[Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo

[C. G. Estabrook]

I'm not sure I'd want people to conclude that my life should be ended on
the basis of what purports to be a scan of my brain on the web,
interpreted by someone who says, "I am not a medical doctor, and I do not
evaluate human brain images as part of my daily work..."  --CGE


On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dan Schreiber wrote:

> 
> Having seen this page on her brain scan, which seems credible to me,
> 
> http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-t
> erri-schiavos-brain/
> 
> it seems to me that Terry Schaivo no longer exists in this world, has no
> chance of coming back, and yet her body remains.  What does it mean to have
> a body but no awareness, memory, cognitive, or any other trait that makes
> one alive save biological functioning, and even that requires intervention
> via a feeding tube to sustain?  For us, it is a philosophical question.  For
> her husband and parents, it is about a person they loved, who have different
> ideas about what life and dignity mean, and whose animosity towards each
> other has dragged the whole country into the argument.
> 
> The issue of "being starved to death" may seem cruel, but we wouldn't be
> arguing about it if Terri had a living will saying she did not want to be
> kept alive by artificial means - it would have happened a long time ago
> without any moral grandstanding.  If you believe she really wouldn't want to
> be kept alive (as an overwhelming number of people say that is what they
> would want if they were in her situation), then how can one argue against
> it?  If she believes in an afterlife, there's no hope of recovering herself,
> and doesn't want to be burden to her loved ones, it would make sense.   We
> don't know of course, but the person closest to her says she would not want
> to stay biologically alive in this circumstance.  People are throwing mud at
> him of course, but they have about the same credibility as the swift boat
> hucksters.
> 
> The bottom line though is that there are a lot of reasons other than not
> liking Tom Delay to support the courts on this, many of which are not
> immoral.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> > [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net]On Behalf Of C. G.
> > Estabrook
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:36 PM
> > To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo
> >
> >
> > [Why are some soi-disant liberals so eager to have Terri Schiavo "made
> > dead," as Ralph Nader puts it?  Because they don't like the people (like
> > Tom Delay) who are saying publicly that she shouldn't be starved to death?
> > The view that my enemy finds inimical is my friend? That's a pretty weak
> > argument.
> > 	Democracy Now ran a shameful segment today in which they pointed
> > out that Tom Delay and Schiavo's father both took dying parents off
> > life-support systems (a respirator in one case, dialysis in the other, I
> > think) -- without once pointing out the difference: Terri Schiavo wasn't
> > dying.
> > 	I'm glad to see that Ralph, Jesse Jackson, Nat Hentoff and others
> > are willing to speak out against this judicial murder.  As Ralph said, "If
> > this were a death penalty case, this evidence would demand
> > reconsideration"; or Hentoff: "In this country, even condemned serial
> > killers are not executed in this way."
> > 	Here's a brilliant piece by Harriet McBryde Johnson, a
> > disability-rights lawyer in Charleston, S.C., who is herself disabled. Her
> > memoir, Too Late to Die Young, is in the bookshops.  --CGE]
> >
> > 	Not Dead at All
> > 	Why Congress was right to stick up for Terri Schiavo.
> > 	By Harriet McBryde Johnson
> >
> > The Terri Schiavo case is hard to write about, hard to think about. Those
> > films are hard to look at. I see that face, maybe smiling, maybe not, and
> > I am reminded of a young woman I knew as a child, lying on a couch,
> > brain-damaged, apparently unresponsive, and deeply belovedfreakishly
> > perhaps but genuinely soliving proof of one family's no-matter-what
> > commitment. I watch nourishment flowing into a slim tube that runs through
> > a neat, round, surgically created orifice in Ms. Schiavo's abdomen, and
> > I'm almost envious. What effortless intake! Due to a congenital
> > neuromuscular disease, I am having trouble swallowing, and it's a constant
> > struggle to get by mouth the calories my skinny body needs. For whatever
> > reason, I'm still trying, but I know a tube is in my future. So, possibly,
> > is speechlessness. That's a scary thought. If I couldn't speak for myself,
> > would I want to die? If I become uncommunicative, a passive object of
> > other people's care, should I hope my brain goes soft and leaves me in
> > peace?
> >
> > My emotional response is powerful, but at bottom it's not important. It's
> > no more important than anyone else's, not what matters. The things that
> > ought to matter have become obscured in our communal clash of gut
> > reactions. Here are 10 of them:
> >
> > 1. Ms. Schiavo is not terminally ill. She has lived in her current
> > condition for 15 years. This is not about end-of-life decision-making. The
> > question is whether she should be killed by starvation and dehydration.
> >
> > 2. Ms. Schiavo is not dependent on life support. Her lungs, kidneys,
> > heart, and digestive systems work fine. Just as she uses a wheelchair for
> > mobility, she uses a tube for eating and drinking. Feeding Ms. Schiavo is
> > not difficult, painful, or in any way heroic. Feeding tubes are a very
> > simple piece of adaptive equipment, and the fact that Ms. Schiavo eats
> > through a tube should have nothing to do with whether she should live or
> > die.
> >
> > 3. 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.
> >
> > 4. There is a genuine dispute as to Ms. Schiavo's awareness and
> > consciousness. But if we assume that those who would authorize her death
> > are correct, Ms. Schiavo is completely unaware of her situation and
> > therefore incapable of suffering physically or emotionally. Her death thus
> > can't be justified for relieving her suffering.
> >
> > 5. There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms. Schiavo believed and
> > expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became
> > incapacitated; certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance
> > directive like a living will. If we assume that Ms. Schiavo is aware and
> > conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe
> > disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived
> > fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to
> > be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very
> > different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can't
> > justify her death as her preference. She has no preference.
> >
> > 6. Ms. Schiavo, like all people, incapacitated or not, has a federal
> > constitutional right not to be deprived of her life without due process of
> > law.
> >
> > 7. In addition to the rights all people enjoy, Ms. Schiavo has a statutory
> > right under the Americans With Disabilities Act not to be treated
> > differently because of her disability. Obviously, Florida law would not
> > allow a husband to kill a nondisabled wife by starvation and dehydration;
> > killing is not ordinarily considered a private family concern or a matter
> > of choice. It is Ms. Schiavo's disability that makes her killing different
> > in the eyes of the Florida courts. Because the state is overtly drawing
> > lines based on disability, it has the burden under the ADA of justifying
> > those lines.
> >
> > 8. In other contexts, federal courts are available to make sure state
> > courts respect federally protected rights. This review is critical not
> > only to the parties directly involved, but to the integrity of our legal
> > system. Although review will very often be a futile last-ditch effortas
> > with most death-penalty habeas petitionsfederalism requires that the
> > federal government, not the states, have the last word. When the issue is
> > the scope of a guardian's authority, it is necessary to allow other
> > people, in this case other family members, standing to file a legal
> > challenge.
> >
> > 9. The whole society has a stake in making sure state courts are not
> > tainted by prejudices, myths, and unfounded fearslike the unthinking
> > horror in mainstream society that transforms feeding tubes into fetish
> > objects, emblematic of broader, deeper fears of disability that sometimes
> > slide from fear to disgust and from disgust to hatred. While we should not
> > assume that disability prejudice tainted the Florida courts, we cannot
> > reasonably assume that it did not.
> >
> > 10. Despite the unseemly Palm Sunday pontificating in Congress, the
> > legislation enabling Ms. Schiavo's parents to sue did not take sides in
> > the so-called culture wars. It did not dictate that Ms. Schiavo be fed. It
> > simply created a procedure whereby the federal courts could decide whether
> > Ms. Schiavo's federally protected rights have been violated.
> >
> > In the Senate, a key supporter of a federal remedy was Iowa Sen. Tom
> > Harkin, a progressive Democrat and longtime friend of labor and civil
> > rights, including disability rights. Harkin told reporters, "There are a
> > lot of people in the shadows, all over this country, who are incapacitated
> > because of a disability, and many times there is no one to speak for them,
> > and it is hard to determine what their wishes really are or were. So I
> > think there ought to be a broader type of a proceeding that would apply to
> > people in similar circumstances who are incapacitated."
> >
> > I hope against hope that I will never be one of those people in the
> > shadows, that I will always, one way or another, be able to make my wishes
> > known. I hope that I will not outlive my usefulness or my capacity (at
> > least occasionally) to amuse the people around me. But if it happens
> > otherwise, I hope whoever is appointed to speak for me will be subject to
> > legal constraints. Even if my guardian thinks I'd be better off deadeven
> > if I think so myselfI hope to live and die in a world that recognizes that
> > killing, even of people with the most severe disabilities, is a matter of
> > more than private concern.
> >
> > Clearly, Congress's Palm Sunday legislation was not the "broader type of
> > proceeding" Harkin and I want. It does not define when and how federal
> > court review will be available to all of those in the shadows, but rather
> > provides a procedure for one case only. To create a general system of
> > review, applicable whenever life-and-death decisions intersect with
> > disability rights, will require a reasoned, informed debate unlike what
> > we've had until now. It will take time. But in the Schiavo case, time is
> > running out.
> >
> > 	###
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
>