Joel–I hate to respond to incredibly off-topic comments, but I hate liberal stupidity even more. The reason many conservatives hate “living wages” is not because we hate poor people (many of us having been poor at some point) but because it tends to price unskilled labor out of the market. What small restaraunt can afford to pay $30k/year (What it would cost to support a family of 4 in my location.) to dishwashers and busboys? Most liberals can’t seem to grasp the concept that the minimum wage is not $5.15/hour (or whatever is it), it is $0.00. When the minimum wage is more than a what a job is worth, that job becomes a candidate for automation, and then those low-skill people lose the opportunity to work at any rate.

One point about the idea of “starving” her to death. As Dr. Joe Kearns has already pointed out, the desire and/or ability to eat is of the mechanisms our bodies use to signal death. The important question here (though not really the one being discussed at all for obvious reasons) is when should doctors stop? What are extra-ordinary means to prolong life? Few of us have had to stand at the bed side of a loved one who, short of a miracle, will never walk, talk, or feed themselves again. It’s not a question of dignity, it’s a question of how many tubes should stick into someone to keep them alive?

1. Any mention of Nazi Germany, no matter how you care to sanitize it, is tacky at this time.
2. The word “kill” is inflammatory and pours accelerant into an already hot fire. It makes no distinction between taking action and stopping action. By this second use of the word, eash of us kills freezing homeless people when we fail to ameliorate their plight. I’m sure that is not your intention, but the logic is inescapable.
3. The cognitive distinctions made by those German definitions seek to establish a (public) criterion to become normative for all cases, superceding individual (private) decisions made on a case by case basis.
4. “Corpses” are normally kept “alive” as long as possible or necessary fo the purpose of organ/tissue transplants. Does organ donation cross the line?

Eric & Lisa,
Yes we are all sinners, but by holding too much stock in that phrase you draw an equivalence between you, me, and the reasonable bloggers like those Joe mentions above and Pol-Pot, Hitler, Saddam, and other men who perform truely heinous evil acts. That I would think is the analogy Joe is trying not to make, and why he included his disclaimer at the end.

Morning Links 3/21

Good morning … to all. David Wayne (aka Jollyblogger) with a good revised essay on marriage. If you’re thinking of taking the plunge, my suggestion is to read this too and perhaps get some pre-marital counseling. Some ethical musing over…

I sometimes wonder if secularist objections to relevant references to Nazi Germany are based -deliberately or not- on an aversion to reminders of where secularist assumptions have led in the past, and so they want them taken off the table. Sort of like the socialist true believer who keeps insisting that socialism is still viable despite its track record.
It is important to remember that Nazi Germany was not secularist. Nazi philosophy built a spirtual religion focused around the Aryan Race (the Indiana Jones movies were not quite that far from the mark in that respect). Hitler was noted for his interest in astrology and psyic mediums as well as his fetish for ‘magical artifacts’ such as the ‘Spear of Destiny’ (that was the spear that stabbed Christ on the Cross, said to guarantee victory to whoever has it).
At its base secularism is a refusal to allow anyone to claim a monopoly on the truth. This is only somewhat at odds with religion because religions must lay claim to some fundamental truth (otherwise they would be a pretty sad-ass religion!) in the short run but in the long run secularism is religions friend. Whether it was the Nazism in the 40′s, communism for about 70 years of the 20th Century, or the old state religions of the Dark & Medieval Ages, or the modern ‘Islamic’ governments today the fact remains that when societies reject secularism they almost always pick the wrong religion to adopt and mandate on their citizens.
Who is ‘worth’ letting live?
One powerful debate tactic is to be able to set the terms of the debate for your opponent. Joe would seek to recast this as a debate over whose life is ‘unworthy’ of living. If he does so he can then bring in Nazi history and the eugenics movement in the US.
Yet no one is saying a bed ridden life requiring nonstop care is ‘unworthy’ of living. The argument is that Terri’s life has effectively ended (the part of her brain that made her Terri being destroyed) and what remains is, in effect, ‘only a heart beat’.
That being the case the question is whether passive non-intervention (removing the tube and refraining from invasive measures) is moral. The question of euthansia, whether she should be killed through some type of overdose or other means, is another question that I believe many people are leaning away from….especially after the dubious record the Dutch have had.

Joe,
I think your point is right on, but I think any reference to Nazis or Hitler has become so radioactive that it is unusable in any discussion.
The moment you use any comparrison with Nazis, the points are ignored and then comes the “you’re more Nazi than we are” (ex. the first comment).
As you say though, the ignorance continues. In these comments here, we have people talking about “extraordinary means” to keep “corpses alive.” When in the Shiavo case, all we have is a feeding tube – no other “tubes sticking into someone.” She can eat, she just has to have a feeding tube because she can’t swallow (which her husband has not allowed her to have rehab to help her relearn how to swallow).
We’re talking about feeding a person. Babies can’t feed themselves. Many elderly people can’t feed themselves. Paralysed people can’t feed themselves. Is that now our measuring stick for being alive?
None of us here, know what is happening to Terri right now. I don’t think any of us have ever been on a feeding tube, had it removed and was unable to feed ourself. But I know of someone who has – Kate Adamson.

“Morality without theism: No, it’s not impossible. It’s just that there is no possible basis for establishing a moral principle beyond personal preference. Then the decision about whether a particular moral principle will be socialized is purely a matter of political power (as we have seen in all tyrannies, whether they are left or right, secular or theistic).”
I’m unclear as to what you mean by “socialized”. Perhaps you hold to the Marxist belief that people are blank slates, ready to be programmed?
As to morality as personal preference, as opposed to a theistic belief, I would observe that a persons theistic beliefs are also a matter of choice and preference, therefore your argument fails. :)

I’d respond, but your slippery-slopism is a fallacy hardly worth of answering.
Hey, here’s an idea: If, as her parents indicate, Terri is aware and responding and laughing, let’s just ask her what she wants. One blink “yes,” two blinks “no,” kind of thing.

Lebensunwerten Lebens: Euthanasia

When is Life Not Worth Living?
Joe Carter has an insightful post at Evangelical Outpost with that contains the following quote:
The enormous difficulty of trying to address these problems legislatively will continue for a long time. Likewise, t…

Boonton wrote:
“It is important to remember that Nazi Germany was not secularist.”
Nazi Germany was a fascist state. In a fascist state all institutions have validity only as long as they serve the state. Hitler tried to create a religion that suited state interests better than Christianity. The nazi’s belief in the thousand year reich was no less secular than the Soviet communist’s belief in their “radiant future”.
“At its base secularism is a refusal to allow anyone to claim a monopoly on the truth.”
Really? Try denying a job or housing to someone based on your judgment of his racial type & you’ll find out quickly that our secular state believes it has a monopoly on the “truth” of racist assumptions.

Xiaoding:
By “socialized” I meant “introduced broadly into society”. Not only do I disagree with socialist theory, I think the whole tabula rasa notion is, well, silly.
And you say: I would observe that a persons theistic beliefs are also a matter of choice and preference. That’s a perfectly reasonable observation from a person who has never had a life-changing religious experience. In fact, it’s the view I held for many years. If you ever have an experience like that, then you’ll know what I mean when I say that I didn’t really make the choice, unless you also think, for example, that acknowledging the existence of gravity is a choice.

Having said that, I intellectually understand the view that it’s no great loss, and probably a net positive utility, if we starve Schiavo if one approaches the problem from the perspective that we are merely motile bags of organic chemicals, lurching about trying to replicate one of our molecules and temporarily defying the second law of thermodynamics. But in that case, why not euthanize the homeless?
Oddly if one really had that view then one might as well let Terri’s parents have guardianship and do what they want. After all, if Terri is really gone in every normal sense of the word then this is like fighting over whether to have a coffin with semi-gloss or full gloss. Ironically someone only focused on ‘net positive utility’ would probably find for the parents. After all, if keeping a ‘merely motile bags of organic chemics’ around a bit longer means that much to them why not let them do so. In fact, some commentators have so much as said as much.
Suppose Terri’s husband honestly feels that Terri would not want intervention. Suppose he is correct in that belief. Furthermore, suppose there still is a part of Terri inside and she still feels that way after all these years. The fact is no matter what decision gets made there will be a risk that we will get it wrong and do something that is actually against her true wishes (assuming she still has true wishes in any meaningful sense). We are left with making a guess and a reasonable system is in place to make an educated guess. The husband is her guardian but provisions exist in the law for that guardianship to be challenged. Several attempts were made and they failed.

Similar sentiments are echoed by Michelle Catalano, Randy Balko, Sissy Willis, and Mike Ditto. Andy and Ditto even complain that religious people are standing in the way of allowing this

Evangelical Outpost on Terri Schaivo

Joe Carter has an interesting comparison to Nazi Germany on the Schaivo situation. The Nazis, beside the atrocities performed on the Jewish Race, also sought to define a what level a life was considered valuable. In their reign they exterminated…

If this case encourages more people to make living wills, then those campaigning to preserve life at all costs may win a pyrrhic victory. Heck, by focusing on discovering the desires of the patient, in the long run the case might even strengthen the voluntary euthanasia movement.
Which wouldn’t be the best solution to this mess. A better solution would be for money to be moved towards finding ways to be able to communicate with ‘locked in’ patients so we do not have to rely on guardians or living wills (which can only capture a person’s intent as it was in the past, not the present). It would also be wise to examine whether we are putting too much into simply extending life rather than enhancing its quality.

Since Shiavo has never had an MRI or PET scan
Joe –
Someone else may have already pointed this out, but Schiavo has had a CAT scan. It’s available here: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/03/terri_schiavo.html. The CAT scan shows that large portions of Ms. Schiavo’s brain are absent. Although I agree that PET and MRI scans would be useful as well, it’s wrong to imply (as you do) that the statement

I find increasingly that the religious right is using Gestapo tacticts to try to intimidate anyone that gets in their way.
And I think that people have a tendency to throw about comparisons to the Gestapo and, especially, Fascism without actually knowing the definition of the terms. Most people I’ve debated the subject with have no idea what Facsism is or what it was born of. That’s the really scary thing.

Kevin:
To we have dignity because you say we do. But someone else says we don’t. What then? We’re back to consensus or government fiat.
We’re in exactly the same position, except for the fact that we don’t need a “creator” to center things; although I personally don’t know anyone who appeals to government fiat for these kinds of things, except for some people whose religious faith is weak.
Not everyone will accept your creator; how are we to proceed?

“”At its base secularism is a refusal to allow anyone to claim a monopoly on the truth.”
Ah, but that is the great contradiction of PC “tolerance”. A denial of absolute truth claims is itself an absolute truth claim.”
Wrong! The state’s refusal to endorse any absolute claim is not in itself a claim.
“Morality without theism: No, it’s not impossible. It’s just that there is no possible basis for establishing a moral principle beyond personal preference.”
And that is what mankind has done all along. Your personal preference may be to see the Bible as the word of God. Mine is not.
“That is, contrary to the view of postmodern relativism, objective truth exists independent of our perception of it.”
That which is objective may be proven by objective means. This works for math, but I’d like to see you apply it to morality.

JPE,
From someone who is qualified to talk about this stuff:
The link is to a psychologist who has never seen the CT scan. That is hardly enough to make him “qualified” to give an informed opinion.

Otter’s ‘expert’ take is quite worth reading:

None of the 17 affidavits are by providers who examined Schiavo. Only one of the 17 providers claims to have reviewed her medical records. The remaining 16 providers apparently based their statements primarily on six snippets of videotape, totalling 4 minutes and 20 seconds, which have been posted on Schiavo’s parents’ website and broadcast repeatedly on the news. Several of them explicitly say that they viewed these clips on the net, and the others all refer to the same short samples of behavior (e.g., Schiavo’s eyes tracking a balloon). Many of them say they read news stories about Schiavo. One admits to only seeing news stories and photographs. They all reference their experience with “similar patients,” but without qualifying what they mean by “similar.” For example, one doctor draws comparisons to catatonic patients – but catatonia simply refers to an absence of voluntary motion or interaction, and can be caused by any number of things. Another references stroke patients, and two more talk about patients with Alzheimer’s. As Ampersand points out, not one of them mentions the specific degree and type of brain damage that Schiavo has, as documented by her CAT scans:

What about the “new treatments” which might help Schiavo? Many of the providers assert that she could be trained to swallow, and they’re probably correct. Swallowing is a brainstem reflex, and Schiavo still has her brainstem. The muscles of her throat could be stimulated – Mr. Lakas suggests using electric shock – to produce an automatic swallowing response to liquid nutrition. It’s hard to see how that would amount to an increase in quality of life, however, given the mechanical nature of the reflex and the likely increased risk of choking or aspiration pneumonia. What else? One of the doctors (Ankerman, again) recommends the off-label use of an Alzheimer’s drug, based on unpublished anecdotal evidence that it helps catatonic patients (not patients in a persistent vegetative state). Another recommends hyperbaric therapy, about which the trial court judge had previously pointed out, “It is interesting to note the absence of any [published] case studies since this therapy is not new and this condition has long been in the medical arena.”

The 17 affidavits all put considerable weight on the fact that, in the video snippets on Schiavo’s parents’ website, she appears to be responding to stimulation. Her eyes track a balloon. She smiles in response to her mother’s voice. The affidavits therefore conclude that Schiavo is appropriately responsive to external stimuli, and that she is at least minimally conscious – not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) at all. Yet none of the exhibited behaviors are, in themselves, unusual for patients with PVS. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke:

I’ve been struck by the number of people telling saying something like “How can you say she is in PVS when we can see her eyes open and her body moving around!”. Yet that is part of the very definition of PVS and one of the reasons it is different from a coma or catonic state.
Even more potent:
So the presence of smiles, grimaces, vocalizations, and eye movements alone is not relevant to the question of whether Schiavo has retained any degree of consciousness or may benefit from therapy. They may be in part reflexive – as when she “smiles” when her cheek is stroked – and they may be completely random. The key to the 4 minutes and 20 seconds of video is that Schiavo seems to be responding in a meaningful way to specific stimuli. All 17 experts who reference the videos take for granted that they demonstrate meaningful emotional or communicative responses. Could they really all be wrong?…Oh, yes. All you need to know to illuminate the question is that the six snippets of video were selected from 4 1/2 hours of tape. As do most people with PVS, Schiavo emits random behaviors and noises. If a person gives enough commands or makes enough interaction attempts over the course of several hours, by sheer coincidence some of Schiavo’s random behaviors will appear to coincide with their commands. Both the trial court and the appeals court viewed the entire 4 1/2 hour tape, and both concluded that her responses were indeed random.
The famous Hammesfahr’s report is also dubious:

Interestingly, some of the commands, such as close your eyes, open your eyes, etc. she tended to do several minutes after I gave her the command to do so. She had a delay in her processing of the action. However, when praised for the action, she would then continue to do the action repetitively for up to approximately 5 minutes. As we had moved on to other areas of the exam, at times she was continuing to do the previous command, then at inappropriate times since the focus of the exam had changed.

He commanded her to emit some of her known behaviors, such as closing or opening her eyes. If she did, that was a “hit” – a sign that she had obeyed the command. If she did so several minutes later, that was still a “hit,” apparently no matter what else he’d asked her to do in the interim. If she continued , long after he’d moved on, that was not a sign that she was unresponsive to his subsequent commands but, instead, a sign that she was responsive to praise. Almost any response, correct or incorrect, could apparently be interpreted to signal consciousness. Hammesfahr, like Schiavo’s parents, wanted to be convinced.

Mumon wrote:
“We’re in exactly the same position, except for the fact that we don’t need a “creator” to center things”
Oh really??? What brilliant arguement can you come up with, using logic from a non-theistic worldview, that another person could respond with an equally brilliant arguement for the exact opposite outcome and be just as correct as you? You try to appeal to some ‘objective’ truth that you assume others will recognize (or why would you bother to argue your point?) when there is none if there is no God. You can make a case to kill Terry S. or keep feeding her if there is no ultimate standard men should strive for…. and both would be equally valid! Don’t pretend that you can come up with a moral code that will have any effect on anyone but yourself if there is no God. Your hatred for anything theistic seeps into all of your posts.
As to your second point, “so where do we go from here?”, that is a good question. Theists and atheists and everyone else must make there case in the public square of ideas and then our representative government must make a decision. I think as people examine atheistic (utilitarian) arguements vs. theistic arguements about life, common sense will prevail that men are more valuable than their contribution to society or their subjective value to another person.
Just curious, if two atheists disagree on whether to kill or preserve the life of a person like Terry S. and both arguements are logically sound, on what basis do they decide which is right?? Are both opposite conclusions equally correct?
At least in a theistic worldview, men are arguing from the basis of objective truth which is not dependant on what anyone ‘believes’. From an atheistic worldview, every viewpoint or belief is equally valid if men can just make them up. That doesn’t correspond to reality in most people’s minds.

As to your second point, “so where do we go from here?”, that is a good question. Theists and atheists and everyone else must make there case in the public square of ideas and then our representative government must make a decision. I think as people examine atheistic (utilitarian) arguements vs. theistic arguements about life, common sense will prevail that men are more valuable than their contribution to society or their subjective value to another person.
Interestingly this is a faith of sorts in secularism. Decisions are made in a representative fashion with no preconceived assumption that some group (such as a Body of Clerics as exists in Iran) holds a monopoly on truth.

Schiavo

I will confess that I don’t know enough about the Terri Schiavo situation to form a solid position. If you’re following the story, take a look at the Evangelical Outpost for a good collection of information and opinions.

Starving a woman to death – different from avoiding extraordinary life-support techniques – is … an evil act.
What are ‘extraordinary life-support techniques’? Life at its most basic level is rather simple. Breathing, eating and defecating. I suppose respirators and heart machines are still new enough to appear extraordinary but feeding tubes are now ordinary enough to come off the list? Would they have been extraordinary in 1925? How about the ‘swallowing rehabilitation’ that appears to involve putting food in her mouth and using electrical shocks to force her to swallow?
The problem with the Nazi comparisons is that it tries to capture some superficial similarities while ignoring fundamental differences in service of changing the subject. The Nazi’s may have justified some of their euthansia on the grounds of ‘mercy’ but their real agenda was to devote resources to their ideology of racial purification.
Here the agenda really is a debate about what is good for the patient. Even more so in this case since money is in one way off the table since resources are available to continue Terri’s care AND pay off her husband if that was the prime concern.

I’m not sure where you got that I contend to be qualified to report on CT images. So we’re clear, however: I am reporting on what the images show, as reported by trained professionals. So far as I know, every medical doctor who has examined* Ms. Schiavo has concluded that she is missing large portions of her brain. The only debate regards whether what remains is capable of performing some (or no) higher cognitive function.
Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that those CT scans that everybody’s touting as somne sort of proof doesn’t prove anything. First, as I noted, most people aren’t trained to know what they’re seeing. Second, as you point out, they don’t speak to the amount of cognitive function she has.
My point in citing and linking to the CT scan was to show that Mr. Carter’s statement that no “PET or MRI” had been done on Mrs. Schiavo contains a misleading omission. (Not an intentionally misleading omissions, I am sure, but a misleading omission nonetheless.)
I don’t see it as misleading. An MRI would almost certainly be required in any other case where it could be performed.

Mr Ed.
Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that those CT scans that everybody’s touting as somne sort of proof doesn’t prove anything. First, as I noted, most people aren’t trained to know what they’re seeing. Second, as you point out, they don’t speak to the amount of cognitive function she has.
Fair enough on your first point but what about your second? Would an MRI prove or disprove ‘cognitive function’? Is there any reasonable basis to state that an MRI would tell us something about her ‘cognitive function’ that the CAT scan cannot?
For those screaming ‘no MRI!’, would their opinions be changed depending upon the results of an MRI? If not then what purpose would an MRI have at this point other than as a delaying tactic?

The famous Hammesfahr’s report is also dubious:
You took one very small portion out of a large report, Boon.

Funny, too, where are there feminists? Are they now saying that, in the absence of a living will, it is OK for a husband to allow his wife to starve to death so he can be with another woman? Guess that what happens when you so firmly embrace abortion on demand–everything else gets sort of fuzzy. You’ve come a long way, baby.
Except he doesn’t have to kill his wife to be with another woman. For one thing he’s been with another woman for quite some time. Another thing is that her parents basically asked him to ‘get on with his life’ back when this thing apparantly started (which was when he made it clear he wasn’t going to split the settlement money BTW). Even today he has been offerred $1M to divorce his wife (and if he is telling the truth another person offered him $10M).
Are you asking where are the feminists where a husband is given the role of guardian of his wife? Well considering that we all agree his wife needs a guardian as she is unable to speak for herself who should that guardian normally be? A feminist might note that she at least choose her husband while no woman (or man) gets to choose their parents.

And I see some people in the movement to provide “mercy” killings motivated by utilitarian arguments. Not all are that way, but a portion are. So, there is some correlation.
1. What are the utilitarian arguments being presented here? Money is not a concern since it would seem charity and her malpractice settlement will pay for any decision that is made. As has been pointed out many times her husband is free to ‘cash in’ whenever he wants.
2. The Nazi’s were not utilitarians. In fact, their ideology of racial purity probably contributed greatly to them losing the war. Their programs of euthansia against ‘undesirables’ were not motivated by an attempt to save money or resources but by their ideology. In other words, even if they had infinite riches they would still have wanted to kill undesirables.
If Terri had had an advance directive, this wouldn’t even be a debate. I believe that most people (while possibly disagreeing over what is moral) are willing to allow people to choose their medical treatment options. Since we don’t have that directive, it’s left up to relatives and since someone is willing to take care of her, why is there a problem?
Do you find it ironic that you are mounting a utilitarian argument here? Basically your saying “she probably can’t feel anything so why not just let her parents have their way even if it would have been against her wishes”.

I believe I might have posted this excerpt from Respectful of Otters on the other thread:

I suppose that these statements are technically true. Speechlessness is not always due to destruction of brain structure, but if massive destruction of brain structure is present, that’s certainly the way to bet. CAT scans tell you if tissue is present and structured normally, but not if it’s working; however, if tissue is absent, you’d think its lack of functionality could be assumed. And yes, if Terri had the same fMRI results as a healthy person, that would bode well for rehabilitation – but as we sometimes say here at Respectful of Otters, it’s equally true that if my aunt had testicles, she’d be my uncle. Terri Schiavo doesn’t have a cerebral cortex. She’s not going to have a normal fMRI pattern. She simply couldn’t. So it’s pointless to speculate about what it would mean if she did.

Basically an MRI would provide, at best, marginally more information and would require surgery to remove implants from Terri’s head.

“”Really? Who are these many people on this thread who are viewing this as a ‘mercy killing’? I went thru this thread just now and here are a list of people who might be characterized as leaning towards removing the tubes (I’m excluding myself for reasons you’ll soon see):
mumom
jpe
Joel Thomas
Nick
Xiaoding
Rob Ryan
John Ballard”"
Oh, I see. So these folks would NOT say it’s more merciful for her to die, just more utilitarian.
Fair enough. That does help me, actually.

Oh, I see. So these folks would NOT say it’s more merciful for her to die, just more utilitarian.
Fair enough. That does help me, actually.

I think you should address what people really say, not make up an argument they did not make so you can deploy your pre-set counter-replies. I don’t know what those people would say about mercy, perhaps they would view it as more merciful or not. I myself seem to think if ‘Terri’ ceased to exist when her cerebal cortex disappeared there is no one there to experience pain hence neither decision can be ranked in terms of mercy. To the degree that she would not have wanted this then the decision would basically be more about respect of her wishes (to the best degree that we can ever estimate them).
For the record, like mercy killing no one has made a utilitarian argument for removing the tube. I have heard no one say ‘save the money’ or anything like that. As I pointed out a utilitarian argument would probably say something like “Keeping her on the tube will make her two parents plus family happy while ending it will satisfy the husband, therefore keep her on the tube and you’ve generated the most amount of happiness you can from this bad situation”. Again this is an example of an argument the pro-parent side is just spinning out of air in order to avoid the actual arguments being presented against them.

One of the things that bothers me after having read some the commentary is the cold, clinical approach some are taking to this woman’s life.
She’s not interesting grist for the mill, she is still a person. I honestly don;t believe some of you believe that.
But then I guess one shouldn’t think with their heart in these types of circumstances. Cold hard logic and “intelligence” will win the day.

Fair enough, Mr. Ed.
Were it me in that (near or absolute) vegetative state, I would prefer to be allowed to die of my own accord rather than be prolonged via feed tube and twenty-four hour care. But it’s not me, and I do have some concerns that the trial court may not have correctly assessed what Ms. Schiavo’s preferences would be. Are those concerns worth the extraordinary actions being taken here by Congress? The second guessing of the trial and appellate courts — courts in which we are perfectly willing to put our faith when society does in fact kill someone (via lethal injection, electrocution, etc.)?* Can I support the relentless grandstanding on this issue by some who have perceived a political football to advance (tho’, tis true, others act upon nobler instincts)?
Well, no. This whole case sickens me. Let no one prosper — politically or otherwise — by this sad state of affairs.
von
*I’m pro-death penalty, but I do find it telling that no one in Congress ever wants to intervene when we’re talking about affirmatively killing someone — even though there’s been robust evidence that the system gets it wrong with some frequency. (E.g., something like 13 of 25 death penalty convicts were shown by DNA evidence to be innocent in Illinois before the moratorium.)

Well, no. This whole case sickens me. Let no one prosper — politically or otherwise — by this sad state of affairs.
Save Terri, her family, and anyone else who might end up in Terri’s horrible position and might benefit from the extra effort affored by another level of oversight, I agree. Political motivations aside, I really don’t see the problem with sending this case to the Fed. It is an important case with possible long term ramifications for others in the same position. I think its wise to make sure we’re setting the proper precedent.

Terri expressed to family and friends on numerous occassions (particularly at family funerals) that she did not want any artificial support if she was in something like a persistent vegetative state.
If she had truly expressed this “on numerous occations” I doubt we would be here discussing it right now.
Meanwhile I’m sure you have heard about the law in Texas, passed under Gov Bush, that let’s the doctor’s unplug you if you can not pay for long-term care. The DeLay/Bush/Republican hypocripcy kowns no bounds.
I haven’t read up on that yet but I suspect you’re leaving out a few crucial details. Anyway, if we want to talk about hypocrisy I could mention the fact that so many of these people on the Left who love the SCOTUS for making such sweeping decision as Roe v Wade now find themselves in the odd position of defending states rights. But, as I know that pointing out hypocrisy adds not a single iota to the case at hand, I prefer to leave that to the hacks.

I believe that more people in conditions similar to Terri Schiavo’s will actually have feeding tubes removed and die in the next few years simply because publicity and Congressional intervention (disapproved of by 70% of Americans) make it more likely that people will have living wills. If Terri, had had a living will, this case wouldn’t have gotten this far. However, Schiavo’s supporters aren’t upset because of a lack of living will; some are upset because there isn’t medical concensus and/or family agreement and some are upset because they don’t want feeding tubes removed regardless of a person’s wishes or their medical condition.
So, certain conservative evangelicals may win a “moral” victory but their crusade may actually result in more deaths under conditions they disagree with.

The precedent that has been set is that if 3% (yes, three percent) of the Senate and 47% of the house disagree with a judicial decision, then Congress can vote to throw out the decision whenever it suits them. Is that the proper precedent?
It’s not the first time. And its a better precedent than sitting around waiting for enough Senators to show up to vote.

If you really hope for Ms. Schiavo’s life, remember to pray. There is Someone who can overall the judge or the culture any day of the week–maybe, expecially, Easter week.

Andy S gets it right:
“So I don’t understand the remarks above about mercy killing. This is about following through on the expressed wishes of an individual about what sort of medical care and interventions she wanted (and did not want) if she were ever so unfortunate to end up in these extreme circumstantces.”
And this brings us back to the question that Mr. Ed ran away from from a few threads back: why wasn’t Bush asked to sign a bill requesting that the baby in Texas — whose legal guardian (the only person whose opinion mattered because the baby’s wishes were unknown — for obvious reasons) wanted the baby to be kept on life support — be helicoptered to an institution where appropriate facilities were available???
What happened there Mr. Ed? Can you explain to me one difference — I think there’s an obvious one — which explain why Congress sat on its hands and let that baby die but jumped to attention for Terry Schiavo?
Please include a reference to your pleasing talking point that human life has “immeasureable” intrinsic value in your explanation.
Thanks. Thanks a lot.
Oh, and just fyi: you evangelicals just wasted a lot of political captital and made yourselves look like jackasses with this issue. That Judge is going to slap this case down faster than you can say: Terry Schiavo said she wanted to die if she was a vegetable.

You know, Larry, I think for a lot of folks this is about more than political capital. I didn’t understand it at first either–and I still wish people would spend more time praying for Terri (they are) and less time beating up on Michael Schiavo and others–but there is something very sincere with most of these people.

Below is my humorous post on the conflict and below that is the best email I received on the topic.
HOW RIGHT TO LIFE ARE YOU? ANSWER QUESTIONS BELOW
1. I

A doctor looks at Terri’s scans:
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html
“…Terri’s cerebral cortex has not been replaced by fluid. That is inaccurate. The cortex is thinned and the sulci are enlarged. There is a difference.”
“… most importantly, given the amount of atrophy on this image I disagree with the court’s inadequately considered conclusion.”
“…First of all, the University of Miami’s appellation for this scan is inaccurate. “Cortical regions” are not and can not be filled with spinal fluid. The sulci (spaces between cortical ribbons) are enlarged secondary to cortical atrophy and these sulci are filled with cerbrospinal fluid.
The most alarming thing about this image, however, is that there certainly is cortex left. Granted, it is severely thinned, especially for Terri’s age, but I would be nonplussed if you told me that this was a 75 year old female who was somewhat senile but fully functional, and I defy a radiologist anywhere to contest that.
I HAVE SEEN MANY WALKING, TALKING, FAIRLY COHERENT PEOPLE WITH WORSE CEREBRAL/CORTICAL ATROPHY. THEREFORE, THIS IS IN NO WAY PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT TERRI SCHIAVO’S MENTAL ABILITIES OR/OR CAPABILITIES ARE COMPLETELY ERADICATED. I CANNOT BELIEVE SUCH TESTIMONY HAS BEEN GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF THIS SCAN.”
“…Based on this evidence Terri Schiavo should have a CT scan repeated. She should also have an MRI and a PET scan to gage the severity of her brain dysfunction.”
Be sure to check out the comments as well.

Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance

She matters, not only because she has an endowed, inalienable right to life, but also because she is a symbol – like Rosa Parks was a symbol when she refused to sit in the back of that Montgomery, Ala., …

Schiavo - Legally Sanctioned Murder

I'm deeply grieved at the progression of the Schiavo case. We're talking about legally sanctioned murder here and I'm sick about the misinformation that the media is putting forth about Terri. At this point, with the new ruling from t…

Slate.com has an alternate view of those tapes:
http://www.slate.com/id/2115123/
******************
But the questions about Michael are just the beginning. If you’re going to scrutinize the fitness of family members to make medical decisions, you have to look at everyone. Take Schiavo’s mom, who calls her daughter “my life.” Schiavo’s parents have circulated video clips purporting to show that their daughter responds to stimuli. Skeptics point out that the clips omit hours of unresponsiveness

Of course hours of unresponsiveness are omitted- she doesn’t have to be responsive all the time to prove she’s not a vegetable. One response would be enough. There have been more.
So you’ve basically assumed your conclusion. If her actions are random only then if you wait around long enough you will see a ‘reaction’ that might appear as if it is a response to something you asked. In reality it isn’t. Assuming the description above is accurate (and I notice you don’t dispute his description of the 4 hour tape) the ‘response’ would appear to be nothing more than understandably biased people seeing what they desperately want to see.
Have you seen her charts at Code Blue blogs? Even Michael was reporting to the doctor that she was speaking- up until he won his lawsuit.
I read the CodeBlue blog. Basically all he is saying is that her brain hasn’t turned entirely to liquid…only that her tissue has become amazingly thin. So instead of a water balloon her front brain is a bit more like a toilet bowel filled with tissue. I do not buy his assertion that her CAT scan is equilivant to a 75 year old woman who is otherwise functional but maybe a little senile. This blogger has also alleged that Yushchenko was not poisened with dioxin but by drinking too much (see http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2004/11/index.html)
So assuming he is really an expert (unlike an actual court trial where expert witnesses have to defend their credentials to both sides there is no way to tell a blogger really is what he says he is) he would appear to fall outside commonly accepted medical opinion. His assertions that ‘this may not really be Terri’s brain’ lead me to suspect he is more of a crank.
You are so uninformed, and it is pretty clear that this is by choice.
Really? I’ve read the original documents and requested additional ones. I’ve been willing to correct my mistakes and ask questions. The CodeBlueBlog item (http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html) was just posted on Monday and believe it or not is not a major blog at all. How uninformed am I really compared to some of the people on this list who would presume to tell you all about Terri’s feelings, about her husband really wanting her ‘out of the way’ and so on?

Deputyheadmistress is a script-reciting rube of the first degree.
Deputyheadmistress takes a giant stinky dump on this country’s legal system (a system which we believe is so great that it justified the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis over the course of the last few years).
But you can rest assured that Deputyheadmistress will happily run to court when he/she stands to gain some money by doing so. Therein lies the sickness.

We are seeing a consistent pattern in this case, it is one of ignorance and deception coming from the pro-parents side. This is not unlike the Mumia case where the reverse is true, the left-wing continually puts forth the same old canards that have been shot down over and over again. Yet someone new to the Mumia case may get a hold of a ‘summary’ or two and quickly become convinced that a horrible travisty of justice is afoot.

And this brings us back to the question that Mr. Ed ran away from from a few threads back: why wasn’t Bush asked to sign a bill requesting that the baby in Texas — whose legal guardian (the only person whose opinion mattered because the baby’s wishes were unknown — for obvious reasons) wanted the baby to be kept on life support — be helicoptered to an institution where appropriate facilities were available???
If you want to go back and thrash through all of the past posts, like I have before, you’ll find out that I never evaded a question. And, for that matter, we can go back through all of the messages and find that you never in fact asked this question. It appears, as time progresses, so does the question. Yet you claim I am evading it.
Sorry, that tactic doesn’t work Lar.
So, what question is it that you really want answered?

drug FDA Cialis online hours! erectile 30 up in dysfunction http://www.cialis-net.com medication last and works became 2003. in minutes 36 approved impotence to

http://patterico.com/2005/03/22/2784/the-mistake-that-may-cost-a-life/
About Judge Greer ruling that Diane Meyer’s testimony was uncredible because she was wrong about when Karen Ann Quinlan died, Patterio quotes the judge and then points out:
“In other words, although this witness originally seemed credible, the judge decided that she was not credible largely because he believed that Karen Ann Quinlan had already died in 1982

“…you can rest assured that Deputyheadmistress will happily run to court when he/she stands to gain some money by doing so.”
Actually, you can’t. I have, in fact, never gone to court for any reason and have specifically refused to go to court on three occasions when I stood to gain money and something rather more precious.
1. a close relative died of an internal bleed caused by gall bladder surgery and never caught, although we told the hospital repeatedly that something else was wrong.
2. We were in the process of adopting when the birth mother canceled the adoption. Our case worker advised us to pursue that case in court and seek to have the birth-mother’s rights terminated. We refused.
3. roofers stripped our roof and left it uncovered shortly before a rainstorm. We now have serious water damage in the ceilings of both floors of our small two story house, stains, cracked ceilings, peeling paint, and mold seeping into the walls. We fired the roofers and called the police to prohibit them from removing the roofing shingles we had paid for from our property- but we did not go to court, even though we would certainly have won.
It’s not your business, but your assumptions are more than usually stupid and in complete opposition of reality. They are also more than a little irrelevant to the points at hand. The minor point is that Boonton accepted Judge Greer’s egregious dismissal of claims by Terri’s friends that she voice opinions contrary to those Michael has placed in her mouth based on a wrong date given for the death of Karen Ann Quinlan. But Judge Greer was in error and the witnesses he dismissed were correct.
The major point is that, regardless of what sort of person I or anybody else is,
Judge Greer has been wrong about almost everything about the Schiavo case, and we have police in this country prohibiting people from giving an innocent woman a drink of water by court order.
What is wrong with giving a woman a drink of water? If she can’t drink it and she dies from it, it would be quicker than what she’s enduring now- but what is so wrong with trying? How can anybody at all defend a court order against giving somebody a sip of water?