The Law is Failing Terri -- Charles Krauthammer

[Warlady]

The law is failing Terri
Charles Krauthammer (archive (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/archive.shtml))


March 23, 2005 | http://www.townhall.com/images/icon_print.gif Print (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/printck20050323.shtml) | http://www.townhall.com/images/icon_email.gif Send (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20050323.shtml#)

http://www.townhall.com/graphics1/columnists/krauthammer.gif WASHINGTON -- If I were in Terri Schiavo's condition, I would not want a feeding tube. But Terri Schiavo does not have the means to make her intentions known. We do not know what she would have wanted. We have nothing to go on. No living will, no advance directives, no durable power of attorney.

What do you do when you have nothing to go on? You try to intuit her will, using loved ones as surrogates.

In this case, the loved ones disagree. The husband wants Terri to die; the parents do not. The Florida court gave the surrogacy to her husband, under the generally useful rule that your spouse is the most reliable diviner of your wishes: You pick your spouse and not your parents, and you have spent most of your recent years with your spouse and not your parents.

The problem is that although your spouse likely knows you best, there is no guarantee he will not confuse his wishes with yours. Terri's spouse presents complications. He has a girlfriend, and has two kids with her. He clearly wants to marry again. And a living Terri stands in the way.

Now, all of this may be irrelevant in his mind. He may actually be acting entirely based on his understanding of his wife's wishes. And as she left nothing behind, the courts have been forced to conclude based on his testimony that she would prefer to be dead.

That is why this is a terrible case. The general rule of spousal supremacy leads you here to a thoroughly repulsive conclusion.

Repulsive because in a case where there is no consensus among the loved ones, one's natural human sympathies suggest giving custody to the party committed to her staying alive and pledging to carry the burden themselves.

Let's be clear about her condition. She is not dead. If she were brain-dead, we would be talking about harvesting her organs. She is a living, breathing human being. Some people have called her a vegetable. Apart from the term being disgusting, how do they know? How can we be sure of the complete absence of any consciousness, any awareness, any anything ``inside'' this person?

Click to read the rest (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20050323.shtml)

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Great article Warlady!

I just have one problem with it, and it's his opening line. I'm sorry, I just cannot believe, refuse to believe, will not believe that ANYONE would choose to be starved and dehydrated to death. It is so easy to say, "I would not want a feeding tube," but if you've already got one, how many of us would then turn around and say take it out and let me starve and dehydrate to death.

That is what is wrong with this picture for SO many Americans. They are looking at it from the wrong direction. NOBODY in their right mind would want to be hooked up to machines that keep only their body alive. But if asked, how many would then say, if told they would only be kept alive with feeding and hydration tubes, let me starve and dehydrate to death -- take out the tubes?

You know, one of my passions is words. I love them. I love to write, I believe I am pretty good at writing (when I want to be). A wordmaster can use words to paint any picture they so desire, and they can do so to alter other's visions of reality. That is what is being done in this case. People are being blinded by words, which when understood by those of us who really know how to use them, has allowed them to become a tool of murder.
I will post in every post that I can remember to, what I just read in another article I will link to (I think Blowback posted the original link)

Link found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...n_damaged_woman (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050326/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman)

From the article, "Doctors have said the 41-year-old woman would probably die within a week or two of the tube being removed. By Friday, dehydration was taking its toll. Terri Schiavo's tongue and eyes were bleeding and her skin was flaking off, said Barbara Weller, the Schindlers' attorney."


I DARE anyone to try to convince me this is a "painless, peaceful, humane" way to die.

[Maggie_T]

Charles was on Fox last night. I have nothing but utmost respect for this man. I always read his articles on townhall, and listen to him on TV. He's invariably the only one that makes good sense.

[Maggie_T]

Also, I saw the protestors in Flori-duh. There was a little girl holding a sign that said I WAS TUBE FED AND SURVIVIED.

Did anyone else catch that?

[tacitus]

Convicted murderers in death row have more rights than this poor woman. We wouldn't allow an animal to die like this, yet we allow Terri to die in a most inhumane way. I guess 'cruel and unusual' punishment doesn't apply here. :hissyfit:

[Warlady]

HS, I think you write beautifully.

Maggie, I missed that thanks for posting it. I'm glad to see many of our children not only care but are getting involved.

[MichaelS]

Here's the most significant statement from the referenced article.
The problem is that although your spouse likely knows you best, there is no guarantee he will not confuse his wishes with yours.
The argument applies with equal validity to your parents.

[DesertFox]

Just not as likely that your parents will have motives that run counter to your interests.

[nene]

Here's the most significant statement from the referenced article.
"The problem is that although your spouse likely knows you best, there is no guarantee he will not confuse his wishes with yours." .
This statement is hardly the most significant statement of the article. In context of the entire article it is of minimal value.

[MichaelS]

It's actually of very significant value and serves as the foundation for the article. That and the statement below essentially sum up the article.
Except perhaps if Florida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones differently -- by granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it.
Any party in a case such as this can claim the individual in question felt a certain way to align with their personal beliefs.

As Roman Catholics, it is quite feasible for Terri's parents to seek to impose their ideology and belief structure to Terri, whether or not it applied. It is difficult for any parent to lose a child. If that child has his or her eyes open and is breathing and you've had a falling out with the child's spouse and your personal religious beliefs run counter to the statements of that spouse, then, yes, I would find it very believable that the parents would "claim" knowledge of their child's wishes without actual knowledge thereof.

As for the second statement, no state or federal law has a place making such an assumption on behalf of our individual choices.

[Melz]

If her parent's "motives" are simply to impose or project their ideology and belief system on Terri, rather than the husband's motives of getting a large sum of money and finally getting his inconvenient wife out of the picture are the two sides of "imposing interest" here, doesn't one sound like it would benefit the imposer more than the other? While you may be right in a sense (not a lot of sense mind you), the parents don't get to benefit from their "motive" but the husband does. If the only benefit the parents would get is to keep their daughter alive, I would say that is the most moral benefit compared to a life insurance policy, a trust fund, and freedom to finally marry a mistress.

[DesertFox]

Michael, it looks like your real objection to Terri's parents is that they're Roman Catholics.

[Warlady]

MichaelS, you aren't a parent are you?

[MichaelS]

If her parent's "motives" are simply to impose or project their ideology and belief system on Terri, rather than the husband's motives of getting a large sum of money and finally getting his inconvenient wife out of the picture are the two sides of "imposing interest" here, doesn't one sound like it would benefit the imposer more than the other?
I am speaking to a general ability to apply the same argument to any party in such a case. I am not speaking to the specifics of this case. The conflicting claims of the parties in this case were the subject of over seven years of judicial review. None of us on this board can claim significant knowledge of that review to either agree or disagree with the results of that review.

[MichaelS]

Michael, it looks like your real objection to Terri's parents is that they're Roman Catholics.Hardly. In fact, I have no objection to Terri's parents at all. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for them and the position they are in. I was rasied Southern Baptist. Just pointing out that it is very easy for us to want to impose our own ideologies on others.

[DesertFox]

You don't even know that Terri's parents have an "ideology," and we have no reason to even suspect as much. Much more likely they just want their child to live.

It's actually a very simple case. One side -- her parents -- is willing to shoulder the entire burden of Terri Schiavo. The other side -- her husband -- wants her dead. If his hands are clean, he should have no problem with turning her over to her parents and being done with the whole thing.

[nene]

It's actually of very significant value and serves as the foundation for the article. That and the statement below essentially sum up the article.
"Any party in a case such as this can claim the individual in question felt a certain way to align with their personal beliefs."



The point that he was trying to make is apparent in the following:

"That is why this is a terrible case. The general rule of spousal supremacy leads you here to a thoroughly repulsive conclusion.

Repulsive because in a case where there is no consensus among the loved ones, one's natural human sympathies suggest giving custody to the party committed to her staying alive and pledging to carry the burden themselves. "

He argues that since we have no way of really knowing what Terri desires, humanity mandates that when possible, you choose life.

[MichaelS]

MichaelS, you aren't a parent are you?Yes, I am.

[MichaelS]

The point that he was trying to make is apparent in the following:

"That is why this is a terrible case. The general rule of spousal supremacy leads you here to a thoroughly repulsive conclusion.

Repulsive because in a case where there is no consensus among the loved ones, one's natural human sympathies suggest giving custody to the party committed to her staying alive and pledging to carry the burden themselves. "

He argues that since we have no way of really knowing what Terri desires, humanity mandates that when possible, you choose life.

To state that one's "natural human sympathies" suggest one course of action as opposed to humanity mandating it are two very different things.

And there are many members of humanity whose natural sympathies would lean toward letting the individual in question go in peace.

Assumptions should not be made in general or in individual cases. This is precisely why the courts are used to address these very individual situations.

[DesertFox]

"Go in peace"? Dying of dehydration? That's as vicious a way to kill someone as there is.

You made the assumption that Terri's parents are trying to impose their "ideology." So is it okay for some to make assumptions but not others?

[MichaelS]

"Go in peace"? Dying of dehydration? That's as vicious a way to kill someone as there is.

You made the assumption that Terri's parents are trying to impose their "ideology." So is it okay for some to make assumptions but not others?Going in peace references allowing a person to pass. As for how that happens, that is a whole other discussion. However, the same individuals who are generally crying foul about the inhumanity of dehydration and starvation are the same individuals who decry a euthanasic approach.

And I made no such assumptions regarding Terri's case. I simply point out a generalized question. I have made no assumptions regarding the Schiavo case at all.

[DesertFox]

Going in peace references allowing a person to pass.

"Allowing" is one thing. Cutting off her food and water isn't "allowing," which is passive. It's taking action to see to it that death happens.

As for how that happens, that is a whole other discussion.

It's what this entire forum is about.

the same individuals who are generally crying foul about the inhumanity of dehydration and starvation are the same individuals who decry a euthanasic approach.

Not true, Michael. I have been "crying foul about the inhumanity of dehydration" from the beginning, and have clearly stated I would think differently had it been clearly shown that she WAS a vegetable.

It's also the case that you ARE assuming she's a vegetable.

[Warlady]

She's clearly not a vegetable. I hate that term. Vegetative state is a suck term too. She can speak/verbalize, breathe on her own, grimace, and cry. So-called "vegetables" can't do any of that.

[DesertFox]

My point exactly, WL. She's no more a vegetable than a baby is. She IS damaged, but that doesn't mean she should just be thrown away.

[Warlady]

I know Fox. It's one of the saddest time in our history.

[nene]

Assumptions should not be made in general or in individual cases. This is precisely why the courts are used to address these very individual situations.

What is clear is that the courts have assumed that Terri's husband is telling the truth.

[Warlady]

That's what is scary considering he has a whore in his bed with children. Why can't they see his conflict of interest and conflicting testimony once he got money from insurance?

[Melz]

"Going in peace references allowing a person to pass."

And who decides which people are we to let pass?? Anyone who requires some sort of support for life could be let pass! The fact is though, when Terri is "let to pass," it opens up doors to let anyone "pass.". As long as something is helping them live, we are free to cut off that help and just let them pass on. Anyone. Did you hear me, I said ANYONE...

That is what will become of this, fear for your children, grandchildren, the members of your friends and church network, your coworkers, ETC!

One of my friends keeps saying "what goes around comes around" and believe me, this will happen. This decision, this death wish, may just come around to haunt the folks who pushed for it to happen. Not that I will that upon anyone, but do not they realize where this is leading us?

Sadly, I believe that someday, when it is too late, they will.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

What is clear is that the courts have assumed that Terri's husband is telling the truth.

:unsmile: So are the media.

[RuffhouseFarm]

"Going in peace references allowing a person to pass."

And who decides which people are we to let pass?? Anyone who requires some sort of support for life could be let pass! The fact is though, when Terri is "let to pass," it opens up doors to let anyone "pass.". As long as something is helping them live, we are free to cut off that help and just let them pass on. Anyone. Did you hear me, I said ANYONE...

That is what will become of this, fear for your children, grandchildren, the members of your friends and church network, your coworkers, ETC!

One of my friends keeps saying "what goes around comes around" and believe me, this will happen. This decision, this death wish, may just come around to haunt the folks who pushed for it to happen. Not that I will that upon anyone, but do not they realize where this is leading us?

Sadly, I believe that someday, when it is too late, they will.

You seem to feel strongly about this in a sense broader than just this case. If you do, and if the names George Soros and Hillary Clinton ring a bell, please read the following link. It will take some time for the full horror of it to grow on you. This is not a conspiracy theory or anything like that. Soros funds a legalized euthanasia effort in this country under the guise of streamlining palliative care for the dying. Many reputable medical organizations and hospitals are participating in the program or studies and have also contributed. But the project ultimately goes beyond that. It is actually an effort to limit resources through policies that rid the system quickly of the vulnerable. Eventually this results in a two-tier system. One is for the ordinary masses of schmucks like us; the other is a private, unseen and exclusive system for the elitists. The other objective, as I see it, is to make man the arbiter of death and to remove faith and God from the equation, at least for the masses. The Schiavo case has moved us one giant step closer to their goals. You'll come across Florida Hospice of the Suncoast in this report. That organization owns the facility Terri is in. Keep in mind the huge role the media played in this with their push-polling, terminology, misinformation and restricted parsing of information reported. It's a very important element in this movement, even though it may be unwitting on their part to some extent, at least in some cases. You may have to read this over several times for the eventualities of the entire project to fully grow on you.

http://www.lifetree.org/timeline.html

God bless, and don't forget your Durable Power of Attorney for Advanced Medical Directive, or your state's equivalent.

[Warlady]

I've read our Texas version of the "Living Will". It's too vague and it gives too much power to the Doctor. I'm going to have to hire an attorney to word it the way I want.

I can't stand that term "allow to pass". It makes me nauseous. It's called pass away. Not pass.

[RuffhouseFarm]

A living will is almost useless. Ask about a Durable Power of Attorney for Advance Medical Directive or an equivalent TX document. These bastards are out for blood and money.

Sadly, W signed the TX law that gave the decision to hospital medical ethics boards in absence of a personal document.

A few years later, after he left the governor's office, the law was expanded to include subjecting decisions about the fate of children over the objections of their parents to the hospital medical ethics boards.

[Warlady]

What is the difference?

[RuffhouseFarm]

What is the difference?

Here's the form, but I would run it by a reputable probate attorney before relying on it 100%. After you're satisfied with its completeness, give it to your doctor and family members.

http://www.ilrg.com/forms/states/tx-meddirect.html