Posted on 06/19/2005 8:19:40 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Just when it seemed that every liberal commentator on the Terri Schiavo case was starting to sound like Barney Frank, the great Joan Didion published a long and remarkable article on the case in the quite far left New York Review of Books of June 9. Frank, of course, took the occasion of last week's Schiavo autopsy results as yet another opportunity to denounce Republicans as "this fanatical party willing to impose its own views on people."
For those of you still somehow unaware, "imposing their views" is a semiofficial Democratic meme or code phrase meaning "religious people who vote their moral views and disagree with us." Didion, on the other hand, cut through all the rhetoric about imposing views and said the struggle to spare Schiavo's life was "essentially a civil rights intervention." This is a phrase of great clarity, particularly since Democrats have a long track record of protecting civil rights and Republicans don't. Behind the grotesque media circus, the two parties were essentially switching roles. In the first round of public opinion--the polls--the GOP took a beating. But in the long run, the American people tend to rally behind civil rights, and the party that fights to uphold them is likely to prevail.
On the "rational" or "secular" side of the dispute, Didion wrote, there was "very little acknowledgment that there could be large numbers of people, not all of whom could be categorized as 'fundamentalists' or 'evangelicals,' who were genuinely troubled by the ramifications of viewing a life as inadequate and so deciding to end it." Amen. There was also little admission that this was a "merciful euthanasia" controversy posing as a "right to die" case. Many of us understood, as the autopsy has now shown, that Schiavo was severely damaged, but a national psychodrama built around the alleged need to end a life without clear consent is likely to induce anxieties in all but the most dedicated right-to-die adherents.
"The ethical argument" Didion did not conclude that ending Schiavo's life was a wrongful act, but she seemed to be leaning that way. She wrote: "What might have seemed a central argument in this case--the ethical argument, the argument about whether, when it comes to life and death, any of us can justifiably claim the ability or the right to judge the value of any other being's life--remained largely unexpressed, mentioned, when at all, only to be dismissed."
That issue was slurred and muffled by the media and by shrewd, though completely misleading, right-to-die arguments that distracted us from the core issue of consent. George Felos, the attorney of Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, told Larry King, "Quality of life is one of those tricky things because it's a very personal and individual decision. I don't think any of us have the right to make a judgment about quality of life for another."
Here Felos piously got away with adopting a deadly argument against his own position by presenting it as somehow bolstering his case. This can happen only when the media are totally incurious or already committed to your side. Michael Schiavo made a somewhat similar eye-popping argument to King: "I think that every person in this country should be scared. The government is going to trample all over your private and personal matters. It's outrageous that these people that we elect are not letting you have your civil liberties to choose what you want when you die." Americans were indeed scared that they might one day be in Terri Schiavo's predicament.
But Michael was speaking as though Terri Schiavo's wishes in the matter were clear and Republicans were determined to trample them anyway. Yet her wishes, as Didion says, were "essentially unconfirmable" and based on bits of hearsay reported by people whose interests were not obviously her own--Michael Schiavo and two of his relatives.
One hearsay comment--"no tubes for me" --came while Terri Schiavo was watching television. "Imagine it," Didion wrote. "You are in your early 20s. You are watching a movie, say on Lifetime, in which someone has a feeding tube. You pick up the empty chip bowl. 'No tubes for me,' you say as you get up to fill it. What are the chances you have given this even a passing thought?" According to studies cited last year in the Hastings Center Report, Didion reminds us, almost a third of written directives, after periods as short as two years, no longer reflect the wishes of those who made them. And here nothing was written down at all.
The autopsy confirms the extraordinary damage to Schiavo and discredits those who tried to depict the husband as a wife-beater. But the autopsy has nothing to say about the core moral issue: Do people with profound disabilities no longer have a right to live? That issue is still on the table.
I agree the feds have assumed that power under the 14th. However, I felt the Schiavo case should have been resolved within the state of Florida - and the laws in question in Flordia and other states still need to be addressed.
Well, at least you got this one right.
The rest of your post is regurgitated propaganda which you obviously took at face value rather than taking the time to look up the truth. For example:
"other family members said that she favored continued rehabilitative efforts for even for severley brain-damaged people."
The only family member who testified that Terri would want to live under her current condition was her mother. Not "other family members". Her mother. Period.
Furthermore, under cross examination, her mother admitted that Terri must have been preteen when she made her comment. The judge, correctly, did not accept the comments of an 11-year-old as reflective of her desire.
The judge was charged by the State of Florida with finding "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes. If Terri would want the "tubes and everything" pulled if she were in a coma, then certainly she would want them pulled if she were in a PVS. Don't give me this "but Terri wasn't in a coma crap".
People are trying to cash in all over the place, including the jerk trying to get $175 for his protest poster on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=20158&item=7330644700&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
Interesting points.
Artificial nutrition and hydration ought to be legally classified as ordinary care and not as extraordinary medical procedures. I think such a referendum (or a campaign directed at the FL legislature) is essential in EVERY state to prevent a recurrence of the fate suffered by Terri Schiavo.
I don't know Randall Terry's strategic or tactical take on this point. Maybe he thought there wasn't enough time to do this and --- conscious that the clock was ticking --- he decided that a dramatic intervention via the governor was the best ope to save Mrs. Schiavo's life?
But certainly I think that a push for this revision of the Florida statutes should be undertaken now.
Do you agree or disagree with this?
And does anybody know if this is being done --- either as a referendum or as a campaign directed toward the legislature?
I was pro Terri. Her husband was a liar scumbag rip off artist. How hard was this to see? She was well enough to taken care of at home by her loving pro-life Catholic family.
"Felos himself bragged about giving morphine to ease pain"
Please tell me where you read this quote. I'd like to read it for myself. I thought I read where Felos said it was not for pain since Terri couldn't feel pain.
Now, if you cannot find your source, I'll have to conclude that you're the liar.
Floridians also passed a Constitutional right to privacy amendmendment in the 80's. Any attempt to change the wording of medical directives will have to take that law into account.
It might be easier to get legislation declaring the choice to discontinue medical treatment to be the same as committing suicide...which is already governed by Fl. Law.
I don't think that option is politically viable though. The point is that there were better, more effective ways to affect the outcome then the Schindler advisors utilized.
Justice Scalia, concurring.
The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it. The States have begun to grapple with these problems through legislation. I am concerned, from the tenor of today’s opinions, that we are poised to confuse that enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion---requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune.
While I agree with the Court’s analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide---including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one’s life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable. ...
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Health Department
497 U.S. 261; 110 S.Ct. 2841; 111 L. Ed.2d 224 (1990)
veronica is making it her business like she did everything else in this sad case.
Michael could have posted the most loving poem, and veronica would find some way to criticize it.
Thank God she was cremated. Years from now, the posters on this thread would be calling for her exhumation based on "new" evidence. Then, of course, they wouldn't believe the findings. It would never end.
Ah. So you're saying he forgot, then remembered.
You don't, by chance, have any proof that he forgot what Terri had told him, do you?
Yeah. Didn't think so.
I am commenting on a news article.
Something that happens every day at FR, and at other forums as well.
Surprise surprise...
The greedy, low-rent, philandering, murdering bastard did that? Nawwwwww.
And on the other side, the "we're doing it for Terri" Schindlers were soliciting money from the public in their daughter's name in order to frustrate her wishes.
Buy they're nice people, doncha know.
The fact is that he didn't post a loving poem. Instead he puts something on it about himself. Real nice of him. Showing his true colors all the way.
Morphine is for PAIN, not involuntary movement. Why would anyone care if a lifeless, useless body twitched? The morphine proved the lie.
Hmmmm. And here I thought the court merely ruled that Terri had the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment.
The State ordered her death? Wow! That's series!
Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare". It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore.
By 1994, Michael's attitude and perspective about Theresa's condition changed. During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement.
snip...
Michael's decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with Theresa's doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresa's recovery. It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state. It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.
snip...
In 1997, six years after Theresa's tragic collapse, Michael elected to initiate an action to withdraw artificial life support from Theresa. More than a year later, in May of 1998, the first petition to discontinue life support was entered. The court appointed Richard Pearse, Esq., to serve as Guardian Ad Litem to review the request for withdrawal, a standard procedure.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1369058/posts
Ignorance is neither a joke nor a virtue which means in this case you are neither virtuous nor funny.
But you wear your badge proudly, I'll give you that.
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.