1

My position is that if there is medical concensus that a person is in a persistent vegetative state and they left legal instructions that they wouldn't want feeding tubes, then I think it is quite moral and ethical to allow such a person to die. That's what my living will provides and I am quite confident in the correctness and Christianity of my position.

I note that in a recent poll, 87% of respondents said they would not wish to live if they were in circumstances similar to Terri's.

I'm not convinced that most of the support for Terri is based on either compassion or Christian love. Much of it is simply self-righteous grandstanding born of a need to prove oneself more moral than others.

2

Hi Joe,
The latest news is that the House is issuing Congressional subpoenas. Not sure if the subpoenas will be complied with.
To Joel: I think you have missed it - Terri Schiavo is not PVS and has no living will.

3

Questions:
Who decides?
Qui bono?
Who has legal standing to speak for an incapacitated party?
Should the beneficiary of her death, who is the only witness to a vague verbal contract and who has violated his marriage covenant, be trusted before the court?
Does anyone believe that the victim's husband knows her wishes better than the victim's mother? (If you do, then you have never been married to a woman whose mother is alive.)
Joel (commenter above), I am the chief among the sinners -- not wishing to appear "more moral than others" -- but I believe that Michael Schiavo lacks legal standing to choose in this matter.

4

I am praying that the Lord will have His will in this situation. I know what my will is, and on Monday when I fasted and prayed for Terri I happened to read an article written by the pastor of Judge Greer. That article made me believe the Lord was showing me it is His will for Terri to live.

I have referenced this post on my blog and tried to do a trackback, but even though it told me twice it had pinged I don't see it.

Thanks for the post. It's very thought-provoking.

May God bless Terri, her family and all of you.

Jeanette

5

The law is clear that the spouse speaks for the other spouse in a case like this (where the disabled spouse can't speak for herself.) That's exactly why the Florida legislature passed a special law for this case, which was quickly struck down in the courts.

There's no murky legal issue here: the husband is on the hook for the medical bills, and he's also responsible for the medical decisions. Husband and wife are one person before the law.

I personally don't see that the big deal is about letting this poor woman die - she's been a vegetable for way too long already, and if she has any consciousness at all, it's got to be painful.

The Christian thing to do is to let her go to heaven and be with Jesus and the angels.

6

Richard,
You may very well be right about her going to be with Jesus. That would be the best place for any of us to be, but she is not on a ventilator or any other "life support". She is being fed through a tube and the judge refuses to allow her to be tested to see if she can swallow soft foods for fear she might choke! At least if she choked she wouldn't suffer for up to 2 weeks by starving and dehydrating.

Check my site at http://ohhowilovejesus.com for the link to this story.

7

"One death is a tragedy, millions are just statistics" Stalin is said to have said. "Terri" and "Laci" are made into icons (like Madonna and Prince) while 15% of the population has its life cut short but since this is not a Republican party cause another form of slow death takes its course.

(To Mr. Carter's credit, he has cited "gluttony" previously as an issue though.)

In Schiavo's case, we have an interesting principle which shows the elastic nature of right-to-lifers' concept of life leading to the devaluation of human life: it is taken as axiomatic that Schiavo, is, in fact concious.

We do not in fact, know this; it is apparent that many physicians doubt "she" is. (Are you a you when you're brain dead?)

I think I'll say more on my blog about this later, but I have deep concerns either way on this issue; she may, in fact, later be found to be concious. And she may, in fact, be found to be concious, but in such a hall that she, herself indeed would want out. And Pope John Paul II's display notwithstanding, it is rank arrogance to suggest - either way- that we know what "Terri" really wants.

8

Mr. Thomas:

No one questions your right to make whatever arrangements you may desire for your disposal should you become social overhead. However, I find your use of poll numbers to advocate your personal philosophy craven in the extreme.

Mr. Bennett:

It's good to know that there are folks around like you who can read minds. It's especially convenient that you can do so remotely and with people you've never met. Are you available for a Halloween booking?

Rest of the World:

I haven't thought deeply about the Schiavo case. I suppose my avoidance is driven by two things. First, I find it repugnant that some people are absolutely bent on murdering this woman apparently, they believe, for her own "good". Second, I personally find the whole affair of a piece with another unfortunate social trope, eugenics.

Eugenics used to be vilified when the Nazis proclaimed its glory. These days, a Surgeon General (Joycelyn Elders) can tout a reduction in live births of Down's Syndrome babies as a benefit of abortion. I read yesterday that an abortion took place in the UK because the baby had a cleft lip and palate.

I'm not Roman Catholic, but the Pope had it exactly right when he noted that we celebrate a culture of death. Of course, if one believes that we're no more than shivering masses of organic chemicals lurching about trying to replicate one of our molecules, it may make sense to have a the definition of "personhood" and a right to life winking on and off as convenience and utility dictate in the moment. After all, being forced to buy large jars of mayonnaise at Costco or actually having to abide by a sworn covenant (... in sickness and in health) as opposed to simply enjoying the good sex as long as it's available is, I can see, too much to ask of those who, in this moment, have "person" status.

But, whatever side one takes in this debate, I think it's worth reflecting on Donne's admonishment: "Ask not for whom the bells toll..."

9

I haven't thought deeply about the Schiavo case. I suppose my avoidance is driven by two things. First, I find it repugnant that some people are absolutely bent on murdering this woman apparently, they believe, for her own "good". Second, I personally find the whole affair of a piece with another unfortunate social trope, eugenics.

Eugenics has nothing to do with this. If we remember our history, eugenics was a failed theory that the human race could be improved the way cattle is; through selective breeding of 'good' humans and sterilization of 'bad' ones. Eugenics failed because many of the qualities of a 'good' human are achieved through the environment rather than genes and many other qualities are highly subjective. Eugenics had very limited success in a few cases where some genetic diseases can be eliminated by genetic screening of parents ahead of time.

As for this case:

1. Medical intervention is being withheld, hence it is not murder. Even the Catholic Church accepts that a person has a right to refuse medical treatment if they would rather let 'nature take its course'.

2. In cases where it is unclear what the person's desires are then a spouse is the natural spokesperson for them unless there is clear evidence that the spouses motives are suspect. No such evidence has been presented against her husband. There is no basis for claiming the desires he expresses for his wife are based on financial gain or access to 'easy sex' (as if he reallly needs his wife to die in order to have sex). The so-called Christians on this list should take note that the prohibition against being a false witness against your neighbor has yet to be repealed.

3. Joe's descriptions of starvation are not relevant here. Unlike a Jewish prisoner being purposefully starved in a Nazi camp, this woman apparantly has literally no brain left at all. While starvation is unpleasent to watch it has no effect on her at all anymore than a person would feel pain during an operation despite the fact that their body is cut open.

10

Richard said:
"...if she has any consciousness at all, it's got to be painful."

Okay let's break that statement down. First "if she has any consciousness," the husband's contention is that she doesn't and that is why she should be starved to death. But if she has consciousness then shouldn't we allow her to live? If she is a living person with consciousness, why would we kill her? If there is the slightest chance that she is a conscious person why not err on the side of caution, the side of life?

Second "it's got to be painful." Really? I am wondering how you know this. All that is done for her medically is a feeding tube because she can't swallow (nor has she been allowed by her husband to do rehab for swallowing). And if she is in pain now, what in the world do you think she is going to feel when she is being starved to death?!?

Have you ever heard of Kate Adamson? She was in a "vegetative state" when doctors removed her feeding tube for eight days. Now she is fully recovered and is speaking out against the removal of Terri's feeding tube.

She described the slow starvation as "the most painful experiences you can imagine." She said, "I could hear every word. They were saying ‘shall we just not treat her?’ I suffered excruciating misery in silence.”

Adamson concluded her speech by saying, “The measure of a society is how they treat the least of us. Life is sacred or meaningless, there is nothing in between.”

11

As for the 'culture of death' meme. I think it is highly out of touch. If anything our culture has made a fetish out of life. The whole reason for the debate about euthansia, 'mercy killing' and so on has arisin because our culture values life so much that we have invested billions of dollars in finding out how to stretch life out as long as possible (plus out investments in treating common killers like heart attacks has allowed people to live longer & face debilitating killers like cancer and Alzhaimers).

In another age life was not viewed as the be all and end all. In fact, death was accepted as a natural end to life and it remains so to this day. From a Christian point of view death was transformed by Christ from a destroyer to a mear passageway to a better existence (death, where is thy sting?). Putting all your energy into living another week or month is in reality silly.

12

mumon:

I agree completely that no one truly knows what Terri wants or even whether she is in a cognitive state where "wanting" is an appropriate verb. Having said that, I do think more weight is due her parents, who actually know Ms Schiavo and who have spent considerable time with her, than with "some doctors" and particularly the estimable Mr. Bennett (whose powers are, at best, unsubstantiated).

Under those circumstances, our self-anointed omniscients notwithstanding, it seems to me that one should choose to err on the side of life. After all, should we discover the telepathists among us are right and we have needlessly prolonged an inconvenient and bothersome life, she can easily be killed. At this time, however, reversing the effects of mistakenly killing her is not possible.

13

I agree completely that no one truly knows what Terri wants or even whether she is in a cognitive state where "wanting" is an appropriate verb. Having said that, I do think more weight is due her parents, who actually know Ms Schiavo and who have spent considerable time with her, than with "some doctors" and particularly the estimable Mr. Bennett (whose powers are, at best, unsubstantiated).

The law and even the Bible is very clear. A spouse replaces ones parents as the best spokesman for your interests (if you are unable to speak for yourself). Like most other things this presumption can be rebutted if evidence exists that the spouse (or even parents in the case of children) are not acting on the person's behalf. However there is a proper forum to air such charges and they are in court rooms, not media circuses.

14

Who is playing God: the court which allows nature to take its course or the legislature that mandates force-feeding a vegetable? Terri Shiavo died a long time ago.

A parent's love is touching, and the death of a child is sad, but, as a parent, I hope I would have the courage to do the right thing for my daughter in such a case. It's time to let go.

15

Richard wrote, "...if she has any consciousness at all, it's got to be painful."

In the words of a pretty good book, "life is pain, anyone who tells you differently is selling you something". Seriously, when was a pain free existence ever recognized as a right in this country or granted as a privilege. I need to sign up if it is...

Boonton wrote, "From a Christian point of view death was transformed by Christ from a destroyer to a mear passageway to a better existence (death, where is thy sting?). Putting all your energy into living another week or month is in reality silly."

Your right. You should probably end it now.

16

Actually gedi no one is ending anything. If Terry 'wakes up' she will be given food to eat and even her husband cannot stop it.

17

I wrote, "Your right. You should probably end it now."

Booton wrote, "Actually gedi no one is ending anything. If Terry 'wakes up' she will be given food to eat and even her husband cannot stop it."

By your post, I assume you haven't taken your philosophy to the next logical conclusion and killed yourself. That is good. Like is precious, even yours. Since you don't live your philosophy, you certainly can't expect anyone else to take your philosophy seriously. As such, we will all just have to do everything we can to support life.

Don't co-opt Christian theology and pass it off as your theology of death.

18

If a person on death row goes on a hunger strike the state force feeds them so they can execute them.

We don't know enough about brain damage to know what Terri will feel. If the US courts have decided it's permissible to starve her to death, why can't these courts be more humane and kill her like states kill death row inmates in execution chambers? We put pets down the same way, we don't stop feeding them.

19

I have a question, are Terri's parents getting grief counselling and spiritual help? Is her husband?

20

The Florida case concerns me. I have not writtenn about it because Christians have been so adamant in their defense of the prolongation of this woman's life--it seemed a poor move to speak from my relatively uninformed position on the subject.

But I think there has been a little too much Christian protest, in some ways. Again, I am largely ignorant of the subject; but it seems to me that Christians in modern culture have lost some of the ability to deal with death with dignity.

Maybe I will write more somewhere else, but I have both practical and philosophical objections to some of the arguments for Terri.

1) Resources are scarce, and every dollar spent on her life prolongation--though admirable--might have a better use. Healthcare is still subject to limited resources. The money spent on Ms. Schiavo could save a lot of lives eslwhere

2) With increases in technology, what is the appropriate time to "let someone die". When it becomes possible to freeze someone in a barely living state for centuries, will it be Christian to do so.

Dropping all the rhetoric of murder, what are the real, reasoned justifications for keeping someone with very little hope of recovery on this kind of life support for so long?

21

Gedi, I'm sorry if I misread your post but I don't quite see how your argument (if you have one) follows. You failed to address any of my points in a serious manner, yet I'll do you a favor and take you seriously...if only for a little while.

We don't know enough about brain damage to know what Terri will feel. If the US courts have decided it's permissible to starve her to death, why can't these courts be more humane and kill her like states kill death row inmates in execution chambers? We put pets down the same way, we don't stop feeding them.

Possibly true, I'm no expert on the brain but I do suspect we know enough to know that Terri probably doesn't feel anything but if she does then she is probably experiencing a lot of other types of pain that may dwarf starvation. There have been reports that some people suffer a type of 'awake sleep' during surgery where they are unable to move or talk yet feel the actual pain of the surgery. Is it possible we have inflicted a lot of suffering unintentionally.

Yet we have to make decisions to take action (or in this case to not take action by not introducing artificial eating mechanisms) so we are left with little choice but to use the knowledge we currently have.

22

This is a really hard issue because it is so intensely personal too!

And this makes sense, because the issue is personal. But some people are responding to this as a much broader issue involving euthanasia and "right to die" (why is this a 'right to die' issue instead of a 'right to live' issue?).

Regarding the broader issue, tubefeeding is not an extraordinary medical treatment and they are not injecting anything so it is not euthanasia specifically.

As a side issue, I disagree with the definition of euthanasia. Removing extraordinary medical treatment should not fit in that definition. (dictionary.com "The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment".)

There are situations in which removing a tubefeeding and allowing a person to die by starvation and dehydration is NOT a cruel and unusual death. An example is a person that suffers from Alzheimers or Parkinsons and are thus declining as a natural progression of the disease. I would argue that placing a tubefeeding on this person is cruel, causes more suffering and is a selfish move by the person making the choice.

Regardless, Terri does not fit into this situation. She is not chronically declining. In addition, some argue that she does respond to the environment with eye contact (or at least head movement to a stimuli) and laughter.

Then there is a matter of who do you believe? I realize there is a bit of judment here but I have no trust in Terri's husband. Somebody that is going to receive a million dollars and appears to not have divorced her for the purpose of the money. Yet, he has had kids from another women now. So when he or his supporters state that he is in a persistent vegetative state, I do not believe them.

I believe the family although we all have to admit that their response is potentially selfish too. Are they refusing to let go of their daughter and allow her to die naturally because of their own selfish reasons? Again, if she does respond to environmental cues, there should be no question- the feedings should definitely continue.

The issue of her vegetative state and her potential for recovery is critical to answering the appropriateness of the actions as a Christian.

23

But I think there has been a little too much Christian protest, in some ways. Again, I am largely ignorant of the subject; but it seems to me that Christians in modern culture have lost some of the ability to deal with death with dignity.

I can't blame them since the 'Death with Dignity' crowd has been too quick to rush in with euthansia as a solution. When implemented, euthansia has been used as an 'easy way out'. In theory what should have been limited to only the most extreme cases ends up being implemented as a first instead of last resort. I suppose it could be reformed to make it more of a last resort but I'm skeptical that it doesn't preclude research and resources towards avoiding it.

That doesn't mean, however, there is no truth in the phrase. Face it, early Christians embraced death, seeing martyerdom as a great gift rather than a horror to be avoided at all costs (including renouncing your faith). I find something unsettling about mindlessly clinging to life for the sake of keeping nothing more than bodily functions going. If human life is sacred (no one seems to argue that bacterial life is sacred) then it must be sacred because of those qualities that make it human. If life becomes more non-human then it logically should become less sacred.

Many people have a natural disgust with the idea of 'living like a vegtable' not because they are being foold by a false 'theology of death' but because it is unnatural. A product not of human life but an artifical side effect of our advanced technology. Joe sees no problem with questioning whether new technology like cloning or stem cell research can become an affront to human dignity (even if those performing the research have good intentions to only help people) why is it forbidden to question whether the same bad thing can happen as a side effect of our otherwise good attempts to improve medical care?

24

Boonton,

Unlike most people, I don't care enough about politics and philosophy to respond to your posts on these subjects. You can let those chips fall where they may. You, however, asserted the following statements..

"From a Christian point of view death was transformed by Christ from a destroyer to a mear passageway to a better existence (death, where is thy sting?). Putting all your energy into living another week or month is in reality silly."

"The law and even the Bible is very clear. A spouse replaces ones parents as the best spokesman for your interests (if you are unable to speak for yourself). Like most other things this presumption can be rebutted if evidence exists that the spouse (or even parents in the case of children) are not acting on the person's behalf. However there is a proper forum to air such charges and they are in court rooms, not media circuses."

Firstly, Christianity is not a theology of death, as you assert. Jesus is the resurrection and the life. He raises people from the dead, cures them of their ills, and provides life, that it may be lived to the fullest. In fact, to believe that this life we have here is not tied to our future heaven is heretical, gnostic. To state "Putting all your energy into living another week or month is in reality silly.", as you did, is non-Christian. Followed to its logical conclusion, we should all starve ourselves to death. After all, putting all our energy into living another week or monthy is in reality, silly.

Secondly, your belief that the husband has the right to kill his wife is *not* Biblical. Run to the Qu'ran with this argument if you like, but not the Bible. Joe has correctly stated the role of government with relation to God's divine providence. Governement makes the laws, laws which people even in covenantal relationships as husbands and wives must obey. When government steps outside the bounds of God's law, Christians are morally obligated to resist the government. This is where Christians find themselves in this case. While Joe gives no suggestions for what "actions of civil disobedience" he would like to see Christians do, we are morally obligated to resist the tyranny of a government which "becomes a lawless entity".

25

Tim:

Then there is a matter of who do you believe? I realize there is a bit of judment here but I have no trust in Terri's husband. Somebody that is going to receive a million dollars and appears to not have divorced her for the purpose of the money. Yet, he has had kids from another women now. So when he or his supporters state that he is in a persistent vegetative state, I do not believe them.

I believe the family although we all have to admit that their response is potentially selfish too. Are they refusing to let go of their daughter and allow her to die naturally because of their own selfish reasons? Again, if she does respond to environmental cues, there should be no question- the feedings should definitely continue.

For issues like these the forum to decide the matter is the courts. Do you really know her husband? Is he really motivated solely by money? I won't speculate about her parents. Perhaps they are just seeing what they want to see rather than looking at the truth. Perhaps they are motivated by money (my understanding of the matter is that Terri is due for a large settlement if the error that caused her situation results in death??? if she is not married then that money would be part of her estate which would pass to her parents).

I don't think it is fair to judge these people based on gossip and allagations by ideologically motivated groups. For all its faults a court room permits objective evidence to be examined and there are procedures that let people's status of guardian be challenged if there is evidence they are not acting on behalf of their charge. In other words, the forum to hear that argument has already been used and has not found sufficient reason to doubt her husband.

26

The original post was very thought provoking, and it brings to mind a story that I heard one time. There was a church during the time of World War II, located near a railroad. The railroad was commonly used by the Nazis to transport Jews to Dachau. One day the train, carrying boxcars full of people, had to stop because of a problem on the rail. It was a sunday morning, and there was singing going on inside of the church. The people trapped in the boxcars all screamed when the saw the church through the tiny air holes in the boxcar sides, knowing that if the Christians heard them, they would help get them out of the boxcars. The people in the church heard the prisoners screaming for help, but only sang louder to drown them out. The prisoners were taken to Dachau.
As Christians are we supposed to stand by and allow innocents to be killed for no reason? Should we not go as far as we possibly can to protect the unborn, or the handicapped like Terri Schaivo?? How far do we go? I always have thought that bombing abortion clinics was the wrong way to go about saving babies lives, and I am not suggesting anyone do that. But should we not become more active in protecting those who cannot protect themselves? No matter how darkly the media portrays pro-lifers, we are in truth, trying to prevent murder.
I do not know how far is "too far" in protecting others, but we should show the same zeal for helping the unborn, handicapped, and elderly, as we would try to stop a murderer from attacking a perfectly healthy adult.

27

Firstly, Christianity is not a theology of death, as you assert. Jesus is the resurrection and the life. He raises people from the dead, cures them of their ills, and provides life, that it may be lived to the fullest. In fact, to believe that this life we have here is not tied to our future heaven is heretical, gnostic. To state "Putting all your energy into living another week or month is in reality silly.", as you did, is non-Christian. Followed to its logical conclusion, we should all starve ourselves to death. After all, putting all our energy into living another week or monthy is in reality, silly.

Jesus raised one person from the dead and cured a tiny fraction of ills during his lifetime. This was not done to give people more earthly life and find cures for various diseases like cancer. This was to prove his divinity. Nothing I wrote contradicts your assertion that our next life is tied to our earthly life. I simply wrote that death is a passage to that next life that is natural rather than a complete end of existence that many fear.

As for your second point, it is a purposeful misreading of what I wrote. It is indeed unnatural to cling to life over all other values. The early martyrs demonstrated this when they choose death rather than renounce their faith. If living as many minutes as you could was the entire point of the game then it would be better to renounce your faith in exchange for a 'normal life'. Likewise there is nothing wrong with a person forgoing treatment whose only purpose is to prolong a painful and deficient life....especially if that treatment is extraordinary technology. It doesn't follow that we should all therefore 'give up'.

Secondly, your belief that the husband has the right to kill his wife is *not* Biblical. Run to the Qu'ran with this argument if you like, but not the Bible.

I'll remind you again I'm not aware of anything in the Bible or Christian theology that removes the prohibition against bearing false witness, yet you'll lie about what I wrote right in front of me!

George wrote:
Having said that, I do think more weight is due her parents, who actually know Ms Schiavo and who have spent considerable time with her, ...

I wrote:

The law and even the Bible is very clear. A spouse replaces ones parents as the best spokesman for your interests (if you are unable to speak for yourself).

You can very clearly see I was responding to George's assertion that parents are the best people to speak for a person's interests when they are unable to speak for themselves. I pointed out that this falls to the spouse both in the law and the Bible (see for example Jesus's description of human nature as for man to leave his parents and cling to a woman & vice versa). I also pointed out in the very same paragraph:

Like most other things this presumption can be rebutted if evidence exists that the spouse (or even parents in the case of children) are not acting on the person's behalf. However there is a proper forum to air such charges and they are in court rooms, not media circuses.

You're snide little comment about husbands killing their wives demonstrates that you're not interested in a honest discussion (so does your false aside that Islam permits husbands to kill their wives, while Islam is quite faulty this is not one of its doctrines). A husband does have a right to speak for his wife's interests if she is unable to speak for herself (and vice versa).

This does mean that a husban may end up making decisions that can have the effect of his wife have a shorter lifespan. It is easy to think up of a million possibile cases where such decisions may be totally beyond reproach. For example, a husband may decline an experimental treatment because he feels it is too risky. There's a risk that he may be wrong and his wife will die sooner than if she had it. He may decline a request by a doctor to do 'exploratory surgery'. And so on. The law recognizes that sometimes even everyday medical care may be declined. For example, look at Jehovah's Witnesses who feel blood transfusions are forbidden by God.

28

Liz, thanks for your comments. I am trying to really debate the subject here, so please, please know that I don't intend any of the following to be rude.

It is precisely the tendency of folks on the religious right (of which I am a part) to draw parallels between Schiavo, et al and the holocaust, etc. that is gradually increasing my sympathy for the plight if not the opinions of pro-choice, pro-euthanasia types.

This is insanity. This woman is, as far as I know, in something like a coma. She has been for a long time. She is alive because modern technology can keep her alive. Her husband is worn down and wants to deal with the fact that she will not recover.

I think there are arguments to be made for prolonging her life; but instead the "pro-life" side here has resorted to purely "pathetic" (meaning emotional, i.e. "pathos") arguments and accusations of murder.

Whatever the Schiavo case is, it is nothing like a clear case of murder. I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with a position that continues to compare Schiavo to the Jews or even the unborn without dealing with so many of the real, logical questions.

This is way to complicated for that kind of demonization; and Christians should tread softly. Twenty years from now, what happens when things like refusing organ donation or perpetual life support are considered "murder" and "euthanasia". Religious autonomy has a dog in this fight too.

29

Boontoon,

Excuse me, but you are the one that is quick to judgement. I did not say that this is the reason that her husband IS doing this and I cited that it may be the parents that are selfish (if anybody is).
What I did say, is that based on the situation, I don't believe him, I don't have trust in what he says. This is different then making the statement that he actually is being a liar and is just after money.

My decision is based on his choices since Terri's situation happened, not the fact that he will get money. Why are you so rushed to judgement that my decision is based on other ideological arguments?

Since I don't know him or the parents I have made a decision based on what I do know and the arguments presented. If I actually had a role in decision making, then obviously, I would need to set those judgements aside.

Did I say or make a judgement that anybody that believes him is wrong or murderers? No, I just stated who I had trust in regarding this story.

Courts are not always objective or else all the decisions will be the same. And some courts have found sufficient reason to doubt her husband.

30

Boonton:

You say: Eugenics has nothing to do with this.

I did not say it did. That's why I called eugenics "...another unfortunate social trope." I delight in debate, but it's better if debate is confined to comments actually made.

And: Medical intervention is being withheld, hence it is not murder. Even the Catholic Church accepts that a person has a right to refuse medical treatment if they would rather let 'nature take its course'.

First, if I find you accidentally at the bottom of a hole starving and dying of thirst and simply walk on, I may not be technically guilty of murder in a court of law, but I personally find that a distinction without a difference. To-MAY-toe, to-MAH-toe.

Second, Ms Schiavo has not refused medical treatment in a living will or otherwise. Whatever the Catholic Church may have said about that circumstance may well be interesting, but utterly irrelevant to this particular discussion.

And: In cases where it is unclear what the person's desires are then a spouse is the natural spokesperson for them unless there is clear evidence that the spouses motives are suspect. No such evidence has been presented against her husband.

Incorrect. The parents claim otherwise. Unfortunately, this is one of those "he said - she said" conflicts that one often encounters in legal matters, but to deny that the parent's claim is "evidence" is absurd. Moreover, the husband has been caught lying, at the very least, about the alleged eating disorder. Why? There are noted forensic experts suggesting that Terri may have been beaten and strangled. No evidence. Hmph.

And: There is no basis for claiming the desires he expresses for his wife are based on financial gain or access to 'easy sex' (as if he reallly needs his wife to die in order to have sex). The so-called Christians on this list should take note that the prohibition against being a false witness against your neighbor has yet to be repealed.

I made no statements whatsoever about the "desires he expresses". If you actually read what I wrote, you'll find my words specifically directed to those who have "person" status. Us. You. Me. I think I made my point clearly. Note that I am not accusing you of bearing false witness, just sloppy thinking.

And: [...] this woman apparantly has literally no brain left at all.

If she "literally" had no brain, she would already be dead. Perhaps she just seems brainless, like many people who do have "person" status.

31

Tim,

I acknowledge your right not to trust her husband. That is fine, my point though is that you cannot really say you know him or her parents. That is why that while we may all be entitled to our opinions the only fair forum to challenge his status as her guardian is in a court where he is able to present his side as well as her parents. Not the media circus that has developed.

I appreciate that we appear to be in something of an agreement on this since you admit if you were called upon to judge the case you would have to set aside your preconceived opinions of the man.

"Courts are not always objective or else all the decisions will be the same. And some courts have found sufficient reason to doubt her husband."

Courts are certainly not perfect although they are probably more objective than the fickle media (both main stream and the smaller Christian/pro-life media which is not too small to have some of the problems that all mass media has). While some courts may have ruled against her husband in some areas they have not ruled him unfit to be her guardian.

32

"Face it, early Christians embraced death, seeing martyerdom as a great gift rather than a horror to be avoided at all costs (including renouncing your faith)."

Boonton--I think this a pretty big misreading of early Church history and doctrine. Given a choice between martyrdom and renunciation, for a Christian the choice should be martyrdom, but that does not mean that Christians rushed out and sought death. Early Christians did not volunteer to be lion food.

33

Booton wrote, "I'll remind you again I'm not aware of anything in the Bible or Christian theology that removes the prohibition against bearing false witness, yet you'll lie about what I wrote right in front of me!"

Are you saying that her husband has the right to remove her feeding tube, thus ending her life, or not? Are you arguing this on the Biblical grounds of marriage or not?

If not, sure, I repent on false witness grounds. Otherwise, you are stating that a husband has a right to kill his wife. Perhaps you would like to further clarify this with special "cases", but this is what you are arguing.

Now to the crux of the situation..

"It is indeed unnatural to cling to life over all other values."

What values do you believe Christians should place over life?

"The early martyrs demonstrated this when they choose death rather than renounce their faith."

They chose to follow God's will and die. They did not take the matter into their hands and kill themselves. There is a subtle difference, but it is also the difference between a Christian martyr and an Islamic martyr.. the same difference between a saint and a butcher.

"Likewise there is nothing wrong with a person forgoing treatment whose only purpose is to prolong a painful and deficient life....especially if that treatment is extraordinary technology."

You are jumping outside the Christian theological spectrum again. I am sure others will expose the fallacies inherent in the "quality over quantity" argument. As Christians, we have life, the life God has given us with all the thorns inherent in this life.

34

If Terri was in a "vegitative" state then Michael would have all "legal" right (under Federal law) to starve his wife to death. But do these video's look like Terri is in a "veggie" state?

35

Boonton--I think this a pretty big misreading of early Church history and doctrine. Given a choice between martyrdom and renunciation, for a Christian the choice should be martyrdom, but that does not mean that Christians rushed out and sought death. Early Christians did not volunteer to be lion food.

Nor do I think they should. I suppose a pagen equilivant of gedi might have suggested that Christians should have walked up to the emperorer and announced themselves as Christians instead of hiding. My point is that extending life is not the highest value and it should not become it.

You are jumping outside the Christian theological spectrum again. I am sure others will expose the fallacies inherent in the "quality over quantity" argument. As Christians, we have life, the life God has given us with all the thorns inherent in this life.

God gave us feeding tubes, lung machines, and 'automatic' hearts? How is rejecting those things but leaving death in the hands of God (in other words not using poison to hasten it along) any different than leaving death in the hands of the lion (but not actually jumping into his cage)?

You've lost on the 'false witness' argument. You distorted what I wrote and failed to address the point I was making. If you want to take another shot at the argument go ahead but otherwise I'm going to drop it.

36

"You've lost on the 'false witness' argument. You distorted what I wrote and failed to address the point I was making. If you want to take another shot at the argument go ahead but otherwise I'm going to drop it."

Yes, best to let sleeping dogs lie, and breathing humans live.

37

This seems most appropriate...

It is not for kings to drink wine,
Nor for princes intoxicating drink;
Lest they drink and forget the law,
And pervert the justice of all the afflicted.

Give strong drink to him who is perishing,
And wine to those who are bitter of heart.
Let him drink and forget his poverty,
And remember his misery no more.

Open your mouth for the speechless,
In the cause of all who are appointed to die.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And plead the cause of the poor and needy.

38

A side note on eugenics: it was never disproven, nor has it ever failed. Eugneics is rock solid. It works for cats, dogs, flies, and people too. It has never been tried, however, with people. Some will say it has, but they are wrong. It takes many generations to effect the change desired, if one is using natural methods, and all the attempts to apply it tp people have never lasted that long. Of course, all this will change as genetics comes online. But please, people, don't malign eugenics. Millions, perhaps billions, of lives have been saved by it.

Xiaoding

39

I think Eugneics is better defined as the attempt to create a 'perfect race' of humans through selective breeding. It's a failure in the sense that many of the 'objective' criteria for measuring a perfect race were really subjective. Eugneics can, of course, work if you're attempting to manipulate specific traits such as a genetic disease.

40

Boonton -

You place great trust in Judge Greer's decision but don't seem to know much about the facts.

Most egregious is your speculation that the Schindlers might be motivated by the possibility of a future med mal settlement. In fact, perhaps the most compelling evidence that Michael Schiavo should not be believed regarding Terri's supposed wishes is the fact that, in pursuing his claims against the health care providers for her injuries (which resulted in a very large recovery), he NEVER disclosed her supposed desire to die, because it would have reduced the damages. Instead, he took the position that she was going to live and require care for decades. Somehow, Judge Greer ignored the preclusive effect this should have had (the legal term is estoppel) and found that Schiavo's testimony met the "clear and convincing standard" imposed by Florida law.

Moreover, the court relied on the testimony of Dr. Cranford, who spent 45 minutes with her, that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. This is the same Dr. Cranford who diagnosed a man who could operate an ordinary or electric wheelchair (like Stephen Hawking) as PVS, and the same Dr. Cranford who has supported Michael Schiavo's refusals to allow the very basic step of taking an MRI.

Perhaps you should learn more about the facts of a case before you ask others to accept the court's decision.

41

Catez,

I've made the distinction between Terri's case and others in other comments.

The reason I comment now is because some are using Terri's case as a precedent that ALL people in persistent vegetative states must be kept alive with feeding tubes.

42

Boon:

It's not just a matter of medical intervention being withheld; this is a matter of food being withheld. If I withheld food from my child I would be arrested for child endangerment.

mumon:

I'm sure you would like the Republican party to focus on obesity so you can tell us to get out of your kitchen as well as your bedroom. But you're confusing right to life with right to a certain quality of life. The latter not being guaranteed by the Constitution.

To anyone else who would wish to call out the hypocrisy of the Right-to-Lifers or Republicans or evangelicals, please understand that your point has NOTHING to do with the substance of this case. Pointing out the hypocrisy is all fine and well but it doesn't address whether or not its right to allow this woman to die. And that is the issue, is it not?

43

Everyone, see for yourself:

http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/schiavo.html

Hidden Nook's link didn't work for me, but you can see videos of Terri here and decide for yourself whether you think she falls under the definition of "persistent Vegatative State" which, by definition, includes "the lack of awareness of self or environment and the inability to interact with others. The lack of sustained, reproducible, purposeful or voluntary behavioral responses to visual auditory, tactile or noxious stimuli, and a lack of evidence of language comprehension or expression."

I'd be interested in what you all think.

44

Jim,

Your post is an example of why issues like this should not be decided in the public domain. You chide me for placing great faith in a judge's decision but am I to put my faith in your depiction of the Medical testimony? Are you telling me with the great amount of attention this case has drawn the pro-life side did not hire qualified lawyers and experts to demolish the husband's case? Especially when you depict the case as such a cut and dried example of greed and medical stupidity?

Mr Ed.

It's not just a matter of medical intervention being withheld; this is a matter of food being withheld. If I withheld food from my child I would be arrested for child endangerment.

Actually its a feeding tube that is withheld. If Terry woke up she would not be denied food. I noticed you let pass the above comment by Tim when he wrote:

There are situations in which removing a tubefeeding and allowing a person to die by starvation and dehydration is NOT a cruel and unusual death. An example is a person that suffers from Alzheimers or Parkinsons and are thus declining as a natural progression of the disease. I would argue that placing a tubefeeding on this person is cruel, causes more suffering and is a selfish move by the person making the choice.

But Parkinsons and Alzheimers does not 'naturally' destroy the body's ability to process food and water! Are you asserting that when a person refuses tube feeding it should always be viewed as a suicide attempt rather than 'letting nature take its course'?

45

Mr Ed:

Allowing the woman to die.

Is that not the inevitable course of life?

46

Boon:

Face it, early Christians embraced death, seeing martyerdom as a great gift rather than a horror to be avoided at all costs (including renouncing your faith). I find something unsettling about mindlessly clinging to life for the sake of keeping nothing more than bodily functions going. If human life is sacred (no one seems to argue that bacterial life is sacred) then it must be sacred because of those qualities that make it human.

1) Renouncing one's faith may have eternal ramifications. No Christian denies that we will all die. And given the choice between a long temporal life and hell or a short temporal life and heaven then the choice becomes clear.

2) Human life is sacred because of the qualities that make it human--but those qualities aren't mere bodily functions. They are being made in the image and likeness of God.

47

Nonetheless Mr. Ed we have two sides of a spectrum. On the one hand we all agree human beigns like you or I deserve respect. On the other hand we agree that a corpse, while maybe deserving respect, is not a human life.

The question is if technology is opening up an extended area in between those two extremes. It certainly is and that is not because of a 'culture of death' but because the culture of life is pushing the envelope.

48

Are you asserting that when a person refuses tube feeding it should always be viewed as a suicide attempt rather than 'letting nature take its course'?

If tube feeding is the only method available to the person, yes. You have to define "letting nature take it's course." If I eat then letting nature take its course would be that my life will probably go on. If I don't then starvation will ensue. So I don't see how "letting nature take its course" is applicable.

49

Allowing the woman to die. Is that not the inevitable course of life?

Allowing the woman to die before she would have if she was fed is.

50

If tube feeding is the only method available to the person, yes. You have to define "letting nature take it's course." If I eat then letting nature take its course would be that my life will probably go on. If I don't then starvation will ensue. So I don't see how "letting nature take its course" is applicable.

If I'm unable to eat then I'll die. A feeding tube is a technological intervention. Suppose my stomach ceases to work, is there any difference between a feeding tube which functions as an artificial esphogous and an artificial stomach? What logic allows me to refuse the latter but not the former?

The only difference I see is that feeding tubes are hardly cutting edge medical technology anymore. So what? A time will come when even organ transplants will be as trivial as root canals.

51

"There are situations in which removing a tubefeeding and allowing a person to die by starvation and dehydration is NOT a cruel and unusual death. An example is a person that suffers from Alzheimers or Parkinsons and are thus declining as a natural progression of the disease. I would argue that placing a tubefeeding on this person is cruel, causes more suffering and is a selfish move by the person making the choice."

"But Parkinsons and Alzheimers does not 'naturally' destroy the body's ability to process food and water! Are you asserting that when a person refuses tube feeding it should always be viewed as a suicide attempt rather than 'letting nature take its course'?"

The declining condition of Parkinson's and Alzheimers leads to the inability to swallow incorrectly and may even lead to other issues like poor motility and thus other problems.
What my point here was is that the person has already declined to a state in condition that not receiving food and water is different than for a healthy person. The reason is that by giving food and water, you actually cause neuro receptors to have more "solution" (water and electrolytes) thus more pain and discomfort related to lack of mobility, ability to change positions etc. In addition, tubefeedings and the procedure of placing a g-tube causes a lot of stress on the body, often leads to secondary infections, bowel obstructions (again related to a lack of motility), etc.

In effect, a person can make an argument that the body's ability to process food is changed for a person with a declining neurological condition.

52

Tim,

I agree with your reasoning but aren't secondary infections a side effect of tube feeding for everyone? 'Pain' and 'Discomfort', if the patient is able to sense them are quality of life terms. Certainly if your focus was only on extending life then you'd agree that Parkinson's and Alzheimers patients should be feed with tubes if necesary! Otherwise aren't you indeed playing God? You're judging that a week of life starving and dehydrating to death is better than six months of life in pain and discomfort?!

53

Boonton wrote:
Jesus raised one person from the dead and cured a tiny fraction of ills during his lifetime. This was not done to give people more earthly life . . . . This was to prove his divinity.

But why prove his divinity in this way? In fact, Jesus comes declaring "the kingdom of God is at hand". This declaration is more than just a spoken message. In Jesus' own words (taken from Isaiah):

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed"

Thus we can see that the miracles are part of Jesus' kingdom declaration. They are "signs of the kingdom".

As "signs", Jesus' miracles are not arbitrarily chosen demonstrations of power. Rather, these acts show us the very nature of the kingdom. They are themselves acts which "bring" the kingdom" by restoring wholeness and life. They are actual "pieces" of the kingdom breaking in.

This also explains the cases of healing the demon-possessed. It is not simply a matter of showing that Jesus is more powerful than Satan. Rather, it is part of the victory of the kingdom of God over the rule of Satan. That is, Jesus is freeing people from "the kingdom of darkness" and restoring them to life.

Granted, This is not the full coming of the kingdom--that is yet to come. But they do show that the kingdom is already "breaking in" and that it is about life, restoring the weak and broken. . . . We are in fact called both to pray "your kingdom come" and actively to "seek first his kingdom". Acts of healing, making whole, of rescuing and giving life, are part of that.

So, don't play the call to be willing even to give up our lives (e.g., martyrdom)as somehow undercutting the call to "seek life". Because, while it is true that Jesus calls us to join him in "the way of the cross" --willing to sacrifice ourselves, to suffer and die for his sake, and for others, he also shows his work is all about restoring what was broken. And he calls us to that ministry as well.

Our final hope is in the future resurrection (of the body!) and restoration of all things (so again the physical creation does matter!), Yet while we are here, we are called to actively seek to give life and to restore. It is the basis for the call to build a "culture of life" and to seek to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

54

Yet while we are here, we are called to actively seek to give life and to restore. It is the basis for the call to build a "culture of life" and to seek to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Restore life to the extent that we have the ability to do so. No one here has mounted a serious objection to 'letting nature take its course' in terms of declining intervention. We are not called to preserve life by artificial means at all costs. I think that doing so ends up reducing human life to nothing more than a heartbeat and possibly a brainwave on a computer.

55

Mr Ed:

Why stop there? Why not keep her mechanically enabled for eternity? Heart and lung machine, the whole shebang?

56

Boonton wrote, "We are not called to preserve life by artificial means at all costs. I think that doing so ends up reducing human life to nothing more than a heartbeat and possibly a brainwave on a computer."

Feeding someone is not reducing them to a heartbeat. Your refusal to feed the poor woman reminds me of the words of Jesus:

"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'

"Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, "Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'"

57

Again no one is refusing to feed the woman. What we are arguing about is inserting a feeding tube down her throat. Which, while it may seem low-tech, is not quite the same thing as simply feeding someone who can't eat for themselves.

58

Boonton wrote, "Again no one is refusing to feed the woman. What we are arguing about is inserting a feeding tube down her throat. Which, while it may seem low-tech, is not quite the same thing as simply feeding someone who can't eat for themselves."

All done now. If you can't bother to read up on the case, I shant bother commenting anymore. They have ruled that her parents cannot even feed her soft foods which the doctors feel she might be able to handle, naturally, as you like to put it.

59

Ok so here's where we will agree. If it can be established that she can handle soft foods and regular water she should continue to have those.

Sadly, though, if she cannot you're stuck in a bind where giving her such things will cause her to chock to death thereby causing her to be killed rather than die 'naturally'. Ironic but no one ever said the universe was fair.

60

I would like to know who said Terri is a vegtable. I have seen video on the news where she is responsive to her environment. If a person is able to track a balloon as it passes over them are they not cognitive? I think that most of the problem in understanding Terri's plight rests in the fact that most people have only heard that she is in a persistent vegetative state.

Perhaps if we are so certain she will feel no pain we should allow her body to be used as a training dummy for attack dogs. That way the dogs could get the taste for human blood and nobody would be "hurt."

61

Has anyone found out how this happened to her? It seems that its possible that her husband did it and has refused her therapy because she will eventually be able to point the finger at him. I wonder why when the case is discussed on the news, no one points out that although her husband has recived money for her therapy he has refused her any.

62

shari demonstrates nicely why these types of cases should not be decided in the media circus & instead be decided by the legal system.

I've poked around the save Terri web site and I didn't find any reference to the judge banning 'soft foods'. It's a big site, though, and if someone would like to provide a link I'd be happy to look at the documents.

I did notice, however, a 'settlement offer' from her family basically saying that her husband could divorce her but still retain the full financial benefits of her estate even if he remarries. That would partially eliminate the allagation that he just wants to kill her for the money.

63

If I'm unable to eat then I'll die. A feeding tube is a technological intervention. Suppose my stomach ceases to work, is there any difference between a feeding tube which functions as an artificial esphogous and an artificial stomach? What logic allows me to refuse the latter but not the former?

None. Medical science may develop an artificial stomach that lets people lead otherwise normal lives.

Besidee, the fact that a feeding tube is a technological intervention has nothing to do with it. Before irrigation systems, which was a technological intervention, whole communites probably starved.

64

The question is if technology is opening up an extended area in between those two extremes. It certainly is and that is not because of a 'culture of death' but because the culture of life is pushing the envelope.

I agree. And, for the record, I never used the term 'culture of death'. Rather, I think we live in a culture of comfort. Taking this case as an example, the parents, arguable from a different culture, are doing everything in their power to keep Terri alive even though it is at a great hardship to them personally. The husband, however, and from our culture, wants to let Terri die because he says that he thinks she is suffering. Well, is suffering a reason to die? People often go to great lengths to extend their lives even in the midst of great suffering. Jews went through great suffering in concentration camps but they continued to want to live.

65

Mr. Ed,

You are dodging the point. No one thinks food should be denied to one who can eat naturally, nor air to one who can breath naturally. However what is being asked here is direct intervention to the body. You're telling me that not only would you say refusing a feeding tube is an attempted suicide but also refusing artificial organs would also be attempted suicide?

The 'sacredness of life' would appear to be little more than a sacredness of metabolic processes

66

And also because he feels she would not want the intervention that is being proposed. It would be one thing if he was proposing active intervention to cause death (even if she left unimpeachable evidence it would be her wish) but that is not what is happening here.

67

What is not being reported about this case astounds me:

1. Michael Schiavo did not decide, on his own, to have the feeding tube removed. It has been his position that it would have been what Terri wanted, and he could have had it removed. However, he requested a court to act as her surrogate and decide if that is indeed what she would have wanted. The court heard testimony on both sides and determined by clear and convincing evidence that she would have wanted the tube removed.

68

Why stop there? Why not keep her mechanically enabled for eternity? Heart and lung machine, the whole shebang?

That's a bit of a red herring, don't you think? Her vital organs are working. She is just not capable of feeding herself.

69

2. The legal default IS for the person to remain alive and is only overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

3. The case has been appealed several times and no error has been found in the lower court’s decision.

4. The likelihood of Terri's recovery has been heard serval times before the court and reviewed on appeal. No error has been found in any of the decisions.

70

1a. The court's decision re what Terri would have wanted rested more than solely on Michael's testimony.

71

But as Mr. Ed appears to have agreed, there is no logical difference between your mouth not working (which is as vital an organ as any) and any other organ. Her husband would be a murder in the eyes of his critics even if he said no replacing every single organ of hers with an artificial or transplanted replacement!

To me this case has the smell of a right wing version of the Mumia case. For those who aren't familiar with it, Mumia is a guy from Phillie who shot and killed a cop back in the early 70's. When you first hear about the case it is usually a series of inconsistencies and dubious bits of evidence. It is very easy to be convinced that he was framed either as part of some conspiracy (he was a radical left-wing journalist of a sort) or simply because he was an easy target. Dig a bit deeper, however, and you learn that many of the original charges were addressed several times over yet they are continually recycled by left-wing web sites and organizations who are part of the 'free mumia' movement. Here again I see lots of charges (her husband wants the money, he's the one who did it and now wants to kill her so she won't wake up and testify against him) that are floated over and over again with very little real evidence.

72

So, what is the deal? Why are "conservative" talk show hosts not considering the entire picture? Is this not a state issue? Are these "conservatives" pro-Federalism, pro-state's rights or not?

73

So, this is not about the judge "playing God", this is about allowing Terri's wishes to be adhered to. The judiciary has its problems, no doubt, by the Right might want to get all the facts straight before talking about "judicial tyranny" ever time a case comes along they don't like.

74

This hits one some of my ideas, although it isn't a comprehensive review of the case by any means:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7231440/

Ever since the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed a respirator to be removed from Karen Ann Quinlan and the U.S. Supreme Court declared that feeding tubes are medical treatments just like respirators, heart-lung machines, dialysis and antibiotics, it has been crystal clear in U.S. law and medical ethics that those who cannot speak can have their feeding tubes stopped. The authority to make that decision has fallen to those closest to the person who cannot make their own views known. First come husbands or wives, then adult children, then parents and other relatives.

Basically here is the breakdown:

1. You have the right to refuse invasive interventions, that includes feeding tubes, and die a 'natural death'. You do not have a right to have your death accelerated by euthansia, poisen, overdoses etc.

2. Those who cannot express their desires due to illness or handicap have guardians who have the job of making such decisions for such people. The role of default guardian is well established by law, spouses usually come first.

3. Legal procedures exist for challenging guardianship if there is evidence that a guardian is acting improperly or is not acting on behalf of his/her ward.

4. Since 1-3 have been followed this case appears to rest on two possible grounds:

4-A There is no right for an individual to refuse a feeding tube or similar invervention.

4-B The court procedures produced a flawed result.

Most people here are clustering around 4-B, although that doesn't exclude them from advocating 4-A as well. The problem with 4-B is that since there has been a very vocal and active 'Save Terri' movement it is pretty hard to believe there were obvious judicial errors made. Like the 'Free Mumia' case, many of the supposed problems disappear once you roll up your sleeves and actually read the long and tedious transcripts. That's not to say the possibility doesn't exist, it might. But we should be deeply skeptical of such claims especially when they are surrounded by so many idologues and politicians.

75

No one thinks food should be denied to one who can eat naturally, nor air to one who can breath naturally. However what is being asked here is direct intervention to the body. You're telling me that not only would you say refusing a feeding tube is an attempted suicide but also refusing artificial organs would also be attempted suicide?

One of the points here is that what we think of as "naturally" is changing rapidly. If I were to live completely naturally I would probably die of a heart attack in less than ten years. But I have such 'medical interventions' as beta blockers and ACE inhibitors that will likely prolong my life. Is that living naturally? Pacemakers assist the heart to function "normally" but is it natural?

I don't think this is dodging the question; I think its very relevant. In fact, where do we draw the line in assisted living between what is 'natural' and what is 'grotesque'?

76

Mr Ed:

Actually, 5 expert witnesses testified in a court, 2 of them appointed by the Schindlers, one appointed by the court, and the court concluded that in effect that the "woman" (?) had no cerbral cortext.

See links on my blog for more information.

77

Boon:

You have the right to refuse invasive interventions, that includes feeding tubes, and die a 'natural death'. You do not have a right to have your death accelerated by euthansia, poisen, overdoses etc.

As imperfect as it is, I think this is a good middle ground for the law. But I don't see how this whole line of reasoning is applicable to the Schiavo case.

78

Boonton:

Re: 4b: the links on my blog point to blogs, one of which is by a physician, that indicated what's involved.

I find it very difficult to believe at this point the anti-human lifers on this point (it is not what I would call human life they advocate).

79

Actually, 5 expert witnesses testified in a court, 2 of them appointed by the Schindlers, one appointed by the court, and the court concluded that in effect that the "woman" (?) had no cerbral cortext.

That may be what the court found, but what did the witnesses say?

80

Another example, here's an interesting section on the possibility of 'spontaneous recovery'

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11166055.htm
**************
Two doctors testified that therapy might benefit Schiavo. But the judge who heard their testimony, along with testimony from other physicians, concluded there was a ''total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature'' to suggest the therapies might be useful.

There have been isolated cases of patients making partial spontaneous recoveries years after brain injury, but experts said these cases differ significantly from Schiavo's.

One important difference is the initial cause of injury.

Schiavo's injury was caused by lack of oxygen to the brain; other recently publicized cases -- including Sarah Scantlin, a Kansas woman who in January spoke for the first time after 20 years, and Terry Wallis, an Arkansas man who in 2003 spoke for the first time in 19 years -- involved patients involved in car accidents, one of the leading causes of traumatic brain injury.

''The prospects for recovery after lack of oxygen are much, much worse than the prospects after traumatic brain injury,'' Katz said.

When oxygen is cut off, massive numbers of brain cells die and are never replaced. In traumatic injury, some brain cells may die, but much of the damage comes from destruction of networks that connect brain cells to each other, Katz said. In some patients, these networks can regrow over time.

Also, experts say neither Scantlin nor Wallis was in a vegetative state -- the state the courts have concluded Schiavo is in.

Scantlin was ''absolutely, definitely not in a vegetative state,'' said Dr. John Kessler, chairman of neurology at Northwestern University.

Kessler said his conclusion was based on a conversation he had with someone who had observed Scantlin. Media reports said Scantlin could blink her eyes in code to mean ''yes'' or ''no'' before her recent breakthrough -- an indication that she was aware of her surroundings.

Dr. Joseph Giacino, a neuropsychologist who examined Wallis after his recovery, concluded that Wallis had attempted to communicate before his recovery and had therefore not been in a vegetative state.

All of this means the prognosis for Terri Schiavo is very grim, experts said.

''After 15 years, if neurological recovery has not occurred, it is not going to occur,'' said Dr. Michael A. Williams, a Johns Hopkins neurologist. ``If she hasn't recovered by now she's not going to recover.''

********************

Note that the 'save Terry' side will just tell you about the cases where some people did recover spontaneously but dig deeper and you see why those cases differ from Terry's.

81

One of the points here is that what we think of as "naturally" is changing rapidly. If I were to live completely naturally I would probably die of a heart attack in less than ten years. But I have such 'medical interventions' as beta blockers and ACE inhibitors that will likely prolong my life. Is that living naturally? Pacemakers assist the heart to function "normally" but is it natural?...In fact, where do we draw the line in assisted living between what is 'natural' and what is 'grotesque'?

Are you living naturally? No you are not. Do you have a right to do that? Of course. The more relevant question is do you have a right to classify someone who chooses not to take advantage of those inventions an 'attempted suicide' and force him to use them? If an 'artificial stomach' was invented tomorrow it would be a great thing which I'm sure would help many people. That doesn't alter its nature as a massive intervention which individuals have the right to forgoe, especially if they are in extremly poor condition.

As imperfect as it is, I think this is a good middle ground for the law. But I don't see how this whole line of reasoning is applicable to the Schiavo case.

because you stopped reading after point 1 instead of at least getting to #2 or #3.

That may be what the court found, but what did the witnesses say?

Roll up your sleeves and find out where the transcripts are.

82

Note that the 'save Terry' side will just tell you about the cases where some people did recover spontaneously but dig deeper and you see why those cases differ from Terry's.

But what's the definition of "recover"? She clearly has some cognition. She clearly won't 'recover' her old level of activity but neither will a paraplegic. So, what level of brain activity is required to continue to live?

83

The more relevant question is do you have a right to classify someone who chooses not to take advantage of those inventions an 'attempted suicide' and force him to use them?

But you're adding something to your original question. Although I see it as a form of passive suicide, I didn't say it should be illegal to refuse such measures.

because you stopped reading after point 1 instead of at least getting to #2 or #3.

Should have been more clear. I was referring to the whole thread which seemed to have gotten off the Schiavo case and onto a tangent about people with normal adult mental capacity.

84

Let's take Boonton's analogy a step further. When the surgeon has a patient on the operating table, and the ventilator stops working, according to Boonton there is no moral compulsion to replace the ventilator with one that is working. After all, the patient cannot breath for himself, and if it were his heart that had just given out we would not be compelled to give him a new heart.

Or, if a parent decides not to feed an infant, and the child dies of starvation, we should not see this as morally repugnant, because after all, going to the effort to actually feed the infant would be akin to providing organ transplants.

85

The case presented to us was a woman whose feeding tube was removed, 'woke up' and is not an active campaigner in the save Terry movement. It is important to look objectively at that success story and see why it may or may not apply in this case rather than just toute it over and over again on various blogs as a possibility the court ignored.

There is no clear evidence that she has cognition (I can't download the video clips at work but I doubt I'm qualified to properly qualified to interprete them and I doubt the experts employed by the court were so incompentant as to misread them). And again the issue being decided is whether the medical intervention of the tube is something she would have wanted or not. Since her husband is her legal guardian he does have the right to speak on her behalf unless his status is successfully disputed.

Even cognative people have the right to refuse a feeding tube!

86

Xiaoding,

Of course eugenics "works". Whether or not it's evil is a different question altogether.

87

Boonton wrote:

If Terry woke up she would not be denied food.

I noticed you wrote this after two links to videos of Terri were posted. Here is another. It's obvious that you did not even bother to look at the videos. They clearly show that she is awake!

Boonton wrote:

If it can be established that she can handle soft foods and regular water she should continue to have those.

Judge Greer has ruled that Terri must not be fed, tested for the ability to swallow, or given any kind of therapy which would allow her to eat normally. You can find the denials here and here.

You are willfully avoiding the evidence. Why should I accept any conclusion you draw which is based on such blatant willful ignorance?

This blind rush to irreversibly destroy the life of an innocent person distresses me to no end! (I love how writing allows me to understate the pure rage I feel at how so many people in the country appear to be actually in a hurry to kill Terri.)

My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. If they say, “Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; We shall find all kinds of precious wealth, We shall fill our houses with spoil; Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,” My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, For their feet run to evil, And they hasten to shed blood.

(Prov. 1:10-16, NASB)

88

Let's take Boonton's analogy a step further. When the surgeon has a patient on the operating table, and the ventilator stops working, according to Boonton there is no moral compulsion to replace the ventilator with one that is working. After all, the patient cannot breath for himself, and if it were his heart that had just given out we would not be compelled to give him a new heart.

1. I did not use an analogy so I'm not sure what you are trying to take a step further.

2. Presumably the patient consented to the operation hence consented to continued life support as necessary during that operation. I suppose your example might apply if the patient somehow woke up just after the failure and told his doctor 'no thanks, I'll just try to breath on my own for now on'.

89

Boonton -

You took the position that the trial court was right even though you know next to nothing about the most basic evidence in the case. When you are confronted on this point, you make no attempt to address the very real problems with the court's decision and retreat to "Well, I'm sure there was other evidence that you're not telling me about, so I'm just going to believe that the court must be right."

Unless you are able to defend the merits of the trial court's decision, your argument that "this has been decided by the court, which is the best place for these things to be decided" is at most a statement that you like the result, which proves nothing.