The Terri Schiavo Case

I seldom watch TV, so I'm pretty out of the loop on this situation. Has anyone else been following this? Based on the little I know about it, it seems that it treads into some difficult (dare I say gray) territory from a moral and ethical standpoint.

The question comes down to whether there is documentation that Terri said she'd prefer to not live rather than live in a vegetative state. In general, I have a hard time making up mind on this. Would anyone care to offer what they feel is a proper Objectivist assessment of this unusual predicament?

Post 1

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 1:13pm

Hardly a "predicament" - "in a vegetative state" precludes "qua man." The woman already is dead. Without a mind there is no conceivable reason to keep a corpse alive.

Post 2

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 1:25pm

Pete:

Based of what I know of this case, there are 4 issues here:

A. No doucumentation exist at all - zero- Based on that alone, the legal precedent has been to defer to the will of the spouse. (The husband states that he is carrying out his wifes wishes - her parents claim he is lying.)

B. The manner of death is not the typical, "pull the plug, and within minutes or hours the subject is dead" - the manner of death in this case is a prolonged slow process of death. (The state does not allow for the person or legal guardian to chose an alternative method of death other than eliminateing the life supprt that is currently being used - thus the parents and others are arguing that the removal of the feeding tube is death by slow torture).

C. Outside religious organzations have injected themsleves into this debate by argueing the sanctity of *all* life argument and disputing the medical evidence that points towards her being a mental vegatable incapable of any recovery. (the expert medical conclusion is that there does not exist even a 1 in a billion 'miracle' possibilty for even a partial recovery)

D. This issue, is the unspoken one - the issue that if addressed, would eleiminate the power of the emotional appeals made by her parents on the basis of 'B' - the issue of legalizing a safe, quick and humane means by which a person (or his legal guardian) may end their own life. This issue is being dodged by all sides of the current debate.

An outside issue that has now arisen, is the improper intrusion by Republicans in Congress to interject themselves into a legal issue that has always been a State issue, and not a Federal one.

Normally I would without hesitation side with the husband over the parents, and the State over the Federal government - BUT, the manner of death is one that if the Humane Society were to apply it to an injured dog - it would cause a nationwide outrage, - and yet it is being applied to a human being. That said, given that the issue I raised in D is of yet unaddressed - I fall in favor of the husbands decision, and the State Courts in Florida that have upheld his right to speak in his wifes behalf.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/19, 3:52pm)

Post 3

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 1:31pm

Pete, I've been following this case lately, though not in great depth, and it's difficult to be certain one is getting the story accurately from television and the newspapers. That being said, it appears that there is not any written documentation of Terry Schiavo's wishes; she did not have a living will. However, it's reasonable to assume that she would not want to be kept alive in the state she's in; who would?

It's being said that her husband is lying, that she did not say this to him, It's said that he's lying in order to get her insurance money when she dies. But apparently that money is already gone, having been used for fifteen years' worth of medical expenses. And recently, a wealthy man offered him a million dollars if he'd give her care over to her parents, as they want him to do; he has refused. So it's not money he's after. I believe, although I'm not positive, that he could divorce her if he chose to.

There is a great hue and cry about what will be the manner of her death: the removal of her feeding tube. It's being said that she will die in agony. Her doctors say that is nonsense, that the centers in her brain that could cause suffering have been destroyed, and that she will peacefully, and without pain, sink into a coma as a prelude to death.

More to the point, this is not by any stretch of any laws the business of Congress. To step in and make a law in order to satisfy their own desires in this case, is illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral. It is the business only of the husband and the woman's doctors. The husband says she would want to die. Her doctors say she is not aware and that there is not the least chance that she can recover, even to a minimal extent. The courts agree. That should have ended the issue.

Barbara

Post 4

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 1:50pm

Barbara said: I believe, although I'm not positive, that he could divorce her if he chose to.

No ifs, yes he can.

Barbara said: Her doctors say that is nonsense, that the centers in her brain that could cause suffering have been destroyed, and that she will peacefully, and without pain, sink into a coma as a prelude to death.

True. Nevertheless, I find it ridiculous that a quick simple injection cannot be administered, instead of a process that could take weeks.

Barbara said: More to the point, this is not by any stretch of any laws the business of Congress. To step in and make a law in order to satisfy their own desires in this case, is illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral. ... Her doctors say she is not aware and that there is not the least chance that she can recover, even to a minimal extent. The courts agree. That should have ended the issue.

Perfectly stated.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/19, 1:51pm)

Post 5

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 2:07pm

It's a horrid situation. Our supposedly benevoloent (in their own view) government once more proves its complete hypocrisy in this case. George is right, a quick painless injection would be the best route. My wife and I have both included stuplations in our living wills that we not be kept "alive" in such a state.

Ethan

Post 6

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 3:47pm

Right on Barbara, Adam Ethan and George!

It is ridiculous that the withdrawal of treatment is ok but giving a terminal injection is not. As I commented a few weeks ago in a discussion over in the Law forum:

In general terms there is of course a distinction between simply withdrawing medical treatment...and actually causing the death. Certainly society in general seems in most cases to accept the former but is largely horrified by the latter, despite that fact that when all's said and done the result is the same: the patient's suffering ends, though ironically this happens more immediately in the circumstance society regards as less acceptable.

Post 7

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 4:00pm

Thanks everyone for responding. The reason I wasn't so sure how I felt about the situation was that it seemed that her "vegetative" status was in dispute, somewhat. It's my understanding that Terri experiences waking conciousness, and that she laughs, cries, smiles, and even says 'Mom' and 'Dad' sometimes. I also read somewhere that she has the cognitive capacity of a 6 to 12 month old infant.

If this is the case, then she is in fact severely mentally disabled. It's not a condition that I would ever want to be kept alive in, but philosophically, why then should a parent not have the right to terminate the life of a severely retarded child? Or, let's say Terry had the functioning of a two or three year old (limited speech/communication, limited motor skills) - would this be a different context? At what level of cognitive capacity does one earn a moral and political 'right' to life?

Post 8

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 3:48pm

Well, I am not perfectly sure whether Mrs. Schiavo is really in a "vegetative" state, i.e. whether her brain is really dead or not. The information given on the internet is contradictory. The one side says: Yes, she is irreversibly in a vegetative state. The other side says: No, she is not. She interacts with her environment on a primitive, yet purposeful and consciouss level, but does not make any progress in rehabilitation because her husband has been withholding medical treatment from her since 1991 and instead spent the 1.4 million dollars that were supposed for her theapy on his lawyers.

The latter side is represented (among others) by this website:
http://www.terrisfight.org/myths.html
or www.terrisfight.org

So, apparently, the first question to ask is: Is Mrs. Schiavo really in an irreversibly vegetative state that would justify such a decision?

Post 9

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 4:11pm

Pete,

Assuming that the husband is indeed telling the truth, then Ms Schiavo expressed a wish to die should be come to be in this state, so to that extent this is about putting her wishes into practice. An infant on the other hand wouldn't have the capacity to express such a wish or the necessary psychological understanding of the implications. The issue of a parent putting a severely ill child to death is certainly a distressing topic, and in fact was the subject of the SOLO Law discussion I linked to above, after a case here in the UK in which this occurred.

MH

Post 10

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 4:18pm

Settegast says: The one side says: Yes, she is irreversibly in a vegetative state. The other side says: No, she is not.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the 'vegitative state' side is made up of medical professionals, including the ones that have cared for her for years; while the 'no she's not' side consist of highly spurious sources working on behalf of agenda driven religious and political organizations.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/19, 4:19pm)

Post 11

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 4:31pm

MH,

Sign me up to that Solo Law forum.

I'm no lawyer (far too much pride for that), but there is no reason for us to limit the threads where we can disagree with each other.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/19, 4:32pm)

Post 12

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 4:21pm

@Matthew Humphreys

Well, if one is to believe that wikipedia entry on Mrs. Schiavo, then it is highly doubtable whether she ever issued such a wish, because in the wikipedia entry it says that Mr. Schiavo probably beat hear and that she though about a divorce short time before her collapse.

It seems to be a quite difficult case to decide on, because information is so contradictory and it seems almost impossible, from our position, to determine whats true and what's not.

Post 13

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 4:25pm

@George

Well, as far as I could find information on the internet, that "No, she is not"-side is also represented by some medical professionals. At least this is how I interpret the information on the website I cited about and in the wikipedia entry on Mrs. Schiavo.

Post 14

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 8:50pm

Supposedly, the newest update is that Bush is going to sign emergency legislation to replace the feeding tube.

Post 15

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:11pm

Yeah this is a sticker, I have been keeping up on this and the main issue I'm seeing is whether or not she really is in a PVS. I've seen some video of her and she was def interacting with her family although on a childish level. If she was in a PVS I would have no argument againt her husbands claim although at this point he has no credibility

(he couldn't have taken the million dollars, his entire case is that this is what she would want and that would make him look bad and he would probably lose in the money in a suit by the Shindler family)

Our rights are protected by both the state and the federal government. That taken, the governments actions are entirely reasonable although O doubt they would have gotten involved if this wasn't in the news.

The only problem I have is what this would do to people who really are in a PVS? Sometimes, they plug has to be pulled and even the far right understands this although they usually only would in the context of brain death which PVS is not.

Personally, I would want to have it that if I was in a PVS, give me two years before you finish me off (don't let me starve, I wouldn't do that shit to a dog). For a coma give me 3 years, and for brain death do it ASAP. People do come out of comas and PVS's after even longer time but they quality of life is severaly depleated and I don't want to risk it.

Post 16

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 12:02am

Death is such a permanent, irreversible solution. This really is a tough one.

If she is allowed to die, she will not be able to ever enjoy any future possible medical breakthrough that might be able to restore some or all of her mental activity. If she is kept alive, she could be using up hospital resources that could be better used elsewhere in addition to contradicting her legal guardian's assertion of her wishes stated in the past.

Since other parties have offered to cover the costs and care for her, I personally would choose life, if for no other reason than the possibility of medical progress.

In her state, I wonder if either solution would make any difference to her anyway.

Michael

Post 17

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 12:35am

George:

Sign me up to that Solo Law forum.

I'm no lawyer (far too much pride for that), but there is no reason for us to limit the threads where we can disagree with each other.

Hehehe!!!

I can't sign you up but if you (or anyone else) want to join, go to http://www.solohq.com/Law and click the join this group thing at the bottom of that page. You don't have to be qualified or training lawyers or anything of the sort.

Sascha,

Well, if one is to believe that wikipedia entry on Mrs. Schiavo, then it is highly doubtable whether she ever issued such a wish, because in the wikipedia entry it says that Mr. Schiavo probably beat hear and that she though about a divorce short time before her collapse.

Right, I hadn't actually read that before my previous comment. If that is accurate (and Wikipedia usually is) then it does complicate matters considerably. I said before that this is about putting Mrs Schiavo's wishes into effect, but if we don't know for sure what those wishes were then of course a very great degree of caution is required.

MH

Post 18

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 7:29am

I'm curious as to the legitimacy of Wikipedia -- it seems to be a place where anyone can contribute to the content, no? What are their sources? The entry itself has a warning that its neutrality is questionable.

What I find most disturbing is that Congress has seen fit to insert itself into the debate -- they have no business there. Once they are in it, they are never going to get out of it, and it will spread like a fungus to infect other areas in the personal lives of U.S. citizens. There no longer seems to be a limit for such interference.

I do question the situation, however. I don't know what Mr. Schiavo's motivation is, and why he simply did not divorce his wife if he just wanted to be free of the problem. Since an escape does not seem to be what he is seeking, then why does he persist?

However, if she is in a permanent vegetative state I see no reason why she should be kept alive artificially. She isn't living. Even if she does have the capacity of an infant, what kind of life is that?

Lastly, a question I always come back to is: Who is paying for all of this care? Is it her insurance company?

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 3/20, 7:30am)

Post 19

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 10:08am