Terri Schiavo and the Turtle Eggs of Democrats

Why Do Democrats Want Terri Schiavo Dead?

I've written before about the case of Terri Schiavo. In brief, my position is that I do not believe that physicians should actuate death. Society may make that choice, but I will not carry out the sentence. I didn't spend ten years in training to starve people to death.

Although my take on this case has not been politically oriented, it seems that the lines have been drawn between Democrats and Republicans. As stated by NPR this A.M.: Democrats are coming down hard on the side of pulling Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.

Why are the Democrats so hell bent on killing Terri Schiavo? This is quite baffling. Democrats, who demand life be preserved for

• homicidal maniacs who have low IQ's
• homicidal maniacs who are 17 years old
• sea turtle eggs

How can one simultaneously insist on preserving turtle eggs and not preserving a living woman?

Worse, the arguments I consistently hear from those who want Terri dead don't make sense. Their positions are rife with illogic, such as:

Terri is not Really Alive

  I have actually heard bioethicists (on NPR -- from the University of Miami Medical School) talk disparagingly about those who insist that Terri Schiavo is alive. Whaa?? That's right. This BIOETHICIST'S claim is that because our personalities and powers of thinking are located in the cerebral cortex and Terri's cortex is destroyed (Query to bioethicist: All of her cortex? Have YOU seen the MRI's?? Is there a specific volume of cerebral cortex below which you make this asseveration?) Terri is therefore actually NOT ALIVE.

Well then I ask you, is she dead?

That becomes the salient question, because it seems that we are having a debate over when we are ALIVE, but certainly we all know when we are DEAD, don't we?

Is there anyone who will stand up and announce to the world that Terri Schiavo is, by definition, DEAD??

Terri Won't Feel Pain if We Pull the Tube

The argument is that because Terri is essentially decorticate, she will not feel the pain of starvation and dehydration. But If Terri cannot perceive pain, then she is not currently suffering and faces no future of suffering, so  there is no humanitarian reason to kill her ( if such a thing exists).

Terri Can't Feed Herself

The argument that Terri cannot feed herself is patently absurd and dangerous. Alzheimer patients, amputees, infants, and those with severe mental impairment are unable to feed themselves. Would we kill them?

Terri did not Want to Live Like This

Contrary to popular belief, Terri did not make her wishes clear. Her husband claims that after seeing the story of Karen Quinlan on television Terri expressed the idea that she would not want a similar fate. Of course, Terri's fate is not the same as Karen Quinlan's, and Terri's husband's motives have been called into question.

If Terri had seen a show on the potentials for stem cell research leading to neuro-regeneration technology, and had expressed approval, would her fate be different?

The Stance on Stem Cell Research

During the last presidential campaign I heard Democrats pounding away about the imminent miracles of stem cell research. Democrats were praising the astounding potential of this technology, including the report of neuroregeneration in frogs.

So if in five years cerebral neuroregeneration is a reality, can we prosecute Terri's tube-pullers for murder?

What is the Motive of Democrats?

So why do Democrats want Terri dead? They insist she is in no pain and has neither the mental capacity to feel or understand pain or emotional grief or discomfort.

Therefore, by the Democrat's own argument Terri has no comprehension about what is happening, or whether or not her wishes are being fulfilled. Terri will experience nothing adverse, physically or mentally, as a result of letting her live and letting her loving parents take care of her as they wish.

Who with a daughter would not take the same stance as Terri's parents given the above? Who of you would not care for your daughter in similar circumstances? Who of you would pull that tube out of your daughter?

The Line of Life

The Democrats, who cry about rights for the eggs of animals, disparage all of those who speak about the right to life for a human. I am not one who can be characterized as a "right-to-lifer" but I have no problem in saying that without THAT right, all other rights are extinguishable and irrelevant.

It is my opinion that the reason the Schiavo case has garnered so much attention is because it is about drawing lines. We have to draw lines somewhere, and Terri Schiavo is the line of life here. It would be a grievous error for the State to insist that we kill her, because, clearly we must ask: "Who is next and under what newly contrived circumstance?"

Terri Schiavo is alive, in no discomfort, well taken care of, and did not clearly express the desire to die, as her opponents insist. For the State to be mandating that we pull out people's feeding tubes should be a frightening event for everyone who ever gave a dollar to the ACLU, and I cannot understand why that organization is quiet in the one situation where their principals are so in jeopardy.

ADDENDUM:

I should have known better. The ACLU HAS weighed in on this case AGAINST the life of Terri Schiavo.  What else would you expect? They did not come out for her right to LIVE...they came out for her right to DIE.

Let me see...how does it go? DEATH, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS??

Thanks again to the ACLU.

Comments

[PaulG]

Please don't make up another urban legend here. While it is true that some Democrats were against this (probably unconstitutional) legislation, it is also true that it was a Democrat, Senator Tom Harkin, who crafted the compromise that allowed this legislation to go forward. Harkin is not a newbie to this stuff or a political opportunist. He has been an advocate for the rights of the disabled for many years.

My own take on this is that the leadership in both the House and the Senate were quite happy with the way things were on Friday. They did their grandstanding; they passed their bills; they called them irreconcilable; and everybody left town for Spring Recess. This is a common ruse by politicians of both parties who want to get all the mileage they can out of an issue but don't actually want to do something that might come back to haunt them. Unfortunately for DeLay, Frist & Co., Harkin actually managed to get the bills that they had declared "irreconcilable" on Friday reconciled by Saturday -- a singular accomplishment.

I'm pretty indifferent to whether Terri Schiavo should "live" on or should be allowed to die. I'm repelled by the behavior of all of the principals in this case and absolutely disgusted by the pandering, preening and pontificating by those in the legislative and executive branches of government in both Florida and Washington, but I DO think that if you're going to talk about Republicans and Democrats you ought to give credit where credit is due.

[roz casteel]

short note - it's not even the state - it's a judge. does this seem to be a matter of whose will is going to prevail? never mind the mess re: dems & repubs - and didn't i hear on CSpan yesterday that the ONLY doctors opinion this judge has accepted is a judge from minnesota & is active in euthanasia "education"?

[Buddy]

"(Query to bioethicist: All of her cortex? Have YOU seen the MRI's?? Is there a specific volume of cerebral cortex below which you make this asseveration?)"

No, they havn't seen the MRI, because no MRI has ever been done, only a CT scan:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

Quoting from the article:

In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.

There was a moment of dead silence.

“That’s criminal,” he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He drew a reasonable conclusion: “These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don’t want the information.”

NO MRI has ever been done on terri, just a CT scan, so far as I can tell.

[primer]

The 1996 CT:

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png

Impressions?

[Craig H]

Impressions?

Yeah. Some worrisome ones related to whose scan this is. Why was it posted backwards? What is Ms. Schiavo doing with a shunt?

[Jill]

Great post. It's so good to see a doctor weighing in

[Mike Stiber]

I don't think that anyone has a right to insert themselves into this situation except the involved parties. The fact is that the Republicans have abandoned the idea of limited government control over people's lives in favor of their certainty that they know better than you what you should do (after all, God told them so). As the recent GOP memo (story at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html ) shows, they care nothing for Schiavo; all they see is political advantage. They're despicable. At least some Democrats have the common decency to say that this is none of their business.

[CodeBlueBlogMD]

I am so IMPRESSESD by this CT that i am going to post about it.

YES it is scanned in backwards, but that's no big deal and a frequent error in computer translation. And YES that is a shunt tip you see "shining" in the right ventricle (remember the film is mirror-image backwards.

And YES this image IS from U of Miami ethics site.

Wow.

Let me just say quickly that why INDEED was there a shunt in her brain in 1996!

And I have seen WORSE cortical atrophy in many 60 and 70 year old fully functional humans.

I CONTEST the assertion that all of her cortex is gone. That is a complete lie. Utterly.

I am working on a post.

This is outrageous if it is true.

[Craig H]

The shunt is the problem. I may be wrong here, but I don't think Terri Schiavo ever had one placed. I'd be hesitant to remark about her cortex until I knew it was her cortex.

[Curious JD]

What has happened to our world when Democrats are defending states' rights from Republican intrusions? These are strange times, indeed.

[primer]

Thank you and Dr. H for your rational medical opinions. As is the case with many bits of information lacking context, more questions can arise than are answered.

[CodeBlueBlogMD]

What rational medical opinion?

Bits of information lacking context?

Let me ask you this -- why are there not WHOLE PIECES of medical information, only bits.

This is one of my watershed issues. If WE THE PEOPLE were provided with adequate information we could figure all this stuff out ourselves. There would be EXPERTS like ME writing blogs about subjects with which they were totally expert in, explaining exactly what the situation was and then other experts would weigh in and we would come to reasonable and intelligent conclusisons.

But because we live in a society of medical idiocy, propagated by a payment system that excludes consumer feedback and fostered by a medical press filled wqith liberal arts majors who wopulkdn't klnopw a neuron from a jelly doughnut, we can then be fed bits of misinformation about which NO ONE complains or comments upon.

But when someone like me TAKES a rotten scrap of evidence and tries to stand up and ask WHY...WHO...WHAT...the most common response is cynical (and uniformed)...so, dear commentator...LET US STOP THIS PROCESS IF YOU FEEL THERE ARE TOO MANY QUESTIONS RAISED, EH?

Especially if you all are not up to the challenge.

[John]

Mr. Stiber, there are some serious questions about the GOP memo story. Powerlineblog.com points out that no one is showing a copy of the original memo and adds "It is described as "unsigned." What does this mean? Most Senate and House memos are written on letterhead that show whose office they came from. Is this memo on such letterhead? Apparently not. As best I can tell, it is anonymous. Is it simply a one-page memo on blank white paper that purports to come from a Republican? If so, is there any reason to assume that it is genuine? How does the Senate's mail system work? Can anyone write an anonymous memo, and send it to 55 Republican Senators, with a copy to ABC News?"

I'd like to know more about the circumstances around this memo before I believe that the GOP, or any political party for that matter, is so clueless as to describe this tragic case in such crass terms.

[Jeff Tan]

There was a question in the post earlier:

"Alzheimer patients, amputees, infants, and those with severe mental impairment are unable to feed themselves. Would we kill them?"

In fact, Judge Greer appointed a Dr. Ronald Cranford to make the definitive diagnosis as to whether Terri was in PVS. It was expected that he would diagnose PVS because he's one of the more prominent euthanasia advocates in the US. A report says that he rules PVS in all the cases where he's appointed to testity.

Dr. Cranford's answer to your question earlier would be yes, since he openly advocates (by his publications, mind you) the dehydration and starvation of Alzheimer sufferers:

"In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life."

Read more here (and the link to that op-ed; search for "Cranford"):

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

[primer]

I think you mistook my appreciation to be a critique. I described Dr. H’s and your analysis as rational because it was based on the evidence presented, medical, because you are a professional.

You wrote:

“… we can then be fed bits of misinformation about which NO ONE complains or comments upon.”

I was commenting on that “watershed issue”. The CT is one piece of medical information. You provided an expert opinion. Then, consistent with my comment about “bits of information” at times yielding more questions than answers, you made my case:

- Why the shunt?
- Is this her CT?
- What does the rest of the series look like?
- Does the series confirm my assumptions based on the single slice image?
- Doesn’t this CT suggest previously undisclosed trauma?
- Is there a follow-up?
- What does the bone scan say?
- Did her anorexia impact on the condition of her bones?

… and so on. The bio-ethics academic to whom you referred is wrong, both, in his diagnosis, and in making medical diagnosis in the first place.

I don't "want to stop this process". It is the process that produces and uncovers the information that we used to progress.

[Texas Cowboy]

Stop the political attacks against us liberals and Democrats. kthxbye

[jennifer]

Today, I am trying to reach as many people of possible to request that we fly our American flags at half staff in solidarity for Terri and to reject American's New Culture of Death. PLEASE pass this on! Bless you.

[Susan Nunes]

Not all liberals and Democrats support the dubious Michael Schiavo.

I suspect much of the pro-Michael thinking is based on being contrary to the likes of Tom DeLay, Jeb Bush, the right-to-life movement, and other opportunists who seized on this case early on rather than on the merits.

[Estelle]

I'm glad I found this page...know other people are wondering what I have been wondering. Why are the Democrats siding with Michial Schiavo...and in such an aggressive way, with no doubts. I'm a Democrat and I am amazed by this situation...I'm finding my allies are Republicans. But the issue for Democrats I think, is not the ethics of euthenasia...but the accuracy of her diagnosis. Republicans are calling us Deathocrats and Nazis. It's so frustrating. I think Democrats just accept the "facts" of this case and really are sincere in there convictions. How can people ignore all these details? He didn't allow the family to be there when she died? That sounds out right malicious. He got his way and took her from her family...giving him the advantage of the doubt...assuming he really did have her best interests in mind...couldn't he at least comprimise enough to allow her family to have her body? Why are Democrats siding with Michial? Is it as Republicans accuse...they have an agenda? I don't agree with the right to life...life at any cost...no euthenasia, no abortion camp that has supported her. Rather I am with those concerned about the rights of the disabled. I wish I could just hear what her whole family has to say. I wish I knew about Michael Shiavo...about there marriage.

[Estelle]

I'm glad I found this page...know other people are wondering what I have been wondering. Why are the Democrats siding with Michial Schiavo...and in such an aggressive way, with no doubts. I'm a Democrat and I am amazed by this situation...I'm finding my allies are Republicans. But the issue for Democrats I think, is not the ethics of euthenasia...but the accuracy of her diagnosis. Republicans are calling us Deathocrats and Nazis. It's so frustrating. I think Democrats just accept the "facts" of this case and really are sincere in there convictions. How can people ignore all these details? He didn't allow the family to be there when she died? That sounds out right malicious. He got his way and took her from her family...giving him the advantage of the doubt...assuming he really did have her best interests in mind...couldn't he at least comprimise enough to allow her family to have her body? Why are Democrats siding with Michial? Is it as Republicans accuse...they have an agenda? I don't agree with the right to life...life at any cost...no euthenasia, no abortion camp that has supported her. Rather I am with those concerned about the rights of the disabled. I wish I could just hear what her whole family has to say. I wish I knew about Michael Shiavo...about there marriage.

[Estelle]

I'm glad I found this page...know other people are wondering what I have been wondering. Why are the Democrats siding with Michial Schiavo...and in such an aggressive way, with no doubts. I'm a Democrat and I am amazed by this situation...I'm finding my allies are Republicans. But the issue for Democrats I think, is not the ethics of euthenasia...but the accuracy of her diagnosis. Republicans are calling us Deathocrats and Nazis. It's so frustrating. I think Democrats just accept the "facts" of this case and really are sincere in there convictions. How can people ignore all these details? He didn't allow the family to be there when she died? That sounds out right malicious. He got his way and took her from her family...giving him the advantage of the doubt...assuming he really did have her best interests in mind...couldn't he at least comprimise enough to allow her family to have her body? Why are Democrats siding with Michial? Is it as Republicans accuse...they have an agenda? I don't agree with the right to life...life at any cost...no euthenasia, no abortion camp that has supported her. Rather I am with those concerned about the rights of the disabled. I wish I could just hear what her whole family has to say. I wish I knew about Michael Shiavo...about there marriage.

Estelle - the one "fact", among all others, I just CAN'T get past if the "Michael is legit" argument is to hold water is her dental care.

WHY did he refuse ordinary teeth cleanings and allow her teeth to rot to the point where 5 had to be pulled?

I could MAYBE buy refusing various tests like MRI or PET if he truly believed they would be a waste of time/money...maybe - its a stretch mind you, but I'm a sport and willing to give him a fair chance to vindicate his actions...

Applying Occam's razor, the only explanation that seems to explain the intentional dental neglect is trying to induce some sort of systemic infection that might eventually kill her. There is no "caring husband" scenario I can think of, and I've tried hard, to explain the MS ordered dental neglect.

If someone out there has a plausible explanation for the dental neglect that fits in with the "caring husband" scanario, please post it.

[Estelle]

Does anybody understand this situation? It seems bigger then the debate between Michael and the Schindler family. Why all the suppressed information?...and why all the hostility? People are so upset about the government interfering with Michaels' "difficult", and "personal" decision...but...where did this come from? Euthenasia (not that I believe euthenasia is the real issue here) has always been a rather controversial topic...assisted suicide is legal in Oregon...or was...the fedaral government interfered and I am not sure how it stands now. But i'd always thought it was a minority position...even in extreme situations. But Michael is being so overwhelmingly supported, even in this extreme situation. Why? Why does the Left support him so strongly? Why does everyone think this is about euthenasia? Why do people get angry even if you try to talk about it? They've heard about it too much and there's other things going on in the world...this is a distraction from real issues...they say. They think opposition to Michael is just a rude play on peoples emotions...what about the innocent people in Iraq...what about our lack of health care...and losing all our good jobs? I've always cared about those things...why does it have to be one or the other? Why is it undemocratic to side with the Schindlers?

[trembling timberdoodle]

Destroy turtle eggs and your in trouble with the law chop down a tree where a spotted owl lives and you go to jail starve a dog and your black listed starve a person and they will make a movie about it and sign them up for a big contract what a sick sick society

[Estelle]

The deed has been done and I get the impression most of the people on the blogs were opposed to it..probably because those people were much more informed then most people...since the media pretty much seems to be in love with Michael and considers anything the Schindler family says is inconsequential. Anyway...now that the deed has been done...now what? Is anyone doing any kind of investigation into all of this? I sure hope that Michael and his co-horts are exposed some day. I've heard that Thomas Delay wants to hold an investigation...and the Democrats just hate him for that.