After reading this piece from
I urge everyone to read this calm, powerful article, by a Roman Catholic priest from Michigan, which is the best summation of the situation that I've seen. In it, they will learn just how thoroughly even the most minimal and reasonable forms of medical diagnosis and care have been withheld from Terri, for more than a decade. (Her husband has, for example, never permitted an MRI or PET examination of Terri.) They will learn how aggressively the courts have sought to suppress complicating evidence and testimony. And they will learn that the chief medical authority for the diagnosis of Terri's condition as one of a Persistent Vegetative State is Dr. Ronald Cranford, one of the nation's leading exponents of "the right to die" and physician-assisted suicide, a man who has advocated the "humane" starvation of Alzheimer's patients. It is not only the depravity of Terri's husband, but the corruption of the courts and the medical profession, that are on view in this appalling business.
When you read this you will see that all of the hypotheticals that are thrown at Terri's advocates are ridiculous. We are often accused of wanting to prolong the life of anyone no matter what their condition, even if they are brain dead.
But Terri's situation is not a hypothetical situation, it is an actual situation. In this actual situation, the very diagnostic procedures that would establish what kind of brain functioning she has have been withheld from her. So, the hypothetical situation here of whether or not she is "brain dead" is not in view. The fact of the matter is that the judicial system is setting a precedent here for enforcing the starvation of someone who has not been proven to be brain dead.
That is the crux of the matter - the precedent being set here is not one that would allow for the removal of "extreme measures" in the case of someone who is brain dead or in a persistent vegetative state. The precedent being set here is one that would allow for the starvation-death of someone who has not been shown to be brain dead. It would allow for the starvation-death of someone whom a majority of doctors do not believe is brain dead, or even in a persistent vegetative state.
I realize that those who are advocating Terri's starvation say that there are doctors who have confirmed that she is in a persistent vegetative state and imply that she is "brain dead." Yet, if you read Johansen's article you will see that 1) the doctors who have diagnosed her as such have not come close to following proper diagnostic procedures, 2) there is tremendous evidence of bias on the part of those doctors, and 3) the doctors who have spent the most time with Terri do not think she is in a persistent vegetative state.
Yet, the judges who have ruled thus far have consistently ignored evidence to the contrary, and her so-called husband is hell bent on seeing her dead. On the Larry King show he has admitted that he doesn't know what Terri would want, he claims that there is no money on the line for him, yet he insists on killing her. This in the face of the fact that her parents are willing to care for Terri as long as she lives and he could simply divorce her and go on with his life and she wouldn't be a burden to him.
I am the last one in the world who wants to cry conspiracy, but all of this makes me wonder if Michael is hiding something. Why is it so important to him that Terri die when her parents could relieve him of the burden of caring for her? And why is our judicial system backing him on this?
Update 3/24/05 @ 3:00pm: As can be seen by the update below, the things I have written about Terri have now found a much wider audience in the last two days. Up until then most of my readers were people I am very familiar with and the comments about comments that I left below really weren't necessary. There are several regular readers of my blog who disagree with me strenuously about many things I write, yet I profit from interaction with them. If you read the comments in this and some of my other Terry Schiavo posts you will see that Catez Stephens from Allthings2All and I are kindred spirits in this matter and a commenter named Joel Thomas has been a recurring contrarian. Catez and I have both had some heated exchanges with Joel in these matters. Yet Joel has always been welcomed here. Though I seem to disagree with almost everything he has to say, he says what he says articulately, he stays on point and he doesn't descend into vitriol. Sure, some of our recent exchanges have been heated, but I have not felt any personal hostility from him and hopefully have not given any to him.
I bring that up for a couple of reasons. I mention below that I have deleted and banned some comments from folks who have resorted to name-calling and have sought to incite violence against others. I am concerned that the words I have uttered in this post could be construed as some kind of call to arms. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a call to prayer and persuasion, not hatred.
Joel says that the article I cited does not provide evidence of criminality or conspiracy. In one sense I will agree with Joel - I do not see that anyone here has broken any of the laws of the State of Florida, thus I am not campaigning to arrest anyone. I think a higher law has been broken and that the laws of the state are flawed. I know that Joel agrees with that last part, about the laws of the state being flawed, although he probably has different reasons than I do. I think he and I would agree that these are matters that need to be handled through proper legal and legislative channels. My greater concern in this update is not to continue to argue against Joel but to say that, though we disagree, we are probably in much agreement as tho how these disagreements should be handled.
And so I bring all of this up to clarify my own intentions in a post like this. I should have seen it coming but I didn't - there are those who have commented here recently who share my convictions that something is rotten in Denmark in this whole situation, but who want to address it in ways I abhor. That's why I dragged poor Joel into this discussion - to show that we can passionately and vigrously argue for our positions without resorting to malice and threatening language. And I specifically want to make sure that those who want to talk tough, talk maliciously, and threaten all kinds of retaliation don't co-opt me as an advocate of their positions or intentions. Yes, I'm not too sure about Michael Schiavo's intentions in this matter, his actions trouble me greatly. But his actions are to be addressed through prayer, persuasion and any actions taken are to be taken through proper legal channels.
Update 3-24/05 @ 2:15pm: Since I have been
mentioned in an AP news story that has been featured on the websites of
ABC News, Fox News, MSNBC, Yahoo and others I am getting lots of
visitors reading what I have written about Terry Schiavo. All are
welcome here and all are welcome to leave comments, even those who
disgree with me. For the most part we have had respectful and helpful
interaction from people on all sides of the issue. However, today the
comments are starting to turn nasty. I've already deleted several
comments from a gentleman seeking to incite violence against Michael
Schiavo and others involved in this matter. Others are resorting to
name-calling, and at least one comment has been laced with profanity.
I realize the emotional nature of this issue and I feel passionately
about it, as do many of you. But, this blog will not be a forum
for threats, name calling, profanity or anything else I feel is out of
order, no matter who it is directed against. I will delete all such
comments. Again, I welcome comments, even from those who disagree with
me. But when you comment, stay on point, speak as passionately as you
want to, but speak respectfully.
I am the executor for my cousin. If I were in similar situation, I would have a problem pulling the plug even it were against the written wishes of my cousin. I would let her live for another 5 years and re-evaluate then. It's not a matter of quality of life or following through with the wishes of my cousin, it is more to do with the urgency of the situation. In the Schiavo case, there is no urgency. So I say don't pull the plug.
Posted by: Chuck | March 22, 2005 at 02:45 PM
Read the independent gaurdian's report. Rich Lowry has posted a few excerpts from it on The Corner at National Review online. There was an extensive article based on it in the Orlando paper over the weekend, and I am sure in other Florida papers.
The bottom line is that the husband pursued agressive therapy for four years. The medical recordsprove that there was no response, no improvement, not the least little bit, ever.
Now, maybe the law ought to be that someone in this condiiton MUST under all circumstances be kept alive. Maybe the law ought to be that a hsuband's determinations about his wife's care should be subordinate to her parent's wishes.
Fine. If you feel that one or both of those positions is correct, then lobby the Florida legislature to change the law accordingly. But neither one of those propositions is the law in Florida, or in any other state I know of, and I am an attorney. And a pro-life voter. But, we give a high degree of autonomy to the family and treating physiciasns in these situations, and no one that I hear has the guts to say that the only legitimate legislative solutions (i.e., not ones aimed at jsut one case) would involve reducing this autonomy.
And by the way, before you believe anything coming out of the parent's camp, consider that Randall Terry is one of their principal spokesmen. He taints any cause he associates with.
Posted by: Dan | March 22, 2005 at 02:59 PM
You have no basis in fact to be making these outrageous claims of criminal actions or conspiracy.
Posted by: Joel Thomas | March 22, 2005 at 03:21 PM
Dan - I agree with you about Randall Terry - not the person I would want to be seen with if I'm Terry's parents. And thanks for pointing out the independent guardian's report - I'll try to find it. Still, Johansen's arguments are persuasive to me.
Not being a lawyer I'll defer to your opinion on this, but you give two options - that someone in this condition Must under all circumstances be kept alive, or that a husband's wishes must be subordinate to the parents. Isn't there a third option, or aren't there more options? Why not say something to the effect that, when in doubt, be biased toward life. In this case, there are numerous physicians who disagree with the doctors the judge is relying on.
Posted by: David Wayne | March 22, 2005 at 03:24 PM
Joel - did you read Johansen's article?
Posted by: David Wayne | March 22, 2005 at 03:25 PM
David:
Here is a link to the guardian's report:
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf
David, for a lot of reasons, there is a lot of legal ambiguity in these situations. But, pretty clearly, the law does recognize that these are difficult decisions, and that a family is in a better position to decide than the government. And, in every state I have ever heard of, a husband's decision would prevail over that of another relative if family members could not disagree.
I have been involved, as an attorney, in several family feuds, and they are almost never about the supposed object of the dispute. They can be arguing about who should get Aunt Minnies china, but really the argument is about who Aunt Minnie really loved. I am sure that you have seen this as a minister.
In my opinion, there is only one thing worse than such a fight-- getting the federal government involved. These kinds of issues have always been settled by local courts acting under state law. There isn't really that much that is unusual about this case, save for the involvement of extremists like Terry who know how to gin up publicity.
Posted by: Dan | March 22, 2005 at 04:01 PM
Dan - thanks for the link. I'll read over the stuff as I have time. I appreciate the fact that there is lots of legal ambiguity in a case like this. I also have no problem with a husband's will taking precedence over the will of another family members, but I don't see that as an absolute. I also agree that these matters should be handled on a local level, but at the same time, isn't that why we have gradations of courts, so that when one party feels a lower court has failed they, they can take it to a higher court?
Also, I don't see this as being solely a case of Michael's will vs. the Schindler's. There is evidence from the medical community that says she is not in a persistent vegetative state. There are diagnostic tests that have not been given her that would help clarify the situation.
There should be a bias for life - who is harmed if Terri lives?
Also, while I agree with you about Randall Terry, he's not my favorite person, I would point out that he's not the only one drumming up publicity here. Joni Eareckson Tada and lots of other more respectable people have been on this. In fact, I only recently became aware of Randall Terry's involvement. I just wanted to clarify this - I don't see the publicity here as being drummed up solely from him.
Posted by: David Wayne | March 22, 2005 at 04:23 PM
The article is not even close to providing any evidence for the criminal conspiracy you claim.
Posted by: Joel Thomas | March 22, 2005 at 04:23 PM
David:
I understand where you are coming from, but this has been litigated back and forth for a decade. Maybe the laws are wrong, and not enough process is allowed to protect people in conditions like Ms. Schiavo. Fine. Change the laws, but change them for everybody.
If the Federal Courts start all of this over again, de novo as the law passed by Congress calls for, it will be years before a decision is final. And, if it is the same result, you can bet someone will say, "Wait a minute. Since the hearing, new tests have become available. " Should we start over again?
The plain and simple fact is that families, doctors and local courts are allowed to make life and death decisions every day. The plain and simple fact is also that there is not a lot of support for changes in the laws that would make it harder for families to pull the plug and be stuck with the burden of caring for relatives in vegetative states. It is easy to call for more "due process" for Terry Schiavo, but harder to say you are willing to carry the burden indefinitely for Aunt Edna.
Posted by: Dan | March 22, 2005 at 04:40 PM
Joel what are you specifically saying with regard to Terri Schiavo. You have every opportunity to say you do not agree with her being forced to starve to death. Go ahead.
On the issue of the law - there is a Higher Law. From a Christian perspective we do not relegate a life and death matter solely to lawyers. No disrespect intended, but the law is not the word of God. It is mans effort to maintain order and keep a lid on certain things. Let's not forget that a disabled woman is now starving to death even though there is absolutely no evidence that has been presented that she wanted this. All that has been offered is unsubstantiated hearsay. The law is unfortunately incomplete. Do we allow some-one to be starved to death because we quibble about the legalities? From a biblical perspective - living is not against God's law. Doing harm to another is. It's simple - God meant it to be clear and simple.
Posted by: Catez | March 22, 2005 at 07:39 PM
Catez,
Repeatedly I have said the following:
1. Any competent adult, prior to accident or serious injury, has a legal and moral right to provide for a living will that feeding tubes will not be used if they are in a persistent vegetative state.
2. Legislatures should change their laws to require for living wills before feeding tubes are removed.
3. The court should have erred on the side of caution where family disagree, there was no living will, and medical disagreement. Terri Schiavo may not be in a pvs. So yes, the court may have erred.
4. Medical decisions should be handled according to state law and in state courts; the only recourse to federal court being a claim of violation of due process.
5. I don't approve of what Congress did because I believe this is a state, not federal matter.
6. By way of example and comparison, I believe that the death penalty is horribly, viciously, demonically, Satanically, cowardly, hatefully, wrong and immoral but nevertheless the supreme law of the United States. I fight to get the laws changed and capital punishment abolished, but until then "render unto Caesar." Yes, there is a higher moral law, but if everyone does what they consider the higher moral law in defiance of laws enacted by the people, anarchy will result.
Catez, you have to accept your responsibility that by raising this issue to the level it has received that more people who are in conditions similar to Terri Schiavo's will now die, because more people will have living wills that provide for no feeding tubes.
Posted by: Joel Thomas | March 22, 2005 at 09:55 PM
Joel, I understand from what you said that you think the court may have erred. Do you specifically believe Terri Schiavo should live?
And really, trying to put it on me that people will die now becaise this issue has been raised? People will die because of unregenerate self-willed opinion and so-called Christian perspectives where life is less important than being comfortable, listening to conscience, ipods and Happy Meals. There is nothing wrong with raising the issue - it's how you then act on the issue that you will account for. So sorry - don't try offloading the responsibility for murderous hearts onto me. I account to God for my heart and actions, not some-one ele's death-wishing words and motives. The US needs to look at this issue. And BTW - we have no death penalty here. I can't understand the need for one myself. But then I can't understand why people who profess to be Christians love self-opinion before truth when a woman is starving to death, or why some people have so much enrgy to argue for her death, or why those who simply see that she should live are accused of opening the way for more deaths. Ridiculous self-serving nonsense all of it.
Posted by: Catez | March 23, 2005 at 01:44 AM
Catez,
You're trying to put Terri Schiavo's death on me. Turnabout is fair play. If you're saying I'm contributing to the death of one person but upholding federalism and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution, then I'm saying your view may result in many more deaths. That's only fair.
Since this began, I've gotten numerous e-mails accusing me of being a Nazi, of wishing that I would die in some torturous way, of insisting that I am a pagan, promising that I'll burn in hell, that I lack a conscience, that I'm evil. I respect your views but what you are trying to claim is a personal moral superiority.
Do you think it is always immoral to remove a feeding tube, even in cases of proved persistent vegetative states?
Posted by: Joel Thomas | March 23, 2005 at 01:58 AM
Joel let me be completely clear - I have never emailed you about anything. If you feel hard done by take it up with the people who have emailed you. Secondly, I'm tired of this. This silly word game "turn around is fair". I'm not interested in point scoring while a woman is dying. I have asked you a simple question - do you believe Terri Schiavo should live? I take your continued avoidance of that question to mean that you think she should die. You continually harp on about living wills and PVS. Terri Schiavo is not PVS. You have a living will. However you are not starving and dehydrating to death right now, although your continual avoidance of the question suggests you believe Terri Schiavo should be undergoing this torture as her life ends. You could quite simply answer the question. The post here is not about your living will, or PVS patients. It is about Terri Schiavo. So front up - do you believe she should live - yes or no? I will conclude that evasion is a no. Your own words or the lack thereof speak for you. I'm sorry if you are upset that Congress tried to save some-one's life. Gee whiz - isn't it like Jesus healing some-one on the Sabbath and upsetting the rules and social order. We can't have that can we. Do you believe Terri Schiavo should live?? Yes or no.
Posted by: Catez | March 23, 2005 at 02:30 AM
Catez,
I've indicated that the courts may have or probably have made a mistake. I do not think Terri should die. However, I am unwilling to say that the law should be ignored or that this was a Congressional matter. You clearly don't understand how the American legal system works or simply don't care. If the laws need to be changed, they should be changed. However, if the courts don't have to follow the law, no one does. If you want to know my views more fully, go read the posts by United Methodist pastor Donald Sensing (at One Hand Clapping) on this subject, for I agree with him on this matter, and he perhaps is being more articulate on the matter than I.
Have you answered my question as to whether or not you consider it moral for someone in a persistent vegetative state to refuse feeding tubes? I happen to think the question is highly relevant as to whether your main objection is that Terri isn't pvs or that you oppose removing feeding tubes in all situations.
Posted by: Joel Thomas | March 23, 2005 at 02:46 AM
Thankyou for finally answering the question - although you still prefer to phrase it in the negative, "I do not believe she should die" rather than in the affirmative, i.e. I believe she should live. There's no quid pro quo here Joel. Just because you've finally actually made a comment that is on the topic does not mean I now have to digress on to your agenda and discuss PVS and denial of feeding tubes. Truthfully I have not considered that entire issue as it is irrelevant to Terri Schiavo's situation. She is not PVS and has not indicated that she wants her feeding tube withdrawn. I am focused on her situation. I suggest that you should take up your more abstract considerations with some-one who wants to divert to them. I'm not interested in going to Donald Sensing's site. As for understanding the US system - I have read excellent material today which shows why the bill passed by Congress is not unconstitutional. But really - you seem to want some involved discussion on your agenda. I told you I'm not interested in point scoring. And I recall you made a comment at EO saying those on the right were like the gestapo. I think you are playing some games Joel and I'm not interested.
Posted by: Catez | March 23, 2005 at 02:58 AM
Catez,
And no, you haven't sent me any e-mail. But on your site you have compared people who disagree with you with the Nazis.
Posted by: Joel Thomas | March 23, 2005 at 02:59 AM
Catez,
Joe at EO was the first to invoke the Nazis. I just threw it back at him.
Posted by: Joel Thomas | March 23, 2005 at 03:37 AM
I've had enough of you Joel. I have not compared people who disagree with me with the Nazis on my blog. In my first post on Terri Schiavo I compared her situation then to that of people in Nazi concentration camps waiting to be selected to live or die. It was a comment on the system. I've read your comments here and at EO. I don't believe you want Terri Schiavo to live. You constantly oppose anyone who affirms that she should live. You would rather "throw things back at people" and make every discussion about you - all the classic hallmarks of an internet troll. She is now dying and you are engaging in petty tit-for-tat disputing, in which you misrepresent what anyone who wants her to live has to say. I have not once seen you affirm ayone who has stated that she should live. I'm not surprised people have emailed you. I won't - but I'll tell you here that I find this peddling of euthanasia under the guise of having a discussion abhorrent and antithetical to Christianity. And I find this misrepresentation of what some-one says so that you can get back at them really very out of place for some-one who thinks Terri Schiavo should live. Strange and unfortunate.
Posted by: Catez | March 23, 2005 at 04:02 AM
David, a quote from your blog was referenced in an MSNBC article titled "Terry Schiavo case fuels blogging storm". The article can be found here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7277674/
Thought you'd like to know.
Ken
Posted by: Ken | March 24, 2005 at 12:18 PM
Catez,
I don't think you've engaged the issues honestly. You've repeatedly twisted my words.
Posted by: Joel Thomas | March 24, 2005 at 04:59 PM
David, Can you do a global replace and spell Terri with an "i" instead of "y"? Can you also set up an insta-poll to query readers as to which poster they believe is out-of-bounds? Finally, your readers should familiarize themselves with how starvation works; something no pet owner would do to a beloved pet. The following quote comes from the side bar titled "Death by Starvation" in the March 21 edition of the Washington Times, pp A18:
Day 1: The percutaneous endoscopic gastrotomy tube, which is placed through the skin and into the stomach, is removed in a simple surgical procedure. Patients who do not have mental cognition to have a sense of thirst or hunger will not be uncomfortable.
Day 3-4: Urine output decreases and patients begin to lose normal body secretions. The mouth begins to look dry and the eyes appear sunken. Patients will look thinner because the body tissues have lost fluid. Their heart rate gradually goes up and their blood pressure goes down. In some patients, dehydration releases endorphins in the brain that create a state of euphoria.
Day 5-10: People who are alert have a marked decrease in their alertness. Respiration becomes irregular with periods of very fast and then very slow breathing. Some patients will become restless while others will be less active.
Day 10 to death: Patients do not appear to respond to their environment at all and may appear to be in a coma. Length of time to death is determined by how well-nourished the patient was and how much body fat and fluid they had when starvation began. There may be outward signs of dehydration, such as extremely dry skin. Kidney function declines and toxins begin accumulating in the body. Toxins cause respiratory muscles to fail. Multiple organ systems begin to fail from lack of nutrition. Source: LifePath Hospice
Posted by: CornChuckinChamp | March 24, 2005 at 09:56 PM
Steve - typepad doesn't have the word processing capabilities necessary to do a global replace. I'll just have to be more careful in how I write. I may update this post again and if I do I'll check for those kinds of things.
Blogs aren't set up for polls and it's really up to the blog owner to decide what is out of bounds and what isn't. I like the freewheeling passionate debate you see going on here. Obviously in this post the comments got pretty heated between Joel and me and Catez, but to me that kind of stuff is in bounds. I disagree strongly with Joel's opinions but he isn't threatening anyone here, he isn't using profanity or calling people names or anything like that. In some of my other posts some folks were doing that kind of stuff so I just deleted their comments. Basically if a comment is still here then I'm ok with it.
Thanks for your description of what happens with dehydration. The folks who are advocating this make it out that Terry will be unconscious and not feel a thing. I don't believe that for a minute. Thanks for giving some evidence to back this up.
Posted by: David Wayne | March 24, 2005 at 10:42 PM