merlinofchaos (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
merlinofchaos) wrote2005-06-15 01:44 pm
merlinofchaos) wrote2005-06-15 01:44 pm
More Shiavo Nonsense!
An autopsy confirmed almost everything about Terry Schiavo that was believed in the mainstream. Half her brain was gone, no signs of abuse or trauma. The only surprise was that there was no sign of a heart attack and no definitive cause for her collapse in the first place.
As soon as I heard this, early this morning, I couldn't help but think that the Right-To-Live believers would simply reject the autopsy out of hand.
I was right.
Seriously. Evidence? Who needs that. Belief is all that matters; belief is stronger than the best evidence, especially when that belief is a nationwide epidemic.
As soon as I heard this, early this morning, I couldn't help but think that the Right-To-Live believers would simply reject the autopsy out of hand.
I was right.
Seriously. Evidence? Who needs that. Belief is all that matters; belief is stronger than the best evidence, especially when that belief is a nationwide epidemic.
no subject
I'm still trying to decide whether or not to post something about this in my own journal; I don't want to sound like I'm crowing "Ha! I was *right*!" to my conservative friends, especially over such a sensitive issue. On the other hand, I want to make certain that the scientific reality of the issue, of which the doctors and judges were well aware, is popularized as much as possible, because I want the grievous nature of the errors made by Congress and the President to be made as perfectly clear as possible. As one of my liberal friends likes to say, "I am a proud member of the reality-based thinking community."
no subject
I respect different viewpoints, and different ideals. Most of my conservative friends are very smart people. (I don't think any of them came down on the side of Schiavo's parents, though).
I cannot dredge up one iota of respect for an entire group of people who blatantly ignore evidence by doing the political version of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LA LA LA" over the evidence.
I can accept that liberals have a tendency to live in an ivory tower, and that reality and theory don't converge as well as we would like to think, but it's rarely because the evidence is simply bunk; it's more likely that the evidence isn't the whole story. But that's not the same as the evidence simply being wrong.
Anyway, this has turned into a rant and I didn't mean for it to. I'm completely with you on the "I am a proud member of the reality-based thinking community." and I think I need to ponder that some more and integrate that or something like it into my political self-identification.
no subject
I still can't realistically understand why, if Schiavo's parents were willing and able to care for her, they couldn't be permitted to do so.
Kind of a moot point now, though.
no subject
The Court decided, after hearing all the evidence that both sides presented, that Terry would not want to live in that situation. It wasn't a matter of cost of care, it was about what they believed Terry wanted. It went through multiple appeals, and every Court upheld the lower court's ruling, so I have little doubt that the Court's interpretation of the law was correct.
no subject
But I'm just thinking about the central dispute in this case, which is, basically, in the absence of clear wishes otherwise, who decides when to remove life sustaining measures from a person?
In Florida, that person is clearly the spouse. Quality of life issues don't seem to matter much in this case. Even though you and I agree that there was no chance Schiavo would "recover" or "rehabilitate" what harm could it do to let her parents care for her until she dies of natural causes?
I guess that's what I'm really asking. Despite what you or I or Michael Schiavo believe, why not let her parents care for her, if they're able and willing to do so?
no subject
The Court. That's what the law says. I know that sounds kinda circular, but that's the whole point of the exercise. They don't want it to be a case of 'in the absence of clear wishes otherwise, anyone who expresses an interest can make decisions on your behalf'.
The entire appeals (not the initial decision) process revolved around whether or not Terry's parents had 'standing'. The court ruled they didn't.
no subject
Oops, sorry - forgot to the answer to this one.
If the court had let Terry's parents have standing in this matter, it would have allowed parents to file for divorce on behalf of their children (amongst other things). So if mommy decided that you'd married a two-bit whore, she could file for divorce for you - with standing. The legalise is kinda gnarly, but it boils down to what contract law is, and how it works. And that would obviously be a Bad Thing.
no subject
I'm playing a kind of thought experiment here, really.
Let's say Michael Schiavo wasn't so insistent that his wife wanted to die. Who does it harm to let Terri Schiavo continue to be cared for by her parents?
no subject
At that point, no one. But the insistence that she would not want to life like that was absolutely key to everything that happened, so were that the case, we probably never would've heard about this case.
no subject
But that's not what happened, nor is it what the law said.
Michael Schiavo said, "I think my wife would want to die, but I have no standing to decide and Terry left no clear instruction. The Court should decide what to do."
The Court said, "We have the power to decide Terry's wishes. We looked at the evidence, and we, The Court, acting as her legal Guardian, decided that Terry would not want to continue living in this state."
Terry's parents said, "We don't want her to die. Give her to us, we'll care for her!"
The Court said, "Sorry, but you are not her legal Guardians. The law is quite clear on this issue. You have no standing to ask for care of her."
So when you say "who does it harm to let Terri be cared for by her parents", the answer is everyone who ever enters into a contract. It would mean that any time you enter into a contract, or try to do something that someone else doesn't like (but isn't actually illegal) they can prevent you from doing so, because they would have legal standing. I mentioned the divorce thing before - that's an excellent example of why Standing is such an important legal concept.
Give Terri's parents custody of Terri, and you give my mother the right to file for divorce on my behalf (not that she'd do that, but she'd be perfectly capable of doing so). That is the legal harm ... not even considering the sancticity of life issue. By which I mean, your right to decide how you live and die, without interference from others.
no subject
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/16/medical.battle.ap/
Only this time, the parents are trying to *withold* treatment from their daughter, who stands a good chance of recovery with adequate treatment. Who knows best? Who is harmed by this decision?
no subject
The Court agreed with Michael that she would not want to persist in that condition. Once the Court said that, there was a clear decision made on the part of Terry Schiavo (by the Court, in hear stead) to not live tied to a machine.
It wasn't that the parents didn't have the right to take care of her, it's that Terry had the right to not live life like that, legally, and the decision was made. Every Appeals court looked at the evidence about what Schiavo wanted -- both sides were able to present witnesses -- and that decision was made. I think it is clear that Schiavo said she wouldn't want to live like that (after she saw a movie) and that there were witnesses.
What was at issue there was what Terry wanted, not what her parents wanted.
no subject
What Michael Schiavo believed was that Terri herself wouldn't want to 'live' like that. Given that belief, how could he let her parents care for her?
no subject