This is an extended talk given by David Gibbs, lawyer to Terri Schiavo and eyewittness to her malady, and ultimately her death.
Talk by David Gibbs, lawyer to Terri Schiavo
292 thoughts on “Talk by David Gibbs, lawyer to Terri Schiavo”
Comments are closed.
JamesK,
I don’t know of any Orthodox sources off the top of my head that directly address the question:
“does Orthodox doctrine not specify that the soul “departs” from the body at death? I don’t think there’s any indication that the soul lies bound to the body until the general resurrection (in some sort of state of “non-being”)? In other words, death is a real event that indicates a true break between the incorporeal soul and the body with which it was intertwined during life.”
Behind your question (I think) is a strong body/soul dualism, or so it seems to me. In other words, I my understanding is that you can not really have a soul without a body, thus we look for the “resurrection” of the dead, the bodily resurrection. What does it mean to (in the Christian sense) speak of a “incorporeal” soul? Perhaps Fr. Jacobse or Michael can way in with a source or two.
Seems to me you are looking for a material indication (e.g. lack of brain wave) to clearly and unambiguously indicate a spiritual condition (i.e. being “alive” or “dead”).
As far as the “soul after death”, I had it explained to me once by a priest this way. Upon my death, I will close my eyes, just a blink, and when I they open again a fraction of a second later, I will open them and I will be at the Dread Judgment Seat of Christ. What happened to my “soul”, to my “body”, to time, to everything between? I am not sure this is technically correct, but it does have a way of forcing the mind to deal with the paradox of life, death, time, infinity, God and man.
I have never read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Soul-After-Death-Contemporary-After-Death/dp/093863514X
But Fr. Seraphim had an encyclopedic knowledge of the Fathers, and an uncanny ability to explain/interpret them against “contemporary” issues. I think I will order this book and see if I can’t find a more direct answer to your question.
Also, check out the Link Michael posts above:
http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/afterdeath.htm
It looks like it will have an answer, though I don’t have time to read it at the moment…
Note 244:
Good point Tom. To what you are calling “Or your common, sensory, real-life experiences?” one has to include the idea of “knowing of the heart”, or what one might call “intuition”.
The problem is that the typical modern/materialist has trained himself to believe that all such knowledge is “wish fulfillment” and projection. In other words, he has a decidedly Freudian bias in his thinking. Jim, Amazed, have repeatedly pointed out that the Shcindlers perceptions in this area have no validity, are motivated by ill purposes, etc. They do not trust themselves, so how should they trust anyone else?
Christianly, we “know in our heart” certain things, as God Himself has “written on our heart” certain things. All the “sense data” in the world is not going to trump this.
When a Christian saw Terri, and saw her family with her, a Christian “knew in his heart” that she was “alive”. To the materialist, it was only low level “functioning of the brain stem”. This of course comes from his philosophy of the world, with which he filters all his sense data. Anyone who would filter out “Terri”, and leave a “brain stem”, is in an important sense himself dead. “Let the dead bury the dead” Christ says. Let Michael, the death eater (dead to God, his wife, the world) bury the dead indeed…
Perhaps what you mean to say is that the selective use of facts can paint a different portrait of reality than what may actually exist?
I will answer for myself. NO, he did not mean that.
“And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”
Perfect knowledge, total knowledge, leads exactly to….”nothing”
“However, I don’t think you mean to say that “reality is relative”, however, or that truth is relative, right? If one is going to argue the validity of even the simplest of mathematical equations (”2 + 2 only seems to equal 4″), ”
Reality itself is not relative, no. I take Michaels point to be that in that when it comes to empirical data, the meaning one takes from any set of facts reveals more about your philosophy than it does the “facts.
The meaning of PVS for example, what is it? To some here, it is death itself. To others here, it is a disability, a tragedy, a Trial (Father, save me from the Time of Trial!), but it is not “death”. Which is it to you?
In a sense, one has to admire Jim, Amazed, JamesK, who have (though I think only Jim has said so explicitly) decided that Terri was dead. They reflexively reel back from the picture of “keeping a body alive” like some Frankenstein. This is a fear of death, yes, but it also is a instinctive moral judgment on those who would deny death, as they see Michael, Fr. Jacobse, and myself arguing for (i.e. we don’t recognize Terri was dead).
Perhaps I have not given them enough credit before, because from whence does this revulsion come?
Note 244. Tom C. writes:
There is another dimension to this question as well. PVS is also the category that euthanasia advocates want to codify in law as the first step of their ideology. That’s why you hear the continual argument that Terri Schiavo was already dead. I liked Pat Buchanan’s retort however, “If she was already dead, why didn’t you bury her then?”
Whether or not Terri Schaivo was really PVS is an open question. Jim civilly disagrees while Amazed gets a bit heated by the challenge, but there are just too many witnesses stating she was severely disabled, but certainly not “brain dead”. (I won’t argue whether or not these witnesses are part of a grand conspiracy or public relations offensive.) It’s going to take a good deal of time and some qualified people to get to the bottom of all this.
But even if she were brain dead, why the eagerness to pull the tubes? Why such a passioned defense over the death of someone? I can understand why people fought for her life, by why fight for her death –unless of course one was fighting for a principle or ideology, which I believe was the case. The passion makes no sense otherwise.
Facts don’t make for truth in and of themselves.
2+2 = 4 is a fact in our universe as a numerical fact. In and of itself it doesn’t mean a whole lot. Only when you (unconsciously really) put it in the context of the whole of mathematics does it begin to take on meaning, substance and become a standard of veracity.
2+2 = interesting living arrangement?
Empiricism as a tool works pretty well when dealing with inanimate (to us) matter. Trying to use empirical philosophy to address questions of being is worse that useless.
The kind of thing you call truth is relative to God, the Person of Jesus Christ (He is the Truth). Everyone’s concept of truth changes when the standard for measuring changes. You and the others have, from an Orthodox understanding, an abysmally low standard. You refuse to even consider the idea that a higher standard, even if you don’t believe it actually exists, yields far different results than yours.
For some people what I am trying to communicate is real easy to understand, for others it seems to be impossible. Where is your faith, i.e., in what or in whom do you place your faith?
Note on references: Although I, in someways, consider Fr. Seraphim Rose as my God Father and have an immense respect for him (it would not surprise me to see him cannonized eventually), he is not a writer in whom it is easy to see and comprehend the essence of the Orthodox faith. He is quite controversial in some circles. If JamesK is looking for a system that he can plug into, he will not find it in Fr. Seraphim. Like his name sake, St. Seraphim of Sarov, for Fr. Seraphim the aim of the Christian life is the acquistion of the Holy Spirit. That and that alone allows one to take on the mind of the Fathers, live a genuine Christian life and perceive the truth in and about the world in which we live.
I would not recommend anyone starting an examination of the Orthodox attitude and belief about death and life afterwards with his Soul After Death.
That being said, Fr. Seraphim touched the lives of a whole generation of converts to the Orthodox Church, thousands upon thousands of people in Russia and in the United States have either come to the Church or returned to the Church with deepened understanding and fervor because of Fr. Seraphim. When I read him, I am frequently driven to prayer because of the obvious passion he has for Jesus Christ and the Church and how impoverished I am. He is an uncompromising critic of the modern mind and the “civilization” which has sprung from it. If some think Christopher has been less than Christian in his approach to belief that is not of God, you will find even stronger medicine in what Fr. Seraphim writes. He is better at tearing down than he is building up. He challenges easy belief at almost every turn.
Two books of his I unhesitatingly recommend however were written at opposite ends of his Orthodox life. Nihilism, written before he became Orthodox and Genesis, Creation, and Early Man was edited and compiled posthumously. I do not accept everything in either of them, but they both point to a way of thinking and living that is not of this world.
I would not recommend anyone starting an examination of the Orthodox attitude and belief about death and life afterwards with his Soul After Death.
Sounds like some of his conclusions raised questions in others minds perhaps? I have not yet read the book Michael, just ordered today in fact. Can you point me to a thoughtful critique?
He is better at tearing down than he is building up. He challenges easy belief at almost every turn.
I don’t think of “Genesis, Creation, and Early Man” in this vien. I appriciate how he could deal with philosophical naturalism on it’s own terms. Though he is rather direct with certain western saints, Thomas Aquinas for example.
Fr. Hans asks: “[E]ven if she were brain dead, why the eagerness to pull the tubes? Why such a passioned defense over the death of someone?”
First of all, with the exception of a few token individuals, no one knew Terri Schiavo personally, which is why I too have a difficult time understanding the degree of fervor this case has generated, especially given the fact that these same people probably react less strongly when similar situations involve people they do know.
Many of the people who have taken one side or the other in the media probably view the person Terri as part of a larger issue that they do feel passionately about, whether it’s “patient autonomy” or what they believe is a compassionate view of end-of-life issues or a general “life” issue. Some may even believe it possible that Terri may have been suffering in some unspeakable manner but unable to communicate that for over 15 years due to her state. To them, they view the unpleasant business of allowing someone to starve a lesser evil than the unknown horrors that accompany a hellish existence (or a limbo-like one) of being unable to respond or communicate in any way (assuming she had some form of awareness, which medical tests seem to indicate she could not have had). For others, Terri is a victim (perhaps even a martyr) of a general widespread decline in our culture involving a reverence for life.
I suppose that some may coldly believe that death is better than life no matter what the circumstances (or unless circumstances are “optimal”). I don’t think this was the general attitude of the entire range of judges and physicians who dealt with this case, however. They were individuals who it seems were doing their best to determine whether Terri was truly in a state that would ethically mandate she be kept artificially alive. “PVS” and “brain death” are, after all, medical terms used to describe physical conditions, and there are numerous overlapping similarities. If she was not dead, she was about as close to it as I can imagine anyone can be. As far as I know, her soul could have moved on when her EEG went flat. Thus, I think we have a responsibility to not cast a large number of individuals in such a negative light as if they were advocating the euthanizing of children with Down’s Syndrome or the elderly (yes, I know there are individuals who advocate this … I am not one of them by any stretch).
I have the feeling that much of the tone of Genesis, Creation and Early Man is supplied by Fr. Damascene who compiled and edited the book from Fr. Seraphim’s lecture notes and recordings.
Unfortunately, there is not a balanced critique of Soul After Death out there to my knowledge. Fr. Lazar Pulhalo has a book with a similar title which is not so much a critique as a frontal attack. I think it goes way too far. He obviously does not like Fr. Seraphim or his writings at all. Fr. Seraphim was not good at being diplomatic or making friends.
There are several flavors of thought within the Orthodox Tradtion. The Slavic approach, shared by Fr. Seraphim and St. John Maximovitch, focuses on podvig or struggle. Deep, continual repentance and acknowledgement of our sinful, fallen state is central to their approach–stringent ascesis. The outcome is being able to share the resurrected life and joy with our Savior.
The Greeks tend to put more emphasis on the Resurrected life through repentance. “What’s with this podvig, we celebrate the Resurrection!” (ascesis within the celebration of the Resurrection). Both are right but it is easy to pick one over the other. Actually I think the Syrian tradition has a balance of both.
Let me stress again, all three ‘flavors’ are emphatically Orthodox and the contentions that arise from time to time are just a rowdy family having fun.
First of all, with the exception of a few token individuals, no one knew Terri Schiavo personally, which is why I too have a difficult time understanding the degree of fervor this case has generated, especially given the fact that these same people probably react less strongly when similar situations involve people they do know.
I think you are wrong about that. The “fervor” is the “cultural war”, which is a real battle, not a small disagreement among about trivial matters. I think you said something similar upstream. It strikes me as a certain “I’m above such rancorous politics/issues”. Tell us how you are above it all…
“If she was not dead, she was about as close to it as I can imagine anyone can be. As far as I know, her soul could have moved on when her EEG went flat. Thus, I think we have a responsibility to not cast a large number of individuals in such a negative light as if they were advocating the euthanizing of children with Down’s Syndrome or the elderly”
AH, that’s how you are “above it all”. Those who recognize Terri as “alive” are wrong, and you are right (as in “as far as I know, her soul could have moved on”).
I think Fr. Jacobse has it right – why not let her serve God and her family by being alive? Oh yea, she could be, as you put it “suffering in some unspeakable manner but unable to communicate that for over 15 years”
This IS the modern man’s ultimate fear, pain. Even worse than pain to modern man, is being unable to “control your environment, your body, not being able to communicate.”
You don’t understand the evil here JamesK because you, unconsciously perhaps, assume all the modern fears and ideas of man. This post reveals how much of modern anthropology you taken as your own. You may claim to be Christian, but your willingness to go along with this evil (and to question those who call it what it is -an evil) shows the “could” and “possible” of modern man’s worse fears and myths have darken your mind.
So in a way, you have answered my ealier question:
“What does PVS mean to you”
It is a large and horrible enemy, worse than death,, how did you put it “Terri may have been suffering in some unspeakable manner but unable to communicate that for over 15 years due to her state.”
give you or in this case, Terri death first..even if it is by starvation and dehydration.
The battle cry of a modern myth, not Christianity…
p.s.
The tradition you claim to be a part of calls you to gird up your loins, and be a man. You can put away your childish fears (monsters under the bed, or now your adult aversion to imagined pain and suffering), take up your cross, and follow Him…St. Paul once thought as a child, but then a man…what’s holding you back?
Unfortunately, there is not a balanced critique of Soul After Death out there to my knowledge. Fr. Lazar Pulhalo has a book with a similar title which is not so much a critique as a frontal attack. I think it goes way too far. He obviously does not like Fr. Seraphim or his writings at all. Fr. Seraphim was not good at being diplomatic or making friends.
Interesting. Perhaps that’s one reason I appreciate him – he is more of your “straight talk” sort of person. I have little patience (painfully obvious I know) for the “diplomatic”. Perhaps between my family and my work, I use it all up. Perhaps I don’t find God much of a diplomat 🙂
I might have to get this book. I noticed another book by the “Synaxis Press” describes “the late neo-Gnostic philosopher, Fr. Seraphim Rose.” LOL! This press seems related to the OCA. I wonder just when the OCA went off the deep end…
JamesK
You said earlier:
One simply has to spend an hour watching FOX News.
I was reminded of this after driving home from work tonight listening to “National Pagan Radio” (or is it “National Liberal Democratic Radio”?). I felt like I had been hit on top of the head with a 150lb liberal sledge hammer. I had to turn on FOX News when I got home just to get my balance back…:)
Christopher asks: “why not let her serve God and her family by being alive?”
How do you know it wasn’t God’s will for her to die when she had her initial attack? Is it because she remained alive (thanks to modern technology invented by the very medical professionals you have such disdain for), or did you speak to Him personally about it?
Tom C writes: “But there is one aspect of it that is very significant, and it seems to be what you base your view on. That is, the decision to let a scientific measurement (MRI, or EEG, or whatever) take precedence over common sensory perceptions of what life is.”
To some extent modern technology forces that on us, because we have the ability to sustain bodily function much longer than in the past. E.g., does it make sense to intubate and ventilate someone who is brain dead? And if the person then needs dialysis, do we then do that?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the issue is whether or not neurological tests and data can be used in determining whether the person is legally dead. As far as I know, in the case of Catholic medical ethics, it’s a settled question, and the answer is “yes.” It appears to be a settled question in the Orthodox church — though not among all Orthodox believers, as the discussion here has demonstrated.
Tom: “The judgement that a certain pattern of electrical responses or electromagnetic responses is indicative of a defined mode of life is highly problematic.”
Problematic how? From the point of view of diagnosis? Or conceptually? I mean, people who are correctly diagnosed as brain dead don’t come back. So losing electrical activity in the brain is not like stubbing a toe.
Tom: “In the null case, where no brain waves corresponds to a corpse that everyone can see is dead, it is an easy correlation. But beyond that, who knows? How exactly does “some brain waves” correlate to a person who seems to respond to touch, soothing sounds, the presence of certain persons, etc.”
In Terri Schiavo’s case, the EEG was flat. But it’s not just the flat EEG. CT scans showed that the cerebral cortex was destroyed. Various other neurological exams were performed reflex, pain, visual tracking, etc. If in fact the person “seems to respond,” this will certainly be observed upon examination.
Tom: “In such a case, it might be that the loved ones are being “fooled” by the responses. But it might be that they are not being fooled. Maybe the scientists are being fooled. They do not understand such conditions well enough to understand what the patient grasps or doesn’t grasp.”
Yes, absolutely. That demonstrates the need for repeated exams over time, and for a length of time. In the Schiavo case, the problem is that the responses were neither consistent nor repeatable. Terri would exhibit the same movements whether or not anyone was in the room. There was no evidence that the movements were intentional. Let’s say that every once in a while Terri turns her head to the right, whether or not others are present. When people come into the room, someone standing to her right says something. Terri turns her head. It’s going to appear to be an intentional movement. But then the person says something again. Nothing happens. They try speaking on the left. Nothing. The right again. Nothing. This is what the unedited videotape showed.
Family believed that Terri could track objects with her eyes. Again, these movements were not repeatable. In addition, from the autopsy we know to a medical certainty that she was cortically blind — that the part of the brain that processes vision had been destroyed, completely gone, and replaced by cerebrospinal fluid. One of the tragedies of the PVS state is that the patient appears to respond, but in fact there is no response.
Even when dealing with an obviously conscious person, individual perceptions can be very misleading. A prime example of this is the sensation of the “phantom limb” of someone whose limb has been amputated. I’ll probably be accused of being a materialist, but just because an amputee senses the presence of a limb that has been amputated, I wouldn’t conclude that the person’s physical limb has been replaced by a “spiritual” limb, only discernible by Orthodox theology.
Tom: “In such circumstances, it seems better to trust the commonly shared perceptions available to all people, rather than letting highly debatable scientific correlations trump all else.”
In general, they are not highly-debated. And it works both ways. Family members might conclude that a ventilated unconscious patient was brain dead. But neurological tests could show that in fact the patient was comatose or in a “locked in” state, not at all brain dead. There are numerous examples of such patients improving, up to and including full recovery.
Tom: “Let me throw out an example from left field to try to illustrate what I am saying.”
Actually, I thought it was kind of a cool example, so I’m going to quote the whole thing.
Tom’s example: “Let’s say that a scientist announces that he knows what “love” is, and has even developed a test involving MRIs and the presence of certain chemical compounds to indicate when someone is loving another. His theory receives unanimous support from all other scientists involved in neuro-chemical research. You are convinced that your wife loves you, based on her daily attention to your needs, self-sacrifice, loving gestures, etc. Then, she is required to take the universally recognized “love test”. And, the results come back negative. Which do you believe? The scientific results? Or your common, sensory, real-life experiences?”
Of course I would believe my own experience. I would assume that future research would prove the scientists wrong. In the meantime, the scientists would consider me deluded.
But there are some problems with the example, at least as far as the
Schiavo case goes. The Schiavo case certainly presented at least the question of whether she was in a PVS. Frankly, had Terri Schiavo gone to the nurses’ station and played chess every day, there would have been no question that she wasn’t in a PVS. Any neurologist who claimed that she was would have been thought insane. But that wasn’t the case.
The diagnosis of PVS involves a number of different kinds of tests and considerations, all of which have to converge to the same conclusion. I’m not a neurologist, but just from my reading of the case material, and reading about the PVS diagnosis —
First, Terri Schiavo had an anoxic brain injury. Therapy was tried for three years, (two of those years after the PVS diagnosis) but unfortunately to no effect. The CT scan showed great loss of brain tissue, the destruction of the cerebral cortex. Neurological tests involving pain, reflexes, responsiveness, etc., were performed, but all those were consistent with the diagnosis. The EEG was flat. Finally, over a period of years there was no change in condition, no improvement. The autopsy results provided no surprises. In addition, these results were compared with the results of other similar cases.
So there were tests and considerations that were physical, radiological, electrical, behavioral, statistical, and temporal. All of these converged to the same conclusion. It wasn’t just a couple of abstract lab values.
So I have a problem with the idea that the family’s beliefs trump all of that — that the science turns out to be utterly irrelevant. In this venue, it appears that the theological beliefs of the Orthodox trump everything.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: why even bother doing neurological evaluations in such cases? Brain dead? PVS? Locked-in? Comatose? Flat EEG? No brain? Who cares? Orthodox theology renders scientific diagnosis irrelevant. Or the family’s belief renders scientific diagnosis irrelevant. No matter the condition of the patient, we’ll just hook them all up to every possible technology and keep them all going for as long as possible. To do otherwise would be to succumb to “modernist” thinking. And I think nothing less will satisfy the demands of Orthodox theology.
Being ROCOR, Fr. Seraphim had a lot of run-ins with the OCA including Fr. Alexander Schmemann. Before Fr. Seraphim died, he met with Fr. Alexander and they reconciled personally (Fr. Alexander is supposed to have remarked something to the effect that they’ll put us on the same icon togehter), but there seem to be a lingering bitterness with some in the OCA.
Fr. Seraphim had his shortcomings in a lot of areas, but the fruit of his work and life suggests to me that calling him a gnostic is not true. Obviously, we need to exercise caution and discernment in anything we read no matter who the author. It would not surprise me if Fr. Seraphim expressed ideas that could be considered gnostic. Gnosticism, like Epicurianism, hasn’t gone away and to a certain degree effects all of us.
But as I’ve tried recently to explain here, we Orthodox are a rowdy bunch. We are rowdy because there is acutal belief in the Church confirmed by personal experience. This stuff is important, not just a matter for intellectual discourse or ideological ramblings. Salvation is involved.
For over 2000 years we have maintained our rowdiness AND our unity. Western Chrisitianity has one or the other. Rome has unity by supressing rowdiness (as much as possible) while the Protestants protest and splinter every chance they get. That just might provide some evidence that the Church is who we say we are, the Church.
So sooner or later all the little stuff we worry about now (like jurisdictions) will be taken care of. That doesn’t mean we should be complacent, but it does mean we can act in faith and not despair.
How do you know it wasn’t God’s will for her to die when she had her initial attack? Is it because she remained alive (thanks to modern technology invented by the very medical professionals you have such disdain for), or did you speak to Him personally about it?
LOL! JamesK, have you read a basic catechism or been to a traditional Christian Church? When you pose this sort of thinking I really have to doubt your confessions to the contrary.
How do you know it wasn’t God’s will for her to die when she had her initial attack?
Because she did not die. 🙂
Alexandre Kalomiros and Origins. Not Good.
Note 258:
He is better at tearing down than he is building up. He challenges easy belief at almost every turn.
Christopher writes:
“I don’t think of “Genesis, Creation, and Early Man” in this vien. I appriciate how he could deal with philosophical naturalism on it’s own terms. Though he is rather direct with certain western saints, Thomas Aquinas for example.”
I had never thought of Seraphim Rose as tearing down. I’ve always read him as gently firm and honest. I don’t know we would have become Orthodox if not for his little book, The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church
In Genesis, Creation….. the editor writes, “In the altar of his monastery, Fr Seraphim was once found weeping before the Holy Table. When his monastic co-struggler asked him what was wrong, Fr. Seraphim replied, “The Truth is diminishing.”
But Christopher you mention ‘direct with certain western saints.’ Do you realize against whom he wrote his 40 page treatise which pulled him into studying Patristic thought on Genesis?
Thus exists this 700+ page volume. Owing to his dispute with Alexandre Kalomiros. Once again, Rose’s book on Genesis represent to us a voice of reason in the midst of chaos.
Eugene Rose asked Alexandre Kalomiros to send him his beliefs re: origins in English. He thought….maybe i’m misunderstanding him, hearing his beliefs 2nd-hand. Indeed Kalomiros send him a detailed paper.
Seraphim Rose:
Fr Seraphim tried persuasion, and apparently to no avail.
Rose writing to Kalomiros: “The evololutionary philosophy of “up from the beasts” certainly seems irreconcilable with the Christian view of “fall from Paradise,” and our whole view of history will certainly be determined by which way we believe!”
Nancy L.
Yes, “The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church” is an important work, which reminds us that despite Augustine’s errors (most importantly his neo-Platonic vision of the Holy Trinity) Augustine is a Saint. I agree with you, Fr. Seraphim does not seem to have been one to “deconstruct” or “tear down”, rather he was truthful and honest with what are problematic area’s in the history of western Christianity.
When I said “direct with western saints”, in particular I was thinking of somewhere in the middle of “Genesis, Creation….. ” he outlines in detail how Thomas Aquinas seems to have misinterpreted the fall and it’s consequences for the human body.
Christian Evolutionism is an oxymoron, and Fr. Seraphim rightly took this error head on…
#265 Jim Holman
Thank you for the well-thought-out response.
As I mentioned, I never followed the details of this issue so don’t have a firm opinion. It seems to me, though, that there is a gulf between the common perceptions of those who saw her on a daily basis and the medical opinions accepted by the court. Indeed, when I read your list of medical observations I envisioned a body laying flat and never moving, or maybe randomly twitching at best. I find it implausible that the caregivers – who have vastly more experience with this sort of thing than anyone else, including the doctors – could have been so mistaken.
I think the saying is that “hard cases make bad law” (Missourian will correct me if that is wrong). I think something similar applies here. This case is a bad one to use as a basis for discussions on end of life ethics since there is such disagreement about the facts.
P.S. In a post above I mentioned that it was not right to call organ donation “organ harvesting” since the latter suggested nefarious activites that are usually absent in the former. I have to call you out for a similar exaggeration for saying “we’ll just hook them all up to every possible technology and keep them all going for as long as possible.” when that is clearly different than someone receiving nutrition from a feeding tube.
So I have a problem with the idea that the family’s beliefs trump all of that — that the science turns out to be utterly irrelevant. In this venue, it appears that the theological beliefs of the Orthodox trump everything.
EXACTLY. You have a problem with that because you are a materialist. As a materialist, material considerations (i.e. brain waves, this or that diagnosis or autopsy, etc.) trump everything, which means you base the personhood of Terri on it, you base the family and their reactions on it, you base even the metaphysical (what it means to be man and “alive”) and morality of Terri’s life on it.
In this venue, theological belief trump everything, your starting to get it!! From correct theology, comes correct morality, anthropology, even correct materialism – what the “dust” is, how it is part of us, and how we are to relate to the fact of our “dust” morally, spiritually, etc.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: why even bother doing neurological evaluations in such cases? Brain dead? PVS? Locked-in? Comatose? Flat EEG? No brain? Who cares? Orthodox theology renders scientific diagnosis irrelevant. Or the family’s belief renders scientific diagnosis irrelevant. No matter the condition of the patient, we’ll just hook them all up to every possible technology and keep them all going for as long as possible. To do otherwise would be to succumb to “modernist” thinking. And I think nothing less will satisfy the demands of Orthodox theology.
This hysterical reaction on your part is very predictable, in that you fear pain and “lack of control” above all else (what more is there to morality in the materialist world?). However, why do you fear a Frankenstein, a body kept alive so much?
Let’s assume you are correct, and the person “Terri” died in 1993, the brain does = person, and the family was deluding themselves in recognizing Terri as alive. Why then is it such a revulsion to you to have kept this empty shell, this body, alive indefinably? If it provided some level of “artificial” comfort to her family, why not do it? Terri after all died in 1993, so “she” is no longer there. What’s the basis of your objection?
Fr. Seraphim tears down the worldly mind (at least for me). He is uncompromising. As I implied, I might not be Orthodox were it not for him.
I find is diagnosis of the problem quite accurate. I do not always find the specifics of his solutions as accurate or satisfactory. His general answer though, Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit in the Church, is the only one that really counts.
That is what I meant by he tears down better than he builds up. It seems that folks get what they need from his works. Perhaps and indication of his sanctity?
Christopher writes: “This IS the modern man’s ultimate fear, pain. Even worse than pain to modern man, is being unable to ‘control your environment, your body, not being able to communicate.'”
So Terri’s pain is irrelevant in this matter to you is it? So if you could not care less whether or not she may have been in a form of hell for 15 years, I doubt all this fuss you’re making is over the possibility of any discomfort she may have suffered while starving to death for 15 days.
So what is all this about, then, Christopher? You don’t seem to have a lot of empathy for anyone, as your posts imply. It is you, not I, who stated you would rather see 100 people die than … what was it … part with a fingernail? All for your “ideology”.
Again, why do you care, then? Is it over some offense you imagine is being committed against God? I can assure you, any God who needs you to defend Him is not much of a Being.
So Terri’s pain is irrelevant in this matter to you is it?
LOL! Your quite the hoot sometimes. Remember, the idea of a “mercy killing” has a long history in Christian/western culture
But back to this case, I did not know she was in pain. According to the materialist, brain=person philosophy, enough of her brain died in 1993 that “Terri” was already gone, already dead. How can a person who is gone/dead be in pain? Is not the brain the organ which translates/produces pain from other bodily actions?
So which is it, was she dead, or was she in pain? If she was in pain, how could she be dead?
Also, why would you weigh the possibility she was in pain (remember, this is a thought experiment that takes place in your mind within the context of your materialist mythical worldview) to such a high place that you would decide death by starvation/dehydration is the right thing to do. Do you KNOW she was in pain, or hell of “incommunication” or “lack of bodily control”?
I ask you again JamesK, “what does PVS mean to you”?
Tom C writes: “I find it implausible that the caregivers – who have vastly more experience with this sort of thing than anyone else, including the doctors – could have been so mistaken.”
This is the problem with PVS, and it is truly tragic. It is the nature of PVS. Humans instinctively look for patterns, for meaning, intention, consciousness. When you see a loved one making motions, sleeping, waking, turning her head, etc., it’s perfectly natural to perceive intention and consciousness. What people don’t understand is that what they are seeing is an intact brain stem sending electrical signals to muscles, unmediated by intention or awareness, or consciousness.
Tom: “This case is a bad one to use as a basis for discussions on end of life ethics since there is such disagreement about the facts.”
I agree in part. It shows the importance of understanding the facts, and what happens when the parties cannot agree on the basic facts.
Tom: “I have to call you out for a similar exaggeration for saying “we’ll just hook them all up to every possible technology and keep them all going for as long as possible.” when that is clearly different than someone receiving nutrition from a feeding tube.”
I was exaggerating, but not by much. It is not clear to me that a ventilator, feeding tube, or dialysis, etc., are all that much different from each other. In fact, the feeding tube is the most invasive of the three. All replace crucial bodily functions without which death follows. It’s also not clear to me that brain death and PVS are significantly different from each other in a moral sense. The only significant neurological difference between brain death and PVS is that in PVS there is a functioning brain stem. Both involve a living body. Why can we remove organs from a living, but brain dead both, thus directly causing the death of the body, but we cannot remove a feeding tube, that results in the death of the body?
And this is in the context of my main point: if the neurological science is truly irrelevant in these cases — dismissed as “materialism” by several here — then it seems that we are left with no option but to “pull out all the stops” in every such case. If neurological findings are irrelevant, then the patient’s neurological status is irrelevant from the point of view of providing the means to keep the physical body functioning.
If that’s not the case — if neurological science IS relevant — then I would like to hear from the Orthodox folks on how it is relevant. Is it relevant in the case of brain death, but not in the case of PVS? If so, why?
Christopher writes: “As a materialist, material considerations (i.e. brain waves, this or that diagnosis or autopsy, etc.) trump everything, which means you base the personhood of Terri on it, you base the family and their reactions on it, you base even the metaphysical (what it means to be man and “alive”) and morality of Terri’s life on it.”
Actually, material considerations don’t trump everything. For example, had Terri Schiavo been hit by a car and lost the spleen, she would still be a person. Had she lost all arms and legs she would still be a person. Were she blind and deaf she would still be a person.
The brain is different, and anyone who knows anything about the brain knows that. You know that. Remove a kidney and there’s still a person. Remove the brain and forget about it. In that sense, I’m not a materialist; I’m a realist.
But different parts of the brain provide different functions. Remove a small piece of the frontal lobe and there’s still a person. Remove the cerebral cortex and the person is gone. That’s Terri Schiavo.
Christopher: “In this venue, theological belief trumps everything, you’re starting to get it!!”
If it does, that’s unfortunate. And frankly, I think you know that it doesn’t. It makes for a clever debating point, but I think it’s not a point you would like to defend.
Christopher: “Let’s assume you are correct, and the person “Terri” died in 1993, the brain does = person, and the family was deluding themselves in recognizing Terri as alive.”
I don’t like the word “deluding.” They were mistaken. They were living in a world of hope, that unfortunately was not supported by reality. I don’t blame them for that.
Christopher: “Why then is it such a revulsion to you to have kept this empty shell, this body, alive indefinably? If it provided some level of “artificial” comfort to her family, why not do it? Terri after all died in 1993, so “she” is no longer there. What’s the basis of your objection?”
I don’t have a “revulsion.” I reply to your question with a question: Why do we honor wills? You make out a will specifying that this or that asset be given to this or that person or organization. But so what; you’re dead. Why shouldn’t we just give your estate to whatever cause or person we want? The answer is simple. We try, as much as possible, to honor the wishes of the deceased that he or she expressed in life. If we do that with material property, how much more should we do that with a person’s wishes concerning possible medical interventions. I believe that this is what ultimately happened with Terri Schiavo, though it took a number of years to accomplish.
Ah so we have come full circle. Terri wanted to die and those who are so passionate about wanting that to happen are just defending her “right” to do so. After 276 posts full of “full of sound and fury signifying nothing”, we come back to this….The individual will trumps everything else. “It is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.”
Forgive me, but profanity seems the only adequate response to such a statement.
Of course to get to such a point one has to lay aside all qualms about what Terri’s will actually was, etc, etc, etc. and we are right back where we started from. It is an endless round of make believe, fantasy and denial on the part of those who wanted her to die. An obstinent unwillingness to surrender to God.
#275
What I find implausible is that the caregivers could, for years, mistake random motions for responsive ones.
Last post.
Tom C writes: “What I find implausible is that the caregivers could, for years, mistake random motions for responsive ones.”
Tom, all I can say is that this is a common experience for families of PVS patients. It would not be exaggerating to say that it is the typical experience for the families of those patients, not just for the Schindlers. This is why neurologists often do examinations in the presence of family members, under the assumption that the patient will be more responsive in the presence of family, if there is any responsiveness to be detected.
If you think that such an experience of family members is truly implausible, then ultimately you would be arguing that there simply is no such thing as PVS, that it doesn’t exist. By extension, you would be arguing that neurological data and evaluations are irrelevant in the diagnosis of such cases. As I asked before, why even bother with neurological evaluations if the family’s belief trumps the EEG, the CT or MRI scan, the physical tests, the medical history, everything. The neurologist might as well go fishing, and the radiologist and EEG tech can take the day off too. The family thinks that Mr. Smith is responsive? Oh, ok, then he’s responsive. Next case.
Michael writes: “The individual will trumps everything else.”
Well, in such cases, whose will should determine what happens?
Let’s say that we decide that the wishes of the Schindlers should prevail. What that means is that the tube feeding would continue, not because it was what Terri Schiavo would want, not because it would offer Terri Schiavo any hope of recovery, but because it would make the Schindlers feel better.
At that point, we stop trying to determine what is in the interest of Terri Schiavo, and start asking what is in the interest of the Schindlers, about what it is that makes them feel better. So we start trying to “rehabilitate” Terri Schiavo, not because there is any hope that it will accomplish anything, but because it will make the Schindlers feel better. If Terri goes into renal failure, the decision of whether to put her on dialysis depends on what would make the Schindlers feel better. If she developed gangrene from a leg sore, the decision of whether or not to amputate the leg would depend on what made the Schindlers feel better.
So in a sense, we still have a kind of perverse “patient autonomy,” in which, in effect, the Schindlers become the patients, and all subsequent decisions are made in accordance with their needs, and Terri becomes the object through which their needs are met.
And this is not in any way an exaggeration:
http://www.nndb.com/people/435/000026357/
In effect the Schindlers saw themselves as the patients, and the medical decisions about Terri had to focus on their needs and desires. To them, her wishes were utterly irrelevant. This is not my speculation. This is what they said.
So who is the patient here? Terri Schiavo? The Schindlers? The Orthodox church? Tell me whose wishes should prevail, and I’ll tell you who the patient is.
Michael, honest question: is it God’s will that everyone in the United States who has been diagnosed with PVS be kept alive via a feeding tube, or only those with medical insurance? Or does God manifest His will in this regard by ensuring that only those whom He wishes to keep alive in this manner have insurance in the first place?
James, God’s will is that no one die, that’s why He Incarnated, went to the Cross, died Himself, Resurrected and Ascended. Our falleness puts us in these kind of places because we choose the knowledge of good and evil over obedience. We are still doing it. Live a life of repentance, pray that your ending may be painless, blameless with a good defence before the dread judgement seat of God. The more folks that do that, the less we will have to face this type of mess.
My way of dealing with it is no use of the damned machines in the first place. If I’m going to die, let me die. If I’m going to live, I’ll live on my own by the same grace of God that I live now. Simple stabilization and repair, feeding and hydration is where I draw my line but that line is getting more strict all the time. If as the teaching of the Church indicates and I beleive, I would be in state of communion with God, He’ll let me come when the time is right and I want to come.
The state’s way, increasingly, because of the cost is to shut them off in order to do that, the person is dehumanized.
You’re question has no meaning, it is still legalistic. Legalism always denies personal responsibility. The decision will be made by who ever has the power to make them based upon their understanding of the value of a human being.
My point is that human beings have far more value than is demonstrated by the words and actions of those who insisted on killing Terri Schiavo or defend that killing now.
If the state is gong to use its authority to terminate the life of one of its citizens (an authority it has), the standard by which that decision is made should be no possible doubt and no other option. The standard of evidence it Terri’s case was way too low and alternatives existed. Its that simple. All the rest is up to you. You actually have to make decisions based upon your own criteria. I hope you never have to for someone you love or that your loved ones don’t have to make that decision in your case.
Had she lost all arms and legs she would still be a person. Were she blind and deaf she would still be a person. The brain is different, and anyone who knows anything about the brain knows that.
LOL! You guys are really getting desperate. I take back what I said about not giving you guys enough credit. The “anyone” you refer here to is yourself, and modernist/pagans who hold to the proposition (based on your faith) that brain = person. Christian’s don’t buy that. Thus, we talk of the “soul” and the “heart” and the unity that is the body/mind/soul/heart. You can ignore this all you want, you can continue to Troll here at OrthodoxyToday all you want, but your ugly, stubborn, desperate under belly is showing….
Christopher: “In this venue, theological belief trumps everything, you’re starting to get it!!” If it does, that’s unfortunate. And frankly, I think you know that it doesn’t. It makes for a clever debating point, but I think it’s not a point you would like to defend.
LOL! No, I am a Christian, I do not buy into your worldview. You do not get to define a “neutral” ground onto which ever physical/metaphysical/moral difference is adjudicated. Did you check out Rawls? He is right up your arrogant pagan alley…Hey Jim, have you bothered to check out the title of this website in the last few days? Apparently, you tend to forget it…LOL!
I believe that this is what ultimately happened with Terri Schiavo, though it took a number of years to accomplish.
So there you go folks. Jim KNOWS, in his heart of hearts, that Terri wanted to die (by the offhanded comment), all evidence to the contrary does not matter, the fact that she was starved and dehydrated to death does not matter, her family was “mistaken” and desperate, etc. Christianly nothing matters, only his truncated view of person, will, what it means to be alive and dead, etc.
It’s even worse than I assumed, in that you apparently are no too put off by a “body alive”, but whether simply want the legalities of the “will” carried out (as you see if of course). Sad really, as your humanity is hiding behind the Devil who has a firm hold of your heart.
WE GET IT JIM! YOUR A DEATH EATER!!! NOW, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE AT ORTHODOXYTODAY????
An obstinent unwillingness to surrender to God.
Yes. How long do you think Fr. Jacobse will surrender his blog to these Death Eaters??
Well, in such cases, whose will should determine what happens?
It’s called
, you stubborn dimwitted jackass!
Fr. Jacobse, how long is this thread going to go on? How long are the Death Eaters going to Troll here??
Michael, honest question: is it God’s will that everyone in the United States who has been diagnosed with PVS be kept alive via a feeding tube, or only those with medical insurance? Or does God manifest His will in this regard by ensuring that only those whom He wishes to keep alive in this manner have insurance in the first place?
JamesK, honest question: What does PVS mean to you?
Christopher, are you sure you’re in the position to lecture anyone on the value of human life, given that you’ve stated quite explicitly that 100 lives aren’t worth a clipping of your fingernail?
Can you explain how such a view is reconcilable with Orthodoxy? I’d be interested in reading how such a view “upholds the value of life” …
JamesK, are you sure you’re in a position to lecture anyone on the value of human life, give that you’ve stated quite explicitly that Terri’s life is worth the sum of your fears, and she should have been cruelly executed?
Can you explain how such a view is reconcilable with Episcopalianism? I be interested in reading how such a view “upholds the value of life”…
p.s. How long are you going to avoid the question, “What does PVS mean to you?” I give you 3 days, and 20 rude and obnoxious posts…
Christopher writes: ” . . . . you stubborn dimwitted jackass!”
Come one, don’t hold back. Tell me how you really feel.
Holman asked:
“Well, in such cases, whose will should determine what happens?”
Christopher replied: “Christianity.”
Which, of course, in this venue means the Orthodox church. In other words, this wasn’t about what Terri Schiavo wanted, or even what the Schindlers wanted. It’s about what Orthodox believers want. Thanks for the clarification.
Interestingly, I talked to a friend last week who has been following this discussion. He said, “what these guys really want is for the local Orthodox priest to make these decisions. But they won’t actually say that; it’s a ‘stealth’ position.” He was right, except that someone finally came out and said it. It’s nice to get a direct answer once in a while.
Interestingly, I talked to a friend last week
You mean “Amazed” 🙂
Fr. Jacobse, do you need input on how to block these Trolls from your blog??
Jim writes:
Jim, obviously your friend has no experience in an Orthodox Church! They are a fractious and raucous bunch, especially the Greek Orthodox. No offense intended here but anyone who has been around the Orthodox for more than one week knows how ludicrous this sounds.
What!? We are very clear on what the Schindlers wanted. We know what Michael Schiavo and George Felos wanted as well. What we don’t know is what Terri Schiavo wanted, apart from Michael Schiavo’s testimony. So yes, in this venue that Orthodox Church teaches that the killing of Terri Schiavo is wrong. But the Orthodox here are hardly alone in making the assertion.
Note 248. Christopher writes:
Christopher, you’ve got to cool it. The blog is running the way I want it to run.