The Schiavo media circus rolls on and I’ve really been too disgusted with it to comment on it here. I’m sure you have come to your own conclusions but here are a few related items you may not have heard or thought about (via Digby):
…[In 1999] George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.
…the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.
…the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.
And this from Atrios:
…we have a sitting member of Congress using his bully pulpit and media access to target and attack the character someone who is mostly a private citizen and who has not been accused of or convicted of any crime. I'm sure this isn't entirely without precedent, but the level of volume and personal vitriol which Tom DeLay has directed at Michael Schiavo should give us all pause, as should the fact that the media is treating it as a perfectly ordinary thing. It's one thing to have Harpy Grace flaying you on CNN, it's another thing when Congressman DeLay feels it's a part of his job description.
Tens of thousands of people in the U.S. have feeding tubes removed every year. It’s never an easy decision, I’m sure. I hope I never have to do it. But the fact remains, this is not unusual and any sense.
The only reason the Schiavo case is getting ANY attention is because there is a difference of opinion on what to do among family members. Had Schiavo’s family been unanimous in removing the feeding tube, it would have happened and that would have been that. Would creeps like DeLay have protested that it was murder. Of course not. It happens all the time in his home state of Texas. In fact, it’s the law (see above).
Those trying to make political hay out of this should have their political feeding tubes removed at the first opportunity.
2 comments:
I guess I'm misunderstaning some of your point. Schiavo is not on life support...you cited information that removes life support:
…[In 1999] George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.
The feeding tube is merely keeping her from starving to death. She is breathing and her body is functioning on it's own.
The fact that family members do not agree on this should be a reason others would get involved. They can't agree and each feels their opinions should be heard and taken into account - and they should.
I can't imagine a parent wanting to end their child's life ever, but I also can't imagine them not wanting what is best for their child. Schaivo's parents feel they have her best interests at heart and others jumped on the band wagon.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the decision itself. I am glad that the parents are being given a voice and a chance to be heard.
To anonymous, I would argue that Schaivo is on Life Support. Life support consists of all the items needed to keep one alive artificially. She may not require a respirator but does require a feeding tube. Of course I don't know the exact text of the law Bush signed in Texas as to whether it specified what type of 'life support' or not.
My second thought is that really this case should be a question of whether Terry Schaivo did not want to remain on 'life support' and who would be in the best position to know. I feel that M. Schaivo and Terry's parents have both presented evidence of her wishes in court before and the court ruled in favor of her husband.
I know in my own life since I do not have a lving will yet that only my wife knows my wishes and I haven't really felt a need for my parents to know. I would tend to side on the spouse as being the ultimate professor of one's wishes in a case like this.
Post a Comment