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

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:25 AM

In Germany, even a living will would probably not suffice and stopping the feeding would under no circumstances be allowed. She would have to live (money or not) until her final death.

Wolfgang (who doesn't agree with the above)

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:28 AM

The parents legal shenanigans are being bankrolled--to the tune of MILLIONS of dollars--by the Right to Life movement. Randall Terry, the fascist who headed up the extremist anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue (which was put out of business using the anti-mob Ricoh laws), is one of their Right to Life "spokespersons".

That has always been their true agenda, not the welfare of their daughter. They have been Right to Life activists for years. Why this never gets mentioned or debated in the mainstream press? Good question. Why Randall Terry never gets challenged by the media when speaking on behalf of the Schindlers? Good question.

And I couldn't agree more on the appalling nature of how this woman's dignity has been dragged through the mud by her supposedly "loving" parents. These are people with an extremist agenda, who believe they are on a mission from god. It is obvious they feel they should have to answer to no laws, and so will stop at nothing. If they could figure out a way to kidnap her and get her out of the hospice they have turned into an armed camp and media circus, I'm sure they'd do it, as a means of "civil disobedience". Anyone ever seen the film "Citzen Ruth"?

And can you imagine how awful it must be for the families of people who have loved ones dying in that hospice right now?

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: ejsant
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:17 AM

Greetings John Hardly,

"I don't know her parents but I'm guessing that they would see the inevitability and not contest it."

I cannot share your confidence in the parents seeing "the inevitability and not contesting it". I believe their continuing to contest what has been established as Terri's wishes after years and years of court proceedings indicates that irrespective of how Terri's wishes were conveyed, orally or written, they would have contested them if indeed they were contrary to their own wishes.

"More to the point -- even if they had screamed for attention, there would be little to be had. They would be alone, and certainly all this national attention would never have happened."

The fact of the matter is that a Judicial decision was made that indeed Terri wished not to have her life sustained in this fashion well before any great National attention was paid to the case. This decision in effect gave as much credence to her wishes as a written document would have initially and as stated the National attention ensued.

Unfortunately I believe that Terri has been made a poster child if you will to promote and/or impose a minority held social policy agenda. This outrages me as much as the action the Congress and President undertook.

Greetings McGrath…,

"But the only place where it can be determined whether the shenanigans that have gone on are legal or not is through the legal system."

Absolutely correct, the case had been through the legal system and a decision had been made. Then of course Congress and the President attempted to impose a minority held social policy and overturn that decision. Make no mistake about the fact that the action taken in Washington, DC this past weekend was clearly intended to overturn the Florida Courts' decisions. Thankfully the Judicial branch of our Government has preserved our system and not acquiesced, as of yet anyway, to the ill-conceived action of the Legislative and Executive branch.

There is no doubt that the battle lines were drawn with this case. This to me is the second most unfortunate aspect of this whole scenario. The first being of course the fact that Terri is in this physical condition.

"What is it about Florida?"

In two words, well actually more (as if I could limit myself to two words); Jeb Bush and his spending of the political capital earned in 2000 and 2004.

Peace,
Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:40 AM

That last one goes both ways of course, according to whatever assumption is made about the imagined wishes of the person concerned in that hypothetical situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: jaze
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:50 PM

I can't help but wonder at the horror this woman would feel to be conscious of the fact that all she wanted was to be allowed to die with dignity, and her parents are having videos of her in her vegetative conditon flashed all around the world. That is just so sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:19 PM

Ahhhhh, jus fir the record, Martin, I "believe in God and have morals about life" as well...

So what does this have to do with the questions I asked?

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

What's the matter, bobert?

Maybe they are just plain old good people who believe in God and have morals about life.

We can't all be liberals with an agenda of paranoia like yourself, can we?

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:20 PM

Well, of course, though Mr and Mrs Schindler are Catholics they might be out of sympathy with the general Catholic Church position on such things worldwide, which is to be against the death penalty as well as abortion, and in favour of feeding the hungry. But I don't know if there is any reason to assume that to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 07:55 PM

Ahhhhhh, does anyone know if Terri's parents are affiliated with any "Anti-Abortion" groups?

Anti-capital punishment groups?

Feed the hungry groups?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:58 PM

What is it about Florida

Always been a hotbed of born-again God botherers, and recently there's Jeb Bush.

Q.E.D.

Oh, and "Palmetto Bugs".

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:29 PM

The case had reached its legal process end. The problem is simply there are those that do not like the final decision and to further complicate the matter Congress pandered to these folks and changed the procedure.

Very possibly true. But the only place where it can be determined whether the shenanigans that have gone on are legal or not is through the legal system.   Until that has been happened, the principle has to apply that people have to act as if the legal process is still under way.

Once again, as with the interruption of the vote counting back in 2000, the impression come across that people are lined up according to what outcome they wish to see. What is it about Florida?

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

"Do you honestly believe that Terri's parents would not have contested a written document that conveyed the very same wishes that nineteen Florida State Judiciaries found were legitimately conveyed orally?"

I don't know her parents but I'm guessing that they would see the inevitability and not contest it. More to the point -- even if they had screamed for attention, there would be little to be had. They would be alone, and certainly all this national attention would never have happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Vegetative Woman Shuts Down US Gov't...
From: ejsant
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM

Greetings John,

Do you honestly believe that Terri's parents would not have contested a written document that conveyed the very same wishes that nineteen Florida State Judiciaries found were legitimately conveyed orally? I cannot be critical of her parents for contesting this. Terri is their daughter and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in that they honestly believe that Terri would wish to have her life prolonged by these measures. Unfortunately, after great cogitation, the Florida Courts affirmed Terri's oral expression of her wishes.

My concern has, and continues to be the overstepping of Legislative Authority on the part of Congress to force this into Federal Court. This is nothing short of verdict shopping and to subvert our civil mediation process like this is nothing short of political pandering. And again the fact that one's advanced health care directives are formally recorded now means very little as a result of this abuse. One need only to look at the dissenting opinion of the three judge panel in the Eleventh Circuit, the basis of which was that by not hearing the appeal the Court was not acting in accordance with Congress' wishes, to see that there is an interest group that wishes for this case to be decided in some fashion other than in accordance with tested law.

Having been divorced twice and having had my fair share involuntary exposure to the Courts I am in no way a believer in the pure integrity of the judicial system. That said, there have been numerous proceedings over the last fifteen years and each has resulted in a decision that Terri indeed would not want her life prolonged in this fashion. If there had been a written document that stated these wishes all her parents would have needed to do is to question the validity of the document and the subsequent testimony required would have been nearly the same as that which has transpired in the proceedings over the last fifteen years.

I am not entitled to have an opinion as to whether or not Terri should have a feeding tube reinserted. That is clearly her decision, or in her absence that of her legal guardian. I am, however entitled to have an opinion about Congress' action this past weekend. When our personal freedoms are assaulted and curtailed in this way, and our legal system subverted for the purpose of pandering to a minority interest, we need to carefully reassess whom we elect to represent us. I would feel this way regardless of which side of the issue Congress' action supported.

Greetings McGrath…,

The case had reached its legal process end. The problem is simply there are those that do not like the final decision and to further complicate the matter Congress pandered to these folks and changed the procedure. So to use your analogy Congress' action was tantamount to redefining mathematical science in the midst of counting or recounting election ballots. This is a very dangerous precedent, one the likes of which we will not feel the full effect of for years to come. Think about it, muster enough Congressional support (reads provide enough political contributions) and one would be able to change the rules anytime they wish in order to bring their agenda to fruition. Living in a society that avails this to some and not all is very frightening to me.

Peace,
Ed

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.

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: John Hardly
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM

well said, MofH.

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:29 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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.