Laid to Rest
I was just recently lectured at by a posturing right-wing commenter who claimed that I would never concede an opponent’s point “no matter how strong the evidence.” A completely false claim: to state a few examples off the top of my head, I conceded to a conservative commentator on a Schiavo post where I had not fully made clear the nature of certain witnesses, to a conservative visitor who pointed out a Clinton quote I had overlooked, and, not to put too sharp a point on it, a concession to the very person who claimed I never would make concessions, in the form of agreeing to Rodney Peairs’ grievous error in judgment the night Yoshi Hattori was killed. A concession made to this person, a few weeks before this person complained I never conceded anything. Rather typical of the right-wing visitors to this site.
So now let’s see how well it works the other way. I have been writing on the Terri Schiavo case since October 2003, and have received a good many vitriolic comments from people on the other side of the fence. Many claiming that Michael Schiavo was a wife abuser and murderer and denied Terri therapy, others stating that Terri Schiavo was fully capable of not only recovery but could swallow on her own and would make a substantial recovery with treatment. I argued against those points, making references to a great deal of evidence and court proceedings, to be rebutted by people who vilified the judges for not agreeing with them, and regurgitating pap from pro-life spin sites.
These people were certain that Terri Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state (she was, they claimed, in a “minimally conscious state” and could “wake up” any time); that she could recover with therapy; that she could swallow on her own and could sometimes even talk; that dehydration would be incredibly painful for her, as she could still feel; and that we could see from the video tape on TV that she could follow movement and react to people talking to her and looking at her. They touted a “world-renowned” doctor “nominated for a Nobel Prize” who supported their case.
The argument back: doctors, including court-appointed physicians, presented evidence that most of Terri’s cerebral cortex was gone and that she was indeed in a persistent vegetative state and beyond any recovery; that repeated tests showed she had been incapable of swallowing for years; that dehydration would not be painful because she no longer possessed the capacity to feel pain; and that the video shown endlessly on TV was heavily edited and represented only random, reflexive movements and not consciousness. And the “renowned” doctor was a charlatan (see comment section), who was never officially nominated for a Nobel Prize.
Had I posted this yesterday, I would likely have gotten a sheaf of vicious and venomous arguments from the “Terri Was Conscious” crowd. But now the results of her autopsy are in:
Terri Schiavo was indeed in a persistent vegetative state.She was incapable of swallowing. (Remember those protesters who tried to get to Terri to pour water down her throat?)
Her brain damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy would have helped.
The autopsy results showed that fully half her brain had wasted away, and just as all the doctors (except for the quacks hired by the pro-lifers) had stated, her cerebral cortex was gone. In fact, even the visual centers of her brain were dead. Remember the videotape? Remember how convincing they made it look with editing, as if she were following the balloon movements? Remember how the pro-lifers argued that this “proved” she could follow movement? Well, the autopsy proved that she couldn’t even see movement.
But what about the nurses who came forward and said that they saw Terri swallowing and talking? After all, two nurses came forth, and they would never lie, would they?
Well, obviously they were lying. And not just a little.
And then there were the endless allegations that Michael Schiavo caused her injuries, that he abused her, strangled her, tried to inject her with poisons. The autopsy results vindicate Schiavo’s claims of innocence, showing no evidence whatsoever of strangulation, abuse, or poisoning. Interestingly, they do not support the theory that she collapsed due to bulimia, either. So no explanation is forthcoming–but the baseless accusations of the pro-life crowd against Michael Schiavo are now laid bare as false. Not that this will stop them from believing any of this; already the pro-lifers are slinging an amazing amount of complete fiction in a vain attempt to deny the autopsy findings, and her parents are apparently just beginning to plan legal battles for God-knows-what.
And of course, the re-posturing has already begun, with pro-lifers just beginning to claim that the PVS, the alleged abuse, the lack of a cerebral cortex, and so on were never really at the center of their argument at all, that it was all really about “starving the disabled.” Just like Bush claiming that Iraq was never about WMD, but rather about Democracy in Iraq. And doubtless that the pro-life crowds will eat it up.
Amazing what people will believe, how easily they are willingly fooled. The evidence was all there for people to see, but the personal and political bias of the pro-life crowd made them blind to what was plain.
So I come back to my original theme: I’ve been willing to admit I was wrong when conclusive evidence was presented.
To all the pro-lifers who came here before, raged on in certainty and heaped verbal abuse, using names such as “fool,” “moron,” “intellectual nazi” and “scumbag,” saying the “lies” and “exaggeration” were “reprehensible”… but even more so to those who more politely and yet vehemently argued that Terri was provably conscious, capable of recovery, swallowing and talking, and that the video proved she was so: how about you? Can you admit when you’re wrong?
In the meantime, what we have left here is a tragic story of a lovely young person who died for unknown reasons, whose husband cared for her for years until he accepted the evidence the doctors gave him, who battled for years and withstood vicious smears so that he could honor his wife’s wishes–though it would have been simple, and eventually highly profitable for him to simply stand aside and give Terri to her parents against her wishes. And finally, fifteen years after her death, her body was allowed to follow her spirit.
Rest in peace, Terri, and I hope you didn’t have to watch all this from wherever you are.
What are 3 things you like about the Bush administration?
What, is this a test?
Okay. I approved of a few things Bush did post-9/11, namely the way he laid out the policy that said if you harbor terrorists, you are responsible for their actions; I did not like the fact that he so easily buddied up with Pakistan, but I accepted that as a temporary necessary evil if we were to respond in Afghanistan, and until Bush siphoned off forces to attack Iraq and more or less abandoned the search for bin Laden, I thought that Afghanistan was handled well. I also approved of his urging Americans to not turn their 9/11 fears into racial enmity. I approve of some stated goals of the Bush administration, such as the visiting worker visa program, the manned trip to Mars, and the $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. Unfortunately, the last three policy points have been ignored, abandoned, and underfunded, respectively.
But if this is a test, it is a flawed one: it presumes that there are redeemable characteristics of the Bush administration.
Who says there has to be? This administration has redefined “miserable failure” to new degrees. The economy? Stagnating as we wallow in new depths of debt. Foreign policy? Ripped to shreds. Education? Ignored and festering. Social security? They’re trying to destroy it. The list goes on.
Like I said, provide evidence and I’ll concede. But I refuse to concede just so I can say that I’m capable of conceding–that’s inane.
I see nothing wrong with demanding incontrovertible evidence, or at least a reasonably strong argument first. If it can’t stand up to scrutiny, that’s not my failing.
You tell me, what has this administration done which is worthy of praise?
Luis:
In recognition of your contribution to mankind in the postings of your blog, I hereby notminate you for the Nobel prize:
For Peace – in recognition of your poitical commentary and its contribution to peace.
For Economics – In recognition of your economic postings and its contribution to the understanding of economics.
For Science – In recognition of your postings on technology related issues,
For Literature, in recognition to the literary forms you have made available on this site, and in conjunction with the authors of such.
There now you can say that you are a Nobel prize nominated …..(fill in the blanks) yourself when you rebut the zit heads.
Now I think I want to quickly rebut your “guest worker” visa position.
The problem of illegal immigration is that it undermines the bargaining power of working class Americans. I have many ties to Arizona – I am familiar with the problem. The real problem is that Mexico and many Latin American states, have too concentrated wealth. Specifically, in Mexico, they denies there workers adequate bargaining power. Mexico has a productive economomy – if they gave workers real bargaining power, and workers gained really union wages, wealth would deconcentrate and demand would surge and with it wages and opportunity. Prior to joining the EU Spain was a poor but productive country. When they joined the EU they had to adopt the EUs social contract. and Voila, Spain joined the first world in only a few short years.
By allowing illegal alliens into the U.S. we import the social contract where they are coming from. Democrats won’t stop this, because each alien looks like a future Demorcratic voter. Republican’s won’t stop this because they like the downward pressure it puts on the working class’ bargaining power.
This leaves Bush with a problem. How does he get the benefit of undermining worker’s bargaining power without the detriment of later on paying for it with new Democratic voters? The answer is easy: Guest Worker visas. This way he can screw the working class without worrying about the immigrants becomeing democrats later on. He gets his cake and eat it too.
Guest worker visa’s are a very bad idea – unless you want to perpetuate and enhance the power of the Republicans on into infinity by giving them more economic power and political power permanently.
The real solution is to put pressure on Mexico to adopt a first world social contract. Better still, encourage them to join the EU – they can do this legally by recreating dependency on Spain – Then Europe will get access to Mexico’s expanding population which it desperately needs , which is not Muslim and so more adaptable to EU’s culture, and Mexico will get a first world social contract.
If I were the Canadians, I would be thinking about recreating the dependency with the UK for the same purposes.
I realize these are a bit fanciful suggestions, but they help in articulating the problem. Or so I think.
Tim: I guess I don’t follow your reasoning here, partly because I’m not exactly a whiz at Economics. You’re saying that by allowing illegal immigrants into the country, we weaken the bargaining position of the working class, but isn’t that primarily because illegal immigrants can be easily hired at wages and with benefits that are considerably below the legal limits, people who can be maltreated far more easily than someone on a visa? Wouldn’t it strengthen the bargaining position of the American worker if the cheap illegal labor force suddenly had to be paid at parity levels, with taxes and benefits worked in, with the added work of arranging for a visa? Maybe I don’t understand the conditions under which workers would be brought into the country…
Of course, this would have to be in concert with drastic increases in penalties and enforcement against employers who hire illegals, otherwise we’re back at square one. And some prices would rise for the consumer, making more difficult competition with imports, etc. etc. But the benefits would be a decline in the number of people making the dangerous journey across the border, a brake on the ability to take advantage of these people both in terms of their compensation and the shortchanging in taxes, and, I would think, a better bargaining position for the native working class, who would be far less easily displaced by an illegal immigrant work force.
As for potential Democrats, isn’t the expected surge in Hispanic population working in that direction, with or without the flood of illegal aliens? (And couldn’t they add a provision to the worker visa bill that gives first-row immigration status to these people instead of strictly deporting them when time is up?) Certainly the Republicans’ attempts to sway this group of voters and the ethnic group in general is in itself proof that the constituency has growing power. This is one of the primary reasons I saw as Bush’s motivation for even suggesting the worker visa program in the first place: to woo Hispanic voters, make them feel like a Republican constutuency. And the reason why Bush has not actually pushed this program being that it would short-change big businesses from retail to agribiz, and being who he is, he could never go through with that.
As I said, I’m no expert in the field; these are strictly layman musings, and I’m sure the reality of the situation is more complex. Any comments?
I’m overwhelmed by the concessions you’ve received. :-p
I don’t know if you’ve discussed the Shiavo case with your students but the Japanese have a very different perspective on the situation, one which I believe is more humane than the one of most Americans who used this poor woman as an opportunity to grind political axes.
My students told me that they were shocked that Terri’s parents would display her on T.V. like that since, if Terri ever did wake up, she’d likely be humiliated by having been seen in that condition. One of them remarked that this would seem to especially be the case for someone who cared so much about her appearance that she developed an eating disorder. The question of what Terri would want only entered the equation when it suited one agenda or the other. To my knowledge, no one in the U.S. ever thought about how she was displayed repeatedly in a state none of us would want to be seen by strangers in.
To me, the Japenese students’ comments reflected how they are more family-oriented and have a view of privacy (and the value of keeping some things private) that seems to be lacking in the States. People in the U.S. are all Jerry Springer guests if it somehow furthers their selfish agendas.
Anyone who made political hay (including the parents) out of this should be ashamed. People need to start questioning if they should attempt to get what they want at all costs all the time. Her parents probably never even thought about how making this a public and political spectacle was something their daughter would not want (and possibly that she might not have wanted them to indulge in character assassination of her husband that painted her as a victim). They only thought about what they wanted.
Asking for examples of good when someone thinks someone is bad is sometimes a way of checking if the person can objectively look at facts.
Asking for examples of good when someone thinks someone is bad is sometimes a way of checking if the person can objectively look at facts.
I pressed POST and then got an error: You must define a Comment Pending template.
You Know Who:
And yet, one can still find nothing good in an organization and yet still be objective.
Now if you’d asked me about Bush himself, that would be easier: recovering from alcoholism and probable drug use is something to be greatly admired, and he seems to be genuinely caring and loyal to those people he knows and likes.
But I’d still like to know what you would think is positive about his administration, as I asked.
By the way, the “Comment Pending Template” error is a known bug, and I’m trying to figure out how to fix it. Stay tuned.
In the meantime, it can be gotten around by hitting the “back” button and then posting the comment again.
By the way, that error message can also be avoided by commenting via Typekey; sign up for an account and become an approved user and no errors. But I’ll try to fix the error asap in any case, of course.
In regard to your statements.
For those workers working under inhumane conditions I feel great pity. And you make a good point – it might help some of them get better working conditions. But it would seem to me that that is an unlawful condition. Anyone hiring and anyone working under unlawful conditions in the present, are just as likely to work under unlawful conditions under a guest worker visa situation.
We can help more workers, here and in Mexico if we insisted that Mexico adopt a modern first world social contract.
The real problem here is a failure in law enforcement. The root cause though, is a lack of opportunity for Mexican’s in Mexico. And that stems from their constrictive social contract.
Finally, the price of products are not determined by the cost of labor (or inputs) but by supply and demand in the market (ie. only that price in which the market will bear, regardless of cost).
Say Ford pays there workers $30/hour. Say, if there wasn’t a union, Ford would pay there workers only half as much and work them twice as fast/hard/long. The Market rate for a Ford Taurus is $20,000. No matter what Ford pays for its labor, $10 or $30 – Ford still has to sell its cars at the market rate. By forcing them to pay higher wages the wealth gets distributed more broadly to Fords hundreds of thousand workers. Those same workers can go out and buy stuff because the now have purchasing power. That stimulates demand in the aggregate – and maybe Ford can sell more cars. Ford will not raise its prices until it starts bumping up against its capacity limits – and usually it pays to go and buy more capacity but it depends on a lot of circumstances. Ford makes more money by selling more cars, not buy starving workers to death. Its a simple choice: they can either be Mr. Potter or Sam Wainwright (from ‘Its a wonderful life’).
Now what about competing against exports?
Well hear, we are talking about manufactured goods that compete largely on price.
In the case of illegal immigrants, my hunch is that they occupy very few manufacturing jobs illegaly for several reasons: those manufacturing jobs where competitiveness is based on the price of labor are already in Mexico, Vietnam, or China. Those manufacturing jobs in the United States are there because wage is a smaller component of competitiveness in their markets (other components might be closeness to market, raw materials, skill of labor force, complexity of design & manufacture etc…) which means the guy that is hiring illegals in manufacturing is just greedy to the point of banality.
More likely, illegals are filling service jobs, not manufacturing jobs. In this they are stealing and/or bargaining down wages for locals. I don’t care if higher wages drive up the price of products in this market, all though not likely. Even McDonalds uses processes to make their products more efficient to make, and if I have to, I am more than willing to pay 25 cents more for a big mac if it generates a wage that puts the worker in a reasonable wage.
I do not loath the immigrant workers. I lived in Chicago area for two years, one in ten is hispanic, they are hard workers. In downtown Chicago you can’t take two steps without bumping into a pan handler – and I’ve seen them of every race and nationality, including one Japanese guy. But not once did I ever see an hispanic person pan handling. I don’t know why. But they are hard workers, they contribute to our society. All I am saying is that they should be legal and that legality should reflect a sound policy that protects the interest of Americans most at risk. And if drug companies think “immigrant drugs” from Canada is enough of a problem on there bottom line to buy influence in Washinton over, even though they still make a profit, just not as much, then you have got to believe that illegal immigration of labor is devistating on the working class.
The number of illegals is conservative estimated to be 576,000 a year (per the Arizona Republic). Many in Arizona tell me they think it is substantially higher, and maybe double.
The real problem of course are conditions in Mexico. I assume for every person who comes here illegaly there are a dozen living in squalor under unlivavle conditions. Mexico is a properous, productive country. The have lots of factories producing cars, electronics, textiles, steel and glass and everything else. There is no reason for the poverty. And it pisses me off to think that President Fox thinks its an entitlement to Mexico to vent its surplus labor onto the United States, because the real reason for all of this is Mexico’s wealthy elites intransigence towards their fellow Mexicans in the working class. It is simply a society where the Mr. Potters run things short sightedly.
In the scenario I described above, Ford does not become empoverished by paying its workers more. Demand goes up for Cars. This is precisely what happened in the United States from 1945 to 1975, and really globally. I now realize why Latin American states engage in such few wars. The poor and the working class have to fill the ranks of Armies, and in a peonage social contract workers either won’t fight and die for the elite, or they will become too empowered and demand greater rights, not unlike what happened in the United States after WWII. Nobody in good conscience would deny the guy who was wounded on Omaha beach the right to a livable wage and collective bargainging.
The whole problem would go away in a fortnight if Mexico adopted a modern social contract. Demand would explode, Mexico’s GNP would double and maybe tripple. The new wealth would fund more and better education and Mexico could then enter the first world. Really the whole thing just boggles my mind.
But make no mistake, Bush and his Republican’s are attracted to policies that undermine bargaining power of workers, of every class other than the uber class, the way Clinton is attracted to a thong bikini. They just can’t help themselves. It doesn’t matter if its immigration, or worker visas, or bankruptcy laws, or healthcare, or social security, they are all about undermining the working class. Their actions speak loud enough. During the election last summer Bush ran a T.V. add here where he stated “I know exactly where I want to lead this country….” I happened to see where he wants to lead us when I visited Mexico (Cozumel) last winter. Let me tell you…it not very pretty. That is, unless viewed from behind a gated community. Worker Visa’s are like invading Iraq, it doesn’t really solve a problem, just spreads it around more and perhaps makes it only worse.
For those workers working under inhumane conditions I feel great pity. And you make a good point – it might help some of them get better working conditions.Yes, one of the benefits.Anyone hiring and anyone working under unlawful conditions in the present, are just as likely to work under unlawful conditions under a guest worker visa situation. … The real problem here is a failure in law enforcement. Asked and answered. A hunting license may only cost a few bucks, but hunting without a license has a fine of thousands of dollars and jail time. So it’s just not worth it to take the risk. As I mentioned before, the same choice has to be made to employers: hire legally or pay through the nose. Right now, from what I understand, the illegals are sent back when found, but those who hired them are not punished heavily. Change that. Make every act of employing an illegal punishable by, say $5,000 for the first offense, $10,000 for the second, and so on. Add jail time, if that’s possible. And then enforce it. Strongly. Then add the visitor worker visa program, and suddenly doing things legally becomes a lot more attractive. Illegals come over the border because we offer them the jobs–we’re the ones driving illegal immigration, not them. Stop offering illegal jobs, and they’ll stop coming that way. We’re the ones who cause the situation, and that’s the only place where you can stop it.Say Ford pays there workers $30/hour. Say, if there wasn’t a union, Ford would pay there workers only half as much and work them twice as fast/hard/long. The Market rate for a Ford Taurus is $20,000. No matter what Ford pays for its labor, $10 or $30 – Ford still has to sell its cars at the market rate. By forcing them to pay higher wages the wealth gets distributed more broadly to Fords hundreds of thousand workers. Those same workers can go out and buy stuff because the now have purchasing power. That stimulates demand in the aggregate – and maybe Ford can sell more cars.Wasn’t that Henry Ford’s own logic? Pay your workers enough so that they can buy your own product? An excellent credo. Too bad we’ve abandoned it.
On the idea of improving the social contract, I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that it’s a lot harder to do. You mentioned Spain in a way that made it sound easy, but I doubt it would always be so simple or successful. I believe in the principle of enlightened self-interest: you will become richer and safer if all those around you are just as so. Problem is, most people who aggregate wealth and power work from an opposite paradigm, one based on competition in which you become rich and powerful by taking away from those around you. To them, it’s less about having enough and more about having it all. And these people, with the most money and power, will likely be the ones fighting quietly but earnestly against an improved social contract. Look at our own country and the class war the wealthy are fighting against the rest of the people. At present, far from Mexico adopting our social contract, we seem to be adopting theirs–as you summed up in your concluding paragraph.
How does that affect the worker visa program? As you mention, the illegals are mostly taking up service or local labor jobs, ones that can’t be exported. If they had jobs which could be exported, then a worker visa program would likely drive those jobs overseas where they could be underpaid again. But since they can’t, I would see the effect of raising wages, benefits and conditions as only a positive force–one which moves ourselves more towards that desired social contract. Sweeping the water back into the sea, perhaps, but still, I see more positives than negatives here.
We agree (I think):
“At present, far from Mexico adopting our social contract, we seem to be adopting theirs–as you summed up in your concluding paragraph.
That is the whole point of the guest worker program. In crease the flow of people coming from Mexico. Right now its estimated at over 500,000 but the real number might be double that. Its just like a water retaining wall that leaks. As Mexican’s flow in, they drive wages down closer to what they left behind.
Our Neocon’s are similar to the Mexican elite. Its not about doing well (Sam Wainright [sp]) its about having it all. If enough leeks in eventually the two sides will level out. This is the exact opposite of what should be occuring. They should be importing our, or I should say Canada’s social contract (as should we) and pressure should be sustained from throughout the democratic world to foster such change upon Mexico.
Actually I think that we should be importing Japan’s social contract. Eversince the Japanese model colided with our model, begining in the late 1960s, they have chased us out of entire industrial sectors, and left other’s limping. Consumer Electronics, Cameras. At one point in the 1970s it was cheaper for America to send coal and iron or to Japan and import steel back then make it in the United States. Japanese ships sat in Baltimore harbor awaiting coal from Appalachia, and in that very same harbor sits a giant moribund Steel works (I am not sure if it is still in operation or not as I don’t live there). Just yesterday in the New York Times, Tom Friedman was advocating for Toyota to buy out GM and fire all of their executives.
In short Japan’s model of social contract and industrial sector has cleaned our model’s clock from the very begining. In a rational world we should have adopted their model. Widescale tennure of Employees (those you can’t fire – and no it doesn’t have to be all employees) and Company unions (as opposed to Industrial Unions. Industrial Unions are actually too big – they actually reverse the balance of power too far in favor of the workers). In Japan, though nomononally a shareholder primacy country, corporations are run for the benefit of Employees.
It turns out that Employees are better proxies for the shareholders than the Board of Directors who are nothing but proxies for the Officers, rendering them unaccountable to anyone. So in the United States I would advocate forcing at least one representative from the union, and one representative sellected by the employees, and perhaps a third selected by only those employess who are tennured. Because of Employee Primership Japanese companies think long term and are market share oriented (they want to secure their jobs and I guess, there pensions) and resiliant to mergers and consolidation – thus you have eight japanese domestic car manufacturers with only half the market and maybe on hundreth the amount of paved roads as the U.S. which only has three car companies. By having more companies you have more competition and so its better for society. I would add, that if you go to the CIA;s on line Almanac, they have listings for wealth concentration and Japan’s distribution of wealth is up there with Sweden’s. I won’t say Japan’s model is perfect, it has its problems, and much of it is peculiar to Japan.
Some day, I hope every country has that kind of social contract. But right now, in this country, the other side is winning. And thats a terrible thing for millions of people.
Re: Terri ~ this is a poor parallel, I grant, but I will use
the example of one of my cats whom I had to have put down on
June 9th. He still seemed happy and hungry, but he was just
a furry sack of bones and I couldn’t tell because it all went
so fast: one day he’s yowling at me to feed him, just about the next,
he won’t climb on my bed any more. It was just awful, particularly
since Nicky wasn’t hurting (or he wouldn’t let me touch him), so I thought if he’s that sick, maybe I should just
wait till he passes away in his sleep.
Soon I realized, tho’, that before he died, he WOULD have
suffered further physical breakdown and then be in severe distress.
I decided to let him go while he still felt relatively good and was still very alert and affectionate.
… I’m wondering what kind of ‘life’ he would have had if, due to his seemingly contented disposition, I had chosen to keep him around in hopes he’d get better.
I also am comparing Terri’s imposed starvation with Nicky’s lack of medical intervention: not that I didn’t want care for him, but unfortunately vet services are payable up front and I have no funds to even make a dent, so veterinary care was reserved for emergencies (another cat was nearly lost to FUS). I was balking at the thought of bringing Nicky to a cold, sterile and strange environment where he didn’t know anyone: I just thought it’d be nicer to let him go at home. .. but the morning he didn’t want to sit beside me on the piano bench, I couldn’t escape the fact that my dear little pet was, in fact, dying.
He didn’t know that, and he would have held on as long as he could, and I just didn’t want him to reach the stage where he suffered any pain, so I finally made the call to a nice gentleman whose reputation I respected, told my parents and they took care of the bill for the euthanasia. I remained with Nicky during the procedure, which was mercifully quick and, for him, painless. He looked into my eyes (unlike poor Terri), and then it was over.
I will never, ever regret being with him. His was a face of complete trust and peace.
… how this relates in my mind to Terri Schiavo is that the denial of food and liquid seems based on the apparent oblivion: I’m sure the family sincerely believed there was no use, just as I had decided not to prolong Nicky’s life, even tho’ he looked to be ‘ok’.
Admittedly, I don’t know if my comparisons make much sense to you or anyone else: maybe I’m just posting this as one way to process my cat’s death and the case of Terri Schiavo pulled my heart strings.
Kim Furey
Kim: well, I don’t think I’d really compare Terri Schiavo with a cat. I pretty much doubt that you’d make the same decision yourself with a child, parent, spouse or relative, unless they were as far gone as Terri. The cat was still alert and alive; you treated it with the same respect and lack of respect we usually treat animals with. For a cat, from the human perspective, it was probably the best thing to do. But for a human, as long as that human is alive in the sense that their mind functions, the idea would be to keep them alive unless they expressed a desire not to live through degeneration and certain death. Terri’s case was outside of that option, as she was already dead as her mind was gone; as such, keeping her body alive would not be doing her any favors as she was not there. Any attempt to keep her alive would strictly be for the shallow comfort of the still-living, fooling themselves into thinking that they were preserving Terri, and not her empty shell. Ghoulish, but human. And if she indeed had expressed a desire not to have her body kept alive in such a state, then doing so at her expense for the selfish desires of the family would be a disservice to her memory.
You’re correct, of course, and forgive any appearance of equating a human with a cat. Yes, Nicky was my pet and the closest thing to a child for me (hence the ‘personalization’), but it’s not on the same level at all, of course not.
I know Terri was, for all intents and purposes, gone. The individual known to her family as Terri Schiavo was no longer living. Still, because of dogmatic beliefs about the definition of what is ‘life’, you’ll get the zealous efforts to ‘save’ someone who isn’t even alive by any stretch.
Just curious … I do believe, myself, in souls, and I wonder if Terri was hovering in the hospital during that 15 years ..could anyone of a more spiritual nature have sensed it without knowing it, and interpreted that feeling as Terri herself still being ‘with’ them? It’s just a random, out-there notion, but I’m sure it’s not impossible in some minds.
Even if I didn’t believe in a soul that leaves the body and is aware, I know others do.
Thanks for a very intriguing blogsite, Tim.
Kim Furey
Actually, I should ask you to forgive me for trivializing your experience with your cat, though there is a different paradigm with animals. In a way, we’re actually more civilized with them. My condolences for Nicky, truly.
As for Terri hovering over her bed for 15 years, good heavens, I hope not. Did you see the South Park episode which satirized the whole affair? Kenny was in a PVS and his living will was missing the last page, the prvious page ending with, “For God’s sake, don’t–” and everyone put their own desires after the missing words. After a Schiavo-like battle in front of the media, the last page was found, revealing Kenny’s wishes to be, “For God’s sake, don’t ever show me on TV in this condition.” Terri was reportedly greatly concerned with her appearance, and likely would have been aghast at her parents’ video of her in her hospital bed like that.
My name is Luis, by the way. Tim’s a frequent visitor.
Ok, mixed up the names, Luis, got it straight now.
I actually don’t have cable but what you describe makes me wish I had watched it: too clever.
Speaking of clever, have you ever seen the StarWars spoof fan films at ifilm.com? I spent a good hour or so yesterday and my favourite is something with ‘retired menace’ in the title – a morph of StarWars1 and the Sixth Sense. Brilliant.
I’ve included a link to my blogsite; it’s new (well, newly revived as of last fall) so it has a whole comment on it.
post at ya another day.
Kim