State meddles in private tragedy?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Yes. I do not know any of these people. My opinion is based on reading and hearing points of view of those whom I normally agree with.

So you accept their slander. Nice. Do you wonder why Mr. Schiavo took nurse training and respiratory training with the settlement money, and continually visited Terri, instead of living high on the hog?

(Edit: I just read Gav's note after posting this. I'm pleased that we said almost the same words).

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

I try to, although in this case I have more compassion for the parents.

More than that poor woman who's been brain dead since 1990? It's terrible for a parent to have to cope with a child's death, but Terri has been dead - for all legitemate purposes except being a breathing hulk for many years.

[Inquartata]

Every once in a while, politicians do something so egregiously hypocritical that not even their usual defenders can stomach it.

Here we see Republican legislators, the usual defenders of states' rights, ginning up a bill to wrest jurisdiction over a state case from the state courts and thrust it into the federal. Here we see Republican legislators and a Republican President who often display a high dudgeon about unelected judges making law, circumventing the will of the people, forcing their own morality onto the electorate, etc, now urging, indeed demanding, that a decided matter be submitted to---judges. Hey, it's only wrong when you don't like a judge's decision, I guess.

Not one doctor who has actually attended Terry buys into this "she responds" view. The syndrome is pretty well understood. There is only brain stem function remaining.

A plant will turn toward the sun. This is "response" to a stimuli, but it is not consciousness or awareness.


According to the weight of medical and scientific opinion, she will no more experience "pain" than would a lamp when it is unplugged. Will we listen to the best expert information we have, or will we insist on a standard of "proof" that could only be obtained by consulting someone who has returned from the dead---in other words, an unattainable standard?

Let it go, already. Her mind and soul are gone already. Let the poor empty husk follow.

[jeff]

Thank you, Inq. A compassionate, cogent, and wise post.

[Gav]

A good post from Inq' there.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by jeff

First, I object to calling that the "pro-Terri" side.

Hows about "People who don't want Terri killed" site.

Originally Posted by jeff

My response to the website contents is that it's a big fat lie. She shows no sign of cognitive function. Everything she does is spinal reflex or low-level brain function. That's not me saying it: that's the neurologists who examined her, not meddling busybodies with a web site.

Where did you go to for your information on the analysis of her condition? What certifies your sources as truth as opposed to others I have seen?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Here we see Republican legislators, the usual defenders of states' rights, ginning up a bill to wrest jurisdiction over a state case from the state courts and thrust it into the federal. Here we see Republican legislators and a Republican President who often display a high dudgeon about unelected judges making law, circumventing the will of the people, forcing their own morality onto the electorate, etc, now urging, indeed demanding, that a decided matter be submitted to---judges. Hey, it's only wrong when you don't like a judge's decision, I guess.

The Constitution of the United States of America, Section l of Amendment XIV states that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is not about circumventing the will of the people(e.g. the issue of gay marriage), rather seeing that one persons (in this case represented by her parents) right to life is protected (in this case by the Feds, since the state does not want to). Politically motivated? Sure. Hypocrisy? How so?

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

{snip}

The Constitution of the United States of America, Section l of Amendment XIV states that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is not about circumventing the will of the people(e.g. the issue of gay marriage), rather seeing that one persons (in this case represented by her parents) right to life is protected (in this case by the Feds, since the state does not want to). Politically motivated? Sure. Hypocrisy? How so?

Florida has a comprehensive statute relating to end-of-life choices. Among other things, it requires proof at the highest level of civil proceedings--proof by "clear and convincing evidence." This is in line with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Cruzan from 1990, which identified the parameters acceptable in ending a life under similar circumstances.

There has been no real argument that the Florida Court has somehow not followed this procedure, or acted unconstitutionally.

The argument is the Court was wrong.

Which does not make this a federal case, any more than arguing that any state decision was wrong lets you take it to federal court.

--Philistine

[jeff]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Hows about "People who don't want Terri killed" site.

"People who want the husk where Terri once lived to be maintained indefinitely"

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Where did you go to for your information on the analysis of her condition? What certifies your sources as truth as opposed to others I have seen?

Sources I've read and heard have been the official record of the FL courts, and testimony from several professors of law, medicine, and bioethics. A lot better than a bunch of zealots who have no background in medicine or law.

[Maeve_Mari]

Federal Judge looks at the MEDICAL EVIDENCE and denies request to reinsert the feeding tube:

Whittemore wrote that Terri Schiavo’s “life and liberty interests” had been protected by Florida courts. Despite “these difficult and time strained circumstances,” he wrote, “this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it.” “Yes, life is sacred,” Felos said, contending that restarting artificial feedings would be against Schiavo’s wishes. “So is liberty, particularly in this country.”

Michael Schiavo said he was outraged that lawmakers and the president intervened in a private matter. “When Terri’s wishes are carried out, it will be her wish. She will be at peace. She will be with the Lord.”

[mlr2fence]

How can someone who has not even seen her state what she is/ is not doing or is/ is not capable of doing? How many people passing judgement on this case have experience with people in this condition? I can talk to a plant and if I wait long enough and 'imagine' hard enough I can get a response that I can interrupt in a way I wish, even tho it was a slight breeze that caused the 'response'. This decision is best left up to the medical experts and next of kin or designated medical surrogate.

[Gav]

looks like this is close to being resolved: US judge denies feed-tube request

[Maeve_Mari]

You don't think the 535 (435 and 100) members of Congress should be meddling into her personal affairs and making their own medical judgements about her viability and potential to recover!???

[keith]

Originally Posted by Gav

looks like this is close to being resolved: US judge denies feed-tube request

worth pointing out that the supreme court has already declined to hear this case. So I doubt the new law is suddenly going to change their minds.

[darius]

A lot better than a bunch of zealots who have no background in medicine or law.

Like Bill Frist?

darius

[keith]

Originally Posted by darius

Like Bill Frist?

well I can't think of many doctors who would be willing to offer a diagnosis (or challenge a consistent diagnosis made by a number of different doctors) without having actually seen the patient.

[jeff]

If Frist were still practicing medicine instead of practicing politics, he would never offer an opinion like that in public, as it would be a violation of professional ethics, for the reasons keith lists.

[keith]

I wonder what Mr Frist's (noting clinical reverse snobbery) opinions would have been back when he was practicing if told that a neurologist was questioning his clinical judgement?

...colourful would be my guess.

[Red #40]

An interesting side note, if this had happened in Texas this would have been an open and shut case. While govenor of Texas President Bush signed into law something called "the texas futile care law" which permits a hospital to remove life support in ANY case where the patient cannot pay and there is no hope of revival --- REGARDLESS OF THE WISHES OF THE PATIENT'S FAMILY. A 6 month old boy died last week in Texas when - pursuant to this law - the hospital removed his feeding tube over his mother's objections. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...tion-headlines

Gotta love the double standards, but then the this is a Florida case and his brother needs some press time with the Religious Right if he is going to be the next president.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

The Constitution of the United States of America, Section l of Amendment XIV states that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's all very impressive to cite the Constitution, but only if it says what you think it says. I think you'd have a very difficult time arguing that the state courts are not capable of providing "due process" and that only federal courts are qualified to do so.

This case has been in the legal docket for what? Seven years now? If all of that is meaningless to you, I suspect that the federal court results too will be meaningless and unConstitutional to you as well---if the decision is not the one you want. No? Or if SCOTUS rules for the husband and the feeding tube stays out, will you agree that the outcome is legitimate?

Hypocrisy? How so?

Because as I said: the same politicians demanding that the issue be submitted to a federal court have been on record complaining about issues being decided by "unelected judges legislating morality from the bench". It's hypocrisy because they are cheering exactly what they decry when it's an issue not dear to their own hearts.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It's all very impressive to cite the Constitution, but only if it says what you think it says.

Did I incorrectly cite that portion of the Constitution as the basis for which the federal courts were becoming involved in this case?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I think you'd have a very difficult time arguing that the state courts are not capable of providing "due process" and that only federal courts are qualified to do so.

That would probably explain why the Schindlers are not having their way in the federal courts.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No? Or if SCOTUS rules for the husband and the feeding tube stays out, will you agree that the outcome is legitimate?

Of course. Legitimate. Wrong in my estimation, but legitimate.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Because as I said: the same politicians demanding that the issue be submitted to a federal court have been on record complaining about issues being decided by "unelected judges legislating morality from the bench". It's hypocrisy because they are cheering exactly what they decry when it's an issue not dear to their own hearts.

What they decry is judicial activism. Legislating from the bench. What they are arguing for in this case, is seeing that Terri Schiavo is not unjustly killed by the laws of the state. Isn't that their obligation? In this case, it seems like the federal judge is validating the states decision, so whats wrong with going thru the motions of due process?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Of course. Legitimate. Wrong in my estimation, but legitimate.

No need for SCOTUS to even hear the case - as they seem to agree. The Florida legislature has enacted laws, the Florida State Courts have ruled, Federal Courts have ruled, Florida Courts have ruled again, The US Legislature has acted, and the Federal Courts have ruled again. Following this final 11th Circuit Court again, Terri Schiavo will have had more than her share of due process. No violation or infringments on the Constitution have been made, so no reason for the Supreme Court to hear this one.

If they were to hear anything related to this issues, it would have to be tto determine the legitimacy, and Constitutional violations, of the US Congress actions in the interference of private rights.