Fundamentalist Barbarians At The Gate
Sicko religious fanatics in Congress plan to issue subpoenas Friday to stop doctors from removing the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo. Schiavo's delusional parents who, according to a CNN story, "believe she can get better with rehabilitation," have, tragically, become pawns of the religious "right." The New York Times reports that the religious fanatics who have taken over the Senate have pulled a crafty little move:
Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee and the Senate majority leader, issued a statement saying that the woman, Terri Schiavo, and her husband, Michael, were being invited to testify in a Congressional inquiry into the matter later this month.The statement pointed out that Federal law protects witnesses called before Congress "from anyone who may obstruct or impede a witness's attendance or testimony."
The maneuver is the latest step by lawmakers determined to keep Ms. Schiavo alive to prevent her feeding tube from being disconnected, scheduled for 1 p.m. today.
In the CNN piece, even the religious fanatic-in-chief is urging "a presumption in favor of life" -- ie, the one advocated by Christianity (oops, we are a Christian country aren't we? I mean, except for that annoying little blurb about separation of church and state)?
If the religious "right"'s support for keeping alive a woman whose brain has turned into a milkshake (in order to serve their campaign to turn women into baby pods) is "pro life," I'm a viable candidate for center for the Knicks. What's scary is that I don't see the major news outlets reporting more than the surface stuff of the case -- what appears to be, thanks to the parents' propaganda machine.
Blogger Majikthise has the actual facts on the case -- and here's Amptoons on the ridiculous excuses for medical experts Schiavo's parents have called in -- along with an essential point about Schiavo's brain:
The conclusion the court came to is that, based on medical testimony and Terri’s CAT scan, her cerebral cortex has basically turned to liquid. The cerebral cortex is the seat of all our higher brain functions. Without a cerebral cortex, it is impossible for a human being to experience thought, emotions, consciousness, pain, pleasure, or anything at all; nor, barring a miracle, is it possible for a patient lacking a cerebral cortex to recover.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.
Oh yeah...and don't forget the video clips. Amptoons exposes the fraud there, too:
So if none of the 17 experts address the cerebral cortex issue, what do they talk about? None of these experts have examined Terri, and only one claims to have looked at her medical records. What they discuss is the famous videos of Terri apparently tracking a balloon’s movement with her eyes, smiling at her mother, and so forth.The court ruling addressed those videos. 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.
And finally, don't forget to "follow the money." The Bioethics.net blog:
In the Schiavo case, the money leads to a consortium of conservative foundations, with $2 billion in total assets, that are funding a legal and public relations war of attrition intended to prolong Terri's life indefinitely in order to further their own faith-based cultural agendas.
This is sick beyond belief.
The only good news in this whole story is that she can no longer feel the pain. How vile for all these intrusive people to poke their noses into another families business.
Growing up, I watched my Dad die a long slow cancer death. He eventually starved himself to death. Anyone who has had to live through watching such a spectacle wishes the dearly departed had departed much earlier so the happy memories would remain, and not the cruel visions a lingering death.
Also, that this woman should be forced to starve is the most inhumane aspect of all. Wait- to have her testify in front of a Congressional committee is something even the South Park guys wouldn't think of.
eric at March 18, 2005 11:34 AM
Yes, the forcing of her starvation is truly sick. It's gone on too long and come to this... However, having just watched the video clips, I can only say that there must be a part of her mom's brain tha blocks out the common sense and says, please, just let me keep her, I don't care what shape she's in. I seriously think what Congress is doing is absurd, but there is part of me--the mother part--that knows it would be impossible for me to let my child, no matter what state she was in, starve to death. Emotion trumps common sense; this, despite my being almost exactly in line with Amy politically.
nancy at March 18, 2005 12:43 PM
Maybe it's a male\female thing. My perspective is more "if you are holding the tribe back, and there is no hope for you, best to cut the cord quickly and mercifully to save the rest."
Maybe the movies we see (and the books we read) as men have an impact, such as the scene where Russel Crowe has to cut the ropes loose to save his ship and cremates in Master and Commander. Or any number of war movies where a buddy has to be sacrificed. It seems natural and ingrained in me.
Is it the mercy killing or the slowness of starvation that would prevent you from ending her pain? What if it was a quick shot, like putting a dog down at the vet?
eric at March 18, 2005 1:21 PM
I meant crewmates. That's kinda spooooooooky...
eric at March 18, 2005 1:22 PM
As a mother, and if it were my child, I think I would have 20 years ago made a better decision about letting her pass; I don't know the details so perhaps I am assuming there was a time she would have done so on her own. I am all for euthanasia, so, I suppose that, today, I would weigh where we are right now; be extremely damn sure she was not still locked inside, and then figure out the best way to let her go without pain, which would be, as far as my doctor and nurse friends tell me, a morphine drip. I would find a doctor to do this; I have friends that would do this. I could not watch her starve for 30 days, 60 days; even if she had no functioning cortex and didn't know it, I'd know it.
nancy at March 18, 2005 1:38 PM
The whole thing is so sad, and I don't really know what I think, but it *definitely* shows the importance of having a living will, written down somewhere.
Kate at March 18, 2005 3:05 PM
Nance, understand totally what you're saying -- which is why I added the "tragically" word to describe her parents' actions. Still, this is protracted irrationality -- and they surely have had some contact with doctors who've explained the medical realities. This is where religious belief -- belief in the unproven -- proves itself to be more critical than the merely silly thinking it seems to be.
And Eric, I'm with you. We should not be preserving the lives of vegetables.
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2005 4:54 PM
Yes, you're right, Amy, and as I have no religion, it would not be the big log that prevents entry to rational thought. I also tuned in today to MSNBC; never saw Ron Reagan Jr. before and must say, he socked it to this OB/GYN from Dallas who was insisting that she was not in a persistant vegetative state; that the only thing she couldn't do on her own was "chew."
nancy at March 18, 2005 5:17 PM
Good for him! If these people were arguing from science and proof, that would be one thing. But even the "experts" they called aren't really experts; they were fairy tale confirmers, really.
I'm reminded, now, to get my living will signed and sealed and copied and sent off to people. But let me say it here: I do not want to live as a human turnip. PULL THE PLUG!
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2005 5:31 PM
Amy- If you ever get to that point, I promise to drive down in my Chevy Tahoe and take you for a final scenic tour of highway 1, stopping at every In-N-Out burger along the way. After being seen in the front seat of a big ole SUV, your sheer will will either make you wake up or pop an artery.
Or we can just put Crefoe Dollar on the TV in your hospital room.
eric (in the usually snowy Idaho mountains) at March 18, 2005 6:11 PM
Crefoe who?
Amy Alkon at March 18, 2005 6:37 PM
Crefoe Dollar- he's this fire and brimstone TV evangelist....
eric at March 18, 2005 6:50 PM
Welp. I may as well weigh in on the issue, since no one else has bothered. The point that isn't being made is the kind of legal precedent that's being set here. When Terri Schaivo walked down the aisle and said the "I do," this gave Michael Schaivo all rights as next of kin. Her parents have no say on the subject. None. Zip. Nada. Had Michael Schaivo divorced Terri, that would be another matter.
Should the courts decide in favor of Terri's parents, we now have a new legal precedent for allowing the parents to usurp the rights of the legal spouse. Dangerous ground. Dangerous ground. Regardless of what you think of the decision, it's Michael Schaivo who has the right to decide for Terri. No one else.
Patrick, The Goddess Fan at March 20, 2005 4:31 PM
So when you say I do, you are giving another human the right to kill you. Harsh? Okay, then just let you starve to death. I'll bet any number of married folk don't fully realize this is part of their marriage vows. Until death do us part takes on a new twist. Say you truly come to abhor your mate, and they know it, but you choose to stay in the marriage for the children. I've heard people do that. Let's say there's a sizable insurance policy lurking nearby. But the law's the law. How about if divorce papers have been drawn and filed? Is the comatose one off the hook yet? It's getting complicated in here. And yes, these issues may not be part and parcel of the Schalvo case, but I'd be surprised somewhere in the world this hasn't already gone down. Easy for me to plunk the crows here, I'm divorced for good.
allan at March 20, 2005 6:44 PM
What was the name of that movie? Oh, yeah. License to Kill. And damn if I didn't mispell the Schiavo name. With that preview button right down below here, too.
allan at March 20, 2005 7:13 PM
The strange thing about the religious oppostition (most of it is religious opposition) to the removal of the feeding tube is the position that 'Terri' is being killed by someone and she would defend herself if she could.
Not so.
The first false premise is that Schiavo is not being euthanized. Euthanasia is killing someone to prevent a more painful death later. She's being kept alive by artificial means. If not for the feeding tube, she could not live, even if every baptist in the world shoveled applesauce into her mouth. She doesn't know to swallow. God will choose her time? I reckon if he's out there he chose it and it was over a decade ago.
The second false premise is that Schiavo would fight her husband on this issue. If one is a Christian, then one believes in a soul. The cerebral cortex would be the aspect of the brain that allows that soul to interface with the rest of the body-eyes, ears, touch, memory. If that's liquid, now, then Schiavo is trapped in a sightless, scentless purgatory of political genesis. The feeding tube is stopping her soul from getting to 'heaven' where it is supposed to be.
I just happened to be reading Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo when I first heard about this whole deal a few years ago, weird.
Little ted at March 20, 2005 10:44 PM
Ignore the double negative in paragraph 3
Little ted at March 20, 2005 11:14 PM
Allan writes:
I don't have a whole lot of hope for this discussion if you're going to be dishonest, Allan. No one said that someone has the right to kill their spouse, as if I could arbitrarily decide to take a knife to legally wed partner (if such a person existed).
I said that the next of kin has the right to make decisions on the medical care of their next of kin, up to and including when life support is stopped should chances of recovery become highly unlikely or impossible.
For you to suggest as you did is patently dishonest. Keep the discussion in perspective, please, and save the drama for yo mama.
Patrick, Goddess Fan at March 21, 2005 9:05 AM
"Ignore the double negative in paragraph 3"
Not to worry, Ted. We're not nearly as bitchy about grammar as we are about politics and culture.
"Save the drama for yo mama."
Patrick, you funky thang -- You live in Florida, yes? I'll be in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area in May. Can we hang out? I'd love to meet you. And my adorable, lovable boyfriend will be there too! Ooh, la la!
Lena at March 21, 2005 7:59 PM
Leave a comment