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. —•
First of all, was it?
Second, who says that a bulimic person cannot write a legal document? Criminy, you talk as though she should have been locked up in an asylum.
"The two of Michael’s choice and the two of Schindler’s choice pretty much rule each other out."
Not so fast. Here's what the Guardian ad Litem says of one bout of exams:
"The scientific quality, value and relevance of the testimony varied. The two neurologists testifying for Michael Schiavo provided strong, academically based, and scientifically supported evidence that was reasonably deemed clear and convincing by the court. Of the two physicians testifying for the Schindlers, only one was a neurologist, the other was a radiologist/hyperbaric physician. The testimony of the Schindler’s physicians was substantially anecdotal, and was reasonably deemed to be not clear and convincing."
" The fifth physician, chosen by the court because the two parties could not agree, presented scientifically grounded, academically based evidence that was reasonably deemed to be clear and convincing by the court."
Essentially, it was 3-0 in favor of a PVS diagnosis.
Nope. Not offhand.
I would look it up, by why? It's a moot point. Terri can't eat or drink anyways. Why are you getting all riled up over this?
Would you be upset if the judge ordered that she not be allowed to walk around the room?
Was it you that sent the tape out on FR yesterday?
No, the judges don't care...If Terri got up and appeared before them in court and shouted "I want to live" - they'd arrest her and put her back in the room to die.
But we must email the tape to Hannity, Rush, Gretta, FOX, - everyone.
If they inundated, they'll get it on - especially if they think everyone else is going to beat 'em to it.
It doubtless won't save Terri at this late date - but it will show the world she was not PVS - and we had all better be very afraid. We will be next.
It has not been proven that she can't drink a flow similar to that of her saliva. What's the worst that happens... she dies?
Actually I did find the legalese about it, and it is demonically brilliant. Greer deemed such feeding an "unwarranted experimental procedure."
I hope you and your ilk are real proud of yourselves. Enjoy it now, because it will be forever gone when you come before the Great White Throne.
ping
Yeah, right down into her lungs, as it did in the past. Which was the reason for the feeding tube.
But she's gotten better at swallowing over the past few years, huh? Practicing? Miracle? What?
Then you need to take that up with the Florida legislature -- they wrote it.
and of course we can trust that the cat scan they show is really hers.
Look at this video of her - it may make you uncomfortable because anyone would have to be brain-dead to see it and still think she has no brain.
Look at it if you dare to move yourself out of your comfort zone,
http://web.Tampabay.rr.com/ccb/videos/Terri_Big_Eyes.rm">
the judge has ordered that they can't even moisten her cracking lips with a wet cloth - face it, they want her dead. They mean to have her dead. They will have her dead.
May God have mercy on all their rotten souls...for I can't
Please.
http://web.Tampabay.rr.com/ccb/videos/Terri_Big_Eyes.rm">
First, Heidi Law was a Certified Nursing Assistant, not an RN. Second, this occurred in 1997, eight years ago -- not indicative at all of what Terri is capable of today. Third, that "small amount of jello" could have gone right into Terri's lungs and this little CNA wouldn't have had a clue. She's lucky she didn't kill Terri. Fourth, she did this alone. We only have her word for it.
And whose word do we have that there would be a less-than-1% chance of Terri being able to take food and liquid by mouth?
I am awed at your omniscience.
A) The doctors were bored.
B) They needed the money.
C) Practice, practice, practice.
D) No reason whatsoever.
E) Because Terri has dysphagia -- food and liquids go into the lungs, leading to aspiration pneumonia.
I bet I can give a monkey a typewriter and have him bang away on it for 4 hours.
At the end of that time, how much you wanna bet that there is the word "maine" buried in there somewhere?
So what should I conclude from that?
Also, ask yourself. Why did they stop feeding her food and liquid by mouth?
That's why they pay me the big bucks.
Well, two legitimate reasons would be (1) if feeding by mouth would impose any significant risk of aspiration, feeding by g-tube would be safer whether or not oral feeding would likely be successful; (2) gastrostomic feeding is much faster and easier for caregivers than spoon-feeding of patients who have difficulty swallowing. Neither of these reasons in any way implies that oral feeding would be impossible--merely that it would not be worthwhile when a safer alternative existed.
I'm not posting any more comments about the medical evidence in this case.
I don't believe it matters at all-Mrs. Schiavo's "husband" should not be permitted to order her killed, no matter what the medical evidence shows (unless it shows that she is already dead).
This argument from the medical evidence seems to imply that IF the "PVS"-no recovery diagnosis is correct, THEN killing her is OK-which is not the case.
Maybe.
You are making very good arguments. I believe that the harm to society by allowing oral testimony from an interested party to estabish clear and convincing evidence of intent is much greater than any harm which can befall Mrs. Schiavo, so, in this case, I would not allow her feeding tube to be discontinued by proxy.
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.