Facts and Lies About Terri Schiavo (3 updates)
Lindsay Beyerstein debunks some common myths about the situation:
1. Terri is conscious
Court-appointed, government-appointed, and private physicians have confirmed that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Schiavo suffered massive brain damage as a result of a cardiac arrest 15 years ago, and ongoing neurological degeneration interim.
3. Terri's collapse is unexplained and/or suspicious
In an attempt to discredit Michael Schiavo, Terri's parents and their supporters are circulating unsubstantiated rumors of abuse and even accusations of attempted murder. ... Terri Schiavo was not a healthy young woman. Her heart stopped because of a potassium imbalance induced by severe bulimia nervosa.
6. Michael Schiavo just wants to inherit Terri's fortune
What fortune? Even the pro-tube Terri Schiavo Foundation reports that of the nearly one million dollar malpractice settlement earmarked for Terri's future medical care, less than $50,000 is left.
Conservatives trot out "medical experts" who back their position and promote some of the common myths, but it looks like they get these "experts" in the same wholesale discount outlet that they get "experts" who support "Intelligent" Design. Alas explains:
[M]ost of them are not experts. There are more speech pathologists and psychologists than there are neurologists. And the most qualified experts in this group, seem to take care not to state an opinion. For example, Dr. Kennedy - arguably the best-qualified neurology expert of the 17 - says that he’s willing to examine Terri with the most modern MRI technology. And that’s all he says.
I’ve read all 17 affidavits. I’m not a doctor, of course. But I know a lot about argumentation and debate. One of the most basic tenets of debate is that you have to address the opposing arguments. These affidavits simply don’t do that; like Dr. Hopper, rather than addressing the most crucial evidence and arguments in this case, they pretend that they don’t exist.
According to every medical expert who has actually examined Terri Schiavo, her cerebral cortex has turned to liquid — she no longer has the grey matter necessary to experience higher cognitive functions, much less emotions. How do the conservatives' "experts" respond?
There are only two logical responses to that argument, that I can think of.
A) An expert could argue that someone can experience consciousness without a cerebral cortex.
B) An expert could argue that Terri’s CAT scan was faulty, or was not read correctly.
Not one of the 17 experts clearly made either of the above arguments. Nor did they make some other argument I didn’t think of. In fact, none of them mentioned the term “cerebral cortex” at all. None of them even referred directly to Terri’s CAT scan.
Terri Schiavo's condition depends upon the status of her cerebral cortex, but none of the "experts" brought in by her parents even mentioned it? What is with these people and where did the parents find them?
Then, of course, there are the famous video clips that make it appear that Terri Schiavo is conscious and responding to her environment. Did they fool you, too?
Although the out-of-context video snips featured on the terrisfight.org website, and on TV newscasts, seem to show Terri reacting to things around her, the full, uncut video shows Terri smiling and moving her eyes at random. In one instance, her eyes appear to track a balloon; that short sequence has been shown over and over. What they don’t show is the many failed attempts made to get Terri to follow the balloon. With clever editing, even random motions and reflexes - such as smiling and eye movements - can seem conscious. The intelligence and cognition on display isn’t Terri’s, but the film editor’s.
This is a well-known argument, brought up by past expert witnesses and relied on by Judge Greer in his decision. Yet not one of the 17 experts address this argument at all. Not one of the 17 experts reports having viewed the uncut films of Terri (and I doubt any of them did); in fact, several of them specify that they viewed the short clips available on the internet or seen on TV. These 17 affidavits do not respond, in any way at all, to the court’s reasoning regarding the videos of Terri. Again, rather than addressing essential arguments, they simply pretend they don’t exist.
It seems that these 17 people are not only of dubious "expertise," but also of dubious intellectual honesty. You can't legitimately file a medical affidavit in a case like this without at l east attempting to address the central issues in the case. I wouldn't trust these people like this to conduct a medical exam of my cat, much less my wife. Relevant medical licensing boards should take a serious look at them and what sorts of testimony they offer for money.
Who are the people who are funding the efforts to keep Terri alive — that is, funding the efforts to deny a husband the right to make medical decision for his wife (hardly a principle that is conducive to stabilizing marriage)? Who believes so strongly in "states' rights" that they want the U.S. Congress to intervene in a case that state courts have repeatedly ruled on — consistently in the same way, too? Wealthy conservative foundations.
Bioethics quotes a news story that explains:
I did some Internet research and learned that many of the attorneys, activists and organizations working to keep Schiavo on life support all these years have been funded by members of the Philanthropy Roundtable.
The Philanthropy Roundtable is a collection of foundations that have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. The Roundtable members' founders include scions of America's wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products).
There is something wrong here. The Florida courts have ruled repeatedly -- based on her doctors' testimony and evidence of statements she previously made about her end-of-life wishes -- that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, would not want her life to be prolonged under such circumstances, and should be allowed to die as the courts have determined she would wish. But the conservative foundations, with their massive funding, have turned the Schiavo case into a war of attrition, where delay is victory.
This entire situation is rather sick. The judge who has ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo has received death threats from the "pro-life" contingent and now has to travel with armed guards. This isn't really an unusual case because every day hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans are taken off life support or feeding tubes because they, too, won't recover cognitive functions.
Now, however, well-funded Christian Right organizations are seeking to deny us that right. They have carefully chosen a very specific case where the subject, Terri Schiavo, can be made to appear more a victim of her husband than a victim of their own religious machinations. They have manipulated public perception and medical facts in order to keep this case in the courts. If they succeed, a precedent will be set that will allow them to interfere with the lives of more and more Americans. They want the rest of us to live and die according to their religious dictates.
Here is a good example of of someone spreading myths, misconceptions, and lies about Michael Schiavo and about Terri Schiavo's situation: Kevin McCullough. Under a picture of Michael Schiavo (labeled: "Picture of a man who is killing his wife" — something that could and some day might be said about everyone who seeks to withdraw life support from a family member), Kevin writes:
MARRIED TO TERRI...
Probably the only true thing he wrote.
SLEEPING WITH HIS MISTRESS...
Terri's own Catholic parents encouraged Michael to start dating and start a new life. Kevin knows this if he knows anything about the case, so to throw it out as if it were a moral failing of Michael's is disingenuous.
LUSTING FOR MILLIONS IN SETTLEMENTS...
As noted above, there weren't any "millions," just a single million, and this is almost all gone. Again, Kevin knows this if he knows anything and "disingenuous" is insufficient to adequately convey how dishonest this is.
AND SCARED TO DEATH THAT TERRI
MIGHT RECOVER...
Why would he be scared? Kevin McCullough's RSS feed is more detailed:
And possibly the dead woman will not be able to confirm whether or not he beat her and broke dozens of bones the night of her infamous collapse.
This is a very clear attempt to insinuate that Michael Schiavo is responsible for Terri's condition and doesn't want her to recover (as if there were a chance of that happening — notice the implication) so that she can't testify against him. McCullough stops just short of making the accusation, which saves him from a defamation lawsuit, but the insinuation is no less immoral.
As noted above, if there were any credible reason to think that Michael had anything to do with Terri's condition, the insurance company would have played it for all they could in order to avoid paying the the malpractice settlement.
Remember, Kevin McCullough is one of those "self-appointed mandarins of religious values" who believes that by virtue of their politics and religion, they are in a position to teach others about what is proper in terms of ethical behavior. The fact that they have to use unethical rhetoric to accomplish their stated goals simply reveals how far beyond the pale they have traveled. They aren't even fit for a barroom chat, much less political, cultural, or social leadership positions.
Crosswalk, however, gives Kevin McCulllough a prominent voice, thus demonstrating how low they have fallen.
Linda MacDonald Glenn addresses the issue of claims that Terri Schiavo is being "starved" to death:
One of the more disturbing aspects of the political rhetoric is the hyperbole of the politicians and Schindlers talking about how Michael is intent on “starving” Terri to death, as if she were a person who was totally healthy and fully functional. Is it possible that none of these persons have ever witnessed a hospice death? And hospice organizations have explained time and time again that someone at the end-of-life doesn’t experience thirst and hunger in the same fashion that healthy individuals do. The language the politicians and Schindlers are using is intended to provoke and inflame.
What also puzzles me is that these devout Christians seem to be ignoring the fact that, according to the Christian doctrine, death is not the ultimate evil, but eternal damnation is; to allow Terri to die would be to allow her to join with God in eternal life. Perhaps the Schindlers and the politicians don’t really believe in an afterlife? But this case is no longer about Terri’s wishes, or her husband attempting to honor her wishes, or a family dispute. It has become a political battle reflecting the torn state of the nation, about "being right and looking good" and who has control.
The Christian Right and the conservatives who assist them are sickening.
Where was the Republican outrage, indignation, and self-righteous grandstanding in Congress when a Texas hospital removed the feeding tube from a baby against the mother's wishes?
From the Houston Chronicle, just a few days ago:
Sun's death marks the first time a U.S. judge has allowed a hospital to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.
"It's sad this thing dragged on for so long. We all feel it's unfair, that a child doesn't have a chance to develop and thrive," said William Winslade, a bioethicist and lawyer who is a professor at the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. Paraphrasing the late Catholic theologian and ethicist Richard McCormick, Winslade added, "This isn't murder. It's mercy, and it's appropriate to be merciful in that way. It's not killing, it's stopping pointless treatment."
The hospital's description of Sun — that he was motionless and sedated for comfort — has differed sharply from the mother's. Since February, the hospital has blocked the media from Hudson's invitation to see the baby, citing privacy concerns.
"I wanted y'all to see my son for yourself," Hudson told reporters. "So you could see he was actually moving around. He was conscious." [emphasis added]
What's the difference between the cases of Sun Hudson and Terri Schiavo? Both have parents claiming that they were not so bad off — that they respond to stimuli and might be successfully treated. Sun, however, was a black baby in a Texas hospital whose treatment was being paid for by institutions no longer willing to foot the bill. Did any of that cause Republicans not to care as much about Sun as they evidently do about Terri Schiavo? Is there something else different about the cases that's relevant?
Steve M. has quotes from Republican talking points specifically saying that the Terri Schiavo case is to be hyped for its political ramifications (via Oliver Willis):
ABC News has obtained talking points circulated among Republican senators explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..." and "This is a great political issue... this is a tough issue for Democrats."
Digby notes:
The Schiavo case also shows that their braying about the sanctity of marriage is a load of rubbish. One of the things that gays want from the marriage contract is the right to make decisions for their spouse in case like this one. Clearly, those rights are only applicable even to straight people if Bill Frist and Randall Terry approve. Otherwise, they may actually enact an act of Congress to stop you --- especially if it's "a great political issue" that "excites their base." I guess the traditional view of marriage isn't so sacred after all, is it? And here I thought this stuff was handed down from God. Go figure.
On the one hand are the True Believers of the Christian Right. They do care about Terri Schiavo and this isn't simply a political issue for them. I don't know why they never seemed to care as much about Sun Hudson, but the racial issue can't be overlooked. Someone should start asking some hard questions of these people, demanding to know why they will block abortion clinics and demonstrate in front of Terri Schiavo's hospice while ignoring the situation of a Sun.
On the other hand are Republican leaders who may agree with some of the Christian Right's ideology, but for the most part simply use them in order to achieve and maintain power — they have no real principles and have been doing this for quite some time. Sadly, the rank-and-file of the Christian Right hasn't figured out just how much they have been disgracefully used and then tossed aside.
Frankly, I'm undecided as to which of these two is more ethically and intellectually corrupt. Sometimes one seems worse, sometimes the other. This time they are running neck-and-neck.
Small update: This post was linked to by Kenders' Musings with the pithy evaluation that it is "the biggest pantload." If you follow the above link you won't discover any actual arguments that explain what's wrong with anything in the above. In fact, you won't find much in the way of coherent arguments anywhere else on that blog to explain the author's position. His ability to address others' ideas are nicely summarized by how he addresses me, personally. I'm "some asswipe" and a "Fucking atheist."
Nice, huh? I'm glad that Kender did such a good job demonstrating his moral superiority to everyone else.
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment