[Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo

[Morton K.Brussel]

Thanks, Dan. It is even more revealing to peruse the diverse commentary  
that accompanies your reference.
I'd recommend it to Carl.

--mkb


On Mar 30, 2005, at 10:35 PM, 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>