[Peace-discuss] Schiavo, democrats and aristocrats

[C. G. Estabrook]

Ricky--

[1] I don't quite see your point about intervention.  Certainly an
intervention took place, in that a disabled woman who wasn't dying is now
dead.

[2] I believe you're the once "assuming what you hope to show," that this
woman was brain dead. I don't know, but there was certainly disagreement
on the issue. Her vital signs showed that she was alive; she died of
dehydration, some two weeks after her feeding tube was removed.

[3] Her wishes, too, were ambiguous. Only those who think she should have
been made dead have to insist that they were clear.  (And in this regard,
I like your comment, "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!'")

[4] The only "treatment" that I think she certainly should have had was
food and water. There were people who were willing to try to feed and
hydrate her even after the feeding tube was removed, but the court used
police to prevent that.

[5] I'm not in favor of assisted suicide, or judicial murder. (Come to
think of it, if this case could have been properly described as "assisted
suicide," it probably would have been illegal under Florida law.)

[6] On the polls, you're certainly right to say that they have to be
interpreted on "what the respondents understood..."  Democratic pollster
Pat Caddell has said, "...when you start your survey interviewing people,
and describe a situation which is not the actual condition of Terri
Schiavo, you have a problem ... [that] this [CBS] poll is so basically
designed to produce certain results, and then is being reported as such,
makes me very concerned."  I'll post separately a comment on a more recent
Zogby poll.  --CGE


On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

> 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
> >