Mar

31

2005

Shame On U.S.

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 1 Comment

I have never been so disappointed in our govenment as I am today. With the death of Terri we have ripped a hole in the fabric of the American experiment. Had our government been simply unable to save the life of an innocent, it would have been a tragedy. That our government intentionally killed an innocent citizen is revolting. And we are all to blame. Some more than others, certainly, but we get the government we deserve. We all share some blame. We should have tried harder. We should have done more. We should have gotten this right, in a way that was clear and indisputable.

We did not simply remove a device that was delivering nourishment to Terri, we denied her the chance to consume food and water in the usual way. We did not give her a chance to eat and drink the normal way, we denied her food by any means: we flat out starved her to death. In a story with many questions, there is no question about that; we starved an innocent woman until she died.

And those who would attempt to mollify the impact of that statement be damned! We did it, have the courage to admit what we have done, and call it what it is. We starved her to death! The shame.

(If you think we only denied her the extreme measures that were keeping her alive, I sincerely hope that you will spend the next fourteen days under the same terms; during those days you may intake only one drop of wine period. Only one drop in fourteen days, you must not have any other form of nourishment or hydration by any means for fourteen days. Good luck dead man!)

The many questions surrounding this story may never be answered. In that way, this may be the Kennedy assassination of our time. Not that there is a point by point comparison between the two cases. But, just that, as with the JFK killing, there may never come a time when we can all agree on the facts; we may never be able to say, case closed. And it didn’t have to be that way.

I am not certain of her level of brain function. Nor, of her rehabilitative capacity if given treatment and love. Nor, of how she came to be in that state in the first place. Nor I am I certain that she wanted to die. Nor am I certain of so many other associated matters. And the uncertainty is what drove me to do what little I did for her. I wasn’t the only one who did not know. And there was enough reason to believe in her, and enough reason to suspect that she was not in a permanent vegatative state, that killing her made no sense. (When would it make sense to kill the innocent?) There was enough reason to wonder, with so many loved ones telling us that she was still there, with so many citizens alarmed at what we were doing. We could have done so much better about getting the facts right. A true, “rush to judgement”, (ironic that Cochran died just before Terri, reminding us that his most famous phrase has bearing today, even if not back then).

An autopsy is to be done. But, we could have learned so much more from testing while she was alive. She never had an MRI. She never had a PET scan. She had not been given an EEG to determine which parts or her brain were active. Schiavo had denied her access to medical experts in recent years, in spite of breakthrough developments in diagnosing and treating brain damaged patients. The autopsy is like an archaeology dig piecing together the past, much supposition and conjecture. Compared to live testing, which, well, is in time observation of what actually happens. There are questions the archaeologist can not answwer, so it is too with the medical examiner’s autopsy.

There was much misinformation going around about this matter. Much of it intentional. Much of it intended to get her killed. Much of it bourne of hate and contempt for other figures, unconnected figures, with no consideration for the merits of her case. These people be damned!

Some of it bourne of carelessness, indifference, and stupidity. These people are a part of the we, as in, we get the government we deserve. Unfortunately.

The certainties in this matter? She was alive. Her parents and siblings loved her, and believed in her, and wanted her to continue to live. Since the initial event, she was in a diminished mental state as compared to before the event. Her condition was not life threatening (she was not dying). Her condition was not progressive, (it was not getting worse). Michael Schiavo certainly wanted her dead. Michael Schiavo successfully enlisted our government to accomplish his goal.

Oh, and one more certainty, the shame is on all of U.S.!

Mar

31

2005

Reality Check

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 4 Comments

At lunch today the restaurant was tuned to CNN. A banner below the picture read, “Terri Sciavo 1963-2005″ The sound was down, so, I wasn’t forced to hear what was being said. Among their guests was a man who they identified as a “Bioethics Expert”.

And I immediately wondered, what makes one an expert in bioethics? This man was a professor, teaching, you guessed it, bioethics. On what foundation of morality was that curriculum decided? Did they start from scratch, or did they start with a time tested set of rules?

My conclusion is that, one day somebody woke up and decided to promote his agenda (secularism) by becoming declaring himself an expert, And, viola, we suddenly had an expert to compete with religious leaders. And CNN gladly puts him in front of their audience because they know the sheeple will eat up anything espoused by a CNN endorsed “expert”.

And the reality is; this guy no doubt makes it up on the fly, to suit the events of the day and the outcomes he desires.

Follow-Up – One more source of bioethical decisions occurs to me: the bottom line. Bioethical equals medical ethics equals hospital boards making decisions. So, one other way to become a bioethics expert is to run a hospital?

Mar

31

2005

Terri Schindler: Expect my Civil Disobedience

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 2 Comments

EDITOR’S NOTE: Now that Michael Schiavo’s divorce has been finalized, I will only be referring to Ms. Schindler by her maiden name. I suggest out of respect for Terri, everyone do likewise.

When the latest series of court battles wound down, resulting in the removal of the feeding tube from Terri Schindler, one overriding thought began to plague me, and has remained with me throughout these last two weeks: when and where might we see this face:

brown.jpg

Almost a century and a half ago, the man pictured here, exasperated over the delays and reversals in the crusade to abolish slavery in America, decided to take matters into his own hands. With the help of 18 accomplices, he siezed a federal armory in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, and called upon blacks throughout the South to rise up in a massive slave revolt.

His attempt was a miserable failure. U.S. Marines arrived under the command of a U.S. Army Colonel named Robert E. Lee, who put down the revolt. Two of his own sons, along with eight others, were killed in the raid, and he was captured with six of the others. On December 2, 1859, John Brown was hanged for murder, conspiracy, and treason.

The raid and its aftermath was the catalyst that moved the South to establish the militias that would eventually become the Confederate Army, and that resolved the abolitionist movement that there was no turning back from their crusade now that blood had been spilled. One man lit the flame that would eventually became the holocaust of Civil War in America.

For years, I was amazed how Brown could have been hailed as a martyr by the abolitionists after his death. Despite the fact that he was probably insane and definately unstable, a murderer and a psychopath, depictions of him as a saint were common motifs in abolitionist art. I could not comprehend how anyone could rationalize such behavior.

The last few weeks have been a struggle of an entirely different sort for me.

I did not go to Pinnelas Park to stand vigil, but I wanted to. I did not suggest an armed raid on the hospice, but I dreamt about it. I did not foment revolution, but I prayed someone else would find a way to engineer one, bloodlessly.

John Brown is still a pathetic, psychotic historical figure in my mind – but no longer such an enigmatic one.

Most people have suggested that Terri Schindler’s legacy should be that we all now know the importance of “living wills” and “advance directives”. Up until now, I have at least respected the notion that such documents are important, and have sought information on the internet how to prepare one.

But in the final hours of Terri’s life, I have come to a different conclusion. I don’t believe I have anything to worry about, because my family knows what I would want, and I have heard no one disagree with my view when we’ve discussed it. Moreover, as long as this site exists – legal though it may not be – anyone who wants my opinion on the subject is just a browser window away. However, as a Christian and a human being, I have come to deplore the notion that I have to sign a document to protect my own life. If such documents are to be honored in our society, they should be required for anyone who asks to die, not for those who want to live. Our founding Declaration itself proclaims that this is self-evident: I am endowed by my Creator with the Right to Life, and the Government is instituted to secure that Right.

As a Catholic, I believe in the redeeming power of suffering, and I am not afraid of it. If our State has decided it wants to deny my humanity and devalue my worth, to deny their original mandate and sentence me to die a horrible death simply because I believe in the plain meaning of that Declaration, they are invited to come and do so. I will never sign a document that asks me to reaffirm what the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles me, and I’ll burn any paper that tries to force me to declare otherwise.

Mar

31

2005

Theresa Marie Schiavo Schindler 1963-2005: Rest in Peace

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 1 Comment

Terri Schiavo Schindler Has Died.

Pray for her family and her friends… and, yes, for the soul of Michael Schiavo! With all that has happened, his soul will need all the help it can get just to earn an eternity in Purgatory.

My Christianity gives me the ability to forgive Michael Schiavo’s actions, and my faith ensures me that there is hope for his soul, but my humanity makes me want him to find righteous (and maybe even vengeful) justice here on earth now, today, the sooner the better, and not just before the Seat of God, but for all the world to see.

But He is so much better than that.

Our anger, grief, and frustration over this whole episode will subside, maybe not soon, but eventually. And we can be comforted by that fact that no matter what we may want, justice will, in His time, be delivered as it should be – and much more righteously than we will ever know.

Mar

29

2005

I Am A Schindler, Not A Schiavo

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 1 Comment

I spent part of Easter morning visiting my mother. Mom is demented; that is not an insult, but a description. She suffers from a dementia, and lives in an Alzheimer’s community. Alzheimer’s being a condition, only confirmed upon autopsy, which causes dementia. There are other causes of dementia, the distinction is relevant, if not important to this story.

My mother’s condition inhibits her short-term memory, and confuses her thought processes and the recall of words. But, I had a conversation with her. It began when she recognized me and, as she always does, became excited that I was there. She could not tell my name, or even identify our connection, whether I am a son, or daughter, father, husband, brother, she can no longer provide the correct word. But, she knows me, and I know the nature of what she is trying to say, (most of the time). She is still the same person she has always been, she just can’t express herself in the old way. Yet, her tendencies are still there, a playful spirit, a social outlook, a mocking response to pompous people, a need for order, an undeserved self-deprecation, etc. Her nature is too complex to explain; but it is still there. And, by listening to her nature, instead of her jumbled words, I had a conversation with her. And, by definition, she with me.

When I said goodbye, I told her to have a great day, and she responded that it would be if I stayed. Her words were not quite that clear, her meaning was. Her meaning showed in her eyes and posture. Her expression was more than her vocabulary, more than one could gleen from her words. Her need for human contact remains great, and my willingness to listen and work to understand her, in her diminished state, went a long way toward enhancing her ability to communicate. And, while much of what she said would translate, if read, as something akin to; dong ujhyt is she ftwma and I told her (imagine here an inquisitory smile behind eyes that search to see if you understand) and okyrb well that wasn’t going to do, so, (imagine a self satisfaction coming over her face suggesting that she had made her point). And know that my reaction was to her need, the need to feel she was understood, and that it was not a patronizing reaction, but instead a reaction to the person, not the words. I acknowledged that she was done, without acknowledging an intellectual understanding. I acknowledged her human dignity, that she needed me to listen, if not understand. Her limitations were not the imperative, nor were her words, her effort was the message.

Accepting her for what she can do is the greatest gift I can give her. I can’t cure her, or make her more coherent. I can love her for what she has to share. She is still the same woman I have known all of my life. The bond between us has never been stronger, the connection never more clear. And it my goal to improve what we already have. I can be more open, thus making it easier for her to understand me. My physical expression is stilted, even introverted, if I can learn to show my meaning with the way I move she will pick up on what I am doing (theory-worth a shot). That will take an unprecedented effort from me, but I can do it. And, I can, and will, continue to read her, that is easy.

Her diminished state has not lessened her worth. I stand by her. I will acknowledge her dignity, even as this disease makes her act in less dignified ways, (which it is). She will not be forgotten, tossed aside, or neglected. Mom is still Mom, in different surroundings, under different circumstances. But, I recognize the person I have always known, and that is who I acknowledge. Her needs continue to change, the unique person remains.

Sometimes it takes a lifelong acquaintance to see the essence that remains within a person, experts and newcomers be damned.

That is what I believe is happening for the family of Terri Schindler-Schiavo; they know their daughter/sister, better than anyone. They know she is still there. They stand by her. And so we should stand by them, and her; for they know best.

I also want to note that the name Schindler has a hallowed place in preserving human dignity, do you know the name Oscar Schindler? Ironic that this family shares that last name. I hope they are also successful in saving lives, starting with Terri’s.

Mar

29

2005

Terri Schiavo: In this country, even condemned serial killers are not executed in this way

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

Nat Hentoff has summed up the whole Terri Schiavo Passion Play being performed here in Florida as well as any I have read: Judicial Murder – Her crime was being disabled, voiceless, and at the disposal of our media. Two of the better excerpt are this:

“As to legal concerns,” writes William Anderson, a senior psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and a lecturer at Harvard University, “a guardian may refuse any medical treatment, but drinking water is not such a procedure. It is not within the power of a guardian to withhold, and not in the power of a rational court to prohibit.”
… and this:
“The courts . . . have [also] ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, they have ordered her to be made dead.”

In this country, even condemned serial killers are not executed in this way.

I pray God and Terri will forgive me for not doing more to save her.

Mar

28

2005

Spammers: Suck on this

Filed Under Internet and Blogging | Comments Off

I’ve set up various ways to stop you, and still you occasionally get past me. But we’ve now instituted the “nofollow” tag in all comments and trackbacks, so you’re going to get absolutely no benefit from wasting your time here. All you and your clients are going to do is lose your money on your useless attempts to clog our site peddling your pitiful crap.

So try as you might – but even for the few minutes or hours when the comment or trackback is visible here, you’re still not getting a penny off my bandwidth. You can move along to somewhere else less vigilant at your convenience. Buh-BYE!

Mar

28

2005

The other side of the other side of the coin

Filed Under Religion | 3 Comments

On occasion, we express some strong opinions here, and I’m not about to regret any of them. But it should be noted that some people we normally agree with are on the other side of the Terri Schindler-Schiavo debate, and not without good cause. Among these are Charles Johnson, Cox & Forkum, and Glenn Reynolds. In general, these people worry about the “intrusion” (my word) of government into issues and decisions where it does not belong. In one sentence, this is a summation of much modern philosophy termed “conservatism”, “federalism”, and “libertarianism”. It would be equally correct to point out that a few people we vehemently disagree with on a variety of issues are willing to side with us on this one.

Welcome to the other debate.

I like Charles Johnson’s word. The vast majority of the debate in this country revolves around some common-sense questions that turn a few left-leaning people with a great amount of power and influence into die-hard Idiotarians. The prime example: If someone flies an airliner into a skyscraper, should you: A) find his accomplices, leaders, and financial backers and forcibly remove the threat they pose, or B) blame America for war, agression, and poverty? You know the rest of that tale since we discuss it here on a daily basis.

But an equally simple set of questions run in a completely different direction, and reveal completely different fault lines. Is there a God? What part should morality and religion play in public debate? Who decides when life should begin, and when it should end? Most of the Left long ago embraced the side of these questions we know of as “secularism”. They posit that the meaning of the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause places “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” so far above “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” that the latter are banned from discussion in public.

At least a sizable plurality of Americans have bought into this claptrap, especially a powerfully eloquent minority of conservatives who admit to being secular, irreligious, or atheistic. Most of the time, the difference is not so different and does not cause issues within the Republican Party. Even many of these aforementioned anti-idiotarian atheists support and defend the conservative view of the Establishment Clause in their rhetoric. But when the time comes to put that rhetoric into practice – like in the Schiavo case – they oppose majority conservatives for their “theocratic” tendencies.

(A few “true-believer” liberals actually side against their secular brethren on these issues, most notably “liberation Catholics” who believe socialism is a legitimate vehicle for imposing Christian egalitarianism on society.)

While I am optimistic that anti-idiotarians will eventually win our fight, the real Culture War involves the battle with secularism. And that fight, I’m afraid, my corner is losing.

Mar

28

2005

Fake but Accurate Again?

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | Comments Off

I’ve been on a bit of a vacation the past few days so I missed this story when it first came out. I wonder if the Pajamahadeen will mobilize against ABC, the Washington Post, et al, the same way we did for RatherGate? I don’t think we should, I think we must! If we do not, the efforts against Rather and CBS look more like a partisan witch hunt and less like what I believe they were – striving for the truth.

Mar

23

2005

Variations on a Martin Niem

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 5 Comments

They came for the unwanted unborn, and few spoke out against them, so they came up with a solution. And now they can now kill the unborn without hesitation.

Then they came for the sick and infirmed, in pain and suffering, and few spoke out against them, so they came up with a solution. And now the sick and infirmed can kill themselves without objection.

Then they came for the disabled, and argued that they had no quality of life, and few spoke out against them, so they came up with a solution. And now the families can impose a “Death with Dignity” without objection.

And now they are coming again. They talk about people who smoke, people who are overweight, and the elderly being a drain on the health care systems in society. When, I wonder, will they begin to seek a “solution” for them?

And with science and the recently mapped human genome, perhaps they will one day come for you because of some flaw in your DNA – having found a “Final Solution.”

Who will be left to speak out on your behalf?

(Who is Martin Niem

Mar

23

2005

And now a quick word from our Editor…

Filed Under Internet and Blogging | 5 Comments

Over my cold, dead, stinking body.

Mar

22

2005

CT of Terri’s Brain

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 1 Comment

CodeBlueBlog has a link to a CT scan of Terri’s brain. The cranium is not filled with spinal fuid, (as some news sources have told us). The doctor provides an explanation of the CT, and the status of the patient shown. A must read for anyone wondering about her true condition.

A tip of the Stovepipe Hat to: Asymetrical Information. And while you are there, check out this reasoning.

Mar

22

2005

Hollywood Hero for Schiavo

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

A Hollywood Hero, and feminist activist, calls for Terri to have control over her life.

“By his actions Michael Schiavo has demonstrated that he should not be the one making the ultimate life-or-death decisions for a woman who, only in legal terms, remains his wife. His belief that this was Terri

Mar

22

2005

Schiavo – Where Are The Kennedys?

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

The Kennedys, like the Shindlers, know something about having a young handicapped woman in the family. The family patriarch, Joseph Kennedy, with the best intentions, ordered an operation which turned his daughter Rosemary from mildly-retarded to physically and mentally incapacitated. Yet the family did not have her killed, and they cared for her until her death at age 86.

So, why is the family which began the Special Olympics program in honor of Rosemary now so silent when another family seeks to care for their handicapped daughter?

The Kennedy’s have power and influence, if they wanted Terri to be fed, they could make it happen. So, where is their moral compass? Did they forget the lessons of Joe and Rose? Care for the least capable among us, for their lives matter too!

And, dare I remind Ted, you have some atoning to do. Save Terri’s life! For once in your life, save a life!

PS: Some sources dispute the good intentions of Joe Kennedy who apparently had the operation done without the Mother’s consent.

Mar

21

2005

Of feeding tubes and filibusters

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 1 Comment

The featured editorial at the Wall Street Journal today discusses the new efforts by the Republicans in Congress to save the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

The conservative Republicans leading this effort – Senators Bill Frist and Rick Santorum, Representative Tom DeLay – are taking hits for supposedly abandoning their federalist principles.

We’d have more sympathy for this argument if the same liberals who are complaining about the possibility of the federal courts reviewing Mrs. Schiavo’s case felt as strongly about restraining the federal judiciary when it comes to abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues they don’t want to trust to local communities. In any event, these critics betray their lack of understanding of the meaning of federalism. It is not simply about “states’ rights.” Conservatives support states’ rights in areas that are not delegated to the federal government but they also support federal power in areas that are delegated.

Think of an analogy to the writ of habeas corpus. As John Eastman of the Claremont Institute points out, “We have federal court review of state court judgments all the time in the criminal law context.” The bill before Congress essentially treats the Florida judgment as a death sentence, warranting federal habeas review. Mrs. Schiavo is not on life support. The court order to remove the feeding tube is an order to starve her to death. Moreover, Mrs. Schiavo is arguably being deprived of her life without due process of law, a violation of the 14th Amendment that Congress has the power to address.

For those who don’t find it interesting or understandable, it would be easier to point out that while modern conservatism has a libertarian streak, we are not Liberatarians. We reserve the right to pass laws to restrict what other people through their dubious claims consider “liberties” where the Constitution does not specify or includes language contrary to the notion.

Of course, we wouldn’t need so many strange laws defining the obvious if we had judges who knew how to interpret the laws we already have. The Republicans are trying to do something about that right now as well…. I won’t bore anyone with yet another recitation of the filibuster battle going on in the Senate over the President’s federal judicial appointments, but I’ve discerned what could be another way to look at it.

Rush Limbaugh has been fond of saying recently that the man who finally leads the charge to change the rules in the Senate prohibiting the filibuster of judicial appointments will be lauded as a hero. And there’s definately one Senator I’ve noticed is quite prominent in the battle lately. It’s none other than the instigator of this blog, Sen. Trent Lott.

You might have noticed that the judges for whom the Democrats are fond of using the filibuster tactics tend to be people from demographics that Democrats would otherwise embrace. Priscilla Owen is female, Henry Saad is of Arab descent, and Janice Brown is not only a woman, but a black woman. Saad and another nominee, William Pryor, are also Catholic. The problem with all of them (in the Democrat view) is they are conservatives who respect original intent.

Here’s where Sen. Lott comes in. As Steve observed in a conversation we had last week, several of the Senators are considering or actively planning presidential campaigns. If any one of them were to be seen as leading that charge against the Democratic filibusters, it might elevate that person too highly in the struggle for the Republican nomination in 2008. The reason the “nuclear option” has been delayed (other than simple partisanship) is probably because they’ve been looking to find someone whose rise in stature would merely return him to the level of status quo in the Senate. Since Mr. Lott’s fall from grace came because of something he said that was viewed as insulting to racial minorities, being the personal champion of these judges might be enough to rehabilitate his tarnished image without endangering the presidential aspirations of his fellow Senators.

Convoluted? Yes, but then are most political machinations. Just don’t expect me to shut down my blog if I say something nice about Trent Lott in the future. He will have helped to install judges that may well prevent cases like Terri’s in the future.

Next Page →

  • Featured Sponsor

  • Recent Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories