March 19, 2005
Pretty Words and Polite Polemics
Ned: Y'know, I can help you get rid of that crab grass.
Homer: What crab grass?!
Ned: Well, that crab grass over there. And over there. And there's quite a big patch over there.
Homer: Oh, sure, let's all gang up on the crab grass! We only hate it because of the name. We'd all love it if it had a cute name, like "elf grass".
I wonder if part of the reason why Terri Schaivo's feeding tube was removed is because we've given that act a pretty name: euthenasia. Would this idea have gotten anywhere if we just called it what it was: killin' sick people?
By changing the words we use to describe things -- or even simply the sound of those words -- we can change the way we think of those things. A garbage man magically becomes a sanitation specialist; a tax becomes a contribution; desertion becomes un-volunteering and murder becomes an assisted suicide.
It can lead to some very bizarre argumentation. Here's some of what came out of George Felos' mouth on Friday.
"To have her feeding tube inserted by a subsequent act of Congress before she dies would be a horrific act upon her body.""It is cruel and inhuman to say to a patient who says I don't want to be artificially fed to remove her feeding tube, have her enter the death process and then start life support again."
The pro-euthansia attorney said it was "cruel and inhuman" not to starve Ms. Schiavo to death.
"Wear your shame for what you did and atone for it, because to trample on [Terri's] rights again would be abhorrent."
[Collected from Newsmax]
Yes, Terri has rights. And one of them is a right to sue for divorce. I mean, look;
- Her "loving and devoted" husband is living with another woman with whom he's had two children.
- The $800,000 he received in his malpractice suit was to fund her rehabilitation. Instead he used it to fund her execution.
- He's forbidden any and all usual therapy to assist her possible - if only partial - recovery.
- He's forbidden any and all actions that would help her including treating bed sores.
- He claims that Terri once mentioned to him that she wouldn't want to be kept alive "artificially". No one else heard her say it. Yet it's granted that she had said it based on the testimony of someone who wants her dead.
Seems to me that a "right-to-die" case ought to be based, at the very very least, on a direct, first-hand request, not the say-so of someone with an interest in his or her demise. Talk about a conflict. But I digress.
"I promise to love leave and to cherish abandon through richer or poorer ill-gotten gain, in sickness starvation and in health dehydration, until death do us you part die already."
At least euthenasia's a pretty word.
Posted by Tuning Spork at March 19, 2005 04:45 PM"Her "loving and devoted" husband is living with another woman with whom he's had two children."
Terri's parents were the ones who encouraged Michael to move on with his personal life in the first place, going so far as to meet any of his prospective girlfriends over the first few years of Terri's coma.
"The $800,000 he received in his malpractice suit was to fund her rehabilitation. Instead he used it to fund her execution."
This money has long been spent on very aggressive therapy that Michael pursued for Terri for the first several years of her coma, when he still had hope that his wife would recover. Please see http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
"He's forbidden any and all usual therapy to assist her possible - if only partial - recovery."
See above. Redundant arguments for the sake of having one more on a list merely shows a lack of compelling, pertinent information.
"He's forbidden any and all actions that would help her including treating bed sores."
Oddly enough, Terri has never had a bed sore, unless she has developed one over the past week. Again see the site I referenced.
"He claims that Terri once mentioned to him that she wouldn't want to be kept alive "artificially". No one else heard her say it. Yet it's granted that she had said it based on the testimony of someone who wants her dead."
Granted, this topic doesn't come up over Sunday brunch on a weekly basis, but the few times it has in my own experience, I have not once, read never, heard someone say that they would like to be kept alive artificially.
I feel for the Shindler family a great deal. But their grandstanding on the basis of whipping up pity from as many sources as possible is both pathetic and selfish. There is a fine line between holding out hope and deluding oneself. The Shindlers leapt headfirst across that line long ago.
If Terri had honestly tried to speak on the 18th, why did they wait a full week before trying to get yet another stay based on that information? Because, frankly, they are lying at this point to drum up as much support for their selfish behavior as possible. They should be ashamed at the way they have treated their daughter, their sister. They should be ashamed at the way they have taken this issue as far into the public eye as possible. They should be ashamed for berating public officials who /do not/ have the power to overturn a court decision on a whim. The last time that the Governor stepped in, he was boitchslapped by the court systems for overstepping his power.
Do I particularly like the method of her death? No. Do I believe that she should be allowed to die? Yes. These feelings are not mutually inclusive, or exclusive for that matter.
Posted by: at March 29, 2005 03:35 PMTerri's parents were the ones who encouraged Michael to move on with his personal life in the first place, going so far as to meet any of his prospective girlfriends over the first few years of Terri's coma.
Undoubtedly to get Michael out of Terri's life and to hand ocer guardianship to the parents. Once Michael moved in and had kids with his current commonlaw wife he should have divorced Terri. "Not tonight, Honey. I have to get up early be in court to lobby for my wife's demise." It's just wrong.
This money has long been spent on very aggressive therapy that Michael pursued for Terri for the first several years of her coma, when he still had hope that his wife would recover. Please see http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Well, I keep reading that there's about $40- to $50,000 remaining. I'm sure a hefty sum was used initially to pay off acrued rehab costs. But, as soon as Michael won the money he cut off all therapy and wrote "Do not resuscitate" on her chart. The balance has gone to his attornies.
See above. Redundant arguments for the sake of having one more on a list merely shows a lack of compelling, pertinent information.
That was a clarification -- an elaboration on the previous bullet point. Whatever.
Oddly enough, Terri has never had a bed sore, unless she has developed one over the past week. Again see the site I referenced.
Hmm. I read about a minor condition that was not allowed to be treated. I remembered as a bed sore, but I could be (and probably am) mistaken. But, whatever it was, it wasn't treated.
Granted, this topic doesn't come up over Sunday brunch on a weekly basis, but the few times it has in my own experience, I have not once, read never, heard someone say that they would like to be kept alive artificially.
I think most people presume that they're talking about being unconscious and hooked up the respirators and such. Showing them Terri Schiavo, and then asking those same people if they'd hold out hope for recovery or would want to allowed to die, might get some different answers.
Thanks for the comment. But, next time, SIGN YER NAME DAG NAB IT! ;)
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 1, 2005 09:01 PM