End of the Affair: The Behavior of Participants in the Schiavo Debate

[Sean Smith]

Still waiting for you explanation of my "distortion".

Look up about a dozen or so posts.  

HINT:  doing what a person said they wanted != sentencing them for committing a crime.

[griz]

She never said she wanted to be starved to death. She said she didn't want to live like Karen Ann Quinlin, who had a machine breathing for her.

Are you saying my distortion is the fact that I consider a feeding tube sustenance while the court considers it medical care? I've said several times I disagree with the court. But that doesn't make it a distortion, no matter how much you roll your eyes.

[roo_ster]

Note: The thread topic was/is the actions of the debate participants, not necessarily the particular circumstances of the case, which have been hashed over many times.

I had seen quite a few parallels between the larger debate carried out on the networks and the smaller debate carried out here, at APS: wild accusations by the pro-tubers and a visceral contempt for Christianity by the anti-tubers being some of the more noticable.

***********

RevDisk wrote:

You are assuming their motives....A good number of liberals did indeed think it was not the federal government's place to intervene in an affair between the family and the courts.

Given the left's general position WRT the gov't (federal or otherwise) meddling in family affairs by legislation or judicial fiat, I think most adults can dismiss this newfound reverence for Federalism and familial sovereignty on the part of the left as a convenient pose, not a principled position.

Don't take my word for it, here's Reverend Al:

I am saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo. I am also saddened by the blatant attempt by right wing extremists to use her condition and family disagreements to galvanize an anti-choice fervor in this country. I respectfully declined an invitation to come to Florida by the Schindler family because the situation was being used by the right wing to distort the issue of a person's right to make life choices.

The National Action Network and I offer our condolences to the entire family, but also remind the nation to critically view what was said by Congressman Tom DeLay, who tried to cynically manipulate public opinion against people's right to choose in this country.

FWIW, you might reference my opinion on such governmental meddling in an earlier thread, here:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=3827#p3827
jfruser wrote:

I am quite ambivalent about this whole mess.  I believe that the pro-life crowd (among which I number myself) is making a blunder by playing this case up.  It is a tough case & tough cases make bad law.  The pro-lifers are likely to see some court rulings that will likely undermine the pro-life position...or the authority for a spouse to act on their incapacitated spouse's behalf.
...
What do I think ought to be done?  Let her husband determine what artificial means are to be taken to preserve her life.

To put it more succinctly, Fed.gov ought to leave most (if not all) family-law-type issue to State.gov.

**********

RevDisk wrote:

What you saw as "contempt of Christianity in particular" was more likely disagreement over YOUR beliefs.

Doubtful, especially as my beliefs WRT TS are "let the hubby yank the tube, as it is his decision to make" (see above).

Better TS starve to death than Congrees/FL Legislature undermine spousal primacy in these decisions.  Better TS starve to death than the various black-robed tyrants-in-training continue to undermine the ethic biased in favor of life.  Sometimes there is no good choice...just some that are less bad than others.

The (ill-timed) jibes about JPII, the "why don't Christians mass-suicide" comments and a few other choice, contemptuous, remarks in a few threads conveyed the message just fine.  I noted the contempt as similar to what occurred in the MSM, but was not offended by the coments for two reasons:
1. I am not Catholic.  I thought highly of JPII, but I do not share Catholic doctrine WRT the Bishop of Rome.
2. I think free speech is a wonderful thing, as it outs the ignorant by their own words.

[As an aside, I think you had the best post in this thread:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=4927#p4927

No, we death cultists say "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" just like any other Servant of Cthulu.

I just hope that nobody was freakish enough to work out the entire HPL-universe language, that way the Star Wars wierdos did with Kilngon.]

**********

telewinz wrote:

The only thing worse than a fanantic Moslem is a fanantic Christian.  I wonder which faith has the most blood on their hands?

GoRon had the scent when he wrote, "The godless religions of the 'humanists' seem to be the ones with most of the blood on their hands in modern history," except that I quibble with he term "modern."  I would argue that the fanatic athiest body count of 100+ millions slaughtered in the 20th century makes them the winners of the "All-Time Megadeath Sweepstakes."

WRT comments like, "The only thing worse than a fanantic Moslem is a fanantic Christian," I suppose it would be true if you think that a third party praying loudly/obnoxiously for your salvation on the street corner is a fate worse than Johnny Mohammed sending you to your next plane of existence by way of suicide bomber or hijacked airliner.

***********

mfree wrote:

I an thoroughly convinced that she told her husband she didn't want to live this way.

Just who is relying on faith, here?

**********

DustinD wrote:

Is it voluntery in the Netherlands? Do people choose to die, does the government kill people against their will, or do they just stop paying for the ones they can not save?

Physician-assisted suicide is policy in the Netherlands.  According to their law, the adultpatient must ask for it and need not be terminally ill.  Those who have investigated the use of euthanasia have noticed an increasing tendency of medical staff to off even those who can not assent to the procedure.

Additionally, a drive is underway to eutanize terminally ill children up to the age of twelve, under the auspices of the Groningen protocol.
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/world/9890729.htm

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

The hospital, beyond confirming the protocol in general terms, refused to discuss its details.

"It is for very sad cases," said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. "After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year."

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

(Bold text my doing, jfruser)

Most reports state for every case of reported infant euthanasia, five occur in the Netherlands.

I want to be very clear here: this is not the withdrawal of artificial repsiratation or other artificial aids.  This is injecting a child up to the age of twelve with a lethal dose of drugs.

Yet another reason I want my health care and insurance in the private sector.

**********

Insta-Death-Camp/Mass Euthanasia Straw Man Logical Fallcy
RevDisk wrote:

This ruling will not create death camps for the physically unacceptable.

Sean Smith wrote:

But this B.S. about the case setting a precedent for mass euthanasia on demand (as some have claimed) is simply false.

I made the error of using the word "slide" in the following sentence:

We have an inkling of where this issue will slide, given the happenings in the Netherlands and their practices of euthanasia of the terminally ill and newborns born with dificulties.

My bad.  I can't expect others to understand what I meant, rather than what I wrote.

I am aware of the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy...as well as the "Straw Man" logical fallacy.

Some of the hysterics did violate Godwin's law, among other unpleasant behaviors.  I fail to see where I did in my first post.  To respond to the first post with "this will not result in National Socialist death camps for gorks" is to not engage the observations/comments, but to erect a straw man to whack down.

Is it slippery slope (non)logic or merely applying the lessons of history when:
1. Historical and contemporary examples can be cited where a gradualist approach was taken and has resulted in a repugnant state of affairs, as can be seen in the Netherlands.
(Google "netherlands euthanasia" to find all sorts of interesting information)

2. We have folks in influential positions, like Peter Singer (tenured bioethics professor at Princeton University) actively campaigning for such a regimen:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200503300755.asp

Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all...Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=peter%20singer&userid=dK890iFBd3&cds2Pid=946

3. Our rulers use the opinions & decisions generated in these other countries to trump both our Constitution and our cultural norms:
a. Ruth Bader Ginsberg
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/3/82551.shtml

The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification

b. Stephen Breyer
http://domino.american.edu/AU/media/mediarel.nsf/1D265343BDC2189785256B810071F238/1F2F7DC4757FD01E85256F890068E6E0?OpenDocument

So what I'm saying is that this world that we live in is a world where I think it's out of date for people to teach about foreign law in a course called "foreign law."

c. Sandra Day O'Connor
http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/news.jsp?key=310&t=

I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.

Social Science = Fuzzy Science
It is not as if you can take some social inputs, place them in a flat, featureless plane without contact to our world, shake it up and observe the effects on the output.  

We can study history and do our best to apply what we know of human nature.  

A couple quick examples:
Firearms Confiscation
Gun Controls > Gun Registration > Gun Confiscation

Authoritarian Takeovers
Popular Sentiment Stirred Up > Opposition Suppressed > Liberties Curtailed > Power Centralized

So...if we look to the UK, Australia, & other countries, see what happened there and apply those lessons learned to our RKBA struggle...are we a bunch of logic-impaired slippery-slopists?

How about if we look toward Venezuela?  Are those warning of a creeping leftist authoritarianism a bunch of hysterics who care nothing for the finer points of logic?

[RevDisk]

Given the left's general position WRT the gov't (federal or otherwise) meddling in family affairs by legislation or judicial fiat, I think most adults can dismiss this newfound reverence for Federalism and familial sovereignty on the part of the left as a convenient pose, not a principled position.

Erm.  I'd have to slightly disagree.  Gay marriage, for instance.  I didn't care as much about the "morality" of being homosexual as much I did from the civil rights viewpoint.  The right wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment stricting the rights of the few to appease the many.  These few are not criminals before the law, they do not have a history of violence.   I'm not gay, and I have no personal interest in the matter.  It just worries me when the government says "We're denying you equal rights for our benefit."

To put it more succinctly, Fed.gov ought to leave most (if not all) family-law-type issue to State.gov.

We completely agree.

Doubtful, especially as my beliefs WRT TS are "let the hubby yank the tube, as it is his decision to make" (see above).

Better TS starve to death than Congrees/FL Legislature undermine spousal primacy in these decisions.  Better TS starve to death than the various black-robed tyrants-in-training continue to undermine the ethic biased in favor of life.  Sometimes there is no good choice...just some that are less bad than others.

Hmm, indeed.  Reality sucks at times.  

I just hope that nobody was freakish enough to work out the entire HPL-universe language, that way the Star Wars wierdos did with Kilngon.

Heh, no.  Mere mortals are driven mad by the language of the Dark Elder Gods, especially Cthulu.  So you just make up a bunch of glibberish in the same grammatical form and preserve your sanity.

GoRon had the scent when he wrote, "The godless religions of the 'humanists' seem to be the ones with most of the blood on their hands in modern history," except that I quibble with he term "modern."  I would argue that the fanatic athiest body count of 100+ millions slaughtered in the 20th century makes them the winners of the "All-Time Megadeath Sweepstakes."

WRT comments like, "The only thing worse than a fanantic Moslem is a fanantic Christian," I suppose it would be true if you think that a third party praying loudly/obnoxiously for your salvation on the street corner is a fate worse than Johnny Mohammed sending you to your next plane of existence by way of suicide bomber or hijacked airliner.

True zealots, fanatics and fundimentalists of all religions or creed are pretty much the same to me.  Anyone that says "God/G-d/Allah/Marx/Mao says you have to kill this person/people" is the same in my book.  A Christian that kills Muslims in the name of God is no better than a Muslim that kills Christians in the name of Allah.  I've seen both.  

I've seen Muslim kids shot while swimming.  Ever seen what 7.62x39mm does to the face of a 14, 15 year old girl?  It was done by a Christian fanatic.  I've also seen repression of minority Christians in a majority Muslim area.  Two wrongs do not equal a right.

Authoritarian Takeovers
Popular Sentiment Stirred Up > Opposition Suppressed > Liberties Curtailed > Power Centralized

So...if we look to the UK, Australia, & other countries, see what happened there and apply those lessons learned to our RKBA struggle...are we a bunch of logic-impaired slippery-slopists?

How about if we look toward Venezuela?  Are those warning of a creeping leftist authoritarianism a bunch of hysterics who care nothing for the finer points of logic?

Out of mere curiousity, are you making the case for all warning against authoritarianism or just left-wing authoritarianism.  Because no offense, but I have a hard time understanding how very well you detailed your argument behind the slippery slope to netherland ish euthanasia yet believe that "creeping leftist authoritarianism" is the only cause of concern.  Careful not to vote yourself into slavery just to spite your opposition, my friend.

[telewinz]

According to the Brain Injury Association, there are between 35,000 and 40,000 people diagnosed with being in a persistent vegetative state the same diagnosis that Terry Schiavos parents dispute.

"It happens all of the time, you just don't hear about it," said Amanda Engler,
director of communications for the Texas Hospital Association. Engler said thousands of patients are removed
from life support in Texas each year, either as a result of decisions reached by family members
and doctors or because of the patients'own advanced directives or living wills.

Its not an uncommon occurrence, said Jon Radulovic, vice president of communications for the
 National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (search). Radulovic said that anecdotal evidence culled from doctors, families and other health care professionals confirms that thousands and thousands of patients are removed from life support each year.

You very much run into privacy issues, said Tom Burke, director of public affairs for the American Health Care association, a professional association for nursing homes. Burke said his group tries to track legal issues and litigation associated with right-to-die issues but must rely on anecdotal reports from facilities. When we try to talk to someone at a nursing home, the administrators are very reluctant, he said. These are private matters.

Medically, people do not die from life-support removal, they die from heart disease or cancer. Death certificates do not list "Removal from life support," or "car accident" or "drug overdose" as official causes of death.  Death certificates say "heart failure" or "cardiac arrest."

When the Florida Legislature and Congress enacted emergency legislation in response to the Schiavo case 
legislation in effect to save the life of a single person  without knowing how many individuals and families they would be affecting, lawmakers had no way of assessing the ramifications and consequences of the legislation.

[Guest]

lawmakers had no way of assessing the ramifications and consequences of the legislation.

Of course they knew, or could have known by simply asking one single doctor or picking up a medical journal, they just didnt care.

[telewinz]

They knew what effect it would have on a single person (hoped), Terri but what about the rest of those in her condition in Florida?  Or maybe they just had a knee-jerk reaction to political pressure?

[griz]

Medically, people do not die from life-support removal, they die from heart disease or cancer. Death certificates do not list "Removal from life support," or "car accident" or "drug overdose" as official causes of death.  Death certificates say "heart failure" or "cardiac arrest."

May I assume from this that doctors routinely stop food and water to patients who are not in a PVS, but consious paitents suffering from cancer or heart disease? If so, I wonder if they still claim it is a blissful pain free death?

[roo_ster]

Left vs Right & Meddling by the Federales in Family Relations
I think we'll have to disagree.  The right is not pure as the driven snow in this aspect, but is much more hands-off than the left.


RevDisk wrote:

True zealots, fanatics and fundimentalists of all religions or creed are pretty much the same to me.  Anyone that says "God/G-d/Allah/Marx/Mao says you have to kill this person/people" is the same in my book.  A Christian that kills Muslims in the name of God is no better than a Muslim that kills Christians in the name of Allah.  I've seen both.

Agreed: fanaticism which seeks out the "other" to murder merely for being "other" is a Bad Thing.

Given the above, a person/country/whatever must use common sense when allocating finite resources.  The last bout of murderous, organized, international, Christian fanaticism ended in 1801, when the last victim of the Inquisition was burned at the stake.  [FWIW, the number killed by the Inquisition was (by my admittedly imperfect recollection) fewer than the number killed on 11SEP2001.]  It makes little sense for the West to obsess over a small number of Christian fanatics who erect a "compound" in the middle of nowhere, make failed predictions of the end of the world, and interpret the Bible as allowing their charismatic leader to marry any number of female co-fanatics.

RevDisk wrote:

Out of mere curiousity, are you making the case for all warning against authoritarianism or just left-wing authoritarianism.  Because no offense, but I have a hard time understanding how very well you detailed your argument behind the slippery slope to netherland ish euthanasia yet believe that "creeping leftist authoritarianism" is the only cause of concern.  Careful not to vote yourself into slavery just to spite your opposition, my friend.

Venezuela just happens to be the place in the Western Hemisphere where authoritatrianism is moving fastest and most visibly & could serve as an example most would recognize.  This is not to discount any other sort of authoritarianism or any other social/political/cultural/whatever goins-on that might be worrisome. (I think that ought to cover all the bases.)