The sad case of Terri Shiavo has exposed a glaring weakness in both our society and our legal system. A woman lies dying in a hospital bed in Florida because of the failure of orthodox Christians and other social conservatives to act when we had the chance. When we could have stopped the chain of events that lead to this point, we chose instead to do nothing. Some of us have even used the system to our advantage, never realizing just how far down the slippery slope our nation would slide.
Sadly, even now we fail to see what lead us to this point. Many well-meaning people mistakenly believe this issue is about the “right-to-die.” But at its core, the Schiavo case is not about bioethics, living wills, or medial choices. It’s about the failure to protect the institution of marriage.
The locus of this tragedy is Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo. Although he is still married to Terri, he is currently cohabitating with Jodi Centonze, a woman with whom he shares two children. Under Florida state law, if Michael attempted to marry Jodi while Terri is still living and their marriage remains undissolved, his action would be considered “illegal, bigamous, and void from its inception.” In fact, it is likely that if a marriage license were found showing that Michael and Jodi had secretly married, he would no longer be considered a suitable guardian for his invalid wife. Yet because Florida repealed common law marriage laws in 1968, he can live like a bigamist without having to suffer the legal consequences.
Florida is also a "no fault" divorce state, which means that a history of infidelity is of no concern to the courts. While adulterous conduct might be used in determining the "moral fitness" of a parent seeking custody, it apparently can’t be used as evidence of lack of “moral fitness” to be a husband. Even though he has committed adultery, sired illegitimate children, and openly shares Terri’s marriage bed with another woman, he is still considered fit to undertake his role as a “husband.” By giving Michael Schiavo guardianship over his “wife”, the Florida courts have exposed the absurdity of marriage laws.
Social conservatives spend an inordinate amount of hand-wringing over the threat to traditional marriage posed by the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Gay marriage is, of course, a legitimate concern. But it would take an army of homosexual rights activists several decades to do as much damage to the sacred institution as heterosexuals have done by tolerating no-fault divorce and the repeal of common law marriage. The looming threat pales in comparison to the present danger of destructive marriage laws which have, for at least one young woman, literally become a matter of life and death.
Related: Slate legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick is usually a sharp thinker. But today she let's her dislike of Tom Delay cloud her judgement:
Marriage is a sacred and intimate promise. And the very people who keep preaching about the sanctity of marriage when defending it from gay gatecrashers used to believe this more than anyone.
There is just no evidence that Michael Schiavo is an unfit guardian. Sure, it would make for a better Harlequin Romance if he'd spent decades pining alone at his wife's bedside; if he hadn't found himself a girlfriend and some kids. But he and Terri were—and still are—married, and the law has always treated that bond as sacred: serious, inviolate, till-death-do-us-part serious, until the parties themselves decide otherwise. Tom DeLay may not care what Terri Schiavo's husband says. But I'd bet Terri Schiavo would have.
If marriage is a “sacred and intimate promise” then how is having illegitimate children with another woman not a violation of that contract? And no evidence that Michael Schiavo is an unfit guardian? If abandoning his wife for another woman does not make him unfit I’d be curious to know what does. If, as Lithwick claims, the law treats the marital bond as sacred, serious, and inviolate, why shouldn’t Terri’s husband be expected to do the same?
1
The news has just come through - the appeal to the Atlanta court was denied by a 2-1 vote. The Schindlers say they will lodge another appeal today. But it doesn't look good and Terri Schiavo is dying. This is a situation where some things, such as those you've pointed out in your post, are very obvious. It's tragic.
posted on 03.23.2005 2:25 AM2
Good post! I wonder if the current batch of myopic Dobsonian/Fallwellian Christian leaders -- with all their talk of "supporting marriage" -- would support forced divorce in some cases. At what point does his behavior so threaten the "sanctity of the institution of marriage" that society should nullify his legal standing as husband? "*Forced* divorce?" Yes, forced divorce. Basic Concept: If you abandon your family responsiblities, you abandon the rights (i.e., legal standing) as well. He's already made his millions off malpractice suits in her case, he should just divorce her and go away. If he won't do that much, then (like when a parent abandons a child) we recognize that he's abandoned his wife and thus forcibly sever his ties with her, as his behavior dictates. Yes, this is the right solution but it won't go anywhere because the pro-marriage demagogues get their panties in bunch at the mere mention of the word "divorce" (forgetting, of course, that God established divorced to protect the innocent).
posted on 03.23.2005 3:58 AM3
Thanks for bringing this up, Joe. I've thought about this a bit before and about how absurd it is that Schiavo has guardianship as the 'husband' while living with and having a family with another woman. Its ironic that many states abolished common law marriage because it was seen to degrade the institution on marriage. Yet Schiavo's situation makes that sacred institution appear to be nothing more than a legal contract--even less in fact. Most contracts require at least a minimum level exclusivity from the parties entering into that contract. Even something as basic as employment often carries with it the prohibition of the employee to engage in activites that are deemed a conflict of interest. Public officials can be charged with a felony for engaging in activities that are deemed a conflict of interest. Yet, if Michael Schiavo's living arrangements don't constitute a conflict of interest, I don't know what does.
posted on 03.23.2005 4:26 AM4
Nice post. I think you're absolutely right -- pro-lifers have been so singleminded about the end of life issue that they've missed the point entirely.
posted on 03.23.2005 5:38 AM5
Social conservatives spend an inordinate amount of hand-wringing over the threat to traditional marriage posed by the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Gay marriage is, of course, a legitimate concern. But it would take an army of homosexual rights activists several decades to do as much damage to the sacred institution as heterosexuals have done by tolerating no-fault divorce and the repeal of common law marriage.
Amen to that! I often wonder when the church is going to deal with the speck in its own eye, not that I do not think that homosexual "marriage" is a big problem. Just that the hypocrisy of the church (divorce rates are as high in the church as they are outside) leaves the church without the moral authority to speak decisively to the culture.
posted on 03.23.2005 7:28 AM6
Joe Carter:
You know, this is a red herring. If Schiavo had not been with a another woman those who share your views would find something else.
This man is doing what his wife requested. Despite trying to make a political football out of this, even now a Federal appeals court has agreed with the state and circuit courts.
Instead of trying to find fault with Schiavo, why not look for that plank in the eye of those who've not been quite forthright about this case.
7
And while I'm at it, why not start with the advocates for "Terri" who have attacked the institution of marriage by attempting to overturn the traditional relationship between married parties to have sovereignty over their life decisions?
Really, the greatest danger to marriage is social conservatives.
posted on 03.23.2005 7:31 AM8
I am told that adultery was considered a crime before 1963/4 or so. Does anyone know if this is true?
posted on 03.23.2005 7:31 AM9
All of this either assumes that Terri would have wanted to be force-fed under these conditions or considers her desires irrelevant. Evangelicals never stop thinking of ways to impose their worldview on others.
posted on 03.23.2005 7:37 AM10
Rob Ryan -
Your argument is a strawman. Your side (generic for side wanting the tube removed) assumes that Terri would not have wanted to be "force-fed" and considers hearsay as a valid way to determine truth. As we err toward this side, a woman will die and no one will really know why, except to regurgitate the buzz phrase, "She wanted it this way."
Don't you think that is an imposition of a worldview?
posted on 03.23.2005 7:52 AM11
"Your argument is a strawman. Your side (generic for side wanting the tube removed) assumes that Terri would not have wanted to be "force-fed" and considers hearsay as a valid way to determine truth."
What argument? What strawman? Sentence one or sentence two?
The courts have determined that Terri's interests are represented by her husband. He could have taken the money offered and divorced his wife if this were only about "moving on". Perhaps he feels that turning her care over to the grieving parents would be abandoning her. As for his "adultery", I suspect that Michael has long thought of himself as a widower. I don't blame him; Terri is gone.
The courts have had their say, but some folks won't accept the outcome. Who is imposing a worldview?
posted on 03.23.2005 8:03 AM12
He could have taken the money offered and divorced his wife if this were only about "moving on". Perhaps he feels that turning her care over to the grieving parents would be abandoning her.
As long as we're discussing hypotheticals, perhaps he's afraid she'll recover just enough to implicate him for attempted murder. Apparently, the testimony of a nurse who witnesses him being alone with Terri just before she went into hypoglycemia. She stated she found insulin vials in the trash and needle marks under her arms and breasts.
As for his "adultery", I suspect that Michael has long thought of himself as a widower. I don't blame him; Terri is gone.
As long as we're making unqualified statements: Terri is very much alive.
posted on 03.23.2005 8:21 AM13
Didn't finish that thought:
Apparently, the testimony of a nurse who witnesses him being alone with Terri just before she went into hypoglycemia wasn't enough to implicate him in anything.
posted on 03.23.2005 8:23 AM14
Joe,
I really don't see that "social conservatives" are to blame for the current mess that poses as marriage law. By and large, these laws were passed during the the Golden Age of Aquarius (in which, I must sadly admit, I was a card-carrying participant). Social conservatives were complaining about it then, and predicting the demise of marriage, and they were right.
There are so many things awry in this case, but its value - if it has one - is that it is a perfect legal storm. It has illustrated to everyone, right to left, the bizarre and tragic results of the intersection of utilitarian death laws and marriage laws. Although Terri is about to be starved to death, everybody loses in this case.
Schiavo will almost surely be a social leper (and rightfully so) except among the most ardent members of the death lobby. My granddad had the perfect word to describe Shiavo: guttersnipe. mumon claims that Schiavo is simply executing Terri's wishes. Well, that may be so, but reprising an old saying: how many people must be lying if he is telling the truth? Scott Petersen is probably grudgingly rethinking the flaws in his strategy.
The truth is, we cannot know Terri's wishes for sure. But everybody knows that. And, truth is, people sometimes change their minds. If we acquired some miracle technology that could reveal Terri's wishes, I personally wouldn't find it shocking if she previously wanted all possible intervention and now, crippled as she is, changed her mind and wants it to end. But, sadly, we cannot know.
And the judges in this case do not escape lightly, either. I cannot fault the judicial decisions, as I believe that judges must follow the law as written. Now we know from experience that the Florida Supreme Court does not, in all cases, consider itself bound by law. But I can't complain when they do!
I'm hoping this case builds some support for Charles Krauthammer's solution. If there is reasonable doubt, as there is in this case, and there is a first-degree relative willing and able to undertake the task of care, then let them do so. Why must we kill someone, why must our bias be on the side of death? It will be a sad commentary when Terri dies of starvation and the properly ennobled and appropriately sad political rejoicing begins. I can't wait to read Ted Kennedy's foreword to Schiavo's book.
posted on 03.23.2005 8:34 AM15
Certainly the "strangest" thing about coverage of the Schiavo "case" has been the proliferation "of" random "quotes."
Can "I" get an amen?
posted on 03.23.2005 8:37 AM16
Joe:
What would you have him do? Divorce Terri? Hardly supporting marriage in the eyes of social conservatives, such as I understand their argument. If not divorce, then what?
And on the other side of the coin, do you really believe that Congress (or Randall Terry or anyone else in this fiasco) has strengthened marriage with all of their attempts to slander Schiavo and insert political will into the equation?
posted on 03.23.2005 8:40 AM17
This case really does raise a question about the state of marriage -- I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks so. Recently, the EU told Turkey that in order to join the union, they would have to stop outlawing adultery. Making adultery legal is considered a positive reform in many circles but this case shows at least one reason why adultery should remain illegal or at the very least viewed as contrary to the state of marriage. According to any traditional view of marriage, Mr. Schiavo is not married to Terry. I would imagine that if Mr. Schiavo were to leave his current "girlfriend" that she would have some claim to his assets based on common law marriage. If that's the case, then isn't this more or less a case of bigamy? One "legal" wife, and another "common law" wife? No fault divorce apparently means no fault sustenance of marriage, too. Marriage now comes only with rights, but absolutely no obligations. As it works now, one spouse can abandon the other, take their money, their children, and apparently pull their feeding tube as well.
posted on 03.23.2005 8:43 AM18
The intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative movement as well as their 'cultural conservative' cohorts continues! Do you really think Terri and her husband are the only people in a situation like this? Did it occur to you that if you tell people in similar situations that having extra-marital relationships (however immoral that may be) terminates your rights as guardian AS WELL AS YOUR STANDING AS YOUR SPOUSES HEIR the result will most likely be spouses pushing even harder to 'pull the plug' on their loved ones so they could get on with their lives faster.
No loophole exists Joe. Why don't you accept the obvious which is that Terri's husband, despite his relationship, honestly feels he is doing the right thing for Terri. He may be wrong about that but quite frankly you are even more wrong to rip apart this nations' legal system.
posted on 03.23.2005 8:46 AM19
Mr Ed :
...perhaps he's afraid she'll recover just enough to implicate him for attempted murder.
You know, I've heard this gem in various forms from the extreme right over the pat few days, and I'm almost certain that there's a version of it out there that's going to make Mr. Schiavo quite wealthy when he sues the party that said it for slander and defmation.
You haven't a shred of evidence about this, whereas, it's a fact that's been verified by umpteen courts that Schiavo does represent his wife's wishes on this.
The degree of slimy insinuation to which "social conservatives" will stoop amazes me.
posted on 03.23.2005 8:47 AM20
In fact, it is likely that if a marriage license were found showing that Michael and Jodi had secretly married, he would no longer be considered a suitable guardian for his invalid wife. Yet because Florida repealed common law marriage laws in 1968, he can live like a bigamist without having to suffer the legal consequences
1. If it was discovered that he and Jodi were secretly married he would be charged with bigamy but the marriage to Jodi would end up being annulled.
2. I could be wrong but even in states with common law marriages an official marriage trumps any claim to common law status. Hence Jodi could not become married to Michael by living with him unless his first marriage ended in divorce.
3. From a Christian perspective Marriage is a binding lifelong contract. It cannot be dissolved simply because some of its rules are broken. Catholics, for example, believe a marriage remains even if a person has had numerous affairs and consistently flouted the vows. Even if one person divorces their partner in civil court and remarries the Church considers the original marriage still binding and the divorcee is not able to remarry in the Church. I find it bizaar that you would want to make it as easy to terminate a marriage as it is to lose your rights to a mail-in rebate at Circuit city.
posted on 03.23.2005 8:59 AM21
According to any traditional view of marriage, Mr. Schiavo is not married to Terry.
Yea ok, first time I heard the Catholic Church described as untraditional in its view of marriage.
posted on 03.23.2005 9:01 AM22
mumon claims that Schiavo is simply executing Terri's wishes. Well, that may be so, but reprising an old saying: how many people must be lying if he is telling the truth? Scott Petersen is probably grudgingly rethinking the flaws in his strategy.
How many people must be lying for him to be telling the truth? Zero.
posted on 03.23.2005 9:07 AM23
As long as we're discussing hypotheticals, perhaps he's afraid she'll recover just enough to implicate him for attempted murder.
No Mr. Ed, we know for a fact it is not a hypothetical regarding money. Michael has claimed to have been offered $10M to 'step aside'. If you doubt that it is public knowledge a supporter of stem cell research offered him $1M cash (source wikipedia). Both sides acknowledge that the parents offered to let him 'step aside' but retain all his rights as husband to both her inheritance as well as any additional money he might be awarded.
posted on 03.23.2005 9:11 AM25
mumon:
You haven't a shred of evidence about this, whereas, it's a fact that's been verified by umpteen courts that Schiavo does represent his wife's wishes on this.
Sorry to disappoint my Buddhist buddy, but here is a copy of the affidavit from Carla Sauer Iyer, RN. Now, she may me mistaken; she may be lying; this evidence may point to nothing more than a misunderstanding. But it is evidence nonetheless.
The degree of slimy insinuation to which "social conservatives" will stoop amazes me.
At least give me credit enough to retract the "slimy" part of this statement if not the whole thing.
posted on 03.23.2005 9:35 AM26
No Mr. Ed, we know for a fact it is not a hypothetical regarding money.
Since you bring it up, Boon, why can't this still be about money? I mean, just because he's refusing the $10M to walk away only means he wants to see it through to the end. My hypothetical offering was that he may want to see it through to the end because she may implicate him in attempted murder initially either to get the insurance or to get his new life or some other reason. But now he's stuck and if he doesn't see it through to the end he may end up in prison. And if I was offered the choice of $10M and the possibility of going to prison I don't think I'd take the money.
Again, since we're speaking hypothetically.
posted on 03.23.2005 9:42 AM27
Well Mr. Ed. if he wants her to die because he is afraid she will wake up and implicate him in attempted murder then it certainly would not be about the money! However that motive is very weak in terms of actual evidence.
1. Terri is not going to 'wake up'.
2. Even if some amazing mericle allowed her to 'wake up' nearly everyone agrees she would remain severely brain damaged.
3. Even if #1 & #2 could be resolved it is highly unlikely she will be able to remember much of anything that lead up to her heart failure.
4. Michael issued a DNR order after Terri had ceased to be in immediate danger of death. If murder or covering his trail was his motive it would have made sense for him to try to get it done'legally' before she stablized rather than after.
5. Even if 1-3 were resolved the chances of obtaining a conviction are amazingly thin.
Add this additional fact, Terri's parents have been fighting his guardianship for along time. Demonstrating that he caused her condition would be a surefire way to do it. Additionally, the doctors that were sued for malpractice would have had an excellent defense if the evidence pointed to the condition being caused by the husband. Yet despite this fact no viable case has actually been persued in court
posted on 03.23.2005 9:57 AM28
You are so right, Joe. Heterosexuals have done much more damage to marriage than an army of homosexual activists could possibly do. However, I'm not sure how much of this damage you can lay at social conservatives' feet. Social conservatives have always opposed divorce, except in cases of adultery. I would argue that social conservatives would not oppose divorce in cases of physical abuse or drug abuse, either. We had a legislator in Michigan actually try to do away with no-fault divorce. She couldn't get anywhere with it. So many problems that I deal with as a landlord can be traced to easy divorce rather than a couple trying to work it out. Divorce almost always causes more problems than it fixes. Again, this is not to say that some couples should not divorce. It is simply to say that divorce is a scourge on our culture.
posted on 03.23.2005 10:00 AM29
I'm baffled by Christians when they talk about the "sanctity of marriage" as though the state has devine powers to declare certain unions sacred. By conflating the role of the church and the role of the state in "marriage", the church has made itself increasinly irrelevant in marriage relationships. The state does not declare anything to be sacred. All the state does is issue a civil license, which subjects certain relationships to a set of laws. It provides a legal structure to the relationship. It has nothing to do with the union being sacred--that's the purpose of the church. Churches need to take more responsibility for the people that they agree to marry and the conditions upon which divorce is permitted. For too long, the church has looked to the state to fulfill its marriage duties. It's time for Christians to stop ranting about homosexuals and start examining their own practices.
posted on 03.23.2005 10:02 AM30
This debate is making interesting bedfellows and people supporting things they have never supported before.
Personally I am against removing the feeding tube. I think it amounts to court sanctioned murder, but I have a lot of conflicting thoughts on this issue - one being the issue of marriage. In a round about way the courts decisions almost strengthens marriage, since it views it as the supreme relationship that trumps all others. Now, there are many other conflicting rulings and laws to downplay this, but it is odd that liberals are talking about the sanctitiy of marriage and about personal and state's rights - which is my other area of conflicting opinions.
I never thought I would hear Teddy Kennedy argue against using federal government power to step into a state issue or hear Robert Byrd talk about the importance of state decisions not being tampered with by the federal government. Where were these bastions of freedom, liberty and federalism during Roe v. Wade and the myriad of other cases where federal judges overturned state law and rule time after time? I guessing any day now they are going to come out in favor of privatizing Social Security to let individuals make their own choices without government intervention. Should I hold my breath on consistent opinions comng from them?
posted on 03.23.2005 10:10 AM31
Mr Ed:
You didn't really say anthing there; moreover, Mr. Schiavo has noted that some of the RN's have an animus against him because of the shoddy care his wife received, and his complaints about it.
posted on 03.23.2005 10:20 AM32
The Shiavo case has nothing to do with our personal opinions on the matter. In fact, it has nothing to do with her parents' opinions. The FL courts have reviewed the evidence, heard expert testimony and applied the law. Both sides have had ample opportunity to make their cases before the state courts, which is where these matters properly belong. The courts have issued their ruling. Due process has been served. That's how justice works in a nation of laws. Contrary to all the rhetoric, the state is not "killing" Ms. Shiavo. Ms. Shiavo is being allowed to die in accordance with her wishes, as determined by the courts.
posted on 03.23.2005 10:22 AM33
Boon,
I heard a neurologist being interviewed on NBC this morning who said he had a 16 year old patient with severe damage to the cerebral cortex who not only "woke up" but actually recounted some of the things that were said while he was in what everybody thought was a vegatative state. To be fair, this is anecdotal. But none of this matters because Michael Schiavo is not a doctor and has no idea what could happen in the future. Many people with irrational fears are driven to extreme measures.
Anyway, I'm not prepared to argue this issue fully. I need to read up more on what impact this nurse's testimony had on the case and why it didn't go anywhere. But since none of us knows Michael's motives, I thought it would be just as valid to bring up as Ron Ryan's conjecture.
posted on 03.23.2005 10:31 AM34
You didn't really say anthing there;
That's because I neglected to post the link to the affidavit. Sorry, here it is:
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm
moreover, Mr. Schiavo has noted that some of the RN's have an animus against him because of the shoddy care his wife received, and his complaints about it.
Wouldn't you say that if someone caught you in a murder attempt?
posted on 03.23.2005 10:34 AM35
Aaron, remember what they say about a foolish consistency? Your type of argument is what I consider the 'false hypocrite'. Let me use an example to demonstrate it:
A. Hillary Clinton is a feminist.
B. Feminists do not believe in marriage or 'standing by your man' or being in a relationship where the man is more successful.
C. Hillary is married to a man who is more successful than her and she says she chooses to stand by him therefore she is an inconsistent hypocrite!
The flaw comes from B, while there is some element of truth in A and the sterotype of feminists in B is justified Hillary never said B. She never said she opposed marriage or not ending a marriage with problems. Hence C does not follow.
Since when did pro-lifers or Ted Kennedy state that state and local courts should be abolished? When did they say that Congress should alter judicial outcomes in the states whenever they fancied? The charge of 'inconsistency' is bogus unless you are accusing them of being inconsistent with your sterotype of them.
posted on 03.23.2005 10:35 AM36
This is obviously a very thorny issue. I know one thing. If I starve a dog to death, and get caught, I will be in court for cruelty to animals, so something is being done to Terry that we wouldn't allow to happen to a dog.
posted on 03.23.2005 10:49 AM37
The removal of nutrition and hydration occurs every day. It's not an extraordinary thing. The courts have determined, after hearing the evidence, that this was Terri's wish. Who are we to deny Terri this last bit of dignity?
posted on 03.23.2005 10:55 AM38
Mark, I like your quote:
"Marriage now comes only with rights, but absolutely no obligations. As it works now, one spouse can abandon the other, take their money, their children, and apparently pull their feeding tube as well."
But in most cases, the laws of our states do impose some penalties for behaviors described above. However, this case is so complicated that it is hard to follow all of the twists and turns.
I think JP, posted just above me, makes a good point however. The Almighty and The State appear to have very different interests in the sanctity of marriage. Whereas the Almighty/Church is interested in personal morality like commitment, sacrificial love, personal relationships, being a good husband and father,.... the state is poorly suited for encouraging these kinds of things beyond making laws that will nudge people in this direction. Remember, our founding fathers said that our constitution was created for "a moral and Godly people and unsuitable for any other.." And this is where the criticism of Christians (myself included) and the church is warranted. Where was the church when all of these states passed their 'no fault' divorce laws? Were we actively involved in the debate and in electing our representatives to reflect our values? I think we can see the answer to that question. We have been asleep at the wheel.
That is why this debate is very good and very important. Christians need to debate these issues with our neighbors with other opinions and be a part of the process... like what is happening here on this blog.
But to just finish with a challenge at our atheistic brothers, what is your role in this debate. If your opinion is just one of billions with no absolute standard to shoot for or get your fellow man to adopt, how can you hope to change anyone else's mind. By definition, your worldview says that all ideas and actions are equal because each man individually can make them up as he goes. I am not being arguementative, I am just curious how you get around this in your own minds.
posted on 03.23.2005 10:57 AM39
It is unlikely that one would insert a feeding tube into a dog for any length of time, and I doubt it would take a court order to remove it.
So you're right; we treat dogs better than we treat Terri Schiavo.
posted on 03.23.2005 11:01 AM40
"By definition, your worldview says that all ideas and actions are equal because each man individually can make them up as he goes. I am not being arguementative, I am just curious how you get around this in your own minds."
No need to "get around" an impediment that doesn't exist. Your characterization of atheistic worldviews is simplistic and fallacious.
41
"Where was the church when all of these states passed their 'no fault' divorce laws? Were we actively involved in the debate and in electing our representatives to reflect our values?"
I somewhat disagree with this. While we all certainly want representatives in government that reflect our values, the Church should not be looking to the government to impose its standards on the institution of marriage. The Church is already empowered to do that within it's own members. Nothing is preventing a church from setting parameters for marriage for the couples that the church chooses to marry. If a couple violates those standards in divorce, the church is free to not recognize that divorce. Unfortunately, the state is not obligated to recognize the church's authority over marriage rules, which is perhaps something that the church should advocate for.
posted on 03.23.2005 11:10 AM42
Mr Ed:
Did you read what you linked to? There is absolutely, positively no evidence of attempted murder there.
You did, however, post what appears to be an affidavit that almost certainly contains mis-statements of fact, since, as has already been noted, the chance that "Terri" was responsive as described is essentially nil given the extensive video testimony that was introduced into the litigation surrounding this case (i.e., the video showed that Ms. Schiavo was non-responsive; the stuff on the website was edited from several hours to several minutes).
posted on 03.23.2005 11:16 AM43
It really bothers me when people from any part of the political spectrum try to hijack a tragic issue to make a cheap political point. Some Lefties are doing it in anti-gun rants after the Minnesota school shootings. And the Rightists are doing it with Terry Schiavo.
That said, I believe this post marks a new low for you, Joe. Strip away all the politicians and the media attention, and just look at the people involved: Michael Schiavo, and the Schindlers. Both parties receive a tremendous amount of verbal and written abuse for their stances in this matter. Neither party seems concerned with money or fame. What we have, instaed, is people who believe very strongly but disagree; and as far as I can tell, it is for their beliefs that they take all the abuse and press on.
What other possible motive can they have? Michael Schiavo's actions have shown that it's not about the money. The courts -- at all levels -- have never found any fault in his behavior toward Terri. Why is it so difficult for the "pro-life" crowd to accept that he is genuinely acting in what he believes to be her best interests?
I happen to agree with Michael Schiavo in this matter. Yet you don't see me vilifying the Schindlers and impuging their integrity. Why do you feel that your only recourse is to insult, to vilify, and to impugn? Why must everyone who disagrees with you be inherently "bad" or "evil" somehow?
Plank in thine own eye, my friend.
posted on 03.23.2005 11:26 AM44
Mike O:
If I starve a dog to death, and get caught, I will be in court for cruelty to animals, so something is being done to Terry that we wouldn't allow to happen to a dog.Would you be? It's one thing if you didn't put any food out for the dog, but if you put a bowl of food out for the dog and he didn't eat (even if it was because he was unable to eat), I doubt you'd be charged with animal cruelty. And even if you were, it would be because you didn't then do the humane thing and euthanize the dog, not because you failed to artificially feed direct-to-stomach. posted on 03.23.2005 11:34 AM
45
Here is an excellent, unbiased survey of the issue...
Some interesting factoids from the aritcle:
1. It was the Schindlers who urged Michael Schiavo to "move on" romantically.
2. Michael Schiavo worked tirelessly for his wife's rehabilitation, until it was clear that there was no chance.
3. It wasn't just Michael Schiavo who overheard his wife's end of life wishes.
4. This part in particualr bears quoting:
The Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.
46
Rob said:
"No need to "get around" an impediment that doesn't exist. Your characterization of atheistic worldviews is simplistic and fallacious."
Your answer unfortunately is typical of other self proclaimed atheists on this blog, ...written very authoritatively but with little or no support so that others can understand why what you say is true.
If my characterization of atheism is 'simplistic and fallacious', then please enlighten us as to why that is so. I am not being combative, just curious. Do all atheists agree with you? If not, then which atheist should I listen to for the final authority of truth. By what standard do you discern that your ideas are better/more right than others? Please enlighten us.
posted on 03.23.2005 11:39 AM47
Did you read what you linked to? There is absolutely, positively no evidence of attempted murder there.
I did read it and I read this:
When Michael visited Terri, he always came alone and always had the door closed and locked while he was with Terri. He would typically be there about twenty minutes or so. When he left Terri would would be trembling, crying hysterically, and would be very pale and have cold sweats. It looked to me like Terri was having a hypoglycemic reaction, so I’d check her blood sugar. The glucometer reading would be so low it was below the range where it would register an actual number reading. I would put dextrose in Terri’s mouth to counteract it. This happened about five times on my shift as I recall. Normally Terri’s blood sugar levels were very stable due to the uniformity of her diet through tube feeding. It is my belief that Michael injected Terri with Regular insulin, which is very fast acting.
You did, however, post what appears to be an affidavit that almost certainly contains mis-statements of fact...
Only if you believe the argument that she is unresponsive. So here we have the testimony of a nurse who sees Terri on a daily basis and physicians who ezamined Terri for a half an hour os so if they examined her at all.
posted on 03.23.2005 11:40 AM48
Mr Ed: The COURTS have already conducted their fact-finding as to Terri Shiavo's condition. It isn't a matter for still further litigation just because some people can't accept the courts' conclusions. The matter was appealed to the FL Supreme Court and denied review at the U.S. Supreme Court. State courts make these determinations all the time. I think it's a grave mistake to allow yourself to get caught up in the media hype and allow them to hijack the legal process and try the case again for public consumption. All of these factual questions already have been fully litigated. There's nothing else to do but to let Terri Shiavo die with dignity as she apparently wished to do.
posted on 03.23.2005 11:48 AM49
Mr Ed:
You are taking an affidavit from someone who was terminated from her job, who has no medical gravitas to determine insulin poisioning (she's not a physician), nor firsthand evidence to indicate as such, and are completly ignoring the legal record -which included hours of video tape testimony from the Schindler's physician.
Basically, you're saying, like the rest of the religious right who wanted this to happen, "Let's ignore the rule of law. Let's ignore the sanctity of marriage. Let's ignore the evidence that was weighed into the numerous litigations on the case. We don't like the result."
Well, that's not how things are done in our country.
50
Andrew Sullivan had an interesting post related to this topic today.
It is simply amazing to hear the advocates of the inviolability of the heterosexual civil marital bond deny Terri Schiavo's legal husband the right to decide his wife's fate, when she cannot decide it for herself. Again, the demands of the religious right pre-empt constitutionalism, federalism, and even the integrity of the family. When conservatism means breaking up the civil bond between a man and his wife, you know it has ceased to be conservative. But we have known that for a long time now. Conservatism is a philosophy without a party in America any more. It has been hijacked by zealots and statists.
I think zealots and statists pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. It's a convenient and flexible moral relativism that Christians are practicing here.
If I trust someone enough to marry them, then I trust them to know when it's right to pull the plug or not. If I make a mistake in trusting the wrong person, its still my mistake. I still believe that we are individually responsible for our own lives. That is apparently no longer a Christian concept.
I don't want the Church or Trent Lott or a million lawyers to come in and trample over the remains of my dignity as a human being by taking away my right to make my own choices. And by taking away the consequences of those choices, that is exactly what you would do. My choice is made at the time of my marriage, not when I sign a "do not resuscitate" piece of paper. I may be just a gay man, ineligible in your view to be married, but apparently I understand the commitment better than some others. It should be my husband that gets to make the choice. He might make the wrong one, but he is the one that I've chosen to trust. And thats the way it should be.
posted on 03.23.2005 12:14 PM51
We don't try cases through the media because there are no rules for such inquiries. There are no rules of evidence or rules of procedure for media-induced "hearings".
posted on 03.23.2005 12:15 PM52
Basically, you're saying, like the rest of the religious right who wanted this to happen, "Let's ignore the rule of law. Let's ignore the sanctity of marriage. Let's ignore the evidence that was weighed into the numerous litigations on the case. We don't like the result."
No, I'm saying none of the above mumon. And your attempt to paint me into a corner is not supported by the position I've taken. In fact, it is the "religious right", as you put it, in the legislature that bumped the decision up to the federal courts. Far from ignoring the rule of law, these people seem only to be saying "Let's make sure Terri gets due process."
posted on 03.23.2005 12:17 PM53
Well said, Patrick. I agree with Sullivan. If the forces driving this circus are the New Conservatism, then I don't want any part of it.
posted on 03.23.2005 12:19 PM54
Mr Ed:
Does the 9th and 10th ammendments mean anything to you? How about the clause in the Constitution that requires a quorum for laws to be passed?
The Schindlers have had their due process- you just don't like the result.
55
Mr Ed:
With all due respect, due process was thoroughly and exhausively served in the state courts! Are we going to open the federal courts to every state matter that happens to get a lot of media attention? The U.S. Supreme Court even refused to hear the case, because there was no issue for them to hear! The Shiavo family wants the entire case relitigated in the Federal Courts. That's CRAZY! It's madness!
posted on 03.23.2005 12:27 PM56
With all due respect, due process was thoroughly and exhausively served in the state courts! Are we going to open the federal courts to every state matter that happens to get a lot of media attention? The U.S. Supreme Court even refused to hear the case, because there was no issue for them to hear! The Shiavo family wants the entire case relitigated in the Federal Courts. That's CRAZY! It's madness!
Well, I'm of the opinion that a case such as this that will undoubtedly set precedent for future cases needs the extra attention. We're dealing with taking someone's life here, not just that but we're dealing with future lives that might be in a similar position. Shouldn't we make absolutely sure we're doing the right thing?
posted on 03.23.2005 12:31 PM57
Does the 9th and 10th ammendments mean anything to you?
Yes, they do. And the 10th amendment was thoroghly ignored in 1973. If that same case was happening today would you feel as passionate about states rights? But this case doesn't bear on the 10th. The only thing the federal judge did was ascertain that she got due process in the state court.
posted on 03.23.2005 12:36 PM58
Trying to keep this somewhat on the original topic:
1. Changing the law to remove spouses as guardians if they have an affair or even a full blown relationship with kids like Michael is stupid for the pro-life movement. The result will be many people silently pressuring doctors to kill their spouses (or accelerate their deaths) in order for them to 'get on with their lives'.
2. It is not a good idea to go around automatically invalidating marriages at a drop of the hat. You're basically just creating a super easy method to divorce (have a one night stand...poof you're not married anymore!)..
3. It is a bad idea to make major public policy changes on the basis of just one isolated case. As Larry pointed out, Terri is hardly the only case where pro-lifers could object to the actions that are being done. In fact, the attention surrounding her case has probably distracted the larger issue of when life support shoudl and shouldn't be removed...this effects thousands of people.
posted on 03.23.2005 12:39 PM59
"Shouldn't we make absolutely sure we're doing the right thing?"
Yes, we should and that's what the Florida courts did. They litigated the issues for over 7 years. Are we now going to require people in Terri's condition to go through a lengthy federal process to get their wish? Are you forgeting that this is a state matter? Do Constitutional balance of power issues not matter here?
posted on 03.23.2005 12:41 PM60
Boonton:
Changing the law to remove spouses as guardians if they have an affair or even a full blown relationship with kids like Michael is stupid for the pro-life movement. The result will be many people silently pressuring doctors to kill their spouses (or accelerate their deaths) in order for them to 'get on with their lives'.
That's true; for example Bill would have pressured doctors in Texas to terminate support for Beatrix Kiddo...
posted on 03.23.2005 12:46 PM61
"The only thing the federal judge did was ascertain that she got due process in the state court."
Yes, that's true, but that's not what the Shiavo family and the whole pro-life movement wants. They want the federal court to relitigate the entire case. They want to throw out what the Florida courts did for 7 years and go through the entire fact-finding process again. How insane is that! If I were Terri's husband, I'd be furious, too.
62
Well, I'm of the opinion that a case such as this that will undoubtedly set precedent for future cases needs the extra attention. We're dealing with taking someone's life here, not just that but we're dealing with future lives that might be in a similar position. Shouldn't we make absolutely sure we're doing the right thing?
What exactly is the precedent being set here? That a person's informal statements can be used as grounds to believe they would want to be excluded from intervention? That a spousal guardian may make such motions on behalf on an incapacitated spouse? Those precedents were already set. This case is not very notable from a legal point of view. It cuts no legal ground, makes no major change in how laws are interpreted. If you think it does please feel free to describe how.
Yes, they do. And the 10th amendment was thoroghly ignored in 1973. If that same case was happening today would you feel as passionate about states rights? But this case doesn't bear on the 10th. The only thing the federal judge did was ascertain that she got due process in the state court.
The tenth wasn't ignored in '73. If you actually read the Roe decision you would know that it recognized a state's interest in protecting unborn life as well as the privacy rights of a woman to her body. It attempted to balance the two. You are free to disagree with how they drew the line but it is highly inaccurate to say state rights were ignored in 73. Also what is your point really? Because you don't like Roe you have carte blanch to reek havoic on the legal system?
63
Following up on Boonton's last point, here is a great little article where we can see Christian leader Bill Frist struggling with the same ubiquitous everyday issue that I've been trying to get people here to acknowledge -- what is "brain dead" and what are the consequences of being labeled thus?
Anencephalic babies are really weird. My steppop, who is an OB/GYN, once had an anencaphalic baby's blood-filled head literally explode when he pulled it out of the mother's birth canal. Nasty.
http://dcinsidescoop.blogspot.com/2005/03/frist-urged-changing-definition-of.html
"Frist wrote a book in 1989 called Transplant where he advocated changing the definition of "brain dead" to include anencephalic babies. Anencephalic babies are in the same state as Terri Schiavo except that she suffered a physical trauma that put her into a vegetative state while the anencephalic babies are born that way.
This remarkable discovery buttresses the argument that Frist's advocacy for Schiavo is wholly political. How does he explain this remarkable inconsistency? Here is the relevant passage on Frist as quoted by the New Republic in 2003:
"And, although Frist writes frequently about the ethical issues surrounding transplants--for example, the question of when death begins--he approaches these issues in starkly scientific terms, with little patience for religious objections.
"Near the end of the book, for example, Frist suggests changing the legal definition of 'brain death' to include anencephalic babies, who are born with a fatal neurological disorder but show just the slightest hint of brain-stem activity. Such a change would make it possible to harvest their organs for transplant--something the Catholic Church and pro-life groups oppose. 'Three thousand anencephalic babies were born a year, enough to solve our demand many times over--but we never used them.'"
posted on 03.23.2005 12:57 PM64
Mr. Ed keeps at it -- he's the new energizer bunny. We have to admire his stamina, if nothing else.
"We're dealing with taking someone's life here, not just that but we're dealing with future lives that might be in a similar position. Shouldn't we make absolutely sure we're doing the right thing? "
One visit to a Texas state court judge was enough to end that baby's life in Florida a couple weeks ago -- and in that case the baby's legal guardian wanted the baby to live!!!!! Why didn't Congress intervene then? How do we know that the Judge in that case really understood all the facts? Was every doctor in Texas asked to opine on the case? Were there no Nobel Prize "nominees" for hire to speak on behalf of that baby?
posted on 03.23.2005 1:04 PM65
The issue of anencephalic babies comes up when discussing partial birth abortion as well. I'm not sure if it is the same thing but I'm aware of another condition where the brain literally grows outside of the skull. While the baby may technically be alive inside the womb the condition is obviously fatal once the baby is born.
I believe one of the medical arguments presented in favor of partical birth abortions is that such babies sometimes may present a medical threat to the mother & the threat comes from the last part of the delievery when their enlarged heads come out.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:05 PM66
Boon:
1. I thought about that when you brought it up the first time and, though I think you're probably right, at first glance I don't think the logic stands. It is wrong, unethical and most likely illegal for a physician to accelerate the termination of life soley based on the wishes of the guardian. If a physician was found to have done this he would almost certainly have his license revoked. It would be similar to saying we shouldn't make heroin illegal because it will only increase the amount of drug deal related deaths.
2. I don't think Joe's talking about a situation where there are two healthy and fully functioning parties. If so, I would have a problem with that too. The state should only be involved when one member is incapacitated. And I don't think it should be so rigid as to remove guardianship for a one night stand.
3. This is a good point but I'm sure that if we raised the issue we would find many more relevant cases.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:08 PM67
Fyi, it's a very very very safe bet that many other people have had their plugs pulled and/or necessary medicines stopped (except for morphine) during the past couple weeks, mostly because their money or their family's money or their patience or their family's patience has run out.
Strangely, no one has filed a case to defend those doomed people (mostly elderly and terminally ill infants) and asked that those murder cases be joined to Terry's case.
Go figure.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:09 PM68
One visit to a Texas state court judge was enough to end that baby's life in Florida a couple weeks ago -- and in that case the baby's legal guardian wanted the baby to live!!!!! Why didn't Congress intervene then? How do we know that the Judge in that case really understood all the facts? Was every doctor in Texas asked to opine on the case? Were there no Nobel Prize "nominees" for hire to speak on behalf of that baby?
No, you're the one that persists, Lar. I've answered your question numerous times on different threads. You simply ignore those and repost the same question over and over.
69
Fyi, it's a very very very safe bet that many other people have had their plugs pulled and/or necessary medicines stopped (except for morphine) during the past couple weeks, mostly because their money or their family's money or their patience or their family's patience has run out.
I'll take that bet. A pint on me if you can point to a case where the "plug was pulled" because the patient or family ran out of money.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:16 PM70
Mr Ed:
It would be similar to saying we shouldn't make heroin illegal because it will only increase the amount of drug deal related deaths.
Er...umm... but it does. Heroin's ratio of lethal dose to minimal effective dose is larger than aspirin's.
It's the stuff used to adulterate the illegal heroin, the varying amounts of heroin in illegal "heroin," and the needles, crime, etc. that make illegal heroin far more dangerous than legal heroin.
Getting back to the point, the courts have made their decision on much more than just the legal wishes of the guardian.
The state should only be involved when one member is incapacitated...
And so you want to attack the institution of marriage.
71
Yes, that's true, but that's not what the Shiavo family and the whole pro-life movement wants. They want the federal court to relitigate the entire case.
It's understandable for the Schiavo family to want that but I don't know if its fair to say that the whole pro-life movement, of which I am a member, wants that.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:18 PM72
tgirsch,
What other possible motive can they have? Michael Schiavo's actions have shown that it's not about the money.
I never questioned Michael’s motives. They are, in fact, irrelevant to the point at hand. The sole reason that he is allowed guardianship is because, as the woman’s husband, he is perceived to have a special relationship based on fidelity and intimacy. But he doesn't have that. Michael broke that bond when he started shacking up with another woman. He may have absolutely pure motives but it still does not change the fact that he has made himself unworthy of being her guardian.
73
Mr Ed:
It'd probably help for you to familiarize yourself with the legal documents related to the case at hand first, right?
Rather than stuff from "Terri's" fight (I never knew she had gotten like Madonna or Beyonce or Prince), or associated stuff, why not read the actual court docs?
You CAN find 'em on the net; they're linked to via links on my blog, e.g.
74
It's the stuff used to adulterate the illegal heroin, the varying amounts of heroin in illegal "heroin," and the needles, crime, etc. that make illegal heroin far more dangerous than legal heroin.
Re-read my post--that's what I was talking about.
Getting back to the point, the courts have made their decision on much more than just the legal wishes of the guardian.
I didn't say they did. Again, you need to go back and read the post over.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:21 PM75
The sole reason that he is allowed guardianship is because, as the woman’s husband, he is perceived to have a special relationship based on fidelity and intimacy.
No, based on a contractual relationship which the parties themselves to the contract are free to interpret as to when they are, in fact, violated.
If you want to violate the sanctity of the marriage contract, what you really want to do is to attack the institution of marriage.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:23 PM76
Rather than stuff from "Terri's" fight (I never knew she had gotten like Madonna or Beyonce or Prince), or associated stuff, why not read the actual court docs?
Do you know what they posted on Terri's Fight? Court documents. Go look.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:23 PM77
Mr. Ed
So refresh my memory -- your answer is that in the Texas case Congress was comfortable that "we" were "absolutely sure" that were doing the "right" thing (i.e., killing a baby by pulling the plug against its mother's wishes)?
Do I have that right? Please free to clarify.
I honestly don't recall a straightforward answer, Ed. I recall lots of strange conjecture and some tales about "40 NICUs" and a strange claim that killing babies and killing adults was "apples and oranges" but nothing resembling a real attempt to express your views.
I am hesitant to speculate that the lack of a script regarding the baby's death is the explanation for the relative silence of evangelicals on that case. Perhaps someone is working on that script now. If they are not, then they should be (assuming they want to continue with their politicization of family tragedies to pursue their anti-women's rights agenda).
posted on 03.23.2005 1:24 PM78
"He may have absolutely pure motives but it still does not change the fact that he has made himself unworthy of being her guardian."
That's fine for you to have that opinion, of course, but that's not the opinion of the Florida courts, and its their opinion that matters here because they are in the best position to weigh the evidence. Your personal conclusions on the subject are just your opinions, which are not subject to rules of evidence, rules of procedure, or the application of law.
79
No, based on a contractual relationship which the parties themselves to the contract are free to interpret as to when they are, in fact, violated.
I don't think you'll find too many people who think that having a relationship with someone else outside of the marriage doesn't violate the contract. I think the vast majority of people have a standard conception of what marriage represents and what is acceptable.
If you want to violate the sanctity of the marriage contract, what you really want to do is to attack the institution of marriage.
Typical of you mumon. Someone says something you disagree with and you personally attack their motives.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:30 PM80
Social conservatives have been competeing with social moderates, libertarians and libertines for so long, I think it's very unfair to blame them. We've been called all kinds of names and laughed at for our outdated notions of fideltiy and modesty. Well, the chickens have come home.
However...
When the USSR fell, there were no trials or attempts to bring the criminals who ran that gulag of a nation to justice. If we let this go silently and do not point out that this is a result of devaluation of marriage like Joe is saying, then we will be guilty of that.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:34 PM81
No, based on a contractual relationship which the parties themselves to the contract are free to interpret as to when they are, in fact, violated.
If you want to violate the sanctity of the marriage contract, what you really want to do is to attack the institution of marriage.
So, in the case of this 'contract', since we seemingly can infer the will of Terri concerning her own life, can we infer the will of Terri concerning her marraige to a man who is living with, and producing children by, another woman?
82
What exactly is the precedent being set here?
What happens when there is a family dispute? What happens when there are large number of dissenting medical opinions? How is a diagnosis of PVS justified in court in light of Terri's case? Is it justified to terminate care for non-terminal cases based on hearsay when said hearsay is disputed by patient family? There are many nuances, Boon. And I think we need to evaluate all of them when we're dealing with terminating care.
Also what is your point really? Because you don't like Roe you have carte blanch to reek havoic on the legal system?
No, that was a side comment since mumon, not unlike Larry though perhaps less obnoxiously, seems to be so interested in pointing out hypocrisies. My point was that I don't think this treads on states rights (what little there still are). Read the brief:
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.posted on 03.23.2005 1:39 PMThe right to life is guaranteed by the 5th amendment. It seems to me that its not a stretch to have this looked at by the Fed if it appears her fundamental right to life is being infringed.
83
Do I have that right? Please free to clarify.
No, you don't.
I honestly don't recall a straightforward answer, Ed. I recall lots of strange conjecture and some tales about "40 NICUs" and a strange claim that killing babies and killing adults was "apples and oranges" but nothing resembling a real attempt to express your views.
Go back to the other thread and read it then. I think its pretty close to the bottom so it shouldn't be hard to find.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:43 PM84
Chris Lutz:
Traditionally, in traditional marriage, the parties themselves decide if their contract is violated. If people want to change that traditional understanding of marriage, then they are attacking the institution of marriage.
There's nothing personal there. Do you think it's a personal attack on people to argue against gay marriage on the grounds that it's an attack on traditional marriage, or do you have only have a problem with wedges when it doesn't suit your preconceived positions?
85
"I don't blame him; Terri is gone."
Yet you keep saying that he represents her interests. And others keep saying that she must be protected by being starved and dehydrated to death.
It's very odd the way that "right to die" people shift from life to death in such ways. If she is already dead, then what are you looking out for, her life?
posted on 03.23.2005 1:47 PM86
Mr Ed:
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
Which said court has ruled, and 3 more judges since then. Your point?
87
And if it is as if she is already dead, then her husband is not still married to "her."
He is not her guardian. What is he guarding?
It seems that he simple fact is, some people want her to be starved to death and they are intently focused on seeing that is what happens.
There is no internal consistency to what they are saying in their attempts to see that she is starved.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:49 PM88
Very well, HumbleBumble. You said this:
"But to just finish with a challenge at our atheistic brothers, what is your role in this debate. If your opinion is just one of billions with no absolute standard to shoot for or get your fellow man to adopt, how can you hope to change anyone else's mind. By definition, your worldview says that all ideas and actions are equal because each man individually can make them up as he goes."
Perhaps my opinion is just one of billions. Perhaps there is no absolute standard to shoot for. Darn! That means each of us will actually have to reason things out and develop compelling arguments to support our views and convince others. I'd rather have no book to go by than one subject to numerous interpretations and filled with nonsensical fairy tales like the Jonah story.
As for all ideas and actions being equal, that's where the fallacy lies. If I thought all ideas and actions were equal, I'd hardly waste my time touting mine. No, HumbleBumble, I'm here because I think my views are better than yours, just as you probably think yours are better than mine. You have a book. I do not. Therein lies the difference.
"Do all atheists agree with you?"
Probably not.
"If not, then which atheist should I listen to for the final authority of truth."
You're going to let an atheist determine truth for you? Sweet! Pick me! Pick me!
"By what standard do you discern that your ideas are better/more right than others?"
By my own standards, same as you do. Whether you reasoned them out for yourself or adopted someone else's, the standards you apply are yours.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:52 PM89
Joe:
The sole reason that he is allowed guardianship is because, as the woman’s husband, he is perceived to have a special relationship based on fidelity and intimacy. But he doesn't have that. Michael broke that bond when he started shacking up with another woman.Except that, as previously pointed out, it was the Schindlers who encouraged Michael to move on, and if I'm not mistaken, all of these decisions (to allow her to die) were made before he did so. What's at issue here isn't what he wants now, it's what she wanted a dozen years ago. Michael Schiavo's status as guardian is completely irrelevant to any of that. The Schnindler's refusal to accept Terri's wishes are the primary sticking point here. I can sympathize with them, but that's not the point. The point is, if Michael weren't Terri's guardian, the situation wouldn't change one bit. To imply otherwise is to show ignorance of the laws surrounding the case.
I strongly suggest that you read this and educate yourself (assuming you actually care about the facts surrounding the case -- you may not). In fact, I suggest that everyone interested in this case read this. This guy's been monitoring this case since long before it was cool, and he's very even-handed.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:54 PM90
"....assuming they want to continue with their politicization of family tragedies to pursue their anti-women's rights agenda."
It is odd, or is it queer, the way that effeminates always seem to feel that they know something about women's rights or what is right for women.
I suppose what is right for a women in this case is that she be starved and dehydrated to death.
In other cases they say that it is right that she abort her child, etc. Ironically, with post abortion type syndromes and the like, it seems that the social left is not really looking out for women there anymore than they are when they advcocate that a woman be starved to death.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:54 PM92
"Whether you reasoned them out for yourself or adopted someone else's, the standards you apply are yours."
Wrong, you can adhere to text (law, scripture, etc.) based on principle and derive your standards from it. As it is written.
But you do illustrate the standards typically adhered to on the left very well. I.e., their own, typically based on their own feelings.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:57 PM93
1. I thought about that when you brought it up the first time and, though I think you're probably right, at first glance I don't think the logic stands. It is wrong, unethical and most likely illegal for a physician to accelerate the termination of life soley based on the wishes of the guardian. If a physician was found to have done this he would almost certainly have his license revoked. It would be similar to saying we shouldn't make heroin illegal because it will only increase the amount of drug deal related deaths.
True Mr Ed but only to the degree such behavior can be caught and proven. Recall Joe's story about injecting his mother with morphine, the temptation to add just a little bit more to end the suffering a little bit sooner? Implement a law like this and you will create a new conflict of interest where spouses will be encouraged to 'get their spouse out of the way of their new life'. While you may not agree with taking a lover while still inside one marriage it is better to do so than to refrain and be subject to even subconscious temptation to 'accelerate the process' more than it need be.
2. I don't think Joe's talking about a situation where there are two healthy and fully functioning parties. If so, I would have a problem with that too. The state should only be involved when one member is incapacitated. And I don't think it should be so rigid as to remove guardianship for a one night stand.
It is presumptious to assume that the state should speak for the incapacitated spouse. She may, if she was able to speak, have forgiven or tolerated an affair under such a trying ordeal. There are marriages that endure numerous affairs yet both partners want the marriage to continue.
The duty of a guardian is limited to protecting his wards interests to the best of his ability. That is it. It is not the business of the state to regulate the guardian outside of that realm IMO. If you read some of the decisions you might note that Michael tried experimental treatments and demanded improved conditions for his wife until he became convinced it was hopeless. Imagine similar circumstances where other spouse-guardians are actively fighting for their incapacitated spouses' interests but they are taking a lover to fulfill their own needs for companionship. Such an act may be weakness on their part but who among us is without sin and how many among us can really be sure our characters are so invincible that we could bear decades of such a marriage?
I think the Catholic perspective is useful here even if you don't want to accept their doctrine on divorce. Their perspective is that whatever sins or failings the partners may have the Marriage endures for life, period. Do you really want to say marriages should be dissolved if they are imperfect? Certainly when Jesus spoke against divorce he knew that nearly all marriages had serious imperfections in them.
I never questioned Michael’s motives. They are, in fact, irrelevant to the point at hand. The sole reason that he is allowed guardianship is because, as the woman’s husband, he is perceived to have a special relationship based on fidelity and intimacy. But he doesn't have that. Michael broke that bond when he started shacking up with another woman. He may have absolutely pure motives but it still does not change the fact that he has made himself unworthy of being her guardian.
Sorry Joe but you have no right to say that. You have no right to speak for their marriage, no right to guess their intimacy or lack of it.
I don't think you'll find too many people who think that having a relationship with someone else outside of the marriage doesn't violate the contract. I think the vast majority of people have a standard conception of what marriage represents and what is acceptable.
Violating a contract does not dissolve it. Nor does knowledge that one person violated a contract entitle a third party to attempt to dissolve it from outside.
So, in the case of this 'contract', since we seemingly can infer the will of Terri concerning her own life, can we infer the will of Terri concerning her marraige to a man who is living with, and producing children by, another woman?
No we cannot. We do not infer that Terri choose to marry Michael, she did that publically and directly. That includes a host of consquences including the fact that a spouse becomes your heir should you die and also is the default guardian should you become incapacitated (what do you think one of the 'priviliges of marriage' is when we debate gay marriage?). The Marriage Contract does not include an automatic self destruct provision if one person has a relationship with another outside of it.
posted on 03.23.2005 1:59 PM94
Traditionally, in traditional marriage, the parties themselves decide if their contract is violated. If people want to change that traditional understanding of marriage, then they are attacking the institution of marriage.
You're confusing what marriage is and how people handle violations of the marriage. Someone may stay with someone who sleeps with others, but that is still a violation of the marriage vows.
what you really want to do is to attack the institution of marriage.
Look at the statement. This isn't a statement of disagreement. Its a statement that Joe is using this to attack marriage. If you said, "Your position weakens marriage as defined today." Then you are arguing without implying motives and without attacking the motives of the person.
To reiterate a point Jack made, what is the contract (BTW, marriage is more than a contract) that Terri had with her husband? Let's assume its the standard Christian wedding vows. Since she is still alive, he has broken the contract.
posted on 03.23.2005 2:01 PM95
Charles Krauthammer's Washington Post column on what is clearly a difficult case is well worth reading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58464-2005Mar22.html
96
All of these issues being discussed have already been fully aired in the Florida courts. Unless I unknowingly woke-up in bizzaro world, the findings of the court is all that matters.
posted on 03.23.2005 2:06 PM97
By my own standards, same as you do. Whether you reasoned them out for yourself or adopted someone else's, the standards you apply are yours.
In short this means, no one's opinion here 'matters' Teri Schiavo doesn't 'matter, whether any of us has our life ended prematurely through starvation or gunshot doesn't really 'matter'; this is only an intellectual exercise for the sake of our own amusement, however temporary that particular experience is.
posted on 03.23.2005 2:10 PM98
Mr. Ed
"Is it justified to terminate care for non-terminal cases based on hearsay when said hearsay is disputed by patient family?"
Do you really mean "hearsay" or do you mean "based on an oral statement"?
"Hearsay" has a legal definition.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect11.htm
I am not sure that oral statements to someone's legal guardian to the effect of "I do not want to be kept alive if I'm a vegetable" are "hearsay". They are more akin to statements with legal intent, like statements of contract formation.
In any event, I think I understand what you're getting at. And you can be sure that the Florida legislature and perhaps others will consider amending its laws. Since I, like Terry Schiavo, do not want to kept alive as some sort of expensive stuffed animal for my surviving family members or worse if my brain is permanently fried, I would be happy if oral evidence suffices under some circumstances.
This unselfish approach can save everybody else some tax dollars, too, by the way. You can bet such considerations will be taken into account.
I'd guess that the wills/trusts bar will be glad to see the law written to require you to visit their offices in order to express your wish to have your feeding tube removed if you're turned into a vegetable.
posted on 03.23.2005 2:10 PM99
"Charles Krauthammer's Washington Post column on what is clearly a difficult case is well worth reading."
Charles Krauthammer -- what a fine upstanding Christian! He and Bugman Delay make a great couple.
posted on 03.23.2005 2:12 PM100
Which said court has ruled, and 3 more judges since then. Your point?
My point was that it wasn't overstepping federal jurisdiction to do so.
posted on 03.23.2005 2:12 PM101
"Michael Schiavo's actions have shown that it's not about the money."
It's ironic that Judge Greer wrote, "Money overshadows everything in this case."
posted on 03.23.2005 2:13 PM102
Larry Lord:
Good point on hearsay; to expound further: Michael Schiavo's testimony re: his wife is not hearsay, because, under the law he is speaking for his wife; they are as one person under the law except when their interests clearly conflict, which, in this case they certainly do not.
103
This unselfish approach can save everybody else some tax dollars, too, by the way. You can bet such considerations will be taken into account.
I'm sure they will by you, since your primary motivation for preserving a life seems to be how much it will cost.
104
"To reiterate a point Jack made, what is the contract (BTW, marriage is more than a contract) that Terri had with her husband? Let's assume its the standard Christian wedding vows. Since she is still alive, he has broken the contract."
...through sickness and through health, including prolonged vegetative states where we've asked for the feeding tube to be removed but the governor has decided that he might get more votes if it's left in, through riches and poverty ...
posted on 03.23.2005 2:16 PM105
Good point on hearsay; to expound further: Michael Schiavo's testimony re: his wife is not hearsay, because, under the law he is speaking for his wife; they are as one person under the law except when their interests clearly conflict, which, in this case they certainly do not.
Which would be the point of this thread; if he has ceased to honor the marraige contract he had with his wife, why do the courts allow him to continue speaking for her?
posted on 03.23.2005 2:18 PM106
...through sickness and through health, including prolonged vegetative states where we've asked for the feeding tube to be removed but the governor has decided that he might get more votes if it's left in, through riches and poverty ...
Or the modified version offered by Larry:
"...through sickness and through health, unless of course, it impinges on my pocket book, wherein I'm obligated to do you in as quickly as law allows."
posted on 03.23.2005 2:21 PM107
Jack
"...your primary motivation for preserving a life seems to be how much it will cost."
Really ... is that "my" "primary" motivation Jack? Or is it merely a factor that is impossible to ignore when discussing health care?
And will that snipe be included in your speech to your kids when they hesitate to mortgate their house and dip into your grandkids college tuition savings to pay to fly your 85 year old ass to Switzlerland for the latest experimental kidney cancer treatment?
posted on 03.23.2005 2:25 PM108
True Mr Ed but only to the degree such behavior can be caught and proven.
That can be said for many laws. The possibility that it might be poorly enforced is no reason not to enact a law. This may not be the right law for other reasons but the pragmatics regarding its enforcement is not one of them. For example, its highly doubtful that there will ever be enough police to enforce a speed limit. That doesn't mean there should be no speed limit.
It is presumptious to assume that the state should speak for the incapacitated spouse. She may, if she was able to speak, have forgiven or tolerated an affair under such a trying ordeal. There are marriages that endure numerous affairs yet both partners want the marriage to continue.
The marriage may endure but the fact remains that at that point in time the husband used extremely poor judgement. Couldn't this be a determining factor regarding suitability of guardianship?
Do you really want to say marriages should be dissolved if they are imperfect?
Dissolution of marriage? Absolutely not! Dissolution of guardianship? Possibly, depending on the level of imperfection. Clearly, an abusive husband, for example, is unfit for guardianship. So there is a point at