Redstate

Except that ignoring his determined actions since that point does also dismiss a good deal of the evidence suggesting he has, shall we say, other motives.

Such as marrying someone else.

trevino -

With, sincerely, all due respect for your personal history, for your concern about the (perhaps) less than self-interested motivations of Schiavo's husband, and for the other points you raise:

Don't you see a distinction between abortion, euthanasia, and people who are kept alive through purely artificial means?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Cheers -

They are different killings of different people.  But they are all of a piece -- the unnecessary peacetime killings of human beings.

The Florida courts--if I understand correctly--have found as a matter of fact that Terri had expressed a desire not to be kept alive under circumstances such as the one she is currently in.  If you believed that to be truly the case, would you feel differently about what the correct outcome of this case would be?

For what it's worth, I completely disagree with you

(and others who view this as a rallying cry for life) .

I'm a right-to-die person myself; this issue is why I could not in good faith join the pro-life groups on campus. However, although I disagree, this post, in true Trevino style, is logical and well-written. Much better than anything else regarding this case that I've read in conservative blogs today.

The Florida prosecuters dropped the ball and could not get a conviction.  The fight now is to forcefully prolong the life of essentially an inert being.

I do not recognize a right to self-terminate -- suicide is a moral wrong in itself.  As a pragmatic matter, it is simply impossible to devise a rational legal foundation that would justly differentiate between permitted and non-permitted suicides.

I am in the continual process of reformulating my own position on these issues. However, one position that I take is that sometimes what is immoral is necessary; the value of a single human life, even mine or my family's, does not trump a well-formulated "greater good" if the latter can in fact be articulated on sound moral principles.

Collateral damage of course is an exception you have sidestepped by invocation of the word "peacetime" - I presume then that you agree that one such "greater good" is war. However, why is war the only such greater good?

FWIW, there was a highly rational and moral discussion on this at Dkos some time ago: The Death of Terri Schiavo. You have allies across teh aisle. In that debate, I started out sympathetic to the Schiavo family in my position. I was forced to reassess on the basis of the medical imaging results which document the kind of brain damage that truly does end hope:

Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.

(source: google search of court documents)

If these records are incorrect, my opinion will change immediately. But with brain tissue replaced by CSF, it's over. It's simply over.

Working in a cancer hospital, and doing a PhD on MRI physics with precisely the hope to someday help prevent such damage (from whatever cause) has perhaps made me a pessimist in this regard. But as you rightly invoke science, so must I, and go where it leads in my assessment.

What are your thoughts about "living will" issues.

I.e.:

o  Respecting someone's express desire to not take extraordinary measures to resuscitate them?

o  Respecting someone's express desire to not be kept alive through artificial means?

Thanks -

And even if you could definitively declare her "inert" -- hardly a settled matter, that -- how could you definitively conclude that the condition was permanent?

btw, heres teh detailed cite, if someone with more mojo than me wants to fact check. I am assuming that the quote above is valid.

The quote is taken from the In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 780 So. 2d 176, 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).  Subsequently, Theresa Schiavo's parents went back to court, seeking to establish that new treatment might offer some promise of increased cognitive function.  Another hearing was held, that received testimony from a panel of doctors.  Although a Court of Appeals usually relies upon the trial court for fact finding, the Court of Appeals did an extensive review of the videotapes of Theresa Schiavo, the brain scans, and the

explanations of the doctors in the transcripts from the guardianship court.  The Court of Appeals stated there was "irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has suffered the most severe of irreparable injuries."  In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182, 186-87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)

The quotations are included in the 2004 decision of the Florida Supreme Court, Bush v. Schiavo, 885 So, 2d 321 (Fla. 2004)

see above.

I'm hardly one to be particularly enthusiastic about the concept of suicide myself, having lost my mother in that manner in April of 1999.  However, I would suggest that the perception that the Florida courts are at least trying in this case to carry out what Terri's wishes are believed to be creates a distinction between this case and the typical abortion situation, and that this might account for what you clearly perceive as a terribly misguided--if not outright evil--attitude on the parts of many.

Just my two cents.

in principle, i think suicide is a civil right, but not a moral right. I dont think that the state should prevent you from doing it to yourself. But there's a reason most faiths denounce the practice.

Lump it in with sodomy, alcohol, etc I guess. Let the libertarians have their due, as Allah will surely take his.

btw, I just have to say, that I love the new planar ultrasound arrays :) The images of babies just chilling out, scratching, sucking their toes, etc are awesome. I figured it was boring in there.. comfy, but boring :)

Seriously though, the sheer amount of data in an ultrasound beam is staggering. Its almost but not quite ironic that US gives the worst image quality of the major modalities. There are some similarities to synthetic aperture radar in new techniques for data processing, i hope that we will see a huge explosion in US capability in the next decade.

That said, its extremely alarming that the fetuses are being scanned this way for what amounts to recreational puurposes. The amount of sonic exposure that the fetus receieves to create these cool images is enormous. Keep in mind that US is a  longitudinal (compression) wave, not a transverse one like RF energy - so the energy being pumped in, to an uncompressible fluid sac, mind you - is not negligible.

Since when is it the duty of another man to determine which life is fit and which is not?  To those of you who cite being in a coma or incapable of consciousness as a reason to terminate her life, go google the words "coma" and "miracle" and "recovery."  You will find many instances of those who "miraculously" came out of a coma despite the wisdom of the medical community that such a recovery was not possible.  This willingness to play God and judge which modes and forms of life are valid is an extraordinarily dangerous mentality to possess and not unlike the ideology behind some of the more abhorrent regimes in history.    

And to the right-to-die folks on this thread, I would ask the question: what determines the value of a human life?

but all things considered, the opinion of the person whose life itself is under consideration surely takes precedence over any external entity.

there is no medical miracle to be found even on almighty Google wherein a person miraculously regenerates necrotic brain tissue.

It IS true however that brain functions can adapt around damage to a lesser extent. However, oxygen deprivation causes irreparable and much more systemic damage. This is why stroke is such a debilitating condition; yes, you can recover, but if the ischemia is too widespread, then its over.

Never having seen the brain scans, I do note that she has exhibited on-again off-again behavior indicative of higher brain function for some time. It's been on the news down here with some frequency. I style myself as not entirely science illiterate, and am fully aware of what happens when you're missing your prefrontal lobes, but the film evidence seems to indicate some more activity than one would expect from that kind of damage.

One more thing, and it's where I'm competent: We would not take the testimony of someone with a direct stake in the litigation as dispositive of the central issue in that litigation in any other setting. I find it more than slightly unsettling that the word of a husband who stands to benefit financially if his wife dies, was taken at his word that his wife wanted him to kill her in the precise situation in which they found themselves. Indeed, given the surrounding circumstances, I'd be extremely leery, were I sitting as a factfinder.

Though you may be certain about the permanence of certain debilitating medical conditions, I am not.  And, it appears the medical community and knowledge in which you place your faith does not either.  There are countless stories such as the one listed below in which the medical community is unable to explain the miraculous recovery of the woman cited below.  Yet, for some reason we are eager to pull the plug.  Why?  

HUTCHINSON, Kan. -- A woman unable to talk since she was hit by a drunken driver 20 years ago has begun to regain her memory and form words, sending her father "from despair to joy."

Sarah Scantlin's family and friends plan to celebrate the development on Saturday at the health care center where she lives.

"She's 100 percent Sarah again. The family is back together, and it's just simply a joyous situation," her father, Jim Scantlin, told CNN.

Scantlin was 18 when she was struck while walking to her car in 1984. She had been aware of her surroundings but unable to make any sounds other than loud crying until a month ago, when she told staff members, "OK, OK."

"It just happened one day and nobody really knows why," said Sharon Kuepker, administrator for the Golden Plains Health Care Center.

One assumes that Mr Schiavo could simply prove his sincerity and goodwill by divorcing Mrs Schiavo, foregoing any insurance money, giving her over to the custody of her parents, or any combination thereof.  That he does not -- that he wants her dead -- is indicative of malicious (or avaricious) intent in my book.

is that he thinks (rightly) that turning Terri over to her family - who will assuredly keep her on life-support - would be cruelty to whatever remains of Terri's perception. I think that there is as much evidence for the "genuinely concerned for her welfare" huband motivation interpretation as there is for the "greedy bastard" one. I think his motivations are essentially irrelevant to the basic medical question. I don't see how you can assert one or the other based on the facts available, unless you've got more direct personal knowledge of teh principals than I do.

I meant "rightly" to apply to teh sentence clause, "keep Terri alive", not "cause Terri cruelty". Huge difference.

I dont have any personal experience of observation of Terri's mannerisms while in the coma, however the condition whereby a comatose - and even terminally, vegetative - person still exhibits some "awake"like responses is a well-known one in medical circles. Its a combination of some automatic responses to external stimuli, as well as some psychological interpretation on the part of those who are emptionally attached.

Not to say its impossible that a regular comatose person could be "awake" in there, but the medical imaging data about Terri's brain deterioriation pretty much rules it out in this specific case. Theres not enough left, and it doesnt have to be frontal matter either - you need enough "critical mass" of more than just the frontal lobes to be non-vegetative. The entire motor cortex, broca's and wernicke's areas, etc all lie outside the frontal. Think of gray matter as CPU power - the less you have, the less you can do. It scales down as well as up.

Again, I dont have a horse in this race. If Terris brain were not so badly damaged, to such concensus among external medical professionals, I'd have a differring opinion.

And everything to do with the fact that, in any other case, he'd be the last one on whose testimony we'd rely as probative of one of the central issues of the case.

You don't want to know what I think of the judges involved in this. I've had my opinion lowered by some pretty results-oriented judging before. This is worse.

I think that there is as much evidence for the "genuinely concerned for her welfare" huband motivation interpretation as there is for the "greedy bastard" one.

I don't.  But let's say you're right on this count.  All other things being equal, why do we not assume a prejudice -- legal and social -- in favor of life?

not contradictory to my point. Presumably Sarah's brain was not damaged as badly as Terri's.

I'm very sorry to hear that.  Seriously.

I agree with your analysis of the perception at work, here.

if there wasn't such devastation in her gray matter.

I could go crawl into the linac across the hall from my office, bribe the janitor, and zap myself with 50 Gy of radiation across both hemispheres. Doig so would mean I am toast. They could keep me alive at that point, surely, and I might even have some reactive responses to stimuli. But I'm gone, man. You don't reverse brain necrosis. Not even with stem cells/nanotech/pixie dust. Its gone.

What you've done is say that a finder of fact, having reviewed the evidence, came to a certain conclusion. Having now read through your links, I still don't see those images myself.

Just because a court makes a finding of fact, does not mean that it has in fact found a fact. In other words, OJ, anyone?

That it's possible they didn't mess it up. That the damage is that severe. In which case, first, most of her husband's arguments are silly, and, second, your conclusions about her system are undoubtedly correct.

Having seen findings of "fact" that boggle the mind, however, I'm not inclined to be charitable. (An old lawyer joke: "Why do you think they're called findings of fact? If they were really facts just lying around, anyone could find them!")

It's not truly "anecdotal" if there is a critical mass of anecdotes to justify that this is not as infrequent as you might believe it to be.  The overall point is that there is a limit to medical knowledge.  Every time I read one of these stories, what I most commonly see is the stupefied reaction of the medical community that such a recovery could have occurred.  Again, google this issue and you will find many "anecdotes" about those who have exited a comatose existence despite the conventional wisdom of the medical community that such a thing could not happen.

I don't know about you, but I cannot in good conscience justify ending another person's life when even a remote chance exists that they may be slightly cognizant.    

if the finding of "fact" was wrong. Because as the finding stands, it's just not a good situation, and the poor woman should be laid to rest. I prefer to think that in such situations, her soul has moved to its reward rather than be tied to the flesh.

I havent seen the images either of course. I am heavily biased given my field (I'm not an MD, though) but I think that it would be pretty difficult to misinterpret a CT scan when evaluating a relatively simple issue like "percentage viable brain tissue vs CSF". That's pretty much 4th year med student level of capability, you don't even need to be a resident. Heck, I could look at a CT and tell you that theres too much CSF, though the implications on cognition are beyond my expertise.

maybe im just jaded. But you don't heal a broken bone by praying over it. Lack of brain tissue is just as stark a matter. We arent anywhere near the limits of medical knowledge on this one.

Not doctors. Some smart guys at the 2d, and some real boneheads. But their "findings of fact" -- as with all such things -- can be boiled down to this:

Sides A and B presented experts.

We listened to the experts.

We sided with the experts we agreed with (for whatever reason).

I have had cases where bona fide engineers were ignored in favor of utter quacks who'd never once tested their theories, and at whom most engineers in the field sneered, because the factfinder -- judges and juries -- liked the other side's case better. When I say "findings of fact," what I really mean is "conclusions about factual issues, reached with a truly minimal sense of the issue."

Incidentally, this isn't a call for abolishing the jury system. Judges are rarely smarter than juries with this sort of stuff.

Allow me to add my to cents.

I would remain silent here but for the fact that my immediate family was recently confronted with a very similar situation.

I'll begin by saying that this topic is so personal and so exquisitely painful that we all must be guided by our own beacons when or if (god forbid) confronted with the choice. Also, like  azizhp, I was compelled to rethink my views on the topic after being confronted by circumstances well beyond my control; and I reversed them.

Here is how I see it.

All cases must be viewed individually.  Although some cases may involve mirror physiological and medical circumstances, causation, individual moral values, religion and other nonmedical variables will move cases in separate directions.

I would be much more comfortable with a universal set of ethical, legal, moral and religious codes to apply to these situatiions.  But, there simply are none, and at any rate, the result will almost always mean termination of a life.

However, sometimes that is far more desireable than the realities attendant to living under certain conditions.

In the case of Mrs. Shiavo, I see no conflict.  She is thought to be being kept alive by the presence of a devise unfortunately referred to as a 'feeding tube.'  In other words, her life is being artificially maintained - maybe.

Unless I am wrong I believe there has been no definitive medical prognosis that if the tube were removed, she would certainly die.  Auto sustenance has not been ruled out - or has it?

In either case - it matters not.

Remove the tube - she will either live or die.  There will have been no overt act taken to kill her.  If she is incapable of self-sustenance, her death would be natural.  At the moment, her life is sustained unnaturally.

The question here ought not to be whether or not removing the tube is tantamount to actively taking her life.  It would not.  The question ought to center upon the morality of artificially sustaining a life that could not sustain itself; and that represents no intrinsic value to the individual, and provides no sensory (or merely minute) sensory interactiion with the universe.

The paradox places the value of a single wholly dependent life with little or no cognitive capabilities against the adverse affects its artificial maintenance produce upon other lifes not so affected.

So far as concerns the value of Mrs. Schiavo's life against that of any other human being, no one can make that assessment. However, in this case, I cannot bring myself to place a higher value on her life than that of another human being hunted and killed during a war, or snuffing out a developing human life in a woman's womb for unilateral reasons.

It seems to me that if we are prepared to take overt acts to kill thousands of soldiers and millions of unborn babies, we ought not become overly exercised about allowing one to flicker and die peacefully of its own accord.

The moral authorites to perform the one act are as legitimate as the moral sanctions against the other:  And, they are all based upon human values and judgements - the most fluid and flawed of all.

Thus, these opposites, although paradoxical - are equally legitimate, and can be inversely applied accoridn to one personal views.

It becomes neither wrong nor right, good or bad, moral or immoral to either take a life or allow one to flicker out of its own accord.

In the end, I come back round to the beginning:  It is a personal matter based upon one's moral and  religious value sets. I cannot see how either one of us might assume to assign our values to another, and condemn him or her for not accepting them.

We all die in the end.  Life is after all, the manner in which we employ ourselves until that particular time, place and set of circumstances brings it to an end.

The most any of us can hope for is to be well-rememered, missed and maybe even a little loved.  Terri Schiavo seems to have those elements well-covered.

Anyway.  There it is - for what it's worth -

the piece of the court record I was zeroing in on is this one:

" Another hearing was held, that received testimony from a panel of doctors.  Although a Court of Appeals usually relies upon the trial court for fact finding, the Court of Appeals did an extensive review of the videotapes of Theresa Schiavo, the brain scans, and the

explanations of the doctors in the transcripts from the guardianship court.  The Court of Appeals stated there was "irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has suffered the most severe of irreparable injuries."

are the choices of words I bolded above subject to precise scrutiny, or are they casual use? It was my understanding that there were stricter rules on language in legal proceedings. I was taking the quote above at face value, and interpreting it to mean, "a third party panel of experts was brought in to independently assess the evidence" - leading to an "irrefutable" conclusion. That specific word, actually, strikes me.

You may be right - the court may be exaggerating in the record, and there may have been dissenting doctors. If theres some medical dissent on Terri's condition, that would be much more convincing that theres hope. But it sounds more like a concensus, as I read the text above, than a "we said, they said".

I have to confess to having only skimmed the blogs for terri - i'm sure you can dig up dissenting medical opinions if they exist, but remember that for those dissenting opinions to ebvalid, they have to be based on actual access to eterris records and not supposition in the absence of access.  

that blood transfusions, radiation therapy, even antibiotics amount to a "non-natural" extension of life. I am highly uncomfortable with this interpretation. I prefer the hard science.

The usual example of Jehovas Witnesses being against blood transfusions is highly relevant, I think. Its not an easy question.

Let alone accurately.

The "rules" for legal writing are sadly much more lax these days. Stressing that it's entirely possible that they reached the objectively correct conclusion:

"Another hearing was held, that received testimony from a panel of doctors.  Although a Court of Appeals usually relies upon the trial court for fact finding, the Court of Appeals did an extensive review of the videotapes of Theresa Schiavo, the brain scans, and the

explanations of the doctors in the transcripts from the guardianship court.  The Court of Appeals stated there was "irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has suffered the most severe of irreparable injuries."

Boiled down, this means:

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, and considered the testimony of several experts. It agreed with some of those experts, for whatever reason.

The Second District, to its credit, reviewed the facts in the record (that's an aside for later, but suffice it to say, what the trial court allows and doesn't is a whole different, and sometimes dispositive can of worms). Having reviewed the same facts the trial court allegedly did, the Second DCA, sitting in more or less the same role as the trial court, came to the same conclusion.

The word "irrefutable" is a makeweight for the appellate court to protect itself from overt scrutiny. Judges are politicians, too. They don't want folks to think they're off willy-nilly, regardless of whether they are or not.

Judges are also lawyers, which means that they know they're writing to persuade in every sentence.

Like I said, it's possible that's right. It's also possible it's not.

Wouldn't just foregoing the life insurance proceeds get rid of his financial motivation and allow him to preserve any purported moral interest?  


That solves azhips problem of simply turning him over to her parents.  Thomas' (great) point was in regard to credibility, not outcome determination. (as I read his post anyway)

I don't know how I feel about this case.  As evidence is presented and each side tells their bent, I grow more confused.  

I'm not a big right-to-die proponent.  And yes, I've watched those I love die horrible deaths (a mother to breast cancer and a mother-in-law to a glioblastoma that took everything she was to us before it took her).  So, I feel well versed in the observation of the pain and suffering issue.  The blessing in both of these circumstances was that we KNEW without a doubt what our mothers' wishes were.  They were written, witnessed, and posted.

  If we all take nothing else away from this horrible situation this family finds themselves in, let it be known to all those who love you in written, witnessed form, your true wishes pertaining to these matters.  That includes those young, invincible college types that frequent this site.  Do not ever put your family in a situation like this because you didn't take care of your affairs.

That's my $.02.

For the life of me, I'm at a loss as to why his testimony was dispositive. Outcome to the side, it sounds like error if there ever was such a thing.

Is that there will always be someone willing to execute that right on my behalf, even when I haven't explicitly chosen it. The horror stories out of the Netherlands (and Britain!) are not doing much to put my mind at ease with regard to humanity's essential depravity.

The law has certain "burdens of proof". As examples "reasonable doubt" is the most familiar in the criminal context, and "preponderance of the evidence" is less familiar in the civil context.  These are just magic words, but "reasonable doubt" is supposed to be a higher hurdle than "preponderance".



Thomas' point (I believe) is that the Appeal judges had to find that a "burden"(esque)(lawyers please bear with my impreciseness) was met here.  But, they didn't approach it by 1. what is the evidence? 2. what burden does that equate to?  Instead they possibly said we want to meet the burden,how can we describe the evidence to meet that burden. Essentially reversing (or results oriented evaluating) the required analysis.



If you like pain read on:At the trial court you have a 'burden of proof' such as the fammiliar ones I've outlined. But after the trial court has found a burden met and sided with one party or another the Appeals Court has certain "standards of review" in order to overturn the trial court.  These standards of review have certain magic words associated with them.  The equivalent of the magic words of "beyond a reasonable doubt" at the trial court may be "irrefutable evidence" at the appeals level in Florida.  So, in order to overturn, the Appeals Court has to find "irrefutable evidence," but that basically means the make a decision that they like and then cite the magic words "irrefutable evidence" before their conclusion.



That's about as articulate as I can be at 1am. Did it make sense?

As a (at some recent point in my life) ghost writer of 'findings of fact' I have some experience here - if it matters.

Every once in a while Thomas and I are on the same page.

As a possible parent in the near future.. I'd be happy to see any evidence about ultrasounds that would keep me from screwing with my kid's health. Can't imagine a much worse thing to have happen.

But the appellate court doesn't need irrefutable findings of fact. Florida's standard is the same as most other states: Reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence, will not disturb on appeal, etc.

What the heck does (nt) mean?

I know it ends a comment at the title line. Sadly, I'm not smart enough to know more than that.

I think the agony over Schiavo proves the point regarding the callousness over abortion.  But I fail to see how a moral failing of society over abortion should be use to leverage the termination of Schiavo.



By the way, I couldn't tell if you'd reversed your abortion position or just your feeding tube position.

I would posit that it could stand for "No Text." I realized that possiblity after posting it. It just has annoyed me seeing it all over the place, but apparently hasn't annoyed me enough to figure out what it means.

I've read so many posts in so many different places regarding this issue and I can't get over the fact that I think people are debating the wrong issue in all of this.  I went to the Terri's Fight website and looked at the timeline of events.  This is what is listed:

Feb 1990 - Terri Collapses in her home.

May 1990 (3 months since collapse) - Terri discharged from Humana Hospital in St. Petersberg, Florida.

Dec 1990 (10) - Terri taken to California for experimental implant.

Jan 1991 (11) - Terri moved to Bradenton Mediplex Rehabilitation Center.

Feb 1991 (12) - Terri moved to home with husband.

Apr 1991 (14) - Terri's condition is assessed as improving.

Apr 1991 (14) - Terri's husband advised to move her to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center to receive advanced therapy to continue Terri's recovery.

Jul 1991 (17) - Terri moved to Sable Palms Nursing Home.  [ed.  Was she moved first to the recommended Rehabilitation Center for therapy?]

Aug 1992 (30) - Terri awarded $250,000 in malpractice settlement.

Nov 1992 (33) - Terri awarded $1.4 million in malpractice trial.

Nov 1992 (33) - Michael Schiavo awarded $600,000 in malpractice trial.

Feb 1993 (36)- Michael Schiavo denies recommended rehabilitation treatment.

Feb 1993 (36) - Schiavo and Terri's parents have falling out regarding lack of therapy for Terri.

Feb 1993 (36) - Schiavo withholds medical information from Terri's parents.

Feb 1993 (36) - Schiavo posts Do not Resuscitate order in Terri's medical chart.

I keep going back to this point in time in the case.  I think this should be the focus.  There is really no point in debating what is going on 15 years later.  If we do that, we are caught in a trap.  According to the site, Michael Schiavo has denied recommended rehabilitation for Terri since 1993.  In spite of the lack of medical treatment, Terri has survived another 12 years.  I have to wonder how Terri would be doing today had she received recommended rehabilitation for the past 12 years.

Also, the topic of this thread takes note of Michael Schiavo denying Terri's parents from seeing the Terri's medical records.  This is not something new.  If you take note in the timeline, Michael Schiavo denied this information to her parents back in 1993, 3 months after winning the malpractice suits and at the same time that he decided to order a "Do Not Rescusitate" on Terri's medical chart.  Doesn't this sound strange to anyone else?

I really think the supporters of Terri Schiavo are letting the debate get sidetracked to a place where we cannot win.  We need to get the focus back on the time period of 1990-1993.  If there is some proof during that time period that Terri Schiavo was beyond saving, then I would take the side of Michael Schiavo.  But if there is no evidence of Terri being "brain-dead" in 1993, and only the word of Michael Schiavo that Terri would not want to be kept alive in a comatose state, then Michael Schiavo clearly just wanted to kill Terri.  

We need to move the debate of brain-dead or not back to 1993.  Because that is when Michael Schiavo first moved to let Terri die.  If he moved to have her die without having proof that she was brain dead, then that is proof to me that he just wants her dead.

I never gave it that much thought. Then again, I usually do this stuff after 12-13 hour work days, so it's questionable how much brain activity is happening at that point.

His testimony should be taken with just the tee-tiniest grain of salt.

I'd think we were becoming disagreeable again. ;-)

It's a rare state. And I have to be up in two hours, so I should probably hit the large flat thing with the cotton stretched on it.

is the basis of their value?

Why?

Except that ignoring his determined actions since that point does also dismiss a good deal of the evidence suggesting he has, shall we say, other motives.

Such as marrying someone else.

His last name or no, the mere fact that Jeb was willing to go to bat for Mrs. Terri Schiavo demonstrates a commitment to life which we need in an American President.

Looking back at 1993, a case could be made that his first motive was to inherit the $1+ Million by asking for her to be allowed to die 3 months after winning the malpractice suits.

My point is that we can debate the condition of Terri now until we are blue in the face.  Those wanting her to live will never come to agreement on her condition with the Right-to-Die crowd.  But if we go back to 1993 and find out what her condition was then, it could change the scope of the next 12 years of the case.  

My questions concerning the years 1990-1993 are why didn't he put Terri through the recommended rehabilitation?  Why did he deny her parents access to her medical records back in 1993?  And what happened between April of 1991, when she was assessed as improving, and February of 1993 when Michael Schiavo wanted to 'pull the plug' on her?

I think if these questions were answered, then the next 12 years can be seen in an entirely new light.  One which shines the light on a man who wanted to kill his wife to inherit his money and which also shines light on the court system which has clearly been biased.

this is why we have laws, a judicial system, etc. I assume you don't favor abolising the death penalty on the grounds that an innocent man MAY be put to death (correctc me if I am mistaken). At some point you have to rely on the system. Thomas has done a good job of educating me on the hidden variables, but ultimately the decision must stand unless it can be overturned legitimately within the system. That would require medical evidence counter to that thus far presented. Have you seen any such evidence?

who is more qualified, me or you on matters pertaining to your life?

just dont get teh snazzy three D pics unless advised to by a doctor. If so advised, its fine, rest easy.

Thomas Sowell was more articulate today than I was on this subject (or will ever be on any subject):

Everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty -- in a court of law. But we cannot just mindlessly repeat words outside the context in which they apply. If you discovered that your spouse had been secretly checking into motels with someone else, would you presume innocence until proven guilty?

Citing legalese from an opinion is ill-advised if you are looking for factual support basically.

I didn't mean "mindlessly" to apply to you.

While the left might be all on-board with the culture of death to infants, the elderly and the handicapped they break their own rule of "don't be a hypocrit" by fighting for the lives of; research animals, food animals, and unremorseful murderers (oh and fascist dictators).  I work in the biotech field, and have seen the same people who are "pro-choice" fight for the life of a zebrafish.  I'm starting to believe that they truly hate humanity and that their self-identified label of "humanists" or "humanitarian" is horribly misapplied.

..so if you know what it's referring to from looking at the comment list, you won't waste your time clicking on it.

I use it in email a lot too.

I haven't followed this case as closely as some have, so I have some questions that I hope some of you can answer:

1. Is a feeding tube generally considered "life support?"
   
2. Has any attempt to feed her orally been made? I had heard (no idea if this is true) that the family was prohibited even from attempting this. What possible rationale for this could there be?
   
3. If Michael Schiavo really is only concerned that Terri's wishes be carried out, can he sign some document that forfeits his portion to her life insurance, while still maintaining his legal next-of-kin relationship that allows him to fight for her "right to die"? Wouldn't this quell a lot of the speculation (which frankly at this point seems pretty accurate to me) that this guy is killing his wife for money?

MachoNachos

Again.  We each need to rely upon our own moral, ethical, spiritual compasses; and allow others to do the same on these issues.

The examples you cite are good ones but, I think in each of those examples, a patient like Mrs. Schiavo would not even be considered for a transfusion/radiation treatment, etc. etc. simply because of her physical condition - one that by-the-way has been defined and evaluated scientifically as a massive destrruction of brain tissue and replacement of it with csf.

Points you make elsewhere here apply.  Lacking any other metric, I too would rely upon the science - if it came to that.

If it is my choice that I not be kept alive though artificial means, why do your morals have anything to do with that whatsoever?  Why on earth would you impose your judgement on my choices?   If I decide that I don't want to rack up millions of dollars in medical bills for my family or the state by being kept perpetually in that state, how on earth does it affect you in the slightest way?  Our system is set up to allow people to make poor decisions.  Why you think that your morals should trump my personal decision that affects no one else is absolutely astounding.

....you think the ultimate arbiter here is your volition: personal choice per se as overriding value.  It's not, which is why we penalize pedophilia, among other things.

If you recognize the existence of an objective right and wrong, then you understand that this is not a question of "my" morals -- as if I owned the disposition of life and death -- but a question of morals, period.  If you don't recognize such a concept, then you're well on your way to abetting the conditions in which the weak, the useless, and the inconvenient are killed off with society's consent.

but, don't you suppose it is a poor example to employ in this case?  I tossed it in above as an example of taking life under extremely varying circumstances.

Sometimes  taking life is necessary:  War. Self- Protection. Mass murders.  Serial Killers.  Other times taking a life is less necessary: Abortion. Justifiable Homicide, etc.

The point is that events leading to the termination of a life are NOT the same and do not carry a similar opprobrium - if any. For example:

• Murder:  First or 2nd Degree.
  
• Justifiable Homicide.
  
• Suicide.
  
• Euthanasia.
  
• Assisted-Suicide.
  
• Removal/Shutting Down artificial life-sustaining activities.
  
• Abortion.
  
• Others.

All result in termination of a life.  However, whatever legal sanctions (or not) they may share, each are weighted differently morally.  Circumstances differ for each.

They just simply are not the same.  So, they perhaps ought not be judged similarly.

Linking them or aggregating them is . . . unproductive.

For example:  Some here on RS might easily link abortion with Murder, but not justifiable homicide or (maternal) self-protection.  Some may link killing in war with Murder, not self-defense or justifiable homicide. Others may link euthanasia with assisted suicide, even murder.  Others would not.

Just too complex to call.  Again.  I believe it all falls back upon our individual values.  

we outlaw pedophilia because the child is not able to make a sound decision for themselves.  We regulate behavior that no person of sound mind would ever choose.  But allowing someone to make their own medical decisions when no other person is affected is far beyond your objective right and wrong.  Unless you are ready to say that no person in their right mind would choose to be taken off of life support then you are just imposing your own judgements on them and it is wrong.

Certainly reasonable people recognize that there are legal minors who are quite able to make sound decisions of that nature.  Doesn't change the fact that it is rightly illegal.

If you have a problem with "imposing judgments" per se, then you have a problem with law itself.  The very idea of an ordered society presupposes a set of valuation premises that are "imposed" upon all regardless of their consent.  The mechanisms vary in efficacy and morality -- from totalitarianism to democracy -- but their effect is the same.

Our laws around underage sex are there for the reason that we simply do not trust children of that age to fully understand the consequences of their decisions.  Age is an imperfect proxy, but it is a simple one that works well enough and I don't think you are ready to propose an alternate criteria.   We don't let any child of 12 decide that they are ready to have sex with an 18 year old no matter how mature they may be.  Perhaps cosmically that child is ready to make that decision with a full understanding of the consequences but there is no way for us to know that so we make the decision for them.  But on some level the guideline is that given all information, a 12 year old would never consent to having sex with a 20 year old.  Its a decision that no person in their right mind would ever choose so we codify it into law.  

I do have a problem when the law is regulating a personal decision that has no affect on anyone else.  When you think about it, there are exceptionally few decisions that fall into this category.  Unless the decision is literally something that no person in their right mind would ever choose, it if there is no externality then what business is it of mine?  Cosmically you might not like it because people will make poor decisions that you disprove of, but as long as they bear the full brunt of that poor choice then why you impose your will on them?  

It is often used when one puts a comment in the title but has No Text.

We should start a blog-dictionary that is open sourced.  We could include Moby, Troll, (nt), FWIW, IIRC, and many other common terms.

I am well within the category of "pro-life, but conflicted."  I hope that the fact that I'm more case-by-case in my approach, however, would be taken as praise -- because you made the case, here, Thomas.  (And in two short paragraphs!)

I'm amazed I made any point in two paragraphs or less.

That said, thank you.

Might not get to the heart of the problem. How about "impaired"? It would seem to me that questions of impairment are most prevalent when giving over to simply the individual in question's condition/prognosis/future.

I don't know if you're really disagreeing with a point made here - do you think that we really believe, without a doubt - that Terry Sciavo wants to be allowed to die?

there goes another nice bubble. POP!

i fully understand you arent trying to make an argument against the current system, just pointing out known flaws. Those flaws aside though, we do have to pretty much assume the system works, and trust outcomes to the process (and if teh Schiavo family succeeds in their appeal, same argument applies).

we have moved I think into safe realms of generalization.

Ultimately, if your personal judgement is impaired, it's your responsibility to ensure a "smooth transfer of power" to the persons you prefer to make decisions on your behalf (as Thomas and c17wife noted elsewhere downthread).

Since Terri presumably does not have a clear written record of her wishes, we have to let teh system work it out.

is whether "kept alive" has any ignificant meaning with respect to Terri or not. If the answer to that is no, your question (which assumes the answer is yes, in contradiction to the medical data) is moot.

Its a decision that no person in their right mind would ever choose so we codify it into law.

Quite the contrary -- it is a decision many people in their "right minds" have chosen (and not just in our culture), hence the need to codify its prohibition into law.  Hence the need to codify many things into law.  If you are proceeding from the premise that the purpose of law is only to deter not-right-minded-people from objectively immoral actions, then not only are you unrealistically optimistic about the human condition, you're also negating your own argument with the implicit acceptance of objective morality.

Maybe I am not getting my point across clearly or maybe people are just not interested in discussing this point.  But I would like to throw out a hypothetical here based on my feeling that the debate should be brought back to 1990-1993.

Let's say that at the time Jeb Bush stepped in to have Terri's feeding tube re-inserted (pretty much the time when most of the nation started paying attention to this case),  Terri was officially brain-dead.  Just for the sake of argument now.  I do not believe that she is based on the information that I have read, but for the sake of argument, let me take the side of those who say she is brain-dead and should be allowed to die.

However, let's go back to 1991, when Terri was assessed as "improving" and rehabilitation and therapy were recommended.  This therapy was denied by Michael Schiavo.  1993 Michael Schiavo starts the process of denying treatment for infections which Terri gets, knowing full well that she could die if not treated.  In essence, Michael Schiavo started the process of getting Terri to die in February of 1993.  

Now, let's say that in 1993, Terri was not brain-dead and therapy could have helped her improve and get healthy again.  But Michael Schiavo was working, as he is now, to have her be allowed to die anyway.

Now, back to 2005.  Having not had the proper treatment for the past 12 years, Terri's condition has gone from treatable to untreatable.  

But here's the kicker.  Almost everyone that I have heard and read is solely discussing Right to Life or Right to Death, completely ignoring the possibility that the husband could very well have been slowly euthanizing Terri for the past 12 years.  

I think there are two debates that should going on here.  One about the right to life/death and one about whether Michael Schiavo is the cause of Terri's death.

If the decision is made that Terri should die because she is beyond saving and improving at this point, will Michael Schiavo have gotten away with a 1993 Murder?

Okay, re-reading this, I still do not think I expressed myself very well.  The basics are that in 1993 Terri could have been helped, but wasn't, because of Michael Schiavo.  In 2005, Terri may actually be beyond help and at this point should be allowed to die.  But the time in between is the key.  By denying her treatment, Michael Schiavo is responsible for Terri's condition right now.  I just do not understand why a lot of people are trying to win the debate of whether or not Terri is worth saving in 2005 when the debate of whether or not she was worth saving started in 1993 between Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents.

Spot:

You're attempt (an attempt joined in, admittedly, by many other people) to elevate personal choice or will to the status of our highest public standard of order is an imposition of the most serious kind. You are imposing an alien moral system, one which is driven not by the moral absolutes but by the sheer license of human will.

The very act of declaring that there shall be no impositions of "personal morality," is an imposition of personal morality.

On so many levels. Her case is a personal tragedy.

And it's also sad that someone would blog it to make a political point.

That someone thinks there aren't huge political forces behind this that need to be addressed.

I envy you in your sunny world.

But, really, to take one anonymous poster on DailyKos (commenting, BTW, to a very pro-life entry about the science of life) and then extrapolate that and label progressives as subscribing to a "culture of death" is absurd. The post we less about the human tragedy than another attempt to blame liberals for all that is wrong in America.

I thought this got cleaned up in the first tacitus post on this. Pray tell, have you picked an island cave for your last stand yet?

Would that it were merely a single commenter from which this is extrapolated.

Suffice it to say that the disease is much larger than this.

Does anyone know the specifics of her condition. (The medical charts). Has anyone read them that is here? If so, do you have the qualifications to determine if someone is truly totally brain dead? Trained Neurologist or something similar? And, what are the exact statistical chances of her recovery?

Is this, soon-to-be death already here or is there some chance?

When a medic walks around a bombed out sight in Iraq that has dozens of casualties and even more wounded, is it morally incorrect that he/she determines that although the a person may be alive, thier chances are so low that the medic decides that soldier/civilian/whatever is not worth saving and tells the assistance to use drugs or give care to those who need it more that have a better chance?

Is it immoral to end a pregnancy because the baby is so damaged that it would only live a few months in excruciating, horrible agony, dying a horrifically painful and disturbing death. Do we let that baby be born if it has a 1 in a million chance to survive, much less be normal, but no chance to avoid pain we could not even perceive?

Would anyone keep alive a body with it's head half way cut off, but a portion of that brain remains that make the lungs and heart work?

Questions may be so personal, so attached to each individual case, so unique in every case, that the decision may indeed be a very personal one, that involves no one but the people who loved her/him and no one else. A quick review a Florida State law I believe would reveal just that.

I would look over some of the posts by azizhp.  He is working on a PhD in neural-whodawhatevers and is probably more qualified than any one else here to speak of the actual medical condition.  He happens to be a left-of-center guy who supports the right-to-die in general.  His posts above seem to indicate that he believes there is no real medical way for Terri to "live."  I take his word on that.

But I've done enough free legal research today.

But I have a hard time taking opinions at face value.

you