How to Save Terry Schiavo...

[Skeptic]

1). Find some unsolved murder.

2). Pass a special law that convicts her, officially, of being the murderer (muderess?)

3). Condemn her to death.

Result:

1). Her mental incapacitation, far from proving she should be allowed to die, would be evidence for how she was wrongfully convicted and that she should be allowed to live.

2). No feeding or water, clearly cruel and unusual punishment, will be seized on as unconstitutional and an order demanding that she be fed and hydrated will be desired.

3). The SCOTUS will discover that "evolving standards of decency" require vegetative-state people not be executed.

Etc., etc. If you want the "progressive" camp to fight for your life, you better be a vicious muderer, or at least a member of some designated victim group.

How much do you want to bet, for example, that if she was a black woman married to a white man, then his desire to let her die would have been painted as evil racism, proof that the white phallocentric view of black women as tools to be disposed of at will is gaining grounds in the fascistic AmeriKKKa (or the equivalent)?

(Obviously, her husband is not evil. He sees himself as a widower and behaves as such. I am not at all sure I would not have done the same in his shoes. But this still doesn't make it right.)

Same could work for abortion, etc. Perhaps officially condemn every fetus to death, just to assure across-the-board support for saving their lives?

Yes, yes, I know that Ms. Schiavo is in a permanent vegitative state. But society's values are seen by its treatment of its most vulnerable members.

When the unborn and the dying--those most helpless and in need of protection--are seen to have no rights precisely because of this helplessness, while on the other hand compassion and effort is wasted on saving the lives of murderous thugs condemned to death, this shows us something.

 

[Furious]

Jane, you ignorant slut...


Michael has had little control over Terri's right to live or die since 1998. She's been a ward of the court since Michael started court proceeding to determine what Terri would have wanted.

This was a full 8 years after the heart attack that rendered her into PVS, after he had trained to become a nurse to better care for her, tried various forms of speech and physical therapy and remained diligent about her getting some of the best treatment available.

By virtually anyone's measure, Michael has been a saint. Most spouses give up after a year and pull the plug.

The court determined from the type of person Terri was and from testimony from Michael, and several of Terri's friends and aquaintences that Terri would want the feeding tube removed. They determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that she would have wanted the tube removed.

Terri (according to the evidence available) wants to commit suicide, if you are going to be so ignorantly glib.

 

[kookbreaker]

Etc., etc. If you want the "progressive" camp to fight for your life, you better be a vicious muderer, or at least a member of some designated victim group.

You mean like when those far out progressive hippies, Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson, tried to get an Axe wielding murderess off of death row?

(Obviously, her husband is not evil. He sees himself as a widower and behaves as such. I am not at all sure I would not have done the same in his shoes. But this still doesn't make it right.)

Michael Schiavo has suffered enough demonization in the press by Terri's parents as it is without you adding whatifs and other stories.

Yes, yes, I know that Ms. Schiavo is in a permanent vegitative state. But society's values are seen by its treatment of its most vulnerable members.

"Vulnerable member" would mean there is someone there to be a member. A severely mentally retarded person still *exist* as a human being. A person with severe spinal injury still exists as a person. Terri is gone, only a shell remains.

She's already dead, just not physcially. She won't come back.

Deal with it.

 

[Cleon]

Skeptic, do you actually have a point with your pathetic whine, or are you--like your heroes Hannity and Limbaugh--just using Schiavo as an excuse to attack liberals and progressives?

 

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Skeptic Yes, yes, I know that Ms. Schiavo is in a permanent vegitative state. But society's values are seen by its treatment of its most vulnerable members.

Bypassing the Hannity-like rant, I'd like to respond to this point. I agree with the 2nd sentence.

Consider that in the US, there are children who are uninsured and not immunized. And inadequately fed.

Consider the number of children worldwide who die of starvation every day, and how many of them would be saved by the money that is being spent keeping this permanently* vegetative lady alive.

Oops, I forgot, you have a problem with this liberal bleeding heart stuff. Ok then. Consider... Every day of the year, there are hard working, church-going, tax-paying americans with serious, expensive-to-treat diseases who max out their health insurance, and who suffer and even die as a result. (As threatens my sister, and is happening to my neighbor.)

Caring for the most vulnerable is, imo, an argument in favor of not wasting money on non-sentient, vegetative shells of human beings.

* Unless you believe in God and miracles

 

[Suddenly]

1). Find some unsolved murder.

2). Pass a special law that convicts her, officially, of being the murderer (muderess?)

Now that is a bill of attainder...

3). Condemn her to death.


Result:

1). Her mental incapacitation, far from proving she should be allowed to die, would be evidence for how she was wrongfully convicted and that she should be allowed to live.

It would prevent a trial in the first place, but if the conviction was by "special law" as you direct how is "wrongful conviction" even an issue?

2). No feeding or water, clearly cruel and unusual punishment, will be seized on as unconstitutional and an order demanding that she be fed and hydrated will be desired.

Wrong. That isn't punishment, rather the medical treatment chosen by her legal guardian, by due process of law.

(Although it is clear you are being absurd, I'll play it straight just for the fun of it)

3). The SCOTUS will discover that "evolving standards of decency" require vegetative-state people not be executed.

Aww... are we upset that toddlers can't be sent to death row these days? Anyway, even if they stop the execution, this does not affect her right to medical care. Two different issues. The law is already somewhat clear in most if not all states that an unaware person is not to be executed as it is cruel to execute those (usually the insane) that do not know why they are being killed.

Etc., etc. If you want the "progressive" camp to fight for your life, you better be a vicious muderer, or at least a member of some designated victim group.

Funny. On the other hand, If you want the "conservative" camp to care about due process you better want to die rather than have some podunk Texas court sentence you to death.

How much do you want to bet, for example, that if she was a black woman married to a white man, then his desire to let her die would have been painted as evil racism, proof that the white phallocentric view of black women as tools to be disposed of at will is gaining grounds in the fascistic AmeriKKKa (or the equivalent)?

I'd bet quite a bit against that. How much do you want to bet that if she was just some crack addict on welfare that any of these nice conservatives would care?

(Obviously, her husband is not evil. He sees himself as a widower and behaves as such. I am not at all sure I would not have done the same in his shoes. But this still doesn't make it right.)

Right. He should have kept her alive against her wishes. That makes sense. The right thing is to bow down to pressure from wildly misinformed people and allow her against her wishes to continue to be her parents favorite piece of furniture. So what if it completely erases the shred of dignity she may have left?

Same could work for abortion, etc. Perhaps officially condemn every fetus to death, just to assure across-the-board support for saving their lives?

Same problems re: bill of attainder.

Yes, yes, I know that Ms. Schiavo is in a permanent vegitative state. But society's values are seen by its treatment of its most vulnerable members.

Yeah, like putting into practice their wishes instead of those of family members who may have different emotional needs.

When the unborn and the dying--those most helpless and in need of protection--are seen to have no rights precisely because of this helplessness, while on the other hand compassion and effort is wasted on saving the lives of murderous thugs condemned to death, this shows us something.

If I were in Terri's place, and this was my spouse trying to let me die, and I saw what you wrote, I would not be thinking "what a noble defender of the downtrodden you are!!" What I would think is that you are in fact exploiting me, and my wife's pain to salve your own political/moral conscience at the expense of my right to have my spouse determine my wishes.

Her tube being removed is not a violation of her rights. It is an enforcement of her rights in that her wishes, by operation of law and as supported by greater judicial review than would have occurred if she were sentenced to death, that she wants the tube removed.

It is that simple. "Protecting her rights" is equal to "keeping her alive" only if it can be shown that she would want to be kept alive. There are 19+ courts that say otherwise.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: How to Save Terry Schiavo...

Consider that in the US, there are children who are uninsured and not immunized. And inadequately fed.

Consider the number of children worldwide who die of starvation every day, and how many of them would be saved by the money that is being spent keeping this permanently* vegetative lady alive.

Oops, I forgot, you have a problem with this liberal bleeding heart stuff. Ok then. Consider... Every day of the year, there are hard working, church-going, tax-paying americans with serious, expensive-to-treat diseases who max out their health insurance, and who suffer and even die as a result.

The Daily Show made a similar point a few days ago, I think, after congress passed and the president signed the "Terry Schiavo" bill.

This isn't the piece I was thinking of, but: The Schiavo Controversy

 

[Kodiak]

Skeptic, I'm shocked at you.

The rule of law is winning here. The Florida judges, as well as SCOTUS, have repeated and correctly ruled that they either have no jurisdiction, or that it has been made clear what Terri would have wanted.

I'm disappointed in those GOP lawmakers who attempted an "end-run" around the Constitution and existing law.

I can't wait for the day when Buchanon and Robertson take the christian faction of the GOP and start their own party...

 

[Upchurch]

I can't wait for the day when Buchanon and Robertson take the christian faction of the GOP and start their own party...

When/If that happens, I might be able to finally consider myself a Republican.

 

[Cleon]

When/If that happens, I might be able to finally consider myself a Republican.

I've always found it funny that in Ireland I'm actually considered a Republican.

 

[HarryKeogh]

[B society's values are seen by its treatment of its most vulnerable members. [/B]

I agree. Which is why I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to end the execution of juveniles.

Next step, universal healthcare!

 

[Furious]

I was bored, and since one of Skeptic's favorite tactics is to reverse or parody someone's argument with different situations, here goes:


1). Find a politically exploitable sanctity of life case.

2). Pass a special law that prevents her, officially, of not allowing her wishes to be carried out.

3). Condemn her to remaining in a vegetative state for as long as modern medical science can keep her alive.

Result:

1). Her mental incapacitation, far from proving she has an excuse not to give testimony, would be evidence for how she stubbornly wants to live.

2). Right to privacy, clearly out of line with the religious right's agenda, will be seized on as an oppurtunity to highlight it's lack of importance compared to the sanctity of life.

3). The SCOTUS will discover that the activist judge meme only applies to liberal judges, but those judges that follow the letter of the law can have Congress intervene if it doesn't follow the religious right's agenda.


Etc, etc. If you want the "conservative" camp to fight for your life, you better have selfish parents who insist against all credible evidence that you wanted to live, or at least not be able to stand up for your right to privacy.

How much do you want to bet, for example, that if she was the child of a poor family in Texas, then her family's desire to let her live would have been painted as evil bloodsucking of the system, proof that the liberal bleeding heart view of poor people as tools to be elevated at will is gaining grounds in the communist pinko nanny state (or the equivalent)?

(Obviously, her husband is not evil. He sees himself as a widower and behaves as such. I am not at all sure I would not have done the same in his shoes. But this still doesn't make it right.) - (Actually, this was pretty sane, even though I don't agree with the conclusion, so I'm leaving it unparodied.)

Same could work for homosexual sex, etc. Perhaps officially condemn everyone's right to privacy, just to assure across-the-board support for less government involvement in personal affairs?

Yes, yes, I know that Ms. Schiavo is in a permanent vegitative state. But society's values are seen by its treatment of the rights of privacy of its most vulnerable members.

When the vegitative and the dying--those most helpless and in need of protection--are seen to have no privacy rights precisely because of this helplessness, while on the other hand compassion and effort is not wasted on saving the lives of infants who cannot afford to pay for their medical care, this shows us something.


EDIT: For some clairity on a few things. Sorry, new to this parody stuff.

 

[Tmy]

1). Find some unsolved murder.

2). Pass a special law that convicts her, officially, of being the murderer (muderess?)

3). Condemn her to death.

Result:

1). Her mental incapacitation, far from proving she should be allowed to die, would be evidence for how she was wrongfully convicted and that she should be allowed to live.
.

Nice, try except for a "fatal' flaw. You're talking about Florida. Jeb Bush country. And as we know, the Bushs have no problem with killing mentally retarded death row inmates. GW used to do it all the time in Texas. Ironic isnt it?

 

[Roadtoad]

You know, that was actually a damn good display of sarcasm.

 

[Beleth]

A thought occurred to me as I was driving to work this morning:

I wonder how healthy Terri's heart, lungs, liver, eyes, etc. are. I also wonder how many lives could be saved if she had filled out her organ donor card.

I'm not suggesting she be killed to harvest her organs, of course. I'm just saying that her death has the possibility to lead to a greater good and increased quality of life - or even life itself - for an awful lot of people.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

One thing I don't get, that I haven't heard anyone address.
If, as the "let Terri die" folks proclaim, she is completly gone, to the point where letting her die won't cause her any suffering, because she's just an empty shell with no consciousness whatsoever, then who cares what she would have wanted? By their own admission she's GONE already, so why the fuss over what her wishes would have been?
When her husband says "she wouldn't have wanted to live like this" it doesn't make any sense, because he's also saying that she's totally gone and so therefore "she" isn't living like that at all.
So this being the case, what harm is there in keeping this empty shell alive since it gives her parents and family comfort? Who cares about letting her die? What good comes of it? If she isn't suffering from having the tube pulled, she also isn't suffering by being alive.
So why not allow her to live for the sake of her family?
Can someone please clarify this?
For me this isn't about her still being alive, because I accept that she is in a total vegetative state with no conciousness. Since this is the case, what's the big awful deal about just leaving the tube in? Why are some so insistent about "her right to die?" I thought she wasn't around anymore, so how does she have any right to die? She's already dead, isn't she?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
When her husband says "she wouldn't have wanted to live like this" it doesn't make any sense, because he's also saying that she's totally gone and so therefore "she" isn't living like that at all.

You raise a good point. It's not about what she feels because she doesn't feel. Funeral rituals have always been about the living and their feelings, perhaps the husband doesn't enjoy watching the awful parody of human life his wife has become.

Also, it's normal to consider what the deceased wanted after the deceased is gone. Most people who plan for their passing specify how they want their remains disposed of.

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
So this being the case, what harm is there in keeping this empty shell alive since it gives her parents and family comfort?

Money and hospice space. These things are always in short supply, and if she were allowed to die, someone else could use her bed.

 

[fishbob]

1). . . . Result:

1). Her mental incapacitation, far from proving she should be allowed to die, would be evidence for how she was wrongfully convicted and that she should be allowed to live.

2). No feeding or water, clearly cruel and unusual punishment, will be seized on as unconstitutional and an order demanding that she be fed and hydrated will be desired.

3). The SCOTUS will discover that "evolving standards of decency" require vegetative-state people not be executed.

Etc., etc. If you want the "progressive" camp to fight for your life, you better be a vicious muderer, or at least a member of some designated victim group.

Hey - aren't you a Bush brother in real life? Yeah, Gerorge.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: How to Save Terry Schiavo...

Bypassing the Hannity-like rant, I'd like to respond to this point. I agree with the 2nd sentence.

Consider that in the US, there are children who are uninsured and not immunized. And inadequately fed.

Consider the number of children worldwide who die of starvation every day, and how many of them would be saved by the money that is being spent keeping this permanently* vegetative lady alive.

True, true. Keeping her alive is expensive. But using this argument, then it's quite all right for me (for example) to take all the money in your bank account and give it to poor people in the third world, since it would do more good there. Heck, using this argument using money for just about anything except eradicating third-world (or first-world) poverty is evil.

But it doesn't work this way. People already tried to "fix" the injustice of some people being poor and some being rich by destroying property rights and letting the government take all money to divide as needed. The result, of course, was that EVERYBODY (except for a tiny ruthless elite) became poor, since once property rights are not valued, those with connections have them, and everybody else is at their mercy--ESPECIALLY poor people.

Same would happen here. If the idea that it is too expensive to keep her alive and the money could be used to a better purpose is good enough to let her die, the result would be that, pretty soon, nobody going into a hospital would know whether or not he will not be conveniently bumped off... once he becomes too "high maintenance" and somebody thinks the money could be better used elsewhere.

And how much do you want to bet that the first on the "too expensive to keep alive" list would be precisely the poor and downtrodden, in whose name money is "saved" by not giving expensive treatments in the first place?

Oops, I forgot, you have a problem with this liberal bleeding heart stuff. Ok then. Consider... Every day of the year, there are hard working, church-going, tax-paying americans with serious, expensive-to-treat diseases who max out their health insurance, and who suffer and even die as a result.

Yes, that's true. Quite true, in fact!

But if you would check, you'd find out that most of these hard-working church-going Americans--even those with expensive-to-treat diseases--are AGAINST letting Schiavo die. At least most of the polls on the issue say so. They are not stupid. They know that expensive medical treatment is a problem and that if vegetative-state patients would be allowed to die this might somewhat improve their chances. But they see it as morally wrong nevertheless--and something to be opposed. As far as they're concerned, "thou shall not murder" applies even to those in a permanent vegetative state, and applies even when it is in your self-interest to murder.

With the Schiavo case, the "progressive" camp once more showed how divorced it is from the morals of most Americans. Their argument is precisely your argument: can't those bible-thumping fools see that bumping her off is in their self-interest? Well, no; it's that most Americans take moral values, such as "thou shall not murder" seriously; the "progressive" camp lacks this ability. Which shows, once again, their moral imbecility.

Caring for the most vulnerable is, imo, an argument in favor of not wasting money on non-sentient, vegetative shells of human beings.

But the non-sentient vegetative shells of human beings ARE the most vulnerable. It is those whose life are considered most worthless, who are described in the most derisive terms, who ARE the most vulnerable--almost by definition, since the more worthless your life is considered, the more likely it is to be snuffed out for some greater good.

What you are saying is logically equivalent to saying, "we really shouldn't spend all this anti-racism educational money on the dirty black savages."

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Re: How to Save Terry Schiavo...

But if you would check, you'd find out that most of these hard-working church-going Americans--even those with expensive-to-treat diseases--are AGAINST letting Schiavo die. At least most of the polls on the issue say so.

See, "Skeptic," this here's the problem with making up your facts as you go along. People tend to call you on it.

Fox News says you're wrong. "Nearly six in ten Americans (59 percent) say that as Schiavo's guardian they would remove her feeding tube, while 24 percent would keep the tube inserted and 17 percent are uncertain which action they would take."

ABC says you're wrong. "The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case."

CBS says you're wrong. "Of those polled, 66 percent said the tube should not be inserted compared to 27 percent who want it restored."

Those are three pretty large polls, there...Where did these "most polls" you speak of come from?


Edited to add: I didn't cherrypick. I went to this fancy tool called Google, and entered "poll schiavo" as my search criteria. These were the first links to pop up. It didn't take a whole lot of hunting.