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.
"only if the interests of justice so required and the the intervenor stands to lose or gain invaluable rights dependent on the outcome of the case".
You think the key to the DCF investigation lies in the $25,000 estate inventory records? You're hanging around these conspiracy web sites too much.
Your family will be obliged to execute your will so far as they can be bound. Just remember that you cannot control events in advance. It is a bit like trying to control how they will spend any money you might give them. The best you can hope for is that your intentions will be taken into account.
As for money as a factor in the Schiavo case, remember that Michael Schiavo had never pulled his weight, that until the settelment he was no more than a dependent in the Schiavo household. I am sure he thought about that.
Why am I not assured by your words? Especially following your statement that my will may not be reflective of my "current desire".
Just put me in the column marked, "Will Oppose RobbyS' Right-To-Life Fanaticism With Every Breath I Take".
No doubt. And he was thinking that it wasn't worth half of his $300,000 loss of consortium award.
...From their own pocket...
I actually read that Felo's set up a "freebee" for Terri's stay at Woodside.
Now, I don't think that is likely. Much more likely they were collecting from Medicare (since she would have qualified for both parts A and B).
My friend, that would not be from their own pocket. Not entirely at least.
As I stated, PVS is not a billable diagnosis under Medicare. If the feeding tube were not in, she would have qualified. I question that a court order to remove a feeding tube would be a billable circumstance.
Let me dig a bit deeper and see if I can come up with a more definitive answer to that question.
P.S. Don't bother to post your opnion about whether I am spending to much time on "conspiracy" websites. That is no more of your concern then it would be mine to deny you the right to off yourself if you choose to.
$300,000 was about $310,000 more than he had when she collapsed.
Any fanaticism is driven by the opposing fanaticism.
So that fact entitles her parents to half?
Do you phone lottery winners demanding half of their money since it's much more than they had before they bought the ticket? I don't know -- maybe you do.
Oh, please.
OK. Then why did you even mention it? I didn't say Felos set it up.
Would you make up your mind about Medicare? First it's they wouldn't pay. Now it's they would.
Figure that out, then get back to me when you know exactly what argument you're trying to make.
I am disturbed at RobbyS contention in post #398, that if a person has laid out what treatment they do and do not want, that if the family disagrees with that persons wishes, the family, if they are willing to bear the cost, should have the right to disregard that persons wishes...If I am misreading you, in advance, I apologize...but if that is indeed what you are advocating, I must disagree...
Each person does have the right to decide what treatments to accept and what to refuse....to me, that is a fundamental right...no one has the right to assault my body, and assault is what it is, if against my will, I am subjected to articifical means of life support, such as a ventilator, and I even consider it assault if I am forced to have a feeding tube surgically inserted into me, if I dont want one...
Both of my parents told me in advance what they did and did not want for their care...and they both said that no ventilators, no dialysis machines, no feeding tubes, is what they wished...I had pressure put on me by my dads GP, and by my moms visiting nurse to have feeding tubes put into them...both this GP, and this visiting RN, seemed quite comfortable with ignoring my parents wishes, and substituting their own wishes...I put them both in their place...fired the nurse because of her nasty attitude, and my dad, thankfully was under the immediate care of a caring oncologist, who told the GP to butt out...
No one and I mean no one, has the right to substitute their wishes for my own, not even my own family....my son and my husband both know what I do and do not want...My husband has graciously admitted that he would find it almost impossible to abide by my wishes, ,and he has agreed, that my son, who will abide by my wishes, will have the durable power of attorney over me, when the time comes...I have also spelled my wishes out in writing, so my son, knowing my wishes, told to him verbally, ,and presented in writing should have no trouble with granting my wishes...
I disagree with my husbands wishes, but will of course, abide by them, because that is what he wishes...my wishes are only secondary....
I wish for no ventilators, no dialysis, no feeding tubes, no CPR...I want nothing, I want to be let go..and my husband finds this almost impossible to abide by....he would wish to do everything possible for me...which is why my son will make the decisions if I cannot...my husband on the other hand, wishes for anything and everything be done to keep him living, no matter the cost, no matter the pain, no matter what condition he may be in...I disagree with him, but will take great pains to make sure that everything is indeed done for him, should he ever come to that situation...
But we as a family have worked this out ahead of time...and I give my husband great credit, that he has admitted that he would be unwilling to grant my wishes, and thus has given my care over to our son...my hubby disagrees with me, but would never, ever, demand that his wishes be granted for me, rather than abiding by my own wishes...even family members should abide by their loved ones decisions...
And anyone else, whether a doctor, or a nurse, or a relative, or a friend, has no say in my family matters...no busybodies welcome...
"But we as a family have worked this out ahead of time..."
Ah, but according to RobbyS, that was then, this is now. People change their minds all the time, and he knows that you would also.
So, he's going to go on that assumption and force your family to care for you.
(Funny thing is, he'd never assume your husband would change his mind. Would you RobbyS?)
If RobbyS really does believe that he knows me better than my own husband and son, and if he believes that he could possibly know if I changed my mind and if he does believe that they should be forced to care for me in the manner which he believes is more correct, then he is wrong...he is an outsider, a non interested person, a person of no standing when it comes to my medical care...that is up to my family, and my doctors, and no one else...
You can wish all you want, but the ability of a dead/unconscious man to control the actions of others through a written instrument is limited.
I am simply pointing out that there are limits to our powers. When the law is invoked, those powers can be further limited or superceded. Basically those charged with interpretation and execution of the law can end our powers altogether, which is what happened to Terri Schiavo. Her husband's basic responsibility was taking care of her needs. after a long delay, he decided that she was better off dead than alive and he got a judge to agree with him.
From that point on, she was as good as dead. Never mind what she wanted.
"Never mind what she wanted" was the battle cry of the sanctimonious fanatics like you.
The judge in this case had "clear and convincing" evidence as to what Terri wanted. Where's yours? Where's your evidence that she wanted something different?
You have none. Yet you proceeded though you knew better -- that you and you alone could determine her wish.
Or was it your wish you were fulfilling?
"Had" is the operative word.
"She probably was drawing Medicare till then. No reason she chouldn't have."
She wasn't, but I'd like to see where you got this. Or is it, again, pure speculation on your part?
"because Medicare wouldn't pay if their collective assets were over a certain amount"
You've got Medicare on the brain. Where did you read she was on Medicare? Stop your stupid speculating or I'm going to stop responding to your posts.
It is pointless for me to argue the facts while you just sit there and make this $hit up.
"why didn't he just divorce her?"
He wouldn't have had any leverage in seeing to it that Terri's wish to die was fulfilled.
"Only reason I can think of is that he was thinking he was going to get his hands on that settlement money."
This the same guy that offered in 1998, in writing, to donate all of "that settlement money" to charity?
"The sob didn't get the money after all."
Thanks to Terri's parents, the lawyers ended up with the majority.
From the time of her collapse, she qualified for Medicare. Was she drawing it? I don't know for a fact that she was, but if that is speculating, it is a reasonable speculation. She was a taxpaying citizen and entitled to those benefits. Do you know that she wasn't for a fact?
"because Medicare wouldn't pay if their collective assets were over a certain amount"
I mixed up Medicare for Medicaid in that sentence. Sorry.
"He wouldn't have had any leverage in seeing to it that Terri's wish to die was fulfilled".
That's a maybe whether that was her wish or not. That's what bothers me the most. I would have liked to have seen a second opinion from a court other then Judge Greers. A fresh look at all the evidence and any new evidence that might have been introduced, as per the request by Congress.
I refuse to try to prove a negative. Either show me she was, or stop your speculating.
"I mixed up Medicare for Medicaid in that sentence. Sorry."
That's OK. As I explained before, Terri was able to qualify for Medicaid because her lawyers set up a special-needs trust.
"That's a maybe whether that was her wish or not. That's what bothers me the most."
If I wasn't convinced that this was what Terri wanted, I would not have supported the removal of the feeding tube.
And anyone who believed Terri wishes, but still wanted the feeding tube to remain, are sanctimonious right-to-life fanatics who scare the bejeesus out of me.
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.