« Home! | Main | The Royal's must be having financial problems »

April 09, 2005

Shut up, shut the * up!

Stop with the brickbats on the Mae case. Stop the screaming across the aisle and the histrionics. Stop long enough to start considering what we are really debating outside of the turf warfare of "ooo! s/he called me Hitler!" or "ooo! s/he called me a religious fascist!" and LISTEN to the people who are trying to gain a voice, because this debate affects them

Since 1983, many people with disabilities have opposed the assisted suicide and euthanasia movement. Though often described as compassionate, legalized medical killing is really about a deadly double standard for people with severe disabilities, including both conditions that are labeled terminal and those that are not.
I followed their top link and came to this testimony by Rud Turnbull given on April 6, 2005, in front of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions:
You need to understand that people with intellectual and associated disabilities have always been subjected to discrimination. Often, they have been put to death or allowed to die when they might have been kept alive. The discrimination that they have experienced in education, employment, and housing are matters that you have addressed by various laws. More to the point today is the discrimination in health care that they have experienced.

The roots of that discrimination are ancient. They originate in the debates of the Greek philosophers, Hippocrates, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

Hippocrates posed the question, “Which children should be raised?”

Plato answered by writing that a state’s “medical and judicial provision” will “leave the unhealthy to die, and those whose psychological constitution is incurably corrupt, it will put to death.” He added, “… we must look at our offspring from every angle to make sure we are not taken in by a lifeless phantom not worth the rearing.”

Aristotle agreed: “With regard to the choice between abandoning or rearing an infant, let there be a law that no crippled child be raised.”

And the pre-Christian Romans’ Twelve Tables, their equivalent of our federal constitution, admonished the head of the family to “kill quickly…a dreadfully deformed child.”

One would have thought our more enlightened age would have settled the question about which individuals should be treated so that they will live.

Yet, even nowadays the debate rages: what are the indispensable elements of being, the sine qua non of human-ness. Those debates frighten me, and they should alarm you, too. The slippery slope is slick and awaits us all.

Powerful stuff, right? And if you know my own arguments on this blog, first in the Schiavo case then in the Mae Magouirk, the following should ring loud, clear and very familiar.
Among the many questions before you nowadays is this simple one: What role, if any, does Congress have in responding to –

• theories that people with disabilities are not human enough to have rights, and, if they pass some test of being human, still have no rights, much less the right to live,

• a sense among the some Americans that “I would not want to live like THAT!”, that a person with a disability “suffers” from the disability when, often, it is not the disability that causes the suffering but our social and legal refusal to support the person,

• a sense among some in the public and media that living as a person with a disability is such an undesirable condition that death itself is preferable to life,

• public perceptions that people with disabilities are useless consumers of public and private resources,

• cost-containment pressures and rationing criteria within the health-care and insurance industries, and

• public opinion that too often is not ashamed to say that, when it comes to protecting and allotting health-care resources to people with disabilities, they should, in the words of former Governor Lamm of Colorado, “Just roll over and die.”

Posted by Darleen at April 9, 2005 08:27 PM

Comments

Well, Darleen, I don't know how I missed blogrolling you before since I seem to find you in the same places I read and echo just about everything you say there! LOL Anyway, that's been fixed.

And like I said at Bill's, you're exactly right that this isn't just "a family matter", it's about all disabled people.

Posted by: Beth at April 9, 2005 09:20 PM

- As much as it saddens me to even say the words all of the sociatal factors will continue to increase the pressure to find ways to justify eliminating "undesirables". The most prominent of these of course; population growth, immigration, health care costs, social security woes. etc. One not always voiced, but just below the surface, is the fear of "mutated" gene pools. The ascerbic questions of abating mishappened physical characteristics and medical problems of all sorts. Aside from the issues of morality, the problem is that even if it were prectical to pursue this area there are always new twists that appear in the physicality of our species. This whole issue is not only a slippery slope, but one that is almost immpossible to avoid, given the fact that we simply lack the ability to find pragmatic answers to some of lifes most difficult, and emotionally charged questions. As time goes by this whole canard will become more and more difficult if we don't start developing answers soon. Lacking this, the horrible prospect looms that we may be steadily pushed, kicking and screaming, toward that cliff of "species cleansing", Adolph like, aided and abeted by the uprise in gene medicine and technologies. Not a pretty prospect from any standpoint. "Hypnodrome" anyone?

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 10, 2005 11:49 AM

I know some of this was directed at me and my attitude towards Bill in the comments at Ace's place.

Rational debate is all well and good, but what do you do when the debate is about morality and your opponent is amoral? What should your response be when the person with whom you're arguing can't understand that when the law becomes immoral, it should not be obeyed?

Maybe the shock approach was not the best one, but it was the only one I thought had a chance of getting through to the other person.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at April 11, 2005 05:50 AM

Actually, Sue, I was getting fed up with a lot of the rhetoric I was hearing in lots of forums when I wrote this rant. Your statement isn't anywhere as nasty as some I've seen. I think the term "murder" has been tossed about too lightly and incorrectly by those who supported Terri Schiavo and I think the dismissal of everyone who even expresses concern after the Schiavo/Magouirk affairs as nothing but a bunch of drooling religious fanatics trying to impose a theocracy is mendacious.

The main problem with such shouting at each other is that the listening shuts down.

I don't think the majority of people like you and me want "life at ANY cost" and to take away an individual's right to have their expressed wishes on end-of-life issues ignored.

I don't think the majority of people like Bill or Michele or Charles or any number of people who expressed ambivalence towards the Federal involvement in Terri's case want to start offing the disabled.

I truly think we are just not listening to each other and understanding the core concerns of each reasonable position.

Posted by: Darleen at April 11, 2005 08:38 AM

Sue, I wouldn't apologize for giving Bill a wee bit back what he dishes out. And, the way he spoke to JustMe was disgusting.

I know nothing about Charles' position. Michele's isn't hard to figure out by her comment to Paul on Wizbang. It always bothers me when people start out with they are not saying X and then immediately go on to say, or unmistakeningly imply, X .

I'm not aware that they are ambivalent about the feds stepping in. I thought they objected to it. Please correct me if I am wrong. And I thought they objected to a lot more than just the feds stepping in.

When people say they only want the patient's wishes to be followed but object to any measures to ensure that they actually are being followed, then yeah, they are giving tacit approval for, as you put it, “offing the disabled.” When they constantly say that you don't know all the facts so shut up when the only way one can learn the facts is by making a stink, then they are again giving tacit approval for “offing the disabled”.

And when lamebrains like Mona object on grounds that people who are not attys have no right to express a view, well, it's too stupid for words. As is Bill's “you must now be for universal healthcare or you are a hypocrite” argument. I feel no need to “listen” to people when they so blatantly insult me or my intelligence or denigrate the patient.

Posted by: julie at April 11, 2005 09:47 AM

Thank you, Darleen. You have a good point, now that I understand it.

Superhawk playfully but skillfully illustrated a few days ago the very reason why I get so riled up at the Bills, Charles's, Glenns, and Micheles of the world. They may not personally want to kill off the infirm, but their inaction and dissembling may end up helping truly evil people continue to do as they please.

It's also strange to me that Charles would put up this link about the liberation of a Nazi death camp and not understand how the following sentences in it relate to his position:

I have met the most charming and intelligent Germans since the war, but I will not accept that they knew nothing about the concentration camp atrocities. Worse still, there were those who did know and chose not to do anything about it.

I understand that my personal stake in this keeps me from being detached and unemotional. But if being emotional prevents this kind of thing from ever happening again (to anyone, not just us Jews), then by God I'm going to be as emotional as I want.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at April 11, 2005 10:06 AM

One more thing I wanted to point out. I wept for the German children and elderly when I learned about how they were the first to die for the Nazi racial cleansing program.

I think of them too whenever I see the words "Never Again." Not just my own people, but every human being who has been murdered for the idea of the perfect society.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at April 11, 2005 10:14 AM

Thanks go out to you too, julie. :)

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at April 11, 2005 10:20 AM

From what I have been able to gather from other blogs, this decision was all predicated on the granddaughter getting some local judge to give her an emergency injunction. If the facts in the case are true, then the system worked as intended, her wishes were followed, and she was kept alive as she should have been according to law. This also means that there has been no "precedent of killing" or whatever you want to call it, and that all of this talk about the Schiavo case being a precedent at all is just plain not true in this case. It has the sound of being twisted to a political end, like keeping the TS case in the news.

You know what, I just googled Mae Magouirk's name again and could still only find references on blogs. I searched on the Fox News, Washington Post, Washington Times, CNN, and ABC News sites, and you know how many hits I found on this case by using just her last name? Zero. Can someone please provide an actual "regular national media" link for this? I've yet to see anything except from conservative bloggers and the local news article. It makes me wonder when almost no media, even the slightly right-leaning media among those I listed, has done a story on it, if it's so Schiavoesque? The TS case was on all of those I listed for weeks. Anyone care to post a link?

Posted by: Erik at April 11, 2005 12:40 PM

No, the system did not work.

First, Mrs. Magouirk did not qualify to be placed in a hospice.

Second, the judge ordered Gaddy to see that Mrs Magouirk was adequately fed and cared for. She did not do this.

Third, her living will stated that she wanted hydration/nutrition to stop if she was in a coma or PVS and there was no hope for recovery. She is neither in a coma or PVS. Her wishes were known and not honored.

No one saw that she was adequately fed and hydrated. Some people argue that she refused food. People who are dehydrated feel like real crap. They do not want to eat or drink. On top of that she was doped up on morphine. Some say she took jello and ice chips. That is not sufficient to reverse her dehydration. In fact, it's akin to doing nothing. The only way to hydrate her wd be fluid replacement through IV therapy and to monitor her intake and output closely. This was not done. So, yeah, she was definitely being killed.

So, the system failed miserably. And the people twisting it for political purposes are, once again, people like you, Erik.

Posted by: julie at April 11, 2005 01:27 PM

No, Sue, I'm the one who should be thanking you. And thanking Darleen and JustMe and Beth and too many others to name.

It gets so tiring sometimes. It helps to have people pick up when and where one can't. Or, make the many cogent and intelligent points I entirely missed.

Posted by: julie at April 11, 2005 01:34 PM

1. Yes, I know she did not qualify under a normal definition. It looks like she should not have been there at all.

2. You may be right here as well, though so far I can't find any comprehensive article on the case in any regular media, even supposedly right-leaning regular media. Have you found any?

3. It looks like at first, someone made the wrong decision, but it was then corrected, as it should have been. The first decision was corrected according to law. In the TS case it was upheld a couple dozen times. Pretty different.

I said it has the sound of being twisted, but since there seems to be a shortage of info, I am withholding judgement, which you seem to not be interested in doing when it comes to my own motivations, never mind that in this case it looks like I agree with you for the most part. It would help if you put your sword down for just a second, and listened Julie.

Posted by: Erik at April 11, 2005 02:00 PM

1. It's more than that. They have strict rules as to who they can accept in order to be paid by medicare. I have no doubt they are looking at an audit.

2. Could that be because the left leaning media has chosen to ignore it because of their own biases? Do you think the judge did not order that she be adequately fed and cared for?

3. I'm not discussing Schiavo. You're mixing issues again. But, for the record, I found the appellate review inadequate. As to the issue at hand, it was more than one wrong decision and it was made by several people who were entrusted to do right by Mrs. Magouirk and failed her. She is now receiving proper care due to her nephew, not the system. He made a stink and the internet picked it up. And because of that stink, she finally got examined (there was no reason for that delay, either) and transferred to UAB.

In the mean time, Mrs. Magouirk was inadequately nourished for how many days? Whether 81 yrs old or 18, this is unacceptable. Try restricting yourself to a jello cup and some ice chips over 1 day, as opposed to 12 or 14 days, and get back to me on it. You may then feel differently. Plus, you can't debilitate people, bring them back, and think it doesn't have a negative effect on them. She already has a heart condition. How many days, was she away from having irreversible consequences? Not many, if any at all.

As to your motives, you revealed yours when you posed this was about politics when it is about adequate care for the eldrerly. I expected it. I don't think you are capable of refraining from it. If you want me to put down my sword, stop raising yours first and yelling charge. But, again, I don't think you are capable of refraining from it.

Posted by: julie at April 11, 2005 03:00 PM

Erik, julie didn't mention Terri Schiavo, but I will.

The reason why the subject of Terri Schiavo is relevant here is because of the very mantra you keep chanting: "It's not a real story if I don't see it on CBSNBCCNNMSNBC." That is the sheeplike mindset that has allowed the MSM to pull the wool over the eyes of people like you. You know, like with fake memos and lies about the military targeting reporters and such.

Terri's plight had been reported on the rightwing sites since 2002, but the national news media didn't start really paying attention until last month. When they finally did, it was mainly to ridicule Terri's parents and the "wacko Christers" who supported the Schindlers.

Terri wasn't the first person to have this happen to her, though. Nowhere near it. She was just the first one we saw on the national news, thanks in no small part to her lovingly tenacious parents and those marvelously big-hearted "religious fanatics." (No, I'm not including the morons who threatened Michael's and Greer's lives in that group; you see more of those simple-minded nuts in ANSWER rallies than you do in religious protest groups.)

As for Mae, she reaped benefits from the media "circus" created by the Terri Schiavo incident in the best way possible. The people so incensed by the outcome in Terri's case were able to pressure the local powers-that-be into saving Mae's life and honoring her written wishes.

It's one of the funny happenings in life that a born and bred Democrat, the nephew, had to go to his political opposites to save his aunt. Irony is the Divine sense of humor.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at April 11, 2005 04:58 PM

I only mentioned the TS case because of what I see as the big dissimilarities between that case and this one. It sounds to me from what I have read that this case was not well-handled at first, but that the correct decision was come to through the normal laws and process. I am not so certain that his getting others involved in the case made a difference in the outcome, but that's impossible to tell. I'm glad her wishes are being followed.

As for the media stuff, I purposely looked at some "right-leaning" media like Fox News and the Washington Times. My main sources of news are a combination of CNN because conservatives don't trust it and Fox News, because liberals don't trust it. Between the two I have often found that I can get a reasonably accurate picture of the truth.

The fact that they do not have even a mention of this story on right-leaning national media sites does make me wonder. Does the fact that I wonder about this mean they have pulled the wool over my eyes? Are Fox News and CNN in cahoots with each other? Is it possible that your news sources are suspect? I don't have those answers yet, but I do know that I read enormous amounts of information about the TS case on "regular media", yet I can find damn near nothing on this one that is supposedly a possible "result" of the TS ruling.

Either it's a mountain being made of a mole hill or Fox News has let conservatives down.

Posted by: Erik at April 11, 2005 05:37 PM

Free Republic hit the ground running on the Magouirk case. They were the ones mostly responsible for action on the case long before Fox, CNN, or any of the big media players could react.

They were winding down from Terri's case when Mae's nephew cried for help. They had posters in Georgia who made phone calls and sent e-mails to stir up the local players and WorldNetDaily.

Corporate media can't react as fast as bloggers and some online news outlets can. That's why its important to expand your news horizons past CNN and Fox.

By the way, Erik, how much did you hear from the big news guys about Marjorie Nighbert? Robert Wendland? I had never heard of Nancy Cruzan until 2003, even though her case had been all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I know that story spiking is not entirely due to malice. There's only so much airtime and column inches to dedicate to a story. But the decisions on which stories get priority are made by people who don't necessarily have the same priorities you or I do. Now we have more choices than just a pitiful handful of news outlets.

We can still be lazy and let the big media think for us while denigrating those folks who think for themselves and don't toe the party line. But it's no longer necessary since the monopoly on news has been broken. Viva la revolution.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at April 11, 2005 06:30 PM

- Erik.... no matter how fine you split the hairs the simple fact is Terri was allowed to die in a way which is really just a cowardly way of killing off smeone you think is beyond supporting, based solely on a hearsay piece of evidence that I just have to believe would be unacceptable to you if it were you lying there in that bed, aware of the world around you, but powerless to communicate your wishes. You can argue everyones motives endlessly but thats what carried the day. I simply don't believe you would be so willing to have your own fate decided on such capricious evidence. But maybe I'm wrong. In Mae's case, of course, there was fortunately no "judgement" ensuring her demise. Maybe the real concern lies in protecting our elderly and infirm from the courts....

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 11, 2005 11:05 PM

And thank you, too BBH.

Posted by: julie at April 11, 2005 11:59 PM

Sue, I do understand what you're saying about blogs being more "agile" than the large media outlets. I do think blogging is a great medium with enormous potential, which is why I have had one in German (so I can practice) for over a year and now one in English too (for all kinds of topics). Sometimes they scoop things that nobody else notices, but then sometimes they allow unsubstantiated rumors to fly that later were found false as I've also seen recently.

BBH, I'm long since through debating the TS case, but your assessment was found incorrect by most professionals in their fields. Hopefully that autopsy result will be released soon. It is supposed to be in the next week or two. We can pick the debate back up then maybe.

Posted by: Erik at April 12, 2005 05:57 AM

- Well of course Eric thats easy to say now, since shes safely dead, and unless the autopsy proves skulldugery or physical compentsy, which would be even worse than abuse, arguing at this point would be, in a word, pointless. My real dog in this fight all along was wanting her to have justice, since nothing seemed possible in stopping the forward motion of the "kill first" jaugernaught. If her "loving" hubby is compliciteous I hope His ass rotts in hell...

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 12, 2005 09:57 PM