The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
Schiavo today
: The judge refuses order that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube be reconnected.
One moral to this story: You can’t game the system. After all the grandstanding in Congress and at the White House and on TV news, it still came down to one judge charged with following the law. It’s a system and most of the time, it works. If you don’t like the outcome, that doesn’t mean you can win by gaming the system.
Now I fear for the good judge who made this ruling in the face of threats to his life. The fact is that what passes for mainstream republican dialog is incitement to murder of their political opponets. We are living in dangerous times. Just watch what certified wingnut Terry Randell said last night on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, to the approving nods of his Republican host, Joe Scarborough. It’s incitment to murder, plain and simple.
Watch the video here.
If only Terry was a member of Al Queda then she wouldn’t starved to death. And maybe the judge shouldn’t be allowed to eat or drink anything until he makes his decision.
If Terri was a DOG, they wouldn’t deliberately starve her.
Oh, well, I guess it’s time for this inconvenient little nuisance to die so her swell husband can get the remainder of the settlement money that he cried and begged for so he could take care of her for “the rest of her life”, and then slapped a DNR order on her as soon as the check cleared. (run-on sentence, two demerits)
There is no Terry anymore. Her brain is spinal fluid. EKG is a total flatline. She isnt being starved because there isnt any she to sense the lack of foor or water. This is NOT life vs death. Its death vs death.
And no, none of us including Mr Delay get to decide if she is gone – we are a Federalist nation and these decisions, family disputes, are left to the States to decide. This case has been decided in Florida and appealed all the way up to the top court in the land. Case closed unless you dont like how America was conceived and worked for ~230 years.
I had to be part of this kind of decision 3 yrs ago. Worst moment of my life. Do i want the Congress in the room with me and family when making such a decisin? Hell no.
One moral to this story: You can’t game the system.
Unless it is legislating from the bench, i.e., gay marriage, death penalty for junevilles, and abortion. In those cases, it’s OK for the federal judicial branch to usurp power from the state legislatures. When its the other way around, it’s cheap political grandstanding and gaming the system.
Mike,
I’ve got to say you make a good point. I voted against the gay marriage amendment in my home state of GA and was hugely disappointed that the majority of morons passed it. I’m hoping that other courts get to weigh the constitutionality of these referendums. I guess what can be stated here is that even as bad as the rules were being stretched in the Schiavo case, it’s still the law. I am aghast that congress took such messures myself, but as far as I know, there was a process and it was followed. Same goes for the other issues as well (abortion, death penalty. etc…).
Hypocracy only exists in the politics of it all as was proven in the last few days, but the law is clear. Citizens have a right to due process even when they are misguided and desparate. In this case so far the rule of law has been held up.
Again, good point made.
Good point. It doesn’t make Michael Schiavo any less of a scumbag. I don’t think anyone is arguing that point.
The problem with “the system” is that it’s not perfect. I really do think, given all the circumstances involved here, that this thing should go to trial with a jury. I don’t trust the husband at all.
Mike, do you have any idea what the constitution says? I’m sick and tired of hearing people talk about “legislating from the bench” and “activist judges.” The job of judges is to interpret the constitution. If something is unconstitutional, it’s their job to say so, no matter what you think. A ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, no matter if you like it or not. A ban on interracial marriage is unconstitutional, no matter what people in Virginia thought in 1967. Segregated schools are unconstitutional no matter what people in Topeka thought in 1954. In the case of Terri Schiavo, everything was done by the rule of law and congress tried to override the constitution. That’s, um, unconstitutional and it’s the judge’s job to say so. If you want to live in a state where the majority’s religious beliefs are the rule of law over and above the constitution, move to Iran.
If Terri was a DOG, they wouldn’t deliberately starve her.
If Terri were a dog, it would be done even more humanely, by giving her a needle and she would drift away within a few minutes. And I would be OK with physician-assisted euthanasia in this case. Are you saying that yould be OK with you, Mumblix?
If only Terry was a member of Al Queda then she wouldn’t starved to death.
Yes, but then like Osama, the Bush Administration would have stopped mentioning her months ago.
One moral to this story: You can’t game the system.
this assumes that the politicians who have been involved in this actually care about Terri Schiavo.
But the “game” here is not about Terri Schiavo, its about exploiting her to spread lies and disinformation in pursuit of political power. Tom Delay and George W. Bush did not intervene last week when a six month old baby from their home town was disconnect from life support despite the objections of the baby’s mother. This was not a woman whose brain tissue had been replaced by liquid and for whom there was absolutely no hope of recovery, but a child with disabilities that required medical intervention to keep him alive.
But Sun Hudson was allowed to die without any outcry from these “right to lifers” because he was poor and black. (To get a full understanding of the hypocrisy here, imagine Bush and Delay’s position if the mother had discovered his condition late in her pregnancy, and tried to get a “partial birth abortion”. What happened last week was a “post birth abortion” that was imposed on the mother by the state of Texas — yet there was no outcry from the “right to life” crowd whatsoever.)
The system was gamed, and gamed successfully, because the system being gamed was the media, not the courts. No one is going to change their mind based on the decision of the federal court in this case — indeed, I can practically guarantee that the judge’s decision will be chalked up to the fact that he was a Clinton appointee.
The ghoul’s who have been exploiting the case won’t read the judges opinion, just as they haven’t read the decisions of any other judge in this affair, and just as they haven’t read the report of the Guardian ad Litem appointed by Jeb Bush himself to represent Terri Schiavo’s interests, who read 30,000 pages of transcripts, spoke extensively to all the parties involved, and on at least 20 separate occasions observed the shell of Terri Schiavo in person.
Instead, they will continue to spead their bilous hatred by saying stuff like
If only Terry was a member of Al Queda then she wouldn’t starved to death.
and
If Terri was a DOG, they wouldn’t deliberately starve her.
and
Oh, well, I guess it’s time for this inconvenient little nuisance to die so her swell husband can get the remainder of the settlement money
and
Unless it is legislating from the bench, i.e., gay marriage, death penalty for junevilles, and abortion. In those cases, it’s OK for the federal judicial branch to usurp power from the state legislatures. When its the other way around, it’s cheap political grandstanding and gaming the system.
“There is no Terry anymore. Her brain is spinal fluid. EKG is a total flatline. She isnt being starved because there isnt any she to sense the lack of foor or water. This is NOT life vs death. Its death vs death.”
You can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts. And your facts are wrong.
Here’s more food for the fact-starved.
I will admit, that I was loaded with mis-information from the media, because I too, basically thought she was brain dead, but later I was re-informed with the fact that, she isn’t let alone, if she wasn’t denied the proper therapy from her husband, then I am pretty sure she would have certainly made more progress than she has.
and I agree, it’s pretty sick and twisted how they can just yank her feeding tube, yet a dog in the same situation would just be given an l.d.
Rob – using the verb “yank” is mis-information.
not knowing that is a figure of speech, is mis-information… jeez give me a break.
fine, but if you want to complain about the spread of mis-information, you should be more precise with your language. “figures of speech” are a common source of bias and bad info
Wrong. The system was gamed and the system stinks. The system either allowed someone to be “tortured for 15 years” or it has issued a death warrant for someone whose only crime was breathing. The system allows a non-blood relative of a short period of time to move on with their lives (common law wife with 2 kids) and torture the mother and father. I say the system was well gamed.
I am not even advocating a pro-life postion here. I favor the death penalty. I am pro-choice. I am talking the difference in the civil rights of a murderer, Al Queda member or a dog.
Our system would not allow the court to starve the above to death. Sounds like more “nuances” to me. I guess that woman with her parents committed some crime so heinous they did not deserve lawyers from the git go and they must be lower than a dog…..since the court and her loving husband decided it was “more humane” to just starve her to death.
A lot of things do not make sense in life, but this one is nuts. A convicted killer has a lawyer. A person married for a week has control of spouse over wishes of lifetime parents. A dog would not be starved but given an injection.
Makes me nuts. I better not ever hear of another lawyer (Ramsey Clark) given to a criminal, killer, or terrorist. I better not ever read another Abu Ghraib torture story. You just let me see another Peta person on TV fighting for the rights of a chicken…….grrrrrrrr.
I will give the politicians a pass on this one because of my above feelings about it. The system is “gamed” everyday. Just not by poor parents like these.
Good point. It doesn’t make Michael Schiavo any less of a scumbag. I don’t think anyone is arguing that point.
Trashing Michael Schiavo seems to be a recurrent theme. If he was such an a money gruber he could have accepted offers of millions of dollars to divorce his wife. If he wanted an uncomplicated life he could have walked away and given her over to her parents. If he didn’t care about his wife he wouldn’t have spent the first couple of years and all time the time afterwards looking out for her interest (not her parents inability to deal with reality).
Therapy was tried including a flight to California to try experimental treatment. After awhile, with advice from multiple Doctors and people appointed with no axe to grind, he bowed to reality. She is gone.
There is no money. How do you think the care she has been getting over the last 15 years has been paid for?
Her parents and family are not the only people with morals.
The Schiavos should fire their lawyer. I don’t think he made very good arguments. Where’s Alan Dershowitz when we need him?
Marty…those “cash offers” were BS. Do you really think anybody would have actually paid them off? They would have just yelled “AHA, you ARE a scumbag!” when he reached for the check.
I rant and rave but the person that has nailed it is Thomas Sowell ‘Cruel and Unusual’ over at townhall.com. He makes the absolute most sense of this mess. Read this one Jeff.
You can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts. And your facts are wrong.
truly pathetic.
Impartial courts, and the impartial Guardian ad Litem appointed by Jeb Bush, make it clear that the sites that you are referencing are full of lies and disinformation.
Unless and until you read the opinions of ALL of the judges (or at least read the GAL’s report), and then come up with something that disputes the findings of these impartial advocates acting on Terri’s Schiavo’s behalf, you cannot be considered credible.
**************
Scott Ferguson is a perfect example of “gaming the system.” The objective facts as established by every independent/impartial source don’t matter, only the “spin” that can be placed on selective facts are of any consequence.
For instance, the nutrition and hydration that the shell of Terri Schiavo receives through a tube are consider “life support” under the law, and “traditionally” (i.e. throughout almost the entire history of mankind) such measures have been impossible.
Artificial respiration has been around for over 75 years (the Iron Lung was invented in 1927), which makes it just as (if not more) “traditional” a means of life support than the “feeding tubes” that are keeping the shell of Terri Schiavo alive.
But according to the site cited by Scott, artificial means of hydration and nutrition are “traditional” in a manner that is separate and distinct from other forms of “life support.”
Yet the Scott Ferguson’s of the world are relying upon sites like this for their opinions. The system has been gamed, because the deliberate ignorance of so many people make it possible to game the system.
This is all pretty comical.
Everyone UP IN ARMS about a single, clear cut case which has been reviewed and examined for 15 years (that is happening hundreds of times a week in anonymous places around the country).
Everyone with solid, dearly held opinions based on snips of gossip or 5 seconds of videotape on Fox news.
Everyone switching closely held idelogical positions based on their current interests (Federal vs state, Judges enforcing the law vs taking an activist position, etc).
If we cannot clearly see this as a political sideshow to distract the public from important issues, we deserve the society that we get.
I keep hearing this argument that Terry Shiavo didn’t have a lawyer. She had no representation.
If she had a lawyer, how would that lawyer be directed? She is obviously not going to direct him(her). Who directs the lawyer? The parents? Michael Shiavo?
Who decides what position the lawyer takes?
The court decided that she expressed a wish not to live in the condition she is on now. This was done with testimony by the parents, her husband and other witnesses.
Like it or not, it was ascertained that those were her wishes. If this lawyer was appointed, how do you determine what position they would take?
If we cannot clearly see this as a political sideshow to distract the public from important issues, we deserve the society that we get.
Indeed.
Will Congress work to end the starvation of billions of people who suffer from hunger and malnuturion world-wide?
From The Hunger Site:
It is estimated that one billion people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition.
About 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes.
Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five.
Thanks Tony.
I have been thinking about that very issue that last few days.
Wouldn’t it be amazing if those people who are so enraged at Terri being starved/dehydrated, would focus even 1/10 of their energies on the 24000 healty, cognitive people who die every from the very same thing. Except these people won’t have morphine to ease the pain, or nurses to moisten their mouth and lips.
Priorities I guess.
The system was gamed. The system is being gamed.
I suppose it’s reasonable to think that the extraordinary law Congress just passed to give Ms. Schiavo’s parents standing in federal court is an example of gaming the system.
But it’s just as reasonable to think that the system being gamed had broken down and spun out of control. I’m not saying the Florida court system is broken; I’m just saying it’s reasonable to read Ms. Schiavo’s case history and come to that conclusion.
Jeff, you pointed us yesterday to an ABC poll, and today you express satisfaction that the courts aren’t being gamed. But it seems you have little to say on the merits of the case itself. What say you, good sir?
Jos,
You think this is a clear-cut case? I think this is a very ambiguous case with epic clashes of principles and interests.
Marty,
Florida state law requires that any evidence of Ms. Schiavo’s intent meet the civil law standard of “clear and convincing”. Florida law further requires that absent any clear and convincing evidence of her preferences, Ms. Schiavo’s guardian or surrogate must continue to provide life support.
If the trial judge made an error in weighing the hearsay testimony, then under Florida statutes Ms. Schiavo’s right to life support has been unlawfully terminated. A good lawyer could easily make the case for that.
If the trial judge made an error in weighing the hearsay testimony, then under Florida statutes Ms. Schiavo’s right to life support has been unlawfully terminated. A good lawyer could easily make the case for that.
Yes, and the Florida Supreme Court ruled on that, right?. Unless the law they based their decision on violates the US Constitution, the case is closed. That’s how our judicial system is supposed to work.
Paul L: You forgot to take your meds this morning, didn’t you? ;^)
Yes, and the Florida Supreme Court ruled on that, right?.
actually, I think it was a Florida appeals court that did what was, in essence, a de novo review of the facts in the case. But your point remains the same.
Additionally, the Guardian al Litem appointed by Jeb Bush to represent the interests of Terri Schiavo concluded that the requirements of Florida law had been met.
And, of course, Greer allowed five experts to examine Terri, two selected by the Schindlers, two selected by Michael Schiavo, and one appointed by the court itself. All of them agreed that Terri Schindler was in PVS. The independent expert and those selected by Schiavo were all neurologists, and all reached the same conclusions backed with voluminous scientific evidence that there was literally no hope for her. Only one of the Schindler’s experts was a neurologist, and although they opinioned that Terri could be helped, they provided no credible evidence to support their claims.
Again I repeat:
Brain cavity filled with spinal fluid — a few grams of grey matter floating around in a sea of useless liquid. Cerebral cortex GONE.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/18/terri-schiavo-news/
Four-year-old footage of involuntary movements by a woman who 19 courts have ruled is in a persistent vegetative state is pretty damned convincing to me.
The only ones gaming the system are the hack politicians (including the president), who are scandalously using this poor woman to “excite the base.”
Amazing how the Republi-Fundementalist Christian fanatics who rail against activist judges all the sudden are hoping for precisely such an intervention. Is there no end to these people hypocrisy?
Of course, theyíre completely untroubled by the 100,000 plus dead Iraqi civilians in Iraq, are rabid for the death penalty, even for minors and the retarded, but to them keeping a person’s heart beating who is clearly brain dead is an issue. This makes no sense, which makes me doubt their sincerity.
One thing I don’t doubt, these people are wackos, big time, and they’re definitely capable of doing something crazy.
My take on all of this as of yesterday:
That Sad Entity in Florida”
#
Come on, the woman is a vegetable, she’s brain dead. It’s all a huge waste of time. Let’s drop the subject and move on to something meaningful.
Oh, I get it, this isn’t about brain dead Terri after all, it’s about a political issue and she’s just a prop. Okay, now it makes sense.
Come to think of it, I agree with James (above). These fundamentalists are despicable and disgrace the good name of Jesus Christ. They should have their feeding tubes removed, too.
Michael Zimmer,
You are correct. Judge Greer’s finding of fact regarding Ms. Schiavo’s intent was upheld on appeal.
Two points, though:
State courts of appeal always give great deference to a trial court’s finding of fact. The appeals court’s concurrence with the trial court’s determination of intent does not prove that Judge Greer was correct. It only means that the appellate judge did not find Judge Greer to be wildly out of bounds.
Secondly, it is a valid point to cite the opinions of appellate judges. But if you examine the trial testimony given by the friends and family of Ms. Schiavo, I think you might reach a different conclusion. Judge Greer’s divination of Ms. Schiavo intent was highly speculative, and not based on clear and convincing evidence.
Reidblog,
Ms. Schiavo is the victim of Orwellian semantics. Until recently, persistent vegetative state used to have a sharply restricted meaning: no involuntary movements, communication, or interaction whatsoever. Now the term has been redefined to include people like Ms. Schiavo, who display all manner of non-brain-dead behavior. The old medical term (the proper term?) for Ms. Schiavo is “minimally conscious”.
If you are scandalized by a politician energizing his base over a moral issue, but not by the euthanasia of a minimally conscious person over the desperate objections of her parents and family, I think you have odd sensibilities.
James,
I’m an atheist, and I’m not rabid for the death penalty (I’m not rabid against it, though). But I do approve of and support the War in Iraq, so I guess that means I’m still a pretty scary character. Boo!!
I would just ask that everyone who has not done so already please read the actual report of the Guardian ad Litem, who reviewed the nearly 30,000 documents in this case and spent many hours with Terri at the behest of Gov. Jeb Bush and Terri’s Law to act in her best interests and report back to the Governor and the court with recommendations. It doesn’t contain too much legalese, and gives a very thorough summary of the history of this long and involved case. There is probably no better source to use to separate the facts from the fiction floating around the internet on this case
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf
And FWIW, I am a lawyer who previously practiced in front of Judge Whittemore (who made the ruling last night), and found him to be probably the best legal mind on the bench in Hillsborough County back before he got promoted to the federal seat. And this is coming from a civil defense lawyer.
His opinion can be found here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoDenyTRO.pdf
Oops, I meant to say “voluntary” instead of “involuntary” above.
Please don’t stop feeding me!
” Impartial courts, and the impartial Guardian ad Litem appointed by Jeb Bush, make it clear that the sites that you are referencing are full of lies and disinformation.”
Judge Greer is on the board of the hospice where Michael put Terri. And gave no good reason for removing her from the facility where she was getting better care and rehab. No one is supposed to be in a hospice for more than 6 mos – it’s where people go to die. She has been there for years, doing nothing.
One of the GALs appointed disagreed with Judge Greer, and he ignored that one. He only listened to the evidence he liked and dismissed the rest.
“Brain cavity filled with spinal fluid — a few grams of grey matter floating around in a sea of useless liquid. Cerebral cortex GONE.”
Nope.
(That’s from an experienced radiologist who looks at CAT scans for a living. Go ahead and tell him he’s wrong.)
Matthew Googins:
I read your posts saying that this woman is not brain dead. And I read your most recent admission that youíre an atheist, against capital punishment and for the Iraq War. Frankly, you’re not scary — youíre just full of shit, that’s all.
Why don’t you STOP LYING?
Those contradictions have always confused me too, James, and it’s scary to see this poor woman’s tragedy usurped by the likes of Randall Terry. Unfortunately, the judge’s contact information has already hit the Free Republic… Let’s just hope cooler heads prevail.
What I’d like to see is a little moral consistency on the right. For those who consider yourselves conservative, a few questions:
Do you respect the rule of law or not? Uphold the idea of state’s rights or not? Do you believe in the Constitutional separation of powers, which constrains the Congress and the president from overriding the judiciary? Do you believe in individual liberty, or not? Hate government interference in your life or not? Do you or don’t you respect the bonds of marriage, which give a husband legal and, yes, Biblical precedence over parents when making decisions for his spouse?
If you answered “I do” to all of the above, then you should be for getting the federal government out of this case and letting the husband make the decision. I recognize the situation is uncomfortable and tragic, and you can even believe that Michael Schiavo is a jerk, but please be intellectually honest; be consistent.
“Why don’t you STOP LYING?”
Well that’s a non-sequitor. . .
Mr. Goggins — “Orwellian semantics” is calling a woman with no cerebral cortex “minimally conscious.” She’s minimally conscious in the sense that my telephone is — it makes sounds, doesn’t it? It lights up… it even talks!
Yehudit — The only “experts” who disagree with the findings of 19 courts and a boatload of experts that Ms. Schiavo has NO MEANINGFUL BRAIN ACTIVITY are hacks hired by the parents to try out their quack therapies so they can vie for a Nobel. None of the “experts” shilling on TV, and certainly none of the politicians, Dr. Frist included, have examined Terri. Most have only viewed the FOUR YEAR OLD VIDEO that’s all over TV. Bottom line: you can’t fake a brain scan, sir. Spinal fluid is spinal fluid. Substitute it for grey matter and it makes it hard to be anything other than — um — in a persistent vegetative state.
The courts have ruled. This case is adjourned.
“I recognize the situation is uncomfortable and tragic, and you can even believe that Michael Schiavo is a jerk, but please be intellectually honest; be consistent.”
First of all, lots of liberals also think the case stinks. Your litmus test wouldn’t apply to us.
Secondly, your litmus test reflects your simplistic stereotypes more than the complicated belief systems of real people.
Third, in this country the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the weak. In cases of abuse or neglect the state can step in, and the vast majority of the people on Terri’s side would not object to that. You seem to think they are all militia mountain men polygamists living in the woods of Idaho or something.
Yehudit:
What’s your point?
I know your mission; you’re on this blog every day, supporting anything that the right-wing wackos say. But, you (like many here) have yet to have an original thought.
You, sir, should get a life.
ReidBlog, you are wrong. You are misrepresenting a number of the experts who have been cited, including the radiologist I linked to, who you clearly didn’t read. You can keep repeating that hogwash till you are blue in the face, but it isn’t true.
Obviously this case scares you so much that you need to stick your fingers in your ears and go “la la la I can’t hear you.” And so did the judge. But you are wrong.
Yep, Yehudit, I’m wrong, along with 19 state and federal judges, Scalia and the rest of the Supreme Court, 5 court-appointed physicians, and the Guardian Ad-Litem appointed by right-wing Christian fundamentalist governor Jeb Bush. If your solo radiologist is so convincing, why has this testimony NEVER made an iota of difference in this case? And the only thing that “scares me” about this case is the thought that the federal government and the president have assumed superjudicial powers to intervene in even the most personal of decisions. I guess I’m the conservative here — I want the frigging government and hack politicians like Tom Delay to stay OUT OF my life. (Okay, fundamentalist whackos like Randall Terry and his followers scare me, too, and if I were that judge, I’d hire private security.)
“What’s your point?”
Making sure that someone who is vulnerable has due process. Making sure that even those who aren’t physically perfect are treated is if they have value.
“I know your mission; you’re on this blog every day, supporting anything that the right-wing wackos say. But, you (like many here) have yet to have an original thought.”
Unlike you? I don’t see many original thoughts in these comments from anyone, so why pick on me?
“You, sir, should get a life.”
I’m a girl.
Also, another group which cares about this case, who you certainly smear as right-wing wackos – are the disability rights activists.
More:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1550037
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/smith200401190806.asp
I don’t think Ms. Schiavo is brain dead. But I could be wrong.
Yet assuming she is brain dead, it’s not a circus or a farce for the Congress and other third parties to want to establish that fact using tougher standards of evidence than those established by Judge Greer.
And I don’t think Judge Greer was correct to rely so heavily on the testimony of Ms. Schiavo’s husband. I’d like to see a federal court examine that part of the story too.
Is that unfair to Ms. Shiavo’s husband? I don’t know, but it’s certainly not unfair to Ms. Sciavo herself, and that is the overriding consideration.
“the only thing that “scares me” about this case is the thought that the federal government and the president have assumed superjudicial powers to intervene in even the most personal of decisions.”
The government has always had the right to intervene in cases of abuse or neglect or wrongful conviction. Some parents think the government is intrusive if it takes your child away for locking it in a closet and feeding it scraps. Some husbands think the government is intrusive for issuing a restraining order after the abused wife leaves.
Why did the President and Congress even get involved with this issue? They are not paid to provide “moral” judgement to the masses. Hell, if they spent even half as much of the effort they put out for this on the social security and budget issues, we would be golden. What a waste of tax payer money. Ranks right up there with congressional hearings on steroid use in baseball. I’m guessing by their involvement they have nothing more pressing on their collective plates. Right!! Fire them all.
“. . . the kind of testimony Michael Schiavo gave would not be sufficient (or even admissible) to affect the disposition of Terri’s property — but it is sufficient to end her life. Not just intestacy laws offer more protection for property than for Terri. As “mildly pro-right-to-die” blogger Ace of Spades noted, “You need a written contract for any lease of land that lasts more than one year; it seems very odd to me indeed that the taking of a human life requires only one hearsay statement from one interested party.” . . . This possibility of a judicially approved execution of an innocent motivates many activists to seek the end of the death penalty. Even a prisoner on death row cannot waive his opposition to his own execution this easily. At the very least such a decision must be informed, and formalized. Even then, civil rights groups will often continue a condemned murderer’s appeal long after he has withdrawn from the process. Call me a bible-thumper, but the possibility of executing an innocent unwilling victim by court order deserves similar safeguards.”
Republican concern for life is highly selective. Consider the case of Sam Hudson. A six-month-old who was born with a fatal form of dwarfism. A Houston hospital removed his breathing tube last Tuesday–against the wishes of his mother. The hospital was following SOP. As the Houston Chronicle reported:
“Texas law allows hospitals to discontinue life-sustaining care, even if a patient’s family members disagree. A doctor’s recommendation must be approved by a hospital’s ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient. Texas Children’s [Hospital] said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but none would accept Sun.”
Here’s the question. Where was Tom DeLay? This happened literally in his backyard. Why did he not rush in? Why did he not have Congress pass a law to block the hospital?
In this case, the issues might be even favorable for his side. After all, the person who was undeniably the guardian with the power to speak for the patient had opposed the life-ending action. But this African-American baby–who had not become a cause celebre for the religious right base of the Republican Party–did not receive the attention of DeLay, Bill Frist and comrades in their so-called “culture of life.”
What’s the explanation? Anyone care to make a guess?
George W. Bush proclaimed yesterday that if any errors are to be made in a case like Schiavo’s, these mistakes ought to occur on the side of life.
Yet in 1999, Bush signed into law, as governor of Texas, a bill that would allow a guardian or a doctor to deny life-sustaining care to a patient who had not left behind written instructions.
Here’s what that law, the Texas Advance Directives Act, says:
166.039. (a) If an adult qualified patient has not executed or issued a directive and is incompetent or otherwise mentally or physically incapable of communication, the attending physician and the patient’s legal guardian or an agent under a medical power of attorney may make a treatment decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the patient.
(b) If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one person, if available, from one of the following categories, in the following priority, may make a treatment decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment:
(1) the patient’s spouse;
(2) the patient’s reasonably available adult children;
(3) the patient’s parents; or
(4) the patient’s nearest living relative.
So, a question, Mr. Bush: When did you have a conversion?
Three cheers for protecting liberty.
Polls consistently show that the vast majority of Americans stand by the wishes of the Schiavos. Intuitively, American are supporting the best and noblest principles of liberty as John Stuart Mill summarized 150 years ago:
All that makes existence valuable to any one depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other peopleÖThe reason for not interfering, unless for the sake of others, with a personís voluntary acts, is consideration for his liberty.
As for Bush, Frist, and Delay, what principles can they claim to have upheld?
Certainly not the claim of ìerring on the side of life.î Governor Bush, after all, signed the 1999 Texas Futile Care Law, which only last week was used by a Texas hospital as the basis to stop treatment for a terminally ill six-month old over his motherís objections. As for Delay, he had been silent on this case for the past 15 years; that is, until his looming ethical implosion threatened his downfall.
Certainly not the principle of federalism. Over 15 years, 19 judges at the state and federal level followed Florida law, ensuring that her due process rights under the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution have been more than completely fulfilled. The U.S. Supreme Court rightly chose not to even hear the case. Apparently, ìstates rightsî, like ìjudicial activismî, is a term of art conservatives use only when they lose.
And apparently not the Hippocratic Oath. The cynicism of Doctor Frist is the most naked of all. It is sadly ironic that Mr. Tort Reform himself would commit the Congressional equivalent of witness malpractice. Lacking expertise as a neurologist and having never examined the patient, Frist weighed in nonetheless, concluding that Schiavo is not in a “persistent vegetative state” after “an hour or so” of viewing video footage.
One document is all you need to read to know what you need to know about the Terri Schiavo case. This document just so happens to undercut the arguments of Tom DeLay, Bill First and the other Republican politicians seeking to exploit this sad story.
The document is the December 2003 report written by Dr. Jay Wolfson. He’s a doctor and a lawyer who was appointed as a guardian for Schiavo in October 2003 by none other than Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
Some key portions:
* [The Guardian concludes] that all of the appropriate and proper elements of the law have been followed and met. The law has done its job well. The courts [which supported the decision to suspend feeding] have carefully and diligently adhered to the prescribed civil processes and evidentiary guidelines, and have painfully and diligently applied the required tests in a reasonable, conscientious and professional manner.
* Highly competent, scientifically based physicians using recognized measures and standards have deduced, within a high degree of medical certainty, that Theresa is in a persistent vegetative state. This evidence is compelling.
* Theresa’s neurological tests and CT scans indicate objective measures of the persistent vegetative state.
* Individuals have come forward indicating that there are therapies and treatments and interventions that can literally re-grow Theresa’s functional, cerebral cortex brain tissue [which has shrunken], restoring part of all of her functions. There is no scientifically valid, medically recognized evidence that this has been done or is possible, even in rats, according to the president of the American Society for Neuro-Transplantation.
* [The Guardian] concludes from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information within the file concerning Theresa Schiavo consists of competent well-document information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement.
Wolfson describes the history of the case, noting that her husband Michael did try for years to find therapies and treatments for Schiavo before concluding there were no possibilities. He also notes that the evidence presented by two neurologists chosen by Michael Schiavo and a neurologist picked by the Florida court in charge of the case was “clear and convincing in support of Theresa being in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of improvement.” The evidence presented by physicians chosen by Schiavo’s parents, according to Wolfson, “was substantially anecdotal, and was reasonably deemed to be not clear and convincing.”
In this report Wolfson also notes he spent much time with Schiavo and “was not able to independently determine that there were consistent, repetitive, intentional, reproducible interactive and aware activities.”
Remember, Wolfson was selected by Jeb Bush to review the case. Now, who’s more credible: Wolfson or Tom DeLay and his comrades in exploitation?
“Yet in 1999, Bush signed into law, as governor of Texas, a bill that would allow a guardian or a doctor to deny life-sustaining care to a patient who had not left behind written instructions.”
This charge was debunked. A law was proposed that was much more restrictive, and Bush as governor helped create a compromise bill that was the best that could be done with that legislature. That’s the one he signed.
Wow! Looks like the Republi-Fundamentalists Christian fanatics just go their ass kicked. (See 4 preceding posts.)
They deserved it — for being lying, hypocritical, despicable political hacks who are willing to stoop to any depth for political gain.
Yehudit, no offense, but you are confused on so many levels I don’t know where to begin.
“The government has always had the right to intervene in cases of abuse or neglect or wrongful conviction. Some parents think the government is intrusive if it takes your child away for locking it in a closet and feeding it scraps. Some husbands think the government is intrusive for issuing a restraining order after the abused wife leaves.”
Yes — STATE and LOCAL governments and courts often intervene in individual cases, but NOT the federal government. Congress and the president have NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to override state authorities and courts. Read the Constitution, believe me, it’s in there…
Yahoo-dit:
That was pathetic. Can’t you guys cop to anything?
“That was pathetic. Can’t you guys cop to anything?”
I see the trolls are out.
And Yehudit, as for your radiologist’s blog, he has taken it upon himself to reinterpret Terri Schiavo’s 1996 CT scan, substituting his own diagnosis that there’s no reason to believe her cerebral cortex would continue to deteriorate over time, questioning whether that’s spinal fluid at all, and even making the stunning accusation that maybe it’s not even Terri’s CT… Truly confidence-inspiring to see a member of the blogoshpere REINTERPRET 15 YEARS OF DIRECT DIAGNOSES WITHOUT EVER SETTING FOOT IN THE VICINITY OF THE PATIENT, but allow me to hit you with a couple of definitions:
A radiologist is a physician who specializes in the use of radiation energy for diagnostic and treatment purposes.
A neurologist is a doctor specializing in diseases of the nervous system and brain.
Many, many of the latter have actually examined Terri Schiavo and say she’s PVS and that her cerebral cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid. Nothing you’ve posted changes my mind.
“That’s from an experienced radiologist who looks at CAT scans for a living. Go ahead and tell him he’s wrong.”
Ok: he’s wrong. I’ve already exaplined in a previous thread. This man is a right-wing blogger who is seeing what he wants to see (for goodness sakes, he claims on the basis of a SINGLE CT that he has discovered amazingly obvious evidence of attempted murder that every single court, doctor, and investigator on the case somehow missed). His analysis is highly evasive and misleading. He really knows of no mechanism that can cause the continued deterioration of brain tissue? He is really claiming that the 1996 scan was the ONLY scan ever done, and thus there can be no statements made about deterioration? Doctors I’ve talked to are highly skeptical about his claim to have seen “much worse” than Schiavo’s CT in lucid patients, primarily because it’s hard to get much worse than a few wisps of cortical matter, and most have seen catanoic patients with a much better brain pathology.
Off Topic:
You know what I like about Buzzmachine? Because the host is something of a moderate, taking some positions on the left and some on the right, the comments are truly diverse. There are large numbers of folks from all sides of the issues. It makes for some compelling discussion.
I see the trolls are out.
Yehudit, are you under the impression that you have some say over who comes to this site and reads these comments, or who posts in them?
Whoa
As I read the liberals above try to rationalize the killing of Terri Schiavo it is abundantly clear why they are losing in every facet of American life. Anyone, and this includes you, Jeff, who thinks the judge made this ruling based on law is deluded. Judges long ago quit making decisions on what the Constitution says. They now make it based on what they think it ought to say. The simple fact, and this will come home to roost for liberals and leftists, is that they are rooting for this woman’s death while conservatives are trying to save her life. The American public knows this and there will be consequences at the polls. Mark my words.
RIVLAX:
When you say “trying to save her life,” you must mean keep the entity’s heart beating — because TS died fifteen years ago, and there is nothing left of TS that could remotely be traced to her former self that made her (then) uniquely human. There is no relationship between what she is now (a biological entity) and what any of us understand to be human life.
Sheís a vegetable. Pull the tube. Next subject.
BTW, anybody think the Red Sox have a shot this year.
Okay, I don’t understand. Governor Dubya signed a law that says if a doctor/hospital believes that a person like Terri Schiavo has no chance of life, like little Sun Hudson, then the hospital can tell the parents that it’s going to pull the plug within ten days, despite what the parents desire, if no facility can be found to take the patient. Among the factors that are used in making the decision is the ability to pay hospital costs.
Now, I live in Texas. I live in Houston where this incident just happened. Dubya signed the bill. The hospital pulled the plug, the baby died.
Now, please, someone, tell me how in the hell this has been debunked. I’m mean something other than little Scotty McClellan saying that it’s been debunked.
Riv-wak (job):
“…it is abundantly clear why [liberals] are losing in every facet of American life.”
Well, not EVERY facet.
We liberals tend to make more money than you Neo-Republi-Fundementalist Fanatics.
In that respect, I’m doing my part ($750K in ’05 so far). And I plan to continue doing my civic duty by supporting financially, among other things, gay marriage, abortion rights, free speech (anti-war protests), privacy rights (pornography), civil rights (roll back PATRIOT Act), and the environment.
One thing good about the Bush administration: a lot is for sale. If we can’t win it, weíll just buy it.
has anyone else noticed the contrast between those who support the position of the courts and all of the competent experts who have examined the shell of Schiavo, and those that want to maintain that shell until the end of time…and beyond?
Here is a hint…. no one who supports Michael Schiavo’s position is making scurrilous accusations about the Schindlers. They are being treated with consistent respect, compassion and understanding — they aren’t being characterized as insane, or greedy, or as bad/abusive parents (although this is as much “evidence” of these things as there is to make the accusations against Michael Schiavo.)
That is the difference between the left and the right — the left can empathize with the Schindlers, and still disagree with their actions based on the facts. The right can only demonize those who oppose them, and there appears to be a direct correlation between the vehemence of the demonization, and the lack of factual support for their position.
paul,
The right can only demonize those who oppose them, and there appears to be a direct correlation between the vehemence of the demonization, and the lack of factual support for their position.
From the comment left by James immediately before yours:
We liberals tend to make more money than you Neo-Republi-Fundementalist Fanatics.
p.lukasiak:
Great point. The behavior is much like that of Nazi treatment of opposing views in the mid-’30s.
Hubris:
Sorry, but we do. I only wrote that in response to rivlax saying that liberals are losing at everything in America. I just wanted to point one exception.
james,
I am not offended by statistics. I just thought that it was funny that paul tried to claim one side of the political divide uses demonization techniques when people of all beliefs are using them constantly (e.g. using descriptive terms such as “Neo-Republi-Fundementalist Fanatics”).
One man’s demonization is another man’s accurate name-calling, it always seems, depending on one’s perspective.
Hubris:
I think Paulís point was that the asymmetry of the rhetoric. The Right’s rhetoric condemned Michael Schiavo, but the Left did not condemn Terri Schiavo’s parents.
And a fair point it was, donít you agree?
james,
First, I wouldn’t want to generalize. I know some people who have said the Schiavo parents are crazy and demonize supporters of the parents as crazed knuckle-dragging fundamentalists, but unlike Paul, I wouldn’t want to generalize that into an overall statement regarding “the Left.”
You will also note that paul then led into the much broader statement that isn’t limited to this case at all (“The right can only demonize those who oppose them”), which I found funny considering the number of times I’ve been called a “brownshirt” simply for not adhering to the prevailing orthodoxy of a thread at, for example, Kevin Drum’s site.
I’m not employing tu quoque to pardon any demonization, rather, I’m saying two wrongs make two wrongs and we shouldn’t pretend it’s one-sided when it is anything but.
Yahoo-dit:
“I’m a girl.”
No you’re not, you just think you are.
In my post above I said:
ìOne thing I don’t doubt, these people are wackos, big time, and they’re definitely capable of doing something crazy.î
by james at March 22, 2005 12:09 PM)
Well, here it is:
“Pinellas Park, Fla., police and Pinellas County Sheriff’s deputies arrest Lana Jacobs, center, of Columbia, Mo., after she attempted to bring Terri Schiavo water Tuesday afternoon March 22, 2005 at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Fla. A federal judge earlier in the day refused to have Terri’s feeding tube reinstalled. (AP 1 hour, 38 minutes ago; Photo/Steve Nesius)”
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=Lana+Jacobs&ei=UTF-8&c=news_photos
See, I told you — they’re fanactics.
In my post above I said:
ìOne thing I don’t doubt, these people are wackos, big time, and they’re definitely capable of doing something crazy.î
by james at March 22, 2005 12:09 PM)
Well, here it is:
“Pinellas Park, Fla., police and Pinellas County Sheriff’s deputies arrest Lana Jacobs, center, of Columbia, Mo., after she attempted to bring Terri Schiavo water Tuesday afternoon March 22, 2005 at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Fla. A federal judge earlier in the day refused to have Terri’s feeding tube reinstalled. (AP 1 hour, 38 minutes ago; Photo/Steve Nesius)”
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=Lana+Jacobs&ei=UTF-8&c=news_photos
See, I told you — they’re fanatics.
We really need to stop this left/right stuff. Both sides have there reasonable individuals and theirs wackos.
Not everyone falls so neatly into those two columns.
For this particular topic, I find my self agreeing more with the supposed “left”.
If we were talking about Iraq, I would fall in with the “right”.
As p.lukasiak observed, and as I have observed, most of the supporters of the Shindlers have been vitriolic and have leveled some of the most disgusting, unsubstantiated attacks I have ever seen. Often coming some of the very same people whose opinions I have often respected and agreed with. I find it absolutely disgusting and have no respect for those continuing to pass off these gross lies.
I have also witnessed, on much less a scale, nasty and mean-spirited comments coming from those who support Schiavo. Unnecessarily hurtful and deliberately done to provoke anger.
Reading the Guardian ad Litem report is an absolute must ñ all 38 pages please- if you are to have any understanding of the facts involved in this case. If you havenít read it in full, then chances are you donít know what the hell you are talking about.
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf
Hey james,
Don’t forget me. I’m a very worthy cause; one of the po little peeps, barely making my way.
Eileen and Hubris,
you can’t talk to james or reason with him. I mean he has made $750k this year so far!!!! He is the sole arbiter of all that is right! What he says goes, he has made $750k so far this year. Don’t bother arguing with him, he is never wrong, he has already made $750k this year! Only his opinion matters, he has made $750k this year!
What a cool guy you are james, coming on a blog comment board and talking about your money like it makes you more important. loser.
LOL
What is probably even more ‘tragic’ is that I was, in fact, being Serious!! :)
Please, james, since you’re so dialed in, please help keep me alliivvee…
Not a peep back to the little peeps. Ahem. Now There’s a fine howdyado example of Liberal love in action. Wonder how he makes all that money? Hey, I’d even be willing to Count it for you, for a reasonable fee of course.
And then there’s this choice bit:
“Yahoo-dit:
“I’m a girl.”
No you’re not, you just think you are.”
Hello there? I’m listening carefully as james describes wackos in FLA… Better keep your mon, hon. Or spend a little on a living will?
Eileen:
“Don’t forget me. I’m a very worthy cause; one of the po little peeps, barely making my way.”
Pleeeease, I’m trying to forget you. But, since you mentioned it, you do seem to exhibit some commonly associated traits: ignorant, bitter, cruel, probably unattractive, inartistic, and boring — among other things.
God, I never knew bringing water to the thirsty was a crime. But I guess if it’s murder you want, you can’t give her water.
Mike:
Money doesn’t make anyone an authority on anything; it just makes life more comfortable, that’s all.
I only wrote my remarks in response to “rivlax” saying that liberals are losing at everything in America. I just wanted to point one minor exception — and, of course, I may have taken the opportunity to explain what I’ll be doing with some of that money — leftist issue advocacy.
As for Eileen wondering what I do to make that kind of money, well, (hereís a shocker) I work for it, but not as a male prostitute like some prominent Republicans.
What get me about you neo-Republicans, who are mostly poor (average income = poor) is that your adored leaders pass laws to 1) outsource your jobs, 2) bring in Mexican ìguest workers” to keep remaining wages low, 3) take away your right to sue, 3) and prevent you from discharging your debts thru bankruptcy ñ and you peasants thank them like good Germans for that.
It doesnít bother me, Bush cut my taxes (my tax cut gives me real money, yours is meaningless), Iím sick of getting sued anyway, I love Mexicans (food and household help), and if I go bankrupt Iíll owe enough to make it thru the loopholes.
Hunh. Missed this in the GAL report:
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf
“It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life ñ something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating.”
Certainly puts a whole new light on the idea that they later claimed his infidelity bars him from being an appropriate guardian.
Kat:
“God, I never knew bringing water to the thirsty was a crime. But I guess if it’s murder you want, you can’t give her water.”
I know, it does seem a bit bizarre — but remember that she’s only an unthinking, unfeeling (physically and emotionally) biological entity, so I guess it really doesn’t matter.
James–You are an odious skippet of turbod flatulence who comes off as a reeling dumbfuck-at-large. If you have money, it’s a good thing. You certainly don’t have character.
Kat:
Isn’t it just like these fanatical activists to try something like that — they know they’re breaking the law. As I said above, I knew they would try something crazy.
I didn’t even know TS could take a drink by mouth — or can she? Wouldn’t have been ironic if this Neo-Republi-Fundementalist woman tried to give her water by mouth and TS drown on it?
“…an odious skippet of turbod flatulence who comes off as a reeling dumbfuck-at-large…”
What’s a “skippet”?
(Oh, and don’t you worry my little Kitty, I got the jing. And, you’re right, I do need it. It’s my only protection from fanatics like you. And, the only way the Left will ever get back into power.)
“Pleeeease, I’m trying to forget you.”
It’s too laaaaaate. See you in your every dream, sweet boy. I’ll be the one who’s ‘hauntingly’ beautiful.. You’ll be the one on life support, silently begging for my help and a drop of water for your cracked lips. Will I help you?
Eileen:
“Will I help you?”
I doubt it. But, so what, everybody has to die sometime.
The difference between TS and me, however, is I’m not (completely) braindead (yet), TS is. So while I do dream, get thirsty, and have the ability to discern beauty (and you ain’t it), TS doesn’t.
And, while I may ask for help (but I hope I wouldn’t), TS won’t, because she can’t, because she braindead and not there anymore. All that remains is a biological entity with a robust brainstem, but devoid of any human characteristic beyond physical appearance.
“Congress and the president have NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to override state authorities and courts. Read the Constitution, believe me, it’s in there…”
Well, whatever you do, don’t tell the Supreme Court. I think Brown v. Board of Education is pretty cool, hate to see it overturned.
Guess this is what we get for forgetting to teach history for a couple generations.
Just curious. Do you take naps, james?
No.
Eileen:
I am trying to figure you out. Your obviously not (completely) braindead (yet), but you don’t seem totally lucid either. I am wondering if your feeding tube should be removed.
I happy to report that I really don’t think so, yet.
“I am trying to figure you out.” You caaaaaaan’t. It’s too laaaaaate.
How about, aside from hiring me to count your money, you also pay me to edit your comments?
In this particular example, it should be: You’re, not your; brain-dead, not braindead; and, I’m happy, not I happy.
Then we can address your mouth and what comes out of it, your heart and brain… You po rich boys have some work to do. Maybe take a nice little nap and we’ll get crackin’, eh?
I mean he has made $750k this year so far!!!!
That might very well be true; if so, I question his judgment. If I had made that much this year, I would be snorting coke off a hooker’s ass rather than spending my time commenting on a blog as I’m doing now.
If we can’t win it, weíll just buy it.
Yeah, Soros flushed how many millions down the toliet to buy the ’04 election. Didn’t work too well. How many of Moveon.com’s and Daily Kos’ candidates. lavishly funded by limo libs like James, actually won?
Keep spending though, James. It’s what liberals do best, although it doesn’t seem to work too well when your candidates and ideas are crap. Oh, and keep telling Bush voters how much more money you have and how much smarter you are. That’s sure to win the little people over.
A fool and his money,…,
The difference between TS and me, however, is I’m not (completely) braindead (yet)
I’d argue that point.
Kat seems to be taking the Schiavo case personally.
I am content that the Judge ruled by the law and not by the mob (such as the congressional display) With that said, anyone catch Oberman last night. He had the story of a Texas infant that the state, against the will of the parents, pulled the respirator on. That child died in a couple hours. This was a couple months ago, the state acted in accordance with a statute signed into law by none other than GW Bush himself. I found that story not in the least surprising.
tb:
In the case of the baby, Sun Hudson, medical ethicists weighed the case of a terminally ill infant on a respirator, in possible pain with no hope of recovery, and decided to end respiration – that is well within the guidelines of medical ethics set by Catholics, Protestants, and Jews.
Were all of those criteria met in the Terri Schiavo case? Hell, were any of them (besides “no hope of recovery”) met?
I tried looking at this on the assumption that the parents are right. Their child is there, she can communicate, she can feel and understand. That means for 15 years, this woman has been trapped. Unable to communicate in anyway. Is it me, or does that strikes you as hell on earth. To me, assuming the parents are 100% right, they are committed to continuing their daughters hell. Using a previous analogy, we don’t even do that to dogs. The idea that they are right, its soooo much worse then anything else I can imagine.
Also, to me this is an issue of QUALITY of life. Just look at society, not only know but throughtout our history. Everything about society, from laws, to religion, to beliefs, morals, technology, medicine, name it, its all about maintaining and improving quality of life wether its with money, longer life, or just stuff. How does anything being done by the parents effect this quality of life?
I have also witnessed, on much less a scale, nasty and mean-spirited comments coming from those who support Schiavo. Unnecessarily hurtful and deliberately done to provoke anger.
Absolutely. I mean, I’m as guilty as anyone with regard to calling the people who support the Schindlers a bunch of ignorant idiots — because that is, in fact, what they are. They have not read the court decisions or the report of the Guardian ad Litem, and rely upon “advocacy” sites that are full of disinformation and distortion.
But my point was not about how the opposing groups characterized each other, but how they characterized the principals (the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo, and to a lesser extent, Judge Greer). “The left” understands how the Schindler can believe they are acting in the best interest of their daughter. It isn’t that we don’t think the Schindler are not crazy — we pretty much do think they are crazy. But we understand and empathize with them, because we recognize how difficult it would be for us to ‘let go’, and how easy it would be to fool ourselves into believing that our child was not gone.
“The right” on the other hand does not give Michael Schiavo the same kind of credit for being motivated by his wife’s best interests. Instead, they present him as greedy, malicious, and uncaring.
And I think that this reflects something about the character of the left and the right. The right assumes that those with whom it disagrees are evil, while the left sees those with whom it disagrees as misguided.
You can’t argue with evil, and that may be why the right’s arguments are so consistently ill formed and ill-informed. Facts and logic do not matter to the right, because evil is a force that is impervious to facts and logic. Indeed, in many ways facts and logic are “tools of the devil”, and are resisted by the right because they see “truth” not as a function of facts and logic, but is something which is “revealed”.
“evil is a force that is impervious to facts and logic”
You’re the expert on that one. How’s your non-blog coming along?
See you in your dreams, too, sweet boy.
I don’t know which is a good or wrong judgement.
Who knows the husband’s feeling…
I think he’s been suffered enough over 15 years.
Anyway now he can start afresh.
Everything know only God..
“The right assumes that those with whom it disagrees are evil, while the left sees those with whom it disagrees as misguided.”
Yeah, right. That’s why nobody on the left would ever resort to namecalling like Bush = Hitler. Visit DU or Daily Kos and you will see leftists coolly discussing the misguided Karl Rove and Condi Rice in the most measured tones.
“Wingnuts! Rethugs!! Rove is behind everything!! Condi is an Aunt Jemima! They want to put us all in concentration camps!”
Paul Lukasiak,
I disagree with you about Ms. Schiavo, but I don’t rely on advocacy sites – I don’t even go to or read advocacy sites.
I’ve gotten about 95% of my information from the Abstract Appeal website and from court documents.
Caling people who disagree with you “evil” may be emotionally satisfying to some degree, but if you don’t engage with the points and arguments of those who see things differently, your understanding will be incomplete and very likely flawed.
Oops, I see you were talking about the “right”, and we actually agree in theory that considering our interloquitors evil is generally a bad idea.
I was just assuming you were referring to yourself because you often belittle posters who don’t see eye to eye with you, and make assumptions about their intellectual capacities.
Sorry about that, but I’m glad I found some common ground with you.
Some interesting links on the case:
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=52328
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-03-22-schiavo-culture_x.htm
James said
We liberals tend to make more money than you Neo-Republi-Fundementalist Fanatics.
In that respect, I’m doing my part ($750K in ’05 so far). And I plan to continue doing my civic duty by supporting financially, among other things, gay marriage, abortion rights, free speech (anti-war protests), privacy rights (pornography), civil rights (roll back PATRIOT Act), and the environment.
One thing good about the Bush administration: a lot is for sale. If we can’t win it, weíll just buy it.
Using the blessing of money to support so much that is against His Word indeed helps to figure out:
Matthew 19:24. “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Money is a good thing. It’s our stewardship of it that counts.
Anyone who wants to write his/her own living will:
http://www.medicaldirective.org
Shape your own wishes. Also have heard of hospitals’ not accepting living wills unless some one who can express the patient’s wishes has medical power of attorney. And in NJ there was an incident of this sort, based on ‘extraordinary means’ being involved.
Maybe I missed this, but why doesn’t Michael just walk away and let Terry’s parents take care of her? That may not satisfy what he says are Terry’s wishes, but enough already! He basically has moved on with his life, so why is he REALLY fighting this to this extent?
Ruth,
Quite clearly you’re trying to assist people in ‘writing his/her living will’, which is laudatory. However, as the site you referenced itself states:
“Therefore, a properly executed Medical Directive – one that is signed and witnessed – should be binding in all states. It is important to note that laws vary by state. If you want to be extra sure, you should consult an attorney regrading the efficacy of a Medical Directive in your home state.”
Inasmuch as the law related to living wills Does vary from state to state, one needs the advice of an attorney to create something which will be enforceable. It’s not just a matter of being ‘extra sure’; it would be foolish to rely on this form At All without first consulting a lawyer.
I am so happy the courts are starting to stay out of a personal choice. Whenever the govt gets involved in anything things go from bad to worse. How can a gov and president spend so much time on this issue. We are getting millions of americans in body bags from Iraq, that is their gratitude for us being there. We have americans who cant afford health insurance. We have senior citzens who have choose medicine or food for a month. The gas prices are out of control. The president is taking work away from american people to make the rich , crooked , greedy coporate america happy. I could go on and on I think we are all aware of the mess we are in and Bush gives up a weekend to get involved in this??????????? Bush wake up!!!!!!
Maybe I missed this, but why doesn’t Michael just walk away and let Terry’s parents take care of her? That may not satisfy what he says are Terry’s wishes, but enough already! He basically has moved on with his life, so why is he REALLY fighting this to this extent?
I suspect that both Michael Schiavo and the Schindler’s are now engaged more in a war of will than in really acting on Terri Schiavo’s behalf.
One of the more interesting aspects of this case is the position take by the GAL appointed by Jeb Bush. Although it is clear thae he “sides with Michael” in terms of what Terri would have wished, he makes the point that she would not have wanted this issue to have obsessed and divided her family. To that end, he tried to negotiate an agreement in which Michael Schiavo would allow the Schindlers to run the tests they wanted in exchange for their acceptance of the outcome of those tests. (The day before his report was due, negotiations broke down.)
After the appeals court panel said no to Schiavo’s parents, and the full appeals court declined to hear the case, Schiavo’s parents announced they would appeal to the Supreme Court, even though Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected a request from them last week.
In the meantime, Jeb Bush called on the Florida legislature to find a way “to spare Terri’s life.” But why not send in the National Guard if this is a matter of principle?
It is hard not to view the Republican response to the Schiavo tragedy as a crass effort to score points with the party’s religious-right base.
This is pathetic. Having children get arrested? The Fundimentalist Christain fanatics could be counted on to do something crazy.
“Gabriel Keys (foreground) is arrested by police officers for trespassing in Pinellas Park, Florida, March 23, 2005. The young protester attempted to take a glass of water into the Woodside Hospice for the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo. A federal judge rejected a request from the parents of Schiavo to order her feeding tube reinserted, dealing a blow to attempts by the U.S. Congress and the White House to prolong her life. REUTERS/Carlos Barria”
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg
We are getting millions of americans in body bags from Iraq, that is their gratitude for us being there.
Millions? Ah, yes, the cool, measured “facts and logic” of the Left.
The Fundimentalist Christain fanatics could be counted on to do something crazy.
Yeah, trying to bring a dying woman a glass of water is really crazy and evil beyond belief. Civil disobedience is only O.K., I suppose, if you chain yourself to an endangered redwood or something.
Oh, and the first person arrested trying to bring Terri water was a 69 year old Holocaust survivor. Another protester is a wheelchair-bound woman who describes herself as a liberal lesbian and said the Christian wingnuts would do more to protect her life than the ACLU.
And I’m a lapsed Catholic who seldom darkens the door of a church. So not all of us are “Christian fanatics,” although I can see why it would comfort you to think so.
Lynn, a bit OT…, so if one is against sharing the money you earn here on earth (for instance against paying more taxes if you earn more money, or being against universal healthcare), which is compared to eternity a rather short time, do you think that’s a sign of greed? Do you think such a person will end up in heaven? Or is the needle really huge?
Dianne, ever thought that the reason he’s still fighting is because he wants want his wife wanted?
Donna V, it’s crazy to bring a dying woman a glass of water when the woman can’t swallow. I thought the people bringing her water was against killing her.
Eileen:
The living will does not require a lawyer, and for anyone who cannot afford one, drafting and signing a Directive to Physicians can be a solid expression of one’s will. Any site connected with the law will naturally recommend you seek a lawyer. In this case, though, the form requires neither a lawyer’s nor a notary’s signature. And the attorneys I have worked with use the usual established ‘boilerplate’ form, although they charge for it.
Anyone who wants a more particularized form can also look on their state bar website.
Donna V, also in some ways I don’t have anything against people trying to bring her water, I also in the same way have nothing against people that for instance are trying to hide illegal aliens that are going to be deported. As long as they are willing to accept whatever punishment they will recieve.
But it’s another thing using your underage kids. And for that his parents should be ashamed. If they want to do it they should be doing it themselves.
But it’s another thing using your underage kids. And for that his parents should be ashamed. If they want to do it they should be doing it themselves.
Yes, I think you’re right there.
Ruth, unless you’re licensed to practice law in all 50 states, I suggest you stop trying to ‘guide’ the world in this regard.
Eileen, and the only reason you are talking about lawyers is that you want to make people believe that it’s difficult to make a living will. So perhaps you should shut up too. Fat chance for that though.
It may not be ‘difficult’, but I’m not going to rely on the law according to Ruth to make sure whatever is required in my state is complied with in order to end up with a valid living will. Do you want to tell me, name withheld/aka troll, with an address that leads to nowheresville, what powers of attorney, notorizations, or special language might be required in my state as opposed to Ruth’s or yours, and also practice law without a license?
The web site she cited included: “you should consult an attorney regrading (sic) the efficacy of a Medical Directive in your home state.”
Do you know what the word efficacy means?
About me being a troll or not. Well just because I don’t use a regular or a valid email doesn’t mean that I’m a troll. If I get a working hotmail email and fake “real name” does that make me a non-troll? Personally I seen no reason why people should be emailing me. Perhaps Mr Jarvis should beging demanding that people sign up to be able to post comments.
You could be Eileen, but without any proof you could actually be a busdriver named Tom. Or maybe you are involved in the food business.
And yes I know what efficacy means. If you don’t you could always google for an explanation.
Eileen and NameW:
If you go to your state bar or to ww.medicaldirective.org you will get a valid Directive to Physicians. I have not tried to ‘practice law without a license’, I have directed you to a couple of sites that will advise you of the correct form, which is adopted by lawyers in writing up estate plans, and if anyone out there actually wants to spare their family a lot of distress, this is something you can do for them.
And yes, I am aware Eileen is constantly looking to dispute with others who post on Jeff’s site for any sort of otherwise positive input they may make which is not her own, it may make her feel she’s gaining some sort of negative stature, but this is simple advice on a possibility you can exercise. I am not trying to tell anyone to be good to your family, just telling you how you can.
Dear Name Withheld, you asked…
Lynn, a bit OT…, so if one is against sharing the money you earn here on earth (for instance against paying more taxes if you earn more money, or being against universal healthcare), which is compared to eternity a rather short time, do you think that’s a sign of greed? Do you think such a person will end up in heaven? Or is the needle really huge?
No, I don’t think being against paying more taxes is a sign of greed. And, according to those who’ve studied the Bible, you are not required to “earn” your way into heaven thru good deeds.
Accepting His Word, and having a relationship
with Him is basic.
Is the needle really huge? (I smiled reading that….you have a good humour!)
I recently came across an interesting bit of history that sheds light on “the needle”. This is probably not the place to have a conversation on this topic. I apologize to others here in advance for being OT , and presenting a brief excerpt:
Remember that Israel was an eastern country – in the times of Jesus, and in those places, the words and actions had a different meaning than now.
For Jews, an “eye of a needle” was a special kind of tunnel between the mountains, very small. For a camel to pass thru that “eye of needle”, one had to unload the camel, get the camel to pass, and then take the things and reload the camel with all the baggage.
Taking this into account, what Jesus said was that we will have first to get rid of our posessions to enter heaven. That is, not to see everything as “ours”, but as God’s.
Many such enriched tho, seem to use their money/possessions to support and actively encourage the world in doing stuff the Bible plainly says is against God’s commands.
Ruth,
Read it and know your recommendation for a handy dandy one size fits all fifty states legal form doesn’t obviate the need for legal advice. What you call ‘positive input’ may be well intentioned, but Extremely Ill-Advised.
“State Laws: Living Wills
The table below contains a state-by-state overview of current [undated at the web site] requirements for living wills (or Advance Directives) requirements.
State Overview
Alabama
Advance directive for health care requires two witnesses. Not valid if pregnant.
Alaska
Living will requires no witnesses. Two witnesses are required for a ìhealth care proxy,î but this allows only general medical decisions to be made
Arizona
One witness and a notary are required for a living will, as well as for a health care power of attorney.
Arkansas
Both living wills and health care proxies require two witnesses. Not valid if pregnant
California
Advance Healthcare Directive requires two witnesses, but is not valid if pregnant. A durable power of attorney for health care requires two witnesses OR a notary.
Colorado
Declaration requires two witnesses, but is not valid if pregnant. Medical durable power of attorney for health care does NOT require any witnesses or notary.
Connecticut
Health care instructions (are inclusive of both living will and health care proxy) requires two witnesses whose signatures should be notarized. Not valid if pregnant. Appointment of an ìattorney-in-factî for health care decisions must be notarized.
Delaware
Advance directive (includes provisions for both living will and health care proxy) requires two witnesses.
District of Columbia
Two witnesses required for a living will. Power of attorney for health care requires two witnesses.
Florida
Two witnesses are required for both a living will and the designation of a health care proxy.
Georgia
Both living wills and powers of attorney require two witnesses. Living will is not valid if pregnant.
Hawaii
Two witnesses and a notary are required for a living will, but it is not valid if pregnant. Two witnesses and a notary are required for a durable power of attorney for health care decisions.
Idaho
Two witnesses are required for a living will. Not valid if pregnant. Two witnesses or a notary public are required for a durable power of attorney for health care.
Illinois
Two witnesses required for a living will. Not valid if pregnant. One witness is required for power of attorney for health care.
Indiana
Specifies A or B Declaration where B says you want all life-prolonging procedures taken. Both require two witnesses. Not valid if pregnant. Power of attorney for health care decisions and appointment of health care representative requires a notary.
Iowa
Two witnesses OR a notary are required for a living will. Not valid if pregnant. Power of attorney for health care requires two witnesses or notary.
Kansas
Two witnesses or a notary are required for a living will.
Kentucky
Advance directive, section two (2) requires two witnesses or notary. Not valid if pregnant. Section one (1) requires two witnesses.”
And so on… This little list doesn’t get you there, either.
http://estate.findlaw.com/estate-planning/wills/estate-planning-law-living-wills.html
I repeat. It behooves anyone who wishes to create a living will to consult an attorney, not Ruth.
Eileen,
No one is consulting you or me for legal advice, in my post. As usual, you invent something to get excited about and then attribute it to whatever party you wish to start an argument with. In this case, although usually I avoid your arguments, I will answer because you mislead people who could otherwise help avoid an unfortunate experience for themselves and their families.
A living will is an expression of an intention, and the lack of one is the reason for the ongoing tragedy involving Ms. Schiavo. It is better to make one than not.
And yes, there are differences among the states, mainly in the number of witnesses, so a lawyer writing a living will that may be adjudicated elsewhere usually requires as many witnesses as the maximum in any state.
In the case of a living will, anyone watching the ongoing tragedy of the Schindler/Schiavo case can see for themselves the result of making no living will or other written expression of their wishes.
Why anyone would wish to see more episodes of tragedy such as this is beyond me.
A probate court adjudicates wills of all sorts, some of them handwritten, requiring witnesses but in extenuating circumstances, mainly the intention to write a will. (The oath usually administered is to the effect that the party writing the will has the intention to make this his/her will, the witnesses to the self-proving will an oath to the effect that the person is in command of their faculties.)
A person who downloads a will form from the internet is not taking a bigger chance than a person who writes no will at all, in which case most states take a large portion of the estate, for its probate costs, from any possible heirs.
Meanwhile, Democrats are so hell bent on killing this woman, they are willing to lie.
(ABC News earlier this week was claiming to a number of online reporters that it never intended to create the impression that this was a Republican-generated document, only that it had been circulated among Republican Senators. The Washington Post claimed that it had confirmed the document’s provenance, but could not reveal the source.
However, Republican leadership staffers now believe the document was generated out of the Democratic opposition research office set up recently by Sen. Harry Reid, and distributed to some Democratic Senate staffers claiming it was a GOP document, in the hope — or more likely expectation — that it would then be leaked by those Democrats to reporters. In fact, the New York Times stated that it was Democratic staffers who were distributing the “talking points” document.
“Democrats have tried to pin this document on Santorum’s staff, on [Sen. Bill] Frist’s staff, on [Sen. Sam] Brownback’s staff,” says a Senate leadership staffer. “Watching the investigation underway on line has energized us enough up here to want to at least confirm that we weren’t the source, and everything we have found would confirm that Republicans didn’t generate this memo. This is just amateurish, and perhaps Democratic staffers think we put out work product like this, but it’s laughable.”
The staffer added that while just about any House or Senate staffer with an email account could readily distribute a document, it was a huge stretch to believe that such a document would end up being widely distributed by or even to Senators in the cloakroom or in the well of the Senate. “This has all the telltale signs of a political dirty trick,” says the staffer.
Other Republican staffers blame not only Democrats but also the mainstream media which once again put out a story to embarrass Republicans before checking all the facts first)
–American Spectator
Ruth,
“As usual, you invent something to get excited about and then attribute it to whatever party you wish to start an argument with.”
I didn’t invent a thing. You are attempting to give one size fits all, unlicensed legal advice, which disturbs me. [Witness name withheld’s adoption of your doityourself line.]
I suggested people actually get licensed advice so they’ll end up with a VALID living will, which apparently bothers you for some unknown reason. For you to say it’s only a matter of the number of witnesses required shows you didn’t read the list I just provided. For you to then twist my words into suggesting I’m trying to dissuade people from creating a living will is utter tripe.
The only person responsible for misleading around here is you.
Eileen:
Your typical post. You wrote:
–
“Inasmuch as the law related to living wills Does vary from state to state, one needs the advice of an attorney to create something which will be enforceable. It’s not just a matter of being ‘extra sure’; it would be foolish to rely on this form At All without first consulting a lawyer.
It may not be ‘difficult’, but I’m not going to rely on the law according to Ruth to make sure whatever is required in my state is complied with in order to end up with a valid living will.
I repeat. It behooves anyone who wishes to create a living will to consult an attorney, not Ruth.
Ruth, unless you’re licensed to practice law in all 50 states, I suggest you stop trying to ‘guide’ the world in this regard.”
–
Yes obviously it bothers you. So what else is new? Hopefully you haven’t done any lasting harm. Anyone who reads this site regularly knows your views and your right wing loyalties, as well as the lack of value of your opinions.
LOL. Have a nice day, sweet Ruthie.
Pathetic as usual:
Imagine yourself lying in a hospital bed, twisted into a small and hooked up replica of what you were, not participating, (and as all the medical experts relied on by the courts, which rely on medical experts constantly and know which are trustworthy), used as a manipulated piece of scenery. If she were truly loved she would have been let go on to heaven a long time ago. If anyone truly believes Terri Schiavo’s ‘life’ is better than God’s presence, they should not be allowed in any church ever again.
Sure you are lol, invention of sickness.
