The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

PAC Man

August 16, 2006 | 29 Comments

Please give generously to TerriPAC — the new federal political action committee founded by Michael Schiavo, a/k/a “the human face of government intervention.”

Imagine remembering a decades-old conversation with your wife about how she’d like you to pull the plug if she was ever on life support. You get into a perfectly private dispute with her biological parents, who somehow object to killing her. How would you like the heavy hand of government intruding into this deeply personal matter? The legislative and/or executive branches, this is.

Shouldn’t such decisions be left solely to the family? And to the judicial branch, equipped with information from your lawyer — the guy who runs the hospice your wife is in, and whose soul has previously received death-wish entreaties of “Why am I still here?” directly from the souls of other client’s relatives? All you want to do is end the suffering (not that there is any under your own theory of the case) and carry out your faded recollection of her wishes (not that they’d be enforced if you sided with her parents).

So stand up (if you’re not the other spouse) and help support Democrats (besides Jesse Jackson and Joe Lieberman) against the forces of (nonjudicial) tyranny. TerriPAC is completely non-political — Michael didn’t even follow the news or vote until strangers (Democratic operatives) approached him with the PAC idea last year. Remember — the life you don’t save may not be your own.

Comments

29 Responses to “PAC Man”

  1. Gathercole
    August 16th, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

    Sorry, still not buying the idea that the government gets to override people’s wishes about their life and death.

    If people don’t have the right to their own life, they don’t have anything. If you think they picked a bastard to make decisions for them, too bad. You’re not them. The government is not them. That person and that person alone gets to decide what happens to their life and who, if anyone, can make that decision for them.

  2. Thenormalyears
    August 16th, 2006 @ 5:46 pm

    Fail

  3. Paul
    August 16th, 2006 @ 6:40 pm

    This new RA is way off the mark and lacks basic logic.

    1. “Shouldn’t such decisions be left solely to the family?”

    Mr. Shaivo *was* the (legal) family for Terri.

    2. “You get into a perfectly private dispute with her biological parents, who somehow object to killing her.”

    Mr. Shiavo might perfectly well make the decisions he made while at the same time appreciating the effect that those difficult (read: has pros and cons, some of which are intensely emotional and deep) decisions might have on someone like Terri’s parents who might have made a different decision. TRA’s rhetorical use of the adverb “somehow” ignores this possibility.

    3. TRA offers no evidence for the assertion that Mr. Shiavo’s recollections of Terri’s wishes were “faded.” This claim only rests on the assumption that a relatively old recollection must be faulty, but we cannot conclude without other evidence that TRA doesn’t offer that Mr. Shiavo’s recollection is false.

  4. Angela
    August 16th, 2006 @ 8:05 pm

    Thanks for making us aware of this important info. Similar to the case in the courts now of the teen boy who has cancer and wishes to pursue alternative treatment, but the courts are intervening to force him to pursue traditional medical options. They are claiming that his parents are negligble by not forcing him to have additional rounds of chemo when the treatment wasn’t successful the first time around. It is just wrong.

  5. Realityhack
    August 16th, 2006 @ 8:12 pm

    “Imagine remembering a decades-old conversation”
    On a subject like that with a spouse? You fucking bet I would remember ass wipe.

    “who somehow object to killing her”
    Unless you have some evidence that she was NOT brain-dead I suggest you use something along the lines of ‘who object to what they view as killing her’. Otherwise you will need a very solid argument that braindead is still ‘alive’.

    “Shouldn’t such decisions be left solely to the family? And to the judicial branch…”
    They are. Michael Schiavo WAS Terries family. Other family members disagreed. Court settled it. Do you actualy have a point?

    “soul has previously received death-wish entreaties”
    So he is nutty. You convinently failed to mention that in the case where he made that claim it would appear there was a strait forward case for the right to die. You seem to be implying that he is on some kind of happy let them die spree. Unless you have better facts I don’t think that view is suported. Even if it was it proves nothing. He argued the case not decided the verdict.

    “you want to do is end the suffering (not that there is any under your own theory of the case)”
    Do you have a quote where Michael said he was doing this to end her suffering? Could it be that you are putting words in his mouth… like a straw man?

    “and carry out your faded recollection of her wishes (not that they’d be enforced if you sided with her parents)”
    No proof it was ‘faded’.
    Not being enforced without you doing so is in some peoples opinion all the more reason to do so.

    As for your last paragraph. Ok they may have been democratic opratives (again no proof). Certainly he admits to not voting or caring about politics before… So what? In point of fact Mr. Schiavo actualy went through a virtual hell at the hands of right wing politictians pandering to their base while completely ignoring the facts of the case.
    Why shouldn’t someone support him? Why shouldn’t he be seen as a ‘human face of government intervention’. Didn’t he get dragged through the mud (probobly including death threats etc.) for the sake of politicians poll numbers?

  6. Realityhack
    August 16th, 2006 @ 8:17 pm

    Angela,
    Actualy that case is a bit diffrent. A minor is involved which complicates things legaly as otherwise he could make his own decisions and the case law is prity clear that parrents can not withold ‘medicaly necissary’ treatment.
    The rational for that is fairly solid inthat it is typicaly used when ‘christian scientists’ or others refuse to provide medial treatment to their children (often young children) that can directly lead to their death. The state essentialy sees refuseal to provide that treatment on ‘personal’ grounds as a form of abuse.

    In addition IIRC the type of cancer in question has a very high recovery rate with treatment and there is no argument that the child is already dead.

  7. ako
    August 16th, 2006 @ 8:25 pm

    “(T)he guy who runs the hospice your wife is in, and whose soul has previously received death-wish entreaties of “Why am I still here?” directly from the souls of other client’s relatives?”

    Creepy. I wouldn’t want to have my future dictated by messages other people claim to recieve from ghosts, spirits, or supernatural entities. Being the tool to help someone else achieve their relgious goals is a particularly unpleasant prospect. In fact, some might say that by dragging in unquestionable and unverifiable ‘spiritual authority’ religious devotion trivializes American law and politics.

    Someone should do a blog on the topic.

  8. inkadu
    August 16th, 2006 @ 9:09 pm

    Wow.

    Now I remember why I never visit the front page.

    By the way, Michael Schiavo is endorsing Ned Lamont for Senate in Connecticut over Joe “I would have kept the plug in” Lieberman.

    And also, by the way, the courts were involved for several years and came to their conclusions with much more due deliberation than Congress, and declared an emergency session of congress in order to address it immediately.

    And also, by the way, Terri’s brain was swiss cheese.

    Make sure to contribute to Ned Lamont’s campaign, folks. Tell ‘em the Raving Atheist sent you.

  9. The Law Dawg
    August 16th, 2006 @ 10:25 pm

    One HUGE problem with all of this, and what no one bothers to discuss, is the waste of resources perspective. Lets get real.

    Michael was the family and properly empowered to make this decision.

    The true shame is that we wasted food, water, bed space and medical resources on someone who was NEVER coming back.

    It’s just like religion. Pretend all you want, but Terri wasn’t there either.

  10. Forrest Cavalier
    August 16th, 2006 @ 11:35 pm

    I am surprised at so many comments from utilitarian communists who seem to indicate the only lives worth preserving are those that are useful!?? Why waste resources?!!

    Yikes!

    Can we agree that starving a handicapped person to death is cruel and they would never choose it themselves?

    Terri Schaivo was killable only because food and water is defined as medical treatment legally. Common words have bizarro legal meanings now.

    So when you say “withhold medical treatment if I have a terminal or incurable condition with no reasonable expectation of recovery” and you temporarily lose your ability to communicate, your family is doing your wishes when they starve you to death for such incurable conditions as
    growing forgetful,
    or using an implanted pacemaker,
    or walking with a permanent limp,
    or suffering from muscular dystrophy or other chronic conditions, or more serious disabilities like Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve (who seemed more useful in chronic illness than many commenters here.)

    The deck is VERY stacked against you as doctors very helpfully offer options to your family to hasten your funeral, in violation of their Hippocratic oath. Happens all the time. I am not making this up.

    Be sure to learn more about the weird euthanistic bent of the legal/medical culture and write a “Will to Live” instead.

  11. Godthorn
    August 17th, 2006 @ 12:39 am

    Forest C, your sentiments are admirable, but you have chosen the wrong venue. Terri Shaivo was dead. You know that now (well, I hope you know it now; you should). Medical (and presumably honorable) specialists, had declared her brain dead years before. This is yet another case of faithing humans being dishonorable to their humanity. This is yet another proof that humans should be dedicated to humanity, and not to some inhuman dictatorial “God.” That her parents wanted her to be revivable is understandable. Love–and wishful thinking–conquer all–in the minds of the faithing. Reality has no sympathy with faithing. And reality rules–always. -Thorngod

  12. Godthorn
    August 17th, 2006 @ 1:16 am

    Forrest C, I have now read your link to “Will to Live.” In Wayne Cockfield’s case, I would defend his right to live. As long as his will to exist exceeds his fear of death, I am willing to bear my share of the expense of keeping him–or the body in which he is expressed–alive. The individual is soveriegn. The only power I concede to the state is adjudication–and that only because it is in the nature of things that it cannot be otherwise. By the same justice, if I declare my wish to not be kept alive under certain conditions, you have no right to contravene my soveriegn wish.
    Worship whatever god you wish, but yours is not my god, and I do not appoint you my saviour. -Thorngod

  13. hagiograph
    August 17th, 2006 @ 6:29 am

    C’mon. Even if one believes in some ineffible “soul” the very existence of Terri Schaivo should have put the kiabash on that. Terri was the classic case of how the “mind” is a total function of the physical brain. She was there but “she” was no longer there. Does RA and her parents and Bill Frist think her “mind” was “on hold” in some extraphysical space just waiting to rejoin her body at some time? Puh leeeze.

    I apply a simple test for how Michael Schiavo should have acted: “would I ever want to spend 15 years as a non-thinking vegetable?” I am pretty sure the answer is always “no”. Bravo for pulling the plug if only from a strictly “act such that the maxim of your actions should be universal law” perspective.

    I should hope that, even tho’ my wife and I _have_ had this discussion, that if we hadn’t she would do the “right” thing if I ended up in a persistent vegetative state.

    No one could possibly have expected that the tiny floating gellied mass in Terri’s skull was EVER going to be “reinhabited” by her “former soul”. That puts the lie to the idea of a non-physical mind seperate from the physical brain.

    -h

  14. Kreme
    August 17th, 2006 @ 7:02 am

    In a technologically advanced future, scientists could have rebuilt Terri Schaivo. Better than she was before. Better, stronger, faster, and with fellow clones to boot. With matter replication devices we could have reproduced Terri Schaivo’s soul many times over, and having mapped out her neural nets, we could also have made back-ups of her soul with proficiency updates to improve upon the incompetency of naturally selected brain algorithms. Yes my fellow people, everday we loose a future candidate for physiological recombinationatory practice. Someday, we will be able to transfer supposed souls through other advanced communication mediums, and we will have backups as well. You know, in case another brain storage container gets fried, and we need to replace it. We can rebuild it. Soul is fantasy; physically patterned biology is reality – patterned physicality can be replicated.

  15. Professor Chaos
    August 17th, 2006 @ 7:49 am

    Now TRA is bringing up Terri Schiavo.

    Here’s some suggestions for your next update:

    Elian Gonzalez
    Bennifer
    Lacey Peterson
    The Runaway Bride
    Mark McGwire vs. Sammy Sosa
    The Berlin Wall
    Tuberculosis
    Suri Cruise

  16. Drusilla
    August 17th, 2006 @ 11:01 am

    Unless you have some evidence that she was NOT brain-dead I suggest you use something along the lines of ‘who object to what they view as killing her’. Otherwise you will need a very solid argument that braindead is still ‘alive’.

    Terri Shaivo was dead. You know that now (well, I hope you know it now; you should). Medical (and presumably honorable) specialists, had declared her brain dead years before.

    Actually, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, not as being brain dead. There is a major diference. One is a state of profound disability (and there have been those who awaken from such a state) and the other is, quite simply, dead. Teri Schiavo was profoundly disabled and required a feeding tube but, unlike a person who is brain dead, did not require mechanical respiration or other life support systems as her brain worked well enough to keep her body performing the autonomic functions. That is reality and, as Thorngod says, Reality rules.

    PS to Godthorn/Thorngod: are you a thorn in God’s side or is He one in yours?

  17. darwinfish
    August 17th, 2006 @ 12:57 pm

    [quote]her brain worked well enough to keep her body performing the autonomic functions[/quote]

    you mean her brainstem worked well enough.

  18. Thorngod
    August 17th, 2006 @ 12:58 pm

    Perhaps I was wrong in the “brain dead years before” reference to T.S. But did the autopsy not show that she was a turnip?

    “Thorngod” was a revision of “ThornDOG,” which, to my surprise, was being used by someone else. “Thorn” is part of my legal name. The “thorn in my side” is superstition, and the only god I speak for is myself.

  19. Drusilla
    August 17th, 2006 @ 3:09 pm

    So then you are a thorn in your own side?

  20. Realityhack
    August 17th, 2006 @ 3:25 pm

    Actually, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, not as being brain dead. There is a major diference. One is a state of profound disability (and there have been those who awaken from such a state) and the other is, quite simply, dead.

    Thats not entirely truethful. There was absolutely zero chance of Terry ever waking up. Zero.
    While medicaly this is considered a persistive vegistative state because her body was not on life support, we can as intelegent people make the disstinction between people who have woken up and someone who’s brain had the kind of catastrophic damage that Terry’s did.

    Your post doges around the issue but implies that there was a chance she would wake up. Thats exactly the kind of question the courts looked at. There was no chance. Claiming otherwise is either ignorance or dishonesty.

  21. Forrest Cavalier
    August 17th, 2006 @ 6:19 pm

    Yo, RealityHack.

    You seem to know the MSM version of the case. There were reasonable doctors who had disagreements about even which tests to run. Are you an expert?

    The P in PVS says Persistent, not Permanent. Doctors can’t know everything, and some do recover from PVS. There are some statistics from the NEJM, partially reprinted here…

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1366161/posts

    My point in #10 is that there are lots of medical conditions which are triggered by a living will, some of which will result in your death before you had a chance to recover.

  22. Rocketman
    August 18th, 2006 @ 8:37 am

    Hey, True story..

    I was on my very first bouncing gig–a new years eve party at an Italian Baquet hall–1000 people between twenty and forty and an open bar.

    I took the job with a friend and showed up to see that he had hired himself and me–two twnety year old guys to cool 1000 people.

    I should have fucking walked but I didn’t. I needed the cash.

    That night I broke up 25 fights–no word of a lie–25–and those were the ones I was on hand for. I had my arm cut with a broken broom handle and a beer bottle smached right the fuck across the back of my head. I was at the center of a stomp and just managed to get out with my life at that point.

    In any case there was one mullet headed mother fucker in a tuxedo who was drunk and walking around the place literally punching folks in the back of the head and shoving people into other people. A gr4ade a number one psychopath.

    I’d toss him out–he’d sneak back in. Lobbed a drink at my head as well.

    THe thrid time the cops showed up I managed to get this guy in a headlock and walked him to the door–in one of the only times I have ever lost my temper on a job I hit him a number of times on the way to the door. A group of people were there who agreed that he was the motherfucker who had–hit/shoved/spat on them. He calmly said he didn’t do it. while wiping the blood from his face from the punched I laid into him.

    A charge was laid and he was dropped in the back of the police car and driven off the station.

    It was about ten minutes later that the motherfuckers twin fucking brother–the one who was actually causing the problems sucker punched my coworker in the back of the head–

    wrong guy arrested–as it turns out the wrong guy punched in the face.

    Adnyou know what–I was so sure it was the guy. The people out front were sure it was the guy. Everyone was sure that it was the guy.

    It wasn’t the fucking guy.

  23. Drusilla
    August 18th, 2006 @ 10:01 am

    Your post doges around the issue but implies that there was a chance she would wake up. Thats exactly the kind of question the courts looked at. There was no chance. Claiming otherwise is either ignorance or dishonesty.

    “In the medical literature, there are no cases of someone recovering from what is defined as clinical brain death, but there are five published cases of “recovery of some sentient function” among patients who were diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state.” SF Chronicle

    See also

    There was a chance. A very, very small chance, but very, very samll, even infinitesimally small is still greater than zero.

    I began by responding to the comment that Shciavo was brain dead and used possible recovery as one of the differences between brain death and PVS. And whereas I hoped and prayed for her recovery, ultimately, recovery isn’t the issue. Profound disability is not sufficient reason to withhold ordinary medical treatment including a feeding tube. And the argument, ‘I wouldn’t want to live that way’ is simply silly. It expresses disgust with dependency and the normal processes of biological life.

    But we are human and part of being human is degeneration from age, disease or trauma. It’s often uncomfortable but it’s also part of the whole process. And the whole process is valuable – it makes us who we are. Through it we grow, individually and corporately. Those who cared for Teri Shciavo, gained something immeasurable. In her dependent state, she was an oppportunity for people to care for someone it would be so easy to ignore. Many people found the courage to speak up on her behalf. She was a reason for many people to think. She was an opportunity for people to be more than they usually are.

    And we cannot know what she gained. We cannot know what she experienced on an unconscious level. Perhaps it was nothing but perhaps it was healing and love and forgiveness. Perhaps she wrote a symphony that only she and Heaven shared. We cannot know.

    But her life was very precious. Each human life is very precious. So whether she would have recovered or would have always remained in a persistent vegetative state, she had value and we are diminished by her death.

  24. June
    August 18th, 2006 @ 10:51 am

    And all this time I thought Rocketman was a mindless troglodyte.

  25. Godthorn
    August 20th, 2006 @ 4:13 pm

    Drusilla, that comment brought to mind an ad published some years ago by a “right to life” organization. It was in the form of a letter written by an embryo to it’s “mother.” The brainless embryo praises its creators for bringing it into the world and then exhilerates about it’s future beautiful childhood and career. It even reveals an ambition of going to college to become a professional of some sort.

    I’m sure you’re a nice lady, Drusilla. I’m even more certain that Terri Schaivo was not composing any symphonies. -Thorngod

  26. Rocketman
    August 22nd, 2006 @ 2:37 pm

    Were I mindless I could not post as I would have no concept of language nor the ability to type.

    Were I a troglodyte I would live in a cave or undergound–which I do not.

    SO you are inaccurate in your assessment.

    I however, at this time, am absolutely sure that June is an elitist, pretentious cunt.

    Now let’s assess for accuracy.

    Go fucking figure.

  27. Eddie
    January 24th, 2012 @ 11:24 pm

    You can always tell an expert! Thanks for cnortibiutng.

  28. wblcwawc
    January 25th, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

    xqJY16 lzmwkhclkbps

  29. nrbxkddckjq
    January 28th, 2012 @ 9:26 am

    6bWPK2 lmehtqfpwlnd

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links