BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 10:14 PM

You heard wrong, Martin.... Maybe you need to get yer hearin' aid checked out...

And, BTW, I know I am speaking for my late wife, Judy, who was from Yunks-town, Ohio, and didn't hold back no punches. Yeah, if she had walked into the pudder room and read what you just said she'd have said. "My Bobert's more man than you could be if you lived to be a 1000 years old. He is da man!"

Yeah, that's what she would have told you, Martin. That's exactly what she would have told you...

And I never argued with her 'cause she was always right...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:28 AM

You've got a legal system in the States where cases seem to go round in circles, and still end up sometimes with grotesquely wrong results. (So have lots ofther countries.)That's a problem you need to sort out all right. But cutting the Gordian knot by preempting thate legal system by ensuring that the person involved dies first is no way to solve that prblem.

And that could have implications for other cases similar to the one Carol linked to.

But why aren't the people who so are animated about the case involving Terri Schiavo, on both sides - the good people I mean, not the cynics and the opportunists - united in screaming to high heaven about the issues involved in cases like the one Carol linked to? Instead of demonising each other?

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:52 AM

Here's an excellent, imo, op/ed piece from a Ft. Wayne, Indiana paper online:

Congress as doctor

Congress' decision to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case marks a disturbing federal government intrusion into an individual's health care. And it has frightening implications for the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches.

Clearly politicians determined to prevent Schiavo's husband from making the gut-wrenching decision to remove life-sustaining feeding tubes cared more about scoring political points than following the rule of law. Nineteen Florida judges have ruled that Michael Schiavo has the right to cease using machines to keep his wife alive in her vegetative state. The federal courts had already declined to hear the case, and the rightward leaning U.S. Supreme Court upheld that decision.

Some Americans may be surprised to learn neither the House nor Senate bothered to gather a majority of its members' votes in passing this midnight legislation. The House approved the measure 203-58, with 174 members absent. Only three senators were present when the Senate used its unanimous consent rule to approve the legislation, though any one of the 100 U.S. senators could have forced a real vote.

The implications are frightening. Unhappy with the decisions of state and federal courts, Congress passed a law sending the case to yet another court. What's to stop Congress from continuing to move any case from court to court until its members get the decision they want?

While conservative groups hoping to keep Terri Schiavo alive challenge the motives of her husband, they ignore the irrefutable judgment of health-care experts. As explained in last year's Florida Supreme Court decision overruling a state law meant to overrule her husband's decision:

"Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid-1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs. She could remain in this state for many years."

More important, the court ruled that to its best judgment, Terri Schiavo would not want to remain on life support.

Yet members of Congress have declared they know more about Schiavo's wishes than her husband, more about her medical condition than the doctors who examined her.

It is only natural for Schiavo's parents to hold out for that miracle, to pray for it every day. And decisions about ending life support are far from knee-jerk. Hospitals and hospices must follow strict requirements to ensure that the patient has no hope of recovery. As with many families, the choice is not unanimous.

In this case, the health-care providers have agreed they have no substantive argument to keep Terri Schiavo on life support, and her guardian must make the final choice.

This is a matter for Schiavo's guardian and health-care experts to decide. Congress should have stayed out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: ejsant
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:32 AM

Greetings McGrath….,

You are absolutely correct in your admonishment of our system. This downright hypocrisy on the part of the supporters of this attempted imposition of some imagined "Right to Life" by not voicing loud concerns over this case in Texas is troubling indeed. Where was Tom Delay and his interfering philosophies in this case?

Unfortunately, our politicians seem more interested in pandering to any interest group that in their mind will insure the continuation of their power then they do in truly debating and deciding what social policies the people of the United States of America (ironically they very people whose interests they were elected to promote) wish to see promoted. Yet they hold the later up as one of their great accomplishments in Iraq.

The prize of power is so much more coveted (and seductive I suppose) than the actually serving of the constituents. Campaigns are waged based on market research formulated strategies rather than the discussion of issues. Unfortunately this approach has created campaigns that, rather than focus on the candidates successes and philosophies, focus solely, or so close to solely that it is indistinguishable from solely, on the criticism of the opposition.

Again we, whom I believe are indeed the majority, who find this direction troubling need to speak up and speak up loudly. We need to do so in the Pubs, on the street, in our music, at the town meetings, and anywhere else we find an ear. We need to reassess this two party system that has garnered so much power over us.

Peace,
Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:43 AM

Where were the people on either side when it came to defending the rights of that baby and those parents?

I'm sure there are people on both sides over the Sciavo case who would be in agreement about a case like that other one - shouldn't they be searching each other out, and combining their efforts over the things they agree about.

I agree, there seems an awful lot of hypocrisy around.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:47 AM

The parents of the baby fought as long and hard as they could. But they were poor, and couldn't afford lawyers anymore than they could the medical care.

Keep voting Republican, people. This is the world they are going to give you. Euthanasia for the poor, and "only the best" for those who can afford it.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:01 AM

So where were the people on both sides who claim to care so much for human rights? And who in some cases surely do actually care.

Isn't it time they recognised they have more in common with each other than with the people who manipulate and use their concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:23 AM

I don't understand how you can say the legal system is being pre-empted, McGrath. It has been artificially prolonged way beyond what pretty much everyone else in the country would receive, by the politicians. The Schiavo case has been heard in court, many times already, all the way up to the highest court in the land, and all of the courts have agreed. The legislature has made special laws just for this one woman that do not apply to any of the rest of us... just to her case. Her case has received more time and attention from the courts and the legislature than any of the rest of us could ever hope to expect (and most of us would hope that we would not receive this attention if it were us). And most of the people in the US agree with the husband in this case anyway.

Not only is the court system being perverted for the political gain of a few politicians, these very same politicians are undermining the authority of the courts by not complying with the courts' decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:42 AM

McGrath of Harlow said, in part:

You've got a legal system in the States where cases seem to go round in circles, and still end up sometimes with grotesquely wrong results. (So have lots ofther countries.)That's a problem you need to sort out all right. But cutting the Gordian knot by preempting thate legal system by ensuring that the person involved dies first is no way to solve that prblem.

M of H, I think you're right--and you're wrong.

Your first two sentences above are perfectly well founded.

But the illegitimate cutting of the Gordian knot here (the "preempting") is being done on the other side. Congress's recent action is not only politically motivated but very bad legally. US Constitutional law calls for other states as well as the federal government to give full faith and credit to the actions of state courts (Florida in this case). The Supreme Court can under some circumstances have a last say after the state courts have spoken, but has declined to deal with the issues involved, in effect saying that the NINETEEEN Florida judges over FIFTEEN years have provided appropriate due process in the case.

In my opinion the new legislation is not only ill-advised but unconstitutional. I think those who carried it through even knew this, but indulged in gamesmanship, for two purposes: One, hoping to get a put-back-the-tube order pending a hearing, even though the result of the hearing is likely to be a declaration for the husband and/or one of unconstitutionality of the new law; and two, for political polarization purposes. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! Wrong in fact, wrong constitutionally, and wrong in motivation.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:33 PM

If true that's irrelevant. There is still a legal process under way, even if people may consider it to be improper or politically motivated.   

It is easy to imagine other life and death situations where very different battle lines might be drawn, for example where capital punishment was involved, and some kind of final appeal had not been completed, and an execution was scheduled in advance of a hearing. (In fact, as I understand it, that situation does occur from time to time.)

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:39 PM

No, McGrath, that's the point... it is not a legal process. What is being done is very much in violation of our legal process.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:37 PM

But surely determining that very thing is part of the legal process?

If this same scenario was being played out in the kind of case you linked to, Carol, and the courts down in Florida were trying to make sure the life support was switched off on a child to save money, would it be such a black and white issue, and so inescapably right that people should respect that local court decision, and that "states rights" should prevail?

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:47 PM

But surely determining that very thing is part of the legal process?

No. In this case, it is a part of the political process. It should have been left to the courts, but it was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:49 PM

...and that, really, is what many of us are having quite a problem with. The legal system has been subverted by politicians who are only acting out of political agendas that serve only themselves and not any of the people involved in this tragedy. It is most certainly not in keeping with our legal processes in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Alice
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:55 PM

Tom Delay's own ethics issues were taken off the headlines because of the drama created in Congress over the Shiavo case. Pure political manipulation. But, what do you expect from him? It is part of his pattern of behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:10 PM

If this same scenario was being played out in the kind of case you linked to, Carol, and the courts down in Florida were trying to make sure the life support was switched off on a child to save money, would it be such a black and white issue, and so inescapably right that people should respect that local court decision, and that "states rights" should prevail?

These are two very different kinds of issues, McGrath. In the Texas case, there is a law that very well could be unconstitutional, that allows hospitals to make decisions that should be made by families. That law could be tested, and it could be ruled on by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court determined that the law was unconstitutional (as I think it may be), the law would be struck down.

In the Schiavo case, there are no laws that are being tested for their possibility of being unconstitutional except for the laws that Congress created specifically for Terri Schiavo, and that don't apply to anyone else. And it is my opinion that those laws are unconstitutional, and should be struck down because they violate the "equal protection under the law" part of the Constitution.

I think, if you are going to give your input into this subject, you really need to become much more informed about our legal and political processes than you are, and also become much more informed about the Schiavo case than you currently are. Because you are arguing points that really do not pertain to any of the factors that are relevant in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: DougR
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:24 PM

Last night on CNN's Larry King show, King said to Terri's husband, "the feeding tube has been removed and she will starve to death. Isn't that correct?" The husband said, "No, she will not die of starvation. She will die a natural death. Her electrolytes will gradually shut down and she will pass away peacefully." (not a direct quote).

My question:wouldn't she continue to live if the feeding tube is replaced? Is it proper to say she will not starve to death if the feeding tube continues to be shut-off?

Martin: It IS a puzzlement, isn't it?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:29 PM

The details are important, of course they are. But sometimes there's a danger of missing seeing the wood for the trees.

My knowledge of this case is based on media coverage - but then I think that is pretty general. In my case it's primarily the Guardian and the BBC, both of which have been playing it fairly straight down the middle and presenting the various versions of the case reasonably dispassionately.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:29 PM

Since you seem to be alluding to Martin's question about the death penalty, DougR, I will give my opinion on that one, also.

My opinion is that until and unless it can be one hundred percent guaranteed that the person who is being charged is guilty (and not just "beyond a reasonable doubt", as things stand right now), there should be no death penalty. Innocent people should not be executed for crimes that are committed by others. That is a pro-life stance.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:35 PM

My knowledge of this case is based on media coverage

Yes. I can tell that by the way you are making your points. In my opinion, the media coverage will not help you understand what is going on with this situation. You need to understand how our system works in order to understand what is going on, and why it is so important to so many of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:45 PM

Also, DougR, what is your position on the law in Texas (that, from what I have heard, was signed into law by GW Bush) that allows hospitals to remove life support against the wishes of the family? I haven't heard anything at all from you on that subject, and being the pro-life person I'm sure you are, I assume you would be outraged by such a law.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 05:23 PM

Hmmmmmm? Wonder where Dougie went? I swear he was just here...

Subject: RE: BS: Vegatative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 05:41 PM

He's probably busy leading his life instead of giving some guy a hummer while on Mudcat, bobert.

CarolC, beyond a reasonable doubt is how the system works.

If you don't like the system, I would suggest that you get out of your trailer more often and find a way to change it.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:25 PM

Yes, that is how the system works now. And that is why I am against the death penalty. And I will be until that part can be fixed. As I said, innocent people should not ever be executed for crimes that are committed by someone else. That is a pro -life stance.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:36 PM

For whatever it's worth, I'm going to venture a legal prediction in the Schiavo case.

I would be greatly surprised if the Circuit Court of Appeals should grant the appeal, and thus order the District Court to change its ruling, and allow (require?) the reinsertion of the feeding tube.

Why? Here's why:

The ruling by the Florida District Court was a ruling on a motion for emergency action pending the hearing of the case. In ruling on such a motion the judge has to, "on the fly", so to speak, size up whether the movant/plaintiff is likely to prevail when there is a final hearing. The judge is forced to make that prediction, just by the nature of the emergency relief asked for. It is seldom that an appellate court takes such a matter out of the trial court's hands, and does or should upset that kind of a decision.

In this case the District Court judge said, in effect, "It seems unlikely that, on hearing, the plaintiffs (the parents, if you will) will be able to show that Terri Schiavo's interests did not recieve due legal process in the courts of Florida" when over a period of fifteen years nineteen separate Florida judges had dealt with the case, through numerous hearings, and all of them ruled in favor of the husband's position, and it was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, who declined to find such a legal failure.

It is, of course, POSSIBLE that, when the hearing in the District Court is finally held, Judge Whittemore might find a lack of due process, but that seems unlikely, and we're not dealing with that eventuality at this point. That's a fight for another day.

The District Court did not at this time rule on the constitutionality of the hurried and badly written jurisdictional legislation under which the case was presented to him, I expect largely because courts mightily resist making such constitutional findings. But that issue is there, and is a VERY real issue. In the end it may be found that the District Court did not even have jurisdiction because the legislation was unconstitutional.

And even if the Circuit Court of Appeals were to rule (as I do not expect) that the District Court was wrong in his ruling on the emergency request pending the hearing, the matter would be taken immediately to the Supreme Court, and for the reasons above I don't believe the Supreme Court would go along with their reversal. Actually, I'm sure that whoever loses in the Circuit Court of Appeals will run posthaste to the Supreme Court.

I say all of the above based on 36 years of experience working for a US District Court, in daily contact with legal proceedings, and many times with such requests for temporary relief pending final resolution. No, I'm not a lawyer, but I can represent that I am a well-informed layman on this subject.

It must be remembered, of course, that (aside from legalities) there are and will be tremendous political pressure on both sides. The courts should--and I say "should"--rule entirely on the legal facts and questions, but judges are human and are sometimes swayed by pressure.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:36 PM

The death penalty in any circumstances is not reconcilable with a truly pro-life position.
...............................

I think I do understand "why it is so important to so many of us", Carol. But I think that that in itself can get in the way of seeing the whole picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 07:56 PM

Well, the whole picture, McGrath, really boils down to the question of how Terri Schiavo's best interests can be served. And since Terri, herself, communicated to her husband that she would not ever want to be kept alive in such a condition, and given the fact that the courts have accepted that this is what Terri Schiavo has communicated to her husband about her wishes, the "whole picture" is best served by honoring the wishes of Terri Schiavo on the subject of her intentions in this matter.

Unless you don't believe in an individual's right to make end of life decisions for him or herself. And if that is the case, you are completely at odds with the majority of people in the US on this matter. And since it is our system, and we are the ones who have to live with it, it really is our decision to make and not yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: mg
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:12 AM

I think the problem here is that it isn't an end of life issue...she is not dying. I don't have the answer here but this is different say than someone dying of cancer or AIDS. She could live 50 more years perhaps... mg

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: ejsant
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:20 AM

Greetings McGrath….,

From my prospective, and I would venture a guess that I am not alone in this, it was the hastened specific case action on the part of the Federal Legislature that has created the threat to our freedoms and therefore my concerns.

Greetings Mary Garvey,

She may indeed live on for another 50 years however her wishes to not sustain her life in this way has been established by Florida Courts and now a Federal Court has found that she was not denied due process in this determination.

Greetings All,

Unfortunately it seems that the parents of this young lad in Texas were not disposed of sufficient resources to fight the law. It also seems that the folks in support of the current administration, the very folks that one would have thought would have championed the "Right to Life" cause in the Texas scenario seem as though they did not want to create an issue for the administration by doing so.

I suppose an argument that the supporters of the reinsertion of the feeding tube would put forth is that there seems to be differing opinions as to Terri's future. I think one could also speculate that the future of the young lad in Texas was not absolute one way or another.

In any event when political pandering interferes with our established mechanisms for adjudication of differences we are in deep social trouble. What's next? Am I going to be forced to accept medical treatment that violates my deepest beliefs simply because "Congress" has so written and the "President" has so signed?

I have never owned a gun but I am seriously considering purchasing one along with a single bullet. Irrespective of the laws of this country I will not have this temporary temple sustained by man's scientific means or apparatuses as it now seems that my expressed wishes can be questioned and potentially overturned by the Government.

I often wonder that if there was not such a large cache of money available for this Florida woman's care would there even be a fight? I suspect that the institution(s) that would provide the long term care would not wish to do so without being properly (their determination) compensated.

Three years ago a Great Uncle of mine was admitted to hospital with a cerebral hemorrhage. The damage his brain sustained was severe and he was unable to swallow or communicate. The Doctors at the hospital convinced my Great Aunt that there was indeed a possibility of his recovery and suggested a feeding tube be used as "death by starvation and dehydration was merciless". They continued to hold for six months the prognosis that my Uncle would recover. Then his insurance would no longer pay for his care and ironically and immediately their prognosis changed. The feeding tube was removed and his body passed peacefully. His soul had already been called.

There is not a single person that could convince me that the "prognosis" was not conveniently held until it was no longer to the institutions financial advantage to hold it.

When I couple the motives I perceive to be spurious as some portion is financially based with the pandering to a minority interest on the part of our Congress I am truly concerned about the future of our society.

Peace,
Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:32 AM

"If the Christian fundamentalists win this one ..., your living will is gonna be worth about as much as your toilet paper.

This is silly. And it ignores the one, fundamental, determining factor of the entire case -- Terry Shiavo has(d) no living will. If she had, there would BE no case. There would be no arguement -- no arguement from parents, no arguement from "husband", no arguement from courts, and no arguement from legislators.

The whole point is that she HAS(D) no living will.

I AM a fundemental"ist" Christian. I HAVE a living will. I know LOTS of Christians who have living wills.

Get a clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: ejsant
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:19 AM

Greetings John Hardly,

I think it is you that need "Get a clue" as over a dozen Judges in the Florida Judicial system have determined that indeed Terri's wishes were to not sustain her life in this fashion. This by default is a confirmation of her "Living Will". And yet there is still argument over the application of her wishes. Prior to the spurious intervention of the Congress, the United States Supreme Court decided to not hear the case. In effect affirming the Florida Court's actions and decisions. Now, post this asinine action of Congress, a Federal Court has still twice affirmed the Florida Court's decision. At what point do we follow the established system and accept the decisions even if they are not in agreement with our own? Or do we simply continue to pressure Congress to succumb to minority interests and change the rules depending upon their own personal philosophies or those of a perceived voting block? And if we do that what assurances do we then have that other aspects of our freedoms will not come under direct attack in promoting other minority interests?

Would you like another to challenge your "Living Will" and sustain your life in direct defiance of your wishes? The action of our Congress this past weekend clearly opens that door. Think about it.

Peace,
Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:44 AM

she has(d) no living will.

That is still the essence of the debate. If she had had one before this, there would have been no need for the courts to decide her wishes for her.

I have a living will. It is at no risk of being mis-interpreted. It is multi-page, complete with legal executor (the law firm that drew it).

The whole point is that Terry Shiavo did not have one. That is why people from both sides feel they have the prerogative to voice their opinions on the matter.

What you are asking of me is completely opposite of the situation. I have a living will. Nothing has to be decided of my wishes should something happen to me. Those wishes are in black and white.

Terry's were not. That is the nature of the arguement. You chose to believe those who think she did not want extreme measures. Others disagree with you. Neither of you has the concrete, black and white that you are claiming is at risk. There is no black and white document -- therefore, the legal effectiveness of a true living will is not at risk in this case. There IS no living will in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Alice
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:08 AM

Terri Shiavo communicated her wishes. Her husband was not the only witness to hear what she wanted. It was after funerals of relatives that she discussed not wanting to be kept alive if she was in a vegative state. Her parents are not respecting a decision she made before her cardiac arrest. Her parents are focussed more on their grief in losing her and ignoring her expressed decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Alba
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:11 AM

19 Judges actually have heard the Case Ed.


I am confused about one issue though:

I read that Terri's father had said she responded to him asking her if she wished to go for a Drive.
If this is the case then.....can't Terri express her opinion regarding her Life in whatever manner she is able to?

That surely takes the "living will", Spouse, Parents, Courts and Congress out of the picture...if this statement is correct.

Have I heard this correctly? Has it been confirmed by the Medical Staff at the Hospice that Terri is respnosive to questions?

Blessings to all
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:14 AM

"Terri Shiavo communicated her wishes. Her husband was not the only witness to hear what she wanted. It was after funerals of relatives that she discussed not wanting to be kept alive if she was in a vegative state. Her parents are not respecting a decision she made before her cardiac arrest. Her parents are focussed more on their grief in losing her and ignoring her expressed decision."

But not in writing. Not legally. That's what the wrangling is all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Alice
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:14 AM

Jude, she is not consciously responsive to anything. Medical staff says she feels nothing, no pain, no hunger, no thirst. As mentioned before, much of her brain has been replaced with spinal fluid.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: ejsant
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:20 AM

Greetings John Hardly,

I must disagree. An oral contract has been held in our society as being as binding as a written one. Terri's oral expression of her wishes is no less valid a living will than a written multi page document with "legal executor". The difference is in establishing her intent and the validity thereof. That is why we have a mediation process, the Judiciary. This process was indeed followed and her due process entitlements were satisfied by the Florida State Courts as found by now two Federal Courts and I believe by default when the United States Supreme Court decided, prior to the Congress' action, not to hear the case.

The piece of legislation (I hesitate to call it a law as its legitimacy has yet to be determined) passed this weekend clearly called into question the determination of Terri's wishes as found by the Florida Courts. What makes you think that another piece of legislation could not be passed to question your written intents if it were in a minority interest to do so?

I completely understand the second guessing of our Judicial System as it is with-in human nature to question the validity of any decision one does not agree with however this human frailty should not be cause for any action such as was passed this past weekend by our Congress.

As far as there being no "black and white document" to refer to and therefore this absence being the sole reason for the questions I think you are being a bit naïve. Our laws are written documents, in black and white if you will, and yet every day their intent and applications are questioned in our Courts. This is our system of checks and balances. Congress clearly upset this balance when they intervened and they did so simply to pander to a minority interest group.

Peace,
Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Alba
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:21 AM

Thanks Alice, I was getting comfused when I heard that statement.
Blessings
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:31 AM

But when there is not a written contract, and there are dissenters, it becomes necessary for the courts to decide (as they have). The fact that in a democracy such as ours there is other recourse is not a bad thing. Having been the victim of a fixed trial myself, I have less faith in the supremacy of the judiciary. I like the notion that there is an ability to appeal a court's decision. I like the idea that the legislative branch can check and balance the judiciary.

When the courts see it your way it is easy to want to grant them sovereinty. Wait until they decide against you and then talk to me of their wisdom.

Incidentally, I'm conflicted about this case -- but I'm not conflicted about the efficacy of a true living will. If there had been a true living will, this whole case would not even be happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:40 AM

Alba said:

I read that Terri's father had said she responded to him asking her if she wished to go for a Drive.
If this is the case then.....can't Terri express her opinion regarding her Life in whatever manner she is able to?

The question is a hypothetical one: IF the father's statement is correct.

1. Did he in fact make the statement you say you read?
2. When did the incident supposedly happen?
3. Were there other witnesses, as there were to her expressed "no extraordinary measures" statements at funerals, etc.? How many, and who were they?
4. When and in what context did he report it? To one of the Florida courts that heard the case? To a newsperson?
5. If to a court, were corroborating witnesses called?

His statement, if unsupported by other witnesses, won't necessarily carry a whole lot of weight.

If he reported this in one of the previous court hearings, evidently the judge or other trier of the fact didn't believe him.

If he reported it after the previous state court hearings were all completed, that in itself calls his credibility into question.

The incident you read that he had reported (whenever it is supposed to have happened, or whenever reported) seems to fly in the face of the medical evidence, again calling its credibility into question.

Incidentally, I just re-read your post. You say that he said "she responded". "Responded" could mean anything, and is a matter of perception in any case. "Responding" could be blinking, could be nodding, could be smiling, or even I'm sure he would wish) it could be speaking, "Sure, dad!" A number of medical experts have testified that such things perceived as blinking, smiling, nodding, etc. are often found in vegetative cases, and are typical results merely of reflexes and so on; that they do not necessarily mean that there has been communication or consciousness. If so, such a thing's happening at a time when he said something about going for a ride would be purely coincidence.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:01 AM

John Hardly said:

Having been the victim of a fixed trial myself, I have less faith in the supremacy of the judiciary. I like the notion that there is an ability to appeal a court's decision.

First, remember there have been (as I understand it) NINETEEN different state court judges who ruled for the husband. Can it be suggested that they were all "fixed"?

Yes, there should be the right of appeal. And there have been appeals, and appeals, and hearings, and hearings. The case has gone through a plethora of proceedings. All the way to the Supreme Court, twice.

As to a legislature's having "the ability to check and balance the courts", that's not the proper function of a legislature. The legislature is there to set general patterns of procedure, for the whole society. They are really not supposed to be stepping into individual cases.

What's more, the ill-considered, rushed, badly motivated, and badly written legislation of last Sunday is also wrong in that it violates the full faith and credit principle of the Constitution. The Constitution reserves to the states all powers not specifically given to the federal government. Florida's courts exercised their function, and Congress has no business trying to do an end run around it.

Incidentally, I'm conflicted about this case -- but I'm not conflicted about the efficacy of a true living will. If there had been a true living will, this whole case would not even be happening.

No question, John, if there had been documentary evidence of her intentions it would have been better, and might have saved a great deal of time and expense. But well-attested oral statements (as in this case) can be very persuasive, and have been found so in this case. A written document, while assuredly a good thing, is not necessary.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:03 AM

If she had [a living will]...There would be ... no arguement from [her] parents...

Puh-leeze.

If you can make an idiotic statement like this, you obviously have not payed any attention whatsoever as this travesty has played out for over 15 years.

In addition, your assumption that a written document would not have been contested just as hotly by these loonies- family and pressure group loonies together- is naive at best in light of "past practice".

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:08 AM

The most difficult aspect of this case is that the public at large, our Congress, and the mainstream media, can't seem to be able to separate the moral issues of this case from the legal issues of this case.

The legal side has done, repeatedly, what it should have done. Adjudicate this matter through the courts, because there was no living will or advance health care directive, and the person's legal proxy (the husband), had his decision challenged in the courts when the family (and the husband IS the family too!) couldn't agree on withdrawing medical treatment.

So, when there is a dispute in a case where a family cannot agree on medical treatment options, and there is no written record of what the patient's wishes are, sadly, they sometimes take their dispute into the public realm of the courts.

Now, I believe both sides in this case have strong moral arguments. But at the end of the day, only one person (the legal proxy), has the LEGAL right to make the decision on behalf of the patient. That is why the medical profession is nearly unanimous about this case, and the doctors backing the Schindlers are viewed by the majority of the medical profession as being a minority of extremists with a political agenda (like Senate majority leader Bill Frist), and not the best interests of the patient and the family.

The medical profession ALWAYS trys to determine what it is the patient themselves want/would have wanted as the primary thing in these decisions. My mother's doctor, when she was dying, would call my mother on the phone all the time, to discuss whether the treatments being proposed were OK with her. We changed my mother's living will/advance care directive numerous times over the past 5 years that lead up to her recent death. Her doctor was prepared to fight us, her family, if he felt we weren't honoring HER wishes. That is the #1 concern to the doctors--that whatever is done, that it be done in accordance with the wishes of the patient, even when the patient's family disagrees with it.

That is how it should be. That this family took this into the public realm like this shows, to me, just how screwed up they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:08 PM

I think the problem here is that it isn't an end of life issue...she is not dying. I don't have the answer here but this is different say than someone dying of cancer or AIDS. She could live 50 more years perhaps... mg

It is an end of life issue. Terri communicated to her husband that should she ever be in the condition she is in now, she would not want her life to be prolonged. That is, she would want her life to end. So the question is whether or not Terri Schiavo has the right to make that determination for herself. That is an "end of life issue".

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:22 PM

Someone suggested to me that in Terry Schiavo's case, removing the tube is a case not of ending her life, but a means of shortening her dying.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:36 PM

"A written document, while assuredly a good thing, is not necessary."

But, again, it would have made the courts unnecessary in this case, and that, again, is what is at issue. There would be no room for contesting the decision.

Besides, again, I am contesting the notion that this case would call into question the validity of such a document (as one 'catter stated above, and which I've been addressing all along). This case, no matter how it is decided, will not make future living wills invalid.

Nor, as alleged by the poster to whom I refer, does fundamental Christianity have any problem with living wills. I have one.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:18 PM

Any determination made by judges is always provisional up until the final end of the whole legal process. That's the actual end, regardless of whether it may be being prolonged in what may seem an improper or even unconstitutional way.

Terminating the process before that happens by, in this case, bringing about the death of the lady at the centre of it, is a bit analogous to stopping the count in an election before the recounts have been completed.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM

well said, MofH.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:44 PM

Actually, I think that is a rather strange analogy, but I have to say, McGrath you don't seem to be grasping what the context is of these events. Your usually succinct posts have been muddled and bizarre on this one. Perhaps it's a lack of understanding of how the US systems work?

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM

Sometimes paying too much attention to the context can confuse matters. Too much going on, too many things to take into account.

The analogy I gave may be strange, but I think it's quite apt. In both cases you have people who are so concerned to get the right outcome that they are willing to play fast and loose with the process. Which I understand is actually "how the US systems work" from time to time. There probably are some situations where thinking that way is appropriate, but I can't see this as being one of them.