First, my condolences to all those who loved Terri Schiavo.
My self-riteous attitude in the Schiavo case got taken down two notches when I read this article by Cathy Young at Reason H & R. I learned a lot about the case that I didn't know before. Hat Tip Damnum Absque Injuria 3/29/05.
Then I read the comments on her article, and found myself partially vindicated.
Read the article, and this is very important, read all the comments. That's the only way to get the full flavor of the kind of people who sided with euthanasia. If you decide to skip any, don't skip the comments by Xrlq and CodeBlueBlogMD. They quite effectively discredit much of C. Young's arguments.
I'm no lawyer (like Xrlq), or doctor (like CodeBlueBlogMD), but I know enough to make what I still believe to be the most important argument.
We don't know what Terri wanted. That's it. Some claim to know, but evidence is not very reliable.
It is reasonable to suspect Michael Schiavo's motives. Thinking up possible explanations for his behavior shouldn't be a substitute for reasonable judgment. It's more than possible that he has ulterior motives. As for the sanctity of marriage, I'll just say I'm glad my ex-husband was never given unquestioned authority over my fate. And lest you think it unfair not to be as skeptical toward the Schindlers, they're not the ones erring on the side of death.
Furthermore, I find in the article and among the comments, people who give MS a pass are quite willing to ascribe sinister motives to the Schindlers.
Further-furthermore, I think people are being pretty flippant about end-of-life decisions. It's very problematic to apply context to Terri's alleged words, then hold her to them with the ultimate penalty. Also, some people think they know how they couldn't bear to live, only to change their minds when the time comes. Take, for example, people dying of lung disease. As a nurse, I've known of people who've reversed their formal wishes when death was imminent. They'd been on a ventilator before, and swore they'd never do it again. They knew they could never be cured, and that even the ventilator might not even save them. But when the shit hit the fan, they fought to live.
As for myself, I can honestly say that I am not appalled at the prospect of living in the state of consciousness in which Terri did for 15 years. Nor would I expect anyone to agree with me. For Libertarians, C. Young and her readers seem to lack true respect for an individual's choice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Here are some other good comments;
While she had an MRI, along with CAT scans, these are both static imaging processings. What the good Rev likely meant, and what many people mix up, is an fMRI, or functional MRI. This, along with PET scans are not static tests but show evidence of functionality. The courts sought to have an fMRI done, but it didn't happen when the two sides couldn't agree on what the results would have indicated. The courts should have ordered it anyway, and then much of the current debate would have been stemmed...
EEGs record congregate activity from a point outside the skull. It can show you that cortical activity has dropped by x overall, but has little specificity for localized activity. While an important test, it doesn't tell you everything an fMRI or PET scan would.
Now how come this is the first time I've heard about this distinction?
Concerning the maligned Dr.:
This is not the only place I've seen the disingenuous connection of Dr. Hammesfahr's "disciplining" implicitly -- and falsely -- connected to his competence to evaluate Terri Schiavo's state or possible rehabilitative potential.
Hammesfahr was disciplined over a billing dispute, not over his competence as a physician. In the transcript of findings, the board specifically declined to criticize his treatment methods -- although they noted that his methods were outside generally accepted practice, they also noted that many of his patients seemed to improve with the treatments.
You know, some doctors have lost their med license for treating candida. I don't much care for what doctors think about each other's practices. I can judge for myself whether a treatment is sound. Take the blood-type diet. That doctor will not release any of his clinical studies to the public, so we can not tell whether his work is suspect. But, many people have proven his theory incorrect in that it does not work as predicted: a quack. Atkins, on the other hand, is just the opposite. He did release any data he collected and tried to get others to replicate his work (mostly they scrwed it up). Further, his plan works as predicted: Good medicine. Most doctors ridicule both equally. Still, Hammesfahr is not a good witness for our side. He is just a vocal one.
Also read Cathy's respones which are not good at all and often nonresponsive. I love Reason Mag and even though she is the worst they have, she is way, way better than CNN or MSNBC or, distressingly, FOX.
(It is also disturbing to think that the Shindlers might be unreasonably pro-life, i.e., willing to go agaisnt Terri's most likely wishes. But this takes us off topic too far.)
In the end, I think people are predisposing themsleves to the evidence by personalizing the case. Cathey Young and others do not want to live like Terri. Indeed they seem terrified or disgusted at the thought. This emotional response colors the evidence and leads them to make dumb arguments.
The real point is, of course, what Terri wanted to do. This we do not know, but what is clear and convinvincing is that it is not clear and convincing. How can we say, "Well, it's not clear, so kill her?"
Young's article was infuriating. Now it seems we're seeing a steady drip of information that will vindicate those who stood up for Terri, but of course it's too late for her.
I honestly believe that there are many in the press who are relieved that the Pope died - not because they wanted him dead, but because his death, and their attention to it, has helped turn an increasingly uncomfortable spotlight away from the Schiavo case.
Damn. You know that makes since. It's sad, but it does makes since. I am so pissed at Fox et al. The Schiavo covergae was so shallow and now that a great world figure has died, I've only heard two shows worth listening to. One was an AM radio interview with a John Paul expert and the other was Legends and Headliners on MSNBC.
There must be a million things that could be said about this man, but no, we just watch goofy costumed soldiers and listen to know-nothings babble ay the most superficial level; did you know that he was instrumental in freeing Poland and defeating Communism?
Geesh, we have 24 hour coverage and thousands of history and theological professors dying to be interviewed. Is this the best we can do?
Post a Comment