Various precincts of the US body politic are obsessed with Terri Schiavo, a young woman who has been at the center of an ongoing familial, legal, and now, sadly, political dogfight.
In very broad terms, Terri Schiavo is unable to make decisions for herself. She is apparently brain damaged, and has been in some degree of coma or “persistent vegetative state” for years. Her husband wants to withdraw artificial life support and let nature take its course. Her parents want her kept on life support indefinitely in the hopes that some day she will make some degree of recovery. As ever, you can find a medical expert to present just about any side of this that you want. This situation is, sadly, all too common.
The uproar around Terri Schiavo illustrates rather nicely the key distinction between libertarians and, well, everyone else. For libertarians, the critical question is “who decides?”, based on their belief that you should be able to make your own decisions in life. Most other folks, it seems, don’t care “who decides” nearly as much as they care about “what decision is made,” and particularly, “whatever decision is made, it damn will better be one I approve of.”
In Terri’s case, this means that all sorts of folks who you think would know better than to invite the state to participate in medical decision-making are doing exactly that, because Terri’s husband has made a decision that they do not approve of.
So, not only have we been treated the spectacle of the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, trying to elbow his way to Terri’s bedside so he can dictate what care she will receive, we also have various Florida legislators trying to insert the State of Florida into the mix. Now the US Congress, apparently not satisfied with embarrassing itself* in its ongoing investigation into steroid use in major league baseball, is preparing to abuse its subpoena power to block the decision made by Terri’s husband.
A fundamental principle of health care law, and one dear to the hearts of libertarians, is that you must give informed consent to any treatment before it is administered to you (with an exception in cases of emergency when you are unable to communicate, in which case the caregivers are allowed to assume you want life-saving treatment). A doctor who treats you without your consent has committed assault and battery. It is your right to refuse any treatment at all, even if it will mean your death, and so long as you are a competent adult no court or legislature can intervene to force treatment on you.
When the patient is not a decisional adult, someone who will make decisions on their behalf must be located. You can appoint your own surrogate decision-maker, via a health care power of attorney (which I strongly recommend). Some states have lists of “deemed” surrogate decision-makers on the statute books, such as spouses, parents, siblings, etc., in rank order so everyone knows who has authority in a given case. As a last resort, a court will appoint a guardian.
The whole process is focused on the proper issue of identifying “who will decide.” Once the decision-maker is identified/appointed, they stand in the shoes of the patient. The state retains (or should retain) only the most limited role, to ensure that the decision-maker does not abuse their power. Clearly, the decision to withdraw life support is a decision that Terri Schiavo could make for herself. Indeed, my wife has told me that if she were in Terri’s position, that is exactly what she would want. Her husband’s decision to make it in her stead is by no means an abuse of his power as her surrogate decision-maker – such decisions are made routinely, every single day, across the country by people charged with the heavy burden of making health care decisions for someone else.
What we have in the Schaivo case, then, is the legally appointed and recognized decision-maker making a choice that is well within his purview. Multiple court reviews have concluded that he is the right person to make the call, and his decision should be honored. To this libertarian, that is the end of the matter, because the very essence of being a libertarian is respecting the decisions of others even when you might decide otherwise. To a broad spectrum of conservatives, however, the fact that medical decision-making should be private is of no concern when the decisions made are decisions they disagree with.
*While at the gym yesterday, I caught a few minutes of the steroid hearings. It was painfully embarassing to see the solons of American governance earnestly seeking noted idiot Jose Canseco’s advice on public policy. A quick survey of the fellows in the locker room revealed that this latest Congressional exercise in nannying competent adults and chasing headlines is not being well-received by the public. The universal sentiment was, “Don’t they have anything better to do?”
I can’t wait for the judge to order the feeding tube removed, so that the bitch starves to death. Slowly. Goddamn am I sick of the attention-seeking parents.
You do realize the issue is that her parents are willing to accept full responsibility and pay for whatever support she needs, right? The fact that her husband wants to deny them that, and the fact that he used the settlement that was supposed to pay for her medical care for his own purposes makes him out to be the bad guy here. I doubt very much that serious libertarians want to see the state get involved here, but it seems the only way to prevent what seems on the surface to be analagous to murder.
I understand the husband is also keen for her to die so he can go ahead and get married again, which appears to be his primary motivation.
EG
If the parents are willing to take all financial responsibility, then that would seem to negate any claim that her husband is pulling the plug for financial reasons, no?
Its my understanding that the settlement money from her malpractice claim is all gone, or nearly so, mostly spent on legal fees in the fight with her parents.
If he wants to get married again, why not just get a divorce? It would have been a hell of a lot quicker and cheaper than trying to get rid of her the way he has.
In short, neither the claim that he wants to kill her for the money or to get rid of the marriage is very plausible to me, because if these were his goals, there are much easier ways for him to accomplish them.
Indeed, the most plausible explanation for his stubborn determination to pull the plug is that he is trying to act in what he sees as her best interests/as she would want. Taking this course has been enormously painful and expensive for him, with no other payoff that he couldn’t get easier somewhere else.
it seems the only way to prevent what seems on the surface to be analagous to murder.
Any withdrawal or withholding of care would be “analogous to murder,” apparently. This would mean that no surrogate decisionmaker can ever make a decision to withdraw or withhold care. Is that where we want to go?
There is a distinction, however blurry at the edges, between taking affirmative steps to end someone’s life (murder), and declining to take steps to save their life. If we say that withdrawing or withholding care is murder, we are saying that declining to take steps to save a life is murder. Do we really want that? Mandatory good samaritan laws, with legal penalties up to and including life in prison?
Well, Dean, if someone is dependent on being fed and given water to live (which is, last I saw, all the “life support” Mrs. Schiavo was on), and you deliberately stop feeding that person, with the intent that they die…
That sure sounds like it could at least plausibly be thought of as analagous to murder, no?
The question of whether or not it’s mercifully doing what she (on your word alone) told you to do if she was in such a state, or whether you’re killing her purely to make your life more convenient, is unanswerable by us outsiders. But at the same time it’s hardly beyond the pale to call it analagous to murder.
(My personal feeling is that Congress is, indeed, out of line, constiutionally, though the Florida legislature probably isn’t. There are far, far too many questionable, worrisome “issues” with the case for me to be comfortable with the decision to remove food and water (in the absence of a living will or a disinterested witness to the alleged claim of Mrs. Schiavo that she’d want to be let to die) – most especially the claims that she has in fact interacted with medical personnel (if nonverbally), and that such claims have been, as far as I know, simply ignored on the word of a paid “expert”.
The whole mess, from what I’ve been able to learn, stinks to high heaven, and I can’t help but think that in such a case it harms no-one to keep feeding and watering her (after all, if she is a vegetable and this really is contradicting her previously expressed will, it doesn’t matter, because she really IS a vegetable, and has no personhood to offend. And if she isn’t a vegetable, well… then she isn’t in a state such that she can’t recover, and thus her desire to be killed in such a state doesn’t apply, does it?)
I haven’t been following this that closely, but there’s apparently some question as to whether a beating from the husband put her into the vegetative state in the first place, which puts another spin entirely on his desire to see this over with.
“A fundamental principle of health care law, and one dear to the hearts of libertarians, is that you must give informed consent to any treatment before it is administered to you (with an exception in cases of emergency when you are unable to communicate, in which case the caregivers are allowed to assume you want life-saving treatment). ”
Since she is non-communicative, it makes sense to assume that she wants life-saving treatment. I think the presumption that people want their lives saved should be strong enough that it requires a written statement to the contrary to rebut.
Which means that, when no such statement exists and her parents are willing and able to provide such life saving care indefinitely, it’s seems like a no-brainer to allow them to do so.
Sigivald, the feeding and hydration she gets is delivered entirely through tubes. We’re not cutting her off from bottles of Evian and filet mignon, here.
To be fair, though, withdrawal of feeding and hydration is the controversial edge of this issue – folks who have no problem withholding or withdrawing other, more drastic measures can reasonably balk at feeding and hydration. That may be why there has been so much court review in this case already.
If you can refuse feeding and hydration for yourself (whether in person or via a living will), do we want to say there are no circumstances in which a surrogate can refuse it on your behalf?
Tim Haas – in a bitter family dispute, you can get someone to raise questions about damn near anything. I’m not sure how much there is to these questions, but I am skeptical based on experience with baseless allegations in similar situations. Multiple courts have heard every attack there is to be had on her husband, and have turned them all away as insufficient to disqualify him as her decision-maker.
The facts on this case, as available to us as news consumers, are hopelessly muddled, anyway. I’m interested in the more general questions:
Since someone has to make decisions on behalf of non-competent adults, should that person be a family member or the state?
If it is a family member, how much oversight should the state have, and through what bodies? If the courts are the right body, what exactly has been wrong with their oversight in this case? If not the courts, then who?
Does anyone think the US Congress should get in the business of indefinitely ordering the continuation of care in contravention of the legal decisionmaker and state law, as it has done in this case?
The comments here, almost without exception, are about “what should be decided” and “what I would decide if I were in charge.” That is the meme of statism, and this discussion reveals how deeply it has infected our minds.
There hasn’t been any engagement at all with the real issue: “who should decide.”
“Since someone has to make decisions on behalf of non-competent adults, should that person be a family member or the state?”
Depends on what decisions we’re talking about here. In the case of life-saving medical treatment, as long as someone’s willing to supply it, it doesn’t make sense to allow anyone to claim that the non-communicative person doesn’t want it – the presumption that he does want his life to be saved should be fairly strong.
An infant is non-communicative, and parents are allowed some latitude in making decisions for him. But they aren’t allowed to decide that the infant doesn’t want to be fed and withhold food.
What it all comes down to is that any bystander, no matter what the relationship to the person, cannot be completely trusted to act in the person’s best interests. I’m all for allowing people to make decisions for themselves, since they bear the costs and reap the benefits. Bystanders really can’t be counted on to do either, and so they are properly given much less leeway to make decisions, and certain decisions should be presumed as the decisions that a reasonable person would make in the absence of evidence that the person himself favors a different decision. I believe that being given undeniably lifesaving treatment falls in that category.
Everyone I’ve talked to about this scenario, has said they would not wan’t to be kept alive in this situation. My wife wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. I’m sure not everyone shares this opinion, (though I have yet to come across them), but it’s not hard for me to believe the husband really thinks he is doing what his wife what want, and should rightfully be his decision to make. If marriage isn’t about trusting your parter in the most important of decisions on your behalf.. what is it about?
I wonder if anyone would object if a murderer sentenced to death were starved to death instead of being given a lethal injection? What if he requested it? If he went on a hunger strike, he would be forcibly fed – hey, just like Terry Schiavo, outwardly – and then executed. I can’t understand those who say that taking her feeding tube away and injecting her with poison are in any way morally distinct. Isn’t it possible that the lethal injection would be less painful than starving, once you’ve decided that she should no longer be kept alive? So on what moral basis, except the convenience of the onlookers, do you choose starvation?
Heck, maybe removing the feeding tube will shock her system into waking her up. Wouldn’t that be a turnabout?
A good friend of my family recently lost her father, who had been ill for a few years. He was in his 90’s, so it was not a tragic situation, and the funeral reception was explicitly designated as a celebration of his life.
The deceased was a very well known doctor in our community, and he designed a living will so comprehensive that, at the end, there was no question that he wished to be allowed to pass without any further measures that might keep him alive.
I have no comment on the truly horrible predicament that the Schiavo family finds itself struggling with. Imho, it would be best if everyone else, esp. lawyers, would butt out.
My wife and I have requested a copy of our friend’s living will in order to incorporate it into our last testaments. We have always been active and independent people, and have no intention of allowing our last few months or years of life to be turned into an emotional or financial ordeal for our families, just because some new treatment or device could keep our bodily functions ticking along, even though any semblence of our real lives had long since ceased.
There is more to life than physical functioning, and, as medical progress makes it possible to maintain physical functionality in ever more extreme cases, my demand is not for longevity above all else, but dignity and respect.
Hell, I never figured I’d make it this long.
The feeding and watering is not only provided through tubes. A few days ago (I’m still looking for the link), the judge who is hearing the case, forbade the parents giving her food and drink orally either. She may have some ability to swallow, which certainly makes her ‘vegetative’ state that much more questionable. If she is truly vegetative, why forbid oral feeding?
The bias of commenters on this issue is usually evident from their choice of “life support” or “food and water” when discussing it. Life support implies all sorts of blinking lights, huffing pumps and other technical apparatus, with a comatose person who is being made involuntarily part of a machine. To deliberately use such term synonymously for food and water seems deceptive. There is a difference.
There is ample indication that this woman may have at least some limited sensation. To condemn her to die by a painful method such as starvation and dehydration is cruelty pure and simple. If you are so sure she should be killed, at least have the decency to use a bullet or a dose of poison and get it over with.
Or would that be wrong, but starvation right?
Duncan, I know I’m in the minority, but if I’m in a coma, braindead, whatever, leave me the hell alone. I have no idea what a coma or braindeath is like, for all I know it may very well be the greatest sensation ever.
I want no one unplugging me, stopping my breathing machine, or taking out my feeding tubes. Hell, if possible I want redundant backups for all those systems. I don’t care how out of it I am, keep me alive, damnit.
On the other hand, that poor guy who had his face, foot, and testicle torn off by chimps? Yeah, if that ever happens to me just let me go.
RC:
You’ll get no argument from me that Congress is exceeding its brief here, in what’s clearly a political ploy — I just wanted to point out that there is a potential criminal aspect to the case that you didn’t mention. It sounds as if you’ve done more research than I on this angle, so I’ll defer to your knowledge.
As to your broader question, let me ask this: Which is the greater injustice — being kept alive against your wishes, or being killed against your wishes? In an age of health-care proxies/living wills and DNRs, all of us have a relatively straightforward way of making our wishes known or actively vesting legal power in another to make such decisions on our behalf. If one hasn’t taken that formal step (and I don’t know whether that occurred in the Schiavo case), it seems to me more just (or perhaps just the lesser evil) to default to continuation of life. Accordingly, a surrogate you nominate could make the decision to terminate all intervention, but one appointed by the courts could not. In short, by choosing not to decide before incapacitation, you have already made a choice.
I’d just like to interject that is wasn’t Michael Schiavo’s decision to remove the feeding tube, it was the court’s – that’s what the court adjudicated that Terri would want.
I don’t think this is a minor legal point. Even if Michael stepped down or was removed as her guardian (fyi, a guardian ad litem was appointed by the court a while back), that wouldn’t necessarily stop the order to remove the feeding tube. Although I did read that it might make some avenues of appeal open up.
Anyway, if you go to Abstract Appeal you can find a good examination of the legal bases in the case, including a timeline and links to the court decisions. Decide for yourself.
(I’ll point out that I have no connection to this site other than I’m a frequent visitor)
RC Dean, I’m with you on this one, even though it would appear that Robert Schiavo’s motives are less tha stellar. In the end, it’s on his shoulders.
“Any withdrawal or withholding of care would be “analogous to murder,” apparently.”
I’m not talking about withdrawal or withholding of care; I’m talking about actively barring others from providing that care. I don’t see how you can call that anything but murder.
Say for example that someone is lying across some railroad tracks. Not only do you not try to move the person out of the path of an oncoming train, but you restrain someone who is trying to move them. What does that make you?
Its all very easy to say, well, if someone is willing to provide the care, it should be provided, or that what is really being done here isn’t withdrawing care but preventing care, but that evades the question of:
WHO DECIDES?
There is always someone willing to provide the care – it might only be a nursing home cashing government checks, but there they are.
It is in the nature of complex medical cases that a number of very individualized decisions must be made. There simply must be a decision-maker, in other words, and simply saying that well, if circumstance X, obtains decision Y should be made, doesn’t obviate the fact that a decision has been made regarding an individual’s care.
Indeed, many of the posters have been indulging in the dictation of decisions by rules, (thou shalt not withdraw feeding and hydration), even though such decisions can be made by perfectly rational adults.
Maybe its my experience with end-of-life health care, but its not an area where I think hard-and-fast diktats should apply.
I’m not clear on the exact legal posture of this case; apparently Florida law requires a court order to withdraw feeding and hydration, but the decision is clearly coming from the husband, and requirement of a court order appears to be a procedural protection against abuse.
This whole mess is only to be expected, when people try to play God without having the prerequisite wisdom to go with it.
I would have thought that lawyers were the last to qualify on that basis… also, on that basis, I would hesitate to offer any opinion on the matter.
Being fortunate enough never to have been in that situation, I think that I might feel quite differently if actually confronted with having to make that decision.
I can understand the parents position, the hardest blow anyone can bear is the loss of a child, to actually make a deliberate decision, or to aquiesce to a decision to end a child’s life must be the ultimate in torture and despair.
I have less understanding of the husband’s stand, I hope that he is motivated by nothing other than the highest motives, in which case he must be torn between his anguish, to do the right thing, and that of his wife’s parents, whose wishes are so opposed to his own.
Then why am I so puzzled by his adamant stand that a decision must be made now?
God protect both parties from perverts such as the writer of the first post in this thread…what a disgusting little misanthrope he must be…
I will prefix this comment by saying that it is my belief that this woman is no longer there and what is being kept alive is no more than a sack of meat. But regardless of that, the following ideas seem to be salient.
Firstly, she is not being kept alive by “life support” but is merely being fed and watered. If someone wants to feed and water her, why should they be stopped? If she /is/ still alive then her husband is bound to care for her by marriage contract. If he want to end that contract, so be it and her parents can take over. If she is dead then her husband has little claim over her (till death do us part) and her parents should be allowed to care for her remains.
There was no living will, merely the hearsay of her husband. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed she (assuming temporarily that she is still alive) would want to live. It is easy and somewhat glib to say “If I was in that situation, I would want to die”, because you’re not in that situation. It turns out that a lot of people who are severely brain damaged actually find out that they actually rather want to keep on living. It should hardly be surprising, life that didn’t have the will to self preservation pretty soon finds itself in an evolutionary dead end. In the absence of any other compelling evidence, it would seem that this woman should not be assumed to be an exception to this near universal (excepting a few aberrant suicidals) truth.
Rich
R.C. Dean: you wrote: “Some states have lists of ‘deemed’ surrogate decision-makers on the statute books, such as spouses, parents, siblings, etc., in rank order so everyone knows who has authority in a given case.” You then ask who should decide, the state or the familiy. It goes without saying for me that it is the family. The real is what rank order should be. Richard Thomas has a certain view on this. I obviously see his point, but I am sure there are equally valid counterpoints that can be made.
To those commenters who would rather shoot or poison her: it is probably illega (i.e. would obviously be considered murder), in FL and the rest of the US (please orrect me if I am wrong). “Withholding of care” is probably used because it is legally not as easily classified as murder.
Regarding a last testament on the issue: I for one would really like to write one. Problem is, I was never in a coma, brain dead or any other such like condition. So I don’t know what it feels like, including whether it feels like anything at all. And I don’t think anyone else knows. So I personally have no idea what I would like to be done to me under such circumstances.
R. C.: Captain Ed, to whom you linked, compared this case to the case of Elian Gonzalez, (and rightly so, in my view). I, on the other hand, immediately thought of abortion. I am very interested to know what are you views on both these issues, if you would not mind. Thanks for the great post.
to allow to die is not ‘murder’…..
or as clough put it
“Thou shalt not kill; but need’st not strive
Officiously to keep alive.”
Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861),
The husband has been shacking up with another woman for wears and has a child with another woman. Why should the law presuppose he is the logical legal guardian of her? If your wife left you to live with another guy and had the other guy’s child and you had an accident and could not conduct your affairs for a while would you like your ex to be appointed your guardian with fuull power to empty your retirement plands and even deny medical care for you. Under the ciircumstances I would questionthe presumption the spouse is the person to decide.
And these messes surprise you WHY? The red states’ elected representatives have been pandering to the idiocracy for years. Now that they’ve got control of the Congress AND the White House, don’t look for them to slow down any time soon. Christ, what a balls-up.
Even the most basic intensive nursing care (and Terri would’ve required some kind of intensive nursing care to keep her alive all these years) would cost, I’m guessing here, at least $100 per day, possibly more. That’s at least $50k per year, or $700k over 14 years. This may be where the bulk of the original settlement has gone.
This is certainly a difficult situation. I suspect that Terri’s parents have been so focussed on the legal battle that they haven’t yet had to face up to her severe her brain damage actually is.
Oh, yeah, I should’ve mentioned that the idiocracy have been promised a judiciary more to their liking. They’ll have won the trifecta: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary branches.
I repeat: What a balls-up.
C.S. Innes notes:
That’s correct. And who has paid these bills? I am not asking who writes the checks. I am asking: Who, ultimately, is paying for Ms. Schiavo’s care? It is a rhetorical question.
And by the way, who’s going to pay for the care of the hundreds or thousands of people who will be covered under whatever asinine umbrella our elected nitwits fashion? That’s a rhetorical question too.
Alisa:
Elian Gonzalez: should not have been yanked out of his house by armed goons and returned to a Communist state that had repeatedly referred to him as its property. Elian’s father, as I recall, had abandoned him and had no claim to his custody under Cuban law. As in the Schiavo case, the state should have kept its hands to itself. Elian’s mother was the guardian, and her wishes (that he live in the US) should have been honored.
Abortion: Hopelessly conflicted. Can’t come up with a decent philosophical underpinning, but I tend to think that abortion in the first trimester should be allowed, anyway.
Thanks:-)
None,
Those sour grapes really do leave a lingering aftertaste – don’t they!…
Are you suggesting that you Dems are all for euthanasia, as well as late term abortion?
How long before you embrace the complete eugenics philosophy?
Just gotta love the Democrats vision of a ‘caring’ society, – just as long as you have a ‘healthy mind, in a healthy body’…
RC, now that I can comment:
First, I feel the exact same way you do about abortion.
About Elian: I actually was thinking along the lines of your original proposition, i.e. not what should have been done, but who should have had the decision. And, as I remarked earlier, it goes without saying for me that it should be the family, not the state, (although the state is needed to back the decision with force, if necessary, once it has been made by the appropriate party). The real question is who in the family.
I do not recall the detail about Elian’s father having abandonded him, and not having a right to custody under Cuban law, but let’s assume this was the case. Let’s also assume an identical case, only instead of a Cuban family we are dealing with an Australian one (or pick any other country where the degree of personal freedom is closest to that of the US).
Like I said earlier, it seems to me that the real issue here is what the rank order of the family should be. This seems to me the main difficulty in the Schiavo case: we have parents vs. a husband. In the Gonzalez case it is much more straight forward: a father vs. aunts and uncles.
I think you can guess that I strongly supported the decision to return Elian to his father. I grew up in the Sovyet Union. But as much as I detested the regime, I don’t think that any person should be deprived of his right to be reunited with his child just because he is unlucky enough to happen to live under such regime.
Ernest Young:
My point, in case you missed it, is that these people have been the most demagogic big-statists from the beginning, and that it is somewhere between disingenuous and outright stupid to be surprised at what they’re pulling now and will continue to pull as long as they remain in power.
It seems to me that whatever status the husband had as a guardian should have been nullified as soon as he had children with another woman, if not before.
This man has innumerable conflicts of interest. Why the legal presumption is in his favor is beyond me.
Mastiff, I agree with you. This man has had two children with another woman since his wife went into a coma, which disqualifies him, in flashing red lights, from making a life and death decision over her.
It may be wishful thinking, but her parents say she recognises them when they come into her view. Maybe she does. We don’t know. Apparently, she can also swallow. I don’t know the medical definition of PVS, but surely it doesn’t include the ability to swallow?
Anyway, the husband has a vested interest in her dying so he can get on with the new life he has fashioned for himself and should thus be disqualified as her guardian. This should pass to people who love her – her parents.
There was a British case, about a year ago, of a young man who had been in a total coma for (if I remember rightly, eight years) and suddenly one day opened his eyes and said something. The nurse who was attending him almost fainted in shock. He knew who he was and could converse in fairly normal sentences with his parents, although he seemed to have big memory gaps. I don’t know what has happened to him since. Maybe someone else knows.
Couldn’t find the British man I referred to, but here from a year and a half ago is a man who woke up after being in a coma for 18 years and asked for a Pepsi. He seems to be fine. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03070904.html
Here’s a woman who suddenly woke up and began conversing after 20 years in a coma. http://www.kctv5.com/global/story.asp?s=2930161&ClientType=Print
And here is a link to a very interesting piece on comas by neurologist: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/body/coma.html
Here’s the money quote as far as Terri Schiavo is concerned:
“Officially, the end of a coma is signalled by the opening of the eyes. Although it is a good sign that some functionality is returning to the arousal centre of the brain, people can remain trapped in so-called ‘vegetative states’ for months or even years after they open their eyes for the first time. In truth, people do not suddenly ‘wake-up’ from a coma; they make a slow and sometimes painful return to consciousness, via incremental improvements to their sense of themselves and their environment.”
The thing is, in the photos I have seen of her, she does have her eyes open. I suspect her mother’s instinct is correct.
(Apologies for not being to get the hang of doing links on Firefox.)
None,
Didn’t miss your point at all. That you were trying to make some political point out of a tragic situation was all too obvious, and it was recognised as a typical Democrat tactic.
I do not think that anyone was surprised by the ‘demagogic big-statists’, who are behind this evil plot to save a life. I certainly wasn’t, and never said I was. Neither was I being disingenuous, or stupid…
With the republicans being largely ‘pro-life’, it is not outside the bounds of imagination that they would be inclined to be more supportive of Terri and her parents rather than of her husband. And as they are the ones who are holding the reins at the moment….just what do you expect them to do?
Any political decision is bound to be seen as ‘vote chasing’, – that’s the nature of politics, as seen by the small minded…
And by the way, who’s going to pay for the care of the hundreds or thousands of people who will be covered under whatever asinine umbrella our elected nitwits fashion?
Why – the asinine fools, who think that ‘terminating’ the disabled and the inconvenient is the right way to do things in a caring society, – that’s who….
and will continue to pull as long as they remain in power.
Love to hear the pot calling the kettle black!
BTW, the U.S. government has just passed legislation specifically regarding this woman. Bye bye rule of law, it was nice knowing ya.
Rich
Terry Schiavo’s preference with respect to ending life-sustaining care is unknown. It therefore becomes an issue of “Who stands in her shoes?” Of all of the parties involved in this affair, name the one (1) person Ms. Schiavo deliberately chose to occupy such a position:
1. Her parents.
2. Her husband.
3. The U.S. Congress
Answer 2 is correct: Ms. Schiavo’s choice, insofar as it can be known to us, is to place her husband Michael in a position of affection and fidelity superior to that enjoyed by any other human being. I don’t know a whole lot about their marriage, but I suspect that Terry would not have married this man if she did not have some thought that he would act in her best interest in such a situation. Therefore, I suggest that we (read: the politicians) ought to act in the manner that is most consistent with her clearly expressed choice: allow the husband to decide.
I agree completely with your perspective regarding the Schiavo case. The legally established safeguards and rules regarding such cases are fully suited to dealing with this situation and Mr. Schiavo has the legal right to this decision. There is, however, a need for some fine-tuning of the system. It was nine years ago today that my father died in a hospital after a stay of 17 days due to end stage kidney failure and heart complications. He was cognizant and rational at the time of his admission to the hospital and I witnessed him signing the papers when I brought him there. He was then put on hemo-dialysis and for a period of approximately four days lapsed into a state of “dialysis dementia” caused by the rapid purging of toxins from the body. At this point he became confused and irrational and contol of is affairs reverted to my mother. This also meant that the hospital staff no longer had to abide by his wishes. Understandable under the circumstances, right? Yes, but the trouble is that this is such a convenient situation for the doctors that they don’t bother to acknowledge the fact that the condition is temporary. This was especially true at this “teaching hospital” where they were using his case as a teaching tool for young interns, who were repeatedly marched into his room to ask him the same questions over and over again during his entire stay in spite of the pain that speaking caused him at the time. There was little or no regard for his condition or his comfort and needless tests were being performed primarily in an effort to ‘train’ new doctors. After a few days of dialysis dementia he was rational again, realized within a week’s time that he was dying, and demanded to cease treatment so that he could return home to die. Nothing doing. They simply continued to treat him as a mental incompetent, referring all decisions to my mother who was in total denial of the fact that death was imminent and was easily manipulated by whatever the hospital staff told her; who in turn had a vested interest in keeping him there for ‘training’ purposes and to collect billings from Medicare. I wanted desperately to remove him from that hospital but had no legal authority to do so. In effect, a perfectly rational adult human being had become a prisoner of the hospital system with the complicity of a spouse who couldn’t accept the possibility of his death and wouldn’t listen to his wishes any longer. He was denied the right to ever see his home again and compelled to spend his last hours on earth surrounded only by strangers in a stark hospital room in the middle of the night. The fact that his perception of his condition was accurate is evidenced by the fact that he did soon die in spite of his continued incarceration and “treatment” at the hospital and I think it was a crime, morally if not legally, that he was denied the right to see his home again at the end of his life. [Dear Dad, Rest in Peace: 8/13/23—3/27/96]
Footnote: As for your reference to the baseball players and owners as “competent adults,” that is open to debate. I think a valid argument can be made that baseball has become a multi-billion dollar industry unfit to regulate itself and therefor in need of government oversight. Baseball has had plenty of time to clean its own house and has done nothing effective to address these drug problems. Ironic, isn’t it, that in this case Jose Canseco may have made more sense up there than anyone else who spoke that day?
I agree completely with your perspective regarding the Schiavo case. The legally established safeguards and rules regarding such cases are fully suited to dealing with this situation and Mr. Schiavo has the legal right to this decision. There is, however, a need for some fine-tuning of the system. It was nine years ago today that my father died in a hospital after a stay of 17 days due to end stage kidney failure and heart complications. He was cognizant and rational at the time of his admission to the hospital and I witnessed him signing the papers when I brought him there. He was then put on hemo-dialysis and for a period of approximately four days lapsed into a state of “dialysis dementia” caused by the rapid purging of toxins from the body. At this point he became confused and irrational and contol of is affairs reverted to my mother. This also meant that the hospital staff no longer had to abide by his wishes. Understandable under the circumstances, right? Yes, but the trouble is that this is such a convenient situation for the doctors that they don’t bother to acknowledge the fact that the condition is temporary. This was especially true at this “teaching hospital” where they were using his case as a teaching tool for young interns, who were repeatedly marched into his room to ask him the same questions over and over again during his entire stay in spite of the pain that speaking caused him at the time. There was little or no regard for his condition or his comfort and needless tests were being performed primarily in an effort to ‘train’ new doctors. After a few days of dialysis dementia he was rational again, realized within a week’s time that he was dying, and demanded to cease treatment so that he could return home to die. Nothing doing. They simply continued to treat him as a mental incompetent, referring all decisions to my mother who was in total denial of the fact that death was imminent and was easily manipulated by whatever the hospital staff told her; who in turn had a vested interest in keeping him there for ‘training’ purposes and to collect billings from Medicare. I wanted desperately to remove him from that hospital but had no legal authority to do so. In effect, a perfectly rational adult human being had become a prisoner of the hospital system with the complicity of a spouse who couldn’t accept the possibility of his death and wouldn’t listen to his wishes any longer. He was denied the right to ever see his home again and compelled to spend his last hours on earth surrounded only by strangers in a stark hospital room in the middle of the night. The fact that his perception of his condition was accurate is evidenced by the fact that he did soon die in spite of his continued incarceration and “treatment” at the hospital and I think it was a crime, morally if not legally, that he was denied the right to see his home again at the end of his life. [Dear Dad, Rest in Peace: 8/13/23—3/27/96]
Footnote: As for your reference to the baseball players and owners as “competent adults,” that is open to debate. I think a valid argument can be made that baseball has become a multi-billion dollar industry unfit to regulate itself and therefor in need of government oversight. Baseball has had plenty of time to clean its own house and has done nothing effective to address these drug problems. Ironic, isn’t it, that in this case Jose Canseco may have made more sense up there than anyone else who spoke that day?
I agree completely with your perspective regarding the Schiavo case. The legally established safeguards and rules regarding such cases are fully suited to dealing with this situation and Mr. Schiavo has the legal right to this decision. There is, however, a need for some fine-tuning of the system. It was nine years ago today that my father died in a hospital after a stay of 17 days due to end stage kidney failure and heart complications. He was cognizant and rational at the time of his admission to the hospital and I witnessed him signing the papers when I brought him there. He was then put on hemo-dialysis and for a period of approximately four days lapsed into a state of “dialysis dementia” caused by the rapid purging of toxins from the body. At this point he became confused and irrational and contol of is affairs reverted to my mother. This also meant that the hospital staff no longer had to abide by his wishes. Understandable under the circumstances, right? Yes, but the trouble is that this is such a convenient situation for the doctors that they don’t bother to acknowledge the fact that the condition is temporary. This was especially true at this “teaching hospital” where they were using his case as a teaching tool for young interns, who were repeatedly marched into his room to ask him the same questions over and over again during his entire stay in spite of the pain that speaking caused him at the time. There was little or no regard for his condition or his comfort and needless tests were being performed primarily in an effort to ‘train’ new doctors. After a few days of dialysis dementia he was rational again, realized within a week’s time that he was dying, and demanded to cease treatment so that he could return home to die. Nothing doing. They simply continued to treat him as a mental incompetent, referring all decisions to my mother who was in total denial of the fact that death was imminent and was easily manipulated by whatever the hospital staff told her; who in turn had a vested interest in keeping him there for ‘training’ purposes and to collect billings from Medicare. I wanted desperately to remove him from that hospital but had no legal authority to do so. In effect, a perfectly rational adult human being had become a prisoner of the hospital system with the complicity of a spouse who couldn’t accept the possibility of his death and wouldn’t listen to his wishes any longer. He was denied the right to ever see his home again and compelled to spend his last hours on earth surrounded only by strangers in a stark hospital room in the middle of the night. The fact that his perception of his condition was accurate is evidenced by the fact that he did soon die in spite of his continued incarceration and “treatment” at the hospital and I think it was a crime, morally if not legally, that he was denied the right to see his home again at the end of his life. [Dear Dad, Rest in Peace: 8/13/23—3/27/96]
Footnote: As for your reference to the baseball players and owners as “competent adults,” that is open to debate. I think a valid argument can be made that baseball has become a multi-billion dollar industry unfit to regulate itself and therefor in need of government oversight. Baseball has had plenty of time to clean its own house and has done nothing effective to address these drug problems. Ironic, isn’t it, that in this case Jose Canseco may have made more sense up there than anyone else who spoke that day?