Who’s next?
posted by robert - April 1st, 2005 at 6:50 PMI have been wanting to write a post about the Terri Schiavo case for about 8 days now — pretty much ever since I finally spent the time to dig around online and find some history about the situation. This will not be that post.
Why not? Because the editors at National Review have put together a far more succinct and infinitely better-written piece than I could, so I will refer you to their thoughts, as they are identical to my own.
April 1st, 2005 at 11:29:50 pm
An image from the article:
Just what is this image trying to imply, I wonder?
April 1st, 2005 at 11:30:59 pm
The link to the image: http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_editorial_033105.gif
April 1st, 2005 at 11:43:17 pm
I was surprised to not see any mention of what I see as the real question in this matter, being that we live in a country ruled by law: who had legal custody of Schiavo?
If your (you reading this) view is that the law should not have allowed this to take place, then as I see it you have an issue with the law, and thus the lawmakers. They failed Schiavo, and they are undoubtedly failing others. Protesting the execution of the law (pun not intended) is less than productive; most of us are quickly on our way to forgetting this case, lawmakers included. You must see to it that they fix the laws that need fixing.
April 2nd, 2005 at 1:57:05 am
You’ve hit the nail on the head: custody was the fulcrum on which the whole debacle spun. In my mind, in a husband-and-wive scenario such as this, the husband is unquestionably the arbiter of the wishes of the incapacitated spouse. And such was the case with Michael Schiavo — until he (from what I’ve read) made an abrupt about-face in his desires for Terri. Changing from a man pledging to “care for her for as long as she lives because she was the woman he loves” into a man who, among other things, refuses to allow for the full range of diagnostic procedures to be performed to verify the profound — and often erroneously applied — diagnosis that was the media mantra of the past two weeks, “persistent vegetative state” ..well, such an about face is cause for questioning his true intentions, to say the least. Furthermore, when this same man starts living with and has two children by another woman — all while refusing to divorce his disabled wife — I would have assumed it safe to say that any credibility he should have in the “I just want to do what’s best for my wife” department is shot. Clearly, I was wrong.
And that’s my beef — I don’t *want* a law that makes government intervention into private matters a normal thing, not at this level, and it’s extraordinary — and extraordinarily disturbing — that this case took a road where such measures were even contemplated. That’s what makes this case so different in the first place: what should have been a normal, unremarkable (albeit sad) circumstance was elevated into a national custody debate of “he said/they said” between M. Schiavo and Terri’s parents — and it seems that a chain of seriously questionable rulings on Schiavo’s right to custody was made, and that chain lended sort of a “momentum” to the whole thing. Once it reached the national stage, there was no going back, really. I have no doubt that in that courtroom, Schiavo’s slick-daddy pro-euthanasia lawyer had whipped up a flashy presentation with a whole line of agreeing medical opinions — but underneath all of the hype and high-profile money and media attention, there was still just a severely disabled woman, a philandering husband that wanted her to die, and parents who wanted her to have every possible chance at rehabilitation and life. I had hope all along that some court somewhere would have the cajones to rehear the whole thing, in lieu of all of the glaringly obvious questions (esp. in areas where medical science had progressed since her initial diagnosis) — but I guess to do so would have been seen as some sort of rude professional affront (”We think your courts down there are completely in the toilet, so we’re going to rehear this case up here..”). I have no idea had that whole world works, but quite frankly, after the performance of the past two weeks (hell, the past 5 years), I don’t have much faith in it. 80 years of “enlightenment” is beginning to bear fruit; the seeds sown by the abrogation of a common morality are beginning to offer up their harvest. Buckle up.
What baffles me beyond all else is this: Schiavo clearly wasn’t that attached to his wife (see: lover and two kids), so why was he so committed to retaining custody over Terri …so that he could have her executed? What would have been so horrible for him about relinquishing custody of Terri to her parents? He could get a divorce, marry his shack-up honey, and her parents would assume the burden of caring for Terri. Given what I’ve already said about questioning his desire to “care” for Terri, I’m hard pressed to come up with any reasonable hypothesis for why he would take such a contentious and, frankly, bizarre road. There are more than a few thoughts out in the foaming masses online, including the opinion that Michael tried to kill Terri by choking her to death. Of course, now we’ll never know — he finally “won”, and had his wife executed in the full view of the entire nation, with a majority approval rating for his actions and the tacit agreement of the Supreme Court. If you’ll pardon my French, America is *&$%ed up, peeps. And it’s so &$^%ed up that a lot of her people think that what’s going on is …good.
My God.
What lesson should we take from this? Be sure you’ve got a living will, kids — cause if you don’t, it’s quite possible that nobody will be able to save you. And, furthermore, you can never… never, um… … …OMG I can’t believe the price of gasoline! It’s, like, totally expensive! Can you believe American Idol last night?! OMG!!!1
April 2nd, 2005 at 3:54:08 am
“If I should ever be in a vegetative state and kept alive on life support, please, for the love of God… don’t ever show me in that condition on national television.” — Kenny, South Park
I’m trying to think of a way to phrase my thoughts without sounding like some “heartless monster with no value of human life” since I agreed with the removal of Terri’s feeding tube. I one of the major problems in the whole Terri Schiavo ordeal involves people projecting how they would want the situation handled in their case. There is no definitive evidence as to what her wishes were, so people assume that her wishes probably correspond to their own. If I, for example, were in a “persistent vegetative state” for 16 years, I wouldn’t want to live. I would want my wife (assuming I ever found a woman depraved enough to marry me) to be able to continue her life without having to care for me. I wouldn’t want to be a financial and emotional burden to my family. That’s just how I feel if I were in that situation, and I can’t help but project these beliefs onto Terri.
Now to throw in a few questions from what I read above:
1) What benefit would Michael Schiavo have from not allowing the full range of tests to be performed? 2) What gain would he have by allowing Terri to die?
For these questions, let’s assume that money is not the reason (since he stated he would donate the insurance money he’d collected to charity if she was allowed to die).
3) You question why he remained married to Terri, despite taking another lover and having kids, if it was just to have her “executed”. Well, I think that’s precisely why he did it — he believed Terri’s wish would be to die rather than live in that state. If he’d gotten a divorce, her wish would not have been carried out. As for the girlfriend and kids — sixteen years is a long time. During those 16 years, I’m sure he’s done more than sit by Terri’s bedside. It’s possible to be in love with more than one person — I’m not saying it’s “right” and that’s how love should work, but love is weird like that. Michael should be allowed to have a life. ( The word life here is being used in the “social interaction” way rather than the “living” way.) I think he’s been unfairly portrayed as the villain in this whole situation. I don’t see that at all. I truly believe that he loves Terri. Otherwise, why would he have gone through everything that has happened? I don’t think he’s a media whore. I don’t believe he’s a money grubber. A divorce would have been the easy way out. Instead, he fought to carry out his wife’s wishes (as he perceived them).
Okay… I might comment more on this later but it’s nearly 4 AM, I’m beat, and I’m somewhat afraid that these thoughts aren’t going to appear coherent when others read them. But to finish — this whole thing is very complicated. No one has all the details, not even those directly involved. I don’t think there was a right or wrong outcome to it all. If it truly was her wish to die, how can you say what happened was “wrong”? At the same time, I don’t think you can argue that simply letting her starve was the “right” thing to do.
(Also, it’s really hard to proofread this thing in this little comment box, but then, it probably wasn’t designed for essays. Take errors with a grain of salt.)
April 3rd, 2005 at 9:05:28 pm
Morris had some good things to say, but also some (characterization of Michael Schiavo as a philanderer in particular) that I strongly disagree with. Mike O. points out some excellent reasons for him not to have divorced her.
If I fell into such a state, I would not wish to remain in it any longer than five years. Perhaps one year would be more than enough. That said, if I were married, the last thing I would want is for my wife to be chained to me, a vegetable, and unable to pursue happiness in her life for fear that she be labeled a philanderer. To the extent that she is happy bringing me potted plants to brighten up my room (that strongly resemble me), let her. It would be incredibly selfish of me to expect her to remain faithful to what was once me. Really, can you imagine?
Picture yourself, a vegetable of a couple years, your living will states to leave you alive for five. Your wife/husband comes to visit, and you can tell by their manner that they’ve got someone new in their life. Even if they still love you, they aren’t in love with you at this point. By some miracle, you have a moment of control over my body. Are you really going to say to your S.O., “Uh, til death do us part, honey”? Who here can imagine Terry saying that to her husband when she miraculously snaps out of it during year 17 (oops)?
I’m tired of people attacking his character to try to “prove” a point. The fact is that the character of Michael Schiavo doesn’t matter. If the law says he is the one to decide, then guess who gets to decide, even if there are photos of him in a chocolate pudding-filled hot tub with 50 hookers in Vegas? (I made that up; there aren’t any… until Fark creates a Photoshop contest for that, anyway)
April 5th, 2005 at 2:53:32 pm
I do enjoy me up some lively comments.
As far as my characterizing ol’ Mike as a philanderer, a question for the audience: what, exactly, were his wedding vows? I’m of course presuming that they contained that bit about “till death do us part.” I could be way off, and I wasn’t there …but I’ll take that risk to make the point. If St. Michael wanted to stay with Terri and “do the right thing” for her and have The Plug pulled… then I say let him finish out the “do the right thing” bit by keeping his own plug where it belongs until death they do part. From where I stand, he played both sides of the street: whenever he was arguing that he had and should have had say over her destiny, then he clearly was caring about her and was determined to do what he felt she would have wanted; when it came to satisfying his human needs for companionship in the arms of another woman, his wife — the woman he claimed to care so much for that he was willing to be made a spectacle of in the nightly news, and worse — wasn’t enough a part of the picture to trouble him with the glaring hypocrisy of his actions. Sorry, but it just doesn’t jive. It just doesn’t. Either you’re married, or you’re not: if you are, you’re committing adultery. If you’re not, you’re not her legal guardian.
Which brings us to an interesting train of thought: The Almighty Courts argued (of course) that Terri still had rights, including that her wishes be carried out — in this case, according to Michael’s memory of her wishes. What about the flip side: if she *had* woken up from her supposed PVS, what would have happened? After all the hallelujah choruses and choirs of angels singing over that poor, bothered mechanic shop down the street — Terri and Michael Schiavo would have gotten a divorce. She’d be heartbroken and Michael would probably feel pretty crummy, too, and it’d be hard — but they’d get a divorce. It’s pretty hard to pick up where you left off when 15 years have passed and — oh yeah — your “husband” has a mistress and two kids.
The fact that her parents tried to argue this point in court — that Terri deserved a divorce from the man who was cheating on her — and were ignored is troubling. Troubling because, on the one hand, the courts were saying, “We will follow the letter of the law, which says in this case that Michael is her legal guardian. And in this case that means that we’re going to, uh, dehydrate her to death.” But on the other hand, Michael Schiavo was plainly committing adultery — so how could Terri Schiavo, who certainly had rights (i.e., the Right To Die), be denied a divorce from her openly-wanton husband? Are we to imagine that she would have wanted to be killed under the just-ended circumstances — yet imagine that she wouldn’t want a divorce from her husband who was living with another woman and the two children that woman had given him? As has been pointed out earlier, this case was really a custody battle under the hood — albeit the mother of all custody battles, because an innocent person’s life hung in the balance.
As for the scene described in Adam’s last comment above: I don’t think I’d be uselessly reminding my clearly-no-longer-attached S.O. of their forgotten pledges — unless it was a preamble to the formal goodbye of an annulment. I doubt anyone would. I imagine most people would probably be pretty heartbroken at what had transpired in your absence. As understanding and peace about the matter take hold, reality sets back in …and you file for a divorce, so your lives can continue on their separate paths.
Quite honestly, I don’t think I’d have nearly the issues that I do with Michael Schiavo’s (apparent) character if he had picked one road or the other. It would have led me to trust in his character more, which would have led me to trust his word and his intentions when it came down to killing his disabled wife. Fathering illegitimate children while still married to your disabled wife — whom, by the way, you’re trying to have killed because that’s what you claim she would have wanted — just doesn’t play in Peoria. Not with me, and I’d bet not with a fair amount of the population if they had ever heard more than the 25 second clip intros whenever CBS did a shot of all the “fundamentalist evangelicals” looking wild-eyed. I say Michael should have been a man about it, one way or the other: either cut off the affair (I’m not even expecting him to be superhumanly chaste for 15 years) until you get a divorce, or keep it in your *&#$ pants. A man is only as good as his word. He to this day denies that he thinks he’s done anything wrong. Insult to injury, IMO.
As for the crux of the matter: yes, several judges ruled with one another that Michael Schiavo was to be the legal guardian of Terri Schiavo. Yes, several courts approved of — even the Supreme Court, by it’s inaction on the case — the death-by-dehydration of Terri Schiavo. Neither of these facts automatically make what happened right. The justice system isn’t some demigod of infallibility. It’s a system of men, the best we can do with what we’ve been given. It’s up to the citizens to clamor for the system of checks and balances to work — and in this case, I believe the citizens failed at their duty when it mattered most, due to a combination of 21st century apathy and a watered-down, pop-relative, feel-good morality.
Personally, I think Adam was more right than he knows: what was done to Terri Schiavo was legal, regardless of whether it was right or wrong. Because more and more, it no longer matters.
April 7th, 2005 at 3:40:39 pm
You’re expecting him to live by your set of morals. I’m not saying being against murder, thievery, adultery, etc. should be allowed by any set of morals. I just have issues with attacking his “infidelity”. There aren’t any laws against adultery (as far as I know — and I’m talking secular laws, not those 10 Commandment things). I see it like this — he wanted to carry out Terri’s wishes, but at the same time, he wanted to be free to live his life. I don’t know… this issue is so complicated. It just seems like everyone is trying to separate it into black and white, when it’s nothing but a huge gray area.
April 8th, 2005 at 9:23:50 pm
Though I have yet to parse the pages of comments in response to this post, I submit the following Ars Technica dissenting opinion.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050325-4737.html
It would seem the news sources irreconcilably clash in their supporting evidence. Ideally each mention of treatment and diagnoses, dubious or not, would be associated with dates and the names of medical clinics lest we the public not differ in our understanding of Terri Schiavo’s physiological state.
April 11th, 2005 at 5:02:07 pm
I perused the Arstechnica article linked to above… it seemed to be a decent cursory overview of the case, but I would like to recommend the following as a much more informative history of the case. Its author seems to be much more informed about the legal aspects at play, and also addresses questions surrounding the case in a logical, ordered manner, without getting emotional or into third party opinions. Much more credible than Arstechnica, in my estimation.
Link: abstractappeal.com