I hate to be the one to do this, and I can understand why no one else has yet (even aside from the probability that a lot of the people here are here specifically in order to avoid this), but time's getting pretty short and this is someplace I know of where people are reading who may not have already made up their minds. Let's just stipulate that I'm an arse for doing that, so we don't have to waste any space here establishing that. I hearby link unto:
http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/02/a_few_facts_abo.php
http://terrisfight.org
and of course, my blog - http://davemunger.blogspot.com
The whole arguement has me sick. As many have said, this is not a right to die case, it is a right to kill case. And at the risk of getting screamed at for Godwin's Law, I challenge anyone who thinks this is a right to die case to study the historical fact of the Adult Euthanasia Program that was quite active in Germany in the 1930's. One of the landmark cases that made that 'legal' was the request by two parents of a handicapped baby who claimed it had gotten too difficult to care for their child to have it 'terminated.'
I pray daily for Terri, that one way or another, not matter what mankind does (or does not do) to her, she finds peace.
I think this is definitely a right to die case. Because if I was a vegetable, I'd want to die. I love how they're writing laws for specific people now. This whole thing is absolute bulls**t. Just let the poor woman die with whatever shred of dignity she has left. It's not like she has a great quality of life. All she does is sit and drool and drain her family's bank account. I don't think any rational person would want to be kept going in such a state just to please these "Culture of Life" douchebags.
Get Your War On (www.mnftiu.cc) has a great series of comics about it in their newest update.
Post Edited (03-24-05 01:29)
I'm sorry, but the page you linked to is outright propaganda. If you want unbiased information here is a page written by an attorney who is neutral in the whole thing. Abstract Appeal (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html)
The husband is being villanized to generate sympathy. Here is a link to the Wolfson Report (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf)(the guy Jeb Bush appointed to study this case when he ordered the tube put back before). He was very sympathetic toward the entire family (including the husband). But from reading it I came to the opinion that Terri's parents have some serious psychological problems. Some of their testimony comes across as down right twisted.
This is right to die case, anyone can look at her brain scan compared to a normal one. Her cerebral cortex is gone, it's place taken by spinal fluid.
It is not uncommon for people to die from dehydration and starvation, that's what happens to most terminal cancer patients.
The Federal Government has no role in decisions like this, it is a family matter and poor Terri will end up just being remembered as political pawn for a bunch of pinhead politicians pandering to group of voters they are afraid of p**sing off. This is going to cause a huge backlash in this country against the so called Religious Right.
Please keep the discussion civil and do not post any personal attacks..
Post Edited (03-24-05 07:50)
Brother Ragnarok wrote:
> I think this is definitely a right to die case. Because if I
> was a vegetable, I'd want to die.
That's fine, if *YOU* want to make that decision. She never did, at least so there's evidence of that. Her husband only brought that up SEVEN YEARS AFTER her problems started, and this after testifying UNDER OATH in the malpractice trial that he was going to nursing school to take care of her and to the effect that he wanted his wife to live and recover.
His behavior through this whole thing is sorta suspect, or at least can be interpreted that way - and THAT, Brother R. is key to seeing the real issue here. Someone with motives that are at worst very unclear and at best are unclear is being allowed to make the decision of the life and death of another person. It is a right to kill case, not right to die, and if you don't see that, you are missing the bigger picture. (Not trying to flame, but geeez, everbody on the "Save Terri" side has said that if there only some evidence that she said she did not want to live like that, it'd be over, no arguements....but only one person is saying that, and his moral integrity in this issue is very muddled).
I love how they're writing
> laws for specific people now.
Again, you are wrong about that and are missing the bigger picture. The legislative role here is to re-establish the legislature as making law. Nowhere in the US Constitution is the court system given the power to make law. In fact, judicial review is not even in the Constitution as it is practiced today; that was a power usurped (to use that fun word) by the court in the Marbury v Madison case.
Judge Greer ruled Terri has a "right to die" when there is NO LAW IN FLORIDA governing how these decisions are made when the person, formerly an adult of sound mind, has made no legal statement on the matter. Wills and living wills have to meet certain legal requirements to be considered binding, and not just the word of "oh I heard her say so while watching tv one night." In effect, Jugde Greer made law from the bench, and in our system of government, that is a power not granted to him by the Constitution of the US or of the State of Florida.
This issue is much bigger than Terri, so any legislation passed to help save her will be a check on an out-of-control judiciary that WILL effect us all by re-establishing the government as the founders designed.
> This whole thing is absolute
> bulls**t.
I'll agree with this, but for different reasons. :)
> Just let the poor woman die with whatever shred of
> dignity she has left. It's not like she has a great quality of
> life. All she does is sit and drool and drain her family's
> bank account.
Uh, again, you don't know that. She has responded to what very little bit of therapy she has received. Also, there was, just a couple of weeks ago, a lady whole recovered from an 'unrecoverable state' after 20 years. There are many medical experts who have claimed she CAN recover with the proper therapy.
Also, you have to understand that the diagnosis "persistant vegatative state" is not precise. 50% of the time, historically, that diagnosis has been wrong, and the patient recovered. Um, 50%? That sounds like a guess.
And, just for the record, so what? If it is her family's bank account, and they want to foot the bill, why is that any of your business? I turn it around on you, sir, why are *YOU* so anxious to kill her in this "culture of death"? Seems like a private matter to me. Her hubby does not want to pay for the care she needs; her parents do? what's the problem with that?
I don't think any rational person would want to
> be kept going in such a state just to please these "Culture of
> Life" douchebags.
First of all, again, that's fine. Then let any rational person, while they are rational, create a legal instrument to that effect so that if they become non-rational, it can be shown what their rational wishes are.
Finally, I feel so sorry for you, really, that you think that peope who think others should be allowed to live are douchbags. How sad.
The problem I have with the lawyer's blog you linked to is that he, as a lawyer, puts 100% faith in the court in general, and Judge Greer in particular. Because Judge Greer ruled a certain way, it has to be right.
Sorry, but I don't buy that. Not in this case, not in any other case.
There is and was no law in Florida governing how to handle a case like this. So, our entire social outlook falls on the lap of one man - Greer.
That is not representative government. I disagree with Greer's position for one key reason. It is far better, for individuals and society as a whole, to err on the side of the 'victim' than to push new agenda.
The proper course of action, Constitutionally, if you want the government involved, would be to write the legislative representative to create a bill saying "a husband has sole right to decide to deny care to a wife if" certain conditions exist, etc. Then it gets debated, other citizens can have a say (by writing or calling their representatives), and the decision represents the will of the people.
Then, if Terri's parents tried to forcably block the removal of the tube (assuming the law passed), they'd be in violation of the law. That's clear. The law would also prescribe penalties for violation.
It is not a right to die case because Terri is not part of the decision loop. It's Michael, her parents and the Judge making the decision for her. Even if a new law were passed, it still would not be a right to die case; it is a right to kill case, period. One party wants to kill another. This may not always be a bad thing, but that's what it is.
Trek,
I applaud your post. Dave's link was definently propaganda as was Brother R's link.
I myself feel that this is a right to die case, and no propaganda is going to sway me either way. I actually have a living will myself, enabling my wife to pull the plug on me if I were ever in that type of situation within 4 months. If Terri Schiavo told her husband that she wouldn't want to stay alive if she were in a "vegetable" state, then pull the tube. I don't care what the conservatives nor what the liberals think is right. No political group should have a say in Terri's demise. I believe that it should be up to her husband to pull the tube or not.
As far as I am concerned, when you get married you have signed yourself away from your parents. I don't mean completely, but at the point of marriage your spouse is now your closest relative. His say and interpretation of what Terri should have wanted should take precedent over what her religious zealot parents believe. This whole situation should have NOTHING to do with politics and NOTHING to do with religion. It should be about ending the woman's pain if that is what she would have wanted. It makes me absolutely sick to see her turning into a conservative martyr everytime I turn on the news.
I don't really feel this is a very good post for the board. We all get along quite well and this is a touch subject for all of us. It might be a good idea to let this post die (no pun intended).
She's dead. The cerebral cortex, which is what we are, our ability to think, have emotions, experience the outside world, etc, is gone and replaced with fluid. There's no hope of recovery. The cerebral cortex isn't even there anymore. What's left is a corpse which, due to the miracles of modern science, still twitches when poked.
The news networks don't give a damn about her, they're doing this for ratings. Heart wrenching drama gets better ratings than news, and if the story isn't quite heart wrenching, then leave a few parts out, like the fact that her brain is gone. They mentioned that six days ago, so they're innocent. People are used to watching dramas where things don't completely make sense, the networks' entertainment divisions have been turning the stuff out for years.
They're deliberately manipulating every person who watches this stuff.
It's the same as that Lacy Peterson case. Twenty-four / seven coverage. Yet in a town near here we had a guy kill his pregnant wife, then rape and kill her ten year old daughter, then start the apartment on fire to cover up the evidence. He then fled to Mexico, but was captured when returning to the US. Not a mention of that on the national news, yet it was a worse crime than in the Peterson case. The reason? Because the networks know they'd lose viewers if they showed the first ten minutes of one drama and then introduced another drama mid stream. Some people might find the second drama more interesting and start fumbling around with the remote, looking for more coverage on another network.
People....live or die...what happens will happen in this case. I would stess to ALL of you the following....
HAVE A LIVING WILL TO AVOID THIS TYPE OF MESS
The issue here lies ultimately with Terri Schiavo herself and her lack of a living will. I don't fault her for that because many people don't have one but if a stronger case can be made, I don't know what it is.
As with all things political.....the only group who will truly benefit from this sad state of affairs is lawyers.
The link I posted was to a *satire* site. Hardly propaganda. It's just funny.
And yet, life support to a six-month-old boy in Texas was withdrawn by the hospital over the heads of the parents thanks to a law George Bush helped pass when he was governer because that family couldn't pay for it. So I guess you should only be allowed to live if you can afford it. This whole stupid thing is, as has been pointed out, a ratings scam for the networks and a way to further polarize the religious right against the moderates in this increasingly weird political battle that's been building for the last four and a half years. I can all but guarantee you and would bet everything I own that not one politician fighting for Schiavo's life actually gives a rip whether she lives or dies.
Put yourself in Schiavo's position for a minute. Would you rather be in a state of helpless drooling-on-yourself brain death or just plain dead? It's like having a loved one die but not burying them and just having the corpse hang around in your living room to make the grief last longer. Even if you do regard it as a form of murder, it's a mercy killing for all involved.
The only reason this is in the news is because the anti-abortion people got hold of it and turned it political, so now both political parties are trying to cover their asses. This should have been between her, the husband, the parents, and the state courts (who actually issued the pull the plug order, not her husband). The courts have consistently ruled with the husband, because he had witnesses to his wife saying she did not want to be kept alive this way.
The Feds should never have been brought into it at all. Congress is now trying to usurp the separation of powers. Delay and crew are b***hing because they thought they could tell the judge how to rule. The judge decided there was no Federal interest in the case, the court of appeals agreed, and most likely the Supreme Court will do the same thing (they've already refused to hear it twice!).
Quite frankly this should never have been in the national news. It's a personal civil matter.
I wouldn't touch this subject with a 10 meter cattle prod.
Nah. I'll reiterate. Judge Greer made a ruling when no law existed upon which to base his ruling. That's the reason Congress got involved: to create a law (like it or not, at least it's there now).
Now, the judiciary is 'ruling' that Congress had no right to pass a law. Um, I think the US Constitution very specifically gives the US Congress the power to make law, and nowhere in said document does it give the State or Federal Court system the power to take that function away from Congress.
Without getting back into the 'right to die' issues, etc, there are some very, very fundamental Constitutional issues at stake here. The judiciary is way overstepping it's Constitutional authority.
If you think "Congress is now trying to usurp the separation of powers." then I suggest you read Article I, Section I of the US Constitution, which begins:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Nowhere in Article I (or elsewhere, that I can find) is there a check on the Congress given to the courts.
Now, Article III delineates the Federal Court: From Section I: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Note the flow of power here? The Constitution creates the supreme Court, but CONGRESS has the power to 'ordain and establish' all other federal courts. Seems pretty clear to me who the founders gave the legislative power to.
In other words, the US Congress, if it wanted to, would be perfectly Constitutional to disband ALL Federal Courts (except the Supreme Court). Sorry, but it does not sound like the court system has a leg to stand on in your claim that Congress is the one usurping power not granted by the Constitution.
Now, why did so many of those appeals 'fail'? Not because a given court agreed with Greer or disagree with the Terri's parents. Rather, in the absence of specific law upon which to 'overturn' Greer, they had no basis for hearing the case. In short, you cannot appeal a judge's decision (guilt or innocence, for example), you can only appeal "procedure." With no law governing the right of a husband to kill his wife in the absence of a legal instrument delineating her wishes
(aside: let's at least be intellectually honest...it is about killing, not dying. If the feeding tube had never been inserted, and the arguement was whether to insert one, that would be a right to die case. But, once the tube was inserted, removal of the tube is an ACTION. The verb 'to die' is passive; make it active, and you have 'to kill.' FWIW, in this strict semantic sense, killing is not always 'a bad thing,' but can we at least agree stop calling the action of removing a feeding tube a passive act?)
there is no basis to say Greer ruled contrary to established "procedure." One appeal the Shindlers did win was when Greer refused certain evidence (video tape of Terri responding and interacting with her mother), and the higher court turned it back to Greer. One of his first actions after that was to file a court order forbidding the recording of additional video of Terri.
So, one cannot stand on the claim that higher courts refusing to hear the case validates Greers rulings in any way. All that means is the higher courts saw no legal basis to challenge Greer's decisions. That is, in the absence of a law upon which those decisions were based, they saw no law to challenge his decision.
Make sense?
Now, Congress has passed a law (again, right or wrong, agree or disagree), and the courts refusing to hear appeals is a completely different matter. It may have to do with the fact that you cannot pass a law today and use it to challenge a judge's ruling from yesterday. If that could happen, our Criminal Justice system would be in more of a mess than it already is.
(I believe there are exceptions to this, but they have to be extraordinary circumstances...using DNA in old, old cases is an example).
Anyway, IANAL, but (1) my father did teach Constitutional Law, (2) I have spent A LOT of time in court listening to technical legal arguments and judges' instructions to juries and the like, as well as having a job that required me to understand the legal system, especially admissability of evidence and the appeals process, and (3) fwiw, I've testified as an expert witness in my field in well over 50 trials, in both state and federal courts.
[Sorry for getting near manifesto length - the Constitutional issue is very fundamental, and we are 'living history' as this case will have repercussions for many, many years. I enjoy discussions on issues like this, so long as they remain civil.]
Argue the legal stuff all you want. Delay and others did get upset because the judge did not immediately order the feeding tube put back, in other words, they wanted to tell the judge to make a ruling that they agreed with. This is not the way it is supposed to work. It's funny how judges become 'activists' because they don't rule in favor of the party in power at the time.
We can argue until we're blue in the face, but the fact is this poor woman is being used like a slab of meat to make points for a bunch of petty politicians. The only good that will come from this is people will pay attention to making their last wishes known, that is until some other controversy takes over the news of the day.
Man, this is just one of those cases where I don't get either side of the issue.
On one hand, my wife and I went out and prepared living wills last month just in case something happened and some idiot family members wanted to keep us around in a state like that.
On the other hand, what's with the drive to kill this woman? If her parents want to spend the rest of their lives (and money) watering a glorified house plant and pretending like their daughter is still alive, then LET THEM for God's sake. It's not like they're demanding the husband pay for it. He's obviously moved on with his life, why doesn't he just divorce her and go on his way?
Sorry to all those with strong opinions on this, but I don't get it. I guess in the end I come down on Dave Munger's side, though I doubt he'll like the logic path by which I did so.
I've been uncivil elsewhere (where it seemed appropriate), but I really want to be careful not to ruin the sense of comradery I feel at this particular board. Man, that sounded sad. My online Mothera discussion buddies have become important enough to me for me to get all delecately vulnerable.
None of the sites I linked to claim to be objective. Abstact Appeal does, and the guy's a lawyer, that's two reasons not to trust him. Any site on this subject could, IMO, easily be characterized as propogandistic, but the pretense of scientific objectivity while omiting relevant information is much more characteristic of propaganda than are self-admittedly partisan advocacy efforts.
The linked page gives the impression that the sole means being used to kill the patient is withdrawal of the feeding tube, when the court has also forbidden any attempts hydrate her by mouth (I think it's Yahoo news that published pictures of people being arrested for trying to bring a glass of water into the hospice).
A layman watching a video is hardly qualified to give a medical diagnosis, but some of what has been asserted is so plainly false that it can be seen as such at a glance. If she were unable to swallow, she would be drooling copiously, and dehydrating much more rapidly.
Hypothesis III and IV from the Wolfson Report present a scenario contrary to the usual argument that the patient is already dead, and thus dehydrating her can't cause her to suffer.
Generally, I think it should be left to the spouse. Marriage usually should supersede all other relationships, but there are exceptions. My in-laws for example are separated and my wife is basically the responsible party who makes decisions in case of an emergency with her father. She had to do so when my father-in-law had a brain hemmorage and my mother-in-law was hesitant to allow the doctors to operate.
I just don't think it's the government's domain to make these decisions. Or the parents, for that matter.
blkrider wrote:
> Generally, I think it should be left to the spouse. Marriage
> usually should supersede all other relationships, but there are
> exceptions. My in-laws for example are separated and my wife
> is basically the responsible party who makes decisions in case
> of an emergency with her father. She had to do so when my
> father-in-law had a brain hemmorage and my mother-in-law was
> hesitant to allow the doctors to operate.
>
> I just don't think it's the government's domain to make these
> decisions. Or the parents, for that matter.
That's fair enough, but let's take a hypothetical. Let's suppose the husband WANTED the wife dead, and even caused her original injury to put her in the vulnerable state? In this case, would you still leave the decision solely to the spouse?
The problem with the Terri Schaivo case is that that are an awefully large number of 'unknowns' and inconsistencies. Here's just a few, and these are not my "opinion," they are verifiable fact:
(1) The Dr. charged by the State of Florida to examine her to determine her mental status concluded that she is *NOT* in a persistant vegatative state; indeed, the PVS diagnosis is known BY ALL DOCTORS to be medically unsound - it's a guess.
(2) This same doctor has stated in an officially reported opinion to the court that it is his expert opinion that her original injuries are consistent with abuse, and are not consistent with those sustained in a fall.
(3) Several of her nurses, from earlier in the situation, have given sworn affadavits stating that she could drink water and soft food (like jello) without aspirating. Several were fired after confrontations with Terri's husband regarding her care.
(4) During the malpractice lawsuit, Michael Schiavo testified that he was getting a nursing degree to provide long term care for Terri. Within months of getting a multimillion dollar award, he ordered the care facility to withhold care and petitioned the court to have her feeding tube removed.
(5) Taking the issue to the court was initiated by Michael Schiavo NOT the family. The family has kept the case in court.
(6) After ruling that the tube can be removed (I believed the first time), Terri's parents pleaded for the opportunity to see if she can eat and drink. Judge Greer ordered no attempt me made to nourish her orally on the grounds that she might choke, which could kill her. (Recall that several nurses had previously gotten her to successfully take nutrition by mouth).
(7) Michael Schiavo is the ONLY person who claims to have heard Terri's wishes were she in an unrecoverable state. She may have said it, she may not have. Getting her wishes from his testimony depends on his credibility. The judge has consistently ruled he is credible.
(8) Terri's family CLAIMS she was physically abused prior to the incident leading to this. I don't know if there is any evidence of this (police reports, etc), but it is being said by more than one person (to my knowledge, all are her family members). Again, this is a question of credibility.
(9) Terri's parents have pleaded with the court to allow them to take over the physical care of her, and to have Michael granted a divorce so he can 'get on with his life.' The court refused. For some reason, the ONLY option the court sees is to kill her. Again, this has to be based solely on the basis of Michael's unquestionable credibility and that he is speaking on behalf of his wife's true wishes.
(10) The judge has refused to allow evidence in his court that might contradict Michael's testimony. In one instance, he was even overturned by an appellate court in this regard (the video of her interacting with her Mom). His response to being overruled was to issue a court order forbidding the collection of new evidence regarding her mental status.
(11) In the state of Florida, you can be JAILED for allowing cattle to starve to death.
(12) Michael Shiavo's attorney is a known "assisted suicide" advocate. For all those accusing various parties to be involved for less than altruistic reasons, you have to include this attorney. He MAY not want what's right for Terri (or her wishes)...he MAY want another case under his belt for his "cause."
As for her parents (and family) being unstable, well, they might be. But, their case is joined by many medical professionals (doctors and nurses) who were involved her Terri's healthcare over the years, and they stand in start contrast to the image presented by Michael Schiavo. Are all of these people nuts, too?
Now, to me the issue has always not been "let's save Terri because DNR's and Living Wills don't matter" but rather, IN THIS CASE, there are questions and inconsistencies. To an outside observer, the court does NOT APPEAR to be objective and acting in the best interest of the vulnerable party.
And more fundamentally than that, I have to ask the question: Why such adament fervor to kill her? If the family is willing to provide her care and relieve Schiavo from responsibility, what is the big deal?
To me, the whole thing smacks of the exact beginnings of the Adult Euthanasia Program and ultimately The Final Solution. The court, ONE JUDGE, in the face of much contradicting evidence, has ruled this woman is not worthy to live. Period.
Where do we go from there? Once the court establishes itself as arbiter of the right to life or not, what is next?
I was going to post a some more stuff here, but I think Ulthar's covered most of it. This thing about what Ralph Nader has to say about the case is interesting:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44858
I'm done talking about this case. I don't want to p**s anyone off, either. The people on Fox News calling her husband a Nazi and bringing in TV "psychic" John Edwards as an authority on the matter do a good enough job of that. Ulthar, just know it was those kinds of morons I was referring to as douchebags, not you.
Calling the husband a nazi and brining in John Edwards!? That's genuis fair and balanced news reporting!
Yeah, no crap. Now with John Edward involved, I'm so gonna pay attention to Fox.
How ridiculous, Edward is a fake and even if he wasn't, what is getting him involved all about?
I'm not commenting any more after this, but I have to say it is shame that this has been turned into a circus. Fox News is just proving what everyone says about them.
No matter his motive is, being true to his wife's wishes or something else, Michael Schiavo is always going to be seen as a murderer in some peoples eyes. The entire news media and all the law makers involved should hang their heads in shame over this whole mess.
Brother Ragnarok wrote:
> Ulthar, just know it
> was those kinds of morons I was referring to as douchebags, not
> you.
>
Fair enough. And I'll admit that there ARE some douchebags shooting off at the mouth on this issue; I'll also admit that at the very least, SOME of the politicoes and probably MOST of the reporters are in it for the spotlight. After all, they've had 15 or so years to get involved and have not said a word. To get involved at the 11th hour sure does smack of using the issue for some sort of gain.