[Peace-discuss] Schiavo, democrats and aristocrats

[Ricky Baldwin]

But Carl-

I’m afraid it seems we are interpreting “intervention”
rather conveniently.  Why is it “intervention” when
the court agrees with Terri Schiavo’s partner that his
take on her wishes should be followed, and not when
her parents -- who testified in court that they would
probably not consider her wish to die even if she had
told them -- seek to exert their personal beliefs
through the courts?

Anything that occurred would have been “intervention”.
 Someone, a person who could communicate, had to make
a decision one way or the other, as your lawyer notes,
and no amount of sophistry on either side would change
that -- and no convenient use of the passive voice (as
in “be authorized”) can change it either.

The same goes for the term “disabled”.  I believe you
are assuming what you hope to show, that this poor
woman was not “brain dead.”  We don’t really know, of
course.  But there is considerable evidence that she
was.  You may not find it persuasive, but it’s not a
point that can be taken for granted.  It also doesn‘t
really answer the question about what should happen to
her, ethically, because the issue is whether she would
want to live in the state she was in, whatever state
that was.  I wouldn’t.  Most people apparently
wouldn’t.  You apparently would.  I hope we can take
from this the importance of clearly expressing these
views and doing whatever else is necessary to protect
our loved ones from these nightmares.  “Living wills”
are the most common way to do this, but I’m told that
power of attorney is the only thing that really
settles the matter.

Likewise “assisted suicide,” which you claim isn’t
involved.  But I think that’s in large part what this
whole argument is about.  Are you claiming that you,
better than her partner or parents, know her wishes? 
Or that her wishes shouldn’t matter?

Or perhaps are you claiming that her partner should
have allowed this -- really very questionable --
treatment that her desperate parents dredged up with
the help of Randall Terry et al?  Surely you know that
one or two crackpot “experts” can be found to testify
to almost anything: there is no global warming,
smoking doesn’t cause cancer, species don’t evolve,
poor people and/or people of color are genetically
inferior, etc.  I think it is another general point
that we should all take away from this mess.  It’s
easy to present the *appearance* of controversy or
uncertainty where none really exists; we have to weigh
the evidence, not just tally the experts.

Or are you claiming that “assisted suicide” is
inappropriate because you prefer “judicial murder” --
again assuming what you hope to show?  It’s a label
you can apply to express your opinion, of course, and
not at all obvious that it’s the customary use of the
words.  I think the (I think too narrow) definition of
murder you quoted earlier shows this.  What is comes
down to is whether it’s legal or not  -- or, I would
argue, ethical -- which again is precisely what we are
arguing about.  I believe you are going in circles.

In any event, when interpreting the polls, it doesn't
matter what we think these terms ought to mean, but
what the respondents understood by them.  I think you
are interpreting the poll data too narrowly.  These
are the terms that most people would apply in this
case, and therefore that is what the poll is about. 
People do not normally find actions “inappropriate”
when they agree with the result.

And of course most people sympathize with both “sides”
of the family.  It’s a difficult, painful thing to
watch a loved one die under any circumstances.  Fights
are often involved, and we can say among ourselves
that people should be reasonable, but we understand
that at times like this, when emotions are high,
reason breaks down.  We’ve probably all seen it.

Of course, none of us has that excuse.

But I think we can agree on your general point, that
the government should provide health care, but
disagree on what that means.  I think the government
should provide free abortions on demand, for example. 
I also think that keeping a body - or a person - 
alive regardless of its state is not always health
care; sometimes it’s the opposite.  I suppose we
disagree on whether this is one of those times. 

We certainly have a legal limbo that needs resolving
in this country.  Most people do not have a clear
expression on record anywhere of their wishes in these
situations, and even when folks have “living wills” we
can‘t anticipate every possibility or easily cover it
in broad language.  Loopholes are not unknown to our
society, to say the least, and when emotions are high,
people will look for them.  Anyway, most of us do not
have strong enough, that is simple enough, wishes that
we can express them that clearly.  I wish I had a
nickel for every time I worked with a bunch of union
members until we agreed on contract language, only to
have them tell me later, “That’s not what we meant!”

And there can be no real, ethical default position
that we could make into a workable rule for all cases.
 I think that inevitably leaves us with a “next of
kin” situation in some cases.  It’s terrible burden to
lay on a loved one, but that’s one more reason all of
us should make our wishes very clear to all of ours,
preferably including written evidence.  They may not
like it, of course.  My grandmother and my mother
don’t like the fact that I’m an organ donor.  I’ve
made sure it will never be their decision.

Ricky

--- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
wrote:

> What these polls seem to show, Ricky, is public
> distaste for involvement
> by the president and Congress in what should be a
> family matter (note the
> sympathy for family members on both sides),
> especially because that
> involvement was seen as cynical and done for
> factional advantage.
> 
> Of course by the time the Congress intervened, it
> was no longer a family
> matter, in that it was a court that ordered that a
> disabled woman who was
> not dying be made dead. That's why poll questions
> about terminal illness,
> right to die, and assisted suicide are misleading in
> the Schiavo case:
> none of these was involved.
> 
> As disability-rights lawyer Harriet McBryde Johnson
> wrote before the
> court's order was carried out, "This is not a case
> about a patient's right
> to refuse treatment. I don't see eating and drinking
> as 'treatment,' but
> even if they are, everyone agrees that Ms. Schiavo
> is presently incapable
> of articulating a decision to refuse treatment. The
> question is who should
> make the decision for her, and whether that
> substitute decision-maker
> should be authorized to kill her by starvation and
> dehydration."
> 
> At the same time, of course, other polls show
> Americans overwhelmingly in
> favor of government involvement in health care: in
> fact they think that
> the government should provide it (another case where
> both political
> parties are substantially to right of the
> population). I think that that
> should include supporting disabled people, not
> bringing their lives to an
> end. --CGE
> 
> 
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> 
> > Since the question of polls came up recently on
> this list ('if there
> > were a poll'), with regard to the "right to die" 
> -- and which side of
> > the issue thinks more highly of the average Joe
> and/or Jo's ability to
> > make rational choices in the matter -- etc., here
> are just a couple of
> > excerpts from recent news stories on such polls.
> > 
> > I'm not arguing that we must agree with majority
> opinion, of course,
> > although in this case it seems I do.
> > 
> > Ricky
> > 
> > (1 of 3)
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > According to an ABC News poll, 70 percent of those
> who responded
> > deemed the congressional action inappropriate,
> while 67 percent said
> > they believed lawmakers became involved in the
> Schiavo case for
> > political advantage rather than the principles
> involved. The telephone
> > poll of 501 adults was taken Sunday and has a 4.5
> percentage point
> > margin of error.
> > 
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > (2 of 3)
> > 
> > AP, March 24
> > 
> > More than two-thirds of people who describe
> themselves as evangelicals
> > and conservatives disapprove of the intervention
> by Congress and
> > President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo,
> the brain-damaged
> > woman at the center of a national debate.
> > 
> > A CBS News poll found that four of five people
> polled opposed federal
> > intervention, with levels of disapproval among key
> groups supporting
> > the GOP almost that high.
> > 
> > Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down
> from 49 percent last
> > month.
> > 
> > Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed
> through emergency
> > legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by
> allowing the case to
> > be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was
> signed by the president
> > early Monday.
> > 
> > Most Americans say they feel sympathy for family
> members on both sides
> > of the dispute over the 41-year-old Schiavo,
> according to a CNN-USA
> > Today-Gallup poll.
> > 
> > More than eight in 10 in that poll said they feel
> sympathy for Bob and
> > Mary Schindler, parents of Schiavo, who want to
> keep her alive. And
> > seven in 10 said they're sympathetic for Michael
> Schiavo, the husband
> > of Schiavo who says she should be allowed to die.
> > 
> > The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday
> and Tuesday and the
> > CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 620 adults was taken
> Tuesday. Both have
> > margins of sampling error of plus or minus 4
> percentage points.
> > 
> > (3 of 3)
> > 
> > The San Francisco Chronicle, MARCH 2, 2005
> > 
> > Giving terminally ill the option of assisted
> suicide backed in poll by
> > John M. Hubbell
> > 
> > Seven in 10 Californians support providing the
> state's terminally ill
> > with a legal path to end their lives
> pre-emptively, with almost as
> > many saying they would opt to do so themselves
> should they ever face
> > the situation, according to a poll released today.
> > 
> > The overwhelming support for state-sanctioned
> assisted suicide gauged
> > by a Field Poll of 503 state residents continues
> long-standing
> > popularity for the practice in California. In all
> seven polls Field
> > has taken on the issue since 1979, at least 64
> percent of those asked
> > have supported it, with the highest number -- 75
> percent --
> > registering in 1999.
> > 
> > Today's poll finds 70 percent in favor, with 22
> percent against and 8
> > percent undecided. When asked whether they would
> want their doctor to
> > assist them in dying if they were expected to die
> within six months,
> > 68 percent said yes, 28 percent said no, and 4
> percent were undecided.
> > 
> > High acceptance of the practice, however, has
> never translated into
> > political success in California. After the issue
> polled well
> > initially, voters turned away an assisted-suicide
> ballot initiative in
> > 1992. A bill seeking to legalize the practice
> stalled in the
> > Legislature in 1999 even amid the favorable public
> polling.
> > 
> > Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said that,
> while the issue
> > historically enjoys "instinctive support,"
> opponents -- who often
> > include key physician groups and disabled
> advocates -- can effectively
> > "start to raise doubts in their own communities,
> and at the church
> > level," when a particular measure threatens to
> become law.
> > 
> > "That's what affected voters in 1992," he said.
> > 
> > The poll comes as a new push to legalize the
> practice is unfolding in
> > the Legislature. A bill by Democratic Assembly
> members Patty Berg of
> > Eureka and Lloyd Levine of Van Nuys would allow
> some terminally ill
> > patients to obtain a lethal prescription after a
> patient-doctor
> > consultative process that typically takes a
> minimum of two weeks.
> > 
> > Meanwhile, U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed last
> month to take up a
> > challenge to Oregon's physician-assisted suicide
> law by former
> > Attorney General John Ashcroft, which the Ninth
> Circuit Court of
> > Appeals had turned away last spring. His suit
> views physician-assisted
> > suicide as a form of drug abuse and argues doctors
> may not legally use
> > medicines to hasten death, a mechanism at the
> heart of Oregon's
> > statute.
> > 
> > Berg and Levine have modeled their legislation on
> the Oregon law. Like
> > other California politicians who have previously
> backed similar
> > measures, both have said the fate of their bill is
> likely to be
> > determined by individual lawmakers' personal
> conscience on the issue.
> > 
> > Will Shuck, a spokesman for Berg, said she and
> Levine were meeting
> > individually with colleagues to hear their
> concerns but could not yet
> > determine how their bill would fare in its first
> hearing before the
> > Assembly Judiciary Committee in early April. Gov.
> Arnold
> > Schwarzenegger has also given no indication of his
> position.
> > 
> > Shuck said "seven years of proof" that Oregon's
> law had worked
> > favorably might aid Berg and Levine, referring to
> a recent study by
> > the state.
> > 
> > Tim Rosales, a spokesman for Californians Against
> Assisted Suicide, an
> > opponent coalition, said his group would continue
> to argue that "this
> > is not the time to be dealing with this type of
> legislation,
> > especially when you have a number of things on the
> table in California
> > at a crisis level in our health care system and in
> our state budget."
> > 
> > The poll was taken between Feb. 8 and 17 and has
> an error margin of
> > plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.
> > 
> 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs