That's a provocative thought but I think you're going about it the wrong way. "Cultue of life" as used by the moral crusaders in Congress is a disingenuous argument because it implies that there are two kinds of people in the world: religious people who care about life and the rest of us. But this is obviously not true; most people care about life whether they are religious or not.

The real issue is a moral objection to ending one's life prior to God's will. I think the effect that Congress' actions had is that many people are suddenly realizing they do not agree with the idea that their life is God's to end. A lot of people want control over the circumstances of their death. Rather than retard the "culture of life" I think the events have retarded Congress' (read: religious conservatives') ability to dictate the terms on which people receive medical care.

Its not surprising coming from our Hypocrite-in-Chief that in 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless.

All of this stems from a strange interpretation of Deuteronomy 30:19 ...

And in the Texas Law Bush supports, inability to pay can be taken into account - even if the patient is conscious and doesn't agree. Plus, feeding tubes such as Terri has are considered invasive treatment and fall under the guidelines.

Basically, the HMO or Hospital can give the patient a couple of weeks, or so to find new coverage or it's 'up and out'.

I think people concerned about a 'culture of life' would want life to be wonderful. Man forced the tubes down her throat and into her body, not God.

Dan,

A feeding tube doesn't count a "heroic measures". According to the "docudrama" about Mort Kondrake's wife, she lived for her last five years being tube-fed. My wife is a special ed teacher, and in ther middle 1990's, she had severely and profoundly handicapped students of middle school age, one of which was apparently less aware than Terry Schiavo seems to be based on the video we have seen. Her students all had to be tube-fed. I could "heroic measures" as a ventilator and IV. When you remove the ventilator, the person dies, and they are totally inert. None of that seems to be the case here. The other thing that removes this from the "right to die" category is that her husband's behavior since 1990, with girlfriend, children by her, and his financial doings with the settlements. We only have his word about her desires, and he seems to be a bad source of information. He also seems to have not divorced her so he could have her killed, under the vagaries of Florida "law" and "courts".

If you get a living will in Illinois, the terms include the following:

Nutrution and hydration shall not be withdrawn or withheld from a qualified patient if the withdrawal or withholding would result in death solely from dehydration or starvation rather than from the existing terminal condition. (755 ILCS 35/2(d))

In other words, people executing living wills are not necessarily agreeing to death under these circumstances.

Patrick

I think that to label this as a 'right to die' case, or a religious issue is to grossly miscast it.

Certainly, that's the direction the national discssion about it has taken, but I think this a result of the efforts of Michial Shaivo and his lawyers to alter the level of discussion off the rather uncomfortable facts surrounding this particular case, which involve his actions and motivations. That is why I'm on record as saying that no matter how this individual case works out we won't have any substansive answer to the issue of 'right to die' cases. Simply put, this isn't such a case.

People, if you're not going to read Judge Greer's initial findings, then why pretend to be experts?

Michael Schiavo was *not* the only witness providing evidence of his wife's wishes.

Sigh.

Back to Drezner's post, I don't think living wills can impair the "culture of life," because that attributes way too much cognitive content to the phrase. If there are 5 people in Congress with a consistent stance in favor of "life," including opposition to the death penalty and placing top priority on preserving Medicare & Medicaid as well as opposition to abortion under *all* circumstances, I'd be very surprised.

I think this is better cast as Michael Shiavo's fight for a "Right to Kill".

I disagree with Drezner's conclusion. In most states, the absence of an advance directive means that the goverment will appoint a surrogate to make the life-ending decision for you. In other words, surrogate laws, like those in Florida, are the default position. If anything, it is possible to use advance directives to opt out of the "culture of death."

That said, there are some of us in the middle who don't buy into this culture of death notion, who just want the decisions to accurately reflect the desires of the individual for whom family and society purport to be acting.

Patrick

The state laws of Florida were amended in 1999 to specifically state that feeding tubes and artificial hydration were invasive treatments used extraordinarily to extend life. Thus, the removal of feeding tubes was permitted in order to permit a person to die a "natural" life.

You may disagree with that law, but it has been supported by Floridians--of which I am one--and has been consistently applied by Florida courts.

Sorry for the double posting.

You can find excellent discussion of the feeding tube issue--as well as links to all the pertinent decision in the Schiavo case--at Abstract Appeal, a blog by a Florida attorney who takes no side in the issue, but does clearly explicate Florida law.

Take a look at his main page for current activity at http://www.abstractappeal.com

For the legal history of the case, go to
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

As a Floridian, I am disgusted with this affront to federalism. I am also now an active opponent to my Republican congressional representatives, event though I voted for them a few months ago.

I'm not sure I agree with Dan's thesis. Indeed, I think he's set up a strawman by miscontruing the "culture of life" phrase (and, alas, most of the commenters here have bitten). What Bush and Congress are looking to advance here is what the President calls a "presumption of life." That simply means this: If there's any doubt or ambiguity regarding the intent of a terminal patient or PVS regarding artificial life support, that ambiguity should be settled on the side of not pulling the plug or removing the tube. (The same would hold, incidentally, with regards to the unborn: If there's any uncertainty regarding whether a fetus is indeed a person, that uncertainty should be resolved in favor of personhood.)

If the run on living wills helps make clear more peoples' express intent to have the plug pulled, the need to presume the opposite necessarily goes away.

OK, I know its a serious topic and all, but nobody on here is going to note that there is a lawyer out there with the last name "Wank"?

Case law on 755 ILCS 35/2:

When, as a result of incurable illness, patient cannot chew or swallow and death-delaying feeding tube is withdrawn in scrupulous accordance with law, ultimate agent of death is illness and not withdrawal. In re Estate of Greenspan, 1990, 146 Ill.Dec. 860, 137 Ill.2d 1, 558 N.E.2d 1194.

A living will doesnt retard the culture of life. If Terri had a living will, this case would be a non-issue. However, there are, at the very least, doubts about her 'husbands' claims and certainly reason to question his motives. A living will does not go against a culture of life. Assuming a desire to die in the absence of a living will does. Since her desires aren't completely clear, a culture of life will assume that she wants to receive food and water to stay alive. And, as earlier posters noted, this is not that drastic of a measure.

I actually find that the overreach of the Congress and the President have expanded unintentionally the the culture of life but not to their end or as they would define it. The public spectacle has now forced eveyone to decide what life is to them as individuals not the abstract "him or her". That as a human being with higher senses and self awareness there is a recognizition that death is an integral part of life. And when the time comes to die should it not be the end of self awareness and physical self but a state of physical being without self awareness, is it life?
By signing up for living wills each individual decides what the culture of life is to them as a self aware individual. By affirming what is the end to self awareness they are celebrating life in its fullness to them. The most cherished ideal of America, the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is being reaffirmed.

The Schiavo case raises lots of difficult issues. I haven't sorted out my own views on them, perhaps because they cut so deep. I also hadn't thought of those issues in terms of economic concepts prior to reading your post --whether all of the controversy about this case will impact on "consumer choices" and consumer behaviour. I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't.

But I am not sure that you do much justice to the President's notion of a "culture of life." I don't think he was using code words trying to address the extent to which heroic measures should be used to sustain life -- ventilators, heart-lung machines, tubes, and all of that when the body's organs cannot sustain life -- where, without those measures, death would occur naturally. A feeding tube seems quite remote from that context, since Schiavo has been living without difficulty or medical intervention for years provided she gets basic nutrition and hydration. Rather, I think he (and others who use the same phrase) are signalling their rejection of notions like the Groningen protocols, assisted suicide, mercy killing of "hopeless" patients and the like, together with a concern that the Schaivo case falls on the wrong side of what should be a bright line.

I think the President and Congress were both right that the Schaivo case seems to sit at the intersection of those kinds of issues. I say "seems" because the particular facts of Schiavo's condition are hard to get at, with all the agenda-driven reporting on all sides about this case. (Why the issues presented by this case should have become trapped in tiresome left/right, Dem/Rep categories is beyond me, but trapped is certainly where it seemed to end up.) To the extent I can figure out the medical facts, she is not brain dead, since her brain retains sufficient capacity to maintain life so long as she is fed. The reports suggest that she is responsive to some stimuli (pain, light), but does not exhibit any traits normally associated with higher consciousness. Given that she is alive, any active effort to end her life (e.g., lethal injection) would be a homicide. Thus, the court-ordered result is truly ghastly -- death by starvation.

Her case is different from the classic "right to die" case because Schaivo cannot express her preferences or exercise any such "right." When the President talks of a "culture of life," I don't think he meant to address a situation where a patient facing a hopeless diagnosis elects to discontinue treatment, knowing that death will be the likely and imminent result. Nor, at least as far as I understand it, does anything in orthodox Christian doctrine criticize a patient who makes such a choice.

Instead, as I understand him, the President's point was that, absent a clear directive from the patient in that situation (and perhaps even with it), we as a society should not starve someone in Schaivo's situation to death. That her death will come about as the proximate result of state action -- the state court order to stop feeding her -- makes this case a matter of public concern. I don't know what the President would say about a patient who was conscious and purposefully elected to starve himself to death -- hunger strikers in prisons have done that in the past, and sometimes have been force-fed and sometimes allowed to die. I think it is quite clear that the President's concept of a "culture of life" is intended to reject assisted suicide, the Groningen protocols and mercy killings of "hopeless" patients in every circumstance.

All of that strikes me as a sensible, morally grounded response to the issues presented by the Schiavo case. Given the obvious importance of these issues, I don't understand the complaints to the effect that the President and Congress had no business addressing the Schiavo case and the issues it presents. Congress has addressed by legislation lots of issues of less moment than life and death -- racial and sexual discrimination, hostile workplace environments, criminal sentences and proceedings in state court, and on and on. More generally, federal courts have said that federal constitutional principles impact on all of these and many other issues of privacy and the like. By what logic can the federal constitution empower one branch of the federal government to address these issues but not the other two? While some courts, including the Supreme Court, have occasionally acted to arrogate to themselves any say on these fundamental moral issues, there is no good reason I can think of why the President and Congress are required to accept the notion of judicial supremacy or judicial exclusivity to address such obviously important issues. Certainly, both can exercise their powers -- Congress to legislate and the President to propose legislation and appoint new judges -- to bring about a different result, which in a democracy seems only right.

It may well be that a federal "one size fits all" solution to these issues is the wrong way to go. I don't think the President has taken a position on that issue. In enacting a one-shot statute granting jurisdiction to the federal courts in Schaivo's case, Congress was intentionally avoiding taking a position on it. Enacting that statute, amounting to private legislation, may well have been unwise. But other than creating grist for many to write about for a short while, it will do no lasting harm. The more significant reality is that the issues posed by the Schiavo case aren't going away, and there's no time like the present to engage those issues and force the inevitable debate (not that it will or could ever be "resolved," inter alia because later generations can and probably will come to different conclusions based at least in part on the mistakes and experience resulting from whatever ours decides).

In short, I can see nothing in the President's position that is lacking in moral seriousness. That his views (and mine and those of many others) are informed and shaped by religious belief is both true and beside the point. It would be wonderful if the President's comments evoked morally serious responses. Sadly, that hasn't been the case. From what I've seen, most of the discussion in the media is just blather attacking (depending on the political slant) the husband, the parents, the President, Rep. Delay, or the Democrats, usually with some variant of the same hackneyed ad hominens offered by your two previous commenters.

The interesting political question that arises from 1) the enormous public reaction to acquire living wills & 2) recent polls which suggest a strong majority *opposed* to the Delay/Bush drive is: have the (socially conservative) Republicans made a strategic mistake here?

Are they scaring their more libertarian leaning supporters? Combined with their social security plan, are they outright terrifying their elderly supporters?

If all decisions boil down to security, then the Republican are making many of their constituents more insecure, while the Democrats would appear offer them safety.

How come no one asks DeLay how many people will have their tubes and plugs pulled because of the $15 billion cut in Medicaid pushed by DeLay last week?? Was the Palm Sunday bill an act of contrition?

Although I think it's sad and hope Terri well, it would be poetic justice to have her Medicaid funding run out before the case is settled. We need an Easter Miracle, Whip!

- As the name "Positive Confession"/"Word-Faith" implies, this movement teaches that faith is a matter of what we say more than whom we trust or what truths we embrace and affirm in our hearts. The term "positive confession" refers to the teaching that words have creative power. What you say, Word-Faith teachers claim, determines everything that happens to you. Your "confessions," that is, the things you say -- especially the favors you demand of God -- must all be stated positively and without wavering. Then God is required to answer. Word-Faith believers view their positive confessions as an incantation by which they can conjure up anything they desire: "Believe it in your heart; say it with your mouth. That is the principle of faith. You can have what you say" (Charismatic Chaos, pp. 281, 285).

Jeremy:

I read the In re Greenspan case before I posted. There was no living will executed in that case, so I believe the legal annotation you cited is misleading as to the holding in that case. Instead, the legal dispute involved a claim that a surrogate's decision to withhold nutrition violated the "public policy" evidenced by the Illinois Living Will Act, although it did not technically apply.

I still believe that if you execute the statutory living will form in Illinois, you have not agreed to have nutrition withheld in cases like Schiavo.

Patrick

The interesting political question that arises from 1) the enormous public reaction to acquire living wills & 2) recent polls which suggest a strong majority *opposed* to the Delay/Bush drive is: have the (socially conservative) Republicans made a strategic mistake here?

I don't think so, even from a purely political repercussions standpoint. To make the assumption you suggest means that you think peple who file such a wil, are against the actions of the Congess and the President. I'm sure there are people on both sides of this particular issue which are filing such wills now simply because they've been reminded to by events.... Advertising, in short.

And that volume spike is merely short term, in any event. The long term repercussions to the Republicans (Or, for that matter, any party in power, and thereby in a position to take such action) would have been far greater than they would seem at the moment. Resentment is like mold; it takes a while to grow, and is often ignored until it's a genuine problem, at which point it's not easy to quell. I expect that would be the problem Congressional Republicans would face, had they not acted.

I am a practicing physician who also has multiple sclerosis. What I'm finding reading certain blogs and web sites concerned with the rights of the disabled (and I want to make clear that I am, thankfully, quite healthy with current treatments and not disabled) is that many in that advocacy community seem very concerned by the Schiavo case. I also want to make clear that I do not agree with President Bush or the Congress in asking that this case be reviewed in federal court. If Florida law is bad, then change that law so that future cases are decided in a different way: don't just game the system, as it were.

It's just that I find it interesting that in trying to paint this an an issue about the 'culture of life', we forget that disabled rights groups have been looking at this case with concern for some time. Guardian conflict-of-interest and utilitarian arguments about who should live or not live are not the sole province of social conservatives.

"How come no one asks DeLay how many people will have their tubes and plugs pulled because of the $15 billion cut in Medicaid pushed by DeLay last week??"

How many will there be? Got a number? Got a name? When it happens lemme know. Otherwise, there's another one to chalk up to outrageoous demagogery.

Patrick:

I think we found a hole in the statute, or at least a point to argue. Maybe we also opened a door for potential malpractice claims against estate planners by the guardians of folks that thought they were going to get their tube yanked. The living wills may need a "Schiavo" endorsement.

Anyway, I didn't know that Greenspan had a feeding tube. How can he continue his duties in such a capacity?

Although, now that I rethink your point, it depends on how we as a society extrapolate from this very sad and severe case to those people who are severely physically disabled, but still have some cognition; some sense of 'self'. So, perhaps, if we view this issue as an overreach of Congress and reactive negatively toward it, we will do exactly as you say. I don't know. I just don't know.

Living wills are not necessarily binding on he doctor. My husband died of cancer. (due to duty in Vietnam and exposure to Agent Orange) He died in an Army hospital after months of battling it but when he was admitted to emergency, I told the doctor he had a living will and was giving a copy to the front desk for his records. The doctor said, "I can't do that." - I said "Do it your way, I won't fight you." As a wife who had nursed him for months,I was in no shape to even make a decision but my point is, a living will is not necessarily the route the doctor will take, no matter what you want.

Ok, here is one such 'disability' web site.

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/

I'm not endorsing everything on this site: I just think it points to a part of the debate that has been overlooked.

C'mon Jeremy, did you read the Greenspan case? OK, OK, we disagree, but I think my point still stands. What does it tell us about people in Chicago if they're are getting a living will that contains the following provision:

"Nutrition and hydration shall not be withdrawn or withheld from a qualified patient if the withdrawal or withholding would result in death solely from dehydration or starvation rather than from the existing terminal condition,"

They (a) are embracing a "Culture of Life" because they reject the outcome in Shiavo, (b) are embracing a "Culture of Death" because they've read an interpretation of this provision, (c) don't know/understand what they have just signed or (d) wish to bestow on their family the gift of endless litigation. I'm thinking (a) with a touch of (c).

Patrick

I also want to make clear that I do not agree with President Bush or the Congress in asking that this case be reviewed in federal court. If Florida law is bad, then change that law so that future cases are decided in a different way: don't just game the system, as it were

And so the law gets changed, possibly, but Terry never lives to see it. She dies beacuse of our devotion to holding up a bad law, in short.

Is that really an acceptable alternative for you, Doctor?

Nice bit of eye-rolling and foot-stomping rhetoric bithead (I also like the part where you ignore that I am on the side of protecting the rights of people like Terri - that I don't necessarily think guardians should have carte blanche over when and how they should be treated and that the state of Florida did a terrible job protecting her rights. But if it makes you feel better.....) Did you read any of the disability website that I linked to which is categorically on the side of keeping her fed?

I don't want her to die: but if we do this, where do we stop? Shall we now review every single case of someone in her situation? Cause I guarantee you, she's not the only one. Why a one time law for one person? Yes, maybe I shouldn't have written 'I want to be clear' when it is clear that I am ambivalent. But please don't lump me in with those that think Terri has been treated well.

Come to think of it bithead, reviewing all such cases (where there is no living will) is the only way 'stepping in' now, after their has been a process through the Florida courts, makes any sense. A 'stay' in all cases, if you wish. Sort of a moratorium until we better decide how to treat those that can't speak for themselves. Why one time for one person, only?

Why don´t you (most of you) follow the excellent advice of John Burgess and go visit:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Especially
1) the Guardian ad litem report from Dec. 2003 http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

Some excerpts?

"It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating."

"Michael Schiavo, on Theresa’s and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa’s fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael’s favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa’s financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa’s estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

"In response to Mr. Pearse´s [Guardian Ad Litem 1998/99] report, Michael Shiavo filed a suggestion of Bias against Mr. Pearse. This document notes that Mr. Pearse failed to mention in his report that Michael Shiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

"By 1994, Michael’s attitude and perspective about Theresa’s condition changed. During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement."

"Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state."

2) Or at the first trial order from Feb. 2000
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

"During the period of time following the incident of February 25, 1990 the parties worked together in an attempt to provide the best care possible for Terri Shiavo.
On February 14, 1993, this amicable relationship between the parties was severed.
While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Shiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler.
The parties have literally not spoken since that date.
The Guardian Ad Litem [Mr. Pearse 1998/99] noted that Mr. Shiavo´s conflict of interest was that if Terri Shiavo died while he is still her husband, he would inherit her estate.
The revord before this court discloses that should Mr. and Mrs. Schindler prevail, their stated hope is that Mr. Shiavo would divorce their daughter, get on with his life, they would be appointed guardians of Terri Shiavo and become her heirs at law. They have even encouraged him to "get on with his life". Therefore neither side is exempt from finger pointing as to possible conflicts of interest in this case."

"It has been suggested that Michael Shiavo has not acted in good faith by waiting eight plus years to file the Petition which is now under consideration.
That assertion hardly seems worthy of comment other than to say that he should not be faulted for having done what those opposed to him want to be continued.
It is also interesting to note that Mr. Shiavo continues to be the most regular visitor to his wife even though he is criticized for wanting to remove her life support.
Dr. Gambone even noted that close attention to detail has resulted in her excellent physical condition and that Petitioner [Michael Shiavo]is very involved."

3)Trial order from November 2002
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt

"The evidentiary hearing commenced on October 11, 2002 and concluded on October 22, 2002 during which time the court heard testimony on separate days from the treating physician of Terry Schiavo and five board- certified expert physicians, two selected by the Petitioner, two selected by the Respondents and one selected by the court since the parties could not agree upon an independent fifth expert. This procedure was pursuant to the Mandate. The court also received into evidence numerous exhibits including copies of published medical articles, copies of summaries of published medical articles, CT Scans and videos of medical examinations."

" Viewing all of the evidence as a whole, and acknowledging that medicine is not a precise science, the court finds that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state."

And every single court decision was upheld by the higher courts. Are they all part of a conspiracy?

Does anyone know why he can't just get a judge to disolve the marriage? This would leave him free to marry, and her parents free to make the decision.

When medicine has the skill to end life without dehydration why is injection not used? The passive use of refusing to continue hydration is morally to me unjust. If Terry left no written directive then there is no directive and she should be allowed to receive hydration for her natural life.

Informed speculation to follow:

"Does anyone know why he can't just get a judge to disolve the marriage?"

(1) Nobody has the right to divorce anyone except one's own spouse; (2) Terry doesn't have the capacity to choose to divorse her spouse; (3) her husband (if anybody) probably has the legal right to make her "divorce" choice for her.

"When medicine has the skill to end life without dehydration why is injection not used?"

Terry has a legal right to refuse medical treatment; that right is being exercised by her husband. She doesn't have a right to be killed. A legal distinction coupled with a moral distinction between acts of omission and commission.

Patrick

"It has been suggested that Michael Shiavo has not acted in good faith by waiting eight plus years to file the Petition which is now under consideration.
That assertion hardly seems worthy of comment other than to say that he should not be faulted for having done what those opposed to him want to be continued."

That excerpt from the trial order is highly revealing, because it demonstrates that the trial judge was unwilling to address the fact that Michael was claiming to represent Terri's purported wish to die after having spent years and years acting in a manner directly contrary to that purported wish.

If we are to believe the testimony of Michael, his brother and sister-in-law, Terri said she would not want to live as her grandmother did -- on a ventilator during the final weeks of her life. So, to carry out Terri's wishes, Michael spent years caring and seeking a cure for Terri, who, according to the GAL report, had been diagnosed as in a PVS by late Autumn of 1990. Michael even took Terri to California to have electrodes implanrted in her brain in an attempt to restart her brain function.

It is years later when Michael tells the parents for the first time of Terri's purported wish to die. The trial order quoted above finds this chasm between Michael's claim and his prior actions as hardly worthy of comment. On the other hand, the trial judge dismissed contrary testimony from one of Terri's friends -- someone with no financial interest -- because he thought the witness was misjudging the timing of Terri's comments to her, when in fact it was the trial judge who was mistaken about this. The trial judge, when forced to confront the error later, admitted as much, but stated that it did not affect his credibility determination.

Of course, anyone should be hesitant to second-guess Judge Greer's determinations of witness credibility, as he personally heard the testimony. Indeed, this is in large measure why every court to review the case has reached the same conclusion -- that's not a conspiracy, that's the rules appellate courts apply. But we should not pretend that 20 judges reviewed the case in the same way the trial court did.

The problem with the case, if any, arises from whether the trial court was correct in finding clear and convincing evidence of Terri's intent to die. Unfortunately, Judge Greer's own statements raise questions on that score in the court of public opinion, if not in courts of appeals.

Another political thought:

if the conservative Republican leadership is forging ahead with its Schiavo case *despite* its unpopularity with the general public, perhaps their real strategy is to energize core forces in order to launch a more serious attack on the judiciary and "activist" judges?

Interpretted that way, the strategy could be more brilliance than blunder.

Dan,

I agree with Jim Bender and the couple of posts after his. Nutrition is not the same as other methods.

I know some surgeons personally. Some are in my family. Any medical staff should affirm to you that nutrition is not a "heroic measure."

I ask this question: Take a look at this "increase" in the number of people specifying they don't want "heroic measures." Take a look at what they agreed to. See if they agree to withhold nutrition or water.

They do not.

People routinely agree to withhold breathing machines, to establish "DNR" (Do Not Recuscitate) orders, to withhold antibiotics in case of infections, and so on. These are the "heroic measures" you mean.

People do not -- do not -- agree to have their nutrition and water withheld.

I'd be extremely interested to see if there are data out there to confirm my thesis.

I'm extremely upset at so many people making such a strong cause out of an issue which, frankly, they haven't the first clue about. Terry Sciavo is going to die because hot-breathing self-appointed moral guardians across America are giving uninformed opinions. I expected a little better from the educated population which frequents the better-informed blogs.

I don't want her to die: but if we do this, where do we stop? Shall we now review every single case of someone in her situation?

Unfortunately, yes, Doctor we do. I don't like it much either, but we got ourselves into this.

As a basic pretense for my argument, society and the government that serves it, make certain assumptions. In an ideal situation, the assumptions they make are alligned with the values of the people within that society. As such our laws, and our legal processes, our very way of thinking, assumes life is of the highest value. A look at the handsprings we must go through to enact a death penalty in response to a crime, and that such punishment is only used in cases where the criminal has taken someone else's life, tells the whole story; Our society holds life dear. Our legal system is designed to err, if it errs, on the side of life.

A couple admittedly less than spot-on examples...

If the husband, for example, had absolute say over the life of the wife; we'd then not have Scott Peterson in San Quenton, today. It would never go to trial, much less conviction.

If we make suicide and the aiding thereof, legal, how do we know it IS in fact a suicide, assuming the amount of evidence collected in he Shaivo case... IE; the one pulling the trigger saying "That's what she wanted".

So without a (signed) statement, stating the wishes of the parties in question under given conditions, how can the government know if our death really WAS our wish, or a crime perpitrated against us? Clearly, it can't. But that's what's being asked of it.

Here it is; The kind of conflict we're discussing right now, is what happens when that underlying societal assumption is challanged; in this case, the assumption of life.

Government, and government intervention, grows because we can no longer depend on that assumption of erring on the side of life. With the assumption of life, such signed documentation wouldn't be needed. Nor in the cases like Shiavo where no such documentation exists, would such investigations be needed.

Without either investigations or the documentation, we'd be dealing with defacto legal murder.

And yes, I think it has come to that.

I just hope this Schiavo case is the first step towards legalized euthanasia. With the aging baby boomers and advanced medicine prolonging peoples lives, the strain on the medical system will be felt by those who are alive and need it. I don't see the point in wasting vital resources on keeping alive vegetables. It's inhumane. 100 years ago before we had the knowledge or technology to keep these people alive, they would have died in due course, and be allowed to die with dignity and their families could mourn and get on with their lives, rather than face a financial strain in keeping them alive and dragging out the inevitable death. I just hope when I'm old or incapacitated that someone has the good sense to let me die when my time is up, and be allowed to legally end my life.

According to many reports, Michael Schiavo has a "common law wife." Is this or is this not bigamy in the eyes of the court and if God forbid something happens to "wife #2," does he become her guardian too ?

According to many reports, Michael Schiavo has a "common law wife." Is this or is this not bigamy in the eyes of the court and if God forbid something happens to "wife #2," does he become her guardian too ?

Bithead writes: "Michial Shaivo and his lawyers to alter the level of discussion off the rather uncomfortable facts surrounding this particular case, which involve his actions and motivations."

Such slander would be more reasonable if this were happening after 15 weeks of her being in this state, not 15 years.

Simple reference to existing sworn statements is hardly to be considered slander.

According to Connecticut law, a feeding tube would be considered a "life support system":

http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/health/Livingqa.htm

What is a life support system?

A "life support system" is a form of treatment that only delays the time of your death or maintains you in a state of permanent unconsciousness. Life support systems may include among other things:

• devices such as respirators and dialysis;
• cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR);
• food and fluids supplied by artificial means, such as feeding tubes and intravenous fluids.

It does not include

• normal feeding and fluids, such as by hand or straw;


• medications such as antibiotics in special circumstances

As to whether it's considered "heroic measures", I think that depends on context. If someone's badly injured, and intensive care for 3 weeks, unable to eat or drink, one would certainly expect them to be nourished. That would not be heroic measures.

But if you stretch it out to a decade like that, and there's no realistic hope for recovery, then I think it does become heroic measures.

bithead writes: "Simple reference to existing sworn statements is hardly to be considered slander."

Are you referring to the nutty nurse, who was deemed not credible by the judge, because her charges would imply a conspiracy involve not just Michael Schiavo, but also the Schindlers?

No, I'm referring to the several people who brought up such info. One, I can dismiss. Two or in this case, more, seems reason enough to look into.

And Jon, your points are taken.
Yet, she's not had a swallow test since 1992. And, we have statements on record suggesting she was taking semi-solids without harm. Seems reasonable to find out if she can, eh? What's it going to do.... kill her?

Oh, and a thought ocurrs, Jon;
Perhaps some definition of recovery is in order. To merit life, does one need to be as they were prior to the stroke? Seems a rather narrow definition of 'life', to exclude the disabled, Nu?

"Yet, she's not had a swallow test since 1992. And, we have statements on record suggesting she was taking semi-solids without harm. Seems reasonable to find out if she can, eh? What's it going to do.... kill her?"

Well, if she has a flatline EEG, demonstrating no brain activity, I'm not sure what a swallow test would prove, except that there's an organ there that can swallow. A worm can swallow, too.

She can remain in a limbo on earth as a, to be blunt, a poop machine, and nothing more. Terry's not there anymore. Or she can be allowed to die and go on to the heaven she's supposed to have believed in. Her body now is just a cage for her soul. It's been locked in there for 15 years now. Isn't that long enough?

"Perhaps some definition of recovery is in order. To merit life, does one need to be as they were prior to the stroke? Seems a rather narrow definition of 'life', to exclude the disabled, Nu?"

Well, it seems to me what's important is not what you or I think, or what Tom Delay thinks, but what she apparently expressed, as to whether she would want to exist in this kind of state.

A flatline EEG, with a mostly-liquified cortex, means no recovery is going to happen. She's not there anymore. She's gone.

If it was just her cortex that had shrunk, but she still had an EEG, there might be hope of recovery. After all, old people experience cortex shrinkage but can still function.

Christopher Reeve worked his ass off for years, and all he had to grow back was some spinal cord tissue. He started to recover, a little, but he started from a vastly better place. Terry lost billions of times more neurons than Reeve did.

There's good reason to prefer life, but it's not wise to make a fetish of it, least of all when the person belongs to a faith which, supposedly, holds the next world to be a better one.

It's interesting. Religion is supposed to offer comfort in facing death of one's self and loved ones. Instead, it seems to be feeding a fear, as if death is the worst thing conceivable.

Well, if she has a flatline EEG, demonstrating no brain activity, I'm not sure what a swallow test would prove, except that there's an organ there that can swallow. A worm can swallow, too.

The obvious answer is, that the feeding tube would be a moot point.

Well, it seems to me what's important is not what you or I think, or what Tom Delay thinks, but what she apparently expressed, as to whether she would want to exist in this kind of state.

Perhaps. But the only people who supposedly heard her make such statements were on her husband's side of the family.

It's interesting. Religion is supposed to offer comfort in facing death of one's self and loved ones. Instead, it seems to be feeding a fear, as if death is the worst thing conceivable.

So why aren't they al committing suicide?

And Jon, you seem to be limiting your definition of 'life' to one particular state. I suspect there are millions of disabled folks out there who might have something to report there.

No, Bithead, that really won't do. She is not "disabled", she is DEAD. There is no brain function much above the brainstem level, and extensive atrophy of the cerebral cortex. We are talking about a corpse whose constituent organs are being kept alive artifically, much as though it were a denizen of some future dystoptian body farm. You can't kill a person who's already dead.

Reading the posts here accusing Michael Schiavo of this 'n' that make me wonder if any of the posters are actually married, or in love, or ever cared very much about anyone else.

It's suspicious that Michael wanted treatment for his wife before he didn't want treatment for his wife?

Holy hell, what would *not* have been suspicious in your eyes? Wanting to yank the tubes the day after her collapse? One week later? One month? One year?

Apparently it hasn't occurred to the prpo-tubers that maybe he thought some treatment, somewhere, might actually.... help her? Maybe he wanted to try everything possible before giving up? Maybe it was only after trying every therapy and treatment he could find that he realized, or accepted, that Terri was in fact beyond any hope of recovery?

Maybe it wasn't until he knew, beyond any doubt, there was no hope and she was a PVS that her wishes not to live as one were relevant?

Put yourself in his place. Make believe you're capable of loving someone enough to want to carry out their final wishes, while loving them enough not to want to have to.

Reading the posts here accusing Michael Schiavo of this 'n' that make me wonder if any of the posters are actually married, or in love, or ever cared very much about anyone else.

Let's call this what it is; a presumtion.

Let's show you what how accurate it is:

My mother in law spent has spent the last several days on a feeding tube following a stroke. Following a second stroke, the damage was irrecoverable, and her feeding tube was removed, and she died last night.

The difference; She'd actually left a DNR, unlike Terry Shaivo.

Wanna try again?
This time leave your assumptions in the trash, where they belong.

No, Bithead, that really won't do. She is not "disabled", she is DEAD. There is no brain function much above the brainstem level, and extensive atrophy of the cerebral cortex. We are talking about a corpse whose constituent organs are being kept alive artifically, much as though it were a denizen of some future dystoptian body farm. You can't kill a person who's already dead.

And I assume then you've done the PET that they haven't so as to come up with this information?

What's so magical about a PET? What will a PET show us that the CAT didn't? What part of "liquified cerebral cortex" do you not understand?

As for your MIL: "She'd actually left a DNR, unlike Terri Schiavo."

Yes. Exactly. You didn't have to figure out what her wishes were.

Now. Imagine that she hadn't left one. Imagine that she had told you she wouldn't want to live with a permanently damaged brain, but she had never gotten around to filing a DNR. But imagine you knew what she wanted, and you felt a duty to abide by her wishes.

Except her child (your spouse, presumably) doesn't believe you. Neither does her husband. Not only do they not believe you, they think she'll have a miraculous recovery - contrary to what every qualified doctor who's examined her says. Not only do they not believe you, they think you're after her money, or they decide you never liked her much anyway, or whatever notions they come up with.

What do you do?

If she hadn't left one, the path we'd have chosen would be to fight for life.