Congress & Schiavo

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Where did you hear the rumor that the husband might've been involved. Considering your other comments I wonder if it wasn't "fair and balanced" or perhaps just fit in nicely with your deck of cards.

I originally heard it on the Miami local news earlier this year. I've also heard it discussed on various local talk radio stations. Did a quick scan and found this article on the net...




There is a new dimension in the fierce battle over whether Terri Schiavo's life is worth saving. A federally funded investigation has begun into certain medical judgments made by her husband and guardian, Michael Schiavo, including decisions in recent months. But more important is whether the inquiry will discover what actually caused Terri Schiavo's alleged cardiac arrest in 1990, which is said to be the reason her brain was deprived of oxygen, resulting in her condition for the past 13 years.
The degree to which this investigation is widely reported by the media may help determine whether Terri Schiavo lives or dies. Her husband is in court again to demand that her feeding tube be removed once more.

If the courts continue to support the husband, she may die before the investigation is completed. But even in that case, the results may lead to a change of state laws that could save other lives.

Conducting the investigation is the Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities (ACPD). Its website says it is "Florida's protection and advocacy program for persons with disabilities." As reported by Jeff Johnson on cnsnews.com (October 29), the agency has, according to its website, "the authority to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect when reported if there is probable cause to believe the incidents occurred."

As Jeff Johnson writes, "How quickly ACPD makes a determination will depend on how difficult it is for the agency to gain access to Mrs. Schiavo's medical records and to the people it needs to interview on both sides of the legal battle."

I have learned that ACPD has sent Michael Schiavo's lawyer a request that he authorize the release of Terri Schiavo's medical records. There was initial resistance, but the records have been turned over.

What gives this investigation the potential for a dramatic reassessment of previous court decisions on the legitimacy of Michael Schiavo's guardianship is in the lead of Jeff Johnson's story: "The Schindler family [Terri Schiavo's parents, who are fighting for her life] has found a new ally in the battle—one it did not seek out—in the person of a famed New York forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden." Former chief medical examiner for the city of New York and co-director of the Medicolegal Investigation Unit of the New York State Police, Dr. Baden is often quoted in news reports and interviewed on television.

In one such interview on Fox News Channel's On the Record With Greta Van Susteren, I heard Baden agree with a panel of lawyers that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state, and will not recover. But on a subsequent October 24 appearance on that program, Dr. Baden had a different perspective on the origins of the Terri Schiavo case.

Baden had now seen a 1991 bone-scan report that cast considerable doubt on a claim in Michael Schiavo's successful medical malpractice suit, that Terri's brain injury was caused by a potassium imbalance that led to a heart attack depriving her brain of oxygen.

Dr. Baden, who has written three books on forensic pathology, told Van Susteren: "It's extremely rare for a 20-year-old to have a cardiac arrest from low potassium who has no other diseases . . . which she doesn't have. . . . The reason that she's in the state she's in is because there was a period of time, maybe five or eight minutes, when not enough oxygen was going to her brain. That can happen because the heart stops for five or eight minutes, but she had a healthy heart from what we can see." (Emphasis added).

Dr. Baden then addressed the 1991 bone-scan report on Terri Schiavo, which was completed on March 5 of that year by Dr. W. Campbell Walker in order to "evaluate for trauma" that may have been caused by a suspected "closed head injury." In the report, Walker wrote:

"This patient has a history of trauma. The presumption is that the other multiple areas of trauma also relate to previous trauma." (Emphasis added).

Here we get to what focused Dr. Baden's attention. On cnsnews.com, Jeff Johnson reported, "Walker listed apparent injuries to the ribs, thoracic vertebrae, both sacroiliac joints, both ankles and both knees."

In his interview with Greta Van Susteren, Dr. Baden noted "that the bone scan describes her having a head injury . . . and head injury can lead to the 'vegetative state' that Mrs. Schiavo is in now."

But, Baden continued, the bone scan "does show evidence that there are other injuries, other bone fractures that are in a healing stage [in 1991]."

Those injuries could have happened, Baden continued, from "some kind of trauma. The trauma could be from an auto accident, the trauma could be from a fall, or the trauma could be from some kind of beating that she obtained from somebody somewhere. It's something that should have been investigated in 1991 . . . and maybe [it was] by police at that time." (Emphasis added).

Why not see if there was a police report on those traumas to Terri in 1990? The Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities should look into this during its investigation of possible incidents of abuse and neglect of Terri. Moreover, Pamela Hennessy, spokesperson for Terri's parents and her brother, told cnsnews.com, "This is what the family and their doctors have been saying for a number of years."

I asked Hennessy to clarify that statement. "From the beginning," she told me, "they had serious doubts as to the reason for Terri's collapse. Then, when they first heard about the bone-scan report in November of last year, they tried to file a report with the police on a possible battery on Terri. But the police wouldn't help them."

The family believes that after Terri and her husband had a violent argument earlier on the evening she collapsed, Terri might have been strangled later that night. Says Pat Anderson, the lawyer for Terri's parents:

"Governor Jeb Bush should order the state-wide prosecutor of Florida to convene a jury to investigate all of this." And the Advocacy Center for Persons With Disability has that 1991 bone-scan report. Will the courts wait for the investigations—or hurry to send her into eternity? Should Michael Schiavo have the guardianship power to terminate her?

link=hxxp://www.villagevoice.com/news/0347,hentoff,48738,6.html

[Jesse_Ewiak]

In side news, from dailykos about the fact the vast majority of people seeing this a political power play by DeLay and friends...

ABC News (PDF). 3/20. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines.)

Removal of feeding tube

Support 63
Oppose 28

Federal Intervention

Support 35
Oppose 60

Appropriate for Congress to get involved?

Appropriate 27
Not Appropriate 70

Reason political leaders are trying to keep Shiavo alive

Concern about Shiavo 19
Political Advantage 67

Even among evangelicals, 46 percent support removal of the feeding tube, as opposed to 44 percent who oppose. Conservatives support removal of the feeding tube 54-40.

So really, this isn't even a conservative crusade, as the genuine conservative is probably offended by the rejection of state rights and the intrusion of the government into a private family affair. Not to mention some conservatives are probably offended for using public (taxpayer) funds to pay for her hospitalization. (Remember, Bush signed a law in Texas allowing hospitals to pull the plug against a family's wishes if the change for recovery was non-existent.)

So this spectacle is done on behalf of the evangelical bloc, and even they oppose federal intervention 44-50 percent (in addition to narrowly supporting the removal of the feeding tube, as noted above). Catholics support removing the feeding tube 63-26, and oppose federal intervention 38-56.

These numbers are unambigious, even after a week of media demonizing of Terri's husband. DeLay's and Frist's crass political play is obvious to just about everyone.

[JeffNights]

Yeah, that site is PURELY bi-partisan too.

Whatever.

[Easy Mac]

The law as passed by Congress, its a bit too vague and general for me:

The “compromise bill” shown below was introduced on Saturday, March 19, 2005, passed by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on Sunday, March 20, 2005, and signed into law by President Bush early Monday morning on March 21, 2005.

According to lawyers for Terri Schiavo’s parents, the Bill is similar to a U.S. Senate Bill passed on Thursday “tailored to give the Federal District Court jurisdiction in the Schiavo case,” while the Bill originally proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives “sought broader legislation.”

---

AN ACT

For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--

• (1) to assisting suicide, or
  (2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self- Determination Act of 1990.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Originally Posted by JeffNights

Yeah, that site is PURELY bi-partisan too.

Whatever.

Jeff, it's from an ABC News poll. The site I got it from just means I'm a dirty, filthy commie, not the poll results. :-)

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by JeffNights

Yeah, that site is PURELY bi-partisan too.

Whatever.

Well... then that throws out 100% of all polls done... you know what, the election is hardly non-partisan, lets throw it out

If you can't refute the facts, just refute the source

[duckman]

Does anybody know where we can find who voted on the bill?

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by duckman

Does anybody know where we can find who voted on the bill?

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues...&congress=1091

[Easy Mac]

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 90 (Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
S 686 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 21-Mar-2005 12:45 AM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
BILL TITLE: For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Republican	156	5		71
Democratic	47	53		102
Independent				1
TOTALS	203	58		174

---- YEAS 203 ---

Aderholt Akin Alexander Baca Bachus Baird Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett (MD) Bass Bean Beauprez Berry Biggert Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Boren Brady (PA) Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp Cannon Cantor Capito Carter Chabot Chandler Chocola Cole (OK) Conaway Costello Cox Cramer Crenshaw Cuellar Culberson Cummings Davis (KY) Davis (TN) Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Tom DeLay Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Edwards Ehlers Emerson Engel English (PA) Etheridge Fattah Feeney Ferguson Fitzpatrick (PA) Foley Forbes Ford

Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Franks (AZ) Garrett (NJ) Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Goode Goodlatte Graves Green (WI) Green, Al Hall Harris Hart Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herseth Higgins Hobson Holden Hulshof Inglis (SC) Istook Jackson (IL) Jenkins Jindal Johnson (IL) Jones (NC) Kanjorski Kelly Kennedy (MN) Kildee King (IA) Kingston Kirk Kline Kuhl (NY) LaHood Langevin Latham Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lucas Lynch Mack Manzullo Marchant Marshall Matheson McCaul (TX) McCotter McHenry McHugh McIntyre McNulty Meek (FL) Melancon

Michaud Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Mollohan Murphy Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Ney Northup Nussle Oberstar Otter Pearce Pence Peterson (PA) Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Pomeroy Porter Portman Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Ramstad Regula Rehberg Renzi Rogers (AL) Ros-Lehtinen Ross Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Saxton Schwarz (MI) Scott (GA) Sensenbrenner Serrano Sherwood Simpson Skelton Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Snyder Sodrel Souder Stupak Sullivan Tancredo Tanner Taylor (NC) Terry Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walsh Wamp Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Westmoreland Whitfield Wilson (SC) Wynn

---- NAYS 58 ---

Baldwin Berkley Bishop (NY) Brown-Waite, Ginny Butterfield Capuano Cardin Carnahan Carson Castle Clay Cleaver Clyburn Conyers Davis (FL) Dent Dicks Doyle Evans Frank (MA)

Gutierrez Hastings (FL) Holt Hoyer Israel Kaptur Kennedy (RI) Larson (CT) Levin Lewis (GA) Matsui McDermott McKinney Miller (NC) Moran (VA) Murtha Nadler Olver Pallone Pascrell

Payne Price (NC) Reichert Rothman Schiff Schwartz (PA) Scott (VA) Shays Spratt Strickland Thompson (MS) Van Hollen Visclosky Wasserman Schultz Watt Weiner Wexler Wu

---- NOT VOTING 174 ---

Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Barton (TX) Becerra Berman Bishop (UT) Blumenauer Boehlert Bonilla Bono Boozman Boswell Boucher Boustany Boyd Bradley (NH) Brady (TX) Brown (OH) Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Capps Cardoza Case Coble Cooper Costa Crowley Cubin Cunningham Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Deal (GA) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dingell Doggett Emanuel Eshoo Everett Farr Filner Flake Frelinghuysen Gallegly Gerlach Gibbons Gonzalez Gordon Granger Green, Gene Grijalva Gutknecht Harman

Herger Hinchey Hinojosa Hoekstra Honda Hooley Hostettler Hunter Hyde Inslee Issa Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (CT) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones (OH) Keller Kilpatrick (MI) Kind King (NY) Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Lantos Larsen (WA) LaTourette Lee Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lungren, Daniel E. Maloney Markey McCarthy McCollum (MN) McCrery McGovern McKeon McMorris Meehan Meeks (NY) Menendez Mica Millender-McDonald Miller, Gary Miller, George Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (KS) Napolitano Neal (MA) Norwood Nunes Obey Ortiz Osborne Owens Oxley

Pastor Paul Pelosi Peterson (MN) Petri Pombo Radanovich Rahall Rangel Reyes Reynolds Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Roybal-Allard Royce Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sabo Salazar Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanders Schakowsky Sessions Shadegg Shaw Sherman Shimkus Shuster Simmons Slaughter Smith (WA) Solis Stark Stearns Sweeney Tauscher Taylor (MS) Thomas Thompson (CA) Tierney Towns Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Velázquez Walden (OR) Waters Watson Waxman Weller Wicker Wilson (NM) Wolf Woolsey Young (AK) Young (FL)

[duckman]

Originally Posted by yabanci

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues...&congress=1091

Thanks.

I'm very suprised by the number of Democrats that voted. I'm assuming that they are more moderate than those that voted 'nay'. It also makes me wonder what their political motivation is.

Personally, I don't think that the federal government should be involved in this matter. Although I don't agree with it, I believe that the family failed to show the burden of proof necessary to keep her alive. I equate this a putting an animal to "sleep", but I don't make the rules. *shurgs*

[ISiddiqui]

Pressed by Whittemore to cite any case law to support his argument, Gibbs admitted he could not think of any.

LOL! That'll win you the case .

[SunDancer]

What exactly happens if the judge rules in favor of the husband?

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Maybe Republicans will go The Hague, that'd be funny.

[larrymcg421]

Actually, if the judge rules in favor of the husband, this still won't be over. There will likely be an appeal to a federal appeals court and back to the Supreme Court. Since the bill made this a matter of federal jurisdiction that will change the factors of the appeal. However, a new factor of the appeal will be if the law that placed this in federal jurisdiction is even constitutional. It could get pretty complicated. A temporary order to re-insert the feeding tube would not surprise me. It could be a long time before this is all over.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Maybe Republicans will go The Hague, that'd be funny.

Last I checked, a percentage of Dems voted on this measure and many abstain, too. They're just as guilty of pushing this into the federal system as it is the Republicans.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

What exactly happens if the judge rules in favor of the husband?

The parents will seek appellate review and the obvious problem will be time. There are a couple of ways they could go.

The typical approach would be to appeal to the 11th circuit with a request for an emergency mandatory injunction requiring the hospice to reinsert the feeding tube pending resolution of the appeal, then if they lose there they would appeal to the supreme court. But to obtain such an injunction, the parents would have to show, inter alia, a likelihood of success on the merits. Considering their lawyers "can't think of any" legal precedent that supports their due process claims, that might be difficult. Moreover, mandatory injunctions, as opposed to prohibitory injunctions, are very difficult to obtain, especially when you are trying to mandate cutting someone open to stuff tubes inside their body.

Given the extraordinary circumstances of this case and the difficulty they might have in obtaining an injunction, the parents probably would be better off bypassing the 11th circuit and directly petitioning the supreme court for what's called certiorari before judgment, a procedure that is extremely rare but can be used in circumstances where a final decision absolutely must be made immediately.

[stevew]

What if the father just killed the Husband. Wouldnt that make his wife the guardian?

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by stevew

What if the father just killed the Husband. Wouldnt that make his wife the guardian?

I got a feeling that the hubby might have alot of secruity. He's got alot of anti-protestors outside his home, and I'm sure some of them are looney enough to make threats.

Thanks for the clear yabanci. I just am not sure on the legal system in this case. Haven't this already gone to the Supreme Court?

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

....Thanks for the clear yabanci. I just am not sure on the legal system in this case. Haven't this already gone to the Supreme Court?

Yes, the US Supreme Court already has deneid certiorari three times.

In fact, their last petition to the US Supreme Court (March 16) was based entirely on the argument that "both Petitioners and their daughter, Terri Schiavo herself, have been denied federal due process and equal protection rights by the Florida courts..." (paragraph 8), an argument that, of course, was rejected but is now being regurgitated before the district court under the new statute.

[miked]

Originally Posted by JeffNights

Yeah, that site is PURELY bi-partisan too.

Whatever.

FWIW, almost all polls are the same. The conservative Fox News poll says:

"Nearly six in ten Americans (59 percent) say that as Schiavo's guardian they would remove her feeding tube, while 24 percent would keep the tube inserted and 17 percent are uncertain which action they would take. These numbers remain virtually unchanged from a previous FOX poll in which 61 percent of Americans said they would remove the tube and 22 percent said they would not, with 17 percent unsure (October 2003)."

Also the same in CNN, ABCNews, MSNBC, whatever polls. I don't know who the policians are playing to since over half the country believes it's the spouse who is the legal guardian and they would have done the same thing.

Edit: 75% say that if it were them in the same state as Terri Schiavo, they would want the tube removed as well. The main thing skewing the guardianship polls is the married/unmarried population. Obviously the married population thinks the decisions should be left to the spouse, opposite to unmarried people.

[oliegirl]

Judge ruled against the parents, must have come down late last night...this is from the AP website

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...O&SECTION=HOME

Judge Won't Order Schiavo Tube Reinserted

By VICKIE CHACHERE
Associated Press Writer





TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- A federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, denying an emergency request from the brain-damaged woman's parents.

U.S. District Judge James Whittemore said the 41-year-old woman's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments.

Whittemore wrote that Schiavo's "life and liberty interests" had been protected by Florida courts. Despite "these difficult and time strained circumstances," he wrote, "this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it."

Rex Sparklin, an attorney with the law firm representing Terri Schiavo's parents, said lawyers were immediately appealing to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to "save Terri's life." That court was already considering an appeal on whether Terri Schiavo's right to due process had been violated.



Advertisement



Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, praised the ruling: "What this judge did is protect the freedom of people to make their own end-of-life decisions without the intrusion of politicians."

Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo's brother, said his family was crushed. "To have to see my parents go through this is absolutely barbaric," he told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday. "I'd love for these judges to sit in a room and see this happening as well."

Whittemore's decision comes after feverish action by President Bush and Congress on legislation allowing the brain-damaged woman's contentious case to be reviewed by federal courts.

The tube was disconnected Friday on the orders of a state judge, prompting an extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation Monday aimed at keeping her alive.

AP VIDEO

Fate of Terri Schiavo Rests With Judge




Audio
At least one expert says Congress has set a dangerous precedent in passing legislation in the Terri Schiavo (SHY'-voh) case.





PHOTO GALLERY

Terri Schiavo Case




Latest News
Judge Won't Order Schiavo Tube Reinserted
Experts: Schiavo's Death Would Be Peaceful

Faith Traditions Differ on Schiavo Ethics

Doctors in Congress Criticized on Schiavo

Bush Laws in Schiavo Case, Texas at Odds

Poll: Congress Should Sit Out Schiavo Case

Vegetative State Can Give False Hope

Morality, Politics Bubble Up Over Schiavo

Judge in Schiavo Case a Clinton Appointee

Terri Schiavo: a Look at a Complex Case









Gov. Jeb Bush was described by a spokeswoman as "extremely disappointed and saddened" over the judge's decision not to order the tube reconnected. "Gov. Bush will continue to do what he legally can within his powers to protect Terri Shiavo, a vulnerable person," said the spokeswoman, Alia Faraj.

Terri Schiavo did not have a living will. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, has fought in courts for years to have the tube removed because he said she would not want to be kept alive artificially and she has no hope for recovery. Her parents contend she responds to them and her condition could improve.

David Gibbs III, the parents' attorney, argued at a Monday hearing in front of Whittemore that forcing Terri Schiavo to starve would be "a mortal sin" under her Roman Catholic beliefs and urged quick action: "Terri may die as I speak."

But George Felos, an attorney for Michael Schiavo, argued that keeping the woman alive also violated her rights and noted that the case has been aired thoroughly in state courts.

"Yes, life is sacred," Felos said, contending that restarting artificial feedings would be against Schiavo's wishes. "So is liberty, particularly in this country."

Michael Schiavo said he was outraged that lawmakers and the president intervened in a private matter. "When Terri's wishes are carried out, it will be her wish. She will be at peace. She will be with the Lord," he said on CNN's "Larry King Live" late Monday.

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a possible potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.

Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, while her parents insist she could recover with treatment. Doctors have said Schiavo could survive one to two weeks without the feeding tube.

According to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 909 adults taken over the weekend, nearly six in 10 people said they think the feeding tube should be removed and felt they would want to remove it for a child or spouse in the same condition.

On Tuesday, reaction to the judge's decision from the handful of protesters outside the woman's hospice came quickly. "It's terrible. They're going to talk and talk and she's going to die," said Miriam Zlotolow, 59, of Venice, Calif.

[Peregrine]

Well the federal judge has refused to reinstate her feeding tube. My guess it's going to the next step, 11th Circuit Appeals court.

[SFL Cat]

It won't matter soon. It's been four days now.

How about some of you in favor of this death sentence going without food and water for four days. Then you can let us know what a pleasant experience it is. Who knows, maybe by then you will have reached that "euphoric" state all the experts are talking about.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

It won't matter soon. It's been four days now.

How about some of you in favor of this death sentence going without food and water for four days. Then you can let us know what a pleasant experience it is. Who knows, maybe by then you will have reached that "euphoric" state all the experts are talking about.

On ething I will agree with is that while someone is determining her fate, ie. the judges, the tube should've been reinstated. Its ridiculous to be handling her fate while her fate is happening already.

SFL - I noticed a bunch of references to Baden's appearances on Fox News, and well, Fox News certainly wasn't going to bring Baden back if his story didn't change. I find it far fetched, a reach, HOWEVER, if the organization in the first part of the story (before it got skewed by the Fox stuff) has a responsibility to look into abuse/negligence so be it....have at it. The guy turned over the records feel free to look into it as much as you want BUT I guarantee (much like any court case out there) that they will be able to find any investigator, expert or not, who fits what they need.

[miked]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

It won't matter soon. It's been four days now.

How about some of you in favor of this death sentence going without food and water for four days. Then you can let us know what a pleasant experience it is. Who knows, maybe by then you will have reached that "euphoric" state all the experts are talking about.

Dude, go roll one up and relax. Nobody said it was a pleasant experience or anything. In fact, over 60% of Americans agree with the decision and would want the same thing done for themselves. If you are going to put forth rational debate and arguments, that's fine...if you are going to whine like a baby and make sensationalist statements, go sell it on GOP.com or somewhere else people want to hear rhetoric like that.

[SFL Cat]

hey miked, how long could you go without food and water before you cried like a little girl?

[SFL Cat]

dola...like I said earlier...you want her dead, just let someone put a couple of bullets in her head. Probably much more humane IMO.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

How about some of you in favor of this death sentence going without food and water for four days. Then you can let us know what a pleasant experience it is. Who knows, maybe by then you will have reached that "euphoric" state all the experts are talking about.

It's not my fault that the government wouldn't allow more humane forms of euthenasia in these instances.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's not my fault that the government wouldn't allow more humane forms of euthenasia in these instances.

But despite this fact, you're still in favor of how it's going down, right! The tube is out...she's got a week....maybe two, then Michael Schiavo can pop some bubbly and "move on with his life".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

But despite this fact, you're still in favor of how it's going down, right! The tube is out...she's got a week....maybe two, then Michael Schiavo can pop some bubbly and "move on with his life".

You're a sick person.

[SFL Cat]

gee slick, coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.

[Peregrine]

SFL Cat, if it was legal to give her the same painless injection they give to death row inmates, would that be less objectionable to you? Ask yourself, are you really objecting to her being starved to death (as opposed to other forms of death) or is this just a sensationalist way of couching your argument against this whole thing?

[SFL Cat]

Much less objectionable.

However, as long as the family is willing to assume responsibility for her care, I think they should be allowed to. I think this whole situation is much more of a case of MS's spite against the family than honoring his wife's wish not to live in such a state. But that's just my opinion.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Much less objectionable.

However, as long as the family is willing to assume responsibility for her care, I think they should be allowed to. I think this whole situation is much more of a case of MS's spite against the family than honoring his wife's wish not to live in such a state. But that's just my opinion.

Yes, we understand your opinion.

Now 12 different court cases have ruled the exact opposite. I'm much more inclined to beleive the rulings of repeated (informed) judges over your (uninformed) opinion.

And your statement about "Michael Schiavo popping some bubbly" at his wife's death shows how deluded you really are. You're much like Farrah - you've demonized this guy with a total disregard for the facts. Frankly, you should be ashamed. As the good book says, judge not....

[SFL Cat]

I would say people like you are the deluded ones.

We don't starve-to-death the worst scum of the Earth -- that's too inhumane.

Here we have a husband who hasn't really been a husband for a long time -- complete with a live-in girlfriend and two children to boot -- grounds for divorce in any state I know about -- and yet the court still considers him worthy to be the guardian of Terri -- go figure.

Yes, the courts have ruled -- and to liberals, there is nothing more sacred than the almighty and infalliable judiciary. We'll just overlook how the highest court in the land once upheld slavery, and how it recently went shopping internationally to find a legal precedent to overturn the death sentence for Lee Boyd Malvo since he was a minor. You libs are the true hypocrites. You yell and scream about the Republicans in Congress trying to usurp "state rights," but you have no problems when the non-elected judiciary does the same thing, esecially if it lines up your agenda.

[cartman]

Differing opinions are exactly the reason we have judges and rule of law. A judge is supposed to hear both sides of a case (the plaintiff's and defendant's opinons), and make a determination based on the testimony and applicable laws and rulings. And because the judge is only one person, there are appeals processes to decided if the judge made any errors in his determination.

What make this case differnent than most is the level of emotions involved. But again, that is why we have the judicial system. As the saying goes, "Lady Justice is blind". This means that the judges have to throw out emotional pleas and make their decisions, popular or not, on the established rule of law and previous legal precedents.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Yes, the courts have ruled -- and to liberals, there is nothing more sacred than the almighty and infalliable judiciary. We'll just overlook how the highest court in the land once upheld slavery, and how it recently went shopping internationally to find a legal precedent to overturn the death sentence for Lee Boyd Malvo since he was a minor. You libs are the true hypocrites. You yell and scream about the Republicans in Congress trying to usurp "state rights," but you have no problems when the non-elected judiciary does the same thing, esecially if it lines up your agenda.

Oh the irony - you want to blame judicial "activism" for slavery now ? If it was your way and people like you, Brown vs Board of Education would have been turned down. And for what its worth, the last 2 judges to preside on this have been Republicans. Stop making this a liberal issue just because you have nowhere else to turn to- its a rights issue.

[SFL Cat]

dola...and for your info...the book you refer to doesn't say not to judge...
it simply says that the same measure you use to judge others will be used to judge you...

If you condemn someone for something you yourself do, then you deserve every stone that comes your way.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Yes, we understand your opinion.

Now 12 different court cases have ruled the exact opposite. I'm much more inclined to beleive the rulings of repeated (informed) judges over your (uninformed) opinion.

And your statement about "Michael Schiavo popping some bubbly" at his wife's death shows how deluded you really are. You're much like Farrah - you've demonized this guy with a total disregard for the facts. Frankly, you should be ashamed. As the good book says, judge not....

I thought you said not to use the term "good book" as it could tick people off....I guess i can use it now too.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

dola...and for your info...the book you refer to doesn't say not to judge...
it simply says that the same measure you use to judge others will be used to judge you...

If you condemn someone for something you yourself do, then you deserve every stone that comes your way.

you sure about that?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

personal attack and garbage - its a rights issue.

Who's rights?

[SFL Cat]

Matthew 7: 1-5

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

***3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[NoMyths]

Not too sure about that translation there, boss.

[Arles]

I've been following this thread pretty closely and completely understand that the courts have sided with Michael on the issue of Terri's guardian and wishes. But, I have a slightly different question. I'm trying to put myself in Michael's shoes and understand why he would fight this for years and years, always coming back to the "I just want to move on" card when pressed. I mean, why not just hand over guardianship of Terri to her family? It's not like they are a group of crack whores and pimps, these people legitimately want to try and help her and love her a great deal. If he indeed wants to move on, this seems like the best way to go for all parties involved. He would no longer have to deal with her and could move on with his new family.

I just can't imagine that she was this adament about not being kept alive to warrant this type of fight by Michael, yet never thought to put this "adament feeling" in writing. Now, I am not trying to paint the husband in a bad light here, but it seems like he is so "invested" in this process of "winning" these cases that he may have forgotton the point of this battle to begin with - end her suffering. Given how it has gone to this point (and figures to go if she gets starved to death), I don't see how his actions are decreasing the amount of suffering she does/will have. And that, IMO, would have probably been the reasoning for her to not want to be kept alive to begin with. Not that it's entirely his fault, but I think he's so vested in this case that he hasn't taken a chance to step back and re-evaluate the situation. She's obviously kept fighting to stay alive for years now in a very difficult situation. And many doctors will say that someone in her position would probably not be alive (without any traditional "life support") for this long if she did not want to live. While his original motives seem to be good, I think that given the state of things right now that he should just hand over guardienship of Terri to her family and move on with his life. That, IMO, would be the logical thing for someone to do given the desire to "move on".

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

I've been following this thread pretty closely and completely understand that the courts have sided with Michael on the issue of Terri's guardian and wishes. But, I have a slightly different question. I'm trying to put myself in Michael's shoes and understand why he would fight this for years and years, always coming back to the "I just want to move on" card when pressed. I mean, why not just hand over guardianship of Terri to her family? It's not like they are a group of crack whores and pimps, these people legitimately want to try and help her and love her a great deal. If he indeed wants to move on, this seems like the best way to go for all parties involved. He would no longer have to deal with her and could move on with his new family.

I just can't imagine that she was this adament about not being kept alive to warrant this type of fight bu Michael, yet never thought to put this in writing. Now, I am not trying to paint the husband in a bad light here, but it seems like he is so "invested" in this process of "winning" these cases that he may have forgotton the point of this battle to begin with - end her suffering. Given how it has gone to this point (and figures to go if she gets starved to death), I don't see how his actions are decreasing the amount of suffering she does/will have. Not that it's entirely his fault, but I think he's so vested in this case that he hasn't taken a chance to step back and re-evaluate the situation.

I do think you have a point there Arlie- I think its simply a case at this point of him doing what he thought (or was told) his wife would have wanted. Fundementally, we do not want the government interfering in families, and the court gambit has already been played out. If Farrah told you that you had to make sure she didnt live like that in a situtation like this, wouldnt you do your utmost to make sure her wishes were followed - through hell or high water ?

Edit: Essentialy, I do consider the possibility that it has become his personal crusade, to do what his wife wanted in the face of all opposition.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Not too sure about that translation there, boss.

NIV, boss.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I do think you have a point there Arlie- I think its simply a case at this point of him doing what he thought (or was told) his wife would have wanted. Fundementally, we do not want the government interfering in families, and the court gambit has already been played out. If Farrah told you that you had to make sure she didnt live like that in a situtation like this, wouldnt you do your utmost to make sure her wishes were followed - through hell or high water ?

Sure, but she would have also told her parents and other loved ones (as she has already). We would all probably be on the same page. But, if her mom thought there was an experimental treatment that could improve her situation and asked me to allow her to try it, I would be very hard-pressed not to let her. Again, these are her parents and people that love her just as much as I do.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

It won't matter soon. It's been four days now.

How about some of you in favor of this death sentence going without food and water for four days. Then you can let us know what a pleasant experience it is. Who knows, maybe by then you will have reached that "euphoric" state all the experts are talking about.

You're kidding right? SHE IS BRAIN DEAD!!! There is no one home. She is already dead by most standards. That is why the courts don't have a problem with terminating life support. Most likely even without the drugs they are giving her to "make her comfortable" she will be just as happy tomorrow as she was last Thursday.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

If you condemn someone for something you yourself do, then you deserve every stone that comes your way.

Then there ought to be stones thrown at the Republican party for:

1. George W. Bush signing the Texas Futile Care Law that gives hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there is no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes.

2. Congress' enthusiastic vote to cut Medicaid expenditures. A greater percentage of Terri Schiavo's care is coming from the state via medicaid as the malpractice money runs out. Speaking of which...

3. The Republican party's push for caps on malpractice awards, and the demonizing of people who seek such awards as gold diggers. That malpractice money has kept Terri Schiavo alive all these years.

4. Making it difficult for people to declare bankruptcy, and demonizing the people who do. Catastrophic medical bills are one of the chief reasons people declare bankruptcy. Say if Schiavo's parents did get to assume care of Terri, and then had to declare bankruptcy because Terri's medical bills became too much of a burden--would you turn on them then?


SFL Cat, I understand the emotions running here for the Terri Schiavo case. I can see your vehement support in favor of Schiavo's parents. However, the Republicans can never claim the moral high ground on this case, since they have made opposite policy decisions for all other people in similar situations to (but not named) Terri Schiavo.

I don't know where you stand on medicaid for the indigent, bankruptcy for people in financial distress due to medical bills, and medical malpractice. But these are real issues for people who need long term care, and a couple of these issues do have a bearing in the Schiavo case. If you actually care about people in situations like Terri Schiavo (but who don't have her level of publicity) then you will have to seriously address what Republican policies have done to make the lives of people and families like Terri Schiavo's so difficult.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

I've been following this thread pretty closely and completely understand that the courts have sided with Michael on the issue of Terri's guardian and wishes. But, I have a slightly different question. I'm trying to put myself in Michael's shoes and understand why he would fight this for years and years, always coming back to the "I just want to move on" card when pressed. I mean, why not just hand over guardianship of Terri to her family? It's not like they are a group of crack whores and pimps, these people legitimately want to try and help her and love her a great deal. If he indeed wants to move on, this seems like the best way to go for all parties involved. He would no longer have to deal with her and could move on with his new family.

I just can't imagine that she was this adament about not being kept alive to warrant this type of fight by Michael, yet never thought to put this "adament feeling" in writing. Now, I am not trying to paint the husband in a bad light here, but it seems like he is so "invested" in this process of "winning" these cases that he may have forgotton the point of this battle to begin with - end her suffering. Given how it has gone to this point (and figures to go if she gets starved to death), I don't see how his actions are decreasing the amount of suffering she does/will have. And that, IMO, would have probably been the reasoning for her to not want to be kept alive to begin with. Not that it's entirely his fault, but I think he's so vested in this case that he hasn't taken a chance to step back and re-evaluate the situation. She's obviously kept fighting to stay alive for years now in a very difficult situation. And many doctors will say that someone in her position would probably not be alive (without any traditional "life support") for this long if she did not want to live. While his original motives seem to be good, I think that given the state of things right now that he should just hand over guardienship of Terri to her family and move on with his life. That, IMO, would be the logical thing for someone to do given the desire to "move on".

1. We've covered the first paragraph already. People can question his motives all they want, but the simple answer is that he realized his wife isn't going to get better (in fact, she's gone already), he believes that she wouldn't want to live this way and is carrying out the last wishes of the woman he loved before moving on with life. This is by far the most logical explanation. I think that if there were other motives involved, he would have screwed up and given some evidence to the contrary. He hasn't.

Now you may disagree with their choices, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

2. As for the "fighting to stay alive", this is again a misconception and a difficult one for some to understand because they want to ignore the science behind her condition. Her primitive functions keep working - with the help of medical science - because that's what they do. She can no more die than you can voluntarily stop breathing. By pretty much all independent medical experts in this case, she doesn't "want" anything. "Want" would indicate some higher brain functions. She has no higher brain functions.