Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has received quite a few e-mails on the recent spat of postings on the Schiavo situation. Most are unworthy of comment. (They are just filled with vitriol. Which your Maximum Leader admires generally; but of which he is tired now.) But of the ones he has received, there are a few that stand out. Allow your Maximum Leader to reproduce and comment upon them now. Here we go.
Minion Celeste writes:
My objection to removing the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo is that neurologists have not actually found the seat of consciousness. It actually isn't something that can be measured. They assume it is to do with cortical activity - but that is an assumption only.
As all sorts of animals right down the evolutionary scale appear to have some form of consciousness, it stands to reason that it is a very basic function, which would suggest that it is quite difficult to knock out. Often the medical profession, and science in general, is completely convinced of something, only to realise they were totally wrong.
For this reason alone, there may be some basic sort of self awareness in people in persistant vegetative states.
Then there is the argument of Peter Singer to justify abortions. His argument is that an unconscious being, or being of reduced consciousness, only has a right to life in so far as the relatives want it to live. In this case, Terri's parents want her to live. Therefore she has a right to life. (I don't know whether Professor Singer would agree with this analysis, but I do know that he and his siblings kept his mother alive after she fell into a coma following Alzheimers disease).
So, what's so wrong with keeping her alive? It doesn't make a shred of difference to her either way. Michael Schiavo in contrast, needs to move on and get on with his life.
If her parents did not want her to live, it would be a different story.
Is it just a resources issue?
I am at a loss to understand why people are so vehement that Mrs Schiavo's tube be removed.
Another minion, and frequent writer, "Powermfn" writes:
Graduate work in psych required me to dissect brains in the lab. Damned interesting! Not at all repulsive. Actually felt awe. Consequently, cannot jump in with the politicians (either on the Hill or in the pulpit) who are screeching that Terri Schiavo is being murdered by the courts. Have dropped the same subject on my own offspring from time to time: are you prepared to be the only one around to make a certain decision in regards to my life should it ever come to that? Who will pull the plug, especially if my own Living Will is ignored? And such documents, no matter how legal, have been ignored in the past.
One thing the Schindlers don't seem to have considered and I can't imagine why: should they actually get custody of the husk that used to be their daughter, what happens to her should she "survive" so long that they pre-decease her? Same question for her brother. What happens to your sister if she "outlives" you? She becomes the ward of the state and depending on what state she resides in at the time, that state can summarily pull the plug without anyone's permission or oversight.
What this country needs a a revision of the legal definition of brain dead to include persistent vegetative states. Just watch the rockets red glare from the pulpit when that happens!
Another reader, Amy from Florida writes:
Please also note that Mr. Schiavo also has been pursuing extra-marital relationships both before and (roughly 2 years) after Terri's incident and now fathers two children with the woman he has cohabitated with for about a decade; Judge Greer prohibited the FL Dept. of Children & Families from postponing the feeding tube removal to review prior allegations of abuse and neglect; he has prevented the family from visiting Terri on several occasions and extended periods of time including the last time her feeding tube was removed; a board certified neurologist testified to Governor Jeb Bush this afternoon that Terri is not in a PVS in his medical opinion but he was not allowed to examine her medically; Terri has not received a neurological evaluation in over three years. Thank you.
This is a not very representative sample of messages your Maximum Leader has received. Of the roughly 50 e-mails he's received, these are the best of what he's read. (And people sometimes wonder why your Maximum Leader has mixed feelings on comments...)
Anyhow...
Allow you Maximum Leader to say a few things here. His own feelings on this matter are that Michael Schiavo should have stepped aside years ago and let Terri's parents care for their daughter as they obviously want to.
He also thinks that withholding sustinance from Terri is a barbaric and uncivilized thing to do.
He doesn't consider himself vehement about removing Terri's feeding tube. Indeed, he is saddened that Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers couldn't come to some sort of agreement concerning Terri's treatment and continuted care.
What he is vehement about is how we must approach this case from the perspective of the law and courts which have to adjudicate situations where two interested parties disagree.
Your Maximum Leader will concede Celeste's point that we have not nailed down the seat of consciousness, in as much as we cannot point out a particular region or part of the brain and say, "There it is."
But we do know that damage to certain areas of the brain, there is a resultant loss of memory, change of personality, and change of behaviour.
That said, we also are pretty darned confident the "conciousness" is somehow associated with many areas of the "upper" brain. The area of the "lower brain" is where breathing, continued heart beat, and automatic functions seem to reside. It is this "lower" area Terri Schiavo's brain that is undamaged. The major lobes of her brain, as he understands it, have been decimated beyond hope of repair or recovery.
Because her brain is so badly damaged, she is unable to do much more than she is doing now. She breathes, her heart beats, and she can make some vocalizations that don't require more than forcing air out of her larynx. She, to the best of our knowledge, completely unaware of the world and unable to take a decision for herself.
In a situation where someone is in this state, another competent person must be appointed by an establish authority as guardian. That person, barring written instruction to the contrary, is the next of kin - a spouse, or in absence of a spouse a parent or sibling. Or another person appointed by the court.
Michael Schiavo was her guardian. She has also had a number of court appointed guardians. And the Schindler's were fine with this situation until Michael decided that Terri was never going to recover. That is where the courts got involved. And that is where we are now.
Does your Maximum Leader want to see Terri's body starved to death? No. It is a gruesome spectacle.
Would he prefer that the Schindler's be Terri's guardian and let them care for her as they obviously want to do? Sure.
But unfortunately all those things are outside the purview of the law in this case. The Schindler's have not been able to prove at any point that Terri has any mental capacity at all. Thus, all a court can do is appoint a guardian who is empowered to take decisions for her. That has happened. And the guardians (including Michael Schiavo) have all been of the same opinion for the past 8 years.
Excursus: Your Maximum Leader also concedes that Terri Schiavo has not had a comprehensive neurological examination in a while. (He sees different ranges of time - so he can't confidently quote one. But he'll concede it's been at least one year.) But he doubts that another examination would make any difference. Additionally, if the tube was reinserted, and Terri received new neurological examinations (which was the intent of the legislation passed by Congress), what then? What happens when a federal judge rules that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state and that the will of Michael Schiavo be carried out? Remember people, the standard here is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as it is in a criminal proceeding. The standard in these cases is "clear and convincing." If a preponderance of medical experts find that Terri is in a PVS, then the feeding tube is removed again. To be explicitly clear here, the question is not if the Schindler's can find one or two experts who will certify that Terri has some level of conciousness. They need to find a slight majority of experts who will certify that Terri is not in a PVS. That is the standard that applies. So what happens if the tube was reinserted, she was examined, and the preponderance of evidence shows that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state? The tube comes out again - because the established decision-maker in this case is Michael Schiavo.
Admittedly, Michael Schiavo is not a sympathetic figure in the least. Everything that Amy has written appears to be factual. But no attempt to show that Michael has a conflict of interest has proved to be fruitful. Money (and he's been offered lots of it) isn't an issue. (And the Schindlers don't seem to have problems concerning funds for continued care.) Your Maximum Leader is convinced that Michael Schiavo is completely and totally earnest in his conviction that Terri would have wanted to die in this situation; and it is encumbent upon him to make sure her wishes are carried out.
Sensible people (compasionate people even) can (and many are) argue the merit of Michael's stance. But legally, Michael's opinion is the only one that has been found to matter.
All of the work by politicians and activists to overturn the law for the benefit of one person is nearly as disgusting a spectacle as Terri being starved. The law is pretty settled in the matter of custody of a mentally incapacitated person - as best I can tell. And all that is being overthrown in a rush of hysteria.
That is pretty much it. There is a very narrow focus to this argument - or rather there should be. The argument, from a public perspective, should be who is empowered to make the decision. The courts have ruled that Michael Schiavo is. It is his wishes that are being carried out.
Now your Maximum Leader wants to add one more thing. He doesn't believe that courts are perfect. They are just as falible as any of us. But the courts and the rule of law are really the foundation of our stable civilization. Judge Greer has made a few decisions concerning the access the Florida Department of Children and Families that are open to differing interpretations. But in all cases, his decisions have withstood appellate tests. This is not to say that you have to intellectually agree with them, but they are the decision. Your Maximum Leader thinks lots of court decisions are wrong-headed - but that doesn't change the fact that they are the law. He'd be happy to appoint less wrong-headed people to the bench. He'd be happy to support laws that might change the outcome of future situations. But new appointments and hastily constructed legislation rushed through Congress (which by the way is almost always bad) isn't going to change anything right now. And it isn't going to save what remains of Terri Schiavo's life.
I feel terrible for the Schindlers. I wish that Michael would have just left the picture a long time ago. But that didn't happen. This is the result.
Carry on.
