Terri Schiavo dies

Terri Schiavo dies

: She has died. I’ll be doing the MSNBC blog roundup at noon. I’m seeing many prayers but also much anger.

: MSNBC just reported that Bush will make a live statement about Schiavo at the start of a statement about WMD. He doesn’t make live statements about the soldiers who die in Iraq but he makes a statement about this.

Her death is political to the end.

: A few of the links I’m finding:

GlennBeck.com goes all black: R.I.P. Terri.

This site has a photo, graphic tribute

Blogotional.com prints the lyrics from the hymn What Wondrous Love is This.

RobBushway.com says: “Our society has shown its true colors for allowing this to happen and the true after effects of 25 years of Roe v Wade.”

EternalPerspectives.com says: “Truly, the death of Terri Schiavo diminishes us all.”

Mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com says that Terri’s will prevailed. ‘I believe that you prevailed. I will not say rest in peace, you have rested in peace far too long, bound to this earth in a broken mind and body. But now you are free to soar, to walk again and talk with your maker.”

Keepstumblin says: “I suspect she will posthumously become the poster child for the cause, her husband will continue to be demonized by these people, and her parents will be portrayed as long suffering (which they are, but not for the reasons they should be) and saintly. It’s my hope that everyone involved in this unfortunate situation will come to terms with both Terri’s death and the actions of those on both sides of the debate. It would be too bad if this entire saga only resulted in more misunderstanding, mistrust, and anger.”

On media coverage:

A comment at Catch.com: “And perhaps some mention is warranted that regardless of what her wishes may have ultimately been — I strongly suspect that to spend her dying days at the centre of a media circus was not among them.”

Tributaries says: “May she rest in peace. GOd knows the living shan’t from now on.”

A lonely impulse of delight at getifa.com:

“Iíd like to go a day without seeing a woman who has been brain-dead for 15 years on the front page of the newspaper and the MSN home page on my computer.”

The Bull Speaks says:

“Perhaps now Terriís parents can let her go and perhaps the Nation can begin to heal from this media-driven horror story.”

: LATER: Intolerant Elle quotes Bush on the death of Terri Schaivo: “The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.”

A good reason to support universal health insurance.

  • http://recycledsip.blogspot.com/ Clyde

    “Oh my God! They killed Terri!”
    “You bastards!”
    /southpark

  • richard mcenroe

    Well, thank God that wasn’t a political statement. Shame on you, Jeff. I’d expect that sort of crap from Oliver Willis. You should certainly know that Bush has spoken about the troops who gave their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq and has met with the families of dead servicemen.
    But hey, you got your wish. Today, we are all Dutch.
    I can only hope the folks who supported the courts in this find themselves in a position someday where their lives will depend on someone looking out for them just like Michael Schiavo.

  • Mumblix Grumph

    He doesn’t make live statements about the soldiers who die in Iraq but he makes a statement about this.
    Tell me, Jeff…which soldier was the focus of an endless media blitz for the last month? Can you name one that lingered on the cusp of death while national debate raged on about whether or not their fate should be entrusted to a spouse or a parent?
    Any watercooler talk about ANY specific sodier (besides Pat Tillman) in your office?
    Apples and oranges, Jeff.
    Oh, and Clyde…not funny.

  • vbalfour

    May I repeat: Alan Dershowitz. Lawyer David Boies. Ralph Nader. Former Clinton counsel Lanny Davis. Joe Lieberman. Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton. And from what I”ve read, Bill Clinton.
    Right wing pro-lifers ? Nah. They just wanted to keep Terri Schiavo’s tube in place.
    I am so tired of people trying to make this into a political issue. I know many Democrats like myself who are very upset that Terri has died. The Schindlers were outlawyered from the get-go. There were too many suspicions in this case and we should have erred on the side of life.
    Shame on you, Jeff. Where’s your sense of compassion ?

  • billg

    You’re right, Jeff. Just addtional evidence of the hypocrisy and blatant manipulation shown by Bush and all the others who intervened in something that was none of their business.
    Of what value is spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of lives fighting to thwart enemies of democracy abroad if the politicians leading that charge are in thrall to Americans who want to do the same thing here, who insist their beliefs take precedence over the Constitution and democracy? I don’t want to be governed by people who want their religious beliefs to subvert the law, whether they read the Koran or the Bible or anything else. I don’t want to be governed by people who claim to believe God tells them to force me to change my behavior.

  • Axel Kassel

    Unless I missed something, no soldier in Iraq was deliberately executed by a state government based on one court’s so-called finding of fact based on a latterly recalled statement by a so-called spouse who didn’t have the decency to seek a divorce before starting a family on the side (once the insurance check was in hand, of course). I am not blaming the appeals courts who felt their hands were tied on the fact-versus-law issue, but I am glad the Prez and other people of both parties are speaking out on the need for new protections so that government doesn’t kill more innocent people based on unconfirmable accounts from self-interested parties. As usual, your Weltanschauung machine needs some Windex.

  • Mack Simmons

    If Bush didn’t make a statement about Terri Schiavo, Jeff, people — especially his base — would accuse him of being heartless. Because he is making a statement, you and a few others will accuse him of making it political. Since he won’t win either way, he might as well appeal to those who are going to vote Republican. Since you won’t, you don’t matter.
    And let’s also remember this: The soldiers dying in Iraq aren’t draftees. They’re employees. They voluntarily joined an organization knowing that such work comes with a risk of death of either death or injury. So why should the president make a statement about their deaths?
    Sorry. That’s life.

  • vbalfour

    Bush doesn’t make comments about the soldiers who die in Iraq What ? Haven’t you heard that he is giving the Medal of Honor this Monday to the widow of Sgt.Smith who died during the Iraq War ?

  • J-Man

    Totally tasteless, Jeff. Just when I was gaining a healthy respect for you, you pissed it away with that classless statement. RIP Terri.

  • Tommy B

    Jeff: You gotta take a break from your bitter attacks against Bush.
    Bush needs to at least acknowledge Terri’s death. What do you expect? Silence? At least Terri is silent.
    The WMD has nothing to do with Terri or the dead soldiers. You talk nonsense.
    BTW, our soldiers died to support our country, which I’m afraid is in sorry shape by the court imposed death sentence of an innocent woman.
    The soldiers died for a great cause. I can’t say the reason Terri died is because her condition was terminal. She was very much alive. It took two weeks to die of starvation. SHAME.

  • Mike

    Hey Jeff, step off of your soap box for once and take a look at the way GWB admires and honors the military. The folks in the military have his utmost respect and the military loves him for it. Maybe you should ask someone in the military their opinion about this before your admonish the President with such tripe. Besides what issue today isn’t political? So take your stupid, petty comment and stick it!
    As for Terri, may God rest her soul and comfort those that loved her.

  • billg

    Tommy B:
    Why does Bush have to acknowledge this death? Why does he have to do it in public? Why isn’t he also acknowledging all the other people who also die today in exactly parallel circumstances? (Could it be that there’s no political mileage in that?)
    I take it you don’t believe in upholding the law, since you’re charging that the courts killed this women, rather than her ailments. Why do you believe that? Do you not believe in the law? Or democracy? The law, in such cases, gives precedence to the surviving spouse. The law also gives people with standing, i.e., parents, the right to apply to the courts to set aside the decision of the surviving spouse. If you believed in the law, you would accept the decisions of those courts. That means that, if the situation was reversed and Schiavo’s husband had supported continuing the feeding tube and her parents had opposed him in court and won, then your respect for the law would have compelled you to accept that decision.
    However, you seem to believe that your beliefs and the beliefs of like-minded people and of the alleged beliefs of politicians in search of votes and money should trump the law.
    Why?
    Bottom line: This entire matter was none of our damned business.

  • pianoman

    Jeff:
    Michael Schiavo used the power of the courts to prevent anyone from giving his wife water. He could have divorced her, turned her over to the Schindlers, taken the money, and not looked back. None of that would have harmed him in any way. But he refused.
    You’ve allowed your rage at the GOP to transform your blog into Kos/Atrios/Willis over this issue. Using Terri’s murder to justify your fury at Bush is revolting.
    You owe your readers an apology for that. It is classless, brutal, and unfair.

  • Old Coot

    billg:
    “This entire matter was none of our damned business.”
    Keep that thought in mind when they come for you.

  • vbalfour

    Pianoman:
    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  • pianoman

    Billg:
    There’s the law, and then there’s morality. Nobody here is arguing about the law. And if you look at the zillions of posts about this issue, you’ll see that most of those that object to the way Terri was treated by her husband aren’t arguing legal issues. They are arguing moral issues. That’s not the same thing.
    Legally, you are correct when you say this was none of our business. But the larger issues — euthanasia, caring for the helpless, familial greed, etc. — are *definitely* our “damn business”. I think it’s important that we, as a nation, have this discussion, and Terri Schiavo was the catalyst.

  • http://mossback.org Richard Bennett

    “Caring for the helpless” doesn’t really mean keeping feeding tubes on everybody who’s been brain-dead for fifteen years. If it did, God help us all.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Jeff is not responsible for the furor, and he had an obligation to those who follow his posts to ‘say a few words’ over the passing of this sadly victimized woman who died too young.
    No one isn’t saddened by her end.
    I suspect there are many more victims of the Iraq war in something of the same condition. One Vietnam of my acquaintance wanders the streets here pulling first one object, then another, after him. The latest looks like a lawnmower minus the cutting blades. He was a bright young man before the brain injury.

  • billg

    Old Coot: Who’s “they”? Religious fanatics who want to subvert the law? These zealots wanted to subvert the law to keep Schiavo’s body functioning by using technology, yet they also use the law to thwart the use of technology to heal and protect life (stem cells) and to compel schools to shove religious dogma (creationism) down the throats of students. These people don’t respect the law.
    Planoman: You have a right to disagree about the morality of all this. So do I. But no one apart from her husband and her parents have any right or standing to intervene. And that includes our elected representatives. We can discuss this all we want, but such decisions must always remain the sole business of the immediate family.

  • flaime

    Mark:
    Bush made the thing political the first time he made a statement about it; he just reaffirmed the fact that he made it political today.
    Tarri Schaivo – 1967-1990…She died 15 years ago. Her parents and (for a while) her husband just refused to recognize it.

  • pianoman

    Billg:
    I agree that Congress should not have gotten involved. I’m a fan of Federalism, and this was a matter for Florida to decide. Hopefully, new laws regarding “living wills” will spring from this case. Specifically, I’m hoping that some sort of legal standard for them can be more clearly defined.
    In that narrow sense, you are correct in that this was none of our business. Again, you are making a *legal* argument.
    However, Jeff’s disgusting comment doesn’t fall into the legal bucket. It’s a moral one. And that’s where most of the anger and rage over Terri Schiavo comes from.
    It’s becoming more and more clear that this whole snafu was the end product of a bitter family dispute, with the courts acting to enforce the wishes of one of the combatants. Yes, we as the General Public should keep our noses out of the family dispute. But the bigger issues that this raises affect us all — and *is* our business.
    I don’t think you and I disagree over this as much as you might think.

  • Cheryl

    I’ve never grieved over a news situation the way I have over this one. I’ve been following this story for years. I tried desperately to see Michael Schiavo as a devoted hubby doing the best for his wife, but it’s tough when he’s got another family. As a newlywed I don’t like to think of my husband and parents pitted against each other, but I like to think that no matter what the grievances, my husband would let me have the sacraments (I’m Catholic) and would allow my parents to be with me at the end. Michael Schiavo did neither. There were so many open questions that should have been answered before her death – including a PET and the MRI.
    I’m sorry you feel this is all about politics. To me this is a bad turn for the disabled, and a sad statement on the value of life in this country.

  • http://www.knightopia.com/journal/ Steve K.

    Jeff,
    This is how many of us in the evangelical world (esp. the “emerging church”) are responding to the Terri Schiavo case (please read this):
    http://willzhead.typepad.com/willzhead/2005/03/terry_schiavo_h.html
    Shalom,
    Steve K.

  • Nahanni

    “A good reason to support universal health insurance.”
    Just remember that more people DIED in the Netherlands in 2001 on waiting to be treated lists or denial or treatment with your sacred cow universal health insurance then died at the WTC.
    In Canada they send out letters telling folks how long they have to wait for life saving surgery/care. On those letters they apologise if the patient has died before receiving it. One of those letters went to my former boyfriend.
    In countries who have universal health insurance any and all who can afford it pay for private health insurance in order to get treatments and tests in a timely fashion instead of waitng months and sometimes years on universal health insurance waiting lists. You really don’t think Madonna’s children were born in NHS hospitals, do you? She, like you, is a big supporter of universal health insurance-for others.
    Sorry, you can have universal health insurance. I want no part of it.

  • http://duneview.blogspot.com/ Duneview

    Jeff:
    Just a correction of The Bull Speaks link you quoted above.

  • http://AOL Larry Weaver

    What is sanctity of life. Who should be deciding the matters of life and death. Obviously humans aren’t 100% sure in this case or any case. If you were given ALL of the facts of this case and meet Terri personally, would you be able to make a clear decision that you would not question? Matters of life and death should be left up to the giver of life and we should use the wisdom and knowledge we have to preserve life regardless of quality. If you were to starve a dog to death you would be in jail right now!

  • lexy

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050319/ap_on_he_me/canada_wait_your_turn
    I hope this link works… it’s an AP article detailing long waits in Canada for routine treatment and surgery under their system.
    Furthermore, Canada’s not the only government whose universal healthcare system is crumbling. I’m from Tennessee and TennCare is and has always been a nightmare. The attempts to fix it–from both sides of the aisle–are a sad joke. They’re already talking about rationing and slashing the roles.

  • ED Beckmann

    Mr Shaivo at very least is a man of true courage. Anyone who would stand up for his Wife against The family, every wingnut who is looking for some attention, and two bit politico including the entire U.S. Government deserves credit. I don’t know why he has been so vilified but you can be damn sure he loved Terri and he was dogedly following HER wish. Shame on those who smear this devoted husband.

  • e.e.

    Jeff, with all my respect. Your cynicism about this story is a bit disturbing.
    Regards.

  • Christy

    Michael Schiavo used the power of the courts to prevent anyone from giving his wife water. He could have divorced her, turned her over to the Schindlers, taken the money, and not looked back. None of that would have harmed him in any way. But he refused.

    I think that the fact that Michael Schiavo didn’t take the money he was offered and sign over his rights to her parents speaks to his motives. You’re right; he could have divorced her, he could have started his new life with a new wife, but instead he stayed married to her when he didn’t have to and continued to act in accordance with his conscience and with her wishes. I can’t think of any other reason for him to have continued to battle this out in court for so long.
    This society has to make some difficult decisions. I know that it seems distasteful to apply cost/benefit analyses to health care issues, but the truth is that we apply cost/benefit analyses to almost every aspect of our lives — we apply them when we buy the cheaper car without the extra side-impact airbags, we apply them when we decide to live in one neighborhood versus another that’s safer but more expensive, when we decide organic produce isn’t worth it, cost/benefit is decided for us by the government when it comes to highway safety and airline safety and host of other things. Was this battle worth the resources? Is prolonging life without any quality worth the cost?
    Are there other ways in which money can be put better use? Would you rather spend $80K a year feeding someone who’s in a vegetative state rather than sending two or three kids to college? Do people have the right to keep alive family members (who do not wish to be kept alive) in long-term hospice situations, simply because it can be done — given that most people are using taxpayer money during the last years of their lives? I’m not sure where I stand on all of these issues, but they are things we need to talk about as a society, stripped of the emotion and religious rhetoric.

  • ED Beckmann

    lexe
    You obviously haven’t been to the VA or US Hospitals. In VA hospitals thanks to Bush, the waiting list are typically 3-6 months for Cancer Treatment for Vets. There are cues for everything nowadays.
    The problem is far worse for americans on medicaid
    In Canada at least Everyone has equal access.

  • Ed Poinsett

    I want to know how many hand wringers will sit down today and write a Living Will in which they specify that all possible means are to be employed to keep their body technically alive. Resuscitate under all conditions.
    It doesn’t matter how many years I put my family and friends through a living hell. I don’t care about them, I only care about my mass of cells being fed and watered. I expect that my existence
    will cause pain and suffering in the community, but that is what I want my life to mean.
    Humbug
    Godspeed Terri, humans have interferred with your journey home long enough.

  • plunge

    “The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.”
    Yet another in a long line of things Bush says that he can’t possibly believe since they run directly against his own conservative philosophy (or sometimes any sane philosophy). Just like “the life of one person should not be used as a means to the end of another” (Hello? That would mean no punishment for revenge or even deterrence.)

  • http://www.lafn.org/~zeppenwolf zeppenwolf

    “He doesn’t make live statements about the soldiers who die in Iraq but he makes a statement about this.
    Her death is political to the end.”
    The entire dang world is making statements about “this” including Jeff Jarvis. But the pro-tubers are being “politcal”, because they didn’t want to see an innocent woman starved to death, and those cheering this woman’s death are… deeply concerned (for the first time) about judicial procedure?
    Yeah… ok.
    Remind me what dead soldiers have to do with this?

  • plunge

    “Michael Schiavo used the power of the courts to prevent anyone from giving his wife water. He could have divorced her, turned her over to the Schindlers, taken the money, and not looked back. None of that would have harmed him in any way. But he refused.”
    Because he was the only one fighting for her interests. Basically, just him against hordes of activist zealots and billions of dollars of right-wing foundations mpaying lawyers millions to fight him in court.
    But even conservative Justices like Pryor weren’t buying.
    “Just remember that more people DIED in the Netherlands in 2001 on waiting to be treated lists or denial or treatment with your sacred cow universal health insurance then died at the WTC.”
    Now that’s a dumb comparison. How many people die in the US because they have no access to health care AT ALL? I bet a lot more than die in the Netherlands (and many of those would have died even with treatment, just like they do here).

  • Linda Edwards

    I whole-heartedly agree with Christy. Here’s man who tried every available therapy for his wife for seven years before finally accepting the cold, hard truth. That he followed through with this promise in spite of everything is commendable. That took incredible strength. The easy thing for him to do was to walk away, but it says alot more about him that he didn’t.

  • plunge

    “The entire dang world is making statements about “this” including Jeff Jarvis. But the pro-tubers are being “politcal”, because they didn’t want to see an innocent woman starved to death, and those cheering this woman’s death are… deeply concerned (for the first time) about judicial procedure?”
    Bush made a giant show of flying back for this case (when he could have just had the bill more cheaply and quickly brought to him to sign) and has not deigned to do that for any other major event. When public opinion looked to be against him, his people put out feelers about how he didn’t really want to do it, wasn’t all that enthused about the case, but he was basically just placating some Congressmen. And his people have come up with this laughably nonsensical “err on the side of life” phrase for him to repeat because it makes him sound fairminded instead of partisan. That’s not politics? He had a bunch of staffers workshop his stock phrase talking point which he has repeated over and over throughout this crisis: you think that’s just coincidence, or does he really repeat the same phrases over and over by accident? It’s politics.
    At least Jeff doesn’t have his “sincere” statements about some national matter written out for him by a team of polling experts.

  • Trish

    It’s so tragic that this poor woman has pasted.I’m just alittle bit discouraged that this womans life story turned into a media circus.

  • plunge

    Exactly: regardless of her wishes on being kept alive do you really think Terri would have wanted her parents broadcasting endless images of her in this condition, tapes of her moaning, discussions about her incontinence, and an endless public airing of her personal and medical record?

  • pianoman

    Plunge wrote:
    Because he was the only one fighting for her interests.
    “Her interests” weren’t recorded anywhere except in a conversation to her husband. You think this whole thing was really about him protecting “her interests”? That he was being the noble saint?
    Basically, just him against hordes of activist zealots and billions of dollars of right-wing foundations paying lawyers millions to fight him in court.
    Yes, of course that’s the way you see it. “Billions of dollars of right-wing foundations”. Where’s your evidence for this?
    You rail against those that see Terri Schiavo as a martyr, but laud Michael Schiavo for being….a martyr. Well done.
    Now that’s a dumb comparison. (to health care)
    As I recall, it was our host that 1) Savaged President Bush for mentioning Terri Schiavo’s tragegy; 2) Made disparaging remarks about the lack of universal health care in the U.S. When are you going to attack Jeff for his “dumb comparisons”?

  • Evan

    Let me another to heap scorn and shame on Jeff for this post. Not only for the ridiculous criticism of Bush for commenting on Schiavo but not on dead soldiers, but also for the last comment equating Schiavo with ‘universal health insurance’.
    Of course, Jeff ignores that universal health insurance is different that universal health care (which even illegal immigrants have a right to in the US), but its no surprise that the liberal hyprocrites who attack others for politicizing issues, are the poster boys for politicization.
    No different than the former Democrat Congressman (and current Jesuit Priest) I saw on last week’s Meet the Press – Robert Drinan. Russert asked him why he thought of the Ashley Smith reading of the Bible and ‘The Purpose Driven Life’, and what brought Brian Nichols to commit his dastardly murders.
    Drinan’s answer: “But in this complicated situation the simple answer is: Why don’t we ban guns? Canada doesn’t have this. They don’t allow guns. And we have this aberration. Some people blame it on the Second Amendment, and that’s not so. And this would be a Judeo-Christian civilization that would say, “We can’t have guns like that.”
    Never mind that Nichols stole his gun from the female corrections officer as she was escorting him to trial. In Drinan’s world, I guess even the police should not have weapons.
    Once again proving that regardless the issue and however inappropriate and unrelated the topic, liberals can’t resist raising their political agenda.

  • pianoman

    Plunge:
    The Schindlers are certainly not without blame here. It takes two sides to make an argument, and they were just as selfish WRT Terri. They were not willing to work with Michael at all, and it’s clear that this whole fight began when Michael Schiavo refused to share the medical malpractice money with them.
    So on that point we can both agree: The Schindlers suck pretty badly. And they went out of their way to elicit as much emotional sympathy as possible from a public that gobbled up every sordid detail of Terri’s horrible condition. For that they are to be condemned.
    That still doesn’t make Michael Schiavo a saint.

  • http://www.politicalcap.blogspot.com J. Mark English

    Did you notice how insensitive President Bush’s remarks were this morning about Terri Schiavo? He used her death as a segway to talk about homeland security…

  • billg

    Plamoman: This issue has nothing to do with states rights or federalism. It was no more a matter for the State of Florida to decide than it was for the mayor of Kabul. It was a matter for Schiavo’s spouse and family and no one else. Her parent’s took it to court, which was their right because they have standing (unlike everyone else on the planet)and that exposed this private family matter to public scrutiny. But, no amount of visibility afforded as a byproduct of the court proceedings justifies the intervention of anyone else. This especially applies to politicians and other public figures who, regardless of their personal opinion, should have kept their mouths shut.
    There’s no need for legislation defining the legality of living wills. Done properly (like they are in thousands of hospitals daily) they are perfectly legal. The problem in this case was that no living will had been drawn up. I don’t know, but I suspect that both the husband and the parents were informed by hospital staff on Day One that, in the absence of the will, the decision would rest with her husband. (I’ve been in such a situation several times, either as patient or relative of the patient, and that’s precisely the explanation I received as part of the admission process. Frankly, I doubt if anyone can be admitted to any hospital in the U.S. without being given either the opportunity to create a living will or to acknowledge the consequences if they do not.)

  • http://mossback.org Richard Bennett

    Terri Schiavo died of bulimia fifteen years ago. If you’re a Culture of Life person incensed by her death, go work on that issue.

  • http://shameless joyce

    where’S micheal now, hiding under his new wife blanket, i wonder if she has to worry if he going to nuke her like terri, i truley believe he has something to hide, at least give the parents there daughter, even if she passed on, you coward!i’m sure he will do the same to his children or would he ? oh maybe he wants to go to the carribeans with his so call wife, she has no respect to even be with someone like him he is a coward and i believe something happen that’s why he wanted her dead so bad… good luck lady hopely he won’t do to you what he did to terri..
    and only terri know the real truth to what really happen to her, i hope you are happy with a murderer. no matter what stories he tells you, look at scott peterson you fool………

  • Christy

    Billg — Some aspects of Schiavo’s case may have made it into the media as a result of her parents’ decision to pursue the issue in court, but it was her father who was standing in front of cameras yesterday discussing her urinary function and skin tone. It may be understandable, but her parents decided to use the media to prevent the removal of the tube and after that failed, to lobby for its reinsertion.

  • pianoman

    billg wrote:
    This issue has nothing to do with states rights or federalism.
    Then he wrote:
    But, no amount of visibility afforded as a byproduct of the court proceedings justifies the intervention of anyone else.
    Do you see how these two statements contradict each other?
    Congress shouldn’t have tried to intervene in this issue because the laws of the State of Florida were followed. President Bush shouldn’t have signed any 11th Hour orders either. On this you and I agree.
    While not the only issue, it is certainly plain that states rights were an issue.
    Then you wrote:
    There’s no need for legislation defining the legality of living wills. Done properly…
    Yes, if done “properly” there wouldn’t be any issues. But this one was not “done properly”. The same is true of regular wills; if they are not executed properly, they can be declared null by probate courts.
    The solution is simple: Change the law so that “living wills” need to be in writing. If Terri Schiavo’s wishes were so recorded, much of this nightmare wouldn’t have happened at all.

  • http://forgottomention joyce

    if killing animal is a crime, and killing human is not, why need president,goverment ect… they still get a pay check anyways so why should the bother right, take care of iraq so the nation make money off our dead family members, so so !
    bunch of craps.. it’s all about money not about terri starving to her death, to me that’s murder..
    so if you could go to jail for starving a dog then who are the real dogs think about it there are worrying about starving there self or there family them cocksucker…………………………….

  • pianoman

    Christy:
    Spot on. What the Schindlers did to try and save their daughter was disgusting. They became media whores, no better than the PR special-ists for any high-profile client.
    Dear Mr. Schindler: Do you think that we, as a nation, are more enlightened because you educated us as to the bodily functions of your daughter?
    (BTW Jeff: My original post got blocked because the word “SPE-CIA-LISTS” contained within it a reference to a male enhancement product. I think your spam filter needs a little tuning.)

  • http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/ Yehudit

    “It takes two sides to make an argument, and they were just as selfish WRT Terri. They were not willing to work with Michael at all, and it’s clear that this whole fight began when Michael Schiavo refused to share the medical malpractice money with them.”
    That’s not clear at all, it’s hearsay from Michael Schiavo. The Schindlers’ version of events is that once he got the malpractice $ for her therapy, he decided not to have any more done, while they wanted to continue treating her. So you are presenting one side of a “he said she said” as fact.
    It is a fact that he spent over half of the malpractice $ on expensive “right to die” lawyers.

  • http://howdoesitfeels joyce

    yeah, micheal you feel free now what a relief, don’t worry god has answer to every prayer and yours was to be free.. but only god will make you pay for you action and god only know what it want for purpose..but what ever he does i hopes he makes you suffer for rest of your life,not you someone you really truley love. we all know you truly left terri a long time ago.but you a coward to admit it. that’swhy you want her dead that bad because you know you are guilty…………………………………………………………….. you coward !!!!!!!
    you really do have something to hide, not even let her mother that gave birth to her put her to school stood by her side when she was little girl when she had fever ect. where the fucking law when we had to paid those bills where was he that fucking prick.. where does he come now after what years he’s been married to her. her parents should have the rights. the systems really sucks as longest they get there fucking money that’s all it matters.. terri rest in peace i love u and my heart will always be with you.. you didn’t deserve what you got.. but micheal is going to live with it even if he pretend, he wiil die with and i hope he does………

  • James

    Pianoman:
    A living will does need to be in writing, just like a will. What you’d like to do is change the legal rules by which we evaluate claims regarding people who die without one – there’s no “oral living will”. Your analogy about wills v. intestate deaths is correct in that respect.
    Besides – having been through this situation recently – a living will by itself is often insufficient. If someone wants to make sure their wishes are respected, they would be well served to get a durable power of attorney naming someone they trust.

  • pianoman

    Yehudit:
    Sorry, but it’s not hearsay. And it’s also true that Michael Schiavo trained as a nurse following his wife’s accident.
    He’s no saint, but he’s also not the devil. This family was shattered over money.

  • Kathy Lyon

    Am I reading this correctly? Pres. Bush is quoted as saying “The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.” Well, he certainly has changed his tune. Everything else the man has stood for over the years has been the strong get more and the weak can just go to h—. From Social Security (where he wants to destroy the safety net for people who don’t have thousands socked away), to tax cuts for the wealthy while refusing to raise minimum wage, to supporting huge profits for the drug companies while ordinary people can’t even afford health insurance…..he has always stood for the strong running right over the weak. Well, maybe he’s had a change of heart. Perhaps now that the GOP is so supportive of brain-damaged people, they’ll support stem-cell research that can cure them — maybe they’ll support universal health care so that other sick people will have a chance (people who are quite aware of their state) — maybe they’ll quit trying to take away the right of people to sue incompetent doctors (after all Terri Schiavo was a beneficiary of one of those “frivolous lawsuits”) — maybe they’ll understand that Medicare and Medicaid keep people alive every day throughout our country (in fact, Terri Schiavo’s medicine was paid for by Medicare). But I’m not holding my breath. The GOP will play politics with people’s faith and manipulate people’s beliefs, but when it comes down to the bottom line, the GOP cares only for those at the top.

  • callahan

    Why is it so hard to believe that a husband & wife would discuss life & death matters?
    Moral: You need to pick someone strong and faithful to carry out your wishs.

  • pianoman

    James:
    Yes, that sounds right to me. So I’ll amend my earlier statement with this: Had there been a durable power of attorney, this nightmare wouldn’t have happened in this way. Michael Schiavo could point to the power of attorney where Terri’s wishes were clearly stated, and act accordingly. The Schindlers would have had no lawsuit. The “right-to-life” screamers like Randall Terry would have had their day in front of the camera anyway, but who cares?
    In the end, Terri’s wishes would have been clear, and would have been respected.

  • owl

    Just add me to that bumpersticker line. Send me about 3 dozen “stopliberaljudges” bumperstickers.
    If they can’t tell the difference between a real husband and one that has TWO wives, and a faulty 7 year memory, they deserve the bumperstickers.
    I was never against her dying, as I believe everyone should have a right to a living will. It was who the ROYALS decided to be guardian and her prescribed death sentence. Starving someone to death over a period of 13 days…….well I will put it up against any torture story you read on the front page of the NYTs.
    May her blood family receive some peace.

  • billg

    Pianoman:
    I see no contradiction in my statements. I’m arguing that decisions of this nature are a matter of only the individual and the immediate family. The law’s only role should be to protect that. Society has no legitimate role to play. As I see it, this is exactly what every court that heard the parent’s case has done. The courts upheld the spouse, who, in such cases, the law holds is more “immediate” than the parents. As usual in this country, the question of state rights was raised by those who wish to leverage it to advance their own agenda. State rights are an important, if overblown, issue that suffer from the misfortune of having been used as a political club by a wide assortment of miscreants.
    The solution to the problem of living wills is not to require that they be in writing. (I’m not so sure a problem exists, at all.) When would we be required to create the will? The time of hospital admission obviously isn’t the right time for anyone who arrives at the hospital in an unconscious or unsensate condition. Should we, then, require everyone to commit their wishes in writing at age 21, or 18, or when? What about people who reject the wills out of religious or other convictions?
    By requiring the intent of the patient to be expressed in writing, we negate the right of the nearest relative to convey either the unwritten wishes of the patient or, in their absence, to make that decision.
    I would acknowledge the right of the state to intervene only if no living will exists, if no legally acceptable unwritten statement of intent was made, and no living relative can be located.

  • plunge

    “”Her interests” weren’t recorded anywhere except in a conversation to her husband.”
    Is lying by ommision like some sort of disease? Not just her husband, but also his brother and his wife, who happened to be her best friend. And, of course, a whole trial to determine whether or not what these people and her husband claimed was credible based on all sorts of other evidence.
    “You think this whole thing was really about him protecting “her interests”? That he was being the noble saint?”
    What other explanation is there for why he stuck around at this for so long? He had every reason to leave BUT that it would have meant his wife would have remained like that indefinately against her wishes.
    “Yes, of course that’s the way you see it. “Billions of dollars of right-wing foundations”. Where’s your evidence for this?”
    Simply add up the legal budgets of all the nutty organizations filing briefs in the case, the billed time of the lawyers they employ, and so on. And do you think pays for the Schindlers’ lawyers? Where do you think all this money is coming from?
    “You rail against those that see Terri Schiavo as a martyr, but laud Michael Schiavo for being….a martyr. Well done.”
    I don’t see him a a martyr. But as far as I can tell, he’s someone that did right for his wife against a horde of money and incentives to just run off and leave her to a bunch of zombie-fetishists.
    “As I recall, it was our host that 1) Savaged President Bush for mentioning Terri Schiavo’s tragegy; 2) Made disparaging remarks about the lack of universal health care in the U.S. When are you going to attack Jeff for his “dumb comparisons”?”
    What is dumb about the comparison? Bush constantly repeats dumbass focus grouped slogans ad naseum which he couldn’t possibly mean. Jeff just pointed out that he doesn’t really mean it: it’s simply a political tool to pose himself in the right way. If you honestly think it’s anything different, then you know nothing about politicians.

  • Inspector Callahan

    Because he was the only one fighting for her interests.
    And what interests are those? To die? Excuse me?
    Are you really telling me that it’s in her best interests to die? What’s the criteria to decide this? And are you sure that criteria was met?
    God help us all if that ever becomes the prevailing wisdom in society.
    TV (Harry)

  • Christy

    Many of us feel that there are worse things than dying, Inpector.

  • pp

    Random Thoughts
    Michael Schiavo did not become rich from this, the hundreds of lawyers who have been fighting this (on both sides) for years have. The media pimps standing outside the hospice gaining traction for their causes (Jesse Jackson and Brother Terry)
    If the so called right to lifers are so adament about this, then there should be picket lines in front of every hospital and hospice in the country. Thousands of people a day die from removal of “life support”. Either based on their own decision or their spouses.
    Imagine if this whole scenerio had taken place in MA with a homosexual married couple and a patients family…OMG…where would the religious right be then.
    What of the others patients and families in the hospice Terri was in? The emotions those poor families have had to endure while the protesters, hangers on and zealots have been outside their doors calling everyone murders.
    To everyone spouting “faqs” and “truths” visit this site for a comprehensive rundown of whats right and wrong
    http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2005_03_27.PHP#003655

  • plunge

    “Are you really telling me that it’s in her best interests to die? What’s the criteria to decide this? And are you sure that criteria was met?”
    Do we really have to go over this again? The criteria are whether she would have wished to be maintained in this artificially-propped up state indefinately (without modern medicine, she would have died to begin with, much less been able to be kept alive for a decade and a half). She was taken off life support with which she could not live without. As a result, she died.
    And yes, according to my understanding of the criteria as laid out in Florida law and SC rulings, the criteria were indeed met.

  • Harry O

    Someone wrote that the state legislature should not have interfered. Why not? Introducing and getting passed a law in the Fla. Legislature that would allow Michael to pull the tube was practically the first action his lawyer, Felos, took when he was hired.
    It’s ok for Michael and his representatives to go to the legislature but not her parents?
    Looking forward to hearing the logic to this way of looking at things.

  • http://healthy-elements.com Lynn

    Death by Decree
    Terri wasn’t helpless until we made her so.
    She didn’t need a husband and the Courts to protect her. She needed protection FROM them.
    Terri’s real helplessness started when husband and Court began their attack on her.
    Financially independent, Terri even had the means to support herself -
    awarded as a tragic trade-off for her diminished capacities.
    She was not allowed to use much of the funds awarded to compensate her and to cover her for therapy, for those purposes said brother Bobby, heard on the radio last night.
    She was denied the very things those funds were designated to cover.
    Much of the award was used instead, to finance her death.
    Some have reasoned the incapacitated Terri had no value.
    Terri had huge value to her Mom and Dad and siblings.
    We do not starve the most heinous criminals, who have perpetrated heinous hurts to many, who would hurt again if allowed, who have no living souls to cherish their presence.
    Our society does not deny fresh air, food, water, and exercise to such a criminal escaping capital punishment. He is provided with all those things for the rest of his natural life at the expense of the society he harmed.
    Those to whom starving Terri was ok, no doubt agree to the line against starving a convicted murderer incapable of rehabilitation.
    Terri was ultimately denied all these necessary things. Her own money was forbidden to be used to bring them to her.
    The family was not allowed to give them to her.
    Her family claims they were not even allowed to take Terri out for fresh air for the past five years.
    Physically, Terri’s body lived on it’s own without food and water for thirteen days. Perhaps that’s LONGER than your own body, dear reader, would be capable of lasting under similiar circumstances.
    A human being, not terminally ill, has just been starved to death in America.
    A woman whose life was still treasured by multiple human beings,
    who was self-sufficient by reason of her compensatory award,
    a human being whose past life never hurt anyone,
    whose present life hurt no one (not even herself by the state’s own declaration),
    has been killed by the withholding of food and water.
    What’s the next step? Who will it be?

  • Bruce S

    I wonder who the real nut cases of this travesty are. My vote goes for the Schindlers… a total case of denial for 15 years. My guess is that the doctors that do the autopsy on Terri Schiavo will never be believed by the Schindlers, no matter if what the medical evidence shows.
    I wonder what kind of parents would leave a child in that state for 15 years, all the while proclaiming that all they wanted was what was best for their daughter. Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Kat

    You want to know who the real nutcase is. His name is George Felos.
    This freaking guy, Felos, thinks he is God.
    In his 2002 book Litigation as Spiritual Practice, Felos expresses his belief in the “cosmic law of cause and effect,” in which the human mind is not limited by the constraints of reality. More specifically, if one wants a new car, one could make this dream car manifest “out of the ether.”
    Felos claims to have used his mental powers to cause a plane he was passenger on to nearly crash. By simply asking himself, “I wonder what it would be like to die right now?” the plane’s autopilot program mysteriously ceased to function and the plane descended into free fall. Felos then observed, “At that instant a clear, distinctly independent and slightly stern voice said to me, ‘Be careful what you think. You are more powerful than you realize.’ In quick succession I was startled, humbled and blessed by God’s admonishment.”
    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pfeiffer200503301030.asp
    And Michael, the murderer, gave up the money because there is more to be gained by killing her. He is reportedly received a multi-million dollar book, movie and TV deals for his story about his ìact of compassion.” Wonder if they will sell bumper stickers to advertise the murder movie.

  • hey

    ahh universal health insurance…
    don’t support it until you’ve tried it. it’s horrible unless you’re rich and important, and thus don’t need welfare medical coverage anyway.

  • Amanda

    Ed, you have just said what I could not find the words to express. Thank you…
    “I want to know how many hand wringers will sit down today and write a Living Will in which they specify that all possible means are to be employed to keep their body technically alive. Resuscitate under all conditions.
    It doesn’t matter how many years I put my family and friends through a living hell. I don’t care about them, I only care about my mass of cells being fed and watered. I expect that my existence will cause pain and suffering in the community, but that is what I want my life to mean.
    Humbug
    Godspeed Terri, humans have interferred with your journey home long enough.”

  • Jon H

    I guess the bankruptcy “reform” bill was a case of protecting the weak, helpless, multi-billion-dollar banks from the powerful citizens.

  • billg

    Lynn:
    Unless you are proposing that we warehouse every nonsensate patient and keep them on life support until their brainless bodies finally give out, your appeal to emotion and sentiment takes us nowhere.
    Decisions such as in the Schiavo’s case must be made by many, many people every day. The substance of those decisions are absolutely none of our business.
    Those who assert that Schiavo was “killed” by her husband, the courts, or the law are, at best, simply wrong, at worst, and all too commonly, deliberately fanning religious and political division and hatred to advance their own agendas. (See the Bush brothers, Tom DeLay, et al).
    Schiavo was killed by the ailment that stopped her heart and fatally damaged her brain years ago. Technology kept her body alive artificially. That’s ironic, since so many of the right-wingers who gathered around her parents like moths to a lamp abhor science and oppose advances in other technologies that might offer people like Schiavo a real chance at recovery rather than an artificially prolonged existence as a mindless vessel.

  • http://healthy-elements.com Lynn

    Billg
    Where have I advocated that?
    Terry was not on any life support. Just like all of us, she required food and water. Food and water is not considered artificial life support.
    In fact, a feeding tube is no more artificial than pills, insulin shots or any medicine some would die without.
    Probably more than a few reading this have a body that would not outlast Terri’s, if treated as Terri’s was, whose body went 13 days without so much as food and water.
    That’s not life support. She had not a warehouse, but an involved family that wanted her to stay.
    Yes, indeed, I agree it should have been only the family’s business, but the family was put in dispute by someone who was no longer family. He belonged to another family.
    She was not terminally ill. Not on a heart or kidney machine, that if unhooked, would cause her to die a normal, natural death without depriving her of food.
    She had value to someone. Her existence, unlike that of a hopeless criminal was hurting no one, past, present,or future. Never even financially, had she been allowed to use her award for her care rather than in legal bills to pay for efforts to kill her. She was not suffering.
    Those who molest little children and kill people aren’t starved to death…why her?
    Her life was not hurting her, and she had value to her attentive family. Who was her existence hurting that she couldn’t be left alone, with her settlement and her family to care for her?

  • Mel

    What has this world come to when we starve and dehydrate a woman to death because her husband is being a jerk? I understand the concept of letting her go but good god that was inhumane…she may have been partially braindead but the body still feels hunger and thirst and she couldnt say anything about it…I guess thats the part that made it easiest to do it to her, she couldnt express how she felt…may God forgive the people who did this to her for they will surely burn in hell for it if he doesnt.

  • http://healthy-elements.com Lynn

    P.S. Billg
    I wonder if the word feeding tube has some folks thrown. You probably meet many folks on the street who have had cancer etc. and are using one of these things, even if just to supplement, and you don’t even know it. At mealtime, they merely put an extension into a permanent (or temporary) hole in their gut and pour in the ensure.
    It’s a more common aid to eating than you might think.

  • Jon H

    Lynn writes: “Her life was not hurting her, and she had value to her attentive family. ”
    Is that all she is to you? An object of value?
    Charity is when you let go of something you value, for the good of another.

  • Jim S

    Lynn, the next step is for people like you, owl, Cheryl, pianoman, Yehudit and all of the other whack jobs of whatever persuasion to keep lying about what happened to make it fit into your worldview. Terri Schiavo as her family knew her died 15 years ago. Have you or any of these people even tried to take a read of things like the 38 page report of the Bush appointed guardian ad litem or the interviews with the neurologist who ordered the CT scan that shows virtually complete atrophy of the cerebral cortex without prejudging them? Images of the CT scan aren’t hard to find. They aren’t doctored. There isn’t some big conspiracy to denigrate Terri Schiavo or her condition.

  • Jim S

    The Bush comments bugged me a lot. Why? The lawsuit money being long gone Terri Schiavo’s bills were being covered mostly by Medicaid. Even if all authority had been turned over to her parents that still would have been the case. Bush is speaking of a culture of life that includes everyone even as he has proposed drastic cuts to the program that was paying Terri Schiavo’s bills and keeping her body going. I’m amused and saddened at the same time by all of the people who see no contradiction in that.

  • Cathy Young

    Kat:
    And Michael, the murderer, gave up the money because there is more to be gained by killing her. He is reportedly received a multi-million dollar book, movie and TV deals for his story about his ìact of compassion.” Wonder if they will sell bumper stickers to advertise the murder movie.
    Kat, it’s disgusting (though fairly typical of the rhetoric on the “pro-life” side in this case) that you would come in here and post this totally baseless speculation. “Reportedly”? What the hell does that mean? Michael is not the one who turned this case into a media circus. And who’s to say he would stand to make any less money if he had had a “compassionate” change of heart and turned her over to her parents?

  • Kat

    Cathy–are you sure it’s baseless? Or are you, as a left wing pro euthanasia supporter, just refusing to believe it could be true.

  • http://www.hilary-flanery.com Long-Skirts

    LIKE HENRY BEFORE
    Diane had an “i”.
    There’s an “i” in Terri.
    An “i” in die,
    If you look scary.
    Though some women’s face,
    Could haunt a house,
    No matter, she’s becoming
    His second spouse.
    And men who want
    A different wife,
    Like Henry before,
    Might snuff out her life.
    Sometimes, a little murder,
    Starve ’till they’re dead,
    Or like Henry before,
    Just chop off her head.
    Some men claim “duty”,
    Like Henry before,
    And men who cry “fie”,
    Lose heads like Sir More!
    So if you’re a woman,
    First wife with an “i”,
    And he wants another,
    He might help you die.
    You got sick, lost your health,
    Not better but worse,
    And like Henry before,
    You’ll be queen of his hearse!

  • richard mcenroe

    Universal Health Insurance? You mean if Michael didn’t have to pay for it, he wouldn’t have cared if Terri lived?
    If you mean National Health, forget it. The NHS in Britain has killed at least one person I knew personally.

  • Name Withheld

    Kat, you could actually show something to base your allegations about him making a book deal and so on. Also they probably shouldn’t be a pro-life site. (In the same way as I shouldn’t cite a pro-choice site to prove a point about how evil the pro-life crowd is.)
    Kat reportedly enjoys eating babies that she has bought from poor muslim women who can’t afford to keep their kids. (I probably should add an url to prove this is actually true, but since you don’t, I won’t either.)

  • Jon H

    richard writes: “Universal Health Insurance? You mean if Michael didn’t have to pay for it, he wouldn’t have cared if Terri lived?”
    No, the point is that it’s the logical result of taking President Bush’s rhetoric as if he actually meant it.
    For example, ending the right to die would mean that people would just be unplugged when their guardians ran out of funding.
    If Bush and DeLay really believe people shouldn’t be unplugged, they should set up taxpayer-funded life support, so that nobody ever gets unplugged because they run out of money.
    They’re not going to do that. Their rhetoric is empty and disingenuous. They would rather have people’s life support turned off, than have to raise taxes.

  • Kat

    Brain witheld–I’m not your fucking secretary you moron. Look it up yourself .

  • tray

    “If Bush and DeLay really believe people shouldn’t be unplugged, they should set up taxpayer-funded life support, so that nobody ever gets unplugged because they run out of money.
    Money wasn’t the issue, kid. Michael Schiavo had over $1 million from a lawsuit. He hit the jackpot. Then he hired the lawyers.
    Universal Health Care kills. It rations health care. You can’t see your doctor for anything for months and months.
    Besides, those countries that have Universal Health Care have generous euthanasia policies. Chances are you’ll die from a doctor’s order than your own decision or your family’s decision.
    The argument on Universal Health Care shouldn’t fool anyone. It calls for more free abortions too.

  • Name Withheld

    I always thought that if you made allegations you should also be the one to prove them. But I guess that doesn’t apply when you are a nut.
    True. Your not my fucking secretary. On the other hand I’m fucking my secretary.

  • Name Withheld

    Tray, so it’s okay to pull the plug if the patient is poor?

  • tray

    NW: “Tray, so it’s okay to pull the plug if the patient is poor?”
    Are you dumb or pretending to be dumb?
    The poor in the States will get treated if they can’t pay.
    With Universal Health Care, everyone is treated the same. You’re considered poor no matter how much you make!!!

  • Name Withheld

    Tray, not dumb, just wondering about how you actually are going to pay for hordes of people lying comatose in beds for 15-20 years? With the advances in science you are going to be able to keep a lot more people “alive” a lot longer. But it won’t be cheap. I’m guessing the pro-lifers will help with that just as they have paid the bills for Terri Schiavo.
    There is a reason why Bush signed his now famous Texas law.

  • http://healthy-elements.com Lynn

    so it’s ok to pull the plug if the patient is poor?
    There are brain dead people whose bodies cannot live even minutes off a machine and will die a NATURAL death if “unplugged” within MINUTES, …WITHOUT starving the body for 13 days first to make it die an UNNATURAL death.
    That was not Terri.
    It seems everyone here is saying that because it is impossible to keep every brain dead (Terry wasn’t brain dead) person plugged in to life support (Terri wasn’t plugged in to life support) in the world warehoused (Terri wasn’t warehoused)
    that Terri’s family should have forfeited the right to have their daughter live out her natural life on the compensation awarded her for her injury.

  • Name Withheld

    Lynn, so you shouldn’t withhold a patient any care if it means that it will kill them but it will take a lot longer than some minutes. What’s your view about the thousands of americans who die each year cause they can’t afford to buy medicine that would have kept them alive?
    Do you think that the government should pay to give them the medicine?

  • Donna V.

    I don’t think that, in the end, it was all about the benjamins. No, it’s pretty clear that Michael S. was motivated by sheer malice.
    What other explanation is there for the fact that he would not let Terri’s family be with her during the last moments of her life? And that he won’t respect their burial wishes? After all, it’s not like he’s going to be 6 ft under beside her someday. He’s got a new family. He’ll be buried (if he is buried) next to his new wife. The Schindlers only have 1 daughter.
    And Michael won. Why the continued insistence on having it his damn way, even up to her last moments and beyond?
    What a small, petty, nasty character.

  • http://healthy-elements.com Lynn

    Do you think that the government should pay to give them the medicine
    The government already is. Or rather YOU are if your are a taxpaying American.
    Patient care is not the same as artificial life support on someone brain dead.
    The government creates no wealth. It is only possible for it to give what it first takes from someone else.
    The lifeboats hold only so much no matter how much you wish otherwise.
    Terri wasn’t brain dead, wasn’t on artificial life support and wasn’t taking anyone elses place on the lifeboat.

  • Name Withheld

    Donna V, There can only be one explanation, he’s antichrist.
    He’s doing this only to torment the American people leading them to start killing their sick. Obviously the end of time is near.
    He should be forced to publicly shave his head so that the number of the beast will be there for everyone to see.
    …..
    Or perhaps as suggested lots of times before, he’s doing it cause he still loves her and he wants what she wanted to be done.

  • Donna V.

    To hell with your snark, name withheld. I’m not putting Michael S. up there with Stalin. But really, doesn’t it seem petty and nasty to you to not grant the parents’ wishes regarding her last moments and final burial?
    I mean, the man has won. He’s successfully denied her parents their deluded and selfish desire to go on caring for Terri, so why not be gracious and toss them a bone at the end?

  • Name Withheld

    Lynn, so if Terri would have taken your place in the lifeboat (or actually your money) then it would have been no problem killing her? If’s she’s a burden than it’s okay to kill her? Cause people who can pay want’s her place.
    If Michael Schiavo had spent all the money from the lawsuit on keeping her “alive” instead of paying lawyers the money wouldn’t have been sufficent to pay for her care if she should lived long enough. What should have happened with her when there wasn’t any more money? Would it have been Ok to kill her then?

  • Name Withheld

    Donna V, do you believe Stalin was antichrist? Or do you think Stalin is comparable to antichrist?
    Also you still hold your belief that the only reason he did this cause he seems to have hated her and her parents. If that would be true then I’ll guess it would make sense that he won’t allow them to choose the burial site.
    Or he might actually still love her.

  • Donna V.

    Name withheld: I’m not religious. I don’t actually believe in a literal antiChrist. Stalin murdered many millions – murderous dictators represent a sort of zenith (or nadir, rather) of human evil and are in a league of their own. Michael is rather small potatoes in comparison, but that hardly makes him admirable.
    Do you think Terri would have wanted her family barred from her deathbed? From what I understand, she was quite close to her parents before her disablement.
    If he is truly acting on what he believes are her wishes, what can be the excuse for twisting the knife like that? Is that what she wanted?

  • Dawn V

    Michael Schiavo is a ruthless, evil man. He has once again proven his true colors by denying Terri’s family access to her remains. He may not suffer in this life for his actions, but he will surely be accountable in the next. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. I think his eternal thirst for water will be greater than anything Terri suffered.

  • pianoman

    Jim S:
    If you had bothered to, you know, actually READ WHAT I WROTE, you would have seen that I ascribe blame to both sides.
    But since you already decided I was a “whackjob”, why bother actually arguing with facts? When you’re determined to deploy ad hominem attacks, why let inconvenient nuance get in the way?
    I never made conspiratorial accusations either. My opinions arise from what I’ve seen in the media, just like most other folks. And after watching the circus unfold, I’m convinced that this is nothing more than Hatfields and McCoys 2005, with Terri Schiavo as the centerpiece.
    Both sides are nutjobs. Michael is a lunatic because:
    1) He hired a crazy lawyer;
    2) He received a malpractice settlement which was supposed to go for treating Terri for 50 years, and immediately hired lawyers to get the feeding tube pulled;
    3) He wouldn’t let Terri’s family be at her bedside when she passed;
    4) He insists on cremating Terri even though she never specified anywhere that this was her wish;
    5) He insists on burying her in a secret place in Pennsylvania when it would cost him nothing to accede to her parents wishes that she be buried in Florida.
    Terri’s parents are idiots too. Here are the reasons:
    1) They created this circus in the first place;
    2) They insist on spilling the details of Terri’s bodily functions to journalists;
    3) They created this fiction that Terri can “talk” and “laugh” and “respond to jokes”, yadda yadda yadda;
    4) They reeled in pro-life nutbags like Randall Terry;
    5) They told Michael to “get on with his life”, then went ballistic when he actually DID JUST THAT;
    6) They demanded half of the malpractice suit money, and went ballistic when Michael told them to go pound sand.
    Both sides found “experts” to back up their personal claims. Both sides got judges to rule in their favor. Both sides spent God knows how much money on lawyers. Both sides got high-profile celebrities to PR their cause.
    In the end, Michael won because:
    1) The courts believed that Terri had granted Michael the right to yank the plug based on Michael’s say-so;
    2) Congress, President Bush, and Governor Bush were not willing to call in reinforcements (read: National Guardsmen) to enforce their wishes;
    3) Florida State law gave him the right to make all the calls.
    So Jim S: Are these the ravings of a “whackjob”?

  • Lydia

    Yes, we are all saddened by the way Terri had to go. Starving to death (although i think it was dehydration that got her first). But to let a brain dead vegitable that seemed to be giving responses to her mother and father live on when her wishes were not to be kept alive, is rediculous. We let that poor thing, who did this to herself might i add, suffer for 15 god damn years and all we have to say is too bad we couldnt make it go on longer. I understand both sides of the story, Mom didnt want to let go, and the Husband had to. It is time to heal America, amidst the pain, suffering, death, and destruction this year, let one thing come to an end, something we can control. It’s time to just let go. Terri was a beautiful girl before all of this and this had made her ugly, she didnt want to tear her family apart, no one does, and we allowed her to. We allowed the media to twist her story into some sick and twisted horrifying ordeal that no one should have ever been involved with except her family. So i say RIP Terri, i’m glad that is an angel on my side where she belongs, and i say Shame on you Media.. shame on you Jeb Bush, and Shame on you Protesters for keeping a woman from her final peace because it was convienient for you…. Find something else to fight for, something that can help the world, not hurt it.

  • Krusty Krab

    JG says:

    : MSNBC just reported that Bush will make a live statement about Schiavo at the start of a statement about WMD. He doesn’t make live statements about the soldiers who die in Iraq but he makes a statement about this.

    Utter bullshit. Jeff, your partisanship is showing again.
    I heard his commments about Terri and thought them appropriate, even though I supported the decision to end her “life”.

  • http://healthy-elements.com Lynn

    Go round in circles by yourself Mr. or Ms. “namewithheld”. You make comments that have nothing to do with Terri’s circumstances, then twist the answers when people make a good faith effort to communicate with you.
    Tray had it pegged when he said to you, “Are you dumb or pretending to be dumb?
    I no longer care which it is.

  • 4Terri

    I hope some shoots that fucking asshole husband, he’s a fucking prick. He’d better watch his back, cause I’m sure someone’s gunnin’ for him.
    -Me

  • Name Withheld

    Lynn, calling people dumb. That’s also a way to try to end an argument.
    But still I really would like to know who would have paid for Terri’s care when all the money won in the lawsuit had been spent. If Michael had divorced her and her parents had died. If Terri had been lying there all alone. Where would the money have come from? Despite what you think this really isn’t cheap.

  • vbalfour

    To name withheld:
    From what I understand, the hospice expenses were being paid by Medicaid.

  • Name Withheld

    vbalfour, seems like that.
    http://slate.msn.com/id/2115064/
    “Who’s paying for her care?
    Schiavo resides at a nonprofit hospice that has assumed part of the cost of her care. Medicaid pays for the rest. According to this AP story, keeping her alive costs about $80,000 per year, and at least $350,000 of the malpractice settlement awarded to Schiavo and her husband in 1992 has been spent on her care. Florida Medicaid normally offers hospice coverage for those with a life expectancy of no more than six months, but Schiavo has received assistance from the state for the last two years.”
    Ok lets assume that they would have been able to spend all of the $1,000,000 on her care (seems like only $700,000 was earmarked for that purpose). At $80,000/year the money would have been gone after twelve and a half years. Lets say she would have lived for another 30 years. Who would have paid for that? Medicaid? There is obviously a lot more people like Terri Schiavo out there.
    But I guess that you only count if you have money or if you’re on TV….

  • joanna noack

    This is a sad day for humanity….I was one who believed in removing all support untill I went to her site and seen for myself the truth…..I felt sick that Michael could legally kill his wife and Petterson went to jail….Whats the difference ….Its still murder no matter how you look at it…..And shame on michael for how he is treating her family….That is their Daughter,sister etc….They had the right to be in the room when she passed away….And now the problem with the burial….This is all disgusting and ugly….MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON US ALL AND FORGIVE US OUR SINS….WE NEED MORE COMPASSION IN THIS WORLD…WHAT IF IT WERE 1 OF YOUR SIBLINGS OR DAUGHTER????i FEEL SICK OVER THIS WHOLE THING…

  • 45 year old single female

    I am a single 45 year old female,even with a living will in place, insurance policies,and beneficiaries, and everything I think I need to insure my family is protected, my bills are paid, and I am not forced by law to stay on this earth any longer than I need…after hearing terri’s story… I am afraid…How one person can take control, after one is no longer in control of one’s own life,… If I am not awake and concious enough to say “I decide”…than who decides???
    Being a born again Christain…without a family member who shares my faith…I am anxious to know who can I trust, and how do I plan now for dying alone the way I want to? and how much more will it cost ???

  • belleu

    God Speed, Dear Terri, God Speed…

  • Shoe

    It’s easy to take the moral high road when you’re on the outside looking in, but once the tube was taken out there was no way back, and trying to prolong Terri’s life at that point would have only caused her to suffer neddlessly for the appeasement of the public conscience. Sometimes, as hard as it is to let someone go, it’s the only merciful thing to do. In the end, everyone involved will have to live with the choices they made, for better or worse. Those who sought to turn Terri’s death into a political soapbox or a media circus will find new causes within a week, and this quiet tragedy will leave us all no wiser than before.

  • Name Withheld

    “I don’t want spammed”, you do know that the Schindlers are Terri’s parents? Michael’s surname is Schiavo, and so is Terri’s because she’s married to him.
    And about the so called “Schindler’s List”, I would guess that would be the list of Terri supporters that is being sold to various pro-life organisations….

  • billg

    Lynn:
    Schiavo was insensate. Her brain no longer functioned. I equate loss of brain function with death. She had no written living will.
    But none of that matters, because it was not my decision to make. The person held by law to be responsible for relaying her wishes if she was ever in such a condition — her husband — said she would not want to be artificially sustained. Regardless of your opinion about anything to do with this case or of the law, under law her husband had an obligation to do what he did. The law was upheld, as it should have been. If anyone had a credible case that her husband “was no longer family”, then that argument could have successfully been made to a court. It was not.
    The sanctity of the law takes precedence over the opinions of any individual. In particular, that applies to anyone who believes that the “law of God”, as they themselves understand it, takes precedence in America over the law of the land. It does not, and to allow that to happen would be to subvert this democracy. That is a considerable possiblity in a country governed by such moral miscreants as the Bush brothers and corrupt manipulative politicians like Tom DeLay. They and their Republican fellows cynically manipulate and lie to naive people with little or no awareness of American history, our Constitution, or the inviolability of separation of powers. (They are enabled in this evil endeavour, I suspect, because so many millions of Americans have now been indoctrinated in the lies and distortions taught in all those private allegedly Christian academies.)
    I don’t want to live in a country ruled by a so-called Christian majority that believes their secret knowledge of God’s intent supercedes the law. How am I to exercise my rights or protect myself if those who govern me believe or claim to believe that their reading of the Bible is the “real” law? How can I seek redress in the courts if those who govern me destroy separation of powers and render the law an evanescent whimsical thing dependent on their latest political needs? What court, then, would hear my appeal?
    The law requires no change. The courts need not be attacked, they behaved honorably in this case unlike their counterparts in the legislative and executive btanches. The law only needs to be enforced. That means that written living wills are honored. That means that when no living will exists but the nearest relative states the patient expressed his or her wishes verbally, then those wishes must be honored. Sadly, given human nature, and the willingness of people with agendas to exploit the pain of others for their own ends, such cases are likely to be ugly and messy. But they need not be if we all mind our own business.

  • Jeff

    What the outside world is missing is the intricate dynamics between Terri’s parents and their son-in-law. Not one of us can make a rational judgement because we are unable to live their lives even for a moment. So it is best for us all to make the proper arrangements for ourselves and leave no room for embittered battles, like the Shiavo’s, to occur in our own families. It is a very “personal” matter and not one for religious groups’ or politicians’ intervention.

  • Kat

    I don’t want to live in a krytocracy, ruled by judges, and screw the people. The new ‘God’ in America are judges.

  • billg

    Kat:
    Sounds like you’re either a Republican shill or a Republican sucker.
    As I see it, the new “God” in America is the undemocratic fundamentalist right and the miscreant politicians that incite bigotry and division. How did we come to find thugs like DeLay in the Congress? Where does he, and all the other religious fanatics, acquire the arrogance to speak for God and to deny everyone else the right to believe as they see fit? Why must everyone bow down before this unAmerican minority?
    We’re in no danger of being “ruled by judges” so long as we don’t allow Congress or the President to violate separation of powers. They’ve already opened the door with that bastardly law about Schiavo. If you want the Congress, or the President, or a kangaroo court of your neighbors to sit in judgment of your behavior, keep right on thinking what you’re thinking.
    We live in a nation of laws. We, the people, have the right to change the law, but our representatives have no right to force judges to make rulings that accord with their political agendas.

  • pjk

    It makes me absolutely ill to read statements that Terri was “killed” or “murdered”. Terri “died” fifteen years ago – when her heart stopped and she suffered brain damage. She has only suffered here on this earth. Do you know what her life probably consisted of? Unable to eat or drink, unable to talk, being 100% dependent on others for even a simple movement. The chronic illness that usually follows someone in her condition – agonizing bedsores, pnemonia, the list goes on and on. There is an issue of quality over quanity. Who was she being kept alive for? It certainly wasn’t for her benefit – only those who could not let her go. Imagine yourself in those shoes – living 15 years like that? She is now in a place where she is once again whole. She has been set free of her body. I grieve for her family on both sides – especially as the war seems to continue. In some ways it seems that Terri was no more than a rope in this tug-of-war. Lets all think of Terri – not taking sides, just of Terri. May God bless her soul.

  • pianoman

    Billg:
    I hate to interrupt your strawman destruction, but I need to point out that Jeb Bush didn’t call in the National Guard to save Terri. Both the “Bush Brothers” allowed the law to trump their own personal feelings in the matter. In other words, they didn’t let “God’s law” get in the way of the process.
    I would think you might take note of that, and see that the GOP generally recognizes that we are a nation of laws.
    Unfortunately, it appears that you are too blinded by hate and rage of the GOP to see any of this.

  • pianoman

    PJK:
    There are documented cases where patients like Terri have recovered. According to your logic, anyone who suffers that kind of brain injury should be allowed to die.
    When you hear the “fundamentalist Right” (or whatever the label of hate is today) talking about the slippery slope of euthanasia, this is the kind of thing they are referring to.
    Do you approve of the Groningen Protocol? It sounds like you do.
    Funny thing — the Left used to be the party of compassion for the helpless. It doesn’t appear that way any more.

  • pianoman

    PJK:
    You are right in this sense — Terri *was* the rope in the tug of war. Both sides in this dispute are nuts, as I pointed out earlier.

  • richard mcenroe
  • billg

    Pianoman:
    Don’t believe I’ve said Jeb Bush called out the Guard.
    Both of the Bush brothers supported Congressional interference in this matter. That interference was a violation of separation of powers. The fact the they even spoke in public about it amounts to interference in the private affairs of the Schiavo family. It was, and is, an unnecessarily divisive issue and by speaking about it the Bush brothers and others, unjustifiably aided and abetted the use of this intensely private tragedy for partisan political and social ends. It was none of their business and they should have kept their mouths shut. Any politician or public figure who spoke about this isse — on either side — has my contempt.
    I don’t hate the GOP. I know many members of the fundamentalist right are sincere in their beliefs. I also know, and hold repugnant, the sad truth that many politicians, predominantly Republican, cynically manipulate religious belief in order to foster the divisiveness that fuels their political agendas. Hence, the attack on “the courts” and the thinly veiled assertions that “God’s law” should take precedence over our law.
    That frightens me. Nothing should take precedence over the law of the land. This is a nation created in law, not by God. God, I’d imagine, does not need the assistance of Republican politicians.

  • Judy

    Rather than get into the mud slinging and political rhetoric, I would like to take this opportunity to strongy encourage all women who are involved in relationships with a very controlling narcissist to take a good look and protect yourself. Our daughter was married to a man who greatly reminds me of Michael and I am positive had something happened to her he would never have allowed us to be at all involved in her care. PLEASE take a good look at your spouse and make sure you hav a durable power of attorey, a health care power of attorney and the living will.

  • Name Withheld

    Judy, you actually stayed away from any mudsling for almost a third of a sentence. Good for you :)
    Personally I hope people will take a good look at their spouse-to-be _before_ they get married. Would probably solve a lot of issues.
    I also believe it’s good to write a solid living will so that if you get comatose your bornagain spouse won’t keep you alive against your wishes.

  • billg

    That’s good advice, Judy. In the absence of a living will and both types of power of attorney, the law will almost certainly look to the nearest relative of the patient. If a spouse is alive, the role of the parents in any decision will be determined by that spouse.
    It’s unfortunate that most of us don’t learn that we need to do these things until we or a loved one is in a hospital bed and someone asks about it.
    That’s a choice we are all free to make, with the assurance that if we do make it our wishes will be carried out. I can’t speak for others, but the reason I address politics in my posts is that I fear that many wish to take that choice, and others, from us and replace it with enforced compliance with whatever they see as God’s will.

  • tray

    I also believe it’s good to write a solid living will so that if you get comatose your bornagain spouse won’t keep you alive against your wishes.
    The living will directive to physicians is pretty standard and very misunderstood. I had one done five years ago.
    It says the incurable injury, disease, or illness is terminal and my death is imminent. Under the Terri Schiavo situation, it wouldn’t apply because her persistent vegetative state is not terminal.
    My living will also say I can refuse medical and surgical treatment. Terri didn’t need any medical treatment with her persistent vegetative state. The feeding tube falls into a gray area because it is both medical treatment and what you normally need to live.
    Terri was also prevented from getting any food and water through the mouth. This is deliberate starvation.

  • Kat

    I fear that many wish to take that choice of not being denied a basic such as food, from us and replace it with enforced compliance with whatever they see as some euthanasia lawyer’s will. Many so-cial-ist countries are now forcing euthanasia on poor unsuspecting victims. Old people are afraid to be hospitalized for fear they may be declared a non contributing member of society. Who are we to decide that handicapped people don’t appreciate their quality of life? Should Judge Greer be starved because he is blind? Or George Felos because he is a nutcase?
    Food and water is not artificial treatment. Food and water is not a machine. Food and water are basic care for babies and adults of all ages. Unless you choose to starve them to death. That such a cruel thing could happen to an American is what really scares me. And the murderer was sanctioned by the courts to commit that atrocity.

  • billg

    Kat:
    The only place murder took place or someone was killed or starved to death is in your imagination.
    Schiavo failed to leave legally binding written directions outlining how she wanted to be treated if she ever found herself in this state of health. That’s unfortunate, but true.
    In the absence of those directions, the law must look to someone for guidance. The law looks to the nearest living relative. In this case, it was her husband.
    You might not like that law. You might not like what Schiavo told her husband. You might not believe her husband. Or, you might believe the opposite. It does not matter. You have no standing to involve yourself in such a situation. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else, including the President or the Congress.
    Your choice is to stand with the law that protects our rights and our privacy or to stand with those who wish to compel us to abide by their wishes, not ours.
    If you disagree with what happen to Schiavo, how would you remedy that? Would you favor a law that says parents take precedence over a spouse? Would you favor a law that says a patient’s expressed wishes, written or otherwise, are not legally binding? How would you word this legislation? Under what circumstance would you assert that neither the patient or the patient’s closest living relative have the final say? What would you point to in the Constitution that provides the right to interfere in such an intensely private issue? If you give the state the power to interfere in this issue, how will you prevent the state from interfering in similar issues, such as choice of treatment for illness?
    These are only a few of the questions that need to be considered by those, like you, who seem to be placing emotion and sentiment above everything else.

  • Kat

    Well, I’d start off by saying his spousal duties to Terri ended when his spousal duties with Jodi began. That should be simple enough for any lawyer or judge. I’d hardly want a husband of mine making decisions about my life while he’s screwing another woman.

  • billg

    Best to put that in your own living will, Kat, because the law won’t care what your legal spouse is doing.
    Or, would you rather gives courts the power to interpret the law based on their opinion of the people before them? That’s what you’re suggesting with statements like “That should be simple enough for any lawyer or judge.”
    And, here I thought conservatives wanted judges to strictly follow the letter of the law. Could it be they really want judges to toe the line of the conservative agenda?

  • pianoman

    billg:
    I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I’ll make a second effort:
    You are under the mistaken impression that the “Right” is trying to impose Biblical principles upon the country by force of law. While there are scattered examples of this here and there (Judge Moore, for example), in general it isn’t true.
    So when I point out that Jeb Bush hasn’t called in the National Guard, I’m trying to point out that the Right hasn’t come to the point where they are willing to circumvent the law to get what they want. The Right is still willing, ultimately, to let the process work.
    You are unwilling to acknowledge this in your apparent anger at the Bush family.
    Your whole point appears to hinge on the following:
    Both of the Bush brothers supported Congressional interference in this matter. That interference was a violation of separation of powers.
    The 14th Amendment says “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.”
    Congress acted because they felt that Terri Schiavo was being deprived of her rights under this Amendment. The President signed the legislation directed to him by Congress. The State of Florida rejected it.
    To me, this is all part of the process, and I think it worked well.
    Therefore, I reject your belief that the Schiavo case was “none of our business”.
    One other thing: Like it or not, this is a Judeo-Christian country, with a secular government. As a nation, our religious morals influence our government. Most Americans like it this way. We don’t want a theocracy, but we also don’t want all our laws derived from secularism.

  • Kat

    Nope, just lawyers who can’t down planes, talk to souls begging to die,etc. I’m sure Fels will soon enlighten us on how Terri’s soul spoke to him. I just want judges and lawyers with compassion and common sense.

  • billg

    Pianoman:
    Just some observations:
    1. It certainly seems to me that the non-fundamentalist segment of the Republican Party and the rest of the right wing is increasingly diminished in scope and influence compared with the born-again fundamentalist segment. So, yes, not every member of the right wing is trying to impose Biblical principles, but it seems very clear to me that the Bush Administration, the leadership in the Congress and the leadership of the Republican Party are aiming their policies at people who do believe God’s law, as they interpret it, takes precedence over our law and the Constitution. (By my standards, everyone who cited religious opinion in opposing the courts in the Schiavo case was advocating the supremacy of Biblical principles.)
    2. My anger with the Bush’s is not distorting my opinion about the Right. I am angry with the Bush’s because they are, in fact, aiding and advancing the cause of people who believe things that are fundamentally wrong, e.g, that the courts should hold to Biblical principles and that the U.S. was created by God. To be clear, peoples’ beliefs have no impact on me and are none of my business. But, their actions do and are. The Right is encouraging people to act in ways that will subvert the Constitution and our freedoms.
    3. I don’t believe anyone who supported the Schiavo bill in Congress has any interest at all in due process. The decided to pass this unconstitutional bill and then looked around for some hook to hang it on.
    4. This is and always has been a secular country and government. Our religious beliefs are the business of no one, especially the government. The practice of religion and the practice of government must be kept invioably separate, at the cost of our freedoms. What happened in the Schiavo case is blatant evidence that many in the Right don’t believe thatl; they believe the courts and the rest of the government should ignore the law and the Constitution any time they, and they alone, proclaim “the Bible told me so”. This is as dangerous to our liberty as the rise of the right was in Germany after World Ware One.
    5. My father once told me that this country was created by white Englishmen who were sent to do God’s work, and that everyone else living here does so at the pleasure of their white descendants. That was his definition of Judeo-Christian. I’m sure it is, at heart, the definition held by millions of Americans. Remember, if this was the 1960′s, the right would be telling us — as it did — that the Bible supports segregation. If this was the 1860′s, the right would be telling us — as it did — that the Bible supports slavery.

  • billg

    Kat:
    One person’s compassion and common sense is another person’s cruelty and extremism. I want courts with integrity and legal expertise, not courts that put aside the law in favor of what they happen to think, on any given day, is compassion and common sense.
    Again, your opinion, my opinion, everyone’s opinions, of the people involved in the Schiavo case are irrelevant because none of us had any business interfering or encouraging interference in the matter.
    If you disagree, explain to me why, in the future, I should allow you to interfere in how I spend my last days if you don’t approve of my choices.

  • kat

    billg–I don’t want you to be starved to death, is that all right?

  • billg

    Kat:
    No it isn’t, if it runs counter to my wishes.
    If my living will states I want no feeding tube, then that’s my business, not your’s.
    The “starved to death” bit is your definition and you don’t get it impose it on others. Politicians and the right wing use it because it plays to the emotions, not to the brain. Typical, for that crowd.

  • tray

    “This is and always has been a secular country and government. Our religious beliefs are the business of no one, especially the government.”
    Every citizen can participate in the political system, that includes Christians. If you say I cannot act on my moral beliefs, which would also include my religious influenced moral beliefs, then by default, I’m ceding my political rights to the secularists who have their own moral beliefs.
    It is inherently wrong to deny the people’s right to participate in politics solely because people are religious. It is also dangerous because it can lead to extremism on the secular leftists.
    Lately, it seems the Democrats are starting to realize people do vote on religious values. That’s what I see in Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. However, it is pandering without substance. Dean and Clinton want the religious vote yet the Liberals in the Democratic Party want to deny the religious a seat at the table on policy matters.
    I won’t be fooled, nor denied my rights as a Christian.

  • billg

    Tray:
    1. Did I say you shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the political process? No. You can and I can. I don’t want you or anyone else taking control of the government and using it to force me to do things I don’t want to do just because your faith tells you that is justified. I don’t care if you’re a Christian, an atheist, an agnostic, or a tree worshiper. I’ll fight you tooth and nail to keep you from dictating to me.
    2. This entire nomenclature of “secularists”, “Christians” “humanists” is just a bunch of buzzwords invented by the political born again fundamentalists in order to portray only themselves as Christian. They want to portray every nonevangelical as something evil.
    3. No one wants to fool you or take away your vote. We just want to make sure you don’t take away ours. That seems to me one possible outcome if the government is controlled by people who believe their allegiance to their faith takes precedence over the rights of others. The reaction to the Schiavo case is ample evidence that there are a lot of those people in this country.

  • Kat

    And I don’t want you imposing your views on me. If you agree with gay marriage,fine. Don’t call me a bigot if I don’t. If you believe in murdering unborn babies, fine, don’t expect me to call it freedom of choice when I see it as freedom to murder. I will respect your views and I won’t call you a left wing lunatic as long as you allow me to believe what Jesus taught and not call me a rightwing whatever.
    And Tray is right, the Democrats are realizing that people are voting for the party of religious values and I also know I’d not vote Democrat if Mother Theresa was alive and running. Her beliefs would soon be quashed. There is no room for religious values in pure leftism.

  • lexy

    Ed,
    Those are government healthcare examples you listed. Further proof that you don’t want to entrust your healthcare to government policy, budgets and bureaucrats.
    My argument isn’t against “Canada” it’s against universal/government-run “State” healthcare.

  • billg

    Kat:
    What you believe is none of my business, and vice versa.
    But, if you act in a way that prevents me from exercising my rights, then it is very much my business. Your motivation for your behavior is irrelevant. That’s the way democracy works, but I’m afraid there are millions of people in this country who really don’t believe in democracy.
    You may plead that you are behaving as Jesus directs. But, so might I. Certainly, millions of people have died in wars in which everyone proclaimed they were dong God’s work.
    Since so many people disagree about what God and Jesus want them to do, I suggest we all leave expressions of God’s intent to God and learn a little tolerance.
    By the way, I don’t consider myself leftist in any manner. Hardly any true leftists exist in the U.S. Calling every Democrat a leftist is just one more right-wing propaganda ploy.

  • pianoman

    billg:
    You really need to preview what you write before you post it. You said:
    Calling every Democrat a leftist is just one more right-wing propaganda ploy.
    Do you see the irony here? You just did the very thing you accuse the Right of doing.
    And you also said:
    This entire nomenclature of “secularists”, “Christians” “humanists” is just a bunch of buzzwords invented by the political born again fundamentalists
    Do you think “political born again fundamentalists” is a “buzzword” too?
    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  • Kat

    Well, billg, I say you could learn a little tolerance of religious people.
    Millions more have died in wars in which everyone proclaimed godlessness. When it comes to piling up a body count, atheists take second place to none.
    (Calling every Democrat a leftist is just one more right-wing propaganda ploy.) And calling every religious person rightwing is what????)

  • billg

    Pianoman:
    I see no irony. Leftist is a label properly applied to Marxists, Communists, etc. Few of those exist in this country, none in mainstream political life. So, just because Republicans consider Democrats to be to there “left”, doesn’t mean Democrats are “leftists”. They’re only using the term as a perjorative to fan their rabble’s flames, as they do “liberal”. I’ve been using the term “right-winger” as a descriptive label: most Republicans are to the right of most Democrats. That doesn’t make them “rightists” (at least until they start sounding like South American dictators).
    “Political born again fundamentalists” is directed at people like the Bush’s and DeLay, et al, who profess to hold that kind of faith for what I see as political motives.
    You know, all I’ve said here is that I support the separation of powers, the separation of church and state, and the sanctity of the law. Aside from the Schiavo case, I’ve offered no opinion on any political issues. (And, even there, I’ve only stated it was none of our business. I don’t care what position her husband or parents took.) Presumably, conservatives and Repubicans also support those three things. Or, am I missing something?

  • billg

    Kat:
    Don’t believe I called every religious person a right-winger. But, I do mean to say the Republicans are deliberately using evangelical language to manipulate people who honestly hold those views. And, I also mean to say the increasing conflation in use of “born again” and “Christian” is dangerous.
    You don’t mean to imply that Democrats can’t be religious, do you? I know lots of Dems who are quite religious. I’ve known lots of Republicans who weren’t. I rarely discuss my religious views, so they have no clue about me.
    As for the body counts in various wars, I leave it to you to play that game. My point was only to highlight the absurdity of claiming to speak with exclusive knowledge of God’s intent.

  • tray

    I do mean to say the Republicans are deliberately using evangelical language to manipulate people who honestly hold those views. And, I also mean to say the increasing conflation in use of “born again” and “Christian” is dangerous.
    It’s only manipulative if they say it and don’t mean it. If the Republicans intent to pass policy favorable to my religious moral beliefs, then I think they’re doing their job.
    I do feel manipulated when President Bill Clinton haven’t done much for the religious yet proclaim his Southern Baptist roots. Unfortunately, the liberal Democrats don’t call him on that because they never intended for Clinton to mean it. It was pure manipulation.
    It would appear hypocrisy doesn’t applies to Democrats. It’s the liberal wink-wink. Strength through talking tough and carry no big stick.
    On “born again,” what’s so dangerous about calling yourself “born again?” You fear a name that became a pejorative when the secularists use it. You misunderstand Christianity. When people decide to accept Jesus as savior, they are in essence born again. Christians are then part of the family. There’s nothing to fear.
    What’s the alternative? The cultural identified Christian who doesn’t really believe in God/Jesus yet participate in Christian rites mindlessly. I fear the ignorant Christian.
    My point was only to highlight the absurdity of claiming to speak with exclusive knowledge of God’s intent.
    Who doing that? I try to live by God’s intent, but I try to avoid the “exclusive knowledge” part of your argument.
    Fighting for life is a noble effort. Of course there are areas of disagreement on what God intends, but it should be clear that God stands for good.

  • http://healthy-elements.com Lynn

    You don’t mean to imply that Democrats can’t be religious, do you?
    Perhaps they are a new religious order.
    A man sleeps with his girlfriend = disobedience to a Commandment
    A man sleeps with his boyfriend = disobedience to a Commandment
    A woman sleeps with her girlfriend = disobedience to a Commandment
    Theologians, (of which I am not), will tell you none here is a greater sinner than the other.
    All have sinned, all can ask for forgiveness, and when they do so, all are forgiven thru Christ.
    CHRISTian religion does NOT exist to serve mankind.
    CHRISTian religion exists to serve GOD
    One either advances or opposes the will of God while here on Earth.
    Falling into sin,(as illustrated above)due to our sinful nature will happen. Quite different is a committment to deliberately oppose and reject God’s Commandment(s) and promote to others it is A-OK to do these things God commanded us not to do.
    The support of, the promotion of, the advancement of disobeying a Commandment, is a rejection of God and that Commandment.
    Those who support ADVANCING the cause of breaking God’s Law on euthanasia,abortion,and homosexuality are directly opposing and rejecting God’s Commandments.
    The Democratic party’s stand on these issues, seem to oppose the keeping of a few of God’s Commandments.
    Some sort of new religous order?
    The Reasonably Religious – The religion serving Mankind rather than God?

  • h0mi

    I think that the fact that Michael Schiavo didn’t take the money he was offered and sign over his rights to her parents speaks to his motives.

    There is no reason to believe that any money offered was an actual valid offer and that acceptance of the offer would’ve been withdrawn and then used as ammunition by the Schindlers to prove Schiavo’s interest was monetary, rather than his wife’s interests/wishes.

  • h0mi

    If my living will states I want no feeding tube, then that’s my business, not your’s.

    It becomes our business if your living will is ignored or disregarded; if your living will can be legally ignored, so can mine.

  • Christy

    h0mi, The problem with your theory is that it doesn’t pass the Occam’s razor test. So, let’s do a little thought experiment. Say Michael Schaivo was offered $10M (as he reportedly was), and there’s a 50% chance that the offer will be withdrawn as soon as he says, “yes”. Well, that means the expected value of the offer is $5M. Even if there’s a 90% chance that the offer will be withdrawn, that’s still an expected value of $1M. Any rational uncaring husband in this situation (with, say, a net worth of less than $10M) would risk being exposed for the chance to get $1-$5M because it would be worth the risk. And why would it bother him more to have people believe he’s greedy, than to have a whole lot of people believe he’s a murderer?