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.
Fr. Jacobse
This thread has been taken over by Trolls. “Jim” and “Amazed” our two modern “death eaters” who have subjectively accepted some “facts”, not others, and are now here to “correct” us Christians. “Amazed” is even trying to argue “from authority” – perhaps he will lay his credentials on the line.
Regardless, they refuse to discuss their premises, although one has to give Jim credit – he against all truth at least tries to deny his morality/anthropology is not “modernist”. Best laugh I have had all day…:)….no doubt more to follow…:)
Christopher, are you asserting that the diagnosis of “PVS” is invalid as far as medical terminologies go or that the diagnosis of PVS does not imply one has any right to discontinue the use of any types of life-saving medical technology? Perhaps you’re suggesting that only some types of medical technologies can morally be discontinued if one is in a PVS?
See, I’ve read the Orthodox links on this site and on others, and I still can’t figure out where your central objection lies. For those of us who are not Orthodox, please clarify. Even if I allow that there can be numerous objections to this case, you haven’t really stated any objection grounded in Orthodox language except in the most vague and obtuse manner possible.
Christopher I have no doubt your wife impresses you and that you value her opinion.
Nothing I would list for qualifications would impress you or persuade you in your beliefs.
So lets just put it to bed right now and assume your wife is way more qualified than I am to shape your opinions or advise you. We will assume she attended better colleges, scored better on all exams, did her internship and residency in a well financed hospital that was larger or better respected, and was hired into or established her own highly successful practice.
Beyond that, someone will always be more or less qualified to render an opinion- it is not the qualifications that you would embrace, reject or find value in but the OPINION itself is what concerns you. If you agree with the opinion the opinion has value. If you do not agree it doesn’t matter how qualified or how expert the opinion is.
Do you have a source for this or is this another of your opinions stated as though it had some basis in fact? Perhaps your wife has some reason to hate nuerologists…
Perhaps what you meant to say is that success in medicine, like success in every other field of human endeavor, is influenced by God given talent, dedication, devotion, a willingness to expand our knowlege beyond what it was yesterday and what it is today,the ability to work with others in a team, the ability to admit our own short comings, limitations, faults and weaknesses and rely on others, to be humble and therefore able and willing to ask for help and advice, and many other tangible and intangibles.
Otherwise it appears what you are saying is that results are not quantifiable or measurable in the practice of medicine and therefore we have no way of knowing what works and what does not? No way to learn from our own mistakes or the mistakes of others. There are no standards, no guidelines, no texts, no experts and no superior authority to consult? No patient records to study? No quality assurance and review boards? No licensing standards? No peer review?
If we are able to leave the patient better off we owe it all to the kindness of our muse on that day and either dumb luck or good luck or randomness in the universe and Gods grace.
Christopher, are you asserting that the diagnosis of “PVS” is invalid as far as medical terminologies go or that the diagnosis of PVS does not imply one has any right to discontinue the use of any types of life-saving medical technology? Perhaps you’re suggesting that only some types of medical technologies can morally be discontinued if one is in a PVS?
PVS is to “medical terminologies”, as is “fetus” is to “medical terminologies”. They are beside the point of personhood.
Keep fishing James though, you want a materialist moral line of site from a bunch of Christians. You will have to wait until the Second Coming, but you seem ok with that. I admire your stubbornness!
Beyond that, someone will always be more or less qualified to render an opinion- it is not the qualifications that you would embrace, reject or find value in but the OPINION itself is what concerns you. If you agree with the opinion the opinion has value. If you do not agree it doesn’t matter how qualified or how expert the opinion is.
Actually, the opinions of various experts are besides the fact in this case, Christianly speaking. Jim earlier used the textbook definition of modernist anthropology “person who was Terri Schindler departed that body in 1993”. Christianly, this is untrue. This is the crux of the matter morally. As was stated why back at the beginning, this or that diagnosis is besides the point. IF you want to Troll, you can talk endlessly (and argue from a “position of authority”) about this or that diagnosis.
IF you want to discuss why Christianly this execution was unjust, then you will have to talk about your faith, your philosophy of man, your anthropology. AND, you will have to talk about it honestly, not dimwittedly (is that a word? 🙂
Do you have a source for this or is this another of your opinions stated as though it had some basis in fact?
Perhaps your wife has some reason to hate neurologists…
Source? You mean material, “scientific” source? You mean you buy into philosophical assertions of consciousness, and thus human “being” being a phenomena of the bio-chemistry? That is what you would have to talk about openly if want to talk about this case Christianly.
Honest physicians know how much they do not know. Shoot, even honest materialists (a philosophical, not “scientific” stance) know this.
Do you want to talk about this case Christianly or not?
Perhaps your wife has some reason to hate neurologists…
LOL! Well, she is a Christian, so have you not heard, she would hate them if a particular neurologist would be black, red, yellow, gay, liberal, from a blue state, or pagan…;)
Christopher, not only is it apparent that you don’t even read your own links, but it doesn’t seem you have even a superficial comprehension of Orthodox doctrine. It’s thus very difficult to take anything you write very seriously, least of all your continual labeling of those you disagree with.
From an Orthodox website:
Yet, “brain death” and all other “medical terminologies” are irrelevant to you.
Note 179. Amazed writes:
There could be a lot of different reasons. One could be the one you suggest: The defense of Terri Schiavo was a conspiracy ordered by the Schindlers. Another could be that they got lousy legal advice. A third could be that it was inconceivable to the Schindlers, as it was to many observers, that the court would actually order the killing of their daughter.
But how come you are drawing conclusions apart from the record? I though you declared that approach out of bounds for all critics of Terri Schiavo’s killing.
You seem unable to provide a moral argument justifying the dehydration and starvation of Terri Schiavo, preferring instead to attack the critics of the killing.
All these words expended strike me as avoidance of the fact that a woman was starved and dehydrated for –what? You tell me.
Christopher writes: “Christians have no business asserting Christianity into the culture – why, our public square is reserved for modernists only – don’t they know that?”
By all means, enter the public square. But you want to denounce people and take pot shots at them in the public square, and then claim immunity from criticism because “you can’t criticize our foundational beliefs.” You can give it, but you can’t take it.
Christopher: “Good thing we have Jim here representing the culture of death, straightening out all the “facts” for us…”
Yes it is good, other wise your blatently false beliefs would have gone unchallenged. So sorry to dent the fenders of your myth.
Christopher: “This thread has been taken over by Trolls.”
The thread started out with a video by the Schindler attorney, who made various claims of fact. Those claims and a vast number of claims on the Schindler side, proved to be false. Since this thread is about the facts of the Schiavo case, why are YOU here? You don’t care about the facts. Facts are irrelevant to you. So why bother people who are trying to discuss the facts? Why don’t you go troll over on some other thread?
Christopher: “Regardless, they refuse to discuss their premises, although one has to give Jim credit – he against all truth at least tries to deny his morality/anthropology is not “modernist”. ”
I’ll talk about my premises all day long. First, you criticize me for discussing anything at all. Then, you criticize me for not discusing “premises.” Well, which is it? Make up your mind. And no, calling into question the uncritical use of modern medical technology is not a “modernist” approach.
Christopher: “You must REALLY be dimwitted.”
What are you doing here? You don’t actually want to discuss anything. On the contrary, you hope to shut down discussion. Why don’t you go not-discuss somewhere else? Adults are trying to have a conversation here, and your whining interferes. Grow up.
Scott,
The more I think about it, the more I have to wonder – why don’t you take Tillich at his word? IF you are going to deconstruct Christianity, why not deconstruct Tillich? Just when is Tillich himself “He “escapes from his freedom” in order to escape the anxiety of meaninglessness.” – when is Tillich and his neo-Platonism himself escaping his freedom??
JamesK notes in post 106:
Good point JamesK!!!
Perhaps Fr. Jacobse can chime in here, but I do not accept what this website has to say (from my own “jurisdiction” none the less!!), particularly this point:
“In terms of brain-death, this action can become a moral imperative, as the person is no longer alive in any religiously significant way”
I can not tell the difference between this and modernistic definition of man. The writer must have consulted Jim and forgot the Saints. Did I link the OCA?? I make it a point not to (no offense to Fr. Jacobse, I find many problems with goarch’s site too).
The OCA is but a shadow of the Church (this is my opinion – and somewhat controversial). Currently, only 1 bishop out of 10 (or is it twelve) even has the basic integrity to follow the eight commandment (see http://www.ocanews.org). The OCA in bed with the NCC/WCC. The OCA is but a shadow of the Church.
In fact, in a bit of a public confusion, I have not been able to taste of the Cup since I learned of the details of the scandal, as my conscious will not allow it (one can’t say “the OCA is but a shadow of the Church” and mean it and continue to approach the Cup “with Faith and Love”). As there is no alternative in my area (besides ethnic enclaves) I will continue to wait.
But back to your good point, Michael, Fr Jacobse, what do you say to this sentence “In terms of brain-death, this action can become a moral imperative, as the person is no longer alive in any religiously significant way”??
I suggest it is flat wrong…
JamesK (and Fr. Jacobse & Michael)
I remember attending a talk by Fr. Hopko in the late 90’s. He spoke to what it means to serve, and to be served. He in fact used as an example a TBI victim who he believed was not only “alive” religously, and otherwise, but whose “religous” purpose (so to speak) sas to “be served”.
His reasoning agrees with what I have read of the Saints. I can not square this with the OCA’s:
“In terms of brain-death, this action can become a moral imperative, as the person is no longer alive in any religiously significant way”
I wonder if these “jurisdictions” know just what they put on their sites??
Christopher writes,
“That said, if Christians are “fanatics”, why are you here? Your not trying to evangelize us are you, save us from our “fanaticism”??”
Christopher, I’m here simply because you’re so much fun to be with.
As far as saving you from fanaticism, quite the contrary. My fondest desire would be to pipe OrthodoxyToday as it is, and your comments in particular, into every home in America.
note 212:
AH, you wish to “put us on display”, being the stuff of museums (buggy whips, leeches, and all that). See little boys and girls, what Christians used to think? 😉
Still, what about Tillich?
Note 207 FATHER Jacobse writes:
A thousand words have what cost?
What purpose does any death serve? I cannot assign it a value, a purpose or a meaning. Who would argue there is a NEED for death?
It has been argued that Terri Schindler-Schiavos death served Michael Schiavos purposes. It has been argued that her death served the courts purposes. It has been argued that her death served the purposes of the “culture of death”, the euthanasia advocates, the radical individualist- separatist- communist- marxist- maoist- devil worshipping heathen purposes.
I research. I examine. I look at the cultural. I look at the social. I look at the economic. I look at the psychology. I look at the philosophy. I look to religion- not that I have much success discussing, debating, and exploring religion- nothing short of blind agreement prevents attacks. Any question, any hint of disagreement sets off a firestorm. My faults, my flaws and my weaknesses are part of my failure to get along well in religious circles. I play with words. I am willful. I am arrogant. I am opinionated. I engage. I insult. I offend. I seldom retreat. I seldom apologize.
I have met and held discussions with some very interesting people.
I said early on that people are very black and white in their thinking on this subject and people are VERY passionate and reactionary. Nevertheless I have harvested a good crop of unique thoughts, a great crop of insults, MUCH food for thought.
If such a thing as this can happen while men stand silent?
If such a thing as this can come to pass and is not noted or marked?
I really don’t think a man, a priest, can honestly wish for no discussion and no debate from the faithless, the Godless or the “trolls”.
Christopher writes: “I do not accept what this website has to say (from my own “jurisdiction” none the less!!)”
Now we’re getting somewhere. You reject the modern interpretation of your faith in favor of some earlier (or different) understanding of it, am I correct?
So what is your preferred reference point? I’m hoping you can point to an Orthodox source within this century (or the last), since I’m doubting medical ethics could possibly have been approached by the early Church Fathers, and I don’t think it’s safe to make assumptions about what they would have said.
Note 214:
Amazed, now that you have complained about the form of your “research”, “discussions”, etc. Will you answer the question? We have stated the “for what” Christianly speaking, why she should have NOT been executed:
1) She was a living person (i.e. she did not “die” in 1993), in communion with God and man
2) She still served both God and man (by serving God)
3) Modern conceptions of “person”, which are wrong in fact and truth, led to an ideological motivated execution
So, answer the question, why was she killed?
Note 216 Cristopher asks:
The “why” is pretty well documented, throughout the records, and even throughout this blog- clearly the “why” has to do with the fact that, strictly from a public opinion perspective, YOU were hopelessly outnumbered by people that don’t share your opinions or ideas, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that if they did think like you they weren’t willing to act or speak out.
You reject the modern interpretation of your faith in favor of some earlier (or different) understanding of it, am I correct?
No. The Faith does not “progress” in the progressive sort of thinking, so there is not an “earlier” vs. “later” interpretation. Not in the modern progressive way, not even in the way Newman described of Catholic dogma, as in “the development of dogma”.
In other words, the statement is just flat wrong – it is not a “modern interpretation”, it is a simple confusion.
I’m hoping you can point to an Orthodox source within this century (or the last), since I’m doubting medical ethics could possibly have been approached by the early Church Fathers, and I don’t think it’s safe to make assumptions about what they would have said.
Try book by Fr. Seraphim Rose. It is not a matter of “modern” vs. “early”, thus what the Church Fathers say about human personhood is independent from any modern technology, medical conundrum caused by said technology, etc. This independence is what enables it to be relevant to all the ages, not just some or “earlier” ones. Thus, Christianly speaking, what a human person is already a known “fact”. All human knowledge, until the end of time itself, does not “trump” this revealed knowledge – it only confirms it.
Try chewing on: “http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Seraphim-Rose/dp/1887904026
Fr. Seraphim even refutes such “progressives” as Thomas Aquinas…;)
Christopher, I too would strongly dispute the “moral imperative”, in fact I would tend to be the opposite.
Just a comment on your personal dilemma:
The grace of the sacraments is not determined by the personal virtue of the celebrant or the celebrant’s bishop, but on Apostolic sucession which the OCA has. The fact that bishops are often cowardly, corrupt and worse is sad and makes life more difficult, but I would likely be worse if I had their temptations and responsibilities. St. John Chrysostom in a vain attempt to avoid the priesthood claimed that “the road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests and bishops”. Whether those skulls are there or not, the Church is still alive with the Holy Spirit, even the OCA. It is a cause for rejoicing that there is one bishop (I think ultimately there are more) and a multitude of priests and lay people who are not going along with the crowd. I happen to have a number of personal friends who are OCA priests and I know them to be men of solid faith and integrity whom I have never know to just “go along”.
I think it is a mistake to cut yourself off because of a personal judgement. Whether you give of your money is another question entirely.
Or you could move. As my priest told me, nothing is more important that what you need to do for your salvation.
God bless you.
Michael,
Too true. St. Augustine had a word or two on this subject. Still, my dilemma is as much with my cowardly fellow parishioners as with the (non)Bishops. When the whole “church” is so cowardly, one has to question in what way exactly is it the Church? What fruit exactly is it producing? In other words “Whether those skulls are there or not, the Church is still alive with the Holy Spirit, even the OCA.” yes, but I am doubtful about the second part. If this was the appropriate forum, I would post the vacuous, meaningless letter the parish council sent to our bishop (unfortunately, the south).
Related to this, Amazed, you asked somewhere upstream about the reaction of the Catholic bishops. Unfortunately, today’s “churchman”, the average priest/bishop in traditional Christianity (whether it be Orthodoxy, Catholicism, or what is left of the traditional protestant denominations) is an unremarkable man at best. Too many of them try in the strangest ways to be “relevant”, and thus they end up compromising with the culture, instead of witnessing too it.
The American Catholic church in particular, is chalk full of “progressive” Catholics who are not in any real way Catholic, or even Christian…
JamesK,
Again as Christopher points out you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of the Orthodox. We are and always have been a contentious bunch especially with each other. It is no wonder that the Irish maintained the Orthodox mind the longest in the west. Often in the history of the Church lay people have corrected the hierarchy. The truth will out, the Holy Spirit leads. One of the most famous examples was the “Union of Florence” in 1438. All of the Orthodox bishops signed on while in Rome except Mark of Ephesus. Many recanted as soon as they got home. The ones who did not saw the people melt from their parishes. The Bishop of Moscow announced the “union” from the pulpit upon his return and was forcibly removed by the congregation and thrown in jail. He later was allowed out of jail on the condition that he resign his office and leave the country.
If you think that Christopher is too pugnacious just remember that many of the Apostles and early martyrs had an “in your face” approach to the heathens, heretics, and apostates of their time—destroying pagan temples, creating commotion in the streets, facing down emperors and kings. St. Nicholas-Wonderworker of Myra and Lycia, famous for his charity during his earthly life, punched out the arch-heretic Arius at the 1st Council of Constantinople. St. Nicholas was disciplined, but he was not alone in his feelings.
Christianity is not about “being nice” (nice has the same root word as ignorant). Christianity is about battle; it is about refusing to accept the spirit of the age no matter from where it comes. We are the lame, the halt and the maimed that Christ found in the byways and the alleys and compelled to come into His feast. As long as we accept His love we are in a state of being healed of our wounds and our sins even if we are vegetables according to the wisdom of the world.
There is a big difference between living with food and water and being forcibly maintained by machines that mimic life. There is no law, no set criteria by which such decisions can be made each and every time. JamesK, you and others seem shocked, SHOCKED, that the Church does not have all these issues decided down to the last jot and tittle (of course if the Church did, we would be lambasted for our inflexibility). Each case is pastoral in nature. The pastoral decision has to be made in light of who we are as human beings as revealed in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the experience and teaching of the Church. It is the highest standard by which to live. Few manage it and it must always be undertaken with humility towards God and in an attitude of contrition.
The fact that those who defend the killing of Terri Schiavo don’t get it or that the majority of the American public don’t get it, does not bother me in the least. If you choose to live in some other manner, that is your choice. I can’t convince you. All the evidence you need is already available and it is ignored. I have studied that evidence, partaken of that evidence as has Christopher and many to whom we have pointed. There is 2000 years of evidence which you throw out with one fey sweep of the wrist as “irrelevant”.
Your statement James “Now we’re getting somewhere. You reject the modern interpretation of your faith in favor of some earlier (or different) understanding of it, am I correct?
So what is your preferred reference point? I’m hoping you can point to an Orthodox source within this century (or the last), since I’m doubting medical ethics could possibly have been approached by the early Church Fathers, and I don’t think it’s safe to make assumptions about what they would have said.”
Reveals your modernist rationalism perfectly and why you have no genuine foundation to discuss the issue at all. Everything is simply the mind of the world. There are no real insights. You once again have the arrogance to instruct us on our faith. James, each and every one of your statements reveals you to be in total ignorance of our faith. You are simply acting in a passive-aggressive arrogance that is without substance or meaning. Have you read any of Fr. John Behr, Fr. Thomas Hopko, Dr. Tristram Englehardt yet—all quite alive? St. John Maximovitch, St. Silouan, St. Theophan, St. Seraphim of Sarov– 19th and 20th century folk; all eloquent spokesmen for the essence of humanity in a fallen world. If you decide to quaff the heady brew of Fr. Seraphim Rose, read Nihilism first. There are literally thousands of books and articles you could find if you would bother to search, to read and to think instead of demanding from two sinful converts the keys to the kingdom of heaven. You don’t even have to go any further than this web site. What you really don’t understand is there is no such thing as modern; we are still living out the same temptation as Adam. Instead of really trying to find the truth, you prefer to meander in the maze of your own confusion protesting against those who are trying to give you the key to get out of the maze. You have pointedly ignored my previous post that gave you the real answer and keep coming back with the same stale, arrogant, meaningless drivel based on the miasma of empiricism and the rest of the vomitus that passes for thought these days–pouncing like a three-legged cat when you see what you think is fresh meat. NOW WE’RE GETTING SOMEWHERE!!! Baloney, it is just a tired recycling of worn out ideas and ill-concealed contempt for traditional Christianity.
Michael writes: “There is no law, no set criteria by which such decisions can be made each and every time. JamesK, you and others seem shocked, SHOCKED, that the Church does not have all these issues decided down to the last jot and tittle (of course if the Church did, we would be lambasted for our inflexibility). Each case is pastoral in nature.”
Again, we come back to the issue of whether the Orthodox here see their viewpoint as having value in the larger world, or whether it is only valid within the Orthodox community.
If there are no “no set criteria by which such decisions can be made each and every time,” then you don’t have a system of ethics that could be used in the larger world. That doesn’t mean that “every jit and tittle” has to be pre-decided, but it does mean that you’d have to know how to go about deciding the jot and tittle.
If it’s “pastoral,” then what’s supposed to happen in the larger world? A family decides to turn off a ventilator and let granpda die naturally, and some version of Christopher runs up and says “STOP! You can’t do that! That’s modernist!”? Or the family doesn’t make the decision, but the local Orthodox priest does?
Even the most basic issues are not clear. Earlier, Christopher says that he rejects the modernist criterion of personhood, which I suppose would be the idea that when electrical activity in the brain is gone, the person is gone. If so, fair enough. But as far as I know, the Orthdox church approves of organ harvesting for transplantation, and you get those from people who have no electrical brain activity. In other words, if Terri Schiavo had had a flat EEG, and been diagnosed as brain dead, she could have had all of her organs harvested, leading to her immediate death, and that would have been no problem. But when Terri Schiavo has a flat EEG, and just enough lower brain stem activity to provide involuntary functions and unconscious bodily movement, then discontinuing the feeding tube is “killing.”
If the Orthodox approach to these issues really has no application outside of the Orthodox community — if the ideas as insufficiently developed, or purposefully vague — then it makes no sense for the Orthodox to criticize those on the outside for not having followed the Orthodox approach.
If there are no “no set criteria by which such decisions can be made each and every time,” then you don’t have a system of ethics that could be used in the larger world.
Such a Troll, such a Troll. Tell me, your an avowed neo-pagan – without the common decency to be respectful to others who are not like you, don‘t think like you. Why are you here harassing Christians?
as far as I know, the Orthodox church approves of organ harvesting for transplantation
&
she could have had all of her organs harvested, leading to her immediate death, and that would have been no problem.
For perhaps the first time on this entire thread, Jim has a point. I have explained it to my family this way:
“If a sliver of my finger nail will, beyond all doubt, save 100 school girls from dying of some dread disease, you are NOT to donate it to science, or anyone else”.
I can’t think of a stronger way to put my rejection of organ donation (problematic but possibly acceptable), let alone donation of the entire body for anatomy (not acceptable), etc.
The problem is that the Church has been slow to reason and think through these applications, and priests are WAY too quick to “apply economia”, etc. and give bad counsel to families who take the modernist approach. Shoot, we have the OCA defining man as a brainwave!
Perhaps Fr. Jacobse (or some other hapless priest 😉 will chime in.
Still, it’s one thing to be ignorant and dimwitted, it’s another to say:
f the Orthodox approach to these issues really has no application outside of the Orthodox community — if the ideas as insufficiently developed, or purposefully vague — then it makes no sense for the Orthodox to criticize those on the outside for not having followed the Orthodox approach.
How long will Fr. Jacobse tolerate this Troll??
Note 222. Jim writes:
Jim, please. This is so arbitrary it is almost meaningless.
Look, marginalizing the “Orthodox” is just a rhetorical ploy. Put another way, marginalize the Orthodox and you marginalize the Christian tradition, the language of which even secularists still employ while denying the moral thinking to which it refers.
The truth is that your ethical “system” you want has to remain situation specific. It cannot be mechanized — unless of course we relegate our self-understanding to the level of biological machine, a view the euthansia types endorse and the idea informing much of the secular support behind the killing of Terri Schiavo (we leave the confused behind for the time being).
Death is a messy business. Why do you think such rancor exists about it? I hope you are not implying that a consistent ethical “system” exists at present. It doesn’t but this has a much to do with the fact that no “system” can address all situations short of redefining man as machine; the underlying issue is not the treatments as such (as important as they are), but how we value and define human life.
Christopher. I’m with you on organ harvesting. It is obscene.
Let me make a brief list of the foundation of genuine ethics–all of which Jim and the Modernists deny.
Human Beings
Created in
The Image and Likeness of
God
Fallen and Separated from
God by
Sin which is healed by
Repentance
Seems to me it has withstood over 6000 years as the highest calling ever articulated by human beings (not surprising since it comes from God).
All the philosophies and “ethics” founded up individualisim, rationalism, materialism, utilitarianism, hedonism, all the isms are cast away into nothingness as almost as soon as they are born–aborted by the onslaught of the modern, the new the (explative deleted). The exaltation of the nothing over man’s soul. Darkness over light.
Note 214. I asked:
Amazed responds:
Which means what, specifically? Give this to me in English.
Note 218. Someone wrote:
Medical “ethics” as such didn’t even exist as a discipline until relatively recently. An Orthodox philosophy on medicine, poverty, etc. however, reaches as far back into Byzantium. St. Basil, for example, founded hospitals and orphanges (they did not exist before then). Most of the attitudes on social welfare were derived from Byzantium after it fell, since Europe was still feudal at the time.
Dr. Demetrios Constantelos is the leading authority on these issues (Google his name). I spent two days listening to lectures on the history a while back. Very interesting. I can’t find an article on the net that isn’t behind some registration page, but I did find this by Fr. John Erickson (Human Dignity: Byzantine Political Philosophy Revisited):
The Russian Orthodox Church is making some important moves in this direction as well, quite rapidly in fact considering that Communism fell only 20 years ago. Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The American Church has some catching up to do, but we clearly have some good thinkers, Dr. Tristram Englehardt Jr. for example, who is regarded as one of the best thinkers on ethics in America today. (See: Life & Death After Christendom: The Moralization of Religion & the Culture of Death by Dr. Englehardt.) We also have some sharp students coming up the ranks, one I personally know who is working on his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Chicago under Dr. Leon Kass. All this takes time.
Fr. Hans writes: “Look, marginalizing the “Orthodox” is just a rhetorical ploy. Put another way, marginalize the Orthodox and you marginalize the Christian tradition, the language of which even secularists still employ while denying the moral thinking to which it refers.”
I don’t want to marginalize the Orthodox, but then Orthodox need to develop ethical principles that are consistent, known, and applicable to concrete situations. I don’t mean that Orthodox have to come up with a multi-volume handbook that covers every possible situation. I mean that any set of principles has to be sufficiently comprehensive so as to provide guidance in the great majority of situations that are likely to arise.
If people who reject ‘patient autonomy’ as individualistic, then there has to be something to replace that. If ‘brain death’ is rejected as a criterion for the death of the person, then we have to understand what the implications of that are. For example, if a brain dead individual could be kept alive for another year through ventilation, artificial nutrition, and other means, is that what is morally required? If the brain dead person then requires dialysis, do we administer that also? At what point — if ever — do we consider medical intervention to be ‘futile?’ Anyone who wants to implement significant changes to the way things are done now has to be able to talk about how the new principles will work. If you (not you personally, but the generic you) can’t do that, then you marginalize yourself.
Also, I think the Orthodox need to consider where it would be prudent to compromise, even on life and death issues. For example, something like a million people a year benefit from transplanted tissues. To reject organ and tissue harvesting — as two regular posters did today — is also to reject almost all organ transplants. Every year something like a million people receive transplanted tissue of some type. Over 20,000 solid organ transplants occur every year. Around half of those are for organs without which people would die. Kidney transplants don’t save life per se, but they allow people to live much longer than they would on dialysis. A huge majority of people in the U.S. support organ transplants. To reject transplants would be to alienate most of those people.
I’m not trying to marginalize the Orthodox point of view, but I am challenging people here to fill in some of the obvious blanks.
Fr. Hans: “I hope you are not implying that a consistent ethical “system” exists at present.”
I would say that it addresses the great majority of cases adequately. The Schiavo case caused a huge controversy, but we don’t see too many of those cases.
To Christopher and Michael — both of you reject organ harvesting. I’m in favor of it. But one of the features of patient autonomy is that YOUR wishes trump my belief every time. No matter how much power I might have, how much influence, how well I can make my case, YOUR wishes prevail. If a hundred million people disagree with you, YOUR wishes prevail, and your bodily integrity is assured. That’s not something to dispose of lightly.
Note 229 Jim writes:
Jim, you tend to take extreme examples to justify ideas that are themselves untested, and often extreme.
In the cases where decisions about life support has to be made, the patients wishes are already a considerable influence in the decisions made. You argue however, as if this is not true. Yet by “patient autonomy”, if you are true to how ‘patient autonomists’ use the term, ambiguity will be eliminated by deferring all decisions about life and death to the medical bureaucrats, which represents a very extreme departure from the way decisions are made today.
On organ harvesting, two things can be meant by the term. Does the Orthodox Church teach donation of one’s organs is morally allowed? Yes. On the rise of organ markets and the industrialization of organ harvesting however, while no statement has come out about this development yet, the mechanizing of medicine and the underlying view of the body as commodity is alarming.
Fr. Hans writes: “In the cases where decisions about life support has to be made, the patients wishes are already a considerable influence in the decisions made. You argue however, as if this is not true.”
Ok, so in other words, the Orthodox position DOES include the concept of patient autonomy, to some extent. It is not rejected out of hand. This is the kind of clarification that is quite helpful.
A little more on marginalization. You write “Put another way, marginalize the Orthodox and you marginalize the Christian tradition, the language of which even secularists still employ while denying the moral thinking to which it refers.”
But there’s another Christian approach to medical ethics that has not been discussed — the Catholic approach. In fact, the Catholic casuistic (case-based) approach to moral decision-making is actually the foundation of the process of how decisions are made in medical ethics — even among secular ethicists. (I believe you’ve read Toulmin’s The Abuse of Casuistry. I thnk I recommended that to you some years ago.) That doesn’t mean that the approach is itself religious, but that it comes from the religious tradition. Other Catholic moral principles (e.g., the Thomistic principle of “double effect”) are also part of the foundation of modern medical ethics. Remove the Catholic contribution to modern medical ethics, and there would be massive holes.
Frankly, were this a Catholic blog, the discussion here would have been very different. No one would be accusing the home team of having insufficiently developed ideas, or of being vague or insufficiently detailed. The Catholics have been at this for years, and there is an enormous body of material from literally hundreds of scholars. The Orthodox could do worse than to examine what the Catholics have been up to the last few decades.
As you say “All this takes time.” Indeed it does, not years, but decades. You know, as much as I enjoy rehashing the Schiavo case over and over — for future reference, it would be very interesting to see some articles posted that reference some of the serious academic work in medical ethics by Orthodox scholars.
Note 231. Jim writes:
“Patient autonomy” is a loaded term, because it refers to the movement to mechanize/bureaucratize decisions about life and death. The term takes the practice of respecting the wishes of the individual (which already is considered in the decisions about when to stop life support; a point I’ve made over and over again), and moves it toward a completely novel decision making apparatus.
The problem with the approach is that it pretends that these kinds of decisions are non-communal. It elevates individualism in order to shift decision making authority from the family to committee. In the analysis of patient autonomists, the messiness of end of life scenarios and the loss of efficiencies and other cost-benefit calculations in family based decision making, justifies delegating the decisions away from the family. (The committee replaces the family in this scenario; the communal dimension is shifted under the guise of autonomy.)
Morever, if the body is perceived as machine, if personhood is no more than bodily existence, or in philosophical terms, if the body is perceived as extrinsic to being (as Robert P. George discussed in “A Clash of Orthodoxies”), then why not terminate bodily existence when the body reaches a point of less than optimal functioning? The committee, of course, defines what is optimal. That’s how deaths like Terri Schiavo’s will be justified.
The Catholics unquestionably have the most compelling, perhaps even the most influential, thinking on ethical issues. It’s one of the reasons they were so savagely attacked when abortion advocates sought to devalue the unborn in the early days of their movement (“It’s a Catholic issue!”). Catholicism is also the source of the phrase “Culture of Death”, specifically Pope John-Paul II who vigorously denounced the devaluation of the person into machine and the cost-benefit calculus that informs it.
Fr Jacobse, in note 227 asks:
What part of it was unclear? I think the underlying question is whether it is more valuable to have discussion and debate on the issue or whether it is more valuable to have silence. At least one person has said fairly clearly that some voices should be silenced in favor of others.
I am interested in MANY perspectives. I am certainly interested in what YOU have to say on the issue. At this point I am more interested in reading than posting.
From: Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church
I noticed in my reading that Terri was informed ‘the feeding is going to cease.’ That she cried. I am thankful she had much comfort.
An unforgettable prayer in the Divine Liturgy Eastern rite — is: “For those who have no one to pray for them.”
As to ‘Where was Terri’s church?’
Some from the remnant:
http://www.catholicmediacoalition.org/bishops%20on%20terri.htm#Bishop%20Paul%20Loverde%20of%20Arlington,%20Virginia:
This next quote is fine — except…. I wonder why must the word vegetative should be used?
There has to be another word than a plant. Coma does not seem so bad. A Woman is a Woman. Terri is Terri. In her case minimally conscious with a strong heart and able to breathe fine. Able to feel a warm touch. Probably appreciate the turning of a colors in the window light. And how much mystery. She would moan.
We certainly hold a reverence for the material body that was joined to the spiritual element and which is proper. We hold funeral rites and respectfully place the body in the ground.
Why? If the body is not integral to what we are, why teat it differently than chicken bones we through out back. After all, you say “we don’t say that the body WAS the person”. {warning, this is a very loaded question :)}
However, we don’t say that the body WAS the person and so the person is no more.
To build on this, Christians (Traditional, classical Christianity) say the person IS the body, in that we are an integral mind-body-soul “thing”. To put it another way, the body is an attribute of personhood, not the reverse (i.e. personhood is an attribute of the body). Since the person is what is resurrected, then all the attributes of the person (e.g. the mind, the body, the soul, the heart – not the physical heart but the Christian heart) are also resurrected.
If the duration of one’s existence determines worth
Actually we are valuable not because we are eternal, but we are eternal because we are valuable. We are a “loved” creation of God. Love determines our worth, not the “fact” of our eternity.
Now, the difficulty is determining what makes someone obviously “alive” and what makes someone obviously “dead”. We know what this means in religious terms (the person is in Heaven), but that does us no good because we have no way of determining that, short of having some knowledge of the supernatural realm (and I’m not Miss Cleo).
Again, I believe the Tradition would say otherwise. It is here where you seem to make a dualistic, mind/soul and body break (not sure where you would put personhood in this), But I think I see what you are struggling with, when you say:
“Calcium ions leak into muscle cells, muscles stiffen but the cells can live on for several hours, skin cells remain alive for days, etc. Does this mean the person is “alive”? ”
Which is a purely physical/material determination. If you make only a physical determination, forgetting the other attributes of personhood (or worse, materialistically subsuming the attributes of personhood under the physical) then you end up believing Terri was “dead” – she had “PVS” after all – is she not dead? IF personhood is subsumed (i.e. if it is an attribute of the physical), then yes, she is “dead”. IF the material body is an attribute of the “person”, then no, she was not “dead”.
Why? Because she was visibly serving God and man (and herself) by her personhood – something more than body, more than mind, even more than soul and heart. She served her family, being a conduit for Hope and Love. She served herself by serving others (witnessing for the rest of us what it does and does not mean to be “alive”) and by simply being “alive”, thus the signs of her being “happy”. Happiness does not have to be “conscious” in the modern physiological way. She even served Michael by being a thorn in his side – which he eventually succumbed to – may God have mercy on him and the rest of us.
Being “alive” is more than being in a certain material state, defined by modern material concepts of brain waves, cell functionality, etc. We are more than the material, which is to say the material is an attribute (necessary but not sufficient) of what and who we are.
By the way, this dilemma parallels in some way the early efforts in the Church to understand who (and what) Christ is, and who and what the Holy Trinity is. Personhood stands over the attributes of “body”, and in God even Divine Attributes such as “essence”, “unity”, “Omniscience”, “Wisdom”, etc. This is why the “Infinite” can become a baby in a manger, because He is more than his attributes. His Personhood is more than his “Holiness”, “Infinity”, “eternity”, etc.
Note 233. Amazed writes:
The entire response was unclear.
You go to great lengths to discredit the critics of the Schiavo death, but when pressed on the moral assumptions informing your attacks, you turn mute.
Fr. Hans writes: “. . . but when pressed on the moral assumptions informing your attacks, you [Amazed] turn mute.”
Given the great theological differences between the Orthodox participants and others here, it is hard to know what moral assumptions would be seen as relevant. And many of the most relevant assumptions are not moral but medical.
One big issue is whether neurological criteria can be used as evidence that the person is dead and gone. The Orthodox church (and the Catholic church) apparently accept neurological criteria as definitive evidence in the case of brain death, but not in the case of PVS. That’s something I don’t understand.
In brain death, there is a flat EEG, typically some kind of brain injury, and no lower brain function to keep respiration going. In the Schiavo case, there was a flat EEG, massive loss of brain tissue, and enough lower brain function to maintain respiration and other autonomic functions.
For me, a flat EEG is evidence that the person is gone; I do not find the presence of some lower brain function to be significant. But that’s really the only neurological difference between the Schiavo case and brain death. It is not clear to me how, just because I reject the significance of lower brain function, that makes me a supporter of the “murder” of Terri Schiavo.
And it sounds like both Michael and Christopher disagree with the position of the Orthodox church on brain death and organ transplantation. So I guess that the Orthodox church is to some extent materialist, in their view. So apparently I’m in good company.
Christopher, 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.
My point was that we cannot know in a religious sense when this occurs because we have no access to that realm. It could happen when the heart stops beating, it could happen an hour after that, or five hours or ten minutes before. Either way, we must recognize that, at some point, this split occurs, yes? A dead body is not responsible for “serving God” in any other capacity than as a dead body. Since we cannot know in a religious sense when it does occur, we must rely on medical science to give us an indication that death has occurred. What medical technology does is provide a relatively reliable list of physical “symptoms” of death, if you will. Is it flawless? Probably not. However, it’s better than nothing. Otherwise, how would you suggest we determine when one’s soul is no longer with us and it is then permissible to let the body run its natural course?
From this list, there is no need to infer that we must euthanize the elderly or the handicapped or the disabled, since we know that medical scientists agree that the “symptoms” of death are simply not there (although there may be a few who suggest doing so).
Now, if you wish to say that a flat EEG does not indicate death, that’s fine. However, by nature of that statement, you then must provide some alternative means of determining when the state of death can be discerned. What is that? Is one alive so long as there’s a pulse (using medical means or not)?
The Orthodox church (and the Catholic church) apparently accept neurological criteria as definitive evidence in the case of brain death, but not in the case of PVS. That’s something I don’t understand.
The “Orthodox Church” is not systematized, so priests and families end up making decisions to the best of their ability. Hopefully, the situation will change and the Church will gel more of a “system” of ethical guidelines in the future – and correct things like the OCA website – but for now, it is what we have.
For me, a flat EEG is evidence that the person is gone; I do not find the presence of some lower brain function to be significant. But that’s really the only neurological difference between the Schiavo case and brain death.
You already said that – she was dead in 1993 – you define “life” and “death” completely different from classical Christian and Western culture (indeed, from almost all philosophies/religions throughout the history of the world). Your a unrepentant modernist/materialist. We get it.
It is not clear to me how, just because I reject the significance of lower brain function, that makes me a supporter of the “murder” of Terri Schiavo.
Let me make this real simple. To you, life = higher brain function. To Christians, life = body/mind/soul/heart created by God. Completely different ground. Terri was still very much “alive” (not to you, to Christians). Therefore, the state executed her unjustly. What’s so hard to understand? You don’t have to accept it, but I bet you understand it.
And it sounds like both Michael and Christopher disagree with the position of the Orthodox church on brain death and organ transplantation. So I guess that the Orthodox church is to some extent materialist, in their view. So apparently I’m in good company.
Desperation is an ugly thing…
JamesK,
I don’t recall saying anything about brain death at all. I’m perfectly willing to accept the prouncement of death by trained professionals when all other outward signs are in agreement.
Organ transplantation is a problem because of the philosophy behind it. IMO, too many of our bishops have not educated themselves sufficiently on the issues. Some of them I’ve met personally tend to be a little naive’. I think we will see a revision of the “official position” as the effect of the transplantation mentality becomes more apparent.
The Orthodox Church has never been a part of organized religion.
Here is some food for thought: Life after Death by Fr. Thomas Hopko
One part in particularly from Fr. Hopko (paraphrase) it takes 40 days to die.
And this: The Boundary of Death
And: The Dignity of Man
JamesK,
When the angels come, death is quite near.
The traditional burial practice within the Church (illegal in many states without a waiver) is, after washing and preparing the body (no embalming) to stand vigil over it around the clock with prayer for three days. Then we pray the funeral service anoint and bury the body. Unfortunately, most here in the United States do not follow the complete practice.
You have no idea until you actually attend and enter into the spirit of an Orthodox funeral service what life is all about.
Michael and Christopher –
I’m having a hard time seeing how organ donation upon death is a problem. If so, would it not also be a problem with a living donor, e.g. kidney donation. Donating a kidney strikes me as a act of self-sacrifice for the benefit of another. If the integrity of the body is respected with the only exception being one act that allows another to live I can’t see how it offends Orthodox beliefs about the body.
Also, it’s not right to call organ donation “organ harvesting”, which generally refers to an entirely different set of circumstance.
Jim Holman –
I never followed the Schiavo case carefully and am not prepared to argue one side or the other. 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.
The judgement that a certain pattern of electrical responses or electromagnetic responses is indicative of a defined mode of life is highly problematic. In the null case, where no brain waves corresonds 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 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.
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.
Let me throw out an example from left field to try to illustrate what I am saying. 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 requred 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?
Christopher writes: “You already said that – she was dead in 1993 – you define “life” and “death” completely different from classical Christian and Western culture (indeed, from almost all philosophies/religions throughout the history of the world).”
Yeah, me and the Orthodox church and the Catholic church. The diagnosis of brain death is fairly recent. The determination that brain death constitutes the death of the person is even more recent. Any person or organization that accepts neurological data as a criterion for when death occurs is definetly outside of the Western tradition on that issue. Your point being . . . .?
Christopher: “Let me make this real simple. To you, life = higher brain function. To Christians, life = body/mind/soul/heart created by God. Completely different ground. Terri was still very much “alive” (not to you, to Christians). Therefore, the state executed her unjustly.”
Let me make this real simple:
Flat EEG:
Brain dead person – yes
Terri Schiavo – yes
Lower brain/autonomic functions:
Brain dead person – no
Terri Schiavo – yes
Functioning body:
Brain dead person – yes
Terri Schiavo – yes
Created by God:
Brain dead person – yes
Terri Schiavo – yes
Unity of soul/mind/heart/body:
Brain dead person – yes
Terri Schiavo – yes
Artificial means of extending life:
Brain dead person – ventilator, artificial nutrition
Terri Schiavo – artificial nutrition
With respect to discontinuing life support, please tell me why that can be done with a brain-dead person, but not with Terri Schivo? Or, if it is forbidden to disconnect Terri Schiavo from life support, why isn’t it forbidden to do so in the case of brain death?
Fr Jacobse writes:
My “attacks” weren’t originating from any difference in moral perspective.
YOU assume that any dispute or challenge (what you call an “attack”) arises because the parties involved in the discussion/debate have differing moral perspectives.
Do you assume that there is some kind of contract that exists that requires people that share one opinion or one position on a subject to remain silent if misinformation, misrepresentations or outright lies are used in support of that opinion during discussions and debates?
If I agreed 100% with your moral position it would have no effect on my reaction to lies, misinformation or misrepresentations.
A lie is a lie and it doesn’t matter what motivates the liar or who is repeating the lie or what motivates the continued repeating of the lie.
If I agreed and remained silent as you made 100 truthful, factual and accurate statements it would not stand to reason that I am obligated to remain silent when statement 101 is a blatent falsehood.
But I keep forgetting that TRUTH is the gnat on the elephants back. Or perhaps the bull in the china shop of certain strongly held personal beleifs.
Or perhaps it is just impossible to support and defend certain opinions or positions without relying on lies, misrepresentations, misquotes and a faulty understanding of medicine and science.
How am I supposed to know why someone would INSIST on being allowed, unchallenged, to repeat and use lies in their arguments, discuss
Tom C:
RE Organ donation. I’m a radical on it. No question. I’m somewhat of a Luddite
Live organ donation is a different category IMO. In the right circumstances it is, as you say, an act of sacrifice. Trouble for me is the whole philosophy within the medical community regarding organs and their use. The bio-mechancial machine idea in which organs are just inter-changeable parts and there is no respect for the body at all makes organ donation on death quite problematic for me. Add to that the whole idea that life must be extended and I’ll swap body parts to do it does violate the Orthodox understanding of the integrity of the body. The outcomes are seldom discussed (my understanding is that life is minimally extended).
I have no desire to impose my choice upon anyone else but I refuse to participate. No one would want my organs anyway because an idiot doctor who couldn’t keep his needles clean gave me hepatitis when I was a child (before disposables).
Actually my postion has little to do with Orthodoxy, but with a profound distrust of the medical community. As a group the philosophy stinks. I’ve seen too many of my friends and relatives slowly hacked to death by surgeons, been lied to over and over again and just plain ignored. The arrogance is high, the training dehumanizes, the structure is not geared to good patient care, but to maximize efficiency and promote control over the patients in the name of “autonomy”. The good folks within the system who are capable of delivering good care face all kinds of obstacles that prevent them from doing so in many cases.
The movie Hospital had it about right IMO.
Note 246. Amazed writes:
Not really. I think you should come clean about whether or not you think Terri Schaivo’s death is morally justifiable.
Amazed, you assert–
The Church teaches:
The “truth” of empirical facts are always dependent solely on the premises of the philosophy utilizing them, how they are selected, etc. In other words, the bias of the person using them.
I dare say that those here who defend Terri Schiavo have a much clearer understanding of medicine and science than you do of traditional Christianity. I grew up in a medical household, was pre-med in college for two years, my job involves evaluating the risk inherent in medical conditions, I have a keen interest in medical science and the philosphies expressed in the medical community–reading about them as often as I can. What are your credentials for evaluating or even questionning the claims of traditional Christianity except malice and contempt?
In any case as has been repeatedly said, what you claim as the “factual core” from a “medical and scientific” point of view is not the point. If you have not gotten that by now. You won’t
You demand that Fr. Hans, myself and others educate ourselves on what is important and crucial to you while at the same time showing no interest in the foundation of our argument. So, if you really want to advance discussion, you need to learn about Orthodox Christianity. My father, an M.D., always used to say that the way to win an argument is to know more about what the other person believes than they do. He didn’t loose many.
Since I find it pretty easy to predict the course of your agruments simply from my knowledge of the philosophical worldview you express and you have zero ability when it comes to understanding the Orthodox Church, the ball is in your court. If you were not so aggressively ignorant, I’m sure we could have some good discussions.
I’m also perfectly willing to allow you to retain your worldview, that is your choice. You do not seem to be willing to extend the same “freedom of choice” to those whom you oppose however.
Michael writes: “The “truth” of empirical facts are always dependent solely on the premises of the philosophy utilizing them, how they are selected, etc. In other words, the bias of the person using them.”
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? This seems obvious. One simply has to spend an hour watching FOX News.
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″), then I think it’s safe to say that the next “fact” one is going to assert might just be that they are really Napoleon. After all, if my “philosophy” says I am, then I am, and who are you to quibble with that?
Can you clarify, because this issue of the validity of facts has been raised before.