RIP Terri Schiavo

[J]

Bet you didn't see these poll number on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, etc.

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11131

Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo
Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.

The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.

Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.

"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.

A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.

"From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides," Concerned Women for America's Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side "believes Terri's life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo's actions as merciful, and appropriate."

More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, "because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water."

The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.

"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place," respondents were asked.

Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.

Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient's family has a dispute over the care.

"According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we're trying to accomplish," she said.

The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.

When asked directly about Terri's case and told the her estranged husband Michael "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her" 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents while 37 percent disagreed.


(4/1/2005)
- By Steven Ertelt, Life News

[J]

Leebo,
Trying to get all your questions answered before I head out the door. People are discussing the case based on information that the media reports.

[Leebo33]

The doctors who investigated her were unqualified, and only spent about 40 minutes each with her. You have to spend a certain number of hours and perform the correct tests in order to come to the conclusion that she was in a persistive vegitative state.

Well, I don't have all day to sit here and respond to each of these, but this one was easy.

According to the Wolfson report:

"Each of the physicians was afforded access to Theresa for the purpose of conducting a thorough examination. Video tape recordings were made of some of the examinations along with segments in which family members interacted with Theresa. The physicians were deposed and proffered testimony regarding their findings. Written reports of the examinations were prepared by all five physicians, and a very detailed hearing was held in October of 2002. The clinical evidence presented by the five physicians reflected their examinations and reviews of the medical records. Four of the physicians were board certified in neurology, as suggested by the court, and one physician was board certified in radiology and hyperbaric medicine. All of the physicians had excellent pedigrees of medical training. The scientific quality, value and relevance of the testimony varied. The two neurologists testifying for Michael Schiavo provided strong, academically based, and scientifically supported evidence that was reasonably deemed clear and convincing by the court. Of the two physicians testifying for the Schindlers, only one was a neurologist, the other was a radiologist/hyperbaric physician. The testimony of the Schindler’s physicians was substantially anecdotal, and was reasonably deemed to be not clear and convincing. The fifth physician, chosen by the court because the two parties could not agree, presented scientifically grounded, academically based evidence that was reasonably deemed to be clear and convincing by the court. Following exhaustive testimony and the viewing of video tapes, the trial court concluded that no substantial evidence had been presented to indicate any promising treatment that might improve Theresa’s cognition. The court sought to glean scientific, case, research-based foundations for the contentions of the Schindler’s physician experts, but received principally anecdotal information."

[Brando70]

The doctors who investigated her were unqualified, and only spent about 40 minutes each with her. You have to spend a certain number of hours and perform the correct tests in order to come to the conclusion that she was in a persistive vegitative state.

Sorry, J, but that's just not true. First, Leebo pointed out they were qualified. Second, I know at least one of the doctors spent an entire month with her. I saw him on Larry King talking about it, saying he actually went into the evaluation hoping to see evidence she was not in a vegetative state, but concluded in the end that she was.

Of course, this didn't prevent Bill "Dr. Nick" Frist from diagnosing her as not being in a vegetative state after watching videotape of Terri Shiavo. All he needed was a bill and a pair of webbed feet to complete the costume.

I also don't put much faith in the polls in this situation. We have laws to avoid making decisions based on emotion and hysteria. And courts exercising their authority as courts is not judicial tyranny. That's the conservative catch-phrase of the moment. If these courts weren't ruling against things conservatives believed, we'd be hearing about noble judges rather than activist judges. They are doing their duty to interpret the law, enforce it, and make sure legislatures don't overstep their authority to try and win some votes in the next election.

I feel like I'm being strangled to death by the culture of life.

[J]

Leebo's quote doesn't name the doctors. Doesn't matter. I didn't join this forum to argue politics all day. Just my opinion: too many unanswered questions, and bad media coverage. And, polls matter because they matter to the politicians. It was repeated over and over that Americans wanted her feeding tube removed, and would bet that's why the Bush family backed off.

[Leebo33]

Leebo's quote doesn't name the doctors. Doesn't matter. I didn't join this forum to argue politics all day. Just my opinion: too many unanswered questions, and bad media coverage. And, polls matter because they matter to the politicians. It was repeated over and over that Americans wanted her feeding tube removed, and would bet that's why the Bush family backed off.

LOL. What difference does it make if they named the doctors or not? Does that mean they aren't qualified. I quoted a report made to Jeb Bush and the 6th Judicial Court. I don't think he made the whole thing up.

I don't think any of us joined the forum specifically to argue politics. However, if you make a political post in a thread here, don't be surprised if people offer counterpoints.

I don't agree with your reasoning on why the Bush family "backed off." If true, doesn't that make them just as bad as the any politician that makes decisions based on polls and not core beliefs? That's an accusation that was commonly made about Bill Clinton, wasn't it?

BTW, I am very divided on this case. I can see both sides. However, I do not like the misinformation that is spread. It actually scares me very much. What scares me is that people seem to lose their skepticism when it comes to information that supports their side, but will scrutinize every bit of information on the other side. I mean, some of the information posted in these threads is so obviously fabricated that anyone should be able to realize it.

[J]

My understanding of diagnosing PVS is that a specialist must do it, and I learned that this was not the case. That is as much as I remember about that point from discussion a couple of weeks ago. I never accused anyone of making anything up, and don't dispute the doctors' reports. If you think I'm spreading misinformation, that is not my intention. I was thinking about spending some time fact checking for this discussion, but if I spent hours proving my point would it really make any difference? You guys will probably just search for another attack angle rather than acknowledge any truth to what I am saying.

Yes, I criticized Clinton for making his decisions base on polls rather than core beliefs, and I am criticizing the Bush brothers for the same thing right now (should have made that more clear). I am not a fan of either president or any of the demicans or republicrats that they ran against.

[Leebo33]

If you think I'm spreading misinformation, that is not my intention. I was thinking about spending some time fact checking for this discussion, but if I spent hours proving my point would it really make any difference? You guys will probably just search for another attack angle rather than acknowledge any truth to what I am saying.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone would *intentionally* spread false information. I'm not searching for an attack angle. As I mentioned, I am all for truth. During our "tort liability" discussions last week I learned a lot. I found the true facts of the "McDonald's Coffee" lawsuit case especially informative.

However, I have to admit, it is tough to acknowledge any truth in what you are saying. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I am highly skeptical. It's not your fault I'm so skeptical. It's just that every time I hear some "fact" about the case that seems a little odd, it turns out to not to be true or grossly exaggerated. The unqualified doctor claim is a perfect example. Please don't take it personally. I don't think you are doing it on purpose. It just takes a bit of extra time to find out the facts or at least the whole picture.

[Teal]

Let's see, Teal: Tom De Lay is the majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. He's a leading voice in the Republican Party because of that position.

But you want me to believe he's just some freshman congressman running his mouth? And you don't find it one bit rich that De Lay is ripping the judicial branch because it's not rolling over and kow-towing to Bush's every whims, like the Legislative branch has done because it's under GOP control?

Come on ...

And I stand by my junta remark. If Bush had his way, he would assert total control over the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the U.S., just like the leader of a junta.

Take care,
PK

Well, stand by your junta remark if you choose...it's your right. It's a mighty broad brush to paint with considering you know not one whit what's on the mind of Bush, but hey, say it if you want.

As for De Lay, he's just another in a long line of disinformation or selective information campaigns that you've apparently bought into. Ashcroft, Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ridge...pretty much anyone that has been knocked in the press that hails from the Republican Party has had whatever that has been said about them rubber stamped by you.

I frankly don't understand it. I have a severe disdain for the Clinton presidency, but I didn't take everything that was said by the American Spectator and turn it into talking points every time I saw an opening, however weak the connection was.

I like and respect you, PK, I really do. And, you know? I have no general problem whatsoever with the Libertarian Party. There are things they stand for that make me cringe, but that's where they stand, and they have the right to stand for it, as I have the right to vote for them or not. But I'm not going to go around making blanket, unfounded, and generally hateful statements about Michael Badnarik because I disagree with some of his policies. I'm also not going to call you a blind partisan or anything else for that matter simply because you believe in Libertarianism or support a Libertarian candidate.

The rhetoric, quite frankly, and the harshness of it, serves only to incite flame wars, the way I see it. I've read all this kind of stuff from you before, PK...I'm not sure why you see fit to keep on with it. I get your point. We all get your point. (BTW, cut and paste would cut down on alot of time...

I know you don't like Bush. You know I do. Everybody else knows it as well. )

As for DeLay, I don't know what's in the man's heart-I've never met him. He just may be legitimately tired of judicial tyranny, and sick over the death of Terri Shiavo. You certainly don't know enough about him to be making character judgements about him, any more than I, by the way, have to make the same about Michael Shiavo, other than what I see on TV. I retract my statements about Shiavo, because I'd like to make up my own mind than have it made up by the media either way...

For my part, I'd like judges to be pulled back down into equal standing with the other branches of government, and stop legislating and using ideology as a means of tossing out things like the will of the people. (Prop 187 in Cal) Not to mention using international law to determine precedent. That dog won't hunt. If it takes "old, evil Tom DeLay" to start that ball rolling, then so be it.

[Teal]

Greed...

This one is for Teal... You have worked hard to attack the husbands character. I just thought you might check out what the parents are up to.

Did you donate to the Terry Schiavo Fund? If so the parents are not only taking your donation but selling your e-mail address and information.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... mg/2648050

Yea that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Why, exactly is this one "for me"? I didn't donate to anything, and I'm not the only one who holds the opinion I do. Yet you single me out. I never held up the parents as the pillars of purity and integrity. All I know is that they were willing to take care of Shiavo, thus sparing her life. For this particular situation, that's all I need to know.

Am I supposed to feel somehow betrayed or something? I don't care how it makes you feel, and your sarcasm is lost on me...

[jujuhound76]

For my part, I'd like judges to be pulled back down into equal standing with the other branches of government, and stop legislating and using ideology as a means of tossing out things like the will of the people.

Teal,

I think that your ideology is standing in the way of you seeing that the judicial system IS on equal ground with the other two branches of government. It is called separation of powers, checks and balances, whatever other name you want to give it. Just as the legislative branch has the Constitutional power to pass legislation amending the jurisdiction of our federal courts, the judicial branch has the Constitutional power and duty to strike down any legislation that oversteps its bounds. Below is an excerpt from the Bush, Sr.-appointed judge's opinion striking down the Schiavo law that explains where Congress crossed the line. I know it's a little long, but since you feel so strongly about this particular issue, it would be a good read if you haven't checked it out already. I'm not condoning or condemning the decision by the husband to pull the tubes, but I think the decision of the 11th Circuit was correct.

"...It is axiomatic that the Framers established a constitutional design based on the principles of separation of powers . . . The Framers established three coequal but separate branches of government, each with the ability to exercise checks and balances on the two others. And to preserve this dynamic, the "Constitution mandates that 'each of the three general departments of government [must remain] entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others.'" . . . Because of the important constitutional role assigned to the judiciary by the Framers in safeguarding the Constitution and the rights of individuals, see Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton), the execution of this constitutional mandate is particularly important when legislative acts encroach upon the independence of the judiciary.

Article III [of the Constitution] provides that the "judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In defining the extent of federal judicial power, Article III provides that "judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" and to certain other enumerated cases and controversies. These provisions have led courts to the unremarkable conclusion that "federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction" and may only exercise jurisdiction allowed under the Constitution when "authorized by . . . statute." Consistent with this dynamic outlined by Article III, and pursuant to its Article I powers, the United States Congress has vested federal courts with original jurisdiction to hear claims "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," and claims in which certain amount in controversy and diversity of citizenship criteria are met.

Against these most elementary of constitutional principles, Section 1 of Pub. L. 109-3 (The Act Congress passed on March 20, 2005 in attempt to keep Terry Schiavo alive)-- which states that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear a suit regarding alleged violations of rights held by Mrs. Schiavo "under the Constitution or laws of the United States" -- is not facially unconstitutional. If the Act only provided for jurisdiction consistent with Article III… the Act would not be in violation of the principles of separation of powers. The Act, however, goes further. Section 2 of the Act provides that the district court: (1) shall engage in "de novo" review of Mrs. Schiavo's constitutional and federal claims; (2) shall not consider whether these claims were previously "raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings"; (3) shall not engage in "abstention in favor of State court proceedings"; and (4) shall not decide the case on the basis of "whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted." Pub. L. 109-3, § 2. Because these provisions constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a "rule of decision"), the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle.
An act of Congress violates separation of powers if it requires federal courts to exercise their Article III power "in a manner repugnant to the text, structure, and traditions of Article III." By setting a particular standard of review in the district court, Section 2 of the Act purports to direct a federal court in an area traditionally left to the federal court to decide. In fact, the establishment of a standard of review often dictates the rule of decision in a case, which is beyond Congress's constitutional power. In addition, "the separation-of-powers doctrine requires that a branch not impair another in the performance of its constitutional duties. By denying federal courts the ability to exercise abstention or inquire as to exhaustion or waiver under State law, the Act robs federal courts of judicial doctrines long-established for the conduct of prudential decision making. In short, certain provisions of Section 2 of the Act attempt to "'direct what particular steps shall be taken in the progress of a judicial inquiry.'" Because this is violative of the fundamental principles of separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution, they are unconstitutional.

In sum, while Congress may grant jurisdiction to a federal court consistent with Article III as it did in Section 1 of the Act, n6 it may not "assume[] a function that more properly is entrusted to" the judiciary. By arrogating vital judicial functions to itself in the passage of the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, Congress violated core constitutional separation principles, it prescribed a "rule of decision" and acted unconstitutionally.
The separation of powers implicit in our constitutional design was created "to assure, as nearly as possible, that each branch of government would confine itself to its assigned responsibility." But when the fervor of political passions moves the Executive and the Legislative branches to act in ways inimical to basic constitutional principles, it is the duty of the judiciary to intervene. If sacrifices to the independence of the judiciary are permitted today, precedent is established for the constitutional transgressions of tomorrow...."

(full text of the comment that this excerpt appears in can be found at http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/channel1/ ... ex-rel.htm)


BTW, here's a link to Article III of the Constitution. At no point does it mention that Congress has an obligation to change the jurisdiction of the federal courts as you stated in a previous post. Congress simply has the power to do so as long as it does not invade the province of the other two branches.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... article03/

[bdoughty]

Yet you single me out.

Yes because you felt no problem in posting link upon misinformed link of information about the husband because it suited your political and religious views on the issue.

Hey Jared is on vacation so now would be a great time to post alot more misinformation w/o his ability to show you the error in your ways.

[J]

If you think I'm spreading misinformation, that is not my intention. I was thinking about spending some time fact checking for this discussion, but if I spent hours proving my point would it really make any difference? You guys will probably just search for another attack angle rather than acknowledge any truth to what I am saying.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone would *intentionally* spread false information. I'm not searching for an attack angle. As I mentioned, I am all for truth. During our "tort liability" discussions last week I learned a lot. I found the true facts of the "McDonald's Coffee" lawsuit case especially informative.

However, I have to admit, it is tough to acknowledge any truth in what you are saying. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I am highly skeptical. It's not your fault I'm so skeptical. It's just that every time I hear some "fact" about the case that seems a little odd, it turns out to not to be true or grossly exaggerated. The unqualified doctor claim is a perfect example. Please don't take it personally. I don't think you are doing it on purpose. It just takes a bit of extra time to find out the facts or at least the whole picture.

To prove that I'm not lying and maybe open some minds to some details of this issue, I found an article by Reverend Robert Johansen, and I am not familar with the site which published it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/j ... 160848.asp
I believe this is who I heard the information about the doctors from a couple of weeks ago. He claims that there was no MRI done, no doctors spent the the months required to examine her, and explains why the diagnosis of Dr. Ronald Cranford was unqualified. He seems to do a good job of backing up what he's saying with quotes from other doctors.

This, along with the rest of my points, is why I say there were too many questions remaining to support starving her to death. Maybe I'm being too skeptical of doctors and lawyers, and as a result have found evidence to support that mindset? I will be interested to read responses.

[Teal]

jujuhound:

That's fine, but I'm not speaking of only the Shiavo case. There's a laundry list of judges legislating from the bench, creating case law from thin air. Overturning prop 187 in California, as I mentioned. That was the will of the people per popular vote. One judge cannot just arbitrarily overturn voting results based on apparently no more than that it clashed with the judges' personal ideology. He/she decides they don't like what the people voted for...boom. Overturned. Why? Um...violates the Constitution. The most overused and underexplained ruling in America.

Activist judges abound in the US, which is why the Dems are using the phony filibuster thing to block votes on judicial nominees. They're not even being forced to actually filibuster, for crying out loud. The repubs ought to stiffen their spines and make them stand up there for hours on end reading the Washington Post out loud, and MAKE them filibuster, instead of just allowing them to invoke the word.

Legislation from the bench is not what the judiciary is designed to do. They are to make decisions based on US law, regardless of their personal beliefs. Many don't do that. They act like unaccountable dieties. And many just roll over and accept that. I'm not one of them...

[Teal]

Yet you single me out.

Yes because you felt no problem in posting link upon misinformed link of information about the husband because it suited your political and religious views on the issue.

Hey Jared is on vacation so now would be a great time to post alot more misinformation w/o his ability to show you the error in your ways.

If you can't do without being a smartass, then...oh never mind. It's a waste of time. Whatever you say, oh wise one...

[bdoughty]

Yet you single me out.

Yes because you felt no problem in posting link upon misinformed link of information about the husband because it suited your political and religious views on the issue.

Hey Jared is on vacation so now would be a great time to post alot more misinformation w/o his ability to show you the error in your ways.

If you can't do without being a smartass, then...oh never mind. It's a waste of time. Whatever you say, oh wise one...

Pot to kettle... I am smarmy.

[Teal]

Yes because you felt no problem in posting link upon misinformed link of information about the husband because it suited your political and religious views on the issue.

Hey Jared is on vacation so now would be a great time to post alot more misinformation w/o his ability to show you the error in your ways.

If you can't do without being a smartass, then...oh never mind. It's a waste of time. Whatever you say, oh wise one...

Pot to kettle... I am smarmy.

Thought you'd understand better in your own language...

[Leebo33]

I am not familar with the site which published it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/j ... 160848.asp

Are you serious?

[J]

I am not familar with the site which published it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/j ... 160848.asp

Are you serious?

Like I thought, a waste of time.

[Leebo33]

I am not familar with the site which published it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/j ... 160848.asp

Are you serious?

Like I thought, a waste of time.

Yeah. I'm surprised you never heard of the National Review. I thought it was a pretty well known publication.

[J]

Are you serious?

Like I thought, a waste of time.

Yeah. I'm surprised you never heard of the National Review. I thought it was a pretty well known publication.

Never heard of it. Maybe it's not as well known here on the west coast.