Bill;

Please dude... don't take us there

i am still trying to cope with images of sully cruising leather bars

But Sully's partly right. The hysteria of the Right, the demonizing of Michael Schiavo - whom I hope has a good libel lawyer - & the characterization of anyone who accedes to the wisdom of the courts as slavering for Terri's death, the grotesque invocations of Auschwitz, the cavalier disregard of 30 years of states' rights lip service: the Religious Right has morphed into the Angry Left. And may end up doing to the Republicans what MoveOn did to the Dems.

I can equate some of the folks in the schindler's trenches mentally to the moron.org types yeah

Jeff is right, and this is exactly the way the GOP is going to screw 2008; spending political capital is one thing, but disregarding the law, as well as your own accustions toward exactly this kind of behavior when the opposition exhibited it, is a sure plan for losing elections.

Bill, glad to see you're feeling better, Baboonicide looks tiring (though entertaining)
Ouch, that was harsh, brother!

Totten's also disgusted

Baboonicide looks tiring (though entertaining)
Ouch, that was harsh, brother!

I considered it ultimately merciful. And he really left me little choice.

...and Totten's correct. I came to the same political conlcusion as he and voted to end terrorism and UN inertia, but knowing this is the baggage that came with it--I can't fathom voting for even a moderate-posing Barack next time, however.

So, Sully is partly, if hyperbolically, correct... but, Bill, let's leave wondering whether he can sit down or not to others better acquainted---in Provincetown, I'm guessing, this question comes right after, "What the hell did I drink last night?"

Alas poor Glenn, I knew him well. Glenn runs right smack into a tree and does not even realize it. Glenn writes, correctly, the the Florida Courts, or George Greer's court, are in charge of Mrs. Schiavo's life.

This dispite the inconvient fact that the Florida legislature have passed a law to save Mrs. Schiavo's life and it was signed by the governor. Two out the the three branches of the Florida government want Mrs. Schiavo's life spared. Yet one judge, Greer, aided and abetted by the judicial system, is bound and determine to have Mrs. Schiavo killed.

The Florida has an elected legislature and an elected governor and they legal the legal power to stop a runaway judge from killing an innocent woman.

We have stopped being a nation of laws and merely become one of judges. Mrs. Schiavo is even denied the opportunity for clemency which could be granted a convicted criminal.

Andrew. Just go away.

Yes, Glenn's post is excellent. Even though I disagree with him about this case, he makes a principled argument, and doesn't demonize those on the other side.

I think I disagree with Glenn (and perhaps Bill) mainly because I give "process" lower priority. Which is more important to defend: states' rights or individual rights?

To simply shrug and say "oh well" when the process produces a result that seems to unjustly and cruelly take an innocent person's life seems to me immoral.

If one person's life is not worth "trampling the Constitution" (and I don't accept that hyperbolic characterization of what has been done here), how many would be enough?

The Florida has an elected legislature and an elected governor and they legal the legal power to stop a runaway judge from killing an innocent woman.

And Florida elects its judges. With matters Schiavo being the primary election issue, Pinellas Co. Judge George Greer -- a Bible-belieinv baptist and Republican -- was re-elected last year by a margin of 65%. Some "runaway" judge.

Ok, here's my take -

Sully may be "partly" right, but I'm not worried that we're headed towards "theocracy" any time soon; secularists will push back, and the balance will be restored. In the meantime, people go a bit overboard with the namecalling, though it's sorely tempting human nature to get into that.

I'd be lying if I wasn't a bit alarmed by some of the religious figures spitting and threatening revolt from picket lines in Florida.

As for this:

Which is more important to defend: states' rights or individual rights?

That's the way you choose to frame the issue. It's dependent on several assumptions:

1. Terri Schiavo DID want to be kept alive in a PVS.

2. Terri Schiavo is merely a mentally handicapped person, as opposed to a shell with no consciousness or awareness.

Among others ...

It could be that you are right, but you could also be wrong. And as Reynolds likes to state, unless we've been in the various courtrooms and heard the testimony, it's rather hard for any of us to judge from an informed perspective.

So while I understand the individual rights angle and impulse to defend it (after all, I've been big on that of late), I just don't feel like I have a comfort with the facts of the case to assume that her rights have been violated, or that there is "anyone home" in her head, the standard Krauthammer mentioned to determine human "life."

The so-called christian taliban aren't any more extreme than the Leftwing fundamentalists are. In fact, less. The Christian fundies have a history that goes back to the founding of our country. The Leftwing fundies, on the other hand, are a recent phenomenon going back maybe 30-40 years. That's why it's only now that religion in the public sphere is being found "unconstitutional." Our government is secular, yes, but our culture and society has always been quite religious, and still is.

It could be that you are right, but you could also be wrong.

Yes, and it could be that you are right, but you could also be wrong.

I absolutely agree. That is the point. So let's err on the side of life.

And as Reynolds likes to state, unless we've been in the various courtrooms and heard the testimony, it's rather hard for any of us to judge from an informed perspective.

Most of us have never been in a cabinet meeting, or a congressional smoke-filled room either, and we all hold strong opinions, argue, and occasionally take to the streets to protest decisions made there. This is why I find odd the "how dare they" attacks on Congress, the Florida legislature, Governor/President Bush, and citizens who want Terri spared, painting their strong objection to this decision as somehow illegitimate. Although you have denied taking the position that the decisions of the courts are somehow infallible or beyond question, it seems the courts themselves are quite convinced of it.

"1. Terri Schiavo DID want to be kept alive in a PVS."

How do you know that is what Terri wanted? The judge found that she wanted that, but even you have to admit that the judge could be mistaken. 5 people testified as to her wishes, three in favor of her wanted to die, and two who said she didn't want to. The judge weighted the people who said she wanted to die in favor of that, but there isn't any huge proof that it is what she wanted. If it was a criminal case, a conviction on this evidence would not have even been possible.

The PVS stuff on the other hand sounds pretty sound.

Just Me -

Are you addressing me? If so, I'll hope you reread my comment.

"That's the way you choose to frame the issue. It's dependent on several assumptions:"

I was referring to LagunaDave's assumptions, given his earlier comment.

Most of us have never been in a cabinet meeting, or a congressional smoke-filled room either, and we all hold strong opinions, argue, and occasionally take to the streets to protest decisions made there.

And a good portion of the time, many people should keep their mouths shut about things that they have insufficent information about ...

The aspects of proposed legislation can be worked out via the distance of the internet and the media. The testimony in the Terry Schiavo case, along with the intricacies of her diagnosis are topics that I've had trouble easily coalescing into a coherent narrative, and let's just say that I tend to be very good about that.

You don't KNOW what Schiavo's mental state is. You don't KNOW what she may or may not have said to her husband. So, it's pretty strange that so many people act like they presume to know, without even intimate familiarity with all of the testimony surrounding the case, much less mind reading skills or specialized medical degrees.

You don't KNOW what Schiavo's mental state is. You don't KNOW what she may or may not have said to her husband. So, it's pretty strange that so many people act like they presume to know, without even intimate familiarity with all of the testimony surrounding the case, much less mind reading skills or specialized medical degrees.

I don't think you'll find I've ever claimed to know any of those things.

The case for putting Terri to death requires that kind of certainty. I don't think that any burden of proof whatsoever needs to be met to let her live.

Tie goes to the runner. Err on the side of life.

Tie goes to the runner. Err on the side of life.

She's been determined to be in PVS... that's not a tie. And I'd rather err on the side of the law than let a judge ignore it because his conscience tells him otherwise.

She's been determined to be in PVS

Ah yes the authorative passive voice.

Until just recently I did not know that PVS could include wakeful eyes tracking objects, facial expressions and vocalizations. Apparently if they are all random rather than responsive it's all included now. Sounds like spec creep to me.

So one group say it's all random and another says responsive. A perfect situation for each side to read the tea leaves and see what they want.

It's just hard for me to get past the simple logic: if there's someone there, starving is wrong. Nobody there? then no problem either way.

"Just Me -

Are you addressing me? If so, I'll hope you reread my comment."

Oops, yes looks like I misunderstood your post.

And I'd rather err on the side of the law than let a judge ignore it because his conscience tells him otherwise.

Some would see it more as a question of which law(s) the judges chose to ignore, along with their consciences.

It's just hard for me to get past the simple logic: if there's someone there, starving is wrong. Nobody there? then no problem either way.

Precisely.

Precisely.

So why do you assume that "someone's home?"

So why do you assume that "someone's home?"

I don't.

But I also don't presume to know that someone's not, or to know what may be possible in the future.

I think there is a small, but non-zero, chance that she could recover, by one or both of natural processes and future breakthroughs in treatment.

To rule that out a priori seems to me the presumptuous position.

It it (or rather, was) conceivable that Terri could live another 50 years or more. How far have we come in the last 50?

LagunaDave -

Advances in medical technology are increasing at an exponential pace, so fast that many actually predict the possibility of something as wacky as human immortality within a century. But a stumbling block of keeping Ms. Schiavo alive until such time as they might be able to regenerate the liquefied portions of her brain is defining the concept of what makes her her.

Theoretically, because the regrowth of destroyed portions of the brain would not restore memory, it would almost create a new person. It's an interesting possibility to ponder.

defining the concept of what makes her her.

Whatever sees through your eyes and feels what you touch is neither material nor understood. If the brain is the hardware then thinking is software; and as someone who has written an operating system and designed a DSP I have no clue what consiousness or sentience are and niether do you. It may well reside in the visual cortex for all anyone knows.

I have no clue what consiousness or sentience are and niether do you.

That's not entirely correct. The brain is still a relatively mysterious organ, but memories don't stay in some magical dimension, rushing back once a new repository grows into place. The frontal lobe is considered a repository of personality (as well as voluntary movement, language, socialization, etc), the parietal lobe governs sensation, etc., and even though "memory" is not restricted to one part of the brain, the temporal lobe (and hippocampus) is considered the main seat of memory.

So if one or all of these structures are largely liquidated, it would be a pretty reasonable conclusion that Terry Schiavo - or at least the memories that made up the personality of the old Terry - are dead.

And if technology had the ability to regrow these portions of the brain at some point, it's pretty much impossible that she would sit up and say "Hi mom, hi dad. Do I still live on Sycamore Lane?"

I wasn't referring to memory or even thought. Those have analogs in computing I'm familiar with. The set of attributes that makes Terri a unique individual are very likely gone forever. I meant whatever it is that felt what she touched and saw through her eyes. That's a little harder to quantify. That's what nobody knows how to make or even what it is.

I know hard core materialists deny there is anything other than stimulus and response, but if my existance is an illusion it's a damn good one cause it sure fools me (unless I don't exist in which case how could I be fooled into believing the illusion?).

I echo our host's remarks, generally, however, regardless of Ms. Schiavo's chances of near miraculous "improvement", and disregarding any secular sci-fi miracles, take a long look at the bigger picture- I defer to Mr. Steyn- ' ''Driving down there, I remember distinctly thinking that Chris would rather not live than be in this condition.'' That's Barbara Johnson recalling the 1995 accident of her son Christopher Reeve. Her instinct was to pull the plug; his was to live." ' Today, Chicago-Sun Times-
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn271.html

Theoretically, because the regrowth of destroyed portions of the brain would not restore memory, it would almost create a new person. It's an interesting possibility to ponder.

Yes, interesting surely, but I don't see the real relevance to the question at hand.

Were Terri to recover some form of consciousness, her parents and siblings would love her just the same, and she would likely return their love, even if it were more like the love of newborn baby than an adult child.

We are probably running out of things to argue about, and it appears that Terri's death is now inevitable.

A couple interesting things happened to me in the last few days that I'd like to share.

I dreamt about Terri the other night. She was still bedridden, but was able to talk. Her parents were there with her, and they were happy. That's about all I remember. When I woke up, I rushed to check the news. Unfortunately, it was only a dream.

I also got an email from my mother today, who I hadn't heard from in about six weeks. She's a Pentecostal minister who runs her own Bible school (to train other ministers) in the Philippines. I, of course, am a complete atheist (she converted when I was finishing high-school, so I wasn't raised according to the beliefs she holds now). She poured out her deep anguish and misgivings about how Terri is being starved to death, which could have been verbatim copies of many things I've posted here. I found that odd (but reassuring), since we are not all that close these days.

What was more surprising was that she said she had heard from a fellow minister, who she respected very much, who voiced the opinion that the whole controversy was "silly" and "of course" the feeding tube should have been pulled. My mother was shocked by this.

Anyway, I found it interesting that apparently a fundamentalist and an atheist agree, while two fellow fundamentalists don't.

The message, apparently, is that this case cuts across the simple caricatures we usually accept about right/left and Christian/secular orthodoxy. We have libertarians like Glenn Reynolds holding forth on how "the process" trumps concerns about individual rights, and paleo-moonbats like Ralph Nader calling for Terri's life to be saved.

Finally, Tom Maguire raises a provocative question:

What if Terri Schiavo were black?

Are you kidding? Would Dems be telling an angry black family that (a) states rights are paramount; (b) the Florida courts can be trusted; and (c) the medical community can be trusted to have the best interests of black people in mind? Uh huh.

Indeed.

Yes, interesting surely, but I don't see the real relevance to the question at hand.

To ponder the possibility?

And LagunaDave, I'm a bit sick of these characterizations:

We have libertarians like Glenn Reynolds holding forth on how "the process" trumps concerns about individual rights,

Glenn Reynolds is saying "no such thing" about the value of "individual rights." Glenn Reynolds is essentially saying that he has no idea whether or not her individual rights have been violated, as that would require an intimate familiarity with the 15 years of medical decisions and litigation in the case.

Dave - please outline exactly what the strengths and weaknesses were in the testimony that led a Florida Court, Terry Schiavo's appointed guardian and the various iterations of appeals courts to determine that she would not want to live that way, and then please contrast it with the merits of evidence that suggests the opposite or a neutral position.

You may need to explain all this in several pages, so if you need to e-mail me, feel free.

As I have stated before - if one accepts that a merely mentally handicapped person that still has cognition and/or hope for improvement is being put to death, it is a terrible injustice. If the woman indeed has no higher brain function, then I see nothing immoral about letting go of this woman's shell.

I just do not feel that I have the appropriate information to make this decision.

And regarding process - death and injustice take place in this society every day, in far more egregious ways than the litigation surrounding this case. We do not live in a banana republic where laws - and a decade of legal process - are overturned because CNN decides to cover a specific case, and individuals decide to fetishize a particularly painful family legal struggle as a symbol for larger narratives.

I defer to Mr. Steyn

Yes, Steyn pretty much nails it. Again.

It would be one thing had a doctor decided to reach for the morphine and ''put her out of her misery'' after a week in her diminished state; after 15 years, for the courts to treat her like a Death Row killer who's exhausted her appeals is simply vile.

That it is.

boris -

It would be one thing had a doctor decided to reach for the morphine and ''put her out of her misery'' after a week in her diminished state;

As far as I am aware, she is on plenty of morphine right now. And many of the same folks that are arguing about "erring on the side of life" (which may possibly be appropriate in this case) are also virulently against any form of merciful euthanasia.

Bill,

As an act of mercy euthanasia is not a problem with me. As a government or health care policy it's a bad idea. Doctors may routinely guide suffering and terminal patients to a point where they can simply let go. The few religious right folk I know don't object to that.

I think Mark's point is that the opportunity for death with dignity or satisfying Terri's wishes was 15 yrs ago. Take those issues off the table and what's left for changing the status quo is rather distasteful.

It would appear that a judge will only uphold laws which are best defended by the better attorney.

What it really means is that we can now take the concept of 'fake but accurate' into our courts of law and if defended by a big gun attorney with an agenda to serve, well, we are all out of luck when it comes to the law or the courts willing enough to defend the facts.

As the example was set in Terri's case, the judge had no factual evidence available to base his decision on what Terri wanted, he instead relied on the hearsay of a husband who, on the one hand, had already violated Terri's wishes for seven years by keeping her alive and when that he grew tired of keeping her alive he then, on the other hand, left his legal wife years ago so he could have the freedom to produce children with a healthly common law wife.

How could the judge possibly not see the insanity of using such an outrageous witness as Michael to testify on behalf of Terri.

Remember how in the 'TANG lynch mob got to get GW Bush out of office' mentalitity hearing how people defended using a secretary who was defending the forged documents which were fake but accurate representations about the intent of her boss and his thoughts regarding Geroge Bush?

Again, if a judge is not given clear evidence as to the facts he should not be allowed to rule in favor of that which is not clearly factual.

But hey, forget the government, if anything, it's the law we are bound to uphold, meaning we are all at the mercy of agenda-driven big-gun attorneys and short-sighted judges.

Notwithstanding all the other arguments here on both sides of the Schiavo issue, I hope I'm not the only one that finds Barney Frank's change of tune ironic. Last week:

"This is a terrible, terrible personal situation. I cannot think of one less suitable for intervention by 536 elected officials -- the president of the United States, the Senate and the House."

"I think we should look into this and very possibly legislate it," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who opposed Congressional action in the Schiavo case. Mr. Frank was speaking on Sunday on the ABC News program "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." Mr. Frank added: "I think Congress needs to do more. Because I've spoken with a lot of disability groups who are concerned that, even where a choice is made to terminate life, it might be coerced by circumstances."

Dave - please outline exactly what the strengths and weaknesses were in the testimony that led a Florida Court, Terry Schiavo's appointed guardian and the various iterations of appeals courts to determine that she would not want to live that way, and then please contrast it with the merits of evidence that suggests the opposite or a neutral position.

You may need to explain all this in several pages, so if you need to e-mail me, feel free.

I think you see the issues as more complicated than I do. You are talking about legality, while I am talking about right and wrong. Surely you would admit the possibility of a distinction between the two.

The objections to the details of the process have been written about ad nauseum, all over the internet. There seems little need to recite the litany all over. I take no position on any specific claim, testimony, or evidence.

There is one undisputed fact, however, which exposes a fatal flaw in the process, as far as I'm concerned, and it can be concisely stated in one sentence:

Terri Schiavo did not testify.

You accuse me of fetishizing Terri's life. I might accuse you of fetishizing the law, Judge Greer's infallibility as a finder of fact, or (in another thread) the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. One man's "fetish" is another's deeply held principle.

Tom Maguire sums it up:

My basic position has been, the legal result - a husband effectively ordering the termination of his spouse over the objections of the mother, father, brother, and sister - shocks the conscience, or my conscience, anyway.

And furthermore:

Look, we are going to agree to force Terri S. to die because, although we don't know what she would have wanted, a court has decided to give more credence to the testimony of the husband (and a few friends).

That strikes me as deeply wrong. And as I said before, when my sense of right and wrong is determined by the laws of the state of Florida as decided by the judges of Florida, I will post the appropriate announcement.