Asymmetrical Information

Have you seen the video clips at http://www.terrisfight.org/ ?

This is not my idea of what 'persistent vegetative state' was supposed to mean.

Once again, the love of money proves itself to be a root of evil...

What I really don't understand is the fiancee. How on earth could you get involved with a man who seems to be trying to kill off his former, helpless wife, in order to get his hands on her medical trust fund?

Well, you don't. You get involved with a man who is selflessly taking care of his (you are told) vegetative wife. Of course he's a wonderful guy, and of course you stand by him. And now the wife's family is evilly questioning this saint's agonizing decision to end his wife's sad state...

I wonder, if the case is a clear-cut as Wesley Smith makes out, what is the judge thinking? And is all of Michael's family in on it, or extremely callous, or what?

Also, there may not be much trust fund left. 750k can't be paying out much income (50k per year sounds high) compared to medical costs. Take out what Michael's lawyers have charged, and you have to wonder what's left. (Not that I would mind if someone handed me the lowly sum of, say, 100k. But I hope it would take more for me to bring about the death of my wife, or to get my family to back me up in doing it.)

As my grandfather used to say "Humans just aint nice people".

In regards to the fiance staying with someone of such apparent low character, there is a phenomenon that you see each time a mass killer is captured and put in jail, there is always a swarm of women ready to marry these evil creatures. David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez, Charles Manson and so on, always have these women wanting to marry them. I believe the theory being that they are trying to 'save them' with their love.

I see it all the time, but its still surprises me.

What Frank said, but it's not just women who can be incredibly stupid in their choice of mates. Men can be equally stupid, not to mention unbelievably gullible. E.g., a career soldier in a unit that regularly rotated between Korea and the states acquired a Korean girlfriend. He was rotated back to the states for 2 years. When he came back to Korea, she had a newborn child - and she managed to convince him it was his. He married her. If they ever split up, she'll get child support, half his future pension, and maybe alimony too.

No, that isn't on the scale of falling in love with a mass murderer, but remember how much rarer female mass murderers are. Aside from the occasional "black widow" who marries men for their money and poisons them, men rarely are at risk in a relationship for more than damaged pride, heartbreak, and financial ruin. (At least I've never heard of a man wanting to marry one of these sociopaths as she is carted off to prison for the rest of her life. That's because men want sex, and the life sentence without parole thing is likely to get in the way, not because men are any more realistic overall.)

Or consider the far more common case of the woman married to an abusive man; often they'll stick to the SOB until he beats her to death. It doesn't happen to men, although it appears that about 1/3 of domestic violence is started by the woman. Whoever starts the fight, unless she's carrying a gun and ready to use it immediately, the man is going to win nearly all the time.

So women are apt to be dead or seriously hurt if they pick the wrong man - their grievious errors are a lot more visible than men's, and if it's the woman that's nuts and abusive, it's still likely to end with her in the hospital and him in jail...

The article is definitely one-sided, to the point that it makes you want to make a case for the opposite side. My wife used to work in a home for "cognitively impaired" adults, generally not as impaired as Terri. It was privately run but with the state paying the bills for most of the patients. It was probably as good as any place dealing with such cases can be - certainly if you have to stretch $750,000 out over thirteen years, let alone a lifetime. Still, I'd a lot rather be dead than stuck in that place.

So, the "do not rescuscitate" order sounds OK to me. [1] The lack of therapy to exercise and train whatever cognition is left sounds wrong, but I'm not going to take this advocacy article's word as final about the effectiveness and financial feasibility of this treatment.

OTOH, when it comes to the dehydration, this case isn't just on the slippery slope, it's rocketing down it. No way is that a permanent vegetative state. Unless Florida law is downright strange, the husband is definitely wrong in the law, no matter what his real motives are. We can't have judges just making up the law as they go along.

[1] What's the Roman Catholic position on "do not rescuscitate"? It certainly isn't interfering with God's will...

When I was in college, I was once sitting out on the front porch of the dump I was renting with five friends. Suddenly, two doors down, the door flew open, and a small projectile of a woman shot out on to the lawn, followed by a slight man, who proceeded to stoop over her and begin beating her, not in a rage, but slowly and methodically, as if he were well practiced at this task. After my shock wore off, I grabbed a softball bat that was leaning against the wall, jogged over, and informed the little prick that I was going to kneecap him if he didn't knock it off. I was too stupid in those days to simply call the cops and wash my hands of it. The result was predictable; the woman, no longer having to fend off punches, turned to me and screamed, "Min' yer own f****n' business!! I stood there, slack-jawed, for a moment, and then turned, walked back to my house, and went inside. I probably should have called the cops anyway, but my adult introduction as to the utter self-destructiveness of human beings had begun, and left me stunned. Why the hell do any number of people do any number of stupid things? The list of reasons is probably as long as the list of people.

I've stayed in two fancy hotel rooms recently, thousands of miles apart, both of which had the same unpleasant odor similar to but not exactly like stale urine. In one hotel, the Wyndham Orlando, the odor was there when I arrived seemed to be coming from the bathroom (and remained after I asked the housekeeping staff to reclean the bathroom to remove the odor), but in the other, the Intercontinental Tel Aviv, the odor seemed to come from the carpeting. I would be inclined to think that the odor was in fact urine and I was the victim of a bizarre coincidence, but for the fact that the odor in Tel Aviv wasn't there the first two nights I stayed there, and appeared on the third day after the maid tidied the room. Also, when I checked into the Intercontinental, I rejected the first room I was assigned because it had the same odor. I believe this isn't just my imagination, because my girlfriend noticed the same odor. We suspect that the hotels are using some sort of new cleaning fluid that leaves this unpleasant smell. Has anyone else had the same experience, or know of some explanation for this phenomenon?

Re: db

Mold that grew inside the dust in the vaccume cleaner's dus collection bag in high humidity have the same smell. It could be you're staying in warm and humid places.

Markm,

I found this on the Roman Catholic position on DNR orders:

While as Christians we are not to seek death, nowhere in Scripture is a dying person instructed to do every conceivable thing to prolong an inevitable process. The Roman Catholic Church, along with many conservative Protestant Evangelical scholars and clinical medical ethicists, affirm the right of a dying person to forego treatments that are truly futile, only prolong one's death, or impose significant pain and suffering in exchange for little assistance.

I don't know anything about the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, but what they say accords with my own impressions.

Of course, in this case it's not Terri deciding about her future medical treatment, but her husband. It sounds like Terri didn't apoint a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, so he's acting as a Health Care Surrogate, ie someone appointed by statute (or a judge, I guess).

My impression is the RC Church, and most Protestants, frown on killing your wife. I don't think they're in favor of having kids by women other than your wife, either.

Will Allen, your story is interesting and though I have not confronted such situations directly, I know of several girls that can't seem to leave their abusive partner. This is something I used to casually attribute to a lack of independence on the part of the female, financially or whatever, ostensively preventing her from leaving. But then I started noticing the cases of the girls who wouldn't leave the desolate and pathetic guy who's providing nothing and going nowhere.

The above may play a role in some situations but I think that there are generally more dominant factors. Perhaps it's an issue of so-called self-esteem in that somehow they come to believe that it's something they deserve. The whole idea of self-esteem is really a dammed concept that shouldn't exist. A great deal of attention is paid to the concept in many places today and I'm not convinced it's doing a lot of good. Self-esteem is an internal feeling, right? Why, then, should it not be one of the easiest things to control? Once one quits monitoring and regulating emotional states and beliefs, the problem of control and will in the external world must become ever so much worse.

Some time ago I read a paper by Akerloff on cognitive dissonance. The idea is that cognitive consistency takes precedence over a more accurate view of reality. They surveyed a variety of individuals holding rather dangerous jobs and found that most of the workers did not believe their job to be dangerous. Essentially, cognitive dissonance over working in an unsafe environment and the belief that safety is good required individuals holding such jobs to either quit or change their opinion about the level of danger in their occupation. As I think about it, most of the extremely bad relationships of which I am aware are long term relationships in which this phenomena may have had time to manifest itself. I can't understand why one of my friends stays with the guy that beats her, but maybe he did it once and she didn't think anything or considered it an outlier. Twice and again. Over a period of time it could become a rituatlistic part of a relationship around which irrational beliefs are formed.

I dated a girl over the summer who had an ex that hit her one occasion. She grabbed the closest object, a broom, beat him bloody and left for good. A lot of guys need to show a great deal more respect and there are a lot of girls that need to demand it.

One reason women don't leave (even physically abusive) partners as often as they should IMHO:

One of the purposes of physical abuse is to instill psychological dependence and it works pretty darn well if it's alternated with tender affection (for most abusive spouses this takes the form of 'I'm so sorry, I'll never do it again').

"In regards to the fiance staying with someone of such apparent low character, there is a phenomenon that you see each time a mass killer is captured and put in jail, there is always a swarm of women ready to marry these evil creatures. David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez, Charles Manson and so on, always have these women wanting to marry them. I believe the theory being that they are trying to 'save them' with their love."

It isn't just an American thing, either. Waffen SS Gruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf, commander of Einsatzgruppe D, which was responsible for murdering 90,000 Jews by his own estimate, was inundated with love letters and marriage proposals between the time his trial began and his execution. That the guy was an admitted mass murderer only seemed to boost his charms in the eyes of the female sex.

Not just him. Look at Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker and his groupies and the Menendez brothers, one of whom married his groupie.

What if the dehydration process were carried out on live television?

Abiola Lapite: "That the guy was an admitted mass murderer only seemed to boost his charms in the eyes of the female sex."

A (female) friend of mine used to say "Every woman loves a fascist", in my mind I always set that to the old song "Everybody loves a lover".

Dehydration in an unconscious patient with a terminal condition is not the same as dehydration in a person who is awake and alert enough to understand what is happening. I have cared for many dying patients, who prior to becoming vegetative, signed DNR and No fluid or sustenance orders.

Studies have been done to gauge the discomfort of withholding fluids from these patients. They all point to the benefit of not forcing a feeding tube or IV fluids on a person who can’t swallow. Patients in the last stages of dying loose the desire to drink. Forcing fluids upon a dying person often just agitates them, and then you have to restrain them to keep them from harming themselves. This stresses the patient as well as the family who has to live through the trauma of watching a loved one die. I know, been there, done that, personally. (Watching the dying, didn’t need the restraints)

Just from reading the stuff on the various web pages Terri does not seem to be in a classic vegetative state. But even eyeless worms can be taught to crawl toward a light given enough time to train them. She needs an independent evaluation of LOC.

"What I really don't understand is the fiancee. How on earth could you get involved with a man who seems to be trying to kill off his former, helpless wife, in order to get his hands on her medical trust fund?"

What, you never heard of Lady MacBeth? ;-)

You might want to read some of the news oriented articles on this. It is a very different story than the one portrayed. This is an extremely biased piece of journalism.

Marie, I've done a quick Google News search, and haven't come up with anything refuting the parents' claims. Can you provide links?

A question to stir the pot:

The law has decided this woman doesn't really qualify as a viable human being. Why can't she be simply disposed of? Is it possible for the law to be wrong, and if so, is it possible the law is wrong about, say, third-trimester abortion?

Good point David - although it applies to babies and small children as well. What exactly is the definition of a viable human being? If you left your five month old baby to starve and dehydrate to death, you be arrested and tried for murder. But it's okay to do the same to this woman?

Will Allen - your experience becomes a running gag in the Buster Keaton film "Our Hospitality".

Katherine -
Back when the first two court battles were fought - 2001 or so this was a major story on all the news magazines (20/20 etc). It just recently popped up again when the parents exhausted appeals. You should probably go for archives in 2001. The print media had both sides represented then. CNN has free archives. AP and Reuters have great archives but I believe you need to pay.

If people really care about this they owe it to themselves to know the whole truth before jumping one way or another. Like so many things in life - it just isn't that simple.

Marie,

If it "just isn't that simple," perhaps you could give us a few of the relevant facts, rather than directing us to archives we shall have to pay to access. You seem to have additional information; why not share it? I mean, just the gist?

All I can see from the article and the links is that a woman who is pretty clearly not in a "persistent vegetative state" is about to be starved to death at the request of her husband and against the wishes of her parents, by court order.

That the husband pledged to care for his wife for the rest of her life, and won a large cash settlement for that purpose; that he has long been involved with another woman, and had a child by her, and hopes to marry her — this is all back-story. It's important — well, it's absolutely damning if true — but the point is that a human being who is not "persistently vegetative" is about to be slowly done to death by court order, at the request of her husband. I should like to see the "other side" of that.

Well, if that's the story, he shouldn't mind forfeiting the trust fund to someone who's actually committed to her care. Right?

Oh. Maybe it really is all about the money.

The only non-2003 link I came up with this morning was this, which wasn't very helpful. I am still willing to be convinced there's another side to this story; the Florida Supreme Court justices surely aren't inclined to murder. The problem may be a misunderstanding of the term "persistent vegetative state" (the link is a geocities site but looks pretty informative). Apparently it doesn't exclude people like Terri who can open and close their eyes, make noise, track moving objects, or move toward a loud sound. Maybe the moral problem we're all having is broader than just this one case. Is it right to withhold food and water from someone in a persistent vegetative state, or not?

Katherine,

That link is puzzling, to say the least. It says of patients in PVS:

Their heads and eyes can follow a moving object or move towards a loud sound[.]

but a little later on (three sentences later, in fact), we have

Although they may move their eyes, patients in a vegetative state neither fixate on a visual object nor track a moving target with their eyes[.]

Well, can they track a moving target with their eyes or can't they? Maybe the author is trying to imply that the "tracking" is random, but it's an extraordinarily unclear way of phrasing it.

The article is a bit contradictory, I agree. I devoutly hope there exists somewhere a more rigid definition for a condition that has life or death laws written around it. If anyone can find better information, I'd be interested.

Katherine -
With warnings that this was years ago this is the gist of the 'other side' of the conflict.

Money - It may have been a 'massive' lawsuit but $750,00 is not a massive settlement. If it ever did produce $50,000 it was not doing so at the time of the 2001 lawsuit. She was moved to a hospice because the hospital needed the bed for patients that could benefit from therapy. The hospital could decide this since she was not paying for the bed - not enough money. The trustees were having a hard time trying to stretch the settlement to cover her care.

Therapy - All of the physicians caring for her said that she was in a per.veg. state. The family would not agree to the terms with their physicians so the physicians testifying for the parents did not have direct contact with the patient. None of the doctors thought speech therapy was even possible.

Pulling the Plug - The husband had a plausible scenario that had brought up the discussion of pulling the plug, a friend in a vp state months before she took sick. He spoke sincerely about this being about what his wife wanted.

That's just the gist of the other side. However the doctors testimony about her vegetative state was very compelling. The judge's decision was about that.

Comments are Closed.