Irrefutable argument vs the right on the Shiavo case: Taxpayer rights.

[Merlin]

The law must be applied equally, especially as to the spending of federal funds. Ms. Shiavo is now being kept alive by moneys from Medicare, Medicaid and resources being offered without charge but actually government funded--like the hospice.

The law presumes Ms. Shiavo is beyond resuscitation. The taxpaying citizens do not have a duty to preserve her or any other person on artificial life support indefinitely.

Those who believe otherwise rely upon their faith for guidance. That's fine. But the taxpayers have their limit, and that limit has now been exceeded.

So those who believe in the possibility she may one day come around should put their money where their faith is, and be required to bear the expense of continued life support (an expense I imagine would be at least $1,000 per day).

[necso]

1. There is no irrefutable argument when the other side

does not believe in reason, etc, etc -- or when the other side does a good job of creating "reality" and "perspective" (and indeed even "reason" and "logic", etc) in the minds of the many.

The fundies are believing what they wish to believe -- and there's no winning an argument with that. And one always has to have doubts about the masses when they have shown themselves in the past to be so susceptible to manipulation. And just because they have worked their way past some of the the old manipulation, this doesn't mean that they will be any more resistant to the new stuff.

[Merlin]

4. Not so. This is a perfect gotcha political argument.

Of course we have to be smart enough to grasp that -- which in my experience we liberals are not capable of.

This argument can not be answered by the right wing without offending either their anti-tax base or their evangelical base. It's a perfect wedge issue, if we were capable of seeing that.

I can judge from the number of responses to this thread though that, typical enough, liberals don't have a particular gift for understanding that kind of politics.

[necso]

5. I suppose that

I should have responded more directly to the specific content of your original post.

I agree, in general, that we should try tactics and strategies that offer some chance of obtaining some success -- as opposed to what we so often do. And certainly there are some lines that are less susceptible to manipulation than others. But there really is no winning an argument with fixated nut-cases (one can only go along with their insanity or not) and we have very, very little control over how things are sold to the American people -- and what many of them end up believing (of course, we need to change this). But, certainly, we do desperately need to learn to play the game better.

To deal with the details of your original post, let's suppose that we offer the deal (somehow) -- that is, she gets life support if somebody pays other than taxpayers. And let's suppose that the deal is taken (some rich fundie nut would probably jump at the chance). Now, you have to figure that regardless of whether this woman then lives or dies, the episode will be spun in the most negative light that can be dreamed up. (There are others much better at this than I, but how about: "All they ever cared about was the money" or "Flip-floppers with no moral center" for starters.) The other side comes up with the best lines that they can, adjusts them as necessary and hammers them like nails into people's heads, and we would have to expect the same here.

And then there are her wishes in the matter, the "right" to avoid hopeless life-extension when this is desired, the authority of the courts, the rule of law, and the rights of marriage-partners/guardians to consider (at least). And this says nothing about the efforts made and risks taken by various people to date -- all of which then would count for nothing -- and which would therefore be less likely to be emulated by others in the future.

But suppose she dies after we come out with the offer. We get most of the bad just described -- and we still get this woman used as a martyr. (Worst case would probably be for her to die shortly after they stuck the tube(s) back in her.)

My position on this is that her wishes (or the best approximation of them that we can come up with) should be respected. And if the best that our inhumane society can do is to let it drag out, well then, so be it. But had she been my wife (and worthy of the title), and had I known that her wishes would have been to die, then I would have seen to it that this occurred a long time ago, regardless of the cost. However, this not being the case, cynical old me might have been willing to make some deal -- if I saw it as a net plus -- and before it went this far.

Now I think that we are pretty much stuck. And I am not sure that we could have sold her husband on a deal even way back when (I believe that he is trying to do his best by her). And I don't think that we could have sold it to our peers either.

And I suppose that in strictly technical terms, we win the argument that you propose in any case, because we set the terms and they have to take one of the choices that we offer. But what do we really gain at this point, besides some vague association with taxpayers' rights -- which would probably last like two seconds in the ensuing negative spin-storm?

Now, had we already established an association with taxpayers' rights, then this might be a reinforcing point... but we could still expect the negative spin-storm. -- We can expect a negative spin-storm in any and every case.

[Merlin]

6. Thanks for your very thoughtful reply.

We disagree in the respect that I believe the solution I propose is simply a drop-dead stopper for those on the right. There is no way they can argue against it. Even the fundies cannot--without lying through their teeth--claim they want the government to pay ad infinitum for every case like this on the books. We simply can not lose with this approach.

Later this weekend I will seek to re-present it in such a way that it can be noticed by the national Dem policy makers who lurk here.

It is truly a gem of a wedge issue that we are overlooking.

Thank you again for your response. It's way more than others have taken the time to give, and I appreciate your perspective.

[The Magistrate]

8. You Have A Good Eye, Mr. Merlin....

It is an excellent fork indeed you have proposed, Sir!

[Frances]

2. I think the Texas law Bush signed in 1999

said something to that effect.

A baby boy was taken off life support a few weeks ago in Texas because his mother couldn't afford to pay to keep him on life support and the medical opinon was that the boy had a short time to live anyway.

[blueroses]

3. Funding the brain-dead

in perpetuity is a complete waste of our money, which could be better served on the sick who have a chance to heal.

I feel for the whole situation, but it has definitely gotten out of hand.

[sandnsea]

7. The absolute worst argument

And exactly why the "Not Dead Yet" people are on her side. People should never give up the right to make their own medical decisions, for any reason whatever. I don't want the government intruding into a woman's medical reproductive rights, and I sure don't want them intruding into end of life rights.

What we should be advocating is that everybody has the exact same right to medical care that they say Terri has a right to. She wouldn't be alive if it weren't for them gubmint programs they claim to hate so much.

[rman]

9. Taxpayers rights to judge over life and death? Or her right,

to judge over her own life?

The very reason why this issue arose in the first place is disagreement about what it is she wants.
It's not about our right to pass judgment over her, a right which we don't have to begin with - not to keep her alive against her wishes, nor to let her die because it'd be to expensive to keep her alive.