Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Keith Olbermann KOs Joe ‘YOU LIE’ Wilson in Special Comment Previous entry: Blast from the past: Joe ‘YOU LIE’ Wilson apologized for attacking Strom Thurmond’s black daughter

The right wing addiction to fantasies and blank slates

Think Progress caught National Review running this cover art after admitting in print that there are no such thing as “death panels”, which is just further evidence that the right wing is willing to lie, cheat, and steal to defeat health care reform, and they’re not even remotely ashamed of the depths they’re willing to sink.  The faux outrage over non-existent euthanasia is perhaps the purest form of projection I’ve ever seen.  After all, the only people really interested in saving lives in this debate are supporters of health care reform, but obviously, wingnuts can’t face up to the fact that they’re choosing corporate profits and racism over human lives.  So, to convince themselves that they’re good people—-even though good people don’t fight against expanding affordable health care coverage—-they’re whipping themselves into an outrage over euthanasia.

That there’s no real danger of a “culture of euthanasia” doesn’t make this faux outrage less appealing.  On the contrary, the fact that the victims are non-existent seems to be the appeal.  As I noted earlier, confronting the real troubles of real people has all these emotional consequences for the right wing base.  Sympathizing, even empathizing, with actual human beings puts you on a slippery slope towards liberalism.  But getting all worked up over stuff that is imaginary?  Safer, apparently.  It makes sense.  I’ve often noted that for anti-choicers, the fetus is the perfect “victim”, because its personhood exists only in their imagination, so they can project whatever feelings and desires they want onto it. It doesn’t speak up or assert itself, and it doesn’t have inconvenient needs or feelings.  It’s a blank slate, and thus they have complete control over the situation. In general, the right wing is drawn to that which doesn’t exist or can’t speak for itself: god, fetuses, and Terri Schiavo.

The people getting euthanized are a double whammy.  First of all, they don’t really exist.  Sure, there’s people who are taken off life support and allowed to die a natural death.  There’s a tiny group of people who deliberately choose suicide over a long, miserable death.  And there’s a lot of people that choose hospice care while dying instead of fighting against the inevitable in a way that makes their last days hard, when they want their last days to be contemplative.  But people who are being actively killed against their will because their relatives find them inconvenient?  Still considered murder by the government, and still not happening.  It’s an imaginary event, so it can be whatever the right wants it to be, because it exists in their imagination.  Total control.

That, and after imagining the pretend victims, they get to also believe these fake victims are dead, so now we’re talking about a group of people that really can’t speak for themselves.  That you are fictional and then dead within that fiction makes you the most silent kind of thing imaginable.  You’re better than god in terms of being a blank slate.  The people who imagined you into being have all the control over the situation, and you can be used as a political football to their hearts’ delight.  What are you going to do?  Fight back?  You didn’t exist, and you’re dead without having ever lived. 

When this “death panels” crap started surfacing, I thought to myself, “Man, they didn’t learn from the Schiavo debacle, did they?”  But now that I think about it, they kind of did.  The error, from the right wing perspective, in the Schiavo situation was that Terri Schiavo was just a tad too real at the end of the day.  That she was in a vegetative state doesn’t mean that there wasn’t some trace of her existence as a thinking, feeling person on this planet.  The situation blew up in their faces, because her husband carried the memory of her as a real person, making it hard to use her as a blank slate.  You could contrast the person in the vegetative state with the person Terri was before she had her heart attack.  The pictures of her, her husband, her parents that had gone around the bend with grief—-all this reality made it too hard for the right to control the narrative.  Suddenly, it drifted from the land of faux outrage over fantasies into a place that was all too real and relatable for most of us.  Predictably, the country turned on the right on that issue.

Sadly, the lesson learned was not that they should butt out of people’s private business and use the hard decisions we have to make as political footballs to shut down progressive legislation.  No, it appears that what they’ve gleaned from this is to just make their stories bigger lies, and attach themselves to narratives that are completely unmoored from reality. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:57 PM • (77) Comments

But they’re so proud of themselves that they aren’t burning kittens!

Comment #1: Mnemosyne  on  09/10  at  08:30 PM

So does “the creeping culture of euthanasia” include denying care to illegal immigrants?  <bats eyelashes>

Comment #2: Gavel Down  on  09/10  at  08:42 PM

It’s not just the social issues where they prefer strawmen to real human beings.  Don’t forget how the “Death Tax” was depriving thousands of Americans of farms and small businesses yet they never can come up with anyone who has lost a farm.

Comment #3: DonnaDiva  on  09/10  at  08:43 PM

Bingo.  The problem with the Terri Schiavo case was that too many people have had to deal with aging parents or other family members in terminal cases.  We all die, so it shouldn’t have been surprising that many people have had to deal with a lingering death.

Wanting a family member to recover…having to decide to stop extreme measures that are NOT healing but are simply prolonging…when all you want is to prolong their life?  Damn hard to do.  Damn hard to live through, even when you are sure you made the right choice.

Comment #4: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  09/10  at  08:44 PM

“When this “death panels” crap started surfacing, I thought to myself, “Man, they didn’t learn from the Schiavo debacle, did they?” “


Her parents wanted her to live. Her sleazebag of an ex-husband wanted her to die.

That pretty much says it all.

Comment #5: EricJG  on  09/10  at  08:52 PM

Her parents wanted her to live. Her sleazebag of an ex-husband wanted her to die.

If he had been her ex-husband, he would have had no say.  He was her husband.

Yep, he was such a sleazebag that he went to nursing school to help with her hoped-for rehabilitation, had an experimental brain stimulation device implanted in the hope that she would recover, and made sure that she had only one bedsore in all of the years she was ill.

That bastard.  And her pure and innocent parents didn’t start disputing his care of her until they decided that Michael didn’t share enough of his settlement with them.  Perfect angels, they are.

Comment #6: Mnemosyne  on  09/10  at  09:03 PM

Her parents wanted her to live.

I wouldn’t call it living. Her parents wanted her body to go on living…. seems to me she herself was already long gone.

Comment #7: slingshot  on  09/10  at  09:04 PM

You are a total sleaze for slurring Michael Schiavo like that. May you never be in the impossible situation he found himself. Terri was not alive, in the sense that we understand it. Her brain was gone. That her husband thought of her as a personality, and not just a shell seems to be indicative of love.

Comment #8: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/10  at  09:16 PM

The situation blew up in their faces, because her husband carried the memory of her as a real person, making it hard to use her as a blank slate.

I guess maybe that was true for other people, but when I saw footage of Schiavo on the news, all I saw was a vegetable.  On the one hand, she wasn’t the faceless fetus that anti-choicers get so worked up about (because they can imagine anything they want) but, on the other hand, she didn’t have enough apparent sentience for me to identify with her.  If anything, seeing a real-life person in a vegetative state freaked me out and made me determined to not allow my survivors to keep me in that condition.

Comment #9: keshmeshi  on  09/10  at  09:18 PM

Hey, I admire the National Review’s restraint in not putting Obama’s face inside the Grim Reaper’s shroud or hood or whatever that thing is.

Comment #10: Bitter Scribe  on  09/10  at  09:21 PM

I’ve always wondered what motivated those nurses who went into court and swore that they had long, detailed conversations with Terri Schiavo when they were alone with her.  Delusions of grandeur?  Just plain delusions?  Getting back at Michael for being, by all accounts, a pretty major pain in the ass when it came to monitoring Terri’s care?  Cash payoffs?

Comment #11: Mnemosyne  on  09/10  at  09:30 PM

Her parents wanted her to live.

And I want you to think.  As with Schiavo, a fundamental lack of brain activity makes both wishes impossible.

Terri Schiavo was already dead and gone, despite her body still drawing breath.

Comment #12: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/10  at  09:33 PM

The only sick people these days getting killed actively against their will aren’t being done in by relatives, they’re getting done in by insurance companies, hospitals and state medicaid boards. But we don’t call that euthanasia, we call it “annual payment caps” or “termination of futile indigent care” or “necessary tax cuts to improve the business climate.”

There’s a group of sick people even less useful to the NR’s fantasies, and that’s the ones with chronic diseases who are killing themselves slowly for their families’ “convenience” because they don’t have enough money to pay for the medicines and other treatments that could keep them alive longer. But they don’t always ask for help because that would just beggar their brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, sons and daughters. Good thing we’re saving them from creeping end-of-life counseling.

Comment #13: paul  on  09/10  at  09:54 PM

The only sick people these days getting killed actively against their will aren’t being done in by relatives, they’re getting done in by insurance companies, hospitals and state medicaid boards.

There was a case with a baby that happened around the same time as the Schiavo case, and yet I didn’t see all of those protesters rushing to Texas to save the child’s life when the hospital board decided to remove his life support because his mother couldn’t pay.

George Bush signed a law as Texas governor that allows hospitals to take away your life support if you can’t pay, but rushed through a special bill in Congress to try and “save” Terri Schiavo by imposing federal law over state law.  No hypocrisy there, no sir.

Comment #14: Mnemosyne  on  09/10  at  10:00 PM

The Creeping Culture of Youth in Asia?

That sounds like something that could bring down communism ... so what’s the problem?

Comment #15: Ms Kate  on  09/10  at  10:03 PM

That there’s no real danger of a “culture of euthanasia” doesn’t make this faux outrage less appealing.  On the contrary, the fact that the victims are non-existent seems to be the appeal.

I think the “culture of euthanasia” does exist, and it has a body-count: 12-year-old Tracy Latimer was, in my opinion, very much a victim of that culture. Not only did her father murder her – and yes, it was murder – but so many people, including the media, came to his defense based on faulty information about her “quality of life.” Implicit in some of their defenses was that Tracy Latimer failed to meet their own personal tests about the minimal cost-benefit ratio that makes a life worth preserving.

What Robert Latimer did is euphemistically called “altruistic filicide” – and there were several other disability-related murders in the immediate wake of the largely positive media attention Latimer received for his being a lying, unrepentant child-killer.

http://www.phen.ab.ca/materials/het/het12-01c.html
http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=2300

But – and this is an important point – Tracy Latimer wasn’t killed through the actions of a “death panel.” She got proper, timely health care when she needed it – a fact that removed one of the excuses Latimer would likely have used had he committed his crime in the United States.

Infants with Spina Bifida are also sometimes victims of this culture, being allowed to die through “passive euthanasia.”  It happens here in Canada, and even more so in places like the Netherlands where euthanasia, though illegal, is almost never prosecuted even when overt: http://tinyurl.com/negokm

Most euthanasia is done by one or two people acting alone and without the consensus of an ethics panel – except for in areas where insurance companies have more sway over medical decisions and treatment than actual doctors do, in which case it’s not an ethics panel but a cost-benefit panel.

Frankly, I’d prefer the ethics panel to either the lone gunman or the insurance company bean-counters.

Comment #16: Nil  on  09/10  at  10:29 PM

I went through nearly the exact same thing as Shiavo with my father.  I don’t even wish it on the people who say these terrible things about her husband.  I feel they will either have to learn empathy some other way, or die stupid and mean, which is more likely.  It was in 1999.  You never get over it though.

Comment #17: JennyLI  on  09/10  at  10:41 PM

Liked this post. Nicely articulated.

#5:

Obviously you’re not of the opinion your consciousness is a happy side effect of the billions of neurons all atwitter in your cerebral cortex (existentialists will be want to dispute the happy part), permitting you to both chew hay and fart ad hominem at the same time, but instead something more akin to a pretty puff cloud bobbing autonomously alongside you. That being the case, what need for the smelly rack of warm meat called a body then, eh?

Comment #18: Guy Smiley  on  09/10  at  10:47 PM

Imagine there really was a Right to Life movement. Wouldn’t they find the reality of insurance companies denying treatment because of “pre-existing conditions” more important than the rumors of government “death panels?” Death by Spreadsheet is the bigger threat, but they only think Life is Sacred when the issue works to the Republicans’ advantage.

Comment #19: Judge Moonbox  on  09/10  at  11:00 PM

Thanks, Ms. Kate. That’s long been one of my favorite puns. (I used to use it with my dad’s line about sending every young man abroad.)

Comment #20: bad Jim  on  09/10  at  11:01 PM

Exactly. Why wouldn’t you want to free your “soul” from the prison of your body so it could go to “heaven”? What are we supposed to think these people actually believe happens to them when they die?

Comment #21: junk science  on  09/10  at  11:06 PM

I guess maybe that was true for other people, but when I saw footage of Schiavo on the news, all I saw was a vegetable.  On the one hand, she wasn’t the faceless fetus that anti-choicers get so worked up about (because they can imagine anything they want) but, on the other hand, she didn’t have enough apparent sentience for me to identify with her.  If anything, seeing a real-life person in a vegetative state freaked me out and made me determined to not allow my survivors to keep me in that condition.

But that’s the point, keshmeshi. You did identify with her, in that you wanted to make sure you couldn’t be kept half-alive that way. And you probably identified with Michael Schiavo, not wanting anyone to prevent you from letting your loved ones go.


EricJG, I had to watch my mother tell the nurses to unplug the machine that was beating for his failed heart. It was the hardest thing I ever saw her do. Watching him take one last gasp, watching his mother hit his chest and beg him to wake up, watching his brother make terrible phone calls . . . it was the hardest thing I’ve been through too.

Maybe the high fevers weren’t causing the brain damage his doctors thought they were. Maybe he could have beaten the infections and gotten healthy enough for a transplant. I mean, the odds against it were astronomical, but they were nonzero.

On the other hand, maybe he deserved some peace. Maybe we deserved to let go and try to move on. Maybe it was time for my mom to stop spending eighteen hours a day in a hospital, next to a man who hadn’t moved in a month.

Judgmental asses like you, ready to pass judgment on other people’s families, make me sick. I’m with AngelScarlett, I wouldn’t wish what I went through on you. But I do hope you burn in the hell you probably believe everyone like me is going to.

Comment #22: Av0gadro  on  09/10  at  11:19 PM

To lighten things up a little—google led me to this image of a death panel van:

http://www.hearseclub.com/images/gallery2007/50_hearsecon_2007/DSC05906_panel_van.jpg

Comment #23: Hector B.  on  09/10  at  11:21 PM

Both my parents were involved in the earliest stages of the Schiavo case, one from the medical side and one from the legal.  My father came away from it with an almost visceral dislike for Michael Schiavo as a person.  However, Dad also agreed that Mr. Schiavo was absolutely within his rights as next-of-kin and was acting in accordance with what he felt his wife would have wanted.

Funny, it’s almost like being an unpleasant person doesn’t mean you automatically get ruled against in court and stripped of your rights.

Comment #24: Leely  on  09/10  at  11:28 PM

There’s a tiny group of people who deliberately choose suicide over a long, miserable death.

This must be emphasized: T-I-N-Y. When that British musician and his wife were in the news this summer for opting out at Dignitas, in the ensuing media squawk I heard a well-regarded doctor on CBC (damned if I can recall his name) speaking to just that; that in all of his decades as a palliative care doctor who tended to thousands of dying patients, he’s only had about a half dozen terminally ill patients ever ask for euthanasia (he was unable to help, legally, in our country). FWIW he is pro-euthanasia, if it’s written very very carefully and comprehensively into law with about a million safeguards built in.

Comment #25: Ranylt  on  09/10  at  11:39 PM

I’ve always wondered this, maybe someone on here who knows about end of life issues can answer it for me:

How easy is it for someone to take so much morphine for the pain management during, say, the end stages of terminal cancer that they overdose?

Comment #26: Ben D.  on  09/11  at  12:33 AM

Did I tell you that this is why I think you’re an awesome writer, Amanda?  If not, I should.  And umm, right, it totally is about imaginary threats being easier for them to defend than real ones.  You’re an awesome writer.

Comment #27: Crissa  on  09/11  at  12:44 AM

i’m beginning to think vonnegut’s “ethical suicide parlors” may not be such a bad idea. just clear out a lot of dead intellectual wood.

Comment #28: cpinva  on  09/11  at  01:31 AM

just clear out a lot of dead intellectual wood.

I have a feeling it wouldn’t be the dead intellectual wood patronizing such places. They never know when they’re not wanted.

Comment #29: junk science  on  09/11  at  01:38 AM

How easy is it for someone to take so much morphine for the pain management during, say, the end stages of terminal cancer that they overdose?

You wouldn’t be given that much morphine, because the DEA is afraid that terminal cancer patients might become addicts, so at least half of terminal patients are undermedicated because doctors are afraid of being investigated and prosecuted.

I so wish I was kidding.  But I’m not.  It’s a major problem that no one seems able to do anything about as long as the DEA can decide that it’s suspicious for oncologists to prescribe pain medication.

Comment #30: Mnemosyne  on  09/11  at  01:56 AM

Ben D.

How easy is it for someone to take so much morphine for the pain management during, say, the end stages of terminal cancer that they overdose?

If it is IV or a topical patch then it is easy, but if it is oral, it is hard because you often vomit before you absorb enough to die. Oral morphine is not a reliable way to die, if that is your intent.

And since I am such a font of knowledge on the subject, I’ll add my two cents regarding Terri Schiavo. Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state for about 15 years. I agree that her husband had every right to terminate her feedings, allowing her to die. And he showed nothing but love and devotion any wife must envy. He was also viciously slandered by supporters of Ms. Schiavo’s mother’s position.

Having said that, he should have turned Ms. Schiavo over to her mother when he no longer wanted to care for her. If a mother needs more time to accept her daughter’s death, how would it have hurt Mr. Schiavo to divorce her and allow her mother to care for her? Since Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, then she was essentially dead for over a decade while her husband cared for her and came to accept her death. Why not extend that courtesy to her mother?

Saying Mr. Schiavo was just respecting his wife’s wishes is obviously false. Had he done so, he would have let her die a year or two after the accident when it was clear she was not going to recover. Does anyone think his wife told him to let her go peacefully after 15 years on life support? He let his justifiable anger at her family cloud his judgment.

Comment #31: epistemology  on  09/11  at  02:06 AM

Mnemosyne:

The case you cite was decided AGAINST the federal government. The DEA does NOT harass doctors who prescribe for end of life patients in hospice. Ever. And despite the baffling arguments over euthanasia in this country, it is VERY common in hospice patients to give them excessive meds and hasten their deaths if the family so wishes.

The DEA does harass doctors for prescribing large doses of narcotics to chronic pain patients who are not dying. But not often. The real problem is timid or misinformed doctors who won’t do the right thing for their patients in pain.

Comment #32: epistemology  on  09/11  at  02:23 AM

Why not extend that courtesy to her mother?

Because it was clear through her own testimony that her mother was never going to accept that her daughter was already dead and she was interacting with a shell.  The judge decided to order the feeding tube removed because of testimony like this:

Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery. Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. (emphasis mine)

In other words, her family knew they were planning to do what they wanted, not what she wanted, and they didn’t care.  Those are not people who are going to be able to face reality even if you kept her alive for another 15 years.

I sympathize with her family because, frankly, they went more than a little nuts in their grief, but that’s even more reason to legally side with her husband, not with them.  They were so absorbed in their own feelings that they were not making rational decisions and thinking about what Terri would have wanted.

Comment #33: Mnemosyne  on  09/11  at  02:30 AM

The DEA does NOT harass doctors who prescribe for end of life patients in hospice. Ever.

That’s interesting, because my husband works for a company that does home healthcare, and that’s not their experience.  Even with terminal patients.

Comment #34: Mnemosyne  on  09/11  at  02:32 AM

Having said that, he should have turned Ms. Schiavo over to her mother when he no longer wanted to care for her.

It was his decision, and presumably he knew Terri better than did her parents, the actual woman Terri rather than the image they had of their baby girl.  Having come to terms himself with her death, his decision to give her surcease, a little dignity for the person she was, should have taken precedence. Terri was an end to herself, not a means by which her parents could gain a little extra comfort.

Comment #35: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/11  at  02:33 AM

It’s got to be something about the rapture craziness. Believing that the only morality comes from a system wherein essentially everyone not white enough and Jesusy enough will not only die quickly, but painfully and sent to ever-lasting torment, must make it easier to both dismiss the deaths of real people (oh, they would have died during the rapture anyway), while worrying even more about the deaths of people like you at the hand of invisible enemies (what if you missed out on the cool ascent phase (I’m actually kidding, the whole rapture cult is based on an extreme terror of death and the belief that one can get all the cool heaven goodies without having to go through the nasty dying phase, probably because what they really believe is the same as what the atheists believe happen, except it terrifies them)).

But yeah, I don’t think any of these groups are making in-roads with actual living-breathing voters, the polls have been pretty consistent on people backing health-care as much as the pollsters have been trying to swing it by only citing statistics like “opinion of Obama on health care” and the like. Unfortunately, for democracy, what we the people believe doesn’t matter, because our elected officials actually believe that the crazy brigade is a representative sample of the only voters that matter and thus need to be placated with blankets and new boos.

So the rest of us already think they are frightening and crazy, time for our elected officials and Beltway media to realize the same. Real America looks more like Sotomayor than Palin.

Comment #36: Cerberus  on  09/11  at  08:34 AM

Guys.  Please.  You are misrepresenting the Schiavo case.
A trial was held to determine what TERRI would have wanted.  Not her husband, not her parents.
In the course of the trial, there were statements that she had made to various friends and relatives, particularly after the funeral of an elderly relative who had suffered for a long time, in which she clearly indicated that she would not want to live “like that.”  The parents had no evidence that she would have wanted their life prolonged.  THEY wanted her life prolonged at all cost, in accordance with their religious beliefs, but that was irrelevant to the trial—the trial was about what SHE wanted.
The judge found that indeed TERRI would have wanted life support pulled, and therefore as her guardian Michael Schiavo was obligated to do so.  Regardless of his personal feelings.
Please, read the original documents at abstractappeal.com.  It is a continued misinterpretation that this was about “what he wanted” vs “what the parents wanted.”

Comment #37: Susanne  on  09/11  at  08:58 AM

Epistemiology, “turning her over to her parents” would mean that Michael Schiavo was acting in contrary to his wife’s wishes.  Part of loving someone is that you let their desires for their own bodies in cases of PVS / coma / etc. override what is easiest for you.

Comment #38: Susanne  on  09/11  at  09:00 AM

#26

There is a practice in hospice known as terminal sedation, in which when death is imminent—expected within hours or days—patients are given increasing amounts of medication to control their pain and agaitation.  It’s not something a patient would typically self-administer.  It can also be used when the decision has been made to remove someone from a vent, with the understanding that doing so will bring about their death.  In that case a patient may be conscious and aware of what is happening, and terminal sedation could be used to lessen their anxiety prior to their naturally loosing consciousness.  It is understood that the amount of painkiller given will hasten their death, however death is not the intended goal.  The practice seems to be coming under increasing scrutiny—in my opinion—and could result in more DEA oversight, because many in the the Right to Life community are very vocal about its use, and equate it would outright murder. 

Could it be misused?  Yeah, I suppose if it was used too early, and death was weeks away, a family might push for increasingly high amounts of opiates to be given.  My sense is that is very rare, though.

The Right to Lifers began targeting the hospice industry during the Schiavo affair, and really haven’t left off since, accusing hospice of being a tool by “Pro Deathers” to usher in the use of euthanasia.  Listening to them, you’d sometimes think the government was actually paying a bounty for each patient that hospice knocked off.  Hospice gets paid for services to the living.

Comment #39: Emmetropia  on  09/11  at  09:08 AM

Mnemosyne,

I think that you are more interested in the politics than the people and have a rigid position about the Schiavo case because of this. You laud the husband who kept Ms. Schiavo in this condition, against her wishes, for 8 years, trucking her to California for futile, experimental brain implants, exposing her to the media in a state that she would have doubtless found horrifying. Had Mr. Schiavo followed his wife’s wishes, he would have let her die with dignity years earlier and we would never have heard of this case. If he had followed the mother’s wishes, Terri Schiavo would have been transferred to the mother’s care after 8 years, and we would have never heard of this case. If you knew your fate were going to be that of Ms. Schiavo, would you want your face and body, twisted and withered almost beyond recognition, to be broadcast to the world with that being the picture people have of you forever?

Both the mother and Mr. Schiavo are responsible for this intrusion into Ms. Schiavo’s privacy and dignity in death. But the mother did it because she believed, as did Mr. Schiavo after 7 long years, that Ms. Schiavo was still alive. Mr. Schiavo exposed his wife to this because what? She was dead at 8 years but not at 7? He gets seven years to get used to her being gone, but the mother isn’t permitted longer? Because he was fearful of the pain should would feel with an amputation? Nonsense. He took his bloody time saying goodbye to his wife, it is absolutely inhumane not to extend the same human consideration to the mother.

For eight long dead years, Michael Schiavo agreed with his mother-in-law. Do you believe he spent eight years abusing his wife against her wishes? Why did he do that? Ms. Schiavo was just as alive at 8 years as 7. Whatever you say about the mother is precisely true about the husband for 8 years, yet you defend him. Why not censure him, like you do the mother.? Politics.

As I said, I agree with you on the politics. The husband should have the right. But he did the wrong thing and hurt the mother and did NOTHING with this legal fight to help his wife, but rather hurt her by exposing her to the media. Anger got the best of him. For shame.

Comment #40: epistemology  on  09/11  at  09:53 AM

Mnemosyne:

Your husband is misinformed. I have spent more than a quarter of a century working as an internist and work closely with a number of hospices. I have often been in the homes of the dying. I have helped families in and out of hospice help their loved ones die as gracefully as possible.

I have many chronic pain patients who I treat with opioids, including methadone. Just this month I have had communication with the DEA over my prescribing practices (I’ll post images of the letters if anyone has an interst).

Yes they watch carefully, and as I said before, all too many doctors worry more about their licenses and malpractices policies than their patients, but if you document carefully and do the right thing for the patients, it is my belief, ratified by years of experience, that the DEA is no impediment to proper pain management. Although I share your concerns about their response to the explosion in oxycodone abuse in the last decade.

But the DEA NEVER gets involved with hospice cases, ever. Your husband is misinformed.

Comment #41: epistemology  on  09/11  at  10:04 AM

But he did the wrong thing and hurt the mother and did NOTHING with this legal fight to help his wife, but rather hurt her by exposing her to the media.

Terri wasn’t hurt by being “exposed to the media.” You can’t hurt someone who is already dead.

And Terri’s parents did a hell of a lot more to promote their cause to the media than Michael ever did. They were the ones pushing the lawsuits and media interviews.

Comment #42: Scott  on  09/11  at  10:07 AM

Epistemology:

What you’re saying sounds to me like “the DEA has a chilling effect on pain management, but doctors who are willing to put in a lot of extra work can mostly get around it.”

Comment #43: paul  on  09/11  at  10:33 AM

Paul:

Proper charting is not “a lot of extra work.” And I am not defending the DEAs emphasis on drug diversion over pain management. The DEA needs to back off, but I hold the doctors more to blame for inadequate pain control.

Comment #44: epistemology  on  09/11  at  11:59 AM

Both the mother and Mr. Schiavo are responsible for this intrusion into Ms. Schiavo’s privacy and dignity in death. But the mother did it because she believed, as did Mr. Schiavo after 7 long years, that Ms. Schiavo was still alive.

So a patient’s rights can be trumped because their family feels really, really bad that they’re not going to recover?

You’re getting to a pretty scary place here, where you’re insisting that a patient’s wishes are meaningless if they can no longer directly communicate them, and that the patient’s family should be allowed to override their wishes whenever they like.  Michael Schiavo followed the law and asked the court to appoint a guardian and investigate what Terri would have wanted.  The court—not Michael Schiavo—determined that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive artificially.  When the court cases didn’t go the way they wanted, her parents dragged it all into public.  If they hadn’t, you never would have heard of this case at all.

I hope your patients know that, if they’re incapacitated, you’re going to be following the instructions of their families, even if those instructions contradict what your patient told you s/he wanted.  Are there any situations where the family’s wishes should not be paramount over those of the patient?

Comment #45: Mnemosyne  on  09/11  at  12:25 PM

You’re on a roll, Amanda.  ‘DonnaDiva’ brings back fond memories of that estate tax tittering, and of the desperate search (I believe there was a bounty offered, even) by Americans for Prosperity to find even one example of a farmer that made enough to qualify.  Hilarious.

Comment #46: Tommy Deelite  on  09/11  at  12:27 PM

“Had Mr. Schiavo followed his wife’s wishes, he would have let her die with dignity years earlier and we would never have heard of this case. “

He DID try to let her die with dignity, and followed the appropriate procedures of the state in doing so.
Florida law CALLS FOR a trial court to determine what Terri would choose to do (in the absence of a living will or similar document).  After a trial where all sides could provide whatever evidence they could find, the court determined the evidence was clear and convincing that Terri would choose to have her feeding tube disconnected. You can read the verdict here:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

Then, the Schindlers claimed that new therapies could restore her and that these therapies would make her “change her mind.”  Again, in a second trial, the trial court determined that no new therapy presented any reasonable chance.  These decisions were unanimously upheld on appeal each time.  You can read this here:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt

The state’s interest in preserving life does not override an individual’s personal choice regarding his or her own medical treatment decisions. Terri’s wishes were the guiding principle behind this case.

To talk intelligently about Schiavo, you have to read abstractappeal.  It’s neutral and it provides all the original source documents.

Comment #47: Susanne  on  09/11  at  12:32 PM

Your husband is misinformed.

I guess he hallucinated that DEA audit of their pharmacy, right?  After all, the DEA never, ever zealously enforces things or investigates people who turn out to be innocent.

Comment #48: Mnemosyne  on  09/11  at  12:43 PM

Epistemology:

This thread demonstrates just how poor a job the MSM did on reporting the facts of the Schiavo case.  To really learn the history of what transpired within the family, you had to read both the 600+ pages of court documents that were posted online, and the archived articles written by St. Petersburg Times reporters, that first appeared shortly after Terri was hospitalized.

Michael had a decent relationship with the family for the first several years Terri was hospitalized, and it was her parents that recommended that he begin dating again.  The relationship seemed to fall apart around money issues.

I heard about the case a couple of years prior to it hitting the national wires.  I was working in hospice management and participated in an online forum dealing with fund raising ethics.  A case study was included of worst possible fund raising practices.  The organization profiled?  The foundation that Terri’s parents had started—to allegedly—raise money for her care.  They had brought a hidden videocamera into her room and videotapped her without Michael’s permission, and were selling the tapes online for a $100 donation— an appalling breach of both patient privacy and accepted fund raising ethics.  It came out that they had never gone through the proper channels when starting the “Foundation,”  and couldn’t legally conduct fund raising activities.  Further, her parents claimed they needed the money so that they could bring her home and take care of her.  Problem is, they did in fact bring her home at one point for a couple of weeks, which was discussed in the court records, but returned her to the longterm care facility because they were unable to cope with her needs.  I never once heard this reported in the news.  It was made to appear that Michael was a cold, greedy, murderous bastard, whose sole intent was to keep Terri from her parents, so that he could spend her insurance settlement on loose women.

Comment #49: Emmetropia  on  09/11  at  12:50 PM

it is my belief, ratified by years of experience, that the DEA is no impediment to proper pain management.

HA! Tell it to my sister. She’s suffered from constant, massive, undiagnosable headaches for decades. The only thing that makes her existence bearable is huge doses of controlled-substance painkillers—many times the dosage that a normal person would use.

She has tried for years to find doctors who will prescribe the doses she needs, but they all tell her they’re afraid of the DEA. She finally found one, but she lives in fear every day that the DEA will pay him a visit and interfere with his practice (or maybe shut it down entirely).

Comment #50: Bitter Scribe  on  09/11  at  12:53 PM

How easy is it for someone to take so much morphine for the pain management during, say, the end stages of terminal cancer that they overdose?

From my own experience with my great-aunt, she was up to 37 drops of morphine every
6- 8 hours. This was from the initial 10 drops she was started with, received orally.

What happens is that there is a tolerance that builds up to the effect of the morphine, so that a ‘lethal’ dose might be beyond the ‘lethal’ amount for someone who has no tolerance built up in the first place.

A good example is what happened when Mary Tyler Moore attempted to use morphine to help her terminally-ill brother commit suicide.  The attempt failed because he’d been on morphine for a long time, and, paradoxically enough, it did bring him relief for a while.

We could’ve ended my great-aunt’s life a week early. She was dying at home and when the hospice nurse who came to verify she was dead threw away the morphine that would’ve removed any evidence since any shortfall in volume could’ve been fixed with a little water and blue food coloring. There wouldn’t have been any proof short of testing her tissues, which probably wouldn’t have been done on an 85 year old woman with a recurrence of cancer that had been first diagnosed and operated for a few years earlier.

Comment #51: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/11  at  01:13 PM

Scott:

If Ms. Schiavo can’t be hurt because she’s dead, then why factor in her wishes at all? She has no desires or wishes at that point. You seem to be cherry-picking when it is important to factor in her feelings about all this. Why do you defend Mr. Schiavo defying his wife’s wishes for years and years?

Comment #52: epistemology  on  09/11  at  01:21 PM

Bitter Scribe:

You’re mistaking the DEA’s oversight of pain management clinic’ prescribing, with prescribing done by doctors for patients enrolled in hospice care.  Doctor’s prescribing for a terminally ill patient enrolled in hospice, are rarely, if ever called on the carpet for over prescribing (except in cases of terminal sedation, but there, addiction isn’t the concern.)  Although, I know of MD’s who are afraid that they will be visited by the DEA, and are reluctant to prescribe adequate levels of pain control meds for hospice patients, I don’t think that fear has any basis in reality—yet.  Generally, those MD’s are not trained in palliative care.

Comment #53: Emmetropia  on  09/11  at  01:24 PM

52-

Because your wishes for your own dead body are considered important in any will situation and given precedence above all else. Hell, the idea of what should be done with your carcass and your discarded stuff is the reason there are things called wills.

If you want your body to be burned in a viking pyre, you can put that in the will and legally your family needs to honor that (as long as it’s legal in the state in question).

Many people are creeped out by their dead body essentially being used as a political puppet so people can pretend it’s alive and thus spell out in their wills that they didn’t want that to happen.

Most people didn’t know until Shiavo that they should preclude that, trusting on basic humanity that we wouldn’t play puppeteer with our corpse. Sadly, that assumption was in error.

In my living will of course, this is how I want to be disposed of, I plan to become a huge hit on the taxidermist/ventriloquist circuit bringing joy to morbid children around the world.

Comment #54: Cerberus  on  09/11  at  02:05 PM

I’m going to do what Jeremy Betham did:

Auto-icon

As requested in his will, his body was preserved and stored in a wooden cabinet called an “Auto-icon.” Originally kept by his disciple Thomas Southwood Smith,[14] it was acquired by University College London in 1850. It is normally kept on public display at the end of the South Cloisters in the main building of the college, but for the 100th and 150th anniversaries of the college, it was brought to the meeting of the College Council, where it was listed as “present but not voting.”[15]

The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham’s head was badly damaged in the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same case for many years, but became the target of repeated student pranks, including being stolen on more than one occasion. It is now locked away securely.[16]

Comment #55: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/11  at  02:19 PM

Epistemology, you are making negative sense.

Michael Schiavo was the guardian and executor of his wife’s wishes. It took him 15 years to come to terms with the idea that his wife would want to die.

You are suggesting that, because he may have disrespected her wishes for 15 years, he has to keep disrespecting her wishes by allowing her family to keep her alive indefinitely out of their crazy hope that she’d survive.

Her mother and family did have “the same courtesy” that Michael had. They had 15 years, same as he did. He eventually faced reality; they didn’t. You’re suggesting that, because it took him a while, it’s acceptable for him to take even longer and wait until the day when her family accepted her death. That day would probably never come.

Should Michael Schiavo have disconnected Terri sooner? Maybe. But the fact that he didn’t disconnect her sooner doesn’t mean he shouldn’t disconnect her later. That’s just nuts. Quite the contrart: ethically, as soon as he gave up hope of her recovery, he had to disconnect her.  Those 15 years of keeping her connected don’t change that, except to make it more urgent.

Comment #56: LR  on  09/11  at  02:21 PM

If Ms. Schiavo can’t be hurt because she’s dead, then why factor in her wishes at all? She has no desires or wishes at that point.

Wow.  I really hope your patients have some idea about how you feel regarding their wishes for their own care before they become incapacitated so they can switch to a doctor who respects them.

Comment #57: Mnemosyne  on  09/11  at  02:27 PM

Mnemosyne

I was quoting Scott. Your comment is so dishonest I assume you are a Republican.

Comment #58: epistemology  on  09/11  at  02:40 PM

Your comment is so dishonest I assume you are a Republican.

Every one of your comments has indicated that you think her parents’ preferences for her care should have taken precedence over her own preferences once she was unable to express those preferences any longer.  Your very first comment was that Michael Schiavo should have signed over his guardianship of her to her parents despite Terri’s express wishes as determined by a court of law because that was what her parents wanted and she couldn’t express her preferences anymore.

Pray tell, where did I say anything other than what you yourself have said in this very thread?

Comment #59: Mnemosyne  on  09/11  at  02:45 PM

Thing is, no matter how well-intentioned her parents may have been and how sincere their love and concern—you don’t choose your parents.  You choose your spouse.  That’s why, in the absence of other documentation to the contrary (such as a living will or medical power of attorney indicating so), the default for an adult is his or her spouse, not his or her parents. 

Mnemosyne - I do want to clarify that it was after 10 years that the trial was held, not 15.  The trial was duly held, the Schindlers had every chance to provide testimony to the effect that Terri would have wanted life support maintained in such a state.  The most they could offer up was alleged testimony from watching a movie about Karen Ann Quinlan; it was later revealed in the course of the trial that Terri was only a child when said movie had aired, and she had made other statements to the contrary (that is, she would have wanted life support removed) to several people as an adult.  Some of these statements were in the context of attending a funeral of an elderly person who had suffered for a long time.  The trial judge (Greer) was quite explicit in saying that it was quite evident the Schindlers were reacting to what THEY wanted done to Terri’s body, not what Terri would have wanted done. 

Whether Michael Schiavo is a Knight in Shining Armor or a Dastardly Adulterer is completely irrelevant.  Our respect for her expressed wishes for how her body should be handled isn’t a function of whether we as a society like her husband or not.  Our respect for her expressed wishes for how her body should be handled isn’t a function of how much it may pain us to see her obviously-grieving family.

Comment #60: Susanne  on  09/11  at  03:37 PM

Haha.  Funny that the worst insult possible is “I assume you are a Republican.” 

Or, to quote Joan Wilder, “You…you…you…mondo dismo!”

Comment #61: Iam138  on  09/11  at  03:44 PM

In general, the right wing is drawn to that which doesn’t exist or can’t speak for itself: god, fetuses, and Terri Schiavo.

To be completely fair, the left enjoys doing this with animals from time to time.

Comment #62: Daniel M. Laenker  on  09/11  at  03:54 PM

Bitter Scribe:

You’re mistaking the DEA’s oversight of pain management clinic’ prescribing, with prescribing done by doctors for patients enrolled in hospice care.

OK, if you say so, but that doesn’t speak all that well of the DEA. All that means is they won’t harass your doctor if you’re dying, but if you need unusual doses of controlled meds to live, watch out.

Sorry if we’re sliding OT here, but this is a real sore point with me.

Comment #63: Bitter Scribe  on  09/11  at  04:02 PM

To be completely fair, the left enjoys doing this with animals from time to time.

True.  It has come up from time to time here that PETA is more than willing to exploit women and sex in order to “save” animals with stupid publicity stunts.  The big difference between us and conservatives right now is that our stupid is being kept on the fringes.  (Well, except for the anti-vaxers, but that seems to cut across political lines most of the time.)

Comment #64: Mnemosyne  on  09/11  at  05:29 PM

Your comment is so dishonest I assume you are a Republican.

Oh, this definitely needs to become a standard putdown.

Comment #65: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/11  at  06:19 PM

EricJG, epistemology:

Must you be such ignorant pigfuckers? Go read Idiot America by Charles Pierce—there’s a full chapter on the Schiavo case that describes what really happened away from the cameras, including a near-fistfight between Catholic priests over who was supposed to give Terri last rights, terrorist threats from Schindler supporters, and hospice workers who worked under a heavy security cordon (sometimes with police escorts to and from work) because they were afraid of being attacked or killed.

The facts in evidence are that the Schindler family allowed themselves to be used by the Religious Right, that they routinely lied about Terri’s physical condition, and that they helped to demonize Michael Schiavo for political gain. There is no defense for what the Schindler family and their associates did.

Comment #66: BrianX  on  09/11  at  08:37 PM

Part 2:

Taking care of dying people is an all-too-regular and integral part of an internal medicine practice. Carefully and compassionately caring for non-terminal people who need opioids for pain should also be. But in the 1990s, when the DEA, in an ill-considered response to the increase of oxycodone on the street, began a campaign against this which involved second-guessing doctors’ judgment, timid and uninformed doctors cut back needed pain medication, or stopped prescribing for chronic pain at all. I know because I have been flooded with requests by patients to care for opioid dependent pain who have been dumped by other doctors.

This is a very difficult task, both weeding out those who sell or misuse opioids, and caring for the many people with real pain who are reckless or otherwise or live with people who steal from them or present some other risk.

I have reason to believe that twice someone has died from opioids I had prescribed. This is touchy ground since confidentiality is second only to safety. But the stripped-down stories: One patient, according to his wife who is still my patient, had a 100 mcg/h Duragesic patch given to him by a pain patient who had gotten them from another doctor, and, since I had him on a quite high dose of oral opioids, he died from it.

Another time, a patient, trustworthy for many years, says his friend stole his opioid medication, and it killed him. These cases haunt me. I take the responsibility to care for chronic opioid patients very seriously. I see some of the less trustworthy patients three times every week, which insurance won’t pay for. And since it is ethically unacceptable to take cash for looking someone in the eye and dispensing a few pain pills, I don’t get paid for this at all. To the great annoyance of Val.

As I said above, just this month I’ve had occasion to communicate with the DEA and state licensing board about my prescribing practices. I did not find myself dealing with unreasonable people.

And believe me, they are not interested in prescribing for the terminally ill. There are doctors in your community, Mnemosyne, who will give you oxycodone for cash, without proper medical care. They are the proper target for the DEA. Your obvious efforts to help the effort to get the DEA to sit back down with the medical community to discuss this over a beer, is greatly appreciated.

But I digress. I also spend much time on the dying, and have long been a supporter of hospices. I have witnessed ugly scenes in my office with family members fighting over end-of-life care. But nothing as ugly as the Schiavo case.

I am sure that Terri Schiavo’s mother would eventually come to the conclusion that her son-in-law did, and let her daughter die. There is a huge difference between caring for someone in a persistent vegetative state personally, as Mr. Schiavo did, and not. Both because you get to see the real condition of the patient and because of the emotional burden. I don’t think Terri Schiavo would have asked her husband to keep her alive for 7 years, then bury her in front of her grieving mother who clearly believed she was still alive. Absolutely hateful and the wrong thing for everyone, even the husband.

But I guess we will agree to disagree.

One last point: Do not write a living will unless you don’t have a loved one you trust. If there is a dispute, the judge, not your family, will decide what you meant, and a living will trumps the judgment of the power-of-attorney. After the SCOTUS Nancy Cruzan case (I’m too tired to link it, look it up: CRUZAN, BY HER PARENTS AND CO-GUARDIANS v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) you don’t even need to appoint a power-of-attorney for healthcare, it is enough for the relative (if you trust the person who is by default your spokesperson in the state you live in) to tell the doctors or any court, that they spoke to you about the particular medical issue under consideration, and this is what you wanted. The court really doesn’t want to get involved.

I have neither a living will nor a power-of-attorney. Val knows to tell the appropriate people that I want whatever she judges best for the family at the time. Please be kind to the living. Mr. Schiavo was not.

Comment #67: epistemology  on  09/12  at  12:38 AM

I knew I was going to do that, and send the second part first. I will start over again. I apologize to everyone.

Comment #68: epistemology  on  09/12  at  12:40 AM

Mneomsyne, [This is in two parts because I am blabbermouth, too lazy to edit]

Can’t we be friends?

Your post #57 consists, in full, of the following:

If Ms. Schiavo can’t be hurt because she’s dead, then why factor in her wishes at all? She has no desires or wishes at that point.


Wow.  I really hope your patients have some idea about how you feel regarding their wishes for their own care before they become incapacitated so they can switch to a doctor who respects them.

The first paragraph was excerpted from comment 40 where I said
“But he did the wrong thing and hurt the mother and did NOTHING with this legal fight to help his wife, but rather hurt her by exposing her to the media.”

And Scott replied in comment 42: “You can’t hurt someone who is already dead. “

And when I ask whether he accepts the consequences of his statement, you pretend I said you can’t hurt someone who is dead when anyone can see I was quoting Scott. And from this you conclude that I don’t respect my dying patients.

You don’t know me and you are being terribly unfair and unkind but I am not going to take this personally.

I understand this is a very difficult and personal subject.  Most adults have personal tragic experience with this subject that tugs at our very ability to generalize fairly.

My mother died at 57 of esophageal cancer. I was a doctor at the time and was powerless as this disease, in about a year, ate my beloved mother alive. She was an indomitable woman who had seven children with two men and a masters degree in chemistry and history. She died at home, being cared for by loved ones. A cold comfort, but a comfort nonetheless. This taught me much as a doctor and person. Painfully.

Comment #69: epistemology  on  09/12  at  12:40 AM

Part 2:

Taking care of dying people is an all-too-regular and integral part of an internal medicine practice. Carefully and compassionately caring for non-terminal people who need opioids for pain should also be. But in the 1990s, when the DEA, in an ill-considered response to the increase of oxycodone on the street, began a campaign against this which involved second-guessing doctors’ judgment, timid and uninformed doctors cut back needed pain medication, or stopped prescribing for chronic pain at all. I know because I have been flooded with requests by patients to care for opioid dependent pain who have been dumped by other doctors.

This is a very difficult task, both weeding out those who sell or misuse opioids, and caring for the many people with real pain who are reckless or otherwise or live with people who steal from them or present some other risk.

I have reason to believe that twice someone has died from opioids I had prescribed. This is touchy ground since confidentiality is second only to safety. But the stripped-down stories: One patient, according to his wife who is still my patient, had a 100 mcg/h Duragesic patch given to him by a pain patient who had gotten them from another doctor, and, since I had him on a quite high dose of oral opioids, he died from it.

Another time, a patient, trustworthy for many years, says his friend stole his opioid medication, and it killed him. These cases haunt me. I take the responsibility to care for chronic opioid patients very seriously. I see some of the less trustworthy patients three times every week, which insurance won’t pay for. And since it is ethically unacceptable to take cash for looking someone in the eye and dispensing a few pain pills, I don’t get paid for this at all. To the great annoyance of Val.

As I said above, just this month I’ve had occasion to communicate with the DEA and state licensing board about my prescribing practices. I did not find myself dealing with unreasonable people.

And believe me, they are not interested in prescribing for the terminally ill. There are doctors in your community, Mnemosyne, who will give you oxycodone for cash, without proper medical care. They are the proper target for the DEA. Your obvious efforts to help the effort to get the DEA to sit back down with the medical community to discuss this over a beer, is greatly appreciated.

But I digress. I also spend much time on the dying, and have long been a supporter of hospices. I have witnessed ugly scenes in my office with family members fighting over end-of-life care. But nothing as ugly as the Schiavo case.

I am sure that Terri Schiavo’s mother would eventually come to the conclusion that her son-in-law did, and let her daughter die. There is a huge difference between caring for someone in a persistent vegetative state personally, as Mr. Schiavo did, and not. Both because you get to see the real condition of the patient and because of the emotional burden. I don’t think Terri Schiavo would have asked her husband to keep her alive for 7 years, then bury her in front of her grieving mother who clearly believed she was still alive. Absolutely hateful and the wrong thing for everyone, even the husband.

But I guess we will agree to disagree.

One last point: Do not write a living will unless you don’t have a loved one you trust. If there is a dispute, the judge, not your family, will decide what you meant, and a living will trumps the judgment of the power-of-attorney. After the SCOTUS Nancy Cruzan case (I’m too tired to link it, look it up: CRUZAN, BY HER PARENTS AND CO-GUARDIANS v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) you don’t even need to appoint a power-of-attorney for healthcare, it is enough for the relative (if you trust the person who is by default your spokesperson in the state you live in) to tell the doctors or any court, that they spoke to you about the particular medical issue under consideration, and this is what you wanted. The court really doesn’t want to get involved.

I have neither a living will nor a power-of-attorney. Val knows to tell the appropriate people that I want whatever she judges best for the family at the time. Please be kind to the living. Mr. Schiavo was not.

Comment #70: epistemology  on  09/12  at  12:41 AM

BrianX:

Yikes. I did not defend the Schindler family. I said in my first post, # 31:

I agree that her husband had every right to terminate her feedings, allowing her to die. And he showed nothing but love and devotion any wife must envy. He was also viciously slandered by supporters of Ms. Schiavo’s mother’s position.

I am surely ignorant, but I don’t fuck pigs. Take it back.

Comment #71: epistemology  on  09/12  at  12:44 AM

I am sure that Terri Schiavo’s mother would eventually come to the conclusion that her son-in-law did, and let her daughter die.

but apparently the judge who listened to her testimony did not share your faith.

you have excoricated mr. schiavo for being cruel to his wife’s family. seems to me that they were certainly cruel, and wrong to boot.

I have neither a living will nor a power-of-attorney. Val knows to tell the appropriate people that I want whatever she judges best for the family at the time. Please be kind to the living. Mr. Schiavo was not.

you might want to rethink your sweeping advice here, given that many pandagonians do not have the hetero-privilege of government-recognised marriage. lgbtqi folks are particularly at risk of being marginalised and having their wishes ignored when they are dealing with the medical system. they may have “a family member they trust” but their families of origin and the hospital hierarchy may not recognise that person as “family”.

Comment #72: sophiefair  on  09/12  at  02:06 AM

sophiefair:

You might want to re-read the Cruzan case. It was not a relative who gave the information to the judge that they had talked to Nancy before the car accident.

Of course I support gay marriage, but I deal with many gay couples. A sympathetic doctor should not be necessary to assert ones rights in these matters, but it a sufficient condition.

Perhaps your advice is based on considerably less than decades of first hand knowledge of how our system currently works.

You are right, Ms. Schiavo’s mother, or at least those who spoke for her, were cruel and wrong with Mr. Schiavo. As I made perfectly clear in my first post. But he should have turned Terri Schiavo over to her mother when he was done caring for her, after 7 long years of defying his wife’s wishes. If they were her wishes. You hold the judges in much higher regard in these matters than I do.

And if you think that Ms. Schiavo asserted pre-accident that she wanted things to turn out the way they did, then you don’t speak with many young people about end-of-life care.

Comment #73: epistemology  on  09/12  at  03:32 AM

sophiefair,

And the judge did not agree with you that the mother would never let her daughter die. He agreed with me, as I stated in my first post, that the husband should have the final say. Even in hetero-normative cases, no?

The husband just made the wrong decision. As you are doing. Letting anger and spite make a decision that should have been made in a more humane frame of mind.

Perhaps we disagree whether the living or dead should be afforded more compassion and consideration. You are certainly right that the mother’s side was hateful, too. And legally wrong. Still nothing was gained for anyone by not allowing the mother enough time to make peace with her daughter’s death. Do you have children?

Comment #74: epistemology  on  09/12  at  03:40 AM

Epistemology,

“Letting anger and spite make a decision that should be made in a more humane frame of mind.”

That’s a serious charge.  Since I’m from Missouri, I’ll need some proof.  Do you have any recordings of Michael saying “You know, I was going to give Terri’s parents a little longer to come to terms with their grief, but they pissed me off, so fuck it, we’re pulling the plug NOW.” or words to that effect?

No, nobody involved was an angel or a demon, but could you give us a time frame on when a “reasonable person” could be expected to accept reality that their loved one was not going to recover?  Afer all, Terri’s parents had the same 15 years her husband did.  Should they have had 20 years?  30?  Until the sun burns out?  When?

Comment #75: Blue Jean  on  09/12  at  01:04 PM

sophiefair,

many pandagonians do not have the hetero-privilege of government-recognised marriage. lgbtqi folks are particularly at risk of being marginalised and having their wishes ignored when they are dealing with the medical system.

Of course there are bigoted doctors. More in private practice than in the teaching hospitals where the usual progressive air of an academic community pervades. Though perhaps not as much in the medical academy as the fine arts academy.

The much bigger problem for all of us, is to extricate ourselves from the medical community when it is time to stop treating (though never caring). We in the medical community have a strong bias in favor of continuing to treat, and not just for the money as the cynics say, but out of a proper and decent respect for hope and because it is hard to change gears when you spend your life fighting death.

Critical decisions, like stopping a ventilator or removing a feeding tube, from an unresponsive patient (even one in a persistent vegetative state) who needs them, requires that you have someone at your bedside who will firmly assert your rights. Terri Schiavo never had this in her husband.

Your choice: 15 years in the persistent vegetative state that Terri Schiavo never wanted followed by widespread exposure of your twisted frame to the world, and then you die.

Or 15 years in the persistent vegetative state followed by another 15 unkowing, painless years in a persistent vegetative state dying quietly and privately. (And it would not have even been that long. You and the judge may know law, but you don’t know medicine. It is unlikely that Ms. Schiavo would have gotten as good care from the mother as from her younger, more educated, diligent husband. It is not easy keeping someone alive so long in that condition, and Ms. Schiavo would have been considerably older at the end of another 15 years. But the real truth is that, if the husband had turned her over to the mother after 7 years without a fight, the mother would come to the same conclusion the husband did after 7 years, the same decision that Nancy Cruzan’s mother (look up this decisive Supreme Court case on this issue) came to after 7 years. These are psychological, not political truths.)

Michael Schiavo flagrantly ignored his wife’s wishes. I don’t censure him. If he needed 7 years to accept his wife’s death, he should have it. It may ignore Ms. Schiavo’s wishes, but I even doubt that. You never spoke to Ms. Schiavo on this, and neither did the judge. Do you really think that politicized court testimony is the path to understanding the human heart in this subtle and complicated area?

I would like to die quickly and peacefully. But if I am unable to feel anything, and Val or my father or one of my children cannot accept my death, then I would like them to be given time to do so. Do you care more what is done with your unfeeling body at the end of life than you do about your loved ones grief? Please rethink this.

Comment #76: epistemology  on  09/12  at  01:21 PM

Blue Jean:

but could you give us a time frame on when a “reasonable person” could be expected to accept reality that their loved one was not going to recover?

No I couldn’t. I respect each individual enough to allow them to grieve in their own fashion and find it appalling that you think we should impose a timeline.

It is more than a little baffling that you think 7 years is reasonable but longer is infuriating. You are letting politics cloud your judgment in a very personal and private area.

I hope you don’t have judgmental people analyzing your grief should you ever have the misfortune to have a daughter die before you.

Comment #77: epistemology  on  09/12  at  02:51 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.