AP For Starvation Judge
This just in from CNN: [FBI agents have arrested a North Carolina man on suspicion of soliciting offers over the Internet to kill Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview is accused of offering $250,000 for the killing of Schiavo and another $50,000 for the "the elimination of the judge who ruled against Terri."] Given that the real problem in this case is one stubborn judge, and all the other judges sticking with him, I'm not really sure the bounty allocation cited is the best possible one. Michael Schiavo doesn't, by himself, have the power to completely thwart the wishes of the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida, and an overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress. He is an insignificant pipsqueak, and were he not being backed by the judiciary, the more equal of the three equal branches of government, he would have been marginalized and ignored years ago. I wonder how much it is going to cost the taxpayers for the round the clock army this judge is going to need to protect his sorry life for the remainder of it. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
On 2005-03-26T11:04:46-0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
This just in from CNN:
[FBI agents have arrested a North Carolina man on suspicion of soliciting offers over the Internet to kill Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview is accused of offering $250,000 for the killing of Schiavo and another $50,000 for the "the elimination of the judge who ruled against Terri."]
I wonder how much it is going to cost the taxpayers for the round the clock army this judge is going to need to protect his sorry life for the remainder of it.
If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty on his head for that, too. If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree there. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Justin writes:
If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty on his head for that, too.
Somehow letting someone who has lived 15 years with a significant brain injury live out the rest of their normal life span just doesn't provoke people the same way dehydrating and starving them does.
If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree there.
I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural, but I certainly wouldn't take water and food away from any human with a functioning brain stem, particularly when there are people to whom that person's life has meaning, and who are willing to provide them with care. The interesting political lesson here is that one stubborn judge, and his pals who band together to support him, can defy the will of the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida, and a majority of both houses of Congress. Of the three equal branches of government, the unelected branch is more equal than the other two. Of course, we've known that since Marbury vs Madison. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
On 2005-03-26T20:05:14-0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
Justin writes:
If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty on his head for that, too.
Somehow letting someone who has lived 15 years with a significant brain injury live out the rest of their normal life span just doesn't provoke people the same way dehydrating and starving them does.
She is a corpse with a heartbeat. Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick. She has become a doll for her parents, who are too immature to grasp the concepts of "life," "death," and "dignity." Presumably they're still stuck on "God" and "selfishness."
If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree there.
I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural, but I certainly wouldn't take water and food away from any human with a functioning brain stem, particularly when there are people to whom that person's life has meaning, and who are willing to provide them with care.
If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy) that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is willing to pay? (Even if Terry's parents weren't willing or able to pay originally -- I don't know, and haven't investigated that aspect of the case -- if they manage to keep her alive, they'll probably get enough donations to keep her alive for millenia.) That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work. I suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either? It would seem to be inconsistent if you did. How can someone choose to die if anyone else can veto that choice?
The interesting political lesson here is that one stubborn judge, and his pals who band together to support him, can defy the will of the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida, and a majority of both houses of Congress.
Thankfully, Neither Jeb nor George nor the U.S. Congress have any jurisdiction over this whatsoever. The courts do.
Of the three equal branches of government, the unelected branch is more equal than the other two. Of course, we've known that since Marbury vs Madison.
That is of course true, but not because of the decisions so far in this case. The law allows her spouse to decide what artificial means should be used to keep her alive. If you don't like it, again, lobby for a change to the law. The strong control the weak. The majority controls the minority. All we have here is a governmental system originally set up by the majority (maybe... at least no internal faction opposed it until 1860), where some people managed to get into positions of influence within the governmental machine despite having unpopular beliefs. I find it amusing that the Republican-dominated national Congress wants Terry kept alive, while Scalia has been quoted as saying, "Mere factual innocent is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." Republicans in general can't get anything right because their belief system is less coherent than any other. At least the supreme court didn't reverse the decision... not yet, at least. That's only because some of the Republicans are not-so-conservative and they all know the decision would be affirmed. Taking the case would just waste time. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Justin writes:
She is a corpse with a heartbeat.
According to a cast of characters which include a euthanasia proponent, a lawyer at the forefront of dehydration advocacy for the brain-damaged, and a doctor who thinks its morally acceptable to starve Alzheimer's patients to death.
Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick.
I think we have to divide things we do for disabled people into "care" and "heroic medical measures." I consider a feeding tube to fall into the former category. That which we may do to ourselves, if we are functioning, exceeds that which we may require others to do to us if we are not. I can deny myself food, water, and air, for instance. I cannot instruct others to deny me those things if I am rendered incapable of making my own decisions. I can instruct them to deny me things like a respirator, or dialysis, of course, which is reasonable. There is no reason for the feeding tube to be removed at all. It is not valuable. It is not horribly invasive or uncomfortable. It is not going to be taken out and used on another patient. They can certainly starve and dehydrate her to death with the tube in place. In fact, leaving it in place would be a prudent thing to do, to spare her the risk of having to have a new one installed if the decision to kill her is reversed before she dies. THe only reason the tube is being removed, is because they are playing the game that "The Tube" is keeping her alive. In reality, nutrition and hydration are keeping her alive, and in fact, they are also keeping you and me alive too. Nutrition and hydration are "care," not "heroic medical measures," and while people can refuse to eat and drink themselves, they should not be able to leave advance directives demanding others deny them such things. If Terri were able to be spoon fed by an attendant, would the judge have then ordered "spoon and attendant withdrawal?" Would the papers report that "the spoon is keeping her alive artificially?" If you want to make an argument for killing the cognitively impaired, let's at least call it what it is, and not engage in political theatre over feeding tubes.
If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy) that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is willing to pay?
Well, I would argue that you do not have a legal right to demand others restrict your air, food, and water, unless they need to be delivered in invasive uncomfortable ways that reduce your human dignity. You are of course welcome to not breathe, drink, or eat as long as you are in charge, but you do not have the right to demand we kill you by withholding such things if you become disabled.
That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work. I suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either?
I think euthanasia is fine if the patient is suffering horribly, has all their marbles, and has less than six months to linger from a terminal illness. Terri Schiavo meets none of these criteria. I certainly don't support the right of an adulterous spouse who swore up and down at the malpractice trial that he only wanted to care for his wife for the rest of her natural life, and who didn't mention her "wish" to not go on until 7 years after her brain injury, to have his brain-damaged wife starved and dehydrated to death solely on his say-so, absent any written indication of her wishes. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
At 10:35 PM 3/26/2005, Eric Cordian wrote:
Justin writes:
She is a corpse with a heartbeat.
They want her dead, but don't have the guts to just kill her, so they're going to dehydrate her to death instead and pretend it's "natural", because she can't feed herself. It's a nasty way to go if you're not in bad health, though it seems to be popular with disabled old people who want to commit suicide in nursing homes and don't have alternatives.
I think we have to divide things we do for disabled people into "care" and "heroic medical measures." I consider a feeding tube to fall into the former category.
I agree with you there, though for many people that seems to be the crux of the issue.
On 2005-03-26T22:35:23-0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
Justin writes:
Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick.
I think we have to divide things we do for disabled people into "care" and "heroic medical measures." I consider a feeding tube to fall into the former category.
I like to think that "care" is doing what the patient wants. If the patient is uncommunicative (following a balloon with her eyes .5 times out of 1000 doesn't qualify as "communication" imho), the legal decision-maker can end any treatment.
That which we may do to ourselves, if we are functioning, exceeds that which we may require others to do to us if we are not. I can deny myself food, water, and air, for instance. I cannot instruct others to deny me those things if I am rendered incapable of making my own decisions.
Okay; I accept that. We can assault ourselves, but we cannot waiver in advance another's legal culpability if they assault us. She is not functioning, however. Her rights and the rights of her legal representative are the same. Anything that she could have requested in a living will can be requested by her legal representative, her husband.
There is no reason for the feeding tube to be removed at all. It is not
That depends on her condition. If she is merely a brainstem attached to a beating heart and a bunch of tissue, there are clear reasons for ending this spectacle. Utilitarian: she's using medical resources that could help people who have a chance at recovery. Utilitarian: the spectacle is diverting time and attention of citizens who should be focusing on increasing their personal wealth, and by extension the GDP. Out of sight, out of mind. Once she's dead, people will quickly become less distracted as the media can only run stories in her wake for so long. Ethical: She wouldn't want to live like this (the court's accepted this, but it's still disputed). Ethical: We don't want to see her live like this (which morphs into "she wouldn't want US to suffer like this"). I don't think this one's disputed, though Michael may take that view for financial reasons.
If Terri were able to be spoon fed by an attendant, would the judge have then ordered "spoon and attendant withdrawal?" Would the papers report that "the spoon is keeping her alive artificially?"
Can she recover to sentience, or is she merely a braindead automaton capable of swallowing?
If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy) that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is willing to pay?
Well, I would argue that you do not have a legal right to demand others restrict your air, food, and water, unless they need to be delivered in invasive uncomfortable ways that reduce your human dignity.
So I don't get to define my own notion of "human dignity"?
That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work. I suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either?
I think euthanasia is fine if the patient is suffering horribly, has all their marbles, and has less than six months to linger from a terminal illness.
Three arbitrary thresholds. Two subjective: "horrible" suffering and "all their marbles"; one of them objective: "6 months".
Terri Schiavo meets none of these criteria.
Explain why your criteria matter and how the subjective ones are to be applied, and I might care.
I certainly don't support the right of an adulterous spouse who swore up and down at the malpractice trial that he only wanted to care for his wife for the rest of her natural life, and who didn't mention her "wish" to not go on until 7 years after her brain injury, to have his brain-damaged wife starved and dehydrated to death solely on his say-so, absent any written indication of her wishes.
What, you've never changed your mind about anything? She's been effectively braindead for over a decade. This could be a case of "moving on" emotionally. Terri's parents supported the adultery, based on news reports I've seen. I'm not saying it's morally right for him to cheat on her, but I take a very dim view of any State involvement in marriage. As far as I'm concerned, the marriage granted him the right to represent Terri in a situation like this, just as if they executed a medical power of attorney and never got married. I consider the marriage contract fully severable. His "cheating" on her doesn't materially affect any contractual aspect of the marriage, so unless she's around to get divorced, he can still legally represent her. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
At 10:35 PM 3/26/2005, Eric Cordian wrote:
That which we may do to ourselves, if we are functioning, exceeds that which we may require others to do to us if we are not. I can deny myself food, water, and air, for instance. I cannot instruct others to deny me those things if I am rendered incapable of making my own decisions.
Of course you can. That's what living wills and powers of attorney, etc. are for. But because we cannot assure that our nominees will do our bidding, what's really needed is assurance policies in which you contract for your demise. The 'payout' is triggered if you fail to contact your agent at regular intervals. Miss two appointments and a 'wet worker' is dispatched Steve
-- In my blog http://blog.jim.com/ I post "how email encryption should work" I would appreciate some analysis of this proposal, which I think summarizes a great deal of discussion that I have read. Here is how email encryption should work: * The user should automagically get his key and certificate when he sets up the email account, without having to do anything extra. We should allow him the option of doing extra stuff, but the default should be do nothing, and the option to do something should be labeled with something intimidating like Advanced custom cryptographic key management so that 99% of users never touch it. * In the default case, the mail client, if there are no keys present, logs in to a keyserver using a protocol analogous to SPEKE, using by default the same password as is used to download mail. That server then sends the key for that password and email address, and emails a certificate asserting that holder of that key can be reached at that email address. Each email address, not each user, has a unique key, which changes only when and if the user changes the password or email address. Unless the user wants to deal with advanced custom options, his from address must be the address that the client downloads mail from as it normally is. * The email client learns the correspondent's public key by receiving signed email. It assigns petnames on a per-key basis. A petname is also shorthand for entering a destination address (Well it is shorthand if the user modified it. The default petname is the actual address optionally followed by a count.) * The email client presents two checkboxes, sign and encrypt, both of which default to whatever was last used for this email address. If several addresses are used, it defaults to the strongest that was used for any one of them. If the destination address has never been used before, then encrypt is checked if the keys are known, greyed out if they are unknown. Sign is checked by default. * The signature is in the mail headers, not the body, and signs the body, the time sent, the sender's address, and the recipient's address. If the email is encrypted, the signature can only be checked by someone who possesses the decryption key. * If user is completely oblivious to encryption and completely ignores those aspects of the program, and those he communicates with do likewise, he sends his public key all over the place in the headers, signs everything he sends, and encrypts any messages that are a reply to someone using software that follows the same protocol, and neither he nor those he corresponds with notice anything different or have to do anything extra other than that when he gets unsigned messages, a warning comes up an unobtrusive and easily ignored warning if he has never received a signed message from that source, a considerably stronger warning if he has previously received signed mail from that source. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG VvdTZKUxpdfcDRAGwBSupIYVIUGAAE5orXRkJl8q 4y7qVNj7u/H3nJLgyAs5pGM2tDFOcyCyC9L+vbbpa
According to James:
I would appreciate some analysis of this proposal, which I think summarizes a great deal of discussion that I have read.
Here is how email encryption should work: [...] * In the default case, the mail client, if there are no keys present, logs in to a keyserver using a protocol analogous to SPEKE, using by default the same password as is used to download mail. That server then sends the key for that password and email address, and emails a certificate asserting that holder of that key can be reached at that email address.
Are you saying that the keyserver creates the public-private key pair for the user? That doesn't sound like a good idea.
Each email address, not each user, has a unique key, which changes only when and if the user changes the password or email address.
How do you prevent that a user creates a key/certificate for an email address the user doesn't own.
* The email client learns the correspondent's public key by receiving signed email.
Unless you use certificates issued by a trusted-third party, that's not secure. ciao... -- Lars Eilebrecht lars@evildoer.de
-- On 29 Mar 2005 at 11:54, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
Are you saying that the keyserver creates the public-private key pair for the user? That doesn't sound like a good idea.
Not what I said, though that is one possible way of implementing the proposal. Another possible way is that the client program hashes the password in one fashion, known to everyone, and in a different way, known to everyone, gives the second hash to the server, which then hashes that in a secret way, and the client program then constructs the secret key from both numbers. Of course, if the user clicks on the menacing "Advanced custom cryptographic key management" he can construct the key in some other fashion.
How do you prevent that a user creates a key/certificate for an email address the user doesn't own.
Re-read: "That server then ... emails a certificate asserting that holder of that key can be reached at that email address." --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG xvP3RO30rRc2fw0ArT3XUSEsygxK3zrL1Wu7jC7N 4tJfMev2Cd5X96wjDddtEB7mMPVaXk1ImGBnvo3fC
participants (6)
-
Bill Stewart -
Eric Cordian -
James A. Donald -
Justin -
Lars Eilebrecht -
Steve Schear