Congress & Schiavo

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Big difference between life support and her case.

I am not saying there isn't.

I was simply trying to point out that it is very unlikely that she will suffer at all during the process. A lot of people are saying that it's "inhumane" to let someone die this way, and I was trying to point out that the doctors will make sure that there is no pain and that she is not conscious during the process.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Pray tell ?

Here is your comment:

Some of us are fond of ridiculing self-appointed moralists, who are Christians in this case.

Here is Blackadar's comment:

I am saying that the continual interference from a segment of the political/religious spectrum: ultra-conservative Christians (virtually all right-wing Republicans) is evidence that that group will not be happy until their moral/value system is imposed upon everyone else, either by threat or by law.

If you are so enligthened as you claim yourself to be then you shouldn't have any problem figuring out what is wrong with your statement.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I am not saying there isn't.

I was simply trying to point out that it is very unlikely that she will suffer at all during the process. A lot of people are saying that it's "inhumane" to let someone die this way, and I was trying to point out that the doctors will make sure that there is no pain and that she is not conscious during the process.

Ok, sorry about the misunderstanding.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Big difference between someone on life support and Teri's case. That what makes Teri so tricky and confusing.

Ive seen a few people say this, but I dont see where they get this misinformation?

There is a reason why were having this debate, legally the doctors and her husband have the right to take her off of LIFE SUPPORT. In every medical and legal sense, they are removing her from LIFE SUPPORT. That is the very definition of whats going on here, you cannot say its anything other than LIFE SUPPORT, once youre medically considered in a "vegetative state" all forms of support (oxygen, food) are legally and medically considered LIFE SUPPORT.

[chinaski]

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20050320/pl_nm/rights_schiavo_congress_dc&printer=1

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress on Sunday put off action on a bill aimed at prolonging the life of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo, in the face of anticipated objections from at least one Democrat that could temporarily stall the measure.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, convened the House in rare Sunday session, but immediately recessed it until further notice.

[Easy Mac]

Guess they should have worked to push through the fillibuster bill a little harder.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Guess they should have worked to push through the fillibuster bill a little harder.

Joking, right?

[cartman]

From what I've read of what Congress is planning on doing, it is just a huge political grandstand. They aren't going to pass any laws or make any decisions on the matter. They were just going to pass a resolution to have a federal court review the case. Which I thought had already been done, since the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. So however the situation ends, they can claim that they at least tried. What a waste of effort and hot air.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by cartman

What a waste of effort and hot air.

Sounds like business as usual.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

After reading through this entire thread, I have this question...have any of you been personally involved in removing someone from life support? Have you stood there and watched as the doctors removed the tubes and turned off the machines? I have. My grandmother was removed from life support...and it was the most peaceful thing I have seen. There was no suffering, no gasping, nothing. As the body functions decrease, the doctors increase the amount of morphine to make sure there is no suffering. I am quite sure the same measures would be taken in this case. As the body dehydrated and began to shut down, medications would be given to ensure that she simply slept and didn't wake back up.

I agree that starving someone to death is horrible, but I just don't see the "torture" being a valid argument in this case. Yes, it's going to take 10-14 days, yes, it's sad and horrible and there is no easy answer, but someone has to make the decision...and whether you agree or not, it's the decision of Terri's husband, Michael. The government should not be involved. I am sure her parents and family are grieving, but they need to accept that this is not their decision to make.

no offense, but its not applicable. It doesn't matter how me, you, the parents, the husband, or the legislators feel....its about what she wants and the law states that the husband can determine that IF he had been given orders or desires regarding such matters. Thats it, case closed IMO

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

no offense, but its not applicable. It doesn't matter how me, you, the parents, the husband, or the legislators feel....its about what she wants and the law states that the husband can determine that IF he had been given orders or desires regarding such matters. Thats it, case closed IMO

I agree with you, it's completely his decision. The only reason I made that post was because I saw alot of comments about the "inhumane" way of killing someone, that it would be better to suffocate them with a pillow, etc...I was just trying to point out that as inhumane as it sounds, there are steps taken to make sure the person doesn't suffer during the process. I was trying very hard to keep my personal opinion out of it, but I guess I didn't do a very good job

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Anyone want to tell me why we shouldn't move towards a more direct democracy? Please don't tell me that politicians are better then we are. I know we have some extreme (left and right) people among us in the voting mass, but the majority would have alot more say then the extremes.

You may find the writings of the Founding Fathers (letters, books, Federalist Papers) to be an interesting read. There was much discussion about avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" when framing the Constitution. Although this is up for debate (as is all of the Constitution, generally), it is generally thought that the Framers of the Constitution tried to write a document that would keep the majority from running roughshod over everyone.

Thus the idea of avoiding direct democracy.

I'm not saying they're right or they're wrong, merely that it's an interesting concept that deserves thought when looking at our legislative process.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

After reading through this entire thread, I have this question...have any of you been personally involved in removing someone from life support? Have you stood there and watched as the doctors removed the tubes and turned off the machines? I have. My grandmother was removed from life support...and it was the most peaceful thing I have seen. There was no suffering, no gasping, nothing. As the body functions decrease, the doctors increase the amount of morphine to make sure there is no suffering. I am quite sure the same measures would be taken in this case. As the body dehydrated and began to shut down, medications would be given to ensure that she simply slept and didn't wake back up.

I agree that starving someone to death is horrible, but I just don't see the "torture" being a valid argument in this case. Yes, it's going to take 10-14 days, yes, it's sad and horrible and there is no easy answer, but someone has to make the decision...and whether you agree or not, it's the decision of Terri's husband, Michael. The government should not be involved. I am sure her parents and family are grieving, but they need to accept that this is not their decision to make.

Yes. Twice. My Father and my cousin, and both times it was primarily on my say (my sisters didn't have the strength with my father, and my Aunt just couldn't do it with my cousin). It is a very hard thing to do, but not one I regret in either case. Niether of those times were like this, though. They were in comas, and there was no hope of recovery. I couldn't have done it either time if they were in Terry's condition.

edit: And it wasn't a situation were we removed the feeding tube. We removed breathing apperatus and medicine, and nature took its course. If it had been a feeding tube situation, it would have made the desicion much harder and I don't know if could have done it.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Masked

She has no higher brain functions. She shows only the most basic reflexes such as orienting towards a sound. These reflexes requires only that the brainstem be intact. A CT scan some years ago shows that her cortex has completely degenerated as a result of the trauma. Her body is able to be kept alive vwith medical intervention, but everthing that she was is gone.

I can "logically" access that, but there is no way that I could starve someone to death that is as apparently cognative as she is. That is me personally, but as I've said else, the husband has the say here.

[TroyF]

I have a question:

I've taken my fair share of psychology classes adn have studied sleep patterns and dream states. I've never really studied the people who are in comas.

Of the few who have "woken" up, what did they remember about their sleep? I know some have said they heard their people around them talk, but I'm curious about anything else.

I feel badly for anyone involved in this case. If something like this happened to the girl I married, what would I do? If she told me her wish was to die, I'd probably find a way to honor that wish. If I were her parents, what would I do? Could I just "let her go?"

Just frightening to think about.

I don't think the government should step in though. Let the courts do their jobs and go from there. The family has had more than enough time to prove their case. They've lost pretty much everyone. With or without the help of the senate, I don't think this changes.

[Easy Mac]

Congress says hold on:

Federal Review of Schiavo Case (Update3) March 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate voted in a hastily convened Sunday session to allow the case of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman, to be placed under federal review.

The House of Representatives will debate the bill for three hours starting at 9:00 pm EST with a vote expected just after midnight. President George W. Bush returned to Washington today from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, so he can immediately sign the bill when it's passed.

``The bill we passed this afternoon centers on the sanctity of human life,'' said Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee. ``These are extraordinary circumstances that center on the most fundamental of human values -- the sanctity of human life.''

Tubes hydrating and feeding Schiavo, 41, were removed Friday on the orders of a Florida judge, prompting an immediate response from lawmakers and from Bush, who said ``our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life'' even though the case raises ``complex issues.''

Schiavo suffered brain damage 15 years ago when her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, asked the court seven years ago to allow his wife to die after doctors told him there was no hope she would recover from a vegetative state. Her parents have fought to maintain food and water. Schiavo hadn't signed an advanced directive or living will about her wishes.

Husband's `Motives'

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, told reporters in Washington today that it's possible Schiavo may recover and suggested her husband may have an ulterior motive for wanting her to die. Michael Schiavo should be ``at the very least called into question by his curious behavior over the last dozen years, his motives in all this,'' DeLay said.

The Senate approved the measure unanimously by voice vote. DeLay said the bill enjoys ``overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and it is going to pass tonight.''

``Obviously every hour counts and time is not on Terri Schiavo's side,'' DeLay said. ``The few remaining objections of House Democrats have so far cost Mrs. Schiavo two meals already today, and no fluids, and now we hope to resolve this in time for her to get some food and water tonight.''

`Constitutional Crisis'

Seven House Democrats held a news conference today to denounce the Republican drive to have the Schiavo case taken up by Congress, which they said would violate separation of powers statutes in the U.S. Constitution.

``We are seeing, sadly, the manifestation of a constitutional crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. ``You will have hundreds of members of Congress making a medical decision about which we know nothing.''

The Washington Post reported today that a memo distributed to Republican senators described the Schiavo case as ``a great political issue'' that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives in the 2006 elections.

``This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue,'' the memo said, according to the Post.

Asked about the memo, Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said Senate Democrats were willing to allow the matter to be considered.

``I think that the motivation of my colleagues is that we want to give this young woman's family a chance to care for her for as long as she lives,'' he said on ABC's ``This Week'' program. ``I don't think it's any more complicated than that.''

Not `a Precedent'

Frist said the Senate bill didn't portend future intrusions by the legislative branch into the affairs of the judicial branch. ``It is a unique bill passed under unique circumstances that should not serve as a precedent for future legislation,'' he said.

The Schiavo case has raised issues of states rights and federal intervention in a question about a court or government's jurisdiction over an individual human life.

``It is not the place of Congress, in the 11th hour and in the most abusive fashion, to undermine the Florida court system,'' said Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat.

Bush returned to Washington this afternoon to sign the legislation. Bush would prefer to ``err on the side of life,'' White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said on Air Force One. ``This legislation is narrowly tailored so it would give her parents another opportunity to save their daughter's life.''

Legal, Personal Debate

Michael Schiavo has said his wife would have preferred to have the tube pulled rather than continue to live in her current state.

``It's not about me, it's not about Congress, it's about Terri,'' Michael Schiavo said March 18 on CNN's ``Larry King Live'' program. ``I want you all to think about going through a judicial process to have your own wishes granted and then the Congress and the government walking in on that because of their personal views. That's absurd.''

Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, said today on CNN's ``Late Edition'' that he hoped Congress would come to an agreement tonight. ``There's nothing written anywhere that Terri would have wanted to die by starvation and dehydration,'' he said. ``And we're asking simply for a federal review just like any convicted murderer would get.''

After a state judge sided with Michael Schiavo, the woman's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, urged Congress and the president to intervene. Senator Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican, called the Florida judge's order ``a death warrant.''

Speaking before television cameras in Florida this morning, Mary Schindler said: ``Please, gentlemen, don't use this bill as your own personal agenda. I am pleading with the moms and dads to call their congressman, and help them pass this bill for Terri.''

Federal Court Review

The legislation would require doctors to restore the feeding tube while the case is reviewed in federal court.

``All we're doing is seeking a federal review of what has happened in the state courts to ensure that all constitutional rights, all of the basic protections that we afford a criminal, have been afforded to Terri Schiavo as well,'' Martinez said.

On March 17, the Senate and the House passed separate bills allowing Schiavo's family to ask federal courts to intervene in the case, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the removal of the feeding tube. Congressional committees also tried to block withdrawal of the tube by subpoenaing Schiavo and her husband.

Florida State Judge George Greer yesterday denied a request by U.S. House attorneys to delay the removal. The U.S. Supreme Court also refused to order that the feeding and hydration be resumed, rejecting a request by the House Government Affairs Committee.

I bolded the part I found most idiotic. Who the fuck is Tom DeLay. I seriously have no respect for that fucktard.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Congress says hold on:


I bolded the part I found most idiotic. Who the fuck is Tom DeLay. I seriously have no respect for that fucktard.

I wholeheartedly concur. Here's another sage quote from Mr. DeLay:

"Time is not on Terri Schiavo's side," DeLay said. "The few remaining objecting House Democrats have so far cost Mrs.Schiavo two meals already today."

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050320/ap_on_go_co/schiavo_congress

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I bolded the part I found most idiotic. Who the fuck is Tom DeLay. I seriously have no respect for that fucktard.

Tom DeLay is a reprehensible asshole for making those insinuations. But then again, I didn't need to see that comment to know that about DeLay - this is just more evidence.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You may find the writings of the Founding Fathers (letters, books, Federalist Papers) to be an interesting read. There was much discussion about avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" when framing the Constitution. Although this is up for debate (as is all of the Constitution, generally), it is generally thought that the Framers of the Constitution tried to write a document that would keep the majority from running roughshod over everyone.

Thus the idea of avoiding direct democracy.

I'm not saying they're right or they're wrong, merely that it's an interesting concept that deserves thought when looking at our legislative process.

Yeah, it is an interesting debate. But remember, this was way back when don't have the education and deeper understanding of life and the world around us. Switzerland seems to keep itself in check with it. It's not a perfect system, but for a very divided country such as Switzerland, it's pretty sound.

I see that one lady brought up Bush's 1999 bill he passed in Texas. In Teri's state, they say that her laughing/smiling, limited response, is normal?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

In Teri's state, they say that her laughing/smiling, limited response, is normal?

Let's be clear on this point - this activity is being alleged by her parents and siblings, who all have a stake in painting a picture of Teri as being as aware of her surroundings as possible. I haven't seen any independent verification of the extent of these claims, and it seems highly likely their claims are exaggerated descriptions of behavior that is not higher brain function but base-level brain functions.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Let's be clear on this point - this activity is being alleged by her parents and siblings, who all have a stake in painting a picture of Teri as being as aware of her surroundings as possible. I haven't seen any independent verification of the extent of these claims, and it seems highly likely their claims are exaggerated descriptions of behavior that is not higher brain function but base-level brain functions.

I completely agree with you. I was just asking if these were actually normally in her state? Also, they only show the one video (with about a minute of footage) whenever they show her on tv.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

.... In Teri's state, they say that her laughing/smiling, limited response, is normal?

Apparently, yes.

Coma and Persistent Vegetative State

A coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. The affected individual is alive but is not able to react or respond to life around him/her. Coma may occur as an expected progression or complication of an underlying illness, or as a result of an event such as head trauma.

A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.

It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.

Information provided by the
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke,
National Institutes of Health

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Tom DeLay is a reprehensible asshole for making those insinuations. But then again, I didn't need to see that comment to know that about DeLay - this is just more evidence.

Its not like DeLay's short of morals...i mean look. He's been investigated numerous times for things like skimming money from campaign funds, taking money from special interests, etc. AND then he tries to propose legislation making it MORE difficult to investiagte legislators....gee, i wonder why. What a prick.

[cartman]

Here's an interesting article from the Tampa paper about the videos of her that are going around. Evidently, the ones the family are showing are only about 5 or so minutes of over 20 hours of tape. The rest of the time she is as you expect.

hxxp://www.tampatrib.com/MGBQ67CTI6E.html

[cartman]

Dola,

Here's an excellent article that pretty much sums up how I feel about DeLay and his insertion into this issue:

hxxp://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nyhen204182572mar20,0,5541860.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

DeLay hammers home his heartless influence on Terri
March 20, 2005

Here's Tom DeLay, ready to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

Personally, I can't think of anyone I'd less want to see stomping around in my own family life at the most delicate imaginable moment, say while the grief-stricken Henicans were confronting a decision concerning a comatose loved one.

Tom DeLay, the former small-town Texas exterminator. Tom DeLay, the most powerful man in Congress today. Tom DeLay, the feared Republican enforcer seemingly on the verge of criminal indictment for fund-raising abuses. Tom DeLay, a legislator so famously hard-hearted that he is known around Washington, with both trepidation and respect, as "The Hammer."

Yes, that Tom DeLay.

And what was he doing at week's end?

He was inserting himself - not into my family, thank God - but into poor Terri Schiavo's. And the moment could not possibly have been worse.

Terri, of course, is the comatose 41-year-old Florida woman who has been lying in an uninterrupted vegetative state for 15 years now, ever since her heart stopped and her brain was severely damaged and all the court-appointed doctors said she has no hope of ever recovering anything that vaguely resembles a genuine life.

That Terri Schiavo.

Terri's husband, Michael, has spent all that time hoping, praying, waiting and trying to carry out what he believes to be his wife's most profound wishes - not to be lying in suspended animation for years on end, unable to speak, to move, to feel or to think. He has been trying, in the face of her parents' disagreement and the taunts of angry protesters, pandering politicians and uninvited lawsuits, to give his wife the quiet and dignified death he believes she asked him to.

Finally, the day arrived. The legal way cleared. An imperfect peace was made. And in stepped Tom DeLay.

Not since George Wallace stood in that schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama had a pandering politician done something so bold in support of something so wrong.

He knew what was better for Terri Schiavo than her husband did. And he would try anything - anything! - to enforce his own view.

DeLay wasn't alone in this. Not by a long shot. There were other pandering politicians in Washington and Tallahassee, standing right beside him and launching their own heartless attacks on Michael Schiavo and the husband's desperate desire to do what he thought was right.

All day yesterday, Republican leaders in Washington worked frantically to undo Terri's chance for a dignified death. The GOP meddlers came up with a plan to have federal courts take the case, and George Bush planned to jet back from his Crawford ranch to sign whatever they cooked up.

But it really was DeLay who led the assault on this loving couple, their decent doctors and the crucial principle of a self-determined life.

His words were so devoid of compassion, so viciously cruel, so blithely ignorant of the real-life complexities that loving families sometimes face, it was fair to ask if DeLay has been in some kind of coma himself.

A coma that let him talk and walk and run for office, but somehow kept his heart in formaldehyde.

There is nothing to do but quote the man's empty words.

"Right now," Tom DeLay said on Friday, "murder is being committed against a defenseless American citizen in Florida. Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should be immediately replaced, and Congress will continue working to explore ways to save her."

As if Tom DeLay and his band of zealots knew what was good for this suffering family a thousand miles away.

"Mrs. Schiavo's life is not slipping away - it is being violently wrenched from her body in an act of medical terrorism," DeLay said. "Mr. Schiavo's attorney's characterization of the premeditated starvation and dehydration of a helpless woman as 'her dying process' is as disturbing as it is unacceptable. What is happening to her is not compassion - it is homicide. She doesn't need to die, and as long as Terri Schiavo can breathe and her supporters can pray, we will not rest."

And who would know better than an ex-exterminator from Texas named Tom DeLay?

The words echoed down to Texas, where he needs support with his legal problems. They bounced up the stairs of the Pinellas Circuit Court in Florida, where Judge George Greer, a Republican and a Southern Baptist, had the clear mind and the good sense not to be intimidated by some bully from Washington.

He told the outsiders to get away from the hospice and to leave Michael Schiavo alone. Then he told an exterminator from Texas he wasn't getting his way this time. He might as well put his hammer away.

It was certainly about time.

Email: [email protected]

[Crapshoot]

De Lay is scum of the highest order. Then again, he keeps getting voted in- which is disheartening at best.

[HomerJSimpson]

My wife just confirmed to me (and I to her) to remove machines and such when the doctors say there is serious brain damage or no brain activity, but under no circumstance to remove a feeding tube. I wonder if an internet post is a legal document?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

My wife just confirmed to me (and I to her) to remove machines and such when the doctors say there is serious brain damage or no brain activity, but under no circumstance to remove a feeding tube. I wonder if an internet post is a legal document?

unless your wife's maiden name is Marge Bouvier, I don't see a problem...

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

De Lay is scum of the highest order. Then again, he keeps getting voted in- which is disheartening at best.

Well, he is far from the only random idiot that gets voted in year after year on either side of the aisle. See Kennedy, Ted.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

Well, he is far from the only random idiot that gets voted in year after year on either side of the aisle. See Kennedy, Ted.

Kennedy is no angel, but he's nowhere near the level of scumbag that DeLay is, and he's hardly an idiot.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Kennedy is no angel, but he's nowhere near the level of scumbag that DeLay is, and he's hardly an idiot.

Really? A guy who got off on at least Manslaughter charges because his name was Kennedy? Depends on how you look. They both are scummy idiots to me.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

Really? A guy who got off on at least Manslaughter charges because his name was Kennedy? Depends on how you look. They both are scummy idiots to me.

That was certainly a low-point in Kennedy's career (whether he was guilty or not), but I look at the comparison as one major mistake vs. a pattern of disgusting actions.

I'll leave it at that as I don't mean for this to turn into a Democrat vs. Republican debate of who has the scummiest politicians.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by yabanci

IIn persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.

Wow, that is a frighteningly apt description of me during lecture some days..

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

That was certainly a low-point in Kennedy's career (whether he was guilty or not), but I look at the comparison as one major mistake vs. a pattern of disgusting actions.

I'll leave it at that as I don't mean for this to turn into a Democrat vs. Republican debate of who has the scummiest politicians.

Actually my point was they both do, not that one is "scummier" than the other.

[oliegirl]

Congress passed a bill early this morning, and Bush signed it, which allows Terri's parents to appeal to a Federal Judge to have the tube reinserted.

Bush signs Schiavo legislation
Fate of brain-damaged woman once again in a judge's hands
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:45 a.m. ET March 21, 2005

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - The fate of Terri Schiavo once again was in the hands of a judge early Monday following an extraordinary, day-long political fight over the brain-damaged woman that consumed both chambers of Congress and prompted the president to rush back to the White House.

advertisement
Click Here!
Taking the Senate’s lead, the House early Monday passed a bill to let the woman’s parents ask a federal judge to prolong Schiavo’s life by reinserting her feeding tube. President Bush signed the measure less than an hour later.

An attorney for her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, later arrived at federal district court in Tampa and filed a request for an emergency injunction to keep their daughter fed.

When the attorney, David Gibbs II, was asked if he had any indication when the judge would rule on the request, he said: “I have no way to know, just that it’s in the hands of the court.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7212079/?GT1=6305

[miked]

I would imagine that out of all the people that are posting their outrage in this thread, that none of you are doctors, confidants of Terri's parents, or one of 16 judges or whatever that heard this case. So why is it you feel that this condition isn't as bad as independent doctors have told court? Or why do feel the need to vilify her husband when 11 courts have found that he DOES hold her interest in heart and her parents are the ones with different motives? No it's not a fun way to go, but independent docs have said there is no chance of recovery...heck it's been 16 years and she has limited function (even though you non-doctors seem to believe you know what makes for a vegetative state). I'm fairly confident if 16 judges have said the initial ruling was correct, and the judges have also struck down unconstitutional measures to avoid her wishes that the case has been thoroughly covered. So what good does making it a federal case then? What will they all do when the federal court upholds the state courts and the supreme court strikes down this new law?

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by miked

I would imagine that out of all the people that are posting their outrage in this thread, that none of you are doctors, confidants of Terri's parents, or one of 16 judges or whatever that heard this case. So why is it you feel that this condition isn't as bad as independent doctors have told court? Or why do feel the need to vilify her husband when 11 courts have found that he DOES hold her interest in heart and her parents are the ones with different motives? No it's not a fun way to go, but independent docs have said there is no chance of recovery...heck it's been 16 years and she has limited function (even though you non-doctors seem to believe you know what makes for a vegetative state). I'm fairly confident if 16 judges have said the initial ruling was correct, and the judges have also struck down unconstitutional measures to avoid her wishes that the case has been thoroughly covered. So what good does making it a federal case then? What will they all do when the federal court upholds the state courts and the supreme court strikes down this new law?

I am not sure if that post was directed at me because I posted the article about Congress, but I was just updating the thread with the newest developements. I said in an earlier post that I didn't think it was the place of the government to be getting involved in this, and for the record, I am very disappointed in Pres. Bush for signing the bill.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I cant believe the guy above threw out the "the husband might've had something to do with her being in this state" card.

You see, if the soapboxer doesnt get his way immediately, apparently, some book he reads a lot, tells him to start making shit up until he wins.

Hey moron, how about reading my posts for a change? I keep up with the news on this, and that is one of the issues that has come up recently. Not something "I'm making up." Just reporting what has been in the news down here. Like others have said, if quality of life was such an important issue to both of them, they should have visited a lawyer's office -- then this whole situation would be a moot point.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Hey moron, how about reading my posts for a change? I keep up with the news on this, and that is one of the issues that has come up recently. Not something "I'm making up." Just reporting what has been in the news down here. Like others have said, if quality of life was such an important issue to both of them, they should have visited a lawyer's office -- then this whole situation would be a moot point.

Fox News don't count.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Fox News don't count.

Such an amazing reparteé

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

Really? A guy who got off on at least Manslaughter charges because his name was Kennedy? Depends on how you look. They both are scummy idiots to me.

Actually anyone would have recieved manslaughter for that. When drunk drivers kill others, they are brought up on manslaughter, not murder.

Now you've upset me, you've made me defend a Kennedy .

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Yeah, it is an interesting debate. But remember, this was way back when don't have the education and deeper understanding of life and the world around us.

Well, two points here:

1. You're assuming we have "education and deeper understanding of life" amongst the U.S. populace now....

2. For the FF, the "tyranny of the majority" wasn't necessarily about the "unwashed masses". They had already addressed the "unwashed masses" by restricting the voting franchise. Their concept of avoiding "tyranny of the majority" still applies today. It's why they made the House based on population numbers, but the Senate consistent representation amongst states. In theory, the high-population states couldn't always get their way over the low-population states, and vice versa.

[flere-imsaho]

"Mrs. Schiavo's life is not slipping away - it is being violently wrenched from her body in an act of medical terrorism," DeLay said.

Fuck you, Tom DeLay, fuck you.

[Peregrine]

Wow it's true, the Republicans will *terrorism* use ANY opportunity *terrorism* to mention terrorism!

[flere-imsaho]

Republicans practice legislative terrorism.

Hey, that's kind of fun!

[QuikSand]

I don't have a lot to add about the substance of this issue -- but the politics of it fascinate me.

As nearly as I can tell, this is a matter about which reasonable people might be very conflicted. "Right to die" issues are complicated enough, but this particular story -- as best as I understand it, and I have made no special effort to educate myself, I confess -- seems even more troubling. The medical perspective is either ambiguous or is being painted that way -- whether she actually retains any degree of consciousness is perhaps up for debate. And the trail back to her own wishes, if that's what we'd want to follow, is regrettably not as clear as we'd like. Further, the current involvement of the federal government is potentially troubling as a matter of state's rights, or at least some would argue as much.

You would think that with so much to consider... so many complicated issues to try to weigh... that people would be all over the place on this. People's faith, perhaps their own life situations, any number of things ought to guide them in reaching a conclusion about what is the best ting to do here. This just seems to me like a classic case of "you're on your own with this one."

But what do we see instead? Almost perfect allegiance to pre-ordained party positions. Republicans screech that she must be saved, make every effort to deny evidence about what her actual wishes may have been, and are enthusiastic to buy all the innuendo about the husband, and in Congress, the GOP is basicaly in lock-step. Democrats, on the other hand, cry foul over any intrusion of her family (as if there is no place at all for their wishes or beliefs to even be considered), claim that Terri's wishes are all that matters even in the face of all the apparent blurriness in this case (which they prefer to ignore), and in Congress they line up to oppose the delaying measure.


I am generally worried about top-down thinking in politics -- people who decide their opinion on political issues based on what their party says, rather than the other way around. I worry even more about people starting to make similar judgments about matters of fact, rather than opinion. This particular issue might mark an example of yet another level of this -- when the matter becomes more complicated, people just decide not to give it any thought, and instead decide to delegate their thinking to the people they have decided to support politically. I hate to be guilty of the much-maligned "slippery slope" argument here... but this sure seems like one.


I, myself, am a pretty strong supporter of the principle of the "right to die." This particular case poses a challenge to those beliefs, in my mind -- maybe I'm just falling for claptrap spouted by those who are trying to make this case harder than it really is, that remains a possibility. But I am rather unnerved by those who seem to have etched this whole issue out so clearly, and so in keeping with their previous political disposition, that there's no room at all to even hear what someone else has to say.

It's a complex issue. Too bad the rhetoric seems basically the same as on everything else.

[Klinglerware]

"Mrs. Schiavo's life is not slipping away - it is being violently wrenched from her body in an act of medical terrorism," DeLay said.

Yup, this has to be the work of Osama (from his cave) and Saddam (from jail).

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

...
As nearly as I can tell, this is a matter about which reasonable people might be very conflicted....

But what do we see instead? Almost perfect allegiance to pre-ordained party positions. Republicans screech that she must be saved, make every effort to deny evidence about what her actual wishes may have been, and are enthusiastic to buy all the innuendo about the husband, and in Congress, the GOP is basicaly in lock-step.

I really don't think public opinion is anywhere near as divided on this as the Republicans are making it seem. As for Congress, I'm had been thinking that it was only a relatively small number of Republicans that were making this noise. Then I see that they sneak in a bill in a late Sunday session. So how many Congressmen does it take to pass a bill? I'd really like to know if the party I'm considering switching too(officially) is trying to send itself to hell in a handbasket.

It is a very straightforward matter. It is the husband's choice.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Republicans practice legislative terrorism.

Hey, that's kind of fun!

Coupled with Constitutional terrorism.

Actually, it is fun.

George Bush is a Constitutional terrorist!

Terrorist!
Terrorist!
Terrrrrrrrrrrrrorist!

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

De Lay is scum of the highest order. Then again, he keeps getting voted in- which is disheartening at best.

Funny, I keep saying the same thing about Teddy Kennedy.