Teresa, you said: "As for that GOP memo, I sincerely doubt that the Washington Post printed the story without checking it out first."
The Washington Post has now admitted that it had no basis for the first version of the story that you quoted above, i.e., the version in which the memo was "distributed to Republican senators by party leaders." In fact, the Post now admits that the "authorship is unknown."
Just curious: What's with the comparison to the death penalty? I'm not too keen on the death penalty myself, but there's quite a difference between the Schiavo situation and executing a brutal murderer as punishment for his crimes. (The question of guilt, to be obvious.)
Ted -- the slippery slope is not a "logical fallacy" in any relevant sense. It has been true throughout history that a social change at a given time often leads people to become accustomed to that change, and thus to tolerate further change in that direction in the future. That's an empirical argument, not something out of symbolic logic.
I didn't say that the Schindlers were motivated by a "slippery slope." I was referring to the many citizens who have been following the Schiavo case for the past several years. If you read any of their many writings, you'll see the slippery slope issue raised innumerable times. It's not a matter of debate that this is a sincere and genuine moral concern of theirs. You are free to think that they are wrong about the slippery slope, but even in order to disagree, you would have to admit that their concern does exist in the first instance.
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the Schiavo case is "astroturf" merely by pointing out that some foundations have funded her parent's lawyers. That's not the same as astroturf -- i.e., trying to manufacture the appearance of an "grass roots" movement on Schiavo's behalf. Indeed, the Schiavo case has been a cause du jour for Catholics and other pro-lifers for a few years now.
More generally, what seems to be missing from the discussion above is any acknowledgment that the pro-Schiavo people (citizens, not politicians) are perfectly sincere and genuine in their worry about creating a slippery slope towards the euthanization of anyone deemed too disabled. In other words, their concern is not just about Schiavo, but also about where that precedent will lead in the future. Nothing about that belief warrants ridicule or denigration.
True, the pro-life side in this case is also rarely able to see that some people sincerely believe that the judicial process has spoken, and that Schiavo no longer really exists in any meaningful fashion. They also are unable to acknowledge that this is a difficult moral issue.
Teresa, you said: Jack, that "doctor" you cite is not one of Terri Schiavo's physicians. He has not examined the patient, nor done any of the other things he by rights should have done before giving a medical opinion. In terms of professional behavior, he's way over the line. In fact, the way he's shooting his mouth off there makes me wonder whether he's a doctor at all.
Neither are you or any of the commenters one of Terri's physicians. That does not seem to stop anyone from giving an opinion about the CT scan images or anything else. Are you intending to imply that bloggers and commenters can freely comment on Terri's medical condition, except if they're a doctor themselves? I'm not sure I grasp that standard.
Teresa --
One additional thing. In addition to considering this doctor's opinion -- which apparently no other commenter has yet done -- you might want to direct some cynicism towards the "GOP memo" itself. Thus far, no one has explained where it came from; it is not written on Senate letterhead; and the memo's text was mostly copied from a blog posting at the Traditional Values Coalition. That doesn't prove the memo is a fake, but one should definitely take it with a grain of salt. Read here and here for more info.
On Schiavo, do consider this doctor's analysis.
Also, if you read a bit down in the Lean Left posting that Mr. Zielinski cited, I believe it indicates that the charge of hypocrisy is mistaken:
The reason National Right to Life got involved in drafting the Texas law was simple enough: it was obvious that some solution to futile cases had to be found, so they participated in order to make the law as lenient as possible. The 10-day rule was one of the compromises they struck (though in fact facilities had routinely been caring for patients much longer than that while trying to come to arrangements with the families). This is a solution that is necessary - one that even rabid pro-lifers have agreed to, and one that is becoming common across the country. Hospitals simply must have a mechanism to cut off care for hopeless cases - not “severely ill” or “terminal", but literally hopeless cases, patients who cannot improve - when those cases are tying up scarce resources or costing the hospital large amounts of its own money. (Arguably, you ought to cut off care in all futile cases just as a matter of principle, but there is little harm in indulging unrealistic family members as long as they are not overriding the patient’s own wishes and as long as they can pay for their indulgences themselves. When they make demands on other people’s resources or interests, a line must be drawn.)
So if I understand correctly, Bush and pro-lifers agreed that when a patient has no chance of recovery, the hospital shouldn't be required to provide free care forever. But that obviously says nothing about the Schiavo case, where her parents (if I recall correctly) are willing to subsidize her care.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 9 |
Total: 9 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Jack V.:
Show all comments by Jack V..