From "Not Dead Yet", the Resistance.
http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/schiavostatement032005.html
Disability Advocates Support and Thank Tom Harkin
Schiavo Case is About Disability Rights
For more information: Diane Coleman or Stephen Drake (708) 209-1500 exts. 11 & 29
708-420-0539 (cell)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 20, 2005 -- It's time for the press to talk to the real experts on the Schiavo case, the disability rights movement. Not Dead Yet has led the disability community's opposition to non-voluntary euthanasia for a decade. Diane Coleman, the group's founder and president, and Stephen Drake, its research analyst, are available in Chicago to discuss the disability angle on the recent legislative and legal developments in the case.
The "right to life" movement has embraced Terri Schindler-Schiavo as a cause to prove "sanctity of life." The "right to die" movement argues that people in guardianship should have no protection against private family decisions to kill them. Yet the life-and-death issues surrounding Terri Schindler-Schiavo are first and foremost disability rights issues -- issues which affect tens of thousands of people with disabilities who, like Ms. Schindler-Schiavo, cannot currently articulate their views and so must rely on others as substitute decision-makers.
That's why 26 national disability rights organizations have adopted a position in support of Terri Schiavo's right to continue to receive food and water. The evidence that Ms. Schiavo would refuse tube feeding is so unclear and conflicted that it does not satisfy legal standards. The lower court in Florida can pretend otherwise, and the Florida appellate courts can refuse to question the lower court judge, but it serves society poorly to give guardians such an unfettered right to kill.
"We applaud Senator Tom Harkin, the long time supporter of the civil rights of people with disabilities, for his insight into the disability issues that underlie this high profile case," said Coleman, "and for his political courage in working beyond partisanship to uphold our fundamental rights."
"Bioethicists like Art Caplan have tried to make this part of the right vs. left culture war," said Drake, "but that's a shallow and dishonest portrayal of what's going on in our health care system. While he talks about patient choice on TV, Caplan has been advocating futility guidelines (see below) that give doctors the authority to overrule family decisions back in Pennsylvania. His hypocrisy has gone unnoticed in the media, where he works to silence the voice of the disability rights community."
###
http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/schiavostatement032005.html
The following paragraphs are from "Penn hospital to limit its care in futile cases" (Philadelphia Inquirer 11/4/2002):
"By the early 1990s, many doctors began to worry that some dying patients were getting too much care. Patients and their families, concerned that HMOs and money-conscious hospitals were trying to cut costs, were getting less trusting. Now, conflicts are more likely to be between families who want more and doctors who want less.
Arthur Caplan, director of Penn's Center for Bioethics, said doctors have compounded the problem by offering families a menu of choices.
"That's not the best way to approach the family," Caplan said, "because it makes the family feel responsible for ending the life of their loved one."
It's better to say, "In our best judgment, sadly, there's nothing more we can do. We're going to begin the process of stopping aggressive care."
Doctors could also head off disagreements by explaining life support better on the front end. "You should never start an intervention, a feeding tube, dialysis, where you haven't had a little bit of discussion about when you're going to stop it," Caplan said.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's nice, but it's none of your business. None of mine either. This is a private, personal matter. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's all.
The experts of "Not Dead Yet", disabled people themselves, disagree with you. I am on their side.
Suppose this were a family member of yours Ivanhoe. A close loved one. You KNOW for a fact that their wish is to be left to die. They told you so many times. Yet you have no proof of that now and it's to late for them to speak for themselves. The doctors come to you and say it's your decision. Do you decide to take away their ventilator or whatever piece of machinery is keeping them alive?
And keep in mind if you say "yes" that a bunch of nosy, busy bodies are going to file suit against you to stop you from "pulling the plug". It will then become a media circus with even the federal government getting involved.
How would that make you feel?
And don't copy and past anything either for God's sake. Think for yourself. Open your mind. Don't judge. Just think.
Originally posted by ivanhoeTheir entire argument is based on this statement:
The experts of "Not Dead Yet", disabled people themselves, disagree with you. I am on their side.
The evidence that Ms. Schiavo would refuse tube feeding is so unclear and conflicted that it does not satisfy legal standards.
6 courts have found otherwise. Why are these people's judgments about the evidence in this case entitled to more weight than the courts which heard ALL the evidence? This case is about the rights of individuals to determine what level of medical care they wish to receive. Please respond to my post citing the Florida corurt cases in the other thread which conclusively show that their is a State Constitutional right in Florida to refuse a feeding tube if you are in a PVS and have left prior instructions to do so (yes, even oral instructions).
Originally posted by wib
That's nice, but it's none of your business. None of mine either. This is a private, personal matter. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's all.
Suppose this were a family member of yours Ivanhoe. A close loved one. You KNOW for a fact that their wish is to be left to die. They told you so many times. Yet you have no proof of that ...[text shortened]... ng either for God's sake. Think for yourself. Open your mind. Don't judge. Just think.
Well, if it's none of my business why do you bother asking ?
Killing somebody is not a private personal matter, it is everybodies matter. I'm sorry.
I would keep her alive, because I don't know whether her situation corresponds with the exact situation she was referring to when she spoke out her wish. She isn't suffering at all. She isn't bothered by the situation.
Second, I would not kill her because there are family members who disagree strongly, also supported by experts, on the situation she is in.
There is too much uncertainty in this case. We should err on the safe side and keep her alive by simply feeding her.
There are people too eagerly advocating killing her, because they want to reach their political goal: A Right to die for All.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAre you going to pay her medical bills? How about the taxpayers? Or maybe a charity?
Well, if it's none of my business why do you bother asking ?
Killing somebody is not a private personal matter, it is everybodies matter. I'm sorry.
I would keep her alive, because I don't know whether her situation correspond ...[text shortened]... they want to reach their political goal: A Right to die for All.
How do you know she isn't suffering? Because the medical experts said so. Aren't these the same experts that you claim we shouldn't listen to when they say she has no hope of recovery?
And what does it matter what other family members want? If the situation were reversed and the husband wanted to keep her alive, but the parents wanted to let her pass you'd side with the husband then. And only because you agree with him.
Bottom line - it's none of your business. Yes, you can have and express your opinion and I welcome it, but passing legislation in the 11th hour to interfere in this matter between a man and his wife is despicable. This is certainly no place for our politicians to stick their self serving noses.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe only people using this as political fodder are people like you and your far-right allies; the legal principle involved has been accepted in Florida for 15 years. You have no business imposing you view of the evidence on Terry and the Florida courts; she spoke as she did and 6 courts have found little uncertainty in the case. It is right-wingers like DeLay who are shamelessly promoting a political agenda by the use of this tragic case.
Well, if it's none of my business why do you bother asking ?
Killing somebody is not a private personal matter, it is everybodies matter. I'm sorry.
I would keep her alive, because I don't know whether her situation corresponds with the exact situation she was referring to when she spoke out her wish. She isn't suffering at all. She isn't bot ...[text shortened]... vocating killing her, because they want to reach their political goal: A Right to die for All.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Their entire argument is based on this statement:
The evidence that Ms. Schiavo would refuse tube feeding is so unclear and conflicted that it does not satisfy legal standards.
6 courts have found otherwise. Why are these people's judgments about the evidence in this case entitled to more weight than the courts which hea ...[text shortened]... ube if you are in a PVS and have left prior instructions to do so (yes, even oral instructions).
I have reacted to your post in the other thread.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "The only people using this as political fodder are people like you and your far-right allies;"
The only people using this as political fodder are people like you and your far-right allies; the legal principle involved has been accepted in Florida for 15 years. You have no business imposing you view of the evidence on Terry and the Florida courts; she spoke as she did and 6 courts have found little uncertainty in the case. It is right-wingers like DeLay who are shamelessly promoting a political agenda by the use of this tragic case.
The disabled people organised in "Not Dead yet" are far-right allies of mine ?
Please stop accusing people of doing things you are very obviously doing yourself, including your usual unworthy namecalling.