Ron Demerest – 4/3/05

This page was last updated on April 3, 2005.

She was a person, not a cause; Ron Demerest; Beaver County Times; April 3, 2005. I’m not sure if Mr. Demerest’s name is spelled correctly. In previous letters the Times spelled his name Demarest.

Mr. Demerest is another person who purports to know what was best for Terri Schiavo. See this critique for an explanation of my issues with the case.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The sad case of Terri Schiavo should be understood for what it was and wasn’t about.

“It was not about the wishes of her husband or parents. It was not about the withdrawal of food or water. Terri hadn’t had food or water in 15 years. A gastrostomy tube was surgically implanted in her stomach to inject nutrients that have kept her alive all these years.

“This case was about the liberty of seriously ill patients to be free from unwanted invasive medical treatment. It was also about religious fanaticism.”

[RWC] Mr. Demerest got it wrong, unless he has it in Terri Schiavo’s handwriting that she wanted the feeding tube removed.

I get a kick out of folks who try to paint this story with “religious fanaticism.” Some people believe you keep someone alive under any circumstances even if it’s against the patient’s will. I don’t agree with this position, but I don’t refer to people who do as fanatics. Were there religious “fanatics” making their opinions known? Of course, as were “death fanatics.”

“In 1996, a CAT scan of Terri’s brain revealed that much of her cerebral cortex had atrophied and had been replaced by cerebrospinal fluid. She had severe contractures of her hands, feet, knees and elbows. Her brain would never regrow.”

[RWC] No one argues there wasn’t significant brain damage. The argument was over the net effect of the damage on Terri Schiavo’s ability to comprehend what was going on around her.

“She shouldn’t have been sentenced to another 15 years in this condition by the Bush brothers, Congress or the church. As an individual, she should also have been free of the emotional needs of her parents, no matter how loving they were.”

[RWC] How were “the Bush brothers” or Congress sentencing anyone? All they did was give federal courts jurisdiction for a complete review of the facts in the case. They did not specify an outcome; they provided only for a review of the facts that led Judge Greer to rule Terri Schiavo wanted to die. All previous reviews addressed only procedural issues, not finding of fact.

Mr. Demerest, should Terri Schiavo have also been free of the emotional needs of the husband? How do we know his actions weren’t driven by his emotional needs?

“Imagine for the sake of argument that she had minimal consciousness - she could see but could not recognize, she could hear but couldn’t understand, she couldn’t form the simple intention to move her head or swallow or indicate that she’s in pain.”

[RWC] I’m not sure how Mr. Demerest came to these conclusions. I saw videos of Ms. Schiavo and it was clear she moved her head in response to movement in her room. Regarding swallowing, she swallowed her saliva and affidavits from attending nurses indicated she could swallow liquids at a minimum. How much did she recognize and understand? I don’t know and neither does Mr. Demerest.

“Her ‘meals’ were served through a hole in her stomach.

“Was this life? She was a person, not a cause.”

[RWC] Yet Mr. Demerest treats Ms. Schiavo as a cause.

“If you took your dog in a vegetative state to a veterinarian and had a gastrostomy tube implanted and you kept feeding your pet that way for years, you could indeed be prosecuted for cruelty.”

[RWC] I find it amazing when people compare a living, breathing human to a pet.

“Each of us has the right to bodily integrity free from unwanted violation by government or medical technology.”

[RWC] Ignoring hearsay testimony from a person with a conflict of interest, how do we know what Terri Schiavo wanted?

“Our best protection is an independent judiciary that can’t be intimidated by the president, Congress or Randall Terry.”

[RWC] What is Mr. Demerest’s definition of “an independent judiciary?”

How did President Bush and Congress attempt to intimidate the courts? All they did was give federal courts jurisdiction for a complete review of the facts in the case. Except for the Supreme Court, federal courts were constructed by Congress and are managed by Congress. Check Article III of the U.S. Constitution.