Terri Schiavo redux? Not quite.

Cathy Young | January 24, 2006

In a horrific and heartbreaking case in Massachusetts, an 11-year-old child abuse victim lies comatose in a hospital while medical and social welfare authorities try to decide whether to disconnect her feeding tube. Some conservatives, notably Michelle Malkin, are trying to turn this into a Terri Schiavo II. More links can be found in this Malkin post, along with a chiding of bloggers and others who are exhibiting a "post-Schiavo syndrome" and failing to show concern for Haleigh's fate.

In fact, this case is eminently worthy of attention and concern. The Massachusetts Department of Social Services managed to overlook egregious signs that the girl was being abused by her adoptive mother and stepfather (including multiple and repeated physical injuries), and then, after those lovely people finally beat her into a coma, exhibited a rather unseemly haste in wanting to take her off life support -- a mere three weeks after she lapsed into unconsciousness. It now seems that Haleigh may have been misdiagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, and after having being taken off the ventilator she has actually shown signs of improvement. Plans to remove her feeding tube have now been suspended, and certainly public attention to the case is needed to ensure that this child gets every chance she can to live and have some degree of recovery.

However, if Haleigh Poutre is getting less attention than she should as a result of Schiavo fatigue, the fault will rest squarely with the so-called "champions" of Terri Schiavo.

After all the lies and all the hysteria from the "save Terri" brigade, any cause seen as Schiavo redux is going to be seen with a certain degree of cynicism. As far as I'm concerned, those responsible for that macabre circus have squandered all moral authority on this issue. The best thing they can do for Haleigh is keep quiet and leave this case to those who have some credibility.

See more on the subject at my blog, The Y Files.

Comments

|1.24.06 @ 7:09PM|#

"The best thing they can do for Haleigh is keep quiet and leave this case to those who have some credibility."

Ah, if only that had a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening....

|1.24.06 @ 7:10PM|#

"Haleigh currently has no legal parents. After her biological mother, Allison Avrett, was deemed unfit to care for Haleigh and Avrett's former boyfriend was accused of sexually abusing Haleigh, the girl went to live with Avrett's sister, Holli Strickland, who later adopted Haleigh.

On Sept. 20, Strickland and her husband, Jason, were arrested on assault charges in Haleigh's alleged beating. Two days later, Holli Strickland was found dead, alongside her grandmother, in what police believe was a murder-suicide."

Anybody still want to argue in favour of giving parents absolute authority in deciding a child's best interests?

Matt|1.24.06 @ 7:16PM|#

In how many cases, do you suppose, will the local Department of Social Services be more invested in and concerned about a child than her parents?

|1.24.06 @ 7:16PM|#

Absent some proof (such as this), proved in a court of law that a parent has in any way caused or will cause harm to their child, yes.

|1.24.06 @ 7:19PM|#

if Haleigh Poutre is getting less attention than she should as a result of Schiavo fatigue, the fault will rest squarely with the so-called "champions" of Terri Schiavo.

Is this some sort of Swiftian satire I'm not getting? Surely, no one would sincerely assert that people who called attention to (what they believe to be) a case of one person wrongly believed to be in a vegetative state being euthanized by self-dealing relatives should be blamed for a second case.

Captain Holly|1.24.06 @ 7:22PM|#

The best thing they can do for Haleigh is keep quiet and leave this case to those who have some credibility.

And who, pray tell, would that be, Cathy? The Massachusetts DSS? The doctors who misdiagnosed her? The judges who ruled that the state could let her die? Or persons like those who commented to the post you linked to, who, when presented with evidence she was still living, spend their time making snarky comments about Michelle Malkin?

And why, pray tell, should this issue suddenly be "off-limits" to conservatives?

I don't agree with your reasoning, but I am in awe of your chutzpah.

If you ever pray!|1.24.06 @ 7:27PM|#

Oh, pray tell more, Captain!

|1.24.06 @ 7:28PM|#

And who, pray tell, would that be, Cathy? The Massachusetts DSS? The doctors who misdiagnosed her?

Oh, no, it's definitely Bill Frist. He won't even need to leave the office.

Who do you have in mind, Captain?

|1.24.06 @ 7:29PM|#

Anybody still want to argue in favour of giving parents absolute authority in deciding a child's best interests?

Well, except when they beat their child into a coma or do something similarly egregious, pretty much. This is an aberration, one which the law seems to already provide for.

|1.24.06 @ 7:33PM|#

Surely, no one would sincerely assert that people who called attention to (what they believe to be) a case of one person wrongly believed to be in a vegetative state being euthanized by self-dealing relatives should be blamed for a second case.

It's the cry-wolf syndrome. They squandered a lot of credibility on the Schiavo case.

|1.24.06 @ 7:33PM|#

Why do conservatives always thrwart My will by demanding that people be kept alive on feeding tubes? I am getting very ticked at the repeated intervention by the so called "religious right". I think I shall damn DeLay and Frist to show them who's boss around here. Life support indeed!

|1.24.06 @ 7:50PM|#

"It now seems that Haleigh may have been misdiagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, and after having being taken off the ventilator she has actually shown signs of improvement."

By showing signs of improvement contrary to her diagnosis, this girl has disrespected the authority of the experts. She must be some kind of right-wing religious wacko.

Cathy Young|1.24.06 @ 7:54PM|#

Captain Holly:

And who, pray tell, would that be, Cathy? The Massachusetts DSS? The doctors who misdiagnosed her? The judges who ruled that the state could let her die? Or persons like those who commented to the post you linked to, who, when presented with evidence she was still living, spend their time making snarky comments about Michelle Malkin?

How about bloggers and journalists who didn't discredit themselves by peddling lies and hysteria in the Terri Schiavo case?

And why, pray tell, should this issue suddenly be "off-limits" to conservatives?

Not "conservatives." I was referring specifically to the "save Terri" brigade.

And this issue should be off-limits to them for the same reason that Al Sharpton should not appoint himself as a spokesman for a black girl who claims she was raped by white cops. Because, no matter how legitimate her charges may be, a lot of people will see that Al Sharpton is involved with the case and dismiss her as another Tawana Brawley.

|1.24.06 @ 8:18PM|#

Isn't this partly a conflict of interest? IIRC, her stepfather is the legal guardian, but would also be up for murder (or at least manslaughter) charges if the girl dies, so it's important to keep her breathing as long as possible. Hooray, moral hazard!

|1.24.06 @ 10:31PM|#

I think Cathy has jumped the shark on this one. What the hell is she talking about? The point people made about Terry Shiavo was that just because the doctors and alleged "experts" said that there was no hope, shouldn't give the State or a relative the right to Kavorkian someone absent some kind of living will or written instructions from that person. This case proves precisely their point. All of the "experts" were convinced this poor little girl was never going to recover and sure enough they were wrong. Because they might be wrong in other cases or tempted to err to the side of killing people because keeping them alive is costly and generally hard to do, society better think long and hard before they give doctors or relatives the authority to kill someone.

|1.24.06 @ 10:48PM|#

If you let someone's persistent bad arguments reduce his credibility to zero, then you simply stop listening to what he says. It's a waste of time. If you actively believe the opposite of what he says, then you're open to manipulation.

In this particular case, it seems to me that members of the alleged "save Terri brigade" should speak their mind. If they've shot their credibility, then no harm is done; they're ignored. If they raise awareness, it's a good thing. I'm assuming there probably aren't that many important people so callous that they'd deliberately do less just because of the messenger.

In the days of the internet, I would hope that if there is an injustice that he believes he can bring to light that Al Sharpton does so, even if it's another black girl claiming abuse. Many people will ignore Al; others will investigate. Sooner, rather than later, people will learn the truth. As far as I can tell, Al Sharpton has tons more credibility in absolute numbers than anyone I've ever seen post here. Whether that should be the case is a completely different topic.

|1.24.06 @ 11:04PM|#

As far as I can tell, Al Sharpton has tons more credibility in absolute numbers than anyone I've ever seen post here.

Comment by: anon2 at January 24, 2006 10:48 PM

is credibility measure in tons or absolute numbers? what does this mean? do you mean if you add up all the people who think Reverend Al is credible, their combined weight will be tons?

|1.24.06 @ 11:34PM|#

I believe that Al Sharpton could draw more favorable eyes to an issue he chose than anyone, including Reason staff, who posts here. He could also get more people to join a demonstration and raise more money.

Cathy was using Al Sharpton as an example of someone who shouldn't appoint himself spokesman for someone. Sidestepping the issue of whether anyone should appoint one's self spokesman for someone else (as opposed to jointly agreeing that he be spokesman), I pointed out that I think he'd do a great job at getting attention to a cause, even if it were a true incident that had the same features of the made-up Tawana Brawley case.

I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but Cathy Young's argument seemed more like a desire to censure the "save Terri brigade" than a well thought out prescription for how each person can do his best to bring attention where he believes it's needed.

|1.24.06 @ 11:48PM|#

does that make Sharpton more credible or simply better known, and does that mean the people who trust him are really just gullible?

|1.25.06 @ 2:42AM|#

...any cause seen as Schiavo redux is going to be seen with a certain degree of cynicism.

By everyone on the planet it would seem, except Ms. Malkin...

|1.25.06 @ 4:02AM|#

I believe credibility is measured in quantum units called "credibilitons." Unfortunately, sharptons usually carry heavy charges that tend to repel credibilitons.

|1.25.06 @ 5:52AM|#

Can't we go after the real villian here: the government, or, more specifically, DSS?

|1.25.06 @ 8:50AM|#

"However, if the "post-Schiavo syndrome" becomes a complicating factor in this case, the fault will rest squarely with the so-called "champions" of Terri Schiavo."

There's clearly an imposter loose, posting as me. I'd never make a choice between two sides like this. Both sides bad. Ugh.

|1.25.06 @ 9:14AM|#

It's the cry-wolf syndrome. They squandered a lot of credibility on the Schiavo case.

Sounds more like these wingnuts are 1 for 2. Batting .500. What was wolf-boy? 1 for 4? Eat yer heart out, boy who cried wolf: the 50% credibility crew is in town and they are half-right!

|1.25.06 @ 9:45AM|#

Stevo Darkly - It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that comment.

|1.25.06 @ 3:27PM|#

I think the only genuine case of "Post Schiavo" is in the people who belittle the efforts made on her behalf. Regardless of whether you approve of the steps taken by those that were trying to defend or protect Terri Schiavo, & personally I believe that Congress shouldn?'t have stepped in, to mock another's efforts to bring this case to the attention of the world or blogsphere is not only petty, but says more about Kathy & her ilk then it does about Michelle Malkin's support of Terri Schiavo or of this poor little girl. Have we really reached a point that we begin questioning anyone who actually shows compassion by defending & championing this case? Shame on you & those that would focus their attentions on anything but demanding that this little girl get something she has never had before... a fighting chance at life & possibly a little justice. I can't imagine why this isn't front page news throughout the country, & believe it is more related to other people's reaction to those that had defended Terri Schiavo than anyone being too emotionally spent. How else could you explain the cheap & paltry shots taken by Kathy at Michelle? Instead of saying I agree & support this, she has to first belittle the messenger, well you sure proved your point? though I can't really see what it was.

|1.25.06 @ 3:29PM|#

Excuse me, I meant Cathy & apologize for mis-spelling her first name... it was not intentional.

|1.25.06 @ 4:01PM|#

"...all the lies and hysteria from the save Terri brigade..."

Huh?

What exactly is your argument? I tracked back to 4 of your sources, found the one with all the medical diagnoses from Dr. Cranford, and read the whole darned thing. In fact, I even rang up my high school mate who is today an accomplished ER physician to make sure I understood everything, because I am no doctor.

Ok, now, so what?

You have some nerve accusing a reporter of� of what? What offense is Ms. Malkin is guilty of? Even leaving room for gratuitous snarkiness, the best I can deduce from what you�ve said is that you think Michelle Malkin has undue concern for Haleigh Poutre�s life. Is that so? Or perhaps your point is that a government bureaucracy is the only party fitting the description of �those who have some credibility?� Shall we just let the relevant government party decide questions of life without due process? (That would mean giving police the power to execute criminals without trial, conviction and sentencing; i.e. Stalinism!)

I do not speak for other conservatives; but my sense of the position on the Terri Schiavo tragedy is that many conservatives feel it was yet another case of Man Playing God with other people�s lives. The conservative position has always been twofold: first, Terri Schiavo was denied due process; and second, Man Playing God leads to inherently bad (in this case evil) outcomes.

The pro-death side of this tragedy has consistently focused on technical medical issues to argue its case. Okay, but irrelevant. We do not know whether Ms. Schiavo wished to live or die. That was the whole point. Her ex-husband-living-with-another-woman made the choice for her. The conservative argument was always a moral one, and as for the medical argument, denial of food is not a common medical treatment, except for Chinese prison inmates waiting to �donate� their organs.

For these reasons, and the complete lack of logic in your final paragraph, I do not understand what you have tried to say. But do keep trying.

|1.25.06 @ 4:13PM|#

Oddly enough, while attacking the "Save Terri" crowd, this case actual validates their approach. They believed that there was reason to doubt the diagnosis that she was beyond saving. They lost.

Now comes along another case with the same diagnosis and guess what, the doctors were wrong. So instead of this being an opportunity to attack Malkin and her followers, this story absolutely validates their point. Permanent vegitative state isn't hard science and the current statistics say there's a 50% chance the doctors are wrong.

The thought that you would criticize people who are trying to save a human life is odd, to say the least. At the end of the day, if I have to stand up for one or the other, I going to hope I can say every time that I fought to save a life, not end it - when you consider that the doctors may be wrong.

Is the death penalty okay if most of the people you execute guilty?

|1.25.06 @ 4:14PM|#

What offense is Ms. Malkin is guilty of?

You mean beside being as dumb as the proverbial bag of hammers?

|1.25.06 @ 6:01PM|#

Nicely put, Ms. Young.

See, people, she can use her supernatural needle-threading powers for good, too!

DaveInBigD|1.25.06 @ 7:12PM|#

Now comes along another case with the same diagnosis and guess what, the doctors were wrong.

But the circumstances of this diagnosis are completely different. One the diagnosis was made after years without improvement, and with a cat scan showing near-total loss of brain tissue. The other was made only three weeks into the coma. Part of the diagnostic process in the first case was the years of inactivity and the clear results of the cat scan, both of which are absent. The doctors were right for Schaivo, and (so far) wrong for Haleigh.

It should be noted that there is still every possibility that Haleigh could end up in the same state as Terri did. I do of course hope she makes a full recovery, but realistically, we could be revisiting this issue, and we'll be in another Terri Schaivo fiasco.

|1.26.06 @ 9:35AM|#

Malkin is a big dummy, huh? Whatever Jim. You haven't exactly scaled any intellectualy heights there but I guess anyone FOR the death of anyone in a coma... or recently out of one is presumptively of greater intellect, as well as greater morality as anyone with a diverging view. Good to know. I like seeing that superiority so deftly demonstrated by our betters. THANKS JIM!
The point of this story is, as mentioned ably above, that Poiture was given the same diagnosis as Schiavo. And it was wrong. All the Choose Life team was saying way back when was exactly that possibility existed or, in the alternate again as mentioned above, that we should lean on the Life side of the rudder. A controversial position, I know but there it is. Lies? Well, Cathy Young has a well documented record of casting such aspersions without foundation so I don't think we need to take that very seriously. The Poiture case should have a more happy ending than Schiavos I sincerely hope. Even if she dies at least she wasn't murdered.
Oh wait, she was.

|1.26.06 @ 8:56PM|#

Cathy, you are repulsive to read.

Kelly Clark|1.30.06 @ 7:08PM|#

Cathy, you are repulsive to read.

As a rule, I'd say quite the contrary. But on this one (which was recycled into a Boston Globe op-ed piece today) I was stunned by the lack of...reason.