Probably the likely reason why I was nominated for “best non-liberal blog” last year was because of my position in the Terri Schiavo case, a position that, alas, has been reversed by the judicial killers in Tallahassee and now the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene. Terri Schiavo, you will recall, fell into a semi-vegetative state (she can breathe on her own, but cannot swallow and hence needs a feeding tube, though she apparently is conscious a fair amount of the time) over a decade ago. Successfully contending that her condition was the result of a doctor’s medical malpractice, her husband, Michael Schiavo, as her representative, won a large settlement, stipulated that it be used for Terri’s care.
And there’s the rub. In what I view as a hopeless conflict (that Michael Schiavo can absolve himself of either by divorcing Terri and renouncing his claim to the money, or just renouncing his claim to the money) Michael Schiavo instead of using the money (doled out; if she died, there would be a lump sum IIRC) for Terri’s care (such as therapy which may have improved her condition), he instead hired a “right to death” lawyer and has been trying to use the court system to kill Terri for well over a decade.
After the law of Florida was changed by statute to overturn the earlier ruling of the Florida Supreme Court, that court then overturned the statute overturning it! And that’s where we are.
Michael Schiavo, now living with another woman and two children by her, insists solely on his own word that he and the then 26 year old Terri discussed what they wanted to do if Terri fell into a persistent semi-vegetative state, and even though Terri didn’t leave a living will or writing on this subject of any kind, Michael said her preference– HERS– forget that its also his own– is to KILL HER, KILL HER, KILL HER…
In New York, at least I was taught in law school, for a spouse to be able to intercede to remove life-sustaining measures like a feeding tube, the evidence has to be UNEQUIVOCAL– a living will. But Florida, you see, has a plethora of inconvenient old people and is willing to draw the line differently– allowing the unsupported testimony of financially interested parties, for example, to decide matters of life and death.
So, here we are. Ms. Schiavo is the poster child for the termination of inconvenient life. And unlike abortion, this one isn’t so complicated: the only other being she is attached to is money Michael Schiavo wants to get on with his life, with Terri safely in the ground.
A strange case, where liberals side with those who value money over human life, and I find myself in complete agreement with JEB Bush. But that’s life, something we have all been taking a little too cavalierly.
tdog
TD, I usually agree with all your most extreme positions, but here I think you are both off-base on the legal issues and way too harsh on the personal ones. Rather than go into all the many points where we might disagree, let’s just stick with your assertion that this situation isn’t complicated. Speaking as someone who chose a different path, I can assure you that it is agonizing to realize ten or so years later that the millions of dollars, thousands of hours of family and therapist time, and loss of “normalcy” for other family members, all spent on putting a loved one through years of horribly painful “rehabilitation,” only resulted in bringing the patient along to the point where she is consciously aware of the nature of her severe impairments. I cannot say that this was the right choice.
For obvious reasons, I’ve paid a lot of attention to what has been reported about Terri Schiavo. I can’t say that her husband is making the right choice either, but I’m pretty convinced that she’s in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovering sufficiently to have any semblence of a normal life. It has been more than 10 years and her gains in that time have been minimal–there’s little prospect for “rehabilitation.” In the real world, it actually would be almost impossible to convince a rehab center to take her at her age and this long after her coma began (unless they just did it because of the publicity). What happens to people in this situation when they are “kept alive,” is that they are kept on feeding tubes lying in bed until they eventually become septic and die of infection. It is gruesome and horrible.
What the case is really about, IMHO, is parents of adult children who, understandably but tragically, cannot accept the fact that they no longer are in charge of the care of their baby daughter. She married, wisely or foolishly, and gave over those choices to someone else.
M–
Not suggesting for one second I envy Mr. Schiavo’s agonizing situation. And my family has had at least one elderly member who held on, despite a non-functioning mind, for years, kept at home… not pleasant, but many make that choice. I suspect MOST make that choice, or similar ones.
Mr. Schiavo has a simple option that you and I would not have: DIVORCE. He can hand over her care and feeding to her parents or the state, if they want it, and be done with it. He purports to fight on “in Terri’s interests”. I admit: my view requires that I don’t believe him. And I simply don’t.
In this case, lots of nursing facilities would be delighted to take Terri: she had that settlement money for her care, remember. I don’t suggest Terri was going to get up and walk (though who knows?) as her parents suggest she might. But she’s usually conscious, can make sounds, gives faint recognition… hardly the comatose vegetable one would expect…
When I suggest this is an easier case than abortion, recall the doctrine: “the woman is entitled to an empty womb, not to a dead fetus”. That is what justifies efforts to save a viable fetus, if at all possible… we are terminating THE PREGNANCY– not the fetus unless the fetus is simply not viable.
Well, in this case, her husband OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR acting “on her behalf” decided to use HER MONEY to HAVE HER KILLED.
That bothers me. In fact, that fact alone defines the case, as far as I’m concerned. I said right at the outset: take the money factor away from Mr. Schiavo, and I might be willing to see this case a whole lot differently. I’ll also say it does not bode well if the state is going to start defaulting in favor of terminating people’s lives, rather than defaulting against doing that UNLESS THE EVIDENCE OF PATIENT’S INTENT IS UNEQUIVOCAL– such as a living will or writing or recording.
What’s about to happen to Terri is disconnection of the feeding tube, followed by probably days if not weeks of agonizing pain as dehydration and starvation race to finish her off: certainly my own definition of gruesome and horrible.
We agree for a change.