Like many, I’ve been giving some thought these past days to Terri Schiavo. While anyone with even one eye cocked to the TV, or one ear to the watercooler, will testify that a great many people have their minds squarely made up on these issues, it’s also true that many people are still engaged in civil discourse. Like Annie Gottlieb in her except from Marcus Cicero’s paean to his daughter, I’ve been searching for a language, a code, a vocabulary which would admit to rational humanistic discussion of the mystic and sublime issues this case raises, and allow me to express myself without recourse to faith or dogma. That such a vocabulary would have some utility, in a pluralistic and even sectarian and fragmented polity such as our own, I will take as self evident. While the identification of such vocabulary may prove impossible, and perhaps even foolish, I’ll hazard the following partial and imperfect attempt – and reach what I believe is a novel conclusion regarding Terri Schiavo.
Conscious experience is a widespread phenomenon. It occurs at many levels of animal life, though we cannot be sure of its presence in the simpler organisms, and it is very difficult to say in general what provides evidence of it… But no matter how the form may vary, the fact that an organism has conscious experience at all means, basically, that there is something it is like to be that organism. There may be further implications about the form of the experience; there may even (though I doubt it) be implications about the behavior of the organism. But fundamentally an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is to be that organism—something it is like for the organism.What’s it like being you? I’m not sure exactly, but I know it’s like something, because it’s like something to be me, and you, whoever you are, are pretty much like me. (More so, in some circumstances, than either of us would care to admit to. But that’s not the point). Empathy, compassion, love, even basic courtesy – these all have their roots in this simple faith: that it’s like something to be the other.
What about conscious entities at further remove from ourselves? Nagel again:
Let me first try to state the issue somewhat more fully than by referring to the relation between the subjective and the objective, or between the pour-soi and the en-soi. This is far from easy. Facts about what it is like to be an X are very peculiar, so peculiar that some may be inclined to doubt their reality, or the significance of claims about them. [emphasis mine]Nagel is explicitly relying on an intuitive grasp of the fact that other beings are conscious, and that grasp becomes weaker as those beings have less in common with humans. Nonetheless, most people would agree that bats, for example, have conscious experiences.
I have chosen bats instead of wasps or flounders because if one travels too far down the phylogenetic tree, people gradually shed their faith that there is experience there at all.Nagel introduces bats because he wants to make a point about the accessability of experiences of beings radically different from ourselves. Nonetheless, and this is a crucial point, (most) people intuitively grasp that creatures substantially more primitive than human beings nonetheless have conscious experiences – that it is like something to be that creature. Recalling the well known observation (though not completely accurate biological statement) that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, this way of thinking and talking about the nature conscious experience can be used to address the issue of abortion, a topic I may pick up another time.
But right now there is an application of this concept to the awful circumstances of Terri Schiavo.
I’ll not retrace and debate all the facts and assertions in this case. Allow me for the sake of argument to stipulate that Terri, whose body still lives as I write this, is effectively gone from us – that anything that it was to be her, is no more, irretrievably lost to this life; known, for the faithful, only to God. If Den Beste’s conjecture that “I am the frontal lobes of my brain” holds, then Terri is no more – if the medical consensus is to be believed.
Yet this TCS post by Dr Elizabeth Whelan [via Instapundit] contains the following curious phrase:While the family video repeatedly shown on television suggests otherwise , her non-functioning cortex precludes cognition, including any ability to interact or communicate with people or show any signs of awareness. [emphasis mine]What Dr. Whelan appears to be saying is “don’t believe your lying eyes!” I’ll be excused for failing to honor her request. The video of Terri Schiavo does in fact show a being who is self evidently having conscious experiences – while it may no longer be like anything to be Terri Schiavo, nonetheless it certainly appears to be like something to be whatever entity may be said to inhabit her body – the “Ghost” that occupies her “Shell”. That entity is most likely not Terri, and may be hard to qualify even as human – but neither of those conclusions validates what she’s now subject to.
While it’s hard to imagine that anyone would want to live like Terri, it’s equally hard to imagine that anyone would want to die like Terri either. After seeing video of her I’m not reassured by any expert that she is beyond pain and suffering. Important issues regarding the reach of Government power are at play here. I’m quite sensitive to overreach by the State, and I might as well identify myself as a resident of Oregon and a supporter of its assisted suicide law. But I’m not even sure those concepts apply directly in this case.
There is, at the very least, a poor creature being terminated by slow desiccation here, with no assurance or transparency with regard to the suffering of that creature. This is the case even if that creature is no longer Terri. While it is arguable that interfering with the current situation is an abuse of Government power, it should also be arguable that this situation is itself an abuse of the power of an individual, even if that individual is the dead hand of the competent Terri Schiavo of years past.
As a concrete step I have made my wishes known that I do not wish in any eventuality die of dehydration – if not for our own sake, then for the sake whatever conscious entity can be said to inhabit my body. While it may have long ceased to be like anything to be me, nonetheless, as long as my body manifests some evident awareness, it may be like something to inhabit that body, and I don’t want that something to suffer, even if that thing is not me! To prescribe that awful suffering on any being ought perhaps to be beyond the legal power of any individual.
[UPDATE: jinnderella raises the same issue here, and has a lot more besides. She cites a Fox news report indicating Terri is being given medication to prevent suffering. Which raises the question: if the medical experts are so sure that she can’t experience consciousness, why are they giving her medication? This would seem to admit to some doubt.]
"What Dr. Whelan appears to be saying is “don’t believe your lying eyes!” I’ll be excused for failing to honor her request. The video of Terri Schiavo does in fact show a being who is self evidently having conscious experiences "
Which video?
The 45 second one taken from over 30 hours of filming?
I've got a great video of my dog playing piano. Does this mean I shouldn't leave him at home without supervision while I work?
Snarky to be sure, but perhaps now is a good time to explain that the Star Trek Next Generation Holodecks aren't really real.
Forget the patched together video and look at the cat scans, read the various neurologists reports (not just the one from the "nobel peace price in medicine nominated" doctor).
The woman is gone, and she ain't coming back.
The bottom line to all of this has nothing to do with her actual condition beyond whether or not she can speak for herself, which she clearly cannot. So, who gets to decide? Her husband, based on his testimony of her wishes expressed to him. While Michael Schiavo remains her husband, this issue and all the doctors or video tape in the world is entirely irrelevant. If Michael Schiavo had divorced Terry, when he started having children with another woman for example, then we would not be having this discussion. The parents would've swept in and taken custody of Terry with Michael's wishes and his testimony about Terry's wishes completely irrelevant. However, he is still legally married to Terry Schiavo.
For that reason, I agree with the legal outcome of this situation even though I believe it is an unjust outcome.
There is also the slippery use of "Terry's wishes" in this case. My girlfriend and I both agreed that expressing a wish to be allowed to succumb to an incurable disease or injury is entirely different than expressing a wish to be starved to death.
Ummm, what davebo says is true, that those were the best 45 seconds of the thirty some hours of tape.
Umm, and, I read a lot of the material on this before i made a decision. I think Lewy has too.
The strangest thing about this, is how ready people on both sides of the aisle are to accept urban legends, hearsay, and vitriol as facts.
This is what i learned:
1) from the New England Journal of Medicine-- dehydration is a humane death, and standard practice by health care providers in this situation. Pain medication is always given as a protocol, because we cannot be sure if the patient is feeling pain.
2) Terri has lost 50-80% of her cortical material. (estimations by different neurologists from her CAT scan). However, she still has a rind of cortical tissue that may yield some function. Brain tissue is very plastic and adaptable.
3) A flat EEG means data from one of the leads is flat. I haven't seen any EEGs. See gamer's post for the 411 on electroencephelograms.
4) An fMRI (functional MRI) would show if parts of Terri's brain are still functioning. It is a wonderful, information-dense active sensor. However, it would have no bearing on Terri's current situation. The law passed by Congress requires only a de novo hearing. No new information can be introduced. Read about the legal aspects on Matt Conigliaro's excellent blog .
Now, any further urban legends where i can put a stake thru their heart?
Lewy, may your ghost never diminish. ;)
"Terri is being given medication to prevent suffering."
Which means they are HOPING they are correct when they testify that she feels no pain. It just proves the doctors have their DOUBTS... which means she should be kept alive until all reasonable doubts have been removed from the situation.
jinn, thanks for your comments.
If death by dehydration is indeed "humane", I have to say that this is very counter intuative. In fact it would depend on the notion that it is not like anything to be that entity dying of dehydration. Which, per their own pain medication protocol, the doctors are not entirely sure of. Which is my point.
"So, who gets to decide? Her husband, based on his testimony of her wishes expressed to him. While Michael Schiavo remains her husband, this issue and all the doctors or video tape in the world is entirely irrelevant."
Even if he long ago left the marriage in everything but name? Even if he has conflicts of interest? We don't give that kind of absolute power to parents and spouses in this country; each individual has inalienable rights. All the more so in a life or death matter.
I've thought about this and this seems to be one case where leftists can shout "kill the bitch!" and feel good about themselves. Normally we like to consider ourselves pacifists and compassionate folks. But every now and then we like to deal out death just like any extreme wingnut righty.
I have discussed the nature of consciousness and the issue of Terri Schiavo's consciousness here:
Is Terry Schiavo Conscious? http://shroudedindoubt.typepad.com/bodyparts/2005/03/is_terry_schiav.html
It is an awful thing to hold the life or death or any human in the palm of one's hand. I have to ask myself if I would deny Terri Schiavo a drink of water. Regardless of her current state and if I had the power to do so I could no more deny her than I could anyone else.
Speaking from personal experience. My brother was killed at the Coco-Cola plant in Atlanta years ago. A disgruntled employee arrived at the plant late one afternoon and started shooting anyone he could find wearing a white shirt and gray pants (the clothing attire for managerial positions). Needless to say my brother was working late that day and was shot in the head point blank with a 25 caliber pistol. There were quite a few injured and more than enough deaths that day; the gunman included.
I remember getting a call from my mother in San Antonio at about 10PM Eastern time. She was devastated and tried as calmly as she could to explain to me what had transpired and what current events were unfolding. As she relayed the news she told me my brother had been taken to the medical center and was on life support. Although alive his brain was severely damaged. He was on life support systems for the time being but he would never regain a consciousness again. She explained to me they would be taking him off of the life support systems and the only reason they were keeping him alive at this point was they wanted approval from someone to donate his organs. I kept asking how he was without fully comprehending exactly what she was trying so desperately to tell me. She must have told me a million times that for all intentional purposes he was dead. After the initial shock I resigned myself to believe that what she was telling me was true. She had already resigned herself to that fact before she called me. When it finally clicked the debate about what to do concerning donating his organs ensued. My brother had never mentioned to anyone as to what he would want done with his body in the event of death. I asked my mother what she wanted done as it seemed only appropriate to me that she was the conduit for his being in the first place. She explained to me that his wife could not bring herself to make that decision and had left the decision to my mother who at this stage was in no better shape than anyone else at the moment. Finally I asked if he had signed the back of his driver's license designating that he would like to be a donor. She explained he had not and that was the reason the hospital was asking for approval. At that point I said then the decision has already been made, has it not? At which point we all agreed his body would remain as is and with that the life support systems were removed and my brother died.
As for the case of Terri Schiavo it is not for me to say whether she lives or dies. It is not for the courts to say whether she lives or dies. Unfortunately medical science and the law has placed that decision squarely on the shoulders of family. It matters not what I may think of Michael and it matters not how deeply I feel for Terri's parents. What is obvious is there is a rift between Terri's parents and Michael concerning Terri's well being. The law has already decided the hierarchy concerning the decision making process and medical science will get its' due.
ALP
1st LT US Army
05/24/1962 - 07/08/1989
Lewy, appreciate the reasoned and thoughtful post. These are questions worth considering on a Saturday, too.
No-one wants to be effectively imprisoned and forced to suffer. But then, Schiavo is not the only case of this type - and some of those targeted are clearly conscious. Nancy Harvey, who has lived with illness and treatment for a long time, has an excellent article of her own.
I would actually consider dying in lieu of certain conditions, but under NO circumstances am I willing to be dehydrated to death.
Lewy, again, death by dehydration is humane and the standard medical protocol. It is true that we don't know for sure in any of these cases if there is pain. That is what the meds are for. Meds are always given.
Dehydration
Look, Multi-Society Task Force on PVS
Believe it or not, the docs do know what they are talking about. Is it fair for the Schiavos to make a 45 second commercial out of 30 hours of video tape as a propaganda tool? Is it fair for Congress to ramrod a bill that will do terri no good, since it doesn't stipulate for the introduction of new evidence? Dunno, beyond my ken.
How cool that lewy and i arrived at same idea by independent paths. His analogy is lower animal form, mine is of a house.
I don't believe the original Terri is in there. Even 50% is whole lotta cortex to loose. It was the substrate that formed the basis for terri's personality, thought and memory. But what if there is someone else in there now? Some one diminished in the Ghost in the Shell sense of less information. My question is, whose house is it? Does it belong to the new tenant, even if the old owner left instructions to have the house burned down if it became unuseable to her? Doesn't the new tenant get to live?
USMC, i am very sorry for your loss.
It is not for the courts to say whether she lives or dies.
Unfortunately, that is wrong. I think Terri has a moral and ethical right to live, however diminished she may be. But it does not appear that she has a legal right.
I'm very sorry.
I personally think that she has a scientific right to live. Even if she has only a limited recovery, what tales she could tell, even without speech.
jinnderella
Sorry but I have to disagree with you. Human flesh is not a ward of the state or the courts to do as they please with it. You may not like the rumblings coming out of the court system but still the courts have determined to the best of their ability that Michael has the prerogative to do as he wishes. Your job is not to convince the courts but to convince Michael that what you or Terri's parents wish for is done.
As I stated earlier it is an awful thing to hold one's life or death in the palm of your hand and I hope that you will never have to make such a choice. If that choice should ever come and you want to relinquish it to some one else then that is your prerogative and no one else's.
USMC, sorry, i misunderstood. Of course Michael is the legal guardian.
Lewy, Kate Adamson is the woman you refer to-- she spent only 70 days in a coma, and never underwent the atrophy and necrosis of cortical tissue that Terri did. Not at all the same thing.
if the medical experts are so sure that she can’t experience consciousness, why are they giving her medication?
It is not just PVS patients, but any patient with limited responses (ie, they cannot tell you if they are in pain). We don't actually have pain science down pat yet. It is much better to err on the side of medicating unneccessarily.
My father was 82 when he died of COPD. The last 20 years of his life were difficult. He signed a do not rescusitate form when the doctor said he had 6 months to live.
I cared for him at home for the last 2 months. One might say he starved or dehydrated to death. I don't think so.
He ate and drank up until a certain time and then it became to all that he no longer needed food and water. He was already dehydrating on his own and he could not swallow. His lips and skin became dry and flaky. His eyes sunken. It was part of the process of a slow death.
We decided to continue giving him pain medicine, just in case because we did not know.
Did we murder my father by witholding food and water? We don't think so - he no longer had need of these things - it was very clear to us.
The problem in this case is disunity in the family. If there was unity the path would become clear. I don't think Terri's needs have been met all these years. The enmity has driven everyone's agenda.
A wonderful thread. Thanks especially jinderella for the reflections and links.
Truly, Terri Sciavo is the hall-of-mirrors case for early 2005. We all start by looking at Terri, coming to conclusions without recognizing that we are seeing our own experiences and beliefs, altered and reflected back at us. It's hard to get beyond that, because it requires, for a time, that we let thoughtful reflection replace our strong emotions and attachments to beliefs. When, at the same time, there is an emotional description that suits this case better than any other single word: sadness.
Excuse me. Despite your prejudices, it is by no means clear that Terri was in a PVS. Thus, the attempt to get an objective opinion. No one knows. Not you. Not me. We may never know. She deserved a chance. If, in fact, she wasn't in a PVS, we are currently starving her to death--as opposed to removing her from an artificial life support system. So it's useless to pretend we aren't somehow responsible, if only by neglect.
As for starvation, I might suggest that if it was any fun, it might be much more popular in Africa than it is. Starvation can't be both good and evil at the same time. You're deceiving yourself.
AMac, you are so right. In a way this is more immediate even then the abortion debate-- how many of us will actually have to ever make the abortion choice? But we all are going to die, so we all see ourselves in this mirror.
moge, please read the link i pointed, or do your own research in pubmed. It is the method perscribed by healthcare providers over all. It is not analogous to nourishment deprivation in third world countries.
Joe, i'm sorry, but your case histories have no merit.
None of those case histories apply to Schiavo. None have sustained the atrophy or necrosis of cortical tissue that she has. There is simply no correlation.
Even if there is only 50% loss, the lowest estimate i have seen, this is still a huge problem.
These cases are outliers, even from their own distributions. Were any diagnosed as PVS? A meaningful study would be diagnosed PVS patients that return from a coma. She may or may not be PVS. It is not arguable that the diagnosis was made.
AbstractAppeal is really interesting this morning-- you should read it. I think the likelihood of the Schindlers convincing anyone that Terri can grasp an abstract concept like "life" or "death" with that much cortex missing is approaching negative infinity. Matt has other interesting thoughts on this from the legal perspective.
Let me add, it is disengenuous in the extreme for Kate Adamson and others to compare her case to Terri's.
I feel terribly sad for the Schindlers, but I am beginning to think that this is actually a proganda campaign to engage the sympathies of the public. I have never seen so much witchhcraft, emotion, urban legend and outright lying over anything.
Why do people think they can volunteer opinions on PVS with out reading anything in the literature?
Pubmed is great for everything, dehydration death as a medical practice, fMRI, PVS recovery (there is none), what PVS actually is, etc.
Why is absolutely everyone forming an opinion on other opinion instead of on fact?
Look what Discarded Lies says-- Doctors are no-nothings
Does anyone really think that is true?
ooops, know-nothings.
But you get my drift. Why is everyone that disagrees with you suddenly aa idiot?
lewy14 -
You're ingenious to look at the famous Thomas Nagel essay in this regard. I wish Terri Schiavo's doctors had done the same. Istead I suspect they are informed by primitive Behaviorism - by which standard none of us are alive in any meaningful sense once our mechanical responses are diminished.
So I can't imagine what it is like to be Terri Schiavo.
Neither can I imagine what it is like to be Michael Schiavo, insisting on this monomanical course of action as if it will miraculously accomplish some greater good than the manifest harm that it has done to his family, not to mention the turmoil that it has caused to the nation. It is as if Terri Schiavo had been the lifelong proponent (an Ayn Rand or a Margaret Sanger) of a vast euthaniasia or Right to Die movement, and that the entire meaning of her life was in doubt if she didn't drink the last bitter dregs of her own philosophy. Otherwise the very notion of "death with dignity" is somehow discredited, and a whole social movement crashes in flames. Did Terri Schiavo volunteer for all of that? Is all of that at stake, and since when?
In the end, all I can imagine is what it is like to be Terri Schiavo's mother and father. Would Terri Schiavo elect to inflict that suffering on her parents, in order to spare herself the supposed indignity that her body now suffers? Would she make that choice right now, if she could speak?
With everybody scrambling after Living Wills like hamsters after food pellets, it's worth considering how your theoretical demands for execution (often based on somewhat selfish notions of "dignity") might turn into a time bomb for your loved ones if circumstances and diagnoses are doubtful.
Glen is right as usual. And actually, that should have been the Schindlers point of attact, to get Michael Schiavo replaced as guardian. I would have formally petitioned the court for the MRI, and then sought to have him replaced as guardian if he refused. Perhaps a civil wrongful death suit? There were other avenues.
At this point, in desperation, the Schindler's are probably damaging their case.
I cannot judge them.
Let me pose this question-- why did the Rathergate Memo exposee, and Eason Jordan, succeed, while raising the public consciousness about Schivao v Schiavo has not? 70% of americans felt that congress interfered.
I think the answer is, in terri's case so few are operating from facts, from the truth of the issues, and arguing from opinion and emotion. The balloon video is not the truth that Charles' pantagraphic proofs were, or Roggio's video and witness exposee.
I would highly reccomend Rev. Sensing's post this morning on What About Terri's Soul?. He's guest-blogged here before and while I'm sure not everyone may share his religous views, he does provide an interesting historical discussion.
No bats though.
Patrick
[Update: On about the third reading I've concluded that the following comment is indeed based on a misreading of Glen's original comment above. Glen, my apologies. I'm leaving the comment up because I think some people may be guilty of the conflation which I outline below, even if there is no evidence that Glen is. --Lewy]
Glen,
I’m grateful for your complements but there are aspects of your rhetoric which leave me uneasy. Many people approaching this tragedy have conflated a number of issues which are essentially differentiated and it appears to me that you might have done the same.
“Death with dignity” is a somewhat unfortunate slogan for a complex issue. You are right to question the term “dignity” as I believe that there are occasions where it is nothing more than a euphemism for the embarrassment of the family. There are other occasions however where the term is another sort of euphemism, namely for the excruciating and unendurable pain of a terminal disease. The “right to die movement” may be painted in caricature as yet another onanist fantasy of “activism”, but to do so is grossly unfair in my estimation.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, what we have is a body which can no longer objectively said to the hosting the person who formerly inhabited it. Jinnderella has supplied us with the technical terms but in case anybody missed it, here it is: most of her brain is friggin’ dead. This is a fact which can be established in objective terms. Medical science is pretty good with these objective terms; less good in matters of pure judgment. While one may hope, the hope of Terri in particular regaining her personhood cannot be said to rest in any objective manner on medical science. Nonetheless, as I pointed out in my essay, medical science also cannot rule out that it is still like something to be the entity which now inhabits her body, even if that entity cannot be said to be the personality/mind/soul of Terri Schiavo (and when medical science brusquely asserts the contrary, I believe they are guilty of confusing fact with judgment – an opinion I advance at the risk of being labeled anti-objective, a heresy for an engineer such as myself). Moreover, and this is something I didn’t mention in my essay, precisely nobody (to my knowledge) has claimed that that entity is currently suffering. In fact, to judge by the video (yes, heavily edited and unrepresentative, I know) she appears to be in something of a state of bliss.
On the other hand, consider the case of a person who is still very much themselves, with their wits and faculties more or less intact, and wracked by the torture of unrelenting pain with no objective hope of recovery. It is possible to point to pain medication but to my knowledge medical science has made no claims of 100% efficacy of such in all cases. It is possible to believe in “miracles”, and I’ve seen cases myself where the judgment of doctors has been proven manifestly wrong. And it is possible to hold up as an ideal a “serene abandonment to God’s will” as the proper way to accept such suffering, and this view in fact might have substantial spiritual wisdom. But to enforce these views on suffering people with the power of the state is in my view an abuse of the power of the power that state. This is also the view of a great many serious people of diverse background and opinion, and for myself I bristle at the characterization of all of us as “hamsters chasing food pellets”.
My claim is that these cases are vastly different and in no way should be conflated. If I’m wrong in my reading of your comment, my apologies.
Glen, I hold your arts of parody and ridicule in high esteem, they vastly exceed my own and most often used effectively in the service of noble causes. I’d not demand that you agree with my position, only ask you to consider that in this case your arts are misapplied.
lewy14: ... for myself I bristle at the characterization of all of us as “hamsters chasing food pellets”.
Sorry. I do not look upon you (or any of the other worthy folk here present) as a hamster, old comrade. Nor was I intending to characterize one side of the debate that way.
Here's the bitter pellet I was chewing on when I wrote it: Over the course of the past several days I've seen or read several exchanges on this subject that lazily degenerate into a call for Living Wills, usually in these almost-exact words, "All of this could have been avoided if Terry Schiavo had a Living Will, like I do."
"All of this could have been avoided" is fine if we're talking about a school that burned down three weeks ago, but I don't find it a very satisfactory conclusion to what is happening right now.
I'm willing to admit that Terri Schiavo's condition is exactly as bad as Jinnderella describes it. At this point, I can only hope to hell it's that bad, because if Terri Schiavo still exists she's doomed. If it were up to me I would leave room for doubt in favor of her survival as a human being -- keeping in mind that no significant harm can be done to her by delaying her death long enough for the Schindler's doctors to take their shot -- but the courts are unable or unwilling to do that. Which seems to suit most people just fine. But not me.
I have so often heard opponents of capital punishment emote about the lone individual who is faced with all the awesome power of the law and the state, which is determined to snuff them out. I sympathize with their sentiment, if not the way they choose to apply it.
lewy, sorry to be so pessimistic. I actually found Dr. Cheshire's analysis quite strong for Terri not being PVS. But I read Hammesfahr's, and i am unsuprised at the court's ruling. His was pretty sketchy.
Unfortunately, Dr. Chesire's analysis will have no influence. it is inadmissable.
lewy, looks like the Instapundit has the 411 .
I said it first .
It is about ownership of a person incapable of speaking for herself. We can call it whatever sounds good today, but that is what this is. When you own someone, you can dispose of them and justify it any way you want to.
With regards to how "humane" it is to put her to death by denying her food and water - it looks like we found a new, low-cost means to execute criminals on death row. When their last appeal has been rejected, we just stop caring for them. That will kill the age-old "what was his last meal" gig, but I can suffer the deficit to my curiosity.
It is about ownership of a person incapable of speaking for herself. We can call it whatever sounds good today, but that is what this is. When you own someone, you can dispose of them and justify it any way you want to.
With regards to how "humane" it is to put her to death by denying her food and water - it looks like we found a new, low-cost means to execute criminals on death row. When their last appeal has been rejected, we just stop caring for them. That will kill the age-old "what was his last meal" gig, but I can suffer the deficit to my curiosity.
Whether starvation/dehydration is a humane means of killing someone is something the Schiavo case can never determine. Jinderella is certainly being compulsively weird about it, but perhaps it's just her time of the month.
The Schiavo case is an excellent opportunity for people to show their colors. We on the left are having great fun over conservatives fighting among themselves. Right wing zealots try to have it both ways over states' rights and federalism. They rail about all the appeals that mass murderers get on death row, but want to use up all the appeals they can get for a woman with brain damage.
Leftists are consistent. We want abortion rights, and we want to be able to assist the demise of people who are beyond contributing to society. If we could only euthanize people like Tom DeLay and Jerry Falwell we'd be in paradise.
Whether starvation/dehydration is a humane means of killing someone is something the Schiavo case can never determine. Jinderella is certainly being compulsively weird about it, but perhaps it's just her time of the month.
The Schiavo case is an excellent opportunity for people to show their colors. We on the left are having great fun over conservatives fighting among themselves. Right wing zealots try to have it both ways over states' rights and federalism. They rail about all the appeals that mass murderers get on death row, but want to use up all the appeals they can get for a woman with brain damage.
Leftists are consistent. We want abortion rights, and we want to be able to assist the demise of people who are beyond contributing to society. If we could only euthanize people like Tom DeLay and Jerry Falwell we'd be in paradise.
Denise, read my link^.
I have said this at least twice on this thread:
Dehydration is the recommended protocol in this case. The medical community concurrs on this. Most healthcare providers state that this procedure is both humane and painless. I have read nothing in pubmed or elsewhere to deny this.
Show me a link if I'm wrong.
Urban legends and emoting will not sway me.
It is the best thing we know to do at this point.
Pain meds might also be given to assuage the emotions of the family. Doctors do things like this. They put band-aids on children to signal that the office visit is over.
Pain meds might also be given to assuage the emotions of the family. Doctors do things like this. They put band-aids on children to signal that the office visit is over.
Jinnderel are you a physician? Somehow I doubt it. If you were you'd have a bit more humility about journal articles written about issues of death. You seem positively jolly about it all. Most physicians who deal with these problems keep quite mum. Until they get tired of the ignorant who love to spout off. Based on a journal article.
Don't get me wrong. I think the poor woman is beyond contributing to her husband or society, so I agree with you that she should be removed. But somehow I doubt that you know wtf you are talking about. A journal article? A journal article? Consensus? About something like this? You must be kidding me. There is no consensus. A journal article about this type of topic proves nothing. Any physician who submits her conscience to a journal article should quit medicine and go into engineering.
My dear non-physician euthanasia groupie, I have assisted more people into the great beyond than you can possibly imagine. We try to be kind, as kind as possible. It is rarely gentle. It is hell. Virtually always. Ask an oncologist with several decades of practice experience.
Jinnderel are you a physician? Somehow I doubt it. If you were you'd have a bit more humility about journal articles written about issues of death. You seem positively jolly about it all. Most physicians who deal with these problems keep quite mum. Until they get tired of the ignorant who love to spout off. Based on a journal article.
Don't get me wrong. I think the poor woman is beyond contributing to her husband or society, so I agree with you that she should be removed. But somehow I doubt that you know wtf you are talking about. A journal article? A journal article? Consensus? About something like this? You must be kidding me. There is no consensus. A journal article about this type of topic proves nothing. Any physician who submits her conscience to a journal article should quit medicine and go into engineering.
My dear non-physician euthanasia groupie, I have assisted more people into the great beyond than you can possibly imagine. We try to be kind, as kind as possible. It is rarely gentle. It is hell. Virtually always. Ask an oncologist with several decades of practice experience.
Happy Easter, Terri Schiavo.
It is now her tenth day without food or water.
I think the special word for the week should be "pity".
I do not think this is a terrifically well-chosen occasion to be taking mean shots at people or stirring up avoidable fights.
Hi, Jinn.
Happy Easter, Terri Schiavo.
It is now her tenth day without food or water.
I think the special word for the week should be "pity".
I do not think this is a terrifically well-chosen occasion to be taking mean shots at people or stirring up avoidable fights.
Hi, Jinn.
Denise,
I agree - you are consistent. The left you speak of consistently has a tilted outlook on life, which makes it possible to think someone suffering from brain damage is a moral equivalent to someone who has done such harm to society, that his/her peers thinks he should be put to death.
I further suggest that everything which has been attempted to save Terry has been done within the rule of law. Had that not been the case, there would already have been federal agents or state marshals seizing that young lady on as a ward of one or other agency. That did not happen did it? Terry Shiavo is going to die because, despite how dispicable this entire affair is, the law is what we live by here.
Your glee over failed efforts to save a life is well noted.
Denise,
I agree - you are consistent. The left you speak of consistently has a tilted outlook on life, which makes it possible to think someone suffering from brain damage is a moral equivalent to someone who has done such harm to society, that his/her peers thinks he should be put to death.
I further suggest that everything which has been attempted to save Terry has been done within the rule of law. Had that not been the case, there would already have been federal agents or state marshals seizing that young lady on as a ward of one or other agency. That did not happen did it? Terry Shiavo is going to die because, despite how dispicable this entire affair is, the law is what we live by here.
Your glee over failed efforts to save a life is well noted.
Jinn, I disagree with you that dehydration is humane even in these cases - will take a while to dig out the cases though because they're in some library materials. But they chilled me, and I don't chill easily.
I will say this: IF YOU HAVE A LIVING WILL, I ABSOLUTELY RECOMMEND THAT YOU FIRMLY STIPULATE IN WRITING THAT WITHDRAWAL OF HYDRATION IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. I can envision myself requesting cessation of feeding in mine under certain very limited conditions, but withdrawal of hydration is a complete no way based on my research.
With that said, let's move on to conduct.
From where I sit, Jinnderella has been pretty fair about all this, citing sources and engaging her opponents respectfully. Ah, the true spirit of science.
There have been people on both sides of this debate who have shown themselves to be grown up enough to do that. And people on both sides who have failed utterly.
Denise, whose criteria for euthenasia actually do mirror that of the Third Reich more or less exactly, sure isn't doing her cause any favours. BTW, that isn't one of Raymond's exaggerations, it's the literal truth in this case.
Google the phrase "useless eaters" some time, Denise, and say hi the the disability rights advocates on the Left for me. Maybe you could have an interesting discussion with them about the Right's internal right-to-life idiocies. I'm sure they'll find it hilarious. While you're at it, don't be shy about sharing your euthenasia criteria with them. It's much funnier that way.
I resent David Blue's unfair attacks against Jinderella. It is despicable to use this sad situation to smear someone just because of their politics.
Ahh, thank you Patterico. Dehydration, starvation and suffering in a PVS patient. This is not a pleasant way to die.
Will also check my sources if I have time. Must say I'm also having second thoughts about allowing feeding tube removal in the living will as well.
Joe, again, Kate Adamson is not a correlate. She sustained no cortical tissue loss. Frankly, her testimony is suspect, she has an agenda. Morphine is given as standard practice in non-responsive cases, for the very reason that we are unsure about patients feeling pain. possibly she was underdosed, since she was not PVS, but "locked in". terri schiavo is being given morphine.
Denise, medical journals are not representative of the consensus of the health care provider community? Gosh, you coulda fooled me. I'm a mathematician, actually.
Gunter, thank you for defending me, but i don't think David was attacking me. We're friends. ;)
You know, like they say in the X-files, the truth is out there . You can read the results of Schiavo IV here
if you are interested in why the court decided as they did. Hammesfahr is widely cited as an expert at blogsforterri and discardedlies, but i doubt they have read this-- ruling on Hammesfahr's interpretation of the "balloon video"-- the court saw a four hour segment.
At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schlinder tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli. Dr. Hammesfahr testified that he felt that he was able to get Terry Schiavo to reproduce repeatedly to his commands. However, by the court's count, he gave 105 commands to Terry Schiavo and, at his direction, Mrs. Schindler gave an additional 6 commands. Again, by the court's count, he asked her 61 questions and Mrs. Schindler, at his direction, asked her an additional 11 questions. The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions. The videographer focused on her hands when Dr. Hammesfahr was asking her to squeeze. While Dr. Hammesfahr testified that she squeezed his finger on command, the video would not appear to support that and his reaction on the video likewise would not appear to support that testimony.
You can also read why the treatments proposed by Hammesfahr and the other dissenting physician were declared non-credible by the court, along with other interesting things about Hammesfahr's professional credibility [or lack thereof].
In my reading, i found Dr. Cheshire's evaluation to be far more credible, here , but please note that Dr Cheshire has not seen all the videotapes, and in his affidavit has requested them from the Schindler's lawyers.
This just a sample of the great divide between information and opinion on this issue. Why is is so emotional? Like AMac and i said, it is abortion for everybody. Like the origami-folding-dectective says at the end of Blade Runner.
"Too bad she won't live-- but who does?"
This cup is going come to all of us.
I'm somewhat embarrassed to bring this up, but my wife's bout with intestanal flu left her unable to retain any liquid for four days. To make matter worst, she also had had intermittent symptoms a few days earlier and was nursing our infant. By the time, we figured out that bedrest wasn't cutting it, she had begun to lose muscle, vision and cognitive abilities. But the worst of it was the indescribable headache.
Within an hour of a morphine drip, she was "fine." She certainly had not rehydrated within that time frame, but the change was staggering. Please don't flame me, I am not at all trying to equate my wife's condition (which was personally terifying) with that of someone who is about to die from dehydration, but my own small experience gives me reason to give credence to medical claims that (a) the brain begins to shut itself off from the pain of dehydration and (b) drugs can cover this pain.
Patrick
And one more thing about this issue-- if you followed lewy's and my discussion above^^, I really would like to see terri's tube reinserted. That is my opinion. I resent being called a death-cult-satanist-harpy just because I am interested in the truth, in science, and in law.
There is an emerging property in Quantum Theory, that information and reality are the same.
Opinion and reality are not the same, and opinion and information are not the same. It seems to me that, in the Schiavo case, the discontinuity between opinion and information/reality is huge.
Those of you that are convinced by the 4.5 minutes of the "best of terri" clips culled from the 30 hours of video, be aware that you are basing your judgement on 4.5/18000 = .00039% of the video evidence available.
Gunter Haas on March 28, 2005 01:21 PM: "I resent David Blue's unfair attacks against Jinderella. It is despicable to use this sad situation to smear someone just because of their politics."
What?
I said hi to jinn because I routinely say hi to jinn. We're nice to each other, despite agreeing on little.
It was nice of you do defend her though, assuming that's what you were trying to do.
ooops, math error, .00029%-- wow! less than three ten-thousandths of the original data!
David, lol, if you are so nice to me, why haven't you answered my emails? ;)
I wanted you to give me your opinion of this .
See Gunter, he wasn't being mean to me! ;)
There is no doubt that there exist many Dr. Krevorkians, many dilettantes of death, closet Nazis among us. Death holds a fascination for many, and may bring out some of the more unsavory aspects of human personality.
I appreciate that you are attempting to elevate your discourse. Thanks.