Feline Warrior

Terri Schiavo Dies in Florida Hospice

Rest in peace.
At last.

Who Wants to Marry Michael Schiavo?

“In May 1995, Christopher Reeve was taking part in a cross-country equestrian event when a fall caused his skull to literally become separated from his spinal cord. He was totally paralyzed. Of that moment he later said, “It dawned on me I was going to be a huge burden to everybody, that I had ruined my life and everybody else’s. Not fair to anybody. The best thing to do would be to slip away.” When his wife Dana came into his room he looked at her and mouthed the words, “Maybe we should let me go.”

His wife started crying and said “I will support whatever you want to do, because this is your life, and your decision. But I want you to know that I’ll be with you for the long haul, no matter what. You are still you. And I love you.” Reeve said that Dana’s response to him “made living seem possible, because I felt the depth of her love and commitment … My job would be to learn how to cope with this and not be a burden. I would have to find new ways to be productive again.”

Reeve went on to inspire the world with the depth of his commitment to his own life and that of others. Before his untimely passing in October of last year, he had taught all humanity of the value of life and the indomitable power of the human spirit.

Good thing for all of us that Christopher Reeve was not married to someone like Michael Schiavo.” -by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Of course, the major difference between Terri Schiavo and Christopher Reeve is that Christopher Reeve was able to respond to his wife; Terri was not able to respond to her husband. Michael Schiavo was left with the responsibility of acting on his wife’s behalf, doing as he believed she would have wanted.

Perhaps if Reeve had been in a coma or persistent vegetative state, his life would have ended earlier.

Oy, vey!

Yahoo! News - Schiavo Case Unexpectedly Unites Americans

“The Terri Schiavo case has had the unexpected effect of uniting most Americans, whether Republicans or Democrats, around a consensus that the government should stay out of families’ life and death decisions.”

Thank goodness - the headline had me ready to start askin’ questions (like who the hell is “most Americans”?) but then I read the first paragraph (quoted above) and felt better.

Yeah, I’m biased. But I’m not a paid journalist (at least not here ) and so it’s okay.

Yahoo! News - List of Schiavo Donors To Be Sold

Okay, so who’s gonna make money on this?

We already know it’s not Michael Schiavo - the money he and Terri won in the lawsuit has been spent on her health care and legal expenses to fulfill her wishes.

Can you believe the nerve? How would you feel if you’d donated a few bucks to the Schindlers’ cause, only to find out that you would be added to a zillion “please call and irritate the shit out of me… at dinnertime, preferrably” lists?! Lordy, lordy.

The New York Times > Washington > Years Ago, DeLay’s Father Was Taken Off Life Support

MmHmm.

In case you missed it, Tim Russert’s Meet the Press had a special edition called Faith in America. You can read the transcript here.

The guests were: Reza Aslan, Author “No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam”; Rev. Robert Drinan, S.J., Professor of Law, Georgetown Law, Former Congressman from Massachusetts (1970-1980); Dr. Richard Land, President of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Junior Senator from Connecticut; Jon Meacham, Managing Editor, of Newsweek; Rev. Jim Wallis, Author “God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get it.”

The discussion was interesting and of course the two big ticket items were Terri Schiavo and the Brian Nichols/Ashley Smith stories. (On the latter, the age-old question, “why does God let bad things happen to good people?”)

On one hand, it was good to hear these men of different backgrounds discussing faith’s place in American government. On the other hand, it was disappointing not to have a woman present in the discussion.

But why does God let bad things happen to good people? It seemed to me that those who spoke to this question of Russert’s (more specifically he was asking if the “angel” was there at the end of Nichols’ evil spree, why wasn’t it around earlier protecting the innocent people he gunned down?) were most interested in getting their own views across rather than trying to really answer the question. Or, the answer was dissatisfying to me - a bible quote, something about “this will remain a mystery to you,” and the comment that “this is why they call it faith.”

There used to be a commercial on TV for a show about wild animals - a modern-day Animal Kingdom sort of show. The ad ended with a male announcer saying, “Find out why they call them animals!” Well, duh - they call them animals because that’s the word that we’ve chosen to stand for what they are. We could have selected the word “boogers” for animals and “animals” for boogers, and it would now be gross to pick animals from your nose! Why do we call it “faith”? Because that’s the word we’ve decided to use for faith! That ain’t an answer!

What I’m getting at is this: Tell me WHAT about faith this invokes, WHY is this faith? What is it about God or faith that we ought to accept in such situations? Is it that we aren’t to understand it? Or is it that we mere mortals are just too stOOpid to get it? For some reason, I keep thinking of Star Trek, that we are to boldly (blindly?!) go where no man has gone before - blind faith! Just go because I (someone) said to! Just believe because you’ll sleep better at night!

Oy, vey! Don’t get me wrong - I have been working on my own faith stuff for years - for most of my life, honestly. Raised an atheist, and a sarcastic one at that, I didn’t grow up with ideas of heaven and hell, a god of any kind (nor a devil of any kind, either) - so became pretty self-sufficient. It wasn’t that I wouldn’t depend on G/god, it was that there was no such thing as G/god, so it wasn’t even a possibility. More than a few decades later, I’m pondering these things still. During a tremendous depression some years back, I did the Jesus thing and so did not kill myself. That was a good thing, not taking my own life. For a while, I followed the suggestions of my Christian friends, read the Bible, went to church, prayed all the time, and tried to think Jesus-like thoughts.

In the years since that time, though, my ability to blindly believe some of the Christian stuff faded. I did more reading, more discussing, more writing. I joined a meditation group - non-denominational- and began to read other, non-Christian stuff. It’s not that I grew to dislike Jesus, but that I couldn’t help but question a lot of the stuff I was hearing and reading. Stuff like why do some (Christian) people choose to follow exactly certain “laws” of the Bible, but not others? Why is homosexuality a sin, but women don’t have to wear head-coverings or go out to the fields when menstruating? What about the dietary laws? There are inconsistencies that seem to me to be more convenient as political movements than actual Biblical laws.

That’s the sort of thing that I think about. And with the Terri Shiavo case - am I aligned with Satan because I think her wishes should be carried out? I don’t think so. I refer to my earlier comments about this, specifically regarding the “Christianity” in robbing someone of his or her dignity, privacy, and quality of death, especially as she has chosen. As to the Brian Nichols/Ashley Smith story, well… I am glad that she was able to calm him down, that she was not hurt, and that he was returned to the officers of the law. If Nichols has had a conversion or a return to the faith of his childhood, I think it’s great. If Smith’s faith has been strengthened because of this experience, most excellent, say I. There is nothing wrong with believing in a Higher Power - it’s comforting to believe in one, really. But do I feel comfortable recruiting folks over to my Higher Power? Not really. Do I feel comfortable telling people that they won’t go to heaven if they don’t believe in my Higher Power, or that their beliefs are wrong? Nope.

Okay, this has been a very babbly post, all over the place, and I blame it on my need for sleep. So I will now treat the sleepiness!

Absolutely nothin’!

I promised to discuss war vs. invade, so here we go:

War: “A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.”
Invade: ” To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.”

I would like to point out a key difference between these two words’ definitions. “War” features the word “conflict.” “Invade” does not. Because of this, I maintain that the activity in Iraq was not originally a war. It was an invasion.

Is it good that Saddam is no longer in power? Prolly. Would it have been good to have a full plan, complete with backups (Plans A, B, C, and D, etc.) before engaging in this invasion? I would have to give that an enthusiastic “Yes.”

Now, was there a hidden conflict between US and Iraq, a la Michael Moore’s film? Maybe. But the God’s honest truth is that Iraq presented no iminent danger to the US several years ago. There has been some awful backlash from this invasion-cum-war, however. By insinuating to the American public that Saddam (and therefore Iraq) had some involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Dubya & Co. allowed for the wheels of racism to be greased, oh-but-good. This turned out to be a good thing (for Dubya & Co.) because it made the Patriot Act seem like such a good idea. Who can argue with the Patriot Act, when we have these mad Iraqis masquerading as American citizens all over our country? Hmm?

Of course, it turned out that the Patriot Act is, in fact, a horrible idea. And it turned out that, upon a bit of simple research (for those who’d not been completely obsessed with it back in the fall of 2001), one could easily see that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. But that Osama guy… now he was bad news. And yet… gee… where is he? Why did we suddenly stop looking for Osama and instead invade Iraq? Are they somehow interchangeable, Osama and Saddam? (And let’s face it, so many of the brown folk do look alike.) (Please, don’t write complaining - I’m being a smartass, as is my God-given right to be.)

So let’s review, as we so love to do here: 9/11 - the US is attacked by terrorists. We find out pretty quickly that those directly involved (the suicide flight guys) were Saudi. (One was Egyptian, I think.) Note the lack of an Iraqi. So time goes by, time goes by, time goes by, we hear about Osama bin Laden, what a rich-bitch-power-monger type dude he is. There are promises to catch him, dead or alive.

And time goes by… and then suddenly Dubya says, “HEY KIDS, I don’t mean to freak you guys out, but my peeps told me that Saddam, over in Iraq, has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!”

And we all said, “Oh, my stars! But what about Osama?”

And Dubya said, “God bless you!” and handed us each a tissue (at which we stared, all puzzled-like), and then he went on, “Did you hear me say WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? We even have a snappy name for them: WMDs!”

And some of us -those who are gullible and believe anything said by a white dude in power- fell for it, and waited to see if Saddam would turn over the WMDs. And he didn’t! The bastid! And so… we invaded his country!

Voila, there you have it. Is it a war? Is it an invasion? Has it changed from an invasion to a war? If so, who makes up the two sides of the war? What is the conflict? These, my friends, are the questions I leave you with as I depart for slumberland.

“Jeb Bush and the state’s social services agency filed a petition in state court to take custody of Schiavo and, presumably, reconnect her feeding tube. It cites new allegations of neglect and challenges Schiavo’s diagnosis as being in a persistent vegetative state. The request is based on the opinion of a neurologist working for the state who observed Schiavo at her bedside but did not conduct an examination of her.”

You can call this “right-to-die” or “pro-life” or “murder” or “mercy” or whatever. Hell, you can call it “Bob,” for all I care.

Here’s the thing: In happier, healthier times, Terri Schiavo told her husband, Michael, that she would not want to live like this (how she’s living now). He is honoring that desire. Her parents, God love ‘em, are desparately trying to save their daughter from going… where? Where, people? To heaven! To God! To Roman Catholic God, for cryin’ out loud!

Jeb’s state-appointed neurologist who “examined” Terri in the last 24 hours did not actually examine her - he looked at her. If that’s all they wanted, I’d have been happy to go down to Florida and have a look at the gal. I’d even hold her hand, say a prayer, and do exactly what I did when my friend William was dying: I’d tell her that it’s okay to go if she’s ready. That everyone loves her, that she did a bang-up job here on earth, and that I’m certain God has some excellent jobs waiting for her.

One thing that I feel more and more certain about is this: Terri would not have been thrilled to have millions of people watching videos of her in this condition. If the Schindlers feel so strongly about “moral issues,” what about this business of letting the world in on highly private moments? What about letting the world observe a once-beautiful woman in a gerry-chair, head bobbing about, mouth hanging open, and eyes that do not seem to be looking back? I have a difficult time finding the dignity in that whole bit.

Other things that have recently pissed me off (”recently,” as in the last 24 hours) include the yammering about how much Dubya and Co. value human life, knowing that 1700 people have died so far during the invasion of Iraq. (A future blog will discuss my views on that!)

Okay, so now maybe I have a second favorite quote in the previously mentioned article.

“In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life,” he [Dubya] said.

[Ed.: This image is what I think of when I hear/read Dubya’s so-called values about “life.”]

Or maybe Tom DeLay’s remarks: “Tonight we have given Terri Schiavo all we could — a chance to live,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. “After four days of words, the best of them uttered in prayer, Congress has acted and a life may have been saved.”

I learned tonight, while watching Michael Schiavo and his attorney (name immediately forgotten, sorry, attorney!) on Larry King Live (CNN) about a lovely bill passed in Texas under Dubya’s watch that just today allowed a baby Texan’s life support to be pulled. Go figure. Apparently the bill also allows for hospitals to pull life support of indigents, but after reading through the bill several times, I cannot find that language. Google “Texas Futile Care Law” and you’ll get a zillion blogs.

Anyway, the whole point is that if Terri Schiavo’s parents were atheists, Dubya and Co. would not be involved in this struggle. It’s the Christianization of this particular case (well, and international media attention) that has brought it such notice. Why would the religious right be interested in Terri Schiavo (not dissin’ ya, Terri, just sayin’) if there weren’t a million bible-waving, on-their-knees-praying people parked outside of the hospice, Schiavo’s house, and various government buildings, both Florida and federal? They wouldn’t be. They would not be there.

I know that it seems like Terri is following the balloon, smiling, and reacting to stimuli, but honestly, her brain has been replaced almost entirely with fluid. People with liquid brains no longer have senses of humor; they do not say through a series of eye blinks, “Hey, knock it off with the damn Mickey Mouse balloon, already - let me get some sleep!” Sadly, they don’t say anything at all. If they DID, if Terri did, I bet she’s say, “Knock it off with showing video of me on national television. Knock it off with arguing over what I’d want. Let me get the heck out of here - I’ve got stuff to do in another place.”

White House: Schiavo Bill Not a Precedent

This might be my favorite quote from the above noted article:

“Bush, in a written statement, promised to “stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans, including those with disabilities.””

Okay, so if that’s the case, why (oh, why) have six mentally retarded men been executed on Texas’ Death Row… since 1984? (That’s under Dubya’s tenure, by the way.)

See this article for details about that.

Bush, Congress Set to Act in Right-To-Die Case

The Terri Schiavo case is once again gathering huge amounts of attention, and once again, a Bush is involved. This time, it’s George W. (”Dubya”) Bush, whereas last time it was his brother Jeb. The basics of the case are:

14 years ago, Schiavo, then a 26-year-old woman, suffered heart failure due to dramatically lowered potassium levels in her body. It has been said that she was bulimic, which caused the potassium levels to drop. It is interesting to note that those who side with her parents and the religious right never mention the bulimia, instead saying “for reasons unknown.” Schiavo went into a coma, a state she’s been in ever since. Terri Schiavo, her husband Michael, and her parents, the Schindlers, are all residents of Florida.

Her husband, Michael Schiavo, sued the medical folks who cared for her pre-heart failure, saying they should have recognized the bulimia and sent her off for treatment - and he won. The original amount awarded was around $6 million, but it was determined that Terri was partly at fault (being the bulimic), so the amount was adjusted down to $2 million.

The money seems to be at least part of the reason that Micheal Schiavo and Terri’s parents, the Schindlers, stopped speaking to each other a decade or so ago. There are reports (from court documents) that say the Schindlers expected Schiavo to share his part of the reward (around $300,000) with them, which he did not. The money is nearly gone, down to roughly $50,000 - which isn’t a lot, given the legal fees he’s still shelling out.

Terri Schiavo did not have a living will or other directive stating what should take place should she end up in this situation. However, Michael has said (for years) that during conversations they had, she said she would never want to “live like this,” and those statements were also made to his brother and sister-in-law. The Schindlers have stayed firm in their belief that Terri would never have said such things (including statements that she’d “never want to be a burder on anyone”).

The courts and court-appointed doctors have all agreed -over and over- that Terri Schiavo’s brain is damaged to the point of no return. Much of the brain matter itself has been replaced with fluids. These same people have said -over and over- that Terri’s body movements are merely natural reflexes that have been interpreted by hopeful parents as the reactions of someone who “is in there.”

The Schindlers and their medical experts maintain that given the right therapy, Terri will get better, and even be able to speak at some future time. (None of those therapies, by the way, have been accepted by any court as being legitimate modes of therapy, given that there are no studies or records stating that these therapies would work.)

The bottom line of the case: The legal system of Florida has determined that Terri Schiavo did not want to be kept alive by means of artificial support (in her case, a feeding tube). Her parents, the Schindlers, have been fighting against the multiple rulings of the Florida courts ever since the first time the case appeared in court.

Now, there seems to be some disconnect between what is and what is being pushed at the media. Michael Schiavo did not make any personal decisions about the removal of Terri’s feeding tube. In Florida, there is a procedure in which a legal guardian (Michael, as Terri’s husband, in this case) petitions the court to act as a surrogate in order to determine what the patient (Terri) would have wanted. Once Michael started that process, the court took on the role of deciding Terri’s fate - not Michael.

Michael Schiavo currently has protesters outside his home, praying, holding signs about God not wanting Terri to be killed, and so forth. Outisde the hospice where Terri now resides, there are also protesters - on both sides of the fence. There are those who argue a “right to die,” saying that the courts have made the right call, and that keeping Terri alive under these conditions (brain dead, “in a persistent vegetative state”) is wrong.

Those who are arguing that removing Terri’s feeding tube is akin to killing her wave Bibles and do a lot of public praying. But here’s a question: Since when is keeping a person -who is in a persistent vegetative state- alive by means of a feeding tube the Christian thing to do? Is this not “playing God”? Where is the line between “doing God’s work” and “playing God”? I picture God tapping his fingers, saying, “C’mon guys, I needed Terri 14 years ago, and you’re holding me up! I had some projects for her to do, and you’ve got her trapped down there!”

Or, if you don’t believe in God, or don’t care to bring God into the discussion, what about simple dignity? What about letting someone who’s brain is almost entirely liquid finally go?

And finally, what business is it of Congress, the Senate, and the President of the United States what happens with this woman? Why are they convening on their day off to discuss it? Why are they creating “Terri’s Law,” which would ban withholding of food and water from terminally ill patients? Dubya’s part in this seems laughable, given his record on the number of death row inmates who got the needle during his tenure as a Texas governor. (The number is 152, by the way.)

It seems that a woman’s right to choose has gone beyond whether or not to make babies to her right to die when she has ceased to be herself. That the US government has become involved in this mainly Christian argument is shameful.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Related links/sources:
The Abstract Appeal
Find Law
Terri’s Fight

Greetings!

Thanks to Steve R. for building me a new house - it’s fabulous. You’ll note the handcrafted wooden bookcases, the cushy sofas, and of course the wonderfully soft beanbag chairs. Aah, stretch and relax! Pour yourself a cuppa joe, or hey, try that new Diet Vanilla Cherry Dr. Pepper - Mm-Mm good. (Or is it Diet Cherry Vanilla…?)

Whatever the beverage, I’m glad to be here, glad to have a place in which to yammer on about stuff. Or nothing. Or everything! Hell, I’m just enjoying typing into this nice, clean, white box right now!

More from me later.