My Take On Terry Schiavo Situation

[David Sklansky]

1. People have a right to commit suicide. If the only thing that stops them is their religion, thst's their business.

2. In spite of the above, most people who are contemplating suicide should be discouraged or stopped from doing it. The main reason is simple: Many of those who want to die will later change their minds. We know this because many of those who try suicide and fail, don't try again. They are thus presumably glad they failed or were stopped.

3. Therefore the only people who we should be willing to let go are those who are in dire straits, most likely in severe pain, and who have no hope for recovery. It also might make sense to accept the suicide of someone who is in severe pain whose only hope for alleviation is years down the road.

4. Someone who is not in severe pain but who is horribly incapacitated could reasonably want to die, but only if it is clear that no medical help is on the horizon AND that he won't change his mind in the future (I was once told by the sister of a parapalegic that my poker books and private tutoring made her brother change his mind about suicide.) I think in cases like this I would be in favor of a year or two waiting period before the government allowed an assisted suicide.

5. Many, if not most, people who are not in severe pain do not want to die regardless of the circumstances. Even paralyzed people are often able to find enjoyment in things. Plus when there is life, there is hope. This goes for other types of afflictions as well. But here's the thing: MANY PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE THEY WILL ULTIMATELY FEEL THIS WAY IF THEY ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE SITUATION. THEY THINK THEY WOULD WANT TO DIE. And in fact they may want to die at first. But they usually change their mind as long as their is not severe pain. Now this mistake on their part is usually not important. But what about those times that they can't communicate their revised wishes?

6. Because of the above I believe that Terry Schiavo (or anybody below an advanced age for that matter) shouldn't be allowed to direct their destiny in cases where they are incapacitated, can't communicate, not in pain, and there is even the slightest chance of a recovery. My reason is that in those cases there is a distinct posssibility that the patient, if he could be awakened for five minutes, would reverse the instuctions he had given. Even if that was a longshot, pot odds say you should err in that direction. (The equation changes however if the patient is in extreme pain, is extremely uncomfortable, or maybe even if it is very expensive to keep them alive. The possibility of organ donation also might come into play.)

7. Despite the fact that I believe that the feeding tube should not have been removed from Terry, it does not follow that I think the courts ruled incorrectly. In fact I almost enjoyed seeing the people and the executive branch learn the lesson that good judges will logically follow law regardless of the consequences. Most people don't realize that. For instance I think the judges who allowed gay marriages are not necessarily "activist". Rather they are simply taking anti discrimination laws to their logical conclusion. If a law says you can't stop a women from being a fireman or a bookie just because she's female, you also can't stop her from marrying a woman. I'm sure many judges might be disgusted by gay marriages but still ruled in favor of them. So too, probably with the Schiavo case. But the unfortunate result was bad as far as I am concerned.

8. Changing the subject slightly, what's with this idea of removing feeding tubes? If the government is going to sanction such deaths how can they be so coldhearted and hypocritical as to not then allow the more humane (I would assume) lethal injection? Because one is a sin of omission rather than commission? Cmon. That is a technical distinction that has no place in a supposedly compassionate society when the end result is increased suffering.

[adanthar]

That was a great post, except that in Terri's case there is, in fact, no chance of recovery.

Unfortunately, the media have ranged from bad to horrible at expressing that so there's no way for you to know, but suffice to say the 'debate' is analogous to the evolution vs. intelligent design 'debate'.

Other than that, I like it.

[Dead]

I agree.

They should have given Terri a lethal injection instead. But most medical experts have concluded that she can't feel pain anyway.

[tipperdog]

Small comment #1: Many people who attempt suicide are suffering from a treatable mental illness. It's more than a case of simply "changing their minds;" getting treatment changes their entire perspective on life.

Small comment #2: I do think there is a significant difference between removing a feeding tube and delivering a lethal injection (although I support both). For a physician to actively deliver a drug that causes death is quite different than witholding treatment and allowing nature to take its course. I think that distinction is self evident and far more than semantic.

Big Comment #1: So, in a nutshell, your position is that any person not in pain should be kept alive by any means necessary indefinitely, even if the chance of recovery if miniscule AND even if the person has expressly requested not to be kept alive in such a situation. Is that correct?

This is not a good idea because it replaces a person's informed wishes with a best guess about what their wishes might be.

I suggest this alternative: require that advance directives be taken seriously--more of an "informed consent" document. Before executing ADs, require that signatories read information about various options, including information that people who often think they want to die change their mind, as you described above. Maybe even throw in some mandatory counseling. Then, if the person still wants an AD, execute it, and honor it.

That's what I would want. And that ought to be my choice.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Many, if not most, people who are not in severe pain do not want to die regardless of the circumstances

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you willing to place a wager on this? I would be willing to bet that well over 50% of people in Terri Schiavo's situation (no pain) would prefer death.

[BCPVP]

Hopefully, Mr. Sklansky won't suffer a backlash and be forced to remove his opinion on the Schiavo case.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Because of the above I believe that Terry Schiavo (or anybody below an advanced age for that matter) shouldn't be allowed to direct their destiny in cases where they are incapacitated, can't communicate, not in pain, and there is even the slightest chance of a recovery.

[/ QUOTE ]

A person not being able to direct their destiny is not a correct philosphy. Directing destiny is fundamental to the human experience.

In this case the problem is that she did not provide the direction in writing. Therefore the direction of the destiny falls on the legal guardian -- this is both correct legally and morally.

The case is about two things -- 1. legal guardianship its role and definition and 2. once the decision is made providing a better method of reaching the logical outcome (for example a lethal injection).

The courts have correctly ruled on the first -- based on present law. Present law does not provide for the second. We can propose to change the law for both of these things and perhaps we should

The rest is emotional reactions to death.

[hunterking]

This case presents a very interesting moral dilemma, doesn't it? I'm still not sure how I feel about it (though not for lack of soul-searching), but I really appreciated the points that Mr. Sklansky made in 7 and 8:

[ QUOTE ]

7. Despite the fact that I believe that the feeding tube should not have been removed from Terry, it does not follow that I think the courts ruled incorrectly. In fact I almost enjoyed seeing the people and the executive branch learn the lesson that good judges will logically follow law regardless of the consequences. Most people don't realize that. For instance I think the judges who allowed gay marriages are not necessarily "activist". Rather they are simply taking anti discrimination laws to their logical conclusion. If a law says you can't stop a women from being a fireman or a bookie just because she's female, you also can't stop her from marrying a woman. I'm sure many judges might be disgusted by gay marriages but still ruled in favor of them. So too, probably with the Schiavo case. But the unfortunate result was bad as far as I am concerned.

8. Changing the subject slightly, what's with this idea of removing feeding tubes? If the government is going to sanction such deaths how can they be so coldhearted and hypocritical as to not then allow the more humane (I would assume) lethal injection? Because one is a sin of omission rather than commission? Cmon. That is a technical distinction that has no place in a supposedly compassionate society when the end result is increased suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

hunterking

[goofball]

Judges are indeed supposed to uphold the law. Obviosuly this is how they are able to let go serial killers and rapists.

The thing about Terry Schiavo is that her chance of meaningful recovery is zero according to almost every expert I've heard. Her brain has been substantially repleased with fluid.

[hunterking]

yeah apparently her entire cerebrum dissolved and was replaced by spinal fluid...on the other hand, there have been documented cases where the remaining brain takes over tasks that were once the domain of another part of the brain that was damaged...just playing devil's advocate here...not sure where i stand