Posted on 03/28/2005 11:01:48 AM PST by marshmallow
Mar. 25 (CWNews.com) - The treatment of Terri Schiavo has emerged as a major watershed in the drive toward euthanasia in the US. If I were an enthusiastic proponent of "the right to die," I would not be comfortable with this test case.
There are times when it really is not clear when respirator should be disconnected-- times when it is difficult to know whether or not a beloved relative should be allowed to die in peace. This is not one of those cases.
Terri Schiavo was not close to death-- until her feeding tube was disconnected. She was not, apparently, in pain. She was not "brain dead" by any definition of that slippery term. She was not being kept alive by extraordinary means. Her death would be caused not by the suspension of medical treatment, but by starvation and dehydration.
From a non-medical perspective, it was all too clear that Michael Schiavo has incentives for seeking his wife's early death. He stood to gain a substantial financial inheritance, and freedom to marry the woman with whom he has conducted a lengthy affair. His implacable hostility toward his wife's parents showed all too clearly that he was on a personal crusade to end Terri's life. And those parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, were clear and outspoken in their insistence that Terri wanted to live.
No, this was not a good test case for the "right to die" movement. And yet the advocates of euthanasia have chosen to take a stand in this case, and thrown their full support behind Michael Schiavo. Why?
There are two answers to that question, I think. First, the "right to die" movement is seizing an unexpected opportunity. Second, the pro-life movement has been betrayed-- yet again-- by its political allies.
1) A careful political strategist, plotting a campaign for euthanasia, might have planned a series of test cases, beginning with "hard cases" (a patient who is in chronic severe pain, and terminally ill), and moving gradually forward as public acceptance increased. But with the Schiavo case, the "right to die" movement recognized the opportunity to skip over several intermediary steps, to score a major legal and political coup. If the courts would authorize the starvation of this woman, and if the public would accept it, the entire debate would shift in favor of euthanasia. If Terri Schiavo can be starved to death simply because her life has been judged burdensome, then every person who is disabled, retarded, or senile becomes a candidate for similar treatment. The key precedent will have been set; the principled opposition to "mercy killing" will be thoroughly undermined.
2) But why did the "right to die" movement perceive this enormous opportunity? Because as the Schiavo case developed, they encountered so little determined resistance. The courts sided with Michael Schiavo, and the people's elected representatives-- both in Florida and in Washington-- grudgingly acquiesced.
When they were presented with a judicial fait accompli, legislators could have begun impeachment proceedings to remove the judges who had produced these outrageous decisions. Executives could have intervened directly to save Terri Schiavo's life, claiming their authority to defend citizens from imminent danger. (As I write, there is still a flickering hope that Governor Bush will take that step.) Instead, fearful of avoiding a constitutional confrontation, both the legislative and executive branches announced that they would abide by the court's decisions.
Notice that both in Florida and in Washington, most elected officials (at least, most of those who had the courage to cast a vote) were inclined to help Terri Schiavo. But they were not willing to pay the price of intervention. A generation ago, the federal government summoned the political will to send federal troops into Mississippi, to integrate schools there, in a direct confrontation with state officials. On this occasion, our government has shown that it lacks the will to save an innocent citizen from a court-approved killing.
If Terri Schiavo dies, countless thousands of other Americans are instantly imperiled. And if that happens, it will be because the American forces of "culture of death" showed more political resolve than the pro-life movement.
The words of William Butler Yeats echo in my mind:
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
I am sorry, you were not clear on this.
Is that Florida State laws, and the US Constitution?
Please. That subpoena was issued as an end run around measure of a current state law and decision by a state judge. It was no more Constitutionally based than it was for the United States Congress to get involved. It was based solely on emotion and for political hacks to get some face time in front of the cameras to show they 'cared'.
little c, State constitution, big C, US Constitution. Sorry I was not clear on that either.
The Constitution states that we have a right to life, It does not say a right to death, anywhere. Her constitutional rights were brought into the legal arena, and the County Judge denied them based on this end-run measure he and Felos came up with.
Thank you.
Yet it was issued, and does it not have the force of law behind it?
Can we now ignore any subpeona because we 'think' the government had no business sticking their nose in, especially on a life or death matter raising CONSTITUTIONAL issues?
It's not a 'think', it's the separation of powers between the states and the national government. If the national government chooses to enforce this subpoena over the will of the state, on an issue that even a conservative Justice on SCOTUS points out is a state issue (not to mention the author of the Constitution itself, James Madison), you are destroying the very ideal of federalism and in effect allowing the national government to eventually become the determining factor on when life ends and death begins. They already do so in accordance with abortion (which is a travesty). Do you want them to do so in accordance with the end of life as well?
I think there are some very common-sensical changes that can be made to the law without getting politicians overly involved. Spouses who commit adultery after their power of attorney have been granted should lose their power of attorney. The power of attorney should never extend so far as to prohibit oral sustenance, or tests to see if oral sustenance is possible.
And this business of starvation and dehydration without medication, at least in situations like this, has go to go. Either the patient is capable of suffering the consequences of the starvation, in which case she'll need pain-killers, or she's not capable of suffering the consequences, in which case she certainly isn't going to suffer from living. In that latter case, if there's a family member who's willing to take care of her, then not even the power-of-attorney should be able to say no. Only if the POA insists the patient is suffering should he be able to mandate no feeding and water, and if the word is that the patient's suffering then there should be medication to go along with the dehydration and starvation. But I don't see any way someone can simultaneously claim that a patient is suffering from being alive, but won't suffer from what for anyone else would be a slow and extremely painful death.
Bring it on.
A) "Is Terri PVS and B) should PVS be in the law under the NOT AWARE statute that allows death by dehydration and starvation?"
A) Court said yes, based on 3-2 doctors testimony. Note that the 3 who said yes are pro euthanasia. Schiavo hand wrote a note in her guardian rehab plan in 1991 calling her same. This plan is court testimony, but hard to find, interestingly. B) Read again what you wrote. We want to starve and refuse water to people, in whatever condition, as a way to kill them BY LAW? If this is such a good idea, why can't we send in the press now to take pictures of Terri? Don't we all really know the reason for this? Why would we even consider this lawful for humans WHEN WE DON'T FOR DOGS?
"Terminally ill." Good question. Note: Terri isn't elderly.
"Criminal evidence" Original case in 1990 was referred to homicide, but not investigated. At least 2 times in 2004, criminality because of dental care and bedsores was investigated per DCF complaints. Nothing was 'found,' except the missing teeth, I suppose.
"1.5 hours." My response: "Why doesn't that Bitch die?" Does a man who wants to prevent her parents from attending a funeral, who wants to cremate and scatter her ashes over Pennsylvania family property--thus in future, making it impossible for the family to visit, by law--sound the least bit negligent to anyone? Don't we know exactly what his game is?
Regarding the right to Life, no one has been safe since abortion was made legal.
The democrats are correct when they say they do not see a problem with Social Security.
They knew this was coming.
They also knew who in the Republican party in Florida is helping them (gov/judges...)
They KNOW they're going to be able clear out a lot fo hospital beds, homes for disabled....
OK. Noted and filed for future action...
And possibly that is indeed a good law. If you believe it is, contact your local state representative and get it passed within your state.
Either the patient is capable of suffering the consequences of the starvation, in which case she'll need pain-killers, or she's not capable of suffering the consequences, in which case she certainly isn't going to suffer from living. In that latter case, if there's a family member who's willing to take care of her, then not even the power-of-attorney should be able to say no.
Actually she has been given two doses of morphine since this started
Schindler said he feared the consequences of morphine that has been used to relieve his daughter's pain.here``I have a great concern that they will expedite the process to kill her with an overdose of morphine because that's the procedure that happens,'' he said.
Felos disputed that, saying that hospice records show Schiavo was given two low doses of morphine - one on March 19 and another on March 26 - and that she was not on a morphine drip.
But then you state, that if she's not feeling pain, if someone wants to take care of that person they should be required to continue to live even if the person stated in a living will they didn't want to? What's the use of a living will then if you are going to mandate whether or not that person is allowed to die? And there is the slippery slope. You're deciding even against the wishes of the person. At a state level, I don't have as much of a problem on that (although admittedly some), however at the national level, that stance is unacceptable.
The deathists already scored a big victory, with the help of the media. The truth of this case hinges on the veracity of the claim that Terri would wish to die. But it is rarely portrayed as such, for the obvious reason that her alleged wish is clearly a fabrication. Instead, the media encouraged a discussion over Terri's medical condition. Implicit in this is the assumption that if her condition is shown to be bad enough, killing her is OK. We already have entered the dark age when the degree of sickness triggers an obligation to die.
Thanks, I was unaware of that. There's been a lot of conflicting information on this issue, so it's good to have false information corrected.
But then you state, that if she's not feeling pain, if someone wants to take care of that person they should be required to continue to live even if the person stated in a living will they didn't want to?
It's different if there's a living will. That's not what I'm talking about. There's no living will in this case (I'm pretty sure I'm not mistaken on that one).
Obviously the subpeona didn't have "the full force of the law" behind it." The law is what it is, you may not like it, and if you don't, vote someone in who will change it. If you can't live under the laws of the land or change them, then perhaps it's time to move to another country. I do not believe there are any Constitutional issues involved here. It was foolish to think congress could have resolved this issue.
Yes. It was foolish of our founding fathers to think that morality and legality should be partners rather than enemies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.