Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Here we go...
Hello everyone. I'm back in Chicago with my furniture and real mattress to sleep on. It will be a challenge to squeeze a one-bedrooms apartment worth of furniture into a studio, but it looks like I'll be able to arrange things nicely.
I vented some political frustrations after reaching a boiling point with the bad news I was hearing hearing all over about the Terri Shiavo case. I will now try my best to adress comments made by a FORMER friend from high school (kidding!), Chris Lyon. Hopefully I can have some fun with this, and practice my political blogging argument skills, which I honestly have never done before. Chris' post in bold followed by my response.
Well, I've been waiting for a political post to gnash my pointey republican teeth into. Now, i've got one.
Yes, Jonah, I do identify with the federal republicans, perhaps not DeLay, but most certainly Bush.
Thanks for not identifying with Delay. It indicates that you identify with some inherent value in conservative policies and want reasonable discussion of those policies, as opposed to the absolute corruption and fake moralism that Delay represents. I also appreciate your other posts on your blog that seem to indicate your disgust with the Coulter's and O'Reilly's that really cheapen political debate by being malveolent (did I spell that right?) or egotistical, respectively.
I'm not sure that intervention on the federal level is the right thing to do, but I don't think that removing Terry Schiavo's feeding tube removed, and letting her starve to death, is the proper course of action, either.
This is a difficult nuance in this issue. When discussing with my friends the media frenzy and conservative grandstanding over the case of this one woman, it makes me uncomfortable thinking that a political victory consists of the ultimate death of a human being. The reality of the people (call them liberals, if you want) who want the feeding tube removed is that we understand that the concrete medical evidence indicates that Terri has no life and will not recover from her extremely severe brain-damaged condition. The finality of this trajedy is when Michael Shiavo, after 7 years of waiting for Terri's recovery, I might add, decided that there was no hope of her ever becoming conscious again. We are NOT cheering for her to be starved to death. We, rather, come to terms with the reality of terminal illness and understand a hopeless situation based on scientific evidence, and want what the courts (and 20 or so judges of all stripes) have decided is the legal thing to do.
Frankly, this case has a lot of conservative intellectuals, like George Will, squirming in their seats. One of the contributors to the weblog Powerline (Hindrocket, I believe) felt that this issue shouldn't go beyond state court level. I'll grant you that this is very controversial, but I won't grant you this:
"It absolutely disgusts that the powers that be (Republicans in Congress, White House, and the media) are so intensively getting involved in this one specific case that covers the personal turmoils of one family, just in order to please their mindless base that continues to vote for them despite their basic lack of initiative on doing ANYTHING comprehensive to directly tackle terrorism, unemployment, poverty, any damn issue you please."
When a person wants to pull the plug on another person, and we're asked to take his word for it without any written consent, then, bang; That's a socio-political issue, not just a matter of personal turmoil.
Admitedely the 'pleasing the base' statement was just one angle to move my late-night rant forward and fleshing out my statements regarding all those broad issues Republicans have not addressed would take a lot of time and news/blog searching. This specific case has been dealt with as a socio-political issue however, when Terri's parents and Michael Schiavo could not come to an agreement over their wife's trajedy, and took the issue to judge after judge after judge, who all interpreted the laws and rights of guardians and came to a conclusion. That was the role of our government's institutions in this case. It was not the role of the Governor of Florida to intervene in this single case when who knows how many Florida families could really use some help with their own death-preventing health care. And it is definitely not the role of a bunch of anti-science Republican zealots who have never met any members of the Schiavo family on either side of this conflict personally, or at least until very recently when they decided to take this issue nationally as the moral-shame-of-this-news-cycle. And it is DEFINITELY not the role of conservative hacks like Hannity, who broadcasted his radio show and Hannity and Colmes yesterday, OUTSIDE of the hospice where Terri was staying. If that's not sensationalism, if that's not media exploitation of a personal family trajedy, if that's not grandstanding to distract people from the latest bad news coming out of Iraq, etc. then I guess we have a difference on what counts as a legitimate political news item.
Should we take Michael Schiavo's word for it? Here's someone who is passionate about ending his wife's life, but apparently not passionate enough to get his wife to a lawyer. If you're passionate enough abot dying to get a lawyer to get it in writing, then you have the right to die. If not, then you live. And as you have established, we're not talking about poor, black children, we're talking about someone with the means and the time to see an attorney and get it in writing.
Terri Shiavo had her severe heart attack leading to brain damage when she was 31 years old. Unfortunate move on that couple's part to not put it in writing, but it's reasonable to believe that people at that age might overlook arranging for legal documentation on their right-to-die. But I would guess the extreme nature of her medical condition convinced many state and Federal judges to understand that this very unique situation, and that taking Michael Shiavo's 'word' if that's what you want to call it, paralleled the opinions of Terri's consciousness by medical experts. Last time I heard, certified judges are experts in law and the necessities of legal documentation for all sorts of cases. And doctors, well... there's no reason to be condescending.
Is the Schiavo case being exploited? You betcha. But exploitation is not necessarily bad, or wrong. The bird that eats flies off of the African elephant is exploiting the elephant, but it's a symbiotic exploitation.
Who are REPUBLICANS exploiting harmfully? The family? Nope, they want Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted. Terry? Nope, she either is in a vegetative state, and is not mindfully present for us to exploit harmfully, or she's more than that. In which case exploiting her case could lead to a second chance on a meaningful life.
Chris, if you believe Terri has a second chance on a meaningful life, then we have to end the debate there. Obviously you are reading a different version of the facts at hand that I am. An extremely upsetting thing about the nature of political debate these days, is that every aspect of the truth is malleable. I have yet to see anything by any respected doctor who has seen more than videotape of Terri that has led me to believe that the fluid that has replaced her brain stem will be sucked out by an angel and by a miracle from God Terri would become more that the involuntarily moving and moaning former human that I have heard and seen. Yet conservatives, and Hannity, and those hospice activists don't want to respect science. I mean, if evolution is under attack at our schools, universities, and IMAX theatres (want proof I'll look up some links by request), I doubt they would understand the legitimate medical opinion on Terri's condition. I do not have a medical degree (I do have a Bachelor's Degree in Environmental Policy / Political Science, not to scare you with my expertise) but 'persisent vegetative state' is different than a coma, which are usually completely hopeless but some shock to the system can awake some people. You make a rational point that no individual is personally exploited by this. I guess you could say this situation is exploitiave of our society's ignorance and the lack of respect from apparently a large portion of the population for such broad groups as 'judges' and 'doctors'. Show me an article, as technical as you please, that shows how a person with Terri's particular condition can recover and be at least marginally human. While I can of course respect the parent's hope that there is something left in their daughter, I cannot respect them ignoring medical advice in part to keep a related brain-dead woman alive, perhaps as a poor substitute for the person they once knew, her twitching and random vocalizations serving as an easier reminder of a fully healthy Terri Shiavo than pictures and memories.
Maybe Michael Schiavo gets the shaft, but if he wanted to take responsibility for Terry's life, the time for it was far more than 15 years ago. The time for passion has expired, unlike Terry.
And your argument that REPUBLICANS are just being political doesn't wash with me, either. A politician can simultaneously believe in a cause, and believe that they can score a better position with it. This is what politicians do. I don't understand why this shocks people so. When Andy Roddick scores an ace off of a 150 m.p.h. serve, nobody says "Oh well, he's just playing tennis!" Politicians are going to play politics. Bill Clinton did for eight years, and I didn't hear anyone complaining then (talk about not "doing ANYTHING comprehensive to directly tackle terrorism, unemployment, poverty, any damn issue you please."! Go ahead, name one, I dare ya!)
Okay, I see you belive Bill Clinton did nothing good on all those issues. Blaming Clinton for everything wrong 5 years into Bush's term is a popular conservative arguing strategy, who screamed with joy with Bush's election and the begining of the "era of personal responsibility". Remember when Bush could not articulate a single mistake he had made at the Presidental Debate ("[hesistation]... well some of my appointments." hardly counts). Real Christian humility there, as well as in his other actions. During 6 of Clinton's 8 years in office, the Republicans were in power. So in a lot of cases, any credit I could give Clinton would also credit Republicans for passing good legislation that under the radar helped people but couldn't be used to make Clinton bad. On the downside, Clinton couldn't do anything comprehensive, especially with foreign policy, to tackle those problems because Republicans would tear him apart. Clinton showed intelligent political maneuvering to adopt some of the Republican policy proposals (welfare reform, 'don't ask don't tell' immediately come to mind) that deprived Congressional leaders of a wedge issue to beat the President over the head with. The type of political grandstanding over the Terri Schiavo case is not the same, because it plays politics with a very narrow case study and trajedy. If we could all privately mourn for Terri's state, that would be the proper extent of this issue. There is no reason for the national House of Representatives to be involved unless they want to engage in worst form of political sensationalism to motivate a conservative base to continually vote against their own economic interests. The ability of these politicians to take this trajedy beyond the personal into an issue where on one side are 'murderers' and the other side are 'miracle-believers' is what disgusts me about the politics of this particular case.
Speaking of unemployment, the unemployment rate has gone down from a high of 6.3%, to 5.4% today. Perhaps the reason why Bush hasn't directly tackled unemployment is because he can tackle it quite effectively with indirect means.
Great news. I hope all the jobs being created provide a living wage. I hope everyone working those jobs had an opportunity to make a decision on attending or not attending college that was based on personal goals and not financial need. If I am not allowed to criticize Bush for not addressing unemployment, then you or anyone else is not allowed to give him credit for any economic improvements. Looks like the free market without government intervention works, only slowly and not exactly encouraging equity. Bill Clinton, on the other is of course responsible for the last recession, as well as the security lapses that led to 9/11, and the condition of are overextended military, and, well you get my drift.
Speaking of unemployment...
All of the topics you raise bring out the Classicist's broom in me. It's impossible for me to comment, in a single sitting, on all of the issues that you raise in only ten paragraphs. A greedy, shadowy Haliburton VP, unemployment, terrorism, the Christian Right, minorities, the poor, etc. How did the Terry Schiavo case become about all of this? Perhaps it's a federal issue, after all!
My point about the Schiavo case being used as a distraction from all these scandals is admitedely the weakest angle of my political screed. Let's just say that I am outraged by a lot of things going on in this country now. The Schiavo case was my tipping point plus the fact that my blog is read by people now encouraged to me to vent when there was no longer any things in my apartment to break. I am kind of dissapointed that I have come across the first person I personally know or knew in some capacity that was not liberal or apolitical, but a passionate Republican. I am glad that you are not as extreme as the talk show hosts or some of the Republican leadership, but I am wondering what brings you into the Republican camp. I didn't want to just throw out liberal buzzwords, but there is a pattern of increasing depravity and corruption in our government that depresses me. I am sorry to lasso you into the worst of these conservatives, but everytime I think Republicans cannot cheapen
our political dialogue even further, there comes a case like this Schiavo case, which angers me and makes me want to curl up into a ball and seek refuge from my political junkie habit. Good thing I have graduate school in city planning. Working at the local municipal level, it will probably take a while for the Federal Government completely run by Republicans to intervene and ruin the good I want to do.
Thanks for the debate opportunity!
Jonah
I vented some political frustrations after reaching a boiling point with the bad news I was hearing hearing all over about the Terri Shiavo case. I will now try my best to adress comments made by a FORMER friend from high school (kidding!), Chris Lyon. Hopefully I can have some fun with this, and practice my political blogging argument skills, which I honestly have never done before. Chris' post in bold followed by my response.
Well, I've been waiting for a political post to gnash my pointey republican teeth into. Now, i've got one.
Yes, Jonah, I do identify with the federal republicans, perhaps not DeLay, but most certainly Bush.
Thanks for not identifying with Delay. It indicates that you identify with some inherent value in conservative policies and want reasonable discussion of those policies, as opposed to the absolute corruption and fake moralism that Delay represents. I also appreciate your other posts on your blog that seem to indicate your disgust with the Coulter's and O'Reilly's that really cheapen political debate by being malveolent (did I spell that right?) or egotistical, respectively.
I'm not sure that intervention on the federal level is the right thing to do, but I don't think that removing Terry Schiavo's feeding tube removed, and letting her starve to death, is the proper course of action, either.
This is a difficult nuance in this issue. When discussing with my friends the media frenzy and conservative grandstanding over the case of this one woman, it makes me uncomfortable thinking that a political victory consists of the ultimate death of a human being. The reality of the people (call them liberals, if you want) who want the feeding tube removed is that we understand that the concrete medical evidence indicates that Terri has no life and will not recover from her extremely severe brain-damaged condition. The finality of this trajedy is when Michael Shiavo, after 7 years of waiting for Terri's recovery, I might add, decided that there was no hope of her ever becoming conscious again. We are NOT cheering for her to be starved to death. We, rather, come to terms with the reality of terminal illness and understand a hopeless situation based on scientific evidence, and want what the courts (and 20 or so judges of all stripes) have decided is the legal thing to do.
Frankly, this case has a lot of conservative intellectuals, like George Will, squirming in their seats. One of the contributors to the weblog Powerline (Hindrocket, I believe) felt that this issue shouldn't go beyond state court level. I'll grant you that this is very controversial, but I won't grant you this:
"It absolutely disgusts that the powers that be (Republicans in Congress, White House, and the media) are so intensively getting involved in this one specific case that covers the personal turmoils of one family, just in order to please their mindless base that continues to vote for them despite their basic lack of initiative on doing ANYTHING comprehensive to directly tackle terrorism, unemployment, poverty, any damn issue you please."
When a person wants to pull the plug on another person, and we're asked to take his word for it without any written consent, then, bang; That's a socio-political issue, not just a matter of personal turmoil.
Admitedely the 'pleasing the base' statement was just one angle to move my late-night rant forward and fleshing out my statements regarding all those broad issues Republicans have not addressed would take a lot of time and news/blog searching. This specific case has been dealt with as a socio-political issue however, when Terri's parents and Michael Schiavo could not come to an agreement over their wife's trajedy, and took the issue to judge after judge after judge, who all interpreted the laws and rights of guardians and came to a conclusion. That was the role of our government's institutions in this case. It was not the role of the Governor of Florida to intervene in this single case when who knows how many Florida families could really use some help with their own death-preventing health care. And it is definitely not the role of a bunch of anti-science Republican zealots who have never met any members of the Schiavo family on either side of this conflict personally, or at least until very recently when they decided to take this issue nationally as the moral-shame-of-this-news-cycle. And it is DEFINITELY not the role of conservative hacks like Hannity, who broadcasted his radio show and Hannity and Colmes yesterday, OUTSIDE of the hospice where Terri was staying. If that's not sensationalism, if that's not media exploitation of a personal family trajedy, if that's not grandstanding to distract people from the latest bad news coming out of Iraq, etc. then I guess we have a difference on what counts as a legitimate political news item.
Should we take Michael Schiavo's word for it? Here's someone who is passionate about ending his wife's life, but apparently not passionate enough to get his wife to a lawyer. If you're passionate enough abot dying to get a lawyer to get it in writing, then you have the right to die. If not, then you live. And as you have established, we're not talking about poor, black children, we're talking about someone with the means and the time to see an attorney and get it in writing.
Terri Shiavo had her severe heart attack leading to brain damage when she was 31 years old. Unfortunate move on that couple's part to not put it in writing, but it's reasonable to believe that people at that age might overlook arranging for legal documentation on their right-to-die. But I would guess the extreme nature of her medical condition convinced many state and Federal judges to understand that this very unique situation, and that taking Michael Shiavo's 'word' if that's what you want to call it, paralleled the opinions of Terri's consciousness by medical experts. Last time I heard, certified judges are experts in law and the necessities of legal documentation for all sorts of cases. And doctors, well... there's no reason to be condescending.
Is the Schiavo case being exploited? You betcha. But exploitation is not necessarily bad, or wrong. The bird that eats flies off of the African elephant is exploiting the elephant, but it's a symbiotic exploitation.
Who are REPUBLICANS exploiting harmfully? The family? Nope, they want Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted. Terry? Nope, she either is in a vegetative state, and is not mindfully present for us to exploit harmfully, or she's more than that. In which case exploiting her case could lead to a second chance on a meaningful life.
Chris, if you believe Terri has a second chance on a meaningful life, then we have to end the debate there. Obviously you are reading a different version of the facts at hand that I am. An extremely upsetting thing about the nature of political debate these days, is that every aspect of the truth is malleable. I have yet to see anything by any respected doctor who has seen more than videotape of Terri that has led me to believe that the fluid that has replaced her brain stem will be sucked out by an angel and by a miracle from God Terri would become more that the involuntarily moving and moaning former human that I have heard and seen. Yet conservatives, and Hannity, and those hospice activists don't want to respect science. I mean, if evolution is under attack at our schools, universities, and IMAX theatres (want proof I'll look up some links by request), I doubt they would understand the legitimate medical opinion on Terri's condition. I do not have a medical degree (I do have a Bachelor's Degree in Environmental Policy / Political Science, not to scare you with my expertise) but 'persisent vegetative state' is different than a coma, which are usually completely hopeless but some shock to the system can awake some people. You make a rational point that no individual is personally exploited by this. I guess you could say this situation is exploitiave of our society's ignorance and the lack of respect from apparently a large portion of the population for such broad groups as 'judges' and 'doctors'. Show me an article, as technical as you please, that shows how a person with Terri's particular condition can recover and be at least marginally human. While I can of course respect the parent's hope that there is something left in their daughter, I cannot respect them ignoring medical advice in part to keep a related brain-dead woman alive, perhaps as a poor substitute for the person they once knew, her twitching and random vocalizations serving as an easier reminder of a fully healthy Terri Shiavo than pictures and memories.
Maybe Michael Schiavo gets the shaft, but if he wanted to take responsibility for Terry's life, the time for it was far more than 15 years ago. The time for passion has expired, unlike Terry.
And your argument that REPUBLICANS are just being political doesn't wash with me, either. A politician can simultaneously believe in a cause, and believe that they can score a better position with it. This is what politicians do. I don't understand why this shocks people so. When Andy Roddick scores an ace off of a 150 m.p.h. serve, nobody says "Oh well, he's just playing tennis!" Politicians are going to play politics. Bill Clinton did for eight years, and I didn't hear anyone complaining then (talk about not "doing ANYTHING comprehensive to directly tackle terrorism, unemployment, poverty, any damn issue you please."! Go ahead, name one, I dare ya!)
Okay, I see you belive Bill Clinton did nothing good on all those issues. Blaming Clinton for everything wrong 5 years into Bush's term is a popular conservative arguing strategy, who screamed with joy with Bush's election and the begining of the "era of personal responsibility". Remember when Bush could not articulate a single mistake he had made at the Presidental Debate ("[hesistation]... well some of my appointments." hardly counts). Real Christian humility there, as well as in his other actions. During 6 of Clinton's 8 years in office, the Republicans were in power. So in a lot of cases, any credit I could give Clinton would also credit Republicans for passing good legislation that under the radar helped people but couldn't be used to make Clinton bad. On the downside, Clinton couldn't do anything comprehensive, especially with foreign policy, to tackle those problems because Republicans would tear him apart. Clinton showed intelligent political maneuvering to adopt some of the Republican policy proposals (welfare reform, 'don't ask don't tell' immediately come to mind) that deprived Congressional leaders of a wedge issue to beat the President over the head with. The type of political grandstanding over the Terri Schiavo case is not the same, because it plays politics with a very narrow case study and trajedy. If we could all privately mourn for Terri's state, that would be the proper extent of this issue. There is no reason for the national House of Representatives to be involved unless they want to engage in worst form of political sensationalism to motivate a conservative base to continually vote against their own economic interests. The ability of these politicians to take this trajedy beyond the personal into an issue where on one side are 'murderers' and the other side are 'miracle-believers' is what disgusts me about the politics of this particular case.
Speaking of unemployment, the unemployment rate has gone down from a high of 6.3%, to 5.4% today. Perhaps the reason why Bush hasn't directly tackled unemployment is because he can tackle it quite effectively with indirect means.
Great news. I hope all the jobs being created provide a living wage. I hope everyone working those jobs had an opportunity to make a decision on attending or not attending college that was based on personal goals and not financial need. If I am not allowed to criticize Bush for not addressing unemployment, then you or anyone else is not allowed to give him credit for any economic improvements. Looks like the free market without government intervention works, only slowly and not exactly encouraging equity. Bill Clinton, on the other is of course responsible for the last recession, as well as the security lapses that led to 9/11, and the condition of are overextended military, and, well you get my drift.
Speaking of unemployment...
All of the topics you raise bring out the Classicist's broom in me. It's impossible for me to comment, in a single sitting, on all of the issues that you raise in only ten paragraphs. A greedy, shadowy Haliburton VP, unemployment, terrorism, the Christian Right, minorities, the poor, etc. How did the Terry Schiavo case become about all of this? Perhaps it's a federal issue, after all!
My point about the Schiavo case being used as a distraction from all these scandals is admitedely the weakest angle of my political screed. Let's just say that I am outraged by a lot of things going on in this country now. The Schiavo case was my tipping point plus the fact that my blog is read by people now encouraged to me to vent when there was no longer any things in my apartment to break. I am kind of dissapointed that I have come across the first person I personally know or knew in some capacity that was not liberal or apolitical, but a passionate Republican. I am glad that you are not as extreme as the talk show hosts or some of the Republican leadership, but I am wondering what brings you into the Republican camp. I didn't want to just throw out liberal buzzwords, but there is a pattern of increasing depravity and corruption in our government that depresses me. I am sorry to lasso you into the worst of these conservatives, but everytime I think Republicans cannot cheapen
our political dialogue even further, there comes a case like this Schiavo case, which angers me and makes me want to curl up into a ball and seek refuge from my political junkie habit. Good thing I have graduate school in city planning. Working at the local municipal level, it will probably take a while for the Federal Government completely run by Republicans to intervene and ruin the good I want to do.
Thanks for the debate opportunity!
Jonah
Comments:
<< Home
Just a note regarding the political rant over the Terri Schiavo case. There's one point that wasn't covered in Jonah's argument that I feel is essential to the case at hand:
Chris, you made statements about whether or not we should just "take Michael Schiavo's word" regarding Terri's wishes. Additionally, you mentioned the need for him to get her a lawyer. Perhaps you are unaware that legal guardians (be they husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, etc.) make life or death decisions for those people in their care every day. These cases are never brought into a court setting, because there is no need for them to be. No lawyers are introduced, no judges are asked, and certainly, no Congress is involved. Generally, in this country, we assume that a legal guardian is in the best position to make life or death decisions regarding a person's care regardless of the presence of a written living will. In fact, many people who end up needing decisions like these never have written wills, because, at 31 or 25 or whatever, very few people expect to be in vegetative conditions. Do you have a written living will? I certainly don't. But I expect my guardian to make the right decision for me, because they best understand me and my wishes. And, if there was conflict, I would expect that conflict to be resolved within my family. I would be appalled if the courts or congress ever stepped in. Political involvement, in any sense, is completely inappropriate. And it does exploit the entire family who should be left alone, out of the media, to deal with these difficult decisions in whatever way they decide. Instead, Michael Schiavo who is, as far as we know, trying to carry out his wife's wishes, is being dragged through the mud, accused of murder and abuse, when he should be saying goodbye to his wife. And Terri's parents, who should be learning to deal with Terri's impending death, are being put on television every night to plea for her life.
The case should never have been a case. It should have been a simple decision. Terri's guardian, Michael, is legally qualified to speak for her wishes. He has done just that. In any other case, this would have been good enough for any hospital to remove that feeding tube. The courts have backed this decision for 7 years, but it should never have gotten to this point.
Chris, you made statements about whether or not we should just "take Michael Schiavo's word" regarding Terri's wishes. Additionally, you mentioned the need for him to get her a lawyer. Perhaps you are unaware that legal guardians (be they husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, etc.) make life or death decisions for those people in their care every day. These cases are never brought into a court setting, because there is no need for them to be. No lawyers are introduced, no judges are asked, and certainly, no Congress is involved. Generally, in this country, we assume that a legal guardian is in the best position to make life or death decisions regarding a person's care regardless of the presence of a written living will. In fact, many people who end up needing decisions like these never have written wills, because, at 31 or 25 or whatever, very few people expect to be in vegetative conditions. Do you have a written living will? I certainly don't. But I expect my guardian to make the right decision for me, because they best understand me and my wishes. And, if there was conflict, I would expect that conflict to be resolved within my family. I would be appalled if the courts or congress ever stepped in. Political involvement, in any sense, is completely inappropriate. And it does exploit the entire family who should be left alone, out of the media, to deal with these difficult decisions in whatever way they decide. Instead, Michael Schiavo who is, as far as we know, trying to carry out his wife's wishes, is being dragged through the mud, accused of murder and abuse, when he should be saying goodbye to his wife. And Terri's parents, who should be learning to deal with Terri's impending death, are being put on television every night to plea for her life.
The case should never have been a case. It should have been a simple decision. Terri's guardian, Michael, is legally qualified to speak for her wishes. He has done just that. In any other case, this would have been good enough for any hospital to remove that feeding tube. The courts have backed this decision for 7 years, but it should never have gotten to this point.
# posted by 
: 11:28 AM
: 11:28 AM
Awesome comment, Laura. You should start a blog of your own. Build up my community of blogging friends.
I think you're misunderstanding the intent of some of my points, Laura. Also, the parameters of guardianship that you set in the beginning of your comments are belied further down the paragraph, as to why this case is in the public eye, and political arena.
For instance:
"Perhaps you are unaware that legal guardians (be they husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, etc.)"
Who ever said husbands and wives made the best guardians? Apparently the courts, I guess, which perhaps raises the favorite conservative issue of "activist" judges, legislating from the bench. Or perhaps there's legislation on this, I admit I don't know. But what we're debating is why this is such a big deal, not on whether it's right or not to override Michael Schiavo's (and presumably Terry's) wishes.
Admittedly, this was my fault. In my haste I left out one word in this sentence:
"I'm not sure that intervention on the federal level is the right thing to do, but I don't think that removing Terry Schiavo's feeding tube removed, and letting her starve to death, is the proper course of action, either."
The word left out, now in caps, would make the sentence read like this:
"I'm not sure that intervention on the federal level is the right thing to do, but I don't think that removing Terry Schiavo's feeding tube removed, and letting her starve to death, is NECESSARILY the proper course of action, either."
My apologies...
Now for the meat of the problems:
"Generally, in this country, we assume that a legal guardian is in the best position to make life or death decisions regarding a person's care regardless of the presence of a written living will."
Is this the way it is or the way it should be? The latter is one of the issues brought to light, due to this case.
Here's an outright falsehood:
"Political involvement, in any sense, is completely inappropriate."
Political involvement, in any and every sense, is perfectly appropriate and legal. The nation has the right to pass laws, amend the constitution, and interpret the constitution. The content of their actions, however, may be inappropriate, which we can debate. But your aforementioned statement is a bait-and-switch tactic, designed to make your opinion appear definitive.
"But I expect my guardian to make the right decision for me, because they best understand me and my wishes. And, if there was conflict, I would expect that conflict to be resolved within my family."
This is not why Terry Schiavo's right to die is not an issue-- this is why your right to die is not an issue. In this case, the conflict HAS NOT been resolved within the family--the biggest reason why we're talking about Terry Schiavo today.
And Michael Schiavo's selective adamancy makes the issue of guardianship very relevant to me. I for one, will never get married (not that I was going to anyway, but because of more practical consequences), until the current state of affairs is amended to include intention more specifically, rather than "Generally", as you say.
Speaking of me...
You ask "Do you have a written living will?"
If you are confident about the guardianship issue you raised, why bring up my lawyer issue? Wouldn't my guardian know what's best for me, regardless of the lawyer? This bit was unnecessary for your line of argument; unfortunately, it was also a rhetorical and logical misstep.
Reread my comment. Nowhere did I say that all 25 year olds (my age, actually) should get living wills, only those who feel passionately about pursuing a course of action that leads in their own death. If I were one of these people, then your personal question would be applicable. But I'm not, so it has not place our argument. Right now, I couldn't care less whether I get the plug pulled out from under me, or whether I live on for years in a persistent vegetative state. If I have strong feelings in the future, however, I most certainly will get a living will.
Which brings me to this point:
"In fact, many people who end up needing decisions like these never have written wills, because, at 31 or 25 or whatever, very few people expect to be in vegetative conditions."
It's precisely for this reason that I think getting a lawyer is so importaint. If they don't expect to be in this condition, why are they planning for it?
They're not, which is why they haven't sought the assistance of an attorney. And this is why we should view Michael Schiavo to be an imprecise and perhaps dishonest interpreter of Terry's wishes. I find his selective responsibility suspicious. Michael Schiavo is getting dragged through the mud because he brought it on himself.
Jonah,
I'll comment on your thoughts later.
Later,
Lyon
For instance:
"Perhaps you are unaware that legal guardians (be they husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, etc.)"
Who ever said husbands and wives made the best guardians? Apparently the courts, I guess, which perhaps raises the favorite conservative issue of "activist" judges, legislating from the bench. Or perhaps there's legislation on this, I admit I don't know. But what we're debating is why this is such a big deal, not on whether it's right or not to override Michael Schiavo's (and presumably Terry's) wishes.
Admittedly, this was my fault. In my haste I left out one word in this sentence:
"I'm not sure that intervention on the federal level is the right thing to do, but I don't think that removing Terry Schiavo's feeding tube removed, and letting her starve to death, is the proper course of action, either."
The word left out, now in caps, would make the sentence read like this:
"I'm not sure that intervention on the federal level is the right thing to do, but I don't think that removing Terry Schiavo's feeding tube removed, and letting her starve to death, is NECESSARILY the proper course of action, either."
My apologies...
Now for the meat of the problems:
"Generally, in this country, we assume that a legal guardian is in the best position to make life or death decisions regarding a person's care regardless of the presence of a written living will."
Is this the way it is or the way it should be? The latter is one of the issues brought to light, due to this case.
Here's an outright falsehood:
"Political involvement, in any sense, is completely inappropriate."
Political involvement, in any and every sense, is perfectly appropriate and legal. The nation has the right to pass laws, amend the constitution, and interpret the constitution. The content of their actions, however, may be inappropriate, which we can debate. But your aforementioned statement is a bait-and-switch tactic, designed to make your opinion appear definitive.
"But I expect my guardian to make the right decision for me, because they best understand me and my wishes. And, if there was conflict, I would expect that conflict to be resolved within my family."
This is not why Terry Schiavo's right to die is not an issue-- this is why your right to die is not an issue. In this case, the conflict HAS NOT been resolved within the family--the biggest reason why we're talking about Terry Schiavo today.
And Michael Schiavo's selective adamancy makes the issue of guardianship very relevant to me. I for one, will never get married (not that I was going to anyway, but because of more practical consequences), until the current state of affairs is amended to include intention more specifically, rather than "Generally", as you say.
Speaking of me...
You ask "Do you have a written living will?"
If you are confident about the guardianship issue you raised, why bring up my lawyer issue? Wouldn't my guardian know what's best for me, regardless of the lawyer? This bit was unnecessary for your line of argument; unfortunately, it was also a rhetorical and logical misstep.
Reread my comment. Nowhere did I say that all 25 year olds (my age, actually) should get living wills, only those who feel passionately about pursuing a course of action that leads in their own death. If I were one of these people, then your personal question would be applicable. But I'm not, so it has not place our argument. Right now, I couldn't care less whether I get the plug pulled out from under me, or whether I live on for years in a persistent vegetative state. If I have strong feelings in the future, however, I most certainly will get a living will.
Which brings me to this point:
"In fact, many people who end up needing decisions like these never have written wills, because, at 31 or 25 or whatever, very few people expect to be in vegetative conditions."
It's precisely for this reason that I think getting a lawyer is so importaint. If they don't expect to be in this condition, why are they planning for it?
They're not, which is why they haven't sought the assistance of an attorney. And this is why we should view Michael Schiavo to be an imprecise and perhaps dishonest interpreter of Terry's wishes. I find his selective responsibility suspicious. Michael Schiavo is getting dragged through the mud because he brought it on himself.
Jonah,
I'll comment on your thoughts later.
Later,
Lyon
Ames, you are indeed misunderstanding me. My point was that Michael Schiavo should have gotten a lawyer for Terry before something happened, if they felt so passionately about ending life in such an event. The fact that Michael Schiavo has a lawyer now (Felos was brought in after Terry's accident, for litigation involving Terry's family and Michael Schiavo) is irrelevant to my point. In fact there's an article on powerline here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009985 about Felos's role in the initial court battle, and why it's pertinent to this case.
Everyone seems to have this desire to bring their own lives into the Schiavo battle. Why? Do you believe the Schiavo marriage to be typical, or at least comparable to yours? If so, why didn't you explain why you believe this to be the case. If not, why bring it up?
You say: "I feel that most times, spouses would be the best guardians". This is not most times, is it? If you believe this to be the case, then let me know why, otherwise I am defenseless to argue my points, or respond to yours. Injecting our personal lives into this case is irrelevant, unless you believe it to be comparable in this specific case, not just most cases. That's one of the issues that is in contention; by me and by Schiavo's family, and most likely many others.
You misunderstood me on this, also: "You make Michael Schiavo to be a publicity-loving, Scott Peterson type." In no way was this my intent, and I don't understand why you were left with this impression. What I said was that it was reasonable to question a person's motives, when they only become manifest at the moment of reckoning. How am I likening him to Scott Peterson by saying this? How am I saying he is publicity loving by saying this? Are you saying that Scott Peterson is publicity loving? I'm sorry but if you are going to derive this from my comments, then I have to ask, what specifically, in my comments made you think this?
There's another case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, here: "The government involvment is exploitative and wrong." Wrong because it's exploitive? I wrote in my comments earlier about what I consider to be acceptable exploitation, and that exploitation is not, by definition, wrong. But you seemed to have sidestepped line of debate. If you disagree, please let me know why.
Wrong for some other reason? If so, please let me know why. If so, why bring up that's it's exploitive? I already said it was, so in this point there was no disagreement.
Perhaps you're asserting it's wrong because of the reason that follows in the paragraph: "It is important for the government to make laws when laws need to be made, but nobody is doing anything malicious and illegal here, it is simply a family having disagreements about a very difficult choice." I don't believe congress has enacted a law, in this case. Powerline calls it a "statute", but if you want to get the legal details (all three contributors to powerline are lawyers) I would suggest you take a look at the abovementioned URL. At any rate, I don't believe you've fleshed out why you believe government involvement to be wrong. There's a thesis evident, to be sure, but I can't find the corpus.
And again with your closer:"I really think the most sickening thing here is how the religious right has taken up this case and made it all about life when it seems it is really all about power."
How is this about power? Power for whom? Political power? Power over people's lives? In the state you've left it, it reminds me of Michael Moore's thesis on why we possess guns and shoot each other: fear.
These are rhetorical words that can have the broadest, or most narrow of meanings. While they can throw a blanket over the entirety of a very detailed discussion, their imprecision behooves me to ask for clarification.
Right now, all that's happened is a sharing of beliefs. This is fine. If you have many problems with my postion on the case, that's fine, too. But if you want to argue that my points are invalid, then I think you should engage my supporting details (exploitation comes to mind, but there are several others). Otherwise, we should just agree to disagree.
Sorry if I missed anything. Let me know if I didn't cover all of the bases, and I'll issue a reply.
I WILL respond to your response of my comments soon, Jonah.
Lyon
Everyone seems to have this desire to bring their own lives into the Schiavo battle. Why? Do you believe the Schiavo marriage to be typical, or at least comparable to yours? If so, why didn't you explain why you believe this to be the case. If not, why bring it up?
You say: "I feel that most times, spouses would be the best guardians". This is not most times, is it? If you believe this to be the case, then let me know why, otherwise I am defenseless to argue my points, or respond to yours. Injecting our personal lives into this case is irrelevant, unless you believe it to be comparable in this specific case, not just most cases. That's one of the issues that is in contention; by me and by Schiavo's family, and most likely many others.
You misunderstood me on this, also: "You make Michael Schiavo to be a publicity-loving, Scott Peterson type." In no way was this my intent, and I don't understand why you were left with this impression. What I said was that it was reasonable to question a person's motives, when they only become manifest at the moment of reckoning. How am I likening him to Scott Peterson by saying this? How am I saying he is publicity loving by saying this? Are you saying that Scott Peterson is publicity loving? I'm sorry but if you are going to derive this from my comments, then I have to ask, what specifically, in my comments made you think this?
There's another case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, here: "The government involvment is exploitative and wrong." Wrong because it's exploitive? I wrote in my comments earlier about what I consider to be acceptable exploitation, and that exploitation is not, by definition, wrong. But you seemed to have sidestepped line of debate. If you disagree, please let me know why.
Wrong for some other reason? If so, please let me know why. If so, why bring up that's it's exploitive? I already said it was, so in this point there was no disagreement.
Perhaps you're asserting it's wrong because of the reason that follows in the paragraph: "It is important for the government to make laws when laws need to be made, but nobody is doing anything malicious and illegal here, it is simply a family having disagreements about a very difficult choice." I don't believe congress has enacted a law, in this case. Powerline calls it a "statute", but if you want to get the legal details (all three contributors to powerline are lawyers) I would suggest you take a look at the abovementioned URL. At any rate, I don't believe you've fleshed out why you believe government involvement to be wrong. There's a thesis evident, to be sure, but I can't find the corpus.
And again with your closer:"I really think the most sickening thing here is how the religious right has taken up this case and made it all about life when it seems it is really all about power."
How is this about power? Power for whom? Political power? Power over people's lives? In the state you've left it, it reminds me of Michael Moore's thesis on why we possess guns and shoot each other: fear.
These are rhetorical words that can have the broadest, or most narrow of meanings. While they can throw a blanket over the entirety of a very detailed discussion, their imprecision behooves me to ask for clarification.
Right now, all that's happened is a sharing of beliefs. This is fine. If you have many problems with my postion on the case, that's fine, too. But if you want to argue that my points are invalid, then I think you should engage my supporting details (exploitation comes to mind, but there are several others). Otherwise, we should just agree to disagree.
Sorry if I missed anything. Let me know if I didn't cover all of the bases, and I'll issue a reply.
I WILL respond to your response of my comments soon, Jonah.
Lyon
I forgot one thing, Amy, concerning this: "The man just wants to get on with his life." This is incorrect, as far as I can tell. If this is his only desire, then why couldn't he just get a divorce, and leave Terry to the stewardship of her family?
Which brings me to something I need to clarify about the living will: In no way am I suggesting that all guardians shouldn't have the right to pull the plugs on their loved ones. While I maintain this is a valid issue for society and politicians to chew on, my point was that Michael Schiavo isn't content to just let Terry be taken care of by her family. He strongly believes it was his wife's wish to have life terminated at this point. The question I have asked, which has yet to be answered is this: Why does Michael Schiavo feel so strongly about this now, and not fifteen years before? Regardless of whether I have a living will, Amy has a living will, or Laura has a living will, why is this an invalid question? And if we want to inject our personal lives into the matter, how should we expect our guardians to handle a legal dispute with our families? Or would this happen in our circumstances?
Hopefully this clarification will placate some of the heat that my concerns have brought forth.
Post a Comment
Which brings me to something I need to clarify about the living will: In no way am I suggesting that all guardians shouldn't have the right to pull the plugs on their loved ones. While I maintain this is a valid issue for society and politicians to chew on, my point was that Michael Schiavo isn't content to just let Terry be taken care of by her family. He strongly believes it was his wife's wish to have life terminated at this point. The question I have asked, which has yet to be answered is this: Why does Michael Schiavo feel so strongly about this now, and not fifteen years before? Regardless of whether I have a living will, Amy has a living will, or Laura has a living will, why is this an invalid question? And if we want to inject our personal lives into the matter, how should we expect our guardians to handle a legal dispute with our families? Or would this happen in our circumstances?
Hopefully this clarification will placate some of the heat that my concerns have brought forth.
<< Home
