« Treasure hunt | Main | The New Age of Human Cloning »
May 23, 2005
Didion on Schiavo
Yes, you read that correctly. In the NYReview of Books - a lengthy, fair treatment, I think:
In fact any notion about what Theresa Schiavo wanted or did not want remained essentially unconfirmable, notwithstanding the fact that a Florida court had in effect accepted the hearsay assertions that she had said, at one point, in reference to her husband's dying grandmother and at another while watching a television movie about someone with a feeding tube, "no tubes for me." (Imagine it. You are in your early twenties. You are watching a movie, say on Lifetime, in which someone has a feeding tube. You pick up the empty chip bowl. "No tubes for me," you say as you get up to fill it. What are the chances you have given this even a passing thought?) Most commentators nonetheless seemed inclined to regard Theresa Schiavo's "directive" as a matter of record, even as they undercut their own assumption by reminding us that the "lesson" in the case was "to sit down tonight and write your living will." Living wills, it was frequently said, could be "Terri's legacy."
There was considerable fuzziness here, not least in the reverence accorded the "living will," which seemed increasingly to be another of those well-meant and seemingly unassailable ideas that do not quite work the way we are encouraged to think they work. The chances of being admitted conscious to a hospital without being pressed to produce a living will have become virtually nil, yet any "living will" prepared in advance (as in "advance directive," exactly the document we are pressed to produce) requires us to make specific medical decisions about situations we cannot conceivably anticipate. According to studies cited last year in the Hastings Center Report by a medical researcher and a law professor at the University of Michigan, Angela Fagerlin and Carl E. Schneider, almost a third of such decisions, after periods as short as two years, no longer reflect the wishes of those who made them. The "health care proxy" or durable power of attorney, through which we assign someone we trust to make the decisions we can no longer make, is the better document, but it optimistically presupposes that we will each have with us at end of life "someone we trust."
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Living wills are extremely problematic for the reasons cited. In addition, many states have laws that "allow" doctors, or perhaps hospital ethics boards, to override a person's living will. Some of these laws are based on reasons of conscience, but these have been interpreted by courts to allow for facilities and doctors to judge a person's quality of life vis-a-vis providing treatment.
Of course, the most obvious problems are that health care officials do not know of the existence of a living will or, if they have looked at it, interpret the language however they see fit because the directions are vague, broad, or outdated.
The best idea is to have a person you trust given authority to make these decisions should you not be able to give your own directions.
Posted by: David at May 23, 2005 10:25:17 AM
I read on WND Terri's scum bucket of a "husband" stands to inherit 1.4 million dollars of her estate.
Looks like he didn't spend all her Lawsuit money on trying to kill her.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) at May 23, 2005 10:31:04 AM
I read on WND Terri's scum bucket of a "husband" stands to inherit 1.4 million dollars of her estate.
Looks like he didn't spend all her Lawsuit money on trying to kill her.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) at May 23, 2005 10:31:27 AM
Joan Didion's razor mind cuts the fluff away to expose the essential again!
Posted by: mb at May 23, 2005 10:48:12 AM
Ann Althouse also linked to Didion, so I read this great but ultimately disappointing piece yesterday. I was disappointed because it was nearly entirely a straightforward (and very fair) rendition of the facts, with notations along the way of how certain facts were constantly being twisted or just left out altogether, but it never moved beyond what happened to examine why, and what should happen moving forward.
One factual omission that Didion herself is guilty of is in not pointing out that the infamous Republican "talking points" memo was not produced by the leaders of the party, but rather was written by a low-level staffer and through a ludicrous (but not malicious) chain of events it was circulated among a few of the party leads. It was far from the "master plan" that the media made it out to be -- but in her glancing references, Didion did not refute the conventional wisdom that it was.
Finally the article just petered out with speculations about how much or how little this case would affect the next election cycle. I would have liked to see what Didion's take on the whole situation was -- the column was published in a review, after all, and one reads a review to hear the reviewer's opinion. She was willing to comment on various events throughout the case -- for example, the unnecessary removal of the feeding tube, rather than just the cessation of feeding -- but punted the opportunity to note that Terri's death was essentially murder by court order.
Posted by: Joan at May 23, 2005 11:35:12 AM
Ben, what's WND? I'd like to check this out.
David, you're right on. No document can cover every possibility. You need a person, someone you trust utterly, to oversee anything like this.
Posted by: Nancy at May 23, 2005 11:55:39 AM
I thought Didion's opinion was evident throughout -- that essential inconvenient issues were ignored so that the new cultural norm of choice could be observed. Among those issues: what kind of choice is made in the form of offhand comments while watching TV; what was Terri Schiavo's actual condition; shouldn't we acknowledge the pressure to make "choices" so that we will not burden our survivors; shouldn't there be an acknowledgment that a judgment was in effect being made that Terri's quality of life was inadequate and therefore terminable; shouldn't we acknowledge that the debate over the procedural aspects of the "right to die" ignores the problem of whether such a right exists, etc. Didion's point was that the actual moral dilemma was largely evaded.
Didion's concluding quotation of a comment that the "political impact will be limited" seems to me to make the point that the evasion can be expected to continue. Didion's position is a challenge to the received opinions probably held by the great majority of the readers of the New York Review of Books. Excellent stuff.
Posted by: James Englert at May 23, 2005 12:19:31 PM
Terrific article, Amy. Thanks for posting it.
Posted by: Nancy at May 23, 2005 12:51:49 PM
WND=WorldNetDaily
over at Worldnetdaily.com
see this link
http://www.theempirejournal.com/521052_judge_greer_declares_mich.htm
What a bunch of scumbags! Right to die my ass!
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) at May 23, 2005 3:08:27 PM
Try again:
http://www.theempirejournal.com/521052_judge_
greer_declares_mich.htm
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) at May 23, 2005 3:09:34 PM
Ben,
Thanks for the link.
This is just an unfounded allegation at this time. The money, I mean. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out; however, the opinion of some "financial manager" about how much money there should be is hardly evidence.
Posted by: Nancy at May 23, 2005 9:15:26 PM
And yet Nancy you have no problem with a innocent woman being sentenced to starve to death over the hearsay testamony from said woman's cheating husband?
Your weird.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) at May 24, 2005 12:38:43 PM
I *do* have a problem with Terri Schiavo being sentenced to starve to death, but I agree with Nancy that the evidence of a $1.4 million inheritance is pretty thin. (One might even say as thin as the evidence that Terri Schiavo wanted to be starved and dehydrated if she ever were in the circumstances in which she in fact found herself.)
The petition to the Florida Circuit Court was filed under penalties of perjury. I doubt Michael Schiavo would be stupid enough to lie blatantly about the value of the estate, when objective documentary evidence of that value can be obtained, when he knows that there are plenty of people who would love to catch him in a lie, and when the consequences of being caught in such a lie potentially so grievous.
Posted by: Seamus at May 24, 2005 3:46:05 PM
Seamus,
I merely find it weird that for Nancy the threshold for clear & convincing evidence needs to be very high when it comes to accusing the scumbag known as Michael Schiavo of having more money in his inheritance then he has publically stated & yet when comes to the threshold for evidence required to claim Terri would have wanted to be starved to death it then switches to so very very low that it can be done on the word of a cheating husband with something to gain from her death.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) at May 25, 2005 11:19:13 AM
I agree that the standards appear inconsistent. As you will note, I think the evidence for either proposition is laughable. But to drag in opinions Nancy expressed on another thread and say "Hey, what about that?" does nothing to disprove what Nancy is saying here, but veers dangerously toward the ad hominem. The fact that the Nazis were remarkably blind about the value of human life in some contexts does not discredit their arguments about the desirability of reducing tobacco consumption to promote health.
Posted by: Seamus at May 25, 2005 12:40:57 PM
I just read Contemptuous Didion's inconsequential essay, in which she fails to do what she berates everyone else for failing to do. Didion claims everybody failed to discuss the substance of the moral dilema of Terry Schiavo's unprevented death. Didion states this question as, does society ever have the right to deny extraordinary or indefinite care, or, alternatively, "whether, when it comes to life and death, any of us can justifiably claim the ability or the right to judge the value of any other being's life." This is a good question. Unfortunately Didion doesn't devote a single word to explicating the substance of the moral problem, contenting herself with disparaging all the rhetoricians who didn't either, and falsely asuming that the various talking heads she watched spoke for the whole country.
The way our society dealt with the moral dilema of the schiavo case was NOT by conducting all the chatter we heard on TV. What society really did and said was represented by the order of Judge Greer sometime back around 2001. The proceedure, reason, and substance of that order is where our society succeeded or failed. Too bad Didion ignored what the judge said. After all, in our society that's relevant.
Didion's writing in this essay is labored--and lost. The closest she got to "substance" was a few sentences about feeding tubes. Too bad she didn't devote the whole essay to the function and meanings of feeding tubes, because that would have contributed something to understanding the issue.
Posted by: Scroop Moth at May 30, 2005 10:13:44 PM



















