Herb Sendeck and a More Weighty Issue

The “Factual” Dog wasn’t so factual about the Wolfpack the other night. Instead of winning 68-62, they lost 64-55. She claims it was the meds that caused her to be so very, very wrong. I have my doubts.

We both like Herb Sendeck, as he has certainly managed to get the Pack into the NCAAs enough times. And he always puts on a strong show at the ACC Tournament. But he never wins either event. Remember being up by 20 against Maryland in the 2004 semis? They lost. How about being up by 13 against Dook in the 2003 finals? They lost. And, oh yea, how about the 1997 ACC tournament finals against UNC? They lost.

The problem is simple, Herb is a poor closer. Should they fire him? No. Let’s see what happens next year. They had injury issues this year. Anyway, we mustn’t dwell. Baseball in DC is days away.

So, the dog is looking at me as if she has something to say. “What is it?” I ask.

“Well”, she says in that matter-of-fact bark of hers, “Isn’t it about time we get to some more weighty issues?”

I reply, “You’re not talking about that Terri Schiavo are you? I’m sick of hearing about that every minute of the day.”

“Of course I’m talking about Terri Schiavo. You say that this blog is about ‘everything in life that matters’, as well as ‘politics’. So your thoughts on this subject are worth noting for posterity, if nothing else. You really can’t back out of this one. That is, if you – or anyone else – is going to take this blog seriously”.

“OK, I get it”, I tell her, “But be careful of what you ask for.”

So this is how I break this issue down:

Reasonable, well informed people seem to disagree on whether Mrs. Schiavo is in a vegetative state or at some minimum level of consciousness. Either way, she is not on “life support”. She is fed by a feeding tube. Life support involves machines artificially operating a key organ, such as the heart, the lungs, or the kidneys. There is a big difference. By removing the feeding tube, they are not ‘letting her die’. They are killing her. So let’s put that to rest right now.

The only reason they kill her that way, rather than via lethal injection or smothering her with a pillow, is to ease the guilt feelings and soften the image of the people doing the deed. Certainly, they don’t starve her to death for her benefit. After all, if she does have some level of consciousness, she is dying a terrible, tortuous death. And if she is truly brain dead, why not just inject her with something that would immediately arrest the heart and get it over with?

If a person is unquestionably brain dead, then it is not morally wrong to cause the heart to stop beating. But who gets to make that decision? The spouse probably should have first call on that, assuming that the doctors and judges are in 100 percent agreement on her state, the latest technology has been used to make the determination, and the spouse has no conflicts of interest.

If, for some reason, the spouse wants to sustain the patient’s body in a situation meeting the above criteria, he or she should pay for it. In the event the spouse does not want to sustain the patient, and a parent, brother or sister wants to step in and say, “No, I will take responsibility for the patient, and will pay to keep the body alive”, then he or she should be allowed to do so.

The surviving spouse should be given the opportunity to divorce the patient and marital assets should be transferred to him or her, without any restrictions on their use. In the event that the patient somehow miraculously recovers, there would be a messy situation in trying to get the assets back. From the patient’s standpoint, that would be “a good problem to have”, as they say. How ever that issue is settled, the immediate family would be responsible for ongoing financial support.

For this solution to work, the surviving spouse cannot have a conflict of interest. The automatic transfer of the assets should take care of that. There may be emotional conflicts as well, such as is the case with Mike Schiavo, who has two kids with another woman. He didn’t do anything wrong by being with this other woman. The relationship developed years after Terri’s being declared brain dead. He needed to move on with his life. However, the situation does create a conflict of interest that cannot be ignored.

Also, hearsay evidence regarding the patient’s wishes should be very cautiously used in determining the patient’s fate. Michael Schiavo somehow remembered, seven years after his wife had been hospitalized, that at one point in the 1980s they were watching something on TV about a person on life support, and Terri said that if she were ever in that position, she would want the plug pulled. This “repressed” memory surfaced only after he had begun living with another woman. How many people with opinions on this issue are even aware of this fact?

Two things are wrong with Mr. Schiavo’s story: (1) While it is possible that she said she wanted to have the “plug pulled” if she were ever brain dead, it is hard to believe that she specifically said, “If I am ever in a state of minimal consciousness on a feeding tube, please disconnect it so I can die of thirst”; and (2) Michael’s conflict of interest throws this story in doubt, no matter how hard one might want to believe it. The Factual Dog believes that if hearsay evidence cannot be relied upon to send a murderer to the death chamber, then it certainly has no place in this circumstance.

The issue of determining brain-dead status is, admittedly, a bit out of the Factual Dog's domain. Aside from about 63 percent of the people who supported Howard Dean and John Kerry last year, I’m really not sure what a brain dead person looks like. But I would assume that the determination of brain-dead status would involve the latest technologies, such as CAT scans and PET scans. But Michael Schiavo blocked these tests from being done, as if he was afraid the tests might tell him something he did not want to hear. He also blocked any kind of therapy for the woman, which, although unlikely, might have helped her at least partially recover.

Which brings me to the political aspect of this affair. I am really scratching my head about over the question of why so many people feel emotionally committed to seeing her killed.

The answer cannot be that they care abut what is best for her. If they did, then they would be in a logical thicket. Think about it: If she is brain dead, then she cannot have any senses of any sort. So killing her wouldn’t be putting her out of her misery, because she is incapable of experiencing misery. So what harm is done if her immediate family wants to step in and take responsibility for her because they believe in miracles? On the other hand, if she is capable of experiencing misery, then she isn’t brain dead and killing her is murder.

I also don’t think folks are so revved up over this because of their concern for Michael Schiavo. After all, when was the last time you saw anyone on the Left get all bent out of shape in fighting for the rights of a husband to dictate control over his wife? This is hypocrisy. Michael Schiavo, by many reports, is not a very nice fellow. For crying out loud, he allegedly remembered his wifes wishes to not be kept alive only after $400,000 was placed in a medical trust for her. And the Left wants to stake out a position in his defense as the single person who should decide on life or death?

The emotions may also come from people who somehow see this case as a proxy for the abortion debate. The Dog will weigh in on that issue soon enough. They see this as a wedge to drive between religious conservatives and other types of conservatives, such as the Factual Dog, and they just enjoy pouring gasoline on that particular fire. As an added bonus, how often do they get an emotional, headline-grabbing issue that catches not one, but TWO Bushes in a political dilemma?

Finally, and this one really hits the mark straight on: There is a huge gaggle of people out there who are consumed with hatred for evangelical Christians. When they see that evangelical Christians are supporting one point of view on an issue, these people instinctively migrate to the opposite position and put on their battle armor. We here at the Factual Dog are neither “evangelical” Christian, in the popular sense of the word, nor do we have any cultural affinity with moral majority types. Quite the opposite on many “values” issues. However, the Left loves to stir up a big fuss whenever a small group of fundamentalist Christian types show up on television with their placards and chants. The Left wants all of America to think that that is how ALL Christians, and by association, Republicans, look like.

To sum up my thoughts on this case, if the parents want to take the financial responsibility for Terri, they should be able to do so. The judges should discount anything Michael says with respect to her wishes due to his financial and emotional conflicts of interest. Finally, the court should significantly raise the bar used to determine whether a patient is brain dead of not. In short, I simply don’t see why we shouldn’t let Terri’s parents take care of her, and let Michael Shaivo go his separate way, unencumbered by any ties to Terri.

Pooch has had enough. She gets a treat today. Hopefully the Lyme disease is getting better. Her nose, which was warm all last week, is cold today, so that’s good.