Rift emerges in GOP after Schiavo case

Boston Globe ^ | April 9, 2005 | Nina J. Easton

[trustandobey]

Read theempirejournal.com if you think the Bush brothers did all they could. Its just not so. (Spoken from someone who supported them.)

[ninenot]

Read the LONG version of the 5th, not the Readers' Digest version.

You can do better than calling the RC church names (accretionist?--how about 'development of doctrine'?)--but the Church inferred the existence of Purgatory at least partially on the clear Maccabees text that ' 'tis a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead,' (or similar.)Not much point in praying for the dead if they've reached their permanent assignment, is there?

Let me state the 'suffering for others' item more clearly.

1) Only Christ's sacrifice "opened the gates" of Heaven. You are correct (and you agree with the Catholic Church..!)

2) However, entering the gates of Heaven presumes purity--absolute purity--of the soul. Newman, an Anglican as you recall, wrote a lengthy and clear poem on the topic which is doctrinally orthodox: The Dream of Gerontius. (He may have already 'poped' when he wrote this--I don't know.)

3) 'Purity' of soul must be achieved, typically through suffering. Although the RC's have conveniently described such suffering as "temporal or eternal" punishment, the "temporal" part does not refer exclusively to Purgatory. It also includes sacrifices made here on Earth for the sake of obtaining Heaven. You are acquainted with them--making an offering to the church, or helping the old lady across the street regardless of your schedule, etc.

4) Catholics also believe (but I don't think this is restricted to Catholics) that one can suffer and obtain some relief of deserved TEMPORAL punishment for another. This happens to be a logical extension of para.3 above; there's no reason to believe that what good is accomplished here on Earth as a work of charity or mercy cannot be reflected with similar results in the 'afterlife.' Note well: I refer to TEMPORAL punishment. Eternal punishment, Hell, is ir-remediable.

You didn't address the point about suffering borne by parents over the mis-deeds of their children---

[supercat]

Now I understand Supercat to have argued that such is permissible if the subject is in a (as yet undefined) "terminal condition," but not otherwise.

I thought I gave a reasonable definition of a terminal condition. The patient isn't going to live very long no matter what you do, and actions taken to increase the duration of life remaining will significantly impair the quality thereof.

Where we differ is on one very simple propisition: you believe that an innocent person's life can be presumed to have negative value. I do not. If one defines a "quality of life function f(t)" for a particular course of action as describing the quality of life the person will have at time t (for numerical simplicity, assuming f(t)=0 for all times after a person's death), one's goal should be to choose the function f(t) that maximize the integram from now to death [or now to infinity] of f(t). I think we are agreed on this part.

I think it would be pretty clear that if f(t) is strictly non-negative, starving and dehydrating someone who was otherwise not dying would never maximize that integral, since for every point from now to infinity, the quality of life of the dehydrating person would be no better than that of the person who was given water. Consequently, the integrated quality of life couldn't possibly be any better.

Perhpas you think it's reasonable for the quality-of-life function to go negative. I don't. Allowing such a thing opens up way too much mischief, especially in cases where outsiders are trying to 'guess' what a patient's quality of life really is.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Your reply goes on for five wordy, frothy paragraphs -- but you failed and neglected to cite that pesky Biblical passage that would support your 'physical life at any cost' position"

Why should I respond to your question when you never answered my question about where is it written in the LAW that anyone has a right to die.

This whole case is based on a judges determination, and the judges job is to interpret the written law.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"No, that is a misrepresentation. I know that others (perhaps you) claim that if they were in Terri's brainless condition, they would dearly want to be pumped with slurry and diapered for indeterminate years.

All I want is that people like Terri and me,"

Fist of all, this is not about you. This is about someone else.

Second, you do not know what she wanted. You have consistantly presumed that she would only want what you want. Not everyone thinks the way you do, and there is evidence that was introduced in court that disputes everything you have said/presumed by your posts with regard to what Terri wanted or didn't want. Including that her brain was still active and working and could be rehabilitated.

And third, Terri was not being pumped full of anything. There was no respirator, that would have pumped. There was a simple tube that food/hydration flowed from above her, to down into her. Kind of like a river that starts in the mountains and flows to the valleys below.

[TAdams8591]

Fantastic Post, Saundra!

[thinkingman129]

Interesting discourse there, and much of what my wife and I have discussed.

My wife has been teaching mythology and recently covered "Pandora's Box." Contained within that infamous box was said to be one good thing: HOPE. However, It is also said that HOPE was also a cruel thing, and not necessarily a good thing. Your reply substantiates that.

Reminds me also of the statement: It is cruel to be kind.

Sometimes we humans don't know what is best, and that's where it is. Period.

It's been my experience in many tings in my life and watching others' lives as well, like you basically said, "Let go, and let God."

[thinkingman129]

Your reasoning is faulty. Please don't be offended, it's the truth.

You can't get from HERE to THERE as you think you can.

You stated that "according to your (meaning my) logic, we should just kill everyone right now, to send them to heaven, a better place, and not let them suffer here on earth."

That is so FAR from what I said, and nowhere did I advocate such a thing.

[thinkingman129]

"Thou shalt not murder" is an interesting commandment when the word "murder" is dissected. "Murder" is a far different word than "kill."

A lot of the "save Terri at any cost" folks have been absolutely determined to use the two words indiscriminantly.

Leads to all kinds of faulty reasoning, doesn't it?

[winstonchurchill]

You have consistantly presumed that she would only want what you want.

No, I have not presumed anything. An unbiased trial court found by clear and convincing evidence what her desires were. Then that process was reviewed for fairness and sufficiency of the evidence by over 40 judges on five courts in a total of 15 appellate reviews over 7 years and affirmed each time. Those who contend that we "don't know" or "can't know" are those who are 'presuming.' They are denying reality. I am simply willing to accept the determination of over 40 unbiased judges. That's how we know what she wanted.

Terri was not being pumped full of anything.

Have you ever seen a feeding tube worked? First, they use the tube to suction out the stomach juices with a syringe to make room for the slurry and then they fill the syringe with the 'nutritional' slurry and force it through the tube by means of the syringe into the stomach. Then they cap off the tube until the next pumping. Of course, they'll get to change the diapers a couple of times in the interim. Man, that's really "living"!

It's no poetic "... river that starts in the mountains and flows to the valleys below." It's a river of hell that no one would want.

[winstonchurchill]

...[Y]ou never answered my question about where is it written in the LAW that anyone has a right to die. This whole case is based on a judges determination, and the judges job is to interpret the written law.

Yes, and Florida law (and the law of many other states as well) provides that you have a right to be allowed to die if the Court determines, through the application of strict standards and a very high burden of proof, that that is your desire. Do you really think that over 40 judges on 5 courts in 15 appellate reviews over 7 years never thought to look up the law? What are you smoking?

[Saundra Duffy]

No justice, no peace!! I miss Terri.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Yes, and Florida law (and the law of many other states as well) provides that you have a right to be allowed to die if the Court determines, through the application of strict standards and a very high burden of proof, that that is your desire."

Then why do you not provide a link to that law?

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"An unbiased trial court found by clear and convincing evidence what her desires were."

You have no evidence that the court was unbiased, much less that the evidence was clear and convincing. There was contrary testimony.

"Then that process was reviewed for fairness and sufficiency of the evidence by over 40 judges on five courts in a total of 15 appellate reviews over 7 years and affirmed each time."

Actually, no, all of the subsequent judges ducked and ran from the issue. No judge actually reviewed or affirmed anything except that they did not want to get involved.

[winstonchurchill]

You have no evidence that the court was unbiased, much less that the evidence was clear and convincing. There was contrary testimony.

You have no evidence -- except a result with which you disagree for a priori reasons -- that there was any bias. We have elaborate rules for disqualification and recusal of judges for bias. No one -- not even here -- has suggested that any of those should have applied to any judge who heard or reviewed the matter. The judges who reviewed and decided the case were unbiased.

The fact that there was "contrary testimony" doesn't mean a thing. There is always contrary testimony in every lawsuit, otherwise it wouldn't go to trial. If there is no dispute in the testimony, the case is decided on legal motion prior to trial (usually on cross-motions for summary judgment). Such comments just show how little you folks understand about legal disputes.

And here's another news flash for the uninitiated: contrary testimony doesn't always mean someone is 'lying.' As in this case, wise judges generally see if there isn't some way that all witnesses who otherwise appear to be truthful might be telling the truth. That's what happened here.

All of the subsequent judges ducked and ran from the issue. No judge actually reviewed or affirmed anything except that they did not want to get involved.

That is just not true. No judge ever said he didn't want to be involved. All of the reviewing judges applied applicable law -- including propriety of trial court evidentiary rulings and sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict -- and sustained the trial court finding.

Let's face it. You folks, just don't like the result: the idea of other people having the right to die. That's really your objection. You don't like the idea that someone had the necessary male equipment to find that Terri really wanted to die -- as I also am convinced from the evidence that she did -- and then had the temerity to make that legal finding. Then, you're really upset that the appellate and reviewing judges couldn't be stampeded by your incoherent, a piori stomping and shouting -- as the pandering politicians were -- into giving you your way at poor Terri's expense.

[winstonchurchill]

Then why do you not provide a link to that law?

Because I don't know if the Florida statutes are on line somewhere. But the law applicable to Terri's case was chapter 765, Florida Statutes (1997), under the constitutional guidelines enunciated in In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla.1990). There is also a newer Florida statute applicable to later cases, but not to Terri's.

[winstonchurchill]

I miss Terri.

Did you know her before her cardiac arrest? If so, I'm sorry for your loss.

[winstonchurchill]

I thought I gave a reasonable definition of a terminal condition. The patient isn't going to live very long no matter what you do, and actions taken to increase the duration of life remaining will significantly impair the quality thereof.

Let's accept your definition arguendo. In the scheme of things, none of us is "going to live very long." My average remaining years of life at my age is about 15-16 years. Not very long.

But the average lifespan for PVS patients, while substantial, is even shorter -- 2 to 5 years. [Of course, as we all know, Terri lived 15 years in such a state.]

My only point is that the 'terminal condition' exception to your rule is (i) prospective, (ii) based upon contingent facts (average lifespan, etc) and accordingly (iii) a matter of reasoned judgment.

That means that there will be a range of confidence that the decision-maker will have in the 'terminal condition' determination. Moreover, the degree of 'terminalness' (how short a lifespan is short enough?) must also be a factor in any determination under your exception (and mine as well, by the way).

But then we turn to the other facet of the decision: the 'cost' of getting there. You suggest that the quality of life function (your "f(t)") can never be negative. I disagree.

Many cancer patients suffer pain which cannot be controlled by pain-relievers. There the f(t) is clearly negative, i.e. every additional day of that 'life' adds additional cost in discomfort and outright pain to the individual. He or she is hoping and praying for the end of life to end the pain.

But suppose the patient has his pain controlled only at the cost of consciousness. Is the f(t) still only at zero? Only if our measure of 'life' is a body which can breathe on its own.

Now, let us suppose, arguendo, that the measure of life is not merely a body breathing on its own, but life in the image of God, i.e. possessed of intellect and cognitive ability at some level. Then, by that standard, the f(t) is below zero, since the person lacks the basic qualities of life (as defined).

My only point to all of this is that you and I are not as far apart as we might initially imagine. In many cases we might well agree on the judgment of 'terminalness' and, possibly, even on the f(t) being at zero or below.

There remains the issue of the means to be employed. Given the appropriate circumstances and the exercise of your judgment, I gather you would withhold medication or other treatment, but that you contend that you would never withhold nutrition or hydration in any circumstance. As I have argued in earlier posts, I think this is a difficult position to sustain. It is hard to distinguish, legal or morally, between withholding one item necessary to the continuation of 'life' but not another, particularly where it is understood that the necessary result of either withholding will be the same and will be equally painless.

Again, because I can readily envision a f(t) below zero on any scale of 'life' (constant, unremitting and unremittable pain), I can readily envision a scenario in which I think you would readily agree to withhold nutrition and hydration.

Ultimately, I think the issue which separates us (and many here) is what is the appropriate standard against which we will measure the quality of life, i.e. your f(t) measurement.

[Bushbacker]

This is knee-jerk anti-government rhetoric and a loser with the voters. Some things---like national defense or
the national transportation---are netter handled on a large scale..some are better handled locally...what matters is EFFECTIVENESS, not ideological purity..
***
National transportation...you mean like...uh...Amtrak? A really successful government operation that is. Bleah! :)

___No, I mean airports and the
air traffic control system and the whole interstate highway system---which was one of the largest government programs in history.

Some things must be done on the national level, others on the state or local level...that's true federalism as created by the Framers.
\



Defense -- yes, I'll agree....and I don't believe there is a desire to abolish ALL government. Government should provide defense. But what I'm talking about is going over that line wherein we abdicate our rights and responsibilities to the government to take care of ourselves and our loved ones.



And by the way, how do you know this philosophy of less government is a "loser with the voters?" The two major parties have never shown a desire to put it to the voters, and parties like the Libertarians either don't get on the ballot or are not permitted to participate in debates. I'm willing to bet that a lot of voters don't even know there are other options out there

___I guess you've forgotten how Clinton used the government shut down to turn around his political
fortunes and get re-elected by running against Gingrich's anti-government libertarianism?
\

[fatnotlazy]

No, I mean airports and the air traffic control system and the whole interstate highway system---which was one of the largest government programs in history.

Some things must be done on the national level, others on the state or local level...that's true federalism as created by the Framers.

***

Well, federal management of air travel hasn't been all that successful either. As for air traffic controllers, I'm surprised we don't have more accidents given the huge stress these guys and gals are under. And as for security, well...it's uneven at best. Some airports screen to the extreme; others barely do any screening at all.

Highways? Well, I will say we have better signage than in some countries, like Canada. But highway maintenance is uneven at best and downright shoddy in some places. Where I live, though, they do beat the state and locally maintained roads.

- - - - -

I guess you've forgotten how Clinton used the government shut down to turn around his political fortunes and get re-elected by running against Gingrich's anti-government libertarianism?

***

I think Clinton was re-elected because he was able to snow job a lot of people into thinking that Republicans are evil, while the Democrats are the party of the little people. Don't know that such a snow job would work today. In fact, it didn't in the last election.