Terry Schiavo

[The Happy Humanist]

Pascal's Wager is often brought up here and in other theology forums. It basically asks the question, "If I believe in God and turn out to be wrong, what have I lost? But if I don't believe, and turn out to be wrong, I will have lost my eternal soul."

I'd like to deal with the first part of the wager here, using a very current case as an example.

If you decide to believe in the Christian God, chances are you will attempt to follow his teachings, as presented in the Bible. Apparently, among those teachings is a proscription against euthanasia, or at least that's the way God's word is currently being interpreted. (I don't think the actual issue of mercy killing is dealt with in the Bible, but there is that pesky 6th Commandment...)

Because of this, conservative Christians have glommed onto the sad case of this poor woman in Florida who, according to everything I've read, is dead in every way except officially. She is in a persistent vegetative state, which, correct me if I'm wrong, no one has ever recovered from. She is all but dead. Yet, Christians seem intent on prolonging her agony and the agony of her husband, who has suffered along with her for 15 years - all because of the commandment of this God they worship.

Now, then. What if God doesn't exist, the Bible is fiction, and there is no such commandment? What if you were wrong? Do you see what you will have lost?

If Christians get their way, which they often do, this woman's agony will be prolonged indefinitely, as will her husband's - and if Christians are wrong about the existence of God, they will have done untold damage to an entire family - for nothing.

I'll tell you what you will have lost. You will have lost your humanity.

[trs]

A minority? Yes. But are you comfortable calling this many people "marginal"?

I'm sorry, but where exactly did I do this?

[trs]

A minority? Yes. But are you comfortable calling this many people "marginal"?

I don't recall suggesting such a thing.

[The Happy Humanist]

A minority? Yes. But are you comfortable calling this many people "marginal"?

I don't recall suggesting such a thing.

That was really meant for RevJP. But in general, my point is to suggest that, there are minorities and there are minorities. It may be comforting to some to see that polls show people of a certain mindset to be less than 50%, but to suggest that "minority" = "not relevant" is dangerous indeed.

Your message seemed to support RevJP's characterization of the anti-euthanasia minority as "extreme." I guess in my mind I am equating this language to be synonymous with "fringe," which in turn implies smallness of number and perhaps even weakness of impact; it also seems to be an attempt to lessen their relevance to Christianity. "Oh, yeah, there's a minority of people who self-identify as Christians who hold extreme views, but they are not very relevant. When you address problems with Christianity, leave them out of the picture." This seems a bit dishonest, since there doesn't seem to be a litmus test, at least to the unititiated, for determining a "True Christian." I'd like to believe, as Magus and RevJP have suggested, that the mainstream emphasize "Love Thy Neighbor" over doctrine and dogma, but if so, they are facing quite a PR problem, because the popular notion of a Christian is becoming more and more associated with the extreme. Magus himself has bemoaned this point, and I agree that it is largely due to the media's fascination with fundies, which tends to unduly magnify their influence (or their apparent influence, which may be the same thing). But also contributing to the PR problem is the lack of clear distinction between various flavors of Christianity. We all have a vague notion of "main-stream vs. ex-treme" but, for instance, I consider the Pro-Life movement to be "extreme," yet I am sure that it is a widely held position within the mainstream.

You see our dilemma?

[youngborean]

I can not speak for all Christians but I have thought about the issue for some time. I have personally volunteered in a Hospice housing only terminal patients for 2 years. I have also done extensive research on Euthanasia from a biblical perspective. Christians don't have a historical stance on the issue, but early Judaism talked about it in detail. The issue is centered around the Breath. Life was classically defined by breath in this world view. This is taken from Genesis 2:

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Therefore, according to this perspective, life is defined by an involuntary process, breathing. Is she breathing unassisted? If it is solely that she can't eat on her own, then I would be hesitant to pull the plug. I certainly wouldn't stop feeding a terminal patient that required assistance eating, because of another physical means (like if they had no limbs).

Passive Euthanasia could potentially be argued for someone who is terminal in the Talmud. This could be the case here if the other side is there, precedence. What evidence do we have that this is what she wants? I personally am for passive Euthanasia provided that there is some sort of precedence established by the patient. If there isn't, then I believe that there is another reason to not to Euthanize.

This case seems like it will bring out a clear national definition of death. There is lots of research on this subject, and many competing definitions. There have been examples of people who have been declared brain dead and have lived and have memory of the experience. To me life is breathing, as long as someone's lungs are feeding the body oxygen they are alive, other people will have different perspectives on this, that is my preferred definition of death.

[trs]

A minority? Yes. But are you comfortable calling this many people "marginal"?

I don't recall suggesting such a thing.

That was really meant for RevJP.

No wonder you quoted me.

Your message seemed to support RevJP's characterization of the anti-euthanasia minority as "extreme."

No, my message seemed to support RevJP's characterization faulty argumentation in which stereotypes and distortions are enlisted in Christian-bashing. One such distortion is confusing

• "extreme religious group" within the anti-euthenasia camp

with your

• "anti-euthanasia minority"

It is a distortion, of course, because it implicitly asserts that all Christians opposed to euthenasia are (a) oposed to all manifestations of euthenasia, and (b) united behind the recent governmental fiasco.

We all have a vague notion of "main-stream vs. ex-treme" but, for instance, I consider the Pro-Life movement to be "extreme," yet I am sure that it is a widely held position within the mainstream.

And the semantic sleight-of-hand by which you slide from Pro-Life Christian to "Pro-Life movement" [note the use of the singular] is but another example of what I mentioned above.

You see our dilemma?

Your dilemma.

When I gave up God(s), I dispensed with demons as well. Demonizing Christianity is, in my opinion, ethically wrong, strategically counterproductive, and tactically stupid.

[The Happy Humanist]

Therefore, according to this perspective, life is defined by an involuntary process, breathing. Is she breathing unassisted? If it is solely that she can't eat on her own, then I would be hesitant to pull the plug. I certainly wouldn't stop feeding a terminal patient that required assistance eating, because of another physical means (like if they had no limbs).

This is an interesting perspective, and a good starting point for a discussion of defining death, which is, as you say, something we need to do.

Obviously we've come a long way in medicine since Biblical times, so much so that it is said that 80-90% of the deaths that take place in hospital emergency rooms today are "consented to." We actually have the means to keep many people "alive" indefinitely. So doctors have to ask loved ones in the ER the Big Question: "Sure, we can keep her breathing, but there's not much left...your call." In addition, we have had to redefine medical death several times over the past few decades. Cessation of breathing is no good, someone may be suffocating due to a muscular failure in the lungs. Heart failure? No good, we can restart hearts now. I *think* we're currently defining it as a flatline EEG, but that may not serve in every case; for instance, I believe Terry Schiavo is not flatlining.

I do, however, think she is dead. From what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, her cerebral cortex is non-existent, and this is the area of the brain that houses consciousness, identity, personality, awareness of self. It's what makes you, you. When that is gone, there is no one in there. It's like removing the BIOS settings or the CMOS chip of a computer; it will still power up, the monitor will turn on, etc., but "there's nothing there."

Unlike removing a CMOS chip, however, it is not reversible. It does not grow back. Terry Schiavo's chances of recovery are about the same as an amputee waiting for a limb to regenerate. (Again, a layman's perspective; please correct if necessary).

Now, I can hear you saying, "What about the soul?" Since medicine cannot confirm the existence of the soul, I'm afraid it's all we have to go on for now. This is not necessarily a denial of spirituality; it may very well be that the cerebral cortex is the "interface module" for the soul; when it goes, the soul is released. (Obviously I don't believe this, but in the interest of arriving at some common ground and avoiding another turf war like Creation v. Evolution, I am willing to posit this as an acceptable compromise).

This is all just my musings for discussion purposes, but I must admit I find this a very interesting topic. And I think it is very important that we do start a national discussion on it, so that we can avoid future fiascos like this one.

What evidence do we have that this is what she wants?

We have only her husband's word, but we have no reason to doubt it, as he seems to have steadfastly removed anything that could cast suspicion on it, such as financial motives, convenience, etc - to his great credit. This is no Michael Newdow. His only agenda seems to be carrying out the wishes of his spouse.

[youngborean]

Obviously we've come a long way in medicine since Biblical times, so much so that it is said that 80-90% of the deaths that take place in hospital emergency rooms today are "consented to." We actually have the means to keep many people "alive" indefinitely. So doctors have to ask loved ones in the ER the Big Question: "Sure, we can keep her breathing, but there's not much left...your call." In addition, we have had to redefine medical death several times over the past few decades. Cessation of breathing is no good, someone may be suffocating due to a muscular failure in the lungs. Heart failure? No good, we can restart hearts now. I *think* we're currently defining it as a flatline EEG, but that may not serve in every case; for instance, I believe Terry Schiavo is not flatlining.

I do, however, think she is dead. From what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, her cerebral cortex is non-existent, and this is the area of the brain that houses consciousness, identity, personality, awareness of self. It's what makes you, you. When that is gone, there is no one in there. It's like removing the BIOS settings or the CMOS chip of a computer; it will still power up, the monitor will turn on, etc., but "there's nothing there."

Her brain stem is completely functioning.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4371497.stm

It is interesting that there are still various parameters for declaring a patient dead, as you suggest. It is usually not from the heart (flatlining) but it is defined either brain death or by breathing. It is a very interesting case.

For damage like this I would be for carrying out the patient's wishes provided they had a living will. If not, I could see of a scenario where I would approve of this action. I have a cousin in a very similar state, she will probably be pronounced 95% catatonic in a couple of years, however she still has responses to touch, etc. I have a hard time believing that there is concrete evidence that all of those responses are solely reflexes. It is difficult to make a claim of "Nothing there" that you do. The types of studies to prove brain functionality in humans are very limited because there have been very few cases of complete elimination of portions of the brain to prove their validity.

But if we are interested in the humane way to go about this, wouldn't we be better off giving her a lethal dose of Morphine? I read an article that said she would be alive for 2 weeks without assisted feeding. That seems a little cruel if even there is .1% functionality of the parietal lobe.

[The Happy Humanist]

Her brain stem is completely functioning.

Right, but that is not her cerebral cortex. Again, we're talking about the interworkings of the most complex biological system in the known universe, so the definition of death is probably going to have to be almost as intricate. Brain stem, cortex, EEG...not just one but probably several of these various areas are going to have to be part of the equation. But I think we agree we should start working on one, so that the medical and legal professions are in agreement, and jointly not at odds with spiritual concerns.

I have a hard time believing that there is concrete evidence that all of those responses are solely reflexes.

The main breakdown between the camps seems to be the difference in emphasis: one stresses preservation of life, the other stresses quality of life. I happen to fall into the latter camp. To me, mere existence is not life. I believe there is a line that is crossed where "it's just not worth it." I know where that line is for me; the difficulty lies in determining where it is for someone who can't speak for themself. In such cases, I would think we would want to err on the side of not prolonging agony. My worst fear in a case like this is that it drags on another five years, and the person somehow recovers enough to whisper, "WHY DIDN'T YOU KILL ME? I'VE BEEN SCREAMING INSIDE MY HEAD FOR 20 YEARS, 'PLEASE KILL ME'" In fact, my VERY worst nightmare is that it happens to me. (I do have a living will, but I understand that it is sometimes not that cut-and-dried).

I reject any notion that those of us who support death with dignity are somehow callous or cavalier about life. To me, life is precious, and worth making monumental efforts to preserve, but it is not sacrosanct, and there are other factors to be weighed when determining the amount of those efforts. "Precious" vs. "sacrosanct", though miles apart philosophically, is not a hell of a big difference degree-wise. I think the debate between the pros and cons on this issue would be well served if the cons would keep that in mind, and stow the rhetoric about life being "disposable."

But if we are interested in the humane way to go about this, wouldn't we be better off giving her a lethal dose of Morphine? I read an article that said she would be alive for 2 weeks without assisted feeding. That seems a little cruel if even there is .1% functionality of the parietal lobe.

We are in total agreement here. Too bad our society is really not ready for that yet. Ask Dr. Kevorkian.

[Vladd44]

On March 16th, 2005, four days before the Idiots in our government spent their palm sunday trying to force their will onto the Terry Schiavo case. Sun Hudson Details, a 6 month old child was removed from life support in Houston because of the Texas Futile Care bill of 1999 Signed by no other than george W hitler. Making this the first time a child has ever been removed from life support against their parents wishes.

Wanda Hudson, his mother DID NOT want to remove her child from support. However she had no way to pay. Her parental choice was removed from her by the hospital. And on Mar 16th he was removed from his breathing tube, and shortly afterwards, he died. I guess it doesnt pay to be poor, black child in texas.

The irony is, a man is making the choice he feels is right for a woman he considered his wife. And Bushler and Co want the federal govt to personally interfere.

A woman in Houston with a small child didnt want to end her childs life, she wasnt ready to make that choice. And once again, bush made the decision for her by signing a law in 1999 that essentially told poor people to **** off and die.

I must admit my information is limited, it wasnt my child,and I didnt know him. But with the information available, I would have made the decision to pull the plug. However it wasnt my decision to make, nor should it have been left the the hospital that acted in its own financial interest.

Thanks Mr president, Im glad to see your pro life stance is only for people who meet certain income requirements.

[The Happy Humanist]

One such distortion is confusing

• "extreme religious group" within the anti-euthenasia camp

with your

• "anti-euthanasia minority"

It is a distortion, of course, because it implicitly asserts that all Christians opposed to euthenasia are (a) oposed to all manifestations of euthenasia, and (b) united behind the recent governmental fiasco.

I thought it was fairly well understood in this forum that nothing said about "Christians" was ever to be inferred as applying to "all Christians" or even "all conservative Christians." Now you do raise a good point, I was generally unaware that the anti-euthanasia camp would make distinctions in different circumstances. I beg your pardon for my ignorance on this, please consider this an opportunity to enlighten me and the others here. First, what percentage of Christians consider themselves "anti-euthanasia"? Second, what percentage of Christians consider themselves "anti-euthanasia under all circumstances"? Third, where is the line drawn, so that I may limit myself to criticizing the proper group? Fourth, under what circumstances would the former group find euthanasia acceptable? Obviously you imply that this case is an example of "acceptable circumstances." What others are there? Fifth, what is the doctrinal support for the stances of each group? I would like to limit myself to criticizing the doctrine, so that I can avoid "personalizing" the issue to the adherents.

And the semantic sleight-of-hand by which you slide from Pro-Life Christian to "Pro-Life movement" [note the use of the singular] is but another example of what I mentioned above.

I'm sorry, I don't even know where to begin with this. Singular vs. what plural? I "slid" from Pro-Life Christian to Pro-Life movement on purpose. Or did you want me to continue to single out Christians?

When I gave up God(s), I dispensed with demons as well. Demonizing Christianity is, in my opinion, ethically wrong, strategically counterproductive, and tactically stupid.

If you changed "Christianity" to "Christians," I would agree with you. But I make no apologies for considering Christianity to be a drag on human progress, and I will continue to criticize it (if you want to call it demonizing, that's your choice - when I gave up God(s), I gave up supernatural language).