Right Wing Nut House

Remember Mae Magouirk? You know, the grandma who was being starved by her loving granddaughter because “Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus.” It turns out that Mae had something of a different take on the subject:

It appears there will be a happy ending to the story of Ora Mae Magouirk, the 81-year-old Georgia widow whose family has been at loggerheads over her medical care, visitation privileges and whether she should be “allowed to die” but now is reaching agreements on key issues.

Today, attorneys on both sides agreed Magouirk’s brother and sister, A.B. McLeod, 64, of Anniston, Ala., and Lonnie Ruth Mullinax, 74, of Birmingham, will be allowed to visit their sister during regular visiting hours at the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center in Birmingham, where she is receiving treatment for an aortic dissection.

As reported by WND, when Magouirk was airlifted and admitted to UAB Medical Center on Saturday, her granddaughter and legal guardian, Beth Gaddy, 36, of LaGrange, Ga., left an oral order barring Magouirk’s siblings and her nephew, Ken Mullinax, 45, of Birmingham, from visiting the patient in the critical care unit.

In addition, Mr. Mullinax and Mae’s sister Ruth will be given regular updates on her condition, something that was also denied by Gaddy.

Here’s an account of Ruth’s first visit with her sister since Mae was admitted to UAB Medical Center suffering from severe dehydration as well as the untreated aortic dissection:

“I visited with Sister Mae last evening, and she looks so much better now,” Ruth Mullinax said. “Mae opened her eyes and when she saw me said, ‘Where you been, Lonnie?’”
“I asked her how she felt and she whispered, ‘I can’t buck dance.’”

“So I stayed with her for 30 minutes, and when I got ready to leave she grabbed my hand and said, ‘Bring me a brown sack and take me home.’ That was a saying of Momma’s that means pack up my stuff. I am so thankful to the Lord that Sister is doing so well now

Is Mae one tough old bird or what! Buck dancing is like “clogging” which has its origins in Appalachia and is characterized by very quick steps.

Yes, it certainly appears we should have just let this woman die of thirst in a hospice. After all, what did she have to live for? Any one who makes jokes while lying in a hospital bed with tubes coming out of her arm (IV fluids for the dehydration) and nose (temporary feeding tube) has to be so depressed, its better that we put her out of her misery. And, since she wants her sister to take her home, we must also assume she’s delirious. Why shouldn’t she want to go back to the hospice so she can die in peace?

THE PEOPLE WHO CRITICIZED THOSE OF US WHO TRIED TO PUBLICIZE THIS CASE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES. HERE IS A WOMAN WHO WANTS TO LIVE! AND YOUR WERE PERFECTLY WILLING TO ALLOW HER TO BE MURDERED JUST SO YOU COULD MAKE A POLITICAL POINT ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT.

FOR SHAME!

And you don’t think bloggers made a difference?

Gaddy relaxed her position [on visitation]. She agreed to allow full visitation privileges, but only if Ken Mullinax promised never to talk to the media again or communicate in any way with Internet bloggers.

Mullinax refused and was on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes” yesterday, where he provided a nationwide audience with details of the case. Hannity quoted from an exclusive story on WND, which was the first national news organization to investigate and report on the Magouirk case.

And another item of interest connected to the case involves the probate judge who originally gave the loving granddaughter custody of Mae:

In another twist, Troup County Probate Judge Donald Boyd, who has had charge of the case since April 1, voluntarily recused himself.

Kirby told WorldNetDaily that Boyd gave no reason for his decision.

My guess is that judge has learned a valuable lesson. It’s not good to fool with bloggers.

UPDATE:

Paul at Wizbang has a rather thoughtful and reasonable post asking why people on the “other side” of the Mae Magouirk matter are so, well…mad:

The simple mention of her name makes many people I formerly respected say the most irrational things. Not to belabor the point, but as I see it, the core problem is that this woman’s living will was being ignored….

Now I (apparently foolishly) thought universally everyone would agree that was a bad thing. Who would want their own living will ignored??? Not me.

I think that the Magouirk matter coming so close on the heels of the Terri Schiavo imbroglio is one reason. I think another reason is that perhaps some on the “other side” (who Paul rightly says are tough to label “conservative” or “liberal” ) may genuinely be in intellectual distress over the entire debate. Maybe they’re genuinely torn and are unable to verbalize their uncertainty except by lashing out at people who seem to have staked out a clear moral position.

Maybe…just maybe…the ultimate consequences of their position are starting to hit home, that each incremental movement toward out and out euthanasia brings us closer to the unthinkable; humans having to justify their own existence to stay alive.

As I mention in the post above, it’s obvious that Mae Magouirk wants to live. And to deny her medical care or even basic hydration because her prognosis at age 81 is poor or, as her granddaughter said, it’s time for her to “go home to Jesus” is just plain feel-it-in-your-gut, out and out wrong. Could the part of the brain that some scientists believe controls our “conscience” be trying to tell our friends on the other side something?

I sincerely hope so.

This just in from Blogs for Terri:

April 09, 2005
BREAKING NEWS: Mae is out of the hospice
Just received telephone call (3:00 PM ET) from Ken Mullinax, nephew of Mae.

Terri saves another life!

Followed by this email:
THANKS TO THE SUPPORT OF ALL OF THE FRIENDS OF TERRI, MY AUNT MAE MAGOUIRK HAS BEEN AIR LIFTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA-BIRMINGHAM MEDICAL CENTER … and receiving IV fluids, nourishment and some of the finest medical care available in the United States! Praise be the name of the Lord GOD… Thanks to Terri’s friends… It would NEVER ever have been possible without bloggers who love life , and the truth!! I am racing from my home to UAB now and will type a detailed update after I see my Aunt Mae! Thanks guys, your calls, emails, blogs and prayers did it ALL! I so love you guys! Ken Mullinax, nephew of Mae

End email

IT IS NOT OVER YET - THE OPPOSITION IS STILL TRYING TO GET HER BACK TO THE HOSPICE - SO KEEP FIGHTING BLOGGERS AND READERS!

It’s unbelievable that her granddaughter is still trying to get her back in the hospice. What’s worrisome to me is that anyone with a heart condition who’s denied fluids and nourishment for 10 days may be beyond saving; in which case I can just hear the proponents of euthanasia saying “See. She was dead anyway. All you did was prolong her agony.”

If, in fact, Mae was indeed lucid and conscious before her attempted murder (and to date the story is tracking remarkably like the original story that appeared in WND) the idea that by nearly dehydrating her before giving her any treatment you somehow prove a euthanasia point is ludicrous…and intellectually dishonest.

But that’s what happens in a utilitarian society. The circumstances of ones incapacity doesn’t matter. It’s up to all of us to justify our existence on a daily basis.

I think I’m gonna quit smoking. Who knows? The way these nuts work, they may figure because I’m going to die of cancer one day, they may as well help me along now.

No thanks. And I was only kidding about quitting smoking. They will have to drag that butt from my cold dead fingers.

“…. the real news is that there are hundreds and thousands of angels of death in our nation, working quietly “underground,” so to speak, and physicians and nurses know this is going on. The news is that many patients who are not actively dying are being killed, not cared for, in hospice agencies.” (Courtesy of The Hospice Patient Alliance, a hospice watchdog group)

She was born with CP…needed lots of care and special treatment. G-tube, Trach, central line, PIC lines, IV, non ambulatory, needed body casts just to hold her trunk up as she had no ribs…typical for a disabled kid. She was a sweety. She smiled and laughed and cried…she loved being held and cuddled and played with. She would use her little hands to touch us and toys and stuffed animals. She never had any behaviors. Her parents felt she wouldn’t want to live like this so they had us pull the tube and remove the trach and lines.I took care of her every day I was at work. It took her a whole longer to go than it took Terri. I cried and screamed about it. Almost quit the job over it. It was horrible.
(Email from Raven, medical professional and blogger)

Human beings are the only creatures on this planet who are capable of contemplating their own death. This quirk of evolution has allowed us to create a grand mystique around a perfectly natural biological process that otherwise would remain, as it does in the rest of the animal kingdom, an instinctual matter. The problem is, no one wants to either contemplate it very much or talk about it. Most of us take the attitude that “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”

Well, we better start thinking about it. As it stands now, the advocates for throwing away human beings as if they were nothing more than garbage bags full of rancid water and smelly old bones are winning. And the reason they’re winning is simple; very few people are paying attention.

Allow me to get the qualifiers front and center. End of life decisions are the most painful, personal, and wrenching choices a son, a daughter, a brother or sister, or any loved one has to make about another. I do not advocate nor would I support the intrusion of government in the decision making process for terminally ill patients with living wills that stipulate what kind of care is necessary. And it would be problematic for government to get involved in such decisions where there’s no living will but clearly stated wishes of the patient.

The problem isn’t with those terminally ill patients with families who, while devastated, support the decision of their loved one and try their best to ease their passing. Neither is the problem with most hospices who strive to fulfill their mandate to give palliative care and comfort to those whose time has come.

The problem as The Hospice Patient Alliance points out is what’s going on beneath the radar. It’s a problem involving dishonest hospices who lie to relatives by providing negligent care or deliberately allowing non-terminal patients into their facilities in contravention of the law and then either actively killing them or simply refusing to treat them.. It’s a problem with greedy, uncaring relatives who take advantage of their dying relation to speed the process along so as not to be inconvenienced any longer or garner an inheritance. And as I point out in the post below it’s a problem with a medical community that without debate or discussion, has decided to change the definition of human life itself.

There are literally thousands of cases every year in this country where human beings who are in relatively good health (many not in need of feeding tubes and in no need of any kind of life support) are simply dumped into hospices and either left to die or deliberately sent on their way with a lethal cocktail of drugs. Who are they?

They are the very old and infirm who suffer from dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. They may have a chronic illness or be disabled. They may be indigent, or alone, or simply in the way. Or, they could be very young and very sick but capable of living a full life - if they had parents who could see past the disability and envision that kind of life. More likely, if they are young, they’re infants:

Nearly half the newborn babies who died in Flanders over a recent year-long period were helped to die by their doctors, a new study reported yesterday. Paediatricians in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium either discreetly stopped treating the babies or, in 17 cases, illegally killed them with lethal doses of painkillers.

(From the medical journal, The Lancet. HT: Michelle Malkin)

Judging by what happened to Raven’s three year old patient, I have no doubt that what goes in in Belgium occurs here as well.

Hospices may in fact be the major culprit in these crimes. The Hospice Patient Alliance is the only group that acts as a watchdog for that industry. They’ve been slowly gathering information on a horrifying trend involving the deliberate killing of patients by medical professionals who may have an agenda other than giving palliative care to a patient

It only takes one “bad apple” who has an agenda of euthanizing patients for involuntary euthanasias to occur. It is quite easy for such a nurse, physician or other staff to impose his or her own will on those most vulnerable. Falsifying the medical record has been reported in these types of cases. Staff may record that a patient with no pain actually had pain, thereby seeking to justify in the record the administration of high levels of narcotics. Families report patients being forced to take morphine and other narcotics when the patient directly refused to do so and stated they had no pain at all. Those “bad apples” with an agenda can tarnish the image of an otherwise excellent hospice program, and devastate the lives of the families whose loved ones they euthanize without permission.

It’s important, I believe, to point out that these medical professionals work with dying people on a daily basis and may in fact see themselves as “angels of mercy” rather than cold blooded killers. They may consider what they’re doing as a service to society. Here’s the leading medical ethics expert in Great Britain:

Britain’s leading medical ethics expert has suggested that the frail and elderly should consider suicide to stop them becoming a financial burden on their families and society.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, she said: “I know I’m not really allowed to say it, but one of the things that would motivate me [to die] is I couldn’t bear hanging on and being such a burden on people.

“In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one’s family would be considered good. I don’t see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance.

“If I went into a nursing home it would be a terrible waste of money that my family could use far better.”

In the past, I’ve been accused of being off base when talking about a “slippery slope” when it comes to end of life issues. My critics have been correct. We are not on a slippery slope and I apologize.

We’ve already fallen off a cliff. And the hell of it is, no one is listening as we fall to the ground below screaming in anguish.

UPDATE

Paul at Wizbang has a great update including a link to another story in the local paper.

Proving that great minds think alike, Hyscience has a post up entitled “The Hospice Industry’s Dark Agenda: Are Hospices Enabling Euthanasia?”

The Captain trains all 120 guns on the issue adding a bit of much needed blosphere weight to the supporters of Mae Magourik. And he certainly doesn’t pull any punches:

No, the lesson we should have taken from the Schiavo case is that our courts and our society has taken a utilitarian view of human life, one that measures value by the scale of the young and healthy. Beth Gaddy asked, “Who would want to live like this?” According to Ora Mae’s own living will, she would — and no enlightened society should presume to end Magouirk’s life in defiance of that wish. Boyd’s action in probate court — an odd place to get this kind of judgment for a living person — shows not so much a judicial bias towards utilitarianism, but a reflection of the utilitarianism that pervades Western societies as a whole. Euthanasia of the willing has led to euthanasia of the uncertain, and now in Magouirk’s case, euthanasia of the completely unwilling.

Utilitarianism or “what have you done for me lately.” Can you envision a day when people are asked to justify their own existence? I can.

The above question was posed by Significant Otherhawk as we sat with mouths agape reading about another family member who wishes to put a “loved one” out of their misery and let them move on to “a better place.” Only this time, there’s a slight twist to the tale: The person in question doesn’t want to die. In fact, if this account can be believed, she specifically requested that she not have the feeding tube removed in a written, living will:

In a situation recalling the recent death of Terri Schiavo in Florida, an 81-year-old widow, denied nourishment and fluids for nearly two weeks, is clinging to life in a hospice in LaGrange, Ga., while her immediate family fights desperately to save her life before she dies of starvation and dehydration.

Mae Magouirk was neither terminally ill, comatose nor in a “vegetative state,” when Hospice-LaGrange accepted her as a patient about two weeks ago upon the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, 36, an elementary school teacher

Also upon Gaddy’s request and without prior legal authority, since March 28 Hospice-LaGrange has denied Magouirk normal nourishment or fluids via a feeding tube through her nose or fluids via an IV. She has been kept sedated with morphine and ativan, a powerful tranquillizer.

The dehydration is being done in defiance of Magouirk’s specific wishes, which she set down in a “living will,” and without agreement of her closest living next-of-kin…

But hey…let’s not start talking about a slippery slope here. That just wouldn’t do. That would upset all those people who just last week were laughing and deriding those of us who talked about any such nonsense. Why, the very idea of a “culture of death” was condemned as pure hyperbole. And yet…

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised anymore. That’s the point isn’t it? Very soon, these kinds of things will become routine, their ability to shock and revolt will have been wrung out of us by sheer repetition. And then it will be too late. Because what’s happening in this country is nothing less than a small cadre of non-conspiratorial but like minded scientists, ethicists, doctors, and lawyers seeking a redefinition of what constitutes human life.

It’s not enough anymore for someones heart to beat. It’s not enough that blood flow through ones veins. It’s not enough for a human to be able to breathe on their own or have the function of other vital organs like kidneys or liver. It apparently isn’t enough that the individual in question is lucid, conscious, in a non-vegetative state and not have any kind of terminal illness.

All it takes is a granddaughter who thinks like this:

“Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus,” Gaddy told Magouirk’s brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. “She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?”

As monstrous as the rationale given by the granddaughter sounds, the outrage being committed here and elsewhere in the United States is not by confused, grieving, or even inconvenienced or greedy relatives; the crime against human dignity here is being committed by a medical community who has decided that their ever narrowing definition of what “life” is has gone beyond the simple mechanics of how the human body works and entered a metaphysical realm that used to be reserved for priests, shamans, rabbis, and philosophers.

In short, they see themselves as a new strata of healers, a class of medical High Priests whose knowledge and experience regarding human health are now augmented by insight into the mysteries of consciousness itself. They are aided and abetted by ethicists that justify their actions, scientists who support their conclusions, lawyers who keep the legal ground from turning into quicksand beneath their feet, and a certain segment of the population that puts their faith in the ability of humans to glean eternal truth from empirical observation.

I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t know if there necessarily is an answer. All I know is that this case and the thousands of other similar cases that occur every year in this country amount to nothing less than a recipe for disaster. Somehow, we’ve got to regain control of this runaway euthanasia train before our outrage is replaced by a shrug and our passions are replaced by a deadening of wonder at the miracle of life itself.

UPDATE:

This issue has literally exploded across the blogosphere with my blog buddies from The Wide Awakes leading the way.

Cao has a great round up of immediate reaction. In the coming days, go to Cao’s site for the latest.

Cathouse Chat has a link to an audio interview with Mae Magourik’s nephew - OUTRAGEOUS!

Raven at And Rightly So is a medical professional who has witnessed this sort of thing first hand. More on Raven tomorrow.

Make sure you hit T.J.’s excellent news blog NIF (News-Interesting-Funny) first thing in the morning for the latest.

Ace, a notorious skeptic regarding slippery slope arguments, thinks “The Death Express” is starting to roll.

Trey at Jackson’s Junction asks a good question; where’s the outrage from the people who let Terri die because it was her wish to do so? So far…silence.

Junkyard Blog is all over the story with some good updates.

Tha Anchoress has words of outrage…and caution.

Paul at Wizbang is digging and found some local reports on the issue, which tend to support the facts as reported originally by WMD. Hey! But remember, there is no slippery slope…right?

Mark at Conservative Revolution asks “You Think Your Living Will Means Something?”

Civilization Calls has joined the fray.

John Hawkins at Right Wing News is cautious.

Jared at Truth Quante-Fied has some great thoughts.

Straight up with Sherri has some addresses and phone numbers of people you can contact to help. (Hat Tip: Tom at Hamstermotor)

I’ve got to hand it to our neighbors to the north. They may not be known as one of the cultural centers of the universe, (Gordon Lightfoot, Anne Murray, hockey, and Canadian Bacon excluded) but they sure know how to make art out of scandal.

We Americans could learn a thing or two from our northern brethren, and not only when it comes to the manly arts of hunting and fishing. Our political scandals here are either sordid little sexcapades that are fun but involve little in the way of intellectual challenge or simple, boring, one dimensional illustrations of human greed where the specimens on display are revealed for the grubby little lowlifes they truly are.

And while it’s doubtful many American politicians involved in scandal would make it much past Dante’s 8th level of hell, Canada’s Liberal Party may have devised such an elegant defamation of democracy as to make it all the way to Senor Alighieri’s “Outer Depths” reserved for traitors to party and country.

Adscam is, to put it simply, the most beautifully constructed, elegantly conceived, political scandal I’ve ever seen.

It should make all of us political junkies in this country weep for joy at the simplicity of its workings. The government, controlled by the Liberal Party, funds a well-meaning program, a goal of which is to keep restless Quebecers from jumping the Canadian ship. A substantial part of the monies appropriated end up going to ad agencies friendly to the Liberal Party. So far so good. “To the winner belongs the spoils” is as good a slogan north of the border as it is here. But here’s where the truly elegant betrayal comes in.

The ad agencies, in exchange for the contracts, hired friends, neighbors, relatives, and activists associated with the Liberal Party. And to sweeten the scandal, the agencies then kicked back money into Liberal Party coffers in the form of campaign contributions!

Is Canada a great country or what?

In effect, the liberals were having the government of Canada fund their party’s elections. Now that’s what I call “public financing.”

But why stop there? Since one of the major purposes of the Sponsorship Program is to keep the French speaking Quebecers from bolting, why not get the separatists involved? Captain Ed explains:

In other words, a good part of the $250 million that Canadians spent out of their tax money to hold onto Quebec went not only to the Liberal Party for their re-election efforts and personal gain — it also went to the separatists that the government wanted to rebut.

Turns out the French-speaking purists weren’t above taking a little of the largess so generously doled out by the Liberal Party.

Maybe they promised to spend it on improving the manners of French speaking waiters in Montreal’s restaurants.

I have to admit I doubt very much whether any of our politicians would be able to be this subtle in their malfeasance. The only thing to rival it wasn’t so much a scandal as it was a political argument; the Iran Contra affair. Ollie North came up with something equally as elegant but ran afoul of the stupidity and greed of some of his associates; they couldn’t keep their damn mouths shut. And yes, Ollie lied to Congress. The fact that any Congressman from either party was able to look a TV camera in the eye and say that with a straight face, given that politicians have learned to lie for a living, explains why people giggled when that charge was leveled against Mr. North.

So, I say “hats off” to our friends to the north. Your politicians may have turned into a bunch of America-hating, quasi-socialist, islamofascist sympathizing euro trash wannabes. But when it comes to ripping off the people, you’ve got us beat hands down…or should I say hands up?

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

When is it wrong to kill in war? According to a military court, when your adversary is wounded and helpless:

WIESBADEN, Germany (March 31) - A military court on Thursday found a U.S. Army tank company commander guilty of charges related to the shooting death of a wounded Iraqi last year

Prosecutors said Maynulet violated military rules of engagement by shooting a man who was wounded and unarmed. Maynulet, 30, maintained that the man was gravely wounded and that he shot him to end his suffering.

Maynulet’s 1st Armored Division tank company had been on patrol near Kufa on May 21, 2004, when it was alerted to a car thought to be carrying a driver for radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and another militiaman loyal to the Shiite cleric.

The U.S. troops chased the vehicle and fired at it, wounding both the passenger, who fled and was later apprehended, and the driver. The killing was filmed by a U.S. drone surveillance aircraft

The judgment sounds reasonable to me. Capt. Rogelio ”Roger” Maynulet said that his company’s medic said there was nothing to be done for him at which point he said that he wanted to end the man’s suffering. This could have been done without shooting him because of the morphine syrette’s carried by medics. According to one medic who served in Viet Nam, he routinely gave overdoses of morphine to gravely wounded soldiers to ease their pain and put them out of their misery:

I was trained for this at camp and on the battlefield I was begged by my fellow soldiers to relieve their pain or send them on into the next world. In the field there was so much noise from artillery fire, whizzing bullets, choking smoke and confusion that we medics were forced to play God over life and death. Mercy killing you might call it or as I was trained, euthanasia. I’ll admit that I purposely gave too much morphine to about 2% the soldiers I treated, but this was only because they were too far gone for any medical care. When you’re under explosive fire and you see arteries shooting blood out, as a medic you have to make a medical decision about your fellow soldier. Is there any chance he’ll make it or is there no chance? When a boy or a man gives you that look in the eyes, that final look, I knew I was there to give them their final relief. Only death can bring final relief.

And then the crux of the matter emerges; of what value is the life of an enemy?

He further testified that, as company commander, he had more important priorities on the mission than saving the Iraqi, including searching for two escaped passengers and maintaining the safety of his men.

He testified that he was reluctant to expend limited first aid resources on a man he had been told would die anyway.

I’m sure that this kind of incident was repeated perhaps dozens of times in Iraq and any other conflicts for that matter. The question that nags at me is why the military felt it necessary to try this man? Was it to make an example of him so the world will see that we try to play by the rules of the Geneva Convention in war? Could Abu Gharaib have had anything to do with this prosecution? Or was this soldier’s transgression more egregious than what could be termed “normal?”

The fact that the incident was captured on tape by a US Spy Drone probably had something to do with it. Plus, I think that the Army was correct in its judgment that this incident was especially un-called for:

Questions from the six-member panel - the equivalent of a civilian jury - focused on whether Maynulet tried to hide his actions by failing to report the shooting at the end of the day. Maynulet said he discussed the shooting in a debriefing that immediately followed the mission and denied trying to hide the killing.

Maynulet’s excuse; that he was too busy tracking down the other wounded Iraqi and that his medical supplies were limited doesn’t stand up to scrutiny if he deliberately withheld reporting the incident in his after action report.

Maynulet has a spotless record and was praised during his trial by an Iraqi Defense Ministry official:

Iraq’s interim deputy defense minister, Ziad Cattan, testified later Wednesday that he worked with Maynulet when the soldier was stationed in Baghdad and had contact with Iraqi officials.

Cattan, a district council chairman at the time, described him as ”a good soldier and a good officer.” Asked about Maynulet’s attitude toward Iraqis, Cattan said: ”He is very compassionate.”

Given the facts, I would hope for leniency of some kind. He’s a good soldier who made a horrible mistake. He isn’t the first and he won’t be the last. Such is the nature of war.

Not unexpected, but a blow nonetheless:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to order Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube reinserted, rejecting a desperate appeal by her parents to keep their severely brain-damaged daughter alive.

The decision, announced in a terse one-page order, marked the end of a dramatic and disheartening four-day dash through the federal court system by Bob and Mary Schindler.

Justices did not explain their decision, which was at least the fifth time they have declined to get involved in the Schiavo case.

The Supreme Court is always loathe to overturn lower court rulings unless there’s some kind of blockbuster error by the original judge or the issue gives them an opportunity to make new law.

In the Schindler case, Greer evidently, according to legal precepts, made no error in his Finding that Terri is PVS.

The court’s decision was not surprising. Not only had justices repeatedly declined to intervene in the Schiavo case on prior occasions, but they routinely defer to state courts on family law issues. Judges in various Florida courts have sided with Schiavo’s husband in the 15 years since she suffered brain damage.

The issue before the high court was whether Schiavo’s tube should be reinserted while her case is fully reviewed in the lower courts.

Justices could have ruled in favor of the parents if they had found a “substantial likelihood” the Schindlers would win on the merits or that Congress intended for Schiavo to remain attached to a feeding tube during the federal court review called for in the bill passed last weekend

How could this be? What criteria did Greer use for his Finding that Terris is PVS?

It has to do with 1) a legal definition of PVS; and 2) How Greer arrived at his decision that Terri would not want to live under those conditions. Here’s the “legal” definition of PVS:

Persistent Vegetative State (PVS): A clinical condition of complete unawareness of the self and environment. Even though PVS patients may exhibit sleep wake cycles, they show no evidence of response to or understanding of environmental stimuli. Unlike with a coma, there is no reasonable hope for recovery for those in a PVS. Normally it takes up to 3 months to make a definitive diagnosis of PVS for patients who suffered a loss of oxygen to the brain. It can take a year to make a definitive diagnosis of PVS for patients who suffered a blow to the head. Although life expectancy for patients in a PVS is between two and five years, there a a number of cases where PVS patients are sustained on life support for decades. It has been estimated that there are somewhere between 15,000 and 35,000 PVS patients being sustained in the U.S. at any given time.

Remember, Greer never visited Terri’s bedside to determine for himself whether Terri had any “response or understanding of environmental stimuli.”

And here’s how Greer got away with ordering the feeding tube removed even though Terri didn’t leave a Living Will declaration. In legal terms, it’s called “Substituted Judgment:”

Substituted Judgment: This standard of decision making permits the decision maker to take into account the patient’s general value system and personal beliefs as well as previously made statements about medical treatments. The decision maker is to “stand in the patient’s shoes” and make the decision the patient would make in the same situation, if able. The description of the concept in the Jobes decision (New Jersey) is often cited by other courts, and instructs the surrogate decision maker to refer to:

["the patient's personal value system for guidance. The surrogate considers the patient's prior statements about reactions to medical issues, all facets of the patient's personality that the surrogate is familiar with -- with, of course, particular reference to his or her relevant philosophical, theological, and ethical values -- in order to extrapolate what course of medical treatment the patient would choose."]

In other words, Greer had extraordinarily wide latitude to rule however he wished on the question of Terri’s wishes.

This is something that can be fixed by legislation, as the Florida legislature was trying to do until the measure was finally defeated yesterday:

The Florida Senate rejected a bill Wednesday to keep Terri Schiavo alive, turning back an attempt to resolve the contentious end-of-life debate with a state law, as legislators did in 2003.

The bill would have prohibited patients like Schiavo from being denied food and water if they didn’t express their wishes in writing. It would have applied only to cases where families disagreed on a patient’s wishes. The 21-18 vote came five days after her feeding tube was removed under court order.

Let me say that I’m cognizant of all the issues raised by both conservatives and liberals on this matter. I do believe that end of life decisions are generally a family matter and should not be interfered with by the state (especially the Congress, although my feelings about this exception are mixed, I think they did the right thing).

The thing that makes this case so frightening to me is the way the state court rode roughshod over Terri’s rights. In the end, the courts didn’t allow anyone TO SPEAK FOR TERRI! This is the job of the guardian. The fact that Michael’s conflict of interest in this matter is so profound, so obvious, and the courts, due to tradition and law were helpless to do anything about it, should open our eyes to the necessity for a change in law.

Terri is not alone. Who will stand up for the rights of those among us who can’t speak or are only vaguely aware of their surroundings? Who’s to say a guardian has a big enough conflict of interest that it should disqualify them from further representing the afflicted? Can these matters be legislated? Adjudicated?

Tough questions…few answers.

Blogs for Terri has been in the forefront of the effort to save Terri Schiavo’s life. But what they advocate here is just plain wrong:

This ad hoc partnership of religious and political organizations — which will gather in front of the White House and the Florida governor’s mansion — will call on President George W. Bush and Gov. Jeb Bush to use their executive powers to protect Terri Schiavo from starvation.

“There are two people in the United States who can save Terri Schiavo’s life right now. The president of the United States and the governor of Florida have the authority to use the police services at their disposal to take Terri into protective custody, restore her food and hydration, and arrest anyone who would interfere,” said Dr. Paul Schenck, executive director of the National Pro-Life Action Center on Capitol Hill. “For the sake of Terri’s life, we cannot afford to wait while the courts dither over jurisdiction.” Details of D.C. Press Conference

I’m sorry to say it, but this just goes too far.

Do we turn the United States Constitution completely on its head to save one person’s life? Do we set what are demonstrably dangerous precedents to try and overturn another dangerous precedent?

There are better, more effective ways to fight Terri’s fight. Sadly, since it now appears that the opening battle of this fight has been lost and Terri will soon be free from pain, her memory will animate many of us to continue advocating for those who for whatever reason are unable to speak for themselves.

This is not the place or time to ask the President to use the federal government’s “police services” to effect a result, no matter how desirable.

Not all people who will hold the office of President will be as honorable as George Bush. And any use of the extraordinary powers available to him would set an example that could, in the future, make us rue the day that the President acted in such a high handed and anti-constitutional manner.

We can’t let our emotions override our judgment. Save Terri? Yes. Do everything within the law to accomplish that? Yes.

Run roughshod over the constitution to achieve the desirable outcome we all hope and pray for? Absolutely not.

And somehow, in the abstract, I think Terri would probably agree.

I find myself this morning asking a question that’s been gnawing at the outside of my consciousness for days now. Why is it that the advocates for Terri’s death don’t have the courage of their convictions and push for a quick, painless death rather than this agony of thirst and hunger being endured by an otherwise healthy but cognitively disabled woman?

Is it any more proactive to give Terri a lethal dose of drugs than removing her feeding tube? Both actions will have exactly the same effect; the death of Terri Schiavo. But where one would be very quick and relatively painless, the other option entails a grotesque litany of symptoms that most people wouldn’t wish on a rabid dog, much less a human being.

I think that the way someone dies is relevant. Even if you believe that Terri’s life should be snuffed out, how can you wish it to be done in such a harrowing manner? According to some estimates, there are as many as 25,000 adults living in the United States who are as severely or more severely disabled than Terri. I guarantee you that the relatives and guardians of these poor unfortunates are watching this case very closely. If the government in the person of the state and federal judiciary get away with this (and all indications are that Terri will not last much longer) there will be a virtual avalanche of petitions before the courts.

Am I being an alarmist? I sincerely hope so. But the burdens-both emotional and financial-of maintaining the life of a cognitively disabled person are very great. It would make it easier for even a loved one to rationalize the death of a spouse or a child by claiming that “this is what they would have wanted” if the standard of proof used by Judge Greer-the testimony of a conflicted spouse-is accepted as a baseline for proceeding against these individuals.

It does no good to say that each situation would be reviewed on a “case by case” basis. The fact is the legal precedent will have been set. I don’t think proponents of euthanizing Terri realize what makes this case different; it lowers the bar for ending life. To those of us concerned that the culture of death is making serious inroads into the mainstream of American values, allowing euthanasia to achieve the status of something that’s routine rather than a process that should be used in only the rarest of cases with clear and unambiguous legal and moral rationales, would be a travesty.

Which brings me back to having the courage of your convictions. If you’re really serious about wanting to lower the bar and allow this death to occur by starvation, I accuse you of being a moral coward. If you can justify to me that by sanctioning starvation rather than out and out euthanasia, advocating a position that’s coherent both morally and intellectually, I will retract that charge and apologize. But if you can’t find any arguments to buttress your support for starving someone to death and denying water to an individual until their tongue swells up and their lips erupt with excruciatingly painful sores, then perhaps you should ask yourself why.

Why not just demand the government open up euthanasia centers where people can bring the old, the senile, the incurable, the severely cognitively disabled - those weakest links in our society whose lives have no meaning because they can’t enjoy being human to the fullest due to an injury or affliction? I submit that this is the logical and inevitable outcome of the position you are advocating.

Do not try and tell me that “she won’t feel anything.” Those who’ve been present at these kinds of deaths (and I was horrified to learn that they occur every day in this country) know differently. Even a dumb brute of an animal feels pain, despite not knowing what is happening or why. That’s why we euthanize our beloved pets with a shot.

If we did to them what the government is doing to Terri, we’d be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail. What does that say about the value we place on human life?

I’m listening. Convince me.

UPDATE:

Ed Morrisey has a post about the nurse, Carla Sauer Iyer, who cared for Terri at a nursing home and claims that Michael was adamant about not giving Terri any rehab:

Iyer also claims that one time when she put a washcloth in Terri’s hand to test her reflexes, Michael Schiavo would get upset and say, “that’s therapy — take that washcloth out.”

The Captain also calls this case what it is:

The federal court has instead decided to disregard the clear language and intent of the emergency bill passed by Congress and abstain from a new process of finding fact in Terri’s case. In doing so, they will allow a non-terminal, disabled woman to die a slow death on the word of an estranged husband and his years-long repressed memory. It will be the first federal endorsement of euthanasia, a precedent setting case that will allow for the disposal of many such disabled people in the future.

Get used to it people. As I mentioned above, this case will open the floodgates.

UPDATE II: GRANDSTANDING GOVERNOR?

Ace reports that via a tip from Alicia, if the Florida Senate passes the anti starvation measure today, Jeb Bush will go to the hospice and bring food to Terri himself.

This is really starting to get on my nerves. The intervention by the US Congress was distasteful, but necessary in my opinion. But with the National Right to Life Spokesman Randall Terry running around breathing fire against Republicans who he will hold “personally responsible” if Terri succumbs and asking President Bush to use “police powers” to save Terri, it appears that some of our right wing brothers are attempting to play a nasty political game here.

And into this charged up, emotional atmosphere, Florida Governor and putative Presidential candidate Jeb Bush rushes to the rescue like Dudley Doright rescuing Nell from evil Snidely Whiplash. Even if the Governor would be doing this from the purest of motives the appearance of doing it for political gain will now color every action he takes and every statement he makes.

That’s the price you pay for the scrutiny given by the national press. Your every waking thought will be analyzed as it relates to some mythical horse race. And in that context, the Governor’s instincts here are just plain wrong.

Let the parents feed their child if the law passes. They don’t need anyone from the government to help them do that. After all, they were doing it while Jeb Bush was still in books.

(Photo courtesy of Anklebiting Pundits)

What do you say to people who are celebrating the imminent death of a human being as a defeat for a political enemy?

Since Terri’s feeding tube was removed on Friday, I’ve been absolutely flabbergasted at the celebratory attitude taken by many on the left (not all; there are many liberals who support Terri’s fight) and the flippant comments in liberal discussion forums and in comments left here and other conservative sites about Terri’s condition.

Here are a few choice examples from the Democratic Underground:

Are Terri and Michael not on speaking terms? Have they been fighting? Alright, I think I’ll go scream now.

I think of some of the great hunger strikes throughout history like Bobby Sands being jailed as a political prisoner with the IRA and the Women Suffragists of the early 1900 and well, this Hunger Strike rates up there with that guy who lived in a box hanging over the river Thames for 30 days without any food.

Go ahead and starve yourself dumbass!!

And here’s one from Daily Kos:

Culture of life, my ass. Support bacteria. It’s the only culture some people have

There’s more…much more. But I just don’t have it in me today to get mad at these revelers in death whose comments on my own blog were so despicable, so vile that for the first time since I started my site, I had to delete some comments.

Here are some examples from my own site:

Well, your blog certainly is appropriately titled (Rightwing Nuthouse). How would you suggest putting Ms. Schiavo out of her misery? Oh, wait a minute, I forgot -you guys dig torture so you probably want to keep her alive as long as possible. Here’s the part I don’t get: If you’re a Christian fundie, shouldn’t you be happy that Terri’s going to meet her God? Why would you want to rely on evil, evil, badevil science to prolong her earthly agony?

Part of my response:

First of all, I’m an atheist you miserable excuse for a barking moonbat.

Secondly, it’s hardly “science” that’s keeping her alive, unless you want to call feeding tubes that have been in use since the turn of the 20th century “high tech.”

How about this moonbat accusing me of seeking political gain from Terri’s plight:

Another disgusting post from the right wing.

But, as you have already discovered, she has the capacity for something more useful - being a political tool to advance your religious agenda. Good for you for figuring this out. But may God have mercy on your soul for acting it out.

And in my response, I pretty much lost control and let the lickspittle have it:

I’m not in the mood for your fallacious and ignorant comments.

If you can’t see that this is the way we’re headed, then I pity you. Because I can think of no one more useless than someone like you; you’re a triple threat…no brains, no soul, and no clue.

My reference to the feeding tube being reinserted was in anticipation of Judge Whittmore’s decision to issue an injunction to feed Terri while the case was adjudicated. Many legal experts today are expressing surprise and shock that Whittmore heard only 1/2 hour of oral arguments from each side before rendering a decision. It’s almost like he just wanted to wash his hands of the entire matter.

I had commenters accusing me of being a paid Republican consultant (I’m not) and obscenity laced rants against me, republicans, and President Bush.

Then there’s this comment on Terri’s lack of self awareness:

She is a person with no brain equipment that permits a subjective sense of self. Therefore, she cannot suffer.

Your entire “Spoon fed” thing: OK idiot. look up types of fallacies. Have you come across slippery slope yet? No? Keep looking.

Again, I lost my temper:

Well, I’m glad that SOMEONE has now come up with a scientific way to measure consciousness. Whew…I was getting worried that nobody would EVER figure that one out.

Don’t be daft. The major problem here (and it’s pretty obvious “ignorant” was an apt characterization of the state of your knowledge on this issue) is that the tests needed to determine whether or not Terri is PVS HAVE NOT BEEN DONE!

There were worse comments. I deleted a comment about Terri having the brains of “my front lawn.” I also deleted a comment that was glad that Terri was dying because it meant that Michael would be free to marry his common law wife who, in this person’s opinion, would be a better wife for Michael because she wouldn’t be a burden to him.

Some of it, of course, is just plain ignorance. But most of these comments are from people who could be your next door neighbor or a co-worker. To have that level of callousness requires a world view completely at odds with the principles this country and the rest of western civilization were founded on.

Where is this leading? Watch over the next few months as a spate of cases come before the public. Many will be from relatives who wish to rid themselves of a financial and emotional burden. Some will be from relatives who wish to profit from the death of the euthanized victim. Each time it happens, it will be easier, outrage will be muted, and the idea of what is “permissible” will be expanded.

There may be no way to stop it. All we can do is keep fighting for what we believe in while enduring the snide, snarling, and snarky comments of our tormentors.