As I understand the situation the problem is that Terri Schiavo did not have an expressed opinion about the issue of life support. Her husband did not express a desire to end treatment until after he got the malpractice settlement. Since he got the money supposedly for her care he has refused any rehabilitive efforts including antibiotics to treat an infection. It would appear there is a lot of hypocrisy going on.
Hypocrisy
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
Round Three
Court says, "No"
This afternoon, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied again the request by Terri Schiavo's parents to intervene in her passing. The court did not announce the members' votes, but noted there were two dissenting opinions.
Meanwhile, the Florida Senate is preparing to pass a new law forcing doctors to reinsert Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube. Florida Governor Bush has also announced that the state has hired a doctor who claims Mrs. Schiavo has been misdiagnosed:
Well now, isn't that convenient and expected? Nonetheless, if it's true, I'm sure it can be demonstrated. After all, that electrical signal in the brain ought to be available to us.
Even coming from a Republican who is a member of America's most dishonest family, we must pause to consider the possibility. Is Jeb just blowing smoke, or does he have something for us? Cough it up, cough it up.
____________________
Notes:
See Also:
Court says, "No"
This afternoon, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied again the request by Terri Schiavo's parents to intervene in her passing. The court did not announce the members' votes, but noted there were two dissenting opinions.
Meanwhile, the Florida Senate is preparing to pass a new law forcing doctors to reinsert Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube. Florida Governor Bush has also announced that the state has hired a doctor who claims Mrs. Schiavo has been misdiagnosed:
Well now, isn't that convenient and expected? Nonetheless, if it's true, I'm sure it can be demonstrated. After all, that electrical signal in the brain ought to be available to us.
Even coming from a Republican who is a member of America's most dishonest family, we must pause to consider the possibility. Is Jeb just blowing smoke, or does he have something for us? Cough it up, cough it up.
____________________
Notes:
Roig-Franzia, Manuel. "Appeals Court Denies Schiavo Parents' Case". WashingtonPost.com. March 23, 2005. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58819-2005Mar23.html
See Also:
Kurtz, Howard. "Shouting Over Schiavo". WashingtonPost.com. March 23, 2005. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59206-2005Mar23.html
Neal, Terry M. "Political Expediency Abounds in Schiavo Case". WashingtonPost.com. March 23, 2005. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59502-2005Mar23.html
Neal, Terry M. "Political Expediency Abounds in Schiavo Case". WashingtonPost.com. March 23, 2005. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59502-2005Mar23.html
Isn't that a tad cyncial, Candy?
As rbruma pointed out, of course, we haven't seen all that "clear and convincing evidence". It is, however, a matter of public record, so anyone wishing to pick through the arguments before and decisions by the 19 judges who handled the case prior to Congress' ill-advised intervention certainly can.
The above citation, taken from the Washington Post, is one I've posted before. I reiterate it here because I think it applies.
Apparently, pro-lifers know Michael Schiavo better than anyone else. After all, despite the court's opinions, they still have knowledge that compels them to such cynicism.
What is that the pro-lifers know that the courts have ignored?
_____________________
Notes:
As rbruma pointed out, of course, we haven't seen all that "clear and convincing evidence". It is, however, a matter of public record, so anyone wishing to pick through the arguments before and decisions by the 19 judges who handled the case prior to Congress' ill-advised intervention certainly can.
The above citation, taken from the Washington Post, is one I've posted before. I reiterate it here because I think it applies.
Apparently, pro-lifers know Michael Schiavo better than anyone else. After all, despite the court's opinions, they still have knowledge that compels them to such cynicism.
What is that the pro-lifers know that the courts have ignored?
_____________________
Notes:
Editorial. "A Damaging Intervention". Washington Post. March 22, 2005; page A16. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55441-2005Mar21.html
Update: Jeb And The Grin Without A Face
Dr. Cheshire has not examined Terri Schiavo
Unsourced at present; I expect the content to enter webworld shortly. CNN has reported that Dr. William Cheshire, who has asserted that Mrs. Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state--a late development in the desperate pro-life bid--at the request of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, has not actually examined Terri Schiavo.
As we might expect, an explanation of his conclusion is not yet available.
Dr. Cheshire has not examined Terri Schiavo
Unsourced at present; I expect the content to enter webworld shortly. CNN has reported that Dr. William Cheshire, who has asserted that Mrs. Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state--a late development in the desperate pro-life bid--at the request of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, has not actually examined Terri Schiavo.
As we might expect, an explanation of his conclusion is not yet available.
I saw it on the news too.
Exactly what I predicted would happen, only sooner than I predicted.
I thought it would be discovered she wasn't fully a vegetable after she was dead, and then be remembered for a long time as a massive blunder. Priming her family for one of the most astronomical payouts in history.
Haha, how long has she been without fluids again?
It is just incredible how readily they went the "starvation" route without really knowing what condition she was in.
One has to shit themselves laughing at this.
Exactly what I predicted would happen, only sooner than I predicted.
I thought it would be discovered she wasn't fully a vegetable after she was dead, and then be remembered for a long time as a massive blunder. Priming her family for one of the most astronomical payouts in history.
Haha, how long has she been without fluids again?
It is just incredible how readily they went the "starvation" route without really knowing what condition she was in.
One has to shit themselves laughing at this.
Press Roundup
It's five o'clock: Do you know where your culture is?
As we roll into the evening here on the west coast of the American continent, a brief survey of current press on the Battle of Schiavo:
The editors of the National Review Online posted an article yesterday morning that leaves me baffled:
Most of the article seems somewhat divorced from that paragraph, as the editorial board spends its words demeaning the case in favor of allowing Mrs. Schiavo to die.
The article even goes so far as to assert, "The sanctity of marriage, meanwhile, has never been held to be so absolute that authorities could not take action to prevent someone from killing a spouse."
The editors do not, however, spend any words establishing that allowing someone to die equals killing.
Over at the New York Times, oft-accused of a liberal bias, one Charles Fried has offered his thoughts:
Charles Fried is a professor at Harvard Law School, and served as solicitor general for President Reagan.
(Articles at NYTimes.com move to a paid archive after a week or two. Read it while it's available.)
Over at WorldNetDaily, Ann Coulter has checked in with her usual lack of dignity:
It's good to know what's important about this case to Coulter and WND.
Harold Meyerson, of the Washington Post checked into today's A-section:
While not nearly extreme as Ms. Coulter, Meyerson, too, leaps to the broader issues:
At least he stays relevant to his point of departure.
The Indianapolis Star carries an AP story at its website:
Also in from the Associated Press, but via the San Francisco Chronicle, the story of Florida Governor Jeb Bush seeking legal custody of Mrs. Schiavo.
CBS News reports that a new poll suggests that Americans find Congress' actions in the Schiavo case inappropriate.
The CBS poll is getting play over at ABC News. (Well, via the AP.)
Reuters reports that the White House has essentially conceded defeat:
New Kerala, from India, carries a UPI opinion piece (under "World News") describing the Schiavo case:
What strikes me is that pretty much all of this has been covered, in one form or another, throughout our debate here.
I'd say, "Enjoy," but it really is morbid reading.
It's five o'clock: Do you know where your culture is?
As we roll into the evening here on the west coast of the American continent, a brief survey of current press on the Battle of Schiavo:
The editors of the National Review Online posted an article yesterday morning that leaves me baffled:
Most of the article seems somewhat divorced from that paragraph, as the editorial board spends its words demeaning the case in favor of allowing Mrs. Schiavo to die.
The article even goes so far as to assert, "The sanctity of marriage, meanwhile, has never been held to be so absolute that authorities could not take action to prevent someone from killing a spouse."
The editors do not, however, spend any words establishing that allowing someone to die equals killing.
• • •
Over at the New York Times, oft-accused of a liberal bias, one Charles Fried has offered his thoughts:
Charles Fried is a professor at Harvard Law School, and served as solicitor general for President Reagan.
(Articles at NYTimes.com move to a paid archive after a week or two. Read it while it's available.)
• • •
Over at WorldNetDaily, Ann Coulter has checked in with her usual lack of dignity:
It's good to know what's important about this case to Coulter and WND.
• • •
Harold Meyerson, of the Washington Post checked into today's A-section:
While not nearly extreme as Ms. Coulter, Meyerson, too, leaps to the broader issues:
At least he stays relevant to his point of departure.
• • •
The Indianapolis Star carries an AP story at its website:
• • •
Also in from the Associated Press, but via the San Francisco Chronicle, the story of Florida Governor Jeb Bush seeking legal custody of Mrs. Schiavo.
• • •
CBS News reports that a new poll suggests that Americans find Congress' actions in the Schiavo case inappropriate.
• • •
The CBS poll is getting play over at ABC News. (Well, via the AP.)
• • •
Reuters reports that the White House has essentially conceded defeat:
• • •
New Kerala, from India, carries a UPI opinion piece (under "World News") describing the Schiavo case:
• • •
What strikes me is that pretty much all of this has been covered, in one form or another, throughout our debate here.
I'd say, "Enjoy," but it really is morbid reading.
talk2farley
Registered Senior Member
spuriousmonkey said:
What hypocricy? It would be folly indeed to assert that because Republicans oppose murder given one very specific set of circumstances, that they must then condone it in all others (what's most amusing is that you presuppose that removing Terri Schiavos feeding tube is indeed unjustifiable murder, and however incorrect the assertion may be it says alot about your particular politics given you support it regardless). Such an argument is entirely without merits.
Now, firstly, the cessation of medical interference is NOT murder. Terri Schiavo will die on her own, not at the hand of any medical doctors. Any active role would be both illegal and unethical under the Hyppocratic Oath. Therefore, a given Conservatives position on the death penalty or armed conflict is entirely irrelevant to the case at hand.
Secondly, the question before the court is what Ms. Schiavo would want. Not what Republicans want, not what Democrats want, not what the parents want, and not what her husband wants. Only the individual in question has the right to pursue or ignore medical treatment. Unfortunately, Ms. Schiavo is incapable of simply telling us her wishes, and she left no legal documents certifying her views. Therefore, we must defer our decision to the party most likely to understand her wishes and act genuously upon them. Republicans assert that the parents are that party in Ms. Schiavos case, while the law in its present form holds that the next of kin is ALWAYS that party, without exception. Therefore, Republicans support a change in the law.
Dr. Lou
I just wanted to make sure I have you correctly on this:
So, fifteen years of debate involving testimony of doctors before nineteen judges, and it's only now, amid the political heat, that a neurologist working at the request of a governor serving an unsupportable assertion as a foregone conclusion will be the first to strike gold?
Fifteen years of cynicism? Nineteen judges' worth? How many doctors? And suddenly, that cynicism evaporates because we should think this one doctor, who has not examined the patient directly, has nailed it where everybody else has screwed the pooch?
What have I missed?
I just wanted to make sure I have you correctly on this:
Dr. Lou Natic said:
So, fifteen years of debate involving testimony of doctors before nineteen judges, and it's only now, amid the political heat, that a neurologist working at the request of a governor serving an unsupportable assertion as a foregone conclusion will be the first to strike gold?
Fifteen years of cynicism? Nineteen judges' worth? How many doctors? And suddenly, that cynicism evaporates because we should think this one doctor, who has not examined the patient directly, has nailed it where everybody else has screwed the pooch?
What have I missed?
talk2farley said:
How is that not murder? If a mother decides not to feed her child, is that not murder? if someone's getting electricuted and you're next to the power switch and deliberately decide not to turn it off, isn't that murder?
Bullshit. They are taking an active role by refusing to give her treatment which they know she needs.
Terri will die because of doctors decision to remove her life line. Like I said, morally, there's no difference between what they are doing (or not doing) and stabbing her in the throat. (actually, what they are ALLOWING is much worse .. a slow and potentially painful death). There has to be something in the fuckn hyppo oath about that.
Don't talk to me about legal shit. The LAW is irrelavent in this forum "Ethics, Morality & justice". Anyone, on any side, can justify any action using the law --especially American law.
talk2farley
Registered Senior Member
dsdsds said:
A mother has an ethical responsibility for the care of her child until that child matures to adulthood and becoems capable of taking care of themselves, so yes, that would be murder. However, if I do not help a person who is in some mortal danger, I am NOT guilty of murder. The so-called "Good Samaritan" theory has been rejected by legal theorists and NEVER written into Western law. You may be guilty of some moral malfeasance, but there is NO way you could be held responsible for that persons condition given the circumstances (unless you turned the switch on, of course).
An INDIVIDUAL, adult and in control of his cognitive faculties, may choose whether or not they wish to pursue medical treatment. Regardless of their choice, the state, parents, and spouse have no right to force an alternative position.
The ONLY argument of merit in this case, legally and ethically, is what Teri wished before she entered a coma.
I find it amusing that you would suggest I not talk about the "law," in a forum dealing with ethics and justice. Legal science is the practical application of ethical philosophy. One cannot discuss ethics and morality without discussing the law, anymore than one could discuss the law without touching on ethics and morality. Think before you type.
Last edited:
It's just boggles my mind to see the reasoning of some intelligent people of this forum on this subject. Apparently, it is legal to remove a person's life line and do nothing while that person starves to death. Fine, you win. It's legal. Does that make it ethical and moral? You're not even willing to question it. The law is semantics.
talk2farley
Registered Senior Member
You haven't explained WHY it is immoral nor unethical, except to reiterate you're already debunked "murder" myth. I am infinitely more comfortable with the right to decide my own fate regarding intervention by modern medicine, versus surrendering that right to you, some politicians, some court room, or the Governor of Florida. If I were ever in Teris state, I would hope my wife would accede my wishes and ask the doctors to cease articificla life support.
But, ultimately, my opinions, and yours, are irrelevant. To reiterate: the only opinion that matters, regarding Teris fate, is Teris! And THAT is why it is both legal AND ethical and moral.
Given that we cannot ask Teri directly, we defer firstly to her living will, of which there apparently is none. Next, the law holds that we defer to her next of kin, in this case her husband, on the theory that the spouse (assumeing there is no evidence to the contrary) will act most genuously upon the wishes of Teri herself. With their legal appeals, the only alternative Republicans are asking for is that the husband be declared unfit or to make the decision or disingenuous in that decision and that her next closest kin (parents) be given the responsibility, instead.
Nobody sane and reasonable is suggesting that the principle of individual right to accept or refuse medical help is debateable.
But, ultimately, my opinions, and yours, are irrelevant. To reiterate: the only opinion that matters, regarding Teris fate, is Teris! And THAT is why it is both legal AND ethical and moral.
Given that we cannot ask Teri directly, we defer firstly to her living will, of which there apparently is none. Next, the law holds that we defer to her next of kin, in this case her husband, on the theory that the spouse (assumeing there is no evidence to the contrary) will act most genuously upon the wishes of Teri herself. With their legal appeals, the only alternative Republicans are asking for is that the husband be declared unfit or to make the decision or disingenuous in that decision and that her next closest kin (parents) be given the responsibility, instead.
Nobody sane and reasonable is suggesting that the principle of individual right to accept or refuse medical help is debateable.
The "Good Samaritan" doctrine is hardly so well settled as <b>talk2farley</b> implies. However, in the case under our consideration this doctrine is irrelevant, so I don't think I should go further with the debate.
On the other hand, I think that we should talk about law. Not only about what the law is, but also about what it ought to be. Maybe I'm biased here, as a lawyer myself, but I think that eventually law and morals should come to a common denominator.
I couldn't agree more that, morally, withholding food and medication is entirely the equivalent of performing a lethal injection, when the person is incapacitated to such an advanced degree. In both cases, the result is the same: death. The only difference is that the former is taking two weeks to complete, instead of minutes.
Now, there are three issues here, for which I would include in a law the provision that in situations like the one we are facing death should be induced by lethal injection. One, because I don't think that the judges in the trial courts established or could have established, in the absence of any direct evidence, that Terri not only wished to die, but wished to die by starvation rather than by lethal injection. Two, because we must also think about family's grief, and even if Terri does not feel anything, I think it is entirely inhuman to prolongue this way the emotional distress of her parents. Three, because I don't believe in the medical panel when making the assumption that she won't feel any pain. Perhaps they are right and the likelihood is 99.999% that they are right indeed. However, I would still choose the lethal injection, whose small duration makes it for all more clear that the pain must be smaller, even for that 0.001% chance that she might, after all, feel pain. Remember, in a not so remote past, objects heavier than air couldn't possibly fly. And the absence of proofs of her suffering doesn't mean 100% that she is not suffering. We'll still have that 0.000...1% of doubt.
However, the law, as it is, does not share this view. That's why I tried asking in <a href="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45903">another thread</a> what should be done to improve it.
On the other hand, I think that we should talk about law. Not only about what the law is, but also about what it ought to be. Maybe I'm biased here, as a lawyer myself, but I think that eventually law and morals should come to a common denominator.
I couldn't agree more that, morally, withholding food and medication is entirely the equivalent of performing a lethal injection, when the person is incapacitated to such an advanced degree. In both cases, the result is the same: death. The only difference is that the former is taking two weeks to complete, instead of minutes.
Now, there are three issues here, for which I would include in a law the provision that in situations like the one we are facing death should be induced by lethal injection. One, because I don't think that the judges in the trial courts established or could have established, in the absence of any direct evidence, that Terri not only wished to die, but wished to die by starvation rather than by lethal injection. Two, because we must also think about family's grief, and even if Terri does not feel anything, I think it is entirely inhuman to prolongue this way the emotional distress of her parents. Three, because I don't believe in the medical panel when making the assumption that she won't feel any pain. Perhaps they are right and the likelihood is 99.999% that they are right indeed. However, I would still choose the lethal injection, whose small duration makes it for all more clear that the pain must be smaller, even for that 0.001% chance that she might, after all, feel pain. Remember, in a not so remote past, objects heavier than air couldn't possibly fly. And the absence of proofs of her suffering doesn't mean 100% that she is not suffering. We'll still have that 0.000...1% of doubt.
However, the law, as it is, does not share this view. That's why I tried asking in <a href="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45903">another thread</a> what should be done to improve it.
dsdsds said:
I have just nuked a fairly disorganized response because something far easier has occurred to me.
Somebody please, hand me some data on this woman's perceptive capabilities.
If she's not there, the repugnance of doing "nothing while that person starves to death" is purely aesthetic, and ours alone.
Right now, honestly, what we've got seems to be:
• A diagnosis of PVS accepted by the courts.
• A doctor, hired by opponents of her death, who claims--without having examined the patient directly--that she is misdiagnosed.
• Editorials (see the NRO editorial listed in the press roundup for an example) use sleights of rhetoric, twists of context, and a lack of actual evidence favoring their position to establish doubt in the PVS diagnosis.
• A U.S. Senator who is also a doctor offering a medical diagnosis resulting from having watched videotapes.
• A doctor, hired by opponents of her death, who claims--without having examined the patient directly--that she is misdiagnosed.
• Editorials (see the NRO editorial listed in the press roundup for an example) use sleights of rhetoric, twists of context, and a lack of actual evidence favoring their position to establish doubt in the PVS diagnosis.
• A U.S. Senator who is also a doctor offering a medical diagnosis resulting from having watched videotapes.
There's lots of people telling us she's not far enough gone to do this. None of them have shown the case, though.
Part of what that means is that Mrs. Schiavo's not going to notice that she's dying. She's not going to suffer.
We find it repugnant because it is an image of frailty and mortality. Her preservation would be for our sake, not hers.
I would have expected you to understand, tiassa, being such a moral being, that on the off chance she does maintain some ability to suffer(no matter how unlikely) it's incredibly wreckless to be starving her to death.
Even if we were 99.9% sure, you'd go another route, just in case. Because starving to death is so excessively extreme that if you did get it wrong it would be one hell of a tragic case. You'd cover your bases to make sure you're not starving a conscious being to death.
Unless you really really hated their guts.
And it's nothing like 99.9%. People saying "maybe we shouldn't starve her to death" don't need to provide data, they're only suggesting we not torture someone to death. It wouldn't be a tragedy if we failed to torture a vegetable who couldn't feel it to death. No one's going to lose sleep over that.
People suggesting we should on the other hand surely need a rock solid case. Which they really don't have.
And you know, doing it to a vegetable would be perverse and bizarre anyway.
Purposefully doing it to an actual plant would be pretty twisted.
I'm not a "pro-lifer", I'd gladly wack her on the head with a lead pipe right now.
This is about not slowly torturing a disabled person to death over a 2 week period.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Your argument seems to be, "meh, we're pretty sure she won't know whats going on, it's best we starve her to death", what?
While you're at it why don't you dangle cheeseburgers in front of her face? Drink water from the faucet in her room and say "mmmm mm! That's good, so refreshing!".
She probably won't get it, so we better do that.
We also better spit on her and call her a fuckhead, because it's most likely that she won't even know.
She might, but we're pretty sure she won't, so we need to think up wierd ways to torture her.
???
I always thought I'd embrace the day the world tortures a human being on air over a 2 week period.
But there's something unsettling about all these sissies advocating it.
It's like I'm in the twilight zone. I feel obliged to provide the arguments they should be providing.
Even if we were 99.9% sure, you'd go another route, just in case. Because starving to death is so excessively extreme that if you did get it wrong it would be one hell of a tragic case. You'd cover your bases to make sure you're not starving a conscious being to death.
Unless you really really hated their guts.
And it's nothing like 99.9%. People saying "maybe we shouldn't starve her to death" don't need to provide data, they're only suggesting we not torture someone to death. It wouldn't be a tragedy if we failed to torture a vegetable who couldn't feel it to death. No one's going to lose sleep over that.
People suggesting we should on the other hand surely need a rock solid case. Which they really don't have.
And you know, doing it to a vegetable would be perverse and bizarre anyway.
Purposefully doing it to an actual plant would be pretty twisted.
I'm not a "pro-lifer", I'd gladly wack her on the head with a lead pipe right now.
This is about not slowly torturing a disabled person to death over a 2 week period.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Your argument seems to be, "meh, we're pretty sure she won't know whats going on, it's best we starve her to death", what?
While you're at it why don't you dangle cheeseburgers in front of her face? Drink water from the faucet in her room and say "mmmm mm! That's good, so refreshing!".
She probably won't get it, so we better do that.
We also better spit on her and call her a fuckhead, because it's most likely that she won't even know.
She might, but we're pretty sure she won't, so we need to think up wierd ways to torture her.
???
I always thought I'd embrace the day the world tortures a human being on air over a 2 week period.
But there's something unsettling about all these sissies advocating it.
It's like I'm in the twilight zone. I feel obliged to provide the arguments they should be providing.
talk2farley
Registered Senior Member
Stop perpetuateing the "starvation over weeks" myth. She will die of dehydration within days. Regardless, neither process would be "painful" for her in any meaningful sense. She does not respond to stimulii; as far as we know, she doesn't feel pain.
Your own words speak against your argument. Indeed, "as far as we know"... How far is that? Far enough to take the chance of torturing somebody, when there's a clear alternative?
Far enough to put the whole family watch this process? Maybe you agree that they, at least, respond to stimuli?
Far enough to put the whole family watch this process? Maybe you agree that they, at least, respond to stimuli?