Friday, March 18, 2005

Million Dollar (veggie)Baby ?

I'm going to go ahead and assume that those of you out there who may be reading this have at the very least heard some mumblings/reporting/rumors/bloggerspeak of the Terri Schiavo case which is unfolding (but not unplugging) in Florida. Ooops, was that offensive? Stupid maybe? I guess I've just fallen victim to the outbreak of stupidity that seems to have stricken a certain and growing segment of our population....

Last week a California man offered Michael Schiavo $1,000,000 to relinquish custodial rights to his wife's parents. But wait, the stupidity doesn't stop at the "I want to buy the rights to your wife so that I can give them back to her parents" bit (which can stand on its own leg of idiocy). Oh no, everyone's favorite California business man explained that the reason for his offer was a newfound sense of "hope" he had for her after seeing a video of her and the life she leads (la very exciting one at that, what with the eating through a tube and the other vast enjoyments that come with being in a persistent vegetative state-PVS). Apparently this man, in all his vast scientific endeavors, has "seen some miraculous recoveries occur through the use of stem cells" which have otherwise been kept entirely secret from the medical community. While this man’s proposal is a bit despicable, and his knowledge of science more than lacking, it is really only a small example of some of the strange issues that are arising from this unfortunate case.

Not to be outdone by a mere businessman, members of the Catholic Church are also now weighing in on the issue, and in doing so, have opened up an entirely new forum for stupidity to be spewed and misconceptions to be had. Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, the Vatican’s chief bioethicist, has been quoted as saying that removing her feeding tube would be the equivalent to euthanasia. Statements such as this have riled up ranking members in the lower echelons of the church, leading to statements today by an Arch Bishop in Pennsylvania likening the cessation of feeding of Mrs. Schiavo to the Holocaust, and those who provide said “service” to be invoking an American Final Solution. I’m not sure if further comment on that is really necessary….

So what’s the point you ask? Why the diatribe on stupidity? Perhaps to illustrate that while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, taken in the context of healthcare they have real consequences. Perhaps instead it’s to spark some conversation about PVS as it’s an all too common condition that can be more easily dealt with if you have some of your own, informed notions of what it is. Or, it could just be let everyone know that if I’m ever the unfortunate soul in PVS, go ahead and play my Clint Eastwood – and if you can get the cool mill for it first enjoy yourself.

See the links below for any further information about the Schiavo case.

EMO

Timeline for Events in Mrs. Schiavo’s life - http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/timeline.htm

Additional links - http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/Schiavo_links.htm

|

1 Comments:

At 7:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For Archival's Sake

Thanks kiddies for the invitation to join your key-change-kingdom.

For anyone who may find this post interesting (and has been watching the news the last few days) there have been some interesting updates:

1. Congress has issued subpoenas to Terri Schiavo, Michael Schiavo, and three health care officials in what has been a successful attempt to obstruct the removal of the feeding tube.

Despite the unequivocal diagnosis of PVS by all medical standards (and the fact that she's been this way for 15 years), Ms. Schiavo's parents and some republican's in congress seem to think that rehabilitation is still a possibility. Unfortunately, Ms. Schiavo isn't in a coma, and isn't going to get up and walk, well, ever considering the state of her brain.....Stay tuned.
otooler | 03.18.05 - 1:34 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm freaked out by the idea that judge can order a feeding tube removed and that a judge could order the opposite.
LSD taught me that our concept of linear time is an illusion;It doesn't bug me that her plug was pulled , but it wouldn't bug me if she breathed for another 20 years either.
Really, I think it's an opportunity for the binary bots on both sides to spew their favorite catch phrases and feel empowered in a way only available to those with an enemy ( real or imagined).
Luke P | Homepage | 03.20.05 - 1:39 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

should be: "...enemy ( real or imagined) can."
Luke P | Homepage | 03.20.05 - 1:40 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

are you kidding? there are choices to be made involving the lives of people who can actually live in the world. schiavo reminds me of some other national sensation type case. was there one? i don't remember. i don't think the issues in popular dialogue have anything to do with the ideas addressed by interesting thinking. does someone have the right to suicide? sure. fuck yeah. but i'm more interested in what it means that they can make a decision. don't watch network news. for real. not because of bias. becaused of boredom.
lars | 03.20.05 - 10:18 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there is something to the idea that a judge can either stop this or not stop this.
Either way we loose if a fucking judge can make this decision for our loved ones and our selves.
Luke P | Homepage | 03.20.05 - 4:50 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the thing about this. I haven't been paying all that much attention to it. But is the only evidence that she wanted it that her husband says so? Or did she sign some sort of living will? Is it just the husband's say-so? And that holds up in court?
SamB | 03.20.05 - 5:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure. I imagine the Husband would be her legal gaurdian ( I think there is a more accurate legal term for this, but you know what I mean.)

Even though this is a non-issue for me ( since either way the fucking judge is making the decision), I find it ironic that Christians seek to keep her alive by artificial means.Does this mean that, if in the fture we are able to keep our selves alive by other artificial means; genetic manipulation, prosthetic implants, etc, that they'd be obligated morally to seek it for all citizens? We all gotta die; the woman in question is not a part of the waking world; her brain is damaged beyond basic functions ( in Gods natural world, she'd be long dead). To me, if she dies now or in 20 years, it makes no difference.If she were my wife, I'd let her die.It certainly is not a fucking bearueacrats' decision. DON"T TREAD ON ME. ( like the Metallica song, remember?)
Luke P | Homepage | 03.20.05 - 8:42 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just think it's cool that somebody tried to buy somebody. But in a nice way.
ben | 03.21.05 - 1:32 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ha! That is hilarious.
Luke P | Homepage | 03.21.05 - 10:52 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a couple of things:

1. In response to Sammy - At present, Terri's husband Michael has custodial rights, which is backed by years of legal precedence. In the ethico-legal world of palliative care / death-and-dying, those custodial rights put him "next in line" for decision making if written documentation (living will / advanced directive) from the person in question is not present. This can be overturned in the presence of conflicts of interest, but to my knowledge this type of evidence has not been presented in this case.

2. For Luke - You make an interesting point regarding the position of the Christian faith. You are right to point out the inconsistency, and I think it is just an inherent point of conflict between medical innovation and religious thought.

3. Something else to think about: for those of you that are familiar, it is possible for everyone to have a medical DNR (do not resuscitate). These are most often held by those with chronic illnesses that to not want to be put through extreme measures to be kept alive. What then is so fundamentally different between Johnny Johnson who has a DNR and functionally refuses medical intervention and dies, and Terri Schiavo, who verbally stated that she wouldn't want to be kept alive in this condition, and finally can have those medical interventions (feeding tube) removed?
otooler | 03.21.05 - 12:18 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yes it is faulty that a judge can make a decision regarding someone's life. that's part of a far grander issue regarding the false legal compact a state imposes over humans.

true: christians are fools. they don't want us tampering with stem cells, artificial neurology, etc etc, in order to keep people alive, but they refuse to let someone die who is incapable of living.

its an embarrassment that people continue to invest in the wholly superficial organizations designed out of a special need for control, for directing resources into interested. scouring newspaper articles and blog links is like searching for cracks in an endless tunnel. take whatever tools you can manage and lever the next crack into a gaping passage. exit the tunnel, then look around and tell me what you see.
lars | 03.21.05 - 3:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We should chain Terry Schiavo, feeding tube and all, to the top of the Washington Monument as a symbol of our compassion.
tom | Homepage | 03.21.05 - 8:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what, like they did to christopher reeve
lars | 03.21.05 - 8:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

exactly
Tom | 03.21.05 - 8:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lars- You're starting to sound like a Libertarian.
Luke P | Homepage | 03.21.05 - 10:40 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lars - Maybe I missed some element of sarcasm, but in case I didn't....

Isn't the whole idea of citizenship one that includes agreeing to some form of social contract - either implictly or otherwise? To that extent don't we have to accept that the government has power that any of us as individuals do not? In relation to this case, your assertion that "it is faulty that a judge can make a decision regarding someone's life," I'm wondering how you would resolve this disagreement without the court. Without some form of law (former case law, legal presidence, etc) this could essentially boil down to a wrestling match over the feeding tube between the husband and the parents - which I don't seem to find any more reassuring than the "false compact" of the state....
otooler | 03.22.05 - 2:08 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All I have to say on this:

1) I am truly saddened that Bush was set to fly back to DC from his Texas ranch this weekend to sign legislation that applies only to this ONE WOMAN. That trumps any judicial scare, I'd say.

2) I don't fucking want to go into work today. CBS not only has a flash wildcard on the top story (meaning multiple images of Schiavo and her family cycle on the home page), but also an in-depth coverage tab featuring NINE links to various video, images, interactives and stories. All Schiavo, all the time. And I'm bound to get assigned to do some of it. Gwahwablah.
Christine | 03.22.05 - 11:16 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i wonder how we'd settle disputes without the courts. perhaps we wouldn't have to be hounded by the police. to get us to the courts to put us in the jails. OR, we never encounter any of those institutions because their real performance has been achieved, which is terrifying us into living within the narrow constraints of historical state-based law.

personally i don't care if there's a wrestling match between the parties involved (isn't there already? what's the difference?). they're all non-entities to me, not just the brain damaged one.

the social contract idea was a useful development to create an ideological seperation from despotic ruler's assertions that the contract of their order came from a divine source. neither one has any bearing on real decisions in real life. i can still do whatever i want no matter the "agreement" i made with the state. and the state can still manage to persecute me or prosecute me -- if it can -- because it has the funding and guns, and not because i signed on a metaphorical dotted line.
lars | 03.22.05 - 12:05 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you talk about keeping yourself reassured, otool. why? was the issue unsettling you before you heard about it from 2020?

my point is not so much about the propriety of judicial law as it is the analytical interest of the case. the shiavo case is popular in the papers now for two reasons: 1) politicians have made it into a fault line for partisan allegiance and 2) while perhaps no one can seem to decide on the true boundary medical bourndary, there are clear cut "sides" -- feeding tube in or out.

but how about looking at questions that better reflects the constellation of realities that we all face, especially as individuals whose consciousness plans to influence the world (otherwise why are we publishing our thoughts here?) -- what is consciousness; what does it mean to be alive? i unplugged my old desktop computer a few months ago and now it's buried in a box in a storage space. at that time it still had a working processor, and was arguably more of a thinking machine than that incapacitated loser. what about my computer? where are its lawyers?
lars | 03.22.05 - 12:18 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lars keep trying to pull us back to these heavy questions of consciousness, identity, how culture and society do and don't interpenetrate with our concepts of ourselves, confusing the questions we're framing even as they provide the firmament from which all our questions arise.
Important questions, but it's also fun to make up songs and wallow in the superficial wavelets of this ongoing soap opera.
Our local paper reports a further amusing but macabre twist. In 1999, Bush as Gov'O'Tex signed without a whisper of controversy a law which lays out the same order of decisionmaking priority as has been followed by the Florida courts here: if one spouse in this kind of medical quandary never got around to signing the Do Not Resucitate-No Heroic Measures document, then the legal authority to make the decision falls first to the other spouse, and then to reasonably-available next-of-kin (siblings, adult children), and only then to the parents of the terminally-ill or persistently-vegetative patient.
Yet when Florida law achieves exactly the same result as the Texas law Bush uncomplainingly signed, Bush departs his Texas hideaway in full lather to sign a special act of Congress designed to overturn that result in favor of the parents. Which of course raises the question, can we now bring a federal court action designed to determine Bush's level of consciousness?
And the more modest question, of course, would be: if the husband wanted her meaninglessly-alive and the parents wanted her dignifiedly-dead, would we be getting all these same parties taking the exact opposite legal, moral, and political positions?
steviepinhead | 03.22.05 - 6:40 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lars - I agree with your analysis that this case is not inherently different or more complicated than any other end-of-life decisions that are made every day. It is amazing to me that this particular case has recieved so much press and serves as such a lightning rod for partisan politics. I've had interest in the case for quite some time, and have followed its vacillations through the courts of legal and public opinion over the last few years. I thought writing about the topic would be a good stepping stone for the more fundemental issues that you so aptly discribe - I just thought it easier to get to those issues through popular example first.

My expression of reassurance, or lack thereof was basically in regards to the loss of control one has following neurologic failure. The aingst I feel could be as simple and visceral as wanting to know that I will live or die at my behest if given the opportunity. Or perhaps it is more practical - the desire that my wishes to be an organ donor are respected even if I can't remind my doctor or family before I expire. Why is it I'm concerned with my body once my mind has checked out, especially since I'd never really know it? Why is it a woman with no cerebral function is given more respect and attention than that Vietnam vet Jimmy that asks me for change when I buy my slice of pizza? He could at least be trained, put to work, given a house, etc with the money we're spending on keeping Terri alive.
otooler | 03.22.05 - 8:23 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have anything great to add, but that journalists should be ashamed of themselves showing that same video clip over and over again. You know the one. The only one you've seen.

Don't tell me why they show it. i know why. It just spits in the face of objectivity. I originally got the small bit of information I knew from the print newspapers and, not that it fucking matters, I was on the husband's side (THAT'S THE WHOLE THING I DON'T GIVE A SHIT! DO WHAT THE WOMAN WOULD'VE WANTED AND IT SEEMS THE HUSBAND WANTS WHAT SHE WOULD WANT). Then I kept seeing that fucking video and for a second caught myself on the parents' side. I was a bit ashamed of myself in light of everything I'd read. FUCKERS! But that random movement etc really is persuasive. When we "pulled the plug" on my grandfather he continued to hiccup and breathe and his eyelids would flutter and I was under some stress so through some sobs I'd occassionally ask my mom and other nurses trained in a field I had no idea about whether they were sure it was all random.

Anyway, I really don't think the journalists stress enough that it's random. And with TV and dipshits who don't know shit about shit watching it (myself included) they really need to be careful. I really think its unethical. It seems like one of these pre-packaged news stories that the Whitehouse sends out and some local affiliates run without comment (read this nytimes article if you want, well at least the first page it's long). The parents' provided the footage (and taped it in violation of court order I believe). It's a pre-packaged piece of Schiavo Parent Propoganda and the journalists run it over and over. They comment, but it's TV and that's all I see while I'm eating and reading the newspaper at the same time. And that one time I thought maybe "Terri is in there".

Anyway here's another link with links to court decisions on the case and a timeline from a Floridian Law blogger if you care: http://abstractappeal.com/schiav...o/ infopage.html. I haven't read much yet but will after I finish this comment.

I also like the idea of a wrestling match between the husband and the parents over the feeding tube. There's a time limit and after like 20 minutes wherever the feeding tube is (in or out) that's where it stays. But I guess the husband should have a tag-team partner to be fair. And I think that tag-team partner should be Angelina Jolie because she's pretty cute. I'd be a bit disgusted with myself, but I would watch it on the TV. And also I think someone said it in these comments that the feeding tube should be pulled because then it truly is in God's hands and he'll let her live or die. Or maybe someone should just ask Terri. Nobody cares what she thinks! Put her in a room without any distractions. Then send in an average looking man who will then a
Anonymous | 03.23.05 - 1:01 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ask her, "Terri honey? We're going to starve you to death unless you protest OK? So if you want to eat, give us a sign, but not a random one OK? Do a cartwheel or groan ess oh ess in morse code or something we'll know is you OK?

I guess that nytimes article went paid tonight so you can't read it.

Here's some discussion about it between some pinkos: http://www.democracynow.org/arti...05/03/14/ 152202
SamB | 03.23.05 - 1:03 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terri Schiavo's parents are the Schindlers so it makes more sense to say, "Schindler Parent Propoganda".
SamB | 03.23.05 - 1:11 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related to the "leave it in God's hands" a quote from one decision, "Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs." Man, that's all the proof I would need. I say let's experiment. Wouldn't G-Dubs want to convert the communist atheists along with Osama? Man! And THAT could end terrorism.
SamB | 03.23.05 - 1:22 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

also interesting: "Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer."
SamB | 03.23.05 - 1:30 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is something fucked up with these comments so my previous ones may not even show up, but I realize now that the link I provided has the exact same information as those that Erin provided. I'm a dipshit. Sorry.
SamB | 03.23.05 - 2:06 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ick

i haven't seen the clip. i don't watch tv. but propaganda or not i don't think "objectivity" is jeopardized by placing as much record as possible in availability to the public. show a 24-hour feed of her lying in her bed, with the wrestling match in the foreground. twitch twitch twitch.

only the nighttime matters anyway.
lars | 03.23.05 - 6:01 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

have you guys seen the ring two? its not that good. But meghan screamed like a bitch at this one part! HA HA HA, Boy was it sure funny!
dave | 03.24.05 - 8:10 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no words

http://www.blogsforterri.com/
Christine | 03.25.05 - 10:04 pm | #

 

Post a Comment

<< Home