And what if people who supported the invasion of Iraq are wrong? What if people who oppose artificial birth control are wrong? In both cases, multitudes of lives would have been snuffed out, in the latter case simply because there aren't resources to support many people who are born to parents who have been discouraged from using birth control and thus starve to death.

Good grief.

Just in case you were looking for a synopsis of the Culture of Death creed...

Supporters of the War Against Saddam Hussein, and opponents of artificial birth control, advocate death?

In the case of opposition to birth control do people "advocate" death? No, but their policies cause it, in which case there may not be a significant moral distinction.

If there is food to feed one million and birth control opponents succeed in getting people to reproduce to two million, then yes I think they may be morally responsible for death by starvation of those extra one million people. Absolutely.

He's a pro-life zealot who is completely unobjective and barely examined Schiavo. He's a bought and paid-for biased expert who should be embarassed for being a shill.

That's really neat, Joel. Your original remarks are not at all analogous to the situation Justin was describing. Called on it, you admit it. But, after all, you're still right anyway, somehow. Neat trick. I'll have to remember that one.

Justin asks, "what if you're wrong?", and res ipsa replies, "that's not possible!"

It's a hypothetical, res - surely you can imagine a situation where there was a misdiagnosis? At least a quarter of all PVS cases are apparently incorrect. And as Cheshire states in the affadavit, we are continually learning more about cognitive function. Did you read the part about the fMRI study of two patients who didn't respond when read to, but who's language centers lit up on the MRI? Why are you so confident that "nobody's home"?

"And what if people who supported the invasion of Iraq are wrong? What if people who oppose artificial birth control are wrong?"

What if Joel managed to stay on topic?

Is that suppose to be a derogatory epithet Res Ipsa? Pro-life zealot.. hmm.. has a nice ring to it. I think that's what I am too. Kind of has a neat acronym too - PLZ.

My answer wasn't off topic. I'm opposed to removing feeding tubes when there isn't a written living will. However, let's say that I supported removing the tube and I'm wrong. Then God will judge me, just as he will judge those who supported the war if God thinks the war was wrong.

As a family physician I say it is obvious Terri Schiavo feels pain and experiences her body. They are torturing a mute woman to death in front of her parents and their victory will be the victory of the Roman centurions over Jesus.

Okay Joel, I'll say it. You supported removing the feeding tube and you're wrong. God will judge you. Until somebody removes your feeding tube, you will have all the opportunity in the world to regret and repent.

Pro-life zealot, eh?

The Mayo Clinic sounds like my kind of place.

BTW, 90 minutes is exactly twice as long as Felos' chief expert, Ronald Cranford, spent examining Terri Schiavo.

Some might even be inclined to call Dr. Cranford a "pro-death zealot." Here are Dr. Cranford's bonafides:

http://www.getreligion.org/archives/2005/03/meet_ronald_cra.html

The reality is that this case has had more judicial review and consideration than probably any other similar case and the courts. A last minute review of the evidence by a physician on the board of a group actively fighting to keep Schiavo alive, despite her wishes, has to be seen as the naked bias it is.

You are wrong to assume that you know what her wishes are Res Ipsa. I don't understand how you can take the word of that pathetic excuse who claims to be her husband.

The reality is that this case has had more judicial review and consideration than probably any other similar case and the courts. A last minute review of the evidence by a physician on the board of a group actively fighting to keep Schiavo alive, despite her wishes, has to be seen as the naked bias it is.

1) The problem is that it was found as a matter of fact very early on that she's in a PVS. Apparently legally judges and appeals courts rarely review previous findings of fact. But whether she is in a PVS is one of the key disputed points. It would seem that there should be some way to revisit previous findings of fact, especially in comples medical cases where newer techniques or knowledge could be brought to bear on the situation.

2) The fact that it has recieved a lot of judicial review doesn't automatically mean that it was reviewed properly. Another key disputed point is what her wish, in fact is or would have been. The only evidence we have to that effect is from her husband, and that testimony is tainted by conflicts of interest.

You might think Cheshire is biased, but he described a scene on tape (the one where she grimaced and made noises when the Dr. mentioned rolling her on her side again) that would seem to be a factual matter. Are you accusing him of outright lying?

I belive he would reach conclusions that support his ideological beliefs, even if it means intepreting happenings in a way that backs his position.

"I don't understand how you can take the word of that pathetic excuse who claims to be her husband."

As opposed to believing parents who so controlled a daughter that she ended up a bulemic who, quite literally, starved herself into a PVS???? Ultimately, there are questions about all the players in this domestic drama and while the press has actively castigated Michael Schiavo, he is the husband.

From Agape Press (surprisingly enough):

"The associate executive director of the Christian Medical Association says the Terri Schiavo controversy should spur individuals toward filling out an advance directive. He says such directives can help clarify a person's wishes and aid the decision-making process in the event of his or her incapacitation due to illness or injury.

"An advance directive is an all-encompassing set of documents including what is known as a "living will," which specifically outlines medical care for emergency and terminal situations. And according to the CMA's Dr. Gene Rudd, one may hope those situations never happen -- but the time to decide what is to be done if such medical crises do occur is long before they happen. That is why he believes filling out an advance directive should be done as prayerfully and as thoroughly as possible -- and sooner rather than later, under calm circumstances instead of under the duress of an emergency.

"According to Dr. Rudd, giving that kind of forethought to these critical, hypothetical decisions is important for two main reasons. First, he says, it demonstrates good stewardship of the body God has given to a person; and second, it can help provide peace of mind for family members."

Ultimately, there are questions about all the players in this domestic drama and while the press has actively castigated Michael Schiavo, he is the husband.

But don't you understand, Res? The sanctity of marriage must only be upheld if the people who hold it in such high regard agree with your choices. You see, in every other marriage in the country, we would defer to the husband, assuming he knew what his wife's interests were. This is a sacred bond that is so important that can't be tainted by the gays. But it doesn't matter what the husband says his wife would have wanted if it goes against the morals of the people who think they have a social mandate.

So, let's see, the legislature steps into a role that is normally fulfilled by the judiciary.... Why, that's legislative activism. But, while it is not unconstitutional to refuse medical treatement, Congress, who never even met Terri Schiavo before she had brain damage, obviously knows what her intentions are better than her husband, who is kind of creepy and probably not very nice. It's alright if we just intrude on the sanctity of marriage this one little time. Just don't let the faggots in...

What was I thinking.

Maybe we should become like other theocracies and eliminate the courts since they are such a nusiance.

Chuck, I don't think anyone is arguing that this case would be significant if she had an advance directive. The questions revolve around what to do in the absence of one, and whether she is, in fact, in a PVS.

For my part, I'm not arguing Michael Schiavo should have no say in what happens to his wife - I'm just saying that given the circumstances, his wishes or claims should not be given 100% weight.

"Maybe we should just become like other theocracies and eliminate the courts since they are such a nuisance."

Theocracies have courts - it's the rule of law they lack. You will note that when Congress intervened, they requested that a different court review the case. You will also note that Abraham Lincoln defied the Supreme Court, in a cause that everyone now concedes was just. So defying the courts is not prima facie evidence for the lack of rule of law.

Res Ipsa said:

"parents who so controlled a daughter that she ended up a bulemic who, quite literally, starved herself into a PVS????"

You're joking right? Using that line of reasoning I suppose you try to avoid moral culpability and responsibility for anything you do as a reaction to outside influences.

Res Ipsa also said:

"Ultimately, there are questions about all the players in this domestic drama and while the press has actively castigated Michael Schiavo, he is the husband."

Again, you're joking right? I must be exposed to the wrong press then. I guess you see no difference between a woman trying to starve herself to death compared to somebody else trying to starve her to death when she can't do anything about it. Remind me to never turn my back to you.

"You will also note that Abraham Lincoln defied the Supreme Court, in a cause that everyone now concedes was just."

Ending the enslavement of a a million people versus letting a woman die as she wished.

smmtheory,

I very clearly stated my opposition to removing feeding tubes when there isn't a living will. You're twisting my hypothetical.

Mike S writes,

"1) The problem is that it was found as a matter of fact very early on that she's in a PVS. Apparently legally judges and appeals courts rarely review previous findings of fact. But whether she is in a PVS is one of the key disputed points."

The trial court found that she is PVS. A three-judge panel of the Second District Court of appeals unanimously upheld that finding after its own independent review of the evidence. Subsequent reviews by both state and federal courts have found no credible basis for disputing the finding.

"2) The fact that it has recieved a lot of judicial review doesn't automatically mean that it was reviewed properly. "

That's true of any review in any case. You seem to want perfection. There is no perfection. At some point, the appeals and review process must end. This case is probably the most exhaustively litigated right-to-die case in history.

"Another key disputed point is what her wish, in fact is or would have been. The only evidence we have to that effect is from her husband, and that testimony is tainted by conflicts of interest."

Again, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Schiavo would not want a feeding tube (this is the highest evidentiary standard applied in civil cases, and a higher standard than is required under the rule the Supreme Court established in the Cruzan case). The finding was unanimously upheld by the Second District court after independent review, and upheld again on numerous subsequent appeals.

Joel Thomas said:

"You're twisting my hypothetical."

Well somebody’s gotta do it! It deserved a good twist.

"versus letting a woman die as she wished."

"Again, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Schiavo would not want a feeding tube"

The only evidence that I'm aware of that this was her wish is the testimony of Michael Schiavo regarding two offhand comments she made about "not wanting to be a burden" and "not wanting to be on a machine". Thousands, perhaps millions, of people have made comments like this. You've all seen the Seinfeld episode where Kramer decides to fill out a living will based on a movie, but then finds out at the end of the movie that the lady wakes up from the coma. These kinds of comments simply do not meet the standard of "clear and convincing evidence that Schiavo would not want a feeding tube".

(This would be true even if Schiavo had made these claims from the very beginning. But he clearly said initially that he was going to take care of her for the rest of her life, and did not indicate that she wanted to die in such a situation. He only said that after his own attitude changed. I don't blame him for changing his views, or for becoming discouraged, but the courts simply should not have taken his word for it, given his previous statements.)

Read this piece in Slate from Harriet McBryde Johnson, a disability rights lawyer who is herself disabled.

5. There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms. Schiavo believed and expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became incapacitated; certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance directive like a living will. If we assume that Ms. Schiavo is aware and conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can't justify her death as her preference. She has no preference.

This is from her interview with Aaron Brown:

JOHNSON: Well, I think the key distinction is that we have an incapacitated person and someone else making the decision.

I would say that there are a few decisions that each of us can only make for ourselves. And one of those is to give up our lives. And here we have a substitute decision-maker claiming to have the right to end another person's life, again, based on disability, which is a stigmatized minority group. But one person says, I can end my wife's life because of her disability.

And I think, for that decision to be valid, there ought to be real solemn documents, like a properly executed health care proxy, that says, absolutely, after advice, this is what I want, because the truth is that many, many people say casually throughout their lives, I'd rather be dead than disabled. I've had people come up to me and say, I would rather be dead if I had to live like you.

But the reality is that most people adapt. Most people go on to lead good lives that they could never have imagined. And this case is a particularly tough one. But the law applies to all people. And I think it's just a dangerous idea to say that we're going to let a substitute decision-maker authorize the killing of another person based on fairly casual statements they made without any particular knowledge of what they were talking about.

The fact is that nobody knows for sure what her wishes are or would be in the current situation, we have no documentation as to her wishes, and in such a situation the default should not be to kill her. The Florida courts have simply erred, whether or not they followed the letter of the law (I don't think they did, since two offhand comments, relayed via hearsay, cannot be construed as "clear and convincing" evidence).

I think a reasonable case can be made that Congress shouldn't have intervened, even though I support their actions (which were quite mild), since as FatSlim says, "There is no perfection. At some point, the appeals and review process must end." It is true that the federal government doesn't have the right to intervene everytime it thinks a state court or courts have erred. But I see nothing fundamentally wrong in cases of life and death trying to ensure that the highest standards have been met. All Congress did was try to have her case reviewed in a federal court.

What do you guys think about the advance of medicine/knowledge issue? Don't you think we might know more now about cognitive function than we did in the early 1990's? Don't we have more sophisticated technologies now for imaging the brain? I'm assuming that you favor doing DNA testing for inmates on death row who were convicted prior to widespread DNA testing was available. Shouldn't we grandfather them in to the new technology? Legal specifics aside (such as the issue of revisiting previous findings of fact), don't you think it would be reasonable to perform such tests before starving and dehydrating someone to death? If not, why not?

Mike S:

"The only evidence that I'm aware of that this was her wish is the testimony of Michael Schiavo regarding two offhand comments she made"

Then I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts of the case before commenting further, because the evidence of Terri Schiavo's wishes consisted of more than just her husband's statements of what she said to him.

"The fact is that nobody knows for sure what her wishes are or would be in the current situation, we have no documentation as to her wishes, and in such a situation the default should not be to kill her."

Well, that may be the standard you would prefer, but it's not the standard of either Florida state law or federal constitutional law. And written statements may be preferable to oral ones as a general rule, but even written directives obviously do not establish a patient's wishes "for sure." There is obviously always going to be some degree of doubt.

"The Florida courts have simply erred, whether or not they followed the letter of the law (I don't think they did, since two offhand comments, relayed via hearsay, cannot be construed as "clear and convincing" evidence)."

The evidence did not consist of merely "two offhand comments," and it did not constitute inadmissible hearsay. The trial court and the appeals court both found that the evidence satisfied the clear and convincing standard. You simply have no basis for asserting that they erred in their rulings.

A question or three for all of you who are convinced that Terri should have had her feeding tube removed.. why are you all so anxious for her to die? Why is it so important that the facts of the case not be review and/or re-established? Why is it so important that her death not be delayed any longer?

smmtheory:

I'm not anxious for her to die; I'm anxious for her wishes to be respected.

And the idea that the case has not been sufficiently litigated is just laughable. This case is almost certainly the most exhaustively litigated right-to-die case in history. The Second District court stated that there has probably never been a case of this kind with more medical evidence regarding the patient's condition.

As I said before, at some point, the appeals and review process must end. You simply cannot keep making new claims of error and expect them to be reviewed by the courts. That point has long since been reached.

FatSlim said:

"I'm not anxious for her to die; I'm anxious for her wishes to be respected."

How many times do people have to say it? That's not what it appears like to me. When are you going to do or say something that will change my perception?

FatSlim also said:

"You simply cannot keep making new claims of error and expect them to be reviewed by the courts."

These are not new claims. They are the same factual claims that the Schindler's have been trying to get the judges to look at since the first judgement. These are facts that the judges refused to consider from the very beginning. Why is it so important that the more up-to-date tests for determining PVS not be allowed and only the less conclusive test be accepted?

smmtheory:

"How many times do people have to say it? That's not what it appears like to me. When are you going to do or say something that will change my perception?"

I don't know. I can't control your perception. If you are determined to believe that what I'm anxious for is her death rather than for her wishes to be honored I can't stop you.

"These are not new claims."

They're either new claims or claims that have already been litigated exhaustively. Your side has had its day in court, and then some. It's over, and you lost.

FatSlim said:

"I don't know. I can't control your perception. If you are determined to believe that what I'm anxious for is her death rather than for her wishes to be honored I can't stop you."

I'm not the only one to have this kind of perception of your words. No, you can't control my perception, but you can control your words and actions that give rise to my perceptions. And I am not determined to believe that you are anxious for her to die, it is your determination in ignoring any evidence that might shed doubt on her 'wish to die' that leads me to that perception. The more adamant you are in your secret knowledge that makes you so certain that she wants to die, the more difficult it is to believe that you really have her wishes at heart.

So you think we've lost, eh? I assure you that I've not lost as much as you have. Your haughty gloat proclaiming "you lost" demonstrates that you cannot even understand what you have lost, much less that you have lost anything at all. It's a sweet tasting poison that you've swallowed that goes down smooth as velvet.

You may one day understand and perhaps even look back upon this conversation in the proper perspective. Until then, understand that I know your highly vaunted right to die is an allegory, a chimera disguising what is really to you an obligation to die. You may even already have a family member in mind that you want to be able to help along in this same manner when they become a burden to you.

smmtheory:

As your last post makes abundantly clear, you're not really interested in winning hearts and minds to your cause. All you really want to do is vent your anger and attack the motives and character of the people who disagree with you. How's that working out for you?

I tire of repeating the same points I have made to you before but that you continue to ignore. No one is claiming to be "certain" that Schiavo doesn't want a feeding tube. There are no certainties, there is only fallible human judgement, and yours is as fallible as mine. Your claim that evidence is being "ignored" is just laughable. This is the most exhaustively litigated right-to-die case in history. There has never been a more thorough review of the evidence. The case has been studied by at least 15 judges in at least 11 courts. It has been studied by both the state courts and the federal courts. It has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court no less than 5 times. It is clear that no amount of review will ever satisfy you.

FatSlim,
You should get together with Res Ipsa and come to some agreement on the numbers thing because you both quote different numbers on how many times the case has been heard and or reviewed.

You poor thing.. you tire of repeating the same points. At least nobody is purposely starving you to death, eh? Your prognosis for recovery is excellent. Much better in fact than most mentally disabled people.

If your motives are impure, why shouldn't they be attacked? About one thing though you are right, no amount of review would satisfy me if people are going to continue to be put to death when they have become inconvenient to their family members. If you are going to continue defending that practice get use to it. I suspect I'm far from being the only one.

smmtheory:

"If your motives are impure, why shouldn't they be attacked?"

You're not attacking motives, you're attacking people. And you're attacking them because you're just angry and frustrated that they don't agree with you, not because you have any basis for the malicious accusations you are making against them.

In the end, you're your own worst enemy. You're never going to win the hearts and minds of people who disagree with you by telling them you think they harbor secret wishes to dispose of their relatives. Perhaps one day you'll realize that.

I didn't say what I said to win your heart and mind. I can tell that nothing I could say would do that. I said it all as a chastisement for your gloating and your lack of compassion for somebody being cruelly put to death. Sometimes there is nothing that can be done but to call a brood of vipers a brood of vipers. You have turned your back on humanity and you think you are facing the way of righteousness. When you decide to rejoin the living we'll be waiting.

This would be true even if Schiavo had made these claims from the very beginning. But he clearly said initially that he was going to take care of her for the rest of her life, and did not indicate that she wanted to die in such a situation. He only said that after his own attitude changed. I don't blame him for changing his views, or for becoming discouraged, but the courts simply should not have taken his word for it, given his previous statements.

Mike, here's a hypothetical, since that's pretty much anything any of us has to go on. What if a wife says to her husband, "I don't want to be hooked up to a machine for the rest of my life". That is a reasonable thing for a wife to say to a husband. It is also reasonable for that husband, if her wife has brain damage and needs a feeding tube to survive, refuses to let himself believe that she'll need a machine the rest of her life. He tries everything, including experimental treatments all the way across the country. After four years he realizes that he's tried everything humanly possible and she really will be like that for the rest of her life. And now, after all that, he decides that she would want the feeding tube removed.

I don't find it unreasonable for him to say that she wouldn't have wanted to have the feeding tubes removed in the first few years but that if there really was no hope of cognition returning her wishes would be as he states now. Every year the situation changes.

Remember, all this started *before* he had a mistress and before any of us knew it was even going on. And thousands of these decisions are made every year, and the spouse is always considered the closest relative. Always. Years of litigation has found Schiavo to be credible (and if you read Greer's decision he makes it clear that only those who witnessed the testimonies their mannerisms, pauses, etc, can make the most accurate assessments; all we can do is read transcripts).

I don't find it unreasonable for him to say that she wouldn't have wanted to have the feeding tubes removed in the first few years but that if there really was no hope of cognition returning her wishes would be as he states now. Every year the situation changes.

You're hypothetical doesn't change anything: the available evidence is the same, whether the husband's account is as you say or whether he's dissembling for some reason: all we have to go on is his word. It's quite simple - we should not kill people simply on the say so of another person.

Another key point to this is that nobody knows what it's like to be in a severly disabled state like Schiavo's - her assertion, when she's healthy, that she wouldn't want to live like that is basically an uninformed opinion. People make statements all the time about less dramatic situations - "I'd rather die than not be able to play the guitar [or rock climb, or run marathons, or whatever]". Clearly in cases less disabling than Schiavo's, we'd say it's ridiculous to kill yourself because of a disablity that prevents you from doing some particular activity that you enjoy. So what people are arguing in this case is that Schiavo's life isn't worth living.

What criteria do you use to determine which lives are worth living?

Read this piece by a Harvard student with cerebral palsy. Once you have the mindset of judging some lives as not worth living, the slippery slope is quite real. Ask yourself - why are all the disability groups against killing Schiavo?

all we have to go on is his word. It's quite simple - we should not kill people simply on the say so of another person.

Well, that's not entirely true. We have the word of several other people.

Nor is the right of killing people on the word of another the issue here. It's an issue. But it's not the issue in question, or the issue I addressed. The question is whether or not Michael Schiavo's "change" in opinion was a reasonable one. The question before the court was whether or not Terri Schiavo would have wanted to persist in the state she is in after 10+ years. And the court made that decision because that is it's role; to be the arbitor when the parties who should be able to make the decision (the husband and the parents) are in conflict. In fact, Michael didn't even make this decision. He wasn't allowed to, because of the dispute. The court found that his testimony (and others) was more accurate and reliable than the Schindlers'.

Many people have said it before; husbands and wives make these decisions all the time for their families. Legally, the decision can be made. I'm not saying they are easy decisions to be made. I'm not saying that they are moral decisions. I'm not saying that everyone makes the correct decisions. Did Michael Schiavo make the correct decision 15 years ago to keep her alive when her brain had been without oxygen for 11 minutes? Because if he'd decided otherwise we wouldn't be here right now.

Read this piece by a Harvard student with cerebral palsy. Once you have the mindset of judging some lives as not worth living, the slippery slope is quite real. Ask yourself - why are all the disability groups against killing Schiavo?

I just read this piece. There is a difference (a big difference) between turning off a ventilator on a one hour old child and allowing a brain-dead woman who was been in such a state with absolutely no improvement, actually deterioration, for 14 years. There is a difference between someone with reduced cognition and someone with no cognition. There is a difference between having a soul and having selfawareness.

There is no slippery slope.

"Well, that's not entirely true. We have the word of several other people."

You and others keep making this claim, without referencing who these people are. The only ones I'm aware of are Michael Schiavo's brother and his wife.

"Nor is the right of killing people on the word of another the issue here. It's an issue. But it's not the issue in question, or the issue I addressed. The question is whether or not Michael Schiavo's "change" in opinion was a reasonable one."

My point is that even if his change of opinion was entirely reasonable, or understandable, it's irrelevant. (His changed circumstances should have been a significant factor in determining his status as Terri's husband, but we're not addressing that issue here.) The "right of killing people on the word of another" is precisely the issue - the motivations of the person making the decision are irrelevant.

"The question before the court was whether or not Terri Schiavo would have wanted to persist in the state she is in after 10+ years."

This is from an essay by Matthew Franck.

What is the "constitutionally protected interest" that is to be weighed in the balance against the state's interest in life? Here is Rehnquist's second error, and the one that sets us on the road to the deathwatch in Pinellas Park, Florida. Holding, on the thinnest basis in precedent, that under the Fourteenth Amendment "a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment," the chief announced with astonishing casualness that "for purposes of this case, we assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition."

Think about this for a moment. Can anyone name a case in which a competent person, who was not already dying of an underlying disease or injury, chose to refuse food and water in order to bring about his death? It seems unlikely, since anyone who was aware, able to communicate, and not dying could hardly be expected to choose a mode of death so drawn out — and even less could such a patient be expected to "stay the course" without relenting and begging for water and food. Indeed, a patient who was aware, able to communicate, and not dying might well find his sanity — i.e., his competence — questioned if he made the request.

Perhaps Rehnquist had in mind those cases of the terminally ill — those who are dying — "turning their faces to the wall" and hastening an inevitable death by refusing food and water (nourishment that may itself be the cause of pain and suffering in the end stages of some diseases, for instance). But that was not the case he had before him. Nancy Cruzan was not dying, and could not be expected to die for years to come unless she were deprived of food and water. She did in fact die, after twelve days of starvation and dehydration, about six months after the Supreme Court's ruling, when the high standards of the Missouri courts were met in subsequent proceedings. Hugh Finn, starved and dehydrated to death in Virginia over the course of eight days in 1998, was not dying either, before his tube was pulled. And, of course, Terri Schiavo was not dying before March 18.

So the chief justice was announcing a "right" to starve oneself to death — a right of which no competent person otherwise situated like Cruzan, Finn, or Schiavo (i.e., physically and even mentally disabled but not dying) could be expected to avail himself. In light of such a patent absurdity, for whom, then, was this "right" actually conjured into being? Why, not for the competent at all, but for the incompetent, of course, so that others may act on their behalf and bring about the death that we know for a certainty they would not choose if they were competent at the time the death was to commence. Only the incompetent are fit subjects for such a death, for only they are incapable of articulating a choice and will have such a death chosen for them, and only they will go more or less quietly, having no ability to beg us for a drop or a morsel.

In short, Rehnquist's preposterously invented "right" was the Court's way of blessing a practice called "substituted judgment": the process, varying from state to state, by which parents, spouses, or other close kin establish to a court's satisfaction either that when the patient was competent, he did express a desire not to live as an otherwise healthy incompetent, or (in states a bit more lax) that if he had thought about it when he was competent, it would have been his desire not so to live. This legal practice may have made sense at first, beginning as it did with the cases of patients kept alive on respirators or other "life-support machines" who would die very rapidly of underlying causes as soon as these measures ceased, or whose suffering could be brought to an end by a simple "do not resuscitate" order in the event of a cardiac arrest. But thanks to statutes and judicial decisions, "substituted judgment" in many states in 1990 was already moving toward the withdrawal of food and water from otherwise physically healthy patients, and Rehnquist's "right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition" gave this fateful step a veneer of principle putatively derived from the U.S. Constitution.

"In fact, Michael didn't even make this decision. He wasn't allowed to, because of the dispute."

I don't understand how you can say this - you can't possibly think that Terri Schiavo would be starving/dehydrating to death right now if Michael Schiavo hadn't made the decision that her life should be ended? It's a juvenile argument to claim that because the court decided to grant his request that he bears no responsiblity for the court's decision.

"The court found that his testimony (and others) was more accurate and reliable than the Schindlers'."

All that means is that Michael Schiavo had a high priced experienced attorney (whom he paid with the money from Terri's medical malpractice suit), while the Schindler's had an inexperienced attorney working pro bono when the critical findings of fact that a) she was in a PVS, and b) that she had expressed a desire not to be fed in such a situation were made.

"There is no slippery slope."

Then why are all the disability rights groups on Terri Schiavo's side?

You and others keep making this claim, without referencing who these people are. The only ones I'm aware of are Michael Schiavo's brother and his wife.

Which is more people than just her husband. And they were more recent accounts than her parents (the only other two to testify) recollections.

The "right of killing people on the word of another" is precisely the issue - the motivations of the person making the decision are irrelevant.

Then why the hell are the gays fighting for marriage rights? If your spouse isn't supposed to act in your proxy, who is? The state? Which is the way that our president saw it when he signed into Texas law the right of the state to usurp these decisions from relatives.

I don't understand how you can say this - you can't possibly think that Terri Schiavo would be starving/dehydrating to death right now if Michael Schiavo hadn't made the decision that her life should be ended? It's a juvenile argument to claim that because the court decided to grant his request that he bears no responsiblity for the court's decision.

And he first made that decision in 1994, before he had a mistress and ON MEDICAL ADVICE, when he tried to refuse medical treatment for an infection. That was when her parents first sued to get his guardianship removed. He relented to the treatment and the court found no evidence that he had been acting in bad faith.

This is the point we should be arguing from, not 1998 or 2000 or 2001. That was when he decided Terri would rather have nature take its course. This is long before he became a "big bad adulterer".

Now, my question for you is, should a person be allowed to make a medical decision for their spouse when they can otherwise not make it themselves?

"There is no slippery slope."

Then why are all the disability rights groups on Terri Schiavo's side?

Because they think there is. They are wrong. Every situation much be decided on its own merits. I can think of a gillion ways to argue why killing people with cerebral palsy shouldn't be allowed but letting Terri Schiavo to die should be.

And they are interested because they think that removing feeding tubes from someone in PVS shouldn't be legal. Which is an entirely different issue than whether or not removing Terri's feeding tube is legal at this moment in time.

"Then why the hell are the gays fighting for marriage rights? If your spouse isn't supposed to act in your proxy, who is? The state? Which is the way that our president saw it when he signed into Texas law the right of the state to usurp these decisions from relatives."

I don't think anyone should be, absent legal documentation, in the case of removing a feeding tube. It's different if you're talking about a ventilator or dialysis machine, where removal of the machine results in death within minutes or hours, because the body can't function on it's own. She needs no more care than a quadripelegic does - she just doesn't have the same cognitive capacities.

"And he first made that decision in 1994, before he had a mistress and ON MEDICAL ADVICE, when he tried to refuse medical treatment for an infection. That was when her parents first sued to get his guardianship removed. He relented to the treatment and the court found no evidence that he had been acting in bad faith.

This is the point we should be arguing from, not 1998 or 2000 or 2001. That was when he decided Terri would rather have nature take its course. This is long before he became a "big bad adulterer"."

Not so.

"Now, my question for you is, should a person be allowed to make a medical decision for their spouse when they can otherwise not make it themselves?"

This is not a medical decision, it's a decision to starve someone to death - aka killing them.

"And they are interested because they think that removing feeding tubes from someone in PVS shouldn't be legal. Which is an entirely different issue than whether or not removing Terri's feeding tube is legal at this moment in time."

It's true that there are two different issues: what is the current law, and what is the morally correct course of action. The former doesn't determine the latter. I don't particularly care what the law is right now - it's still wrong to kill her. And it can hardly be the case that the law mandates killing her - at best it allows it, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The law aside, do you think it is morally appropriate to starve an innocent, helpless, person to death if they are not brain dead, and in the absence of any written documentation that that is what they wanted?

P.S. I don't think someone should be starved to death even if that is what they wanted (see the Franck piece), but the minimum standard for such a decision has to be a legal document.

By the way, this is the guy who's been arguing Michael Schiavo's case in court. And people say the religious right is weird...

Not so.

Sorry. I stand corrected. I also don't know if you can really consider that adultery, however. Did he have any affairs before her heart attack? From what I understand he was, and still is, a very (if not her most) frequent visitor. He can still love her deeply and be committed to her and be romantically involved with someone else. She's vegetative.

This is not a medical decision, it's a decision to starve someone to death - aka killing them.

And here we must agree to disagree. I do not see a surgically added feeding apparatus as non-medical treatment. You do.

I don't particularly care what the law is right now - it's still wrong to kill her.

Granted. But that aside, do you think that there has been any breach of justice? That is, do you disagree that, in the absence of a written directive, it was legally inappropriate for the court to appoint a guardian ad litem and it was legally inappropriate to take the testimonies of five competant adults (one of them the patient's husband) and five doctors, in order to determine a) if she was in PVS and b) if she would have wanted her feeding tube removed?

Because what I'm seeing here is a powerful moral conviction, which I admire, but which, unfortunately, doesn't trump the law. I'm curious to see where you feel this case has failed, legally.

The law aside, do you think it is morally appropriate to starve an innocent, helpless, person to death if they are not brain dead, and in the absence of any written documentation that that is what they wanted?

Not if they aren't brain dead. Terri Schiavo is brain dead. I truly do not believe she is suffering. She doesn't have the cognitive ability to suffer like we understand it. I really, truly believe that this is the moral thing to do.

Deep down, I think that the Schindler's have not had the correct spiritual guidance. They need to grieve. They need to grieve properly. They lost their daughter. That is a horrible horrible thing to have happen to you. I think they are being selfish. Let her soul be with God.

"Granted. But that aside, do you think that there has been any breach of justice?"

I equate justice with morality more closely than with the law - a law can be unjust, and a just action can result in breaking the law.

"Because what I'm seeing here is a powerful moral conviction, which I admire, but which, unfortunately, doesn't trump the law. I'm curious to see where you feel this case has failed, legally."

I'm not sure the law was broken. I'm not familiar with the relevant statutes, and I haven't read the court transcripts. It may very well be that the letter of the law was followed (although like I've mentioned it seems to me that the "clear and convincing" standard could not be met without written documentation, and I find the assumption that Michael Schiavo is representing Terri's best interest to be highly suspect). For example, legally speaking, it may be that accepting the prior findings of fact that I find problematic is the correct procedure. But that doesn't mean a just result was reached. And the request by Congress for a de novo review offered an opportunity to review those findings, and to bring in more modern diagnostic tests. The courts rejected this opportunity, focussing narrowly on whether any legal violations had occurred. They may very well be correct in that regard, but that shouldn't have precluded a de novo review.

"Not if they aren't brain dead. Terri Schiavo is brain dead."

Michael, please. Brain dead means your EEG is flatlined - that is not the case with Shiavo. PVS is not equivalent to brain dead. It's legally and morally acceptable to harvest organs from brain dead bodies. Do you think it would be ethically acceptable to harvest Terri Schiavo's organs?

"I truly do not believe she is suffering."

I don't understand how you can be so sure about her condition. It almost seems as if you're making a faith-based argument here.

"She doesn't have the cognitive ability to suffer like we understand it."

A newborn infant wouldn't have the cognitive ability to suffer like we understand it, either, but that doesn't make it OK to starve them to death. The same is true of a dog or a rabbit, for that matter.

Why is she being given morphine?

He can still love her deeply and be committed to her and be romantically involved with someone else.

"Romantically involved" with children?

Let her soul be with God.

Curious suggestion. So you believe that a brain-dead person who feels nothing still has a soul?

I don't believe that Michael has the cognitive ability to suffer as "we" understand it.

God help you sir, when the courts agree with me.

Michael,
My father-in-law has Alzheimer's disease. It is in an advanced stage. He does not react to outside stimuli much more than Terri Schiavo. The main difference is that he does not need a feeding tube, but he does need to be hand fed at every meal. Would you consider him brain dead also and eligible for starving to death?

It seems to me that it would also be possible that a person could suffer nerve damage and demonstrate the same traits that Terri Schiavo demontrates and yet have a highly active mind without being able to control their body. It seems more like justice would be served to at least perform the 2 newer and more definitive diagnostic tests before a final determination of PVS, but I've heard that has been blocked by her husband, his lawyers and the courts. You know what Jesus had to say about people who made laws that were an abusive burden to the people don't you?

"Would you consider him brain dead also and eligible for starving to death?"

Of course he doesn't, because there is no slippery slope! I'm thinking of that scene in the Indiana Jones movie where there appears to be an unbridgeable chasm. Jones steps out in mid-air on faith (in a diagram!), and lands on a stone bridge that they couldn't see. To many of us, it's not so much a slippery slope as a cliff - yet Michael insists that there is solid rock there to hold us up. Perhaps you could point us to where to look for this rock, Michael, so that we don't have to step out on blind faith that you are correct.

I equate justice with morality more closely than with the law - a law can be unjust, and a just action can result in breaking the law.

Such as Gavin Newsom marrying gays because he believed that morally the law was wrong and he defied it. No one in your camp was celebrating that action, if I recall.

The courts rejected this opportunity, focussing narrowly on whether any legal violations had occurred. They may very well be correct in that regard, but that shouldn't have precluded a de novo review.

And what if that took five more years? And then the Schindlers demanded another de novo review? Because it had been another five yeas? If there were no legal violations and no new evidence, why should there be a de novo review? And a four minute video clip handpicked by her parents does not count as new evidence.

Michael, please. Brain dead means your EEG is flatlined - that is not the case with Shiavo.

I was under the impression that "brain dead" was a colloqualism, not a medical definition. If you can point to a medical definition of "brain dead" as you describe it, I will stand corrected. But no, I don't think we should be harvesting organs from Terri Schiavo. Or from someone who is merely "brain dead" by your definition. They should be all the way dead.

I don't understand how you can be so sure about her condition. It almost seems as if you're making a faith-based argument here.

I'm not sure. Hence I used the word "believe". But there is no evidence that she is happy. Or even capable of being happy as we know it.

Why is she being given morphine?

I didn't think she was. But if she is, I doubt it's necessary. Either that or it has been necessary all along. Either she can feel pain or she can't. And if she can, she should have never been kept alive this long.

Let her soul be with God.

Curious suggestion. So you believe that a brain-dead person who feels nothing still has a soul?

Don't you? Her soul is not her cognition. Nor is it the result of certain physiological responses. If an embryo has a soul, why wouldn't Terri Schiavo? And if she doesn't, then why are we bothering to fight to keep her alive? And if she does have a soul, why are we keeping it from God. She should have died 15 years ago, but Man chose not to let her. Death is not a horrible thing. If the pro-aborts have fettishized death then the pro-lifers have fettishized living.

It seems to me that it would also be possible that a person could suffer nerve damage and demonstrate the same traits that Terri Schiavo demontrates and yet have a highly active mind without being able to control their body.

Yes, but Terri Schiavo has virtually no grey matter left. None. Each case must be dealt with individually. There is no slippery slope.

To many of us, it's not so much a slippery slope as a cliff - yet Michael insists that there is solid rock there to hold us up. Perhaps you could point us to where to look for this rock, Michael, so that we don't have to step out on blind faith that you are correct.

Um, 2500 years of Aristotlean logic? On which nearly all theological decisions made by the Church since Aquinas have been based. I'm a cradle Catholic, not a convert. Twelve years of Catholic school. It's engrained. I have faith in man's rationality.

Of course, if we let the myth of the slippery slope continue to strengthen, it might come true.

Michael said:

"Yes, but Terri Schiavo has virtually no grey matter left. None. Each case must be dealt with individually. There is no slippery slope."

I think you are over-simplifying physiology. But even if it should be true, it should be proven conclusively don't you think? I mean, if she really has no gray matter left, at the very least a doctor, a brain surgeon could drill a hole and take a look. This has not been done. Your fact is based on a test that has only about a 50% chance of being correct. I believe you are wrong to assume what you have.

Michael also said:

"Either she can feel pain or she can't. And if she can, she should have never been kept alive this long."

Even more reason to get rid of the old girl, eh? That would be especially embarrassing for her husband and his legal team to have it be found out she was at least sentient enough to experience pain. Are you saying that when my brother-in-law had his pelvis broken in half in a motorcycle accident, we should have put him out of his misery? He still feels pain from that to this day.

I think you are over-simplifying physiology. But even if it should be true, it should be proven conclusively don't you think? I mean, if she really has no gray matter left, at the very least a doctor, a brain surgeon could drill a hole and take a look. This has not been done. Your fact is based on a test that has only about a 50% chance of being correct. I believe you are wrong to assume what you have.

And I believe you are oversimplifying this entire case. And misconstruing data. The accuracy of determining whether someone is in PVS goes up over time.

And nothing in science is conclusive. If you are waiting for conclusiveness, nothing would ever get done.

As it is an autopsy will now be performed. And I pity the Schindlers if it is shown that they've been imagining interactions for 15 years.

Are you saying that when my brother-in-law had his pelvis broken in half in a motorcycle accident, we should have put him out of his misery? He still feels pain from that to this day.

Wow. We're really big on the logical fallacies, aren't we? This doesn't even need to be justified with a response.

"Such as Gavin Newsom marrying gays because he believed that morally the law was wrong and he defied it. No one in your camp was celebrating that action, if I recall."

There's a difference between saying that a law is unjust, and willfully flouting the current laws. When Lincoln opposed Dred Scott, he didn't ignore the decision, he just claimed it only applied in that particular case. Newsome is an elected official, whose duty, as the executive, is to enforce and uphold the law. If he was a private citizen, then I'd have more sympathy for his actions - but of course nobody would have paid attention to him then. It was only by abusing the power of his office that he gained such notoriety.

"And what if that took five more years? And then the Schindlers demanded another de novo review? Because it had been another five yeas? If there were no legal violations and no new evidence, why should there be a de novo review?"

There is no slippery slope, Michael. (That's a joke.)

Seriously, a large fraction of the opposition to pulling Schiavo's feeding tube was due to the fact that the decision was the result of one judge making two dubious findings of fact (PVS and the desire to be killed). All the subsequent legal proceedings were basically attempts by the Schindlers to overturn those findings, but due to the way the legal system works, they were never re-reviewed. The courts just determined that Greer didn't act improperly when he made those findings - they didn't check to see whether he might have made the wrong findings.

The Florida legislature and Congress both tried to get those initial findings reviewed, but the courts, in their infinite wisdom, decided that judge Greer is infallible, and there's no need to be cautious when dealing with life and death situations, at least in cases where the person whose life is at stake can't speak for herself.

"I was under the impression that "brain dead" was a colloqualism, not a medical definition."

Why did you think we have the term PVS? It's because it is distinct from brain death. This article discusses the issue, but notice this quote,

Both healthcare professionals and the lay public remain confused about the meaning and implication of brain death. In one study of 195 physicians and nurses likely to be involved in the care of patients with catastrophic brain injury, only 35% of respondents correctly recognized the legal and medical criteria for determining brain death. Furthermore, 58% of respondents did not use a coherent concept of death consistently.

Again, I'm amazed by the certainty people are expressing about the state of Terri Schiavo's brain.

"I didn't think she was. But if she is, I doubt it's necessary. Either that or it has been necessary all along. Either she can feel pain or she can't. And if she can, she should have never been kept alive this long."

Now you're arguing from the conclusion to the facts. "She should be dead, therefore she shouldn't be given morphine." Why not just give her an overdose of morphine and call it by it's correct name, euthanasia?

"And if she does have a soul, why are we keeping it from God. She should have died 15 years ago, but Man chose not to let her."

But there's no slippery slope built into those arguments. Nope. There's nothing to see here, people, just move along now...

"I have faith in man's rationality."

What is the basis for that faith?

A judge in a county probate court assumed for himself, and thus for the judiciary at every level, the power to dehydrate to death a disabled woman because her estranged husband requested it. This cascade of tragedy appears to have been brought about by combining principles, not wrong in themselves, with judgments of fact which were wrong or in dispute.

Precisely.

Michael said:

"And I believe you are oversimplifying this entire case. And misconstruing data. The accuracy of determining whether someone is in PVS goes up over time."

What data am I misconstruing?

and:

"And nothing in science is conclusive. If you are waiting for conclusiveness, nothing would ever get done."

And you think I'm the only one that engages in logical fallacies?

also:

"As it is an autopsy will now be performed. And I pity the Schindlers if it is shown that they've been imagining interactions for 15 years."

Are you going to feel any remorse if they discover that her brain was mostly or completely intact? You still haven't answered my question on whether or not you think my father-in-law is brain dead and eligible for the starvation/dehydration routine.

A couple of great quotes in this essay from Richard Brookhiser.

Science gives us no answers. It is a demented long-distance runner, madly striking problems and solutions with each alternating stride. Scientists wrest years from death, then scramble to make them bearable.

Slippery-slope arguments are the poor relatives in the family of disputation; real logicians, we feel, have no truck with such stuff. But politicians make them all the time. The Declaration of Independence is a slippery-slope argument: George III’s “repeated injuries and usurpations” have “in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny”; if absolute tyranny had been already established, Jefferson couldn’t be writing. Better stand with the losing side on this one [i.e. the pro-life side -MS]. Make your own arrangements, but keep the law as far away as possible.

There's a difference between saying that a law is unjust, and willfully flouting the current laws.

Granted. But if Jeb Bush took her illegally into custody, like some of the more radicals have suggested, would you praise or condemn him?

The courts just determined that Greer didn't act improperly when he made those findings - they didn't check to see whether he might have made the wrong findings.

So you think that anybody, for whatever reason, can have a trial re-judged? With no new evidence? Because they didn't like the findings? You're right, that's not how our legal system works. Nor should it be. If the Schindlers had new evidence or proof that Greer did something wrong, then it would be a different story.

Why did you think we have the term PVS? It's because it is distinct from brain death.

I stand corrected. But you don't need to get indignant. I had assumed it was merely a more accurate description of "brain death", which isn't very medical-sounding. Like SCNT and chromatin transfer are more accurate descriptions of cloning, but cloning nonetheless.

Now you're arguing from the conclusion to the facts. "She should be dead, therefore she shouldn't be given morphine." Why not just give her an overdose of morphine and call it by it's correct name, euthanasia?

Not at all. I said she can't feel pain therefore morphine is irrelevant. And quite frankly, that's exactly what I think they should have been doing. Because I have very few problems with euthanasia. Well, I have personal problems with euthanasia, but if you want to kill yourself you only have God to answer to.

"And if she does have a soul, why are we keeping it from God. She should have died 15 years ago, but Man chose not to let her."

But there's no slippery slope built into those arguments. Nope. There's nothing to see here, people, just move along now...

Where? Where is the slippery slope? I believe she has a soul. I believe that God should be the only one who can choose to take a life. I believe that the doctors and her family erred by resesitating her after being without oxygen for ELEVEN MINUTES. I'm not arguing the inevitible future outcome of something, which is where the slippery slope fallacy is applied.

"I have faith in man's rationality."

What is the basis for that faith?

Catholicism. Are you trying to make a point? If man is rational, he won't let himself be swayed by logical fallacies.

And you think I'm the only one that engages in logical fallacies?

And what, pray tell, is the logical fallacy in stating that nothing in science is conclusive? Evolution is pretty conclusive, and yet because it lacks 100% provablity you have people claiming it's wrong. If you want 100% of the doctors in the world to agree that Terri Schiavo is definitely, infallibly, without a doubt in PVS, would that be conclusive enough for you? Again, point to the logical fallacy, name the logical fallacy, and then show me why it is logically false.

Are you going to feel any remorse if they discover that her brain was mostly or completely intact? You still haven't answered my question on whether or not you think my father-in-law is brain dead and eligible for the starvation/dehydration routine.

Yes, I will feel remorse. But I'm not wasting time preparing for that remorse because her brain is not intact. Have you seen her CT scan?

As for your father-in-law, I haven't seen his medical records but I doubt he's brain dead, from what I know about Alzheimer's. So no, he shouldn't be starved to death. However, your wife should step up her intact of fatty fishes, like salmon.

Michael,
The logical fallacy is the assumption that nothing would ever get done if I were waiting on conclusiveness.

1) The world does not revolve around me.
2) Even if it did, you would be wrong to assume that I would require conclusiveness 100% of the time.
3) The assumption that the world would come to a screeching halt is wrong even if everyone wanted conclusiveness.

Put that in your logical pipe and light it.

Michael,

First, a suggestion: it would help if you distinguish which person you are quoting from when you quote from different people in a single post.

"Granted. But if Jeb Bush took her illegally into custody, like some of the more radicals have suggested, would you praise or condemn him?"

That's a good question. I have to plead agnosticism, though. If he had done that, I would have had to find out more information about the existing laws in Florida before I opined on his specific actions. But I wasn't one of the people arguing that he should have intervened forcefully (as opposed to initiating/signing legislation).

"So you think that anybody, for whatever reason, can have a trial re-judged?"

Do you think that procedure must be followed rotely, every time, no matter what results it leads to? It would help reduce the clutter if you wouldn't throw out extraneous arguments like that.

Just to put an end to this line of questioning, let me just say that in cases where a decision is being made about starving/dehydrating a mentally incapaciated person to death, then multiple levels of review of a) the diagnosis of PVS and b) the patient's expressed wishes should be carried out.

"I stand corrected. But you don't need to get indignant."

You are misusing key terms in the debate, yet pronouncing certainty about their applicability to Terri Shiavo, and I'm not allowed to get a little incredulous?

I said, "What is the basis for that faith?"

To which you replied, "Catholicism. Are you trying to make a point? If man is rational, he won't let himself be swayed by logical fallacies."

I should have been more explicit. What is the empirical basis for your faith that man's rationality will prevent large-scale killing of innocent people? Specifically, what evidence do you have to support your contention that man's rational capacity will preclude the slippery slope I'm worried about?

Here's a $100,000 wager that any of the neurologists who've been opining about Terri's PVS based upon her CT scan can't pick out a PVS brain from a non-PVS one 60% of the time. Think there will be any takers?

Michael, honestly, I'm perplexed as to how to respond to this:

Don't you? Her soul is not her cognition. Nor is it the result of certain physiological responses. If an embryo has a soul, why wouldn't Terri Schiavo? And if she doesn't, then why are we bothering to fight to keep her alive? And if she does have a soul, why are we keeping it from God. She should have died 15 years ago, but Man chose not to let her. Death is not a horrible thing. If the pro-aborts have fettishized death then the pro-lifers have fettishized living.

From the assertion of what precisely soul is or isn't to the strange twist that has me somehow asserting that she doesn't have a soul to the shocking construction presenting an emphasis on life as a fetish. Suffice to say, for now, that we apparently have very different notions of soul.

Mike S.:
Do you think that procedure must be followed rotely, every time, no matter what results it leads to? It would help reduce the clutter if you wouldn't throw out extraneous arguments like that.

In a word? Yes.

I personally agree with you that in extreme cases like this mulitple review is a good idea. I would have liked it to have been reviewed at least once more.

But I think that the actions Congress and the president took (and the attitudes of those who wanted to see the tube remain in place) did damage to the rule of law, which I consider essential for the freedoms of all citizens to be maintained. I agree with the judges that there wasn't even a prima facie case to be made. And I'll say it again, we can't go around retrying cases because we don't like the outcome. Do I think that Judge Greer could have acted more sympathetically towards the Schindlers? Probably. But that isn't a reason to disregard the entire rule of law and remove a man's guardianship of his wife.

Maybe we will learn from this and codify a set of rigorous reviews for cases like this. But legally there was nothing to be done here. Really, Mike, the whole situation sucked.

What is the empirical basis for your faith that man's rationality will prevent large-scale killing of innocent people? Specifically, what evidence do you have to support your contention that man's rational capacity will preclude the slippery slope I'm worried about?

I don't. In fact, it probably won't. I do have faith in the training and rationality of the people who make it to the level of the Supreme Court and I can't think of a single case that was judged on a slippery slope. But I know that fear of a hypothetical problem in the future should not proclude us from making decisions today.

As I've said before, emancipation led to black voting rights which led to women's suffrage which led to contraception which led to Roe v. Wade which led to rampant abortions. Does that mean that we can argue that we shouldn't have freed the slaves? No. Or let women vote? No. Or keep married people from using contraception? No. But it doesn't mean we can't work to drasticly reduce and hopefully eliminate abortions.

Look, if we let ourselves see the slippery connections then they have a better chance of coming true. And who decides what is a rational connection anyway? Separate issues must be dealt with separately. Just because turning off Terri Schiavo's feeding tube might lead to the execution of SMM's father-in-law doesn't mean that it will.

SMM said:
The logical fallacy is the assumption that nothing would ever get done if I were waiting on conclusiveness.

You have no idea what a logical fallacy actually is, do you? Perhaps it was my use of the clunking English word "you" to mean the third person "one", not you in particular.

Justin said:
Suffice to say, for now, that we apparently have very different notions of soul.

Interesting. So do you think Terri Schiavo has (had) a soul for the last 15 years? And would your answer be the same in PVS or non-PVS? My answer would be she has a soul because she is human and she is human because she has a soul, regardless of her levels of cognition or lack thereof. How does your notion of a soul differ?

Michael,

"In a word? Yes."

Well, that's very thoughtful of you.

"But I think that the actions Congress and the president took (and the attitudes of those who wanted to see the tube remain in place) did damage to the rule of law, which I consider essential for the freedoms of all citizens to be maintained. I agree with the judges that there wasn't even a prima facie case to be made. And I'll say it again, we can't go around retrying cases because we don't like the outcome. Do I think that Judge Greer could have acted more sympathetically towards the Schindlers? Probably. But that isn't a reason to disregard the entire rule of law and remove a man's guardianship of his wife."

The bill Congress passed applied only to this case. If there's no risk of a slippery slope towards euthanasia, why is there risk of a slippery slope towards judicial overreach?

"Really, Mike, the whole situation sucked."

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that a more just process couldn't have been implemented.

"Look, if we let ourselves see the slippery connections then they have a better chance of coming true."

I have no idea what this means. Isn't it more likely that we will head down a slippery slope if we don't notice it? If you approach a hill of grass that is wet, aren't you less likely to slip and slide down it if you're aware that it is wet ahead of time?

Heh, nope, no slippery slope here... nothing at all... utter coincidence... totally unrelated... you're just imagining things...

Deja Vu anyone?

For 15 years she lay in a coma, the victim of a hospital error during childbirth. At first, family members thought Ineke Stinissen would recover. She showed faint signs of life, and seemed to react to a whistle. But year after year passed, and she never awakened.

"It was a nightmare, year in, year out," Stinissen's sister, Coby Lips, told The Associated Press. "We all wanted there to be an end to this vegetative existence."

Stinissen's husband Gerard had sought for years to disconnect his wife's feeding tubes, but the nursing home feared prosecution. The family gave its consent, and so eventually did the courts, which ruled that ending the food supply was a legitimate medical decision.

Right-to-life advocates say Stinissen's death in 1990, 11 days after life support ended, opened the door to Dutch euthanasia legislation - and warn the Terri Schiavo case could do the same in the United States.

In 2002, the Netherlands became the first country to permit doctors to actively induce death for terminal patients who have no hope of recovery, suffer unbearable pain and ask to die.

The Health Ministry reported 1,815 euthanasia cases in 2003 - the latest year for which figures are available - among a population of 16 million. Studies have also shown that many cases go unreported.

Nope, nobody here but us chickens....

According to the Associated Press, 73 percent of French doctors have admitted to using drugs to end an infant's life, with between 2 and 4 percent of doctors in the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany and Sweden confessing the same.

Michael said:

"You have no idea what a logical fallacy actually is, do you?"

I believe I do sir. As a programmer, logic is my livelihood. But I'm beginning to wonder about you, especially since I went to all the trouble to point out the fallacy of your statement when taken at face value. Not to mention the fact that I even included the possibility of the rhetorical you. Next time, please add the 'read.My.mind' instruction.

You didn't even return the favor of pointing out the logical fallacy of my questioning whether you believed the pain my brother-in-law suffered(and still suffers) is reason for euthanasia. I based that question (not a statement of assumption mind you) on your statement to the effect of - "Either she can feel pain or she can't. And if she can, she should have never been kept alive this long." which follows your conclusion that she can feel no pain due to being in a PVS 'with no gray matter left intact'. And while the presence of pain does not logically preclude the lack of gray matter, you use it as if it should make the argument stronger - seemingly as an additional and just as effective a reason for letting her die the painful death of dehydration. This is why I was trying to get you to clarify whether or not you believed that the presence of prolonged pain was also a reason to "let somebody die" through dehydration. It would have been really easy for the doctors and nurses to do that to my brother-in-law as he lay there in the ICU with the life threatening injury that he would never be able to fully recover from.

The bill Congress passed applied only to this case. If there's no risk of a slippery slope towards euthanasia, why is there risk of a slippery slope towards judicial overreach?

Mike,
It might be that I am being misinterpretted a bit. I do not believe that slipperly slopes do not exist, as in one action does not lead to another, etc. Women's suffrage did indeed lead to abortion rights. What I mean (and granted my mantra of "the slippery slope does not exist was misleading) is that as a logical argument, it doesn't hold water. Because it is a future hypothetical, it cannot be used to argue for or against something that is being decided upon today. If you say "err on the side of life", I say err on the side of freedom.

If it makes sense to turn off Terri's feeding tube (which of course you can argue against), we shouldn't leave it in because someone in the future might use it as a rationale to euthanize smmtheory's father-in-law. One of the reasons that that is incorrect logic is one of oversimplification. If I say that one of the justifications for removing Terri's feeding tube is that she is in prolonged pain, that criterion alone does not justify killing someone who's pelvis is shattered in a motorcylce accident.

As to the slippery slope of the judicial overreach, or of Congress overstepping its authority, I find it has more to do with direct effect rather than tenuous future hypotheticals. The hypothetical in the case of Schiavo is that assisted suicide will become legal. But that has to go through several jumps of logic. Removing feeding tubes has been legal for years, first of all, so this case isn't unique, except in its prolonged particulars and national attention. But removing sustanence is very different from hastening death with drugs. PVS is different than Alzheimer's which is different than motorcylce accidents. We can deal with each on its own.

What Congress did, however, was write a bill that changes the jurisdiction of the courts, the workings of one of our branches of government, for one case. If Congress grants itself that authority for one life-and-death case, with no justification whatsoever other than morality (because nothing in the case was illegal, per se), it allows itself to interfere with the judiciary for all cases it feels it has a moral justification on. As opposed to the euthanasia "slippery slope", this effect is direct.

Michael you said:

"If it makes sense to turn off Terri's feeding tube (which of course you can argue against), we shouldn't leave it in because someone in the future might use it as a rationale to euthanize smmtheory's father-in-law. One of the reasons that that is incorrect logic is one of oversimplification. If I say that one of the justifications for removing Terri's feeding tube is that she is in prolonged pain, that criterion alone does not justify killing someone who's pelvis is shattered in a motorcylce accident."

Then why use the criterion of pain at all in the case of Terri Schiavo? Obviously you think it adds weight to the argument. Why does it add weight to the argument? Is it because pain is used as an indicator of the quality of life? You say that removing Terri's feeding tube won't be used in the future to rationalize euthanasia for my father-in-law. But I'm telling you that the American Academy of Family Physicians in a publication from October of 2000 already listed Alzheimer's as a potential reason for withholding artificial hydration/nutrition. And their definition is not limited to severe cognitive impairment, it also includes moderate cognitive impairment. Physicians are already beginning to take these decisions into their own hands instead of leaving it in the hands of patients or their families aren't they? They certainly make the decision if the patient has no family. How do you think it would go in that case?

you also said:

"Removing feeding tubes has been legal for years, first of all, so this case isn't unique, except in its prolonged particulars and national attention."

It certainly has been legal for years. That doesn't make it right or just. And if all those other cases had been contested as hotly they would also have been in the national attention. That's the only way these cases can get into the national attention is for somebody to raise a stink saying "That ain't right!"

You argue that there is no slippery slope to euthanasia, that we should just let it go. People are already trying to make the case for euthanasia. Do some internet research on the Hemlock Society. Are we just suppose to wait until it's made legal before we fight against it? Are we just suppose to sit back and leave it in the hands of rationality? People find all sorts of ways to rationalize things they want.

One last thing Michael, logic is the process of making a decision. That requires both a question and an answer. When you declare my questioning your view on things as illogical, you are labeling it before the conclusion is ever made. How I decided what question to ask is irrelevant to the logicality of the discussion. If you want to challenge the logicality of an argument of mine, that is one thing. When you try to challenge my thought processes that go into the questions I ask before framing an argument it looks like you are trying to control my thoughts.

Michael,

What Congress did, however, was write a bill that changes the jurisdiction of the courts, the workings of one of our branches of government, for one case. If Congress grants itself that authority for one life-and-death case, with no justification whatsoever other than morality (because nothing in the case was illegal, per se), it allows itself to interfere with the judiciary for all cases it feels it has a moral justification on. As opposed to the euthanasia "slippery slope", this effect is direct.

Well, I'm sorry to scare you, but the nightmare of your slippery slope has been in effect all along. I refer you to Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution (emphasis mine),

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

If you want to challenge the logicality of an argument of mine, that is one thing. When you try to challenge my thought processes that go into the questions I ask before framing an argument it looks like you are trying to control my thoughts.

I thought I was very clear. I will now be as concise as possible. The removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube as a rationale for starving Alzheimer's patients is the logical fallacy of a slippery slope.

This is not to say that arguing against killing of Alzheimer's patients is a bad thing, nor that some doctor's groups aren't recommending it, nor that there isn't a serious possibility that it might happen in the future. These points are irrelevent, especially since the recommendation you quoted happened four years before her tube was removed.

I am also not saying that "removing Terri's feeding tube won't be used in the future to rationalize euthanasia for [your] father-in-law." I'm sure some (many?) people will use it as a rationale. They will be logically wrong. So we shouldn't make a (possibly) correct decision now because someone in the future might make an illogical connection between that decision and something else? Is that what your telling me?

Because THAT is the fallacy of the slippery slope.

I refer you to Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution (emphasis mine)

Mike, I don't think that the framers of the Constitution intended that the president be flown in at midnight (when he could have had the bill flown to him like is normally done) to pass a bill that Congress called an emergency session for to move jurisdiction of a single case based solely on the fact that they didn't like the judge's decision.

But if this administration is all about congressional micromanagement and finding framer's intentions that weren't there to begin with...

And I never said their decision was unconstitutional. I said it was bad. And has a direct effect as opposed to a slippery, hypothetical one of euthanasia.

Michael,

"I'm sure some (many?) people will use it as a rationale. They will be logically wrong."

Can you explain why? The basic rationale for removing Schiavo's tube was a) that was what she purportedly wanted, and b) she supposedly wasn't conscious. I don't see how a quite similar situation couldn't develop with an Alzheimer's patient. The arguments didn't center on the particular cause of Schiavo's loss of cognitive function: the focussed on her wishes expressed prior to loss of cognitive function, and the fact that she currently lacked cognitive function. Those two criteria could easily obtain in a case with Alzheimer's. Where is the logical break in your mind?

"And I never said their decision was unconstitutional. I said it was bad."

Fair enough. But I, for one, think that Congress needs to be more aggressive in circumscribing judicial powers.

"Mike, I don't think that the framers of the Constitution intended that the president be flown in at midnight (when he could have had the bill flown to him like is normally done) to pass a bill that Congress called an emergency session for to move jurisdiction of a single case based solely on the fact that they didn't like the judge's decision."

Well, of course they didn't - they didn't know about modern air travel! ;)

It's not just that they "didn't like the judge's decision" - they thought due process had not been followed, and wanted the federal courts to review the case. It's fair enough to claim this was an unwise thing to do, even if it was within their constitutional rights, but I find it a bit hysterical of you to claim that suddenly Congress is stamping all over the judiciary and/or states rights simply due to this one extraordinary case.

Michael,

I think you've backed yourself into an irrelevant argument (one with implications for the SSM debate). Frankly, I don't think anybody here cares whether it will be logical for society to begin killing Alzheimer patients as an outgrowth of the thinking behind the Schiavo killing. That's not the point; in fact, you cede the point (at least in part) when you write:

I'm sure some (many?) people will use it as a rationale. They will be logically wrong. So we shouldn't make a (possibly) correct decision now because someone in the future might make an illogical connection between that decision and something else? Is that what your telling me?

I went a bit longer than the quotation needed to be because your concluding rhetorical questions illustrate the irrelevancy of your point. We don't live in a strictly logical world or society, and we're not strictly logical (probably not primarily logical) beings. If we want to avoid a particular outcome, it does not matter whether that outcome logically follows from a particular action. What matters is whether the outcome will in fact result from the action.

Justin,

"it does not matter whether that outcome logically follows from a particular action. What matters is whether the outcome will in fact result from the action."

I think that if an outcome logically follows from a particular action, it is more likely to result than an outcome that does not logically follow from that action. Thus it is relevant, if not determinative.

Well, of course. I began by saying that Michael had "backed into" his current argument, although perhaps I overstated to drive home the point. It is relevant if the outcome logically follows, because that speaks to its likelihood. But Michael's arguing logic as if that's ultimately what we ought to be concerned about, rather than actual outcomes.

But Michael's arguing logic as if that's ultimately what we ought to be concerned about, rather than actual outcomes.

Yes and no. I wouldn't say "rather" because I'm concerned with both. I'm also concerned with helping people rationalize. If people understand that, just because they think that B follows from A doesn't mean that 1) it will and 2) it justifies prohibiting A.

By accepting the fallacy of the slippery slope you acquiesce to illogical thought. Take SSM. Polygamy may follow from SSM. To be concerned about that possibility is not wrong. But it has an equal probability of not following from SSM. SSM, however, has direct pros and cons and whether or not we institute it should be based on those considerations, irrespective of any hypothetical link to polygamy.

Which is why I think it is important for both defenders and critics of SSM to separate the link in their rhetoric. When credible people use fallable logic, it gives credence to that logic and if SSM comes about, the fact that those polygamy links were given credibility increases the likelihood that an ill-informed public will make that erroneous connection in future arguments.

So, Justin, I am not at all unconcerned with the outcomes of particular decisions, but I refuse to kowtow to bad decision-making processes because other people buy into them.

"But it has an equal probability of not following from SSM."

Well, that's part of the disagreement. You can't say that just because there are two possible outcomes, each one is equally likely.

"SSM, however, has direct pros and cons and whether or not we institute it should be based on those considerations, irrespective of any hypothetical link to polygamy."

We think that one of its cons is that the legal imposition of polygamy is far more likely (if not inevitable) if SSM is implemented legally. Read Stanley Kurtz's recent piece on NRO - there's already significant support for the polyamory position developing in major law schools. The link is not just hypothetical - people supporting polygamy (and some supporting SSM) make the link explicit. You're just discounting those people because they undercut your position.

Apart from what Mike wrote, I'd say that the "slippery slope" is only a logical fallacy if it's considered prima facie true, without actual basis. In this case, the "slippery slope" argument is grounded in (1) knowledge that people will push us down the slope whether I argue about a slope or not, and (2) human nature.

Michael, you want the logic of something that you believe logical to be true, so you're elevating direct logic.

Mike S. said:
Well, that's part of the disagreement. You can't say that just because there are two possible outcomes, each one is equally likely.

I'm not just saying it because that's simply what I think. See Rauch and others. There are strong arguments for polygamy not following from SSM. It would be impossible to go into it here in detail.

We think that one of its cons is that the legal imposition of polygamy is far more likely (if not inevitable) if SSM is implemented legally.... The link is not just hypothetical - people supporting polygamy (and some supporting SSM) make the link explicit. You're just discounting those people because they undercut your position.

And I'm saying that that con is hypothetical and shouldn't be considered as a reason to not support SSM. And it shouldn't be used as a scare tactic to convince people to oppose SSM who might otherwise support it because they feel it will lead to polygamy.

I am not discounting those people you mentioned because they undercut my position; I'm arguing against them and attempting to point out where they are being fallacious. What you are doing is accepting that link, without proof of inevitability, and using that to argue against a decision that has nothing to do with this future outcome.

In this case, the "slippery slope" argument is grounded in (1) knowledge that people will push us down the slope whether I argue about a slope or not, and (2) human nature.

Justin, you've just reworded the slippery slope. You haven't really argued for inevitibility; you've just said that it's obvious that human nature works in a way that will lead us down this road. And a slippery slope argument doesn't necessarily have to be only accepted as true. You can argue for inevitibility but if I can show a case where that link isn't applied (such as legislatures enacting SSM or enacting orientation as a protected class), inevitibility and the slippery slope doesn't hold.

"And I'm saying that that con is hypothetical and shouldn't be considered as a reason to not support SSM."

This is nonsensical: everything we're debating is hypothetical. All your pros (relating to socialization, i.e. not monetary pros) are hypothetical, too. Basically you're saying that all cons are ruled out, because we can't prove they will happen, while pros are OK - why?

This is nonsensical: everything we're debating is hypothetical. All your pros (relating to socialization, i.e. not monetary pros) are hypothetical, too. Basically you're saying that all cons are ruled out, because we can't prove they will happen, while pros are OK - why?

You're putting words into my mouth. I am not saying that all cons should be ruled out while all pros are not. I'm saying that certain cons (and pros for that matter), based on false logics, should be ruled out. But when making policy, one should favor direct impacts v. indirect, hypothetical impacts. Prohibition of SSM is affecting society, right now. Directly. You think it is doing so positively, I think it is doing so negatively.

My hypothetical pros to society carry as equal weight as your hypothetical cons to society. They are largely irrelevant.

This discussion has been blessedly free of analogies, but I'm going to break that pattern: There are starving people across the street and you feel obligated to bring them food. But there is the possibility that you might get hit by a car. You can rush across the street with reckless abandon and probably get hit by a car, starving the people and bleeding to death; you can not cross the street, starving those people but definitely not get hit; or you can figure out all the ways to get across the street with a reduced possibility of getting hit by a car.

"But when making policy, one should favor direct impacts v. indirect, hypothetical impacts."

I don't want to overemphasize this, because it's obvious that one cannot foresee all possible consequences, and at some point I agree with you that distant enough or implausible enough scenarios shouldn't be definitive in determining a policy. But read this great post from Megan McArdle regarding the law of unintended consequences. I'd add to her explanation that most of the objections, and resultant negative outcomes, were closely related to the proper understanding of human nature. Which is of course also of paramount importance in the SSM debate.

Another point is that you seem to think that it's simple to draw a clear line between direct and indirect outcomes. It's not, especially in a cultural and social institution as complex as marriage.

Another problem with your analogy: the end in your analogy and in SSM is good. But I don't agree that SSM is a good end. Perhaps the end could be something like "encouraging monogamy in gay couples", or something like that. But then we'd have to assess whether SSM is the only way to accomplish that. The problem with your analogy is that the action only affects those people across the street, not everyone else.

Another problem with your analogy: the end in your analogy and in SSM is good. But I don't agree that SSM is a good end.

I failed to make myself clear in that respect. The starving people are gays who lack equal protection for their relationships. Bringing them sushi would be allowing SSM. Bringing them Cheetos would be like civil unions. Or do you think there isn't *any* problem with the government's treatment of homosexuals? My claim is that, doing nothing or turning back gay rights is bad, as is getting hit by the car of polygamy.

Another point is that you seem to think that it's simple to draw a clear line between direct and indirect outcomes. It's not, especially in a cultural and social institution as complex as marriage.

Obviously it's not simple to draw a line, but there are nice gradations. The complete collapse of Western civilization is obviously a very indirect and distant outcome, whereas gays would have more rights is a direct and immediate outcome, and it is guaranteed. Polygamy is somewhere in the middle and should be given appropriate weight. Many people have shown that polygamy does not inevitably follow from SSM. But it is being treated as inevitable by SSM opponents and that is intellectually dishonest.

You can argue for inevitibility but if I can show a case where that link isn't applied (such as legislatures enacting SSM or enacting orientation as a protected class), inevitibility and the slippery slope doesn't hold.

Your parentheticals illustrate a large (seemingly conscious) blindspot in your thinking with respect to the SSM debate. Were legislatures the operative government body, then there would be no slippery slope. Legislatures don't have to be consistent. It would be enough to argue, were legislatures enacting SSM, that there would never be a majority in favor of polygamy.

But when action comes via the courts, especially using rights-based language, there are no stops but the iffy presumptions of a few judges. In fact, the judiciary has become such a mess, in this respect, that it's questionable whether a legislature can still discriminate according to its own criteria.

Many people have shown that polygamy does not inevitably follow from SSM.

Careful. Nobody has ever shown what you claim. At best, they have shown that it's possible to construct a logical framework in which polygamy doesn't have to follow. That's not a minor difference.

But when action comes via the courts, especially using rights-based language, there are no stops but the iffy presumptions of a few judges. In fact, the judiciary has become such a mess, in this respect, that it's questionable whether a legislature can still discriminate according to its own criteria.

Right. Which is why I think that SSM opponents will end up shooting themselves in the foot. Unless they are living under a rock, any legislature can see that gays are demanding that an injustice be corrected. They can wait around the judiciary to take care of it, in which case it will be framed as freedom of privacy and choice and strengthen the case for polygamy. Or they can take steps to correct the injustices, like Connecticut. While I don't think that civil unions are the best answer (obviously I prefer marriage) they are a legislative step to correct a governmental injustice that doesn't necessarily affect polygamists.

Careful. Nobody has ever shown what you claim. At best, they have shown that it's possible to construct a logical framework in which polygamy doesn't have to follow. That's not a minor difference.

But no one has ever shown anything you claim either (and I don't want to get into another tiff over Scandinavia). If I can logically show you that polygamy doesn't have to follow means that it isn't inevitible. By definition. That's how you disprove inevitability. I don't see where the problem is.

Which is why I think that SSM opponents will end up shooting themselves in the foot. Unless they are living under a rock, any legislature can see that gays are demanding that an injustice be corrected. They can wait around the judiciary to take care of it, in which case it will be framed as freedom of privacy and choice and strengthen the case for polygamy.

Or they can stand up to the courts and not only preserve marriage, but also take the step forward of judicial reform.

Apart from that, I get the sense that you're attributing motives to conservatives that don't belong. And the slippery slope argument isn't the only one made, not even the most important, in my view.

If I can logically show you that polygamy doesn't have to follow means that it isn't inevitible. By definition.

No. This is what I tried to explain above. You're limit your test for inevitability to pure logic. In other words, a precondition for your conclusion against inevitability is that society will act according to your intellectual construct. That's not going to happen.