For an excellent overview of the Schiavo case, written by someone with a better work ethic than me (she links to her sources, I just kind of remember their gist), go to Majikthise.
Out of the morass of purely case-specific issues in this case, perhaps the most legitimate policy argument raised by the Schiavo trainwreck has to do with the withdrawal of food and water.
Let’s be clear on Schiavo’s condition and treatment here: she is being fed and hydrated through a tube in her stomach. She is not feeding herself, and is presumably not capable of taking food and water orally, or the tube would never have been inserted. This kind of feeding and hydration is just as much a medical treatment as having a glucose or saline IV inserted into your arm.
No one attempts to deny that Terri (or anyone else) would be permitted to refuse this treatment for themselves; a law mandating that you receive a given medical treatment against your will would be widely regarded as an abomination.
Similarly, no one seems to be seriously arguing that if Terri were on a ventilator or some other form of artificial “life support”, that her guardian should be permitted to withdraw the life support, even though there is no written evidence of what Terri’s wishes were in that regard.
This leaves many of the folks who are now arguing for federal intervention into Terri Schiavo’s medical treatment in the rather uncomfortable position admitting that (a) she could refuse to consent to being fed through a tube in her stomach, and (b) that her guardian could withdraw other forms of life support, but nonetheless that (c) her guardian cannot refuse consent to her being fed through a tube in her stomach.
Thus, the policy question being posed by this case seems to be whether a surrogate decisionmaker should be compelled by law to “consent” to their ward being fed through a tube in her stomach, unless he can produce written evidence that is what the patient would have wanted.
The case against such a legal mandate boils down to the argument that denying the right to consent or refuse consent to the surrogate is the same as denying it to the patient herself. Of course, the surrogate is not, in fact, the patient, and there may be legitimate boundaries placed on the decisions the guardian can make on behalf of their ward. The question is whether withdrawal of nutrition and hydration is outside of those boundaries, and if so why.
The case for a legal mandate that nutrition and hydration be given over the objections of the legal guardian rests comes down to the argument that, where there is any doubt as to what the patient would want, we should err on the side of keeping them alive. This argument, however, founders on a couple of points. Logically, it cannot be limited to nutrition and hydration, and thus requires that we keep all life support, no matter how extraordinary, in place. Further, it begs the question of how much certainty is enough. Even where a written living will exists, the question can be raised about whether the patient changed her mind.
Because we cold-hearted libertarians care about such things, Terri Schiavo’s care is being paid for by taxpayer money through the Medicaid program. Even though her parents have noisily pledged to take all financial responsibility for her care, they have not yet done so, even though the trust fund established out of the proceeds of her malpractice case to pay for her care is nearly exhausted. The annual cost is probably around $80,000 per year.
Since Schiavo never wrote a ‘living will’, and only her husband’s word that she requested this, then yes we should error on the side of keeping her alive. When we start taking other peoples word for their desires (words from people who would benefit from their deaths), we must start asking questions.
Consider the state would benifit from the cost of keeping Schiavo alive, the husband would benefit from the insurance, and the hospital would benefit on getting more from paying customers after Schiavo’s insurance runs out.
She is NOT brain dead. Miracles do happen. If we give into terminating those who are neither brain dead nor lucid, then we tread on terminating those who are senile or incapable of much thought (at least what we consider thought.)
Add to that such as partial-birth abortion and we get real close to what the Nazi’s did in WW2. That is, exterminate those we feel are not capable. And all to the benfit of the state.
I see Paul has managed to violate Godwin’s law in the first comment.
We don’t have only her husband’s word for what she wanted – we have court findings based on multiple witnesses.
The idea that Michael Schiavo would benefit financially from her death is difficult to support. The trust fund is essentially gone, there is no life insurance as far as I know (and her parents would sure have let us know if there was). Where’s this big check coming from that Michael will supposedly cash when she dies? If he’s in it for the money, why didn’t he take that million dollar offer to walk away?
Her insurance has already run out – Medicaid is paying the bills now, and has been for two years. Geez, Paul, did you not even get to the end of my post before you started typing?
She may not be clinically brain dead, but major chunks of her brain are gone and never coming back, and she is deteriorating. Nice and slow now: She will not recover. There is no treatment or rehabilitation for Terri Schiavo. No doctor who has examined her has ever said otherwise. The ones pontificating about more tests, new treatments, etc., now have never seen her, and apparently have never seen the CAT scan showing more of her brain gone.
Video clips of Terri Schiavo.
I personally don’t think she’s “dead enough” to be forcibly shuffled off the great stage. From the footage I’ve seen of her, she still responds to stimuli – isn’t that the yardstick in determining whether to switch off the machine or not? There must be many millions of unfortunate folk with severe mental disabilities (or even severely depressed people) who have similar levels of functionality and similarly bleak prognoses as Ms Schiavo. That these people would be standing voiceless – defenceless – against the precedent this case will set if Ms Schiavo’s euthanized is of great concern to me.
Thanks for the link, Robert. At the very least, there is one lesson to be learned from this situation: make your intentions known, in writing.
and
It is possible to benefit in ways that are not financial, you know.
Michael Schiavo would benefit from her death in that he would be free to marry another woman, with whom he has already had children. Whilst that does not mean he is the villain of the piece, it does raise one or two question marks as to the precise nature of his motives.
This is of course a terribly difficult case and raises all manner of ethical and moral issues. To reduce it to a financial matter is, IMO, somewhat crass. I personally think that where there is doubt about exactly what the sufferer would want, then we should err on the side of life. If this costs money, big deal. I do not think you can put a cash value on everything, and certainly not life itself.
In the context of a nation with a 12 trillion dollar GDP and a federal expenditure of 3 trillion, the money involved is trivially small. Even if there were one million such cases, the cost would be some 80 billion – less than a quarter of the defence budget and some 2.5% of government expenditure or 0.7% of GDP. There are not one million such cases, of course.
EG
Those video clips are carefully culled and edited from several hours of video shot by her family. No one is denying that she has some basic brain stem functions, reflexes and the like, and that is all those video clips show. What no one has been able to do is get any kind of consistent, directed response out of her – even her reflexes are very poor, as evidenced by the fact that she doesn’t even reliably swallow any more.
Trust me, suffering, there aren’t millions of depressed and disabled people who are missing nearly all of their cerebral cortex like Terri Schiavo is.
You can take it as read that Terri will continue her slow decline, with no hope of rehabilitation or treatment. Exactly what level of consciousness is left to her is unknowable, but that, of course, cuts both ways.
The key issue here is what consent to treatment, not diagnosis and prognosis.
I watched Tom DeLay tell the media yesterday that this whole thing (the legislative branch trying to pass some measures which would put the thing in Federal courts as opposed to state courts) was about trying to save Terry. Am I the only one who sees past this? It’s not about Terry. Thousands of people die every day against their intentions. The difference here is that the federal legislative branch sees that they can capitalize on emotional public opinion in order to subvert even more of the 50 sovereign states’ individual power. I’m always bothered when I see the federal government stealing more power from the states. The Florida judiciary has spent years trying to sort this one out. I think that if we have any hope for the republic of the United States we need to respect Florida’s decision.
Oh, and withdrawing treatment is not euthanasia, even if withdrawing treatment will lead to death. There are very important legal and ethical distinctions between the two.
Michael Schiavo would benefit from her death in that he would be free to marry another woman, with whom he has already had children.
If that’s what he wants, why put himself through all this when he could just divorce her?
I personally think that where there is doubt about exactly what the sufferer would want, then we should err on the side of life.
Any limits on this, Euan? How much doubt are you willing to tolerate? Because, if you say “none at all”, then you have made it illegal for anyone to refuse treatment, whether for someone else or for themselves.
If you say “clear and convincing evidence” is sufficient, then you would agree that Terri’s tube should be pulled, because that is what the court found.
Please post link to source of statement that Medicaid is paying for Terry’s care. I’ve read this on a few sites but cannot verify.
Yes, Mr. Schiavo DOES have interest in her death.
Mr. Schiavo lives with a woman named Jodi Centonze, and they have two children together. Surely any court would consider this prima facie evidence of adultery. And this is no mere fling; a sympathetic 2003 profile in the Orlando Sentinel described Centonze as Mr. Schiavo’s “fiancée.” Mr. Schiavo, in other words, has virtually remarried. Short of outright bigamy, his relationship with Centonze is as thoroughgoing a violation of his marriage vows as it is possible to imagine.
So? Is that why he wants her dead? He says he wishes to assert his marital authority to do his wife (and thus let her die) but he’s living with another woman and has two children by her!!!!
Explain that guys.
How do you divorce when the respondent is in a coma?
Let’s say as a principle “beyond reasonable doubt.” I think “balance of probabilities” is insufficient in a case where you are deciding on a life. Then again, I don’t know how compelling the evidence presented was in this case.
False dichotomy.
Where there is no doubt – e.g. a “living will” in the case of the comatose/vegetative sufferer or a clear refusal of treatment from a sane and rational conscious patient – then I see no reason to insist upon treatment against the patient’s clearly expressed will. Where there is doubt is another matter.
Although I have no detailed interest in this particular case, I understand there is testimony that Ms Schiavo had expressed a desire not be left in this situation. Others disagree. I understand also that her cerebral cortex is largely gone, which precludes consciousness at any time (barring divine intervention, one assumes) and the reflex actions are just that – autonomic reflexes. Having said that, it is a difficult case and the motives of Schiavo are at the least open to some question. How confident one can be of the whole matter is not something I could say, not being familiar with the detail of the case.
I suppose it is fair to say that if medical evidence shows that it is absolutely impossible for her to recover, it is pointless to persist with feeding. If medical evidence says that it is highly unlikely that she would recover, then I say err on the side of life. If she has no cerebral cortex, then she simply cannot recover unless our understanding of the brain is seriously wrong.
I think you’re wrong (to an extent) to say the issue is consent rather than prognosis.
If recovery is impossible, then irrespective of consent treatment is pointless. If recovery is possible though unlikely, but there is no doubt about consent, treatment can IMO be withdrawn. If recovery is possible but of unknown probability, and consent is known, then it would be probable that the guardian would assent to treatment continuing, at least up to a point. If recovery is possible, even though unlikely, and consent is unknown or debated, then I think treatment should continue.
I am not sure into which category the Schiavo case falls. Some sources say she may recover, although it is very unlikely. Others say recovery is impossible. Given the highly contentious nature of the specific case, I suspect that unless one is intimately acquainted with all the facts it would be next to impossible to draw any conclusions. There seems to be enough murk about this case to make remote judgement difficult if not impossible.
I really do not think this is a good case from which to draw many conclusions about consent, etc. I think David Beatty has it, when he says above “make your intentions known, in writing.” In the absence of this, and as a general principle, then I think it is reasonable to err on the side of life WHERE THERE IS DOUBT.
EG
As for feeding tubes, one could withdraw the very air people breath who are on an iron lung and you are not actually killing them are you? If they can’t breath on their own, well tough luck.
She is not dead and as human beings we need to keep her alive least we loose the very things that make us humans (compassion, among other things) instead of just saving a buck.
Paul – if he wants to get remarried, why doesn’t he just divorce her? I find it hard to accept that Michael Schiavo is going through all this for money (when there isn’t any) or so he can remarry (when he could easily obtain a divorce).
As for the Medicaid coverage, try this(Link).
How do you divorce when the respondent is in a coma?
You file a petition with the court.
if you say “none at all”, then you have made it illegal for anyone to refuse treatment, whether for someone else or for themselves.
Doubt can be raised even where you have a signed living will. Such documents are notoriously hard to apply in specific circumstances. Even in the unlikely event that your living will addressed the precise situation you were in, doubt can be raised about whether you might have changed your mind.
There is always doubt. If you don’t believe me, talk to anyone who has had to make these decisions for a loved one.
I disagree that the prognosis fundamentally affects the basic questions of who decides and what the patient’s wishes were. You have every right to consent to pointless treatment, or to refuse productive treatment.
Where there is some doubt as to who should decide or what the patient’s wishes were, then perhaps a totally negative prognosis helps, at the margin, ratify a decision to withdraw treatment.
As for feeding tubes, one could withdraw the very air people breath who are on an iron lung and you are not actually killing them are you? If they can’t breath on their own, well tough luck.
Just so, Paul. That is why withdrawing ventilator support is generally not controversial.
Paul, do you think suicide should be illegal? If suicide should be illegal, wouldn’t that outlaw any refusal to accept life-saving treatment?
Fair enough. My question was not rhetorical, by the way – I really had no idea how one divorced a comatose spouse, or even if it was possible.
I know people who have had to make these decisions – my mother, for one. It is perhaps a little different here in the UK where medical treatment is somewhat less expensive, the culture is (so far) less litigious, medical opinion generally seems to be considered more authoritative and (to an extent) there is less naked greed when money comes into it. Doubtless there are examples of the same crap happening here, but it seems to be less prevalent on the whole.
Perhaps I was unclear, although reading my post again it seems plain enough. I do not contend that prognosis fundamentally affects consent, but equally I do not agree that there is no effect at all from the one to the other. Certainly it does not affect the question of who has consent.
Yes, I agree. This is part of what I said above.
EG
I am with Euan Gray 110 pct on this (nice to be in full agreement, old chap, for once!) and I think the presumption should lie with those arguing for cessation of treatment of this poor lady.
One of the legislators taking a stand in this, James Sensenbrenner (Rep), is known to me, and I respect the stand he has taken.
As David Beatty rightly put it, get this stuff down in writing.
Just because it hasn’t been explicity spelled out what has happened here in the US today…
After years of working its way, legitimately, through the FL court system, a decision was declared. If you read the documents pertaining to them, (thanks for the links RC) one will see that there was a great deal of reasonable, and thought out deliberation including a healthy skeptcism about that motives on both sides.
The Federal government has just passed a SPECIFIC law, with the sole purpose of blocking the original court decision, because those currently in power don’t like it,
thus setting a precedent that tells the states where the real power in this country is, and where they can shove it. How can anyone with a inkling of libertarianism and believing in the rule of law, think this is a good thing?
Re: Michael Schiavo divorcing Terry Schiavo
Schiavo is an Italian name, he may be a devout Catholic and consider divorce immoral.
Thank you, Duncan. We as libertarians need to keep bringing it back to this point. For everyone except those personally involved this is not an ethical issue; it is POLITICAL! If we as people will thrust our convinctions about the issue on those involved it is political, not ethical. If we as a nation will thrust the majority convinction on the state of Florida it is political. These types of issues really flush out pseudo-libertarians quick.
My point is, yes, I have opinions about this case, but I have the decency and respect to let those personally involved live out there own opinions without me feeling compelled to dictate what they should do.
If someone would label theirself a “critically rational individualist,” they’re going to have a hard time disagreeing with me.
I’m not an expert on the arcana of Catholic doctrine, but if he was a devout RC would he be keen in any circumstances to pull the plug, as it were? I thought Catholics were pretty much against that kind of thing, although of course I am open to correction.
Looking into the case a little further, it does seem as if there is little hope for the woman. But nevertheless I think it is incumbent upon us as human (and hopefully humane) beings to be absolutely sure, or at least as sure as we can be, before ending matters. Having just read what Sensenbrenner said in support of the Act, I can only agree with his contention that justice should “tilt toward life.” I see no problem with the intent of the legislation, which seems to be simply a disinterested second look at cases where doubt may exist.
I think common humanity requires nothing less. If it costs money or temporarily inconveniences someone else, this is, I cannot but think, a very small price to pay.
EG
As a conservative, I have no difficulty disagreeing with you – although I do understand and respect your position, I don’t agree with it.
America is a common law nation, and in common law precedent is important. I do not think it necessarily wise to set a precedent that treatment stops when there is a coincidence of cash running out and an interested party wanting to marry someone else (although I concede there are exampels of this kind of thing happening before). Perhaps that trivialises it, but when it comes down to it what is wrong with a federal court carrying out a disinterested second examination of the case?
It is not simply a matter for the individuals. What happens in this case has repercussions for future cases which, after all, involve the life or death of a human being. The individualist approach is, not for the first time, a naive and simplistic way of looking at a complex and emotionally charged issue.
EG
First, if he is ‘devout Catholic’ then living with a lover and having two children might be ‘immoral’ to.
Second, IF THEY ARE BRAINDEAD then taking them off respirators is acceptable. But she is NOT brain dead.
Third suicide IS illegal in Texas and most states.
Say, if you have a relative that is in a rest home, senile, and can’t clean up after themselves, should they be denied nursing as their brain will never recover?
Now on the aspects of Schiavo,
From the Wall Street Journal:
Her condition is hardly unique. In 1995, when the American Academy of Neurology published its report on people in a persistent vegetative state, it found that there were as many as 25,000 adults and 10,000 children in this country who suffered from PVS. Based on the best studies the Academy could find at the time, some adults in a vegetative state 12 months after a devastating injury or heart failure could recover consciousness and some human functions. The chances that such a recovery will occur are very small, but they are not zero.
And BTW, Schiavo’s parrent have even tried to get a divorce from her husband done!
Euan, I understand the precedent issue, but precedence has limited scope in a republic. Unfortunately, we are no longer a true republic. We’ve been moving more and more into the democracy thing, where these kinds of issues become much more complicated. I think this is a step in the wrong direction (if freedom is the goal).
I dont think all of you are getting all of the information that is necessary for considering this case. There is HIGH suspicion that Michael beat her severely…which brought on a heart attack to a body system that was already compromised by dangerously low electrolyte levels. There was a full ten minutes where she was not breathing before she was resuscitated…and there is suspicion that Michael deliberately allowed this despite the fact that he was supposed to have been certified in CPR.
Also, he took the court award he got from suing the hospital on the grounds that he needed it for her rehabilitation…and then proceeded to deliberately DENY any and ALL rehabilitation to Terri.
I’d like to recommend The Anchoress, Michele Malkin, and a few other blogs who are keeping a very keen eye on this for your expanded knowledge. There is more to this than meets the eye. The media is only allowing certain talking points out to be filtered.
I, too, fancy myself a libertarian on most issues. Am I the only one to wonder at the source of power – the authority – given to judges to decide that a person’s life shall be forfeited? I know of none, and I have been an active trial lawyer for nearly 40 years.
That someone has a black robe bestowed upon them – state or federal – confers no such power or authority. The Constitution certainly does not, nor does any applicable statute or rule of my acquaintance. Nor does that robe confer the competence to make such a decision.
Is there, at last, no thought of due process, with the emphasis on the “due”? Are we all so consumed by the politics, the “values”, that we do not stop to wonder at the description “right to life”, as though that were something somehow in play?
To reduce it to a financial matter is, IMO, somewhat crass. I personally think that where there is doubt about exactly what the sufferer would want, then we should err on the side of life. If this costs money, big deal. I do not think you can put a cash value on everything, and certainly not life itself.
I think you could if you were forced to pay the bills personally. And your argument that there aren’t a million such cases is weak. I have yet to meet a person in my life not beset with issues and problems. But I am not responsible for their problems unless I desire to be. I’m sure we could come up with a million, or ten million, or a hundred million cases that demand transfer. Perhaps that’s why Western democracies face the dire financial circumstances soon to beset us.
We are all destined to die, and I demand that I retain the means to stave off that event as long as possible with the resources I procure. Having a large percentage siphoned off to pay for other peoples’ problems by force doesn’t thrill me as it evidently does you. We have already discussed the present value of all such promises made by the US government in another ponderously long thread, and we don’t need to dredge it up here, but everyone has, or will have, their own mortality to deal with. I prefer to retain my resources for the inevitable versus having them taken to pay for other peoples’ issues and have my asset replaced with a promise.
This is truer than ever as technological advances (such as feeding tubes) can give us years we wouldn’t have had otherwise. But simply because technology exists doesn’t change economic scarcity or how resources should be allocated. But, unfortunately, technology is seen as evidence of Progress, and Progress must be shared by all or it is simply neutral progression to the collectivist mindset. One can’t help but see the growth of socialist transfer (or the promise of future transfers, unlikely as they will turn out to be) proportionate to the Miraculous Advances made by mankind.
If we are to have a State, its function should be limited to preserving life and property from direct threat. But such an association derives its efficacy as long as the parties are competent in the long term, able to transact with other members of the association, or there is a component of transfer and unilateral sacrifice. Does a basic social contract to assist in the preservation of life and property extend to a ‘person’ is clearly vegetative (i.e. not simply unconscious for a short period of time)? Such a person, without faculties, should legally become the ward of another individual, not the State, and the person’s fate is in the fiduciary’s hands. In this case, the husband appears to be that individual. He appears to be executing his prerogatives to withdraw the application of a technology he no longer wishes to be applied.
In this case, the husband/ward should be given the right to decide. It the very least, if he is stripped of that right, then the legal recognition of partnership is dissolved. The parents can take responsibility as they apparently desire to. But such dissolutions, and severing of rights and responsibilities, are not the province of the Federal Government, regardless. This fly by the seat of the pants governance at the Federal level is chilling.
I was pretty much in agreement with the author of this post until something that I read today put it in a different light.
The thing is, if this woman was unconscious or comatose and showed unmistakable signs of brain death, then I’d say we have to follow her wishes or, in this case since there are none recorded, the wishes of her husband. Similarly, if she had given a living will requesting no invasive life support in this situation, then go ahead and remove the tube.
However, the situation is neither of those. This woman appears to be severely brain damaged, and I don’t think it likely that she will ever recover. But, she is awake and I would hazard a guess that she is capable of feeling pain. How then, is it alright to let her starve to death? Does anyone really think that doing so is more humane than, say, euthanasia?
That of course opens up a whole different set of problems. Does this mean it is ok to euthanize people who have severe brain damage (but not brain death) without their consent, because they did not give it beforehand and are enable to do it now? If that is ok, then what about people born like that? At what level of functioning do we decide, “screw it, sure they’re awake but the lights are on and no one is home, lets euthanize them”. Or will we just let them starve to death, too?
We need to answer these questions. That this has turned into a Democrat vs. GOP pissing contest does not help at all.
Found it folks! I would like to direct you to BlogsForTerri. Please read.
http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/02/a_few_facts_abo.php
This isnt just about whether or not the State has the right to do this or that, or whether or not we should all just let them do their thing. This is about something a bit more sinister…as in a coverup. As in a situation where criminal injustice has been allowed to continue. And the fact that YOU DON’T STARVE SOMEONE TO DEATH.
R.C.Dean has framed his comments in a purely legal structure. His main point, as I understand it from his two articles, is that multiple courts have decided that it is legal and just to withdraw food and water from Terri Schiavo, therefore tne matter should be settled and the federal government and everyone else has no business interfering.
I have never found myself on the other side of an issue from Mr. Dean in the past, but the time has come.
Leaving aside the moral issues of this case, which I believe are actually more important than the purely legal ones, I have to observe first, that the courts, the legal profession and the court appointed medical experts all are agents of the State. Mr. Dean, an attorney, isn’t showing his normal healthy distrust of government in this case.
If it were a federal bureau assuring us that some new coercive program was actually good for us, or a congressman telling us that we really don’t need to have arms, that the police are all the protection we need, I am certain from his previous writings, that he would dissent loudly. Yet when the state courts of Florida, a state with a large and potentially expensive population of old and ailing people, some with large estates, makes a series of decisions that appear very questionable, at least on their surface, we are advised not to worry- the State knows best and we should just butt out.
Well, this particular arm of the State has a bad history going back to medieval England, hence the insistence on the right of a trial by jury. The jury is not there only to make sure the guilty are punished. They are there primarily to keep an eye on the court. This may be a vestigial function these days, but it shouldn’t be. If there has been a jury in any of the Schiavo hearings I have not heard of it. The public brouhaha is all the oversight that there has been. (Lawyers and courts overseeing lawyers and courts is not satifactory – if it was, why would we need juries?)
The current system of guardianship is badly flawed. In my state, I know from bitter personal experience, there is no effective oversight of a guardian. Unless there is a large amount of money involved, in which case a bent guardian may be slightly detered by the threat of a future lawsuit for violation of fiduciary responsiblity, there is effectively no deterrent to doing whatever he pleases.
(The amount of money required, in case anyone needs to know, is a minimum of about $750,000. If the estate is less than that, it is very difficult to get any attorney to even talk to you, even if you are paying up front. Most of them seem to have bigger fish to fry.)
When it is a matter of getting something done in a week or so to prevent a death, the guardian holds all the cards. He can prevent even information from getting out. The courts side with him, not because he is necessarily right, but because that is the way the law works.
This is a area where there is an opportunity for one person to use the power of the State to oppress another person. It is naive the think that such an opportunity will not be indulged. For a libertarian to blindly champion all guardians without considering the rights and welfare of the wards is poor libertarianism.
His wife has been for all intents and purposes dead for 15 years, what is left is just a living corpse.
The bits of her brain that make one human are dead. Looking at photos of her she is also suffering from body contortions (muscle problems) which means that even if her brain recovered her body is pretty much wrecked.
In Blighty PVS cases are given a year of being a vegtable and then if there is no improvment they can have thier feeding tube withdrawn if a court agrees.
It depends on what their wishes were, and what their condition was. If they were hopelessly brain damaged and couldn’t do a thing for themselves like Terri then there is no point in extending their life. There are worse things than being dead. If all they have to look forward to in their life is a fate worse than death, then death is the better choice.
I saw a documentary recontly on the only person to have “recovered” from PVS. I use the word “recovered” advisedly because he was still stuck in hospital, he was at best severely mentally handicapped, he had really bad body contortions and although the relatives said he could talk it just sounded like gibberish to me.
“I dont think all of you are getting all of the information that is necessary for considering this case.”
Do you think that the necessary information was withheld from the courts through the years of court proceedings? Can you cite evidence to support your contention?
R C Dean
That’s debatable – across the world there probably is. Anyway, it doesn’t matter whether I’m talking about thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions. When we start killing voiceless people who are nevertheless capable of responding to stimuli, I believe we are heading down a very slippery slope. As someone noted above, she can probably feel pain and starving her to death is simply barbaric.
True. However ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the term Euan used and the term you responded to isn’t actually taken literally in the legal system, otherwise pretty much every criminal defendent who pleaded ‘not guilty’ would walk. In practice, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means 80-90% sure. I think that’s the kind of standard Euan was referring to.
Euan – I agree with what you said about precedence; it was a word I used earlier, too. Setting a precedent on this issue by letting Ms Schiavo die is dangerous, I believe.
Della – if a ‘wrecked body’ is justification for bumping off Ms Schiavo, or anyone, for that matter, then we really are taking a trip back to Nazi Germany. Also:
That’s the thing, they don’t look forward. Someone else determines what they’re looking forward to. Ms Schiavo is clearly functioning at a very low level. However, I’m sure she could feel pain, would have retinal response to light, be able to track movement etc. There is justification for ending the life support of people who aren’t capable of the above basic traits of living. Your blurring of these two states of existence, if enacted, would open an absolute can of worms. I’m afraid of mission creep – first it’s people like Ms Schiavo, then it’s severely affected quadriplegics, then severely and permanently depressed people, then the few still stuck in iron lungs – I mean they weren’t enjoying anything close to a decent life, were they? We’ve decided they’re better off dead.
Depending on your POV, this statement applies to all of the examples I gave above. Ms Schiavo is the thin end of the wedge.
To follow up on “I’m suffering for my art”‘s point, what if the state nationalizes healthcare and starts making these decisions to end the lives of people who simply cost a lot to keep alive, like quadriplegics, severely and permanently depressed people. schizophrenics, AIDS patients, etc…
I’d like the state to be forced to err on the side of life on this issue. Furthermore, I don’t believe that the legislature should be forced to accept the judiciary’s word as final in any case. There must be a system of review, and checks and balances, even for the judiciary. For instance, had SCOTUS been packed with segregationists in 1964, and they struck down the Civil Rights Act, the Congress would have had every reason to pass more laws, including laws restricting the court from abrogating the provisions of the Civil Rights Act. If it comes to that with the euthanisation debate, then let it come. But don’t just punt and say “the courts have decided, so any further action by the legislature is inherently bad.”
What I think you meant to say was “I disagree with what the legislature was doing, and although they’re perfectly within the bounds of acceptable governance, I wish they would stop, because I don’t think they’re doing the right thing.” Too frequently this gets turned into “the legislature has overstepped its bounds.” In this case, I don’t think that’s it.
Sharon, if you think denial of feeding is too crfuel, take a klook at what Texas does when you can’t afford to pay any more. And a republican passed law too. Pure politics, pure hypocrisy. In Texas, under GWB’s law, TS would have long ago had the tube removed.
If the CT scan shown on the internet IS TS’s, then there is no prospect for recovery, zilch, zip, none at all. She will show reflexes, and with clevcer stage management these can be made to look like reactions to stimulus, but as the judge in the case who has seen far more extensive video evidence concluded, TS does not consistently respond to any stimulus. It is sad that this case has become a political plaything, I reckon let her die with dignity.
That’s something of a straw man, I fear. Of course we all have problems and difficulties in life, but the number of people who have problems like a relative in PVS is pretty small. Not being a libertarian, I have no real problem with public money being used in this case, since the actualy amount is vanishingly small seen in the context of overall government expenditure.
It’s not really directly linked to the matter under discussion, but I think this case does highlight the limitations of purely private medical care. In a libertarian society when there was no taxpayer support at all for healthcare, what happens to people like Schiavo? Or, even worse perhaps, for people who are critically ill but who stand a much greater chance of recovery, but where the money runs out? Given that medical care nowadays is far more expensive than it used to be due to the increased range of treatments available, I am not convinced any combination of purely private money and charity can sustain matters, and therefore I consider it unavoidable that some degree of taxpayer subsidy is necessary – not, though, that it is necessary to have a nationalised healthcare system as in the UK.
Well, yes, it does. Medical technology is now much more advanced than it was say 60 years ago, but this advancement comes at a price of enormously increased cost.
Given that many aspects of human nature are basically communistic, is this any surprise? Any view of humanity which discounts the socialist nature of man is bound to produce error, just as is any view which discounts the individual nature of man. Man is more complex than libertarians and Marxists assume.
Yes, it was. I accept there will always be some doubt in everything, but if we are to do nothing unless we are 100% sure then nothing will ever happen. Then again, since this is a human life we are talking about, an extra effort is needed to be as sure as we can be.
This is the problem. Coupled with a utilitarian view of the case (not uninformed by the matter of cash), we might edge towards life or death being decided on financial grounds. As I have said before here and in other threads, not everything has a cash value and attempting to reduce all of life to an economic question is crass, naive and simplistic.
This case has wider implications, and it is not satisfactory to consider it purely on the basis of individual desires.
EG
You have to distinguish the funding question from the funding question.
Neither this lady nor anybody else is entitled to force others to pay for their healthcare.
That said, it would surely be criminal to prevent parents from spending their own money to keep their own child alive.
should read “You have to distinguish the funding question from the decision question” …
Wow, Euan, we’re in agreeance! Now onto that whole self regulating market business… 🙂
Euan, it may be that the cost of keeping someone like this poor woman is “vanishingly small” compared with the gazillions the taxpayer is forced to spend on other things (true), but, let’s imagine it was a very big sum. Really big. So big, in fact, that other, competing health care spending got squeezed hard.
This problem arises whether you have tax-funded health care or a private-only system. If we go on the basis that if a person “needs” health support, she or he should get it, there is almost no upper limit on how much money is required. There comes a point where a line has to be drawn but there is no yardstick that “pragmatic” conservatives like your good self can find to set that line. (I haven’t a clue).
In a world of such awful dilemmas, I prefer not to play god with my fellow citizens by entrusting such terrible powers to state bureaucrats and politicians. For that reason, I prefer to stick with private medical insurance, supplemented by big dollops of charity (to which I happily donate, and continue to do). There is no fail-safe system out there, and never will be, given that all resources, including medical ones, are scarce.
If people really do feel we should channel our wealth to people like the woman in this case, let’s put a hand in our wallets and leave the politicians out of it.
rgds
rgds
I have to observe first, that the courts, the legal profession and the court appointed medical experts all are agents of the State. Mr. Dean, an attorney, isn’t showing his normal healthy distrust of government in this case.
Well, yes and no. The court’s role in this case is, essentially, reviewing the husband’s decision to withdraw care. Without her husband’s decision to withdraw care, there is no court/state involvement at all. There is an enormous difference between state review of a guardian’s decisions, and the state taking an independent role in determining to withdraw care. We are not, in this case, faced with the latter.
Consistent with my usual skepticism that a health dose of the state will cure what ails you, I do not think that more state involvement is what we need here. You can argue about the degree to which guardians should be supervised by the state, of course, but there has been quite a lot of oversight of the guardian in this case.
If your argument is that there should be even more oversight than has been exercised in this case, well, then I think you are getting pretty close to eliminating any private role in making the kinds of decisions that guardians make, and giving all authority to the state. That is exactly the road that the “friends of Terri” are starting down, and I am, as always, opposed to shrinking the private sphere and expanding the cult of the state.
Whatever abuses the current system of guardianship may create, I am confident they will pale in comparison to the abuses of whatever bureaucratic system might replace it.
Ed – if you are referring to the Sun Hudson case, there is a VAST difference between his case and Terri Schiavo. Baby Hudson’s bodily systems were shutting down on their own. Terri’s body is in definite viable condition with the mere feeding of a tube, and the opportunities for rehabilitation were WIDE. I have just recently read that a lot of stroke victims have to be rehabilitated to swallow again…would you say that because they are having to be fed through a tube that they are no longer a viable self-sustaining life?
Please read the links to Blogs for Terri and the ones I suggested. All this legal quibbling just covers up the stink that really exists…and that is the fact that Michael Schiavo wants his wife dead, no matter what…and he has found a way to make legalities and society complicit in this. It is a day of shame in America.
I think “live and let live” sums up much of the libertarian position. Notice it does not state “live and force life.” The state is not God determining who should live and who should die. Reasonable doubt is not an issue. Right and wrong is not an issue. Erring on the side of life is not an issue. These are all superfulous junk issues distracting so-called libertarians from their principle belief -collectivism or tyranny by the majority (what we like to call statism) is not right, neither does it work.
Along with the freedom to basically live any way I want I accept the risk and the responsibility to live any way I want. If I cannot do that I in no way wish to impose my risk and responsibility on others. LET ME DIE. The libertarians here championing this “err on the side of life” stuff are hypocritically wanting the rights and priveledges of freedom, but not the risks and responsibilities.
“There is HIGH suspicion that Michael beat her severely…”
sources?
That said, I expect people like Euan and HelenW to disagree with this, but not some of the staunch libertarians I’ve seen on this blog.
As far as I can tell from reading what is available:
1. A number of leading neurologists around the country have stated that she has not had adequate tests to truly determine the extent of brain damage. Apparently, all she has had is a CAT scan when she should ave an MRI and a PET scan, as well. Those are standard tests for determining PVS. Michael has refused to allow those tests.
2. At least $440,000 of the court awarded settlement that Michael stated would be used for Terri’s health care has been used to pay his attorneys arguing for withdrawal of said care with court approval.
3. Judge Greer, who has handled this case for the most part, has consistently refused to allow additional tests that might more clearly determine her condition.
4. At least one neurologist who spent over 10 hours with her believes that she could swallow on her own and that physical therapy at least has a chance of restoring more function.
5. Her body is contorted because she has not been receing the physical therapy that is standard care for someone in her condition. Michael allowed physical therapy only for a short time and has for years allowed none. Strap a healthy person to a bed for 15 years, and they will deteriorate, as well.
6. She has had bed sores and has had to have teeth removed because of lack of care normally given to someone who can’t care for themself. These are generally considered signs of neglect. Why is he still allowed to be her guardian when she is suffering clear signs of neglect? I can’t help but question the court.
7. Her parents are not even permitted to feed her and give her water orally. The court order (which is typically written by the winning attorneys and signed by the judge) is unusual in that it REQUIRES her feeding to be stopped. Usually such orders ALLOW feeding to be stopped.
8. The Florida law regarding extreme care was amended recently to include food and water among extreme measures. This amendment was pushed by people associated with Michael’s attorneys.
Working on the assumption that the information I’ve seen is accurate, this is a horrible miscarriage of justice. His statement that she would want to die is based on an off-hand comment she made, not a serious discussion of end-of-life issues, according to him. He is the ONLY witness to her wishes in this regard.
As an aside, I don’t see the moral difference between withdrawing support that will absolutely and with complete certainty lead to someone’s death (starvation and dehydration is always fatal given enough time) and taking an active measure to end life. Taking someone off a breathing machine or pacemaker occasionally leads to spontaneous recovery of breathing or heart function. No one can recover from lack of food or water. This is letting nature take it’s course only in the sense that anyone would die from dehydration or starvation. In true “life support” cases, the life support is taking the place of a normal bodily function that isn’t working. The judge in this case ordered no one to feed her, even “naturally.”
Bolie IV
And your argument that there aren’t a million such cases is weak. I have yet to meet a person in my life not beset with issues and problems.
That’s something of a straw man, I fear. Of course we all have problems and difficulties in life, but the number of people who have problems like a relative in PVS is pretty small. Not being a libertarian, I have no real problem with public money being used in this case, since the actualy amount is vanishingly small seen in the context of overall government expenditure.
But the point is you have singled out just one for which transfer is necessary. What makes your valuation superior? And why is it so superior that Force can be used so cavalierly? Why just pick a few issues for which transfer and intervention should take place and not others? The problem, of course, with the creeping socialism (that now takes half of my labor) is that once one malady is established as proper for subsidy, the next is easier, and the next even easier, and so on and on.
And to legitimize one expenditure simply because, compared the rest of the confiscation (for other reasons you might not think is so important) is so vast, is faulty logic as well. I’m sure if I took a few bucks from your wallet as a band of hooligans is carrying off your household, you wouldn’t be so complacent. Again your reasoning is somewhat circular as you already buy into free confiscation of private property is a tacit Good, so that if it is spent on transfers you think are Right, so much the better. But it is the amalgamation of all the systems of Right for which Force is a proper alternative which has led to the massive application of taxes on me, leaving me less capable of caring for myself.
But simply because technology exists doesn’t change economic scarcity or how resources should be allocated.
Well, yes, it does. Medical technology is now much more advanced than it was say 60 years ago, but this advancement comes at a price of enormously increased cost.
Right! So resources being limited means that something else has to be forgone to acquire it. It is up to the individual alone to decide where to allocate their property and resources, not some Central Command. Technological advancement does not alter the economic reality that resources are finite. Your bland socialistic bent doesn’t alter this reality. Simply put, it something is taken from me, I am less able to meet the costs of my maladies. Government promises to do the same for me are empty and meaningless.
The government cannot change a basic economic constraint. They cannot effectively promise that I will receive anything in return, or that the quality will be comparable to what was taken from me. And even if I receive something at some future point, the property won’t be considered to be mine, but some sort of hand out for which I need to genuflect and be grateful for, and meet a laundry list of bureaucratic conditions which may not comport with my values. The forceful confiscation of my property shears away the values I placed on the property, and then if I do get something in return later on, it is stamped with the Value System of the State.
The most gauling aspect is the State forcefully takes my property, then pretends to be a benefactor when they return a portion back to me. Just because the masses allow themselves to be fooled by such nonsense doesn’t make it right. Libertarianism recognizes that individuals should fight being swallowed up by the passion of the masses simply because they can turn the oblique force of State upon a minority or an individual.
Also, it certainly is not up to some Central Command to dare and be the clearing house of whose maladies are better or worse through some lofty set of Superior Values. Valuation is finite and several, and when they are amalgamated with others’ values, it should be through voluntary association and not by force, so that an exit can be made without undo conflict. Again, it is believing that force should be used to advance a set of beliefs which leads to the inanities of civic finances and and a mass who is willing to turn their labor and property over in return for some psychic reward.
One can’t help but see the growth of socialist transfer (or the promise of future transfers, unlikely as they will turn out to be) proportionate to the Miraculous Advances made by mankind
Given that many aspects of human nature are basically communistic, is this any surprise? Any view of humanity which discounts the socialist nature of man is bound to produce error, just as is any view which discounts the individual nature of man. Man is more complex than libertarians and Marxists assume.
We’ve already agreed that the most people are idiots. The fact that they, or their agents, are hauling off half of my property on an annual basis based on some fanciful supersition, and are poised to take a whole lot more, doesn’t mean I shouldn’t fight, whether it is in the field of public opinion or through some other, more definitively physical, means.
Wihtout getting too personal, I’ll give an example that I carry with me. My father was diagnosed with diabetes in 1978. All he had to do was control his weight. Did he? Could he? No. Of course the disease advanced. Diabetes and a smoking habit damaged his heart. Did he stop smoking after heart surgery 1? No. After heart surgery 2? No. Then he had to have toes and parts of his feet removed. Did he really change his habits? Not fully. Then, as a side effect of dialysis, his gut started to deteriorate. He bore it without comment until the toxic effect gave him a heart attack and he was dead in a week. The punchline? He used hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid for his medical treatments by the end. And he ultimately decided when enough was enough. During the entire span from diagnosis to his passing, he made his own decisions about his actions, but society bore the consequences. I respected my father by and large, but he brought his own crises upon himself. Forcefully collected resources prolonged his life, but he died just the same. The oblique transfers he received were simply a misallocation of resources.
Any further moral to the story? Just that collectivization damages the ability to be cognizant of cause and effect. When this happens, resources are misallocated. Oblique transfer without control results in the above anecdote. Of course the more chilling consquence is that greater force will eventually be used not only in the confiscation of property, but in melding individual behavior. We’ve already seen the consequences to liberty with smoking and Statist intervention. Statist intervention regarding drugs has led to the appointment of a Drug Czar, a rather chilling turn of phrase. Next on the horizon is booze and food. When the bills are paid by Central Command, they will set about to change behaviors. We already have evidence that this is so.
Here is a CT scan of Terri’s brain with discussion by a doctor:
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html
Bolie IV
Thank you Bolie – you did a far better job than I could at lining out the situation. In my haste to respond, all I could think to do was ask the others to go to the links. Thank you.
I was there in the final days of my grandfather’s life. He was frail frail frail and constantly losing weight. The doctors and nurses worked hard to rebalance his system because the electrolytes kept falling. Eventually, however, the NATURAL course was for the body to shut down its systems altogether DESPITE the efforts of the medical staff to insert nutrition et al to keep the body viable. It didnt work, and he died…a NATURAL death.
By all accounts listed at Blogs For Terry and elsewhere (come on you people! Havent you heard of a search engine? Do you ever look at any other blog than this one for your information?) Terry’s body could EASILY be self sufficient and self-sustaining…with the same requirements as you and I…with a bit more training perhaps…called rehabilitation…but really, Bolie is SO VERY correct : this forced death is “natural” only in the sense that ANY of us denied food and water for two weeks would die. Is that how you think other patients on feeding tubes and in need of rehab shoudl go?
And all this talk of “well, we shouldnt be statists” skirts around the very issue of whats really at stake : euthenasia, and the ethical situations involved. As President Bush said of Terri : one should ALWAYS err on the side of Life.
And all this talk of “well, we shouldnt be statists” skirts around the very issue of whats really at stake : euthenasia, and the ethical situations involved.
This is not euthanasia. Withdrawal of care and euthanasia are not the same thing. Euthanasia would be giving Terri Schiavo a lethal injection. Just because both euthanasia and withdrawal of care lead to death does not mean that they are morally, ethically, or legally equivalent.
As President Bush said of Terri : one should ALWAYS err on the side of Life.
This is a non-serious position, one that logically requires the forced treatment of anyone and everyone to the very limits of medical technology.
But, you say, that’s not what he meant. Of course, we wouldn’t force treatment on anyone against their will.
But you don’t know what anyone in a coma or PVS or other non-communicative state wants. Even where there is a living will or other statement of intent, trust me, doubts can be raised about how it should apply in the current circumstances, whether the patient changed her mind, etc. I deal with these questions all the time in my professional life, so take my word for it when I say:
There is always doubt. Always erring on the side of life means, in practice, never allowing the withdrawal of care.
Turning the injunction to always err on the side of life into a legal requirement means that the state, not a family member or other guardian, has made the decision on what medical care to provide. So yes, it is about statism.
We shouldn’t be erring on the side of life, we should be erring on the side of individual freedom and responsibility.
This is murder. Pure murder. Not only murder but torture in the process (try not eating or getting water for several days.) It’s muder by the husband/ex-husband/guardian/whatever with the assistance of the judge. And yes, 440,000 bucks, movie rights, book rights, girlfriend with his kids, etc…. Sued for $$$ to take care of her, then doesn’t. Yes he has reasons for wanting her dead.
I’m real impressed with Florida judges, but then, after the 2000 elections, what do you expect from Florida.
Maybe they are right in wanting judges to have term limits just like the President.
RC Dean – I suppose the Hippocratic Oath means nothing to you then?
Dear Lord, I hope to heaven YOU are not a doctor!
And euthenasia is FORCED DEATH by any means. What’s more, there has been NO indication that Terri does want to die…Michael refused any and all methods of allowing Terri that option from the beginning. That fact alone blows away any position the ‘let her go’ crowd has. This is the tragic third act of a crime…and Michael has half of society supporting him on this.
Appeals to emotion and all the ranting in the world will not deter an non-hypocritical libertarian. My personal compassion and feelings about this issue (along with the rest of the world’s) should have no bearing on the outcome. To force my convinctions on those people, for good or evil, is wrong (It’s the initiation of force principle in libertarianism.). Toolkien, R C, others, and I keep making this point and the opposition keeps going back to appealing to more emotion and more personal convinction. Emotion and personal convinction should not reign in politics. Individual personal freedom AND responsibility should.
By the way, it would not necesarily be Terri’s husband who would be responsible for her death. Rather, it’s the incompetent doctors against whom she won the malpractice suit. Boy did they get off easy, if you ask me.
For more on Terri’s condition, read this interview with a neurologist:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?Id=20400
Bolie IV
Winzeler – By saying I don’t believe the plug should be pulled on Ms Schiavo is not exactly forcing my convictions on those concerned. They can listen or they can tune out. I think the point is that the person who has been entrusted with her care has had some extremely grave accusations levelled at him, which I believe makes him an inappropriate wielder of this life-or-death decision. The man is not currently providing care to her. He may have some legal claim as her husband, sure, but he’s not exactly behaving like a husband. There’s nothing wrong with that; after a decade and a half I would’ve moved on, too. However I can see why the parents reckon he’s forfeited his rights as her husband, especially since he long ago abandoned his responsibilities as a carer. There are people who want to keep Ms Schiavo alive and would be willing to support her. If there was a trust fund set up and donations were sought, enough money could be raised to support Ms Schiavo for the rest of her life. Those that want to keep her alive should be given a chance to nurse her, especially in light of the professional opinion I recently read that contradicts the statements saying she’s absolutely braindead. I urge anyone who believes the braindead line to at least read the link that Bolie Williams IV posted above at 3.19pm, as well as the comments thread. It’s very, very interesting.
If the matter wasn’t so appalling, the irony of the situation would be delicious; the hated Florida judiciary fighting in the corner of the liberals whilst GOP feds try to thwart their (perceived) allies in 2000.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html(Link)
This page has a pretty comprehensive time line about a 3rd of the way down, and numerous links to ACTUAL court documents.. and there are alot of them. I suggest all posting on this subject read them. After looking it all over I find it difficult to believe one could say, even if morally disagreeable, that justice was not handled appropriately, fairly and with due diligence.
The Federal judge did the only constitutionally acceptable thing by declining to over rule the FL supreme courts decision.
Hooray for checks and balances. You can either have judges interpreting your laws… or politicians… I know which I feel more comfortable with.
As long as you keep this in perspective you maintain your libertarianism without contradicting yourself.
toolkien,
I may disagree with what you say on the inquities of taxation, but I would defend to the death your right to bugger off to another country where you don’t have to pay tax or put up with the nasty evil state.
Most people in the UK and the US don’t have a major problem with paying a degree of redistributive taxation in order to gain some benefits from having a state. You may disagree, and you may explain in lengthy detail how it is wrong/immoral/unconstitutional/evil or whatever, but the fact remains that you are in a very small minority. There is no legal impediment to emigrating from either the US or the UK, and you are free to make your choice from the global market of competing nation states.
I am often struck on the one hand by the praise lavished on Somalia by assorted libertarians and, on the other, by the extremely small number of libertarians who emigrated there to enjoy the fruits of their theory put into practice.
EG
Euan,
The point is, and I can only speak for the US and not England, that we havn’t always paid 50% of our labors in taxes… it hasn’t even been that long really. Toolkien isn’t imagining some utopia, but is rather dismayed at how far this country has come from its roots. His vision may be a bit more Libertarian than the country ever was in reality (it’s ok to hope though), but it has definitely taken a wrong turn and I’m sure he’d be pleased, as would I, if it would stop its current slide into disaster and back away from the statist abyss we are current flirting with. Why should he leave rather than point out to people how different things have become here and hope that people will wake up to the fact that the goverment yoke gets heavier with every passing year.
Alot of Americans also use the saying “love it or leave it…” they are missing the point and so are you.
Duncan,
Whether the high taxation is wrong or not, it is the case that millions of people quite freely and without coercion repeatedly vote for the continuation of this circumstance. People who want it radically changed don’t seem to have a great deal of electoral success, but since it is a free country there is nothing to stop them putting their case and asking the people to back them. This the people have so far conspicuously failed to do.
In a democracy* this sort of thing inevitably happens. In a democracy, one either accepts this or submits an alternative to the people. Or leaves.
EG
* I know America is technically a republic and not a democracy. This is pedantry, because no country is a democracy if you want to get that technical about it. America is a republic with a government formed through the process of representative democracy, and therefore the phrase “America is a democracy” is good enough for all practical purposes.
toolkien,
I may disagree with what you say on the inquities of taxation, but I would defend to the death your right to bugger off to another country where you don’t have to pay tax or put up with the nasty evil state.
Most people in the UK and the US don’t have a major problem with paying a degree of redistributive taxation in order to gain some benefits from having a state. You may disagree, and you may explain in lengthy detail how it wrong/immoral/unconstitutional/evil or whatever, but the fact remains that you are in a very small minority. There is no legal impediment to emigrating from either the US or the UK, and you are free to make your choice from the global market of competing nation states.
I am often struck on the one hand by the praise lavished on Somalia by assorted libertarians and, on the other, by the extremely small number of libertarians who emigrated there to enjoy the fruits of their theory put into practice.
I realize I’m in the minority. It is painfully obvious every day when I read the news. It is obvious every day when I see the next piece of insanity perpetrated by the chosen few. It’s obvious when I have personal conversations with friends and co-workers who blank out and fall back on some notion of Good to underpin their point of view. But it doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
I have given consideration to emigrating. But then again I shouldn’t have to. One shouldn’t have to run from theivery but stand and fight, which I certainly shall especially when the theft increases to an unbearable level.
Your argument simply boils down to the majority, simply by being the majority, is right. The majority can be wrong. And that unfortunate circumstance seems to exist everywhere, for example, the vast majority of the world seems to believe in some sort of intelligent design. So no matter where I go, superstition will exist. And where superstition exists, bad public policy is sure to follow. A stand will have to made somewhere, might as well be here.
But to once again address your deep set misapprehension, there very well might be some need for government to protect life and property. But when that agency is turned inside out by folk such as yourself to effect transfer of property from one person to another, it then does not fulfill the the mission to defend life and property. It cannot do both. It either recognizes property or is does not. When it does not, it should be rebelled against and reconstituted in a form that does.
And another delusion you operate under is that the degree of State in the US and UK is somehow within some range of optimal, with a prudent nip here and tuck there. They are vastly bloated and self-serving as it stands today, and this is only a starting point if the unfunded health/welfare estimates are anywhere near accurate, for the US and all Western European countries. But then again they can just be repudiated. The luxury only reserved for a State. And all of this confiscation and repudiation will not result it the lashing out of the masses! Everyone will merely give shrug and move on. History, precious history, tells me different, but again, we have two different computations of history.
If the lunacy of paying 30% of my income to the Federal level, and only 4% to the local level does strike you as such, then, again, we operate in two different comprehensions of reality. You, as all superstitious folk do, live in a haze of Good which comes from on high. We established in our prior discussions. Simply because you are in the fractured majority doesn’t make you right.
You view resources, labor, production, and value judgements as something that can be tossed in a blender and hit puree. I view them as native in/to individuals, and any sane system must work from the individual outward, not from the oversized State downward.
You represent to me the modern ‘conservative’ who merely inhabit the right side of the left-socialist body politic. And it IS the majority. But is a majority of ignorant folk who have no comprehension of the erosion of their liberty that has taken place already, and the requirements to give up more in the future. The books don’t balance, basic economics have been trashed. Illusions are inherent throughout. And such combinations have never led to Good.
While Libertarians play semantic games with words, and philosophise on the nature of ‘statism’, a human being is dying, of what amounts to wilful neglect…
Apart from anything else this whole tragedy has been an object lesson in just how seriously we should take any philosophy which we feel inclined to adopt, after all it could mean the difference between life and death…
The lawyers preach about ‘the Law’ and its need for being ‘upheld’, at every opportunity, once again proving that an inflexible legal system, based basically on greed, is a system for jackasses. The Politicians who would like to do the right thing, and maybe not just for the votes, and are yet again, rightly or wrongly, accused of self-interest, by the small and petty minded. In the end no-one is a winner, and there is only one loser…
To be called a hypocrite by Winzeler, is a compliment, to see Toolkien, when describing the death of his Father and of the help he received, as a ‘misallocation of resources’, has to be one of the most cynical remarks I have ever heard, it could at least have been qualified by a recognition of the help the man actually did receive from others, – and all to make some esoteric point on the virtues of libertarianism.
To see RCD actually saying that; We shouldn’t be erring on the side of life, we should be erring on the side of individual freedom and responsibility, makes me wonder just what sort of fool sees freedom and responsibilty in death? Is he suggesting that we should choose death to prove just how ‘free’ we are? and in the proof, would it not be a demonstration of that other non-libertarian meme, ‘the ultimate sacrifice’?
It shows me just what a poor untenable excuse the libertarian philosophy is, as a code to live by. Randians may well be described as selfish, but libertarians take it all to a new level with their smug, dessicated, self-righteousness. In full bloom they seem even more obnoxious than religious extremists, and almost as deadly…
America should change to suit you rather than you accept the nature of the country in which you live? Absurd.
Now, there are communists in the US. Not many, but they exist. They don’t agree with the way the country is run. They could go and live in a foreign communist state, but why should they? Presumably you would think it wrong that America should change just to suit their doctrine. If so, you should have the sense to see that it would be wrong for America to change just to suit yours, or that of any other small minority.
low
That’s a good one. A lack of atheism leads to the bloated state. Try telling that to the Russians.
One can argue that in a democracy it does. But not very seriously.
Any sane system must recognise that man has collectivist urges as well as individual ones. To focus solely on the individual is just as daft as to focus solely on the collective.
Of course. You don’t agree with me, therefore I must be a socialist. How could I have been so blind?
One cannot have absolute liberty. To function in a society, one cedes part of one’s sovereignty to the collective. In a democracy, how much is ceded can be changed by putting to the people an alternative. In a democracy, if they don’t vote for it in enough numbers that’s just tough and you need to accept it.
ernest – for once (and in an unlikely to be repeated event), I actually agree with you.
EG
to see Toolkien, when describing the death of his Father and of the help he received, as a ‘misallocation of resources’, has to be one of the most cynical remarks I have ever heard, it could at least have been qualified by a recognition of the help the man actually did receive from others, – and all to make some esoteric point on the virtues of libertarianism.
My father was made perfectly aware of what was in store for him by his doctor (who also happens to be mine). My father chose to ignore his advice and was ultimately weak willed. No one else is responsible for his decline but himself. No one should have had to suffer a loss due to his inability to control his actions.
I honored my father and I miss him. But no amount of poor judgement on his part EVER justifies the transfers he received. It is the truth as I see it. It merely served as an example of how society cannot control the value system and behaviors of an individual (without using brute force anyway) and therefore society at large should not be on the financial hook either (and that a system that endeavors to be is one that will crush liberty in the process). And my tale was not to make some esoteric point but to illustrate the exact opposite, that poor health and eventual death isn’t some abstraction to me, but something real, and my beliefs are consistent instead of hypocritical. Does it help at all that my father held the same beliefs I do now, that is until he was faced with his declining health, and that he, by and large, held the same opinion about transfer except in the case of health expenses?
As I have labored at length to illustrate, the transfers made already, and those that are estimated to come, are not economically feasible. I am certain that those who incrementally paid for my father’s care will have a reduced ability to pay for their own care in the future, and there were be greatly reduced ‘benefits’ in the future. Caring for, honoring, or missing my father does not alter this belief.
As for Mrs. Schiavo, her circumstance is unfortunate. But her fate is in the hands of a guardian. Different layers of government have spoken, even those who did not have jurisdiction. A decision needed to be made. The guardian has expert resources at his disposal upon which to make a decision. After 15 years, it is obviously one he is not entering into lightly. There seems to be much which evidences that he could simply have walked away, severed legal obligations, taken 1 million dollars, and left her to her parents. But he obviously has some degree of conviction that he is following through on her wishes as her legally recognized partner and now guardian.
But, regardless, I am not responsible to care for her, or transfer my property for her care, and ultimately am a disinterested party. A perfectly interested party, legally and commonly, has made a decision well within his rights.
EG,
I’ll try (and likely fail) for the last time to state that I understand that people seek to align themselves with other people. I never said otherwise. I just said that the association should be voluntary, and not forced. Obviously the fact that massive force is the lynch pin of the level of Statism we have is simply been forgotten.
And yes, you are a socialist. Nothing you have said makes me think otherwise. It is patent with ‘conservatives’ that if you press them long enough, they will provide a laundry list of their own of all the Good works that must be done, and are cavalier in the use of force to make it happen. That is the modern definition of conservative, the type here in the US known as Big Government Conservative. The old style conservative like Goldwater, or those that existed prior to WWII have largely faded away. Conservatism as it is used today denotes, again, that wing of the Big Government supporters who only differ from the left side by a few stylings. The electable portion of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are largely indistinguishable, and the Republicans/Conservatives who control Congress and the Presidency have made absolutely no inroads in Federal control or spending, and have in fact been responsible for its dizzying growth. Nothing in your writings dislodges you from this grouping. And no matter how it named, support of Big Government is socialism.
Euan,
Actually that is now two or three times that we have agreed – is it me or thee that is slipping? 🙂
Toolkien,
No one should have had to suffer a loss due to his inability to control his actions.
I find that remark quite contradictory of your earlier statements…
I am sure you honoured and respected your Father, very much, but, can you say that you really loved the man? – it certainly seems that you have your emotions all priced and accounted for. No amount of esoteric discussion can excuse that.
Like most libertarians, you think you know the value of freedom, when all you really know is the price…
Perhaps that is what I am missing in the libertarian philosphy, room for a totally unselfish love of another…
If a society were to treat murderers in the same fashion as this woman it would be described as uncivilized. When a court makes decisions without documentary evidence on the word of the putative “spouse” whose agenda is highly suspect then the courts decision on what is the best interest of this woman must also be suspect. If a society rules that the helpless, infirm, aged, imperfect, the inconvenient may be disposed of as being too expensive then society isn’t “Libertarian” but more like Hitler’s Germany. This episode does demonstrate what has happened to the West’s moral compass. Perhaps the mullhas are right, the West is too decadent to deserve to survive.
toolkien writes:
We have a number of different issues here, including that of state medical financing. Which I am simply going to ignore, as I think it’s the least important.
First, is there anyone here who has a problem with the idea that an individual can opt to refuse medical treament? Even if that refusal will mean the end of life? All the folks who oppose suicide in any of its myriad forms (including the refusal of medical treament) over to the left.
Second, is there anyone here who feels that this right cannot be expressly delegated, as in a living will? I understand that there is no living will in the Schiavo case, but let’s be complete.
Third, and I suspect this is where we may find some issues, if the individual is unable to communicate and has left no express determination, who gets to make these decisions? The state? Parents? Spouses?
Fourth, is there any difference between taking someone off a respirator and denying that person nutrition.
Everyone of these issues has been dealt with in detail over the course of the last 50 years. Actually, all four were dealt with at some length by the SCOTUS in the 1990 Cruzan case. The decision assumed a preexisting right to refuse treatment, it allowed for the use of living wills, and did not differentiate between artificial nutrition and other medical care. It did however, allow states to set their standards for “substituted judgment” which allows for acceptance of informal patient declarations. Further, (according to my Oxford Companion the the Supreme Court 1992 ed.), most states “allow guardians to make medical decisions including rejection of life-preserving intervention- on behalf of incompetent patients even without clear prior expressions.”
Of course, I’m not a lawyer, and don’t even know whether Florida is one of the ‘most’ the above quotes refers to. However, I do know who does have some clear insight into these and diverse other matters concerning this troubling case. I’ll give you a hint
The goddamn judges, lawyers, and doctors during the 15 years that this fiasco has been going on, that’s who. The rest of us are sitting here rehashing the four seconds of video we have seen. Or, despite the fact the the organs of justice resident in Florida have had nigh on fifteen years to indict Michale Schiavo had anyone suggested prior to this week that he had attempted to murder her. I’m sure the right honorable Dr. Frist is a monster diagnostician, but for fuck’s sake, who diagnoses someone from a video?
In any event, discusions of funding, bizarre murder conspiracies, the possibility of miraculous healing, and adultery are all beside the point. Let’s try and get our terms straight before we get down to the job of judging our neighbors.
Also, and this really irritates me, though I cannot say why. I heard Schiavo refered to as a common-law bigamist. This is incorrect, as Florida does not recognize common-law marriage.
Any-hoo, let’s have a fight about consent, informed and otherwise, and the morality of suicide.
RK Jones
“If your money was a woman, would you put it in a car with Ted Kennedy”-RK Jones
ernest, there is a sincere disconnect between what I am saying and what you are thinking I am saying. As I mentioned in another thread to Euan, I just finished about a month’s worth of construction work for a very poor couple who is expecting a baby and only had a one bedroom house. I did the whole thing for free (In case you’re wondering a starting union builder makes $22.00 per hour, and I have eleven years of experience), all that and on this blog, other than maybe toolkien, you will be hard pressed to find a more staunch libertarian than me. There is room for totally unselfish love for another, but here’s the kicker -it CANNOT be wrought by force. I volunteered. I chose to help. I wanted to help, but I would not be forced to help, neither would I force someone else to help.
Do I despise unselfish acts of love? certainly not. Do I despise initiation of force, even under the guise of “acts of love?” every time. Unselfish acts of love, humanity, kindness, gentleness, all of these things cannot be manufactured or legislated.
Now on to bigger fish; toolkien, you probably should be careful about how you’re lumping all people with a concept of a higher Good into the same mix. Besides being one of your allies in this particular context, I also happen to be one of the most deeply true-Christian people you’ll encounter. I think libertarian philosophy and Christian (I make no judgments or claims about other religions here.) faith can go hand in hand. My concept of God includes the notion that by and large he lets people make their own choices and live with the consequences of them. He doesn’t force love, morality, compassion, any of that. He lets us make our mistakes and run our own lives even if it means we end up shipwrecked. Sometimes he intervenes, but never by force, his intervention always has to be accepted. That all said, I know that the same person can hold to libertarian philosophy while at the same time worshipping God and containing a moral code of right and wrong. I’m not even sure if you were saying something to the contrary, but I wanted to see.
Winzeler,
Not really a severe disconnect, but certainly a difference of opinion over the detail. You say that “Emotion and personal convinction should not reign in politics”, Of course they should, otherwise why not just programme a computer to make the decisions for you?, or just roll a dice…
“Individual personal freedom AND responsibility should”, yes, but only to a degree, and certainly not to the exclusion of all other considerations. It is the combination of all four, and possibly other parameters, that – in the right balance give that rare quality called wisdom. A quality that is not shown in either the Legal, Medical or Political sciences, and to my knowledge is not taught in any seat of learning.
The place to look and learn such wisdom is surely in the spiritual side of our psyches, that which most influences our faculty of reasoning. Whether from religion or any other source, it would seem to be the ingredient that could make libertarianism a worthwhile philosophy, with perhaps a little wider appeal than it currently enjoys. As it stands it certainly seems far too dogmatic and exclusive of reason.
I have written the above paras, and my probably, unjustified criticism of you both, with the Schiavo case in mind, and in an effort to reconciling the libertarian meme with something a little softer and less delineated than the libetarianism defined here by you longer, and more devoted followers.
The idea of ‘freedom’ as being the overriding quality in life, just does not cut it for me… indeed the thought of infinite or unlimited freedom, sounds somewhat frightening.
Logically, it cannot be limited to nutrition and hydration, and thus requires that we keep all life support, no matter how extraordinary, in place.
I disagree. Logically, it can be limited to nutrition and hydration. Indeed, it is already limited to nutrition and hydration, and nutrition and hydration are already treated separately by the medical and ethics establishments, as well as by the Catholic Church. Just as another line is drawn between, say, euthanasia and pain which is so great that the level of opiates necessary to stop it leads only to death. And other lines are drawn by some between euthanasia of terminally ill patients and euthanasia of merely unpleasant but not fatal conditions. Or between withdrawing of life support or hydration, and refusing further treatment such as radiation or chemotherapy or surgery. Or between withdrawing life support and refusing efforts at resuscitation.
Certainly there are many possible places to draw the line. It is, however, logically ridiculous to say that it is impossible to draw a line merely because there are many choices.
Oddly enough, from a legal standpoint, the hearsay testimony used would not be enough to affect the distribution of property solely owned by her after her death, yet was sufficient enough to the judge to be a “clear and convincing statement” of her beliefs. Oh well.
But it is. Nobody forces you to remain in the US, for example. If you don’t like the rules of the association, you are free to leave it and join another. The state will not stand in your way if you wish to leave and renounce your American citizenship – just go to a consular officer abroad and perform a little ceremony to formally and legally renounce it.
You can say it’s involuntary since you did not (for example) choose to be born in the US and therefore had no say over the society you were compelled to join. In the real world, though, people are not born in a neutral place where they can decide which society to join. They never will be, either – unless you accept the compulsion of being forced to choose at, say, the age of eighteen. Unfortunately, it is part of human nature that we don’t get to choose our parents or our country of birth. It is hard to see how any alternative system could be created without the necessity of inventing the time machine. But, on reaching majority, we can choose and vote with our feet.
I imagine that, at least on this blog, there would be little complaint if a British citizen decided to leave the UK and settle in the US in order to enjoy greater freedom. Indeed, Perry’s expressed desire to do this a few months ago was generally treated very sympathetically & the impression was one of wonderment that more people don’t make this basic free choice. By the same token, one assumes that a US citizen opting to leave America to enjoy greater freedom elsewhere would be applauded for so doing. So, if it’s so bad, pack up and head for the libertarian paradise of Somalia.
An interesting definition. I don’t actually support big government, but then your definition of “big” in this context might well be radically different from mine or from that of many others.
EG
Guys, your Trackback is broken. I just put a critical post on this on:
http://depleteduranium.blogspot.com/2005/03/why-should-libertarians-want-to-kill.html
It ends:
If the Samizdata view is libertarian, I’m going to have to invent another label for myself. How about Social Capitalist?
Gandalf,
Nicely put…
At (Link) they say that
For those of you a little slow on the civics draw, the head of the DOJ is US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. At (Link) Gonzalez is quoted as saying, “In a few weeks, we will begin here a serious discussion with implications for our Nation’s future, as Congress faces the opportunity to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act. In this dialogue, our goal remains…to give law enforcement the tools they need to keep America safe, while honoring our values and our Constitution. ”
I just can’t wait to hear Gonzalez’s views on how this bloated, festering bureaucracy should honor our values and our Constitution.
This is exactly where the disconnect is happening. I don’t want the collective or a computer making decisions for me. I want to make them myself. With that right I also expect the responsibility and risk of living with my own consequences. In addition, I accept the responsibility to not thrust my opinions and emotions on anyone else.
On a bit of a philosophical note: responsibility should never be given without authority. In our bloated government age much of the authority we have to make our own decisions about our money and about our morals has been stripped. Yet, the so-called elite are sitting around wondering why we’re witnessing one of the worst declines in personal responsibility ever. How can humanity on the whole ever expect to improve if it is never permitted to grow by trial and error. Collectivism doesn’t work. It breeds the “where’s my handout?” mentality.
Question,
If withholding food and water is not murder, then withholding such from babies is also not murder (after all, they also cannot feed themselves.) Or from the senile.
Any doctor, or just anyone with a lick of brains knows you are killing that person. You may think you are just letting nature take it’s course, but like Pontius Pilate, you can’t just wash your hands of this.
This whole thing will one day recoil on those who do not see the unintended consequences of their actions. You have opened the door to forced killing of the helpless for reasons of economic and convience.
And yes, Solyet Green is people.
Paul, this argument is bogus. A “healthy”*, conscious human be it baby or elderly is NOT the same as a human that has been determined by professional medical doctors to be in a persistent vegetative state.
* healthy in this context being one not in a persistent vegetative state.
Paul, you are also overlooking the absolutely crucial element of self-determination in the Schiavo case. There is a finding, based upon multiple witnesses, that there is clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Schiavo would not have wanted feeding tubes while in PVS.
Even if you quibble with that finding, your argument that withdrawing feeding tubes is murder proves too much, because it would outlaw withholding feeding tubes even at the insistence of the patient. It amounts to mandating that patients get feeding tubes over their objections.
Further, I do not see a non-arbitrary distinction between feeding tubes and any other medical treatment, placing you in the rather unsavory position of having the state force medical treatment on people, against their will.
For their own good, of course.
There are affidavits on file from the nurses in the Schiavo case. These nurses worked there (Heidi Law, Carla Sauer Iyer, Carolyn Johnson) who all signed such showing what little was done to help Schiavo by either the medical profession or her husband/ex-husband.
Her husband/ex-husband, after suing and wining $400K supposedly for her rehab, DENIED IT TO HER.
There is stark evidence she is NOT totally veggitive.
This whole thing reeks. That is the problem. Just about everyone involved has a reason for her to die. All except her own parents. The guardianship needs to be taken out and given to a independent person or group that has no $$$ interest in this and do what is right. And for that to happen, she needs to be fed and therapy to give her a chance. Up to now, they have let her lay for YEARS with not therapy and now claim she can do nothing.
As for the babies, well if they are retarded, or deformed, in places they do kill them before being born. And I know of a few cases where food and water have been withheld ( one justifed as the baby had only a brain stem.)
And yes, for senile people there is NO therapy to bring them back, is there?
I’m not to sure, but shouldn’t the parents have tried to seize legal custody of Terri? Why did the institution of marriage enable the rights of Terri to be signed over to her husband in its entirety(or so it seemed to me)?
Regarding the intrusion of the federal state into the affair, I have to agree that it’s really somewhere they should not have gone. But by the same token, the Florida courts made a big boo-boo that should have been rectified, and could have been easily solved if they had simply signed Terri’s right to life to whoever had the money to support her.
And I would gladly donate funds for that cause.
Perhaps next time something like this(euthanasia) turns up, there should be a certain series of steps taken, like checking for people willing to support the poor patient about to die. If there is even ONE person willing to spend time, money, and love on the patient to keep him/her alive, then nobody has the right to stop the good samaritan.
TWG
*sigh*
No one, I would assume, posting here PERSONALLY knows any of these people or has any DIRECT experience in this particular case. How is it that you are sure that 20 different judges in as many court hearings are wrong/incompetent/evil, while you know the truth?
Why won’t Teri’s husband just let go of her custody after 15 years, (and even being offered money to do so?) Oh he must be evil… I bet he probably wanted her dead before she even went into cardiac arrest!
or maybe..
He really DID have a conversation with his wife about this subject, and I hardly think that’s a far stretch.. I’d bet most of us here have at least brooched the subject with spouses and family or friends. Why should we assume he’s lying? And for all of the people with the “mysterious broken bones/he put her in the coma, neglected her etc etc… ” line of questioning, the parents had 15 YEARS to fight this in court and none of it was found to be substansive. Nothing has been proven that would disqualify Michael as her spouse, and ergo, under FLORIDA LAW her legal gaurdian.
Isn’t it possible that he is in fact VERY honorable and is willing to go through this for 15 years while refusing money to walk away or divorce her because it is what he knows, as her partner of many years, what SHE WOULD WANT. I hope my spouse would do as much for me.. but wouldn’t her for taking the money and walking away from such a cluster @!#$
To think, Terry is considered a ‘vegetable’ and has lived for 14 years with a single feeding tube attached to her body yet Christopher Reeves who sadly only lived a few short years while existing on mulitple life-support systems, including one which allowed him to breath then I’d say Terry is far more alive than Christopher Reeves ever was.
Believing that life exists only in our brains is a very narrow point of view in defining the meaning of what is considered ‘alive.
Can you seriously not see the difference between Reeves and Teri? Seriously now?
Believing that life exists only in our brains is a very narrow point of view in defining the meaning of what is considered ‘alive.
And believing that Teri’s ‘alive’ and Reeve’s ‘alive’ are equivilant is foolish.
Wow, some of these post make me feel like I’ve stumbled onto a conservative Christian blog, not a Libertarian Blog. Personally what gets me is how many poeple seem to believe that Micheals life should have ended when Terri’s did. He didn’t just run right out and get a girl friend it was a few years. This was a young man in the prime of his life without children, you really belive he should have given himself up? You can through Christian arguements at me, but I’m not Christian, I’m Atheist and the arguements won’t do anything for me. Lets also not forget it was Terri’s parents who first encouraged him to move on with his life. From statements they made they wanted to get Michael into another relationship, who by the way was living with Terri’s parent at the time, so they could take custody aways from him, they filed in court first and their plan backfired on them. Michael moved in with Terri’s parent soon after she collasped to be closer with the family and to better care for her. He did the best he could for her and when it became appearent that she would never recover he moved to see she didn’t live in a state she didn’t want to be in. How many people would want to live that way?
Bec
Records do not show that Terri Schiavo received any of the 1.4 million dollar jury award for her treatment and therapy. Records show $350,000 went to legal fees to litigate her death.
How can a jury award won on the premise of needed and desired treatment and therapy be used only to litigate the death of the person to whom the funds were awarded?
It is a nutty nutty world.