[Peace-discuss] reply to Carl on Schiavo
Tom Mackaman
tmackaman at yahoo.com
Thu Mar 31 11:34:14 CST 2005
The tragedy that befell Terri Schiavo occurred 15 years ago. Her husband is not her killer.
Carl, in your attempts to come up with a legal brief for your accusation of "murder"--which you apparently cling to-- you fail to address the essential point. In my first note, I wrote, "The courts in this case have based their decision on the aforementioned scientific analysis and the legal guardianship that her husband maintains as next-of-kin. This is as it should be."
By strange inversion, you and the extreme right argue that "the state" has "murdered" Schiavo. Yet quite the opposite has taken place. In fact, the legislative and executive wings of the state intervened repeatedly and decisivly to undo the legal guardianship of M. Schiavo in order to perpetuate Terri in PVC. The courts merely upheld, with no shortage of rancor, M. Schiavo's status as next-of-kin. It is as plain as day that your argument, Carl, amounts to a call FOR state intervention. You have argued the same in the past for abortion. It is you, not I, who call for "state's rights" "anathema to progressives for two centuries". That seems clear enough!
Let me turn briefly to some of your other arguments:
1. "You seem very sure of your medical diagnosis, Tom " You know the diagnosis is not mine. Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota Medical School who was called in by the Florida courts to examine Terri Schiavo, said: “You’ll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she’s not vegetative.” He told the New York Times, “Her CAT scan shows massive shrinkage of the brain. Her EEG is flat—flat. There’s no electrical activity coming from her brain.” Carl, you once again rely on the propaganda from the Johnson article that implies Terri was simply "disabled." Medical opinion is divided only to the extent that the Schindler family has been able to find a handful of fundamentalist doctors to argue against the very clear nature of her condition. Among them is the extreme-right Bill Frist, possibly our next president.
2. You instead apparently rely on "Nader and his medical colleague" [!] for your information. This is so ludicrous as to warrant no reply.
3. You write, "But you know that if her husband shot her, he would be prosecuted -- properly,
I'd say." What is the basis of this comparison?: The notion that Michael Schiavo is his wife's killer, propaganda now circulating among the fascistic right. The absurdity of the comparison again warrants no reply.
4. M. Schiavo in fact spent years attempting different forms of therapy, including taking Teri to California for experimental therapy. You must be careful in a case like this, Carl, because your temporary allies on the extreme right, as you know, are not beyond lying.
5. You misunderstand me when you write, "Your touching faith in the science and rationality to be found in the bourgeois state is again surprising." Rereading my posting, I think it very clearly points to the dangereous demise of rationality that animates the political decisions made in the citadels of state power. The point was that this case marks a radical departure in the "norms" of bourgeois governance, carried forward by the extreme right over the prostration of the Democratic Party. The case fits a pattern of right-wing provocation that includes the stolen 2000 election and the eight-year effort to remove Bill Clinton from office, culminating in the Lewinsky affiar. As history teaches us, periods of bourgeois decay are full of both revolutionary possibility and extreme reaction.
I make no brief for the policies of Clinton or the Democratic Party or our declining bourgeois state. They must be ruthlessly exposed as agents of capitalism and oppression During the Socialist Equality Party campaign last November, we warned working people of the deeply anti-democratic nature of the Republican Party, and the counterproductivity of appealing to the Democratic Party as a means to fight for democracy or for peace. The Schiavo case once again reveals this essential fact of political life.
As is the case with the war in Iraq, opinion polls show that the deeply democratic sentiments of the working masses--in this case, even among fundamentalists-- find no political expression in either the Democratic or Republican Party.
With sincerity,
Tom
peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:41:31 -0600
From: "C. G. Estabrook"
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Liberals and Schiavo
To: Tom Mackaman
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Ideas aren't responsible for the people who believe in them, Tom: you
can't determine that something is false simply because people whom you
disapprove of believe it's true. E.g., the "extreme right" are
Copernicans -- most of them, anyway -- and you wouldn't reject that view
just because they hold it.
So the question becomes, Is the state's procedure in this matter properly
termed "murder"? The OED defines it as "The deliberate and unlawful
killing of a human being, esp. in a premeditated manner." The state's
action is obviously deliberate and premeditated -- that's what the court
cases have been about -- and it is certainly killing, not "letting die."
As Harriet McBryde Johnson points out in the piece I posted earlier, "Ms.
Schiavo is not terminally ill ... The question is whether she should be
killed by starvation and dehydration."
The only question, then, is whether it's unlawful. So far, the courts
have held that it is not, but we all agree that courts can err. Johnson
again: "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 ... of justifying those lines." Many people
(I'm among them) think that her disability doesn't justify her killing. As
Nader suggests, if there were this many doubts about a death penalty case,
it wouldn't be hard to see the execution as "judicial murder."
And I'm sure you would agree, perhaps particularly in the midst of war but
also domestically, that there are many murders done by the state, and yet
we rarely think that it's right or prudent to "take up arms and kill" in
response. E.g., I wouldn't support attacking our Congressional
representative, although he undoubtedly has blood on his hands.
You seem very sure of your medical diagnosis, Tom -- much surer that the
courts whose pronouncements you support. As Nader and his medical
colleague say, "The medical and rehabilitation experts are split on
whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state or whether Terri can be
improved with therapy. There is only one way to know for sure -- permit
the therapy."
Since you've obviously noticed that "the courts are not merely permitting
medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead," you
have to contend that there's not really a human being there anymore. But
you know that if her husband shot her, he would be prosecuted -- properly,
I'd say. (Nader asks pointedly, "So why then does he not rise above the
acrimony and request from the court to give up his guardian status to
Terri's family? Why does Terri need to die? What interest, given the
family's desire to care for her, does the government have in ordering a
fatal procedure?")
Your legal argument seems to be a (surprising) assertion of state's
rights, anathema to progressives for two centuries. And you know of
course that Congress frequently passes private bills, and that the
"separation of powers" doesn't mean that there's no contact between the
branches. I in fact think it's quite dangerous to call upon independent
(i.e., undemocratic) courts to reform the social order -- a sort of legal
vanguardism.
Your touching faith in the science and rationality to be found in the
bourgeois state is again surprising. I would have expected us to agree
that the state should be severely limited in its power to kill people.
(I am also surprised to find you supporting Clinton. Not only was he
guilty as charged, his appropriate removal from office -- and the effects
of a Gore incumbency -- would have been the surest way to prevent a
Republican victory in 2000. Nader was right about that, too.)
Finally, to return my first point, it's surely a mistake to say, "Whatever
Delay is for, I'm against!" He might cross you up by coming out for
something you'd favor -- like Nixon's guaranteed annual income. I'm
convinced of the empirical truth of what we've called the Incompleteness
Principle on News from Neptune: "No one can be wrong all the time."
Regards, Carl
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Tom Mackaman wrote:
> I'm sad to see you lining up with the extreme right in your coments
> below on the Schiavo case, Carl. Using rhetoric such as "judicial
> murder", as you do, would be merely juvenile if it weren't so
> significant. But such blood-curdling rhetoric has consequences. If
> you really think, joining Delay and the quasi-fascist right, that this
> is "murder," then those who would take up arms and kill in order to
> "liberate" Schiavo would be within their right, as would those who
> might seek revenge on her "killers". The very same language you use,
> Carl, has incited deranged anti-abortion zealots to kill doctors in
> the past. As it stands, Michael Schiavo has already been the target
> of planned assasinations, and one religious fanatic (from Illinois!)
> attempted to seize guns in order to attack the hospice. M. Schiavo
> and the judges involved have to be under 24 hour police surveillance.
> So much for the "culture of life".
>
> Like all the articles that view the situation as one of murder, that
> which Carl posted rests on misinformation. T. Schiavo is not
> "disabled"(!), nor is she merely "brain damaged." All the credible
> neurologists who have analyzed her have concluded that there is zero
> brain activity and zero chance for recovery. Her brain is liquified;
> all that remains is a brain stem (the end of the spinal column) which
> controls the series of nervous reactions her parents tragically
> mistake for communication. The only basis to argue that she thinks,
> "wants to live," or to believe that she has the chance to recover, is
> religion. Of course, that is the principle that her parents and the
> extreme right operate from. Yes; Schiavo cannot now say what she
> wants-- nor will she ever be able to do so. The courts in this case
> have based their decision on the aforementioned scientific analysis
> and the legal guardianship that her husband maintains as next-of-kin.
> This is as it should be.
> This case is signficant for a number of reasons. Most prominent
> among them has been the attempt to pass a number of special laws
> designed for one person. That is a striking departure from
> long-standing Anglo-Saxon legal tradition and presages further erosion
> in basic civil rights. It is an attack on both the separation of
> powers (the executive and the legislative attacking the judicial) and
> the theory that governance be constructed as rule of law over rule of
> men. Second, it shows the degree to which out-and-out relgious
> irrationality has been embraced as public policy by most of the ruling
> elite and the media. Science and rationality prevailed in the court
> decision, but they have taken a beating at the hands of the press and
> the political class. Third, and contrary to what Carl argues, it
> shows once again the spinelessness of the liberal Democrats in
> Congress, who either lined up with the religious fanatics or simply
> vanished, in spite of polls which show that the vast
> majority of Americans--including a majority of born-agains--think the
> press, the zealots, and the media should butt out! Fourth, it is
> reaffirming to see how rationally the public has digested this case,
> in spite of the media storm and the hysterical calls of "murder", such
> as Carl deploys here.
> As for Nader, this is not the first time he has lined up with the
> "moralists" of the extreme right. Nader also openly championed the
> impeachment of Clinton over the Lewinsky affair.
> On a lighter note, Carl closes by writing, in regard to Delay, "my
> enemy finds inimical is my friend? [sic?] That's a pretty weak
> argument." No! It's more than a strong argument; it should be
> adopted as a Universal Law. If anyone ever has any doubts on an issue
> or no time to think, they will never go wrong by taking the line
> opposite Delay!
>
> The wsws.org, by the way, has done excellent analysis of the Schiavo
> case. Pasted below is a link to an exchange on the matter:
> Best regards, Tom
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/schi-m28.shtml
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:01:40 +0000
From: "Robert Dunn"
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo
To: galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20050331/a435b528/attachment.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:09:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Linda Evans
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo
To: "C. G. Estabrook" , "Morton
K.Brussel"
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Message-ID: <20050331150945.98724.qmail at web60710.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Just like most issues in the media, we don't have all
the facts. I don't know the Schiavos, but I do know
my husband. He would not want to be fed via feeding
tube. He has made his wishes know many times to me.
We talk about death and what to do in various
situations. I doubt that Rob's father would know his
wishes or even be respectful of them because his
father is completely disrespectful of his wishes when
life/death issues are not involved. I would not hand
over custody under any circumstances (that I can dream
up right now) to my father-in-law.
However, I have friends who want to stay "alive" no
matter what. They want the feeding tubes, etc. I
don't think blanket statements can be used in these
situations and none of us are qualified to make a
judgment since none of us knew her or have seen all
the details.
What saddens me is the country seems obsessed with one
(white) woman's life or death when scores of people
are dying daily. None of us have clean hands. All of
us contribute to the life and death of others. I will
drive my car today putting toxins into the air for all
of us to breath. Someone will die from these toxins.
I consume more calories than I need while others in my
own town and around the world die from starvation. I
gave birth to two humans who will eventually die, yet
I knowingly gave birth knowing that death will be the
only certainty in their lives. In a way, by giving
life, I also take it.
Linda
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. ~Albert Einstein
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:27:18 -0600
From: "C. G. Estabrook"
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo
To: Robert Dunn
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
The widely-reported remark was as I recall attributed to an editor at Time
or Newsweek, Robert. And I don't think we should get too upset about
those who attempt to "silence those who dissent within the so-called
left." Since the US has in general the freest press and public debate in
the world, the methods of silencing of and by what we (perhaps laughingly)
call the left are simply propagandistic -- you and I will probably not end
up in jail for what we say.
Within these limits, it's unfortunately true that "even self-proclaimed
anarchists and civil libertarians are following the Thought Police
mentality." As Chomsky puts it,
The main form of "persecution" against relatively privileged people
is not from the government, but from privileged educated sectors:
job loss and harassment, a deluge of hysterical slanders and lies
that are often unanswerable because of the highly disciplined character
of defenders of doctrinal orthodoxy and their journals, etc.
That can be difficult, particularly for young people, and for people
who are sensitive about vicious diatribes, lies, and slanders.
But compared to what our counterparts face in much of the world,
notably the countries where we share a large part of the responsibility
for harsh repression, it doesn't amount to much.
Regards, Carl
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Robert Dunn wrote:
> Carl, because Clinton was pro-abortion, many feminists flocked to his
> defense as soon as Paula Jones filed her sexual harrassment suit
> against the President. They used every tactic that they say is a no no
> for everyone else. I think it was Gloria Steinem that was quoted as
> saying "I would gladly give the President oral sex for providing
> abortion on demand."
>
> Its interesting how some individuals will go about in an Orwellian
> fashion to silence those who dissent within the so-called left.
> Unfortunately, the way reality has set in, the right is more tolerant
> of those who dissent on social issues. Even "paleo-Conservatives" are
> tolerated within the broader Conservative Movement. Its unfortunate
> that the left has to be so rigid. Why is that? Even self-proclaimed
> anarchists and civil libertarians are following the Thought Police
> mentality.
>
> Robert
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:00:25 -0600
From: "C. G. Estabrook"
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo
To: Linda Evans
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
"I don't think blanket statements can be used in these situations and none
of us are qualified to make a judgment since none of us knew her or have
seen all the details" -- it's precisely doubts of that sort, Linda, that
would seem to me to be adequate reason to oppose the state's order for
death by dehydration. The courts not only refused her tube feeding, but
ordered that attempts to provide her water or food by mouth be prevented.
As Nader said, "The court is not merely permitting medical treatment to be
withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead." I'm against state killing.
--CGE
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Linda Evans wrote:
> Just like most issues in the media, we don't have all the facts. I
> don't know the Schiavos, but I do know my husband. He would not want
> to be fed via feeding tube. He has made his wishes know many times to
> me. We talk about death and what to do in various situations. I
> doubt that Rob's father would know his wishes or even be respectful of
> them because his father is completely disrespectful of his wishes when
> life/death issues are not involved. I would not hand over custody
> under any circumstances (that I can dream up right now) to my
> father-in-law.
>
> However, I have friends who want to stay "alive" no matter what.
> They want the feeding tubes, etc. I don't think blanket statements
> can be used in these situations and none of us are qualified to make a
> judgment since none of us knew her or have seen all the details.
>
> What saddens me is the country seems obsessed with one (white) woman's
> life or death when scores of people are dying daily. None of us have
> clean hands. All of us contribute to the life and death of others.
> I will drive my car today putting toxins into the air for all of us to
> breath. Someone will die from these toxins. I consume more calories
> than I need while others in my own town and around the world die from
> starvation. I gave birth to two humans who will eventually die, yet I
> knowingly gave birth knowing that death will be the only certainty in
> their lives. In a way, by giving life, I also take it.
>
> Linda
>
> It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our
> humanity. ~Albert Einstein
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 14, Issue 68
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20050331/2a80a24e/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list