An Autopsy Won't End It - (John Leo on the hypocrisy of Michael Schaivo and George Felos)

US NEWS.COM ^ | JUNE 27, 2005 | JOHN LEO

[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.

[robertpaulsen]

"Do you want me to see if I can dig up the links?"

Only if your link is to a reputable publication. Otherwise, don't bother.

[billbears]

Agreed. Listened to Boortz during most of it and although I shouldn't have been, was suprised at some of the responses from his 'conservative' listeners.

[shhrubbery!]

are we now to take intrastate medical civil cases all the way to the Supreme Court because we disagree with the outcome ?

Yes, I think it's fully appropriate if the state is imposing DEATH. As it did in the case of Terri Schindler.

[blueriver]

The main point was that the issue remained within the state, which is what Scalia was pointing out.

Once a law is passed and the constitutionality of it is questioned it moves out of the state and into the Federal System - where unfotrtunately Scalia and his fello judges dropped the ball.

[robertpaulsen]

"It is the same as if"

No it's not the same as if.

The original court order was "to proceed with the discontinuence of said artificial life support", the artificial life support being previously defined.

(spoon-feeding and straws were not included)

[billbears]

Yes, I think it's fully appropriate if the state is imposing DEATH. As it did in the case of Terri Schindler.

Please see #280. It was not state sponsored. However under no circumstances should it have gone to SCOTUS. And gladly it did not as they refused to hear it. Good to see some judges are still insulated from the populist tripe that passes for conservatism these days.

[robertpaulsen]

Damn! I like your attitude. We'll get this nation of ours back to a republic yet.

[billbears]

Once a law is passed and the constitutionality of it is questioned it moves out of the state and into the Federal System

That was not the original intent of the Framers. However Scalia and his 'fellows' (good to see your own such a familiar basis with Supreme Court Justices) did not drop the ball. Scalia's mind was already made up, correctly I might add. Perhaps not to your liking, but Constitutionally they made the correct decision by refusing to hear the case.

[robertpaulsen]

Nope. He can't do that either.

[RobbyS]

You include lots of undefined terms thrown in there. "brain-damaged?" "no hope of recovery?" "artificial means?" A feeding tube is ipso facto no more artificial than a catheter. That it took her as long to die after being deprive of food or water as it would you or me ought to tell us something.

[robertpaulsen]

"Are you admitting that this was assisted suicide now?"

It's obvious you're just wasting my time. I'm done with you on this thread.

[robertpaulsen]

Excuse me, I thought it was understood. Allow me to rephrase:

But, if that's the constitutional decision of the citizens of that state, then that's fine by me.

Better?

[blueriver]

..did not drop the ball. Scalia's mind was already made up, correctly I might add. Perhaps not to your liking, but Constitutionally they made the correct decision by refusing to hear the case.

Here is your quote about Justice Scalias position,

Justice Scalia has admonished us to rely upon and accept the role of state lawmakers and laws to address issues of this very nature.

So why then would he refuse to hear the case about the constitutionality of "Terri's Law", it would seem that his mind would have been made up to uphold the Florida Legislatures ability to make laws in this case. His refusal to hear the case about Terri's Law being unconstitutional is in direct conflict with his statement you quoted above, and therefore he dropped the ball when Terri's Law was found unconstitutional and he and his fellow judges refused to hear that case.

[shhrubbery!]

Terri Schindler's death was indeed state sponsored. Re-read the post to which you referred me, #280.

The same language from the judge's ORDER was posted even earlier than that, in post #243, by Spiff:

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. [color emphasis mine]

Since Spiff has already said it so well before, I'll quote him again (post #275)...

Read my lips, she did not die because medical treatment was removed.

Got it? One more time, she died because the judge ordered that her guardian shall remove all hydration and nutrition.

...and also jwalsh07 in post #247:

Shall is the key word Spiff, not MAY but SHALL. State ordered death.

Perhaps you don't understand that with this order -- even if Michael Schiavo had changed his mind, or suddenly had another change of "memory", the decision to kill Terri was then out of Michael Schiavo's hands, and in the hands of the court.

And don't forget that Judge Greer not only ordered the removal of Terri's feeding tube, but he also ordered that no food or water be given to Terri by any other means.

It WAS the state that ordered Terri's death.

[blueriver]

But, if that's the constitutional decision of the citizens of that state, then that's fine by me. Better?

NO, because the citizens of a state DO NOT make constitutional decisions.

[robertpaulsen]

"A feeding tube is ipso facto no more artificial than a catheter."

Terri had a surgically implanted feeding tube. Different than an oral feeding tube.

If Terri had put her wishes in writing, would that be euthanasia if her feeding tube were removed? You're dodging my question.

[shhrubbery!]

Sorry Spiff and jwalsh07, I forgot the rule about pinging other posters to a post where their names are mentioned (even though they're favorable mentions)... see post 294.

[Spiff]

Here's the original court order to which I was referring:(see page 10, second to the last paragraph)

I've read that court order. It says that Mike the Murderer was authorized to proceed with the discontinuance of "said artificial life support for Theresa Marie Schiavo". To what "said artificial life support" does the order refer? In reviewing the contents of the order all references to "artificial life support" are the movie about the case of Karen Ann Quinlin and something about not wanting to be "hooked to a machine". NONE of them were about a simple feeding port and tube into which food is injected by syringe a few times a day. There were no machines - she was hooked to nothing. If the case had been properly reviewed as ordered by the Congress of the United States and not just re-rubber-stamped, this may have come up and Terri's life would have been protected. If the activist judges had not overturned the wishes of the citizens of the State of Florida by striking down "Terri's Law" then her life would have been protected.

Here's your "artificial life support". Does this look anything like being permanently "hooked to a machine"? Note, the tube was normally taped against Terri's body and only connected to a syringe at meal time.

Are these considered "artificial life support"? If Terri had received the appropriate therapy and had been able to normally receive nutrition orally - like Ensure products through a soda straw sometimes administered by medical staff - would that also be considered "artificial life support" and would it have been OK to have removed it in order to kill Terri?

But the court order I posted is the final court order that lead to Terri's death. It did not order the discontinuance of "artificial life support" it ordered that she be dehydrated/starved to death.

[Spiff]

Nope. He can't do that either.

Well, he did.

[robertpaulsen]

Hmmmm. How about, "If that's the decision of the citizens of that state, found to be constitutional by the state supreme court, then that's fine by me.

Better?