Patterico's Pontifications

3/26/2005

The Question Not Asked

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Schiavo — Patterico @ 9:41 pm



The L.A Times has a story today about two mothers with children in persistent vegetative states. One decided to let her child live; the other chose death for her child. The article portrays the Schiavo case as a simple choice between decisions made by families, and those made by strangers:

There is no one correct course, [Kaye] O’Bara says. It’s a private decision one a family must make on its own, with love.

[Shirley] Bradley feels the same. Watching politicians and protesters presume to know what’s best for Terri angers her. She would not have wanted a stranger to make the choice for Randy.

Neither claims to have made the right choice. Just the choice that was best for her child.

The implication is that the family in the Schiavo case made the decision, but now strangers are trying to interfere. Never mind that a stranger — Judge George Greer — has made all the decisions in the Schiavo case.

There is an obvious question that a reporter with no axe to grind would have asked these mothers:

Obviously, you feel very strongly that your decision for your child was right. But how would you feel if your child had been married, and your child’s spouse had disagreed with you? What if you didn’t trust your child’s spouse — but a judge agreed with the spouse’s decision?

I would love to hear these mothers answer this question.

I wonder why the L.A. Times didn’t ask it.

Yes, that was a rhetorical question.

13 Responses to “The Question Not Asked”

  1. […] different decisions about ending the lives of their children. I discussed that article in this post. According to that article, the mothers believe that the government shoul […]

    Patterico's Pontifications » A True or False Question for the “Let Terri Schiavo Die” Folks (0c6a63)

  2. But how would you feel if your child had been married, and your child’s spouse had disagreed with you? What if you didn’t trust your child’s spouse – but a judge agreed with the spouse’s decision?

    Wouldn’t it be important to know whether these mothers were firm believers in the legal and moral sanctity of their own child’s marriage? After all, in God’s eyes —and by sanction of the state— it’s the sacrosanctity of the union between a man and a woman that’s keeping Michael Schiavo in legal control of this situation, right?

    If conservative Christians are so interested in preserving the “traditional” marriage bonds of Judeo-Christian culture, let them suss out the logic of it for themselves: marriage is not, in itself, sacred, but the commitment between two people is. What commitment does a man with a common-law wife by whom he’s fathered two children have to a woman he’s known far longer as an unconscious victim of severe brain damage? In what meaningful sense —other than the legal one— are Michael and Terri Schiavo husband and wife?

    Toby Petzold (cd28cf)

  3. If the situation were reversed, and the parents wanted to terminate nutrition, while the husband wished it to continue, woould you still argue parental primacy?
    I believe your true position is that primacy should be given to the party wishing to continue keeping the woman alive. That’s acceptable, but it’s not the same thing at all.
    I can’t speak for Terri, but as for myself, if my outward manifestations were the same as hers, and I wasn’t in a persistent vegetative state, I wouldn’t want to live.
    I have two concerns with Michael Schiavo having the final word on this. They cannot be addressed in Terri’s case, but perhaps suggest possibilities for future legislation.
    One is the dark hint that he may be responsible for her condition, and is trying to eradicate evidence. I have no idea what merit there is to this, but the local authorities seem to have found it unworthy of pursuit. Like it or not, we must presume that they have a better grasp of the facts than we do. Even if he is responsible, it is still a separate issue from whether or not Terri should be allowed to die. Perhaps we SHOULD give primacy to the party arguing for life, in the absence of a written directive. Of course, the legitimate claimants would still have to be strictly limited, even so.
    The second problem is the claim that he is trying to keep the funds from the malpractice award for his own use. This could be true whether or not there is any basis for the culpability allegations. I think that any money award based on the need for continuing care should not be under the sole control of the claimant, and that residual funds should have to be surrendered upon the death of the injured party. There may be nothing to the allegations, but I think this would be a sensible change in any case.

    Rick (01a4d5)

  4. If the situation were reversed, and the parents wanted to terminate nutrition, while the husband wished it to continue, woould you still argue parental primacy?

    Who is arguing parental privacy primacy [UPDATE: I meant to say “primacy” — the word “privacy” was a typo.] Read my post. This paper had an obvious question to ask these mothers and didn’t ask it due to naked bias.

    The paper is spreading the canard that Congress was grandstanding at the expense of “the family.” Fact is, most of the family was thrilled at the grandstanding.

    I can’t speak for Terri, but as for myself, if my outward manifestations were the same as hers, and I wasn’t in a persistent vegetative state, I wouldn’t want to live.

    I don’t mean this to sound rude, but I don’t care in the slightest what you would want for yourself. Nor does the law. This case is not about what someone other than Terri Schiavo would want. Her wishes are paramount. Yours are 100% irrelevant.

    Patterico (756436)

  5. Read MY post. I said primacy, not privacy. I also clearly stated that I can’t speak for Terri, only for what I would want. I believe it is irrelevant to Terri’s situation, because in all likelihood, she wants nothing; there is no one left to do any wanting. I only mentioned it because many posters have inferred that a sentient being is trapped inside Terri’s body, and would wish to remain alive.
    Perhaps what I would desire for myself is irrelevant, but what Michael Schiavo wants is not irrelevant, because THE LAW has put him in charge. As a rule, I don’t find that troubling, but in the future I think the law should be modified to address actual or potential conflicts of interest, and mentioned the two that seened most salient in this case.
    I don’t worry about rudeness per se, but I think you (and many, many others) are overheated on this issue, and need to get some distance on it.

    Rick (01a4d5)

  6. Sorry. Typo. I meant to type “primacy.” I am not arguing for parental primacy.

    You are bearing the brunt of my frustration with mobs of people who have said that Terri Schiavo should die because they themselves wouldn’t want to live like this. If it’s irrelevant, why mention it? I know you tried to explain, but I don’t think the explanation makes your feelings relevant, and you appear to agree in the next sentence.

    Patterico (756436)

  7. Rick: don’t you think the paper should have asked that question of the mothers??

    Patterico (756436)

  8. It is even more than that Judge Greer has made all the decisions in this case. He can only rule on what is presented to him and it appears that the parents were poorly represented. The facts in this case were set in legal stone without all the facts and ramifications because the parents were outlawyered. They have never recovered their position since then. Their case was not made and was not allowed to be made later. That may be the law but it does not mean that we have done the right thing for Terri Shiavo.
    This case demonstrates that the choice of the family is sometimes not a choice that we can allow. It is not that simple.
    The question is – what do we owe to the extremely disabled? What is compassionate? What satisfies the desires of the family within the bounds of law and morality?
    The LAT attempts to answer none of these questions
    because they are shallow and flippant.

    Boman (ef1148)

  9. Patterico, I should be clear: if it were up to me, I would grant custody to the parents. I would not do this because I believe it’s in Terri’s best interests; as far as I can tell from 1500 miles away, she no longer has any interests. I would grant the parents custody because they cannot accept that she is gone, and letting them provide for her bodily requirements might either satisfy their need, or eventually bring them to accept the situation. I could be wrong, but that’s really the way it looks to me. It should also be noted that, just possibly, Michael Schiavo really is doing what he thinks she would have wanted and would be just as upset to see her continue “suffering”. I doubt that’s the case, but I can’t say for sure that it isn’t, only that his potential emotional harm seems less devastating than her parents’.
    My comment about what I want was not an argument so much as a parenthetical, since a number of people have claimed she is still aware. Personally, I think it would be worse to be trapped in a body that performs only the most basic functions for itself than to be dead. After 15 years, I doubt that that would change, no matter what therapy she receives.
    It does no good for the rest of us to share in the bitterness that is obviously present between her husband and her family. What I am trying to argue is, no matter how you feel about it, it’s over. That’s why we have laws. Changes such as the ones I suggested can only be forward looking, because we can’t go around changing the law ex post facto, even if we really, really hate how it plays out.

    Rick (01a4d5)

  10. I agree with you that it’s over. I think the only reasonable action at this point is to debate laws that will ensure that this won’t happen again. I have my own ideas about that, as regular readers know.

    Patterico (756436)

  11. Rick:

    I still wonder whether you agree with me that the paper should have asked that question of the mothers. If they are going to criticize Congress for interfering with the “family’s” decision, isn’t it a relevant question that the mother’s view in the Schiavo case (and the father’s and the brother’s and the sister’s) is being overridden?

    What would these two mothers have to say about that? I’d love to know — but this paper is too damn biased to ask the question.

    Patterico (756436)

  12. Also, to address your question in #6, yes, the LAT is execrable, and yes the reporter should definitely have probed more, but I’m not sure the women’s answers to your question would shed more light on the issue. This is really an argument between two types of family, husband and blood relatives. Judge Greer’s decision making seems limited to whether he should allow her husband to decide, as the law seems to specify, or disqualify him based on facts presented to him in court. He appears to have been satisfied that Michael fulfilled his requirements. You may disagree, but the judge only got involved because there is a dispute between interested parties. Thousands of divorce cases are “decided” by strangers every year, and the results can be every bit as acrimonious as this case has become. When two parties cannot agree, and a decision must be made, the government gets involved. In the best cases, the results are still far from perfect, and someone always comes away unhappy.
    There is no guarantee that a husband is a better person to make these decisions than the parents, but that is what the law presumes, and it has a clear antecedent in the Bible.
    I have argued that we ought to be a lot more specific about what a marriage entails. People should have to have to read and sign an exhaustive list of what responsibilities they are assuming and what freedoms they are giving up,and any proposed changes should be addressed before getting married.

    Rick (01a4d5)

  13. The law doesn’t presume that the husband’s wishes govern here. In fact, in this scenario, the law presumes the opposite — because it requires clear and convincing evidence of Terri Schiavo’s wish to die. That amounts to a presumption in favor of life, which the husband was required to overcome.

    Patterico (756436)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0770 secs.