The Terri Schiavo Case

Whew! Thanks Jennifer. I thought for a moment there we weren't going to be friends anymore.

//;-)

I also still stand by my abhorrence of starving any of the higher living creatures as a form of execution (thus excluding , say, microorganisms or cancer cells or whatnot). (I'm especially against starving kats...)

I much prefer your delectable work - which is precisely what to do about starvation in a most pleasant manner...

Michael

Post 81

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 11:04pm

Who said we were friends? ;)

You know, it is partially because of what I do, and how I live, that I cannot imagine anyone truly desiring to 'live' as a mindless collection of cells and tissue. If I could not live consciously, and could not experience the joy that comes with it, I would not want to spend one more second on this earth.

I realize my personal preference for my own ends has no bearing on this case, but the situation has made me reflect a great deal on what is/is not negotiable for me as a vibrantly alive human being.

Thank you for the kind words about my work. They are greatly appreciated.

Post 82

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:32am

Allow me to add to the confusion. A close friend of mine is a registered nurse practicing in FL. Several years ago my friend worked at the hospital where Ms. Schiavo was a patient and did personally attend to her for a period of time (regularly for several months). My friend is convinced that at the time she was involved in the case, Terri's was generally conscious. She said Terri would indicate pain ("ouch"), sometimes answer simple questions ("yes/no"), say "I love you" (or something close) to her mother. My friend has also told me that all of the staff (not doctors, rather nurses, aides, techs) she knows who have personally worked with Terri are outraged by the suggestion that she is in a PVS. Obviously we need to keep in mind that my friend is a nurse, not an expert of neurology.

Also, my friend's significant other is a radiologist who x-rayed Ms. Schiavo early-on after her present condition began. (I'm not sure of the exact time frame.) He says the x-rays show many old injuries that would be consistent with long-term physical abuse. Of course this doesn't prove that Mr. Schiavo caused the injuries.

I am confident the readers will take this information for what it's worth. The conflicting media reports confuse the facts to such an extent, I thought the first party reports at least deserve some consideration. I know my friend has no personal stake in this case and her report is not based on any political/ethical agenda.

I am puzzled by the court's apparent disregard for the evidence that Ms. Schiavo is not in a PVS. In my own practice, I have on many occasions been amazed at the evidence a judge might choose not to consider. In spite of this, I generally believe judges try to be fair both in weighing evidence and in making final decisions. But this case has been through so many judges, I have a hard time believing they all have a personal motive to kill Terri Schiavo.

Post 83

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:52am

But this case has been through so many judges, I have a hard time believing they all have a personal motive to kill Terri Schiavo.

Exactly, why is their a need to overrule the Florida judicial system? Can someone please tell me why they think that they are biased and need a federal judge to take over? Does anyone here actually agree with Bushes last minute legislation?

One point no one here has picked up on. Many complain that leaving her this way would not hurt anyone.
However, what about Mr and Mrs Schiavo themselves???!!!!! Has everyone lost sight of that?
What if she is suffering like a wounded animal?
What if her husband's finds it painful to see her in that state - even if he walked away from her - knowing that she would not want to continue like this?
If that were the case then keeping her in that state longer does not seem very ethical, does it?

Jennifer,

I posted an article about the US administration's effort to ban human cloning at the UN on SOLO science. Fortunately they did not succeed. Here is a quote,

22 November 2004

"The former Bush administration led diplomatic efforts to rally international backing for a Costa Rican resolution that would have outlawed all forms of human cloning, including the use of human embryos in stem-cell research. The initiative, which George Bush promoted during his address to the UN assembly on September 21, goes beyond the restrictions imposed on cloning by US law. It would increase pressure on governments to adopt a total ban."

Post 84

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:09am

Quoth Barbara:

"The question that has to be raised is: Why start cutting back on government power by limiting something as important as stem cell research? It makes sense to start by privatizing Social Security and by cutting taxes, but to cut back on this research clearly is the result of a religious agenda."

I agree that religion probably underlies Bush's decision in that respect, although it does not underlie all opposition to fetal stem cell research (one need not be religious to oppose abortion, for example).

In answer to your question, however:

In order to privatize Social Security, Bush has to get bills through both houses of Congress, get those bills reconciled and passed again, and then sign them.

In order to cut taxes, Bush has to get Congress to set a tax rate and tax schedule that does so.

In order to end federal funding for the creation of new fetal stem cell lines, Bush, as chief executive, need only order whatever department would fund such creation not to fund it. Instead of having to get Congress to do what he wants, all he has to do is not provoke Congress into overriding him by specifying research appropriations to that level of detail.

Unless that latter thing happens, it's no more difficult than specifying that 60-watt lightbulbs be used in the offices of the Department of Transportation or that the Pentagon have an Employee of the Month parking space. He's the chief executive/top manager. Unless Congress is specific in its appropriations, whether or not to use research funds in a particular discrete way is an executive/managerial decision.

Some things are easy, some things are hard. This one was easy, although probably not especially effective (several STATE governments are now considering funding new fetal stem cell lines and even starting "incentive" programs to bring stem cell research facilities to their states).

Tom Knapp

Post 85

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:22am

Quoth Adam Reed:

"Thomas, and anyone else who was not here during, or has already forgotten, the substance of our earlier discussion of the status of stem cell research ..."

Followed by an interesting an informative primer of the discussion's progress. My response:

I agree entirely that there's a lot of potential for abuse via the FDA and other agencies, which is why I'd like to see government power limited and the FDA abolished.

On the other hand, there's no indication I've seen so far that the feds plan to take fetal stem cell research to the level of interference that's been seen in some other areas. There are a couple of reasons for that:

1) A number of _Republican_ politicians, including some powerful ones who could make or break the political futures of presidential aspirants, are behind fetal stem cell research. One that comes to mind offhand is Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has proposed that California use taxpayer money to make the state "friendly" to the research, presumably by funding it with grants, providing facilities at taxpayer expense for pharmaceutical companies and such who want to pursue it, etc.

For that reason, a Republican administration, while it will take some steps -- such as banning federal funding of new fetal stem cell lines -- to "pay off" a portion of its political base (the Religious Right, some of the "pro-life" advocates, etc.), it will only push it so far. It has other constituencies to please as well.

2) Federalism and "states' rights" are rearing their head. The Schiavo case is only the most recent instance in which those points are at issue. Medical marijuana has brought up federalism concerns. So has whether or not states can import, or allow the importation of, Canadian prescription drugs.

The feds really don't want an escalating "states' rights" debate, especially now that such a debate has its advocates on both sides of the partisan/political aisle. If you look closely, they've been trying very hard to find graceful, non-noticeable ways to back off whenever federalism issues have been raised lately. I think that the Schiavo case surprised them in that respect, although it shouldn't have.

Tom Knapp

Post 86

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 3:36am

Thomas,

All this is irrelevant really.

Jennifer referred to Bushes "stance on that particular issue."

And given his address to the UN and his anti-funding policy, Jennifer was quite correct about his stance being one that is against cloning technology that uses material from human embryo's - i.e. stem cell research.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 3/22, 3:36am)

Post 87

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 6:41am

Marcus,

The Bush administration pushing a UN ban certainly does put the matter in a different light.

From what I've been able to glean in a few minutes of Googling, however, there is a matter of specificity that needs to be observed. The Bush administration does not oppose "stem cell research." It opposes "embryonic stem cell research," presumably because of its opposition to abortion.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 88

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 6:47am

Marcus,

"What if she is suffering like a wounded animal?"

That is actually a very good question. If that were the case, if the pain was excruciating and could not be treated, then maybe a mercy killing would be in order.

But apparently the experts have made their judgment. They claim that Terri's neural pain mechanism is so damaged that she will not mind starving to death.

I don't buy it. If something like this tragedy ever happens to me, I dearly hope I get different experts.

Michael

Post 89

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 8:57am

It seems that Judge James Whitmore at the federal court has ruled that the arguments put forward by the Schindlers (Mrs Schiavo's parents) do not have a "substantial likelihood of success" in a full trial, and thinks that due process was upheld throughout the state court process. Therefore the feeding tube will not be reinserted.

The Schindler family's lawyers are saying there will be a further appeal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151140,00.html

MH

Post 90

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 9:11am

Thomas,

You write: "one need not be religious to oppose abortion."

This is the kind of muddled statement that ought to be particularly out-of-place on Solo. Your context is not opposition to abortion as an individual choice, since the answer to that one - "Against abortion? Don't have one." is already well known here. In the political context to "oppose abortion" is to endorse a process, whereby the government confiscates a pregnant woman's body and uses it for the purpose of gestating a future taxpayer - against her will, not just for a few minutes like an ordinary rapist, but for months on end. So OK, "one need not be religious to oppose abortion" - but the other motivations, such as fascism, or else mere incoherence, are worse.

Post 91

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 9:35am

Adam: " In the political context to "oppose abortion" is to endorse a process, whereby the government confiscates a pregnant woman's body and uses it for the purpose of gestating a future taxpayer - against her will, not just for a few minutes like an ordinary rapist, but for months on end. "

What a great statement of the issue, Adam.

Barbara

Post 92

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 11:12am

Adam - That statement on abortion being government confiscation of a body for generating taxpayers was brilliant. You verbalized something that has been gnawing in the back of my mind for years, when I first heard Reagan say that abortion was a constitutional issue. It didn't sound right back then and I couldn't put my finger on exactly why. Now I have the words. Thanks.

There is another facet of this Shiavo case that is worrying the hell out of me. Maybe because I have lived in Brazil so long, I am sensitive to a very nasty trend in power jockeying.

It is generally known down there that the judiciary branch rules Brazil. When lawmakers get too enthusiastic or vindictive or whatever, the courts simply overturn the offensive legislation. This has created an ongoing tension between the executive branch and the courts. Both sides are always trying to find ways to bolster their power and cut the wings of the other.

So, maybe I hold different views than others around here on keeping Terri alive, but what the hell is Congress doing sniffing around this Shiavo affair? I suspect if they pull this off, they will establish a nasty precedent of the legislative branch ramming a position down the throat of the judiciary (leaving aside the federal/state matter for the time being). It wouldn't be long before the executive branch (especially Bush) followed suit. Then what?

The Shiavo issue is highly charged emotionally in the media, so Congress made its opening gambit on the public wave. As much as I believe that Terri should live, I don't like what I foresee if this particular legal precedent becomes successful.

Michael

Post 93

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 11:55am

More specifically, this case goes to show that the judicial process needs to consist of an independent court system that weighs the given facts and makes a decision.

Not to be decided by a mob that may be swung by false or inaccurate information. Who are we to make a judgement based on uncorroborated hearsay?

Either you trust the judiciary or you don't. But does anyone really think that after so much legal scrutiny they all got it wrong?

Who is more believable, the Judges or the God Squad?

Why should the mob be interfering in the lives of individuals?
They shouldn't be, end of story!

Post 94

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:06pm

Marcus,

"Either you trust the judiciary or you don't. But does anyone really think that after so much legal scrutiny they all got it wrong?"

I have thought for a long time that something is broken in our judicial system. We have three times as many lawyers per capita as any other country. In my laymen [you may substitute "lame"] view, "The law" here is a guild, the workings of which reflect their own internal processes and interests rather than applying justice. They are procedural, rather like any bureaucracy. Judges do not have leeway to apply compassion to families, but must apply the letter of the law, the legal technicalities that make up most of the "facts" of the case. When weighing my own decisions about matters like this I ask "who benefits?" and "who is harmed?". When I see decisions very often go the opposite of what my scales say they ought to go, I think something is wrong.

It just occurred to me that what is wrong is the sheer burden of laws. For many laws there are unintended consequences. There is no room for "justice".

Post 95

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:49am

Quoth Adam Reed:

"So OK, 'one need not be religious to oppose abortion' -- but the other motivations, such as fascism, or else mere incoherence, are worse."

I normally eschew debating abortion per se, as it is an issue on which few on either side are willing to let fact or reality influence or change their opinion.

Suffice it to say that one motivation for opposing abortion is the considered (although possibly incorrect) opinion that the fetus is a person with rights and that abortion is therefore, under most circumstances, an initiation of force against that person.

You might disagree with that opinion (I don't care to discuss in this forum whether I agree or disagree with it because I hate debating the abortion at all). That opinion, however, does not constitute "fascism, or else mere incoherence."

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 96

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:55am

Thomas,

It is a fact of reality, that rights are conditions of existence appropriate to a sentient being. Ascribing rights to a fetus, which is not sentient, is mere incoherence.

Post 97

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 1:01am

Adam,

You wrote:

"It is a fact of reality, that rights are conditions of existence appropriate to a sentient being. Ascribing rights to a fetus, which is not sentient, is mere incoherence."

In reply to:

"You might disagree with that opinion (I don't care to discuss in this forum whether I agree or disagree with it because I hate debating the abortion at all). That opinion, however, does not constitute 'fascism, or else mere incoherence.'"

As opposed to editing the above in the previous post, I will maintain the continuity of the discussion by inserting here what I wrote originally, and then edited due to my feeling that it was a bit intemperate and preemptive. The paragraph above originally read:

"You might disagree with that opinion (I don't care to discuss in this forum whether I agree or disagree with it because I hate debating the abortion at all). If, however, you hold that that opinion as such must constitute 'fascism, or else mere incoherence,' then you, sir, are a fucking idiot."

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 98

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 1:10am

Thomas,

You have unmasked yourself as a troll. I expect the moderator of this forum to take appropriate action.

Post 99

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 1:20am