If Terri Schiavo had died on February 25, 1990, instead of March 31, 2005, Michael Schiavo would not be thought of as an adulterer who sued to ensure that his wife died of thirst. Perhaps that is why Michael Schiavo inscribed on his wife's gravestone that she died on February 25, 1990. If Mrs. Schiavo really "departed from this earth" in 1990, this excuses her husband's caddish behavior these past fifteen years. But she didn't die in 1990, no matter what her gravestone says. I would have more respect for Michael Schiavo had he etched a middle finger on his wife's grave. That, after all, is this petty, vindictive man's message to the family of the woman he denied food and water to. If his decade-long list of offenses (ambulance-chasing malpractice lawsuits, denying treatment to his wife, shacking up with another woman, suing to remove Terri's feeding apparatus, shielding the location of his wife's ashes from her family, etc.) doesn't convince you that Michael Schiavo is an egotistical jerk, his congratulatory note to himself on his wife's grave--"I kept my promise"--certainly does. Just as in her marriage, on Terri Schiavo's tombstone it's all about her husband.

Many thanks for blogging on this!! If we only watched and listened to the MSM we would think the people who tried to save Terri's life were the evil ones. Michael Schiavo has gotten a free pass on just about everything. This is yet another reason among many why the MSM cannot be trusted.

Apparently the fact that she could never recover somehow makes it legal for Michael Schiavo to kill her when he had absolutely no documented evidence suggesting that she would want to die in such an instance.

I already have given up on post-modern America. I have no sympathy or respect for a culture whose citizens overwhelmingly supported and clamored for the death of a precious, innocent woman. Michael Schiavo is a side show to the utter and complete cultural disaster that occurred early this year.

On Schiavo, excellent piece in NY Review of Books (June 9, 2005). Incredibly thoughtful and even handed. I think everyone in the country should read it.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18050

I'm still shocked something this good made it through the NY liberal filters.

To be clear Ben-T, I am not entirely sure how you kill someone who is for all practical application already dead. Its almost as silly as claiming that you could 'kill' Henrietta Lacks, by eliminating all the material left from her:

http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/lookup.html?node=1860

Maybe a slight stretch, but I can't help feel that this is on some levels the 'cute animal' syndrome. If she didn't *look* like a living person, would the same arguement have held about her life as with her looking like she was more or less healthy on the outside? I have to wonder. There seems to have been very little common sense involved in the whole affair and the lack of care exhibited by the husband only amplified the problem.

IT.IS.STILL.ILLEGAL.TO.KILL.THIS.WOMAN.WITHOUT.ANY.DOCUMENTED.EVIDENCE.SHE.DESIRED.TO.DIE.

I Guess the comment on her grave stone puts the lie to all the testimony he offered to get a stack of cash for her rehabiliation.

Not really much of a surprise at this point.

Jason

Kagehi,

What the hell "practical application(s)" do you have in mind for someone to be alive? That is a twisted Orwellian way of speaking. ". . . for all practical application already dead." You are one scary mofo.

And I thought that kind of thinking was just fodder for a classic sight gag in a Monty Python film . . . "I'm not dead yet! . . . I'm feeling better! . . ."

If she, or anyone, is "for all practical application already dead" then they must not BE dead or else one would say they ARE dead. So I am left with my first query what "practical applications" do you demand from other human beings before you give them the respect and treatment that dignity and conscience demands?

Is being the "beloved daughter of Robert and Mary Schindler" not a "practical" enough application for you? Is being a helpless child of a family that wants to take care of you and love you until you die a natural death not a "practical application" of a human being?

I wasn't much good for "practical applications" when I was a 6 hours old premie with non-functioning lungs strapped into an incubator. My great-grandmother when she was senile and incontinent wasn't much good for "practical application" either. Thankfully the people around her and me weren't blinkered with Nazi-esque cynical standards of evaluating people's lives based on "practical application," (the Nazis called it "Volksgesundheit," but I am sure you already knew that word) so I was kept alive artificially until my lungs grew stronger and my great-grandmother was taken care off until she died a dignified natural death.

I need to stop typing this post as I am getting way too pissed off at your callous, utilitarian, hipster, "Henrietta Lacks"-referencing ass.

Too little "common sense" in the whole affair . . .puhhhhleeze . . . too little common decency is more like it.

Hey Short,

The Village Voice (!) of all papers, actually was real good about the Schiavo murder.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,hentoff,62489,6.html

So every now and again the NY media elite allows for a different opinion from what you would expect.

Man,

This is why the republican party will lose both houses of congress and the presidency by 2008 (And yes this is all a political issue, not a damned one of you people give a shit about the Schiavo case, it's all about linking this sanctity of life bullshit to abortion). Twice, Twice now I voted for Bush and republicans in state and local races because I see the absolute evil of the democrats. I see their shallowness and contempt for regular ole people like me and I'll never vote for them. But a political party that would use up all of that capital on the horrible saga of Terry Schiavo (The man spent several years driving her around the country trying to help her, and also by the way shit heads her parents encouraged him to move on with someone else while he did all this, even had his girlfriend over to their house on several occastions), has no sense of what people really think, and have no right to my vote and all of my free thinking southern redneck friends who love guns, God, and guts. It sure would be nice to see one of you go through that hell. I truly believe he did what he thought was best for his wife. I believe the autopsy proves that. And I believe that you people will drive enough people away from the republican party to give you your own worst night mare, something I never thought possible till recently...Hillary. Thanks suckers.

Donald,

Unlike the prevaricating and cowardly democrats, Republicans have been known to go down in an election on principle. Of course John Kerry didn't do this in reference to Iraq and he still lost miserably (3 million + votes). He pandered to the moderates in an attempt to appear muscular on foreign policy while pandering to the left by criticizing the way Bush handled the war, instead of taking a principled stand against the war. I don't think Republicans are worried about losing an election if at the end of the day they stood for what they believe in (doesn't always happen, but I was proud of the Republicans and Democrats who stood for this precious, innocent woman).

The bottom line with Schiavo is: why do you believe what you believe about life, and is the happiness of one man (Michael Schiavo) more important than the happiness of a mother, father, sister, and brother? This is a philosophical and moral issue, not a religious or political issue. Deontologically we know it was wrong to murder Terri Schiavo by dehydrating her to death, because if the action and criteria used to decide whether she should die was applied universally, we would be killing anyone whose life had no "practical application". In terms of utilitarian ethics, a stronger case can be made that the happiness of those who want Schiavo to live (her loving father, mother, sister, and brother) far outweigh the happiness of a man (Michael Schiavo) who clamored and screamed for her death. In the absence of a well-defined and verifiable living will, keeping that precious, innocent woman alive was the ONLY moral choice.

Ali,

That is just not the point. First, after reading a whole lot about this, he didn't just decide he wanted her gone. This is a fallacy that was used especially near the end to smear a guy in a terrible position (As a husband). I note that Sean Hannity (A man I know a little bit, enough to know that he's a good guy and serious about what he does...also the luckiest man on earth)allowed people on his shows to accuse him of murdering Terry Schiavo. I note that Randall Terry, perhaps one of the worst pieces of feces of this nation was allowed to crawl out from under is rock to gain something approaching legitimacy. I also note...and look it up...that the parents were not around for years while Michael Schiavo beared the brunt of this tragedy until there was money on the table. Sorry, the law was clear, maybe not right, maybe not good, it was his responsibility and I don't think he'd lie about this. He was just another guy, who was smeared horribly by the press and public who did what he had to do. And I'm guessing he didn't like any bit of it from that first day. She was his wife, and he had a horrible hand dealt.

Now as for Republican principle, don't make me laugh. If there was any stand on principle by the republican party, the horrifying expansion of government the last five years wouldn't exist, the department of Education, Transportion, Hud, and Energy would be a bad memory. See, that would be a principled stand and the next logical step of the republican revolution of 1994. But no, votes must be bought. The Patriot act would not exist (Please people justify that in the constitution), and this filibuster business would have been destroyed the first time it was played. It would have been simple, roll out the cots and the democrats who have no real stand would have folded...then...I mean Hillary, Robert, sleeping in cots...now way. The pandering and weakness of the republican majority has been an insult the the people who put them in there, and if you accept it, well I guess we do get the government we deserve.

Oh,

And by the way, it is not for us to judge (with any authority) who's opinion should ride, Michael Schiavo or the parents etc...(Who as I said, came to the table after the money was there).

Oh,

And by the way, it is not for us to judge (with any authority) who's opinion should ride, Michael Schiavo or the parents etc...(Who as I said, came to the table after the money was there).
Posted by Donald at June 24, 2005 07:24 AM

as to this post you've invalidated your argument because it hinges on Michael Schiavo being given ultimate power over his wife. therefore you've made a value judgment yourself. i'm so sick and tired of people claiming that value judgments cannot be made. i backed up my value judgment with reason and indisputable facts.

"Ali,

That is just not the point. First, after reading a whole lot about this, he didn't just decide he wanted her gone. This is a fallacy that was used especially near the end to smear a guy in a terrible position (As a husband). I note that Sean Hannity (A man I know a little bit, enough to know that he's a good guy and serious about what he does...also the luckiest man on earth)allowed people on his shows to accuse him of murdering Terry Schiavo. I note that Randall Terry, perhaps one of the worst pieces of feces of this nation was allowed to crawl out from under is rock to gain something approaching legitimacy. I also note...and look it up...that the parents were not around for years while Michael Schiavo beared the brunt of this tragedy until there was money on the table. Sorry, the law was clear, maybe not right, maybe not good, it was his responsibility and I don't think he'd lie about this. He was just another guy, who was smeared horribly by the press and public who did what he had to do. And I'm guessing he didn't like any bit of it from that first day. She was his wife, and he had a horrible hand dealt."

it doesn't matter when he decided she should be "gone" as you put it, it matters if he ever did, which of course was the case and he did with the assistance of florida courts and a tyrannical federal judiciary. therefore he killed his wife unjustly, which is murder. the federal courts were mandated by law to review the case de novo, and refused to do so therefore usurping the authority of the legislative and executive branches. you're absolutely right about the law being clear, and it's readily apparent that the courts usurped the authority by disregarding the law signed by our president and passed by congress.

the vast majority of this paragraph fails to address the final outcome (Terri was dehydrated unjustifiably) and resorts to ad hominem and straw man logical fallacies to obscure the real issue. you don't kill people because they are a burden, especially if ultimately you don't have to bear it!

"Now as for Republican principle, don't make me laugh. If there was any stand on principle by the republican party, the horrifying expansion of government the last five years wouldn't exist, the department of Education, Transportion, Hud, and Energy would be a bad memory. See, that would be a principled stand and the next logical step of the republican revolution of 1994. But no, votes must be bought. The Patriot act would not exist (Please people justify that in the constitution), and this filibuster business would have been destroyed the first time it was played. It would have been simple, roll out the cots and the democrats who have no real stand would have folded...then...I mean Hillary, Robert, sleeping in cots...now way. The pandering and weakness of the republican majority has been an insult the the people who put them in there, and if you accept it, well I guess we do get the government we deserve."

if you go back and read my first post addressing your argument i qualified my statement by saying DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN. there goes that paragraph.

in summation, you have failed completely to address the philosophical and moral argument i have made. you lose; thanks for playing!

Ali,

Well maybe you should work on your comprehension skills. The law was clear and Michael Schiavo was the sole person in charge of her well being and future whether this is good or bad. It was up to him to decide what her ultimate dispostion would be. Where am I wrong? Where are your FACTS on this subject. You have only your own emotional and religious FEELINGS. I made no value judgement, though let me point out right now that if I was in her position, I would have made damned sure that my wife knew to pull a plug or whatever it took to end that hell. My wife howeve feels different. She amazes me in here tenacity and love of life. In that case, even though I think it would be a horrible outcome (See the Schiavo case), I would honor her wishes and do anything I could. That my friend is a value system.

"Florida Courts and Tyrannical Federal Judiciary". Hmmm, I'm not a big fan of the courts and like I said whether good or bad, that was the law. You will now kick and scream and say that there was a conspiracy between the Florida courts and Federal branches to "murder" Terry Schiavo. Once again, you let your religious fanacticism and hatred of abortion get in the way of the actual FACTS. Because in the end, this is all about abortion and you know it, though you won't address THAT (Though you will now with your half ass denial).
That law proposed by Bush, written and passed by congress in as cheap a display of moral weakness in the face of religious fanatics such as yourself as has happened in this country in a long time, did not compel the Florida courts to do anything. And I would posit that that was the point. It was just cheap political theater and it has backfired. Not the results you wanted, but well it is an inconvienent FACT.

Obviously Terry Schiavo shouldn't have had to be dehydrated. Once these decisions (Legal, personal, moral, etc...) had been made, no matter how ugly, there were better (Less painful and ugly) ways to do it. Bad as that sounds, perhaps if religious fanatics weren't in control of that law writing issue, a more humane (jeer as you will) would be in place. I would also pint out that the quality of life and or burden placed on others, along with other issues can be part of that decision making process. See, I'm not bound by a religious zeal that clouds my every thought process.

"That does'nt always happen". That Ali is a throw away line stated to give you cover. Too often I hear the likes of Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan, and you talk about principle. Well I bought into it for a while, but I just don't see it on a day to day basis. I hear Sean talk about Bush's steadfastness regularly and except for the War on Terror, I don't see it. I believe that he "Bush" and the republican's have completely violated the Contract with America and other true conservative ideals to a level to make your statement laughable. The federal government (Less military spending) has grown at a rate that far surpasses the Great Society and the Clinton administration. It is not possible that your statement could be on point.

Bottom line, I'm right. And you know why? Because I will not vote for republicans again, and neither will my friends who feel like I do. And that was the purpose of my original post. See that's why we're friends. We think a lot a like. We also argue vociferously over many issues. And we are the guys who have pushed Bush over that line the last two elections. Libertarian free thinkers who hate democrats and understand the concept of defending this country. See Ali, it's all about religious control and abortion to you and too many others. Otherwise the contemptible, feces head Randall Terry couldn not have gotten national air time to spread his special version of hatred, fear, and loathing. I notice you did not address Randall. Hence you didn't see the forest for the trees. As strong as I feel about the Schiavo issue, it's really all about democrats not being in control of the federal government for me. I haven't seen enough out of this administration (Including the war on terror, we need to destroy this enemy and not worry about what any Monkey on the Back weaklings thorughout the world) to get me to vote for them again.

Next time you get the hankering to fisk someone, make sure you know what your fisking. Have a nice day.

once again, because you have absolutely no rational argument, you've resorted to mischaracterizing my argument, which is a straw man fallacy. i at no point in time used "religious feelings" to craft my argument. i attacked your position from two angles, using deontological and utilitarian ethics, and you could not refute either. all you can do is pepper your straw man fallacies and blatant disregard and mischaracterizations of the law with ad hominem logical fallacies.

"Bottom line, I'm right. And you know why? Because I will not vote for republicans again, and neither will my friends who feel like I do."

hahahaha. yes, that's why you won the argument. bottom line, you're right because you and your friends won't be voting republican and because you failed to argue with any semblance of intellectual honesty or reason. take this as a learning lesson: that is a grade a non sequitur and red herring logical fallacy.

Ali,

What is your point? I'm not into psychobabble, so you're just blithering into the wind ignoring my point. Where have I made a mistatement? I simply pointed out my thoughts on the matter, my course of action because of the matter, and the facts of the issue. You don't address the facts and the law. You want to slather me with your morality...which I reject.

no, it is you who fail to address my points. i'm going to break this down one last time, and if you fail to address any of these points i'm going to have to concede that we will agree to disagree. firstly, you are unable or unwilling to address my philosophical argument that deontologically and in terms of utilitarianism it was wrong to murder Terri Schiavo, a precious and innocent woman, by dehydrating her to death. please refer to my first post that addressed your assertions.

secondly, you point to the law as if the law was clear on this issue. it obviously wasn't. this case spent years in the courts and great legal minds differed on this. just check the federal court record. a clinton appointee disagreed with the verdict! also, the federal judiciary blatantly disregarded federal law by refusing to review the case de novo, as they were indisputably told to do by the legislature and the executive branch. again, you completely fail to address these indisputable facts of the case.

lastly, you point to the law as if it is the end-all/be-all. it absolutely positively is not. the law is simply an extension of power. it does not inherently carry any rational or moral force. the law throughout the history of the world has been wrong in many cases, including slavery, prohibition, the denial of voting rights and property rights to women, etc. blindly referring to the law without questioning it and demanding that it is rationally coherent is the height of ignorance.

if you fail to address any of the legal or ethical points i have made, then i assume that you either completely reject deontology (the golden rule) or utilitarianism (what brings the greatest and best amount of happiness to the greatest number is best) or that you don't understand the legal facts of the case and basic separation of powers mandated by the constitution.