The whole Terry Schiavo thingy

Buckethead Buckethead

Patton over at Opinion8 has actually managed to draw a conclusion out of the morass that is the Terry Schialvo Cluster@#!?%. For that, I salute him. But in the end, his conclusion is that there really isn't much we can say for certain, though he pads this thought with some interesting bits about the media and other things as well. Go read it. But his piece actually pulled into slightly clearer focus my own mixed bag of thoughts on the matter.

Throughout this whole media ordeal, I have found myself wondering, "Why is it so necessary to pull the plug?" Sure, the husband has the legal right (proven at great length and, likely, cost) to make that decision for his wife. And that is the way it should be. In most cases where we talk about pulling the plug, having do not recussitate orders and the like, it is when the patient is going through, or is expected to suffer, extreme physical pain. My grandfather had pancreatic cancer, and we used hospice. They mitigated the (ungodly) pain that he went through, and when the chemo failed to control the cancer, they made his passing as peaceful as could possibly be imagined. Had heroic measures been used to keep my grandfather alive, at most he would have gained a few weeks or months of hellish suffering.

But the cases are not really similar. By all accounts, it did not seem that Terry was in any way suffering - just seemingly out of it mentally, and for the long haul. It did not require extensive medical technology, just a feeding tube and the kind of nursing care that any bedridden senior in a nursing home needs to remain amongst the living. The parents are willing to bear all the cost and effort of caring for Terry, why is he so intent on pulling the plug?

And those thoughts led to wondering about his motivation. He's still married to Terry, though he has a girlfriend, and children with her. Why didn't he get a divorce, or the marriage annulled or something? What does he have to gain by her death that he wouldn't get by leaving her behind with her parents and moving on with his life? I've seen reports that he would stand to gain from insurance or malpractice suits - which he would not if he were no longer married to her. And apparently, the dispute with the parents dated from the first settlement.

I don't know for sure that this is his motivation - though it seems plausible. But one thing is sure - that whatever his motivation - he gave a lot of assholes reason to piss in the swimming pool that is our political commons.

Posted by Buckethead Buckethead on   |   § 10

§ 10 Comments

4

Well put.

For that matter, as regards all of us and our assured mortality, we're playing blackjack against a house who always draws 21.

Can we go back to talking about robots, gaming, and octopus sex now?

Johno Johno

5

Meatloaf. Heh.

But the tube has been removed before, and there was no frenzy - I think that's less of a factor than the fact that as you put it "everyone started playing for the cameras"

No matter how you feel about it this is a family fight, and in its contours if not its details not an uncommon one. I loathe that our Dear Leaders have chosen to demagogue themselves for the sake of this tawdry little fambly struggle.

Johno Johno

6

I was just laying out a plausible scenario. I don't know if its true.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity - but I don't think that this situation can be explained solely by stupidity.

Schiavo wasn't dying. In all likelihood, she would never have recovered. But isn't it, in general, to choose the remediable mistake? If we mistakenly keep her alive, we can always kill her later. The reverse is what we've gone with, and it can't be undone.

As for the media, the trigger for the media feeding frenzy was word that tube was going to be removed. Then the lawyers on both sides comparing everyone to Hitler and Stalin, and then total chaos. Everyone started playing to the cameras. I blamed the husband because at one point, he agreed with the parents and said that he'd be taking care of Terry for as long as she lived. Which turns out to be the case - but more like the Meatloaf song - "I said I'd love you 'til the end of time/No I'm praying for the end of time."

Buckethead Buckethead

8

Steve, in regard to your question, there is no "now" in the decision. Why now? Her husband reached the end of his rope a decade ago with regard to holding out hope for her recovery, and what is happening "now" is the endgame for the parents as they run out of legal options and go nuclear.

As for "what does he have to gain by her death that he wouldn’t get by leaving her behind with her parents and moving on with his life?" have you considered the possibility that he, as her husband, really believes that her wish was not to be kept alive like this, and that after ten years he's not only tired of fighting for what is his statutory right in Florida (more or less?), but just wants some closure for himself, and for her, in accordance with what she said she wanted?

I'm not saying he's a saint. Nobody's a saint here. But imagine yourself in his position - really think about it - and ask yourself whether or not Ockham's razor applies.

Regarding the pool-pissers, I'd argue that the parents' decision to release a tape to the media is the precipitating event for the rats to come out of the woodwork.

Johno Johno

9

As for what will come next, I will take the exceedingly rare step of agreeing with the Instapundit, who writes "Bush seems to have fallen into a no-win situation. The Terryesque nuts on the far-right are mad at him for not standing in the hospice door a la George Wallace, while lots of other people see Randall Terry speaking, and George W. Bush rushing to sign the Schiavo bill, and associate the two. That may be unfair, but it's inevitable, and I think it may turn out to be costly."

Johno Johno

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]