Skip to comments.Terri Schiavo and our Moral Confusion
Posted on 04/03/2005 8:37:17 AM PDT by tacomonkey2002
Terri Schiavo and our Moral Confusion
In thinking about the meaning of the tragedy of Terri Schiavo's life and the decisions it has generated, I spent much of Good Friday reading a number of articles by bioethicists, theologians, and various columnists. The entire time, I was haunted by the title of an essay by Stanley Hauerwas, who has written a lot about the moral nature of our care for the severely mentally retarded and more generally of those whose lives are incomprehensible and (thus?) burdensome to us. In "Must a Patient Be a Person To Be a Patient? Or, My Uncle Charlie Is Not Much of a Person But He Is Still My Uncle Charlie," Hauerwas challenged the conventional framework that guides many debates in bioethics: the definition of what constitutes personhood. According to this framework, to be alive and to be human is not sufficient to make a moral claim for care and protection. One must also be a "person," a status (in both beginning-of-life and end-of-life settings) that is usually defined in terms of capacities for reason and volition. Leon Kass, in Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics (Encounter, 2002), observes that the Western tradition of conferring dignity and respect on persons, on "rational beings" capable of "genuine moral agency," has preserved the unique value of human life by distinguishing it from beasts and machines. But, as we are painfully discovering on many issues addressed by bioethicists, it is an inadequate framework, appropriate perhaps for the Hellenistic view of human nature, but not rich enough for the account preserved by Jews and Christians in the account of Creation, and extended by Christians in reflection on the reality of the Incarnation. As Kass notes, "Precisely because it dualistically sets up the concept of 'personhood' in opposition to nature and the body, [this view of human dignity] fails to do justice to the concrete reality of our embodied liveslives of begetting and belonging no less than of willing and thinking. . . . Precisely because 'personhood' is distinct from our lives as embodied, rooted, connected and aspiring beings, the dignity of rational choice pays no respect at all to the dignity we have through our loves and longingscentral aspects of human life understood as a grown togetherness of body and soul. Not all of human dignity consists in reason or freedom." [page 17] Reason and freedom are valued in the Biblical account of human nature. But in the modern, Enlightenment account that has shaped our political institutions and much of our thinking about the contours of caring for one another, reason and freedom are pretty much all there is to a person rightly so called. The modern picture of the human cannot account for our nature as embodied spirits created for and constituted by relationships of love. In his book Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (Eerdmans, 2nd edition 2005), Gilbert Meilaender reflects on how Christian thinking should challenge the common assumptions of our culture about "personhood": "[O]ur personal historiesprecisely as histories of embodied spiritsdo not require the presence of 'personal' capacities throughout. Our personal histories begin in dependencefirst within our mother's womb and then as newborns. Often our life ends in the dependence of old age and the loss of capacities we once had. Personhood is not something we 'have' at some point in this history. Rather, as embodied spirits or inspirited bodies, we are persons throughout the whole of that life. One whom we might baptize, one for whom we might still pray, one for whom the Spirit of Christ may still intercede 'with sighs too deep for words' (Rom. 8:26)such a one cannot be for us less than a person. Dependence is part of the story of a person's life." [2nd edition, page 6] Meilaender concludes this section of his book with an observation that applies to Terri Schiavo's situation most particularly: "Those human beings who permanently lack certain empowering cognitive capacitiesas well as all human beings in stages of life where those powers are absentare simply the weakest and most needy members of our community. We can care for them and about them only by acknowledging the living bodily presence that they have among usseeking to discern in their faces the hidden spirit, the call to community that their bodily presence constitutes, and the face of Christ." [ibid.] In an article written for The Weekly Standard and posted online on Good Friday, Eric Cohen, the editor of The New Atlantis, also reflects on moral framework questions. "For all the attention we have paid to the Schiavo case," Cohen insists, "we have asked many of the wrong questions, living as we do on the playing field of modern liberalism." Like Kass and Meilaender, Cohen is unhappy with the liberal idea that volition is the defining characteristic of the human: "[T]he real lesson of the Schiavo case is not that we all need living wills; it is that our dignity does not reside in our will alone, and that it is foolish to believe that the competent person I am now can establish, in advance, how I should be cared for if I become incapacitated and incompetent. The real lesson is that we are not mere creatures of the will: We still possess dignity and rights even when our capacity to make free choices is gone; and we do not possess the right to demand that others treat us as less worthy of care than we really are." Cohen observes that liberalism's celebration of liberty as autonomy, as independence, distorts the meaning of the human and establishes "a set of assumptions about what makes life worth living and thus worth protecting" according to which we regard "incompetence itself as reasonable grounds for assuming that life is not worth living." Cohen thinks that medical ethics organized around the single theme of autonomy is flawed. "[T]he autonomy regime, at its best, prevents the worst abuseslike involuntary euthanasia, where doctors or public officials decide whose life is worth living. But the autonomy regime, even at its best, is deeply inadequate. It is based on a failure to recognize that the human condition involves both giving and needing care, and not always being morally free to decide our own fate." The article is posted online here. In watching and reading the news coverage of Terri Schiavo's case, I can't remember hearing the word "euthanasia" once. And yet it should be clear that by withdrawing food and water from her, she is euthanized, not simply being "allowed to die." I doubt that a parent who withheld food and water from their children, or a warden who withheld food and water from a prisoner, could be excused from culpability on the grounds that they were simply allowing someone to die. In none of these cases, including Terri Schiavo's, is there a dying person, just a dependent one. Two articles from First Things help sort through the issues involved in distinguishing killing from allowing to die. The first, "Always to Care, Never to Kill: A Declaration on Euthanasia," was produced by the Ramsey Colloquium, a group of Jewish and Christian theologians, ethicists, philosophers, and scholars that met periodically to consider questions of ethics, religion, and public life. The statement was prepared at a time when many states were considering laws liberalizing the practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and its principal theme was declared quite concisely: "In relating to the sick, the suffering, the incompetent, the disabled, and the dying, we must learn again the wisdom that teaches us always to care, never to kill. Although it may sometimes appear to be an act of compassion, killing is never a means of caring." Later in the declaration, a warning that has relevance to Terri Schiavo's case was offered: "Once we cross the boundary between killing and allowing to die, there will be no turning back. Current proposals would legalize euthanasia only for the terminally ill. But the logic of the argumentand its practical consequenceswill inevitably push us further. Arguments for euthanasia usually appeal to our supposed right of self-determination and to the desirability of relieving suffering. If a right to euthanasia is grounded in self-determination, it cannot reasonably be limited to the terminally ill. If people have a right to die, why must they wait until they are actually dying before they are permitted to exercise that right? Similarly, if the warrant for euthanasia is to relieve suffering, why should we be able to relieve the suffering only of those who are self-determining and competent to give their consent? Why not euthanasia for the suffering who can no longer speak for themselves? To ask such questions is to expose the logical incoherence and the fragile arbitrariness of suggested 'limits' in proposals for legalized euthanasia." The article is available online here. Finally, the August/September 2004 issue of First Things featured an exchange between Robert D. Orr (director of Ethics for Fletcher Allen Health Care and Professor of Family Medicine at the University of Vermont College of Medicine) and Gilbert Meilaender. The exchange dealt explicitly with the question of the use of feeding tubes for patients in a "permanent vegetative state." Orr and Meilaender both agree that such patients (like Terri Schiavo) are not dying. Given that fact, Meilaender discusses this question: "Under what circumstances may we rightly refuse a life-prolonging treatment without supposing that, in making this decision, we are doing the forbidden deed of choosing or aiming at death?" "The answer of our medical-moral tradition has been the following: we may refuse treatments that are either useless or excessively burdensome. In doing so, we choose not death, but one among several possible lives open to us. We do not choose to die, but, rather, how to live, even if while dying, even if a shorter life than some other lives that are still available for our choosing. What we take aim at then, what we refuse, is not life but treatmenttreatment that is either useless for a particular patient or excessively burdensome for that patient. Especially for patients who are irretrievably into the dying process, almost all treatments will have become useless. In refusing them, one is not choosing death but choosing life without a now useless form of treatment. But even for patients who are not near death, who might live for a considerably longer time, excessively burdensome treatments may also be refused. Here again, one takes aim at the burdensome treatment, not at life. One person may choose a life that is longer but carries with it considerable burden of treatment. Another may choose a life that is shorter but carries with it less burden of treatment. Each, however, chooses life. Neither aims at death. "It is essential to emphasize that these criteria refer to treatments, not to lives. We may rightly reject a treatment that is useless. But if I decide not to treat because I think a person's life is useless, then I am taking aim not at the treatment but at the life. Rather than asking, 'What if anything can I do that will benefit the life this patient has?' I am asking, 'Is it a benefit to have such a life?' If the latter is my question, and if I decide not to treat, it should be clear that it is the life at which I take aim. Likewise, we may reject a treatment on grounds of excessive burden. But if I decide not to treat because it seems a burden just to have the life this person has, then I am taking aim not at the burdensome treatment but at the life. Hence, in deciding whether it is appropriate and permissible to withhold or withdraw treatmentwhether, even if life is thereby shortened, we are aiming only at the treatment and not at the lifewe have to ask ourselves whether the treatment under consideration is, for this patient, either useless or excessively burdensome. "Is the treatment useless? Not, let us be clear, is the life a useless one to have, but is the treatment useless? As Dr. Orr notesquite rightly, I thinkpatients 'can live in this permanent vegetative state for many years.' So feeding may preserve for years the life of this living human being. Are we certain we want to call that useless? We are, of course, tempted to say that, in deciding not to feed, we are simply withdrawing treatment and letting these patients die. Yet, as Dr. Orr also notes, these patients 'are not clearly dying.' And, despite the sloppy way we sometimes talk about these matters, you cannot 'let die' a person who is not dying. It is hard, therefore, to make the case for treatment withdrawal in these cases on the ground of uselessness. We may use those words, but it is more likely that our target is a (supposed) useless life and not a useless treatment. And if that is our aim, we had better rethink it promptly."
For one very good reason. Terri Schiavo's case was not about euthanasia. It was about carrying out her expressed will to die if she were brain damaged and being supported by artificial means.
It was the extreme pro-life crowd that totally ignored Terri's wishes and turned this whole thing into a "hate Michael, he-wants-her-dead" euthanasia circus.
Are you sure you shouldn't have read the Schiavo threads more closely before channelling CNN on this thread?
At least, your comments gave the appearance that that is what was happening...
How do you know what Terri wanted?
"It was the extreme pro-life crowd that totally ignored Terri's wishes..."
There is absolutely zero, none, nada, zilch evidence of Terri's expressed will to die if she were brain damaged and being supported by artificial mean.
Terri's husband alleged that this was what she wanted ~ her parents alleged it was not.
That is the total extent of anyone knowledge about what Terri wanted!
You blind idiot! Terri was not dying at all. She was healthy! She was not on life support. She was not in a coma! There was no proof she wanted This terrible death. Hearsay is not proof in any court of law. Her loving parents wanted her. She was denied therapy. Her husband wanted her dead for his own selfish reasons.
Robertpaulsen obviously doesn't concern himself with the truth.
I thought the article was a balanced one.
There in lies the most troubling aspect of this whole event for me. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why food and water were withheld from Terri by court order. Removing the feeding tube so that there was no 'artificial' efforts being made to sustain her life is one thing, but Terri was capable of swallowing ~ (she swallowed her saliva without difficulty) ~ and to deprive this woman of the most basic sustenance required to live, to intentionally and deliberately starve her to death is an act of barbarism beyond comprehension.
Terri was not allowed to die, she was forced to die and (regardless of what a person 'right to life' or 'right to death' beliefs are) THAT should be absolutely, unequivocally unacceptable!
Dyslexic? robertpaulsen Since 2002-02-05.
"Are you sure you shouldn't have read the Schiavo threads more closely before channelling CNN on this thread?"
Channelling CNN? I'm speaking my own mind, not CNN's.
And I'm reading these Schiavo threads more closely that you're reading my join-up date.
I read Judge Greer's court order dated February, 2000. He had "clear and convincing" evidence as to her wishes as required by Florida law.
Michael conned the jury into a huge settlement with the promise that he needed the money to give Terri the care she needed for the next 41 years of her life. As soon as he got the monetary award, he stopped all treatment and eventually found the "Hospice" where she lived longer than any other "hospice" patient because she wasn't dying. Hospice is for people with less than a year and usually less than 6 months to live.
Michael is guilty of Medicaid Fraud as is Judge Greer AND Suncoast Hospice. Judge Greer, by judicial decree, allowed Michael to apply for Medicaid for Terri when she still had approximately $50,000 left in her Trust which was to provide for her therapeutic care. I work with Medicaid, there's a MAX of $2000 allowed a patient who applies for Medicaid.
Michael is also guilty of defrauding Terri's Trust fund by using it, again with the blessing of Judge Greer, to pay the legal costs of having Terri killed.
You think it's a 'right-wing conspiracy' and it's not. It IS a "CORRECT USE OF THE LAWS wing of the Pajama-Clad" bloggers.
now remember, any deviation from the screamers in any terri thread is a big no no.....
"There is absolutely zero, none, nada, zilch evidence of Terri's expressed will to die if she were brain damaged and being supported by artificial mean."
As required by Florida law, Judge Greer had "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes and so ordered her feeding tube removed.
"Terri's husband alleged that this was what she wanted ~ her parents alleged it was not."
Terri's husband and .... c'mon .... keep going .... and who? There you go. Terri's husband AND his brother, Scott AND Terri's best friend, Joan all testified in front of Judge Greer in a court of law, under oath, subject to cross examination and under penalty of perjury what Terri told them as to her wishes.
Terri's parents didn't testify. Only Terri's mother testified. AND, she recanted her testimony, admitting that Terri had to have been only 11 years old when she made her statement.
Instead of spending your time cutting and pasting, you may want to educate yourself on this case before making a further fool of yourself.
. HELP !!!
All true except the "healthy" part (and the blind idiot part. I can see.). I would not describe someone with liquid slush for a cerebral cortex as "healthy".
Not on life support? Well, if she was not on life support then certainly you didn't mind when they pulled the feeding tube. I mean, it's not as though, according to you, the feeding tube was providing life support. Correct?
"There was no proof she wanted This terrible death."
She sure as heck didn't want this terrible life. Judge Greer had "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri did not want to live that way.
"Hearsay is not proof in any court of law."
The Florida supreme Court in their 1990 Browning decision requires that oral evidence of oral statements be permitted to count in court.
"Her loving parents wanted her."
You know what? If they truly loved Terri, they would have honored her wishes.
Her husband wanted her dead for his own selfish reasons."
Her husband could have taken his $400,000 loss of consortium award, turned Terri over to "her loving parents" (who were loving the $800,000 trust fund, the greedy slimeballs), and gone on with his life.
He chose, instead, to stay to carry out her wishes.
Terri Schiavo's case was not about euthanasia. It was about carrying out her expressed will to die if she were brain damaged and being supported by artificial means.
Agree 100%. The amount of vitriol that has engulfed this once enlightened forum is depressing to say the least.
I applaud you for stating an opinion concerning Schiavo that has all but been shouted down during this whole ordeal. I, for one, have avoided "TS" threads as they had taken over by fanatics, who in turn hijacked this entire forum, tossing ad hominem attacks towards anyone who didn't toe Randall Terry's radical Operation Rescue platform.
Avoiding "TS" unfortunately, threads has been an exercise in futility as she has become FR's cause celebre for the last several weeks Even non "TS" threads are quickly hijacked and sent plunging off topic. Don't believe me? Look around. Click on many non-Schiavo threads and count how many posts before someone chimes in about Judge Greer or death by starvation. It has taken on something of an amusing quest.
This whole spectacle has been embarrasing. Long time FReepers are leaving in disgust. Naysayers are pointing in our direction saying, "what a bunch of nutjobs over at Free Republic." Sadly, they have a point!
Furthermore, I have never cared how long someone has been registered to post. As long as they did not sign on specifically to troll, it is irrelevant. We all started here at day one.
Finally, Schaivo "died" 15 years ago from complications due to bulimia. Her husband did not strangle her. The fact that medical science was able to keep her body from decomposing for the last 15 years does not mean that she was "alive" and was then murdured by the state!
Flame away people, I'm getting tired anyways. I really don't care anymore. I'll just bide my time on ebay till this whole mess cools down.
"Terri's usual response according to her family and friends was "where there's life, there's hope." Now, does that sound like someone who would say "I don't want to live like that"?"
It's just too bad her family and friends neglected to testify to that, in front of Judge Greer, in a court of law, under oath, subject to cross examination and under penaly of perjury at his life and death hearing in January, 2000.
"Michael conned the jury into a huge settlement with the promise that he needed the money to give Terri the care she needed for the next 41 years of her life. As soon as he got the monetary award, he stopped all treatment and eventually found the "Hospice" where she lived longer than any other "hospice" patient because she wasn't dying. Hospice is for people with less than a year and usually less than 6 months to live."
Cut and paste blather. Give it a rest already.
As to the hospice, Terri was placed there following Judge Greer's order to remove the feeding tube. Since she was only expected to live for two weeks at the most, wouldn't you agree she qualified? Huh?
She ended up there for five years because of nosy, busybody, right-to-life, we-know-better fanatics like you filing appeal after appeal.
Then you question the hospice admission. Good one!
The rest of your post is the same blather. Conspracy, propaganda, lies, distortions and innuendo. Get some facts.
I shouldn't even answer to a left wing nut, but you have ignored so much, it is beyond discussing. The truth will come out in the civil suit.
Terri was not allowed to die, she was forced to die and (regardless of what a person 'right to life' or 'right to death' beliefs are) THAT should be absolutely, unequivocally unacceptable![[[
I think Paulson was referring to Tacomonkey.
I applaud you both for trying to share facts with the assembled multitude here. As you can see from the tenor of the 'responses' reason is in short supply on the 'physical life at all costs' front.
And is it your legal opinion that her "husband's" statement seven years after her collapse was that she wouldn't want to receive food and water through a feeding tube? Did Terri indeed wish to be starved and dehydrated to death? Do you really believe that was "clear and convincing evidence" under Florida law?
Do you mean any deviation from the truth?
And how to do you feel about partial-birth abortion? People who think like you truly scare me. I hope you have no ambitions to become a judge.
They haven't shared any facts or reason at all, they've simply dismissed facts they don't want to recognize with a wave of their hand and condescending insults, just like you.
How many legs would a normal horse have, if Judge Greer called a tail a leg?
Do you have a copy of that handy? Or will you just believe me?
"Did Terri indeed wish to be starved and dehydrated to death?
How does your Living Will read? Does it go into that kind of detail? Does it say that you do not want to kept in that brain damaged state unless there's a feeding tube -- and in that case you want to be kept alive forever?
Give me a break, Mr. All-Knowing 20-20 fricken hindsight.
Or do you restrict yourself to simply poking fun at other's attempts to resolve the issue?
Paragraph abuse is immoral.
What are these things? What is dignity? What is respect? Is it something that can be given to somebody else?
What bothered me the most was the inexcusable ignorance of the FReepers supporting Terri's "right to live". You one of those?
Actually, I would be Mrs. 20-20 hindsight. But regarding my Living Will, I don't have one. The reason I don't have one is because I WANT to be kept alive. I don't want to have the plug pulled. Bottom line - I prefer to err on the side of life, just as the president and pope said.
Well, for starters, I would suggest that oral statements should generally not be "clear and compelling" in the absense of anything to authenticate them (such as a videotape, etc.) It is trivial for an unscrupulous person to attribute to people things they never said. There may be a few cases where an oral statement could constitute clear and compelling evidence, but only if all of the following apply:
It might be a good idea to put that in writing and explicitly say that no oral declarations shall authorize any alteration of the directives unless they are recorded in authenticable tangible form such as a camera-original analog videotape.
I finally read the February 2000 order today. Without getting dragged down into the details of the case, I was expecting it to be a more rigorous review of the law and testimony. I'm no lawyer but I thought it was at the level of what a first year law student could crank out on an overnight case study assignment.
Yeah. My first reaction, too.
Naturally, my first reaction to your 4-point criteria is that it was designed around the Terri case (ie., working backwards to achieve the desired result). Basically, it does nothing more than detail your version of "clear and convincing".
For example, let's take your #1. "The statement is heard by enough independent people who would have no motive to invent it, that a conspiracy to invent would be implausible."
Now read just the "Saturday, April 2, 2005 of this link to see that Judge Greer evaluated the oral evidence with this in mind.
"In fact, the judge acknowledged, without necessarily accepting, a guardian ad litem's position that Michael's testimony could not amount to clear and convincing evidence."
-- from the above link
It's an interesting link. On your #2 about removing tubes as implausible:
"... and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that happened to her are likewise ..."
I don't agree with your #3. I don't think there needs to be a reason.
#4 "The statements were not recalled until seven years after Terri's 'collapse'--long after they were supposedly made."
True. But why would they be recalled any sooner. For what purpose? It wasn't until Michael requested the court to determine Terri's wishes that it was necessary to recall Terri's statements.
As to the charge that by waiting seven years, Michael was not acting in good faith, Judge Greer said it the best: "That assertion hardly seems worthy of comment other than to say that he should not be faulted for having done what those opposed to him want to be continued."
I am part of the pro-life crowd but I have to admit that those who carried this case to such extremes with all the conspiracies. The "I know better than anyone what Terri wanted" and if you disagree with me I'll call you names and might evern threaten you crowd made the pro-life cause that much more weak and loonier.
And her death was perfectly legal. Given the nod by severall state and federal courts.
True, this case has made FR the least enjoyable that I have ever seen it.
I'm not leaving because there is still no better place on the web that I have found.
I am glad the TS threads are waning.
If someone is capable of expressing their wishes in a tangible medium and fails to do so, how serious can they be about having those wishes carried out?
A requirement that required all advance directives to be transcribed in tangible media, period, could impose an undue burden on people who were unable to thus record their wishes, but it would not seem to impose much burden on those who were able to. Explain, therefore, why you would think it unreasonable to require that anyone who is capable of transcribing their wishes in a tangible medium must do so for them to be carried out.
There will be no civil suit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.