At this Point I am Beyond Surprise

by Kieran Healy on March 27, 2005

“The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. … In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die. … Doctors advised that he would ‘basically be a vegetable,’ said the congressman’s aunt, JoAnne DeLay.”

The product liability lawsuit that followed, a class of tort which DeLay later described as “frivolous [and] parasitic,” and sponsored a bill to outlaw, would be like an added bonus if this whole thing wasn’t so sad and wrong.

{ 64 comments }

1

Andrew Boucher 03.27.05 at 1:07 am

I’ve probably missed most of the rhetoric on both sides, but in the DeLay case, there apparently was a family consensus. In the Schiavo case, there is a split between the husband and the woman’s family. In these cases I think most people would agree that one should err on the side of letting the person live, and surely the victim’s family should have something to say in the matter.

2

Russell L. Carter 03.27.05 at 1:23 am

“there is a split between the husband and the woman’s family. In these cases I think most people would agree that one should err on the side of letting the person live”

Ah, I see. PSV is then defined as “human being transformed into coin, to be awarded to those most adamant on the need to satisfy religiously motivated desires”.

See Jim Henley on means vs ends.

Idiot.

3

bad Jim 03.27.05 at 1:28 am

What sort of an idiot would invite his entire family for a test drive in a newly-constructed conveyance? Charles DeLay would have been a prime candidate for a Darwin Award had he not already bred, with lamentable result.

Then, from her mother, is this:

Like her son, she believes there might be hope for Terri Schiavo’s recovery. That’s what makes her family’s experience different, she says. Charles had no hope.

Why, after years of ajudication and medical examination, is there any doubt about the state of Schiavo’s brain?

4

Andrew Boucher 03.27.05 at 2:09 am

“…to be awarded to those most adamant on the need to satisfy religiously motivated desires…”

Surely a family’s desires are not nullified because they are motivated by religion. What makes things difficult in the Schiavo case is that one part of the family has different desires than another. How to weight the parts to determine the final decision is obviously a difficult question; I wouldn’t pretend to know how to do this.

5

Russell L. Carter 03.27.05 at 2:14 am

“How to weight the parts to determine the final decision is obviously a difficult question; I wouldn’t pretend to know how to do this.”

That’s what the legal system is for. They did their job. Honorably, too, irregardless of who appointed/elected them. Now butt the fuck out, self proclaimed ignoramus.

Yo Timberites, without preview, things get a little more spicy.

6

Andrew Boucher 03.27.05 at 2:24 am

“That’s what the legal system is for.” Evidently.

“Now butt the fuck out, self proclaimed ignoramus.” Yes, the language one uses is often a reflection of one’s capacity for thought.

7

julian 03.27.05 at 2:29 am

russell is not helping.

8

Keith M Ellis 03.27.05 at 2:31 am

While I agree entirely with russell l. carter’s position on this matter, I take a great deal of offense at his completely unprovoked abuse of andrew boucher. Please stop it.

There seems to be a growing pundit consensus that DeLay really screwed up. God, I hope so. I think the man is, in a word, evil. He’s the worst single blight on American politics in a generation. There is no one person in American politics that I hate–truly hate–more than DeLay.

9

Russell L. Carter 03.27.05 at 2:36 am

Excellent. We’re not using people as coins now. Job done.

10

Andrew Boucher 03.27.05 at 2:56 am

“There seems to be a growing pundit consensus that DeLay really screwed up. God, I hope so.” Needless to say, I hope so too…

“Excellent. We’re not using people as coins now. Job done.” Yes, beat your retreat as best you may. I’m sure there are other blogs more suitable to those of your eloquence and intellectual stature – Little Blue Footballs?

11

bad Jim 03.27.05 at 3:14 am

Um. In my previous comment, “her mother” should be “his” (Majority Leader DeLay’s).

It also appears that some comments may have been deleted, rendering the subsequent colloquy obscure.

12

monica v 03.27.05 at 4:12 am

Andrew, you write: “How to weight the parts to determine the final decision is obviously a difficult question; I wouldn’t pretend to know how to do this.”

But you did just that, you wrote: “In these cases I think most people would agree that one should err on the side of letting the person live”.

I don’t think it’s fair to say “most people” would agree with that, even judging from the polls alone, it doesn’t look like that.

My own problem with that “err on the side of life” is that, I think, it completely misses the point: that there is an individual here, whose wishes the court recognised were being upheld by her husband; that the law already establishes the spouse is the legal guardian, and you can’t expect that changed ad hoc based on a high profile case and purely out of sympathy for the other side of the family (what about all the less famous Terri’s of the world?); that her life has become a mere matter of purely physical survival, all other aspects of life – mental, emotional, conscious – already gone years ago; that this person’s life also is about her right to her own dignity which is being disrespected by the whole media and political circus around it… I have sympathy for her family, but not for the vultures who exploited their weakness for ideological purposes.

She is not a broken car that can be simply left in a corner because her parents, cannot fully accept she will never recover and that she wouldn’t have wanted to remain in a vegetative state for decades. I understand their point of view, but that doesn’t make it self-evidently simple and right to the point all other principles, including legal ones, should be ignored. “Err on the side of life” is a very simplistic and disingenous way to frame this.

13

abb1 03.27.05 at 5:24 am

I think what “to err on the side of life” means (or should mean) is that as long as there is a small chance of recovery, you should keep the person alive. What probability exactly should be the threshold is, of course, a matter of compromise. If the probablility is zero (e.g.: the person’s head has been cut off and lost), then, it seems to me, there’s no side of life to err on.

14

Andrew Boucher 03.27.05 at 5:44 am

Monica: I don’t think the two quotes are inconsistent. “Err on the side of life” was meant (but perhaps it didn’t read that way, especially given the contentiousness of the subject?) to say that, if one has a weighting and one comes down with a very close decision, then it would be better to let the patient live. That is not inconsistent with my own incapacity to provide a weighting. For one thing I, personally, would not want the responsibility of making such a decision about anyone outside my immediate family.

Note that I am not saying that the Schiavo case is one with a very close weighting. Here are a couple of facts which I don’t know, which would seem to be important: how close her family members were to her; and what is their degree of unanimity in having her continue to live. Supposing (counterfactually or not) that Terri came from a very close family; that they stayed close with her during her married life; that they are unanimous that they want her to live (for religious reasons or not) – then it would not seem to me an easy matter to simply assert, “Well her husband decides about the matter and that’s final.”

If, for instance, one of my children (the oldest is 12, so this is obviously hypothetical) were to marry and – God forbid – something like this were to befall him, then I would want to have some input into the matter. Obviously I shouldn’t be the only one with input, nor presumably the one with the most important input. But somehow I think my feelings should have some weight.

15

bryan 03.27.05 at 6:54 am

‘I think what “to err on the side of life” means (or should mean) is that as long as there is a small chance of recovery, you should keep the person alive.’
the stench of sanctimony around that particular phrase is starting to make me wish it meant let them survive if they can, a firm ecological basis to the words.

16

Mrs Tilton 03.27.05 at 8:03 am

Andrew Boucher writes:

If, for instance, one of my children (the oldest is 12, so this is obviously hypothetical) were to marry and – God forbid – something like this were to befall him, then I would want to have some input into the matter…. [S]omehow I think my feelings should have some weight.

That’s understandable, perhaps; but under the circumstances you describe, your feelings don’t have any weight.

I should qualify this by noting that, in a great many cases, your feelings might well have weight; that is, when the person legally entitled to make the decision is willing to consider them. (Even after considering them, of course, he or she might still make a decision that you disagree with.)

But when those not entitled to decide dislike the decision of the entitled person and go to law over it, then we are constrained to stop ‘considering feelings’ and start applying the law. And the rules of law that apply in this case say: sorry Andrew; it’s not your decision. Sorry Schindler parents; it’s not yours either. (And quite without regard to result, BTW; if the Schindlers were arguing the plug should be pulled and Schiavo were insisting his wife would have preferred that her body be kept breathing at all costs, then the Schindlers would still have no right to take the decision and Mrs Schiavo would be kept alive, unless perhaps she were in Texas and Schiavo had run out of money.)

If you don’t like the fact that, under these circumstances, the law recognises the decision-making power of the spouse, not the parents, then you are free to lobby your legislature to have the law changed. I shouldn’t be surprised if there were shortly a number of bills introduced in statehouses in the Hookworm-and-Jesus Belt to do just that; and that the Randall Terrys and Paul O’Donnells and Hal Turners and Tom DeLays will rejoice at their passage, until it is a parent rather than a spouse who makes a decision that Terry and O’Donnell and Turner and DeLay don’t like.

Although the point of this post is, is it not, to suggest that DeLay really doesn’t give the preverbial rat’s fundament about Schiavo’s decision, does he? After all, he has been part of a very similar decision himself. The Schiavo issue is just a convenient bucket of petrol for him to throw onto the fundamentalist bonfire.

17

Marc 03.27.05 at 8:52 am

It is abundantly clear that there is no real medical dispute whatsoever that this woman lost all higher thought processes 15 years ago. So, let’s see. On one side we have her wishes (as determined by a court of law, and not just from her husband); the overwhelming weight of medical evidence; and her husband. On the other side – a bunch of religious fanatics who are treating her as a big fetus and her parents. Since her parents have already said – in court – that they wouldn’t be willing to honor even a written living will, I submit that they are not the best choice as guardians.

This “err on the side of life” pablum would be more believable if it didn’t come from strong proponents of the death penalty and unprovoked wars. Extending a veto to a broad net of relatives only ensures that we have lots and lots of hopeless medical cases draining our resources because someones estranged sister became a religious zealot.

18

Andrew Boucher 03.27.05 at 8:59 am

“And the rules of law that apply in this case say: sorry Andrew; it’s not your decision.”

Agreed. My argument is not about what the law says, but what the law should say. (Also, if it is a question of what the law says, then Terri’s family obviously should be suing until the cows come home, because maybe some judge somewhere will intervene – and voila “the law” says something different.)

Also, it seems to me that the exclusiveness given to the legal guardian in these matters is an American choice. I can’t believe it would happen here in France, because unlike in the U.S., the adulthood of children is not considered to dissolve all legal ties between child and parent. But I could well be mistaken about this, and would appreciate anyone who knows to say so.

19

Uncle Kvetch 03.27.05 at 9:02 am

that this person’s life also is about her right to her own dignity

Thanks, Monica. The term (and concept) of a right to has been infuriatingly rare throughout this controversy. Although there’s some evidence in the opinion polls that a good chunk of the American public gets it, even if the “news” media, almost to a person, does not.

I have sympathy for her family […] I understand their point of view

I thought I did, too, until I learned that they have said that they would keep their daughter alive by artificial means even if she developed diabetes and had to have all four limbs amputated (a distinct possibility in her condition). The way they think about “life” and, again, “dignity,” I must certainly do not understand.

20

Uncle Kvetch 03.27.05 at 9:06 am

if it is a question of what the law says, then Terri’s family obviously should be suing until the cows come home

They already have, Andrew. Something like 19 times in 10 years. And they’ve lost every time. Michael Schiavo turned the decision-making power over to the courts, and the courts found clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavo would not want to be kept alive in this state.

(And apparently her parents are on record saying somewhere that even if they knew for a fact that their daughter would not want to be kept alive in this way, they would disregard her wishes.)

21

Uncle Kvetch 03.27.05 at 9:12 am

The term (and concept) of a right to has been infuriatingly rare throughout this controversy.

Bad uncle. Obviously that should read “a right to dignity.”

22

Andrew Boucher 03.27.05 at 9:25 am

“They already have, Andrew.” Yes sorrry I realized that, I used the wrong tense. My point was: if all that matters here is the law, then the family’s lawsuits are all excused; because they are simply trying to have “the” law turn in their favor. It also excuses any attempts to change the law. What the law says and what the laws should say are two entirely different matters, and the second strikes me as the more interesting and more important question.

23

Dan Kervick 03.27.05 at 10:25 am

Agreed. My argument is not about what the law says, but what the law should say.

I hope you will agree that the law’s chief aim should be to determine the will of the patient herself. It is only when that will can’t be determined that these questions of guardianship and the rights and responsibilities of other come into play. In this particular case the courts have found that there is sufficient certainty about Terry Schiavo’s intentions, when she was conscious, to act on those intentions. But what should be done when the patient’s will cannot be determined directly?

Andrew, your son is 12, and mine is 14. And they are already beginning to pull away from us and establish independent identities. Both of them will eventually be adults, and our guardianship of them will end. Then they will likely marry, and form new families, whose internal bonds will – and rightly should – be stronger than the weakening bond with with their parents. They will live in the same house with those families, not with us. They will make love to their wives and sleep side-by-side with them night after night after night. They will confess their fears and dreams, plan their futures, celebrate their triumphs and take consolation for their defeats mainly with their wives, not us. We may be consulted from time to time as advisors, but we won’t be the central partners. They will think of us, but not nearly as much as they think about their own families. At some point one of them may turn to his wife and say: “don’t ever let me live like a vegetable.” Perhaps they will be buried next to their wives as well.

Sorry Andrew, but that’s life. Our litle boys won’t be ours forever. If they are fortunate enough to have a healthy marriage, their spouses will be their best, most intimate and most trusted friends. And they are the ones who, by virtue of that unique friendship, should have the decisive say in matters of life and death.

24

Andrew Boucher 03.27.05 at 10:39 am

“Sorry Andrew, but that’s life.” Yes that is the Anglo-Saxon view of things, isn’t it? I think that’s why there are so many places in America that ban children at such-and-such a time or ban them altogether. Children are something to get over.

In France (in Italy as well, and probably in other continental countries) that’s not life. Both the child and the parent stay responsible for each other; they’re both legally responsible to provide for the other, for instance, sometimes to absurd extent. Parents feel an obligation to take care of their grandchildren; and children feel an obligation to have that Sunday meal with their parents.

You may wax poetic over the Anglo-Saxon view of life, but it’s not, like most if not all cultural constructs, a universal truth.

25

maha 03.27.05 at 11:34 am

How to weight the parts to determine the final decision is obviously a difficult question; I wouldn’t pretend to know how to do this.

As many have pointed out, the long-established practice is for the family to take the matter to state courts for arbitration. This was done. Just because the process gives you an outcome you don’t like doesn’t mean the process is bad.

But another way to look at this is, if letting Terri Schiavo expire is “murder,” as some call it, why would it not still be murder if the whole family agrees to let her go? If, say, the whole family gets together and decides to bash in Grandma’s head with a shovel, what do you call that?

I also disagree strongly with the “err on the side of life” arguments. First, there are other ways to look at life and death beside the prevailing “western” one (I started to call it “Christian,” but there are Christians who disagree; the way we think about life and death is really more a matter of social convention than religion). I discuss another way to look at life and death here, if you’re interested:

http://www.mahablog.com/2005.03.20_arch.html#1111870450309

Second, I can understand why Michael Schiavo would be very distressed at the thought of his inlaws keeping the senseless body of his wife as their play-pretend daughter, as if she were a big flesh doll. To me, it’s ghoulish.

Further, I suspect a lot of the protesters who want to “save Terri” would change their tunes pretty quickly if they were the ones charged with the job of taking care of her.

26

David M 03.27.05 at 11:46 am

I’d like to point out to Andrew that the parent’s views were given concideration in determining Schiavo’s fate. The court, not her husband, made the decision by weighing evidance from all interested parties. One might dispute the conclusion the court reached but no one has suggested a more equitable way to reach a decision.

27

fyreflye 03.27.05 at 12:31 pm

“there is a split between the husband and the woman’s family. In these cases I think most people would agree that one should err on the side of letting the person live”

But what’s the reason for the split?

http://tinyurl.com/4lds5

As always, Follow the Money.

28

Dan Kervick 03.27.05 at 12:35 pm

You may wax poetic over the Anglo-Saxon view of life, but it’s not, like most if not all cultural constructs, a universal truth.

True. But it’s the one which holds sway here in the United States, which may account for the poll results showing overwhelming opposition to the government’s attempts to interfere on behalf of the Schindlers.

I think that’s why there are so many places in America that ban children at such-and-such a time or ban them altogether. Children are something to get over.

This is the opposite of what I had always heard, though I’d like to hear more about this from those with more international experience that me. It was my understanding that Americans were considered annoyingly indulgent of their children, less inclined than Europeans to segregate them from adult activities, and not as fond of nannies as our Continental friends.

The notion that children are something to get over doesn’t seem to me to be a very common attitude at all here in the US. But what does seem to be especially strong in the US is the value placed on the nuclear family. The dominant American ideal, at least as it appears to me, is of a tight, somewhat self-contained, and intensely devoted nuclear group. And it is then expected that when children grow up they will separate themselves from their parents, and go on to form their own equally tight and self-contained nuclear family groups.

It might be slightly more correct to say that from the American perspective parents are something to get over, not children. There is a certain romanticization of adolescent rebellion, independence and resistance to parental authority.

29

Seth Finkelstein 03.27.05 at 12:44 pm

It can’t be about money now, whatever the role originally. From that article:

“Today, the money from the lawsuit settlement is almost gone, Grieco, the attorney, says. Just $40,000 to $50,000 remained as of mid-March. The $700,000 in Terri’s trust has paid for her care, lawyers, expert medical witnesses.”

30

DonBoy 03.27.05 at 1:25 pm

I’ve seen the idea around elsewhere, as here, that if anyone in the extended family wants to keep a patient alive, their views should take precedence. This implies that if nobody in the family wants to keep the patient alive, it’s a different story. And that implies that in these cases an entity’s right to life depends, in part, on whether their parents want them to be alive.

Which I suspect is not going to appeal to the anti-abortion contingent that is driving a large part of this.

31

Keith DeRose 03.27.05 at 1:43 pm

From the AP story on this:

“The only thing keeping her [Terri Schiavo] alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His [Delay’s] father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him,” said DeLay spokesman Dan Allen.

I keep hearing this distinction — between the status of needing a ventilator & needing a feeding tube. Pointing to this distinction must be some kind of “talking point” for the side that doesn’t want Terri Schiavo to be allowed to die. But it needs to be explained. Or at least I need it to be explained. I’m not getting it. We need food and water, and we need air. Those who can’t breathe can sometimes be kept alive on a ventilator; those who can’t eat & drink can sometimes be kept alive on a feeding tube. Looks pretty much the same. All TS needs is the food and water we all need to survive. True enough, in some sense, I suppose. Of course, it won’t help to just leave the food & water by her bedside. But, OK, I understand this claim. But why can’t the same be said of someone on a ventilator? All such a one needs “is the air that we all need to survive.” Again, it doesn’t help to just be surrounded by air: Such a patient needs a way to get it effectively to his lungs. Just like TS needs a way to get her food & water effectively to her stomach.

32

missgrundy 03.27.05 at 1:57 pm

I agree — food and water are, medically, life support. To me, it counts as a “machine,” if the reality is that without it, she wouldn’t live. This is why her parents keep arguing that she has a swallowing reflex (which as I understand it, she doesn’t) — if she can eat food on her own, then the “kept alive by a machine” issue goes away. But the medical community believes that allowing her food and water by mouth would be dangerous because she can aspirate and die — certainly an unpleasant death, and one not eased by pain medication.

33

Daniel 03.27.05 at 2:01 pm

Keith: I think that the answer to that one has to do with the doctrine on vegetative states of the Roman Catholic Church, which is the elephant in the living room of this particular episode.

34

Tom T. 03.27.05 at 3:01 pm

Keith DeRose, I see it as different levels of incapacity. A hospital has to provide nutrition and hydration to all of its patients, not just those in PVS, or else they’ll waste away; hence it amounts to ordinary care. A ventilator, in this view, is seen as extraordinary care because it is not provided to all patients in the ordinary course of a hospital stay.

The distinction pops up elsewhere in the law. If I were the parent or guardian of a small child, I could potentially be charged with a crime if I failed to provide the child with food and water. If the child were to stop breathing, however, and I failed to provide mouth-to-mouth, I expect that it would be much less likely that my failure would be considered a crime.

Certainly, others’ views may differ. Also, I am not Roman Catholic.

35

KCinDC 03.27.05 at 3:44 pm

Tom, a hospital has to provide air to all its patients, just not by using a ventilator. It may not be hard to do, but the hospital must do it.

And a hospital doesn’t have to provide a feeding tube to all its patients, so why is a feeding tube ordinary care?

36

abb1 03.27.05 at 4:03 pm

It’s probably because feeding tube is just a piece of plastic while ventilator is an apparatus containing a motor and probably a bunch of electronic pieces or, perhaps, even a whole computer with loopback controls and stuff. Really, even though I don’t think I’ve seen one, I’m sure it’s a much more extraordinary thing than a tube.

37

Seth Finkelstein 03.27.05 at 4:21 pm

I’m not a doctor, but simply from what I’ve read, I think there’s a big problem in that many people don’t grasp just how seriously she’s injured, and the implications. Large portions of her brain are gone. This means more than than the debate about what she experiences. Pragmatically, it also means she can’t eat and drink normally, because her ability to do the basics of the action of
swallowing is impaired. There’s some debate as to whether if, with a *huge* amount of care and therapy, they could get her to the point where she could swallow enough so it would be workable, or if it’s not possible at all (or would kill her due to choking). But that’s the level of the argument – slim vs. none.

The feeding tube is no different from a ventilator. In fact, it’s arguably more extensive, since it’s a surgical implant. People aren’t thinking of it that way, though, since it been made to sound like using a food processor.

38

lemuel pitkin 03.27.05 at 5:45 pm

there is an individual here, whose wishes the court recognised were being upheld by her husband

In a sense, this is true and important. The court determination here was not that Michael Schiavo had the right to remove Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, but that Terri Schiavo herself would have wished it removed. All this abck and forth about spouses versus parents and Anglo-Saxons versus whoever is a perfect irrelevancy.

In a sense … and yet there’s something that bothers me here. If Terri Schiavo is dead — as I beleve she is, even if some body functions continue — then why should her wishes be dispositive? There seems to be a tension here. On the one hand, we think she has the right to dignity, as uncle kvetch says. But on the other hand, the fundamental argument for removing the tube is that there no longer is a “Terri Schiavo” with rights.

I’m not at all convinced by “err on the side of life,” but I am somewhat convinced by “err on the side of what will make the family happy.” Before my grandfather died he said he didn’t want any kind of ceremony at his funeral, but my grandmother was very invested in the idea of a full military ceremony. Going to Arlington was an easy choice: it mattered to her, it didn’t to him anymore.

I know that’s not what’s at stake in this case legally. And of course we do allow people to make binding determinations of what happens to them after they die, in the form of wills. But the inheritance is one of the legal principles I’d least like to see generalized to other areas of society. (In fact I’d like to see it abolished completely, but that would be another thread.)

I’m quite comfortable saying that the right in this case — legally, morally and factually — is all on Michael Schiavo’s side. But I’m not sure the underlying principle of autonomy or honoring Terri Schiavo’s wishes is as unproblematic as we might think.

39

fyreflye 03.27.05 at 6:32 pm

“It can’t be about money now,”

Money eventually runs out; hatred can go on forever.

40

Brian C.B. 03.27.05 at 9:12 pm

The Pope recently distinguished between nutritional tubes (this one passed in to Terri’s stomach through her abdominal wall) and a respiratory ventilator, as kinds of care. Florida law doesn’t, and no reason it should. It’s all medical care as far as the statute is concerned.

This case is about the freedom to refuse medical care. Michael Schiavo would have refused it on his wife’s behalf himself, but would have been challenged. So, he took it to court, asking the court to solicit a diagnosis to its satisfaction and to then try Terri’s wishes. It found her to be incompetent and her improvement unforeseeable. It found “clear and convincing evidence” that she would refuse medical care under these circumstances. It would certainly “err on the side of life”, but the evidence marginalized any chance for error. The Pinellas County court discontinued Terry’s feeding–it was not done at her husband’s direction–and remains the entity that can restore it, should that court be persuaded that it is not properly acting in Ms. Schiavo’s stead or because of a change in her prognosis. This is the kind of outcome that follows giving people a choice with regards to treatement. And, if this kind of choice is countenanced, then other private choices, say, for one’s reproductive or sexual conduct, start also to appear beyond the pale of regulation. Which explains why theocrats like Randall Terry and Jerry Falwell have hopped in front of cable television cameras lately.

http://www.abstractappeal.com will help out those interested in the legal course of the case–a blog that follows the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sorry for the digression. Here’s why Tom Delay should rightly be pummelled for his conduct: he and his family made a reasonable, caring decision for a dying loved one, all on their own. He didn’t suspend that decision until the US Congress validated it. But, when a dispute over a similar case in Florida rose, and the traditional venue for settlement didn’t find in a fashion that his partisans liked, he savagely impugned the motives of one side of the dispute and the courts that found for it, all without real evidence. And he made a Federal case of it, literally. It was arrogance, as though he said, “It’s okay for my family to decide unchallenged, because we knew best for us. But I know better for you than you do yourself, or the courts that have studied your case.”

41

Brian C.B. 03.27.05 at 9:22 pm

And, I should add, if you (i.e., Tom Delay) were concerned first for “life” and “erring on the side of life”, then you could have more easily erred by continuing your father’s dialysis first-hand than by taking up Terri Schiavo’s cause, long-distance. That you didn’t opens you up to charges that, well, your Dad’s wasn’t a cause dear to the hearts of a large, core Republican constituency.

42

ogmb 03.28.05 at 3:27 am

The background story about TDL makes me wonder when he turned from Saulus to Fascius.

43

jet 03.28.05 at 9:10 am

Ah yes, CrookedTimber reaches a new high. Attacking Delay for the decision to end his father’s life. And I guess someone can’t be pro-life if they are for abortions in dire circumstances? You can’t make one decision in one set of circumstances and another decision in a different set of circumstances without automatically being a hypocrite?

But it is so nice to see that CrookedTimber is at the forefront of dividing these moral issues into black and white for such difficult situations where no one’s values are exactly the same. Certainly fits into my liberalism as a religion hypothesis. For the most part, religion is about power, and CT has certainly created a moral cudgel to beat down an opponent.

This almost ranks up with the thread attacking Habitat for Humanity for not allowing new home owners to sell their houses. I guess for an encore someone at CT is going to post on Doctors without Borders attacking them for not doing on demand breast augmentation for poverty stricken transvestites?

Damn the federal government for trying to alter the court appeals rules with Terri, but yeah for the federal government for circumventing the rule of law, entirely, to send Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba. Yes, liberals, the sophists of the modern era.

44

lemuel pitkin 03.28.05 at 9:36 am

yeah for the federal government for circumventing the rule of law, entirely, to send Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba

Care to tell us what specific law was broken or circumvented? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

(Here’s a clue: in the US, immigration law is federal, family law is generally state.)

45

Uncle Kvetch 03.28.05 at 9:49 am

You can’t make one decision in one set of circumstances and another decision in a different set of circumstances without automatically being a hypocrite?

[…]

Damn the federal government for trying to alter the court appeals rules with Terri, but yeah for the federal government for circumventing the rule of law, entirely, to send Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba.

Please don’t ever change, Jet. You just made my day.

46

Kieran Healy 03.28.05 at 10:12 am

_You can’t make one decision in one set of circumstances and another decision in a different set of circumstances without automatically being a hypocrite?_

Sure you can. Imagine the first decision is private matter handled with appropriate judgment within established law after consultation between the next-of-kin and medical experts; and the second is a private family matter handled with appropriate judgment within established law after consultation between the next-of-kin and medical experts, until House and Senate leaders decide to get involved in a craven attempt to satisfy a vociferous portion of their base. That last part makes the situtations totally different and charges of hypocrisy are clearly unwarranted.

47

Locutor 03.28.05 at 10:22 am

Congratulations! to Jet, who just won the coveted “Jackass of the Month” award for March, for this particularly juicy bit of strawman argumentation:

“Ah yes, CrookedTimber reaches a new high. Attacking Delay for the decision to end his father’s life. And I guess someone can’t be pro-life if they are for abortions in dire circumstances? You can’t make one decision in one set of circumstances and another decision in a different set of circumstances without automatically being a hypocrite?”

Answer: No, but you can be a huge hypocrite by using the apparatus of the Federal Government to intrude on a private family decision, especially when it is the same kind of family decision you yourself made recently without the need for government intrusion.

We were all getting a bit worried there, at the end of March and no winner in sight. Thanks to Jet for stepping up to the plate!

48

jet 03.28.05 at 10:42 am

lemuel pitkin,
Just to clarify, the Florida family court had ruled it had jurisdiction over Elian. The INS, instead of waiting on the federal appeal (we can’t keep Castro waiting can we), went and got a search warrant and grabbed Elian while they were “searching”. Or maybe you are taking the stance that the federal executive branch can override state law at any time once the matter of contention has entered the court system? But that would seem an odd stance to take when a Republican holds that branch.

Kieran,
Right, the two circumstances are exactly the same if you mean that the whole Delay family agreeing to take Delay’s father off life support and then Terri’s family split on whether to take her off life support are the same thing. I thought liberals were about living constitutions and judges changing laws to meet new public desires? So it would seem extremely liberal to change an old dusty convention to meet new needs if those who wanted the change constituted a majority (or just a vocal minority ;) ). Perhaps the majority (or vocal minority) has decided that a person’s parents have a right to influence life support decisions? A liberal falling back on “this is how its always been” seems a bit….hypocritical.

49

Brian C.B. 03.28.05 at 11:04 am

Jet starts out with the key distinction that Delay’s family was agreed, while the Schiavo’s and Schindler’s are in dispute. But, that’s the reason that it went to an impartial state court for trial in fact, and it’s a bizarre one for a someone operating on the principle that “every life is sacred” to uphold. Every life is sacred, except where the family can unanimously agree that it should end. Then it’s okay to pull the plug in time to get over the grievin’ before “American Idol” comes on television. After that contention, and that we’re victimizing Tom Delay, his comment dissolves into utter incoherence and…why am I wasting time on it? Screw it.

50

lemuel pitkin 03.28.05 at 11:22 am

the Florida family court had ruled it had jurisdiction over Elian. The INS, instead of waiting on the federal appeal (we can’t keep Castro waiting can we), went and got a search warrant and grabbed Elian while they were “searching”.

Jet, I appreciate the fact that you did answer my question. But you’re wrong on the facts. here’s the timeline, as I understand it:

In January, Florida Family Court Judge Rosa Rodriguez issued an order that Elian should remain with the Miami relatives, pending a further court ruling on whetehr he should be returned to his father in Cuba. At the same time, the relatives filed a federal lawsuit to get permanent custody of Elian, and Republcians in Congress introduced elgislation to make him an American citizen.

In March, U.S. District Judge Michael Moore dismissed the Miami relatives’ lawsuit and ruled that the INS had authority to return Elian to his father.

On April 19, a federal appeals court issued an injunction against Elian leaving the United States. This ruling did not address the custody question.

Following this descions — and of coruse extensive neogtiations between the various aprties — came the notorious April 22 raid. THe important thing to realzie about this was that the purpose was not to return Elian to Cuba as Jet suggests, but to return him to his father, who all U.S. law, upheld by every U.S. court that had ruled on the question, said should have custody. Elian was then reunited with his father in the United States while the courts considered the question of whether he could be returned to Cuba.

On June 1st, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed with the INS that Elian was not entitled to a political asylum hearing. On the 23rd, the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for a rehearing of its own decision not to grant Elian an asylum hearing. The Miami relatives appealed this decision to the Surpreme Court.

On Wednesday, June 28th, 2000, the Supreme Court announced that it would not block Elian’s return to Cuba or rehear any of the Miami family arguments. Only at that point — more than two months after the raid — did Elian and his father return to Cuba.

What do we take from this?

First, that the two cases are analogous in taht in both, Democrats upheld the rule of law while Republicans took eevry means available to get their preferred outcome. Second, that the Clinton administration did not overrule a state court, did not remove Elian from the Miami relatives while a court decision on the amtter was still pending, and did not return Elian to Cuba until opponents ahd every possible legal opportunity to block the move. Third, that contrary to Jet’s claim, no US law was broken or circumvented in the Elian case.

51

lemuel pitkin 03.28.05 at 11:24 am

Oh, and that Jet’s “search warrant” bit is sheer fantasy.

52

monica v 03.28.05 at 11:47 am

Andrew, it’s exactly like Mrs Tilton wrote, and it is suprising you didn’t realise that. If you have an objection to the very fact that spouses instead of parents are the legal guardians in cases like this, then you have an objection to a law that pre-exists this case and is independent from it.

And indeed, what if it had been the other way round, if it was the husband who wanted to keep her attached to machines, and the parents who wanted to let her go and claimed that was what she would have wished herself – would you still have a problem with spousal rights taking precedence over parental rights?

You see, it is a separate issue. Supporting the Schindler’s position is one thing, wanting parents to have legal precedence over spouses is quite another thing, that would require you to object not to the court rulings on this specific case, but to those legal rights given to spouses, which are essential part of the legal definition of marriage.

Spousal rights also entail things like inheritance. If a person dies, and they’re married with kids, then it’s the spouse and children who get inheritance. Only if there are no heirs and no designated beneficiaries, the property goes to the parents if they’re still alive. I think that’s pretty much the same across the world.

Think of the gay marriage debate, it’s precisely about the demand to recognise gay unions so that gay partners too can be given all those legal rights that spouses currently have, including inheritance, and including being entrusted with critical decisions about medical care in case the partner is incapacitated.

If you want those rights to be taken away even from unions that are so far formally recognised as marriage, then the legal institution of marriage itself would become just a formal but pointless certification. It’s quite a paradoxical position, honestly, I don’t really understand it.

53

Uncle Kvetch 03.28.05 at 11:48 am

Congratulations on a very successful threadjacking, Jet. Why bother with the Schiavo case when we can return to those thrilling days of yesteryear: Janet Reno is once again a goose-stepping, jackbooted thug, Bill ‘n’ Hill are festooning the White House christmas tree with crack pipes, and we’re partying like it’s 1999. Those were the days.

54

monica v 03.28.05 at 12:07 pm

Besides, Andrew, you are actually wrong on that principle of spousal rights in cases like this being exclusively Anglo-Saxon.

Yes, there can be a lot of cultural differences in family traditions and family ties and parents to adult children relations, though I don’t think they’re as dramatic as you picture them, or with one model necessarily better than the other (I’m Italian, and I believe for the sake of balance we could do with a bit more of the Northern European mindset about children’s independence from parents…).

But that has nothing to do with the legal principle of spousal rights even in decisions like this, which is the same, as far as I know, pretty much everywhere.

I’m definitely 100% sure it is the same thing in Italy, since you mentioned it. An example from my own family. In the 70’s, my uncle on my father’s side had a very bad accident at work, on a construction site, heavy machinery hit him right on the head and partially crushed his skull, he miraculously made it to the hospital still alive, even if completely unconscious, he was operated immediately, I think he briefly regained consciousness, can’t remember if after or before the operation, but then he slipped in a coma straight away.

After a week, the doctors pulled the plug and donated his organs.

Who made the decision to authorise them to do so? His wife, my aunt, the woman he’d married. All by herself.

There was no objection from my grandmother (the only parent my uncle had, my grandad had died a few years before), there was no objection from my father, his only sibling. No one ever thought he could ever recover, it was more than brain damage, he had materially lost parts of his brain in the accident, it was coma and not vegetative state, it all appeared much more clear-cut in a way than in the Schiavo case.

But, even if technology wasn’t that advanced as today, he was already being kept alive exclusively by machines. If my aunt hadn’t authorised the doctors to stop all artificial life support, god knows how long he could have remained in that state, maybe for months or even years.

No one even gave that a thought, it was inconceivable. By the way, they were all practicing Catholics, very religious people. There was just no discussion of these matters at the time, no religious or political debate on this, and no confusion with euthanasia which wasn’t even being discussed that much at all. I think my grandma wasn’t too keen on the organ donation part, which was still seen with some prejudice (and superstition) at the time especially by people of her generation, but even if she’d wanted to oppose that, there was no legal way she could have done it.

Also, my aunt got a settlement from the construction company which she sued and which was found guilty of disregarding every possible safety measure on the site (badly operated and badly attached machinery; no precautions; no one was even wearing a helmet…). She got a lot of money and rightly so. It was hers, as the spouse. My grandma never thought of asking her for a part of it. Yet it was her son too, not just my aunt’s husband. But that’s the law, the settlement was supposed to be compensation for the spouse only. They were all in amicable relations, there was no disagreement, and the question of my grandma wanting a part of that money never even arose.

There are thousands of cases of people in a coma or vegetative state having the “plug pulled” every day. This one is only different in that it involves a high profile and highly politicised battle with parents vs. spouse. But the debate is not over which party has more rights as a general legal principle, it’s on the specific position taken by these specific parents vs. the specific position taken by this specific spouse.

The spouse’s has been acknowledged by the courts as the only position with legal authority, and most of all as the only one representing his wife’s position. Now I’m not a legal expert, but I imagine they’d have had to do the very same even if the positions were swapped, with the spouse wanting life support to continue because the wife had told him so, and the parents wanting it to stop because they don’t believe it’s right. As long as they ascertained the spouse was carrying out the wife’s wishes, as they did, they would have had to rule “in his favour” (in her favour) whatever those wishes were.

You can’t change an entire legal system based on who looks more worthy of your sympathy in a litigation case.

55

monica v 03.28.05 at 12:58 pm

Uncle Kvetch, I also got the impression most people didn’t forget about Terri’s right to her dignity, but as usual, those who shout loudest…

I know what you mean about the parents, honestly I didn’t know they’d said that, or they would have objected to their daughter’s wishes even if she’s made a written testament. That’s rather shocking. But I already knew about how they basically allowed political organisations to exploit the case in the first place and how they turned against Terri’s husband, allowing him to be depicted as some kind of greedy murderous monster…

I don’t think any of that is right, there are many things that turned quite ugly in this story. But I also tend to think even those ugly consequences started on a good faith belief on the family’s part, or an instinct if you like, or a stubborness to let go and accept reality and accept they cannot control her daughter’s life or death (because ironically, seems to me it’s them wanting to do that, not the husband…).

What I meant by understanding their point of view is simply, I can understand how they cling on to every little illusory sign of her responding to their presence. I can understand how they refuse to acknowledge she will never recover. I think it’s misguided, especially after such a long time, I think it’s such a shame Terri has been reduced to an object of contention in the first place, but it’s all so very sad, and in that sense, I do sympathise with them too, not just with her husband, who I think has acted in a more dignified manner. But she is also their daughter and sister, her family are obviously suffering for her as much as her husband is. I believe that pain has been exploited in cynical ways by political groups, and they are of course also responsible for that — but on the other hand I don’t think they really intended to deprive their daughter of her dignity and privacy like that, I mean, I don’t think they realise that. They too must be genuinely convinced they’re doing the best for her… I don’t know, I can’t really know of course. I just cannot attribute a perverse intention to them, even if the results of the whole thing are ultimately so perverse — as often happens in family litigation, and in such public displays of personal grief that get so much media attention. There’s so much wrong with it.

At the very least, if litigation could not be avoided, it should have all remained a private dispute with no media or political involvement. That I cannot sympathise with, but still, I think the Schindlers too are ultimately victims to the vultures.

56

Thomas 03.28.05 at 1:16 pm

One should recognize that when Kieran says “private matter”, he means “private” in the sense that any court proceeding in a liberal democracy is private. It’s a usage that’s apparently common among sociologists, when they’re pontificating about their prejudices.

57

Uncle Kvetch 03.28.05 at 1:59 pm

Monica, you write very eloquently on this. I think I’ve allowed the circus atmosphere of these last couple of weeks to push me into the worst kind of cynicism about the Schindler family (and I think I’m not alone in that respect). Your comments are a healthy corrective to that kind of corrosive thinking, and I appreciate it.

58

Kieran Healy 03.28.05 at 2:21 pm

One should recognize that when Kieran says “private matter”, he means “private” in the sense that any court proceeding in a liberal democracy is private. It’s a usage that’s apparently common among sociologists, when they’re pontificating about their prejudices.

Excuse me? Of course it’s a private matter. That doesn’t mean it isn’t subject to law. Conversely, being subject to law doesn’t make something a public matter. Private doesn’t mean “secret” or “outside the law.” By that standard, any contract between two parties would be public.

59

Thomas 03.28.05 at 4:00 pm

Kieran, when a party to a contract goes to court to enforce his rights under a contract, it becomes a public matter, at least in the normal, non-specialized use of the phrase. Certainly the judge’s decision in such a case, in his capacity as judge, is quintessentially public (again, in a non-specialized usage), not private.

The differences in meaning between the ordinary usage and the specialized usage is evident in this case, where the disputants did take their case to a state court, and where it is a judge’s decision, in his capacity as judge, published by said court, that is being criticized and questioned.

60

Seth Finkelstein 03.28.05 at 4:06 pm

“private” here is obviously used in the sense of “not a media spectacle”. Not a media matter? Not a press matter? Not a congressonal matter?

“Not political grandstanding fodder” is probably more precise.

61

Thomas 03.28.05 at 4:16 pm

Seth, would that mean that Kieran is violating Ms. Schiavo’s privacy by posting on this subject? I believe he’s expressed his position on grandstanding (in favor of it against it, as I understand it). I have a feeling that he meant something different, though not being admitted to his guild, I can’t tell you what he had in mind.

62

jet 03.28.05 at 10:35 pm

lemuel pitkin,

Nice SELECTIVE time line you have there. For some strange reason you left out the most important date. On April 20th the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (the last court hearing before the April 22nd raid) turned down the INS’s request to have Elian ordered into INS custody. That day the court said the Justice Department was probably wrong about its interpretation of the law and its own regulations. Then went on to say that Elian’s case had significant merit and that Elian “although a young child, has expressed a wish that he not be returned to Cuba.” It then went on to state that Elian’s case was a custody dispute, not something handled by federal courts.

And what kind of crack are you smoking that there was no search warrant? You need a healthy dose of MSM cause you’re out of your mind if you want to challenge me on this fact. Why don’t you google “Elian reno search warrant” and see if anything changes your warrant-challenged mind. You might even read about how Reno didn’t approach Michael Moore, the judge in the case, but waited until he went home and then got a search warrant from a magistrate, utterly pissing off the 11th Circuit. The wording of the warrant is blatant lies claiming Elian was hidden and illegally restrained and an illegal alien (even though he had been granted a year’s parole).

And if this was all legit, why the hosing down of non-violent protesters not interfering with the raid with pepper spray? Why the assault of reporters and cameramen in the house? Why was it a midnight raid instead of an afternoon knock at the door?
So you’d best read up on the facts some place besides Indiemedia before bullshit on someone else.

But back on point, I don’t see how the US Congress did the same thing. The law they passed was only a procedural remedy to get the case to a federal court. Hardly the purposeful misinterpretation that the 11th Court seemed to be accusing Reno of.

63

jet 03.28.05 at 10:47 pm

lemuel pitkin,

And the reason the 11th Court went on to apparently reverse its, previous to the April 22nd raid, stance might have something to do with him no longer have any lawyers to represent him. His only representation came from the Justice Department. And I doubt they made any motions or did any lawyering to keep him in the US.

Elian’s case must be a thorn in most liberals side since it put on the front pages of the papers that people were dieing to leave Castro’s socialist paradise. And they were deciding to risk death, not to go to Mexico, nor to South America, but to the USA.

64

bad Jim 03.29.05 at 5:08 am

(consults map, shrugs)

Comments on this entry are closed.