Today was the first full day of Spring ... it begun with a simply disgusting act of Congress that reaffirms how pathetically our leaders currently serve the American people. At some point, it just is too much -- over and over again something is done that is just plain wrong. I mentioned the various nominations that any rational person would find offensive. Nonetheless, a few acts underline just how wrong things are today.
Congress going out of their way to interject themselves in a single family's dispute over proper medical care, one the state courts repeatedly decided the other way, is one such act. Honestly, when I heard that Congress' extraordinary Palm Sunday machinations had led to Terry Schiavo's feeding tube being re-inserted, I felt physically ill. Why should we be proud to be an American, if this is what we stand for?
As with simple moments of clarity, there are two levels of understanding here. The basic one is this: Terry Schiavo married, had a heart attack that led to brain damage [I mistakenly thought she had an accident, and I'm probably not alone ... in fact, ironically, bulimia apparently was the ultimate cause of her fate] and her husband chose what he felt was her wishes. He did so only after years passed and many things were tried to help her.
A guardian ad litem was chosen when he wished to remove treatment, but the trial judge found his investigation incomplete, and thus of limited value. The courts, repeatedly, agreed (using clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard of proof than more likely than not) ... this is what state law, and simple common sense would appear to command. The judge used Terri's own statements, noting comments allegedly to the contrary (put forth by her parents) were said when she was about twelve, though at first they thought she said them a lot later.
Doctors testified, using a lot more than the hearsay and uneducated [Sen. Frist is a heart surgeon, not an expert on her condition] proof some now put forth, that she was in a persistent vegetative state. [Not that P.V.S. is necessarily the only time one can refuse treatment, including nutrition, but it makes things even clearer.] About fifteen years has past. And, the fact the parents and some family (hubby is family too) disagreed is besides the point -- your spouse is your legal guardian in this case, and independent courts repeatedly agreed his decision was backed up.*
This is all that is necessary. It is nauseating that those who don’t agree with the decision twist the sanctity of marriage, the rule of law, and the facts themselves. Thousands of times a year, if not more, family members have to make similar horrible decisions ... as noted by a member of Congress from Florida, who noted that no one said another (federal or state ... the latter rejected by state courts as an unconstitutional interference with an ongoing lawsuit) stranger had to agree when her family recently made a decision involving ending care of a family member.
And, sometimes, families disagree. Thus, we set up certain people as presumptive guardians, and (the somewhat rare times when it goes that far) have hearings to determine if their decisions are correct. And, therefore, privacy is protected with safeguards in place.
What is special about this case? It is surely not relevant that she lives in the state where the president's brother is governor, is it? Or, that the parents have obtained the support of right to life groups? [I will forestall with the scare quotes, but cases like these suggest such how subjective that term is.] We all can be sympathetic about what the parents have being going through, but let's not suggest there are truly special. No more than the families of the other thirty-five thousand people in a p.v.s. state.
No freakening way -- and at some point, my sympathy ends. Others have to make similar judgments, judgments that will be harder now that the parents here supported extraordinary means to overturn the will of their daughter's guardians and the courts that upheld his judgment. Likewise, when the mother ... this was sickening ... suggested those against the federal legislation were playing politics, that was just too much. Is she that naive? That dumb? Honor those who help her do what she feels is right, but blindess of reality is not worthy of our respect. Our sympathies must have limits.
In effect, it's a sort of bill of attainder, in which a legislature acts as a court and limits of the rights of a particular person. Just so you know, this unconstitutional per Art. I, sec. 9. One of many breaches accomplished by this tour de force act of legislative extraconstitutional lawlessness.
This is where the deeper aspects of the situation truly come in. As already noted, this is far from a unique situation. And, it has been going on for years -- much longer than this sort of thing generally does. So, for Congress to single out this case, at this time, is remarkable. We can respect those who have a principled opposition across the board to abortion or removal of treatment, but special treatment of one case -- and one side (railing against the husband and doctors who support him) -- simply crosses the line. As a deeply angry, as well as astute, CBS legal analysis of the case noted (read the whole thing):
Congress is intruding so far into the power of the judiciary, on behalf of a single family, that it is breathtaking. It truly will be fascinating to see how federal court judges react to this-- whether they simply bow down to this end-run or whether they back up their state-court colleagues. And it will be interesting in particular to see what the Supreme Court does with this case. Even the conservatives on the High Court-- and the Chief Justice in particular-- must be concerned about the precedent this sort of legislation would set.
The analysis pointed out that it is likely that in the end, and some in Congress surely know this, the federal courts would agree with the state courts' judgment. As to the parade of horribles involving removing the feeding tube, the NYT had a sidebar piece suggesting that even those conscious who choose to refuse nutrition find this relatively painless -- the worst part relates to dry mouth and that sort of thing, which can be properly handled. Of course, since she is in a P.V.S. state, the whole thing would be even less problematic. The whole point of this state is the lack of the sorts of pain and feeling that people immediately worry about when they think about this sort of thing.
And, what about this sickeningly earnest support for "the culture of life" that so many from the President on down is so keen about? Where to start? This Congress has failed to pass a law that even in a small way limits torture and provides additional oversight over the deadly confinement (Atrios notes that less than ten more P.O.W.s died in North Vietnam during the whole war than prisoners thus far in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and day to day activities (such as checkpoints) of the current war.
Let's put things like that aside. Texas, in a law signed by you know who, made ability to pay the touchstone (even over the wants of the parents) in "hopeless" cases. Not even those where the individual is not conscious or able to make their desires known in some fashion. Republicans in Congress want to cut Medicaid, funds that in part go to pay for medical care.
Terry Schiavo's care is currently being paid by funds from a medical malpractice lawsuit that "tort reform" might make obsolete. The Bankruptcy Bill would not exempt families bankrupted by the costs of such care. And, those who support "The Defense of Marriage Act" (and oppose thee use of the courts to overturn state legislation, natch) are doing their very best to make Terry's marriage of no importance.
The Democrats did not show much guts here. A few, including Rep. Holt (known by Air America listeners as a supporter of an important bill to require printouts of electronic voting), went back to Washington to speak out against this travesty. A nod also to the few Republicans who voted with the fifty or so members of the House that had the guts to be on the record against the bill.
Democrats in Senate thought the best "compromise" approach would to support a limited law -- which as noted above is patently unjust favoritism -- only dealing with this one case. One article, the news coverage by the way tended to leave out many important issues that now dominate the liberal blogosphere, noted that just one ... ONE ... senator could have placed a hold that would have stop the legislation. Oh, my two senators decided to sit this one out.
The bottom line in many people's eyes is the need to have a living will. People in their twenties, and this case is not the only one of this nature in which tragically that was the age involved, do not usually have living wills or discuss in much detail their desires should something like this occur.
I know someone three times that age that finds it very hard to even consider writing a regular will, and the person is surely not alone. Nonetheless, lest we think a living will would solve everything, few statements of this nature cover every possible situation. Choices still will have to be made, choices self-righteous legislators and competing family members can use to challenge the judgments of those given the right to carry out the person's wishes.
They are very important, just as statements that you want your organs donated and so forth, but all Congress needs is one politically convenient case to grandstand on. One case to ... yet again ... make it uncomfortable to admit that they are our leaders.
---
* Terry's husband has supported any number of means to help his wife, all that have shown to be fruitless. Some means offered to help amount to nothing much -- for instance, easing her swallowing, a reflect action that is as notable as the few edited shots that people point at to suggest she actually is in some way conscious. Others raise the point that the husband now has a mistress, who he apparently plans to marry once Terry dies.
This is put out to show that he really doesn't have her best interests at heart. They tend to ignore his refusal to be bought off, suggesting the money from the judgment against the hospital would compensate. Not too much longer, I think. Anyway, he did do a lot to help her, and independent courts have repeatedly said that his judgment was independently verified. I would not rest completely on this verification, necessarily, since it was somewhat vague. Not surprisingly. It is enough, however, to use this as well as everything else to dispute claims of bias.
Finally, and I noted this before, some spouses would not begrudge such companionship (it's not as if it began the day after her accident) in the current situation. The fact that some, quite apart from the bias issue, are willing to interject their own value systems into the equation is quite telling. As with any number of other choices of life and death, somewhat arbitrary personal values are involved. Would they want others to challenge theirs? Surely not ... of course, they are special. No one would ever challenge them.