People Who Need To Be Popped In the Nose
This post will probably get me flamed. I know that Ally (God bless her feisty little redheaded heart) is probably already breaking out the butane.
Read my earlier post first.
Many of the conservative bloggers in Naked Villainy's little corner of the blogosphere have taken a stand beside the parents of Terri Schiavo.
For a quick sample, see:
Cranky Necon
Common Sense Runs Wild, a stronger case here.
Sadie actually has a sidebar category.
Brutally Honest
Common Sense has a link to a set of videos that purport to show Terri demonstrating intellectual activity. Supposedly, these videos would convince anyone that she is not vegetative. They didn't convince me. More importantly, they didn't convince Terri's doctors, who have much more sophisticated diagnostic methods than "Look! She blinks at a set of flashing lights!"
Absent from any of the histrionic defense of Terri's life is any sense that Terri's life ended years ago. Her body may keep running along, but Terri is gone. I have yet to see a SINGLE doctor describe her as being in anything other than a persistent (read: permanent) vegetative state.
One can understand her parents taking up permanent residence in the state of denial. Losing a child is the absolute worst thing I can imagine. I can see that it would be very easy that their hope and love would lead them to see awareness that simply isn't there. As described in the previous post, if my family had not been solidly grounded in reality, they might have interpreted Uncle John's body's groans when they turned him over to be examples of him reacting to external stimuli.
Hell, I remember pithed frogs reacting to external stimuli when we hooked up small batteries in biology class. Reaction to external stimuli does not mean that someone is not in a vegetative state.
We can assume that both Terri's parents and her husband might be biased (and the husband's conduct in this has been far from exemplary). The parents, Mr. Schiavo, Terri's lawyers, or the general blogging community have the medical expertise to diagnose brain activity. The doctors seem to be unanimous. Perhaps - and I'm going out on a limb here - they are right.
(If any of Naked Villainy's readers are doctors with neurological expertise, please watch Common Sense's videos. If you believe that they show brain activity, please e-mail me and I'll have to reconsider the thesis of this post).
If she is indeed brain dead, then all of the rest of the hub-bub becomes moot. A dead person, by definition, has no right to life. If she is dead, then who the hell are we to tell the husband what to do with the body?
The Pro-Terri camp will respond to this by saying, well, there have been (a few, isolated, exceedingly rare) cases in which someone deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state has recovered. Shouldn't we keep all vegetative people alive and pray for a miracle?
I have a question for you "conservatives" out there. If we grant that one in ten thousand of patients diagnosed as brain dead one day make a miraculous recovery, who ought to pay for the hideous medical expense of caring for those in vegetative states for years.
It is hard to put a price on life. But we live in the real world. If the people who are using Terri as a pro-life stalking horse want to keep everyone like Terri or my Uncle alive indefinitely, do they expect every member of society to contribute to their maintenance through higher insurance premiums? Or should we raise taxes and let the government take over the medical costs? Should we shift resources away from government programs that have actual benefits so that we can support folks who, 99.9999% of the time will gain absolutely no benefit from it?
I have another question for you "conservatives" out there. Should the government be involved in making this very personal decision for you? Or should the citizens control their own lives and deaths? Do "conservatives" really want to allow democratic majorities to trump individual and familial decision-making? I recognize that the issue of whether Terri would have wanted to live in a persistent vegetative state is in dispute; certainly we can't take Mr. Schiavo's testimony at face value. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the pro-Terri camp would like to prevent the deaths of people who HAVE clearly expressed their desire to die should they ever face a similar situation.
Let me state right now, as clearly as possible, that if I suffer a catastrophic brain injury, I want to die. Keep me alive long enough to harvest the organs, then let me die. If any of you delusional and misguided Christians file a lawsuit to prevent my wishes from being carried out in the misguided delusion that I might be miraculously saved, you better hope that I don't get that miracle. If I do, I'm ordering my big toe to twitch, crawling out of the hospice, getting my 307, and coming to get you. Really. If I'm not allowed to die, someone else is going into the ground.
Obviously, I'm passionate about my own right to die should the unthinkable happen. My Christian beliefs have no conflict with letting my shell go. I'm dead and my soul has gone to its reward. Why should the belief system of some meddlesome do-gooder from outside my family trump my expressed desires? Why should the state favor the do-gooder's religious beliefs over mine?
Pro-Terri advocates frequently tie their "culture of life" into the pro-life movement.
The status of the unborn and the brain dead are not morally equivalent. A fetus' potential for life outweighs the extinguished potential of someone in a vegetative state. Whether the fetus is already a human being is something about which reasonable people can disagree. Whether the fetus has the potential to be a human being is indisputable. The destruction of the brain destroys personhood. Potential has run its course.
Another troubling element of the movement to pro-long Terri's death is the precedent that is being set. While her husband does indeed appear to be a bit shady (but perhaps I have just been overwhelmed by the "save Terri" propaganda), this case will set a precedent. Do we want parents to be able to override the judgment of spouses? To be able to override the expressed wishes of their child? Don't even get me started about how some estranged parents have abused their legal ability to trump the wishes of long-term homosexual partners.
Flow chart:
1) Does Terri have brain function?
a) If you believe the professionals who have tested diagnostic tools -> She has already died. All other arguments are about burial arrangements.
b) If you believe the naturally unobjective parents -> She does not. Go to point 2.
2) Terri has severely limited brain function. Would Terri want to live that way?
a) Terri's husband is telling the truth. She would want to die. Go to point 3.
b) Terri's husband is a lying dog. Terri never expressed her wishes one way or the other. Go to point 5.
3) Terri wants to die. Should individuals be allowed to make life or death decisions for themselves?
a) Yes. Let her die. All other arguments are about burial arrangements.
b) No. Life is precious. Go to point 4.
4) The government is keeping Terri alive against her wishes. Who should pay?
a) The insurance company. We all, including those who disagree with the decision to keep her alive, pay through higher premiums.
b) The government. We all, including those who disagree with the decision to keep her alive, pay through higher taxes or reduced services.
c) Private contributors. Will all vegetative victims have patrons? Who will assign responsibility?
5) Terri's wishes are unclear. Who should make the decision for people who leave no living will?
a) The spouse or next of kin. In this case, let her die. All other arguments are about funeral arrangements.
b) Parents. Go to point 6.
6) Do the parents believe in prolonging life?
a) Yes. Go to point 4.
b) No. Go to point 7.
7) If the parents and spouse are against prolonging life, what interests trump family interests?
a) The government. Let the current ideology of the mob prevail. When the mob's collective mind changes, change policy. Also go to point 4 for payment.
b) Christian groups. Go to point 8.
8) Which Christian group's theology will be favored by the government?
a) Absolute right-to-lifers. Throw out the First Amendment. Establish theocracy and oppress progressive Christians. Go to point 4 for payment.
b) Progressive Christians. Throw out the First Amendment. Establish theocracy and oppress fundamentalist Christians. Let her die. All other arguments are about funeral arrangements. Wait - hold that - there are no other arguments because we live in a theocracy. Conform, sinners.
Would someone from the "pro" Terri camp explain to me the legal precedent they are trying to set here?
UPDATE: A commenter at the Hyscience site says: "This poor woman just needs nursing care, and God-willing that we see her being blessed with a miraculous recovery." This sounds just like my ne'er-do-well cousin.
Read my earlier post first.
Many of the conservative bloggers in Naked Villainy's little corner of the blogosphere have taken a stand beside the parents of Terri Schiavo.
For a quick sample, see:
Cranky Necon
Common Sense Runs Wild, a stronger case here.
Sadie actually has a sidebar category.
Brutally Honest
Common Sense has a link to a set of videos that purport to show Terri demonstrating intellectual activity. Supposedly, these videos would convince anyone that she is not vegetative. They didn't convince me. More importantly, they didn't convince Terri's doctors, who have much more sophisticated diagnostic methods than "Look! She blinks at a set of flashing lights!"
Absent from any of the histrionic defense of Terri's life is any sense that Terri's life ended years ago. Her body may keep running along, but Terri is gone. I have yet to see a SINGLE doctor describe her as being in anything other than a persistent (read: permanent) vegetative state.
One can understand her parents taking up permanent residence in the state of denial. Losing a child is the absolute worst thing I can imagine. I can see that it would be very easy that their hope and love would lead them to see awareness that simply isn't there. As described in the previous post, if my family had not been solidly grounded in reality, they might have interpreted Uncle John's body's groans when they turned him over to be examples of him reacting to external stimuli.
Hell, I remember pithed frogs reacting to external stimuli when we hooked up small batteries in biology class. Reaction to external stimuli does not mean that someone is not in a vegetative state.
We can assume that both Terri's parents and her husband might be biased (and the husband's conduct in this has been far from exemplary). The parents, Mr. Schiavo, Terri's lawyers, or the general blogging community have the medical expertise to diagnose brain activity. The doctors seem to be unanimous. Perhaps - and I'm going out on a limb here - they are right.
(If any of Naked Villainy's readers are doctors with neurological expertise, please watch Common Sense's videos. If you believe that they show brain activity, please e-mail me and I'll have to reconsider the thesis of this post).
If she is indeed brain dead, then all of the rest of the hub-bub becomes moot. A dead person, by definition, has no right to life. If she is dead, then who the hell are we to tell the husband what to do with the body?
The Pro-Terri camp will respond to this by saying, well, there have been (a few, isolated, exceedingly rare) cases in which someone deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state has recovered. Shouldn't we keep all vegetative people alive and pray for a miracle?
I have a question for you "conservatives" out there. If we grant that one in ten thousand of patients diagnosed as brain dead one day make a miraculous recovery, who ought to pay for the hideous medical expense of caring for those in vegetative states for years.
It is hard to put a price on life. But we live in the real world. If the people who are using Terri as a pro-life stalking horse want to keep everyone like Terri or my Uncle alive indefinitely, do they expect every member of society to contribute to their maintenance through higher insurance premiums? Or should we raise taxes and let the government take over the medical costs? Should we shift resources away from government programs that have actual benefits so that we can support folks who, 99.9999% of the time will gain absolutely no benefit from it?
I have another question for you "conservatives" out there. Should the government be involved in making this very personal decision for you? Or should the citizens control their own lives and deaths? Do "conservatives" really want to allow democratic majorities to trump individual and familial decision-making? I recognize that the issue of whether Terri would have wanted to live in a persistent vegetative state is in dispute; certainly we can't take Mr. Schiavo's testimony at face value. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the pro-Terri camp would like to prevent the deaths of people who HAVE clearly expressed their desire to die should they ever face a similar situation.
Let me state right now, as clearly as possible, that if I suffer a catastrophic brain injury, I want to die. Keep me alive long enough to harvest the organs, then let me die. If any of you delusional and misguided Christians file a lawsuit to prevent my wishes from being carried out in the misguided delusion that I might be miraculously saved, you better hope that I don't get that miracle. If I do, I'm ordering my big toe to twitch, crawling out of the hospice, getting my 307, and coming to get you. Really. If I'm not allowed to die, someone else is going into the ground.
Obviously, I'm passionate about my own right to die should the unthinkable happen. My Christian beliefs have no conflict with letting my shell go. I'm dead and my soul has gone to its reward. Why should the belief system of some meddlesome do-gooder from outside my family trump my expressed desires? Why should the state favor the do-gooder's religious beliefs over mine?
Pro-Terri advocates frequently tie their "culture of life" into the pro-life movement.
The status of the unborn and the brain dead are not morally equivalent. A fetus' potential for life outweighs the extinguished potential of someone in a vegetative state. Whether the fetus is already a human being is something about which reasonable people can disagree. Whether the fetus has the potential to be a human being is indisputable. The destruction of the brain destroys personhood. Potential has run its course.
Another troubling element of the movement to pro-long Terri's death is the precedent that is being set. While her husband does indeed appear to be a bit shady (but perhaps I have just been overwhelmed by the "save Terri" propaganda), this case will set a precedent. Do we want parents to be able to override the judgment of spouses? To be able to override the expressed wishes of their child? Don't even get me started about how some estranged parents have abused their legal ability to trump the wishes of long-term homosexual partners.
Flow chart:
1) Does Terri have brain function?
a) If you believe the professionals who have tested diagnostic tools -> She has already died. All other arguments are about burial arrangements.
b) If you believe the naturally unobjective parents -> She does not. Go to point 2.
2) Terri has severely limited brain function. Would Terri want to live that way?
a) Terri's husband is telling the truth. She would want to die. Go to point 3.
b) Terri's husband is a lying dog. Terri never expressed her wishes one way or the other. Go to point 5.
3) Terri wants to die. Should individuals be allowed to make life or death decisions for themselves?
a) Yes. Let her die. All other arguments are about burial arrangements.
b) No. Life is precious. Go to point 4.
4) The government is keeping Terri alive against her wishes. Who should pay?
a) The insurance company. We all, including those who disagree with the decision to keep her alive, pay through higher premiums.
b) The government. We all, including those who disagree with the decision to keep her alive, pay through higher taxes or reduced services.
c) Private contributors. Will all vegetative victims have patrons? Who will assign responsibility?
5) Terri's wishes are unclear. Who should make the decision for people who leave no living will?
a) The spouse or next of kin. In this case, let her die. All other arguments are about funeral arrangements.
b) Parents. Go to point 6.
6) Do the parents believe in prolonging life?
a) Yes. Go to point 4.
b) No. Go to point 7.
7) If the parents and spouse are against prolonging life, what interests trump family interests?
a) The government. Let the current ideology of the mob prevail. When the mob's collective mind changes, change policy. Also go to point 4 for payment.
b) Christian groups. Go to point 8.
8) Which Christian group's theology will be favored by the government?
a) Absolute right-to-lifers. Throw out the First Amendment. Establish theocracy and oppress progressive Christians. Go to point 4 for payment.
b) Progressive Christians. Throw out the First Amendment. Establish theocracy and oppress fundamentalist Christians. Let her die. All other arguments are about funeral arrangements. Wait - hold that - there are no other arguments because we live in a theocracy. Conform, sinners.
Would someone from the "pro" Terri camp explain to me the legal precedent they are trying to set here?
UPDATE: A commenter at the Hyscience site says: "This poor woman just needs nursing care, and God-willing that we see her being blessed with a miraculous recovery." This sounds just like my ne'er-do-well cousin.
posted by Anonymous at 3/11/2005 05:36:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home