In America, to execute a criminal by lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment, but to allow a brain damaged woman to starve to death is merciful.
Can somebody explain that so it makes any kind of sense?
Let's start simply, and then work our way to the more complex issues, shall we?
First, Terri Schiavo did not have a living will, or a health trust, or any form of legal documentation stating her wishes should she become incapacitated. Whatever caused her to collapse took her completely by surprise and totally unprepared. If nothing else, that should be a lesson to all of us to prepare a living will. I'll go public right here and now and state that, should I become incapacited, I name Cary Harwood Hailey as trustee for my healthcare. In the event she is unable to serve, I name Marian Hailey Phillips as first alternate, and George Edward Hailey Jr. as second alternate. If I am brain dead, or in a persistent vegetative state, I order all life supporting equipment to be removed, turned off, or disabled, and that I be allowed to die painlessly, with some small shred of dignity.
Terri's husband, Mike Schiavo has stated that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive on life support, and that she told him so. Terri's parents say the opposite. With no documentation, we are left to balance the competing claims, an impossibly difficult task. That being the case, doesn't basic prudence and decency demand that we side with supporting a life rather than snuffing one out?
And let's be honest about this for a minute; removing Terri's feeding tube is not "allowing her to die." It's killing her. We are taking an action that we know with 100% certainty will result in her death. She dies through our action. That's killing, folks, plain and simple. If we are going to kill somebody, shouldn't we be certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that that's what they would have wanted? Can anybody in this case state with that degree of certainty that this is what Terri would want?
If not, we have to side with life.
So why is the other side pushing so hard to kill her?
For Judge George Greer and attorney George Felos, this isn't about Terri's wishes, or what's best for her; it's about creating euthanasia law. George Felos first came to prominance in the Browning case, where a Florida woman was being kept alive on life support despite having a living will. Before that case was settled, the woman died of natural causes, but shortly thereafter, the Florida Supeme Court ruled that witholding feeding from people with living wills was legal.
So Felos got what he wanted, right?
Nope, with the Schiavo case, he's moving another step forward. Now he's pressing for the right to withhold life giving care, even food and water, in the absence of a living will, based on the unsupported, unsubstantiated claim of a relative, even when that claim is disputed by other members of the immediate family.
Now if that thought doesn't scare the crap out of you, you haven't really thought about it. What if you believe that suicide is a mortal sin, and that requesting to be taken off life support is suicide? And suppose your closest family member does not believe as you do, and decides that your suffering should not be prolonged.
Should they have the power(note carefully I did not say the "right") to go against your wishes and have your life support turned off? Accoding to Felos, they should, and that's just wrong.
The next case, and this is a prediction, but I'll bet money on it, that Felos takes will be that of a person in a PVS without a close relative or advocate. Having won the power of life and death for a family member, he will next try to give that same power to a court appointed guardian who may not even be related to the patient. Is there anyone reading this who feels comfortable with the idea of a bureaucrat deciding whether you should live or die? Hell, I don't even trust them with my paycheck!
But you know, this picture gets even murkier when you get more details. Little things like the fact that Gearge Felos was a long time member of the board of directors at the very hospise the Terri's is housed in. That means that the doctors who have certified her medical condition for the courts work for, or used to work for, the man who is advocating her death. This also begs the question of why a Terri is being kept in a hospice, a facility designed to help terminal patients die with some peace and dignity? She's not terminal; she's severely disabled. The hospice clearly does not have the facilities to give her the treatment she needs. It's a place to die, not a place to recover.
Maybe I'm just overly suspicious; maybe she's still getting good care and treatment despite the limitations of the hospice envoronment.
Here are a few facts.
Terri has never has an MRI or PET scan, two standard diagnostic tools used to determine the amount and severity of brain damage. Why would such an obvious tool be withheld? Mike Schiavo has refused permission.
Terri's basic grooming and health needs are being neglected. Her body is being allowed to slowly decay away, almost as if somebody believes that the worse off she is, the easier it will be to convince a court to kill her.
Her husband has refused to allow any therapy, or any attempts to see if she can learn to eat without the feeding tubes. He has limited access to her parents, to outside doctors, basically to anyone who might possibly hinder his wish to end his wife's life.
Her husband has refused to spend funds awarded and earmarked for her treatment on treatment, instead paying Felos over $200,000 trying to withhold treatment.
Her husband has refused to divorce Terri, allowing her parents to assume the financial burdern for her care and treatment, as they have requested time and time again, even though he is now in a new relationship, with children.
And in all of this, he has the complete cooperation of Judge Greer who is on record as calling Terri's continued existence, "irritating."
God forbid I ever irritate a judge!
In short, the actions of Mike Schiavo, Judge Greer, and George Felos make it very clear that none of them care about what is best for Terri; only what is best for themsleves. George Felos wants to extend the right of the state to decide when people should die. Judge Greeer wants to make a name for himself by creating new law. And Mike Schiavo just wants Terri to die.
And caught in all of this is a woman who will now be allowed to die of hunger and thirst, painfully and slowly.
It's an abomination.
Posted by Rich at March 21, 2005 8:53 AM | TrackBackShe doesn't have a brain to feel pain *with* (CAT scan: Schiavo left, normal right). The cerebral cortex is gone, replaced by fluid. She is remnants of brain matter attached to a smiling mouth.
You seem to equate "what is best for Terry" with "keeping her alive." Apparently, Terry didn't, according to her legal guardian, and according to multiple judges who took maybe a teensy little bit more time than you did to look into the controversy.
It's an abomination all right; it's just not the one you think it is. I hope no one ever subverts your last wishes with Congressional help, and I hope you never get a chance to help subvert mine.
Posted by: Thomas Nephew on March 21, 2005 3:51 PMAhhh, Tom, you should know better than to question my command of the details. I have been looking very closely at this case.
That there is significant brain damage is not in dispute; whether she wants to die most certainly is, and that is the crux of this case. To take it in former direction, as Felos, Greer, and Schiavo want to do, is to say that judges have the power to decide if somebody's life is worth living or not, and that's not a power I will give them.
Ever.
As for her legal guardian, as I pointed out in the first few paragraphs, all we have is his word that she wouldn't want to live. According to the family website, that statement was called into question by Schiavo's girlfriend. More telling though is the report of the second guardian ad litem, who said "Michael Schiavo’s decision-making may be influenced by the potential to inherit the remainder of Terri Schiavo’s estate."
Combine this with his rampant abuse of his power as guardian, keeping doctors from seeing Terri, denying treatment for infections, keeping her family away from her, opposing any sort of therapy or tests which might show that she is not in a PVS; taken together, this is a man whose credibility isn't that great.
As for the extent of the damage, neither you nor I are neurologists, and neither of us is qualified to determine just what amount of function Terri still has. (BTW, your link only goes to Schiavo's CAT, not a normal one.) More to the point, there are many neurologists who have filed affidavits stating bluntly that Terri is not in PVS, and that she would benefit from therapy. Even more telling is that nobody knows whether or not Terri even needs the feeding tube because her husband refuses to allow tests to see if she can be spoon fed!
Your entire argument, including your conclusion, is based solely on the testimony of Michael Schiavo that his wife would have wanted to die. Even putting aside his credibility issues, in the absence of corroborative proof, that shouldn't be enough to kill a person.
Now that's the point I was making, which you neatly sidestepped. This isn't about overriding someone's last wishes; you saw me in that post put together a rough, informal Living Will, and I've spent the last several hours putting together a formal one that I'll have signed, witnessed and notarized tomorrow. This is about what to do when we have no clear indication of the person's last wishes. Do we opt for caution, and preserve life, or do we use our own value judgments, and deny life to someone who may still want it?
Is that a decision you feel comfortable making?
Nor do I automatically equate "what's best for Terri" with keeping her alive. If she had filed a living will, then she would have been dead years ago, and I would have no argument with that. BUt she didn't, and nobody can know what is best for Terri because her husband and his attorney have kept her isolated from every neutral 3rd party, refused to allow evaluation and testing, and fighting rehabilitive therapy every step of the way. Even they don't have the information required to make the best decision because they are hiding from the truth.
That's the abomination here. Nobody knows, or likely will ever know how much of Terri is still there.
And yet too many people are still willing to kill her.
Posted by: Rich on March 21, 2005 5:22 PMRich,
I would suggest you read the full GAL report. It dispels a lot of the malarky running through the media.
Posted by: Manish on March 29, 2005 12:55 AM