Several years ago, I had a living will done up. If the worst should happen, I’m never going to have to concern myself that politicians, like leeches, will attach themselves to my case the way they have with poor Terri Schiavo. Screaming hypocrites who consider all life sacred–unless, of course, we’re bombing it into oblivion or consigning it to death row for execution.
Yes, friends, the US government–the one that the GOP claims they want to keep out of people’s lives–just loves mixing into people’s deaths, setting the calendar on life termination and making sure that no one, absolutely no one, dies before the government is ready to send them to their deaths personally.
I strongly suggest to any and all reading this that you decide one way or the other while you still can. If you want to insist your family takes whatever measures possible to continue your life, even if medical science says it’s hopeless, then make that clear in writing. If, like me, you don’t want to burden your family and force them to watch you lie there like a slab of meat, consigning you all to a sort of twilight zone holding pattern for year after year after year, then make that clear as well.
Don’t leave it in the hands of politicians, lawyers, judges, and, God forbid, a Bush.
PAD
• 
Bottom line: This issue is a mess. While I want to believe the best about both the husband and the parents, there are things both sides have done that makes me wonder. So I simply look at this divorced from considering their motives.
I agree that this issue is a mess and there are a number of things on both sides that are questionable. However, I still think that both sides truly believe that they are doing what they think Terri would want. I don’t believe unfounded accusations about either side being after money that has long been spent serves any purpose.
I believe the husband has the final say, UNLESS he is doing something that would kill his spouse. In this case, I believe that is what he is doing. He is not “allowing” her to die, he is directly causing her death by denying her food. That would not be allowed in any other circumstance.
In this, we have a woman who has virtually no higher brain function. I keep seeing people assert about “doctors” and “nurses” who claim she can be helped by some form of “therapy”, but no one is willing to step up and offer any specifics, so I can only conclude that these claims are not credible.
If this had happened in any other time in history, she would have died naturally years ago. Modern medical technology has raised this kinds of issues, though, and as a society, we have to address them one way or another.
None of us here have any way of knowing what Terri would have wanted. I can only speak for myself and say that I honestly would rather starve to death than spend 15 years in a persistant vegetative state.
A decision like this isn’t easy and can’t be made lightly. In my opinion, quality of life has to count into the equation. Terri has none and there is no credible evidence to suggest that she ever will. A feeding tube is an artificial means of keeping somebody in her state alive just as much as a respirator is. Removing a respirator deprives a person of oxygen just as much as removing the feeding tube would deprive her of food and water. Neither is actively causing her death, they’re just allowing what would have happened naturally to a person with no hope of recovery yet, if Terri had been on a respirator, her husband could signed a release to have it removed years ago, no questions asked.
The default thinking in the law is that, absent her wishes, her husband speaks for her. The fact that 19 separate courts have sided with him tells me that all the accusations that he did this or that to her or there are so-called “medical experts” who have some secret “therapy” that will bring her back have no credibility.
If you want a fact: The person who was Terri Shiavo left this world 15 years ago. She isn’t coming back and pumping food and water into an empty shell will not change that fact.
What sickens me, is the cynical way that politicians (there are both Democrats and Republicans who voted for this measure), are trying to score cheap political points on this family tragedy on an issue that the federal government has no jurisdiction. What happened to all that railing about states rights, the 10th amendment, separation of powers, and “empowering families” to make their own decisions?
All that goes away when there are votes at stake in the red states.
Place a gun in her hand, let it go off, convict her of murder and the ACLU and liberals will fight to keep her off death row and alive.
Yeah, that’s a much better plan than subpoening her and charging her with contempt for failing to show up at a hearing with no compelling federal interest.
Stupid, sick jokes like that shows that you have nothing to offer to this debate.
Like I said, the issue then is not the fact that talking points exist, but that you think the content is hypocritical. (The points you posted are so obvious, I could have predicted them. They may perhaps cause you to say the GOP is taking advantage of the issue and grandstanding, but they are hardly issuing points that disagree with positions they have held and voted on in the past. I suspect that the hypocrisy for you is in their position, not that their points contradict their position.)
Of course, I believe the democrat position is hypocritical, and am sure their talking points would only give more evidence for this fact. So I will leave it at that.
Iowa Jim
Well when I see the Dem’s talking point memo and its completely contradictary to the sanctimonius, fake compassionate mewlings that the Congressional right have been spouting all weekend I’ll call the Dem Congress members a bunch of hypocritical douchebags too. Until then I’ll continue to be sickened by this slimey political posturing.
If this had happened in any other time in history, she would have died naturally years ago. Modern medical technology has raised this kinds of issues, though, and as a society, we have to address them one way or another.
That is the double edge of technology and medical advances. There are also thousands if not hundreds of thousands who would have died of heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc., if they had lived even 50 years ago.
Obviously, inserting a feeding tube is something that was not available years ago. But it is not an extraordinary measure such as being on a heart and lung machine.
I know this was quickly dismissed before, but it bears being reposted. Here is a noted doctor who says he has examined the case and that treatment is possible:
http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html
To me, there is a solution to this issue. Give this (or a similar doctor) the opportunity to do this work. If we are talking about rehab, not extraordinary means, what would it hurt?
Iowa Jim
Ultimately, Jim, who’s decision should it be to allow anyone to attempt therapy? Legally, it’s the husband’s. It seems you want that to change, which is fine. Maybe that’s a better way to go about this. But it’s a huge diversion from legal precedent, and takes away a large private right and places it in the hands of doctors and politicians. What would be the harm? The (possible) continued abrogation of Terri’s right to refuse treatment. Forcing therapy on someone that has stated that they would want to refuse treatment. I’d say that’s a fairly significant harm, and not one that I’ve seen a demonstrable state interest important enough to override.
Iowa Jim said: “And if there is any doubt, then you MUST err on the side of life.”
I think this statement well sums up why I and so many others are disgusted by this case. That is exactly my feeling about the death penalty: it’s irreversable and given that the government is fallible (itself a strongly held conservative point) it shouldn’t take such permanent steps when the payoff is so tiny. Anybody who has ever been stircrazy from being stuck in bed for a week with the flu can testify that life in prison rather than death is no great gift.
But we DO execute people and many regions fight the admission of new DNA evidence tooth and nail. No no, they say, the trial is over, we’re done. We can’t go and reopen these things!
But apparently we can squander Grod knows how many hours and dollars on this case, one where, despite DeLay’s idiotic comment about Terri not getting the amount of scrutiny and protection a death row inmate gets, it has been going on for years and examined in detail from every angle.
It’s all Elian redux. Family family family… oh, wait, dad’s a communist? Nooooo, then some uncle gets to choose! Death death death! Oh wait, WE’RE not the ones choosing death? Nooooo.
Not to mention the horrible irony of years of “activist judges” being thrown around as an insult and then they want to meddle in the court’s business. The complete contempt for the judicial process is sickening.
Ultimately, Jim, who’s decision should it be to allow anyone to attempt therapy? Legally, it’s the husband’s. It seems you want that to change, which is fine.
I agree it is the husbands in most cases.
But let’s stop for a moment and put aside the current case. What if it did seem clear that the husband didn’t want the wife to recover? What if there was a consistent pattern that the husband was denying the wife the necessary care? Forget whether it is true or not in this case and consider the obvious fact that not everyone has the best motives. Is there a point where the courts should intervene?
I think there is. We are not talking about extraordinary means, but help for someone to recover.
Back to this case. I am no lawyer, so I am sure it is not this simple. But here is my thought. I would not order the husband to allow the therapy. But I would feel perfectly right to say that since all reasonable avennues had not yet been explored, that I could not authorize the removing of the tube. The husband then has a choice. Allow her to stay in her current state, or explore the reasonable means available.
If he had done so, a lot of these issues would not even be on the table. It the lack of care according to various witnesses that makes this action suspect.
That being said, knowing what I do now about feeding tubes, I think it is a horrendous way to die.
Iowa Jim
But let’s stop for a moment and put aside the current case. What if it did seem clear that the husband didn’t want the wife to recover? What if there was a consistent pattern that the husband was denying the wife the necessary care? Forget whether it is true or not in this case and consider the obvious fact that not everyone has the best motives. Is there a point where the courts should intervene?
But the courts have intervened, her husband and parents ahve been fighting it out for years in court and every time the husband wins. How much more intervention should there be?
But let’s stop for a moment and put aside the current case.
No, Jim. Let’s not. You can throw in all the hypotheticals you want. None of them apply in the Schiavo case.
Michael Schiavo is legally her guardian. Upheld by the courts repeatedly. It is his responsibility to do what he believes is best for Terri. Motivations, emotionally charged arguments and hypothetical situations have nothing to do with it. And Congress certainly shouldn’t have anything to do with it. Again, the ruling party is very big on the concept of getting goverment off people’s backs and allowing states to make decisions. In theory.
Stick to the facts, sir.
JSM
Jeff in NC quoted these urls:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/11155564.htm
Both of which clearly indicate that the money received was (a) not all that great a shakes in the circumstances (b) is mostly gone (c) what may not be gone (the 300k allotted to the husband) he doesn’t need her to get to, assuming tertiary expenses related to her situation haven’t eaten it all up.
So, given that they are his own URLs I presume he has backed off his contention that her husband is merely looking to punch a meal ticket and move on to his new family.
On the subject of the new family, the oft expressed opinion that this means he should just walk away and leave Terri to her parents just boggles my mind. I can only assume none of these people have had a spouse die and can’t imagine that this man could have found new love but still hold affection (and in this case, concern for the wishes of) for their former spouse.
If you are bothered by the matter of adultery and such definitions we’ll just have to agree to disagee. For me the years he spend devotedly caring for her (see the timeline in the above links) and continued concern for her desires is enough for me to think he’s earned the right to move on. I can understand if you have a problem with the legal and/or moral issues but I find it hard to believe anyone who’s examined the case can think it’s what’s informing his decisions.
Iowa Jim, I encourage you to look at the above links and read some non-FUD sources on what the husband HAS done. I think you’ll have a hard time continuing to find him suspect unless you’re just trying to find some support for a belief that doesn’t have anything to do with the facts of the case.
Which is also fine, but people demonizing this guy to salve their positions is not right.
Now that I have read some more comments: One aspect keeps amazing me – there is a huge outcry about the cruelty of letting this woman die by removing her feeding tube but to the people who protest it is preferrable to leave her how she is. It is preferrable to preserve her in this state for an unknown amount of years to the very small possibility that the woman might suffer to some minor degree until she dies without the tube. Putting aside that it is much more merciful to finally allow this woman to go, it is possible to sedate her so that she most definitely won`t feel a thing at the end.
This tragic case has been a topic in the British news again today. I found it sickening to watch the protesters who were nearly in tears because Terri will be “saved” and even the sister held a speech, thanking for “saving her sister`s life”. I noticed that she paused for a second before she actually said “life”, but she did.
What happened here reminds me a bit of the tragic cases in Britain of the human form of BSE. The brain deteroriates in stages until the person is dead. I heard of two cases of young victims who are severely brain damaged but the parents insisted on using an experimental drug on them that is inserted directly into the brain. The consequence is, the deterioration is slowed and during interviews these parents actually voiced hope and a certain happiness about the “improvement”. Well, I think what they did is incredibly cruel. Maybe some very minor “improvement” is possible – even if it is true that part of her brain liquefied – but how could that be something to celebrate? I don`t see any possiblity for a miracle that she might wake up one day and be able to communicate.
I keep hoping that the court will allow Terri to die but I must admit, it is hope against hope. The pro-life Christian lobby is simply too influential in the USA.
Back to this case. I am no lawyer, so I am sure it is not this simple. But here is my thought. I would not order the husband to allow the therapy. But I would feel perfectly right to say that since all reasonable avennues had not yet been explored, that I could not authorize the removing of the tube. The husband then has a choice. Allow her to stay in her current state, or explore the reasonable means available.
But the judge couldn’t do that, because that’s not what the suits have been about. The suits are, for the most part, who can make the decision on Terri’s behalf. So the court can either say the parents have the right, the consequence of which is that the tube stays in, or that the husband has the right, the consequence of which is that the tube stays out. (This wasn’t the case while “Terri’s Law” was in effect, obviously, but once that was declared unconstitutional, the game went back to square one, pretty much.)
So for a judge to do that would be as ridiculous as the court declaring that a couple should attend counceling and take more family time in a divorce hearing.
So for a judge to do that would be as ridiculous as the court declaring that a couple should attend counceling and take more family time in a divorce hearing.
Actually, that might save some marriages! Why would it be ridiculous in at least some cases?
I am not a lawyer, nor a son of a lawyer, so I don’t dispute that a judge could not rule as I suggested. But that is what I would do if it was up to me.
Iowa Jim
Just to clairify, Terry’s expenses (approx. $80,000/year) are now primarily being paid by the non-profit hospice where she is. In Florida, Medicaid does not cover the costs of hospice care unless the patient is expected to die within a few weeks. She does receive Medicaid benefits to cover the cost of any medication she needs, but she needs very little medication in her present state.
Her care had been paid out of the COURT ADMINISTERED settlement trust fund, which is nearly depleated. Some of Michael Schiavo’s court costs have been paid from the fund, BUT his lawyers have been working pro-bono for two years.
So for a judge to do that would be as ridiculous as the court declaring that a couple should attend counceling and take more family time in a divorce hearing.
Actually, that might save some marriages! Why would it be ridiculous in at least some cases?
Because that’s not what the judge is there to rule on. If he’s being asked to rule whether husband or wife has the right to the beach house in Nantucket, that’s not a legitimate ruling.
And, FYI, I think it’s been mentioned here elsewhere, but euthanasia is illegal in Florida, which is why they can’t just give her an injection, and would have to let her die by starvation/dehydration (which is not euthanasia, any more than a doctor letting a cancer patient deny treatment is euthanasia).
But let’s stop for a moment and put aside the current case.
Which is exactly what Congress has done.
You’ve already got your dámņ wish, Jim: the husband is the legal guardian… until Congress decides otherwise.
Wow, is this great news for our pathetic country or what?
And, FYI, I think it’s been mentioned here elsewhere, but euthanasia is illegal in Florida, which is why they can’t just give her an injection, and would have to let her die by starvation/dehydration (which is not euthanasia, any more than a doctor letting a cancer patient deny treatment is euthanasia).
Would removing an oxygen mask be considered permissable?
Iowa Jim
You’ve already got your dámņ wish, Jim: the husband is the legal guardian… until Congress decides otherwise.
Once again, you avoid the root issue: A legal guardian does have responsibility to make some life and death decisions. But not all. The question is not whether the husband or the parents should decide, but whether morally it is right to starve someone to death. Someone who I am not yet convinced is even truly brain dead.
A legal guardian is supposed to protect the person, not harm the person. In this case, there is a strong argument that can be made that the guardian is causing harm–especially if the report is true that he is denying both food and water, which would hasten her demise considerably and be even harsher than just starving her to death.
Iowa Jim
A number of people have alluded to the possibility that Ms Schiavo’s husband may have beebn responsible for her condition. Others have expressed shock over anyone bringing this up. If anyone wants to look at this premise here’s Nat Hentoff at the village Voice– http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0347,hentoff,48738,6.html
May take–while Hentoff raises some interesting points it seems to me that, logically, the husband would not want to see her edie if there were any chance that it would result in his being charged with murder. In fact there have been cases where an abusive spouse has tried to keep one of their vitims “alive” with heart machines just so they can beat the rap.
The question is not whether the husband or the parents should decide,
Actually thats exactly what the hubub is about…whether the husband speaks for Terri Schiavo or her parents speak for her.
but whether morally it is right to starve someone to death.
That may be your question but thats not the question that is on the table. The fight is over whether she should be allowed to die or be kept alive with the feeding tubes; the byproduct of starvation, while unsettling, is considered by medical professionals to be the most humane way for her to expire.
Someone who I am not yet convinced is even truly brain dead.
But the judges who ruled that she be allowed to die were convinced which should be enough for everyone.
At least for me, the parents and/or the husbands wishes are irrelevant. Without knowing the wishes of the person, the government must act to protect the person’s life. Period.
That may be your opinion, and you’re certainly welcome to hold it, but it’s not the law of the land.
And you really have no problem with the government taking this most ultimate of all ‘Nanny State’ positions? None at all?
Wow, conservatism is dead….
I just read the following and had to share it:
Bob Schindler visited his daughter late Sunday and said he noticed the effects of dehydration on her. He said she appeared to be getting tired, but eventually responded to his teasing by making a face at him.
“It tells us she’s still with us,” he said.
Brian Schiavo, Michael’s brother, said he spent Sunday afternoon with his brother and Terri at the hospice, but Terri did not move or make any noises. “Anybody that thinks that she talks and responds, they need to have a mental health examination,” he said.
*********************
The Schindler family sees what it wants to see in order to maintain hope. What made their daughter their daughter is no longer in existance. Let her go. Allow her to find peace. It’s time.
It is no acident that most of the spokespeople getting airtime and many of the lawyers on the parents’ side are anti-abortion advocates.
This sort of congressional law is a wonderful precident and exactly the sort of thing needed in order to stop a woman from having an abortion.
I think that is the ‘ulterior motive’ and the reason that congress has acted so quickly to craft a ‘one time single shot’ law. Not out of any real care for Terri Schiavo but as a means to advance a political agenda.
If they cared so much where is the moral outrage when it comes to small babies like Sun Hudson? the six month old that was taken off of a ventilator DESPITE the parent’s wishes to the contrary (see: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof%5Fblog/2005/03/lifesupport%5Fsto.html as reference)
My 2 cents for its worth.
The woman has been in a vegetative state for 15 years.The essential essence of what made her ,”her” is not there anymore.Its time to let her go.
Its easy to judge the husband but at what point is he allowed to move on with his life?
The parents have my sympathy but do you want to remember you daughter like this and hope for a “miracle” that is not going to happen???
For those keeping score at home,I am also pro abortion,pro assisted suicide,and pro death penalty with special qualifiers.
Also isnt it tragic irony that Terri schiavo’s current state was brought on by an eating disorder and now there is battle to keep her being fed?????
I really hope there is a special part of HÊLL reserved for the politicians and media members that have turned turned this tragic situation into a F***ing three ring circus!!!!
I know this was quickly dismissed before, but it bears being reposted. Here is a noted doctor who says he has examined the case and that treatment is possible:
“>http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html
He’s also been under investigation for deceptive practices by the Florida Department of Health:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/22/TampaBay/Schiavo_case_doctor_t.shtml
Kind of puts a red flag up on his credibility. The man is clearly biased in this case and has made serious unfounded allegations against Michael Shiavo.
But let’s stop for a moment and put aside the current case. What if it did seem clear that the husband didn’t want the wife to recover? What if there was a consistent pattern that the husband was denying the wife the necessary care? Forget whether it is true or not in this case and consider the obvious fact that not everyone has the best motives. Is there a point where the courts should intervene?
But, the courts have had their say and have repeatedly sided with the husband. What should we do when the federal courts again rule in his favor? Pass another law saying that all court rulings pertaining to her case are null and void?
That being said, knowing what I do now about feeding tubes, I think it is a horrendous way to die.
It would be if she had any awareness at all. Every doctor who examined her except one says she has none.
All I can say is, right now I’m making sure that everyone I care about knows that should I wind up sans higher functions, with only the autonomic systems functioning, and neurological consensus is that this won’t change – I won’t “get better” – then harvest the parts that can be used, and toss the rest, because I obviously don’t need it any more.
It seems that some here are asking about the “mysterious fall” Terri Schiavo had that caused this. Well, short answer she had a heart attack caused by dramatically reduced potassium level in her body. She was bulimic, her doctors did not diagnose this and Michael Schiavo filed a lawsuit against them and won. One would think that if abuse was the cause, it would have come up in the malpractice suit or the examination of her medical records when the state of Florida passed “Terri’s Law” in 2003. Furthermore, there is no indication of abuse to her in the time after her collaspe.
A legal guardian is supposed to protect the person, not harm the person.
Right…
So if she were on a ventilator, would we be having the same discussion?
No, we wouldn’t.
Because a legal guardian is supposed to do what is in the best interest of the person, up to and including saying to pull the plug.
Otherwise, you better be prepared to put everybody that comes into ICU on a ventilator whether they want it or not.
Tough case, Both sides have a point. I made out a living will myself I WANT TO LIVE death can wait for me. Plug me up and make sure there are backups as well. Trust me God can wait I’m in no hurry to meet him as for being a burden on my family. Well there were a burden on me for years I figure payback time. Yes I might be in minority here and i’m not scared of dying. Just death is forever 10-20years living like a carrot is drop in the bucket as pretaing to death.
Geez, I go away for a day or two and everything blows up.
I’m going to try and make this a few short posts rather than one gigantic one — and I’m not going to respond much to individual points, because this would probably become a 5000-word post easily.
First, the non-political stuff.
Thanks to Peter for raising the topic — not so much the political parts of it (though we all knew that was coming), but primarily the urge for us all to get something decided and in writing. Neither Lisa nor I have anything in writing yet, but we’ve certainly talked about it in a lot of detail over the years, and once we move east this summer we’re certainly going to get something codified. (Anybody know what the relevant laws are in NJ?)
Personally, there is absolutely no way I’d want to live under the conditions facing Terri Schiavo. Everything I value about myself (and probably everything other people would value about me, for that matter) is related to my brain — as I occasionally tell students, I realized a long time ago that I wasn’t likely to get very far depending on my incredible athletic ability or my stunning good looks. If the mind goes, then I’m really not much more than a shell — and not only do I want to burden others with the task of caring for that empty shell, but I wouldn’t want to be such.
Obviously, not everyone’s going to feel the same way, and that’s everyone’s own personal business — but I’ll completely agree that whatever your view, you should make it clear in writing for the sake of yourself and for those closest to you.
TWL
Okay, now for the specifics of the case.
Of course this is a tragic situation, and of course it’s horrific that it’s come to this. And I’m perfectly willing to believe that both Terri’s husband and her parents feel that they’re doing what is right.
The bottom line, though, is this: the fact that the federal government’s full bureaucratic force is being put into play for legislation concerning ONE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL is something that should frighten every single person out of every bodily fluid they possess. It is about as huge an intrusion as government can make into the life of an individual or the lives of a married couple — and it’s amazing to me how many so-called small-government conservatives appear to be just fine with this action. If Congress is allowed to make legislation that is affecting one specific person and only that person, that opens a far bigger can of worms than removing a particular feeding tube. It means the way is open for a constitutional amendment that, rather than lifting the “natural-born citizen” ban, could be put in place to let Schwarzenegger and only Schwarzenegger get around the problem. It opens the way for the Bill Mulligan’s Neighbor Needs to Turn That Crap Down law. (Not to pick on you, Bill — for all I know you’re fond of That Crap.)
I’ve said before in the occasional abortion discussion that the same government we give the power over a woman’s body to outlaw abortion will then have the power to mandate abortion, or to do anything else with said body that it wants to. We are now seeing that here, in my opinion. What’s to stop Congress from passing a law saying that a living will is null and avoid, and that you’ll be put on life support regardless of your wishes? For that matter, what’s to stop Congress from going the other way, and “saving” Medicare by saying that after you’ve spent $X on extreme care you’re done, regardless of the particular situation?
As numerous others have pointed out, Michael Schiavo has the most legitimate claim to make the decision
And one last post…
Several people have said that they “see no hypocrisy” in the actions of this Congress.
These people are more blind than Ray Charles.
Virtually every action taken by the current leadership has had as a backdrop “we are in charge, we will do whatever we like, and if the rules prevent us from doing so we will simply change the rules to say otherwise.”
They did it with Florida election law. They did it with redistricting in Texas. They’re threatening to do it with Senate procedures and the so-called “nuclear option.” They did with the DeLay rule in the house until a rare dose of public shame managed to stop them. They’ve done it with House proceedings where voting was illegitimately kept open for extra hours until they had the votes to pass what they wanted. They just did it with ANWR. They did it with Iraq on a host of levels.
I’m sure others can chime in with other examples here, but I’m frankly too red-hot to come up with any more at the moment. But from where I sit, these guys want the power to make any decision they want about anything — including, at this point, the literal ability to choose who lives and who dies.
If they want to play god, they can dámņ well try out for a role in their local community theater. Stay the hëll out of my government.
TWL
Tim,
Before anyone tries to futilely point out what is wrong with your position, may I applaud your words and compliment you on the phrasing. I have been thinking these same thoughts for several days, but never so eloquently. This administration does what it pleases and convinces the citizens of this country they are working on our behalf, while actively working against the majority. While Governer of TX Bush signed a bill allowing doctors to terminate life support for patients when the money runs out and who have little hope of recovery with or without the consent of the patients family Now, try and tell me he really cares if this woman lives or dies. Or maybe they are jumping on this to distract us again. From DeLays ethics problems, or something worse this time?
Completely OT, but political:
And for those of you so vehemently stated that there would NEVER be a draft, kindly look at this article from Stars and Stripes the military newspaper for overseas bases.
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26965&archive=true
Specifically:
“While Cody stopped short of warning that the military could have to return to a draft, some experts say that may not be too far over the horizon.”
As numerous others have pointed out, Michael Schiavo has the most legitimate claim to make the decision
Only the last line is my remark, all of the rest is TWL quote.
I’ve only started following this recently, and I realize what I’m saying goes against the grain, but as non-Christian and journalist, I look at both sides.Of course the husband could be a sleazeball, but who’s not to say the parents aren’t delusional about what they’ve seen. Other questions: Why must the government get involved, is it to distract from Iraq, the economy and DeLay’s own ‘moral’ issues? The Republican party I knew wanted less involvement in people’s lifes, now they want to judge morality much the way the Taliban did. And if Terri’s last name had been Rabinowitz or Hassan, would there be this outcry? And to me, there’s there’s been sloppy reporting on both sides, if ‘liberal’ media is wrong, so is ‘conservative’ media. It’s not an easy issue which is why I have no opinion on who should have say: her parents or husband. It’s not a black-and-white issue
Only the last line is my remark, ll of the rest is TWL quote.
Well, yes…we could tell. Missed the point, didn’t you….
At least so far the Federal judge has the right idea this morning…
Following up Bladestar’s comment, here’s the article (barely an hour old at this typing):
TAMPA, Fla. – A federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, denying an emergency request from the brain-damaged woman’s parents.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore comes after feverish action by President Bush and Congress on legislation allowing her contentious case to be reviewed by federal courts. The judge said the 41-year-old woman’s parents had not established a “substantial likelihood of success” at trial on the merits of their arguments.
Rex Sparklin, an attorney with the law firm representing Terri Schiavo’s parents, said lawyers were immediately appealing to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to “save Terri’s life.”
The tube was disconnected Friday on the orders of a state judge, prompting an extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation early Monday aimed at keeping her alive.
Schiavo did not have a living will. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, has fought in courts for years to have the tube removed because he said she would not want to be kept alive artificially and she has no hope for recovery. Her parents contend she responds to them and her condition could improve.
CNN is reporting this morning that the judge has ruled like every other judge before him:
The tube does not need to be reinserted.
The family is expected to appeal. I should expect this bûllšhìŧ case to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and do nothing more than continue to bog down our already overwhelmed court system.
Thank you, Congress, you useless sacks of sh*t.
And for those of you so vehemently stated that there would NEVER be a draft, kindly look at this article from Stars and Stripes the military newspaper for overseas bases.
Oh, obviously that article is a bunch of crap, Karen.
The Repubs would *never* consider something like this, right?
I posted to another site an opinion piece from Ted Rall about the possibility of a return of the national sales tax.
A Bushie immediately slammed me for posting it as well as called Rall a lying piece of crap.
Go fig.
I don’t see any other way the judge could have rules, and it does not bode well for the parents. His ruling basically stated “even if I take everything the parents allege as true, they would still not be likely to prevail.” Denying a motion for a TRO in this way isn’t always fatal to the moving party’s case, but it really is a big hint from judge that they don’t have a legal leg to stand on.
And it doesn’t leave a lot of room at the appellate level, either. If the Atlanta Appeals court does its job the way it’s supposed to, it cannot review the facts, only the lower judge’s application of law and procedure. And the lower judge pretty much applied a textbook definition of a TRO. Which isn’t to say that’s the end of the matter. The Appeals court should be able to pound out a standard upholding decision in about 20 minutes on this issue, which of course opens the door to the Supreme Court, which is where the parents want to be anyway.
Which could go 2 ways, I think. Remember, the Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. Once they get the job, they are beholden to no one. If they want to just put the issue to rest, they’ll deny the petition to hear the case. If they want to give congress a little smack for trying to usurp state power, they’ll accept the petition and issue a scathing opinion on the limited nature of Federal jurisdiction, and that, absent a Constitutional amendment approved by the states granting the Federal government more power, Congress cannot by legislative act expand its powers beyond those granted to it by the People and the States.
And if they want to be real crazy, they can accept the petition and declare some inherant right in the state to act as guardian in a way that supercedes and overturns decades of legal precedent.
The Repubs would *never* consider something like this, right?
Oh, and before anybody cries foul, since that article does mention the last attempt at bringing up the draft (by a Democrat, who’s political career should be over)…
The military appears to be overwhelmingly Republican.
Congress is majority Republican, and if they get their way, filibusters would be a thing of the past (and I can’t wait for that to bite them in the ášš and rip a chunk out down the road).
So, a simple Republican majority vote, which they already have, could see the return of the draft.
We won’t get started on the fact that it won’t be their sons & daughters who get to fill the bodybags…
Thanks to Karen for her note last night.
And bravo to Judge Whittemore.
TWL
Here’s my psychic prediction:
Sometime in the next five years, Michael Shiavo will be standing in line at a Starbucks where he’ll be shot in the back by a fanatical wingnut fundy.
All in the name of the “culture of life,” of course.
Here’s my psychic prediction:
And I wish I could say I felt it was too cynical.
TWL
“It would be if she had any awareness at all. Every doctor who examined her except one says she has none.”
By startling coincidence, that one doctor was the same one who refused to recommend sugarless gum for his patients who chewed gum, even though four of his colleagues did recommend it.
PAD
“I’ve only started following this recently, and I realize what I’m saying goes against the grain, but as non-Christian and journalist, I look at both sides…It’s not an easy issue which is why I have no opinion on who should have say: her parents or husband. It’s not a black-and-white issue.”
Okay, but I’m also non-Christian, and a journalist (if one counts my BA in Journalism and my opinion column that’s been running for fifteen years), and just because I’ve come down on one side doesn’t mean I haven’t considered both.
Forming an opinion doesn’t automatically mean one has dismissed one side of the equation as worthless. If God forbid I ever found myself in that situation as a parent, I certainly allow for the possibility that I might well be doing the exact same thing the parents are doing here. I hope I never have to find out.
Taking a side, forming an opinion, doesn’t mean that I automatically see it as a black and white issue. It just means I’ve sided with a particular shade of gray.
PAD