Posted on 03/30/2005 2:14:34 PM PST by CHARLITE
"Please, Lord," I groused plaintively last week as I stood a few yards from where Terri Schiavo lay dying because a gaggle of public officials had decided her life was not worth living. "Please don't let one more person tell me how 'complex' this whole case has become."
If I heard the "complexity" response once, I think I heard it a hundred times. Worst of all, I probably even thought it a few times myself.
But the Terri Schiavo case is "complex" only in the sense that any of our sinful behavior is complicated. Sometimes, it is true, we weave such contorted patterns that solutions seem hard to find. That's precisely when we ought to look for God's simpler answers.
There is nothing complex about a situation like this: Party A is desperately needy. Party B, the normal provider of Party A's needs, says he doesn't want to do so. Party C, however, is more than ready to step in and provide what Party B says he doesn't want to give. Doesn't seem so hard, does it?
The situation gets complicated only when an extraneous Party D steps in to say that Party C can't, by law, extend such a merciful hand. And Party D in this case, of course, turns out to be those same activist judges who have stood half of American society on its head in recent years.
Just think how simple all this might have been if it had not become the American habit to try to remedy every inconvenience in life with a trip to the courthouse. Set aside the worst things you've heard about Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband for eight years before she suffered a terrible heart attack in 1990 that left her with clearly serious brain damage. Instead, think only the best of Michael and the distress he faced.
Here's how the situation might have unfolded then. The growing emotional and financial burden confronting Mr. Schiavo might understandably have escalated to more than he was able to bear. That happens to lots of people all the time. Some such folk struggle on even then, buoyed either by remarkable personal courage, a wonderful faith, or a combination of the two. Others, however, stumble and fall. "It's too much," they say as they walk away from their burdens. And when we see that, we may be disappointed—but we temper our disappointment with understanding. Most of us haven't walked in those same shoes.
So Michael Schiavo could have done that, as thousands of people do every year, and we would never have known his name. He could have walked out on Terri, turned her care over to her willing parents, and there would have been no national debate last week. Michael Schiavo certainly wouldn't have been a hero, but neither would he have become known worldwide as a cad.
Only the American courts could have made it so complicated. It's not just the content of their decisions in all of this that have been so boneheaded. It's been the very thought that they had to make any decision at all. Why couldn't the very first judge to be involved with the Schiavos' sad tale not have had the wisdom to say to Michael, "Mr. Schiavo, why don't you simply divorce your wife, take the criticism that will come from such action, and get on with your life?"
That would have been too simple. I looked down the street from the Woodside Hospice last Saturday at the long lineup of TV trucks with their gigantic dishes and telescoping transmitting towers. I glimpsed the small city of high-priced reporters and network personnel who had moved in for a two- or three-day encampment. I tried—and failed—to estimate what legal fees and court costs and law enforcement bills might have been. The next day, Congress met in special session and President Bush and Air Force One made an unscheduled flight back to Washington to sign a special bill.
All this says nothing of the high spiritual, moral, and cultural bills from such folly. When the history of euthanasia in America is reviewed a generation or two from now, the story of Terri Schiavo will provide details for one of the earliest and most critical chapters.
It could all have been so simple. All it would have taken was a Solomonic decision by any of a dozen judges—all of whom in this case overcomplicated the case before them. One profound difference, of course, was that in Solomon's case, the court saw to it that the baby lived. —•
Thanks Charlite
Very good read. And so true.
This reminds me of the book "Johnny got his Gun", by Dalton Trumbo. The book is about a soldier in WWI who get all of his limbs blown off, goes deaf, loses his sight, and loses his speech, from a bomb. In the story, the soldier becomes concious again and realizes that he is just a "piece of meat that keeps on living." Years pass, and eventually he is able to communicate with his nurse by morse code. She tells the military about him, and they communicate. He tells them what its like to be a vegtable, and he asks them to kill him. When he does not get his wish granted, he realizes life for him will be a living hell for the rest of his existance. I think when you're nothing but a brainless bag of skin, you have the right to die.
The fact that so many of my fellow Americans think this decision is right fills me with despair.
Even the brutal Romans allowed bystanders to help Jesus on His way to the cross.
It is really pretty simple do we put her to death for being a useless disabled person or let her continue to provide joy to those who love her?
That would have been Judge Greer.
The reason he couldn't say that to Michael was that he was charged, by Florida law, to find "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes as they related to her condition.
The judge examined the evidence, heard sworn testimony, and concluded that Terri would not have wanted to live that way.
No one on this board wants to hear this, but it isn't the courts who made the case so complex, it is the Schindlers. The law says that the husband is the next of kin, not the parents, and barring directives to the contrary he is the presumptive guardian. The Schindlers don't like this, which I understand, and refuse to accept it, which has resulted in endless litigation.
Whether you agree with Michael Schiavo's decision or not, it is in line with what many others have done, given the doctors' diagnosis and the length of time elapsed. He would not have been publicly criticized, were it not for the Schindlers' long campaign to villanize him and contest the doctors' opinions on Terri's condition.
Perhaps it would have been best for the Schindlers to take custody of their daughter and care for her, since they feel so strongly about it. But litigation hasn't accomplished this. Th outcome causes one to wonder if possibly there wasn't a better way. It takes two to make a feud.
What if Nell had told others that she would not want to be rescued if she were in that condition?
Look at the people
around you. Remember, 'Rats
blamed the court system
for electing Bush!
Now we've got Republicans [!]
sounding just as weird.
But "that way" could be conditional on the quality and dedication of MS's care. Even if Terri has dim perceptions, perhaps her preference would be to fall under her own parents' guardianship.
Greer is being highly presumptive, and should have erred on the life-side, IMHO.
She is not a toy to be used to bring happiness to anyone.
The judge found "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri would not want to live this way. If her parents truly loved her, they accede to her wish.
Nell is gagged and cannot speak; aside from a low IQ due to a childhood injury, she enjoys life.
My saying about attorneys is
"Show me an efficient attorney and I'll show you a broke attorney"
Charlite, when big $$$$$$$$$ enter the picture, control over the source for big $$$$$$$$$ must be maintained at all costs. If the source for the big $$$$$$$$$ is the baby, too bad for the baby. That SEEMED to be the complicating factor.
I know that sometimes things can look an awful lot like they are a certain way, almost 99% like they're that way and not be that way at all. Our perceptions can be sincere, but sincerely wrong in attempting to judge another person's motives. Christ is the judge, and I am glad for that.
You are 100% correct. Different people could look at the situation differently.
That's why Michael turned it over to Judge Greer. This was Judge Greer's decision, not Michael's.
Judge Greer reviewed everything and came to the conclusion he did.
"Greer is being highly presumptive, and should have erred on the life-side, IMHO."
If Judge Greer could not find "clear and convincing" evidence, then yes, he should have ordered the feeding tube to remain.
What is obvious is that Greer never had any intention of making any decision other than to order Terri killed. For some reason, he hates the disabled.
So it all boils down to a subjective assessment.
That's not a "Solomonic" solution, it's a SOPHOMORIC solution. JOEL BELZ forgets (if he ever knew) that Terri is Catholic. She could only get a declaration of nullity which says that no marriage ever existed in the first place. If that were the case, he would have no grounds for being her guardian. Now, directed merely at Michael, who they say is not Catholic but Lutheran (I'm not sure), his divorcing Terri would be assuming he WANTS to divorce her.
Belz might not be willing to think that MS could have an ulterior motive: keeping the b**ch quiet, so he doesn't get in trouble for her injuries in the first place. If he does, that would explain everything, including his continuing penchant to control Terri's life, or what's left of it, anyway.
Before Nell was gagged and could not speak, she let it be known that she wouldn't want to live in a brain-damaged-no-recovery-possible condition.
Would you honor her request or not?
It is funny that the brainless bag of skin in your story was still able to communicate in morse code. Are you and your mother able to speak that way - or are you both among the brainless?
What you really mean is that when you are worthless to us you have a duty to die or rather accept us killing you. Terri is not simply dying, she is being killed.
Part of the issue with Terri Schiavo was what she wanted - your view ignores that and advances the notion of killing fields in our country.
She said this prior to 1991. What if the medical arts today are more highly advanced of assessing and perhaps treating her condition. Have we established that she is not self-aware?
How in the world is Michael's "remembering" seven years after her illness that she told him she wouldn't want to be on life-support "clean and convincing evidence"? And many would argue that a feeding tube is NOT life support. Judge Greer is murdering Terri along with her husband. May they both get what's coming to them - the sooner the better.
Robert, Robert, Robert - you don't have your facts correct. Judge Greer didn't just order that the feeding tube be removed - he forbad feeding by mouth. So are you arguing that feeding by mouth is extraordinary care?
What is so hard to understand about this? When Michael moved in with another woman and fathered her children, he should have been removed as guardian!!! What don't people see that?
Maybe we can avoid complexity altogether by not allowing anyone to contest anyone's desire to put any disabled person to death. That will make it simple, won't it?
I will accept that she said this, but she could have referring to the Quinlan case, where the woman was, i believe, in a total coma for ten years after being remoived from a respirator.
A judge hearing the dispute between Michael and the Schindlers should have resolved it by ordering a divorce that had not been requested by either spouse and that he didn't have the authority to grant?
Remember that the next time you use the phrase "judicial activism"...
Would it be possible to feed by nose?
Where did that come from?
In January, 2000, Judge Greer conducted a hearing where he was presented with medical evidence by both sides, he heard sworn testimony from both sides, and the cross examinations of that testimony by both sides.
Based on that evidence and testimony, he found that Terri would not have wanted to live the way she was living, and ordered the feeding tube removed.
Since any other judge would have ruled the same, I believe Judge Greer's decision to be an objective assessment of the facts.
Not true. He hates disabled women.
Get your tin-foil conspiracy "facts" straight.
They call it a feeding tube, your attempt at humor is lost on anyone with a heart.
Nope.
Greer wants her dead. He rejected out of hand contrary evidence, and so is murderingher.
HE REJECTED contrary evidence, refused it from being recorded - (so future (more impartial judges can't look at it) - and is her judge, jury, and executioner.
"She said this prior to 1991. What if the medical arts today are more highly advanced of assessing and perhaps treating her condition. Have we established that she is not self-aware?"
A medical spokeswoman addressed that question on TV news last night. She said that Greer's decisions lately have been based on information and technology that was from 2002. Since then we are now able to discern more about what is going on in the mind of a disabled, brain damaged patient. Michael could be in a big hurry to OFF his wife before the window of opportunity closes. If Greer were to follow the "de novo" mandate of Congress and the President, newer technology would be applicable, and Michael might not have the filtered evidence the court is now using for its out-of-date judgment.
The judge had "clear and convincing" evidence that she was not self-aware. Ditto on treating her condition.
Could the judge be wrong? Of course. But this is the system, not putting it up to a vote in USATODAY.
Had the judge revoked Michael's guardianship as a result of his wanton failure to honor the obligations of that role, a new guardian could have (and an honest guardian would have) filed for a divorce (guardians of incapacitated wards can do that in Florida in cases where continued marriage would be clearly contrary to a ward's best interest). Given that Michael had openly renounced his marriage vows, I would expect it would have been granted.
What if Snidely Whiplash said Nell said such things, but others disputed that claim, and noted that Snidely Whiplash was resisting Nell's efforts to ungag herself?
Medical arts (interpretive and theraputic) advanced in 5 years. There is the hope her quality of health and live can be improved, perhaps crossing back over the line she casually set as unacceptable.
He also erroneously concluded that the sworn testimony of one of Terri's friends had to be false.
The friend claimed that Terri had said to her in 1982 (regarding Karen Anne Quinlan) that 'where there's life, there's hope'. The honorable Judge Greer concluded that she would not have made such a statement in 1982 since Ms Quinlan had passed away in 1976.
One little problem with Judge Greer's logic: Karen Anne Quinlan was very much alive in 1982 - she didn't die until June 11, 1985.
And Karen Anne Quinlan, much like Terri Schiavo, required a feeding tube.
Whatever preceeded the status quo. Today, in the United States, there is a 41 year-old woman being held in captivity, surviving without life support equipment, without food, without water. She is separated from her parents, who want to ease her hunger and thirst, by armed law enforcement officers, sworn to prevent their efforts at saving her life under threat of force, arrest and imprisonment.
And we call this the land of the free, the home of the brave.
And, last time I looked, under Florida law, having sex with someone other than your spouse does not equate to renouncing your marriage. It doesn't even mean you wish your spouse ill. It could simply mean she has been PVS for years and her parents and everyone else around you are urging you to get on with your life and, after years of rehab, you realize she ain't gonna get better and you eventually agree.
Hold it right there. Are you saying that he forgot? That he forgot Terri's wish not to live that way, then after seven years "remembered" it?
Now, where did you come up with that doozy?
"And many would argue that a feeding tube is NOT life support."
That would be a good argument. But did Terri say to others that she "wouldn't want to live on life support" or that she "wouldn't want to live like that"?
Well, it's a moot point. Judge Greer heard the testimony and concluded that there was "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri would not want to live the way she was living.
Are you suggesting that he should have put it up to a USA TODAY vote instead?
You can argue that Schiavo forfeited his moral claim to guardianship, but what does this have to do with the law? A man can have five mistresses and 25 children, and he is still married in the eyes of the law. Conservatives usually dislike activist judges, but in this case we are angry because the judge wasn't activist enough to see things our way.
At any rate, all I'm saying is that its unwise to get into a legal battle with a relative unless you have a winning case.
he forbad feeding by mouth Would it be possible to feed by nose?
They call it a feeding tube, your attempt at humor is lost on anyone with a heart.
It's OK, I was being serious, looking for a loophole to Greer's dictat. It is possible to injest nutrients and moisture via the nasal cavities?
I am fully aware that Terri had failed three swallowing tests a decade ago. Such tests determined that trying to feed Terri orally would not worth the risk given that other methods of feeding were available. They did not determine that such methods had a zero percent chance of success, but rather that they had a non-zero chance of harmful failure. Even if oral feeding would have had a 90% chance of success, it would have been contraindicated if there were a 5% chance of aspiration.
BTW, to use an analogy I offered in another thread: would it be prudent for a pilot to try to land a passenger airliner without using any of the hydraulically-operated control surfaces--indeed, using practically nothing except the thrust controls on two of the engines? Such an attempt would be considered sheer folly in any normal circumstance, but a pilot in fact did land a DC-10 that way after an exploding engine killed all of the plain's hydraulic systems. Crazy, and with very little chance of success, but given the alternative of a crash killing everyone on board any attempt to save the situation, trying to have a semi-controlled crash-landing seems only prudent (IIRC, about half the passengers survived).
So what legitimate basis is there for Greer's order forbidding oral hydration?
All forms of feeding and hydration, including by mouth, are forbidden. Greer deliberately avoided leaving any loopholes.
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.