Comfortable

As I listen to both sides of the Terri Schiavo case, trying hard to understand where people who disagree with me are coming from, I have picked up on a startling difference in our thinking. Set aside the politics for a minute. Set aside all those (on both sides) who can only hurl insults and ad hominem attacks across the divide, and ignore for the moment all the principle players in this case, and just think about the all the people out there who, with no personal involvement in the case, nonetheless have an opinion on it. I'm trying to listen to ordinary folks on this one.

For people like me the case in a nutshell is this one: How can you take the life away from someone in these circumstances? I don't think it is ever right to take life from someone on the basis of quality of life issues. However, knowing that my opinion is not shared by everyone, I would be less upset about this thing if Terri Schiavo had left a clear written directive that described a circumstance like this one and requested she not be nourished should she be found in that state. At least then she would have signed her own death warrant. (Though I still would believe it was the wrong thing to do.)

However, in this case, there is no directive. Do you remember why people thought they needed them? We thought we needed them because doctors and family were hesitant to withhold extraordinary life support measures or heroic, but probably doomed-to-fail surgeries, from a living, but dying, person. This was a way to give them permission ahead of time to do so if there was no more good to be done. It never would have occurred to me fifteen years ago, (when Terri became incapacitated), to think that I would need such a directive if I wanted all available care. I thought it was only necessary in order to give permission to withhold it. I see now that that is no longer the case.

It seems there was once a presumption for life--a burden that would have to overcome by anyone advocating for a person's death. As I try to understand how those who disagree with me on this one are thinking, I keep coming back to that presumption. If a man is accused of a crime, there is a presumption of innocence that the state has a burden to disprove. Hearsay evidence would never be enough to convict him. A circumstantial case might do it, but it had better be a very good one. It seems to me that there used to be a similar assumption that life was better than death, that life is to be protected, and the burden was upon anyone contradicting that in any case to prove why that was not so.

It seems that those on the other side of this case consider the two options, that is, living with severe disabilities on the one hand, and dying on the other, to be basically equal. There is no presumption that life is better. No burden of proof for death. How differently this causes the evidence to be viewed! We start out with the scales balanced and any little thing that tips them one way or another can decide the case. Now hearsay evidence of a casual conversation about "no tubes," while watching television is enough to tip the scales for death, even when there was hearsay evidence to the contrary. After all, both options are awful, aren't they--living like that or dying? Who could say which is better?

This is what has startled me as I read about and talk about these things with others. There is no presumption that life--even difficult life--is better than death. And it's not just the radical left crowd I'm talking about. It's a lot of ordinary middle of the road folks. "Oh she's better off dead," the soccer Mom casually says, as I look on in horror. "I'm comfortable with this."

That to me is the most scary and troubling aspect of all this. Huge numbers of Americans are comfortable with starving and dehydrating a woman who's "better off" dead.

Comments

[Amanda Witt]

Well said, Dory. And many thanks for all your hard work collecting relevant information.

[Mary Rosh]

What you are saying is that you should be the one to decide what happens to people unless they have given a written directive. You don't like the idea of doing anything other than maintaining life, or the semblance of life, at all costs, so you want to present as many obstacles as possible in the path of anyone who wants to choose something other than what you want.

Tough. You are entitled to choose for yourself, but not for other people. You denigrate the testimony of the people to whom Terri Schiavo talke about her desires as "hearsay evidence of a conversation" when this information was carefully considered and the supposed contrary evidence was without credibility. You talk about how there is "no presumption in favor of life" in spite of the fact that the case was carefully considered for years and years, when the guardian referred the matter to the court instead of making the decision for himself, when the court carefully considered the medical testimony, and when all the credible medical testimony came down one way. When the Schindler's were able to present new evidence that turned out to be utterly ridiculous, but which was carefully considered. When this case has received more scrutiny, even aside from the unconstitutional interventions and stunts, than any other case in history.

The balance was weighted heavily toward life, but the immense weight of evidence showing that Terri Schiavo had no meaningful life, and that she would not have wanted to continue in that condition, tipped the balance after immense, careful consideration.

But you don't want to give force to Terri Schiavo's wishes, because they don't fit in with your political agenda. You want to maintain Terri Schiavo as essentially an animated corpse in order to promote your own agenda.

You're a vulture.

You're a ghoul.

[Wendy]

I read a poem several years back. I can't quote it exactly, but it went something like this:

They came for the Jews, and I did nothing.
They came for the Catholics, and I did nothing.
They came for the Polish, and I did nothing.
Then they came for me, and there was no one to help me
Because there was no one left.

Terri is a living, breathing women who can see and feel and has expressed her desire to live. Mary, who are you to say that her life isn't meaningful? It is to her! It is to her parents! If you put the definition of meaningful life into the hands of the government, who's to say in some not-so-distant future that they won't decide YOUR life is no longer meaningful?

Be careful about pointing fingers and calling names, Mary. You're standing on a mightly slippery slope.

[Baillie]

"The Darkness has begun. There will be no dawn."

[jpe]

The difference between the two sides bears on two things: whether Ms. Schiavo has a brain; and whether her comments re: resuscitation were considered.

If you answer N & Y, respectively, it's an open-and-shut case: let her go. Presumptions in favor of life and whatnot only enter when one doesn't answer that way.

[Dory]

To the commenter whose comments have been deleted. Please read my comment policy here: http://dory.typepad.com/wittenberg_gate/2005/01/comment_policy.html
I tried to email you to request that you rewrite your comments to keep to that policy, however I found that your email address did not work. (Another violation of my comment policy.) I have therefore banned you from commenting. If you wish to appeal that decision, email me with an explanation.

[Alnot]

I know what Jesus had to say to those who would not give water and food to those who need it. "When you did it not for the least of these you did it not to me."... "Depart from me for I never knew you."

[Maggie4life]

Dory, you have written a very thoughtful piece. It is a real pity that there are some who persist in the lie that Terri is attached to a machine or that she is PVS when that is not accurate.

There is every reason to question the credibility of the hearsay evidence that was accepted by George Greer. He rejected the evidence of Terri's friend because of his own error that Karen Quinlan had died several years before she did. It is this error of fact that one poster, JPE considers to be discredited evidence from a witness.

Sadly there are many who are like JPE who have not fully considered all of the facts that have been placed before them.

The fact remains that Terri did not leave a living will and that she is a prisoner at the mercy of her "loving" two timing husband who is shacked up with a concubine and has had two children with this concubine.

The case is getting some exposure in Australia and the MSM that is presenting it, has gone out of its way to present this two timing husband as being someone who needs pity, whilst his eyes have trouble even looking at the camera and he continues to lie through his teeth. Oops, not doing too well leaving the emotion aside.

What has amazed me about this case, and it is something that is being ignored by JPE and a few others, is that this is an issue that has united Pro-life, Pro-Choice, Republicans, Democrats, Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Evangelicals and other Christians have joined together because of their concern of the gross injustices that exist in this case.

Leaving aside for a moment the stupidity of those who persist in their claims that Terry is nothing more than a shell, it is more significant that there are people who are much more aware of the significance of this case, and who recognize that this is a gross injustice.

[Brent Anderson]

My problem too, esp. people I know who have more of a problem with the Christians treating this like a Passion play than with Terri's frankenstein "husband."

Excellent writing, madame.

[Humphrey]

Way up above in this discussion, someone named "Mary" said: "the supposed contrary evidence was without credibility."

Yest -- according to one judge's opinion -- and no one in higher courts has been willing to challenge it. But the fact remains, it was one' judge's opinion. That's a mighty fine line between life and death for an innocent woman who can't speak for herself.

I've read that judge's opinion. You can, too. Go to: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

Read it for yourself. He did decide the hearsay evidence contradicting the other hearsay evidence was without credibility.

But you may be surprised why. It had to do with declention of verbs and his own estimation of what that meant, while he liked the way Michael Schiavo and his brother testified.

This was no determination of facts. It was a judge's subjective read on people's credibility as hearsay witnesses.

And for this, Terri Schiavo is being mercilessly put to death by ordeal of dehydration and starvation over many slow days. And no higher courts have been willing to challenge. There is something rotten here.

It is an outrage. It is murder. There is no excuse for it.

[injusticebuster]

Judges who believe they are the social engineers of our time seek to do through imposing their personal policy objectives what the Constitution plainly left to the people. The only hope for America is her people. Don’t let America’s courts continue to serve as incubators of injustice!

[Robert]

A few other random thoughts:

Isn’t it ironic that this whole sad affair started with an eating issue (bulima) and now ends with another “eating issue” (the feeding tube)?

If I were in a similar state, how vigorously would my spouse fight to carry out my last wishes?

Should a parent’s wishes carry more weight than a spouse’s? Kinda puts that whole “giving the bride away” tradition in a different perspective….

On any given day, how many people are forced to make (and live with) the decision to remove life sustaining support for a loved one? What makes this case any more profound or tragic than theirs?

I can not even imagine the pain and anguish the girlfriend and Michael’s children must be living through during this time…

If a person is truly in a “persistent vegetative state,” do they feel pain from dehydration or starvation?