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.
Is this and the entire content of note 144 consistent with Orthodox belief? If so I finally have found what I have been looking for- something valuable.
Well good. Not that it was all presented by post 50 or so, and you have been repeating the same questions since then (rather rudely at that), whining like a child when the answers don’t suit you, complaining that it is everyone else’s fault but your own…
Each person comes to our deepest personhood only in our communion with God and through Him with each other. Yet what is unique about each of us is not destroyed, only enhanced.
Awesome! (as juvenile and exuberant as that is)
I suspected you would be impressed with this. I would ultimately disagree with the way Michael puts this (though in essence I believe he is correct) because it leads modernists such as yourself to a false sense of “uniqueness” – something very important to the modern mind because the ground you stand on is materialism which means there is nothing truly unique about anybody or anything. I think you will likely run with this and “uniquely” justify your own morality, and accuse the Church of “uniformity” and “traditionalism”…
From all that has been said, particularly by Christopher who seems to be the self appointed expert on what is Orthodox and what is not, it appears the lessons to be learned here are simple and child like in their simplicity: 1. we don’t care what you want, we will force our will upon you. 2. if you don’t think like us then you aren’t right in the head. 3. Everyone SHOULD think like us. 4. If you don’t think EXACTLY like us on every topic and issue then you can’t be one of us. 5. If you aren’t one of us then we wouldn’t want you so go away.
Now your just being a reactionary, whiny modernist who does not like “fundamentalists” because your so “unique”.
Why do you post rudely at OrthdoxyToday? You got it all figured out, why harass us Christians??
Christopher states that Terri served a “role” in the state she was in, a state which Orthodox moral theology mandates she remain in by utilizing the medical technology currently being used at the time.
You see, right there. You need to separate here “person”, from which an attribute might be “her role”, from what you term “medical technology currently used”. We are not defined primarily, even secondarily, by the “medical technology” being used on or for us. Also, “mandate” is too strong of a term.
This is why I alleged your thinking as modernist: You want to define Terri, as a person, in such a way that the “medical technology” is an important part of that definition. This is NOT how Christians (or most philosophies known to man through the ages) would do it. It IS how (necessarily so) a materialist would do it…
I think this puts everything into a new perspective for me. Sorry if I have been a thorn. I appreciate your tolerance of me even as I provoked some people and raised the ire of others. I honestly wanted to understand the Orthodox point of view.
Ah yes, which is why you drop bombs such as:
…all that has been said, particularly by Christopher who seems to be the self appointed expert on what is Orthodox and what is not, it appears the lessons to be learned here are simple and child like in their simplicity: 1. we don’t care what you want, we will force our will upon you. 2. if you don’t think like us then you aren’t right in the head. 3. Everyone SHOULD think like us. 4. If you don’t think EXACTLY like us on every topic and issue then you can’t be one of us. 5. If you aren’t one of us then we wouldn’t want you so go away.
Oh yea, you REALLY want to understand. When you don’t, you default to the usual NPR cliche’s…your REALLY motivated…;)
JamesK, you are assuming facts that are not in evidence, i.e., Terri did not want to continue. To me the very fact that she was continuing refutes the contention that she did not want to. All evidence of her supposedly stated desires not to are hearsay. Testimony that would not be admitted in a normal capital trial.
Modernity posits incorrectly that consciousnes and therefore personhood lies solely with very limited brain functions that have to be obvious in outward behavior.
In reality, consciousness lies within the core of our being and may or may not be mesurable or obvious.
Not to belabor the point, but it is yet another instance when, knowingly or not, you have accepted an essentially materialist explanation of man’s being.
Repentance is the only tool I am aware of that allows someone to begin to touch the non-material level of their own being. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable that not only was Terri serving but was repenting.
This is a sliver of the anthropology which the Church teaches and the saints practice. It is as far different from anything in modern philosophy or western Christian theology as anything I can imagine. It is part of what is meant by being made in the image and likeness of God. We are embodied, living souls, not electro-mechanical, biologic entities.
He mocks and insults those of us who question whether, after 15 years, that role was perhaps sufficiently lived out.
You don’t even understand that role, or Orthodoxy (by your own admission), so how do you presume to suggest that the role was “sufficiently lived out”?
What you call “mocking” would not occur if you simply admit your own perspective, admit you don’t understand Orthodoxy, ask a question (or two or three), and when you don’t understand the answer follow the suggested links and reading materials. Instead, you “debate”, ask the same question over and over and over and over, insist that your lack of understanding is the fault of the those who answer and not the fault of those who question, rudely post the same questions and arguments over and over and over and over, ask the same questions again, post the same modernist arguments again, etc.
Did I mention you tend to post the same questions, slightly re-phrased, again and again? Did I mention you tend to “debate” without admitting your premises again and again and again?
Christopher you say
Good point. I am sure you are right. I am sure my point that only by obedience to God within the Church are we human was not heard. Only by acknowledging that by ourselves we can do nothing are we able to do anything righteous. So if Amazed takes my words and uses them to justify his own behavior he is wrong and did not understand one thing that I said.
Thank you.
Christopher why do YOU post rudely? You really come accross as a child throwing a temper tantrum in most of your posts.
Jacobse, the issue I asked you about is exactly as I posted it. Your note 146 was not responsive- it is just another example of the smoke screen used when someone does not have the ability or the knowledge to answer the question. Your declaration on a separate topic is not an answer to my question- it is just a declaration about your feelings on another topic.
If you have no suitable response just admit that and move on.
YOU, Jacobse, hide behind your own euphemisms in order to avoid the ugly reality that cutting into a person is about as far from “ordinary care” as one can get. Ordinary care is care that can be provided in an ordinary way and by ordinary people.
The next time you are thirsty or hungry perhaps you’ll want to call for a surgeon so you can receive your food paste and water in the same “ordinary care” manner that you decided it was acceptable to force on Terri.
The issue is not that you and the others here beleive Terri should have been given food and water or that you beleive her life should have been maintained.
The issue is in whether she would have wanted your food and water and whether she would want to be left cut up, scarred and with a plastic tube sticking out of her when you were done giving it to her.
As far as all your starvation and dehydration claims go: YOU, Jacobse, obviously have spent no time working OR volunteering in hospice because if you had you would know better. Patients make the voluntary choice to refuse food and water, or not to take life sustaining amounts. This is a VERY common occurance. They are fully informed of the consequences. They are fully aware of what they are doing.
I know this just invites the arm chair diagnosticians to start chattering about undiagnosed and untreated depression, that nuerotropic pain is the only untreatable pain, etc etc yadda yadda ad nauseum- a lot of noise by people without education, training, experience or first hand knowlege to support their declarations, statements and opinions.
Amazed, that is Fr. Jacobse to you
Amazed, you might want to address Fr. Jacobse properly as “Fr. Jacobse” rather than Jacobse. Even if you reject his faith, it is considered polite to use the proper title. I am not Jewish but if I met a Rabbi I would address him as Rabbi. I am not Roman Catholic but if I met a Roman Catholic priest I would call him Father as a respectful form of address.
As much as I have enjoyed my time here I am forced to admit you all have contributed about as much as you are capable of contributing.
Yes, Christopher I was motivated to understand but I wasn’t necessarily inspired, awed or partcularly instructed by anything you had to contribute.
Jacobse, you are very sincere and passionate.
Mr Bauman I thank you. You are the most atypical. I’ve been doing a lot of research accross many venues and I seldom encounter one such as you. For what it is worth coming from a radical modernist materialist medical professional and author- Thank you.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Note 156. Amazed writes:
Every surgery cuts into people, Amazed. Ever had an abcess tooth? The dentist drills holes in your teeth. Ever had an apendectomy? The doctor cuts open your side. Would you rather suffer in pain? Would you rather have the appendix burst?
What happens when a paramedic has to perform an emergency tracheotomy at the scene of an accident? Are you arguing that he should be restricted from doing so because the procedure is extraordinary?
And where do you get the notion that surgery is an “ugly reality”? Does this tie into your notion that surgery is “not natural”? Are you a Christian Scientist or something?
From my point of view, surgery is a blessing to mankind. It restores health.
Actually, I have spent more time in hospices than you might think. And yes, in the final stages of dying, patients often refuse food and water. It is morally permissible to let nature take its course here and respect the wish of the patient. (Never, however, have I seen the moistening of the lips and palate restricted as was the case with Terri Schiavo. This moistening is basic palliative care. What was forced on Terri was barbaric. The skin in her mouth started to flake off.)
Look, if you are afraid that you might end up like Terri Schiavo some day, make it crystal clear that you don’t want a feeding or hydration tube. It will make the decisions your family might have to make a bit easier.
But as far as your pronouncements about how these decisions should be made for others, well, your ideas about what is and isn’t natural, your inability to explain why your euphemism is legitimate, your arguments that surgical interventions are an “ugly reality”, shows you don’t really think as much as react. Much of your writing is reflexive. You don’t support what you say; you just say it over and over again. I’ll take a pass on your recommendations, thank you.
My apologies to Father Jacobse. My apologies to you Missourian if I offended you. My apologies to Christopher as well- I spoke poorly of you and insulted you and I shouldn’t have.
Father Jacobse,
Out of respect I will reply to you. No, I am not a Christian Scientist. Unfortunate but you still have your facts wrong. It is not that Terri Schiavos lips and mouth were not moistened. They were. This was done by Hospice staff. Read the autopsy report.
Admittedly the Schindlers were NOT allowed to do this. The Schindlers were not allowed to place ice chips in her mouth. Barbaric treatment of the Schindlers, perhaps.
Again you twist what I have said into something I did not say.
I dare say I know far more about surgery and emergency medical care than you because medicine is my choosen profession and yours is religion. I certainly don’t expect to tell you how to minister to your flock, please don’t presume you are in any position to tell me how medical care should be provided. You don’t know enough about the subject to instruct me.
Again, your arrogance is amazing:
In fact I do know something about natural death having been in attendance more often than I care to think about and without a doubt far more often than you.
Terri Schiavo case bashing is nothing more than a hobby for many of the people I have been in contact with. This one case caught their attention and it influenced their opinion of Hospice care and of the medical profession. Beyond Terri Schiavo? There is no beyond Terri Schiavo for most folks. This one case is the Alpha and the Omega of their thinking on the topic of Hospice.
It was probably my mistake to be here at all. For some people Terri Schiavo case bashing is simply a hobby. For others it is far more than that. There is serious interest beyond water cooler chats and what shows up on religious and political blogs. Some of the research being done will shape policy. Assuming anyone is ready to listen.
Just to be clear before I leave understand this: the practice of medicine is strongly influenced by legal considerations. The church has no standing to sue if the patients rights are infringed.
So at the end of the day, if you want your religion to impact medical care than you will need to be prepared to change the law. You won’t be changing the law until you change public opinion.
Quite frankly the public, reading what has been posted here, isn’t likely to find much reason to change.
But don’t feel too bad about that. Of the many places I have looked this place is no worse and no better than most. Like it or not your opinion is NOT the majority public opinion- not even close.
Note 162. Amazed writes:
Listen I will, but first you have to have something coherent to say. Frankly, I found a lot of what you said incoherent, most of which I listed in note #160. You don’t seem willing (capable?) to provide the ideas that inform your judgments, and when called on them you return to the assertion that you know more about the Terri Schiavo case than most people. How one relates to the other is never clarified, but castigation seems to be your stock in trade whenever you are asked to explain yourself. As for Terri Schiavo, I will wait for a definitive study unencumbered by the questionable notions you have introduced, your assurances of expertise notwithstanding.
Michael writes: “Often much of what we understand is held up to ridicule and/or dismissed as without reality or substance. To come onto an Orthodox blog simply to dispute our beliefs is not profitable (not to mention rude), you will not prevail nor will you learn anything. If that is the case, you really have no good reason to be here.”
Michael, I’m sure you remember that a couple of years ago there was a very extensive discussion on warfare, pacifism, whether a Christian could in
conscience serve in the military, if so, what orders could or could not be
obeyed, just war theory, the Orthodox view of military service, what military
tactics and strategies were acceptable, and so on. Discussions were often very detailed. Historical situations were examined in detail. Different views were debated. No one was dismissed as a “modernist,” even though “modernists” sometimes joined in the discussion. There was no suggestion that other viewpoints were inappropriate. Positions were criticized in detail. Various religious texts from different centuries were discussed.
I didn’t always agree with everyone, but the Orthodox participants came across as informed, articulate, completely unafraid to enter into debate, perfectly able to hold their own on all points, and with viewpoints that would be very valid and valuable even outside Orthodoxy. The discussion was interesting, and I thought, of very high quality. It showed clearly the potential that a blog like this can have.
Now look at this discussion. It is completely different in tone and content.
The Orthodox participants seem to know few of the actual details of the case. They are not interested in the details; indeed, the details are seen as largely irrelevant, they can’t be bothered with the details. To press the details is seen as rude. Questions are not answered but dismissed as “wrong question,” even seen as “harassment.” “Modernist” viewpoints are not critiqued in detail, but simply rejected out of hand. The motives of non-Orthodox are questioned. The Orthodox position is not explained in detail, but is presented as an unexplained “foundation” that outsiders simply have to accept or go elsewhere. Questions, counter-examples, and critiques are seen as offensive.
Both the earlier and the current discussion involved serious life and death
issues. The earlier discussion was about war; the current discussion about medicine and death. Both involve personal decisions of great consequence. My question is — why the difference between the two discussions? What has happened in the intervening time? The Orthodox participants of two years ago were willing to handle the tough questions, tackle any position, get beat up and beat right back. There were no “wrong questions.”
The Orthodox participants on this issue today hide behind “why are you here,” and “wrong question,” and “don’t mess with our foundation.” They insist that others “don’t understand,” while providing little or no detailed information that might provide an understanding.
Amazed, you have provided a great service here. You have provided a great deal of clarity. You owe no apologies, though apologies are owed to you. As you said in your last, perhaps your final, post “Quite frankly the public, reading what has been posted here, isn’t likely to find much reason to change.” Exactly right. On this issue the “modernists” roll right over the Orthodox, like battle tanks over unarmed infantry. It was different two years ago. But those people are gone. Where did they go?
Some of that has to do with Christopher’s attitude, that increasingly infects the blog. He has the idea that contrary viewpoints are insults, things that the home team shouldn’t have to endure in their cozy little club. In his view, the Orthodox have but to state their position once, and then it is the job of the “outsiders” to fall down in admiration and agreement. And if that doesn’t happen, then that’s the outsiders’ fault.
That approach turns formerly bold people into wimps, people who can’t be bothered to do the hard work of research and systematic thinking on life and death issues, people who will take on “modernists” on “safe” issue like DDT in Uganda, but run for the bunker when life and death shows up.
If any of the Orthodox who were around two years ago decide to show up, let me know. They were a different breed of people back then. But if you like the “cream puff” version of Orthodoxy, then Christopher is your man.
Amazed,
Thanks for your comments on this topic, and good luck on your research. Below are words from Paul Tillich which you might find edifying.
“Existential anxiety of doubt drives the person toward the creation of certitude in systems of meaning, which are supported by tradition and authority. In spite of the element of doubt which is implied in man’s finite spirituality, and in spite of the threat of meaninglessness implied in man’s estrangement, anxiety is reduced by these ways of producing and preserving certitude. Neurotic anxiety builds a narrow castle of certitude which can be defended and is defended with the utmost tenacity. Man’s power of asking is prevented from becoming actual in this sphere, and if there is a danger of its becoming actualized by questions asked from the outside he reacts with a fanatical rejection. However the castle of undoubted certitude is not built on the rock of reality. The inability of the neurotic to have a full encounter with reality makes his doubts as well as his certitudes unrealistic. He puts both in the wrong place. He doubts what is practically above doubt and he is certain where doubt is adequate.”
“…so, he tries to break out of this situation, to identify himself with something transindividual, to surrender his separation and self-relatedness. He flees from his freedom of asking and answering for himself to a situation in which no further questions can be asked and the answers to previous questions are imposed on him authoritatively. In order to avoid the risk of asking and doubting he surrenders himself in order to save his spiritual life. He “escapes from his freedom” in order to escape the anxiety of meaninglessness. Now he is no longer lonely, not in existential doubt, not is despair. He “participates” and affirms by participation the contents of his spiritual life. Meaning is saved, but the self is sacrificed. And since the conquest of doubt was a matter of sacrifice, the sacrifice of the freedom of the self, it leaves a mark on the regained certitude: a fanatical self-assertiveness. Fanaticism is the correlate to spiritual self-surrender: it shows the anxiety which it was supposed to conquer, by attacking with disproportionate violence those who disagree and who demonstrate by their disagreement elements in the spiritual life of the fanatic which he must suppress in himself. Because he must suppress them in himself he must suppress them in others. His anxiety forces him to persecute dissenters. The weakness of the fanatic is that those whom he fights have a secret hold upon him; and to this weakness he and his group finally succumb.”
(Both passages from “The Courage to Be”)
JamesK writes:
I guess my point is that I don’t see consistency between when it’s permissible to terminate some kinds of treatment but not others.
James, I came across something this evening which was helpful to me anyways, on your question. It seems the first and basic question is whether one is terminally ill. Terri was not. She was disabled — that is absolutely all. This is the thing that makes her death horrific.
Her family even believed that with time and therapy she might likely have learned to eat. Nurses said they [on the sly] gave her jello which she took well. What is really troubling is —- why did not Michael Schiavo want her to receive rehabilitation? Was she going to tell us something about him? He didn’t want known? Why didn’t the Civil Government over-rule his diabolical prescription for her? Remember the businessman who offered $ — if Michael would simply “let her live?” Why did Felos and Michael deny the gift of the huge sum of money?
Do you find this following paragraph clarifying? It was to me. It’s from
Dr William Cheshire Jr’s affidavit to the court.
As for an Orthodox statement: I think “Thou shalt not kill” from the Second Table of the Ten Commandments written with the finger of God, and the same Second Table summarized and reiterated by Jesus Christ as “Love your neighbor as yourself” — is all that is required.
In Terri’s case the method of killing was via ordered Neglect, Abandonment, and an Absence of Pity by the Civil Government. An abuse of the office God ordained for the very protection of “her own.” The Civil Government is to be a terror to evil-doers. Not — pole opposite.
Yes, I’m afraid parallels to Nazi, Etc. is not that hard to draw.
Michael writes:
And,
Exactly. People die from broken hearts, ‘give up the ghost’ sometimes before they might need to. Lord have mercy. God is able to sustain his own, because one fruit of the Holy Spirit is Long-Suffering. Beyond that, where does radiance come from? Something more than ‘photogenic.’ Blessed – Not cursed. Love watering the soil of their life.
I believe this woman excercised her God-given faculty of Faith. The faculty given for the purpose of receiving. Making her to “to be” a light, “to do” things/ fulfill a role, then if Christopher has said that.
Michael you also write:
I think Terri was in the most advantageous situation to exercise Faith. What else could she do? Receive help from outside herself.
One baby in St Paul was named Grace. She lived 29 days as I recall and fulfilled an incredible role. Her mother spoke of her entire bundle of life and length of days — in the superlative. Tom C. and Family I think, attended the funeral, Renee was there, Juli, maybe Rhonda W?
Her parents wrote this on her memorial card: I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.
And she crossed the threshhold safely, born to Paradise…
Jim, the fact that you equate war with what happened to Terri Schiavo indicates to me that for all of your study and knowledge of Orthodox teaching, you fail to grasp it at all. Since you have said as much yourself, I hope you don’t think I am attacking you. War is a secondary issue in the Church. There is complete freedom of choice within the Church as to how, when or if to serve in the military. There really is no modern/traditional divide.
There is clear, unequivocable teaching on abortion (it is murder) and on ethanasia by extension there is little room for economia which has to be applied pastorally in any case, not in the abstract.
I have done all that I can to explain the foundation for those teachings. I can’t do any better. Christopher agreed with the essence of what I said, Fr. Hans and others made no objection.
As I have said all along, almost from the time I started posting on this blog, the major issues we discuss here divide along anthropological lines. Modernity has a view which is antithetical to and in direct opposition to what the Church experiences and teaches. To someone who has, in faith, accepted the modernist anthropology, very little of the Orthodox approach will make sense or be understood. It is seems to be nonesense, irrational, avoiding the “facts” all of those judgemental and profoundly untrue pejoratives that have been thrown at me and others.
If you want to take a stab at it though, I’d suggest reading Elder Sophrony’s writings especially his commentaries on the life and teaching of St. Silhouan the Athonite. The writings of Archmandrite Zacharias are in the same spiritual line. These are all 20th century men and Archmandrite Zacharias is still with us in this life.
Ultimately, however, as I told JamesK, only through repentance can we hope to learn who we are and how we are supposed to act. “A contrite and humble heart God will not despise”.
Michael writes: “Jim, the fact that you equate war with what happened to Terri Schiavo indicates to me that for all of your study and knowledge of Orthodox teaching, you fail to grasp it at all.”
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to “equate.” I was just using that as an example of the differences between the two discussions, both of which involved life and death issues.
I’m not in favor of euthanasia. If Terri Schiavo was in a PVS — and I believe that she was — then the person who was Terri Schiavo departed that body in 1993. It would be the same as brain death, the only difference being that enough lower brain remained to continue respiration, circulation, and so on.
I don’t see this as a modernist view. In fact, it is only because of modern technology that these issues even arise. Fifty years ago Terri Schiavo would have died within a few days or weeks, because the technique of long-term artificial feeding had not been developed. Modern technology forces these issues on us. In this case, the modernist position would be an uncritical acceptance of the use of technology in keeping people alive, or keeping bodies functioning, long after the time when, throughout most of history, the body would have stopped functioning. As I see it, a non-modernist position involves putting limits on when and how that technology is used.
Michael: “There is complete freedom of choice within the Church as to how, when or if to serve in the military. There really is no modern/traditional divide.”
But in reality “modernism” is built into structure of the situation through the destructive power of modern weapons and the use of large-scale destruction as a way to eliminate the other side’s productive capacity, and in some cases, their population. As with medical technology, someone has to decide when the use of such technology is appropriate or not – decisions that in previous centuries would have never been needed.
In other words, there are two parts to modernism. One is the understanding of the nature of the person — I believe you would call that “anthropology.” The other part of modernism is the huge effect on life that modern technology has. I don’t believe you can address one without addressing the other, since they are often interrelated. Part of the modernist attitude is the uncritical use of technology — whether it’s DDT, land mines, nuclear power, television, or a feeding tube.
Your yourself in this discussion have questioned organ transplantation and other modern medical interventions. One big impetus behind the development and acceptance of “brain death” as a definition of death, was so that organs could be harvested for transplantation. Stated simply, harvesting of organs for transplant involves the removal of organs from a live body; the removal of organs is actually what causes the death of the body — that in some cases could be kept going much longer (through technology).
http://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk/CMQ/Feb_1995
/nagging_doubts_about_brain_death.htm
Why is it immoral to remove an artificial feeding tube from a live body that could be kept going for a long time, but not immoral to remove a living organ from a live body that could be kept going for a long time?
In understanding modernism, you have to look both at anthropology and technology, since it is often the technology that creates the moral problem through altering our perception of what it means to be a “person.” (Prior to computers you asked a co-worker for his opinion. Now you ask for his “input.” Computer technology influences our view of the concept of “mind.”)
Michael: “To someone who has, in faith, accepted the modernist anthropology, very little of the Orthodox approach will make sense or be understood. It is seems to be nonesense, irrational, avoiding the “facts” all of those judgemental and profoundly untrue pejoratives that have been thrown at me and others.”
It’s not that it doesn’t make sense to me, but that it does not provide a comprehensive and systematic approach to the whole set of related issues. At least, it has not yet been elucidated to that extent. I see how it is applied in the Schiavo case, but not how it might be applied in other cases in which the circumstances (facts) are different. There hasn’t been an adequate explanation of how the approach takes patient autonomy into account. The approach has typically been offered without reference to any of the facts of the case — which gives at least the appearance that many of these issues have not been thought through. (E.g., Fr. Hans’ easy acceptance of the “brain death” criterion of the death of the person.)
When appeals have been made for more explanation, the response has often been “you just don’t get it.” But if the Orthodox want to advance a different view of how all of these decisions should be made throughout the great variety of circumstances, they have the burden of explaining in a systematic way how this is all supposed to work. Or more precisely, you have that burden if you truly want others outside the church to understand. If that’s not a concern then sure, no further explanation is necessary.
Michael: the problem as I see it is that moral doctrine is not clear in terms of end-of-life issues. You yourself stated that you wished to avoid “legalism”, but you must realize that by avoiding “legalism”, the inevitable result is a doctrine that is by nature ill-defined. No one here has really articulated clearly what parameters define an unjust termination of life from an unjust one. They only use anecdotal scenarios without defining how they arrived at their conclusions.
Why is it permissible to turn off a respirator that fills a person’s lungs with vital oxygen but not permissible to turn off a tube that fills their stomach with other kinds of nutrients? Is it the degree of pain involved, or is it the type of dependency? Orthodox doctrine from what I have read seems vague, yet some conservative posters here act as if there is no “wiggle room”.
167 Nancy L writes:
This just proves how successful the Schindler campaign of misinformation and misrepresentation was.
In the end it wouldn’t matter to Nancy if she had the medical chart in her hand and someone available to interpret it for her. It wouldn’t matter if the rehab physcian was standing in front of her and telling her what he wrote in the chart and that it was true.
Rehab was ineffective. Terri was making no progress. The rehab professionals- those that provided the rehab and charted her progress or lack of progress- recommended that rehab be discontinued. This was after 3 years. This is well documented.
Terri was a candidate for EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT. Perhaps you heard about the thalmic stimulators? That Michael had to take Terri accross country for the procedure? Terri would not have been a viable candidate and would not have received this particular experimental treatment (brain surgery…) unless it was well established and well documented that she had shown no improvement and was not benefitting AT ALL from standard treatments.
Now please tell me Nancy- why would Michael risk a possible miracle cure via experimental treatment if he didn’t want Terri to improve? Why would he go through all the hassle involved with qualifying his wife for experimental procedures and arranging the transportation, etc. etc. if he just really wanted her to die and take any secrets with her??
Maybe he was just doing it for appearances?
At the risk that she might suddenly jump up out of bed and run to the cops with a tale of rage and murder???
At the medical malpractice trial Mary Schindler testified under oath that Michael Schiavo was a wonderful person and son in law and that she didn’t know how she would have gotten along without him.
Either Mary Schindler was lying under oath at the medical malpractice trial or she was lying many years later in public and in media appearances when she started claiming that Terri had confided marriage troubles, abuse, controlling/stalking behaviors, and that she was considering divorce.
I could go into the credibility issues regarding the trio of nurses (well one NURSE and two FORMER nurses) that came forward and admitted willfully and intentionally abusing and endangering the life of a patient but it hardly seems worth addressing.
It would be interesting to know if any of the life threatening episodes of pneumonia and hospitalizations of Terri were related to the confessed criminal acts of those nurses.
“Gee doctor I have no idea why Terri suddenly developed pneumonia, we wouldn’t disregard the orders of her physcian, we wouldn’t ignore the obvious, we would never VIOLATE the standard of care, we would never VIOLATE work rules”
It wouldn’t have been silent aspiration of pudding, jello or milk shake by any chance??
Well the nurses really didn’t risk much in giving sworn confessions what with the statute of limitiations being expired.
JamesK writes: “No one here has really articulated clearly what parameters define an unjust termination of life from [a just] one.”
I think a lot of this hinges on how Orthodox believers understand their own approach to these issues vis-a-vis the outside world. Orthodox folks here have often presented their approach as following from foundational Orthodox beliefs. If that is really true, then when they say “why are you hanging out on an Orthodox site questioning Orthodox beliefs” they have a point. Why should they explain anything? We’re not Orthodox. I suppose it would be like us coming on here and saying “you guys are all wrong about icons.” What would be the point?
But there’s a flip side to that. If their beliefs about the Schiavo case are really foundational Orthodox beliefs, then why criticize people who don’t have those beliefs? Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer, etc., aren’t Orthodox. Why should they be criticized for not holding beliefs that are an organic and inseparable part of foundational Orthodox beliefs? To continue the analogy, it would be like Orthodox people criticizing Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer for having the wrong beliefs about icons.
So it’s one way or the other. If it’s all foundational, then we should shut up and not bother them. And they should refrain from criticizing people who aren’t Orthodox for not having Orthodox beliefs.
On the other hand, if they want to criticize people for having wrong beliefs about the Schiavo case, then they’ve entered the public arena, and their beliefs can be critiqued in the same way that any other point of view should be critiqued and held to the same standards. But when they set foot in the public arena they can’t plead immunity from criticism based on the foundational nature of the beliefs.
Of course, they could always say, “we want to criticize other people’s beliefs, but we don’t want our beliefs criticized.” It would be their right to do that, but at the cost of losing respect in the public arena. It really depends on which way they want to go.
Amazed writes: “I could go into the credibility issues regarding the trio of nurses (well one NURSE and two FORMER nurses) that came forward and admitted willfully and intentionally abusing and endangering the life of a patient but it hardly seems worth addressing.”
Just for the record, let’s be very specific. Nurses do not “improvise” on patient care. In a nursing home or skilled nursing facility every patient’s care is defined by the physician’s orders. The resident care manager then creates a written nursing care plan based on those orders. The only treatments that are at the nurse’s discretion are minor things (e.g., giving Tylenol) that are authorized in a written policy created by the house physician. In a life-threatening situation a nurse can send a patient to the emergency room, but even then the physician has to be notified afterward. Beyond that, all changes in treatment have to be authorized by the physician.
To give a patient unordered food by mouth would be very dangerous, even life-threatening. A nurse who did that could be disciplined by the state nursing board, up to an including a permanent revocation of the nursing license. Depending on the severity of the incident, the state board could also refer the case for criminal prosecution.
This is one of those pesky facts that has to be considered when evaluating affidavits such as the ones under discussion.
The Schindlers changed in order to accomodate their new legal tactic and their new lawyers and what they saw as their last and best hope to save their daughter.
New lawyers made it clear to the Schindlers that only two avenues were open to them: challenge the PVS finding and/or challenge the guardianship.
That is why it is so ironic to have people of religion parroting what came out of the Schindler 180 degree change. Either the Schindlers were being truthful working with their old lawyers or the Schindlers were being truthful while working with their new lawyers.
It would be one thing if people of religion would stick to faith based arguments. Instead they use the talking points that came out of the Schindler legal challenges salted up a bit with religion.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even if I look like an idiot quoting their lies. I would point out that their lies didn’t work for them in changing anyones mind and so it is unlikely that their lies will work for you in changing anyones mind.
A nurse who did that could be disciplined ….
This is one of those pesky facts that has to be considered when evaluating affidavits such as the ones under discussion.
Right, but how indeed *serious* could it be to offer a little Gelatin and water? Probably in the category ‘don’t ask-don’t tell’ not a job loss. But I see from reading further, especially reading some of the autopsy report, that I don’t think Terri was ever going to eat all her meals normally — short of a miracle.
But zero gelatin or water, that’s extreme. I understand the danger of aspirating, of pneumonia. Also, you say milkshake — [Clarence Darrow? stretching the truth a little or a lot?] — heh, these are healthcare professionals, mind you, with a little common sense!
Since you are mentioning ironies. How about this one? ‘Let us remove all danger that Terri does not aspirate/die of pneumonia…..before we Dehydrate her. In the end she does die of pneumonia with the dehydration. The Death Certificate says: Anoxic brain injury. Dehydration. Aspiration/Pneumonia. Some doctors have noted that the Death Certificate is not filled out — as per normal. Of course, one wonders, why not?
When you put down the cause of death — this is understood to mean that the cause of death * is the cause of death. The CAUSE was not anoxic brain injury, as listed. The cause was Dehydration. Also, I see the autopsy states her fatty tissue did not indicate Starvation. But the cause of death was the electrolyte imbalance due to Dehydration. Also Pneumonia.
Well, I believe Fr Hans made reference to a Final Report coming up.
Here’s another one. You mention the implants in her head, right? So Michael, or whoever, says — ‘Let’s not take the risk of doing an MRI because there’s a remote chance the MRI would hurt her ….. before we Dehydrate her!’
Jim, here is a Mr Mrs Shindler statement. I think you believe it to be contrived, maybe written by the lawyer?
Why and when did the In-Law relationship break down?
You write: At the medical malpractice trial Mary Shindler testified under oath that Michael Schiavo was a wonderful person and son in law and that she didn’t know how she would have gotten along without him.
Is this exactly the way she words it? Isn’t it possible Michael -was supportive of his in-laws during these particular times of duress, and she sincerely meant ‘couldn’t have got along w/out him?’ Maybe she thought he was repenting — better than he’d ever been. Forgetting for this present time the rocky marriage being that after-all, a crisis was indeed upon each one of them?
I’ve not heard M Schiavo on radio/t.v. Nor the Schindlers. So, then what happened. Did he become Jeckyl or Hyde? And confirm, rather resurrect his mother-in-laws worst fears and memory?
Again, you write: Either Mary Schindler was lying under oath at the medical malpractice trial or she was lying many years later in public and in media appearances when she started claiming that Terri had confided marriage troubles, abuse, controlling/stalking behaviors, and that she was considering divorce.
But I am wondering, must these statements be ‘at odds?’
Nancy writes: “Jim, here is a Mr Mrs Shindler statement. I think you believe it to be contrived, maybe written by the lawyer?”
Actually Nancy, the pieces you are quoting are from “Amazed,” not from me.
As a kind of “preview” to the issue, let me point out that much of what people have read about the case comes from web sites and sources close to the Schindlers. That fine, it’s a free country, people can post and read whatever they want.
But there are two sides to every case. For many people Michael Schiavo’s side is virtually unknown. Where you find Michael Schiavo’s side of the case is not in blogs and web sites advocating for him. You’ll find it in the actual court documents and related material.
An excellent place to start is Matt Conigliaro’s Abstract Appeal web site. Matt is an attorney in Florida, and thus well-informed about Florida law. His site contains links to many of the case documents, as well as his own commentary. If you take the time to review the material, I think you have a much better understanding of the case, and many of your questions will be answered. Rather than relying on my interpretation or someone else’s interpretation, you can come to your own conclusions. You can find Matt’s Schiavo material here:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Matt’s introductory comments will give you a sense of where he’s coming from: “As a Florida law blogger, I have created this page to help people understand the legal circumstances surrounding the Terri Schiavo saga. In my view, there continues to be a need for an objective look at the matter. There is an unbelievable amount of misinformation being circulated. . . . To be clear at the outset, I have no interest in taking any “side” in this dispute. Remarkably, I’ve been accused of being biased in favor of each side at one point or another. . . . Finally, and without unnecessary elaboration, I’ll point out that I sympathize with everyone involved. The circumstances here are tragic.”
Nancy L in note 177 asks:
Yes, they MUST necessarily be at odds because they are contradictory. You can easily find the transcript and read the exact quote for yourself because I wouldn’t expect you to take my word.
You also promote this theory:
Have you ever met a mother that would forgive and forget attacks on their child?
It makes little sense that Mary Schindler would keep silent at the medical malpractice trial but it makes even less sense that she would keep silent at the hearing in 2000.
Even if you can IMAGINE Mary Schindler keeping silent (about marital dischord, physical and emotional abuse and suspicions that Michael was the cause of her daughters collapse) at the medical malpractice trial can you imagine the Schindlers keeping silent about these at the 2000 hearing? Because they did- not a word.
Can you imagine them keeping silent about the alleged phone calls from nurse Carla Iyer informing them that Carla suspected Michael of murder attempts- as outlined in the affadavit? Because they did- not a word.
Can you imagine the Schindlers lawyer, no matter how incompetent, not calling such a witness as Carla Iyer?
How does it make sense, from any perspective, that they wouldn’t bring this information forward at the original hearing in 2000- knowing full well that their daughters life was at stake in the 2000 hearing- but WOULD bring it forward years later when their legal team had changed and so had their approach and legal tactics?
Assuming these were true facts in 2000 how can you NOT question why they were not brought forward in an all out best effort to present the best and most compelling facts, testimony and evidence available during a life and death struggle to save their daughter? Maybe the Schindlers were holding back? Keeping silent because they valued Michaels reputation above the life of their daughter?
Spelling of Schindler – got it.
I’m a citizen affected by laws in this country. I’ll read Matt Shiavo’s site who sounds very American, doesn’t he. Claims to “sympathize with everyone.” Claims not to be partial in the case — even of his own brother.
{….musing. i think of jamesk noticing ‘no one keeps friends anymore.’}
I cannot construe Matt’s claim to such compassion — to be equal to my suggested virtue i think Mrs Schindler may have/had when she *may have* been willing to overlook a multitude of former sins – Michael.
I understand it is generally agreed that Michael Schiavo took excellent care of Terri during the first two years after her mysterious cardiac arrest. Again, I am sure the Schindlers were thrilled at such [repentance, then.] Better to their daughter in her illness veritably? Than her wellness?
He does fit the profile of “possessive?” I see a picture here of him with her in the wheelchair in the early years. He looks …… Content. And the big question is, ‘was this to last?’ ‘Why not?’
I will not theorize until I read more then. But, on the other hand, I obviously am predisposed to go with the priest who knew the family Six Years (?) and was at Terri’s bedside at death. This carries a huge weight of credibility, for me. Nevertheless, thank you for the Shiavo link; most helpful.
Yes, a Rigid Commitment to moral neutrality taught in public schools is supposed to issue forth in compassion. In reality, this said compassion is not even remotely close to what proceeds from virtue taught in Christian shcools. A. Seeing sin B. Naming sin [the Law Giver has defined it & the Bible has easy access, #1 Best Seller] C) Forgiving sin D) even tears for the same said sin of another and especially when committed by close kin.
One other note re: presuppositions brought to reading the story.
I don’t know anything about this medical malpractice piece of the story. But if Mrs. Schindler knew of some concrete abuse to Terri which made the two of them speak of divorce [mind you a Catholic family now] — and the Schindlers are confused about how to handle the command to forgive with the right/mandate of the Civil Governement to prosecute…… well, I’m looking out for this. It’s common.
Christian people forgive, and they do so 70 x 7. And they do not have it straight in their heads that they can send a family member to be *stoned, iyw, i apologize for shocking language — and this has absolutely nothing to do with, forgiving 70 x 7. That is what goes on between God/Man. Brother/Brother.
There is a false dichotomy.
A Christian is a)to forgive, b)uphold the law. No one is asked to perjure themselves in a court of law, to take the law into ones own hand and in the end work against God’s Law of love — in the name of ‘forgiveness.’ Such law must be known and upheld as God’s Law of Love. That is what the Ten Commandments are.
Jim, we are lightyears away from seeing a Forgiving Christian do anything like “stoning.” Lightyears. It is spelled out as an oxymoron.
Yet, God has given the power of the sword to the Civil Government for the protection of citizens. If Mrs. Schindler thought forgiveness meant covering for Michael in a court of law, she was met by the Old Deluder Satan.
What kind of man has the next mate of “a criminal” — found?
God’s Law is orbital = God’s Law is fullness. Full of compassion and mercy.
Correction
Jim wrote: “You can find Matt’s Schiavo material here”
(note 180) – Slowing down, I see. Matt’s not a Schiavo family member
You say: “Matt Conigliaro’s Abstract Appeal web site.”
Matt writes:
I have never met, spoken with, or even seen anyone in the Schiavo or Schindler families. I use first names on this web log simply for convenience, and my interest is simply as someone who enjoys Florida law and wishes to add some clarity to the events here.
In note 181 Nancy L writes:
Wow, a perfect trifecta: it rationalizes what she did, it justifies what she did and it dismisses her personal ownership and responsibility for what she did.
Perfect trifecta, if only your laundry detergent were THIS good…
Amazed writes:
In note 181 Nancy L writes:
Wow, a perfect trifecta: it rationalizes what she did, it justifies what she did and it dismisses her personal ownership and responsibility for what she did.
Perfect trifecta, if only your laundry detergent were THIS good…
Nay. 🙂
Amazed. I don’t believe we’ve met — happy to meet you. I will compromise/try to keep you-all straight then whether I speak to Plain Old Jim Holman versus Amazed versus someone else. No problem.
You Amazed see win-win-win in the courtroom — I do not see.
Where is anything to do with Cleansing what-so-ever mentioned, Amazed? Nay – only Guilt black as sin. Let us seek justice.
What will the courts say about one who has perjured herself? Ready? We’ll go to the Heavenly Court. Wherein is God’s Law – that’s the Law of Love.
Now. This guilty woman should get the same punishment upon her own head – that were otherwise suffered by another due to her own false testimony. If you have heard of making restitution. If someone was not brought to justice because of her overmuch compassion gone astray — this criminal let loose may be reproducing his sins everywhere, and she will be part to blame.
What is she going to say to God of Perfection? The church tells her exactly what to say: Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Say it three times.
Surely you have been inside an Episcopal Church a time or two. You know this means “My fault. My own fault. My own most Grievous Fault.”
Then what should happen do you suppose?
Been away from this thread for 40 posts or so. Noticed that Jim says in # 146
What I’ve always waited for, always hoped for, is some sense from the people here of how they would do it differently. By “it” I don’t mean the Schiavo case.
What a howler. We have been saying since post #1 that how Christians would do “it” differently, namely we would not have executed her. This is why a Troll is a Troll…
Amazed, per #159 you probably should have gotten off the planet while you had the chance.
In light of the posts of the last few days I think it’s critical for you to keep this Guide entry in mind:
“There is a theory that if anyone discovers the meaning the universe, it will instantly turn itself into something even more bizarre and inexplicable.”
“There is another theory, that this has already happened.”
So apparently you guys have all this stuff figured out within Orthodoxy. But good luck ever trying to sell it on the outside. As you say, “outside the church there are no answers.” And I would add, inside the church there are no questions. To the extent that the Orthodox are unable or unwilling to engage the outside world in debate and discussion, the Orthodox become irrelevant to the outside world.
You have NOT BEEN LISTENING. We answer your questions, and because YOU DO NOT LIKE THE ANSWERS, you claim we have not answered your questions. That is why you are a Troll. Why are you harassing Christians? What are you doing here??
For what it is worth coming from a radical modernist materialist medical professional and author
And Jim claimed somewhere upstream that modern medicine does not have a tendency toward the culture of death (as if there are not 1+ million abortions a year, all done by “doctors”). Perhaps “Amazed” is patient zero…:)
This one case caught their attention and it influenced their opinion of Hospice care and of the medical profession.
As well it should. The “medical profession” has become part of the culture of death. So called “doctors” execute 1+ million unborn children a year. The culture of death has influenced our culture to a great degree when it comes to “death and dying”. Terri was unjustly executed, and the “medical profession” went along. A couple of months back, the editor of the “New England Journal of Medicine” wrote a hysterical article about congress “interference” with partial birth abortions.
My wife is a physiatrist. Too many of her colleagues (about half) accept this culture of death. Be very careful when you deal with “doctors”…
The Orthodox participants seem to know few of the actual details of the case.
Wrong. We don’t buy into your hand selected details – which support your culture of death…
Amazed, you have provided a great service here. You have provided a great deal of clarity.
Wrong. As Fr. Jacobse says, he presents no clear premises. Neither do you. You both can not turn around and look at the foundations of your own moral worldview. Instead, you simply harass Christians. Why are you here??
Note 166
LOL! Paul Tillich’s neo-Platonism and semi-Freudian speculations on freedom and the spiritual life as “edifying”!!!
Well, perhaps. A long time ago I was quite moved by Tillich’s Courage to Be. It is a good example of a modernist of sorts, not to confuse him with crude materialists like Dean and Jim, grappling with the ground of his thought. Tillich did have the ability to observe and comment on his own moral premises, unlike most crude materialists.
Scott, you should not recommend the weaker “Freudian” Tillich, but instead recommend the Tillich who speaks of “the Depths”, because while he super imposes his Platonism on God, God IS in “the Depths”.
That said, if Christians are “fanatics”, why are you here? Your not trying to evangelize us are you, save us from our “fanaticism”??
#168
Nancy Wrote
True and well put.
If you want to take a stab at it though, I’d suggest reading Elder Sophrony’s writings especially his commentaries on the life and teaching of St. Silhouan the Athonite. The writings of Archmandrite Zacharias are in the same spiritual line. These are all 20th century men and Archmandrite Zacharias is still with us in this life.
Fr. Seraphim Rose of blessed memory is also very very good at explaining Orthodoxy anthropology, and how it is different from modernism. Almost all his books delve into it because anthropology is so central to this conflict…
I’m not in favor of euthanasia. If Terri Schiavo was in a PVS — and I believe that she was — then the person who was Terri Schiavo departed that body in 1993.
EXACTLY. Christians however, DO NOT believe the “person who was Terri Schindler departed that body in 1993”. {let’s please use her Christian name – it is OrthodoxyToday after all}
ALL the modernist assumptions of anthropology, what a man is and what he is not, is on display in that sentence.
Now, why are you here??
I don’t see this as a modernist view.
LOL! ARE YOU INSANE?!?! That is EXACTLY the modernist view. You must REALLY be dimwitted.
WHY ARE YOU HERE HARRASING CHRISTIANS??????
This just proves how successful the Schindler campaign of misinformation and misrepresentation was.
In the end it wouldn’t matter to Nancy if she had the medical chart in her hand and someone available to interpret it for her. It wouldn’t matter if the rehab physician was standing in front of her and telling her what he wrote in the chart and that it was true.
No, it proves how you have taken one side of this issue (it so happens to be the culture of death) and now assert an “expertise” you in fact do not have. Honest medical professionals admit that medicine, particularly neurology, is 97% “art” and only 3% “science”.
My wife is a “rehab physician” (i.e. physiatrist) and she disagrees with your assessment “doctor” (are you a doctor, or are you a nurse/OT/PT posing as an “expert”)???
Well Scott (Note 186) Don’t Panic. At least not yet.
It is readily apparent that if the “wrong” side had stated that rocks were hard, fire was hot, the sky was blue, grass was green and water was wet there would be a flat earther ready with declarations to the contrary and the ability to list other flat earthers in the club that knew the secret handshake, understood things the same way, had impressive degrees and prestigious titles.
But there’s a flip side to that. If their beliefs about the Schiavo case are really foundational Orthodox beliefs, then why criticize people who don’t have those beliefs? Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer, etc., aren’t Orthodox.
Riigggghtttt. Christians have no business asserting Christianity into the culture – why, our public square is reserved for modernists only – don’t they know that?
Why are you here???
As a kind of “preview” to the issue, let me point out that much of what people have read about the case comes from web sites and sources close to the Schindlers.
Good thing we have Jim here representing the culture of death, straightening out all the “facts” for us…
Why are you here???