Poor Excuse For Discussion of Schiavo Case

I've been following the Schiavo case for approximately 3 years. I'm really happy that enough people are aware of the case now that I can participate in a vigorous discussion.

My problem is that I'm getting a lot of discussion from people who have the most minimal awareness of what's going on. The following comments are from one blog (HobbsOnline), but I find them typical of the general discussion. Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

" Terri Schiavo chose Michael as her husband. She gave him the right to be her voice and make her decisions for her in these kinds of situations. How can we say that we believe in the sanctity of marriage but say that a spouse does not have the right to make these kinds of decisions?"

"Like Bill said, we do not know this Michael guys motives." " ... But were it my wife, I could not stand by thinking she was trapped in there …”

It's true we don't know what Michael Schiavo's motives. That doesn't put him on equal ground with all husbands. There is a lot more reason to question him than what you've seen on the news. There are some REALLY nasty allegations of things he's done to Terri. Do your research. Marriage is not a suicide pact. Some people marry the wrong person. They need a means to appeal when their spouse is questionable.

"What I find very strange about this argument is the people who say starving to death is inhumane, but then want to keep her alive in the state she is in. Imagine if you were trapped in that body."

How do you know she's trapped? By the extremely brief shots of footage taken of her years ago? What you know does not constitute a diagnosis or prognosis. Neurologists who examined Terri are in disagreement.

" ... do not tell me anyone sane would want to go on living like that for what? another 30 years? Starvation is inhumane but I would take that over the alternative. She has been an invalid for more then 10 years already."

Who are you to judge that no sane person would choose that? Your choice has nothing to do with hers. Do you presume that all "invalids" (a loathsome term) wish to die? I submit that neither Stephen Hawking nor Christopher Reeves chose death, in spite of severe disabilities. Neither would have had a voice if technology had not given it to them. Michael Schiavo denied his wife therapies that might (in the opinion of some neurologists) have enabled her to swallow, and possibly speak.

" ... I could not stand by thinking she was trapped in there, while her mother refused to let go. I would fight to end it in anyway I could. To do otherwise would be inhumane."

Terri is either capable or not capable of suffering. She cannot be both. If she is incapable of suffering the pain of starvation, then she is incapable of suffering the pain of being "trapped" in her living shell. And if Terri's not in there, then there's no one to suffer, now or ever.

Also, it's true that Terri's parents shouldn't subvert Terri's wishes. But you can't accuse them of that until you know what Terri's wishes are. Don't let your feelings for her parents direct you to a knee-jerk solidarity with the "husband".

" There is no medical expert who will testify that Ms. Schiavo will recover. Nothing, today, will bring her back."

Actually, there are at least two neurologists who have examined Terri and concluded that she is NOT in a persistent vegetative state. They have testified on her behalf, to this effect, and that she could benefit from therapy. She'll never be the Terri she was before the event, but that's not to say she'd be better off dead.

Terri has never had an MRI. I've read that a diagnosis of PVS without an MRI and several days of observation is essentially malpractice. Yet this is the level of evidence Judge Greer has accepted in issuing what amounts to a death sentence.

"... if Terri woke up everyone would be happy - but now we have lost a large portion if not all our privacy rights...because congress can now single you out and stick a feeding tube in you..."

Congress did not have her feeding tube reinserted, as evidenced by the fact that it remains out. What congress did do is protect Terri's constitutional right to federal appeal. The federal courts already hear appeals on criminal cases. What is it about Terri's case that makes it interference in states rights or privacy rights?

And finally, (I have no quote for this myth), but a lot of people say that this case has already been appealed by plenty of judges. But only one judge examined the physical evidence regarding Terri's case. The rest only did reviews to determine if proper procedure was followed. They did not review the evidence of the case.

Get back to me when you've done your research, assholes. Oh, yeah, I said assholes. If you guys want to put your voice out there with a woman’'s life on the line, you should put more effort into what you say.