To Me the Real Tragedy Schiavo Case

[adios]

I was thinking about where the “middle ground” might be in the Schiavo case. The parties went to the courts to have the courts resolve their dispute. Therefore they asked the court to make a decision. A decision the Schindler’s didn’t like but they sought it. The parties didn’t have to do that as they could have reached a settlement of some sort out of court. I don’t have any doubts that such a settlement would have involved compromises that both sides would have been reluctant to agree to. Reports I’ve heard on the media indicate that they did attempt to mediate their dispute at some point. Too bad that failed. I can see how they could have possibly reached a settlement though and to me the real tragedy is wasting so much time and money on legal issues when there could have been a compromise if both sides were willing to accept some things they really didn’t like. Perhaps Michael would have agreed to more tests and attempts at rehabilitation in exchange for having the Schindler’s agree that if those tests and efforts didn’t pan out that Terri was in fact in a permanently vegetative state and that the feeding tube would be disconnected. Again I realize that if one or both sides are intransigent then a court decision is the way to resolve the dispute. Of course when that happens a court will probably make some decisions that neither party will like anyway.

[TransientR]

I don't think a compromise was possible. For one thing, the Schindlers seem to be in near total denial about the degree of their daughter's brain damage, and Michael has certainly shown he is unbending in his position.

By the way I don't believe for a second Terri's father's claim that she whispered to him "I want to live." I think it is indicative that in their extreme emotional distress, the Schindlers are literally hearing things, and if not, are willing to say anything to fire up their supporters and bolster their case.

Frank

[Voltron87]

The real tragedy is all the politicans using this woman as a political pawn.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]

By the way I don't believe for a second Terri's father's claim that she whispered to him "I want to live." I think it is indicative that in their extreme emotional distress, the Schindlers are literally hearing things, and if not, are willing to say anything to fire up their supporters and bolster their case.

[/ QUOTE ]After 15 years of having the American Taliban like Terry Randall whisper in their ears, I'm sure they've gradually learned to justify just about anything. I can't imagine them being so delusional to really believe she's talking, but I've never been in their situation. Also, it's not unlikely that mental illness runs in their family considering how Terri got her stroke in the first place.

Situations like this happen all the time- only crazy parents would believe their daughter would have really wanted her hollow body made such a spectacle of. Considering the company they keep, it would not surprise me if they had political motivations as well. I think what we just witnessed was the start of a campaign to get an anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice confirmed. Instead we were just reminded how pathetic of a President Bush was before he could blame everything on 9/11.

[jakethebake]

The real tragedy is the number of hours of regularly scheduled programming that has been interrupted for updates.

[adios]

Yes when both sides are intransigent there's no compromise. From some media reports I've heard at one point they did have a deal though but it didn't hold together. Supposedly Michael had agreed to turn over guardianship to the Schindler's and the trust fund money when it had a lot more in it. Don't know how true that is.

[adios]

Lot of reruns are being aired and will be aired in the future.

[elwoodblues]

In most cases I agree that compromise is almost always the best situation. Here, however, there is little room for compromise as one side believes she would want to live and one side believes she would want to die. Compromise usually works best when both sides are happy/satisfied with the result. Here, no matter what the result was, one side would not feel satisfied.

---------------------

The longwinded and unorganized ramblings of a madman...

For me, it all comes down to is, absent a living will, who do we want to express the wishes of a patient in this situation.

The whole language of the discussion is so skewed it is sickening. Any time a reporter refers to the parents as "acting on behalf of Terri" (or similar language), they are making a value judgment that Terri's parents are more aware of her wishes than her spouse. Very rarely do you hear the news say something like Michael Schiavo "acting on behalf of Terri..."

When someone doesn't create a living will we have to make some assumptions and the most logical assumption to make is that the husband knows what their spouse would want. In this particular case, everyone is being a monday morning quarterback. People are so easily swayed by rumor and innuendo. They assume malintent with no evidence. The legal system I want ASSUMES that my spouse speaks for me and on my behalf. It places the burden on those suggesting otherwise to prove their case.

Despite the amount of bitching to the counter, this case deserves the press it is getting. It deserves the press to raise awareness, to encourage people to make their wishes known in writing. For those who haven't done it, get a living will ---- you usually don't need an attorney and you don't only fill one out if you want to die. This terrible situation could have been played out the same way if the parents believed she wanted to die and Michael believed she wanted to live.

To me, this isn't/shouldn't be a case about government power. It should be about the right of the individual to determine their own medical treatment. If we believe that Terri could have chosen on her own accord(without horrible moral outrage) to have a feeding tube removed, then we shouldn't be outraged when a guardian (who by definition is acting on behalf of the ward) acts in the same manner.

I still am trying to understand whether the "let her live" position is: Let her live because she would have wanted it that way; or if it is Let her live despite what she would have wanted. I think there are two distinct arguments that aren't being distinctly made. When people argue about the facts of the case, they are really arguing the "she would have wanted it that way" position. So for them, we can argue the facts back and forth without getting to the principled argument: Should we REQUIRE her to live DESPITE her wishes.

Finally, just to throw a little easter twist...

Jesus was God.
As God, Jesus could have saved himself from death.
Jesus chose death.

Why do Christians assume that God/Jesus would want Terri to continue life when Jesus himself chose death?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Compromise usually works best when both sides are happy/satisfied with the result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes ideally.

[ QUOTE ]
Here, no matter what the result was, one side would not feel satisfied.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I submit that this is most often the situation and people reach settlements nonetheless. FWIW going to court will almost all the time result in a situation where both parties have to accept court decisions they don't like.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The legal system I want ASSUMES that my spouse speaks for me and on my behalf.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about an estranged spouse? What about a spouse with conflict of interest? What about any number of other conditions a spouse may be influenced by? What about a spouse who was about to file for divorce on you? The possible list is endless and IMO it is farcical to presume that any and every spouse should speak for the other helpless partner regardless of unusual conditions. In life or death matters such considerations should be taken into account without it having to be PROVED that the spouse does not have your best interests at heart.

The law that automatically considers that an estranged spouse with conflicting interests to be a better arbiter of the helpless partner's best wishes, than that person's own parents, is a poor law IMO. It is a poor law since it is a "one-size-fits-all" law. And one size fits all is a very dangerous pattern to follow especially in individual matters of life and death.

The argument that Michael Schiavo knew her better than her parents did, would STILL hold true even if he had divorced her. If he had divorced her it would be obvious that his primary concerns lay elsewhere and he would not have been considered her primary guardian. THEREFORE the argument that he knew her better is insufficient to warrant the status it is legally accorded. Also, part of the determining criteria ought to hinge on the depth/sincerity of his commitment to her. A divorced spouse clearly has little or no commitmemt; why should an estranged spouse be presumed to have full commitment? Again it is one-size-fits-all and therefore IMO a poor law.