Anti Euthanasia Crowd Descends on Penn

The Penn bioethics center's 10th anniversary conference was sure to attract some attention from the Save Terri crowd (and not just the folks who believe that she could have returned from PVS with just a few more years of tube feeding), given that Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer, etc. are scheduled to speak. But the rhetoric that pro-life groups have employed is truly extraordinary:

The probate judge who ordered the dehydration death of brain-injured Terri Schiavo will join Michael Schiavo and other key proponents of her death as a guest speaker at a bioethics conference.

Who knows if there will be a book signing by the Schindler family, but at least one is planning a great big protest.

Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo's brother, calls Greer's speaking engagement "offensive," and on behalf of the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation Center for Health Care Ethics [ed: this has to be the most eggregious use of the language of "ethics center" ever - zero academic work, 100% lobbying and fundraising] intends to protest Geer’s presence at 10:30 a.m. Monday outside of the university's Biomedical Research Building.

And the Schindler family has actually commented on its anger that Judge Greer will be appearing. Their comments are incredible:

"Judge Geer’s presence at the University of Pennsylvania's bioethics conference is not only outright offensive and inappropriate but it is indicative of his own biases against the disabled," Schindler said.

He also wonders if Greer's appearance is a "violation of Florida's judicial canons as prescribed by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida."

"We are entitled to a fair and unbiased judiciary," Schindler added. "Judge Greer is confirming exactly what my family has maintained from the beginning of Terri's case – that he has a disposition against the vulnerable people whose cases he controls."

I just do not get it. At what point does the family and the movement acknowledge that Terri was in fact beyond therapy? Does that even matter? Somebody ask the protesters tomorrow, please, and comment. Or if you're scared, send in some hapless Penn student with a script.

posted Apr 29, 2006 | link | jump to the comments (10)

comments

How was she "beyond therapy"? The care she was receiving was minimal--nutrition and hydration--and it continued to be effective until it was withdrawn.

- by Thomas on Apr 30, 2006 at 3:04 AM | link

Uh, effective. Hmm. Yes. I supposed effective would be the right word, as long as what we mean by effective is that it did generate an effect.

- by Glenn on Apr 30, 2006 at 4:00 AM | link

I think it is ridiculous in Terri Schiavo's case to argue whether the treatment was effective or not. All that matters is that the treatment was unwanted, as supported by years of court decisions. In the United States, unwanted treatment, as requested by a patient, legal surrogate or court, even if supportive of life is not to be provided. Period. ..Maurice.

- by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. on Apr 30, 2006 at 4:19 AM | link

Of course. But there would have been no argument about that had there been no faith about the effectiveness of treatment. Now that it is more than obvious that Ms. Schiavo was PVS, with essentially nothing but a brain stem, it seems incredible that those who argue on her behalf are willing to go to such rhetorical lengths.

- by Glenn on Apr 30, 2006 at 5:19 AM | link

Glenn, the staff and Powers That Be were so certain that Mrs. Schiavo was so far beyond sentience that they continued IV morphine that last 13 days. While the judge refused even ice chips to keep the oral mucosa moist.

- by Beverly on Apr 30, 2006 at 12:43 PM | link

Once the argument was made that treatment was "futile" BECAUSE "she was nothing but a brain stem", the argument then legitimately became about disability and quality of life decisions. That is the yardstick.
I believe Dr. Bernstein is correct that the argument should have been about the decisions of a patient (or those acting as surrogate for the patient) to cease treatment. Of course this still would have led to many of the same viscious side-taking, and some of the same "I'm the best surrogate, no I'm the best!" posturing that eventually went on.
But if Schiavo is held up as a pristine example of how awful it is to be functionally disabled, and therefore it is "without question" better to let her die, this moves the argument into the realm of quality of life. And when one makes statements that "Ms. Schiavo was essentially nothing but a brain stem" one is also guilty of going to a rhteorical length.
IMHO.
mary

- by mary on Apr 30, 2006 at 10:35 PM | link

"Uh, effective. Hmm. Yes. I supposed effective would be the right word, as long as what we mean by effective is that it did generate an effect."
Effective means it has the intended effect. The intended effect of nutrition is to prevent starvation. The intended effect of hydration is to prevent dehydration. When she was receiving those, Terri Schiavo was neither starving nor dehydrated. Therefore the treatment was effective.
Regarding whether she wanted to die or not - I don't believe most non-disabled people can really make an informed decision about that, because of all the stereotypes about disability. If she'd grown up in the imaginary land Tambura, where disabled people are respected, then she might be able to make an informed decision. Of course, after her brain damage she couldn't tell anyone what she wanted, so I think they should settle for live because you can't undo death. Sort of like the reason Canada got rid of the death penalty. If you convict an innocent person of murder and put them in jail, you can let them out and maybe pay them money or whatever to make it up to them. If you hang an innocent person, you can't do anything to fix the mistake. If you kill someone thinking they have no quality of life when in fact they were quite happy, you can't fix the mistake.
Of course I also don't approve of letting suicidal people kill themselves (and I've wanted to kill myself sometimes, so I know what it's like). I go into more detail on this elsewhere on this blog.

- by Ettina on May 1, 2006 at 12:55 AM | link

"Somebody ask the protesters tomorrow, please, and comment. "
Sigh. I'm finally on the right coast when something like this comes up, but I have to be four hours north. Figures. (If I were going to be in Philly in time tomorrow, I'd ask in a heartbeat. If nothing else, I'd like to actually see the family, just... to see who these people are.)

- by Kelly on May 1, 2006 at 3:53 AM | link

In response to Beverly's comment about the hydration of the oral mucosa, my experience with hospice has been that ice chips are not always appropriate, especially for patients who have lost their swallowing reflex -- proper mouth care is absolutely essential for comfort care, but ice chips could lead to aspiration. The Schindler's insistence that Terri was not tested for swallowing reflex is just more mud-slinging -- This drumbeat of 'life at all costs' goes beyond anything rational -- the Schindlers have already admitted they could not conceive of any fate worse than death.

- by Linda MacDonald Glenn on May 3, 2006 at 12:00 PM | link

"...the Schindlers have already admitted they could not conceive of any fate worse than death."
No, this is not true. What they protested was the death by dehydration of their daughter.
And Glen writes that Schiavo was "...nothing but a brain stem." This is dehumanizing. If you wonder why detractors find the movement lauding the Schiavo death a bit creepy, well, there is your answer.

- by George Krio on May 4, 2006 at 12:58 AM | link