Redstate

And on the government employees who killed her.

Today, you will read in the papers that Terri Schiavo is dead.

Don't you believe it.

For at this moment, she is more alive than your or I. She has gone up higher - that is all.  That which is born of the flesh may die, but that which is born of the Spirit will live forever - and there is no man, no court, no judge that can prevent it.

What cause does her passing serve, a la John Brown?  An explosion in the legal cottage industry of power of attorneys and living wills?  Let's all pause and remember that the government in no shape or fashion declared Terri Schiavo unfit to live - rather, it found the testimony of her husband (among others) was sufficient to determine her intent to refuse care.  That's all this was, folks.  Everything else we brought to the party.

What we did as a nation with this very personal tragedy was despicable.  We turned it into an OJ media circus, complete with clowns on the left and the right.  Can you imagine if your family was subjected to this travesty?  I'll be interested to see what this "John Brown" moment actually portends.  My two cents says nothing, because there is no policy conclusion derived from the experience, unless it is to place a greater restricion on the use of certain forms of evidence when making this determination.  Whoopee.

   

... and we fret the temporal stuff, but there is a peace which surpasses all understanding.  Terri knows this now directly.

What cause does her passing serve, a la John Brown?

It powerfully focuses public attention upon the practice of killing the disabled, for starters.

Can you imagine if your family was subjected to this travesty?

I'm pretty sure my family won't starve me to death.  If they tried to, my hope is that society would step in to save me.

....there is no policy conclusion derived from the experience....

Au contraire, my friend.  Wait and see.

It powerfully focuses public attention upon the practice of killing the disabled, for starters.

For shame.

RIP. May she find in death the peace denied to her on Earth.

that everyone involved in this tragic case can find some measure of peace, rather than be consumed by the hate, anger and bitterness that have been swirling around it.

What is the policy conclusion?  Seriously, not playing dumb, what is it that we as a country need to do?

Obviously we disagree on how to characterize the events surrounding this case.  It still seems like an enormous jump to go from "the Court determined Ms. Schiavo would refuse medical treatment in these circumstances" to "the court ratified the practice of killing the disabled."  

This feels like a framing exercise - you guys are for executing the disabled, we err on the side of life - when that's just not the frame I see it in.  I certainly do not support any practice of killing disabled people, but I support everyone's right to refuse medical treatment or other care for themself.  I understand the politics behind this, I see the proxy fight, I get it, but when I see folks like you or Thomas say things like this, I wonder if I'm the one missing something.  Not that you guys aren't above cheap political points (who's not), but it's less frequent.

As if your value-judgment on the terminology is the final word on the subject.  Considering that every major disability-rights group in the nation disagrees with you, let me respond:

Heard, understood, ignored.

....the leftist obsession with "framing" these days?  Wasn't it Jonah Goldberg who observed that in the modern day, the right fights over principles, while the left squabbles over tactics?

In any case, you'll have to wait.  I'm drafting a long series on this very subject.

There's no movement for any change of laws governing end of life issues. A couple have been mentioned:

-- Krauthammer suggested that blood relatives should be given say in such issues, but I'm not sure anybody's interested in that.

-- Rejecting verbal wishes to family members for ending medical measures has also been mentioned, but I'm not sure that has any public momentum.

But you're right -- There's no groundswell for changes in the way we handle end of life.

Thousands of families face these issues every year. In this case various parts of the family disagreed, and those disagreements boiled to open hostility. That doesn't mean the process is broken.

same could be said of the right.  Given all of the word/definitional games the Bush admin likes to play, the right is just as obsessed with "framing" as the left is.

My "leftist" obsession with framing is that I'm tired of being set up where the principles I think I'm fighting for get twisted into something despicably different.  I.e., I support the ability of the Courts to determine Ms. Schiavo's intentions and it turns out I'm killing off disabled people because their life is unfit.  Instead of having two competing sets of principles, or even two mutual complimentary sets of principles, I end up holding the short stick before the argument even begins because you've framed me into defending the indefensible.  It's a great debating trick, a fine "tactic", but it doesn't ring true.  

"What is with the leftist obsession with "framing" these days?"

I think it's called "catch up".

Cheers -

It powerfully focuses public attention upon the practice of killing the disabled, for starters.

You're trying to make this a debate about how we treat the disabled?  Sorry, there's no polite way to put this:  What a load of crap.

There are two issues here:  The fundamental issue is how we define life.  That's the question of whether we believe Ms. Schiavo to have recently died as a disabled person -- or whether we believe that she's been dead for about fifteen years.  You imagine this debate -- the actual debate -- out of existence.  That's a huge mistake.

The secondary question, which you do address in part, is who decides the first question:  whether it will be "society" (as you posit) or the individual and his or her family (as I prefer) -- with disputes among family members adjudicated, when necessary, by a neutral arbiter.  Though this is essentially a procedural issue, it is still an important one.  Indeed, the rule of law is nothing more than careful adherence to procedure.

Incidentally, the fact that a neutral arbiter sometimes gets it wrong does not mean that the system is wrong.  Any system formed of humans will occasionally make mistakes -- though, strangely, this fact is sometimes lost on those who know God's will better than they know the opening pages of Genesis.    

Ok.  So, what do you seek?  Today, our 50 states each have their own laws which regulate how it is determined whether or not a patient is removed from various life-sustaining medical treatments.  Would you enact a federal law which supercedes the state laws?  If so, what would it say?

In a previous diary post you wrote about how your parents fought to get your brother treatment, when he was in a condition somewhat similar to Ms. Schiavo's, treatment which was happily successful

the effort justified itself, because human life is its own thing -- in whatever form it takes.

While certainly the effort to help your brother was clearly justified (the results speak for themselves), I disagree that this statement should be the principle for deciding all cases.  I suspect many Americans would.  Regardless, what are you proposing?  Are living wills not acceptable to you?  After all, 'human life is its own thing -- in whatever form it takes'.  Would you therefore thwart the written wishes of patients?  If you would allow some instances where life-sustaining treatments could be stopped, to whom would you give that decision-making power?  Would you remove the economic burden to the families of these patients, so that they not be bankrupted by medical expenses, particularly when they believe the person is dead, but the body lives?  Would you remove the economic burden from the hospitals and insurance companies?

....to legitimize the question as to whether capacity defines humanity.  It's also your choice to eschew questions of morality in favor of questions of procedure.  Monstrous and debased as these things are.

And it's my choice to respond, viz.: What a load of crap.

Moving on....

1.  Results are not justifications here.
   
   
2.  There is no right to suicide.
   
   
3.  Human life is not valued according to economic impact.

Is there a right to refuse medical treatment?

Especially when it is done to hasten death.

But a good question.  Give me some time on this.

It is difficult for many of us to conceive of a purely procedural position on this matter.  This does not mean your holding such a position is insincere -- but it does strike us as a willful moral abdication.  Supporting what happened in the Schiavo case by dint of its adherence to procedure is uncomfortably reminiscent of support for ethnic German self-determination in 1938, or the sovereignty of American states in 1860.  Both correct principles in themselves, of course....

For me to respond without descending further into ad hominem -- which reflects rather poorly on me.  Of necessity, I'll also be brief.

(1) Vis-a-vis capacity:  It's a red herring in this debate.  Indeed, your logic would require that we keep alive indefinitely a person who is brain dead and lacks the "capacity" to breathe.  

(2) It seems to have completely escaped your attention that, in many cases (including this one), procedure is morality.  Indeed, a free society is free only because it rigorously follows the processes that make it so (aka, the "rule of law").  Any time you abandon process to reach the result that you perceive is "right," you are cutting at the heart of the very thing that makes us good.

Or, let me say it in a slightly different way:  The ends do not justify the means.

Results are not justifications here.

Sloppy writing on my part.  I simply meant to say that I'm happy for your family that the treatment worked.  I didn't want my disagreement with your general principle to be interpreted as my not believing your family did the right thing.

There is no right to suicide.

Seems to be disingenuous response to what I was asking.  I quoted a statement from you which seemed absolutist, ie. 'life is its own thing - whatever form it takes.'  The courts in many (all?) states honor living wills if written within certain parameters.  Would you no longer allow states to honor living wills?

Human life is not valued according to economic impact.

Ok.  Judging from what you wrote to Von

It's your choice, of course....to legitimize the question as to whether capacity defines humanity.  It's also your choice to eschew questions of morality in favor of questions of procedure.  Monstrous and debased as these things are.

I take that to mean you feel that the consequences of imposing your moral values on our country are irrelevant to your arguement.  So, we'll leave that aside.

There is an absolute right to refuse medical treatment, and the cases where it can be breached is what is extremely limited.

Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions all the time, and that can bring death. Christian Scientists refuse virtually all modern medicines, as do Mennonites. Thousands of people every day decide that they don't want to continue chemo/radiation treatments for cancer, knowing it will hasten death. I'm sure I could come up with dozens of other examples. Would you have them forced to do undergo treatments?

In Justice O'Connor's concurring in the Cruzan case she made a point that this type of nutrition -- operating on a person to put a tube directly into the small intestine -- is an invasive procedure that can be refused. That's been the law of the land for 15 years now, and I'm pretty sure it will stay that way.

With respect to this issue, please consider it mututal. I find your simplistic attempts to politicize this tragedy increasingly repugnant.

Gengisdom has said what I would say better than I can say it.  The right of individuals to decide their fate if they suffer unrecoverable injury has been confirmed by more than 30 courts.   Ms. Schiavo won that right for herself, though she never knew it.

One legacy I hope will come from this melodrama is that the shrill, vicious part of the Right to Life movement will realize just how very fringe it is.  The polls, in which most people always sided with Michael Schiavo, proved that.

This is absurdist and self-exculpating nonsense.  Procedure is a morally-neutral process that is as easily used for evil as good.  See here for examples.  What gives procedure its moral quality is its content and its ends.  We are assuredly not free "only because" of the rule of law.  Zimbabwe, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea also enjoy the rigorous application of this principle.  The difference is in what the law does, and why.

. . . you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that trevino is attempting to "politicize" this issue.

Some people -- you included -- should get off your pedestal and acknowledge that most people have genuine feelings on this issue.

You're going to have great and lasting troubles in a participatory democracy, Brendan.

Procedure might encompass within it moral judgments. It might be the result of moral judgments. It might leave room for moral judgments. The two are hardly coterminal.

A free society is free only because it has a commitment to follow good procedure. One cannot deny that numerous statist dictatorships have followed procedure rigorously, and have been unerringly committed to that procedure. I could cite examples, but the big three of the Twentieth Century come right to mind.

If the process is flawed, in execution or in its underlying assumptions, it does not follow that cutting through that process is bad. Had we a process to enslave millions, breaching that process would be a feat of enormous moral goodness.

This is such a process.

The right of individuals to decide their fate if they suffer unrecoverable injury has been confirmed by more than 30 courts.

Well, that makes it right.  Quick, please do tell what the judicial record on slavery was.  Or segregation pre-1950.  Or on deporting Japanese-Americans.  Or on suppressing free speech in the First World War.

The judiciary as moral cover: contemptible ignorance.

Ms. Schiavo won that right for herself, though she never knew it.

Or exercised it.

....the shrill, vicious part of the Right to Life movement....

Yes, those meanies.  Being so pushy and rude in saving lives.

Good movie, though.

. . . about many of the people complaining about the "extreme fringe" of the right-to-life movement. I suspect that many of these complainers think that all right-to-life positions are extreme.

Care to discuss that? Using more light than heat?

No one can force a mentally competant person to have a medical treatment.

The question is not whether the government can currently force someone to undergo treatment, but whether the government should be able to do so.  

Josh seems to think that in many circumstances, people should be forced to undergo treatment(an "extremely limited" right to refuse treatment).  

Or at least, not entirely. I believe the sovereign has the right to compel you to take vaccinations when collective health is at stake, and no, I can't give the cite, and it's itching my craw.

As to what the Supreme Court has decided is a right: Pardon me if I'm not so impressed with their de facto legislation in this regard.

Justice O'Connor has an extremely skewed view of salus populi, and one that inures only when she seems to deem it fit. And please don't quote the Reynolds and Kopel article to me: They can't even get the Latin right.

Dick Morris  wrote an interesting article on the shrillness.  Money paragraphs:

Most of us will never have an abortion. We are either too male, too old, too inactive or too moral. The life/choice debate is, for us, a bit of a spectator sport. So is the focus on gay marriage. We may care about the issue, but, as Clinton would often put it, we don't have a dog in that hunt.

But we will all die -- and don't we know it! We can all see ourselves at the wrong end of a feeding tube, sucking out sustenance to sustain a life we might more willingly forfeit. We can not only put ourselves in the place of those most intimately concerned with Schiavo's fate -- her husband and parents -- but we can put ourselves right there in the bed, in a coma -- which the doctors call a "persistent vegetative state" -- with no hope and no life worth living.

He goes on to talk about how GW Bush was able to find where the people wanted to be prior to this case. And indeed he Bush has, after returning to DC from Texas, has stayed clear as much as possible. Morris goes on to say that Jeb is the loser here, offending moderates for doing too much and right to lifers by looking weak and ineffective.

But he agrees with you that shrillness of the right to life movement isn't a good thing when most voters are actually paying attention. It works OK with abortion because most people don't really care, but people do pay attention to end of life issues.

Abolition was not.

Interring the Japanese American community was popular.

"Watching" the German American community in World War I was too.

God save us all from policy made with snap polls.

Terri Schindler-Schiavo's brain was injured.  Not a soul on Earth fully understands what a brain injury can be, not even those who have suffered one.  No one can completely understand the human brain, and the maps are directionless.

Repeat it: Brain Injured.

If you don't understand it, kill it?  Because he brain was damaged, does this mean that she was less than human, so that those who dole out the pity can ooze self-righteous pathos as they say that she would be better off in a more peaceful place?

Tell me who has the right to make that choice?  Certainly not the brutish Michael, whom I'm convinced was merely a pawn in a larger death game.

Talk to Felos about ressurection.

This wasn't a game.

Consistently, the public shows a complete lack of dismay at torturing terrorists to death.

And respectfully, I'd note that the economic wing of the party is the one with the words Steeltariffs!! Farmsubsidies!! constantly pouring from their mouths with a sound like tearing brass plate.

How was keeping Terri Schiavo alive improving the collective health of our nation?

The Lord is the final judge on morality, Thomas.  Why do you believe He would not approve of what happened in the Schiavo case?  

How was keeping Terri Schiavo alive improving the collective health of our nation?

In public health, we use the phrase "emergent property" to describe an effect that results from a discrete act or acts, but is not necessarily apparent or logically deducible (deductible?) from that act.  In this case, the life of Terri Schiavo per se had no bearing in itself on public health (nor did it need any to be worth preserving, mind you); but the emergent property of her killing is to facilitate similar killings henceforth.  And that denigrates -- just as her saving would have improved -- "the collective health of our nation."

The Lord is the final judge on morality, Thomas.

Thomas needs no reminding.

Why do you believe He would not approve of what happened in the Schiavo case?

Christian orthodoxy is funny on these things.

Vaccination.

Suicide.

Pretty obvious, here, I'd think.

Those are examples of cases in which treatment can be forced.

But what, in your mind, are the circumstances in which it should be a right to refuse medical treatment?

You've said that the right should be "extremely limited" so it shouldn't be difficult to articulate those limits.

Our health is in our mores as certainly as in our body. Torturing a woman to death, even if we believe in a right to commit suicide, does a profound disservice to the body politic. It makes us mean, in the classic sense.

The Lord is the final judge on morality, Thomas.  Why do you believe He would not approve of what happened in the Schiavo case?

Well, I'm funny. I always thought the good Lord gave us clear guidelines so that we'd know where the bright lines are, and we could tell when we're stepping over them.

I don't think Christ held up crucifixion as a preferred end of life resolution method.

I agree with the note about vaccinations -- that's one of the extremely limited exception. However even that's not absolute. There was a case here in Kentucky about 2 years ago where the state court decided that the courts couldn't force a kid to have vaccinations to enter school if religious beliefs are at stake (can't find online reference on that. You'll have to trust me on this one...).

There are probably other exceptions where doctors can overrule parents in critical situations. Minors are often exceptions to rules.

As for the defacto legislation from the Supreme Court:  It seems to have stuck. Lots of states, including FL, have written legislation around end-of-life issues that enshrine the right to reject medical care, including feeding and hydration tubes. It may have once been only a court decision, but now it's generally accepted as the law we live by.

Such issues usually focus around abortion and euthanasia but this time we saw many pro-life activists wrongly attempt to equate the refusal of a life prolonging procedure with euthanasia.  

IMO if Josh Trevino's prediction that "this isn't over" has any weight, it could isolate pro-lifers from the mainstream the way that many pro-abortionists have isolated themselves on things like opposing parental notification for minors and supporting the practice of partial birth abortion.

I'm the one who should be ashamed. For suggesting that using the Schiavo tragedy to make broader political points is tawdry.

I'm the one on a pedastal. For saying that I don't know all the answers, and there are shades of gray here, and it's a complex and sad case.  

I'm the one who's going to have great and lasting troubles in a participatory democracy. Because I believe that in general I don't have the right to decide for others when life ends, and when treatment stops.

But I don't think I'm standing on procedure.  It's a two step process for me.  One, would Terri Schiavo have a right to declare via a living will what her desires were regarding this disaster?  Answer: absolutely.  That's not procedural.  Second, absent a living will, is a Court competent to examine evidence to determine her intent?  Right now, yes.  It's a law that can be changed, and I'm neutral as to the law so long as it is evenly applied.

Is this a nightmare of a case?  Yes.  It appears to be a very close decision, with mixed evidence of Ms. Schiavo's intent.  I am comfortable with people declaring the judge got it wrong - they do all the time.  But I don't think anything I've seen leads me to conclude the damning conclusion you seem to have reached - that the government declared Terri Schiavo unfit to live.  That just didn't happen, at all.  That wasn't the criteria at all, other than the examination of Ms. Schiavo's intent only occurred because she herself was rendered incommunicado.

Bottom line is that I'm fine with "erring on the side of life" if the policies proposed are to alter the nature of competent evidence and the manner by which it is brought before the Court.  Either way is actually fine by me.  I'm fine with the policy proposal that living wills should be abolished - I'll fight that, but I can understand the opposing side.  But I'm not in favor of "killing off our disabled," and I don't think the people that agree with me are either.  I don't think the result of this case supports that conclusion.

We'll see. The Florida Legislature has a lot on its plate right now, but I suggest that some stuff is gonna change soon.

A little birdy I trust tells me so.

I commented regarding a specific remark you made. Anything else is irrelevant to the fact that you implied that trevino was politicizing the issue.

You were out of line, and a graceful person would admit that.

I'm not sure of your point.

What the public thinks doesn't matter. My point, expressed much better by Morris, is that when a group gets so shrill in public they lose support.

And for the record, I would disagree that either steel tariffs or farm subsidies come from the economic wing of the Republican Party. Both are ill conceived attempts to buy votes in targeted states, both supported by small cadres from both parties. Economic benefits of either are less than 0.

Thank you for your kind words.  

I'm not picking on you by any stretch of the imagination.  But after working so hard a clever nick (at least to me), you are the 3rd or 4th person to call me Dom :-(.  Not sure why that is.

  I'd be be very surprised to see laws passed making more difficult to reject medical care for yourself. Hardly anyone wants that, in my opinion.

 What I could see happening would be laws making it more difficult to withdraw care from those who have not, for whatever reason, been able to express their wishes about the withdrawal of care.  But that is very different.

for that to come out so snarky.  I apologize for that.  

I do not believe the Lord gave us clear guidelines on extending the life of a person through artificial means.  How does the Schiavo case differ from a person on a respirator?  I don't see the distinction you are making between the two.  I should first ask if you are making a distinction between the two?

In my mind it is either always wrong to stop treatment if it is keeping a person alive or it isn't.  If it is sometimes right to stop a person's treatment then I believe the Lord gave us some responsibility to make that decision.  If he did indeed give us some responsibility to make that decision it seems to me you and I are disagreeing about when we get to make that decision and when we do not get to make it.  

If my many assumptions are correct, when is it right for us to make the decision to stop medical treatment and when is it not right to do that?

I doubt most folks will care. Internet denizens, sure, but we're a vocal and mildly amusing minority. Most folks will go on with their lives. Maybe they'll like what they see, maybe not. In my experience, folks hate even thinking of their deaths.

I was teasing about the shrill rejoinder of those who go after Bush for those things, not for invoking them as good. Especially given that his free trade credentials are impressive to say the least.

Due to one fact I would suggest that the polls in this case carry more moral weight than similar polls would have in cases like the internment of Japanese-Americans or slavery. In those latter cases the people being polled (the vast majority of them at least) would not, by definition, have been in the position of a slave or an internee. However in this case everyone is potentially a Terri Schiavo. Hence public opinion is neither morally "cheap" nor insignificant, but has a degree of self-relexivity about it. If people are willing to see PVS patients die from lack of nourishment then they are making that decision, hypothetically at least, for themselves as well.

(Before I wade further into this fight let me state that my own bias is in favor of life in these cases and I more or less agree with Charles Krauthammer, that in cases where the immediate family is conflicted family members who argue for life and are willing to assume guardianship should be allowed to do so.)

It seems rather difficult to me, although I note I don't find the Schiavo case particularly difficult.

Because I'm having difficulty remaining civil; so take this as a response to both you and Thomas:

We are discussing the procedures of the United States of America, here.  Your references to the procedures of other nations are irrelevant.

______

As a final note:  I will admit to being more than shaken by Trevino's allusion to John Brown.  John Brown, let it be noted, fought for good.  But, your attempt to elevate the will of the majority over the will of the family in this matter is not good.  Nor are the attempts to disturb the functioning of the civil courts.  Nor are death threats against judges.  More to the point, Ms. Schiavo's sad case certainly does not justify the tactics that may have been justified in the case of Mr. Brown.

Thus, insofar as your ill-considered allusion to John Brown suggests an adoption of Mr. Brown's tactics of armed insurrection in this case, understand the following:  I will be on the barricades.  And I used to be a pretty good shot.*

You want to change the law?  Use the processes available.  If you find that you can't convince a majority of Americans -- and I suspect, thank God, that you won't be able to on this issue -- do what every other minority group does in a democracy:  get on with your lives.

(I suspect that the whole "John Brown" bit is a bit of overblown rhetoric; if so, I mean the foregoing in the same spirit.  If it's not mere rhetoric, however, you're going to find that having "moderate" political positions is not the equivalent to a lack of conviction.)

von

*Granted, I was twelve and it was with a .22 rifle.  ;-)

is a public laughingstock down here (I live in St Pete). Expect no solonic miracles out of Talahassee! In 2003 the legislature was so incompetent it would not even agree on a memorial tribute to Mr Rogers let alone on a budget. In 2004 the session ended with the state Senate tying one on at happy hour and sneaking back into the Capitol building to toilet paper the state House chambers!

IMO, gov Bush should be proposed for sainthood for having endured that three ring circus all these years.

Also creep me out, von.  I hear them from time to time when people are working the great overarching analogy of abolition and anti-abortion.  Whatever nobilty Brown may have had in his cause does nothing to vindicate his terrible cruelty and violence.  Period.  He was a terrorist, in every sense of the word.

Re: More to the point, Ms. Schiavo's sad case certainly does not justify the tactics that may have been justified in the case of Mr. Brown.

John Brown was a terrorist. Even had his cause been ten times more sacred than it was (and certainly it was a good cause!) that could not excuse his tactics.

I don't know if I normally agree with you or not, but I agree with your post in its entirety.


Very well said.

To Trevino.

Note also the specific procedures being debated.  Broadly:  those of the United States of America.  Specific to this case:  The procedure by which the family -- not the government -- decides end of life issues.  (See also my above comments on the role of neutral arbiters in the process, and why it an error by one such arbiter is not necessarily a system-wide failure.)

linking this to killing the disabled.  We all saw that.  What I think he objected to was those here (& out there) who claim this is the same as killing the disabled.  You may make that argument but a large majority, a super majority if you will, of americans has clearly said it is not.  That is how the "politicizing" of the issue has played out.

Allowing her to finally meet her maker was the right thing to do.

Many of us disagree on this issue.  That doesn't mean you are or have a right to call anyone here murderers.

I usually like Krauthammer, but I wasn't impressed with this suggestion from him.

There's a reason that a guardian is appointed rather than a group of people. A single person to make decisions is preferable to getting a concensus from a group. Especially in trying times it's hard to get everybody to agree. Check with any family that's fought a bitter legal battle over who Gramps promised his prize rifle to.

The spouse is considered the default decisionmaker for people who can't make decisions, and that's a good thing. After the marriage the spouse becomes the closest relative a person has, outranking siblings and parents. The unintended consequences of giving blood relatives veto over decisions would be too great.

Re: I always thought the good Lord gave us clear guidelines so that we'd know where the bright lines are, and we could tell when we're stepping over them.

One big problem we have these days is that our technology is taking us into unexplored territory where there are no clear guidelines because the situations could not have arisen in the past. Cloning, and embryo research in general obviously comes to mind. Likewise with many of these end to life issues. 100 years ago Ms Schiavo would have long since died of natural causes (pneumonia or possibly gangrene) years before things reached this impasse. Unless the Lord decides to dictate new Scrotures to handle new circumstances we are going to have to do the heavy lifting of determing the ethical in this new world the hard way.

You said what I was too angry to say.  

...public opinion polls?  The methodology often varies from pollster pollster, the phrasing of the questions most certainly does.

When taking a life or death decision like this, should the arbitrer be influenced by the opinion of, say, 500 people randomly called at dinnertime, with any margin or error at all?

This was a case of a woman who had suffered brain damage.  Neurologists do not understand the complexities of the human brain nearly fully; how is a guy answering questions between commercials of a sitcom supposed to have it all figured out?

Life is to be valued, and innocent human life is to be protected.  Terri's brain was impaired to the point where she could not do many things, perhaps most things.  There are human beings alive today born with only brain stems.  Do we kill them?  There are people confined to wheel chairs since birth with brain deficiencies?  Do they die?  People are injured, and each brain injury is different.  Which die, which don't?  And who decides?

"That's why we have courts," frankly, is a frightening suggestion.

Not recently, but I think we've tried to rhetorically bounce some rocks off each other's heads before.  I'm one of those liberals who lives in a red state and posts at RedState.  

But that's all in good fun - and common ground is common ground, no matter where you may find it.

Re: the collective health of our nation.

Whenever word "collective good" (or "collective health") starts appearing in arguments on public policy it's a good idea to hide your wallet and keep your powder dry. For sure there's some sort of socialism sneaking in under the radar.

When it comes to Trevino I don't think that is one of the things we should fear.

the courts in this case feel just as good morally about it as you seem to think of yourselves.

I realize that casting stones may make you feel morally superior, but we don't agree nor share your opinion on that matter.

You don't have the moral high ground any more than we do.  But I don't expect you to agree to that.

Von, I think the attitudes of people like you are exactly what Trevino and others are, rightly, incensed at.  I think there is a reasonable position that differs from Trevino's, but your's isn't it.

The fundamental issue is how we define life.

This is a bit chilling (and I love understatements).  If you have a view that her spirit and soul left long ago that's one thing, but it's not the issue. The issue is what did Ms. Schiavo want and who gets to determine what she intended.

The secondary question, which you do address in part, is who decides the first question.

No. Wrong.  Whether she constituted a "life" was never an issue.  The issue was a) could she refuse treatment and b) who makes gets to make the call on whether she expressed an intent to refuse.




Faulty, and dangerous, reasoning like yours has partly caused the fiasco over this situation.  

to determine whether the person in question had an opinion as to their treatment.  No more, no less.  And the court can put that opinion into effect, on behalf of that person.  The Court decided nothing else.

Re: After the marriage the spouse becomes the closest relative a person has

In many cases I doubt the wisdom of a spouse being treated as next-of-kin. Modern marriage has become so weak an institution (and so easily dissolved) that this is fast becoming as foolish as giving a business partner such carte blanche over life and death matters. I have seen enough disastrous marriages to conclude that in matters not internal to the marriage (jointly held assets, children, etc.) blood family is more trustworthy on the whole.

of the old doctor joke: What's the difference between God and a doctor? God doesn't think he's a doctor.

Substitute "judge" for doctor.

I don't think Walt was out of line at all.

Trevino is linking the Schiavo case to "killing the disabled" and using it as a platform for future political activism.   That to me is what is out of line.

Trevino is the one that is out of line, and should be ashamed.  

...has been pulled by Trevino.

I don't feel good about it at all. I recognize that a mistake could have been made.  The court system is run by humans and it's imperfect just like every other human institution.  

We are discussing the procedures of the United States of America, here.  Your references to the procedures of other nations are irrelevant.

No on two counts.  First, you referred to procedure per se as a moral value.  Second, now that you are restricting your argument to American procedure, you're still wrong, for the exact same reasons enumerated above.  Merely replace Zimbabwe, et al., with Mississippi c.1960, as you prefer.

....your attempt to elevate the will of the majority over the will of the family....

I shouldn't have to point out that I am elevating what's right over the will of the family (by which you mean husband) here.  That what's right may be concurrent with the will of the majority -- which you go on, I note, to deny -- is irrelevant to my argument.

Thus, insofar as your ill-considered allusion to John Brown suggests an adoption of Mr. Brown's tactics of armed insurrection....

It's almost as if I didn't write that Brown "rightly" suffered the consequences of his actions.

....understand the following:  I will be on the barricades.  And I used to be a pretty good shot.

Oh, good God.

If you find that you can't convince a majority of Americans....do what every other minority group does in a democracy:  get on with your lives.

And cast down your bucket where you are!  Right.

At what point was this not a public policy matter?

Thanks for playing.

Wait, do you really agree with this statement, Trevino?

No. Wrong.  Whether she constituted a "life" was never an issue.  The issue was a) could she refuse treatment and b) who makes gets to make the call on whether she expressed an intent to refuse.

Because if you do agree with that statement, it's hard to see what this case has to do with protecting the disabled, or with abortion.

I tend to see things the way SouthernGent does, although I also think it's impossible to fully separate this casse from the question of what constitutes "life."

Whether we equate humanity with cognition (or the potential for cognition), seems relevant to our view of what happened here, though perhaps irrelevant to the legal issues.

I've read several of your comments, and my question is ... What is the system you suggest?

Medical treatments for people with brain injuries are withdrawn every single day. Sure, neurologists don't know everything about the brain, but they know enough to know when there's no hope. Families make heart rending decisions every day, not because they are unfeeling but because they come to the decision that a person wouldn't want to live in such a state and it's time to say goodbye.

You obviously don't like the current system where medical care can be withdrawn from people with horrific brain injuries. But I'm honestly asking what you would rather see. Is there ever a time that medical treatment can be withdrawn? Would a written directive make a difference? Does a person have a right to reject care on their own, or do you just object when a trusted family memeber makes the decision when the patient is no longer able?

I'm not trying to be confrontational here. I personally think the decisions in the Schiavo case were right or pretty close. I'd just be interested in your view what the system should be if today's laws and norms are that badly broken.

...public policy you're fighting for?

What exactly, are you advocating?

What, is the public policy, or policies, which should be debated, based upon the particulars of this case, for the good of the republic?

Would you have the law force treatment on me just because of your moral superiority?




I understand you are taking time on this. I think it's deserving of a separate story.

the court decided the life-or-death fate of this brain damaged woman.

'T is unsettling.

I don't buy into that at all. For the last milennia or better the relationship between spouses has been considered closer for a very good reason -- it's a chosen relationship.

We're stuck with the relatives in the family that the Good Lord places us. We live with the combination of genius and stupidity that afflicts all families.

Spouses are a personal choice. By making that choice we're saying that this is the person of above others that shares my concerns and that I trust to be one with me. The line of the traditional vows "Forsaking all others" is not an accident.

Granted, marriages are less durable than they once were. But this is not a reason to put it behind the blood relatives in importance.

she was allowed to die, there is a difference whether you like it or not.  And all we have to do to avoid that alleged slippery slope of killing handicapped people is keep that distinction clear

That was a very polite reply.  I hope we are able to be kind to one another, even with very contentious issues such as this.

A word I've written, have you?  

No on two counts.  First, you referred to procedure per se as a moral value.  Second, now that you are restricting your argument to American procedure, you're still wrong, for the exact same reasons enumerated above.  Merely replace Zimbabwe, et al., with Mississippi c.1960, as you prefer.

Read my original post.  I'm pretty sure I consistently referenced the procedures of "free society" throughout.  I never, ever stated that any procedure would do.

I shouldn't have to point out that I am elevating what's right over the will of the family (by which you mean husband) here.  That what's right may be concurrent with the will of the majority -- which you go on, I note, to deny -- is irrelevant to my argument.

You cannot possibly be this obtuse.  The current Florida procedures generally elevate the will of the individual and her family over the desires of the state.  Your preferred procedure would do the opposite, elevating the state over the individual.  

And, for the third time:  The fact that the system sometimes commits an injustice is not evidence that the system is unjust.  

It's almost as if I didn't write that Brown "rightly" suffered the consequences of his actions.

Re-read your original post.  Did you not write:

When the United States government executed John Brown -- who broke its laws and paid the rightful price -- it was not the end of the fight for the great moral cause of that era. It was, instead, a grim beginning. But that fight went on, and it was won.

How did the fight go on, Trevino?  How was it "won"?  How is that situation at all comparable to this one?

Oh, good God.

Good.  If you think that my rhetoric was idiotic and overblown, it's at least a tacit admission that you don't believe your own idiotic and overblown rhetoric.  

This is a bit chilling (and I love understatements).  If you have a view that her spirit and soul left long ago that's one thing, but it's not the issue. The issue is what did Ms. Schiavo want and who gets to determine what she intended.

Yes.  That's "how" we define life in this circumstance:  According to Ms. Schiavo's intentions and wishes.  If she would not call her present existence life, then it's not life.

So we're clear, because there's been a lot of unnecessary confusion:  "this circumstance" means a circumstance in which life is being prolonged by artificial means; there is brain function; and there are no reasonable chances for recovery.

No. Wrong.  Whether she constituted a "life" was never an issue.  The issue was a) could she refuse treatment and b) who makes gets to make the call on whether she expressed an intent to refuse.

You lost me on this one.

von

I meant to write, above:  "there is no brain function".  (Again, so we're clear:  With disputes determined first by the family, and second by a neutral arbiter.)

Apparently consists of setting up a well-funded checking account to pay other commenters to respond to his or other comments on their time, and to compensate their loved ones for the lost income that results.

If the process is flawed, in execution or in its underlying assumptions, it does not follow that cutting through that process is bad. Had we a process to enslave millions, breaching that process would be a feat of enormous moral goodness.

What do you do when your moral code and your oath conflict?

I quit my first job because following my oath in that circumstance would have violated elementary principles of justice. Could I not simply switch jobs, I would have resigned my license. Honor requires no less.

your moral code. If you cannot simultaneously uphold your oath of office, you resign your office. You don't get to alter your oath to reflect your moral code.

....you're forgetting what you wrote, viz.:

Indeed, a free society is free only because it rigorously follows the processes that make it so....

Discussing free society as an explicit product of procedure is not the same thing as addressing procedure only within the context of a free society.  Either way, I think my response stands.

I leave it to you to rediscover the differences between "the majority" and "the state."

As for your assertion that an unjust outcome is not evidence of an unjust procedure, it should be obvious we agree in this statement.  Where we disagree is in your contention that the procedure has its own moral content.  Again, this has been addressed.

So sorry the John Brown analogy disturbs you.  Perhaps you would prefer something from the annals of the African National Congress?  The 1960s-era civil rights struggle?

If you think that my rhetoric was idiotic and overblown, it's at least a tacit admission that you don't believe your own idiotic and overblown rhetoric.

This doesn't logically follow, unless you think us the epistemological Wonder Twins, forever bound in our common levels of intellectual credibility.

So much you could learn from reading the thread you're in, eh?

of the Schiavo case has reasonable people on either side. Those that found no problem with Greer's finding of fact of Terri's intent absent documentary evidence vis a vis current FL law - fine. Do realize there are reasonable people who disagree and thought in an area that may be a little rushed in considering Terri's right to life, rather than death, as default absent such documentary evidence.

And that's the rub for the families of the disabled and the profoundly disabled ... because to listen to creepy Felos and the pro-death Dr. Cranford, it was NOT about Terri's "rights" but about Terri's "quality of life."

When there are websites up mocking Terri's condition in the most vicious manner imaginable, then we again approach an arena in which a segment of our population is deemed "lesser than."

It is very disturbing and troubling.

Denial of food and water is "allowing" someone to die?  I suppose denying oxygen would be, too.  Willful starvation and asphyxiation as passive acts: the new morality.

Terri's case shines the light on what is a simple and correct solution:

When should a person stop being given water and food? After they are dead.

No one should be able to write a living will that denies themselves water and food until death. Nor should such a living will be enforced. We should not have the power to instruct others to kill us by withholding water and food until death.

We shouldn't be refering to wills to make a determination whether a person ought to live. We should determine if the person is alive.

If they are alive, they get water and food unless either will kill the person. If they are dead, withdraw the water and food.

In Terri's case, water and food kept her alive for 15 years. Withdrawing water and food killed her in 310 agonizing hours.

....to you or anyone else.  This doesn't mean I don't think there is an objective morality, nor that I should not advocate it.

if you had ended with something along the lines of "Do you understand me? Are you catching my drift? Or am I being... obtuse?"

We are moving away from stupid arguments - "state murdered her" "no it didn't" "yes it did" "your mom" "your mom's mom" and into the real world - living wills should not be able to do X thing, or we shouldn't have living wills.

Let me say I'd be really ticked off if someone made me take sustenance through a tube in my stomach over my objections.  That's the starting point for me on this discussion.

there is an objective morality that should be enforced by the state that would require SouthernGent to be fed by a feeding tube if necessary?  Even over his explicit, no question of fact wishes?

On "free society" -- nope, you've missed it.

On my "rediscover[ing] the differences between 'the majority' and 'the state.'" -- Yup, I screwed up.  I should have used the term "the state" throughout.