Grump
Pace Kevin Drum, I sometimes think there are no circuses (”clown show” in Kevin’s formulation) in American media culture, that any story that takes hold does so because it speaks to deep personal concerns and social schisms. Like as not, the collective characterizing of a media phenomenon as a “circus” is a social defense mechanism – we set the lid back on the jar and walk away with a nervous whistle. That civil war was probably sour anyway.
Exhibit A was the OJ trial, butt of a thousand deprecations and, regardless, a telling episode in American social psychology with its stew of race, gender, wealth, fame, guilt and (I am convinced) police misconduct to top it all off. It’s certainly true of the Schiavo case, where there’s something to make everybody uncomfortable, pissed off or both.
After reading and thinking today, including the discussion below, I’m forced to conclusions I don’t necessarily like, but I think that’s because there’s nothing much to like. No system will produce good outcomes every time. If you think that Terry Schiavo’s wishes were clear, and her husband heroic in trying to carry them out, then the seven years of legal hell he (and she) have been dragged through since he first petitioned to have her feeding tube withdrawn in 1998 is a torment no one should have to bear. If you think that Terry Schiavo is being sacrificed to society’s expediency despite the superhuman effort of her parents to prevent it, then her imminent death is as dire a portent as you could fear.
If Terry Schiavo were on death row I’d want her lawyers to exhaust every appeal, and then I’d want her kept alive anyway because I oppose the death penalty in all cases. We have, however, a finding by a state court, upheld on numerous appeals, taking into account the testimony of more than one guardian ad litem and expert witnesses for both sides, that Terry Schiavo would want to die. I wish that the court’s decision relied on the testimony of witnesses not named “Schiavo.” I know that the legal system is no proof against error and malice.
At the same time, as John Emerson and Diana Moon point out in yonder comments thread, what is the alternative? IF we are to give credence to a suffering patient’s wishes, then we need to be prepared to determine what those wishes are. John’s point that marriage has always meant passing from the orbit of one’s parents to the sphere of one’s spouse is telling. (Eve’s notation that the subjects of our most famous right-to-die cases have been women nags in the background.) Diana asks if “the state” is to substitute for the spouse. Of course, it already does, or at least vets the spouse. But that doesn’t mean that the State in the form of the House, Senate and President should join in the vetting.
The best case, I think, is that my concern that the spouse most stands to profit from choosing death for the patient is real, but that the existing legal system is the appropriate safeguard against that. As to Terry and Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers, the timeline and state court opinions convince me that Michael Schiavo must be either a very, very good person – determined to carry out his wife’s wishes even when he could have walked away clean – or a very, very bad one – committed to getting his wife out of the way to cover up his own malfeasance. The evidence for the latter looks much, much weaker than the evidence for the former.
The allegations that Michael Schiavo abused his wife come very late in the legal game. They smack of desperation and slander. The trial record suggests, rather, that for four years after her heart attack Michael Schiavo aggressively pursued therapies that might improve his wife’s condition, then gave up hope. He may be wrong about his wife’s wishes. He may have become so locked in struggle with his wife’s parents that he’s lost sight of where his antagonism ends and his wife’s wishes begin. (So may they.) But I don’t see any reason to believe that we – me, you, Bill Frist, CNN, the State – could be less wrong.
Why don’t I like this conclusion? Because “the right to die” does, always, threaten to shade into “the right to dispose of the inconvenient.” Because humans are prone to error and death offers no do-overs. Because, like Tim Dunlop, I wouldn’t want to be any of the people involved, and will probably be all of them before I’m through.
Comment by Russell L. Carter —
March 22, 2005 @ 11:27 pm
I agree with all you say here Jim. But I’m not a libertarian! However, potential for error requires review. By whom, one asks. I suppose this outcome we gape at here is a doubleplusgood review, good and hard, by the optimal government selected by the people, that we’ve got right now.
Comment by Scott Chaffin —
March 23, 2005 @ 12:46 am
Personally, I’m salivating over the “my sister” post on this one.
One note: the abuse claims came pretty quickly after the parents saw the medical records they’re basing them on. They only got those records when Michael Schiavo remembered that his wife didn’t want to be another Karen Ann Quinlan and they disagreed.
Comment by Michael —
March 23, 2005 @ 8:32 am
I also agree. I have two more questions, though.
1: How does the situation differ because Terri has not-died without a living will than if she’d died without a written will?
2: The famously leaked memo suggests that this issue will be a hard one for Democrats. I would scoff, but I’ve found that my ability to predict what people will care about at election time is out of calibration. Is there anything to that? Not that I think it would change a principled person’s stand, but we’re talking about politicians.
Comment by Jon H —
March 23, 2005 @ 10:44 am
What I find interesting is that, apparently, a whole bunch of Christians are so dead-set against Terri Schiavo being in heaven.
They’d rather have her remain in limbo, potentially forever.
She could have been in paradise for the past 15 years.
It’s really rather weird, given that these people ostensibly believe in that paradise to the extent that it’s supposedly the center of their moral system.
Comment by Jim Henley —
March 23, 2005 @ 10:47 am
I’m actually interested in that too, but not in a rhetorical, point-scoring way. In a I wonder what the reasoning is way. It would be great if Eve Tushnet or Amy Welborn were to address the issue.
Comment by Avram —
March 23, 2005 @ 11:33 am
I assume the reasoning is that (1) no ordinary mortal can know for sure who’s going to Heaven, and (2) God has said that He doesn’t like it when you kill people — that’s His job.
Come on, you’ve probably noticed that most modern Christians don’t make a habit of murdering people that they consider good to ensure that those people will go to Heaven sooner. Why should things be any different for a brain-damaged person?
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
March 23, 2005 @ 11:39 am
Isn’t the Christian answer something like: “The standard you’re proposing would require me to kill infants at birth so they go to Heaven immediately. That’s preposterous, and hey, look, God says murder is a sin. What an amazing coincidence, not.” (I’m not a Christian, btw — I’m an atheist ex-Hindu. But this one really isn’t that hard to figure out.)
Comment by Doctor Slack —
March 23, 2005 @ 11:51 am
I don’t think the Schiavo case has any particularly bearing on the “right to die.” When someone’s cerebral cortex has liquefied, they are to all intents and purposes already dead; this is not a case of a terminally ill patient requesting assisted suicide, but a case of a legal guardian terminating life support for an irrecoverable vegetable.
.
It’s telling that most of the arguments against switching off the life support rest on misrepresenting or ignoring the medical realities — on referring to Terry Schiavo as being “in a coma” or “more conscious than we may realize.” And I don’t think most of the people advancing those arguments seriously believe them; I think they tend to emanate from the Christian right as camouflage for their real concern, which is doing right by Schiavo’s _soul_ — and by their own.
.
Scott:”Personally, I’m salivating over the “my sister†post on this one.”
.
In what way?
Trackback by Progressive Reaction —
March 23, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
Serious clowning.
“Pace Kevin Drum, I sometimes think there are no circuses (”clown show” in Kevin’s formulation) in American media culture, that…
Comment by Michael —
March 23, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
Avram wrote:
Arnold Amaury replied, 800 years ago: “Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius!”
Comment by Chris —
March 23, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
Your fear of “disposing of the inconvenient” is precisely the reason I’m opposed to legal euthanasia. A person desiring to end their life may or may not be appropriate depending on the case, but it seems like a legal barrier is a healthy obstacle to this practice.
This case seems different, however, because it’s not about active killing as much as taking away a form of life support. With sufficient due process this can be made a soberly considered decision. The Texas law, placing the decision with the health care providers over any wishes of the patient or family, is more troubling to me
Comment by Avram —
March 23, 2005 @ 5:44 pm
Coincidentally, Michael, I was just reading about that in _The Name of the Rose_ the other day.
Anyway, I put the word “modern” in there for just that reason.
And Jim, what the heck is up with this input filter? No Italic tags allowed?
Comment by Jim Henley —
March 23, 2005 @ 5:53 pm
Avram, gotta use em. Apparently one of my plugins believes that i is not valid xhtml or something. Sorry about that.
.
Another wrinkle – it liketh not colons.
.
Also there’s the paragraphing business, currently best worked around with Leonard Dickens’ medial dots method.
.
I’m John Hollander, and I approve this message.
Comment by Michael —
March 24, 2005 @ 11:10 am
This is a paragraph. It may or may not have a bottom border
And now we find out why does Wordpress hate America (and various valid XHTML attributes).
aside: It’s all too telling that I devolve from quoting 13th century crusading zealots to html wankery.
Update: Nailed it!
Comment by Jim Henley —
March 24, 2005 @ 11:23 am
Yes and no. Your paragraphs blow the layer border. This is what happens whenever anyone manages to get a space in between paras.
Comment by Michael —
March 24, 2005 @ 11:35 am
I see that. It also took my paragraph/preformatted/paragraph structure and wrapped the text inside the pre inside a code tag. The freak factor of this is high, and I think I should go back to latin.
There, that’s better.
Comment by Glaivester —
March 25, 2005 @ 12:52 am
“What I find interesting is that, apparently, a whole bunch of Christians are so dead-set against Terri Schiavo being in heaven.”
Why does eveyone assume that Christians are certain that Terry will go to heaven?
Most evangelical Christians believe that the vast majority of the human race is headed somewhere a lot less pleasant.
Trackback by Fresh Bilge —
March 29, 2005 @ 7:56 am
Another Perspective
I presume the name of Jim Henley’s blog, Unqualified Offerings,…