Laura K. Pahl, a student on the Dean’s list at Lewis University, is going to discover — probably within the next 24 hours (if not already) — that she got severely taken for a ride.
A little mean? No, not in my opinion. Back in the pre-Internet days, if we had a paper due the next morning, we pulled an all-nighter. None of this instant messaging some stranger to write it for us crap.
Perhaps you have read (here for instance) about pharmacists not filling birth control prescriptions to single women because it goes against their (the pharmacists’) religious beliefs. Which is fine, if it doesn’t ultimately hurt the customer:
The American Pharmacists Association recently reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medications some other way.
“We don’t have a profession of robots. We have a profession of humans. We have to acknowledge that individual pharmacists have individual beliefs,” said Susan C. Winckler, the association’s vice president for policy and communications. “What we suggest is that they identify those situations ahead of time and have an alternative system set up so the patient has access to their therapy.”
The alternative system can include making sure another pharmacist is on duty who can take over or making sure there is another pharmacy nearby willing to fill the prescription, Winckler said. “The key is that it should be seamless and avoids a conflict between the pharmacist’s right to step away and the patient’s right to obtain their medication,” she said.”
But this apparently isn’t good enough for some:
Brauer, of Pharmacists for Life, defends the right of pharmacists not only to decline to fill prescriptions themselves but also to refuse to refer customers elsewhere or transfer prescriptions. “That’s like saying, ‘I don’t kill people myself but let me tell you about the guy down the street who does.’ What’s that saying? ‘I will not off your husband, but I know a buddy who will?’ It’s the same thing,” said Brauer, who now works at a hospital pharmacy.
May I suggest, Mr. Brauer, that you get into another line of work, because here’s what the pharmacists’ Code of Ethics says:
I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.
…a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefit from their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.These things apply even to people on a first name basis with God (Hat tip: Riggsveda). So do your freakin’ job, will ya’?
II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.
…A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit, a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.
…In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.
VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.When appropriate, a pharmacist…refers the patient. A pharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient.
VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.
Billmon has the goods on one of them:
The legal battle over the life of Terri Schiavo may have ended, but a thick, fervent crowd remains in the makeshift encampment outside the Woodside Hospice House here . . .
No, we’re not going to go home," said Bill Tierney, a young daughter at his side. "Terri is not dead until she’s dead" . . .
Mr. Tierney, a former military intelligence officer in Iraq who works as a translator and investigator for private companies, cried as he talked about watching the Schiavo spectacle on television and feeling the utter need to be at the hospice.
New York Times
Protesters With Hearts on Sleeves and Anger on Signs
March 28, 2005
Bill Tierney . . . had just returned from eight months working as an interrogator for US forces in Baghdad, and had come to talk, on the record, about torture.
”The Brits came up with an expression – wog,” Tierney said. ”That stands for Wily Oriental Gentleman. There’s a lot of wiliness in that part of the world.”. . .
After explaining his various psychological tactics to the audience, interrogator Bill Tierney (a private contractor working with the Army) said, ”I tried to be nuanced and culturally aware. But the suspects didn’t break.”
Suddenly Tierney’s temper rose. ”They did not break!” he shouted. ”I’m here to win. I’m here so our civilization beats theirs! Now what are you willing to do to win?” he asked, pointing to a woman in the front row. ”You are the interrogators, you are the ones who have to get the information from the Iraqis. What do you do? That word ‘torture’. You immediately think, ‘That’s not me.’ But are we litigating this war or fighting it?” . . .
Asked about Abu Ghraib, Tierney said that for an interrogator, ”sadism is always right over the hill. You have to admit it. Don’t fool yourself – there is a part of you that will say, ‘This is fun.’ ”
Boston Globe
Spy world
February 13, 2005
And the Kos folks have the goods on another one (via Pandagon):
Yes, it turns out that good Christian hero Scott Heldreth who let his 10-year-old get arrested at the Terri Schiavo protests is a registered sex offender in Florida, as thoughtcriminal at DailyKos has discovered.
Heldreth claims his conversion to Jeebus happened after he was tossed in jail for raping a minor. Now he thinks globally, not locally–instead of taking away a woman’s right to choose on a one by one basis, he’s working to take it away from us all.
"The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups," the New York Times reports.
"Privacy experts said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable, if ghoulish."
So, your daughter is being "killied" and what do you do? Sell donor lists to private companies so that they can spam the people who contributed to saving your daughter’s life.
Ghoulish indeed.
Meanwhile, I thought I would throw a blurry graphic at you:
World O’ Crap gives us the latest from Pastor Swank, who reminds us that God Speaks Through Earthquakes:
God speaks through earthquakes. God made the Earth. The Earth will answer to God.
This Christ ushered in the Church Age. This Christ will take out the Church Age.
Remember when Christ told his apostles, "Listen, I brought you into this world, and I can take you out"?
No, wait, that wasn’t Christ, that was St. Bill Cosby, wasn’t it?
Earthquakes now are messages from God for human beings to repent of their sins, find salvation in the coming Christ, and live the holy life.
Those who do not will answer to the "fierce wrath" of the divine. God is not only everlasting love. He is also everlasting anger. Both are in perfect eternal balance. There is not one without the other in the person of God.
So, God is bi-polar. That explains a lot.
Speaking of Krazy Kristian Kooks, get a load of this quote. Someone actually said this with respect to a "teaching evolution" debate going on in Pennsylvania:
"We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board’s declaration is just a first step.
I like it when unintelligent, uneducated people tacitly admit that their shortcomings by pointing fingers at the "intelligent educated" people on the other side of the issue. But here’s the question: if we’re talking about — you know — education here, do we really want decisions made by people who are admittedly unintelligent and uneducated?
Need a pick-me-up?
Watch this movie, not by Ken Burns, about NASSA, the Shocking-But-False Story of America’s Blackstronauts.
Here’s Michelle Malkin in her latest crybaby post:
Update: Some bioethicists are now arguing that Terri is not a human being:
Wesley Smith: Bill, do you think Terri is a person?
Bill Allen [a bioethicist]: No, I do not. I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood. Even minimal awareness would support some criterion of personhood, but I don’t think complete absence of awareness does.
Michelle, even Christians recognize that there is a difference between a "human being" — which is a biological bag of bones, flesh, nerves, and muscle — and a "person" — which is a human being plus that intangible extra something which many of us call a soul. Or do you not believe in a soul? Do you not understand the difference between a person and the carton in which that person is carried?
Besides, read up on your Descartes. You know, "I think therefore I am". That’s all that the bioethicist is saying. Someone who cannot think does not exist as a person, although they biologically exist. Do you get that?
Ousted Kyrgyz Leader Says Not Resigning
MOSCOW (Reuters) – Kyrgyzstan’s ousted President Askar Akayev, in exile in Russia following last week’s coup in the Central Asian state, said on Tuesday that he would not resign.
"So far I have not resigned as president. That’s why I consider myself the one and only legitimate and elected president. At the moment I see no reason to resign," Akayev told Ekho Moskvy radio in an interview.
He said he was staying near Moscow.
I don’t know if this is a good or bad thing for the Kyrgyz people. All I know is that whoever is in charge . . . needs to buy more vowels. This country needs ’em.
The editorial at the beginning of the April issue of Scientific American is startling. You can read it here:
There’s no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don’t mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there’s no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine’s coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that’s a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That’s what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn’t get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody’s ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can’t work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars and imperil national security, you won’t hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration’s antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that’s not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools’ Day.
Wonderful. Simply wonderful.
It’s a good one, too . . .
Here’s something the cable news outfits could do that would rilly rilly rilly be useful, given that they got all those cameras down there in Florida and all.
Just for the kooky hell of it, why don’t they provide us with one wide shot or overview of the protestors and vigil-holders in Pinellas Park just so we can see how big the gathering is? Is it a big, swelling group, or is it like the jubilant Iraqis surrounding Hussein’s razed statue, a seeming mass revealed in long wideout as a motley get-together? And what is the ratio of Schiavo deathwatchers to media deathwatchers? Are there as many reporters there as sign-holders, or what?
Ten bucks says I already know the answers, which are (in order) "A motley get-together", "Roughly four-to-one", and "Depends on the time of day, but there are more onlookers and reporters than actual protesters".
Wait until they start to complaining about all the judges out there who (supposedly) are conspiring to "kill" Terri, nod your head in strong agreement, and then pull out your Bible. Open to Deuteronomy 1:16 and read:
Then I commanded your judges at that time, saying, "Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him.
"You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence, for the judgment is God’s."
Then watch their jaws drop and heads explode.
THE FOLLOWING IS LIFTED VERBATIM FROM FOOTBALL FANS FOR TRUTH, WHO DID THE WORK SO I DON’T HAVE TO:
Confused about the differing stories in the Schiavo case? Wondering about who to believe? Here’s some answers to common questions. I strongly recommend Abstract Appeal’s Terry Schiavo’s Information Page as an unbiased source of information from a Florida lawyer who has been blogging the case since mid-2003.
Why should anyone be allowed to kill Terri Schiavo?
If Terri Schiavo is "killed" by the removal of feeding tubes, then Florida law and many other state laws allow "killing", and people are "killed" by the state every day. Many people do believe that removal of nutrition is murder, which is a perfectly legitimate belief. But Terri Schiavo’s case is no different from numerous other cases of patients who are removed from artificial nutrition every year–many times at the request of guardians who stand to benefit financially from the patient’s death.
Why will Terri Schiavo be allowed to die by dehydration?
It’s not a pleasant thought, but it’s Florida law.
In 1999, in response to a Florida Supreme Court ruling, the Florida legislature updated its "end of life" statutes, which were first put into place in 1990. The House and Senate voted unanimously in support of a number of changes to the text. One of those changes added to the list of "life-prolonging procedure": including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. (Cite in Florida Supreme Court ruling, 1999 changes here.)
Governor Jeb Bush signed the bill in June of that year.
So in 1999, the entire Florida legislative and executive branch voted for a law that authorized the withdrawal of sustenance to a PVS patient at the request of an appointed guardian or a licensed social worker, in the event that no interested relative was available.
The 1999 bill wasn’t unusual in any way and is consistent with many other states–in fact, it is considered a model for state law. Withdrawing sustenance is standard procedure for PVS and comatose patients, even though they can’t speak for themselves. The St. Petersburg Times covered a few local cases that occurred in March alone.
Shouldn’t Terri Schiavo be entitled to due process?
Terri Schiavo has received far more due process than any other PVS patient in history.
Her guardian’s performance has been reviewed three times. A full trial was held to determine her end-of-life wishes, and the ruling upheld by the appellate court. A full trial was held on whether or not she was in a persistent vegetative state, and whether or not any treatment would improve her condition; the judge ruled that she was in a persistent vegetative state and that no treatment held out a reasonable hope of recovery. The appellate court reviewed all the evidence (viewing all the video footage) and stated that if it held a de novo trial it would come to the same conclusion, and upheld the ruling. The Florida Supreme Court has denied review on both trials.
The federal courts have been petitioned since 2004, and have consistently refused involvement, up to and including the Supreme Court.
Why is Michael Schiavo allowed to order the removal of his wife’s feeding tube?
Michael Schiavo didn’t order the removal of his wife’s feeding tube. From the Second District Court of Appeals decision:
In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to make a decision to disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate decision-maker for Theresa. Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court’s jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker.
Judge Greer’s February 22 decision ordered Michael Schiavo to cause his wife’s feeding tube to be removed.
Michael Schiavo certainly set this process in motion by asking the court to decide what Terri would have wanted and testifying that she told him she wouldn’t want to live in these circumstances. But he is not the one making the decision. (See Abstract Appeal for another take.)
Doesn’t Michael Schiavo have a financial interest in his wife’s death?
At the time of the petition, a little over $700,000 remained in Terri Schiavo’s trust. Reports from both sides vary on the amount left, but everyone agrees that the amount is minimal, most of it spent on authorized legal expenses. Michael Schiavo had no control over the trust fund.
Moreover, guardians are usually close relatives, and often stand to benefit from the death of their ward. Judge Greer addressed this fact in his original decision, pointing out that the Schindlers had the same financial interest in removing him as ward, since the $700,000 would then come to them. They would be under no obligation to keep Terri alive once they had control. So either one of the parties could have been acting out of financial motives. Or, as is more likely the case, neither are.
Michael Schiavo offered to give the $700,000 to charity to assure the parents that he wasn’t acting out of financial motives. The parents turned it down. He has also turned down at least one offer of $1 million to turn over guardianship to Terri Schiavo’s parents (his lawyers put other offers as high as $10 million). Any suggestion that Michael Schiavo is acting out of greed seems unlikely in light of these facts. (See Abstract Appeal for another take.)
Why is Michael Schiavo denying his wife care?
Three guardians ad litem, Richard Pearse, Jay Wolfson and John Pecarek, have reported on Terri Schiavo’s care. (Pecarek’s report is not available online; Pearse’s report; Wolfson’s report)
Pecarek reviewed Michael Schiavo’s guardianship in 1994 when the Schindlers attempted to remove Terri from Schiavo’s care. Pecarek found no reason to do so. Wolfson on Pecarek’s report:
"His report, issued 1 March 1994, found no inappropriate actions and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to Theresa."
Wolfson on the guardian hearing in general:
"Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael Schiavo. Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in the care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well-being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as ‘a nursing home administrator’s nightmare’. It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa’s collapse, she has never had a bedsore."
In 1998, Pearse confirmed that Terri Schiavo was well cared for, also mentioning that she "received regular therapy."
What about Michael Schiavo’s failure to treat Terri’s urinary tract infection?
From Jay Wolfson’s report:
"…Michael, in consultation with Theresa’s treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a ‘do not resuscitate’ order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility."
"Michael’s decision not to treat was based on discussions and consultation with Theresa’s doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned believe that there was no longer any hope for Theresa’s recovery."
Recall that Michael Schiavo’s guardianship was reviewed three times after this decision not to treat, and all three reviews concluded that his care was exemplary.
Shouldn’t an MRI be done to confirm the diagnosis?
Five physicians, including one independent expert and two physicians selected by the Schindlers, examined Terri Schiavo in 2002. If an MRI had been necessary, the two Schindler physicians could have ordered one. An MRI was only requested in one of the last appeals, basing it on a new Neurology article, fMRI reveals large-scale network activation in minimally conscious patients and the 17 doctor affidavits (see below).
Judge Greer’s response categorically lists all the problems with the request. To summarize, the Neurology article involves "minimally conscious" patients, whereas Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state, the 17 doctors based their opinion on the video shorts (see below), and Terri Schiavo has implants that would have to be removed by brain surgery before an MRI could be performed.
In reading the 17 affidavits (before they were taken offline at Terri’s Fight), I noted that those who recommended an MRI said only that it "might" be helpful. Not one expressed surprise that an MRI had not been performed or asserted that this was standard medical practice.
Is there some doubt as to her diagnosis?
Her two guardians ad litem, Richard Pearse and Jay Wolfson, have said unequivocally, after hours of evaluation and discussion with medical experts, that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state.
In 2002, the Schindlers had their chance to prove in court that Terri was not in a persistent vegetative state. While the appellate court had only ordered Judge Greer to determine if new treatment methods would work, he also chose to reaffirm the PVS diagnosis. The Schindlers chose two doctors; Michael Schiavo chose two. The judge appointed a fifth.
The independent doctor agreed with Schiavo’s two doctors that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. The Schindler doctors asserted that she was not. They based this finding on Terri Schiavo’s interaction with her mother, her ability to track a balloon, and so on. Judge Greer’s opinion indicates that he "carefully viewed" all the videotapes. He counted up the times that Dr. Hammesfahr (one of the Schindler doctors) gave Terri Schiavo a command (105), asked her a question (61), how many times her mother gave her a command (6), or asked a question (11). In all these cases, he observed: "The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions. " The appellate court confirmed this by viewing the tapes again.
The two Schindler doctors proposed their own therapeutic treatment that could possibly improve Terri’s chances. They could point to no case studies documenting their success, and they agreed that current science didn’t offer much hope. In both cases, their suggested treatment plans were, to put it kindly, experimental.
In other words, when the Schindlers had their best shot to challenge Terri Schiavo’s diagnosis and rehabilitation, they offered two unproven, experimental therapies. Either they couldn’t get any better, or they wasted an important opportunity.
What about the videotape?
The videotape segments that stirred up so much attention, the ones that are on TV all the time, show Terri Schiavo talking to her mother and apparently responding. These clips were culled and edited from four hours of videotaped footage of Terri Schiavo. The judge and the appellate court viewed all the footage; see the question above for the results.
No one has challenged the statement that the clips were edited from a much longer tape, and no one has challenged Judge Greer’s assessment of the longer tape.
What about the 17 doctors who say she should be retested?
The doctors who wrote affidavits, by their own admission, have not examined Terri Schiavo and base their opinion on the short videotape. Most of them have not examined her records. Some of them are plugging their own new therapy; at least two are plugging the same therapy that the two Schindler physicians suggested and that the judge rejected as insufficient.
What about the nurse who says that Michael Schiavo tried to kill her with insulin, neglected her, and denied her all care?
Carla Iyer’s affidavit states that Terri Schiavo spoke regularly, laughed and expressed pain, that her chart comments to this effect were whited out by other staff members, that she called the Schindlers to give them progress reports that Michael forbade, that Michael Schiavo was eager for his wife to die and poisoned her with insulin, that a nurse at the facility was complicit in Schiavo’s abuse, and that she reported this activity to the police and was fired for her pains.
She came forward to report this in late 2003; the Schindlers tried to get a new trial based in part on her affidavit. Judge Greer’s response to her charges:
"Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of [the] Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would ‘call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter’…..Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as she alleges."
How can the judge take Michael Schiavo’s word for Terri Schiavo’s wishes?
He didn’t just take Michael Schiavo’s word for it. Judge Greer accepted Richard Pearse’s GAL recommendation that Michael Schiavo’s unsupported word would not be enough to establish clear and convincing evidence. He accepted two other witnesses (both Schiavo siblings) who recalled Terri Schiavo’s comments on the Nancy Cruzan case. Two of Terri Schiavo’s friends reported Terri’s opinion about Karen Quinlan, but the judge rejected one as not credible (testimony changed between deposition and trial) and both as irrelevant, as Terri made the observations when she was a teenager.
Judges accept a spouse’s word in these situations all the time, often with no other support.
Why did Judge Greer dismiss the GALs?
Richard Pearse, the first GAL, determined that Michael Schiavo’s "credibility is adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the ward’s sole heir at law in the event of her death while still married to him".
Michael Schiavo asked that Pearse be dismissed for bias because he failed to mention that Schiavo had committed to donate all his inheritance to charity, or observe that the Schindlers had a similar financial bias. Jay Wolfson’s report noted that it was a "well-pleaded case for bias".
The judge discharged Mr. Pearse but did not disregard his findings. Judge Greer does mention that "Mr. Pearse readily agreed that he has feelings and viewpoints regarding the withdrawal of feeding and hydration tubes and that he did not so advise the court prior to his appointment", which suggests that Pearse had other conflicts.
He dismissed Jay Wolfson, according to Wolfson himself, because " once the Florida Supreme Court struck down Terri’s Law his efforts were moot. "
Why is Michael Schiavo still allowed to make decisions for his wife when he abused her/hasn’t been faithful to her?
Judge Greer ruled that the abuse issue was irrelevant, and there’s no definitive ruling on whether or not Michael Schiavo abused his wife. As to whether or the abuse caused Terri Schiavo’s condition, most experts think it most likely that she had a heart attack brought on by her bulimia. Matt at Abstract Appeal reminds everyone of the malpractice lawsuit:
"The significance of the medical malpractice lawsuit can be seen in a few ways. A jury agreed that bulimia caused Terri’s collapse. The defendants were her doctors — one might think that they, of all people, would have been able to show that Terri had been beaten or strangled if that was what had occurred."
Michael Schiavo has had relationships with other women, and is engaged to a woman with whom he had two children. However, all the investigators have uniformly praised Michael Schiavo’s care of his wife. From Judge Greer’s original opinion ruling that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube must be removed:
"It is also interesting to note that Mr. Chiavo continues to be the most regular visitor to his wife even though he is criticized for wanting to remove her life support. Dr. Gambone even noted that close attention to detail has resulted in her excellent physical condition and that Petitioner is very involved."
So you’re on Michael Schiavo’s side?
I’m on the side of the law. The law defines a procedure. Michael Schiavo, the Schindlers, and the courts all followed that procedure. I don’t support intervention because the Schindlers and others didn’t get the outcome they wanted. I wouldn’t support Michael Schiavo if the positions were reversed.
For the record, I’m agnostic on the right to die. My public policy position is that many people clearly want the option, and the states should ensure that they have that right, while still protecting those who can’t speak for themselves. My personal position is that my family can make whatever decision they think best, should I not be able to decide for myself. I don’t know that I could ever withdraw nutrition from a loved one, and can’t imagine promising to do so.
To determine your position, I offer up a few hypotheticals:
- Assume all facts are the same, but Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers agree that the feeding tube should be removed.
- Assume all facts are the same, the Schindlers oppose the feeding tube removal, but Terri Schiavo left a detailed living will that specified she would want the feeding tube removed if she were in a persistent vegetative state.
- Assume that Michael Schiavo has remained completely faithful to his wife all these years, but still testifies that she told him she would want to die in these circumstances, and the Schindlers still oppose him.
If your opinion switches from opposition to support in these hypotheticals, then your opposition is based on the circumstances in this case. So ask yourself: do you really think that you know more about the case from the media coverage and court documents than the judges who actually reviewed all the evidence? It’s one thing to acknowledge that the judicial system has the occasional flaw; it’s quite another to say that over a dozen judges have actively ignored evidence that proves Michael Schiavo wants to end his wife’s life on a whim.
If you still oppose the removal of the feeding tube in these hypotheticals, then you presumably oppose all decisions of this nature. However, the courts have applied the law as it is currently written. Why not work to change the laws, rather than believe, despite all the review, that Terri Schiavo has been denied due process or is the victim of activist pro-death judges?
Congress has chosen to spend a huge amount of time intervening in one case, thus implicitly devaluing every other person who has died in these identical circumstances, and for no other reason than they don’t like the Florida court’s decision.
Hardly a day goes by when Michelle "Little Lulu" Malkin doesn’t write something incredibly duplicitious or illogical. Yesterday was no exception:
One of the pro-abortion Left’s favorite attacks on people of faith is that we only care about children before they’re born and not afterwards.
Hint to Malkin: linking to a Google search (search=anti-abortion+only+care+about+children+before+they+are+born) is pretty lame to begin with, but if you must, then make sure the results reflect what you claim. I could claim, for example, that Republicans fart all day long, and google a search that Republicans fart all day long as "evidence" of this. But the fact that I get tens of thousands of "hits" means nothing since, upon inspection, very few of them actually make a statement to that effect.
Perhaps this is why the mainstream media has ignored the amazing stories of pro-life activists who have been keeping vigil outside Terri Schiavo’s hospice–people like Steve and Tony Sakac, the Withey family, and the Anderson sisters who won’t ever appear on the front page of the New York Times or Washington Post.
Michelle would like it if the New York Times and the Washington Post put a headline informing people that disabled people exist. This was apparently "news" to Michelle.
And it explains why the MSM has ignored the humanitarian work of the Life Legal Defense Foundation and the life-affirming of evangelical groups such as Joni and Friends, which advocates for the disabled.
That’s what pisses Michelle off. The fact that the media isn’t turning the Schiavo matter into free advertising for comparatively small advocacy groups. Oh, and Michelle? I noticed this at the Joni and Friends website: "Joni also has been interviewed by the New York Times regarding the Terri Schiavo case. The article will appear in the Religion section in the Wednesday, March 23rd edition, by Lorie Goldstein, the Religion Editor."
Instead, we get pieces like this Associated Press report–which treats pro-life activists as freaks and editorializes disapprovingly that demonstrators have brought children "some too young to truly understand why they are there."
Pray tell — which of the pro-life activists is a "freak", according to the article? Heck, even I don’t think that!
For millions of Americans of faith of all ages, standing up for the sanctity of life is not just an empty slogan–but a deeply-held principle put into action daily. The MSM had ample opportunity to tell the stories of some of the inspiring people who have stood vigil outside Terri Schiavo’s hospice. Instead, as they have done throughout this ordeal, they looked the other way.
Yes, the MSM "looked the other way" by not reporting on Schiavo protesters, except for the article you mentioned as well as all of these articles.
Michelle, you are just one big lying baby whose knickers are perpetually in a twist — aren’t you honey?
