·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,  Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com , PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom , FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·

First Things First:  Salute America's Heroes · Fallen Heroes Fund · Frequent-Flyer-Miles for Troops · Thanks to Troops · Military News ··  MilBlogs ·   Home · Posts:  Current /Recent · Videos/Toons/Songs:  Latest · Embed-Codes · Text Index · Images Index · Archives:  Old · New · About · Contact · Syndication · Affiliates · News  Sources/Papers/Magazines   Pundits  Blogs   ThinkTanks   What is "property"?   Pantheopians   Global Climate   Asteroids/Comets Hitting Earth--Risks/Predictions    Science   GlobalWeb

Archives-- Installments for  March 21, 2005, through 31, 2005, starting below in reverse chronological order.

March 30, 2005--

Commentary-- Brain death and the "culture of life" regarding Terri Schiavo; Human compassion, love, emotion, rationality, reality, and organ donation.

            There's an aspect of the concept of human compassion that's been ignored in the course of the raging controversy over the fate of Terri Schiavo's living body.  No one has a legal obligation to become an organ donor.  No spouse or parent has a legal obligation to authorize the donation of an organ of a brain-dead loved one to save the life of another.  No one should harshly judge the reluctance or refusal of the spouse or parent of a brain-dead loved one to authorize such organ donation.  Yet virtually everyone admires and respects decisions by spouses or parents authorizing such donations in the midst of their own heartbreaking traumas.

Infinite Compassion.

That life is most precious of all
instills our abhorrence of palls
at times when our passion
impedes our compassion
for others at risk to face palls.

            Virtually all emergency medical technicians know that to revive the body of a person who has been dead more than twelve minutes (except, of course, those who have been dead even longer in freezing water, which dramatically slows brain deterioration) is to revive a body without the part of the brain necessary to make the body a person.  That's why in most such circumstances emergency medical technicians don't even try to revive the body of a person known to have been dead for more than twelve minutes-- They know that to do so would be cruel unless the sole purpose were to be preserve the opportunity for a spouse or relative to authorize organ donation (or to facilitate compliance with an organ-donor symbol on the person's driver's license).

            I don't harshly judge the Schindler's emotional blindness to the brain-dead state of their daughter.  Even though I don't believe I would succumb to such emotional blindness under comparable circumstances, a parent's love of a child is so strong I certainly can't guarantee that my rationality would overcome such emotions.  (I do, however, harshly judge the Schindlers' tendency to make irresponsible accusations impugning the integrity and motives of virtually everyone who disagrees with their efforts to perpetuate life in their daughter's body.)   My wife and I have two wonderful sons, who occupy the center of our universe of affection.  It is my belief, however, that if I were confronted with overwhelming evidence that one of my sons were to be brain-dead without any realistic hope of ever regaining any meaningful cognitive awareness or function, I would find the best way to cope with such unbearable pain would be to honor what I know to be his noble, compassionate, selfless nature by authorizing donation of organs to save the lives of others.  I would think to do otherwise would dishonor his noble and compassionate nature.

            I'm not an expert on all the criteria for organ donation, so I don't know whether death of the cerebral cortex is the equivalent of "brain death" used in applying such criteria, but I do know that I (and either of my sons) would prefer for such brain-death tragedy to be rendered less painful by organ donation to save the lives of others.  It seems to me that authorization of organ donations to save the lives of others is far more compassionate than artificial* perpetuation of a physical body in which the part of the brain necessary for personhood is dead.   Recognizing (as did the trial judge in the Schiavo case) that the medical evidence overwhelmingly established death of that part of Terri Schiavo's brain may sound harsh, but reality is often harsh.  Denying such reality does not change its harshness.  (*A feeding tube is an artificial, rather than "natural," means to preserve life.)

            Organ donations could have served the "culture of life" by saving the lives of others and thereby rendered Terri Schiavo's tragic situation less meaningless, and, perhaps, less un bearable.  I'm not arguing that organs be donated without evidence that such would be the wishes of the patient and/or whoever would be the lawful guardian or spokesman; rather, I'm merely asserting that I would admire the compassion exemplified by organ donation far more than a decision to perpetuate life in a brain-dead body while knowing that others needing donations to survive would die.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.   

March 25, 2005--

It's time for those demanding intervention for Terri Schiavo to recognize that our needs for adjudication based on law and facts rather than emotional blindness is why we have courts.

            Despite being a non-theist, I yield to no one in defending George W. Bush against the shrill, fanatical accusations so often leveled against him and his religious motives by the Secular Fundamentalists, who've consistently shown themselves to be far less tolerant toward non-fanatical people of faith than Bush has been towards non-believers.  Although I strongly disagree with the decision by President Bush (and Jeb Bush) and the Congress to attempt to intervene directly in judicial proceedings in a way designed to substitute legislative and/or executive functions for judicial functions, the testing of powers between our three branches of government is part of the constitutional process designed by what obviously were some of the greatest minds in history.  Thus far, those tests of power have left the legitimate authority of the judiciary intact.

            Now, fanatics, who (on religious grounds) oppose self-determination, personal autonomy and individual liberty exemplified by the very concept of a "living will" as well as the concept of a court having the power to determine when evidence other than a "living will" is sufficient to "clearly and convincingly" establish an unwritten equivalent of a living will, are urging Jeb Bush to seize custody of Terri Schiavo and re-insert the feeding-tube against what the court found by clear and convincing evidence to have been her wishes to the contrary.  This is a line Jeb Bush should not, and, which I believe he will not, cross.

            For those of us not desiring to lose our rights of self-determination, the next challenge will be to defeat the efforts those who would propose, or support, actions to make such rights virtually meaningless through legislation to create a framework for protracted litigation (like the procedures for challenging death sentences) to challenge court decisions finding clear and convincing evidence of an incapacitated person's desire to refuse medical treatment and ordering compliance with such desire.  It would almost always be possible to find some ideologically motivated physician to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to show the hopelessness of a patient's medical condition and almost always possible to make insufficient-evidence arguments against findings that an incapacitated person would desire to refuse treatment.  This risk would apply to "living wills" as well as other forms of evidence (such as testimony) because it's simply impossible to draw a "living will" in such a way as to make it "bullet proof" regardless of the circumstances.  Opponents of respecting such self-determination could always argue that the "evidence" would show that the person had "changed his/her mind" but simply forgot to, or didn't have time to, revoke or modify the "living will" or argue that the person wouldn't have intended the "living will" to apply to the particular circumstances at hand.  

            Everyone sympathizes with the emotional trauma of the Schindlers in their inability to accept the reality that the person-hood of their daughter has, in effect, been dead for years.  It's understandable for parents to be blind to such reality.  Emotional blindness can lead to profound intellectual disability to objectively accept reality.  I'm a parent.  I certainly can't say that my love of my sons couldn't blind me to such reality if I were in such circumstances.  However, others who are using the Schindlers' blinding grief to promote their theocratic agenda to render such rights of self-determination virtually meaningless don't have that excuse.  That's why those of us (the vast majority, in my opinion) who don't want to lose our own rights of self-determination must steadfastly resist the soon-to-come "pressure" for Congress to enact legislation to provide "safeguards" for incapacitated persons similar to procedures that enable opponents of death sentences to delay implementation of court decisions for many, many years.  

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

March 23, 2005--

Passing the Coverage Redux regarding news about Iraq.

             Putting aside the current media coverage of the controversy over Terri Schiavo, which, despite the non-uniqueness of the controversy, involves important legal and moral issues, too much of the media coverage since the January 30, 2005, elections in Iraq has obsessively focused on the tabloid aspects of the Michael Jackson trial, the fate of Scott Peterson, the trial of Robert Blake, etc.  Meanwhile, since the news from Iraq is obviously becoming less bad (Dare one say better?) than before-- hence, the decline of "bad" news for Americans leads to the non-coverage of the good news which has far greater implications for our long-term national interests than tabloid coverage of court cases.

            Does the fault lie with the media?  The media certainly deserve at least some blame, but the bulk of the blame lies with too many of those among us lacking sufficient attention span to demand comprehensive coverage of what's happening in Iraq other than declining rates of car-bombs, increasing rates of effectiveness of the Iraqi military, and increasingly public outcries by Iraqis against the terrorists, the Islamic fanatics, and the Baathists as well as Syrian and Iranian involvement in efforts to undermine the new government and the Iraqi elections.  

            Individual criminal cases are, of course important to the victims and the defendants, but obsessive, tabloid-like, sporting-event-style commentary about such trials serves little other than the same kind of emotional cravings that lead too many people to believe that details of the lives of celebrities are important.  Will this problem ever dissipate?  Probably not.  

            Today's animation is a reprise of previous animations that featured outstanding art work by Jeff Grier.  For more about Jeff Grier's "Ill Take it from here," go to http://PoliSat.Com/PassingTheColors.htm.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

March 23, 2005--

Passing the Coverage Redux regarding news about Iraq.

             Putting aside the current media coverage of the controversy over Terri Schiavo, which, despite the non-uniqueness of the controversy, involves important legal and moral issues, too much of the media coverage since the January 30, 2005, elections in Iraq has obsessively focused on the tabloid aspects of the Michael Jackson trial, the fate of Scott Peterson, the trial of Robert Blake, etc.  Meanwhile, since the news from Iraq is obviously becoming less bad (Dare one say better?) than before-- hence, the decline of "bad" news for Americans leads to the non-coverage of the good news which has far greater implications for our long-term national interests than tabloid coverage of court cases.

            Does the fault lie with the media?  The media certainly deserve at least some blame, but the bulk of the blame lies with too many of those among us lacking sufficient attention span to demand comprehensive coverage of what's happening in Iraq other than declining rates of car-bombs, increasing rates of effectiveness of the Iraqi military, and increasingly public outcries by Iraqis against the terrorists, the Islamic fanatics, and the Baathists as well as Syrian and Iranian involvement in efforts to undermine the new government and the Iraqi elections.  

            Individual criminal cases are, of course important to the victims and the defendants, but obsessive, tabloid-like, sporting-event-style commentary about such trials serves little other than the same kind of emotional cravings that lead too many people to believe that details of the lives of celebrities are important.  Will this problem ever dissipate?  Probably not.  

            Today's animation is a reprise of previous animations that featured outstanding art work by Jeff Grier.  For more about Jeff Grier's "Ill Take it from here," go to http://PoliSat.Com/PassingTheColors.htm.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

March 23, 2005--

Siding on the Err of Life regarding Terri Schiavo, Living Wills, Adjudication, Legislation and Administration; George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, the Schindlers, and Tom Delay.

            The raging controversy over the status of Terri Schiavo is a battle between sides blind and deaf to each other's arguments.  It's not "evil" for parents to struggle to save what they believe to be the potentially salvageable life of a daughter.  It may be understandable, but it's nevertheless wrong, for such parents to unjustifiably attempt to characterize as "evil" all those who seek to respect an individual's wishes to not be perpetuated in a medically hopeless condition.  It's doubtful that Mark Schiavo is a saint, but the records in these matters seem replete with examples of gross exaggerations, distortions and misrepresentations against him.  Schiavo's parents (the Schindlers) and their ardent supporters seek legislation to create a potentially multi-year culture-of-life litigation barrier (comparable to the procedures for death penalty litigation) against implementation of clear and convincing evidence of an incapacitated person's desire to not have his/her existence perpetuated without any realistic prospect of ever regaining any meaningful cognitive capacity. 

            One can respect the "err on the side of life" rationale of George W. Bush, Jeb Bush and federal and Florida legislators.  It's hardly "immoral" or "evil" to take a position sincerely perceived as serving to preserve a potential for recovery.  Their "err on the side of life" rationale is certainly no less moral than than the endless efforts of death-penalty opponents.  However, one cannot respect positions such as those expressed by Tom Delay branding as "evil" (or as participants in "murder") the people seeking to implement what a court found by clear and convincing evidence to have been the wishes of Terri Schiavo any more than one can respect the shrill claims of many death-penalty opponents caricaturing those seeking to implement the penalty as "evil" or as participants in "murder" by the state.  

            However, although not "immoral" or "evil," such efforts in this matter are seriously misguided and represent extraordinarily bad judgment.  Most of the arguments advanced by supporters of the Schindlers are really arguments against the very concept of respecting a "living will."  Is it "possible" the physicians have "misdiagnosed" Schiavo's condition?  One certainly can't say that it's "impossible," but if that were to be the test, then it would negate the very concept of a "living will" because it would enable anyone desiring to challenge an incapacitated person's "living will" intentions by finding at least one physician to disagree with the rest, all of whom would be unable to prove it to be "impossible" for their diagnosis to be wrong.  

            The very concept of a "living will" represents a person's desire to forego the remote possibility of recovery in favor of the certainty of avoiding being perpetuated in a medically hopeless state without any realistic chance of ever recovering any meaningful cognitive capacity.  In my opinion, it's inhumane for those who disagree with the concept of a "living will" to demand that those who have expressed such wishes be instead forced to endure the very form of existence they desired to avoid.  Therefore, I "side on the err of life"-- i.e., I'm willing to respect an individual's decision to err in a different way by trading the remote, theoretical possibility of recovery for the certainty of avoiding prolonged suffering.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

March 21, 2005--

Non-Satirical Commentary on Terry Schiavo tragedy:  Love, Morality, Compassion, Family, Marriage, Parenthood, Law and Common Sense.

            It's hard to judge harshly the parents of Terry Schiavo even though their emotional nightmare apparently makes it easy for them to harshly judge others.  It's hard to judge harshly the husband of Terry Schiavo for seeking to honor what he describes, and what the courts have found by clear and convincing evidence,* as having been the wishes of his wife when she possessed the capacity for cognitive thought:  To not have her body perpetuated in a vegetative state without any realistic hope of every recovering any meaningful capacity for cognitive thought.  This tragedy is filled with decent people impugning the motives of other decent people.  (*This is an evidentiary burden of proof far higher than the "preponderance of the evidence" burden in most civil cases.)

            One of the functions of the law is to temper emotions with rationality.  Another is to serve as the societal mechanism for resolving conflicts that are emotionally irreconcilable, but we know that no justice system can do so perfectly.  A price that all of us must be willing to pay for a fair justice system is that there may come a time when such fair, but imperfect, system will deliver imperfect justice to us.  Absent such commitment, a fair system of justice cannot endure.  Thus, those of us who support a death penalty must also accept the risk that such imperfect system could subject us to the ultimate penalty despite our being innocent. 

            Those of us who want the courts to respect the concept of a "living will" (or "clear and convincing evidence" sufficient to establish its equivalent) must be willing to accept a final adjudication (i.e., a trial-court decision ultimately upheld on appeal) finding such intent and ordering caregivers and guardians to respect it.  Otherwise, we all lose our liberty to express such intent as a means to protect ourselves from the good, but misguided, intentions of others to perpetuate our existence in a medically hopeless state in manner that violates our own free will.

            As a husband, my sympathy is with a husband seeking to honor what the courts have found to have been the desires of his wife that her existence not be perpetuated by artificial means without any realistic hope of ever regaining any meaningful cognitive capacity.  As a parent, my sympathy is with the parents whose love and hopes for their daughter are so strong that they blind them to medical reality.  Most parents would stubbornly do everything in their power to combat a decision by the system of justice when they sincerely perceive it as having disregarded, mistreated or violated their child's best interests.  Parents as stubborn as Terry Schiavo's parents don't deserve to be demonized except for their apparent willingness to demonize the husband notwithstanding the fact that no court has found evidence to support their accusations against him.  

            Perhaps we cannot realistically expect the husband or the parents to respect their irreconcilable differences.  What we should be able to expect, however, is that other people support the legal system's final adjudication of this issue.  To do otherwise would be to jeopardize everyone's liberty to take steps to require government to respect one's desires not to be perpetuated in a medically hopeless state without any realistic prospect of ever regaining any meaningful capacity for cognitive thought.   Many, if not most, of those who most ardently support the current legislative efforts to thwart the finality of the judiciary's adjudication of these issues in the Schiavo case support the death penalty (which I support) despite their knowledge that doing so creates an inherent risk that cannot be reduced to zero that the system will mistakenly put an innocent person to death.  Yet in the Schiavo case, they seem determined to demand a level of perfection, the effect of which would be to jeopardize everyone's right to expect the government to respect the kinds of wishes exemplified by "living wills."   They also seem determined to handle the matter in a way that potentially jeopardizes marriage by creating potential avenues for parents to intervene in inter-spousal decisions.

            One could argue that the husband's understanding that Terry Schiavo effectively "died" nearly a decade ago and that the portions of her brain necessary for cognitive functions have deteriorated into mere spinal fluid ought to motivate him out of sheer sympathy for her parents to allow them to accept custody of her body to enable their caring for it to minimize the emotional and psychological injuries her condition has inflicted upon them.  By virtue of her already being virtually dead, it's difficult to believe her brain retains the capacity to experience "suffering."  Perhaps his giving them custody of her body would have been the humane thing to do, but their demonization of him probably poisoned whatever well of sympathy he surely must have had for them.

            As a principled opponent of most instances of "legislating from the bench," I'm also opposed to "adjudicating from the legislature"-- especially when such legislative attempt at adjudication imperils, rather than supports, the capacity of the judiciary to respect a fundamental liberty.  In this case, Bush is wrong for failing to recognize that the "compassionate" thing to do in this case would be to respect what the courts found by "clear and convincing evidence" to have been the wishes of Terry Schiavo when she possessed the cognitive capacity to formulate, and express, them.   Despite my sympathy for the emotional agony of Terry Schiavo's parents, I hope the efforts of those supporting the relief they're seeking will ultimately become a footnote, rather than a precedent, in adjudicative/legislative history.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

Daily Update immediately preceding the one above:  Go here or find it in the chronological Index of Archives here.

  More 

Sites that Feature PoliSat.Com:

			News  .... ...Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wilson/Plame "Exposed Doubles"   "play" above. Larger versions-- click here

Da Gorgle Code MiniVideo  "play" above. Larger versions-- click here

(Hillary's) Basic (Political) Instinct  "play" above. Larger versions-- click here

PoliSat.Com   powered by:  GlobalWeb.Net

play above for MiniVideo version  of latest PoliSat.Com video. For Larger version click here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

end

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

end

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·