RoR: Forum

Tibor,
You said:

I do not want anyone to prolong my mere survival. Why?

Well, to begin with, I do not believe in imposing the cost of any such procedure on my relatives, let alone on total strangers.

You began with this argument, but you also ended with it. I understand that you chose this particular point to discuss, but is this the only reason you wouldn't want to be kept alive? It seems that it is, because later you said:

Certainly if I were in Terri’s position and someone, say a devoted student of my philosophical works, wanted to keep me going, I would not expect my children to refuse, although they should not be held responsible for any of the burdens this would create.

So you have no problem with the idea that, even though you didn't want anyone to prolong your "mere survival", it's alright for your children to ignore your wishes as long as it isn't a burden for them?

Does the idea that you might spend the next fifteen years in a state similar to Terri's not bother you? I agree with everything you said about the burden of taking care of her. But, in my opinion, you have ignored a more important aspect of the problem: should others have the right to keep you alive against your wishes when your "life amounts to little more than a forcibly-induced condition"?

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 21

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 6:38am

The reason a Living Will should not be kept in a safe deposit box is that it needs to be immediately available.

Last week a friend who had been ill for some time died. Even though he had a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) in place the ambulance people did not have it in hand so they did what they had to do despite his wishes.

It's a matter of timing. In an emergency few people would think about such things, but when there is time the document needs to be readily accessible. I have the signature ability to access my parents' safe deposit box but I have no idea where to find the key!

Post 22

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 6:57am

As I've said on the other thread, there seems to be so much conflicting information about Mrs Schiavo's wishes, the cause of her condition, medical opinion on her present condition, the husband's behaviour (he apparently turned down a $1 million offer to let his wife live) and how many of the parents' present concerns (the evidence that she was beaten and so forth) were actually considered by the state courts that I'm finding it very difficult to decide who is telling the truth - which is why I'm reluctantly inclined to agree that President Bush was right to bump this up to federal court. I gather that while still Governor of Texas he apparently signed into law a "right to die" bill, so I doubt his motives are purely religious in nature.

IF (and I do think it's a big IF) the entire Florida judicial system did fail to consider so many relevant issues and so much evidence as the parents are claiming, then clearly they have screwed up rather spectacularly. Whether or not they did in fact screw up to such an alarming extent is best decided in a superior court - which in this case has to mean the feds. I gather that Judge James Whitmore, who heard the case the other day, appears to be satisfied that all was well in the state courts, though even this is now being appealed. This may seem a little woolly minded but assuming they haven't been already, perhaps the parents should be asked to list precisely what pertinent facts and evidence they fell has not been given due attention, then each item on their list be fully and openly investigated?

In addition to the above, I think that the "legal guardianship" law that put Mr Schiavo in his present position of authority in lieu of any written expression of Mrs Schiavo's wishes is an utter crock of bollocks, simply because it opens up the potential for the type of abuse that the parents now claim to be happening here.

As for the court v media discussion, of course the courts are far far far far preferable to "trial by media", which amounts in effect to trial by the mob, but I think everyone knows even the courts do get it wrong on occasion - especially lawyers.

MH

Post 23

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:30am

That’s harsh, L. Is that your considered opinion? I thought knowledgeable Objectivists could untangle the “riddle.” They know about the error of assuming that just because a mental function is associated with an area of the brain, that that area is the part “responsible” for the function.

Post 24

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:46am

I have just heard that the Supreme Court has rejected the parents' request for an appeal.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/schiavo/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151347,00.html

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13315293,00.html

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 3/24, 7:48am)

Post 25

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:54am

"The implication is then that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice."

The "system of justice" in this country is not run like a scientific laboratory where if you run the same experiment 12 times and get the same result, that is good science. It is more like the "Philosophers Guild" in Anthem.

Our "system of justice" considers Martha Stewart a felon, and O.J. Simpson a good father.

Post 26

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:19am

Rick wrote:

The reason a Living Will should not be kept in a safe deposit box is that it needs to be immediately available.

Last week a friend who had been ill for some time died. Even though he had a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) in place the ambulance people did not have it in hand so they did what they had to do despite his wishes.

It's a matter of timing. In an emergency few people would think about such things, but when there is time the document needs to be readily accessible. I have the signature ability to access my parents' safe deposit box but I have no idea where to find the key!

You provide highly nutritious food for thought. If you could submit a detailed, setp by step article about this to SOLO, many of us would feel very grateful to you. I have particular interest in exactly how to assure the right people, e.g. paramedics, get immediate notification of my wishes and know how to reach the people who have the needed legal documents. Single people with no living relatives especially remain vulnerable.

Post 27

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:23am

Not being witness to the American media at the moment - this case is not really a topic of interest in the UK - I assume this taking of sides and conflicting facts is a daily debate in the US.

It seems there is a lot of push and pull on this issue, both sides claiming different things. Alec and Linz claiming that the husband is a scumbag and now Barbara claiming that it is not true.
MH just mentioned that he turned down the offer of $1 million dollars from a pro-lifer as well which argues against the claim that he's just after her money.

I don't know what exactly what to believe anymore - except to say that I hope it turns out that the court decision was the right one. Because I would sleep much easier knowing that the entire US legal system is still reliable and has integrity.

The practice of removing a feeding tube or life-support is a barbaric one, but alas pretty much commonplace throughout the western world while assisted euthanasia remains illegal.

Post 28

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:57am

Tibor,

That article was a magnificent attempt to take this issue to where it really belongs: economics.

Who will pay for Terri Shiavo's care?

That is where the basic consideration should lie. But from the posts, this thing is hitting a deeper nerve.

There is one side clamoring to kill this woman and another clamoring to keep her alive - each giving their own reasons. As Alec pointed out, why should a spouse be given life-death power anyway?

I felt an inner "recognition" with you when you stated that you would not want to prolong your own life in a vegetative state, while demonstrating an indifference to whether it would be prolonged if someone were voluntarily willing to pay for it. You seem unwilling to insist on death. That is practically identical to my own convictions, all the way down to the sense-of-life premises.

I maintained earlier that a person has the right to change his/her mind on suicide. A person who cannot display normal human thinking (even at the realm of present day brain scan technology) can thrive as a living being under medical care - which is basically an alternative form of feeding and normal invalid care in Terri's case. I hold that such thriving is a very strong indication that this living being (Terri, who is no longer a "person" in the cognitive sense) now wants to live. When she made her previous alleged wish, she had no practical idea of what it would be like to be what she is today. I do not see her present response to care as a continued willingness to die. This is not even considering whether she really is permanently vegetative.

Linz - LOL. I always love your diatribes and, of course, I think that slowly starving a living creature to death on a legal technicality is so monstrous that a well placed foot in the ass is called for. I find it sooooo convenient that people try to justify their myopia by the phrase "taking off life support." That way, they conveniently wash their hands of supporting mercy killing, even if the resulting "natural causes" do it by slow torture.

I will state my stand. In the presence of unbearable untreatable agony, I am for mercy killing (all right, euthanasia). If Terri is in permanent agony (which I do not believe), then kill her. But not this way. Hell, shoot her in the head if that is what it takes. But not this.

(And Linz - Please kiss and make up with Barbara. Don't let her go off in a huff. I'll even say pretty please...)

Michael

Post 29

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 9:05am

Marcus, at risk of being vilified as a scumbag-sympathizer, I have to agree with Barbara on this one.

None of the individuals now coming forward with last-minute "revelations" disputing the central facts established in previous judicial proceedings on this case ever bothered to do so in the many years before now. Most of them are also clearly quite religious, raising questions as to the objectivity of their claims, or whether their "pro-life" stance in this case merely reflects their general religious views on "life" issues.

Michael Schiavo has not only refused $1 million so far; a fund established by the "keep Terri alive" side has raised pledges of $5 million to "buy" her from him, simply turning over legal custody to her parents. But he has still refused. Draw your own conclusions about his mercenary motives.

It was established long ago in the medical literature that people in a "persistent vegetative state" can exhibit all the kinds of behavior Terri manifested on the videotapes circulated by her parents: spontaneous laughter, tears, movements, vocalizing, etc. The problem is that the videos were taken -- and edited -- not by some neutral third party without an axe to grind, but by the parents. By selective editing, anyone could claim to show "responsiveness" simply by splicing together only that footage in which random movements happened to coincide with an apparent "stimulus," and leaving the rest of the footage on the proverbial cutting room floor.

The brain scans of Terri used to establish her original diagnosis indicate that her cerebral cortex is mush. That, plus previous examinations by neurologists, led to the current diagnosis. The neurologist who recently observed Terri in her room, and who now suggests a possible "misdiagnosis," performed no direct tests on her to determine actual responsiveness: he merely watched her. In the face of the existing record, that, I submit, is not scientific.

I don't believe the parents are evil irrationalists, nor are most of the people supporting them. Likewise, I am not buying the convenient demonization of Michael Schiavo by individuals with a religious axe to grind. I listened to one nurse who appeared on the Sean Hannity show vilifying Michael Schiavo, who let it slip that she had refused to sign a petition supporting him, and asking the government to butt out, which was being circulated by the other nurses. In short, she was in a lonely minority even among the nurses.

Before everyone here gets overly vituperative, let's assume that most of those involved in this difficult matter are taking the positions they do so out of sincere conviction that the facts are on their side. Polls in the U. S. indicate about a 66% support of letting the spouse decide this matter, not the government. Unless we wish to demonize all these millions as gleeful would-be murderers, I suggest we get a grip on the rhetoric employed against people who disagree, and argue the issues on their merits.

Post 30

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 9:50am

Robert,

"Michael Schiavo has not only refused $1 million so far; a fund established by the "keep Terri alive" side has raised pledges of $5 million to "buy" her from him, simply turning over legal custody to her parents. But he has still refused. Draw your own conclusions about his mercenary motives."

Michael Schiavo can't just up and say "oh -- leave the tube in after all." Once he placed the matter in court, it became the courts' decision to make. The most he could do -- regardless of any consideration offered -- would be to instruct his attorneys to start filing motions and briefs against, rather than in favor of, the continued withholding of food and water from Terri Schiavo, and/or to hire experts that support the other side of the argument instead of the side he's supporting now. Obviously, taking a million dollars and doing those things would appear highly prejudicial to any court. They might even be actionable -- "tampering with a witness" for the payers and "accepting a bribe" for Mr. Schiavo.

The whole money thing is being used for grandstanding by both sides.

The opponents of starving Terri Schiavo to death are trying to show how dedicated they are to saving her life, and to portray Michael Schiavo as so intent upon seeing his wife dead that he'll do so at any cost.

The proponents of starving Terri Schiavo to death are saying "see -- he loves her so much that he won't keep her alive in that condition even for millions of dollars," even though he has no arbitrary power to do so if he wanted to.

Tom Knapp

Post 31

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:38am

Michael Schiavo can't just up and say "oh -- leave the tube in after all."

That's not what Robert said. He says Mr Schiavo was offered the money in return for relinquishing legal custody of his wife.
Can he not do that?

Post 32

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:47am

Marcus:

"That's not what Robert said. He says Mr Schiavo was offered the money in return for relinquishing legal custody of his wife. Can he not do that?"

No, he can't. The court appoints the guardian. If Michael Schiavo relinquished his guardianship the court, not Schiavo, would appoint a new guardian. The court could, of course, give weight to his recommendations, but it seems unlikely that they would be inclined to do so if he had publicly taken payment to relinquish guardianship -- that would be considered evidence that he was acting on the basis of his personal financial interest rather than on the basis of his obligation to safeguard Terri Schiavo's interests.

I apologize for missing the distincton between Mr. Bidinotto's post (relinquishing guardianship) and the crux of the whole matter (keeping the feeding tube out or re-inserting it, which is presumably what the prospective guardians preferred by those offering money to Schiavo to relinquish guardianship are immediately interested in).

Tom Knapp

Post 33

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:44pm

No, he can't. The court appoints the guardian. If Michael Schiavo relinquished his guardianship the court, not Schiavo, would appoint a new guardian.

Wouldn't the court automatically appoint his next of kin, if they are willing, and they are as everyone knows. So he wouldn't need to specify whom should get guardianship.

Post 34

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:46pm

Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health -- a reputable organization that fights "junk science" -- has posted this devastating response to those claiming Terri Schiavo's brain is still functioning in anything like a human way.

The medical reality of Ms. Schiavo's case is this: She has been in what is medically referred to as a "permanent vegetative state" for the past 15 years, ever since her heart temporarily stopped (probably due to the severe effects of an eating disorder), depriving her brain of oxygen. Brain scans indicate that her cerebral cortex ceased functioning -- probably just after she experienced cardiac arrest in 1990. Ms. Schiavo's CAT scan shows massive shrinking of the brain, and her EEG is flat. Physicians confirm that there is no electrical activity coming from her brain. [Note: There is some question about this last contention. --RJB] While the family video repeatedly shown on television suggests otherwise, her non-functioning cortex precludes cognition, including any ability to interact or communicate with people or show any signs of awareness. Dozens of experts over the years who have examined Ms. Schiavo agree that there is no hope of her recovering -- even though her body, face and eyes (if she is given food and hydration) might continue to move for decades to come.

Those are the harsh facts.

She also pulls the ground from beneath that eleventh-hour "neurologist" now being touted in this debate:

As it turns out, Dr. [William] Cheshire is not "renowned" as a neurologist -- his limited publications focus on areas including headache pain and his opposition to stem cell research. Dr. Cheshire never conducted a physical examination of Ms. Schiavo, nor did he do neurological tests. Dr. Cheshire is director of biotech ethics at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, a nonprofit group founded by "more than a dozen leading Christian bioethicists." Everyone is free to be guided by a personal agenda -- and it is clear that Dr. Cheshire has his.

In short, the doctor has been cherry-picked by religionists to lend the prestige of medical science to a crusade fueled by religious faith.

Post 35

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:01pm

Whether or not Terry Schiavo is a human vegetable is not at all clear. Interviews with her nurses, and testimony from numerous doctors other than those the courts chose to acknowlege, argue otherwise. One of her nurses, who tended her for 18 months around 1995, spoke of Terry's speaking the words "pain", "Mommy help me", "Help me"; described her laughing at times; and said that she had seen her eat on several occasions. I don't know if these claims are accurate or not, but neither do I consider assertions by government officials as necessarily truthful.

But even if one assumes she is uncomprehending, and setting aside the big issue of her husband's suspicious conduct, it is clear that her life does not belong to him regardless of what the "law" requires. There is no good evidence as to what Terry wanted concerning these circumstances, and so one should presume she wanted life. If her parents can support her and want to, then they certainly should be free to do so.

The vehemance of some of those who want this woman dead is discouraging. I suspect their fervor reflects the conviction that the state ought to determine who lives, and how; and who dies, and when. The left longs for unlimited power over human lives. They need it to impose their utopian, heartless hegemony.

Post 36

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:06pm

In the perhaps thankless quest to add a few facts to this discussion, I now link to this 2003 report to Gov. Jeb Bush by Terri Schiavo's Guardian Ad Litem. It's a PDF file. Scroll down to page 7 (page numbers at the bottom of each page), to the section, "Historical Facts in the Theresa Marie Schiavo Case."

This official court report of facts should demolish, once and for all, the outrageous charges being leveled against Michael Schiavo -- and also underscore the sad facts of her brain condition.

This is a disgraceful instance of "the religious Right" choreographing faith-based hysteria against what they consider an evil, secular legal system -- in order to establish the legal precedent of their own definition of "life" as a basis for adjudicating other issues, such as opposition to abortion and stem-cell research.

That some Objectivists are falling for this naked ploy by politically active mystics is as demoralizing a spectacle as anything I've witnessed in well over 30 years association with this philosophy.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 3/24, 3:38pm)

Post 37

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:22am

This does not appear to be about money. Michael Schiavo could have taken the money and run a long time ago, leaving Terri's parents to take care of her.

If this was just about Michael not wanting to have to deal with it, he could simply have divorced her and left her to her parents.

So there have been allegations of "abuse"? Since when does an allegation make a fact? Especially now at this late hour, what are we supposed to think of the motives of people making these accusations? (All of these allegations have, in fact, been thoroughly investigated by the state of Florida in the past and have been found groundless.) The "right-to-life" crowd are literally making things up - including blatantly unconstitutional laws that apply only to certain individuals (um, hello, equal protection???) in an attempt to overturn 7 years of court effort with government fiat.

Who the hell would want to go through 7 years of this kind of torture? Michael could have walked away with 1/2 the settlement money ($500,000 as I recall) and been done with it. Yet you expect me to believe he wants to "murder" her? What's the motive, when clearly he could have made out and walked away years ago?

Unless Michael is insane, he is acting consistently with the principle that his wife did not want to "live" like this and he is fulfilling her wishes. For that, I greatly respect him.

As to Terri herself, from what I have read (and admittedly it's hard to get a grip based on media reports, since they are written to the level of ignoramuses) Terri died 15 years ago. At least, the part of her brain that made her Terri. What's left is a lump of flesh connected to a partially-working hindbrain which functions just well enough to keep that flesh breathing and blood pumping - but not much else. As was noted earlier, a sizable chunk of her cerebral cortex died 15 years ago. The brain tissue has since disintegrated (it was DEAD) and has now been replaced with just brain fluid. Not only is her personality dead, a good chunk of her brain is gone. Gone! Physically not there! Does not exist!

Her eyes do not track. Her brain is incapable of focusing (now there's an important tie-in to Objectivism, the concept of "focus") to the point where it can tell her eyes to follow the movement of an object in front of her. How then can anyone thing she is "responding" to her parents, their voices or their faces? It's pure wishful thinking.

(With this kind of brain damage, is it possible that Terri gives herself bruises by jerking reflexively? Golly, I wonder.)

What's really sad about all this is that the thing Terri's parents want is not possible, and will never happen. Terri will never again say "I love you, daddy." She won't even think it. She's dead. Her parents are living in a fantasy world where they interpret Terri's random movements as "responses".

Terri's parents being unwilling to let go and face their grief, by keeping their daughter's body connected to machines indefinitely, is bizarre, macabre, and grotesque. I pity them.

Ultimately, this is not about "whoever wants to keep her alive should be able to do it". Because that is a gross violation of Terri's wishes. A court has decided that Terri's wish was to be unplugged. Anything else is a violation of Terri's *individual liberty*. And that liberty includes the right to die when one so chooses. *THAT* is the principle here.

Post 38

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:10pm

Exceptional find, Robert. Thanks for posting that.

I tossed my television a few years ago which saves me from getting sucked in by sensational "news" stories. This one is pretty dramatic.

My conclusion is that there is no Teri anymore. There’s no one to die. She’s gone. What am I missing?

I'm speculating because I'm not terribly familiar with the case. But from what I have read I agree with you, Jason. The so-called "husband" might be a scum-bucket but the remains of Teri cannot seriously be considered a "wife" any longer. The "husband" has had to deal with this madness for 15 years and it's understandable if he's a bit off his rocker. Put yourself in his shoes and consider how you would act.

Post 39

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:32pm