Schiavo

So, she's dead. Now what?

Well, if you're all fucked up like me, this is when you start to care. I figured that both sides of the argument had their own version, and that we wouldn't know anything for sure until an autopsy. So I'm doing some research. I've been looking at a few of the "The Truth About Terri" sort-of-things, and frankly, I'm a little disgusted.

The link to the .pdf is here.

I'm going to go over some things, but not necessarily in any order.

Support. One point the propoganda piece makes is that a Gastric Feeding Tube is not support. On page 2 of the piece, it argues that thousands of people in the US are on Gastric Feeding Tubes, and none of those are considered life support. However, life support, by definition, is the artificial fulfilling of needs that are required to keep a person in good health. The definition has become watered down in recent years to mean just machines, but I believe that it still covers Gastric Feeding Tubes if the person cannot consume food themselves. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of the time, instances of Gastric Feeding Tube use are restricted to patients whose systems cannot handle a certain quantity/quality of food at a time and must be fed small amounts constantly (in which case the tube is merely efficient and convenient for the nursing staff or whomever is providing care), or cannot feed themselves. Shiavo could NOT feed herself (in fact, the protestors breaking into the hospital to bring her water would have just drowned her), as she cannot swallow: she requires the feeding tube to live. Therefore, the Tube (in this case and others like it) is a Life Support System.

This is a perfect example of why I am frustrated with extremely opinionated causes (on the left and right of the political spectrum) that intentionally obfuscate. Some other examples of obfuscation:

Page 2: "Terri was not in pain or agony": There is no way to know this, because she was unresponsive at worst, unintelligibly so at best. However, I cannot for a second imagine living in the state she lived in and not feeling pain.

Page 4: "And once our society starts disposing of the disabled...we will have started down the same road as Hitler": Ok. Yeah, I suppose a couple debatablly deserved/right mercy killings is right on par with genocide. Good point.

Page 5: Implication that Judge Greer is incompetent, unfeeling, or both: I'm sure no judge that sits on the bench for 12 years will ever make a mistake. I mean, especially in cases that are so clear-cut as *potential* domestic abuse situations. Why can't he see into the future and see a murder happening (note: I'm not talking about the Schiavo case, I'm talking about the other case mentioned in the piece)?

Page 6: Implication that nurses will cosmetically enhance Schiavo as she dies as pro-euthanasia propoganda, of sorts: I'm sure Scopolamine patches have nothing to do with reducing nausea (and therefore vomiting), especially in situations where a drastic diet change is being undergone, and valium and morphine being administered, as well as god knows what else. Also, I'm sure that the drugs being administered to Schiavo when she potentially enters a grand mal seizure are there to make her look acceptable to the public, and not to prevent physical pain, or damage to the medical equipment, or emotional trauma to her relatives.

Page 3: Information about Michael Schiavo euthanizing Terri's cats, destroying his wedding ring, and the implication that he's basically a money-grubbing bastard: that may be. I don't know. But the link they give to "check it out for yourselves" links you to a website, which links you to a page on it, which contains about (I'm bored and am not going to count) 3-4 dozen links, all to news briefs or official court documents. This is intentional or just negligent obfuscation, and I've seen it used by a lot of people who feel very strongly about something but who are not terribly educated about it (Anne Coulter is a superb example).

Finally (and this is all over in the piece) there's the statement that Terri is responsive.

Now, I have no real solid opinion that I'd be willing to bet her life on, but what I am certain of is that a severely brain-damaged woman will NEVER move physically or speak or blink unless she ABSOLUTELY intends to, and that a family that desperately wants some sign of higher functioning will NEVER mistake random physical twitches for interaction and attempted communication.

Ok, the judge is a dick. Denying communion is a horrendous thing to do. Also, denying the parents the opportunity to try to feed her normally was prick-ish. Why not? I mean, at worst, she dies (what would happen anyway). At best, you clarify the case and save a (potential) life.

Basically, I don't know enough to make a decision, but that's not what I have to do. I would have preferred to have erred on the side of caution; keeping her alive because the desire to let die wasn't written down, but, legally, Michael Schiavo has every right to do this. It is not a congressional or executive issue, but a judicial one: who has the right to make decisions for people when they can't do it for themselves? Currently, the spouse does, and Michael Schiavo is completely within his rights to claim that she requested to have her feeding tube removed. However, with no physical evidence of her desire to be euthanised, I'd say let her live.

I mean, it sucks that she's un/barely responsive, but that's life. Michael should pony up the cost of keeping her alive. If he doesn't believe in divorce, then he should stay with her, and if he does, he should move on. The parents should share the cost of her life support and care.

But I cannot stress enough that this has been taken way out of hand. People need to ask themselves whether they want their spouse or their parents to make decisions for them when they are unable to, and whether they want to have the spouse's/parents' word be worth an actual document. THAT is what this case is about, to me: we are focusing on the wrong issue.

FINALLY finally, it stays in the courts. The courts are objective and cold-hearted because that's what they're there to be. The attempts by House and Senate "Lifers" and President Bush to push through a bill keeping her alive is brash and obscenely beyond their territory. Seperation of powers is important, and that was a flagrant violation of them.

Whew. That ought to get some comments.

Oh, also, I like Warcraft 3: DoTA.