conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

more about medical ethics and random related links

I thought I would toss these links your way.

First, there are three (1,2,3) editorial pieces in the NY Times this morning on end-of-life issues. The first is by Andrew Kohut. Here is the core of his thinking:

It is rare for Washington politicians to buck public opinion. An ABC News poll conducted on Sunday found a 63 percent to 28 percent majority supporting removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube. The poll also found that the public, by a margin of 70 percent to 27 percent, opposes Congressional involvement in the case. Fully 67 percent of the poll's participants thought members of Congress were more focused on using the Schiavo case for political advantage than on the principles involved...One-third of the respondents to the ABC News poll reported that a friend or relative had died after life support was stopped. And more than half of these respondents were involved in the decision. Like Social Security, end-of-life issues hit close to home, where ideology and partisanship play much less of a role than an all-too-human self-interest.

This statistical reality does not change the tragic realities in this case, but it is interesting to get a sense of where the American public may be. Also, I wonder if the same poll will have different results after Terri passes away.

The second editorial is a very personal account of one family's decision to respect their father's wishes. It is quite moving.

All along we'd known the right choices; we had an excellent guide. It was our father himself. He gave us explicit directions that at a certain point we should not allow any extraordinary medical intervention. He had a living will and I was appointed his medical proxy.

Ms. Schiavo's case is more complicated; there is a morass of competing claims of family members and no living will to tell us what she wanted herself. The entire debate exists only because of the absence of a single piece of paper.

The third from the Times is about federalism and how this case may or may not cross some lines. This is the Times. It is partisan.

For years now, Congress has more and more stringently demanded that federal court intervention be limited to cases where the state courts have acted not just technically incorrectly, but with egregious lack of reason. Whatever might be said of the Florida state court proceedings in this case, they certainly have not crossed that line, and indeed probably accord with what state courts all over the country have ordered or permitted for years in these difficult and agonizing cases.

The Washington Times has published these letters to the editor about the case. Even in this very conservative paper, the opinions vary. The Tribune published this article this morning. It is about how the Illinios law functions in cases like Schiavo's. Take it's advice: Fill out the paperwork. Speak with your family. Name an agent or surrogate for health care.

And in what is perhaps the most important development of the year, Colin Powell speaks out about the rampant steroid use in the Oval Office. It is a scandal that should demand your attention.

^THIS IS FROM CLIFF!^
(How's that, Cliff?)

Posted by tripp at March 23, 2005 10:01 AM