Long ago Jewish law made a distinction between withholding medication and special treatments from a patient as opposed to withholding food and water. Whereas there comes a time when we are no longer required to proactively employ "heroic" medicines and treatments to keep a non-functioning body operating, it is always necessary to continue feeding a patient.Andrea Harris:
A heart, for example, that beats not on its own but only through an artificial respirator is surviving outside the pale of physiology — its maintenance is artificial. There is nothing artificial, however, in people being fed by others. Babies do not feed themselves, nor do the frail and very sick — for example, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's patients. While we do not breathe for others, we certainly feed others. It makes no difference if the person is fed from without or within, conventionally or by machine.
While medicating is a conditional decision, not so feeding. Feeding is not a medical question, it is the most basic human need whose purview is not the doctor's or judge's but inalienable. Not to feed one starving in front of you is: "Standing by While the Blood of Your Brother is Spilt."
Terri Schiavo's heart and brain are not being kept alive by a machine. She breathes on her own and her brain-stem and other strategic parts of her mind continue to function. Terri Schaivo is not an "artificial" person. "Pulling the plug" is a misnomer being used by those who want her dead and out of the picture, i.e., no longer a moral and ethical challenge.
When we threw out religion as a major force in our public society we were supposed to be throwing out a lot of crap -- hidebound superstitions, entrenched intolerances, and so on -- but it looks as if instead we threw out the baby instead of the bathwater; we kept the intolerances, hidebound superstitions -- or rather the forces that create those things, and discarded the standards of ethics and behavior that are the basis of every major religion ever cooked up by mankind. All religions, even Islam, have at their base some sort of directive to treat the vulnerable with justice. "Take care of the weak" is one of the most basic aspects of any belief system and the foundation of any viable society.She leads off this essay on starvation in a land of plenty with a passage from Isaiah. And read this Swiftian suggestion too.
UPDATE: One appraisal of the judge's ruling.
UPDATE: Not only bad law, but bad interpretation of bad law:
. . . the kind of testimony Michael Schiavo gave would not be sufficient (or even admissible) to affect the disposition of Terri's property -- but it is sufficient to end her life. . . . Even a prisoner on death row cannot waive his opposition to his own execution this easily. At the very least such a decision must be informed, and formalized. Even then, civil rights groups will often continue a condemned murderer's appeal long after he has withdrawn from the process. Call me a bible-thumper, but the possibility of executing an innocent unwilling victim by court order deserves similar safeguards.UPDATE: Ilyka - like me, a "whatever happened to feminism?" feminist - is feeling as punchy about all this as I am, but she's a lot funnier.
There should exist a presumption that people want to live. That ought to be the operative presumption across the country, regardless of whether a widespread demographic preference develops to the contrary. If you don't like the presumption, you can draft a "living will," and rebut it. You should never have to "opt out" of your own execution.
And you should never stand condemned by offhand remarks made while watching a movie of the week. . . .
UPDATE: Speaking of feminism: Scrappleface is devastating.
17 Comments:
Frankly, I think that we're confusing issues. I subscribe to the code of pikueh nefesh. But I also subscribe to the code of one spouse speaking for the other when the other cannot speak. Withdrawing one's own feeding tube is a legal choice in this country and Michael Shiavo is the husband who gets to speak for Terry. That's the law, and it's a good one.
It doesn't matter what religious opinions people have. They are wrong to impose them upon this couple. The Schiavo case history is really a set of determinations that it is wrong for outsiders to intervene. Moreover, I have no idea what Congress was doing. The ruling from the Tampa federal court said the Congressional intervention raised Constitutional questions, although it did not rule on those and assumed Congress' action was okay. Nevertheless, the major federal statement on the issue, in Cruzan v Board, indicated this is a matter for states and there is no guidance in the Constitution.
It's interesting how the reactions to rulings and policitians' comments just leap over what the judges actually say in them. And it is IMO really dishonest on the part of anyone to impugn a justice, like Whittemore, for doing a careful job and taking the time. The ruling was issued in the middle of the night, and I'm sure that's how long it took. Remember the act of Congress asked for a review to determine that Terri Schiavo's due process was never compromised. That's a lot of reading!
As Andrew implied, Jewish law recognizes that when a person marries, they leave their parents and join into a new family unit. That unit is autonomous and should not be assailed.
And although I know we as citizens have rights of appeal, there is something to the Jewish value that when seeking a religious ruling while you can shop around for a rabbi or a religious court before applying, once you apply, you have an obligation to follow their determination rather than keep shopping around for an authority that gives you the ruling you want.
There is another issue here, which does affect Judaism. The motion filed with the federal judge in Tampa yesterday, in addition to its request to reconnect the feeding tube and remove guardianship of Terri Schiavo from Michael Schiavo, requests certain religious overrides, specifically treating Terri Schiavo as if she were Catholic. Including, that forms some of the grounds of the complaint. (See details, especially its pages 7 and 11, paragraphs 21 and 26.) So, here's the thing.
Suppose someone was brought up Catholic, attended Catholic religious schools and then, in college, became agnostic and atheist. Support further that some of these someones discovered Judaism and converted, when they were well into adulthood, something that their parents never accepted. Supposing then, something happens to them, and they are unable to speak for themselves, but have a Jewish spouse.
Can the ger's parents now use this kind of approach, assuming it were granted, to override all that and have them administered to and buried as if they were Catholic, for whatever good reasons they might have?
I don't know, and from the rulings I've read, I don't think the Schindler's appeal stands any chance of being granted.
But I'll tell you, I'm amending both my will and living will to say I am Jewish and I expect to be treated as Jewish in my last days and for burial.
[On a smaller matter, how come HTML italics don't seem to work here as they are advertised they should?]
"I also subscribe to the code of one spouse speaking for the other when the other cannot speak."
If the spouse who cannot speak says "I want to kill myself," that is also against pikuach nefesh.
"As Andrew implied, Jewish law recognizes that when a person marries, they leave their parents and join into a new family unit. That unit is autonomous and should not be assailed."
No, in the US we do not consider the family unit absolutely immune from the law. The state can intervene if a spouse or parent or offspring abuses or neglects a spouse or children or parent. That is the rationale here.
I don't know all the intricacies of Jewish law on this, but I do know the community would apply considerable pressure to husbands to grant divorces if the wife wanted it. I doubt children were considered the sole property of their parents either. If halacha allows parents to neglect and abuse their children because the "family is inviolate," please cite the rulings.
For the 800th time, Michael Schiavo has several conflicts of interest. He is no longer emotionally married to Terri, if he has been living with another woman for years and given her 2 children. He has divorced Terri in all but name. He can't have it both ways, and you can't honestly treat him as a concerned husband, and neither should the law.
"specifically treating Terri Schiavo as if she were Catholic. Including, that forms some of the grounds of the complaint."
AFAIK, Terri WAS Catholic, and expressed discomfort with "right to die" decisions to friends and family. These anecdotes are as much hearsay as what Michael claims she told him. You can't take his word and then dismiss the word of her family, without any reason.
Your argument about someone converting is a red herring - it has no applicability in this case. If anything, your argument would support the Schindlers, given what Terri said.
My primary point, indicated in my first paragraph, was that the court of public opinion and quasi-democratic rulings are no way to handle this case, in the same sense that a Jewish community cannot properly choose to erect a golem and worship it, simply because they want to. Even in divorce, if done properly, it needs to go through a religious court and THE SPOUSE HAS TO ACCEPT IT. Can a divorce be valid if the spouse is incapacitated? Presumably, even in a religious court, someone would act in the person's stead.
Further I never claimed that the family unit was "absolutely immunse" particularly from the law, as claimed, simply that it is immune from the desires of partners' parents. The "law", in this case, is not enforced by public opinion but by the courts, and all of them, being far more familiar with the case, the experts, the testimony, and Michael Schiavo's situation, have sided with his position as Terri's guardian.
My point in bringing up the matter of conversion was to raise an issue which is important to the Jewish community which, I presume, this blog is interested in. This is not an issue of interest to others, being in the majority. I never claimed it had any bearing upon this case at all. But if you want to tie it in, here it is.
The question is, why should a motion to sustain Terri Schiavo's bodily functions be encumbered with any of this religious stuff at all? The matter should be direct and straightforward. They are already asking to have guardianship removed from Michael Schiavo and given to the Schindlers. I suspect, but surely cannot know, that this is what lies at the heart of the question for the Schindlers. I suspect they think, at the time of her collapse, Terri was a "lapsed Catholic" and, so, to them, these measures are crucial for assuring Terri achieves a chance at heavenly repose.
Re: Michael Schiavo--- yes, he has effectively remarried and has two children. And what was his position when this first happened? Did he change his position on Terry after he met another woman?
Judith, you are correct that one is not allowed to commit suicide under Jewish law. At the same time, one is allowed to demand the removal of one's own feeding tube under American Law. Are you suggesting that we make that illegal?
If you say yes to the above, then you can stop reading. Otherwise:
If you grant that it's acceptable that an individual has the right to stop a feeding tube, then why not allow the spouse to speak for that individual? People are trashing Michael Schiavo, but that's a convenience. Nobody can possibly know what went on between Michael and Terry, or how accurate Michael's claims are. But the law is clear that the presumption rests with Michael, as it should be--as I want it to be for my wife should something ever happen to me. I don't want that law mucked with, which is what is happening here.
Andrew, "I don't want that law mucked with, which is what is happening here." A great amen!
Yeah, "for a higher good and the sanctity of life", why not make all living wills illegal? Why not, when a large number of motivated people dislike, say, a state court ruling that you can't put a full size crucifix up in the legislative chamber, seek Randall Terry's "legislative solution" and simply ignore the state and federal courts opinions? After all, you have both the legislative bodies and the executives on your side?
"The "law", in this case, is not enforced by public opinion but by the courts, and all of them, being far more familiar with the case, the experts, the testimony, and Michael Schiavo's situation, have sided with his position as Terri's guardian."
No, they haven't. Judge Greer cherry-picked the testimony he liked and ignored the rest. The other judges simply accepted his fact-finding. One of the purposes of taking this to another court was to get out from under Judge Greer (BTW who sits on the board of the hospice that Michael put Terri in) and introduce the other evidence that has been accumulating. A number of neurologists are willing to testify. Terri never had the basic tests used to determine PVS. Also, at least one of the GALs appointed disagreed with Greer, who ignored him.
"I suspect they think, at the time of her collapse, Terri was a "lapsed Catholic" and, so, to them, these measures are crucial for assuring Terri achieves a chance at heavenly repose."
If you are willing to believe that, why are you so unsuspicious of Michael's conflict of interest? It's much more glaring.
"Even in divorce, if done properly, it needs to go through a religious court and THE SPOUSE HAS TO ACCEPT IT. Can a divorce be valid if the spouse is incapacitated? Presumably, even in a religious court, someone would act in the person's stead."
But not the husband who is a party to the case! What part of "conflict of interest" do you not understand?
"he has effectively remarried and has two children. And what was his position when this first happened? Did he change his position on Terry after he met another woman?"
He can't be the husband of two women. That's the issue. He even calls the other woman his "fiance" yet he still claims to have the right to rule for Terri as her husband. Doesn't that bother you?
"one is allowed to demand the removal of one's own feeding tube under American Law. Are you suggesting that we make that illegal?"
Terri has not demanded such. She said different things to different people, so no one knows what she would have wanted. Even her husband said on national TV that he didn't know what she wanted.
"ut the law is clear that the presumption rests with Michael, as it should be--as I want it to be for my wife should something ever happen to me."
Even if she started living with another man 10 years before, bore him 2 children, moved you from a skilled facility to a hospice meant for dying people, forbade your parents to visit you?
Both of you are twisting and turning, and you cannot make this hold up. I'm thankful the rabbi in the JWR article understands Jewish concepts of justice better than you do. And I feel sorry for your wives - someone had beeter warn them to draw up their living wills.
Judith,
I know that a link doesn't constitute a full-fledged endorsement of the original author's argument, but you don't honestly buy into the idea that religion has been banned from public life do you? I mean, fine if you do, but we're really living on different planets here if that's the case. You can't run for public office for either major party without being a very vocal serious Christian. Passion of the Christ was the biggest movie . . .ever. I'm from Indiana. You lived in Texas for a long time. Do you honestly think that religion has been banished from public life?
-Eric Deamer
And I feel sorry for your wives - someone had beeter warn them to draw up their living wills.Judith,
Can you and anyone else on your side of this psychodrama please make your arguments without implying that jan or anyone else who doesn't 100% agree with you is some sick maniac who just likes killing?
"you don't honestly buy into the idea that religion has been banned from public life do you?"
Nobody said that.
I'm sorry the exact quote was religion was thrown out "as a major force in our public society". I find that statement to be almost equally ridiculous.
"Can you and anyone else on your side of this psychodrama please make your arguments without implying that jan or anyone else who doesn't 100% agree with you is some sick maniac who just likes killing?"
Oh puleeze. Talk about melodrama.
If someone can say with a straight face that a man living with another woman and father to her 2 children, is the proper authority on his brain-damaged wife's wishes - well, I certainly wouldn't trust that person to rule for me. I can't see how anyone would. He doesn't have to be "a sick maniac." Just a bit narcissistic.
So if you weren't saying that commenter jan theodore galkowski takes the life of his spouse lightly by saying that she should make sure she got a living will, what exactly were you saying?
-Eric Deamer
The matter of Terri Schiavo's religious preferences came up in another blog I commented in, alas, a blog. According to that report, posted there by Jeff, the matter of Schiavo's religious preferences came up in the long ligigation between nominal husband and parents. Michael Schiavo insists Terri was not practicing. She did not have a "religious counsellor", at least not one that she saw, despite what her parents petition to Whittemore in the Tampa federal court said. Her parents claimed, during litigation, that Terri was going to Catholic Mass secretly without Michael's knowledge, but the friar who co-claimed this could not produce a single witness of such a Mass when asked to do so.
Incidently, there's an interesting interview from Talahassee with Terri Schiavo's former state-appointed guardian. There's another audio interview with him, Dr Jay Wolfson, on National Public Radio.
Judith,
If Michael were not with another woman, would you be complaining? If not, then you've given the Schindler's a bludgeon-- force Michael to put his life on hold while tying this up in court until he gives up from exhaustion.
It is my opinion that Terri would most likely have chosen to have the tube removed. My evidence is that the husband has maintained a postition consistent with his position from before he started a relationship with this new woman. And he was the husband, not the Schindlers (who's belief system Terri rejected), not me, and not you. Legally speaking, he is still the husband. My guess is that he foregone divorce and remarriage to the new woman for the sole purpose of carrying out what he believes is his wife's wishes. You may disagree with his wife's wishes, but you cannot offer any evidence that they are not her wishes. And a husband like that is to be applauded, not condemned.
Hey, Eric Deamer, I don't know why you are lambasting Judith about a quote from my blog. I'm the one who said it -- talk to ME, either here or in the comments to my post (for which you will have to have a registered ID at Typekey.com).
Now to your concerns: so you think it is "ridiculous" to believe that religion has been discarded as a major influence upon society. Well, it's pretty to think so, isn't it? And I don't consider cosmetic Christianity (ie, the idea that you have to be showy about your "faith" -- which had better be Protestant Christianity -- so you can get elected to public office) to count as religion, the beliefs themselves, having a real force in society today. The only thing that really seems to get the majority of people in this country going is when they feel that their precious "individuality" is being threatened, or that something will disturb their precious comfort and fun. Yes, I am just the weensiest bit cynical and bitter about the human race in general, and this case hasn't really improved my viewpoint (though a few individuals do stand out as -- if you will forgive the metaphor, Judith -- Christians among the lions). So sorry if my bitterness appals you.
Andrea:
I followed your link but there don't seem to be comments allowed on that post. I was asking Judith to what extent she agreed with your assertion, because I find it preposterous and I was surprised that she would seemingly endorse it. Initially, I didn't follow the link to your site, because it seemed as if you were coming from such a different point of view that communication - apart from shouting and name-caling - was impossible. I see that that's definitely the case with your further comments here (which aren't arguments but just a series of unsupported assertions). Welcome to 2005 in the blogosphere (and everywhere else).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home