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.
Money. Another woman. Freedom. The things Michael already had without killing her.
"The only noble reason would be it was her dying wish"
Bingo! Hard to believe, huh?
Like if he divorced her nobody would buy his book.
Plus, he already turned down $11 mil. to force her to live. Where did you read he was even going to write this book you're referring to?
You seem to be having trouble finding the actual verbage of Judge Greer's death order. Here is the relevant portion. Could you please point out for me the portion that discusses medical treatment or its removal?
IN RE: THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO, Incapacitated - 25 Feb 05
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Emergency Stay filed on February 15, 2005, is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, MIACHAEL SCHIAVO, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, THERESA SCHIAVO, at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, at 2:50 p.m. this 25 day of February, 2005.
GEORGE W. GREER
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Of course it was euthanasia. The woman was not dying. She was put to death.
Did I spell everything OK?
ping
Shall is the key word Spiff, not MAY but SHALL. State ordered death.
The feeding was futile because it only sustained her body. Her "life", her consciousness, was already gone.
If she could have been fed orally, what you're saying is true. But she was being fed artificially, by the hospital staff, under a doctor's orders, via a surgically implanted feeding tube, which anyone would call a medical treatment -- a treatment she was allowed, constitutionally, to refuse.
I didn't say he was writing a book. However there was a thread posted back in March about a movie deal. And it was posted no FR that MS was in NY shopping a book deal. Do you want me to see if I can dig up the links? I will if you want them.
Precisely!
You really unmasked yourself with that comment, Bobby.......I've never been
referred to as an "extreme right to life fanatic" before.
You have no idea what you are talking about, but I find
it interesting that, like Howard Dean hysterically
ranting about "right wing extremists", apparently it's
the only argument you have to justify your erroneous position.
WHAT???
It was her wish not not live in a brain damaged state, with no hope of recovery, being kept alive by artificial means. It was her right to refuse medical tratment.
Where did you get "her wish was to be killed"? Seriously. Where did you read that?
What if the staff was feeding her with a spoon or a straw? Would it have been OK to order them to stop such "artificial" feeding?
But read the court order. It is the same as if Judge Greer had ordered that Michael Schiavo shall cause the removal of all oxygen from the ward, Terri Schiavo. And that he, then, tied a plastic bag around her head to comply with the court order.
Because she was KILLED. She was not left to die of her injuries or ailment. She was actively KILLED. That is what happened. The judge ordered that she could not be hydrated or given nutrition by ANY means. He did not order the removal of life-supporting medical equipment. Read the order.
States cannot order the death of citizens who have neither committed nor been found guilty of a crime.
No, but apparently a county probate judge can.
According to the U.S. Constitution, courts have ruled that these are "health" issues decided by each state (do you need a cite?). It is not legal in Florida, though it is in Oregon.
Do you need the precedent or the founding document which describes someone's "right" to kill themself or to have someone do it for them in the State of Oregon?
Oops. Too late. You already did.
What you are refusing to do is back up your speculation. So be it.
According to the Constitution!? Show me that part in the Constitution.
Also, this took place in Florida, not Oregon. Are you admitting that this was assisted suicide now? Are you in favor of assisted suicide or just plain suicided for that matter?
Do you need the precedent or the founding document which describes someone's "right" to kill themself or to have someone do it for them in the State of Oregon?
Yes, show me the precedent that allows people to commit suicide or assist in a suicide in the State of Florida - well, besides the ruling by the murderous county probate judge in Pinellas County.
Actually, it was a technicality. The way the request was phrased, it took the form of an experimental procedure -- experimental procedures (at that late stage) were refused.
The request was never resubmitted to the court.
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.