Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Terri Schiavo

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

Terri Schiavo has a right to die.
Well of source, but that would be true even if she were working a boring 9-5 job. The question might be whether she has an obligation to die, or a right to chose whether to die: I doubt anybody would claim the former, and there seems to be no rational possibility that the right to chose will be exercised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here's something I hadn't heard before.

The fact is, Schiavo is gone. Since her heart attack in 1990, her cerebral cortex has dissolved. There is no more "Terri" in Terri Schiavo. Only her brain stem controls her reflexes and basic body functions, but she has no consciousness.

http://www.webujournal.com/news/2005/03/24...se-900974.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone with a rational understanding of physiology can look at this image:

How was this image generated? What do the colors indicate, why is one green in the other blue? Is it a measure of brain activity? Blood flow?

I've seen brain scans before, the images can be dramatic. But unless you are formally trained at what you are looking at, it doesn't have any legitimate meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How was this image generated?
It’s a CAT scan.

What do the colors indicate

The colors aren’t the relevant aspect of the image. What is relevant is that there is obviously a huge amount of empty space (actually fluid) that has replaced brain tissue, tissue which can never regenerate. You can’t think with what you don’t have. Formal training is not required to know this, but the analysis of the very large dark areas as missing brain tissue has been confirmed by a PhD in behavioral neuroscience, among others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the motives of the husband? does he have a new girlfiend?

She should be allowed to die if she is truly vegie... but who is the umpire... just the courts ? she is running out of time. What evidence do the parents have that she semi concious? surely this can be verified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, why is this such a big deal? Why is something so unimportant, one person that is already essentially dead, all over the news? It's also weird the conservative radio talk shows that I usually agree with, except for the religous nonsense, seem to agree with us that there is a constitutional crisis going on in this case. But then they oddly blame it on the courts instead of congress. I guess this just makes explicit where we diverge from conservative right via reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, why is this such a big deal? Why is something so unimportant, one person that is already essentially dead, all over the news? It's also weird the conservative radio talk shows that I usually agree with, except for the religous nonsense, seem to agree with us that there is a constitutional crisis going on in this case. But then they oddly blame it on the courts instead of congress. I guess this just makes explicit where we diverge from conservative right via reason.

I agree completely. I just got back from a trip in the US back to Canada in which I listed to people like Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage rant on about this very issue. I felt really let down because I usually enjoy these shows, but the sheer lack of reason and appeal to religious sentiment seemed to skew their perspectives so dramatically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, why is this such a big deal? Why is something so unimportant, one person that is already essentially dead, all over the news?
The reason why it's so important to the obligation-to-lifers is clear enough, but what is unfortunately also lost in the shuffle is how important it is for Objectivism. There are many essential philosophical questions raised here: the nature of life qua man vs. physical existence; contractual and other obligations to the dead or the effectively-dead; quite significant issues in law regarding implicit presumptions; major issues regarding the nature of knowledge and how knowledge relates to action. I've been watching the news to see if anyone notes that these are the esential questions that should come up in this case, and so far I have not seen any indication that people get it that these are core issues. The one thing that does seem clear is that the legal subjectivists -- the ones who compute what the law "actually" says based on their emotional responses to legal questions -- have totally won the day, on both the left and the right. I predict that Scalia commits suicide within 5 years, out of desparation. (not a serious prediction).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why it's so important ...

I agree that this is a really important case.

Ofcourse DrewFactor was right that similar cases happen every day -- without comment -- in hospitals around the world. If -- like sometimes happens -- the conflict was simply between the husband and the parents, without recourse to law, it would be of passing interest. An ICU nurse would tell you that such disagreements do take place among family trying to make a decision.

However, because it went to court, and further, with the governor and Congress becoming involved, that made it more serious. It became a case that can affect us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard no one else in the country take my position. I am a bit disappointed that I did not see it here in an Objectivist thread.

An individual's right to life is not a right to be provided life by one's brothers--it is the right to freely do the the things required to maintain one's own life. It IS possible to fail at living.

In this case, everyone is looking at broad abstractions, when we can easily deal with a concrete. Neither Terri Schiavo, nor any of her relatives, can afford these medical services. Her feeding tube is being paid for by Medicaid (money taken from you and me by threat of force). As an Objectivist, I know that her need does not constitute a claim on my life. Rush Limbaugh, and others, keep stating that she has a right to life. Based on the facts I presented in the previous lines, my life--and the lives of all who are reading this post--are the lives (portions of lives) at stake here. Roark says in the courtroom, "I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life."

The situation for Ms. Schiavo is unfortunate, but when one runs out of the material resources required to sustain his own life, and none of his brothers volunteer to provide those resources, no government has the right to force his brothers to surrender their property.

-- George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the above post, but I thought her needs where being taken care with money from the lawsuit for medical misdiagnosis or that her family was going to foot the bill. Is this a mistaken view? I know it's what has been reported on T.V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely she must die soon, what evidence do the parents have that she is semi concious?

What are the motives of the husband ... does he have a new girlfriend?

What evidence does the husband have that she requested death if she became a vegie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why it's so important to the obligation-to-lifers is clear enough, but what is unfortunately also lost in the shuffle is how important it is for Objectivism.

I wouldn't say you're disagreeing with what Rational_One is saying. The point made there was that there is a mountain being made out of a molehill. This is not to say that there aren't significant issues involved, but - as you point out - that, for the most part, isn't what the fuss is being made about.

I, too, am asking the question of why this case is all over the media, when similar situations are said to happen every day. Is it because the subject was once young and attractive, and they have pictures of her to show on TV? Is it because the soap opera of the husband's life makes for "good TV"? Does the Religious Right have some sort of influence?

There are many essential philosophical questions raised here: the nature of life qua man vs. physical existence; contractual and other obligations to the dead or the effectively-dead; quite significant issues in law regarding implicit presumptions; major issues regarding the nature of knowledge and how knowledge relates to action.

Actually, I'm a little disappointed that this hasn't being discussed in more depth here. I'm new to Objectivism, and would have expected that this would be the place to hear it. For example, I read about the subject of vegetarianism on an Objectivist site once. My interpretation was that it said that animals do not have rights because they do not reason. One poster suggested Terri had assumed a "pet" status, and another a status of "property" (practically the same thing) on similar reasoning, but it didn't seem to stimulate much discussion. Another question - of the morality of tax dollars forcibly taken from the public (if that's what's happening) to keep her alive - was only mentioned. Lastly, there's been a lack of distinction between what is moral vs. what is legal in this case. Surely any Objectivist doesn't think of those two as being the same thing!

I've been watching the news to see if anyone notes that these are the esential questions that should come up in this case, and so far I have not seen any indication that people get it that these are core issues.

I'm struggling for a way to try to say this without sounding insulting or condescending, but it always comes out the same anyway: "You must be very young." Try not to take it the wrong way; you're way ahead of the general public.

The one thing that does seem clear is that the legal subjectivists -- the ones who compute what the law "actually" says based on their emotional responses to legal questions -- have totally won the day, on both the left and the right.

If by "won the day" you mean that they have succeeded in having their moment in the spotlight, you are certainly correct. But what I have noticed is that the judicial system - which apparently has at least some self-respect - readily understands that bowing to the media circus, the polls, and to the legislative and executive branch antics would abdicate any authority they currently possess. That trumps even their pervasive religionism. There's been no apparent effect on the legal outcome.

But that's an excellent observation about the legal subjectivists. I inadvertantly caught some of VanSustern last night, and it was amusing. Hannity was reporting on location, and had a predictible religionist rant about the Judicial Branch making a "power grab", ignoring Congress (who he suddenly refers to with religious reverence). It was so obvious that VanSustern, who is a lawyer, was struggling with what to say. She knew that it was obvious that Congress was inappropriately meddling with the judicial system, but how to say that without making one of her network's stars look ridiculous?!

You'll also notice that nobody talks about actually changing the law so that it's to their liking. They just want the judges to make moral judgements to their liking - instead of, say, making legal decisions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely she must die soon, what evidence do the parents have that she is semi concious?

What are the motives of the husband ... does he have a new girlfriend?

What evidence does the husband have that she requested death if she became a vegie?

DrewFactor has some very informative posts early in this thread that I think explain very well where the parents are undoubtedly coming from, based on the various other things I have heard reported about it. I don't think they have anything more than what she describes to go on.

Before we ask what the husband's motives and evidence are - and both are certainly open to question - shouldn't we determine that they are relevant? On a moral basis, should he be considered simply the owner of property (her body, given it's permanent loss of ability to reason)? Or is abiding by her wishes (if they can be reasonably established - which they probably can't) the overriding moral issue? We must establish what his moral obligations are before we can decide whether any conflict of interest is worth looking into. Let's not get sucked into the "soap opera" the media is making out of this, if we can help it.

As far any the legal aspect, it sounds like the judicial system is all but decided. I can't speak for whether it worked as it should or not, but they pay lawyers and judges a lot of money to work that end of it out, and they're certainly more qualified to do it than I am!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither Terri Schiavo, nor any of her relatives, can afford these medical services.  Her feeding tube is being paid for by Medicaid (money taken from you and me by threat of force).
If that's true, that would be an interesting revelation. But since she received $700,000 (after expenses) in a lawsuit, I am skeptical that this is so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interpretation was that it said that animals do not have rights because they do not reason.  One poster suggested Terri had assumed a "pet" status, and another a status of "property" (practically the same thing) on similar reasoning, but it didn't seem to stimulate much discussion.  Another question - of the morality of tax dollars forcibly taken from the public (if that's what's happening) to keep her alive - was only mentioned.  Lastly, there's been a lack of distinction between what is moral vs. what is legal in this case.  Surely any Objectivist doesn't think of those two as being the same thing!
The distinction beween the legal and the moral can be subtle, and should be nonexistent. In perusing the relevant Florida statutes, I don't see any distinction, at least as they apply to this case. OTOH, the law is more than just the statutes, since it includes judicial decisions and the power to render summary judgment. In that case, we can't "inspect" the morality of the full law from afar, because we (or at least I) lack sufficient evidence to evaluate his character. As for the pet/property issue, this is really important, and I hope some attention can be directed away from this particular political struggle over Schiavo, and towards the question of the source of rights and what becomes of them when your mind is gone.
"You must be very young."
Hahahahaha! Thank you, that was a good laugh.
You'll also notice that nobody talks about actually changing the law so that it's to their liking.  They just want the judges to make moral judgements to their liking - instead of, say, making legal decisions?
I used to have a certain affection for our common-law system, but reading various decisions, I've decided I think the principle of stare decisis has proven to be be a veritable disaster. It works just fine if you have a judiciary staffed by originalists like Scalia, but that is a distinct minority position. My proposal is that stare decisis be rejected as a legal principle, to be replaced by something more rigorous and temporary in nature, in recognition that significant novel cases do arise. After 6 months, say, the "announced" principle must either be recognised statutorily, or relegated to the history files.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's true, that would be an interesting revelation. But since she received $700,000 (after expenses) in a lawsuit, I am skeptical that this is so.

Here's where I'm getting my information (my apologies for not including it in my earlier post):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar22.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very useful information. If this is accurate (and I have no reason to disbelieve the most important factual statements), it eliminates the financial profit motive (the $700,000 is now down to near zero), and does indicate some Medicaid connection. BTW, who is GV?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing that does seem clear is that the legal subjectivists -- the ones who compute what the law "actually" says based on their emotional responses to legal questions -- have totally won the day, on both the left and the right.

Yes, and because of it, this story's plastered all over the place, making it hard for people looking for real news to find it. And as you said, the pro-lifers' angle on this fiasco is pretty clear--the moral ideal of "life," regardless of how subhuman a state a person's life is in. This absolutely disgusting moral ideal makes me want to hurl when I see how it would be applied in practice--in the keeping of Terry Schiavo alive in her current wretched state.

Indifference and scorn is all they give to issues that effect heroic life, yet when the life of a person in a state of living death is threatened, they all come out in full-minion-force to protest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In honor of Terry Shiavo :places Metallica Injustice For All into CD player and Cranks up the song One: This issue about Terry Shiavo boils down to one important fact. What is the value of life and where does one place it? Is the value of life in the simple fact of mere existence? Or Is there more to life then just mere existence? I think the answer is obvious to anybody who is rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In One though the person in the song was conscious and nobody knew it. In Shiavo's case it is proven that she is not conscious and without an arbitrary advance in medical technology will never be concious again. The two things are similar but not identically symetrical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True in the song One the person is concious, but not able to do anything about it, having no arms or legs, or sight or hearing, no smell or taste. In many ways it is the same issue this person wants to die because he is unable to live life. Where as with Terry the opposite is true, she has all of her senses there, but her mind is unable to understand the stimuli being sent, since the central part of brain is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an excellent blurb about this case on the opinion page of today's _Washington Examiner_:

"One Word: Sad

"Terri Schiavo case

"There are no winners here. Whether Terri would have wanted to die or not, it is sure that she would not have wanted her husband to end up battling her parents in court for a decade and a half. She would not have wanted to become a prop in a political battle that doesn't seem to have much to do with her fate or the facts. As what is left of Terri wastes away, nobody involved looks terribly good."

As usual, the Examiner's editorial staff sums up my opinion exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...