Terri's Tragedy - Another Partisan Slugfest
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week or two, you have no doubt been inundated with the media’s coverage of the Terri Schiavo saga. It’s the latest example how the media can latch on to a relatively obscure story, which having the right ingredients and timing, escalates into a 24 hour a day media frenzy, ultimately propelling the story to one of monumental consequence. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy the Terri Schiavo media frenzy transformed an arbitrary tragedy (there are an estimated 25,000 people in a Persistent Vegetative State, many of whom will have ultimately have their feeding tubes removed) into a legitimate topic of national debate when members of the U.S. Congress, no doubt emboldened by the growing media attention, decided to intervene on behalf of Terri Schiavo’s parents.
What followed was a stunning legislative congressional action, prompting national debates about federalism, the separation of powers, Medicare/Medicaid, the sanctity of life, the right to die, living wills and, of course, the whole history of the Terri Schiavo case where, it appears, that every politician and TV pundit has suddenly become a medical expert.
Unfortunately, instead of intelligent, measured and rational discussion, the on-going debate has disintegrated into yet another partisan, ideological, around the clock mud slinging contest riddled with exaggeration, propaganda, misinformation and ad-hominem attacks so sadly characteristic our current state of national discourse. A good portion of the blame belongs to the main stream media, who rarely offer viewers level headed, intelligent pundits who can thoughtfully and truthfully articulate opposing and nuanced viewpoints. Instead viewers are subjected to overtly partisan voices who are willing to distort, lie and over simplify in the name of ideology, thereby continuing the destruction of our collective intellect.
In my opinion, most of the ideological baiting in this controversy has come from conservatives who are consistently sensationalizing the tragedy by regularly employing provocative terms such as “murder”, by distorting truth about Terri Schiavo’s condition and by repeatedly insinuating that Michael Schiavo has been abusive and/or has diabolical ulterior motives.
I’m tempted to rehash all of the individual bits of misinformation and rhetoric but by now it’s been hashed ad nauseam elsewhere and everywhere. But here is the gist of the discourse:
A vocal segment of conservatives are accusing liberals of continuing to foster a “culture of death” because they oppose measures to intervene against the decisions of “activist judges” who would order the “torture and murder” of an innocent young woman. Particularly annoying (and a poorly made analogy) is the oft repeated conjecture that if one were to starve a dog, they would be committing a crime, whereas the “murder” of Terri Schiavo is legally sanctioned. Never mind that most liberals are equally distressed and repulsed at the starvation aspect of this case (more on this later) and are generally only opposed to conservative politicians attempting an end run around the system. I’m also quite sure the judges in question do not “want” Terri Schiavo to die (and especially not by starvation), but being judges they are ethically bound to rule in accordance with the evidence and within the framework of existing law.
For their part, liberals have been very vocal in pointing out the hypocrisy of George Bush and conservatives by alluding to a law passed in Texas requiring the removal of feeding tubes in certain cases and in pointing out the inconsistency of the conservative mantra “to err on the side of life” as applied to issues health care, the death penalty and the Iraq War. While there may be some validity to these observations, such rhetoric does not address the argument at hand and merely serves to agitate public discourse.
At any rate, the whole controversy boils down to two fundamental legal questions: 1) Is Terry Schiavo in a Persistent Vegetative State? 2) Did Terri Schiavo express the wish to refuse medial care should she ever find herself in this condition?
For nearly a decade, these questions have been painstakingly addressed in the Florida court system, which applied all of the appropriate time tested scientific and legal methodologies. The court determined that Schiavo is in a PVS and that she did express a desire to refuse medical care in this scenario. The court also appointed an independent guardian, Jay Wolfson (one of the few rational voices in the resulting cacophony), who spent 30 days with Terri Schiavo and reviewed thousands of pages of court documents. He too came to the same conclusions as did the courts. (Read his report here.)
All the rest of us – every talking head, pundit, self-proclaimed expert, politician, or blogger -- are merely engaging in speculation. Until each one of us obtains advanced medical and legal degrees and spends 30 days clinically evaluating Terri Schiavo, our opinions on those two questions remain uninformed and largely irrelevant. This includes those doctors who have submitted affidavits on the Schindler’s (her parents) behalf, but who have not actually clinically examined Terri Schiavo.
(On question two, I concede that it is impossible to know what a person really wants once they actually find themselves in such a state. Regardless of what one may have said earlier, one’s initial feelings on the matter may reverse. But assuming for a moment the unlikely proposition that Terri Schiavo is minimally conscious; we cannot know if she is content and desperately wishes to be maintained or whether she is suffering terribly and desperately wishes to put an end to it all. If the latter, all those well meaning people holding vigil for Terri Schiavo are actually and ironically praying to continue her suffering. I would think this alone invalidates the "err on the side of life" argument.)
And so I watched in disbelief (live on CSPAN) last Sunday as Republican congressmen intervened and passed bill s.686 requiring a federal judiciary review the Schiavo case. This unprecedented action was based not on a thorough review of the evidence or facts of the case but on sheer speculation, insinuation and hearsay. Its bad enough that the principles of federalism and separation of powers can be cast aside any time the majority party decides it doesn’t agree with the existing legal framework, but to do so without an objective review of the facts is particularly scary.
(It has been said that no party really cares about federalism and the separation of powers when they are in the majority and indeed this argument has been with us since the founding of our nation.)
As it turns out the “Palm Sunday Compromise” congressional intervention had little teeth – a fact that has infuriated both sides of the aisle. Pro- Life conservatives such as Randall Terry of Operation Rescue are incensed that Pro-Life politicians were unable or unwilling to actually legislate a stay which would result in Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube being reinserted. Liberals see this same inaction as further evidence that the whole Palm Sunday congressional session was nothing but a political ploy.
The ironic tragedy of this case is that it is precisely the Pro-Life community’s opposition to any kind of right to die laws that have made necessary the cruel and revolting death by starvation. Thus Pro-Lifers find themselves outraged and holding vigils to prevent a starvation which they themselves have in essence required. The reason pet owners don’t have to starve their terminally ill pets is because, ironically, animals (and criminals) are allowed to die with dignity via medically assisted euthanasia. This aspect of the Schiavo controversy has been underplayed in the media.
Finally, my spouse and I both decided that while we would definitely honor each other’s preference to die were we in Schiavo’s condition, we would acquiesce if the other’s parents were adamantly resolved to keep us alive and if that somehow brought meaning to their lives (delusional or not). The logic being that if we were truly PSV, it really wouldn’t matter anymore what we thought we originally wanted. (The dangerous caveat is that we might really have some minimal level of consciousness that was suffering immensely.)
And so, I sincerely sympathize with Terri Schiavo’s parents and part of me wishes that Michael Schiavo would have simply allowed the Schindlers to continue to care for Terri as it is highly unlikely that she is minimally conscious as evidenced by MRI scans that show her cerebral cortex replaced by spinal fluid. But as it stands, the courts have ruled and working within the established legal framework is the best we can do in mediating these situations.
Unfortunately this family’s personal tragedy has been dragged out into the street for all to see by meddling politicians and organizations who, despite good intentions, have nonetheless turned Terri Schiavo into a political device to advance their ideological cause. And most disheartening, next to the congressional abandonment of reason, objectivity and process, was to see how fast and disgustingly the TV and radio pundits fell into line spouting their partisan nonsense.
One bright spot: Despite the punditry, among regular people, polls show that there may be some backlash against the vocal segment of conservatives and Republican politicians as a large majority disapprove of the governmental interference in this case.
P.S. – For an informative timeline complete with legal documents and statements, click here.
For an informative article about the differences between minimal concsciousness, PVS, comas and brain death and what does it mean, click here.
What followed was a stunning legislative congressional action, prompting national debates about federalism, the separation of powers, Medicare/Medicaid, the sanctity of life, the right to die, living wills and, of course, the whole history of the Terri Schiavo case where, it appears, that every politician and TV pundit has suddenly become a medical expert.
Unfortunately, instead of intelligent, measured and rational discussion, the on-going debate has disintegrated into yet another partisan, ideological, around the clock mud slinging contest riddled with exaggeration, propaganda, misinformation and ad-hominem attacks so sadly characteristic our current state of national discourse. A good portion of the blame belongs to the main stream media, who rarely offer viewers level headed, intelligent pundits who can thoughtfully and truthfully articulate opposing and nuanced viewpoints. Instead viewers are subjected to overtly partisan voices who are willing to distort, lie and over simplify in the name of ideology, thereby continuing the destruction of our collective intellect.
In my opinion, most of the ideological baiting in this controversy has come from conservatives who are consistently sensationalizing the tragedy by regularly employing provocative terms such as “murder”, by distorting truth about Terri Schiavo’s condition and by repeatedly insinuating that Michael Schiavo has been abusive and/or has diabolical ulterior motives.
I’m tempted to rehash all of the individual bits of misinformation and rhetoric but by now it’s been hashed ad nauseam elsewhere and everywhere. But here is the gist of the discourse:
A vocal segment of conservatives are accusing liberals of continuing to foster a “culture of death” because they oppose measures to intervene against the decisions of “activist judges” who would order the “torture and murder” of an innocent young woman. Particularly annoying (and a poorly made analogy) is the oft repeated conjecture that if one were to starve a dog, they would be committing a crime, whereas the “murder” of Terri Schiavo is legally sanctioned. Never mind that most liberals are equally distressed and repulsed at the starvation aspect of this case (more on this later) and are generally only opposed to conservative politicians attempting an end run around the system. I’m also quite sure the judges in question do not “want” Terri Schiavo to die (and especially not by starvation), but being judges they are ethically bound to rule in accordance with the evidence and within the framework of existing law.
For their part, liberals have been very vocal in pointing out the hypocrisy of George Bush and conservatives by alluding to a law passed in Texas requiring the removal of feeding tubes in certain cases and in pointing out the inconsistency of the conservative mantra “to err on the side of life” as applied to issues health care, the death penalty and the Iraq War. While there may be some validity to these observations, such rhetoric does not address the argument at hand and merely serves to agitate public discourse.
At any rate, the whole controversy boils down to two fundamental legal questions: 1) Is Terry Schiavo in a Persistent Vegetative State? 2) Did Terri Schiavo express the wish to refuse medial care should she ever find herself in this condition?
For nearly a decade, these questions have been painstakingly addressed in the Florida court system, which applied all of the appropriate time tested scientific and legal methodologies. The court determined that Schiavo is in a PVS and that she did express a desire to refuse medical care in this scenario. The court also appointed an independent guardian, Jay Wolfson (one of the few rational voices in the resulting cacophony), who spent 30 days with Terri Schiavo and reviewed thousands of pages of court documents. He too came to the same conclusions as did the courts. (Read his report here.)
All the rest of us – every talking head, pundit, self-proclaimed expert, politician, or blogger -- are merely engaging in speculation. Until each one of us obtains advanced medical and legal degrees and spends 30 days clinically evaluating Terri Schiavo, our opinions on those two questions remain uninformed and largely irrelevant. This includes those doctors who have submitted affidavits on the Schindler’s (her parents) behalf, but who have not actually clinically examined Terri Schiavo.
(On question two, I concede that it is impossible to know what a person really wants once they actually find themselves in such a state. Regardless of what one may have said earlier, one’s initial feelings on the matter may reverse. But assuming for a moment the unlikely proposition that Terri Schiavo is minimally conscious; we cannot know if she is content and desperately wishes to be maintained or whether she is suffering terribly and desperately wishes to put an end to it all. If the latter, all those well meaning people holding vigil for Terri Schiavo are actually and ironically praying to continue her suffering. I would think this alone invalidates the "err on the side of life" argument.)
And so I watched in disbelief (live on CSPAN) last Sunday as Republican congressmen intervened and passed bill s.686 requiring a federal judiciary review the Schiavo case. This unprecedented action was based not on a thorough review of the evidence or facts of the case but on sheer speculation, insinuation and hearsay. Its bad enough that the principles of federalism and separation of powers can be cast aside any time the majority party decides it doesn’t agree with the existing legal framework, but to do so without an objective review of the facts is particularly scary.
(It has been said that no party really cares about federalism and the separation of powers when they are in the majority and indeed this argument has been with us since the founding of our nation.)
As it turns out the “Palm Sunday Compromise” congressional intervention had little teeth – a fact that has infuriated both sides of the aisle. Pro- Life conservatives such as Randall Terry of Operation Rescue are incensed that Pro-Life politicians were unable or unwilling to actually legislate a stay which would result in Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube being reinserted. Liberals see this same inaction as further evidence that the whole Palm Sunday congressional session was nothing but a political ploy.
The ironic tragedy of this case is that it is precisely the Pro-Life community’s opposition to any kind of right to die laws that have made necessary the cruel and revolting death by starvation. Thus Pro-Lifers find themselves outraged and holding vigils to prevent a starvation which they themselves have in essence required. The reason pet owners don’t have to starve their terminally ill pets is because, ironically, animals (and criminals) are allowed to die with dignity via medically assisted euthanasia. This aspect of the Schiavo controversy has been underplayed in the media.
Finally, my spouse and I both decided that while we would definitely honor each other’s preference to die were we in Schiavo’s condition, we would acquiesce if the other’s parents were adamantly resolved to keep us alive and if that somehow brought meaning to their lives (delusional or not). The logic being that if we were truly PSV, it really wouldn’t matter anymore what we thought we originally wanted. (The dangerous caveat is that we might really have some minimal level of consciousness that was suffering immensely.)
And so, I sincerely sympathize with Terri Schiavo’s parents and part of me wishes that Michael Schiavo would have simply allowed the Schindlers to continue to care for Terri as it is highly unlikely that she is minimally conscious as evidenced by MRI scans that show her cerebral cortex replaced by spinal fluid. But as it stands, the courts have ruled and working within the established legal framework is the best we can do in mediating these situations.
Unfortunately this family’s personal tragedy has been dragged out into the street for all to see by meddling politicians and organizations who, despite good intentions, have nonetheless turned Terri Schiavo into a political device to advance their ideological cause. And most disheartening, next to the congressional abandonment of reason, objectivity and process, was to see how fast and disgustingly the TV and radio pundits fell into line spouting their partisan nonsense.
One bright spot: Despite the punditry, among regular people, polls show that there may be some backlash against the vocal segment of conservatives and Republican politicians as a large majority disapprove of the governmental interference in this case.
P.S. – For an informative timeline complete with legal documents and statements, click here.
For an informative article about the differences between minimal concsciousness, PVS, comas and brain death and what does it mean, click here.
posted by Alan at 2:19 AM | Permalink |
SITE FEED (XML) 
9 Comments:
Just to recognize this before I even start, my response the Schiavo posting is clearly partisan though I will try to not offend....
The current Bush administration continues its advertising campaign to oversimplify complex matters and overstate the fear that the "average american" should feel.......we're at a yellow level of terror threat and activist judges are chipping away at the foundation of this great nation, eroding the family unit.... Their tactic of using a few, over-simplified phrases has served them in the way that "If it doesn't fit you must acquit" served Johnny and OJ. The schiavo case has been thrust to the center of the national stage for two reasons:
1) It satiates the religious right and God knows (no pun intended) that the Republican party owes them big. The only thing better than having the President and Repulican dominated congress step in to try an preserve this poor woman's life, is the fact that the attempt failed and can be pegged on the activist judiciary.
2) The opportunity to throw around the phrase "activist judges" and tie it to a case that "even for liberals", pulls at heartstrings serves the cause. The minutes left of this poor woman's life are ticking loudly in the ears of anyone who cares to know that she is actually out there and still we politicize.
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Ultimately the final judicial ruling was that the feeding tube stays out and lets not forget that it was removed on legal grounds in the first place. The Schindler's have exhausted all legal grounds for appeal yet we are still hearing about activist judges from one side of the aisle. What about the activist President and congress? What about the unprecedented actions and measures that have created this circus in the first place? Where is the legal precedent for what we have seen in the past week and how is that not activism? Activism only seems to be activism when it is the cause of liberals.
Using the phrase "activist judges" charges the stage for the next conversation about abortion, gay rights and the right to die. If this tragic set of circumstances can be tied to that notion and her death laid at the door of activism and liberal judges legislating social issues, it will become the battle cry the religious "right".
The irony as you have already pointed out is that the cause of death will physically be dehydration or starvation, but ultimatley it is at the door of those who "preserve" life at all cost. I keep seeing that picture of her in her bed and my humanity tells me that whether or not she is in there pleading for her life or hoping for her death, she or anyone, would not want what this has become.
Delia,
I got the sense you were apologizing for being partisan, so I looked up the formal definition of the word. It is:
1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.
So, if it makes you feel better, I don't think your comments were "partisan". Taking a definite side in an argument is not partisan, so long as your position is argued factually and fairly. Now I just need to explain that to Sean Hannity and company.
BTW, something like 75%-80% of people polled disagree with the congressional intervention, this includes a majority of Christians and Catholics.
So, it seems there may be some backlash and that our criticism do not extend beyond the punditry and a vocal minority.
As author Susan Jacoby who wrote "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism" said on CNN, (paraphrasing) this minority group (fundamentalists/pro-lifers) has not only demonized secularism, but has hijacked the term "religious".
An exerpt for a Julian Sanchez post on Reason's Hit and Run
Now, if my higher brain centers are ever irreperably destroyed in some accident I'd like a slew of doctors to be reasonably close to certain that I'm not coming back. But if they are, I want my organs—don't hold out too much hope for the lungs and liver, but the rest—to go to someone who can use them. There's something perverse about a self-described advocate of a "culture of life" who'd keep the heart beating in my now-vacant shell of a body while someone in the next room, still full of plans and desires and thoughts, slipped away for want of an organ. What was it Tom Paine said about Burke? They mourn the plumage but forget the dying bird. Or, even more strangely for folks who make "materialism" an epithet, they mourn the empty flesh but forget the fading soul.
Be sure to read the ensuing discussion.
Also, on topic this article on the appalling Schaivo rhetoric by the Boston Globe's Cathy Young on Reason:
http://www.reason.com/cy/cy032905.shtml
There seems to be one point that is being missed by almost everyone. That is, What do we do if the patient never remarked at all about whether or not they would want to be maintained by artificial life support? Does that mean we have to maintain them for as long as they live? If we have a PVS patient, does age make a difference? Do we care longer for a 13-year-old than we do a 75-year-old? Is it taboo to even bring up the expense and manpower required to artificially support this person? If a person has zero chance or recovery, and a quality of life that no one would want to maintain, do we keep them alive indefinitely just because we can?
Assume for a moment that we have no idea of what Terri Schiavo wants in this case. The only option is for others to make a decision for her. The decision can't be made on the basis of what the guardians want. It has to be made on the basis of what is best for Terri. Terri is currently in 1 of 3 basic conditions. #1 Fully alert and aware of herself and environment #2 A state of diminished consciousness #3 Completely oblivious to her own existence
The worst possible condition, the condition that results in the most suffering is #1. Imagine being trapped in a body for 15 years, unable to communicate or interact with the world in any way. Imagine laying in a bed, staring at a spot on a wall for hours, simply because that is the direction your face is pointing. For 15 years she has been cared for, not by her family alone, but by a team of people, paid to change her bed pans, bathe her, change nutrition bags, etc. What percentage of people would want their lives maintained in that manner? Who would not beg to die if life reduced to that state?
I think the merciful thing to do is to let Terri die. Those that love her should let her go. They will always remember her so she will never leave them.
My last comment has to do with the manner is which she has to die. This has been discussed much already, but I just want to express my opinion. If the decision has been made to allow a person to die, it should be legal to end the person's life in a quick and painless way. If it were my family member, I would find a way to do so. I have heard much about Terri staving to death. I've also heard many argue that a feeding tube is not "life support" because it just delivers nutrition and water. Well, a respirator just provides air! A tube surgically connected to a person's digestive system is definitely life support. In an interview I heard last week, one doctor said that feeding tube technology took over 40 years to develop and early attempts to insert feeding tubes resulted in the death of many animals and humans. A feeding tube does not just provide nutrition. It compensates for a patient's inability to eat or drink naturally. It may be acceptable long term to a patient with a reasonable quality of life, but not for someone in PVS.
No question that regardless of her level of consciousness, I cannot believe that a person would want to be kept alive in that condition.
I can respect that her parents religious beliefs, along with an obvious love for thier daughter, were driving force behind the preservation of her life at all cost. Unfortunately there were drawbacks to that stance. I am not a parent so I can't say that I appreciate what they have endured but when the goal of their stance was life at all cost, it seems the high price to pay to have endured her dying in that fashion.
Gene, good comments.
No question about scenario #1. But to play devil's advocate, what about scenario #2 or #3? Here is a thought experiment:
What if in either #2 or #3 a person was completely content -- with the consciousness/intellect level of say of an infant in the womb just before birth, i.e. content to sit in darkness, without sensory input.
Whould it be ethical to let them die? Obviously, in this scenario the person is not equivalent to the infant in totality due to the infant's future potential, but at that one static moment (pre-birth) lets say their thought capacity was about the same.
Also, to add a little philosophical difficulty, lets say there was no feeding tube required. The parents could stick food in the mouth and trigger reflexive swallowing, but all else was consistent with PSV.
In this thought experiment the person previously clearly indicated in a Living Will that he/she would wish to die, but lets say you also knew (omnisciently - its my thought experiment) that the person was as content as an infant in the womb.
Obviously its not the same person anymore -- the original person's mind (thoughts/memories) is gone. The new/altered entity now exists contentedly.
What then? The point being that its almost impossible to define "personhood".
In what ways then, is this different than the abortion issue? Or executing the mentally retarded? Ultimately, aren't we still talking about one individual who lacks the wherewithall to make choices ( within the law or just in general) and lacks a voice and therefore subject to the choices of others?
The fundamental question is still should one individual, judge, court, congress or president determine whether another lives or dies? The cost of keeping a person alive, the suffering that the person may endure, etc. are incidental. I know it sounds harsh but whether Terri starved to death or was euthanized, all that does is shift the ethical argument. Some will see euthanasia as more humane while other will consider that murder and vice versa. The issue is that human life does not have one defined value across the board, it is subjective and dynamic.
You raise a good question. Fortunately, conditions that lead to a person to be physically there but mentally absent, are usually progressive and result in death before long - Alzheimers for example.
However, people do fall into the category you describe. There are patients that are catatonic. They can swallow, but otherwise, are unable to take care of themselves. From the outside, the person they once were appears to be gone. I don't believe we have much of a choice in this case. We must care for them.
But here's where the hypocrisy come in. How hard do we struggle to keep them alive when they start to die? If an advanced Alzeimers patient is in otherwise good physical condition, do we perform a liver transplant if needed? No, we don't. Why? Because the truth is, we make these judgments all the time.
If Terri Schiavo needed a heart transplant 10 years ago, would the surgery have been performed? Even if we knew she would die without it? What is the distinction between preventing someone's death through "life support" and preventing someone's death by providing medical care. Ten years ago, Terri was 30. Wouldn't most people in there 30s get a heart transplant if they needed it?
My brother-in-law is a doctor. Years ago, when he was just starting his residency, I remember he told me that pneumonia was a dying patient's best friend. The decision to not aggressively treat pneumonia is made everyday in hospitals. There are no courts involved. Doctors don't ask, "Do you have proof of what the patient wanted?" Pneumonia is silently welcomed by families. They are relieved that their loved one can finally rest. They are relieved to close a very sad chapter in their lives.
The answers to these questions are judgment calls that must be made on a case-by-case basis. Our laws need to provide adequate protection so as to prevent murder, while at the same time allow families the flexibility to make these judgments. If someone I care about is suffering, and has no chance of returning to a minimal quality of life, I would like to be able to mercifully end their suffering. I don't want laws, based on the religious principles of others, to prevent that.
Dr. Jack Kevorkian is currently in prison, serving 10 - 25 years. His case points out, that is this county, if a person of sound mind is terminally ill and in great suffering, and provides a written request for assistance in ending their life, there is no legal manner in which to provide that assistance. I understand that assisted suicide must be regulated closely, but I don't understand why it is illegal. (I believe assisted suicide is legal in Oregon.)
Post a Comment
<< Home