Terri Schiavo

[Flasch186]

is that considered a "Dola"?

[HomerJSimpson]

DeLay's Own Tragic Crossroads
Family of the lawmaker involved in the Schiavo case decided in '88 to let his comatose father die.
By Walter F. Roche Jr. and Sam Howe Verhovek
Times Staff Writers

March 27, 2005

CANYON LAKE, Texas — A family tragedy that unfolded in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal — without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the debate raging outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.

The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Among the family members keeping vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman — Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

More than 16 years ago, far from the political passions that have defined the Schiavo controversy, the DeLay family endured its own wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by intravenous lines and oxygen equipment, was DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay.

Then, freshly reelected to a third term in the House, the 41-year-old DeLay waited, all but helpless, for the verdict of doctors.

Today, as House Majority Leader, DeLay has teamed with his Senate counterpart, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), to champion political intervention in the Schiavo case. They pushed emergency legislation through Congress to shift the legal case from Florida state courts to the federal judiciary.

And DeLay is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism" in removing the tube.

In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.

"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old widowed mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew — we all knew — his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."

Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay.

When his father's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do not resuscitate."

On Dec. 14, 1988, the DeLay patriarch "expired with his family in attendance."

"The situation faced by the congressman's family was entirely different than Terri Schiavo's," said a spokesman for the majority leader, who declined requests for an interview.

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

There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were severely brain-damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared from being kept alive by artificial means. And neither of them had a living will.

This previously unpublished account of the majority leader's personal brush with life-ending decisions was assembled from court files, medical records and interviews with family members.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It was a pleasant late afternoon in the Hill Country of Texas on Nov. 17, 1988.

At Charles and Maxine DeLay's home, set on a limestone bluff of cedars and live oaks, it also was a moment of triumph. Charles and his brother, Jerry DeLay, two avid tinkerers, had just finished work on a new backyard tram — an elevator-like device that would carry family and friends down a 200-foot slope to the blue-green waters of Canyon Lake.

The two men called for their wives to hop aboard. Charles pushed the button and the maiden run began. Within seconds, a horrific screeching noise echoed across the still lake — "a sickening sound," said a neighbor. The tram was in trouble.

Maxine, seated up front in the four-passenger trolley, said her husband repeatedly tried to engage the emergency brake, but the rail car kept picking up speed. Halfway down the bank, it was free-wheeling, according to accident investigators.

Moments later, it jumped the track and slammed into a tree, scattering passengers and debris in all directions.

"It was awful, just awful," recalled Karl Braddick, now 86, the DeLays' neighbor at the time. "I came running over, and it was a terrible sight."

He called for emergency help. Rescue workers had trouble bringing the injured victims up the steep terrain. Jerry's wife, JoAnne, suffered broken bones and a shattered elbow. Charles, who had been thrown head-first into a tree, was in grave condition.

"He was all but gone," said Braddick, gesturing at the spot of the accident as he offered a visitor a ride down to the lake in his own tram. "He would have been better off if he'd died right there and then."

But Charles DeLay hung on. In the ambulance on his way to a hospital in New Braunfels 15 miles away, he tried to speak.

"He wasn't making any sense; it was mainly just cuss words," recalled Maxine with a faint, fond smile.

Four hours later, he was airlifted by helicopter to the Brooke Army Medical Center at Ft. Sam Houston. Admission records show he arrived with multiple injuries, including broken ribs and a brain hemorrhage.

Tom DeLay flew to his father's bedside, where, along with his two brothers and a sister, they joined their mother. In the weeks that followed, the congressman made repeated trips back from Washington, his family said. Maxine seldom left her husband's side.

"Mama stayed at the hospital with him all the time. Oh, it was terrible for everyone," said Alvina "Vi" Skogen, a former sister-in-law of the congressman. Neighbor Braddick visited the hospital and said it seemed very clear to everyone that there was little prospect of recovery.

"He had no consciousness that I could see," Braddick said. "He did a bit of moaning and groaning, I guess, but you could see there was no way he was coming back."

Maxine DeLay agreed that she was never aware of any consciousness on her husband's part during the long days of her bedside vigil — with one possible exception.

"Whenever Randy walked into the room, his heart, his pulse rate, would go up a little bit," she said of their son, Randall, the congressman's younger brother, who lives near Houston.

Doctors conducted a series of tests, including scans of his head, face, neck and abdomen. They checked for lung damage and performed a tracheostomy to assist his breathing. But they could not prevent steady deterioration.

Then, infections complicated the senior DeLay's fight for life. Finally, his organs began to fail. His family and physicians confronted the dreaded choice so many other Americans have faced: to make heroic efforts or to let the end come.

"Daddy did not want to be a vegetable," said Skogen, one of his daughters-in-law at the time. "There was no decision for the family to make. He made it for them."

The preliminary decision to withhold dialysis and other treatments fell to Maxine along with Randall and her daughter Tena — and "Tom went along." He raised no objection, said the congressman's mother.

Family members said they prayed.

Jerry DeLay "felt terribly about the accident" that injured his brother, said his wife, JoAnne. "He prayed that, if [Charles] couldn't have quality of life, that God would take him — and that is exactly what he did."

Charles Ray DeLay died at 3:17 a.m., according to his death certificate, 27 days after plummeting down the hillside.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The family then turned to lawyers.

In 1990, the DeLays filed suit against Midcap Bearing Corp. of San Antonio and Lovejoy Inc. of Illinois, the distributor and maker of a coupling that the family said had failed and caused the tram to hurtle out of control.

The family's wrongful death lawsuit accused the companies of negligence and sought actual and punitive damages. Lawyers for the companies denied the allegations and countersued the surviving designer of the tram system, Jerry DeLay.

The case thrust Rep. DeLay into unfamiliar territory — the front page of a civil complaint as a plaintiff. He is an outspoken defender of business against what he calls the crippling effects of "predatory, self-serving litigation."

The DeLay family litigation sought unspecified compensation for, among other things, the dead father's "physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and trauma," and the mother's grief, sorrow and loss of companionship.

Their lawsuit also alleged violations of the Texas product liability law.

The DeLay case moved slowly through the Texas judicial system, accumulating more than 500 pages of motions, affidavits and disclosures over nearly three years. Among the affidavits was one filed by the congressman, but family members said he had little direct involvement in the lawsuit, leaving that to his brother Randall, an attorney.

Rep. DeLay, who since has taken a leading role promoting tort reform, wants to rein in trial lawyers to protect American businesses from what he calls "frivolous, parasitic lawsuits" that raise insurance premiums and "kill jobs."

Last September, he expressed less than warm sentiment for attorneys when he took the floor of the House to condemn trial lawyers who, he said, "get fat off the pain" of plaintiffs and off "the hard work" of defendants.

Aides for DeLay defended his role as a plaintiff in the family lawsuit, saying he did not follow the legal case and was not aware of its final outcome.

The case was resolved in 1993 with payment of an undisclosed sum, said to be about $250,000, according to sources familiar with the out-of-court settlement. DeLay signed over his share of any proceeds to his mother, said his aides.

Three years later, DeLay cosponsored a bill specifically designed to override state laws on product liability such as the one cited in his family's lawsuit. The legislation provided sweeping exemptions for product sellers.

The 1996 bill was vetoed by President Clinton, who said he objected to the DeLay-backed measure because it "tilts against American families and would deprive them of the ability to recover fully when they are injured by a defective product."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


After her husband's death, Maxine DeLay scrapped the mangled tram at the bottom of the hill and sold the family's lake house.

Today, she lives alone in a Houston senior citizen residence. Like much of the country, she is following news developments in the Schiavo case and her son's prominent role.

She acknowledged questions comparing her family's decision in 1988 to the Schiavo conflict with a slight smile. "It's certainly interesting, isn't it?"

She had a new hairdo for Easter and puffed on a cigarette outside her assisted-living residence as she sat back comparing the cases.

Like her son, she believed there might be hope for Terri Schiavo's recovery. That's what made her family's experience different, she said. Charles had no hope.

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

[HomerJSimpson]

Hypocracy, thy name is Tom Delay.

So, Delay killed his father, right Bubba?

[clintl]

Double hypocrisy on the part of Mr. DeLay, for pushing "tort reform" after filing a product liability lawsuit.

[chinaski]

just when you think DeLay couldnt get any more sleazy...

[Crapshoot]

DeLay has always, always been scum. If I recall correctly, he got into a beef with Bush as well on something - he's busy carving out his own little political fiefdom.

[TroyF]

Delay is scum. And I think much of his rhetoric on the case is horrible.

That said, I don't see the similarites. In his case, the FAMILY came to a consensus. Not one person and a couple of family friends. At least by that stories account, the entire family was in on the decision.

The entire family is not ok with Terri dying and that's where the problem in this case is. This case isn't a public issue if Terri's mother and father were to have agreed with the husband that she should have the feeding tube pulled.

There are hundreds of reasons to think Delay is peice of garbage, I just don't see the similarities between these two cases as being one of them.

[Easy Mac]

The thing is, the parents have said they don't care even if it was her wish to be taken off.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Delay is scum. And I think much of his rhetoric on the case is horrible.

That said, I don't see the similarites. In his case, the FAMILY came to a consensus. Not one person and a couple of family friends. At least by that stories account, the entire family was in on the decision.

The entire family is not ok with Terri dying and that's where the problem in this case is. This case isn't a public issue if Terri's mother and father were to have agreed with the husband that she should have the feeding tube pulled.

There are hundreds of reasons to think Delay is peice of garbage, I just don't see the similarities between these two cases as being one of them.

The problem is DeLay invited the criticism by comparing himself and his investigations to the "drive" to kill Terri. Basically saying it was the same people coming after him that want Terri dead. It was taped of him behind closed doors and it is implicit that he thinks that the politics are all over this Schiavo thing eventhough most Americans believe politics should stay out of it.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Delay is scum. And I think much of his rhetoric on the case is horrible.

That said, I don't see the similarites. In his case, the FAMILY came to a consensus. Not one person and a couple of family friends. At least by that stories account, the entire family was in on the decision.

The entire family is not ok with Terri dying and that's where the problem in this case is. This case isn't a public issue if Terri's mother and father were to have agreed with the husband that she should have the feeding tube pulled.

There are hundreds of reasons to think Delay is peice of garbage, I just don't see the similarities between these two cases as being one of them.

So, people's wishes can only be carried out if the entire family agrees? Then suddenly it becomes not "killing" someone? Remember, Delay is among the gang equating this with judicial murder. THAT is why he is a hypocrite.

[TroyF]

There hasn't ever been proof of what Terri did or did not want. The courts have shown the husband is the one who gets to decide. He's said that's what she wanted and so he fought to get her off of the feeding tube. If she had a living will, this isn't a consideration either.

I just don't see the relevance of a decision Delay made about his father where the entire family agreed that he didn't want to live like that vs. this case where there is disagreement every step of the way.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by TroyF

There hasn't ever been proof of what Terri did or did not want. The courts have shown the husband is the one who gets to decide. He's said that's what she wanted and so he fought to get her off of the feeding tube.

Please dont disregard her family members who also reiterated that that was her wishes too.

[Flasch186]

DOLA:

Im watching this Religious Right press conference and the guy just said that they are obligated to abolish this government if the laws are tyrannical. This is ridiculous, as they called the judge a tyrant.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Please dont disregard her family members who also reiterated that that was her wishes too.

All I'm trying to say is that her wishes have been contested. They aren't a simple black/white that everyone has agreed with.

As for the religious right, they scare the hell out of me.

Of course, the psychotic left scares me too.

[Mac Howard]

I saw an interview with the Schindler's lawyer and my position moved considerably after this.

What I saw was not a lawyer doing her best for the Schindlers but a lawyer on a mission to prosecute the Right to Life's political agenda. She was aggressive and domineering and ranting about Terri being "killed" and several times claiming it was euthanasia ignoring the interviewer's objection that euthanasia was surely not involved. She dismissed the 22 occasions on which her case was rejected by the courts as "a conspiracy" and hinted darkly about the "accident" that had led to Terri's condition.

She was frantic, inflexible, unreasonable and unreasoning. Not a performance to convince me either of the validity of her case or her having any genuine concern for Terri. This woman was prosecuting a political agenda!

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

She was frantic, inflexible, unreasonable and unreasoning. Not a performance to convince me either of the validity of her case or her having any genuine concern for Terri. This woman was prosecuting a political agenda!

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue

Speaking of political agendas... I just saw Terry on Scarborough Country. Apparently, he is now a family spokesman.

You would think that Terri Schiavo's parents would pick less extremist advocates...

[RendeR]

*insert my signature here*

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

There hasn't ever been proof of what Terri did or did not want. The courts have shown the husband is the one who gets to decide. He's said that's what she wanted and so he fought to get her off of the feeding tube. If she had a living will, this isn't a consideration either.

I just don't see the relevance of a decision Delay made about his father where the entire family agreed that he didn't want to live like that vs. this case where there is disagreement every step of the way.

No proof except the testimony of several others besides her husband. Have you read any of this thread? The court records?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Thats my biggest problem with Bubba, SFL, and all the other religious right-ies (meant with no harm intended) from thread to thread. They continue to want the law of the land to be based on their religious morals and thusly apply them to everyone even if they're not that religion (which I can harken back to the mayflower and the reason for the Puritans leaving England). They dont believe in seperation of church and state and will bounce from rhetoric and theory to rhetoric and theory (sometimes conjecture) to keep their movement going (state's rights, activist judges, gay marriage ammendments, "cheating husbands", paid doctors (as opposed to independent ones), verbage, propoganda, etc.

As I have said, this isn't really a religious issue for me except perhaps that I think if society is going to err, it should always err on the side of life. If Terry Schiavo had left a document, or audio or video recording stating her wishes....or if all parties involved were of the same mind on the matter, then there wouldn't be an issue.

Back in 1990, Nancy Cruzan was in a horrible auto crash that left her in a vegetative state like Terry Schiavo. Like Terri, she left no will and it was her family that wanted to pull the plug on her, arguing that she wouldn't want to be kept alive in such a state. The matter went all the way to the Supreme Court. The High Court upheld the ruling of the Missouri State Supreme Court AGAINST the family...

Petitioner Nancy Cruzan is incompetent, having sustained severe injuries in an automobile accident, and now lies in a Missouri state hospital in what is referred to as a persistent vegetative state: generally, a condition in which a person exhibits motor reflexes but evinces no indications of significant cognitive function. The State is bearing the cost of her care. Hospital employees refused, without court approval, to honor the request of Cruzan's parents, co-petitioners here, to terminate her artificial nutrition and hydration, since that would result in death. A state trial court authorized the termination, finding that a person in Cruzan's condition has a fundamental right under the State and Federal Constitutions to direct or refuse the withdrawal of death-prolonging procedures, and that Cruzan's expression to a former housemate that she would not wish to continue her life if sick or injured unless she could live at least halfway normally suggested that she would not wish to continue on with her nutrition and hydration. The State Supreme Court reversed. While recognizing a right to refuse treatment embodied in the common- law doctrine of informed consent, the court questioned its applicability in this case. It also declined to read into the State Constitution a broad right to privacy that would support an unrestricted right to refuse treatment and expressed doubt that the Federal Constitution embodied such a right. The court then decided that the State Living Will statute embodied a state policy strongly favoring the preservation of life, and that Cruzan's statements to her housemate were unreliable for the purpose of determining her intent. It rejected the argument that her parents were entitled to order the termination of her medical treatment, concluding that no person can assume that choice for an incompetent in the absence of the formalities required by the Living Will statute or clear and convincing evidence of the patient's wishes.

Now, a decade later, another court has decided that the same type of hearsay evidence presented by Michael Schiavo, his brother, and his brother's wife was sufficient to terminate Terry Schiavo's artificial nutrition and hydration, despite contrasting statements from her own family. So yes, I have a bit of a problem with the court's decision in this case, especially when one side is so adamant to let her life continue.

What I find truly disgusting is the statement from George Felos that after a week of starvation, he had "never seen such a look of beauty and peace upon her." What utter bullsh*t. I wonder, does see that same beauty and peace when he looks at pictures of the starving survivors of liberated Nazi concentration camps during WWII? Yeah, let's talk about scumbags.

[Blackadar]

When you even attempt to equate Terri with Nazi concentration camp survivors, it shows how extremist and out of touch with reality your position is.

[SFL Cat]

Nope, just pointing out a total BS statement from Mr. Hemlock Society himself, George Felos.

*edit -- I find nothing beautiful or peaceful about starving a human being to death. But then, maybe I just need to order George's book so I can see things in a new light.

hxxp://www.bluedolphinpublishing.com/Litigation.htm

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Nope, just pointing out a total BS statement from Mr. Hemlock Society himself, George Felos.

*edit -- I find nothing beautiful or peaceful about starving a human being to death.

No. Pointing out the statement would have been quoting it and saying you think it's total BS. As you can see from one of my posts above, I posted a quote from the father and said I really am beginning to dislike the guy. That's pointing out what you think is BS.

Instead, you took it about 10 steps further and tried to equate Terri with Nazi Concentration Camp survivors.

As for Nancy Cruzan, you left out the most important piece of the story. Talk about SELECTIVE EDITING!!!

The United States Supreme Court upheld that ruling. It found that due process was not violated by the Missouri requirement that an incompetent person's wishes in regard to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In the end, however, further witnesses satisfied Missouri courts that such clear and convincing evidence of her wishes did exist, and medically assisted nutrition and hydration were removed in December of 1990. Cruzan died two weeks later.

And this was a hallmark case - really, the first of its kind - probably making it THE most difficult case because it was a fairly new area of the law.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by TroyF

All I'm trying to say is that her wishes have been contested. They aren't a simple black/white that everyone has agreed with.

As for the religious right, they scare the hell out of me.

Of course, the psychotic left scares me too.

I agree, but thats why we have a pretty solid court system in place to "determine" it. I agree with the religious right and the psychotic left scares me extremely, but thankfully, we have a nationally that is majority in the center area.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No. Pointing out the statement would have been quoting it and saying you think it's total BS. As you can see from one of my posts above, I posted a quote from the father and said I really am beginning to dislike the guy. That's pointing out what you think is BS.

Actually, I'm just curious how ANYONE can look at an emaciated human being and see "beauty and peace." I think it's a fair question....does he feel that way when he looks at other starving people?

Instead, you took it about 10 steps further and tried to equate Terri with Nazi Concentration Camp survivors.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, how about changing it to all those starving kids they show us on those Feed the Children commercials.

As for Nancy Cruzan, you left out the most important piece of the story. Talk about SELECTIVE EDITING!!!

Nope that was straight from the Supreme Court decision -- only thing I did to it was highlight (bold) some of the text. The Cruzan family had the case retried in Missouri and met the court's requirement for compelling evidence in the second go-around. Of course, this was a case where there was NO intra-family squabbling about the proper course of action to be followed and once again, it was a case where someone was starved to death (two weeks). More peace and beauty for the likes of Felos.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Of course, this was a case where there was NO intra-family squabbling about the proper course of action to be followed and once again, it was a case where someone was starved to death (two weeks). More peace and beauty for the likes of Felos.

If I read the intent of your above statement correctly ("more peace and beauty for the likes of Felos"), the wishes of the family or even the person don't matter? That everyone should be kept alive as long as possible?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Actually, I'm just curious how ANYONE can look at an emaciated human being and see "beauty and peace." I think it's a fair question....does he feel that way when he looks at other starving people?


Well, if it makes you feel any better, how about changing it to all those starving kids they show us on those Feed the Children commercials.


Nope that was straight from the Supreme Court decision -- only thing I did to it was highlight (bold) some of the text. The Cruzan family had the case retried in Missouri and met the court's requirement for compelling evidence in the second go-around. Of course, this was a case where there was NO intra-family squabbling about the proper course of action to be followed and once again, it was a case where someone was starved to death (two weeks). More peace and beauty for the likes of Felos.

...and also left out the fact that the courts ruled in their favor, eventually, so that the support could be pulled.

Apparently you missed that again, when Blackie exposed it.

I love this about your argument,

Since no living will exists we are only having hearsay evidence that she wouldnt want to live, and we cant have that. IT MUST be written out........

She CANT look peaceful....I havnt seen her myself, but listening to the hearsay evidence from the parents side I ACCEPT as gospel vs. Felos' (which doesn't help me out).

So on the one hand when it doesnt support your emotional grab you disregard it or say it's false but when it DOES you extoll it.

You are biased and cannot remove your biblical shades and accept science, court rulings, and evidence.....would you like to remove this tyrannical government? WAIT, perhaps the RIGHTY congress can step in and overstep their bounds on the religious right's behalf. In that case it would be ok, right?

[SFL Cat]

Simply saying we need to pass laws allowing quick euthanasia in cases like this. If someone walks into the hospice and puts a couple of bullets in Terry Schiavo's head, that person would be arrested for murder. Talk about hypocritcal.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Simply saying we need to pass laws allowing quick euthanasia in cases like this. If someone walks into the hospice and puts a couple of bullets in Terry Schiavo's head, that person would be arrested for murder. Talk about hypocritcal.

Well, if that was your point in all of this i think most people would agree that better euthanasia laws are needed.....but Im afraid the rest of your posts screamed for religiousism in our legislature and courts.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

She CANT look peaceful....I havnt seen her myself, but listening to the hearsay evidence from the parents side I ACCEPT as gospel vs. Felos' (which doesn't help me out).

Hey, I'm all for showing pictures of what she looks like. Give us the Terry-cam. However, if it were allowed, I'm afraid all the support for letting her die would probably evaporate -- "OH MY, look at that! I didn't realize... *Horror* we need to find a better way to do this."

It's kind of like photos of what the fetus looks like after an abortion. It's kind of hard to argue the pro-choice side of things when people are looking at pics of chopped up arms, legs and other body parts in a bloody tray.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Simply saying we need to pass laws allowing quick euthanasia in cases like this.

Actually, I think you'll find most people here agree with you on this.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well, if that was your point in all of this i think most people would agree that better euthanasia laws are needed.....but Im afraid the rest of your posts screamed for religiousism in our legislature and courts.

In a case where ending the life is uncontested....then yes, there needs to be a law allowing for quick euthanasia. No more of this slow wasting away crap.

In the Schiavo case, where there is contention about ending the life, and there is nothing concrete from the person in question regarding his/her disposition, then this is a situation where I think if society (i.e. the court) is to err, it needs to err on the side of life.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by TroyF

There hasn't ever been proof of what Terri did or did not want. The courts have shown the husband is the one who gets to decide. He's said that's what she wanted and so he fought to get her off of the feeding tube.

His testimony was not decisive in the 1998 action. Rather, it was the testimony of his brother and sister-in-law that Greer used as the basis for his ruling. He found that the Schindlers' testimony was not credible -- there were issues with changes from a deposition, and there were timeline issues that suggested that Terri's comments to them had been when she was 11 or 12 years old. The judgement was, effectively, that the evidence that removal of the feeding tube was what she wanted was uncontested.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by TroyF

There hasn't ever been proof of what Terri did or did not want. The courts have shown the husband is the one who gets to decide. He's said that's what she wanted and so he fought to get her off of the feeding tube. If she had a living will, this isn't a consideration either.

That's not accurate. The Florida courts only granted Michael Schiavo's request to have the tube removed after finding by clear and convincing evidence that it was Terri's wish not to be kept alive under these circumstances.

[yabanci]

I think I'm going to go absolutely nuts if people keep throwing around the word "hearsay" without knowing what it means.

Michael Schiavo's testimony that Terri Schiavo said she wanted to die in this situation is NOT hearsay. Under the law of evidence, Terri Schiavo's statement constituted a "verbal act," and they are testifying as witnesses to her verbal act. It is not hearsay. It's stupid to call it hearsay.

Think about it like an offer in an oral contract. If you make an oral contract with someone and they breach the contract, you can sue for damages. When you go to court, you will testify that the defendant offered such and such and you accepted the offer. Your testimony about the oral contract offer is not hearsay. You are testifying as a witness to the defendant's "verbal act" of making a contract offer. Anybody else who was there and heard the offer also can testify as witnesses to the verbal act.

You can argue about whether his testimony regarding her verbal act is credible or not, but it's not hearsay so please stop calling it that over and over and over and over. It's annoying.

[Bubba Wheels]

Interesting comparison for those all-in-a-wad over Jeb Bush and others wanting to 'circumvent' the courts in this case http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Interesting comparison for those all-in-a-wad over Jeb Bush and others wanting to 'circumvent' the courts in this case http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary

Interesting...but inaccurate. Without getting into details, the Gonzalez case involved a whole host of legal issues:

1. Can a six-year old apply for asylum?
2. Does a six-year old have the mental understanding to file?
3. Was the application filed with post-traumatic stress disorder or with the undue influence of another party? Does that make the filing invalid?
4. Who has legal jurisdiction to determine the custody of a six-year old illegal alien - is it a Federal (INS) case or a State (custody) case?
5. Can the legal guardian (the father) be removed simply because he's from a hostile country? Was the legal guardian fit?
6. Can the legal guardian override the application for asylum?

In essence, you ended up with two courts competiting for jurisdiction where the law and administrative rules of the INS were unclear. It's a legal mess of a case.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Delay is scum. And I think much of his rhetoric on the case is horrible.

That said, I don't see the similarites. In his case, the FAMILY came to a consensus. Not one person and a couple of family friends. At least by that stories account, the entire family was in on the decision.

The entire family is not ok with Terri dying and that's where the problem in this case is. This case isn't a public issue if Terri's mother and father were to have agreed with the husband that she should have the feeding tube pulled.

There are hundreds of reasons to think Delay is peice of garbage, I just don't see the similarities between these two cases as being one of them.

Well, DeLay basically equated what Schiavo's husband is doing with murder, while what he did to his own father was compassion.

The cases medically are not identical, but both involve the gut-wrenching decision to discontinue futile care to a loved-one. I find it jaw-dropping that the moral code of DeLay and his supporters is so convoluted that they cannot or will not see the similarities.

[Blackadar]

Interesting article on CNN regarding the dispute between Michael and the Schindlers.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/28/sc....ap/index.html

Very sad. My $.02.

1. In the malpractice suit, the Schindlers had nothing bad to say about Michael. Now that was under OATH - "so swear you God". Now they publicly crucify him, suggesting that he is a wife-beating, cheating, money-grubbing death vulture who will dance on the grave of his soon-to-be-deceased wife. Interesting change of opinion.

2. The timing of their dispute coincides with the award of the malpractice money in 1993. This is the timing of their petition to get custody of their daughter. Since that time, the Schindlers' statements and actions have become more and more antagonistic toward Michael. If this dispute is ultimately fueled from their desire for settlement money, then I hope there's a special place in Hell reserved for the Schindlers.

3. The court filing regarding the burial/cremation of Terri is yet more evidence that the Schindlers are so over-the-top of their hatred that they'll sue over anything. Whether you agree with the Schindlers or with Michael, once she's gone it's up to him to decide how and where she's buried.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Hey, I'm all for showing pictures of what she looks like. Give us the Terry-cam. However, if it were allowed, I'm afraid all the support for letting her die would probably evaporate -- "OH MY, look at that! I didn't realize... *Horror* we need to find a better way to do this."

It's kind of like photos of what the fetus looks like after an abortion. It's kind of hard to argue the pro-choice side of things when people are looking at pics of chopped up arms, legs and other body parts in a bloody tray.

Actually, I am pro choice because of those pics of chopped up arms, legs and other body parts.

I'm dead serious here. I find that those displaying these pictures, often where children have to view them are abhorrant freaks who it's impossible for me to accept as anything but savage nutjobs. Hey, at least they're not shooting people but they are traumatizing the children who have zero to do with the issue.

If they would take reasonable precautions to make the material only accessable to adults it would be one thing but they take great pride in not doing that.

So the way I see it, these freaks want to bring more children into the world so they have more prey to terrorize with their freaky fetishes. Don't get me wrong, I believe that they very much enjoy these photos and far from being disgusted, I feel they secretly get off on them. It's a form of empowerment.

This final view is from talking to the ones who would set up every day on a road I'd take and which was taken by many local busses carrying children of all ages.

So, when I see pics of chopped up arms, legs and other body parts, I can only hope that the murdered child was going to grow up to be one of these freaks and if we're very, very lucky, one day they'll be extinct and we can hold a reasoned, rational discussion on the issue and then MAYBE I will be able to side with the antiabortion folks. Until then, it only strengthens my resolve to be pro choice.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Actually, I am pro choice because of those pics of chopped up arms, legs and other body parts.

Yeah, as a marketing tool, the protestors probably ought to rethink the body part pictures. They get the same response from the general public as anti-war protestors get when they unfurl the dead Iraqi children pictures...

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Actually, I'm just curious how ANYONE can look at an emaciated human being and see "beauty and peace." I think it's a fair question....does he feel that way when he looks at other starving people?

I won't claim to have all of the facts, but don't they have her on a lot of drugs at the same time? Various news reports I've been listening to talked about the fact that she is starving, but she can't feel it. I'm not sure where the "beauty" comes from, but "peace" could be valid if there is really no pain or discomfort.

[flere-imsaho]

List of Schiavo Donors Will Be Sold by Direct-Marketing Firm

The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.

"These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri," says a description of the list on the Web site of the firm, Response Unlimited, which is asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Ms. Schiavo's father. "These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life, adamantly oppose euthanasia and are pro-life in every sense of the word!"

Privacy experts said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable, if ghoulish.

"I think it's amusing," said Robert Gellman, a privacy and information policy consultant. "I think it's absolutely classic America. Everything is for sale in America, every type of personal information."

Executives of Response Unlimited declined to comment. Gary McCullough, director of the Christian Communication Network and a spokesman for Ms. Schiavo's parents, confirmed that Mr. Schindler had agreed to let Response Unlimited rent out the list as part of a deal for the firm to send an e-mail solicitation raising money on the family's behalf.

The Schindlers have waged a lengthy legal battle against their son-in-law Michael Schiavo to prevent the removal of the feeding tube from their daughter, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state.

Mr. McCullough said he was present when Mr. Schindler agreed to the arrangement in a conversation with Phil Sheldon, the co-founder of a conservative online marketing organization, RightMarch.com, who acted as a broker for Response Unlimited.

"So the Schindlers do know the details," Mr. McCullough said on Monday. How much attention they paid to the matter is hard to assess, he added. "The Schindlers right now know that their daughter is starving to death, and if I ask about anything else, they say, 'I don't want to hear about it.' "

Direct mail and mass e-mailings are ubiquitous fund-raising tools of interest groups on the left as well as the right, and others in the direct-mail business defended the sale of lists like the roster of donors to the Schindlers as a useful way for potential donors to learn of causes that might appeal to them.

Pamela Hennessy, an unpaid spokeswoman for the Schindlers, said she was initially appalled when she learned of the list's existence.

"It is possibly the most distasteful thing I have ever seen," Ms. Hennessy said. "Everybody is making a buck off of her."

Ms. Hennessy, who operates the Schindlers' Web site, www.terrisfight.org, said the family had not released any of the names or e-mail addresses gathered there. "Obviously these people are enterprising, and they are taking advantage of this very desperate father," she said.

On Sunday, as the Schindlers gave up on their legal battle and their daughter passed her 10th day without food, others continued to rally supporters and solicit money in an effort to restore the feeding tube.

"This time, we have a real chance to break through the 'roadblocks' that the enemies of life have been putting up in front of us," said a mass e-mailing from RightMarch.com, asking supporters to urge Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene somehow.

The message added: "We're asking you to give a donation to help with our activism efforts to save Terri's life. Battles cost money; resources cost money; media costs money; we could go on, but you get the picture."

Mr. Sheldon - whose father, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, has also sent appeals urging support for Ms. Schiavo - apparently played a dual role as a partner in RightMarch.com, which is working with the anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, and as a broker for Response Unlimited. Mr. Sheldon did not respond to phone calls yesterday.

"I think it sounds a little unusual right now because of the situation where she is in the process of dying," said Richard Viguerie, another major conservative direct-mail operator. "If you came across this information six months or a year from now, I don't think you would give it too much thought."

[jeff061]

I don't get how anyone could side with the parents in this, which should speak of my views on religion. I've been biting my lip since I usually turn into a Bubba Wheels arguing the other side, and just piss people off.

Still, the peace and beauty thing is stupid. She looks like she is dying, no one in this world would believe otherwise.

[SunDancer]

And everyone jumps on the husband for his "motives", and yet everyone doesn't take a close look at the parents.

[clintl]

Although I think the courts have ruled correctly, until now, I had sympathy for the Schindlers. Allowing the sale of donors' info, though, is beyond reprehensible.

[Neon_Chaos]

I say that if you're going to kill her, at least do it now. Don't put her body through the torture of starvation.

[NoMyths]

There is a difference between killing a person and letting a person die. I'm...disquited...by the amount of people supporting the parents' position who seem to either want her artificially kept alive or murdered, rather than letting death happen naturally.

In fact, I'm wondering if there isn't more to the idea of this fear of natural death that ties into this situation, and especially the religious aspects.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

There is a difference between killing a person and letting a person die. I'm...disquited...by the amount of people supporting the parents' position who seem to either want her artificially kept alive or murdered, rather than letting death happen naturally.

In fact, I'm wondering if there isn't more to the idea of this fear of natural death that ties into this situation, and especially the religious aspects.

I'm more concerned by the "Right to Life" people sending death threats to the husband and judge. What the heck is that?

[Flasch186]

Fear the KKK member in a suit before you worry about the KKK member in sheets....

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

There is a difference between killing a person and letting a person die. I'm...disquited...by the amount of people supporting the parents' position who seem to either want her artificially kept alive or murdered, rather than letting death happen naturally.

In fact, I'm wondering if there isn't more to the idea of this fear of natural death that ties into this situation, and especially the religious aspects.

So basically, by NOT feeding a helpless person, it absolves them of her death? By NOT sticking the feeding tube in, and KNOWING that that person is going to die because of not having the feeding tube... what difference does it make from administering a lethal injection? It's the same thing. Jeez.

She's going to die anyway, why prolong the agony. The husband wants his wife dead, the courts agreed with him, so let's do it... fuck all this waiting for her to die naturally, she's going to die anyway. I am personally disgusted by all the waiting for her to die "naturally". It's like she hasn't suffered enough. End it already.