal and immoral, so how is a living will not an illegal or immoral document? Does my “life” override my “liberty”?

I’ve heard it said that the only logically consistent position on abortion if one accepts the premise that life begins at conception is a total ban. There can be no exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest, no exceptions with respect to the risk to the life of the mother, no exceptions whatsoever. The liberty of the mother with respect to her own body should have no force at all in the decision to be made.

I know you don’t believe Michael, but assume he is telling the truth about Terri’s wishes. Should her wishes have no force as long as someone is willing to “pick up the burden” as you put it? Should she be forced to live?

I love logic. Logic is a wonderful check on emotion and hysteria. But, logic is just a tool, among the other tools in our mental toolbox, to determine justice and make decisions. Society making a decision (or drawing a line, if you will) about where life ends or where life begins one way or the other does not mean that we are on the road to hell.

[Joe Mealyus]

"My concern is that the process was applied indiscriminately...."

I would say that my concern is that there's something overly indiscriminate about the process itself. I think anyone should be able to see the potential for problems in a case like this when one judge has so much input as to the outcome - and his or her decisions are practically (practicably?) unreviewable. The same judge (Greer) apparently chose Terri Schiavo's advocate, at times acting as her advocate himself, and then made the final determination with regard to the testimony of the doctors.

ISTM that there is a danger that in a case like this, you could get a pro-euthanasia judge or an anti-euthanasia judge, and that would pretty much determine the outcome.

My point btw is not to denigrate Greer or Michael Schiavo - perhaps they deserve no criticism. But I agree with Hentoff that Judge Greer's embrace of MS, and his apparently "delayed" testimony, given both Schiavo's long-term relationship with another woman, and his abrogation of his agreement to provide certain care for his wife, seem troubling. They at least suggest the possibility of a corrupted process. Which again, in this case, it may not be so - it may be that this court reached the "right" determination.

[Cecil Turner]

"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 . . ."

Pro-life assassins? I bet those dudes are conflicted!

"I know you don’t believe Michael, but assume he is telling the truth about Terri’s wishes."

In the first place, it's unprovable: there's no way to know. In the second, it's imprecise: what exact sort of "vegetable" did Terri say she would not wish to be? In the third, people miscommunicate and change their minds (case in point: I had a discussion with my wife where she said she "didn't want to be a vegetable," two weeks later when we were talking about living wills to avoid precisely this mess, I made some comment about her wanting me to pull the plug if she were in Schiavo's condition and she said: "what gave you that idea?"--I'm still clueless on that one).

"Should her wishes have no force as long as someone is willing to “pick up the burden” as you put it?"

Her wishes should have great force. And as long as there's a living will, or even a clearly expressed intent (that everyone agrees on)--the outcome ought to be pretty much as she indicated. But in cases of doubt--even just a "reasonable" one--the state ought not to be putting people to death. (Or holding off those who wish to help while the guardian does so.)

[Appalled Moderate]

Cecil:

I have two words for you: "Eric Rudolph". As you said, though, one conflicted dude.

As for your idea that the applicable standard should be the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a jury trial..well. I wonder how well that would work in the 999 cases out of 1,000 where the family is divided, but there is no interest from politicians. I think there is going to be a lot of inter-family hardball using the threat of a jury trial to get unrelated concessions out of heirs. Remember, in alzheimers cases, patients lose the ability to swallow, but can otherwise keep on going on life support.

[Cecil Turner]

"I wonder how well that would work in the 999 cases out of 1,000 where the family is divided, but there is no interest from politicians."

I seriously doubt this sort of thing has happened 1000 times, and in general, the laws seem designed to let care facilities refuse to accept hopeless patients in cases where the families want life extended beyond reason. In any event, the "you want her, you feed her" solution works for me (as it would have for the Schindlers).

As to the jury trial, reasonable doubt, etc., I'm not hung up on any particular safeguard. But there ought to be some stringent protections for any patient the state intends to deprive of life. And this case clearly doesn't meet that standard. (E.g., I find it completely inappropriate for a former spouse with a live-in to be a guardian. To then allow such a guardian to pull the plug over the family's objections is frankly astonishing.) As several have stated, whether there is abuse in this case or not, there is certainly the potential for abuse, and no compelling state interest to offset it. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but this sure ain't it.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"Its interesting to me that both your argument and Ed’s description of hell on earth are the same argument. Both of you make the slippery slope argument for “life” (although you do it in a less, erm, colorful fashion)."

If it's you with Alzheimers or brain damage, which standard would you prefer? Frankly because that's something I *must* consider. One particularly nasty side-effect of kidney failure is a heightened risk of stroke. As the saying goes, there but for the Grace of God, go I.

"I love logic. Logic is a wonderful check on emotion and hysteria. But, logic is just a tool, among the other tools in our mental toolbox, to determine justice and make decisions. Society making a decision (or drawing a line, if you will) about where life ends or where life begins one way or the other does not mean that we are on the road to hell."

Harvesting the organs of the still alive comes pretty close to my definition of hell. Loving logic is nice, but logic without an ethical or moral foundation is a means of justifying evil.

And, since nobody has come forth to refute my point, or rather points, here's a couple examples of legally defined human non-persons:

1. Embryo.
2. Corpse, or cadaver.

And yes, both get harvested on a regular basis and there is great profit in it. There are corporations whose entire business existence is based on either or both. Interesting isn't it? The two examples occupy both ends of the life spectrum.

All we need is #3, somewhere in the middle eh?

[TexasToast]

“Give me liberty, of give me death” – Nathan Hale

Ed

Any societal value – taken to its logical extreme – leads to bad results. I doubt very seriously that our society would so devalue “life” that your hell would come to pass.

At the risk of repeating myself – there are two competing values here. “Life” and “liberty”. We must put these values on the scale and determine how much liberty we are willing to forgo in order that we might never make a mistake with respect to life. One person’s “procedural safeguard” is another person’s “red tape” and the more you “err on the side of life” the more you “err against liberty”.

Life has a very high value in our society – but so does liberty. The standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is such a high standard because our laws deem that the depriving a person of liberty for the commission of a criminal act demands that sort of proof. Denying me or Terri S the liberty to determine our fate unless we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that dignified death is our choice strikes me as another form of hell on earth.

Do we really want a rule that says that I must continue to live unless it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that I don’t want to go on living? Is life such an important value that I must thread the needle beyond a reasonable doubt to give legal effect to my decision that my life should end? I think that many people would answer that question with a no. I would rather die than just “exist” in a state where life had lost all meaning.

[Jamie]

TexasToast & Appalled:

I agree that liberty and life are two VERY high-value principles, and I hope we can agree that which one is more important at a particular moment varies with circumstances - I'm not an ideologue in general, I promise. That's why I've tried to limit my statements to the specific case where a person has no advance directive and there are competing stories about the person's wishes from loved ones with substantially equivalent interests. In Terri's case, I don't actually think this latter circumstance even applies very well: Michael's "interest" in having his point of view rule the day seems to me to be a whole lot more motivational, so to speak, than the Schindlers' "interest" in keeping Terri alive, in that if Terri was dead, Michael would inherit whatever was left of Terri's trust (and as I've said elsewhere, $50K isn't a million bucks but it isn't chump change either), would be able to stop spending whatever money he was spending on her care and his own legal fees, and would be free to pursue his life with his fiancee and children without the significant obligation of an incapacitated wife. The Schindlers, on the other hand, were facing taking on the financial, practical, and emotional burdens of primary care of a woman who could never be expected even to feed herself, simply for the joy of having her be alive, whatever that joy meant to them.

But I tried, as I say, carefully to limit the case. I strongly support advance directives. And I believe that even if I were to become incapacitated without one, my natal family and my husband would be in agreement about what my wishes would be, because I'm generally consistent about what I tell each of them. I'm middle-aged and no longer convinced of my own immortality; I have a more realistic view of what can happen to me, I'd wager, than Terri did at 26.

So. Choose to refuse treatment, by all means, if that's your value. Choose to refuse nutrition, if it's legal. Either write an AD and create a durable power of attorney, or make sure that everyone who loves you understands the tenor of your wishes. But to impose a standard of demonstrable cognition on human life, while it may be the standard you choose for yourself, is too limiting for me. (Bear in mind, too, that the Schindlers and several long-term nurses and therapists maintained all along that, CT scan and "flat
EEG - that should have meant Terri was incapable of motion - notwithstanding, Terri was responsive to them at times over the long term. Is it so unreasonable to think that perhaps Dr. Cranford just wasn't in the room for long enough? That his own biases led him to see "reflex" where her mother saw "smile"? Or do we so entirely understand the human brain that it holds no mysteries for us now?)

[Cecil Turner]

"The standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is such a high standard because our laws deem that the depriving a person of liberty for the commission of a criminal act demands that sort of proof."

But depriving a sick person of life is relatively more casual affair, eh? I don't see getting a consensus from family members as an incredibly high hurdle. And in cases where that's not possible (especially if there's more than one holdout), the standard ought to be fairly high. (Though again, I'm not stuck on “beyond a reasonable doubt.” "Clear and convincing"--as long as it was actually "clear" and "convincing"--would probably be adequate. This case was anything but.)

Another amusing anecdote (amusing to me, anyway). A few years back, one of my buddies' octogenarian dads was ill, went to the hospital, and took a bad turn. He hung on for a couple of weeks in IC, unresponsive and on a ventilator, and the docs said he wouldn't regain consciousness. My buddy's mom was distraught and unable to make a decision, so she left it up to him. Based on the doctors' assurances there was no hope, he decided to pull the plug. In the time it took to implement the decision, his dad improved dramatically, and (after another round of antibiotics and a couple more weeks) was sent home, eventually recovering fully. I found the whole episode hilarious, my buddy was less amused (apparently it put a bit of a strain on their relationship).

The bottom line is that doctors are not infallible, and there's a lot of uncertainty in medical diagnoses (especially in cases of brain damage). Just as we'd rather see 10 guilty men go free rather than convict an innocent, I'd rather see 10 vegetables hang on a bit longer than necessary rather than kill someone who was going to recover. And I'd have a lot more time for the countervailing arguments if the proponents would admit that the process in this particular case was shaky, and perhaps we ought to find ways to ensure it's not repeated.

[Jamie]

For three weeks I've been looking for a compact formulation of what I felt was wrong with the Terri Schiavo case, and Cecil Turner tosses it off in a paragraph... Thanks, Cecil; wish I could've said it so concisely. (I'll bet everyone who's been wading through my treatises does too.)

[Appalled Moderate]

Cecil:

The process was not all that shaky. The initial factfinding by Judge Greer is what's in dispute. And the parade of second guessers, for the most part, do not have the trial transcript in front of them, and were surely not in Judge Greer's courtroom and did not have his training and experience to assess the nature of the testimony of the witnesses.

Now, the thing I would focus on, if I were leading the legislative charge, is that Greer's fact finding, in part, appeared to be influenced by expert testimony on what a like-minded woman would customarily believe under the circumstances. This may be typical (I imagine TexasToast is better equipped to opine on this) I think there's a real good argument for not allowing this kind of testimony under these circumstances. Life and death decisions shouldn't be made on the basis of the application of community standards.

Jamie:

You make good arguments -- I doubt a judge would overrule your factfinding had you been Judge Greer The problem is that questions of fact are settled in the initial trial for many good reasons -- one of which being that while everyone has an opinion or different view, only the judge (or jury) has heard the presentation of ALL of the facts of the case and heard all the witnesses. A process where facts can be willy nilly thrown out, absent a finding of an error in applying the law, is guaranteed to be a far more arbitrary one.

[TexasToast]

“But depriving a sick person of life is relatively more casual affair, eh?”

Not at all – it is not in any sense “casual”. It’s that the balance of competing interests are not in the same place.

“I don't see getting a consensus from family members as an incredibly high hurdle.”

You don’t do a lot of estate planning either. “Consensus” among family members is quite often a very high hurdle. People argue over family photographs and table lamps. The cases can get incredibly sticky. I had a couple in recently where the wife is younger than the husband’s children, and the kids refused to come to the wedding. They consider her a tramp and their father an adulterer even though the mother has been dead for 5 years. Care to guess how many of my widower clients remarry within 5 years?

The relationship between Michael S and the Schindlers appears downright benign in comparison. Throw a PVS husband/father into that mix, and Katie bar the door. Most of my job is trying to prevent the legal trainwreck that family disharmony so often causes.

“And I'd have a lot more time for the countervailing arguments if the proponents would admit that the process in this particular case was shaky, and perhaps we ought to find ways to ensure it's not repeated.”

I don’t want to know how sausage gets made, but it gets made.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing to me about this whole mess is the implicit attack on the judiciary and our judicial system that is just below the surface (or above the surface, if you listen to John Cornyn). Bad facts make for bad law and changing the standard of proof, or requiring jury trials in cases like this one because we might think that the court should have given more weight to the parents wishes because the husband is an adulterer seems to me to create far more problems than such “procedural safeguards” would solve. Doctors may not be infallible, but “jurors” in the court of public opinion who make judgments about people from hundreds of miles away aren’t either.

[Cecil Turner]

"The process was not all that shaky."

Nonsense. The conflicts of interest alone are enough to disqualify a death finding in any rational system. If your position is that this was all okay, I find it totally unpersuasive.

". . . did not have his training and experience to assess the nature of the testimony of the witnesses."

Not buying any. If the system is dependent on Judge Greer's (or any other judge's) opinion of the testimony, it's prone to judge-shopping. In any event, that's not a sufficient standard when the outcome is starving people to death.

"You don’t do a lot of estate planning either. “Consensus” among family members is quite often a very high hurdle."

Fine. Don't kill the patient until they agree. If necessary, require those who want to keep the patient alive bear the burden of doing so.

"Perhaps the most disturbing thing to me about this whole mess is the implicit attack on the judiciary and our judicial system . . ."

Again, the "move along, nothing to see here" argument is unconvincing. And the judiciary, like the rest of the government, is supposed to serve the people--not the other way 'round. I find the prospect of more scenes like the one at the hospice appalling. If the judiciary won't fix it, I'll support the legislature's efforts. And if the pendulum has to swing back and forth a couple of times to find a happy medium, so be it. (That also is sausage-making.)

[Jamie]

I was once the company rep at a trial in which my company benefited substantially from a judge's finding of fact, which led to the judge's ruling in favor of my company overall; I do understand the need for findings of fact to be immune from argument, in general. But if ending an innocent life isn't important enough to constitute a case for taking a second look, I don't know what is. Saying that nothing is, strikes me as undue deference to process at the expense of possibly preventing an injustice. (Please note that I say "possibly.")

[TexasToast]

“For three weeks I've been looking for a compact formulation of what I felt was wrong with the Terri Schiavo case, and Cecil Turner tosses it off in a paragraph” -- Jamie

“In any event, the "you want her, you feed her" solution works for me (as it would have for the Schindlers).” -- CT

Jamie

I must admit that I am rather surprised at this. Reading your posts, I had gathered that you valued life above all the Lockean values of life, liberty and property. I gather that Cecil does not, as he has repeatedly limited the “right to life” to those cases where there is someone willing to pick up the tab, so to speak. Implicitly, the person willing to “bear the burden” as you put it, has a “property” right of some sort in the life of another. There is actually a legal basis for such a conclusion – as we place a monetary value on “loss of consortium” in personal injury and wrongful death claims. So I ask you, why does it matter that there are people willing to “bear the burden”, as you put it, if “life” has such a high value?

If you value property rights, as Cecil seems to, the question becomes whose “property” rights are being compromised and whose life and liberty interest is being compromised. You made the point above that the trust fund wasn’t “chump change”, implicitly damning Michael for caring more about money than the life of his wife. Couldn’t we also say that the Schindler’s cared more about their own “property” interest in keeping their daughter “alive” than Terri’s liberty interest in the quality of that “life”? Do their property rights trump their daughter’s liberty interest in death with dignity?

Again, for purposes of discussion, lets assume that Terri would have wanted to die under these circumstances. Its Terri’s life and Terri’s liberty, so do the Schindler’s have such an interest that, if they are willing to pay for it, we should keep Terri alive against her wishes?

More simply, if “life” is an absolute value, why does the ability to “bear the burden” matter?

[creepy dude's evil friend]

"Fine. Don't kill the patient until they agree. If necessary, require those who want to keep the patient alive bear the burden of doing so."

CT-what if Ms. Schiavo's parents were indigent or disabled themselves. Like let's say the Schindler's were both on Medicaid themselves and hospitalized but otherwise coherent and able to make their wishes known.

Would you have the government provide the care and pick up the tab?

[Cecil Turner]

Jamie,
Sorry for not responding, I inadvertently skipped over that one. Thanks.

TT,
"I gather that Cecil does not, as he has repeatedly limited the “right to life” to those cases where there is someone willing to pick up the tab, so to speak."

No. The state has an interest in limiting expenditure of medical resources on hopeless cases (especially if they are competing with others for bed space, etc.), and there is an additional issue in families trying to force someone else to look after an invalid. In those cases it might be a separate arguable issue (e.g., that the Schindlers couldn't force Mr Schiavo to look after Terri in perpetuity). There is no such consideration in cases where the family is willing to provide care, which simplifies matters (and why I cherry-picked those instances for the sake of argument).

What state interest was served by ordering Terri Schiavo's death? The only legitimate answer is that it corresponded to her wishes . . . which are unknowable. Absent someone with the power to do a Vulcan mind-meld, it's all speculation (and in this case, a latter discovery of the wish extrapolated from recalled conversation, from someone with a financial and practical interest in her death). Again, my concern is the possibility that the person on whom the court ordered pulling the plug would have preferred to keep living. (And the possibility, however minuscule, that she could have been successfully treated at some time in the future.) You apparently place a different value on this, which is your prerogative. And like most value judgments, it also doesn't appear to be something we'll resolve, so cheers.

[Jamie]

TexasToast:

You're mischaracterizing my point of view, which is no doubt because of my ham-handedness in putting it across. I value life and liberty above property, though which of the two "l's" is at the top of the list can vary with circumstances for me, a la Patrick Henry. I recognize, however, that property (in the form of scarce resources that someone has to pay for) is a very important value as well, and with Cecil Turner I say that the Terri Schindler Schiavo case should have been simple because a party that already placed "life" at the apex of the value pyramid was also offering to undertake the cost of maintaining that life. So the only question was whether keeping TSS alive was a violation of her liberty - which was unknowable, except to Judge Greer.

You say, "Couldn’t we also say that the Schindler’s cared more about their own 'property' interest in keeping their daughter 'alive' than Terri’s liberty interest in the quality of that 'life'?" If I understood what the "property" interest the Schindlers might have had, perhaps I could answer this question. In the absence of that knowledge, sure, we could say it, but it still wouldn't answer the question of what Terri's "liberty interest in the quality of that 'life'" would have been. Plus you imply that Terri's judgment about her quality of life would have run counter to her parents', which is by no means demonstrated to my satisfaction, at any rate.

You also say, "Do their property rights trump their daughter’s liberty interest in death with dignity?"

I must remind you, she wasn't dying until we made it so. "Death with dignity" isn't (yet) generally applied to the suicide of non-terminal people, is it? Outside Oregon?

[ed]

Hmmm.

1. "Any societal value – taken to its logical extreme – leads to bad results. I doubt very seriously that our society would so devalue “life” that your hell would come to pass."

Twenty years ago I would never have imagined anyone would so devalue human embryos that harvesting, cloning and chopping them up would be passe. A decade ago I would never have imagined that kids would consider a blowjob to not be sex, and that it would be a normal way to end a date.

The simple fact is that all things devolve and that chaos, without constant effort, ascends. A sort of Law of Thermodynamics applied to life. What does oppose this natural devolution of morals and ethics is largely religion, and religion in America, beyond the bizzare and pagan, is dying. Like it, don't like, it doesn't matter. Secularism is rising and with it also rises all sorts of abberant behavior. Behavior that, only a short time ago, couldn't even be imagined. And yet it now becomes normal.

Take it from me, the ability of humans to adapt to a new sense of "normal" is pretty extreme. And the law is far from a rigid framework, it's always highly malleable.

So let's reconsider this concept then. What institution would oppose the harvesting of the disabled and, if so, on what grounds? It won't be the courts, they declined to do so in the Schivao case. It can't involve the Constitution, the courts refused to apply it to the Schivao case. Would it be the Christian churches? But they're all painted as extreme right-wing nutcases. Are they to stand alone, and how? Eventually pro-harvest people will get elected into power. Once elected they could pass laws that would explicitly allow the harvesting.

For harvesting to be opposed, it must be opposed all the time, every time and successfully each and every time. For harvesting to succeed, they only need to win once. Because then, it would become the new "normal".

So let's review the Schivao case for a moment. Who opposed the death? All I saw were groups and activists for disabled rights, devout christians and jews and Republicans.

Is this really a sufficient cross-section of America to permanently ban the harvesting of organs from permanently disabled people? Especially with all the "but this would help so many sick people!" arguments?

Are we really contemplating the absolute and utter domination of American politics, by the Right, for all time? Because that's what it would take.

IMHO of course.

2. "“beyond a reasonable doubt”"

But this standard of proof applies only to criminal cases. Terri Schivao's case needed only "Clear and convincing", not even close to the same standard. And wouldn't you prefer "beyond a reasonable doubt"? This standard of proof isn't insurmountable, not even remotely so.

It would probably require more than the unsupported testimony of one or two people. A living will would help greatly, and probably would all by itself. The testimony from a reasonable cross-section of friends, relatives and loved ones would certainly apply. If the only sentiment you've ever expressed was one where you wanted to die, in such a similar circumstance, then nobody would stand in your way.

But having a "liberty" to die means actually *choosing* it, not having it chosen for you. That sort of "liberty" goes on all over the world and isn't any sort of liberty I'd care to have.

3. "I would rather die than just “exist” in a state where life had lost all meaning."

And what state is this?

There are a lot of unknowns associated with brain damage. PVS itself is not a diagnoses, but an estimate. What you're considering as something terrible, might very well not be all that bad. Or irreversible.

Is death so completely preferable to hope? Would living brain damaged, but in your mother's loving embrace, be so horrifying that death would be better?

The only essential truth, and I hand this one out for free, is that life is sweet. No matter how marginal that life may seem. To think of it may horrify. It may terrify. But life is a habit that is hard to break. And, as long as it is without great pain, a marginal life is far better than no life at all.

In my illness I've had to give up a great many things. And there are those bad days when all seems lost and the future is a neverending drudgery of endless hospitalizations.

For a hobby though, you can't beat life.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Oh crap. Here we go:

Thrown Back (ht: NRO's The Corner)

I'm pasting the text, in case anyone is too lazy to use the link. The path to Hell isn't a cobblestoned walkway. It's a laundry chute.

WTF is up with probate judges? Do they universally have their heads in their butts? First Judge Greer and now this?

I'm going to be ill.

--------------------------
Thursday, April 07, 2005

It's Happening Again:

Georgia Woman Being Starved and Dehydrated

85 year-old Mae Margourik of LaGrange, Georgia, is currently being deprived of nutrition and hydration at the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy. Mrs. Margourik suffered an aortic dissection 2 weeks ago and was hospitalized. Though her doctors have said that she is not terminally ill, Ms. Gaddy declared that she held medical power of attorney for Mae, and had her transferred to the LaGrange Hospice. Later investigation revealed that Ms. Gaddy did not in fact have such power of attorney. Furthermore, Mae's Living Will provides that nutrition and hydration are to be withheld only if she is comatose or vegetative. Mae is in neither condition. Neither is her condition terminal.

Furthermore, under Georgia law, if there is no power of attorney specifying a health care decisionmaker, such authority is given to the closest living relatives. Mae's brother, A. B. McLeod, and sister, Lonnie Ruth Mullinax, are both still alive and capable of making such decisions. They opposed Mae's transfer to hospice, and are fighting to save her life. But in spite of the lack of a power of attorney, and the fact that there are closer living relatives who should be given precedence by Georgia law, Ms. Gaddy sought an emergency appointment as guardian from the local probate court. The probate judge, Donald Boyd (who, I am told, is not an attorney and does not have a law degree), granted Gaddy's request, thereby giving her the power to starve and dehydrate Margourik to death, though such an action is contrary to the provisions of the living will.

I have spoken to Kenneth Mullinax, Mae's nephew, and he has confirmed all the above. He also tells me that he believes that Ms. Gaddy has no bad motives, but is simply misguided and mistaken. Mullinax said that Ms. Gaddy has testified in court that she has "prayed over" Mae, and is convinced that it is "time for her to go". Whether the fact is relevant or not remains to be seen, but apparently Ms. Gaddy is also the sole beneficiary of Mae's will.

Kenneth has told me that they need help in getting the word out, and bringing Mae's case to the media's attention. Given the amount of coverage of the Holy Father's death, that may be difficult. But we have to raise the visibility of this case. They have another hearing coming up, and Kenneth indicated that they also may need expert assistance, both legal and medical.

The similarities of Mae Margourik's situation and Terri Schiavo's are obvious: Once again we have a family divided over what care should be given to a seriously ill relative. And once again, we have a judge playing God with someone's life. But what is different, and in a sense worse, is that Mae is being deprived of food and water in clear contravention of her own stated wishes, and at the request of someone who should have no standing under Georgia law.

More information is available at Blogs For Terri. If you want to contact Kenneth Mullinax to get more information or to offer help, you may e-mail him at mockingbird@compuhelp.net.

posted by Fr. Rob 1:10 PM

[Jamie]

Holy cow... so soon. And in what would appear to be a really clear-cut case.

Anyone care to comment on that slippery slope now?

ed, have you posted this elsewhere? I'm going to email Prof. Reynolds and Megan McArdle.

[Jamie]

Following some of the links generated by the link ed posted:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688 and
http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/04/new_message_fro.php

What a horrible story... The woman, whose husband and son are deceased, was admitted to the hospital for a dissected aorta, which her own sister also had, and had treated without surgery (this is the sister who is fighting to have Mae Magouirk's feeding tube reinserted). She was not diagnosed with any dementia or any other debilitating mental condition when she was admitted. The granddaughter claimed medical power of attorney to have her transferred to a hospice, which usually requires that a person be called "terminal" and give up all non-palliative treatment. Two quotes from the World Net Daily article above (the one that starts with "wnd"):

Claiming that she held Magouirk's power of attorney, Gaddy had her transferred to Hospice-LaGrange, a 16-bed unit owned by the same family that owns the hospital. Once at the hospice, Gaddy stated that she did not want her grandmother fed or given water.

"Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"

and then:

Ron Panzer, president and founder of Hospice Patients Alliance, a patients' rights advocacy group based in Michigan, told WND that what is happening to Magouirk is not at all unusual.

"This is happening in hospices all over the country," he said. "Patients who are not dying – are not terminal – are admitted [to hospice] and the hospice will say they are terminally ill even if they're not. There are thousands of cases like this. Patients are given morphine and ativan to sedate them. If feeding is withheld, they die within 10 days to two weeks. It's really just a form of euthanasia."

Further, the brother and sister were initially able to have Mae's nasal feeding tube reinserted, but were told by the hospice's in-house counsel (who also acknowledged that the granddaughter's power of attorney was financial only, and that the hospital had been remiss in not determining that fact before allowing Mae's transfer) that they'd have to come immediately to sign papers taking responsibility for her, because she'd no longer be able to stay in a hospice under those circumstances.

The brother and sister came to the hospital the next day, Apr. 1, to meet with the in-house counsel and to arrange transport of Mae to a hospital. But the hospice, according to the article, "stalled" them while the granddaughter was going before a probate judge to have an emergency guardianship conferred on her. The granddaughter then apparently rushed right over and had the feeding tube re-removed. Mae has now been without food or fluids since April 8. (The WND article says she's 81, not 85 - either way, not a spring chicken who can take this kind of non-treatment for overlong.)

Holy cow, I say again.

Fear your relatives... at least some of them.

I've done the emails to Instapundit and Assymmetric Information.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"ed, have you posted this elsewhere? I'm going to email Prof. Reynolds and Megan McArdle."

I found this on NRO's The Corner, posted by K.J. Lopez. She's one of the senior editors of the National Review Online.

Perhaps this is a hoax, perhaps someone is pulling our collective leg. But it seems rather doubtful.

I think there's far more to fear from probate judges than anything else.

It's all really disgusting.

[Appalled Moderate]

I have a problem with this, as the statute in this case is NOT being followed. One thing I note is that there is nothing in the LaGrange paper, the Atlanta paper or the Columbus newspaper about this. LaGrange is a small-ish town in the country -- I cannot imagine the folks in Troup county standing for this, if it were well known locally. Has anyone tried contacting the local papers to get them to cover this? (particularly the Columbus paer, which tends conservative)

[Jamie]

Looking into it now, Appalled. What a story.

As I just commented a bit ago on janegalt.net, an awful lot of people would have an interest in NOT seeing this situation come to light if as is claimed in the WND article (and elsewhere - link: http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schiavo-10-12-02-press-rel.html) some hospices are abusing their "charter" to bump up their funding.

The blogger at Straight Up With Sherri (http://straightupwsherri.blogspot.com/2005/04/this-just-in-from-dee-nice-work-dee-my.html) says she has spoken with the nephew to confirm the story. She's also done some interesting research into the affiliations of the hospice and its director.

[Appalled Moderate]

I see Lileks and Instapundit's picked it up, and I imagine the blog activity will translate over to Hannity and Limbaugh. (Neil Boortz, our local (IMHO) loudmouth, is libertarian. He may pick it up since the law and the stated wishes of the woman are completely different than what the grandaughter is insisting on. He would be on the air now.) That ought to get the word out to Troup County and the newspapers that serve it. Not a lot of time, though.

By the way, the Atlanta TV stations are:

waga (www.fox5atlanta.com)
wsb
wxia (www.11alive.com)
wgnx

Again, I hope someone is working this. And, by the way, try the governor's office. (Sonny Perdue, GOP))

This really needs to be addressed locally as well as nationally for there to be effective action in time.

[Jamie]

OK, I've emailed the health & family reporter at the Columbia paper and the news editor at the LaGrange paper.

[Jamie]

And I've emailed the two TV stations Appalled gave links for - thanks, Appalled. Off to get Limbaugh on the case if he isn't already... (Yes, I know he'll get there via Instapundit, but it never hurts to repeat.)

[TexasToast]

If these facts are true, it is clear error and the guardian should be removed. This appears to be in direct contravention of a living will so both the “liberty” and “life” interests are aligned. I have a feeling however that we haven’t heard the entire story yet. In any dispute, probate or otherwise, it is risky to jump to conclusions based upon either side’s version of the “facts” - and these stories appear to come from only one side.

Moreover, even assuming all “facts” in favor of the contestants, these facts do not constitute an example of it “happening again.” There are obvious and clear distinctions. So, yes, I am still quite comfortable criticizing a “slippery slope” argument, because changing the line drawing does not change the proper result in either of these cases.

[TM]

I can't break through their service problems and post this at my own blog, but...

Folks who wonder if this is a hoax will find this very interesting: the nephew is Ken Mullinax, which is not a particularly common name (see Yahoo People Search).

However, there is a Ken Mullinax in Alabama who was a spokesperson for a Dem Congressman (Hilliard), and then was press spokesperson for Dem challenger Bill Fuller in the 2004 Congressional race (Fuller fought Rogers, but Rogers won).

I can't find a follow-up, but Fuller's house was

SO, get out your tin-foil caps, and try this - Mullinax thinks that some wacko righties tried to burn his candidate, and is not above a bit of payback.

FWIW, the house fire was in Lafayette, Mullinax's mom is in a facility at Birmingham, and his aunt is just over the state line in LaGrange.

Now, the idea that this is a payback hoax seems unbelievable - one might think that, as a press spokesperson, this guy will never eat lunch in this town again!

OTOH, I listened to the Dave Allen interview, and if there was any mention of Ken's background, I missed it.

Have a great weekend.

[Appalled Moderate]

TM:

If this is a hoax, the Probate Court judge in Troup County and the Hospice in Lagrange would both have cause for a libel action. Bad idea. Plus the guy is giving out his home phone number on the web. (It is an Alabama number, btw.)

Does beg the question: what's the best way to get the word out on a situation like. Try your local newspapers or TV station. Or post a letter on the web? Seems like the web approach is vastly more effective than the old media ways and means. Fascinating.

[TM]

I am going to try again with that post:

Folks who wonder if this is a hoax will find this very interesting: the nephew is Ken Mullinax, which is not a particularly common name (see Yahoo People Search).

However, there is a Ken Mullinax in Alabama who was a spokesperson for a Dem Congressman (Hilliard), and then was press spokesperson for Dem challenger Bill Fuller in the 2004 Congressional race (Fuller fought Rogers, but Rogers won).

I can't find a follow-up, but Fuller's house was burned a week before the election under circumstances that at the time were considered by local Dems to be possibly "a hate crime".

SO, get out your tin-foil caps, and try this - Mullinax thinks that some wacko righties tried to burn his candidate, and is not above a bit of payback.

FWIW, the house fire was in Lafayette, Mullinax's mom is in a facility at Birmingham, and his aunt is just over the state line in LaGrange.

Now, the idea that this is a payback hoax seems unbelievable - one might think that, as a press spokesperson, this guy will never eat lunch in this town again! Then again, maybe neither Dems nor the mainstream press will be upset if Mullinax makes fools of some right-wing bloggers and radio hosts. Either way, the notion that he is a legitmately concerned nephew is a lot more plausible.

Trust, but verify.

OTOH, I listened to the Dave Allen interview, and if there was any mention of Ken's background, I missed it.

As to a posible libel action, it seems like a fair point, especially for the hospice.

Or, the idea that he won't be discovered seems preposterous. Unless he announces "April Fool's".

[Appalled Moderate]

Story may be unraveling:

http://straightupwsherri.blogspot.com/2005/04/back-on-free-audio-of-interview-with.html#comments

A local minister reports the word on the street in LaGrange.

[TM]

OK, my last guess before I follow that link - from Blogs for Terri, I learn that the nephew's mom has the same problem as the aunt (it is a hereditary condition), and is in the hospital now.

So, maybe the aunt was quite clear with the grand-daughter that she did not want to go through what her sister experienced.

OK, let's see.

[Jamie]

As Tom (and someone else - let's see, who was that again?) said, trust, but verify... But I add, verify fast, because if true this woman is not long for this world.

Hence my flurry of emails earlier in the day, in hopes that someone who really is a journalist, with resources and all, can do the actual legwork. I don't know what to hope for... The opportunity to save a life and simultaneously set the euthanasia movement back a step, or that Mrs. Magouirk has not been put through an ordeal not of her choosing. Man, I hope one of the real news outlets/people with Lexis Nexis picks this up so I can stop wondering if I'm flying off the handle over nothing. (It wouldn't be over "nothing," I guess; it'd be over a sick joke. A really sick joke.)

[Appalled Moderate]

TM:

On the Glenn Beck show (follow my link above) guy identifies himself as someone who used to be an aide up in Washington. While I imagine there is another side to this story (much as TM suggests), the guy is no loon, though he is understandably upset.

Allegedly, there was to be a news conference down in LaGrange explaining the "real story". I wonder if any part of this will be on the local news here in Atlanta tonight.

[Jamie]

That was an utterly stupid and self-centered statement I just made. Of course what I hope for is that "Mrs. Magouirk has not bee put through an ordeal not of her choosing"; the other alternative would only save me wounded pride.

I'll take the wounded pride if it means this horrible story isn't true.

[Appalled Moderate]

A somewhat confused story on the subject can now be found here. (No permalink, sorry)

[Jamie]

Appalled:

The news editor just emailed me that story minutes ago... You're quick. I was waiting to hear back from him about whether I could post it before doing so, because I doubted that the LaGrange News would have an online edition. I guess the new millenium comes to us all...

[TM]

guy identifies himself as someone who used to be an aide up in Washington.

Mullinax flacked for Hilliard, who was a Congressman in Washington, so that would fit.

However, Hilliard (or Fuller) may be ardent pro-life Dems, for all I know.