|
|
|
|
3/27/05 Defending Terri Liberals committed to the idea that Terri Schiavo's being in what Florida Law defines as a "Persistent Vegetative State" has been rendered a certainty by one judge's ruling and bolstered by the steadfast refusal, against common sense and common decency, of any other court to consider the possibility that the ruling rests on arbitrary, flimsy, and tainted evidence are misrepresenting conservative reasons for trying to intervene in the case. If there were no dispute about the state of Terri Schiavo's brain, of her estranged husband's motives, or of the pattern of events that led to Terri's current condition, there would be no grounds to intervene. Let us go over the basic facts again, and then go over the myths being spread persistently by almost all reporters and many pundits on the left. Terri Schiavo ended up with severe brain damage more than fifteen years ago. Reporters and liberals assume she got into that state as a result of low potassium levels which caused a heart attack which deprived her brain of oxygen and caused brain damage. But there is no evidence that she ever had a low potassium level or that she ever had a heart attack. Her heart stopped for a time, but none of the chemical signals accompanying a heart attack were found in her blood stream. It was the hypothesis of one doctor who examined her that a low potassium level could have caused a heart attack, but there is no evidence of a heart attack. There are other possible explanations. If someone had tried to strangle Terri, this would have stopped her breathing and stopped her heart. It also would have left some other physical evidence in her body of a struggle and possibly of damage to her throat or neck. There is such evidence. A bone scan taken months after the episode shows evidence of broken bones throughout her body, and other damage that could either be the result of physical trauma or of some otherwise undiagnosed bone disease. The court did not look at that bone scan before reaching its decision about Terri's condition or about the credibility of the testimony as to her wishes that came from her husband, the man most likely to be responsible for the bone damage. Doctors have also noted that Terri's neck is very stiff, a condition that commonly results from strangulation. No evidence to support this hypothesis was introduced into the original court proceeding by the person charged to represent Terri's interests impartially. So there is evidence that Terri suffered trauma to her neck, which might well indicate that someone tried to strangle her to death, and no evidence that she suffered from reduced potassium levels causing a heart attack that never happened. Those are powerful grounds for suspicion about a judge's ruling ignoring these facts that has never been re-examined by any higher court. Liberals not wanting to intervene demonstrate their bias, since if she were a criminal they would be doing everything in their power to stop her execution. For conservatives not to intervene would be a betrayal of their values, since they always defend the lives of the innocent and helpless who are being killed with no justification. But it doesn't end there. Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, sued a fertility clinic and sought millions of dollars for "a lifetime of care", never mentioning that Terri wouldn't want to live in that state. While pursuing that ruling he seemed to exhaust every therapeutic avenue trying to improve her condition. But virtually as soon as he received his windfall decision, he stopped spending money on therapy and started spending it to convince the courts to let him starve her to death because that would have been her wish. If the medical evidence showed that her condition were irreversible, and if her behavior and medical tests confirmed that she was in a Persistent Vegetative State, he might be justified in giving up hope. But there is no such unequivocal evidence. The court relied on a biased selection of evidence, and called for no new tests that would have helped to solidify the basis for believing that Terri's condition is permanently vegetative. The behavior of a person looking after a loved one is that they exhaust all reasonable hope before they turn to the decision whether or not to terminate any and all intervention that is supporting life. Most of the time when that decision is made the person is brain dead and there is no reasonable hope of recovery. This is when someone is "on life support", when their organs no longer function on their own because the brain has stopped sending them the signals that make them functional. But Terri is not brain dead; all of her organs (until she started to starve and dehydrate to death) are functional. No doctor has determined that she is brain dead. She is not on "life support" as liberals and the media persist in saying and writing. The doctors on whose testimony the judge based his ruling said she cannot recover higher brain function, but many other doctors can be found who not only believe she can recover, but believe she will if only she is given access to the newest therapies that have been developed. But Terri's "loved one" professes to be so convinced that she wouldn't want to live in her current state that he will not consent to any therapies that might improve her condition. Ask yourself: If anyone said there was hope for your child, or even for your estranged spouse, wouldn't you feel it was incumbent upon you to try to make his or her life worth living? Of course you would. Any ethical person would. But Michael Schiavo will have none of that hope. He prefers to have Terri die and to move on with his new girlfriend and their two children. He also refuses to do any tests that would tell us confidently that her condition really is persistently vegetative. Add that to the sworn affidavits claiming that he has been asking "when is that b____ going to die?" and that he may have been injecting her with insulin in the attempt to kill her. There are also witnesses who say that, mere days before her breakdown, Terri had announced her intention to confront Michael and threaten him with divorce. This would supply a motive for Michael to have harmed her in the first place. At a minimum, there is plenty of reason to doubt that Michael Schiavo has her best interests at heart. And it is almost exclusively his testimony on which that court decision rests that makes it unlawful for anyone to do anything to sustain Terri's life. Finally, there is far too little authority for that court decision to make it sustainable. The burden of proof did not reach the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" that governs the due process afforded people whose lives will be taken due to crimes they have committed, and this case has never been put before a jury of Terri's peers. The case stinks to high heaven, and the probability that an injustice has been committed is too great to ignore. Terri's family believes that Michael Schiavo tried to kill Terri, and there are reasons to think it may be so. How could I do anything but insist that as a society we owe Terri her day in court, represented by someone other than the husband who may have wanted her dead before she was in anything approaching a "Persistent Vegetative State," and may well have put her there? She was not represented by any third party when Judge Greer returned his decision Feb. 11, 2000. I am not advocating interfering in a family's decisions. I'm advocating defending a woman's rights against the possibility that her husband is trying to murder her and using the courts to cover it up. I would think liberals would be on my side. But all they can do is claim that I am motivated by something nefarious and suspect. Go figure. Modified: 05/04/2005 |
|
|
All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com
SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com
Hits on this site:
|