print“I can think of only two occasions on which I agreed with George Bush. Both involved the upholding of the people’s negative, or leave-me-alone, rights.
The first was his refusal to capitulate to the Kyoto-protocol crazies. Not surprisingly, some conservatives denounced this rare flicker of good judgment. And I’m not talking a ‘Crunchy Con’ of Andrew Sullivan’s caliber—he does proud to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club combined. No less a conservative than Joe Scarborough commiserated with actor Robert Redford over the president’s ‘blind spot on the environment.’ (Ditto Bill O’Reilly.)
The other Bush initiative I endorsed was the attempt by Congress to uphold Terri Schiavo’s inalienable right to life—a decision very many conservatives now rue.
Upholding rights to life, liberty, and property is a government’s primary—some would say only—duty. But, bless their cruel little hearts, this cast of conservative characters is at least consistent. It relished the launch of a bloody war in contravention of fact, law, and morality, and now, fittingly, it’s atoning for its incongruent attempts to forestall a killing…”
The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily.com column, “Conservatives for Killing Terri.” Comments are welcome.
Oh, gawd, Ilana, what a can of worms this case was and is. There are so many unresolved controversies in this case (I followed the case for a couple of years). Just a few off the top of my head:
(1) There were “experts” on both sides of the question of whether or not Terri was in a persistent vegetative state. There were professionals who were convinced she could have been helped and could have improved. On the terrisfight.org website, there were, at one time, posted videos of Terri which seemed to indicate that she recognized and responded to her family.
(2) There are still a lot of questions regarding exactly HOW Terri came to be in her damaged state. A lot of people suspect that Michael Schiavo may have had something to do with it. I read that her original injuries were consistent with having been strangled; however, they were so intent upon saving her life, that no one initially thought to preserve evidence about what happened, and certainly no one expended very much effort in pressing Michael for an answer. (Also see Mark Fuhrman’s book on the case.)
(3) I believe that at some point, Michael Schiavo had her medical expenses taken care of by government programs. On the other hand, her family (parents and siblings) wanted to take her home and care for her… and a lot of other people, such as me, would have been happy to pledge a little money each month to help with expenses.
(4) As I understand it, one of the Schiavo family’s biggest legal mistakes, early on, was to agree to stipulate, in the first place, that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state. This was a major linchpin for Greer’s subsequent rulings.
(5) The autopsy apparently did not prove anything about Terri’s mental state. Her brain was atrophied, yes–but not “liquefied” or “gone” as some people tried to claim.
(6) Michael Schiavo would not allow tests to be performed on Terri which might have better delineated what her actual condition was.
(7) There were more than a few affidavits from nurses (and other professionals) who worked with Terri, regarding her ability to talk and eat, her emotional state, and a possible attempt by Michael to kill her with a dose of insulin.
The outcome of this case makes me sick, there is so much wrong with what happened. And Michael Schiavo seems to have gotten away with it scot-free.
Let’s not forget that the unrepentant, psychotic woman who drowned her five babies in her bathtub will get three square meals for the rest of her life. As will all of the other child killers, and terrorizers of innocent men and women. I fear that the Terri Shiavo case was the litmus test for America’s moral integrity, and that we have failed, and be punished for it.
I have been involved in the battle against Futile Care Theory here in Texas. I am very upset at the following statement by Dr. Szasz:
“After more than a decade of being half-dead, it required no sophisticated medical knowledge or technology to conclude that, as a person, Terri Schiavo existed no longer, but that, as a human being, she was still alive.”
I am upset by the suggestion that Terri was no longer a “person”. This is the very kind of label and argument that the futilitarians are using to justify the implementation of futility protocols. It is the idea of “personhood”. Of anyone, Dr. Sasz should understand the delterious effects of such labels on people’s life and liberty.
Where does it stop? Is my profoundly retarded sister a “person.” Dr. Pete Singer would think she is not.
On balance, his statements were very good–I take issue with the one aspect.
And–as far as I am concerned–the humanist position IS utilitarian and materialistic in nature and DOES lay a “moral” framework for the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in the interests of economics. Without the moral framework of God’s law as laid out in the Old and New Testament–my opinion is that the arguments against futile care theory will be blown away like so much chaff when we face the perfect storm of a huge bulge of Baby Boomers into the failing system of Medicare.
Jerri (also know as Sue Bob)
Ilana, I agree with your observations 100%. I also had my own observations that people may or may not agree with on this case.
Armey is pathetic in his observations on the beliefs of religious conservatives who support(ed?) the Republican party. Most peopel, when they realized what the complete facts were in this case, were for government intervention. It’s common sense. All the spin on the polls before her death was very misleading (i cant believe I am saying that people were polled to validate if Terri should live or die…it’s as if pagan Rome has been revived with an up or down thumb vote. Too bad justices don’t get the same benefit in congress. but i digress…).
To have so many people and professionals, from across the political, religious, and professional spectrum, side with Terri’s parents should have been a poll strong enough to stop this execution in its tracks. But in this instance, the will of the people was silenced and ignored. I believe Pres Bush’s signing of the congressional law to prevent Terri’s death was merely symbolic. It was far from the reason Bush and the Repubs lost on Nov 08.
I personally think the Prez, Congress, and the Governor of Florida could have done a lot more to save Terri but didn’t because that didn’t have the will or even the moral fortitude to do it, as well as face the media frenzy that would have ensued. How sad.
I thought Delay and Company had prevented the killing, and yet the process never slowed down, and the Florida judge (who was clearly biased in the case), nor Schiavo, were ever penalized for thumbing their noses at congress.
GOV Jeb Bush will never get my vote based on his inaction in the final hours of Terri’s life. He disappeared completely. Spineless. And all the dems and repubs who ran for cover and let a physically and mentally handicapped person perish in this so-called civilized land should realize they have allowed a precedent for the extermination of the weak and helpless.
And for the record, I voted straight Republican but was still disgusted with a majority of “the” party…but I was even more disgusted with the Democrats and liberals. go figure…
Miss Mercer:
I was disappointed in you for characterizing Terri Schiavo’s medical condition as irrelevant, but yet found it necessary to state that she was “clearly vegetative”. If it was irrelevant, why mention it?
In addition, it is amazing that you have been victimized by the propaganda machine that characterized her as “vegetative”. You could, in fact, have easily scratched the surface to find that Schiavo was alert and communicative almost to the moment of her death. No less a personage than Fr. Frank Pavone, who ministered to Schiavo and her family for months, has been lecturing on this for over a year.
We both agree that expanding the power of the federal government, especially in regards to such states’rights matters as the protection of innocent human life, can lead to evil applications later (see: the so-called “Civil Rights Movement”). Yet, are we to permit the fascists/socialists/communists to continue to smash-and-destroy human rights and lives, yet meekly stand aside for the sake of principle?
But, let’s check the facts: Terri Schiavo was NOT “clearly vegetative”.
And, let’s analayze the de-humanizing euphemism “vegetative”. It smacks of politics. Just what are the criteria? All subjective, I would say. [How is having practically no cerebral cortex a subjective criteria?] It belongs with pop culture science, not REAL science. No human being has EVER been known to morph into a vegetable. We eat, uproot, burn, consume vegetables. A human being ought to remain inviolable. Any other definition belongs with fascists and communists. It’s an old tried and true tactic. [A point made emphatically in the column.]
Terri Schindler Schiavo’s birthday will be remembered on December 3, 2006. She was born in 1963. (pls do the math). Although I can’t remember the names of any of the candidates who lost their mid-term elections, I will never forget Terri Schindler Schiavo and how a single woman who was called many unkind things exposed the propagandist media, the corrupt judicial system and exposed the secular, hitleresque nature of euthanasia. If someone is protected from a forced ‘departure’, it is now known as interfering. If they are killed by others’ hands, it is no longer called murder but privacy. It was murder. Millions know this and will never forget.
What stands out for me in this case is that a man who had something to gain from it was allowed to make a decision on life or death for another. The ancient legal principle is I believe, “No man may be judge in his own case.”
And what struck me about the legal enablers of this, and the whole euthanasia movement, was how creepily eager they always are to find an excuse to kill anyone helpless.
[Well said]
[How is having practically no cerebral cortex a subjective criteria?]
Ilana, I read every single word of the autopsy report. Terri’s frontal lobes were “relatively intact”. The temporal lobes were also “relatively intact”. The neural pathways between the frontal and temporal lobes were also “relatively intact”, including the 12 cranial nerves that control all facial expressions, swallowing, etc. [Citation?]
Moreover, there was eyewitness testimony about Terri sitting at the nurse’s station interacting with the nurses–just like my profoundly retarded sister reacts to others without the power of speech.
There are cases of people with limited amounts of cortex who still function.
[Citation?
The autopsy report.
Go see a prior post by me here based on my reading of the report and other sources–such as a source that explains how dehydration shrinks the brain. I wrote extensively on this during the month of June 2005 hehere.
Ilana, this morning, I categorized the 8 part series I wrote about the autopsy report in response to your above request for links. It is here.
I have many links to medical journals, etc. The post at the top is regarding a doctor’s opinion which raised the same issues I did a year prior.
I tried to research all the issues that I thought journalists should have researched before coming out and saying that she “had no cortex left” or that she was “brain dead”.
The press did a truly lousy job on reporting the findings of the autopsy. They described how small her brain was without even asking the question of what effects two bouts of dehydration (including the last 14 day bout) would have on a human brain given the fact it is partially composed of liquid! Had they google, they would have foundthis.
Furthermore, when you say: [How is having practically no cerebral cortex a subjective criteria?] I must comment as an attorney who has deposed many doctors. True, you may have “objective findings”, but the effect of an “objective finding” on a patient involves “subjective opinion”.
The autopsy findings cannot be used to prove PVS. Look at my post regarding the writings of a pathologist, Dr. Sherri Eros. PVS is a clinical diagnosis–if it is even a real condition–which I wonder about.
Ilana, this is superb. Brava!
You nailed the arguments exactly, and your extensive quotes from Thomas Szasz were thoroughly persuasive. He is a credible authority of the first order.
The only small change I would suggest, in future, is where you describe yourself and Szasz as libertarians and Dershowitz as a liberal. You and Szasz are liberals, as am I. Dershowitz, Andrew Sullivan, and the entire left are statists.
Those are the two parties of left and right today: liberals and statists. I think that if we understand things in those terms and communicate them to people explicitly and then use those terms routinely, we would have a much better time of it politically.
The problem with the Republicans, for example, is that they governed as statists in the past few years.
But I mention this in response to your excellent article only because I so greatly want to enlist you in this effort to change the terms of debate to reflect the reality, as it will work to the right’s distinct advantage. The left, the statists, live on deception, as Orwell noted. Liberals live on truth.
I’ve been writing about this lately, as in my article earlier this week in National Review Online, and on my blog here,
here,
and here. Since I know you’re sympathetic to this approach but have yet to take it up, I hope that you will look this discussion over and discuss it further on your site and in your columns.
Keep up the good and exemplary work, Ilana. And again, congratulations on an excellent article. Sam Karnick
Ms. Ward and everyone: IMO, the MSM not only botched the job of reporting on Terri Schiavo’s autopsy report, but they botched the reporting on nearly every of the aspect of the case as well.
I have read the Constitution and I do not see in it anywhere any power granted to the Congress, or to the President, to uphold anyone’s right to life in the states. (In DC, another matter.) The design of the USA is libertarian in a specific sort of way: Federalism. It is not libertarian in the sense that it is designed to vindicate the full set of rights believed to exist by libertarians. The several states were supposed to do that.
[Libertarians don’t believe in a “full set of rights,” whatever that means, only in the negative rights to life, liberty, and property. As to “divided sovereignty”: “James Madison is given most of the credit for the idea of divided sovereignty, which is sometimes referred to as federalism or states’ rights. The fundamental idea was that governmental power was to be highly decentralized, with limited functions delegated to the central government, acting as the agent of the citizens of the states. In theory, the central government was to use that power to protect the lives, liberties, and property of the citizens of the states.” Read the rest of DiLorenzo’s piece, here.]
Schiavo’s case should have been purely a local matter. The US Supreme Court might have possibly been dragged into it as a matter of interpreting disputes “between citizens of different
States”, since clearly there was widespread interest in the case and possibly people outside Florida might have gotten standing to sue. But the legislative and executive branches of the USA had no business at all being involved.