PeterDavid.net

Oh boy did you hit the nail on the head! Can I send this post to Bill Frist or Tom DeLay? I'd love to see their reaction.

Col

"Oh boy did you hit the nail on the head! Can I send this post to Bill Frist or Tom DeLay? I'd love to see their reaction."

Their reaction will be an autoresponse thanking you for sharing your opinion, but go right ahead.

PAD

Huh? Congress recognizes gay marraige? Maybe this is some kind of ploy...you know, take away the guardian aspect of marraige when one spouse becomes incapacitated. Kind of like Jeff Goldblum's character in Independance Day...if congress trashes marraige enough, maybe gays won't want it?

There's this comedy record that used to get played on the Dr. Demento show a lot...it was a live performance where the singer kept alternating bad news with good news, interspersed with yells from the audience:

"We're gonna tear down the bar!"

(Boooooo!)

"And we're gonna build another bar!"

(Yaaayyyyy!)

"Five feet long!"

(Boooooooo!)

"And four hundred feet wide!"

(Yaaayyyyyy!)

Your post made me think of this same song, with Congress as the audience:

"A woman wants emergency Congressional support to keep her vegetative spouse alive!"

("Yaaayyyyyyy! Let's make a campaign issue out of this!")

"And her spouse is also a woman!"

("Boooo...that'll cost us Red State votes!")

"Her brother's a Marine serving in Iraq!"

("Yayyyyy!")

"And he's suing to prevent the Corps from extending his enlistment two more years against his will!"

("Booooo!")

"But the soldier's father served three tours in Vietnam, and is willing to publicly condemn the boy for turning against his fellow Marines!"

("Yaaaayyyyy!")

"And he's also one of the men whose lives were saved by John Kerry."

("Boooooo!!!!")

"Did I also mention that he's 62, and he's really concerned about his Social Security benefits?"

("Hey...don't we get another "Yayyyyyy" first?")

"And he's also one of the men whose lives were saved by John Kerry."

("Boooooo!!!!")

Your rant made sense(in a liberal slant way) until this. Who ever booed someone because their life was saved by John Kerry? They booed people who supported his lies but not because he saved their lives.

You're right, PAD, and that reinforces the need for a recognition of gay marriage. It's no stretch or exaggeration to say that a family member, no matter how estranged or distant, would be given more rights than person's partner, no longer how close or how long that partner had been with the person.

That said, it's an unnecessary distraction from the current issue. There's plenty to consider in the current case before bringing in the whole gay marriage/gay rights issue.

Au contraire, Barney Frank would be on Day Nr 5475 of his filibuster! :-)

Who ever booed someone because their life was saved by John Kerry?

Ask Jim Rassmann.

They booed people who supported his lies but not because he saved their lives.

And yet those same people praise Dubya for his lies.

Their reaction will be an autoresponse thanking you for sharing your opinion, but go right ahead.

You're probably right, PAD. Most likey, there are probably 10 layers of screeners between any senator and any publically posted email address.

More to the point, if any of them were pressed on the issue in public, they'd probably hem and haw about families making these decisions and look frantically around the crowd for any sign of Jeff Gannon.

Au contraire, Barney Frank would be on Day Nr 5475 of his filibuster! :-)

Point of order: Barney Frank is a US Representative, not a Senator. Filibusters are only permitted in the Senate. The House rules on debate are different. At least they are until the GOPers push through their "nuclear solution."

One of my friends on Livejournal has done an essay on how the Schiavo case utterly undermines the sanctity of marriage. Not in the "her hubby is porkin' around" sense, but because at the time of her marriage, Terri entrusted her future to her husband instead of her family, but now said family is interfering with a husband making decisions for a sick wife. And the people who are so anxious to protect white het marriage (which this is) from Teh Gayz aren't so anxious to protect it from governmental meddling.

Ask Jim Rassmann.

Again he was booed for the lies he told, not for his life being saved.

And what lies were those and what proof do you have to support that?

And the Swift Boat Vets ads aren't "proof", especially since they were produced by the same crowded that tried to portray the AARP as being pro-gay marriage and anti-American soldier.

Den

Peter David:
"What occurs to me is that if the person in a coma were one half of a gay married couple, if the spouse were advocating that all extreme measures SHOULD be taken to keep the comatose mate going, and it was the parents who were saying the patient should be starved to death...

Congress wouldn't touch it with a ten meter cattle prod."

Hi Peter,

My money says that the "sanctity of life" angle would never be mentioned.

I wonder if "sanctity of life" only applies to certain world/religious views?

And the people who are so anxious to protect white het marriage (which this is) from Teh Gayz aren't so anxious to protect it from governmental meddling.

If one considers Schiavo's husband to be advocating his wife's death for selfish or immoral reasons, there is no contradiction here. Everyone has a apoint they don't want to see crossed. Being in favor of letting parents raise their kids without government interference does NOT mean one has to allow abuse, even if the parents sincerely believe that what I call abuse is actually perfectly ok.

That said, the more I see of Ms Schiavo's condition, the more I suspect she would want to die. However I think it's highly self indulgent to assume that those on either side of this issue are acting strictly for the cameras. I know it's become normal political discourse to assume the worst in one's aopponents, to refuse to consider the possibility that they may be doing what they do for perfectly ethical reasons. Doesn't make it right.

Back to Peter's What If--I think he's probably correct that congress would be less interested in the issue. I also think that some feminists who have been silent on the case might suddenly find it outrageous if a woman's husband was trying to get her killed while her lesbian lover was trying to keep her alive. But who knows?

That said, the more I see of Ms Schiavo's condition, the more I suspect she would want to die. However I think it's highly self indulgent to assume that those on either side of this issue are acting strictly for the cameras. I know it's become normal political discourse to assume the worst in one's aopponents, to refuse to consider the possibility that they may be doing what they do for perfectly ethical reasons. Doesn't make it right.

I have no trouble believing the worst about a guy like Tom DeLay. Hell I'd believe he ate babies and pushed old ladies into oncomign traffic.

What occurs to me is that if the person in a coma were one half of a gay married couple, if the spouse were advocating that all extreme measures SHOULD be taken to keep the comatose mate going, and it was the parents who were saying the patient should be starved to death...

Congress wouldn't touch it with a ten meter cattle prod.

While I can't say for sure about Congress, I can say with certainty that the Christian conservatives, such as James Dobson or myself, would be just as loudly and strongly protesting ANYONE being starved to death in a similar circumstance. There is a fundamental right to life that is true, regardless of the "lifestyle" of the person involved.

Iowa Jim

And the people who are so anxious to protect white het marriage (which this is) from Teh Gayz aren't so anxious to protect it from governmental meddling.

Your point is groundless. There is one right that goes deeper and is more fundamental than marriage: It is the sanctity of human life. That right trumps all others. No spouse (be it in a hetero or gay marriage) is ever allowed to kill a spouse. I am convinced that this is what is being done to Terri. She is not being "allowed" to die, she is being forced to die by being denied food. And because it is her life at stake, it IS the role of the goverment to get involved. The right to life for an individual comes before the rights of marriage. That is not hypocritical, that is treating people in a humane manner.

Iowa Jim

There's the conundrum, Jim. Is Terri "alive," as we would define it? If it's true that her cerebral cortext, that part of the brain that dicates personality, memories, motivation, creativity, pretty much everything that we define as "human," is she even still alive? If my body's being kept alive by that part of my brain that runs autonomous functions, like my heartbeat, breathing, and digestion, but there's nothing left of my upper brain, do I even exist any more?

I honestly don't know. And the only way to find out is to attain that state. Which I'm not really ready to do.

Jim, would you expect the government to intervene if Terri were 90 years old, had lived a full life full of kids and grandkids and great, and maybe even great great grandkids, then suffered a stroke, lapsed into a coma, and the family now faces the decision of whether or not to allow risky brain surgery? Failing to do so would result in Old Hypothetical Terri's death.

Jim, would you expect the government to intervene if Terri were 90 years old, had lived a full life full of kids and grandkids and great, and maybe even great great grandkids, then suffered a stroke, lapsed into a coma, and the family now faces the decision of whether or not to allow risky brain surgery? Failing to do so would result in Old Hypothetical Terri's death.

The issue you present is radically different. You are calling for an intervention that at 90 would not be certain of suceeding. But her age and fullness of life is irrelevant. There is a significant difference between surgery and giving nutrition through a feeding tube.

I do not believe the government should intervene in most cases unless it is a case like this where refraining from a simple action (giving food) causes a patient's death. So whether it was a mother of 25 with 2 young children, or the grandmother you describe, I don't think the government should order the surgery.

Bottom line, the basic essentials of food, water, and oxygen should not be denied. Being put on a ventilator or life support, or having surgery done to prolong life, are very different matter.

Iowa Jim

'EVIL CONSERVATIVES'. Jesus, (or almighty, or allah, or non-denominational higher being, or whatever you loonies want to call it), you people make me sick. Eject the politics from the situation for a moment and you'll see that this is not a black and white situation. This is not clear cut--clearly attempts at rehabilitation have been stopped by the husband whose sudden memory of Terri not wanting to live like this is suspect. There is no easy answer. And to PAD, you cynical prick, were a gay couple to have endured this for FIFTEEN years, yeah, I think the same intervention measures on behalf of media and politicians alike would STILL be occuring. You and your ilk don't want life protected for anyone suffering, do you? Damn those people in Iraq. Damn the little people getting shafted by high power attorneys. Do some research and tell me--beyond a reason of doubt--that this woman is TOTALLY brain dead.

IF for nothing else, hopefully congressional intervention will see an end to death by starvation. A barbaric means to dispose of those no longer wanted.

Of course (and I don't mean for this to be an "ah HA, gotchya!" moment, but it kind of is...sorry for that) Terri can't feed herself. Everything I've seen indicates that she lacks the motor skills to feed herself, and lacks the conscious ability to recognize when food or water is in her mouth to swallow. She can swallow on reflex, but not deliberately. So feeding her with a nurse's assistance becomes a dangerous option where she can choke or develop an infection of the lung due to aspiration.

A feeding tube is the best, safest way to provide her nutrients. That's exactly like putting her on a ventilator. It's an outside action that doesn't just assist her in doing something for herself, it does the work for her.

And I'm not just talking from hypotheticals here. My grandmother was 84 when she suffered her second stroke. My family made the decision to deny the insertion of a feeding tube, and she passed without regaining any consciousness a few days later.

Terri isn't being denied anything. She's not asking for food and not getting it.

This is not clear cut--clearly attempts at rehabilitation have been stopped by the husband whose sudden memory of Terri not wanting to live like this is suspect. There is no easy answer.

And where did you get this insider info? Present a link that confirms your statements or be dismissed as a rude jerkoff who's talking out of his ass about things he has no more knowledge about than the rest of us.

A feeding tube is the best, safest way to provide her nutrients. That's exactly like putting her on a ventilator. It's an outside action that doesn't just assist her in doing something for herself, it does the work for her.

Twothoughts:

1.) Until actual therapy is allowed to show that she cannot develop the ability to swallow safely, you cannot say that she cannot do so. There are a lot of reasons why a person may be put temporarily on a feeding tube, not just brain damage.

2.) You may have a point about the original insertion of a feeding tube, but I am not sure. You see, while similar in that they are essential for life, there are diffences. A person can exist for weeks without a feeding tube, but not without a ventilator.

I see a better analogy between giving oxygen versus a feeding tube. The body still is able to process the oxygen, the lungs still function normally. They are not artificially inflated.

A feeding tube bypasses the throat, but otherwise the body still processes the food (nutrients) naturally. There is not artificial digestion going on.

Terri isn't being denied anything. She's not asking for food and not getting it.

I understand what you mean, but your words still chill me. I don't think it should matter whether the person asks for it or not. If they refuse it and your force it on them, then there is an issue. But we must be very careful about our decisions being based on simply whether someone can ask for it or not.

Iowa Jim

1.) Until actual therapy is allowed to show that she cannot develop the ability to swallow safely, you cannot say that she cannot do so.

Once again, I renew my request for specific details as to what this mysterious "therapy" is and how she was denied it. I want credible weblinks, not angry blog rantings.

1.) Until actual therapy is allowed to show that she cannot develop the ability to swallow safely, you cannot say that she cannot do so. There are a lot of reasons why a person may be put temporarily on a feeding tube, not just brain damage.
She's not on a temp feeding tube, the tube is the only way she can eat without choking to death. And she can't be given therapy to learn to swallow because that would require her being retaught the method of swallowiong and teaching a person with no higher brain functions is darn near impossible.

Jim, I understand. I think your view goes against literally years and years of legal precedent. Which is not to say that we should continue doing things in the same way. In my grandmother's case, she and my mother had spoken about her wishes before hand, and they were pretty clear. I wasn't there, but I trusted my mother.

Based on what you've said, I think the issue isn't so much that she's dieing. It's that she dieing on the word of her husband, not her own word. I think that's a different issue altoghether, on whether or not a spouse or other family member should be given total control over medical decisions. Your discussion of the parents denying their child treatment on religous grounds is a good example. The state, in some cases, intervenes in that case. And many decry that intervention using the same words used here in Terri's case. The anology is the same: some denial of treatment results in a harm to the patient. It's a fine line between killing someone and allowing them do die.

We don't punish people for not helping in a situation where they can help. We just prevent direct action that harms. Terri could wake up tonight and ask for some water. That would change everything.

That chill you feel is probably the same one I get when I see those anti-drug adds that show the kid with a broken leg in the road, while his friend just watches as a truck approaches. It's the dilemma of inaction leading to death, does that make the non-actor responsible?

Once again, I renew my request for specific details as to what this mysterious "therapy" is and how she was denied it. I want credible weblinks, not angry blog rantings.

I know this was quickly dismissed before on the other thread, 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? He is an expert who is actually doing this with other patients, not just a person (medical or otherwise) who is expressing an opinion. Is he right? The only way to know is to allow him the chance. So give me a good reason why the husband has not allowed him the chance?

Iowa Jim

It's the dilemma of inaction leading to death, does that make the non-actor responsible?

Are you seriously asking that question? In most cases when you can directly intervene, the answer is yes. Perhaps not legally in all cases, but definitely morally. If I allow a friend to drive home drunk *when I could have stopped him*, then I do bear some responsibility if he kills someone else or even himself.

Iowa Jim

That is interesting, Jim. Of course, your source is hardly unbiased.

Here's another view on this same doctor's "therapy":

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/22/TampaBay/Schiavo_case_doctor_t.shtml

It seems that the Florida Department of Health has some issues with his claims.

Yes, seriously asking the question, but not because I don't know the answer. The part I left out was that the non-actor would have to live the rest of their life with the guilt of knowing that they could have done something to prevent an injury or death, and didn't.

The point being, the state doesn't enforce penalties on top of that. It's not a crime to allow someone to die. That doesn't make it right. And I don't think it should be a crime. Which is not to say that there aren't consequences, just not legally enforceable ones.

Which is why it's a dilemma.

Just how much is it going to cost to keep this poor woman in a vegatative state for years?

Of course, this should not be a part of the decision for her, but really, how many people are going to die because they can not get health care, or even life saving medications, and how many of those folks could be saved by spending this amount ( not to mention the ludicrous amount being spent on the legal battle) for health care for those who can't afford it?

How about we have Bush get back in his helicopter
and fly badly needed medications to AIDS patient in Africa?

That is interesting, Jim. Of course, your source is hardly unbiased.

Here's another view on this same doctor's "therapy"

Interesting. The problem is, he may be a quack. Or it may just be an attack to shut him up.

The deeper question I have is not whether his therapy would be effective, but if his description of her state is accurate. And I don't think some of the husband's experts are exactly unbiased either. Quite frankly, I have seen a lot of poor diagnoses by doctors (as well as some good ones). My other grandfather died because of the questionable actions of two doctors.

At this point, it is hard to get a medical report that both sides believe is unbiased. There is a huge difference in what I read from various sources concerning how aware she is, whether she can swallow, etc. But I will read any credible source you want to post.

Iowa Jim

While I can't say for sure about Congress, I can say with certainty that the Christian conservatives, such as James Dobson or myself, would be just as loudly and strongly protesting ANYONE being starved to death in a similar circumstance.

I'll take your word for your position, but consider that an awful lot of Christian conservatives are quite hostile towards Medicaid and other government-funded medical care for the poor. Would they be so eager to save her if their taxes were paying the bill?

(For the record, her health costs were paid from the malpractice settlement, but that is now largely depleted, so her hospice is footing most of the bill.)

It's also worth noting that when Bush was Governor of Texas, he signed a bill allowing hospitals to cut off life-support on terminal patients--against family wishes--if the hospital decided it wasn't cost-effective to continue treatment.

Den,

Have you watched the videos posted on her website?

http://www.terrisfight.net/

They are very compelling evidence that she is NOT brain dead nor in a persistent vegitative state. If that is what she is currently like, then clearly she WILL feel great pain at being starved to death.

Iowa Jim

At this point, it is hard to get a medical report that both sides believe is unbiased. There is a huge difference in what I read from various sources concerning how aware she is, whether she can swallow, etc. But I will read any credible source you want to post.

Doesn't matter about what you consider "biased" or "unbiased". The courts have repeatedly heard testimony from both sides and have consistently ruled for the husband.

JSM

I'll take your word for your position, but consider that an awful lot of Christian conservatives are quite hostile towards Medicaid and other government-funded medical care for the poor. Would they be so eager to save her if their taxes were paying the bill?

The fact that some do NOT think the government does a very good job of handling such care or the money for such care does not mean that they want to deny them such care. Oppposition to Medicaid does not mean there is a desire to harm someone.

I personally am pragmatic and understand that in a country this large, it is difficult to avoid having the government play a role in such issues. I have no problem with the existence of Medicaid, but I also know that as with any government institutuion, you end up paying managers who are more interested in keeping their job than in providing services to those in need. And yes, you also have problems of people who become dependent on the government. So the call for reform is not without cause.

Iowa Jim

Doesn't matter about what you consider "biased" or "unbiased". The courts have repeatedly heard testimony from both sides and have consistently ruled for the husband.

That is like saying the Republicans have consistently voted Republican!

The GOP has thrown this into the Federal court system, so that will be interesting to see played out.

As I said, the videos are by far the most compelling evidence. They do not show someone in what I would understand to be a persistent vegitative state. I am not an expert, but I have spent some time in nursing homes. Terri is a lot more alert in these videos than some of the people I have visited.

Iowa Jim

Someone should post online the 4 hour continuous video of a totally unresponsive Schiavo that one of the judges from the earlier trials used to make his decision in the husbands favor.

The videos on terrisfight.org are carefully edited, only 7 minutes taken out of a four and a half hour videotape. The trial judge at the evidentiary hearing and his independent medical team have seen the whole tape and say that there is no credible evidence that Terri is responding to anything. See the Abstract Appeal info page here: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

You cannot orally feed an unconscious person indefinitely, whether or not they have a swallowing reflex: the patient will eventually choke or develop aspiration pneumonia. See discussion in the comments threads on Alas: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/18/terri-schiavo-news/ and Respectful of Otters: http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#111120735448873570

In the same article, Rivka reviews the 17 medical affidavits proffered by the Schindlers and finds
that none of them have examined the medical evidence developed at trial, let alone Terri herself; most have only seen the 7 minute videotape on the Schindlers' website. This, I think most would agree, makes them less than credible.

That is like saying the Republicans have consistently voted Republican!

How so? Both sides present evidence, bring their respective experts in to testify, and the judge makes a decision based on the testimony and evidence.

And this hasn't been a one-time thing. This has taken place several times. Unless you are positing that the judges involved in these hearings (and I honestly don't know if the same judge has presided each time, or if different ones have heard the case) are deliberately biased against the parents' side, your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Nor, if you are positing that the judges have been consistently biased, does indicate that you have much faith in the Florida judicial process.

Which is it?

JSM

The GOP has thrown this into the Federal court system

Where it doesn't belong.

I wonder what will happen if a federal judge rules in favor of the husband.

What kind of hissy fit will Congress & Bush throw then?

Another soepena?

And in the category of "Wish I'd thought of that" zingers for the GOP over the Terri Schaivo case, AmericaBlog notes that while George W. Bush was gung-ho to interrupt his vacation and fly back to DC on her behalf, he didn't bother with that much zest nor zeal for the 100,000+ victims of the December tsunami, nor the victims of the 9/11 attack, nor...

Actions speak louder than words, don't they?

--R.J.

According to several reports on the subject I've read, this has been through 6 courts and something like 15 judges, all made the right decision, but apparently Fuhrer Bush and Congress don't believe in states rights or that Republicans are supposed to be the party in support of LESS GOVERMENT INTERFERENCE in our lives...

The Supreme Court has refused to hear this case so far, and even court decision has ruled on he side of the husband, does shit-head Bush and his cronies really want a federal judge to rule with the family and see how fast the Supreme Court picks up that appeal?

And what about the sanctity of marriage? They threw that out the window when it suits their political purpose...

The trial judge at the evidentiary hearing and his independent medical team have seen the whole tape and say that there is no credible evidence that Terri is responding to anything.

I find that very curious. The fact that it is 7 minutes out of 4 hours is hardly relevant IF she is responding to stimulus and actually following the baloon, etc.

I would be curious to see how things were set up on both sides. I would want to see if she doesn't truly respond and it just appeared that way. But I also want to hear how things were set up for the court hearing. It is not hard for an "expert" to explain things away, even when you see it with your own eyes.

Iowa Jim

And what about the sanctity of marriage? They threw that out the window when it suits their political purpose...

That is such an empty argument. Protecting an innocent life always has come before the "sanctity of marriage." This does not in any way violate the marriage other than to protect the life of one of the partners in the marriage. You may disagree if they should, but it is not otherwise violating the sanctity of the marriage.

Iowa Jim

I would be curious to see how things were set up on both sides. I would want to see if she doesn't truly respond and it just appeared that way. But I also want to hear how things were set up for the court hearing. It is not hard for an "expert" to explain things away, even when you see it with your own eyes.

Iowa Jim

Actually all of your questions were posed and answered in the umpteen trials that have already taken place and they all ended with the same result...the court sided with the husband.

BULLSHIT Iowa Jim!

The government has no business sticking it's nose into the Schiavo marriage.

The Texas Futile Care Law, signed into law by the Retard who holds the presidency presently. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week.

That proves it, George Bush isn't in this for the sancity of life, this is nothing more than a political brownie point drive with the religious fruitcakes who have no problem killing muslim children (warning not for the faint of heart: http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm) or the children of poor American women, but god forbid you try to remove a brain dead woman from life support and let nature take it's natural course. Where are George Bush's cries for the lives of those he sentenced to death BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT PAY in Texas?!!!!

Well Iowa Jim, your president and all his sycophants are strangely silent! Sancity of life... Hogwash, talking points is more like it!

I find that very curious. The fact that it is 7 minutes out of 4 hours is hardly relevant IF she is responding to stimulus and actually following the baloon, etc.

It is relevant. I if spend for hours waving a ballon in front of her face, odds are good you'll get at least one shot that appears to show her following ballon. Editing the tape down to seven minutes that only show the parts that appear to prove your case is fraud.

That would be like a scientist running a hundred trials, 99 of which do not give the outcome he wants, but he tries to publish the one trial that did come out his way as proof of his theory.

I would be curious to see how things were set up on both sides. I would want to see if she doesn't truly respond and it just appeared that way. But I also want to hear how things were set up for the court hearing. It is not hard for an "expert" to explain things away, even when you see it with your own eyes.

I doubt that the parents would accept it. Anyone unbiased from their wishful thinking would likely not give the results they'd want.

They are very compelling evidence that she is NOT brain dead nor in a persistent vegitative state. If that is what she is currently like, then clearly she WILL feel great pain at being starved to death.

No they're not. They're carefully edited to show what the parents want to see. The judge who viewed the entire 4 hours has noted that for one time we her appeared to follow the balloon, there are dozens more where the father has tried, but failed to create the appearance of a reaction for her.

Her mind is gone. Has been for 15 years.

It is relevant. I if spend for hours waving a ballon in front of her face, odds are good you'll get at least one shot that appears to show her following ballon. Editing the tape down to seven minutes that only show the parts that appear to prove your case is fraud.

Truly.

seven minutes out of four hours plus is about 3 percent of the time. My memory of stats says that it isn't surprising that this happens out of purely random chance.

This IS compelling evidence...that there isn't any brain function.

"AmericaBlog notes that while George W. Bush was gung-ho to interrupt his vacation and fly back to DC on her behalf, he didn't bother with that much zest nor zeal for the 100,000+ victims of the December tsunami, nor the victims of the 9/11 attack, nor..."

Nor on August 6 2001, when informed "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States"

I can say with certainty that the Christian conservatives, such as James Dobson or myself, would be just as loudly and strongly protesting ANYONE being starved to death in a similar circumstance.

You say a lot of things with certainty. Most of them are hypothetical.

As is this one. I'll believe it when I see it.

Have you watched the videos posted on her website?

Oh, it's hers? Cool -- that really does settle the case then. If she's responsive enough to maintain a web site, then she's obviously ...

What's that? She's not running it?

Then stop calling it hers.

TWL

"Her mind is gone. Has been for 15 years."

No wonder Bush can relate to her.

PAD

Was going to comment on the original topic of this thread, but A.) This has turned into a continuation of the previous one rather quickly, and B.) this caught my eye..
Peter David,
'her mind is gone. Has been for 15 years.'
"No wonder Bush can relate to her."

Did you really think this was funny, PAD? Really? Or are you just so full of hate and anger over everything the man does, says and is that even a comment like this was not considered by an "enlightened" mind such as yourself to be an utterly tasteless and unnecessary remark?
You make statements like this and then go into 'How DARE you' mode when someone floats the suggestion that you might actualy be rooting for an assassination?
Cheese and crackers, think about what you write sometimes. You come off as incredibly, incredibly angry.
Not an ideal mindset for leading civil, intelligent discourse.

Oh, for crying out loud. Making a (admittedly) snide comment about Bush being a pinhead is hardly synonymous with wishing the guy dead. If you're that anxious to find a flimsy excuse to act all morally superior and pissed off, do everybody else a favor and just keep quiet, please.

-Rex Hondo-

PAD and everyone else in this country have a GODDAMN GOOD REASON to be angry as Der Ferhur Bush...

Deal with it

Score (another) one for the good guys thanks to the federal judge refusing to order the feeding tube reinstalled.

Oh and to all you assholes bleating about "starvatin is terrible way for her to die"... Legalize euthanasia and we won't have to let the people like Terri starve to end their suffering...

>>>'her mind is gone. Has been for 15 years.'
>>"No wonder Bush can relate to her."
>Did you really think this was funny, PAD? Really?

I did. Hilariously so.

But then, humour is often invaluable in helping reduce stress and pain during difficult times. Which her situation certainly qualifies as.

Peter David:
"her mind is gone. Has been for 15 years. No wonder Bush can relate to her."

Jerome Maida:
"Did you really think this was funny, PAD? Really?"

Hi guys,

Jerome is right. That's far too obvious and easy a jab to make. Must have been rather unsatisfying for Peter since he is cabable of much funnier material.

Now everyone close your eyes and inagine our president trying to get past the title of the book "Sir Apropos of Nothing." Now imagine him saying, "Oh, I get it... The 'O' is silent."

DISCLAIMER: This post has been in jest. Have a nice day. Nice day subject to change.

I stopped making Bush jokes a long time ago. Too easy. I didn't have time left for much else in my day.

But remember, laughing is what you do when the only other option is to cry.

"You make statements like this and then go into 'How DARE you' mode when someone floats the suggestion that you might actualy be rooting for an assassination?"

Yes, I do. I wish he were out of office because I think his mind has been in a vegetative state for well over a decade. I think, to quote Aaron Sorkin, that he's turned being disengaged into this sort of zen thing. I think he's a hypocrite, a lair, and has accomplished the remarkable feat of being both manipulator and manipulated, puppeteer and puppet, all at the same time.

But there is a gargantuan distance, a chasm, between wishing he were out of the White House and wishing he were out of the White House feet first, especially through violent means. And it is offensive when someone attributes the latter sentiment to me out of hand when there is not one shred of evidence, not one comment I've ever made, that would lend credence to it.

PAD

Congress should never get involved in what is obstensibly a local case, regardless of whether the people involved are gay or not.

I used to punch at straw men like this, but it leaves horrible itchy scratches on my arms.

Prez Bush is safe, the Secret Service has banned pretzels from the White House...

I say, serve the president pretzels every chance you get...

For the record, I laughed out loud when I read PAD's little "No wonder Bush can relate to her" joke.

I can see disagreeing with the remark if you somehow find Bush intelligent or something. I wasn't totally happy with how many jokes David Letterman told about President Clinton every night ... a year or more after he was out of office. But I was never personally incensed at Dave. Oh well. Thanks for the laugh, PAD :)

I laughed at a lot of the Clinton jokes. I still do, most recently in a staff meeting this morning.

That doesn't mean that I don't respect the job Clinton did as President.

More and more, my laughter at Bush jokes is tempered by the rather sobering thought that he's still President. And his actions have taken this country to what I consider to be very dark and confined places. Places where true liberty and respect for life gets replaced by rhetoric and lies.

Then, I don't laugh so much.

Making this a federal case, with Terri subpoenaed, is simply the latest tactic in stalling any further action. It is, after all, illegal to harm (or "harm") someone under subpoena.

Life, in and of itself, just isn't enough...there's quality of life to consider, as well.

When I first heard of this story several years ago, sources seemed to want to paint the husband in a bad light..."Oooh...bad man's tryin' to kill his wife because he's got a new girlfriend." It would seem that he's made his peace with the idea that everything that made Terri "Terri" is long gone, and won't be coming back, given that she's been in this state for over a decade. I feel for her parents, I really do...but it would seem they need to come to that same peace.

What it comes down to, is that people see what they want to see, and don't hear what they don't want to hear. Court appointed doctors, not the husband's doctors, examined Terri and declared her as being in a persistant vegitative state. Parts of her brain have liquified...there's nothing to treat, nothing to heal.

Her parents see her body moving, and see her reacting to sound. They see their daughter, when all that's really there is just a body. Everything that made Terri a person is gone. So they see what they want (their daughter) and don't hear what they don't want to hear (their daughter is gone and not ever going to come back).

Here's William Saletan in Slate:

Schiavo's parents have circulated video clips purporting to show that their daughter responds to stimuli. Skeptics point out that the clips omit hours of unresponsiveness—suggesting that her "responses" may be random—and that doctors who examined her in person concluded that she wasn't really interacting with other people. Still, the videos tell a story. In one, Schiavo gags over an oral swab, and a male voice comments, "She don't like that, does she?" In another, her eyes fail to follow a balloon, and a voice says, "Terri, no, no. Come on." Then her eyes move, and the voice infers, "Oh, you see that, don't you, huh?" Schiavo's eyes bug out in a couple of videos, but only when her head slips—or is moved by her mother—from its resting place. A voice in the background tells her, "Good job!" The videos are agonizing not because they show a woman regaining awareness, but because they show the people around her laboring to interpret every twitch that way.

In some scenes, Schiavo's mother speaks to her, kisses her, and shifts her position. The longest video, made surreptitiously by Schiavo's parents in violation of a court order, depicts them fishing for reactions. In the five-minute clip, her mother repeats one word 40 to 50 times. The word is "mommy" or "ma." When Schiavo fails to respond to a cue, her mother prods, "Look over at mommy." "Come on," she tells her daughter. "Over here," she says. "Hey." Not until the mother gets right up in the daughter's face does the daughter make a sound resembling a moan. If the daughter is expressing something about her mother, it looks as close to misery as to joy.

They finally showed some of that video last night, or at least I finally saw some of it. It really is kind of sad, seeing the family put so much hope into every little motion. The part that I saw that, I guess, demonstrates Terri following some motion with her eyes came after several calls of "over here, Terri, over here." She moves her eyes over, and they cheer.

The fact that some do NOT think the government does a very good job of handling such care or the money for such care does not mean that they want to deny them such care. Oppposition to Medicaid does not mean there is a desire to harm someone.

Well, that's refreshing to hear. I have encountered too many conservatives of the opinion that poor people deserve what happens to them, and genuinely resent the idea of their own money going to someone else in need. I'm much happier discussing different means to a common goal than battling conflicting goals.

You may disagree if they should, but it is not otherwise violating the sanctity of the marriage.

Y'see, to me, the nature of the marriage covenant is the WHOLE case here. Part of being married is the right and power to make medical decisions for one's spouse if they are incapacitated. There is no question that removing the feeding tube would be legal if Terri had requested it directly or in a will. The right to refuse treatment is not disputed. What is at issue is whether or not a spouse has the same right in lieu of the incapacitated patient.

In almost all matters of law, a marriage bond trumps any other kinship. A parent or an adult child or a sibling do not have the same authority if there is a legal spouse, even if they are long estranged. (That's why it's important to make a divorce official...there's nothing like having to settle the debts and arrange a funeral for someone who ran out on you...)

Indeed, this is one of the reason gays want to marry: while some of these rights and powers can be contracted, many can ONLY be granted by marriage.

It's also worth noting that by making a law specific to this case, congress has given Terri Schiavo a different set of rights than every other person in such a condition. Whether they are granting her special protection or denying her right to refuse care is beside the point; she is now, legally, not subject to the same laws as the rest of the country.

**Posted by BJ **

**The Texas Futile Care Law, signed into law by the Retard who holds the presidency presently. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. **

**That proves it, George Bush isn't in this for the sancity of life, this is nothing more than a political brownie point drive with the religious fruitcakes who have no problem killing muslim children (warning not for the faint of heart: http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm) or the children of poor American women, but god forbid you try to remove a brain dead woman from life support and let nature take it's natural course. Where are George Bush's cries for the lives of those he sentenced to death BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT PAY in Texas?!!!! **

**Well Iowa Jim, your president and all his sycophants are strangely silent! Sancity of life... Hogwash, talking points is more like it!**

Two blogs I found with more details of that case. The first one is a bioethist's defense of the Texas law:

http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2005/03/20/4103/

Apparently Sun Hudson's actual prognosiss was no where near as sunny as advertised.

This one is from one of the law's authors explaining just what they were wanting that law to do:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html

Apparently representatives from both the Texas and National Right to Life groups and the Hemlock Society had hands in this bill.

Something to think about.

Chris

We have a lot of people upset at the demonization of the husband, as if he were an angel simply trying to carry out his wife's wishes. Perhaps he's not a demon, but you don't know that he's an angel, either.
The eye witness testimony of nurses who have worked with Terri (and not all of them want the tube reinstated) paint a very different picture, from him bullying the staff, to dancing gleefully around saying he's "going to be rich!" and locking himself in the room with Terri alone for twenty minutes and Terri having bruises afterward and responding as if afraid (some of this was a year or two ago when she was far more responsive, could say a few words and interact with people). Some have claimed he went even farther than that.

I don't know if any of it is true; I do know that justice will never be found in this case no matter which way it swings. She chose her husband, and if friends are to be believed, she was planning on divorcing him, just not soon enough.

FWIW, I'm as small government as one can get without being an anarchist, but a strict health safety net is in bounds. Basic health care should be a USA kind of thing. And to correct a misnomer, conservatives are willing to give money to the needy, they just don't want the government to be the middleman. The stats say that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats, IIRC (I think it was in News Week that pointed this out when it was found that Kerry had a horrible history of giving to charity, while Bush has always done quite a bit of charity work).

Hey "Derek!"
--
http://www.terrisfight.net/

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.
--

Or:

--
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050322-121622-9464r.htm

Mr. Schiavo insists his wife told him before the 1990 fall that she did not wish to be kept alive by artificial means, but her family points out that Mr. Schiavo waited seven years before disclosing that information.
In an interview Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition," Bobby Schindler, Mrs. Schiavo's brother, said Mr. Schiavo "did not make Terri's wishes known" until "after Michael announced his engagement to the woman he's with now."
--

Of course....

You could do your own research before reaching conclusions the media wishes you to have. But, I suppose it's much easier to just assume everyone who has an opinion differing from yours is a "rude jerkoff".

What's most interesting, to me, is that the successive court case rejections are soley based on an inability by the courts to overturn the intial judge's "fact" finding of Michael stating that this is Terri's wish. Through all the appeals, several judges have suggested that while they don't agree with this "fact" they can not outright deny the possibility of it and therefore can not grant an appeal.

[Unfortunately, I don't have a link on this yet as it was information gleaned from a radio program, which I suppose in some people's eyes makes it suspect, but that's there problem, not mine.]

Some justice system, huh?

And while you may not agree with the Executive and Legislative Branch's decision to intervene, the Constitution allows for it so ... quite your bitchin about it being wrong. If it was wrong, or illegal, it wouldn't have been done.

Sane, how does the Constitution allow for a Federal legislative intervention into a state court matter? Many, many laws are passed that are later declared unconstitutional, meaning they were wrong to pass in the first place.

Yes, our justice system allows, in most cases, only the initial court to consider and determine issues of fact. If every court that reviewed a case was able to review the facts (referred to a de novo review), there'd never be any certainty to our court system. And each and every appeal would be an entirely new trial, with a new jury. There'd be no point to having the lower court, if the higher court can just totally review everything. It's exactly this aspect of our judicial system that allows it to work at all, with any sense of completion or timeliness.

Appeals courts don't hear witnesses. They review the procedural and legal decisions of lower courts, with occasionally a verbal argument made by the parties' attorneys. The best an appeals court can do is decide that the lower court erred in making a ruling on a fact, and remand the case back to the lower court to try and get it right. But appeals courts can't go changing the facts. That's not their function.

Sane posted:
"And while you may not agree with the Executive and Legislative Branch's decision to intervene, the Constitution allows for it so ... quite your bitchin about it being wrong. If it was wrong, or illegal, it wouldn't have been done."

Sorry to disillusion you, but there is NOTHING in the Constitution of the United States which allowed for the Congress or the President to pull this action they did. It was wrong, plain and simple.
The same bastards who preach the idea of a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution certainly didn't have any problem in creating something that the Constitution doesn't specifically allow.
If you find ANYTHING in the U S Constitution which allowed Congress' action, then by all means, post the appropriate Article and Section with the relevant portion.
For the record, the Senate's action was done by voice vote, and, given the nature of such votes, there's no way to know if the mandatory quorum to conduct a vote even existed. (For the Senate, a quorum must be 51 Senators, though as the Senate's own reference glossary notes about a quorum, "Often, fewer Senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call."

Any part of the Constitution, well, how about the entire Constitution and framework of our government itself?:

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/state/index.html

National, ie Federal, is supreme law of the land. You can quibble that there is nothing in the Constitution expressly stating that Congress can intervene, but there is nothing in the Constitution stating the converse either. So, until this legislation is deemed unconstitutional it is law and therefore must be followed.

Also:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/otsc.toobin/

"Remember, those are just state court decisions. There is the entire area of federal courts that the House of Representatives can pursue.

I understand that they are thinking about, at least, if not actively pursuing, getting a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order, asking that the tube be put back in. In almost all situations, a federal court will trump a state court.

Then there is the issue of the legislation that stalled in the House and Senate last night. But that could be revived. If that becomes law and if President Bush signs it, that is another avenue for litigation to try to get the feeding tube placed back in."

AND ... Bobb, right appeals courts can't change facts but they can rule that a "fact" may not be a fact, thereby qualifying for a new review/case. And that is what is at stake here, appeal courts have been unable to 100% overturn the "fact" of Terri's supposed request to not be left like this. This isn't indicative of a weak case, or faulty appeal, but the limitations of appeal courts.

The nuvo review mandated by FEDERAL law will do what no other court has been able to do since the first case presided over by Whitemore (I think); that is, review the legitamacy of the claim that this is what Terri wanted.

Sane, if it ain't in the Consitution, then the Feds can't do it. Now, there's a lot of wiggle room in the big C, and courts have read a lot of authority that isn't expressly stated in the Constitution. But our government is one of limitations, meaning that if the states and the people didn't grant a power to the federal government, it doesn't have the power.

The right to privacy is one of the most powerful civil rights retained by the people, and one of those things that courts have read into the Constitution. The laws being talked about now would be a huge infringement onto the right of privacy. And are likely, if passed and signed into law, bot at some point be struck down, as other such intrusions into the private affaris of people have been in the past.

I'd be interested in seeing your support for the idea that "In almost all situations, a federal court will trump a state court." I think you're going to be hard pressed to back that up. Because it's only in very limited cases where Federal court can "trump" a state court. It sounds to me like you've got our government backwards. The Federal government is not some all powerful entity that allows states to govern their little territories. All power the Feds have is directly derived from and granted by the people and the states. And despite the far reaching effects the excerise that power can have, it's still a power that is more limited than not.

I think there's something wrong with Peter's hypo. The question seems to be 'How would Congress react if Terri were gay,' but the hypothetical also switches the stances of the parties involved.

The consequence is that it's not at all clear which change supports Peter's conclusion ("Congress wouldn't touch it"), even though it's implied that the sexuality would be the deciding issue. Would either change alone result in a different reaction from Congress, or is it the combination of both?

What would happen if Terri were gay, with Michael being a woman wanting to pull the tube and the parents wanting to keep it in? Would Congress react the same way?

What would happen if Terri remains straight, with Michael wanting to keep the tube in and the parents wanting to pull it? Would Congress touch that?

So, until this legislation is deemed unconstitutional it is law and therefore must be followed.

Which it will be.

But that won't stop them from trying again.

Face facts: this case should never have been dragged into the federal courts to begin with.

It was brought up before the state, the state decided, and Congress decided that that wasn't good enough.

They have abused their power (again), and something needs to be done about it.

And speaking of bs cases, an Estes Park, CO trustee was voted out in a recall election.

Why?

Because he refused to say the Pledge any longer because it includes the words "Under God".

Hopefully, this case will FINALLY get that damn phrase out of the Pledge, where it never belonged.

Just because our representative government is good enough to ensure that state/people's rights aren't trampled for willy nilly reasons, doesn't negate the fact that Federal is law of the land.

To be fair, the extent of this "trumping" is a source of great debate:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Frohnen0101/AmericanRepublic/PDFs/0082_Pt08_Part7.pdf

and has been for quite some time. In fact, I believe a civil war was once fought regarding similar implications of these very issues.

The power is limited by our Republic, by our ability to have our rights and voices represented in government.

And while, yes, the right to privacy is important and must be maintained, in cases of heavy dispute--such as this--presumption should fall in favor of life. For if you have no life, you have no privacy.

"So, until this legislation is deemed unconstitutional it is law and therefore must be followed.

Which it will be."

It'll be exactly as I said! Our unique government provides for both, meaning the fed. has the power to enact law on our behalf unless it can be proved unconstitutional/illegal. Having the option to say something is wrong doesn't make it inheriently wrong.

And, as for the other comment: seperation of church and state was never intended to abolish all references of god or spirituality from our government. I'm so sick of that ill-advised argument. If God is to be banished from all legal documents, then the freakin Declaration of Independence itself must be thrown out!

You know, the very document that started this grand experiment:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Why does the concept of god, life, and spirituality scare you people so freakin much???

Ken: Who ever booed someone because their life was saved by John Kerry? They booed people who supported his lies but not because he saved their lives.
Luigi Novi: What lies are you referring to?

Jerome Maida: Did you really think this was funny, PAD? Really? Or are you just so full of hate and anger over everything the man does, says and is that even a comment like this was not considered by an "enlightened" mind such as yourself to be an utterly tasteless and unnecessary remark?
Luigi Novi: One doesn't have to be full of hatred or anger to make a harmless joking jab at the expense of the President, nor question his intelligence when his intelligence is so obviously in question. It's his blog, and he wants to make a joke, it's up to him to decide whether to do so. Whether it's "necessary" is irrelevant.

Jerome Maida: You make statements like this and then go into 'How DARE you' mode when someone floats the suggestion that you might actualy be rooting for an assassination?
Luigi Novi: Non sequitur. Saying that Bush is unintelligent has nothing to do with rooting for an assassination, and only someone with a flimsy intellect would equate the two.

If God is to be banished from all legal documents, then the freakin Declaration of Independence itself must be thrown out!

Except, of course, that the D of I isn't a legal document.

But please accept our thanks for playing, and these lovely parting gifts.

Why does the concept of god, life, and spirituality scare you people so freakin much???

The concept of life doesn't worry me at all.
The concept of God doesn't worry me at all.
The concept of spirituality doesn't worry me at all.

The concept of elected officials using their own particular image of God to set secular policy scares the flying fuck out of me. As it should you.

TWL

Going to fall an deaf ears, Tim. The only people, so far as I can tell, that support the notion of "under God" and such staying in government sanctioned phrases are those that fall on the side of God. Change out God and say "under Allah," and my guess is 100% of those folks would start crying "separation of Church and State!" faster than Bladestar could post something to piss someone off.

I wouldn't say I was offended by PAD's joke about Bush's intelligence, but I would say he went a decent way to proving my point about "not so smart" people being one of the few remaining groups that it is OK to ridicule. Or was that not meant to be an insult?

TWL--

How cute, you tried to cut me down with game show verbage....ANYWAY, my point is that the Declaration of Independence embodies the spirit of this nation, and if this nation no longer holds god (in any denomination) as a higher power than you may as well just throw it out the window. For if there is no god, no Creator, then we have no inalienable rights; which is rather important to our notion of government, yes?

And I'll thank you to not presume what should or should not scare me.

I think Jon Stewart had the best comment I've heard so far about all this. to paraphrase: if you wanted to know how sick you had to be before the government helped...now you know.

The second best, also on the daily show (to paraphrase): the federal government decided that instead of doing nothing for everything they would try and do one thing for someone.

there is a very sick wisdom in that I think.

"Change out God and say "under Allah," and my guess is 100% of those folks would start crying "separation of Church and State!" faster than Bladestar could post something to piss someone off."

Gee, maybe that's because Allah is not as ambiguous and nondenominational as 'god.' That and we are a Judeo Christian country....Although, given enough time, I'm sure the ACLU would advocate such a move.

Sane ignorantly bleated: "That and we are a Judeo Christian country...."

I call TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT!

Separation of church and state says America is NOT a religious country at all...

Religious countries are the ones where the women are forced to wear burkas and can't drive or vote...

We invaded Iraq to free the oppressed Iraqi's, now who will invade America to free the oppressed Americans?

The concept of elected officials using their own particular image of God to set secular policy scares the flying fuck out of me

To Sane, that is the most important part of TWL's idea. Personally I have no problem with "under God" being in the pledge only because I think there are many much more important things we need to worry about. If that's one's greatest concern then one is worring about the wrong things. Different religions have different theologies about god. Keeping any one specific theology of god out of the government keeps everyone (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, ect.) on equal standing. The government can acknowledge a higher power just not which specific higher power.

Think of it this way I guess, I don't think you would want the federal government mandating that all food in this country has to be kosher. It wouldn't affect my life at all but there is a tremendous amount of others it would.

Anyway, sorry for the digression. Now back to your regularly scheduled postings.

Hey "Derek!"
--
http://www.terrisfight.net/

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.
--

Or:

--
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050322-121622-9464r.htm

Mr. Schiavo insists his wife told him before the 1990 fall that she did not wish to be kept alive by artificial means, but her family points out that Mr. Schiavo waited seven years before disclosing that information.
In an interview Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition," Bobby Schindler, Mrs. Schiavo's brother, said Mr. Schiavo "did not make Terri's wishes known" until "after Michael announced his engagement to the woman he's with now."
--

Of course....

You could do your own research before reaching conclusions the media wishes you to have. But, I suppose it's much easier to just assume everyone who has an opinion differing from yours is a "rude jerkoff".

What exactly am I supposed to get from the links you provided? One if from a blatantly biased website started in Terri Schiavo's name and the other is just a generic news article with nothing that I haven't read already.

And in case you forgot, your initially posted:

"This is not clear cut--clearly attempts at rehabilitation have been stopped by the husband whose sudden memory of Terri not wanting to live like this is suspect. There is no easy answer."

And you still haven't provided anything to back up those statements.

locking himself in the room with Terri alone for twenty minutes and Terri having bruises afterward and responding as if afraid (some of this was a year or two ago when she was far more responsive, could say a few words and interact with people). Some have claimed he went even farther than that.

Are you sure you haven't been reading about an entirely different case because your "facts" are really screwy.

Just as a last aside I realy hate the term Judeo-Christian. There are almost three hundred million people living in America. I think there are about seven million jews (not sure about that number, could be off by three million in either direction I think). Jews are about 2% of the population.

That doesn't seem very judeo-christian to me. I want this to be a secular nation but if anything this is a christian one, not so called " Judeo-Christian."

Sorry to digress, just my little pet peeve. Really, I'm done now. Don't want to change this thread more than it already is.

I'm so sick of that ill-advised argument.

Maybe you should be sick because of the fact that our Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians?

That the god they refer to in the DoI is not the Christian god, but a generalized god.

The god mentioned in the Pledge? Christian, specifically to target those "aethist pinko Commies".

First, to A-Greene, I couldn't agree more, acknowledging A higher power through the generic terminology of the word god is fine. Great, even.

Second, Bladestar, whether you like it or not this country and it's government are based on judeochristian ethics and creeds. My apologies for not pointing that out clearly enough.

Third, Derek!, it is unfortunate that your reading comprehension skills are such that I have to delineate and point everything out to you. By my count, the links provided accounted for everything. The fact that one of the links is from a source with vested interest in some of the views makes the facts contained within the site no less important. Furthermore, if you're going to discount the information contained within that site, then you must discount the facts from the husband as well, since that too is clearly biased.

All information is biased-a lazy argument on your part.

And what have you provided, oh great one? You keep countering my at least somewhat intelligent beliefs with, "prove it, prove it, where's the link?"

Well, I've got a final link for ya:

www.blowme.com

I tire of this. I stumbled across this site from another site and got disgusted with the self-righteousness of some of these posts. I did something about it. Had my fun, but now feel as though I am stuck in the monkey house at the zoo during masturbation hour. You people can't see past your own fears and hatred to realize that a person may be slowly, painfully (because we all know brain damaged people and animals don't feel pain...) dying against her wish. Sad.

Sane, your handle is a complete Antonym of your status...

Intelligent beliefs? As opposed to proven facts? I'll take facts over religio-nutjob beliefs any day

The Declaration Of Independence says "... by their creator ..."

The creator can be God, Allah, Jahova, Odin, Zeus, Bob, or one's parents. They were not referring to any one God, Judeo-Christian or otherwise.

1797 Treaty Of Tripoli (article 11)
"As the Government of the United States... is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"

You people can't see past your own fears and hatred to realize that a person may be slowly, painfully (because we all know brain damaged people and animals don't feel pain...) dying against her wish.

Our fears and hatred are well founded in that the courts have ruled in favor of the husband, and there are those that are not only respecting the wishes of Terri, but of Michael and the MANY rulings of the court.

But, hey, do we know she is dying painfully? Is she feeling any pain at all?

Have you, with all YOUR fear and hatred, ever considered that she may be screaming bloody murder to get it over with already? That she actually didn't want to live like this? That she'd pull the plug herself if she could?

Or does that offend the sensibilities, that somebody actually wants the right to die?

And, as for the other comment: seperation of church and state was never intended to abolish all references of god or spirituality from our government. I'm so sick of that ill-advised argument. If God is to be banished from all legal documents, then the freakin Declaration of Independence itself must be thrown out!

Such an extreme argument is comfortably in the minority you know.

You know, the very document that started this grand experiment:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

It also says:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

Our government is made legitimate through the consent of men, not the authority of God, or for that matter the sole fiat of men who claim to know God’s will.

What really bugs is the willful desire of some on the right to ignore inconvenient parts of the document that set the parameters of this grand experiment, namely:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

More and more often, radical members on the right are trying to foist God -- or more precisely, THEIR interpretation of God -- into government and civic life at the expense of others. (I promise you, if some judge somewhere censured a teacher for obligating his public school class to perform school prayer, there would be a hue and cry from members of the Religious Right protesting the wrongness of it . . . unless, of course said teacher was a Muslim or Buddist teaching a sura. Then not only would said members not protest, they’d applaud the judge for his actions.)

All I want is for our elected officials to not to trumpet one set of beliefs as superior to another, or worse, use dogma to as a shorthand way to answer complex questions that are better resolved through reason and logic.

Why does the concept of god, life, and spirituality scare you people so freakin much???

That’s rather like asking why the concept of America, tolerance, and freedom scare YOU so much.

The answer to both is of course it doesn’t. It’s just that our interpretations differ.

>You people can't see past your own fears and hatred to realize that a person may be slowly, painfully (because we all know brain damaged people and animals don't feel pain...) dying against her wish.

My thoughts on this case have nothing to do with fear or hatred, but utilizing brain damaged people and animals to make your case for a person in a vegetative state, is like arguing that Liefeld should continue to get work because George Perez has a regular gig.

-peeks in door quietly-

Hey guys, I just wanted to look in and see if this blog had degenerated like the other one into another argument about Iraq and how God like/Evil Bush is.

Has it?

JAC

Not totally. Although there was some discussion of whether or not the Declaration of Independance should be tossed because it refers to God.

And I'm spent....

And, as for the other comment: seperation of church and state was never intended to abolish all references of god or spirituality from our government. I'm so sick of that ill-advised argument.

What makes the Pledge different is that the law adding the words "under God" was passed EXPLICITLY for the purpose of promoting religiousity. It isn't just the words, but the INTENT of the law, which is unquestionably establishment.

ANYWAY, my point is that the Declaration of Independence embodies the spirit of this nation, and if this nation no longer holds god (in any denomination) as a higher power than you may as well just throw it out the window. For if there is no god, no Creator, then we have no inalienable rights; which is rather important to our notion of government, yes?

You will note that Jefferson said "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The Deistic view was not of a "higher power" controlling the universe, but a universe bound by natural laws. Man's rights do not come from the creator, per se; they are a part of the creation. They are part of man's natural state. The creator, at this point, is irrelevant. Which is why nature get's mentioned before its god.

You're probably right, PAD. Most likey, there are probably 10 layers of screeners between any senator and any publically posted email address.

It was prior to mass use of email, but I was an intern briefly in a congressman's office. This was back in 1990. I, and other interns, opened his constituent mail. There was a database of text for answers to specific topics/bills. We cut and pasted, altered only to smooth transitions, and then presented the final draft to a Legislative assistant, who then passed it on for the signature. Theoretically, the congressman had already basically approved all the text, or at least the majority of it, so he didn't have to read the letters, just sign them (after making sure the constiutent wasn't someone he knew who needed a more personal answer).

I suspect it worked pretty much the same in every Senator/Congressman's office, and probably still does today.

The only thing that was handled differently were the postcards that were massmailed through organizations. They were just counted.

Gee, maybe that's because Allah is not as ambiguous and nondenominational as 'god.'

"Allah" is the Arabic word for "god". It is a cognate of the Hebrew "Elohim", the word translated "God" in most English Bibles, and it is the word Arab CHRISTIANS and JEWS use when refering to their god. An Arabic New Testament would say "Allah" everywhere yours says "God", as would an Arabic translation of the Pledge.

That and we are a Judeo Christian country....

I don't recall that in the Constitution. Regardless, Judaism, Christianity and Islam worship the same god, and are part of the same tradition. Within a decade, there will be more Muslims and Buddhists in the US than Jews, based on current trends, and there are more non-religious people than either group, so calling the US a Judeo-Christian nation wouldn't make much sense.

Religious countries are the ones where the women are forced to wear burkas and can't drive or vote...

WEEELL, to be fair, England, Norway and Denmark all still have state churches, and they haven't imposed Sharia yet. Some argue that the state sponsorship of these churches does more damage to the churches than the governments, which is all the more reason to keep the separation.

so calling the US a Judeo-Christian nation wouldn't make much sense.

Well, unless you pay attention to history.

I think there are about seven million jews (not sure about that number, could be off by three million in either direction I think).

2.8 Million, in 2001. 1.3% of the population. To be fair, it is the second largest single RELIGION, but only one-tenth of the number of people who profess no religion at all. There are about 1.1 million each of Muslims and Buddhists.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

"Judeo-Christian" is appropriate more when discussing overall religious traditions, and even then "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" would be more accurate.

Second, Bladestar, whether you like it or not this country and it's government are based on judeochristian ethics and creeds.

Really, no, it isn't. Our legal system itself is derived from English Common Law, itself drawn from Roman Law and Germanic Customary Law. It is thuroughly pagan in its heritage.

The structure of our government is based on various Enlightenment philosophies which were ambivolent about Christianity at best, and generally rejected Christian notions like the Devine Right of Kings, and grounded political and moral theory on the powers of the human mind to understand the natural world, rather than devine inspiration or religous doctrine.

The founding fathers were largely Deists and Unitarians, not traditional Christians, and many were vehemently critical of organized Christianity. While the majority of Americans, then as now, probably considered themselves Christian, the actual foundations of the nation had no specific Christian flavor.

Well, unless you pay attention to history.

I think you missed my emphasis. Calling the US a Judeo-Christian nation doesn't make sense when there are only 2.8 million Jews. One might call it a Christian nation based purely on demography, but not on the basis of its government or legal systems, as I've explained. If you are going to go by pure numbers, we would also be a "white nation" and a marginally "female nation", but similarly, whiteness and femaleness are not considered intrensic parts of our government or legal system.

Personally I have no problem with "under God" being in the pledge only because I think there are many much more important things we need to worry about. If that's one's greatest concern then one is worring about the wrong things.

Agreed, in general. In an ideal world, I'd like to see "under God" taken out of the Pledge -- of course, in an ideal world, I'd abolish the Pledge entirely, since I think subjecting children to loyalty oaths is abhorrent.

However, and I said this to friends right after the appeals court ruling a few years ago, I think the Pledge is the wrong battle right now. It's a distraction away from the REAL church-state separation issues, and as such is sucking resources away from fights that are a lot more important.

I think I'll pass on any response to "Sane"'s various posts, though, given that he's already decided to take his toys and go home. This particular monkey has better things to do than watch someone outside the cage throw crap in.

TWL

If it was wrong, or illegal, it wouldn't have been done.

Yes, because politicians have never done anything wrong, or illegal....

The whole Schiavo case comes down to one simple question.
Quality of Life versus Quantity Of Life.

Sane posted:
"Any part of the Constitution, well, how about the entire Constitution and framework of our government itself?:

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/state/index.html

National, ie Federal, is supreme law of the land. You can quibble that there is nothing in the Constitution expressly stating that Congress can intervene, but there is nothing in the Constitution stating the converse either. So, until this legislation is deemed unconstitutional it is law and therefore must be followed."

Um,WRONG ANSWER. Thank you for playing and please try again.
Seriously, though, there is a little aspect of the Constitution known as the 9th and 10th Amendments which detail EXACTLY the relationship between the States and the Federal Government.
The 9th simply reads
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 10th reads
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
And as for the actual powers of Congress as detailed in the Constitution, reference Article I, Section 8, none of which allows for the Congress to step in and issue a law for the sake of ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.

As for the legal expert's opinion, what the Federal courts have ALWAYS done in the past is to rule on matters brought before the Federal court through a formal appeals procedure which begins at a LOCAL Federal court. Congress overstepped its authority by forcing a Federal court to look at a matter which had not gone through the proper venues. To compare it to a capital criminal case, if the initial State's court decision leads to a death sentence, it must then go to the State's Appeals Court for review; after the State's Appeals Court, the State's Supreme Court may hear the case. From there, it can be appealed to the Federal court at the District level, then to the Circuit level, and finally to the Supreme Court. If the process has played through to the Circuit level, and the petitioner has been denied in each case, the attorney may then request an appeal to the Supreme Court (but that is NOT an absolute guarantee that the Supreme Court will accept the case, although the Justice assigned to cover the Circuit in question may issue a stay until a full review can be heard; if memory serves, it only takes 2 or 3 members of the Supreme Court to decline the case for the case to be tossed). As I said, Congress, not Terri Schiavo's parents, put the matter into the Federal courts which is a grievous overstepping--quite tantamount to the Republicans' general complaint about "judicial activism".

Here's the thing about the Shiavo case: I had been through the entire process JosephW described. It went through the entire state system all the way to the Florida Supreme court. The parents then appealled to the US District Court, then to the Circuit court and finally, the US Supreme Court, all of whom declined to overturn the Florida state court's rulings. At every level, they failed to prove that Michael Shiavo was unfit to be Terri's guardian and they failed to prove that a lower court committed a legal error that warranted a reexamination of the case.

This week, for the sake of political grandstanding, Congress decided to shout "do over!" and force the federal courts to take another look. And the same thing happened because the facts of the case haven't changed.

The Schindlers have had their day in court and then some. They failed to prove their case. There are thousands of people all over the country in a PVS and families make decisions all the time about whether to continue with a feeding tube. To upend our entire judiciary system for this one case is ludicrous. It isn't what the Founding Fathers intended in the Constitution.

Den, what's worse than all that is that Congress' actions display a desire to take away the power of all those other families dealing with a member stricken with PVS or similar injuries to decline treatment for their loved one. If Congress, either state or federal, follows up with a law that prevents the removal of life support of any kind without the express, written or otherwise, consent of the patient, not a legal guardian, thousands of families will effectively lose this right.

And for those that will say "simple solution: get a living will," that's not the answer. There will always be cases where no living will is available. Are we to get children to create a living will? What happens if the will is destroyed by fire? Or if you happen to change your mind, but not your living will?

No, this is an area that the government needs to stay out of.

"Her mind is gone, has been for 15 years. No wonder Bush can relate to her"

Hmmm, Could we maybe disconnect HIS feeding tubes? One of those feeding tubes would be the uplink from FOX NEWS, I believe the other feeding tube would be an oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia...

>> Their reaction will be an autoresponse
>> thanking you for sharing your opinion, but
>> go right ahead.

> You're probably right, PAD. Most likey, there
> are probably 10 layers of screeners between
> any senator and any publically posted email
> address.

I-shit-you-not True Story:


When I lived in Belleville, Illinois, I wrote a paper letter to then United States Senator Alan Dixon, who was from Belleville. I didn't mail it. As Sen. Dixon was speaking in Belleville the next day, I took it to the meeting to give it to him in person, figuring that if I could it would be more likely that he would read it.


I gave him the letter, in an envelope hand-addressed to him. The envelope literally went from my hand to his hand to his inside suit coat breast pocket, as he put his other hand on my shoulder and said, "Thank you, friend."

Six weeks later I got a form-letter response clearly written by a staff member who just as clearly had only read the first page of the two-page letter.


They really don't give a damn about what we think as individuals.

>> Their reaction will be an autoresponse
>> thanking you for sharing your opinion, but
>> go right ahead.

> You're probably right, PAD. Most likey, there
> are probably 10 layers of screeners between
> any senator and any publically posted email
> address.

I-shit-you-not True Story:

When I lived in Belleville, Illinois, I wrote a paper letter to then United States Senator Alan Dixon, who was also from Belleville. I didn't mail it. As Sen. Dixon was speaking in Belleville the next day, I took it to the meeting to give it to him in person, figuring that if I could it would be more likely that he would read it.

I gave him the neatly typed letter, in an envelope hand-addressed to him. The envelope literally went from my hand to his hand to his inside suit coat breast pocket, as he put his other hand on my shoulder and said, "Thank you, friend."

Six weeks later I got a form-letter response clearly written by a staff member who just as clearly had only read the first page of the two-page letter.

They really don't give a damn about what we think as individuals.

> While I can't say for sure about Congress, I
> can say with certainty that the Christian
> conservatives, such as James Dobson or
> myself, would be just as loudly and strongly
> protesting ANYONE being starved to death
> in a similar circumstance. There is a
> fundamental right to life that is true,
> regardless of the "lifestyle" of the person
> involved.


I don't know you, Iowa Jim, so I hesitate to call you a liar. Maybe you actually believe this statement. Maybe for you yourself it's actually true.

But I do not believe that James Dobson and other national fundamentalist Christian Statist politicians of his ilk would grieve for even one single second if every gay man or woman in the United States were to suddenly die a horrible, painful, humiliating death.

While he might not say so publicly, as he is, first and foremost, a politician, I have no doubt that in his secret heart, visible only to himself and his God, that he would be rejoicing that God finally gave those queers what they deserved and why didn't you do it sooner, Lord?

And a lot of his followers wouldn't hesitate to say so publicly.

> Why does the concept of god, life, and spirituality
> scare you people so freakin much???


Not scared of them in the slightest, myself.

What frightens me is mere Humans who purport to know what goes on in the mind of God and then try to force those merely Human notions on the rest of the populace by the armed might of the State, claiming that the unknowable mind of God thinks the same limited way they do.

> (I promise you, if some judge somewhere censured
> a teacher for obligating his public school class to
> perform school prayer, there would be a hue and cry
> from members of the Religious Right protesting the
> wrongness of it...unless, of course said teacher was
> a Muslim or Buddist teaching a sura. Then not only
> would said members not protest, they’d applaud the
> judge for his actions.)


http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/172005b.asp

http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detaila.html?id=12492

A girl in Michigan wrote about her own religious experience with Wicca for her high school newspaper.

The local chapter of the falsely-named "American Family Association" is demanding a "Christian" article denigrating Wicca or it may file a lawsuit disingenously claiming a violation of separation of church and state.

This is an organization which states that Christian loudspeaker prayers at football games and graduations ceremonies are statemens of individual beliefe, not state sponsorship of religion.

They do a great job of making your point for you, do they not?

Well to groups such as these the First Amendment means 'seperation of non-Christian Fundamentalist church & state'

I don't know who first said this, but
"Keep your church out of my government & I won't think in your church"

delurking to say hi

there is no way I am going to read all these posts. To everyone who wants her to die. What about the 6 comatose inmates in California that tax payers are paying 1.27 million dollars for the last six weeks and 1,000 per guard-per day to keep THEM alive. Also, if starvation is such a great way to die, why did they put a feeding tube in the pope's nose?

Dejauu, Terri Schiavo is already dead, and has been for fifteen years. Her body is being tormented into maintaining a hideous semblance of life, because her parents are too weak in their purported faith to believe their daughter would really go to Heaven - despite receiving the Last Rites twice. Her brain, however, and all that made her who she was, is already gone. Pope John Paul II, on the other hand, still seems to be alive and conscious (all the obvious jokes aside...).

On another point, Jesse Jackson is defnitely backing a bad horse here. If he'd care to think about history so recent that he lived through part of it, Brother Jesse would realize that if legislative bodies could override the courts simply because of popular opinion, there would still be states where it would be legal to lynch him.

dejauu, (1) there's a medical difference between persistant vegitative state (Terri's condition) and a coma.

(2) Terri's legal guardian, as determined by over 30 judicial rulings now, has presented credible evidence to which there has been no credible or substantive contrary evidence presented that Terri's wish, if she could express it in this PVS state, would be to deny sustained artificial live support, including a feeding tube.

Those inmates you mention are probably wards of the state, and may not even have the legal capacity to decline treatment. So, unless they get incarcerated in Texas, they have a legal right to medical treatment, same as anyone. You don't forfeit that right upon conviction.

In TX, the courts could rule under the Bush passed Futile Treatment law, which says if a team of doctors determines that treatment of a terminal patient is futile, they can deny that treatment, even over the objections of the family. And I'm assuming the patient, even, although the case I'm aware of that has used the law involved a terminally ill infant, and his life support was terminated against the wishes of his mother.

It's all well and good if you don't want to read the whole thread, but at least do some research on the topics you're going to discuss.

David,

Just read your comments about James Dobson (and someone else's about Jerry Falwell somewhere else) suggesting they would love it if every gay person dropped dead. Let me flat out tell you that you are wrong. I've met both men, spent several days with James Dobson, and your view of them is so far off the base it would be laughable if it weren't so sad. You assume their stance against sin means they are full of hate when that is far from the truth. Both are compassionate men capable of great humor. I've watched Falwell minister to a gay man who was full of anger and Falwell never said a single condemning word. He told him that Jesus loves him, and focused the whole confrontation on the character of God, not the sin of this man, other than to say that one sin isn't any worse or better than another. For you to misrepresent them so much is as bad as Spider saying PAD wanted to see Bush dead.