Congress & Schiavo
 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/sc...ged/index.html

Is the official policy of the Republican Party now "the federal government has the power to do whatever it wants whenever it wants"

Or is that just the practice and the official policy still pretends to give a flying flip about states rights?

dont forget a dash of religion in there.

I almost hit the truck that's up on the front page of CNN.com on Tuesday afternoon. It was up here in Tallahassee, parked on the side of the road, it was raining out, and that thing was sticking way too far out in the street. I had to swerve to miss the bumper.

Just thought I'd share.

States rights is one of those things, like fiscal conservatism, that you mention when you're running for election, and toss in the nearest ditch when you get to Congress.

I don't care what side of the Schiavo debate you're on, I think most people would agree that the Congress making laws and decisions about specific people's medical care is not a good thing.

Yeah, this case is completely disgusting. This poor lady has ben vegatative for over a decade. Most doctors support the removal of the tube, her husband does, the courts have upheld it already a few times, despite Jeb Bush's and the FLA senate's misuse of power...and now congress wants to enact a law that basically overrides the FLA high courts. All the time on TV, I hear republicans...and politicians in general...stay that the government should stay out of people's lives...less government. It appears that less government is what they want only if you conform to their religious/social agenda.

I agree with that.

I find it confusing that Republicans, traditionally the party advocating less interference by the government in the everyday lives of citizens, are doing what they're doing in this case (and in other issues too, of course).

Honestly, what's the Republican justification here?

I also find this affair sickening, and the politicians' interference doubly so. I can't imagine what the husband feels like.

Well, to echo the observations of a lot of people here--it appears the Republicans (and I'm sure Democrats too) use state's rights arguments when it suits the argument they want to make. Medicinal marijuana is one issue. Gay Marriage is another--it is amazing how they will cry state's rights when an anti-gay marriage referendum is on the ballot, but will insist it is a federal issue when a state supreme court makes a pro-gay marriage decision. Watch 'em flip back to a state's rights argument if a federal court ever rules in favor of gay marriage...

I guess they don't understand what "persistent vegetative state" means. They've called Terry Schiavo to testify before the Senate Health Committee...

hxxp://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRAIN_DAMAGED_WOMAN?SITE=JRC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT#1

:rolleyes:

I'm wondering what the legal justification is for this whole series of events? I can understand the parent's pain, but didn't their guardianship rights over her go away once she got married? And what about "ex post facto"? Even if there are laws passed today, since her injury happened before the law was passed, doesn't that mean it won't apply to any situations that occured before passing of the law?

All in all, this is a pretty fucked up situation, but since there was no living will, and her husband is the legal guardian, the decision he made with the input of the doctors should be the one followed.

If only she were married to Scott Peterson this thing could have taken care of itself. The only thing is, the Democrats couldn't take the credit for fragging her.

Is that a variation of the "If only Mama Cass gave Karen Carpenter her ham sandwich, they'd still be alive today" argument? Sorry, couldn't resist... :)

The medicinal marijuana issue I can agree with. It was a state that passed the law and then the feds crack down and tell them that they can't have it.

In the gay marriage thing it was the state's voters that passed the law, and that very state's federal judge trying to cancel out that referendum from the bench.

Two different things there.

I was not necessarily talking about events in the same state--I was making a general statement that with the gay marriage issue (or any other issue), anti-gay rights people will champion state (anti-gay marriage referenda) or federal jurisdiction (constitutional amendment banning gay marriage) or denounce state and federal power (judicial decisions in support), as they see fit.

I'm not trying to single out the Republicans here, the Democrats do it on their pet issues too.

Agreed.

I think that what you see is moderate Republicans have been pushed aside.

Its unconscionable these tools are using this for a political/religous purpose. Every day all across America, someone is taken off of life support - when has congress ever stepped in?

Life support and a feeding tube are two differnt things.

This woman is going to be starved to death. What's unconscionable is that there are people who think that's ok.

Whenever it becomes a national news item, evidently.

I think the interesting point is that the fundamental values of the Republican party have shifted. Fiscal conservatism, libertarianism, small government and states' rights had been bedrock core values for the party. Now they're matters of convenience, rolled out when they can aid the new core values (the war on drugs, Christian evangelism, unrestrained executive power), ignored the rest of the time. It's a major shift and an important one. In essence, everything I ever liked about the party has been excised in favor of all the things I really don't like about the party, and yet the party is more popular and more powerful than ever. Go figure.. :confused:

Maybe people have different ideas about what it means to be alive. It's a matter of debate for which there is no verifiably true answer, a value judgment. But I don't think it's an unconscionable position to think that Schiavo has been effectively dead for over a decade now.

Exactly.

To me, this is no different than putting my 36 year old uncle with Down's Syndrome in a room to starve to death because of "limited brain function".

Many of you people should be ashame of yourselves.

So she sould starve to death then? Why not just smother her face with a pillow and get it over with. Why make her suffer for 7-10 days longer?

I'm really not sure where I fall on all this, but something about starving a woman to death that is actually somewhat responsive, opens her eyes and moves really rubs me the wrong way. It's not like she's a complete vegitable (can't move) or in a coma. This woman actually moves and responds to actions near her. I guess I'd feel better about all this if there was a more humane way to "pull the plug" than see her slowly starve to death over the period of a week.

Can anybody think of a way that "Terri's Law" can be applied in a manner that the Florida legislature never intended?

If her wish was not to be kept alive, then that wish should be respected.

Exactly! The woman voluntarily moves! Not much, but she moves. And not MRI has ever been performed on her brain. They don't know the extent of her brain function. Because she can't talk or get up, she is assumed to be in a vegetative state. Nobody knows for sure exactly how much she can feel. Or how much she can sense at all.

It is conceivable that she is completely aware of her surroundings and what is going on, but is physically unable to respond. And people want to starve her to death.

It's not like they'll pull the tube and her organs will stop functioning. She will slowly starve to death over the course of days.

Where are the Feminists now? I have not heard a word from any of the "womans rights" groups. A woman is about to be killed, one would think that these woman (and men) who will march, protest and stand up for women and any of their "rights" certainly would be involved in this case. Where are they???

Also Terri is not in a "vegatative state". Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

I have a 92 year old Grandma who fits the above category. I guess if Terri and her family lose this battle that would mean we can finally get rid of that damn burden of a Grandma of ours :rolleyes: .

Terri's Law (the version the FL legislature passed and Jeb signed) was struck down by the FL Supreme Court. And the US Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.

BTW, the reason why Terry Schiavo was issued a subpoena to appear in person is quite simple: if she's dead, she can't appear. So by issuing a subpoena, you keep her alive until the 28th ( I believe that's when she's scheduled to appear), which gives you a little bit of time to come up with a resolution.

As to Congress not deciding cases based on individuals.. here's a partial list of recent bills that Congress passed (via National Review):

H.R.867 Title: Private Bill; For the relief of Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, and Iqra Hasan. Sponsor: Rep Holt, Rush D. [D-NJ-12] (introduced 2/13/2003) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary House Reports: 108-531 Latest Major Action: 10/30/2004 Became Private Law No: 108-4.

H.R.530 Title: Private Bill; For the relief of Tanya Andrea Goudeau. Sponsor: Rep Baker, Richard H. [R-LA-6] (introduced 2/4/2003) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary House Reports: 108-529 Latest Major Action: 12/23/2004 Became Private Law No: 108-6.

S.560 Title: Private Bill; A bill for the relief of Rita Mirembe Revell (a.k.a. Margaret Rita Mirembe). Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] (introduced 3/19/2001) Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Judiciary House Reports: 107-129 Latest Major Action: 7/17/2001 Became Private Law No: 107-1.

S.1834 Title: Private Bill; A bill for the relief of retired Sergeant First Class James D. Benoit and Wan Sook Benoit. Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl [D-MI] (introduced 12/14/2001) Cosponsors: (none) Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Judiciary House Reports: 107-578 Latest Major Action: 10/1/2002 Became Private Law No: 107-2.

H.R.486 Title: Private Bill; For the relief of Barbara Makuch. Sponsor: Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. [R-NY-27] (introduced 2/6/2001) Cosponsors: (none) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary House Reports: 107-445 Latest Major Action: 10/4/2002 Became Private Law No: 107-3.

H.R.487 Title: Private Bill; For the relief of Eugene Makuch. Sponsor: Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. [R-NY-27] (introduced 2/6/2001) Cosponsors: (none) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary House Reports: 107-446 Latest Major Action: 10/4/2002 Became Private Law No: 107-4.

H.R.2245 Title: Private Bill; For the relief of Anisha Goveas Foti. Sponsor: Rep Lantos, Tom [D-CA-12] (introduced 6/19/2001) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary House Reports: 107-579 Latest Major Action: 11/5/2002 Became Private Law No: 107-5.

H.R.3758 Major Actions: Help Title: Private Bill; For the relief of So Hyun Jun. Sponsor: Rep McCrery, Jim [R-LA-4] (introduced 2/13/2002) Committees: House Judiciary House Reports: 107-729 Latest Major Action: 12/2/2002 Became Private Law No: 107-6.

Private relief bills are not new. This is not precedent setting. As Fritz pointed out, it's simply the first case the media's really taken notice of.

And one more thing no one has mentioned - Michael Schiavo claims to still love his wife. What kind of man would want to watch the woman he loved starve to death, regardless of her final wishes?

Something smells here, and for once it ain't coming from Washington.

If we're going to go down this path, we can also ask the questions "where are the opponents of state-funded medicine now?" and "where are all those people decrying state support of people who have no intention of ever contributing to society?"

Now that there is little money left in the trust fund, who will pay for Terri's care if she remains on life support? You guessed it. It would be doubly ironic if Republican cuts in state medicaid funding would force them to stop paying for Terri Schiavo's feeding tube...

Her parents have offered to pay for everything, if her husband would just stop trying to kill her.

How will they do that? Even if they could, who will do it when the parents are gone?

I think you'll find most of those are immigration cases (I haven't done the research to know for sure). The House and Senate have specific powers with regard to immigration cases.

I don't think they have much relevance to this case. I tend to agree with those who believe she should be kept alive, however, I also strongly believe that Congress shouldn't be the one to make that decision.

Yes, true love is letting the person you care about sit and stare for 40 years while being kept alive by artificial means with...as the doctors put it...the functional capabilities of a 6 month old. I hope my wife loves me that much :rolleyes:.

Her condition has not improved in over a decade, moat likely cost taxpayers oodles of money in legal and medical bills and courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of her husband. It's not eactly humane, but due process has been run over and over...even the Supreme Court refused to hear it...and now we have our lawmakers on Capitol Hill dictating individual medical issues that have already been decided by state courts.

You're assuming her parents won't name guardians in the event that they die and they'll just dump her off on the state. After everything they've gone through, I'm sure they know how important it is to make sure she's taken care of if they are not around to do so.

But you are also assuming that they actually have the assets to keep up her medical care for the next 40+ years.

True love is having an affair and two kids with another woman while trying to get a court order to starve your wife to death? It's not true love, and that's my point. I actually hope your wife doesn't love you that much, because I'd hate to see anyone do that to another human being.

So I ask again, why not just suffocate her?

Isnt it the exact same thing? Shes on a feeding tube because her body is incapable of functioning. Like i said, every day this EXACT same situation plays out, being removed from a feeding tube, or artificial respiration.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

And a 6 month old wouldn't feel the pain of slowly starving to death?

I believe these people were defeated during WWII. Who are these "people" today?

Just any FYI Klingler , Michael Schivia has spent $545 k on attorney or himself (55k in the bank). This comes out of court documents, see for yourself...He has used almost half (1.2 mil) of the money trying to kill her?? While living with another woman, does this sound like someone you would want taking care of your daughter?

Nope. She is incabable of feeding herself. Her heart and lungs are functioning just fine, without the assistance of machines.

My grandfather is incabable of feeding himself - he has a digestive tract problem that requires my grandma feed him through a tube in his stomach. He also lost a hand in WWII, and needs help eating when Nanna's not around.

Because he can't feed himself on his own means I should let him starve when Nanna's out?

I.e., that certain president and political party who once talked about "Welfare Queens" being needlessly supported by our tax dollars.

Regardless, its life support. Her brain is dead to the point where she cannot even chew or swallow. Thats vastly more significant than having a problem with your digestive track (no disrespect of course).

A lot of people get married to people their parent's don't get the warm and fuzzies about. But once a legal marriage takes place, any guardianship rights the parents have get transferred to the spouse.

As for him, I might be wrong, but he might be trying to move on with his life. Everyone has their own way of coping with tragic situations. Here we have two diametrically opposed stances. All I can say is that in my own case, if I end up in a similar situation, I hope someone makes the call to end the suffering for me.

And that is a factually incorrect statement. Her brain is not dead. If her brain were dead, she wouldn't be able to breathe or beat her heart on her own. She laughs and makes vocal sounds, she responds to pain, she responds to her parents. She also responds to Michael. She can move her arms and legs, though with little control. If her brain were dead, she wouldn't be able to do these things.

Same here. Once all hope for a reasonable quality of life has disappeared, please just let me die.

Like her husband, who says the woman wouldn't have wanted to live this way?

Ditto, I could not make my wife suffer with that decision.

Bullshit.

1. She's going to be in bed, unconscious, for the rest of your life. Your uncle isn't.

2. Her husband says she wouldn't have wanted to live this way. I'm going to assume your Uncle's closest guardian (or even your Uncle himself) has not said this.

It's a completely different situation.

Bullshit, she's not unconscious.

Because the same Republicans who want to prolong her comatose life also don't want to let consenting, 100% aware adults end their own lives.

Why? Presumably because they know better, or something....

I don't know many unconscious people that laugh and smile, and make eye contact.

Her husband also has a huge conflict of interest here, so I take what he says with a grain of salt. Last time I checked, when you loved someone you didn't father two kids with another woman, or want to starve them to death.

What kind of man would want to watch the woman he loves eke out a miserable existence she would never have wanted?

Then smother her with a pillow and get it over with.

Oh wait, that would be murder wouldn't it? But if we remove the feeding tube, well then Terri kills herself...

Fixed that for you.

Same here, and my wife & I both have instructions as to this matter.

Last time I checked, you've never had a marriage to a severely brain damaged spouse who has no hope of recovery and wanted to move on with your life (as, we can expect, the spouse wanted you to).

Starving someone seems very inhumane to me. I would hope we always surrendered to the better angels of our natures. Protecting those who cannot protect themselves has to go to the very core of being human.

I hope she is allowed to live. I hope 3 years from now the strides we make everyday in medicine allow her to improve. I hope she turns out like this guy -
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in562293.shtml

It's not my fault that self-righteous Republicans continue to legislate against euthenasia, including instances that involve consenting adults (which this may or may not be).

I'm so glad you all know exactly how everyone should live their lives....

She is not brain dead, but has extremely limited cognitive abilities. Respiration and heart rate are controlled by the brain stem which is a very primitive structure that plays no role in any cognitive functoins. Basic responses to pain and other external stimuli (orienting gaze towards a sound) are often reflexive and may not involve the brain at all (controled by the spinal cord). The lack of coordination in arm and leg movements is a pretty strong indication of a severe neurlogical trauma. Terri has no hope of recovering high level brain functions. The body is not able to recover from such a severe brain injury.

Hey, I resemble that remark. Wait... :p

That is the key, isn't it. LIVE their lives. Not order someone to die by starvation based on the word of someone who claims to love her, yet had no problem porking another woman while she was in the hospital.

Despite our other political clashes, I'm assuming that you're not severely brain damaged, of course. :p

Well, we are about to get a front row seat to a Federal Government vs. States Rights showdown. Just had a Breaking News flash that the Florida Judge is basically telling Congress they have no jurisdiction in this matter, due to the seperation of powers. Since the Supreme Court let the existing ruling stand, he's saying Congress can't act.

This should get interesting.

You make it sound like she's in the hospital for a couple of weeks to deal with her hemmorhoids. I'm sure her husband, acting on her pre-accident wishes, would like to end her suffering in a quicker, more humane, way, but the same people who want to prolong her misery also won't allow him and her that alternative.

But I guess you know how everyone should live their lives, right?

There are other doctors that disagree and have testified that with therapy she could live recover a significant amount of motor skills. I am not sure however if that means that she would have had a chance if therapy had occurred soon after her injury or if she could still do it today.

I'm not a doctor, but I'll bet on the positive and hope rather than the negative every time.

I wonder if Congress will send the National Guard down to Florida to stop it. Oh wait, they're all in Iraq. Nevermind.

near dola,

this comes after the earlier order to block the removal of the tube, due to the Congressional subpoena.

Can't very well tell people how to live their lives when the courts are advocating starvation for everyone who's an inconvenience to their spouses. :)

Dola - he married me out of free will, sure you don't want to re-think that. :p

Of course, this just goes to show how important it is to have a living will.

That I will agree with you 1000000%

Bloody good thing too, then. :p

Given the arguments I have with Arles on other issues, it appears it's a good match. :p

Awww. Can we hug now? :p

No, that's why you have Arles. Do try and keep up. :p

FL State judge just told Congress to take a hike.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050318/D88TICO00.html

Boy, I wouldn't want to be Judge Greer right now.

Farrah, while I appreciate your passion on this issue, you seem to be off base. I believe every independent doctor - not hired by one side or another - has ruled Terri as functionally brain dead. I would tend to believe those physicans over doctors hired by one side or another.

This woman has been in a vegative state since 1990 - 15 years. FIFTEEN YEARS! Do you think in that time the courts could have found even a substantial minority of independent physicans to say she isn't in a permanent vegative state with no voluntary cognative ability? They haven't...

In addition, you seem to have a great deal of animosity against the husband, Michael. The family had a falling out with Michael in 1993. It was only in 1998 that Michael petitioned the court to remove her feeding tube. It then took the courts 3 years to give permission to remove the feeding tube. I think they took their time and examined all the facts of this case. It would seem to me that 8 years is a long enough mourning period (1990-1998). Is the husband supposed to live the life of a monk for the rest of his life? He believes she is dead. The court agrees with him. If I were him, I would have moved on as well...after all, he is still living.

What really bothers me is that this is a private case. It's nobody's business but the families that are directly affected. It demonstrates the lengths that the Christian Conservatives will go to butt their way into others' private lives to further their agenda.

Pull the tubes, let her go. With luck, they will let her die in peace.

Great post, Blackadar. Terri's parents have done an extensive smear campaign against the husband, making people believe he's an evil man, twirling his mustache in the corner and cackling while his wife dies. I haven't seen any evidence to this, but what I have seen is an incredibly long and drawn out court proceeding where the rancor on both sides is quite high. Is Terri's husband supposed to never move on with his life? Wouldn't Terri have wanted him to find happiness in the situation she is in?

Of course there are issues in this case about what Terri's wishes were. That's the whole point of the long court proceedings over a decade, to decide the he-said, she-said part of this. And they have decided. Of course one side or the other isn't going to be happy, but the parents trying to make this a political football at the national level is just ridiculous in my opinion. Let her die in peace. It's my nightmare to be in a situation like hers with people trying to keep me in that state against my will.

CNN is completely screwed up. They have a headline that contradicts the (old) story. What a screwjob.

Jeez, just pull the tube already and let people go on with their lives!

Oh, and Congress really has no jurisdiction on the matter. Under what provision of Art 1, Sec 8 are they relying on to interject here?

Interstate commerce--I'm sure some of the medical equipment was purchased out of state.
;)

Best damned article I can find on the subject. From MSNBC.

By Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.
COMMENTARY
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 2:50 p.m. ET March 18, 2005

We have now reached the endgame in the case of Terri Schiavo. Her husband, Michael, remains unwavering in his view that she would not want to live in the state she is in. Despite the fact that he has been made the target of an incredible organized campaign of vilification, slander and just plain nastiness, he remains unmoved. Even a pathetic effort to bribe him into changing his mind with the offer of $1 million did not budge him.

He says he loves his wife and will do whatever it takes to end an existence that he believes she would not want to endure. He thinks that she would want her feeding tube stopped and that she would wish to die rather than remain bed-bound in a nursing home in a permanent vegetative state for the rest of her days.

The Schindler parents and their other children remain equally convinced that Michael is wrong. They say that Terri would want to live, that she is not as brain-damaged as Michael contends, and that there is still hope for her recovery despite the fact that she has failed to show any real improvement in 16 years. They argue that there are still more treatments to be tried and that as a Catholic Terri would want to honor recent Papal teachings that feeding tubes should not be removed from those in permanent vegetative states.

Who's right and who's wrong?
Congress, or at least the pro-life constituency in the House and Senate, are doing their best to halt Schiavo's death. Last-minute bills invoking habeas corpus, a legal doctrine that has historically only been used for those held in federal custody, along with incredibly zany and inappropriate subpoenas to doctors and nurses requiring that Terri Schiavo be brought to Washington, show a level of grandstanding that is normally reserved for issues such as the use of steroids by major-league baseball players.

So now that this miserable case is moving toward a resolution, what can be said about who is right and who is wrong? And what is the likely legacy of the battle over the fate of Terri Schiavo?

Ever since the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed a respirator to be removed from Karen Ann Quinlan and the U.S. Supreme Court declared that feeding tubes are medical treatments just like respirators, heart-lung machines, dialysis and antibiotics, it has been crystal clear in U.S. law and medical ethics that those who cannot speak can have their feeding tubes stopped. The authority to make that decision has fallen to those closest to the person who cannot make their own views known. First come husbands or wives, then adult children, then parents and other relatives.

That is why Michael Schiavo, despite all the hatred that is now directed against him, has the right to decide his wife’s fate. The decision about Terri’s life does not belong to the U.S. Congress, President Bush, Rep. Tom Delay of Texas, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the Florida Legislature, clerics in Rome, self-proclaimed disability activists, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, conservative commentators, bioethicists or Terri’s parents. The decision is Michael’s and Michael’s alone.

Sanctity of marriage
Remember the recent debate about gay marriage and the sanctity of the bond between husband and wife? Nearly all of those now trying to push their views forward about what should be done with Terri Schiavo told us that marriage is a sacred trust between a man and a woman. Well, if that is what marriage means then it is very clear who should be making the medical decisions for Terri — her husband.

But, isn’t it true that tough questions have been raised about whether he has her best interests at heart? They have. But, these charges against Michael Schiavo have been heard in court again and again and again. And no court has found them persuasive.

Has there really been careful review of this case? Is Terri really unable to think or feel or sense? Will she never recover? The flurry of activity in Washington and Tallahassee might make you think there has not. But that is not so.

There have been at least 11 applications to the Florida Court of Appeal in this case resulting in four published decisions; four applications to the Florida Supreme Court with one published decision (Bush v. Schiavo); three lawsuits in federal district court; three applications to the U.S. Supreme Court and nearly untold motions in the trial court. This has got to be the most extensively litigated "right-to-die" case in U.S. history. No one looking at what has gone on in the courts in this case could possibly deny that all parties have had ample opportunity for objective and independent review by earnest and prudent judges of the facts and trial court orders.

The time has come
So, it is clear that the time has come to let Terri die. Not because everyone who is brain damaged should be allowed to die. Not because her quality of life is too poor for anyone to think it meaningful to go on. Not even because she costs a lot of money to continue to care for. Simply because her husband who loves her and has stuck by her for more than 15 years says she would not want to live the way she is living.

If Terri is allowed to starve to death what next? Undoubtedly there will be efforts to pass laws to prohibit feeding tubes from being taken away from others like Terri in the future. And there may even be efforts made to push right-to-die cases out of state courts and into federal courts. These are bad ideas.

We have had a consensus in this country that you have a right to refuse any and all medical care that you might not want. Christian Scientists do not have to accept medical care nor do Jehovah’s Witnesses need to accept blood transfusions or fundamentalist Protestants who would rather pray then get chemotherapy. Those who are disabled and cannot communicate have the exact same rights. Their closest family members have the power to speak for them.

The state courts of this country have the power to review termination of treatment cases and have done so with compassion, skill and wisdom for many years. Those who would change a system that has worked — and worked well for the millions of Americans who face the most difficult of medical decisions — should think very hard about whether Sen. Bill Frist, DeLay, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Bush, Sen. John Kerry or the governor of your state needs to be consulted before you and your doctor can decide that it is time to stop life-prolonging medical care.

I got to agree with Blackie here. It's a tough decision for anyone involve, but I just the family of Teri just as bad the husband (in the "smear attack") in the case. I find it funny that Congress is using a subpoena to abuse it power.

I find the whole concept of the Christian Republicans odd. They want lower taxes, but want to keep people alive (yet complain that they have to pay for it)-not in just this case, but similar cases and abortion, ect.

you must have rather extreme definitions of what constitutes quality of life.

"wait!!!! stop the presses!!!! that person's heart can still beat and he can wiggle his pinkie toe with some assistance. let...him...liiiiiiiive!!!!"

i hope i'm not ever faced with this predicament. i think if i were in Terry's position i would want my wife to pull the plug, save the money that she'd spend on medical costs and use that money to make herself happy and to improve her life. that's true love.

for what it's worth i don't think i'd pull the plug on my wife, as long as she could open her eyes and acknowledge my presence then i wouldn't care if she needed machines to keep her alive. as long as she had cognitive abilities then i'd work 2 jobs to keep her around. its different for me, i don't like being a burden on people and i would rather people remember me for how i was when i was alive.

and i don't like pity.

Good article, Blacky. I can't say that I agree with the husbands desicion, but I agree it was his and it shouldn't have drug on this long.

My point exactly. Nobody has given me an answer as to how her parents planned to pay for 40 years of medical care. If medicaid is going to pay for it, will the Republicans make an exception for Terri Schiavo when they slash funding?

Trust me HA, you're a burden on all of us.

:cool:

If the doctor wasn't hired by either side, then how did they testify? Someone had to grant access to her medical records. Or do you mean doctors that are experts in cases like these, though not directly related to the case? I'm not sure what you mean here. Besides, I question whether there is such a thing as an "independent doctor" in this case. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, this will be a precedent setting case for issues ranging from the assisted suicide laws in Oregon to abortion. In such an important case I think it's difficult to remain independent, even for the most upstanding professional. Everyone has an angle.

As I said earlier, if there are two doctors telling me two different outcomes, I'm going to go with the more hopeful and positive every time.


I disagree that she's in a vegetative state first off. Vegetables don't laugh.

Secondly, there are doctors out there that have disagreed with Terri's diagnosis. They have testified that with therapy Terri's condition could improve. Does a doctor have to be independent in order to have any validity? I think medical experts on both sides think they are right. But again..if there is a chance she could improve, why not try it?


Damn straight I have animosity towards Michael Schiavo. If these were truly Terri's wishes, why did he wait 8 years before filing his petition? Why did he allow the feeding tube to be inserted in the first place? It's not Terri's parents doing the smear job, Michael's actions speak for themselves.

He stood before God and his family and swore "til death do us part" not "til I think you're dead do us part". If he wanted to move on he should have petitioned for divorce and removed himself as Terri's guardian before he started fathering children with another woman. If he respected his marriage, as much as he claims to respect Terri's final wishes, why did he remain married to her now that he's in love with someone else?

He should have suggested the court appoint an independent guardian, who has no conflict of interest in this case. If this were any other type of court case a man with such a large conflict of interest would not be allowed to make decisions for Terri. All the court has on what Terri's wishes were, is the word of a man who is now in love with someone else. Doesn't sit right with me.


I agree this is a private case, but I'd really refrain from asserting it's one side of the political aisle making it an issue. The argument can be turned around either way - the more rabid on the right (me on some occassions ) could say it's another example of the Lunatic Left taking their support of state advocated murder of innocents beyond the womb. But that doesn't lend itself to a constructive debate and we're having such a good one here. Besides, I don't really think that's what's going on in this case.


Death by starvation is anything but peaceful, and I guess that's one of the reasons I'm having such a hard time with this.

I don't see any difference in the act of allowing her Terri to die by removing her feeding tube, and smothering her with a pillow. They are both murder, though one is being committed under the guise of being humane, when it is anything but.

An exceptionally good point. Hypocrisy, thy name is the Christian Right.

I'm not Michael Schiavo, but I bet it went something like this:

1990-1993 - Initial hope that she'd recover.
1993 - Broach "removing the feeding tube" with parents. Fallout.
1993 - 1998 - 5 years of futile attempts to convince the parents otherwise.
1998 - Go to court.

For someone who says "always take the optimistic choice" you sure are cynical.

So then from 1990-1993 he was ignoring her wishes? But I thought he loved her.

And yep, I'm cynical when it comes to men and their motives. I'll freely admit that.

Breaking news-- the feeding tube was just removed.

Now that's just not a reasonable comment. If I were in his shoes, even if I did promise not to leave her in that state, I would still wait as long as I reasonably could for her to come back. Three years is a pretty long time...

But then you (in his shoes) would be ignoring her wishes. Yet he vehemently claims to want to honor them now. What's changed? Hmm...

See why this just smells?

I really don't know where to fall on this. I think the husband has been through a lot and am not quite as cynical on his motives as Farrah ;), but I can also see the side of the parents (who have doctors telling them she can recover) hoping to try every avenue. The hardest thing comes back to this 10-day "starvation" manner of death. Given she can notice people coming into the room and adjust to different situations tells me that she is going to seriously suffer if the feeding tube gets pulled.

This whole situation is really tragic and I hope the one message that comes from this is for everyone to get a living will.

No I don't think I would be ignoring her wishes. I would think that Terri and the husband would work under the assumption of "reasonable time"--i.e., you wait as long as you possibly can to see if they recover, if not, don't let it drag needlessly.

This attempt to force a rigid logical structure on Schiavo's husband just seems like an attempt to paint him as a heartless bastard...

Actually, I was trying to paint him as a heartless bastard for letting his wife starve to death. Guess I better try harder. ;)

There is such a thing. It's called a court appointed physican or expert. Numerous ones have testified in this case. I believe every single one has testified that she is in a permanent vegative state. While you may look on the bright side of things, there comes a point in time that reality must set in.


Again, see the points above.


Yes, his actions do speak volumes. They speak of a caring husband hoping his wife can pull through. It speaks of someone carrying the torch for a long damn time after many of us may have given up hope. They speak of someone who did give a shit.


Because she's mentally dead. He reached this conclusion in 1998. The court validated this position in 2001. They reached the conculsion that Terri ceases to exist as a congnitive human being who can make choices. So he - like most everyone else - has finally moved on. You can disagree with this prognosis all you want, but it's what has been determined in 11 seperate court actions. So in his mind, it is "death-do-us-part".


Why? The case should have been resolved 7 years ago if not for the constant interference of others who have no standing in the case. So now he has no right to make the decisions because others have delayed the outcome? Or falling in love with another person a decade after this incident somehow clouds this issue? So you're saying that if I can keep this somehow tied up in court - even though I have no standing - he has to put his life on hold? Seems a bit unfair to me.


It is EXACTLY what's going on in this case. This is a private case and one side - the Conservative Christians - keep trying to get involved in it. This is a rule of law that has used the best of medical science to help determine the outcome. And because some religious conservatives don't like it, they keep attempting to interfere. I don't see the left in it at all.

It validates the trepidation among many of us non-Christians that Christian Conservatism will continue to be imposed (or attempted to be imposed) on those who don't believe the same things.


In one way, there really is very little diffference in this particular case. The result is going to be the same either way. But one is much more passive than the other. But you seem to keep repeating this mantra/statement to sensationalize her death as murder, which is really a shame.

It's like saying that shooting you in the head is no different than waiting until you die of old age. The outcome is the same - you're going to die. So why wait?