Can One Favor Euthanasia And Oppose The Forced Starvation Of Terry Schiavo

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I am a firm believer in the culture of life, that all life is precious from our first breath to our last, but if someone was seriously ill with no chance of recovery I would have a hard time begrudging them the right to die if that was their choice..

As a Christian I would do everything I could do to dissuade them from making that decision as I would do everything I could to dissuade a woman from having an abortion that was not medically necessary... However ultimately it not my decision to make...

The thing that irks me about the Terri Schiavo case is I don't know what she wants though I am aware of the hearsay testimony of Michael Schiavo and his brother...

This is a tough one and perhaps my attempt at eloquence has failed but what I am saying is I would support anything Terri Schiavo wants to do in that situation or anybody that finds themselves in that situation if I knew that was clearly their desire...

I would be a lot more comfortable with this if she had a written living will or advance directive... It's the absence of these documents that give me pause...

[HEyHEY]

1. I got into a flamewar about it yesterday

Because I am one of those who do.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I Don't Want To Get In A Flame War...

I oppose abortion...


I oppose capital punishment....


I oppose mercy killing...


But on abortion and mercy killing I am not willing to use the awesome power of the state to compel a person to see things my way...


My problem with the forced starvation is I am not convinced that is what Terri Schiavo wants because none of us know what she wants....

[HEyHEY]

13. Look here scumbag! You'll get in a flamewar with me and like it!

Assface!

[Inland]

41. LOL! It's GD! No calling timeouts in the flame war!

[Inland]

2. Sure, as follows:

1. You can be in favor of following a person's directives and yet not be convinced that the evidence has established Terri Schivo's desires;

2. You can be in favor of following a person's directives and yet not be in favor of removing feeding tubes, in which case you should be comfortable with a more active euthanasia in high doses of narcotic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. One Nails How I Feel...

I am not convinced that this is what she wanted... If I was convinced this is what she wanted I wouldn't be posting about it nor would most folks...

Two...


As far as euthanasia I think even the "church" broadly defined realizes that a person's chance of recovery could be so small that any attempts to artificially extend life are futile and counterproductive...

[Inland]

44. But the issue of what she wanted YOU will never know personally

since you aren't taking testimony, reviewing records, evaluating witnesses, etc.

There's no substitute for being there in the courtroom.

Therefore with the assurance that all the procedures were observed, which the appellate court and now the federal court has given, well, what are you going to do? Either accept the judge's findings or set a rule that it has to be in writing and witnessed or set a rule that it simply can't be done.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. It's okay to be confused

I was until the Schindlers leaked all those medical records. I have a background in neuroscience, and I recognized that she really probably was gone. I'm always open to listen to arguments to the contrary, but her case is rather grim, to say the least.

However, it's not about Terri Schiavo and it's not about her state of consciousness. This is a naked power grab, period. The Religious Right is using the Schindlers as their tools, and Terri's life be damned.

After Terri departs this vale of assclowns, she will be even more useful to them as a martyr.

My hope is that God, in his/her infinite mercy, may find a welcoming place for Terri and eventually Michael Schiavo.

--p!

[elehhhhna]

4. If wishes ar eunknown, err on the side of life.

i wrote it last week & if GWB & I are in agreement (in principle, here), then Armagedon is surely around the corner.

[tubbacheez]

6. You can draw the line anywhere you want. It's your opinion, afterall. nt

[filet mignon]

7. LOL

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Of Course....

but one wants his opinions to rest on a logical foundation....

[tubbacheez]

15. Ok, I'll agree to that...

... but only for some opinions.

I might want a logical foundation if I intend to persuade someone to adopt my opinion.







But my opinion on the culinary superiority of capellini over lasagna needs no logic whatsoever to fulfill me and my purposes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I am not here to conveet anybody

If I was convinced this is what Terri Schiavo really wanted I would be posting about something else like why privatization of social security is not a good idea or why throwing Junior in the hooskow for smoking a reefer is punitive and a waste of state resources...

[MARALE]

8. As a Christian as well

I have thought about this long and hard. Teresa seemed like she was obsessed with the way she looked because she was bulemic. After 15 years there is no chance of her getting any better. I really don't think it is natural to keep her alive like this, she needs to rest in peace and see her lord finally.
I think the parents are not evil people, they think they see things that they don't. It is very easy to do, my mother had MS and I know how eerie and mentally alert they seem when they aren't.
I know what I would want, what most people would want. Give her some mercy and don't make her go through the bedsores, and other things that go along with the state that she is in.

[mondo joe]

9. Please allow me to ask a few questions:

1. Even if you feel uncertain about what her wishes were, why is your default position that she be kept alive as she is?

This seems to be a common stance: if you don't know, keep her alive on life support.

Doesn't that assume being kept alive this way is preferable to being allowed to pass on?

2. As a Christian do you not have scripturally based beliefs on husband and wife becoming one, and does that not extend to a spousal right to act as the voice for the incapacitated spouse?

3. When you say "the forced starvation" do you also note that she is currently being force FED?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. O K-Fair Questions...

1) My desire to keep her alive is out of deference to her parents...They are going to be destroyed if she dies like this...Some folks say the parents are evil and their feelings are of no moment... I think they love her... Maybe they love her too much...


2) Michael Schiavo has a common law wife and two children... I don't begrudge him starting a new life but without getting Biblical I think most dispassionate folks would say he has a defacto divorce.

3) We can not really know if Terri Schiavo is being force fed because as I said in my original post I don't know what she wants.... By way of illustration lots of alert and almost intact folks are fed through a tube...

[mondo joe]

27. Naturally, more questions....

1) "My desire to keep her alive is out of deference to her parents...They are going to be destroyed if she dies like this...Some folks say the parents are evil and their feelings are of no moment... I think they love her... Maybe they love her too much..."

I wonder why you would defer her life to their wishes. She is an adult, and it's not as if all parents are ideal. I would guess that you, like most people, acknowledge that some children must actually be removed from the custody of their parents because they are potentially harmful.

This isn't a question about whether her parents are good or bad people, but I sincerely wonder why you'd assume that because they love her, her life is up to them - especially sincethey have testified that they would defy her wishes even if they DID know them.

2) I'll leave the Michael issue alone for the moment.

3) "We can not really know if Terri Schiavo is being force fed because as I said in my original post I don't know what she wants.... By way of illustration lots of alert and almost intact folks are fed through a tube..."

Sure - but since the vast majority of Terri's brain is gone she cannot be said to want anything. Even if she had a very primitive sense of desire (and there is no reason to think she does, but much reason to think she does not), would you not agree that she is in no way capable of making informed decisions for herself?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Sure...

We are really getting into the abstract and ethereal but I'll give it a shot....


If Terri would have said to her parents that she wouldn't want to live in the state she finds herself in I think they would have deferred to her wishes and they would have found a way to make that decision consonant with their Catholic beliefs... The same way ministers marry couples every day who have been living with each other for years and the minister knows darn well they ain't virgins...

Conversely, if Terri Schiavo knew that her parents loved her even in her diminished state and would be devestated if anything was done to hasten her death I think there is a good chance she would elect to be in that state...

"would you not agree that she is in no way capable of making informed decisions for herself?"

exactly- we have come full circle.... the "law" might know what she wants but I have no way of knowing...

[mondo joe]

38. Wait a minute - WHY on EARTH would you believe that

if the Schindlers had been told of her wishes they'd remove life support in light of the fact that they TESTIFIED to the complete opposite?????

DemocratSinceBirth, would you concede that you are making a lot of assumptions about their relationship that is in no way based on evidence?

You're free to do so, and we can disagree, but I must say I find it astonishing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. I Am Familiar With Their Testimony...

They weren't very sophisticated people who spoke from the heart...


I am a full time caregiver to my eighty seven year old mom. She's an amputee and has stage 3 colon cancer but she's alert, oriented and somewhat mobile... A small blessing...


The thing with people that are ill or dependent is that people who care for them are drawn closer to them as their dependence grows and that makes the inevitable separation even more difficult...


We just approach this from a different plane...

[mondo joe]

43. So they spoke from the heart but you think they didn't mean it?

Or something else?

Seriously - if they testified that they would defy her wishes, why would you suggest they WOULD yield to her wishes?

I'm not trying to catch you or anything - I truly don't understand how you've arrived at this conclusion.

Your position - from my pespective - appears to be that they should have the say over her life because they love her. I don't understand how you can reconcile that with the knowledge oftheir testimony, to say nothing of the fact that MANY parents love their children but also cause them grievous harm.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Here's My Take....

Terri Shiavo is not in pain....

The feeding tube is keeping her alive...

When the feeding tube is removed she eventually will die...

Terri dying this way will cause her parents unbelievable grief...

Therefore I would like to see it avoided....

[mondo joe]

48. My understanding of your take is that you want to prevent

sorrow on the part of her parents.

That's compassionate of you, in its own way. But I'm really sad to see you not extend that same compassion to Terri herself, or even her husband.

[goodboy]

12. just one comment...

she is not being starved. her body would've naturally completed the dying process 15 years ago without intervention. my mother stopped eating a little over a week before she died from cancer (after a yearlong agonizing fight) and stopped taking pain meds more than a week before that. my mother didn't starve to death any more than this woman is starving to death. Google: "the process of dying"
In addition, please understand that terri is not terri anymore. Only the brainstem is functioning, which means she has no consciousness. none.

[DistressedAmerican]

14. What I do not get it the method. Why does she have to starve slowly?

You can put a sick dog to sleep. Why would we ever let someone starve to death? Personally, I think it was her wish and I think they should let her go. I just think the method is cruel and unnecessary. Why can't we do it quickly? Where is Dr. Kevorkian? Oh yeah, he went to jail for helping people go quickly and painlessly.

[tubbacheez]

18. Because nobody wants to be the proactive agent that hastens death.

Deliberately contributing to the demise of another person is considered murder in America.

Extenuating circumstances like this are controversial, and a decent defense might be argued, but nobody's assured of staying out of jail. The risk to any party that would deliberately help her die is quite substantial.

[julialnyc]

20. In this case she really feels nothing

It wouldn't matter if it were a day or a week.

She has no cortex function.

And just to air on the side of caution they give her a morphine drip.

As far as religion. Terri was a Catholic. Catholics believe in heaven. Her mind is already gone with her body stuck here. As far as her beliefs go, shouldn't she be able to move on into happiness?

[mondo joe]

28. Here's why: #1 it's illegal to hasten her or any death in that way

#2 I think you have an understable but wrong impression of the process. It is peaceful, not painful, as many DU posters have attested to, and morpine is supplied as a precaution (although mostly to ease the anxiety of family members).

I can appreciate that you'd prefer a faster method, but knowing what i know about it if it were me I'd go the starvation-with-morphine drip method.

[sandnsea]

16. It's about medical autonomy

I just posted on that elsewhere. If Terri were single, I'd support the parents' decision as her legal guardian. When you get married, that role goes to your spouse. I don't want courts, hospitals or Congress overruling individuals or legal guardians. That's what this is about and it's critically important.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=610

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. what she wants or didn't want is immaterial at this point

she's not going to wake up one day and say 'why didn't you pull the plug'

She's dead. Her heart just hasn't stopped beating yet.

[TexasSissy]

22. The courts (19 judges) found, legally, that she did not want to be

kept alive by artificial means. We weren't at the trial. Do we keep litigating cases over and over again to get the result that I want, or you want, or whoever else wants?

This is about trusting the court system. This case has been litigated and appealed many times, to the Fl. Supreme Court. The U.S. S. Ct. declined twice to hear the case.

What we know, legally, at this point are two things:

1. Terri did not want to be kept alive by artificial means;

2. Terri is in a persistent vegitative state, according to 12 doctors.

The courts found these things to be fact. So this is not "forced."

The other side seems to be gaining ground in trying to litigate this matter in the court of public opinion, where all the facts are not known, and laws are not the determining factor.

One may question whether Florida should have laws that allow courts to decide these things, when there is no written will. But Florida does. End of story.

I think we'd all be more comfortable if she had a written living will. I'm sure the courts would prefer it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Your Final Line Reflects My Thinking On This Issue...

I am not challenging the court's opinion but I an not impressed by hearsay testimony that is corroborated by one of the litigants and his brother...

[TexasSissy]

49. Who is a "litigant"?

The husband? He wasn't suing anyone. He was a witness.

That's the problem. People seem to want to re-litigate this matter. We don't know all the evidence. The case was appealed many times. Up to the Fl. S.Ct. Then up to the U.S. S.Ct. Do you REALLY think that some shifty shenanigans went on such that 30 judges didn't catch on?

BTW, it was not ONLY the husband's testimony that Terri did not want to be kept alive artificially. There was other testimony by one or more of her friends to that effect, as well.

Whatever the evidence, the Courts heard it (plural - CourtS). You may not agree with the outcome. But this is our system. At some point we must rely on the final judgment of our system. We are, after all, as Judge Greer said, a nation of laws. If we don't have that, then our whole system will crumble. No court judgment will be considered final. State legislatures in all the states will start passing bills to undo big court decisions they disagree with. The laws that the courts rule on will be meaningless.

The legislatures will end up being legislators as well as judges. And if the legislatures are in the hands of the White House, that leaves only one branch of government. And that's totalitarianism, isn't it? We must, in the end, rely on the court system. It's the best we have.

[gollygee]

23. The courts didn't flip a coin

the default *is* life. The court found *clear and compelling* evidence that this is what T.S. would want. We have a court system that decides these things. Speculation by people on the internet is not a better basis for a decision than those who heard testimony and saw evidence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Scott Peterson Was Found Guilty Of Murder

by a jury of twelve people where the burden of proof was beyond a reasonable doubt....

O J Simpson was acquitted of murder employing the same standard of proof...

The standard in guardianship cases is "clear and compelling evidence", a much lower standard...


This didn't stop folks to question the wisdom of these decisions...
In fact second guessing the OJ decision occupied much of the nation for months if not years...


I guess my point is...

I accept the court's decision but don't like it...

[gollygee]

30. As for OJ

He'd be a good example of a court having to have very strong evidence. The burden of proof was that the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The jury found that had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm getting frustrated hearing that we have no way of having any idea what she would want when a court found clear and compelling evidence that she would *not* want this and numerous courts backed that up. We have a very good idea what she would want.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. The State Of Florida Thinks It Knows What She Wants...

They are relying on her purported oral statements as revealed to Michael Schiavo and his brother...


I respect the fact that we are a nation of laws and that satisfied the state of Florida...

I just don't think we have enough information to divine her wishes...

But just as some folks can think the OJ jury and the Scott Peterson juries got it wrong I can believe the Florida courts got it wrong...


And just as I didn't storm the courtroom in LA I won't be storming the Supreme Court building...

[gollygee]

46. It wasn't just him and his brother

As the Second District explained:

We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process.

"witnesses" other than M.S. and the Schindlers means there was more than just one person. I don't know specfically who the witnesses were but I'll keep looking to see if I can find that.

[mondo joe]

32. But there's a reason for a different standard, isn't there?

Or do you think guardianship should require the same standard?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I Accept All These Decisions ... I'm Just Troubled By Them...

That's all....


I'm not calling for nullification...

[brindis_desala]

24. Discussion about difficult moral questions are important

but not in any political sense unless you think the state should be the ultimate arbiter of marital decisions and religious belief. If we subscribe to democracy then our opinions on this issue are not germane. As to Terri Schiavo's fate; that decision belongs solely to her doctors, her husband and herself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Exactly...

I am not convinced this was her will...


I tend to the liberterian.... I have a moral code for myself that most folks would think is small c conservative.... I don't do drugs... I don't cheat on my girlfriend, et cetera but I don't want to impose my moral code on others...


I am not trying to impose my will on Terri Schiavo.... I don't know what her will was...


Intellectually I know that a court relied on Michael Schiavo's hearsay testimony corroborated by his brother and other courts ratified that decision but I am not comfortable with it...

If she had a living will or advance directive I would feel a lot more comfortable with it...

Before I can find an answer to that I can't in my own mind address if one should live in that condition...

[hippiegranny]

29. as long as there is money

to pay for her care, then her life is of value. Get it?

[mmonk]

33. Persistive vegetative states

from what I hear, is where there is no conscious awareness whatsoever. The only functioning brain area is basically brain stem related. There would be no suffering by the person in this state through removal of a feeding tube and the subsequent dehydration. The only thing working is organ function.

[onenote]

35. "hearsay" - a bit misleading

The testimony of Michael Schiavo and others as to conversations they had with Terri is not hearsay insofar as it is presented to prove that she said these things. It can't be hearsay because the witnesses claiming she said these things are in court and their credibility can be assessed. The fact that she made these statements has been proven according to the court.

To the extent that the statements are being presented as evidence of what Terri really believed (in other words, even if she said she didn't want to be kept alive through life support, did she really mean it) -- then the statements are hearsay since there is no way to test the truthfulness of what Terri said.

The problem is that if you declare the statements inadmissable for that reason you've just cut off the opportunity for any person who is incapacitated from having their wishes carried out unless they are in writing (or even if they are in writing, since maybe, if they weren't incapacitated, they'd tell you that they've changed their minds).

Making tough decisions is what courts do. You are absolutely right that the state could've set the standard of evidence at "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than "clear and convincing" - but they didn't. I hope they don't change the law going forward, because I think it will encourage disputes and prevent many people from having their intentions carried out.

onenote

[gollygee]

36. I think "forced starvation" is misleading too

it sounds like she's going to be physically hungry and begging for food. She won't know what's happening. It's the "forced" part - as if this were against her will when she no longer has a will.

[DURHAM D]

39. I think Terri's parents are simply missionizers. They need a

cause and many don't see the selfishness of what they are doing. It is not about Terri - it is about them.

It is also important to remember that this is the family unit that spawned a bulimic child. Please don't misunderstand, I am not making light of bulimia because it is a very tragic disease. However, certain types of parenting seems to be more likely than others to create the environment where this disease takes hold. Start with the parents need to control. Big word control.

[mmonk]

45. For unemotional practical purposes

she is already gone. Her organs function, that's about it. In nature, she would already be dead (as feeding tubes in a person with no conscious or cognitive existence is unnatural). See my post #33.

[Yupster]

50. The starvation is the part that gets me

I would have no problem with a lethal injection of a person who can get no better, but the idea of standing aside and letting someone starve to death just seems so inhuman to me.

Logically, I realize she probably can't feel any pain and there's no difference to her, but I just can't get by the idea of standing aside and watching someone starving to death.

It's really bothered me.