Have I Been Self-Righteous About Terri?

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.

The Left Knows What You Want

What do Terri Schiavo, U.S. soldiers, and the people of Iraq have in common? The Left knows what's good for them, and wants to speak for them.

Corporal Michael Oreskovic of the US army lost his left arm in combat, and he wants to go back. He says there's a lot of amputees who want to go back.

He also says that soldiers who go home to the US on leave often are anxious to get back to their unit in combat. He says there are two reasons. One is out of guilt and loyalty to the men who are not on leave. The other reason is that they get tired of people expressing their disapproval of the war.

Now that's quite a statement. Many soldiers would rather return to war than be subjected to the naysayers who don't respect a soldier's job.

You see, the Left knows the soldiers feel betrayed and want to come home, because that's how the Left feels. (Link to this Not in Our Name pdf and start at page 14. Compare this to Oreskovic's own words at cspan.)

The Left knows Terri wouldn't have wanted live like she does, because they wouldn't want it.

The Left knows that the Iraqi people wish we hadn't come to fight for their freedom, because the Left hates war.

The Left knows what you want, because they know what they want. And if you don't want what they want, well you should, and they'll demand it for you because they know better than you.

Thanks, Instapundit!

Link here for spring photos from my hometown, Knoxville, TN.

Meanwhile, I languish in winter's cruel, icy grip in Concord, New Hampshire. I was excited this week because the daily highs have exceeded 35 degrees, the snowbanks are fewer and smaller, and three bugs hit my windshield.

I love Concord, but ... aah, Knoxville.

I Can't Believe I Still Have Questions About Terri Schiavo

1: Would Terri have wanted an autopsy? People speculate that she would want to die, or that she would want privacy, not publicity. But, apparently, she wouldn't want food.

2: Why an autopsy after she's dead, but no MRI while she's alive?

3: Did Michael Shiavo piss his pants when that wacko put a hit on him? Did he ever think he might pay a price for acting so badly?

4: Does anyone believe that Terri is being medicated with Morphine for her parent's benefit, not because she's in pain?

5: If Terri's braindead, why surround here with music and flowers? If she can appreciate those things, why would you kill her? If you think it's for her family's benefit, don't be stupid.

6: You think congress intervened? Remember Elian Gonzales? The Florida courts ruled he could stay, then Janet Reno sent an armed force in the night to arrest and deport him.

7: Attn same sex marriage advocates: The "Progressive" definition of marriage allows your partner to starve you to death, even if that partner behaves suspiciously. Good luck with that.

8: If Terri had died at her initial collapse, wouldn't Michael have been a murder suspect?

I thought I was done posting about Terri. I was exhausted and depressed. But she's still in the press and the conversation is still woefully lacking. I have serious questions. The people who have the access to the information aren't coming close to addressing them. If it wasn't for other bloggers, I'd believe I'm alone. I'd question my own sanity. Even Fox News has really let me down.

Commentary on Birdnow's Conservatism

Timothy Birdnow has a good article:
The American Thinker: "It's a Brave New World after Terri Schiavo dies"

In his landmark novel Brave New World, Aldous Huxley conveys the vision of a technological nightmare in which man is forced, through conditioning and eugenics, to happily serve as a cog in an utopian socialist machine. Those things which we see as important - family, close friendships, love, individualism, faith - are removed from the individual through brainwashing techniques, so as to create hollow vessels better suited to a life of consumerism and service to the State. Motherhood is abolished in favor of factory production of children, and the elderly and disabled are “taken care of.”

The important thing to understand about this brainwashing is why it works. Humans are individuals and members of families and communities all at the same time. All of these relationships are equally important facets of human nature. It is absurd to argue for a concept of human nature which denies one or more of these relationships. Individualism is just as wrong as statism. Conservatism is basically a response to ideologies which assert that one of these facets is the most important. (Libertarianism is often, though not always, characterized by over emphasizing the individual.) It is possible to screw up human society because it is possible to construct a false worldview by overstating one of these facets. In the Brave New World, the communal facet is emphasized to the exclusion of family and individual.

He has lots more to say, most of which is good. But, he seems to equate Christian religion with conservatism. This is not true in my view. Although we have much in common, conservatism is not just Christian values in the political sphere.

If you want to read the rest of my self-indulgent rambling commentary, well you'll have to ask me for it.

When Friends Aren't

Link to Girl on the Right

I'm in the same situation as Right Girl.

My best friend is a Bush-hating Democrat. That is to say, she oozes vitriol, and her face contorts at the mere mention of his name.

While nothing can erase our history, our future is dim. We can't discuss politics, and that's a lot harder than it sounds. This friendship is going to be a lot less meaningful if we're not free to discuss our beliefs.

What is it about Canadians?

They are just so damn funny and so damn nice too. Remember our halcyon friend? Well her husband's a jokester.

Anyway, read her take on the Schiavo situation here, but don't miss this either:

Common Sense Has Prevailed!

The Canadian government has denied refugee status to former U.S. Army paratrooper Jeremy Hinzman, a major blow to a handful of U.S. military deserters who have fled to Canada rather than fight in a war they claim commits atrocities against civilians.

Such as democracy, free will, and dozens of other similar horrible afflictions...

The military attracts many young recruits with job skills training and programs that help pay for university.

But it's right there in the ads - we'll pay for college, and you'll fight for your country. No one is misled...

Out, out, out. I can barely support myself [despite her shiny new job] and my chosen immigrant [the funny guy from before] - I am not supporting you and your four freakin' kids, just because you are too much of a sissy to tdo the job you volunteered to do. Out!

Turns out she lives in Toronto (the source of all funny, e.g., Albino Black Sheep), but she is from Montreal. Now that is a fascinating, beautiful, strange city. You can get lamb kebobs at 3:00AM and fresh crepes in the mall. You can also freeze your ass off -- your choice.

Back on topic, though, this guy is our fault really, we should take him back. We should take him back and "re-educate" him. Where is Patton when you need him?

Patton: Well, hell, you're nothing but a God-damned coward.
[Soldier start sniveling]
Patton: Shut up!
[Slaps him, once forehanded, then backhanded on the rebound]
Patton: I'm not going to have a man sitting here *crying*! In front of these brave men who have been wounded in battle!
[Soldier snivels some more, and Patton swings a vicious forehand slap, knocking his helmet away]
Patton: *Shut up!*
[to the doctors]
Patton: Don't admit this yellow bastard. There's nothing wrong with him. I won't have a man who's just afraid to fight *stinking up this place of honor!* You will get him back up to the front.
[to soldier]
Patton: You're going back to the front, boy. You may get shot, and you may get killed, but you're going back to the fighting. Either that, or I'll stand you up before a firing squad. Why, I ought to shoot you right now, you...
[pulls his service automatic. At that, the doctors leap forward and hustle the soldier out of the tent. Patton keeps shouting at the soldier's back]
Patton: God-damned bastard! Get him out of here! Take him back to the *front! You hear me? You God-damned coward!*
[Takes deep breath]
Patton: I won't have cowards in my army.

[edited to reflect comments below]

MSM Bias In Schiavo Case

At 3:00 this morning, I was on my lunch break at work. ABC news was reporting their latest rebuttal vs. life.

Specifically, they rebutted Jeb Bush's statement that "the neurologist's review indicates that Terri may have been misdiagnosed and it is more likely that she is in a state of minimal consciousness, rather than in a persistent vegetative state."

In a straight news broadcast (not editorial), they reported that the neurologist "has ties to Christian organizations".

There was exactly zero mention that neurologists who diagnosed Terri with PVS had associations with right-to-die organizations, or the Hemlock society. There was also no mention of Felos' creepy messiah complex.

This is the reason I almost never watch network news.

[Endymion adds that Power Line is covering ABC's "Republican memo" here, here, here and here.]

Enemies abroad and at home

Bill has a nice post about the culture wars we find ourselves in. I have argued this before, but he's better at it.

The nihilism of the Left -- its denial of value and true being to anything that actually exists and provably works -- may be turning in upon itself. Unable to destroy Western civilization under its own steam, it aligns itself with Islamists, who, were they to attain power, would of course mercilessly exterminate all leftists. A curious sort of Selbstaufhebung.

So perhaps I was a bit hasty in my intitial schematization. The major war, of course, is against militant Islam. But if liberals keep moving to the Left, then the minor war against liberals may become indistinguishable from the major jihad against the Islamo-fascists.

The war metaphor is apt. This is war and the Left, in all its forms, is the enemy. We have to fight them as such. Leftism is not just another way of looking at the world, it is an evil and deadly way. As I have said before, America needs at least (and maybe only) two parties. I'm not against debate and I am not suggesting that Chomsky and other deranged nihilists be censored. But, we should not imagine that they are harmless. They wish to dismantle the very ideas that make Western civilization great. It is no surprise to me at all that many Liberals end up cozy with radical Islam; American values are the antithesis of both.

2-1 Against

DRUDGE REPORT 2005®:
My Way News: "In its 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said the woman's parents 'failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims.'"

Wow! I guess one judge can ruin your life with an egregious fact finding mistake and you really do not get any chance for a second opinion. If Scalia is right, we have to accept this. We should focus our energies now on our legislators and alter our laws and perhaps the Constitution so that a person can get a de novo review of the facts of his/her case.

At least one of these judges got it right. I need to consider his dissenting opinion (which starts on page 11), but mistress Chartreuse beckons.

Anyway, Beth at MYVRWC is a great source for info. You should go there and read because this case will be argued for awhile and mastery of the facts is important (e.g. here for a CT Scan analysis)

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.

No respect for Life, Facts, or Congress

Andrew C. McCarthy on Terri Schiavo on National Review Online

Here, it bears noting that Whittemore was placed on the federal bench by President Clinton in 2000 after spending a decade as a judge in the state courts of Florida. His opinion is a staunch approbation of the integrity of Florida’s procedural framework, and extremely deferential to the performance of his former state-court colleague, Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer. Essentially, Judge Whittemore reasons: Florida’s procedures are fair and designed to achieve a just result, there is no basis to suspect that those procedures did not produce a just result here, and, therefore, federal due process has been satisfied — without any need to revisit (i.e. , conduct a de novo review of) the facts that were actually found here under those fair procedures...

But most disturbing about Judge Whittemore’s opinion is its refusal to delve into the questions that impelled Congress to act in the first place: Whether Terri is really a PVS case and whether she really evinced an informed desire not to be sustained — let alone to submit to two weeks of starvation and dehydration, which is unquestionably torture for a person who is responsive to stimuli and aware of pain.

Not only does Whittemore decline to get into the heart of the matter. In the one fleeting footnote in which he alludes to it, he blames Terri’s parents and their attorneys for this dereliction: “Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits of health care professionals regarding Theresa’s medical status, treatment techniques and therapies which are available and their opinions regarding how and whether these treatments might improve Theresa’s condition. Plaintiffs have not, however, discussed these affidavits in their papers and how they relate to the claimed constitutional deprivations.” (Italics mine.)

What an asshole. Is he pissed that the Schindlers did not actually tell him what to think? Is he that divorced from the reality of his job?

Congress is the heart of the republic and the courts should give it due respect. Whittemore ruled on Florida's process but not he facts. This is a extreme offense to the de novo request of the Congress. In the end it is about the facts of the case, not the process alone. Our courts seem to have removed themselves from the real world where the rest of us live. Now, I am with Scalia on the Due process issue

the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee.

So, I have a dilemma. Due Process was followed -- I think. But an extreme injustice was committed by the courts and no respect was shown to the facts of the case.

What do you do when one branch of government secedes from the union by seceding from the real world? Take up arms? Maybe, but let's try voting first. Again Scalia:

My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea — persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea — persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion — create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and enact it. You want the opposite — persuade them the other way. That’s flexibility. But to read either result into the Constitution is not to produce flexibility, it is to produce what a constitution is designed to produce — rigidity. Abortion, for example, is offstage, ... it’s no use debating it anymore — now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the Constitution, which is a difficult thing. So, for whatever reason you might like the Living Constitution, don’t like it because it provides flexibility.

Social Security verbo ipso

I have been meaning to say this for awhile now, but this guy beat me to it. So, here it is from what appears to be our doppelganger (I guess I should say that we are theirs since they have been at it longer. Also, Lee seems to be smarter than I am. Also, they are more religious and they have some different links -- otherwise, the same.)

verbum ipsum: A Layman's Stab at Social Security Reform: "The deceit at the heart of Social Security has always been that by paying FICA taxes you are 'investing' for your retirement. But this is nonsense. Decades of government propaganda notwithstanding, SS is a wealth transfer program like welfare. It takes money from one group of people (young workers) and gives it to other groups of people (retirees, the disabled, their dependents, etc.). There may have been compelling reasons for pitching it as an investment plan, but basic honesty compels us to admit it ain't so.

Now, it seems to me that two things fall out of admitting that SS is a welfare program of sorts. First, there's no reason, in principle, it couldn't be funded from general tax revenue (sales, income, personal, corporate, or whatever). Second, it could be given only to those who need it. Once you've given up the fiction that people are investing in their own retirement, you no longer need to maintain that they're entitled to a return on their 'investment.' Eligibility for SS could be determined based on need (and 'need' could be defined more or less generously), which makes sense, since the whole purpose of the program was to keep the elderly out of poverty. Retired millionaires don't need that extra couple hundred bucks a month.

Funding SS out of general tax revenue would also address another problem: the FICA tax is one of the most regressive taxes we have (especially when you take into account the cap on income that is susceptible to FICA taxation). A progressive income tax (or even a flat tax) would be fairer and simpler.

I assume (contra libertarians and many conservatives) that it is meet, right, and just that society should provide assistance to those who need it. There's no shame in admitting that Social Security is a program by which we extend aid to those in need. On the contrary, the fact that it has for so long been portrayed as a kind of investment "

That just makes sense to me. I doubt that there are really many conservatives who do not think it meet to provide for the needy via government in some manner. I think it seems that way mainly because we are forced to oppose it in practice so much. Even some Libertarians are not totally against government aid (some are, of course). The debate is in the nature and amount of aid, the definition of needy and the method by which the aid is collected and distributed. But that debate is for another time.

While we are at SS reform, if we do not adopt Lee's suggestions, we should at least return the program more to its original intent. The retirement ages, for example, should be raised commensurate with actuarial changes. People live longer. It's simple and fair.

I can't find it now, but somebody wrote a piece recently about private accounts. Remember the Lock Box? Well, private accounts are the ultimate Lock Box. The government cannot get their greedy hands on the money if it resides in my Vanguard 500 Index. (Which, BTW, has earned 11.24% avg over the last ten years, the same ten years which include the horrible "crash.")

The Fetus Monologues

Mike S. Adams: Blind feminists find nut, details at eleven:

Same excerpt, different take:

"“If your vagina got dressed, what would it wear?”; “If it could speak what would it say?” and; “What does your vagina smell like?”"

What if in each of those sentences, we replaced the word vagina with the word fetus? It is considerably more reasonable to anthropomorphize a fetus than a vagina, seeing as how a fetus actually has the potential to talk someday.

The elitists of my gender want you to empathise with my vagina, but try to empathize with a fetus. I promise you, they will go ballistic!

The Vagina Monologues and Double Standards

Go here and read this story:Mike S. Adams: Blind feminists find nut, details at eleven:

"“A six-year-old girl was asked.” This skit asked a child questions like “If your vagina got dressed, what would it wear?”; “If it could speak what would it say?” and; “What does your vagina smell like?”"

I wonder if it would be okay for a creepy old man to say this to a 6 yr old. Or how about a male kindergarten teacher. How about her dad?

A good friend of mine has a story of her own family. Her 2-yr old neice was molested while in the care of an adult woman who turned out to be part of a child pornography ring.

I wonder if the ladies of The Vagina Monologues understand the enemy doesn't always have a penis? Would they consider the above story to be the case of a leberated woman helping a young female explore her sexuality? Isn't that the point of their skit; that we should help prepubescents learn to explore their vaginas?

Surely feminism is more than just reverse chauvinism.

Where Have All The Feminists Gone

Since when did the Democrats become the defenders of a husband's right to speak for his wife? All of a sudden the left is acting as if the husband/wife relationship is sacrosanct.

Is it the Left's position that when a woman can't speak for herself, her husband receives unquestioned control over her very life and death.

If what happened to Terri Schiavo had happened to me in my first marriage, I can tell you, it would've been a disaster!

My ex-husband and I had very different ideas regarding what constitutes an acceptable quality of life. But he probably didn't even know it, because he bullied me into "agreeing" with him on a number of issues. When I disagreed with him on anything, I carried it privately within my heart.

He considered quadriplegia to be an unacceptable way to live. I don't. Of course, if I'd become a quadriplegic, I'd have been able to speak for myself. But Terri can't speak, and I'm not convinced that in Terri's condition, I'd want to die. My ex would have sentenced me to death. There is no doubt in my mind.

I was an abused wife. It wasn't easy for me to escape my marriage, but a lot easier for me than most. When I reflect on that time, I feel great relief that that man no longer determines my future. I'm thankful to the women of the past who paved the way for my escape.

So why are today's feminists satisfied with Terri's defense? Why does her fate rest in the hands of two men? (Greer and M. Schiavo) Providing Terri (and by extension, all of us) with an appeal to the federal courts is not contrary to states rights or family rights. Denying her appeal is to take her husband's word without question. What century is this?


P.S. This is why I'm a conservative. As a conservative, I can simply ask if a person's civil rights have been protected, and take action based on my conclusion. I don't have to approach it from a pro-life or right-to-die or anti-medicaid or pro-medicaid or feminist or chauvinist position.

Did Felos Approach Michael Schiavo?

Did Michael Schiavo seek out and retain attourney George Felos, or was it Felos who approached Schiavo? I don't know, but I think it's a very interesting question in light of Felos' unusual beliefs. Thank you Free Republic and Florida Baptist Witness for excerpts from Felos' book, Litigation as Spritual Practice.

As I continued to stay beside Mrs. Browning at her nursing home bed, I felt my mind relax and my weight sink into the ground. I began to feel light-headed as I became more reposed. Although feeling like I could drift into sleep, I also experienced a sense of heightened awareness.
As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it and would respond to the unfortunate resident. In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning.

I felt the mid-section of my body open and noticed a strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, ‘Why am I still here … Why am I here?’ My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked in her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for. With that the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again, the room resumed its normal appearance, and Mrs. Browning, as she had throughout this experience, lay silent (73).

It seems to me that Felos has some ulterior motives. It seems clear that he is a wacko on a "spiritual" mission. Here are some other questions that I think are important:

Why was Terri transferred to a hospice where Felos was on the board of directors? Is it true that he is in charge of a large trust that was earmarked for Terri's care? Is it true he plans to write a book about the experience after Terri's death? Why aren't we hearing in the MSM about the multiple fractures that were found on a bone scan 13 mos. after her collapse, or that her collapse occurred immediately following a fight with Michael? I also read somewhere that Terri told her brother she was thinking of divorcing Michael; what of that?

Why, if you have Terri's best interests at heart, would you withold dental care? Why would you prevent nurses from placing wash cloths in her grip to prevent the increasing contractures of her hands? In normal practice, these are things that even nurses aids can do without permission from doctors. Why is it important to prevent comfort measures that don't prolong life?

C'mon MSM, help me out! It's your job!

Pain Is Defined By The Person Experiencing It

This is big issue in health care right now. When a nurse asks a patient the rate their pain on a 0-10 scale, the answer cannot be wrong. It is by definition what the patient says it is.

The funny thing is, that when a person can't say they're in pain, others may try to play free and loose in speaking for them. Case in point, Terri Schiavo.

Thirst and hunger are types of pain that occur when one lacks food and hydration. Some don't seem to mind inflicting upon Terri that which causes pain in us. Maybe it's because she's not like us.

She cannot speak. Her experiences do not elicit a response on EEG. Therefore some say she will not suffer pain from the slow death of starvation.

I have a real problem with this line of thinking. If you inflict pain on conscious people and detect the response on EEG, it shows that EEG can detect pain. It does not show that pain does not exist if it cannot detected on EEG.

If George Felos, and Michael Schiavo are so keen on ending Terri's life, why not use a method that historically is painless. Why use a method that is known to be painful?

A narcotic overdose would leave her no more, no less dead than withdrawal of food and water. It absolutely would be quicker. Furthermore, narcotics are known to create a pleasurable feeling prior to loss of consciousness. Why is this option not on the table?

Please link to this article at National Review Online.

Terri's Right

If you think the Terri Schiavo debate is about the right to die, you are sadly mistaken. It is about the right to kill.

Here, where there is a question regarding the wishes of someone who cannot speak for oneself, the default decision is death. Where there is not clear and consistent evidence of a person's wishes, the burden of proof is imposed against life.

But life is the highest of our inalienable rights. Life should be the default choice where wishes are unclear. The purpose of the living will is to define specifically the means by which a person wouldn't want their life supported. Everyone else is presumed to want to live. Is it now our position that if you'd want to live, you'd better specify it in writing?

Some argue that Terri's condition is a poor definition of life. But if you base your argument on Terri's condition, you're missing the point. Her EEG shows a flat line, but what does that mean? The EEG can only tell us what to expect for Terri based on what we've observed in all the other patients who've had the same EEG results. It doesn't provide us with any actual understanding about the experience of being a person with a flat line EEG. While it's reasonable to assume that flat-liners cannot think, it's not hard proof. You may decide that this is enough for you. We have no clear, convincing evidence what Terri would have decided.

This is not to say that there is no evidence at all. Her husband and his family have stated that she made comments, (not conversation) that she wouldn't want to be kept alive by tubes and machines. At best this is hearsay, and wouldn't even be admissible in a criminal trial. And while a spouse's testimony should carry a lot of weight, it doesn't deserve status beyond question. Terri's family has provided reasonable evidence that Michael is a bad agent. What if this case were Laci and Scott instead of Terri and Michael?

We don't know what Terri wanted. The evidence is in debate. If, in the future, we find we were wrong to keep her alive, we can change our course. If, in the future, we find we were wrong to kill her, then what?

P.S. read this at MVRWC

Local faux pas goes global

Thanks to the Wonderful Miss M. who posted WHEN BAD SPELLING HAPPENS TO GOOD PEOPLE which led me to Myopic Zeal :: Stacey Campfield’s Blog?: "Glenn Reynolds links to a blog he says is one of his legislators from Knoxville, Stacey Campfield."

Well, Rep. Campfield is his legislator and since we are also in District 18, he is ours too. I love that he wants to blog about his experiences as my representative. His bit about the heated garage was interesting. The criticism, however, of his truly awful first post is valid and warranted. He earned it. Note, though, the way he responds to it:

To evary bodey who rote tanks fer yer inpoot ill tri harder next tim

At least he is not an asshole. In fact, he seems like a good guy. I do not really care whether my representative is a polished writer. I just want him to vote for good laws. Sometimes the best leaders are not the best students. Certainly the Elites are making a hack of leadership. That is why Bush is president, after all. He is not a polished speaker, but he is a great leader. Sometimes the content of one's speech is more important than the art of it. This experience will sharpen him, I'm sure. This is what the blogosphere does well. Just ask CBS.

I do not always spell well, nor do I always use proper grammar. That does not mean I'm stupid, of course. It does indicate my laziness (or that my wireless keyboard's batteries are low) which comes and goes. But, again, that is one of the joys of blogging; you can be formal when you feel like it and informal when you don't. I am not so narrow-minded as to demand formality all the time even from my legislator. He is a regular guy just like I am. That does not mean that I will not jeer him mercilessly for that post, though. Besides, now Xrlq wonders "Do all peeple from Knocksvill spel krappyly, or jist the wons yall eleckta publick offus?"

What is more troubling is that he has not posted since that first post on March 9th. Maybe we scared him away. In any case, I am sure he was not prepared for an INSTALANCHE!