Will there be a retraction from Taranto or any of the Blogs for Terri?

I was never part of the 'blogs for Terri' even as I argued that ethically the "death default" was something I found very alarming (I freely admitted on my blog my personal reasons..from my cystic fibrosis cousins to my mentally challenged sister-in-law)

Terri's condition, for me at least, was not really the core issue. So for me, at least, I don't feel I have anything to apologize for in support of law and review that makes "life" the default in cases of family disputes and absense of written wishes.

And Jeff, did I miss something? What did Taranto say that he should apologize for?

Taranto kept saying that he couldn't imagine what was driving the people wanted Terri's death so bad. Because anyone who acceded to the doctors & courts must be slavering for Terri's death (a technique called polarizing the argument)

Q: If Taranto et al aren't changing their positions, now that the autopsy confirms what the medical evidence already showed before her death, are they now arguing that brain dead people should be kept alive by any means indefinitely? Besides being pointless, there is a limit to medical resources that could better be spent on non-brain-dead people

But I didn't get to get in there and reach around with my own hands! Why should I trust this "medical examiner"?

I think your comment is spot on, Bill. I am seeing a lot of people claiming either a) that the report utterly vindicates Michael Schiavo in every respect or b) is meaningless or can't be trusted because there weren't independent witnesses to it, etc. etc.

My sense is exactly yours: it doesn't end the ethical argument, but it should help settle some of the more outlandish factual claims.

The late Terri Schiavo was a brain damaged woman who was killed by the state of Florida despite no clear evidence of her desire. Certain lawyers got rich off of Mrs. Schiavo's death and large population of people cheered her death. It was a sad commentary on our legal system and our society. This was death for profit.

The late Terri Schiavo was a brain damaged woman who was killed by the state of Florida despite no clear evidence of her desire.

To describe Terri Schiavo as "brain damaged" is like saying someone with late-stage AIDS has caught a bug. And testimony was taken from three different people as to her wishes (Michael's sister one of them, who it was not disputed was one of Terri's closest friends), which in Florida, may constitute sufficient evidence as to her wishes. (That was FL law BEFORE Schiavo hit the news.)

Terri Schiavo had no measurable IQ. She could not interact with others, and despite all the claims that she tracked balloons and her face lit up when her mother walked into the room, she was blind. I volunteer in a program that includes some profoundly retarded adults. For those whose IQs are in the 15-25 range, the notion that any of them could comprehend the need for a feeding tube and experience feelings about the consequences of its being withdrawn, is beyond absurd; yet the Save Terri! forces assured us she wept in her mother's arms at the news her tube was to be removed. The lies and sheer charlatanry in this case were revolting and could happen to any of us trying to enforce our loved ones' wishes.

I'm a mother, and I know my adult children's wishes. They are exactly what Terri's were found by the court to be. And I would carry them out. (Tho my family have all filled out written advance directives, that could still not be sufficient to preclude a fiasco like the Schiavo affair. I'll elaborate as to why if anyone is interested, with citation to a legal blog.)

For those whose IQs are in the 15-25 range, the notion that any of them could comprehend the need for a feeding tube and experience feelings about the consequences of its being withdrawn, is beyond absurd;

And? Even if they cannot "comprehend" does that make them fair targets for euthanasia by some members of their family if other members wish to take care of them?

I am glad you have written your wishes down. I would hope most people do; however, in the absense of such wishes I think the state should give the care of such people to those who would care for them.

Terri's condition was irrelevant, Michael's motivations were irrelevant ... that her wishes were in dispute is the only relevant fact (IMO of course).

There were/are extremists that charge Michael as an abuser, and extremists that made particularly gruesome fun of Terri. And there ARE those that did advocate for, and were heartened by, Terri's imposed death... ie Michael's lawyer and Dr. Cranford, euthanasia advocates who feel even low functioning braindamaged people should not suffer to live.

And? Even if they cannot "comprehend" does that make them fair targets for euthanasia by some members of their family if other members wish to take care of them?

Of course not! Whether or NOT there are any family members who wish to care for them. But the fact is, none could possibly comprehend even what a feeding tube is for, much less the implications of withdrawing it; yet, the Save Terri! forces were peddling the sheer crapola that Terri -- who did not even have the cognition of the profoundly retarded -- wept in her mother's arms when "informed" the tube was to be removed. She purportedly attempted to say "I want to live." This is sheer BS. She had no IQ.

Terri was not mentally retarded. Being in PVS means no awareness or cognition. At all. No ability to interact with others. Mentally retarded people do interact, and are capable of socializing. PVS means only the body continues to function; there is no personality or PERSON at home any more. Retarded people most definitely manifest personality traits.

Terri's body lived. The brain that allows any measurement of IQ, self-awareness, or manifestation of personality died 15 years before. What merit is there to keeping a mere body alive?

Mona

Ok, so Terri didn't have a personality anymore. You don't see the merit in allowing her to live, I don't see a problem with giving her to family members who were willing to take care of her.

You don't see the merit in allowing her to live, I don't see a problem with giving her to family members who were willing to take care of her.

I'm in Terri's age cohort. The Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan cases went on, to great fanfare, in our formative years, and many or most of us loudly told others we would not wish to be kept alive like that.

The evidence was that Terri expressed wishes common to our cohort. I am pre-disposed to believe that, and the court charged with upholding her wishes found she had done so. The court was not charged with giving deference to her parents' wishes to maintain her body.

Mona

Call me overly cautious, but if it ain't in writing, it don't mean a thing.

Geez louise, I came up age in the Free Love late 60's-70's when lots of guys and gals proudly proclaimed that "marriage was just a piece of paper" and "love would keep us together"

too many later cried into their pillow when it ended pretty messily and with no protection because that piece of paper wasn't there.

Nope. Doesn't work. If it was as important to Terri that she be euthanized in such a condition it would have been important enough to write down.

And you neatly avoided my general argument, what is the problem with allowing her parents to care for her? If Terri, herself is not there then she certainly has no concerns either way, right?

And you neatly avoided my general argument, what is the problem with allowing her parents to care for her? If Terri, herself is not there then she certainly has no concerns either way, right?

I not only failed to avoid your argument, I met it head on: legally the court was mandated with determining Terri's wishes. The Schindlers' desire to care for her body was not within the court's ability to uphold. If Floridians do not like that standard, they need to change the law.

But I agree with you that the 60s generation's notions of love and marriage were largely harmful nonsense. Most of us, however, have not changed our minds about what we would wish if we end up in PVS-- I'm a lawyer who has drafted many advance directives for clients, and overwhelmingly they want the tube pulled in the event of PVS.

I'm a lawyer who has drafted many advance directives for clients, and overwhelmingly they want the tube pulled in the event of PVS.

Good.

I'm just sorry the court found for Terri's "wishes" where there was no definitive proof of them. I want a "life" default, not a "death" one in such situations. Certainly Judge Greer was not bound to a finding of fact of Terri's wishes based on hearsay. It was, obviously, within his power to find such, but it was just as much within his power not to find such testimony compelling.

I don't want American society to go the way of the Netherlands. And people like Felos and Cranford are ghouls.

I forgot Randall Terry's bit about channeling Susan Hayward. Pretty remarkable for a woman with no cognition.

General rule: If Randall Terry is on your side, it's time to reevaluate things

I want a "life" default, not a "death" one in such situations. Certainly Judge Greer was not bound to a finding of fact of Terri's wishes based on hearsay. It was, obviously, within his power to find such, but it was just as much within his power not to find such testimony compelling.

In such situations, all the court has is hearsay, and in FL, the court is required by law to take that testimony. (Hearsay, contrary to popular understanding, is often permitted. Exceptions are myriad.)

Greer had to make an honest finding about Terri's wishes. He had a basis for what he did find, and was upheld on appeal. If you or Floridians don't think he should have that discretion, amend the law.

When I wrote: "Exceptions are myriad," I meant exceptions to the prohibition on hearsay are myriad. FL law vis-a-vis end-of-life wishes is not unusual in allowing hearsay.

General rule: If Randall Terry is on your side, it's time to reevaluate things.

Oh, PLEASE.

Name one thing you're for, and I'll find some asshole who agrees with you. Now you're wrong because of the asshole.

Let's take this debate. Richard Bennett agrees with you, and Richard Bennett goes around the Internet lying about me. Time for you to reevaluate things?

It's this kind of logic that pisses me off about this whole debate. Sure, there are some idiots who will opine that the coroner was paid off by Felos and Michael Schiavo. So what? They don't represent my opinion, and I'm not reevaluating my opinion just because some dumbass happens to accidentally stumble on a point of view that I think is right.

This was a state ordered death for profit. After Mrs. Shiavo won a large, what million dollars, malpractice award, obstensively to pay for her medical treatment, Mr. Schiavo ordered medical treatment stopped and started to the legal process of having the state kill his wife.

Mrs. Schiavo had a lot of money and Mr. Schiavo wanted it. In the end, George Felos got rich off having Mrs. Schiavo killed. As Bob Woodward would say "Follow the money."

David

David -

Take your stupid conspiracy theories and hyperbolic ranting over to Blogs for Terri.

"The money" was gone.

"This was a state ordered death for profit."

Do you have any idea what a moonbat you sound like?

Let me state something here:

Terri was not "killed," She was allowed to die; there was no active effort to kill her. That may sound like a thin distinction, but it does make an ethical difference.

Tube-feedings are considered life-support under Florida law, and if it's not something she wanted, then that's the end of it. Period. End of debate. Unless her parents have a durable power of attorney for healthcare, their wishes do not rule the day. It was a telling point, at least to me, when her parents stated in sworn testimony that they would not have honored her wishes to be allowed to die, even if she HAD written them down.

The old paternalistic doc-knows-best model of medical care is gone. Either we subscribe to a patient-centric, patient-directed model of medicine, where informed consent is the standard, and competent patients make their own decisions about what is right FOR THEM, or we do not.

Personally and professionally, I find the new patient-directed model to be far superior to the old one.

Patterico: Thanks for the profound insight that there are idiots on all sides. However, besides having ESP, Terry is something of an uber-idiot.

Bush & the crowd that called it euthanasia just sound like idiots when they say the autopsy changes nothing. Maybe we should have vast medical warehouses where legions of brain-dead bodies are kept alive for decades, because all life is precious & to let them die naturally amounts to murder.

nothing like a good terry schiavo update to stir up some controversy.

Darleen said:

I want a "life" default, not a "death" one in such situations.

For folks who don't express their wishes in advance, i don't have too much of a problem with this. it would put in place a presumption that could be overridden. BUT i don't want any of my tax dollars spent on keeping people 'alive' who aren't. Medicaid expenditures are killing state budgets.

Bingo.

And opining that all people need to be kept alive by intervention of the govt, as was almost a default Save Terri position during the public furor, is unrealistic and would be terribly destructive to the overburdened medical system. Sort of like Hillarycare.

I believe that I was called a Nazi a few times for making that point.

Nazis and Gulags. That's what we've been reduced to.

I checked with Terri. She said she NEVER spoke to Randall Terry.

Jeff & milo

Have I said anything either about tax dollars or extraordinary medical means? Terri's family was willing to take care of her. Period.

What was the problem with allowing them to take care of her?

And would someone please tell me who said taxpayers HAD to pick up the dime on Terri? She should have been sent home with her parents to die a natural death.

darleen-

when i posted that comment, i didn't even know who was going to pay for what if terri schiavo was kept 'alive' (or who paid for what prior to that). my point was a broader one that i don't want tax money used to maintain the 'life' of people in such states. (In fact, it looks like Medicaid was picking up at least some of the bill.)

This article in the Wash Post back in April stated:

About 70 percent of Medicaid spending goes to the aged, disabled and blind. Medicaid is federal-state health insurance for the poor, and although it's usually described as benefiting poor mothers and their children, its spending stems heavily from nursing home care for the poorest elderly and almost-elderly who are "disabled."

Medicaid is a huge expense for states. For example, Medicaid equals 20 percent of the state budget of Colorado. Medicaid is causing real pain for states now, who have to cut other things to meet Medicaid's growing costs.

Update: Malkin has the integrity to tackle the report head on. On the other hand, there's a new Best of the Web, & Taranto quiet as a mouse

I see John Patrick ("Patterico") Frey is playing the victim again. This is the man who implied that Mike Schiavo killed Terri in order to reap a financial windfall, and who fueled a discussion in his comments section on the speculation that Mike had abused Terri; he let Nat Hentoff's articles do the accusing.

Now he's being roasted on all the sensible conservative blogs run by people who didn't drink Randall Terry's Kool-Aid: Bill Quick, John Cole, Jeff Goldstein, etc. So he's whining that I'm so mean to him. In fact, he was whining like this in his very first post on the autopsy, before I had even posted anything about it.

I feel sad for that poor boy and his political ambitions. Southern Cal. doesn't want a Bill Frist clone, so he may as well pack it in.

Pardon me for posting this on your blog, Bill, but Paprika has banned me from responding to his false allegations on his.

milowent

The last thing I want to get into is an argument on rationing of taxpayer $$$ vis a vis health care.. you draw the line at people like Terri, while Felos and Cranford would have Alzheimer and the low functioning mentally retarded put down regardless of where the money comes from.

I have no problems with rationing government healthcare $$$ as long as people have the alternative of their own $$$ or sweat.

Bennett is the man who has repeatedly lied about my views on this subject and won't acknowledge it. I doubt anyone really cares, Bennett, so you'd do better to just give it a rest. Still, for anyone whose curiosity is piqued, the details of Bennett's slander are available here. That post and the links therein are all I really need to say.

Bill, remember your scrap with Sekimori? I don't know the facts of that squabble, and am not opining on them here -- but I do remember reading your distressed posts about it. Now I know exactly how you felt.

Here's what Patty admits to saying: "I’ll pass on defending the assertion that Michael Schiavo caused her heart attack. Nat Hentoff wrote a column about it, if you’re interested in the evidence supporting the accusation. But I have never made that argument."

Saying "I have never made that argument ....." after presenting "the evidence supporting the accusation" means what, exactly?

To me, it says that Patty's a lying liar who slanders innocent people in what he thinks is a legally deniable way, but YMMV.

Richard -

I may not agree with Patterico all of the time, and I don't know the details of what you're talking about, but I also know that he's a respectable guy with integrity. So, considering the fact that I don't really know you, I have to ask you to can it here.

Patterico -

Bill, remember your scrap with Sekimori? I don't know the facts of that squabble, and am not opining on them here -- but I do remember reading your distressed posts about it. Now I know exactly how you felt.

Well, at least he didn't call you a thief.

I appreciate that, Bill. As it happens, when I needed blog move and redesign, I went with One Fine Jay. Who has done a great job, by the way -- though it's not yet done because I have been so busy.

It never really occurred to me to try Sekimori after your squabble. Same deal: I don't know the facts, and I haven't really heard the other side -- but I know you're a decent guy, so the idea of dealing with someone who had that much trouble getting along with you made me very nervous. I bet I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Bill, I'm simply responding to the false allegations made by your friend Patterico earlier in this comment thread. If your position is that it's perfectly OK for him to use your blog to attack me, but not appropriate for me to respond that would make you something of a dipshit, wouldn't it?

And BTW, I was fighting Sekimori when you were still in diapers.

Well, I didn't think I was that rude to you about it, and I hadn't noticed that he'd initially said anything about you (though I see that now). But nevertheless, your nasty hostility towards me pretty much devalues anything else that you have to say. Congrats, chalk up another needless enemy, Ricky.

Interesting how much you can learn about someone and the rest of their unrelated political formulations by a brief comment on a blog, no? It saddens me that so many people that I otherwise politically agree with are such whiny, mewly pricks.

I mean, look at your blog; it's like one big long whine of "But, daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad! That's bullshit!"

PS - As far as Sekimori goes, both Stalin and Roosevelt opposed Hitler, though I believe Stalin could righteously claim "firstees!"

You're screaming like a stuck pig now. That's understandable, but it would be better if you were to reflect on the error of your ways.

I'm pointing out to you that it's not good form to say "I think this guy is honest so he can spread any lie he wants and nobody can defend his integrity against him." It's actually a pretty stupid remark, and in context completely unnecessary. Now if you want to say "look, this is my blog and I don't want you two guys fighting", that would be reasonable, but you didn't say that, did you? Be a man, Bill.

"Screaming like a stuck pig?"

When Patterico mentioned "Richard Bennett," it didn't register because I had no idea who that is.

I didn't say "you two stop fighting," because I have no idea who you are; I didn't notice that he'd slapped you initially.

And thus, I politely indicated that I give Patterico the benefit of the doubt, because I have a track record of knowing who he is, even though I didn't agree with him on this issue. Since I didn't do it brutally, your choice to lash out at me with weird hostility and call me a "dipshit" is totally uncalled for. And as I just pointed out, this animated, nasty tone pretty much invalidates your judgment on any other substantive issues. Sort of like Kos.

Bonus, your choice to misread the tone of my following (calmly mean, scornful) comment with "screaming like a stuck pig," totally consigns you to the land of raving hyperbole and emotional dissonance. I mean, do you have any idea how your angsty, accusatory whine comes off? No, of course you don't. Neither do the folks at Pandagon, I'd imagine.

Goodbye, have fun raging against your machines in impotent, terribly obscure rage.

Did I mention that I have/had no idea who you are?