Chris H. I mostly agree with you, but I wonder what you view as the motivation of her parents for wishing to continue food and water. Truman Green

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut... ha, ha, ha. Yesiree. However, maybe THIS will be the issue that causes this House of Religious Cards to fall from over-heating (too much hot air which exposes the flaws (maybe the nuts?) within the souffle).

But religious zealots aside, can anyone tell me why that murder of the U.S. pregnant woman, Lacie something, was constantly in the "news" for over a year -- other than it had "hooks" that resembled an afternoon soap opera crossed with CSI or one of the other good guy/bad guy shows, and, of course, spiced with adultery. Hey, isn't that just like the nightly (American) TV entertainment line-up? Or movie?

And now Canada. I listened in dismay a few weeks ago, when CBC Radio's top national newscast story was that this woman's husband was sentenced to death. Why should we care? It's just another murder in a very murder-prone country. But, hey, this item was the newscast lead story, even came before the story about the four Mounties being shot dead.

Gotta admire those priorities, eh? What is CBC turning into? A supermarket tabloid??? I used to be such a fan of CBC Radio. How did it get so dumbed-down and so focussed on American news items? God knows how much air time they gave U.S. Ambassador Cellucci so he could bully and insult Canada.

Hey, wasn't Carol Taylor, the newly-minted BC Liberal "star" election candidate, the CEO of CBC for the last few years? Hmmmm. Funny how things now start to make sense.

These "serialized news dramas" seem like convenient political-corporate (policorp) robber baron policy to me. Keep the populace hooked on the sensational TV images, keep 'em afraid and fascinated at the same time. That way they'll won't have the time or interest to notice that the smash-and-grab gang in the "lily white" house are setting their feet in concrete.

Guess what I learned today? Remember the lone Al-Jazeera reporter who was just happened to be the only TV reporter in Kabul when it was bombed by the "coalition forces?" The guy whose images were used by all the other media (including American) because the U.S. wouldn't let any media in to witness/report on the real deal? The U.S. later admitted it deliberately launched a missile at his bureau office to try to put this reporter (Taysir Alluni) out of action. They missed. A couple years later in Iraq, the U.S. did destroy Al Jazeera's network bureau in Baghdad by missile, killing another journalist -- shortly after it had reported its exact coordinates to the U.S. military so that wouldn't happen. And, here's what I found out today. The Al Jazeera reporter from Kabul, Taysir Alluni, a respected journalist who scooped the world in Afghanistan, father of five, well he's been held in jail since 2003 as a suspected member of al-Quaeda. Why? The only "evidence" of any link is that he once got an exclusive interview with bin Laden. Didn't an American reporter also get such an interview? Is he being held in jail, without end, without assistance, til he rots to death? No.

And why does this have any bearing on the media in Canada, CBC/America and my whole rant? Well, Al Jazeera has news bureaus around the world and 40 million viewers (more than CNN), but guess what, it's not available in Canada. The CRTC decided late last year to put unprecedented limits on Al Jazeera when it applied for broadcast license. So, everybody else can watch it, but not Canadians.

So, instead, Canadians are being deliberately force-fed a whole raft of American-related "news" like the in-depth interview Marylou Finlay did last week, just a day or two after Paul Martin signed the deal to collaborate/integrate our country into the U.S. No story on that triffling little matter on the disturbing and unexpected signing of an agreement, but almost 15 minutes devoted in the first half (prime)hour of As It Happens to... a smelly sneaker contest in the U.S. and a lengthy interview with the good ol' boy from NASA who judges this august event. Boy, Marylou thought it was the funniest thing.

So as much as I avoid the images of these faux religious hate-mongers using this poor woman for their own causes, and their truth-twisting leaders, at least they're grappling with important issues. Here in Canada, well, we're laughing along with Marylou Finlay to the hilarious antics of smelly sneaker contests. Or, laughing along with The House, when it ran it's sole piece on the Martin/Bush pact last Saturday, a humorous little story about how the hand-picked media in Waco, TX (Waco! boy if that's not appropriate imagery of Rome burning or what, but they keep missing the signs)... Anyway, the story was about how the reporters had such a tough time getting to see ...the ranch. Oh, it was awful! One day they had to get up around 6am (some just gave up and slept in), then had to wait for 2 hours (2 hours!!!) just to be able to hear brief prepared statements, then just two questions allowed for each leader. Not that they were really interested in posing meaningful questions, no, according to this piece they just wanted to see the ranch, the dog, wonder who got to sit next to Bush in the truck. This piece was set to music from Rawhide (again, the (unintended) irony. So, there you have it, two happy, fun, fluffy little feel-good bits on the subject. That was the coverage by the two flagship news magazine shows on CBC Radio on this enormously important and worrisome subject.

Of course now today (Monday), I just heard on the CBC radio news that a poll was taken (maybe by the Easter Bunny) and it says only 30-something percent of Canadians think we should distance ourselves from the U.S., and the rest support closer ties. Uh huh, pretty convenient, eh? Our public broadcaster virtually ignores any mention or discussion of this issue, but it manages to broadcast poll results that say an overwhelming majority of Canadians supports the harmonization pact. Think people, think.

I guess the CBC figures we won't notice or care that The House, its flagship radio program on national and provincial politics just treated the summit as a pleasant little interlude. I'm sure they'll read or play one or two carefully selected listener responses on The House next Saturday to show that they listen to the public. But, let me ask, how would we know that what they choose to broadcast from listeners really represents how their audience felt or responded about this astonishing avoidance of the harmonization pact on their show. No one gets to see the letters, emails or phone calls. Maybe there should be a CBC Watch website somewhere so we can monitor their coverage and hold them accountable. I don't care about commercial broadcasters, but my tax dollars go to support a "national" "public" broadcaster, not a Canadian equivalent of the old Soviet Union's state propaganda machine, Pravda.

By the way, there's a review in the Books section of the weekend Globe entitled: Which do you trust less: Al-Jazeera or Fox News? which contains some of the information about the incarcerated reporter I mentioned.

Cheers all, especially to Steve. Man, you're a good read.

Sunny

Sunny Samson writes: "Maybe there should be a CBCWatch website somewhere so we can monitor their coverage and hold them responsible." Is it possible, given your obvious familiarity with politcs, that you honestly don't realize that CanWest operates CBCWatch from Canada.com and has for several months? Also: I agree that the CBC does seem to have gone a bit fluffy lately, but I've seen many excellent documentaries and specials on CBC since 9/11, many of which presented rare exposes of the Bush administration and unembedded accounts of the War in Iraq--one of which even wondered aloud if the Bushes were clandestinely involved with Saudi Arabia in a way that made America vulnerable to terrorism. The CBC has even showed the documentary which examines the case that Aids was caused by Polio-vaccine researchers in Africa. As far as I know few networks have shown this. Your attempt to trash the CBC has fallen flast--at least with me--and I hope many other knowledgeable Tyee readers.

The motivation of her parents, Truman? Undoubtedly they don't want to let their little girl go. I am a father of two girls and I don't ever want to experience the kind of decisions they are forced to make. Their christian fundamentalist beliefs obviously have a role in what they are trying to do. I hope I would respect the wishes of my daughter in the same circumstances, but who knows ... we all are human. I know one thing for sure; I would never make my daughter's life the media circus Terri Schiavo's has become.

Dear Truman, I was calling into question the specific coverage of specific CBC radio interviewers, not the entire CBC shop. Of course, compared to the competition, they do a good job of many things. Rick McInnis-Rae (spelling?) for example does a phenomenal job on Dispatches, as does Annamaria Tremonte on The Current. I'm less familiar with the TV end as I haven't watched much TV in the last few years.

However, I'm wondering, did you listen to the two programs I complained about? And, if so, do you agree or disagree with my concerns? If you didn't hear them, please don't dismiss my points under a blanket accusation that I'm trying to trash the CBC, I'm not.

What I am saying is, I think we need to be very concerned if our respected public broadcaster starts to morph into something else.

By the way, I had no idea CanWest has a CBC Watch on their website since I don't visit their website, and I avoid reading their papers.

But I still advocate people pay close attention to what I fear may be shifting sands at the CBC. When such highly-respected public media figures abandon their professional journalistic skills so suddenly and dramatically, it behooves us to pay attention -- for their sake and ours.

The Schiavo film and the murder trials that are mentioned above, along with celebrity lynchings, which are becoming so popular lately; all this amounts to a new form of pornography for people to wallow in.

Poor Ms. Schiavo. To lose such a lovely life, such an interesting life in such a sad way, then to have to endure the indignity of having your last days turned into a snuff film for people pretending to be Christians.

How much is the bidding for tape of her last breath? I'm offended, outraged and disgusted.

Sunny Samson. Thanks for getting back. After reading your last comment I've decided that I might have been a bit out of line in suggesting that you were not being upfront about CBCWatch. I wonder, though, if you can understand my reasoning. It seemed quite a coincidence that CanWest already runs a website with the exact name that you suggested. I get a bit irritated by CanWest writers trashing the CBC because I hate to contemplate Canada without it: The Aspers would be guiding the entire tv journalistic output of the country--which it seems, is what they would like. Sorry I was overzealous in my defence of the CBC. I will admit, also, that I've been a bit troubled with very recent dumbing down of CBC television content, and I hope it's not a continuing trend. Otherwise, I too, enjoyed your piece.

Chris H joins others who refer to Terri Schiavo's parents as "Christian fundamentalists." I know religious nomenclature is getting a bit blurry these days, with many Catholics edging toward evangelistic and conservative Protestants in various areas of belief, but in fact Mrs. Schiavo's parents and siblings are Roman Catholics. RC's are Christian and I presume many are fundamentalists but there still is a difference. Most conservative Protestants and most conservative Catholics would still not want to be considered one and the same.

Anyway when I was growing up Catholic in the 1950's and early 60's, a standard ploy in school was to get the nuns talking about arcane aspects of dogma and, in this way, perhaps bypass a math quiz or other unpleasant part of the day.

I remember when the subject of prolonging life came up. Now in those days there weren't really that many ways to prolong life - iron lungs or intubation existed, I suppose, and perhaps even feeding tubes. But really it wasn't as much an aspect of end-of-life health care as it is now.

Anyway, from what I remember the position of the RC church at that time was that no "extraordinary" methods of prolonging life had to be taken. In other words, the patient had to be given basic life requirements - and certainly wasn't supposed to be euthanized - but he/she didn't HAVE to be kept alive in any unusual way, including by means of surgical interventions. A hole being created in the stomach and a tube being placed there certainly seems out-of-the-ordinary to me.

Do any current or ex-Catholics out there have similar memories? Has the RC church's position changed? I haven't yet heard this covered in any of the extensive coverage I've seen or read.

I wanted to ask my parents about this when I spoke to them at Easter, but my dad is in failing health and I did not think this was an appropriate subject.

Perhaps the edges between Catholics and Protestants HAVE blurred more than I'm aware of in the decades since I've left the church. But when I was a believer, Catholics were far less taken with the Bible (mostly we just heard it during the Gospel part of the mass); we didn't make a big deal out of creation (a nun actually taught us about evolution during high school); and drinking, dancing, and gambling were okay (in moderation, which was never clearly definied).

Our big bugaboos were out-of-marriage sex and imposed child-bearing. Otherwise, we were a somewhat relaxed group.

Sounds like you were a post-Vatican 2 baby, dogstar. I don't know where Terri's parents got their idea that her physical body's life should be prolonged by artificial means after her cerebral cortex liquified. If the latest pontification from Rome is to suspend her indefinitely in that condition, then the latest Pope must be harbouring some secret fear of the afterlife. Maybe it's karmic.

I believe that Roman Catholics can be fundamentalist. I would say that all those Catholics out there that follow everything the Pope says, including not using condoms, is a fundamentalist. The majority of Catholics are not, and probably live their life with a more moderate and modern view of their relationship with God and their Church. Terri Schiavo's parents, who seem to want everyone to follow their beliefs, are more fundamentalist then not.

Just thought I'd post a link to and digest of the absolute best rant on this sad situation I've yet come across. Thankfully it's from a Florida paper. Kink to full rant is
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/27/Columns/Living_will_is_the_be.shtml

Digest is:

Living will is the best revenge
By ROBERT FRIEDMAN, Perspective Editor
Published March 27, 2005

Like many of you, I have been compelled by recent events to prepare a more detailed advance directive dealing with end-of-life issues. Here's what mine says:

In the event I lapse into a persistent vegetative state, I want medical authorities to resort to extraordinary means to prolong my hellish semiexistence. Fifteen years wouldn't be long enough for me.

I want my wife and my parents to compound their misery by engaging in a bitter and protracted feud that depletes their emotions and their bank accounts.

I want my wife to ruin the rest of her life by maintaining an interminable vigil at my bedside. I'd be really jealous if she waited less than a decade to start dating again or otherwise rebuilding a semblance of a normal life.

I want my case to be turned into a circus by losers and crackpots from around the country who hope to bring meaning to their empty lives by investing the same transient emotion in me that they once reserved for Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy and that little girl who got stuck in a well.

I want those crackpots to spread vicious lies about my wife.

I want to be placed in a hospice where protesters can gather to bring further grief and disruption to the lives of dozens of dying patients and families whose stories are sadder than my own.

I want the people who attach themselves to my case because of their deep devotion to the sanctity of life to make death threats against any judges, elected officials or health care professionals who disagree with them.

I want the medical geniuses and philosopher kings who populate the Florida Legislature to ignore me for more than a decade and then turn my case into a forum for weeks of politically calculated bloviation.

I want total strangers - oily politicians, maudlin news anchors, ersatz friars and all other hangers-on - to start calling me "Bobby," as if they had known me since childhood.

I'm not insisting on this as part of my directive, but it would be nice if Congress passed a "Bobby's Law" that applied only to me and ignored the medical needs of tens of millions of other Americans without adequate health coverage.

Bobby ... or Banquo: applause, applause! Woo hooo!

The Pope was stuck with a feeding tube today.

Sammy, maybe you should publish a column of your own?

Does anyone else, or am I the only one, that thinks there is some irony in the fact that Terry Schiavo's condition which resulted from eating disorder and here she now is starving to death.

I agree that the media has made this into their latest circus and that these decisions are made day in and day out by many people with out all the media hoopla. The difference here is that the parent's wishes are at odds with those voice by Terry to her LEGAL guardian who is her husband. Though this method sounds horrible and cruel, it is my belief that it is painless and peaceful for the patient. This as many deaths seems harder emotionally on those that watch their loved ones diminish than those that are going through it.

I realize that the media and various interests groups used this story for their own reasons, but I'm not overly critical of any of them. This is, after all, a hugely compelling story. We have been given so many conflicting stories regarding the motives of each side of the family that I doubt if any of us realy knows who had the best interests of Terry Schiavo at heart. Although the law apparently protects the rights of the spouse in their jurisdiction, can it therefore be said that spouses necessarily deserve more respect than parents? I'm sure we can all agree that spouses have been known to abuse their mates, and even, at times, to benefit from insurance claims etc. I think what gives this story the added dimension is the question of whether food and nourishment--which we all need to survive--can be considered as "treatment." I've followed this story as closely as anyone, I think, and I still don't know what was really going on--even if those smiles on Terry Schiavo's face were reflective of responding to her family's caresses--as they seemed to be.
I don't know how so many others can be so certain. This sad story is archetypical of our hopes and fears about life and death--and the awful possibility of being trapped inside of our own bodies without the ability to convey our thoughts and feelings. I think the media got it about right this time. It was not, after all, a story about how sad it is that Brad Pitt is leaving Jennifer Ashton.

Truman, perhaps I can offer something in answer to your two questions.

First, when the husband is behaving with dignity and decorum in difficult circumstances, having waited fifteen years to make this sad decision, while the parents are allied with a circus of mad clowns, who dash from camera to camera to circle on TV with signs, and spew nonsense about how they and only they know for certain what God wants for these strangers, and demand that everyone be forced to agree by governors and presidents, then it's the husband. I'm pretty sure about that.

Second, a photograph captures one two-hundredth of a second. You see what looks like a winsome smile in that selected photo. Please look away from her face and observe her hands. They appear to be severely contracted, and atrophied. This is a painful condition that confirms for me that Ms. Schiavo had no control over her body for some years. Try to draw your own hands and arms into that position. By contracting your skeletal muscles, it's almost possible, but it hurts. A lot. Those hands made my heart ache.

Whenever I hear these people argue that somebody needs to suffer to allay their own fear that their friends might want to get rid of them, I apply a small test of my own; If somebody would be reviled or charged for forcing a dog to live in that condition, then mercy is the motive. Nobody should be treated worse than a dog. Nobody should be forced to suffer just because they're human, if the law says a dog could not be so treated. It's too high a price to pay, just to assuage the fears of these 'advocates'.

Or to get them on TV.

Bailey, thanks for responding. Would you say, then, that you have absolutely no doubt that Terry Schiavo was in either great physical or emotional pain--unmistakable signs of great suffering? I may be the least religious of all 6 billion people on this earth, so my hesitation is certainly not due to any theologic ideology, but I meant to say that, given the propensity of members of our species to act in our own interest, and to lie in support of that goal--that I still don't know which side is more believable. I see that you, too, have wondered about that smile, and that you are able to dismiss it as meaningless. You might be correct. Personally, I don't think I would know unless I sat down with her. There seems also to be the question of how much suffering someone is experiencing if they are indeed in a persistent vegetative state. My own suspicion is that Terry Schiavo may have lost the ability to experience most kinds of pain when that heart attack caused her to lose nutrition to her brain cells. Certainly, the ability to feel physical pain is centered in specific areas of the brain. I'm not sure that she was suffering--at least physically. As far as spiritual and emotional pain--I would suggest that this kind of suffering is materially centred in the neurons also. Personally, I have found that the direction of emotional suffering is that it is mostly intellectually derived. For instance, today millions of people are suffering because of the death of the Pope. Is it not because they believe that he was a very special person and even God's representative here on earth, that triggers this emotional response? I happen to think that the Pope was no more important than any of those 30,000 children who are going to die today because they don't have anything to eat. It is, therefore, my intellectual belief that limits my emotional response. My reasoning is that because Terry Schiavo lost her intellectual capacity, she may have also lost the capacity for emotional suffering. If the question of her suffering has not been adequately resolved it might follow also, that your metaphor about a suffering dog might not be applicable. I guess what drives my response is that, basically, I believe that Mr. Schiavo was more interested in ending his OWN suffering than that of his wife, but then this is merely speculation, too. I'm wondering also, Bailey if the fact that Terry Schiavo was literally starved to death, when her body was perfectly able to function for many years, makes this a more complicated situation for you.

Truman, I know what your saying. It is complicated. There are always ways to think the worst. Sometimes our worst thoughts are true. Then add grief and guilt and a difficult relationship with difficult in-laws, conflicting medical opinions, religious convictions, just plain bloody mindedness.

No doubt about it. Life is complicated. To top it off, except in small things it contains no certainty. None. But what's it for?

I mean, some lab has kept a tumour alive and growing for decades. The patient died but the tumour is alive and well. Famous, even, in some circles.

I have known people who are in various places on the spectrum Ms. S. occupied the further end of. Professionally. I've seen the levels of function that can be maintained, helped maintain them. Helped prolong situations like hers. Never asked to make the decision her husband faced, for which I'm thankful. But I had a little prayer I prayed sometimes. God save me from ever falling into the hands of people like me. People who, out of kindness, compassion, and a kind of sad competence can pin you like a butterfly on a pin to a life you have no further earthly use for.

I mean, even with small abilities, awarenesses, touching moments can arise. Life can have meaning and substance and joy, even though it also contains pain, but there is a point when all that is past. I know there is. I can't describe it exactly, but you know it when you see it. It leaves no doubt. But.

Here's the but. When somebody depends on you for everything, for food, drink, baths, personal cleanliness, companionship, just everything, you develop a kind of fiercely protective feeling for them. It blinds you a bit. But part of you knows when you're doing them no favors.

If a husband, after so many years has to face the thing, and has the courage and strength to do so, I won't second guess him. I know the weight he'll always bear. The guilt at his own relief, his small doubts in the dark nights. All the complications. I offer him, and all the people who cared for her my sincere condolences, and hope for their comfort. And hers.

It's a very hard thing to step past our fear of death, open our arms and embace it for the ultimate mercy it can be.

My mother will be ninety on her next birthday. For the past 8 years and more my brother, sister-in-law, and I have watched her personality disintegrate due to dementia. Now she sit curled in a wheel-chair. She knows no one. She does not converse. The only reason we visit her is to monitor her care. It cannot be called a visit in the usual sense of the word. If I read any thoughts or feelings they are ones of fear and confusion. Other seniors in the home, no matter what their physical condition, have voiced that they are glad not to be her. Throughout this her body remains relatively healthy.

My brother and I do not know when to start grieving. The loving mother we knew is gone, but the body lives. This is especially hard for my brother, who visits more often, as he lives nearby. Our greatest wish for ourselves, as well as for her, is that she slip away peacefully and soon.

I too was troubled by Terri's smile, but I think that if I were her mother I would have wanted her to be at peace as soon as possible.

Does anyone know what the husband was actually doing in the last 15 years? I heard that he had moved on with his life and has two children by another partner. The parents were the ones that looked after Ms S.

I feel this type of situation should not go on beyond a year. For her to be on life support for 17 years is ridiculous. What was everyone wishing for? Recovery? Terry could not possibly have had any sort of apetite. She would never have felt hungry or thirsty, as you or I would. Palliative care ensures that people don't suffer, and use morhpine to keep such cases comfortable. I don't think Terry suffered any distress at all, and am happy for her that she has moved on.

Hi Bailey and Anne and crh. Crh says that he doesn't think Ms. S. was suffering, but is glad that she has "moved on" whereas Bailey writes that he is glad that death has ended her suffering. Anne writes that she believes that Ms. S is now "at peace." And you, Bailey, write that death is an "ultimate mercy." Can I conclude from this that you each have faith that something besides "nothing" happens to people after they die, because it is implicit in your statements that Ms. S. is now experiencing mercy, peace and has moved on to something else--that is, "experiencing" a new reality? More simply, do you believe in life after death?

Well, Truman Green. What a question. There's different ways to approach that.

You can analyse. Either it's a yes or a no. If no, then the point is unmakeable. Nothingness is the very essence of neutral. Painless. If yes, there is no end, only transformation. A new stage of life, like caterpillars and butterflies. Either way, so what?

You can explore. Meditate on your true nature, practice out of body stuff, astral travel, Buddhist philosophy. Just dive into your own navel and disappear.

You can surrender. Accept some pre-digested list of beliefs put together by somebody or other, and, well, believe. Meet me someplace in cyberspace and I'll tell you where to send your cheques.

You can ask around. Everybody has a story, most will tell it. Where they went when the lights went out, what the new light there looked like. Make a list, generate some statistics. Consult a hagiography. Or a psychic.

What have your own experiences been? You seem to have an opinion. Where's it spring from?

Or, you could just send me those cheques, and I'll send you a nice three colour photo of your guardian angel, with her name and hobbies and everything.

Sorry, I dodged your question, didn't I?

For me it's a yes. I've had a series of experiences beginning with a serious illness in early childhood that convinced me of the reality of certain things that I can't prove to you. Not that I would try, really.

My best explanation is that life is a visualisation exercize. What we believe tends to become true due to the metaphorical nature of knowing for humans. The underlying structures that make this true are so different from the banal structures of ordinary life that we haven't really developed good language to talk about it. We use language that poorly fits the case, ambiguous cliche' that conveys to the hearer only what he himself brings with him.

The best thing is to just try to bring something nice. Build yourself a set of helpful, good natured, positive beliefs, and don't insist on anybody else agreeing with you. Be kind, try to be as brave as you need to, love somebody, improve things if you can. If you make a kind of heaven around yourself, you needn't worry much about the nature of later.

It'll look after itself. Or not.