There was an honest, forthright case for ending the life of Terri Schiavo. It was that her life no longer had any value, for herself or others, and that ending it — the quicker the better — would spare everyone misery. We disagree with that view, holding it wiser to stick with the Judeo-Christian tradition on the sanctity of innocent life. But the people who made this case deserve some credit for straightforwardness.
But while the public may have agreed with the removal of Schiavo’s feeding and hydration tube, apparently there are limits to the public’s willingness to tolerate euthanasia — and apparently its defenders recognized these limits. So we saw euphemism after euphemism deployed to cloud the issues.
Perhaps chief among these was the fiction that we were “letting her die.” On March 18, Schiavo was in no medical danger of death. She was profoundly brain-damaged (although just how profoundly remains unknown), but she was not in a coma or on a respirator. She was not being kept alive by artificial means, any more than small children are kept alive by artificial means when their parents feed them. Her body was functioning, there is some reason to believe she was minimally conscious, and she was responsive to stimuli (it’s been reported she was actually being administered pain medication). She had devoted parents and siblings who were willing to care for her. She could easily have gone on in these conditions for many years. She was not close to dying. For death to arrive, she would have to be killed.
“There was an honest, forthright case for ending the life of Terri Schiavo. It was that her life no longer had any value . . . ”
Not the case that was being made.
“So we saw euphemism after euphemism deployed to cloud the issues.”
Or more accurately, cacophemism after cacophemism deployed to cloude the issues.
“She was not being kept alive by artificial means, any more than small children are kept alive by artificial means when their parents feed them.”
Don’t what kind of childhood you guys had, but I don’t recall my parents surgically implanting a feeding tube in me. Another example of yet another author who doesn’t bother to read the facts of the case.
” . . . there is some reason to believe she was minimally conscious . . . ”
Yes, the one fundamentalist doctor who emerged at the last minute. Forget about the rest of the physicians.
“She had devoted parents and siblings who were willing to care for her.”
Even case for her against her wishes, as they testified.
“And for that to happen, the use of words like “starvation” and “dehydration” would have to be discouraged.”
She didn’t die from starvation. She died from dehydration, and that was commonly reported.
“The phrase ‘persistent vegetative state’ had to be repeated constantly – never mind that basic tests were never performed to establish this diagnosis, and such diagnoses have a very high error rate . . . ”
It doesn’t have a high error rate after 15 years. Basic tests were performed.
“We were told that her “choice to die” was being “honored,” although the evidence that she had, at age 26, given any considered thought to her own mortality and potential incapacity was thin and highly suspect – its lone source being a husband . . .”
NOT the lone source. You know, just because the guy is writing a piece of junk propaganda, at least he could have the courtesy to get a few facts straight.
“Letting the courts decide such life-and-death issues made it possible for us to let them decide others, made it seem somehow wrong for anyone to stand in their way. Now they are helping to snuff out the minimally conscious. Who’s next?”
Rather than having the courts decide such issues we could have the bloggers decide. So whoever has the most blogs on his or her side would win.
Notice that on the basis of one fundamentalist physician’s opinion she is now described as “minimally conscious.” Before, he argues that the diagnosis is uncertain. Now in the last paragraph all of a sudden it’s certain. Good rhetorical trick. Terrible article, but good trick.
Father, please take look at this article.
Orlando, thanks for the link. I’m going to post the article on the main page. It describes well how the culture of death might prevail in America if the secularism is not challenged. It is a very good article.
Note 1. You argue that Michael Schiavo was not the lone source contending Terri wanted to die. The only other two were his brother and another relative — hardly objective or disintereted parties.
Meanwhile, an affidavit from a very close friend of Terri asserted that Terri wanted the opposite and expressed it in strong and clear terms, that the friend swore occurred during a discussion about Karen Anne Quinlan. Judge Greer threw the affidavit out because he said the girls could only have been fourteen at the time, and thus too young to make this kind of decision. It turns out that Greer had the date of Quinlan’s death wrong thinking she died in 1977, when in fact she died in 1984. When confronted with his mistake, Judge Greer refused to reconsider.
You call the Mayo Clinic neurologist who disputed the PVS diagnosis of Dr. Randall Crandall a “fundamentalist” as if this perjorative somehow settles the question. You ignore the fact that Crandall examined her for only 45 minutes and has a history of ethanasia activism — a bias that ought to have called this single diagnosis into question from the outset. Meanwhile, over 50 other doctors offered to examine the medical records. These offers were ignored as well.
This doesn’t mention the willingness of the Schindlers to care for their daughter. There was no need for Terri to die, except that a handful of death advocates decided she should die and set out to kill her with the determination of jackals stalking prey.
Standing on Terri’s grave I see the secular fundamentalism you advocate as a far more deadly threat than the “fundamentalist” doctor who tried to save her.
Fr. Hans writes: “You argue that Michael Schiavo was not the lone source contending Terri wanted to die. The only other two were his brother and another relative – hardly objective or disintereted parties.”
As if those on the other side of the case were disinterested? Isn’t that why this went to court in the first place?
What you’re saying is that the judge’s decision was consistent with three of those who gave testimony in some form in the case, one of whom happened to be Michael Schiavo. How does that equate to a decision being based on a “lone” source? True, the judge weighted the testimony as any judge would. Some testimony was more or less credible, more or less persuasive. He explains his line of reasoning in the court order. In addition, he explains in the case of the Quinlan dating error how he didn’t feel that was significant — that it wouldn’t have changed the decision.
But let’s focus on the main fact: how many people were involved in the decision, and whether Michael Schiavo alone made the determination.
Let me give you an example:
Some people have stated that “only” the United States invaded and occupied Iraq. I believe that people who make such an assertion are wrong — that in fact more than one country occupies Iraq. Now it may be that the U.S. is the main occupier. It may be that some countries have contributed few troops. It may be that most of the people in those countries opposed sending their troops to Iraq. It may be that the U.S. had to engage in some arm-twistings or payoffs to get other countries involved. But all that matters not. As a matter of cold, hard, fact, like it or not, more than one country occupies Iraq. In other words, there is a difference between “one country” and “more than one country.”
Now what would you say about someone who, two, three, four years after the invasion of Iraq continued to say, over and over, that only “one” country occupied Iraq? Would this not indicate a) a congenital inability to apprehend that particular fact; b) perhaps some organic brain problem in which new facts or explanations could not be remembered; c) a fundamental lack of intelligence; d) perhaps a willful disregard of the truth for polemical purposes; or e) reliance on rumor and speculation with little or no effort to understand the truth. Wouldn’t it have to be something like one of those? I mean, with the correct information publicly and easily available, how else could we explain such a constant and repeated error, even by authors in national journals?
In the Schiavo case these are the facts: the judge’s decision was not based on Michael Schiavo’s testimony alone. It was based on the testimony of some five or six people. It is a fact that Michael Schiavo did not make the sole determination of his wife’s wishes. It is a fact that with respect to this decision, Michael Schiavo was one of those [note the plural “those”] who testified; he was not making a unilateral decision in his capacity as guardian. It is a fact that with respect to this decision, the COURT was acting as guardian, and thus Michael Schiavo could not have been the one to make a sole decision.
Now whether or not someone likes the decision is another matter. Whether or not it was a good decision is another matter. Whether or not it was a just decision is another matter. The blunt fact of the case is that Michael Schiavo was not the “sole” determiner or his wife’s wishes. This is not a matter of interpretation. It’s not a matter of euphemism. It’s not a matter of spin. It’s what happened, for good or bad, like it or not.
I hate to gripe about this all the time, but isn’t there some point at which, several years into this, it is reasonable to expect authors to get the basic facts of the case right?
Dawn:
The New York Times Editorial presumes certain things. First, it presume the primacy of “autonomy” over other interests. Secondly, it presumes that it will be easy for people to establish when a person has no hope of recovery.
Although alternative formulations of the issue have been posited and explained on this blog you don’t seem to have responded to them.
Again, Dawn, my objections were not based on a rejection of the medical evidence, I have never attempted to evaluate the medical evidence. My objection is that due to the foolish adoption of the “right to die” approach to caring for the terminally ill, the probate court has been turned from a humanitarian institution created for the benefit of those who cannot care for themselves to an executioners court.
Again, Dawn, here are my procedural objections:
Guardians highest duty is to serve the ward. Any guardian with a potential conflict of interest or the “appearance” of a conflict of interest should be removed and another appointed. This has been the practice that I have observed in twenty years of legal practice. Michael Shiavo should have been removed as guardian.
The standard of proof for the termination of life should be “beyond a reasonable doubt” on all relevant issues. An individual’s life is at a stake and nothing less will due.
The evidentiary standards should be as high as those required for a will. There should be no such thing as an “oral living will” just as there is no such thing as an “oral will” or an “oral contract for the sale of real estate.”
Hearsay evidence should not be admissible, or should be admisslbe only under the severely limited circumstances that it is admissible in criminal courts.
The right to life is protected by the United States Constitution, it is federal right and it should be protected by the fedearl courts in the cases of incapacitated people, just as it is for persons convicted of a crime.
I would appreciate your acknoledgement that Teri had less procedural protections than and person convicted of a crime.
Jim Holman: Note 5
O.K. let us assume that the Judge based his decision on more than one witness. Here is still what was wrong:
The “living will” was not in writing. It was not witnesses by dispassionate witnesses and it was not notarized. This is required for the transfer of property, it should be required for “living wills.”
A single person should not made the primary decision that ends a human being’s life. The trier of fact should not have been a judge, it should have been jury.
Michael Shiavo does not have a right to be a guardian of his wife. He should have been removed. The Court should have appointed a non-related person, preferably an attorney to act as Teri’s guardian.
Funds should have been provided for any type of medical examination requested by any party. Funds were available for Teri’s care and they should have been used for that purpose years ago.
The presumption should always been in favor of life, not death.
The idea of patient automony should be one factor among many that controls the decision. Society should balance the supposed patient’s wishes with society’s interest in preserving life when possible.
A feeding tube should not be considered extraordinary care. Teri’s parents probably could have cared for her at home with the help of a visiting nurse. We owe this to the disabled at a minimum.
These are just a few of the objections I have.
Passage of Time, Progress and the Limits of a Living Will
I have been investigating eye surgery to correct my severe near-sightedness. I have been amazed at what the doctors can do. I may chose to undergo a procedure that promises to restore nearly perfect sight to me, this procedure is less than five years old.
Given that, assume that I make a living will in 2005. How can I imagine what the world will be like in 2030 or 2040? How will my family have changed? What will medical science have to offer us? How will my view of life change?
My experience as an attorney is that most people who make a will put it in their safety deposit box and forget it. Lawyers preach that people should review their wills periodically and after major changes in family, like marriage, death or adoption but few people do. Many times the Courts probate wills that were clearly out of date but they were in legal force, so they were probated.
The “right to die” and “patient autonomy” supremacists need a little more humility about the nature of a person’s view of life, how it can change from year to year. My view of life and death is vastly different than it was even 10 years ago. Few people see the world in exactly the same manner when they are 40 as when they are 20.
Missourian writes: “O.K. let us assume that the Judge based his decision on more than one witness.”
Thank you.
Missourian: “The ‘living will’ was not in writing. It was not witnesses by dispassionate witnesses and it was not notarized. This is required for the transfer of property, it should be required for ‘living wills.'”
And of course, it wasn’t a living will, which is why the phrase has to be in quotes.
One suggestion here. Perhaps an advanced directive or living will should “expire” if not updated in X number of years. Of perhaps the patient could specify the number of years that it is in force? I don’t know. Another problem is that even if someone has filled out an advanced directive does anyone know where it is? Is your advanced directive sitting in a file in your doctor’s office? Is it at home? In the safe deposit box?
Missourian: “A single person should not made the primary decision that ends a human being’s life. The trier of fact should not have been a judge, it should have been jury.”
I don’t have any statistics, but I believe it is relatively rare for such a case to enter the legal system. In most cases the family is in agreement. If the family needs help deciding, or if the physician’s opinion is markedly different from the family’s a medical ethics committee can help. So this was an unusual case from the start. In the Schiavo case, given the recent poll results, my guess is that a jury probably would have decided the same way that Judge Greer did.
Missourian: “Michael Shiavo does not have a right to be a guardian of his wife. He should have been removed. The Court should have appointed a non-related person, preferably an attorney to act as Teri’s guardian.”
I’m wondering if you would have the same opinion were the roles reversed: If Michael Schiavo had insisted that his wife be maintained in her condition, and the family wanted medical support withdrawn.
Missourian: “Funds should have been provided for any type of medical examination requested by any party. Funds were available for Teri’s care and they should have been used for that purpose years ago.”
I don’t know the details of the case enough to know when the requests for additional examinations were made. In the hearing related to the diagnosis I don’t recall that any physician requested more tests. I think the call for more tests was something that developed fairly recently.
Missourian: “The presumption should always been in favor of life, not death.”
That sounds like a good idea. But as a general principle authorizing medical intervention I think it is very problematic. For example, do you perform CPR on someone going into multiple organ failure who is dying of AIDS just because you don’t have an official and recent statement from the patient concerning his wishes? No. But read on a little more. I’m about to agree with you on something related.
Missourian: “The idea of patient automony should be one factor among many that controls the decision. Society should balance the supposed patient’s wishes with society’s interest in preserving life when possible.”
As I have mentioned before, patient autonomy is a very western and individualistic way of making these decisions. But put yourself in a patient’s shoes for a moment. To what extent would you want your personal wishes overridden by some societal interest?
Missourian: “A feeding tube should not be considered extraordinary care. Teri’s parents probably could have cared for her at home with the help of a visiting nurse. We owe this to the disabled at a minimum.”
I think this is exactly the sort of thing that should be addressed in a living will (Declaration to Physicians) form. If you wanted a single, simple reform that would have prevented the recent death of Terri Schiavo along with all the controversy you could pass a law forbidding the withholding of artificial nutrition and hydration from a PVS patient unless the patient has a written advanced directive specifying that it should be withheld. That would be a way of “erring of the side of life” in a *limited* way, and only in PVS cases, while still allowing people who didn’t want it to opt out. I could live with that.
Missourian, I don’t have an serious disagreement with you here. Your instincts are correct — this entire area is very problematic, and there are many areas that should be addressed.
Note 5. There is no such thing as a disinterested party in this tragic case. How can there be when the life of an innocent person is at stake?
Further, when you write: “But let?s focus on the main fact: how many people were involved in the decision, and whether Michael Schiavo alone made the determination” it obscures the fact only one person made the decision — Judge Greer. No jury.
The pressupposition you never address is whether or not pulling the tubes constitutes killing. Every time the moral dimension is broached, you retreat into the language of the medical technocrat and wring you hands about the “difficulties” of these questions.
Again, does the death of Terri Schiavo constitute a moral good for society?
For those who believe the judiciary is out of control…
Yesterday I had the great “delight” in taking a certain licensing exam, and part of a text came up which I thought profoundly relevant to this blog. The text was an excerpt from a speech written by Ben Franklin to the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787 – a speech read prior to Franklin’s signing the Constitution.
I know there are those of us here who believe there exists a gross imbalance in power, that the judiciary is unchecked (ignoring that when this same judiciary approves rulings with which we agree, we uniformly laud their brilliance and bravery), and that the US government requires immediate “investigation” or reform.
Some of us even believe, I know, that the Founding Fathers would approve of such controls, and would share such an approach to government and legislation. Others – myself included – disagree. Here is what Ben Franklin had to say about the document – the Constitution – they created, how EACH of us tend to think we are infallible, and the necessity of not endorsing any religion:
“Mr. President
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said “I don’t know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that’s always in the right-Il n’y a que moi qui a toujours raison.”
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.”
So – now we have a real concept of what at least ONE of the Founding Fathers thinks of government and religion.
Here is a URL, for those who wished to read the text from the site themselves:
http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html
Fr. Hans writes: “The pressupposition you never address is whether or not pulling the tubes constitutes killing. Every time the moral dimension is broached, you retreat into the language of the medical technocrat and wring you hands about the ‘difficulties’ of these questions.
Again, does the death of Terri Schiavo constitute a moral good for society?”
You have to consider what moral context we’re talking about. I’m not an expert in medical ethics, but I think that the Catholic tradition of moral reasoning has been very influential in the medical world, and in many cases people draw upon that tradition for insight.
St. Thomas developed the doctrine of “double effect.” My layperson’s explanation of the doctrine is that actions can have more than one effect or consequence. Given a morally significant action with both good and bad effects, in determining the morality of the action, you have to look at the intention of the action — what the actor intended it to accomplish.
Here’s an example: a patient with terminal metastatic bone cancer, being treated with morphine, is still in great pain. If the physician does not increase the morphine the patient will suffer. If the physician increases the morphine to the point at which pain is controlled respiration will be depressed and the patient will die.
Let’s say that the physician orders an increase in morphine and within a short time the patient dies. Did the physician kill the patient? Under the doctrine of double effect we would say no, the physician did not kill the patient. The reason is that the *purpose* of administering morphine was NOT to kill the patient. The purpose was to alleviate suffering. The death of the patient was an unintended, though predictable, consequence of increasing the morphine.
Now let’s say that the physician’s intention was to kill the patient through an overdose of morphine. In that case we would say that the act was immoral, because the intention was not to alleviate suffering but to kill.
In the case of Terri Schiavo her death was an unintended, though predictable, consequence of withdrawing tube feeding, based on a determination of her wishes when she could communicate. In other words, the point wasn’t to kill her but to honor her wishes.
This was exactly the situation when Tom DeLay’s family decided not to hook his brain-damaged father up to a dialysis machine based on the family’s determination that to do so would violate his wishes. The difference here is that the family members were in agreement.
Was the death of Terri Schiavo a social good? I don’t see how it could be. I mean, was the death of Tom DeLay’s father a social good? It’s good that patients’ wishes are honored, but the circumstances that made honoring such wishes necessary are not good. It is a difficult question to know how to answer.
Impertinence, thy name is Dawn, Let’s argue Constitutional law theory
Dawn types:
I know there are those of us here who believe there exists a gross imbalance in power, that the judiciary is unchecked (ignoring that when this same judiciary approves rulings with which we agree, we uniformly laud their brilliance and bravery), and that the US government requires immediate ?investigation? or reform.
****************************************************
I know that there are “some of us here” that legitimately claim expertise in Constitutional analysis based on education, professional qualifications and extensive professional experience. My education includes graduation from an accredited law school, passing a bar examination and handling cases in both state and federal courts on both the trial and appellate level for more than twenty years. Many of my cases have included constitutional issues. How many Constitutional cases have you argued, Dawn.?
Your comments that suggest that I might be among those who applaud judicial action when it supports policy results I like and criticize judicial action when it supports policies I do not like. In other words, you suggest that my critique of the Court’s action in Shiavo is unprincipled in terms of legal theory. You are too ignorant of the content and form of legitimate legal debate to comprehend how seriously offensive your comments are.
You have decided that you have the ability to assess and evaluate the critique of the judiciary which is commonly made, however, you comments demonstrate that you don’t have the HUMILITY to recognize the limits of your understanding of the Constitutional issues. Impertinance, is a lack of humility. I suggest that you study that virtue in more detail. If I sound offended I am, I don’t care to be lectured in humility, if all things, by someone who PRESUMES KNOWLEDGE she doesn’t have.
Here is a legal analysis of your garbled comment. If you want to argue Constitutional law, then let us argue Constitutional law. Your comments garble and confuse the several legitimate legal issues. First, you make reference to the debate in legal and public circles about overreaching judges. The debate you referred to, and only dimly understand, regards the “separation of powers” among the three branches of government. Separation of powers issues are distinct from Establishment Clause issues. Establishment clause issues touch on the role of religion in society, government and law. Separation of powers issues do not involve religion. A third constitutional issue which has been discussed on this blog is federalism, the proper allocation of responsibility and power between the federal and state governments. Federalism is not related to the role of religion in government or society, it is a constitutional doctrine which is separate and distinct from the Establishment Clause. If you can’t keep these major, foundational Constitutional doctrines separate, you are not qualified to discuss these issues. A fourth constitutional doctrine is “due process of law.” Again, this doctrine is not tied to the role of religion in society.
Dawn, you have demonstrated that you don’t know what the true constitutional issues are in the Shiavo case. For your benefit, I will inform you that there is an extensive body of scholarship across the academic legal world regarding current issues in separation of powers. Many very learned legal scholars have remarked on the steady expansion of judicial power in the United States and have questioned the wisdom and constitutionality of that expansion. There is also an extensive body of scholarship regarding Establishment Clause issues. You have mixed the two because you don’t know what you are talking about.
The argument that I have made in this blog was based SOLELY on “due process” considerations. This is a third major constitutional doctrine. You, by the way, have completely ignored my “due process” arguments, even though I believe that they are very plain and generally easy to understand. You have floated right by them.
Your legal ignorance is further demonstrated by your suggestion that those whose have concluded that judges have exceeded their legitimate constitutional power under the separation of powers doctrine wish to “investigate or reform the U.S. government.” No Dawn those who wish to restrain judges who have exceeded their constitutional power have argued that the United States Supreme Court should overturn decisions issued by judges who overreach their legitimate power. This is part of the ordinary working of the American judicial system.
By the way, I hope the “licensing exam” that you took wasn’t for a paralegal license.
Jim writes:
“In the case of Terri Schiavo her death was an unintended, though predictable, consequence of withdrawing tube feeding, based on a determination of her wishes when she could communicate. In other words, the point wasn?t to kill her but to honor her wishes.”
Let’s unpack this. We pull a person’s feeding tubes, but death was “unintended” but “predictable”? If the predictable end of pulling the tubes is death, how can death not be the intention? Your explanation mangles the meaning of words.
In cases of imminent death however, we don’t have to pervert the logic. Death is the clear intention when we pull the plug, and it is not morally wrong to pull it. No rending of the real meaning of words is necessary to justify it.
The logic you provide places all moral responsibility on the patient who requests to die (or the patient’s guardian) in cases where imminent death has not yet been reached. This way killing people who are not in a state of imminent death, like the unborn, handicapped people, the aged, etc. can be justifid. It’s Kervorkian reasoning.
I’ve mentioned on numerous occassions your ideas are no different than Peter Singer’s ideas. Would you allow the death of a handicapped new born with, say, a cleft palate if his parents allowed it, for example? How about a two year old with cancer?
For the record: Terri was not in a state of imminent death and we don’t know her wishes. To argue otherwise ignores contradictory testimony and relies on hearsay. It makes pulling her feeding tubes a deliberate killing.
Missourian, wow, I’m amazed. I post a general post which is a verbatim text of a speech from Ben Franklin during the Constitutional Convention, prefacing the post with the mention that “some of us” believe that the judiciary is out of control. I confess I don’t see how that is somehow “impertinent” – I believe that would be a fairly accurate statement, wouldn’t it? I sincerely apologize if somehow you took that personally – the statement wasn’t even directed at you, however.
Once again, though, it seems that means that we are unable to discuss without even a modicum of civility – and we profess to be Christians? This profoundly surprises me, since whatever theologies our various CHURCHES purport to possess, I would hope that we could all agree that Christ’s example is, ultimately, the greatest and final authority. And yet, we cannot even follow His example amongst ourselves and treat fellow believers with courtesy and respect – even on the Sabbath. So that I post a speech written by one of the greatest Americans in history, and somehow I get attacked by you for the kind of licensing exam I took? While I am appalled by this behavior, which is decidedly NOT CHRIST-LIKE, nonetheless I know that Christ loved you enough to die for you as well, so that as difficult as I might find it to love someone who seems so bent on quarrelsome, rude behavior, nonetheless: I will choose to follow Christ’s example. I know that you are my brother in Christ. I will not return evil for evil and render rude, uncivil behavior unto you. And I forgive you!
That said, I know that within this “blog” you choose to focus on legal arguments because at some point in your past (or still?) you served in some sort of position helping prosecute child abuse. Therefore, your perspective is likely similar to that of a prosecuting attorney. With regards to due process, however, I would simply have to say that we have to acknowledge that the Terri Schiavo case went through a number of appeals, hearings, and resubmissions (about 30?), so many that almost any other attorney would likely have been CENSURED had they attempted the same kinds of maneuverings. If any of us who are business owners, or who have been in car accidents, or who have been in family law proceedings attempted to keep filing based on different arguments, and keep doing it 30 TIMES because we failed to obtain the results we desired, the legal system would grind to a halt. It’s mind-boggling to imagine it being any slower than it is, and the judges where I am (TEXAS) would flat tell a person that they’d better not see them in their courts! So yes, I believe that Terri Schiavo’s PARENTS received due process, as did Terri herself. I understand you disagree, and I’m comfortable with that. That’s part of my Church’s teachings, that people of faith can disagree and still be people of faith!
Similarly, I would hope that any of us on this site could also acknowledge that the same judges that refused to hear this case were, quite frequently, CONSERVATIVE judges. They have frequently rendered decisions with which we agree. When that occurs, it seems we (conservatives) laud their wisdom, their vision, and their understanding of the legal process. Yet when these SAME JUDGES render a decision with which we disagree, all of a sudden, “the judiciary is out of control.” Everybody, this is exactly what Ben Franklin was alluding to in his speech: ALL OF THIS IS PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. Our faith informs us, but as this blog itself shows, we can’t even agree on minor things, such as treating one another with basic respect and courtesy – and we’re believers in Christ! So being that we live in a democratic society, sometimes we’ll win, and sometimes we’ll lose: but that’s living in a DEMOCRATIC society. Do we want to truly change our society? Are there things which should be changed? Undoubtedly. Well, here’s a start: let’s change society by working to change people’s HEARTS, and then you don’t have to work so hard to change the LAWS. And while we’re at it, let’s each of us work on our own hearts FIRST. That goes back to seeing the plank in our own eyes before we work on the speck in our neighbor’s. For a moment, let’s prayerfully consider in these “blogs” how much of Christ’s will – and how well we each serve it – is in them. Are we reflecting Christ, or merely ourselves? Which produces the greatest Light?
Lastly, as we write these “blogs”, each of us has a perspective based on our unique experiences and knowledge, and certainly we write out of that perspective. However, since this site is “orthodoxytoday.org”, again, consider that others may hit upon this site who do not know Christ and for whom WE may be their first “fellowship” with believers. We might all consider that what we write, while we certainly may not agree, reflect positively upon our Living Christ and upon the community of believers.
Note 16, Dawn, you dish it out but you can’t take it
Dawn types:
Missourian, wow, I?m amazed. I post a general post which is a verbatim text of a speech from Ben Franklin during the Constitutional Convention, prefacing the post with the mention that ?some of us? believe that the judiciary is out of control. I confess I don?t see how that is somehow ?impertinent? – I believe that would be a fairly accurate statement, wouldn?t it? I sincerely apologize if somehow you took that personally – the statement wasn?t even directed at you, however
Missourian replies: You were impertinent for the reasons outlined above. First, you use a tone in which to undertake to instruct the audience on legal issues. As I explained to you, you have confused about five different constitutional principles. You were impertinent in attempting to instruct the readers in constitutional issues when you are clearly unqualified to discuss them.
Nothing in Franklin’s quote touches on the issues in the Shiavo case. Your comments were clearly addressed to the posters on this blog who addressed legal issues. How many posters on this blog addressed legal issues other than myself. Your claim that your comments did not include me is disingenous.
Here is your quote from Note 11:
“I know there are those of us here who believe there exists a gross imbalance in power, that the judiciary is unchecked (ignoring that when this same judiciary approves rulings with which we agree, we uniformly laud their brilliance and bravery), and that the US government requires immediate ?investigation? or reform.”
“Some of us here” refers to readers and posters of this blog. You assert that readers and posters of this blog have criticized the judiciary for being out of control, then you claim that we have been unprincipled and engaged in results oriented argumentation. Your lack of understanding of legal argument is demonstrated once again, accusing someone of being results oriented in their response is to accuse them of being unprincipled and sophistic. It is derogatory and a attack against their integrity. I am simply taking what you say seriously.
Dawn continues to type:
Similarly, I would hope that any of us on this site could also acknowledge that the same judges that refused to hear this case were, quite frequently, CONSERVATIVE judges. They have frequently rendered decisions with which we agree. When that occurs, it seems we (conservatives) laud their wisdom, their vision, and their understanding of the legal process. Yet when these SAME JUDGES render a decision with which we disagree, all of a sudden, ?the judiciary is out of control.? Everybody, this is exactly what Ben Franklin was alluding to in his speech: ALL OF THIS IS PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
Missourian replies: Dawn, once again you have not read my post. Ben Franklin’s essay has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with the legal issues presented by the Shiavo case. I am not guilty of hypocritical results oriented criticism of the judiciary. I did not criticize the the factual conclusions reached by any judge, I criticized the appropriateness of the procedural rules. I have spent a fair amount of time explaining my “due process” objection to what happened to Terri Shiavo. The critique was purely procedural. You clearly do not understand that.
You are perfectly willing to attack our intellectual integrity and claim that we are hypocrites when it comes to criticizing judges. You think that that is a minor thing that we should accept. It is not minor, it is significant.
Dawn responds to the due process arugment in her way
With regards to due process, however, I would simply have to say that we have to acknowledge that the Terri Schiavo case went through a number of appeals, hearings, and resubmissions (about 30?), so many that almost any other attorney would likely have been CENSURED had they attempted the same kinds of maneuverings.
Missourian replies. You demonstrate by this comment that you do not understand what happens on appeal. After an evidentiary hearing at the trial court level the record is closed and no further evidence can be entered into the record. It is this closed record that goes up on appeal. Most importantly, when a judge is acting as the trier of fact he is reviewed on the “abuse of discretion” standard of review by the appellate courts. This “abuse of discretion” standard is almost impossible to meet. Your comments here demonstrate ONCE again that you simply do not understand what you are talking about. You don’t understand trial procedure, you don’t understand the law of evidence, you don’t understand the standard of review on appeal. You need to acquire some humility, the humility of recognizing the boundaries of your knowledge.
Again, a person is impertinent when they attempt to instruct others on a subject abuot which they know very little. It is impertinent for you to argue law with me. Again, Teri, I have twenty years experience as an active trial attorney, I am admitted to the bars of two states, I have appeared in state and federal court in civil and criminal cases. You have garbled every legal argument you have attempted to make.
Our legal system is based on vigorous legal debate. I am outraged that a innocent person received fewer procedural protections than a convicted criminal. Some things deserve to be met with outrage and Teri Shiavo’s death is one of them.
Claim that Shindlers actions were worthy of censure
Dawn types:
With regards to due process, however, I would simply have to say that we have to acknowledge that the Terri Schiavo case went through a number of appeals, hearings, and resubmissions (about 30?), so many that almost any other attorney would likely have been CENSURED had they attempted the same kinds of maneuverings.
Missourian replies: What are your grounds for claiming that Shindler’s attorney deserved CENSURE? Neither an attorney nor a party is subject to censure for availing themselves of avenues of appeal. It is not unusual to find criminal appeals filed on some pretty thin foundations, however, it is understood that when a person stands to suffer a loss of his freedom, he has a right to advance the best arguments he can muster. Someone’s life was at stake, a party is entitled to make any reasonable argument, there were plenty to make. Where did you get the idea that Shindler’s would have been subject to censure? Who is telling you these things?
Fr. Hans writes: “Everytime you are asked about Schiavo, you draw in other unrelated cases (Delay’s father who was in a state or immiment death), or other extraneous ethical principles that ignore completely the particular legal and moral issues surrounding Schiavo’s death.”
First of all, who says that DeLay’s father was in a state of imminent death? He needed to go on dialysis and he didn’t have a good prognosis, but he wasn’t about to die. In fact, the family discontinued treatment because they said he wouldn’t want to LIVE like that. Note the word “live.”
I’m happy to discuss the details of the Schiavo case. In fact, sometimes it feels like I’m one of few interested in the details rather than in the rhetoric.
But there is a difference in our approaches. You’re a theorist; I’m a casuist. Here’s a pretty good explanation of the distinction:
“If one takes the . . . the theoretical approach, the primary task is to gain an understanding of the broad range of ethical theories that are available and to understand the strengths, weaknesses, and relevance of each of those theories. The second task is to learn how to apply the theories effectively, and to evaluate their implications.
“The casuistic approach is based on the idea that we must reason from experience in order to determine the general demands that we all accept. We must then generalize our understanding of the intuitive responses that we give in particular cases to help us reason through other, intuitively vague, moral cases.”
from “An Introduction to Doing Medical Ethics,” Michael A. Gillette, Ph.D
http://www.bsvinc.com/ethics_decision.htm
The big names in using a casuistical framework in medical ethics are Toulmin and Jonson: “Stephen Toulmin and Albert Jonsen brought forward theoretical considerations in favor of starting with particulars in ethical reasoning. They revived casuistry- the judgment of new cases by analogical reasoning from other, better understood, cases-as a method of reasoning in ethics. Their casuistic method provided a model of moral judgment alternative to that which sought to evaluate situations by applying general ethical principles to them.”
I’ve read their books — a long time ago — and what can I say? I’m a casuist, and I think casuistry is probably the most common way of doing medical ethics. So yes, I’m always talking about other cases and other examples.
Fr. Hans: “We pull a person’s feeding tubes, but death was ‘unintended’ but ‘predictable’? If the predictable end of pulling the tubes is death, how can death not be the intention? Your explanation mangles the meaning of words.”
Not at all. The casuist in me has to mention another example. A man says that he’s going to kill you and rushes at you with what may be a knife. You pull out your (properly licensed) handgun and fire at him, and he drops to the ground. Moments later he is dead from your well-placed shots. Did you mean to kill him? No. Your intention was to stop the attack. In the process of stopping the attack, he was shot and killed, a predictable and likely outcome. But that wasn’t your intention. For example, had he not died, you wouldn’t have gone over and put a round through his head — at least not if you wanted to stay out of jail.
Fr. Hans: “In cases of imminent death however, we don’t have to pervert the logic. Death is the clear intention when we pull the plug, and it is not morally wrong to pull it. No rending of the real meaning of words is necessary to justify it.”
Actually, no. Emphatically no. You NEVER *intend* death in that situation. You may suspend treatment because it is futile, or because it only lengthens suffering, or because the patient requested it, or whatever. But you never discontinue treatment with the intention of causing death. Death is a natural and predictable result of your actions, but not your intention. For example, if you turned off a guy’s respirator and he suddenly started breathing, you wouldn’t go over and strangle him. Thus, death is not the intention.
Fr. Hans: “The purpose of twisting the logic is to place all moral responsibility on the patient who requests to die (or the patient’s guardian)in cases where imminent death has not yet been reached. This way killing people who are not in a state of imminent death, like the unborn, handicapped people, the aged, etc. can be justifid. It’s Kervorkian reasoning.”
We have a moral responsibility to follow the patient’s wishes in these cases. Physicians also have a legal responsibility. As Dr. Ward pointed out in this venue a couple of weeks ago, if a physician performed a medical intervention on an unwilling patient he could be charged with assault. You can’t do that.
The difference between withdrawing or withholding medical care and Dr. Kervorkian is that Dr. Kervorkian’s intention was to actively kill people. There is a tremendous distinction between, say, turning off a ventilator because the patient doesn’t want it vs. giving the patient a drug overdose in order to kill him, at the patient’s request. It’s a moral distinction, and a legal distinction as well, as Dr. Kervorkian discovered.
Fr. Hans: “I’ve mentioned on numerous occassions your ideas are no different than Peter Singer’s ideas. Would you allow the death of a handicapped new born if his parents allowed it? How about a two year old with, say, cancer?
These decisions depend so much on the medical facts of the case. Again, I’m a casuist. I need details. If you’re talking about an otherwise healthy newborn who has Down Syndrome, no. If you’re talking about an anencephalic newborn who needs to be intubated but will probably die within a few days anyway, yes. With the two year old, what is the prognosis? Are we going to put him through chemotherapy and possibly surgery? If so, what is the expected outcome?
These are terribly wrenching decisions, and they should be left in the hands of parents and physicians, with consultation from a medical ethics committee, if appropriate, plus anyone else the family needs to talk to, such as clergy. You really can’t say what should be done in such cases without looking at all the details of the case.
I think you want to deal in the currency of these large, universal moral principles, and come up with a one-size-fits-all solution. I just don’t think that decisions made on that basis are going to be very good.
Fr. Hans: “For the record: Terri was not in a state of imminent death and we don’t know her wishes. To argue otherwise ignores contradictory testimony and relies on hearsay. That’s what makes pulling her feeding tubes a deliberate killing.”
You say we don’t know her wishes. The State of Florida through it’s judicial system says otherwise. Judge Greer, Baptist and Republican, having listened to the relevant testimony and read the relevant depositions, says otherwise. And by the way Greer didn’t ignore contradictory testimony; he heard it and found it not compelling. There is a difference.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say that he made a mistake, an error in judgement. In that case his intention still wasn’t to kill her, so we wouldn’t call it a deliberate killing. But let’s say that we found out that Judge Greer and Terri Schiavo had some kind of a run-in years earlier, that Greer was looking for a way to get revenge, and so decided to discontinue tube feeding. THAT would be intentional killing. An error in judgement would not be. And just for the record, I don’t think he made an error in judgement.
Dawn, the type of “civility” you seem to demand is often times a cloak for a surrender to evil and has never been a hallmark of traditional Christianity. Christian brotherhood is not demonstrated by “getting along” with each other. In fact, just the opposite. St. Paul and St. Peter butted heads on several occasions, yet the Orthodox Chruch frequently venerates them on the same icon. Why? Because despite their obstreporous differences, they demonstrated in their lives their equal devotion to the Triune God, the second person of whom is our Incarnate Savior Jesus Christ.
A frequent contributor to this blog, Dean Scourtes, is a brother Orthodox. Dean and I ageee on almost nothing, yet it is obvious that he shares a genuine love of Jesus Christ and our Church. We are bound together in one communion despite our differences and I have stated in the past that should be ever meet, we might very well become friends. The reason I can make such a statement is because we share the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Christ’s sacrifice transcends all worldly disagreement.
Trying to replace such an ineffable bond with civility is ridiculous and you once again insult the legacy of the martyrs and confessors and the entire moral witness of the Church by such triviality.
Christianity is not a religion of go-along-to-get-along, just the opposite. Christianity is the most radical critique of the world ever conceived. Christianity is uncompromising in declaring the evil sinfulness of the world and requiring us to not only ruthlessly confront our own sin, but witness to the evil in others actions. Only to those who believe is there the respite of “boldly going before the throne of grace” asking for and receiving His forgiveness. Without the foundation of truth, such a task would be meaningless at best.
Unfortunately, I do not find that your remarks reflect the same faith or the same Jesus Christ the Church teaches and that Dean, the Missourian, and many others here, Orthodox or not share. Your passive/aggressive remarks are a smoke screen and an offense. Ben Franklin was one of the biggest moral hypocrites of all the founding fathers. He was a deeply committed, selfish pragmitist epitomizing the uniquely American virtue of being on the make, for money and women. The fact that he was a substatial contributor to the body politic in the process does not altar the fact. His religion was also one of civility, not faith, not a living communion with a living God.
Dawn, how to critique
If you want to critique someone’s position on an issue, the best way is: a) identify the person b) quote the statement you disagree with and c) provide the circumstances in which the statement was made (date, place, occaision) Links to the quote are helpful. After that identify what you believe is the best statement of the issue.
This passage will, undoubtedly, be quoted back to me.
Missourian, (and I’m typing with a smile), I thank you for your instruction (was this not what you were criticizing me for?), in general I would have to say that while this blog is an interesting forum to read, and an interesting pastime in which I might occasionally indulge, I have other outlets which also occupy my interest, and through which I am able to express my beliefs, interests, and perspectives – to people both similarly and differently minded than myself. So while I certainly can appreciate the time you take to craft your responses (and I’m sure there are other posters who spend a similar length of time), I prefer to more actively engage myself in the world than spend such significant effort here (or anywhere else on the Internet!).
So while I’ll post occasionally, whether my posts are read – or not read – really isn’t relevant to me. Similarly, my posts are fairly general and are directed at the general Christian community rather than at any one person, unless they are specifically specified otherwise.
“A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance.”
And finally, from the United Methodist Church’s position:
http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1734
Michael, thank you for your comments. Actually, I am a member of the United Methodist Church, and my beliefs accurately reflect the teachings of my church. Am I mistaken, or would that not be considered being orthodox? Seriously, is there a particular denomination that I am supposed to belong to in order to post here? When I read the site prior to posting for the first time, it mentioned that “all viewpoints were welcomed here” so I took that statement at face value. Perhaps, the website wasn’t correct? Did I just not read far enough?
As for “getting along”, again Michael, I think we actually don’t disagree on this point. Certainly the Apostles DISAGREED amongst themselves – and believers will DISAGREE amongst themselves. It is the manner of disagreement that I’ve found amongst believers which shocks me. I cannot recall (perhaps I’m mistaken, however) St. Paul or St. Peter calling anyone else “ignorant” or “impudent” or “impertinent” because another person failed to share their perspectives. In their letters to the Churches, they instead repeatedly comforted each other, encouraged each other, prayed for each other, and even thanked God for each other. In fact, (and again, perhaps I’m incorrect) the Apostles were civil to one another and even (it appears) to their enemies, to the point of martyrdom. I don’t believe that means they were “inactive” or that they “surrendered to evil” – rather, they followed Christ’s example in this. If I’m not mistaken, however, (and ironically) according to many Biblical scholars, it was the belief that Christ was too “passive” which contributed to many people not believing in Him! Many Jews of the day believed the Messiah would directly confront the Roman oppressors to overthrow them, and didn’t understand a Messiah who preached of loving our enemies – Our Christ must have seemed “passive” to those who desired a different type of freedom!
As for Ben Franklin – you’re right! He was a womanizer and a partyer! Now: would there even have been a U.S. without him? Not only did he help author and get ratified the document which forms the basis for our government (which he called “nearly perfect”), but he was instrumental in securing money for the Revolution and the subsequent new nation from foreign governments, issued the first passports for citizens of the new United States and helped ensure that the new nation was recognized by foreign governments. If we, as Christians, removed from U.S. history all those leaders who failed to live up to Christian standards, well, we’d be removing the majority, to include Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, George Patton, Martin Luther King Jr., and most of the governors of the original 13 colonies, just naming a few. That doesn’t mean we condone the behavior. And in all honesty, if we narrowed down our list so that the U.S. had only been led and protected by those who had a “living communion with a living God”, the hard truth is that we’d probably all still be squatting on a patch of very large wilderness. And truthfully, I would have to say that I’m not one to judge anybody else’s faith – according to Scripture, that is left to God.
I’m not sure what Church you’re a member of, Michael? So I’m not sure of its precepts, etc. However, according to the tenets of my faith (and just for me personally), different Churches and different faiths pose no obstacle to my companionship with anybody: Saturday I got to watch the Final Four with friends of mine, which included a Jew, a Catholic, and a Presbyterian. And the only person who didn’t fit was the misguided soul who cheered for Michigan State.
Have a blessed day – as every day certainly is.
http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1665
http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1734
Fr. Hans: ?We pull a person?s feeding tubes, but death was ?unintended? but ?predictable?? If the predictable end of pulling the tubes is death, how can death not be the intention? Your explanation mangles the meaning of words.?
Jim: Not at all. The casuist in me has to mention another example. A man says that he?s going to kill you and rushes at you with what may be a knife. You pull out your (properly licensed) handgun and fire at him, and he drops to the ground. Moments later he is dead from your well-placed shots. Did you mean to kill him? No. Your intention was to stop the attack. In the process of stopping the attack, he was shot and killed, a predictable and likely outcome. But that wasn?t your intention. For example, had he not died, you wouldn?t have gone over and put a round through his head ? at least not if you wanted to stay out of jail.
——
The example doesn’t work. The person that dies when the tubes are pulled is not the aggressor. Essentially you are applying the self-defense argument towards intentioned death.
—–
Fr. Hans: ?In cases of imminent death however, we don?t have to pervert the logic. Death is the clear intention when we pull the plug, and it is not morally wrong to pull it. No rending of the real meaning of words is necessary to justify it.?
Jim: Actually, no. Emphatically no. You NEVER *intend* death in that situation. You may suspend treatment because it is futile, or because it only lengthens suffering, or because the patient requested it, or whatever. But you never discontinue treatment with the intention of causing death. Death is a natural and predictable result of your actions, but not your intention. For example, if you turned off a guy?s respirator and he suddenly started breathing, you wouldn?t go over and strangle him. Thus, death is not the intention.
Sure you do. The cessation of treament occurs with the expectation that the person will die. It is not active euthanasia such as pulling the tubes is, but it is certainly the recognition that the person, because he is in an imminent state of death, once treatments stops.
—-
The attempt to separate intention from results is sophistry. Intention is revealed by the act. You examine the act to discern intention. In cases of self-defense, the intent might not be to kill. In the case of pulling a feeding tube, the intent is to kill because without the tubes the patient dies. In the case of stopping life support, the intent is to let a person die, but the act is not killing because the person has already entered a state of imminent death.
—-
Fr. Hans: ?The purpose of twisting the logic is to place all moral responsibility on the patient who requests to die (or the patient?s guardian)in cases where imminent death has not yet been reached. This way killing people who are not in a state of imminent death, like the unborn, handicapped people, the aged, etc. can be justifid. It?s Kervorkian reasoning.?
We have a moral responsibility to follow the patient?s wishes in these cases. Physicians also have a legal responsibility. As Dr. Ward pointed out in this venue a couple of weeks ago, if a physician performed a medical intervention on an unwilling patient he could be charged with assault. You can?t do that.
The difference between withdrawing or withholding medical care and Dr. Kervorkian is that Dr. Kervorkian?s intention was to actively kill people. There is a tremendous distinction between, say, turning off a ventilator because the patient doesn?t want it vs. giving the patient a drug overdose in order to kill him, at the patient?s request. It?s a moral distinction, and a legal distinction as well, as Dr. Kervorkian discovered.
—-
How does pulling the tubes (or physician assisted suicide which you also support) differ from Kervorkian killings? Kervorkian did not administer the lethal dosage. He just concocted the brew. All of his “patients” wanted to die. The only applicable moral distinction here is “thou shalt not kill” which requires the practical distinction of determining whether or not a person is in an imminent state of death. You are arguing that imminent death is not a practical distinction, only the patient’s desire to die determines whether or not the patient should be killed.
This is no different than Kervorkian except in the manner that death is delivered. You argue starvation is acceptable, Kervorkian argued a lethal drug dosage was more humane (and he would be right, from his perspective). You conclude that the patient’s “permission” ostensibly removes all moral complicity in a patients death.
Of course the real issue is the determination if whether or not a life is “worth living.” The permission aspect, iow, is a nicety that will be dropped in due course as soon if killing the infirm becomes socially palatable. The real reason Terri Schiavo was killed was not because Michael wanted her dead, but because she affronted utilitarian sensibilities with her handicap.
——
Fr. Hans: ?I?ve mentioned on numerous occassions your ideas are no different than Peter Singer?s ideas. Would you allow the death of a handicapped new born if his parents allowed it? How about a two year old with, say, cancer?
Jim:
Referencing the hard cases is not the way to do ethics, as you should know by now. Moral principles will always govern these decisions. It just depends on which principles. Singer considers handicapped toddlers sub-human. It appears from you cryptic answer about the two year old that you might too. Do you?
——
Fr. Hans: “For the record: Terri was not in a state of imminent death and we don?t know her wishes. To argue otherwise ignores contradictory testimony and relies on hearsay. That?s what makes pulling her feeding tubes a deliberate killing.”
Jim: You say we don’t know her wishes. The State of Florida through it’s judicial system says otherwise. Judge Greer, Baptist and Republican, having listened to the relevant testimony and read the relevant depositions, says otherwise. And by the way Greer didn?t ignore contradictory testimony; he heard it and found it not compelling. There is a difference.
—–
Functionally there is no difference at all. Again, the faith you put in this judge strains credulity.
Dawn, disingenuity is a form of dishonesty
DAWN TYPES PART I
“I prefer to more actively engage myself in the world than spend such significant effort here (or anywhere else on the Internet!). ”
MISSOURIAN REPLIES PART I: Sure seems as if you have found time for a few strong opinions expressed in quite a few posts for someone who “prefers to actively engage herself in the world”
************************************************************
DAWN TYPES PART II
Missourian(and Iâ??m typing with a smile), I thank you for your instruction (was this not what you were criticizing me for?),
MISSOURIAN PART II: Yes, your pedantic tone was annoying, but, my criticism was directed at the substance of your legal arguments. Your primary fault was to attempt to make arguments involving Constitutional principles when you are woefully ignorant of those principles. As noted in previous posts of mine, you garbled and confused more than five different Constitutional principles in your attempt to enlighten the readers of this forum on the proper legal and Constitutional analysis of the Shiavo case. I pointed out that your arguments were false, fallacious, garbled, unsupportable and undocumentable. So, your tone is patronzing, and pendantic, it is really the substance of your uninformed legal arguments that I criticized you for
Dawn, White Flag on the Legal Debate Yet?
Missourian replies: May I assume you have abandoned any effort to defend the legal arguments you made? …. hmmmm….. yes.
Disingenuity: Faux-naif, pretending innocence, pretending naivete:
You posted because you expected to be read.
You posted because you wanted to express your opinions and influence the thinking of others.
Your posts included critiques of the political, philosophyical or legal positions of persons whom you never clearly identified.
You, apparently, may critique the arguments or statements of others, but others may not critique yours with being unChristian.
You didn’t expect people to respond to your arguments?
You didn’t think you would be asked to defend your positions?
Sure, I believe that.
Missourian, now I’m decidedly confused (so I’ll cheerfully wait for you to refer to me as “ignorant” again). I had thought this was a website designed for people who were arguing from a Judeo-Christian perspective (at least, that’s what it says). So I’m surprised, I guess, by how much of “you” there seems to be in all of your posts, and how little of Christ? It seems that in every post, you’re very concerned with what others think of “your” arguments, how impressed others might be with “your” knowledge, and how others should defer to “your” expertise. While I acknowledge that you may have experience in this area, I feel I have to confront you on the apparent vanity of this – nowhere in your arguments does Christ even make an appearance, and certainly your behavior doesn’t reflect His.
But I’m curious, too: do you post your “constitutional knowledge” on this now-ended legal battle on the websites of bar associations and law schools? Since nearly every reputable legal scholar appears to side with the court system in this particular issue, it would be interesting to know if you post your arguments amongst those whom you would say are your “peers”? It would be interesting to see their responses! The bottom line, Missourian, and I write this with every courtesy, is that despite your knowledge and “expertise”, the vast majority of those in your own field disagreed with you, and the ruling came down, certainly on the side where most legal scholars predicted that it would (and perhaps should). Differences of professional opinion occur everyday, whether in finance (look at Warren Buffett and Alan Greenspan), marketing (new Coke, anyone?), medicine, or anything else. Typically, though, when these people differ, they simply “move on” to the next crisis or issue. It just seems petulant to harp on something that is done, over with, and I assure you, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more cases just like it that – if you are as knowledgeable as you say, and as confident in that knowledge – you could be extending your extensive expertise and assisting these families as their attorney.
So – who should I know to look for when a case like this comes up again? Because I can’t imagine that you would let your extensive knowledge simply be known on this blog, but instead would volunteer your services and take these cases to the federal courts where you have so much experience. You do that in these disputed cases, don’t you? So please let us know so that when these cases come up, we can follow them.
Yours in Christ, Dawn
Note 23: Dawn, you wrote:
“I cannot recall (perhaps I�m mistaken, however) St. Paul or St. Peter calling anyone else �ignorant� or �impudent� or �impertinent� because another person failed to share their perspectives. In their letters to the Churches, they instead repeatedly comforted each other, encouraged each other, prayed for each other, and even thanked God for each other. In fact, (and again, perhaps I�m incorrect) the Apostles were civil to one another and even (it appears) to their enemies, to the point of martyrdom.”
Again, you read Scripture selectively or not at all, and you ignore the earliest traditions. The apostles (at least, the ones who wrote NT epistles) wrote according to the literary forms of the ancient Roman world, and statements of thanksgiving, comfort, encouragement, and so on, while genuine, were addressed to their intended audience, not each other. In writing Galatians, St. Paul replaced the traditional thanksgiving statement of the ancient letter form, “eucharisto” in Greek, with “thaumazo,” a statement of astonishment and offence, specifically because “you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). His audience would certainly have felt the change in customary terminology as a hard slap in the face.
St. Paul continued: “…not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
Hardly the statement of a “merry heart.” Certainly, however, the statement of one who would not let a concern with being “nice” keep him from preventing the Galatians’ fall into error. This point is driven futher home by St. Paul’s description of his sharp confrontations with the Judaizing/circumcision party in apostolic times, with their sympathizers in Jerusalem (especially James), and above all with the temporizing Peter.
As for the martyrs, you need to read the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, in which, told by the Roman authorities to renounce false gods or die, bowed low to the people in the stadium and called out: “I renounce false gods!”
Just as the apostles abandoned niceness when the truth of the Gospel was at stake, and the martyrs died not because they were civil towards their murderers but because they would not renounce truth, so the truth comes first in debates about the truth in our times. Civility is important but the Gospel comes first. It is better to be respected than to be liked. And this too is scriptural. Remember Revelation 3:14-16: “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: … I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.”
Dawn,Game Over
Dawn types I:
I feel I have to confront you on the apparent vanity of this.
Missourian replies: Law is a licensed profession. A major component of the legal profession is analyzing legal issues and formulating legal arguments. It is entirely appropriate for a reader to ASK whether a writer has legal qualifications and it is entirely appropriate for a writer to SUPPLY his or her legal qualifications. Reciting one’s legal credentials is a statement of relevant fact it is not vanity. Vanity might accurately describe someone claiming expertise they lack.
Do you have some argument with the idea that legal opinions from licensed professionals are entitled to weight not given to those without legal credentials? I have noted many times on this blog that I refrain from debating medical or theological issues because I recognize the limitations of my expertise. Perhaps you should follow that example, since you garbled several constitutional issues and were incapable of distinguishing among and between federalism, separation of powers, due process and establishment clause doctrines. Apparently, you believe that the fact that I pointed out that you mangled these ideas is improper, I simply consider it truthful. Again, Dawn, you want to argue law and, in fact, instruct us, but you don’t want anyone to respond to your arguments or ask for documentation.
Dawn types II
The vast majority of those in your own field disagreed with you,
Missourian resplies II: As I have noted in earlier posts, a sweeping generalization isn’t entitled to much weight. What evidence do you present to support your claim that a “vast majority” of those in law disagree with me.
You have not responded to my substantive legal arguments after having ample opportunity and after having entered at least 6 posts, Game Over.
How soon they forget
Dawn, remember I was arguing in favor of additional procedural protections for person who are severely disabled or severely ill and who cannot speak for themselves. I made a due process argument. My arugment was that the laws as they stand are inadquate and should be changed. I believe this is consistent with the Christian duty to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. I might also remind you that many leading disability rights groups agreed with my position and either filed amicus briefs or attempted to file amicus briefs.
You have told us that we shouldn’t have enough faith in our moral judgment in order to actually take action and that we should defer to those who are closer to the case and “know better.” In other words, we should just sit down and wring our hands as Teri starved to death. I think we should take actions to prevent something like this happening again.
As I said, game over, Dawn.
“Christian brotherhood is not demonstrated by ‘getting along’ with each other … St. Paul and St. Peter butted heads on several occasions”
If two contemporaries of Christ and founders of the Church could not agree on several important matters of doctrine and/or morality, honestly, what chance do we here have in coming to know the “Truth” and confront evil? Additionally, St. Paul believed in the imminent return of Christ within his lifetime: he was wrong.
Perhaps this is why the call to humility in our responses to those we disagree with is appropriate, yes?
Archbishop Demetrios on John Paul II
Just saw Archbishop Demetrios interviewed about his contact with John Paul II. The Archbishop had great praise for John Paul II and his efforts to reconcile the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. I don’t really know much about the substance of this matter, but Archbishop Demetrios remarked on the occaision of the return of the relics associated with St. John Chrysostom.
Note 31: JamesK, it’s a good question, but we have to remember that the “Truth” does not come from us or from Paul or from Peter, but from God and His revelation of it. In the end, Peter’s epistles, which are few in number and comparitively narrow in theological import, were relegated towards the end of the NT, while Paul’s were given first place after the Gospel and Acts. So yes, these doctrinal disagreements were resolved largely in favor of Paul.
How are we supposed to learn the Truth? By learning–critically and with determination–the content of God’s revelation, the Holy Scriptures. Our humility is properly directed to God and our love to others. It is not humble to give up on the truth or on the complexity of interpretation, but self-defeating. Interpreters are many, but God’s Word is one, and faithful interpretation, because it springs from the same source, is also one.
Note 27. Dawn, when you can’t defend your points, a humble admission that you lack expertise would be a better approach than an implying that because disgreements exist among legal scholars, Missourian’s points carry no weight. Humility is a Christian virtue, and since you seem quite ready to define for us how Christians should behave, I’m sure you can understand the propriety for it here.
Fr. Hans writes: “The example doesn’t work. The person that dies when the tubes are pulled is not the aggressor. Essentially you are applying the self-defense argument towards intentioned death.”
There are many examples in medicine in which our decisions have both intended and unintended (but likely or even certain) consequences. As I pointed out in another post administering morphine to relieve pain in patients with terminal cancer may end up depressing respiration and causing death. But that is considered morally acceptable, since the *intention* is not to cause death, but to treat suffering. That is completely different from giving a patient a drug overdose with the intention of killing him — different legally and morally.
Fr. Hans: “The attempt to separate intention from results is sophistry.”
Well, if it’s sophistery, it’s sophistry that comes from St. Thomas, since he first developed the doctrine of double effect. That doctrine is still accepted by Catholic moral scholars as far as I know.
Fr. Hans: “Intention is revealed by the act. You examine the act to discern intention.”
The act tells you litter or nothing of the intention. The *actor* does.
Fr. Hans: “In cases of self-defense, the intent might not be to kill. In the case of pulling a feeding tube, the intent is to kill because without the tubes the patient dies.”
The unintended effect is death, but there is a difference between the effect and the intention. I perform surgery on you. The surgery causes you great pain and months of rehabilitation. Those are unintentional, though predictable and perhaps necessary effects, with the intention of curing a serious illness.
Fr. Hans: “In the case of stopping life support, the intent is to let a person die, but the act is not killing because the person has already entered a state of imminent death.”
See, it doesn’t have to be imminent. Take the case of Tom DeLay’s father. Here’s what Chris Rangel MD says about that case:
“As it turns out, Mr. Delay and his family made the decision in 1988 to take his own father off life-support and allow him to die after he received severe brain trauma in a freak accident. Despite the trauma the brain damage to Mr. Delay’s father was in no way as severe as what appears on Mrs. Schiavo’s CAT scan and rather then waiting 15 years to see if he would wake up the family waited a mere 27 days before pulling the plug.
“The contention of Delay and others that allowing Mrs. Schiavo to starve (actually die of dehydration) is morally different from disconnecting a comatose patient from a ventilator has no logical basis. The two are actually morally equivalent. Both are artificial ways to sustain the life of a patient. While a ventilator is needed for a patient’s inability to breathe, a feeding tube is needed because of a patient’s inability to obtain food. Both supplement functional deficiencies. While disconnecting a feeding tube causes the patient to stave to death, disconnecting a ventilator causes a patient to essentially die from suffocation.”
http://www.rangelmd.com/2005/03/end-draws-near.html
Use of a ventilator doesn’t necessarily denote that the person is nearing the end of life. For example, ventilator-dependent patients with spinal injuries have a 15-year survival rate greater than 16 percent.
Fr. Hans: “How does pulling the tubes (or physician assisted suicide which you also support) differ from Kervorkian killings? Kervorkian did not administer the lethal dosage. He just concocted the brew. All of his ‘patients’ wanted to die. The only applicable moral distinction here is ‘thou shalt not kill’ which requires the practical distinction of determining whether or not a person is in an imminent state of death.”
I (and probably the vast majority of the medical profession) hold that patients have a right to reject or withdraw any medical intervention. What Dr. Kervorkian did was to provide an additional medical intervention that resulted in the death of the people. The two things are completely different, and is the reason why the doctor of Tom DeLay’s father isn’t in jail and Dr. Kervorkian is.
Fr. Hans: “You are arguing that imminent death is not a practical distinction, only the patient’s desire to die determines whether or not the patient should be killed. ”
I’m with you until the last part of the sentence. A patient has the right to refuse any medical intervention at any point, whether or not the intervention has any immediate life-sustaining effect at all. A diabetic can refuse to moderate his diet. Someone with cancer can refuse chemotherapy. A Jehovah’s Witness can refuse a life-saving transfusion. A patient on a ventilator can request that it be turned off.
Imminent death is certainly one factor that has to be taken into account in making ethical decisions. The lack of imminent death, however, is not necessarily definitive in deciding whether to withdraw medical treatments.
Fr. Hans: “You conclude that the patient’s ‘permission’ ostensibly removes all moral complicity in a patients death.”
Not only does it remove complicity, it establishes a positive obligation to carry out the patient’s wishes.
Fr. Hans: “Of course the real issue is the determination if whether or not a life is ‘worth living.’
That determination is up to the patient.
Fr. Hans: “The permission aspect, iow, is a nicety that will be dropped in due course as soon if killing the infirm becomes socially palatable. The real reason Terri Schiavo was killed was not because Michael wanted her dead, but because she affronted utilitarian sensibilities with her handicap.”
I have no idea where you’re getting this. I suppose it’s one interpretation, but it is not supported in any of the information I’ve read.
You’ve made a number of similar comments about other people related to this case. Now maybe it turns out that in Florida ghouls and vampires choose medicine for a career. But the people I know in medical ethics are not ghouls. They are people of great compassion, great sensitivity in end of life issues, and great concern that appropriate decisions are made in accordance with patients’ wishes. At the hospital where I work if a patient is expected to die, a special decorative card is placed on the door to let staff know of the situation, to ensure that patient and family are treated with sensitivity appropriate to the situation. We have a special room called the bereavement room. In the case of families who cannot afford a funeral, the body of the loved one is prepared and brought into the room so that the family can spend time with the deceased. This is a service that the hospital provides for free. The same people who set up these services are the very same who are active in medical ethics here.
If things are so bad in Florida that roving gangs of utilitarians go around killing handicapped people, all I can say is that you’re living in the wrong state.
Fr. Hans: [Concerning case-based analysis] “Referencing the hard cases is not the way to do ethics, as you should know by now. Moral principles will always govern these decisions. It just depends on which principles.”
In case-based analysis you reference the *easy* cases so as to better understand the hard cases. You see where cases are alike and how they differ. By understanding how moral principles apply to the clear-cut cases you are better able to understand how they apply to the more difficult cases. Moral principles still govern the situation, but not in absolutist way. We have to decide which moral principles have the greatest bearing on each case.
Fr. Hans: “Singer considers handicapped toddlers sub-human. It appears from you cryptic answer about the two year old that you might too. Do you?”
No, not at all. What I said is that you have to look at the totality of medical and other facts related to the case. You have to fill in the details behind the word “handicapped.” You have to understand the moral and religious perspective of the parents. You need to understand the details of the medical condition. You have to understand the medical prognosis of the condition, what are the goals of treatment and the likelihood of achieving those goals. The family may need help clarifying their thoughts and feelings. They may need a consultation from an ethics committee. They may need assistance of clergy. There simply is now one-size-fits-all solution.
Note 30: “I was arguing in favor of additional procedural protections for person who are severely disabled or severely ill and who cannot speak for themselves.”
I understand your logic, but do you favor this only where there is disagreement among the guardians of the person in question or when there is agreement as well? By this I mean is the State obliged to assume a patient’s defense when there is no living will and even when all family members agree to discontinue medical treatment, extraordinary or otherwise?
If only when there is disagreement, I’d argue that such procedures are not really to protect the patient but to protect the desires of “interested parties”. If these procedures are to be engaged in even when there is agreement, what situations would warrant the extra litigation?
I just wanted to pass along this quote from our Prime Minister, Dick Cheney, Vice President Cheney says he opposes revenge against judges for their refusal to prolong the life of the late Terri Schiavo, although he did not criticize House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for declaring that they will “answer for their behavior.” Cheney was asked about the issue on Friday by the editorial board of the New York Post. He said twice that he had not seen DeLay’s remarks, but the vice president said he would “have problems” with the idea of retribution against the courts. “I don’t think that’s appropriate,” he said. “I may disagree with decisions made by judges in any one particular case. But I don’t think there would be much support for the proposition that because a judge hands down a decision we don’t like, that somehow we ought to go out — there’s a reason why judges get lifetime appointments.”
If you are looking for the Bush Administration to take the lead on reigning in an out-of-control judiciary – think again. No matter what decision comes down the pike, the Bush Administration is going to roll over and take it. We can rage about what happened to poor Terri Schiavo all we want, but the next case that comes up won’t be any different. Until we demand that judges be held accountable, the country-club set of the Cheney’s of this world will keep on selling us out.
Yes, the Democratic Party is a problem for the pro-life movement. But an even bigger problem is that our allies in the Republican camp have the backbone of jellyfish.
Glen writes: “Until we demand that judges be held accountable, the country-club set of the Cheneys of this world will keep on selling us out.”
In what way would judges be held accountable? I’m not sure what’s being suggested, or if you have specific suggestions at this point.
Jim writes: “There are many examples in medicine in which our decisions have both intended and unintended (but likely or even certain) consequences. As I pointed out in another post administering morphine to relieve pain in patients with terminal cancer may end up depressing respiration and causing death. But that is considered morally acceptable, since the *intention* is not to cause death, but to treat suffering. That is completely different from giving a patient a drug overdose with the intention of killing him ? different legally and morally.”
Yes, exactly my point. The difference however, exists in the patient. If a patient is terminally ill, the intention is not to kill, but to alleviate pain, even though the palliative care can slow respiration. (Administering morphine to a point that it causes death is rare.) There is no moral culpability here (assuming we are not using the easing of pain as an excuse to administer a lethal dose of morphine of course).
In the Schiavo case however, the intention was to cause death — to kill Terri Schiavo — because she was not terminally ill, only severely disabled.
—-
Fr. Hans: ?The attempt to separate intention from results is sophistry.?
Jim: “Well, if it?s sophistery, it?s sophistry that comes from St. Thomas, since he first developed the doctrine of double effect. That doctrine is still accepted by Catholic moral scholars as far as I know.”
Double effect doesn’t apply to intentional killing. You won’t find Catholic moral theology justifying the manner in which Terri Schiavo died.
—-
Fr. Hans: ?The permission aspect, iow, is a nicety that will be dropped in due course as soon if killing the infirm becomes socially palatable. The real reason Terri Schiavo was killed was not because Michael wanted her dead, but because she affronted utilitarian sensibilities with her handicap.?
Jim: “I have no idea where you?re getting this. I suppose it?s one interpretation, but it is not supported in any of the information I?ve read.”
Then you have not read Peter Singer, arguably the most prominent “ethicist” of the culture of death side of the debate. Terri Schiavo was killed because she was brain damaged. Given the paucity of evidence upon which the judgment was decided, it is clear that her disability, not the evidence, was the factor with the greatest weight in the decision to terminate her life.
—-
Here we get to the rub:
Fr. Hans: “You are arguing that imminent death is not a practical distinction, only the patient?s desire to die determines whether or not the patient should be killed.”
Jim: “I’m with you until the last part of the sentence. A patient has the right to refuse any medical intervention at any point, whether or not the intervention has any immediate life-sustaining effect at all. A diabetic can refuse to moderate his diet. Someone with cancer can refuse chemotherapy. A Jehovah?s Witness can refuse a life-saving transfusion. A patient on a ventilator can request that it be turned off.”
“Imminent death is certainly one factor that has to be taken into account in making ethical decisions. The lack of imminent death, however, is not necessarily definitive in deciding whether to withdraw medical treatments.”
The assumption that discontinuing food and water has no more moral weight than, say, witholding an aspirin, is an assumption many ethicists, moral theologians, priests, care-givers, even St. Thomas who you so fondly quote above, would vigorously challenge. I understand why you gloss over this point, because even a pause of reflection would raise the doubt that perhaps the way in which Terri Schiavo died was killing after all.
You argue that a person not in a state of imminent death can have food and water withheld, but you hide your meaning by using the phrase “withdrawing medical treatments” when you really mean withdrawing food and water. The euphemism obscures the truth that “withdrawing medical treament” actually causes the death. Once the euphemism is exposed however, so is the intention. Moral culpability returns.
If the intention is not to kill the patient, then why is the withdrawal hidden in language that implies it either helps the patient regain health, or alleviate pain in cases of imminent death? Clearly the opposite is true.
Why are you trying to hide? Why aren’t you truthful about this?
Here’s the answer: Redefining the withdrawal of food and water as “medical treatment,” attempts to lift moral culpability for killing. The Nazis did the same when they called the genocide of the Jews the “Final Solution” instead of “the genocide of the Jews.” Honesty in language brought too much moral baggage into view. It gets a bit messy.
I’m not calling you a Nazi. I’m saying that you employ euphemism in the same way that they did.
Still wonder why it’s called a “culture of death?”
Fr. Hans writes: “The assumption that discontinuing food and water has no more moral weight than, say, witholding an aspirin, is an assumption many ethicists, moral theologians, priests, care-givers, even St. Thomas who you so fondly quote above, would vigorously challenge. I understand why you gloss over this point, because even a pause of reflection would raise the doubt that perhaps the way in which Terri Schiavo died was killing after all.”
Of course it has more moral weight. It is one of the most significant decisions that a person could make. My point is that it is a decision that should be in the power of an individual to make — and not only should be but in fact is in the power of a person to make.
Fr. Hans: “You argue that a person not in a state of imminent death can have food and water withheld, but you hide your meaning by using the phrase ‘withdrawing medical treatments’ when you really mean withdrawing food and water. The euphemism obscures the truth that ‘withdrawing medical treament’ actually causes the death. Once the euphemism is exposed however, so is the intention. Moral culpability returns.”
As I have argued before, food and water delivered artificially through a surgically-implanted tube are in fact medical interventions. You can’t get artificial nutrition except through a physician’s order. Air is even more fundamental to life than food and water. But would you argue that a ventilator is not a medical intervention? Why is a ventilator a medical intervention and not artificial nutrition? Both can sustain life for years. The withdrawal of both bring about death — within only a few minutes in the case of the ventilator. Both can be administered only through a physician’s order. Both carry with them certain medical risks. Both can be authorized or declined in an advanced directive form. Enteral formulas are supposed to be used under medical supervision. They come with lists of possible side effects. They can cause serious illness if not handled properly, etc., etc. So I don’t see this as a euphemism at all. Just saying that artificial nutrition isn’t a medical intervention doesn’t make it so.
As far as moral culpability, what about the patient’s wishes? For example, let’s say that a PVS patient had recently filled out an advanced directive ordering the withdrawing of artificial nutrition in the event he was diagnosed as PVS. In addition, the patient discussed his wishes very clear with his physician and family members. So there is no doubt as to his wishes. Under those conditions, would you force his continued existence in a PVS state through refusal to discontinue tube feeding?
Fr. Hans: “If the intention is not to kill the patient, then why is the withdrawal hidden in language that implies it either helps the patient regain health, or alleviate pain in cases of imminent death? Clearly the opposite is true. Why are you trying to hide? Why aren’t you truthful about this?”
I’m not hiding anything. It’s obvious that discontinuing tube feeding on a PVS patient results in the death of the patient through dehydration. It has nothing to do with restoring health or alleviating pain. There’s no secret about that. It only has to do with discontinuing a kind of existence which the patient has a right to refuse. It is the option that I have selected on my own advanced directive form.
I use the expression “withdrawing a medical intervention” rather than “starving a patient to death” because I look at it from a medical perspective. Do you refer to discontinuing a ventilator as “suffocating the patient?” Because imminent death or not, that’s exactly what you’re doing.
Fr. Hans: “Here’s the answer: Redefining the withdrawal of food and water as ‘medical treatment,’ attempts to lift moral culpability for killing.”
Question: why the focus on food and water rather than air? Why is discontinuing a ventilator not a problem and discontinuing tube feeding is? It seems to me that your case would be a lot stronger if you could explain why ventilation and tube feeding are so different — why a ventilator is a medical intervention and artificial nutrition isn’t.
VENTILATOR VS. FEEDING TUBE?
According to my understanding, the purpose of a ventilator is to substitute for or optimize a patient’s own breathing in order to maintain an adequate amount of oxygen in their blood. With a feeding tube, nutrients (either a special liquid formula or pureed food) are delivered to a patient through a tube directly into the gastrointestinal tract, usually into the stomach or small intestine where the biological process of digestion continues unaided.
Now if that digestive process required some interactive medical assistance to break down the nutrients then there would technically be no difference between a feeding tube and a respirator. I think it’s a matter of degree. Might need to validate this, though.
JamesK writes: ” . . . where the biological process of digestion continues unaided.”
Likewise in ventilation. The ventilator inflates the lungs, but the biological process of putting O2 into the blood and taking CO2 out continues unaided.
There is machine that does the exchange of blood gasses for you, the heart-lung maching used when the heart is immobilized during open heart surgery. But that’s a short-term machine used only during surgery.
And actually, in certain kinds of tube feeding the process of digestion is also circumvented. In a type of feeding called “total parenteral nutrition” the nutrition is administered into the bloodstream through an IV line. It bypasses the gut completely. (This is not what Terri Schiavo had.)
I think much of this is simply the squeamishness over the fact that death from a lack of proper nutrients is more prolonged than a death from lack of oxygen. I think the way in which death is arrived at should be taken into consideration, however. No easy answers.
In any rate, Sullivan wrote an interesting piece in the Times regarding the inherent difficulties in a one-size-fits-all approach towards legislating moral issues.
On holding judges accountable. Jim writes, “In what way would judges be held accountable? I’m not sure what?s being suggested.”
Now you’re just being obtuse, Jim. What everyone means is the simple process of either voting judges out of office or impeaching them. That you couldn’t seem to think of these two scenarios tells me that you have a very different image in mind when a conservative says, “Judges will have to answer for their behavior.”
I’m willing to bet that the image you have in mind, when conservatives talk about holding judges accountable, is a bunch of guys in white robes and hoods rounding up the folks in black robes and stringing them up or burning them at the stake. This comes from the general Leftist thinking that conservatives are, at heart, a bunch of racist, violent men just waiting to set up a Christian theocracy in America (see the always hyperventilating Maureen Dowd).
Glen, on the hand I share some of your concern that the Bush Administration will not push hard to fill the Circuit Court vacancies being blocked by Left-wing ideologues in the Senate.
On the other hand, I understand why Cheney answered the way he did. He was simply not going to give the folks at NYTimes (yeah, I know it was the Post – you don’t think the folks at the Times read the Post?) material with which they can bash the President. And I don’t think it is fair to dismiss them as spineless jellyfish. If the Administration was as spineless as you say, why would it reappoint judges who were fillibustered when originally nominated? I think (OK, I hope) that a great deal of work is going on, that we cannot see, not the least of which is preparing for a vote on ending the rule that allows for the fillibuster of judicial nominees.
On the third hand (didn’t know I had three hands, eh 😉 ) I would very much like to see President Bush start a countrywide tour speechifying (is that a word? 😉 ) on judicial excesses. That would connect with a lot more people than the social security issue (which is now not likely to come up for a vote during this 109th Congress).
Daniel writes: “What everyone means is the simple process of either voting judges out of office or impeaching them. That you couldn’t seem to think of these two scenarios tells me that you have a very different image in mind when a conservative says, ‘Judges will have to answer for their behavior.'”
The reason I asked the question is because I looked up the election results for the 2004 General election in Florida. As I recall the infamous Judge Greer beat his opponent by a 2 to 1 margin. At the appeals level all Florida judges ran unopposed. Likewise at the state Supreme Court level. I mean, this was just 5 months ago, and the Schiavo case has been in the Florida courts for around 5 years. As far as I know federal judges are not elected but appointed.
I don’t know the “provenance” of all the judges that have been involved in the Schiavo case. But Judge Greer is a Baptist and a Republican. As I recall most of the U.S. Supreme Court judges have been nominated by Republican presidents. I know that some other federal and state judges that were involved in the Schiavo are also conservatives.
One blogger noted that “In case some conservatives think that the recent decisions in the Schiavo case provide a good reason to engage in attacks against the judiciary, I think it’s worth noting that one hundred percent of the Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 nominated judges who have reviewed the Schiavo case have voted against granting the relief the plaintiffs are seeking.”
Knight Ridder reporter Stephen Henderson mentioned another conservative judge who was on the other side of the issue: “WASHINGTON – The latest rejection of the Terri Schiavo case by a federal court was accompanied by a stinging rebuke of Congress and President Bush from a seemingly unlikely source: Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., one of the most conservative jurists on the federal bench.” I believe in a couple of cases that Clinton-appointed judges dissented from the mainstream opinion. So the Schiavo decions didn’t seem to be driven by the political orientation of judges.
If you want to impeach a federal judge, good luck. Constitutionproject.org notes that ” Despite the frequency with which members of the political branches suggest that federal judges have engaged in impeachable conduct, however, use of impeachment itself is relatively rare. Since 1789, impeachment proceedings have been initiated against 12 judges. Nine other judges resigned before such proceedings were formally instituted. Eleven of the 12 impeachment cases went to trial; four resulted in acquittals and seven in actual removals. One resigned during the proceedings.”
If you want to impeach Judge Greer, good luck with that too: “The state House Judiciary Committee chairman said Tuesday he will consider starting an impeachment investigation of the state judge in the Terri Schiavo case, but said he thought it unlikely that the judge would be impeached. . . . Such a move would require a two-thirds vote by the state House to impeach, and then a two-thirds vote by the state Senate to convict, with the chief justice of the state Supreme Court presiding over the trial before the Senate.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1373930/posts
Given this context, I’m not sure what “answer for their behavior” means. They didn’t answer for it 5 months ago, even though almost all of the substantive issues in the case had been resolved by then. And many of the judges at both the federal level who rejected the Schindler appeals are conservative or nominated by conservative presidents. Impeachment and conviction is rare. So the question stands: what does “anwer for their behavior” mean?
Inadequacy of Existing Law rather than Inadequacy of Judges
Jim Holman writes:
One blogger noted that ?In case some conservatives think that the recent decisions in the Schiavo case provide a good reason to engage in attacks against the judiciary, I think it?s worth noting that one hundred percent of the Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 nominated judges who have reviewed the Schiavo case have voted against granting the relief the plaintiffs are seeking.?
Missourian: The most persuasive critique of the proceedings in the Shiavo case is procedural. This transcends the particulars of her medical condition and the rulings of any particular judge. The argument is that THE EXISTING LAW is inadequate to properly protect disabled people who cannot communicate.
For the sake of argument, one could accept the idea that the rulings were proper under the EXISTING LAW, but that the EXISTING LAW is inadequate, the EXISTING LAW does not meet Constitutional due process standards.
This is why it is a waste of time to talk about the alleged political leanings of various judges involved in the Shiavo case. Principled judges seek to follow the law as it is, and consequently, they frequently enter rulings which have consequences which they themselves may not approve of, however, they follow the existing law.
Please also remember that under the EXISTING LAW a factual ruling by a probate judge acting as trier of fact is subject to review under the “abuse of discretion” standard, which is nearly impossible to meet. Repeated appeals notwithstanding, the standard of review makes a Schindler victory nearly impossible on appeal.
*************************************************************************************
Judicial activism is a completely separate issue. The meaning of “judicial activism” is that a judge has overstepped his bounds as an interpreter of the law or the Constitution and that he has become a de facto legislator; he has created new law. This action violates the constitutional principle of “separation of powers.” This is one of the arguments against Roe vs. Wade, that it amounted to judicial legislation, the creation of new law, a task reserved for the legislature.
No, Jim, your question doesn’t stand. I answered it, you just don’t like the answer. You asked what is meant by taking action against judges who seem to be exercising judicial tyranny. I told you what reasonable people mean by the phrase. You respond by quoting back to me some right wing nutburger who wants to engage in violence and then you repeat this ignorant phrase, “I’m not sure what “answer for their behavior” means.”
The problem, Jim, is not that you don’t know what is meant by that phrase. The problem is you do know but you are afraid to write it. You think conservatives want to wreak violence on judges.
BTW, regarding the likelihood of success in voting or impeaching judges off the bench: If the criterion for taking political action is whether or not one will succeed then this nation would have suffered slavery a lot longer than it did. After all who in their right mind would support emancipation when so many people opposed it.
I can just imagine the exchange:
Abolitionist: “We need to free the slaves.”
Rationalist: “What do you mean by ‘free the slave'”
Abolitionist: “I mean, to appeal to the people to give them their rights.”
Rationalist: “Who are you kidding? If the people wanted to free the slaves they would have done it long ago. So what do you mean by ‘free the slave’?”
Abolitionist: “I mean to appeal to our elected Representatives to release the blacks from abuse and bondage. Where’s your humanity?”
Rationalist: “Everyone knows the politicians won’t do anything. So what did you mean by ‘free the slaves’?”
Abolitionist: “Oh, never mind. I’m going fishin’.”
I see appropriate measures to reign in judicial tyranny as follows.
First, Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution concerning the jurisdicton of federal courts, states: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Congress can set the scope of appellate jurisdiction through law. An example was the language of the Marriage Protection Act, passed last year by the House of Representatives, that was basically the Defense of Marriage Act with language forestalling judicial review. Here is an excerpt describing the Act, “The bill, drafted by Rep. John N. Hostettler (R-Ind.), would prevent such a ruling by denying all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 federal law that says that no state has to recognize same-sex unions established in any other state.”
This method could be used to end the federal right to abortion by denying the federal courts the right to rule on legislation on the subject of abortion. This is the ultimate trump card for the legislative branch to reclaim its authority to make law for the United States. If the voters don’t like the law, then they can vote for a new set of Senators and Congressmen who vow to change it. If a vast majority of Americans despise Roe v. Wade – how are we to change it at the ballot box?
Another method would be to impeach judges who have overstepped their bounds.
Another method would be to change from lifetime appointments to a term of office, after which judges would have to be re-nominated.
Finally, another method is the one that Jim inadvertantly hit on. Judges usually run unopposed, and when an election is a mere retention affair (as with the Supreme Court of Florida justices), no one is front and center campaigning to oust any judges. The Christian Coalition voter guide for 2004, for example, listed only the barest facts about any of the candidates for a judicial office. Why is this? Why doesn’t anyone rate a judicial candidate the same as is done for other candidates for office? That is a very, very good question.
Jim is also right that Republican appointees to the bench have been only marginally better than Democrats. In my opinion, the mere ability to appoint nominees to the bench is not enough. No one exercises any restraint over them once they are appointed, and this has produced disastrous effects. The Warren Court that produced Roe v. Wade had 7 Republican appointees on it. Just trying to nominate good judges isn’t enough – good candidates often go bad once on the bench and unchecked by any effective restraint.
Are the Bush Administration and the Republican Party spineless? Cheney’s comments lead me to believe that this administration will continue to renominate the fillibustered judges, but that is the extent of their efforts. It is my opinion, that the Bush Administration will accept any decision by a court, no matter how egregious a case of judicial activism it may be.
Suppose the best case scenario. Bush’s nominees all turn out to be great judges who adhere to original intent and rule in the best tradition of jurisprudence. That fails to give me a warm and fuzzy feeling, when by the time enough of these men and women are on the bench to make a difference, we already have judicially mandated gay marriage, hate crimes laws applied to the Gospel, mandated diversity training in public schools, and euthanasia for all.
Sorry, the crisis is here and now and we need someone who will fight here and now. I am sensitive to the plight of the administration facing a hostile press. That may be the case, that Bush is working behind the scenes to make great things happen. On the other hand, Cheney may be telegraphing to the base not to expect much on this issue and he may be specifically telling DeLay to pipe down. Cheney is often used in that role.
Daniel, you have faith in Bush. That’s great. I don’t. I’m cynical, and I want action. I want the president to go on a speaking tour about judicial activism. I want to see him support Tom DeLay’s efforts, not undercut him.
You have accused me of Bush hating in the past. I did not criticize either Jeb Bush or George Bush for getting involved in the Terri Schiavo case. I applauded it. I criticized them for not doing enough. In the end, Terri died.
I don’t want politics as usual. I don’t want excuses. The judiciary has already done enough damage to our society. Enough is enough.
Glen, What are you referring to when you say “hate crimes laws applied to the Gospel”, “mandated diversity training” or “euthanasia for all”?
There has been no such case of the former two that I am aware of (if there was I’d be the first to disagree with it even though some “family groups” are insistent on muzzling Howard Stern for talking about (gasp!) breasts), and it was the voters in Oregon who approved the ’94 and ’97 Death With Dignity Act and physician-assisted suicide laws.
Hate Crimes laws in nations such as Canada and Sweden have been extended to cover speech which might be construed as attacking or denigrating a minority. For example, the individual in Canada who went to jail for publishing Biblical tracts against homosexuality. Existing U.S. hate crimes legislation, properly construed by an activist court, could be pushed in that direction. In the ruling that overturned the death penalty statutes of 19 states that permitted the execution of suspects under the age of 18, the majority of the Supreme Court appealed to ‘international law’ as the basis of the decision. If this trend continues, then hate crimes will become more broadly construed and the final effect will be to criminalize the criticism of ‘alternative’ lifestyles which are incompatible with Christian doctrine.
States in which the courts have madated gay marriage have also tampered with school curriculums to foster acceptance of those marriages, and prevent discrimination of the children of such couples. Gay marriage expands, this expands with it, along with whatever other diversity is judged to be a good thing to teach by the courts. Islam, for example? Not a historic force, but in a positive light as a competing faith?
Euthanasia – remember Terri?