PeterDavid.net

I'm of a very liberaterian bend myself. I used to vote for mostly Republicans, but as the years have gone by I vote for few and fewer each election cycle. Sometimes I wonder how I came to be voting for Democrats. Then something like the Shiavo case comes along and I remember why.

I agree. The government should not have been put into this. This is now something that the Republican party is going to wrap the flag around. "This is a quality of life issue." They'll say. Yet, what about the OTHER lives that are like this, where this struggle of families against the victim's spouses goes on? Does this case outweigh those stories because this is one that comes from Dubya's brother's state?

Last year around this week (Holy Week for us Christians)my mom had to make a difficult decision in her life: To decide my grandmother's fate should she slip into uncosicousness. She did and my mom decided that if there was no hope, then it was time to let her go. My mom has been punishing herself this past year wondering if the decision was the right one.

The decision is one that is an emotional roller coaster for a family. So why does the government want to add to that by making it a political point?

I can understand both sides opinions on this issue. And really believe they both want the best for Terri. However, what Terri's parents need to accept is their daughter has been dead for 15 years. She's only a empty vessel now. I can't believe anyone would want this. And even if the husband isn't doing this completely for her, but rather so he can get on with his life. How long would they want this to go on? Should we keep Terri alive after her parents are gone? 10 years? 20? 30? There has to come a point where this ends. The government should not get involved and twist the knife even further. Further more if Congress and the President do this and supersede the ruling of the state courts it will be a dangerous prescient that we may never be able to undo. Course it's not like we haven't seen plently of those already in the last 4 years. Side note this is my first post here and I have to say what a big fan I am of your work Mr. David

Oh yeah, that evil Bush. He's the entire problem here, not the "husband" that's been living with another woman, had 2 children with her, and stands to inherit close to a million dollars from a malpractice settlement when Terri dies. Yes, close to a million dollars. None of this money has been used to care for Terri, that's being handled by medicare or medicade.

Terri didn't make a choice! Her angel of a husband says she did, but there's nothing in writing. But, again he has no ulterior motive in wishing Terri dead, does he.

Bush is right (I cannot believe I said that) that we should err on the side of life but all of the politicians getting involved in this screams of sharks smelling blood. The families involved are surely in a personal Hell and there are way too many people getting involved.

Terri didn't make a choice! Her angel of a husband says she did, but there's nothing in writing

Yet, regardless, the courts have ruled in favor of the husband.

Unfortunately, Congress can't handle that.

If YOU want to live for 15 years in a "persistant vegetative state", with ho chance of recovery, by all means, write it into your will.

For some of us? We see when it's time to move on with life and let somebody go.

Too bad Terri's parents haven't figured out when that is yet.

Jeff, if it's about the money for Schiavo, perhaps you can explain why he's turned down offers for 10 times as much to relinquish custody of Terri to her parents and divorce her.

As to the living with another woman, his wife has been dead for 15 years. The fact that he hasn't divorced her and still is trying to honor her final wishes says a lot.

for those who do not have a living will or advance health care directive you can consult a lawyer or go to legacywriter.com

after reading the hoopla about Schiavo's case i got myself an advanced health care directive. i think the politicians should stay out of it. i for one, don't want to become a living dead.

Posted by Jeff In NC at March 21, 2005 12:26 AM

Oh yeah, that evil Bush.

Nope. Just oppertunistic politicians.. I'd say that Delay and his bunch ARE much worse. The profess states rights and have for YEARS tried to make the Federal Government smaller.. that is until they gained control of all three branches of said Government. Now it's a friggin free for all... and on OUR DIME! Total hypocrisy.

He's the entire problem here, not the "husband" that's been living with another woman, had 2 children with her

The woman has been brain dead for 15 years. At least he's taken care of her for that amount of time.

and stands to inherit close to a million dollars from a malpractice settlement when Terri dies. Yes, close to a million dollars.

WRONG! It's been said over and over and over again on EVERY major network that she has been cared for with the settlement money and that there isn't a whole lot left of said settlment.

None of this money has been used to care for Terri, that's being handled by medicare or medicade.

See above answer!

Hell, he was offered 1 million dollars and an uncontested divorce just to leave. He turned it down. Why would he turn down the 1 million when he could send his two kids to any school and give them a nice nest egg for the future? It's already been said by just about every media outlet that the settlement money is almost gone and he's not going to get anything else out of the case. Why wouldn't he just take the cash and the divorce and blow.. maybe because he knew the woman he married and cares deeply about this.

Terri didn't make a choice! Her angel of a husband says she did, but there's nothing in writing. But, again he has no ulterior motive in wishing Terri dead, does he.

And you were there when they talked about it in the wee hours of the morning? You know this guy personally and have spent time with both he and Terri? No.. you say? Well, then you must be a friggin psychic.. you should open your own hotline .. you could make the cash to pay him off and take care of poor Terri.

You really shouldn't demonize the guy without first hand knowledge. You don't know what happened between this couple. And neither do I. I just don't want the Federal Government superseding the 40+ judges and Florida lawmakers that have already heard this case over and over again since it began 7 years ago. It's dangerous precedent.

Jeff in NC, you don't seem to understand how Medicaid or Medicare works. As somone who helped put twho grandparents in Nursing homes and on Medicare to do it. All monies the person had is accounted for to the government government, period. This money is then used to pay their bills until it is gone and then the government takes over. There would be no way for the hushband to hide 1 mil in money from the government and both sides have admitted: THE MONEY IS GONE!

If he was the leach you try to portray him as he would have been smarter to file for divorce the day after recieving the payment and get the half of all assets that he is entitled to as the spouse and leave. I'd be surprised if at this point he isn't in debt to his lawyers for the rest of his life. You have to give this guy credit, faced with a storm of religous zealots he has stood his ground and honored his wife's wishes.

This is a sad day for this country. The Republicans have once again stepped all over our personal freedoms, declaring their moral superority all the while they continue to slaughter untold, countless Iraqis and pushing 2000 american soldiers in a war for oil. God help us, I'm sure he is smelling the hypocrisy. And ofr those who say it's god's choice that we keep alive this slab of meat that hasn't realized that it's dead yet, I say you are violating God's will. He decided to shut down her brain, he decided it was her time to die and we are interfering in his plan by keeping her alive. Nature has not followed it's course, it has been violated!

Julio, the offer of 10 Million was a recent thing. Husband could have petitioned the court for divorce many times over the past years, but didn't. I believe it was because of the money then, and now it's to try to save face. And his wife isn't dead. So, he's technically an adulturer.

If Terri is brain dead like some believe, then her soul/essence/whatever isn't there anymore. So, what's the harm in keeping her fed. She's not on life support keeping the organs alive. She's on a feeding tube. If she just has brain damage, and there is some chance of recovery, however slim, isn't it worth trying?

While it's easy to call the politicians entering this fight leeches, or use it as yet another excuse to bash Bush or the GOP, the fact is this is a very tough issue.
Because while I apreciate the arguments the other side is making, I do feel we will be going down a slippery-slope if we allow a woman to starve/dehydrate to death because she is brain-damaged, especially snce her parents are willing to take care of her.
Once you establish a precedent like this, especially with no living will, there is no going back.
If you don't believe me, ponder this...I have had peole suggest to me that severely autistic children should be allowed to die since A.) They are a burden to ther parents B.) They can't realy communicate or tel their parents 'I love you' or most of the other things we consider "normal".
What's next? The severely retarded? People with Alzheimer's?
These thoughts kep me awake at night sometimes.
So I will back these brave lawmakers who have decided to enter the fray.
Oh, and I voice these opinions as my support for the death penalty continues to wane.

I'm going to stay out of most of this, largely because it seems like few people know much of the details and instead want to focus on the talk-button points...

...however, I did want to say this: Peter, make sure you have a Power of Attorney with that Living Will - a Living Will can be argued.

-Kelly

Jerome:

I do feel we will be going down a slippery-slope if we allow a woman to starve/dehydrate to death because she is brain-damaged, especially snce her parents are willing to take care of her.

Her parents should have no say in this at all. Terri Schiavo is an adult, married woman, and her parents' authority ended a long time ago. If there were no next of kin, maybe, maybe I'd let the parents make this decision. As it stands...nuh-uh.

Once you establish a precedent like this, especially with no living will, there is no going back.

There is a precedent like this. Has been for years. It's that in these cases, the right to make this type of decision falls on the spouse. This isn't establishing a precedent as much as it is destroying one.

Much as I am loathe to increase anybody's ire:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php

If anybody's blood starts to reach pasta-cooking temperature, well, don't say I didn't warn you...

Part of the settlement was for the continuing care of Terri. Part was damage award from the malpractice.

Hey BJ, as for not knowing how medicare/medicaid works, after you have to deal with it for years as well as dealing with a parent with altzheimers, you can get back to me on what I know about the situation.

General Information about Terri:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Who's Paying for Terri:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/11155564.htm

Jeff in NC
"If Terri is brain dead like some believe, then her soul/essence/whatever isn't there anymore. So, what's the harm in keeping her fed. She's not on life support keeping the organs alive. She's on a feeding tube. If she just has brain damage, and there is some chance of recovery, however slim, isn't it worth trying?"

Obviously you've never had anyone you loved in such a state. When my Father had cancer, it caused blood clots in his leg, one of which came loose & caused a stroke. Yeah, he was still conscious, & maybe could register that people were around him, although if he did, he had no knowledge of who or how many people were/was there. But that's ALL he could do. His eyes were completly vacant, had to be kept in diapers & changed, had to be fed, and did little, if anything, more than stare off into space & waste away for the remaining weeks of his life.

Until you've had to experience a similar hell, don't you **DARE** to judge anyone else in this position. Especially when the other people are strangers & you have no idea what their conversations consisted of what situation they're in. And that goes for anyone else who wants to stick up for bush & the other republicans.

If bush & the republicans really cared about right to life & quality of life, they would fully fund medicare & medicaid so that everyone alive can have the quality of life that these opportunistic bastards claim that they want for Terry. If they really cared about any of this they would fully fund the Veterans Administration so that all the soldiers that are getting killed in bush's wars could be taken care of, instead of being stockpiled in barricks &/or turned out into the street. If they believed what they said, they wouldn't have taked away bankruptcy for poeple when cannot meet medical bills or people who can no longer pay their bills because they are either in the service with reduced income or killed in service leaving the remaining family is financial peril.

Besides, while they're preparing to overturn the courts, do you hear any of these well-to-do politicians offering to pay for the cost of keeping Terry alive?

correction:
"all the soldiers that are getting killed in "

Obviously killed should be wounded.

There is a vivid discussion still going on in the Trek BBS and it is also a topic in the British news.

The whole case first of all reminds me to be grateful that there is no one among my immediate family who shares the attitude that "life is sacred at all cost" and "that where is life, there is hope".

I keep wondering, how a parent can be so cruel to fight to keep a loved one in such a state: Trapped in a completely useless body for 15 years! When I first heard about this case, my immediate reaction was, I hope the woman is indeed beyond any level of awareness because if not, I most definitely would have been mad by now!

How also politicians can think that removing a feeding tube is inhumane but letting her in her present state for more - months? years? decades? - is civilized is beyond me.

Here in Britain the Catholic church is arguing that the topic abortion should be part of the election campaign. They are pointing to the USA where religion played such a big part in the election process. Oh, yes, I remember: like the topic stemcell research and gay marriages. Well, a president who even wanted (or did he actually do it?) put an amendment in the constitution to forbid gay marriages is capable of more. What happened now saddens me but, no, I am not surprised.

On the other hand, these religious people are in favour of the death penalty and defend the right of US citizens "to bear arms". I don`t want to start writing about the topic Iraq right now because this text would become much longer.

What happened also confirmed my and my husband`s attitude towards religion and the church. It also confirmed our belief that we made the right decision to not baptize our daughter and leave her out of the church. If she wants to join later, it is up to her, but we won`t encourage her.

Concerning living wills, in the USA there is another aspect to consider: medical expenses. I read it all the time that people in the USA not only have to deal with the illness itself but also with the question how to pay for treatment. Fortunately, here in Britain you don`t have to worry about that. Intensive care costs a fortune and the medical bills for the treatment - or more accurately, preserving her - must be enormous.

I am writing this after I finished reading the other comments so far. Someone said, if people haven`t been in such a situation, they shouldn`t dare judging.

I very much disagree but that is a different matter. Yes, I have some experiences here or mor accurately, my husband has. His mother had a stroke when he was a young teenager. It was serious but she was brought back to live. Only, she was a shadow of herself. Her personality changed completely and she was unable to look after herself. She died a few years later after a second stroke.

To my husband, his mother died twice and he also told me, he wouldn`t want to be brought back after a stroke because he doesn`t want to suffer the same fate as his mother.

Michael Brunner,
First, let me say I am sorry about your father. My grandfather died of cancer, so I can empathize.
That part of your post was touching. But that quickly disappears as you state:
"Until you've experienced a similar hell, don't you DARE (to) judge anyone else in this position. Especially when the other people are strangers and you have no idea what their conversations consisted of what situation they're in. And that goes for anyone else who wants to stick up for Bush and the other Republicans."

Sorry, I reject this knd of thinking completely. Because once we accept it, then it would follow that only those who served in the military should DARE have an opinion about it; that only those directly affected by domestic violence should DARE have an opinion about that; that only those afected by non-smoking laws - mainly businesses should DARE have an opinion about it; and on and on and on.
No Thanks.
Your second paragraph is a demagogic rant that demonizes the "opportunistic bastards". Are you sure they're being "opportunistic"? Is it even possible they are doing what they think to be right? And, sorry to break it to you, they are not all Republicans.
"Besides, while they're preparing to overturn the courts, do you hear any of these well-to-do politicians offering to pay for the cost of keeping Terr(i) alive?"
Since her parents are already offering to do so, that would seem to have little to do with the issue at hand. But if Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush, Tom DeLay or anyone else WERE to make such an offer, would it change your mind? if not, then your question is moot.

To Michael Brunner:
How **DARE** I??? Like I stated, I have a mother with altzheimers. My mother "died" about 12 years ago, and now there is a shell of a person remaining. She needs assistance on a 24 hour a day basis. Do I have the right to tell the nursing home to stop taking her to the dining room and feeding her? Because that's exactly what's happening to Terri now. She's slowly starving and dehydrating.

My brother and I have both agreed and signed papers to the fact that if anything major should happen (heart attack, stroke, etc) then no extrordinary measures should be taken to prolong her life, but for now, there's nothing short of murder we can do to stop her life.

THAT'S how **DARE** I.

Okay, here's my two cents. Living Wills are a great idea, as long as they can be backed up. Like any other legal document, they can be fought over in the courts.

What amuses sickens me about this case is that it's another attempt to invade the bedroom by the Republican Party. They'll let business run rampant, but God forbid that you should be able to have individual choice.

What also kills me is that any southern member of congress is going along with the bill to "protect" this woman. Why? Because the bill is trumping the state court system, and inserting federal authority over the states. As my Georgia-born wife likes to remind me (I was born in NJ), the other reason for the Civil War was State's Rights (not letting the federal government interfere with what the states were doing).

I feel sorry for both sides in this case. From what I've seen on CNN, it seems to me that the woman's parents are doing this out of spite for the husband. According to him (and court documents), the split over what to do about Terri came about when the parents asked for part of the malpractice settlement money, and the husband refused.

Having said that, even though I have nothing against polyamory, it does smell like dead fish that the husband has a "common law" wife and kids. It certainly loosens his credibility to those who think that he should be faithful to his wife.

Out of morbid curiosity...if an 11th-hour, near-impossible miracle occurred and Terri woke up from her coma, and a few weeks or months later regained the ability to communicate and found out how long she'd been on life-support and basically said "WHAT THE F**K DID YOU DO THAT FOR!?"

...how do you suppose the politicians would react to that one?

Amusing typo by Jason R. Anderson:
"a dangerous prescient"

I doubt Bush can be seen as a prescient. So he's either setting a dangerous precedent or being a dangerous president (a case can be made there ;)).

Anyway, my personal view is that the government (any government) should either keep out of situations like this, or provide guidelines after some serious debate. Rushing things through to get some PR and be seen as a crusader is NOT the way. Especially not as it's pretty much a case of Bush ramming his views down everybody's throat. Again. Kinda puts a cramp on this democracy thing he's so eager to ram down the world's throat...

And I can see both sides of the argument of pulling the plug. Preserving life at all costs (the parents) or knowing when it's time to quit (the husband). While I'm personally inclined towards the latter, especially since it has apparently been 15 years that the woman has been in a coma, I can understand why the parents may cling to any hope that their child may recover. I can't see Bush's point of view, though. He's shown that he does not believe in preserving life at all costs, nor does he know when to quit. So if someone could explain his reasoning for interfering - which I'm sure he has, somewhere - I'd be thankful.

"If, like me, you don't want to burden your family and force them to watch you lie there like a slab of meat, consigning you all to a sort of twilight zone holding pattern for year after year after year, then make that clear as well."

Good advice, although in this case it is the family that wants to keep her alive.

I'm uncertain of how I feel about this case, so I don't have the luxury of demonizing the other side. Many of the arguments are patently bogus. "the courts have decided!" the husband's supporters say--the same folks who fell over themselves passing a law to help a woman in an ugly child custody battle years back. "He's in it for the money!" the husband bashers claim, though that should be easy to prove and so far they haven't.

I do have a major problem with starving a woman to death. I keep hearing that it's painless. Ok, animal lovers, how about we pass a law mandating that impounded animals be allowed to die in this painless manner? Would save a bundle on dog and cat food. For that matter, prisoners on death row could be allowed this painless method of execution--it would certainly add a touch of irony to that whole "last meal" thing.

If we are going to kill her, put a bullet in the back of her head. If that strikes one as distasteful, maybe we should let her parents take care of her.

I'm all for pulling the plug on people, including myself if it comes to that, but there ain't no plug here. I don't like the slippery slope argument but one does have to wonder where this will be taken next. She's in only slightly worse shape than some advanced alzheimers cases I've seen and they have even less chance of improving than she does.

So...if push came to shove, I'd probably have voted for the law that congress passed. They can always kill her later. There is so much political posturing on both sides that it's hard to see what the truth is.

"Well, a president who even wanted (or did he actually do it?) put an amendment in the constitution..."

Fortunately, Baerbel, in the US, a President can't amend the COnstitution by fiat. Instead, the issue must get the approval of 2/3 of Congress, then of 2/3 of the state legislatures. That's one reason why it's only been amended 16 times over the past two centuries. (The first 10 don't count for our purposes - they were passed almost immediately after this Constitution was adopted, in 1787.)

No matter what you're feeling on the decision for this case, is it something that should be tying up both a large state's legislature (why is it always Florida and why do I live here?) and now the federal government? What the **** ever happened to the Republican idea of government staying out of our lives?!? Can you imagine a more personal issue, or one which is a better example of when the government should keep away?
If the government wants to keep people from starving, there are millions of people they can provide food for. If they care about people dying unnecessarily, there's more examples of that then any reasonable human wants to think of. Instead our attention is focused on this case. I guess Michael Jackson isn't sufficiently distracting right now.
Here's the circus, where's my bread?

My grandmother had a stroke a few years go. She survived, but had some mobility and balance issues, and developed dementia after that. Most days she was pretty good, some days she'd forget what year it was, how old she was. Which wasn't that big a change.

Last year, she suffered another stroke, only this one left her comatose. She had discussed ahead of time with my mother not to put her on life support. There was no will, although she had had the foresight to make my mother her executor and guardian, including power of attorney. The doctors made her as comfortable as they could, but made no efforts to sustain her body beyond it's own means. She passed peacefully a few days later.

Her husband had died 20 years before that. He developed inoperable lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking. His last year of life was spent confined to a bed with gradually increasing twice-daily morphine doses to allow him to sleep through the constant pain he was in.

So I have some experience with this sort of thing. And I am outraged on so many levels...

First, the very idea that our Federal Government has mobilized for one person disgusts me. I don't care that congress was on a break, and they are essentially doing this on their own time. Where were they over the years as other families dealt with this issue? This cannot be the first time a family has disagreed or come to legal challenges over who has a say in whether to continue artificial life support for a striken loved one. So what makes this case so special that our government takes direct action? Media coverage and political coin.

Secondly, this is a blatant attempt by the Federal government to usurp state power. This issue has been in the Florida court system for nearly 15 years. Yet for some reason, the Federal government feels that they need to have a final review of this case? Are they saying that Washington doesn't trust the states? Or maybe it's just Florida, and George is playing literal Big Brother to Jeb?

I find it criminally hypocritical that so many republicans can applaud this effort, while at the same time speak about defending the institution of marraige. One of the key benefits of marraige is control of medical care. Yet when a husband tries to exercise that right of marraige, they feel the need to step in and look things over. He says he's respecting the wishes of his wife. I find it hard to believe that, aside from a house and other property, there's not exactly a lot of marital property that he stands to inherit upon her death, and given that he's turned down a no-contest divorce/buy-out, it seems that the only possible explanations are that he either really, really hated his wife, or he is telling the truth. Yet now the government wants to take that right away from marraige. How is that defending marraige?

My only hope is in the judiciary. What the Republicans call "activist judges," I my Obi-Wan Kenobi. Given the number of recent judicial decisions overturning recently passed (read Republican) laws, my hope is that the Federal courts reach a quick and correct decision that they have no jurisdiction to review this case, despite what Congress says. The judiciary is in place explicitly to provide a check on the legislative and executive branches, for exactly this situation. When on party controls both branches, the sitting-for-life judges, relatively removed from political life, are entrusted with enforcing those laws compatibable with the Constitution, and not enforcing those that run against the powers set aside for the government. This is clearly a case of the Federal government exceeding it's powers.

Without legal documentation, the husband has the most legal standing to make this decision. Period.

The parents were wrong not to accept his decision and take it to the courts.

The courts got it right anyway.

The Florida Legislature and Congress should not have intervened. George and Jeb should not have signed the laws. The Florida one has already been overturned, and the Federal law likely will as well.

The GOP was wrong to bring this to the federal level. The Democrats were wrong to delay the vote yesterday on a procedural technicality when they knew the votes were there - they becamse just as guilty of playing politics with her life at that point. All of this for the sake of press conferences on both sides.

There's just way too much stupidity going on with this.

I have a living will - I have had it for five years now - and I am more glad of it every day.

Despite the arguments for keeping her alive vs. pulling the feeding tube; despite the arguments of hypocricy/opportunism/manipulation on either side; despite ALL that...

Am I the only one who has a problem with the Congress passing a law that basically says, "It doesn't matter what the local or state courts have decided, or what jurisdictional laws are; the federal courts are going to hear this case carte blanche"? (Yes, I know the bill specifically says it won't "constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation," but, as the saying goes, words are cheap.)

This steps all over all kinds of jurisdictional, state/federal, and separation of powers issues and I just find that more than a little off-putting.

Bill, there's clearly a plug here. The woman was only kept alive by a tube fed directly into her stomach to provide her with nutrients and water. Digestion is an autonomous function, running whether higher brain function is present or not. Without that, she would have died years ago.

And it's painless because she has no higher brain function. Pain, and more importantly, the body's reaction to is, is a conscious function of the brain requiring higher brain capacity (or so I understand...anyone feel free to present medical knowledge to correct me). So starvation while in a coma or brain-dead is painless. Or better put, the body exhibits no signs that there is any pain. Starving a fully conscious person/animal, as I undestand it, is quite painful. Which is why food deprivation is a fairly effective form of torture.

On another note...

Anyone catch that a man was arrested while attempting to sneak into the hospital with food and water? Which, if he had been successful, would likely have resulted in choking her to death, as she has no capacity to swallow.

Idiocy among the lunacy, I say.

Except that a former nurse has come forward and said she IS capable of swallowing. And that therapy for swallowing has never been allowed by the husband.

If this was a case of her receiving a fatal dose of morphine, or somesuch, I could deal with it. This is a case of a woman being starved to death. And the courts are allowing it. Barbaric, says I.

The Terri Shiavo case is heart-wrenching because I do believe that both the husband and the parents are doing what they believe is best for her or what she would have wanted. Let's be realistic. She isn't coming back. The doctors give her no real chance of recovery and after 15(?) years, it's clear to me that any hope of recovery has long since faded away.

I've thought a lot about what what I would want in such a situation were I condemned to spending my life staring at the ceiling, unable to function in capacity whatsoever or to even comprehend my surroundings. That sounds like hell to me. I know what I would want in that situation: Pull the damn tube.

But that's me. I can't speak for what Terri would have wanted or whether her parents or her husband could possibly know her wishes better. I think, though, it is a tell that for all the years that have gone by, the courts have consistantly sided with her husband. If there was any credible evidence that he had some kind of ulterior motive, wouldn't some court in Florida's judicial system have found that out?

What sickens me, is that the same politicians who constantly proclaim that families, not the government, should make decisons about personal finance and health care, are now bringing the full weight of the federal government to bear not that the one family member with legal standing in the case has made a decision that they don't approve of. Those that preach that the federal government should stay out of areas that are traditionally the state's business, are once again interfering in a case that a state government has already decided because they don't like the decision. The same politicians that loudly rail against federal courts that "legislate" from the bench are now calling on those same federal courts to rewrite the law, giving them the power to intervene. That Congress would use its subpoena power, not to investigate, but simply to interfere is reprehensible.

The politicians are just doing their usual grandstanding. I don't believe that anyone of them give a damn about Terri Shiavo. They're just trying to get votes. It's clear that those "principles" that they preach go out the window the second somebody makes a personal decision they don't like.

And that should scare everybody.

Rob, I dated a speech therapist for three years. Her training included swallow rehabilitation. Swallowing is not something you can treat with therapy if there's no conscious person to work with. Many people that are conscious have to learn how to control the swallow reflex all over again after a stroke or some throat surgeries. My guess is that the husband didn't allow it 1) because it went against the wishes of his wife, and 2) it would have endangered her because she has no ability to respond to therapy, nor control her swallow reflex, and she'd be just as likely to aspirate (take food or water into the lungs) just as much as swallow.

How quick we are to demonize politicians. Surely they are incapable of compassion, so their actions must be because they are heartless horrors looking for an easy vote.

Jerome is correct in accessing the danger of "where does it stop?" While I agree I don't want to live under such circumstances - and hence have as much in my will - I am uncomfortable with not being able to look at these on a case by case basis. In this case, as I understand it, there has been no therapy, nothing that might bring some response. Nurses have claimed she has "good moments" which would likely expand with therapy.
There is also some question on how she came to be injured and if the husband had something to do with it. I have no idea if that's true, yet his unwillingness to provide for (and stand in the way of) basic therapy makes me go hmmmmm....

Sanctity of life is a big deal. There is no hypocrasy in being for the death penalty and against euthenasia and abortion. Why it's okay to kill the innocent but not hunky dory to kill the truly guilty is beyond me (I'm not completely for the death penalty, but being for abortion and against the death penalty seems screwy to me).

War can be a necessary thing. King David had the right to send warriors out in war; he did not have the right to have Bathsheba's husband sent on a mission to purposely get killed. There are distinctions. Are you suggesting that the Revolutionary War, WWI, II and the Civil War were wrong to prosecute? Is it war in general, or just THIS war that you find objectionable?

My mom and I discussed this last night and agreed to get living wills and give copies of them to each other. Fifteen years on a feeding tube isn't living. It's being alive, and only by a technicality. Neither of us wants that.

Not all states allow or recognize living wills. You should check your state to see what's required, if they're allowed at all. A quick call or letter/e-mail to your state attorney general should get you the relevant information.

That is, unless the Federal government decides it wants to pre-empt your state's ability to legislate it's own laws.

Alan M: "Despite the arguments for keeping her alive vs. pulling the feeding tube; despite the arguments of hypocricy/opportunism/manipulation on either side; despite ALL that...

Am I the only one who has a problem with the Congress passing a law that basically says, "It doesn't matter what the local or state courts have decided, or what jurisdictional laws are; the federal courts are going to hear this case carte blanche"? (Yes, I know the bill specifically says it won't "constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation," but, as the saying goes, words are cheap.)

This steps all over all kinds of jurisdictional, state/federal, and separation of powers issues and I just find that more than a little off-putting."

No, Alan, you're not the only one. This "law" is, quite possibly, the most disgusting aspect of this entire case. That these opportunists and demagogues would be so willing to trample the Constitution to score political points with the most inanse of their constituents, but can't show that level of dedication to, I don't know, balancing the damn budget, horrifies me beyond word.

Congress, what the hell am I paying you for?

Myths versus Facts

Terri's situation can be confusing. Because of misreporting and inaccuracies, it is easy to lose sight of the real issues surrounding her case.
We've compiled what we believe to be important items that are not always clear to the general public, but that deserve understanding.

Most Common Questions and Answers
If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?

Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.

Why can't Terri just divorce?

Terri's husband/guardian speaks for her. She cannot divorce without his permission

Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?

Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.

Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?

Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.

Is Terri receiving life support?

Not in the traditional sense. Terri only receives food and fluids via a simple tube.

Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die?

No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful. Read more here.

Most common misconceptions about Terri's situation

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley - $10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell - $65,607.00
Atty Steve Nilson - $7,404.95
Atty Pacarek - $1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) - $4,511.95
Atty George Felos - $397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank
$55,459.85

Michael Schiavo
$10,929.95

Total $545,852.34
http://www.terrisfight.org/myths.html

How quick we are to demonize politicians.

I wouldn't be so quick if they weren't so damn hypocritical all the time. Now, whenever I see a politician spewing lofty rhetoric about empowering families to make their own decisions, I'll see the following asterix:

* - Unless, of course, you make a decision that we don't like, then we'll be on you like white on rice.

Surely they are incapable of compassion, so their actions must be because they are heartless horrors looking for an easy vote.

It comes from having their soul removed. :P

Jerome is correct in accessing the danger of "where does it stop?"

Where it begins: with families making these decisions, not the courts, and not the elected parasites in Washington.

Sanctity of life is a big deal. There is no hypocrasy in being for the death penalty and against euthenasia and abortion. Why it's okay to kill the innocent but not hunky dory to kill the truly guilty is beyond me (I'm not completely for the death penalty, but being for abortion and against the death penalty seems screwy to me).

I'm against both. Does that make you feel better?

War can be a necessary thing.

It can also be a thing done for the wrong reasons.

King David had the right to send warriors out in war;

I miss the days when we lived in a republic instead of a monarchy. :P

Is it war in general, or just THIS war that you find objectionable?

I find this particular one objectionable, considering we were LIED to about the reason we started it.

There's no basis to say that the absense of therapy is an illegal denial of therapy. Florida law says patients retain the right to therapy. Her husband is her legal guardian. If he denies therapy, that's within his authority as her legal guardian. His actions carry the same weight as though Terri herself had acted. There hasn't been a denial of therapy so much as therapy has been refused.

There's an interesting parallel in this case with death-row appeals. In both cases, some party is willing to fight to the literal last breath, often taking extreme actions, in order to stave off the inevitable.

One additional thing I think this case highlights, is the impact media, both good and bad, has had on public opinion. Someone reading the "facts" (no offense to Bob Jones, but without reading the supporting material Mr. Jones has, his facts are really just educated opinion) presented by Mr. Jones would probably side with Terri's family. Others, reading a different set of "facts," would side with her husband.

Which is all the more reason for the Federal government to stay the heck out of this. Next thing you know, Bush will ask Congress to legislate a peace between the Hatfields and the McCoys....

After reading the previous post, I'm simply going to say that the courts have repeatedly said otherwise about many of the "facts" purported about Shiavo's case.

It comes down to one simple fact, one that has been challenged repeatedly and in every case supported by the courts: Michael Schiavo is Terri's legal guardian. His decision, one way or the other, should be the final say.

And I find it disquieting that the party in power, the people who loudly proclaim the sanctity of "state's rights", who scream loud and proud about "getting government off the backs of the individual", seem to want to add "...unless of course we don't agree with the decision and can make political hay throught it".

JSM

What if Sarah Scantlin had been starved?

Jeff Morris is 100% correct in his statement. Every single court to date has found in Micheal and Terri Schiavo's favor.

Let's see, however, if the federal court sees it the same way as the other courts. I'd be very interested to know how much pressure Judge James Whittemore is under right about now. Especially considering the politicians involved.

"Out of morbid curiosity...if an 11th-hour, near-impossible miracle occurred and Terri woke up from her coma, and a few weeks or months later regained the ability to communicate and found out how long she'd been on life-support and basically said "WHAT THE F**K DID YOU DO THAT FOR!?"

...how do you suppose the politicians would react to that one?"

The politicians would say that clearly they knew best because she recovered.

PAD

After reading the previous post, I'm simply going to say that the courts have repeatedly said otherwise about many of the "facts" purported about Shiavo's case.

I agree. While Terri's mother and few nurses have reported seeing signs that she has responded, no one us in this forum were witness to these observations and it is just as likely that they are the product of wishful thinking, like the "assisted communication" fad from a few years ago.

What I find interesting is all the accusations about her husband's supposed ulterior motives. If all he wanted was the settlement money, then he could have just divorced her and taken half. Instead, he's spent years fighting in courts. Between the legal fees and her medical bills, that money has to be long gone. If all he wanted was to be with this new woman, then again, he could just as easily have divorced Terri and left her in the care of her parents.

The fact that he hasn't walked about from this case for 15 years says one of two things: That he is a truly evil person who is working out of spite, or that he really does still care for her and truly believes in his heart that she is gone and this want she would have wanted.

The most disgusting tactic I've seen here was when they tried to subpoena Terry to appear before Congress, claiming that if she was allowed to die they would be subverting the subpoena. What next -- coma victims called to present evidence? And the lawyer was claiming that if she was put in a wheelchair she'd be just as responsive as anyone else. Um, no -- she has suffered tremendous brain damage and has been vegitative for FIFTEEN YEARS!!!

I suspect the parents believe she's responsive because that's what they want to think. Every facial tic or movement can be interpreted as a response, every sound or grunt a reply. However, they should accept the inevitable: Terry as you knew her is gone, she will not get better, she will not come back. Say a prayer and let her go.

Oh, and a short time ago Republicans who were against gay marriage kept shouting about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of a union between a man and a woman. Now they're perfectly happy to totally ignore the beliefs and wishes of her husband, who is her legal guardian. Go figure.

It's a tough situation all around. In many ways it would seem to be better if he did hand her over to her parents. But that said, regardless of the moral issues, there seems to be three primary legal issues at stake that anything prolonging her life would overturn at least one of and cause harm to:

1. Innocent Until Proven Guilty
This, simply put means the we (the government) has to assume the Michael Shivo is telling the truth and is compitent to serve as his wife’s legal representative until proven otherwise.

2. A person has the right to refuse treatment.
If you do not have the right to decide which treatments you receive, then who does? This is so key to our way of life. The individual has the rught to make choices that are harmful to themselves. If you go to a doctor and they tell you that the only way to save your life is to undertake these series of treatments that you don’t want to for aby reason, should the government step in and say treat him anyway?

3. Your spouse is your legal representative.
Again, this is a basic tenet of law since time immemorial (albeit one-sided in many cultures). If you are unable to make a decision, your spouse is legally you for the ourpose of that decision. And they have to be. Who would you rather making the choices for you if you are incapacitated then your lifemate? Your parents? Your government?

Now, as a disclaimer, I want to say that my political views are usually between right-wing Republican, and Libertarian. With tis case I maintian tha t most of us cannot know all the details, so we cannot judge which side is acting out of her interests or their own, but the above legal concepts are true regardless. His ma be a case where doing the right thing (hypotetically saving her life) would cause disasterous consequenses down the road to others. (Through legal precident)

What if Sarah Scantlin had been starved?

Well, then she would be dead. But, the fact that she came out of a 20 year coma isn't proof that Terria Shiavo would do the same. Each case is unique and if there is a doctor out there who has examined Terri and does not believe that she is in a "persistant vegetative state," then why haven't a single court found him or her credible?

On balance, I still feel far more comfortable with decisions like these being made by the closest relative, which in most states is the spouse for married adults, than by grandstanding politicians.

I spent some time visiting my grandmother after she had suffered her second stroke. Her eyes opened at times, but she made no sign that she recognized anyone or anything in the room. She could move, a little, but it was pretty much random shifting, like one might make while asleep. Once in a while, some sound would pass her lips, but mostly whistles or a moan.

Point being, she demonstrated what some might consider signs of "life." Motion, independant of outside stimuli, expression of sound, etc. And my mother swears that once grandma squeezed her hand when my mother spoke her name.

Point being, people see what they want to see. I see images of Terri on TV and I see a body that's got no brain motivating it beyond autonomous functions. Others see a very injured woman struggling to cope with the limitations of her injury.

In the case of my grandmother, she didn't live long enough to really starve to death. Her body gave out long before that. But, in deciding to deny further care and attempts to ressusicitate, we effectively gave her to God, and if He wanted her to recover, she would. But it was our decision to make. And we would have been emotionally devastated if some Federal agent had shown up and forced us to use artificial means to keep her body alive longer.

So at what point/age is it ok to allow someone to die a natural death, rather than live an unnatural live? Post retirement, so the social security checks stop? When medicare ends? After 20 years of support? There's no hard and fast answer that will satisfy everyone, which is exactly why the Federal government should just stay an observer.

From what I know of Sarah Scantlin, there were very significant different facts. First, Sarah exhibited some response/communication to outsiders, blinking once or twice to respond to yes/no questions. Terri, from what I have read, has been diagnosed as being "brain dead," meaning the higher functions such as speech, deliberate movement, and communication centers no longer functioned. Sarah appears to just have been in a coma. Very different medical issues.

On the other hand, if Sarah's parents had decided to deny treatment, I'd have supported their right to make that decision. And the blessing in that? If they had done so, they'd have never know that Sarah would have regained the ability to speak. And if they were of a christian faith, they'd be able to take solace in the fact that their daughter was back with God.

Screaming hypocrites who consider all life sacred--unless, of course, we're bombing it into oblivion or consigning it to death row for execution.

As opposed to the hypocrites who considered all life meaningless unless they are serial killers or known terrorists.

"As opposed to the hypocrites who considered all life meaningless unless they are serial killers or known terrorists."

Bullshit.

Next?

PAD

Yeah, that basically sums up my response to the quote I posted of yours.

"Yeah, that basically sums up my response to the quote I posted of yours."

My comment was based upon the indisputable track record of this Congress and its hypocritical leadership. Your comment was based upon your usual bullshit.

Next?

PAD

Well, ok Ken, show us those people that consider all life, other than serial killers or known terrorists, meaningless? 'cause I'd figure that the only folks that would fit that bill pretty much ARE serial killers or terrorists.

I'm pretty sure you're trying to implicate the so-called pro choice group. Which, if it were true that they considered all life meaningless, they'd be composed of homicidal maniacs killing whenever they felt the whim take them.

So, I'd say PAD's call for a BS dismissal is pretty appropriate.

Saying it's better to "err on the side of life," from the same man that launced a war against Iraq on faulty evidence is almost a perfect example of hypocrisy. Where was Bush's "err(ing) on the side of life" two years ago when he decided to take action that would and has taken thousands of innocent lives? It was in the pile of "things that would get in the way of my agenda," and so conviently ignored. Now, it serves a purpose, mainly glomming onto a public issue that can score him points with the groups that he seeks support from.

Which is exactly why you'd not hear squeek one from this government if this were a case involving a gay couple.

People make it sound like the husband is the only voice being listened to and that the parents haven't had a say... but they have. There was a court case. They got to present their arguements. They got to present their doctors. The simple truth is that the court listened to their evidence and found it lacking. They found the evidence presented by Michael Schiavo to be more credible. They found the evidence of her friends and the people that knew her to be more credible.

I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the government can legislate me to have or not have a medical procedure without my expressed consent.

Next step: eugenics? forced sterilization? radical gene therapy to help those queers?

This is just another court vs government opportunity for this administration to make a grab for more power and control while marginalizing and limiting the power of the Courts and those "few radical judges" that they're always complaining about.

This woman's husband won't even let the nurses open a window so that she can see the sun. It's important to her that she be kept away from stimuli, despite the fact that so many medical professionals say she could benefit from therapy.

What really happened that night she "fell down"?

There's only one possible upside, if this turns out to be a successful Federal coup of state authority:

When the Republicans finally lose control of the government, whoever replaces them will inherit all this power they've amassed. Hopefully, that group will take steps to undue this horrible precedent. But if they don't, some part of me will take some satisfaction in watching the republican reaction to seeing someone else run willy nilly over their ideals and beliefs.

This thing is a huge mess, and barring the simple solution of a written and signed advanced directive, I don't see an easy solution. While -- initially -- I sympathized with both sides, I think both the parents and the husband have been hijacked by exremists on both sides of the issues, and now can't back down for fear of proving the other side "right."

I DO sympathize with the parents, if this was my daughter, I'd likely be insane with grief, too, and unable to accept the generally acknowledged consensus that Terri was gone.

This is a little more complex than other right-to-die cases, in that Terri's not dying. Yes, the lights are on, but no one's home. The heart beats, the lungs breath, the stomach will digest food if it's put there and the intestines do their job. But TERRI's not there anymore. Whatever's provoking the laughing and the crying and the reaction to stimuli ISN'T Terri. Someone dismissively referred to the person who called her a "houseplant," but it's a pretty apt metaphor. Houseplants react to stimuli (they grow towards the sun, for example), and I don't doubt that if laughing and crying were in their repertoire, they'd do that, too, in responce to whatever stimulus triggered the reaction (cold water on the roots, maybe?). At worst, she's a meat puppet. Even if it was possible that somehow her brain completely rebooted itself, and she's at the level of an infant or severely brain-damaged adult, all the therapy in the world won't recreate the Terri that existed before her heart attack.

On the other hand, I can totally understand how painful this has to be for Michael, as insane as I would be if this was my child, I would be equally devastated if this was my wife, and even the thought of her having some rudimentary awareness of her situation would be heartbreaking to me.

All that being said, 15 years of hindsight brings the whole thing into sharp focus: Michael should have bitten the bullet, divorced Terri, and let her parents have custody of her body. The Terri HE wants to put to rest is just as gone as their daughter. She doesn't know what's going on anymore, and if letting her parents play vegetable dress-up makes them happy, then so be it.

But that will never happen. Both sides have dug in deeper than the Maginot line. I bet a dollar the tube goes back in, and we have this discussion again in 15 years.

despite the fact that so many medical professionals say she could benefit from therapy.

I'll ask this question again since you haven't seen fit to answer it: Who are these medical professionals, and if they are so sure about her benefitting for some kind of "therapy," why hasn't any court from the lowest trial court to the Florida Supreme Court found them credible?

More to the point: Where is the compelling federal interest for Congress to intervene? The federal courts have already declined to intervene because they found there is none. The same politicians who routinally attack "activist judges" for sticking their noses where they don't belong are now calling on those same judges intervene when they can score political points.

I admit, I probably overstated the "how **DARE** they" part, but I was kinda tired & the last line of Jeff in NC's statement seemed like a shrugging of the shoulders with a 'so what' approach. It can be hard to tell from plain typed text.

Jeff in NC, not to belittle your mother's condition, because I do sympathize, but it sounds as though your mother can still get around some, which is different from Terry's case, where she is no more than an empty shell being kept alive by a feeding tube.

As for the opportunistic politicians, if they're doing this because they think it's right, then why don't they show similar concern for ALL Americans? How many hundreds or even thousands of people are turned away from hospitals every day because they don't have health coverage? How many more don't even go to a doctor/clinic/hospital because they can't afford the medical bills? How many thousands of people, mostly seniors, have to choose between food or medicine?

If these politicians truly cared about people, these problems would be eliminated, or at least greatly reduced. Instead, the programs that could help, Medicare, Medicaid & the V.A. are having their budgets cut.

Starvation is barbaric. Yes, it is. How many homeless people starve? where's the Congressional action to stop this starvation?

"Nurses have claimed she has "good moments" which would likely expand with therapy" (& other related quotes). I know that nurses are trained professionals, but when it's a matter of what doctors say & what nurses say, I'm going to have to side with the doctors, because their training is far more extensive.

Also, much has been said of the husbands common law wife. Anyone know how long they've been together? If it 12 to fifteen years, then yeah, it sounds like he wasted no time replacing his wife. But if it's only like 5 or 7 years, then it sounds more like he was getting on with his life after the wife's death.

I agree this is a horrific situation to be in. But I don't think the husband should have just capitulated. Imagine how horrible it would be to know that your wife's wishes were being denied by her parents, and that she was being kept alive for their benefit, not hers, and contrary to her expressed desire. It's just as easy to say that the parents should have just accepted reality and allowed their daughter to go to God in her own way.

The really sick thing is that after Terri was released from the hospital following immediate treatment for her mysterious fall, it was assumed that her husband would follow the advice of the doctors and take her to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center. Everyone thought she had a good chance. But instead he locked her into a little closet at Sable Palms Nursing Home, ordering the nurses not to address Terri directly or open the blinds.

The really sick thing is that after Terri was released from the hospital following immediate treatment for her mysterious fall, it was assumed that her husband would follow the advice of the doctors and take her to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center. Everyone thought she had a good chance. But instead he locked her into a little closet at Sable Palms Nursing Home, ordering the nurses not to address Terri directly or open the blinds.

Mr. Race, in the words of the Straight Dope Message Board:

"Cites, please."

JSM

Everyone seems to obsess over the million that was given her and what happened to it. I want to know where the parents are getting the funding to keep challenging the courts in front of 19 judges! Schiavo has stated a number of times the parents started acting like this when they were informed that they wouldn't get one cent of her settlement. So considering Schiavo has supposedly spent over $400,000 being on the defensive, the parents have had to spend more than that being on the offensive. So who's paying their bills?

The more that I've heard about the parents int he last few weeks the more I'm of the opion that this isn't about their daughter's life, it's about publicity and money. And whoever posted that Terri's Rights Crap, the trials are a matter of public record and browsing thru them your faq is wrong about most things.

The real fact of this matter is this woman would be long dead at any other point in history except the last several decades. It's time to let nature follow it's course. God pulled the plug 15 years ago and we stuck our finger in the dike to try and block his decision.

PAD keep up the good work.

I definitely need to have a living will put together -- of course, I don't really have the kind of money that would allow me the honor of a lawyer sneezing on me but I need to find a way to deal with this soon.

I'm not going to argue the particulars of this because it's possible that both sides want what's best (the husband who doesn't his wife to live in that condition and the parents who can't give up hope because their love is so great).

However, I wonder how the parents in this forum would react in such a situation? No matter what side you take, I imagine it must be tough for a parent to suddenly lose the ability to make these sorts of decisions for their children after years of having done so -- from the first minor accident to something like this.

My comment was based upon the indisputable track record of this Congress and its hypocritical leadership.

It is very disputable that the track record of Congress and its leadership show any form of hypocriticism.

It is your usual BS to state something as fact that is not. Conservatives don't state all life is sacred, but rather all innocent life is sacred. Death row inmates, in most cases, are not innocent. Those we fight against in Iraq are not innocent. Unfortunately to put an end to the tyranny and terrorism, some innocents have died. No one feels good about that.

It is your usual BS to state your opinion as right and state others opinions as BS.

No matter what side you take, I imagine it must be tough for a parent to suddenly lose the ability to make these sorts of decisions for their children after years of having done so

All parents lose the right to speak for their children on their child's 18th birthday. Most get over it.

For the record, source http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

In seeing the allusions to the husband's involvement, somehow, in Terri's injury, I tried to so some independant research into it. Other news stories I've read said that her collapse was connected to a chemical imbalance related to an eating disorder. Short of poisoning, that's not your typical injury that smells of foul play.

According to the above source, Terri suffered a heart attack, and had to be ressusitated. Her cerebral cotrex was so badly damaged that over the years, it deteriorated and has been replaced by spinal fluid. Which, if I understand that correctly, means not only is she "brain-dead," she's in fact missing the physical aspects of the brain associated with higher brain functions. The words doctors have used in support of adminstering therapy have said that there are treatments that could "improve" her condition. Not cure her, not revive her, not heal the injury.

So, if I'm understanding that correctly, Terri now has less brain functions than my cats. And unless we suddenly develop the ability to perform brain transplants, or cause the body to regrow lost brain matter, she's not going to advance much beyond the basic level she's at. It's like a car with the engine running, it's in drive, but no one's in the car. It could idle, maybe creep forward, will turn if someone leans in and turns the wheel, etc. But Terri's not coming back.

Next step: eugenics? forced sterilization? radical gene therapy to help those queers?

Didn't we do that already, I mean that's sooo twentieth century.

It is very disputable that the track record of Congress and its leadership show any form of hypocriticism.

**cough**TomDeLay**cough**

On living wills, or just wills in general, you don't need a lawyer to get one. It's a good idea to consult with a lawyer, especially one that practices in estate/probate law, in order to make sure your will complies with the requirements of your state.

Wills are like contracts, in that they reflect private law-making. Most require some form of witnassing, and there are individual state requirements as to who can witness, who can prepare, and who can benefit from a will (such as, often, the preparer of a will cannot be a beneficiary, usually). Most states don't have strict form or language requirements for a will to be legal. There are computer programs available that contain forms and examples that run about $15, or free if you buy income tax software with it.

If all else fails, write yourself on Word or Wordperfect a Will or living trust document, and check with your state attorney general's office on the witnessing requirements.

Then, and this is the most important aspect, TELL YOUR FAMILY. Tell them about the will, what's in it, and make your wishes known if you want a living will/do not treat condition honored. And it's never too early to do this. The more family members that know, the less likely it will be that someone can challenge your wishes. You can tell friends, too, but they don't have any legal standing to support or enforce your wishes, unless you marry or adopt them or something.

Hey, does anyone else wonder why Congress couldn't be bothered to focus this kind of attention on the Jessica Lunsford case? Where was all of their concern about the "sanctity" of that life?

The only concern Congress has for Terri is how she can be used for political hash and talking points. If you ask me, life ain't so sacred if it's only sacred by political mandate.

Then I start to wonder if stem cell research could be a help to Terri...

What really happened that night she "fell down"?

She must've voted Republican.

Now, to be serious about this:

It's bad enough that far too many people are assuming that the husband has an ulterior motive, but now you're going out on a limb to say he's done something criminal?

Great, what a wonderful thing to suggest.

Now that that's out of the way, I think Bush obviously called Osama to approve of 9/11. I mean, if we're going to make pathetically asanine suggestions about shit we know nothing about...

Death row inmates, in most cases, are not innocent.

Except when we execute an innocent.

But we can just sweep that aspect under the rug, yes?

Yes, friends, the US government--the one that the GOP claims they want to keep out of people's lives--just loves mixing into people's deaths, setting the calendar on life termination and making sure that no one, absolutely no one, dies before the government is ready to send them to their deaths personally.

I absolutely agree that everyone should get a living will. That would obviously have resolved this a long time ago.

PAD's comments, however, are absurd. It SHOULD be the governments job to protect innocent life. If there is ANYTHING the government has a responsibility to do, it is this. Obviously, there will be moments when we disagree on the best way to do this. For example, I believe the death penalty, when fairly applied, is a legitimate method of protecting other innocent life from being killed. Many of you disagree because of the fear of taking the innocent life of a person wrongly convicted. I can respect that. Both sides are wanting to protect innocent life.

Which takes us to this case. There are so many lies and distortions, it is hard to get to the heart of the matter. But here is how I see it:

1.) FACT: There is no living will. There is no way to know what Terri actually wants. The fact that the majority may all agree that they would not want to continue in such a state is irrelevant. We don't know what she wants. And if there is any doubt, then you MUST err on the side of life. (And yes, that would apply to the death penalty. I am fine with the death penalty being used in a more limited fashion rather than accidentally taking the life of an innocent person.)

2.) FACT: Terri is neither brain dead nor in a coma. Medical experts agree that she has some level of awareness. It is not much. And it is unlikely she will recover. But we are not talking about someone who has no brain function. We are talking about someone who is limited. Someone who has some awareness of what is going on. There is a huge difference. (It should also be noted that, while unlikely, others HAVE recovered when medical experts have sworn it was impossible. While I realize the parents may be setting themselves up for only years of further grief, medical experts cannot say with absolute certainty that recovery is impossible.)

3.) FACT: Terri is only on a feeding tube, not on extraordinary means to prolong her life. That has two important ramifications:

a.) What if Terri COULD eat on her own, but otherwise was exactly the same. Would it be allowable to starve her to death? Because that is what is truly happening. And that is why this is such an issue to conservatives. This is what I find so ironic. PAD accuses conservatives of being hypocrites, but I think it is the other way around. Liberals like to say they are the voice for those who have no voice (such as for civil rights). Yet when there is truly someone who has no voice and whose life is about to be ended, the liberals are saying it is better. Obviously, this is a complex issue. I can understand that the thought of her staying this way for another 30 years is a horrible concept. Yet she has NOT stated her wishes in a way that can be verified. If she was not on a feeding tube, would you be ok with them simply starving her to death? I think that should be unthinkable, but clearly it is not.

b.) If I did to my cat what is being done to Terri, I would be put in prison. Yet we are doing this to a person who IS concious and has some level of awareness. Starving someone to death is an excruciating way to die. And make no mistake, she WILL feel this distress. She may not have full mental ability, but she will go through distress. This is not like taking her off life support where she quickly slips away. This is allowing her to linger for a week or more, experiencing a distress that you cannot dream of. You want to talk about "hell on earth," starving her to death is exactly that. While I in no way advocate it, there are far more humane ways to end her life than just removing a feeding tube.

Yes, the GOP is interfering. And rightly so. They are acting to protect an innocent life.

Iowa Jim

Her parents should have no say in this at all. Terri Schiavo is an adult, married woman, and her parents' authority ended a long time ago. If there were no next of kin, maybe, maybe I'd let the parents make this decision. As it stands...nuh-uh.

At least for me, the parents and/or the husbands wishes are irrelevant. Without knowing the wishes of the person, the government must act to protect the person's life. Period.

Iowa Jim

Somebody mentioned earlier about what would happen if Terri "woke up" and wondered why the hell her husband was trying to let her die.

What would happen if she "woke up" and wondered why the hell her wishes weren't carried out?

Neocons would be forced to stick their head between their legs and crawl back into whatever latrines they came out of.

Jim,

In the instance of a healthy cat, yes. However, if your cat had no mobility and you had to force-feed it each day, then you would likely put it to sleep and no one would second-guess you for it - let alone make a federal case.

Out of morbid curiosity...if an 11th-hour, near-impossible miracle occurred and Terri woke up from her coma, and a few weeks or months later regained the ability to communicate and found out how long she'd been on life-support and basically said "WHAT THE F**K DID YOU DO THAT FOR!?"

...how do you suppose the politicians would react to that one?

Actually, it has happened. More than once. And the person was usually grateful to be alive and to be again with their family.

Obviously, the circumstances vary. But I believe you have no choice but to err on the side of keeping someone alive.

Jim, I haven't seen any indication that she's conscious. And based on the "her cerebral cortex is gone" evidence I've found, I find it hard to believe that she is in any state that anyone would describe as conscious.

Second, the law has years and years of prior legal precedent for exactly this case. Living wills are a relatively new creation, since only in recent memory (40 years, say) has medical science developed to the point where we can artificially sustain life far beyond the body's natural ability to do so. Before there were living wills, legally, a spouse had total and absolute say over the treatment their injured partner received. If it's ok in the case of an 80 year old stroke victim that has no chance of recovery, it has to be ok in the case of a brain dead woman with no brain to recover from. And I'm not being flip about that. From what I've read, her cerebral cortex is gone...not just lost function, but physically gone. Correct, we don't "know" what she wanted. But there is evidence. There's her her legal guardian, her husband, saying he knows. And there's not one single, tiny, miniscule piece of evidence contracting him. So, there isn't any doubt, because there isn't any legally important opinion to the contrary of what we DO know. There's no "erring on the side of life," because there's no contradictory evidence in existence, other than the opinions of her parents, who were 7 years removed from being her legal guardians at the time of the attack that left her like this. That's their opinion. It's not based on conversations they had with her. It's based on their understanding of how they raised her.

If you did this to your cat...well, that'd be called humane. If your cat couldn't exhibit independant movement, and had to be fed through a tube in it's stomach, you'd take it to the vet and have it euthanized. Or at least I would. And from what I've seen of other pet owners, many of them would, too. Those that I've met that say they won't do so out of an inability to let their loved ones (pets included) go to a dignified and peaceful hereafter.

It seems like you're discussing a totally different patient. Terri can eat on her own? I haven't seen any credible statement posted that supports that.

As to the suffering starving her will cause, I'll say this. We don't allow those sentenced to death to suffer when we execute them. Starvation is a painful, horrible way to die, although truth be told, Terri would expire from dehydration long before she starved. You can survive for weeks on water alone, but you can only last days without liquid. If we allowed our terminally ill to be administered the same lethal, quick, and painless death we grant the worst criminals in society, would the outcry against this action be any less?

Interesting reading:

http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html

Iowa Jim, all the what-if arguments in the world still do not stand against the fact that Michael Shiavo is her legal guardian. By law. Tested in court time and again and upheld every single time.

At least for me, the parents and/or the husbands wishes are irrelevant. Without knowing the wishes of the person, the government must act to protect the person's life. Period.

I think you really, really need to think about what you just said. It sure gave me chills to think that you're in favor of the government determining what's best for an individual over the wishes of her guardian.

There's a word for that, you know...

JSM

In the instance of a healthy cat, yes. However, if your cat had no mobility and you had to force-feed it each day, then you would likely put it to sleep and no one would second-guess you for it - let alone make a federal case.

Yes, I would put it to sleep. I would not starve it to death. Never. Ever. Under any circumstances.

For the sake of argument, let's say that I am wrong. Let's say that Terri is brain dead. She is truly an empty shell. Why DON'T they just give her a shot that will end it all? You can end her existence (I won't say "life" since I am supposing she is "not really there") far more humanely and quickly than by starving her to death.

If this was such an open and shut case, that is all it would take. The fact that she must be starved to death says something. Perhaps it is a lingering belief in the sanctity of life. If so, it might now last long if we continue in this direction.

Whatever else you believe about this case, starving her to death is so inhumane it is criminal. The fact that it is even considered is horrible.

Iowa Jim

Since this case has been brought before quite a few judges (19 is the last I heard) and they all decided in favor of the husband, I have no clue why Congress or anyone else is getting involved other than to try and shape this case into a blunt instrument to beat Roe v Wade with.

And someone should ask the president why he is flipflopping his stance on this issue since when he was governor of Texas he signed into law the "Texas Futile Care Law" which gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes.

And does the idea of a GOP "talking points memo" on this case disgust anyone as much as it does me?
http://dcinsidescoop.blogspot.com/2005/03/exclusive-gops-schiavo-talking-points.html

That is interesting, Johhny Fuller. But incomplete. That's his opinion, and I'm sure he has his reasons for it. But there's very little explanation as to WHY he thinks that way. Opinions without facts are dangerous. They lead to soundbytes, and then to blogs, and then...omigod, it's already too late.....we're stuck in an Escher circle of never-ending dispute....

"For the sake of argument, let's say that I am wrong. Let's say that Terri is brain dead. She is truly an empty shell. Why DON'T they just give her a shot that will end it all? You can end her existence (I won't say "life" since I am supposing she is "not really there") far more humanely and quickly than by starving her to death."

I think its illegal to actively do something that would bring about her death (like injecting her with a needle, smothering her, shooti8ng her in the head) while removing her feeding tubes is basically considered letting nature takes its course.

"For the sake of argument, let's say that I am wrong. Let's say that Terri is brain dead. She is truly an empty shell. Why DON'T they just give her a shot that will end it all? You can end her existence (I won't say "life" since I am supposing she is "not really there") far more humanely and quickly than by starving her to death."

Because then they'd be arrested and tossed in jail, just like Jack Kervorkian?

I think you really, really need to think about what you just said. It sure gave me chills to think that you're in favor of the government determining what's best for an individual over the wishes of her guardian.

We NEVER allow a legal guardian to kill someone. There is a limit on both sides.

There is also precedent in a similar area. What if a parent, for religious reasons, believes it is wrong to have a blood transfusion and therefore refuses one for his baby. Should the courts do nothing and just allow the baby die because of the parents religious beliefs? There is no easy answer. I do believe the parent or spouse should be allowed to make the decision in 99.9% of the cases. But when it comes to life and death decisions, then there IS a place for the government to get involved.

Bottom line: This issue is a mess. While I want to believe the best about both the husband and the parents, there are things both sides have done that makes me wonder. So I simply look at this divorced from considering their motives. I believe the husband has the final say, UNLESS he is doing something that would kill his spouse. In this case, I believe that is what he is doing. He is not "allowing" her to die, he is directly causing her death by denying her food. That would not be allowed in any other circumstance.

I do not take this issue lightly. My grandmother had to face this issue of a feeding tube with my grandfather. I do have an idea of what is at stake on both sides of the issue. In this case, removing the feeding tube is wrong. Period.

Iowa Jim

"Interesting reading:

http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html"

Not really that interesting, Dr. William Hammesfahr is a "Right to Life" advocate who has even gone so far as to infer that Terri Schiavo's husband may have strangled her.

And does the idea of a GOP "talking points memo" on this case disgust anyone as much as it does me?

Oh, give me a break. You can be sure there is a democrat talking memo as well. That is the nature of politics. The Clinton administration was the king of talking points in its day. The issue should be whether the talking points are true, not that they exist.

Iowa Jim

the parents have stated that therapy has been withheld for about 10 years and that she does respond to stimuli.

there are doctors that have said she is brain damaged not brain dead. there is a difference.

if she is aware, then depriving her of food and water is a horrible death. also there is no living will stating her wishes in this case.

i do have a living will and have stated that no heroic measures are to be taken but not to deprive food and water.

i also do not blame either side for their beliefs and to say this is political probably is not true for most. this is a statement of right or wrong.

the parents are willing and desire to care for their daughter. let them.

I think its illegal to actively do something that would bring about her death (like injecting her with a needle, smothering her, shooti8ng her in the head) while removing her feeding tubes is basically considered letting nature takes its course.

No more than refusing to give her food if she could eat normally is letting nature take its course.

Either way, the effect is the same. Death by starvation, even for a so called "brain dead" person is not a pleasant way to die. And at least some medical experts believe Terri is not truly brain dead and that she will experience distress. And not all of these experts have a "right wing" agenda. (Clearly, some experts on both sides have an agenda, but there are enough on both sides who disagree to show that this is not an easy case to determine.)

Iowa Jim

"Conservatives don't state all life is sacred, but rather all innocent life is sacred. Death row inmates, in most cases, are not innocent. Those we fight against in Iraq are not innocent. Unfortunately to put an end to the tyranny and terrorism, some innocents have died. No one feels good about that."

Oh, okay. So you understand that you're full of bullshit, but you believe that saying you don't feel good about it...that evens things out.

DNA evidence has cleared hundreds of people on death row, and that's just the ones we know about. Our bombs have killed innocent men, women and children in Iraq at a clip that Saddam could only dream about, in a war that was NOT dedicated to putting an end to tyranny and terror, but to finding weapons that never existed. Tens upon tens upon tens of thousands died over that, but, hey...gotta break a few eggs.

And meanwhile Congress absolutely defends to its last hypocritical breath the sanctity of marriage...unless, of course, they feel like interfering. And the President quickly signs on as Hypocrite in Chief.

People don't get to die unless the government wants to kill them.

But, hey, at least "no one feels good about it." I'm sure that means a lot to all the dead people.

PAD

No more than refusing to give her food if she could eat normally is letting nature take its course.

Thats the thing though...she can't eat on her own. She can't chew or swallow, the only way she hasn't starved before now is because of artificial means and as such removing those artificial means is not considered murder.

Oh, give me a break. You can be sure there is a democrat talking memo as well. That is the nature of politics. The Clinton administration was the king of talking points in its day. The issue should be whether the talking points are true, not that they exist.

When a ethically challenged scoundrel like Tom Delay is acting like he's doing "God's work" instead of just another piece of political ammo then a talking points memo is very relevent.
And when said memo contains bullet points like:

- "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue."
- "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida - has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

Well lets just say that hypocrisy makes me ill and leave it at that.

And when said memo contains bullet points like:

Like I said, the issue then is not the fact that talking points exist, but that you think the content is hypocritical. (The points you posted are so obvious, I could have predicted them. They may perhaps cause you to say the GOP is taking advantage of the issue and grandstanding, but they are hardly issuing points that disagree with positions they have held and voted on in the past. I suspect that the hypocrisy for you is in their position, not that their points contradict their position.)

Of course, I believe the democrat position is hypocritical, and am sure their talking points would only give more evidence for this fact. So I will leave it at that.

Iowa Jim

This is easy:
Place a gun in her hand, let it go off, convict her of murder and the ACLU and liberals will fight to keep her off death row and alive.

Bottom line: This issue is a mess. While I want to believe the best about both the husband and the parents, there are things both sides have done that makes me wonder. So I simply look at this divorced from considering their motives.

I agree that this issue is a mess and there are a number of things on both sides that are questionable. However, I still think that both sides truly believe that they are doing what they think Terri would want. I don't believe unfounded accusations about either side being after money that has long been spent serves any purpose.

I believe the husband has the final say, UNLESS he is doing something that would kill his spouse. In this case, I believe that is what he is doing. He is not "allowing" her to die, he is directly causing her death by denying her food. That would not be allowed in any other circumstance.

In this, we have a woman who has virtually no higher brain function. I keep seeing people assert about "doctors" and "nurses" who claim she can be helped by some form of "therapy", but no one is willing to step up and offer any specifics, so I can only conclude that these claims are not credible.

If this had happened in any other time in history, she would have died naturally years ago. Modern medical technology has raised this kinds of issues, though, and as a society, we have to address them one way or another.

None of us here have any way of knowing what Terri would have wanted. I can only speak for myself and say that I honestly would rather starve to death than spend 15 years in a persistant vegetative state.

A decision like this isn't easy and can't be made lightly. In my opinion, quality of life has to count into the equation. Terri has none and there is no credible evidence to suggest that she ever will. A feeding tube is an artificial means of keeping somebody in her state alive just as much as a respirator is. Removing a respirator deprives a person of oxygen just as much as removing the feeding tube would deprive her of food and water. Neither is actively causing her death, they're just allowing what would have happened naturally to a person with no hope of recovery yet, if Terri had been on a respirator, her husband could signed a release to have it removed years ago, no questions asked.

The default thinking in the law is that, absent her wishes, her husband speaks for her. The fact that 19 separate courts have sided with him tells me that all the accusations that he did this or that to her or there are so-called "medical experts" who have some secret "therapy" that will bring her back have no credibility.

If you want a fact: The person who was Terri Shiavo left this world 15 years ago. She isn't coming back and pumping food and water into an empty shell will not change that fact.

What sickens me, is the cynical way that politicians (there are both Democrats and Republicans who voted for this measure), are trying to score cheap political points on this family tragedy on an issue that the federal government has no jurisdiction. What happened to all that railing about states rights, the 10th amendment, separation of powers, and "empowering families" to make their own decisions?

All that goes away when there are votes at stake in the red states.

Place a gun in her hand, let it go off, convict her of murder and the ACLU and liberals will fight to keep her off death row and alive.

Yeah, that's a much better plan than subpoening her and charging her with contempt for failing to show up at a hearing with no compelling federal interest.

Stupid, sick jokes like that shows that you have nothing to offer to this debate.

Like I said, the issue then is not the fact that talking points exist, but that you think the content is hypocritical. (The points you posted are so obvious, I could have predicted them. They may perhaps cause you to say the GOP is taking advantage of the issue and grandstanding, but they are hardly issuing points that disagree with positions they have held and voted on in the past. I suspect that the hypocrisy for you is in their position, not that their points contradict their position.)

Of course, I believe the democrat position is hypocritical, and am sure their talking points would only give more evidence for this fact. So I will leave it at that.

Iowa Jim

Well when I see the Dem's talking point memo and its completely contradictary to the sanctimonius, fake compassionate mewlings that the Congressional right have been spouting all weekend I'll call the Dem Congress members a bunch of hypocritical douchebags too. Until then I'll continue to be sickened by this slimey political posturing.

If this had happened in any other time in history, she would have died naturally years ago. Modern medical technology has raised this kinds of issues, though, and as a society, we have to address them one way or another.

That is the double edge of technology and medical advances. There are also thousands if not hundreds of thousands who would have died of heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc., if they had lived even 50 years ago.

Obviously, inserting a feeding tube is something that was not available years ago. But it is not an extraordinary measure such as being on a heart and lung machine.

I know this was quickly dismissed before, but it bears being reposted. Here is a noted doctor who says he has examined the case and that treatment is possible:

http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html

To me, there is a solution to this issue. Give this (or a similar doctor) the opportunity to do this work. If we are talking about rehab, not extraordinary means, what would it hurt?

Iowa Jim

Ultimately, Jim, who's decision should it be to allow anyone to attempt therapy? Legally, it's the husband's. It seems you want that to change, which is fine. Maybe that's a better way to go about this. But it's a huge diversion from legal precedent, and takes away a large private right and places it in the hands of doctors and politicians. What would be the harm? The (possible) continued abrogation of Terri's right to refuse treatment. Forcing therapy on someone that has stated that they would want to refuse treatment. I'd say that's a fairly significant harm, and not one that I've seen a demonstrable state interest important enough to override.

Iowa Jim said: "And if there is any doubt, then you MUST err on the side of life."

I think this statement well sums up why I and so many others are disgusted by this case. That is exactly my feeling about the death penalty: it's irreversable and given that the government is fallible (itself a strongly held conservative point) it shouldn't take such permanent steps when the payoff is so tiny. Anybody who has ever been stircrazy from being stuck in bed for a week with the flu can testify that life in prison rather than death is no great gift.

But we DO execute people and many regions fight the admission of new DNA evidence tooth and nail. No no, they say, the trial is over, we're done. We can't go and reopen these things!

But apparently we can squander Grod knows how many hours and dollars on this case, one where, despite DeLay's idiotic comment about Terri not getting the amount of scrutiny and protection a death row inmate gets, it has been going on for years and examined in detail from every angle.

It's all Elian redux. Family family family... oh, wait, dad's a communist? Nooooo, then some uncle gets to choose! Death death death! Oh wait, WE'RE not the ones choosing death? Nooooo.

Not to mention the horrible irony of years of "activist judges" being thrown around as an insult and then they want to meddle in the court's business. The complete contempt for the judicial process is sickening.

Ultimately, Jim, who's decision should it be to allow anyone to attempt therapy? Legally, it's the husband's. It seems you want that to change, which is fine.

I agree it is the husbands in most cases.

But let's stop for a moment and put aside the current case. What if it did seem clear that the husband didn't want the wife to recover? What if there was a consistent pattern that the husband was denying the wife the necessary care? Forget whether it is true or not in this case and consider the obvious fact that not everyone has the best motives. Is there a point where the courts should intervene?

I think there is. We are not talking about extraordinary means, but help for someone to recover.

Back to this case. I am no lawyer, so I am sure it is not this simple. But here is my thought. I would not order the husband to allow the therapy. But I would feel perfectly right to say that since all reasonable avennues had not yet been explored, that I could not authorize the removing of the tube. The husband then has a choice. Allow her to stay in her current state, or explore the reasonable means available.

If he had done so, a lot of these issues would not even be on the table. It the lack of care according to various witnesses that makes this action suspect.

That being said, knowing what I do now about feeding tubes, I think it is a horrendous way to die.

Iowa Jim

But let's stop for a moment and put aside the current case. What if it did seem clear that the husband didn't want the wife to recover? What if there was a consistent pattern that the husband was denying the wife the necessary care? Forget whether it is true or not in this case and consider the obvious fact that not everyone has the best motives. Is there a point where the courts should intervene?
But the courts have intervened, her husband and parents ahve been fighting it out for years in court and every time the husband wins. How much more intervention should there be?

But let's stop for a moment and put aside the current case.

No, Jim. Let's not. You can throw in all the hypotheticals you want. None of them apply in the Schiavo case.

Michael Schiavo is legally her guardian. Upheld by the courts repeatedly. It is his responsibility to do what he believes is best for Terri. Motivations, emotionally charged arguments and hypothetical situations have nothing to do with it. And Congress certainly shouldn't have anything to do with it. Again, the ruling party is very big on the concept of getting goverment off people's backs and allowing states to make decisions. In theory.

Stick to the facts, sir.

JSM

Jeff in NC quoted these urls:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/11155564.htm

Both of which clearly indicate that the money received was (a) not all that great a shakes in the circumstances (b) is mostly gone (c) what may not be gone (the 300k allotted to the husband) he doesn't need her to get to, assuming tertiary expenses related to her situation have