Just a little while after Terri Schiavo was allowed to die, this story breaks. Does this change the minds of any of the people who thought her husband had the right to pull out her feeding tube? I am sincerely interested.
FOLLOW UP: Take a look at this e-mail regarding the Don Herbert case.
No, this doesn’t change my mind, because the story as written here doesn’t show this firefighter to have an analogous medical condition, with liquid where large and essential parts of his brain should have been.
Nathan, without starting the whole Terri Schiavo debate over again, your description of Terri’s condition is incomplete. See here for a more clinical analysis.
Ummmm, No.
Geoff (#2): I cannot seriously believe you are putting forth as evidence the musings of a blogger who has never examined Terri Schiavo nor been involved in any way in the case. Just because it’s on the Internet doesn’t mean it’s true.
Umm, Mike, the blogger in question has the following credentials: “An M.D. graduate of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.
After a medical internship and a year in the emergency room at Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx, did a four year Radiology residency at The New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center.
Spent the last 15 years as a 24/7/365 inpatient radiologist in South Florida.”
His “musings” are extremely relevant given that the credibility of the doctors who examined Schiavo have been seriously called into question here and elsewhere.
If his musings are so questionable, why don’t you contradict them on their merits? His comments directly addressed Nathan’s claim that Terri’s brain had turned to liquid and made some pretty good points. So, start believing, my doubtful friend!
I talked with my wife about what would be her wishes in a case similiar to Terri’s. My wife’s answer was ‘whatever you decide’ (not in a don’t bother me now attitude, but in a real “it’s your decision”). I was actually pleasantly surprised because (after talking with her to confirm this) she meant 1) I trust you and 2) I know you’ll use the spirit to decide.
So, no, this article doesn’t change my mind – I’ll do whatever the spirit dictates and allow all others the same privilege.
Fortunately for your wife, Daylan, she’s married to someone who consults the spirit on these issues. Tough luck for T.S. who happened to be married to a guy who just wanted to pull the plug so he could marry his new girlfriend.
Correction: “pull the plug” isn’t quite accurate. I should have said “stop feeding and hydrating her.”
I found this a hard case. Because she was conscious and appeared to show some emotion, Terry was not what I would consider vegetative. This is a little of topic for the questin posed. I am not sure if anybody has considered the fact that whatever her wishes may or may not have been to be in such a state, she very likely would not want to have died if it would cause such pain to her family. If she made a statement that she did not want to live like that, it would have been lacking the knowledge that her family would battle to keep her alive.
I have seen a lot of people at the sad end stages of dementia when they have little faculties left. I am proud to live in a country where these people are cared for in a humane way. They offer nothing productive to society. I am glad they still have rights in the eyes of our law.
It would change my mind, if it were the husband who had the “right” to pull her tube. But as the case was framed before the courts, it was simply the husband honoring Terry’s own right to pull her own tube. That was what the courts had to decide on, because that was the issue put before them.
I definitely think that Michael has no right to pull his wife’s tubes without demonstrating that it is what she would have wanted to do herself. Apparently he was able to do so to the satisfaction of several courts.
But I sure hope that nobody else has the “right” to decide for me, precisely because of the firefighter and other examples like it. But I equally fervently hope that my right to decide about my own medical care would not be taken from me.
Jared, (#3), I respect your scientific knowledge. When exactly should the state abrogate its right not to protect human life? Our Declaration of Independence says that we have certain inalienable rights, among them life. So, one of the purposes of the state should be to protect life. So, in theory the state should sometimes step in and prevent people from being killed if they are not really dead yet. From a scientific standpoint, when is that? In Terri Schiavo’s case, I am assuming your “umm, no” means that she was clearly dead and did not deserve to be protected. Ok, fine. Based on what evidence? Should the state not protect anybody with a deteriorated cerebral cortex? How about people who have severe dementia and cannot feed themselves or newborns with severe mental retardation who will never be self-sufficient?
My position on this is very consistent: the state has an obligation to err on the side of life. So, in the Terri Schiavo case, it was right for the state to step in and protect her from being starved to death (hey, even Jesse Jackson agrees with me there!). There are times when life can be taken away (war, self-defense, women who have been raped), but those exceptions are very few and far between. From a scientific perspective, Jared, when is a life not a life?
It changes nothing for me. Whether the state should err on the side of life is a different argument than whether she was actually alive. The state grants the ability to withdraw life support in this case. As Jordan notes, the courts found that Terri wanted to go and that nobody had a legal reason to doubt her or to question her husband’s challenge. The family did not win a single significant legal challenge over ten years. I don’t think that a recovery from a much less severe state justifies that.
I do think that the Schiavo case and the one that Geoff cites are why you need a living will if you care about being able to make these decisions for yourself. Without a living will, the ONLY reasonable decision is to defer to someone else to make the call. If the state can allow you to pull the plug on yourself, it follows that the state does not view it as suicide or the taking of a life for the person in question or those legally able to make the decision to pull the plug. So, defense of life isn’t even the issue anymore.
Michael Schiavo’s decision to forbid Terri’s parents to be with her when she died and his refusal to let them know where her ashes are were what turned the tide with me. That was just totally unforgiveable.
I look at my daughter, about to be engaged. I love this wonderful young man, but I think what would I do, how would I feel, if my daughter were in that condition? I want her to sign something, or make her will know now, but she is so young, would she really know what she is doing? I know I would have hung on to my brain damaged son forever, if God hadn’t made that decision for me. You want their bodies, when you’re the mom, you’ve loved those bodies.
But, for myself, I’d rather die than live like Terri Shiavo. My child, I couldn’t “pull that plug.” I just couldn’t.
But, you know, apples and oranges, good for that guy, and his family. Sometimes there just are happy endings. Life isn’t fair.
Michael Schiavo’s decision to forbid Terri’s parents to be with her when she died and his refusal to let them know where her ashes are were what turned the tide with me. That was just totally unforgiveable.
Annie, here’s how it would look to me:
My wife’s been in a persistent vegetative state for fifteen years. I feel an obligation to follow through on what I understand to be her wishes. Her family has blocked me at every turn, has taken to the media to try to convict me in the court of public opinion, and has at least tacitly approved (if not actively promoted) rumors that she was in that state only because I beat her, that I only wanted her money, and that I was a reprehensible human being.
Gee, why WOULDN’T I want those people around as I say a final farewell to my wife? And why WOULDN’T I want them to know where her remains are, so the parents’ supporters can turn that location into a media circus and a condemnatory shrine?
And Geoff:
Any time you find yourself on the same side as Jesse Jackson, it’s time for some serious reconsideration. My apologies that my single-line description of Terri’s condition didn’t encapsulate all of the nuances and exhaustive medical terminology of every medical professional with an opinion.
What is your reasoning here, Geoff? Are you implying that Donald Herbert’s case demonstrates the possibility of Terri Schiavo recovering?
Of course it’s remotely possible that Terri Schiavo could have recovered. Doctors have been wrong before. There are even cases in which people have been pronounced dead and later recovered. Does that mean that we should have a law against burying the deceased?
Are you saying that a more thorough medical examination should have been performed? Or that pulling the plug is unethical in all cases?
I think Michael Shiavo’s decision not to allow Terri’s parents to be with her when she died and not to tell them where her ashes are, was criminal and unforgiveable. Absolutely unforgiveable.
I’m more conflicted about the decision to remove her feeding tube. If she had been my child, no way could I have done that. If it were my spouse, or myself, I would want it pulled in a heartbeat. This is not an easy situation.
I look at my daughter, in love and perhaps about to marry, and wonder how it would be to be in that situation with our perhaps future son-in-law. But I balk at approaching my daughter with this, she’s so young, could she even have a clue what she would want?
I’m glad for that guy’s family and for him, but I think it’s apples and oranges. Only God knows what was right in Terri Shiavo’s situation. My heart goes out to her parents.
Geoff (#11),
Sorry, I didn’t realize anybody would reply to my answer. Look, I don’t want to re-debate the whole episode, and I’m sure there are philosophical and medical issues I have not considered or am not aware of. I’m not sure that I would have made the same choice as Michael, but I’m not sure he was wrong, either. The only reason the case made news was because of the bitter divide within the family.
I wish I could answer when life is over, just as I wish I could answer when life begins. (By “life” I mean a physical-spirit connection.) I agree than in general we should err on the side of life, and I’m certainly not against protecting those who can’t protect themselves.
But I’ve also got a gut feeling that some of these decisions should be left to individuals and their families, and that protecting life at all costs is not necessarily a virtue. Moreover I like to think that the Lord will give us a break on the tough cases. In the absence of clear revelation on the subject, we do the best we can, and I don’t think that practical/utilitarian considerations are necessarily evil.
If Terri’s wishes were, indeed, carried out, then there is really nothing left to debate (except those who think that she would have changed her mind, which undermines the whole point of living wills.)
Geoff B (#5): I don’t care if he’s the Surgeon General of the United States. He didn’t personally examine her and didn’t have access to all her medical records; therefore his opinion counts less than the doctors who did treat her. All of whom, by the way, agreed that her brain was liquefied and that she could not be rehabilitated. All the doctors, that is, except for the one the parents trotted out at the last minute who, by a strange coincidence, hadn’t examined her either.
gst (#7 & 8) and annegb (#13 & 16): From 1990 to 1993, Michael and Terri’s parents had a good relationship. The Schindlers even allowed him to live rent-free in their condominium for several months. During this time, the Schindlers actively encouraged him to “get on with his life.” They encouraged him to date, and he introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. In the initial suit against hospital the Schindlers had only positive things to say about Michael’s treatment of Terri (pre- and post-accident). After Michael received a $300,000 legal award for loss of companionship, the Schindlers asked him to split the money with them. He refused, and they turned on him. So, from everything I’ve read, the Schindlers are the evil ones in this sad, sad episode — not Michael Schiavo.
I’m glad to hear another side of the story, like I said, I look at my soon to be fiance of my daughter, and I love that kid. I can’t imagine us being caught in this situation.
But I’ve also learned that you can’t believe everything you read anywhere. Who knows what the truth is. I know I’ve had a lot of articles printed on my son’s death, and only the one I wrote myself was factual.
Geoff B frames this as a question about life. I like that frame, but I also wonder about a different frame: government control. I’m not a big fan of government control, and when it comes into stepping into matters of family life, I get extremely uncomfortable. Mr. Schiavo always seemed creepy to me, and I was sympathetic to many of the arguments of her family. But, is this really an area where I want government making decisions instead of families?
Now of course, the great problem here was “which family members”? Perhaps Michael was creepy enough that he shouldn’t have been allowed to make that decision (and I’ll admit that government is the only reasonable way to decide that question). I don’t really know. But I do know that simply re-framing the question as one of government control creates a big problem. Perhaps government is doing “our” bidding on this issue right now. But once it has the control over life we can’t be sure what it will do in the long run.
Some here have apparently decided that the government control frame is not a big deal (perhaps they don’t share my fears about government). But it seems to me the way you frame this question is unusually important.
JCP (#20) brings up some excellent points for consideration. I especially like these two:
I’m not a big fan of government control, and when it comes into stepping into matters of family life, I get extremely uncomfortable. Mr. Schiavo always seemed creepy to me, and I was sympathetic to many of the arguments of her family. But, is this really an area where I want government making decisions instead of families?
What’s ironic is that the Republicans in Congress spent decades decrying “big government” programs pushed through by the Democrats. Now that they are in power, government is even bigger (a 2.6 trillion dollar budget?) and even more intrusive (e.g., the “USA PATRIOT Act”, a misnomer if there ever was one). The Republicans that promised in 1994 to eliminate the Department of Education are now using its power (via “No Child Left Behind”) to force local school districts to do their bidding. The Terri Schiavo case is just one more example of “big government Republicans” pushing their way into the personal decisions of average Americans. Ronald (“government is the problem”) Reagan is rolling in his grave.
Perhaps Michael was creepy enough that he shouldn’t have been allowed to make that decision (and I’ll admit that government is the only reasonable way to decide that question).
If by “government” you mean “the judiciary,” then I agree. Under the separation of powers doctrine (one of the keystones of U.S. Constitutional theory), the legislative branch writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judiciary determines how the laws are to be applied in specific cases. The Schiavo case became a matter for the judiciary when the Schindlers decided to make it so. The Florida legislature and the U.S. Congress overstepped their bounds (a lot) when they wrote specific legislation to address a specific case. Fortunately the courts (state and federal) saw through this — the Supreme Court refusing to hear the case entirely four times (or was it five?).
Will and JCP, I’m writing a bigger piece that addresses these issues. Look for it in the next week or so.
Mike Parker:
Within the U.S. context, certainly the judiciary makes the most sense as an arbiter of such disputes. That does not mean I couldn’t imagine other systems with different divisions or processes that I would find equally acceptable. That’s why I was using the term “government.”
And I certainly agree with the point that Republicans in Congress have a lot of explaining to do regarding their supposed commitment to smaller government.
Yes, without question. Frankly, I don’t need context on whether life is to be favored over death.
lyle stamps (#24): Frankly, I don’t need context on whether life is to be favored over death.
I think it’s dangerous to sum up one’s philosophy in a pithy phrase that will fit on a bumper sticker. Life is complex, and there are many instances when death can — and even should — be favored over life.
Social conservatives in the U.S. have been using the phrase “the culture of life” a lot lately. This facile line of thinking may appeal to the heart, but it doesn’t resolve the complex choices we often have to make.
Geoff B, you’re right on the money.
Good to see that the occasional sensational exception to the fuzzy “severely injured brains have little or no chance of recovery†rule has not put people off. Naturally, one must stick to principles, especially when so much is at stake. Still, I am always amazed at how smoothly ignorance and fear, peppered with a little intentional dysinformation, bakes up into long-term cultural dysfunction. Whole populations laying claim to moral high ground, making deadly decisions for individuals or groups helpless against the “what’s best for everyone†ideal! Works for me.
I remember in the good old days, when tribe, town, or even more authoritative ethics whispered that the birth of a “different†infant or the presence of a “different†adult brought bad luck or, heaven forbid, evil upon the whole community. Of course, a few cultures believed the presence of such a person brought blessings and good luck to all. Different words, same result: no one lifted a finger to figure out how to help such people since doing so would clearly disadvantage the community at large.
How many imperfect souls have been left behind to die on their own or were killed for the good of the community! Children with cleft palates, strange birthmarks, brain injuries that resulted at the time in unsocial behavior; children and adults with frightening diseases no one understood—you name it: they were ostrasized, buried alive, declared witches and ritualistically killed or were left to the mercies of carnivorous beasts, natural elements, or to the “natural†or “god-willed†course of the illness or injury. Yes, back then it meant bad luck for everyone if someone didn’t bravely step forward and heroically rid the community of the bad ju-ju. More sophisticated justifications exist these days, but really, they’re the same ilk: caring for this person will result in the loss of my life as I know it and have a right to expect it to be; investing time and resources to help this unhelpable soul (:p) will handicap the entire community, etc.
How beautiful, final, and precious that decree of certainty is to me and my undertakings (no pun intended … well, okay, the pun was intended). Where was I? Oh yes, I was speaking of that most elegant of all death sentences, “This person can’t be helped.†Why is it so important? Well, I’ll let you in on a little secret. I don’t worry about betraying myself here (hm, what happens if the Devil betrays himself?) because first, there really doesn’t appear to be interest in this topic (a good sign); second, those of you who have already cast stones at poor Terri are now so heavily invested in being right that continuing to think yourself so is a matter of self-preservation; and third, I am the Father of Lies, a real advantage when I step up to discussions. Hah! You folks even possess scripture that reveals the Great Secret, the one I taught to Cain, yet you continue to miss the personal value of that expose-ay.
But I digress. Ah yes, the little secret: the human brain is still developing, “evolving,†if you prefer, on the individual level and on the species level (this is happening among animals as well, but that’s meat before the milk for you folks). Free will is always vital to the brain’s development. In cases where this organ of agency suffers injury, its options are reduced, but take my word for it, it still struggles to make them! The body and soul’s drive to enter into relation with the world around it is powerful, damnere irrepressible, even in many extreme cases. Sometimes, the injured brain’s exercising of agency occurs at such a slow rate that many of you don’t see it, like, say, the growth of a tree. But in almost all cases, the brain continues its heroic struggle to make decisions, even at the moment of death (another discussion). How far it goes depends upon a number of factors, but of big concern is the variety of options it discovers, which, in the case of an extensively brain-injured individual, surrounding caregivers control to great degree. Hindering this great struggle by encouraging caregivers to limit options for the hero in question will weigh the battle against the most heroic effort. (The belief that physical therapy will not help is white and delightsome to me. Silly fools, physical therapy nearly always helps by introducing options that the injured brain may then consider and choose from!) Furthermore, community and caretaker feeling toward the soul struggling to get back acts like a magnet; love conquers much, though not always how you might think. Oh, and institutionalizing prejudices (monetary or power-serving) in the research communities responsible for developing cutting-edge options for “those that can’t be helped†sets the glass ceiling even more firmly in place.
You people! You’re so primitive that you still widely operate on the ancient fallacy, “If we can’t find solutions to this problem, then obviously none exist.†Thus I handicap not only the progress of the brain-injured individual and of individuals directly involved with him or her but also the speed at which the human brain, spirit, and the rest of the body eternal evolves overall, including yours, dear reader! Cool, huh? The economy of effort for me in situations like Terri’s is truly poetic, and it has worked for ages! FOR AGES! But I wax sentimental.
BTW, I absolutely love this phrase, “erring on the side of life.†Makes hope for life in hard circumstances look uncertain, as if it were the lesser of two evils. Every little bit helps! And no, the fortunate fireman’s recovery does not change my opinion that Michael Schiavo did the right thing to Terri. Her situation may or may not have been redeemable by the standards of modern medicine; it doesn’t matter. It’s the motives of the people who “helped†her into the next world and those onlookers that cheered them on that are of greatest interest to me.