The Terri Schiavo Case

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.

Is it actually possible to divorce when your partner cannot consent to it?

Post 21

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:09am

I just learned that the case has been heard by nineteen different Florida judges over the years, in ten different courts. They have been unanimous -- and many of them are conservative Republicans -- in believing (on the evidence of the husband and other family members) that Terri Schiavo did say she wouldn't want to live this way, in believing the doctors' statements that her condition is irreversible, and in concluding that she has the right to die. What Congress is doing is to slap the face of nineteen Florida judges -- who are much more familiar with the case than is the Congress -- and to arbitrarily deny the accepted right of the states to make such decisions.

Someone on television pointed out that this case is not unique. There are many such cases across the country, in which family members disagree on whether or not the plug should be pulled. Congress has never before said that the relevant state should not adjudicate the issue, it has never before interposed itself in family business of this kind. To give the Congress the benefit of the doubt, one should note that only two things are different now. The first is that when we see Terri on television, at first glance she may appear to be aware -- although if one watches for a moment, one will see that are her movements and facial expressions are robotically repetitive and do not seem to be reactions to anything outside herself. The second difference is that this case has received enormous publicity -- and so will the actions of Congress.
r
One of Terri's doctors explained that the appearance of awareness is illusory. The part of the brain which makes awareness possible has been destroyed -- which rules out even a medical "miracle" as a means of restoring her. The centers of the brain responsible for movement, however, were not destroyed by her stroke and still are partly functioning.

Post 22

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 10:08pm

Quoth George:

"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."

Partially right.

The "vegetative state" side is made up of medical professionals, including the ones that have cared for her for years; as well as highly spurious sources working on behalf of agenda-driven religious and political organizations.

The "no she's not" side is _also_ made up of medical professionals, including the ones that have cared for her for years; as well as highly spurious sources working on behalf of agenda-driven religious and political organizations.

There are several issues at stake here.

Obviously, one of those issues is whether or not she is indeed in a persistent vegetative state. Having seen recent video of her laughing at a joke, I'm disinclined to believe that she is.

Another issue is whether or not she expressed any wishes or directives prior to the injury which placed her in this condition. With respect to written form, she did not ... and her husband didn't mention any such wishes for several years, while he was suing hospitals and insurance companies, and claiming that any settlements would be used to provide for her care and therapy.

It was only later, after he had moved on to a new relationship, and apparently at a point where physicians suggested that new therapies might provide substantial prospects of recovery, that he "remembered" that she had once said she wouldn't want to be kept alive as she is being kept alive now.

The obvious conclusion that the "keep her alive" side has pounced on is that Michael Schiavo wants his wife dead not because she is in a persistent vegetative state, but because he's afraid she'll recover enough to communicate what happened to put her in that (alleged) state. Whether that's true or not, my conclusions are as follows:

1) If there's any doubt as to whether or not she's in a persistent vegetative state, the benefit of that doubt should go to those who hold that she isn't. She can be killed any time. She can't be brought back to life once she's been killed.

2) Since Michael Schiavo made representations in court that he was suing for money to provide for her perpetual care, any attempt to withhold that care is de facto fraud and theft.

3) The court should appoint a new guardian ad litem who doesn't have a dog in this hunt. That new guardian should take over Michael Schiavo's obligations in re (2) since he now declines to discharge those voluntarily undertaken obligations, and commission a full, objective medical inquiry in re (1).

Any way you cut it, though, it is an ugly matter.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 23

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 10:14pm

Quoth Jennifer:

"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."

Right you are.

One thing at issue here is the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection and whether or not Florida is meeting that standard.

If Terri Schiavo is alive, i.e. not brain-dead or in a PVS, i.e. a person rather than just a biological shell with no mind left, then allowing her to be killed is essentially denying her the protection of the laws against homicide. It's giving her husband an exception for the purpose of murdering his wife. That would constitute legitimate grounds for federal intervention.

If she is not alive, i.e. the opposite of all of the above, then that's not the case.

Either way, the federal intervention will almost certainly have negative consequences down the road.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 24

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:51pm

Hi Thomas,

You wrote:

"If there's any doubt as to whether or not she's in a persistent vegetative state, the benefit of that doubt should go to those who hold that she isn't. She can be killed any time. She can't be brought back to life once she's been killed."

Amen.

All of the other issues and arguments around this ugly affair, despite such being important and having impact on the judicial system, insurance companies, congress and whatnot, simply pale before this single primary starting point.

If she is killed, the whole thing goes away, precisely because she can't be unkilled. But what if those who kill her are wrong?

On this particular thread I agree with everything you said. Was a pleasure, man.

Michael

Post 25

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:51am

Michael,

Thanks!

I've argued vociferously elsewhere for the point of view that Ms. Schiavo is, in fact, still alive in the sense of being a person and therefore entitled not to be killed. That's my own judgment. I base it on several hours of research (but many hours less, and less thorough, than others have no doubt conducted), and on my own core philosophical convictions (as opposed to, say, any particular medical expertise).

Others are going to reach different conclusions. Obviously, some conclusions are going to be correct, and some are going to be incorrect ... and the hell of it is that the case is complex enough, and relies enough on judgments that require expertise, that I can't be sure I'm right and neither can most others.

The only "sure thing" about this case is that it sucks for everyone involved, and even for most of us not directly involved. It raises questions that are difficult to answer and for which the answers tend to lack certainty. Whoever wins, and whether they are right or wrong, there are likely to be far-reaching, not necessarily positive, implications.

While I don't claim to be a doctrinaire Objectivist (pardon the phrasing -- it's the best I could come up with, but doesn't quite mean what I mean), I'm a moderately well-read student of Objectivism, and one of the most valuable things I got from reading Ayn Rand's novels and essays was the realization that in many -- even most -- cases, it is possible to be certain in one's judgments. If one can, and does, know that one's worldview reflects reality, then applying what one knows to be correct logic to verifiable facts produces a judgment in which one can be confident.

The elusiveness of the facts themselves in this case thwarts certainty ... and uncertainty is the last thing one wants (apart from a FALSE certainty) when a life may hang in the balance.

Tom Knapp

Post 26

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:57am

Quoth Marcus:

"Is it actually possible to divorce when your partner cannot consent to it?"

Different states have different laws, but for most states the answer is a qualified "yes."

For example, if your spouse has abandoned you and disappeared, in most states you can file for divorce, publish public notices, etc., and if the spouse doesn't respond within a certain timeframe, the court will allow the divorce to proceed with your spouse in absentia.

In cases of cognitive disability, I think most states allow the guardian to act on behalf of the disabled person. In the case of Terri Schiavo, her guardian is her husband, who does not want a divorce. Her parents have attempted to assume guardianship, and I recall that they at least once attempted to pursue divorce on her behalf, but the courts deferred to her husband _as_ her designated guardian.

There's probably a lawyer somewhere on Solo who is more familiar with divorce law than I am (I'm just a paralegal who's _been_ divorced ).

Tom Knapp

Post 27

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 1:47am

The situation gets more complex by the hour. Now I read that at the time of her stroke, the presence of significant trauma was found on her body, possible evidence that she had been beaten over a significant period of time -- and if she had been beaten, it would have been by her husband. Incredibly, it seems that nothing was done with this evidence at the time -- even though her parents told the police that they suspected that a beating by her husband had led to her symptoms of brain death.

If this is so, if there is even a possibility that it is so, then the husband's wishes about her cannot be considered, and she has to be kept alive until it is known what, if anything, he did to cause the state she's in.

Tom, you're correct of course that one cannot decide to let her die in the absence of certainty.

Barbara

Post 28

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 3:26am

I haven't done any research into this, but I'll assume the facts Tom mentions are true, since they collaborate with what I've heard from various media. Given those facts -- especially that she laughed at a joke and that her husband once sued for millions for the specific purpose of her care, which he claimed would require 15-30 years (and has not, apparently, spent that settlement money on her care) -- I don't see how anyone can oppose keeping her alive.

Given these facts, is there anyone out there who still does?

Post 29

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 8:16am

What a bloody awful mess!

If there is any doubt as to the husband's motivations then of course she should be kept alive.

Post 30

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 8:58am

I haven't looked at this case in detail, but:

- It'd be preposterous to claim that the doctors are in on some kind of conspiracy.

- They're the only real experts here that can be relied upon as to whether she's in a vegetative state or not and whether she can recover. Get 2nd, 3rd, or more opinions, but from other qualified medical professionals, not from some layman, who's probably a mystic, and who thinks she laughed.

- Given that enough experts say she's a vegetable, it's simply not credible to start saying stuff like "Well, maybe she's not." This would be pure arbitrary assertion.

Additionally, I wonder who if anyone would really want to exist in the state she's in. I know some would say they did but purely for religious reasons. I wonder if one can objectively say that anyone in that condition should be put out of their misery, regardless of whether they formally declared it or not.

Post 31

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:13am

Shayne,

Have you been reading this thread?

"They're the only real experts here.."

Then there are "experts" on both sides of this issue.

I think the idea that "doctors" of anything are in general "experts" is naive, and the implications are offensive. As is your corollary "not from some layman, who's probably a mystic".

Post 32

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:30am

I think the idea that "doctors" of anything are in general "experts" is naive

Since I didn't say that I wonder why you point it out.

I haven't followed the thread closely, no, but your objection doesn't make me think I've glossed over any important details, rather it is partly confirmation of my guess that people are perhaps being overly emotional here.

Post 33

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:30am

Shayne, for once, you and I agree on something.

Years and years of medical examinations, testimony not just from her husband but others about Terri's expressed views about such situations and countless court proceedings which adjudicated all these matters have concluded the same things: Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state; her "responses" are generated solely by her central nervous system, not her conscious awareness; her expressed wish under such circumstances was to be allowed to die rather than be maintained in such a subhuman state.

An avalanche of unsupported and vicious claims has been launched Schiavo's grieving family, who are unwilling to come to grips with the fact that the poor woman is gone. These include unsupported claims of her "responsiveness," and intimations or outright accusations that her husband may have committed violence upon her that resulted in her state. Again, the place for all these contentions is the courtroom. They have been examined ad nauseum, and rejected by court after court, on appeal after appeal.

So when does this circus end?

I marvel at an inconsistency here. On most cases, Objectivists use an epistemological (context of knowledge) standard of "certainty." That standard says we must be reasonably certain in such cases--that we should use as our basis for decision-making "the fullest, rational context of our knowledge." But on cases such as this one, and the death penalty, all of a sudden many Objectivists revert without clear justification to the traditional, religious-based metaphysical (Platonic) standard of "certainty." That standard compels us to be unreasonably, Platonically certain: in effect, our decisions should be based on the standard of omniscience. Against the overwhelming medical evidence that Schiavo is in a vegetative state, we inexplicably ask, "Well...how can we really know?"

Well, how can we really "know" anything?

There's a slippery epistemological slope here, folks, and I leave it to you as to whether you wish to start on the downward slide.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 3/21, 9:32am)

Post 34

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:36am

Shayne, for once, you and I agree on something.

For twice actually, since I just agreed with you over in the ARI thread...

Whoops, there I am contradicting you again ;)

Post 35

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:47am

Guys, we're talking about a person's death. Something totally irreversible. A couple of days ago I agreed she should be allowed to die, but it now seems there are a number of questions which the courts have failed to resolve. At this time there's a lot of conflicting information, I don't know what the truth is here. Which is why these questions ought to be investigated and figured out before she dies.

If that constitutes a departure from Objectivist epistemology then so be it.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 3/21, 9:52am)

Post 36

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:03am

I'd just invite you to check who is raising "a number of questions" and where that "conflicting information" is coming from. In following this in the press, it seems the Schiavo family has been willing to say just about anything, and level just about any unsupported accusation against the husband, to stop the steady stream legal rulings against them. I understand their position emotionally--hell, I'm a father and grandfather of two adorable little ladies, and can only imagine their emotional state. But at some point, enough is enough; and arbitrary assertions shouldn't have weight against a mountain of factual determinations.

Incidentally, this is also a good example of the need for objective law, and a final arbiter of disputes. One can only imagine what would happen if this case were left to "the marketplace" under anarchism for a resolution, with each intransigent side paying for its own "agency" to defend their interests.

Post 37

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:39am

Quoth Robert Bidinotto:

"Years and years of medical examinations, testimony not just from her husband but others about Terri's expressed views about such situations and countless court proceedings which adjudicated all these matters have concluded the same things ..."

Not strictly correct. The early court proceedings centered around Michael Schiavo's suit against the hospital/doctors for malpractice, and against his insurance company. At that time, he mentioned nothing about any alleged wishes of Terri Schiavo to be "allowed to die" if in a persistent vegetative state. As a matter of fact, the point of the suit, and the end to which Schiavo testified under oath that he would put any funds rendered in judgment, was the maintenance of her life in the state she was in.

It was only six years after the accident/incident, and only after receiving the settlement referred to above, that Michael Schiavo suddenly and inexplicably remembered "Terri's expressed views" which were at odds with the stated goal of the suit.

"An avalanche of unsupported and vicious claims has been launched Schiavo's grieving family, who are unwilling to come to grips with the fact that the poor woman is gone. These include unsupported claims of her 'responsiveness,' and intimations or outright accusations that her husband may have committed violence upon her that resulted in her state. Again, the place for all these contentions is the courtroom. They have been examined ad nauseum, and rejected by court after court, on appeal after appeal."

1. The "unsupported claims of her responsiveness" are not "unsupported." They include video of Ms. Schiavo allegedly acting in a responsive manner, as well as sworn affidavits from health care professionals who interacted with Ms. Schiavo on a daily basis.

2. The allegations that Michael Schiavo was abusive and may have been at fault in Ms. Schiavo's injuries have not been examined "ad nauseum," or in any other manner by the courts. It was only in 2003 that the 1991 bone scan showing blunt trauma to various areas of Ms. Schiavo's body, consistent in time with her admission to the hospital in an unconscious state (according to the deposition of a medical doctor who examined the scans), was even available to anyone other than her guardian, Michael Schiavo.

Contra your opinion, I don't require a "Platonic" certainty in order to render a judgment. I only require a reasonable degree of certainty. There are several questions genuinely at issue in the case, and the proposed remedy of one side -- killing Terri Schiavo -- is irreversible. The proposal to keep her alive while those questions are resolved, on the other hand, harms no one. Others have stated a willingness to relieve Michael Schiavo of the responsibilities and expenses of guardianship.

Tom Knapp

Post 38

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:48am

I stand by my position. I personally have seen far too many cases where medical evaluations - with all the proper tests and everything else medical science has been able to do within the knowledge at the time - have been reversed by a strong will to live or a breakthrough in science. (Why not open the stem cell research can of worms here, for example?)

As Matthew just stated, this is a person's death. It has nothing to do with Plato or whatever.

When I look at this poor woman, I long to ask her if she has changed her mind from what her husband claims was her wish in the past. She can't answer right now, because she is no longer on the same awareness frequency considered as normal human existence. So I look at her. What is her response to being alive? I don't see a wilting of the life force (or whatever you want to call it) within her, despite her limitations. When I look, I see thriving. That is what I consider her present opinion on this issue to be. I personally think she changed her mind.

That is not an emotional response. However, all this insistence on using a collective (albeit learned) opinion of one group of medical and legal experts as grounds to justify killing her by starvation (instead of putting her down quickly like a sick animal), I charge, is an emotional issue. I'll even go real Objectivist here. I smell a little death worship in some cases.

Now I will get emotional. I am learning from this whole issue to make damn sure that someone like Michael Schiavo never becomes my own legal guardian.

Michael

Edit - That "death worship" comment was not directed at anyone here at SOLO, despite whatever serious differences that may exist. I was talking about some people I see on the news. I will be VERY CLEAR to any person here if I ever think that.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/21, 10:50am)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/21, 12:20pm)

Post 39

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 11:20am