On Terri Schiavo

A Federal judge, U.S. District Judge James Whittemore, has denied an injunction to reinsert the feeding tube for Terri Schiavo, who has been without food and water since Friday. (1)

There has been a lot written and said on this, and there will continue to be.  This case will certainly not answer all the questions regarding "right to die" in most minds.  My own thoughts have been absent until now, largely due to the traveling and illness I've mentioned previously.  I'm not going to re-do anyone's work, but I have read some very thoughtful discussions of the topic, which I will list at the end.

I do have several points to make:

1. In medicine, in the absence of an advance directive, I was not under the impression that the word of a guardian as to the patients desires for death could be taken.  A guardian or family member with power of attorney is consulted in situations where the patient is incompetent to answer for themselves in instituting DNR (do not resuscitate) orders.  This is not a case of refusing resuscitation in the case of arrest, but a situation where the sole source of nourishment is being removed to deprive the patient of sustenance.  In this case there is apparently no legal document stating that the patient did not want "to live like this."  For instance, FindLaw has the following entry under "What happens if I do not have an advance directive?"
   
   A : If you have not planned ahead by executing an advance directive, many states have family consent (or health surrogate) statutes that authorize someone else, typically family members in the order of kinship, to make some or all health care decisions. Even in the absence of such statutes, most doctors and health facilities routinely rely on family consent, as long as they are close family members and no controversial decisions need to be made.
   
   However, without an advance directive, decisions may not be made the way you would want them, or by the person you would want to make them. Making an advance directive also benefits your family members, because it spares them the agony of having to guess what you would really want.
   
   If no close family or other surrogate is available to make decisions for you, a court-appointed guardian may be necessary. This is an option of last resort.
   
   Clearly these are controversial decisions, and the closest family members differ in opinion - I believe the court would have been wisest to rule based on the absence of a written advance directive.
2. The guardian in question, Michael Schiavo, has quite obviously moved on, sireing children with another woman, and most probably will marry her once Terri is dead.  I understand there have been other women prior to this one, with whom he has maintained a relationship since 1996. (2)  Should he still be the guardian? (4)
3. Mr. Schiavo received $1.6M in a malpractice award in 1993.  The largest portion of that award was based on lifetime complete care for Terri Schiavo, including therapy and medical support, which he withdrew shortly after receiving the award.  Any leftover money reverts to him once the patient dies. (2)  According to Wikipedia, Mr. Schiavo claims that that amount is only $50,000 now, and he'll donate it to charity after her death.  The question is, would that have been the case had he succeeded much earlier in his quest?
4. News reports and statements by those in support of Mr. Schiavo's efforts constantly refer to the "persistent vegetative state" of the patient.  I understand persistent vegetative state to indicate a complete lack of responsiveness to the outside world, except perhaps to pain, not an inability to produce normal responses.  Based on what I've seen and read this is an incorrect characterization. (2), (3)  Were I to examine her myself I could, of course, reach a different conclusion.  I'm referring to evidence available to anyone.
5. Although I can not fathom, based on the facts in the case, the ruling of the Florida courts in this case, I cannot see any reason for the intervention of Congress in the matter.  It sets a bad precedent, and it seems to me, if they felt they absolutely must make a statement, a better option would have been a resolution passed as a "sense of the body", rather than a law changing jurisdiction in a specific case.  When will the next individual petition Congress for a law in support of their specific circumstance?
6. Meanwhile, the political memo circulated to Republican Senators, which is unsigned and of questionable genesis, and may be a hoax, is already being used to tar Republicans as only interested in the politics of the case.

Thomas Sowell's column today, Cruel and Unusual enlightens and moves. (hat tip: Power Line)

Wikipedia has a sizeable entry discussing numerous facets of the case in a relatively detached fashion.

Tom Maguire at Just One Minute discusses some false comparisons being made.

Michelle Malkin has lots of information here and here.

Ed Morrissey comments here, here, and here, the latter two pertaining to media slant.

UPDATE: Ryan Sager writes at TechCentralStation with similar thoughts on the actions of Congress in this situation. (hat tip: G.R.)

Putting aside the tangled facts of the case for the moment -- which include some bitter family history and selective science on both sides -- the driving question here should be: Does Congress have a role?

And when it comes to a family dispute over a painful medical decision, one which at least 19 judges in six courts have already adjudicated, the answer must be a resounding "no."

Comments

[adriana garcia]

i think the parents should understand that there not going to live that long to take care of terri. terri may not feel anything but its not rite having her like that. shes like a woman in a dead body! i would not like to see a family memeber like that. i think that terris husban is rite to have her disconacted and if da parents think that he want her disconected just for da money, then let he should give da money to da parents and not keep it or just donate it to the ppl that need it! thats my opinion about dis and i think she should be disconnected and not fed! its not that im a bad person or anything but i wouldnt want to sufer seeing mua family memeber or mua daughter like dat!

[nicole]

I am saden by all this! I think he should be brought to justice and put behind bars for such a inhuman, selfish and unthoughtful decision to remove her feeding tube.He has moved on in his life and has children by another woman and a man who loves his wife for better or worst stands by his woman no matter what comes his way!! It is his solom vow and his duty. But he is a worm who is not good to his word and belongs in a place for worms..He will get what is coming to him when he faces the mighty Lord and he will then pay for what he has done..There is no going back and there is justice and it is coming to him when he meets his maker and no apologizing is going to make up for Murder...It is what it is and weather she was in a veggie state or in her full mind she was aperson and killing is a sin and not taken lightly.I would not want to walk in his shoes when the lord comes knocking..Enjoy your selfish life micheal because you will have to pay for everything you do.You may have silence terri here but you can not silence her where your going!!!!! May god bless you, you will certainly need all the prayers you can get. Monsters get whats coming to them even when they finally apologize..Terri rest in peace !!!!!!!!!!!!!!