tdaxp

"Schiavo Finale," by TM Lutas, Flit(tm), 17 June 2005, http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/tmblog/archives/005443.html.

TM Lutas on the resolution of the Terri Schiavo case
Schiavo Finale

I owe myself (and my readers) an honest bit of closure on Teri Schiavo. I was wrong, and the autopsy results (pdf) seems to have closed the book, on the level of damage Teri Schiavo had. I still can't understand Michael Schiavo and why he chose to act the way he acted. Seeking the additional tests the parents sought prior to letting go would have cost less, salvaged his reputation in an awful lot of people's eyes and perhaps saved us all from a national circus that should never have happened. His stand against testing and willingness to spend money on lawyers but not on medical tests was the strongest bit of evidence on the parents' side.

At this point, I hope that she is in a better place and at peace. I hope that the family will look to their own souls as they pray for hers.

Well said.

"Re: Schiavo," by John Derbyshire, The Corner, 15 June 2005, http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_06_12_corner-archive.asp#066258.

More Derb

At the Atlanta bash last month, an audience member asked the panel whether the Schiavo case had caused any of us to change our minds about the underlying issues.

I piped up & said yes, the case had changed my mind in one respect. It had made me realise, a thing I never realised before, that I do favor euthanasia.

Ramesh asked me at some point why, if I were willing to see Mrs Schiavo have her feeding withdrawn so that she dehydrated to death over several days, I wasn't willing to just have her given a lethal injection. I couldn't think of any satisfactory answer to this, and haven't been able to since; so in all honesty, I am bound to say I favor the lethal injection, in at least some cases.

Good point.

This is why federalism is important. So when one state legalizes something, an uninformed majority doesn't snuff it out.

"RE: Schiavo," by John Derbyshire, The Corner, 15 June 2005, http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_06_12_corner-archive.asp#066242.

Great post by John Derbyshire in reaction to the latest Schiavo fuss. Emphasis mine

Some comments on that e-mail that seemed right to you, Kathryn:

"Regardless of the severity of brain damage, it seems to me the moral principle still abides..."

Regardless? Regardless? So all those things we heard about Mrs. Schiavo's condition not really being as bad as the husband & the doctors said, was just cynical propaganda? In fact, however bad her condition actually was, the right-to-life side would have held the same position? Then wasn't it dishonest of them to raise the issue of Mrs. Schiavo's actual neurological status? Even if she had had no functioning cerebral cortex at all (which seems, in fact, to have been pretty nearly the case) the right-to-lifers wouldn't have budged -- "regardless"? Which right-to-lifers -- names, please -- made this clear at the time? It sure wasn't clear to me.

"1. No human life should be contingent as to whether or not another person gives it credibility or not.""

So if anyone, in any condition, has a metabolism that can be kept functioning somehow, that ought to be done, regardless (!) of what any person -- spouse, parent, eminent neurosurgeon, judge -- thinks? Start building some real big warehouses -- you're going to need them.

"2. If a family member wants to terminate a human life where the human in question is not able to speak for him or herself, and another family member wants to sustain that life, defer to the family member that wants to keep the human in question alive.""

This is not currently the law in the state of Florida. If the people of Florida, in their collective wisdom, would like it to be the law, get lobbying. It seems like a fair principle to me... provided you can iron out a definition of the term "family member" that will not produce results just as rancorous as the Schiavo case (which I doubt -- see next point).

And what if ALL family members wish to terminate a Schiavo-type life? Should that life then be terminated, even in violation of our reader's point (1)?

"3. A fortiori should this be the case where the family member wanting to keep the human in question alive is willing to care for that human in question. (in this case, the parents).""

What if the parents are both 90 years old? Prisoners in the state penitentiary? Only doubtfully of sound mind? Stand to gain financially from their caring? Etc., etc.

"4. It remains true, no matter how many different circumstances one raises, the only direct cause of Schiavo's death was government action, i.e., a court order.""

At least two of the governments (if you mean, executive administrations) involved -- the Florida govt. and the Feds -- were trying every way they could to find some way around the laws -- laws written and approved through elected representatives, according to state and federal constitutions. The laws won. May they ever do so. And may we ever remain free to change the laws when they no longer satisfy we, the people.

"Theocracy in America," by Collounsbury, Lounsbury on MENA, 29 March 2005, http://www.livejournal.com/users/collounsbury/304891.html.

Are "defenders" or Mrs. Schiavo Republican Lenninists? Col thinks so:

However, returning to the subject of Theocracy in America and the “God Botherers” – I confess one of my favorite memories of my father, otherwise … well a model for my personality, was his reducing some Mormon missionaries to tears, quite inspirational that – I find myself appalled in a real sense by this case. More in the sense in which these so called “Conservatives” in the American government lost their hypocritical attachment to local rights, family and whatnot to use the power of the State to intervene and even try to override the courts. These are the policies of Right Bolsheviks, not classic liberals by either instinct or nature. They are the actions of theocrats (in the wide sense the very same people often use in regards to the Islamists (who are not so far away from them in their thinking)), with this talk of “God’s Law” and the like. To take Central Government action to rip a case from its proper context and place it into another sphere, into the Federal court system in this case, is an abuse of power worthy of any theocracy.

The "theocrat" charge is exaggerated, but the rest isn't

1. The Schiavo Actists are not Conservatives. They are attempting to break family law, break the courts, and break local control.


2. The Schiavo Activists are attacking marriage. The entire argument rests on the inability of Schiavo's lawful husband to determine her medical treatment. If marriage is so weak, why would these activists bother defending it against homosexualists?


3. Allowing for hyperbole. the Schiavo Activsts are like Bolsheviks. Some popular pundits are alreading justifying extreme means with the ends. Ann Coulter adocated executive nullification (the Andrew Jakcon Option), for goodness sake!

The Schiavo case has a wider context, and I will blog that once it is over. But the extremism of my friends on the right is still alarming.

These are the headlines I see in the Terri Schiavo case. I think the Democrats must see the same thing, because few are criticizing Republicans for righists' bizarre stand. When I see solid conservatives like Michelle Malkin and The Red Side of Belew join the statists I despair.