by hilzoy
As I type these words, the US Congress is preparing to meet in extraordinary session to decide whether to pass a bill granting Terri Schiavo’s parents the right to take her case to federal court. This is an amazing spectacle on any number of counts. But one of the most striking to me, as a bioethicist, is that so many people are talking as though Terri Schiavo is the victim of some alarming new indignity. Thus, ABC News (video clip here; ‘Questioning Intentions’) showed Rep. Dave Weldon saying, on the floor of the Congress, “To order the withdrawal of food and water from somebody — it’s never been done before to my knowledge.” There are only two ways to take this claim: either Rep. Weldon is lying or he has not bothered to inform himself even minimally about what he’s talking about. In fact, the only thing about Terri Schiavo’s case that’s at all unusual is the amount of attention it has received.
The basic facts of the case are well known (there’s a very good account here.) In 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered cardiac arrest, probably as a result of bulimia. (If any of you have been wondering why a woman in her twenties had cardiac arrest, that seems to be the answer. The underreporting of this aspect of the case is a real missed opportunity to educate people about the consequences of serious eating disorders.) As a result of the cardiac arrest, her brain was deprived of oxygen, which caused severe brain damage.
Eight years later, after various attempts at therapy and a successful malpractice suit (based on the doctors’ failure to diagnose Terri’s eating disorder), Michael Schiavo petitioned the court to determine whether her feeding tube should be removed. Many press reports talk as though he just decided that it should be removed; in fact, he left that decision to the court. He and others testified that Terri Schiavo had said that she would not want to be kept alive in a condition like the one she was in; her family of origin testified that she had said that she would. The judge found (pdf) that there was ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to receive life-prolonging care in her current condition, and ordered that the feeding tube could be removed. (If you are wondering how the judge could have found ‘clear and convincing evidence’ given conflicting testimony, I urge you to read the pdf, which explains why the judge did not find her parents’ testimony credible. In one case, for instance, they testified that she had made a remark supporting their position when she was an adult, but it turned out that she had said it when she was 11 or 12.) This was in 1998; in 2001, after this decision had been appealed as far as it could go and upheld, her feeding tube was removed for the first time.
However, the tube was reinserted after her parents filed another appeal based on the claim that they had new evidence and that there were new treatments that might help her regain consciousness. These appeals were heard and denied; again, the case was appealed as far as it could go, and upheld. Terri Schiavo’s parents then challenged the constitutionality of the relevant laws, but this challenge was dismissed by a federal court. At this point, in October 2003, her feeding tube was removed for the second time. The Florida legislature then passed a law allowing Gov. Bush to issue a stay and have the feeding tube reinserted. After yet another series of appeals, this law was found to be unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court; this decision was appealed to the US Supreme Court, which denied review. The parents then filed various new motions all of which were denied; and on Friday Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed.
As I read this history, several things stand out. The first is that it is hard for me to see how anyone could think that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was being removed without due consideration, since more or less every relevant aspect of it has been litigated and appealed as far as possible. Nor, as far as I can tell, is there any question about the competence of the lawyers involved: everyone seems to agree that both sides have been well represented.
The second is that there seems to be very little question about whether Terri Schiavo might ultimately recover. (Rivka at Respectful of Otters, who is a doctor, has a good post about the medical opinions offered by Terri Schiavo’s parents.) As one of the court decisions in this case said (pdf; p. 7):
“Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo’s brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.”
The cerebral cortex is responsible for cognition and the integration of sensation. Terri Schiavo’s cerebral cortex is not only dead; it has liquified. If her cerebral cortex were still there but for some reason not working, then there might be hope that she could recover. But in her case, it’s gone. In order for her to recover, it would have to be literally recreated. Here, via Alas, a blog, is a scan of Terri Schiavo’s brain and a healthy brain:
My understanding is that the dark bits are spinal fluid; and thus that the fact that the scan of Terri Schiavo’s brain shows huge dark areas, both in the center and elsewhere, indicates that an awful lot of her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid. I am not a doctor, of course. But Rivka, who is, writes: “The amount of brain tissue missing is truly shocking.” And PZ Meyers adds: “I am not a medical doctor, but I do have that Ph.D. in neuroscience (I am eminently qualified to analyze the brains of fish and insects), and that is one ghastly mess. That’s not much of a brain, it’s a balloon bobbing about in there.” (In using these quotes, I mean no disrespect to Ms. Schiavo, for whom I have nothing but sympathy.)
***
So much for the basic facts. Why is this happening, and what are the ethical issues involved? To understand this, you need to understand three basic facts about current law.
First, in this country competent adults have the right to decline medical treatment. This is a very good thing, since many of the things doctors do to their patients would constitute assault if done against those patients’ wills. It is this right that allows cancer patients to decide not to undergo that last excruciating round of chemo that would give them only a slight chance of survival, Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse the blood transfusions that they believe it would be sinful to receive, and people with painful terminal illnesses to refuse treatment for other diseases, like pneumonia, that offer them the chance of an easier death. This right is extremely important: without it, we could be subjected to serious assaults on our body without our consent, so long as some physician said that those assaults were medically necessary.
Second, courts have held that for these purposes, nutrition and hydration count as life-prolonging treatments, and thus that competent adults have the right to refuse them as well. This is also important: having a feeding tube inserted is a serious violation of a person’s bodily integrity, and people have the right to refuse it. It’s also a point that is often neglected in the coverage of Terri Schiavo’s case. What is happening is not that a court has ordered that she be killed. If courts could order that, there would be no reason to wait for her to die; the court could simply order a lethal injection of some sort. The court has found that she would not have wanted this sort of medical treatment, and thus that it cannot be forced on her. This is completely different.
In the comments on a previous thread, in the course of a discussion about the difference between withholding treatment and killing, felixrayman wrote: “If she isn’t fed, she’ll be dead in a week or two. There is no substantial difference here.” There is no substantial difference in the outcome of the two, in this case. Likewise, when a terminal cancer patient declines chemo, and a court upholds her right to do so, the outcome is the same as if someone shot her, since in both cases she dies. But there is a huge and important difference between what is done to produce that outcome. In the first case, the reason the patient dies is that she has decided to refuse treatment. If we deny her that right in cases in which she will die without treatment, we are denying her the right to determine what happens to her body. By contrast, if I shoot her, I have not just accepted her autonomy; I have taken matters into my own hands and killed her. As I said in another context, consent makes all the difference (and that post contains several other examples of cases in which “there is no substantial difference” in outcomes, but a very substantial difference morally.)
Of course, the obvious reply is that in the case at hand, Terri Schiavo did not ask that her feeding tube be removed. This brings me to my third point: In cases in which a patient is not competent to consent to or refuse treatment, there is a well-established way to proceed. First, you ask whether the patient has prepared a living will or an advanced directive, or has given a durable power of attorney to some other person, authorizing him or her to make decisions if the patient becomes incompetent. In this case, as often happens, there were no such documents. Second, you look around for other evidence about what the person would have wanted. That was done in this case, and the courts found “clear and convincing” evidence that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to be kept alive in her current state. If there is no such evidence, a guardian gets to decide, based on the patient’s best interests.
As I noted earlier, in this case Michael Schiavo is his wife’s guardian, and might have decided what she would have wanted. However, he chose instead to ask the court to consider the evidence about what she would have wanted, and to make its own evaluation. It found that she would not have wanted to be kept alive. That is: this is not a case in which anyone is proceeding in the absence of evidence about what she would have wanted, nor is it a case in which Michael Schiavo is acting only on his sense of what his wife would have wanted, without allowing a hearing for anyone else’s view.
Under current law, when a person is incompetent to consent to or refuse treatment, evidence of that person’s views and wishes is used to determine whether or not s/he would have consented to treatment. In Terri Schiavo’s case, the courts have determined that she would not have consented. In accordance with what they have found to be her wishes, they are seeking to discontinue the treatment to which she would not have consented. That is: legally, this is a matter of letting her views about her life and her body govern the treatment she is subjected to, not a matter of anyone else’s deciding whether she will live or die. What’s at issue in this case is not “life”; it’s patient autonomy.
It seems to me that in order to say that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube should not be removed, you have either to challenge the basic facts of the case as found by the courts, or to say that one of the three points I have just made is wrong. I don’t imagine that many people will say that competent adults should not have the right to decline medical treatment. Some people may be tempted by the idea of denying that feeding and hydration are among the things competent adults should be able to decline, but if you think about the huge intrusion on people’s bodily integrity and autonomy that giving the government the right to force you to have a feeding tube implanted against your will would represent, I think this view will seem less attractive.
The most plausible place to disagree, I think, is on the third point: taking evidence of an incompetent person’s views and wishes to determine whether that person would have consented to treatment. Here I think it’s important to bear several things in mind. First, requiring 100% certainty about someone’s wishes would make it impossible to decide what to do for any incompetent patient. Suppose, for instance, that that patient left a living will: living wills are almost never detailed enough to cover all possible contingencies, and they often need to be interpreted to yield a conclusion about actual treatment decisions. (A case I sometimes use in class involves a nursing home patient who has made it clear that she does not want to be resuscitated artificially, who has a really bad reaction to a new medication and goes into shock, and who can almost certainly be immediately and completely resuscitated with an epi stick. Depending on the details, it can be pretty clear that this was not the case the patient had in mind when she asked not to be resuscitated; that she was thinking of herself having gone into a serious decline and being kept alive with tubes and then suffering cardiac arrest, not of a quick and reversible allergic reaction.)
Suppose the living will turns out to cover exactly the case at hand, so that no interpretation is needed. One might still wonder: might the patient have changed her mind after writing the living will, but never gotten around to updating it? If she didn’t mention any such change of heart to anyone, that’s hardly proof that none occurred. But even if, by some huge coincidence, she was discussing an exactly similar case at the very moment when she collapsed, that’s not proof either. It often happens that people’s views about what they would want in a given case are wrong. People think they’ll be happy if they get promoted, and then find themselves just as miserable as before; they think they could never learn to live without the use of their legs, but then go on to live perfectly happy wheelchair-bound lives; they think that some medical problem would be easy to deal with, but when it actually occurs find that it completely undoes them. So knowledge of Terri Schiavo’s views on this exact case at the very moment when she went into cardiac arrest would not guarantee any knowledge of what she’d want if, per impossibile, she were able to have desires now. But surely it’s one’s views at the time, not one’s views in the past, that should dictate one’s treatment.
This means that if we require 100% certainty about people’s wishes in order to refrain from treating them, we will never refrain from treating any incompetent patient. (Maybe we won’t refrain from treating competent patients either: after all, they could be lying.) And this in turn means that a lot of people’s wishes about what medical treatments they would like to receive, and what they do and do not want done to their body, will be violated. There is, it seems to me, no getting around this point.
This might not seem significant if one thought that there was no harm that could even be compared to the harm of losing your life, where ‘losing your life’ does not mean ‘being killed’, but simply dying. I do not think this is true: there are things I would rather die than undergo, and one of them is having my fate made the object of a political circus, as Terri Schiavo’s is. More importantly, though, this is not the way our legal system is currently set up. We do not act to rescue people’s lives whatever the circumstances. We do not force cancer patients to undergo that one last desperate round of chemo on the grounds that it might save their lives, and that this outweighs the violation of their autonomy that forcing chemotherapy on them against their wills would represent. We place autonomy first, allowing patients to decide for themselves which treatments to undergo, even when their decisions shorten their lives. I think this is as it should be. But if one accepts this, then it’s hard to see how we can also say that we should never accept evidence that an incompetent patient would choose to refuse treatment on the grounds that we might be wrong. To take that view is to protect life at the expense of patients’ autonomy, which we rightly do not do.
Suppose we relax our standard somewhat and say, as felix did: we will respect living wills, but not other forms of evidence. In this case, it seems to me, one would have to explain what is so special about living wills. If, as soon as a person formed a view about being treated in a given condition, a living will automatically wrote itself, that would be one thing. But obviously this doesn’t happen. Lots of people have very strong views about treatment, views that they have expressed repeatedly and in detail, but have not written a living will. It is not the least clear to me why we should not accept other people’s reports about what a patient has said about relevant cases, especially since we accept witness testimony in all other legal proceedings, including those on the basis of which we sentence people to an involuntary death.
It is of course true that the credibility of a witness’s statement should be carefully considered. Witnesses can lie. (And living wills can be forged.) But I don’t see why, after careful examination of one or (preferably) several witnesses’ statements, one could not conclude that they constituted adequate evidence of a patient’s wishes. The alternative is, I think, accepting a standard of adequacy so high that almost no incompetent patient could be denied treatment. And as I said earlier, this would involve a massive denial of patient autonomy.
In Terri Schiavo’s case, the statements of various witnesses were heard, considered, and evaluated for credibility. On the basis of these statements, the court found that she would not have wanted to be kept on a feeding tube. That decision was appealed as far as it could go, and upheld each time. To my mind, relying on witness statements, critically examined, as evidence of a patient’s wishes is perfectly appropriate, especially since most people do not, in fact, write living wills, whether or not they have strong views on the sort of treatment they would choose to receive.
On reflection, I’m going to save what I have to say about the Congress’s actions for a later post. This one is too long already. But the takehome message is: first, it’s about autonomy. Second, the result in this case follows from basic facts about the way we adjudicate these cases. There is nothing novel about the case itself. Third, if you think about what would be involved in changing these basic principles, it doesn’t seem very attractive.
That, I take it, is part of the reason why Congress will pass a bill narrowly targeted at this case. To say that we will not allow feeding and hydration to be withdrawn regardless of a patient’s wishes, or that we will not accept testimony about incompetent patients’ wishes to count as evidence, would have huge and disastrous effects for a lot of patients and their loved ones. It would also be very unpopular. So Congress is trying to avoid acting in a way that would affect any other case, however similar. This is, in my view, cynical and contemptible.
***
Update: if you are new to this site, please read this before making assumptions about what sort of blog this is.
Also, having followed a few of the referrals to this post, I think I should point out that I am one of those mysterious female bloggers you hear so much about these days.
Rep. Dave Weldon saying, on the floor of the Congress, “To order the withdrawal of food and water from somebody — it’s never been done before to my knowledge.”
He really said that? Unless this is horribly out of context, he is severely out of touch with reality.
Yep, he did. (I had to take out a 14 day free trial membership in something in order to get access to the video clip at the link I provided to see it, though. Along with James Dobson saying that this is how the Nazis started. Yep: Adolf Hitler, famous advocate for patient autonomy.)
Hasn’t the important question been, at least since 2003, trying to understand why the Sciavo case has become so important to religious conservatives? They can’t all buy the Schindlers’ pathetic diagnosis. Is there something about the parents that appeals? Something about Michael Schiavo that repels? Or is there an occult attraction, something that only conservatives can see?
This is excellent. There are only three things that I would add, not about the merits of any of this but in trying to figure out why this is happening.
1. I think that a lot of what is going on is an intuitve response to the idea of disconnecting a feeding tube. People have an intuitive emotional response to the idea of “starving someone to death” and denying them water, that leads them to overestimate the amount of suffering this causes a patient compared to other means of dying, and to overlook the difference between starving someone and not using a machine to feed them. I’m not sure why it’s intuitive to us that there’s a difference between disconnecting a respirator and suffocating someone to death, but the same is not true of a feeding tube. Maybe because a respirator is a larger machine that beeps more and has more lights on it; maybe because it is much more routine for a non-terminally ill patient to need to receive nutrition and liquid through a tube or an IV than it is for a non-terminally ill patient to need a respirator; maybe because a respirator must actually mechanically force a patient’s non functioning organs into action whereas a feeding tube does not.
I don’t think that any of these things are meaningful distinctions when we’re talking about a non-consenting patient with no hope of any meaningful recovery.
2. I think part of the explanation of the fervor of the religious right, and of many people’s failure to deal with the factual information about Terry Schiavo’s medical condition, is that her condition is really horrifying to many people. It is especially horrifying from a religious perspective.
The parts of Terry Schiavo’s brain that have been replaced by spinal fluid are the parts that science tell us are responsible for a person’s memory, thought, consciousness, emotion, personality, sense of right wrong–all of the things that make us a person, and make us different from any other person.
The single word that describes this concept, in the English language, is the word “soul.”
The idea that a living and apparently awake human body could exist for decades without a soul is really horrifying, and a very common response to horror is to deny its existence.
The idea that the soul is located in a part of the body that we can locate in a CAT scan and determine has been destroyed is a really fundamental challenge to religious teaching–a much, much, much more fundamental challenge in my view than the idea of a Big Bang or of evolution through natural selection, and we see how strongly those ideas have been resisted. If we know that the soul is located or contained in a specific part of the body, it is much harder to believe that it is really different from the body at all, or that it somehow escapes the body and rejoins God after death.
It also challenges conservative Christian religious teachings about abortion and birth control: if an adult human being’s soul is located in the cerebral cortex, then preventing the implantation of an embryo without any nervous tissue does not kill a human being with a soul, and aborting a fetus before it has brain waves does not kill a human being with a soul.
When a situation challenges our most fundamental beliefs, we are very reluctant to acknowledge that it exists.
I should also note that like all scientific findings, the idea that the soul is located in the cerebral cortex could be misused to justify horrible abuses against people whose cerebral cortex is not functioning as it does in a healthy adult, but does still exist and is still functioning at some level. But if misusing of factual or scientific information can be used to harm people, so can ignoring factual or scientific information.
3. As far as why Congress is doing what it’s doing–this is the only part of the post I actually disagree with:
“That, I take it, is part of the reason why Congress will pass a bill narrowly targeted at this case. To say that we will not allow feeding and hydration to be withdrawn regardless of a patient’s wishes, or that we will not accept testimony about those wishes in the case of incompetent patients to count as evidence, would have huge and disastrous effects for a lot of patients and their loved ones. It would also be very unpopular. So Congress is trying to avoid acting in a way that would affect any other case, however similar. This is, in my view, cynical and contemptible.”
This is what I thought at first too. After reading more about it, here is what I think is actually going on: the House GOP leaders want to pass a bill that is not tailored only to this case, that would have huge and disastrous effects for a lot of patients and their loved ones.
The emocrats think that given the circumstances of Ms. Schiavo’s case, this bill has a good chance of passing, although they think it would never pass if Congress carefully considered this issue. Since they do not think they can stop the Republicans from doing this, and/or since the attempt to do so would be politically costly, they are trying to confine the harm as narrowly as possible.
Obviously this description is an oversimplification: it describes some congresspeople better than others, and doesn’t describe any of them perfectly. But that’s what I think is happening.
First rate effort. Thanks so much, Hilzoy.
emo-crats. Kind of has a ring to it. Nice post hilzoy, and nice post, Katherine. You two are exemplary in taking the time to try to understand all of this. Me, I just throw up my hands and get frustrated.
one last thing: I think all of the above makes what’s going on more explicable, but it does not really make it any more excusable.
In Terri Schiavo’s case, the statements of various witnesses were heard, considered, and evaluated for credibility. On the basis of these statements, the court found that she would not have wanted to be kept on a feeding tube.
Is the court infallible? All the legal machinery in the world plainly does not preclude the possibility that the court’s findings of fact, upon which rest the bulks of its decisions, and the others flowing from it, could be horribly wrong — wrong enough to result in the cruel and unjust death of a helpless woman.
Michael Schiavo is manifestly not credible. He is a bigamist whose public relationship with another woman calls into profound question his integrity as a husband and a legal guardian. The diagnosis measures he has allowed do not rise to the level routine for patients complaining of acute lower back pain.
Or consider the expert witness relied upon by the court:
Now I am not a lawyer or a bioethicist, but if this is the integrity of an admirable legal process, then I’m a donut.
A few more points. First, I think Katherine is probably right about the motivations of the House Republicans and the Senate Democrats. So I revise my comments to refer to the motivations of the Senate Republicans, whose views seem to have prevailed. Which is worse, the cynicism of passing a bill aimed only at one person or the massive violation of autonomy involved in trying to pass a bill aimed at all similar people I cannot say.
Second, after I wrote this I went off to eat a late lunch, and watched the news as I did so. A lot of commentators were talking about this as if it were about the value of Terri Schiavo’s life. It is not. If I had terminal cancer and denied chemo, and a court upheld my denial, it would not be passing judgment on the value of my life, but on the question whether my wishes should be upheld. Similarly here. It is not, after all, as though we think that people with really, really valuable lives should not be able to decline medical treatment, or that their views about what happens to their bodies can be overridden.
Third, I think it’s important to underline the point that as far as the law is concerned, taking out a feeding tube does not count as killing someone, but as not subjecting them to further feeding when they do not want to be fed. (Consider: one could achieve the same result by leaving the feeding tube in but not putting any more food into it.) It looks like killing someone since it involves doing something. But legally it isn’t.
Leaving the law aside, while there are important moral distinctions between doing things that cause X and merely refraining from doing things that prevent X, that difference itself is probably not the crucial one. Consider: most people think that there’s a difference between killing someone and not taking steps to save them. That’s why the fact that most of us do not give all our disposable income to charities that save lives does not, in most people’s eyes, make us murderers. Now suppose I write out a check to some charity, but decide not to put it in the envelope and mail it. That’s “not saving lives”. Suppose instead, however, that I write the check, put it in the envelope, put the envelope in my mailbox where the mail person normally picks up the mail; and then, on further reflection, conclude that I can’t afford it. If I go out to the mailbox and retrieve my envelope before the mail person picks it up, does the fact that I am doing something to prevent the money from getting to the charity, and not just failing to send it, mean that I am guilty of murder? (Example from a philosopher named Shelly Kagan.)
In any case, there’s a really important practical reason to treat removing a feeding tube (or a respirator) not as ‘killing’ but as ‘withholding future treatment’. Doctors are not allowed to kill, but they are allowed to withhold treatment in accordance with a patient’s wishes. If removing a feeding tube or a respirator counted as ‘killing’, then once it was in place, it could not legally be removed. Now: there are lots of people who do not want to be kept alive if (for instance) they would have to spend the rest of their lives in a hospital, hooked up to machines. And there are a lot of operations and other medical interventions that have a good chance of curing the patient, but also a non-negligible chance of leaving them in the situations these patients do not want to be in. Often these operations involve the temporary use of feeding tubes and ventilators. If it were not legal to remove feeding tubes and ventilators once they had been put in place, then patients would have to decide before the operation whether the chance of being cured was worth the chance of ending up hooked up to machines (or whatever.) If they really didn’t want to end up hooked up to machines for the rest of their lives, they might forego treatment that had a good chance of curing them in order not to be stuck in a situation that was odious to them. Because feeding tubes and ventilators can be removed, however, these patients can undergo treatment and then, if it doesn’t work, have the feeding tube or ventilator removed. That is: they can take the chance that they’ll be cured without having to weigh it against the chance of being stuck in a position they don’t want to be in, since if the treatment doesn’t work, they can then have the feeding tube or ventilator removed. This saves the lives of those patients who, faced with this choice, would forego treatment, and protects the autonomy of those who would undergo it, but who do not want to be forced to live under certain conditions.
It’s a shame Ms. Schiavo isn’t a retarded convicted murderer in Texas or suspected terrorist up for rendition. Then there might not be so much faith in the judge’s wisdom, “expert” witnesses, and interested parties’ motives. Perhaps then we’d simply focus on doing everything we can to make sure we didn’t make some grave irreversible error.
The hypocrisy is so stunning that it boggles the mind. Most republicans I imagine will cop to the hypocrisy regarding Federalism and gov’t intrusion because protection of innocent life is one of the few agreed upon purposes of government. How others justify theirs, and for what greater principle remains beyond me.
Thanks very much, Katherine (and, a fortiori, thanks, hilzoy!) I just had a heated discussion about the Schiavo case with my wife; because she is a very busy Wall Street attorney, her views were the same ‘off the top of my head’ ones that I had when Jeb Bush got interested in this case. Nothing has changed since then except the infection of vast blocs of the public by impassioned stupidity and, lately, Congressional intervention. Feeding tubes are removed, if not every day, then as a matter of course, and even regretful parents who think it’s wrong don’t go to court – apparently. They don’t go to court again and again – who’s paying all those legal bills?
In short: why is Karl Rove interested in Terry Schiavo? What does he see that we don’t yet see? Why has so much political capital been committed to this case?
And who’s right here, bottom line, hilzoy or Katherine? Is Congress fearful or fearless? Would a broad bill be popular or not?
On the issue of whether Schiavo would suffer from having her feeding tube removed or not: She is in a persisent vegetative state, but is not brain dead so it is possible that she might suffer distress on some level. However, there is an easy way around this: just make sure she is given adequate amounts of narcotics to keep any cortex that might still be functioning in a sleep state. Since she is at a hospice, I expect that her doctors are very skilled at easing people’s suffering in their last days of life and are probably seeing that this is done.
Paul Cella: In finding that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to be kept alive in her current condition, the court did not rely on Michael Schiavo’s word alone. Nor, frankly, do I see how the fact that he is living with another woman calls his honesty into question. As to the MRI question: I refer you to the various medical citations I have given. In particular, Rivka, who writes:
“It’s a shame Ms. Schiavo isn’t a retarded convicted murderer in Texas or suspected terrorist up for rendition. Then there might not be so much faith in the judge’s wisdom, “expert” witnesses, and interested parties’ motives. Perhaps then we’d simply focus on doing everything we can to make sure we didn’t make some grave irreversible error.”
Irrelevant bomb-throwing that has nothing to do with the facts of this case.
Yes Mac, the hypocrisy is so stunning that it boggles the mind. The president, who now seems oh so concerned over the fate of Mrs. Schiavo, signed a law when he was Governor of Texas allowing withdrawal of treatment (including removal of a feeding tube) from terminal patients who can not pay.
Oh…maybe that’s not the hypocrisy we’re talking about.
Macallan: “It’s a shame Ms. Schiavo isn’t a retarded convicted murderer in Texas or suspected terrorist up for rendition. Then there might not be so much faith in the judge’s wisdom, “expert” witnesses, and interested parties’ motives. Perhaps then we’d simply focus on doing everything we can to make sure we didn’t make some grave irreversible error.”
Let’s be clear: in the case of extraordinary rendition, part of what I find objectionable is the fact that there is no trial at all. In both that case and the case of convicted murderers, another part of what I find objectionable is that there are some things I do not think the state should do, and that list includes killing people, torturing them, and sending them off to be tortured by others. In this case, there is also something I think the state should not do: force medical treatment on people against their will. It is for this reason that I hold the views I do in this case.
An error on either side is irreversible. If Terri Schiavo dies, she cannot be brought back to life. If we forcibly feed her against her wishes, we cannot un-violate her autonomy. You may think that the first error is the worst. I would agree if we were discussing ‘violations of autonomy’ and ‘dying’ in the abstract, without the details (so that as far as we knew, what was at issue could be a minor violation of autonomy and murder.) In this case, however, respecting the patient’s autonomy simply means: acceding to her view about which is worse, dying or being kept alive under these conditions. If she preferred to die, then you are irreversibly inflicting on her something she took to be worse than death.
I should also note that accusations of hypocrisy violate the posting rules. Asking why our views are not inconsistent is, of course, not.
Paul Cella: He is a bigamist
I don’t believe he is. To the best of my knowledge and belief, Michael Schiavo is still legally married to Terri Sciavo, and he is not legally married to any other woman. His personal life is really none of your business: as someone else has already pointed out, the fact that he lives with a woman he isn’t married to while his wife is still technically alive doesn’t make him automatically dishonest.
Jesurgislac:
Common law marriage.
[The] fact that he lives with a woman he isn’t married to while his wife is still technically alive doesn’t make him automatically dishonest.
Perhaps not, but it sure as hell calls into question his integrity as a legal guardian. By definition he has violated the vows he made to Terri; thus his word of honor is open to question.
Paul, he has a life to live, and the doctors have told him that Terri does not. I think it’s reasonable for him to want to move on.
Mr. Cella’s never heard of common-law divorce.
“By definition he has violated the vows he made to Terri”
This is also quite amusing. John Thullen, are you taking notes?
Common law marriage
I’m confused. I thought Michael Schiavo lives in Florida? Florida doesn’t recognise common-law marriage, ergo, Michael Schiavo can’t have one. What you mean is, he’s living with a woman he isn’t married to.
By definition he has violated the vows he made to Terri
Well, true: by the strict definition, he’s committed adultery, having sex with a woman who is not his wife. But the idea that someone who commits adultery is intrinsically not an honest person is, really, absurd: and most people would realistically acknowledge that, as Terri hasn’t been conscious since 1990, and has been brain-dead since 1996, it’s unreasonable to expect that Michael shall be living a celibate life.
The Schiavo case — a perfect conflation of the dark heart of modern Republicanism. This is the use of deceit and huckster marketing to promote a cynical political agenda. It is starkly exposed here — conservatives that stand mute deserve being lumped into this characterization of their political position.
1. Lie about the Schiavo medical condition — since the schtick won’t work if we argue from the actual facts regarding her condition — just make up bogus ones.
2. Lie about the husband to demonize him — since the schtick won’t work if we truthfully examine his behavior — slander him with bogus allegations. These include:
a) that he does not care (spent eight years searching for anything that could help, even though her condition was obviousy gone from the beginning) and refer to his new relationship as proof;
b) that he is in it for the money, except that money for her care was set aside from the beginning out of his reach (a common procedure in these types of personal injury cases), and there is very little left, with a great deal having been consumed by the court appointed guardian who ended up independently advocating for pulling the feeding tube. Those funds were consumed because of the vigorous right wing litigation to prevent the result — not by her husband;
c) darkly suggest that her condition was the result of foul play probably perpetrated by the husband. This is the worst Big Lie.
3. Lie about the evidence and the court process to date that adjudicated the decision — the husband and several friends testified that Schiavo would not want to live as a vegetable. An independent guardian ended up litigating for Schiavo’s feeding tube being pulled — the litigation was not directed by her husband. Court appointed doctors examined Schiavo extensively and repeatedly, as did doctors for the parents. The court reviewed all of this and had to make its decision based on “clear and convincing evidence” — an obscure standard of poof in civil cases that is only slightly less difficult that “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There is nothing new to examine, and no grounds for claiming that this proceeding was somehow improper.
4. Present deliberately misleading evidence; the most famous is the edited videotapes of Schiavo that pretend that she is responsive, except that the deleted portions show that her “responsive” actions are repeated randomly without any attribution to outside stimuli. The court noted this in making the decision. There are legions of additional items, including medical “experts” using the case to schill their agendas by claiming they have potential treatments available (there is no medical evidence that they can do anything other than self-aggradize). This is the type of voodoo science that Repubs decry when drug companies must defend liability suits.
5. Trash all relevant legal doctrines with legislative manueverings to profit from the issue, since this is a political opportunity;
a) issue subpoenas to require Sciavo to appear and “testify” and threaten doctors with contempt because removing the feeding tube would interfere with her being able to appear — that is sheer nuttiness;
b) pass a law to require “de novo” review of the case in federal courts. This means that the federal courts are instructed to ignore all state law proceedings to date, and start all over again. This is a startling constitutional transgression, and a perverted legal policy.
6. Pretend that the right cares about the plight of comatose patients whose medical care is being withheld and will therefore die. Except that they could care less. If Schiavo was in Texas, a law signed by Bush while governor would permit the hospital to pull the plug over the family’s objections if there was no further money to provide for care. Its happening right now in other cases.
Also, to preserve upper-income tax cuts, vote at almost the same time to cut medicaid to the states so that there will not be money available for such care from government programs — thereby insuring that the comatose without money (or without Schiavo’s political appeal) will die.
So, take advantage of an emotional situation for cynical partisan reasons, and overlay the issues with a web of lies to hype it. As for “policy,” pretend that you care while advocating elsewhere policies that insure the opposite result in most cases. And pervert the law to achieve these ends.
[b]Paul Cella[/b], you stated:
Is the court infallible? All the legal machinery in the world plainly does not preclude the possibility that the court’s findings of fact, upon which rest the bulks of its decisions, and the others flowing from it, could be horribly wrong — wrong enough to result in the cruel and unjust death of a helpless woman.
I don’t know your views on the death penalty — I assume you oppose it?
This whole thing is so sad. Most of the people pontificating do not have anywhere near enough information to make the statements they are making. It’s a tragedy for all involved, but it is not unusual. These kinds of things happen every single day. Expensive technology and sophisticated trauma care save the lives of people whose families must bankrupt themselves to provide lifelong care because we do not provide the funds for the lives saved. Our laws and ethics are nowhere near coming to grips with what technology can do.
Several thoughts:
(1) Some of the people inserting themselves into this case have actually helped end life support in other cases — cases which have been ignored by the same congressmen that are holding press conferences about Terri.
(2) As Rivka‘s post points out (she and I both work in the area of neuroscience), it makes no sense to do functional studies on missing or irreversibly damaged anatomical structures.
(3) One of the most devoted wives I’ve ever known continues to care for the man she divorced after his severe traumatic brain injury. She and the son they had together (their daughter was killed in the same vehicular homicide that injured her father) now live with her second husband and new daughter. I am so happy that she has found new happiness, as I admire her continuing devoted care for her first husband, who must live with full-time skilled nursing care in a group home.
She is not a bigamist.
I respect those who have a consistent view in this matter and see the removal of this feeding tube as “killing” Terri. Those people oppose the death penalty, all abortions, and may even be pacifists. They weep for *all* the families, not just Terri’s.
But I don’t understand anyone who tries to assert that Tom Delay, and many others, are acting out of anything other than political motivation. How can you support someone with such consistently bad behavior, just because he does what you want in this one circumstance?
I stand corrected on common law marriage.
Jesurgislac:
But the idea that someone who commits adultery is intrinsically not an honest person is, really, absurd: and most people would realistically acknowledge that, as Terri hasn’t been conscious since 1990, and has been brain-dead since 1996, it’s unreasonable to expect that Michael shall be living a celibate life.
On the contrary. Adultery is dishonesty. To commit it is to be dishonest.
A marriage vow perforce implies the possibility of a vow of celebacy. Accident or disease could destroy the sexual capacity of one spouse; this does not change the nature of the vow. “In sickness and in health . . .”
So should I infer that the fact that George W. Bush has lied that he is likely to be unfaithful?
Anyone know what vows the Schiavos made?
I hope Mr. Cella has never said a lie in his life, invalidating the worth of his word.
Cella:
Is the court infallible?
Opus:
I don’t know your views on the death penalty — I assume you oppose it?
A good point and an equally good counter-point.
As a lawyer, my initial impression of the Schiavo case was concern that Florida law permits the decision to be made without a written document evidencing intent. As a matter of legal policy, this situation presents a trade off of competing values — requiring greater certainty of proof (the writing) which will end up resulting in meritorious cases being denied, but also prevent with certainty unmeritorious cases from prevailing. However, the actual facts of the Schiavo litigation do not support a determination that this particular proceeding was improper.
What is constantly missing from the right’s medical discussion is how someone whose cerebral cortext has been destroyed and replaced by inert spinal fluid can be revived in any way. There is no medical science that provides even a glimmer of hope in such situations. Arguments to the contrary rely on “junk science.”
Do you want to know a strange and irrelevant fact? (If the answer is no, too bad.) Judge Greer (the judge in the case), besides being (I believe) a registered Republican, was Jim Morrison’s college roommate, before Morrison decamped for LA.
Opus:
The other cases you cited (especially the one concerning the baby boy in Texas) are horrifying.
Paul Cella: The other cases you cited (especially the one concerning the baby boy in Texas) are horrifying.
Indeed. I am hoping that others on the religious right of the Republican party will take a long hard look at Tom Delay and George W. Bush’s lack of protest at Sun Hudson’s death – George W. Bush signed the law that enabled Sun’s feeding tube to be removed – and wonder why Terri Schiavo has been singled out for Federalized protection. Why Terri, and not Sun?
“I hope Mr. Cella has never said a lie in his life, invalidating the worth of his word.”
Not true. We just saw that he lied about common law marriage in Florida. But thankfully, he admitted his mistake.
Excellent post; though you can’t hear it, I’m blinking strenuously in hopes of generating applause.
The Schiavo case — a perfect conflation of the dark heart of modern Republicanism. This is the use of deceit and huckster marketing to promote a cynical political agenda. It is starkly exposed here — conservatives that stand mute deserve being lumped into this characterization of their political position.
The perfect illustration of the dark heart of something.
Opus’s link to Mark A R Kleiman’s entry on the death of Sun Hudson in Texas only intensifes my curiosity about the roots of Rovian interest in Terri Schiavo. When Karl Rove’s own home base enforces a law enacted with the approval of his own biggest client, to produce a result absolutely contrary to the one sought by the party that appears to take no action without consulting him, I’m, ahem, curious.
A few points. First of all, I don’t think the issue of whether Mrs. Sciavo either is conscious or has any chance, however small, of regaining any small bit of consciousness is settled with as high a degree of certainty as you claim. Were I convinced of that fact with an extremely high degree of certainty, my opinion on the issue might change, but I would also argue that killing someone who wishes to live is an immensely less favorable outcome than keeping someone on life support against their wishes after they have lost all hope of ever regaining consciousness. I will choose the latter if I see any risk of the former, and I do in this case. If she is unconscious and will never regain consciousness, little harm can be done to her that compares in any way to the harm of being mistaken as to her wishes.
Second, I find it amazing that people would be willing to accept such a low standard of evidence about what Mrs. Schiavo’s wishes were when the stakes are so high. The analogy with capital punishment in this case is a good one (however poorly others may have worded it). Suppose that your only objection to capital punishment were the possibility of killing an innocent person. Would a case based only on eyewitness testimony, where some of the eyewitnesses said the accused was guilty and some of the eyewitnesses (who may have been deemed to be less trustworthy) said the accused was innocent be enough for you to not only convict, but kill? I can’t fathom that.
Finally you argue that the harm from denying the wishes of a person on life support can be compared to the harm from killing someone who wishes to remain alive. Again, in my opinion, there is a fundamental difference between those two types of harm in the same way I think there is a fundamental difference between the harm of wrongly executing someone and the harm of denying whatever benefit executing a guilty person gives society (assuming such benefit exists).
I do not have a problem with doctor assisted suicide nor do I have a problem with removing the life support of someone with a living will, as long as both of those procedures have extensive safeguards to prevent abuse. I do have a problem with both capital punishment, and with removing life support without written and otherwise documented evidence of a person’s wishes. Death is different, in a fundamental way, from any harm that may result from erring on the side of caution before killing.
None of this should be seen as support for what Congress is trying to do – ends do not justify means. I do think this would be a good time for a bill to be introduced in Congress prohibiting life support from being removed from a patient against their wishes and the wishes of their family due solely to a lack of money to pay for continued treatment, as those above claim is now happening.
Juries and trial judges make witness credibility determinations in this country. We don’t take a poll of the Court TV audience and we don’t put it to a vote in Congress. In this case, two separate judges, evaluating the credibility of all relevant witnesses after two separate trials, have come to the exact same conclusion.
There is no suggestion that there was any impropriety or flaw in the trial. The only argument I’ve heard is that Teresa Schiavo should have had her own lawyer to represent her interests. But in this case, the entire difficulty was determining what her interests were, and Florida law told the judge it was his job to do it. That was the whole point of the trial. So it would’ve made no sense to get her her own lawyer.
You can think that Roe v. Wade was wrong, Griswold v. Connecticut was wrong, Brown v. Bd of Education was wrong, and that Marbury v. Madison was wrong; that it is illegitimate for the Supreme Court or any state supreme court to strike down a law because it is unconstitutional. You can think all that, and STILL realize that it is an abuse of power for Congress to intervene whenever it doesn’t like the factual findings of a judge or a jury who has examined the evidence much, much more closely than Congress has.
Praktike:
On the evidence of your most recent comment, I have doubts as to whether you know what a lie is.
Paul Cella: Adultery is dishonesty. To commit it is to be dishonest.
You know, even in a normal married life, I’d query that statement. That is, when A is living with B, and they have made an agreement to be monogamous – whatever form that agreement takes – and then A breaks that agreement by having sex with C, or with D, E, F, G, H… In such a case, A is being dishonest towards B whether or not any explicit lies are being told. But that doesn’t mean that A is the kind of person who would commit insider trading, go AWOL, or tell lies about WMD to lead the country into war. Nor does it mean that B, who wouldn’t dream of cheating on his partner, is the kind of person who wouldn’t do any of the above.
Still, in a normal married life, whether between Terri and Michael, or George and Tony, or Martina and Rita, if you make an agreement on monogamy and break it, amd don’t tell your partner what you’ve done, you’re being dishonest. No argument. It says nothing about how honest you’ll be in other areas.
None of this applies to Michael Schiavo, or to anyone in Michael Schiavo’s position. Terri’s been in a coma since 1990: Michael’s known she’s braindead with no hope of recovery since 1996. He seems to have finally conceded she will never recover in 1998, and, honest to whatever, Paul, I really fail to understand how you can think that his living with another woman, in (for all either you or I know) a caring and monogamous relationship, makes him intrinsically dishonest. He seems to be a much-slandered man, from what I can see from right-wing blogs, and I find that fairly disgusting.
Jesurgislac:
I think we have reached, quite accidentally, one of those deep points of disagreement that reveal the real difference among us.
To violate a vow is to be dishonest. It is dishonesty by definition. Moreover, since the vow in question is one of the very few our society still attaches real significance to (what is a wedding ceremony, really, but a public taking of vows?), I hold that to violate it is among the more vivid public displays of dishonesty possible for a man.
But in the case in question, I am not arguing that Michael Schiavo’s adultery makes him less credible in all cases (although I would certainly support a law making that legally true); I am merely arguing that since the issue in question is his fitness as guardian of his disabled wife, his adultery against her is relevant.
R.J. Keefe asks:
“In short: why is Karl Rove interested in Terry Schiavo? What does he see that we don’t yet see?”
My guess FWIW (not much): look at the fact that removing the feeding tube flouts Catholic doctrine; the Vatican has expressed interest in this case. Although Rove has the Protestant Evangelicals, he doesn’t have the strict Catholics (Bush’s disregard for Just War doctrine is a problem, for one thing). This case might help him there.
felixrayman, you make an excellent point. As it happens, if it were up to me, I would err on the side of keeping Terri alive — simply because there is no written, signed document or other incontrovertible proof of her intention.
But it’s not up to me. And, as I stated before, our ethical and legal standards are not near up to dealing with what medicine can do these days. So every family that must go through this (and there are multitudes more than Terri’s) has only an imperfect legal system to mediate disputes. That process has taken place for Terri. It may be faulty, but it’s what we’ve got. Those who don’t like it have a great deal of work to do to try and catch up. It will take legislation, it will take education, it will take time. What’s happening now is not going to fix anything.
And what’s really obscene about this weekend’s activities is the hypocrisy. What’s obscene is that after a few well-meaning people supported Terri’s parents, a whole horde of others have used them to promote an agenda, providing them with false hope and this interminable, agonizing struggle. In my years working in physical rehabilitation, I saw many such families. I am relieved now for all of them that their private struggles were private; sometimes vicious, always painful — but private.
One more time, with feeling: those who don’t want a spouse to have the power to decide life support issues in the absence of a living will, those who don’t believe in the removal of life support at all, those who want federal rather than state jurisdiction over these cases: get busy for the long term. Let Terri be at peace, enlist her parents in the upcoming struggle, and stop supporting those who engage in circumstantial tokenism in matters of life and death.
And by the way, just so no one thinks I’m being reasonable about the political aspect of this, I have posted a photoshopped picture at my blog that expresses my feelings about Mr. DeLay and Dr. Frist’s involvement. It would be in poor taste, if the ghoulish behavior of both men in this matter hadn’t made that term meaningless.
“I should also note that like all scientific findings, the idea that the soul is located in the cerebral cortex could be misused to justify horrible abuses”
Whoa. I misspoke there. “The soul is located in the cerebral cortex” is not a scientific finding. It is a conclusion that people might draw from a scientific finding, but it is sure as heck not itself a scientific finding.
okay, this is pedantic, to be sure, but Terri Schiavo is not “disabled.” She is in a persistent vegetative state, with little or no cerberal cortex, and no hope of recovery.
Paul Cella: I am merely arguing that since the issue in question is his fitness as guardian of his disabled wife, his adultery against her is relevant.
Except that, as I think Hilzoy points out in this very post, there is no question of Michael Schiavo’s fitness as guardian of Terri Schiavo: none at all. The courts made the decision about removing Terri’s feeding tube: Michael did not. So his relationship with another woman is not relevant. (I refer you to Opus’s March 20, 2005 05:16 PM, for another spouse who is – by your standards – “committing bigamy”, and yet appears to be a good carer.)
one of those deep points of disagreement that reveal the real difference among us.
Same point it always is, as I recall. You think you have the right to judge other people by your own interpretation of your religion: I think that people should be judged by how they behave. It seems to me that Michael Schiavo’s behavior has been both decent and caring – I see no reason to assume that his relationship with another woman makes him unfit to speak of what Terri would have wanted back when she had the ability to think and decide for herself.
And the slandering I have seen of his character (of which your characterisation of him as an “adulterer” was one of the mildest) has been quite appalling.
Just so I’m keeping score correctly, on one side we’ve got people with some actual medical, scientific and neurological education and professional experience who conclude from the available evidence that there is little more than a shell full of liquid where this woman’s brain used to be, rendering her effectively dead anyway, and who have given thought to the ethical and legal questions behind this situation; and on the other we’ve got a guy interested in slandering the husband, passing laws to make adulterers legally dishonest or some such crap, and with nothing useful to say about how a headful of liquid is supposed to regain consciousness. Is that just about correct?
okay, this is pedantic, to be sure, but Terri Schiavo is not “disabled.” She is in a persistent vegetative state, with little or no cerberal cortex, and no hope of recovery.
That may be a fact not actually in evidence
Is that just about correct?
No.
I hope you found that helpful.
Don’t worry, Mac. I never find anything you say helpful.
from Macallan‘s link:
Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.” Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive” brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal” MRI.
But that’s the point: Terri has that sort of massive brain damage and it *is* visible on the CT scan.
Mac, if there’s a further link that shows that Dr. Bell looked at the CT scan and still thought there was room for doubt, please pass it on.
As I said earlier, based on the current sorry legal standards in this area, I’m actually on the side of keeping Terri alive, as cruel as I think that would be. But it’s not up to me or any of us. Not today.
Phil: Is that just about correct?
Good summary. But to be fair to Paul Cella, his slanderings are mild compared to this blog’s.
By the way, your linked National Review article was not only already linked by Cella, it was already addressed by hilzoy’s March 20, 2005 04:43 PM response. Reading Is Fundamental.
It’s somewhat difficult to MRI a cerebral cortex that does not exist. Praktike is right, as usual.
I will grant that he could have simply made a verbal error under the pressure of a television appearance, but this doesn’t sound right:
Transcript
It seems to me that on at least some plausible conceptions of personhood, the person Terri Schiavo ceased to exist some time ago, and now there is no such person. I wonder how that interacts with the autonomy issue. Is it even possible to violate the autonomy of a non-existent person? Respecting someone’s wishes as to what to do with her remains after she has ceased to exist is a good thing to do, but is it good because not to respect them would be to violate her autonomy?
I am genuinely confused about this.
Thanks for that, Jes. Yeesh.
So I’ve seen claims from all sorts of parties now that Terry Schiavo can eat normally, react normally, even speak normally — and yet we’ve been seeing the same heavily-edited, ambiguous and cherry picked video footage packaged by her parents and their lawyers for two years now, with no evidence of these other claims. None. Amazing. You’d almost think they’re making it up.
One minor pedantic quibble: Schiavo is not brain dead. If she were brain dead, the only questions that would need to be addressed would be whether her organs would be donated to those who needed them or not and whether cremation or burial was prefered. A person is declared brain dead only when there is no brain activity whatsoever, including no brainstem activity. Schiavo has some brainstem activity, as is evident from her continued ability to breathe without a respirator. However, her cerebral cortex–the “higher brain” is mostly gone. Note that her CT shows not only enlarged ventricles but also severe cortical thinning and flattening of the cortical folds. Adult neurons don’t regenerate. She’s never going to regain conciousness or have any meaningful life. It’s past time to let her finish dying.
me: “She is in a persistent vegetative state, with little or no cerberal cortex, and no hope of recovery.”
mac: “That may be a fact not actually in evidence”
Actually, it is in evidence. The court said, as hilzoy kindly pointed out above in her post, the following:
“Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo’s brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.”
As I said earlier, based on the current sorry legal standards in this area, I’m actually on the side of keeping Terri alive, as cruel as I think that would be. But it’s not up to me or any of us. Not today.
My view Opus is that there is enough conflict of evidence, and interested parties who could both have sincere yet contrary views, that this situation is worth a review of prior court action. Yes, I’m concerned about the precedents and unintended consequences.
Though I am generally pro Death Penalty, I don’t want innocent people executed, so I see the necessity and utility of appeals and/or executive intervention in the process. So similarly, though my natural instinct would be to defer to a spouse’s sincere guardianship, that doesn’t mean in every case it should be assumed correct. Just like in a Death Penalty case, a jury’s finding of fact shouldn’t always be assumed correct, I don’t think we should assume the judge’s finding of fact correct here either.
To me, it isn’t one party good the other bad, so much as it is there are enough questions to merit review. I’d rather error on the side of protecting the individual who most needs protecting.
I will grant that he could have simply made a verbal error under the pressure of a television appearance, but this doesn’t sound right:
Maybe you could instead grant that Larry King didn’t let him finish his sentence.
praktike
I’m not a neurologist and I’ve never examined Schiavo or even her record. However, based on her CT scan, I would be very suprised if she has any living tissue in her cerebral cortex. If you look carefully at the CT, you’ll notice that although her cortex is severely thinned, it is not pushed to the edge of her skull and the cortical folds are not pressed together as though squeezed by an outside force, ie excess pressure from too much spinal fluid (CSF). This indicates that the cortex is disappearing and being replaced by CSF rather than being pressured by excessive CSF and dying. Most likely the neurons are necrosing, being ingested and carried away by macrophages (or, this being the brain, glial cells) and CSF is filling the void. This simply wouldn’t happen in a healthy brain.
Mac, that’s why what we say as individuals — and what action we choose to take in the long-term in terms of trying to change legislation, trying to educate the public — is one thing; and Senators and Congressmen intervening at the last minute in this one specific, high-profile case is quite another.
I see the party has moved over here. I wonder if all of those who have supported the Repubs because of the vague whiff of libertarian principles will run screaming from the room. This CBS transcript really amazed me with the straightforward criticism of Congress, but he may be a talking head rather than a true employee of CBS. However, he minces no words
Also, far far earlier, Mac suggests that it is hypocrisy to trust the judges in this case, but not in terrorist cases and has just suggested that he wants the appeal process to ‘protect individuals who most need protecting’. The fact is that I can (and a number of people have) google up all of the court documents and all the evidence on the Schiavo case (I can even look inside her head, with the CAT scans), but in the case of terrorist suspects, the government not only argues that the evidence is classified, but even that the theories of legal jurisprudence cannot be revealed, when those cases come to court (as Katherine has pointed out, extraordinary rendition never even comes before a court). If the government would conduct its prosecution of terrorists in a similar way, I would given more consideration to the results.
If you believe in the values appeals in the Schiavo case, then you should be agitating against the whole process of extraordinary rendition with equal ferocity. However, my memory of your contributions has been to downgrade the fuss over this. I’m headed out the door now, but I’m hoping you could explain this disjunct or point me to your attacks on the notion of extraordinary rendition.
Macallan, 7:24pm :
“To me, it isn’t one party good the other bad, so much as it is there are enough questions to merit review.”
Just what questions do you think there are, Mac that would warrant yet another review of this case? Questions which have not been raised and dealt with by the proper authorities, in the proper legal manner for more than seven years now. Questions, which, btw, have been consistently answered in favor of Michael Schiavo, and against the claims of the Schindlers. For year after year.
No snark intended, I am just curious as to what issues in the Terri Schiavo case (saving, of course, the entire concept of withdrawing her nutrition) you think might yet be unresolved.
That may be a fact not actually in evidence
Except it is. Also Mac, just fyi, National Review is not a medical journal, and its writers are not doctors or scientists. An MRI is a way to determine the extent of damage to the brain. Terri Schiavo’s brain is not damaged so much as its cortex is physically absent. Which is no doubt one reason why several courts have all ended up at the same place. As for this:
It’s a shame Ms. Schiavo isn’t a retarded convicted murderer in Texas etc
It would be helpful if you could point to the specific medical and legal errors you found.
For the record, I consider Terry Schiavo none of my business, or at least not needing my personal intervention, since she appears to have adequate advocates on either side. I see no plausible way for me to have an opinion on her particulars more informed than the many people involved in her case. In my ideal world, I would not have ever heard of Terry Schiavo.
But she has somehow moved from a personal matter to a state controversy to a national argument. And to some degree a partisan issue. I want to thank Mr Cella and macallan for showing up in defense of their political leadership. I think it especially important for Republicans to expess their views not only of the specific ethical questions involving Ms Schiavo, but also the broader federalist and constitutional issues at play this weekend.
I am probably missing everything important by refusing to watch television. 🙂
Great summation,hilzoy. I never thank you enough, or praise you enough. Assume it, please.
Michael Schiavo did not take it upon himself to decide what his wife’s wishes were. He petitioned a court to decide the matter. He had the right to do this, as his wife’s legal guardian. In the absence of durable powers of attorney stating otherwise, spouses are one another’s legal guardians in event of incapacity; that’s the law.
He didn’t petition the court the minute Terri Schiavo collapsed; or the year after she collapsed, or five years after she collapsed. He spent eight years trying to find treatment for her, getting himself trained as a caregiver, and only petitioned the court when it became clear Terri’s condition would never improve. It will not improve. Her cerebral cortex has dissolved. No medical treatment exists to make it grow back.
The court decided, based on testimony from Michael and from others, that Terri Schiavo would not want to continue existing once any hope of recovery is gone. The court’s decision was repeatedly appealed; each appeal ended with the original court decision upheld. Jeb Bush intervened, and the matter went to courts again; again the original court decision was upheld.
Michael Schiavo’s current marital or quasi-marital status is not at issue. He didn’t make the decision; the courts did.
The circus around Terri Schiavo is politically motivated. It can’t be anything else: George Bush signed a bill into law in Texas allowing hospitals to let patients die based on ability to pay for care as well as on their medical condition. The bill was supported by the National and Texas Right to Life organizations. Sun Hudson, an infant, was just disconnected from life support. Spiro Nikolouzos, an old man, will be disconnected in two weeks, if his family can’t find another facility to take him.
None of the Republicans, religious activists, or RW agitators clustered around Terri Schiavo have said one word about Sun Hudson or Spiro Nikolouzos; therefore, their claims to “support life at any cost” are empty. They have taken advantage of a pair of grieving parents. They have told the parents indefensible, outrageous lies about Terri’s hopes for recovery. They have told the country and their followers indefensible and outrageous lies, most notably claiming that Terri has cried “I want to live!” when Terri is utterly, without question, incapable of doing any such thing. They have intruded past police barriers, trying to get to Terri’s room – where, they said, they hoped to give her bread and water; which, had they succeeded, would likely have killed her, since she has no swallow reflex.
The medical facts are not arguable, unless you go in for quackery. The legal history is established public record; and the decisions were made in accordance with law and ethics.
There is no case here. What there is, is a politically-driven circus of surpassing cruelty and cynicism; one with enormous dire consequences to the judicial and medical institutions, and to individual rights of autonomy.
I’d like to know what the congressional Dems are up to… Occording to Katherine’s post in the other thread, they are letting the Repubs do their little dance in return for a deal of some kind. The deal, correct me if I’m wrong, is for the congressional Repub leadership to NOT “go nuclear” and change the rules on judicial nominee fillibusters in return for Dem compliance on the Terri Schiavo Law Pt. II.
Coupla questions :
1) How can the fillibuster rules be changed without minority party help? I mean, what could the Dems be afraid of, either they can stop it or they can’t. If they can’t, what is to have stopped any other majority party from changing the rules a century ago? What could this “deal” entail?
2) How does everyone feel about the Dems inability to put up a fight on such an egregious powergrab? I imagine the Repubs here are inwardly gloating but it’s really pretty damn sad to me. They have been cowed such a degree that they are afraid to bring the case to the people and try to whip up their own “outrage”. All it would require is some backbone and maybe grandstanding.
3) Finally, how can this help the Repubs in 06? They are splitting their base, not growing it. Enraging the religious right is has been perfected in recent years but this stunt seems too hamhanded to work.
This whole sideshow is likely to be pointless in the end. As I understand it, the bill passed mandates a trial in a federal court. I still don’t see any concrete evidence that florida law was misapplied. The constitutional claim has already been denied.
At most this just drains vital health resources while a federal, as opposed to state, court comes to the same conclusion.
From everything that medical professionals can see, her spirit is gone. Reviewing this ad nausium can serve no purpose.
Mac: ” this situation is worth a review of prior court action.” — It has already been reviewed extensively. The claim that she would have wanted not to be kept alive in this situation has been reviewed and appealed all the way to the Florida Supreme Court. The claim that there is no reasonable hope of recovery has also been appealed all the way to the Florida Supreme Court. The claim that “Terri’s Law” is unconstitutional has been appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court. I can’t see why all these appeals aren’t sufficient.
“Occording to Katherine’s post in the other thread, they are letting the Repubs do their little dance in return for a deal of some kind. The deal, correct me if I’m wrong, is for the congressional Repub leadership to NOT “go nuclear” and change the rules on judicial nominee fillibusters in return for Dem compliance on the Terri Schiavo Law Pt. II.”
No, no. That’s not at all what I was suggesting and I hope no one else got that impression. I am suggesting that this is the deal: they vote to allow the Republicans to grant limited jurisdiction for a federal court to hear a constitutional challenge filed by Teresa Schiavo’s parents, although they consider this an abuse of power, in return for the GOP giving up attempts to pass laws that Democrats see as worse abuses of power, such as:
–the House bill supported by Tom DeLay, which that allows anyone who claims an interest in the patient’s fate to challenge the family or patient’s decision to end life support in federal court.
–earlier versions of the Senate bill that would’ve allowed the Schiavos to challenge the Florida court decisions on more grounds, and would’ve allowed the litigation to drag out longer, etc.
I mentioned the filibuster only to say, the Democrats cannot necessarily count on stopping even the house bill. I bet at least five Democratic Senators would break ranks, and even if they didn’t, Frist may decide that this is the perfect time to end the filibusters. But I don’t think any kind of a deal at all has been cut about the “nuclear option”.
If I understand the Senate bill correctly: the Schindlers are going to lose their federal case. The only question is on what legal theory and how long it takes to reach the final result. And presumably the court will decide that the feeding tube can’t be removed until the case is settled. At which point, I guess DeLay and Frist will start all over again, and if they get another law through THAT will have to be litigated, and on and on.
Katherine (and other lawyers): a few legal questions:
(a) Does this bill violate the Constitutional ban on bills of attainder?
(b) (Here I reach the limits of my tiny legal knowledge, and am groping): am I right in thinking that when the federal court takes this up on appeal, it will not have the authority to retry the facts, just to examine whether the laws were properly applied?
(c) Is there any grounds for this case being considered in Federal Court other than (1) this bill, and (2) the 14th Amendment?
(d) Since the relevant part of the 14th Amendment is presumably the claim that no one shall be deprived of life etc. without due process of law, and since there doesn’t seem to be any question that Terri Schiavo has received due process, how could the court possibly conclude that her constitutional rights have been violated unless it gets to retry the facts?
hrm, that makes much more sense than my meanderings. Thanks for the correction.
Taking notes but not really ready …
Random notes: Who is paying Terry Schiavo’s medical bills? Who will pay her medical bills into the future should she live? Me? Great, raise my taxes. Don’t cut the programs. Better, raise your (yeah, you) level of tax pain equal to your concern for Terry Schiavo’s life. Better yet, make Terry Schiavo’s parents pay for the care, including the MRI, which insurance companies routinely turn down requests for, and then pursue them to the ends of the Earth under the new bankruptcy rules after they hock their credit cards and mortgages to the hilt. Let’s make it a real effing tragic circus. After she dies a natural death, drag them into debtor’s prison. When they are at death’s door, deny them care because they are broke. No one will notice; that’s where we are all going under the purposeful, exquisitely planned bankruptcy of the Federal government.
Unless you have private resources or can get your friends to put on a big bake sale.
Macallan is precisely correct. It is a shame Terry Schiavo is not a retarded murderer in Texas or a terrorist up for rendition. It is also true that those two examples might wish they were Terry Schiavo in the eyes of the cynics in the Republican Party.
Someone, somewhere (was it here?,I’m too tired to look)
has lamented the idea that we stop feeding Alzheimers patients. Having watched my father-in-law die slowly from that disease and having participated in deciding to go against his wishes (he liked guns and would have used one on us had he known we prolonged his life), he ended up aspirating the food he was given and choking to death.
I participated in choking him to death. That’s murder, apparently. Make a circus out of it, someone. Please.
I look forward to it.
(Nothing amusing there)
all very tentative answers:
a. no. This is based mainly on what Con Law professors have said in the papers; I’ve never studied the bill of attainder class.
b. yes. Actually, it’s more limiting than that: they can only review whether it violates the U.S. Constitution, not whether the judges incorrectly applied Florida law.
c. not that I’m aware of.
d. there are two potential due process claims that they seem to have in mind:
–a procedural claim that Terry Schiavo was denied effective assistance of counsel. This will not succeed. There is no possible function that a lawyer would serve for her that the judge in the trial courts was to serve: to determine her interests. The lawyer would have more possibility of conflict, and fewer resources than the judge, for determining her interests. Also, courts are extremely reluctant to require the government to appoint custody in civil cases. They don’t require it in deportation or asylum cases though it would be decisive in the success of the asylum claim in most cases, and the applicant’s life is at stake. They don’t require it in a proceeding to terminate parental rights, even though it would often be decisive in those cases. I simply cannot imagine this claim succeeding.
–a substantive due process claim that it is unconstitutional to remove life support from a patient when there is any doubt as to what she would have wanted. I simply cannot imagine this succeeding with a federal judge. Conservative judges entirely reject substantive due process (it’s the basis for Roe v. Wade for God’s sake). Liberal and moderate judges is going to say, this is not the government taking her life away, this is the government making a factual determination about whether she would have wished to be fed through a tube under these circumstances, and they scrupulously followed the laws in making this determination. IIRC the right to refuse medical care has been held to be constitutionally protected.
e. It is also possible, maybe even likely, that the court will decide that her parents do not have Constitutional standing (under Article III’s case or controversy requirement) to sue about a violation of their daughter’s 14th amendment rights when the state of Florida has already determined that they are not her proper legal guardian. Scalia and Thomas are real sticklers about standing.
They are going to lose in federal court. The question is how long it will take, and how Congress will react the next time this happens.
Is this definitely passing? The House Republicans are not unanimous & I haven’t heard any of the Democrats speak in favor.
I just read that Rep. Weldon is a medical doctor. Criminy.
I don’t watch TV news, so I don’t know how this is playing to the country at large, but from what I can gather on-line, the GOP is losing support among the general public on this.
If that’s so, there’s no percentage for pursuing the case after this latest round. Quite the opposite. They’ve kept their base whipped up and diverted attention from so many other issues which aren’t going well for them. And now they can use Terri as a fundraiser and talking point in their ongoing campaign against an independent judiciary. I can see the ad text already: “Activist, unelected judges let Terri Schiavo die. We couldn’t stop them, this time. But, with your help, we can pass a bill that allows Congress to tell the courts, ‘No, you cannot hear this case; you cannot make this decision.'”
“–the House bill supported by Tom DeLay, which that allows anyone who claims an interest in the patient’s fate to challenge the family or patient’s decision to end life support in federal court.”
I might prefer this to pass, in the sense of heightening the contradictions and making more people aware of what we have in charge now.
Compromising, covering, ameliorating only prolongs the agony and postpones the inevitable. I would prefer a universal confrontation sooner rather than later.
“But, with your help, we can pass a bill that allows Congress to tell the courts, ‘No, you cannot hear this case; you cannot make this decision.'””
I am wondering if this is the case they can make their “Constitution-in-Exile” jurisdictional play on.
Hell, yes. That might’ve been in the back of their beady little minds all along.
And that’s some hella interesting wording in DeLay’s bill. “[A]nyone who claims an interest in the patient’s fate”? Would that include random religious nuts and self-styled psychics who claim the patient appeared to them in a vision and asked for their help? Shall we now have medical practice determined by Ouija board?
I have finally located the text of the bill here. The key sections:
The way that bill is worded, it sounds to me as if the Schindlers can keep bringing suit until they get a favorable ruling, or until the heat death of the universe, whichever comes first. It doesn’t say anything about any decision being final.
I was with my sweetie at Macy’s today trying hopelessly to find a set of plates we can agree on (I want something with a smidgen of craftsmanship, she wants something we won’t feel bad about the kids dropping when we have kids) when I was pulled back into this second-hand nightmare: I overheard one employee saying to another, “I just hope the bill passes and she has a chance to live – I’m praying for that”. I really had to bite my tongue, in part because of the good chance that person isn’t informed about this case or the others linked earlier – or has a set of views like felix that I disagree with but respect.
Anyone know how many people like Terri died today unfeted in the tabloids?
“When this tragic episode is resolved, the Supreme Court will have some serious questions to answer about its silence and arbitrary interpretation of federalism.”
…Tom DeLay
Yup. Jurisdiction. That is what scared the Democratic Senators. I say bring your Constitutional Crises on, dudes.
For anyone who doesn’t know what I am talking about, there are many conservatives who believe the Constitution gives Congress the power to completely control the jurisdiction of Federal Courts. In other words, Congress could declare Roe v Wade unconstitutional, and declare that Federal Courts couldn’t review that decision.
Pre-Lochner? Shoot. Pre-Marshall.
Moreover, since the vow in question is one of the very few our society still attaches real significance to (what is a wedding ceremony, really, but a public taking of vows?), I hold that to violate it is among the more vivid public displays of dishonesty possible for a man.
Do you hold it to be a violation of the vow to have sex with another woman after the wife has died?
Anyone know how many people like Terri died today unfeted in the tabloids?
Many, I’d assume, but we’ll likely never hear about them.
When we think about expanding the number of people with standing to sue in a case like this, one should also consider this article which notes how many more people there are who might have an interest, outside of the random people with an ax to grind.
Fantastic post! I’ve been wanting to write one like it all weekend, so I’m glad you did it for me. It also means more coming from an actual professor of bioethics, and not just a physician and semi-pro bioethicist like myself.
Further proposed answers to Hilzoy’s a) and b) questions only:
a. Almost certainly not a violation of bill of attainder since the law does not direct any result or punishment. It creates a new procedure to re-open litigation but does not mandate a result, which is the sin addressed by the bill of attainder clause.
b. The answer is basically no, with a twist explained below. The federal suit would not be limited, and I disagree with Katherine’s answer. The Act is specifically intended to give the Federal Court the power to decide the legal and factual questions on its own without regard or deference to any state proceeding. They key language is this:
In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo [emphasis added] any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.
When one court reviews proceedings already undertaken in another court, there is a body of law governing the scope of review of the other court’s decision. When the reviewing court is free to reconsider all aspects of the decision and need not defer in any way to factual or legal decisions by the prior court, that is described as a de nove review. By contrast, other more deferential standards are referred to as substantial evidence or abuse of discretion. Using the term de novo makes it clear that the federal court is supposed to start at square one in the decision-making.
Also, the remaining clauses cut off all other arguments for deference to the state court.
____
The twist is that the federal legal question is narrow, and probably had to be to avoid obvious unconstitutionality. The federal court is supposed to determine the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States… Note that it cannot determine the basic state law question of what should be done.
There does not appear to be any federal law regarding this medical issue (searches of the applicable US Code did not turn up any; any experts on this out there?). The only federal question would be procedural due process, which is a non-issue here.
I imagine that the new lawsuit will argue a substantive due process right under the federal constitution not to be allowed to die, and seek to re-open all of the fact questions of her condition and whether she had indicated her wishes not to be sustained in a vegetative state. The whole point of this law is simply to allow more litigation and insist that she be kept alive for that additional litigation. But there is no real federal question to be decided, unless someone also invents a new one for this case.
An anology is that the federal court cannot hear state murder charges (except for those involving “state action” and then only as a ‘violation of civil rights’ charge — not murder). Certain types of legal issue is purely within the power of states — not the federal government.
If this nutty law is proper, I assume the federal government could intervene in any typical state law case (divorce, mass tort litigation, etc.) when an aggrieved litigant with clout did not like the state court result.
Hasn’t the important question been, at least since 2003, trying to understand why the Sciavo case has become so important to religious conservatives?
Fred Clark, over at Slacktivist, had an excellent post last year on how the driving force behind much of pre-millenial dispensationalism (the theoretical/eschatological underpinning of much of modern religious conservativism) is a near-pathological fear of death.* I can’t help but wonder if that’s part of what’s going on here.
* I think there was another post on the matter, but I can’t seem to find it right now.
For the lawyers here: one of the key cases here is Cruzan, in which the Supreme Court found that it was legitimate for Missouri to require “clear and convincing evidence” of the wishes of a patient in a persistent vegetative state, as opposed to some less stringent standard, in deciding whether feeding and hydration could be withdrawn.
Schiavo explicated
This is by far the best explanation of the Schiavo case I’ve seen so far. It’s long, and it doesn’t address the overnight activities of Congress; that’s to be taken up later. It concludes:…the takehome message is: first, it’s about…
Bob-
It might be wrong, but the argument that Congress could strip all Federal Court jurisdiction isn’t crazy. Congress was under no obligation to ever create any Federal Courts, and could destroy them. If it could destroy them, it seems that it can limit them in a great many other ways.
I’ve read a number of the decisions and testimony in the Schiavo case courtesy of the University of Miami site devoted to it. The Guardian ad Litem’s report (where a GAL was appointed by the court to represent Terri Schiavo and determine if her wishes were being followed) came out in 2003. Here is what the GAL(who was a physician and an atty) had to say about Michael Shiavo:
“Proceedings determined that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian. Further it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care for Theresa. His demanding concern for her well-being and meticulous care by the nursing homeearned him the characterization by the administrator as a “nursing home administrator’s nightmare.” It is notable that through more than 13 years after Theresa’s collapse, she has never had a bedsore.” GAL Report at p.13 Christoper Reeves died of infected bed sores.
The Guardian ad litem also noted that the Shindlers had even encouraged Michael to date other women, and he intrduced the women to the Schindlers. Nice. Bet they’ve changed their tune since then, haven’t they?
http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf
Excuse me, Paul Cella, et al. regarding the issue of adultery:
Where is the evidence that sexual fidelity was ever agreed to in their marriage vows? Were you at the ceremony? Were the vows they took admitted into evidence that has yet to be made public? Because I have read ALL of the public records in my extensive research on this case over the last three years, and I have yet to come across any videotape, recording or toher evidence, either admitted into any legal proceeding or otherwise that they had this agreement.
Try another tack, preferably one that does not include an argument which contains facts not in evidence.
Hasn’t the important question been, at least since 2003, trying to understand why the Sciavo case has become so important to religious conservatives?
It seems to me that this is merely a backdoor way of going after the abortion question. Terri Schiavo has no brain, yet still is considered alive. Those she is an organized group of cells that perform homeostasis, on what other lane could she be considered “life”. Perhaps a cellular one. This is just an opportunity to push the question of what constitutes life to another degree of adjudication, in a very real sense, moving to give the courts, not the owner of the body which contains life in any sense, res judicata.
An excellent analysis of the various factors involved in the Schiavo case
Yes, more in Schiavo – like I said, I’ve got a bug up my butt on this one. While I’ve focused my rage about this situation at blasting the hypocrisy (hey! I finally learned how to spell it *g*)surrounding the…
An excellent analysis of the various factors involved in the Schiavo case
Yes, more on Schiavo – like I said, I’ve got a bug up my butt on this one. While I’ve focused my rage about this situation at blasting the hypocrisy (hey! I finally learned how to spell it *g*) surrounding…
The Guardian ad litem also noted that the Shindlers had even encouraged Michael to date other women, and he intrduced the women to the Schindlers. Nice. Bet they’ve changed their tune since then, haven’t they?
Damn, I completely missed that. Disturbing the about-face there.
RWDB beatup or something more sinister?
I must confess I hadn’t taken much notice of the Terri Schiavo case until now. Schiavo is a brain-damaged American woman currently being effectively starved to death through cutting off her intravenous feeding tubes. Perhaps partly because of instincti…
It’s hard for me to have anything but sympathy for the Schindlers. Their daughter is, for all practical purposes, dead and gone yet they fully believe that she is not.
RWDB beatup or something more sinister?
I must confess I hadn’t taken much notice of the Terri Schiavo case until now. Schiavo is a brain-damaged American woman currently being effectively starved to death through cutting off her intravenous feeding tubes. Perhaps partly because of instincti…
Now that Republicans are so committed to health care, even for those in persistent vegetative state, I expect them to propose a wide-ranging, comprehensive health care program that covers everyone, for nearly everything. Surely they didn’t pass this bill, which is arguably unconstitutional and is clearly destructive to federalism, just to try to make political points.
Chuchundra:
I agree in part. However, their behavior has gone way past anything excusable in their viciousness toward Michael Schiavo. They can make their pleas without falsely attacking him, but have found it expedient to do so.
hilzoy:
Thanks for the Cruzan cite — it is an interesting case. Factually, it is very similar to Schiavo although it presents a very different legal issue (since the parents want their daughter to be denied life-sustaining treatment, but the state won’t acknowledge their wish). The legal result is also something of a mess since their is no clear majority decision as to the reasoning.
Cruzan indicates that there is a Constitutional right to refuse medical treatment (which would include a feeding tube according to the court). Scalia is the only exception — he makes the point that the state’s right to prevent suicide should include its de facto equivalent of refusing medical care, but no one else accepted this argument.
The case then discusses what procedural obstacles are proper for the state to impose when a surrogate is making the decision (because the patient left no clear written expression on the question). Cruzan upheld the procedure that was also followed in the Schiavo case (clear and convincing evidence standard to determine that the patient would refuse medical treatment, including a feeding tube).
Cruzan creates a very strong argument that the new federal act for Schiavo is unconstitutional since it improperly interferes with the patient’s decision to refuse medical treatment that would sustain a vegetative state, as determined by a proper state procedure for adjudicating that wish when the patient is no longer able to express that wish.
Schiavo actually presents the better case for upholding the right to withhold medical treatment, since the issue has been litigated in a highly adversarial atmosphere (unlike the situation in which no one other than the State is resisting the surrogate’s indication that the patient would have wanted medical care refused).
Schiavo – A Voice of Reason
I have been waiting for this post for a few days now.�I recommend you visit hilzoy at Obsidian Wings and read her post regarding the current controversy surrounding the Terri Schiavo case.� hilzoy is greatly respected for her thorough research, the
because I’m sick of hearing the propaganda
Obsidian Wings: Terri Schiavo (because you can’t go anywhere else without hearing skewed facts & propaganda, so why not hear some rational information…)
because I’m sick of hearing the propaganda
Obsidian Wings: Terri Schiavo (because you can’t go anywhere else without hearing skewed facts & propaganda, so why not hear some rational information…)
because I’m sick of hearing the propaganda
Obsidian Wings: Terri Schiavo (because you can’t go anywhere else without hearing skewed facts & propaganda, so why not hear some rational information…)
Schiavo actually presents the better case for upholding the right to withhold medical treatment, since the issue has been litigated in a highly adversarial atmosphere (unlike the situation in which no one other than the State is resisting the surrogate’s indication that the patient would have wanted medical care refused).
This is an interesting point. I’m trying to understand why the adversarial process in this case is considered different from that of Hudson and Nikolouzos, which were also adversarial in nature. I have to imagine that the reason why the Hudson or the Nikolouzos cases do/did not attract the same attention is through a rarified version of the notion of a Calvinistic elect. The fact that the Schindlers (presumably) have the financial resources to care for her, this is indicative that God wants Terry Schiavo to live, but the fact that Hudson and Nikolouzos are indigent indicates that God doesn’t want extraordinary measures to be taken. (needless to say, this is not my opinion, but if you scratch the surface, I feel that some sort of reasoning like this would pop up)
I’ve been googling and found that the term ‘terminal wean’ for the process of disconnecting life support, but most cases are when the patient can’t breath on their own and are removed from the ventilator. Two links that I thought were interesting
This paper by Philip Schneider on Medical Decisions to End Life and this abstract (it is a google cache, the original is behind a subscription wall) with a number of interesting points about critical care. This particularly caught my attention
Being the cynic, I believe that physicians did this more because they were folded into the administrative structure of HMOs, which promoted cost reduction. At any rate, FWIW.
feeding tube mysteries in congress
I heard snatches of the Congressional debate on the Terry Schiavo case on PM tonight. The thing stinks. She is “vegetative” in hospital with a “liquified” cerebral cortext so the husband asked the courts to decide whether her feeding tube…
I’m thinking of becoming an elite republican like Tom Delay so that I can believe the following things simultaneously:
Wal Mart’s health benefits are adequate and I will accept campaign contributions from them to keep the evil government from forcing them to offer better benefits;
Medicaid and Medicare pick up some of the slack of these inadequate benefits but I, along with Wal Mart republicans, will vote to slash both programs and eventually to destroy them, in the name of God and Ayn Rand;
When Terry Schiavo gets better, and she will, I will simultaneously do the following for her and to her: I will use my pull to get her a job as a greeter at Wal Mart. I will deny her health benefits. I will cut Medicaid and further deny her care. I will use her as a poster child in my fight against greedy trial lawyers and patients in my fight for tort reform. When she suffers a relapse, I will fire her and I will call the cops when she needs to be evicted from her home. I will pray for her. I will contribute one dozen chocolate chip cookies to the $61 bake sale we’ll have to pay for her care. I will convince her to change her name to Elian Gonzalez and apply for a special visa to the United States. I will cut Medicaid some more because immigrants are flooding the system. I will impregnate her so that there is a foetus thrown into the mix and thereby further prove that liberals are Godless, murderous filth. I will not let said liberals deny her food and water; nor shall I let the evil ones deny her botulism and mercury. I will rid this country of the Federal court system so that when I begin prosecuting liberals through the Homeland Security legal framework, they have nowhere to run. I will arm Terry Schiavo so that she can protect herself.
So I think that stuff Katherine said about the soul explains a lot of the hoopla of the fervent religious people regarding the story of Terri Schiavo.
But I’ve put my personal debate on the religious issue on my own blog instead
(For 2 reasons. 1) speaking frankly about my personal spiritual beliefs is nearly tantamount to discussing my views on sex & as such I will only discuss it on my own terms, and 2) I don’t want to clutter up this thread further with a religious debate of any type. I would feel awkward about doing either.)
On the topic of Michael Schiavo’s “infidelity”… Man, I hope when I get married, my love for my spouse will be so true that I would not vindictively & selfishly think & feel that my spouse, or any loved ones, should give up living life were my ability to live a life be cut short for some reason.
But of course I realize there are those people so jealous that they even go so far as to bully their spouses into promise never to remarry should they be widowed.
If I fall into a medically vegetative state, my wife is permitted to date, etc., but in return I get to send suggestive letters to the young Julie Christie and pursue that relationship as far as possible.
This we have vowed.
John
Write it up as a contract and you’ll be set. Bonus points for naming the acts with titles that no one could disagree with.
“Adultery”?
Sorry, try again. Michael Schiavo isn’t an adulterer. He’s effectively a widower.
Absence of Cognitive Function
Unlike those who have informed, well-reasoned opinions on the Schiavo matter (and unlike those who have opinions which are quite the other thing), all I have to say is the following.
Thanks for a great post! I’m linking to you as well, since I’ve dealt with the issue twice in the last week.
XT
Something I Was Determined Not To Blog About
Despite having, in my mind, sworn off blogging re: the Schiavo case, here I am posting about it anyway.
Today’s Schiavo take
Two quick morning observations about the continuing Terri Schiavo abomination: First, it’s at least a little heartening to me to see that this afternoon’s Federal court hearing is before James D. Whittemore, a Clinton appointee and someone who’s expres…
schiavo again, before i stop
if you’re not completely sick of hearing about terri schiavo yet, i highly recommend, rivka’s two posts about the issue.
Terri Schiavo, Part II: The Ethical Post
No one has the responsibility to submit to everything that medical science could potentially do to prolong life. As individuals who own and have sovereignty over our bodies, we have a fundamental right to bodily integrity. No one has the right to inv…
More on Schiavo . . .
I thought I was done dealing with this, had said what I had to say and read what I was willing to read, but then I came across this ObWi post that’s brilliant for cutting through all of the rhetoric suggesting this case is somehow unusual, unprecedente…
RWDB beatup or something more sinister?
I must confess I hadn’t taken much notice of the Terri Schiavo case until now. Schiavo is a brain-damaged American woman currently being effectively starved to death through cutting off her intravenous feeding tubes. Perhaps partly because of instincti…
There are quite a few comments here, so if issue I’m going to bring up has been dealt with I apologize.
I’m lazy and have a lot of work to do, so I’m going to just cut and paste an argument from my blog and see what people think about it.
I do not understand how medical care and nutrition are analogous. Medical care comes up when something unusual occurs; without care, the person will die. If we accept the concept of autonomy, we must obey her wishes. But nutrition is an entirely different idea.
Let’s compare food and hydration to air. Let’s say a person needed a tube to supply air. Would we respect her wishes if she asked to have the tube removed? I would have to guess Hilzoy would say yes. But can we place a bag over her head? Why not? We aren’t actually killing her. We are just preventing her from receiving air. And if we believe in autonomy and know she would want to receive no more air, what’s the difference?
Maybe the difference is there’s a tube sticking into her body and keeping it there violates her right to autonomy while placing a bag over her head has nothing to do with autonomy. But let’s say we developed some Star Trek gizmo that allows us to beam the oxygen directly into her lungs. Would that be ok even if she didn’t want it? Is the right of bodily autonomy merely about preventing people from sticking things into our body? I doubt it. The idea seems to be rooted in allowing us to make crucial decisions about our life. If we choose to have no more food or drink or even air, even if those necessities could be administered without a single cut, should our wishes be denied?
The truth is, under Hilzoy’s analysis, we should be able to place a bag over Terri’s head. Yes, she can breath alone, but she wanted to die, and as long as we take no affirmative action to kill her (which is an act that stops the body from keeping up its vital processes), I see no reason to distinguish between removing the tube and placing a bag over her head.
Terri Schiavo and the Active/Passive Distinction
Andrew McCarthy has a brilliant article on the Terri Schiavo situation in Florida. His basic thesis can be summed up fairly easily. Terri Schiavo is under the care of other people. By removing the feeding tube, those people are causing her to die. Th…
This is an excellent post, with excellent comments. I applaud hilzoy and everybody else in this thread. Including the troll(s) for sharpening the debate.
I must repeat: families decide to remove, or not to insert, feeding tubes all the time, every day in America.
I would really encourage people to think carefully and educate themselves on these issues before they accuse them of doing the moral equivalent of smothering their relatives with a plastic bag.
Food and water are essential to life. So is oxygen. Artificially providing them any of these through a machine is an invasive medical treatment. Not having a plastic bag placed over your head is not a medical treatment.
I see no reason to distinguish between removing the tube and placing a bag over her head.
See Katherine’s response directly above. In addition, it is my understanding that regardless of whether you (or any of us) recognize a distinction, the law itself does: the former is considered withdrawal of care and the latter is considered murder, predicated on the difference between passive withholding of invasive care and actively ending another’s life.
For myself, as an individual, I would be perfectly happy with the eventual body-death being administered by lethal injection rather than starvation if the law so permitted; I frankly don’t see the difference in such a case and, inasmuch as one can regard such decisions as “humane”, find the thought of a lethal injection more humane than inexorable starvation. However, this is all subject to the fact that a) this is contingent upon the conclusion, reached by the courts under the auspicies of due process and the Guardian ad Litem, that this is in keeping with Terri Schiavo’s wishes; and that b) as an individual or as a member of the body politic, it’s none of my goddamn business what happens in this case anyway.
RWDB beatup or something more sinister?
I must confess I hadn’t taken much notice of the Terri Schiavo case until now. Schiavo is a severely brain-damaged (vegetative?) American woman currently being effectively starved to death through cutting off her intravenous feeding tubes. Perhaps part…
if her cerebral cortex is fluid, why not simply allow for a MRI to confirm? remove the plates in her head and do an MRI to confirm. michael schiavo has exhibited questionable behavior – enough to introduce doubt. i’m all for right to die, i would want to if i was brain dead. but i’ve had a F***ing MRI for minor back injury. PLEASE GIVE ME ANOTHER MRI BEFORE YOU YANK MY GODDAM FOOD TUBE. [was that so hard?]
if her cerebral cortex is fluid, why not simply allow for a MRI to confirm? remove the plates in her head and do an MRI to confirm. michael schiavo has exhibited questionable behavior – enough to introduce doubt. i’m all for right to die, i would want to if i was brain dead. but i’ve had a F***ing MRI for minor back injury. PLEASE GIVE ME ANOTHER MRI BEFORE YOU YANK MY GODDAM FOOD TUBE. [was that so hard?]
She has a thalamic implant, to damp down involuntary tremors. Removing the implant requires very specialized surgery, and is tricky enough that bits of its silicon could break off and be left in the tissue.
Then, there would need to be another major surgery to re-install the implants.
I have no idea what the odds are of a person who’se been in a PVS state for 15 years surviving not one, but two, major surgeries.
I have no idea what an MRI would tell you that the current CAT scan hasn’t.
Under those circumstances – the risk, and the questionable value of an MRI – I think it would be difficult to find a surgeon willing to perform the procedure. If she died on the table, god knows what her parents would do: sue the surgeon for malpractice, maybe.
As I type these words, the US Congress is preparing to meet in extraordinary session to decide whether to pass a bill granting Terri Schiavo’s parents the right to take her case to federal court.
I’ve heard people saying that the bill just passed is unconstitutional on its face, since it’s (constitutionally) a Bill of Attainder. Is this the general concurrence of the lawyers present, or does the fact that the bill only requires de novo consideration by the Federal court exempt it from this restriction?
Anarch: consensus seems to be: no. Apparently a Bill of Attainder involves inflicting a penalty on a person. The argument, at least, is that this bill just provides for yet another venue in which the case can be heard. I think it’s arguable that while this is not a penalty, reinserting the feeding tube would be, if she would not have consented to it, since then it violates her liberty interests. I have no idea what to make of a case in which whether or not what a bill provides is a ‘penalty’ is itself one of the points to be adjudicated, and one must inflict this penalty in order to pursue the adjudication (since otherwise she’ll die and the issue will be moot.) My puny knowledge of the law reached an end long before this point; a mere 24 hours ago, I thought that a bill of attainder was a law that singled out a single person.
The end does not justify the means
It has become taboo in this country to attribute anything negative to religion. Most likely this is because it’s quite uncomfortable to have one’s own religious beliefs challenged. Our society collectively helps maintain each other’s comfort by agreein…
Katherine:
My question implicitly asked why, if the basis for removing medical care is autonomy, do we limit legitimate means of ending her life to withdrawing medical care? In both the bag over her head case and the taking her off the respirator case we are doing an action that results in her no longer having access to oxygen (which means we are passively killing her). If we believe that she should be able to make decisions about her life, why distinguish between different types of passive ways of doing it?
Anarch:
The law says lots of things. I don’t have to agree.
Somewhat off topic, but: this post seems to be #4 if you do a Yahoo search for cerebral cortex liquified.
Ugh.
Nephtuli
if the basis for removing medical care is autonomy, do we limit legitimate means of ending her life to withdrawing medical care? In both the bag over her head case and the taking her off the respirator case we are doing an action that results in her no longer having access to oxygen (which means we are passively killing her). If we believe that she should be able to make decisions about her life, why distinguish between different types of passive ways of doing it?
With this discussion going on in 2 or 3 different threads, I’ve written stuff that I don’t know if I posted, so apologies if this is repetition, but I think this is an artifact of our legal system, which represents our cultural thought processes, in that a sin of omission is less problematic than a sin of commission. Unfortunately, Oregon is the only state that has specifically addressed the issue, which, of course, is being challenged by the federal government.
We have no trouble at all understanding the difference between refusing medical care and killing when the patient can express his wishes. I’m not sure why it suddenly eludes people when the patient cannot, or the patient has done so only in the past.
I’m going to say just one thing about this issue: I’m fairly sure that no one going on about how painful and terrible it is to die from the cessation of nutrition and water has actually had the experience of a beloved go through this in the past year, or in recent years.
Because then they’d know what the f*ck they’re talking about.
Of course, if I’m wrong, and anyone here expostulating what it’s like actually does have direct experience with a loved one dying this way recently, please feel free to post, and I’ll apologize to them.
Meanwhile, I’ll go with, along with everything I’ve read on the subject — which was mostly some months ago, not this month — my own personal knowledge of it being peaceful and unpainful, under the proper medication and care, recognizing that this is only anecdote to anyone else who doesn’t also have personal experience of someone close to them dying this way.
The Terri Schiavo Circus: Congress as Laughingstock
In this blog, I’ve often inveighed against mixing religion, politics and science.
Schiavo in Depth
Obsidian Wings: Terri Schiavo There has been a lot of talk by every news outlet about Terri Shciavo. It’s garned a lot of attention. Very few of the news outlets provide a clear picture of the circumstances surrounding the Terri…
I sometimes do short posts on my journal when I have nothing much to say to add what’s already been said, but where I want to keep various links in one place where I know where to find them and can easily link to them for others.
I meant this entry to be something like that, but then when I started writing it down it occurred to me (how do I know what I really think until I see what I say?) that, given that I don’t believe Terri Schiavo can be aware of anything consciously – the part of her that could be aware is gone – while I sympathize with Michael Schiavo’s wish to have it ended as Terri would have wished, and think it wrong – very wrong – that Congress should do this to frustrate the agreed-to process of justice, the worst wrong in all this matter is the lies being told to Terri Schiavo’s parents.
Granted, and understandably, they want to believe that their daughter somehow may still recover, may still be aware. But it’s an act of unbelievable cruelty and horror to tell them lies like this, no matter how much they want to believe those lies. And I suppose the con artists who have told these lies to Terri’s parents will likely get away with it – no matter how much grief and misery they cause.
Terri Schiavo: A Reconsideration In Progress
In yesterday’s post, I made some statements that were based on the best information I had at the time, including some comments on medical imaging. The power of the blogosphere is indeed a wonderful thing, and several questions I have…
Human lettuce must live
If there’s one thing I hate about tragic events aside from their, well, tragedy, it’s the terrible poems they spawn:
Vegetable Nation
by Stew Albert
Republicans love Americans
turned to vegetables,
on their lies and fake news.
fighting vi…
Live and Let Die
Cases like these raise immensely difficult issues and strongly held views. My view is that it is impossible for any law to be able to fully resolve some of the complex and competing principles in these situations. This very personal tragedy is compou…
feeding tube mysteries in congress
I heard snatches of the Congressional debate on the Terry Schiavo case on PM tonight. The thing stinks. She is “vegetative” in hospital with a “liquified” cerebral cortext so the husband asked the courts to decide whether her feeding tube…
If we believe that she should be able to make decisions about her life, why distinguish between different types of passive ways of doing it?
Because placing a plastic bag over someone’s head is no more “passive” than wrapping a cord around their neck and pulling it tight.
On CNN, a nurse named Carla Sauer-Iyer claims that she was Terri Schiavo’s nurse from April 1995 to July 1996 with claims of not only swallowing but speech on the part of Terri Schiavo during that time, along with alleged insulin injections by Michael Schiavo. She also claims that the judge’s gag order has prevented these facts from coming out. A google yields a huge number of hits on this and google news brings up a few news articles. If true, there is a Roswell like conspiracy, if false, it is the most pathetic ploy (which is really saying a lot)
CNN also just had Pat Mahoney from the Christian Defense Coalition decrying the judge. Interestingly, googling Christian Defense Coalition gets this link that says this:
The website also has a ‘Florida Wire Service’ Unbelievable.
One last comment on the MRI versus CT controversy: Apparently, Terri Schiavo has had some sort of hardware implanted in her brain. Part of an experimental therapy from what I can gather from various sources (not all necessarily very accurate.) In any case, one absolute contraindication to an MRI is metal anywhere in the body. Put someone with metal in their bodies into an MRI and the metal will either heat up or start rotating. In short, unless the intent is to end this controversy very quickly by destroying Schiavo’s brainstem, an MRI is out.
Thanks, Dianne: if true, a not-so-obvious fact that has me wondering why this has not been mentioned more in all the Terri Schiavo brouhaha. I remember that the court report stated that Terri was given “experimental treatment” (unsucessful) in 1994, but wasn’t aware that she had any metal bits remaining in her head. Do you have a cite?
Thanks, Dianne: if true, a not-so-obvious fact that has me wondering why this has not been mentioned more in all the Terri Schiavo brouhaha. I remember that the court report stated that Terri was given “experimental treatment” (unsucessful) in 1994, but wasn’t aware that she had any metal bits remaining in her head. Do you have a cite?
The main point in all of this is: Who makes the call? I don’t get to have a say in whether Terri Schiavo gets continued treatment or not; it’s simply NOT MY PLACE. It’s not my place; it’s not Cella’s place; it’s not Katherine’s place, and it sure as shit isn’t Bill Frist’s place. Michael Schiavo, the Schindlers and 3rd parties that both have WILLINGLY turned to are the ONLY PEOPLE ON PLANET EARTH who have any business saying ANYTHING about Terri Schiavo’s treatment.
Michael Schiavo – the presumptive guardian as husband – actually handed that decision off to the Florida courts, because he and the parents disagreed, and THE COURT decided that Terri would not want continued treatment. No subsequent hearing has altered that basic finding. The rest of us don’t get to play Monday morning quarterback on this decision. We simply don’t have the right.
“to pass a bill granting Terri Schiavo’s parents the right to take her case to federal court”
It’s not “her” case. Her case is represented by her husband. It is “their” case.
On Life and Liberty
Two great pieces on what’s at stake with Terri Schiavo.
On Life and Liberty
Two great pieces on what’s at stake with Terri Schiavo.
Jay C: I have to admit, that the first references to the thalamic implants I found were on some random blog sites. I did, however, finally find a statement from her husband which discusses them. Here it is
Terry Schiavo Round-up
It’s a real shame that the individuals in this case like this have been caught up in the middle of what has become an enormous lightning rod. My feelings (not that they matter to you) is that if someone is in a persistent vegitative state, that’s it,…
Terry Schiavo Round-up
It’s a real shame that the individuals in this case like this have been caught up in the middle of what has become an enormous lightning rod. My feelings (not that they matter to you) is that if someone is in a persistent vegitative state, that’s it,…
Now that it’s been dealt a setback, DeLay is pissed:
The judge’s decision is obviously disappointing. Congress explicitly provided Terri Schiavo’s family recourse to federal court, and this decision is at odds with both the clear intent of Congress and the constitutional rights of a helpless young woman. Section two of the legislation we passed clearly requires the court determine de novo the merits of the case – or in layman’s terms, it requires a completely new and full review of the case. Section three requires the judge to grant a temporary restraining order because he cannot fulfill his or her recognized duty to review the case de novo without first keeping Terri Schiavo alive.
“Disheartening as the judge’s decision is, I know the Schindler family is appealing to the 11th Circuit, and as long as there’s still a chance to save Terri, this fight is not over. I firmly believe the circuit court will give the case a full and appropriate review.
Isn’t this statement from Delay: “Section three requires the judge to grant a temporary restraining order because he cannot fulfill his or her recognized duty to review the case de novo without first keeping Terri Schiavo alive.” make this a bill of attainder if the courts have decided this is against her wishes? Her punishment would be being forced to recieve medical treatment against her wishes. Whether you believe there is conflicting testimony or not? The courts have already ruled on this, thus making the act punishment.
Section 3 does no such thing. It reads:
The judge determined that the suit was likely to fail on merit, so no relief was in order. DeLay’s statement is factually incorrect. I’m not surprised.
I’m not surprised either, JerryN. But I believe that DeLay sincerely thinks that the Bill could actually order a District Court to issue such an injunction, regardless of merit. That actually creeps me out much more than the thought of DeLay just being wrong about the facts.
Well, aireachail, that would have been a bill of attainder. I’d certainly hope that someone on DeLay’s staff would have explained that to him.
Terri Schiavo: A Reconsideration In Progress
In yesterday’s post, I made some statements that were based on the best information I had at the time, including some comments on medical imaging. The power of the blogosphere is indeed a wonderful thing, and several questions I have…
The medical equivalent of barratry?
What else could you use to describe the actions of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in the Terri Schiavo case?
Of course, the actions of Tom DeLay make me affirm again that his biggest pre-Congressional business mistake was not turning his extermin…
If we believe that she should be able to make decisions about her life, why distinguish between different types of passive ways of doing it?
Because placing a plastic bag over someone’s head is no more “passive” than wrapping a cord around their neck and pulling it tight.>>
The two situations are not comparable. Putting a bag over someone’s head merely prevents air from entering his mouth. That’s similar to taking him off a respirator because in both cases, the action of removing the access to the air leads to the act of omission which is not helping him get air.
Wrapping a cord around someone’s neck is preventing the air already in his body from reaching his lungs. That’s stopping a natural process which is comparable to shooting someone in the neck, which also prevents the air from reaching his lungs.
I still don’t see how putting a bag over someone’s head is different than removing a respirator. Let me illustrate by syllogism:
It’s permissible to allow someone to die by not acting to save him.
Taking someone off a respirator is not saving someone.
Therefore it’s permissible to take someone off a respirator.
My guess is that most people on this blog would agree with both premises and the conclusion.
Now let’s apply it to putting a bag over someone’s head:
It’s permissible to allow someone to die by not acting to save him
Putting a bag over someone’s head is not saving someone.
Therefore it’s permissible to put a bag over his head.
Obviously both these syllogisms only apply if we believe a person has a right to autonomy that requires us to not save him.
The only argument I can see that differentiates the two syllogisms is that my minor premise (Putting a bag over someone’s head is not saving someone) is incorrect. The reason why that might be true is because we would have to act to put the bag over his head. But we also have to act to take a person off a respirator. So what’s the difference? Am I misconstruing the everyone’s argument?
Here’s a better syllogism for you:
It is permissible to allow someone to die by ceasing to interfere in his or her bodily functions
Turning off a respirator is ceasing interference in a person’s bodily functions
Therefore, da da da da da da
compare and contrast with:
It is permissible to allow someone to die by ceasing to interfere in his or her bodily functions
Putting a plastic bag over someone’s head is not ceasing to interfere in a person’s bodily functions
Therefore (exercise for reader)
That is what you are missing.
Oh, for heaven’s sake:
She can’t swallow, people. That’s why the feeding tube. Boxfuls of food? Better suggest someone sends a blender, too.
This is beyond grotesque. I hope the hospice can find something useful to do with these food donations. Homeless shelter nearby?
I’m a left liberal Australian; I’m an atheist; I’m in favour of voluntary euthanasia; I’m not bigoted about involuntary euthanasia; but –
No, PVS isn’t that simple or that final. The misdiagnosis rate is huge, the definition is shifty, and the consequences horrendous. Have a look at http://home.vicnet.net.au/~borth/PVS.htm and see whether you disagree with any of it.
I’m not jumping on any bandwagon; the first paper on the site was published in 1995.
Killing Schiavo is fine by me. Hell, being starved to death would be a month in the country compared to some of the things they do to patients labelled PVS. But the price of killing her seems to be agreement to the proposition that people in PVS can’t feel pain, which leads inevitably to even more frequent hideous cruelties to the thousands of people diagnosed as PVS who are still hanging around.
I simply have to get this off my chest: I don’t believe in God, or Christianity, or any of the rhetoric the conservatives are using to justify the continued torture of Ms. Schiavo. But to use their logic for a moment, and to assume that only “god” can decide when it is time for someone to die — then it seems to me, that “god decided” Terri Schiavo should die 15 years ago when she went into cardiac arrest, and that “man” took it upon himself to “decide” that she should keep living. To me, that is where the ethical breach happened to begin with, and it is most confusing why no one seems to be acknowledging that.
It also terrifies me to think of myself in this situation. As an adult who has been living with a partner for ten years now, there is no question that my partner knows better what I want than my parents would. And my parents, as born again christians, would most certainly fight against my partner to keep a vegetative me alive, despite the fact that they do not, and have not known me closely, in many years.
Must go now, must write living will. Thank you for letting me voice my measly opinion…it is far from the most important thing said about this tragic situation, but I feel a heck of a lot better having said it. Terri Schiavo, may you one day rest in peace.
My quick 2 cents on Terri Schiavo, and that’s it
What if poor Mrs. Schiavo’s face, the face we see in a small selection of repetitive undated video clips, was contorted into an hideous scowl or panged with horror and fright instead of her current uncontrolled hapless angelic idiot grin? You think there would be the same outpouring of sympathy and interest from the general public in keeping this woman alive?
Hi,
I’ve just read through your post and most of the comments. I’d like to respond to some things. In the post you wrote:
“In one case, for instance, they testified that she had made a remark supporting their position when she was an adult, but it turned out that she had said it when she was 11 or 12.)”
Actually – she had remarked on the Karen Ann Quinlan case. The judge said she would have been 11 or 12 when that happened as it would have been in the 1970s. However her friend who testified was referring to a conversation in the 1980s. Here’s a link (one of many):
Clear and Convincing Evidence.
On the CT scan issue – I don’t dispute that it shows severe damage. However you have a person who may be humorous when he/she says they are a neuroscientist and qualified to study the brains of fish and insects then commenting on a human CT scan. Obviously the study of neural ganglia of insects give no adequate preparation for reading the results of a human CT scan. An MRI scan is a standard requirement. Removing the implants is not major surgery – it is a simple procedure. While the CT scan shows damage it does not indicate what function remains. No-one has stated that she will recover completely – however it is plausible that therapy would assist with some function – particularly swallowing. And this is where the information in your post is at odds with other information I have read – you state she had 8 years of therapy. She collapsed in 1990. That same year she was given a brain stimulator and showed improvement. I believe this is the implant you have referred to. This is from Dr. Hammesfahr’s report to the court:”Ms Schiavo was in her usual state of good health until 2/25/90, when her husband reported that he was awakened from sleep approximately 6 AM by her falling. He reports that she was unresponsive. Paramedics were called, and aggressive resuscitation was performed with 7 defibrillations en route. In the Emergency Room, a possible diagnosis of heart attack was briefly entertained, but then dismissed after blood chemistries and serial EKG’s did not show evidence of a heart attack. Similarly, a pulmonary or lung cause of the disorder was ruled out in the Emergency Room after normal blood gases and Chest X-Rays were obtained. The possibility of toxic shock syndrome was also entertained. The diagnosis of the cause of her condition was unknown. Her admission laboratory studies showed low potassium level, markedly elevated glucose level, and a normal toxic screen without evidence of diet pills or amphetamines. The abnormal potassium level and sugar level were found on admission to the Emergency Room and were successfully corrected by the hospital staff over the next several days. The patient had a difficult hospital course with the development of poorly controlled seizures and prolonged coma state requiring, for a time, ventilator support. However, the staff noted improvement, and it was recommended by several physicians that she be discharged to an intensive rehabilitation center. She was eventually transferred to Mediplex in Bradenton for intensive rehabilitation. She was poorly responsive. However, after a brain stimulator was placed in 11/90, the staff started to report greater interactions of the patient with her environment, including intermittently apparently following commands, turning her head to voice, tracking visually, etc. This pattern continued even after discharge to a nursing home, although her course from that time on included multiple medical problems including recurrent urinary tract infections and hospitalizations, at times with severely low episodes of blood pressure due to a lack of treatment of urinary tract infections ordered by the husband and subsequent urinary sepsis requiring hospitalization. During 1998, she was evaluated by Dr. James Barnhill, neurologist, who testified that he examined her for ten minutes and determined that she had no chance for recovery, and was in a persistent vegetative state.”
His whole report is Here
It is disputable that Michael Schiavo was pursuing therapy when in fact he ordered that Terri Schiavo not be treated for a urinary tract infection in 1993. He admitted in his deposition that he ordered that she not be treated as he knew she could die from an untreated infection. Here is an excerpt:
“November 1993
Michael Schiavo Deposition, Guardianship Hearing
Q. What was her bladder condition?
MS. She had a UTI.
Q. What is that?
MS. Urinary tract infection.
Q. What did the doctor tell you treatment for that would be?
MS. Antibiotic usually.
Q. And did he tell you what would occur if you failed to treat that infection? What did he tell you?
MS. That sometimes urinary tract infection will turn to sepsis.
Q. And sepsis is what?
MS. An infection throughout the body.
Q. And what would the result of untreated sepsis be to the patient?
MS. The patient would pass on.
Q. So when you made the decision not to treat Terri’s bladder infection you, in effect, were making a decision to allow her to pass on?
MS. I was making a decision on what Terri would want.
Q. Had the bladder condition been treated?
MS. Yes.
Q. And was…what was the reason that the bladder condition was treated?
MS. Sable Palms Nursing Home said they could not do that by some Florida law which wasn’t stated.
Q. But you didn’t change your opinion or your decision to not treat the bladder condition?
MS. We did change it.
Q. Correct?
MS. Repeat the question.
Q. You did not change your decision not to treat the bladder condition, correct?
MS. I had to change my decision.
Q. Sable Palms changed it for you?
Attorney Nillson Objection
Q. Okay. Is there any reason that you would not make the same decision that you previously made if the problem came up again?
MS. Repeat your question. You’re losing me here.
Q. Let me be more specific. If your wife developed another condition that could result in her death, is there any reason that you would not take the position that you’re not going to treat that condition and you’re going to instruct the doctor not to treat that condition?
MS. I wouldn’t instruct anybody, no.
Q. You instructed the doctor not to treat the condition, correct?
Attorney Nillson Objection
Q. You did instruct the doctor not to treat her bladder condition, correct?
MS. Uh-huh. Yes.
Q. If a similar…would you do the same?
MS. I’m thinking.
Q. Take your time.
MS. I probably wouldn’t instruct the doctor to do it.
Q. So you’ve changed your opinion?
MS. Sort of, yeah.
Q. Why have you changed your opinion?
MS. Because evidently there is a law out there that says I can’t do it.
Q. Is that the only reason?
MS. Basically, maybe.
Q. What you’re telling me is, is that there is nothing in your belief or feelings that have changed. The only thing that has changed is the fact that you perceive the law prevents you to do what you intended to do?
MS. Correct.
Q. What did you do with your wife’s jewelry?
MS. My wife’s jewelry?
Q. Yeah.
MS. Um, I think I took her engagement ring and her…what do they call it…diamond wedding band and made a ring for myself.
I can’t link directly to this. It is available here under court documents. I realise you may not like this site as a source – however I find no reason to question the authenticity of the documents contents. It may be available elsewhere on the web. I have found no documentation that verifies 8 years of therapy. What records show is therapy measures until shortly after the malpractice suit was decided in favour of Michael Schiavo.
I have no interest in pillorying the man or demonising him. However the facts are at odds with your post. I don’t have time to continue this comment further unfortunately. I think there is definitely a lack of clear medical consensus on this issue, and the diagnosis of PVS is not at all conclusive.
Catez, my understanding is that of the several doctors who have examined the CT scan, the only two who say that the cerebral cortex is not gone completely (or only shreds remaining) are the two appointed by the Schlinders.
Of those, Doctor Hammesfahr has no credibility in my book – he touts himself as a “Nobel Prize nominee” when he was recommended to the Nobel Prize committee by his Congressman (who is not one of the 3,000 or so people in the world who are able to make Nobel Prize nominations).
Doctor Maxfield’s qualifications are not at first glance dubious, but he is not a practicing radiologist: he currently works at a clinic that offers hyperbaric oxygen therapy, a form of therapy that was apparently tried on Terri Schiavo but proved to offer no benefits.
The other doctors, both those appointed by Michael Schiavo and those appointed by the Florida courts, agree that the CT scan shows she has no cerebral cortex and is in a permanent vegetative state – most likely since well before 1996.
Michael Schiavo has been responsible for his wife’s care since the heart failure in 1990. I have not, I admit, looked at the full record of what has and has not been done to help her, but I think it significant that in 15 years without any voluntary muscle control, requiring 24-hour care, Terri Schiavo has apparently never had a bedsore. Michael Schiavo is reported to be a headache to nursing home administrators. To me, this says a good deal.
Catez
You raise some interesting points, but there are some problems that I see. The first is that the court documents from the site you list do not appear to be the entire set of documents, especially since the only documents are listed from 2002, with the exception of a 1997 letter and there are no documents from 1993. Several of the documents give a 404 page as well. In googling, the documents seem to be here. However, there is quite a bit of editorial commenting and the pages only say that they are ‘excerpts’. Also, it seems that if Michael Schiavo were lying (as the page suggests) he would be guilty of perjury and thus be relieved of his position as guardian. That this hasn’t happened suggests that either the excerpts were taken out of context or that they were manufactured.
The second problem is that you started blogging about this issue only 18 Feb, so the perspective that you are offering seems to be driven more by your beliefs rather than a neutral examination of the evidence. The webste’s citation of Pease’s guardian ad litem report without noting that the points were contradicted by Wolfson’s report is also disturbing. As the Wolfson report notes (page 33, all the documents can be accessed through the wikipedia link for Terrie Schiavo), the diagnosis of PVS was previously agreed by both parties (Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers) and it is ‘only recently’ (presumably around 2003 when the report was submitted) that the argument was made that Terrie was not in a PVS.
I am sure you have the best of motives for making your arguments, but I find the contradictions in what you report and in other sources to weaken your points considerably.
And now the whole thing has just careened out of control. I swear, Congress has lost what remains of its collective sanity.
Firstly, this is from a radiologist who does know how to read CT scans:This is brilliant. He notices a shunt present in the scan. I admit noticing it but didn’t pick up on the importance of that. He also observes that cortex is present – quite true. His observations and questions are very good.
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html
Now – so you are the one who googled me eh? Firstly yes I started blogging about it – and the key word is blogging. I’m not writing scientific journal articles on my blog – I’m writing what I want and what I have time to do. Secondly – the date I started blogging on this is irrelevant. Thirdly – the fact that I have personal beliefs does not in any way mean that I cannot look factually at biomedical data or other reports. Some of my posts are more about my beliefs and written quickly. Others take longer and are designed to be factual. Nice try to try dismiss my factual basis – but your comment is irrelevant to the facts I have put forward.
1. There is a serious discrepancy between Judge Greer’s decision on the date of the Karen Ann Quinlan reference and the date the witness was actually referring to.
2. There has not been 8 years of therapy.
3. The CT scan is not evidence in itself for a diagnosis of PVS and an MRI should be done. Removal of an implant is not difficult.
The link I’ve provided in this comment is so far the best medical opinion on the CT scan purported to that of Terri Shiavo. You will note I said purported. The post at the link explains why.
Everyone has beliefs, and I note a number of different beliefs on this comment thread. However I do not dismiss information because some-one has a belief – it needs to be assessed for accuracy and in some cases veracity.
Sorry – I should have hyperlinked it. Here’s the radiologists read on the CT scan
BTW – I don’t dispute that the site I linked to may not have all the court documents, or may have excerpts of some. However that has no bearing on the contents of the deposition I have referred to in my previous comment. It is quite clear that Terri Schiavo was not treated for a UTI on the instructions of Michael Schiavo, and that he believed this could result in her death. My previous comment links this timewise. ‘nough said for now.
It is quite clear that Terri Schiavo was not treated for a UTI on the instructions of Michael Schiavo, and that he believed this could result in her death.
Yes. Michael Schiavo concluded, based on what he knew about his wife – which is thoroughly backed up by independent testimony – that she did not want to be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state. The command “do not resuscitate” is fairly common in such cases. Making the decision to let someone in that state die through witholding medical intervention does not mean that the person who makes that decision does not care about the person in that state.
There’s a good timeline here, and a link to Jay Wolfson’s report on Terri Schiavo.
Interesting Wikipedia info. It contains this:
Some four dozen board-certified neurologists, including several professors of neurology at major medical schools, all say that Terri’s condition should be reevaluated, and that they doubt the accuracy of Terris diagnosis of PVS. Terri’s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. Dr. Peter Morin, a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, with both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University, reacted with shock when told that Terri had not had an MRI or PET scan. “That’s criminal,” he said. “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He said that, “a CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It’s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke.” Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said, “Any neurologist who is objective would say ‘Yes'” to the question, “Should Terri be given an MRI?” [21]
And this:
In March, 2005, neurologist William Cheshire, M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N., examined Terri for the Florida Department of Children and Families, and concluded that her diagnosis of PVS is “faulty.” [23] (http://www.terrisfight.net/documents/032305cheshire.pdf)
Mrs. Schiavo could be evaluated with a PET scan in her current condition. However, an MRI cannot be done without first surgically removing experimental electrodes which were implanted within her brain in 1992, something which was recommended by the doctor who implanted them, but which Mr. Schiavo has chosen not to do. [24]
With regard to your comment that the Schindlers did ot dispute the PVS diagnosis – I’ll check it out. However it is not up to the Schindlers to make a PVS diagnosis. It is a matter of having the correct tests done. That hasn’t happened. See the info above.
Catez: He said that, “a CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases
…which this clearly is, yes?
Also from the Wikipedia: Since 1991, the Schiavos’ personal physicians, and six different court-appointed physicians, have concluded that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). [16] (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050323-051313-8081r.htm)
“Yes. Michael Schiavo concluded, based on what he knew about his wife – which is thoroughly backed up by independent testimony – that she did not want to be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state.
This is not entirely factual. The independent testominy is conflicting – and you are bypassing the discrepancy on the Quinlan reference here. It’s an important point.
Secondly, when the order not to administer antibiotics was made by Michael Schiavo he had no court authority to do so – there was not at that time any credence to his claim that his wife would want to die, nor that she would consent to die from sepsis. I say this not to demonise the man but purely on the facts of the case. I would add that there is still no credence to his claim while there is the unresolved discrepancy on what a witness referred to and what the judge assumed had been referred to. That discrepancy should have been addressed in the judicial system.
Because many of you might not otherwise I recommend the following read today
Because she’s earned it . Try and get by the first couple paragraphs and finish the article if you will.The timeline that Jes cites is particularly good, and I would direct attention to the testimony of Father Murphy.
Also, I must raise the point that the radiologist’s blog that you link to earlier argues that:
it is my opinion that the most likely reason for these bone scan findings in March of 1991 is that someone either was physically abusing Terri or they dropped/mishandled her severely. Earlier, he suggests that the CT scan is not Terrie’s. Just before that, he has this:
I would be remiss if I didn’t note that there is a blog entry for 8 March suggesting that Clinton has AIDS or cancer. This leads me to wonder if this is the best medical opinion concerning this.
We’re getting into trickier territory here. Nevertheless, I should say at once: I think there is sound evidence of Michael Schiavo’s good will towards his wife, and his care for her. (As Wolfson says in his report, the fact that in thirteen years without voluntary muscle control Terri Schiavo has never had a bedsore says a great deal about Michael Schiavo’s fearsome sense of responsibility towards her.) There is no evidence that he was a wife batterer, and some evidence that he is not motivated by financial gain. (He has offered to relinquish any claim to Terri Schiavo’s estate if her parents will agree to let her die.)
That out the way: I agree there’s an ethical case to be made for letting Terri Schiavo continue to live, even in a permanent vegetative state.
Catez: The independent testominy is conflicting
Her parents disagree with her friends. Of the two sources, I’d say her friends were more likely to know.
Catez: Secondly, when the order not to administer antibiotics was made by Michael Schiavo he had no court authority to do so – there was not at that time any credence to his claim that his wife would want to die, nor that she would consent to die from sepsis
He had no court authority, but he did have the legal authority as Terri Schiavo’s guardian. His assertion that in a PVS, Terri Schiavo would want to die, has since been backed up by solid evidence. As Terri Schiavo is in a PVS, she would never know what she was dying of – or even that she was dying.
That aside, I can see why the nursing home disregarded his instructions at that time – for the reasons you outline. My point is that it is unfair to judge Michael Schiavo for making that decision: the courts have independently and consistently found that it was the right decision to make.
Blogbuds: Try and get by the first couple paragraphs and finish the article if you will.
Thanks for the link, the warning :-), and the article. Well worth reading.
Catez: He said that, “a CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases
Jesurgislac …which this clearly is, yes?
Catez: I didn’t say it wasn’t. But why do you pull out one sentence and ignore the context? Useful does not mean conclusive. I quote Wiki on doctors, and you quote Wiki on doctors. As I expected. We could go into each doctor too. This underscores the need for MRI and PET, in conjunction with neurological tests for function – and there should be doctors who are clearly qualified and independent doing these.
I still find no valid refutation of the radiologists read of the CT scan that I provided a link to. So he doesn’t like Democrats? Big deal. Show me where his science is at fault. There does seem to be a tendency on this comment thread to look at a persons beliefs rather than the facts they present. Odd.
I can’t spend all day here although it is enjoyable. However, I think that a person should not have their gastric feeding tube removed when there are serious and unresolved issues regarding their wishes and diagnosis. It sems to me a simple matter to continue with feeding until testimony on her wishes is clarified, and if necessary the witness recalled, and the standard PVS testing is done.
Catez: But why do you pull out one sentence and ignore the context?
The context is that this is a doctor who hasn’t seen Terri Schiavo’s CT scan, and is speaking generically about what CT scans can be expected to show. As the CT scan shows Terri Schiavo has no cerebral cortex, an MRI scan to see if the cerebral cortex is functional would seem to be futile, wouldn’t it? If it’s not there, it can’t be functional.
As doctors who are clearly qualified and independent have established that she has no cerebral cortex, it’s really kind of pointless to run tests on the non-existent cerebral cortex to see if the tissue that isn’t there is functional.
However, I think that a person should not have their gastric feeding tube removed when there are serious and unresolved issues regarding their wishes and diagnosis.
I agree. But this does not apply to Terri Schiavo’s case. The “unresolved issues” are those of her parents, and the only good reason I can think of for not letting her die is to allow her parents some time to make their peace with the fact that she is gone from them. On the one hand, they’ve had fifteen years to do that – but on the other hand, it appears that they have been cruelly lied to by charlatans and con artists.
Her parents disagree with her friends. Of the two sources, I’d say her friends were more likely to know.
Well the testimony which needs to be considered was from a friend. Her firend testifed and gave the Quinlan reference. The judge assumed a date. It was not the date the friend was referring to. See my previous comments and the link to “Clear and Conclusive Evidence”. As I said, just one of many links. As to who would be more likely to know – irrelevant, even though it is the testimony of a friend that has been misinterpreted by the judge.
As the CT scan shows Terri Schiavo has no cerebral cortex
Says who? This is highly disputable.
Now – back to the radiologists post. So far rebuutals have consisted of peripheral issues. He clearly demarcates between his read and his suggestions. Show me what is wrong with his read of the CT scan.
I was away from my computer yesterday, and so didn’t reply to Catez at the time. However:
First, I did not write that Michael Schiavo had provided eight years of therapy for his wife. I wrote: “Eight years later, after various attempts at therapy and a successful malpractice suit …” I was moving from Terri Schiavo’s collapse to Michael Schiavo’s request that the court determine her wishes, and wanted to mention those bits of the intervening eight years that seemed relevant. I did not mean (nor did I say) that the attempts at therapy had gone on for the whole eight years, and more than I meant to imply that the malpractice suit had gone on for all eight years.
Second, about neurologists and the brain scan: I am not a neurologist. This means that I am not competent to read her scan, as I said in my original post. I do know that those neurologists I have spoken to since writing this feel that there is massive loss of brain tissue. I also know that the courts have spent more time than I have (or than I intend to spend) examining the views of neurologists chosen by both sides, and also independent experts chosen by the court, and have concluded that she will not recover. If I were a neurologist, or even a doctor with neurological training, I might be competent to disagree. But I’m not. So I have to rely instead on my views on a question I am competent to answer, namely: given a choice between (a) relying on the fact that a few members of a profession can be found who will say X, where the truth of X is important to a highly charged debate, and (b) relying on the fact that courts charged to discover the consensus opinion in the medical community found that X is false, and were upheld every step of the way, and moreover that when I read the record of the court’s proceedings it seems to me thorough and (no pun intended) judicious, which should I choose? I choose (b). Your mileage may vary.
I looked for and found a timeline:
1976- New Jersey’s Supreme Court permits parents to disconnect Karen Ann Quinlan’s respirator.
And then she kept on breathing until 1985. So really, at any time between 1976 and 1985, Terri Schiavo could have made comments about Quinlan in the present tense. But I would have thought that it would be more likely that it would have been in 1976, if the joke was about “what her parents are doing to her”. That would make it a comment made when she was nine years old – too young (I would hope) to understand that Quinlan’s mind was gone and would never come back.
Catez: Says who? This is highly disputable.
It’s not, you know. If you are so uninformed of the medical facts not to know that the medical dissension is really not over whether she has a cerebral cortex, but over what the absence of a cerebral cortex means, then I suggest you do some more thorough reading.
For the record: my last comment was not meant to imply some sort of blind faith in courts. I do not have any such blind faith. I think that a lot depends on the quality of people’s legal representation, for starters. If there were evidence that the Schindler’s lawyers had slept through the trial, or disregarded important information, I would be worried. But no one has suggested that they haven’t received good legal representation. Also, a lot depends on the quality of the judge. Some judges are idiots, in my humble opinion. But having read through the various decisions, I don’t think that these judges are. And I also think it’s relevant, here, that the various rulings have been exhaustively appealed: that means that it’s not just one judge’s views that we have to rely on, but a whole bunch of them.
I’m not disputing that there is severe damage to the cerebral cortex (and yes I do know what it is and have handled human brains). However it is erroneous to say that there is no cerebral cortex.
I still find no valid refutation of the radiologists read of the CT scan that I provided a link to. So he doesn’t like Democrats? Big deal. Show me where his science is at fault. There does seem to be a tendency on this comment thread to look at a persons beliefs rather than the facts they present. Odd.
I have to say (with a hattip to bbm, thanks for that article) that I don’t want Terrie to die or live. I really don’t care. I do get upset when people try to adduce that I ‘want Terrie to die’ because it seems that they are trying to set me up as some sort of bad guy. I duly burrow thru the links, and when you suggest that some post is the best medical opinion for it, and I scroll down and see that hydrocephalus is simply the theory du jour (actually, it is not, the du jour offering is that Terrie’s brain injury was caused in the hospital, which one would think would be something that the Schindlers would have brought up) along with the notion that Dems want her dead (if you think about it, the Dems have pretty much backed off and made no statements one way or the other), to observe that juxtaposition is not to simply dismiss the blogger because he doesn’t like Dems, but to point out that it is quite possible that the neutral opinion you claim is not really so neutral.
Your blog suggests that you are a devout person, so I would again recommend you read Father Murphy’s testimony linked earlier.
As for contrary views of the CT scan, try here. However, my take is precisely as hilzoy, that the court, charged to find a consensus medical opinion, has found this (and the 2nd circuit court noted that It is likely that no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding.), you have to posit some sort of total conspiracy and I am not prepared to do that.
I note that the Supreme Court has just denied the appeal (and Kennedy apparently referred it on to the full court rather than simply deciding for court on his own and SCOTUS had this for almost 12 hours), so if a conspiracy is the explanation, the Supremes are in on the fix.
Thanks for the replies Hilzoy. You wrote:
I also know that the courts have spent more time than I have (or than I intend to spend) examining the views of neurologists chosen by both sides, and also independent experts chosen by the court, and have concluded that she will not recover.
The issue is not recovery. The issue is that the PVS diagnosis has not been made on the basis of standard testing. It really is not unreasonable to expect that given the serious nature of the outcome of such diagnosis there would be MRI and PET before removal of a gastric feeding tube. Which leads to my reply to Jesurgislac – the issue with the Quinlan testimony is that the witness was not recalled. We can speculate on when it was said, but the point is the witness was misinterpreted. I see no reason to question the credibility of the witness.
And back to Hilzoy – when several judges rule on the same incomplete testimony or incomplete testing then the issues are not dealt with. It’s well known that this happens in cases. The number of judges does not change any of the following:
1. Testimony regarding Terri Schiavo’s wishes has been misinterpreted and the witness has not been recalled.
2. Standard testing for PVS has not been done. On the basis of a disputed CT scan she has been diagnosed PVS.
Some comments on those points from me. In reality there is no living will. There is conflicting testimony regarding her wishes. This testimony is really heaarsay. As it conflicts it brings the issue back to square one – Terri Schiavo’s wishes are not known.
That leads to the PVS diagnosis. This is an incomplete and therefore disputable diagnosis. MRI and PET in conjunction with neurological tests for function would resolve this issue.
Given that these issues are outstanding, there should not be removal of the gastric feeding tube.
Catez: However it is erroneous to say that there is no cerebral cortex.
No, it’s not erroneous to say that. The space in her skull that would be occupied by a cerebral cortex in a normal healthy brain has been shown, via two CT scans, to be full of liquid. There is apparently some solid tissue left, but not much, and nothing to say whether it’s shreds of cortex tissue or scar tissue.
I can think of two or three ways to make an ethical case for not letting Terri Schiavo die even though she has no cerebral cortex. But to make them, it’s necessary first to accept the fact that she doesn’t have a cerebral cortex. No mind. No memory. No sensations – if there is anything left in her skull that is her, she cannot feel, see, hear, taste, or smell, because one of the functions of the cerebral cortex is sensation. If Terri Schiavo’s ego or soul or whatever remains (I am not going to argue one way or the other) she has been unable to experience anything, except possibly pain, for fifteen years, and unable to move a muscle of her own volition in all that time. Without mind or memory, this might not be as awful as it feels to us, who have both: the ego or soul hypothesised would neither be able to remember the past nor anticipate the future. It would all be one neverending now of non-sensation.
To liberal japonicus: I have not put forward my personal beliefs on this comment thread. It seems very important to you to mention them. I admit this is irritating me a little because it seems that you are not up to a factual discussion. I am not interested in reading Fr. Murphy’s blog. I came here to talk about the facts of the case.
Jesurgislac (that is difficult to spell correctly when typing fast – why such a convoluted handle?) we could disagree all day. I hold it is erroneous to say there is no cerebral cortex. You may not like the views of the radiologist but no-one has yet to dispute his read of the scan. Once again the argument turns to beliefs and peripherals. Although I must say to you personally I’ve enjoyed the discussion. As I’ve said, MRI and PET would resolve the issue.
To Hilzoy: I can appreciate trying to condense 8 years into something concise. Yhe malpractice suit went on for approx. 2 years and was settled in 1992. Shortly after that therapy was denied.
An aside – there seems to be agreement that Michael Schiavo should not be demonized. However it is evident from some comments that this same principle is not extended to the Schindlers. Not a consistent approach.
Catez: I can only direct you to the various opinions I’ve seen (e.g., here and here, to the effect that a CT scan tells us whether tissue is present or absent; that when tissue is present, an MRI can tell us what’s up with that tissue; that for this reason an MRI is extremely useful in diagnosing PVS in patients whose cortex is still there but possibly not working; but that it is unnecessary in patients whose cortex is largely gone, since obviously if it’s not there, it won’t be functioning.
Catez: Jesurgislac (that is difficult to spell correctly when typing fast – why such a convoluted handle?)
Every time this comes up I tell myself I should do a post about this on livejournal and then just link to it. Then I never do, because it always seems so egotistical unless someone asks. It’s Je Surgis Lac, technically (an almost-anagram, in French, of my real name) but I never mind anyone shortening it in any direction – “Jes” seems the standard. At the time, it seemed like a good idea to have a username that no one could mistake for anyone else’s and that was clearly unique. But it is complex to type, and rest assured, I don’t hold it against anyone if they misspell it or shorten it for convenience. 😉
Catez: You may not like the views of the radiologist but no-one has yet to dispute his read of the scan.
Huh? That read of the scan has been formally disputed.
“Although the physicians were not in complete agreement concerning the extent of the daughter’s brain damage, they all agreed that the brain scans showed extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors was whether she had a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she had no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.” -June 6, 2003, 2nd District Court of Appeal, Florida. (Emphasis mine.)
Indeed, as far as I know, no other medical opinion agrees with Doctor Maxfield’s read of the scan: most of the medical experts whom the Schindlers got to give an opinion didn’t refer to the scan at all.
Jes, I’m referring to the radiologist post I linked to. Although I also have in mind the large number of specialists who are saying an MRI should be done. It does keep coming back to that.
Hilzoy – I’ve looked at Rivka’s and realise I’ve read it before. I’m not convinced by it. Interesting to note that in rebutting Hammesfield there is reference not to complete absence of cortex but to atrophy. I haven’t checked the other – but the problem is that the CT scan opinions are disputable. I really do not understand the resistance to MRI and PET. Any scientist knows that no result is still a result, i.e. if what is proposed is correct and there is no cerebral cortex it will be evident from the MRI. And if there is cerebral cortex – which I hold – that will show. I do not find any compelling argument for not conducting standard tests for PVS. As I said – I do not understand such strong resistance to them being conducted, in conjunction with neurological testing for function.
Gotta go now.
Jes, Google translates you as “I emerged lake.”
The pen of my aunt is in the garden.
To liberal japonicus: I have not put forward my personal beliefs on this comment thread. It seems very important to you to mention them. I admit this is irritating me a little because it seems that you are not up to a factual discussion. I am not interested in reading Fr. Murphy’s blog. I came here to talk about the facts of the case.
I admit that I do not have the legal or the medical background to evaluate the evidence. I think it is important to note that apparently, you do not either. I have provided links to factual data and have noted that your sources selectively choose data. Also, the Father Murphy link is not to a blog, but to testimony given to a judge in this case. He notes that Terrie could not be considered to be a practicing Catholic, which is significant, since the main thrust of the Schindler’s attorney has been to argue that given Terrie’s Catholic upbringing and beliefs, she would not agree to have the feeding tube removed.
I would suggest that the ‘facts’ in this case are not as clear as you claim them to be (especially since PVS is a diagnosis based on a clinical examination as the Multi Society definition points out. It is:
You have conceded that recovery is not an issue, so you are arguing that Terrie Schiavo exists in some in between zone where she cannot recover, but nonetheless is not in PVS.
I would also note that there are apparently 10,000 to 25,000 adults and 4,000 to 10,000 children live in PVS in the United States. If she is in a PVS (realizing that you, contrary to all of the court appointed physicians disagree) and these doctors can help them, why have they not helped these other patients? (please note that the link presents an argument for supporting PVS patients. I neither agree or disagree, I just feel that this is a private matter. I could understand both courses and I would not be able to judge one better or worse than another.)
You also claim that the Schindlers are being demonized, but I don’t see where you are getting that impression. Perhaps quoting would clear that up.
Catez: Although I also have in mind the large number of specialists who are saying an MRI should be done. It does keep coming back to that.
Well, yes. But then, those specialists have not looked at the CT scan. As has been said numberless times: the point of an MRI is to determine if the brain tissue is functioning. When the CAT scan determines that the cerebral cortex tissue is not there (or at most, mere shreds) there is no point in having an MRI to determine if the tissue which is not there is functional or not.
if what is proposed is correct and there is no cerebral cortex it will be evident from the MRI.
Why do you think that? That there is no cerebral cortex is evident from the CT scan. Those who dispute the evidence of the CT scan have no reason not to also dispute the evidence of the MRI.
I do not find any compelling argument for not conducting standard tests for PVS.
Nor do I. Nor do I see any compelling argument why you ignore the fact that those tests have already been carried out, and Terri Schiavo is in a permanent vegetative state according to those tests. Why do you think those people who are ignoring the evidence of the tests that have already been carried out, would any more readily accept the evidence of fresh tests? It would appear that the only consistent attribute on this side is the willingness to ignore or claim as “disputed” all evidence that shows Terri Schiabo is in a permanent vegetative state. I see no reason why this willingness to ignore the evidence should end when more evidence is provided: it never has before, why should it change now?
An aside – there seems to be agreement that Michael Schiavo should not be demonized. However it is evident from some comments that this same principle is not extended to the Schindlers. Not a consistent approach.
In comments here? Where? The worst I can find is someone calling the Schindlers’ diagnosis of Terri pathetic. Hardly demonization, especially compared to the “Michael is an unrepentant cad who wants to murder his estranged wife for money” meme, which I have encountered in spades on other sites, despite the wide availability of information that casts doubt on several of these assumptions.
Is the Constitution worth a damn anymore? This is a dispute between two parties in Florida, it is a case for the Florida courts only. The Federal Government has absolutely no jurisdiction over this case. Period. Having the President speak on this matter, or having the Congress or Supreme Court rule on this matter, makes a mockery of everything this nation once stood for. Individual rights. There are over 30,000 other cases exactly like this one each year, yet people have become fanatical about this, a woman and her kids even broke into her hospital room to try to feed her and were arrested to cheers by protesters outside. Is this what we have come to as a society? The media, the government, and those buying into their hyper-propoganda should be ashamed. If we still followed the Constitution we would not be having this debate, it would be a matter for the courts of Florida to decide and to try to make Terri’s husband and her family agree.
I think that man is HORRIBLE !!!!! He should die not her. Starving someone is the worst thing to do. Especially to her. I Support everyone that is helping her. Our government is suppose to be stopping unconstitutional acts!! Well this is one of those acts. How can you decide sombody’s that can’t think, or do anything for herself. This must be STOPPED !!!
God Bless Terry !! <3<3<3<3 Sorry for her family
I totally understand that if I’m unable to make decisions for myself, that it’s up to my “next of kin”. That is how it should be. No law should change that. I understand why the courts are ruling the way they are except for the fact that her husband (who is the one making the call here – correct?) has waited several years to “honor her wishes”. If he were truly all about honoring her wishes, would she be on the front page of the newspaper right now?
I could go with the scenario “this woman’s heart stopped for 15 minutes and a week later she was dead”. What’s so hard to understand is why after all this time I’m supposed to believe that *now* he’s honoring *her* wishes. Seems to me he’s only been honoring his own wishes all along.
Culture of Death?
There’s been an enormous amount of debate in the blogosphere over the Terri Schiavo case. I don’t want to revisit the substantive discussion on the merits and legal issues, so I’ll content myself with saying I agree with the thoughtful comment Brian ma…
End of Life
Oddly enough I’ve been relatively silent on the Terri Schiavo case. Oddly, because end-of-life care has been a major focus of my studies. First things first, I am morally and ethically opposed to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. I am…
It’s barbaric to murmur a disabled human being by starvation for so many days in order to free carer’s responsibility. Starvation can kill any human being if it lasts long enough, regardless whether the person is disabled or not. Such precedent can lead to genocide-type of murdering of elderly suffering from strokes and children from cerebral palsy. The legal system and social attitude supporting such messacre is reflective of uncivilization inferior to a third word country. How hypocritic it is to see someone being punished for cruelity towards animal but not for murdering a disabled human being.
Just to be clear, once again: the courts have found that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to be kept alive. Their ruling has been upheld repeatedly. This is about her wishes. And it is not murder, but withholding treatment to which the patient, according to the courts, would not have consented. And it is certainly not unconstitutional.
The alternative is to say that even when there is clear and convincing evidence of a person’s wishes, that person can be kept alive against those wishes by having surgery forced on her.
This comment should be shared by both Hilzoy and Michael Schiavo: I was so pleased to see that you included a disclaimer when you referred to Ms. Schiavo’s brain as a “balloon bobbing around in there.” What kind of trip are you on? I have never read such an arrogant piece of trash in my life. Now that I have aired my extreme irritation with your pompous attitude, I do have a few comments of my own to make. When Michael Schiavo petitioned the courts to remove his wife’s feeding tube, he didn’t simply request THEIR opinion. He petitioned for the courts to allow the tube to be removed. You chose your words very carefully when you stated that he petitioned the courts for their opinion on what Terri would have wanted. Don’t you find it interesting that Mr. Schiavo didn’t come forward with this revelation until 7 yrs. after her collapse that Terri said she didn’t want to be kept alive. It appears that at some point along the way Michael got tired of this “burden” and decided it was time to move on. Indeed, he had already moved on in his own life when he chose to pick a new “wife” to shack up with and have a family with. How inconvenient to still be strapped to the old wife! My irritation with this joker is that HE doesn’t want the old wife but he won’t give her up to the people who TRULY love her and would welcome the burden in their lives. How selfish of Michael Schiavo! And how CRUEl of him to STILL limit the amount of time he allows her parents to spend with her knowing that they have so little time left with her! I was appalled to see some chick (friend of Michael Schiavo) interviewed by Greta on Fox news tonight. SHE was allowed in the room last Tuesday as a friend of Michael Schiavo. SHE DIDN’T EVEN KNOW TERRI!! What is going on here when she is allowed to take up precious visitation time that the Schindler family could be spending with their daughter? I am disgusted by the entire Schiavo crowd. I don’t know what control game he is playing but I’m not buying any of it. The icing on the cake was his recent appearance on Larry King when he told Larry that “I really shouldn’t have to be here trying to explain my side to everybody. I should be in my wife’s room holding her hand and comforting her.” Which wife, Mr. Schiavo? I’m confused. This woman was not on a ventilator or being kept alive by machines. I have never heard of a feeding tube referred to as an extraordinary means for keeping someone alive. What was the big damn rush, Schiavo????
Here are my questions: 1)Why can our they do this to her… but when Jack Kevorkian did it they put him away?… and 2)Who puts away those who put people away, when they commit crimes? I don’t usually keep up with alot of the BS that is in the media… but this Terri Schiavo situation absolutely burns my a*s, and I know that I am not the only person who feels this way! Can you believe that they arrested a 10 year old boy and two 13 year old girls for TRYING TO GIVE HER WATER?!?!? I’m sure it isn’t just me here but I’ve always been taught the notion of preserving life, and this, to me, is just crazy. It is starving someone to death… just today I read on Yahoo! that her eyes and her mouth are bleeding… and her husband wanted to… comfort her through THAT… I’m not sure here… I mean I’ve never been starved or intentionally dehydrated but I’m sure that wouldn’t feel too nice regardless of my physical or mental conditions.
Here are my questions: 1)Why can our they do this to her… but when Jack Kevorkian did it they put him away?… and 2)Who puts away those who put people away, when they commit crimes? I don’t usually keep up with alot of the BS that is in the media… but this Terri Schiavo situation absolutely burns my a*s, and I know that I am not the only person who feels this way! Can you believe that they arrested a 10 year old boy and two 13 year old girls for TRYING TO GIVE HER WATER?!?!? I’m sure it isn’t just me here but I’ve always been taught the notion of preserving life, and this, to me, is just crazy. It is starving someone to death… just today I read on Yahoo! that her eyes and her mouth are bleeding… and her husband wanted to… comfort her through THAT… I’m not sure here… I mean I’ve never been starved or intentionally dehydrated but I’m sure that wouldn’t feel too nice regardless of my physical or mental conditions.
| | | Bandeja de entrada
Groups
Groups Home | My Groups | Language | Help
Todo Poesia… TodoPoesia@groups.msn.com Welcome Hugo (member)
Reserve your MSN Nickname
What’s New
POEMAS POR AUTOR
Poemas Amor
Poemas Amistad
Poemas Belleza
Poemas Desamor
Poesía Gótica
Poemas Muerte
Poemas Nostalgia
Poemas Tristeza
Poemas (General)
SUGERENCIAS
Mensajes, ¡aquí!
Pictures
Chat
Más sobre nosotros
Member Tools
General : Terry Schiavo y el derecho a la vida.
Choose another message board
Prev Discussion Next Discussion
Reply
Recommend Delete Message 1 of 1 in Discussion
From: Hugo (Original Message) Sent: 3/26/2005 8:38 AM
Terry Schiavo .
Robot es llamada la máquina.
Eliminar las Baterías .
Ya no la pueden programar.
Se escapo de sus almas.
Un reloj que suena .
La sangre que corre por todo
su cuerpo.
No somos dueños de nuestro
propio destino.
Un cuerpo.
Una marioneta .
Altos Tribunales.
Deciden el destino .
En juego: La vida .
Por Que?
Opiniones divididas.
Ver al vecino de frente.
Hay que desechar la chatarra.
Comentarios de algunos.
Hay que darle sentido a la vida.
Comentarios de otros.
Una apuesta de casinos.
Las cartas.
El Rey es el que manda.
Sus Padres.
No tienen derechos.
Criar a la criatura.
Formarla y llegar a ser adulta.
Quieren quitarles un pedazo de
carne.
Por Que?
El reloj de Arena.
Caen los segundos,
Caen los minutos,
Caen las horas,
Caen los días.
Un mensaje de un hombre.
No la dejen morir.
Permiso amigos.
Quiere vivir.
Y dejemos que salga el Sol .
Un Poeta Ingenuo de Venezuela.
Reflexionar antes de que sea tarde.
Hugo A Valecillos La Riva.
hugohugo50@yahoo.com
hugovalecillos47@hotmail.com
Don’t Forget.
| | | Bandeja de entrada
Groups
Groups Home | My Groups | Language | Help
Todo Poesia… TodoPoesia@groups.msn.com Welcome Hugo (member)
Reserve your MSN Nickname
What’s New
POEMAS POR AUTOR
Poemas Amor
Poemas Amistad
Poemas Belleza
Poemas Desamor
Poesía Gótica
Poemas Muerte
Poemas Nostalgia
Poemas Tristeza
Poemas (General)
SUGERENCIAS
Mensajes, ¡aquí!
Pictures
Chat
Más sobre nosotros
Member Tools
General : Terry Schiavo y el derecho a la vida.
Choose another message board
Prev Discussion Next Discussion
Reply
Recommend Delete Message 1 of 1 in Discussion
From: Hugo (Original Message) Sent: 3/26/2005 8:38 AM
Terry Schiavo .
Robot es llamada la máquina.
Eliminar las Baterías .
Ya no la pueden programar.
Se escapo de sus almas.
Un reloj que suena .
La sangre que corre por todo
su cuerpo.
No somos dueños de nuestro
propio destino.
Un cuerpo.
Una marioneta .
Altos Tribunales.
Deciden el destino .
En juego: La vida .
Por Que?
Opiniones divididas.
Ver al vecino de frente.
Hay que desechar la chatarra.
Comentarios de algunos.
Hay que darle sentido a la vida.
Comentarios de otros.
Una apuesta de casinos.
Las cartas.
El Rey es el que manda.
Sus Padres.
No tienen derechos.
Criar a la criatura.
Formarla y llegar a ser adulta.
Quieren quitarles un pedazo de
carne.
Por Que?
El reloj de Arena.
Caen los segundos,
Caen los minutos,
Caen las horas,
Caen los días.
Un mensaje de un hombre.
No la dejen morir.
Permiso amigos.
Quiere vivir.
Y dejemos que salga el Sol .
Un Poeta Ingenuo de Venezuela.
Reflexionar antes de que sea tarde.
Hugo A Valecillos La Riva.
hugohugo50@yahoo.com
hugovalecillos47@hotmail.com
Can you believe that they arrested a 10 year old boy and two 13 year old girls for TRYING TO GIVE HER WATER?!?!?
Um, you know, this shouldn’t need to be pointed out, but SHE CAN’T SWALLOW, WHICH IS WHY SHE’S BEEN BEING FED THROUGH A TUBE. If she could swallow water or food, do you think she’d have had a gastric tube in the first place? Pouring water in her mouth would drown her, which is pretty much attempted murder. Perhaps this ten-year-old boy and two thirteen-year-old girls should have been in school, learning some common sense.
hilzoy, your post must have been linked to somewhere with some real deep thinkers.
How gutless. Using your 10 year old kid, not mature enough to understand the real issues underlying this story, to ‘take water to Terri’. Way to go Mom and Dad. Your kid is in handcuffs now because of you and your “mission”. He ought to be out playing with his friends.
What a sickening spectacle outside that hospice. Those ‘righteous’ folks sitting in their lawnchairs with their “Save Terri” signs or “praying” for Terri– They’re taking so much interest in a person they don’t even know, but they can’t be troubled to spend quality time with, or even just talk, to their own children, or be kind to their neighbours. I can’t think of anything else that better illustrates what is wrong with America today.
I believe in the Terri schiavo case. That the feed tube should have never be taken out. Her husband has moved on with his life and should never ever be able to make a decision in his wife’s care when a lot of people believe that he don’t care at all of his wife. When a person stands by his wife until he gets money for her behave and don’t even try to get her rehibiallation after he gets money for her. Puts her in a hospice to die. Then he should’nt have the right to ever decise about her care. I as a human being would not even treat a animal like this women is being treats. I have never seen the law stand behind a man to allow this man to let him kill his wife. Which are people that we are suppose to trust on putting killers away is allowing this man to kill. What kind of country are we living in I thought are country is suppose to stand up and do what is right. In this case I am so disappointed in my country.
THANK YOU
I also wanted to add the this country wants people to where there seat belt and to not commit suicide. When some people don’t want to where seat belt and don’t want to live but, a women that might want to live and the only way that they don’t think she does not want to is because of her husband. That is not a very good husband at all. Is being sentenced to death by no food and no water. I bet if it had to do with the someone getting money and could hand out a parking ticket or a seat belt ticket and make money off this case they would be stepping right in. For Terri’s life.
In comments here? Where? The worst I can find is someone calling the Schindlers’ diagnosis of Terri pathetic.
There are commenters on other sites (Washington Monthly leaps to mind) who’ve referred to the Schindlers as “pathetic whiners” or something of that sort, but they’re few and far between. I tend to agree that the Schindlers are being pathetic but it’s not a contemptuous view of them; rather, I feel deep sorrow towards a family so desperate have their daughter back that they’ll cling at even imaginary straws. One could argue, as I occasionally do, that the best thing about letting Terri’s body die is that it will finally force her family to come to terms with their loss, and with their grief.
sandra: I as a human being would not even treat a animal like this women is being treats.
Oh, GIVE ME A BREAK. A companion animal in the same state would have been allowed to die long ago, most likely euthanized by lethal injection, not kept on life support for years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. An animal would not have gotten a lengthy serious of court battles. Jeb Bush and Congress would never have interceded on behalf of an animal.
We regularly use dogs and cats in medical experiments in this country, to say nothing of countless small animals such as mice, guinea pigs, and rabbits. There are puppy mills set up for the explicit purpose of providing an endless supply of test subjects for medical research — research like that which has helped keep Terri Schiavo alive for the past 15 years. Researchers induce conditions like Terri Schiavo’s in these animals so that they can study them and test therapies. Don’t try to tell me that Terri Schiavo getting a peaceful death is an atrocity compared to what we do to animals in this country, because you are only going to end up looking really uniformed.
And for the record, I’m not trying to make a point on the subject of animal research right now, other than to say that the comparison to the way we treat animals, which I see made over and over again in these discussions, is completely off-base. Even as she is dying she is being treated far better than most animals ever will be.
i think that it is untollerabel too put this woman under this kind of misreary. she should be put down no one with any kind of sence would want to live with a non-functional brain
In America it appears that Liberalism means death for the weak and those who cannot speak for themselves. The arguement goes like this. The Liberal says that if you cannot speak and appear to be unresponsive you are a ‘vegetable’ and as a ‘vegetable’ you should die, because no Liberal would want to live as a ‘vegetable’. The Judges say that the way to kill you is to starve you to death, this is OK because you are a ‘vegetable’ and ‘vegetables’ have no rights. Husbands can order the death of ‘vegetables’.
Now stangely in America the right wing who often advocate the death penalty for wrongdoers say that ‘vegetables’ have the right to life, whereas Liberals says these people have the right to life and oppose the death penalty. Strange world
Well, it appears one more person has failed to read the thread or educate themselves on the basic facts of the case, preferring to let loose with a drive-by, posting-rules-violation-ridden diatribe for the pleasure of reading their own words.
Sarah, the question is not whether she is suffering, but whether we can know with confidence whether she would want to be kept alive in a PVS. It is Terri’s call, and the process that has taken place has been with the purpose of determining and ultimately carrying out her wishes.
And Ken, first, this debate does not delineate neatly into liberal and conservative camps. Neal Boortz supports the withdrawal of food and hydration and Ralph Nader has reportedly called for the tube to be re-inserted. As much as you may want to demonize the left over this, you’ll have to demonize much of the right as well, since this crisis has driven a big fat wedge between libertarian-leaning and fiscal conservatives and their socially-conservative brethren. And even that is a simplistic breakdown of the matter.
The remainder of your comment is largely fact-free. As such I’ll only suggest that you actually read some of the arguments on the liberal side of the political spectrum, starting with hilzoy’s excellent posts on the subject. What I believe you will find is a strong argument in favor of personal autonomy, in support of a painstaking fact-finding process, and against abuses of legislative and executive power. What you will find in short supply are arguments of the sort that you have characterized in your comment here.
Ken Dixon: if you can find one place where I have ever, in my life, said something like this: “if you cannot speak and appear to be unresponsive you are a ‘vegetable’ and as a ‘vegetable’ you should die, because no Liberal would want to live as a ‘vegetable’.” — I will personally eat several hats, prepared as you see fit, video the entire thing, and post it to this weblog.
hilzoy: Does it count if I falsify the record? ’cause I have to admit, I really really really want to see that 😉
’cause I have to admit, I really really really want to see that 😉
Pervert!
i did a statistical study to figure out if there is a significant and quantifiable correlation between political denomination and the an individual’s opinion in the Terri schiavo’s case…
check out the results
http://best.modblog.com
i did a statistical study to figure out if there is a significant and quantifiable correlation between political denomination and the an individual’s opinion in the Terri schiavo’s case…
check out the results
http://best.modblog.com
Wow, a self-selected Internet poll, with no controls on whether people are answering truly and with a sample size of 15? And that also reduces all non-democrats and non-republicans to “independent?” That should yield some valid answers!
Had to make the decision to stop lifesaving procedures twice in my life and thank God only my sisters, and my sons were involved..does anyone really understand what a terrible time it is for the family…would Bush want someone in the room with him when it involves his loved ones? The time has come for Americans to fight for the right to their own bodies and medical decisions.
Terri’s husband and parents have one very similar point in common. They each believe they are doing the most humane thing for her. How ironic. Two different points of view, but they, and everyone else, are all concerned about her ultimate welfare. There are those that believe in an afterlife, where sick bodies are made whole again. There are those that believe life should be clung to regardless of the situation. I choose to believe that both sides are really well meaning, but strongly disagree, and how sad to blame each other for not having Terri’s best interests at heart. How sad not to honor each other’s point of view at a time families should bond together. Yet a decision has to be made one way or the other…and either way we’re playing God. Eventually we have to have faith in the time and thought that has been put into deciding Terri’s fate, and understand all want the best for her. Don’t criminalize her husband who agonizes over the loss of the woman he loves, or her parents who cannot say goodbye to her physical body. There is no right answer. We are only human, and I rejoice that the decision has been so hard – I would worry more if it had been made quickly either way. How hard to act on the behalf of someone who can’t make decisions on their own. It seems everyone can agree on one point – the importance of making your wishes known when you can, so those you love are saved the anguish of making life and death decisions.
Terri’s husband and parents have one very similar point in common. They each believe they are doing the most humane thing for her. How ironic. Two different points of view, but they, and everyone else, are all concerned about her ultimate welfare. There are those that believe in an afterlife, where sick bodies are made whole again. There are those that believe life should be clung to regardless of the situation. I choose to believe that both sides are really well meaning, but strongly disagree, and how sad to blame each other for not having Terri’s best interests at heart. How sad not to honor each other’s point of view at a time families should bond together. Yet a decision has to be made one way or the other…and either way we’re playing God. Eventually we have to have faith in the time and thought that has been put into deciding Terri’s fate, and understand all want the best for her. Don’t criminalize her husband who agonizes over the loss of the woman he loves, or her parents who cannot say goodbye to her physical body. There is no right answer. We are only human, and I rejoice that the decision has been so hard – I would worry more if it had been made quickly either way. How hard to act on the behalf of someone who can’t make decisions on their own. It seems everyone can agree on one point – the importance of making your wishes known when you can, so those you love are saved the anguish of making life and death decisions.
WHAT IF?
What if Terri was a Lesbian with a Life Mate and she had a living will to designate her Mate to make decisions like her Husband does today.
What if her Mate decided to remove the feeding tube.
What if the parents objected like they did recently.
What if the courts heard the case.
What if our President heard about this case, would he be so relentless to get it to Congress for a vote?
If everyone is so uptight about saving a life, would this “What if” mean so much?
Harry Kelso
What IF?
Interesting to learn that Tom DeLay’s father suffered a similar fate. The family had to decide what the wishes of the patient would be, and decided that he would not want to life like that. Knowing that he has been through a tragedy like that it is weird to hear him speak about the Schiavo case and decide against the procedure.
And indeed, this thread seems to attrackt quite a new group of contributors.
dutchmarbel: yep, a whole new bunch of people. To any of you who are those new people: this is not a site where everyone thinks the same way. Please do not make assumptions about what everyone here thinks based on my post; those assumptions would almost certainly be wrong. Also, our posting rules prohibit incivility. Thanks.
why is a quack of a lawyer being able to dictate this woman’s life. This lawyer claims that he has spiritual powers that allow him to talk to those who can not communicate..please ask him, where he got this power, because to force someone to die in this manner is not of God, or man…he is enjoying this…I bet that once she is dead he will do another book to make money off of her some more, and claim that Terri’s soul spirit spoke to him and told him she wanted to die…for everyone’s info to say that a 27 year old would have discussed dying is wrong, those who are 27 are not thinking of death…she did not know this was going to happen to her…so how can her husband say this is her wish to die…it is wrong…don’t give up the fight….http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/005323.php
http://www.sptimes.com/News/052501/Floridian/The_spirit_and_the_la.shtml
Felos does not mention Schiavo in Law as Spiritual Practice, but says he wants to start a second book when the case is over. He may talk about his spiritual journey with Schiavo then. For now, he is preparing for a hearing before the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland on June 25. He thinks the court will agree that her feeding tube should be removed.
That is what is necessary, he says, “to accomplish what I believe are Terri’s wishes.”
Does Felos believe Terri Schiavo’s soul has spoken to his?
Felos declines to answer, showing his lawyerly side. “It’s a pending case,” he says.
I also wanted to add the this country wants people to where there seat belt
Seat belt laws are favoured most by insurance companies. It’s a matter of not wearing a seat belt costing other people money, not just the well-being or life of the auto passengers as individuals.
So I don’t think the issues can be fairly compared.
Well, it appears one more person has failed to read the thread or educate themselves on the basic facts of the case…
ONE more person? Just one more? haha.
Gromit: Thanks for that Ralph Nader link. Just another reason I dislike Ralph Nader, despite the fact that I support the Green Party… He’s apparently misinformed just like the rest of them, thinking she could be spoon fed!
pdf file
“Dr. Barnhill who had testified at trial had physically examined Terri Schiavo on several occasions. He has also reviewed her records, especially on her ability to swallow. He testified that he agreed with the prognosis of the treating physician, Dr. Gambone, that there was no point in doing another swallowing study since she had not changed since the last study.
….
Dr. Barnhill testified that in his opinion attempting oral nutrition would result in aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing to the stomach to maintain her, thereby prolonging her death, if the feeding tube were withdrawn. He testified that such aspiration would lead to infection, fever, cough, and ultimately pneumonia. This would require suctioning which likely would be fatal.”
Carole Hansen: It seems everyone can agree on one point – the importance of making your wishes known when you can, so those you love are saved the anguish of making life and death decisions.
Nope, sorry, not even everyone agrees upon that!
http://www.inthesetimes.com…
“Many people, even conservatives, have taken the lesson from the Schiavo case that everyone should have a living will. But if religious extremists get their way, living wills may not be worth the paper they are written on.
When living will legislation first gained support in the ’70s and ’80s, the anti-abortion movement was adamantly opposed to demands for “death with dignity.” As the National Right to Life notes on its Web site (www.nrlc.org), living wills are used “to condition public acceptance of assisted suicide, mercy killing, and euthanasia.”
By and large, religious extremists lost their fight against living wills legislation. But Schiavo’s case appears to have re-energized the movement’s opposition to living wills, in the guise of opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide.”
Unless informed on the Schiavo case, best to remain silent
Almost all — left, right and center — commentary on the Schiavo case seems to me to be useless. I don’t need to mention any names because it is all over the blogosphere; and most commentary seems to be me to be generally irrelevant as it starts with …
Linking Fool Friday (Monday Edition)
Probably should have done this on Thursday, but somehow the fact that I’d be AFC all day Friday escaped me. Blah blah blah, Terry Schiavo. I bookmarked various posts all week, but it’s all been said over and over. The…
Interesting Schiavo-related reading
So I’ve been abominally slow about keeping up with the news on the Schiavo case, but this weekend I finally did some catching up on reading related to the case.
“Non-Zero Utilitarianism and Terri Schiavo”. Elf writes (after a bit of interesting …
For the love of god can we stop talking about Terri Schiavo already? It’s like Elian Gonzales all over again, will he stay or will he go? Who cares?!?! Obviously it’s better if he stays (he ended up back in Cuba by the way, if anyone cares), and its better if Terri lives, but there is better news out there. Did you know there was another Earthquake in Southeast Asia? Thousands dead, blah blah, given about 1/100th the coverage of the Terri case. Did you know millions of children die of malnutrition, or what about the global trade in child sex slaves? Did you know Osama Bin Laden is still at large? Or how about the fact that millionaires pay less taxes than those below the poverty line? I’m telling you Martians could have landed in Washington and we wouldn’t have heard about it at this point. And what would they say if they did land? Oh me oh my, theres a brain damaged woman, half of her family wants to keep her alive the other half wants her dead. Sounds like worthy international news to me! By the way she’s one of 40,000 brain damaged people who are argued over by their families each year in the USA alone? What about Europe where Terri would have been killed already no questions asked? The Media could cover some 12 year old stepping on an ant and the nation would call for the kid to have a giant brick dropped on him. Does the term media circus mean anything anymore? How about propoganda? The nation, our government, and especially our media needs to grow the fuck up!!!
What I see here is some very intelligent people debating both sides of a coin. I am a simple mom with 3 kids, a husband and a life. I would never want to have to make the choice to remove a feeding tube from one of my children. Thankfully, Terri’s case has caused my family to talk about “what if”. We really have talked about all the different circumstances that we would or would not be able to accept. I am sorry that politicians seem to use Terri as a platform. I am more sorry that her parents can’t let go. As for her husband, well, maybe he should have just walked away long ago and let her family deal with it. He did move on with another woman and have children. Let the past go.
I do believe that Terri may have talked about this when she was 27. Good lord, not everyone sit about under a shade tree thinking about saving the whales and the state of the government. I was married young and we talked about everything! Why? Because in everyday life, **** happens. My boyfriends brother was in a horrible car crash. He was hooked up to a ton of tubes and wires and his family pulled the plug after 18 months of no brain activity. So it makes you think, and you talk. Everyday, blue collar, hard working people do more than eat, sleep, work and have kids. They read, and educate themselfs and communicate with their family. I am no lawyer, thank god, there are folks out there that are more suited to that than me. Life happens, and so does death. Should the government have control over the right of an individual to refuse treatment? Yes and No. There are cases were a person may not be in their right mind at the time and when treated or what have you they are more themselfs and are greatful they were treated. But 15 years in a veggitative state with no chance to improve???? I think that she died long ago, only no one told her parents. I truely feel deeply for her parents, but I think they just aren’t able to deal with the loss of their daughter so they just hold on. Her husband, I feel bad for him as well. If he really feels he is trying to do what is right by Terri, then he has more back bone than most. Many people would have washed their hands of it all by now. Sometimes it is the regular guy who has the answer, not the big brains. Thankfully, I have never been accused of being either,lol. Sorry, a little humor even in the worse circumstance can lighten a heavy burden. I just say a little prayer now and agian that there will be peace for Terri no matter what.
I want to know who is going to replace my tax money wasted by this stupid case.It makes me sick to think of all the money wasted on this brain dead husk.I expect my taxes to be spent in support of the war with Irak.My house plant has more right to food and water than this husk atleast a plant still has a function this brain dead thing is just taking up space of someone who needs it.
I think Terri shoud not die because everybody has the right to live and this shoud tech as something and nobody has the right to kill or give life to nobody only God has the power to do that
I think that everybody has the right to live and the right to die when they ready.
Also the people that are helping here I think that they great people only God has the right to take the life of everybody. Many youths use the word to apply it for a fight.
I think that Terri should have the right to do whatever she wants/believes what’s right for her life…
Then again… I could be wrong..
Michael Schiavo admitted on Larry King about a week ago “How should I know what Terri would want. It’s what WE want”. So much for Terri’s wish to die. I think Terri’s holding out this long (thirteen days today) shows her incredible will to live. It’s so sad there are so many heartless people who want her dead.
Terri is not brain-dead. She isn’t suffering from any illness. She has been alert, and trying to communicate. Her condition could have improved with therapy, according to many unbiased specialists (not the ones Michael and attorney Felos hired). Unfortunately, ever since being awarded a large court settlement, Michael has done everything possible to insure that her condition does not improve. It is obvious he has a lot to hide, and Mr. Felos & Judge Greer have a personal agenda to push.
Leda is a moron. It is people like Leda that have made what should have been a very private matter into a public circus. The woman has died physically. She died mentally and emotionally 15 years ago. Leave the husband, judge and family alone to finally get their thoughts and feelings in order. ENOUGH!!!
Chava,
statements like your first one above violate our posting rules. Please refrain from such responses.
How about mentioning that Leda’s comment was a pack of out-and-out falsehoods?
A truly sad day for the entire family of Terri Shiavo.
My heart goes out to both the parents and husband. This plight belongs to them and not those of us tearfully looking back on her last 15 years.
This woman was raised by a mother and father who loved her, that shared her life from the very beginning. It’s right and good that they would only want their child to live, even prosper. This type of loss is inconceivable to most of us. I’ve lost on this level and do understand this pain. This is natural, but often breeds a kind of blind resentment against opposition in all forms. It’s a prolonged symptom of grief that covers so many emotions.
I’m engaged and have spoken to my fiancé about our own wishes if something tragically similar had happened to one of us. I can only assume that Terri’s husband spoke to her at some point in their life together while she was of sound mind and body. This topic is generally not discussed with parents, but confided between husband and wife. It’s private and very personal.
It’s natural those who “knew her” in love would wish her spared, but have to weigh the emotional costs of this existence over any selfish needs or influence to hang on to them. A living will would most likely have prevented this heartless display from the sidelines that will only feed their sufferring. We all care on some level. If we were honest enough with ourselves, we would’ve simply prayed the right thing to come, even if it’s not what we wanted to hear. No matter what our outside opinions are, I believe the inevitable has come.
Despite all passionate sympathy for so-called “sides” in this matter, it’s not my personal fight nor do I deserve it to be. There’s only one side people, those who loved her as a daughter, a mother, or a wife. I can admit that and hope others will respect her and the family’s right to grieve, heal, and eventually continue with good memories of her in their hearts. It’s the rest of us that will threaten and destroy that memory if we fight or continue in our own selfish interests.
Terri taught a most valuable lesson before her passing, and her memory deserves to be respected. I wonder how many of us on the sidelines actually understood what this was? Thank you, with the heaviest of hearts…
Royael
Everyone is beating up on this couragous and loyal man. He didn’t have to continue this fight, but still he remained steadfast to Terri’s wishes all these years.
Michael, you have my deepest sympathies for your loss and my admiration for your integrity.
My friend (and author), I wish I could say that you are just an idiot- in that case the injunction: “God forgive him/her for he/she knows not what he/she is doing” could magnanimously apply to you, but based on clear hints that one can find in the impressive amount of filth dispersed above, there seems to be a strong presumption that you are also a scoundrel which is not surprising because stupidity and baseness typically go hand in hand. It is even more saddening if you really are a woman (sic!)…
Linking Fool Friday (Monday Edition)
Probably should have done this on Thursday, but somehow the fact that I’d be AFC all day Friday escaped me. Blah blah blah, Terry Schiavo. I bookmarked various posts all week, but it’s all been said over and over. The…
Linking Fool Friday (Monday Edition)
Probably should have done this on Thursday, but somehow the fact that I’d be AFC all day Friday escaped me. Blah blah blah, Terry Schiavo. I bookmarked various posts all week, but it’s all been said over and over. The…
To come right to the point; there would be no reason for Terri Schiavo to have been in a vegetative state; if Michael Schiavo had not been beating her to the point were Terri had FRACTURED RIBS, DAMAGE TOHER PELVIC AREA, LI VERTEBRAA, SPINE, BOTH KNEES WERE BROKEN
AND BOTH ANKLES WERE ALSO BROKEN ACCORDING TO THE BONE SCAN.
There were injuries to Terri’s neck that were consistant with strangulation.
In a letter faxed to Pinellas-Pasco County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, the governor said Michael Schiavo testified in a 1992 medical malpractice trial that he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m. on Feb. 25, 1990, and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m.
Why did it take Michael Schiavo an HOUR AND TEM MINUTES to call 911? This is a question that Judge Greer should have asked himself before giving Michael the power to decide life or death for Terri or for that matter legal guardianship of Terri
Terri Schiavo was severly brain damaged however, Terri was still a humanbeing that had a right to FOOD AND WATER. My God, at the very time Michael Schiavo was watering the grass in front of his house he was also dehydrating his wife. Now, you tell me was is wrong with this picture?
“Between 40 and 70 minutes elapsed before the call was made, and I am aware of no explanation for the delay,” Bush wrote. “In light of this new information, I urge you to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to the outcome
I Feel Michael Schiavo got away with MURDER; and to make matters worse Michael got rich and Judge Greer got paid with BLOOD MONEY. Greer did not do his investigation of the Terri Schiavo case correctly; had he done so he would have seen the horrible abuse and neglect with which Terri suffered at the hands of Michael. TO FIND MORE ABOUT TERRI’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT TYPE IN THE WORDS (SAGA OF TERRI SCHIAVO)
To have Judge Greer impeach Type in the words (PETITION TO IMPEACH JUDGE GREER)
John Galt, You grow the FUCK UP. I don’t like what you said about the Terri Schiavo case. Terri wasn’t just some brain dead piece of meat; Terri was a beautifull humanbeing who was murdered.
As for you; FUCK YOU
if Michael Schiavo had not been beating her to the point were Terri had FRACTURED RIBS, DAMAGE TOHER PELVIC AREA, LI VERTEBRAA, SPINE, BOTH KNEES WERE BROKEN
AND BOTH ANKLES WERE ALSO BROKEN ACCORDING TO THE BONE SCAN.
JFTR, not that I wish to encourage Ms Woodward: this statement is quite untrue. The bone scan showed no such definite information, and the autopsy provided further confirmation of the lack of definite information. There is no evidence at all that Michael Schiavo ever abused Terri Schiavo.
Further, I feel that it is not significant if, thirteen years after the event, Mr Schiavo could not recall the exact time at which he had found his wife unconscious.
Ms Woodward, your comment at June 28, 2005 06:39 AM breaches the posting rules on several counts.
it is understandable how all of you would think that terri was a braindead “piece of meat” before she was in a vegetive state she was a hard working humanbeing just like you and i…but you have to think what got her in that vegetive state??? well from what a bone scan reveiled is that terri was stragulated and had almost every bone in her body broke at the hands of her so-called loving husband… i think it is wrong to sit there and call a human being a brain dead husk…
debbie,, the fact of the matter is you are just a heartless piece of cow manuer that the world wouldn’t miss if you passed away… try stopping the ignorance and think about the **** that this women went through before they pulled the plug…
15 yrs ago she walked talked and loved like you and me..
she went through hell before the “vegetive state”.. a beating so bad that it broke her spinal cord which in turn broke her back and little by little all the spinal fluid went to her brain…
how would you feel to know your husband had a secret life…? Terri found out about her husbands secret life and when she asked about it he beat her almost to death… michael had been seiing and still is another woman to whom he has two children… while terri was in a veget6ive state he asked this “other woman” to marry him telling her that when Terri was dead they would be able to get married… how do we know that once he marries this women he won’t do the same to her?? a leopard never changes his spots… had judge greer looked at all the evidence as would a normal judge michael schiavo would be behind bars right now, being bubbas boyfriend and probably getting fu**ed by a broomstick… but then again i also think that greer and schiavo made a deal for money.. schiavo probably paied the judge off to only see his side plus greer was getting paid off $250 per lawyer and there were four lawyers.. so all in all the judge came out with like $1,000 dollars in blood money…
point being all of you that think that michael schiavo was correct or even so much feel “bad” for him need to read up on a lot of shit because michael schiavo waited 40 to 70 minutes to call the police after his wifes so- called “collapse”… and on another level how could we forget about the past when every day there are new enlightments in the terri schiavo case and obviously gov. bush feels the same way he said and i quote” there is something fishy about Terri schiavos case”
for all of you that agree with michael schiavo you all can go to hell because before her death on march 31, 2005 at 9:05 am.. it is alleged that there where irregular amounts of insulin being given to Terri…
common sense tells you that if you give somebody too much insulin their heart will stop…
this case needs to be reopened and looked at by a judge that isn’t in it for blood money….
all of you that have something sarcastic to say to anyone that feels for Terri really need to wake up and smell the coffee.. this case is drenched with murder and greed plain and simple…
terri may be dead to this world but she is now in heaven with our almighty god walking, tallking and literally flying on clouds in our lords wonderful hands
god bless this country and all the ones that live like terri did…
esto es para hugo tu poema era lindo y te agradesco por poner un poema en nombre de la que ya ha muerto…Terri
Terri era una criatura bella y alguien no era a gusto hasta que era muerta.. que se hodan ahora ella vive en los brazos del senor y vive en su casa feliz sin sufrir, sin miedo, y con mucho amor que ella no tuve aqui del mundo…
muchas gracias por tu poema era bien bello
mi nombre es jennifer era una placer leer tu poema
Aside the “Political” points scored, there is a primal reason for generating smoke. That is the uncomfortable need to answer a child’s question such as “When did she go to heaven?” Was it 15 years ago or a couple months ago as the two halves of her brain died? Sweeping the question under the carpet with “We don’t know God’s ways” simply discourages thinking. The logical answer is that heaven is a figment of wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is pretty common, from the delightful, to the harmful and to the tragic. Examples of each that come to mind are the magical appearance of gifts under the tree, gambling with grocery money, and seeking an “exalted place” in heaven, aka suicide bombing.
Perhaps we will realize we are more caring for our pets than we are for humans. I have taken three loved ones to a vet when everything else no longer worked. It was quick and like going to sleep, for them.
Gene
Uh, Edward? Hilzoy? Seb? Von? You guys going to let this kind of character assassination, accusations of criminal activity, and suchlike, continue, or . . . ?
This Comment is to Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer; I hope and pray the very day you need assistence from the paramedics to save your life; the person calling 911 takes an hour and ten minutes to call; and when both of die hopefully someone will SHIT AND PISS ON YOUR FUCKEN GRAVE!!!!!!!
To have Judge Greer impeached Type in the words (PETITION TO IMPEACH JUDGE GREER)
Phil: Uh, Edward? Hilzoy? Seb? Von? You guys going to let this kind of character assassination, accusations of criminal activity, and suchlike, continue, or . . . ?
Gotta admit, there are two problems here.
One is that Ms Woodward’s accusations against Michael Schiavo or Judge Greer are quite unfactual – drifting off into fantasy land. There is no point, I suspect, in directing her to sites where she can get factual information, since I think she has already decided to ignore them. However, there is nothing in the posting rules that says you can’t post absurd nonsense, already proved untrue.
Two: her tone and choice of words are not raising the level of debate, nor inclining me to debate with her.
This is utterly bizarre.
First: Ms. Woodward, you’ve been banned.
Second: I take that Ms. Woodward is attempting to espouse, albeit in extremely profane and (frankly) stupid terms, the position that Terri Schiavo should not have been allowed to die of starvation. That position is welcome this blog, and Ms. Woodward is not being banned for it. Rather, she is being banned for her profanity and stupidity — the means by which she has chosen to express her (purported) beliefs, not the beliefs themselves.
washingtonpost.com
Probe Sought in Terri Schiavo 911 Call
By JACKIE HALLIFAX
The Associated Press
Friday, June 17, 2005; 7:53 PM
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Gov. Jeb Bush said Friday that a prosecutor has agreed to investigate why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago, citing an alleged time gap between when her husband found her and when he called 911.
Bush said his request for the probe was not meant to suggest wrongdoing by Michael Schiavo. “It’s a significant question that during this ordeal was never brought up,” Bush told reporters.
In a statement issued by his lawyer, Schiavo called the development an outrage.
“I have consistently said over the years that I didn’t wait but ‘ran’ to call 911 after Terri collapsed,” Schiavo said in the release.
In a letter faxed to Pinellas-Pasco County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, the governor said Michael Schiavo testified in a 1992 medical malpractice trial that he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m. on Feb. 25, 1990, and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m.
“Between 40 and 70 minutes elapsed before the call was made, and I am aware of no explanation for the delay,” Bush wrote. “In light of this new information, I urge you to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to the outcome.”
McCabe was out of state Friday and couldn’t immediately be reached for comment, but Bush said McCabe has agreed to his request.
On Wednesday, Michael Schiavo’s attorney, George Felos, said his client didn’t wait to call for help and has conceded that he confuses dates and times. He has said that if Michael Schiavo had not called 911 immediately, as Bush and others allege, Terri Schiavo would have died that day.
“There is no hour gap or other gap to the point Michael heard Terri fall and called 911,” Felos said. “We’ve seen the baseless allegations in this case fall by the wayside one by one … That’s what I would call it, a baseless claim to perpetuate a controversy that in fact doesn’t exist.”
Terri Schiavo died March 31 from dehydration after her feeding tube was disconnected at her husband’s request, despite years of efforts by her parents, Bush and others to keep her alive.
The governor’s request followed the release Wednesday of an autopsy supporting Michael Schiavo’s contention that his wife had been in a persistent vegetative state. The autopsy revealed no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused before she collapsed.
It left unanswered the question of why Terri Schiavo’s heart stopped, cutting oxygen off from her brain. The autopsy showed she suffered irreversible brain damage and her brain had shrunk to half the normal size for her age.
Bobby Schindler, Schiavo’s brother, said Friday his family believes more questions were raised than answered by the autopsy report and that a new legal review is appropriate.
“Anything that can shed some light on the cause of Terri’s collapse is going to be welcomed by our family,” he said from Bloomington, Minn., where the family is speaking at an anti-abortion convention.
But the request was immediately criticized by some lawmakers.
“Enough is enough,” said Democratic Sen. Ron Klein. “I don’t want to see it on TV any more, I don’t want to hear politicians talk about it. Let her be at peace.”
Bush acknowledged in his letter that an investigation may be difficult.
“I understand that these events took place many years ago, and that you may not be able to collect all the relevant records and physical evidence. However, Mrs. Schiavo’s family deserves to know anything that can be done to determine the cause and circumstances of her collapse 15 years ago,” Bush wrote. “The unanswered questions may be unanswerable, but the attempt should be made.”
PS: How is that for actual factual facts (JESURGISLAC)
If 4:30 to 5:40 is not an hour and ten minutes than I don’t know what is. Learn how to tell the time STUPIT.
State-Funded Agency to Probe Claim of Spousal Abuse in Terri Schiavo Case
Bone scan and injuries indicate severe trauma and strangulation
TAMPA BAY, October 27, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Florida State Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, has decided to launch an investigation into the spousal abuse claims of the parents of Terri Schiavo. The severely disabled Florida woman whose life was spared by an executive order by Governor Jeb Bush to halt her court-ordered starvation, has, according to experts, sustained injuries consistent with abuse.
Michael Schiavo, Terri’s estranged husband, who has been in a long-fought court battle with Terri’s parents to end her life, fuelled suspicions of abuse when he sought and was granted a court order that Terri’s remains would be cremated immediately following her death. Terri’s parents, the Schindlers, were requesting an autopsy.
Other factors pointing to abuse include:
– Testimony of nurses who looked after Terri indicated that Michael was verbally abusive to Terri and may have attempted to kill her by insulin injection and attempts to induce pneumonia by turning the thermostat in her room to 64 degrees.
– Michael Baden, one of the most acclaimed forensic experts in North America, in an interview on Fox News National Television broadcast Saturday said Terri’s bone scan indicates that Terri’s injuries are not consistent with the suggested explanation of a heart attack or potassium imbalance. He said they are consistent with severe trauma possibly caused by a beating and would warrant an immediate investigation.
– Dr. William Hammesfahr, Nobel prize nominee and neurologist, testified that Terri’s neck injuries are consistent with only one type of injury: that of strangulation.
Commenting on the case, Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition said, “It would come as no surprise to me that she had been abused previous to her disability, knowing that since1993 she has received continuous abuse by being denied basic medical care, visitation of loved ones, religious visits, and any form of rehabilitation.”
Schadenberg warned however that the practice of euthanasia by withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from people who are not otherwise dying is common both in the United States and Canada. He pointed out that the argumentation around the case is not addressing the central point that nutrition and hydration should not be considered medical treatment. He noted that a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision wrongly allowed nutrition and hydration to be considered medical treatment.
In response to the six-day denial of food and fluids to Terri Schindler-Schiavo, the National Right to Life Committee is calling on state legislatures throughout the nation to move to protect people with disabilities from being denied food and fluids. The organization has issued a “Model Starvation and Dehydration of Persons with Disabilities Prevention Act.”
See the NRLC model legislation for States:
http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/modelstatelaw.html
Terri’s supporters have also asked pro-lifers to encourage AARP to intervene to save Terri’s life and not against it: flaarp@aarp.org
See also
Media ‘getting it wrong’ on Terri Schiavo story
Press erroneously report she’s ‘comatose,’ doctors also dispute vegetative-state ruling
** People who are aware of the truth are calling in to radio and television stations insisting that they correct the misinformation. For example, Toronto News radio station 680 was reporting last week that Shiavo was in a persistive vegetative state. LifeSite called to say that that was not correct. The news room immediately acknowledged the error and corrected it. This would not have happened had no one called.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35270
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/oct/03102701.html
This is for everyone that thinks Terri Schiavo suffered no abuse at the hands of Michael.
Von: I take that Ms. Woodward is attempting to espouse, albeit in extremely profane and (frankly) stupid terms, the position that Terri Schiavo should not have been allowed to die of starvation.
No: Ms Woodward is attempting to espouse the frankly stupid theory that Michael Schiavo murdered his wife, and there was then a massive legal conspiracy to cover up this.
By the way, I thought she’d been banned? She’s back.
I banned her after that one.
hello i have noticed that all of you have been sarcastic with mrs. woodward..
i myself believe that mrs. woodward would have good reason to feel the way she does for the simple fact that if you go to the websites and hear the stuff that she heard including the fact that there are nurses that took care of Terri stated that mr. schiavo always told the nurses to leave and also her family and there after they found obscence amounts of insulin injections were the nurses had no explanation for them and also 5 unexplainable needle marks on her arm..
and all the people that say that the time frame is ludacris are mistaken in my belief for the simple fact that jeb bush feels the same way as Mrs. Woodward does…
now, people just think jeb bush the governor of florida is getting an investigation going for the simple reason that mr schiavo who everybody thinks is mr perfect in this case waited an hour and 10 min. to call 911 after the collapse of his wife as stated in his malpractice lawsuit hearing.. his wife collapsed at 4:30 and schiavo didn’t make that important phone call until 5:40 there is proof of that on websites.. he (mr. schiavo ) stated two different times at two different hearings..
point being that too much time lapsed in between the collapse and the 911 call…
i feel that all of you should go back and read up on the facts before you get sarcastic with the proof that mrs. woodward posts on this blog… with all honesty i do see why you would think that mr. schiavo is innocent , but the proof at hand is in the pudding ..
now i know that i’m going to get sarcastic remarks for this posting but i am not trying to be mean or disagreeable about your beliefs.. just hear me out and go to the important missing pieces that obviously none of you have heard for Terri’s case… i apologize for any inconvience on my part but i just think that all of you need to get more informed before any sarcastic, unnecessary remarks toward mrs. woodward…
on that level please don’t ban mrs. woodward for speaking her beliefs in this case for the simple fact that we all have our own beliefs on the Terri schiavo case..
and if i’m not mistaken somebody in this blog referred to terri as a “piece of meat” stating he was tired of hearing about the case and told all of us to grow the **** up…
i think you all are being alittle hypocritical in the profanity statement because this gentleman used profanity and my question is >why isn’t he banned for the use of provacitive words ….
in my own opinion Terri WAS NOT a “piece of meat” or a dead beat husk as debbie stated.
she was a human being problems or no problems and anyone that downs her for that have to live in her shoes to know the torment that this poor soul went through…
there are people dying of all types of things and these people have a chance to recuperate..
Terri wasn’t given that option..
her option was ripped away from her at the blink of an eye and all you have to say is that this is what she would have wanted.. bullcrap
in all reality we as the onlookers of this case in all reality DO NOT know what her real wants were..
i strongly believe that she wanted too live and the only people to know the real truth are mr. schiavo and god almighty..
every thing you do to somebody comes back at you ten fold so if mr. schiavo really did plot to kill his wife very soon his life will fall apart and we will all be witnesses to this..
you and i arenot promised tomorrow so why do we live fighting like children.. we all need to stick together no matter if a statement to you is false or true.. this blog is open to the public and all their beliefs, fact or false..
so the only thing i have left to say is let’s all stop being sarcastic and let’s try to be more understanding of not only people’s thoughts , but their feelings asd well..
to call someone stupid is unnecessary and uncalled for especially when their beliefs ring true… i’m not trying to take anyone’s side in this matter just saying how i feel about your actions as humanbeings…
we all have minds of our own, beliefs of our own and last but not least, lives of our own…
it would be wrong for me to put you down for your beliefs so don’t do it too others
thanks a million
jennifer
Wow, the email address for “JENNIFER ROBERTS” is “Woodward789@msn.com.” I wonder if . . . no, no, it couldn’t be, the thought is just too strange . . . but, perhaps . . . could she be a sock puppet? No! I won’t let myself entertain such silly thoughts!!
It is nice to see, though, that pop culture has had such an impact that someone thinks that “Ludacris” is the correct spelling of “ludicrous.”
*sigh*
I don’t care about Michael Schiavo. I care about congressional overreach. This was clearly a case of the Federal Government overstepping its boundaries, and clearly a case of people engaging in the “media circus” method of settling disputes. Neither is something any decent conservative should have any truck with, and it’s a shame that the Republican party has so thoroughly sold its soul to the splinter of American society which places wild, shouting rhetoric over calm, considered discussion at the lowest practicable level of government interference.
Burke would be spinning in his grave.
every thing you do to somebody comes back at you ten fold so if mr. schiavo really did plot to kill his wife very soon his life will fall apart and we will all be witnesses to this..
And if Mr. Schiavo’s life does not completely fall apart in the next few weeks, can we take it that maybe God almighty doesn’t think he “plotted” to kill his wife? Or maybe that in fact what Mr. Schiavo did was God’s will?
This would seem to be a comment thread that might deserve closing down.
CharleyCarp
God almighty is a mercful god; he would not have wanted Terri to die an such a painful way.
Death by starvation and dehydration is a horrible way to die. (HER IS THE PROOF)
The study drew a distinction between MCS and Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), but the distinction is not a reliable one. In a New York Times article, Dr. Joseph Fins mentioned research indicating a 30% misdiagnosis rate of PVS, indicating that nearly a third of persons diagnosed in PVS are actually in “minimally conscious state.” Fins is chief of the medical ethics division of New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center.
Even with this technology, there will probably still be mistakes. But at least it will be the first step in reducing the number of conscious people dying from hunger and thirst in hospitals and nursing homes, aware of every minute and unable to cry out that they are awake Dr. David Stevens, who says most so-called experts have never seen someone die under such circumstances.
“Unfortunately, having worked for 13 years in Africa, where the most common cause of death in children is dehydration from gastroenteritis, I have seen hundreds if not thousands of patients with dehydration and some of them so far gone, that despite resuscitation attempts, they died.”
Stevens, who represents a group of 17,000 physicians, explained what happens with starvation:
As dehydration begins, there is extreme thirst, dry mouth and thick saliva. The patient becomes dizzy, faint and unable to stand or sit; has severe cramping in the arms and legs as the sodium and potassium concentrations in the body goes up as fluids go down. In misery, the patient tries to cry but there are no tears. The patient experiences severe abdominal cramps, nausea and dry-heaving as the stomach and intestines dry out.
By now the skin and lips are cracking and the tongue is swollen. The nose may bleed as the mucous membranes dry out and break down. The skin loses elasticity, thins and wrinkles. The hands and feet become cold as the remaining fluids in the circulatory system are shunted to the vital organs in an attempt to stay alive. The person stops urinating and has severe headaches as their brain shrinks from lack of fluids. The patient becomes anxious but then gets progressively more lethargic.
Some patients have hallucinations and seizures as their body chemistry becomes even more imbalanced. This proceeds to coma before death occrs. The final event as the blood pressure becomes almost undetectable is a major heart arrhythmia that stops the heart from pumping.
Even, if it was Terri’s time to die; GOD ALMIGHTY would not have wanted Terri to die the way in which she did.
To find out more about Terri; and what she went through and also the bone scan go to (THE SAGA OF TERRI SCHIAVO)
To impeach Judge Greer type the words (PETITION TO IMPEACH JUDGE GREER)
Um,
aren’t you banned or something?
This would seem to be a comment thread that might deserve closing down.
Seconded.
This would seem to be a comment thread that might deserve closing down.
Seconded.
This would seem to be a comment thread that might deserve closing down.
Seconded.
But unfortunately, TypePad is not letting me do anything besides post and comment. And even the posts are odd: it sends me an error message, yet they appear. So alas, no closing.
Well, I’m reminded to write more notes about what kind of state I’d not be willing to live in and about who I’d like to make decisions for me. I’ll get those notorized tomorrow. Not such a bad thing.
Maybe when Typepad calms down you’ll be able to close this thread.
Well, I’m reminded to write more notes about what kind of state I’d not be willing to live in and about who I’d like to make decisions for me. I’ll get those notorized tomorrow. [Or rather on Tuesday, when things open back up.] Not such a bad thing.
Maybe when Typepad calms down you’ll be able to close this thread.
Matttbastard
The statement I Made on July 2, 2005 was not disrespectfull, but it is the truth.
In this country people should be allowed to speak truthfully without being banned.
I agree, Catherine, as long as you’re doing the speaking over on your own blog. Then you can feel free to agree with yourself using all manner of sockpuppets.
hi my name IS jennifer roberts and i don’t feel that it is right for you all to be dogging mrs.woodwards statements..
there is no sockpuppets in this blog or maybe there is the critisizing ones that won’t take a minute to look at the facts before putting someones true feelings down…
if your so quick to think that catherine is wrong why don’t you stop your reteric blabbing and look into the case of Terri Schiavo at the site called saga of terri schiavo…
you’ll soon be sticking your own foot in your mouths…
i believe on whatever blog that all persons have a right to speak they’re opinion without the whole blog downing thery’re beliefs…
in some aspects this is a free country and we have a right to enter whatever blog we want to whether you like it or not..
stop being a bunch of hypocrits and start listening to what people have to say because just maybe they are right about what they are talking about.. we need to be more understanding of peoples feelings.. cuz’ in one way or another we are all hypocrits in some forms …
we already have enough war going on let’s not have a war of the machines, too..
these blogs are meant for your opinions including catherine’s and mine so whatever you don’t like who cares some of us agree with mrs. woodward and some of us don’t, afterall this IS an opinion poll where all opinions are welcome…
stop the hatred already this is nuts…
question being
“can’t we all just get along” to quote rodney king
hi my name IS jennifer roberts
But your e-mail address is Woodward789@msn.com.
and i don’t feel that it is right for you all to be dogging mrs.woodwards statements.
Her e-mail address is Woodward789@msn.com.
I hate to be picky. Perhaps Ms Roberts and Ms Woodward live in Massachussets and are a married couple sharing an e-mail address.
Hope Typepad will let you close this thread down soon, Hilzoy.
Ms. Woodward/Roberts, blogs
aren’t actually public opinion polls. This here blog is operated and maintained by a group of people who pay bandwidth fees and retain the right to boot inappropriate commentors off threads as they see fit. (Did you notice the posting rules or the banning policy?)
Jesurgislac
For your information Jennifer I are friends and she live in the next house from me.
Jackmormon
If speaking the truth make me an inappropriate commentors then I Guss I keep being inappropriate commmentors/person.
As for this blog I don’t care to be on a blog that doen’t respect the truth.
Terri’s parents cry out for justice, and if in some small way I can help by getting people to sigh the petition to have Judge Greer removed from his job I will do so.
Hilzoy: But unfortunately, TypePad is not letting me do anything besides post and comment. And even the posts are odd: it sends me an error message, yet they appear. So alas, no closing.
Am sacrificing small furry animals to TypePad. HTH. HAND.
Catherine Woodward: For your information Jennifer I are friends and she live in the next house from me.
I’m sure your explanation for why she is using your name in her email address will be as compelling as your as-of-yet-unarticulated explanation for how Terri was really kept from standing or sitting up by the dehydration rather than by the fact that significant portions of her brain were liquified rendering her incapable of doing either of those things for over a decade prior.
Here are affidavits of three former nurses / caretakers of Terri Schiavo, relating their horror at the abusive treatment and lack of treatment regarding Terri’s care.
NO RESUSCITATION (if needed);
NO ANTIBIOTICS FOR URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS!
NO REHABILITATION OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING RANGE OF MOTION AND STIMULATION!
NEVER ALLOWED TO LEAVE HER ROOM FOR FRESH AIR AND SUNSHINE!
APPARENT INSULIN REACTIONS AFTER MICHAEL’S VISITS (she is not diabetic)!
MORE! and MORE! and MORE!, all under the ORDERS OF MICHAEL SCHIAVO, the husband who convinced a jury that their large award would allow him to take her home and care for her for the rest of his life. His ‘fiance’ with whom he’s lived for seven years is expecting their second child.
He was heard on a news broadcast saying Terri has received rehabilitation therapy for 13 years. He’s received death threats and has temporarily moved from his present address. I wonder if Michael Schiavo will be able to sleep again? Or leave his home without a body guard? If something happened to him, who would get what’s left of Terri’s medical fund? His new wife? or the STATE? Doubtful he’ll ever really feel safe or comfortable again, wondering. . .
Terri is bathed in the Light of God, the Love of God, the Presence of God, and the Protection of God. Hold her in your mind and heart; in your Love. — Jackie — Saturday, October 18th, 2003
——————————————————————————————
http://www.terrisfight.org/Framesets/RecentFrame.htm
CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N.
AFFIDAVIT
_________
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )
BEFORE ME the undersigned authority personally appeared CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N., who being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. My name is Carla Sauer Iyer. I am over the age of eighteen and make this statement of my own personal knowledge.
2. I am a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been licensed continuously in Florida from 1997 to the present. Prior to that I was a Licensed Practical Nurse for about four years.
3. I was employed at Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in Largo, Florida from April 1995 to July 1996, while Terri Schiavo was a patient there.
4. It was clear to me at Palm Gardens that all decisions regarding Terri Schiavo were made by Michael Schiavo, with no allowance made for any discussion, debate or normal professional judgment. My initial training there consisted solely of the instruction “Do what Michael Schiavo tells you or you will be terminated.” This struck me as extremely odd.
5. I was very disturbed by the decision making protocol, as no allowance whatsoever was made for professional responsibility. The atmosphere throughout the facility was dominated by Mr. Schiavo’s intimidation. Everyone there, with the exception of several people who seemed to be close to Michael, was intimidated by him.
Michael Schiavo always had an overbearing attitude, yelling numerous times such things as “This is my order and you’re going to follow it.” He is very large and uses menacing body language, such as standing too close to you, getting right in your face and practically shouting.
6. To the best of my recollection, rehabilitation had been ordered for Terri, but I never saw any being done or had any reason at all to believe that there was ever any rehab of Terri done at Palm Gardens while I was there. I became concerned because Michael wanted nothing done for Terri at all, no antibiotics, no tests, no range of motion therapy, no stimulation, no nothing.
Michael said again and again that Terri should NOT get any rehab, that there should be no range of motion whatsoever, or anything else. I and a CNA named Roxy would give Terri range of motion anyway. One time I put a wash cloth in Terri’s hand to keep her fingers from curling together, and Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy.
7. Terri’s medical condition was systematically distorted and misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence, saying such things as “mommy,” and “help me.” “Help me” was, in fact, one of her most frequent utterances. I heard her say it hundreds of times. Terri would try to say the word “pain” when she was in discomfort, but it came out more like “pay.” She didn’t say the “n” sound very well. During her menses she would indicate her discomfort by saying “pay” and moving her arms toward her lower abdominal area. Other ways that she would indicate that she was in pain included pursing her lips, grimacing, thrashing in bed, curling her toes or moving her legs around. She would let you know when she had a bowel movement by flipping up the covers and pulling on her diaper and scooted in bed on her bottom.
8. When I came into her room and said “Hi, Terri”, she would always recognize my voice and her name, and would turn her head all the way toward me, saying “Haaaiiiii” sort of, as she did. I recognized this as a “hi”, which is very close to what it sounded like, the whole sound being only a second or two long. When I told her humrous stories about my life or something I read in the paper, Terri would chuckle, sometimes more a giggle or laugh. She would move her whole body, upper and lower. Her legs would sometimes be off the bed, and need to be repositioned. I made numerous entries into the nursing notes in her chart, stating verbatim what she said and her various behaviors, but by my next on-duty shift, the notes would be deleted from her chart.
Every time I made a positive entry about any responsiveness of Terri’s, someone would remove it after my shift ended. Michael always demanded to see her chart as soon as he arrived, and would take it in her room with him. I documented Terri’s rehab potential well, writing whole pages about Terri’s responsiveness, but they would always be deleted by the next time I saw her chart. The reason I wrote so much was that everybody else seemed to be afraid to make positive entries for fear of their jobs, but I felt very strongly that a nurses job was to accurately record everything we see and hear that bears on a patients condition and their family. I upheld the Nurses Practice Act, and if it cost me my job, I was willing to accept that.
9. Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri’s death. Michael would say “When is she going to die?,” “Has she died yet?” and “When is that bitch gonna die?” These statements were common knowledge at Palm Gardens, as he would make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was talking to, as long as it was a staff member.
Other statements which I recall him making include “Can’t anything be done to accelerate her death – won’t she ever die?” When she wouldn’t die, Michael would be furious. Michael was also adamant that the family should not be given information. He made numerous statements such as “Make sure the parents aren’t contacted.” I recorded Michael’s statements word for word in Terri’s chart, but these entries were also deleted after the end of my shift.
Standing orders were that the family wasn’t to be contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael immediately, but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they should know about their daughter.
10. Any time Terri would be sick, like with a UTI [urinary tract infection]or fluid buildup in her lungs, colds, or pneumonia, Michael would be visibly excited, thrilled even, hoping that she would die. He would say something like, “Hallelujah! You’ve made my day!” He would call me, as I was the nurse supervisor on the floor, and ask for every little detail about her temperature, blood pressure, etc., and would call back frequently asking if she was dead yet. He would blurt out “I’m going to be rich!” and would talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died, which included a new car, a new boat, and going to Europe, among other things.
11. When Michael visited Terri, he always came alone and always had the door closed and locked while he was with Terri. He would typically be there about twenty minutes or so. When he left Terri would be trembling, crying hysterically, and would be very pale and have cold sweats. It looked to me like Terri was having a hypoglycemic reaction, so I’d check her blood sugar. The glucometer reading would be so low it was below the range where it would register an actual number reading. I would put dextrose in Terri’s mouth to counteract it.
This happened about five times on my shift, as I recall. Normally Terri’s blood sugar levels were very stable due to the uniformity of her diet through tube feeding. It is medically possible that Michael injected Terri with Regular insulin, which is very fast acting, but I don’t have any way of knowing for sure.
12. The longer I was employed at Palm Gardens the more concerned I became about patient care, both relating to Terri Schiavo, for the reasons I’ve said, and other patients, too.
There was an LPN named Carolyn Adams, known as “Andy” Adams who was a particular concern. An unusual number of patients seemed to die on her shift, but she was completely unconcerned, making statements such as “They are old – let them die.” I couldn’t believe her attitude or the fact that it didn’t seem to attract any attention.
She made many comments about Terri being a waste of money, that she should die. She said it was costing Michael a lot of money to keep her alive, and that he complained about it constantly (I heard him complain about it all the time, too.)
Both Michael and Adams said that she would be worth more to him if she were dead. I ultimately called the police relative to this situation, and was terminated the next day. Other reasons were cited, but I was convinced it was because of my “rocking the boat.”
13. Ms. Adams was one of the people who did not seem to be intimidated by Michael. In fact, they seemed to be very close, and Adams would do whatever Michael told her. Michael sometimes called Adams at night and spoke at length. I was not able to hear the content of these phone calls, but I knew it was him talking to her because she would tell me afterward and relay orders from him.
14. I have contacted the Schindler family because I just couldn’t stand by and let Terri die without the truth being known.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 29 day of August, 2003, by CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N., who produced her Florida’s driver’s license as identification, and who did take an oath.
Notary Public
My commission expires
=========================================
CAROLYN JOHNSON, CNA
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
AFFIDAVIT
_________
BEFORE ME the undersigned authority personally appeared CAROLYN JOHNSON who being first duly sworn deposes and says:
1. My name is Carolyn Johnson, I am over the age of 18 years and make this statement on personal information.
2. I used to work at Sabal Palms nursing home in Largo, for a period of about two years. I actually was employed by a nursing agency and was placed at Sabal Palms as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). I believe the events related here occurred in about 1993.
3. During this assignment I took care of Terri Schiavo several times. The first time I saw her my duties were being explained to me by the nurse on duty. Terri Schiavo was lying in bed. Another patient, also a young woman about the same age and in the same condition, was sitting up in a chair, with a drink cup and straw in front of her.
4. I asked why Terri was not up in a chair, too. I learned, as part of my training, that there was a family dispute and that the husband, as guardian, wanted no rehabilitation for Terri. This surprised me, as I did not think a guardian could go against a doctor’s orders like that, but I was assured that a guardian could and that this guardian had gone against Terri’s doctor’s orders.
5. No one was allowed to just go in and see Terri. Michael had a visitors list. We all knew that we would lose our jobs if we did not do exactly what Michael said to do.
6. I remember seeing Michael Schiavo only once the entire time I worked at Sabal Palms, but we were all aware that Terri was not to be given any kind of rehabilitative help, per his instructions. Once, I wanted to put a cloth in Terri’s hand to keep her hand from closing in on itself, but I was not permitted to do this, as Michael Schiavo considered that to be a form of rehabilitation.
7. This entire experience made me look hard at nursing homes. After about two years, I quit this job, because I was so disillusioned with the way Terri was treated. Someone somewhere along the way should have reported this.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Carolyn Johnson, Affiant
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28 day of August, 2003, by Carolyn Johnson who produced a Florida drivers license as identification.
Notary Public
My commission expires
===================================
HEIDI LAW, CNA
AFFIDAVIT
_________
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
BEFORE ME the undersigned authority personally appeared HEIDI LAW who
being first duly sworn deposes and says:
1. My name is Heidi Law, I am over the age of 18 years, and make this statement on personal information.
2. I worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant at the Palm Gardens nursing home from March, 1997 to mid-summer of 1997. While I was employed at Palm Gardens, occasionally I took care of Theresa Schiavo. Generally, I worked the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift, but occasionally also would work a double shift, until 7 a.m. the following morning.
3. At Palm Gardens, most of the patient care was provided by the CNAs, so I was in a good position to judge Terri’s condition and observe her reactions. Terri was noticeable, because she was the youngest patient at Palm Gardens.
4. I know that Terri did not receive routine physical therapy or any other kind of therapy. I was personally aware of orders for rehabilitation that were not being carried out. Even though they were ordered, Michael would stop them. Michael ordered that Terri receive no rehabilitation or range of motion therapy. I and Olga would give Terri range of motion anyway, but we knew we were endangering our jobs by doing so. We usually did this behind closed doors, we were so fearful of being caught. Our hearts would race and we were always looking out for Michael, because we knew that, not only would Michael take his anger out on us, but he would take it out more on Terri. We spoke of this many times.
5. Terri had very definite likes and dislikes. Olga and I used to call Terri “Fancy Pants,” because she was so particular about certain things. She just adored her baths, and was so happy afterward when she was all clean, smelling sweet from the lotion her mother provided, and wearing the soft nightgowns her mother laundered for her. Terri definitely did not like the taste of the teeth-cleaning swabs or the mouthwash we used. She liked to have her hair combed. She did not like being tucked in, and especially hated it if her legs were tightly tucked. You would always tell when Terri had a bowel movement, as she seem agitated and would sort of “scoot” to get away from it.
6. Every day, Terri was gotten up after lunch and sat in a chair all afternoon. When Terri was in bed, she very much preferred to lie on her right side and look out the window. We always said that she was watching for her mother. It was very obvious that her mother was her favorite person in the whole world.
7. I worked side-by-side with another CNA named Olga and could tell that she and Terri were especially close. Olga took a definite personal interest in Terri, and Terri responded to her. I could tell that Terri was very satisfied and happy with Olga’s attentions to her.
8. When Olga was talking with Terri, Terri would follow Olga with her eyes. I have no doubt in my mind that Terri understood what Olga was saying to her. I could tell a definite difference between the way Terri responded to Olga and the way she reacted to me, until she got used to my taking care of her. Initially, she “clammed up” with me, the way she would with anyone she did not know or was not familiar or comfortable with. It took about the fourth or fifth time taking care of her alone, without Olga, that Terri became relaxed and cooperative and non-resistant with me.
9. Terri reacted very well to seeing a picture of her mother, which was in her room. Many times when I came on duty it would be lying face down where she could not see it.
10. At least three times during any shift where I took care of Terri, I made sure to give Terri a wet washcloth filled with ice chips, to keep her mouth moistened. I personally saw her swallow the ice water and never saw her gag. Olga and I frequently put orange juice or apple juice in her washcloth to give her something nice to taste, which made her happy. On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely. I did not do it more often only because I was so afraid of being caught by Michael.
11. On one occasion Michael Schiavo arrived with his girlfriend, and they entered Terri’s room together. I heard Michael tell his girlfriend that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and was dying. After they left, Olga told me that Terri was extremely agitated and upset, and wouldn’t react to anyone. When she was upset, which was usually the case after Michael was there, she would withdraw for hours. We were convinced that he was abusing her, and probably saying cruel, terrible things to her because she would be so upset when he left.
12. In the past, I have taken care of comatose patients, including those in a persistent vegetative state. While it is true that those patients will flinch or make sounds occasionally, they don’t do it as a reaction to someone on a constant basis who is taking care of them, the way I saw Terri do.
13. I witnessed a priest visiting Terri a couple of times. Terri would become quiet when he prayed with her. She couldn’t bow her head because of her stiff neck, but she would still try. During the prayer, she would keep her eyes closed, opening them afterward. She laughed at jokes he told her. I definitely know that Terri “is in there.”
14. The Palm Gardens staff, myself included, were just amazed that a “Do Not Resuscitate” order had been put on Terri’s chart, considering her age and her obvious cognitive awareness of her surroundings.
15. During the time I cared for Terri, she formed words. I have heard her say “mommy” from time to time, and “momma,” and she also said “help me” a number of times. She would frequently make noises like she was trying to talk. Other staff members talked about her verbalizations.
16. Several times when Michael visited Terri during my shift, he went into her room alone and closed the door. This worried me because I didn’t trust Michael. When he left, Terri was very agitated, was extremely tense with tightened fists and some times had a cold sweat. She was much less responsive than usual and would just stare out the window, her eyes kind of glassy. It would take much more time and effort than usual to work her hands open to clean her palms.
17. I was told by supervisory staff that Michael was Terri’s legal guardian, and that it didn’t matter what the parents or the doctors or nurses wanted, just do what Michael told you to do or you will lose your job. Michael would override the orders of the doctors and nurses to make sure Terri got no treatment. Among the things that Terri was deprived of by Michael’s orders were any kind of testing, dental care or stimulation.
I was ordered by my supervisors to limit my time with Terri. I recall telling my supervisor that Terri seemed abnormally warm to the touch. I was told to pull her covers down, rather than to take her temperature.
As far as I know, Terri never left her room. The only stimulation she had was looking out the window and watching things, and the radio, which Michael insisted be left on one particular station. She had a television, and there was a sign below it saying not to change the channel. This was because of Michael’s orders.
18. As a CNA, I wanted every piece of information I could get about my patients. I never had access to medical records as a CNA, but it was part of my job duties to write my observations down on sheets of paper, which I turned over to the nurse at the nurses station for inclusion in the patients charts. In the case of Terri Schiavo, I felt that my notes were thrown out without even being read. There were trash cans at the nurses stations that we were supposed to empty each shift, and I often saw the notes in them. I made extensive notes and listed all of Terri’s behaviors, but there was never any apparent follow up consistent with her responsiveness.
19. I discussed this situation with other personnel at Palm Gardens, particularly with Olga, and another CNA, an older black man named Ewan Morris. We all discussed the fact that we could be fired for reporting that Terri was responsive, and especially for giving her treatment. The advice among the staff was “don’t do nothin’, don’t see nothin’ and don’t say nothin’.” It was particularly distressing that we always had to be afraid that if Michael got upset, he would take his anger out on Terri.
20. I recall an incident when Olga became very upset because Terri started to get a sore spot, because it might lead to a bedsore. Michael was told about it but didn’t seem to care. he didn’t complain about it at all, in fact, saying “she doesn’t know the difference.” When Terri would get a UTI or was sick, Michael’s mood would improve.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Heidi Law, Affiant
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of August, 2003, by HEIDI LAW, who produced a Florida Driver’s License as identification.
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
Catherine Woodward: Because our server is having problems, I can’t go in and either close comments or ban your new IP addresses. (The banning was not for disagreeing with anyone — we always disagree amongst ourselves — but for incivility and profanity, which violate the posting rules.
Having already been banned, the decent thing would be to take your tirades somewhere else. Start your own weblog. Waste other people’s bandwidth by posting hugely long excerpts when a mere link would do. Most of us are already quite familiar with the affadavits and other documents on this case, and your pasting them adds nothing.
If you’re not interested in doing the decent thing, though, I suppose there’s nothing to do but wait until Typepad fixes itself, and we can do for you what, apparently, you lack either the politeness or the self-control to do for yourself.
all of you are a bunch of freakin’ assholes with your smart comments and your oh,i know it all bullshit.. catherine is talking from facts not her asshole… the affidavits that she mentioned are from the website the saga of terri schiavo..
you all need to grow the **** up and put a sock in it…
oh i forgot that is impossible because all of you have big heads and all of you wanna act like you know it all…
sorry to say that you as well as myself are not perfect. if god made the world perfect there wouldn’t be dickheads like you and hypocrits like others…
i trully believe you get hardons putting other people down..
well you can stick your assanine comments and beliefs where the sun don’t shine because this blog is full of preppy dick weeds that have nothing better to do then to put other peoples comments down..
take your asshole opinions and stick them in your ass
all of you are a bunch of freakin’ assholes with your smart comments and your oh,i know it all bullshit.. catherine is talking from facts not her asshole… the affidavits that she mentioned are from the website the saga of terri schiavo..
you all need to grow the **** up and put a sock in it…
oh i forgot that is impossible because all of you have big heads and all of you wanna act like you know it all…
sorry to say that you as well as myself are not perfect. if god made the world perfect there wouldn’t be dickheads like you and hypocrits like others…
i trully believe you get hardons putting other people down..
well you can stick your assanine comments and beliefs where the sun don’t shine because this blog is full of preppy dick weeds that have nothing better to do then to put other peoples comments down..
take your asshole opinions and stick them in your ass
the only reason you banned miss woodward is probably because hilzoy can’t handle the fact that actually a women beat him by truth and not fighting
or as the saying goes beat him to the punch and now all he is doing is retaliating in an unneccasary fashion he’s 30 going on two ah, wanna cookie little boy?
the only reason you banned miss woodward is probably because hilzoy can’t handle the fact that actually a women beat him by truth and not fighting
or as the saying goes beat him to the punch and now all he is doing is retaliating in an unneccasary fashion he’s 30 going on two ah, wanna cookie little boy?
this blog is full of assanine dweebs that need to read up on the facts…
you know what this blog is not worth the sweat off our assholes ban me for all i care i’d rather be banned then to see a bunch of hypocrits badmouthing our every move
the only reason you banned miss woodward is probably because hilzoy can’t handle the fact that actually a women beat him by truth and not fighting
or as the saying goes beat him to the punch
Ms Roberts, you omitted to read up on the facts.
By the way, had you noticed that you seem to be confused about whether your “friend” or “next door neighbor” is Miss or Mrs Woodward? She’s “mrs.woodward” in your July 3, 2005 02:11 PM comment, but “miss woodward” in your July 3, 2005 07:15 PM comment.
It always helps when running a sock puppet to be consistent about whether your sock puppet is married or not.
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day.
I might have to nominate, pardon my citing a posting rules violation,
Heaven forfend! Smart comments?!!?
http://www.earnedmedia.org/bonescan.htm
This link shows the actual bone scan (CHECK IT OUT)
To sign the petition to impeach Judge Greer type in the words (PETITION TO IMPEACH JUDGE GREER
http://www.earnedmedia.org/bonescan.htm
This link shows the actual bone scan (CHECK IT OUT)
To sign the petition to impeach Judge Greer type in the words (PETITION TO IMPEACH JUDGE GREER
If I were a mean-spirited bstrd, I’d send a copy of this thread to M. Schiavo’s attorney and see if he has any interest in instituting libel proceedings.
But I can’t be bothered, and I’m sure he’s read worse.
The typos are really kinda funny, tho.
Stupid Letters
Hmmm, the lefty revisionists are already working to erase some of their more embarrassing moments. Too bad the internet has some persistence. From today’s Seattle Times: State Sen. Bob Morton’s proposal to divide Washington into two states is a new…
because I’m sick of hearing the propaganda
…
Schiavo explicated
A case more disturbing than Terry Schiavo
A little more than a year ago, the entire nation was captivated by the case of Terri Schiavo. As you may remember, Ms. Schiavo was an unfortunate woman who lapsed into a persistent vegetative state after suffering anoxic brain damage…
A case more disturbing than Terry Schiavo
A little more than a year ago, the entire nation was captivated by the case of Terri Schiavo. As you may remember, Ms. Schiavo was an unfortunate woman who lapsed into a persistent vegetative state after suffering anoxic brain damage…
A case more disturbing than Terry Schiavo
A little more than a year ago, the entire nation was captivated by the case of Terri Schiavo. As you may remember, Ms. Schiavo was an unfortunate woman who lapsed into a persistent vegetative state after suffering anoxic brain damage…
A case more disturbing than Terry Schiavo
A little more than a year ago, the entire nation was captivated by the case of Terri Schiavo. As you may remember, Ms. Schiavo was an unfortunate woman who lapsed into a persistent vegetative state after suffering anoxic brain damage…
A case more disturbing than Terry Schiavo
A little more than a year ago, the entire nation was captivated by the case of Terri Schiavo. As you may remember, Ms. Schiavo was an unfortunate woman who lapsed into a persistent vegetative state after suffering anoxic brain damage…
A case more disturbing than Terry Schiavo
A little more than a year ago, the entire nation was captivated by the case of Terri Schiavo. As you may remember, Ms. Schiavo was an unfortunate woman who lapsed into a persistent vegetative state after suffering anoxic brain damage…
A case more disturbing than Terry Schiavo
A little more than a year ago, the entire nation was captivated by the case of Terri Schiavo. As you may remember, Ms. Schiavo was an unfortunate woman who lapsed into a persistent vegetative state after suffering anoxic brain damage…
A case more disturbing than Terry Schiavo
A little more than a year ago, the entire nation was captivated by the case of Terri Schiavo. As you may remember, Ms. Schiavo was an unfortunate woman who lapsed into a persistent vegetative state after suffering anoxic brain damage…
I like the way Terri’s diapers smell