quote:

---

Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life.

---

quote:

---

Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.

---

quote:

---

The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.

---

quote:

---

Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.

---

quote:

---

"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.

A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.

---

quote:

---

"From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides," Concerned Women for America's Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side "believes Terri's life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo's actions as merciful, and appropriate."

---

quote:

---

More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, "because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water."

---

quote:

---

The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.

"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place," respondents were asked.

Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.

---

quote:

---

Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient's family has a dispute over the care.

---

quote:

---

"According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we're trying to accomplish," she said.

The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.

When asked directly about Terri's case and told the her estranged husband Michael "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her" 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents while 37 percent disagreed.

---

quote:

---

Jay, you are a divider. People are entitled to their own beliefs, and bludgeoning them with your won't change that. The more you do things like this the less I'm inclined to listen to anything you say.

---

quote:

---

But Terri expressed her preference, to her legal guardian and husband.

---

quote:

---

They had expensive machines doing that for her.

---

quote:

---

Notice what is not asked? What if the person is in a non-cureable persistant vegetative state?

---

quote:

---

But there is no such law now.

---

quote:

---

For instance, we now live in a country where you can kill your wife, as long as she's tragically brain-damaged, lying in a hospital bed, unable to speak.
She does open her eyes, though. And she can track objects that move across her field of vision. She isn't in a coma.
She even has people who want to take care of her. Her parents, her siblings.
And pay no attention to the "experts" who say that these apparent signs of intelligent life aren't real. We once had an "expert" make the same sort of declaration about our son Charlie, after a mere half hour of observation, completely discounting the experience of Charlie's parents and other caretakers who knew perfectly well that he really communicated with us.
The expert's assumption was that anything seen through the eyes of people who loved Charlie was to be discounted completely. Ironically, though, it is precisely the people whose attention is concentrated by love who are best equipped to judge whether communication is happening -- since it is happening with them.
The people who love Terri Schiavo apparently do not include her husband, who seems awfully impatient to get rid of her.
And under our bizarre laws, he has the only vote, and her parents and brothers and sisters are completely disregarded.
What is the husband's case for killing her?
It couldn't possibly be because he wants to be able to marry the woman he's living with now. After all, to accomplish that he need only divorce the brain-damaged woman in a hospital bed.
Oh, but wait. If he divorces her, then he won't get as much of that million-dollar settlement that's paying for her care right now. Only if she dies will he get any of that.
No, his motive is completely noble and unselfish. He wants to shut off her feeding tube because she "wouldn't have wanted to live like this."
Hmmmm. Convenient that she can't speak, isn't it?
The incredible thing -- to me, at least, and yet I have to believe it, don't I -- is that he was able to find a judge who would give him the right to kill this woman.
Despite the fact that she has loved ones who are desperate to keep her alive and take responsibility for her care. Despite the fact that the husband's motives are suspect at best. Somehow, judges in Florida keep finding a "right to kill" hidden somewhere in the law.
Well, we have a precedent for that, don't we. When it comes to legalized killing, our judges are way ahead of our legislatures ...

---

Lots of other great points in the article.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Most of his points have already been discussed and discredited on other threads on this site, Jay. Do you have a better source?
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
A better source then Scott Card for Scott Card’s own website? I kind of doubt it.

By the way, discredited in your opinion.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
Jay -- just because this is his forum doesn't mean he's right.

Tom -- just because many people disagree with them does not mean that the ideas have been discredited.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
True, but I’d hope that since this is his forum, that they would be respected.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I kind of somewhat agree with OSC, but, could we please END this? It's over, there's nothing more that can be said, these folks have been dragged through the mud enough as it is.
Just let it go.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Syn, that's not really a fair request. It's not like Jay's topic title didn't provide fair warning.

There are lots of topics spoken of more often than lots of people think they should be. But on every single one, someone disagrees with that assessment.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
I kind of doubt it’s over since more then likely this will have an effect on upcoming legislation for end of life care. It for sure has caused a ton of living wills to be done. And I imagine that this will help spur some judicial nominations through.
 

---

Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
 
Actually, I think it has been a positive issue, in that many Americans are producing living wills. People needed to be shaken out of their complacency.

But yeah, synth, I get what you mean. By the way: The Pope is still dead too....
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
It's still somewhat agonizing.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
On the issue of discredited points:

1) For instance, we now live in a country where you can kill your wife, as long as she's tragically brain-damaged, lying in a hospital bed, unable to speak. She does open her eyes, though. And she can track objects that move across her field of vision. She isn't in a coma.

She isn't in a coma, true. On the other hand, her brain has been mostly liquidated; there are no signs whatsoever of conscious thought.

2) She even has people who want to take care of her. Her parents, her siblings.

This is true. Except that, according to her husband, she had asked that this not be permitted. Futhermore, they appear to have gone to some lengths to alienate him, making it unlikely to receive his cooperation.

3) And pay no attention to the "experts" who say that these apparent signs of intelligent life aren't real. We once had an "expert" make the same sort of declaration about our son Charlie, after a mere half hour of observation, completely discounting the experience of Charlie's parents and other caretakers who knew perfectly well that he really communicated with us.

Were it a single doctor insisting that Terri was incapable of thought and a dozen doctors insisting otherwise, I'd share your skepticism. The consensus among neuroscientists, however, is that she's just not capable of it.

4) The people who love Terri Schiavo apparently do not include her husband, who seems awfully impatient to get rid of her.

This is remarkably unfair. As Jay pointed out, he waited a long time to kill her off; clearly, this wasn't an easy decision for him. But since he made it, he has stuck to it -- despite the fact that he would profit enormously from backing off his stance.

5) And under our bizarre laws, he has the only vote, and her parents and brothers and sisters are completely disregarded.

I don't find that law too bizarre. It's called guardianship. And while you can argue whether or not he deserves to be her guardian -- and note that a number of legal challenges to this case argued precisely that -- it's worth noting that our own legal process found otherwise.

6) What is the husband's case for killing her?
It couldn't possibly be because he wants to be able to marry the woman he's living with now. After all, to accomplish that he need only divorce the brain-damaged woman in a hospital bed. Oh, but wait. If he divorces her, then he won't get as much of that million-dollar settlement that's paying for her care right now. Only if she dies will he get any of that.
No, his motive is completely noble and unselfish.

And this is not only rude but inaccurate; it suggests that he is motivated not only by a desire to remarry (which I believe is indeed a possibility) but also raw greed -- which is highly unlikely, given the fact that he has not only refused enormous sums to surrender his guardianship but has also spent almost all the settlement money on Terri's care and various legal fees.

6) He wants to shut off her feeding tube because she "wouldn't have wanted to live like this."
Hmmmm. Convenient that she can't speak, isn't it?

Again, this is unfair, as it suggests that anyone who has ever made the choice to turn off life support or otherwise permit a loved one to die has done so because that loved one "conveniently" could not speak.

7) The incredible thing -- to me, at least, and yet I have to believe it, don't I -- is that he was able to find a judge who would give him the right to kill this woman.

Yeah. Twenty judges, all randomly assigned, over the course of several years. He's practically Machiavellian.

7) Despite the fact that she has loved ones who are desperate to keep her alive and take responsibility for her care. Despite the fact that the husband's motives are suspect at best. Somehow, judges in Florida keep finding a "right to kill" hidden somewhere in the law.

Unless we are suggesting that guardians should no longer have the right to make long-term care decisions, and that the state should default to keeping long-term victims alive -- and, as a side note, default to paying for their care with tax money, as it's the only fair option -- then this is, again, an unfair critique.

8) Well, we have a precedent for that, don't we. When it comes to legalized killing, our judges are way ahead of our legislatures ...

And this connection to the abortion issue, I suspect, brings tears to sndrake's eyes on a regular basis.

[ April 04, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
Doesn't anybody remember that Man show feature where they asked people to sign a petition ending women's suffrage? A LOT OF PEOPLE SIGNED! Just another sign that wording can change people's opinions.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Tom I didn’t find anything that you “discredited.” Basically all I saw was a bunch of opinions that to be honest really weren’t worth the typing time. Usually to use the term “discredit” you need a few more facts and a lot less opinion.

1. It’ll be interesting to hear about the results of the autopsy. I guess her smiles at her family doesn’t count as conscious thought.

2. Really? So why was it not until he met his new woman that he said all this? 5 years after her accident and before that said he didn’t know. Interesting.

3. There was a doctor that said so. One who treats such patients all the time and had been nominated for a noble prize. And by the way, I’m sure I can get dozens to say it my way, just as easy as you can get dozens to say it your way. Shouldn’t we be on the side of life though?

4. Wow…… really twist my words there Tom. Way to go. Yes, he was all caring for 5 years. Then he got his new woman and was all about killing her, suddenly saying it was what she wanted. Ha! Go figure.

5. Yes, very flawed that a man with a common law wife can still be the guardian for his legal wife. Sick.

6. Is it? So it’s not rude to kill your wife? Oh, ok.

6-b.Is it? Interesting that his story changed too.

7. Well……. I think we’re referring to the primary judge here who made most of the decisions and where the appeals were mostly based off of.

7-b. I guess we’ll never agree on the whole guardian thing.

8. Did you have a point here?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Terri's husband did not get to make the decision because he was her guardian. In fact, she had a guardian ad litem for a while.

What he did get to do was be one of several people who claimed they knew what she wanted, based on casual comments she made.

To me, that is why this IS a national issue. As a nation, we should value life -- "persistent vegetative state" (and sndrake is too busy right now to remind you what an open-ended and non-specific diagnosis that is) or no -- more than that.

To kill a suspected murderer there is a burden of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt." WHY do we not demand that level of proof when assuming we know whether someone would have wanted to be kept alive?

There was plenty of doubt about Terri's wishes, and about her husband's biases. But of course, "no one could possibly want to live that way," so she MUST have not wanted to either.

[ April 04, 2005, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"WHY do we not demand that level of proof when assuming we know whether someone would have wanted to be kept alive?"

That's an excellent question. Who do you suggest should bear the emotional and financial strain of supporting people who can no longer support themselves -- for the rest of their lives, as long as modern medicine can keep them going? Should they become wards of the federal government, for example?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
In all honesty, I do not know.

However, in this case, the (most recent) judge said that money was not the issue.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*nod* Nor should it be.
But if we decide as a civilization that we will no longer permit people to die without proof that they want to die -- and, again, we're certainly capable of making this decision -- we have to decide who is going to be responsible for the care of the individuals kept artificially alive.

And until we make that decision, the caregivers should be entitled to choose.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I hear your argument. I disagree -- most emphatically in this case, where he had sued and won a substantial settlement specifically meant for her care, which was then largely spent on legal bills -- and somewhat less emphatically in general.

Aren't you anti-abortion, Tom?

[edit: stupid homophones]

[ April 04, 2005, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 

quote:

---

There were no network news bulletins when Sun Hudson died. No army of protesters keeping vigil outside the hospital, no statement from the president, no comment from the House majority leader.

Instead, he died quietly, resting in his mother's arms. This was on March 15. Had he lived 10 more days, Sun would have been 6 months old.

Doctors say he had a genetic deformity, a lethal form of dwarfism in which the lungs do not grow large enough to support life. They felt that further treatment was futile. His mother, Wanda, argued that all he needed was time to develop. The court sided with the doctors and cleared the way for them to disconnect the ventilator.

This is allowed in Texas under the Advance Directives Act, signed into law in 1999 by Gov. George W. Bush.

---

quote:

---

Terri Schiavo died at the center ring of a political circus, an intimate tragedy beamed to the world and destined to outlive her as a tool for fundraising and a rallying cry for those whose hypocrisy is exceeded only by the incoherence of their logic. She died with a juggler outside her window.

Meanwhile, Sun Hudson died the kind of death that is routinely suffered by thousands of people for whom treatment is deemed futile. A death the wider world does not notice, much less mourn.

A friend thinks the dichotomy is explained by the fact that his mother was black and unemployed. Maybe.

But even so, you have to wonder if he wasn't the lucky one.

---

quote:

---

rallying cry for those whose hypocrisy is exceeded only by the incoherence of their logic.

---

quote:

---

For many disabled Americans, seeing the final images of Terri Schiavo was like looking at a terrifying picture of themselves -- undervalued and at the mercy of others.

"We do not identify with the spouse or the parents," Diane Coleman, president and founder of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet, explained just days before Schiavo's death. "We identify with her. She is one of us."

The battle over the severely brain-damaged Florida woman sparked a wave of congressional and legal wrangling and a renewed interest in end-of-life directives. But for many who are disabled -- whether from a recent accident or a lifelong illness -- the case triggered a much more immediate, personal reaction.

Watching the Florida drama from the opposite coast, it looked as though Schiavo was "put to death for the crime of being disabled," said William G. Stothers, deputy director of the Center for an Accessible Society. "Among the disability rights community, it is a generally held belief that in society at large the view is 'better dead than disabled.' "

Distrustful of the medical establishment and worried they may be considered a "burden," disabled people such as Stothers fear they may be one ER visit away from becoming the next Terri Schiavo.

"What happens if I go to the hospital and they say, 'He's so disabled anyway, should we do these heroic measures?' " said Stothers, who contracted polio 55 years ago and now uses a wheelchair. "It scares me."

Although Schiavo, 41, may not have appeared handicapped in the conventional sense, "to people who have disabilities or advocates for people with disabilities, they [saw] Terri Schiavo as a disabled person," said Lennard Davis, a professor of English and Disability Studies at the University of Illinois in Chicago. "People with disabilities perceive they are on a continuum between themselves and Terri Schiavo."

Immediately after her death Thursday, Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, linked his sister to the cause: "Terri, your life and legacy will continue to live on as the nation is now awakened to the plight of thousands of voiceless people with disabilities that were previously unnoticed."

Internet chat rooms dedicated to disability issues have revealed a range of reactions, said Karen Hwang, 37, a quadriplegic in New Jersey.

"For some people, the big fear is being kept alive in this persistent vegetative state," as Schiavo was for 15 years, Hwang said. "I'm one of them. For others, it's that somebody will put them to death prematurely."

---

quote:

---

Look, people disagree about this issue. That's why it should be a personal choice. I might not choose the same thing you choose, but I'll defend your right to choose it.

---

quote:

---

Which Bush signed into law.

I think that's why Pitts said "rallying cry for those whose hypocrisy is exceeded only by the incoherence of their logic."

---

quote:

---

What does bug me, and I think a large part of why tempers flare so much, is the need to vilify the parties involved in the Schiavo case. I don't think either side operated out of spite or personal gain. I think they did what they did out of love for Terri Schiavo.

---

quote:

---

"Artificially provided sustenance and hydration" is already considered "life-prolonging procedure" covered by Florida's "end of life" statutes. Doesn't require separate language. Signed by Gov. Bush in 1999, by the way.

Just sayin'.

---

quote:

---

I don't consider this case to have anything whatsoever to do with abortion, however; the parallels just aren't there.

---

My opinion on one does not directly inform my opinion on the other - they are consequences of some of the same underlying moral principles.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
You asked if we would think it acceptable to let her be starved if she had left a written will. I told you the conditions under which I would.

Understood, and I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to make points.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
No, I was just having some fun, but I did want to make sure it was clear I advocated a change in the law.
 

---