Marta, I have enormous respect for your work, which is why I asked you to write for LBO and why I've had you on my radio show several times, and would be eager to do both again. But this stuff is really way around the bend.
Marta Russell quoted:
>* Ms. Schiavo is not dependent on life support.
Legally, a feeding tube is life support.
> Her lungs,
>kidneys, heart and digestive systems work fine.
Except she has no cerebral cortex. I imagine it'd be theoretically possible to keep a headless body "alive," but no one would call that life, would one?
>* This is not a case about a patient's right to refuse
>treatment. I don't see eating and drinking as "treatment,"
>but even if they are, everyone agrees that Ms. Schiavo is
>at present incapable of articulating a decision to refuse
>treatment.
"At present"? The overwhelming consensus of medical opinion is that she will never be able to do these things, and since cerebral cortexes do not normally regenerate themselves, that's a pretty solid position.
>* Ms. Schiavo, like all people, incapacitated or not, has a
>federal constitutional right not to be deprived of her life
>without due process of law.
My god, due process? This is probably the most litigated case of this sort ever. Twenty-one court decisions, from low-level state all the way up to the SCOTUS. As the Second District court decision put it (quoted at <http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html>:
"Through the assistance of Mrs. Schiavo's treating physician, Dr. Victor Gambone, the physicians obtained current medical information about Theresa Schiavo including high-quality brain scans. Each physician reviewed her medical records and personally conducted a neurological examination of Mrs. Schiavo. Lengthy videotapes of some of the medical examinations were created and introduced into evidence. Thus, the quality of the evidence presented to the guardianship court was very high, and each side had ample opportunity to present detailed medical evidence, all of which was subjected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding."
Not only that, but the courts have repeatedly upheld testimony that this would have been Terri's wishes. The husband is not the only source of this testimony, either.
>* In other contexts, federal courts are available
And they've upheld the state courts at every turn.
This case has no bearing on people with Alzheimer's, or PTSD, or anything like that. It's got nothing to do with the case of a disabled lawyer who can write an op-ed piece. It doesn't shake my conviction that it's society's responsibility to do everything possible to make the lives of people with disabilities easier - to provide health care, social support, a friendly physical infrastructure, income support, employment opportunities, all of it. It's about the weird futility of keeping someone alive whose brain has essentially ceased to function.
Doug