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.

[The Happy Humanist]

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.

Unbelievable. You couldn't find a more ironic and poignant counterpoint to the Schiavo matter.

I've never been a real big Bush-basher. I considered him a dullard, a mediocre politician at a time when we need a strong leader, I've made fun of him like everyone else, but until now, I didn't actually hate the guy.
But this is the most heinous, callous, hypocritical thing I think I've ever seen a President do. I think George Bush needs to answer for this. Did he actually change his stance on euthanasia after becoming President? If not, he is blatantly pandering to the Christian right, a payback for his re-election. Politics as usual...except this time, it's destroying lives and livelihoods.

Family Values indeed.

[RevJP]

But this is the most heinous, callous, hypocritical thing I think I've ever seen a President do.

What exactly did this president do? He signed a law while Governor, which theoretically had been already passed by both houses of the state legislature before coming to his desk for signature. Your comments make it sound as if he personally went to the hospital and pulled the plug on a baby who actually had a chance at survival.

Your rhetoric is illmaking. Mr. Bush has to answer for what? Following through on the will of the people? Not stepping in where he has no business stepping in and stopping the hospital from doing what they had every legal right to do? You make an absolutely fallacious case and have the audacity to say "I've never been a real big Bush-basher."

[Vladd44]

What exactly did this president do? He signed a law while Governor, which theoretically had been already passed by both houses of the state legislature before coming to his desk for signature. Your comments make it sound as if he personally went to the hospital and pulled the plug on a baby who actually had a chance at survival.

Mr. Bush has to answer for what? Following through on the will of the people?

Give me a %^$%^$^%^&% break. The will of the people dont have anything to do with it. If he thinks he is a tard of principle, he should stand by them regardless of how others feel.

Read the bill before you go off in defense. The bills serves no purpose other than to allow hospitals to stop providing care for patients they deem not worthy, and please don't delude yourself into thinking this child would have been murdered if his mother had health insurance and wasnt indigent. This bill is discriminatory against the poor.

Bush is responsible. He CHOSE to sign a bill that was counter to his BS

[Terri Schiavo's situation] is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wisest to always err on the side of life.

To err on the side of life would have prevented him from ever signing this bill. Regardless of whether there were the votes to override a veto or not (there wasnt btw). Its about principle, if he believes the feces spewing from his mouth he should have never signed such a bill.

This bill provides for the patient to be present at the hearing that decides their fate. Think about the implications of that right. It means that people who are aware of the world around them, and are mentally competent could be subject to euthanasia against their will. And your ilk calls yourself pro life? You lost all credibility trying to rationalize this policy.

Your starting to sound like W yourself, talking out of both sides of your mouth. I am shocked to see anyone even try to rationalize such a position. Do you think he was signing a bill that would never have ramifications? Its not like this was a rider added at the last minute that he may have not even known about (still wouldnt be a justification for murder).

(d) If, at the time notice is to be provided under
Subsection (c), the individual is incompetent or otherwise
incapacitated and unable to receive the notice required by this
section, the provider shall provide the required written notice, in
the following order of preference, to:
(1) the individual's legal guardian;
(2) a person responsible for the health care decisions
of the individual;
(3) the individual's spouse;
(4) the individual's adult child;
(5) the individual's parent; or
(6) the person admitting the individual.
(e) If Subsection (d) applies and except as provided by
Subsection (f), if a health care provider is unable, after diligent
search, to locate an individual listed by Subsection (d), the
health care provider is not required to provide the notice.
(f) If an individual who was incompetent or otherwise
incapacitated and unable to receive the notice required by this
section at the time notice was to be provided under Subsection (c)
later becomes able to receive the notice, the health care provider
shall provide the written notice at the time the individual becomes
able to receive the notice.

[djchuang]

I'm surprised to find the issue of Terri Schiavo here in the Christianity forum instead of the Ethical Dilemmas or the Right and Wrong forum, and to find an overwhelming poll result (at the time of this post) for her to "die in peace."

I've scanned a handful of articles via the blogosphere and at an advocate site www.terrisfight.net, as well as this thread (albeit I did not read it thoroughly).

While it may be argued by different medical professionals whether she is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) or not, my understanding is that she is not on an artificial life support system, and that she is simply being fed nutrients via tube.

So, it seems to me that the question at hand is: what kind of care are the disabled entitled to?

The difficulty in finding the answer to this question, is that we don't have a clear and compelling intent from Terri Schiavo herself about what should happen to her if she should be in this kind of a condition. Thus the legal battles back and forth to discern if her guardian's intent is legally binding.

Ethics and faith aside, that's what rules in a society governed by law.

[The Happy Humanist]

What exactly did this president do? He signed a law while Governor, which theoretically had been already passed by both houses of the state legislature before coming to his desk for signature. Your comments make it sound as if he personally went to the hospital and pulled the plug on a baby who actually had a chance at survival.

I don't think you understand what I am complaining about. That may be my fault; in my anger, I probably didn't make it clear.

I do not know the merits of the Texas law. For all I know, it may be justifiable, and I'm not prepared to argue for or against it.

My real complaint is that George Bush has no right to claim to err on the side of life. His history shows that he errs on the side of life when it is politically expedient, i.e, when the Right-to-Lifers hold his party's feet to the fire, and on the side of business interests when it is financially expedient. If he were truly pro-Life all along, as governor he would have vetoed the bill on principle, and the legislature be damned. Instead, he has shown his true colors: dance with the gal what brung ya. It is the height of hypocrisy for this President to claim true spiritual kinship with the religious right.

[The Happy Humanist]

I'm surprised to find the issue of Terri Schiavo here in the Christianity forum instead of the Ethical Dilemmas or the Right and Wrong forum, and to find an overwhelming poll result (at the time of this post) for her to "die in peace."

I thought about that, but I really did start the thread to make a point about Pascal's Wager. Perhaps it can be continued elsewhere. As to the poll, well...what can I say?

I've scanned a handful of articles via the blogosphere and at an advocate site www.terrisfight.net, as well as this thread (albeit I did not read it thoroughly).

On an issue such as this, I would think we would want to skip the blogs and go to the most reliable sources possible so that we can get both sides. I'm sure there are reliable blogs out there, I just don't think the blog phenomenon has matured enough to the point where we can use it as a reliable source on such an important issue.

While it may be argued by different medical professionals whether she is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) or not, my understanding is that she is not on an artificial life support system, and that she is simply being fed nutrients via tube.

I have heard this argument before, and have to admit to being curious that such a distinction is made. Is there a medically-defined difference between a feeding tube and an artificial life support system? The former would seem to be an example of the latter, but if there is an accepted distinction, so be it.

You say "simply" being fed through a tube, which seems to be an effort to shade the severity of her condition to make it seem not much different from a paraplegic or a stroke victim. The real issue is WHY she is being tube-fed. It is because she is incapable of willful, directed action of any kind. She is not paralyzed, she is not comatose, she has use of her hands. It's not that she can't feed herself, it's that she won't. According to the vast majority of examining physicians, this is because she isn't there. We are feeding a body, not a person. This, to me, is what distinguishes this type of case from the paraplegic, etc. (Some have even made the comparison with infants who require feeding. Please. )

So, it seems to me that the question at hand is: what kind of care are the disabled entitled to?

And here we have another example of an attempt to redefine the issue through subtle word choices. To make a crude comparison, Terry Schiavo is disabled like the World Trade Center is bomb-scarred. From everything I've seen or read, Terry Schiavo has been dead for 15 years. Her cerebral cortex is gone. My understanding is that this is a gruesome condition in which the body continues functioning long after all trace of personality or identity is gone. It's rather like the scene in 2001 when Bowman disconnected HAL - he left the ship's vital functions intact, but the "personality" of HAL was renderred non-cognitive. For all intents and purposes, he "killed" HAL.

True, we don't know for certain that there's no one in there, as medical science is currently unable to measure or even detect "experience," but in such cases, I think we are obliged to defer to medicine's best guess. And medicine's best guess at this point is that the personality of Terry Schiavo is gone. So we're arguing over a body that has been left on auto-pilot. To call this merely "disabled" is a misuse of the term, in my mind.

The difficulty in finding the answer to this question, is that we don't have a clear and compelling intent from Terri Schiavo herself about what should happen to her if she should be in this kind of a condition. Thus the legal battles back and forth to discern if her guardian's intent is legally binding.

Normally I would agree with you here. In such cases there's usually reason to suspect that the spouse or other guardian may have ulterior motives. But I have to be impressed with this Michael Schiavo. Not only doesn't there seem to be any ulterior motive, he appears to have gone to great lengths to eliminate anything that would even cast suspicion on his intent. He has turned down at least a million dollars to relinquish his guardianship. There are no insurance policies that anyone can find. True, he has started a new life with a new family (can anyone blame him?) and yet has refused to divorce Terri despite the fact that he could have legally done so and been able to legally marry his common law wife. He doesn't seem to be pushing a right-to-life agenda in general, so we can't compare him to Michael Newdow. The only reason I can see for him maintaining that these were his wife's wishes is that these really were his wife's wishes. Can you support another motive?

Ethics and faith aside, that's what rules in a society governed by law.

And a society governed by law is exactly what you're seeing with the non-political judiciary standing up to the partisan legislative branch. It would be hard to name a half dozen other countries in which this could happen.

[Vladd44]

If he were truly pro-Life all along, as governor he would have vetoed the bill on principle, and the legislature be damned. Instead, he has shown his true colors: dance with the gal what brung ya. It is the height of hypocrisy for this President to claim true spiritual kinship with the religious right.

Agreed. and exactly the point. I cannot deny that I considered bush to be a loathsome individual for the choices he has made. His fear mongering is a classic model of controlling the masses. However, I always felt he believed the "religious" viewpoint he espoused. Having not lived in texas in 1999, I had no idea of the Texas Futile Care bill of 1999. But with the recent hypocricy of the last couple weeks, I now doubt he believes a word of it.

So, it seems to me that the question at hand is: what kind of care are the disabled entitled to?

Agreed, I think they are entitled to the best care available, regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, religion or income. And if incapacitated without written notice of their preferences, their family (starting with spouse and then parents.) should be able to make that decision.

Integrity is the root of principle. If Bush had integrity, he would have stuck to his stated principles and vetoed the bill in 1999.

[youngborean]

I do believe that if Bush is deliberately letting children die that he is morally suspect. However, you are ignoring another possibility that Bush has developed a specific definition of life. The young girl in the story you posted required full life support. In other words, if you pull the plug she dies. Schiavo is in a PVS, which means if you pull the plug, she starves to death staying alive for 2 weeks or so. Perhaps it was this principle that was used, the article even referred to a man who was a different case and was held in court, presumably because he had more of an independent ability to live. An explanation seems to be in order, but I would hardly jump to an assertion of hypocrisy since the cases are different.

[ST88]

I'm surprised to find the issue of Terri Schiavo here in the Christianity forum instead of the Ethical Dilemmas or the Right and Wrong forum, and to find an overwhelming poll result (at the time of this post) for her to "die in peace."

The original question in this thread had to do with the interpretation of the 6th Commandment as it applied to euthanasia. Terry Schiavo was a case study for this question. Would Christians want Ms. Sciavo to be in her current state until she died of old age because of the prohibition on killing? That's the question.

I've scanned a handful of articles via the blogosphere and at an advocate site www.terrisfight.net, as well as this thread (albeit I did not read it thoroughly).

While it may be argued by different medical professionals whether she is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) or not, my understanding is that she is not on an artificial life support system, and that she is simply being fed nutrients via tube.

So, it seems to me that the question at hand is: what kind of care are the disabled entitled to?

I've heard this argument before, and frankly it disgusts me that people wish to call Ms. Schiavo "disabled". This implies that she "abled" at all. In the sense that she is missing a functional appendage or has a malfunctioning system, I suppose you might be right in using that term. But it just so happens that the missing functional appendage and malfunctioning system is her brain. In the sense that we are our brains, Ms. Schiavo is no longer Ms. Schiavo and has not been for a long time. The part of her brain that has no activity is the part that neurologists know as the area that produces thoughts and feelings. Her motor activity, having been unaffected, is also uncontrolled because this "dark" area of her brain is also the control for it. It's gruesome to think about it, and I don't blame the parents for wanting to believe that there is any hope at all for recovery.

The difficulty in finding the answer to this question, is that we don't have a clear and compelling intent from Terri Schiavo herself about what should happen to her if she should be in this kind of a condition. Thus the legal battles back and forth to discern if her guardian's intent is legally binding.

While its true that a living will would have decided this case a long time ago, the law provides a procedure for the absence of one: the testimony of the family. In 1998, the husband petitioned the courts for removal of her feeding tube because after numerous tries at therapy, he believed that nothing would ever bring Terri back. The parents disagreed. Unfortunately, in Florida, the determination of what the subject "would have wanted" is apparently up for debate between various factions of family members. Essentially, the case was decided, but the parents have been appealing up the court food chain since then.

The following link is an excellent, non-biased discussion on the Schiavo case:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Some excerpts:

You're left with a husband who lived with his in-laws following Terri's heart attack, who apparently provided care and therapy for years but who later came to believe Terri would never recover. He believes she would not have wanted to be kept alive in this brain-degenerated condition by a surgically implanted tube. He is apparently willing to continue his fight to achieve what he believes Terri would want despite ridicule, hatred, expense, and threats.

You're left with parents who were once allied with Terri's husband in an effort to care for Terri and restore her but, unlike Terri's husband, they never lost hope. They believe Terri reacts to them and has conscious thoughts. They believe Terri would not want, and does not want, her feeding tube removed, and that some cognitive function could be restored through new therapies. Terri's parents are willing to continue their fight to achieve what they believe Terri would want despite ridicule, hatred, expense, and threats.

You're left with judges who have been placed in the utterly thankless position of applying Florida law to this impassioned situation. Florida law calls for the trial court to determine what Terri would chose to do in this situation, and after a trial hard fought by Terri's husband and her family, where each side was given the opportunity to present its best case about what Terri would do, the court determined the evidence was clear and convincing that Terri would chose not to continue living by the affirmative intervention of modern medicine -- that she would chose to have her feeding tube disconnected. In a second trial, brought about by Terri's family's claims new therapies could restore her and that the existence of such a therapy would make her "change her mind," the trial court again heard evidence from all sides and determined that no new therapy presented any reasonable chance of restoring Terri's brain function. The propriety of these decisions -- from the sufficiency of the evidence to the appropriateness of the procedures used -- has been unanimously upheld on appeal each time.

Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.

Ethics and faith aside, that's what rules in a society governed by law.

Would that it were that simple. The society governed by law is administered by people who are susceptible to electioneering and political posturing.

[otseng]

I came across something interesting from Neal Boortz. Though he argues that Terri should die, it is the most "religious" viewpoint that I've ever heard from him.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/neal ... 0324.shtml

I want Terri Schiavo to die because I believe she’s earned it.

I don’t view death as the end of the journey of a human soul. I view it as a transition. The God I believe in would not waste the total life experiences of a man or woman made in his image on a total and complete death; a dead end, if you will, with nothing to follow. I cannot believe that it is God’s plan that the life experiences of a man; wisdom gained, lessons learned and love experienced, should, upon death, disappear as if they never were. I believe that there’s something to follow the life we know on this earth; and I believe that most of the people fighting to keep the body of Terri Schiavo alive feel the same way.

These feelings give rise to some questions of my own; questions for the devoutly religious people who are fighting to keep Terri Schiavo alive. Do you believe in God’s promise of everlasting life? Do you believe that the reward for a life well spent on this earth is a life with God in heaven after you die? If you do, then a few more questions if you will.

Do you believe that the human soul can make the transition to everlasting life while the human body that carried that soul through life clings to life on this earth? If you do, then you must surely believe that Terri Schiavo has earned and is already enjoying her reward in heaven. That being the case, why is it so important to you that the now-unneeded body of Terri Schiavo is kept alive?

But perhaps you believe, as I do, that the human soul is so connected to and integrated with its earthly body that any transition will not be made until that body ceases functioning -- until death occurs.. That being the case, why do you so ardently desire that the soul of Terri Schiavo spend five, ten, perhaps 30 years or more trapped in a useless and non-functioning body, unable to move on to whatever reward awaits her? Isn’t 15 years enough?

Where do your concerns truly lie, with the eternal soul of Terri Schiavo, or with her earthly body?

Most of us are aware of the stories related by people who have near-death experiences. The usual scenario is a surgical procedure or some other medical emergency. These people describe a sensation of leaving their body at the very time the heart stops beating and the brain ceases functioning. They tell of floating above their body while watching doctors below working hard to resuscitate, to bring them back to life. As the heart once again starts beating and as the brain resumes its functions, they tell of a sensation of falling back into their own bodies to resume life.

We don’t hear from the patients upon whom resuscitation efforts are not successful. We don’t hear from them because they’ve left us. They’re gone to experience whatever lies beyond. They died.

Is it possible that the soul of Terri Schiavo has been floating – held in some prolonged and excruciating limbo – waiting for doctors to stop interfering with the process of her death? I believe that this is so, and that is why I have supported her husband’s desires to have her feeding tube removed. Terri Schiavo isn’t being murdered. She’s being allowed to die. Death will not be an end for Terri Schiavo, it will be a beginning. She will finally be allowed to claim the reward that ultimately we all seek, a reward she’s earned and deserves.