Earlier this week I wrote an entry regarding the Terri Schiavo case. In that entry, I argued, attempting to use logic and not opinion, the courts ought to decide to re-insert her feeding tube, because her parent’s side of the argument seems far more compelling than her husband’s side, for a variety of reasons. If you follow the news at all, then you probably know that the case was appealed to the Supreme Court today. They declined to hear it, without explanation as to why. As a result, Terri is sentenced to die of starvation within a week or two.

Since I wrote that entry a few days ago, I have done a little bit of further research on the situation. For the life of me I couldn’t understand what her husband’s motivation was to fight for his wife’s death. If she had been so passionate about not being kept alive in a vegetative state, you’d think she’d have made a living will. What does he find so terrible about the idea of her parents getting custody and continuing to take care of Terri indefinitely?

My research unveiled some very interesting answers to this question. So tonight I decided I could either clean my apartment (which is filthy), or I could write a journal entry. Obviously I opted for the latter, because I wanted the subject matter which follows to remain timely. The bathroom and floors will have to wait! But I digress. In what follows, I will present facts, and analysis based on those facts.

Fact 1a: Her husband claims that he and Terri discussed being kept alive in a situation like the one she’s in and that Terri told him that she did not want to be kept alive in such a situation. (Source: ABC News Interview)
Fact 1b: Terri first regressed into a vegetative state in 1990. Her husband did not request her feeding tube be removed until 1998, 8 years later. (Source: ABC News Timeline)
- Analysis: If her husband knew that she did not want to be kept alive while in a vegetative state, then why would he continue to keep her alive for 8 years? Why not pull the plug as soon as it happened, or even 2 or 3 years later? The facts here don’t seem to agree, which makes her husband’s claim about their conversation less credible.

Fact 2a: Her husband sued a doctor in 1992 for not diagnosing Terri with the eating disorder which led to her brain damage. He won Terri $1 million which went to an account in her name. (Source: ABC News Timeline)
Fact 2b: This money was received in Terri’s guardianship and a bank retained these funds for her. Her husband claims that he will not get a penny of this money if she dies because this money has been used to cover her medical expenses for the years that she has been in a vegetative state. (Source: ABC News Interview)
Fact 2c: Terri’s husband is not paying for Terri’s medical treatment, as she is listed on the indigent list for hospice. (Source: ABC News Interview)
- Analysis: Again, things don’t seem to add up. $1 million is a lot of money. Even over the course of 15 years, this means that it would have cost $66,666 a year to keep her alive. The only tangible costs involved would be for a nurse to look after her, the equipment, and the “food” for the feeding tube. Adding these up, it doesn’t seem particularly likely that the cost has been that great. Moreover, however, Terri is in hospice, so those funds are not paying for her care. It is unclear how long that has been, but for all we know, this could be the case for many years. It is possible, in theory, that her husband got her into hospice and allowed that money not to be used, but accumulate interest instead. Obviously, whoever is in control of Terri at the time of her death would get any such money. Thus, if any money is left, and they remove Terri’s feeding tube to kill her at her husband’s request, then he will get this money. But if he turned her over to her parents, then they would get any remaining money.

Fact 3: Terri’s husband “moved on” rather quickly after Terri entered a vegetative state. He has been living with his girlfriend for 10 years, which is 5 years after Terri entered the vegetative state. He and his girlfriend have 2 children together. They intend to wed as soon as Terri dies. (Source: World Net Daily Article)
- Analysis: If they moved in together 10 years ago, then you have to assume that they had been dating at least a year before that, as it’s pretty rare to move in with someone when dating for less time than that. This means that he was engaging in a serious relationship with another woman at most 4 years after his wife went into a vegetative state. He and Terri are still technically married, so technically, he is an adulterer.

Fact 4: Terri’s parents claim that her husband was controlling and abusive during their marriage. (Source: ABC News Article)
- Analysis: While this is speculation, it’s hard to think of a reason why her parents would lie about such a serious accusation. The fact that Terri was so seriously bulimic that she suffered brain damage and ended up in a vegetative state would suggest that she must have had self-esteem issues. Is it a stretch to believe that such self-esteem issues could easily have been caused by a husband who was controlling and abusive? Moreover, for those who are not familiar with eating disorders, one of the reasons they occur is because it gives the person a feeling of control, while they feel that there is little else they can control in their life besides their eating. Thus, her parent’s claim about her husband seems to fit in well with the other facts of the situation.

Fact 5: According to Terri’s nurse, Carla Iyer in a sworn affidavit from September 2003, her husband regularly made very disturbing comments while visiting. He asked, “When is this bitch gonna die?” On days when Terri wasn’t doing as well, “Make sure her parents aren’t contacted.” And when talking about the prospect of her dying, “I’m going to be rich!” (Source: Affidavit of the State of Florida)
- Analysis: If this nurse is telling the truth, then this is basically the smoking gun. There is no reason to believe that this nurse isn’t telling the truth. According to her story, the nurses were all scared of her husband. He would often go into her room and lock the door while the nurses remained outside. When he left, Terri looked visibly worse. When she alerted the police, she was fired as a nurse for Terri. If this nurse’s claims came out of no where, then that would be one thing, but they seem to confirm what all of the other facts above seem to be indicating. Why would this nurse lie under oath about something like this?

It should be pretty clear, through this analysis, that Terri’s husband wants her dead for personal reasons, and it probably has nothing to do with what Terri actually wanted. If he had known that this was what Terri wanted, he would have taken action to have her killed by removing the feeding tube far sooner than 8 years after it happened. Instead, he sued her doctor for not realizing that she had an eating disorder (something which, as her husband, he somehow managed not to notice either, I suppose). After winning $1 million that he couldn’t touch until she was dead, he began to take steps to make that happen. If he ever had hope that she would survive, it quickly turned into hope that she wouldn’t, as he had moved on with another women and started a family without his wife.

So what’s the moral of the story? Be damn careful who you marry. While I do not agree with the court’s decision to remove the feeding tube, I do understand it. The court is very scared that if they overrule her husband’s wishes, it will create a slippery slope wherein it will always be unclear who should have the decision making authority over someone who cannot make such decisions for him/herself in such a situation. Thus, it intends for marriage to remain a very important legal institution to decide such questions. So while their reasoning is not without legal validity, I can’t help but notice that it lacks common sense in terms of what justice would call for.

Who would steal a Spice Girls CD?

There is a situation in the news today that I find kind of bizarre. I’m referring to Terri Schiavo’s situation. At first, I thought it was just your usual insane situation where the law doesn’t really know what to do, so politicians just go haywire. But I’ve recently decided that some interesting subtleties ought to be discussed.

Let me begin by explaining my understanding of this situation, for those who are unfamiliar with it. And in order to be a “responsible journalist”, which I’m not, I will let you know that the information that I explain in the following two paragraphs can all be confirmed by this article. So if the information is incorrect, then it’s that article’s fault, not mine.

So we got this woman, Terri. She got brain damaged, apparently from an eating disorder. So now she’s a vegetable. It’s highly unlikely that her condition will ever improve. The thing is that she never made a living will, so it’s unclear what she would want done to her in such a situation. But her husband believes that she would want to be allowed to die. Her parents, however, strongly disagree. They believe Terri would have wanted to live, because allowing herself to die would be akin to suicide. Since Terri and her parents are Catholic, they know this to be true, because they believe that suicide is a one-way ticket to hell.

For years, her husband has been fighting to have her feeding tube removed. Since she does not have a living will, it is not obvious that he would have the authority to make such a decision. So the case went to court. A judge first said that they should not remove the tube. It got repealed to a higher court. Then a state judge said that they should remove the feeding tube. Then things got a little nutty.

Congress suddenly decided that they should step into the judicial branch. Forget checks and balances of the three bodies of government – this is important enough to supersede such formalities as the constitution, right? So after hearing that the feeding tube had been removed, Congress called a special weekend session and voted to pass some bizarre legislation to have the case heard immediately by a federal judge. Unfortunately, congress didn’t get to pick the judge, and the judge ended up upholding the previous ruling, so the tube wouldn’t be reinserted. This is where things stand right now. Terri is slowly starving to death, and will die very soon.

There are so many oddities within this situation that I hardly know where to begin. On one hand, this woman was responsible for her condition, as apparently it was caused by an eating disorder. So there really is a reason why they stress the dangers of eating disorders in your middle school health class: you could end up with brain damage and a husband who wants you to die.

Then there’s the oddity of Congress intervening. It’s not ridiculous enough that they recently decided to waste their time with steroids in baseball (journal entry upcoming, by the way). Now they want to intervene in a specific court proceeding. Are they kidding? Don’t they know that the court system is created a certain way for a reason, and that it is supposed to handle exactly these issues? Even if they overwhelmingly disagree with this court decision, their hands are supposed to be tied. They can try to pass an amendment to the constitution prohibiting the removal of feeding tubes in this situation, so that the courts have to listen to them. But other than that, the court has the power to interpret the law and constitution the way it sees proper.

Okay, okay, so there a lot of strange things make up this situation. What should be done? If this case were in Danland, where Dan is the supreme ruler, what would he say the outcome ought to be? I’d leave the tube in.

There are a number of reasons why I would leave the tube in. The first reason is because my ethical beliefs dictate this, but that isn’t a good argument for doing so, as it would only appeal to me. But don’t worry; I’ve got a few more.

The main reason I think that the feeding tube should be left in is because of her parents’ argument. In this case, there is no living will, so the court must determine what Terri would have wanted. In order to do so, I think two things must be considered: What would be doing by removing the tube and who would know Terri’s decision in this regard best.

Let’s tackle the second first, because it’s easier. Her parents would almost certainly know better in this situation. Terri is currently 41. She has been a vegetable since 1990, which means it happened when she was about 26. Let’s make an assumption extremely favorable to her husband: Let’s say they’d been dating since freshman year of high school and got married shortly thereafter. In that situation, it means that she and her husband knew each other for, at most, 12 years before she became a vegetable. Of course, if they met after college, then this time could be as short as 3 or 4 years. Her parents, however, have known Terri since she was born. They knew her for 26 years. Since there is no evidence that their relationship was anything other than good, then they simply must know Terri better than her husband does. Thus, they would better be able to determine what Terri would have wanted.

But let’s say neither party really knows what Terri would have wanted. Let’s determine, from what we know of Terri, what she would have wanted. What would the act of removing the tube mean to Terri? Removing this tube is a form of suicide, pure and simple. By removing the tube, she would be killing herself, as she would stay alive if this action were not performed. So how would Terri react to such an action?

First, let’s assume that Terri is a law-abiding citizen – a pretty safe assumption. She wouldn’t remove the tube because suicide is illegal. Again, I am not here to question whether or not such a law is just, instead I simply want to comment that this is the law. Second, she is Catholic. Catholicism states that if you commit suicide, you will go to hell. Do not pass “Go”, do not collection $200. While you can repent for many sins, suicide isn’t one of them, because you wouldn’t have time. If she truly believed in Catholicism, which I believe is an assumption that both sides accept, then she absolutely would not have wanted to kill herself.

I’m really not clear on what argument her husband is using to sway judges, because I really don’t see a compelling argument that says that the feeding tube should be removed. It seems absolutely clear, considering what her parents want and what Terri would have wanted, that the feeding tube should not be removed. I understand the fact that she almost certainly won’t recover and that all the feeding tube does is prolong her vegetative state. But that fact has nothing to do with the claim that a court can conclude that she would have wanted to die. Although there may be reasons one could argue that she would have wanted to die, there are equally as many that she would have wanted to live. So the court should at the very least stick to the status quo, which I highly doubt is to kill the person by assuming one way instead of the other.

Isn’t it comforting to know that Robert Blake has shown us that a celebrity doesn’t have to be black to get away with murder?

Today I read some extremely sad news: Hans Bethe had died. In case you don’t know who he was, Hans Bethe was probably the most brilliant physicist alive. He was a contemporary of Einstein and though not as well-known, nearly as innovative and far more prolific.

During college, I had the distinct privilege of attending a colloquium that he gave on a new theory that he was developing in astrophysics. This was probably about four years ago. While the subject matter was largely well over my head (being an undergraduate), he was still a good enough speaker so that he made sure the audience understood the basic ideas that he spoke of throughout his presentation. This, and some of his other theories before that time, was so groundbreaking that many said that if he were younger, and had not already won, it would be worthy of another Nobel Prize in Physics.

Our planet is rarely blessed with a human being as brilliant and well-intentioned as Hans Bethe. I was more saddened reading this news than I have been hearing about the death of any other historical figure that I can recall having passed away. Bethe was the kind of person who made you remember exactly why studying science is so exciting and important, but he also made you realize that the only way to do so should be with modesty and morality.

I would write more about Bethe, but this article does a great job at outlining a quick biographical sketch and tribute. So please give it a read if you’re curious about his life and work. Moreover, if you’d like to hear a few of his lectures, this website has video of three short lectures of his on quantum theory. This week, science lost one of the greatest minds it has ever known.

Seriously, how many people file for a state tax deduction as a result of “rehabilitating a historic barn”?

This week I stayed at a hotel in San Francisco called “The Stanford Court.” It was a Renaissance property. A true four-star hotel, the Stanford Court showcased many luxurious features that one would not find in your average hotel. It was very “old school,” and in being so, it reminded me a lot of a Ritz Carlton. Unfortunately, many of the so-called luxury items I found kind of useless. Let me explain.

I suppose I could use three of the luxury items as examples. Initially, the first item I will talk about might seem really useful and pretty cool. This hotel had a mini-television next to the sink. This way, when you get up in the morning and get ready for your day, you can have a TV on right next to you as you get ready. Sounds like a good idea, right?

The problem comes with practicality. When do you really watch this TV? It is located in a little shelf right next to the sink. You can only see it while standing right over the sink. And the shower and toilet are located in a separate room, so you cannot watch the TV from either of those locations.

So in what situations is one standing over the sink to watch the TV? Well, one time you might stand over the sink is to wash your face. But in this scenario, you are wetting, drying, or lathering your face, so you probably aren’t watching much TV. In another scenario, you might be shaving. But in this scenario, you’re looking carefully in the mirror, so you probably aren’t watching much TV. In another scenario, you might be putting your contacts in. But in this scenario, you’re at least half blind, so you probably aren’t watching much TV. Okay, okay. Maybe you can watch the TV while you’re brushing your teeth. But that’s, what, maybe 5 minutes during which you would watch the TV?

I know what you’re thinking: although it might not be all that useful to watch this TV, you could still listen to it. It would still be pretty nice to have a TV that you could listen to while getting ready. This way you could hear the news or something while you’re doing all those things over the sink. This is true, but the fact that the regular TV isn’t more than 4 feet away from the sink kind of precludes the need for sound a foot away from the sink with the mini-TV, since you can just turn up the regular TV a bit, and you’re set.

As you can see, this TV, while a neat idea, isn’t particularly useful. But how about another luxury item? Maybe the bathrobe? Every nice hotel provides bathrobes for its customers to wear. And for some, bathrobes may be useful. The bathrobes here, however, were not.

I’m not that big of a guy. I mean, do go to the gym often, but I’m not exactly Arnold. Yet, when I tried to wear one of these bathrobes, it didn’t fit around my chest or legs. It fit around my waist fine, but what good is that when your chest and legs are not fully covered? These bathrobes are “one size fits all”, and yet, it didn’t fit me. While I’d like to believe that I’m just that buff, I have to believe that this bathrobe wasn’t designed to fit many people particularly well.

Finally, there was my favorite item: the heated towel rack. This was even advertised on the website for the hotel. I had never seen heated towel racks before, so I was pretty interested to see just how well one would work. Other than Selma Hayek, what could be better to grab than a nice toasty towel as you shut off the water for the shower?

We’ve all seen regular towel racks; they are bars that you hang towels on. The heated towel rack was a bar too. So imagine a bar, probably an inch in diameter. Let’s assume, for simplicity, that the bar’s length was the same as the width of the towel. How much of the towel’s surface area does this bar “warm up”? I’ll do the math for you. If the diameter was an inch, then that would make the circumference of the circle that makes up the cylindrical bar approximately 3.14 inches. Of course, the towel lies on this bar; it does not wrap it. So the amount actually touching the bar is, let’s say two-thirds the circumference. This means that a rectangular strip about 2 inches and the width of the towel would be warmed up. This towel, of course, was probably at least 4 feet long. That’s 48 inches. That means about 4% of the towel is successfully warmed.

Maybe I’m crazy here, but how lame is it to have a towel that is 4% warm? I mean c’mon. Is there any point to that? I sure didn’t find it all that great. I mean, yeah, that 4% is nice and warm, but as soon as the water hits it, it basically cools down anyway, because it’s such a small area. So, while a good idea in theory, just like the other luxury items written about tonight, the heated towel rack was a dud.

Please don’t misunderstand me – I applaud the effort. I like that this hotel is attempting to have its guests live in the lap of luxury during their stay. There were some features that I liked, like the free towncar service in the morning and the large tasty chocolate mints they left on your bed with the turndown service. But these are simple ideas, and are only considered luxurious in this case because they are free.

In general, many luxury items have little function, but somehow that’s the point. As strange at it might seem, I think that the mere existence of these luxury items is as important to those who use them as their function – if not moreso. People don’t like most luxury items because the items are so functional or useful; they like these luxury items because the items are extravagant. Indeed, what is extravagance if it isn’t form over function?

What were you doing at 4:56 am this morning?