RoR: Forum

Robert said:

In the perhaps thankless quest to add a few facts to this discussion,

On the contrary; I find your quest thankworthy.

Jawaid Bazyar said:

Ultimately, this is not about "whoever wants to keep her alive should be able to do it". Because that is a gross violation of Terri's wishes. A court has decided that Terri's wish was to be unplugged. Anything else is a violation of Terri's *individual liberty*. And that liberty includes the right to die when one so chooses. *THAT* is the principle here.

Very well put. If someone found an authenticated written statement by Terri to the effect that she would not want to be kept alive in a permanent vegetative state, would that change the mind of any of you who think this is an economic issue?

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 41

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:51pm

Robert,

"... in order to establish the legal precedent of own definition of "life" as a basis for adjudicating other issues, such as opposition to abortion and stem-cell research."

This is what scares the bejeezus out of me also. Government constantly encroaching on individual rights and scientific progress. We may not agree on wanting Terri dead now, but we sure agree on this.

btw - What do you think about mercy killing? If the courts have determined that she is to be put down, do you not agree that outright killing her would be a better alternative to slow starvation?

Michael

Post 42

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:29pm

Alec,

Your questions:

1. Is it wrong that bruises indicating beating have been discovered on Schiavo's body?

No, it isn’t wrong. It’s par for the course for a woman abusing her body through bulimia. In severe cases like hers, sufferers can look like Hiroshima survivors. The incidence of self-abuse; repeatedly cutting skin, pulling out hair, biting nails till the fingers are bloody, “falling” down stairs, in women suffering eating disorders, is very large. I’m not sure of it, but something like half or more of these cases involve other serious self-abuse.

2. Is it wrong that the only "proof" we have of Schiavo's will to die is the oral memory of her husband, to whom it occurred only after he received a multi-million dollar settlement for her indefinite care?

No, it isn’t. For the reason Barbara pointed out: He hoped for recovery, he visited her, he wanted her to recover. Remember, it is a reasonable assumption that she would want the same. When it became overwhelmingly clear to him that she would never come back, he responded appropriately. It’s difficult for me to appreciate anyone’s curiosity about the above, as the above is what I too would do.

3. If not, then is it wrong that he is a proven liar?

Moot.
4. If not, then exactly why in the hell should we believe him?

Because he is her loving husband whom she chose to spend her life with.

Later you wrote:

“I am further amazed at how everyone is assuming the goodwill of the husband (when there is much evidence against), while shunning the possibility that her *entire family* might also want what's best for her.”

Her family is catholic. If they are conscientious Catholics they will not give two shits what she wanted because their priest has explained to them what god wants.

“You think if she actually expressed her wish to die under such circumstances to her family, none of them would care enough about her to want to honor that wish?”

None of them.

“You think they are all selfishly, delusionally motivated – [1] while the husband is God, just because of his legal position?” [2]

[1] Yes. [2] What do mean to imply with: “Just because of his legal position?” Marriage is not a legal position. She chose him to spend her life with. If I didn’t trust my wife to fight for the things I care about should I become incapable to do so, I would have already divorced her. My wife doesn’t enjoy some legal technicality, but my chosen trust.

--
--

Robert, you are guilty of a big understatement here:

“That some Objectivists are falling for this naked ploy by politically active mystics is as demoralizing a spectacle as anything I've witnessed in well over 30 years association with this philosophy.”

Jon

Post 43

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:16pm

I've not had time to follow this issue closely, nor have I read all of the posts above, however, for me one issue stands out clearly that I haven't seen commented on. I can most clearly state this by writing my line of reasoning:

1) If Schiavo had a clearly expressed wish to die, then that should be her right.

2) If she did not express such a wish, then she should not be aided in dying.

3) But, no matter which of the above two positions you take, letting her die by starvation is never, NEVER, going to be the answer to (1). My understanding is it is a horrible, painful way to die.

If Western medicine would finally adopt decent, humane secular ethics, freed of all the mystical Christian tosh, then the answer to (1) must be compassionate chemical or some such method, euthanasia. How on earth can any court, person, et al, possibly think letting her die by starvation was ever an answer?

That defeats me completely.

Post 44

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:40pm

Rodney—you are right. That was harsh, & I withdraw & apologise.

I'm afraid my frame of mind last night was less than magnanimous. I had spent the day contemplating the enormity of the deceit perpetrated over the forces of freedom here by the NAMBLA scumbag I mentioned already. I thought SOLO would provide the usual balm & mirth, but instead I saw this clamour to starve this woman to death when her parents were prepared to foot the bill for keeping her alive. (The day before, on the TV programme I am Political Editor for, I had heard a convincing rebuttal of the medical case for the killing from a neurologist associated with the case—not Cheshire, but a long Swedish name that escapes me at the moment.) That didn't help. Then I saw references to "collaborators" & "insurgents [sic]" in Mr Knapp's Freedom News Daily, which sent me right off the deep end. And my blood has a low boiling point at the best of times!

Rodney, I actually regard you as among the finest posters here. Which is why I get irritated as hell when you pull one of those stunts.

Am I forgiven?

(Oh Christ, there's a whole new thread in this!)

Linz

PS - If there's anyone I *neglected* to insult last night, I apologise for overlooking you.

:-)

Post 45

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:50pm

You're forgiven, and I hope I am too. And it's these damn lousy photos of me that make bad impressions worse.

Post 46

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 3:23pm

This hits too close to home. I notice that there is a lot of mixed views here, and I have no answers, only my own dilemmas.
My brother Matthew, due to hospital negligence, was born with cerebal palsy. The doctors believed he would not live, and when he did, they said there was no hope, that he would be a vegetable. My mother did not accept this, and turned her life around to do all she can for him. She studied, and worked hard, to educate herself on his condition (which seemed to piss off the doctors, apparently they prefer the patients and families to take their pronouncements on faith...). She believed that he could live a healthy life, that the plasticity of the brain would compensate for his damaged areas. The doctors thought their was no chance, my mom refused to give up.

He is now 8 years old. He can neither talk, walk, move. He is fed through a tube. He is prone to pneumonia, ear infection, and will most likely be in this state for as long as he lives. My mom will have to care for him the rest of his life. Yet he does show emotion; he can feel pain, and I have seen him laugh and respond to family members. (He giggles when you rub his head.)

The fact that he is being cared for by my mother is comforting, and it has turned her life around for the better in many respects. But because she was unable to work, she went on welfare to survive while she sued the hospital. 8 years later, the case finally went to trial and the hospital settled for negligence. But during that time, she believed it was the state's responsibility to support her, and she suddenly "found religion." (The irony was that I was Christian growing up, while she was a "heathen," now I am an atheist, and she prays everyday for my brother.)

This was a great source of tension for me, because she talks of welfare and religious charity as a right, and I bite my tongue as an Objectivist leaning thinker. And as much as she cares for Matt, he'll never progress beyond his current state. I think she has accepted this, and his needs will be met by the settlement, as well as her care. I don't know how anyone could look her in the eye and tell her Matt would be better off dead. And I will admit that was my thought when he was born.

There are rational answers, and there are emotional ones. But try telling a parent whose child is in this state that they should die. See the range of emotions in that parents face. I can't fault the Schiavo family for not giving up on their daughter. I can't fault the husband for wanting to end her suffering. I can't accept the claim that society should bear the burden. I can't look my mom in the eye and tell her she is wrong to demand it of society. I don't know the family or the husband, but I can say their dilemma is not easy, and I hope they find some peace of mind.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 3/24, 3:27pm)

Post 47

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 3:40pm

Oh Joe, what a touching story. Thanks for sharing it.

I have not followed the Schiavo case. But I think I know what I would do in case such as your brother's if I were the mother. I guess you know that I've already earned a reputation of being hard-hearted and brutal. ;-). Though I think I merely try to recognize the fact of reality, be rational, and never regret.

Post 48

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 3:51pm

But try telling a parent whose child is in this state that they should die. See the range of emotions in that parents face. I can't fault the Schiavo family for not giving up on their daughter. I can't fault the husband for wanting to end her suffering. I can't accept the claim that society should bear the burden. I can't look my mom in the eye and tell her she is wrong to demand it of society. I don't know the family or the husband, but I can say their dilemma is not easy, and I hope they find some peace of mind.

Thanks for sharing that touching story Joe. I can also understand your Mother's feelings and Terri's parents wanting her to live.
My mother was put on to a life-support machine and I didn't even have any say in the matter whether or not it was switched off. However, I have no reason to question the doctors that said she was brain dead.

Problem is that no one here can agree whether or not the claim that Terri did not wish to continue to live like this is true or not. If she had that wish, then that must overrule all other considerations. The courts thinks her husband is right - so here we are back to square one.

Was justice served or not? I hope it was.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 3/24, 4:07pm)

Post 49

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 3:56pm

Thanks to Bob Bidinotto for providing the link concerning Terry's medical history. That history makes clear that she is uncomprehending and is almost certainly not going to recover.

I am not privy to the quality of the oral evidence that Terry expressed a desire for death under her present circumstances. Perhaps the evidence is pretty good. If it is, then her parent's wishes are not relevant, her husband's choices would appear responsible, and she should be removed from life support. If the evidence is weak, then her husband's wishes are irrelevant; and her parents ought to be permitted, through their own resources, to keep her alive.

Post 50

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 3:57pm

Robert,

I have little time for posting, but I want to thank you for having posted everything I would have said in the matter. There are two very dishonest manipulations that Terri's parents have engaged in. One is filming her random movements over several months, and then selecting and splicing a few minutes' worth of frames out of that long record of random movement, to create a false appearance of responsiveness. The other is their attempt to discredit the medical evidence by enlisting the support of two or three quacks who are presented to the public as scientists, even though those quacks' prior commitment to religious belief precludes them from meeting the objective epistemological criteria for being scientists - or evaluating the evidence by scientific criteria.

Linz,

Boo on you for letting yourself get so thoroughly scammed.

Post 51

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 3:59pm

My heart goes out to you, Joe, as it does to all families in such circumstances. It's tough.

I had to issue DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders for both my parents when their lives had reached a point that they were beyond medical hope, their minds had gone and they were merely suffering. They wanted no artificial means to keep them alive. That was their own stated desire. But your family's situation is much more complicated.

It's very hard for parents to let go.You seem to be handling this emotional situation with your mother well. It's not necessary to get into big philosophical debates about such things. If she wants to do this, it's her life and her choice. I wish you and your family peace and strength.

Post 52

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:05pm

Adam, I cut Terri's parents a lot of slack in this. They are desperate to believe that their daughter is still with them, and are doing desperate things to keep that belief alive. I don't think their course is motivated by malice or a desire to deceive the court and public; I believe they have deceived themselves. I feel very sorry for them.

I feel quite differently about the politicos who are manipulating this tragedy (BTW, I do NOT mean people here on this site; I mean talk show hosts and politicians, who are whipping up a public frenzy.)

Incidentally, Linz -- I had already gotten the impression you were in a bad mood yesterday. Your more grumpy words have already been expunged from my mental record.

Post 53

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:09pm

That is a indeed a very touching story, Joe. Thank you for sharing it. And I agree with Robert's thoughts above on both your family situation and the Schiavo case.

Post 54

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:23pm

Joe, all my sympathies go to you. And it's certainly true that many doctors don't like to be questioned; they became doctors for the prestige.

Post 55

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 5:09pm

Joe, thank you for sharing this touching story. I, too, wish you and your family peace.

***

We had to cease life support for my father when he had a sudden heart attack at the age of 59. He was declared brain dead, and could not be kept alive without a battery of machinery, but he had always been adamant that he did not wish to live in such a state. Even though his instructions were explicit, it was still an agonizing decision -- it does, in effect, feel like you are signing a death warrant, and to watch my mother sign the DNR form was the hardest thing I've ever had to see.

So even though our situation was a bit different, I can completely empathize with both sides of the Schiavo case -- but still I believe that laws must be upheld. What I find disturbing is that those who agree are being referred to as executioners. Marcus and I discussed this today, and what we find even more disturbing is that because euthanasia is illegal in this country, there is no other legal means available to let this woman die humanely. Religious fanatics will fight to allow a miserable life, but not a peaceful death.

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 3/24, 5:12pm)

Post 56

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 6:32pm

Yes, thanks Joe for bringing a perspective to the complications involved that I can only begin to imagine.

Post 57

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:22pm

Linz:

"Terri is clearly (except to a half-wit) responsive, understanding of speech, music & television programmes, in love with life—& retains at least the rudiments of conceptualisation."

Maybe they are showing more video in NZ than what I've seen in the States, but all I have seen her do is stare blankly into space. If she is indeed able to conceptualize and function in a diminished, but rational and concious, capacity, then obviously she ought to be allowed to live. Marcus' point about the executive branch directly intervening to interfere with the judiciary is well taken. But I will note this: her treating neurologist has weighed in on her state of conciousness. He has said unequivocally that she IS in a vegetative state, and is not conciously responding to anything, or smiling in response to anything. I think we can probably assume that his opinions are based on medical training and actual testing and observation of Terri, even if he is a half-wit.

Post 58

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:48pm

Joe,

What a story! You have my deepest sympathies.

What your mother feels - the thing that is prompting her actions, is an area I am currently doing a lot of thinking about, which, for lack of a better term, I call biological love. As much as I want to rationalize the fact that human love can be subject to choice, I see these things and cannot close my eyes. Your mother is devoting her life to such a love as I am contemplating. I will not simply brand her as confused or a person who made poor choices (although obviously I do not share her welfare and religion). There is something powerful at work here.

In the same vein, I cannot dismiss Terri's mother (and father). Just forgetting about Terri for the moment and concentrating on her parents, to put them through the ordeal of watching their daughter turn into a skeleton during a week-long ordeal is horrible beyond belief. If the courts have decided beyond all doubt that she is to be taken off life support, then there has to be a better way than this.

Jennifer - "What I find disturbing is that those who agree are being referred to as executioners."

That is a very good point and shows the complexity of this issue. Everyone is suddenly disclosing personal tragedies and I feel deeply for each of them - and my heart goes out to you. Nobody has a right to make light of anyone else's pain.

About the "executioner" label, I think there should be another word coined for what I keep going on about mercy killing. A word maybe that carries a connotation of extreme responsibility in the face of an almost unbearable sense of loss, instead of the callousness or sadism that "executioner" implies.

I certainly do not think that your mother was an "executioner" in that sense. To me, she was more like an angel of mercy.

I am VERY upset with a mercy killing taking over a week. And I don't care how many "experts" say that Terri really doesn't mind. A better way has to be found. We are not running a WWII concentration camp around here.

Michael

Post 59

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 9:11pm