Federal Judge refuses to have Terry Shiaivo's feeding tube reinserted

[4th and Long]

Just came across as breaking news on TV.

Discuss.

[4th and Long]

Here's a link. http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/4305967/detail.html

"The judge said the 41-year-old woman's parents had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments."

[Saggysack]

Here is a another article about the hearing and the judge.

TERRI SCHIAVO SAGA: Judge refuses to rule as fight divides U.S. (http://www.freep.com/news/nw/schiavo22e_20050322.htm)


During the hearing, the judge frequently asked the parents' lawyer to cite constitutional precedents for the case. The lawyer was unable to cite any.


Whittemore was nominated to the court in 1999 by President Bill Clinton. A registered Republican, he has a reputation for keeping his courtroom clear of politics.

I think he made the right decision.

[Amnorix]

They'll emergency appeal the decision up to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

I'm sure Congress would order the case assigned to a different judge if it was within their power. :rolleyes:

[Amnorix]

They'll emergency appeal the decision up to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

I'm sure Congress would order the case assigned to a different judge if it was within their power. :rolleyes:

Actually, the judge denied the preliminary injunction to reinsert the feeding tube. I'm uncertain whether preliminary injunctions are immediately appealable, but I doubt it as they don't constitute final adjudications of the issue.

[mlyonsd]

Gawd what an ugly situation.

[Saulbadguy]

This is such a huge waste of time and money.

[dirk digler]

I think it was the correct decision and the same decision like all of the judges before it made.

Now we are going to hear from all of the right wing nut jobs that the judge was appointed by Clinton and he is just a left wing activist judge and that he couldn't be fair and impartial.

[DanT]

A woman is being killed based on the wishes of a husband and against the wishes of her parents and the other people who are willing to pay for her care. That doesn't make sense.

[RINGLEADER]

My feelings on this have changed a lot over the last couple of days of having it on the tube in the background. I was originally concerned that she was not receiving due process and, to an extent, you can still argue that she is not, but the law is the law and it is clear and sometimes it just sucks but that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is.

On moral and emotional levels it reminds me a lot of the Elian Gonzalez thing.

Anyway, it seems pretty evident from what everyone is saying that her cerebral cortex is gone. Without one of those you're not going to get better.

And the guardianship issue, while appearing unfair in part because of her husband's behavior (living with someone else and having babies with them, appearing to some to enjoy pulling the plug on everyone around him - including his parents, and the bizarre way he explained how he just 'woke up' at 4:30 in the morning moments before Terri collapsed in the hallway), is legally quite clear.

The GOPers overreached in congress and hearing Tom Delay get out and blame Dems for not allowing Terri to eat a couple of meals was disgusting. You can make the observation that the Dems bemoan their moral standing with the electorate then seem to be the only ones who don't want to entertain the issues of life that some feel are important, but to say that they were responsible for her not eating is connecting the A-dot with the Q-dot and jumping over everything in between.

I sympathize with all positions. But legally this is over. I don't think a judge could legally sever her husband's guardianship rights in the long-term if he wanted.

If some bit of info comes out that contradicts this then I stand corrected, but IMO this is over.

[RINGLEADER]

A woman is being killed based on the wishes of a husband and against the wishes of her parents and the other people who are willing to pay for her care. That doesn't make sense.


No, it doesn't. But the law and the constitutional background governing the rulings are quite specific. From what I've heard about this Michael Schiavo guy he's got a lot of questions in his background. But then again, despite all that, he may also be telling the truth.

I just continue to find the husband's backstories to be slightly bizarre I guess...but legally there isn't much that can be done.

[beavis]

Sad when a person that has committed no crime has to fight in court for the right to exist.

[bkkcoh]

Sad when a person that has committed no crime has to fight in court for the right to exist.

What is even more sad, the left will fight tooth and nail to keep the bastage alive that killed that little girl in Florida. :banghead:

Which one of the two is more of a blight on society????

[Amnorix]

What is even more sad, the left will fight tooth and nail to keep the bastage alive that killed that little girl in Florida. :banghead:

Which one of the two is more of a blight on society????

Terry Schiavo is hardly a "blight on society" and you won't find anyone who says otherwise.

The left will not fight to keep the killer alive. Some members of the ACLU or other groups, which philosophically oppose the death penalty, may, but I'm certain you won't find a Democratic Congress changing all the rules around to accomodate the guy...

[Frankie]

My feelings on this have changed a lot over the last couple of days of having it on the tube in the background. I was originally concerned that she was not receiving due process and, to an extent, you can still argue that she is not, but the law is the law and it is clear and sometimes it just sucks but that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is.

Could this have caused your sudden switch to the side of upholding the "law," Ringleader?:

Baby-Hudson (also on life support) dies in a Texas hospital according to a law Governor Bush signed 6 years ago....

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3087387

"Texas law allows hospitals to discontinue life-sustaining care, even if a patient's family members disagree."

I'm confused! One case is all over the news (because the Republican congress makes it a loud issue for next year's elections) and the other, no congressman makes any fuss about. Hmmmm!

[DanT]

No, it doesn't. But the law and the constitutional background governing the rulings are quite specific. From what I've heard about this Michael Schiavo guy he's got a lot of questions in his background. But then again, despite all that, he may also be telling the truth.

I just continue to find the husband's backstories to be slightly bizarre I guess...but legally there isn't much that can be done.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, RINGLEADER.

I don't know much about the husband. I haven't heard anything that makes me doubt his sincerity.

Strictly as a matter of morality, though, I don't understand how there could be a basis for stopping a life when there are people that want to take care of that life.

Terry Schiavo is alive. The sacredness of life does not originate from our the functional capacities of our cerebral cortex; it originates from the Holy Spirit acting through us, including those who wish to take care of this child of God.

[Simplex3]

A woman is being killed based on the wishes of a husband and against the wishes of her parents and the other people who are willing to pay for her care. That doesn't make sense.
UNLESS YOU READ THE LAWS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AS THEY PERTAIN TO SITUATIONS LIKE THIS.

Then it does.

[bkkcoh]

The left will not fight to keep the killer alive. Some members of the ACLU or other groups, which philosophically oppose the death penalty, may, but I'm certain you won't find a Democratic Congress changing all the rules around to accomodate the guy...


ACLU isn't a left leaning organization? I would beg to differ. We all know the highly publicized cases that the ACLU gets the spotlight for is for left leaning causes.

I would agree with you to a point on the left cahnging the rules, the only law they would like to change is the death penalty and granted, there are some republicans that would like to abolis the death penalty. Other than that, you are correct.

[Amnorix]

ACLU isn't a left leaning organization? I would beg to differ. We all know the highly publicized cases that the ACLU gets the spotlight for is for left leaning causes.

I would agree with you to a point on the left cahnging the rules, the only law they would like to change is the death penalty and granted, there are some republicans that would like to abolis the death penalty. Other than that, you are correct.

The ACLU isn't just left leaning -- it's hard left. But they're not the ENTIRE left. That's all I'm saying.

[DenverChief]

ACLU isn't a left leaning organization? I would beg to differ. We all know the highly publicized cases that the ACLU gets the spotlight for is for left leaning causes.

.


Yeah like Rush Limbaughs privacy rights :rolleyes:

[Simplex3]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, RINGLEADER.

I don't know much about the husband. I haven't heard anything that makes me doubt his sincerity.

Strictly as a matter of morality, though, I don't understand how there could be a basis for stopping a life when there are people that want to take care of that life.

Terry Schiavo is alive. The sacredness of life does not originate from our the functional capacities of our cerebral cortex; it originates from the Holy Spirit acting through us, including those who wish to take care of this child of God.
Someone has to be in charge. There has to be a chain of command, so to speak. According to FL law, that someone is her huband. He has decided, as is his legal right, to stop life support.

[Simplex3]

Could this have caused your sudden switch to the side of upholding the "law," Ringleader?:

Baby-Hudson (also on life support) dies in a Texas hospital according to a law Governor Bush signed 6 years ago....

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3087387

"Texas law allows hospitals to discontinue life-sustaining care, even if a patient's family members disagree."

I'm confused! One case is all over the news (because the Republican congress makes it a loud issue for next year's elections) and the other, no congressman makes any fuss about. Hmmmm!

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2354581&postcount=2

...because the only tragedy here is that a baby who was born with birth defects too severe for him to live was put on life support in the first place, then kept there for months by his mother. The only person quoted in your article that thought he could "grow out of it" was his mom, a woman too stupid to get prenatal care during pregnancy.

As much as it sucks, leaving that kid in a NICU bed until his mother decides to give up isn't an option for the rest of us. How long do we let him stay there? Until he's 1? 10? 50?

I could probably keep you "alive" well past 150 with enough money and hoses, but should I be forced to because your grandson can't stand the thought of you dying? People die. It happens every day. Lots of them don't die peacefully from old age.

[DenverChief]

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2354581&postcount=2


ya know this kinda reminds me of my grandfather...he had an anuerism and his brain swole up and crushed itself against the skull...he was alive but not concious....he was on life support and could have stayed that way for a long time...but my grandmother decided to end the life support.....he lived for about another 20 min before he stopped breathing...it was sad but I'm sure much better than living like he was

[Frankie]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...because the only tragedy here is that a baby who was born with birth defects too severe for him to live was put on life support in the first place, then kept there for months by his mother. The only person quoted in your article that thought he could "grow out of it" was his mom, a woman too stupid to get prenatal care during pregnancy.

As much as it sucks, leaving that kid in a NICU bed until his mother decides to give up isn't an option for the rest of us. How long do we let him stay there? Until he's 1? 10? 50?

I could probably keep you "alive" well past 150 with enough money and hoses, but should I be forced to because your grandson can't stand the thought of you dying? People die. It happens every day. Lots of them don't die peacefully from old age.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Two hopeless terminal patients. One has no insurance. The other has much political value to the Republicans for next year's elections. I don't see any other diff.

[Frankie]

ya know this kinda reminds me of my grandfather...he had an anuerism and his brain swole up and crushed itself against the skull...he was alive but not concious....he was on life support and could have stayed that way for a long time...but my grandmother decided to end the life support.....he lived for about another 20 min before he stopped breathing...it was sad but I'm sure much better than living like he was

That's why I'm not all against "Assisted suicide" or some variation thereof when one's loved one or concerned custodian can make that decision.

[DanT]

It's nonsensical and immoral to stop a life when the people that brought that life into the world want to take care of that life and are ready, willing and able to provide the necessary resources to do so.

[DanT]

Someone has to be in charge. There has to be a chain of command, so to speak. According to FL law, that someone is her huband. He has decided, as is his legal right, to stop life support.

I disagree that someone has to be in charge of making a Pascal's Wager on someone else's behalf. The husband isn't being asked to do anything on behalf of keeping the woman alive.

No one knows for sure what Mrs. Schiavo would want. The courts are making a guess. That means they could be wrong. What's the loss if they are wrong? The loss is a precious one, the loss of a human life.

Since there isn't a statement from Mrs. Schiavo about what she would have wanted in this eventuality, and there are people willing to take care of her, why should the law say anything except "this society errs on the side of life"?

[patteeu]

My feelings on this have changed a lot over the last couple of days of having it on the tube in the background. I was originally concerned that she was not receiving due process and, to an extent, you can still argue that she is not, but the law is the law and it is clear and sometimes it just sucks but that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is.

On moral and emotional levels it reminds me a lot of the Elian Gonzalez thing.

Anyway, it seems pretty evident from what everyone is saying that her cerebral cortex is gone. Without one of those you're not going to get better.

And the guardianship issue, while appearing unfair in part because of her husband's behavior (living with someone else and having babies with them, appearing to some to enjoy pulling the plug on everyone around him - including his parents, and the bizarre way he explained how he just 'woke up' at 4:30 in the morning moments before Terri collapsed in the hallway), is legally quite clear.

The GOPers overreached in congress and hearing Tom Delay get out and blame Dems for not allowing Terri to eat a couple of meals was disgusting. You can make the observation that the Dems bemoan their moral standing with the electorate then seem to be the only ones who don't want to entertain the issues of life that some feel are important, but to say that they were responsible for her not eating is connecting the A-dot with the Q-dot and jumping over everything in between.

I sympathize with all positions. But legally this is over. I don't think a judge could legally sever her husband's guardianship rights in the long-term if he wanted.

If some bit of info comes out that contradicts this then I stand corrected, but IMO this is over.


I agree completely. Based on what I've read, the Florida laws are being applied properly here and there has been plenty of legal scrutiny along the way.

I wouldn't see anything wrong with pro-lifers lobbying the Florida legislature to pass a law changing how these situations are dealt with, but I see no good reason for the US Congress to get involved or for any court to reverse the decision. It looks like many on the right are looking for an activist result in a Federal court on this one. It's ironic, but in all likelihood it won't work because the conservative judges that sypathize with the pro-life cause aren't nearly as likely to impose their personal views on the case as a liberal judge would be IMO.

[Amnorix]

It's nonsensical and immoral to stop a life when the people that brought that life into the world want to take care of that life and are ready, willing and able to provide the necessary resources to do so.

So maybe the law should provide for a vote among all family members?

Include brothers and sisters?

How about kids? How old would the kids need to be to get a vote? Grandparents?

And, of course, if it's a vote, 2 parents can outvote a spouse. That's good policy.

Let's be clear -- Spouses (unlike other relatives) are the CHOSEN life partner of any given person. Please explain to me how the hell it makes sense to give this kind of decision to someone OTHER than your chosen life partner???

[patteeu]

I disagree that someone has to be in charge of making a Pascal's Wager on someone else's behalf. The husband isn't being asked to do anything on behalf of keeping the woman alive.

No one knows for sure what Mrs. Schiavo would want. The courts are making a guess. That means they could be wrong. What's the loss if they are wrong? The loss is a precious one, the loss of a human life.

Since there isn't a statement from Mrs. Schiavo about what she would have wanted in this eventuality, and there are people willing to take care of her, why should the law say anything except "this society errs on the side of life"?

People who have no chance of recovery are allowed to die all the time in hospitals across the country. Each state has laws that govern these situations. In most cases, the next of kin is the one who ends up making these decisions. What's different about this case besides the publicity?

[dirk digler]

People who have no chance of recovery are allowed to die all the time in hospitals across the country. Each state has laws that govern these situations. In most cases, the next of kin is the one who ends up making these decisions. What's different about this case besides the publicity?

Totally agree.

[DanT]

So maybe the law should provide for a vote among all family members?

Include brothers and sisters?

How about kids? How old would the kids need to be to get a vote? Grandparents?

And, of course, if it's a vote, 2 parents can outvote a spouse. That's good policy.

Let's be clear -- Spouses (unlike other relatives) are the CHOSEN life partner of any given person. Please explain to me how the hell it makes sense to give this kind of decision to someone OTHER than your chosen life partner???

Because the "chosen life partner" isn't being asked to do anything with regard to keeping this woman alive. That responsibility is being borne by others. Rights and responsibilities go together.

[mikey23545]

I wonder if Terry Schiaivo ever dreamed she'd grow up to become a junior high school science project?

[DanT]

People who have no chance of recovery are allowed to die all the time in hospitals across the country. Each state has laws that govern these situations. In most cases, the next of kin is the one who ends up making these decisions. What's different about this case besides the publicity?

The humans that brought Terri Schiavo's life into the world are ready, willing and able to sustain that life, and are not asking for any help for the supposed "next of kin".

[Raiderhader]

People who have no chance of recovery are allowed to die all the time in hospitals across the country. Each state has laws that govern these situations. In most cases, the next of kin is the one who ends up making these decisions. What's different about this case besides the publicity?


The fact that there is debate as to wether or not she really has no real chance of recovery.

[mikey23545]

The fact that there is debate as to wether or not she really has no real chance of recovery.

No, there really isn't. They have proof that the woman's upper brain tissue died and liquified, it's not just inactive. There's no there "there".

[Raiderhader]

No, there really isn't. They have proof that the woman's upper brain tissue died and liquified, it's not just inactive. There's no there "there".


I am not sure what "proof" you are relating too, but I suggest you read this.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151148,00.html

[mikey23545]

I am not sure what "proof" you are relating too, but I suggest you read this.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151148,00.html

Let me point out that the fact there are other doctors who adamant she will never recover. Let me point out there are always people who base opinions on their personal religious and philosophical beliefs, and not on fact, doctors included.

Very sad for what used to be Terry Schiaivo...

[Amnorix]

Because the "chosen life partner" isn't being asked to do anything with regard to keeping this woman alive. That responsibility is being borne by others. Rights and responsibilities go together.

So if something happened to a spouse and someone came out of nowhere and just volunteered to keep them going indefinitely, the spouses wishes should be ignored?

[Raiderhader]

Let me point out that the fact there are other doctors who adamant she will never recover. Let me point out there are always people who base opinions on their personal religious and philosophical beliefs, and not on fact, doctors included.

Very sad for what used to be Terry Schiaivo...


Let me point out that you provide no proof that this doctor is influenced by any of those factors. Let me point out that the doctors on the opposing side can be influenced by the same things.

If there is a serious debate, why should we not err on the side of life? I really do not get this, why the hell are so many people hell bent on the death of a person? Why? How many of you oppose the death penalty because it is in-humane? How many of you oppose the death penalty because we might have the wrong person? Do you not advocate erring on the side of life in those instances? Why not this one, where it is in question as to wether or not she is really a vegetable? Why the hypocrisy?

[mikey23545]

Let me point out that you provide no proof that this doctor is influenced by any of those factors. Let me point out that the doctors on the opposing side can be influenced by the same things.

If there is a serious debate, why should we not err on the side of life? I really do not get this, why the hell are so many people hell bent on the death of a person? Why? How many of you oppose the death penalty because it is in-humane? How many of you oppose the death penalty because we might have the wrong person? Do you not advocate erring on the side of life in those instances? Why not this one, where it is in question as to wether or not she is really a vegetable? Why the hypocrisy?

Doctors on the other side could be prejudiced by what?!?!? Necrophilia?

And why are so many bent on defiling the remains of this poor woman? My God, she's dead, now bury her and quit using her body as a freak show.

And I for one am quite happy with having a death penalty.

[DanT]

So if something happened to a spouse and someone came out of nowhere and just volunteered to keep them going indefinitely, the spouses wishes should be ignored?

Assuming the `injured' spouse didn't leave a definitive statement about his or her wishes behind and the "someone [that] came out of nowhere" is a family member, friend or potential legal guardian that is ready, willing and able to provide care to the `injured' spouse, then the `other' spouse's opinion about whether the `injured' spouse would want to continue living is irrelevant and should be ignored. Same for the "wishes" of the `other' spouse; those wishes should be ignored as well.

[dirk digler]

Let me point out that you provide no proof that this doctor is influenced by any of those factors. Let me point out that the doctors on the opposing side can be influenced by the same things.

If there is a serious debate, why should we not err on the side of life? I really do not get this, why the hell are so many people hell bent on the death of a person? Why? How many of you oppose the death penalty because it is in-humane? How many of you oppose the death penalty because we might have the wrong person? Do you not advocate erring on the side of life in those instances? Why not this one, where it is in question as to wether or not she is really a vegetable? Why the hypocrisy?

I don't anyone is hell bent on the death of her I just think people know that they wouldn't want to live like this and they wouldn't want any of their family members to live like this.

[siberian khatru]

Let me interject something about this spouse argument.

Michael has been living with another woman and fathered two children with her. Is that the actions of a responsible spouse? Sounds like adultery to me, which is legal grounds for a divorce.

Now, I don't blame Michael one bit for wanting to get on with his life. But he seems to want to have it both ways -- to be the spouse who is responsible for his wife, and to be the single guy who gets to start a new family.

I'm stunned the court has allowed him to continue as the legal guardian based on the marriage when Michael has clearly flouted the marriage itself. Unless he now wants to argue that he and Terri had an open marriage, or that she also told him to fool around if she were incapacitated.

I don't believe that constitutes a legal error (although a lawyer would know more about that). Because I don't believe a legal error has been made in this case, I am deeply skeptical of the congressional intervention. I think it's more Congress pulling an end-run around a ruling it doesn't like, rather than attempting to right a legal wrong.

I would prefer that the Florida judge (and there has been only ONE judge who has made a finding of fact in this case; all the other judges ruled on procedural matters. Congress' bill mandates a de novo review of the case, meaning a brand-new, start-from-scratch fact finding) I would prefer that the Florida judge have ruled otherwise on Terri. I would have preferred that he ordered an MRI and PET scan on Terri, which she's never received. I would have preferred that every diagnostic and therapeutic treatment be exhaused. That does not mean hooking her up to machines, keeping her on life support -- because she is not on life support (like a respirator). It simply means be as certain as is possible that you know what is going on with her.

But absent an error on his part, some flouting of the law, I can only disagree with him. I can't overturn him.

[Raiderhader]

Doctors on the other side could be prejudiced by what?!?!? Necrophilia?

So docs on the other side have no philosophies, beliefs (religious or otherwise), short comings such as possible greed, or anything else that probably plagues these doctors who say there is hope for the woman? What are they, gods?

And why are so many bent on defiling the remains of this poor woman? My God, she's dead, now bury her and quit using her body as a freak show.

Because we do not know for certain that she is already dead. That is opinion only.

And I for one am quite happy with having a death penalty.

That analogy was not necessarily directed at you. But the question still stands, why are so many hell bent on killing a person when there are exsperts out there who say she could be rehabilitated? Why not exhaust all possible avenues?

Answer me this, let's say the appeals are successful, the family gets custody, and the woman is rehabilitated - how would you feel knowing that you advocated letting her starve and dehydrate to death because you KNEW she was alredy dead?

[DanT]

Terri Schiavo is alive, not dead, and she has family members that are ready, willing and able to continue to care for her.

Her "chance of recovery" from being dead are extremely low. That's part of the reasons why it would be immoral to kill her, which is what is likely to happen unless the feeding tube is reinserted.

[dirk digler]

Let me interject something about this spouse argument.

Michael has been living with another woman and fathered two children with her. Is that the actions of a responsible spouse? Sounds like adultery to me, which is legal grounds for a divorce.

Now, I don't blame Michael one bit for wanting to get on with his life. But he seems to want to have it both ways -- to be the spouse who is responsible for his wife, and to be the single guy who gets to start a new family.

I'm stunned the court has allowed him to continue as the legal guardian based on the marriage when Michael has clearly flouted the marriage itself. Unless he now wants to argue that he and Terri had an open marriage, or that she also told him to fool around if she were incapacitated.

I don't believe that constitutes a legal error (although a lawyer would know more about that). Because I don't believe a legal error has been made in this case, I am deeply skeptical of the congressional intervention. I think it's more Congress pulling an end-run around a ruling it doesn't like, rather than attempting to right a legal wrong.

I would prefer that the Florida judge (and there has been only ONE judge who has made a finding of fact in this case; all the other judges ruled on procedural matters. Congress' bill mandates a de novo review of the case, meaning a brand-new, start-from-scratch fact finding) I would prefer that the Florida judge have ruled otherwise on Terri. I would have preferred that he ordered an MRI and PET scan on Terri, which she's never received. I would have preferred that every diagnostic and therapeutic treatment be exhaused. That does not mean hooking her up to machines, keeping her on life support -- because she is not on life support (like a respirator). It simply means be as certain as is possible that you know what is going on with her.

But absent an error on his part, some flouting of the law, I can only disagree with him. I can't overturn him.


I don't have any problem with that except this has been going for 15 years and I think they have tried everything except the PET. For some reason they can't do an MRI because she has something in her body that would be damaging to her if she had one.

[Raiderhader]

I don't anyone is hell bent on the death of her I just think people know that they wouldn't want to live like this and they wouldn't want any of their family members to live like this.


So you are projecting YOUR personal views onto someone else?

[Raiderhader]

I don't have any problem with that except this has been going for 15 years and I think they have tried everything except the PET. For some reason they can't do an MRI because she has something in her body that would be damaging to her if she had one.


What harm? She's "already dead"....

[DanT]

Terri Schiavo is not dead.

[bkkcoh]

Why are they refusing to give her water or food??

The authorities arrested a lady who works there for trying to give her some water....

[Amnorix]

Assuming the `injured' spouse didn't leave a definitive statement about his or her wishes behind and the "someone [that] came out of nowhere" is a family member, friend or potential legal guardian that is ready, willing and able to provide care to the `injured' spouse, then the `other' spouse's opinion about whether the `injured' spouse would want to continue living is irrelevant and should be ignored. Same for the "wishes" of the `other' spouse; those wishes should be ignored as well.
Fortunately for us all, the law favors the spouse over random people.

Honestly -- so if I'm 30 years old, morally opposed to divorce and extra-marital sex, my wife's brain was gone, but body was still functioning, a friend who was rich should be allowed to just keep her going, forever? :spock: :eek: That is the dumbest f**king policy statement I have ever read on this board. Seriously.

You value life beyond all reason, beyond all concept of normal human relations and interactions. It's insane.

[Brock]

You value life beyond all reason, beyond all concept of normal human relations and interactions. It's insane.

My goodness, what a horrible thing to be.

[Amnorix]

My goodness, what a horrible thing to be.

Life is incredibly value, of that there is no doubt. But there is a time and place and way to die. The logic of letting a friend or other "potential legal guardian" just force you to keep your loved ones alive, regardless of their or your wishes (if they hadn't happened to write down their wishes) is just crazy.

[DanT]

Fortunately for us all, the law favors the spouse over random people.

Honestly -- so if I'm 30 years old, morally opposed to divorce and extra-marital sex, my wife's brain was gone, but body was still functioning, a friend who was rich should be allowed to just keep her going, forever? :spock: :eek: That is the dumbest f**king policy statement I have ever read on this board. Seriously.

You value life beyond all reason, beyond all concept of normal human relations and interactions. It's insane.

Your concept of normal human relations and interactions does not exhaust "all" such concepts. Nor is holding life to be sacred beyond the ability of the human mind to evaluate it "insane", except in the operational sense of that term as implemented by Stalinists and others who have historically desecrated life by pretending that their notions of science were a substitute for what is holy and true.

[Amnorix]

Your concept of normal human relations and interactions does not exhaust "all" such concepts. Nor is holding life to be sacred beyond the ability of the human mind to evaluate it "insane", except in the operational sense of that term as implemented by Stalinists and others who have historically desecrated life by pretending that their notions of science were a substitute for what is holy and true.

Weird. Science is the only reason she remains alive. Until 50 or 75 years ago, anyone in her condition for the entirety of human history would have died LONG ago.

I am neither a scientist nor a Stalinist. I'm just a person who recognizes that the law is both logical and valid, and should be upheld. Silly me.

[mikey23545]

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html


What's happened to Terri since her collapse?

The Second District's first opinion in this case explained:

Since 1990, Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care. She is fed and hydrated by tubes. The staff changes her diapers regularly. She has had numerous health problems, but none have been life threatening.

Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.

[DanT]

It's amusing to think about what the "dumbest f**king ever" policy statement posted on this board and read by Amnorix is. I doubt there is a complete linear ordering for policy statements so that any two policy statements could be compared for "dumb f**k"-'edness and a determination made as to which of any arbitary pair of policy statements is higher.

I would guess that the "dumb f**K"'ed ness of policies has at least two dimensions, so that at best only a "partial ordering" can be performed. Hence, the point (1, 1) can be considered less than the point (2, 2) but no such determination can be made about the ordering between (1, 1) and (0, 2).

Hence, for a policy statement to be the highest in the "dumb f**k" partial ordering of all the policy statements that have ever been read by Amnorix could be quite an achievement, especially if it means that my policy statement comes out on top on each and every dimension that goes into capturing "dumb f**k"'-'edness. ;)

[patteeu]

The humans that brought Terri Schiavo's life into the world are ready, willing and able to sustain that life, and are not asking for any help for the supposed "next of kin".

The husband isn't a very sympathetic figure, but nothing you say here changes the law. If people think the law should reflect such things, then they should lobby their legislature to make some changes.

It's not a matter of asking the husband for help, it's a matter of the husband having the responsibility under the law (based on my limited understanding at least) to speak on behalf of his incapacitated wife. Maybe he is certain that she would not want to live on like this. In that case, it would be a betrayal for him to give in to the well-intentioned pleas of the parents. If he doesn't know what she'd want, then it would be decent of him to take the parents up on their offer for their sake if not for anyone else's.

[DanT]

Weird. Science is the only reason she remains alive. Until 50 or 75 years ago, anyone in her condition for the entirety of human history would have died LONG ago.

I am neither a scientist nor a Stalinist. I'm just a person who recognizes that the law is both logical and valid, and should be upheld. Silly me.

It's not clear that science is the only thing keeping her alive. Just because something is a necessary condition for something else, that doesn't mean it is sufficient for it.

It's fair to say that without science, she would not be able to remain alive. But that's not the same as saying that science is the only reason why she remains alive. Because of her relative helplessness, she requires both science and the willingness of others to keep her alive. The willingness of those others to keep her alive may or may not depend on their understanding of science. Asking science to substitute for what others consider to be the source of their sacred duties to one another is not fair to science. It would misstate science's position within the realm of the Sacred.

[dirk digler]

So you are projecting YOUR personal views onto someone else?

Personal experience. Have you had to make this decision? I have.

[DanT]

Thanks for the reply, patteeu.

[patteeu]

Let me point out that you provide no proof that this doctor is influenced by any of those factors. Let me point out that the doctors on the opposing side can be influenced by the same things.

If there is a serious debate, why should we not err on the side of life? I really do not get this, why the hell are so many people hell bent on the death of a person? Why? How many of you oppose the death penalty because it is in-humane? How many of you oppose the death penalty because we might have the wrong person? Do you not advocate erring on the side of life in those instances? Why not this one, where it is in question as to wether or not she is really a vegetable? Why the hypocrisy?

I'm pro death penalty.

What is your position on endless appeals for death penalty cases on the slim possibility that fresh evidence will change the outcome? The hypocrisy blade cuts both ways. This case has been litigated to death (no pun intended) including a finding of fact that Ms. Schiavo has a chance to recover that is less than the threshold at which feeding tubes can legally be removed.

[patteeu]

Assuming the `injured' spouse didn't leave a definitive statement about his or her wishes behind and the "someone [that] came out of nowhere" is a family member, friend or potential legal guardian that is ready, willing and able to provide care to the `injured' spouse, then the `other' spouse's opinion about whether the `injured' spouse would want to continue living is irrelevant and should be ignored. Same for the "wishes" of the `other' spouse; those wishes should be ignored as well.

That's a fine beginning for an alternative legal standard, but it doesn't happen to be the one the Florida legislature settled on.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that your formulation is the law. Why shouldn't we err on the side of life if a complete stranger steps in and offers to care for the 'injured' spouse? Why limit it to family members, friends, or potential legal guardians (whatever those are)?

[DanT]

That's a fine beginning for an alternative legal standard, but it doesn't happen to be the one the Florida legislature settled on.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that your formulation is the law. Why shouldn't we err on the side of life if a complete stranger steps in and offers to care for the 'injured' spouse? Why limit it to family members, friends, or potential legal guardians (whatever those are)?

Allowing a "complete stranger" that privilege would be too risky from the standpoint of balancing the historical and traditional rights and responsibilities of family members and friends to one another with the rights and responsibilities we have to one another as citizens of this republic. It would open the door for the "public" to butt its nose into the "private".

[patteeu]

Allowing a "complete stranger" that privilege would be too risky from the standpoint of balancing the historical and traditional rights and responsibilities of family members and friends to one another with the rights and responsibilities we have to one another as citizens of this republic. It would open the door for the "public" to butt its nose into the "private".

That's a reasonable thing to say, but someone with even more reverence for life than you would disagree. They would argue that you have to take that risk because erring on the side of life outweighs these other concerns. Everyone has their opinion, and that's why we settle these things using the legislative process. The outcome doesn't please everyone, but it's the best approximation of a compromise that our government is capable of producing.

[DanT]

That's a reasonable thing to say, but someone with even more reverence for life than you would disagree. They would argue that you have to take that risk because erring on the side of life outweighs these other concerns. Everyone has their opinion, and that's why we settle these things using the legislative process. The outcome doesn't please everyone, but it's the best approximation of a compromise that our government is capable of producing.

The legislative process from over the weekend seems to have been slighted somewhat by the decision of the U.S. District Judge. National Review Online published an interesting analysis, quoted below. The best approximation of a compromise, it seems to me, when there's one side that's willing to do all the work and another side not being asked to do anything is to let the one side do the work. I do not understand why this country would consider it acceptable for family members who wish to care for their loved one to be denied that opportunity because a husband has given up on taking care of her. That does not seem sensible to me. What does he lose by the parents taking care of the daughter?

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200503221329.asp
March 22, 2005, 1:29 p.m.
Ducking Tough Questions
The federal court declines to reinsert Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube.



Is Terri Schiavo a PVS case? That is the core of the wrenching dispute that has gripped the nation. That is the question that impelled the extraordinary intervention of Congress and the president over the weekend. And that is the question that U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore refused to entertain in rejecting, early Tuesday morning, a request to reinsert Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. Thus, her excruciating march to death by starvation and dehydration continues.


In 1990, in a case called Cruzan v. Missouri, the U.S. Supreme Court assumed that a competent person would have a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition, and held that where a person (a) was actually in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) and (b) had actually evinced a desire not to be sustained in that state (i.e., a desire to die rather than be kept alive), the state was permitted — but not required — to allow her surrogates to discontinue sustenance.

Cruzan is distinguishable from Terri Schiavo’s case in that there is powerful reason to doubt that Terri is in a PVS. There was no such reason given the condition of the woman in Cruzan — the opinion indicates that from three weeks of coma she never progressed beyond an unconscious state, in which she was perhaps responsive to some painful stimuli but to nothing else. There was thus reason to doubt she would even appreciate the immense discomfort of starvation/dehydration. Cruzan is also distinguishable in that the evidence that Terri has evinced an informed and intelligent wish to die is even more suspect than the concededly thin evidence that supported this finding in Cruzan.

But, of course, Terri’s case is not distinguishable unless the federal court is open to a full reconsideration of the factual determinations made by the Florida courts that Terri is in a PVS and that she asserted an informed desire to die. This is where the bill passed by Congress comes in. In pertinent part, it says:

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

… [T]he District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted. [Italics mine.]


There are at least two ways to read this law. The first — and the one that I believe the plain language indicates Congress intended — is that there should be a complete, plenary, exhaustive review on a clean slate — ignoring all prior rulings and factual determinations made by the courts of Florida. This is not a limitless grant of authority. The federal court cannot grant relief unless it can be shown that some federal right of Terri’s was violated. But, the federal court is not bound to accept as fact — and, indeed, should not accept as fact — any factual conclusion drawn by Judge Greer and the rest of the courts of Florida. In other words: Fully develop the facts and then determine if federal law has been transgressed.

Then there is a narrower construction which reverses priorities. The federal judge arguably could start from the premise that he was very constricted in what he could do by the limits of established federal law, including most significantly, the various aspects of the right to due process. He could then conduct a review only of the procedures of Florida law applied in Terri’s case (rather than the underlying factual determinations generated by those procedures) in order to assess whether those procedures as structured (rather than as carried out in this case) satisfied minimal federal due process requirements. If he found that they did, he could rule that Terri’s parents would not be able to show a violation of a federal right, without ever getting into the soundness of the factual findings actually made in Florida (viz., PVS and Terri’s purported expression of an informed desire to die). In other words: narrowly construe federal law as policing only state procedures, and develop only those facts germane to assessing the abstract soundness of those procedures; if the procedures are found sound, simply assume that they were properly applied — don’t revisit the factfinding that was actually done under them in this particular case.

The latter is the course that Judge Whittemore chose to take. Here, it bears noting that Whittemore was placed on the federal bench by President Clinton in 2000 after spending a decade as a judge in the state courts of Florida. His opinion is a staunch approbation of the integrity of Florida’s procedural framework, and extremely deferential to the performance of his former state-court colleague, Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer. Essentially, Judge Whittemore reasons: Florida’s procedures are fair and designed to achieve a just result, there is no basis to suspect that those procedures did not produce a just result here, and, therefore, federal due process has been satisfied — without any need to revisit (i.e. , conduct a de novo review of) the facts that were actually found here under those fair procedures.

Even this cursory level of review — in a case where Congress and the president believed it was important enough to convene in a weekend session to provide for searching de novo review — has internal problems. Judge Whittemore, for example, finds there is no fundamental unfairness in a Florida process that allowed Judge Greer both to assume the role of Terri’s caretaker (when siding with Michael Schiavo in the dispute between Michael and Terri’s parents over treatment) and to sit as objective factfinder at the state trial — i.e., to be both advocate and judge. Perhaps. But then later in the opinion, after having explained that Judge Greer was properly in the role of caretaker, Judge Whittemore sees no problem with the fact that Greer never met Terri personally and never personally assessed her level of cognition and responsiveness — notwithstanding that in a PVS case, cognition and responsive are everything.

But most disturbing about Judge Whittemore’s opinion is its refusal to delve into the questions that impelled Congress to act in the first place: Whether Terri is really a PVS case and whether she really evinced an informed desire not to be sustained — let alone to submit to two weeks of starvation and dehydration, which is unquestionably torture for a person who is responsive to stimuli and aware of pain.

Not only does Whittemore decline to get into the heart of the matter. In the one fleeting footnote in which he alludes to it, he blames Terri’s parents and their attorneys for this dereliction: “Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits of health care professionals regarding Theresa’s medical status, treatment techniques and therapies which are available and their opinions regarding how and whether these treatments might improve Theresa’s condition. Plaintiffs have not, however, discussed these affidavits in their papers and how they relate to the claimed constitutional deprivations.” (Italics mine.)

Did Judge Whittemore really think the Schindlers submitted these affidavits simply to pad their submission with physical heft? Those submissions were obviously included because Terri’s parents contend the factual findings made in Florida are wrong, and could be proved wrong at a de novo hearing.

When Congress provided for de novo review, uninhibited by what had already been determined in Florida, it seems clear that this is what they thought they were getting at. They were saying: Before we allow state action to deprive the constitutional right to life, let’s be certain we really are dealing with a PVS case and a woman who actually made an informed choice to refuse sustenance. Judge Whittemore, to the contrary, has decided to interpret Congress’s command as limited to an inquiry about whether Florida’s procedures are likely to produce good results. As for the results actually produced — a finding of PVS and informed choice to die — he doesn’t see the need to kick those tires because, he lamely notes, the Schindlers haven’t explained how they could possibly relevant.

The judge, I believe, is wrong and needlessly stingy in construing what the just-passed law directs him to do. Terri Schiavo has had neither the standard medical tests (including an MRI and PET scan) nor the extensive clinical observation that should be mandatory for any finding of PVS on which an effective death sentence is to be predicated. If the proof supporting the PVS finding or the informed-choice finding — which Florida law require to be proved by clear and convincing evidence — is blatantly inadequate, then she has then not received the due process of law necessary to justify a taking of life under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. If she is not a PVS case and she is being tortured by starvation and dehydration, the Florida ruling removing the feeding tube is subjecting her to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

That’s what we need a de novo review of: Why weren’t standard tests done, why shouldn’t they be done before a final PVS conclusion is made, and, in their absence, why should we be confident in the accuracy of the PVS diagnosis? There may be good answers to all these questions, but that is what evidentiary hearings are for.

That’s why the medical-expert submissions made by the Schindlers are relevant, even if Judge Whittemore is correct that, in the dizzying pace of the last few days, the Schindlers’ lawyers failed to connect the dots in their papers — a failing many, many courts would have understandably forgiven in these dire, hurried circumstances, where life is at stake.

Even profoundly disagreeing with Judge Whittemore, he should be commended for his work ethic here — which many of us were too quick to question yesterday, when he waited until the late afternoon to hear arguments and then took the matter under advisement without ruling. He could have hand-wrung over this matter for days while Terri died. By turning out a decision overnight, and hours before the business day even began, he gave the Schindlers a meaningful opportunity to convince the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that he was wrong.

And so it’s on to the Eleventh Circuit.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

[patteeu]

What does he lose by the parents taking care of the daughter?

If he really believes that she would want the tubes pulled, he would stand to lose his self respect.

[patteeu]

[i]
The legislative process from over the weekend seems to have been slighted somewhat by the decision of the U.S. District Judge.

Maybe so. IMO, the law is disgraceful (coming from the States Rights party) and the US Congress should have stayed out of it (or at least have had the guts to pass a general law instead of one designed to fit only one person), but if that's the law, then the court should address it as it's written.

[jettio]

The court may have grounds to find for a persistent vegetative state, but what is the extent of the evidence evincing a desire not to be sustained in that condition?

I think the Courts may have been convinced that she was not going to get better and relied on that in deciding whether she had evinced a desire to not have life sustaining treatment.

I am surprised that the husband would insist on her dying against her families wishes. My understanding is that if a spouse does not estrange herself from her birth family unless she makes a conscious decision to do so.

He should just move on and let the parents take care of her.

If the 11th circuit does not come through with the ordered result, B*sh could play the trump card and declare Terri Schiavo a terrorist suspect and detain her indefinitely without probable cause and ship her over to GTMO and their innovative speech therapy programs.

But with this being Holy Week, if she were to pass away on Good Friday, she might be on Larry King Monday with all of her faculties restored.

This story does have some parallels with Jesus's last days with the clamor and controversy and such a serious moral dilemna.

My heart goes out to everyone in this case except for the political opportunists, everyone else is in a really tough spot.

[DanT]

If the 11th circuit does not come through with the ordered result, B*sh could play the trump card and declare Terri Schiavo a terrorist suspect and detain her indefinitely without probable cause and ship her over to GTMO and their innovative speech therapy programs.



ROFL

[Frankie]

Terri Schiavo is alive, not dead, and she has family members that are ready, willing and able to continue to care for her.

Her "chance of recovery" from being dead are extremely low. That's part of the reasons why it would be immoral to kill her, which is what is likely to happen unless the feeding tube is reinserted.

1- "Liquified brain"

2- The "family members" that you refer to tried it in 1990, only to petition to the court after 3 weeks that taking care of her had "overwhelmed" them, and she was returned to professional care.

This is NOTHING but a political puppet show that Tom Delay and the rest of GOP hatchet men are conducting. Unfortunately the main "puppet" is poor Terri Schiavo. She deserves more respect than that, don't you think?

[Vanilla Thunder]

This is just sick.

It's not up to man when we should die, it is up to God.

I will pray for anyone who thinks that Shiavo should be pulled the plug on. God help your sick souls.

[Saggysack]

Let me interject something about this spouse argument.

Michael has been living with another woman and fathered two children with her. Is that the actions of a responsible spouse? Sounds like adultery to me, which is legal grounds for a divorce.

Now, I don't blame Michael one bit for wanting to get on with his life. But he seems to want to have it both ways -- to be the spouse who is responsible for his wife, and to be the single guy who gets to start a new family.

I'm stunned the court has allowed him to continue as the legal guardian based on the marriage when Michael has clearly flouted the marriage itself. Unless he now wants to argue that he and Terri had an open marriage, or that she also told him to fool around if she were incapacitated.

I don't believe that constitutes a legal error (although a lawyer would know more about that). Because I don't believe a legal error has been made in this case, I am deeply skeptical of the congressional intervention. I think it's more Congress pulling an end-run around a ruling it doesn't like, rather than attempting to right a legal wrong.

I would prefer that the Florida judge (and there has been only ONE judge who has made a finding of fact in this case; all the other judges ruled on procedural matters. Congress' bill mandates a de novo review of the case, meaning a brand-new, start-from-scratch fact finding) I would prefer that the Florida judge have ruled otherwise on Terri. I would have preferred that he ordered an MRI and PET scan on Terri, which she's never received. I would have preferred that every diagnostic and therapeutic treatment be exhaused. That does not mean hooking her up to machines, keeping her on life support -- because she is not on life support (like a respirator). It simply means be as certain as is possible that you know what is going on with her.

But absent an error on his part, some flouting of the law, I can only disagree with him. I can't overturn him.

Sorry, you are wrong, adultery is not legal grounds for divorce in Florida.

[Pitt Gorilla]

I heard some talking head on TV call this "another case of judicial activism." How many "judicial activists" does that make in a row for this particularl case?

[|Zach|]

This is just sick.

It's not up to man when we should die, it is up to God.

I will pray for anyone who thinks that Shiavo should be pulled the plug on. God help your sick souls.
Seems to me that if man had nothing to do with this right now (no medical help) she should would already be dead. :hmmm:

[DenverChief]

I heard some talking head on TV call this "another case of judicial activism." How many "judicial activists" does that make in a row for this partical case? ROFL

[Saggysack]

I heard some talking head on TV call this "another case of judicial activism." How many "judicial activists" does that make in a row for this particularl case?

18 or 19 I think.

IIRC it was at 15 before it went to the federal level.

[Saggysack]

Seems to me that if man had nothing to do with this right now (no medical help) she should would already be dead. :hmmm:

Don't you mess with God's will, buddy.

[|Zach|]

Don't you mess with God's will, buddy.
My bad...

http://www.lukechueh.com/images/paintings/paintings-whole/Monkeys%20With%20Hats/dunce.jpg

[DenverChief]

If people think the law should reflect such things, then they should lobby their legislature to make some changes.



Well I gotta hand it to ya for being consistent :)

[Raiderhader]

Personal experience. Have you had to make this decision? I have.


So your are projecting YOUR personal experience onto someone else?

[Raiderhader]

I'm pro death penalty.

What is your position on endless appeals for death penalty cases on the slim possibility that fresh evidence will change the outcome? The hypocrisy blade cuts both ways. This case has been litigated to death (no pun intended) including a finding of fact that Ms. Schiavo has a chance to recover that is less than the threshold at which feeding tubes can legally be removed.


They have a legal right to exhaust all possible avenues to save their life; I am not going to deny them that.

[bkkcoh]

They have a legal right to exhaust all possible avenues to save their life; I am not going to deny them that.

So is the reverse also true to exhaust all possibilities to save her life?

Just wondering

[Raiderhader]

So is the reverse also true to exhaust all possibilities to save her life?

Just wondering


You have not been following my posts on the matter have you? ;)

Absolutely.

[Frankie]

This is just sick.

It's not up to man when we should die, it is up to God.

I will pray for anyone who thinks that Shiavo should be pulled the plug on. God help your sick souls.

But God has apparently decided. It's man who has interfered and kept her alive by sticking tubes in her.

[bkkcoh]

You have not been following my posts on the matter have you? ;)

Absolutely.


That was more of a question for the other people, not you....

[bkkcoh]

But God has apparently decided. It's man who has interfered and kept her alive by sticking tubes in her.


But shouldn't they be giving her a chance by trying to feed her and to give her water?

It is out and out wrong to treat a dog like this, much less a human...

Absolutely disgraceful..... :(

[Baby Lee]

But God has apparently decided. It's man who has interfered and kept her alive by sticking tubes in her.
A tube. A feeding tube to be exact.

Frankie to Stephen Hawking: "Feed yourself, bitch!!"

[Saulbadguy]

But shouldn't they be giving her a chance by trying to feed her and to give her water?

It is out and out wrong to treat a dog like this, much less a human...

Absolutely disgraceful..... :(
Thats true. A dog in this condition would be euthanized. Or if you are a cheapskate, it would be taken in the back yard and shot.

[Simplex3]

Because the "chosen life partner" isn't being asked to do anything with regard to keeping this woman alive. That responsibility is being borne by others. Rights and responsibilities go together.
Oh, so just because he isn't the one doing all the caring and he can't personally fork over the $80k/year it costs to keep her organs pumping he should just stfu?

If my wife were in that situation I wouldn't be able to afford her full care and I wouldn't be spending all day, every day at the hospital watching her stare at the ceiling. I would hope the reverse to be true, also. If you love someone you want them to be happy.

Life is for the living.

[Simplex3]

The fact that there is debate as to wether or not she really has no real chance of recovery.
I can find you a doctor to tell you anything is possible.

It is impossible to prove a negative beyond all doubt. You can't prove to me beyond all doubt that a purple monkey won't fly out of your ass, but does that mean we should attach a net to you butt so that when comes out it doesn't get loose?

[Simplex3]

Terri Schiavo is alive, not dead, and she has family members that are ready, willing and able to continue to care for her.

Her "chance of recovery" from being dead are extremely low. That's part of the reasons why it would be immoral to kill her, which is what is likely to happen unless the feeding tube is reinserted.
She killed herself 15 years ago by jamming her finger in her throat so often that she had a chemical imbalance which led to a massive heart attack.

[Simplex3]

Why are they refusing to give her water or food??

The authorities arrested a lady who works there for trying to give her some water....
...because it's illegal to interfere with the wishes of her legal gaurdian? Christ, I can't believe you people are Ok with breaking laws, ignoring the rights of spouses, etc etc. I'd bet $50 that if the search function worked 90% of you that are arguing for Schaivo were all pissed off about Clinton's perjury (I was, btw).

So what's your life credo? "Follow the law unless you're on my side?" Can someone explain the difference between the Republicans and Democrats to me?

[Simplex3]

Allowing a "complete stranger" that privilege would be too risky from the standpoint of balancing the historical and traditional rights and responsibilities of family members and friends to one another with the rights and responsibilities we have to one another as citizens of this republic. It would open the door for the "public" to butt its nose into the "private".
"Seriously judge, she and I were friends. We met at a coffee house one day and really hit it off"

Where do you draw the line with this insanity?

[Simplex3]

The court may have grounds to find for a persistent vegetative state, but what is the extent of the evidence evincing a desire not to be sustained in that condition?
It doesn't matter if she wanted to die or not, it's the will of her legal gaurdian.

[Simplex3]

Sorry, you are wrong, adultery is not legal grounds for divorce in Florida.
...and if she could file the paperwork it would matter. In FL divorce papers must be file BY, not on behalf of, one of the spouses.

[DanT]

1- "Liquified brain"

2- The "family members" that you refer to tried it in 1990, only to petition to the court after 3 weeks that taking care of her had "overwhelmed" them, and she was returned to professional care.

This is NOTHING but a political puppet show that Tom Delay and the rest of GOP hatchet men are conducting. Unfortunately the main "puppet" is poor Terri Schiavo. She deserves more respect than that, don't you think?

The people that are taking care of her are treating her with the dignity and respect that all human life deserves, from all accounts I've seen.

[Raiderhader]

That was more of a question for the other people, not you....



Ah...

[DanT]

Oh, so just because he isn't the one doing all the caring and he can't personally fork over the $80k/year it costs to keep her organs pumping he should just stfu?

If my wife were in that situation I wouldn't be able to afford her full care and I wouldn't be spending all day, every day at the hospital watching her stare at the ceiling. I would hope the reverse to be true, also. If you love someone you want them to be happy.

Life is for the living.

That's right. It an ancient moral precept that if someone else's sacred practices are not interfering with another person's life, then there shouldn't be any interference.

How does Terri Schiavo's family's willingness to care for her while she is alive interfere with Michael Schiavo's life?

[DanT]

She killed herself 15 years ago by jamming her finger in her throat so often that she had a chemical imbalance which led to a massive heart attack.

If she had killed herself, she would be dead and we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether she should be killed.

[Raiderhader]

I can find you a doctor to tell you anything is possible.

It is impossible to prove a negative beyond all doubt. You can't prove to me beyond all doubt that a purple monkey won't fly out of your ass, but does that mean we should attach a net to you butt so that when comes out it doesn't get loose?


Let's apply this logic to both sides, shall we?



BTW, glad to see you found your way back to the Planet. :)

[jettio]

It doesn't matter if she wanted to die or not, it's the will of her legal gaurdian.

I think the Cruzan decision provides the criteria for weighing the issues and that evincing a desire not to maintained is one of the factors.

I think the Schindler's lawyers screwed the pooch on this one by filing a petition that focussed on crying about the Florida Court's due process instead of re-asserting the claims that would part of an original petition.

Could be interesting to see if the Supreme Court takes the case, and gets the lawyers off the hook by telling them what they should have done.

Could be quite a contrast to the attitude expressed in Capital case review when ineffective assistance of counsel is argued, and their attitude is that a clearly bumbling lawyer can be found not to be constitutionally ineffective.

[Simplex3]

If she had killed herself, she would be dead and we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether she should be killed.
If they hadn't jammed a tube in her she would be dead(er).

[DanT]

"Seriously judge, she and I were friends. We met at a coffee house one day and really hit it off"

Where do you draw the line with this insanity?

The legal system is capable of determining whether there is "clear and convincing evidence" of a friendship sufficiently developed to trust the friend with caretaking responsibilities. Indeed, that is probably a helluva lot easier to establish than what the courts have attempted to determine in this case with regard to Terri Schiavo's wishes to continue to be fed.

[Simplex3]

I think the Cruzan decision provides the criteria for weighing the issues and that evincing a desire not to maintained is one of the factors.

I think the Schindler's lawyers screwed the pooch on this one by filing a petition that focussed on crying about the Florida Court's due process instead of re-asserting the claims that would part of an original petition.

Could be interesting to see if the Supreme Court takes the case, and gets the lawyers off the hook by telling them what they should have done.

Could be quite a contrast to the attitude expressed in Capital case review when ineffective assistance of counsel is argued, and their attitude is that a clearly bumbling lawyer can be found not to be constitutionally ineffective.
The US Supreme Court has turned this case down three times already, that last one less than a week ago IIRC. I doubt they're suddenly going to change their mind now.

[DanT]

If they hadn't jammed a tube in her she would be dead(er).


If Mrs. Schiavo had tattooed on her forehead on her 21st birthday, "If a feeding tube is required to keep me nourished, please don't ever remove it unless clearly instructed otherwise by me in writing.", would you consider it moral for the feeding tube to have been removed?

[Simplex3]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151227,00.html

"While she still made eye contact with me when I spoke to her, she was becoming increasingly lethargic," Bob Schindler said in the papers. "Terri no longer attempted to verbalize back to me when I spoke to her."

This woman keeps getting better and better. I expect by tomorrow we'll be hearing stories about how she was walking around the room just last week...

Her parent's story keeps changing. They keep losing credibility. It's sad.

[Frankie]

Frankie to Stephen Hawking: "Feed yourself, bitch!!"

Hawkins is an owner of a superior, functional, Einstein-like brain, not a liquified mess. Sorry Baby Lee, but that was a stupid comparison.

[Frankie]

But shouldn't they be giving her a chance by trying to feed her and to give her water?

It is out and out wrong to treat a dog like this, much less a human...

Absolutely disgraceful..... :(

From all accounts she does not have enough brain left to register hunger and thirst. They have determined this to be the most humane way left to let the machine that used to be Terri Schiavo shut down.

[Frankie]

Her parent's story keeps changing. They keep losing credibility. It's sad.
And disrespectful to Mrs Sciavo.

[jettio]

The US Supreme Court has turned this case down three times already, that last one less than a week ago IIRC. I doubt they're suddenly going to change their mind now.

The law passed the other day changes things somewhat.

I think that the law probably provides for relitigation of the issues de novo.

I read the parent's current motion and it is founded on the impossible to prove claim of judicial misconduct under section 1983.

That is bogus, a judge has to be clearly vile to lose immunity for judicial acts.

I think that if they file an original petition that asserts a potential violation of the rights secured by Cruzan and its following cases, I think the new law would arguably remove the effect of res judicata.

I think there would be a way for them to plead a case that would get them a stay, but their current motion seems doomed under normal judicial review.

[DanT]

The U.S. Supreme Court's Decision affirming the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Mental Health is available at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=497&invol=261

Here's the beginning of the decision. I think it's interesting that this country has gone from Quinlan (where the doctors were refusing to take her off of a respirator, as her parents had requested) to Schiavo, where now people are arguing that disputed "oral testimony" can satisfy the "clear and convincing standard" of evidence that a person would want to have a feeding tube removed.

I dispute the Florida court's decision that there is "clear and convincing evidence" as to what Terri Schiavo's wishes would be in case she required a feeding tube to continue living. I consider the fact that there are family members ready, willing and able to take care of Terri Schiavo to be such as to make the consequences of a wrong apprehension of Terri Schiavo's wishes to be so stark that something a helluva lot better than disputed oral testimony would be needed to satisfy it. Disputed oral testimony isn't good enough for a lot of other civil matters; why is it good enough to take away a life?

Argued December 6, 1989
Decided June 25, 1990



Petitioner Nancy Cruzan is incompetent, having sustained severe injuries in an automobile accident, and now lies in a Missouri state hospital in what is referred to as a persistent vegetative state: generally, a condition in which a person exhibits motor reflexes but evinces no indications of significant cognitive function. The State is bearing the cost of her care. Hospital employees refused, without court approval, to honor the request of Cruzan's parents, copetitioners her, to terminate her artificial nutrition and hydration, since that would result in death. A state trial court authorized the termination, finding that a person in Cruzan's condition has a fundamental right under the State and Federal Constitutions to direct or refuse the withdrawal of death-prolonging procedures, and that Cruzan's expression to a former housemate that she would not wish to continue her life if sick or injured unless she could live at least halfway normally suggested that she would not wish to continue on with her nutrition and hydration. The State Supreme Court reversed. While recognizing a right to refuse treatment embodied in the common-law doctrine of informed consent, the court questioned its applicability in this case. It also declined to read into the State Constitution a broad right to privacy that would support an unrestricted right to refuse treatment and expressed doubt that the Federal Constitution embodied such a right. The court then decided that the State Living Will statute embodied a state policy strongly favoring the preservation of life, and that Cruzan's statements to her housemate were unreliable for the purpose of determining her intent. It rejected the argument that her parents were entitled to order the termination of her medical treatment, concluding that no person can assume that choice for an incompetent in the absence of the formalities required by the Living Will statute or clear and convincing evidence of the patient's wishes.

Held:



1. The United States Constitution does not forbid Missouri to require that evidence of an incompetent's wishes as to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Pp. 269-285. [497 U.S. 261, 262]

(a) Most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common law right to informed consent, see, e.g., In re Storar, 52 N.Y.2d 363, 438 N.Y.S.2d 266, 420 N.E.2d 64, or on both that right and a constitutional privacy right, see, e.g., Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728, 370 N.E.2d 417. In addition to relying on state constitutions and the common law, state courts have also turned to state statutes for guidance, see, e.g., Conservatorship of Drabick, 200 Cal.App. 3d 185, 245 Cal.Rptr. 840. However, these sources are not available to this Court, where the question is simply whether the Federal Constitution prohibits Missouri from choosing the rule of law which it did. Pp. 269-278.

(b) A competent person has a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in refusing unwanted medical treatment. Cf., e.g., Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 24 -30. However, the question whether that constitutional right has been violated must be determined by balancing the liberty interest against relevant state interests. For purposes of this case, it is assumed that a competent person would have a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition. This does not mean that an incompetent person should possess the same right, since such a person is unable to make an informed and voluntary choice to exercise that hypothetical right or any other right. While Missouri has in effect recognized that, under certain circumstances, a surrogate may act for the patient in electing to withdraw hydration and nutrition and thus cause death, it has established a procedural safeguard to assure that the surrogate's action conforms as best it may to the wishes expressed by the patient while competent. Pp. 280-285.

(c) It is permissible for Missouri, in its proceedings, to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard, which is an appropriate standard when the individual interests at stake are both particularly important and more substantial than mere loss of money, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 . Here, Missouri has a general interest in the protection and preservation of human life, as well as other, more particular interests, at stake. It may legitimately seek to safeguard the personal element of an individual's choice between life and death. The State is also entitled to guard against potential abuses by surrogates who may not act to protect the patient. Similarly, it is entitled to consider that a judicial proceeding regarding an incompetent's wishes may not be adversarial, with the added guarantee of accurate factfinding that the adversary process brings with it. The State may also properly decline to make judgments about the "quality" of a particular individual's life, and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual. It is self-evident that these interests are more substantial, both on [497 U.S. 261, 263] an individual and societal level, than those involved in a common civil dispute. The clear and convincing evidence standard also serves as a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants. Missouri may permissibly place the increased risk of an erroneous decision on those seeking to terminate life-sustaining treatment. An erroneous decision not to terminate results in a maintenance of the status quo, with at least the potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected or its impact mitigated by an event such as an advancement in medical science or the patient's unexpected death. However, an erroneous decision to withdraw such treatment is not susceptible of correction. Although Missouri's proof requirement may have frustrated the effectuation of Cruzan's not-fully-expressed desires, the Constitution does not require general rules to work flawlessly. Pp. 280-285.

2. The State Supreme Court did not commit constitutional error in concluding that the evidence adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of Cruzan's desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn. The trial court had not adopted a clear and convincing evidence standard, and Cruzan's observations that she did not want to live life as a "vegetable" did not deal in terms with withdrawal of medical treatment or of hydration and nutrition. P. 285.

3. The Due Process Clause does not require a State to accept the "substituted judgment" of close family members in the absence of substantial proof that their views reflect the patient's. This Court's decision upholding a State's favored treatment of traditional family relationships, Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 , may not be turned into a constitutional requirement that a State must recognize the primacy of these relationships in a situation like this. Nor may a decision upholding a State's right to permit family decisionmaking, Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 , be turned into a constitutional requirement that the State recognize such decisionmaking. Nancy Cruzan's parents would surely be qualified to exercise such a right of "substituted judgment" were it required by the Constitution. However, for the same reasons that Missouri may require clear and convincing evidence of a patient's wishes, it may also choose to defer only to those wishes, rather than confide the decision to close family members. Pp. 285-287.

[DanT]

Here's text from the body of the Cruzan decision re: the "clear and convincing" standard of proof and oral testimony. Bear in mind that this is the U.S. Supreme Court affirming the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court and so it does not deal directly with Florida's law.

In our view, Missouri has permissibly sought to advance these interests through the adoption of a "clear and convincing" standard of proof to govern such proceedings. "The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to `instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.'" Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 (1979) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring)). "This Court has mandated an intermediate standard of proof - `clear and convincing evidence' - when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both `particularly important' and `more substantial than mere loss of money.'" Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982) (quoting Addington, supra, at 424). Thus, such a standard has been required in deportation proceedings, Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966), in denaturalization proceedings, Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943), in civil commitment proceedings, Addington, supra, and in proceedings for the termination of parental rights. Santosky, supra. 10 Further, [497 U.S. 261, 283] this level of proof, "or an even higher one, has traditionally been imposed in cases involving allegations of civil fraud, and in a variety of other kinds of civil cases involving such issues as . . . lost wills, oral contracts to make bequests, and the like." Woodby, supra, at 285, n. 18.

We think it self-evident that the interests at stake in the instant proceedings are more substantial, both on an individual and societal level, than those involved in a run-of-the-mine civil dispute. But not only does the standard of proof reflect the importance of a particular adjudication, it also serves as "a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants." Santosky, supra, at 755; Addington, supra, at 423. The more stringent the burden of proof a party must bear, the more that party bears the risk of an erroneous decision. We believe that Missouri may permissibly place an increased risk of an erroneous decision on those seeking to terminate an incompetent individual's life-sustaining treatment. An erroneous decision not to terminate results in a maintenance of the status quo; the possibility of subsequent developments such as advancements in medical science, the discovery of new evidence regarding the patient's intent, changes in the law, or simply the unexpected death of the patient despite the administration of life-sustaining treatment, at least create the potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected or its impact mitigated. An erroneous decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, however, is not susceptible of correction. In Santosky, one of the factors which led the Court to require proof by clear and convincing evidence in a proceeding to terminate parental rights was that a decision in such a case was final and irrevocable. Santosky, supra, at 759. The same must surely be said of the decision to discontinue hydration and nutrition of a patient such as Nancy Cruzan, which all agree will result in her death. [497 U.S. 261, 284]

It is also worth noting that most, if not all, States simply forbid oral testimony entirely in determining the wishes of parties in transactions which, while important, simply do not have the consequences that a decision to terminate a person's life does. At common law and by statute in most States, the parol evidence rule prevents the variations of the terms of a written contract by oral testimony. The statute of frauds makes unenforceable oral contracts to leave property by will, and statutes regulating the making of wills universally require that those instruments be in writing. See 2 A. Corbin, Contracts 398, pp. 360-361 (1950); 2 W. Page, Law of Wills 19.3-19.5, pp. 61-71 (1960). There is no doubt that statutes requiring wills to be in writing, and statutes of frauds which require that a contract to make a will be in writing, on occasion frustrate the effectuation of the intent of a particular decedent, just as Missouri's requirement of proof in this case may have frustrated the effectuation of the not-fully-expressed desires of Nancy Cruzan. But the Constitution does not require general rules to work faultlessly; no general rule can.

In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state. We note that many courts which have adopted some sort of substituted judgment procedure in situations like this, whether they limit consideration of evidence to the prior expressed wishes of the incompetent individual, or whether they allow more general proof of what the individual's decision would have been, require a clear and convincing standard of proof for such evidence. See, e.g., Longeway, 133 Ill.2d at 50-51, 549 N.E.2d at 300; McConnell, 209 Conn., at 707-710, 553 A.2d at 604-605; O'Connor, 72 N.Y.2d at 529-530, 531 N.E.2d at 613; In re Gardner, 534 A.2d 947, 952-953 (Me. 1987); In re Jobes, 108 N.J. at 412-413, 529 A.2d [497 U.S. 261, 285] at 443; Leach v. Akron General Medical Center, 68 Ohio Misc. 1, 11, 426 N.E.2d 809, 815 (1980).

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that, in this case, the testimony adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of the patient's desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn. In so doing, it reversed a decision of the Missouri trial court, which had found that the evidence "suggest[ed]" Nancy Cruzan would not have desired to continue such measures, App. to Pet. for Cert. A98, but which had not adopted the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" enunciated by the Supreme Court. The testimony adduced at trial consisted primarily of Nancy Cruzan's statements, made to a housemate about a year before her accident, that she would not want to live should she face life as a "vegetable," and other observations to the same effect. The observations did not deal in terms with withdrawal of medical treatment or of hydration and nutrition. We cannot say that the Supreme Court of Missouri committed constitutional error in reaching the conclusion that it did. 11

[DanT]

Classic slippery slope.

[jettio]

I may have been wrong, since the issue in Cruzan was the constitutionality of the Missouri law in regards to whether its requirements improperly impeded a person's right to refuse life saving care.

It may just be that the new law was a ham-handed attempt to score political points and to create false hope.

I don't see how they think they could far claiming a section 1983 civil rights violation by the probate judge.

[Saggysack]

Classic slippery slope.

Maybe you should be giving advice to Schindlers attorney....


http://www.freep.com/news/nw/schiavo22e_20050322.htm
During the hearing, the judge frequently asked the parents' lawyer to cite constitutional precedents for the case. The lawyer was unable to cite any.

[DanT]

Maybe you should be giving advice to Schindlers attorney....


http://www.freep.com/news/nw/schiavo22e_20050322.htm

I'd sick jettio on them.

It's pretty obvious from the text of the Cruzan decision about how the "clear and convincing evidence" standard should be construed in cases of life and death. A de novo look at whether that standard has been applied validly in this case seems capable of determining that it hasn't. Here you have a lifelong Roman Catholic who didn't leave a written document behind claiming what she would want and you have a husband who first "remembered" what she supposedly said in a generic conversation about such situations several years after her accident.

I do not see how there is "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri Schiavo would decide to end her life.

[Saggysack]

I'd sick jettio on them.

It's pretty obvious from the text of the Cruzan decision about how the "clear and convincing evidence" standard should be construed in cases of life and death. A de novo look at whether that standard has been applied validly in this case seems capable of determining that it hasn't. Here you have a lifelong Roman Catholic who didn't leave a written document behind claiming what she would want and you have a husband who first "remembered" what she supposedly said in a generic conversation about such situations several years after her accident.

I do not see how there is "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri Schiavo would decide to end her life.


I'll have to get back with you on this later, Dan. Dinner is ready and the bed is calling my name.

[patteeu]

They have a legal right to exhaust all possible avenues to save their life; I am not going to deny them that.

Are you going to be supporting US Congress action to create new appeal opportunities for them once all their normal appeals have failed?

[patteeu]

Let's apply this logic to both sides, shall we?



BTW, glad to see you found your way back to the Planet. :)

The parents had the opportunity to produce credible expert testimony to compete with that of the attending physician and the court appointed physician, but they failed to do so. Maybe they weren't willing to pay enough.

[patteeu]

I think it's interesting that this country has gone from Quinlan (where the doctors were refusing to take her off of a respirator, as her parents had requested) to Schiavo, where now people are arguing that disputed "oral testimony" can satisfy the "clear and convincing standard" of evidence that a person would want to have a feeding tube removed.

I dispute the Florida court's decision that there is "clear and convincing evidence" as to what Terri Schiavo's wishes would be in case she required a feeding tube to continue living. I consider the fact that there are family members ready, willing and able to take care of Terri Schiavo to be such as to make the consequences of a wrong apprehension of Terri Schiavo's wishes to be so stark that something a helluva lot better than disputed oral testimony would be needed to satisfy it. Disputed oral testimony isn't good enough for a lot of other civil matters; why is it good enough to take away a life?

Disputed oral testimony is perfectly capable of rising to the standard of clear and convincing. The mother's testimony, disputing Mr. Schiavo's was found to be referencing statements made by TS when she was 12 years old. Compare that to testimony by Mr. Schiavo, his brother, and his sister-in-law, which the court found credible and which referred to statements made by Ms. Schiavo when she was an adult.

[patteeu]

It's pretty obvious from the text of the Cruzan decision about how the "clear and convincing evidence" standard should be construed in cases of life and death.

A Missouri Supreme Court ruling has no controlling authority over this Florida proceeding.

A de novo look at whether that standard has been applied validly in this case seems capable of determining that it hasn't.

I agree with that. It's certainly a possibility.