PDA

View Full Version : Schiavo Saved! (UPDATE! Schiavo bill BLOCKED!)


Taco John
03-20-2005, 05:39 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=598640

Taco John
03-20-2005, 05:39 PM
Senate Passes Bill to Restore Brain-Damaged Woman's Feeding Tube; Family Appeals to Public

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. Mar 20, 2005 While Terri Schiavo lay in her hospice bed Sunday, the severely brain-damaged woman's parents and husband made competing pleas to the public and Congress on her third day without food or water.

As protesters and TV satellite trucks gathered outside the hospice, the Senate passed a bill that could prolong Schiavo's life while a federal court considers her case. House Republicans scrambled to bring enough lawmakers back to the Capitol for an emergency vote early Monday after Democrats objected to a vote by a small handful of lawmakers.

President Bush was cutting short a stay at his Texas ranch and returning to the White House to sign it.

An attorney for Schiavo's parents said every federal judge that could hear the case has agreed to take it on an emergency basis once the bill passes. A judge will be chosen at random, and the attorney hopes to immediately have Schiavo taken to a hospital to have the tube reinserted.

"We feel every moment is urgent, we are considering every second as precious in terms of saving Terri," said David Gibbs II, an attorney for Bob and Mary Schindler.

Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, said he was outraged that congressional leaders were intervening in the contentious right-to-die battle with Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. They have been fighting for years over whether she should be permitted to die or kept alive by the feeding tube.

"I think that the Congress has more important things to discuss," he told CNN, calling the move political and criticizing House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who helped broker the congressional compromise.

Mary Schindler pleaded for parents nationwide to call their congressional representatives and pressure them to vote for a bill to prolong her daughter's life.

"There are some congressmen that are trying to stop this bill," she said outside her daughter's hospice. "Please don't use my daughter's suffering for your own personal agenda."

Outside the hospice, a subdued crowd of about 50 people prayed and sang behind signs bearing such slogans as "Let Terri Live" and "President Bush Please Save Terri." One man played "Amazing Grace" on a trumpet, as a pickup truck pulled a trailer bearing 10-foot-high replicas of the stone Ten Commandments tablets and a huge working version of the Liberty Bell.

Will Svab, 24, of Seminole, held a 6-foot plastic foam spoon bearing the words "Please Feed Terri."

"We're hopeful," he said of the recent developments in Congress. "In our faith it's Palm Sunday. It brings us hope that something good will happen."

Across the street, reporters camped out amid rows of TV satellite trucks.

The 41-year-old woman's feeding tube was removed Friday on a Florida judge's order. Schiavo could linger for one or two weeks if the tube is not reinserted as has happened twice before, once on a judge's order and once after Gov. Jeb Bush passed "Terri's Law," which was later declared unconstitutional.

The bill being considered in Washington would apply only to Schiavo and would allow a federal court to review the case. If it passes, attorneys would probably have to seek a federal court order to have the tube reinserted while courts review the decisions that allowed Michael Schiavo to remove the feeding tube, Schindler attorney Barbara Weller said.

Weller sent a letter to the hospice and to the office of Michael Schiavo's attorney Saturday night notifying them of the effort in Congress and asking them to "take whatever measures necessary to prepare for the tube to be put back in" as early as Monday.

Weller also learned Sunday that an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on due-process issues is still alive, with the court asking for additional briefs before noon Sunday. The same action was denied Friday by a federal court in Florida.

Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a chemical imbalance. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.

Doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Her husband says she would not want to be kept alive in that condition, but her parents insist she could recover with treatment.

Taco John
03-20-2005, 05:45 PM
President Bush was cutting short a stay at his Texas ranch and returning to the White House to sign it.


Approval Rating: http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/fi/03rd/up_g.gif

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 05:47 PM
Wrong forum genius.

Taco John
03-20-2005, 05:51 PM
Update! Schaivo bill blocked!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050320/D88UT24O0.html


PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) - Hanging their hopes on a last-minute compromise in Congress, Terri Schiavo's parents notified her hospice to prepare to have her feeding tube reinserted on Sunday, her third day without food or water.

Yet it now appears that move could not happen before Monday, at the earliest.

A bill aimed at prolonging the severely brain-damaged woman's life was delayed in Washington when House Democrats blocked a voice vote, forcing Republicans to scramble on Palm Sunday for a quorum of 218 members. A roll call vote could be held as early as 12:01 a.m. Monday, House leaders said.

"Everyone recognizes that time is important here. This is about defending life," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said in Texas, where the president planned an early return to Washington to be able to sign the bill as soon as possible.

The development was the latest in a contentious right-to-die battle between Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and her husband, Michael Schiavo, over whether she should be permitted to die or kept alive by the feeding tube.

Michael Schiavo criticized congressional leaders Sunday for intruding in the fight.

"I'm outraged, and I think that every American in this country should also be outraged that this government is trampling all over a personal family matter that has been adjudicated in the courts for seven years," he told CNN. "I think that the Congress has more important things to discuss."

But Mary Schindler pleaded for parents nationwide to call their congressional representatives and pressure them to vote for a bill to prolong her daughter's life.

"There are some congressmen that are trying to stop this bill," she said outside her daughter's hospice. "Please don't use my daughter's suffering for your own personal agenda."


(AP) Terri Schiavo's sister Suzanne Vitadamo, right, comforts her mother Mary Schindler, as they walk up...
Full Image


Schindler attorney Barbara Weller said a letter was faxed to the hospice and to the office of Michael Schiavo's attorney Saturday night notifying them of the action in Congress and that the tube could be reinserted as early as Monday.

She said the hospice and Terri Schiavo's doctor were asked to "take whatever measures necessary to prepare for the tube to be put back in."

The bill being considered in Washington would apply only to Schiavo and would allow a federal court to review the case. If it passes, attorneys would probably have to seek a federal court order to have the tube reinserted while courts review the decisions that allowed Michael Schiavo to remove the feeding tube, Weller said.

"We're going to be ready to do what we have to do immediately," she said.

Weller also learned Sunday that an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on due process issues is still alive, with the court asking for additional briefs before noon Sunday. The same action was denied by a federal court in Florida Friday.

Bob Schindler said he visited his daughter Sunday morning at her hospice and she seemed to be doing well as supporters maintained a vigil outside.

The 41-year-old woman's feeding tube was removed Friday on a Florida judge's order. Schiavo could linger for one or two weeks if the tube is not reinserted - as has happened twice before.

Doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Her husband says she would not want to be kept alive in that condition.

Michael Schiavo, who has not responded interview requests from The Associated Press, continued his criticism Sunday of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who helped broker the congressional compromise.

"Tom DeLay should be ashamed of himself," Michael Schiavo told CNN. "He's sitting up there, making comments and bashing people. ... He's found a cause to hide behind, to lighten the load of his other problems."

Passage of the congressional measure would require the presence of only a handful of lawmakers and would allow Schiavo's parents to take their case to a federal judge.

Opposition waned after House leaders agreed to give up broader legislation and accept a narrowly crafted bill that applied only to Schiavo's case. The Senate convened briefly Saturday evening to give formal permission for the House to meet Sunday, when it otherwise would be adjourned for spring recess.

Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., issued a statement late Saturday saying he will make an objection that would stop the vote Sunday. Any member can demand that a majority of members be present to do business. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said he was trying to gather enough votes to defeat the bill Monday.

Meanwhile, emotions swelled outside the hospice. Four people, including right wing leader James Gordon "Bo" Gritz, were arrested Saturday on trespassing charges when they attempted to bring Schiavo bread and water - a symbolic move, since she is unable to eat.

A spokesman for Schiavo's parents, Paul O'Donnell, later told reporters that they do not want supporters to engage in civil disobedience on their daughter's behalf.

On Sunday, a small group of supporters congregated outside the hospice, including some who had camped out for days. New protest signs were put up Sunday saying "Save Terri Schiavo From State-Sponsored Murder!" and "Free Terri, jail the rest."

Guabe Garcia Jones, an attorney from Washington, said he's been on a hunger strike since the tube was pulled Friday, only drinking water for the roughly two days he has spent in a tent outside the hospice.

"I'm not going to eat until she can eat - or I break down," said Jones, 26.

Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a chemical imbalance. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.

In 2001, Schiavo went without food and water for two days before a judge ordered the tube reinserted. When the tube was removed in October 2003, Gov. Jeb Bush pushed through "Terri's Law," and six days later the tube was reinserted. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in September 2004 that Bush had overstepped his authority, declaring the law unconstitutional.

DaKCMan AP
03-20-2005, 05:52 PM
Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a chemical imbalance. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.

Doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Her husband says she would not want to be kept alive in that condition, but her parents insist she could recover with treatment.

What a waste of taxpayer money. Let her husband carry out his and her wishes.

Bootlegged
03-20-2005, 05:54 PM
FRANKS AND BEANS!!! TACO!!!

Deberg_1990
03-20-2005, 05:54 PM
What a waste of taxpayer money. Let her husband carry out his and her wishes.

Exactly, Congress stay the F#%K out of peoples personal lives and quit trying to keep your smug faces on the TV screen.

RINGLEADER
03-20-2005, 05:55 PM
Well, I guess we all know Trezelle Jenkins wasn't involved with the bill...

DenverChief
03-20-2005, 05:57 PM
I don't get what Congress thinks a Federal Judge is going to see that 16 state court judges have failed to see....talk about a waste of time and money

Taco John
03-20-2005, 05:58 PM
I can't understand the side who thinks that word of mouth is an acceptable standard for termination of life. If there is no living will to express her intent, she should be given at least the basic necessties and an opportunity to recuperate. This woman is capable of smiling. Let's not starve her to death when her intent was not clearly stated. Especially when there are people who are willing to care for her needs.

eazyb81
03-20-2005, 06:00 PM
What a waste of taxpayer money. Let her husband carry out his and her wishes.

No shit, this is the most ridiculous story I have heard in awhile. Pull the damn feeding tube already.

I have a feeling there will be an episode of South Park mocking this story in the future.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 06:01 PM
I don't get what Congress thinks a Federal Judge is going to see that 16 state court judges have failed to see....talk about a waste of time and money
What they want to see is their mugs in front of the cameras pandering to their voters. Whether these people suffer endlessly or not is irrelevant.

Let's pray she passes on before midnight. Even more cruel than taking out a feeding tube is taking it out, putting it in, taking it out, putting it in....

eazyb81
03-20-2005, 06:02 PM
I can't understand the side who thinks that word of mouth is an acceptable standard for termination of life. If there is no living will to express her intent, she should be given at least the basic necessties and an opportunity to recuperate. This woman is capable of smiling. Let's not starve her to death when her intent was not clearly stated. Especially when there are people who are willing to care for her needs.

Who in their right mind would want to stay alive as a vegetable for 15+ years? Who is paying for her to stay alive anyways? People are taken off life support/feeding tubes on a daily basis, why is this getting so much national attention? I would be pissed if I were the husband.

Dave Lane
03-20-2005, 06:03 PM
Let her die already!

Dave

~who would want to live like this!

Deberg_1990
03-20-2005, 06:04 PM
What they want to see is their mugs in front of the cameras pandering to their voters. Whether these people suffer endlessly or not is irrelevant.




DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!!!

Mastashake
03-20-2005, 06:05 PM
If she wanted to go, let her goooo...

I would never sign a living will, though. What if it ended up being the greatest time of your life, no work, get to be lazy, and then some guy comes by to unplug you...

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Mastashake

Saulbadguy
03-20-2005, 07:16 PM
Well, I guess we all know Trezelle Jenkins wasn't involved with the bill...
ROFL

dtebbe
03-20-2005, 07:26 PM
If you learn anything from this case, it should be to get a living will in place. You can download the form over the internet, and all it takes about 5 minutes to execute, no laywer required.


I'm so sick of people putting down her husband, citing "he just wants the life insurance". WHAT THE F7CK DO YOU RETARDS THINK LIFE INSURANCE IS FOR?? The woman has been dying for 15 years, it is so selfish to continue her "life".

This is where all the bible thumpers want to have thier cake and eat it too. They always say that "God controls my life" the bible says it and I believe it. If that's the case, take out the tube and see what happens. If she dies, is that not gods will?

Yet, the same people are against genetic engineering. To me thier view should be that God has given some of his creatures skills which could end many of diseases and handicaps that plague humankind. BUT NO, these people are somehow trying to "be god". I guess they never thought maybe that's what god put those people here for. When you watch and listen to these retards, it's really not hard to believe they killed God's son when he came to earth. The same retards would probably do the same thing today... after an act of congress.



DT

Phobia
03-20-2005, 07:31 PM
If the bitch is hungry, point her to the fridge.... otherwise, let her lie there as long as she wants. If you're over the age of 14 and can't find your way to a fully stocked fridge when you're hungry, you'd pretty much given up your right to exist, IMO.

go bowe
03-20-2005, 07:37 PM
If the bitch is hungry, point her to the fridge.... otherwise, let her lie there as long as she wants. If you're over the age of 14 and can't find your way to a fully stocked fridge when you're hungry, you'd pretty much given up your right to exist, IMO.oh good!

i can still get to the fridge... :D :D :D

chiefs4me
03-20-2005, 08:19 PM
I can't say whether it's right or wrong to remove the tube, I just know I wouldn't want to live that way. And let's face it, it just hasn't been a year.....she has been like this for 15 plus years. That is not a smile, it is just the way her face has become. Every single medcial person that has looked at her, from both sides, say she is brain dead. But I can see the parent's point of view...right now they can see her and touch her and hold her every day, birthdays, xmas, in a way she is still with them. But if the husband get's his way then she is in the ground or ashes......and you can't hug or hold ashes or the ground. All I am saying is I wouldn't want to live that way.

milkman
03-20-2005, 08:25 PM
I'm sure glad we have these guys on in DC to intervene in these major national issues, like this one, and steroids in baseball.

I can already feel the quality of my life improving as we speak.

Braincase
03-20-2005, 08:26 PM
Who did the block, and can they play left tackle?

Barret
03-20-2005, 08:39 PM
Well wait a sec, What is the definition of Brain dead? I can understand pulling the plug if....

a: She cant breath on her own.
b: she cant react to other people
c: she is in a coma.

The only thing that I am seeing here is that she cant eat on her own. Also I believe I saw a report where it stated that an attempt to try to retrain her to eat has not been fully attempted.

Some of you have said that you wouldnt want to live like that. Completly understandable, but there has been no direct statement from her saying if she wanted to live or not. Just second hand stuff from her "husband" who oh by the way has knocked up some other chick TWICE and just wants to move on.

Also many of us here are sports fans and have seen some amazing things happen wiht sports injuries. Remember 15 to 20 years ago when an ACL tear meant you were retiring? What about that Broken foot of Terrel Owens? Would he have been walking on it let alone make that big of a contribution to the Eagles 15 years ago?

My real main issue is this. The parents want to help out their daughter. They want to take over and pay bills and keep her alive. There is someone there for this woman that still loves her. Why wont the husband sign rights of the daughter back to the parents and then ask the parental guardians to give a divorce and then he can get on with his life.

It is just odd that he is wanting to pull the plug on this.

Give the parents the guardian rights and this whole mess will go away. But no he has to make a line in the sand and say "nope she is dying"

penguinz
03-20-2005, 08:52 PM
The only thing more ignorant than this whole thing is Taco's signature.

Frazod
03-20-2005, 09:29 PM
I really wish they'd just put this poor woman out of her misery. Where's Al Swearengen when you need him?

As for the zealot freaks fighting to keep the poor potato alive, I really wish someone would put them out of my misery.

Phobia
03-20-2005, 09:33 PM
I would like to go on record and say that if I can't wipe my own ass and there is no hope that I'll ever be able to wipe my own ass again, I don't want to be alive. Pull the plug.

I think that's a pretty good measuring stick.

Chiefs Pantalones
03-20-2005, 09:33 PM
Save Cody!!

Send him money!!!

(for information, email me)

go bowe
03-20-2005, 09:34 PM
Save Cody!!

Send him money!!!

(for information, email me)eh, keep your pants on...

chiefs4me
03-20-2005, 09:41 PM
I would like to go on record and say that if I can't wipe my own ass and there is no hope that I'll ever be able to wipe my own ass again, I don't want to be alive. Pull the plug.

I think that's a pretty good measuring stick.





Well not the way I would of said it.....but it says it.:)

Chiefs Pantalones
03-20-2005, 09:47 PM
eh, keep your pants on...

If you send me $100, I won't post any pictures of me in the nude.


(for information, email me)

Adept Havelock
03-20-2005, 10:00 PM
This is pretty simple. The woman has had NO higher brain function in close to a decade and a half. NO medical authority has found evidence of anything approaching conciousness. This woman died 15 years ago. Only a husk remains, a husk who's involuntary nervous system hasn't figured out there's nothing else going on according to EEGs. Pulling the tube is only a formality. She died years ago.

Let the poor woman rest in peace for God's sake.

BTW- To those that berate this man for taking up and starting a family with another woman, something comes to mind about "let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone". This guy is just trying to honor his wife's wishes (she probably never believed her family would meddle like this, and thought telling her husband would be enough), while still trying to create something of a life and a future for himself.

If you believe this woman is living a life worth living, I suggest you dig up a copy and read "Johnny Got His Gun". His story is worse than poor Terri's.

Damn straight I've got a living will.

the Talking Can
03-20-2005, 10:09 PM
every politician involcved in this will rot in hell...

Frazod
03-20-2005, 10:11 PM
every politician involcved in this will rot in hell...

Either that or get management jobs.

Logical
03-20-2005, 10:13 PM
I can't understand the side who thinks that word of mouth is an acceptable standard for termination of life. If there is no living will to express her intent, she should be given at least the basic necessties and an opportunity to recuperate. This woman is capable of smiling. Let's not starve her to death when her intent was not clearly stated. Especially when there are people who are willing to care for her needs.

I could not disagree with you more, now I have will that expressly states that I want to not be kept alive by any artificial means. In fact the only thing I allow is the restarting of my heart by a defrillator (sp?). But the only reason I have it is this sort of stupidity. I have told everyone I know of my desires, including the people I work with, all my friends and family. If someone steps forward and lies I would think my closest relative's should and would respect my wishes. One thing for certain Congress should not be involved one iota in such an issue.

Logical
03-20-2005, 10:15 PM
This is pretty simple. The woman has had NO higher brain function in close to a decade and a half. NO medical authority has found evidence of anything approaching conciousness. This woman died 15 years ago. Only a husk remains, a husk who's involuntary nervous system hasn't figured out there's nothing else going on according to EEGs. Pulling the tube is only a formality. She died years ago.

Let the poor woman rest in peace for God's sake.

BTW- To those that berate this man for taking up and starting a family with another woman, something comes to mind about "let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone". This guy is just trying to honor his wife's wishes (she probably never believed her family would meddle like this, and thought telling her husband would be enough), while still trying to create something of a life and a future for himself.

If you believe this woman is living a life worth living, I suggest you dig up a copy and read "Johnny Got His Gun". His story is worse than poor Terri's.

Damn straight I've got a living will.Rep

KCFalcon59
03-20-2005, 10:18 PM
What's next? The severely retarded? The autistic? Downs syndrome children? MS? Cerebal Palsy? Euthanasia?

This ladies family wants to care for her. God bless them for it. Let them do it.

|Zach|
03-20-2005, 10:22 PM
What's next? The severely retarded? The autistic? Downs syndrome children? MS? Cerebal Palsy? Euthanasia?

Actually none of those things.

Logical
03-20-2005, 10:23 PM
What's next? The severely retarded? The autistic? Downs syndrome children? MS? Cerebal Palsy? Euthanasia?

This ladies family wants to care for her. God bless them for it. Let them do it.10 to 1 the local taxpayers and the insurance payers to her medical plan are taking care of her. I am betting you are full of shit when you say her parents are taking care of her.:harumph:

jAZ
03-20-2005, 10:33 PM
What they want to see is their mugs in front of the cameras pandering to their voters. Whether these people suffer endlessly or not is irrelevant.

"There are some congressmen that are trying to stop this bill," she said outside her daughter's hospice. "Please don't use my daughter's suffering for your own personal agenda."
Too bad her personal pain & tragedy prevents her from seeing that she is being eploited by those who are supporting her wishes. Exactly what she's decrying right here.

Taco John
03-20-2005, 11:18 PM
I could not disagree with you more, now I have will that expressly states that I want to not be kept alive by any artificial means. In fact the only thing I allow is the restarting of my heart by a defrillator (sp?). But the only reason I have it is this sort of stupidity. I have told everyone I know of my desires, including the people I work with, all my friends and family. If someone steps forward and lies I would think my closest relative's should and would respect my wishes. One thing for certain Congress should not be involved one iota in such an issue.



You have a living will, thus your intents are expressly stated and legally binding. She doesn't. Thus the law should give deference to life.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 11:29 PM
You have a living will, thus your intents are expressly stated and legally binding. She doesn't. Thus the law should give deference to life.
It's probably more complicated than this, but doesn't her husband have legal guardianship over her? If so, legally his wishes represent her's, right?

the Talking Can
03-20-2005, 11:34 PM
could someone describe her "life" for me?

this seems to be about everyone's life but hers....

Taco John
03-20-2005, 11:36 PM
It's probably more complicated than this, but doesn't her husband have legal guardianship over her? If so, legally his wishes represent her's, right?


I don't know, and in the case of life or death, I don't care. Unless there is something legally binding that expresses her wish for death over life in this situation, the law should err on the side of life.

If you want to talk about the right to death, I'll be the first person to say that it should exist. But if you don't clearly state your preference toward death over life, then the decisions should err on the side of life. Death is too permanent and irreversable.

If you have any questions, here's a good approach: Use the arguments you would use to argue against the death penalty and apply them as best you can here. If you have any questions after that, I'll be happy to answer them.

jAZ
03-20-2005, 11:42 PM
I don't know, and in the case of life or death, I don't care. Unless there is something legally binding that expresses her wish for death over life in this situation, the law should err on the side of life.

If you want to talk about the right to death, I'll be the first person to say that it should exist. But if you don't clearly state your preference toward death over life, then the decisions should err on the side of life. Death is too permanent and irreversable.

If you have any questions, here's a good approach: Use the arguments you would use to argue against the death penalty and apply them as best you can here. If you have any questions after that, I'll be happy to answer them.
I have a very hard time disagreeing with you on this one. I do, but I agree with the spirit of your belief. I do think chosing death should be anyone's legal right. And I agree that legally binding documentation is the best way to make your case for handling your death within your own wishes.

However, I'm not likely to draw a totally, uncrossable line in the sand on this issue.

I respect your view though.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 11:42 PM
I don't know, and in the case of life or death, I don't care. Unless there is something legally binding that expresses her wish for death over life in this situation, the law should err on the side of life.

Hmmm, something legally binding, like, perhaps, the wishes of her spouse? Maybe the law should err on the side of THE LAW! If you don't want your spouse making those decisions for you, as is allowed BY LAW then maybe you should have written something down...

Or you could pout about it. :deevee:

Taco John
03-20-2005, 11:47 PM
Congress just plugged the woman back in.

Time to check how my representatives voted and evaluate their performance.

Phobia
03-21-2005, 12:00 AM
What's next? The severely retarded? The autistic? Downs syndrome children? MS? Cerebal Palsy? Euthanasia?


Nah - you're not at risk, dude.

Count Alex's Wins
03-21-2005, 12:00 AM
Why isn't this in the fargin' poli forum?

Boozer
03-21-2005, 07:25 AM
Well, it's good to know that the whole Republican "states' rights" thing can officially be declared a charade, or we could modify it to "states' rights, unless we can make political hay out of something." Federalists, my ass.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 07:26 AM
What a waste of taxpayer money. Let her husband carry out his and her wishes.
What are her wishes?

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 07:26 AM
If the bitch is hungry, point her to the fridge.... otherwise, let her lie there as long as she wants. If you're over the age of 14 and can't find your way to a fully stocked fridge when you're hungry, you'd pretty much given up your right to exist, IMO.
Thus ended the life of Christopher Reeves.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 07:28 AM
I would like to go on record and say that if I can't wipe my own ass and there is no hope that I'll ever be able to wipe my own ass again, I don't want to be alive. Pull the plug.

I think that's a pretty good measuring stick.
Thus ended the life of Stephen Hawking

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 07:29 AM
This is pretty simple. The woman has had NO higher brain function in close to a decade and a half. NO medical authority has found evidence of anything approaching conciousness. This woman died 15 years ago. Only a husk remains, a husk who's involuntary nervous system hasn't figured out there's nothing else going on according to EEGs. Pulling the tube is only a formality. She died years ago.

Let the poor woman rest in peace for God's sake.

BTW- To those that berate this man for taking up and starting a family with another woman, something comes to mind about "let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone". This guy is just trying to honor his wife's wishes (she probably never believed her family would meddle like this, and thought telling her husband would be enough), while still trying to create something of a life and a future for himself.

If you believe this woman is living a life worth living, I suggest you dig up a copy and read "Johnny Got His Gun". His story is worse than poor Terri's.

Damn straight I've got a living will.

I wonder why he forgot to "honor her wishes" (which are not on record anywhere except in his own mind) until after he won the settlement in court?

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 07:30 AM
10 to 1 the local taxpayers and the insurance payers to her medical plan are taking care of her. I am betting you are full of shit when you say her parents are taking care of her.:harumph:
What's wrong with the insurance payors doing their job?

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 07:32 AM
Hmmm, something legally binding, like, perhaps, the wishes of her spouse? Maybe the law should err on the side of THE LAW! If you don't want your spouse making those decisions for you, as is allowed BY LAW then maybe you should have written something down...

Or you could pout about it. :deevee:
There is no law stating your spouse gets to decide your medical care. If so, then why wouldn't we have more cases of spouses immediately state "DNR" or "No artificial means" everytime someone had a simple coma to garner a huge life insurance payoff?

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 07:34 AM
Well, it's good to know that the whole Republican "states' rights" thing can officially be declared a charade, or we could modify it to "states' rights, unless we can make political hay out of something." Federalists, my ass.
And it's good to know the other side doesn't honor the wishes of their own constituents by cirmcumventing laws voted by the people through judiciary rule.

Party of the people, my ass.

Amnorix
03-21-2005, 07:45 AM
Putting aside the facts of this case (which are not easy to deal with), I really don't understand why the United States Congress is getting involved in a local legal battle between a husband and the woman's parents, where the case has been up and down the Florida court system for 10+ years and involved 15 judges.

Congress is now saying that FEDERAL judges now need to get involved. Why? To interpret Florida law? Because Florida judges are incompetent?

I don't understand how this is good policy.

Amnorix
03-21-2005, 07:45 AM
And it's good to know the other side doesn't honor the wishes of their own constituents by cirmcumventing laws voted by the people through judiciary rule.

Party of the people, my ass.err...what? I'm missing the reference.

edit: oh, never mind. Just a comment on activist judges or whatever. Ok.

edit 2: I see you're not answer the comment posed, in any way shape or form. The Republicans are only "federalists" when it comes to things that suit them. If it's a question of morality, they're just as quick to trample "state's rights" as a Democrat is on whatever issues Republicans tend to complain about.

bkkcoh
03-21-2005, 07:46 AM
....

Congress is now saying that FEDERAL judges now need to get involved. Why? To interpret Florida law? Because Florida judges are incompetent?

...


Haven't the dems been saying that for years??????

bkkcoh
03-21-2005, 07:48 AM
What's wrong with the insurance payors doing their job?


Atleast it isn't Haliburton? Right. If they were in the healthcare business, this would really drive the Dems nuts.... :banghead: :clap:

Amnorix
03-21-2005, 07:49 AM
Haven't the dems been saying that for years??????

I don't believe so.

Lately the Feds have slapped state courts in the face both in connection with this matter and the class action lawsuit litigation. I can't recall Democrats doing that.

bkkcoh
03-21-2005, 08:31 AM
I don't believe so.

Lately the Feds have slapped state courts in the face both in connection with this matter and the class action lawsuit litigation. I can't recall Democrats doing that.


Amnorix, they have been saying that since the 2000 election....
:p :thumb:

I guess it loses something when said tic, and it wasn't received tic....

the Talking Can
03-21-2005, 09:19 AM
Putting aside the facts of this case (which are not easy to deal with), I really don't understand why the United States Congress is getting involved in a local legal battle between a husband and the woman's parents, where the case has been up and down the Florida court system for 10+ years and involved 15 judges.

Congress is now saying that FEDERAL judges now need to get involved. Why? To interpret Florida law? Because Florida judges are incompetent?

I don't understand how this is good policy.

its called grandstanding, and it diverts from real news like Tom Delay's 100th ethics violation (this country would much rather obssess over non-news like Shiavo and Micheal Jackson than pay attention to oh say the war in Iraq etc).....no one involved in this has an honest bone in their political body....the many hypocrisies in this situation go without saying

Clint in Wichita
03-21-2005, 09:25 AM
Schiavo Saved! (UPDATE! Schiavo bill BLOCKED!)


Saved?

You mongoloid.

KCFalcon59
03-21-2005, 10:28 AM
Nah - you're not at risk, dude.

Not yet.

Simplex3
03-21-2005, 10:30 AM
What are her wishes?
Her wish is to die, as legally expressed by the legal primary decision maker during her incapacitation. You know, her HUSBAND.

Simplex3
03-21-2005, 10:31 AM
Thus ended the life of Stephen Hawking
So you're saying that if I put her in an Invacare Power Chair she'd be cool?

Calcountry
03-21-2005, 12:11 PM
FRANKS AND BEANS!!! TACO!!! ROFL, that was funny movie.

Calcountry
03-21-2005, 12:12 PM
I can't understand the side who thinks that word of mouth is an acceptable standard for termination of life. If there is no living will to express her intent, she should be given at least the basic necessties and an opportunity to recuperate. This woman is capable of smiling. Let's not starve her to death when her intent was not clearly stated. Especially when there are people who are willing to care for her needs.I agree with this assertion.

Calcountry
03-21-2005, 12:17 PM
I would like to go on record and say that if I can't wipe my own ass and there is no hope that I'll ever be able to wipe my own ass again, I don't want to be alive. Pull the plug.

I think that's a pretty good measuring stick.Yeah, we wouldn't want any paper to be wasted on you. ;):p

Boozer
03-21-2005, 01:35 PM
err...what? I'm missing the reference.

edit: oh, never mind. Just a comment on activist judges or whatever. Ok.

edit 2: I see you're not answer the comment posed, in any way shape or form. The Republicans are only "federalists" when it comes to things that suit them. If it's a question of morality, they're just as quick to trample "state's rights" as a Democrat is on whatever issues Republicans tend to complain about.

Par for the course, unfortunately.

Logical
03-21-2005, 04:05 PM
Putting aside the facts of this case (which are not easy to deal with), I really don't understand why the United States Congress is getting involved in a local legal battle between a husband and the woman's parents, where the case has been up and down the Florida court system for 10+ years and involved 15 judges.

Congress is now saying that FEDERAL judges now need to get involved. Why? To interpret Florida law? Because Florida judges are incompetent?

I don't understand how this is good policy.:clap: It is certainly no national issue. There are areas of grey like say a Federal election.:p

Iowanian
03-21-2005, 04:19 PM
I suppose if the Husband would just ask a doctor, who performs late term abortions to deal with it, the Left would Jump on the bandwagon. Just think how many People could be treated with the healthcare $$$ being spent to keep her alive. Abortion advocates say a baby who can't live without less assistance is expendable...why the discrepency?

I still don't know what I think the right thing to do is........but I reitterated to my wife and parents, in the same room, that I would NOT want to live this way. The conversation came up while disussing a HS classmate who was just paralized from the neck down in an accident. Turn my neck and give some kids my liver.

I'd hope that if I were in her physical condition, and my family wouldn't do it.........one of my Chiefsplanet bretheren would hire "Donna doubleD" or some other large canned woman to come and put her nippows in my ears until I'm sufficiently suffocated.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 04:50 PM
Her wish is to die, as legally expressed by the legal primary decision maker during her incapacitation. You know, her HUSBAND.
Her estranged husband living with another woman who won't divorce her?

Hell, I can't give you medical information on your wife if you call my facility. What makes you think you have the right to say whether she lives or dies?

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 04:53 PM
Par for the course, unfortunately.
The duly elected Governor of the state by the majority of constituents passed a law regarding Ms. Schiavo's case. The liberal extremists didn't like that law and went to judges to have it overturned.

Are you somehow stating that is not relevant? Or perhaps you have some reason as to why the liberals don't want the voice of the majority heard?

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 04:54 PM
err...what? I'm missing the reference.

edit: oh, never mind. Just a comment on activist judges or whatever. Ok.

edit 2: I see you're not answer the comment posed, in any way shape or form. The Republicans are only "federalists" when it comes to things that suit them. If it's a question of morality, they're just as quick to trample "state's rights" as a Democrat is on whatever issues Republicans tend to complain about.
And the Dems are only the "party of the people" when they can control the people in question.

Amnorix
03-21-2005, 05:04 PM
Her estranged husband living with another woman who won't divorce her?

Hell, I can't give you medical information on your wife if you call my facility. What makes you think you have the right to say whether she lives or dies?

"Estranged?" Life is for the living. It's been 15 years... Geez.

Amnorix
03-21-2005, 05:05 PM
And the Dems are only the "party of the people" when they can control the people in question.

You're babbling meanlessly. I'm pointing out SPECIFIC hypocrisy. You're responding with some kind of broad meaingless insult with no punch behind it.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 05:05 PM
"Estranged?" Life is for the living. It's been 15 years... Geez.
I agree.

I wonder why Michael won't divorce her if life is for the living?

Any clue?

Amnorix
03-21-2005, 05:07 PM
The duly elected Governor of the state by the majority of constituents passed a law regarding Ms. Schiavo's case. The liberal extremists didn't like that law and went to judges to have it overturned.

Are you somehow stating that is not relevant? Or perhaps you have some reason as to why the liberals don't want the voice of the majority heard?

This is a country of laws, not executive branch fiat. Sorry if that inconveniences you when your party is in power in the jurisdiction in question.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 05:08 PM
This is a country of laws, not executive branch fiat. Sorry if that inconveniences you when your party is in power in the jurisdiction in question.
Equivocation

Amnorix
03-21-2005, 05:08 PM
I agree.

I wonder why Michael won't divorce her if life is for the living?

Any clue?

Lots of possible reasons. You assume the worst. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong.

I don't really care much about the specific outcome. I'm just very displeased by the process -- specifically the Congress getting involved in a situation like this so the Republicans can pander ot the religious right.

Amnorix
03-21-2005, 05:10 PM
Equivocation

Try fact. JUDGES INTERPRET LAWS. It's their f**king job description. The MOST important thing they do.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 05:10 PM
Lots of possible reasons. You assume the worst. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong.

I don't really care much about the specific outcome. I'm just very displeased by the process -- specifically the Congress getting involved in a situation like this so the Republicans can pander ot the religious right.
What are some of those reasons?

I am assuming the worst?

You mean because a guy goes to court for 2 years, wins over a mil in a settlement, then remembers conveniently that his wife wanted to die AFTER the settlement and he should receive the money? And if he divorces her he loses the right to that money?

Gee, you are probably right, he is probably seeing both of them without the other knowing.

dirk digler
03-21-2005, 05:12 PM
Lots of possible reasons. You assume the worst. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong.

I don't really care much about the specific outcome. I'm just very displeased by the process -- specifically the Congress getting involved in a situation like this so the Republicans can pander ot the religious right.

I agree and anyone that has had to make this decision would understand as I and my family has.

There is no logical reason for Congress to be involved in this, only political.

the Talking Can
03-21-2005, 05:36 PM
You're babbling meanlessly. I'm pointing out SPECIFIC hypocrisy. You're responding with some kind of broad meaingless insult with no punch behind it.

you haven't been introduced yet: Amnorix meet wolfman...and yes, he really thinks he's being smart...

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 05:41 PM
you haven't been introduced yet: Amnorix meet wolfman...and yes, he really thinks he's being smart...
And Can with yet another valid point to the forum regarding the topic at hand.

Thanks again for you valuable input and insight on the subject, now back to your hidey hole until next February 2nd.

Simplex3
03-21-2005, 06:29 PM
I agree.

I wonder why Michael won't divorce her if life is for the living?

Any clue?
Because if he did he couldn't carry out her final wish to not live like this.

Got any evidence that isn't true?

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 06:36 PM
Because if he did he couldn't carry out her final wish to not live like this.

Got any evidence that isn't true?
Sure, that's why. Do you have proof that it is?

Now do you also have a mythical explanation as to why he forgot her wishes for two years?

go bowe
03-22-2005, 11:25 AM
There is no law stating your spouse gets to decide your medical care. If so, then why wouldn't we have more cases of spouses immediately state "DNR" or "No artificial means" everytime someone had a simple coma to garner a huge life insurance payoff?i'm not sure that's correct, at least in missouri...

when my father in law was ill, my wife was able to order dnr while he was still semi-concious (he never went into a coma)...

of course, dnr is different than no artificial measures, but unless i'm mistaken, a spouse or other immediate family member can make the decision for both dnr and no artificial means...

and i don't believe i've ever heard of any problem with collecting life insurance after pulling the plug (or ordering dnr)...

so, i guess when your spouse is unable to communicate, you can in fact decide medical care, including dnr and/or no artificial means...

at least that's my understanding of it...

Simplex3
03-22-2005, 11:31 AM
Sure, that's why. Do you have proof that it is?

Now do you also have a mythical explanation as to why he forgot her wishes for two years?
According to the law MS doesn't need any proof that it is. The burden lies with the "other side" to prove their case. As for why he "forgot", he probably didn't. In my estimation he was trying to get the insurance check before he pulled the tube. In that case go after him for insurance fraud.

bkkcoh
03-22-2005, 12:09 PM
According to the law MS doesn't need any proof that it is. The burden lies with the "other side" to prove their case. As for why he "forgot", he probably didn't. In my estimation he was trying to get the insurance check before he pulled the tube. In that case go after him for insurance fraud.

MS was too distrught over what happened that it took him 10 or so years to remember what TS desires are..... :banghead:

KCWolfman
03-22-2005, 05:07 PM
According to the law MS doesn't need any proof that it is. The burden lies with the "other side" to prove their case. As for why he "forgot", he probably didn't. In my estimation he was trying to get the insurance check before he pulled the tube. In that case go after him for insurance fraud.
I have no desire to go after him at all. There is no real laws that he has broken, but let's call a spade a spade. There is no indication to believe the man has taken the actions he has taken other than to receive a payout - and let's be perfectly clear, a LEGAL payout. I just don't see any reason to erroneously attempt to paint him in a better light than he deserves.