Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
House Hacks Say "Feed Me Feed Me Feed Me!"
When chefs like ethically challenged redistricter Tom Delay, bumbling-but-still-not-lovable Speaker Denny Hastert, and roid-raging Virginian Tom Davis (didn't he used to be Al Franken's partner?) are doing the cooking, you can be sure federal separation of powers won't be on the menu. The three House Republicans are now asserting their constitutional authority to keep Terri Schiavo eating.
"Later this morning," says a statement from Davis, Delay, and Hastert, "we will issue a subpoena, which will require hospice administrators and attending physicians to preserve nutrition and hydration for Terri Schiavo to allow Congress to fully understand the procedures and practices that are currently keeping her alive."
That could take weeks!
I should speak a little Reason heresy here and admit that I am not as convinced as my colleague Ron Bailey that the case for turning off Schiavo's feeding tube is beyond dispute; I also think "turning off her feeding tube" is a euphemism (and not a very inventive one) for "starving her to death." (For my money, the scandal isn't that the system would allow Schiavo to die, but that it requires her to starve rather than just getting a thump on the head or a dose of cyanide.)
Schiavo's shameless parents have clouded the issue beyond recognition and tried to make her husband, who has gone broke keeping her alive this long, look like a monster. But all legitimate grounds of appeal have run out. Now we're stuck with only the illegitimate grounds.
But I guess it will be sort of funny, in a Farrelly brothers kind of way, to watch Hastert interrogating the vegetative Schiavo on March 28.
|3.18.05 @ 1:12PM|#
If I ever end up in her condition, will someone please whack me when Congress isn't looking?
|3.18.05 @ 1:14PM|#
Has anyone else noticed the irony in the fact that traditional
religous conservatives usually believe that a husband assumes the
parent's authority after the wedding. Isn't that the point of
having the father give away the daughter to her new husband?
Maybe I am misinterpreting tradional mores but if a principle has
exceptions then it isn't a principle. Does anyone have a better
understanding than I with regards to traditional family structure
and authority? I this simply a case of forsaking one principle in
favor of another one which is viewed as a higher principle?
|3.18.05 @ 1:16PM|#
Twba
They're may be only one indisputable fact in this case, and that is
that one needs a Living Will.
|3.18.05 @ 1:26PM|#
Well, whatever one might think about the particulars of the
case, isn't it a bit disturbing that the House is now taking on the
role of an appeals court?
On the plus side, if they bring her to DC for this, despite her
vegetative state (or whatever term you prefer), she'll still be
more intelligent than any of the Congressmen doing the
hearing.
Not sure if that's an argument for euthanizing them or keeping her
alive...
|3.18.05 @ 1:28PM|#
"Is this simply a case of forsaking one principle in favor of
another one which is viewed as a higher principle?"
Perhaps i can answer this with a segment from the movie Napolean
Dynamite:
Nap: Do the chickens have large talons?
Farmer: Large what?
Nap: Large talons...
Farmer: Boy, i don't understand a word you just said.
|3.18.05 @ 1:36PM|#
"They're may be only one indisputable fact in this case, and
that is that one needs a Living Will."
pretty much.
|3.18.05 @ 1:41PM|#
Wow. It's frightening, but perhaps not surprising, to see such
unblinking evil on a more-or-less mainstream blog. I have sometimes
enjoyed this blog in the past, but I will never be stopping by here
again.
Go to amywelborn.typepad.com for better Schiavo coverage.
|3.18.05 @ 1:42PM|#
"traditional religous conservatives usually believe that a
husband assumes the parent's authority after the wedding."
You're right! We religious conservatives have always supported the
right of fathers to kill their daughters. Honor killings, you know.
So when the daughter gets married, the paternal power gets
transferred to the husband.
We have always supported the right of adulterous husbands to starve
their wives to death. How come we've changed our position so
suddenly?
|3.18.05 @ 1:42PM|#
So, let's say that a gay guy goes into a coma or vegetative
state or whatever you want to call it, and his husband wants to
pull the plug. What will the religious right say? If they allow a
wicked sodomite to die and go to hell on the say-so of his husband
they're acknowledging the legal legitimacy of gay marriage. If they
fight to keep him alive, they'll probably have to humanize a gay
person.
Whatever stance they take, I'm sure they'll find a way to be really
obnoxious about it.
|3.18.05 @ 1:45PM|#
I have sometimes enjoyed this blog in the past, but I will
never be stopping by here again.
Except that the people who say that always come back...
And if you reply to say that you really mean it and you're not
coming back, well, then you'll be stuck in a contradiction and Gary
Gunnels will go after you ;)
|3.18.05 @ 1:49PM|#
Seriously, I'm not trying to mock traditionalists. I'm just trying to understand what principles are at work since so many seem to be invoking the assumed authority of the parents in this case.
|3.18.05 @ 1:52PM|#
Nah, Eryk, the pretense that the parents are the rightful authority is just a means to an end. If the situation was reversed, the same people would be arguing vehemently about the parents improperly intruding on the glorious institution of marriage.
|3.18.05 @ 1:56PM|#
The principle at work is "grandstanding".
And tyranically ignoring concepts like the separation of powers and
federalism.
Me, I ain't going away.
SP
|3.18.05 @ 1:57PM|#
I can see it now:
Congressman: Mrs. Shiavo, please explain the practices and
procedures that are keeping you alive.
Schiavo:
Congressman: Mrs. Schiavo, you are compelled by subpoena to respond
to our questions. If you do not, you will be held in contempt and
subject to punishment.
Other Congressman: Please, she can't answer any questions; she's in
a persistent vegetative state!
Congressman: Nonsense. If that were so, surely this august body
would never have subpoenaed her! That would be a travesty, a gross
abuse of our powers.
|3.18.05 @ 2:00PM|#
"I'm just trying to understand what principles are at work since
so many seem to be invoking the assumed authority of the parents in
this case."
Demanding from anyone in today's society that they provide (1) a
logical foundation for, (2)consistency with, and (3) that they
stand behind a "principle", regardless of how unflattering a result
that principle might yield if applied to a different set of facts,
is tantamount to mockery.
Principles are nothing more than momentary justifications designed
to yield desired results. They are NOT foundational ideas from
which binding conclusions must be drawn. Ain't you learned nuthin'
from the tee-vee, boy?
|3.18.05 @ 2:00PM|#
Wow. It's frightening, but perhaps not surprising, to see
such unblinking evil on a more-or-less mainstream blog.
Wait until unblinking evil butts heads with unblinking stupidity in
the form of BillyRay. It's better than watching NASCAR's multicar
crashes.
|3.18.05 @ 2:04PM|#
For my money, the scandal isn't that the system would allow
Schiavo to die, but that it requires her to starve rather than just
getting a thump on the head or a dose of cyanide.
Tim, if you really believe that someone in a PVS is capable of
suffering from "starvation" or anything for that matter, you
probably ought to believe they're capable of joy too and should be
kept alive. I don't understand your point at all.
If they allow a wicked sodomite to die and go to hell on the
say-so of his husband they're acknowledging the legal legitimacy of
gay marriage.
It wouldn't be a gay marriage anymore. A persistent vegetative
state is a cure for homosexuality, as Walter Freeman taught us.
|3.18.05 @ 2:07PM|#
thoreau,
Shut up Cathy.
James Kabala,
"Unblinking evil?" Where's the evil in supporting an individual's
right to die? Like I always say, thank reason that Switzerland
allows foreignors to go there and make their own end of life
decisions.
Isaac Bertram,
That's certainly true.
Tim Cavanaugh|3.18.05 @ 2:11PM|#
Tim, if you really believe that someone in a PVS is capable
of suffering from "starvation" or anything for that matter, you
probably ought to believe they're capable of joy too and should be
kept alive.
I'm not sure she shouldn't be kept alive.
Brian|3.18.05 @ 2:13PM|#
It's a shame that James is never coming back. I'd really like to
know which part of Tim's post was "unblinking evil"...the part
where he noted the absurdity of Congress assuming by fiat the role
of an appeals court, the part where he admitted having misgivings
about the case for ending Ms. Shiavo's life, or the part where he
expressed disgust at the only particular means by which her life
may legally be ended.
James, if you're still lurking, I'd really like to hear you expand
on your point.
|3.18.05 @ 2:17PM|#
"James, if you're still lurking, I'd really like to hear you
expand on your point."
I think his point was: "come check out my blog."
|3.18.05 @ 2:17PM|#
Hmmm, Hastert is going to question someone in a vegetative state? Why am I thinking of Monty Python's Parrot sketch?
|3.18.05 @ 2:17PM|#
I dunno what they should do with her. I do know it's pretty grotesque to see moral giants like DeLay and Hastert use a vegetable as a stunt prop to make brownie points with the wackos. If only they had such concern for their fellow humans who happen to be outside of a uterus and able to brush their own teeth.
|3.18.05 @ 2:20PM|#
"Wow. It's frightening, but perhaps not surprising, to see such
unblinking evil..."
Thought the guy was talking about Congress there for a second.
|3.18.05 @ 2:21PM|#
Wasn't she separated from here husband for months (years?)
before she went into a coma?
(still - it's not Congress' business)
|3.18.05 @ 2:26PM|#
Ironchef-
Which is your favorite chef on TV? I kind of like Chen Kenichi,
because when I first started following it they showed a string of
episodes where the challengers all wanted to go against him. And
they'd all get their asses handed to them by Iron Chef Chen. My
hypothesis is that it's some sort of nationalist obsession with
trying to beat the Chinese at something.
|3.18.05 @ 2:34PM|#
Quote of the Day:
James B.|3.18.05 @ 2:35PM|#
Rush is blathering on about Federal Supremacy.
When the Dems are back in control and some Committee uses this same
trick and tries to subponea Mumia the day before he gets a needle
in his arm, and do an end run around the death penalty, I wonder
what the Republicans will say then.
|3.18.05 @ 2:38PM|#
Um, the link doesn't say anything about the husband going
broke.
The behavior of both sides is an example replacing the rule of law
with the rule of lawyers. If we still had something resembling the
rule of law, the courts never would have allowed her husband, who
has several kids now with a new woman, to continue to act as her
guardian based on his account of what she said.
She didn't leave a living will, and the husband should have been
disqualified as her guardian years ago.
That said, the pro-life side is tearing up all sorts of
constitutional guarantees in order to secure the result they favor.
Justice Scalia should be appalled.
|3.18.05 @ 2:38PM|#
Is this really a mainstream blog? If so, why aren't any of the
points discussed here being discussed by the same congress which
subpoenas a brain dead wom....
never mind.
|3.18.05 @ 2:40PM|#
"When the Dems are back in control and some Committee uses this
same trick and tries to subponea Mumia the day before he gets a
needle in his arm, and do an end run around the death penalty, I
wonder what the Republicans will say then."
I think it's pretty obvious what they'll say.
so.. has Rush changed his view of drug addicts yet? or has he
joined the cast of the new hit musical "That's All In The Past And
We Need To Focus On Moving Forward"? :)
|3.18.05 @ 2:46PM|#
I am convinced that we are severly psychotic when it comes to
death. Some people are so repulsed by it, that they can't imagine
anything else being worse.. like, um, maybe being a FUCKING
DROOLING VEGETABLE ON NATIONAL TV.
I lost all respect for Bill Frist when he disagreed with Schiavo's
doctors by simply looking at the propaganda videos.
Un-fucking-believable.
It's very simple. Put a gun to her head. If she flinches or makes
any action whatsoever towards fear/self-preservation, then spare
her. Otherwise.. very, very simple.
|3.18.05 @ 2:47PM|#
any question?: For the ultimate on Rush's rehab, see Harry Shearer's Le Show: http://play.rbn.com/?url=livecon/kcrw/g2demand/ls/ls031012le_Show.rm&start=27:58.5&proto=rtsp
|3.18.05 @ 3:00PM|#
Who would have standing to ask the SCOTUS to issue an injunction against the Congress to stop meddling where it has no authority? And would Congress obey such an injunction?
|3.18.05 @ 3:04PM|#
I was watching the hearings on C-Span today with my Swedish
girlfriend and she thinks the whole thing is ridiculous. In her
country, the doctors make the final decision, not next of
kin.
And Kabala's got it wrong - this site's always been mean - that's
why I keep coming back.
|3.18.05 @ 3:19PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
Well, that and Frist is not like a neurologist or whatever
specialized doctor they called into determine her condition.
|3.18.05 @ 3:28PM|#
Did anyone just catch Sherphard Smith's interview with
Napolotiano on the Schiavo case?
Both him and shep agreed that it was a states right thing, and Shep
seemed pretty puzzled at congress intervening in this and the
baseball thing yesterday.
Funniest moment was when Napolotiano mentioned living wills, and
Shep agreed that they are important, and that he made his own to
make sure no one is mistaken should anything happen, and then
proceeded to run his thumb across his throat and make a loud "cut"
noise. Hilarious.
Jesse Walker|3.18.05 @ 3:28PM|#
In her country, the doctors make the final decision, not
next of kin.
Sounds like soft tyranny to me. Doctors should be there to advise
and assist, not to make decisions that no one ceded to them.
If Schiavo's husband doesn't want to keep her alive and her parents
do, then give custody and responsibility to the parents. In the
absence of a living will saying otherwise -- or any other clear
sign of the woman's preferences -- there's no good reason to starve
someone to death when there are people willing to keep her alive. I
believe in the right to commit suicide, but not to run around
killing other people willy-nilly.
|3.18.05 @ 3:35PM|#
Tim, if you really believe that someone in a PVS is capable
of suffering from "starvation" or anything for that matter . .
.
Um . . . starvation isn't a feeling or an emotional state . . .
it's the state of being deprived of food until dead. Are you
claiming that she can't be killed by taking away her food? Or do
you think that, because one is in a PVS, the body and brain will
not internally experience that situation as painful? I assume
you're claiming the latter -- the former being patently absurd --
so I'm going to have to ask how in the hell you know?
B.D.|3.18.05 @ 3:35PM|#
According to the article in the NY Times on this, Bill Frist is
joining in on calling for a subpoena. Say what you will about
Hastert and company, Frist is a doctor and he damn well knows
better (of course, so should the others). Rather than being a voice
of reason on this, Frist is playing up, or down, to his alleged
base.
Republicans, I won't dare to raise them to the level of
"conservatives" any more (or any more than I would call Democrats
"liberals"), are showing the lie behind their oft spoken statements
about marriage being a sacred bond between one man and one woman
and how they only want to protect that highest of institutions. If
it's so sacred, then who has the right to interfere with this
couple's decisions?
When they refer to gay marriage, the institution of 1 man, 1 woman
marriage is indisputable and sacred. But when the proper situation
arises, they want to interfere with the 1 man, 1 woman model as
well. What they really want is for everyone to follow their rules
regardless and that is tyanny.
|3.18.05 @ 3:53PM|#
"If Schiavo's husband doesn't want to keep her alive and her
parents do, then give custody and responsibility to the
parents."
jesse, what you're saying is both reasonable and probably the best
course of action, but at the same time i understand the husband's
position. i don't know if i could let someone i care about be in
that position for so long - especially in the face of his in-laws
and what they've done to him.
living wills, etc. very important.
|3.18.05 @ 3:57PM|#
there's no good reason to starve someone to death when there
are people willing to keep her alive.
Jesse,
My understanding is that her parents have already offered to pay
for her care, so it's not a financial issue. The husband just
thinks that's what she would have wanted.
Or do you think that, because one is in a PVS, the body and
brain will not internally experience that situation as
painful?
It's hard to answer your question without being too philosophical,
but yes that's basically what I'm saying. I prefer the word
"suffering" which implies an experience rather than a simple neural
impulse. I don't think people in a PVS, with little above basic
brain stem functions, have a self to experience the pain, so how
you end their life is irrelevant.
|3.18.05 @ 4:01PM|#
We're treading into epistemology here, but I'd argue strongly that a sense of self is hardly required to feel pain, unless you're part of the misguided Cartesian "Animals are clever automatons" school. Animals with far less brain function than Schiavo certainly feel pain, or at least they react as if they do, which at the limits of science is pretty much the same thing.
|3.18.05 @ 4:18PM|#
Phil,
Not to derail the comments with one of my pet topics, but it all
depends on your particular theory of consciousness. I'll just add
that you hardly have to be Cartesian to think you need a self to
feel pain. That's basically Daniel Dennett's theory which I'm
partial to.
And if you think that's extreme, try Julian Jaynes. According to
him, nothing was was conscious prior to when humans developed
language a few thousand years ago.
|3.18.05 @ 4:36PM|#
"Animals with far less brain function than Schiavo certainly
feel pain, or at least they react as if they do, which at the
limits of science is pretty much the same thing."
Not really. Even a *healthy* fly larva can respond to (and learn
from!) unpleasant stimuli, and I expect the response part of that
extends to single-celled organisms. However, Mrs. Schiavo is
severely brain-damaged. There is no evidence (that I'm aware of)
that she, or others in her state, experience anything whatsoever.
On the off-chance that she CAN experience things, to me that weighs
in favor of terminating her life humanely. (That's certainly what I
would want in such a position, and that's what her husband --
presumed under Florida law to know best -- says she wanted.)
|3.18.05 @ 4:38PM|#
Seriously, I'm not trying to mock traditionalists. I'm just
trying to understand what principles are at work since so many seem
to be invoking the assumed authority of the parents in this
case.
Putting aside today's congressional action, let me attempt a brief
summary of how this looks to right-to-life Christians (I'm
Catholic). I don't much encounter issues of parental authority
regarding the Schiavo case, but that may just be the people I hang
out with.
There are at least two chief threads in the case of Terri Schiavo.
The first is the obligation to respect and support life, especially
helpless life. The second thread concerns disputes about the facts
in this particular case--namely the suspicion that Michael Schiavo
is simply lying about his wife's wishes, since he is the only
person to have heard her express the view that she'd want to die
under these circumstanceds.
As for the first point, I would say certainly from a traditional
Catholic perspective, Schiavo is terribly disabled and needs the
feeding tubes to survive--but this is not enough warrant to
withdraw the tubes. There is a saying that hard cases make bad law,
and though able-bodied people recoil from the idea of living in
that kind of body, from a right-to-life perspective withdrawing
nutrition from a woman who after all could live for many years
amounts to murder. That is the very short version, just to lay it
out.
Fueling this is the history of the Schiavo case. It was stated
above that Michael Schiavo has nearly gone broke to keep her alive,
but this is hard to support. Schiavo gained something like a
million-dollar settlement years ago and it's pretty well documented
that he not only ceased but positively barred any kind of
rehabilitative therapy quite a long time ago. He put her in a
hospice to die. Critics of Michael Schiavo say the efforts he once
made to determine Terri was incurably vegetative were quite cursory
and even damaging. In the intervening years, Terri's parents have
tried to gain access to their daughter so their own team of experts
could properly examine her, but Michael has denied these efforts.
The summit of suspicion among some is that Michael may have played
a role in Terri's brain injury, a suspicion that is buttressed in
the eyes of some by claims about the kinds of injuries Terri
sustained. If that suspicion is true, Michael's actions are
interpreted as an attempt to prevent Terri from testifying against
him. Think Scott Peterson.
So that is what's going on, in brief.
|3.18.05 @ 4:46PM|#
"Animals with far less brain function than Schiavo certainly
feel pain..."
Could you give an example of which animals you're talking about?
Are you talking about pain tests done on animals in PVS?
Or are you talking about classes of animals with unsophisticated
cognitive set-ups, like lobsters or brine shrimp or
something?
Since most animals have a basic awareness of their surroundings --
even those with relatively tiny and simple brains -- it seems that
most *classes* of animal would have greater "brain function" than
she has. Which would make pain studies done on them inapposite.
|3.18.05 @ 5:03PM|#
Schiavo spent the malpractice money on his wife's health care.
One of the more malicious things I've seen written about him is
that he wants to kill her to gain an inheritance, since the
malpractice money is gone. Who knows whether it's true.
As to how to invalidate the subpoenas--Schiavo doesn't show up (and
I suppose bars the committee from his wife's room, as the NYT
reported today that they were planning on holding the committee
meeting in her hospice room), he's charged with contempt, and then
his lawyer aruges that the subpoenas were issued groundlessly and
the court tosses the charges. Or, as the judge said to the House
lawyers, I'm ordering the tube pulled, and you have no way to stop
me (barring physical force, which I keep expecting someone to
use).
Should they pull the plug? Well, a classic libertarian argument in
favor of abortion says, imagine you wake up in a bed with another
person attached to you via tubes... I'm sure I don't need to
rehearse that here, but Schiavo is in some sense the person who
woke up with a person attached to him--he certainly didn't choose
for his wife to become brain-dead, but now he must support her. Or
must he?
discuss or ignore, as you wish
|3.18.05 @ 5:15PM|#
As I understand it her accomodations are supplied by the hospice
(a charity) and her medical bills are being paid by Medicaid.
Over 400K of the settlement money has gone to pay Michael Schiavo's
legal costs. It is all gone now.
|3.18.05 @ 5:19PM|#
I wonder how many people appreciate the irony that there's a big argument over whether or not to let a former anorexic/bulimic person starve to death.
|3.18.05 @ 6:22PM|#
Interesting question: Can they legally put a couple extra blankets on Schiavo to speed up her rate of dehydration via perspiration?
|3.18.05 @ 8:09PM|#
Jesse Walker,
Mr. Schaivo states that he is honoring her will. The guy has
already been offered millions of dollars to give up custody of her.
If he were interested in something else besides honoring her will,
well, he would have likely taken the money and run.
Christopher Rake,
The first is the obligation to respect and support life,
especially helpless life.
Except when its not Catholic.
...from a right-to-life perspective...
Its apt to say "forced to lived at any cost" perspective. That's
why the RCC opposes even a conscious and willing decision to die as
is the case with Oregon's assisted-suicide law.
Schiavo gained something like a million-dollar settlement years
ago...
And if it were greed that drives him, then he would have taken the
ten million from the guy in Boca.
...it's pretty well documented that he not only ceased but
positively barred any kind of rehabilitative therapy quite a long
time ago. He put her in a hospice to die.
Which is in line with his claim that he wants to honor her
wishes.
Critics of Michael Schiavo say the efforts he once made to
determine Terri was incurably vegetative were quite cursory and
even damaging.
Court appointed doctors have stated that she is in an incurably
vegetative state.
In the intervening years, Terri's parents have tried to gain
access to their daughter so their own team of experts could
properly examine her, but Michael has denied these
efforts.
|3.18.05 @ 9:29PM|#
"We have always supported the right of adulterous husbands to
starve their wives to death."
Yeah, because the "Christian" thing to do would be to get it own
with his PVS wife or go without until she dies the slow death that
Jesus or that decrepit old asshole, Pope Larry, demands.
Fucking religion.
|3.18.05 @ 9:33PM|#
Let's see....
Thursday, The Salem Steroid Show Trials.
Friday, The House of Lords (capital "L") decree to themselves the
supreme power over life and death, even over "lifeforms" that
resemble a pot roast hooked up to machines.
And this is suppose to be the greatest deliberative body on
Earth?
No wonder I've turned into a fucking anarchist....
|3.18.05 @ 10:50PM|#
The first is the obligation to respect and support life,
especially helpless life.
Except when its not Catholic.
Well, that's not a serious response, that's just ad hominem, so no
need to respond.
.from a right-to-life perspective...
Its apt to say "forced to lived at any cost" perspective.
That's why the RCC opposes even a conscious and willing decision to
die as is the case with Oregon's assisted-suicide
law.
The Church opposes e.g. the Oregon right-to-die law because we have
a stand against euthanasia--both on its own merits and because we
believe, in practice, weak people are forced to die even against
their will. In this context a "conscious and willing decision to
die" is suicide and yes, that is something we oppose.
Schiavo gained something like a million-dollar settlement years
ago...
And if it were greed that drives him, then he would have
taken the ten million from the guy in Boca.
Unfortunately for those of us on the outside trying to figure out
what's really gone on, key elements of Michael Schiavos' behavior
can be interpreted both as benign acts and inexcusable ones. Or
something in between like simple offensive neglect. He could be
refusing the money recently offered by a stranger and the care
offered by her parents because he's honoring her wishes--or to keep
her silent. I will not attempt to persuade people in a mere
comments box of the latter, but leave you with this:
MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a
year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also
testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri's recent
trial, that he was surprised to see Terri's level of awareness.
This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael
Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri's feeding removed.
Contrary to Schiavo's team, 14 independent medical professionals (6
of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony
that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally,
there has never been any medical dispute of Terri's ability to
swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri's
husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her
for over 10 years.
And this:
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a
malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which
was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less
than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how
Terri's medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection.
Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the
spending down of Terri's medical fund on Schiavo's attorney's fees
- though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care.
Schiavo's primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of
$400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at
the expense of Terri's medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a
"houseplant" and has used Terri's case on national television to
promote his newly published book.
The above from Terrisfight.org
|3.18.05 @ 11:12PM|#
"In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a
malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which
was designated for future medical expenses."
Here's an issue on which I crave enlightenment:
In the malpractice trial that culminated in the jury granting an
award for medical expenses, did Michael raise the right-to-die
issue with the jurors? For example, did Michael or his lawyer at
the time say anything like the following:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, before her horrible accident
Terri said that she wouldn't want her life artificially prolonged
by, say, extraordinary medical care, or by getting fed. In
accordance with Terri's wishes, I reserve the option of cutting off
Terri's food at some time in the future if her prognosis of
recovery isn't good. It's only fair that I inform you of this, so
that you can take it into account in deciding how big of an award
you should grant for medical expenses."
Did the jury back in 1992 ever learn about Terri's alleged wishes?
That might have induced the jurors to hand down a somewhat lower
award, wouldn't it?
|3.18.05 @ 11:37PM|#
Bonar, that is keen question. I think the answer is no. Here's
an account, that tracks with others I'm familiar with, from the
Christian magazine Crisis:
...The immediate cause of Terri's brain damage was cardiac
arrest, which caused her brain to be deprived of oxygen for more
than five minutes. In January 1993, Michael Schiavo won a
malpractice award of $1.6 million from the hospital that treated
Terri. He was also personally awarded $600,000 for loss of
consortium. In his testimony, Michael spoke of his love for
his wife and his intentions to honor his wedding vows for the rest
of his life and to use the award money for Terri's care and
rehabilitation. Indeed, Michael repeatedly assured Bob and Mary
Schindler that he would seek rehabilitation therapy for Terri once
he had obtained a settlement.
A month after Michael received the money, the Schindlers approached
their son-in-law to remind him of his promise. This led to a heated
argument, with Bob and Michael yelling in the hall outside Terri's
room. Michael stormed off and vowed that he was going to see his
lawyer and that Bob and Mary would "never see [their] daughter
again."
A month after this incident, the Schindlers were informed that
Michael had cut off their access to Terri's medical
information....
|3.18.05 @ 11:49PM|#
Sorry for some sloppy posting--a little further down in the same
Crisis article I link above is the following:
In 1998, Michael petitioned the court to remove Terri's feeding
tube. He argued that there was no hope for her recovery and that
Terri had expressed the wish to him that she would not want to be
kept alive in her condition. This was the first time that Michael
had ever claimed such a wish on Terri's part. Terri's parents and
several of her close friends who found his assertion totally out of
character with what they knew of Terri vigorously disputed the
claim....
This follows an incident in which Michael Schiavo ordered the
nursing staff not to give Terri antibiotics for a urinary tract
infection that would have killed her--except that the staff
eventually gave her the antibiotics anyway.
Tim Cavanaugh|3.19.05 @ 1:30AM|#
Unfortunately for those of us on the outside trying to
figure out what's really gone on, key elements of Michael Schiavos'
behavior can be interpreted both as benign acts and inexcusable
ones.
You know, there's a simple solution to this "unfortunate" problem:
Mind your own business.
If you think the husband's argument is wrong on its merits, then
address the merits. Don't start this crapola about his character
and his motives, or the innuendo about his having beaten her into a
coma (for which there is no evidence, despite a malpractice lawsuit
and more than five years of media attention on this case). If you
can't make the case for keeping her alive without libeling the
husband, I wonder whether you have any case to make.
|3.19.05 @ 2:29AM|#
I've read all sorts of things which, if true, and if in the
correct context, would completely vindicate one side or the
other.
Normally I'm not a big fan of taking the authorities at their word.
I certainly wouldn't take the word of a single LA jury. But my
understanding is that multiple courts have all found in favor of
the husband after hearing his case, the parents' case, and the
testimony of court-appointed experts. When multiple judges rule the
same way on the same case after hearing both sides as well as third
party testimony, well, that has to count for something.
I'm not convinced that the husband is right (as a scientist I can
only be convinced of things that I directly examine, and even then
only 99% convinced), but it seems the much more likely hypothesis.
And since I have no stake in this fight, I'm content to leave it at
that without doing the investigative work needed to become
convinced.
|3.19.05 @ 3:40AM|#
I was watching the hearings on C-Span today with my Swedish
girlfriend and she thinks the whole thing is ridiculous. In her
country, the doctors make the final decision, not next of
kin.
If I had a Swedish girlfriend I'd probably humor her in her
opinions too, but if these are the same doctors who get to know
their hospital patients so well by devoting about 30 seconds a day
talking to them, well, I think I'll stick to having my kin make the
decisions, thanks.
|3.19.05 @ 9:56AM|#
Bonar Law,
it's not like he had to make a binding promise to the jury. he lost
consortium whether he tube feeds her or not; lost her future income
whether he tube feeds her or not. Don't know if Fla. could allow
damages for "future pain and suffering"; i always thought you only
got pain and suffering for what you'd already gone thru. It's been
a while since i took the bar and i have never done any pi work and
i can't be arsed with running a google search, but as far as i can
tell, any testimony about keeping her alive is fair game, is not a
binding promise on the jury, and any intent to pull the plug would
not need to be disclosed.
Unless some "1 in a billion chance of a hitherto impossible miracle
occurs" is supposed to be a factor in a jury's decisionmaking, i
see no reason why his statement would have been relevant to the
factors on which a damage award is based.
|3.19.05 @ 10:55AM|#
Christopher Rake,
Well, that's not a serious response, that's just ad hominem, so
no need to respond.
Its a VERY SERIOUS response. However, if you don't like your
faith's history, there is nothing I can do to help you on that
score. The notion that all life is sacred is a very recent spin on
Catholic dogma; just like the Catholic Church's relatively new
found opposition to slavery, capital punishment, etc. Sorry, it is
impossible to take an institution like the RCC seriously in light
of its historical record. They've had to catch-up so often on so
many on issues like universal suffrage, slavery, capital
punishment, religious liberty, freedom of speech, scientific
freedom, etc., you just know that they will ALWAYS be resistant to
the expansion of human liberty.
The Church opposes e.g. the Oregon right-to-die law because we
have a stand against euthanasia--both on its own merits and because
we believe, in practice, weak people are forced to die even against
their will.
Which of course is something that isn't substantiated. The fact is,
whether the person were "forced" or not you would oppose it; so the
whole "weak person" argument is a stalking horse for your real
reason for opposing an individual's right to end their life as they
see fit. Happily, when I make my end of life decision, I can always
fly to Switzerland to take care of it (if Oregon law no longer
allows it by that time).
Note that Terri's father (in line with the insanity of Catholic
dogma apparently) has stated that he would hack off all the women's
limbs if that's what it took to keep her on the feeding tube.
|3.19.05 @ 11:02AM|#
a-hole lawyer,
Correct, its difficult to see how it could even past the low
threshold of relevancy found in R. 401 of the FRE (assuming that
Florida's relevancy rule mirrors the Federal rule on the
matter).
|3.19.05 @ 11:20AM|#
If you think the husband's argument is wrong on its merits,
then address the merits. Don't start this crapola about his
character and his motives, or the innuendo about his having beaten
her into a coma (for which there is no evidence, despite a
malpractice lawsuit and more than five years of media attention on
this case). If you can't make the case for keeping her alive
without libeling the husband, I wonder whether you have any case to
make.
I wonder whether you have spent any time examining the competing
claims in the disputes I have very briefly traced above. Actually,
I don't wonder.
The extent to which Michael Schiavo has (or in my opinion, has not)
permitted doctors to properly examine her and therapists to aid her
are at the heart of this case. ("Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo,
has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years".."Dr.
Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His
visits last for approximately 10 minutes"...see link above. There's
much more.) As noted first by me and then by another poster, much
of his behavior can be interpreted both as protective and
malicious. That's part of what makes it difficult, at least for me,
when it comes to parsing out motives. Other actions are more
difficult to interpret favorably, starting with the timing of his
unique assertion that Terri said she would want to die in her
current state. As noted above, he only announced this after he
collected on the lawsuits.
I hope I'm never in Michael Schiavo's shoes, being the target of
public scrutiny including comments by strangers in comboxes. But I
hope even more I'm never in Terri's shoes.
|3.19.05 @ 11:33AM|#
Gary,
"The fact is, whether the person were "forced" or not you would
oppose it; so the whole "weak person" argument is a stalking horse
for your real reason for opposing an individual's right to end
their life as they see fit."
You are quite probably correct about the motivation of religious
conservatives in raising this argument. Nonetheless, it is a
legitimate issue on its own terms.
Frankly, in insouciance with which many right-to-die advocates
(with whom I am in broad agreement on the larger issue) treat this
objection is a problem for me. As in most things, the "you either
have a gun to your head or you're choosing freely" position is not
an adequate answer.
|3.19.05 @ 11:40AM|#
Gary, I am very disappointed that you left out Galileo.
However, you should become more familiar with the literature on
euthanasia before making statements about it.
Repeated
studies sponsored by the Dutch government have found that
doctors kill approximately 1,000 patients each year who have not
asked for euthanasia. This is not only a violation of every
guideline, but an act that Dutch law considers murder. Nonvoluntary
euthanasia has become so common that it even has a name:
"Termination without request or consent."
Despite this carnage, Dutch doctors are very rarely prosecuted for
such crimes, and the few that are brought to court are usually
exonerated. Moreover, even if a doctor is found guilty, he or she
is almost never punished in any meaningful way, nor does the
murderer face discipline by the Dutch Medical Society. For example,
in 2001, a doctor was convicted of murdering an 84-year-old patient
who had not asked to be killed. Prosecutors demanded a nine-month
suspended probation (!), yet even this brush--it can't even be
called a slap--on the wrist was rejected by the trial judge who
refused to impose any punishment. Not to worry. The appellate court
decided to get tough: It imposed a one-week suspended sentence on
the doctor for murder.
There is also the related calamity there with euthanised disabled
babies.
|3.19.05 @ 2:21PM|#
Well, for every version of the story that has him refusing
therapy for his wife, there's a version in which he spent a few
years trying to bring her back to health before accepting the
conclusions of doctors who said that her brain is gone beyond
repair.
I don't know which version is right. But when different courts
repeatedly find in favor of his version, well, that has to mean
something. If it were a single LA jury finding in his favor that
wouldn't mean much to me. But when he keeps winning, and the only
reason this isn't over is because they keep appealing, well, that
has to mean something.
|3.19.05 @ 2:56PM|#
Most of the legal action in this case has taken place in the
court of Judge Greer, and one of the chief complaints is that he
has repeatedly rejected attempts to verify Terri's condition
independent of the wall that Michael Schiavo has built around
Terri.
As for "accepting the conclusions of doctors," again, we must get
down to cases--what doctors have tried to determine Terri's
condition, and in what way? There seems to be a helluva lot more
evidence that virtually nothing has been done to help Terri, and
much has been done to prevent Terri being helped.
Anyone interested in the details should read this
article--if nothing else it will help any sincerely interested
persons understand why many Christians, and others, are appalled
and amazed at what has happened to Terri Schiavo:
And, quite apart from the question of Terri's therapy and care,
it is entirely likely that Terri has never been properly diagnosed.
Terri is usually described as being in a Persistent Vegetative
State (PVS), and indeed Judge Greer ruled as a finding of fact that
she is PVS; but this diagnosis and finding were arrived at in a way
that has many neurologists expressing surprise and dismay.
I have spent the past ten days recruiting and interviewing
neurologists who are willing to come forward and offer affidavits
or declarations concerning new testing and examinations for Terri.
In addition to the 15 neurologists' affidavits Gibbs had in time to
present in court, I have commitments from over 30 others who are
willing to testify that Terri should have new and additional
testing, and new examinations by unbiased neurologists. Almost 50
neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated,
Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the
accuracy of Terri's diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are
board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious
American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology
at major medical schools. ...
Terri's diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing
that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS.
One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely
used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries, but Terri
has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to
consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with
shock upon learning this fact...
|3.19.05 @ 3:17PM|#
And this article is a more comprehensive review of the case--by the same author.
|3.19.05 @ 3:40PM|#
Christopher Rake,
Gary, I am very disappointed that you left out
Galileo.
Galileo was treated mildly by the Catholic Church. At least in
comparison to individuals like Hus or groups like the Albigensians.
But that's not really the point. The RCC claims some special
morality authority when it has consistently resisted what is the
ultimate morality - human individual liberty and freedom. So I
treat apologists for the RCC the same way I treat apologists for
the Soviet Union; as the fools or scumbags that they are.
Repeated studies sponsored by the Dutch government have found
that doctors kill approximately 1,000 patients each year who have
not asked for euthanasia. This is not only a violation of every
guideline, but an act that Dutch law considers murder. Nonvoluntary
euthanasia has become so common that it even has a name:
"Termination without request or consent."
And what, pray reveal, does this have to with MY
RIGHT to make MY OWN end of life
decisions? Nothing. I've already memorialized them; I have already
stated on paper, before witnesses, my desires. My suggestion is
that others do the same.
So, as I wrote earlier, it doesn't matter whether one is "weak" or
not from your perspective. What you want is to is for me to be
forced to believe in your irrational religious beliefs as has been
Catholic tradition since time immemorial.
|3.19.05 @ 3:51PM|#
Christopher Rake,
And of course the point is that I am dedicated enough to making my
own end of life decisions, that if I have to, I'll take my .357 to
my head and do it myself when I have made my decision on the
matter.
As far as the NR article is concerned, it (and other articles by
overwrought alarmists) has been roundly and rightly criticized as
misrepresenting the studies in question.
|3.19.05 @ 4:06PM|#
Christopher Rake,
Oh, that's right; the RCC is a gun grabber organization.
Debunking the about B.S. about Schiavo:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/154583.htm
Nicholas Rosen|3.19.05 @ 4:21PM|#
What Christopher Rake says! And I'll add that I'm not Catholic,
or any other variety of Christian. I would not sttempt to
(forcibly) prevent Mrs. Schiavo from shooting herself dead, if that
was her choice, or from leaving a living will saying that she did
not want feeding tubes to be used to keep her alive, but that isn't
the situation here.
It is unnecessary to wallow in ad hominems about Mr. Schiavo's
possible motives to conclude that he should not be allowed to cause
the death of his wife. "Mind your own business" is sound advice in
some contexts, but when one person proposes to kill another, it is
not solely the business of the two directly involved. The rest of
us may be justified in intervening, or at least in demanding to
know more about the circumstances.
|3.19.05 @ 4:42PM|#
Nicholas Rosen,
Actually, what Christopher Rake the nanny-stater says is that only
his morally bankrupt Church has the right to decide your end of
life decisions.
|3.19.05 @ 4:44PM|#
Coroner: Bring out your dead!
Husband: Here's one.
Jeb Bush: She's not dead!
Coroner: What?
Husband: Nothing, here's your fee...
Jeb: She's not dead!
Coroner: I can't take her like that, it's against regulation.
Husband: Can't you wait around, she won't be long?
Coroner: Naw, St. Patrick's Day just ended and I've got lots of
drunk driving casualties to attend to.
Jeb: She feels fine!
Husband: No, she doesn't.
Jeb: I think she'll go for a walk now. She feels happy! She feels
happy!
Husband: Look, isn't there something you can do?
(Coroner knocks out Jeb Bush and accepts corpse.)
Husband: Thanks!
Coroner: Not at all! See you Thursday!
|3.19.05 @ 4:46PM|#
I posted that a year and a half ago. I edited the part about
Halloween and replaced it with St. Patrick's Day. I forgot to
replace Jeb Bush (who was intervening back then) with Dennis
Hastert.
To remedy my mistake, here it is again, in edited form:
Coroner: Bring out your dead!
Husband: Here's one.
Dennis Hastert: She's not dead!
Coroner: What?
Husband: Nothing, here's your fee...
Hastert: She's not dead!
Coroner: I can't take her like that, it's against regulation.
Husband: Can't you wait around, she won't be long?
Coroner: Naw, St. Patrick's Day just ended and I've got lots of
drunk driving casualties to attend to.
Hastert: She feels fine!
Husband: No, she doesn't.
Hastert: I think she'll go for a walk now. She feels happy! She
feels happy!
Husband: Look, isn't there something you can do?
(Coroner knocks out Hastert and accepts corpse.)
Husband: Thanks!
Coroner: Not at all! See you Thursday!
|3.19.05 @ 4:50PM|#
thoreau,
Maybe you should make Hastert in something resembling a "Greek
Chorus" made up of Hastert, Frist, etc.
|3.19.05 @ 5:21PM|#
You know, it just strikes me as bizarre that we're nearly 90 comments into a thread about vegetables and Congress, yet there's still no Strom Thurmond jokes.
|3.19.05 @ 5:39PM|#
Terri's diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of
testing that most neurologists would consider standard for
diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging).
MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee
injuries, but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly
refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have
reacted with shock upon learning this fact...
I'm no expert, but pretty sure it's not a good idea to do an MRI on someone's head if they have a metal implant in there like Terri Schiavo.
|3.19.05 @ 6:23PM|#
I'm no expert either, but it probably depends on whether or not
the implant is made of a ferrous metal. Is it?
Also, an MRI may not be necessary if previous scans have showed
indisputable and extensive brain damage.
|3.19.05 @ 6:28PM|#
phocion,
She's had a Cat Scan. The Cat Scan shows that everything above the
brainstem is, well, mush.
Here is how a Cat Scan works:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/cat-scan.htm
|3.19.05 @ 6:53PM|#
GG,
I realize that much. Just trying to respond to people who cling to
the refusal of MRI as evidence of a deeper Michael Schiavo
conspiracy.
|3.19.05 @ 6:59PM|#
phocion,
Well, after a while it makes sense for the guy to say "enough is
enough." Of course, if the court found it necessary, or one of the
court-appointed doctors for that matter, it could order that an MRI
be done if they thought Cat Scan's results are faulty. But the
notion that an MRI is the "only option" to determine what's going
on with her cerebrl cortex is a sign that a person is either
ignorant or a liar.
As far as I can tell, the keep her on the tubes crowd never
mentions this Cat Scan.
|3.19.05 @ 7:01PM|#
GG,
Of course they never mention the CAT scan. Half of these people
don't even realize doctors can tell the difference between cardiac
arrest and beating/strangulation.
|3.19.05 @ 7:01PM|#
But the notion that an MRI is the "only option" to determine
what's going on with her cerebrl cortex is a sign that a person is
either ignorant or a liar.
To be fair, it could be that in most cases an MRI really is
necessary. Just not this case.
|3.19.05 @ 7:11PM|#
It could be that performing an MRI on Terri would be like
X-raying the arm of someone whose arm has been severed. Simply
unnecessary because the damage is so obvious from the CT.
One of the NRO columns linked above says the following:
But in spite of the lack of advanced testing, such as an MRI,
attorney George Felos has claimed that Terri�s cerebral
cortex has �liquefied,� and doctors for Michael Schiavo have
claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri�s
cerebral cortex �have been replaced by fluid.� The problem
with such contentions is that the available evidence can�t support
them. Dr. Zabiega explained that �a CT scan can�t resolve the kind
of detail needed� to make such a pronouncement: �A CT scan is like
a blurry photograph.� Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at
Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: �A CT scan doesn�t
give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to
have massive damage.�
Hmm... once again I'm no expert, but doesn't liquefication sound like it would qualify as "massive damage"?
|3.19.05 @ 9:30PM|#
"...I hope even more I'm never in Terri's shoes."
Terri's shoes are easy ones to be in. There's nothing there, she's
in suspended animation. It's the husband and the parents who have
it bad.
They know what they're going through.
|3.19.05 @ 9:53PM|#
Everyone should get drafted a "Durable Power for Health Care Decisions" and a "Living Will" if you don't want to end up like this woman. Don't let the fundamentalist Christians in to fuck with you.
|3.19.05 @ 11:14PM|#
Phocion: "Of course they never mention the CAT scan"
GG: "As far as I can tell, the keep her on the tubes crowd never
mentions this Cat Scan."
From
the National Review article which was previously linked in this
thread:
". . . doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of
the CT scans, that parts of Terri's cerebral cortex 'have been
replaced by fluid.'"
Tim Cavanaugh|3.19.05 @ 11:26PM|#
I wonder whether you have spent any time examining the
competing claims in the disputes I have very briefly traced above.
Actually, I don't wonder.
Your "competing claims" are gorilla dust designed to distract
attention from the numerous courts that have found in the husband's
favor and the family's inability to make a persuasive argument that
there's any hope for the patient. There are many arguments you can
make for your side-that husbands should never be awarded this sort
of custodial role, that the eye-blinking creates a reasonable
doubt, even that a feeding tube does not qualify as an
extraordinary life-saving measure and thus can't be
disconnected-that would be interesting and maybe even convincing.
But if your point is that I haven't spent enough time entertaining
the argument that a guy who turns down a $1 million offer to be
relieved of his burden is greedy, or the fantasies of your buddy
above who advises us to "Think Scott Peterson," then I can only say
you're damn straight I haven't. I'm busy back here on Planet
Earth.
|3.19.05 @ 11:31PM|#
Galileo Had It Coming,
Yeah, once the Church started to crackdown on science in Italy such
research moved elsewhere and benefitted others. I should write a
book titled "Stupid Moments in Catholic History." :)
|3.19.05 @ 11:42PM|#
Gary Gunnels:
I still await with anticipation your attempt to justify the claim
you made:
"As far as I can tell, the keep her on the tubes crowd never
mentions this Cat Scan."
The *National Review* article did indeed "mention this Cat
Scan."
As to your animadversions on my screen name -- my screen name was
an attempt at humor. I provide a definition of
humor for your convenience.
|3.20.05 @ 12:22AM|#
Galileo had it Coming,
Ahh, like I wrote, "as far as I can tell..." That ought to be
obvious.
As to the issue of humor, you never gave me any clues as to the
nature of your nick, I just took it at face value (given the number
of religious twits this write-up has attracted that seemed like a
safe assumption to me). Humor on-line is generally followed by
markers like :) and such.
|3.20.05 @ 12:36AM|#
Your "competing claims" are gorilla dust designed to
distract attention from the numerous courts that have found in the
husband's favor and the family's inability to make a persuasive
argument that there's any hope for the patient.
Tim, it is clear you have not bothered to examine the ample
evidence that Terri has been shamefully neglected. You therefore
are unaware of the extent to which Michael has prevented
independent doctors from examining Terri properly; or Michael's
denial of any reparative therapy for more than a decade, or the
fact that most of the legal action has taken place in Judge Greer's
court, or what actions he has prevented, or much of anything that
relates to what has actually happened as opposed to the movie you
are watching inside your own head.
In short, you have dismissed these arguments without refuting
them.
As for the CAT vs. MRI comments above, it's pretty simple: Michael
has denied the MRI and other examinations that might "make a
persuasive argument" that Terri is not completely lost.
From that article by Fr.
Johansen at NRO that I've been quoting from:
...Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain
the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life
and death consequences. I told him that CT (Computer-Aided
Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the
finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, "Spare no expense, eh?�" I
asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much
less expensive test than an MRI, but it "only gives you a tenth of
the information an MRI does." He added, "A CT scan is useful only
in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few
days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It's useful in
an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury
[brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain]
you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury,
the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive
stroke."
Other neurologists have concurred with Dr. Morin's opinion. Dr.
Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said,
"Any neurologist who is objective would say "Yes" to the question,
"Should Terri be given an MRI."...
As for those implants, yes, they must be removed before an MRI, and
they could be, but (try to detect the pattern) Michael has
prevented this from taking place as well.
|3.20.05 @ 12:56AM|#
"Ahh, like I wrote, 'as far as I can tell...' That ought to be
obvious."
Very well, I'll put that down to an honest mistake on your
part.
"As to the issue of humor, you never gave me any clues as to the
nature of your nick, I just took it at face value . . ."
Very well, I'll put that, too, down to an honest mistake on your
part.
After all, I'm sure that, if someone else made a mistake in this
forum, you would be equally willing to give that person the benefit
of the doubt and presume that the mistake was honest. I mean, it's
not as if you're the kind of person who is constantly attributing
dishonesty to other people.
|3.20.05 @ 1:51AM|#
Christopher Rake,
Are you suggesting that court-appointed doctors aren't
"independent?"
In short, you have dismissed these arguments without refuting
them.
And you have made claims without substantiating them. Get a clue.
One substantiates claims before you expect people to refute
them.
I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a
much less expensive test than an MRI, but it "only gives you a
tenth of the information an MRI does."
Having had MRIs and CAT Scans done my person I can tell you that
the idea that a CAT Scan is "much less expensive" is a crock of
shit. I've had to pay for them out of pocket and they are roughly
equivalent in price. Also, note that the link I provided above from
a source wholly unrelated to this case (which unlike the NRO
article clearly has an axe to grind) directly contradicts what you
have provided.
Galileo Had it Coming,
Are you going to continue this circle jerk or are you going to
address something substantive?
|3.20.05 @ 2:12AM|#
Debunking myths about the Schiavo case: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise%5F/2005/03/debunking%5Flies%5F.html
|3.20.05 @ 2:12AM|#
Ultimately the question of what should happen to Ms. Schiavo
comes down to what she would have wanted, a question that the trial
court investigated quite thoroughly and its decision should have
ended the matter.
But what we have here is a much greater problem, one likely to
affect many people: How in heck does Congress believe they have the
authority to intervene in judicial cases? Unlike the British
Parliament, Congress is not a court; that's what the separation of
powers was all about. It seems to me that this subpoena is a "Bill
of Attainder" and invalid on its face, and should be disobeyed.
|3.20.05 @ 2:14AM|#
Debunking the "17 Experts" claim: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/09/17%2Dmedical%2Daffidavits%2Dabout%2Dterri%2Dschiavo/
|3.20.05 @ 2:27AM|#
Some info on the good doctors discussed in Rake's quotes:
At National Review Online, Father Rob Johansen writes about the
legal proceedings surrounding Terri Schiavo. The point I'm
interested in is Johansen's contention that "[e]xpert witnesses in
court are supposed to be unbiased: disinterested in the outcome of
the case. Part of the procedure in qualifying expert witnesses is
establishing that they are objective and unbiased." Johansen argues
that an expert witness, Dr. Cranford, who testified Schiavo was in
a persistent vegetative state was a biased witness because he is
allegedly an advocate "in the 'right to die' and euthanasia
movements." Says Johansen, "one needs to know a little about
Cranford's background and perspective" in order to evaluate
Cranford's opinions.
To support his argument, Johansen quotes some neurologists to whom
he provided a selective account of the medical evidence and legal
proceedings.
Among them, there's "Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at
Wake Forest University Medical School." For some strange reason,
Johansen doesn't think we need to know a little -- or anything --
about Bell's background or perspective. Among other things, Bell is
a member of the Christian Medical and Dental Society. Although
Johansen obviously thinks otherwise, you might be interested to
know that the Christian Medical and Dental Society believes that
"[t]he human body belongs to God," holds some bigoted
psuedo-scientific views about homosexuality, and compares embryonic
stem cell research to Nazi war crimes.
No bias or interest there. And I'm sure Johansen picked Bell
entirely at random, as opposed to selecting him for the outcome he
desires.
Then there's "Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of
Chicago." I think we can presume that's Thomas Zabiega, M.D., Vice
President for Legislative Affairs for the Catholic Physicians'
Guild of Chicago. Let's keep that Father Rob's little secret, shall
we?
In the article, Father Rob makes it sound as if Dr. Bell is hearing
about the Schiavo case for the first time. ("I have spent the past
ten days recruiting and interviewing neurologists willing to come
forward and offer affidavits or declarations concerning new testing
and examinations for Terri....") Yet Bell, apparently accepting
Father Rob's version as gospel, has made up his mind: "It seems as
though they're fearful of any additional information," "medical
realities are no longer governing this case," "once a decision is
made they don't want additional information." No prejudgment there
either.
Father Rob is a man who likes to cherry-pick his experts and avoid
disclosure of important but inconvenient facts. If we judge him by
his own standard, he can't be trusted.
http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/
|3.20.05 @ 4:29AM|#
"Tim, it is clear you have not bothered to examine the ample
evidence that Terri has been shamefully neglected."
My wife is a medical proffesional that works in a hospital. She was
shocked that the woman hasn't had a bedsore in 15 years, and even
more shocked that she hadn't succumbed to an infection. This speaks
to exceedingly good care, not neglect. If Mrs. Schiavo was not
given round the clock care, her saliva would pool in her mouth (she
mouth breathes, not having any conscious control over breathing,
her teeth would quickly rot away, and it would become a breeding
ground for massive amounts of bacteria.
"You therefore are unaware of the extent to which Michael has
prevented independent doctors from examining Terri properly"
There was a count appointed doctor. There was her own court
appointed legal advocate. Each side got two doctors of their own,
though the parent's doctors couldn't demonstrate any clinical
findings or casework to support their claims. After that there have
been attempts to stall the process over and over. The parents can
ALWAYS claim that she isn't examined properly, that more could be
looked into or done. There is no end their claims of additional
examination.
"or Michael's denial of any reparative therapy for more than a
decade"
Please, name me one "reparative therapy" for a missing cerebral
cortex. Michael discontinued flogging his wife's decaying body once
it became clear too much of her brain was gone. Since then even
more of it has decayed. Even a magic fairy process that creates new
brain tissue wouldn't bring her back: it would just situate a whole
new brain in her head. Her memories, her personality her conscious
cognition: all of that was in areas of the brain that are now
simply gone. Tell me: what reparative therapy is going to change
that?
|3.20.05 @ 10:58PM|#
"Tell me: what reparative therapy is going to change
that?"
Wouldn't it be amusing if we were now offered a solution that
depends on stem-cell research.
Please, please, please...
|3.21.05 @ 8:55AM|#
Where do I go to get a living will?
You can have a lawyer draw one up at the same time as a regular
will.
If your cheap or just hate lawyers, there are probably premade
forms at Office Depot or on the net.
|3.23.05 @ 10:25AM|#
On the question of the husband assuming the parent's authority.
I know of no authority for the taking of a daughter's life without
due process.
On the question of the CNN poll saying that 89% of those polled
would not want to live in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), even
11 jurors out of 12 92% cannot convict.
On the question of George Felos' comment that a CAT
Scan had revealed that Terri Shiavo's cerebral cortex had
liquified, neurologist agree that a CAT
Scan cannot reveal that kind of detail.
Or as God said to Job, Have you ever in your lifetime commanded the
morning and shown the dawn its place for taking hold of the ends of
the earth, till the wicked are shaken from its surface? The earth
is changed as is clay by the seal, and dyed as though it were a
garment; but from the wicked the light is withheld, and the arm of
pride is shattered. Have you entered into the sources of the sea,
or walked about in the depths of the abyss? Have the gates of death
been shown to you, or have you seen the gates of darkness? Have you
comprehended the breadth of the earth? Tell me, if you know all:
Which is the way to the dwelling place of light, and where is the
abode of darkness, that you may take them to their boundaries and
set them on their homeward paths? You know, because you were born
before them, and the number of your years is great!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245