Posted on 03/30/2005 10:15:58 PM PST by freespirited
With the impending death of Terri Schiavo, US euthanasia advocates have scored a public relations hat-trick. Within a single month Clint Eastwood won an Oscar for Million Dollar Baby and The Sea Inside, about a quadriplegic who commits suicide, was feted as the best foreign film.
Now, after more than a decade of litigation, a 41-year-old brain-damaged Florida woman is slowly dying at her husband's request. What's more, recent polls show that most Americans are so confused about end-of-life treatment that they think that this is a good thing.
Who is to blame for this fear of extreme disability? Pro-lifers might plausibly blame "left-leaning media" for the Oscars. But the fate of Terri Schiavo is an own goal. Their lawyers were outsmarted at every turn by George Felos, the lawyer for Schiavo's husband.
Felos was the heavy artillery of the right-to-die movement, a cunning strategist who had won Florida's most influential right-to-die case in 1989, and who is a media-savvy talk-show guest.
Schiavo's death warrant was effectively signed in 2000, with a decision by Florida judge George Greer that she would have chosen to have her tube removed. It is this judgement that was upheld time and time again by superior courts. Pro-life bloggers have demonised Greer. But they ought to read some of the evidence.
First of all, the Schindler family were tricked. They are loving and compassionate people, but they were manoeuvred into giving a incredibly distorted picture of what the Catholic Church teaches about patients in a persistent vegetative state.
Her brother said that it would be a joy for him to see Schiavo alive - in a respirator or with limbs amputated.
Her mother stated that discomfort or pain was not a factor in discontinuing life support. The mother and the brother and sister all agreed that if they were in Schiavo's situation and had gangrenous limbs that had to be amputated, they would choose that rather than die.
But Catholics are not masochists. Their church has always taught, in the words of a 1980 Vatican document, that patients can "refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted".
To compound the confusion, Felos wheeled out a hospital chaplain, Father Gerard Murphy, as "an expert in the area of the Catholic Church's position on end of life care". Father Murphy said that removing Schiavo's feeding tube was consistent with his church's teaching. This is nonsense, of course. The Pope, also an expert on the Catholic Church's position, recently stated that "a sick person in a vegetative state . . . still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc)." But given the uncertainty about Schiavo's religious beliefs and the apparent insensitivity of her family, Greer found Murphy's testimony sympathetic and "completely candid".
Still worse were the medical experts. Felos easily found two "clear and convincing" neurologists who testified that Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. With all of the American medical profession a phone call away, the Schindlers' team wheeled out two duds.
One was a Dr William Maxfield, who was not even a neurologist, but an expert in hyperbaric medicine - breathing pressurised oxygen.
The other was a Dr William Hammesfahr, a neurologist whose garish website touts him as a "Nobel Prize nominee". Nobel Prize winners normally publish papers in major journals, unlike Dr Hammesfahr, whose publications are few and obscure. However, he was a 1992 keynote speaker for the Alabama Academy of Osteopathic Physicians. You get the picture: one random and one shonk.
To break the tie, Greer engaged a fifth neurologist, Dr Ronald Cranford. He is well spoken and highly convincing. He is also a spokesman for the right-to-die movement. His testimony tilted the scales.
The fundamental problem with the case mounted by the Schindler family is that they depicted Schiavo's plight as a religious issue.
In fact, it is a human rights issue. Schiavo is not in pain and is not dying. She is not on life support. Her care is not expensive. Why does her disability deserve a death sentence?
The American disability lawyer and activist Harriet McBryde Johnson put it clearly: "This belief that withdrawing a feeding tube is different than other killing - why is that a reasonable distinction? I haven't heard anybody say it would be OK to kill Terri Schiavo if she weren't on a feeding tube."
Given that US law favours living wills, even though studies have shown that they often don't work, the fight to save Schiavo's life was bound to be difficult. But it could have been won if it had been fought by professionals. It wasn't.
Michael Cook is the editor of BioEdge, an email newsletter on bioethics. mcook@australasianbioethics.org
Amazing 'coincidence', wouldn't you say?
It is very interesting because that site hadn't really been updated since 1999. Or maybe 2000? Still, it sat for a while!
Which happens to correspond to this court case. Hmmmmm.
Which happens to correspond to Terri's death. She died today. His site was updated today.
The President has never cared about the polls before so it is highly unlikely he would start now. Besides, he isn't running for reelection.
Exactly!
bump
I don't think anyone is really disputing that...
No other "facts" matter.
So, is Free Republic to be merely a propoganda outlet to be used to spread lies, smears, and snake-oil salesman's "diagnoses", or are we here at FR still interested in actual truth?
People treat this as a case of "Judicial Activism" - understandably so, considering how most of us feel about that issue - but it isn't. This is an issue that occurred because of bad legislation, which allows someone to say "Well, she wouldn't want to live like this" without any real proof other than taking someone at their word.
It is my personal opinion, and you might not share this, but "facts" DO matter, and we should do whatever is necessary to use our activist power to get rid of bad laws like this, so that judges who actually follow the law do not get the blame when they actually enforce it, rather than pointing fingers in directions that don't make any sense.
But I guess this is just more of my uncalled-for crazy talk again.
BUMP.
Thank you.
Terri was killed. All the rest is gorilla dust.
Thank you for that comment. It says it all and is very simple. I am sure I will be using it in the days that come.
Was it wrong for Tom Delay to unplug his Dad, also causing his death? What did he do to deserve that?
Can you tell the difference between an elderly terminally ill patient and a pefectly healthy 41 yr old person with no illnesses or diseases? They could.
Maybe it would be better to let families decide these matters than to drag in the Federal government and call for armed uprisings every time a person nears the end of his or hers life?
Tell me what disease she was dying from?
How true. We need judges and legislators at the federal and state levels that understand and enforce the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Another reason to support the upcoming Freep outreach and public display in Washington DC.
Thanks! Good research.
Please permit me to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for your tolerance of the many Terri threads of the past few weeks. To you and all FR admin - I'm sure I speak for a whole bunch of people when I say thank you very much.
The President doesn't give a s*** about the polls, and neither should you, me, and everyone else on FR. The last set of polls were front loaded with bogus questions. This should be ample proof enough that polls shouldn't be taken as gospel.
Oh sure.
I would say that you both are right. It's good that some dig deep, and it's good that others cut to the chase. Takes all kinds. FReegards....
Thank you Jim, for your wise words.
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.