Then it dawned on me that this must be about convenience. We are coming to a point in our society where caring for the disabled and elderly could be viewed as so inconvenient that their lives no longer have any intrinsic value.

Why, yes, it must be. There’s no other conceivable stance, and certainly not one under which people of good conscience might disagree on the matter.

(I’m sorry, what was that about people to whom it would never occur that others might disagree with them?)

Also from Florida:

“A convicted sex offender who officials say confessed to the murder of 9-year-old Jessica Marie Lunsford (search) was formally charged Monday with her abduction and death by asphyxiation.

John Evander Couey (search), 46, was charged with capital murder, battery, kidnapping and sexual battery on a child under the age of 12, according to the Citrus County Sheriff’s Office. His arraignment was set for Tuesday.

Officials say he confessed to kidnapping and killing Jessica after taking a lie-detector test in Georgia. The girl’s body was found early Saturday, more than three weeks after she vanished from her bedroom.”

Let us assume that he is guilty as charged. This man is a monster. Would the mdia be in favor of starving him to death?

I am very conflicted about this case. I know little about the husband wife relationship that existed between Terry and her husband but I worry about anyone (including parents but especially the government) mandating what I decide with my wife. If they did indeed talk about her not wanting to live if she were ever in this condition I think the government has no place in the debate. Obviously, such a response does not fit this case perfectly as there was no living will–if there had been there would be no issue and Terry would be allowed to die.

I don’t think any part of this is about convenience as I don’t think this process with terry has been convenient for anyone involved. I am no doctor but what I have read regarding terry’s measured brain activity tends to convince me that she is not living with a quality of life that she would desire to continue living, or even relaize if she is or is not living. But I may be wrong in my analysis of her brain activity as I’m not a doctor and haven’t followed this story extremely closely.

By the way. Thanks for the post, I have been thinking about this case all day as well and appreciate the thoughtful post on the subject.

I don’t know enough to have a strong opinion, but there are a few assumptions worth questioning. Is starving her indeed inhumane? I heard one report on T.V. this morning stating the her brain is damaged so severely that she feels no pain.

Why assume that keeping her alive is humane? If I could feel the pain of starvation, I suspect I would feel much more pain lying on a bed in her condition. I would consider it humane to allow me to starve in similar circumstances, rather than forcing me to live like that.

Cindy, my gut reaction was to verbally thrash your post for its ignorance on several points.

1) Last I checked, the video clip shown repeatedly of Mrs. Schiavo has been demonstrated to be only a partial view of her condition. Doctors examining her have repeatedly attested to a persistent vegetative state as defined under Florida law.

2) Believing that a parent has a greater right than a spouse is an incorrect reading of the applicable law. Moreover, there is some evidence that Michael, as spouse, had better access to know Terry’s intentions than her parents. Michael’s current living status is problematic, I agree, because it suggests a conflict of interest. However, this issue has also been adjudicated and examined by courts over several years.

3) I agree with you that removal of the feeding tube is a poor way to die.

4) “Most of the major media agree with Michael Schiavo.” This has not been shown. I would like to see a reference to a single major media source that agrees with Michael Schiavo’s position. I agree, however, that it’s dangerous to be uncritical of anything unanimously accepted by all major media sources — however, this is not the present case.

With all this said, I identify very strongly with some of the feelings you describe. This is an awful and difficult case, one that has already made bad law. When all is said and done, no one will end up happy with the outcome.

Cindy — In principle, I agree with what you are saying, and indeed, while I’ve been reading the news and listening to the radio talk shows, I have come to the same conclusions. At the same time, something about the situation bothers me.

Obviously our doctrine teaches us the value of all life, and especially the value of the disabled life. It’s easy for me to see how caring for a disabled child, or a disabled spouse would be a process that would refine one spiritually and emotionally. In addition, I can also see how fostering a spirit of care and respect for the infirm in society is beneficial for all. But this situation with Terry seems uniquely extreme. In spite of the video clips of her smiling and blinking, something about her being kept alive for 15 YEARS in such a brain damaged state seems inhumane and sort of perverse. So I guess I want to know from you and others, what is the point of that? I mean that sincerely. What are the benefits and purposes to keeping someone alive in that state for 15 years? Or is it just that the alternative of starving her to death is so grotesque?

I’m open to being convinced on this…

Geoff B here. Cindy B may respond on her own later.

I think many posters are missing the point on this situation, and Chelsea has brought us back to focusing exactly where we should.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of Americans in situations similar to Terry Schiavo or worse. My grandmother, for example, has severe Alheizer’s and cannot feed herself, walk or apparently remember anybody around her. Except that when I come to visit her she grabs onto my hand with an iron grip. Her eyes light up a bit. So, why does God keep her alive? There is no way she is progressing in the same sense that the rest of us are (how can she progress when she can’t even feed herself or have normal thought processes?) God keeps her alive for US, the people around her. We are being tested on our ability to continue to be compassionate, loving and Christ-like to a person who cannot interact with us anymore.

Christ has told us very clearly that how we treat the weakest and most defenseless lives around us is a reflection on how we would treat Him.

So, Terry Schiavo is still alive. Her heart and lungs still function. She has some kind of response when people walk in the room. Why is she still alive 15 years later? Because the people around her still have things to learn. They are being tested on how they respond to innocent, defenseless life. They are learning to either progress and become more Christ-like or to descend and become less Christ-like.

All of God’s acts have a purpose. We may just not know what they are. Terry Schiavo is still alive, and as long as she is there are things the people around her can learn about life and living.

Geoff,
An assumption implicit in your response is that God individually decides the fate of everybody’s life: that every death on this earth is actually caused by God (this from your comment that God keeps these people alive). I do not agree with such an assumption. I tend to believe more along the lines of Elder Ballard in Our Search for Happiness that much of the suffering and death in this world is not caused by God.

I think the ultimate question is how do we deal with our fellow sons and daugthers of God. Does God really want terry to be artificialy kept alive when she is brain dead? I don’t think any of us have the answer to this question. But I do think that there are certain situations where the most humane and often the “right” thing to do is to end a life. I think this is why the Church has exceptions in its abortion stance. As Mormons we are certainly not afraid of the other side of the veil. Preserving life, or a semblence thereof, is not always the greatest good.

This is Cindy B.

There are a few things being said here that are inaccurate.

First of all, I never said the parents have more rights than the husband. I said their motives were being questioned and treated as biased. However, aren’t her husband’s motives also biased considering his current status with another woman? Should we believe his sole voice that she didn’t want to be kept alive artificially when there is no other witness nor a living will to corroborate his statement. If this were a criminal case it would be called hearsay and not allowed into evidence. Therefore, criminals seem to receive more rights that Terry is receiving at this moment.

Second, Terry is not brain dead, she is brain damaged. Brain dead means a lack of brain activity. Obviously, if her heart is beating and she is breathing there is brain activity. A doctor may say she is in a “vegetative state” according to Florida Law, but since when are laws infallable, and shouldn’t we, as citizens, question the laws that we live by in order to make them better? Let’s also keep in mind that the description of her condition is not unanimously agreed upon by doctors.

Third, the whole notion of euthanasia is nowhere to be found in the scriptures. God doesn’t cause death, I agree, but he certainly doesn’t condone us forcing the issue on innocent and helpless individuals.

Fourth, any assumption that keeping her alive is inhumane because we are keeping her in something that is only a “semblence” of life is a pretty strong assumption on our part. I’d rather err on the side of life rather than death. Terry, if she is truly suffering, can bring about her own end. People die all the time by simply giving up. Ask anyone who has worked in a nursing home.

Fifth, if you believe the major media doesn’t agree with the husband need only to look at how often the parent’s side of this story has been told versus the husband’s. The LA Times called the actions of congress in passing the Terry Schiavo law last night a “Stalinist” action in overriding the Judiciary. Excuse me, but the Judiciary is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of government, and didn’t Stalin cause the death by starvation of some 30,000,000 Russians? Pretty strong language considering all the congress did was give the Federal courts jurisdiction to take a look at this case. Sounds like they are coming down pretty strongly in favor of letting her die if they don’t even want the federal court involved.

Sorry Cindy, I guess we are talking past each other.

What is happening here does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of Euthanasia. It is a matter of respecting Terry’s wishes, which according to her husband would have been to refuse medical treatment- a dubious claim which I feel is not supported by enough evidence to put it into action. I think Terry should be kept alive, but not because removing the feeding tube is akin to Euthanasia. I think she should be kept alive because where there is any doubt about what the individual wants we should err on the side of life.

What if Terry would have herself been competent enough to refuse medical treatment? Refusing medical treatment is not the same thing as suicide- it means letting life take its natural course. Her husband claims that this is what she wanted- to be able to refuse medical treatment in her condition. In this country, there is a constitutional right for anyone to refuse medical treatment and that makes sense- we would not want to force people under the knife or force them to accept things into their bodies that they don’t want. Think Parker Jensen. Modern medicine has made dying a much more prolonged experience than it used to be.

The problem is that Terry did not leave a written directive which laid out her personal desires, so nobody knows for sure what she wants. It’s just like the Cruzan case in Missouri some 20 years ago. Cruzan did not leave a written will, and her parents claimed that Nancy had expressed the desire when she was competent to not have medical treatment if she were ever in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), as Schiavo is now. Missouri statute required that he prove Cruzan’s desire to not have a feeding tube by clear and convincing evidence, to protect Cruzan. He was unable to do so, and he appealed Missouri’s tough standard all the way to the Supreme Court, who upheld it. However, the case was remanded to consider additional evidence, and in the end the court ruled that the evidence presented rose to the level of clear and convincing evidence, and the feeding tube was ordered removed. Nancy Cruzan suffered a slow death by starvation, and her father sat there and held her hand as she died. It was a horrible experience.

Later on, Mr. Cruzan regretted having fought so hard to have Nancy’s feeding tube removed. He went into such a state of despair that he eventually hung himself. It was a disaster.

Since modern medicine has mucked things up somewhat, I definitely think we should err on the side of life in these matters. Who can tell when the spirit leaves man? I can’t. In my health law and bioethics class, we debated about when life actually ends- when are we actually dead? We can have reflexes and responses just like Terry exhibits but be using so little of our brain that we are actually, for all intents and purposes, dead. But as Latter-day Saints, we believe that the body is the temple for the spirit. I guess we would say that as long as the Spirit remains in the body, the body remains alive. Where there is a doubt as to whether the spirit is in the body, I think the Lord would require us to err on the side of life in decisions such as that in the Schiavo case.

I don’t think this is a case of true euthanasia, but I do think that Terry’s estranged husband ought to be more cautious about throwing away something that seems to be alive. I think he will be held responsible for what he has done.

One more note: it scares me that the federal government intervenes this way, but I guess it was a necessary evil. If the federal government can intervene in medical care, which has always been regulated by state law, then what’s to stop it from forcing every kid to have vaccinations (even for Hep B!) rather than just strongly suggesting it? But in this case, I really don’t know what else could be done. Let’s hope the federal judge rules soon to re-insert the tube.

OK- was that long enough?

Geoff said: Why is she still alive 15 years later? Because the people around her still have things to learn.

I disagree. I think she is alive solely because she has a feeding tube in her stomach. Not because people have things to learn. But people can USE it as a learning experience, and they should. But we shouldn’t confuse the CAUSE of her being alive with what we can decide to DO with that fact. The cause is really no more than medical intervention. 100 years ago, she would have died 15 years previously.

I think the problem is that this is one specific case that is messy, messy, messy, yet both sides are treating it as though this is a battle for the heart and soul of America.

It seems to me that liberals, still stinging from the loss of the election are hoping this can make up for it, while conservatives are more concerned about a man who is a husband in name only and stands to earn close to a million bucks if his “wife” dies.

But I may be reading it wrong.

I still think Michael is too tainted (by money as well as his live-in girlfriend) to be trusted to make a decision for his “wife.”

I agree with you Jordan. Absent a written will, everyone should be kept alive unless the family agrees on my outcome.

Here’s written instructions for Matt Evans; please present this to a court if it’s ever pertinent: if I’m unable to make a medical decision for myself, and my wife is living with and bearing the children of another man and wants me to die, and my mom, dad, brothers and sisters all want me to live, let me live.

As Jordan mentioned, many of the ethical problems in medicine are recent developments, which tells me that this is more a problem of allocation of resources, than of convenience.

If I were ever in the unfortunate position of Terry Schiavo, I would definitely not want one extra dollar spent on preserving me, whether for fifteen days or fifteen years. Let the money saved be spent, for example, on clean drinking water in some third world country, or health insurance for an inner city child.

If I had a wife, I would definitely want her to get on with her life.

And I would be very dismayed if the Federal Government thought it had any business interfering.

Let me say up front that I don’t know the details of the case, and honestly aren’t too interested in them. I trust the courts to make the right decision. The fact that all chances in Florida court failed suggest that the husband had a pretty good case. The cynic in me thinks that Federalizing it is primarily a political move, not an ethical one. Although I certainly recognize that the “life at any cost” people honestly and sincerely think anything like this is wrong.

Having said that though the case scares the heck out of me. I don’t have a living will - I keep procrastinating. And were I in the woman’s case I’d want to die. I’d want my wife to remarry or have a relationship with someone to sustain her and take care of the kids. Yet I really worry if that would happen. It really makes me want to get things down in writings. So everyone - if you hear I’m in a coma - I WANT TO DIE! Let me get to the spirit world in peace. Don’t leave me in some halfway state.

Regarding the “appearance” of being semi-conscious. NPR had an interview with some doctors who said that sort of thing is natural. We tend to “read into” behavior what we want things to be. We do the same with animals and a lot of other such things. I tend to trust the doctors in this. Not because doctors are perfect. Far from it. But it seems that wishful thinking isn’t the way to go.

I think Bill’s comment is quite apt too. How much money is spent on keeping people alive thorough these extreme measures? (By extreme I mean something that requires doctors and a hospital) The fact is that as our medical technology advances we’re going to *have* to start rationing it. And that means coming up against all our instincts as humans along with the hyppocratic oath. Sometimes just because you *can* do something doesn’t mean you should.

“I still think Michael is too tainted (by money as well as his live-in girlfriend) to be trusted to make a decision for his ‘wife.’”

I actually agree with you on this point, Ivan. However, for better or worse (or perhaps for better and for worse, marriage law has not been written so as to make the legal privileges confirmed upon spouses to be contingent upon fidelity. I’d personally be very interested and sympathetic to any argument which challenged Michael’s position in this case that actually got at that issue of responsibility. Unfortunately, I’m not sure how it can be done. As the law currently stands, all roads lead back to Schiavo’s medical condition and Michael’s legally uncontestable pronouncement regarding it (from the Washington Post: “But to convince the courts that Michael Schiavo is acting in bad faith as her guardian would require a federal court to reach a finding on the medical evidence that is different from the state court’s”). And I’m sorry, but the medical “evidence” that she is not, in fact, in what has been diagnosed as a PVS is more hoped-for than real.

The complexities of this case remind why I think it is so important for the pro-life movement to be about more than the moment of birth and the moment of death. An inability to act in a comprehensive way towards life leads to a warped emphasis on hard cases like these. (But I’ve made that point here.)

Russell -

that is the one sticking point - the Doctors pronouncement on Terri’s state.

However, I also wonder about the overall cultural “moment” - with Doctors in the Netherlands engaging in infant euthenasia. It seems often euthenasia in Europe is done because the Doctors want to move on before the family - and I don’t trust Doctors to always err on the side of life.

I wish I had Clark’s faith that “rationing” of medical care (which I agree may wind up becoming inevitable) would always be done ethically. But I’m afraid once we get there, poor people who might survive will get the plug pulled, while the rich will get every last stop pulled out for them.

But that’s a whole nother topic.

It is unfortuante that rather important issues regarding life and death are being decided in this case. By all measures, there is a lot of evidence that the husband isn’t a nice guy. And I think that is biasing how we look at it. (Perhaps appropriately, perhaps not - I don’t know how much to trust all the stories about the husband)

Nicely put, Cindy. Don’t let all the few death mongers among us get you down. It’s funny how the liberals who are most likely to thump their chest about letting others live and let live (at any rate, they seem least likely to wear leather) are always the most anxious to kill people who don’t act like they do.

And how ’bout that comment by The Only True and Living Nathan? What better evidence could we have that he’s in a totally vegetative state?

Hmm. Sister B. writes: ” It’s dangerous to be so uncritical of anything unanimously accepted by all major media sources.”

Anything? Really?

Well, all major media sources are saying that George W. Bush is the President. And that Washington, D.C. is the capitol. And that we declared war on Iraq last year. . .

Nice work, Kaimi. Your comment demonstrates a very interesting fact; viz., if you’re determined enough to interpret someone’s words such that they cannot possibly make sense, then you will generally succeed.

Besides, even if Kaimi says it, Washington, D.C. is not the capitol.

I have mixed emotions about this. I was told the reason she is brain damaged is because her husband beat her. Brings a whole new dynamic to the situation, if it’s true.

I don’t understand why he doesn’t just divorce her and let her parent have the responsibility. What does he care now?

On the other hand, I don’t think I would want to live for years like that. I’m sure I wouldn’t. My husband and I both have living wills and have made it clear to each other. That is not how I want to live.

And lastly, can’t they give her morphine for her pain? I realize that she can’t tell them she’s in pain, but there has to be some sort of reasonable dose, assuming that the courts don’t reverse this decision.

Very sad situation. And this is going to sound cold, but most of the country wouldn’t even hear about this case, except maybe in passing mention, except the media is hungry for news. I guess that a mixed good thing in this case, or maybe God wants us to examine it, but honestly, if an earthquake hit tomorrow, nobody would know if or whether Terri Schiavo lived or died. How many others have died without anybody throwing a fit because Bill Clinton admitting lying under oath, or a plane crashed into the Twin Towers? This can’t be the first case like this.

Geoff B here. Lots of very interesting comments. My wife and I were discussing last night the phenomenon of the “nit-picky commenter.” What we meant by this is that somebody like my wife will take several hours putting together a long, thoughtful post and then people will pick around its edges rather than take on the central thrust of the comment. Good examples are #1 and #22. What’s the purpose of nit-picking like this? Does it add anything at all to the debate?

And one last point before heading to the gym: nobody has yet taken on one of the central thrusts of Cindy B’s post, which is: if you justify killing Terry Schiavo because she is in a “vegetative state,” what do you do about the hundreds of thousands of other people out there who are in states even worse than she? What about the people with Alzheimer’s, for example, who can’t feed themselves, or the severely mentally retarded? Law has to be based on some principle. If it is OK for a man who is living with another woman and has had kids with another woman to decide that his “wife” can be killed, then who gets to decide whether the hundreds of thousands of other innocent incapacitated people can be killed? This is an extremely important point and justifies all of the attention this issue is getting from the state and federal governments, including the president.

My position on this is pretty clear: unless the person has clearly said in a written will that they should be killed, it is right for the government to intervene to keep them alive, just as it is right for the government to intervene to protect all innocent life. Hearsay doesn’t count, and it shouldn’t count in this case.

Cindy, excellent, marvelous post! And I second Arturo’s comment:
“Nicely put, Cindy. Don’t let all the few death mongers among us get you down.”
Thanks for your courageous (if unpopular!) stand!

Folks, look at what they do in Texas- Under the 1999 law, doctors with the support of a hospital ethics committee, can overrule the wishes of family members and terminate life-support measures if they believe further care would be futile.

gee, who signed that law? Governor Goerge W. Bush. Do you really think that any of this grandstanding going on in Congress has anything to do with the sanctity of life?

Scott, if we reject politicians’ actions on the basis that they are self serving, they’d have very little to do indeed (hmmm, that sounds like a really good idea). Should it bother supporters of welfare socialism that most politicians who support it are simply buying votes when they pass legislation to distribute other people’s wealth? Do such supporters really believe all the tired speeches about children who would starve if their parents actually had to work for a living? The great thing about our political system is that it ensures a confluence of interests between the many different participating parties. As a consequence, they often seek the same goal for different reasons.

At any rate, if the outcome of this debate and legislation is to protect a valuable life, then yes, Scott this is about the sanctity of life–regardless of the motivation of those sponsoring it.

That said, the most pernicious brand of demagoguery is the kind cynically accuses others of demagoguery.

And how ’bout that comment by The Only True and Living Nathan? What better evidence could we have that he’s in a totally vegetative state?

Arturo, your comments scarcely recommend your cognitive skills. Is suggesting that people of good will can disagree somehow repulsive to you? Does the implicatio that convenience is the only possible motivating factor not seem fully as dismissive as the attitude Cindy bewails?

Oh, wait — I agree that Terri should be allowed to die, so I must be one of those convenience-motivated barbarians, and thus my opinion isn’t worthy of respect or consideration.

Bite me.

And Geoff,

I don’t think I’m nitpicking around the edge. It seemed to me that your wife (who I’m certain is a wonderful person, and I’m fine having differences of opinion with her) seems as determined to disallow opposing viewpoints as the people she complains about, by dismissing their motivation as callow, selfish, and convenience-based. Is this nit-picking around the edges? It seemed to me to be one of the central points of the post, about how this single case is an indicator of the downfall of modern society.

Forget it, folks. I’m happy to have seemly debates over hard questions and grey areas of ethics, but I have no desire to be shot down by the Millennial Star Ministry of Orthodoxy. I hope your ironbound moral certainty keeps you warm. I’m outta here.

Like earlier posts have said, I don’t feel like I will ever know enough about the situation to be confident in either side of the debate. I don’t believe the media is reporting the facts of the case, nor indeed could they. I smell “spin” from both sides of the debate. I think the media hysteria over this case has grown large enough that (ironically) it is now feeding itself. It further disturbs me that such a major proportion of national discourse has remained focused on this case for such a long time.

If it were me, I would not want to be kept alive as a mass of autonomic responses. I don’t know, however, if Terry’s consciousness is indeed anything more than this or not, and neither does any of the other media pundits, talk show participants, editorial writers, or politicians. Not even Terry’s parents, husband, or doctors really know for sure, but they are the only people on the planet who can even approach being qualified enough to make a decision in Terry’s behalf.

It really disturbs me how the government is involved in the case. I can understand the judicial branch mediating the disagreement between husband and parents according to law, but not the involvement of the legislative and executive branches. Hurriedly passing new legislation, issuing executive orders and subpoenas? Passionate appeals from people who are not involved have been given both allow Terry to die and to save her life.

This is insane and perverse. Exploiting this unfortunate situation for political gain is sick and wrong. Prolonging this national invasion of Terry’s privacy is wrong. Prostituting Terry’s situation for the benefit of one “cause” or another is wrong. Holding Terry’s situation up for scrutiny, debate, even ridicule, objectifies her and is wrong.

Indeed, even those who are clamoring to “save her life”, in the very act of appealing to her humanity and intrinsic right to life, have dehumanized and humiliated her. Whether she passes from this life peacefully or not, sooner or later, naturally or as the result of the actions of society, it does not matter. Terry has been robbed of any hope of dignity in death, and this nation of voyeurs are the robbers.

Very scary.

This very personal and private decision should be left to her guardians and care-givers, and God will judge their motives appropriately.

Ah, Nathan, come back. Times and Seasons is whacked out, anyway. Bite me, what an apropo phrase. I always think of Lisa Marie Presley when I hear it telling the world to bite me when Barbara Walters (that right?) asked her about her marriage to Michael Jackson. I say it quite regularly in my iconoclastic journey through church activity.

You know, back to the subject, wills, Cindy? It is easier to contemplate my own death in this light, hell, no need to even think about it, let me go if I am in that shape. But maybe if it was my daughter or son, not so easy. When my son drowned, I was told that it was a blessing because he would have been severely brain damaged. That was cold comfort. I didn’t care. Now, 31 years later, I think, maybe that’s true, but I still miss that little body.

And I don’t think we should try to hard to fit tightly into the subject matter. It is from the exploration that I learn and grow, the introduction of new ideas the original poster never even thought about.

David and Cindy both had a good point that I don’t think anyone else has picked up on (sorry if you did and I missed it). We don’t treat convicted rapists and killers this way. They are given every chance to prove their innocence (in Terri’s case, her competence)–something which costs the taxpayer millions each year. But that’s the price we pay for living in a reasonably humane system. Imagine if we slowly starved prisoners in Guantanomo Bay over the period of a few weeks. Can you imagine the uproar?

The Schnidlers (her parents) have offered to take over her care, pay for it, take all responsibility for her and Michael Schiavo has declined. They have also insisted that there are further medical tests that Terri has been denied. That and the fact that Michael Schiavo has been living with another woman and will get a million bucks when his wife dies are pretty suspicious to me.

But leave that aside–this is a human life! What gives us the right to kill her, and that’s exactly what it is. I’m queasy about the death penalty, but at least that’s for those convicted of murder. Doesn’t life mean anything anymore?

The Only True and Living Nathan: Arturo, your comments scarcely recommend your cognitive skills. Is suggesting that people of good will can disagree somehow repulsive to you? Does the implication that convenience is the only possible motivating factor not seem fully as dismissive as the attitude Cindy bewails?

You’re very funny, and I’m glad to see that you can answer barb with barb. Even so, I found your post #1 to be caustic and unseemly. My intent was to answer it in kind. When you’re done impersonating neil lebute, I’ll be happy to give you another change to start taking it as well as you dish it out.

OK, folks, let’s settle down here.

For what it’s worth, this M* permablogger thinks that Nathan’s comment #1 points out a legitimate problem with Cindy’s post, although it could have been worded a bit more charitably. However, the post itself is worded very strongly, and invites strong responses in return.

Also for what it’s worth, regarding the question of who should decide, this morning on Imus Bob Scheiffer or Craig Crawford (can’t remember who) mentioned that in Texas, this situation would be taken care of by a law signed by then Gov. Bush which states that in cases where a married person incapacitated and unable to make decisions concerning the exercise of the right to die, if the spouse and the doctors agree that withholding extraordinary measures is an appropriate course of action that that decision should stand.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my comment. Cindy B. is using “major media acceptance” as a point of evidence in her argument. She is saying “because the media believe it is true, we should doubt it.”

Putting aside the question of whether the media actually has an opinion on this case (a factual assertion which has been contested in other comments), I think that the argument “because the media believe it is true, we should doubt it” is an obviously fallacious premise.

As I tried to point out in my previous comment, the media often agrees on points because those points are correct.

This is not to say that the media gets everything right. It is simply to point out that Sister B.’s premise as asserted – “because the media believe it is true, we should doubt it” — is overbroad and tends to lead to unsustainable conclusions.

Bryce, here’s an article discussing the nuances of the Texas law vs. the Florida situation:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3094518

I don’t know if this is what they were talking about on Imus, but it is a little ironic, nonetheless.

Kaimi,

My problem is that media conveys only those points which make a good tag line, whether they are correct or not, or represent the whole, boring truth or not.

Generally, with many different media sources competing and cross-checking with each other, people can usually have some reasonable confidence that the truthfulness and/or completeness of their news is reliable.

In the Schiavo case, however, my confidence in the veracity-index has dropped to nothing. I don’t think the media is, or indeed can any longer, report the complete story. I don’t know the full story behind the husband, behind the parents, or behind the doctors, but adding more reporters or commentors to the mix only confuses and obsures the truth. When the talking heads get involved, from media, politics, even the entertainment industry, they only make everything worse.

I don’t think any of us can make reliable claims about the credibility or motives of the husband, the parents, or the medical experts who have pontificated for both sides, because we would only be repeating second hand information that we heard on the radio or read on the internet. If any of you know Michael Schiavo personally, then I stand corrected.

If someone wants to discuss a generic, hypothetical case about right-to-life/right-to-die issues in a Gospel context, then I am all for it. But for Terry’s sake, I don’t want to discuss, or even hear about the sordid details of her ordeal any longer. Frankly, I was a little disappointed when I logged on this morning to M* to see the Schiavo topic brought up even here.

I don’t have any first-hand experience from which to compare, but all of this media sensationalism makes me wonder if I now know what it feels like to be a rapist. And folks, it doesn’t feel good.

Let’s not speculate about the muddy “facts” - the rumors, gossip and hearsay - of Terry Schiavo.

BTW, Kaimi, what IS going on over at T&S?

Thanks for the link, Bill.

Jim, I have to agree with you– this very politically charged debate is far from our stated topic areas. Slap on the hand to us.

What is going on at T & S?

Well, we had some server issues. They are (hopefully) behind us for the moment. Some posts and comments (from between Friday and Monday) are in server limbo until we get access again to the database that crashed, at which point we’ll restore them.

Anyway, that’s the story. (Unless your “what is going on” query was refering to the comment meltdown on the Schiavo threads. . . ).

Jim, I always enjoy your posts, and I usually agree with them. I agree with you 100 percent that the media circus around this is obscuring many of the facts. This is one of the points that Cindy B is trying to make. But I would submit that this case is extremely important and worth discussing on M* — not for its prurience but for its salience as a larger issue. Who gets to decide when people die? This is indeed extremely relevant. Do 80-year-old husbands get to decide that their 78-year-old wives with Alzheimer’s should be allowed to expire? And when exactly should that expiration take place, when they lose the ability to talk or the ability to go to the bathroom? What about parents with severely retarded children? Do they get to let them expire when they get tired of taking care of them after five tough years?

People in favor of letting Terry Schiavo die don’t have good answers to these questions, whereas many of us who support keeping her alive have an extremely consistent position, which is: it is the job of the government to protect the innocent. Terry Schiavo should be keep alive, and it is appropriate for the government to intervene and do this just as it is appropriate for the police (”the government”) to intervene when a thug is mugging somebody. As I said before, the only time such a killing should be justifiable is when there is a living will indicating the wishes of the person to be killed if they are in a “permanent vegetative state.”

So, those of you who support the now probably inevitable death of Terry Schiavo, what is your answer on these other issues? Who gets to decide who expires and when?

Geoff, one possible reason people on the other side don’t have good answers to your questions just might be the phrasing of your questions: “And when exactly should that murder take place, when they lose the ability to talk or the ability to go to the bathroom? . . . Do they get to kill them when they get tired of taking care of them after five tough years?” (my emphasis).

Are you honestly interested in discussing these issues, using loaded terms like that? How does your usage aid the conversation, may I ask?

Ryan, fair enough. I have changed my post to different language. Let’s see if we get any responses addressing these issues.

To reiterate Total-Nathan’s point:

This is a very hard case.

There are at least three thorny conceptual areas to deal with:

1. Right to life / right to die questions.
2. Federal law / state law / judiciary role and legialtive role questions.
3. Evidentiary questions. What did she say to who, when? What is her physical condition? etc.

There are no clear, cut-and-dry answers to these questions.

I don’t have an opinion, one way or another. Any opinion would have to be based on a careful reading of the evidence, and I don’t have the time or inclination to pore over the factual details of the case for hours.

But I am disturbed by the broad assertions that anyone who supports Mr. Schiavo must be about convenience or selfishness or whatever.

It seems quite possible to me that people on either side of the debate have weighed the issues and arrived at a reasonable conclusion. This seems to be a case with enough ambiguity and uncertainty that reasonable people could disagree.

And given that possibility, I find it disappointing to see such an effort to demonize anyone who disagrees.

So, repeat after me:

“I believe that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube [insert your position: should or should not] be restored. I understand that there are people who disagree with me about what might be the correct result. They may disagree over the evidence in the case, over the legitimacy of a right to live or die, or over the proper roles of federal and state government actors. I have arrived at my position through careful consideration of the evidence, and I will grant my opponents the courtesy of assuming that they have arrived at their position through careful consideration as well.”

By the way, Kaimi, you get kudos for addressing the heart of this issue in a very interesting way on T&S today.

Kaimi,

When I go to timesandseasons.org, I am redirected to an “account suspended” page at baby-insight.com. You seemed to indicate that your server issues were behind you, so maybe you are not aware that some people are not able to access the site.

Of course, I guess it is possible that you blocked my IP because you are tired of my silly, moronic, self-absorbed posts, in which case…

Bite me.

Geoff,

I don’t know if Terry should be kept alive or not. I will not speculate on her specific case, because I have zero confidence in my “facts”.

However, speaking for myself, if I was in a permanent vegetative state, I would prefer that my family let me go.

The possibility of rehabilitation does not have any bearing for me, because a life - whether “fruitful and productive” or not - is still a life. Furthermore, I do not think that the government should attempt to apply any test for quality of life in order to determine whether someone should live or die.

This, however, is what society frequently asks doctors, care-givers, or guardians to do. I think the government should protect the rights of these parties to make decisions in behalf of incapable individuals, as well.

In some cases, the decisions of these invested parties are disputed, and so the courts get involved. This is a sad scenario, and makes me wonder where we can find the wisdom of Solomon. Ultimately, if the guardians and care-givers can not come to a consensus, then the decision of the court with jurisdiction - ostensibly made by impartial judges under the guidance of the law - should be final. As I said, a test for quality of life should not be made, but perhaps only a judgment made for which of the disputing parties is truly motivated by the best interests of the incapacitated individual (which is exactly what Solomon did, after all).

Let me repeat, in my opinion, the best interest of the individual may include a release from the pain, shame, or other burdens of this life.

As a related manner, I think it is interesting that the government’s role in protecting life does not necessarily extend to ensuring that every individual in society enjoys a comparable quality of life. Now, if we want to change that, then I hope that when the government delivers my new Ferrari Testarossa, they will take care that it is either dark blue or black. White is just too hard to keep clean, and red sports cars are lightning rods for speeding tickets.

Jim R.,

That’s our patented “righteousness filter” at work. (Just kidding).

I wasn’t aware that some people were still experiencing this problem.

It’s caused by the dynamics of DNS propagation. I’m sure that many of the computer whizzes around here could explain it better, but basically there are DNS tables that tell your browser where to go when you type timesandseasons.org .

We moved servers last Thursday. We changed the DNS, so that it pointed to baby-insight.com/~timesand rather than to hyperion.hmdnsgroup.com/~seasons . The account on the new server did not work well, because we used too many server resources. As a result, it was suspended. So, we pointed the DNS back to hyperion.hmdnsgroup.com/~seasons .

DNS propagation is the process where your different computer locations update their tables. Some propagate faster than others. I was under the impression that the new address was fully propagated. But maybe it’s not, in which case, I apologize, hopefully it will propagated onto your computer network soon.

I don’t know if there are other tricks. You might try closing the browser and opening a new browser window, perhaps that will help. (Will it, Bryce / Clark /Grasshopper / Ebenezer?).

Cindy B here.

For the record, my point about major media is this…as responsible citizens we need to look at every side, not just a side that is sympathetic to a particular issue, but also the side of those opposed to it, because we all tend to gloss over facts that don’t support our argument. Major media, as you can ask my former journalist husband, is, for good or for bad, biased. Denying it doesn’t change the fact that they are generally all biased in the same general direction. Label it liberal bias or whatever you like. The label doesn’t matter, the bias exists. So, if you see total agreement, maybe you should look around to see what facts you’re missing.

Some interesting things just came out in an interview with one of Terry’s former nurses at the hospice. She was fired for going to the police, she says, because she went into Terry’s room right after Michael left her (after being alone with her behind closed doors for 20 minutes) and found her sweating profusely, lethargic and crying uncontrollably. She found a partially concealed bottle of insulin in the trash can and needle marks on Terry’s body. She said she believed he had tried at that time to cause her death by insulin overdose. She reported this to the police and was fired for reporting it. She and another nurse who was apparently also fired for feeding Terry by mouth through a baby bottle against Mr. Schiavo’s wishes to keep her only on a feeding tube (apparently she could, in fact, swallow without aspirating and quite enjoyed the food) both said Terry could smile and, yes folks, verbalize! She said words like “Mommy”, “Hi”, and “Pain” (when she was suffering from menstrual cramps). Signs of some higher brain function perhaps? They also reported that he asked several times in front of nursing staff, “Is that b*#$! dead yet?” (Sound bites of all of this interview were played on Rush Limbaugh today).

Now, as for Michael, I’m as curious as others seem to be as to why he didn’t simply divorce her years ago, since he had obviously moved on emotionally. Could it be because he stood to lose a rather large inheritance in the event of her death? Somehow I doubt it was because he had Terry’s ultimate best wishes at heart.

I guess the real question should be, can we trust his motives since he is apparently the sole witness to Terry’s reported desire not to live this way?

Cindy B. again.

Also, let’s clarify that she’s in a “persistant” vegitative state, not “permanent.” I think there is some difference between the two. So little is known of the workings of the human brain at this point, we have no way of knowing if it’s truly permanent. People have come out of comas after 20 years. Miracles happen.

I posted this idea over at T&S, but I thought I would drop it into this discussion as well.

When someone describes another as a “vegetable” I would posit that most people take that to mean “like a vegetable” and are completely unaware of the very technical definitions used by medical professionals and adapted into law.

Given the dichotomy between the medical definition of Persistent Vegetative State and the popular conception of Persistent Vegetative State, we should ask which definition Mrs. Schiavo had in mind when she supposedly indicated what to do if she were ever to enter that state.

I can imagine a situation where an individual who is not familiar with what medical professionals consider a “vegetative state†might leave instructions, even written instructions, to withhold extraordinary intervention if he or she were ever to become a “vegetable†and have a completely different understanding of what they had agreed to than the medical and legal professionals who would be making the determination.

It seems likely to me that unless the individual explicitly indicates in their statement that they are famil