OT- I'm just amazed it ever had to come to this...

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:32 pm

tealboy03 wrote:
Jack:
I understand what you mean, but to me it is black and white. It's hearbreaking to see this woman in this state, no doubt. And despite the rantings of one idiot in here, I care very much about this woman's plight. She has no way of speaking for herself, and she is the only arbiter of her life.

I don't like the feds getting involved in this any more than anyone else, but in an act of desperation to save this woman's life, I'll take it. The family is split between her real family, who wants to let her live and take care of her, and the prick that wants to starve her to death. If they will put a murderer to sleep before lethal injection, then the least they could do, if they insist on killing her after all this, is to make it quick, for goodness sake...

I'll be the first to admit that we have some pretty f*cked up laws in this country. They should make it painless for her. The problem with this case is that it opens up a huge can of worms.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:43 pm

JackB1 wrote:
tealboy03 wrote:
Jack:
I understand what you mean, but to me it is black and white. It's hearbreaking to see this woman in this state, no doubt. And despite the rantings of one idiot in here, I care very much about this woman's plight. She has no way of speaking for herself, and she is the only arbiter of her life.

I don't like the feds getting involved in this any more than anyone else, but in an act of desperation to save this woman's life, I'll take it. The family is split between her real family, who wants to let her live and take care of her, and the prick that wants to starve her to death. If they will put a murderer to sleep before lethal injection, then the least they could do, if they insist on killing her after all this, is to make it quick, for goodness sake...
I'll be the first to admit that we have some pretty f*cked up laws in this country. They should make it painless for her. The problem with this case is that it opens up a huge can of worms.

Jack:

I really think that, as far as the Congress' actions go, they went out of their way to keep the legislation localized to apply only to the Shiavo case. It is cruel beyond comprehension, no matter if the fed judge sides with the Shindlers or Shiavo, to just starve someone to death, especially when there is someone more than willing to care for her the rest of her natural days. It just seems inhuman, considering the level of comfort we give those condemned to death for heinous acts.

If the fed judge rules in the same manner as the state courts, then so be it. I don't agree with it, at all, but I'm not going to Florida with a picket sign one way or the other. But I'm telling you, there's a fishy feeling connected to all of this...

maddoc1979 · Post by **maddoc1979** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:34 pm

I'll say this again, but end-of-life studies have shown that withdrawl of fluids and nutrition at end of life may actually reduce pain and suffering at death. I've been present plenty of times in the hospital where we remove fluids and nutrition and treat simply with pain medicines to ease a patient as he or she dies. Though it may seem like it, this is not inhumane treatment. On the contrary, she may even be more comfortable as she passes without the tube in place. This is not the same scenario as removing nutrition and fluids from you or me...

Doc

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:01 pm

The morally acceptable thing to do, if you disregard all the laws and judges and politics, is to let the people who really care about the woman make the decision. And If you're going to let somebody die, brain damaged or otherwise, there should be a universally compelling, incontrovertible reason to do so.

Now, the letter of the law doesn't allow for the parents, who clearly actually care about the woman, to make these decisions, because Mr. Schiavo is technically still the woman's husband, if in name only. The law, assuming that a husband is the most suitable person to take care of his wife, confers the power of guardianship to him. Unfortunately, the law's assumption is wrong in this case--and the correct remedy is not to change what is morally acceptable or to stand by and say, "this is wrong, but we should allow it anyway for the sake of state's rights" (or whatever), but to change the law to accomodate what we we consider morally acceptable.

I think the state vs. national gov't. argument is overblown. Both political parties are completely hypocritical when it comes to this, as are their rabid stooges (not that anyone here fits that description...ok, not that everyone here fits that description). When it comes down to it, justice in state courts is uneven at best. State judges typically have less qualification and experience than their counterparts in federal courts, and the confirmation process is much less rigorous. Many states hold elections for judgeships rather than appointing them, making it as much a of a political office as any other elected position. If the Florida Supreme Court were packed with ten commandments-hugging bible-thumpers, you can bet the feces-throwers screaming "states' rights!" would be on the other side of the fence.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:04 pm

maddoc1979 wrote:I'll say this again, but end-of-life studies have shown that withdrawl of fluids and nutrition at end of life may actually reduce pain and suffering at death. I've been present plenty of times in the hospital where we remove fluids and nutrition and treat simply with pain medicines to ease a patient as he or she dies. Though it may seem like it, this is not inhumane treatment. On the contrary, she may even be more comfortable as she passes without the tube in place. This is not the same scenario as removing nutrition and fluids from you or me...

Doc

I'll give you that one, maddoc, since you have experience with it and obviously know more about the medical implications of it more than I do. You're probably right...

I think the biggest problem with this is the same problem that exists with cases like Laci Peterson, in that they take something that happens nearly every day, pick out one (at random, apparently), and make a media circus out of it, while making it seem as though it is highly rare...

I just don't know if I'll ever get comfortable with the "right to die" stuff. And I'm not sure I want to. In Terri Shiavo's case, man...there are too many unaddressed and unanswered questions for my comfort...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:07 pm

FatPitcher wrote:Many states hold elections for judgeships rather than appointing them, making it as much a of a political office as any other elected position.

Fatty:

Judicial appointments are 10 times as political as judicial elections. At least elected judges are there because of a vote from the people rather than a scale-balancing or scale-tilting act by the politician who appointed them.

Take the U.S. Supreme Court, for example. Do you honestly think Bush is going to replace retiring or dying current justices in the next four years with conservative ones because he feels that's what's best to ensure the equality of the justice system in the U.S. Of course not. He's going to do that because he wants to stack the deck so his agenda can be rammed down our throats through all three branches of government.

And to be balanced, a Democratic president would do the same thing with a liberal judge.

Take care,
PK

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:11 pm

It's not the manner of selection itself that makes elected judges more political; it's the length of their terms.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:21 pm

pk500 wrote:
FatPitcher wrote:Many states hold elections for judgeships rather than appointing them, making it as much a of a political office as any other elected position.
Fatty:

Judicial appointments are 10 times as political as judicial elections. At least elected judges are there because of a vote from the people rather than a scale-balancing or scale-tilting act by the politician who appointed them.

Take the U.S. Supreme Court, for example. Do you honestly think Bush is going to replace retiring or dying current justices in the next four years with conservative ones because he feels that's what's best to ensure the equality of the justice system in the U.S. Of course not. He's going to do that because he wants to stack the deck so his agenda can be rammed down our throats through all three branches of government.

And to be balanced, a Democratic president would do the same thing with a liberal judge.

Take care,
PK

That's right, PK. There is no solution to the problem of biased judges, because they're human, and humans have opinions based on personal beliefs. Liberal judges piss me off because I'm conservative. Conservative judges piss off liberals. That is why judges' personal ideology should NEVER come into play, and a ruling that smacks of ideology on either side should immediately be overturned, as a check on the courts. A judges job is to apply the constitution and law to the situation, without any partiality whatsoever. That in itself is why, whether appointed or elected, judges will never work as rulers(which is what they've become), and people on either side of the aisle will never be satisfied. Human beings are fallible and passionate. Judges are human beings. Justice, therefore, will always be colored by ideology. Judges were never designed to be lawmakers or advocates, but that's what they've become...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:24 pm

pk500 wrote: He's going to do that because he wants to stack the deck so his agenda can be rammed down our throats through all three branches of government.

Well, I don't agree with THAT, so...don't get excited...

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:33 pm

I must say that I have got a living will that states that if I am in persistent vegetative state (other than when at work), then flick the switch off...and that's coming from someone who believes that life is just a series of bio-electrical impulses, and that once the power goes off, that's yer lot.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:34 pm

FatPitcher wrote:It's not the manner of selection itself that makes elected judges more political; it's the length of their terms.

Hmm ... I don't get that. Isn't a Supreme Court appointment more political than an elected judge because that appointee is on the bench until he retires or dies, without a set term?

Take care,
PK

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:53 pm

davet010 wrote:I must say that I have got a living will that states that if I am in persistent vegetative state (other than when at work), then flick the switch off.

Me to. When I see the light I will be all asshole and elbows getting to it.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:59 pm

pk500 wrote:
FatPitcher wrote:It's not the manner of selection itself that makes elected judges more political; it's the length of their terms.
Hmm ... I don't get that. Isn't a Supreme Court appointment more political than an elected judge because that appointee is on the bench until he retires or dies, without a set term?

Take care,
PK

Elected judges are more vulnerable to political pressures.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:18 pm

The real problem is that no one knows what Terry Schiavo wants except her and her husband. I respect her parents' desire to keep her alive, but we're talking about 10 years of deliberation on this issue. It's not some knee-jerk reaction by some judge. In fact, the courts have sided on the husband's side a couple times now, and it's been knee-jerk politicians who have interfered.

Normally, I would say to err on the side of caution and keep her alive. But it just seems like all they are doing is keeping her from reaching a final state she should have reached a long time ago. I agree with PK's thoughts about playing God -- it goes both ways. This is not a case like the woman who came out of the coma. Terry Schiavo is a vegetable, and unless God gives her a new brain, she's going to remain that way. I found the scenario her husband described (how they discussed what they would want to do after watching that movie) perfectly plausible.

I just think there's a point where death becomes the desired choice. This isn't abortion, this isn't assisted suicide of the terminally ill. This woman is no longer functioning as a human being.

I know everyone believes her husband to be a money-grubbing bastard, but I see a possible flip side. If my wife said she wanted to be taken off life support, and people got in my way of granting that wish, I would fight them tooth and nail. Money and my life would be irrelevant, I would want to make sure her wishes were fulfilled. I don't like that he's with another woman while he's still married, but it's been 15 years since his wife fell into this state. If he divorced her, he would have lost the power to grant her that wish, if that's what she really wanted. We'll just never know.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:29 pm

FatPitcher wrote:
pk500 wrote:
FatPitcher wrote:It's not the manner of selection itself that makes elected judges more political; it's the length of their terms.
Hmm ... I don't get that. Isn't a Supreme Court appointment more political than an elected judge because that appointee is on the bench until he retires or dies, without a set term?

Take care,
PK
Elected judges are more vulnerable to political pressures.

That's your opinion. I think someone who is elected by the people is less vulnerable to political pressure than someone who is appointed.

The person who is appointed is pretty much a slave to the whims of the person who appointed him, wouldn't you think? That's what political patronage is all about -- you slap my back, I'll slap yours.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:33 pm

Brando:

All good points. And I would side with Schiavo if he hadn't run off with the other broad and spawned with her.

But the Catholic side of me says marriage is until death do you part, and Schiavo's ignorance of that -- regardless of his wife's state -- bothers me.

Yep, this is clearly a case that vexes me because my morals and faith are seeping into my interpretation of the law, something I try to avoid at all costs. I'm guilty as charged.

Take care,
PK

Post by **Jared** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:13 pm

Coming back to the thread late...

Doug,

Warning. Calm down the rhetoric on Teal. You can disagree with him, but try and do it in a more civilized manner.

A lot of this is centering on the husband and that he'd get some sort of financial award for letting her die, which is true. However, it's possible that both sides are in it for the money. From one of the court documents:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

" During the period of time following incident of Feburary 25 1990 the parties worked together in an attempt to provide the best possible care for Terri Schaivo. On Feburary 14, 1993, the amicable relationship between the parties was severed. While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr and Mrs Schindler. The parties have literally not spoken since that date. Regrettably, money overshadows this entire case and creates potential conflict of interest for both sides. The Guardian Ad Litem noted that Mr Schiavo's conflict of interest was that if Terri Schiavo died, while he is still her husband, he would inherit her estate. The record before this court discloses that if Mr and Mrs Schindler prevail, their stated hope is that Mr Schiavo divorce their daughter, get on with his life, they would be appointed guardians of Terri Schiavo and become her heirs at law. They have encouraged him to "get on with his life". Therefore, neither side is exempt from finger pointing as to possible conflict of interest in this case.

It seems like both sides of the issue may be pathetic...the husband for not sharing the loss of consortium award with the family, and the parents for wanting the husband to divorce the daughter so they can become legal heirs. It's tragic....especially if the fight is over money (though by now, it's probably blossomed into much more than that).

The main point is that demonizing the husband while ignoring any potential conflicts of interest with the parents isn't fair. Both parties might be well-intentioned, both might be complete jerks. Who knows....but before people take either side, it'd be good to at least read some of the primary sources (court documents) instead of just assuming that the parents/husband/judges are terrible horrible people with agendas.

ubrakto · Post by **ubrakto** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:45 pm

You guys have covered most of the big points on both sides of this thing, but I have to say were I (theoretically) to have my soul trapped inside a body in a vegetative state like that where my brain's cerebral cortex is all but gone and the government prevents my wife (who knows I don't want to be left that way) from pulling the plug there'd be a long list of ass kickings I'd want to deliver in the afterlife. The Amityville Horror has nothing on the retribution I would seek on those who made my existence a political poker chip.

In my mind -and maybe I'm proceeding from a false assumption- we're talking about the difference between preserving a life and preserving a heartbeat. Whatever spark it is that makes us who we are (soul, spirit, whatever), I truly hope Mrs. Schiavo's has been allowed to go wherever it is that we go and that she's not been trapped in there for 15 years and counting.
---Todd

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:23 pm

pk500 wrote:Brando:

All good points. And I would side with Schiavo if he hadn't run off with the other broad and spawned with her.

But the Catholic side of me says marriage is until death do you part, and Schiavo's ignorance of that -- regardless of his wife's state -- bothers me.

Yep, this is clearly a case that vexes me because my morals and faith are seeping into my interpretation of the law, something I try to avoid at all costs. I'm guilty as charged.

Take care,
PK

PK, I agree with you about the marriage vows. I take mine very seriously. I don't think I could ever commit adultery, even under such strenuous circumstances as this. But I have sympathy for what he may be going through. Regardless of what his wife said, I think a lot of folks, if they could peer ahead and see themselves in such a state, would ask to be let go. Just my two cents.

Incidentally, I don't think I would have been upset if the court had said they had to keep the tube in. It's a tough scenario, and one in which I'm not sure there is really a right answer. I just became very upset to see a grandstanding, unethical, crooked son of a b*tch like Tom DeLay try to score political capital with such a tragedy.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:37 pm

In any case, if you're going to kill the woman, at least own up to it and quit pretending that you are "letting nature take its course" or whatever. Any kind of medical intervention is an attempt to stop nature from taking its course.

Ironically, actually killing her in a proactive manner would be a criminal act.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:20 pm

Here's something that needs to be read, concerning Michael Shiavo on the part of the RN's that have worked with Terri:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp? ... 0903b.html

Of particular interest to me is this portion:

Nurse recalls Schiavo asking, 'When is that b*tch gonna die?'

Carla Sauer Iyer was a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) at the same convalescent center in the mid 1990s, and also cared for Terri. She described Mr. Schiavo as being "focused on Terri's death.

"Michael [Schiavo] would say, 'When is she going to die? Has she died yet?' and 'When is that b*tch going to die?'" Iyer charged. "Other statements which I recall him making include, 'Can't anything be done to accelerate her death, won't she ever die?' When she wouldn't die, Michael [Schiavo] would be furious."

Conversely, Iyer said that when she would have to call Schiavo to inform him of a downturn in Terri's condition, Schiavo would be elated.

"Michael would be visibly excited, thrilled even, hoping that she would die," Iyer recalled. "He would blurt out, 'I'm going to be rich,' and would talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died, which included a new car, a new boat and going to Europe, among other things."

If these women are telling the truth, then I stand behind my opinion of Michael Shiavo. Does anyone have anything that would dispute this? I wasn't aware of this until my father showed me a printout of this article.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:51 am

I've been doing some exploring, and I've come upon something for those who are uncomfortable with the idea that the Congress has stepped in to challenge the state courts. Well, it seems that the Constitution allows for this, and no "dangerous precedent" is being set.

The section I'm referring to is Article III. Article III specifically empowers Congress to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts, which is all it did. It authorized a federal court to determine whether Terri Schiavo's due process rights and the right not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment were properly protected by a state court.

So, it's a perfectly legitimate use of federal powers, as outlined in the Constitution.

Post by **Jared** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:04 am

This doesn't pass any smell test whatsoever. If he was that desperate to get the money, why would he say "I'm going to be rich" and talk about all the things he was going to buy when she died?

The guy took her all the way out to California to get experimental brain surgery as treatment....but then a few years later, he says these things? And how come none of this stuff is in the court documents on the subject? You'd think that in the trials in 2000, the parents would have had these people testify.

And this article talks about how Terri spoke to the nurses on a regular basis, even though every examination given to her showed she had no capacity to speak by repeated examinations by neurologists.

And this is just for people to see how little brain she has left. No doctor has seen her talk and she's got virtually no cortex (what's left there is mostly white matter, not cortex).

Think about it. The info in this article doesn't make any sense. And it fits a consistent pattern in a lot of the stuff coming from the parent's side in the case...demonizing the husband to make the situation seem black and white when it's not. There have been unproven accusations of abuse, distortions about MRIs, distortions about her treatment, distortions about the condition of her brain, all from people on the side of Schiavo's parents. And now a report that sounds more like what a comic-book character would say than an actual person?

I don't know who's "right" in this issue. But when one side distorts and lies consistently to make their case, then you've gotta think that something is up.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:19 am

Jared wrote:This doesn't pass any smell test whatsoever.

And this article talks about how Terri spoke to the nurses on a regular basis, even though every examination given to her showed she had no capacity to speak by repeated examinations by neurologists.

Yep. It doesn't even come close to passing a smell test IMO for pretty much the reasons you stated.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:27 am

Well, that explains everything: cnsnews.com is anything but an objective news site.

I did a little research around the site and discovered that it's an arm of Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org), which has a motto of: "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias."

OK, like we're supposed to take a report from a site like that as objective and neutral.

That story doesn't just stink; it reeks. Come on, Teal, you need better sourcing than a blatant right-wing conservative site disguised as an objective news organization.

I don't trust Schiavo, but that story on that site doesn't support or enhance my suspicion of him one bit. That story is an absolute joke.

Take care,
PK