Terri Schiavo

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The Schiavo Act has passed the Senate, and it will be debated tonight on the House floor at 9 pm ET. There will be a vote shortly after midnight.

I believe this will pass, because from what I've heard, many leading Democrats don't want to touch this with a 10 ft. pole. Nobody said a thing in the Senate, and the only thing House Democrats have done thus far is put off the time of debate.

If this passes, while it at least momentarily saves the life of one woman, it also sets a potential precedent on so called right-to-die matters in America. Should our federal government even be playing a role in what has been primarily a state, court, and family matter?

Supposedly, a controversial memo was circulated around on the Hill by Republicans, outlining the potential electoral gains that this bill might gain them in their respective districts. That memo probably has something to do with the relative silence amongst Democrats, even though many Republicans have since distanced themselves from the memo.

Terri Schiavo is in what is called a persistent vegetative state. According to neurologists, this means she isn't aware of her surroundings, and there is no thought pattern going on. According to her family, she is responsive, she laughs with them, and "talks." According to Rep. Tom DeLay, Schiavo has never really received an extensive neurological examination, or any other cursory sort of examination, because her husband refuses to put her in a medical facility capable of such stuff. He instead has kept her in a hospice, which is where people go to die. But I think it's fair to say that Terri hadn't actually been dying until her feeding tube had been removed. Now she is starving to death, which seems to be rather barbaric to me.

Her husband, btw, has since remarried, and has children. Schiavo never stated what her wishes would be under such circumstances, but her husband claims "sending her to be with God" would be her wish (even though Terri was a devout Roman Catholic, and this very practice has been denounced by her Church).

Tune in at 9 pm.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

double trouble!

[ziggytrix]

Seems to me that keeping someone with no prognosis of recovery alive by machines is a bit grotesque. I know if I were in a vegatative state, and the doctors were telling my family I'd never recover, I wouldn't want them to drain their finances and emotions keeping me alive in a hospital for years and years, just in case.

You would think though, that a licensed physician (neurologist? - whatever) should have to confirm whether or not she was truly braindead before anyone would be allowed to shut thigns off.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You would think though, that a licensed physician (neurologist? - whatever) should have to confirm whether or not she was truly braindead before anyone would be allowed to shut thigns off.

Yeah, I'm a bit confused about whether or not this has happened. I've heard some say she's a vegetable for all intents and purposes. However, I've also heard that in fifteen years she hasn't had comprehensive enough evaluation to truly determine that, especially since she's been kept under hospice care.

I dunno, the problem with this case is that there seems to be a lot of heresay floating around. I've heard that Michael Schiavo refuses to allow the hospice nurses to move her from her bed, causing the bed sores you may have seen on her face. I've heard he won't allow nurses to brush her teeth.

Others note that he has turned down large sums of money offered to him in exchange for her life and guardian status. But to me it seems like he will benefit simply from an emotional position. He has a new life, a new family, and Terri simply lingers as a constant reminder that he can never truly move forward without considering her. So while I think Terri's parents are certainly motivated by the selfish desire to preserve their daughters life, Michael also seems to have his own selfish motivations.

[ziggytrix]

No doubt, no doubt. I wouldn't wish this decision on anyone.

[Ant10708]

So this woman's family wants to take care of her but her husband won't allow it and now her feeding tube has been removed?

Don't you need some type of signature from the person(before the accident) to take her off life support?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Her husband argues that she once told him that she wouldn't want to be kept alive on life support. I've also heard that there are witnesses who can substantiate this claim. I dunno how true that is though. However, it is true that this has gone to court in Florida several times, and every time, the courts have ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo.

[Immortal Goat]

The thing that gets me about this is that people are saying "When God wants her, God will take her". Well, it seems to ME, at least, that God wanted her a long time ago, and the parents have been saing a big "FUCK YOU" to God ever since.

[Zebra 3]

I've read that Terry Schiavo among other things was a Starsky & Hutch fan.

[FS]

I think that's the first funny thing you've ever said on these boards.

Both parties in this situation seem pretty suspect, if you go by what you hear. I just feel terribly sorry for the woman that's being pulled back and forth, even if she might not be really aware of it.

I read a timeline of the case in the paper this morning, and it suggested that her feeding tube has been removed and reinserted several times? Or was it just that the verdict on putting it back in has been recalled multiple times?

[ziggytrix]

You put the food tube in,
You take the food tube out.
You put the food tube in,
And you shake it all about.
You do the hokey-pokey,
And you turn yourself around.
That's what it's all about!

[mburbank]

Wow, Zig! Horrible, funny, callous, mean spirited, and under it all an almost zen like summation of the human condition. THAT my friend, is my kind of joke.

Apart from that, I have no opinion on the right or wrong of this case. It's a horrible tragedy, and you can't put yourself in the shoes of the husband or the parents unless you'bve actually been through this. The information is so horribly muddled at this point that I would despair of being truly informed on her actual condition or the sate of the science behind it.

Here's what I have an opinion on. This being taken up in special session by congress to perform an end run around the judicial branch of government is an abomination, and just one more sign of the contempt the current Republican administration has for our carefully balanced system of government. I also find it sickening how willing our representatives are to take a very personal tragedy and roll around in it like a dog in cow shit. A special session? W returning in haste from vacation? How many times did this same man as governor of Texas with the legitimate power of life and death in his hands, allow Alberto Gonzales and the courts execute potentially innocent poeople in Texas? How many times did he say it was not his place to interfere in matters of life and death where the courts had already pass judgement? How many crises has he NOT cut short vacations (which he takes more often than any modern president, including Reagan) for? How cynical. If the literal hell fundamentalists believe in exists, there may well be a few senators and congressmen sincere enough about this to avoid it. But I'm certain the doors are wide open for people using this families tragedy as a wedge issue.

[derrida]

[center:a1e42908d2]http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/crosswalk/news/news_hungry_child.150.tn.jpg
i would like a feding tube please[/center:a1e42908d2]

imho, the nice thing about this is that any possible outcome is going to be purely symbolic

sure, it really doesn't matter if schiavo's parents want to play dress-up, just like it doesn't really matter if i turn your corpse into my own personal fuck-playground. sure there's compelling evidence that this "isn't what you wanted" but hey, what about my feelings? i'll even pay the costs out of pocket to keep your flesh supple and fuckable for weeks, plus take care of disposal.

ps no offense intended but kevin are you getting your information from a badly spelled email forward? neurologists interpreted cat scan results as indicating that schiavo's cerebral cortex has been replaced with spinal fluid

[Ninjavenom]

Cut her in half longways.

[Stabby]

it's hardly a scientfic poll but: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/schiavo/index.html
there poll shows that 68% think the husband should decide, and only a scant 1% think this should be decided by the politicians. Yet here comes the gummymint to the rescue. Ain't it kewl how our system works?

And has anyone ever heard anyone say "You know, if I'm ever in that condition, do everything in your power to see that I stay alive for as long as possible."?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This being taken up in special session by congress to perform an end run around the judicial branch of government is an abomination, and just one more sign of the contempt the current Republican administration has for our carefully balanced system of government.

But if a death row inmate can appeal their case to the supreme court, why can't the family of Terri Schiavo? There's legislation in the Florida state legislature to try to allow just such a thing, but too little too late in Terri Schiavo's case.

If the literal hell fundamentalists believe in exists, there may well be a few senators and congressmen sincere enough about this to avoid it. But I'm certain the doors are wide open for people using this families tragedy as a wedge issue.

I think, while some clearly may have used it as a stunt, most saw this as a serious matter. Many were compelled I'm sure by their own moral beliefs. Keep in mind, this vote even split the Democrats. The most vocal ones were opposed, but if you look at the vote, basically the same amount voted in favor of it.

I will concede however that the way this passed through the Senate would be hilarious, if it weren't of course so terribly sad and pathetic. Three members. Santorum, Frist, and somebody else. Three guys stood in the chamber and played out parliamentary procedures. It would've made any bannana republic proud.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

ps no offense intended but kevin are you getting your information from a badly spelled email forward? neurologists interpreted cat scan results as indicating that schiavo's cerebral cortex has been replaced with spinal fluid

ps She has never had an MRI or a PET, all standard procedures for people in her condition. Her husband has blocked any attempt.

ps she survives on the same things we do, food and water.

You can argue away her humanity all you like, but the fact is that we wouldn't kill a dog the way this woman is being terminated.

[ScruU2wice]

ok, slightly related story. One of my mom's friends got in a car accident and was in a coma for 5 years. Alot of people lost hope and on top of that her mom died of cancer while she was in the coma. It was a sticky situation and I don't know if they were ever about to "pull the plug" but they didn't and she came to 5 years later.

[ziggytrix]

Oh look what I got here, fellow rubberneckers, it's Dr. Jay Wolfson's (Terri's guardian ad litem in 2003) report for Gov. Bush. It's a pdf so I can't cut and paste, but if you wanna read it - CLICK (http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf) and enjoy you sick fucks.

Looks like Hypothesis IV won out. :(

One thing tho, Kev, you said yourself there's a lot of hearsay in this case, so do you mind if I ask for your source for the statment that her husband has blocked attempts at MRIs and PETs?

The report above says extensive testing, but it doesn't list what tests were performed.

Also, this link (http://www.baymoon.com/~gyncancer/library/weekly/aa071601a.htm) is a good explanation of CTs, MRIs, and PETs for anyone outside of the medical field (or who hasn't had a molecular biology or physical chemistry course in the last 5 years - THANKS INTERNET!).

from a libertarian blog on the issue (http://samizdata.net/blog/archives/007353.html):

Since someone has to make decisions on behalf of non-competent adults, should that person be a family member or the state?

If it is a family member, how much oversight should the state have, and through what bodies? If the courts are the right body, what exactly has been wrong with their oversight in this case? If not the courts, then who?

Does anyone think the US Congress should get in the business of indefinitely ordering the continuation of care in contravention of the legal decisionmaker and state law, as it has done in this case?


One last remark, regarding the cruel termination of this woman: in Florida, doctor assisted suicide is illegal, so they can't put her down any more humanely than this without changing THAT law, but Congress isn't about to make an emergency session to violate states rights for no Kevorkian law! >:

[Immortal Goat]

I will admit that her termination is being done in a rather cruel way, but in any case, I wouldn't want to live the way she is living. They can't gas her or inject her to put her out of her misery, and keeping her in her misery is just as cruel (if not moreso) than taking out the feeding tube. She is in a near-vegitativer state anyway, so it isn't like she's going to feel all that much.

Sure, the husband seems motivated by selfish reasons, but at least the outcome is best for her. The parents are just fucking selfish through and through. I can understand not wanting to bury your child, but keeping that child alive until you yourself are dead when they should have died years ago is the epitome of selfishness.

[mburbank]

Her condition, the motives of the parents and the spouse, the nature of conciousness, what constitutes suffering... all of these things are fascinating and highly emotional issues, all worthy of much thought and soul searching.

As such they are perfect cover for a flagrant regard of separation of powers that damages our consititution and is a step toward totalitariansim. They are fully in keeping with the current Republican parties quest for power, a maneuver so bald they are not even slightly ashamed of dumping their long held belief in states rights, which this bunch only believes in should they not control the legislative and executive branch. Don't they make kids take civics in school anymore? I was taught that the main thing that makes America a Great Nation is that our founders feared totalitarianism and corruption and so created a system of seperation of powers and checks and blances between the three branches of government to guard against it.

Sincere or not, impassioned or not, for members of congress to see the life of a single individual, the status of which is debatable by people of good will, as grounds for circumventing a court decision they do not like is a HUGE abbregation of responsability. Assuming these elected men and women know at least as much basic civics as I it is also cynical and alarming.

Kevin, the Flordia legislture is a perfect place to argue for law affecting these sorts of cases and the legal courses they take. The congress would be a fine place to craft a bill regarding these sorts of cases and the legal course they take. A special 11'th hour session of congress to craft a law to alter the already rendered deciion of a court that follows the law as it currently stands for a single, speciffic individual is an abuse of powers. This abuse of powers is cloaked by the passions arouzsed by the case, and in my opinion, these passions, even if sincerely felt by our representatives , are being manipulated for cunical, political gain. Shame on the Republicans for having so little respect for our constitution. Shame on the Democrats for chosing fear of looking bad and loosing future votes over standing up for our constitution. Shame on a President who did not find a Tsunami that took tens of thousands of lives and left thousands more hanging in to cut short his vacation but did so for at best a single person and at worst cynical loathsome political gain. And W. is less culpable than most of congress, because I believe he does not understand basic civics.
And shame on people who confuse two issues; Terry Schiavo's tragedy and the way our system of government functions.

[AChimp]

There was a doctor on the radio this morning that said that several experts say that her cerebral cortex has turned to mush, and she is completely incapable of any thought. The jerks and spasms that she sometimes has (which her family takes as "evidence" that she is recovering and will one day be completely normal... :rolleyes ) are just reflexes and random nerves firing. She's a total vegetable and the plug should have been pulled YEARS ago.

Her family is being retarded and need a reality check. This woman essentially died long ago and they need to let go. It's pathetic.

BTW, I'd pay some serious money to see Ziggy's song turned into a Flash movie. :lol

[Helm]

I'd take the body on a wonderful weekend adventure

[Crash]

There was a doctor on the radio this morning that said that several experts say that her cerebral cortex has turned to mush, and she is completely incapable of any thought.

If the parents know that, why would they keep her "alive"? It's clear she won't ever be coming back. In all manners (figurative and otherwise) of speaking, she's dead. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I heard true death occurs when the brain is dead.

[ziggytrix]

If the parents know that, why would they keep her "alive"? It's clear she won't ever be coming back. In all manners (figurative and otherwise) of speaking, she's dead. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I heard true death occurs when the brain is dead.

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/149562.htm

Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . . at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery. Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.

In a footnote, Wolfson writes: During the course of the GAL’s investigation, the Schindlers allow that this is not accurate, and that they never intended to imply a gruesome maintenance of Theresa at all costs.

According to the columnist, "Wolfson told me that when Michael heard this, he said: 'That's it. I'm never going to let that happen to her.'"

[Zebra 3]

This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life.
- US Pres. Moron
>: - What the fuck happen to shoot first, ask questions later!?

[ziggytrix]

I was hoping someone would mention that. By extraordinary circumstances, he doesn't mean like when someone scheduled for execution has new evidence that may prove his innocence or when you're planning an invasion of a country. He means when it looks like he has a chance to solidify his righteousness in the minds of the people, that's when you err on the side of (pro)life (voters). :froth

[kellychaos]

She, truly, has no impact on my life and I can't say that I have any true empathy for her ... sympathy perhaps. I don't know her. Other than the fact that politicians are trying to encroach upon her life and has made her their political platform (which pisses me off) and this, subsequently, may concern me in other matters where MY privacy may be at risk, I can hardly say that this concerns me. They need to back away from her, stop telling ME about her and let at least a little bit of laissez faire back into the American way of life.

[Zebra 3]

[center:c9f64dfd46]- Download: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1677530)[/center:c9f64dfd46]

[Big Papa Goat]

What's so bad about the politicization of a personal situation/tragedy anyway?

[ziggytrix]

i think you are missing the point goat. :(

[Big Papa Goat]

I was really just responding to what Kelly said, and something that a lot of people seem to say about a lot of things that I really don't get.

[Drev]

Just end her. You can't kill someone when they're already dead, so why should people waste their money on keeping a corpse alive? She is suffering, trying to make contact with the outside world when she can't do a thing about it. She is secluded in here own little Hell where is is the only one there. Just kill the body so she can escape from there.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

One thing tho, Kev, you said yourself there's a lot of hearsay in this case, so do you mind if I ask for your source for the statment that her husband has blocked attempts at MRIs and PETs?

The report above says extensive testing, but it doesn't list what tests were performed.

Rather than me doing this for you, go to google news, and type in "Schiavo, no MRI, no PET."

The extensive testing, to my knowledge, consisted of a CT test. This, from what I've read, is standard for cases like hers, but doesn't relay nearly as much info as a full MRI would.

The reason an MRI and PET were never conducted is because her diagnosis was clinical. There's no blood test or anything that really says "yup, this one is in persistent (or permanent) vegetation."

There was a doctor on the radio this morning that said that several experts say that her cerebral cortex has turned to mush, and she is completely incapable of any thought.

Who conducted these "expert" examinations? I've read the statements of several other neurologists who have stated that it's crazy that she has never even had an MRI to measure her brain activity.

Were she actually brain dead, she'd be dead, and they'd pull the tube. This woman breaths on her own, and lives off the same stuff we do.

Her family is being retarded and need a reality check. This woman essentially died long ago and they need to let go. It's pathetic.

And hopefully you'll never be placed in the same "retarded" position they're in.

I also have to note how humorous it is that this issue has turned everyone on the board into strict constructionalists screaming about states rights. James Madison would be proud, except I somehow doubt this argument will remain consistent depending on other issues (i.e. guns, gay marriage, capital punishment, voting regulations, education, etc.).

Some states have far more liberal laws concerning who can decide termination, some even more so than Florida. In Florida, you need to present ''clear and convincing evidence" that the person would want to die. Thus far, the courts in Florida have found Michael Schiavo's word, as well as the word of friends, to be convincing enough. Yet the words of her devoutly faithful Roman Catholic family, which Terri herself also was, seem to be moot.

I think her family deserves a fresh judicial perspective on this case.

Sincere or not, impassioned or not, for members of congress to see the life of a single individual, the status of which is debatable by people of good will, as grounds for circumventing a court decision they do not like is a HUGE abbregation of responsability.

They have not changed anything. Her tube is still out, and she still may very well die. What Congress did was vote to allow her case to be appealed beyond the state courts. This is unheard of in such cases, since this stuff is normally a private matter. But the differences between the family members is bringing the state's law into question, and Congress allowed a federal court to decide whether or not this woman's constitutional rights were being harmed.

Saying that this is simply about one woman is sort of like saying the Dred Scott ruling was just about a guy named Dred Scott. Obviously the Schiavo Bill has raised some dust on important relationships between our state and federal government, but why not debate it out in a federal court? The states clearly have massive grey areas when it comes to these substitute decision laws.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

She is suffering, trying to make contact with the outside world when she can't do a thing about it. She is secluded in here own little Hell where is is the only one there. Just kill the body so she can escape from there.

Er, um, but if she's aware of this situation she's in, the she's aware of her surroundings, then she isn't brain dead, thus negating the argument that she's in a persistent vegetative state, no....?

[Drev]

I'm just saying that one's own conciousness is not restricted to just the actions of the brain. I'm theink of a "when you die does your soul go to heaven or hell" scenario, and that she can't go anywhere since the body isn't dead.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Um, so your argument is that her soul seems to be trapped in a fleshy, earthly vessel, and were we to kill her, she'd be free to go to heaven or hell....?

If she isn't dead, then she isn't dead. If you believe in the "heaven or hell" scenario, then you'd believe that God has a plan for us on his own time, not ours.

[Big Papa Goat]

For the record, the catholic church is not opposed to this ;(

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The Roman Catholic Church is opposed to euthenasia, and the Florida Catholic Conference is among many Catholic groups opposed to this.

On March 20, 2004, Pope John Paul II delivered an address on Life Sustaining treatment and the Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas, in which he declared, “The obligation to provide the ‘normal care due to the sick in such cases’ (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration.”

Furthermore, “Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.”

Agree or disagree, the Church's stance is pretty clear.

[Big Papa Goat]

I just heard it on the radio from some crackpot :(

[ziggytrix]

Rather than me doing this for you, go to google news, and type in "Schiavo, no MRI, no PET."


Sadly, the most credible source this turned up was an Op-ed in USA Today by Tom Delay. At any rate, I can tell you why there was no PET. Five years ago NO ONE was getting PETs unless they were part of a federally funded research experiement, it's new technology, and Mrs. Schiavo's guardian gave up on her recovery long before they became available. :(



I think her family deserves a fresh judicial perspective on this case.


Yeah, tenth time's the charm huh?

If you believe in the "heaven or hell" scenario, then you'd believe that God has a plan for us on his own time, not ours.

Seems to me like if God had a plan for Terry, we've been interfering with it for 15 years already. Not that I buy that whole "God's plan" business, just speaking hypothetically.

You know what I don't get? Since when do we cherish life as a state of simply breathing and digesting? I mean, hypothetically, do we keep someone alive as a brain in a jar, if we have the technology, just because we can, even if we still don't know enough about the working of said brain to know if it's functioning at whatever arbitrary level it needs to be classified as "human life"?

PS, FUCK the Roman Catholic Church's stance on this. For one, not all Catholics agree with the vatican on every issue, thank GOD. For another there's a difference between caring for the sick and mechanically extending the life of a braindead person. Let's be clear, whatever Terry's wishes actually were is NOT even part of her parents, or Rome's stance on this.

[Ninjavenom]

You know what I don't get? Since when do we cherish life as a state of simply breathing and digesting? I mean, hypothetically, do we keep someone alive as a brain in a jar, if we have the technology, just because we can, even if we still don't know enough about the working of said brain to know if it's functioning at whatever arbitrary level it needs to be classified as "human life"?

Excellent point.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Rather than me doing this for you, go to google news, and type in "Schiavo, no MRI, no PET."


Sadly, the most credible source this turned up was an Op-ed in USA Today by Tom Delay.

Huh? Okay, since it seems that your scope on what classifies as "credible" is a bit warped, later on I'll have to provide the links for you.......


At any rate, I can tell you why there was no PET. Five years ago NO ONE was getting PETs unless they were part of a federally funded research experiement, it's new technology, and Mrs. Schiavo's guardian gave up on her recovery long before they became available. :(

Right, which doesn't excuse the lack of an MRI at all.



I think her family deserves a fresh judicial perspective on this case.


Yeah, tenth time's the charm huh?

What the fuck in hell do you think is the point of appealing a case to the federal courts? What's sad is that were this an abortion case, or a gay marriage case, you guys would be all for this.


PS, FUCK the Roman Catholic Church's stance on this. For one, not all Catholics agree with the vatican on every issue, thank GOD. For another there's a difference between caring for the sick and mechanically extending the life of a braindead person. Let's be clear, whatever Terry's wishes actually were is NOT even part of her parents, or Rome's stance on this.

PS you're a petulant child. Goat made a claim about where the Church stood on this, and I corrected him on it. I don't particularly care if anybody agrees with it, but to say "wah wah fuck the church, they suck" isn't entirely accurate. Terri WAS a Catholic, and the Church's opinion on these matters might be relevant on deciding whether to kill her (they should be just as relevant as the "he said, she said" testimony of her "husband").

[ziggytrix]

I have a warped sense of credibility because I don't just accept every word from the Republican House Majority Leader's pen as gospel truth? That's rich.

As for the relative value of the Church's opinon and Mr. Schiavo's, I call Bullshit. The Catholic Church isn't her legal guardian, he is. We aren't in Rome, we're in America - get over it. Also, the "he said, she said" testimony was a statement of no less than three people in court, which state and now federal courts found no reason to doubt.

I'm really disappointed that you didn't take my bait that Ninjavenom quoted. Seems to me the heart of the controversy here is a fundamental disagreement of whether or not it is humane to end a suffering or wrecked "life". I would think you are old enough that you have witnessed a friend or family member die of a degenerative disease. If that person decided they could not bear any more, would you say "too bad, God wants you live, so we're keeping you plugged into the machines that'd you naturally die without"? The parents have testified in court that EVEN IF Terri had made the wish to not be kept alive like this, they'd do it anyway. Your merciful Church has made that their policy as well. So pardon me for being a "petulant child" when I express my DISGUST for the "holy" verdict of your religious institution.

[ziggytrix]

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda

As for who actually is making the decision to keep Terri on life support:

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

[FS]

I keep trying to form a reply to this topic and I get stuck in my own words. At any rate I think that debating whether or not Terry Schiavo's life is worth being continued is not nearly as important as the fact that lawmakers interfered with a fairly private matter and created a new law proposal, prompted pretty much by one person's case that they read about in the newspaper. It ranks inbetween insane populism and abuse of the judicial system to satisfy your personal morals, it's pretty creepy, and I don't think a euthanasia debate should distract you from that.

[mburbank]

What FS said.

" They have not changed anything. Her tube is still out, and she still may very well die."

Which any member of congress even remotely familliar with the law knew would be the outcome, judges being less willing to throw away thr role of the judicial branch than congress. What more proof could you want that this is cynical grandstanding?AND they changed plenty, just not for Ms. Schiavo. They threw red meat to thier base while establishing the precedent that when motivted Congress may interfere in individual speciffic lives even after the court system has obeyed the existing laws of the land. They also have peformed at test on the degree to which the fundamental structure of government can be manipulated if you use an emotional enough issue.

What Congress did was vote to allow her case to be appealed beyond the state courts. This is unheard of in such cases, since this stuff is normally a private matter. But the differences between the family members is bringing the state's law into question, and Congress allowed a federal court to decide whether or not this woman's constitutional rights were being harmed.

Which they did by legislative fiat after the state courts had spent seven years making a decision that as the law stood until congress intervened, and STILL STANDS RIGHT NOW for everyone in america except Terry Schiavo.

Saying that this is simply about one woman is sort of like saying the Dred Scott ruling was just about a guy named Dred Scott. "

My history isn't good enough to tell me the lengths the writers of Dread Scott went to to say that the law did not constitute precedent and was meant only for the speciffic case of the speciffic individual, something the authors of this bill have done.

My point has nothing to do with wether the tube should stay in or out, and since I'm not a neurologist or an ethicist, I refuse to weigh in. My point is the R's used this families misery as a football, and I'm revolted, and the D's were too scared to say so and I'm disgusted.

Many members of congress may have deeply held personal beliefs about this case. But they also know the law, the constitution and the horrific load of suffering that goes on in our country and the world every day that they don't hold special sessions over and tat the President doesn't cut short his precious vacation for.

They've DONE a lot. Just nothing about Terry Schiavo. They've ACHIEVED a lot. Just nothing for Tery Schiavo or her family and they never intended to. This is all about political gain and showmanship and if Ms. Schiavo's parents were well versed in the law they might well be sickened by how they were used.

IF this was some truly sincere legislative initiative, in the days to come you will see congress working dilligently to craft new and speciffic federal laws about people in distress and living wills. You'll see an urgent government sponsored campaign to get people to make living wills so that this sort of tragedy can be avoided. The work will carry the passionate intensity that called for special sessions and missed vcations, because for thousands of people in similar condfitions, time is of the essence. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts you don't see much of any of that. Because I don't think this was ever about tht in the first place.

[ziggytrix]

That's not entirely fair, FS. While I am simultaneously sickened and fascinated by the spectacle this has turned into, it was Mr. Schiavo who turned this over to the courts and brought the government into his family's affair (see last post).

If we're going to ditch the euthanasia debate then I wanna address this:

What the fuck in hell do you think is the point of appealing a case to the federal courts? What's sad is that were this an abortion case, or a gay marriage case, you guys would be all for this.

If Congress had an emergency session to force a women who wanted an abortion, in a state where abortion is legal, to delay the abortion til a Federal Court could hear it because her parents wanted her to keep the baby, I'd be pretty appalled. If Congress had an emergency session to keep two gay people from getting married I'd just be baffled.

[ziggytrix]

also regarding how this is bullshit Texas Republican grandstanding, see: "Texas Futile Care Law"

[kellychaos]

The husband kind of reminds me of the brother of the pro football Ranger who died in Afghanistan. When all the grandstanders went to his funeral to praise and well-wish his brother whom they felt "was with God" now. If you remember, and I'm paraphrasing here, the brother basically told them that they were full of shit and, if they knew his brother AT ALL, they would know that they were full of shit. Sweet, n'est-ce pas?

[Abcdxxxx]

It went to the lawmakers, and became a public matter because the families involved took it in that direction. It's not like Jed jumps into every Floridian's breathing tube disputes.

As I understand it, the husband does have some motivation for her to die, above and beyond his claims regarding her final wishes. If he wasn't so creepy, this wouldn't be taking the place of the Scott Peterson case in the news.

I've also read that she's showed some response, so she's not a vegetable. There have been extreme cases of people coming out of comas after years.

[Crash]

Yeah, it just a response though. Almost all living things do that. Can she hold a coherent conversation? Can she wipe herself? She sure as hell can't feed herself. Some parts of her brain may not be damaged, but some of the important ones, ones we take for granted to carry out a normal life, are mush, as someone said earlier. If she came out it wouldn't mean much.

And yeah, this wouldn't have reached this level of popularity without the people involved pushing it that way. But i'm starting to wonder what the media considers "news" to be these days...

[ziggytrix]

Is Michael really just looking for money?

I have no way to know. I know what the Schindlers say to reporters, but then I know that the Second District's first decision in the case used these words to describe Michael's care for Terri:


Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.
Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer.

Yeah this guy's SUCH a ghoul.

What about the Schindlers' claims that Terri is conscious and responds to stimulation?

When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would chose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.

The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:


At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.
The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."

Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.


Were the Schindlers' doctors given an opportunity to examine Terri?

Yes. As the Second District explained:


Through the assistance of Mrs. Schiavo's treating physician, Dr. Victor Gambone, the physicians obtained current medical information about Theresa Schiavo including high-quality brain scans. Each physician reviewed her medical records and personally conducted a neurological examination of Mrs. Schiavo. Lengthy videotapes of some of the medical examinations were created and introduced into evidence. Thus, the quality of the evidence presented to the guardianship court was very high, and each side had ample opportunity to present detailed medical evidence, all of which was subjected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding.
What about the video clips that show Terri reacting to her mother?

The court opinions indicate that similar videos were viewed in their entirety by the trial court, which found that Terri's actions were no more than reflexive and could not be reproduced with any consistency. The Second District affirmed that decision.

source: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda (again)

I'm glad all you crusaders for Terry know so much more about this case than the courts who obviously just want to kill her off so they can move onto other cases. :|

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I have a warped sense of credibility because I don't just accept every word from the Republican House Majority Leader's pen as gospel truth? That's rich.

No, you're sense is warped because you looked at the very first thing that popped up in the search and then called it a day:

http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/230925-3972-021.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C 200503%5CCOM20050323e.html

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3642884,00.html

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/viewpoints/harmon/050318harmon.shtml

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050309-112257-1519r.htm

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/bates032305.htm



As for the relative value of the Church's opinon and Mr. Schiavo's, I call Bullshit. The Catholic Church isn't her legal guardian, he is. We aren't in Rome, we're in America - get over it.

Look, whatever your deal is, maybe mom and dad forced you to go to Church on Sunday's instead of watching cartoons, whatever it may be, I don't care. I never argued that the Church's stance had any bearing on this case. You should probably calm down and re-read it after you take a time out.


Also, the "he said, she said" testimony was a statement of no less than three people in court, which state and now federal courts found no reason to doubt.

You're right. And if the appeals court decides against her again (which will probably be moot anyway because she'll be dead by then), I'll respect that verdict. But she's entitled to that verdict, just like a death row inmate is entitled to appeal his/her case to a higher court.

Seems to me the heart of the controversy here is a fundamental disagreement of whether or not it is humane to end a suffering or wrecked "life". I would think you are old enough that you have witnessed a friend or family member die of a degenerative disease. If that person decided they could not bear any more, would you say "too bad, God wants you live, so we're keeping you plugged into the machines that'd you naturally die without"?

The issue is consent. Was it given, and how much proof is needed in any given state to prove it. She didn't have a living will. She was a young woman. She wasn't expecting a heart attack at such a young age. For all we know, like many of us flippantly say at random moments, she may have meant she wouldn't want to be kept alive by tubes and machines were she EIGHTY and in this state.

I know of a person who always said they never wanted kemotherapy if they got that sick. Eventually they did get that sick, and they got the kemo, and fought until their dying day.

Terri Schiavo doesn't need tubes to breath. She needs hydration and food, the same things we all need. According to people like you, who seem to feel comfortable deciding what life is worthy and unworthy, she's a vegetable. I think she at least deserves an MRI to determine how true that really is, no?


The parents have testified in court that EVEN IF Terri had made the wish to not be kept alive like this, they'd do it anyway.

Because they're her parents and they love her. The bottom line is that she didn't clearly leave these intentions. Her intentions have instead been decided by a man who stopped being her husband over a decade ago, a man who won a medical malpractice case worth more than $1 million, and claimed that he intended to use the cash to rehabilitate Terri.

Your merciful Church has made that their policy as well. So pardon me for being a "petulant child" when I express my DISGUST for the "holy" verdict of your religious institution.

Wah wah, do you feel better sniffles? You're the one who made this about the Church. I simply clarrified a point for Goat, and also explained how Terri's own faith should/would have a deciding factor in what maybe would've been her own intentions. If a Quaker dodged the draft on religious grounds, would you dismiss his faith as irrelevant.....?

If Congress had an emergency session to force a women who wanted an abortion, in a state where abortion is legal, to delay the abortion til a Federal Court could hear it because her parents wanted her to keep the baby, I'd be pretty appalled. If Congress had an emergency session to keep two gay people from getting married I'd just be baffled.

Yeah, take your logic, and flip it. Eleven gay marriage bans were approved by states in the 2004 election. Do you think gay marriage should be a national entitlement, or are you cool with the state's right to bar such practices...?

The federal government made federal cases out of integration, and sent federal forces to enforce integration, ignoring the will of the states.

There are times when the civil and constitutional rights of a citizen are brought into question, and the federal government has, and SHOULD act.

My point has nothing to do with wether the tube should stay in or out, and since I'm not a neurologist or an ethicist, I refuse to weigh in. My point is the R's used this families misery as a football, and I'm revolted, and the D's were too scared to say so and I'm disgusted.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. If anything, the GOP is taking a hit from this. It's hard to find a public opinion poll that supports what Congress did on Sunday. Bill Frist will see his stupid "well as a physician" comments thrown back in his face in 2008.

The Democrats who were opposed to this bill were quite vocal, and some made very eloquent arguments. I don't know how many of the critics on this boardactually watched the debate on the House floor, but the arguments made for both sides were some of the best I've seen from these typically dull and dry opportunists. If anything, the quiet Democrats were the Harold Ford, Jr.'s of the House, those who truly supported this bill (as did I), but are routinely too scared to say anything that might upset Pelosi.

And why would any Republican, PARTICULARLY Tom DeLay (who you should all know I don't care for) need to throw a bone to his base....? Did you follow his Fall race in Sugar Land???? Tom DeLay doesn't need to impress his base any further.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Can she hold a coherent conversation? Can she wipe herself? She sure as hell can't feed herself. Some parts of her brain may not be damaged, but some of the important ones, ones we take for granted to carry out a normal life, are mush, as someone said earlier. If she came out it wouldn't mean much.

An MRI has never been conducted, so once again, nobody (yes, including ME) really knows how much is going on up there.

Furthermore, the description you just provided of what I guess is an unworthy life also describes many people in adult care and nursing homes. Should we start bumping these people off too???

[AChimp]

I think someone needs to take a chill pill. :rolleyes

[ziggytrix]

One thing tho, Kev, you said yourself there's a lot of hearsay in this case, so do you mind if I ask for your source for the statment that her husband has blocked attempts at MRIs and PETs?

(emphasis added)


No, you're sense is warped because you looked at the very first thing that popped up in the search and then called it a day:

I feel I've earned the right to call you a presumptuous cockbite.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/230925-3972-021.html

Editorial with no sources.


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C 200503%5CCOM20050323e.html


Contains statements directly contradictory to court documents. "Terri Schiavo has always been able to swallow but her "husband" denied her the therapy that would allow her to re-learn how to eat even though the therapy is considered mandatory by Florida Statute 744.3215, even to those diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state."

She has failed the swallow test on every occasion. If you'd check either of the links I posted, you'd see that Terri underwent extensive documented physical therapy, with no favorable outcome.


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3642884,00.html


BINGO! Finally a source for the claim: "A column on National Review Online (nationalreview.com) by Robert Johansen, a Catholic priest and leading advocate for Schiavo's survival, explains:
...
"In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them. ""

This seems plausible enough. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. Michael objected, but it was the court (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0903.pdf) that refused.


http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/viewpoints/harmon/050318harmon.shtml

Quotes the same priest incorrectly stating that Terri has had no physical therapy when that is simply NOT TRUE.


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050309-112257-1519r.htm


OK, I FUCKED UP, the Washington Times comes thru (I didn't see this one earlier, my bad). They correctly state that the judge blocked new tests... Ya know, I can understand Mikey's objections, since I imagine objection is his knee-jerk response to what his in-laws have put him and his wife thru for the past 7 years. Of course that is being sympathetic to his point of view, and assuming he is not, in fact, a gholish monster, which I think is consistent with his actions for the first 8 years of this ordeal. What I don't understand is why the judge would refuse to allow the MRI, but I don't have access to the whole procedings, and I'm not trained in adjudication, so I just have to take it on faith that he is making the right call or that his decision would be overturned on appeal.


Look, whatever your deal is, maybe mom and dad forced you to go to Church on Sunday's instead of watching cartoons

PRESUMPTOUS COCKBITE! (damn I hate using that up already) I'll have you know the day I turned 16 was a Sunday, and guess where the first place I ever drove by myself was? My parents were not church goers, but I was. But you didn't know and didn't care, so you should've kept your damn mouth shut.

I never argued that the Church's stance had any bearing on this case.

but in the original post...

Her husband, btw, has since remarried, and has children. Schiavo never stated what her wishes would be under such circumstances, but her husband claims "sending her to be with God" would be her wish (even though Terri was a devout Roman Catholic, and this very practice has been denounced by her Church).

then later

Thus far, the courts in Florida have found Michael Schiavo's word, as well as the word of friends, to be convincing enough. Yet the words of her devoutly faithful Roman Catholic family, which Terri herself also was, seem to be moot.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth Kev, explain it if I'm misunderstanding.


According to people like you, who seem to feel comfortable deciding what life is worthy and unworthy, she's a vegetable. I think she at least deserves an MRI to determine how true that really is, no?

Fuck you. I am not the one saying she's a vegetable. I've never met her. I've not seen the (carefully edited) videos, and I CERTAINLY don't think I'm qualified to decide what life is (un)worthy. I just respect the rulings of every judge who's spent (I would HOPE) more time reviewing this case and with access to more relevant facts than I.


Wah wah, do you feel better sniffles? You're the one who made this about the Church. I simply clarrified a point for Goat, and also explained how Terri's own faith should/would have a deciding factor in what maybe would've been her own intentions.


The fact that you cannot see that official dogma of the Vatican and the beliefs of an individual Catholic may not be entirely congruent baffles me. (also, I think we're about even on namecalling at this point, so can we attempt to go back to marginally civil discourse or are you going to call me a crybaby every time I utilize the CAPSlock for emphasis?)

The parents have testified in court that EVEN IF Terri had made the wish to not be kept alive like this, they'd do it anyway.

Because they're her parents and they love her. The bottom line is that she didn't clearly leave these intentions. Her intentions have instead been decided by a man who stopped being her husband over a decade ago, a man who won a medical malpractice case worth more than $1 million, and claimed that he intended to use the cash to rehabilitate Terri.

The bottom line is that she didn't clearly leave these intentions and the fact that her parents said in court that they would not have repsected those intentions had she clearly left them should not influence my opinion on this one bit...

I disagree.

Also, it wasn't until May 98 that Mikey filed petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed, so I disagree with your remark that he stopped being her husband over a decade ago. I don't know what he did with the $1 million, but is it inconceivable that $1 million was exhausted between 1990 and 1998 on the care and experimental therapy Terri received? That's the thing that bothers me most about this issue really - the villification of Mike and anyone who sympathizes with his viewpoint.

I guess all us devaluers of the sanctity of of life gotta stick together. Fuckin Bill Frist *grumble* >:


Do you think gay marriage should be a national entitlement, or are you cool with the state's right to bar such practices...?

I think it should not be a national ban, and if California wants to let gays get married, fine by me. Wow, what a refreshing tangent. :)


There are times when the civil and constitutional rights of a citizen are brought into question, and the federal government has, and SHOULD act.

January 24, 2005 the US Supreme Court declined review in the Terri's Law case. I'm not sure why they declined. Personally, I think they should have taken it up, but I'm not on the US Supreme Court. :(

Furthermore, the description [Crash] just provided of what I guess is an unworthy life also describes many people in adult care and nursing homes. Should we start bumping these people off too???

Nice slippery slope. But it's irrelevant - as Crash is not a Judge, and his opinion on what should be done with someone who has not left a living will matters as little as mine or yours, especially when said person isn't even someone any of us personally know.

I won't be offended if you don't read all this, I think I'm about exhausted with this issue myself.

[thebiggameover]

Furthermore, the description you just provided of what I guess is an unworthy life also describes many people in adult care and nursing homes. Should we start bumping these people off too???

yes...
:/

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You can then go find something supporting that she in fact did receive an MRI, which she hasn't. Bottom line. If Michael Schiavo wanted to allow more extensive testing, he could. He instead wants the plug pulled. He wants the woman dead, he wants to move on. Not necessarily an entirely selfish impulse, but still a selfish one at that.

Furthermore, when was the last time she received rehab? How much was permitted at the hospice? When was the last time she was even brought outside for that matter? Her teeth brushed?

You say she got it. The Schindlers began raising questions over her therapy back in 1993, after Michael had won the malpractice suit. So what did this extensive rehab consist of?


Ya know, I can understand Mikey's objections, since I imagine objection is his knee-jerk response to what his in-laws have put him and his wife thru for the past 7 years. Of course that is being sympathetic to his point of view, and assuming he is not, in fact, a gholish monster, which I think is consistent with his actions for the first 8 years of this ordeal.

He would object to an MRI out of spite? That's a reasonable argument to you?


Look, whatever your deal is, maybe mom and dad forced you to go to Church on Sunday's instead of watching cartoons

PRESUMPTOUS COCKBITE! (damn I hate using that up already) I'll have you know the day I turned 16 was a Sunday, and guess where the first place I ever drove by myself was? My parents were not church goers, but I was. But you didn't know and didn't care, so you should've kept your damn mouth shut.

You're the one who went off on my "merciful church," or whatever. You clearly hate religion, hate Christianity, and don't even want to see her faith, or her family's faith brought into the discussion, right?

You're right, I don't care.

I never argued that the Church's stance had any bearing on this case.

but in the original post...

Her husband, btw, has since remarried, and has children. Schiavo never stated what her wishes would be under such circumstances, but her husband claims "sending her to be with God" would be her wish (even though Terri was a devout Roman Catholic, and this very practice has been denounced by her Church).

then later

Thus far, the courts in Florida have found Michael Schiavo's word, as well as the word of friends, to be convincing enough. Yet the words of her devoutly faithful Roman Catholic family, which Terri herself also was, seem to be moot.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth Kev, explain it if I'm misunderstanding.

I never implied that the Pope's opinion, or the Church's opinion on the matter should hold weight over the law. You knew that too, but you wanted to be a little cockbite yourself.

I only mentioned the Church's stance in order to clarify what Goat had said. What the Church says shouldn't have a bearing on the case, and the Church's position on euthanasia, persistent vegetative state, etc. can't hold the same weight as neurological study and expertise.

However, if you're going to analyze what the living intentions of Terri Schiavo may have been, I think her personal belief system would be pretty relevant, no? Whether she be a jew, a quaker, a muslim, a Budhist, whatever.


According to people like you, who seem to feel comfortable deciding what life is worthy and unworthy, she's a vegetable. I think she at least deserves an MRI to determine how true that really is, no?

Fuck you. I am not the one saying she's a vegetable. I've never met her. I've not seen the (carefully edited) videos, and I CERTAINLY don't think I'm qualified to decide what life is (un)worthy.

"You know what I don't get? Since when do we cherish life as a state of simply breathing and digesting? I mean, hypothetically, do we keep someone alive as a brain in a jar, if we have the technology, just because we can, even if we still don't know enough about the working of said brain to know if it's functioning at whatever arbitrary level it needs to be classified as "human life"?"

It sounds to me like life only means life when it produces some kind of contribution to society. This, IMO, IS in fact a slippery slope. I'm not going to go down the Nazi Germany hyperbole crap that some of the Right-to-lifers are pulling, but I believe that one of the crucial roles of government is to protect those who are inable to protect themselves, those who are not being properly protected by the system as is. Like Hubert Humphrey said, " It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

This is what essentially makes me a liberal, what can be done with government of the people being used for the people. I know that's a bit sappy and preachy, but it's the truth for me.


I just respect the rulings of every judge who's spent (I would HOPE) more time reviewing this case and with access to more relevant facts than I.

And what of the judges and juries that denied civil rights to African Americans in the south throughout the 19th and 20th centuries....?



Wah wah, do you feel better sniffles? You're the one who made this about the Church. I simply clarrified a point for Goat, and also explained how Terri's own faith should/would have a deciding factor in what maybe would've been her own intentions.


The fact that you cannot see that official dogma of the Vatican and the beliefs of an individual may not be entirely congruent baffles me.

Nor did I say they should be. All I was saying was that her faith, as well as her family's faith, might be relevant. I know it would be relevant for me and my family.


Also, it wasn't until May 98 that Mikey filed petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed, so I disagree with your remark that he stopped being her husband over a decade ago. I don't know what he did with the $1 million, but is it inconceivable that $1 million was exhausted between 1990 and 1998 on the care and experimental therapy Terri received? That's the thing that bothers me most about this issue really - the villification of Mike and anyone who sympathizes with his viewpoint.

To my understanding, he spent much of the money on legal fees. He has a new family, and two new children. He has lived with that woman for ten years. I'm gonna assume some courtship went on, no? To me, he revoked his vows. But that's me.

Do you think gay marriage should be a national entitlement, or are you cool with the state's right to bar such practices...?

I think it should not be a national ban, and if California wants to let gays get married, fine by me. Wow, what a refreshing tangent. :)

It would be even more refreshing if you answered the question.


There are times when the civil and constitutional rights of a citizen are brought into question, and the federal government has, and SHOULD act.

January 24, 2005 the US Supreme Court declined review in the Terri's Law case. I'm not sure why they declined. Personally, I think they should have taken it up, but I'm not on the US Supreme Court. :(

The Schindlers and their representatives would argue that there is a fair amount of evidence that has never been truly evaluated. I think it's fair to say that judges may have passed on this in the past due to the controversial nature (see every headline everywhere) of what has traditionally been a very private family matter.

Also, two days after that denial in 2001, another judge ordered that Terri's feeding tube be reinserted. The courts have flopped around on this matter, too. We can agree on one thing, that the Supreme Court should've heard the case.

Furthermore, the description [Crash] just provided of what I guess is an unworthy life also describes many people in adult care and nursing homes. Should we start bumping these people off too???

Nice slippery slope. But it's irrelevant - as Crash is not a Judge, and his opinion on what should be done with someone who has not left a living will matters as little as mine or yours, especially when said person isn't even someone any of us personally know.

I think the overall public's perspective on what constitutes a valuable life is important. Legislatures pass right to die laws, and governors sign them, no? None of these people are judges, but they can all effect how we value the young, elderly, disabled, and weak in our society.

It's also quite possible (gasp! No way!) for judges to capitulate to popular pressure, btw.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Furthermore, the description you just provided of what I guess is an unworthy life also describes many people in adult care and nursing homes. Should we start bumping these people off too???

yes...
:/

I hope you keep commenting on this matter.

[AChimp]

http://www.screenpictures.com/cards/chillpill.jpg

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Look, I know you don't give a fuck about this subject, so why don't you refrain from commenting....?

[ziggytrix]

He would object to an MRI out of spite? That's a reasonable argument to you?

Not out of spite. Out of exhaustion.


You're the one who went off on my "merciful church," or whatever. You clearly hate religion, hate Christianity, and don't even want to see her faith, or her family's faith brought into the discussion, right?


I hate the pushing of the dogma of institutionalized Christianity onto others. I don't hate religion in general, or even Christianity in specific. I AM sick of vocal Christians screaming about activist judges and the modern persecution of Christians in America, and so that may be coming thru in my choice of words. But, no, I don't think it's right that because she was a Catholic, that means she couldn't have REALLY meant it when she said she wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state or whatever.

I never implied that the Pope's opinion, or the Church's opinion on the matter should hold weight over the law. You knew that too, but you wanted to be a little cockbite yourself.

However, if you're going to analyze what the living intentions of Terri Schiavo may have been, I think her personal belief system would be pretty relevant, no? Whether she be a jew, a quaker, a muslim, a Budhist, whatever.

Yes, yes, and YES! But saying she was a devout Catholic does not mean she couldn't have REALLY meant it when she said she wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state or whatever.


"You know what I don't get? Since when do we cherish life as a state of simply breathing and digesting? I mean, hypothetically, do we keep someone alive as a brain in a jar, if we have the technology, just because we can, even if we still don't know enough about the working of said brain to know if it's functioning at whatever arbitrary level it needs to be classified as "human life"?"

It sounds to me like life only means life when it produces some kind of contribution to society.

Thanks for continuing to put words in my mouth. There is a whole fucking universe between "simply breathing and digesting" and "contributing to society" - and surely there is a point where even you think that doing everything within the bounds of medical science to keep that heart beating is neither wise, nor merciful.


And what of the judges and juries that denied civil rights to African Americans in the south throughout the 19th and 20th centuries....?


Your analogy is flawed unless you mean to suggest the judges who've overseen Terri's case are somehow prejudiced against invalids in the same way a racist is predjudiced against someone of a different skin color. I'm not saying the courts are infallible. But the judges in this case have ALL ruled the same verdict, they ALL know MUCH more about BOTH sides of this than you or I.



Nor did I say they should be. All I was saying was that her faith, as well as her family's faith, might be relevant. I know it would be relevant for me and my family.

It would be relevant for any family. My aunt's Catholic, as my grandparents raised her. She also has a Living Will that says something to the effect of "unplug me if there's no hope for recovery". So you see, I'm sure my grandparents would resist it if she were to wind up in a coma for however long her will says she can go. But ultimately, it's HER decision, not theirs or the Chruch's. And that's what the courts have supposedly been trying to determine, what Terri would have wanted, and have decided each time that Terri would not have chosen to go on like this. Except when they decided, "maybe we need to wait and make sure" - but how long does the waiting go on? If you're 99% sure, there's still that 1% chance. Do you Keep someone plugged in for 10, 20, 30 years because there was a slight chance they didn't really mean it when they said they'd never want to be kept alive hooked up to machines for the rest of their life?

He has lived with that woman for ten years. I'm gonna assume some courtship went on, no? To me, he revoked his vows. But that's me.

Less than 8 (http://www.nvve.nl/english/info/schiavo2005-03-01ap.htm) actually, but that isn't as relevant as "til Death Do Us Part" and she is clearly dead to him (unless you wanna come out and say you think he's doing this for monetary gain) and he is just trying to see that she be given the final peace he believes she wants. Fuck I'm getting sick of defending this guy's potential integrity, when I know fuck all about him other than what I've read. Point blank: do you think this guy is just a sleazebag or what, Kevin?

I think it should not be a national ban, and if California wants to let gays get married, fine by me. Wow, what a refreshing tangent. :)

It would be even more refreshing if you answered the question.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. The answers were "no" and "yes" in that order (if you'll note you did ask TWO questions).

Fuck it's late - I'm through with this discussion. Someone needs to euthanize this thread.

[AChimp]

Look, I know you don't give a fuck about this subject, so why don't you refrain from commenting....?

Whoa, dude.

[Big Papa Goat]

When I say that the object of laws is always general, I mean that law considers subjects en masse and actions in the abstract, and never a particular person or action. Thus the law may indeed decree that there shall be privileges, but cannot confer them on anybody by name
I don't really know much about the US system of government I guess, but isn't Congress a law making body? And wasn't this a law? Regarding one of the things Kevin said in the initial post, I think the saving of the life of this individual is much less appropriate than 'setting a precedent' for future similar circumstances.
On the other hand...
What's so bad about the politicization of a personal situation/tragedy anyway?

But on the other hand,

Force fed immobilization
Man made liquid controlling my limbs
I want to die, no reason for living
Dealing with complications life brings
A corpse with no thoughts
No feelings or perceptions of life
The pleasures of death I foresee
Nightmares and day mares combining
To torture my being - This torture inhibits my life

The world is a graveyard of fools left to cope
With the torment and regret of man now deceased
Ghouls are released to destroy the race
Which we call human beings

Existence is torn from my soul
Perdition is what is believed to be seen
Suffering from the inside
Nefarious is the way
You choose to be - Left with no will to live
My intestinal wall begins to cave in
Trapped as they say
I begin to rot here as I lay

Time to take a look
At what has begun to pass before me
Die a slow death
It now begins to take it's toll

[Abcdxxxx]

Another point that hasn't been brought up yet, is how scary it is to give a spouse total power like that, while the actual blood family are cut off from the process.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

The husband kind of reminds me of the brother of the pro football Ranger who died in Afghanistan. When all the grandstanders went to his funeral to praise and well-wish his brother whom they felt "was with God" now. If you remember, and I'm paraphrasing here, the brother basically told them that they were full of shit and, if they knew his brother AT ALL, they would know that they were full of shit. Sweet, n'est-ce pas?

I remember that....I laughed out loud when I read that...than I had a beer and raised a toast for his brother.

[ziggytrix]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnews/columnists/jfloyd/stories/032405dnmetfloyd.55ae8.html

Jacquielynn Floyd
Schiavo outcry speaks volumes about us

08:43 PM CST on Wednesday, March 23, 2005

No commentator, columnist or talk show host in the land has had to cast topical chum upon the waters this week. The outpouring of opinion in the accelerating drama of Terri Schiavo's right-to-live-or-die case has drowned out pretty much everything else.

There's an emotional exhaustion setting in about this case, as if people are bone-tired of hearing about it, but can't quite bring themselves to stop paying attention until the final legal step is exhausted.

This is not a bad thing, for two reasons: First, as many have pointed out, Mrs. Schiavo's wrenching and infinitely publicized case is lighting a fire under millions of people to prepare physician's directives, or "living wills," so there will never be any questions about medical maintenance should they become severely incapacitated.

And second, it suggests that our culture is not, after all, as shallow and frivolous as some critics make us out to be. Millions of Americans have torn themselves away from celebrity gossip and game shows in the last few days to consider the complex issues of medicine, law, bioethics and mortality that this case poses.

Since writing about Mrs. Schiavo's case in Tuesday's paper, I have received a deluge of mail, much of it emotionally affecting, some of it insulting, all of it compelling.

In a brief capsule, I wrote that elected officials had no business interfering in this case; that due legal process has been exhaustively afforded; that Mrs. Schiavo should be allowed a dignified death in accordance with the wishes of her legal guardian, her husband.

I also characterized some of those campaigning for the re-attachment of Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube as non-medical "amateurs" and "meddlers" – words to which some correspondents took strong offense.

"Exactly what do you mean by 'amateurs'?" one irate reader asked. "Most of your columns are light reading and you should stick to what you know."

But my mail ran, by a nearly 3-to-1 margin, in favor of allowing Mrs. Schiavo to die without further intervention from politicians.

Interestingly, many of the writers who expressed this view felt that their sentiments have been largely ignored by a media they see as too preoccupied by protesters and activists.

"I thought I must be about the only person in the country who was appalled by the outside meddling in a private and personal family tragedy," said one writer.

"I am just fed up with the politicians and the strangers who intrude in this private matter," said another.

I heard from health-care professionals who said powerful emotion in this case has obscured medical and biological reality.

"There truly are things worse than death," wrote one doctor whose patients include terminally ill AIDS sufferers. "I have seen them."

"I have seen this scenario play itself out many times in my career," wrote a registered nurse. "This is a tragic case of irrational, selfish emotion overshadowing evidence-based medical practice and what the patient would have wanted."

But many of those who took me to task expressed deeply held beliefs not only about the inherent value of life but also about parental love:

"Why don't you come up with a scenario where one of your children is in the same situation?" asked a reader in Richardson. "I would believe that you would like to have your child at home, without amateur and medical meddling, and feed him, and keep him alive to love him 24 hours a day."

Readers' responses also suggested that it's an inaccurate oversimplification to try to align this debate along political lines.

"I am a native Texan and a lifelong Republican; however, I am embarrassed," said one writer – who was echoed by quite a few others.

"I'm embarrassed with the actions of several people I helped get elected," said another reader, who was generous enough to point out that this is a rare occasion on which she and I agree.

Another writer, though, who described himself as a liberal Democrat, said he cannot reconcile himself to the notion of withholding food and water from a disabled patient.

"How can you stand by while somebody starves to death?" he asked. "I can't believe this is 'medicine.'"

Most affecting, though, were messages from families who have faced the agony of end-of-life decisions themselves:

"It hits home," said a writer related to a severely incapacitated Alzheimer's patient who recently died of pneumonia.

"Luckily, she had signed a 'no feeding tube, no heroics' form so we were able to proceed with her wishes," this writer said. "But what if someone had contested this? Our family could have ended up in the media circus, just like the folks in the Schiavo case. The thought of this gives me cold chills."

And a lot of people, regardless of political affiliation, seem concerned about the possible legal precedent established with the congressional intervention in this case.

"What must I do to keep the government out of my deathbed?" one writer asked. "How can I be assured ... I am granted a right to die? Is it still my choice?"

A good question. I heard a lot of good questions, to which there are no easy answers. These are painful issues involving deeply held beliefs to which there are no simple or universally acceptable answers.

At least we're talking about them.

E-mail jfloyd@dallasnews.com

[mburbank]

Kev: Just because the R's were totally wrong about which way the wind was blowing doesn't mean using this as a juicy wedge issue wasn't what they had in mind. I'll dig up some quotes to show you what I mean.

[Zebra 3]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnews/columnists/jfloyd/stories/032405dnmetfloyd.55ae8.html

Jacquielynn Floyd
Schiavo outcry speaks volumes about us

08:43 PM CST on Wednesday, March 23, 2005



...And second, it suggests that our culture is not, after all, as shallow and frivolous as some critics make us out to be. Millions of Americans have torn themselves away from celebrity gossip and game shows in the last few days to consider the complex issues of medicine, law, bioethics and mortality that this case poses....

:tear - Thanks to "The world's #1 source for news on celebrities, show business, and Hollywood happenings!" (http://et.tv.yahoo.com/about/) TV's Entertainment Tonight (http://et.tv.yahoo.com/) I can learn more on our sweet dear Terri.

[kellychaos]

As I understand it, the husband does have some motivation for her to die, above and beyond his claims regarding her final wishes.

He has guardianship as the law now stands. He has nothing really to gain financially as almost all of it has been eaten up in medical bills. It pays not to go on hearsay anyway. Did it ever occur to you that he has stayed married in order to ensure that her final wishes were met? So what that he did move on with another woman with children. We have to move on. That's human nature. It doesn't mean that he doesn't sincerely care for her welfare.


I've also read that she's showed some response, so she's not a vegetable. There have been extreme cases of people coming out of comas after years.

Up until this point, the case was won by the husband because he is in the right by standing Florida law, despite repeated appeals by the parents by this technicality or that. This is just an eleventh hour appeal hinging on the definition of "vegetative state". And guess who introduced the new evaluations of her condition ... endorsed, right wing conservative physicians under the employ of the parents. Suprise! Suprise!

P.S. I'm glad that a federal judge had the conjones to keep the executive branch from showboating and trying to bully the excutive branch. Checks and balances, ya know?

[Abcdxxxx]

There must be a medical name for someone who perceives everything as an act of partisin politics.

It's not about Republican's nearly as much as it is with our personal perceptions of life and death. Some of us think the ability to wipe ourselves supercedes a pulse. Some of us think her life should depend on wether or not her husband is ready to "move on with his life". That's insane. Now to me Hospice is an evil fucking organization, but I know plenty of people who are grateful for their help. I see them as morphine pushers personally, and their "angel of mercy" speeches to be grim reaper bullshit. THAT'S what's coming from the religious Right. Liberals second guessing medical science because of their own lazy ethics isn't much better.

I can tell you this much. Everything about the husband creeps me out, so when I read the hearsay that there's a life policy in her name, or that there's future litigation he stands to gain from, I tend to buy into it. At the core, this is a landmark case in terms of power of attorney, and if her Parents want to resume care for her, they should have the ability to fight for that, and pursue the same options available to their daughter for the past ten years or whatever it's been. I mean, the truth is he wouldn't have ever even put her on life support AT ALL if her wishes were so strong.

Edit: Why is it a negative thing that our nation has taken up this story? Aren't these issues more important then who stole Paris Hilton's password ?

[ziggytrix]

I can tell you this much. Everything about the husband creeps me out, so when I read the hearsay that there's a life policy in her name, or that there's future litigation he stands to gain from, I tend to buy into it.

Without ever meeting the guy, you've determined that he is untrustworthy at best and more likley, a monster. What the hell is wrong with all these judges that they can't see this guy is clearly CREEPY.

if her Parents want to resume care for her, they should have the ability to fight for that, and pursue the same options available to their daughter for the past ten years or whatever it's been. I mean, the truth is he wouldn't have ever even put her on life support AT ALL if her wishes were so strong.

They certainly do that have that right, and they've excercised it for nearly a decade. Your second point compeletely lost me. He wouldn't have put her on life support before he knew the extent of the damage, before years of failed therapy and treatment?? No one is saying she would have rather died than recieve ANY medical treatment. They are saying she would not have wanted her body to be kept alive indefinitely after her brain had turned to mush.

Edit: Why is it a negative thing that our nation has taken up this story? Aren't these issues more important then who stole Paris Hilton's password ?

It's not especially negative, but it is certainly morbid. As much as some of us want to look away, we can't help coming back to it, it strikes that strong a personal chord. This is someone's most private affair, and here we are debating like we know what this woman that none of us have met would have wanted. We are imagining ourselves and our own loved ones in this horrible position. Hopefully, some good will come of all this.

[Abcdxxxx]

Did you get confused and think you're signing on to Judge Chat? Put down the toy gavel, take off the Polyphinic Spree souvineer robe.

The parents haven't excersised any rights. They haven't had power of attorney, and that's everything. Otherwise, once a spouse takes control, the family can't decide if a patient gets Jello or Popsicles. They have no rights.

[theapportioner]

I mean, the truth is he wouldn't have ever even put her on life support AT ALL if her wishes were so strong.

He may simply have been holding out hope for the first few years.

[ziggytrix]

The parents haven't excersised any rights. They haven't had power of attorney, and that's everything. Otherwise, once a spouse takes control, the family can't decide if a patient gets Jello or Popsicles. They have no rights.

No rights? If that were true there would have been no appeals, and we wouldn't be talkning about this. I'm sorry you are disappointed with the American judicial system. If it's any consolation, I don't think our system is flawless, but you go to court with the judges you have, not the judges you want. *shrug*

[ArrowX]

I'd kick her in the stomach :O

No In all honesty I'm leaning towards euthenize her (spelling can wank me). But even if she could tell them to kill her the MAN would'nt let them do it.

[Helm]

REMIND ME WHY YOU'RE QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS THIS

[Abcdxxxx]

Apport: You're right... but he went against what he claims were her wishes, and eventually lost hope. Obviously, her family have not. The judges are deciding if he truly does represent her wishes, and it's difficult to discern how legit he is when even he himself has contradicted this "last wish".

Zig : how long have the parents been in appeals? you can't say they've had "10 years" of exercising legal rights they never had, unless you're just reffering to their ability to take the gaurdian petition to a court. the husband has had power of attorney for 15 years.

the bottom line is there isn't even a consistant opinion wether she's already dead.

[mburbank]

Get ready for the funeral circus. Unless (and perhaps even if) her parents beg politicians to just stay away, it will be more widely attended than most state funerals. All the R's will show up and then the D's will feel like they'll look bad if they don't show, and of course the president will either go, or say he isn't going so as not to endanger others by his presence. It's going to be this years hot ticket.

I swear to god, between this and the Michael Jackson trial you have to dig five or six pages into the paper before you read anything.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

it's pathetic that this is being made into a political issue......

[theapportioner]

Related topics:

Does depriving someone of food and water in this situation constitute 'withholding medical treatment'?

Is it 'suicide' (even if suicide by proxy)? How is it different from say, deciding not to get chemo for an aggressive, metastatic cancer?

Given that, do you think a quick, active euthanasia is more 'humane' than this type of passive euthanasia? What do you think is the better idea?

I think most people here agree that patients should have the right to decide whether they want treatment withheld.

Michael Schiavo has been accused of acting under his own self-interest. But couldn't you say the same about Terri's parents? Their motive may be 'love' but it's still their self-interest.

I just want to remind you that involuntary, passive euthanasia is done every day, everywhere.

[ziggytrix]

Given that, do you think a quick, active euthanasia is more 'humane' than this type of passive euthanasia? What do you think is the better idea?

I think both should be an option.


"If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine."

...

"Therefore, based upon the above and foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Authorization to Discontinue Artificial Life Suppoer of Michael Schiavo, Guardion of the Person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, an incapacitated person, be and the same is hereby GRANTED and the Petitioner/Guardian is hereby authorized to proceed with the sidcontinuance of said artificial life support for Theresa Marie Schiavo.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida at the hour of 11:50 o'clock 2 m this 11th day of February, AD, 2000."

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

So my bad, Abcdxxxx, they've only halted a legal decision, and in my worthless opinion violated their daughter's wishes thru their right of appeal for 5 years, not 10.


(huge tangent warning)

Curiously enough, Gov. Jeb Bush has previously stated that 5 years is enough in a life and death matter:

'On behalf of victims' families and the people of this state, I remain steadfastly committed to finding ways to have all death penalty appeals resolved within five years," Bush said.


http://www.helpvirginia.com/limitsrejected.htm

[kellychaos]

There must be a medical name for someone who perceives everything as an act of partisin politics.

My opinions aren't really partisan at all. I don't believe that the exceutive branch should be able to overstep the judicial branch in this way at all, regardless of party. That's simply not the way the framers of the Constitution intended it to be.

What's clear is this:

a) The husband has right of guardianship regardless of definitions of quality of life or what defines life. You're getting into issues of ethics and morality. This is law.

b) The parents tried to overstep the system. Political grandstanders championed their cause for their own political gain. Again, regardless of partisanship.

c) You have made some very base, superficial arguments about the relationship of the couple based on "gut feelings" and hearsay from people and interest groups with their own axe to grind. You don't know him, her, the family, ect and have nothing personally vested in this ... but I'm glad that you're here to play God ... or your own omnipotent power of choice ... whatever.

[ziggytrix]

Hey now, he's entitled to his own worthless opinion as much as you or I, KC.

[kellychaos]

Amen.

[Abcdxxxx]

I'm not playing god or even pushing my own personal beliefs at all. I've actually been in the position of arguing against doctors and refused breathing tubes for my own family who were in critical care. So you see Kelly, we're not all as fortunate as you to have the priviledge of being so laissez faire

Didn't you say politicians were making Schiavo their political platform? That sounds a statement considering the partinship issue at hand.
If you're so concerned with Judicial process, it should concern you that these judges are deliberating on the matter without ordering the medical tests that would inform their decisions.

Calling him creepy isn't any less of a stretch then comparing him to the brother of a soldier who died in Afghanistan. (End with cutesy dime school french phrasing here.)

[ziggytrix]

If you're so concerned with Judicial process, it should concern you that these judges are deliberating on the matter without ordering the medical tests that would inform their decisions.


It doesn't take an MRI or a PET to tell you that spinal fluid doesn't THINK.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

He would object to an MRI out of spite? That's a reasonable argument to you?

Not out of spite. Out of exhaustion.

Seems like a pretty weak argument to me.


However, if you're going to analyze what the living intentions of Terri Schiavo may have been, I think her personal belief system would be pretty relevant, no? Whether she be a jew, a quaker, a muslim, a Budhist, whatever.

Yes, yes, and YES! But saying she was a devout Catholic does not mean she couldn't have REALLY meant it when she said she wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state or whatever.

This is an issue of disagreement, but from a legal position (at least thus far), you're right. I think however that a lot of people say a lot of things throughout the course of their lives, some they mean, and some they say rather flippantly. The courts have thus far agreed with Michael Schiavo's telling of the tale, and if a higher court could see more conclusive evidence, and review the case, I'd be inclined to agree with that outcome too.

Thanks for continuing to put words in my mouth. There is a whole fucking universe between "simply breathing and digesting" and "contributing to society" - and surely there is a point where even you think that doing everything within the bounds of medical science to keep that heart beating is neither wise, nor merciful.

We don't have to do anything to keep her heart beating. Her heart has ben beating on its own for 15 years now. The only thing that's going to stop it is the same deprivation that would stop any of us.

Christopher Reeves couldn't breath on his own, but he could talk and smile and articulate points. Its this litmus that people use to distinguish him from Terri Schiavo, which to mean, sounds like a rather utilitarian means test for the value of life.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you could elaboate on your own. Thus far you've argued this from a legal position, which makes you right, because we are if nothing else a society built on laws. But ABC is right in my opinion. This case is pretty important, because it raises every states legal guardianship into question. It forces us to have these sort of uncomfortable conversations, where we begin to draw the lines of what does and doesn't classify as a human being. Yours is different from mine, we know that much.


And what of the judges and juries that denied civil rights to African Americans in the south throughout the 19th and 20th centuries....?


Your analogy is flawed unless you mean to suggest the judges who've overseen Terri's case are somehow prejudiced against invalids in the same way a racist is predjudiced against someone of a different skin color.

Ugh, okay, so then look at the federal appeals system. Why does it exist? Why even have the higher courts if everything could be handled within its local jurisdiction?

There's politics involved in locality, the kind of politics that don't mean as much at a higher level. A state judge is meant to uphold state law, and they can judge from that mere bias alone (no hatred of invalids or black people required).

I'm not saying the courts are infallible. But the judges in this case have ALL ruled the same verdict, they ALL know MUCH more about BOTH sides of this than you or I.

Right, and again we come back to the disagreement. Of course the judges who have ruled on this know better, just like the state court in a death row appeal knows better than you or I. That doesn't mean that case has been given an entirely fair shake, nor does it mean a higher judge would rule in the same direction. Those judges are pretty smart, too.


He has lived with that woman for ten years. I'm gonna assume some courtship went on, no? To me, he revoked his vows. But that's me.

Less than 8 (http://www.nvve.nl/english/info/schiavo2005-03-01ap.htm) actually,

And I'll again assume that some courtship went on.


Point blank: do you think this guy is just a sleazebag or what, Kevin?

I honesty dunno. I know he has done some things to me that should deny him of the legal guardianship entitled to him. I think he began dating again pretty damn soon, and like ABC said, there is a general creepiness to him that doesn't sit right with me (incidentally, I get a similar feeling from Mr. Schindler, but not quite to the extent).

The other problem is that the polarizing nature of this case has created a lot of hearsay and rumors. I've heard nurses who used to work at the hospice quoting him, that he used to say "when will this bitch die?" However, the record also shows that they thought about placing a restraining order on him because he complained about her poor care.

I do know that he won a malpractice suit, with a lump of the cash going towards personal damages, on the grounds that he intended to get nursing training to care for his wife.

I think he loved hiswife very much at one point. I think the laws in Florida are fucking stupid, but that fault doesn't belong on Michael Schiavo.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. The answers were "no" and "yes" in that order (if you'll note you did ask TWO questions).

So if a state bans gay marriage, you respect that ruling, and don't want the federal government interfering in any way? I just want to be clear on what your "yes" and "no" are actually saying.

At the core, this is a landmark case in terms of power of attorney, and if her Parents want to resume care for her, they should have the ability to fight for that, and pursue the same options available to their daughter for the past ten years or whatever it's been.

I think this is an excellent point, one that the born again constructionists seem to ignore. Yes, the Schiavo Act was a piece of legislation geared towards one person. But this person is in immediate need, and if this act by Congress has brought attention to the broader issue, then that's good. There are in fact Republicans in Congress who have been putting together legislation on this kind of stuff, but nobody has realy cared up to this point. Now all of a sudden people are concerned about living wills, and proxy legal of attorney, etc. etc.

Whether or not Terri Schiavo gets her feeding tube put back in, this issue will remain topical amongst many in Congress. Some are calling this a political move that has backfired, but so what? The purpose of at least the Senate anyway was to stand as an objective body against the impulses and whims of the masses. It isn't a popularity contest nor should it be.

Kev: Just because the R's were totally wrong about which way the wind was blowing doesn't mean using this as a juicy wedge issue wasn't what they had in mind. I'll dig up some quotes to show you what I mean.

I don't really see the perceived electoral benefit in this. It doesn't even fit the definition of a wedge issue per se, because it only appeals to your base and ostracizes those who don't support you. It's like trying to wedge yourself. Nobody with national ambitions, such as Sen. Frist, would run with this as a "wedge" issue, IMO.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

NOTE: This is an opinion from a very partisan conservative voice. I don't necessarily agree with everything he is saying, but I have highlighted what I think are some good points in reference to the 19 judges that we keeep hearing about (i.e. he articulated the point better than my rambling ass). He goes into the typical "activist judges" rant, but the first half of the piece is pretty good......

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-3_25_05_TS.html

March 25, 2005

Myth of 19 Judges and Ignoring the Will of Congress
By Thomas Sowell

Liberals have repeatedly used the talking point of how many judges have heard the case of Terri Schiavo. But that is as misleading as most of the rest of what they and the mainstream media have been saying.

When a case goes up to a higher court on appeal, the issue before the appellate court is not whether they agree with the merits of the decision of the lower court. In a criminal case, for example, the issue before the appellate court is not whether the defendant was guilty or innocent, but whether the trial was conducted properly.

In other words, the defendant is not supposed to be tried again at the appellate level. So, no matter how many appellate judges rule one way or the other, that tells you absolutely nothing about the fundamental question of guilt or innocence.

Similar principles apply in a civil case, such as that of Terri Schiavo. Liberals can count all the judges they want, but that does not mean that all these judges agreed with the merits of the original court's decision. It means that they found no basis for saying that the original court's decision was illegal.

What the law just passed by Congress did was authorize a federal court to go back to square one and examine the actual merits of the Terri Schiavo case, not simply review whether the previous judge behaved illegally. Congress authorized the federal courts to retry this case from scratch -- "de novo" as the legislation says in legal terminology.

That is precisely what the federal courts have refused to do. There is no way that federal District Judge James Whittemore could have examined this complex case, with its contending legal arguments and conflicting experts, from scratch in a couple of days, even if he had worked around the clock without eating or sleeping.

Judge Whittemore ignored the clear meaning of the law passed by Congress and rubberstamped the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.

Nor could the judges on the Court of Appeals have gone through all of this material "de novo" in a couple of days after Judge Whittemore's decision. They have added to the number of judges that liberals can count but they have not followed the law -- which is what really counts.

The federal judges have rushed to judgment -- in a case where there was no rush legally, despite a medical urgency. Terri Schiavo was not dying from anything other than a lack of food and water. These federal judges could have ordered the feeding tube restored while they gave this issue the thorough examination authorized -- and indeed prescribed -- by the recent Congressional legislation.

As dissenting Judge Charles Wilson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals put it, the "entire purpose of the statute" is to let federal courts look at the case "with a fresh pair of eyes." But, by the Circuit Court's decision, "we virtually guarantee" that the merits of the case "will never be litigated in a federal court" because Terri Schiavo will be dead. Never -- regardless of how many judges are counted as talking points.

The liberal line, both in politics and in the media, is that Congress somehow behaved unconstitutionally. All federal courts except the Supreme Court are created by Congress. The Constitution itself gives Congress the authority to define or restrict the jurisdictions of federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

Is the Constitution unconstitutional?

The lessons of this tragic episode are as momentous as they are painful, if only because we should never want to see such a miscarriage of justice again. The issue is not only whether Terri Schiavo should live or die, important as that is.

Another important issue is whether self-government in this country will live or die. Judges who ignore the laws passed by elected representatives are slowly but surely replacing democracy with judicial rule. Meanwhile, the media treat judges as sacrosanct and any criticism of them as almost blasphemy.

All this adds more urgency to the need to put judges on the courts who will follow the written law, not their own notions. We can only hope that the Senate Republicans have the guts to do that.

[ziggytrix]

Ugh, okay, so then look at the federal appeals system. Why does it exist? Why even have the higher courts if everything could be handled within its local jurisdiction?


Her case went up for federal appeal, and they declined to hear it. It's a right the federal appeals court has.

Right, and again we come back to the disagreement. Of course the judges who have ruled on this know better, just like the state court in a death row appeal knows better than you or I. That doesn't mean that case has been given an entirely fair shake, nor does it mean a higher judge would rule in the same direction. Those judges are pretty smart, too.

So are you suggesting that every court case invovling life or death MUST be heard by a federal court? I don't know if I'd agree or disagree with that, but that's not how it works right now.


I do know that he won a malpractice suit, with a lump of the cash going towards personal damages, on the grounds that he intended to get nursing training to care for his wife.

$300,000 to him for damages and $700,000 for Terri's estate. (http://www.abstractappeal.com/index.html) Also, it has gone on the record that Terri's parents stopped speaking to Michael after he refused to share any of the $300,000 with them. Which to me, suggests a sort of greed underlying this whole ordeal that, if true, would make me think the whole lot of them are sick.


So if a state bans gay marriage, you respect that ruling, and don't want the federal government interfering in any way? I just want to be clear on what your "yes" and "no" are actually saying.


Correct. I also think if a state bans ALL marriage, then the Federal courts should not intervene, because the legal definiton of marriage is that of a contract. Marriage as a form of commitment, expression of love, religious ceremony, etc, is NOT bannable by any form of government, but it doesn't carry any legal bindings.

At the core, this is a landmark case in terms of power of attorney, and if her Parents want to resume care for her, they should have the ability to fight for that, and pursue the same options available to their daughter for the past ten years or whatever it's been.

I think this is an excellent point, one that the born again constructionists seem to ignore. Yes, the Schiavo Act was a piece of legislation geared towards one person. But this person is in immediate need, and if this act by Congress has brought attention to the broader issue, then that's good.

You seem to be disregarding the fact that the federal courts DECLINED to hear the case. Again, should every case have to go through the federal courts, and if so why even bother with the local courts?

There are in fact Republicans in Congress who have been putting together legislation on this kind of stuff, but nobody has realy cared up to this point. Now all of a sudden people are concerned about living wills, and proxy legal of attorney, etc. etc.


Dunno if I already said this here or not, but most states have a couple of times where they can ask young men if they wish to register for selective service. I think those times would be an ideal time to question them on living wills and such. Or when you go to get your driver's license and they ask you if you wanna be an organ donor - let them also ask if you wanna be hooked up to machines indefinitely if you can't speak for yourself.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Her case went up for federal appeal, and they declined to hear it. It's a right the federal appeals court has.

Right, they denied to question the previous verdicts made on the case as it was. What Congress did was open up an avenue for the fed. courts to re-evaluate the entire case.

My point was this, federal courts, and the federal government have stepped into the matters of the state. They've prevented states from doing things, this isn't a novelty.

So are you suggesting that every court case invovling life or death MUST be heard by a federal court? I don't know if I'd agree or disagree with that, but that's not how it works right now.

OMG, no, that's not what I'm fucking saying. What I'm saying is that a convicted killer can appeal and appeal and appeal to the highest court in the land if they'll hear him. I support that process, and I detest what states like Florida and Texas are doing to wipe away that necessary process that rules out doubt.

THAT is what I want. I want all doubt removed, and I don't believe it has been. Yes, that's my opinion, not a Florida judges, not a medical doctor's. But it's not my opinion alone.


I do know that he won a malpractice suit, with a lump of the cash going towards personal damages, on the grounds that he intended to get nursing training to care for his wife.

$300,000 to him for damages and $700,000 for Terri's estate. (http://www.abstractappeal.com/index.html) Also, it has gone on the record that Terri's parents stopped speaking to Michael after he refused to share any of the $300,000 with them. Which to me, suggests a sort of greed underlying this whole ordeal that, if true, would make me think the whole lot of them are sick.

Yeah, I read that too. But I think the gripe came over what kind of rehab the money would be spent on. I think the Schindler's felt his methods were either ineffective or not effective enough.


So if a state bans gay marriage, you respect that ruling, and don't want the federal government interfering in any way? I just want to be clear on what your "yes" and "no" are actually saying.


Correct. I also think if a state bans ALL marriage, then the Federal courts should not intervene, because the legal definiton of marriage is that of a contract. Marriage as a form of commitment, expression of love, religious ceremony, etc, is NOT bannable by any form of government, but it doesn't carry any legal bindings.

Okay, cool. And just for another example, what do you think of prior efforts made by the federal government to prevent ANWR drilling in Alaska, even against the wishes of the Alaskan legislature (of course now a moot issue, but relevant for the comparisons purpose)?

You seem to be disregarding the fact that the federal courts DECLINED to hear the case. Again, should every case have to go through the federal courts, and if so why even bother with the local courts?

Certain judges refused to question the legality of the decisions made on the case as it was presented. They weren't deciding over and over again that Terri Schiavo was a vegetable, they simply refused to question the previous argument.

A new argument can however be made, a broader one. They will possibly have the chance to review this case. There's a difference.

Dunno if I already said this here or not, but most states have a couple of times where they can ask young men if they wish to register for selective service. I think those times would be an ideal time to question them on living wills and such. Or when you go to get your driver's license and they ask you if you wanna be an organ donor - let them also ask if you wanna be hooked up to machines indefinitely if you can't speak for yourself.

This is a good idea, although I'm not sure how effective it would be. I worked for a voter registration group that proposed the same thing, make sure every DMV (I think most already have it), every governmental level of bureacracy, as well as other places, offered options for voter registration.

The problem with this is that you're then relying on the person who issues you your license, or who handles some other task, to take care of your voting capabilities (remove voter reg from this scenario, and insert living will material). These people don't necessarily care about these things, and thus don't/wouldn't aggressively push you to take care of these things.

I guess there's only so much we can ask and/or want the federal government to do in terms of shaping our behavior. That, IMO, is why this case will be historical and important. Hopefully families and couples are looking at these people, how torn they are, how sad and frustrated, and realize that that's exactly the last thing they'd want.

[ziggytrix]

Okay, cool. And just for another example, what do you think of prior efforts made by the federal government to prevent ANWR drilling in Alaska, even against the wishes of the Alaskan legislature (of course now a moot issue, but relevant for the comparisons purpose)?

I dunno, I don't pay much attention to Alaska. Evironmental issues are tricky though, for example, air pollution laws in one state affect neighbor states. So when multiple states, or I guess even other countries might be affected, the feds prolly ought to have a say.

[theapportioner]

But ABC is right in my opinion. This case is pretty important, because it raises every states legal guardianship into question. It forces us to have these sort of uncomfortable conversations, where we begin to draw the lines of what does and doesn't classify as a human being. Yours is different from mine, we know that much.

The way it's generally set up, with strict levels determining next of kin and guardianship, is flawed perhaps but also necessary. Decisions regarding involuntary passive euthanasia are made all the time. Usually the person is going to die soon anyway. If the guardianship levels are not clear, then it becomes so messy for so many people.

Everyone keeps saying that the Terry Schiavo situation is a "special" case. I hardly see why.

[theapportioner]

Dunno if I already said this here or not, but most states have a couple of times where they can ask young men if they wish to register for selective service. I think those times would be an ideal time to question them on living wills and such. Or when you go to get your driver's license and they ask you if you wanna be an organ donor - let them also ask if you wanna be hooked up to machines indefinitely if you can't speak for yourself.

Sounds like a bad idea to me. Living wills are not decisions to be made flippantly, and the decision whether or not to withold care isn't a simple yes/no answer.

[theapportioner]

Limits also need to be placed on patient autonomy. A patient should not, for instance, be entitled to a kidney transplant if she is is undergoing multiple organ failure and the transplanted kidney will extend her life only a matter of days. Even if she writes it down on paper.

[Slinky Ferret]

From what I've been reading online and in the papers as well as what you are debating this is one of those situations where the is no simple answer.

I have a few questions if anyone would like to explain to me.

1. The husband has not remained faithful to his wife - he has a new woman and children. Therefore his priority is not his wife but his family. Why is he not allowed to divorce her?

2. Why are the parents not given equal clout over her care?

3. If someone has a heart attack I thought they have monitors and things on them. What I don't understand is how she got into this state and has not had an MRI scan. The fact that she is concious to some extent as in has eyes open and can breathe without equipment is surely saying something.

I was born early and in the hospital where I was born there wasn't anything except oxygen. I managed to breathe on my own the whole night and was then transported to another hospital. Thanks to the skill of the doctors and nurses I am still alive, I do not have brain damage, I am not blind, there's nothing wrong with me except I'm a bit weird (purely genetic) and I'm dyslexic which it seems is also genetic.

Why is terri in a hospice? Surely a hospice is where people who are dying or terminally ill are looked after? The sad thing is, america has the best resources available. There are so many stories of people awaking out of commas. But what I question is IF she had a MRI scan surely they could resolve part of the emotion tension. I think it would help her parents let her go in peace if they knew there was no chance of her gaining any real quality of life.

Also I also feel sad when they stop feeding people. They are effectively starving them to death. Surely even if they can't communicate like the rest of us its got to be a terrible way to go.

Still I know nothing about commas, medical things or fully understand how the whole political aspect fits in.

[Ninjavenom]

Creepy, i had a dream last night that she died O .o

[davinxtk]

(tangent)

How awful would it be to wake up tomorrow and realize that you had totally missed the past fifteen years?

This happened to her in 1990. There's still a President Bush, but it's not the same George. America has been directly engaged in more than just a handful of military conflicts. We've had an amazing technological boon and a crippling economic crash. Attacks on American soil, atrocities in foreign lands, and political scandals out the wazoo.

The face of America has completely changed. From technology to sexuality to social interaction to gender roles to pop culture. In fifteen years, how much music, television, news, and life has she missed?

How many of her friends have been married? How many have died? How many have children? How many have moved on from losing her, how many have left the country, how many have won the lottery or started smoking crack?

How humane would it be to bring this person back into our world?

And, assuming the argument that she's been conscious and simply unable to respond, what's her brain been doing? What's her developmental process like?
What kind of a complete horror is it to be trapped in your own body, aware and awake, and unable to laugh, cry, scream for help or hold your husband's (or your mother's or father's) hand?
And what can fifteen years of this do to a person's psyche?

I just want the people who are arguing for her life to know what they're asking for. Imagine being locked in a room and nourished for fifteen years with zero contact with the outside world, and then pretend that you'd want to try and adapt again.



And this is all if she ever comes out of it.
Imagine if all of the money that's been spent on her near lifeless body had been given to a single parent or a starving family, instead of being pumped into a breathing corpse.




On another note,
All this adds more urgency to the need to put judges on the courts who will follow the written law, not their own notions. We can only hope that the Senate Republicans have the guts to do that.
:suicide

[Abcdxxxx]

He can divorce her if he wants, and make his current family legal if that interests him. He wouldn't even lose legal control over Schiavo's care, and could still be as involved as he is now, should he chose to be. That's typically the behavior of someone who really wants to move on with their life.

Hospice is a care oganization, it's not a specific ward of a hospital for terminal patients. They offer assisted care to families, and provide doctors that adhere to their philosphy, much of it religious based, and much of it about easing "suffering". They will even provide home care, narcotic drugs, and pain killers, clean the homes of families, cook meals not just for the patient, but the families themselves... they also get involved negotiating a patients rights with medical staff, and offer second opinions, and alternative nursing along the lines of their own philosophy. You don't have to be terminal to receive hospice assistance, and their definition of terminal is very broad.

About Federal judges.... I just don't think we should allow them to be end all to rulings involving personal ethics hot bed issues. I don't perceive this as a right to die issue, but most do, and that brings a bias.

It turns out the husband actually has a Conservatership, which is a an extreme version of having power of attorney. It's a court appointed duty, and he must report to the courts regarding her well being, and financials. This means the Schiavo family aren't just discrediting their Son in Law, their discrediting the ability of the Court who appointed him. In that case, a Federal judge ruling on this issue has reason to show bias against the family. (Edit. I might be mistaken about the converatorship part)

[theapportioner]

I think she at least deserves an MRI to determine how true that really is, no?


By the way, in addition to a CT scan, she has had an EEG done, which recorded no brain activity.

[ziggytrix]

says who?

[theapportioner]

Read it in the Times. Don't have time at the moment to find the article however...

[theapportioner]

I'm procrastinating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/national/24doctor.html (reg. reqd.)

Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School who has examined Ms. Schiavo on behalf of the Florida courts and declared her to be irredeemably brain-damaged, said, "I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and added: "He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic. You'll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she's not vegetative."

He said there was no doubt that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. "Her CAT scan shows massive shrinkage of the brain," he said. "Her EEG is flat - flat. There's no electrical activity coming from her brain."

[ziggytrix]

Thanks. I like sources. :)

[AChimp]

There should be a betting pool on when she finally croaks.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

start a thread! I'm in!!!!

[ziggytrix]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=schiavo+dead+pool&btnG=Google+Search

[mburbank]

I think Schiavo and the Pope are in a race.

"I don't really see the perceived electoral benefit in this. It doesn't even fit the definition of a wedge issue per se, because it only appeals to your base and ostracizes those who don't support you. It's like trying to wedge yourself. Nobody with national ambitions, such as Sen. Frist, would run with this as a "wedge" issue, IMO."

Kev, how utterly awful does a democrat look if they voted 'no'? I think lots of people who didn't think the feeding tube should be removed could have voted no on the grounds that this is a hugely inappropriatte violation of separation of powers and states rights (if you're into those). Doesn't matter. It's way easy to paint anyone who voted no as voting in favor of starving a woman to death. THAT makes it a wedge issue. It energizes the base and it can be played over and over and over again. I promise you, come the midterms you'll see a lot of advertising ala swift boat veterans where candidates for re-election are portaryed as being pro murder.

By the way, Delay took his own father off life support. Not that I blame him, and not that I don't think it must have been an agonoizing decsision, but at least it was a private decision.

[kellychaos]

I'm not playing god or even pushing my own personal beliefs at all. I've actually been in the position of arguing against doctors and refused breathing tubes for my own family who were in critical care. So you see Kelly, we're not all as fortunate as you to have the priviledge of being so laissez faire


Although you did have to argue against doctors, you did have the privilege of the government not interceding in your personal affairs. That's all I was saying. It's tough enough without making you, or anyone else's personal struggle a national spectacle.


Didn't you say politicians were making Schiavo their political platform? That sounds a statement considering the partinship issue at hand.


I was speaking in a general sense. My feelings would be the same if any other party was in power right now trying to do the same things.


If you're so concerned with Judicial process, it should concern you that these judges are deliberating on the matter without ordering the medical tests that would inform their decisions.


This case has been tossed around for 15 years and 4 appeals. All the tests have been done. If her family had a claim with any legs (be it financially, alleged abuse, ect.), they would have been given custody long ago. They're grasping at straws.


Calling him creepy isn't any less of a stretch then comparing him to the brother of a soldier who died in Afghanistan. (End with cutesy dime school french phrasing here.)

My point in bringing up that soldier was in light of another event where politicians and celebrities used a trajedy to grandstand toward their own ends. They were both equally sick displays of self-importance. That was the basis of the comparison, and nothing more.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think lots of people who didn't think the feeding tube should be removed could have voted no on the grounds that this is a hugely inappropriatte violation of separation of powers and states rights (if you're into those).

Ugh. Max, I'll ask that you please be consistent. I'm openly a liberal, and ya know what? I'm FINE with the big, bad, evil federal government stepping in and telling the states when they're being idiots. This wouldn't be the first time it happened, and it certainly won't be the last.

Everyone turns into a proponent of "states rights" when they disagree with an issue but don't want to come out and say it. It became code for racist politicians who hated integration and busing, and it has become code language for those opposed to gay marriage. It has also become a convenient way for Dems to avoid the issue of guns. So I guess I'm not "into those things."

It's way easy to paint anyone who voted no as voting in favor of starving a woman to death. THAT makes it a wedge issue. It energizes the base and it can be played over and over and over again. I promise you, come the midterms you'll see a lot of advertising ala swift boat veterans where candidates for re-election are portaryed as being pro murder.

The polling numbers on the Schiavo case are too poor for them to be so bold. There are some good Democrats in both houses who either voted for this, or in the case of the senate, merely stayed out of town and avoided the vote. I'm among them who don't particularly give a shit if this becomes a "wedge issue" for the GOP. If they show such a lack of class and character in their campaigns, I'd be among the first to condemn them for it.

But there are people out there, in both parties, who don't have such utilitarian motivations in supporting this measure.

By the way, Delay took his own father off life support. Not that I blame him, and not that I don't think it must have been an agonoizing decsision, but at least it was a private decision.

Did his father have a living will? If not, were his fathers wishes clearly stated and/or documented? Was there any dispute over DeLay's guardianship? Did it take place in the state of Florida, under their particular laws? I don't know that Tom DeLay's actions have a whole lot to do with the arguments involved in this case.

Anyway, I'm pretty much done with this topic. She's going to die, and it's only a matter of time now (as some of you have so crassly pointed out). There's nothing Jeb Bush can, or even should do for that matter. I hope that the media and the protesters (as unlikely as it may be) will withdraw a bit from this and let nature take its course.

Incidentally, the families are now arguing over her corpse. Michael Schiavo, who has constanly invoked the name of God while referring to the death wishes of his wife, apparently wants to cremate her immediately. The parents obviously want to give her a traditional burial, but that aint gonna happen.

[Dr. Boogie]

Incidentally, the families are now arguing over her corpse. Michael Schiavo, who has constanly invoked the name of God while referring to the death wishes of his wife, apparently wants to cremate her immediately. The parents obviously want to give her a traditional burial, but that aint gonna happen.

Oh great. If you thought the right-to-die/pro-life people were annoying, just wait until you see the pro-fire/pro-dirt people.

[Emu]

So she'll probably end up rotting in a funeral home or something for 15 more years while the familes bitch at eachother and the major news networks finally have something to fill all of that lost Scott Peterson time.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

typical ....

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB02JH1U6E.html




LOS ANGELES (AP) - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has helped lead a congressional effort to keep Terri Schiavo alive, joined members of his own family nearly 17 years ago in allowing doctors not to take extraordinary measures to extend his father's life, a newspaper reported Sunday.

DeLay had just been re-elected to his third term in Congress in 1988 when his father, Charles DeLay, was severely injured in an accident. As the elder DeLay's vital organs began failing, the family chose not to connect him to a dialysis machine or take other measures to prolong his life, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday, citing court documents, medical records and interviews with family members.

"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old mother, told the Times. "Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."

"Tom went along" with the family's decision, she said.

She called comparisons between her husband's case and that of Schiavo "interesting" but said she agrees with her son that Schiavo might have a chance of recovering if her feeding tube were reinserted.

DeLay helped push through Congress a special law allowing Terri Schiavo's parents to ask federal courts to order their brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube reinserted after state courts allowed it to be removed. However, after hearing their pleas, federal judges refused to intervene.

The Texas Republican also accused Schiavo's husband and the courts of "an act of barbarism" against Schiavo, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state.

The congressman declined to be interviewed about his father's case, but a press aide said it was "entirely different than Terri Schiavo's."

"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said DeLay spokesman Dan Allen.

Charles DeLay, 65, and his brother and their wives were trying out a tram the brothers had built to carry their families up and down a slope from their Texas home to the shore of a lake when the tram jumped the tracks on Nov. 17, 1988.

Charles DeLay was pitched headfirst into a tree. Hospital admission records showed he suffered multiple injuries, including a brain hemorrhage.

Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay, who suffered broken bones in the crash.

Like Schiavo, Charles DeLay had no living will, but he had reportedly expressed to others his wish not to be kept alive by artificial means.

He died on Dec. 14, 1988. He had not shown any signs of being conscious, except that his pulse rate would rise slightly when younger son Randall entered the room, Maxine DeLay said.

"There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said of her husband.

AP-ES-03-27-05 2105EST

[Cosmo Electrolux]

well...is she dead yet?

[Ninjavenom]

I've been wondering that for a week now.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

I saw where the Schindlers lawyer claims that Terri "told" her she wants to live.....an amazing feat considering the woman has no brain to speak of (Terri, not the lawyer)

[kellychaos]

I don't think that it's a state's rights versus federal rights issue so much as the executive branch going outside its scope to pressure the judicial branch. Each have their own separate and distinct responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution ... a system of checks and balances. I'm not saying it hasn't been done before by either party but that doesn't make it any more correct. ... i.e. the case was being reviewed (and not for the first time) in a federal court that happened to be in the state of Florida.

[El Blanco]

So, then, you would have been happy with Seperate but Equal?

That was a Supreme Court desiscion that was opposed by the other branches. In fact, a later supreme court overturned it.

The idea of checks and balances isn 't to have political pissing contests or to preserve each branch for their own sakes. Its to make sure one branch can step in if another is overstepping its authority and haring the people.

Damn you, Kevin, for compeling me to get involved.

[ziggytrix]

That was a Supreme Court desiscion that was opposed by the other branches. In fact, a later supreme court overturned it.

Which, in essence, means it didn't require emergency action by a different branch of the government to right things! :O

[El Blanco]

Several laws were enacted that contradicted it before Brown vs Board of education.

Do you honestly mean to sit there and tell me it would be in the best interests of the country for the other two branches to sit by while the Supreme Court said segregation was good?

[ziggytrix]

Did I fucking say that?

[El Blanco]

So you agree that there are times when one branch should overstep its bounds in an extreme case to over turn a bad desision by another branch?

[ziggytrix]

Nope. Key words being "overstep its bounds". There exist limitations on each branch and they are there with good reason. If the Supreme Court is seriously doing the wrong thing, Congress can impeach the Judges. It can pass laws that the Court will have to rule on.

But the rulings of the Supreme Court are the LAW, and if you want to challenge the LAW, you do it within the LAW.

Now I'm not saying that the Congress broke any laws here, it was just inappropriate in my opinion. I don't support it, and I hope you can understand that when fuckers like Senator Frist imply that someone who disagrees with him doesn't "value the sanctity of life" while they themselves sanction murder through military collateral damage every damn day, that I am offended. I see it as moral grandstanding, and if there's one thing I hate to listen to, it's a holier-than-thou preacher with questionable motives.

Then when people say things like "About Federal judges.... I just don't think we should allow them to be end all to rulings involving personal ethics hot bed issues." I kinda wonder what the hell they're thinking. And it worries me a bit.

[El Blanco]

Nope. Key words being "overstep its bounds". There exist limitations on each branch and they are there with good reason.

Yes, but the constitution is a living document. It can be changed and reinterpreted.

If the Supreme Court is seriously doing the wrong thing, Congress can impeach the Judges.

Not the supreme Court. You're there until you resign or die.

[ziggytrix]

Or get impeached. Read up (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/). Key words: during good Behaviour

Think I'm misinterpreting? Read about Supreme Court Justice William Douglas (http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall98/belin.html).

As far as changing and reinterpreting the Constitution, there is a legal process for that as well. However, the current interpretation of the US Constitution, as ruled by the US Supreme Court, is the LAW, and I challenge you to find anyone on Capitol Hill who'll tell you otherwise.

[Abcdxxxx]

Well for a woman who supposedly wants to die, who's being starved while getting pumped with morphine, who some people think is already dead or as good as dead... she is sure fighting hard not to go.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

typical ....

Okay, Tom DeLay is a dickhead. Most of us agree on that.

But his father's death and Terri Schiavo have very little in common. DeLay's father couldn't breath on his own. He was completely comatose (sp?). His organs had gone into failure.

And the family came together and made this decision. The Schiavos and the Schindlers could maybe learn something from the DeLays......

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Well for a woman who supposedly wants to die, who's being starved while getting pumped with morphine, who some people think is already dead or as good as dead... she is sure fighting hard not to go.

How, exactly, do you define "fighting for life". You make the assumption that Terri can reason and is making a conscious effort to live. The womans brain is NOT functioning. Her brain stem, which controls BASIC BODILY FUNCTIONS is functioning, THAT"S IT.

[Emu]

Well for a woman who supposedly wants to die, who's being starved while getting pumped with morphine, who some people think is already dead or as good as dead... she is sure fighting hard not to go.

It certainly is funny how the body tries not to let itself die, right?

At the moment, the woman is basically just a machine. She's incapable of any kind of higher thought. Her bodily processes still go because, as Cosmo said, her brain stem is still functioning, but nothing else. Herself and the machinery she's hooked up to have a lot in common.

[AChimp]

Except she poops and it comes out of a tube.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

I saw one of the signs a protester was holding up....it said "Terri is a normal, healthy disabled woman"
These people are completely fucking clueless....

[Emu]

I wonder why people give such a shit about this. I don't understand it. It's not like if you held up a sign and protested her death and she ended up living that you personally rescued her from the pits of Hell or something.

[sspadowsky]

I wonder why people give such a shit about this. I don't understand it. It's not like if you held up a sign and protested her death and she ended up living that you personally rescued her from the pits of Hell or something.

Like abortion and religion, it causes an intense gut reaction, which, in turn, causes people to pick a team and root for it. In other words, it's another topic people can argue about without having to think too much or do a lot of homework.

[Zebra 3]

:( - Last night on CNN I saw a large Maple Leaf flag among the nutjobs protesting across the hospice.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

they're praying in front of the Federal Courthouse in Atlanta now.....

[ziggytrix]

Prayer is great. Did you know in a double-blind study people who were prayed for had a statistically significantly greater recovery rate than those who weren't, even when they didn't know they're being prayed for! I'm not making this up, I heard it on NPR.

I think maybe this (http://ijahsp.nova.edu/articles/Vol2num1/kutz-prayer.htm) article refers to the study he was talking about.

[FS]

We got to pray, just to make it today!

Isn't it insanity that an unbiased medical practioner whose judgement the law will accept can't be found in this matter?

[kellychaos]

So you agree that there are times when one branch should overstep its bounds in an extreme case to over turn a bad desision by another branch?

The judicial branch later overturned it because it was the will of an ever-evolving (toward the good, I hope) society and not a push by the excutive branch. If anything, I hope that such a push would come from the legislative branch which represents the will of the people and not the will of a few special interest groups trying for an end-around.

[Abcdxxxx]

Well some of you would have labelled her a corpse the second she ended up in a wheelchair. The point is, the coronars offics can't start an autopsy yet, and that says more to me then all the hersey testimony the Judges deliberated over.


If they're claiming she can't feel anything, and has no consciousness, then what's the point of the Morphine anyway?

[ziggytrix]

I don't think one person here would have "labeled her a corpse the second she ended up in a wheelchair." That you'd even suggest that makes it look like you think we're all heartless monsters.

As for the morphine,
The issue of whether Ms. Schiavo was receiving morphine and why has been a persistent source of concern among the protesters outside her hospice. Some of the placards and statements from supporters have referred to her being on a morphine drip, which many saw as evidence that she was dying in pain.

Mr. Felos said Monday that Ms. Schiavo had never been on a morphine drip. She has received two five-milligram suppository doses of morphine in the last 11 days, most recently two days ago, he said. Each dose was minimal, he said, and would have worn off in about four hours.

"I understand the frustration of the Schindler family, but there is no place for statements such as, 'The hospice is trying to accelerate Terri's death,' " Mr. Felos said.

Dr. R. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, said the morphine dose was "less than taking one Percocet tablet" and unlikely to have any depressive effect on Ms. Schiavo's breathing or to hasten death.

Another doctor with long experience treating patients at the end of life, Douglas Nelson of Hickory, N.C., said that providing morphine to a patient in a persistent vegetative state was unnecessary because the patient would be unaware of pain or discomfort.

But, Dr. Nelson said, "It's not uncommon for the nurse to suggest, 'Let's just give her a suppository to be on the safe side.' "


http://nytimes.com/2005/03/29/national/29schiavo.html

Another source said it might be to "prevent convulsions" but I still don't see what the point of that is, unless they just don't want her bedside attendants freaking out. It's a good question to be asking though, and her father says she's on a morphine drip, so someone isn't telling the truth.

[kahljorn]

Maybe the father is just an idiot who over exagerates or doesn't know what a drip is.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We got to pray, just to make it today!

Check please!

[kahljorn]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/terri_is_risen/

[KevinTheOmnivore]

HAR HAR! :lol2

[Abcdxxxx]

Not heartless Monsters.... heartless Muppets, maybe!!!

I don't really care if it's a drip or what. When I hear the word Hospice, I automatically think of Morphine... I just find it weird that they're giving it to her in any dose or form while saying she's the equivalent of dead. Are they scared she'll start blinking up a storm?

[Emu]

They're doing it because it would be bad PR not to. Most people think letting a dead woman starve is cruel.

[ArrowX]

I think I'm a mean person. :(

Every time I think of her dying I envision it being like the first kill on Maniac. :(

[Emu]

They apparently announced that she's officially dead now.

[Miss Modular]

Yes, they did.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20050331/ts_nm/rights_schiavo_dc

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (Reuters) - Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman at the heart of a bitter right-to-die dispute that drew in the U.S. Congress and President Bush, died on Thursday, 13 days after a court halted her tube feeding, a spokesman for her parents said.

[FS]

Now all Michael Schiavo has to do is change his identity to avoid the thousands ready to lynch him as a murderer.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Prayer is great. Did you know in a double-blind study people who were prayed for had a statistically significantly greater recovery rate than those who weren't, even when they didn't know they're being prayed for! I'm not making this up, I heard it on NPR.

I think maybe this (http://ijahsp.nova.edu/articles/Vol2num1/kutz-prayer.htm) article refers to the study he was talking about.

I recently read an article that stated that study was pure bullshit. I'm looking for the link right now. I'll post as soon as I find it.

[mburbank]

So how many more days does she have to live before someone suggests it's a miracle?

[Emu]

Prayer is great. Did you know in a double-blind study people who were prayed for had a statistically significantly greater recovery rate than those who weren't, even when they didn't know they're being prayed for! I'm not making this up, I heard it on NPR.

I think maybe this (http://ijahsp.nova.edu/articles/Vol2num1/kutz-prayer.htm) article refers to the study he was talking about.

I recently read an article that stated that study was pure bullshit. I'm looking for the link right now. I'll post as soon as I find it.

Please do. Those stories are always gold.

[El Blanco]

Well, she's dead now. Can someone lock this?

[Chojin]

No way, cause this isn't the end of this story. ;<

[rockets redglare]

At the very least, there's still the autopsy to look forward to

[AChimp]

Dammit, I was betting on the Pope to beat her. >:

[Cosmo Electrolux]

So did I, but then again, I'm just a smoozer....what do I know.

But, she did outlive Howell Heflin, former senator from Alabama....

[Immortal Goat]

No way, cause this isn't the end of this story. ;<
http://img129.exs.cx/img129/660/minbook7cc.th.jpg

[kellychaos]

Her body is listed on E-Bay under "bottle-openers".

[Slinky Ferret]

Thats really fucking tight. :(

[Zebra 3]

[center:b9dfa3efe1]http://img73.exs.cx/img73/3883/idiots4up.png

Can't wait 'till the cops start cracking skulls![/center:b9dfa3efe1]

[Emu]

the we are idiots sign is gold :(

[Gurlugon]

http://www.gurlugon.com/images/schiavoowned.jpg

[Command Prompt]

The crappy made for tv movie about this better not pre-empt something worth while on tv.

"Just when you thought the country that gives the death penalty to the mentally retarted couldn't sink any lower, ABC presents a new gripping drama in this made-for-tv movie:

STARVED TO DEATH: The Terri Schiavo Story

the story of two selfish parents that couldn't let go and a bunch of idiotic hangers-on try to keep someone thats been dead for 15 years' bodily functions in tact because obviously someone thats suffered such deliberating brain damage can live as rich and full a life as a normal person or some such bullshit."

Peace out Terri, you deserved better 15 years ago. Too bad our species is too smart to realize how fucking stupid it is.

Oh, and If I'm ever a vegatable, please pull the fucking plug, and donate my penis to the museum of female satisfaction.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Oh, and If I'm ever a vegatable, please pull the fucking plug, and donate my penis to the museum of female satisfaction.

Grant me legal guardianship. I'll pull the plug well in advance.

[mburbank]

I wrote a living will, but then I spilled my coffee all over it, and the ink ran, and it's now totally illegible. I think as soon as I stopped being able to read it it wasn't a 'living' will anymore, or even a will at all, and I really want to just recycle it with dignity. The problem is, I never wrote in my living will what I wanted done with it if it ever ceased to be legible, even though I'm pretty sure I meant to.

[Immortal Goat]

Put it in an unplugged paper shredder for 15 years while you struggle with this gripping decision, Max.

[Bell E. Laffs]

Why do they call them vegetables, is it because nobody wants them, that's kinda cruel!

[Immortal Goat]

If that were the case, then we could call you a vegetable, but that wouldn't be the correct medical term for you. You would be better classified as "worthless shit".

[kahljorn]

"Put it in an unplugged paper shredder for 15 years while you struggle with this gripping decision, Max."

:)

[AChimp]

Oh man... I haven't laughed at something so hard since... well, I forget when. :lol

http://endgameradio.com/image/fat_kid_schiavo.gif