Terri Schiavo Case to be Decided soon...

Mr. Pessimistic

Quote:
"We believe Terri is a life worth protecting, and we believe that all
of these rights need to be adjudicated," he said. "If their position is
that she has no awareness of time and that she's a vegetable, then
truly what is the harm in letting a little time go by to make sure all
of these critical issues are reviewed?"

Story on Shiavo Case Link

What is the harm in letting a little time go by? If that does not show
the insensitivity of those supposedly on her side then I just dont know
what will. What is the harm? Who knows. Does Terri really want to die?
Only she and Michael know that for sure, as she left no living will.
But I think that after 13 years of Michael standing by her side, and
the fact that he has said he would donate the remaining amount of the
malpractice settlement to charity should take the stigma off him that
Terri's parents and lawyers, and a man named Bush, have heaped on him.
Nineteen judges in 6 courts hav reviewed this case and feel Michael is
acting on Terri's best interests.

The religious cocksuckers are making this a religious issue when it is
simply a matter of a husband trying to do what is right by his wife. It
has been 14 years...it is time to let go. But no, the parents have
hired doctors to give opinions that are more like wishes. A majority of
doctors, neurologists and theologians (one in particular from St.
Josephs University...the name escapes me now) say she should be let go.

But what do I know. I have not lived through the strife any of these
people have, but it seems pretty clear to me. People do not grieve for
those that go, but for those that are left behind. Terri's parents just
cannot deal with loosing their child, and I do not blame them for that,
but they should think of their child and let her go...if they want to
believe that she will go to heaven, then why hold her back. And the
euthanasia excuse will not work, because if it were not for the feeding
tube, she would have died already. Did all those that died of brain
damage prior to modern medicine not get into heaven because they did
not have a feeding tube? No. Selfish bastards.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

MadArchitect

This seems like a thread better suited to the political forum that philosophy or religion, but I'll answer it were it sits.

misterpessimistic: What is the harm in letting a little time go by? If that does not show the insensitivity of those supposedly on her side then I just dont know what will.

If she does not perceive time, then I think it's a valid question. What is the harm to her in letting her live a little longer?

The harm to other people, however, is palpable. There's certainly an emotional toll on everyone close to her, just as there will be an emotional toll if they do decide to euthanize her.

Does Terri really want to die? Only she and Michael know that for sure, as she left no living will.

I don't see how Michael could know. I'd say only she knows, and depending on the extent of her brain damage, there's an equally good chance that she no longer understands the terms of the debate. If that's the case, this fails to meet the criteria of a "right to die" case, and there's no way to elicit or divine her desire in the matter.

Nineteen judges in 6 courts have reviewed this case and feel Michael is acting on Terri's best interests.

I'd feel inclined to take a look at the evidence presented to those judges and the terms of their decision before accepting their judgement.

The religious cocksuckers are making this a religious issue when it is simply a matter of a husband trying to do what is right by his wife.

I wouldn't say that they're making it into a religious issue so much as an ethical issue. The complication is that their standpoint on the ethical issue is largely determined by their religious stance, but that doesn't mean that it's not possible to formulate a similar stance on secular grounds. Are you saying there's no ethical implication in the case?

It seems like a misinterpretation to say that the decision made on Terri's behalf has anything to do with her chances of reward in the afterlife. I don't think anyone's arguing that. That standpoint at work here is more along the lines of that expressed in the Hippocratic Oath -- to maintain life by any means. This is not something explicit in Christian doctrine so far as I'm aware, but something inferred from the value placed on life and the prohibitions against physical harm. It's gray area, to be honest, and there are certainly groups -- Christian Scientists, for example -- who represent the other pole. If you want to put the argument in systematic terms, it would probably look something like this:
1) Thou shalt not kill.
2) Therefore, human life is intrinsically valuable.
3) Therefore, we ought to promote life whenever possible.
4) Modern technology allows us to maintain life even when the body is incapable for doing so on its own.
5) Therefore, it is unethical to allow someone to die when modern technology could maintain their life.

Now, I'm not advocating that line of reasoning, but you should at least note that it has an ethical value.

People do not grieve for those that go, but for those that are left behind.

I'm not sure I understand that sentiment.

Mr. Pessimistic

This is the correct forum...ethics, based on religious wishes...what is political about that? Aside from a Bush getting invloved to pander to "The Base".

Quote:
If she does not perceive time, then I think it's a valid question. What is the harm to her in letting her live a little longer?

This is a fine example of how my ethics are possible WITHOUT religion. Because This person deserves some respect, she lived her life and is now a side show for the press and a tool in a battle between the morality of religion (let the shell of the person linger) and the morality of her husband, who has said that this is what she wished. If this is so, then her husband is indeed respecting her wishes, and that is the harm. BUT...her parents and the doctors THEY pay say she can feel...so she IS suffering by their own assessment and thus are letting her suffer. The lawyers are simply using semantics to get the way of the parents.

Plain fact is: the husband has the rights, by our laws, to make this decision.

Quote:
I don't see how Michael could know.

No, you can't see how he would know...because we really know nothing about the life he and everyone else has lived regarding this issue. BUT, he states she told him she would not want this. So who are we to question that? Who has the more intimate relationship generally after a marriage: the husband and wife...the parents are there, but not to the extent as they were when raising the child. The reason I tend to believe that is because I have told my 'sig. other' this about me. Thing is, if we never marry, she will not have the say...my mom or next of kin will. According to our laws.

Quote:
religious issue so much as an ethical issue

So, can morals exist without religion or myth? I thought it was you that said no elsewhere in this conversation.

Quote:
Are you saying there's no ethical implication in the case?

WHAT is the ethics in letting a person or any animal live like that for 13 years? If she IS aware and can be saved and restored, think of the emotion pain and suffering she is living now...knowing she cannot function and being locked inside her own private prison. Nice way to treat a living thing.

Quote:
People do not grieve for those that go, but for those that are left behind.

I'm not sure I understand that sentiment.

Just think about it for a while. You will have to see it as realates to my views as I have expressed.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

MadArchitect

misterpessimistic: This is the correct forum...ethics, based on religious wishes...what is political about that?

It's legal implications, for one thing. For another, the struggle is largely one drawn along political lines. Who has the right to speak for the patient in this case? Her husband? Her parents? Medical or judicial authorities? The very fact that the case repeatedly appears in judicial review marks it as a political matter, no?

This is a fine example of how my ethics are possible WITHOUT religion.

For the record, I have not argued that ethics aren't possible without religion.

That said, in response to your comment,
Because This person deserves some respect
we might well ask what basis that respect is built on. There is no strictly logical basis for according respect to all humans. So the question boils down to, on what alogical, a priori basis is the respect we accord to humans founded on?

If this is so, then her husband is indeed respecting her wishes, and that is the harm.

If it is so. But without some documentation to demonstrate it, I'm not sure the judicial system has any basis for acknowledging that claim. That's why living wills have some legal authority -- because the judicial system needs documentation in order to carry out a wish that a patient is no longer capable of expressing.

BUT...her parents and the doctors THEY pay say she can feel...so she IS suffering by their own assessment and thus are letting her suffer.

That she can feel does not necessarily imply that she is in a state of suffering.

BUT, he states she told him she would not want this. So who are we to question that?

We're the same body that questions Jason Peterson's claim to innocence in the disappearance of his wife and child. There is no a priori assumption that the husband speaks in the best interests of the wife. Documentation is still required to treat it as something requested by the patient.

So, can morals exist without religion or myth? I thought it was you that said no elsewhere in this conversation.

I don't recall having said that morals could not exist without religion. More than likely you're thinking of a post in which I said that morals could not exist without alogical premises or values. As for myth, that's a possibility I'm open to, and it's a necessary conclusion if we conclude that all alogical premises are based in myth. But that's not a conclusion I've drawn yet.

WHAT is the ethics in letting a person or any animal live like that for 13 years? If she IS aware and can be saved and restored, think of the emotion pain and suffering she is living now...knowing she cannot function and being locked inside her own private prison.

Let's look at the opposite side: what would be the ethics involved in not allowing her life to continue? Even if we erase the hope that she'll ever regain normal function, is what we think of as normal function a more ethical state than abnormal function? The premise at root here is respect, but that respect must be based on one of two foundation: 1) the respect for what she would have wished, which is itself subject to two provisions a) that we reliably know her wishes (which, legally, we do not) and b) that her wishes had not changed between having stated (but not documented) them; and 2) a more nebulous notion of respect that despairs at seeing someone reduced from their previous state. The second is not, to my mind, well substantiated enough to warrant its practice; the first suffers from the fatal defect of uncertainty: the only hint we have to what Schiavo's wishes really were is the insistence of her husband, who may or may not be reliable.

Now, returning to your question, the ethical viewpoint that supports maintaining her life is that which states that all human life is worth maintaining.

We should note, incidentally, that Schiavo's body is apparantly capable of continuing its immediate functions without the use of machines. She's not on a respirator or a pace maker. From the link you provided: "She breathes on her own but needs a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration to stay alive. She isn't terminally ill or comatose." She is entirely dependent on medical intervention only to maintain her intake of food and water, which means to euthanize her would entail either some artificial means of ending her life, or deprivation. That's why the issue of whether or not she can feel is a matter of importance -- to allow her to die in this case would mean to allow her to starve or, more likely, dehydrate until death. Straightforward euthanization would probably be more humane, though still ethically questionable.

There are some serious complications, and I'd be interested in knowing how the representation for Michael Schiavo has attempted to work their way around those difficulties. For instance, it seems to me that, without documentation of a living will, the parents could argue that Schiavo's position constitutes a form of domestic abuse under Title 42, chapter 113, §10701 ( “domestic violence” means— (A) any action that constitutes— (i) attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury or physical illness).

(Incidentally, I've scanned the U.S. Code and can't find any provision determining who among the members of a patient's family would determine an issue like this. Feel free to scan it and let me know if you find a provision that covers this situation, although, I suspect the Schiavo case would not be national news if it were as cut and dry as all that.)

People do not grieve for those that go, but for those that are left behind.
---------
Just think about it for a while. You will have to see it as relates to my views as I have expressed.

No, what I meant is that your language is unclear. By "go" do you mean "die"? Do you mean "voluntarily die" as opposed to involuntarily? Is a vegitative state the same as being "left behind"? I'm missing something in the metaphor here, and I was hoping you'd clarify.

Mr. Pessimistic

It is political too, but the parents base their argument on religious reasons, so I am taking the religious or philosophical side of the debate and posting it here...it is what interests me about it all.

Quote:
For the record, I have not argued that ethics aren't possible without religion.

I thought you implied this...but it could have been someone else...you and I are the main talkers in this forum, so the few errant voices may have been merged with you...I apologize if I did this.

Quote:
There is no strictly logical basis for according respect to all humans.

I just reject that statement. You will need to impress upon me that this is so...I just do not agree. I have given my reasons on how reason is enough for morality. The onus is on you, since you preclude the possibility...and, this is what makes me think you do feel that there can be no morals without ILLOGICAL basis. Sounds silly to even say that, but that is what I am reading.

Quote:
I'm not sure the judicial system has any basis for acknowledging that claim. That's why living wills have some legal authority -- because the judicial system needs documentation in order to carry out a wish that a patient is no longer capable of expressing.

And that is why, BY LAW, the husband/wife has the final say. Done.

Quote:
That she can feel does not necessarily imply that she is in a state of suffering.

Strap yourself in a bed so that you cannot move any muscle and need to be fed by a tube and tell me how long you could last knowing your state and being able to do nothing about it. Tell me how insane you becomes after a day or few. It is isolation and humans are a social animals.

Quote:
Documentation is still required to treat it as something requested by the patient.

No, it is not. The spouse is the next of kin and can make decisions. My brother in law died facing this, not as long as Terri, but they had to make a decision. His mom was still alive, but his wife of LESS than a year had to give the ok. By our laws, made by moral people of faith and not, this is the way we structured things.

Quote:
Let's look at the opposite side: what would be the ethics involved in not allowing her life to continue? Even if we erase the hope that she'll ever regain normal function, is what we think of as normal function a more ethical state than abnormal function?

My ethics: If someone would have died and they cannot be restored to a life that is self sufficient is any way, it is perfectly ok to have her next of kin make a decision to stop treatment that is draining both financially and/or emotionally on everyone involved.

Quote:
the ethical viewpoint that supports maintaining her life is that which states that all human life is worth maintaining.

I do not think this is necessarily true, or at least I do not agree with it. This is what gets us into problems like this. Life is worth maintaining if it can be productive, for ITSELF and not necessarily for society. Many lives are impacted by having a person in this condition being 'maintained' as opposed to 'living'. So, by this, is not the life of others NOT being maintained properly due to this? Is not the stress and emotional distress of this situation effecting the lives of so many others?

Quote:
Schiavo's position constitutes a form of domestic abuse under Title 42, chapter 113, §10701 ( “domestic violence” means— (A) any action that constitutes— (i) attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury or physical illness)

Reading this has made me realize that you are not interested in a resolution, but just keeping the argument going on forever. Under that definition, Mr. Schiavo did not CAUSE this situation...she already HAS sustained bodily injury and physical illness. Schiavo is trying to put an end to that suffering, or lingering if you will. One could argue that the parents are knowingly causing her to endure bodily injury and physical illness...because she is not getting better.

Quote:
Incidentally, I've scanned the U.S. Code

Does this include state laws? Because that is where this comes under...or else the OTHER Bush would be involved.

As for my metaphor: People feel sorry for themselves as opposed to the person who leaves, be it by death or any other separation. Grief serves the griever, not the grieve-ee. It can turn into a selfish indulgence. A period of self-pity. Not to say it is wrong, but it is what it is.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

MadArchitect

misterpessimistic: It is political too, but the parents base their argument on religious reasons, so I am taking the religious or philosophical side of the debate and posting it here...it is what interests me about it all.

Fair enough. I think the implications are likely to be more of a political nature, since this particular case seems poised to set a few precedents, but I'm willing to discuss the issue wherever it may appear at BookTalk.

I thought you implied this...but it could have been someone else...you and I are the main talkers in this forum, so the few errant voices may have been merged with you...I apologize if I did this.

It may have been Dissident Heart. Or I may have just made a comment that was easy to misinterpret. I have said in the past that my research has suggested that all major cultural institutions arose out of religious circumstances, but that does not necessarily preclude the possibility of a secular ethics. And in fairness to others, I'd say that Interbane and Doc Tiessen are major voices in this forum. And as the Book Talk admin, I wish Chris were a little more active in the discussions, but he probably has other demands that preoccupy him more.

I just reject that statement. You will need to impress upon me that this is so...I just do not agree.

It should suffice to point to the fact that logic is merely a symantic system that allows us to describe the relationships between statements in a consistent form. Logic has no content of its own. The content must be provided from without. As such, alogical premises must ultimately lay at root in any logical conclusion, including ethical conclusions. There is no strictly logical basis for ethical conclusions because there is no strictly logical basis for anything -- something alogical must provide the terms for reasoning. To reiterate the question, then, we must ask, What is the basis behind a secular ethics which asserts that respect should be accorded to all humans? The fact that such a basis aspires to secularity demands that it be acceptable on its own terms, and not in reference to an authority.

The onus is on you, since you preclude the possibility...and, this is what makes me think you do feel that there can be no morals without ILLOGICAL basis.

Not on an illogical basis, since an illogical statement is one that may be subjected to logical analysis and judged false. My assertion, and I've made it fairly clear, is that there can be no ethics without a alogical basis. That is, all ethics is ultimately reducible to a statement that is not subject to logical analysis, just as all logical arguments are ultimately reducilbe to premises that are themselves resistent to logical analysis.

And that is why, BY LAW, the husband/wife has the final say.

That may well apply in the case of a patient whose bodily functions are sustained only through mechanical intervention. As noted in the article, that's not the case with Schiavo.

Strap yourself in a bed so that you cannot move any muscle and need to be fed by a tube and tell me how long you could last knowing your state and being able to do nothing about it. Tell me how insane you becomes after a day or few.

That she can feel also does not imply that she maintains total cognitive function. She may well feel pain, but she does not necessarily sense anything aside from her own body. Nor does she necessarily feel the urge to react to her environment. There's no way to tell what she thinks about any given stimulus, nor that she can think at all. But if she can feel, and the method of her euthanisia amounts to removing the tubes that provide her with food and water, then it seems clear that she'll feel hunger and thirst throughout the deprivation that leads to her death. To that end, as I've said before, direct euthenasia would probably be more humane.

No, it is not. The spouse is the next of kin and can make decisions.

The spouse can certainly make decisions, but that should not be tantamount to a living will. Next of kin decisions are decisions made for a patient who cannot decide, not on behalf of the patient.

By our laws, made by moral people of faith and not, this is the way we structured things.

Our laws are not necessarily moral. They are pragmattic, and if we're interested in subjecting them to a moral program, then we must occasionally reëvaluate them.

My ethics: If someone would have died and they cannot be restored to a life that is self sufficient is any way, it is perfectly ok to have her next of kin make a decision to stop treatment that is draining both financially and/or emotionally on everyone involved.

Is the financial and emotional drain the basis for the ethical conclusion, or is the ethical conclusion based on a consideration of the patient and their dignity as a human?

Life is worth maintaining if it can be productive, for ITSELF and not necessarily for society. Many lives are impacted by having a person in this condition being 'maintained' as opposed to 'living'. So, by this, is not the life of others NOT being maintained properly due to this? Is not the stress and emotional distress of this situation effecting the lives of so many others?

The latter half of the statement seems to contradict the initial assertion that life is worth maintaining for its own good and "not necessarily for society." In a strictly utilitarian ethics ("greatest good for the greatest number") it might make sense to sacrafice the dependent individual in order to save independent individuals from the trouble of maintaining them. But that line of reasoning leads to some very uncomfortable gray space elsewhere. In cases of severe retardation, for example, the subject may be entirely dependent on others in order to perform the same actions for which Schiavo requires medical attention: feeding and hydration. Such severly retarded individuals would fall into the same category you've placed Schiavo in -- without intervention they would soon die. Does the same rule apply to them as well?

An alternate basis for determining what it means for a life to be productive for the individual in danger of losing it relates to the value of experience. If Schiavo is still capable of experiencing, even in a severely limited way, does her life possess enough merit to warrant its extenuation? So much depends on how you'd determine the value of life, and this is not, I think, something we should decide based on personal bias alone.

Reading this has made me realize that you are not interested in a resolution, but just keeping the argument going on forever.

I'm very much interested in a resolution to the ethical questions raised by the case. The legal resolution is of secondary concern to me, and I'd frankly rather not see the case come to any conclusion until we've established a consistent and mutually acceptable ethical answer to the problems involved. Unfortunately, I think it's entirely likely that the legal imperative will take precedence over the ethical.

Under that definition, Mr. Schiavo did not CAUSE this situation...she already HAS sustained bodily injury and physical illness.

Mr. Schiavo is attempting to cut Terri Schiavo off from the only source of nutrition available to her. I'm not saying that serves as a clear-cut case of domestic abuse, but the analogy is plain, and I wonder if it couldn't be used as a position by the counsel for Terri's parents.

One could argue that the parents are knowingly causing her to endure bodily injury and physical illness...because she is not getting better.

One would not have a rational basis for that claim, unless one could demonstrate that death was a better state than life in some instances.

Does this include state laws?

No, and I suspect that this is a provision delegated to individual states rather than federally provided.

People feel sorry for themselves as opposed to the person who leaves, be it by death or any other separation. Grief serves the griever, not the grieve-ee. It can turn into a selfish indulgence.

That grief is ultimately selfish does not bar it from having an altruistic effect.

Mr. Pessimistic

Just let me clarify something quick and I will resond to the rest later...

I meant you and I were the major participants in the forum..."The Battle for God", not the entire community. I forgot where I was responding there for a second and thought we were in that forum...sorry.

Doc and Interbane are extremely vital to the success we have had over the past 6 months or so...

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 2/25/05 9:40 am

Mr. Pessimistic

Again, I cannot devote the proper time to this, and it seems that the back and forth will never end, so I must drop out for real this time.

Real life problems are what I need to focus on now, and this is distracting me to no end and for no good reason.

See you all around!

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

MadArchitect

I hope things calm down for you out in the real world, Mr. P.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:05 pm Post subject: Update

Judge orders feeding tube removed

All I will say, to close this discussion, is that there was no easy or straightforward decision in this...I feel the ethically correct path was chosen, but that does not mean it was the only path...just the 'right' one for the majority of the people involved.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

MadArchitect · Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:41 pm Post subject: Re: Update

At the very least, I wish they had ruled that she should be euthanized. Simply removing the feeding tube means that her death will entail starvation and hydration. Since there's some degree of uncertainty over whether or not she can feel, that method leaves over the possibility that she will, on some minimal level, suffer. I'm not certain about the ethics of allowing her to die at all, but I do feel that there is a clear ethical breach in ordering a death that is potentially painful rather than a death that is, in all likelihood, painless.

marti1900

Quote:
I have told my spouse I would want to be let go and would not want to be kept alive in a state like that.

I don't believe for a minute that when push comes to shove and you are in some hospital bed close to meeting The Answer To All Things that as your DW reaches to pull the plug, that you won't crawl back from the edge of The Great Abyss and put a bony claw on her arm and wheeze "I'm not ready! Not yet!" You are too feisty to let go that easily, despite any MB words you may type in your ruddy good health! LOL

And when your DW responds, "But, dear, you SAID you didn't want to live like this.", you will answer back, "I CHANGED MY MIND!!!!!!"

I go to many different types of MB's, and this case is being discussed heatedly everywhere, and most of the sentiment seems to come down against the husband, I think because he is living with another woman and has 2 kids with the OW, all the while claiming he cannot divorce poor Terri because of his religion. So the general feeling is that he wants to Get Rid of Terri without offending the Church so he can marry the OW.

Talk about your convoluted rationales for Getting Rid of the Inconvenience.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT