The fight over Terry Shiavo's life has caused me to have a bit of a rethink with regard to euthanasia.
I am now in agreement with Florida Governor Jeb Bush's decision to reinstate fluids in order to keep her alive. At first, I didn't see how devious the husband, Michael - whom I originally defended - was.
Even though Terri Schiavo has been in a vegetative state for 14 years, that fact does not excuse the Florida Supreme Court for striking down the edict issued by Governor Bush last autumn. Furthermore, if Terri's feeding tube is removed, she will starve to death. What kind of a way is that to die?
The FSC obviously agreed with my initial opinion on the case. I had written:
"I believe it was unconstitutional. This legislation was crammed through at the 11th hour and the move looks very doubtful when held up against the litmus test of liberty that is the Constitution."
Chief Justice Barbara Pariente wrote for the court: "It is without question an invasion of the authority of the judicial branch for the Legislature to pass a law that allows the executive branch to interfere with the final judicial determination in a case. That is precisely what occurred here."
Going back to Michael Schiavo, his concern for Terri's right to die is motivated by pure self-interest. He left Terri for another woman whom he had children with. It has become clear to me that Mr. Schiavo does not have Terri's best interest at heart and should be ruled unfit to pursue the matter of removing her feeding tube.
Florida law allows for the execution of one's wishes, even if orally expressed. Terri has not done so, and it can safely be assumed that she has expressed her desire in remaining alive to her parents.
And, Lord, believe me, I do not want to see legal euthanasia based on the Dutch model. Witness:
In 1991, in an effort to come to grips with the actual medical practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide, the Dutch Government established a government commission, headed by Professor Jan Remmelink to study the problem. The Remmelink Report opened the eyes of both the people of the Netherlands and the world to the extent of the practice of euthanasia in Holland. Remmelink found that 49,000 of the 130,000 deaths in the Netherlands each year were not natural but involved a "medical decision at the end of life" or MDEL. 95% of these MDEL cases involve, in equal numbers, either withholding treatment/discontinuing life support or the alleviation of pain and symptoms through medication that might hasten death. This latter (alleviating pain and symptoms) category accounted for approx. 20,000 deaths that had been hastened by a physicians decision. Actual euthanasia, using the official Dutch definition, occurred in 2,300 cases or 2% of all Dutch deaths. Dutch physicians helped 400 patients who requested suicide, for either mental illness or discomfort, to kill themselves in 1990. The alarming statistics of the Remmelink Report indicate that in thousands of cases decisions that might or were intended to end a fully competent patient's life were made without consulting the patient. (Emphasis mine.)
Having said that, I still think we need a system in place, with checks and balances, where a terminally ill patient can, him or herself, decide whether they want the plug pulled or not. We do it for animals, why can't we do it for humans? Terri should be the one to end this whole affair by declaratively stating herself what she wants with no interference from either the state or the "husband" - just her doctors, her closest family members and herself.
Article comments
1 - bhw
Even though Terri Schiavo has been in a vegetative state for 14 years, that fact does not excuse the Florida Supreme Court for striking down the edict issued by Governor Bush last autumn.
That's not why they did it. They did it because he misused the legislature to do a run-around the judiciary [you know, some "activist judges" that helped his brother move into the White House]. So Jeb violated the state's constitution, for one. For another, ask yourself if you really want one elected official to have the power to revoke your family's right to make life-and-death decisions. Do you want Mitt Romney personally interfering in your family's health decisions? Me either.
Furthermore, if Terri's feeding tube is removed, she will starve to death. What kind of a way is that to die?
Ironically -- or not -- Terri fell into a coma because she was starving herself to death. The coma was caused by her eating disorder. So either way you look at it, her "life" and her "death" will be caused by starvation.
He left Terri for another woman whom he had children with.
Honey, his wife been in a coma for 14 years. Does he not get to have a life...ever? Be realistic.
Florida law allows for the execution of one's wishes, even if orally expressed. Terri has not done so, and it can safely be assumed that she has expressed her desire in remaining alive to her parents.
How can you safely assume that? Did she speak while comatose? The crux of this case is that the husband says she *did* tell him, before her illness, that she wouldn't want to be alive under these circumstances. Her parents say she would never have said something like that. He said/she said. The spouse trumps the parents in the law, though. He's her legal guardian and they're not.
Terri should be the one to end this whole affair by declaratively stating herself what she wants with no interference from either the state or the "husband" - just her doctors, her closest family members and herself.
Well, that ain't happenin'. She's never going to be able to speak again because that part of her brain is toast. And here's a newsflash: her husband IS her closest family member. She chose to spend her life with him and make these types of life decisions with him. She's an adult and her parents can't speak for her any longer. That's just what happens when you grow up and choose a life for yourself.
Now, all that said, Michael Schiavo gives me the creeps, too. He's just a little too eager to pull out that tube. I have to ask why, if he wants to move on with his life, he doesn't just divorce Terri and let her parents absorb the responsibility for her care. [Hint: then he'd have to give them the $$ he won after testifying that he needed it for her long-term care.]
But my discomfort with this particular man doesn't change what should and shouldn't be codified into law. There's no way "Terri's Law" should have ever been passed, even if Michael Schiavo is skeevy. It's usually a bad idea to write a law for one particular person's case, and this is an example of that.
There is no way one member of a state government should be overruling the legal guardian's decision about someone's life/death situation. Bad, bad idea.
2 - Mark Edward Manning
bhw: "There is no way one member of a state government should be overruling the legal guardian's decision about someone's life/death situation. Bad, bad idea."
I agree entirely with what you say, theoretically. But according to the thoughts I've had of late, I'd want a foolproof, as-near-to-perfect-as-can-be system for legalized euthanasia. I'm adamant that we should do it. But how to go about it?
Also, I have grown uncomfortable with the Schiavo tragedy being used as the test case for euthanasia. I think the case should give us all pause, not to base any legal assisted suicide legislation on. Far too complicated, what with Michael Schiavo's very suspect motives.
I guess I feel like those who agree with the death penalty but argue that the system is too flawed to actually use it.
3 - Shark
a few points:
NO ONE should toss around abstract platitudes condemning Michael Schiavo until they have personally faced this issue.Then your opinion might have some validity.
Re: Dutch Data - doctors (American et al) allow hopeless and/or brain-damaged patients to die all the time, some in consultation with the family, some as a personal decision based on the facts. It's well-known among the medical establishment -- but rarely aired in public.
Ironic that the Compassionate Conservatives decry the government intervening in the personal lives of individuals --- except in cases where they support it.
Hypocrites.
"Right to Life? If you really support right-to-life, then why don't you block the entrance to a cemetary?" --- Bill Hicks
4 - Mac Diva
Are you well, MEM? There could not be a more egregious violation of separation of powers than Jeb Bush taking over the function of the judiciary in the Schiavo case. The word 'unconstitutional' barely addresses how outrageous his behavior was.
This entry is such an awful example of not remotely grasping either the issue or civil procedure, that I am not going to try to unravel the mess. Instead, here is the entry I wrote about the Schiavo case earlier this week. At the bottom is a link to an analysis of the case by Columbia law prof Mike Dorf. It is well worth reading..
The most significant aspects of the case are:
~The Florida Constitution confers a right to be reject medical treatment. If the person is no longer capable of expressing an opinion, the courts are to rely on previously expressed views. Michael Schiavo says his wife said she would not want to remain only technically alive using artificial means.
~The Florida Constitution explicitly says that the powers of the branches of government are limited to each of them. By taking over a judicial function, Bush blatantly violated the state constitution.
~The medical record are complete and clear. Terry Schiavo will not recover consciousness and has lost most functions of the brain. Her parents' grasping at autonomic behaviors such as opening of her eyes and mouth is wishful thinking. (Right to lifers claim that babies born without brains or brain stems are responsive, but that is also untrue.)
To briefly summarize, both the legal and medical records favor ending Schiavo's ordeal. Bush's effort was an attempt to thwart the most reasonable outcome by denying her procedural due process -- the right to have her case heard and decided by the judiciary. Deciding matters of equity for individuals is not his role as chief executive of the state.
5 - Juan Schoch
DCF needs to investigate this in their probe re: Terri Schiavo - AHCA Coverup
Information, materials, etc. pertinent to crimes being perpetrated against Theresa Schindler Schiavo and pertinent to a current DCF investigation listed below:
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com
Let your Congressman and Senator know and tell them to vote in favor of the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act as well.
NOTE: Free faxing for entire Washington D.C. area:
http://www.tpc.int/sendfax.html (send a free fax from your web browser)
Format of number to input is:
(ex. Pres. U.S. [POTUS]) -> 1 202 456 2461
(ex. Ashcroft) -> 1 202 514 1009
Vice Pres. Dick Cheney 1 202 456 2710
U.S. Senators and Congressmembers, etc.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
6 - Ken S.
All I can say is that her condition was caused by her not wanting the nurishment of food, she was bulemic. So to me it seems fitting to remove the tube, she wouldn't have wanted to be force fed while alive. Keep politics out of trying to interfere in a specific case, which is Unconstitutional. Tom Delay {Texas} and Bush {Texas) killed how many people with the death penalty? Non of these people got no where near the consideration from these two individuals, as this case has. Wonder how it would have been, if the parents were athiest?
7 - Dave Nalle
>>DCF needs to investigate this in their probe re: Terri Schiavo - AHCA Coverup<<
So you're suggesting that DCF in Florida - famous for just losing children alltogether - investigate Terry's parents for child abuse because they've kept her body alive when it ought to be dead?
Dave
8 - Eric Olson
Sirs, I'm not all that privy to the details but it amounts to this- Our const. affords us the rights to life/l/p or h so conversly we've got the right to die!! And the partner should have control.
9 - Mark Edward Manning
Eric Olsen: "Our const. affords us the rights to life/l/p or h so conversly we've got the right to die!! And the partner should have control."
I theoretically agree, Eric. But, this was not the case. Michael Schiavo's motives I do not trust anymore, and the way Terri died disgusts me. This was a very poor way to establish a right to die.
I fear for the pro-euthanasia movement - of which I am still a part, but I feel so uneasy with the Schiavo case being the standard-bearer.
It's sickening.
10 - Mak
I was told once that if we ever saw what's on the other side, that we would kill to be there. Terri Schiavo was caught between life and death, people making decisions for her. Micheal Shiavo may have been a &*#@!^%$, but that doesn't mean that he didn't know what was right in this situation. If you knew what was for you on the other side, you wouldn't want to live like that. Which really isn't living. Governor Bush also had no right to become involved in a situation that he didn't know anything about. His opinion had no relevance in Terri's situation because he didn't know her, he didn't know what she would want. I don't know everything, I just know that it isn't right.