Friday, October 24, 2003
More Selective Memories
Apparently Florida Speaker of the House Johnnie Byrd isn't the only one who feels it's ok to misrepresent court proceedings to make a point. Here's a letter to the editor in today's New York Times:
It's interesting that this is precisely the rhetorical technique used by Speaker Byrd on The Newshour earlier this week. Byrd referred to this same specific testimony as "the testimony...in this case", as if it were definitive and not the losing argument.
Of course Mr. Lapertosa knows the courts' decisions to remove Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tubes were not based on these symptoms but on their underlying medical cause.
It may be illustrative here to compare the diagnosis of poor Mrs. Schiavo with that of a well-known DJ here in Boston who passed away earlier this year. As a result of catastrophic stroke, the man (who was in his thirties) was completely unable to move, but was conscious and in full possession of his faculties. This hellish condition is known as "locked-in syndrome"; it left him alert and aware but unable to move much more than his eyes.
He could easily have been described as "nonverbal" or "in his own world'"--but no one would have dreamed of "eliminating" him. Because, of course, it is not upon those properties that such decisions are made, but on the fundamental underlying medical situation that creates them.
"Many", and more importantly in this instance, the courts of Florida, can distinguish what Mr. Lapertosa pretends they cannot.
Now I don't know whether the courts or the experts are right--I'm not a doctor. But I do know what the courts decided, and I'm pretty sure that the courts are charged with the responsibility of settling disputes in this country--even in Florida.
No one should be fooled when Mr. Lapertosa and Speaker Byrd attempt to reargue the points that lost in the courts, or pretend the ultimate legal outcome was other than it was. The reason Mrs. Schiavo has been returned to her feeding tube is that the Florida House of Representatives unconstitutionally overturned the courts' ruling.
And lest there be any doubt about that--or that the House's action won't stand--consider this exchange from last night's Newsnight with Aaron Brown:
The writer is a medical ethicist.Yikes. Let's parse this disturbing revisionism.
To the Editor:
I represent 14 national disability organizations that filed a friend-of-the-court brief to support keeping Terri Schiavo alive (editorial, Oct. 23).
They did so because two doctors whom the Florida court found to have "very impressive credentials" testified that Mrs. Schiavo was not terminal, comatose or "vegetative" but rather severely disabled.
The idea expressed in your editorial that "true respect for life includes recognizing . . . when it ceases to be meaningful" is disturbing. Many would lump into this category people with severe autism, multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy who, like Mrs. Schiavo, are nonverbal and are often described as being "in their own world."
The judicial sanctioning of such attitudes moves America back to the days when the sterilization and elimination of people with disabilities did not merely reflect private prejudices but were embraced as the law of the land.
MAX LAPERTOSA
Staff Counsel, Access Living
Chicago, Oct. 23, 2003
"...two doctors whom the Florida court found to have "very impressive credentials" testified that Mrs. Schiavo was not terminal, comatose or "vegetative" but rather severely disabled."Mr. Lapertosa tries to create the impression of a convincing legal argument by juxtaposing the courts' acceptance of his preferred experts' credentials with the conclusions of those experts. Of course there is no connection between the two. The courts accepted their credentials but disagreed with their opinions in this matter, preferring the testimony of other experts--period. Mr. Lapertosa's experts lost. Their credentials are irrelevant.
It's interesting that this is precisely the rhetorical technique used by Speaker Byrd on The Newshour earlier this week. Byrd referred to this same specific testimony as "the testimony...in this case", as if it were definitive and not the losing argument.
"The idea expressed in your editorial that "true respect for life includes recognizing . . . when it ceases to be meaningful" is disturbing. Many would lump into this category people with severe autism, multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy who, like Mrs. Schiavo, are nonverbal and are often described as being "in their own world."No one--in the courts or at the New York Times--lumped anything anywhere. This case was about Terri Schiavo--not autism, multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy--and the courts made their decisions based on voluminous expert testimony. Mr. Lapertosa's suggestion that "many" would agree to eliminate anyone who is "nonverbal" or "often described as being 'in their own world'" is specious--unless he believes "many" would agree to eliminate newborns.
Of course Mr. Lapertosa knows the courts' decisions to remove Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tubes were not based on these symptoms but on their underlying medical cause.
It may be illustrative here to compare the diagnosis of poor Mrs. Schiavo with that of a well-known DJ here in Boston who passed away earlier this year. As a result of catastrophic stroke, the man (who was in his thirties) was completely unable to move, but was conscious and in full possession of his faculties. This hellish condition is known as "locked-in syndrome"; it left him alert and aware but unable to move much more than his eyes.
He could easily have been described as "nonverbal" or "in his own world'"--but no one would have dreamed of "eliminating" him. Because, of course, it is not upon those properties that such decisions are made, but on the fundamental underlying medical situation that creates them.
"Many", and more importantly in this instance, the courts of Florida, can distinguish what Mr. Lapertosa pretends they cannot.
"The judicial sanctioning of such attitudes moves America back to the days when the sterilization and elimination of people with disabilities did not merely reflect private prejudices but were embraced as the law of the land."Perhaps I'm not old enough to remember the days when America sterilized and eliminated people with disabilities--although I understand that we once elected one President for four terms. I am old enough to have read that in this case the court did not find that Terri Schiavo was "disabled", but that she was in a permanently non-conscious vegetative state. The experts the courts agreed with stated that what her poor parents perceive as reaction is just lower brain-stem reflex.
Now I don't know whether the courts or the experts are right--I'm not a doctor. But I do know what the courts decided, and I'm pretty sure that the courts are charged with the responsibility of settling disputes in this country--even in Florida.
No one should be fooled when Mr. Lapertosa and Speaker Byrd attempt to reargue the points that lost in the courts, or pretend the ultimate legal outcome was other than it was. The reason Mrs. Schiavo has been returned to her feeding tube is that the Florida House of Representatives unconstitutionally overturned the courts' ruling.
And lest there be any doubt about that--or that the House's action won't stand--consider this exchange from last night's Newsnight with Aaron Brown:
BROWN: With us now in Gainesville, Florida, is Lars Noah who teaches law at the University of Florida. Nice to see you.
LARS NOAH, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Thank you.
BROWN: I got to be honest, I spent a fair amount of the day looking for someone who would say to us the law is fine and it will stand up--and we couldn't.
