Murder
Mar 18, 05 | 4:37 pm by John SabottaA filthy cowardly butcherly murderer who has not the stomach to take the reward of his deeds has found help to do his dirty work.
A fine bit of work it is too - starving a helpless, hospital-bound woman to death so he can enjoy unimpeded use of her money. And the worst part is that in this he seems to be upheld by the law.
But there is another Law, and another Judgement, to which Michael Schiavo will be summoned.
God have mercy on us all.
So he was asked whether he had anything to say in arrest of judgement, and pleaded that his name was spelt wrong in the indictment, being Martin with an I, whereas it should be with a Y. But this was overruled as not material, Mr Attorney saying, moreover, that he could bring evidence to show that the prisoner by times wrote it as it was laid in the indictment And, the prisoner having nothing further to offer, sentence of death was passed upon him, and that he should be hanged in chains upon a gibbet near the place where the fact was committed, and that execution should take place upon the 28th December next ensuing, being Innocents’ Day.
Thereafter the prisoner being to all appearance in a state of desperation, made shift to ask the L.C.J. that his relations might be allowed to come to him during the short time he had to live.
L.C.J.: Ay, with all my heart, so it be in the presence of the keeper; and Ann Clark may come to you as well, for what I care.
At which the prisoner broke out and cried to his lordship not to use such words to him, and his lordship very angrily told him he deserved no tenderness at any man’s hands for a cowardly butcherly murderer that had not the stomach to take the reward of his deeds: ‘and I hope to God,’ said he, ‘that she will be with you by day and by night till an end is made of you.’ Then the prisoner was removed, and, so far as I saw, be was in a swound, and the Court broke up.
I cannot refrain from observing that the prisoner during all the time of the trial seemed to be more uneasy than is commonly the case even in capital causes: that, for example, he was looking narrowly among the people and often turning round very sharply, as if some person might be at his ear. It was also very noticeable at this trial what a silence the people kept, and further (though this might not be otherwise than natural in that season of the year), what a darkness and obscurity there was in the court room, lights being brought in not long after two o’clock in the day, and yet no fog in the town. - Martin’s Close by M. R. James
March 18th, 2005 at Mar 18, 05 | 9:09 pm
What money will he get from her?
March 18th, 2005 at Mar 18, 05 | 10:19 pm
Wikipedia has the full story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
From that article:
Raising the issue of a possible conflict of interest is the fact that Michael Schiavo stands to inherit the remainder of Terri’s malpractice settlement upon her death.
Michael Shiavo doesn’t seem to be motivated entirely by money, however, since he refused the $1 million offer by Herring to give up his legal guardianship of Terri.
March 19th, 2005 at Mar 19, 05 | 2:08 am
Yeah, I committed murder tonight too. And cannibalism! The broccoli was delicious.
I find enough of this nonsense on the conservative Christian websites I frequent. I’m surprised to find it here.
- Fox News
He could certainly use the money more than a human vegetable.
March 19th, 2005 at Mar 19, 05 | 2:19 am
And since when is not feeding someone “murder”? Are you a murderer for not feeding all of those starving children in Africa? At least they actually have a chance at a meaningful life, unlike this vegetable.
I should note, though, that it would have been much more humane to put this shell of a woman out of her misery years ago, rather than keeping her on life support and pulling the feeding tube in and out every time a new legislature wishes to violate the rule of law.
March 19th, 2005 at Mar 19, 05 | 3:35 am
I see it as murder as those that would feed her are being prevented by force from doing so.
March 19th, 2005 at Mar 19, 05 | 3:56 am
But they are not her legal guardians - her husband is. Put yourself in his situation: If your wife told you that she did not want to live as a vegetable, how would you feel if people called you a murderer for preventing them from feeding her?
March 19th, 2005 at Mar 19, 05 | 11:01 am
The broccoli was delicious.
That pun is a bit tasteless Micha…
March 19th, 2005 at Mar 19, 05 | 12:27 pm
That’s irrelevant: unemployed neo-Nazis could use your money more than you. Not that I’m saying you ought to be forced to give it up to them, natch.
March 19th, 2005 at Mar 19, 05 | 2:07 pm
I do not know one single person in my field of experience who would want to “live” like that for a month–much less 14 years.
I certainly wouldn’t. I conclude that _most_ reasonable people wouldn’t.
Since she can’t tell us (and will never be able to tell us), then all there is to consider, in my opinion, are the wishes of the guardian–checked by the rule of reason and what a typical reasonalbe person is likely to want.
I guess the only thing I’d want for myself, given similar circumstances, is a much quicker way to go.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 4:13 am
If Terri is in a PVS and/or she wants to die, then she should be allowed to die (actually, she should be dispacthed in a quick, humane manner). She doesn’t have a living will and can’t communicate what her wishes are now (if indeed she has any). From what I’ve read, there’s a lot of doubt as to whether she is in a PVS. For all the effort that Mr. Schiavo has put into the legal fight, I don’t understand why he wouldn’t authorize an MRI. There is also apparently some evidence that he beat her. The legal guardian argument just doesn’t resonate very well with me. What if the legal guardian isn’t looking out for her interests?
If Terri is in a PVS and she won’t suffer by being starved to death, then it seems to me that she isn’t suffering now. So, if her parents want to continue to feed her, let them do so.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 5:40 am
Mr. Schiavo’s comments, as quoted in the Wikipedia article, inspire nothing but trust and confidence:
“…at a September 27, 1999 deposition, he told why he refused to turn over guardianship to Terri’s parents. He said it was, “because they put me through pretty much hell the last few years [with] the litigations they put me through [and] their attitude towards me because of the litigations. There is no other reason.” After consultation with his attorney, he later added that “another reason would be that her parents wouldn’t carry out her wishes.”[25]
Oh. Given time, I’m sure a few more reasons will show up, after more legal consultation, of course.
Mr. Ghertner complains:
“I find enough of this nonsense on the conservative Christian websites I frequent. I’m surprised to find it here.”
Why?
“He could certainly use the money more than a human vegetable.”
John Lopez has already pointed out the questionable nature of this assertion. I see a lot of rather inferior people every day; nevertheless it would be wrong of me to kill them and take their money on the grounds that I am a more highly organized and evolved individual, no matter how much I could “use” it. “To each according to their need?” Hmmm.
“I should note though”, continues Mr. Ghertner “that it would have been much more humane to put this shell of a woman out of her misery years ago, rather than keeping her on life support and pulling the feeding tube in and out every time a new legislature wishes to violate the rule of law.”
More humane? Why? Humane to who? If Terri is really just the brainless zombie your entire case seems to assume she is, then there is no “inhumanity” involved - there is no one there to be tormented or abused and it doesn’t matter what is done to her. One might as well assert that displaying Lenin’s mummy in Red Square is inhumane to Lenin - all those tourists gawking at him, back pains from uncomfortable display case, etc. - except that Lenin is dead and doesn’t notice that he’s become the longest running sideshow attraction in carny history (”See the amazing sleeping com-mu-nist dictator! He was born alive!*)
On the other hand, you say she’s in “misery”, which rather contradicts your assertion that she is a “vegetable”. Vegetables, like Lenin’s mummy, can neither be miserable or ecstastic. If she’s not a vegetable, and we think someone might be in there, and we don’t know what they want - maybe we should, uh, err on the side of caution, so as to avoid the possibility of murder. Murder is generally considered to be a bad thing, even if “conservative Christians” think so too.
Mr. Ghertner gets tough:
“And since when is not feeding someone “murder”? Are you a murderer for not feeding all of those starving children in Africa? At least they actually have a chance at a meaningful life, unlike this vegetable.”
Well, no, I’m not. I don’t think the two cases are really quite the same. Now, maybe if there had been tons of food that rightfully belonged to those starving African children, and I acted to deny them that food because I didn’t think their lives were “meaningful” enough, then that might be a little more relevant.
“Meaningful” There’s an empty phrase. “Meaningful” to who? You? Me? What exactly does that mean, anyway, and why is a “meaningful” life better than a “meaningless” life - both words suggesting that you can’t just be alive, but that somehow your existence has to “mean” something, something generally accepted by other right-thinking people.
Mr. Nikolay raises the banners of reason, or, at least, reasonable people.
“I do not know one single person in my field of experience who would want to “live” like that for a month–much less 14 years.
I certainly wouldn’t. I conclude that _most_ reasonable people wouldn’t.
Since she can’t tell us (and will never be able to tell us), then all there is to consider, in my opinion, are the wishes of the guardian…”
Why are the wishes of the guardian “all there is to consider”? Leaving aside Mr. Schiavo’s rather dubious record, I was unaware that guardians properly held life-or-death powers to that extent.
Well, all right - Mr. Nikoley adds (rather like Aleister Crowley thinking twice about “Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law” and hastily adding “Love is the Law, Love under Will’ )
“…–checked by the rule of reason and what a typical reasonalbe person is likely to want.”
The rule of reason sounds nice.
However, since when were “most reasonable people” and “a typical reasonable person” elected God? This rather vague Deity of your own creation, a majoritarian and averaged-out figure indeed, seems hard to consult on the subject. He has left no Scriptures and one suspects that his dictates will turn out to be whatever the speaker who cites “most reasonable people” actually personally believes himself. In any case, Terri Schiavo is described as a “devout Roman Catholic”. Would that make her more or less typically reasonable? Should this fact be respected at all?
“I guess the only thing I’d want for myself, given similar circumstances, is a much quicker way to go.”
Okay. That’s your choice.
Contemplating this depressing case simply reinforces one thing - it’s not the disabled who seem to most want to be gently put to sleep - euthanasia is a relief for the living and the motives of the living in wishing the inconvenient quietly killed range from very idealistic and high-minded to very sordid indeed. But the end is the same - that sad lump in the hospital bed will go away, and the ordeal of visiting it, seeing it, caring for it goes away with it and that is a very great secret relief to many - even if that lump once was, still is, a fellow human being.
As I said earlier, may God have mercy on us all.
John Sabotta
*This is a reference to a old A.J. Liebling article about the carnival business in the late thirties; he describes a “two-headed baby” on display on the midway. Although the actual two-headed baby in question was dead (or possibly papier-mache - sad to say, some carnival people are dishonest!) and floating in a jar of alcohol the barker outside managed to give the opposite impression to the rubes by proclaiming “See the amazing two-headed baby, ladies and gentlemen - it was born alive!“
I suppose that was inhumane too, Mr. Ghertner.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 12:32 pm
Another irrelevancy:
First, much like goofball conservatives talking about how this thing or that is “unconstitutional”, your claim that the legislature is acting outside the law rings hollow: it seems unclear to me that, given the fact that the legislature makes the law, they are indeed “violating” it with their dictates.
Secondly and more to the point, who gives a flying fuck about the rule of law, except from the utterly practical standpoint of not getting caught up in the legal corpse-grinder? Not Thoreau:
Not Micha Ghertner:
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 1:46 pm
The legal guardian argument just doesn’t resonate very well with me. What if the legal guardian isn’t looking out for her interests?
The parents made all of these sorts of arguments in court. The court rejected them. On appeal, higher courts rejected them too. At some point you have to concede that the parents have no case and are just trying to make this guys life miserable by accusing him of the most vicious things.
If Terri is in a PVS and she won’t suffer by being starved to death, then it seems to me that she isn’t suffering now. So, if her parents want to continue to feed her, let them do so.
Whether or not she is in pain or suffering now, we still must a) respect her wishes if she has any b) make decisions for her care based on what we have the best reason to believe she we want, or what any reasonable person would want if in that situation. The fact that we have corroberated evidence that she did not want to be kept on artificial life support, and the fact that she has no chance of recovery, and the fact that she is in no meaningful sense alive, are all reasons why we should not keep her biologically alive, regardless of what her parents think.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 1:55 pm
and the fact that she has no chance of recovery, and the fact that she is in no meaningful sense alive, are all reasons why we should not keep her biologically alive
True enough, but isn’t it whether she is “in a meaningful sense alive” the crucial issue? I was under the impression that “Persistent Vegitative State” meant brain death, but the wikipedia article says they are not the same. It does say she is “brain damaged”, however, and that a PET scan would definitively determine if she was in a PVS or a “minimally unconscious state”. So it sounds like PVS is akin to brain death, but perhaps not exactly?
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 2:02 pm
Because you guys seem more reasonable than that. The only reason I can think why people would want to keep a human body alive regardless of the suffering or the meaningfulness of that life is religious reasons, not rational ones.
We can still have moral obligations to respect the wishes of people even after they are dead. A promise to visit your grandmother and pray at her grave in the cemetary, for example. Or to use a person’s inheritance in the way they want you to.
From the wikipedia entry on persistent vegetative state:
“They are unresponsive to external stimuli, except, possibly, pain stimuli.”
From the wikipedia entry on Schiavo:
The medical definition of a vegetative state varies, but Stedman’s (http://www.stedmans.com/) definition is a state “in which an individual is incapable of voluntary or purposeful acts and only responds reflexively to painful stimuli.”
And why should we err on the side of caution here to avoid the possibility of murder? I dispute the claim that murder is always and everywhere a bad thing. Sometimes unlawfully (or in this case lawfully) killing an innocent human is a very desirable thing - desirable in terms of that person’s own wishes or interests.
Do you think that all biological human life has meaning? Why? What makes life meaningful that makes taking life, in most cases, wrong? Surely you must have reasons for thinking human life has value. What are those reasons? Let’s here them, and not empty rhetoric.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 2:08 pm
So it sounds like PVS is akin to brain death, but perhaps not exactly?
Right. Most of these legal controversies arise because the legal definition of brain death, and the way society treats these different cases, constantly changes. It used to be that even killing (or letting die) brain dead people was considered wrong. Now we accept that, but some medical conditions which share all of the important ethical characteristics with brain death but not all of the same medical or legal characteristics are still considered wrong. PVS is in that legal gray area, thus the controversy. Same thing with cases like Baby Theresa (which might get some of the people here rethinking about the wrongness of killing innocent people instead of just reflexively responding with rhetoric).
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 3:00 pm
but some medical conditions which share all of the important ethical characteristics with brain death but not all of the same medical or legal characteristics are still considered wrong.
That’s the question I was asking, namely is PVS the same as a “broken brain” and why, since the wikipedia article says people disagree about it and as I understand it “brain death” means something like ALL electrical activity has stopped and the damage is irreversible. The case of Baby Teresa illustrates your point, but isn’t directly relevant since of course she *had* no brain.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 5:07 pm
[I]t seems unclear to me that, given the fact that the legislature makes the law, they are indeed “violating” it with their dictates.
The legislature is constrained by higher law, that is, the Constitution of Florida. Like most American constitutions, Florida gives the legislature legislative power and the judiciary judicial power. If the terms “legislative” and “judicial” have any meaning, legislative power applies generally and judicial power applies specifically. When the legislature starts passing laws that apply specifically, it’s acting beyond the bounds of its powers.
Why this matters is that our forefathers had to deal with a legislature with judicial powers - the Parliament of Great Britain. The union of those two powers produced numerous abuses. Our forefathers separated the judiciary and legislature to reduce those abuses. Even if you agree that Schiavo ought to be kept on feeding tubes*, when the legislature says so, it sets a precedent that erodes the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. The next specific law it passes might be a lot nastier.
* And, honestly, I have no idea what to think.
Law never made men a whit more just
True, but that’s not the point of law. Law isn’t there to make men just but to render justice. Laws against robbery may not prevent robbery, but it is still right to make it illegal and punish those who rob.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 6:02 pm
So, do those terms have any meaning, anymore, according to your definition? I’m unsure about Florida in particular, but doesn’t Congress pretty much do what the public lets them get away with? I think that upholding the seperation of powers in regards to the American experiment is locking the barn somewhat after the horses have been stolen.
I’d judge that most of the law of the United States is in place to render injustice.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 7:19 pm
So, do those terms have any meaning, anymore, according to your definition? I’m unsure about Florida in particular, but doesn’t Congress pretty much do what the public lets them get away with?
With all that Congress does, I think Congress exercises little judicial authority. If anything, the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and judges act as legislators. The recent SCOTUS ruling that executing minors is “cruel and unusual punishment” is a good example. Congress gets away with a lot of crap, but it’s still not doing anything like passing laws declaring guilt (a bill of attainer) or condemning a particular neighbourhood in order to build an interstate exit ramp. That kind of power is judicial, not legislative.
I’d judge that most of the law of the United States is in place to render injustice.
True, but Thoreau seemed to be talking about the purpose of law in general and not commenting on a piece of legislation here or there. The American legal system has serious flaws, but comparatively it is quite good. No system can be perfect.
I hope that market discipline would provide an additional check on legal authority in an anarchist order, which is a secondary reason I’m an anarchist. I’m still sceptical about its ability to deal with criminals, though, and that might be its inherent flaw.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 8:10 pm
Your general claim may be true, and the decision in this case may have been wrongly decided, but I don’t think this is a good example of judges acting like legislators. The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, and if you accept Marbury, it seems to me that how we define cruel and unusual should be left up to the courts to decide, and not the legislature. Perhaps they decided wrong, but that is a different argument.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 8:13 pm
namely is PVS the same as a “broken brain” and why,
I don’t know enough to answer the medical question. But in terms of ethics, it seems to me that PVS (assuming it is irreversable, and the sources I’ve seen indicate it is) shares all of the essential ethical characteristics as brain death.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 9:23 pm
Government law in theory may be put in place to render justice but in practice it tends to render something else. Specifically, it tends to render people in the same sense that hogs are rendered.
I agree, but that’s scant praise.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 9:55 pm
The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, and if you accept Marbury, it seems to me that how we define cruel and unusual should be left up to the courts to decide, and not the legislature.
Five justices struck down the laws of more than a dozen states by reading their personal opinions into the Constitution. That’s legislation.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 11:11 pm
Specifically, it tends to render people in the same sense that hogs are rendered.
Lopez can be pretty funny when he tries.
March 20th, 2005 at Mar 20, 05 | 11:45 pm
Although in keeping with his style it’s usually dark humor (cf. the Twilight Episode “To Serve Man”).
March 21st, 2005 at Mar 21, 05 | 12:45 pm
What exactly is in dispute here?
I assume that everyone here thinks that people have self-ownership, and thus have the right to determine what should happen with their bodies, and other property, after they die or enter some state such as this one.
So, is this a factual dispute about whether she actually indicated that she didn’t want her life prolonged under these circumstances?
Do some here think that the legislature, rather than courts, should be the finders of fact in cases of disputes on this sort of point?
Or do they think that non-guardians should be able to keep bodies alive overriding the expressed wishes of the patient?
Or…what?
March 21st, 2005 at Mar 21, 05 | 2:59 pm
The Bible trumps legal guardian, medical experts and court findings every time. It’s not what “we” want. It’s what God wants!
March 21st, 2005 at Mar 21, 05 | 3:16 pm
Gil’s comment is helpful. Terri made the mistake of not clearly explaining (with evidence and multiple witnesses) what she wanted done in the event of her incapacitation. The question then becomes, to whom does her right of self-ownership default? Her Parents? Spouse? Siblings? Children? Friend of twenty years? I have no answer for that and it feels very arbitary for people to assert one over the other…even when considering kin.
March 22nd, 2005 at Mar 22, 05 | 12:32 am
I like nice jokes, too:
Q: “What has two legs and bleeds a lot?”
A: “Half of a Commie.”
Q: “What has two arms and is on fire?”
A: “The other half.”
March 22nd, 2005 at Mar 22, 05 | 8:43 pm
Last comment on this topic. Ever. I swear.
The only thing that concerns me about this case is that I’m not convinced she’s truly in a PVS. If she is, then she is already gone. If not, she is being murdered in a gruesome way.
March 22nd, 2005 at Mar 22, 05 | 10:49 pm
Well, all the courts have sided with the doctors who say it’s PVS so far.
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 5:09 am
all the courts have sided with the doctors
Doesn’t mean a whole lot to the facts of the matter when a court decides anything. I see plenty of injustice and ineptitude coming out of the mouths of judges.
In most cases the worst that will happen when you hitch your legal horse to the wrong wagon is that you get cleaned out financially, with the active help of the courts, when you divorce Mr or Ms Wrong, but in some cases it’ll get you a state sanctioned death sentence.
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 7:04 am
Kip Esquire
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 10:19 am
Micha wrote:
it seems to me that how we define cruel and unusual should be left up to the courts to decide
Who’s “we,” Micha?
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 10:29 am
“When I grew in the Wood
I was water’d wth Blood
Now in the Church I stand
Who that touches me with his Hand
If a Bloody hand he bear
I councell him to be ware
Lest he be fetcht away
Whether by night or day,
But chiefly when the wind blows high
In a night of February.
This I drempt, 26 Febr. AD 1699. John Austin.”
http://www.litgothic.com/Texts/barchester.html
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 11:50 am
So are you saying the the 8th Amendment, as it was originally intended, only applies to the Federal government and not the state governments? But was there even a federal court system that tried federal cases at the time of the writing?
If so, are you also claiming that the 14th Amendment does not apply here? Does not cruel and unusual punishment violate the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 11:55 am
Yet there is evidence and multiple witnesses of her wishes. Certainly, she could have been more clear and explicit, perhaps by leaving a written will. But even those have been ignored or overruled in the past, when families claim that the person may have changed their mind since writing their will. And Terri was fairly young, and her current medical condition sufficiently rare, that it is no surprise she didn’t have a living will.
I don’t see what’s wrong with leaving these sorts of decisions to spouses or the next of kin for unmarried people, barring exceptional circumstances (which, despite the claims of the parents, I don’t see much evidence of in this case).
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 12:01 pm
So do I, but these mistakes usually turn on questions of law, not questions of fact. Courts are pretty good at answering questions of fact, especially when expert witnesses are involved, and when multiple courts and all of the experts who were not hired by the parents (i.e. the doctors hired by the husband and the independant doctors hired by the courts themselves) all concluded the same thing. Concluding that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state from the fact that government courts are systematically flawed doesn’t follow. Courts are indeed systematically flawed, but that doesn’t mean that they get everything wrong, cannot be relied upon for factual information, and that these flaws are reflected in every aspect of their decision making.
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 12:18 pm
Kip Esquire’s analysis is just plain wrong. First of all, whatever the distinction he is trying to make between providing food and water and providing medical care, this distinction is not a moral one. Withholding either of them can have exactly the same effect. The claim that starvation and dehydration would be painful to a person in PVS has been disputed by medical doctors, and is a question for experts in that area to determine - not a question that us laymen can guess or derive by intuition or common sense.
Second, and more importantly for the portion you excerpted above, Kip is right that “appeals courts generally don’t review findings of fact, only findings of law.” But in this particular case he is wrong. The appeals courts did review the factual claims and said that they would have ruled the same way as the lower-court judge had they been in his position. Maybe he is not familiar with this particular case, but he is wrong nonetheless.
And he is right that “There are also differing medical opinions as to the potential for any improvement in her condition.” But this is true in all cases involving expert opinions. Both sides to a legal conflict can and do find experts who claim opposite things, and that is no different here. The role of the judge and/or jury is to decide which side makes the more convincing case, based on things like the credentials of the experts, whether or not there is a consensus in the relevant field, and if there is a consensus or at least a majority or plurality, which direction that plurality leans. In this case, the courts decided that the doctors who claimed that Terri’s condition is non-reversable made the more convincing case.
Kip is wrong that “All we have is Michael Schiavo’s hearsay statements .” We have other witnesses who testify to the same thing.
Moreover, Kip complains that “Indeed, given that Mr. Schiavo appears to have conflicts of interest, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, does that not suggest that he should be disqualified as legal guardian? Whatever happened to the notion of a guardian ad litem?” Yet the corts rejected the parents claims that the husband has a disqualifiable conflict of interest. And Kip is yet again misinformed about the particular facts of this case - the judge appointed himself the guardian ad litem.
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 12:23 pm
Lynette,
Don’t be annoying, Lynette. It is clear from my post above that I am not making a general moral claim as a libertarian, but a legal claim based on how the Constitution should be properly interpreted. Do you undertand this distinction? One need not accept the legitimacy of the Constitution in order to interpret it correctly. Indeed, Spooner himself makes the same claim:
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 9:22 pm
I, for one, don’t share the “general assumption” of what the Constitution “purports” to authorize. Matter of fact I find arguments on the subject to be less than worthless.
Yes, you can in fact chase your tail around all day trying to nail down to five decimal places what the definition of “is” is and similar little “logic” puzzles, but that doesn’t appeal to me:
Can you see what Spooner was getting at, there?
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 9:36 pm
Micha, I am in no way convinced that the courts have ruled correctly. These are the same courts that sentence doctors to lengthy prison sentences for prescribing painkillers. Injustice occurs there all the time. For your own part, you have casually dismissed every witness or piece of evidence that she isn’t in a PVS as being tainted by Christians or something. You have also complained about someone comparing Michael Schiavo and his team to nazis but have compared Terri to a piece of broccoli. You have pretty much convinced me that you are incapable of rationally thinking about this situation.
For the record, if Terri is in a PVS, I’d put a bullet in her heart.
March 23rd, 2005 at Mar 23, 05 | 10:16 pm
Clarification of my last comment: if Terri were my daughter (or wife) and she was in a PVS, I’d put a bullet in her heart.
March 24th, 2005 at Mar 24, 05 | 10:57 am
Of course, Lopez, and I don’t know what gave you the idea I didn’t see it and agree with it. But that has nothing to do with the question of how the Constitution should be interpreted, had we reason to do so.
March 24th, 2005 at Mar 24, 05 | 10:59 am
you have casually dismissed every witness or piece of evidence that she isn’t in a PVS as being tainted by Christians or something.
Well the court-appointed doctor did agree that she was in a PVS. From the (updated) wikipedia article:
“Since 1991, the Schiavos’ personal physicians, and six different court-appointed physicians, have concluded that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS).”
March 24th, 2005 at Mar 24, 05 | 11:04 am
Also from the wikipedia article:
“Michael Schiavo’s position: Dr. Ron Cranford, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota, examined Terri Schiavo and assessed her brain function in 2001, as part of a court-ordered assessment. Dr. Cranford concluded that most of Schiavo’s cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed, replaced by cerebrospinal fluid. He was quoted in Florida Today as saying “[Schiavo] has no electrical activity in her cerebral cortex on an EEG (electroencephalogram), and a CT (computerized tomography) scan showed massive atrophy in that region.”
Michael contends that about 70 to 90 percent of Terri’s upper brain has been destroyed, and in addition there is damage to the lower brain, which controls functions such as breathing and swallowing.”
March 24th, 2005 at Mar 24, 05 | 11:24 am
See my response to Lynette earlier in this thread in which I agreed with Lynette that we both “see plenty of injustice and ineptitude coming out of the mouths of judges,”
The example you give shows why this distinction is important. The only way the courts could have erred here is if they found some doctors guilty of illegally prescribing painkillers, while the truth of the matter is that none of those so convincted did infact illegally prescribe painkillers. This much doesn’t seem to be in dispute by either you or me. What we do dispute is whether these acts should be illegal in the first place. And that is the fault of the legislature (and executive organizations like the DEA) for creating these laws, not the judicial system for enforcing them.
(One could make the argument here that the distinction between legal and illegal prescription of pain medication is very vague, and this vague definition would affect the court’s decision when applying law to the facts, but again, this is the fault of the legislature for creating vague (and unjust) laws.)
Perhaps because every piece of “evidence” you have given has been from blatantly religious sources, or worse, from blatantly anti-Semitic conspiracy theory websites. If you want to present evidence for your claims, try to use mainstream sources that don’t carry the obvious taint of bias.
Not at all. As I thought I explained quite clearly in the Catallarchy thread, there is a reason why we call her condition a persistent vegetative state. Calling her a vegetable isn’t an insult to her body or to vegetables in general; that is simply what she is. Her body still retains the capacity to respond to physical stimuli like pain, just as plants have the capacity to respond to other physical stimuli, but neither organism has a consciousness or personhood.
Comparing the compassionate ending of this sort of “life”, given her wishes (corroborated by three other people) to the systematic mass murder of innocent healthy Jews and other political undesirables in Nazi Germany is indeed offensive. If you cannot see why that is so, and why the biological and ethical reality that what was once the human person Terri Shiavo no longer exists, then I doubt I’ll be able to say anything to convince you otherwise.
And as for my ability to rationally think about this situation, this is all standard first-week stuff in any introductory moral philosophy course taught to freshmen in university. Pick up a copy of any textbook used in such a course, and it will talk about famous causes of euthanasia and assisted suicide just like the Schiavo case (future editions will no doubt include reference to this one) and all of the arguments given from various perspectives. Not only is my argument found among those listed, but it is often the view taken by the author or editor himself, and is considered the mainstream or conventional view among philosophers, if not among the general population. There is nothing irrational about this view.
But I thought you bought into those claims that people come out of PVS all the time…
March 24th, 2005 at Mar 24, 05 | 7:42 pm
Thanks, Stefan.
March 24th, 2005 at Mar 24, 05 | 9:27 pm
“But that has nothing to do with the question of the proper pattern in which to blink our house lights so as to attract anarcho-capitalist space aliens to rescue us, had we reason to do so”.
March 24th, 2005 at Mar 24, 05 | 11:22 pm
We must also ask seriously, would space aliens necessarily be anarco-capitalist?
March 25th, 2005 at Mar 25, 05 | 1:10 am
All the cool ones are.
March 25th, 2005 at Mar 25, 05 | 3:24 am
Micha, you’ve unconvinced me (that you are incapable of rationally thinking about this situation). A couple of clarifications: 1) I never thought that people came out of PVS’s, only that they were misdiagnosed. That may still be the case with Terri Schiavo, but appears not to be. 2) If in fact, Terri Schiavo is not in a vegetative state, then (whoever)’s Dachau comparison does hold some water. Your broccoli comparison does not, in that a piece of broccoli is incapable of suffering at all.
At any rate, if I have said anything nasty about you personaly, then I apologize and retract it.
That’s all.
March 25th, 2005 at Mar 25, 05 | 3:45 pm
John, it seems as though that guys motives are not so much about money as they are about his longtime girlfriend he wants to marry. Duh.
March 26th, 2005 at Mar 26, 05 | 11:31 pm
Possibly the blameless Mr. Schiavo has many reasons why his ex-wife has become inconvenient, ranging from “hospital visits are depressing” to “hey, look at all that money!”
I suppose he might reason that simply divorcing Terri would be tacky and classless - much better, more respectable to arrange for her to starve to death. (And, in passing, perhaps settle a old secret grudge or two with her parents.)
Frankly, Mr. Schiavo’s thought processes, such as they are, make for depressing speculation indeed.
March 27th, 2005 at Mar 27, 05 | 3:44 pm
Possibly the blameless Mr. Schiavo has many reasons why his ex-wife has become inconvenient, ranging from “hospital visits are depressing” to “hey, look at all that money!”
Well he said he’d donate the remainder of the settlement to charity. Why would you think he’s lying? He’s had plenty of opportunities to profit before now.
March 28th, 2005 at Mar 28, 05 | 5:07 pm
Seriously, if there is any money left at all at the end of this thing, it is less than 50k. The time he has spent dealing with this issue could have been spent earning ten times that amount. If divorce for selfish reasons is tacky and classless, surely euthanasia for selfish reasons is worse, no? I see only two possibilities here: either he honestly has his wife’s best interests at heart and is willing to sacrifice time, money and reputation to satisfy them; or he is a vicious wife-beater, adulterer, liar, cheater, stealer who wasted 15 years of his life on a vendetta against his wife and her parents when he could have been doing something more productive and enjoyable with his time. Which is the more likely scenario, given that you are only “speculating” here? How depressing must ones thought processes be to reach the latter conclusion. Doing so says more about the speculator than the speculated.