I can remember Pope John Paul II speaking of the "culture of death" long ago before I understood it. One of the features of the culture of death is that the "right" to die, becomes the "duty" to die and eventaully the "obligation" to die. I can remember thinking "wow that guy has really gone off the deep end!" But time has proven him right. Yesterday a story from Holland reported that to terminate life one no longer need show that a person is terminally ill and in pain, but that they are suffering mentally or some such strange, convolouted reasoning. If true, this represents a quantum leap foward for the culture of death. Somehow I can't help but think of the Eloy? and the Moorlocks?

For anybody who wants more information on the case than what the mainstream media gives you.

Here's comprehensive coverage of the Schiavo case from WorldNetDaily:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35305

Here are a few good articles from Wesley J. Smith, who has been covering the case for a while:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/370oqiwy.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/329sghqk.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/304rgjad.asp

Hugh Hewitt explores how much more enlightened our European brothers and sisters are in such matters:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/983ynlcv.asp

And finally a short essay on the groundbreaking T4 programme:

http://www.wce.wwu.edu/resources/nwche/reviews/disabled.shtml

Happy reading.

One more try with the URLs that didn't display properly.

Wesley J. Smith on Schiavo:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/
Public/Articles/000/000/003/370oqiwy.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public
/Articles/000/000/003/329sghqk.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public
/Articles/000/000/003/304rgjad.asp

Hugh Hewitt on Holland's Groningen Protocol:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public
/Articles/000/000/004/983ynlcv.asp

Sorry, hopefully you can reconstruct these URLs somehow.

For those who simply cannot believe anything that comes from a rightwinger or Jesus-lover, you can see what Nat Hentoff has to say about the subject:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=+site:www.villagevoice.com+%2B%22Terri+Schiavo%22+%2Bhentoff

Well, if you've read the other comment thread you'll know I find this Floridia law-blogger a useful reference for the Schiavo case. He's got a good info page including a timeline and links to the court decisions.

(Sue - to make url's work and avoid linebreaks or cutting-and-pasting all you have to do is type [left bracket] a href="site-to-click"> words-to-click [left bracket]/a> Or just select my comment above and "view source" to see how its done)

I find the slippery-slope logic of "right-to-die" -> "obligated-to-die" somewhat less than compelling. Are people worried that the right to bear arms will become the obligation to bear arms? The right to vote will transform into the obligation to vote? Hardly.

The Schiavo case is a hard case - which, as we all know, makes bad law. Really bad law. But I digress - the case concerned a woman who did not make her wishes known for certain. The court had to determine for itself what Terri would have wished, not whether she should die in spite of her wishes. That's a huge difference.

And comparing living wills with Nazi euthanasia programs is just pathetic - on par with MoveOn.org "Bush=Hitler" ads. I expect better of Ace's readers.

Anyway, with regards to the original post I doubt that implementing a huge bureaucracy to force people to write wills is better than dealing with the rare case that comes up. Like Terri Schiavo, a combination of severe yet not killing injury, youth, mixed messages, lack of preparation, and deeply divided family would be necessary for a case to be a problem for the courts. IMO, it just doesn't happen that much.

Thanks Cliff, I didn't know HTML URL links were allowed here.

What I don't thank you for is the condescending tone. If you wish to insult me, fine. I take great pride in sharing Nat Hentoff's, Hugh Hewitt's, Wesley J. Smith's, and many other intelligent individuals' opinions on this case, as they plainly see the slippery slope of the fallacious "right-to-die."

I've seen the Abstract Appeal site before, and it's just apologetics for Felos' approach to the Schiavo case. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. That is exactly why T4 is applicable here; it made killing children and old people perfectly legal.

So you can keep spouting the MSM version of this whole thing, and buy into the idea that "useless eaters" should be "put out of their misery" for the "good of society." You'll be in good company. Unless you retire to Florida, that is.

That is an interesting question. Perhaps yes, but from a different direction.

The law will define something called "sustainable, with food and water only". No need for a medical opinion about responsiveness".

If you decide you want to be sustained that way, make it apparent.

Otherwise the state presumes you meant no.

Doesn't have to be a will. Check box on voter registration card or drivers license.

Dave I don't necessarily disagree with making living wills as easy as indicating your preference on a drivers license, etc. What I do disagree with is the presumption that everyone wants to be euthanized in the absence of any compelling evidence either way. The presumption should always be life as it is an inalienable right according to the founders of our country. Our friend Cliff S. can be as cold-blooded and 'analytical' about this as he likes but until he provides me a link to Terri's living will I'll err on the side of life.

What I don't thank you for is the condescending tone.

Sorry - it's just that I get a little cranky when people consider my position as advocating mass murder. Tell you what - I'll try to tone down the condescension if you try not to imply that what I really want is some lebensraum. Fair enough?

So. Morality, not legality. Ok, let's start by my asserting this: the Schiavo case has nothing to do ethically with euthanasia. Rather, it is about whether a person can discontinue medical help even at the cost of their own life.

1) I have the moral right to determine what, if any, medical procedures are done to me.
2) This right overrides the moral duty of others to save my life (e.g. I'm a JW in need of a transfusion)
3) (1) is true even if I am incapacitated
4) (2) is true even if I am incapacitated, and makes determining my desires, if any, a paramount issue in my treatment

Plainly, I think that I am morally right when I make a directive to not use extraordinary measures to prolong my life if I am in a PVS, or am terminally and incurably ill. Do you disagree?

*****

Euthanasia differs, I think, in a very important aspect. Euthanasia is not witholding medical assistance. It is actively killing someone who would otherwise continue to live.

Mph. I've been staring at this screen for a while trying to articulate how I feel about euthanasia. First let me say I think that the thing in Holland is really a bad idea. A huge problem is that apparently that it's the doctors making the decision, not the parents. I can see why - Europeans have much less belief in the rights of parents to make decisions for their children versus the state. But that doesn't make it ok, in my view. Also, the infants being euthanized have obviously never had the chance to make their wishes known, so that's even worse.

Now euthanasia in general....well, one of my difficulties is that the concept of euthanasia is so closely bound with the issue of suicide (specifically Kevorkian "assisted suicide"), which is one hell of a toughie. On the one hand, it's hard to give a blanket endorsement to offing yourself, anytime, anywhere.

But it's also pretty hard to say that a person, in complete control of their faculties, facing a long, painful, expensive, incurable, etc. illness, doesn't have the right to decide to kill themselves right then. But if they do have the right to kill themselves, then don't they have the right to have someone else assist them if they are incapacitated?

But if they don't have the right to kill themselves, does that mean they can't engage in risky behavior, or behavior that accelerates their death?

Regarding suicide: may a terminally ill cancer patient refuse chemo that may prolong their life a year or two? I'd say so - in fact I just did earlier.

Is it ok if they take up skydiving? Sure.

Cliff diving? Yep.

Russian roulette? Um...

Russian roulette with all the chambers loaded? I mean, it's always possible it won't kill them - it's just not the way to bet.

Yeah, it's not an easy issue. I'm libertarian-ish, so my instinct is that the rights of the individual to determine their own fate are extremely important. It would take a lot of convincing - not just a offhand and hypothetical "slippery slope" argument - for me to say the rights of others trumps the individual. But my opinion is not set in stone.

Finally, let me just mention this:
So you can keep spouting the MSM version of this whole thing, and buy into the idea that "useless eaters" should be "put out of their misery" for the "good of society."
Not trying to condescend here, but seriously - who says this in the mainstream media? That didn't have a publication date of 1938? It's not my position, it's never been my position, and I challenge you to find anything I've said defending that position.

Was it Peter Singer you were thinking of? Here, I'll say it plain: I think Peter Singer's a fucknut. I decry his fucknuttery. Better?

The only form of euthanasia that I think may possibly be moral is that which stems from the honest desire of the individual being killed to die. And there's a crapload of caveats to that. I'm not a Nazi - please don't treat me like one.

(my apologies to all for the length - I think I need my own blog)

Clearly, I need to spend less time on my comments - BrewFan hadn't even posted when I started writing...

What I do disagree with is the presumption that everyone wants to be euthanized in the absence of any compelling evidence either way.

That's not the presumption in the Florida courts. The presumption is, barring clear and compelling evidence, to choose life-saving and prolonging measures. In this case, the court said that there was clear and compelling evidence that she would not wish to continue with the feedings. You disagree, I get that. But the fact that a court ruled one case a certain way doesn't say anything about any broad presumptions the court system might have in general.

Look, I don't get it. Do people think that, because her parents and husband had opposite positions that they just cancel each other out? Equal and opposite charges resulting in total neutrality? The judicial equivalent of a jump ball? The court ruled based on all the evidence presented. Maybe they're wrong. That doesn't mean they're biased.

Our friend Cliff S.

Yay! I've made a friend!

...can be as cold-blooded and 'analytical' about this as he likes but until he provides me a link to Terri's living will I'll err on the side of life.

Well, maybe not a best friend.

All right. By this I guess that you mean that, barring a legally recognized living will, a court cannot allow life-prolonging efforts for PVS or terminal, incurable patients to be discontinued. Well, fine. I don't agree but there's not anything inherently illogical about it.

Of course, it means that whoever doesn't have a legal living will is, well, screwed. They can tell people whatever they want, up to the day they get hit by the bus, but none of it matters if they don't have the proper document. Hell, they can even write it down, but fail to get it properly notarized & witnessed (actually happened), and the court just says "Sorry, yer sol".

Me, I think that's a little cold-blooded, but hey - takes one to know one, right?

Cliff S wrote: "In this case, the court said that there was clear and compelling evidence that she would not wish to continue with the feedings."

The court was wrong and you know it. And although this case deals with an uncommon situation these decisions don't reside in a vacuum. I am not a lawyer but I know what stare decisis is.

I am not a lawyer but I know what stare decisis is.

I'm not a lawyer either, and I had to look that up.

I don't see any new precedent being set in this case. Instead, I think it involved already established precedents:
1) A person may refuse life-prolonging procedures if they are terminal or PVS and have no hope of recovery
2) When someone is no longer capable of expressing their wishes a court may act as that person's surrogate, try to determine what those wishes would have been, and have them carried out

The court was wrong and you know it

Assuming you mean "wrong" to mean "they are incorrect about Terri's wishes" - no, no I don't. You know why? Because I, like you, have not and cannot examine all the evidence presented to the court in the trials. You have based your opinion on fragmentary, biased, incomplete evidence as presented by one side of the issue. You are not a lawyer, and were not involved in the case, yet you think you have a better idea of the proper decision than the presiding judge (excuse me, judges)?

This was not the OJ case. It was not a one-shot deal. Terri's parents had every opportunity the law provides to present every single scrap of evidence at their disposal. There was trial after trial, motion after motion, appeal after appeal. Since 1998. They have failed to prove their case time and time again.

Well. This will be my last comment on this topic. For one thing, I doubt more than two or three people are still reading these threads on it - I don't believe I'm going to change any of their minds at this point. If people still want to continue the discussion, which I doubt, they can email me. I've said my piece, and while I haven't changed my opinion on this case I think I made it a more informed one.

So I want to thank Ace for this great blog and the opportunity to comment on it. I also want to thank the people who responded to me, even if they were insulting. Although, now that I think about it, is "analytical" really that much of an insult?

Anyway, back to the Anka riffs.

I support the effort to save Terri Schiavo as you can see from the posts on my website. But I think we need to revisit the details of the Groningen protocol. See http://pbswatch.blogspot.com/2005/02/groningen-protocol.html