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.
"In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to make a decision to disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate decision-maker for Theresa. Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker."
You can read English I presume? The court is the decision maker because MS has an appearance of conflict. The court ordered the removal of hydration and food. The court is the State.
Is that too hard for you to wrap your small mind around and come to terms with?
And you believe Michale Schiavo which is about as foolish as it comes. I can see through him and so can most other freepers. You may still think Terri's time was up but how can anyone believe her pig of a so called husband? He is so obviously a stone cold liar.
Sure. Though in Terri's case where two parties are arguing over her future, someone has to make a decision based on something, one way or the other. Correct?
The citizens of Florida, through their duly elected representatives, decided that a judge hear the medical testimony, hear the testimony of the parties, and make a decision based on the standard of "clear and convincing" evidence.
This is no good? This is wrong? This method of determination should be trashed, and the state should adopt another?
"on a par with a psychiatric diagnosis."
And that's done in murder cases, and has been for decades, and is acceptable to everyone. But we can't do the same with medical doctors testifying as to PVS?
I'm curious. What's your solution?
Contrary to your cracked head, the Constitution is much more than that. It's very essence is it's guarantee of individual rights, the right to life preeminent among those.
The Framers understood certain questions would come to the forefront within the respective states which is why we have the 10th Amendment.
State powers do NOT trump individual rights.
As I said, if Florida wants to muck about with the lives of its citizens, that's fine with me.
Of course it is because you have no conception of individual rights and the Constitution and federal government as guarantor of same.
But do not destroy what is left of the checks and balances between the national government and the respective state governments for your silly crusade.
State ordered death sentences are subject to judicial review at the federal level. Period. Those that oppose that are ignorant of the Constitution, American jurisprudence and individual rights in general. Evidently, you fit that description.
Oh and learn to spell. It may help your argument..
LOL, the last refuge of those bereft of an argument, the dreaded spelling police. Pathetic.
With what to gain?
As you said, he had his loot, he had his screwpal -- her parents offered to care for her, bada bing, bada boom, he's gone.
But he didn't do that. It couldn't have been because he was after Terr's trust fund (unlike her parents) -- in 1998 he offered, in writing, to donate that to charity.
So, Mr. Non-Dense one, why did he stay? Why did he want Terri to die? You're so friggin' smart, tell me.
Suicide, assisted suicide, and murder are not legitimate options for the profoundly disabled. Not legally, not ethically, not morally - not in any civilized society. This ain't Project Mayhem, Big Bob.
Which then flies in the face of all those that say they don't want the government in a "personal" matter. Either it was state sponsored euthanasia or it wasn't. It can't be both.
That is a good question, why? The only noble reason would be it was her dying wish - but he only came up with that after the money. Why not let her parents care for her and move on? Why you ask? He wanted her gone obviously. Why do a few husbands kill their wives?
As long as they were still married, he was her heir and has rights to her story.
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.
No! No!
I never proposed attempting to change the wording of somebody else's medical directives. (???) (shock!!!)
I also would NEVER propose defining the choice to discontinue medical treatment, as suicide. (DOUBLE SHOCK!!)
The first would certainly and rightly be illegal (you can't alter somebody else's document after they've signed it.) The second would be gravely immoral. A person has a right to discontinue medical treatment if the treatment is futile or too painful.
The point to remember is that food and water are not medical treatments. They are ordinary care which we morally owe to anybody under our care who is medically dependent or disabled.
Every person on earth needs assisted nutrition and hydration at some point in their lives: in infancy, in the case of serious illness or injury, when there is a swallowing disability, and often in old age. From a historic, cultural, social, psychological, and moral point of view, it is the most basic and universal form of human caring. It can be done with a human nipple, or a rubber nipple, or a spoon, a plastic drinking straw or a gastric tube.
The feeding was not painful or burdensome to Terri. Far from being futile, for 15 years it successfully did exactly what food and water is supposed to do: it nourished every cell, tissue, organ, and system of her body, kept her comfortable, and prevented her death from hunger and thirst.
That is why food and water (even assisted in whatever way) are objectively in a different category from "treatments" which may appropriately be discontinued.
The feeding was not futile, because it sustained her life.
Was her life futile? That is not a question a county probate judge can answer. Nor one he should even ask.
He wanted her dead for the money? Is that what you're saying?
What if she had verbally expressed that she would like to change her Will to say that all of her life insurance money and other assets be left to the family's hamster? Do you think that Mike the Murder Co-Conspirator would have brought that up in court to ensure that Terri's wishes were met? Do you think it would have even held up in court? If it's not in the Will, it's not in the Will no matter what someone claims you said.
And even if Terri had put in writing that she wanted to be killed (and she was "killed", not removed from life support and left to die of her injuries or ailment) would it have been legal, ethical, moral for someone to have killed her with a handgun? Thrown from an airplane?Dropped a grenade on the bed? I mean, her wish was to be killed, wasn't it? There's far more creative and even more humane ways than dehydrating/starving her to death, don't you think?
I guess the window you had opened jumped out and grabbed you by the scruff of the neck and shook some sense into you.
Now that you understand the State ordered the death of Terri Schiavo lets move on a bit.
Should States be given the power to order the deaths of citizens based on some evidence, a preponderance of evidence or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming of course that a State can order the death of citizens who have neither committed nor been found guilty of a crime.
Please show me the precedent or the founding document which describes someone's "right" to kill themself or to have someone do it for them. I'm sure it is somewhere there in the Constitution, the Federalist or Anti-Federalist Papers, or somewhere. Hmmm...
I refuse to speculate about his intentions. I just know his actions: that he testified under oath that he would devote the money to his wife's long-term care; and then he spent a substantial amount of it on legal fees to obtain her death.
They will go in God's time, not our time. He has a different plan and a different schedule and we may not understand any of it. Sometimes, God keeps them around to test US, to see how we will treat them and to serve them. "Unto the least of these..."
I disagree with your reading comprehension, in that you concluded the court ordered Terri's death. They did not.
The court ordered that Terri's right to refuse medical treatment be honored.
Ah for cripes sake, this is useless.
In which case, what "political" party do you support?
Individual rights protected from the national government. And the 5th Amendment does not apply because that speaks specifically to prisoners
State powers do NOT trump individual rights
She was not deprived of any of her rights under the 5th or the 14th. They could have gone through the entire process again by twisting the 14th. The decision would have been the same.
Of course it is because you have no conception of individual rights and the Constitution and federal government as guarantor of same.
That's right. 'Conservatives' are well on their way to destroying the very limitations the Framers put on the national government to get your way. But it will be the 'conservative' way so it's alright. Of course you'll have to ignore 200 years of precedent to get it, but no mind.
State ordered death sentences are subject to judicial review at the federal level. Period. Those that oppose that are ignorant of the Constitution, American jurisprudence and individual rights in general. Evidently, you fit that description.
And the precedent for this is where again? And it wasn't a 'state ordered death sentence', but thanks for the hyperbole. As for 'ignorant of the Constitution', it seems again Scalia disagreed with your opinion in the Cruzan decision. Is he 'ignorant of the Constitution' as well? Of course I realize presenting facts from Constitutional scholars won't change your opinion because facts don't matter right?
Your very stance is one of the many reasons Republican candidates are on my list to question harshly. The way the partisan hacks in Washington pandered to your misinformed opinion of what the business of the national government should be was disconcerting. Thank God most of them have realized their mistake and backed off that opinion
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.