Wow. That is just about the single worst thing you can say about someone.

Bingo. I stayed out of this one and also the evolution "April Fools gag", and my blog is TITLED evolution, for Pete's sake.

The reason: I don't debate idiots.

I think people like you and I have more in common with principled liberals than with elements of the GOP, and the extremes of both parties have more in common with each other than with us.

So is this supposed to be about Paul or the slippery slope?

I won't comment on Paul.

But you misunderstand slippery slopes.

The slippery slope is that the thing at the top of the slope is what is considered to be the legal/acceptable thing. The people who are for this thing, deny that there is a slope there, the people against say, "yes you support this today under these circumstances, but just one step down that hill, is this, and before you know it, we will be supporting that too."

This case is the first slide down that slope.

The scary thing is that this case probably isn't really the first slide, but the first one that got media coverage, which is probably the real legacy of the Terri Schiavo case. We are going to realize just how often non terminally ill, non comatose and non vegitative people are getting their tubes yanked, because they are disabled enough to be a burden to somebody.

The Schiavo case, and this one, and the ones to follow are really about quality of life, and who gets to decide who is worthy to live and who isn't.

So is this supposed to be about Paul or the slippery slope?

Both? I had to explain my position on the slippery slope in order to point out why Paul is being unreasonable in his attack on me.

As for the rest of your comment - that's fine, there will be some pretty tricky medical ethics cases coming our way, and hopefully the debate about these issues will be strong and reasonable, without the inaccuracy and inflammatory rhetoric of the Schiavo divide. But crazy and unjust things happen in society all the time (it tends to happen when you throw 300 million folks together on a continent), and it's premature to cherrypick small examples to describe a scary trend.

When that convict recently went on a rampage, cable news went on an attack about "weak courtroom security across the nation." Similarly, shark attacks? School shootings?

Let's dig up some data and look into the specifics of cases before we make sweeping judgments about our society.

But crazy and unjust things happen in society all the time

So Shaivo was justified but this one is crazy and unjust. Isolated and unrelated events to you but indication of a trend to others less nuanced.

Trend or not, both expose the same flaw in the system which you fail to acknowledge. When a term like vegetative can be legally and medically applied to animated entities, postmodern symbolism overrides logic and reaonable debate becomes impossible.

Let's see, boris -

So Shaivo was justified but this one is crazy and unjust.

Who said that Schiavo was justified? Are you making that argument?

This is why I despise debating you, because while I address your points, you attack the points that I only make in your head.

Isolated and unrelated events to you but indication of a trend to others less nuanced.

Drop the caveman conservative-moralist "nuanced" horseshit - most rational analysts understand that two data points do not necessarily make a trend.

As for the vegetative line, I won't get into it, because you'll just interpret anything that I say incorrectly and set up a strawman about the Schiavo case. Suffice it to say that there are plenty of "animated entities" in the universe that neither think nor feel, and some of them were animals or humans at one point, so your statement isn't inherently meaningful.

Who is Paul from Wizbang? These elements, combined with his consistent hostility, gloriously torched strawmen, inaccuracy and tendency to delete comments and shut out honest debate make him ... the Oliver Willis of the right-wing blogosphere.

Sounds about right to me. While reading either, I often find it hard to formulate a response, because my right eye keeps twitching so violently. Think "Tweak" from South Park meets Chief Inspector Dreyfus from the Pink Panther movies.

Unfortunately, Paul's presence seems to have affected the tone of commenters on all Wizbang entries.

You cannot compare this to Terri Schiavo's situation.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you'll really believe it.

Posted by: McGehee at April 8, 2005 09:14 PM

Zing!

I got into an argument with Paul via e-mail once, and that's when I learned just what kind of person he is. I said "well, you're not really taking the other side into consideration at all here," and he said "It's not about what they believe! It's about how they want to murder a sick woman!" And that's when I realized the kind of person I was talking to.

Kevin is the pretty level-headed guy who runs the show, and he describes Jay as "the essayest", which is pretty accurate. He also says that Paul is there to "add bite" to political commentary. And that basically sums Paul up--while Kevin and Jay write things with actual content, Paul rants and raves to get more hits.

Your five bullet points sum him up.

Er, I hate to sound like I'm taking sides, but you might want to retract your comment about reading comprehension problems.

Paul says at his post at Wizbang:

Here is the crux of the argument between the two sides of the family. Ken's mother went thru this exact problem 2 years ago. She was treated at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, which is considered the 5th best coronary hospital in the nation. The docs at UAB treated her without surgery and the dissection sealed itself.

Ken's side of the family want Mae brought to UAB for treatment. They had arranged for a life flight from Georgia to Alabama and UAB had accepted Mae as a patient. When the granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, heard they were going to do this, she went to the local judge (who has never been to law school or passed the bar) and got herself named guardian.

The granddaughter says, "Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus.

you might want to retract your comment about reading comprehension problems.

Why exactly?

My comment about reading comprehension was regarding Paul's misinterpretation of the intent and point of my comment on Ace's site. Also, my post reiterates both conditions that you mention, so I doubt that you are attacking my ability. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Or am I just not a very clear writer?

Nuanced?

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."

You seem to be saying she may not have a right to live if there isn't "anyone home". I also picked up on "It's no big deal compared to all the other bad stuff that happens".

Regardless of whether it's a trend or not, something is amiss and you're dancing around your sombrero.

Do these two recent stories in a society of 300 million people really indicate a gain in momentum on the slippery slope towards killing the "inconvenient?" It's possible that this is the case, but are there statistics to back up this assertion?

You seem to be saying she may not have a right to live if there isn't "anyone home".

Yes, I am. If a body is merely a body, I AM saying that. It's sick to keep what is essentially an animated corpse alive indefinitely. The question in the Schiavo case was whether or not Terry was merely a severely mentally retarded woman with any awareness or hope of recovery sentenced to death by the state, or whether or not she was merely a functioning body with absolutely no consciousness. Typically individuals in the case fall on one side or the other of that assumption, and given the fact that there were some tests that remained undone and a semblance of medical debate, I didn't feel comfortable making that judgment.

Frankly, if you believe that we should animate and/or care for bodies without brains or any redeemable consciousness whatsover, just to fetishize the memory of the person that was, then I feel that there may be something wrong with you. That's simply ghoulish.

Bill, I'm afraid that once there are sufficient statistics to justify a slippery slope argument that it is too late. We're well on the way down the slope.

Right, which is why slippery slope arguments are so often abused.

I'm not talking about a sample of thousands upon thousands of egregiously abusive cases, rather some trend that justifies national, logical outrage that extends beyond whatever someone may cull from the news in a country of 300 million people.

C'mon, let's be reasonable here.

C'mon, let's be reasonable here.

You go first.

I'm very reasonable. You're the one that evidently wants to animate corpses.

I'd just like to point out that while "slippery slope" arguments are not a formal logical fallacy —because they are not actually a logical argument— they are often included on lists of fallacies because of their obvious openess to abuse.

I would say that such arguments are just plain lazy. They avoid debating the issue at hand and instead substitute an extreme condition (i.e. culture of DEATH) that no one in their right mind would defend, under the pretext that the two are linked in some obvious way that makes the one reducible to the other.

Of course it's never quite that obvious.

I believe it was Prof Eugene Volokh who wrote a brilliant defense of the slippery slope argument.

It isn't what's happening with Ms. Schiavo or Mae Magourik. It's the thousands - yes thousands- of other cases that occur and are occuring that should be of concern to anyone who values anything about our culture.

This group is the ONLY hospice watchdog group I can find. And their nightmare chronicles of the disposal of human beings against the wishes of the patient and family should make decent people wretch.

http://www.hospicepatients.org/euth-center.html

You want to stick your head in the sand go ahead. Just don't belittle the rest of us for trying.

Methinks the post is less about the issue than it is part of the dogpile on Wizbang's Paul, which I personally am tired of reading. So he sucks, so he's funny, so he's "biting", so he's brutish, so what?

Save that for more entertaining targets. Like Oliver Willis himself.

This is beyond a "slippery slope", and it's pretty unbelievable that many haven't caught up with the memory of T-4 Euthanasia and "never again". Perhaps you're too young, or it never hit your radar when you were in school. Superhawk made the important point; this isn't about two anomalies in the system, this is about two cases that have been exposed; as merely part and parcel of thousands who have been quietly murdered in hospices across the country as "inconvenient" or that their "quality of life" was not significant enough. Mae's nephew took notice of Terri's plight for a few moments, thinking the same thing. And then it happened to someone in his family. The T-4 poster said it all: "This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the people 60,000 Reichmarks during his lifetime. People, that is your money."

Dr. Cranford, the doctor who's a PVS specialist because he can find PVS in just about anyone, is all about murdering people with alzheimer's disease: Years before he categorized Terri Schindler Schiavo in the persistent vegetative state, which led to her death by dehydration, neurologist Dr. Ronald Cranford was building the case for removing feeding tubes from society’s vulnerable.

“…The United States has thousands or tens of thousands of patients in vegetative states; nobody knows for sure exactly how many,” Cranford wrote in a 1997 Minneapolis Star Tribune opinion piece titled: When a feeding tube borders on the barbaric. (WorldNetDaily. Com, March 23, 2005). “But before long, this country will have several million patients with Alzheimer’s dementia. The challenges and costs of maintaining vegetative state patients will pale in comparison to the problems presented by Alzheimer’s disease.

“The answer," he suggested, was "physician-assisted suicide.”

chadster -

Methinks the post is less about the issue than it is part of the dogpile on Wizbang's Paul, which I personally am tired of reading. So he sucks, so he's funny, so he's "biting", so he's brutish, so what?

Then go read another blog.

Seriously, nothing causes me to break out my microscopic violin more quickly than someone bitching that my posts aren't interesting enough. And I find it entertaining that you think that Willis is more "entertaining." Why, because he's a "lefty?" What I'm putting forth here is that Paul and Oliver are the two sides of the same coin, thus their "entertainment" value should be about equal. Unless you're strictly an ideologue, that is.

And if you notice, Paul fired at me, and I returned.

Cao -

Is that quote from Cranford supposed to scare everyone?

Have you ever looked at the issues surrounding the stress on our medical system? The distribution of resources? And tell me, if you are such an advocate for life at all costs, what is your position on universal healthcare?

Would you be willing to sacrifice the young for the old that have spiralled beyond current medical treatment?

And what about the poor and uninsured - do they have the right to life too? And if so, who pays?

These are just some of the questions that need to be dealt with if you want to get into debating the evils of keeping all Alzheimmer's (and other similar) patients alive indefinitely. You can't simply label the man a murderer and walk away unless you are willing to unequivocally state that every human being deserves to have medical care paid for them by the government, in all cases.

Otherwise, guess what? By your standards, YOU are an advocate of murderer.

If there are "thousands - yes thousands" of other cases where ill, mentally impaired, PVS, etc., patients are being murdered, where are the statistics? Even the hospice patients web site cited above only provides a few examples, and I didn't even see any claims on their site to support the claim that this is happening to "thousands" of people.

To be clear, just like Bill, I don't support wrongfully administering drugs which will end in the patient's death, or removing life support wrongfully, but the dispute over Terri Schiavo which kicked all of this off is over what's wrongful and what isn't.

And even though I doubt the claim there are thousands of examples of these types of murder, and that each instance is wrong, if the point is that this constitutes a trend, I'll dispute that, too. If we turn "thousands" into a concrete number, let's say 5,000, then consider that that is 0.00167% of the US population.

So I don't believe there's a trend, and at any rate, I don't care about a trend. I'm against people being wrongfully killed, whether it's 1 or 5,000,000. The debate should be over what's wrongful and what isn't.

And I like and respect Kevin Aylward too much to discuss Paul.

Bill just listening to people from your perspective make the argument for tube pulling, starvation, dehydration etc from the bottom line perspective is scary.

I really don't want to live in a country that makes decisions as to who is too disabled to deserve life based on the bottom line. That is just too close to eugenics for my taste.

Maybe it is because I have a disabled child myself, and because I really don't want somebody like you deciding that he costs the system too much money, and his quality of life must really suck, so lets just deny him nourishment and send him home to Jesus to put him out of his misery.

And I find it entertaining that you think that Willis is more "entertaining." Why, because he's a "lefty?" What I'm putting forth here is that Paul and Oliver are the two sides of the same coin, thus their "entertainment" value should be about equal. Unless you're strictly an ideologue, that is.

Straight up, B-dawg. As we all are, when it boils down to it. I'd classify myself as a Chadstertarian. You might be classified as an Ardelinite.

I just think that the recent Paul-pile is stupid, is all. Maybe it's a meme I missed, but I don't recall people comparing him to Willis and such before the stupid evolution posts and contrastingly brilliant April Fools gag. Certainly not before the elections.

But that's just me. I find biting jerks worth a read (Misha, anyone?), overbearing jerks worth a chuckle, and lefty jerks worth a belly laugh. Thus spoke Chadster, and all the other Chadsters said "Amen."

Just Me -

Do you listen to what you're actually saying?

I really don't want to live in a country that makes decisions as to who is too disabled to deserve life based on the bottom line. That is just too close to eugenics for my taste.M

It's REALITY. In your estimation, Hillary Clinton is perhaps more about a culture of life (disregarding abortion issues) than 99% of conservatives, because her and other democrats are for universal healthcare.

These noble ideals about keeping everyone alive indefinitely with the best treatment are simply at odds with reality. Discussing it may be "scary," but the discussion is something that needs take place. We live in a capitalist society with distributed and limited resources.

As I said, this is merely reality. The stresses on the healthcare system are real.

I just think that the recent Paul-pile is stupid, is all. Maybe it's a meme I missed, but I don't recall people comparing him to Willis and such before the stupid evolution posts and contrastingly brilliant April Fools gag. Certainly not before the elections.

I got into it with him over his science post prior to that evolotion bit.

"Ardelinite," I like that.

And I've been stewing over his nastiness and arrogance for awhile. How many things CAN you tie to the "evil liberals?" He's no better than Willis with the constant binary and ludicrous value judgments, and as such merits ridicule.

And I've been stewing over his nastiness and arrogance for awhile. How many things CAN you tie to the "evil liberals?" He's no better than Willis with the constant binary and ludicrous value judgments, and as such merits ridicule.

Meh, I've sworn off intellectual honesty since the beginning of the year. Like Santa Claus, it's a cute story, but an Xbox ain't gonna magically appear under my Christmas tree. Or, since I'm a college-age bachelor, Christmas-twig-of-some-evergreen-that-I-stole-off-a-wreath-at-work.

There came a point where I was tired of trying to emulate people who were saying, "Well, I opposed X, so I must oppose Y on the same grounds." The Schiavo case convinced me that some people, under the guise of being intellectually honest, were merely reveling in being anal. (And I'm not naming names, here. Don't ask.) I don't want that to happen to my cute little fuzzball self, so I'm going to hold to my beliefs no matter how inconsistant or otherwise off-the-wall they are. Just like everyone else. Hence, "Chadsterarian."

If nothing else, it'll get me a top-rated cable news show.

Boyd:

You want "statistics"...

Right. I can see the surveys going out to hospices now:

"Have you ever deliberately given a patient an overdose of morphine who did not have a terminal illness nor in any pain? Please be specific."

You give me the willies...you appear to view medical care as a zero sum proposition.

I have only one request...please stay away from my bediside if I get sick. Your "ferrymaster on the river Styx" meme makes me nervous.

Boyd is on eof the most reasonable people that I know, regardless of whether he happens to agree with me on an issue.

You are not.

What part of this did you not read:

So I don't believe there's a trend, and at any rate, I don't care about a trend. I'm against people being wrongfully killed, whether it's 1 or 5,000,000. The debate should be over what's wrongful and what isn't.

Really, you are ridiculous.

It's REALITY. In your estimation, Hillary Clinton is perhaps more about a culture of life (disregarding abortion issues) than 99% of conservatives, because her and other democrats are for universal healthcare.

These noble ideals about keeping everyone alive indefinitely with the best treatment are simply at odds with reality. Discussing it may be "scary," but the discussion is something that needs take place. We live in a capitalist society with distributed and limited resources.

So. You think that any sort of idealism and attempting to become better and more evolved people/nations is worthless, Bill?

I just don't see your position. Are you in favor of reducing everything down to "is this cost-effective? is this a drag on society?" or do you have any ideals and goals to shoot for?

If you take the cost to society meme to its furthest conclusion, then that means that, eventually, everyone will have to prove their right to live.

I've seen several things here that you are against. What the hell are you for?

First of all, Volokh didn't write a "defense" of the slippery slope so much as an in-depth analysis of the slippery slope. (Unfortunately I could only find it in the Google cache.) Not everything is necessarily the start of a slippery slope. Volokh himself does not believe that there is a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy. Bill disagrees that "this case is the first slide down that slope".

If the facts on the case are as reported (and that's a BIG if) I'm not convinced this case will either start a slippery slope or is the result of a slippery slope. Did the judge rely on the Schiavo case as precedent? Will either case set a precedent in issues of guardianship? Will either case alter the attitudes of the general public to the point that we'll let the disabled be euthanized? I'd say probably not to all of these.

For what it's worth, This is the only non-WorldNetDaily reporting I could find on the case. "The CEO of the West Georgia Health System told 11Alive News, 'No patient at our hospice is denied food or water.'"

And Paul's "swipe" just makes no sense. In response to "Pretty soon, they're just going to start plucking kids out of classrooms and executing them for having buck teeth!" he says "It's not buck teeth Bill, it's glaucoma." If read by speakers of English, Paul's statement means "Kids are being plucked out of classrooms and executed for having glaucoma." Paul apparently fails to understand hyperbole.

Bill, it seems to me that someone would have to work pretty hard at being this cold and heartless--seriously attempting to make a case for murdering helpless people a purely economic one. Apparently you're not willing to sacrifice anything for anyone beyond yourself.

So what do we do then, kill off all the inconvenient people so only the master race survives? Who's to say one day you or one of your loved ones aren't one of those people who needs a tube like someone with Crohn's disease? Should we kill them off, too?

It's interesting that you would go so far as to say I'm a murderer when it would seem you're advocating this horrible ideology whose roots go back to Marx and Engels, lol...in Nazi Germany, they killed off thousands of patients in mental hospitals. They even built ovens in them.

I don't know about you, but what Cranford said sounded to me just like what it said on that T-4 poster. And if you've got at least two brain cells, yes, I would think it should be scarey to you. If you can't see the connection, IMO, you're a dangerously stupid man. And if you see the connection and aren't repulsed, I'd have to say the same thing.

This is the Dutch Groningen Protocols right here in America, one patient at a time.

Health care professionals are saying they've witnesssed this kind of thing for a very long time. So you're calling them liars? These are people who wrestle with things like watching a 3 year old die from starvation and dehydration for 21 days.

Why not just walk right in and shoot them in the face, then? It'd be quicker and you'd empty a hospital bed sooner.

Romeocat -

So. You think that any sort of idealism and attempting to become better and more evolved people/nations is worthless, Bill?

I just don't see your position. Are you in favor of reducing everything down to "is this cost-effective? is this a drag on society?" or do you have any ideals and goals to shoot for?

I think that unbending idealism that is directly contrary to logic and reality is pretty obnoxious, with regard to any issue. Thus, the same people that shout about life at all costs, later say "except for the poor." This is intellectually inconsistent.

What I am "for" is rational and capitalist distribution of resources - in this case yes, if someone is at an advanced age and has an untreatable deteriorating condition with a brain that's dissoloved into mush - and they lack relatives that want and are able to pay for their care - it's very reasonable to let them go rather than artifically keeping their bodies alive. The other option, with current demographic trends, is a collapse of our healthcare system, unless health care decides to get a whole lot cheaper.

And I do not believe that it is cruel to let Alzheimmer's patients go in the terrible late stages of the disease.

Individuals arguing for "life" lately are simply presenting immutable positions at odds with reality, in ways very similar to leftwingers that wish for ideals that don't exist. Insisting that these ideals should or will be inviolable - all evidence to the contraray - is not logical debate.

It'll continue until we euthanize anyone over 30, just like in Logan's Run, with guns completely banned except for use by the Sandmen. Of course by then the voting age will be lowered to 3 and we'll all be married to our dogs.

When you begin to logically debate, we'll all sit up and take notice. I just see excuses like the economic one for defending a ridiculous position which is "for" murdering innocent people who can't defend themselves, who one day may be YOU.

This isn't even a right or left debate, but you keep bringing that up like it's significant. Did you read Nate Hentoff's piece on it? In the end, the dignity of human beings is intrinsic to the kind of entity we are and does not depend on attributes like size, skin color, age, physical or mental capability.

Cao -

I happen to be debating rightwingers. There are leftwingers that are quite animated about the Schiavo case as well, and at least their soundbites about bthe sanctity of life were intellectually consistent. Though if you throw abortion into the mix, I bet that some were culled out.

And I'm not defending "murdering innocent people." That sort of rhetoric is not rational debate. End-of-life decisions - made all the time in our society by grieving families and a state that can't pay for uninsured patients with advanced degenerative diseases - do not all constitute "murder."

You are an extremist, pure and simple. You take cases like this one in Georgia (which I've stated that I'm against), and apparently extrapolate it to everyone that is removed from medical intervention at some point.

What I am "for" is rational distribution of resources - in this case yes, if someone is at an advanced age and has an untreatable deteriorating condition with a brain that's dissoloved into mush - and they lack relatives that want and are able to pay for their care - it's very reasonable to let them go rather than artifically keeping their bodies alive.

OK, That's fair. But then, do you see your problem with Terri's case, for instance? She had relatives who wanted to take care of her.

Plus, who is it that decides this "rational distribution of resources"? Assuming, for instance, that Michael Moore and George Soros were, what if their decision were to force abortions on women, a la China (and, yes, I am exaggerating for illustration)?

What if the people who made the decisions were Pat Buchannon and Jerry Fallwell, who chose to decide that every woman must carry their child - whether it was dead in the womb or not - to term? Again, I am using wildly exaggerated examples here to make the point.

What if those people making the decision as to what is a rational distribution of resources were completely opposed to your most dearly held beliefs? How can you - and why would it matter - prevent that from happening to you?

The basic point here is that I am one of the people who hold human life to be intrensically valuable. Thus, the child severely handicapped by cerebral palsey of Down's syndrome, is equally valuable to a Michaelangelo of a Pasteur. The adult struck down by Altzheimers, a stroke, or old age, is equally valuable to an Einstein or an MLK or a Churchill or a John Paul II.

I believe that you should fight to preserve life... Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Yes. There is a time to let go. I understand that. But I will do my best to push that time back.

OK, That's fair. But then, do you see your problem with Terri's case, for instance? She had relatives who wanted to take care of her.

Yes, I do see the problem with Terry's case. I primarily just didn't think that this was something that congress should get involved in, and thought that the legal and medical angles were pretty complex.

Plus, who is it that decides this "rational distribution of resources"?

Largely, market forces.

Thus, the child severely handicapped by cerebral palsey of Down's syndrome, is equally valuable to a Michaelangelo of a Pasteur. The adult struck down by Altzheimers, a stroke, or old age, is equally valuable to an Einstein or an MLK or a Churchill or a John Paul II.

I both agree and disagree with you. There is a continuum, between where one is merely disabled, to where one is no longer there. When the mind completely leaves - no pleasure or understanding - clinging to life via artificial means is somehow less merciful, IMO.

Well, Bill, we will have to agree to disagree, then.

I refuse to let impersonal, unfeeling, uncaring "market forces" dictate the fate of human life and liberty. Our Founding Fathers didn't.

And I refuse to believe that "pleasure and understanding" are the only - or the more important - things that give value to human life.

As I said, I understand there is a time to let go. But if there is a shadow of doubt, whether as to the desires of the afflicted or the possibility of recovery (and let's not, at this moment, go try to define that - you know the context of my statements), I am obligated to err on the side of life.

Here I stand; I can do no other.

I refuse to let impersonal, unfeeling, uncaring "market forces" dictate the fate of human life and liberty. Our Founding Fathers didn't.

HA! So you are coming out for universal healthcare then?

I think that you totally misinterpret what I mean by "market forces," by the way. Purchasing and utilizing health insurance is an example of "market forces."

And I refuse to believe that "pleasure and understanding" are the only - or the more important - things that give value to human life.

Uh, what's left? Pain? Breathing? Involuntary shudders?

Human consciousness is what makes us human. A perfectly healthy human has human consciousness. A retarded child has human consciousness. A stroke victim with 95% of their brain melted, kept alive on various interventions that mimic autonomic functions, does not. In between there is a line of demarcation.

So stating absolutes is just bluster.

Bill, I think you totally misinterpret what I meantby "market forces." As, I suppose, I misinterpreted you, but you see where I did so: I used the term in the sense of the "bottom line" and "cost efficiency," as you implied earlier.

And, as for human consciousness making us human, then I guess you're not human when you're asleep? And - I'll even narrow it - when you're asleep and NOT dreaming? For all intents and purposes, except for the fact that you still have brain waves, you're not there, honeybunch. YOU don't know the difference.

What's left after pleasure? Courage. Duty. Perseverance. Humility. Compassion. Love ("agape"). Patience. Kindness. Goodness. Self-control. Diligence.

Oh, and perhaps one other thing: JOY!

Bill are you really reading what you are saying?

As for these market forces-just what are they? Who are they? How do they decide which lives are worthy and which ones aren't, or are you advocating offing any and all disabled people, or only some-and if it is only some, well which ones qualify, who gets to decide.

Your comments are pretty doggone scary, I think you owe Paul an apology, at least he seems to have some ethics involved in his position, your ethics on this just don't seem to be there.

Deciding whose lives are worthy is extremely subjective. Where and who gets to draw that line, and when does that line become firm?

Your comments make the blood run cold in the hearts of just about every person out there with a disabled family member-it is down right scary. There are some disabilities out there where therapies cost thousands-ABA for autism can cost 50k or more a year. Is that too expensive for you, should we just starve all the kids with autism to death, because they are a drain on society? Or are you for active ethenasia, should we just gather them up, and let the nice doctors give them a shot?

What about quadrapeligics, they often require a lot of care, and have various therapies, should we just line them up for the big shot too?

So just where is this line of when people are too much of a financial burden? And what are you basing it on, and who do you nominate to make these decisions for everyone else?

You are RIGHT, Bill. Two data points do not a slippery slope make (though in algebra, that's all you need ... but I digress)

And as I quote here "one swallow doesn't make a summer"

HOWEVER, what makes you believe that Schiavo was the first and only data point (or swallow)? Off-hand I'd say you have to bring Robert Wendland's case into the mix, even if the publicity over Cranford's narrow failure in offing that profoundly disabled person (not pvs, and could operate a wheelchair independently) only created a small ripple, promptly forgot.

Yes, a tree that falls in the forest still makes a noise, and a culture that already accepts in certain quarters assisted-suicide can easily move to embracing euthanasia on the gooey grounds of "quality of life" even if some of us have our hands over our ears singing "lalalalala" and proclaiming "It can never happen here!"

If nothing NOTHING else, it's time to drag this subject out into the open for serious debate AND KEEP IT THERE. Really, let's be honest here. How do we want to treat the most vulnerable and weakest among us? Do they retain their rights even when profoundly disabled or is it a percentage type thing, where their rights go down in porportion to the severity of their disability?

I am not being facetious here. I'm very serious. We neither value the elderly nor the disabled as a culture. We treat these people with civility tinged with disgust. We are a culture obsessed with youth and physical perfection and IMHO it colors the way we treat others that don't "measure up." Go to a mall sometime and watch how people react to the profoundly disabled. There will be a certain percentage that will be stone faced as these people pass then through disgusted looks at their back.

Human cultures have always existed in duality on how they treat the elderly or infirm. Certain ones have discarded them ... abandoning them to the elements, driving them out to die of exposure ... or they have taken care of them and learned lessons from their existence.

How do we want our American culture to evolve in this respect? To resemble the former or latter?

BTW -- Mae's been airlifted to a real hospital recently. At least she'll be under care geared toward her survival and inline with her documented wishes.

"HOWEVER, what makes you believe that Schiavo was the first and only data point (or swallow)? "

Excellent point.

I think the Schiavo case rather than being the first of its kind, is really just the first one that got any media attention.

I also agree that the debate over the disabled and how they should be treated in our society is one that we need to have, and have it out in the open.

Bill seems to be of the position, that the disabled are valuable only until the cost of caring for them becomes too much of a burden. And that is a really scary position to take.

Also, Bill you do realize that feeding tubes aren't the expensive, and they don't keep you bedridden. It isn't like being hooked up to a respirator, and is a whole lot easier than somebody on oxygen (or do you think we should line up anyone in need of oxygen for the big shot as well)?

Not only do I agree with Bill, as a lawyer who has some relevant experience, I think he is too quick to concede that the Mae case is obviously one in which the wrong thing happened. Please see my comments on Paul's position, to which Bill links.

Bill,

I had the temerity to post a statement from Hospice Lagrange, to the effect of "we don't withhold nutrition or hydration," and Cao therefore called me a mass-murderer and accused me of reading from "Marx and Hitler's" playbook.

Mmmm. Cao's full and exact comment was:

How fitting that you would find this funny.

Marx and Engels thought it was a good idea, and Hitler took them up on it. He was probably the most successful student of euthanasia and eugenics to date.

Did Marx and Engles not believe this was a good idea? I haven't read them extensively, so I wouldn't know.

Perhaps Cao was making an assumption, based on your perceived indifference/callousness to this incident, that you would prefer to snark at people who fight for life, rather than join in or make practical contributions yourself?

I'm so sorry for my acidity, but it's late, and it's so sad to see a grown man acting like a tattletale instead of addressing and then refuting the points with which you take offense.

Just maybe, we should let the people this really affects have a say

Since 1983, many people with disabilities have opposed the assisted suicide and euthanasia movement. Though often described as compassionate, legalized medical killing is really about a deadly double standard for people with severe disabilities, including both conditions that are labeled terminal and those that are not.

You need to understand that people with intellectual and associated disabilities have always been subjected to discrimination. Often, they have been put to death or allowed to die when they might have been kept alive. The discrimination that they have experienced in education, employment, and housing are matters that you have addressed by various laws. More to the point today is the discrimination in health care that they have experienced.

Darleen is, as always, exactly right about this with regard to how we treat our disabled and sick.

And it's not hinting at a slippery slope, we're already on it. Euthanasia/"assisted suicide" has already become generally accepted in the mainstream, thanks to so-called "bioethicists" who by simple virtue of their being called "ethicists" (the title being self-bestowed, I might add) have managed to brainwash people covertly with their ideology in medical schools, through the media, and elsewhere. Take a look at universities' bias, and then look at bioethicists' agenda; they're a good match. If you want reference material, I'll get it.

The disability rights organization Not Dead Yet has been fighting this "culture of death" for quite some time; it might be worth your while to look at their point of view on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Look beyond all the Schiavo coverage that's there for the moment for their basic agenda, i.e. here and here.

And honestly, there's a lot more options for health care than managed care vs. universal health care. I won't hijack the thread with all the reasons why Hillary's Universal Health Care is NOT the answer, though.

GMTA, Darleen...same organization linked...LOL

Just Me -

Now you've descended into utter bullshit. First let's burst your ridiculous fairy tale bubble:

Bill are you really reading what you are saying?

As for these market forces-just what are they? Who are they? How do they decide which lives are worthy and which ones aren't, or are you advocating offing any and all disabled people, or only some-and if it is only some, well which ones qualify, who gets to decide.

Such a noble sentiment, such stirring words. Guess what? How the Hell do you think that people currently obtain advanced, chronic medical care? Do the health care fairies hand it out on the street? Buying insurance and having insurance pay for medical care in acute situations is an example of "market forces," you nitwit. People without insurance are in the cold.

So unless you are ready to advocate universal health coverage, you can call me "scary" all you want, but people like you that tout life in all cases - yet still believe in denying the care to those that are economically screwed out of the same care - are also the ones that are "murderers," by many of the definitions being bandied about here. (not MY definitions)

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to talk to people that simply don't understand what I am saying, because they are too emotional about an issue. Medicine does not pay for itself. Stresses on the system are very real, and will increase as healthcare costs continue to rise and demographic shifts present an aging population. I'm not ADVOCATING some sort of barbaric change, I'm DESCRIBING the current situation of limited resources.

Your comments are pretty doggone scary, I think you owe Paul an apology, at least he seems to have some ethics involved in his position, your ethics on this just don't seem to be there.

Hey, here's an idea: piss off. My ethics are quite intact, and I have actually stated a position that's not orders of magnitude different than people like Romeocat's. I'm merely pointing out that you people are hypocrites when you toss out these soundbites about "life in all cases!" because:

1. It's contrary to specific situations where most people agree that life should end (indefinitely comatose, PVS, end stage alzheimer's)

2. It's contrary to conservative positions on market forces dominating healthcare

3. It's contrary to the reality that healthcare is subject to limited resources, and we won't have the option to keep everyone animated to your liking, based on the unreasonable standards put forth by soundbite-laden life fetishists.

To be honest, YOU owe ME an apology, for misinterpreting my "nuanced" point so poorly. I'm not advocating killing people or making decisions akin to the Nazis, I'm talking about the realities of how our system functions, and pointing out how it may be at odds with your simplistic rhetoric.

Like this:

Your comments make the blood run cold in the hearts of just about every person out there with a disabled family member-it is down right scary. There are some disabilities out there where therapies cost thousands-ABA for autism can cost 50k or more a year. Is that too expensive for you, should we just starve all the kids with autism to death, because they are a drain on society? Or are you for active ethenasia, should we just gather them up, and let the nice doctors give them a shot?

What about quadrapeligics, they often require a lot of care, and have various therapies, should we just line them up for the big shot too?

Over and over again, in comments and in posts, I have clearly elucidated that of course disabled people are protected individuals with as much right to life as everyone. But there is a continuum between "perfectly healthy" and "mindless corpse animated by machines." At some point, most rational people do not opt to keep a loved one suspended on life support as a shell. That's why there ARE distinctions to be made, whether such an idea makes your head hurt or not.

Offensive jerks like you continually mischaracterize my position as advocating killing those that are "defective," when what I am really saying is that when a human body loses its mind, its consciousness, its soul, that the human being is dead, whether machines can pump blood or deliver oxygen or nutrition or not. Most medical ethicists and people that live in this country agree with me on that score, yet you still choose to project YOUR position over what I'm actually saying.

As for this:

Is that too expensive for you, should we just starve all the kids with autism to death, because they are a drain on society?

No, you dumbass, it's not to expensive for ME, it's too expensive for society. It's too expensive for YOU, unless you are promoting nationalized healthcare.

Come out and say it right now: are you willing to take a 30% income tax hike and promote universal health coverage? If so, perhaps you should vote for Hillary Clinton in '08, or move to Canada. If not: shut the Hell up about me being evil for pointing out that not everyone in this society has access to the things that you tout, because you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

I'm not the evil grinch making the resources scarce, I'm just talking about this factor that presents barriers to the absolutist horseshit being thrown around on these complex end-of-life issues.

So, last chance, Just Me: since you like nasty, ridiculous rhetoric, either come out and say that you want nationalized, universal health care, or admit that you are a murderer. I mean, what, you want all of the poor people lined up and shot, their bodies tossed into ditches? Unless you endorse free healthcare for everyone, that's what you're really saying, right?

You want to kill all of the poor people! Scary. Makes my blood run cold.

Wait, that's not what you said? Well, we can't let that stop us from making our point, right?

I get more rational debate out of some of the moonbats that I meet at protest rallies.

Bill and you say that Paul has issues. I think you may be the pot calling the kettle black after that rant.

Also, there are choices for medical care other than universal health care, and purely run private insurance systems. And universal healthcare or private insurance doesn't change the market issues-somebody somewhere is paying for it.

"Is that too expensive for you, should we just starve all the kids with autism to death, because they are a drain on society?

No, you dumbass, it's not to expensive for ME, it's too expensive for society. It's too expensive for YOU, unless you are promoting nationalized healthcare."

So to clarify, you are arguing that-yes we should kill people with autism, because it is expensive, or no? You weren't quite clear on whether or not people with autism met your definition of worthy to live or not.

"Over and over again, in comments and in posts, I have clearly elucidated that of course disabled people are protected individuals with as much right to life as everyone. But there is a continuum between "perfectly healthy" and "mindless corpse animated by machines.""

Yes, but since we are dealing with this continuem, who gets to decide the point on the continuem where people don't get the right to live anymore, because society has deemed them unworthy, inconvienient or too expensive?

That is the crux of this debate-who is deemed "human" enough to live, and who gets to make that decision. Because while the extremes on either end of that continuem are easy to define, it is that spot on the continuem that mean death that isn't so clear cut, and is pretty subjective.

For instance, in the case being discussed here-we will for the sake of debate make these facts correct (they may turn out to be incorrect, but to get a handle on your argument here). The woman has a heart condition that may at some opint kill her, but does not leave her bedridden, she has difficulty swallowing, so needs a feeding tube (either NG or surgical), and is not in a coma or PVS. Is it ethical to starve her, or actively euthanize her? Why?

Damnit Bill!

Now, I'll be forced to begrudgingly add you to the 'Right Bloggers who've earned my respect' probation list!

I fully agree with the characterization of Paul's recklessness, and add that it does quite a bit of harm to your side. But, it's still hard to gage whether the insolent, hypocritical rhetoric of him and his comment thread minions (Just Me, Darleen), represent the Right bloggers as a whole?

"But, it's still hard to gage whether the insolent, hypocritical rhetoric of him and his comment thread minions (Just Me, Darleen), represent the Right bloggers as a whole?"

Why would he represent anything other than himself?

Thatcoloredfella,

Does "the insolent, hypocritical rhetoric ... represent the Right bloggers as a whole?"

No. It does not. There's an obvious tendency to view those that we are unfamiliar with as undifferentiated. Even more so with opponents.

I confess, I've made the same mistake of over-generaliztion. And I'd like to become more enlightened. Please let me know half a dozen Leftie blogs whose rhetoric is less "insolent and hypocritical" than Kos and Willis and Atrios. I'll add them to my blogroll.

This is sincere, not just "pot/kettle" comment.

thatcoloredfella

Oh forgive me... I'm guilty of "insolent, hypocritical rhetoric" because I said ...

because I said ....

what was it that I said that can be construed as "insolent" or "hypocritical"? Or even "minionish"?

your servant wishing enlightment

Darleen Click

OT: Insolent/Insolence! Silly word. No doubt it pithily expresses the user's sentiment, but always crack up a little inside when I see it. The speaker becomes some haughty cartoon monarch to me. Expect them to bellow 'SILENCE!' next. Anyway.

Please let me know half a dozen Leftie blogs whose rhetoric is less "insolent and hypocritical" than Kos and Willis and Atrios. I'll add them to my blogroll.

Damned if I'm gonna defend the 'Whales' of the Lefty blogsphere, knowing to stay out of hissy fits way above my pay grade.

I was equally sincere in asking my question Commissar, even in the face of an abundance of evidence that confirms my suspicions. I do not use profanity, insults and threats when I debate, yet I've been banned from several Conservative sites for being too pointed in my challenge.

Hey Darleen, babygirl!

And, pardon me Mister Midge for overangrandizing my verbiage, whilst I navigate such a confluence of protracted enunciations of remedial consensus and extrapolation!

"Hey, here's an idea: piss off."

I'm glad I can count on this blog for debates that are ever so reasonable and courteous.

Seriously, I don't understand why people get so animated about Paul provoking an occasional catfight such as the recent Oozer/Thumper debate (which, you may have noticed, Paul categorized as a humor post). Why not condemn the recent fun we had at Ace's with the obscene haiku flame war? If you're not amused, don't read. Personally, I thought both were hilarious.

"It isn't what's happening with Ms. Schiavo or Mae Magourik. It's the thousands - yes thousands- of other cases that occur and are occuring that should be of concern to anyone who values anything about our culture."

First off, I am opposed to yanking people off life support againt their expressed will or merely because their care giver's interest wanes. However, the kind of histrionics you engage in over such personal matters is just plain pathetic.

When my wife's 92 year old grandfather had a massive stroke and slipped into a coma, a decision was made by my father in law to remove his feeding tube and let nature take its course rather than have in linger in-situ like some zombie. I was a decision that only he could make an one that I cannot judge in the slightest...I can only hope that if I am ever reduced to such a state someone will do the same for me.

I'm sure you think such an decision was tantamont to murder but that only shows how purile your mind is. J-P Sartre was a jackass but he was dead right on matters such as this. In many of life's most serious dilemmas, there is simple no such thing as the "right choice" and the "wrong choice"; there is no moral imperative to follow or dictum of the gods to heed that has any meaning to the person confronted with such a circumstance. There is only a choice to be made and consequences to be accepted, consequences which are always bad no matter which path is taken.

All of you who are an attending for hospice patients raise your hand. Anyone, anyone, Bueller? Anyone?

I thought so.

Cao, Just Me, Darleen, stay the hell away from me should I ever code. And please God don’t let them inflict a feeding tube on me. I read this thread with disgust. Cao, Just Me, Darleen none of you seem to have the slightest clue about hospice patients or nursing home patients. Twenty-five percent of nursing home patients die each year. Are you saying that all 25% of these patients are euthanized?

Daily I see and evaluate nursing home and hospice patients. Let’s see, how many of those patients have I euthanized in my career? Uh, NONE you jackasses. Fortunately in the USA we still have something called personal choice. That means that you don’t get to tell me what drastic and unrealistic measures are going to be used to keep me alive should that be necessary. Patients and their families make those decisions not you and not me. You might want to know that there are very strict guidelines for placing patients on a hospice service. Sometimes patients are placed on hospice and get better and are removed from hospice care. Patients in my care are never euthanized and for you to suggest that tens of thousands of hospice patients are euthanized yearly just reveals the depth of your ignorance. I feel sorry for any of your family members you are going to make medical decisions for.

The mere fact that a patient is on a hospice service means that that patient is probably very sick and near death. Cao, Just Me, Darleen, I believe your attitudes toward life at ANY cost are unrealistic and juvenile. Every patient I have is on public assistance, read welfare. I just picked up a patient who has been retired since 1964. He paid 1300 dollars into social insecurity and has collected monthly benefits for over 30 years. It’s not nice to talk about it but at some point we are going to have to make hard decisions about what expensive and excessive treatments are offered to sick patients who are going to die no matter what we do.

Subjecting grandma to AAA surgery which has a 5% chance of her coming out intact is just crazy when medical management may provide years of quality life. You might also want to read up on exactly what a AAA is rather than just assume that its no big deal and medical science can cure it. We can in some cases but in many we can’t.

As for feeding tubes they are placed for many reasons and if Mae Magouirk already had a feeding tube she must have been very sick. The problem here is not that her tube is pulled out but that someone convinced her that putting in a feeding tube was no big deal to begin with. A feeding tube is considered extraordinary care just like a ventilatory or ECMO, or dialysis or any other of a number of treatments. It’s also very expensive and may cost the patient in excess of 1000 dollars a month. Or more rationally cost the taxpayers that much as most of the people who have feeding tubes have run through their private insurance benefit. I say this only to point out that dying slowly in America is very very expensive.

Bill, sorry for the long rant but the three offenders who have posted above seem to have no understanding of end-of-life issues and no rational capacity to understand that people die everyday. This “life at ANY cost” position almost always seems to come from people who are not paying for their own or their own loved ones healthcare. They have not learned that just because we can do something does not mean that we should do something.

Bill, I must say as began this thread I was unconvinced of your arguments. But as you expounded on your thoughts I began to come around. Firstly, as to the slippery slope argument. I now understand that a couple of incidents do not necessarily predict the direction of a movement. Recently several libertarian bloggers have suggested that-based upon a couple of things favorable to the religious right-that the GOP was beholden to the religious right and was moving ever further in that direction. Because of you Bill I now recognize how misguided those libertarian bloggers are. Thank you Bill.
Secondly, I was not enamored of the "mindless corpse animated by machines." school of thought. I originally thought that perhaps that corpse had a meaning to others rather than a utilitarian "usefulness." But when you pointed out, "are you willing to take a 30% income tax hike and promote universal health coverage?" Then I knew. I'm not letting these two bee - itches (Terri & Mae) stand between me and that new BMW I've got my eye on. The sooner we off them the sooner I can climb behind that steering wheel. Thanks Bill for all you've taught me.

Azygos

Who the hell saltpetered your beer this evening?

Where have I EVER said anything approximating "life at all costs?"

Jaysus on a Pony with Mary and Joseph!!

You know what? I grew up watching TWO of my first cousins die of cystic fibrosis and hearing some of the people who I told about it say "oh, too bad abortion wasn't available then" or "oh, two bad they didn't die as infants and spare everyone." WTF kind of eugenics argument is that?? My cousin Debbie who lived to ten (3 years younger than me) was one of sweetest little girls and all I knew was that I loved her and missed playing with her when she was gone. My sister-in-law is a mentally disabled woman who my husband and I will be responsible for caring for when his parents are gone and MY younger sister is terminally ill with scleroderma (currently in remission) yet another family member I will be caring for in the future.

And I think they all, regardless of their disablity, do NOT LOSE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS because they ARE disabled. They don't become "non-humans" as "Dr" Cranford quaintly puts it as he draws HIS line for "quality of life."

As Rud Turnbull testified before the Senate, the profoundly disabled are looked upon as THINGS that must be "dealt with" rather than HUMAN BEINGS who, even in a limited way, enjoy life.

Terri's wishes were unknown, but Greer had the legal right to accept the say-so of Michael. I have never protested the legal PROCEDURE while I pointed out the troubling aspect of the Law now defaulting to death rather than life of a NON-terminal, NON-brain dead, NON-dying woman, NOT-on life support when her wishes were in dispute and family members were willing and able to take care of her. Then we get to Mae's case where her LW explicitly said FEED and HYDRATE ME unless terminal or PVS...which she was neither. Even her own expressed wishes were being ignored because "it must be so sad to be old and used up."

I'm an "offender" because I'm genuinely worried about a possible cultural shift to the Felos/Cranford ethos of "Only the Healthy and Beautiful should suffer to live?"

Debbie was not a THING. My sister-in-law is not a THING. My sister is not a THING. NO ONE has a right to impose death on them when they become inconvenient if they have not expressed that wish OR in direct contridiction to their written wishes to LIVE LIFE.

Of course, if you want to off yourself GO RIGHT AHEAD... 10 am tomorrow morning sounds pretty good to me.

meshugga shmuck

Darleen,

Nice to see you have joined the legions of howler monkeys screaming about all those disabled patients being euthanized. Problem is its all in your feeble head. You try to put words in my mouth but fail miserably. I have never advocated the killing of retarded people, (of course you are excepted) but you continue to try and play the straw man and put words in my mouth.

We are talking about using extraordinary means of keeping people alive and retarded people and people with cystic fibrosis don’t fall into that category no matter how hard you try to shoehorn them into it. Get a new meme and try to stay on topic.

Listen, Az-mamzer, obviously you have ignored Rud Turnbull's Senate testimony AND the history of "Dr" Cranford and his writings where he DOES advocate the euthanizing of the profoundly disabled, or even the writing of the Prof Peter Singer of Princeton who states infants should not have any rights to life until 28 days AFTER Birth? That human infants have less VALUE than a pig or dog? That spina bifida and Down's syndrom infants should be euthanized?

Is that studied ignorance? Or are your unsubstantiated, personal and ad homemin attacks on my position as an advocate for the disabled hiding something else? Are you just one of those in the Felos/Cranford/Singer camp that believes "there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived"?