Asymmetrical Information

Mr Schiavo has repeatedly and consistently said that he believes himself to be carrying out his wife's own wishes, not his own, and every court which has decided on the issued has agreed. But I doubt that there is any point reminding an idiot like Landsburg about such a fact when he has a column to write.

The toaster gets a say in this matter, and that's all the Florida judge did--determine (according to the laws of florida) that the toaster did not want to be kept alive.

Thats the stupidest column I've ever read.

Jane, you have definitively jumped the shark when you start pointing others to Steven Landsburg, whose primary motivation in all his writing is his (vain and, in my opinion, entirely futile) attempt to become a rich, famous, and provocative writer. File "usual contrarian position" under "usual attempt to generate interest in himself where non exists."

This piece, no matter how one feels about the Schiavo case, was simply an embarassment on so many levels. There is nothing worth noting in it, it is best as quickly forgotten as Mr. Landsburg deserves to be.

I agree with pblsh. I don't know what you hoped to accomplish, Megan. Did you think it was funny? The woman's face is cracking from thirst at this moment and you wonder what she would be like as a toaster?

David. Terry Schiavo died a long time ago. As Landsburg notes, we are now arguing over what to do with the body.

In the above comment "Terry" should be "Terri".

Is this a subscription-only link? I can't get to it.

"Mr Schiavo has repeatedly and consistently said that he believes himself to be carrying out his wife's own wishes, not his own[.]" [my emphasis] Except on Larry King, where he said he didn't know what Terri would want but "this is what we want," whoever "we" is. And what's he supposed to say, "I want my wife dead and she can't stop me"?

This argument, and its fellow, "The court is only enforcing Terri Schindler Schiavo's own wishes [sotto voce] reported to have been expressed in casual conversations in her very early twenties to her husband, his relatives, and maybe a friend [/sotto voce]," seem to be all the right-to-die side brings up. What if they - the court, the husband - are wrong?

If the Congressional gambit (sometimes known as a law) had worked, buying a little time and the opportunity to have the evidence re-heard in a court other than the one and only one that has actually ruled on the evidence (as opposed to the others that ruled on the first court's procedural integrity - this is my understanding of the many rulings, so if I'm wrong I guess my whole argument falls down), she'd be relatively safely alive while the evidence could be heard by another court, and the second court could make an independent decision. She might still end up dead (as indeed will we all), but at least everyone who believes that the first court was either mistaken or biased toward "quality of life" rather than "fact of life" would have to be satisfied. Instead, she'll just be dead, questions about her wishes and due process will remain, and we'll have one more case to enter on the "quality of life" side of the balance sheet. At best. http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article506716.html, via Powerline, is a noteworthy article written by a man with cerebral palsy concerning how we think of and treat the disabled. Godwin's Law alert - but isn't there some relevance?

Anyone hear about the case going on now where a wife wants her husband's advance directive disregarded, while the daughter wants it honored? (I wish I could recall names or jurisdiction... just heard it this morning on the radio.) The husband, with advanced-stage Alzheimer's, apparently didn't want a feeding tube. Whether he has one and the daughter wants it removed, or needs one and the daughter doesn't want it but the wife does, I missed. I wonder how the courts will go on this... Obviously if they're going to be true to Schiavo they have to go with the advance directive, but I've read in several places now that where a relative is willing to fight an advance directive that calls for letting the patient die, hospitals usually go with the relative, not the advance directive. Hmmm.

The point, at least for me, is that if you concede the arguments of the plug-pullers, Terri isn't a person; she's a breathing corpse. This is thus not about what she "wants"; corpses don't have desires. It's about what her various family members wants.

Of course, if you don't concede this--if you think that she is a person--then it strikes me that we usually do not condemn legal persons to death on the basis of third-party claims about desires she stated, according to their testimony, with very little thought.

Jane,

The case of the plug-pullers, as you so glibly call them, is that this is all about what she *wanted when she was able to decide such things*. There is no claim as to what she wants now, many of them (if not all, I wouldn't pretend to know) would claim she hasn't the capacity to want anything.

It really isn't all that hard.

I wouldn't say so much as it is contrarian as that Landsberg has correctly identified, amid all the hysteria, the key issue: this is not a "right to die" case, but a guardian case.

And Lansburg goes on to prove exactly why libertarian economists aren't too terribly popular at parties. Others go on to forget how to look past their emotions and examine an interesting problem of competing preferences.

Maybe Golden Palace.com should just put a bid on ownership of Terri's body.

They bought the grilled cheese Jesus, after all. Why not her? If she's just a thing, it'd be fine.

Maybe they could pimp her out in a Nevada brothel.

Let's get this straight. I don't want the toaster, so I hire George Felos for $350,000 to dispose of the toaster on my behalf.

BTW, turns out Felos is a bit of a theocrat:

http://grahamlester.typepad.com/point2point/2005/03/george_felos_th.html

Could we stop pretending that there is clear and convincing evidence as to what this woman's desires were, simply because a stupidly crafted law defines recollections of years-past conversations as being so? If the Florida legislature passed a law declaring human beings capable of flight without aid of machines, would you dehydration advocates go out and jump off your roofs?

Hey, Jack, then why doesn't he refer to it as a body rather than demean her memory further by comparing it to a toaster?

If Steven Landsburg wanted to be funny, he might have mentioned some of the more obvious japes making the rounds right now.

Weekend at Bernies and the equally delightful "Part II" explain why we bury the dead, instead of doing something else with them.

One issue is a theological one: when does the soul leave the body?

If the soul is the same as the mind, or consciousness, then perhaps Terri Schiavo's soul left 15 years ago.

On the other hand, if the soul is separate from mind and consciousness, then her soul might be caged up in her body until death.

The point, at least for me, is that if you concede the arguments of the plug-pullers, Terri isn't a person; she's a breathing corpse. This is thus not about what she "wants"; corpses don't have desires. It's about what her various family members wants.

No a corpse is not 'up for grabs' to whoever wants it. If your inlaws would like to have you stuffed and mounted over their fireplace with a dart board painted on your face is this just a perfectly valid expression of their desires? Should your husband's wish to have you properly buried (or cremated) be overwritten by that?

If Terri were a toaster it would be much easier to pull the plug.

If Terri Schiavo is simply a "body" at this point, I wonder why the hospice is wasting morphine on her? Evidently the people charged with overseeing her gruesome multi-week death-by-neglect aren't as dead certain about her insentience as this University of Rochester economics professor is.

While many of Landsburg's Slate columns are well-argued and have a refreshing perspective, there are times when he comes across as the kind of creepy caricature libertarian you might find in a Tom Tomorrow cartoon. Judging from the portion which Jane quoted, I'd say this column is one of those times (although I haven't read the whole thing yet). I can't help thinking his gleefully provocative desire to commodify absolutely everything is a bit disingenuous, though. If his wife or one of his children died, I wonder how he'd feel about a necrophiliac making use of the discarded "resource"?

Indeed, the problem is not whether or not Terri is really a corpse at this point. If she was the argument would be a trivial one for the nation. The problem is whether or not her husband should be allowed to speak for her on her wishes & in her interests.

This is the standard practice in cases where spouses are unable to speak for themselves and there is an accepted process by which others can challenge a guardian if they feel he is not acting in his wards best interests. Her parents tried and failed, despite being given an extraordinary number of chances.

What is being done is not at all unusual. Feeding tubes are removed or denied all the time. Tom Delay did the same thing to his dad years ago! (Well actually it was dialysis but that is often less intrusive than a feeding tube)

This tragedy is being discussed around millions of dinner tables and family rooms. One lesson has been ignored: the consequences of doing drugs. Terri Schindler Schiavo's high school friends in Pa. tell of a big-time meth habit she
and Michael had. Guess what causes eating disorders, chemical imbalances, heart problems and
brain damage? I suppose the media, if they've even bothered to dig this up, are withholding it out of "common decency" for her memory. However,
with thousands of kids listening, this would be a great opportunity for parents to warn them of the
dangers of drugs.

Who here would keep thier dog alive like this?

Jane,

The "arguments of the plug pullers" is not that she is legally dead; clearly she is not. The argument is that she has the right to refuse treatment. This is not the same thing as the right to die, of course, though people keep conflating the two. Whether we have sufficient evidence about her preferences is another story. Is your point that an entity without the cognitive sophistication to have these sorts of preferences can't be said to be refusing treatment? That would be an interesting position, though I think it would be contrary to the conventional wisdom in medical ethics-- and it isn't exactly what you've said.

I agree with Landsburg that this is primarily a case about the living, the family, including her parents, her siblings and her husband. All of them count. Mr. Schiavo, IMHO, is a heartless creep for insisting on pulling the plug against the wishes of her parents. I can only think that those of you above who support Mr. Schiavo are not and have never been parents. If that's so, I wish you many children so you can learn a little wisdom and a little humility.

Some of you keep referring to the Florida trial court's determination of Mrs. Schiavo's intent. I think the court erred grievously; no way, no how, could a competent court have found that intent by "clear and convincing" evidence.

1) There is no evidence at all that Mrs. Schiavo ever discussed what to do with her if she ended up PVS. At most, she saw elderly people who were dying on life support and she said she didn't want to end up like that. From that, the court concluded (by "clear and convincing evidence") that she would want to die of starvation and dehydration in these circumstances.

2) We do not accept hearsay evidence of how a decedent wants to pass property. We insist on a signed, witnessed will because hearsay evidence in those circumstances is inherently unreliable. In my view, the same reasoning applies here. Thus, the courts should disregard evidence of what somebody may have said orally about what they might want done for them in extreme circumstances, and insist upon a signed, witnessed living will.

Tht said, if all her close relatives wanted to pull the plug here, I would let them.

Also, I think it's unfortunate that Congress got into the act. The fact that the Florida trial court erred in its findings of fact was not grounds for federal intervention in this case anymore than it would be in a state murder conviction. State courts make mistakes, that's inevitable, but in a federal system we shouldn't allow the federal courts to review them.

Last, but not least, you all should read CommonDreams.Org today. This far-left website has columns by Ralph Nader and by an advocate for the disabled, both of who come out in favor of keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive. I don't think this issue breaks down nicely into a left/right struggle. For me, it's not ideological at all, just personal: my heart breaks for her parents, and I think he's a creep.

Suppose I have a terminal illness and I have myself cryogenically frozen. Before I do so, I sign papers stating that I wish to be maintained in such a state until medical technology is sufficiently advanced to cure my disease.

Suppose that the chances of this working out seem of the same order of magnitude as Mrs. Schiavo's chances of recovering sentience.
My intentions are clearer and the burden on others is cheaper (freezing is cheaper than medical care).

What are my spouse's legal (nor moral) obligations to respect my wishes? If I don't set aside a cryogenic support trust fund, what obligations does the cryogenic facility have to continue my storage? What obligation does the taxpayer have to fund my continued freezing?

The more interesting question surrounding this case is one that goes unasked..

Would we even be having these discussions if Terri had been a man instead? I certainly don't think so, and that ladies and gentlemen says more about us as a society than most are willing to admit.

In the case of a surviving wife she would be merely carrying out her husband's wishes. When it is a man making the same decision a sinister ulterior motive is suspected.

I trust my wife of 20+ years to make the hard decisions regarding my care should I befall a similar fate, not a court, and although I love them, not my parents.

"Suppose I have a terminal illness and I have myself cryogenically frozen. Before I do so, I sign papers stating that I wish to be maintained in such a state until medical technology is sufficiently advanced to cure my disease."

Ah, the "Ted Williams' Head" scenario.

The Harvard Crimson has an interesting perspective on this from a student who has cerebal palsy: http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article506716.html

I assume this is all prelude to Landsburg's next column: "Why I Should Be Able To Have Sex With Dead Celebrities".

FL says,

The argument is that she has the right to refuse treatment. This is not the same thing as the right to die, of course, though people keep conflating the two.

You're right... refusing treatment isn't necessarily the same as committing suicide, or wouldn't be in this case if any attempt was made to nourish Terri Schindler Schiavo by mouth. But since Florida apparently considers a feeding tube "heroic measures" (thus, "treatment" rather than "nourishment"), and since long-ago rulings forbid any such attempt, the two are functionally the same here.

Landsburg concludes:

"One—the desire to feed—is like the desire to read Saletan or, more precisely, the desire to read some other writer in whom I personally see no merit. The other—the desire to prevent others from feeding—is like the desire to censor, and I recoil from censorship even when a strict cost-benefit analysis recommends it."

I see his point but his metaphor stops short: reading (i.e. feeding) does bring about an improvement or positive result of some kind, such as stimulation of the brain, use of words, adding to one's knowledge, refining or revising one's knowledge, and, perhaps along the way, learning something truly valid.

I err on the quality of life while Bush et al. err on the side of life itself even if, on its own, life would not continue. Feeding a woman who could not feed herself for 15 years (after an eating disorder, which no one is talking about, that put her in a vegetable state to begin with, I might add) is an exercise that brings about not a jot of good in any concrete way. The woman is already gone and would not stay alive but for human intervention.

You cannot argue in favor of keeping her alive in the way you would a baby who has been denied food. The baby has a future and every capacity to live life. There is no overwhelming situation that calls for the baby's life to end. For Terri Shiavo this standard, whatever the legal argument for or against, does not apply. She is not, helplessness aside, a baby. This is an adult whose life has been so physically and mentally impaired that it cannot continue on its own and, while maintained artificially, with any hope of living that life.

One can argue that such intervention to keep her alive would be a part of God's plan. The human and divine, for the religiously inclined, are not mutually exclusive. Interestingly, an e-mailer to Andrew Sullivan's site a few days back argues that this overwhelming desire to keep Shiavo alive is, itself, heretical in Christian teaching. At this stage of the game, the pro-lifers are clinging to this world too much and deny the world to come to one of their sisters who has suffered far too much in this one and whose ability to have more life and live it abundantly as Jesus instructed has been reduced to zero.

The problem is that the vociferous and heated response to what the courts have decided makes it seem as if the husband, or for that matter the courts, are "actively" seeking to kill Terri Shiavo, much in the same way that Rehnquist characterized abortion (in his dissent from the stare decisis of Roe v. Wade) as, I paraphrase, "inserting a gun into the womb and pulling the trigger."

While I take exception to Rehnquist's description as it does not at all appear he considers or cares that such an action would invariably kill the woman as well, his point is that abortion is actively killing. It is. And it is legal in this country. Whatever one's view on abortion, what Mr. Schiavo is trying to do is not at all the same. He is not trying to kill his wife. He is letting her go to die naturally on her own. To call him a "creep" is deeply unfair. We don't know what he has suffered in seeing his wife disappear long ago.

That is why Landberg's cynicism against the husband is so misplaced and wrong: "If I throw out a toaster, and you want to retrieve it from my trash, there's a net economic gain. If Michael Schiavo essentially throws out his wife's body and her parents want to retrieve it, it seems pointless to prevent them."

Terri is no toaster. What about her RIGHT TO DIE? Because that is the only option available to her as things have turned out. To insist on the continuation of life by so threadbare a physical means, no matter the circumstances, entails the same ideological extremism (monism) of materialists who view life as only physical. Some things in life ARE more important than life itself.

None of this addresses the legal issue nor is meant to. Those who are pro-choice favor the courts. Those who are pro-life favor overturning them by an act of Congress. Politically I find the latter very disturbing. Much as I do the Left's anti-democratic and dangerous experiments in social engineering through the law.

Nor does any of this deny the deep sorrow Shiavo's parents feel over being forced to let their daughter go. My heart goes out to them most of all. But the bigger heart break for all us is MORE government intervention into our personal lives. Let the Shiavo's suffer their tragedy in private. Enough already.

There are some interesting points used here to discount Terri's purported wishes....

She was youmg, the statements were made when she was in her early twenties.....discounting the fact that Terri didn't make it out of her early twenties as a cogitating being.

And that they were made either as a part of another conversation, flippantly or that they lack specificity.

How else do these things come up? I can think of several ways, one of them remarkably similar to Terri's supposed corse of action, seeing or hearing of such a case and deciding that one would not want to be in that position. Isn't that what we're al doing right now? Seeing Terri and realizing the need for a living will or some other advance directive?

as far as the inexactness of her phraseology, again, we come to the nature of how these things occur to people. By being grossed out. By being horrified or pitiful. Rarely do they include clinical descriptions. Terri made a generalized statement while never imagining that it might need to be more exact because she never imagined that it would really happen.

The whole thing, on Terri's part, probably went from her being somewhat grossed out and pitiful to a flippant remark that she might've made to a friend or relative---just like your L:iving Will will be six years from now when you haven't used it. You might even laugh that you made it out during that 'Schiavo thing'.

That wish is important because both Michael and Terri's parents think that Terri is in there somewhere, or that her soul is somehow still attached to that body. Michael thinks she's not happy with the situation while the Schindler's think something else...maybe that she's just floating somewhere. Both want what they think is best for Terri.

Would we even be having these discussions if Terri had been a man instead? I certainly don't think so, and that ladies and gentlemen says more about us as a society than most are willing to admit.

Interestingly there was a very similar case that CNN profiled maybe a week ago. The man was a popular local anchorman who was hurt in a car crash. His wife state that he had told her he would not have wanted to live like this and she asked that his feeding tube be removed. It was and he died. His parents wanted him to live and tried to challenge the decision but were unsuccessful.

"In the case of a surviving wife she would be merely carrying out her husband's wishes. When it is a man making the same decision a sinister ulterior motive is suspected."

I don't buy it. If there was a wife who argued for a big malpractice settlement for hubby's care, then decided the tube needed to be removed after taking up with another man and starting to have the other man's babies, a fair number of people would suspect her. I submit it would be approximately the same number that suspect Michael Schiavo.

I do believe, however, that if it were a man, no one would analogize him to a small kitchen appliance.

I do believe, however, that if it were a man, no one would analogize him to a small kitchen appliance.

Naw, we'd analogize him to something more apt like a weed wacker or a pneumatic drill.

Ummm...perhaps Terri Schiavo's body isn't a toaster? Just asking.

DBL: "I can only think that those of you above who support Mr. Schiavo are not and have never been parents. If that's so, I wish you many children so you can learn a little wisdom and a little humility." I have two children. When they get married, I will try to remember that they have cleaved from their parents to cling to their spouse, and that the spouse, not me, is their ultimate guardian and advocate. Hopefully, you raised your children is such a way that they will marry someone with similar morals to yours.

That said, I agree with most of your points. I agree that this case is, sadly, vague, but I worry that the government is going to use it impose laws that will rescue us from the burden of our own free will.

This concern is mitigated by the circus of seeing Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Kenneth Starr, the Brothers Bush, and the assorted "Right-to-Lifers" all on the same side. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Jamie,

the two are functionally the same here

They yield the same result. But they're justified by different considerations, and in particular the general "right to die" is much more controversial than the right to refuse treatment, since the latter, but not the former, can be derived from the general right to be free from unwanted bodily intrusion.

Comments are Closed.