Euthanasia

Scott Horowitz | September 23, 2004
Any thoughts?

Kris Weberg | September 23, 2004
Maybe I'm a horrible human being by Jeb standards, but someone who's had minimal to zero non-autonomous brain activity for 14 years and depends entirely on a machine to keep their body alive is not a functioning human being. It seems as though the parents in this case are understandably, but irrationally hoping their daughter will return to consciousness.

I'm sure someone can quote miraculous stories of recovery to me, and I'm sure Terri Schiavo's parents would consider me to have murderous intent, but I personally can't support the use of extraordinary means to keep her alive. On the other hand, I can't support her husband, either -- he has no documentation in this case, just his word as to his wife's wishes. That doesn't meet my standard, or even broadly liberal legal standards for a "living will" of the sort needed here. While she was capable of choice, she did not choose to provide a legal statement of her feelings on this matter; and now she has no ability to give or deny consent.

In the end, I'd say the law is right, and the husband probably shouldn't legally be able to stop medical care for his wife. I'd consider her effectively dead, but I privilege an individual's consciousn decisions above my own in these cases. Similarly, I have no problem with people who want to die due to chronic pain or terminal illness. It's not my business to impose unlikely optimism or religious beliefs on their choices, particularly when the prognosis is poor and there is, in fact, a rational desire to avoid unnecessary pain or expenses to family. But neither is it my place to impose a pessimism in cases where nothing shows the patient to share my opinions.

Suicide as it is usually meant is stickier, and revolves around issues of mental competence that I take issue with. I will say that I do not believe that suicidal desires in non-terminal patients or non-chronic sufferers are in and of themselves evidence of mental incompetence, but that they nearly always result from a demonstrable pathology that already meets a standard of mental incompetence.

Of course, there are socially sanctioned forms of suicide today. One can easily read the oath of the Secret Service or of a soldier as at least including the possibility of effective suicide. Dying to hold the position, taking a bullet for the President, throwing oneself ont he grenade are all actions whose self-destructive quality is made into heroic sacrifice by our social valuation of the many over the one -- even the case of the threatened President implies that harm may come to many because of his or her death, and the Secrety Service officer who perishes does so to protect those potential indirect victims of assassination. Spies, too, can heroically suffer death for refusal to divulge information.

Even the religious bodies that usually condemn euthanasia and abortion allow and literally beatify indirect suicide by refusal to recant faith in the face of life or death; the fact that an outside agency is the direct cause of the death does not mean that the martyr lacked options that do not end in death. The rejoinder of "spiritual death" is dependent on one's own belief, of course, and preponderance of religious belief cannot be the basis of the law. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution has consistently been interpreted in this way.

Where could we locate, in the state, a power to make live or let die? We have already given the state limited power to let live and make die, so perhaps it is a logical but unsettling inversion thereof. Michel Foucault seemed to think so, at any rate. But I object to both axes of power in all cases. The state should have no power to kill me; nor any power to force me to live when I do not wish to and am mentally competent. 9Of course, the state gets to judge that competence, so things become complicated.)

Put another way, if we have the right to preserve our lives to the point of killing those who threaten it -- if we can end other life to save our own -- why is the reverse not also universally held to be true, that we can end our own lives, which we already have full rights to in the face of death, to the point of killing? And in cases where intent to live or die could exist but is presently unknowable, on what side should we err? I prefer to err on the side that leaves room for future reversal of course. And that isn't the side of death.

(Note that i remarked on the possibly of intent existing before it becomes unknowable -- in the case of early-term abortions or births of acephalic infants, intent is not yet and never will be a possibility, respectively. I use sentience as a criteria for the beginning of life. You can use your own criterion, and come to your own conclusions.)

Anna Gregoline | September 23, 2004
Just for reference, we discussed this almost exactly a year ago.

Melissa Erin | September 24, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | September 24, 2004
Sorry Anna, wasn't active on the board a year ago. :( My thing is that they want to preserve her life, yet not research ways to cure her (Stem Cell Research). It's a Catch-22.

Anna Gregoline | September 24, 2004
No need to apologize, just bringing it up for reference.

I do think her parents need a reality check, but in fairness to them, they say that her husband has blocked the kinds of therapy they feel could have helped her - so they felt she hasn't received the best treatment she could. They're only allowed to see her for short periods of time, etc.

In some ways, I wonder why the husband is so adamant about her being taken off life support. I think if it was me, and it had been 14 YEARS, and I'd gotten remarried, etc., I would just have to let it go. The parents want to care for her, and that's their reality. If you really believe that Terri is gone, then it's ok that she's not dead yet - I don't think there was any indication that she was suffering.

Jackie Mason | September 25, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | September 25, 2004
The probloem, not here, but in law, is that what should be these people's personal, heart-tuigging, sould-searched decision will become case precedent. What is, to her husband, to her parents, a decision they and they alone can (and should) reach, will become a lot of other peoples' decisions before the fact.

Jackie Mason | March 18, 2005
[hidden by request]

John E Gunter | March 18, 2005
One of the talk show hosts in our area has said that he's spoken with neurologists who have seen the results of the testing they have done on her and there is no chance of recovery. The host later went on to wonder why the husband just didn't give up and let the parents handle the rest of her care until they were satisfied that nothing could be done to save her.

But I can understand the husband not wanting to let his wife be poked and prodded any more with further tests as, according to him, she wouldn't want to exist like this. So he keeps fighting to let her die.

My really big problem with it is now the U.S. House and Senate are getting involved? This has become such a circus!

John

Jackie Mason | March 19, 2005
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | March 19, 2005
The best is that they subpoenaed her to testify.

As one wag put it, "What do they expect her to say?"

Anna Gregoline | March 21, 2005
Can you believe this is still going on? And now Bush himself is involved?

Scott Horowitz | March 21, 2005
Government should have no say in this. The husband has power of attorney, his decision is final, case closed. Though his motives may not be genuine, his decision is final. Case closed.

Kris Weberg | March 22, 2005
Anna -- actually, yeah. This way the GOP gets to throw meat to the pro-life/anti-euthanasia base without actually doing anything widespread or long-term about any of it. Cynical politics at their worst.

Anna Gregoline | March 22, 2005
I really don't understand how this has become a pro-life issue - it's baffling to me. Not to mention the fact that this sort of thing happens every single day - stopping life support. I think that people are charged by this case because of the photos of Terri, who is awake (appearance-wise). That's all I keep seeing in the media, is that photo of Terri being kissed by her mother and looking, for all appearances sake, aware.

And of course it gets my Bush brain center riled, because this is a man who spent all of 15 minutes apiece on men on death row in Texas, many of whom were likely innocent, and who certainly doesn't support a "culture of life" since he's responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

But of course, my Bush brain center is always riled, you know that. =)

Scott Horowitz | March 22, 2005
Whenever I see the word euthenasia I think of a bad joke one of my HS teachers told. "Today, we're going to speak about young people in China."


anyways, I still don't see why this is an issue. I think our government has their head up their asses sometimes.

Jackie Mason | March 22, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | March 22, 2005
There really isn't a lot of info about the bulimia or if she was seeking treatment or whatever. I guess because it's kind of besides the point now.

Amy Austin | March 22, 2005
Well, although it may be beside the point with regard to the topic at hand, I think it's an extremely interesting point... and one that the public awareness groups for eating disorders would do well to jump on -- I wish there *were* more mention made of it!

Aaron Shurtleff | March 22, 2005
My new favorite quote about this issue, which was in today's edition of the Saint Petersburg Times (and I'll massacre it, because my brain holds knowledge like a wicker basket holds lava)

"People have raised a point that they wouldn't do this (deprive of food and water) to a dog. Of course not. We'd have put the dog out of its misery by now."

I understand that this is a sad situation for everyone involved, and I also understand that there is probably a lot that we don't know about this situation. But seriously! This has gone on too long already. The husband has won the court case, and the parents have nothing left to appeal. The government has no business in this anymore. It's over. Good night.

Anyone heard about the lady whose father lived in the same hospice as Terri? Apparently, according to the story I read, she got paged to get there because her father was dying. Because of the protesters and added security, she didn't get to her father's side before he died. She's pretty much pissed off. I would be too.

John E Gunter | March 22, 2005
[quote]Anyone heard about the lady whose father lived in the same hospice as Terri? Apparently, according to the story I read, she got paged to get there because her father was dying. Because of the protesters and added security, she didn't get to her father's side before he died. She's pretty much pissed off. I would be too.[/quote]

I hadn't heard about that and I feel sorry for the woman. That is such a tragic thing to have happen. I think I'd be pissed off as well, at the parents, the husband and especially the protestors!

When my mother realized my father was dying, it took us over 2 hours to finally be able to get there, and he was gone before we got there. Course, he was unconscious the entire time, so I'm not to sure how easy it would have been being there, at least on us.

I was there for my step-father and let me tell you, it was one of the worst times I have experienced, watching the life leave him. On the one hand, it makes me glad we didn't make it in time for my father, but also, I have some sorrow for that as well.

But I can understand that woman's feelings of anger completely.

John

Jackie Mason | March 22, 2005
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | March 27, 2005
Basically, the Shindlers' lawyer is not only well-connected, but has a history of using publicity to his advantage (and his clients'). And hey, it's worked, hasn't it? The Shindlers have arguably done much better, legally, than they would have without the publicity.

Scott Hardie | March 27, 2005
The decision gets to be made by one person, and that person happens to be Michael Schiavo, so what we want or what the country wants or what anybody else wants does not matter. The Schindlers have a claim that they can take to court; that's what the courts are for. There is not a single office in the executive or legislative branches of government that has authority, legal or ethical, over the judicial branch in a matter like this. What a great world this would be if we all made like Voltaire and those who disagreed with Michael Schiavo voiced their disagreement but still supported his authority. I happen to (reluctantly) agree with him, but I would not deign to make his decision for him. It's sad that anybody else thinks they have the right.

Two things bother me about the way that Terri Schiavo is being killed, and in both cases, death row convicts get better treatment than she gets. (If it matters, I oppose capital punishment, because I don't believe the government has the authority over citizens that Michael does have over Terri.) First of all, when death row convicts are killed, they are given as humane an execution as possible. The gas chamber is widely considered inhumane and is no longer in use except where lethal injection is an alternative; the electric chair is also in decline, as only one state still mandates its use. What has replaced both is lethal injection, which is virtually painless and puts the patient to sleep before the fatal dose is administered. Is it me or would death penalty abolitionists be up in arms if we executed prisoners by locking them in a room and not giving them food or water until they died? By Friday the news reports were mentioning that Terri's tongue and eyes have started bleeding and her skin was flaking off; that the woman is cognitively incapable of feeling pain does not excuse this repugnant and cruel manner in which she is being killed. As Aaron mentioned, a dog would have been put out of its misery by now, so why is a human being tortured so? Oh, it's because they're not "killing" Terri, they're "preventing her from being kept alive artificially." Well, that's bullshit. Give the woman the dignified death she deserves with a lethal injection.

The other objection I have is that her parents still had claims to make in court when the feeding tubes were removed. Even for the worst condemned murderer, the execution process does not begin until the last possible appeal has been exhausted and the criminal has received due process. I don't propose that any legal filing keep the woman alive, since even one of us could file an injunction trying to save her life with no legal authority to do so. But the actual interested parties in the case (the Schindlers) should have the opportunity to appeal to the highest level a ruling that Terri be put to death, and that ruling should not be carried out by Michael until they have exhausted all of their appeals. I realize that my suggestion of lethal injection would make appeals difficult because it would kill her immediately, but I suggest the lethal injection should not be given until the Schindlers have exhausted every possible legal action to keep her alive, which had not yet happened in this case. It's bad enough that life has screwed these parents out of a lifetime with their daughter, but there's no need for them to be screwed out of due process as well.

(I wrote this immediately after my comments about pharmacists with religious convictions, and the rhetoric is strikingly similar. Am I being excessively didactic today or what?)

Kris Weberg | March 27, 2005
Maybe you're just reading too many of my didactically-phrased responses.

The irony in your comment, I think, is that the same politics that turned the Terri Schiavo case into a media extravaganza instead of a private struggle has also ensured that a doctor can't more humanely give her, say, a massive dose of morphine.

That'd be active euthanasia, rather than simple removal of care, and if you think people are enraged about Terri's situation now, imagine what'd happen if she were actively shuffled off the mortal coil int he name of "humane treatment."

A side note: there's actually some question as to how painless lethal injection really is. Some witnesses to execution have noted definite physical responses to the asphyxiating effect, and the recipients aren't exactly capable of testifying for or against the painlessness of the process.

Anna Gregoline | March 29, 2005
I saw Scott's new Terri banner and I almost felt it cruel - I mean, we all know what that end date will be - 2005.

Scott Horowitz | March 29, 2005
It's not cruel. She's still alive... barely. When she finally passes, he'll update it. Is it me or does anyone else just want her to die already to get this out of the news? Between this and steroids in baseball, does anyone else think our government does nothing?

Anna Gregoline | March 29, 2005
I just meant that we know what year it's going to be, if not the day...

I'm sure other countries think our government does nothing at all. When I try and look at America objectively, I think we must look like the most insane country out there.

Scott Hardie | March 30, 2005
I started to write 2005, but then I realized that she's "fighting for life" and "the government should step in" and similar recent rhetoric. The whole controversy is that her future is uncertain and still being fought over. A question mark seemed to drive home that point. I don't plan to change it.

Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2005
Thanks for your reasoning - that makes sense.

Steve Dunn | March 30, 2005
To me, this one is a no-brainer, so to speak.

The law is clear that the husband is the next of kin. He made his decision. This matter was already fully played out in the courts, where the husband won every time. As he should. Congress and the president and the federal courts should stay the hell out of it, which, at least in the case of the federal courts, they quite rightly did. Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die with dignity as was, according to her husband, her wish. The system is not perfect, but it is what it is, and in this case the legal answer has been clear all along.

I used to be much more of a "culture of life" type guy until I married a doctor and got a crash course in end-of-life ethics on a daily basis. Bottom line: sometimes death is the best thing for everyone, including the family, society, and the individual who dies. Much of the Schiavo debate is not so much about the sanctity of life as it is our exaggerated fear of death.

Having said that, I have a couple other observations as side notes:

1) She ought to get the morphine shot. I don't buy the ethical distinction between letting her starve to death and simply administering a lethal opiate dose. It seems like a weak way to pretend we're not killing someone, even though it's obvious we are. Let's just do it and face up to it because it's the right thing to do.

2) I think the husband is a world class asshole. If it were my wife, and her parents felt that strongly about keeping her "alive" in the hospital bed, simple decency would compel me to grant their request. It's not like Schiavo is suffering - she apparently doesn't know the difference one way or another. Just let her live, you ghoulish dickhead. Sure, you have the legal right to make the call, but your wife is their CHILD - how dare you insist that their child be killed?

Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2005
In regards to number 2:

I agree. I somewhat understand Michael Schiavo's position, but I, too, would have just given her to her parents. I can understand wanting to grant her request to die peacefully, but it seems besides the point when she can't even comprehend her surroundings.

Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2005
Oh, and thanks for saying something that I was thinking but haven't yet heard anywhere.

Kris Weberg | March 30, 2005
Uh, Steve -- the parents have said -- in court -- that they'd be willing to subject Terri to open-heart surgery, even to amputate limbs to keep her alive. Both of those are possibilities, of course, given the circulation and cardiac problems that caused her problem in the first place.

I Michael Schiavo an "asshole" because he doesn't like the idea of his wife's body being dismembered in the name of her "life?"

Jackie Mason | March 30, 2005
[hidden by request]

Denise Sawicki | March 30, 2005
Apparently Congress has been making laws about baseball for a long time. (link) It does seem pretty weird though.

Kris Weberg | March 31, 2005
It goes back to the 1930s, when -- I am not joking -- the idea of baseball as "America's game" was effectively invented by a panel of former Baseball Commissioners assembled by A. G. Spalding (founder of the sporting goods company bearing his name).

The 1930s were part of the era in which a lot of what we'd call "Americana" was effectively still being invented -- the Pledge of Allegiance was a scant 30 or so years old, the Flag Codes only about 10 years old. As such, Spalding and his commission ignored available evidence to proclaim that baseball had been invented in Cooperstown, Ohio, by Abner Doubleday despite the well-documented existence of a British game called "rounders" that effectively was the same as Doubleday's game, but preceded it by decades.

In any case, Major League baseball was thereby promoted as a wholly "American" sport, and thereby gained special protections in Congress. The popularity of the sport didn't hurt either. These protections were naturally extended in kind to football and basketball as they grew in popularity as well, and became a legal standard for pro sports in this country.

John E Gunter | March 31, 2005
Only thing that really bothers me with baseball is that it went from a more relaxing day at the park into the major league crap it has become today. I really lost interest in any major league baseball when the players had their big strike.

It was kind of like some childhood dream I had that was destroyed by the strike. I still remember going to Al Lang Stadium here in town with my father to watch baseball. It was always fun and I cherish those memories. Now a days though, I'd rather watch a Little League or High School game over a Major League one.

Same problem I have with the other Major League sports.

John

Scott Horowitz | March 31, 2005
It's over..... She's passed away. Maybe the news can now focus on what really interests us, full fledged nudity

Jackie Mason | March 31, 2005
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | March 31, 2005
Yeah, it's Safeco in Seattle and Petco in San Diego. Corporate sponsorship -- one of the many services being provided to us by the corporations... ;DDD

Scott Horowitz | March 31, 2005
Anyone see Baseketball? I'm still waiting for Maxi Tampon Stadium.

Amy Austin | March 31, 2005
That would be cool.

Jackie Mason | March 31, 2005
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | March 31, 2005
Yeah, I actually kind of enjoy "Petco Field" -- but then there's the "Qualcomm Stadium" (also San Diego)... got to have a telecommunications or insurance company sponsorship in there somewhere!!!

And it really burns my toast that the Gator Bowl is now known as Alltel Stadium, since the Jaguars came to town.

Scott Hardie | April 1, 2005
When I moved to Florida, I was impressed that Raymond James Stadium was defiant of the corporate-sponsorship trend, being named after what I guessed was some former coach or player. But no: Raymond James is a financial services company.

Petco Field. That's just plain fucking wrong.

Amy Austin | April 1, 2005
Hahahahaha... Raymond James -- everybody loves Raymond, after all! That was pretty funny... and yet, so insidious...

Well, at least Petco Field or Park sounds like a place you'd want to go romp around with your dog(s) -- unlike US Cellular, Qualcomm, or Alltel Stadium, which all sound like places in hell where you're surrounded by ninnies on their cell phones... all talking at once!!!

John E Gunter | April 1, 2005
I think one of the worst stadium naming events was our 'baseball' stadium in St. Petersburg. Originally, it was first called the Suncoast Dome, or something like that. Problems behind it, the major choice from people who lived in the city was Thunder Dome. After all, we are in one of the top ten lightning strike areas of the country. Not sure where we are in the top, have heard the top 1 and also lower, but I guess that depends on which survey you look at.

Anyway, they didn't like that name for some reason, so it became the Suncoast Dome. Guess what the name of USF's dome is? That's right, the Sun Dome, so you can guess, everyone got the two confused all of the time. So finally they decided yes, let's call it the Thunder Dome. That lasted for a little while, at least until Tropicana decided to stick their nose in and buy it. Now it's Tropicana Field.

Guess the big appeal behind the Thunder Dome name for me was the Sci-Fi geek that I am, but man, how cool was that name?

John

Amy Austin | April 1, 2005
Hahahahaha... I agree, John, and I can just see Tina standing astride in the center, waving everyone on in!

St. Pete is not at all far from the "epi-center" (so to speak) of the world's biggest lightning hot spot... my understanding is that it's actually Marion County (just a tad east of there, and perhaps a bit north -- it's south of Gainesville and includes Micanopy, where Doc Hollywood was filmed) -- and I guess you're right, in that it would depend on what survey you looked at. But... since I've seen it strike about 10 feet away from me in Gainesville, I'd believe it!!!

John E Gunter | April 1, 2005
I've had a minimum of 3 times in my life where lighting has struck within 50 yards of me.

First, we lived in Old Northeast till I was in 4th grade and while standing in the alley behind our house, a storm was just beginning to generate. In the front yard we had this huge pine tree. Lightning struck the top of the tree and made my hair stand on end.

Second time, we lived near downtown in an apt behind one of the motels my parents owned. Not exactly sure where it struck, but while sleeping in the middle of the night, we had a lightning strike somewhere right outside, close enough that it woke me out of a sound sleep, both the flash and the thunderstrike!

Third time, was over at a friend's house and got stuck outside in the middle of a large field with a storm brewing. Lightning struck a tree around 50 yards away from me.

Each time, I was outside, the strikes were way to close for me. :-D

But I'm not really scared of thunderstorms, actually think they're kind of sexy myself. :-D

John

Kris Weberg | April 1, 2005
My own question is this -- has anyone, anywhere, ever been inspired to buy a product because a stadium was named for it?

Mike Eberhart | April 1, 2005
I know that I certainly haven't been inspired. I actually hate stadiums with Corporate names on them. I like stadiums that just have regular names. Such as Busch Stadium in St. Louis. Yes, it's affiliated to the brewery, but it was actually named after Gussy Busch who owned the team. I hated it when the Broncos sold the naming rights to their stadium. It should have just stayed as Mile High Stadium. Corporate names are just Wrong.

Jackie Mason | April 5, 2005
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | April 5, 2005
Team owners are simply the greediest damn people around, I think. They play cities off against each other to get free stadiums and promotion paid with our tax money, and on top of that, they take huge corporate money.

Me, I think it should be a simple choice -- if you take tax money, you don't get to take corporate money on top of that. Why should team owners get double dollars?

Anna Gregoline | April 5, 2005
I'm feeling sad that there are two separate baseball discussions. I gotta start posting something else.

Amy Austin | April 5, 2005
Not really... this one's about stadiums and corporate greed! (Though I can see your point...) ;D

Anna Gregoline | April 5, 2005
It involves baseball -it's about baseball. And baseball for me = borrrrring.

Kris Weberg | April 6, 2005
By that logic, a news story in which Sammy Sosa discovered the Ark of the Covenant buried beneath the pitcher's mound at Wrigley Field would be "boring."

Scott Horowitz | April 6, 2005
funny anecdote: About 10 years ago, I went on a teen tour to Israel. One of the things we did was an "archeological dig" . Went to some ruins and played around basically. They asked us what we hoped to discover, my friend's response "The Ark of the Covenant."

Anna Gregoline | April 6, 2005
Kris, that actually does sound pretty boring.

John E Gunter | April 6, 2005
I don't know, personally, I'd be creeped out by someone finding the Ark, cuz to me, that would mean either 1, man would have an extremely powerful divine artifact at their disposal, or 2, we're at the end of days!

Personally, I'm not ready for either. ;-D

John

Anna Gregoline | April 6, 2005
I admit that it would be an amazing archeological find, but if it was really found in that way, in that place, it would be a hoax on the scale of the Simpsons and that angel/shopping mall promotion.

Scott Horowitz | April 6, 2005
I thought they already found it and it is sitting in a warehouse in Washington. Or is Spielberg lying?????

David Mitzman | April 6, 2005
If he's telling the truth, there's a really lonely old Knight sitting in a small room somewhere in the desert

Kris Weberg | April 6, 2005
Uh, wouldn't the knight be dead? The Grail was what was keeping him alive, and it was swallowed up by the Earth after Ilsa crossed the seal.

And Anna, if you think a story about Sammy Sosa having the power to melt George Steinbrenner with the power of the divine is "boring," I shudder to think what news you'd deem "interesting."

Amy Austin | April 6, 2005
Ditto -- my exact thoughts on both counts.

Jackie Mason | April 7, 2005
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | April 7, 2005
He only used the corked bat to throw Belloq off the trail to the Ark.